Brontoforumus Archive
Discussion Boards => Thaddeus Boyd's Panel of Death => Topic started by: Disposable Ninja on August 11, 2009, 08:30:44 PM
-
PERSONAL ANECDOTE TIME:
When I was in High School and had braces, my dentist at the time recommended removing my four wisdom teeth (two up top, two on the bottom). Well, on the day of the operation, we discovered that our insurance company had, for whatever reason, decided not to cover the cost of the local anesthesia for my top two wisdom teeth. So what should have cost my parents about a hundred or so dollars became something closer to five hundred dollars. End result: I didn't get my top two wisdom teeth pulled.
A couple of years later when I was in community college, I started getting horrible pains in -- you guessed it -- my top two wisdom teeth. Since I was still a dependent on my parents insurance, they took me to a different dentist (the previous dentist now being refused by the insurance company), and I got those teeth pulled. Well, that's not quite right: they got scraped out along with a lot of my gums.
I can't even tell if I ever had wisdom teeth on my bottom jaw. I have two holes in my head where my two top wisdom teeth were once. Also, because of the pain I started suffering on account of my top two wisdom teeth, I got into the habit of grinding my teeth.
Just in case you were curious, my parents are teachers. This is the health care they provide for teachers.
So, yeah. I am totally okay with health care reform.
-
HI I AM FROM CANADA AND HAVE ANECDOTES TOO
had to get seven stitches in my lip about ten days ago. spent less than five minutes in triage, then the doctor who did the job was talented as all shit. they worked out that I also needed a tetanus shot, so that was taken care of posthaste. from leaving home to getting back it didn't take an hour or cost a dime.
SOCIALIZE THAT MEDICINE, AMERICA BUDDIES
-
Wow, that sucks. I have a similar story where, because of my dental insurance (of which I hold two seperate insurances - kind of a wierd situation) a few years back kinda sucked about surgical stuff, when I got my wisdom tooth removed, the doc decided that because of how much it had grown out that it would be cheaper to just pump me full of anasthetic and let me be concious while he cracked the tooth free with what from my perspective appeared to be a small, silver crowbar then jerked it out lifting my head slightly with the force he had to pull to get it out. Didn't hurt at the time though so he was a wizard with novacaine: a top notch dentist compared to many others I have had.
I definitely want to see reform, though to be honest I would prefer if the American goverment had nothing to do with it. Maybe we could figure out the people who are number one in the world and outsource the bill to them and let them write it. All my pessimism tells me that the federal goverment and special interest groups are so far in bed together now that they are practically fused together permanantly like a Silent Hill monster and that anything they come up with is going to be a huge disaster.
I am generally very pessimistic of goverment though so I could be wrong.
-
the problem with government run healthcare is that we all already know how government run levies went, and healthcare is infinitely more complex.
-
Yeah, I'll grant you that much. I wouldn't trust a Republican with a shotgun full of birdshot, much less Health Care.
-
At this point, I really wouldn't trust either party with anything important.
On an optimistic note, if the goverment does screw it up really bad or any dirt gets dug up concerning it, that maybe all the citizenry needs to really alter the way they view goverment from the way it seemed to be viewed for the past few decades (that is, as something to be thought of every four years, or two if nothing good is on television). Once that happens and people are watching the politicians I think the problem may correct itself. I have heard a lot of people around where I live talk more and more about politics rather than football and crops. Even if many of them are a bit misinformed, I think paying attention at all is a big step in the right direction for getting things under control again.
-
You have way more faith in the American people than I do.
-
Yeah, I'll grant you that much. I wouldn't trust a Republican with a shotgun full of birdshot, much less Health Care.
see when you create a giant government structure eventually the other party gets ahold of it
-
the problem with government run healthcare is that we all already know how government run levies went, and healthcare is infinitely more complex.
Do you seriously think that comparison is apt? Judging the whole government by a single failure?
I'm not saying the US government is by any means perfect, but it's absolutely insane to decry public insurance based on Hurricane Katrina. By your logic, the government shouldn't hold any responsibility whatsoever, or they might fuck it up as badly as Katrina. Maybe you do believe that, but I seriously doubt it.
Anyway, a lot of the reason people are hesitant to support the health care reform is that they believe that the government will be running the entire healthcare system. Truth is, the majority of Americans are satisfied with their care. The idea is to create an alternative plan if you can't get, or are unhappy with, your insurance. So the government will be paying for the care, not running it. The ultimate goal is that everyone receives health care, either public or private.
So I don't understand what the problem actually is. This is something that should have been done a long time ago. Just because we've gone so long without doing it doesn't mean it's not necessary. After all, the government got us to the moon, so every plan they have should be equally as successful.
-
Here in the UK, my family have never had to pay for medical care (excluding dental, and a £5 per item charge for prescriptions). I have been able to receive treatment even while unemployed. I've never been refused treatment by a mythical government panel or for having been sick in the past.
The taxpayer absorbs the cost. Income tax works out to 8% on minimum wage, 16% on £36,500 (US $60,000), and 28% on £72,800 (US $120,000). Sales tax is 15%.
There's no truth to the claims that Britain forces women to abort Down's Syndrome babies, or that it euthanizes the elderly. Euthanasia is illegal even with the patent's consent, and abortion rates of Down's Syndrome babies are the same here as in the US.
-
So I don't understand what the problem actually is. This is something that should have been done a long time ago. Just because we've gone so long without doing it doesn't mean it's not necessary. After all, the government got us to the moon, so every plan they have should be equally as successful.
The problem is that the current health insurance companies are making shitpiles of money, and a government option would force them to lower prices and improve their services to stay competitive. To prevent this, they're basically doing everything they can to misinform as many people as possible to get this health care reform bill voted down.
-
And it doesn't help that maintaining a private option in the face of a public option works to nobody's benefit except the companies. If the private option is going to be competitive with the free public health care, it has to offer things that the public one can't. And why the fuck should public health care be less than comprehensive?
-
Considering the current healthcare bill, saying the government is going to screw up healthcare in the future tense is no longer needed.
I don't really understand how this is becoming so complicated, beyond conservative mustache twirling, as it would just be an expansion of medicaid/medicare to cover more people. Perhaps it's ignorance talking, but that seems relatively simple compared to the strawmen being thrown around.
Of course, those were implemented under LBJ's administration and he was a wizard at manipulating congress and had dead Kennedy capital. Judging from random quotes, it seems the arguments haven't changed much either. So it's probably a lack of organization on the Democratic Party's part.
If only Obama was as ruthless as that Republican Chicago caricature claimed he was.
-
Woman whose mother and sister are on Medicare rails against government run health care because it would kill the weak (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019452.php)
I am seriously running out of the give-a-fuck to acknowledge these crazy people who are protesting themselves. The woman's mother made the Obama/Nazi sign protesting the very system she is using.
Also, what is with these people equating Communist Obama to Hated-Communist Hitler? Is providing quality health care for every American system really the same thing as the Holocaust? Really?
-
Depends on what the patients go on to do I suppose.
-
Sometimes it's not about whether or not you're right, it's about who you're agreeing with.
-
Something I've yet to understand is how a Government single-payer system would keep you from picking your own doctor.
I mean, I understand how our current system keeps people from seeing a doctor they'd like to see. If your doctor doesn't do business with the Insurance Provider, the Provider won't pay for the services. I get that. And, also, since providers have absolutely no actual incentive to actually do what you pay them for, they look for any possible reason to opt out of paying for your medical bills.
But where the fuck do the bureaucrats fit into socialized healthcare? You go to a doctor, he fixes you up the best he can, you leave, he gets his god damned paycheck. He doesn't do his job, he gets fucking fired.
-
ITT people who have no idea just how much the incredible effectiveness and efficiency of the U.S. government has ensured their day to day survival
-
Something I've yet to understand is how a Government single-payer system would keep you from picking your own doctor.
:wakka::It would only allow you to see liberal doctors because it's communist
But where the fuck do the bureaucrats fit into socialized healthcare? You go to a doctor, he fixes you up the best he can, you leave, he gets his god damned paycheck. He doesn't do his job, he gets fucking fired.
:wakka::They're in the waiting room or lobby giving you forms to fill out to see if you're fit to keep alive. And in the in-patient rooms holding shotguns to your grandmother's head and punching your pregnant wife in gut at the top of the stairs.
-
I have performed oral surgery on my self.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LET US BE SOCIALISTS
-
Some people* really have no sense of irony.
They dislike socialised healthcare out of distaste for the actions of socialist Germany in World War II, but have no problem invading other countries or keeping members of a certain social group in camps.
They claim to distrust the government, but support things like the USA PATRIOT Act.
They hate a black President, and, when asked why, claim it's because he's racist.
They want to pay less tax, but support increasing an already huge military.
They're anti-abortion on the grounds that killing is wrong, but support war, the death penalty, and the right to own firearms.
They insist on respect for Christian beliefs, but would rather pay less tax (despite "render unto Caesar") than cure sick people from other countries (the good Samaritan, Jesus heals the centurion's child).
They'll pay taxes and go to war to secure freedoms for people on the other side of the globe, but won't pay taxes to heal their neighbour.
* :strawman:
-
Depends on what the patients go on to do I suppose.
Is it safe?
-
This is the best picture I've seen all day.
-
To be fair, "Just give us the same health plan as Congress" makes some sense.
It also seems to completely support universal health care.
-
The funny part about that is that is precisely what Obama has been saying he's going to do since he was campaigning.
-
"HEALTH CARE REFORM = DRUG TESTING Pissin cup First"
I have no idea what that man is trying to get across. And don't you guys have term limits? And what does that have to do with health care?
Ffffffuuuuuu
-
"HEALTH CARE REFORM = DRUG TESTING Pissin cup First"
I have no idea what that man is trying to get across. And don't you guys have term limits? And what does that have to do with health care?
Ffffffuuuuuu
Guys, I'm telling you.
Meth.
-
I find it hard to respect people who resort to using Internet Shorthand on their picket signs.
-
All there is to be said about these people (other than the guy with the smart-ass sign, obviously) can be said simply by pointing out that the guy on the left showed up in a confederate flag T-shirt.
-
Do duh do do do do do do doo.....
-
All there is to be said about these people (other than the guy with the smart-ass sign, obviously) can be said simply by pointing out that the guy on the left showed up in a confederate flag T-shirt.
A confederate flag T-shirt that looks like its probably been hand-painted.
-
I honestly didn't notice the Confederate flag painted on that guys Tshirt. The way it is painted, it almost looks like a superhero outfit from an old comic book. I suppose we should be thankful he didn't show up in a homemade confederate leotard.
-
Actually, it's a Lynyrd Skynyrd shirt (http://www.rockabilia.com/product.php?productid=46474&cat=673&page=4). Which is modeled on the Confederate flag.
-
LOL.
I love how that shirt inextricably binds Southern Rock with DISABLEY RETARDEDNESS.
-
I think I am having an aneurysm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081602248.html?hpid=topnews).
I mean. Just. Fuck. Fuck. FUCK.
Republican, insane, greedy lying sacks of shit fuck you fuck you fuck you. Fucking inbred, old, easily manipulated, stupid fucking ignorant conservative racist assholes.
-
It doesn't seem like they are abandoning it completely. On page two I am reading about them simply changing the plan around using "nonprofit cooperative models" or some such. I dunno what that means, but that is par for the course when it comes to beurocracy speak. I'll have to look it up when I have time and not a headache.
Still, reading through both pages of the article I came away from it feeling like some sort of reform is still coming.
-
Without the public option, it is not reform. It is basically the Democrats, who control the presidency and both houses of congress, bending over and letting outrageous lies dictate their policy. Because any reform without a public option will do jack and shit for the common man, without it they will be signing over the country to the Republicans. They will never win elections again and we can look forward to several years of Republican rule once Obama is out of office. Hell, with the public option dying we're looking at Republican rule while he is in office.
-
A year ago, a stupid man ran your country, vainly opposed by a vast multitude of intelligent and charitable men.
Today, a vast multitude of stupid men run your country, vainly opposed by an intelligent and charitable man.
-
Zed's got the more poetic version, but that's just about it.
Your president has been forced into an untenable position by the utter worthlessness of the democratic caucus. Either he could keep pushing something that it looked like he was unlikely to get, leaving him with a giant failure on his hands or he could go for a greatly reduced option which would at leat preserve the illusion that he controls congress.
What's really embarassing is the fact that Cheney Bush had much better control of his party. But then, Republicans do place great importance on a heavily classist system, dominated from the top.
-
I honestly think that a lot of this utter bullshit would be done away with if we got a bit of regulation on the news channels in place. Like jail time for writers and casters of outright lies. Or a required government license to call oneself a news program, which they could take away from the channel if deemed propaganda. And of course reinstating the equal time measure that Reagan got rid of.
That would take care of FOX 'news' and Limbaugh and the like and thus shut them the fuck up so we could get something done for once.
Yes, I realize that if worded improperly such a bill would open the door for government propaganda on a massive scale but I'm just spouting theoretical right now and trust that if such a bill ever did make it back to congress if would be worded well.
-
Bro-tip: We sort of have to agree that a fascist, jail-dissenters attitude is something we don't want, because it'll eventually be turned against us as soon as the party-in-power changes.
I guess there's also the issue of the principle, but I must confess that news such as what has just been posted makes me agree with Norondor a little bit more every day.
-
I'm going to sound like a prick, but...
The problem is not with your news organizations, or the laws governing them. Reinstating the fairness doctrine or whatever won't restore intelligence or evenhandedness to American public discourse.
The fairness doctrine etc. were put in place in response to a people and a culture who - even if they didn't want such things - at least accepted them and recognised their purpose. The removal of such restraints was merely a flag for something that was already happening and continues to happen to this day.
Laws don't make a stable, prosperous society, a culture of sensible intelligence does.
God help us all, I can't think of any countries that still have one.
-
No countries have EVER had them. The spirit of good government lies not in its wisdom or policy but in its ability to counteract inevitable corruption.
-
Oh, there were a few countries that had them last century, for at least part of that century. Same thing happened the previous century.
The main problem is that the winnowing process that induces it is kind of severe (never mind that it is wholly unreliable) and the benefits rarely last more than two generations.
We also seem to be hitting the drug addict's point of diminishing returns.
-
Setting all the lobbyists on fire could help.
-
So, so much I could write on this, and so little time. (PS: Stop feeding Drethelin, guys.) Here's something I whipped up over lunch and told a friend to summarize to the local meeting of district Dems in case I don't make it on Thursday:
I read an article on MSNBC today ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32461751/ns/politics-white_house/ ) that started with:
While President Barack Obama's concession on a health care "government option" continues to draw complaints from liberals, it is failing to gain interest from his conservative critics — another sign of the daunting challenge to find middle ground in an increasingly partisan struggle.
That lede needs to be taped to the desk of every Democrat in Washington. They need to memorize it, and think of it every single time they’re thinking of backing down from their principles. Because that is why the Democrats fail: they push ineffectual compromises that don’t win them any converts and simply serve to demoralize their existing supporters.
The Democrats need to stop trying to win over people who get their news from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. It’s not going to happen. They could concede to the Republicans on EVERYTHING and the right-wing noise machine would still demonize them.
The Democrats don’t need to compromise. They need to defend their core principles with the same ferocity that Republicans do. Stop making concessions; conceding is what you do when you're wrong. Stop acting like you're wrong and start trying to convince the public that you're right.
I think winning public support is simple – and, in fact, simplicity is itself the key. Most people don’t care about details, about complexities. They care about the immediate and the concrete, the things that affect them, the things that concern them and, yes, scare them. This is why Republicans have a natural advantage in so many areas of public policy: they provide simple, visceral responses, while Democrats offer complex and abstract concepts.
On terrorism: civil liberties are abstract; being killed in an attack is concrete.
On welfare: the sociopolitical causes of poverty are abstract; a portion of your paycheck going to people who don’t work is concrete.
On immigration: the various causes of the current recession are abstract; it’s much easier to blame it on people who look different and speak a different language.
Here’s the hell of it: healthcare is one of those issues where DEMOCRATS have a natural advantage. Socialism is abstract; people dying because they can’t afford a doctor is concrete.
Democrats have the natural advantage on this one, and they’ve ceded it by being craven and compromising their core values.
The argument from the Democrats’ end shouldn’t start with policy. It should start with the story of the 17-year-old girl who died because her insurance company refused to pay for her liver transplant (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter ), of the nurse whose insurer wouldn’t cover her breast cancer because she’d failed to disclose a dermatologist visit for acne treatment, and the man who died of lymphoma after his coverage was rescinded for failing to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his doctor never discussed with him (http://www.democracyforums.com/frontpage/?page=3&p=vB29576 ).
Hammer those stories. Go for the gut, for the emotional reaction.
And THEN explain why your policy will keep that kind of thing from happening again.
Obama himself has done a decent job of this by telling his mother’s story, but the rest of the party needs to do the same. Get off the defensive. For God’s sake, how did we even get to a point where the party had to defend itself against allegations that it just wants to kill old people? The Democrats have the policy, the brains, the facts, and the emotional appeal on their side, they just need to start ACTING like it.
Also, only skimmed the thread, but I didn't see this being brought up (it's also perfect Daily Show fodder, but I haven't been catching that regularly either): the funniest thing that anyone will say during the course of the entire debate has been said. Via an op-ed in the Investors Business Daily explaining why socialized medicine doesn't work:
People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
The article has since been corrected, with a blithe opening paragraph pretending that it is a minor detail and does not in fact completely disprove the op/ed's entire thesis.
-
Isn't that what the American Insurance companies think of Hawking?
And how can people not make the simple connection of Not for profit=Will work harder to heal you? All the problems we have with the Insurance companies are because they're for profit. They're bastards who don't care about making people better and just want your money so they come up with ludicrous reasons to keep the money away from you and leave you to fend for yourself and possibly die.
-
God damn it. Now that Thad got me thinking about it: why the holy hemorrhaging flying FUCK have we not heard a single fucking peep out of someone, anyone, who was straight-up screwed over by their private insurance company? We know they're out there. Micheal Moore made an entire movie about them. Shit, I'm one, if just barely an example.
-
I think I've heard half a dozen from you guys alone. You might not be paying attention.
Personally I'm okay with my insurance, but that's because I actually got to select and pay for it myself, rather than getting one handed to me by an employer who bought from the lowest bidder.
-
God damn it. Now that Thad got me thinking about it: why the holy hemorrhaging flying FUCK have we not heard a single fucking peep out of someone, anyone, who was straight-up screwed over by their private insurance company?
Because retelling the past 15 years of my life over and over again gives me a sore throat.
-
Personally I'm okay with my insurance, because it's free (thanks, NHS!). Is there really a benefit to private insurance? If two identical people get identically sick, surely they need the cure equally much?
-
Personally I'm okay with my insurance, but that's because I actually got to select and pay for it myself, rather than getting one handed to me by an employer who bought from the lowest bidder.
Would I be correct in assuming you also haven't had a major need to use it yet? Are you saying you're happy funneling money to your insurance company for a service they haven't proven they'll render yet?
Personally I'm okay with my insurance, because it's free (thanks, NHS!). Is there really a benefit to private insurance? If two identical people get identically sick, surely they need the cure equally much?
Poppycock. The rich are smartest and hardest working citizens and thus deserve the best health care first. That CEO breaks his back and sweats everyday playing golf, looking at that Excel spreadsheet or making sure his super-trading computer is making the most economically viable possible trading deals at a speed regular traders can't keep up with. He needs that health care more than that dumb, lazy factory worker who makes $8/h while lifting 50lb boxes and who had his leg crushed after a pallet fell off the assembly line. Lazy fuck. Suturing his wounds with crazy glue and a towel out of the linen closet will work as "health care" for him.
-
Would I be correct in assuming you also haven't had a major need to use it yet?
Well at least you asked before assuming something about me.
Answer's no, I've bled that insurance as much as possible to get most of my dental work done. Which doesn't sound major until you realize that without insurance, the dental work I needed would have cost more than my car.
Is there really a benefit to private insurance?
In theory, you have some control over it.
In practice, not if private insurance is the only option.
-
Answer's no, I've bled that insurance as much as possible to get most of my dental work done. Which doesn't sound major until you realize that without insurance, the dental work I needed would have cost more than my car.
Yeah, I've got more fillings than you can shake a stick at myself. And those were all paid for by my mom's insurance as well.
Doesn't change the fact that, when I needed it most, they decided not to pay for the anesthesia. Likely because of all the fillings I needed.
-
Okay, well, mine did.
-
Even if it is late to do so, I will say I do oppose things like the fairness doctrine because of the opportunity for abuse that they create. That said, I still feel like I know almost nothing about this bill as commercials I have seen for or against it appeal more to the heart with emotions ("They are gonna kill my grandma by making her wait in line!", "I think I saw a swastika!", etc) than to logic with the facts (such as having a townhall with a bunch of economists and doctors who can clearly explain exactly how this will effect every aspect of healthcare and the economy in heavily cited and fact based terms).
Maybe they did have something like that and the news felt it wasn't interesting enough to cover or I simply missed it. I'd like to see a panel of experts go through every right wing talking point and lying, fear-based criticism and disassemble it in a clear, concise way. It isn't that I don't appreciate or trust President Obama but... Well, I really don't trust Obama or any politician. They are in the business of getting re-elected, for the most part. I'd like to see a bunch of neutral experts citing harder to explain pages of the bill and explaining them to me. That would sell me on it, anyways.
-
Even if you're cynical, some marginally effective UHC scheme is in the Democratic Party's best interest as it'd essentially give them one-party rule for a decade or more.
