whembly wrote: Frazz... what if the Dalsh sets off a massive bomb (or god forgive, a WMD) in mecca? Or, Jerusalem?
Unless those areas are part of the USA at the time I don't give a rat's ass.
I'm curious if your viewpoints are like those in the US pre-Pearl Harbor?
I'm curious if your viewpoints are like those pre-WWI?
^touché I'm not exactly advocating that the US giddy-up, go Rambo on them (yet)... but, there's a disturbing lack of leadership from Obama (and the rest of the world) on what's going on now.
I think it's interesting, that my military friends/family opined to me that they wouldn't mind going back and destroy the Dalsh (even some military Dakkaroos expressed as much).
I hate to say it, but man Edmund Burke quote is compelling:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
EDIT: I think someone's worried about Rubio's chances...
NYT is worried about Rubio.
I guess it's a bit of truism that your ideological opponent would be the ones to tell you which one they fear... eh?
Regarding the whole Middle Eastern issue, can I remind American dakka members of the following from history:
Once upon a time, there was this Island, and the people of this island spoke English, just like the USA.
Just like the USA, these islanders had Middle Eastern interests.
If anybody threatened these interests, the islanders would deploy poison gas against their opponents, hang them from lamp-posts, blow up their villages, and generally do other nasty things, which I won't mention here.
Despite their willingness to be ruthless, the islanders never did protect their interests, and eventually, had to give them up, deciding it cost too much money, and too many lives...
You know what country I'm referring too.
Being involved in the Middle East costs the USA, time, money, and precious blood.
It is making the USA weak...and all the time, China is getting stronger...
CptJake wrote: You'll have a very difficult time finding where I advocate a 'boots on the ground' strategy against DaIsh.
I don't see the Saudis burning captured pilots alive, nor governing their country quite the way DaIsh governs their territories. You may not see a difference, but that would be because you choose not to.
My bottom line is the Obama administrations version of strategy is pathetic. There is no coordinated strategy at the national level and the resources being expended are a massive waste since they are not being expended towards any goal. And we are putting pilots and flight crews into danger flying sorties where they may or may not even be allowed to engage, and when they do they are generally not engaging targets worth the cost and risks. Eventually a plane or chopper goes down due to enemy fire, a maintenance issue, or crew error, and a US trooper gets the flaming cage treatment. When the public asks 'Why? Was it worth it? What was achieved?" the answer is not going to be a good one.
Add in the growing likelihood of Iraqi troops turning on US trainers in a green on blue incident (could end up being a DaIsh loyalist/infiltrator, DaIsh in captured uniforms, a shia troop still loyal to the Mahdi Army, or just some poor fether more scared of fighting DaIsh than pulling a trigger on an American).
And then there will be folks who push to 'boots on the ground' and they won't have much opposition.
I agree with you that Obama deserves heavy criticism for his 'strategy' or lack of, regarding ISIL, but let's not pretend that this is a failing of this administration.
American strategy in the Middle East has been a shambles since the end of the Cold War. Post second Iraq invasion, the Bush administration strategy after the fall of Saddam, was bordering on treason! It was a disaster from top to bottom.
The problem with ignoring rules of engagement is that hitting the wrong target is orders of magnitude worse than the benefit of hitting the right target.
CptJake wrote: You'll have a very difficult time finding where I advocate a 'boots on the ground' strategy against DaIsh.
I don't see the Saudis burning captured pilots alive, nor governing their country quite the way DaIsh governs their territories. You may not see a difference, but that would be because you choose not to.
My bottom line is the Obama administrations version of strategy is pathetic. There is no coordinated strategy at the national level and the resources being expended are a massive waste since they are not being expended towards any goal. And we are putting pilots and flight crews into danger flying sorties where they may or may not even be allowed to engage, and when they do they are generally not engaging targets worth the cost and risks. Eventually a plane or chopper goes down due to enemy fire, a maintenance issue, or crew error, and a US trooper gets the flaming cage treatment. When the public asks 'Why? Was it worth it? What was achieved?" the answer is not going to be a good one.
Add in the growing likelihood of Iraqi troops turning on US trainers in a green on blue incident (could end up being a DaIsh loyalist/infiltrator, DaIsh in captured uniforms, a shia troop still loyal to the Mahdi Army, or just some poor fether more scared of fighting DaIsh than pulling a trigger on an American).
And then there will be folks who push to 'boots on the ground' and they won't have much opposition.
I agree with you that Obama deserves heavy criticism for his 'strategy' or lack of, regarding ISIL, but let's not pretend that this is a failing of this administration.
American strategy in the Middle East has been a shambles since the end of the Cold War. Post second Iraq invasion, the Bush administration strategy after the fall of Saddam, was bordering on treason! It was a disaster from top to bottom.
It absolutely IS a failing of his administration. He is the POTUS, and has been for years. His appointees are in charge of the DoD, DoS, and the National Security Council. He may have inherited a bad situation, but he knew that going in and thought as the Smartest Guy In The Room his solutions would fix it all. They haven't. They've exacerbated the situation. Pointing out Bush's failures, and failures of previous administrations does not move the ball forward. Bush's failures don't provide forgiveness for the current administrations failures.
skyth wrote: The problem with ignoring rules of engagement is that hitting the wrong target is orders of magnitude worse than the benefit of hitting the right target.
Has anyone advocated ignoring ROE? I missed it if they did. Changing/adjusting the ROE? Yes.
And your statement about 'orders of magnitude worse' is pretty broad and unprovable. It depends on way too many variables for it to be considered true. The nature of the 'right target' and the nature of the 'wrong target' come into play as do many other factors. For example, the 'right target' could be an IED factory with the head bomb maker present. A guy who is making the VBIEDs that take out 10s to 100s of civilians in market places and other public gatherings. Taking him out saves a lot of lives. A 'wrong target', his innocent neighbor's house for example, kills a hand full of poor folks at the wrong place and wrong time. It very much sucks, but in the grand scheme of things, it isn't even a blip on the radar. Now you'll want to lecture me on how that poor dead innocent family will be used to recruit zillions of disenfranchised youth to DaIsh, but the actual fact is DaIsh and their ilk use their brutality and successful acts as recruiting material (like videos of that VBIED destroying the lives of dozens of folks). So in that example, though hitting the wrong target is bad, it is not 'orders of magnitude worse'.
And further, our guys with a more expansive/permissive ROE could gather better intel towards targeting/striking the 'right target'.
Kurds are good at defending Kurdistan. They are not that great at offensive ops. See the very long fight for Kobani as an example. Even with US CAS the Kurds had a very hard time.
I have a simpler solution: Stop making these bogeyman groups to justify Military Industrial Complex spending and existence! Eisenhower warned of this beast as he left office, how the costs for bombers, and destroyers could have back then provided schools, hospitals, miles of roads. He warned that it would grow out of control(It has), and that it would need to justify it's existence (Creation of "Al Queda" and ISIS come to mind), and as we no longer have the old Cold War, and that Terrorist groups are losing their edge, we see Russia and China being worked into the next excuse to out spend the world in war-machinery, which we then sell our older toys off to lower tech countries all too happy to get the stuff for their own wars, or gets captured and used in civil wars.
I am ex-military myself, but I was in with Nuclear weapons, so the perspective for me and the guys and gals I served with was different than the warmongers we have now.
Stop making bad guys who did not exist before just to make it easier to spend way over what is needed to defend ourselves, and stop the Military Adventurism. Iraq was more for Oil access than spreading Freedom, and Afghanistan was for the Mining companies who wanted to get access to the mineral treasure trove that nation sits over.
All I truly see this thread as is more a circling around the mud flinging that people think is politics.
Frazzled wrote: Iraq I: yes for oil
Iraq II: domino theory.
Afghanistan: no. That was for Al Qaeda.
And it took over 11yrs to get Bin Laden? Al Queda was the excuse, but there are over a dozen mining companies that placed bids on the rights to be first in there as soon as they can.
Frazzled wrote: Iraq I: yes for oil
Iraq II: domino theory.
Afghanistan: no. That was for Al Qaeda.
And it took over 11yrs to get Bin Laden? Al Queda was the excuse, but there are over a dozen mining companies that placed bids on the rights to be first in there as soon as they can.
CptJake wrote: You'll have a very difficult time finding where I advocate a 'boots on the ground' strategy against DaIsh.
I don't see the Saudis burning captured pilots alive, nor governing their country quite the way DaIsh governs their territories. You may not see a difference, but that would be because you choose not to.
My bottom line is the Obama administrations version of strategy is pathetic. There is no coordinated strategy at the national level and the resources being expended are a massive waste since they are not being expended towards any goal. And we are putting pilots and flight crews into danger flying sorties where they may or may not even be allowed to engage, and when they do they are generally not engaging targets worth the cost and risks. Eventually a plane or chopper goes down due to enemy fire, a maintenance issue, or crew error, and a US trooper gets the flaming cage treatment. When the public asks 'Why? Was it worth it? What was achieved?" the answer is not going to be a good one.
Add in the growing likelihood of Iraqi troops turning on US trainers in a green on blue incident (could end up being a DaIsh loyalist/infiltrator, DaIsh in captured uniforms, a shia troop still loyal to the Mahdi Army, or just some poor fether more scared of fighting DaIsh than pulling a trigger on an American).
And then there will be folks who push to 'boots on the ground' and they won't have much opposition.
I agree with you that Obama deserves heavy criticism for his 'strategy' or lack of, regarding ISIL, but let's not pretend that this is a failing of this administration.
American strategy in the Middle East has been a shambles since the end of the Cold War. Post second Iraq invasion, the Bush administration strategy after the fall of Saddam, was bordering on treason! It was a disaster from top to bottom.
It absolutely IS a failing of his administration. He is the POTUS, and has been for years. His appointees are in charge of the DoD, DoS, and the National Security Council. He may have inherited a bad situation, but he knew that going in and thought as the Smartest Guy In The Room his solutions would fix it all. They haven't. They've exacerbated the situation. Pointing out Bush's failures, and failures of previous administrations does not move the ball forward. Bush's failures don't provide forgiveness for the current administrations failures.
You're forgetting that the corrupt and incompetent administration in Baghdad, is as equally as bad as the corrupt administration in Saigon, during the Vietnam war days. There's only so much Obama can do when having to deal with such inefficiency. Add a hostile congress to the mix, a Pentagon culture that's still fighting the Col War, and it's a miracle that Obama is getting anything done.
Bush should be taking more of the blame. He started with a clean slate in Iraq, and Obama inherited a mess. For me, a good analogy is Nixon inheriting Vietnam after Johnson. Obama is Nixon in this instance, and Bush was obviously Johnson.
Frazzled wrote: Iraq I: yes for oil
Iraq II: domino theory.
Afghanistan: no. That was for Al Qaeda.
And it took over 11yrs to get Bin Laden? Al Queda was the excuse, but there are over a dozen mining companies that placed bids on the rights to be first in there as soon as they can.
CptJake wrote: You'll have a very difficult time finding where I advocate a 'boots on the ground' strategy against DaIsh.
I don't see the Saudis burning captured pilots alive, nor governing their country quite the way DaIsh governs their territories. You may not see a difference, but that would be because you choose not to.