Which makes all this compromise, general watering down of the bill and the possible removal of a government insurance option all the more bewildering.
-
Even if it is late to do so, I will say I do oppose things like the fairness doctrine because of the opportunity for abuse that they create.
I'm going to drink your heart's blood, PhilosopherDirtbike.
You are never going to escape me.
I swear that one day i will end your life with these two hands of mine and not even God will stand in my way.
-
Even if you're cynical, some marginally effective UHC scheme is in the Democratic Party's best interest as it'd essentially give them one-party rule for a decade or more.
That'd never happen, even WITHOUT the democrat-esque tendency towards self-sabotage.
I mean, throughout the last eight years, we've had 9/11, Katrina, skyrocketing gas prices, a horribly mismanaged economy that led to the worst recession since the Great Depression, two mismanaged wars, and the Vice President shooting a man in the face. By the end of Clinton's administration, gas prices were low enough that Hummers were considered "cheap", we had a great big surplus, and everyone was genuinely pretty happy. Clinton got impeached, the worst Bush got were a pair wingtips.
The simple fact that the Republicans stood a chance in '08 is outright horrifying. And it doesn't matter what the Democrats do, what good they accomplish, how many millions of people are well-off because of them -- the Republican party at large is such a vile mess of inhuman scum that they'll do everything in their vast power to destroy the accomplishments and humanitarianism of the Left, including inciting the easily misled or otherwise painfully stupid (many of whom in fact have the most to gain from Democratic policies) into violence.
And the only reason they do this is to keep the money running through their dirty, grimy hands; money they don't even need. You could take some of their money, feed the entire continent of Africa for a year, and each one of those slimy cunts would still have enough money to buy their own personal army of Asian sex-slaves.
-
Gee, if only there was some governmental regulatory body empowered to ensure that the media (the so-called "fourth estate" of American democracy) was called upon to report equitably on what the right's been up to for the last decade.
If.
Only.
(I will still claim your head, PhilosopherDirtbike. Your life is forfeit to me. You will never be free of the shadow of death that stalks you, even now.)
-
man dirtbike if only there were these things called research centers
-
That said, I still feel like I know almost nothing about this bill as commercials I have seen for or against it appeal more to the heart with emotions ("They are gonna kill my grandma by making her wait in line!", "I think I saw a swastika!", etc) than to logic with the facts (such as having a townhall with a bunch of economists and doctors who can clearly explain exactly how this will effect every aspect of healthcare and the economy in heavily cited and fact based terms).
You don't get it. Logic is the problem. "They're going to kill my grandma" will hook more people than "We'll increase covered by 14%!". In order for progressives to get what we want through Congress, we need to focus on higher rhetoric than just logic.
Also we pretty much just need to nuke the senate, or the filibuster at least.
-
Noronder: That line seems familiar from somewhere. Is it quoted from something or is it original?
P. Birdy: I know there are plenty of experts and research being done and uploaded all over the web, but with so much dirty money floating around and so much mudslinging it is hard to tell whose facts I should be buying. I guess I should have emphasized the neutral part when I mentioned the panel of neutral experts to explain the pros and cons of the whole thing.
Constantine: Well, you got me there. Thinking about it that way, emotion does tend to ellicit a stronger response than a bunch of cold, soulless fact shitting and numbers do. In addition to that, I suppose emotion is a universal language that transcends IQ. Something that everyone can understand.
Still, feels manipulative to me, though in that regard it is a logical tactic.
I think I should point out, I am all for the reform as I can't get insurance due to having to go to counseling earlier in my life and a family history of mental problems. I just feel like there has to be a way to sell it a little better. I am not in politics or sales though, so in hindsight I am probably the last person who should have a say in how to go about any of this. :nyoro~n:
-
Agreed with Constantine and Phil. You don't need to be smart to be hysterical. At that point, any reassuring facts are pearls before swine.
And while I'm at it, wasn't it the bloody wolf-slayer and Goddess of the Hunt Sarah Palin that coined the term "death panel" in the first place?
-
Karma+ to Disposable Ninja & Norondor
-
One thought: obama's point about a centralized site where people can pick and choose from a selection of healthcare insurance options seems like an intelligent idea,
and not hard to implement if you knew anything about databases, spreadsheets and search engines.
-
That's kinda... eHealthInsurance, but obviously I guess Obama's talking about one that doesn't have sponsors and contracts and such.
-
That'd never happen, even WITHOUT the democrat-esque tendency towards self-sabotage.
I mean, throughout the last eight years, we've had 9/11, Katrina, skyrocketing gas prices, a horribly mismanaged economy that led to the worst recession since the Great Depression, two mismanaged wars, and the Vice President shooting a man in the face. By the end of Clinton's administration, gas prices were low enough that Hummers were considered "cheap", we had a great big surplus, and everyone was genuinely pretty happy. Clinton got impeached, the worst Bush got were a pair wingtips.
Clinton wasn't actually impeached, enjoyed decent popularity, and the whole thing was shown as an idiot parade when the Dems made gains in the Senate and the next presidentialial election was a coin flip despite the most boring man in the world, and a former vice president at that, running (this is important from a statistical perspective).
If you are referring to his legislative failures, then sure. Bush rode on a tide of artificial paranoia and authoritarianism not seen since Wilson, so I'm not really surprised he got away with that much bullshit. It's not like Republicans are special or anything.
And the House Democrat's lived off of FDR's programs until 1994 when Southern racism culture diverged from the original New Deal coalition. LBJ also helped, but it's less noticed with the whole Vietnam War thing.
It's not like Americans have grown dumber since 1950 or something. If the 40 million (I believe) uninsured gain basically free/cheap healthcare with the public option, whammo instant Democratic voters for life. Single payer would be an improvement, but whatever.
Maybe when not a single Republican votes for a bill they compromised on - for what, the third time? - they might learn. It has to happen eventually.
The simple fact that the Republicans stood a chance in '08 is outright horrifying. And it doesn't matter what the Democrats do, what good they accomplish, how many millions of people are well-off because of them -- the Republican party at large is such a vile mess of inhuman scum that they'll do everything in their vast power to destroy the accomplishments and humanitarianism of the Left, including inciting the easily misled or otherwise painfully stupid (many of whom in fact have the most to gain from Democratic policies) into violence.
This has been true for quite a while and Democratic presidents have, in fact, been popular and passed successful legislation. I mean, that's like the 60's in a nutshell.
The entire problem with this whole debacle is that both parties have been sucking blood from Reagan's corpse with their neoliberals and free market worship on either side. The Republicans did it because they don't have any comparable demagogues (still don't) and the Democrats had Clinton, who failed to get healthcare reform and had a stunning loss in 1994 right after. Clinton was basically declawed and acted like the best Republican president ever after that. PARALLELS.
Of course, the Republicans are in retreat, hating banks and the financial sector is fashionable again, and the Democrats still acting like neoliberals/Republicans because they want to be better corporate shills than Republicans, despite Obama's entire individual donation thing making this advantage moot.
tl;dr while Americans are stupid the Democratic leadership is at fault because they are fucking morons who can't pass Propaganda 101 and trick poor people into taking free things.
-
Clinton was impeached, look it up.
-
BEING IMPEACHED IS THE PROCESS OF CALLING THE PRESIDENT TO TASK FOR SOMETHING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU KICK HIM OUT OF OFFICE, NOT THE ACTUAL KICKING HIM OUT OF OFFICE
CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED, BUT NOT FOUND GUILTY AND THROWN OUT OF OFFICE
/me tackles the middle-school era argument and beats it to death in cold blood.
-
Found this: a couple dozen stories of people getting screwed over the Health Insurance (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/the-views-from-your-sickbed-a-round-up.html).
-
Clinton was impeached, look it up.
Correction appreciated. Must've been thinking of something else.
BEING IMPEACHED IS THE PROCESS OF CALLING THE PRESIDENT TO TASK FOR SOMETHING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU KICK HIM OUT OF OFFICE, NOT THE ACTUAL KICKING HIM OUT OF OFFICE
CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED, BUT NOT FOUND GUILTY AND THROWN OUT OF OFFICE
/me tackles the middle-school era argument and beats it to death in cold blood.
If you're going to be nitpicking, in all caps, you should at least notice that the statement was evidence and not, you know, a syllogism since it lacked a premise/argument/conclusion. I mean, I could delete that right now and the argument wouldn't be less valid.
Anyway, to be on topic, the growing liberal resistance in the House is promising at the very least.
-
Too bad it's the 6 senators who represent less than 3% of the population who are dicking things up in the Senate. My new policy is nuke the Senate, it's archaic.
-
Sorry Transportation I just saw Detonator's post and then I knew I had to put a monster down before it could draw a single breath.
-
My new policy is nuke the Senate, it's archaic.
Hah, that's nothing. You should see OUR senate. WHOABOY.
-
You accomplished more in death than you could ever have done in life, Senator Kennedy. (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/08/26/kennedys-death-spurs-calls-to-pass-health-legislation/)
-
If this works, we should make a note that the US political system can still be made to function with the use of a martyr.
:shifty:
-
won't work, the right will control the discourse to be about the left being opportunistic bastards with no hearts who use the deaths of their friends for political reasons, people will take it at face value because i am dead and living in hell, and all healthcare discussions will be irreparably destroyed, maybe they'll even shut down medicare
-
Then they'll blame it on the democrats and liberals.
-
goes without saying
-
won't work, the right will control the discourse to be about the left being opportunistic bastards with no hearts who use the deaths of their friends for political reasons, people will take it at face value because i am dead and living in hell, and all healthcare discussions will be irreparably destroyed, maybe they'll even shut down medicare
Because no one has the guts to say: "Just like they used Jesus' death to justify a banking system overhaul."
-
9/11
-
The NHS is pretty fucked up and disorganised at the moment and far from the great institution it once was, but it does its job quite okayly.
You should have some too.
I think the thing with America is the fact that you have great political antipodes a couple of states away. That makes things difficult for both the rightists who want to shoot all the gays and the leftists who want to shag them. There's a reason Luxembourg isn't the same country as Belarus.
-
Some people* really have no sense of irony.
They dislike socialised healthcare out of distaste for the actions of socialist Germany in World War II, but have no problem invading other countries or keeping members of a certain social group in camps.
JD I really like you and all but I think there's a pretty big stretch between "taliban combatant / Iraqi Insurgent" and "social groups". I want to see Gitmo closed as much as the next guy, but we are not talking about the jews or the japanese.
-
Yeah, we're talking about moozlums, totally different. They're just brown, not white or slanty eyed. :hurr:
To be honest Shinra, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. What does it matter what "group" we're talking about when Gitmo's population doesn't exclusively hold prisoners arrested from Iraq or Afganistan?
-
Shinra, are you saying that Muslims are less human than Jews and Japanese? Because that's how I read your statement.
-
Shinra, are you saying that Muslims are less human than Jews and Japanese? Because that's how I read your statement.
Reads like blatant sarcasm to me. :shrug:
-
But prior to that he wants us to make the distinction between people who are inarguably combatants (they have firearms and point them at people) and "social groups" in general.
-
A social group of angry guys with guns can look like and can be easily falsely marked as enemy combatants.
That doesn't make it alright to send them to camp.
-
What if they're overweight and need someone to drill good eating habits into them? And why have we gotten off on this tangent in the Health Care Reform thread?
-
That's how it happens in the wild wild west.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z0N9fDJTTE
-
It's not like Americans have grown dumber since 1950 or something. If the 40 million (I believe) uninsured gain basically free/cheap healthcare with the public option, whammo instant Democratic voters for life. Single payer would be an improvement, but whatever.
This is basically the core of the reason why the Republican party absolutely cannot give an inch on this. If Obama were to actually secure health care for every American, the GOP would be totally fucked even if they'd played ball.
Comprehensive health care reform passed by either party would be a body blow from which the other would take decades to recover. That is why single-payer is usually dismissed as "politically unrealistic".
Turning now to the rest of the agenda for 1974, the time is at hand this year to bring comprehensive, high quality health care within the reach of every American. I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses. This will be a plan that maintains the high standards of quality in America's health care. And it will not require additional taxes.
-Richard Nixon, State of the Union Address, 1974
-
It is vitally important that you take the time to send a letter to President Obama (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/) sharing with him the need for a public option. Don't just sit this one out and hope that it will take care of itself. We all need to get behind this and show our support.
Here is the letter I sent him this morning:
Mr. Obama,
Lately in the news I've been hearing you make overtures about not being serious on the public option. If you do not back the public option, which as of yesterday had a 55% approval rating from the people of America, I will not support you in 2012. Without a public option, any health care bill will not be reform, it will be just re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
Republicans have repeatedly stated their intentions not to compromise on this issue, so neither should we. The Democrats won the White House on a platform of real reform that included the public option, and to not provide it would utterly destroy the party. And I am willing to say right now that if you balk, if you flinch in the face of this historically important moment, I can not in any way support you in future elections. I am spreading this message to my friends and neighbors, to people who had supported you because they grew sick of the dark times that George W. Bush had put America through.
If you fail to deliver the public option, it will not just be your loss. It will be the Democratic parties loss. It will be the loss of the sick, the infirm, the weak and the poor. It will be a loss for all of America. And it will hang around your head.
Thank you for your time, Mr. President.
-
Obama's all for the public option. It's the people who need convincing.
-
Obama's all for the public option. It's the people who need convincing.
That's assuming they can be convinced or reasoned-with in the first place. I think not after reading this (http://wonkette.com/410883/moveonorg-librul-monster-bites-off-old-mans-pinky-at-town-hall).
-
There was a kind of happy protest in Berkeley today. Bunch of people with "Honk for Health Care" and similar signs. Which, as usual, strikes me as a little unnecessary in this place. Also, that intersection is dangerous enough without everyone honking on their way through. Enough of that and someone will end up needing health care a lot sooner.
-
Obama's all for the public option. It's the people who need convincing.
That's assuming they can be convinced or reasoned-with in the first place. I think not after reading this (http://wonkette.com/410883/moveonorg-librul-monster-bites-off-old-mans-pinky-at-town-hall).
It was clearly in self-defense. The old man attacked the digit-hungry man first! It was an over reaction, but they were both unarmed and it doesn't even say which one of them put the hand up to hungry's face and/or into his mouth. Nor does it have a credible source.
-
Gus Porter, American Legend (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/618fb6cbf2/gus-porter-american-legend-with-thomas-haden-church?rel=player) nobly defends our true American health care system from those socialist Canadians.
-
Perhaps the problem will solve itself when a prominent anti-healthcare protestor discovers that he's got something serious and insurance won't cover it.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNs7Zpqo98&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fboingboing.net%2F&feature=player_embedded#t=599
This is the very first time I've seen anyone one the other side of the debate seem at all reasonable. And Franken, while not being funny, makes some great points.
-
I think Boustany needs to go back to school for a class on public speaking or learn to read his cue cards better. The tone of his entire speech felt like one of those late not commercials selling ginsu knives or something and a low low cost of $19.99.
-
I got more the impression that he was the tough, smart lawyer who would get you the money you deserve after your wreck!
-
Linking Obama's health care speech (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/obama-health-care-speech_n_281265.html) here, so I can find it later.
-
The media is usually a cruel pendulum to the left these days, but it's pretty funny when it swings back the other way and knocks the republicans around for something silly and stupid. Apparently one of the republican congressmen thought it would be a fantastic idea to treat a presidential speech like a town hall, and has now managed to humiliate the republican party.
Protip: don't shout talking points at a popular president when every media agency in the country (and a few from abroad) are in the room itching for some embarassing gossip to report about for the next month.
-
Teabaggers want Joe Wilson to be a hero. It's worth noting that after last night, his main challenger Rob Miller, has managed to raise $500k (http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/19079). That's half a million in one day.
Some wingnuts set up a fundraiser for Wilson in response. I think last I heard they got $150?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwLjMCmPi6w
-
Teabaggers want Joe Wilson to be a hero.
Which is going to be hard, seeing as he was forced to apologize by higher ranking republicans.
He just committed political suicide. And it's really goddamn hard to make a suicide into a martyrdom case.
-
Don't you get it, Catloaf? Wilson was forced to apologize by Liberals who hate freedom of speech.
-
Which is going to be hard, seeing as he was forced to apologize by higher ranking republicans.
They were conservatives. But they still knew the principal of "You don't interrupt a presidential speech....Ever.... Don't fucking do it! You have to respect the office even if you can't respect the man. Even if you're not a respectable man yourself, just don't fucking do it."
-
Which is going to be hard, seeing as he was forced to apologize by higher ranking republicans.
They were conservatives. But they still knew the principal of "You don't interrupt a presidential speech....Ever.... Don't fucking do it! You have to respect the office even if you can't respect the man. Even if you're not a respectable man yourself, just don't fucking do it."
You don't get it. They were obviously just corrupted by those evil liberals who want to control the entire country and throttle it to death. They almost have their hands around the throat of America right now, and passing the health care bill will bring them ever closer.*
*Actual rhetoric from my brother-in-law
-
They were conservatives.
LALALALALALAICANTHEARYOULALALALALADEATHPANELSLALALALALALALABIRTHCERTIFICATELALALALA
Anyway, too bad those nasty LIBS made Joe the Patriot apologize for telling the TRUTH.
-
Joe the Patriot
Not to be confused with Joe the Plumber. :america:
-
Don't you get it, Catloaf? Wilson was forced to apologize by Liberals who hate America
-
The problem with the spoken media is that they tend to speak too much, both sides of the line. On one hand, you have freaks such as Beck, and on the other, you have CNN who casually leaves out important details and rushes to conclusions.
This is why I'm a big fan of the print media as well as those who speak, but once in awhile.
One of these individuals is is Mark Steyn who is right now fighting Canada's unconstitutional human rights tribunals. He is a conservative, but a smart one...
And he has something to say about your health care predicament. (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/health-obama-government-2562126-care-president)
Of opposing opinions, he is rational and well-researched, but very offensive.
-
One of these individuals is is Mark Steyn who is right now fighting Canada's unconstitutional human rights tribunals. He is a conservative, but a smart one...
mmmmmmmmno he's not.
-
I mean, he can string two sentences together, i guess. Whether those are sentences that someone who's aware of anything that's ever happened in the entire would ever willingly say is another question, to which the answer is "no, and Steyn's a fucking moron, no surprises there."
-
Reads like he ran Glenn Beck through a thesaurus.
-
dingdingding
-
Considering that he's the first individual to put light on what exactly is wrong about "a human rights tribunal" that can operate outside of the bounds of law in a fashion that can hit the mainstream media, I tend to disagree, hard.
But hey, I am just biased to columnists who actually get results. Must be a problem on my end.
-
See. His major issue is that he thinks this country is moving too much to the left. That is not something I am afraid of.
He also erroneously states that the people angry about Obama's plan for health care are in the majority (when in fact the public option itself tends to see 55-70% support), states that knocking down from 47 million to 37 million is an attempt to concede to people worried about illegal immigrants (illegal immigrants aren't even considered in the 47 million figure) and then proceeds to complain that a Democratic majority in Congress backed by a Democratic president will "ram through" a popular bill. Man is an idiot who thinks he has exclusive control of the country.
-
See. His major issue is that he thinks this country is moving too much to the left. That is not something I am afraid of.
It also betrays a lack of knowledge of history. It's like he doesn't know that at one time the government started programs for cheap health insurance for the poor and elderly, or that Truman was elected in part because he proposed government-run health insurance option back in the 40s. (it got shot down by the AMA. Thanks, doctors.) Thanks to the New Deal, this country used to be way to the left that is now. By some coincidence, those were also the times all the Republicans look back on with nostalgia.
Basically, it's this recent jump to the right that's unusual, not a move to the left. Moving to the left is just bringing things back in line with how they were before Regan.
-
Blah blah blah pre-Nixon Republicans.
But yeah I basically didn't bother to read past "OH NO THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO SWING LEFT". To which the proper response is "Good, that will put it back in the middle" and an end to the conversation.
-
"It's just a JUMP to the left!"
"And then a step to the riii-iii-iiii-iiight!"
-
:itsmagic: :Why don't you come up to the lab? See what's on the slab? I'll see you shiver...with antici...
-
...
-
... pation.
Fuck you. Conversation back the hell on.
-
Bill O'Reilly supports the public option (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/oreilly-public-option/)
This isn't a twist of words or anything. There's video if you don't believe it.
-
CA Insurer: Woman's Bleeding Breast Not Emergency (http://cbs5.com/local/insurance.claim.denied.2.1207332.html)
But Miran-Ramirez said the real shock came when her insurance company, Blue Shield of California HMO, which had initially approved the claim for the emergency room visit, reversed course and sent her a new bill three months later requiring her to pay the total charges for that visit: $2,791.00.
Related: Cancer Girl's Lawyer Blames CIGNA For Her Death (http://cbs2.com/local/nataline.sarkisyan.CIGNA.2.615167.html)
-
Blue Shield of California HMO
Er... hold please.
...
Ah shit.
I think I might be taking employee health insurance after all.
EDIT: Nevermind it's a PPO they can't do that shit. But I might drop them based on general "fuck you guys."
-
Also we pretty much just need to nuke the senate, or the filibuster at least.