My bottom line is the Obama administrations version of strategy is pathetic. There is no coordinated strategy at the national level and the resources being expended are a massive waste since they are not being expended towards any goal. And we are putting pilots and flight crews into danger flying sorties where they may or may not even be allowed to engage, and when they do they are generally not engaging targets worth the cost and risks. Eventually a plane or chopper goes down due to enemy fire, a maintenance issue, or crew error, and a US trooper gets the flaming cage treatment. When the public asks 'Why? Was it worth it? What was achieved?" the answer is not going to be a good one.
Add in the growing likelihood of Iraqi troops turning on US trainers in a green on blue incident (could end up being a DaIsh loyalist/infiltrator, DaIsh in captured uniforms, a shia troop still loyal to the Mahdi Army, or just some poor fether more scared of fighting DaIsh than pulling a trigger on an American).
And then there will be folks who push to 'boots on the ground' and they won't have much opposition.
I agree with you that Obama deserves heavy criticism for his 'strategy' or lack of, regarding ISIL, but let's not pretend that this is a failing of this administration.
American strategy in the Middle East has been a shambles since the end of the Cold War. Post second Iraq invasion, the Bush administration strategy after the fall of Saddam, was bordering on treason! It was a disaster from top to bottom.
It absolutely IS a failing of his administration. He is the POTUS, and has been for years. His appointees are in charge of the DoD, DoS, and the National Security Council. He may have inherited a bad situation, but he knew that going in and thought as the Smartest Guy In The Room his solutions would fix it all. They haven't. They've exacerbated the situation. Pointing out Bush's failures, and failures of previous administrations does not move the ball forward. Bush's failures don't provide forgiveness for the current administrations failures.
You're forgetting that the corrupt and incompetent administration in Baghdad, is as equally as bad as the corrupt administration in Saigon, during the Vietnam war days. There's only so much Obama can do when having to deal with such inefficiency. Add a hostile congress to the mix, a Pentagon culture that's still fighting the Col War, and it's a miracle that Obama is getting anything done.
Full stop.
Obama knew what he was getting. It's his responsibility to be a leader, regardless what cards were dealt to him. The bucks stops at his desk.
Bush should be taking more of the blame. He started with a clean slate in Iraq, and Obama inherited a mess.
So what? Are you saying he should say 'feth it, my predessor fethed up, so I ain't touching it'???
For me, a good analogy is Nixon inheriting Vietnam after Johnson. Obama is Nixon in this instance, and Bush was obviously Johnson.
Oh... you went there! *cough*watergate*cough*
*cough*irs scandal*cough*
*cough*'ghazi*cough*
*cough*fast 'n furious*cough*
*cough*numerous other gate-gate*cough*
*cough*I'm not a crook or I'm not a dictator*cough*
Frazzled wrote: Iraq I: yes for oil
Iraq II: domino theory.
Afghanistan: no. That was for Al Qaeda.
And it took over 11yrs to get Bin Laden? Al Queda was the excuse, but there are over a dozen mining companies that placed bids on the rights to be first in there as soon as they can.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whembley, I'm saying that if somebody burns down a house, and you're charged with fixing the mess, there's not a lot you can do.
It's not like we haven't tried dude.
We're good a blowing gak up. But the "you break it, you own it" mentality is something that no one is good at.
I just wished that the objectives, any objectives, is clear and concise going forward.
EDIT: you've also left out the rebuild of Japan and Germany. Why?
shasolenzabi wrote: I have a simpler solution: Stop making these bogeyman groups to justify Military Industrial Complex spending and existence! Eisenhower warned of this beast as he left office, how the costs for bombers, and destroyers could have back then provided schools, hospitals, miles of roads. He warned that it would grow out of control(It has), and that it would need to justify it's existence (Creation of "Al Queda" and ISIS come to mind), and as we no longer have the old Cold War, and that Terrorist groups are losing their edge, we see Russia and China being worked into the next excuse to out spend the world in war-machinery, which we then sell our older toys off to lower tech countries all too happy to get the stuff for their own wars, or gets captured and used in civil wars.
I am ex-military myself, but I was in with Nuclear weapons, so the perspective for me and the guys and gals I served with was different than the warmongers we have now.
Stop making bad guys who did not exist before just to make it easier to spend way over what is needed to defend ourselves, and stop the Military Adventurism. Iraq was more for Oil access than spreading Freedom, and Afghanistan was for the Mining companies who wanted to get access to the mineral treasure trove that nation sits over.
All I truly see this thread as is more a circling around the mud flinging that people think is politics.
You are lost in the sauce. First off.
What year did we go in Afghanistan? What year was all the mineral resource that was valued in Afghanistan?
skyth wrote: Killing innocents will turn more people against us. The war on terror et al is very much a hearts and minds thing not smash everything.
And yet DaIsh purposely targets innocents and does not get the flack we do when innocents are hurt by accident.
DaIsh video tapes their targeting of innocents and uses it as a recruiting tool.
When you equate DaIsh targeting with our ROE and TTPs which are designed to minimize innocents getting capped you are playing their game for them. The target (from a MISMO perspective) of things like GITMO and Collateral Damage are western media and populations, NOT the folks in theater.
You can't win 'hearts and minds' while those hearts and minds are being targeted in their homes, businesses and places of worship by the bad guys. Even when 'hearts and minds' was implemented as a successful tactic at small levels (the USMC CAP program in Vietnam being a good example) it started by killing the threat to those hearts and minds, then teaching those hearts and minds to secure themselves. But first stuff must be smashed and destroyed and killed.
There is clearly a lot more involved when you want to implement 'hearts and minds' at an operational or strategic level, but it again very much involves killing scads of bad guys and degrading and hopefully destroying their capabilities to threaten the 'hearts and minds'.
That the other group uses 'join or die' tactics doesn't legitize us killing innocents. Sinking down to using the same tactics just makes us as bad as them.
skyth wrote: That the other group uses 'join or die' tactics doesn't legitize us killing innocents. Sinking down to using the same tactics just makes us as bad as them.
And provides more recruiting propaganda for the very people you're trying to defeat.
skyth wrote: That the other group uses 'join or die' tactics doesn't legitize us killing innocents. Sinking down to using the same tactics just makes us as bad as them.
And provides more recruiting propaganda for the very people you're trying to defeat.
Nice...
So we behead or burn our captives? We're sinking to that level?
skyth wrote: That the other group uses 'join or die' tactics doesn't legitize us killing innocents. Sinking down to using the same tactics just makes us as bad as them.
And provides more recruiting propaganda for the very people you're trying to defeat.
Nice...
So we behead or burn our captives? We're sinking to that level?
Possibly not ourselves, though both of our countries have shown no remorse in handing people over to countries who might do both of those things.
Jihadin wrote: When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?
Vietnam war. Ho Chi Minh trail.
Um... what does a 40ish year old war have to do with the discussion in hand?
My apologies. I thought it was a general discussion on civilian casualties and ROE in armed conflicts involving the USA over the years. I see now that the subject is Iraq.
Jihadin wrote: When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?
And that has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion was about relaxing the ROE and the oh well attitude if innocent civilians die...
I do not think you understand what folks like Jihadin and myself mean when we say adjust the ROE.
Right now, pilots are exposed to enemy fire, long hours in the air, dangerous carrier take offs and landings, and the vast majority return without dropping weapons on bad guys.
A large part of that is due to how the strikes are coordinated and controlled. Our ROE prohibits JTACS/TACP types from going forward and providing terminal guidance. It prevents our guys from certain ISR tasks which feed the targeting process and develop more timely hard intel. The ROE also puts a burden not required by the laws of warfare onto our forces. If DaIsh uses a school/mosque/hospital/office building etc as any type of facility it removes the legal protected status from that facility, and DaIsh are the sole responsible party, NOT anyone striking the facility. Any innocents killed are the legal responsibility of those using those innocents basically as human shields, NOT the guys striking the valid target shielded by those innocents.
Our targeting process currently matches ordnance to target, not based primarily on proper weaponeering, but on reducing risk of collateral damage. That leaves some targets which are engaged with a reduced but not destroyed capability, and ensures some targets just plain get away/are not engaged.
We are blessed with technology that allows us the luxury to minimize collateral damage, and that is truly a great thing. Having said that, to not engage targets we legally can is morally wrong as it prolongs the conflict and in the end increases civilian deaths and infrastructure destruction (not at our hands).
Jihadin wrote: When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?
And that has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion was about relaxing the ROE and the oh well attitude if innocent civilians die...
I do not think you understand what folks like Jihadin and myself mean when we say adjust the ROE.
Right now, pilots are exposed to enemy fire, long hours in the air, dangerous carrier take offs and landings, and the vast majority return without dropping weapons on bad guys.
A large part of that is due to how the strikes are coordinated and controlled. Our ROE prohibits JTACS/TACP types from going forward and providing terminal guidance. It prevents our guys from certain ISR tasks which feed the targeting process and develop more timely hard intel. The ROE also puts a burden not required by the laws of warfare onto our forces. If DaIsh uses a school/mosque/hospital/office building etc as any type of facility it removes the legal protected status from that facility, and DaIsh are the sole responsible party, NOT anyone striking the facility. Any innocents killed are the legal responsibility of those using those innocents basically as human shields, NOT the guys striking the valid target shielded by those innocents.
Our targeting process currently matches ordnance to target, not based primarily on proper weaponeering, but on reducing risk of collateral damage. That leaves some targets which are engaged with a reduced but not destroyed capability, and ensures some targets just plain get away/are not engaged.
We are blessed with technology that allows us the luxury to minimize collateral damage, and that is truly a great thing. Having said that, to not engage targets we legally can is morally wrong as it prolongs the conflict and in the end increases civilian deaths and infrastructure destruction (not at our hands).
CptJake, I hate to bring up past conflicts, but I'm reading about the Vietnam war right now, and your points are exactly what Pilots flying over North Vietnam were complaining about.
You know better than me this is not a new experience for the American military.
Jihadin wrote: You reading an overview?
The target selections being made by WH?
WH placing Hanoi off limits to bomb?
Rolling Thunder I ?
Rolling Thunder II ?
Its reverse compare to Vietnam Conflict/War.
Strike aircraft's now have to wait to receive clearance from the WH to nail a target in Iraq.
Lyndon Johnson told the military that they couldn't bomb so much as an outhouse without his permission. Little has changed in that regard.
Read up Rolling Thunder I and II
Also
Throughout the fall and into the winter of 1964, the Johnson administration debated the correct strategy in Vietnam. The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to expand the air war over the DRV quickly to help stabilize the new Saigon regime. The civilians in the Pentagon wanted to apply gradual pressure to the Communist Party with limited and selective bombings. Only Undersecretary of State George Ball dissented, claiming that Johnson's Vietnam policy was too provocative for its limited expected results. In early 1965, the NLF attacked two U.S. army installations in South Vietnam, and as a result, Johnson ordered the sustained bombing missions over the DRV that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had long advocated.
The bombing missions, known as OPERATION ROLLING THUNDER, caused the Communist Party to reassess its own war strategy. From 1960 through late 1964, the Party believed it could win a military victory in the south "in a relatively short period of time." With the new American military commitment, confirmed in March 1965 when Johnson sent the first combat troops to Vietnam, the Party moved to a protracted war strategy. The idea was to get the United States bogged down in a war that it could not win militarily and create unfavorable conditions for political victory. The Communist Party believed that it would prevail in a protracted war because the United States had no clearly defined objectives, and therefore, the country would eventually tire of the war and demand a negotiated settlement. While some naive and simple-minded critics have claimed that the Communist Party, and Vietnamese in general, did not have the same regard for life and therefore were willing to sustain more losses in a protracted war, the Party understood that it had an ideological commitment to victory from large segments of the Vietnamese population.
That something is 'legal' doesn't make it right. Besides the fact that I missed a declaration of war...hmmm...
One 'terrorist' runs into a building full of civilians and we blow up the building...Who do you think the families of those killed will blame?
This conflict is about hearts and minds. Annonymous air strikes that kill civilians will have the opposite effect.
To put it in context of this site.. Rules Lawyering to get away with stuff will rack up a good battle score, but will make your sportsmanship score tank and cause you to lose the tournament
Did everyone see this extraordinary piece of insanity?
Whatever you think of the ACA, I think everyone has to recognise and just be in awe of the moxie involved in that claim. I mean, he’s basically claiming Obamacare is bad because Republicans might have figured out a way to take Obamacare away from people.
shasolenzabi wrote: I have a simpler solution: Stop making these bogeyman groups to justify Military Industrial Complex spending and existence! Eisenhower warned of this beast as he left office, how the costs for bombers, and destroyers could have back then provided schools, hospitals, miles of roads. He warned that it would grow out of control(It has), and that it would need to justify it's existence (Creation of "Al Queda" and ISIS come to mind), and as we no longer have the old Cold War, and that Terrorist groups are losing their edge, we see Russia and China being worked into the next excuse to out spend the world in war-machinery, which we then sell our older toys off to lower tech countries all too happy to get the stuff for their own wars, or gets captured and used in civil wars.
I am ex-military myself, but I was in with Nuclear weapons, so the perspective for me and the guys and gals I served with was different than the warmongers we have now.
Stop making bad guys who did not exist before just to make it easier to spend way over what is needed to defend ourselves, and stop the Military Adventurism. Iraq was more for Oil access than spreading Freedom, and Afghanistan was for the Mining companies who wanted to get access to the mineral treasure trove that nation sits over.
All I truly see this thread as is more a circling around the mud flinging that people think is politics.
You are lost in the sauce. First off.
What year did we go in Afghanistan? What year was all the mineral resource that was valued in Afghanistan?
My link mentions a very detailed and concise geo-report by the Soviets who were there up until 1989. That is one of the surveys they had to work on, our guys went in to make sure the soviets were accurate, turns out they were. We dove into Afghanistan late 2001/early 2002
we stormed Iraq in 2003. So pre-9/11 was at least the soviet report showing how rich the country was in mineral wealth as they were trying to actually help Afghanistan become a modern state. Thanks to us, they slid backwards under the Taliban.
Had Bin Laden not been hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, would we still have gone after him via that nation? We had to have justification to get in there. Wars are about resource grabs and corporate interest, "Freedom and Liberty" is a cover for the empire of the Corporate States of Oligarchia
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Did everyone see this extraordinary piece of insanity?
Whatever you think of the ACA, I think everyone has to recognise and just be in awe of the moxie involved in that claim. I mean, he’s basically claiming Obamacare is bad because Republicans might have figured out a way to take Obamacare away from people.
Thune is an Idjit based on that tweet alone. Seriously politicians playing on twitter like teenagers is showing immaturity
Jihadin wrote: When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?
And that has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion was about relaxing the ROE and the oh well attitude if innocent civilians die...
I do not think you understand what folks like Jihadin and myself mean when we say adjust the ROE.
Right now, pilots are exposed to enemy fire, long hours in the air, dangerous carrier take offs and landings, and the vast majority return without dropping weapons on bad guys.
A large part of that is due to how the strikes are coordinated and controlled. Our ROE prohibits JTACS/TACP types from going forward and providing terminal guidance. It prevents our guys from certain ISR tasks which feed the targeting process and develop more timely hard intel. The ROE also puts a burden not required by the laws of warfare onto our forces. If DaIsh uses a school/mosque/hospital/office building etc as any type of facility it removes the legal protected status from that facility, and DaIsh are the sole responsible party, NOT anyone striking the facility. Any innocents killed are the legal responsibility of those using those innocents basically as human shields, NOT the guys striking the valid target shielded by those innocents.
Our targeting process currently matches ordnance to target, not based primarily on proper weaponeering, but on reducing risk of collateral damage. That leaves some targets which are engaged with a reduced but not destroyed capability, and ensures some targets just plain get away/are not engaged.
We are blessed with technology that allows us the luxury to minimize collateral damage, and that is truly a great thing. Having said that, to not engage targets we legally can is morally wrong as it prolongs the conflict and in the end increases civilian deaths and infrastructure destruction (not at our hands).
To an extent I agree, and I also disagree. Would we have the morale right to bomb the gak out of a mosque holding 2k lbs of HME and a few DSHK's? Yes. That doesn't win war's though, at least not this one.
The Afghan's, to put it bluntly, are an incredibly ignorant people. They don't know why we are here, and they don't know what LOAC is. They don't know that it's the Taliban/ISIS fault that their Mosque just got blown up. All they know is they saw that fancy American get fly buy, and drop a couple bombs on it. And it's sure as hell a lot easier to blame us for their increased hardships from these things, then it is to blame the people who will come by in the middle of the night and murder them.
These ROE's are put in place for the reality of the situation. Do they suck? Hell yes they do. But the situation is going to suck a whole lot more if we go and nuke half the Mosque's in this country because their being used to store weapons.
Hell, right now, I'd take Whembley versus Benghazi gate
You rang?
Did you know that it's proven that Obama and HRC knew within hours that it was a terrorist attack, and not the stupid youtube video?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Did everyone see this extraordinary piece of insanity?
Whatever you think of the ACA, I think everyone has to recognise and just be in awe of the moxie involved in that claim. I mean, he’s basically claiming Obamacare is bad because Republicans might have figured out a way to take Obamacare away from people.
It's twitter.
Again, it's not the Republicans taking it away. It's in danger of going from really bad, to a fething gak storm because the Democrats in Congress AND Obama didn't read the fething act.
shasolenzabi wrote: I have a simpler solution: Stop making these bogeyman groups to justify Military Industrial Complex spending and existence! Eisenhower warned of this beast as he left office, how the costs for bombers, and destroyers could have back then provided schools, hospitals, miles of roads. He warned that it would grow out of control(It has), and that it would need to justify it's existence (Creation of "Al Queda" and ISIS come to mind), and as we no longer have the old Cold War, and that Terrorist groups are losing their edge, we see Russia and China being worked into the next excuse to out spend the world in war-machinery, which we then sell our older toys off to lower tech countries all too happy to get the stuff for their own wars, or gets captured and used in civil wars.
I am ex-military myself, but I was in with Nuclear weapons, so the perspective for me and the guys and gals I served with was different than the warmongers we have now.
Stop making bad guys who did not exist before just to make it easier to spend way over what is needed to defend ourselves, and stop the Military Adventurism. Iraq was more for Oil access than spreading Freedom, and Afghanistan was for the Mining companies who wanted to get access to the mineral treasure trove that nation sits over.
All I truly see this thread as is more a circling around the mud flinging that people think is politics.
You are lost in the sauce. First off.
What year did we go in Afghanistan? What year was all the mineral resource that was valued in Afghanistan?
My link mentions a very detailed and concise geo-report by the Soviets who were there up until 1989. That is one of the surveys they had to work on, our guys went in to make sure the soviets were accurate, turns out they were. We dove into Afghanistan late 2001/early 2002
we stormed Iraq in 2003. So pre-9/11 was at least the soviet report showing how rich the country was in mineral wealth as they were trying to actually help Afghanistan become a modern state. Thanks to us, they slid backwards under the Taliban.
Had Bin Laden not been hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, would we still have gone after him via that nation? We had to have justification to get in there. Wars are about resource grabs and corporate interest, "Freedom and Liberty" is a cover for the empire of the Corporate States of Oligarchia
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Did everyone see this extraordinary piece of insanity?
Whatever you think of the ACA, I think everyone has to recognise and just be in awe of the moxie involved in that claim. I mean, he’s basically claiming Obamacare is bad because Republicans might have figured out a way to take Obamacare away from people.
Thune is an Idjit based on that tweet alone. Seriously politicians playing on twitter like teenagers is showing immaturity
Since I was there in 2010 so have a good idea how this went down
WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.
An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.
The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.
While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.
“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”
The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.
“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.
American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House.
So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.
Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.
The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge.
“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.
At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.
Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. “The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible?” Mr. Brinkley said. “No one knows how this will work.”
With virtually no mining industry or infrastructure in place today, it will take decades for Afghanistan to exploit its mineral wealth fully. “This is a country that has no mining culture,” said Jack Medlin, a geologist in the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs program. “They’ve had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan.”
The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.
The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.
“The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this,” Mr. Brinkley said. “We are trying to help them get ready.”
Like much of the recent history of the country, the story of the discovery of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth is one of missed opportunities and the distractions of war.
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
During the chaos of the 1990s, when Afghanistan was mired in civil war and later ruled by the Taliban, a small group of Afghan geologists protected the charts by taking them home, and returned them to the Geological Survey’s library only after the American invasion and the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.
“There were maps, but the development did not take place, because you had 30 to 35 years of war,” said Ahmad Hujabre, an Afghan engineer who worked for the Ministry of Mines in the 1970s.
Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country.
The data from those flights was so promising that in 2007, the geologists returned for an even more sophisticated study, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface. It was the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted.
The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.
But the results gathered dust for two more years, ignored by officials in both the American and Afghan governments. In 2009, a Pentagon task force that had created business development programs in Iraq was transferred to Afghanistan, and came upon the geological data. Until then, no one besides the geologists had bothered to look at the information — and no one had sought to translate the technical data to measure the potential economic value of the mineral deposits.
Soon, the Pentagon business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai.
So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.
Just this month, American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.
For the geologists who are now scouring some of the most remote stretches of Afghanistan to complete the technical studies necessary before the international bidding process is begun, there is a growing sense that they are in the midst of one of the great discoveries of their careers.
“On the ground, it’s very, very, promising,” Mr. Medlin said. “Actually, it’s pretty amazing.”
When that hit the news RC North plus up big time. Another 401st Battalion was formed up there and "Surge" units incoming to Afghanistan were re-routed to the North.
Edit
The US team was from Provisional Reconstruction Team in Northern Afghanistan. They attached themselves to a Combat Engineer unit that was well drilling for FoB's up there.
Yeah, that's the defense isn't it? That there's nothing political in the legal attempt to dismantle ACA through a single bit of poor wording. Which is just silly, basically.
Thing is, fighting ACA, well that's just politics. But if you're going to do it, actually be honest about what you're doing. Pretending that the legal challenge is somehow outside of politics is ridiculous, and leads to the complete nonsense tweet I linked above.
NTY fething hates the Citizens United ruling, but will gladly accept this.
I fail to see how the NYT accepting a donation from the Clinton Family Foundation has anything to do with the Citizens United decision. Citizens United is about corporations and the like using their general treasury to fund political advertisements within a particular period of a given election, this is not something the NYT did by endorsing Clinton.