Starting to agree. Jonathan Shwarz posted a choice quote from the Father of the Constitution himself on TMW (http://thismodernworld.com/4928) the other week:
Should experience or public opinion require an equal & universal suffrage for each branch of the Govt., such as prevails generally in the U. S., a resource favorable to the rights of landed & other property, when its possessors become the minority, may be found in an enlargement of the election districts for one branch of the legislature, and an extension of its period of service. Large districts are manifestly favorable to the election of persons of general respectability, and of probable attachment to the rights of property, over competitors depending on the personal solicitations practicable on a contracted theatre. And although an ambitious candidate, of personal distinction, might occasionally recommend himself to popular choice by espousing a popular though unjust object, it might rarely happen to many districts at the same time. The tendency of a longer period of service would be, to render the body more stable in its policy, and more capable of stemming popular currents taking a wrong direction, till reason & justice could regain their ascendancy.
So, straight-up: the entire purpose of the Senate, from its conception, is to protect the interests of the rich and powerful from the unwashed rabble.
At least England has the decency to actually CALL them the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
As for the filibuster: some of you may remember that, back in '05, when the Republicans were threatening to declare filibusters unconstitutional, I said the Democrats should let them do it. It may have meant some very nasty things getting passed immediately (though in hindsight I'd say most of the Bush Administration's nastiest proposals made it through anyway), but in the long run it would have benefited Democrats far more, as the filibuster is an inherently conservative tool.
This is basically the core of the reason why the Republican party absolutely cannot give an inch on this. If Obama were to actually secure health care for every American, the GOP would be totally fucked even if they'd played ball.
Comprehensive health care reform passed by either party would be a body blow from which the other would take decades to recover. That is why single-payer is usually dismissed as "politically unrealistic".
Not wrong, but leaves out the rather nontrivial fact that they're all in the insurance companies' pockets, too.
Obama's all for the public option. It's the people who need convincing.
Not really. Polls are consistently showing a majority of Americans favor a public option, and some 80% of Democrats. Which is why any Democratic opposition to this is straight-up opportunistic assholes stabbing the people who elected them in the back and then calling it a pre-existing condition.
The first words out of my mouth the other morning were "FUCK Lieberman!" because the radio was telling me he's threatened to filibuster any legislation with a public option. Hey, thanks Harry, really appreciate that whole "You can do whatever you want without fear of reprisal" thing a few months back.
Not gonna lie, I want Reid to lose his seat in November. Yeah, that's one fewer Democrat, but there's a slim possibility that someone competent will become majority leader.
...slim.
-
How I tweeted my way out of spinal surgery (http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=5804)
With a fractured spine, but otherwise excellent health and no medical problems, Packer staff, upon learning I had top-of-the line health insurance, prepped me for immediate “reconstructive spinal surgery” and a lengthy recuperation in Pennsylvania….
Packer staff insisted I still needed immediate spinal surgery. Sympathetic nurses quietly mentioned I was one of few patients who had any form of health insurance and tried to help me obtain release. “This is about the money,” I thought. Not just the money, they said. Rural trauma centers need to keep up their numbers of severe cases like mine to maintain their accreditation. I was beginning to get the picture.
In the end, Cortes left Packer for treatment in Boston, where doctors treated her successfully without surgery. A week after the accident Cortes remains mobile, with treatment consisting of a torso brace that she must wear for four months.
Oh.
My.
God.
Seriously, you guys need that reform even more than I thought.
-
It's even worse than you think. Starr explained to me the other day that the new form of the reform bill is to provide a public option, but to defer to the States' wills' to opt-out of the plan (for the Canadians: It's like the Notwithstanding Clause, but just for this piece of legislation).
Remember all those dirt poor folks who fled Louisiana for the North and never returned? If the reform passes as written, with a horrible recipe for health balkanization, watch for that type of migration to happen on a much, much bigger messier scale.
And they'll pretty much all be citizens.
-
Well, realistically speaking, I doubt any state will actually opt out of the public option. We actually needed to have such a clause to get Medicare, our much beloved small amount of socialized medicine, to pass. No one opted out of Medicare*, and if any state tried now, they'd be committing political suicide. America's 'conservatives' (not the politicians, but their constituents) are amazingly able to forget the definitions of things like socialism and use such terms as the newest version of 'nigger,' but they almost always secretly love every bit of such policies. Then they forget about them or start taking them for granted, and get swept up in the want for short term profits in the form of tax cuts.
*And indeed the opponents of health care reform keep spouting that it will weaken Medicare, showing just how much the country pines for socialized medicine, but is too damn prone to economic hedonism on all levels to have let it self say so, as it's mouth is busy sucking too many cocks belonging to private interests' lobbyists .
-
I don't know, I'm pretty sure the USA of the 60's =/= the USA today.
I wouldn't put it past some utterly retarded Red States to opt out. The main reason being, your conservative crowd has spent too many decades huffing their own fumes.
-
*And indeed the opponents of health care reform keep spouting that it will weaken Medicare, showing just how much the country pines for socialized medicine, but is too damn prone to economic hedonism on all levels to have let it self say so, as it's mouth is busy sucking too many cocks belonging to private interests' lobbyists .
Congress essentially sees Medicare as a way to slip in some extra income tax, as very little of what you pay into it is anything you will ever get back, especially if you're just in your 20s. They're not afraid of weakening the Medicare system, just that the public option is going to make it so that there's no valid argument for keeping the fee.
-
How I tweeted my way out of spinal surgery (http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=5804)
[...]
Oh.
My.
God.
Seriously, you guys need that reform even more than I thought.
AFAIK adding a public option isn't going to rid us of our ridiculous benchmarking process. But I could be mistaken.
Well, realistically speaking, I doubt any state will actually opt out of the public option.
Catloaf, my state is on the verge of opting out of HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE (http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Transportation-budget-67071432.html) rather than pass a 1-cent tax increase.
That is not hyperbole. I am not being colorful, or exaggerating for comedic effect. I mean, literally, a ONE-CENT TAX INCREASE.
-
Is this our cue for splitting into a "What in the Blazing Fuck is Wrong with Arizona" thread?
-
AFAIK adding a public option isn't going to rid us of our ridiculous benchmarking process. But I could be mistaken.
Well, I thought there might be less incentive to threaten the insured into unnecessary treatment once everyone's got insurance, but I may be underestimating human greed.
-
Is this our cue for splitting into a "What in the Blazing Fuck is Wrong with Arizona" thread?
california would do it too
-
Well, realistically speaking, I doubt any state will actually opt out of the public option.
Catloaf, my state is on the verge of opting out of HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE (http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Transportation-budget-67071432.html) rather than pass a 1-cent tax increase.
That is not hyperbole. I am not being colorful, or exaggerating for comedic effect. I mean, literally, a ONE-CENT TAX INCREASE.
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/Catloaf/5d3a397ee02fe9623973b027e7aecbf1.gif)
...
:endit:
-
Well I should think not. Sure, it starts with a one cent tax for highway maintenence but before you know it we are all building tanks for our glorious leader in sweat shops, calling eachother "comrades", and spray painting peace symbols all over the Contitution while smoking that pot and reading Marx. Besides, everyone knows it is all a part of the New World Orders plan to make the highways nice and fixed up so they can more easily send the troops and supplies they will need to build concentration camps for all the elderly once the Health Reform passes and we start killing them.
-
Well, I thought there might be less incentive to threaten the insured into unnecessary treatment once everyone's got insurance, but I may be underestimating human greed.
Well, you'd think a public school system wouldn't mean funding would be tied to arbitrary benchmarks, too, but you'd be wrong.
Doctors get scored according to meeting certain criteria. If they don't perform X number of MRI's per year, people are going to start asking why they even need that expensive MRI machine.
I'd love to think the public option will curb some of that, and maybe it will. But I don't see it doing away with that kind of thinking entirely.
-
Ohhhhhh so that's why some kids get the traumatic experience of being put into a cylindrical coffin instead of being administered a simple cognitive test.
-
Well, you'd think a public school system wouldn't mean funding would be tied to arbitrary benchmarks, too, but you'd be wrong.
This sort of thing is so fucked up that I keep forgetting that it is something you actually have to deal with, as if my subconscious mind is rejecting the very idea. It feels alien and wrong, like impossible inventions scrawled in the diary of a crazy man.
-
The core idea of both systems, that public schools should be held accountable for actually educating children and public hospitals should be held accountable for actually treating patients, is sound, it's just that the overseeing bodies only really have one tool at their disposal and are trying to figure out if they really can cure a bleeding wound by chopping off a limb.
-
Or, as my class's valedictorian said of the woman in charge of our state's testing (a precursor to NCLB): "It's not that I oppose the idea of having a test to graduate, it's just that she's DUMB."
Put another, more helpful way: in both education and medicine, each individual is different. While there are some things that can be measured effectively by quantitative analysis, most can't. (Even something obvious like "minimize patient deaths" could have the unintended consequence of the terminally ill being turned away rather than treated.)
-
Man, I wish I could be paid to say whatever crazy bullshit I wanted (http://wonkette.com/411951/crazy-virginia-foxx-declares-war-on-terror-on-healthcare). (Virginia Foxx declares health care reform more dangerous than any terrorist in the history of terrorism, ever)
-
Well, okay. That sort of statement is not in and of itself retarded. For example, the statement "I fear the consequences of an unchecked police force more than any individual criminal." is kind of the primary motivation behind the concept of criminal defense and due process.
But, yeah, plug "poor people not dying from easily cured disease" in there and it all falls apart.
-
As much as I shouldn't be posting from an iPod, I feel compelled to argue that the focus of the underlying issues regarding healthcare have been hijacked by a non-negotiable soundbyte just as overseas support contract framework, and "what is deemed acceptable" has been summarized by "haliburton is an evil company that promotes rape".
I do not believe that a public option will cure all ails, despite having half your population being on one already, but I deteste that the other side of the debate has been hijacked by those who would demonize their supporters, as I read so much of.
My fear at this point is that any health care bill that comes out will end up ignoring why Mayo succeeds on an international scale while Texas fails.
And the cycle of hate just continues to grow.
-
Aaaaand the Democrats' plan is...force people who can't afford insurance to buy it anyway by fining them if they don't.
The Republicans' plan is, of course, "We need to cut taxes, and no we don't have any data on how much this will cost or how many people it will help."
I am becoming more and more serious in my conviction that nearly everyone in Congress should be voted out of office.
(Source: AP, via NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/04/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Comparing-the-Bills.html).)
(And before someone posts an obnoxious one-line "What, you're SURPRISED by this?" post, no, I am fucking not surprised. Surprise is not a prerequisite to being pissed off about something.)
-
Aaaaand the Democrats' plan is...force people who can't afford insurance to buy it anyway by fining them if they don't.
Supposed to be about increasing the pool of people paying into the system to lower cost all around. Which has a sane rationale, if you ignore profit motives. But the use of fines and subsidies simply begs the question of "Why not just put poor people on a public plan without charge anyway?"
The Democrats simply don't know what to do now that they're in power. This is exacerbated by the lobbying money flying around. Is is seriously that difficult to pass extremely popular legislation (the public option itself has grown considerably more popular in spite of the teabagger's efforts to try and kill it) in an climate where a majority of people have said they actually favor an INCREASE in taxes to pay for this?
In fact, while we're on the subject, two anti-tax initiatives in Washington and Maine were both defeated at the polls. The tax-hating vibe we get seems to be coming from a minority of people, and I think most have woken up and realized the benefits that higher taxes give us.
-
Well, keep in mind that you live in a state that isn't imposing its own murderous taxes on top. Most of the MSM pundits who keep flipping out about taxes live in either New York (2nd worst state tax burden in the country) or California (6th). Texas is 48th.
-
why whatever do you mean it's not like California is taking money out of people's paychecks and promising to give it back someday
-
ADDITION TO PREVIOUS POST MOVED BECAUSE FRIDAY POSTED IN THE MEANTIME AND IT LOOKED AWKWARD: Most of the MSM pundits who keep flipping out about taxes live in either New York (2nd worst state tax burden in the country) or California (6th). Texas is 48th.
T FRIDAY: It was actually news to me that as far as being moneyraped goes, there are 5 places where it could honestly be worse.
...except I pay COUNTY taxes here too! Loooooooooooooooool.
-
And I thought Sarah Palin was shameless in her usage of babies as props (http://wonkette.com/412074/house-health-care-debate-just-a-bunch-of-babies-goin-nuts)!
...oh wait, Arizona (R) explains it. Thad, what in the Seven Unholy Fucks is wrong with your state and it's lawmakers/government officials!? Too much sun or something?
-
:mahboi: Arizona as we know it is actually an Arizona-shaped chunk of Hell that got exchanged with legitimate American real estate back in 1541. Which explains the heat, the propensity of people to go completely barking mad, John McCain and why much of downtown Flagstaff is composed of green marble.
-
its weird having John Dingell FINALLY have a goddamn health care bill pass, he introduced a health care bill at the beginning of EVERY SESSION OF CONGRESS SINCE HE CAME INTO OFFICE 53 YEARS AGO
-
I'm not sure if you guys heard, but It passed with 220 Yays to 215 Nays. Say goodbye to grandma!
Also, Anh "Joseph" Cao (http://wonkette.com/412080/republican-voting-for-health-care-dachau-too) is the last (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2381305/posts) person (http://search.twitter.com/search?q=@anhjosephCao) I want to be right now.
-
its weird having John Dingell FINALLY have a goddamn health care bill pass, he introduced a health care bill at the beginning of EVERY SESSION OF CONGRESS SINCE HE CAME INTO OFFICE 53 YEARS AGO
I'll bet he wonders what he should to try to push next.
-
Perhaps he will melt in to the ether like a ghost who has finally reconciled with his death.
-
He can finally get started on his original plan of reserving land for a national boys' camp.
-
We just showed that movie for our theater's 70th anniversary. :perfect:
-
That's pretty classy.
-
Health Care Reform works!
Agents of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and other large New York businesses get H1N1 vaccine. Schoolchildren are told to just suck it up (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2009/db2009112_606442.htm).
-
So it looks like in their zeal to get the health reform bill passed, the Democrat-controlled House sort of ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/08/AR2009110818453.html).
Er... you know what I mean.
The House passed its version of health-care legislation Saturday night by a vote of 220 to 215 after the approval of an amendment that would sharply restrict the availability of coverage for abortions, which many insurance plans now offer. The amendment goes beyond longstanding prohibitions against public funding for abortions, limiting abortion coverage even for women paying for it without government subsidies.
-
and this is why libertarians don't trust the government to do things
-
The pressure is on now to throw the amendment out in committee. It was a rather big focus of the debates last night, and many think it won't pass muster when merged with the Senate bill.
-
good thing they threw that in there to sweeten the deal for all the republicans that helped them pass the bill!
-
So, is the public option dead yet? Or is the Party of No still savoring the moment and slowly pulling out it's fingernails one-by-one? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126030062798482341.html)
-
It's dead. But might as well be, anyway. At this point getting it into the bill is was more of a symbolic victory, as it had been watered down so much it only really had a chance of covering about 6 million people anyway. What's significant, though, is the expansion of Medicare from 65 to 55. From a self-interest perspective I'm sitting here thinking "That does me shit good," but I know that it also allows my unemployable uncle to get health care coverage. And it opens the door for future medicare expansions down the road.
So it's far from perfect. Hell, it's skirting the line of acceptable. But we (the public) don't have much a choice in the matter, except to kick out the shitty senators like Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson, etc who put their egos and pocket books before the American public.
-
Making it clear their sorry asses WILL be kicked out would be nice.
Let Lieberman filibuster. Let him stand there for days on end explaining why he's opposed to the thing he spent the last fifteen years swearing he supported. Not like his 2012 challenger needs any more clips to put into his campaign commercials, but that'd be a good one.
-
So Lieberman's still threatening to filibuster (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/health.care.lieberman/), even after they gutted the public option.
Anyone who didn't see this coming is stupid.
Relevant cartoon (http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/11/02/tomo/index.html) from six goddamn weeks ago.
-
Good thing all those union and Democratic politicians supported Lieberman in 2012. With us on everything but the war!
-
Heh.
Up here in Canada, the ultimate and final threat that keeps our meek and toothless regular members of Parliament in line is the threat of being thrown out of the party.
Now, that typically never happens in the US, due to your more bottom-up structure, but I must say Lieberman's actions always make me wonder if the we won't see a party do that in the US.
-
Lieberman's an Indie, isn't he?
-
Forgot about that. :nyoro~n:
-
See, there's still ways to hurt him. You could remove his Homeland Security chair and effectively give him the status of a junior member of the Senate. Or Harry Reid could grow a pair and pass the bill by Reconciliation with both the Medicare Buy-In, Medicaid Expansion, and a stronger public option. That would not only put a blow to Joe's ego, it would send a middle finger to all the other blue-dogs who wanted to me-too their way to importance.
-
Chamber of Commerce Campaign: Fight Health-Care Reform -- And Win A Trip To Hooters! (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/chamber_of_commerce_campaign_fight_health-care_ref.php?ref=fpblg)
The ads -- images of which were obtained by TPMmuckraker, and which you can see here -- are a product of the Chamber's campaign to use the web to generate "grassroots" pressure against health-care reform.
more like astroturf lol
-
To be fair, that gift card is probably worth more than whatever health care plan they've got on the bill now.
-
So the healthcare bill passed the senate with no regulation, no public option, no cost reduction, a projected cost increase for middle class americans, and a mandate that will cost you either 2% of your yearly income or 750 dollars (whichever is higher) if you don't pay for insurance.
Fuck.
Thanks for nothing, Barack Obama. Some fucking change.
-
Well, if he doesn't veto it, i am officially a birther.
-
Well, if he doesn't veto it, i am officially a birther.
(http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/Bon_Bon_2009/scruffy-1.jpg)
-
Hey, on the plus side this is historic! and we know who the real president is. Also liberals should just accept this bill and grow up or because there's nothing the democrats could have done short of I don't know supporting the thing and not capitulating - compromise is a word that implies we got something in return - at every opportunity.
So, really, you must be a pretty self-entitled liberal to believe that you can have whatever you want when the party you're the reason got elected comes out of the gate saying "We'll sacrifice anything to make it look like we reformed health care".
-
Still livin' it up here in the land of universal healthcare.
-
Still livin' it up here in the land of universal healthcare.
:terroristfistbump:
-
:terroristfistbump:
That the one where you're both holding on to a vial of nitroglycerin?
-
This has made me realize that I absolutely hate roughly 80% of the Senate. I had previously only realized that I hated about half of them.
Also, what the fuck happens now? The two bills are very different, so what goes to Obama's desk? Is there any hope left for things not getting worse?
I mean, with no regulation or cost reduction plus the mandate, isn't that just going to allow the insurance companies to charge insane amounts because you now have to have insurance?!
-
This has made me realize that I absolutely hate roughly 80% of the Senate. I had previously only realized that I hated about half of them.
Also, what the fuck happens now? The two bills are very different, so what goes to Obama's desk? Is there any hope left for things not getting worse?
I mean, with no regulation or cost reduction plus the mandate, isn't that just going to allow the insurance companies to charge insane amounts because you now have to have insurance?!
If that's the way it goes, and it basically becomes the way car insurance is handled in Ontario or Alberta, you guys are absolutely, unquestionably, fucked.
-
That's on my list of Reasons I don't Drive.
-
It's pretty close to the biggest reason I don't bother getting my license.
... being an unbelievably awful driver being the biggest reason.
-
25 years to go.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNFlhfdUEuI
-
So the healthcare bill passed the senate with no regulation, no public option, no cost reduction, a projected cost increase for middle class americans, and a mandate that will cost you either 2% of your yearly income or 750 dollars (whichever is higher) if you don't pay for insurance.
The underlined bit will be less of an issue as the middle class is further eroded and forced into the lower class.
-
See, there's still ways to hurt him. You could remove his Homeland Security chair and effectively give him the status of a junior member of the Senate.
But they've already demonstrated they won't.
Saying they should remove him from the chair over this muddies the issue anyway. He shouldn't lose his chair for political reasons, he should lose it because he's done a fucking terrible job. He refused to investigate the Bush Administration after Katrina, the biggest failure to protect the homeland we've had since DHS was established.
So the healthcare bill passed the senate with no regulation, no public option, no cost reduction, a projected cost increase for middle class americans, and a mandate that will cost you either 2% of your yearly income or 750 dollars (whichever is higher) if you don't pay for insurance.
Fuck.
Thanks for nothing, Barack Obama. Some fucking change.
(Minor correction: it hasn't actually passed yet, they've just broken the filibuster.)
Earlier today, I found myself wondering how I could get so pissed off over something that I knew was going to happen. Then I remembered I'd called the Iraq War pretty much the moment Florida was called for Bush. Just because I see something coming doesn't mean I shouldn't be angry when it happens.
The latest flap is Obama's claim, "I didn't campaign on the public option." It's not a lie, exactly, but it's a half-truth -- no, it wasn't a major issue he campaigned on, but yeah, he mentioned it a half-dozen times or so, and it was in the plan he was pushing.
What's a lot less ambiguous is that he campaigned against mandatory insurance. There's no linguistic wiggle-room there. He explicitly and repeatedly stated his opposition to mandates when Clinton supported them.
Digby (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/best-we-can-do-by-digby-jim-vandehei.html) via Tom (http://thismodernworld.com/5002) pretty much sums up the important points:
And Obama can say that you're getting a lot, but also saying that it "covers everyone," as if there's a big new benefit is a big stretch. Nothing will have changed on that count except changing the law to force people to buy private insurance if they don't get it from their employer. I guess you can call that progressive, but that doesn't make it so. In fact, mandating that all people pay money to a private interest isn't even conservative, free market or otherwise. It's some kind of weird corporatism that's very hard to square with the common good philosophy that Democrats supposedly espouse.