NTY fething hates the Citizens United ruling, but will gladly accept this.
I fail to see how the NYT accepting a donation from the Clinton Family Foundation has anything to do with the Citizens United decision. Citizens United is about corporations and the like using their general treasury to fund political advertisements within a particular period of a given election, this is not something the NYT did by endorsing Clinton. Even if you wish to construe it that way, the endorsement came on January 25th, 2008; well outside the 30 day limitation imposed by McCain-Feingold.
Whembly make a leap of faith? Something like Indiana Jones in last Crusade?
Yeah, that's the defense isn't it? We aren't mounting this legal challenge, it's a force of nature.
Well... it is utter and complete rubbish ya know.
The legal doctrine for the PPACA is that only the STATE that created the exchange is eligible for subsidies. There's no ambiguity there... and it took the Obama IRS administration to :wave hands: come up with an interpretation that basically says "when we say state, we mean federal too".
The Supreme Court will make it's ruling at the end of the month. If they rule in favor of the government, nothing changes.
If, however, they rule in favor of the plantiff... that basically means that subsidies are illegal for those who purchased insurance on the Federal exchange (about 29 states I believe).
I've given up on predicting what the SC will do...
The ironic part here is that its the Republican members in congress feel pressure to "do something about it" if the SC rules in favor of the plantiff. They're a bunch of worry wort pansies.
NTY fething hates the Citizens United ruling, but will gladly accept this.
I fail to see how the NYT accepting a donation from the Clinton Family Foundation has anything to do with the Citizens United decision. Citizens United is about corporations and the like using their general treasury to fund political advertisements within a particular period of a given election, this is not something the NYT did by endorsing Clinton.
O.o
Dude... CFF donated $100,000 to NYT charity foundation, then NYT endorsed Clinton for President in '08.
Whembly make a leap of faith? Something like Indiana Jones in last Crusade?
Actually, it turns out I was wrong. I was thinking of the dates for Democratic National Convention of that year. Still, it is difficult to argue that the endorsement of the editorial board of a newspaper with national circulation can be construed as equivalent to funding advertisements targeted at specific primaries.
Dude... CFF donated $100,000 to NYT charity foundation, then NYT endorsed Clinton for President in '08.
How do you not see this?
It isn't specified that the Clinton Family Foundation made their donation prior to the NYT editorial board granting its endorsement. Even if that were the case, I see no issue. At worst a private foundation dedicated to improving the world made a donation to another organization dedicated to doing the same.
Perhaps if you could articulate a clear argument, I would be more able to understand your position. As it is now all I hear is "I hate Clinton!".
Dude... CFF donated $100,000 to NYT charity foundation, then NYT endorsed Clinton for President in '08.
How do you not see this?
It isn't specified that the Clinton Family Foundation made their donation prior to the NYT editorial board granting its endorsement. Even if that were the case, I see no issue. At worst a private foundation dedicated to improving the world made a donation to another organization dedicated to doing the same.
Perhaps if you could articulate a clear argument, I would be more able to understand your position. As it is now all I hear is "I hate Clinton!".
It's influence-seeking by Hillary Clinton by using funds from her own charity organization. Furthermore, they have not given to the Times’ charity since the initial 2008 donation.
It shows how likely that the NYT's were 'persuaded' to endorse Clinton by this :air quotes: donation. There were rumors that the editorial board had two contentious meetings before Sulzberger “tipped the scales in Clinton’s favor.”
It's influence-seeking by Hillary Clinton by using funds from her own charity organization. Furthermore, they have not given to the Times’ charity since the initial 2008 donation.
Perhaps the Clinton Family Foundation merely felt the Times' charity was in dire need of support at the time, but hasn't been since. See the funny thing is for all the noise being made about how The Clintons use their charities as slush funds, very few people have actually claimed that their tax exempt statuses should be revoked.
You know why? Because there is no solid evidence to support that they are overtly political in nature.
It shows how likely that the NYT's were 'persuaded' to endorse Clinton by this :air quotes: donation.
If the donation had been made 3 months earlier, would your argument be the same?
Oh, by the way, quid pro quo underpins pretty much everything in politics. From horsetrading in Congress, to voter expectations regarding candidate behavior.
shasolenzabi wrote: I have a simpler solution: Stop making these bogeyman groups to justify Military Industrial Complex spending and existence! Eisenhower warned of this beast as he left office, how the costs for bombers, and destroyers could have back then provided schools, hospitals, miles of roads. He warned that it would grow out of control(It has), and that it would need to justify it's existence (Creation of "Al Queda" and ISIS come to mind), and as we no longer have the old Cold War, and that Terrorist groups are losing their edge, we see Russia and China being worked into the next excuse to out spend the world in war-machinery, which we then sell our older toys off to lower tech countries all too happy to get the stuff for their own wars, or gets captured and used in civil wars.
I am ex-military myself, but I was in with Nuclear weapons, so the perspective for me and the guys and gals I served with was different than the warmongers we have now.
Stop making bad guys who did not exist before just to make it easier to spend way over what is needed to defend ourselves, and stop the Military Adventurism. Iraq was more for Oil access than spreading Freedom, and Afghanistan was for the Mining companies who wanted to get access to the mineral treasure trove that nation sits over.
All I truly see this thread as is more a circling around the mud flinging that people think is politics.
You are lost in the sauce. First off.
What year did we go in Afghanistan? What year was all the mineral resource that was valued in Afghanistan?
My link mentions a very detailed and concise geo-report by the Soviets who were there up until 1989. That is one of the surveys they had to work on, our guys went in to make sure the soviets were accurate, turns out they were. We dove into Afghanistan late 2001/early 2002
we stormed Iraq in 2003. So pre-9/11 was at least the soviet report showing how rich the country was in mineral wealth as they were trying to actually help Afghanistan become a modern state. Thanks to us, they slid backwards under the Taliban.
Had Bin Laden not been hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, would we still have gone after him via that nation? We had to have justification to get in there. Wars are about resource grabs and corporate interest, "Freedom and Liberty" is a cover for the empire of the Corporate States of Oligarchia
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Did everyone see this extraordinary piece of insanity?
Whatever you think of the ACA, I think everyone has to recognise and just be in awe of the moxie involved in that claim. I mean, he’s basically claiming Obamacare is bad because Republicans might have figured out a way to take Obamacare away from people.
Thune is an Idjit based on that tweet alone. Seriously politicians playing on twitter like teenagers is showing immaturity
Since I was there in 2010 so have a good idea how this went down
WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.
An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.
The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.
While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.
“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”
The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.
“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.
American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House.
So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.
Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.
The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge.
“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.
At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.
Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. “The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible?” Mr. Brinkley said. “No one knows how this will work.”
With virtually no mining industry or infrastructure in place today, it will take decades for Afghanistan to exploit its mineral wealth fully. “This is a country that has no mining culture,” said Jack Medlin, a geologist in the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs program. “They’ve had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan.”
The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.
The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.
“The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this,” Mr. Brinkley said. “We are trying to help them get ready.”
Like much of the recent history of the country, the story of the discovery of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth is one of missed opportunities and the distractions of war.
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
During the chaos of the 1990s, when Afghanistan was mired in civil war and later ruled by the Taliban, a small group of Afghan geologists protected the charts by taking them home, and returned them to the Geological Survey’s library only after the American invasion and the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.
“There were maps, but the development did not take place, because you had 30 to 35 years of war,” said Ahmad Hujabre, an Afghan engineer who worked for the Ministry of Mines in the 1970s.
Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country.
The data from those flights was so promising that in 2007, the geologists returned for an even more sophisticated study, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface. It was the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted.
The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.
But the results gathered dust for two more years, ignored by officials in both the American and Afghan governments. In 2009, a Pentagon task force that had created business development programs in Iraq was transferred to Afghanistan, and came upon the geological data. Until then, no one besides the geologists had bothered to look at the information — and no one had sought to translate the technical data to measure the potential economic value of the mineral deposits.
Soon, the Pentagon business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai.
So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.
Just this month, American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.
For the geologists who are now scouring some of the most remote stretches of Afghanistan to complete the technical studies necessary before the international bidding process is begun, there is a growing sense that they are in the midst of one of the great discoveries of their careers.
“On the ground, it’s very, very, promising,” Mr. Medlin said. “Actually, it’s pretty amazing.”
When that hit the news RC North plus up big time. Another 401st Battalion was formed up there and "Surge" units incoming to Afghanistan were re-routed to the North.
Edit
The US team was from Provisional Reconstruction Team in Northern Afghanistan. They attached themselves to a Combat Engineer unit that was well drilling for FoB's up there.
With all of that information, and I do like how they timed that news report, but with that news, can you see us pulling out of Afghanistan any time soon?
And China is already making acquisitions over there. Pretty messed up considering Our boys and girls spilled blood over there, just so China can move in and scoop up mineral rights.
It's entirely DIFFERENT when you use money that OTHER people donated to YOUR charity.
Private foundations are a type of charity, yes, but they do not directly do charitable work. Instead they make contributions to other 501(c)(3)s (and sometimes 501(c)(4)s) principally on the basis of an existing endowment. They do not use other people's money, they use their own. You're confusing organizations like The Clinton Family Foundation with a public charity, which is entirely different.
Granted the Clinton Foundation does not work this way, but the Clinton Family Foundation does and did.
Where was this during the IRS' refusal to grant exemptions for those Tea Party groups?
Where was what? My knowledge of the NPO segment of the 501(c) section of the tax code, and how it works?
Anyway, you're conflating two separate issues. The tax code governing 501(c)(3) private foundations and 501(c)(3) public charities have very little in common, and the standards for being granted either status are very different. And, of course, neither has much in common with 501(c)(4)s.
Moreover, there is a massive difference between being granted tax exempt status, and having it revoked. In general it is fairly difficult to gain tax exempt status, but even harder to lose it. This is doubly true of 501(c)(3) private foundations due their negative definition.
whembly wrote: Well... it is utter and complete rubbish ya know.
The legal doctrine for the PPACA is that only the STATE that created the exchange is eligible for subsidies. There's no ambiguity there... and it took the Obama IRS administration to :wave hands: come up with an interpretation that basically says "when we say state, we mean federal too".
There's no doctrine there. It was a goof by the Democrats, who late in the day realised that Republican led states weren't going to play ball and set up their own exchanges, and so rushed through the Federal exchange option, but failed to change the wording on that piece of the legislation.
I've given up on predicting what the SC will do...
I’m trying to give up on predicting in general. I’ve just read about an interesting experiment that I’ll summarise and post here when I’ve got a chance.
An on this case in particular, well I not only have no idea which way they will rule, I’m not even sure I know which way I want them to rule. On the one hand, it’s obviously just a goof and we know how it was meant to operate, but on the other hand the rule of law is pretty damn important – if there’s a flaw in the legislation then the answer should be found in amending the law in congress, not in asking a court to accept what you really meant the first time around.
That said, given you and I both know this won’t end with a nice bi-partisan amendment rushed through congress to allow subsidies for the Federal exchange, this becomes very clearly a total dick move by the Republicans.
And if it was just that dick move, well politics is a mean game and so be it. But to go beyond that dick move, and try and somehow claim that the Republican plan to take ACA away from people proves that ACA is bad… well that’s barking mad.
******
And here's a summary of that economic experiment. It's not directly related to anything being discussed here, but it doesn't really warrant its own thread.