Nobody's "getting covered" here. After all, people are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. Whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to Aetna or Blue Cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write. Indeed, it actually looks like the worst caricature of liberals: taking people's money against their will, saying it's for their own good.
Also, what the fuck happens now? The two bills are very different, so what goes to Obama's desk? Is there any hope left for things not getting worse?
There's always hope, but hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first.
The two bills still have to go to committee and get the inconsistencies ironed out. Realistically, the best thing we can hope for is the Stupak Amendment getting taken out. I think the public option's dead.
I mean, with no regulation or cost reduction plus the mandate, isn't that just going to allow the insurance companies to charge insane amounts because you now have to have insurance?!
Yes. Yes it is.
-
Earlier today, I found myself wondering how I could get so pissed off over something that I knew was going to happen. Then I remembered I'd called the Iraq War pretty much the moment Florida was called for Bush. Just because I see something coming doesn't mean I shouldn't be angry when it happens.
Actually, I find that things piss me off far, far more when I can predict them. So I guess just don't beat yourself up about this one, because I totally get where you're coming from.
-
Same here.
Accidents and bizarre things happen, but knowing that something awful is coming and that you can't do a single goddmaned thing about it is pretty rage-inducing.
-
Thinking of actually canceling my privately-bought insurance if this gets signed.
-
I don't actually have to come back to the US, now do I?
-
Thinking of actually canceling my privately-bought insurance if this gets signed.
Depends. I find it entirely possible that this co-op and nonprofit insurance they're proposing could be better than my shitty, shitty temp insurance that has arbitrarily decided I've reached my cutoff and don't get any more money to treat my valley fever.
It's a low damn bar.
-
:terroristfistbump:
That the one where you're both holding on to a vial of nitroglycerin?
I_M takes it for his heart.
-
Aaaand there goes the public option.
Obroma has a rare opportunity, here. When this gutted fish lands on his desk, he can veto it, toss it back, to the nation that this is NOT what he wanted and tell the Senate not to bother him again until they have a bill that actually reforms Health Care.
Or he can keep praising a bill that does nothing but force people to pay into an even more broken system and prove himself an utterly dickless leader who is, despite his intentions, utterly incapable of making any of his promises a reality.
This is it, man. Step up or don't.
-
I don't know if the idea will even cross his mind. He just doesn't seem like the veto type - he's always been too conciliatory for such unilateral action.
Ironically, you need Dubya for this.
-
Doesn't he have the power of the line-item veto?
-
Doesn't he have the power of the line-item veto?
Not since that was found grotesquely unconstitutional almost twelve years ago.
-
I don't know why anyone is surprised. Obama's been evil the entire time (http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http://ca.youtube.com/v/hKLpJtvzlEI&start1=0&video2=http://ca.youtube.com/v/Jll5baCAaQU&start2=0).
-
You guys are really trying to tell me that a bill which increases the number of people on healthcare and gets rid of pre-existing conditions isn't worth passing? I mean I want a socialist utopia as much as the next guy (seriously I do.), but I have trouble believing you'd really want to kill this. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see this coming back at all if Obama kicks it back to the senate, much less coming back better.
-
It increases the number of people on healthcare by forcing them to buy it or be heavily fined.
Republicans are trying to create a world where we treat health care like auto insurance - we buy the minimum because we have to and hope we never have to use it because it covers next to nothing and will cost us more than we get in return no matter what the situation is. Republicans have succeeded in this because for some fucking reason we're convinced that we need a 60 vote majority to get goddamn anything done. We're so terrified of the slight potential that a filibuster might possibly somehow take place that we've made concession after concession to get things done, and Obama is too spineless to put his foot down and direct his fucking party.
Jesus christ, the entire nation watched Bush wrangle his party to do things they didn't want to do for 8 years with threats of fundraising cuts, primary endorsements to opponents, stonewalling on pet legislations, etc... Why the fuck can't we take a page from the republican playbook FOR ONCE and be a fucking effective party?
-
Because the moral high ground is still apparently worth having even when it's covered in shit tossed onto it from the low ground?
-
Just want to add that you cannot try to read the current bill because it is too long, confusing, and can only be understood by lawyers. In comparison, the field manual that helped you win Iraq including all the important philosophies behind fighting comprehensive insurgencies was 300 pages tops. And it was the best thing ever written on the subject. Your constitution or the UN Decleration of human rights also are works of art on the same level due to their brevity, ease of understanding, and clarity of intent. Your health bill fails on all three.
If that isn't a flag, then a conversation is not worth having.
-
It increases the number of people on healthcare by forcing them to buy it or be heavily fined.
Republicans have succeeded in this because for some fucking reason we're convinced that we need a 60 vote majority to get goddamn anything done. We're so terrified of the slight potential that a filibuster might possibly somehow take place that we've made concession after concession to get things done, and Obama is too spineless to put his foot down and direct his fucking party.
You think the party that made a 700 page amendment be read out loud isn't going to actually go through with a filibuster? The GoP can't wait for the opportunity to filibuster because it'll make them heroes to most of their constituents.
Jesus christ, the entire nation watched Bush wrangle his party to do things they didn't want to do for 8 years with threats of fundraising cuts, primary endorsements to opponents, stonewalling on pet legislations, etc... Why the fuck can't we take a page from the republican playbook FOR ONCE and be a fucking effective party?
Because we aren't ideologically orthodox or respectful of authority the way the republicans are. That's the nature of the liberal mind set. Add onto that the fact that we got the majority by running candidates that are barely discernible ideologically from republicans to take advantage of the unpopularity of Bush and you end up with a party where half the representatives aren't liberal in any real sense. Oh, and it's the younger half.
Just want to add that you cannot try to read the current bill because it is too long, confusing, and can only be understood by lawyers. In comparison, the field manual that helped you win Iraq including all the important philosophies behind fighting comprehensive insurgencies was 300 pages tops. And it was the best thing ever written on the subject. Your constitution or the UN Decleration of human rights also are works of art on the same level due to their brevity, ease of understanding, and clarity of intent. Your health bill fails on all three.
If that isn't a flag, then a conversation is not worth having.
We're not writing a philosophy of medical care here, nor are we writing a strategy of medical care. And while our constitution is relatively brief, the notes on the court cases that have been required to discern what it actually says are not. This is a bureaucratic document covering a huge swath of information which has been pieced together by several hundred people. I'd like it to be shorter too, but the reality of the construction and purpose of the document are what they are.
-
You think the party that made a 700 page amendment be read out loud isn't going to actually go through with a filibuster? The GoP can't wait for the opportunity to filibuster because it'll make them heroes to most of their constituents.
Then LET THEM FUCKING FILIBUSTER. I want to see them standing up there until they fucking pass out. I want to see them there for days. This bullshit where the threat of the GOP not being happy with the left is enough is earnestly and truly pathetic.
-
GAH
The let them Filibuster line is FUCKING RETARDED because filibusterin' ain't what it used to be. Back in ye olden days it was one guy reading shit until he got tired. The rules these days state the filibuster party needs one person in the room to keep talking, and the opposing party needs to be there IN FULL or else the minority party can claim lack of quorum.
It is retarded and pretty much why the filibuster needs to die entirely.
-
Okay, let's run down what the bill in its current form changes (and it's really, really hard to get this info for some reason, partially because most results are complete fabrications):
* Citizens are now required to purchase health care from a private interest or be fined.
* If citizens are unable to purchase health care on their own, public money will be supplied to pay the private interests with.
* Federal funding in cases of abortions now banned. Also law is worded in such a way as to invalidate Roe v. Wade. Laughing! out! loud!
* Insurance companies now allowed to increase premiums by up to 300% for seniors. what
* Some sort of Rx finaglery which seems to have the final effect of basically killing generic brands.
Missing from list: Anything that suggests that actual health care industry is subject to further regulation. Kindaaaaa the opposite? And everybody in the country is forced to pay for it?
So yeah, I say, let the GOP filibuster for Gods' sakes. A few of them have even as much as admitted that they wanted to turn the bill into an absolute worst nightmare scenario for all parties, just to make the Dems look incredibly awful for supporting it (it worked). So do it, let them blow up the Trojan Horse they built.
Or give it to Obama and let him read it an say "It's no good." I really, really want this to happen. I think it's his big chance to prove that he's not going to take all those good intentions and let the GOP pave a road straight down into the seventh level with them.
-
Also, all stories about the bill have gone right off the ticker in favor of 5-10 articles about the failed terrorist plot.
Is this 2002? This is 2002.
-
Or give it to Obama and let him read it an say "It's no good." I really, really want this to happen. I think it's his big chance to prove that he's not going to take all those good intentions and let the GOP pave a road straight down into the seventh level with them.
Hope leads to despair.
-
Ironically, you need Dubya for this.
Not really ironic; it's the nature of the two parties as they currently stand. The Republicans are assholes and the Democrats are pussies.
Put another couple of ways:
Jesus christ, the entire nation watched Bush wrangle his party to do things they didn't want to do for 8 years with threats of fundraising cuts, primary endorsements to opponents, stonewalling on pet legislations, etc... Why the fuck can't we take a page from the republican playbook FOR ONCE and be a fucking effective party?
Because we aren't ideologically orthodox or respectful of authority the way the republicans are. That's the nature of the liberal mind set. Add onto that the fact that we got the majority by running candidates that are barely discernible ideologically from republicans to take advantage of the unpopularity of Bush and you end up with a party where half the representatives aren't liberal in any real sense. Oh, and it's the younger half.
Well, sort of. In practice, it's more that the Democrats are taking money from the same people the Republicans are. But yes, the Democrats do not have the party discipline that the Republicans do. The Republicans have managed to vote in lockstep, no compromise, no exceptions, and Bush managed to railroad immensely unpopular things through because he had more balls than the opposition party.
Despite the "Obamacare" name being tossed around, Obama has fuck-all to do with any of this; he never really stepped up on healthcare. I think a lot of that was learning the wrong lessons from the last two administrations -- he didn't want to be too closely tied to the healthcare legislation like Clinton was, and he didn't want to run the country as a unitary executive like Bush did and instead opted to let Congress do its thing while he watched from the sidelines. And here we are.
The let them Filibuster line is FUCKING RETARDED because filibusterin' ain't what it used to be. Back in ye olden days it was one guy reading shit until he got tired. The rules these days state the filibuster party needs one person in the room to keep talking, and the opposing party needs to be there IN FULL or else the minority party can claim lack of quorum.
It is retarded and pretty much why the filibuster needs to die entirely.
Which it almost did in '05 -- at the Republicans' hands because the minority Democrats kept filibustering.
I'm sure I've mentioned it at least once in the thread, but just to reiterate, my attitude at the time was that we should let them do it because the filibuster is an inherently conservative tool. And it's not like the Dems ever successfully filibustered any of Bush's most egregious shit, either.
a bill which increases the number of people on healthcare
In the same way that a draft would increase the number of people serving in the military. Except this would be more like a draft that forced people to sign up with Blackwater or Halliburton.
It's more than just the issue of a compulsory buy-in with the dicks who've been fucking us this whole time. (Ah, I was wondering who the dicks were in my Team America metaphor. Republicans are assholes, Democrats are pussies, and the insurance companies are dicks. Where was I?) Who's going to be paying for this? It's not the wealthy, of course, it's the middle class. Via Bob Herbert at the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/opinion/29herbert.html?_r=1):
The tax would kick in on plans exceeding $23,000 annually for family coverage and $8,500 for individuals, starting in 2013. In the first year it would affect relatively few people in the middle class. But because of the steadily rising costs of health care in the U.S., more and more plans would reach the taxation threshold each year.
Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.
Proponents say the tax will raise nearly $150 billion over 10 years, but there’s a catch. It’s not expected to raise this money directly. The dirty little secret behind this onerous tax is that no one expects very many people to pay it. The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.
So, all right. People who can't afford health insurance are forced to buy it anyway; people who CAN afford it wind up spending more to get less. And not paying the taxes that are actually supposed to finance the thing.
Wait, it gets better:
If even the plan’s proponents do not expect policyholders to pay the tax, how will it raise $150 billion in a decade? Great question.
We all remember learning in school about the suspension of disbelief. This part of the Senate’s health benefits taxation scheme requires a monumental suspension of disbelief. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering their employees less valuable health insurance plans.
Can you believe it?
So, okay. A bill that creates undue financial hardship on people who can't afford health insurance, sticks people who CAN afford it with something worse than they already have, and is financed by pure bullshit.
and gets rid of pre-existing conditions
They can still cap the amount of money they'll spend on you in a given year, which amounts to the same thing.
isn't worth passing?
You're focusing on (an exaggeration of) the benefits while downplaying the drawbacks. Hate to go all ad absurdum on you, but how many kittens would the bill have to kill before you'd say it wasn't worth medical progress? Damn, I bet Frist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist_medical_school_experiments_controversy) would have had an answer for that.
(Excuse me, I'm just going to bask in that for a minute; it was a very good joke.)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see this coming back at all if Obama kicks it back to the senate, much less coming back better.
The bitch is that you're right; we're fucked on this either way at this point because Barack, Harry, and the rest have screwed the pooch so badly. There is no good outcome anymore.
I honestly don't know where I'd come down on the "it should pass because it's all we're going to get/it shouldn't pass because it's fucking awful" debate, and frankly it's a moot point anyway. We've got a shit bill, the President's going to sign it, and that's the way it's going to be.
Politically, the Dems are going to pretend this is a revolution and the Republicans are going to pretend it's the end of civilization, each in the hopes of winning in 2010 and maybe as far out as 2012.
In practice? We won't even really know what the effects of the new law are by the 2010 election. Maybe things WILL get better than they are. I expect the co-ops or nonprofits or whatever the fuck watered-down bullshit version of the watered-down bullshit version of what we actually wanted WILL probably be at least a little bit better than the private insurance plan that recently decided it had spent too much money on antifungal meds for my lungs. And it'll be nice to see my girlfriend have some kind of health insurance too.
But the fact remains that the Democrats sold us out, Lieberman is the single worst politician in Washington, Obama vocally opposed mandates back when it was politically convenient, and the insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
Which the government is also propping up with our money despite our objections.
-
Is staging a large protest still viable? What about lynching/assassination of the executives of every large health insurance company and the most influential lobbyists? Civil war against the tea-baggers?
:despair: HOW THE HELL DID IT COME TO THIS?!!?!!??!? A MAN WHO CAMPAIGNED ON HOPE BEING THE ONE TO BRING US DESPAIR?!?!? THIS COUNTRY JUST CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT ANYMORE! :despair:
-
We're not writing a philosophy of medical care here, nor are we writing a strategy of medical care. And while our constitution is relatively brief, the notes on the court cases that have been required to discern what it actually says are not. This is a bureaucratic document covering a huge swath of information which has been pieced together by several hundred people. I'd like it to be shorter too, but the reality of the construction and purpose of the document are what they are.
Over five thousand pages, and that's what you have to say. This is five thousand pages for a law, as opposed to detailed logistical policy, made by politicians not acting in concert, but instead with 'me-too' in their minds.
You guys keep this up, and I'm going to have to start calling the democrats "The UN Bunch" for all their effectiveness.
Thad: Thank you for noticing how little Obama did on this one.
-
We're not writing a philosophy of medical care here, nor are we writing a strategy of medical care. And while our constitution is relatively brief, the notes on the court cases that have been required to discern what it actually says are not. This is a bureaucratic document covering a huge swath of information which has been pieced together by several hundred people. I'd like it to be shorter too, but the reality of the construction and purpose of the document are what they are.
Over five thousand pages, and that's what you have to say. This is five thousand pages for a law, as opposed to detailed logistical policy, made by politicians not acting in concert, but instead with 'me-too' in their minds.
You guys keep this up, and I'm going to have to start calling the democrats "The UN Bunch" for all their effectiveness.
Thad: Thank you for noticing how little Obama did on this one.
Are you familiar with how bills are constructed in this system? This is not a particularly offensive bill in terms of length compared to content.
-
Logistical implementation of a bill where lives are on the line is something you don't want to muck around with. Compared to Outright Socialized healthcare (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-6/20091230/page-0.html?rp2=SEARCH&rp3=SI&rp1=health&rp4=all&rp9=cs&rp10=L&rp13=50#idhit1), you are going to all have major issues.
-
* Some sort of Rx finaglery which seems to have the final effect of basically killing generic brands.
I am reading the text of the Senate bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:5:./temp/~c111jhW2yY:e0:) right now and I am not seeing anything about generic drugs other than
- a requirement for pharmacists to track generic dispensation rates, and
- an exemption to the prohibition against group drug purchasing if a more cost-effective generic alternative to the prescription exists.
A section number would be very helpful, and much appreciated, because I'm reading the Senate bill as pretty drug-neutral and the House bill is a pretty substantial victory for generics.
Logistical implementation of a bill where lives are on the line is something you don't want to muck around with.
You are literally retarded.
-
It seems a couple of you might think that SCD has failed to understand a complex (perhaps 'American'?) issue.
This is view slightly correct, for two reasons: 1) The US tendency towards 'riders' (i.e. legislative buyoffs of individual legislators) in legislation, which add loads of padding to bills. 2) The over-lawyering present in the US puts Tudor England to shame, which requires that any law worth it's salt try to be 'lawyer-proof', with reams of text to explicitly state variables and close loopholes.
However, by and large SCD is correct. Any document beyond a certain size is either so cumbersome as to be functionally useless, loaded with 'booby traps', purposely designed to intimidate the public it's supposed to serve, hiding something dreadful, or all of the above.
The Public Good is best served with clear, well-organized legislation. This is just a godawful pile.
-
However, by and large SCD is correct. Any document beyond a certain size is either so cumbersome as to be functionally useless, loaded with 'booby traps', purposely designed to intimidate the public it's supposed to serve, hiding something dreadful, or all of the above.
Or, god forbid, actually trying to comprehensively and unambiguously cover an extremely complex situation.
The Public Good is best served by legislation that does not leave questions about what it means. Seriously, how is explicitly stating variables and closing loopholes not exactly what legislation should do?
-
1) The US tendency towards 'riders' (i.e. legislative buyoffs of individual legislators) in legislation, which add loads of padding to bills.
Yes, it would be better if we could just fire everybody we didn't like (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/world/americas/07iht-08canadaFW.15951020.html). Unfortunately, one of the stronger points of the U.S. Government versus Parliamentary democracies is that politicians can't sack each other for political expediency.
-
However, by and large SCD is correct. Any document beyond a certain size is either so cumbersome as to be functionally useless, loaded with 'booby traps', purposely designed to intimidate the public it's supposed to serve, hiding something dreadful, or all of the above.
Or, god forbid, actually trying to comprehensively and unambiguously cover an extremely complex situation.
The Public Good is best served by legislation that does not leave questions about what it means. Seriously, how is explicitly stating variables and closing loopholes not exactly what legislation should do?
I don't think that's a problem in and of itself.
I think it's a problem that you've got so many loopholes enshrined in law elsewhere that things have come to this.
1) The US tendency towards 'riders' (i.e. legislative buyoffs of individual legislators) in legislation, which add loads of padding to bills.
Yes, it would be better if we could just fire everybody we didn't like (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/world/americas/07iht-08canadaFW.15951020.html). Unfortunately, one of the stronger points of the U.S. Government versus Parliamentary democracies is that politicians can't sack each other for political expediency.
Oh look. It's a random swipe at our own government's faults, instead of an actual reply. How cute.
(http://www.avnrt.com/docs/tings/imroll.gif)
-
:perfect:
-
The point that American legislators must work to persuade one another and compromise rather than resort to direct threats and naked power plays could not have possibly been lost on you, IM.
-
Counter-point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman)
-
Actually, no; Liebermann's stand-off, for better or worse, is exactly what I am talking about. Democrats had to persuade him and compromise to get him on board; they couldn't marginalize him through sheer force.
I'm not apologizing for Joe being a big fucking baby, mind you, but his gambit is exactly the sort of thing that is supposed to happen when your majority is so shaky. If the Democrats had been a bit more successful about convincing other Senators of the merits of this bill, they might not have had to endure these histrionics.
-
The very fact that you can call current the Democratic Majority 'shaky' just serves to highlight how broken the system is.
-
Why do you assume I was characterizing the Democrats' hold on power as a whole as shaky, and not just the majority on this one issue?
(because yes, it is shaky on this one issue)
(because believe it or not a piece of legislation that will fairly radically alter the financial and medical prospects of every man, woman, and child in the u.s. is bound to be met with some trepidation)
(and perhaps even resistance)
(but then hey you know what's best for all those hayseeds out there and how dare they question your judgment on how the most personal and private aspects of their lives should be governed)
-
Why do you assume I was characterizing the Democrats' hold on power as a whole as shaky, and not just the majority on this one issue?
:lol: you ARE a lawyer. Ahhh, that was a good one *sigh* :rolleyes:
Anyway, that dance is cute, but back to the real issue.
In both our countries semantics, jibes, histrionics, and gaming the system are destroying our governments' ability to function. When people bandy about terms like 'statesmanship' or 'bipartisan', they're not talking about everybody getting up and smiling for the same group photo, they're talking about a basic, sensible, responsible public service that is sorely lacking. Leibermann is just the whitehead on the gigantic festering pimple.
The Canadian system is more open to direct abuses, yes, and the US system is more open to people who abdicate their responsibilities by expecting the law to do their work for them. But the weakness is the same. It's the culture that's lacking, not the system.
EDIT: Oh, nice bracketed additions. Heh.
Yes, there will be resistance. But in this case resistance and compromise have not created a better document. Shit, they haven't even created a document that's merely worse than when they started. They've created a slobbering mess that contains the possibility of disaster for the middle class. And not one elected representative in either party has criticized the new document on these grounds yet.
Snide comments about 'knowing better' aside, this is bad legislation. The compromises that were agreed to thanks to the Senate diplomacy you're lauding have resulted in a pile of awfulness that serves no one well - even by the kindest interpretation it falls far short of what is needed to reform the US health system.
I don't care what it says in the "childrens' guide to checks and balances", you have all been collectively failed by your representatives.
-
so what then are you proposing
Also, I had hoped that my previous response about your assumptions would subtly call attention to the fact that you are implicitly equating the successful pursuit of a legislative agenda based on the strength of your beliefs with such a pursuit based on raw power, which is at best a very Tom DeLay thing to say. But whatever.
-
ok anakin
(http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/files/2009/10/ackbar.jpg)
EDIT: :oic:
-
so what then are you proposing
I don't know. What do you 'propose' when a friend's doctor tells you he has cancer that may or may not be fatal?
-
dudes seriously if we don't pass this patriot act we are fucked
-
No, you're fucked now. Aren't you glad everyone worked out their differences and passed such a useful piece of legislation?
It's funny that you think a Canadian of all people wouldn't get cracks about dictatorships and legislative ramrodding. I mean, we regularly write books making fun of ourselves for this very problem.
(http://i.biblio.com/b/734m/122394734-0-m.jpg)
I don't go on about 'culture' because it's some kind of veiled call for (http://www.ccgtradepost.com/images/45/0/1222009111642Dark_Helmet.jpg.aspx) to show up and save us all from the Tyranny of Horrible Democracy, I go on about it because we are having a discussion about a big problem and that's a root cause of the problem. Even if I don't have an answer for a question which no one else has successfully answered, doesn't mean I'm not going to point out the problem in the first place.
-
By the way, the cancer crack was regarding the hardening of the arteries I see down south in general, not this legislation per se.
It's a cancer. Maybe it's fatal, maybe you'll recover.
I don't know.
-
Ok, so you can't think of a better way to pass legislation than how we do.
What are we arguing about again? Do you not think that I, as someone who's entire political consciousness in his adult life has been bound up with health care, am not frustrated by this? Do you think that frustration renders me unable to see that it beats the alternative?
-
Ok, so you can't think of a better way to pass legislation than how we do. Neener, neener!
There's probably dozens of ways of doing that. Ask me if any of them are likely to be implemented anytime soon.
You seem to cling to the realities you find on paper. I'm more interested in what actually gets done.
What are we arguing about again? Do you not think that I, as someone who's entire political consciousness in his adult life has been bound up with health care, am not frustrated by this? Do you think that frustration renders me unable to see that it beats the alternative?
Well, I certainly won't try to question your credentials. [/deadpan]
I think that the current legislation will marginally increase health coverage for the currently uninsured, decreasing it for the middle class (or increase the tax burden on the middle class), and increase government spending without a really functional plan to fund that increased spending. And that's without invoking the spectre of robber-baron anti-corporate hyperbole - which may yet turn out to be justified. That looks like a net loss in my book.
The only reason this law may be better than what you had before is for the simple reason that if things get bad enough, then maybe someone will seriously consider fixing things for real. And I say that without any sarcasm whatsoever.
-
Having neither the time nor the training to read texts in Legalese I'm just going by trusted sources that have forged those hoary roads are reporting. If those are also outright lies (and at this point I would not be surprised if literally* everything I have read about it is unequivocally false) well then that's good.
* "Literally" as in literally, not "colloquially" or whatever your definition is.
-
By the way, the cancer crack was regarding the hardening of the arteries I see down south in general, not this legislation per se.
It's a cancer. Maybe it's fatal, maybe you'll recover.
I don't know.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/buge/reaction/its_not_corprus.png)
-
PB: Your direct insult was not becoming of what I expected of you. I'm disappointed that you would rely on direct insults rather than explaining what folly you saw, which I'm assuming is comparing two systems.
-
However, by and large SCD is correct. Any document beyond a certain size is either so cumbersome as to be functionally useless, loaded with 'booby traps', purposely designed to intimidate the public it's supposed to serve, hiding something dreadful, or all of the above.
Or, god forbid, actually trying to comprehensively and unambiguously cover an extremely complex situation.
The Public Good is best served by legislation that does not leave questions about what it means. Seriously, how is explicitly stating variables and closing loopholes not exactly what legislation should do?
Okay, I'll defer to the two lawyers in the thread, but...my layman brain says that a 5000-page document is going to have a hell of a lot of room for unintended consequences and nasty things lawmakers have thrown in that others might not notice. Why am I wrong?
I'm not apologizing for Joe being a big fucking baby, mind you, but his gambit is exactly the sort of thing that is supposed to happen when your majority is so shaky.
Pity you had to clarify this, because I had a very good rant lined up about how the Democrats have more seats in the Senate than any single party has had since 1976.
That said, even without Lieberman and Nelson, the Dems still have more seats than the Republicans had when they impeached a President for getting a blowjob, went to war with a nation that posed no threat to us, retroactively legalized warrantless surveillance of US citizens, put Alito on the Supreme Court (another filibuster which Lieberman helped break!), and deregulated us into a global financial crisis.
If the Democrats had been a bit more successful about convincing other Senators of the merits of this bill, they might not have had to endure these histrionics.
But it was pure party-line. Snowe's show notwithstanding, this bill was never going to get a single Republican vote. The Dems could introduce an Every Senate Republican Gets a Handjob bill and the Republicans would still try to filibuster it. (And the Democrats would still pass it. After adding some kind of rider to restrict abortion so that Nelson would vote for it.)
I'd be a little less pissed at the Dems for being unable to get Republicans to cross the aisle if the sons-of-bitches hadn't been tripping over each other to be bipartisan when Bush was driving us into a ditch.
(but then hey you know what's best for all those hayseeds out there and how dare they question your judgment on how the most personal and private aspects of their lives should be governed)
Hayseeds, or strawmen?
Support for the public option was at 60%. Support for the bill that passed is around 40. The Republicans are being utterly disingenuous about WHY public support is so low, but they're right: the majority of the country opposes this bill.
I read a good article in the Christian Science Monitor this morning about how the Dems have successfully pissed off people on both sides of the issue and produced an unpopular bill, but I can't find it right now and JESUS CHRIST HOW DID IT GET TO BE 10:40 AT NIGHT?
...well, aside from finding the link, I think I've said everything I wanted to. I'm going to bed.
-
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/14/091214fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all I found this to be an interesting read, though it still does not make me feel comfortable at all with the current bill. Might also just be crap. Wondering what the more informed denizens of Real World have to say!
-
It's nice that somebody's pointed to the backend of the bill for a change. You hear so much about fucking insurance that it's easy to forget that the bill is intended to reform the health care industry, not the insurance industry*.
Unfortunately I think the solution's a little bunk. This isn't the industrial revolution, and our problem with health care isn't that it's inefficient. The problem is that it's pretty much out of control. Practitioners, manufacturers, and laborers all can-and-do set their prices at whatever they feel like, and nobody has much of a recourse since you can't exactly speak with your wallet when you need a breathing machine. Improving our health care system isn't a bad goal at all, but as it stands the medical industry is just going to take those improvements to the bank with them and keep burdening the citizenry to the point where they have to rely on another wildly out of control industry to keep up.
* Which of course leads to the question of "why aren't we reforming the insurance industry first?", because at the moment AIG is fucking this country up way more than any biotech.
-
our problem with health care isn't that it's inefficient.
Well, it kinda is. We spend a greater percentage of our GNP on healthcare than anybody else in the world -- and that includes all those dirty socialist nations who cover everybody. Single-payer is a pretty streamlined system, really.
-
Starr was talking about this today. She pointed out that increased competition seems to actually raise health care costs, with fractured, viciously fighting little heath groups - the US Southeast being the worst offender. Whereas up here in Soviet Canuckistan, out west all the Health authorities are actually unifying, driving down costs (though the increase in bureacuracy is killing some of those savings, hoo boy).
-
The problem is that it's pretty much out of control. Practitioners, manufacturers, and laborers all can-and-do set their prices at whatever they feel like, and nobody has much of a recourse since you can't exactly speak with your wallet when you need a breathing machine. Improving our health care system isn't a bad goal at all, but as it stands the medical industry is just going to take those improvements to the bank with them and keep burdening the citizenry to the point where they have to rely on another wildly out of control industry to keep up.
That's another nice thing about single payer systems - negotiating power. If the only source of money for an operation isn't willing to pay more than $500 for it, you can't mark it up to $5000. With more than a hundred private insurers out there eager to pass the expense to their customers, it's a bit easier to get away with.
-
But single-payer is socialism. And as we all know, socialism is a combination of the worst aspects of both nazism and communism.
Ignoring the fact that insurance is also socialism--a group of people joining resources together to (theoretically) yield a better outcome for all or nearly all. But it's okay, because someone get's to skim that money off the top and deny you what you pay them money to hopefully ensure you of getting, and then make you pay for it directly as if you never had payed them in the first place, then they keep it for themselves and support our glorious oligarchycapitalism--a term which now mean democracy (but better because the morlocks don't get a vote).
-
:perfect:
-
Buge, you deserve blowjobs for that.
-
Okay, I'll defer to the two lawyers in the thread, but...my layman brain says that a 5000-page document is going to have a hell of a lot of room for unintended consequences and nasty things lawmakers have thrown in that others might not notice. Why am I wrong?
Given the current situation I understand why one might feel this way, but I would submit that if your default assumption is that your elected officials will abuse the legislative process to your detriment, the problem lies with either you or the elected officials, not the process. As it stands, the loophole-closure exists to hamstring private parties; if the legislators are complicit in that corruption, it's another matter entirely.
That said, even without Lieberman and Nelson, the Dems still have more seats than the Republicans had when they impeached a President for getting a blowjob, went to war with a nation that posed no threat to us, retroactively legalized warrantless surveillance of US citizens, put Alito on the Supreme Court (another filibuster which Lieberman helped break!), and deregulated us into a global financial crisis.
And yet here we are. I think Olbermann had this one right; the Health Care debacle is the best indication yet of the extent of corporate control in Congress, given the degree to which the insurance industry has been able to get Congressmen to go to the wall opposing it despite popular support going in that was at worst lukewarm.
Maybe we can find a way to spin the UHC debate so that it pits the insurance companies up against investment banks.
But it was pure party-line. Snowe's show notwithstanding, this bill was never going to get a single Republican vote. The Dems could introduce an Every Senate Republican Gets a Handjob bill and the Republicans would still try to filibuster it. (And the Democrats would still pass it. After adding some kind of rider to restrict abortion so that Nelson would vote for it.)
I'd be a little less pissed at the Dems for being unable to get Republicans to cross the aisle if the sons-of-bitches hadn't been tripping over each other to be bipartisan when Bush was driving us into a ditch.
Yes. Still, this is an indictment of the Democratic Party, not the Democratic Process. In my opinion, between this sentiment on the Left and the Tea Parties on the Right, the country's more ripe for a move away from bilateralism than it's been at any point since the Civil War, but Progressives are going to need to join hands with Glenn Beck to make it happen. The truth is, we're the ones who have to play catch-up; the Right has already suggested they're open to abandoning the GOP, and as crazy as the Tea Party would be it would be preferable to the corporate-dominated GOP we have now.
For the Left and Right to ally themselves briefly to simultaneously reject the corporate parties we currently have would be unequivocally a Good Thing, but either side could stand to lose a lot by a betrayal from the other; already the Left is giggling to itself over the electoral prospects of the Dems with a divided Right. Sadly, the U.S. currently too mistrustful to enable this. Gee, I wonder who benefits by promoting that!
Support for the public option was at 60%. Support for the bill that passed is around 40. The Republicans are being utterly disingenuous about WHY public support is so low, but they're right: the majority of the country opposes this bill.
And it's really unfortunate, because UHC really is a no-brainer. What I am trying to (glibly) explain is that the Left is going about explaining it the wrong way; the Right already thinks we're arrogant, and to speak about such a major issue as if it is self-evident, especially when so much is at stake, is doomed to failure.
-
The left is bad at getting things done, whereas the right is good at getting bad things done. Same old same old.
-
That isn't true at all. The left ended slavery while simultaneously industrializing the U.S. economy. The left ended the Great Depression while fighting the largest war in human history on two fronts and winning. The left is, for better or worse, perfectly capable of accomplishing things as well as the right; it's just that traditional leftist ideology is more prone to run afoul of the interests of the super-rich.
It isn't coincidence that Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was totally undermined by his own party* on the Vietnam War, whereas Bill Clinton had a tremendously successful presidency rife with deregulation.
*fun fact: Eugene McCarthy's presidential campaign was funded by six donors, and he would later go on to be a Plaintiff in Buckley v. Valeo, challenging restrictions on soft money campaign contributions
EDIT: I was curious, so I did some more research on some McCarthy contributors. Here are a few!
Charles Stewart Mott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stewart_Mott), in for $215,000 ($1,316,496 in 2008). All-around philanthropist and decent guy, from appearances, but member of the GM Board of Directors, Republican Mayor of Flint, and Michigan Elector at the Republican Convention of 1964. Draw your own conclusions, I guess.
Jack Dreyfus, Jr., son of Jack Dreyfus (http://), in for $500,000 ($3,061,620 in 2008). Details on Jr. are slim, but he worked for and inherited the fortune of his father, who basically invented the mutual fund.
-
That isn't true at all. The left ended slavery while simultaneously industrializing the U.S. economy.
Something to be proud of, here in the year of our lord 1871.
-
That isn't true at all. The left ended slavery while simultaneously industrializing the U.S. economy.
Something to be proud of, here in the year of our lord 1871.
Hey, he was speaking generally, too. The right sure was successful at using its leverage over all three branches of the federal government to outlaw abortion, yeah?
-
I read Norondor's quote more as a general lament for the fact that anyone could argue that the left of 1871 would actually beat the left of 2010 for progressiveness and accomplishments.
Anyway, the US has always looked more right-wing to the rest of the world than it has to itself. For whatever the hell THAT'S worth.
-
Now, now; the 14th Amendment holds up pretty well, I'd say!
-
Now, now; the 14th Amendment holds up pretty well, I'd say!
There's a joke in there somwhere about Section 4. :slow:
-
I'm more of a Section 8, myself.
-
The left is bad at getting things done, whereas the right is good at getting bad things done. Same old same old.
I agree with this statement, assuming it's only applying to the last 10 years.
-
The left is bad at getting things done, whereas the right is good at getting bad things done. Same old same old.
I agree with this statement, assuming it's only applying to the last 10 years.
Because the other Clinton administration was a shining pillar of accomplishment on Health Care Reform?
-
So I've had my head buried in these bills for the past few days, and although both bills require households to purchase health insurance, the government largely subsidizes it for households making $88,000/year or less. This will not translate into complete coverage unless you are below the poverty level, but that alone is a wonderful thing considering that's the group that didn't have coverage to begin with, and everyone pays substantially less.
For instance, after government subsidies the amount I would pay would be about $6,000 annually (House and Senate totals vary but I happen to be about at the intersection; the poor pay more and the middle class pays less under the Senate bill). For comparison, my employer currently pays $17,000 annually for the group plan of which I am a part.
Additionally, both plans require employers of a certain size to pay for employees' insurance; the House bill requires it based on total payroll ($500,000) and the Senate by total number of employees (50). These are both very low numbers. The vast majority of people would not even see the payments the government was not subsidizing, and while in some cases it may come out of their paychecks, this would be rare; most employers with group plans either charge their employees directly for shitty coverage or pay way more than either plan would mandate.
The biggest thing, though, is pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies may not adjust your premiums based on pre-existing conditions; I have not read the bill in all its fine print in its entirety at this point, granted, but I am ready to declare anything else a bald-faced lie. The only pre-existing factors that can change your premiums are age, geography, and size of household.
but zomg public option
-
Hey, that's nice, it sounds like it means anybody who works for a temp agency gets near-free health insurance now. Bottoms up, Thad.
(Though again, this is almost guaranteed to be the lowest level of care possible. Still, nobody can turn anybody away for not having insurance now.)
-
Hm. Well, with that in mind, I'll lean more towards the "better than nothing" crowd than I was before, but I'll still want to see how it looks after playing out in the real world for a few years.
-
Can you say Health Reform is dead? Repeat after me: Health reform is dead (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/brown-wins-kennedy-seat-in-massachusetts-erasing-democrats-60-seat-super-majority.php?ref=fpban).
So Scott Brown, a tea-party Republican just beat the pants off of Martha Coakly for Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. A tea-partier just took the seat of the liberal lion. With it goes the filibuster proof supermajority (as tenuous as it was), which was the only thing these weakass Dems had in their arsenal, apparently. Special note: Coakley had a 20-point lead on Brown a month ago.
Of course, Democrats are going to read this the wrong way. They'll see Brown's win as an indicator that they need to be more conservative, and drop the health care issue entirely for fear of it being political suicide. All the while not realizing that it was in fact the fact that they weren't being bold enough, not decisive enough, not commanding enough, dare I say not liberal enough that is scaring the public away. They got a huge political headwind, massive mandates and the public opinion firmly on their side. And they botched it. So now they'll think the entire debate was toxic, ditch it and lose hard in 2010. It's time for a whole new political party.
-
And people wonder why I don't care about politics.
-
Both political parties have pretty well alienated the center at this point. The logical end result of this would be a new party forming to represent that demographic, but we know that's not how this country works; it'll be interesting to see what the actual end result is.
My prediction for 2012? Centrists stage a coup d'etat and hijack the Republican party from the neocons, use it to crush the Dems, and set up a Presidency loosely based on the philosophies of Eisenhower. I never said it was a good prediction.
-
My prediction: things will continue to get worse and worse, forever, and there will never be any hope for anyone as corporatism runs rampant and people are continually crushed.
-
My prediction: we're going to see a violent coup orchestrated by radical conservative terrorists. The infrastructure will collapse, the wealthy will flee the country, and only the most malevolent and cruel of the religious right will be left, and they will rule this country they love with hate and anger, establishing themselves as the only salvation from Homosexuals and Al Gore. To maintain a strong, Christian America, they'll perform routine house-to-house cross checks, to make sure everybody is good and Christian.
This'll all happen by 2012.
-
My prediction: things will continue to get worse and worse, forever, and there will never be any hope for anyone as corporatism runs rampant and people are continually crushed.
and the people they shit on the most will beg to be shit on more.
-
Prediction: Those who know how to camp out, have a knack for helping others in bad times, have a decent rifle and ammunition in their locker at home, take the time to practice, and carry a stash of liquors and dried goods will do better than their neighbors who do not no matter how bad things get.
-
Kinda sucks that most of those guys are complete wackos I wouldn't trust with any kind of civilized society.
-
My prediction: puppies!
(http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo297/BBLegs/uU5ACg.jpg)
-
My prediction for 2012? Centrists stage a coup d'etat and hijack the Republican party from the neocons, use it to crush the Dems, and set up a Presidency loosely based on the philosophies of Eisenhower. I never said it was a good prediction.
That's not a prediction, that's a fantasy so hot I would whack off to it all day long if it happened.
-
MY PREDICTION: The US is going to suffer from imploding infrastructure and energy shortages that'll cripple the country unless massive centralization occurs, which would result in some massively authoritarian administration because they're good at fixing that. Somewhere between a military dictatorship or commies since Americans are inherently authoritarian. That's the largest possible political crisis that matches slavery in terms of political shifts that I can think of, anyway.
Remember, we went from FDR to Reagan in 40 years, so hope isn't totally lost. Maybe. Of course, political eschatology is silly anyway.
Not that that matters since Skynet will probably kill us all or we'll achieve space travel and start dropping asterioids on the planet by then.
-
My Prediction: Lot's of fun internet rage for me to read and watch over the next few months on YouTube and the various comments sections of the news sites that host this story. Already some really good nuggets in the linked story, actually. Watching people get pants shittingly angry over subjective shit like politics and philosophy is one of my very favorite things. I suppose it is sad that people may die as a result but the new world order is gonna have us all in concentration camps in a few decades anyways so :shrug:
-
Pffft. They've come a long way from concentration camps my boy :mahboi:
Someone figured out that better-than-life is way more effective.
-
My prediction: Senate Bill passes as-written before Brown takes his seat; Raul Grijalva gets really mad but shit is still way better than it would have been otherwise so Congress can fucking burn for all I care at this point
-
My prediction: Senate Bill passes as-written before Brown takes his seat; Raul Grijalva gets really mad but shit is still way better than it would have been otherwise so Congress can fucking burn for all I care at this point
Actually, this is what I too predict.
Because while the teabaggers would be pleased as punch if their new boy sunk that dastardly health care bill, everybody else has now committed to it.
It doesn't matter if the grudging supporters hate it or not, if they let it fall apart now they'll look like complete retards, not heroes.
I don't think passage of the bill is guaranteed by any means, but I'd give it better-than-even odds at least.
-
Democrats are going to drop health care like a radioactive shit-brick, get slaughtered in 2010 and by 2016 Presdent Palin will be building her Ruledome Mansion while the rest of us fight in crudely built gladiatorial cages for the privilege of eating something that isn't our own flesh.
-
Democrats are going to drop health care like a radioactive shit-brick, get slaughtered in 2010 and by 2016 Presdent Beck will be building his Ruledome Mansion while the rest of us fight in crudely built gladiatorial cages for the privilege of eating something that isn't our own flesh.