When it comes to politics people believe a lot of stupid things. Everyone who’s ever had a Christmas dinner with their extended family knows that. There’s an argument that floated around for a while that all that nonsense isn’t actually because people are really that stupid, it’s just that when being factually right or wrong doesn’t impact you, then you will choose to believe whatever makes you feel good, even if it’s some really stupid nonsense.
To test this, a bunch of economists devised an experiment. They split their test group in two. The first was asked a bunch of standard factual questions relating to politics. Sure enough this group got lots of questions wrong, and individuals in the group showed lots of partisan bias, much the same result as these surveys always produce. The second group was asked the same questions, but they were offered a chance to win a prize, with their chance of winning increasing for every question they got right. The errors for the second group dropped by 55%. Where they were able to admit they didn’t know instead of making a guess, the error rate dropped by 80%.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/55494.html
This sort of thing has been observed in the real world as well. Noah Smith, who writes the economic blog that put me on to this survey mentioned a real world example - across Wall Street there was no shortage of very smart, very informed people predicting that quantitative easing would lead to rampant inflation. But that was just offering up free opinion, and whether that opinion was right or wrong didn’t impact the speaker at all. But when those same people were putting down their money they weren’t betting on any inflation at all, the TIPS spreads were predicting very low inflation, which of course is exactly what happened.
As for what this all means, well I don’t know. On the more fanciful end, I wonder if we could improve the standard of betting on the internet by requiring anyone who wants to contribute to actually commit money to their position. Anyone who wants to claim they know where the market is turning has to put actual money down to bet on their position. There would be a tax on bs, to use Noah Smith’s expression. But that isn’t all that practical, and is probably just about me wishing I could have made a lot of money off that derekatkinson guy.
I guess the practical end is if you hear someone giving their opinion on politics, economics or anything else really, before deciding whether you’ll just accept what they’re saying, ask yourself if they really have any motivation for being right. Do they have any skin in the game, and is the opinion being given here consistent with how they’re really betting? And on a personal level, maybe we all need to spend a bit more time asking ourselves if we actually, really need to have an opinion? Do you actually have something at stake? If you don’t, isn’t it likely that you’re just going to form an opinion that makes you feel better about yourself?
Jihadin wrote: When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?
And that has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion was about relaxing the ROE and the oh well attitude if innocent civilians die...
I do not think you understand what folks like Jihadin and myself mean when we say adjust the ROE.
Right now, pilots are exposed to enemy fire, long hours in the air, dangerous carrier take offs and landings, and the vast majority return without dropping weapons on bad guys.
A large part of that is due to how the strikes are coordinated and controlled. Our ROE prohibits JTACS/TACP types from going forward and providing terminal guidance. It prevents our guys from certain ISR tasks which feed the targeting process and develop more timely hard intel. The ROE also puts a burden not required by the laws of warfare onto our forces. If DaIsh uses a school/mosque/hospital/office building etc as any type of facility it removes the legal protected status from that facility, and DaIsh are the sole responsible party, NOT anyone striking the facility. Any innocents killed are the legal responsibility of those using those innocents basically as human shields, NOT the guys striking the valid target shielded by those innocents.
Our targeting process currently matches ordnance to target, not based primarily on proper weaponeering, but on reducing risk of collateral damage. That leaves some targets which are engaged with a reduced but not destroyed capability, and ensures some targets just plain get away/are not engaged.
We are blessed with technology that allows us the luxury to minimize collateral damage, and that is truly a great thing. Having said that, to not engage targets we legally can is morally wrong as it prolongs the conflict and in the end increases civilian deaths and infrastructure destruction (not at our hands).
CptJake, I hate to bring up past conflicts, but I'm reading about the Vietnam war right now, and your points are exactly what Pilots flying over North Vietnam were complaining about.
You know better than me this is not a new experience for the American military.
An on this case in particular, well I not only have no idea which way they will rule, I’m not even sure I know which way I want them to rule. On the one hand, it’s obviously just a goof and we know how it was meant to operate, but on the other hand the rule of law is pretty damn important – if there’s a flaw in the legislation then the answer should be found in amending the law in congress, not in asking a court to accept what you really meant the first time around.
That said, given you and I both know this won’t end with a nice bi-partisan amendment rushed through congress to allow subsidies for the Federal exchange, this becomes very clearly a total dick move by the Republicans.
And if it was just that dick move, well politics is a mean game and so be it. But to go beyond that dick move, and try and somehow claim that the Republican plan to take ACA away from people proves that ACA is bad… well that’s barking mad.
Yeah, the more I'm seeing of all this, the more I get pissed at Republicans sitting in office.
Personally, I would like the SC to simply get the ruling "right". If that means it's back to the drawing board, then it's back to the drawing board... BUT!!!! Leave those fed. exchange plans and health plans in general alone while the new plan is drawn up!! Personally, I think the US should have gone with the German or Swiss model with a single-payer system, but typical to most politicians they obviously know what they are doing
whembly wrote: Well... it is utter and complete rubbish ya know.
The legal doctrine for the PPACA is that only the STATE that created the exchange is eligible for subsidies. There's no ambiguity there... and it took the Obama IRS administration to :wave hands: come up with an interpretation that basically says "when we say state, we mean federal too".
There's no doctrine there. It was a goof by the Democrats, who late in the day realised that Republican led states weren't going to play ball and set up their own exchanges, and so rushed through the Federal exchange option, but failed to change the wording on that piece of the legislation.
I've given up on predicting what the SC will do...
I’m trying to give up on predicting in general. I’ve just read about an interesting experiment that I’ll summarise and post here when I’ve got a chance.
An on this case in particular, well I not only have no idea which way they will rule, I’m not even sure I know which way I want them to rule. On the one hand, it’s obviously just a goof and we know how it was meant to operate, but on the other hand the rule of law is pretty damn important – if there’s a flaw in the legislation then the answer should be found in amending the law in congress, not in asking a court to accept what you really meant the first time around.
It was NOT a goof.
It was done on purpose, because the democrat anticipated that the states would rush and setup their own exchange.
Subsidies was the fething carrot for the states to play ball, see this comment:
...Gruber clearly states that what the government says is absurd is actually the precise outcome intended by those who designed the law: the federal government wanted all 50 states to establish exchanges. What better way to coerce them into doing that than by making federal subsidies contingent upon the establishment of a state exchange? What the Obama administration’s legal briefs say is absurd is exactly what the law’s architect said was the end goal.
...
Guess what? The Democrats done feth'ed up and they've been spinning this furiously.
That said, given you and I both know this won’t end with a nice bi-partisan amendment rushed through congress to allow subsidies for the Federal exchange, this becomes very clearly a total dick move by the Republicans.
Good. And let them know that it's all Obama/Democrats fault.
And if it was just that dick move, well politics is a mean game and so be it. But to go beyond that dick move, and try and somehow claim that the Republican plan to take ACA away from people proves that ACA is bad… well that’s barking mad.
Again... Thume doesn't speak for Republicans.
What I'd do, if I were the Republicans is this:
1) Don't fething *fix* it. If they tried to do that, watch the incumbent get primary'ed.
2) Pass an adendum that ALLOWS for subsides on Federal exchange for current year only on contigent that the entire law is repealed.
3) That'll bring us back to pre-PPACA, which is loads better than what we have now.
4) Then it's up to the public to engage BOTH parties to come up with a bi-partisan plan.
5) Will this happen. Nope. We're fethed.
Spoiler:
******
And here's a summary of that economic experiment. It's not directly related to anything being discussed here, but it doesn't really warrant its own thread.
When it comes to politics people believe a lot of stupid things. Everyone who’s ever had a Christmas dinner with their extended family knows that. There’s an argument that floated around for a while that all that nonsense isn’t actually because people are really that stupid, it’s just that when being factually right or wrong doesn’t impact you, then you will choose to believe whatever makes you feel good, even if it’s some really stupid nonsense.
To test this, a bunch of economists devised an experiment. They split their test group in two. The first was asked a bunch of standard factual questions relating to politics. Sure enough this group got lots of questions wrong, and individuals in the group showed lots of partisan bias, much the same result as these surveys always produce. The second group was asked the same questions, but they were offered a chance to win a prize, with their chance of winning increasing for every question they got right. The errors for the second group dropped by 55%. Where they were able to admit they didn’t know instead of making a guess, the error rate dropped by 80%.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/55494.html
This sort of thing has been observed in the real world as well. Noah Smith, who writes the economic blog that put me on to this survey mentioned a real world example - across Wall Street there was no shortage of very smart, very informed people predicting that quantitative easing would lead to rampant inflation. But that was just offering up free opinion, and whether that opinion was right or wrong didn’t impact the speaker at all. But when those same people were putting down their money they weren’t betting on any inflation at all, the TIPS spreads were predicting very low inflation, which of course is exactly what happened.
As for what this all means, well I don’t know. On the more fanciful end, I wonder if we could improve the standard of betting on the internet by requiring anyone who wants to contribute to actually commit money to their position. Anyone who wants to claim they know where the market is turning has to put actual money down to bet on their position. There would be a tax on bs, to use Noah Smith’s expression. But that isn’t all that practical, and is probably just about me wishing I could have made a lot of money off that derekatkinson guy.
I guess the practical end is if you hear someone giving their opinion on politics, economics or anything else really, before deciding whether you’ll just accept what they’re saying, ask yourself if they really have any motivation for being right. Do they have any skin in the game, and is the opinion being given here consistent with how they’re really betting? And on a personal level, maybe we all need to spend a bit more time asking ourselves if we actually, really need to have an opinion? Do you actually have something at stake? If you don’t, isn’t it likely that you’re just going to form an opinion that makes you feel better about yourself?
You know why? Because there is no solid evidence to support that they are overtly political in nature.
My brain just broke dogma...
Where was this during the IRS' refusal to grant exemptions for those Tea Party groups?
Eh?
My brain just broke from the disconnect...Your arguement basically boils down to the equivalent of 'Ray just got accused of murder so obviously Dan just killed someone.'
You know why? Because there is no solid evidence to support that they are overtly political in nature.
My brain just broke dogma...
Where was this during the IRS' refusal to grant exemptions for those Tea Party groups?
Eh?
My brain just broke from the disconnect...Your arguement basically boils down to the equivalent of 'Ray just got accused of murder so obviously Dan just killed someone.'
The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials.
Baghdad has not identified or sent any new recruits to the Al Asad air base in western Iraq for as many as four to six weeks, defense officials said Monday.
The U.S. is currently training 2,601 Iraqi forces, but none of them are at Al Asad, officials said.
"Al Asad has zero. And Al Asad has had zero now for some time," said one defense official on background.
I guess somehow setting up another training site when this one is doing so spectacularly must make sense in a way I cannot quite comprehend.
The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials.
Baghdad has not identified or sent any new recruits to the Al Asad air base in western Iraq for as many as four to six weeks, defense officials said Monday.
The U.S. is currently training 2,601 Iraqi forces, but none of them are at Al Asad,officials said.
"Al Asad has zero. And Al Asad has had zero now for some time," said one defense official on background.
Just a quick note on the bolded/underlined part. We have over 3k trainers in Iraq. Think about that.
The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials.