-
Democrats are going to drop health care like a radioactive shit-brick, get slaughtered in 2010 and by 2016 Queen Friday will be building her throne of babies while the rest of us are host to thousands upon thousands of glistening eggs.
-
My prediction for 2012? Centrists stage a coup d'etat and hijack the Republican party from the neocons, use it to crush the Dems, and set up a Presidency loosely based on the philosophies of Eisenhower. I never said it was a good prediction.
That's not a prediction, that's a fantasy so hot I would whack off to it all day long if it happened.
(http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/Bon_Bon_2009/scruffy-1.jpg)
-
Not caught up on the thread, but here's a post I whipped up on my break at work:
...going to be quick here, because if I actually say all I want to say about this it will take me hours and I will be very angry at the end of it. I would much rather spend that time playing Dragon Age and biking to the comic shop. (NOTE: I have since done these things.)
Here's what it's come to: Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/now-call-the-gops-bluff.html) is the only one who's making sense. Yes, I know. This is a likely sign that there is simply not enough oxygen getting to my brain. I HAVE stopped taking some of my valley fever meds since my private insurer told me I'd hit my annual limit.
But what Sully says is this:
Here's Eric Cantor's offer (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/cantor-best-route-to-bipartisan-compromise-is-for-dems-to-embrace-gop-health-plan/):
He noted the goals of getting rid of discrimination against those with preexisting conditions, producing more competition, and getting rid of “frivolous lawsuits,” adding: “We can do those things together.”
I asked Cantor if that was the full extent of the foundation for possible compromise. “Listen, we have to start somewhere,” he answered. “They now have found themselves in a cul de sac. They’re trying to find their way out. Republican have put a plan on the table that is the result of bipartisan agreement on some issues.”
The Republican concept of compromise is adoption of the McCain plan. Which does nothing significant to control costs and nothing to extend insurance to the working poor. Because McCain, remember, won the election. But the alternative? Nothing.
So in my view, Obama should agree. Why not salvage something? And in a stroke, you embrace a bill that clearly does nothing to solve the real problems, but you can simply say it's all that can be achieved in the current system and climate, given total Republican resistance to everything the president is trying to do, and the usual Democratic disarray, incompetence and mismanagement.
Then pivot immediately and strongly to the fiscal question and lay out a real plan to balance the budget with big long-term entitlement cuts, a hike in the retirement age, and a serious tax increase. And make the Republicans and Democrats vote it down as they surely will. If the system is going to destroy Obama and reform, then he should simply fight, fight, fight for real reform against the agendas of both parties. If he fails, so be it. But we know now that he cannot win by the usual methods. He cannot win in an alliance with a dysfunctional Democratic party. That system is broken. It can neither please its own base nor win over the middle nor do anything to counteract the total obstructionism of the far right, which is the only right we have left.
This stinging defeat should therefore be marshalled into a new reformist ferocity. In his SOTU next week, Obama needs to reiterate the need for real reform, which requires real bipartisanship. He should remind voters that he was elected to get things done, to avoid the old red-blue argument so desperately needed by the FNC/RNC. He should say he will adopt a minimalist health bill because doing nothing is worse. And then he should commit to restoring fiscal sanity. Tackling the long-term debt head-on is what Independents want, and what the economy needs for true confidence to return. By demanding entitlement cuts the Democrats don't want and tax increases the GOP hates, Obama can frame the future of his presidency.
And he may surely lose. But what we have seen is that by trying to make the current system work to solve deep problems, he loses anyway. The Democrats cannot unite; the Republicans simply want to destroy. Obama won the election with a new coalition; but he has had to govern through the existing system, which is essentially broken beyond repair. Hence he is as stranded as the country.
And again, I want to say that's crazy, because Andrew Sullivan. But it seems to me like the best option at this point: bring a bill to the table that does the minimum, and probably the single most important thing in the current bills: make insurers quit denying people with preexisting conditions. Keep it that simple, and dare anyone to vote nay. Chip away a handful of Republicans and get it passed. Everybody gets something: the Dems can say they listened to the American people; the Republicans can say they forced those filthy socialists to back down; and people with preexisting conditions get to live. Provided they can afford private insurance.
Then focus on the economy. Get it turned around by '12 and the Dems get another chance. Yeah, the last time they gave up and decided they'd try again later it took three more presidential terms to even talk about it again, but I think if Obama manages to avoid fucking any interns he might be able to accomplish what Clinton didn't: anything in his second term.
Am I wrong? I can't think of any reason besides "It might not work and we might be totally fucked." But that pretty much applies to EVERY scenario at this point.
--
I will also add that, since writing that, I've watched Monday's Daily Show. I'm not caught up on the thread and somebody probably already posted it, but Stewart says pretty much absolutely everything I have to say on the subject (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards).
-
would that TORT REFORM that the right keeps yelling about actually help?
(my guess is NO)
-
The "Tort Reform" that the Right is constantly yelling about is an arbitrary cap on compensatory damages. It serves no sane purpose, and will only fuck over people who have been hurt by their doctors.
-
It really does depend on what kind of tort reform passes, because the sheer amount of medical insurance a surgeon has to take out can be upwards of half his salary, even if he's never been convicted of malpractice in a decades-long career. Add to that the costs of purchasing and maintaining equipment, and it's not hard to see that as a substantial reason for procedural cost.
-
The reason medical insurance is expensive is that if you wreck someone and lose the resulting malpractice suit, you need to pay for the continuing lifetime medical expenses caused by you wrecking that person. Which is a good thing. If you take out the wrong kidney, you should have to pay for the expenses that incurs.
You want to bring malpractice insurance down to insignificant levels? Single-payer. No personal medical expenses means no large compensatory damages.
-
You want to bring malpractice insurance down to insignificant levels? Make sure nobody ever loses any money on the stock market again, because malpractice insurance is usually provided by companies that invest the premiums.
Also, med mal costs (judgments, settlements, court fees, etc.) amount to 30 billion annually out of a 2 trillion health care industry.
lol AMA
(@TA lawyer ^5)
It's also worth mentioning that in the case of the guy who has the wrong kidney removed, tort reform doesn't cause his newfound medical expenses to disapppear. If he doesn't collect, care to fancy a guess as to who picks up the tab?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMlPE1lV_5Y
It's the kind of laughter where I cry.
-
Is that TF2 without weapons?
-
Slightly off topic: am I the only Yankee here who's got an individual rather than a group plan? So far it's been fucking fantastic to me and it makes me wonder sometimes if the problem most people have is more with the middleman than the insurers themselves. The companies that are given to treating their employees like shit in the first place are naturally going to elect the most bottom-of-the-barrel crap they can scrape up, thrust it on their employees as a take-it-or-leave-it option, and call it a day. I've had to deal with some fucking pathetic jokes for coverage in the past (which is why it's costing so much now to fix) and if not for my destitute-but-not-unrewarding stint as a freelancer I'd have never even considered buying it direct to even be a viable option. When I tell the people where I work now that I probably wouldn't consider taking the corporate plan unless it was all-but-free they just blink (though Pana is patently not a company that treats its employees like shit, so maybe it is an amazing plan. Won't know till they formally hire me, though I did hear they go through Aetna so I'm already wary.) I suppose being able to pick a plan that makes some sort of actual sense for my specific needs helps too. For all the bellyaching I hear from Americans about choice of coverage, I imagine maybe only one in ten doing anything besides being a mushroom, eating whatever bullshit is dropped on them or just going hungry if the bullshit isn't immediately within reach.
-
How lucky for you, being able to get individual coverage at all. Many people simply can't.
-
My medical history starts with "cystic fibrosis" across the top, crossed out and replaced by "undiagnosed chronic lung disease". Nobody ever seems to give me any guff about it, except for my understandably twitchy general physicians.
-
My medical history contains the word "hypertension". I've tried; I can't get individual coverage anywhere for any price.
-
:OoO:
Well, anyway, that's going to be illegal in a couple of months, so save up.
-
This Article (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2515724) which depicts Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams going to an undisclosed location in the states for urgent heart treatment might soon become a major debating piece in your health care debate.
Of all our premiers, Danny Williams is the most charismatic and widely respected by citizens of all political stripes across Canada for his "tell it as it is attitude", and ability to haggle. Expect to see this more and more on Conservative radio and television on the dangers of government subsidized health care, regardless of the form of the bill in the house right now.
-
Noticed that.
I must say that I'm just terribly disappointed in Danny. For cardiac procedures, he could have had care that was just as good as that in any US hospital in a larger Canadian centre.
The one thing that has been raised is that the only real difference is that in a high-end US facility the personal suite would have been much bigger (i.e. Canada doesn't have 'luxury hospitals'). But the standard of care - and all the wait times I've seen quoted - are close enough to the higher US standard that I can only see this as a really bad move on his part. This goes double for a man who took a strong public stand in favour of Canadian health care.
A real leader must sometimes risk himself to show his grit to those he rules. And staying in Canada for the surgery was no bloody risk at all. The whole thing stinks of hypocrisy and fear.
-
The title says it all: Obama's One Trillion Dollar Last Gasp At Health Reform (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/obamas-1-trillion-last-gasp-attempt-at-health-reform/article1476910/)
Discuss?
-
My thoughts: I think this may end very badly, but that giving up never really was an option. If the man has a personal belief that the health system needs reform, well, he's going to keep fighting, regardless of the cost to himself.
Once I realized that he's willing to throw the entire Democratic Party under the bus if that's what it takes to provide health reform, my respect level for Obama simultaneously fell and rose. It's all going to depend on how long it'll take for those same party members to cotton on to that.
-
One of Wichita's redeeming features is that on the last Friday in the month, a lot of the art galleries downtown have free shows, and crowds of people show up to check 'em out. We did this tonight.
One of the reasons Wichita needs to be redeemed in the first place: we drove past this church on our way home.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r40/jsnlxndrlv/WichitaChurch.jpg)
I do not expect that Obama's new plan will improve this situation.
-
To be fair I would actually rather those guys exercised their choice to get sick and die.
-
christian center
:barf:
-
Their logo makes me think of alcohol, not Christianity.
-
Their logo reminds me of Alcatholicism
-
Their logo reminds me of Alcatholicism
God, what a great concept
-
My BC CareCard arrived in the mail today. :glee:
-
Just remember, if you get in a particularly nasty scrape, bring a book, or take an acting class in how to be hysterically in pain. This is true life experience
-
That's probably true of any province, innit?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhYtMmw9OVk
House passes Senate reform bill and reconciliation bill (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/dems-pass-historic-health-care-bill.php?ref=fpban)
219-212 on HCR
220-211 on the fix.
-
Oh, that's good. I tried watching the coverage, but my brains started leaking out of my nose after they mentioned buying abortions the 500th time.
-
Emotions sure ran high. Did you guys see how bad it got earlier today? (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/washington-turns-ugly-before-historic-health-care-vote/article1507095/)
" I heard people saying things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to try to get off the back of the bus. ”
— Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn
-
Yeah, unable to save face anymore the teabaggers just opened up their true colors. The thing is, this whole thing has been a net boon for the Democrats. If they can keep it up and not screw the pooch after this, we might have a real, functioning government.
-
so yeah way behind on thread but...yeah, they passed it.
Ultimately, I still pretty much hate the final bill, but must grudgingly acknowledge that it is better than the current system.
Also, politically, it's pretty much the only way the Dems could have saved any face at this point.
It even earned them some grudging respect from the Usual Gang of Idiots. My grandma had Fox News on, and Geraldo was saying something to the effect of "Look, love it or hate it, it passed, we're all Americans, and now we need to work together to make it work."
-
So now everyone is just going to sit around like "... so uh.. what do we fight about next?"
-
Still healthcare with a dash of economic reform. Civil rights wasn't one bill, and neither will be health care. There's still a lot to do.
-
Signs point to:
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7103/ad714236st1sz170sq11735.jpg)
The Teabaggers have already started pushing blanket repeal, without even so much as an alternative replacement (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/03/21/happy-warriors-still/).
-
Yeah, they really don't understand how laws get passed.
Anyway. Still has to go to the Senate for reconciliation, right?
-
Not quite. What was passed today was the Senate bill, exactly. That goes to Obama to sign, and is a done deal.
The House is sending a separate sidecar bill, containing changes to this bill, to the Senate for reconciliation.
-
Teabaggers confound me. They literally have no idea what they're fighting for.
-
So my girlfriend woke me up this morning to tell me she's going to have to come up with another excuse for not moving back to America now.
It's far from the perfect bill in anybody's eyes, but a whole bunch of people's lives will improve when this thing finally gets signed and made law, and I think that's enough for this to count as a victory. :victory: :hi5: :itsmagic:
-
Teabaggers confound me. They literally have no idea what they're fighting for.
They are doing the work of their messiahs Beck and Limbaugh.
-
Teabaggers confound me. They literally have no idea what they're fighting for.
Having talked to a few of them who always attend these things when they can (one of which drove to attend the one in a nearby state) they seem to operate on a fear not of the healthcare bill but what it could potentially blossom into. At least a couple of them mentioned their belief that this wasn't about healthcare but more about destroying the middle class by forcing companies to buy health insurance for full time employees. The argument is that poor people vote democrat thus it is in the democrats best interest to make more people poor. Some real conspiracy, evil empire shit. The idea is that these companies will lay off a bunch of their full time workers to cover the cost of buying health insurance for the rest or that these costs will increase the number of people who won't be hired. The people who get layed off go on welfare and become democrats, solidifying the power base. That seems to be the most legitimate of the worries and the only thing it is missing is reptillian people from another galaxy trying to enslave us. Overall, they seem to be protesting progressive and communist bogeymen, using the bill as a focal point for their fear. That is what I am getting from them, anyways.
-
One of the side effects of eternal vigilance is that you start to get real twitchy after sitting in one spot and staring for 200 years.
-
Dammit, got my first summons to appear before a death panel today. First going to determine whether I'm fit to live, then evaluate if I need to attend a socialist re-education camp.
-
That Brain Slug probably isn't going to help matters, either.
Or will it?
-
...my panel let me exempt and gave me this free hat...
(PDB: The logic is based off the continuance of a welfare state to support the bureaucrats, where examples appear in Palestine, Africa (under cover of aid agencies), and near-bankrupt California. While I do hold their version to have merit that bureaucracies are good for nurturing bureaucracy (right now, I'm fighting one of these ever-growing things and it took me 3 months and 3 doctors appointments to find out that I need a doctor's note in order to work this summer for something special, not that I'm bitter), I cannot see their underlying theory as a vote-maker for the Dem's to be valid. While your nations GDP tells one tale, your GDI shows that the democrats should already have a huge userbase - not the case in recent byelections)
-
Teabaggers confound me. They literally have no idea what they're fighting for.
Having talked to a few of them who always attend these things when they can (one of which drove to attend the one in a nearby state) they seem to operate on a fear not of the healthcare bill but what it could potentially blossom into. At least a couple of them mentioned their belief that this wasn't about healthcare but more about destroying the middle class by forcing companies to buy health insurance for full time employees. The argument is that poor people vote democrat thus it is in the democrats best interest to make more people poor. Some real conspiracy, evil empire shit. The idea is that these companies will lay off a bunch of their full time workers to cover the cost of buying health insurance for the rest or that these costs will increase the number of people who won't be hired. The people who get layed off go on welfare and become democrats, solidifying the power base. That seems to be the most legitimate of the worries and the only thing it is missing is reptillian people from another galaxy trying to enslave us. Overall, they seem to be protesting progressive and communist bogeymen, using the bill as a focal point for their fear. That is what I am getting from them, anyways.
Both sides believe that the other side's leaders are intentionally misleading their voter base in order to gain more power and wealth, while the voters themselves are emotionally and intellectually weak followers who don't question anything their leaders say because they truly believe their leaders have the people's best interest in mind.
That makes sense.
-
Not quite. What was passed today was the Senate bill, exactly. That goes to Obama to sign, and is a done deal.
The House is sending a separate sidecar bill, containing changes to this bill, to the Senate for reconciliation.
Rightright, 'swhat I meant.
About a dozen states are filing constitutional challenges. You're the lawyer, so you can tell me if I'm talking out my ass, but here's the way I see it:
Their argument is "This is a tax on people just for living, which is unconstitutional." Which is fucking asinine and will never pass legal muster.
I DO think there's constitutional concern over the very fact that this ISN'T government healthcare -- this isn't a tax on people at all, it's a mandate for them to patronize a specific private industry. Which I DO think is a bad thing.
But I also don't think any Republican will ever make that legal argument.
-
I DO think there's constitutional concern over the very fact that this ISN'T government healthcare -- this isn't a tax on people at all, it's a mandate for them to patronize a specific private industry. Which I DO think is a bad thing.
Just like car insurance!
-
...I assume you are aware there is a difference between having to buy insurance on an object which you do not technically need to own in order to survive and having to buy insurance on your own existence.
-
i keep hearing "BLURF DERF IT WILL COST 7% OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME" about the required insurance.
i have a strange feeling that the precentage of income that most people's CURRENT HEALTHCARE costs is more than 7%
EDIT: looks like my state's attorney general is piling onto that "YOU CANT FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE" suit.
-
2.2% of my net take, and keep in mind that I am apparently super lucky.
Anyway, fun story: at the gym in front of the treadmills today there were two TV screens set next to each other. One was set to CNN, the other to FOX news. On CNN, Michael Moore was badmouthing the health care bill; on FOX, Sarah Palin was badmouthing the health care bill. By the time I was off the treadmill, Moore had slipped into proposing full-on Communism and Paling had slipped into proposing full-on Racial Purity.
The moral of this story is that the people decrying the bill on both sides are kind of insane I need to find a gym that stops spiking my blood pressure when I'm already trying to regulate my heartbeat.
Alternately start going to the gym since I seem to be the only person in America who can actually afford to get fat.
-
2.2% of my net take, and keep in mind that I am apparently super lucky.
Is this individual, or from your work? If the latter, are you counting the amount that your employer is paying for your policy?
-
This is individual. I'd give you the numbers but I'm not entirely comfortable with putting my exact salary information out on the internet.
-
Not quite. What was passed today was the Senate bill, exactly. That goes to Obama to sign, and is a done deal.
The House is sending a separate sidecar bill, containing changes to this bill, to the Senate for reconciliation.
Rightright, 'swhat I meant.
About a dozen states are filing constitutional challenges. You're the lawyer, so you can tell me if I'm talking out my ass, but here's the way I see it:
Their argument is "This is a tax on people just for living, which is unconstitutional." Which is fucking asinine and will never pass legal muster.
I DO think there's constitutional concern over the very fact that this ISN'T government healthcare -- this isn't a tax on people at all, it's a mandate for them to patronize a specific private industry. Which I DO think is a bad thing.
But I also don't think any Republican will ever make that legal argument.
It won't work. This is a Necessary and Proper Clause issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich#Scalia.27s_opinion
The feds can appropriate whatever powers they want from the states if not doing so would make the regulation of interstate commerce impossible. The states, for their part, can make you buy insurance; MA does just that.
(imo)
At any rate, mandating coverage the only solution that does not involve completely dismantling the insurance industry, and though you might entertain fantasies of eliminating one of the largest subsections of an industry that comprises 1/6th of the American economy, I am pretty sure your 401(k) would tell you to Fuck Right Off.
Public option would be swell, and that crazy "Republicans want you to die" dude from Florida has already submitted a bill. I think that's a bit premature; we owe it to the skepticism to show that UHC works before we go further. But hey, that's just me.
Incidentally, the package of benefits for which my employer pays is equal to about 18-20% of my yearly salary. Being able to pocket the difference might be wishful thinking, though :(
-
Public option would be swell, and that crazy "Republicans want you to die" dude from Florida has already submitted a bill. I think that's a bit premature; we owe it to the skepticism to show that UHC works before we go further. But hey, that's just me.
I feel like whatever debt we owe to that skepticism is satisfied by the entire rest of the first world over the past 50 years. This is not new ground being tread, this is a game of catch-up, and while definitely a very good thing, this bill only gets us as far as "1880s Germany".
-
Public option would be swell, and that crazy "Republicans want you to die" dude from Florida has already submitted a bill. I think that's a bit premature; we owe it to the skepticism to show that UHC works before we go further. But hey, that's just me.
I feel like whatever debt we owe to that skepticism is satisfied by the entire rest of the first world over the past 50 years. This is not new ground being tread, this is a game of catch-up, and while definitely a very good thing, this bill only gets us as far as "1880s Germany".
it's almost like i think liberals should be gracious and not act like entitled douchebags upon achieving their single biggest policy victory in 45 years
Let me put it this way: if 1) you believe, as I do, that America will benefit from this bill in many ways almost immediately, 2) the additional benefits of a public option will primarily focus on driving costs further down, rather than the immediate concerns of actually improving coverage and care, and 3) there are a lot of people in Congress who wanted the public option and if it could have been included in this bill, it would have, what harm is there in waiting a few years for UHC to become more popular?
As an aside, I do think it's funny how people are crying about how this is a huge corporate handout and the Democrats are totally in bed with big business as if
-this is news
-delivering insurance companies 32 million new customers, most of whom are very low income, is going to totally wash over the hit they're going to take on no longer being able to deny/adjust coverage based on medical conditions, avoid caps on premiums, avoid negotiating with parties with actual leverage, etc.
-the entire back half of the bill doesn't give a gleeful ass-fuck to the banking industry by repealing FFELP
To top it all off, Mitt Romney's political career is over. It's a Red-Letter Day, friends!