Baghdad has not identified or sent any new recruits to the Al Asad air base in western Iraq for as many as four to six weeks, defense officials said Monday.
The U.S. is currently training 2,601 Iraqi forces, but none of them are at Al Asad, officials said.
"Al Asad has zero. And Al Asad has had zero now for some time," said one defense official on background.
I guess somehow setting up another training site when this one is doing so spectacularly must make sense in a way I cannot quite comprehend.
We know from past experience that corrupt elements in the Baghdad government were creating phantom divisions, billing the American taxpayer for cash for wages and equipment etc etc and then pocketing the money themselves. There could be an element of that going on, again!
Also, I'd like to point out that I made a mistake earlier. I've had another look at that article - it's 450 advisors, not 500.
The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials.
Baghdad has not identified or sent any new recruits to the Al Asad air base in western Iraq for as many as four to six weeks, defense officials said Monday.
The U.S. is currently training 2,601 Iraqi forces, but none of them are at Al Asad,officials said.
"Al Asad has zero. And Al Asad has had zero now for some time," said one defense official on background.
Just a quick note on the bolded/underlined part. We have over 3k trainers in Iraq. Think about that.
The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials.
Baghdad has not identified or sent any new recruits to the Al Asad air base in western Iraq for as many as four to six weeks, defense officials said Monday.
The U.S. is currently training 2,601 Iraqi forces, but none of them are at Al Asad,officials said.
"Al Asad has zero. And Al Asad has had zero now for some time," said one defense official on background.
Just a quick note on the bolded/underlined part. We have over 3k trainers in Iraq. Think about that.
Trainees not trainers...and 2601 is under 3k.
Read what I wrote a bit more carefully.
We have just over 3k trainers in Iraq. They are currently training just 2.6k Iraqis.
And we are sending more trainers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In contrast, back in 1967 MAJ Shelton and an ODA sized element along with a couple CIA augmentees trained up 650 some Bolivians into a solid Ranger Battalion which hunted down that Icon of the left, Ernesto Guevara. And 'Pappy' Shelton did not have the infrastructure or existing facilities, he built from scratch.
whembly wrote: It was done on purpose, because the democrat anticipated that the states would rush and setup their own exchange.
Not quite, the Democrats started with an assumption that there would be 50 state exchanges, and when they realised most Republican states weren't going to do that out of spite, they modified the law to include a Federal exchange, but missed editing one piece of law. That's a goof.
I can tell you one thing - no-one involved intended for people to not get subsidies to healthcare based just on what state they were in.
Guess what? The Democrats done feth'ed up and they've been spinning this furiously.
Yes, of course it was a Democrat feth up... or a goof as I already put it. The question from there is whether the Republicans will then try to exploit that to dismantle a functioning law that's given health coverage to millions, or whether they'll work to quickly resolve the issue.
Good. And let them know that it's all Obama/Democrats fault.
That's just partisan hackery. You're better than that.
Again... Thume doesn't speak for Republicans.
Nor does he exist in a bubble.
What I'd do, if I were the Republicans is this: 1) Don't fething *fix* it. If they tried to do that, watch the incumbent get primary'ed. 2) Pass an adendum that ALLOWS for subsides on Federal exchange for current year only on contigent that the entire law is repealed. 3) That'll bring us back to pre-PPACA, which is loads better than what we have now. 4) Then it's up to the public to engage BOTH parties to come up with a bi-partisan plan. 5) Will this happen. Nope. We're fethed.
For that to be at all viable there'd have to be a Republican healthcare position that's anything more than 'ACA sucks for reasons we're mostly making up'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: If that's a luxurious boat... wtf is Kerry's?
Kerry's yacht is paid for, as part of a controlled financial plan that's seen Kerry built a substantial personal estate.
On the other hand, Rubio is selling a house for less than he paid for it because he isn't making the payments, and liquidating a retirement account costing himself thousands in penalties, just because he needs the money now. The issue isn't who's boat is nicer, but who can afford the boat they bought, and who can't.
Now, none of this means he's a bad person, nor does it even mean he's necessarily bad at his job. I've got friends who are excellent at their jobs, but who's personal finances are an absolute shambles. And to some extent the mistakes he's made have been the mistakes of the noveau riche, and so it actually reflects in quite an interesting way on Rubio's climb from working class parents to where he is today.
But the issue is if you're going to stand up and say you're for fiscal responsibility and effective money handling, well then your own financial management is decent test for that. And it's a test that Rubio has failed hard enough that Romney's team cited it as a major concern when they vetted him for VP.
whembly wrote: It was done on purpose, because the democrat anticipated that the states would rush and setup their own exchange.
Not quite, the Democrats started with an assumption that there would be 50 state exchanges, and when they realised most Republican states weren't going to do that out of spite, they modified the law to include a Federal exchange, but missed editing one piece of law. That's a goof.
I can tell you one thing - no-one involved intended for people to not get subsidies to healthcare based just on what state they were in.
That's the spin. It's a "goof".
But, you're ignoring the fact that the subsidies was MEANT for state exchange only. Period. It's meant to be a brute force carrot.
It. Was. The. Plan. All. Along.
Guess what? The Democrats done feth'ed up and they've been spinning this furiously.
Yes, of course it was a Democrat feth up... or a goof as I already put it. The question from there is whether the Republicans will then try to exploit that to dismantle a functioning law that's given health coverage to millions, or whether they'll work to quickly resolve the issue.
"functioning law"??? Dude... I work in the healthcare industry. Event *if* the subsides were legal for Federal Exchange, it's STILL a fethed up law. Repealing the ACA immediately make things better. The insurance industry would go through massive correction, in a good way.
Good. And let them know that it's all Obama/Democrats fault.
That's just partisan hackery. You're better than that.
It's the truth and you know it. Why is it incumbant on the REpublican Congress to *fix* a law that they had no responsibility?
Please answer me that.
This current batch of Republicans were largely elected in opposition to the PPACA.
Again... Thume doesn't speak for Republicans.
Nor does he exist in a bubble.
Sure.
What I'd do, if I were the Republicans is this: 1) Don't fething *fix* it. If they tried to do that, watch the incumbent get primary'ed. 2) Pass an adendum that ALLOWS for subsides on Federal exchange for current year only on contigent that the entire law is repealed. 3) That'll bring us back to pre-PPACA, which is loads better than what we have now. 4) Then it's up to the public to engage BOTH parties to come up with a bi-partisan plan. 5) Will this happen. Nope. We're fethed.
For that to be at all viable there'd have to be a Republican healthcare position that's anything more than 'ACA sucks for reasons we're mostly making up'.
And you've conviently ignore multiple proposals.
You seem to argue from the standpoint that the ACA is "as good as it's going to get" and anything else is just hackery.
Seb... I love you man... but, the following is nothing more than anti-Republican criticsm by "otherizing" him...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: If that's a luxurious boat... wtf is Kerry's?
Kerry's yacht is paid for, as part of a controlled financial plan that's seen Kerry built a substantial personal estate.
The point, was that the NYT labeled Rubio's boat as "luxurious". Which, is laughable. Two things: 1) If you want to play this petty game, this is the same Kerry boat that he docks in Rhode Island, to avoid taxes in his home state massachusetts. 2) Rubio lives in coastal Florida... you either own a boat, or someone close to you have a boat. It's that fething common.
On the other hand, Rubio is selling a house for less than he paid for it because he isn't making the payments, and liquidating a retirement account costing himself thousands in penalties, just because he needs the money now. The issue isn't who's boat is nicer, but who can afford the boat they bought, and who can't.
Now, none of this means he's a bad person, nor does it even mean he's necessarily bad at his job. I've got friends who are excellent at their jobs, but who's personal finances are an absolute shambles. And to some extent the mistakes he's made have been the mistakes of the noveau riche, and so it actually reflects in quite an interesting way on Rubio's climb from working class parents to where he is today.
But the issue is if you're going to stand up and say you're for fiscal responsibility and effective money handling, well then your own financial management is decent test for that. And it's a test that Rubio has failed hard enough that Romney's team cited it as a major concern when they vetted him for VP.
Wow... it's like you (and the NYT!) is trying really hard to prove that Rubio is just like the common middle/upper-middle income class American.
I don't see how this is a bad thing for the Rubio campaign.*
*Full Disclosure: I do like Rubio, but I'm not voting for a non-Governor in the Primary.
It's the truth and you know it. Why is it incumbant on the REpublican Congress to *fix* a law that they had no responsibility?
The fact that you believe Republicans had nothing to do with how ACA turned out marks you as a partisan hack. Their blatant refusal to cooperate, despite attempts at compromise most assuredly impacted the nature of the final bill.
You seem to argue from the standpoint that the ACA is "as good as it's going to get" and anything else is just hackery.
I highly doubt that is his position.
Regardless, there is no reason to start by repealing ACA. The sensible thing to do is amend the existing legislation, while also working to develop a replacement system. This nonsense "all or nothing" approach to politics is what turned ACA into the mess that it is.
Seb... I love you man... but, the following is nothing more than anti-Republican criticsm by "otherizing" him...
I don't think you know what othering is. Seriously, simply pointing out facts about a person is not to other that person. You also have to emphasize how those characteristics make the person separate from the mainstream. Hell, Sebster outright stated that Rubio's poor financial choices are farily typical of the nouveau riche, which is about as inclusive as it gets.
Wow... it's like you (and the NYT!) is trying really hard to prove that Rubio is just like the common middle/upper-middle income class American.
I don't see how pointing out the Rubio's personal finances are a shambles makes him like "...common middle/upper-middle incomes class..." Americans, unless you believe that same category of people generally does a poor job of managing their finances.
But the issue is if you're going to stand up and say you're for fiscal responsibility and effective money handling, well then your own financial management is decent test for that. And it's a test that Rubio has failed hard enough that Romney's team cited it as a major concern when they vetted him for VP.
Strangely, I've known a number of people who volunteered or were hired to work at various non-profit organizations in a major financial way. In some of these instances these folks were the sole handler of the group's money, and strangely some of these folks could handle other people's money extremely well, but were absolutely crap with their own funds.
Personally, while I think that personal finances can be an issue in politics, I'd much rather look at how they handle other people's money because again, some folks do better with another man's wages than their own.
Jihadin wrote: Anyone else catch we're using a FoB as a training site near Ramadi?
As a matter fact I did
Al-Jazeera does some good journalism. I was watching a feature about the Iraq army this morning. I seen new recruits being trained in using mortars by US instructors. The instructors did not look impressed. Not one bit.
Also a good discussion about ISIL - these guys will not disappear overnight. In areas they control, they are adopting many functions of local government - education, tax collection, social welfare etc etc. They are more than a terrorist group. They're starting to come across as a Sunni version of Hezbollah.
Washington will need a master-plan to defeat them. A military victory is not enough.
But the issue is if you're going to stand up and say you're for fiscal responsibility and effective money handling, well then your own financial management is decent test for that. And it's a test that Rubio has failed hard enough that Romney's team cited it as a major concern when they vetted him for VP.
Strangely, I've known a number of people who volunteered or were hired to work at various non-profit organizations in a major financial way. In some of these instances these folks were the sole handler of the group's money, and strangely some of these folks could handle other people's money extremely well, but were absolutely crap with their own funds.
Personally, while I think that personal finances can be an issue in politics, I'd much rather look at how they handle other people's money because again, some folks do better with another man's wages than their own.