-
At any rate, mandating coverage the only solution that does not involve completely dismantling the insurance industry, and though you might entertain fantasies of eliminating one of the largest subsections of an industry that comprises 1/6th of the American economy, I am pretty sure your 401(k) would tell you to Fuck Right Off.
Oh. Yeah. My 401(k).
Public option would be swell, and that crazy "Republicans want you to die" dude from Florida has already submitted a bill. I think that's a bit premature; we owe it to the skepticism to show that UHC works before we go further. But hey, that's just me.
Yeah, I've always thought that what healthcare needed was more deliberation. I just can't handle the breakneck pace it's taken over the past seven decades.
it's almost like i think liberals should be gracious and not act like entitled douchebags upon achieving their single biggest policy victory in 45 years
Oh, come ON now. It's a set of modest improvements constituting a fraction of a fraction of what we actually wanted, or what the rest of the industrialized world has already done.
Entitled? Yeah, I guess I DO feel that way. I feel like I'm entitled to go to a goddamn doctor, have him figure out what the hell is wrong with me, and fix it, without worrying that my annual coverage limit is going to run out before the year's half the hell over. I see now what a douchebag I have been, what with my recent trip to the ER because the doctor thought my brain might be swelling and causing seizures. (It wasn't, by the way. So obviously I should have just walked it off rather than act like an entitled douchebag about it.)
Let me put it this way: if 1) you believe, as I do, that America will benefit from this bill in many ways almost immediately,
If you define "almost immediately" as 2-4 years down the road. Or "many" as "not really very many".
2) the additional benefits of a public option will primarily focus on driving costs further down, rather than the immediate concerns of actually improving coverage and care,
Yes.
and 3) there are a lot of people in Congress who wanted the public option and if it could have been included in this bill, it would have
No.
The Democrats screwed the pooch on this from day one. Obama stood back while Reid and Rangel dithered, they started with a compromise bill instead of asking for more than they wanted, they ceded the moral high ground and watched a popular bill turn unpopular based on lies told by crazy people, and they slobbed Lieberman's knob rather than point out that he was willing to let 150,000 people die (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_150000_life_health-care_pl.html) to feed his ego. When Obama finally DID start standing up for the bill, it was to say that well, the public option wasn't really that important, and anyway he didn't campaign on it even though it was specifically listed as part of his campaign platform.
The Democrats fucked this one up in nearly every way possible; it seems like it's a miracle that this thing passed, but that's only because they've bungled it so badly. A year ago at this time, it was considered a foregone conclusion that a much more comprehensive bill would pass.
Oh, and they have enough votes to get the public option through on reconciliation. But they won't, because then Republicans might accuse them of ramming an undemocratic socialist bill through Congress against the will of the people.
what harm is there in waiting a few years for UHC to become more popular?
I'll get back to you when I see the numbers on how many people died or went bankrupt while we sat back and waited.
I recently spent a Saturday as the least sick person waiting for care in the ER. I do not recommend the experience, but it does tend to provide a certain perspective on the whole "let's just wait and see how this plays out" line of thinking.
As an aside, I do think it's funny how people are crying about how this is a huge corporate handout and the Democrats are totally in bed with big business as if
-this is news
I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with the thread, so I'll forego the strawman emote on the assumption that you are actually talking about somebody in this thread.
I do believe I have stated -- in this thread, even! -- that being totally unsurprised by something does not remove your ability to think it fucking sucks.
-delivering insurance companies 32 million new customers, most of whom are very low income,
and federally subsidized
is going to totally wash over the hit they're going to take on no longer being able to deny/adjust coverage based on medical conditions
This is possibly the single most important thing in the bill and I'm certainly not going to argue with it.
avoid caps on premiums
Is that annual, or just lifetime?
avoid negotiating with parties with actual leverage
Because if there's one thing I trust the US government to do, it's drive hard bargains with medical providers and keep costs down. Now if you'll excuse me, I just have to check how much of the $350 I spent on prescriptions last month my insurance will cover.
-the entire back half of the bill doesn't give a gleeful ass-fuck to the banking industry by repealing FFELP
That's swell and all, but doesn't really have anything to do with the insurance industry.
To top it all off, Mitt Romney's political career is over.
Oh. Yeah. Mitt Romney's political career.
-
2) the additional benefits of a public option will primarily focus on driving costs further down, rather than the immediate concerns of actually improving coverage and care,
Yes.
Obama decided the public option isn't really all that important because it isn't really all that important.
Also, the premium caps are annual. Will link to the language when I get a chance but iirc it's in the section about exchanges; said caps are, astonishingly, the entire point of said exchanges!
Oh, also, lolz over histrionics were not directed at anyone in this thread (unless somebody here has a blog at firedoglake or something).
-
Pretty sure there's also abolition of lifetime caps in there too. Both are important.
-
The most hilarious bat-shit insane comment about this whole thing I think comes from Sen. McCain. ""There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year. They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."
-
Oh, wow, that's crazy. Did he say that after the 2008 elections?
-
I think it was Gibbs, but it might've been Axelrod, who responded with something along the lines of "So they're not going to work with us on anything? That doesn't really sound like a change in their schedules."
-
A few things, after now that I have a bit more time (though not much):
I'll get back to you when I see the numbers on how many people died or went bankrupt while we sat back and waited.
I recently spent a Saturday as the least sick person waiting for care in the ER. I do not recommend the experience, but it does tend to provide a certain perspective on the whole "let's just wait and see how this plays out" line of thinking.
Please explain how the public option would immediately make medical coverage more expansive and cheaper for the individual than the current bill.
The Democrats screwed the pooch on this from day one. Obama stood back while Reid and Rangel dithered, they started with a compromise bill instead of asking for more than they wanted, they ceded the moral high ground and watched a popular bill turn unpopular based on lies told by crazy people, and they slobbed Lieberman's knob rather than point out that he was willing to let 150,000 people die to feed his ego. When Obama finally DID start standing up for the bill, it was to say that well, the public option wasn't really that important, and anyway he didn't campaign on it even though it was specifically listed as part of his campaign platform.
Yes, this is exactly why the House passed a bill with the public option and was almost ready to kill the whole thing because the Senate bill didn't; clearly the fact that 3 or 4 Democratic senators and Joe Lieberman were able to kill the public option means not a one of the other 270 or so Democrat Congressmen were serious about it, not that Senate parliamentary procedure is kind of fucked and UHC is, for better or worse, an extremely contentious issue on which a lot of good people have gambled their political careers.
Entitled? Yeah, I guess I DO feel that way. I feel like I'm entitled to go to a goddamn doctor, have him figure out what the hell is wrong with me, and fix it, without worrying that my annual coverage limit is going to run out before the year's half the hell over. I see now what a douchebag I have been, what with my recent trip to the ER because the doctor thought my brain might be swelling and causing seizures. (It wasn't, by the way. So obviously I should have just walked it off rather than act like an entitled douchebag about it.)
See, it's things like this that really make me wonder if you've read the bill, or even summaries of the bill.
-
What does the Health Care bill do for you? (http://"http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/21/us/health-care-reform.html")
Notably, lifetime premiums/caps are abolished, and basic health care plans covering at least 60% of medical expenses are mandated through exchanges with annual premiums capped at 9.5% of a household's income (subsidies for payment apply if said household makes less than 400% of the poverty level). Insurers must also offer additional plans that cover up to 90% of costs via exchanges, as well, though they may go above 9.5% (my understanding is the subsidies still apply up to the 9.5%-of-income threshold even if you take a 90% coverage plan; you just make up the difference on your own).
If your employer offers a plan, you must accept it unless said plan covers less than 60% of your medical expenses OR it costs you more than 9.5% of your income; if that is the case, you are free to purchase your own appropriately-subsidized health care through the exchanges. This is the solution to the Walmart problem Taibbi mentioned where employees with shitty health plans are stuck with them.
So, premiums are effectively capped by individual household income, basically.
-
If your employer offers a plan, you must accept it unless said plan covers less than 60% of your medical expenses OR it costs you more than 9.5% of your income;
Wait, so if it meets those minimum standards, I can't keep my own? Or am I completely misreading your summary?
Because my personal plan is way fucking better than that, Jesus.
-
If your employer offers a plan, you must accept it unless said plan covers less than 60% of your medical expenses OR it costs you more than 9.5% of your income;
Wait, so if it meets those minimum standards, I can't keep my own? Or am I completely misreading your summary?
Because my personal plan is way fucking better than that, Jesus.
No, you can take your own plan if you want, but you won't qualify for subsidies/exchange access if you do. I'm not sure about that, honestly. I'd do more research on it if I were you.
EDIT: Actually, I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to you, since if I'm not mistaken you aren't a full-time employee of a company with 50 or more employees. If you make less than $44k/year or so (400% of the poverty line for a 1-person household) you can go through the exchange program and qualify for subsidies, if you choose.
-
From the CBO report on the bill:
CBO and JCT’s analysis of exchange premiums has also taken into account the availability of a public plan through those exchanges in some states. Premiums for the public plan as structured under the proposal would typically be somewhat higher than the average premiums of private plans offered in the exchanges.
• A public plan as structured in the proposal would probably attract a substantial number of enrollees, in part because it would include a broad network of providers and would be likely to engage in only limited management of its health care benefits. (CBO and JCT estimate that total enrollment in the public plan would be about 3 million to 4 million in 2016.) As a result, it would add some competitive pressure in the exchanges in areas that are currently served by a limited number of private insurers, thereby lowering private premiums to a small degree. By itself, that development would tend to increase average premiums in the exchanges—but a public plan would probably tend to reduce slightly the premiums of the private plans against which it is competing, for two reasons:
• A public plan is also apt to attract enrollees who are less healthy than average (again, because it would include a broad network of providers and would probably engage in limited management of benefits). Although the payments that all plans in the exchanges receive would be adjusted to account for differences in the health of their enrollees, the methods used
make such adjustments are imperfect. As a result, the higher costs of those less healthy enrollees in the public plan would probably be offset partially but not entirely; the rest of the added costs would have to be reflected in the public plan’s premiums. Correspondingly, the costs and premiums of competing private plans would, on average, be slightly lower than if no public plan was available.
Those factors would reduce the premiums of private plans in the exchanges to a small degree, but the effect on the average premium in the exchanges would be offset by the higher premium of the public plan itself. On balance, therefore, the provisions regarding a public plan would not have a substantial effect on the average premiums paid in the exchanges.
So yeah, not really that big a deal.
-
EDIT: Actually, I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to you, since if I'm not mistaken you aren't a full-time employee of a company with 50 or more employees. If you make less than $44k/year or so (400% of the poverty line for a 1-person household) you can go through the exchange program and qualify for subsidies, if you choose.
I'm actually a permatemp and am kind of wondering how all that's going to be affected; there's no actual insurance through the agency right now, but it seems that's 7 kinds of illegal now? Or not? It's really confusing!
I'd figure it out myself but I barely have time to jerk off these days, so I complain about it on the internet until someone digests it for me.
-
What does the Health Care bill do for you? (http://"http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/21/us/health-care-reform.html")
[...]
If your employer offers a plan, you must accept it unless said plan covers less than 60% of your medical expenses OR it costs you more than 9.5% of your income
In other words, the bill does fuck-all for me. Because I'm too sick for my insurance to cover all my meds and not sick enough to be eligible for the exchange.
What's this I hear about fixing donut holes?
-
What's this I hear about fixing donut holes?
The donut hole is the Coverage Gap for Medicare-covered prescription drug plans, whether standalone or as part of a Medicare Advantage package. In 2010, the Initial Coverage period ends once you and your plan pay a combined total of $2830; you then get no further Rx assistance until you've paid a total of $4550 out of your own pocket (or the year ends). This is what's eventually being eliminated.
EDIT: Try this article (http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/medicare/a/understanding_part_d.htm) for a better explanation.
This is the thing that most affects me, in that this makes my job a lot easier.
-
Because I'm too sick for my insurance to cover all my meds and not sick enough to be eligible for the exchange.
Any sentence that involves "too sick" or "not sick enough" is not relevant to this discussion unless it also includes the words "no longer relevant to your coverage".
The only people who are not elgible for the exchange are
1) undocumented aliens
2) prisoners
3) unicorns
and your health never enters into the equation AT ALL; the entire point of the exchanges is to make the process as blind and "negotiation"-free as possible. Once you are on a plan, the only reason an insurer may drop you is non-payment (remember the poor are subsidized) and the only factors that may adjust your premiums are:
1) age (the elderly may be charged up to 3 times as much as the young, which is substantially less than today for private insurance)
2) geographic area (I understand the rationale here but am critical nonetheless)
3) whether you are a smoker (though you can only be charged 1.5x as much, in a staggering victory for [strike]Big Tobacco[/strike] me)
and
4) the size of your household (which is totally fair I think and offset by the fact that the size of your household determines where your income falls relative to the poverty line, which dictates your % costs)
Though fulltime employees of large (50+ FT employees) employers offering health care with at least 60% cost coverage and a premium cap of 9.5% of your annual income (a great deal of which will be subsidized for you by the government if you make less than 400% of the poverty line) who REFUSE that coverage are not elgible for government subsidies when purchasing insurance through the exchanges.
In general, our HC system now more-closely resembles the Japanese system than any other.
If I am wrong about this feel free to correct me.
-
Ahhh-har. Thank you for the explanation; it is informative!
I will acknowledge that you've obviously studied this stuff closer than I have -- though I HAVE read multiple studies, and I'm not just shooting from the hip here either.
Seems to me that we basically agree (bill is improvement, would like to see more improvement) and are merely quibbling about hypotheticals.
@Newb: Yeah, I know what the Medicare donut hole was. My reading of Paco's post was that I was sitting directly in the middle of a NEW donut hole. He has explained that this is not the case, which if true is good news for me.
Although I sincerely hope not to be sick/on the same insurance by the time the exchanges open anyway.
-
Well, honestly, I am overall pretty happy with the the bill as-is; single-payer would have been nice, sure, but completely nationalizing a large portion of such a huge industry would wreak havoc with peoples' savings as common shareholders were wiped out. I also would have liked to see more specifics about provisions for preventative care (particularly pre-natal care, given that our infant mortality rate is at best embarassing), but I suppose we will just have to see how the community health centers pan out.
I think I will make a Q&A thread!
-
Not to mention that abortion is only covered if you plan to have an abortion in advance.
Q&A thread's a good idea. I do my homework but I'm not a lawyer.
-
Tripp Palin has government provided Health Insurance (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/granny-palin-overcomes-he_b_470297.html).
-
(http://www.letsbefriendsagain.com/comics/2010-02-13.jpg)
-
So, funny story: Obama promised the lobbyists there would be no public option, pretty much from the beginning. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html)
On Monday, Ed Shultz interviewed New York Times Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick on his MSNBC TV show, and Kirkpatrick confirmed the existence of the deal. Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn's confidence that the White House would honor the no public option deal, and Kirkpatrick responded:
"That's a lobbyist for the hospital industry and he's talking about the hospital industry's specific deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee and, yeah, I think the hospital industry's got a deal here. There really were only two deals, meaning quid pro quo handshake deals on both sides, one with the hospitals and the other with the drug industry. And I think what you're interested in is that in the background of these deals was the presumption, shared on behalf of the lobbyists on the one side and the White House on the other, that the public option was not going to be in the final product."
But it was totally worth it to get all that support from the hospital and drug industries.
-
What I've been reading is not that Obama promised this, but that Rahm Emmanuel was running around making these promises behind Obama's back.
-
Rahm Emmanuel still has a job. If he were running around undermining Obama's authority, well, if he'd been a four-star general he'd have gotten fired.
-
Yesterday, I had to go to the feed store and buy fish amoxicillian to deal with my strep throat infection because I can't afford a doctor.
Today, I came into work, and we're apparently doing a fundraiser for a local girl who has stage 2 lymphoma (at age 24!) whose insurance dropped her when she tried to get chemo.
Sure am glad Oklahoma has decided to opt out of health care reform! Can't have that socialism, guys. Repeal it! hurr durr hurr.
-
You should just work harder at your job and then you could afford a doctor. Bootstraps!
-
You should just work harder at your job and then you could afford
I've always wondered why we can't tell wealthy America to do that.
-
That was among the more radical idea proposed here. That universal coverage be reduced or eliminated for the wealthy.
So in your case, you'd be extending medicare.
Of course, I'd prefer to keep it universal, while raising overall tax rates on the wealthy instead, but the Scandinavian part of my genes isn't exactly representative of the majority of North Americans, sooooo...
-
I thought that's exactly what we ended up doing.
-
Well, sort of. I think you guys stopped a little short (the Canadian suggestion would have seen almost all the middle class remain fully covered).
Anyway. Never mind the fact that Obamacare won't be fully active for years. Let's wait and see how much fight it'll take to prevent a repeal.
-
The middle class is just something the American poor calls itself to feel better.
-
Fair point.
Hell, it's just about the same here anyway.
-
Anyway. Never mind the fact that Obamacare won't be fully active for years. Let's wait and see how much fight it'll take to prevent a repeal.
Obama's got a veto pen and there's no way a veto-proof majority passes repeal. Hell, in the Senate there's no way a SIMPLE majority passes repeal.
The Republicans know that and they're more likely just to filibuster any budget that includes funding for it.
I think we really ARE looking at a replay of the Class of '94 Let's Shut Down the Government Because We Have a Mandate foolishness. The two major questions are, are the Republicans dumb enough to do it AGAIN, and are the Democrats smart enough to let them?
-
Yes, No.
-
If repeal even came up for vote, I could honestly see a lot of republican veterans abstaining, esp. those who aren't up for re-election for a while. There can't really be anyone experienced in congress who actually thinks reform isn't going to become extremely popular in 2014 when it actually takes effect, and it sounds like 'voted to take away health care for cancer survivors' or 'voted to take away health care for veterans with congenital heart failure' would be a great sound bite once Fox and the republican media machine can't bullshit their way around things anymore.
This is literally the same fucking thing that happened with social security and medicare, which is why Republicans want to repeal it so goddamn bad in the first place.
-
Virginia judge strikes down mandate portion of the health care bill as unconstitutional (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)
Said judge is literally in the GOP pocket and is part-owner in campaign firm that helped out John Boehner, Michelle Bachman and John McCain (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm.php?ref=fpblg)
Republicans denounce the ruling as the result of judicial activism.
-
literally
::(:
Which isn't to say that I don't love the idea that the Republicans have an enormous pair of pants somewhere, and when they need to bribe somebody they just fill it with cash, kidnap the person to be bribed, and then remove their blindfold while they're standing in an enormous pants pocket full of money.
-
You have to willfully misinterpret my statement just to make a petty semantic argument that we had like literally two weeks ago.
-
a) I neither was party to nor saw said petty semantic argument; b) you're still using the word wrong.
-
Sorry, it was an argument we had literally a month ago.
But I'm only using the word wrong if you accept - stubbornly - that the only meaning for "in the pocket of" is to mean it at face value, and that the phrase has no other meaning. It's a metaphor, but I'm not using "literally" hyperbolically.
-
...I can see how you could have gotten into an argument about this before.
-
This is literally an argument that's come up over and again for years on the boards and I wish it would literally die.
Guess which one of those is used for hyperbole and which isn't.
-
Personally I'm not upset about the fact that the federal government can't force me to buy something that I may or may not want.
-
The point of the individual mandate was, more or less as I understand it, to get rid of the excuse that 'health care costs are high because of the uninsured', who apparently get sick or injured and then hospitals get stuck writing off the bills. Of course, the argument leaves out the fact that hospitals always got tax writeoffs and subsidies for this, but whatever!
In any case, the ruling is completely irrelevant. It probably won't reach the supreme court, and if it does it'll just get thrown out. Honestly I think this is a dumb move on the GOP's part, unless they're trying to prove the supreme court are activists or something???? And even if they do, who cares? You haven't been able to vote out a supreme court justice since, what, Jefferson? Madison? The end result is that there will be an official supreme court ruling in the favor of HCR, which makes the repeal fight harder and makes other attempts at throwing it out in court virtually impossible in the future.
-
I'm actually hoping the that specific part of the law get's thrown out. As there's precedent of the cost of insurance skyrocketing when mandated without added regulation of premiums. But that was car insurance, this is way different.
Either way, this will eventually lead to something that at the very least looks like a republican victory. Whether it's a court ruling or the bill exploding in the democrats' faces upon the inevitable legalized theft by the insurance companies from every remaining middle-class American.
-
I think Japan's got health care figured out: doctor's just don't get paid nearly as much.
-
Well, the Japanese can get away with that because Japanese are less likely to emigrate for cultural reasons (not that they don't leave, but it's at a reduced rate).
It's worth trotting out the statistic that shows the US pays nearly double on health as compared to next western countries with comparable care. Most of that money goes to the health insurance industries.
-
Let's say the doctors do emigrate because they don't feel they're getting paid enough. Where they gonna go? If we pay nearly twice what the next guy pays and we decide to cut back a little, as long as we don't cut it in half we're still the best market.
-
But I'm only using the word wrong if you accept - stubbornly - that the only meaning for "in the pocket of" is to mean it literally, and that the phrase has no other meaning.
On-topic:
The point of the individual mandate was, more or less as I understand it, to get rid of the excuse that 'health care costs are high because of the uninsured', who apparently get sick or injured and then hospitals get stuck writing off the bills. Of course, the argument leaves out the fact that hospitals always got tax writeoffs and subsidies for this, but whatever!
In any case, the ruling is completely irrelevant.