Even if you go off of that assessment, Rubio is not great with money. He used campaign funds for personal purchases and got caught doing so. Either he's corrupt and trying to siphon funds to enrich himself but is too incompetent to do so without getting caught, or he's incompetent enough that he can't keep his personal and political finances suitably separate. Either way, it's not a great picture.
It's the truth and you know it. Why is it incumbant on the REpublican Congress to *fix* a law that they had no responsibility?
The fact that you believe Republicans had nothing to do with how ACA turned out marks you as a partisan hack. Their blatant refusal to cooperate, despite attempts at compromise most assuredly impacted the nature of the final bill.
In what alternate universe to you live?
Pelosi and Reid shut them out during the entire drafting. The relationship got so poisoned at the end, 'tis why none of the Republican voted for it.
You seem to argue from the standpoint that the ACA is "as good as it's going to get" and anything else is just hackery.
I highly doubt that is his position.
Regardless, there is no reason to start by repealing ACA. The sensible thing to do is amend the existing legislation, while also working to develop a replacement system. This nonsense "all or nothing" approach to politics is what turned ACA into the mess that it is.
No. The sensible thing to do is temporarily grant subsidies from Federal Exchange on the current year, with a full repeal date at the end.
The "all or nothing" approach is common with all those "Comprehensive Plans on Everything" ordeal.
'Tis why I always advocated more piecemeal approach on things. But, alas, would never happen because then the congressional critters would have to "work more".
Seb... I love you man... but, the following is nothing more than anti-Republican criticsm by "otherizing" him...
I don't think you know what othering is. Seriously, simply pointing out facts about a person is not to other that person. You also have to emphasize how those characteristics make the person separate from the mainstream. Hell, Sebster outright stated that Rubio's poor financial choices are farily typical of the nouveau riche, which is about as inclusive as it gets.
You're missing the point. It's an attempt by the NYT to do this... because, he's not a Democrat.
Frankly, his actual record has plenty of things to ding him on.... Some big ones too, like is antics with the Gang of Eight.
Wow... it's like you (and the NYT!) is trying really hard to prove that Rubio is just like the common middle/upper-middle income class American.
I don't see how pointing out the Rubio's personal finances are a shambles makes him like "...common middle/upper-middle incomes class..." Americans, unless you believe that same category of people generally does a poor job of managing their finances.
Um... why exactly do you think they're in shambles?
I don't see it.
Oh... here's the Rubio response:
"But the biggest debt I have is to America"
Indeed... well played.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: Jon Fething Stewart calls this BS:
“You bastard. Paying off law school loans? How dare you. At long last Senator, have you no sense of insolvency?” Stewart ribbed.
whembly wrote: It's the truth and you know it. Why is it incumbant on the REpublican Congress to *fix* a law that they had no responsibility? Please answer me that.
Because millions of people rely on the subisidies provided, as part of a system that gives millions healthcare who wouldn’t otherwise have it. You’re so lost in the politics you seem to have missed that this actually impacts on people’s lives. And that’s a little bit shameful, to be honest.
And you've conviently ignore multiple proposals.
But there isn’t a serious Republican alternative. There’s a thought bubble that’s a weird combination of ‘like ACA but with some stuff to make it pretend it isn’t’, that’s pretty much held together with a proposed tax for employees on plans. At least that’s the one I’ve read, and to call that a politically viable alternative is nonsense.
And I like the idea of taxing employer provided healthcare – I wouldn’t even have the exemption for plans under the threshold. But the Republicans aren’t going to seriously replace ACA with something build around a tax hike.
You seem to argue from the standpoint that the ACA is "as good as it's going to get" and anything else is just hackery.
There’s lots of healthcare systems out there that are vastly superior to the American system. But the reality is that in your current political climate it took some really weird politics to even get the fairly minor reforms of the ACA in place. And the freak out about that is still going on. To think the Republicans are going to walk in to that and take the electoral hit the Democrats took over ACA is political naivety.
Wow... it's like you (and the NYT!) is trying really hard to prove that Rubio is just like the common middle/upper-middle income class American.
And now you’re just being reflexively argumentative. Read my post fully, please. You’ll find I dismissed the argument a few of you were making that the claims made about Rubio weren’t true, for the simple reason that he really does have a background of poor financial management. I then went on to say that while it is true, it’s a fairly trivial thing, and in some ways isn’t even a bad thing, as it reflects a common story among people who’ve moved up through the socio-economic classes.
I mean, if you want to argue and point score then I’m sure you can find someone who’s happy to go and copy paste the list of Democrat approved talking points at you, while you reply with the Republican approved talking points. I’m not interested in that, I attempted to give a fairly complete look at the Rubio money thing, and all you did was pick out that I raised one part that works in the Republican’s favour, and used that to point score against me.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Personally, while I think that personal finances can be an issue in politics, I'd much rather look at how they handle other people's money because again, some folks do better with another man's wages than their own.
I agree his personal finances are a side issue. I think the Democrats are way over-reaching on this, and also showing a little bit of hypocrisy. Plenty of times in the past they’ve been quick to point out, quite rightly, that the ability to build a large personal fortune doesn’t mean you have any skill at all in managing an economy. But now they’re forgetting that the two things are unrelated because it suits them.
Personally, I think the issue of far greater substance is the woeful performance of states that lowered taxes in the belief that it wouldn’t impact revenue because of Laffer curve insanity. Every one of them is now facing a fiscal blackhole.
But for lots of reasons actual fiscal analysis even on that simple level is ignored, because it’s easier and more fun to rip in to the guy who bought a boat he couldn’t afford. Such is politics.
Pelosi and Reid shut them out during the entire drafting. The relationship got so poisoned at the end, 'tis why none of the Republican voted for it.
At the end they did, but that's largely because it became apparent the Republicans weren't going to agree to anything the Democrats suggested. Rather foolish of them to wait that long, really.
The "all or nothing" approach is common with all those "Comprehensive Plans on Everything" ordeal.
'Tis why I always advocated more piecemeal approach on things. But, alas, would never happen because then the congressional critters would have to "work more".
It has nothing to do with Congress being unwilling to do work. It has everything to do with the fact that as more changes to the system are made, the more time consuming and complicated reform becomes.
Regardless, my point about "all or nothing" has as much to do with the present state of partisan politics as it did with the nature of ACA. We live in an age of slippery slope arguments and purity tests.
You're missing the point. It's an attempt by the NYT to do this... because, he's not a Democrat.
If that was your point, you did a poor job of communicating it, particularly with your attempt to reference the concept of othering.
Either way the NYT leans left so it tends to pick up potential scandals related to the right, film at 11. But, really, who cares? There is no reason to dismiss information simply because it was provided by a source with a clear political bias. That way lies hackery.
Um... why exactly do you think they're in shambles?
I don't see it.
He spent beyond his means, as the nouveau riche tend to do, and ended up in financial trouble due to a number of poor choices. The Tallahassee house he had to sell at a loss being the most obvious one. Then of course there's the issue of using Party and campaign funds for personal expenditures. This is normal, of course, but doesn't fit well with a fiscally conservative image.
I agree his personal finances are a side issue. I think the Democrats are way over-reaching on this, and also showing a little bit of hypocrisy. Plenty of times in the past they’ve been quick to point out, quite rightly, that the ability to build a large personal fortune doesn’t mean you have any skill at all in managing an economy. But now they’re forgetting that the two things are unrelated because it suits them.
To the extent that Rubio's personal finances are an issue, I would think his biggest concern would be the fact that Scott Walker has a net worth well into the red; giving him a bit more cred as the common man who made it good.
dogma wrote: At the end they did, but that's largely because it became apparent the Republicans weren't going to agree to anything the Democrats suggested. Rather foolish of them to wait that long, really.
Yeah, that’s really the piece of revisionism that still staggers me to this day, even with everything else that’s happened. The Republicans set out from the start to destroy the healthcare reform. We have the statements from party leaders, we have the campaign to put people in town hall meetings with the instruction to shout down discussion on the issue. And all throughout the process we had non-sensical attacks about socialism and other nonsense, on top of that we had straight up lies about what was in the bill (death panels anyone?).
And after all that, when the bill finally limps over the line, then Republicans start complaining they weren’t included in the process. It’s incredible, really.
sebster wrote: on top of that we had straight up lies about what was in the bill (death panels anyone?).
Honestly, I don't know what's worse, the lies coming from one party, or the "Well you'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" coming from the other party.
But, I suppose that such is apparently the new way of politicking in the US
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Honestly, I don't know what's worse, the lies coming from one party, or the "Well you'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" coming from the other party.
Except even that is only ever presented out of context. Pelosi was discussing the period before reconciliation, when the House had passed a bill but the Senate hadn’t. Her point was specifically that until the Senate passed their own version, then they couldn’t start reconciliation to decide what was going to be in the final version. So what she said basically was ‘The senate will have to pass a bill, so we can see what’s in their bill, and then we can talk about what will be in the final reconciled bill’.
It's not a particularly good way of writing legislation, an issue that's since shown up with the current case before the Supreme Court, but, well, we’ve had a million conversations about the reconciliation process before and why it happened, I don’t think we need another.
I really don’t want to end up a defender of the Democrats, but when it came to the ACA there was only one party acting in nothing but bad faith (the other party was semi-incompetently stumbling towards eventually having to do something useful for people, for once).
whembly wrote: Frankly, his actual record has plenty of things to ding him on.... Some big ones too, like is antics with the Gang of Eight.
Well earning the money is no guarantee that the media won't use it as a beating stick (Romney). Perhaps he should take a leaf out of a politician's book who's money is not often brought up to question his fitness for office; maybe he should have married money instead like John Kerry
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Honestly, I don't know what's worse, the lies coming from one party, or the "Well you'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" coming from the other party.
The only time that line should be acceptable is when it comes to stool samples.
It's the truth and you know it. Why is it incumbant on the REpublican Congress to *fix* a law that they had no responsibility?
The fact that you believe Republicans had nothing to do with how ACA turned out marks you as a partisan hack. Their blatant refusal to cooperate, despite attempts at compromise most assuredly impacted the nature of the final bill.
In what alternate universe to you live?
Pelosi and Reid shut them out during the entire drafting. The relationship got so poisoned at the end, 'tis why none of the Republican voted for it.
The one where Politifacts lie of the year, wasn't a lie.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Rs knew exactly what they were doing. Working together to create a new golden age of healthcare in the US was not in the Rs best interest. You don't win votes by working with the other side to do something good for the nation. You win votes by making the other side look worse than you. A bad ACA has allowed many Rs to win recent elections, a good ACA wouldn't have done so. It's really as simple as that. If you don't think the Rs leadership didn't have advisors and strategists whispering these things in their ears ("psst, sabotage healthcare reform, blame the other side, and get re-elected, or help pass healthcare reform for the good of the nation, the other side gets the credit, and you don't get re-elected"), then it's time to wake up and smell the hummus.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Rs knew exactly what they were doing. Working together to create a new golden age of healthcare in the US was not in the Rs best interest. You don't win votes by working with the other side to do something good for the nation. You win votes by making the other side look worse than you. A bad ACA has allowed many Rs to win recent elections, a good ACA wouldn't have done so. It's really as simple as that. If you don't think the Rs leadership didn't have advisors and strategists whispering these things in their ears ("psst, sabotage healthcare reform, blame the other side, and get re-elected, or help pass healthcare reform for the good of the nation, the other side gets the credit, and you don't get re-elected"), then it's time to wake up and smell the hummus.