Indeed; he upheld everything else about the healthcare bill except the mandate. Hardly the rousing GOP victory it's being depicted as. EJ Dionne (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/12/health_care_legislating_from_t.html) and Ezra Klein (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/is_the_hudson_ruling_good_news.html) have more.
It probably won't reach the supreme court,
Oh, it almost certainly will. What we've got right now are two district court rulings upholding the mandate, and a third upholding everything but the mandate. The SCOTUS is bound to take this one, but the only part of the bill that's under debate at this point would seem to be the mandate.
Honestly I think this is a dumb move on the GOP's part, unless they're trying to prove the supreme court are activists or something????
You're approaching it from the assumption that politicians actually want to accomplish something instead of just shouting about what they're going to accomplish. This is going to be in the courts for years, and the GOP can use it as an election-year cudgel in the meantime. They don't expect to win the case, any more than they expect to repeal the bill.
Of course, I'm speaking in generalities. I find it very easy to believe that, for example, Governor Brewer legitimately believes Arizona will win its challenge.
Because she's a god-damned idiot.
-
Let's say the doctors do emigrate because they don't feel they're getting paid enough. Where they gonna go? If we pay nearly twice what the next guy pays and we decide to cut back a little, as long as we don't cut it in half we're still the best market.
Well, the point is that the US doesn't pay doctors substantially more. The US does pay slightly more - and top fancy-pants specialists do make way WAY more than their counterparts in other countries, but the average pay for rank-and-file physicians isn't that much higher.
At the risk of repeating myself, the giant black hole of the US health system is mostly in insurance costs.
-
At the risk of repeating myself, the giant black hole of the US health system is mostly in insurance costs.
Which means the whole thing could be solved with single-payer!
Seriously, how hard is it for the American average nincompoop to understand that someone doing something for personal gain is going to withhold as much service as possible while making you pay the most possible, versus someone doing something out of legal duty and reimbursement who will just just give you the service as needed with no direct modification?!
-
The SCOTUS is bound to take this one, but the only part of the bill that's under debate at this point would seem to be the mandate.
I don't know if you meant it intentionally by using the word "bound", but this statement is literally true; since lower Federal courts in different circuits have held differently on the same legal question (granting, for a moment, for the sake of argument the baseless assumption that the Circuit courts will uphold all of these decisions), the Supreme Court has an obligation to hear the case for no other reason than to resolve the conflict. Basically the only way for the SCotUS to deny cert is for the 4th Circuit to overturn this guy but as a practical matter they'd probably hear it anyway.
As for how they'd rule, this is one I would be genuinely uncomfortable betting on. Kennedy and Scalia would have to go against the spirit, if not the 100% letter, of how they ruled in U.S. v. Raich (CA medical marijuana case), but that isn't necessarily to say they wouldn't. That said, who knows what Kennedy will do anyway.
-
I know I've said this before somewhere, but my ex-girlfriend's father, who's one of the best heart surgeons in the country and has an incredible success rate pays literally half of his on-its-face impressive salary in malpractice insurance.
-
Yeah, I've talked about this with a doctor friend from college and her position is that if it meant there would be lower malpractice premiums (because the government pays for additional care so like 80% of the damages are covered unless you kill a guy) and that she wouldn't have to deal with insurance company billing ever again, she'd gladly take the 30% pay cut of a Canadian doctor.
-
But I'm only using the word wrong if you accept - stubbornly - that the only meaning for "in the pocket of" is to mean it literally, and that the phrase has no other meaning.
I was just perusing the Little Lytton and ran into this:
The saying “I have got your back” almost never has the literal meaning of receipt or possession of another’s spine.
-Chip Snaxley, quoting wikipedia.org entry on figures of speech
From dictionary.com:
Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration”: The senator was literally buried alive in the Iowa primaries. The parties were literally trading horses in an effort to reach a compromise. The use is often criticized; nevertheless, it appears in all but the most carefully edited writing. Although this use of literally irritates some, it probably neither distorts nor enhances the intended meaning of the sentences in which it occurs. The same might often be said of the use of literally in its earlier sense “actually”: The garrison was literally wiped out: no one survived.
I'm sorry that I find this more interesting than the actual topic.
-
Oh come on, now you're quoting the exact same example I already took apart last month.
"All but the most carefully edited writing" is clearly hyperbole, and the fact that people commonly misuse a word doesn't mean it's a correct usage. "Could of" goes back decades and "it's" for a possessive goes back centuries; they're still wrong.
-
Is there an authority on how the English language is supposed to be written/spoken? Like, Spanish has the Royal Academy, which dictates correct grammar/pronunciation/everything about the language (they recently changed the names of a couple of letters). Does English have anything like that, besides "well my English professor said this and he has five PhD's?"
-
I guess the Oxford English Dictionary probably comes closest, but the short answer is no.
Too bad nobody asked Orwell (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm) (only semi-relevant, but any excuse to post it will do...)
-
"Could of" goes back decades and "it's" for a possessive goes back centuries; they're still wrong.
I don't think it's the same to compare a grammatical error to the misuse of a word. I do agree that it's wrong to use "literally" to mean the opposite, I just found it interesting that some dictionaries are beginning to relent (while I doubt any grammatical authority would even consider condoning the examples you gave).
-
It's as if the language is changing literally all the time.
-
Seriously, how hard is it for the American average nincompoop to understand that someone doing something for personal gain is going to withhold as much service as possible while making you pay the most possible, versus someone doing something out of legal duty and reimbursement who will just just give you the service as needed with no direct modification?!
Because CAPITALISM IS ALWAYS BETTER FREE MARKET
From talking with my dad I think they also believe that insurance companies won't rip them off because "they're supposed to make an honourable profit!". It's...really weird. It's like they think corporations want to take care of them.
-
corporations are God for secular people who don't know better. that's really all there is to it.
-
Norondor, do you want to know exactly how many dangerously divisive declarations you've just made? Those are triple Ds there. You can't tackle things like that lightly.
It's like they think corporations want to take care of them.
Well, people want to take care of other people. And even if corporations aren't basically people, they're made up of people, and you've met some people in corporations who want to take care of you.
... Unfortunately they're co-working with everyone else in the corporation who would just as soon shit on your lukewarm corpse if it profited them.
-
But the Supreme Court says that corporations ARE people!
-
The free-market model for everything works on the assumption that the consumers will stop buying and/or find an alternative if one offers a product or service that is not worth the required compensation. Democracy works the same way. Both systems break down in the presence of
A. Commodities deemed essential for living and
B. The presence of a duopoly (or triopoly in some cases)
Whereas a monopoly can easily be taken down by a newer competitor or flat-out consumer revolt, a 2-3 party stasis can remain in mutually checked power for decades, very rarely encountering a force that can actually fight both fronts and overcome the consumers' natural satisfaction with false choice.
There has to be a sweet spot somewhere between here and communism where a large number of evenly matched competitors is naturally implied, but I think the only person who's ever seen it is Ayn Rand in one of her more feverish tobacco-induced nightmares.
-
Those are triple Ds there. You can't tackle things like that lightly.
I volunteer to tackle any triple Ds.
-
Republican-controlled House to vote on HCR repeal on Jan. 12.
Get to the phones, guys.
-
"Happy birthday, we got you a justification for the 60% increase on your health insurance rate this year!"
"Gee thanks!"
-
Shit, what could the Democrats possibly do with the Senate and White House to stop a House repeal of Health Care Reform?
-
Well, they ARE the Democrats. There's a non-negligible chance they won't know the answer to that question.
-
... Unfortunately they're working for a publicly-traded company, so acting in the best interest of the consumer or even the long-term health and sustainability of the company itself rather than the bottom line will get them fired, thanks to the broker handling your 401(k) selling off mutual-fund-held shares in his continued quest for hookers and blow.
f
t
f
y
-
SCOTUS arguments (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVI-5FrT9rnC_jcuPxybOarMs47w?docId=00c0c0d18d914f6a80d3a6d43431c7c3) are looking about like I think most people expected: they're focusing on the mandate, and Kennedy looks like the likeliest swing vote but it also looks like he's leaning toward the anti-mandate side.
I've always been uncomfortable with the mandate, for much the same reason the conservative Justices are questioning it. I understand why it's in there (because the only way to control costs is to require everybody to contribute), but I'm damned uncomfortable with the precedent of the government forcing me to support a private industry that I frankly don't like very much. (The public option would have done a lot to offset my complaints on this; paying taxes and receiving government services is necessarily different from paying compulsory fees to private industry.)
The Administration appears to have taken a pretty good tack here, arguing that healthcare is by its nature unique because everyone is a consumer of these services whether they plan to be or not. This answers the question of precedent and slippery slope: the Administration argues that there is no precedent here, and that the government does not have the right to make a similar mandate for anything else. That's a pretty good response to my personal concerns, but I don't know that Kennedy will be mollified by it.
Best-case is probably a very narrow ruling explicitly stating that a government mandate for a private service is legal for healthcare AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE.
Tomorrow's arguments are apparently going to focus on whether the rest of the law can stand with the mandate struck down. That would be chaos -- I think even the current Congressional Republicans would have a hard time trying to go back to denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, but without an individual mandate there's no way to PAY for insurance for high-risk patients. (In other words, doing something expensive and refusing to pay for it -- sounds like a Republican plan to me.)
The ruling will be in June, giving both candidates time to spin it.
-
I would caution against reading too much in to the apparent leanings of the Justices at oral argument.
-
Regarding Health Care being a unique item: Scalia had a comment whereby he said something to the effect of "This is not about buying Health Care, this is about buying Insurance."
Don't know if that comment will amount to anything, but if it actually gets overturned I'd expect that to be part of a key counter-argument against the legislation.
-
It sounds like the question at this point has moved from "Should we kill the mandate?" to "Should we kill just the mandate and keep the rest of the bill?"
Now, let's be honest here. Partially killing the bill is a conservative position; Dems at this point should be pushing for all or nothing. When you get right down to it, most of those 2700 pages is just a long series of bullshit concessions the GOP demanded in order to get the mandate passed. Now they're arguing for killing the mandate and leaving all those concessions in place. It's a naked political play, and all our power needs go into hanging it around their necks.
At the end of the day, the GOP doesn't really want the entire bill to go down: that'd be a minor victory for the zealous base that's already probably buying private insurance anyway, and a point of massive fury among the legions of people who just got their fucking health compromised over something that, for fuck's sakes, would be a conservative wet dream if they had done it themselves. I imagine Dick Cheney would give himself a heart attack masturbating so hard if someone proposed a law making it outright illegal to not buy oil.
And really, that's the other thing: the bill IS unconstitutional. And it hinges en-fucking-tirely on the point that is blatantly unconstitutional. It needs to be scrubbed and rewritten; that's the right thing to do. And I imagine that this time, it won't be a sideshow topic; a lot of people who just got the rugs yanked out from under them are going to be VERY INTERESTED in seeing the provisions of the bill reinstated immediately, and reinstated the right way, i.e. not by kneeling down and sucking the cock of the fucking private insurance industry.
That's a GOP nightmare scenario, right there. To have their bluff called so completely and be forced to clean up the mess in a way that compromises everything that they are. They can pat themselves on the back for embarrassing the Democrats in some minor (and completely deserved) way in an otherwise hopeless election year, but unless the SCOTUS ignores all precedent and really does let them all get off scot free for their nasty little trick, it's gonna fuck 'em, long and hard and for years to come. Our job right now is to get that petard as barbed and rusty as fucking possible.
-
You presume the Democrats actually know how to do any of that stuff, as opposed to more hopeless waffling and grovelling.
-
I'm not saying they actually will.
There's also the semi-valid concern that we're intentionally fucking sick people over just to make our enemies squirm, which is only semi-valid because like FUCK anybody's going to get any care under a gutted bill. "Not allowed to deny people based on coverage" isn't the same as "Not allowed to raise premiums to hundreds of dollars per month based on (completely accurate and justifiable) economic models." Just shift the problem from "only the healthy can be insured" to "only the wealthy can be insured" and OH LOOK welcome to yet another fucking culture war front.
-
I would caution against reading too much in to the apparent leanings of the Justices at oral argument.
Well sure, but I think there are more reasons than oral arguments to make certain assumptions about how Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts will vote.
Now, let's be honest here. Partially killing the bill is a conservative position; Dems at this point should be pushing for all or nothing. When you get right down to it, most of those 2700 pages is just a long series of bullshit concessions the GOP demanded in order to get the mandate passed.
Well, the blue dogs. Did any actual Republicans vote for it in the House? I know none did in the Senate.
Now they're arguing for killing the mandate and leaving all those concessions in place. It's a naked political play, and all our power needs go into hanging it around their necks.
I'm with IM: the Dems don't have the spines or the acumen to do that.
The whole law gets scrapped and the Republicans -- yes, even Romney -- run on "The Democrats don't respect the Constitution."
The Democrats could run on "Republicans want sick people to die," but if they were going to do that they would have done it in the first damn place.
I think seeing the mandate killed and having to go back to the table to figure out a new way to keep costs down is better than scrapping the whole thing -- not in principle (in principle I'm with you; tear the whole thing down and start over) but in practice. Though I still think our best option at this point is a narrow ruling saying "Okay, an individual mandate is acceptable JUST THIS ONCE and this ruling is not intended as precedent for anything else."
-
Funniest moment of oral argument and maybe this Supreme Court term: Antonin Motherfucking Scalia of all people arguing against severability by saying that Congress can't be trusted to modify the rest of the ACA to function without the mandate.
If you'd blinked, you might have missed the wonderful view of the emperor's bare ass.
-
Shouldn't really surprise anybody, of course -- pretending the SCOTUS is anything but partisan is frankly insulting.
Scalia is a "strict constructionist" who decided the well-regulated militia clause was totally irrelevant to the meaning of the Second Amendment.
-
That's not really it; Scalia rode in on a tide of assholes blathering about strict construction and originalism and he certainly talks in that code, sure, but Thomas is the one who really sticks with it in his opinions.
Scalia's jam has always, to his credit, been slicker and more practical: he's not so much interested in limiting the power of the federal government as he is in limiting the power of the Supreme Court specifically. The main thrust of his rhetoric's that if Congress or state legislatures pass a law that doesn't run afoul of a specific, explicit part of the Constitution, that law shouldn't be tampered with, even if the law as written has kind of shitty results, because as it turns out legislatures can quite easily pass, change, or repeal laws about anything they want without any of the additional concerns of the Court, like precedent or unintended consequences. He's more interested in empowering the legislature than "defending the Constitution".
Leaving aside how much he practices what he preaches (which is questionable), it's a workable logic and I at least can appreciate him not treating the Constitution as holy writ like every other asshole under the sun, but it's sort of reliant on the belief that Congress is indeed capable of legislating effectively. For him to say otherwise pretty much undermines his entire intellectual contribution to American jurisprudence.
But mostly I am happy to see his pants slip because I think he takes a little bit too much pleasure in being a boorish jerk during oral argument to attorneys who are under a staggering amount of pressure, even if that ideally shouldn't compromise their performance.
-
Scalia also writes the best dissenting opinions in the whole world.
-
Klein (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/there-was-a-reason-conservatives-once-supported-the-individual-mandate/2012/03/31/gIQAiddnlS_blog.html) has a good rundown of the individual mandate.
Unsurprisingly, the Republican alternative to the individual mandate is...pretty much the exact same thing except they're calling it a tax cut.
-
PBS (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/06/supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-reform-a-primer.html): Marcia Coyle runs down the issues at stake in the SCOTUS case, the possible ways the court can rule, and the impact such decisions will have.
-
ACA upheld in the Supreme Court (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/john-roberts-votes-to-uphold-obamacare?ref=fpa)
Republicans upheld the Republican mandate passed by Democrats. I guess it's good? Seems more like they just barricaded against single-payer to me.
-
Well, one Republican. Roberts. The other four dissented.
Interestingly, he rejected the commerce clause argument and said that the penalty qualifies as a tax. I guess I can get behind that -- I still have a sort of gut opposition to the idea of the government forcing me to buy something from a private industry that happens to be corrupt as fuck, but when you start talking about taxes it becomes easier to remember that, oh yeah, the government already does that ALL THE TIME.
There's something in there about a narrow ruling on the Medicaid expansion but I haven't seen it parsed just yet. Other'n that the whole thing seems to be pretty much upheld. Which on the whole is a good thing. My reservations about the mandate aside, it's the best option we've got right now and if it had been thrown out it might have been another generation before we had another shot at any kind of healthcare reform. This, at least, is a start.
-
Interestingly, he rejected the commerce clause argument and said that the penalty qualifies as a tax. I guess I can get behind that -- I still have a sort of gut opposition to the idea of the government forcing me to buy something from a private industry that happens to be corrupt as fuck, but when you start talking about taxes it becomes easier to remember that, oh yeah, the government already does that ALL THE TIME.
As I understand it, the ruling is basically "The Government can't force you to buy insurance, but that's not what they're doing here. They're telling you to buy insurance, and taxing you differently if you don't. Just like child tax credits aren't forcing you to have children."
-
The supreme court also released their judgement on every republican congressman today:
(http://i.imgur.com/VuGU0.jpg)
Seriously though, at this point I'll fucking take it. Anything that brings down health care costs is 100% OK with me, and maybe once people realize how good the ACA is for America (in 2014, when it finally fucking takes fuck effect) it'll help establish a new power base and legitimacy for progressive policies.
-
A pretty informative teardown of the PPACA, including exactly what it does and when everything kicks in, written to be understood by people with no real idea of things (http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm). Worth spreading the link around, I think.
Who knew, sometimes Reddit is good for something.
-
McConnell can't say how GOP will insure 30m after repealing ObamaCare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvZvNSKrOZ4#ws)
Can't even answer a simple question.
(http://i.imgur.com/z4eim.gif)
-
Pretty much any question beginning with "How" is a Gotcha.
-
Wow. I thought Fox was specifically designed to not have reporters who make a guy like McConnel sweat on national TV as he tries not to blurt out "fuck those people let them die must stop Obummer."
Can't even answer a simple question.
The current crisis of the GOP is that way too many of their policies are ending with "Well, fuck those people because we hate them" which is pretty hard to sound-bite when taken literally.
-
Pretty much any question beginning with "How" is a Gotcha.
Not sure if you're serious or not.
On the one hand, yeah, any question that deals with actual nuts-and-bolts policy is pretty much impossible to answer in a soundbite.
On the other, the Republicans have absolutely no fucking plan on how to insure 30 million people (or rather they do; it's the thing the Democrats passed) and that bears reminding people of at every possible opportunity.
If your slogan is going to be "Repeal and replace", you should really be prepared for someone to ask you "Replace with what?"
Wow. I thought Fox was specifically designed to not have reporters who make a guy like McConnel sweat on national TV as he tries not to blurt out "fuck those people let them die must stop Obummer."
Can't see the clip but Fox has like three guys who are actual reporters. Was it Wallace, Baier, or Smith?
-
Er, yes, I was serious, but I was using Gotcha as a derogatory callback to "Gotcha Journalism". I didn't actually mean it's a question that shouldn't be asked, I meant it's a question that the right considers inappropriate and underhanded.
-
"So, when you say replace the plan, how do you intend to replace it?" "HOW DARE YOU!"
I think our politicians are a little spoiled from the softball media we've had for the last ten years.
-
Fox Quote-Unquote-News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/03/gop-governors-stand-ground-against-obamacare-despite-ruling/):
At least 18 governors now say they are at least considering not expanding Medicaid -- effectively exploiting the one part of the ruling that came down in Republicans' favor. Previously, the law called on states to expand their Medicaid rolls and threatened to withhold money to those states that did not agree. The Supreme Court nixed that prescribed punishment, taking away the federal government's stick.
Aside from resisting the Medicaid expansion, several GOP governors have also said they will not move forward on creating so-called insurance exchanges. Those exchanges, set to go into effect in 2014, are meant to be the state-based marketplaces where strictly regulated insurance plans will be available for purchase.
States, though, have made little progress toward that call. According to a detailed list maintained by the Kaiser Family Foundation, just 15 states are in the process of setting them up.
In the wake of last Thursday's ruling, GOP-led states in particular are digging in their heels on both fronts.
No mention of Jan, but I imagine she'll follow the herd.
-
So let's see if I got the conservative line of thought straight.
"Under Obamacare, liberals will institute horrifying Death Panels where so-called medical experts decide who lives and who dies. We would never waste a cent of taxpayer money on such inane trifles, and would rather enable a simple, elegant, and inexpensive solution: death for everybody."
-
Not everybody. Just the not poor enough for medicaid, but not well off enough to spend an extra 12k a year on coverage.
-
Plus we've got Republican governors now pushing to have people in their states pay taxes for other people's healthcare but not their own.
-
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/03/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE8910EG20121003) sheds some light on what Romney's actual healthcare policy specifics might be:
The former Massachusetts governor's advisers say he would accelerate the use of high-deductible insurance plans that offer lower premiums but require beneficiaries to pay thousands of dollars more in out-of-pocket expenses than they would face under conventional coverage.
Yeah, THAT sounds like a winner.
-
I can't fathom why this thread has lain fallow for more than a year, but
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-companies-misleading-letters-obamacare (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-companies-misleading-letters-obamacare)
-
(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Gen-Opp-tailgate-creepy-uncle-sam-e1384195060906.jpg) (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/11/2923411/creepy-uncle-sam-tailgate/)
A Koch brothers-funded group threw a boozy tailgate party complete with beer pong to convince young people not to sign up for health insurance (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/11/2923411/creepy-uncle-sam-tailgate/).
Yes, you read that right.
-
The expression on that Uncle Sam is beyond perfect.