I'm sorry, but that's hogwash.
There's no two sides (Ds vs Rs) in the Healthcare reform debates. There's a multitudes of idea from both parties that could've be voted/implemented piecemeal.
The only fault the Democrats did was to try to do this 'comprehensibly'. That's where it becomes a bad law in that, every special interest group/politician would want their pet-idea.
Um... why exactly do you think they're in shambles?
I don't see it.
He spent beyond his means, as the nouveau riche tend to do, and ended up in financial trouble due to a number of poor choices. The Tallahassee house he had to sell at a loss being the most obvious one. Then of course there's the issue of using Party and campaign funds for personal expenditures. This is normal, of course, but doesn't fit well with a fiscally conservative image.
Okay... that makes more sense and his inappropriate use of campaign funds is certainly fair game. (he's paid it back and it's not an uncommon thing with the political environment).
I don't think it'll hurt him in the primary... may even help him win. (which, tbh, I don't want him as President. I'm partial to governors).
Marco Rubio bought a bunch of stuff he probably couldn’t afford. Welcome to America. So the New York Times has pulled together another hit piece — this one insinuating that Rubio, who the newspaper evidently believes is the GOP front-runner, is both a reckless spendthrift and a financial failure.
The story — either clumsily or, more likely, deliberately — confuses offshore fishing boats with “luxury speedboats” and pickup trucks with SUVs to render a distasteful account of Rubio’s financial life. But what we really learned is that though Rubio is not great with money, the senator from Florida has relatively modest desires, considering his fame. And his story features the kinds of struggles that middle-class voters often face when juggling bills, family, and their investments. Rubio, the Times tells us, made a series of decisions over the past 15 years “that experts called imprudent.” Rubio stacked up “significant” debts before his big payday. And he “splurged” on “extravagant” purchases after securing his $800,000 advance in a book deal. He has a “penchant” for spending heavily on “luxury items,” such as a boat in Florida, and he also leased a 2015 Audi Q7 — after receiving that sizable advance.
It didn’t end there. The Rubios went nuts with an “in-ground pool” — instead of a cheaper above-ground model — a “handsome” brick driveway, “meticulously manicured shrubs,” and “oversize windows.” At the same time, Rubio — one of the poorest senators, according to the Center for Responsive Politics — also carried a “strikingly low” savings rate, the newspaper points out. And his inattentive accounting methods lost him more money.
As far as the politics go, the New York Times could not have done Rubio a bigger favor. Convincing voters that you’re one of them typically takes millions, a fabulist tale about your upbringing, and maybe a Chipotle stop or two. Convincing them that you have empathy for their situation is an even more formidable task. But Rubio is now you. As Christopher Hayes tweeted, “starting to think Rubio has some plant in the NYT and these supposed ‘hit-jobs’ on him are false flags made to make him look sympathetic.”[whembly: heh, I'm stealing that]The question is: Does any of this really matter to voters? I’m typically uninspired by candidates who pretend to be like me or, even worse, are anything like me. I’m terrible. I wouldn’t trust me with anything too serious, and I probably wouldn’t trust you, either. So when I do vote, my decision is driven by the ideological outlook of a candidate or, as is far more often the case, how much I detest the ideological outlook of the rival candidate. Whether that candidate is a billionaire or spends spare time helping orphans with autism in inner cities or shovels his own snow does not matter. People with compelling ideas and the right temperament for the job can emerge from any facet of society.
But I realize many Americans disagree. They distrust elites. They desire candidates who understand them. Rubio certainly has something that neither Mitt Romney nor George W. Bush could muster: a non-theoretical grasp of how a child of working-class parents can find success in America. So there really is nothing inherently inappropriate about the media’s scrutinizing the fiscal lives of candidates. If you’re going to run for president, there’s no reason voters shouldn’t be curious about your past conduct and choices — especially in an age when politicians have few qualms about involving themselves in your personal choices. The problem with the New York Times investigation is not so much that it’s a transparent attempt to paint Rubio as an unfit candidate but that the paper exhibits an ugly double standard in coverage.
Listen, some folks make $100,000 trading cattle futures their first time out of the gate, and others have to take on mortgages and wait years for any profit. Which reminds me. Watching fans of Hillary Clinton’s attacking Rubio for his fiscal failings should be a comic experience. That’s not because Clinton is preposterously wealthy for someone who has accomplished so little. It’s because Clinton got her hands on gobs of cash in a truly detestable manner. Not only has she peddled her influence but also that influence was bought with the success of someone else’s name. If 2016 pits Rubio against Clinton, it won’t pit a guy who has trouble balancing a checkbook against a prosperous and talented woman. It’ll be a race that pits a person whose greed and corruption go back decades against a guy whose dream, according to the New York Times, is a fishing boat and a nice car — the kind of items that even average Americans regularly covet.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Rs knew exactly what they were doing. Working together to create a new golden age of healthcare in the US was not in the Rs best interest. You don't win votes by working with the other side to do something good for the nation.
Yep. The position is pretty simple.
1) In 2008 the position of the Republican party was absolutely dire. The Republican brand was so bad that a Republican actually ran his campaign without putting Republican on his campaign material, and his Democrat opponent sued him to try to make him put it on.
2) The Democrat win was almost absolute. If it wasn't anyone other than the Democrats it would have been absolute, but those guys are a herd of cats and managed to screw up control of the presidency and both houses, with a non-filibuster majority in the senate. This gave Democrats both the power and the momentum for major reform, and the issue that it had to be was healthcare.
3) If the Republicans just meekly surrendered to this and accepted a junior seat and the negotiating table on healthcare, they're looking at probably a generation in the wilderness. Republicans had been out of power for long periods before, it only makes sense they'll do what they can to fight that.
4) Instead, the Republicans played on what everyone knew (or should have known) - healthcare is an issue that freaks people out. If they could increase and focus that freak out against the Democrats, then it could recover their base and return the party to legitimacy much faster.
5) So as the Democrats started their public discussion of possible reform, the Republicans were already underway, starting faux grassroots groups to shout nonsense and get as many people as possible scared about the bill, and inventing all sorts of complaints against the proposed reforms that could only be described as some combination of lies and total insanity. As the debate and bill developed, Republicans never let up on that campaign, and for good reason - it was working - their numbers were up, they'd already scored a remarkable win in Ted Kennedy's old seat, and they'd built a wave to take them to big wins in the 2010 elections.
6) While the plan worked brilliantly for the Republicans electorally, it probably almost worked too well in terms of the bill itself. Previously healthcare scare campaigns had worked well enough to score political points and kill the reform, but this time the bill was so vilified Democrats were actually left with no choice but to pass the thing (it was so unpopular the only way out was to pass the thing and then point out it didn't actually involve putting Hitler's brain in a shark).
7) This meant the Republicans ended up with an electoral victory, but a massive legislative defeat - here was the most significant piece of reform in years, and they shut themselves out of it entirely. Not a good look when you next want to trade legislative influence for campaign contributions. So Republicans then invented a new narrative - that they wanted to be involved all along, but the Democrats weren't letting them.
Honestly, having had a lot of time to think about it, I'm actually not that annoyed about the Republican strategy. There were some individual actions that were terrible, but the overall strategy is really want any political party would do in their position - it's simply not sensible to insist a political party should play nice and just accept a decade or two in the wilderness.
Its really the Republican faithful who bought in to each lie that I really just can't fathom. I have no problem with people who hold Republican values and accept the above manipulation and deceit as part of the game, but the people who still pretend the Republicans acted in good faith... well the only way I can understand it is to believe those people must kind of enjoy being lied to on some level, because they can't possibly honestly believe any of it at this point.
I just hope we don't get to a point to where we will see the Presidency and Both houses controlled by one party. I also feel there is way more religious baiting going on in the recent years, something that should absolutely have no room in politics.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Rs knew exactly what they were doing. Working together to create a new golden age of healthcare in the US was not in the Rs best interest. You don't win votes by working with the other side to do something good for the nation.
Yep. The position is pretty simple.
1) In 2008 the position of the Republican party was absolutely dire. The Republican brand was so bad that a Republican actually ran his campaign without putting Republican on his campaign material, and his Democrat opponent sued him to try to make him put it on.
2) The Democrat win was almost absolute. If it wasn't anyone other than the Democrats it would have been absolute, but those guys are a herd of cats and managed to screw up control of the presidency and both houses, with a non-filibuster majority in the senate. This gave Democrats both the power and the momentum for major reform, and the issue that it had to be was healthcare.
3) If the Republicans just meekly surrendered to this and accepted a junior seat and the negotiating table on healthcare, they're looking at probably a generation in the wilderness. Republicans had been out of power for long periods before, it only makes sense they'll do what they can to fight that.
4) Instead, the Republicans played on what everyone knew (or should have known) - healthcare is an issue that freaks people out. If they could increase and focus that freak out against the Democrats, then it could recover their base and return the party to legitimacy much faster.
5) So as the Democrats started their public discussion of possible reform, the Republicans were already underway, starting faux grassroots groups to shout nonsense and get as many people as possible scared about the bill, and inventing all sorts of complaints against the proposed reforms that could only be described as some combination of lies and total insanity. As the debate and bill developed, Republicans never let up on that campaign, and for good reason - it was working - their numbers were up, they'd already scored a remarkable win in Ted Kennedy's old seat, and they'd built a wave to take them to big wins in the 2010 elections.
6) While the plan worked brilliantly for the Republicans electorally, it probably almost worked too well in terms of the bill itself. Previously healthcare scare campaigns had worked well enough to score political points and kill the reform, but this time the bill was so vilified Democrats were actually left with no choice but to pass the thing (it was so unpopular the only way out was to pass the thing and then point out it didn't actually involve putting Hitler's brain in a shark).
7) This meant the Republicans ended up with an electoral victory, but a massive legislative defeat - here was the most significant piece of reform in years, and they shut themselves out of it entirely. Not a good look when you next want to trade legislative influence for campaign contributions. So Republicans then invented a new narrative - that they wanted to be involved all along, but the Democrats weren't letting them.
Honestly, having had a lot of time to think about it, I'm actually not that annoyed about the Republican strategy. There were some individual actions that were terrible, but the overall strategy is really want any political party would do in their position - it's simply not sensible to insist a political party should play nice and just accept a decade or two in the wilderness.
Its really the Republican faithful who bought in to each lie that I really just can't fathom. I have no problem with people who hold Republican values and accept the above manipulation and deceit as part of the game, but the people who still pretend the Republicans acted in good faith... well the only way I can understand it is to believe those people must kind of enjoy being lied to on some level, because they can't possibly honestly believe any of it at this point.
I remember some of the lies and scare stories that the Republicans peddled about healthcare in the UK. God, that made my blood boil, and made me want to fly over there and put my boot up some Republican backsides!
Vash108 wrote: I just hope we don't get to a point to where we will see the Presidency and Both houses controlled by one party. I also feel there is way more religious baiting going on in the recent years, something that should absolutely have no room in politics.
Its typically unusual and typical only lasts one election cycle.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I remember some of the lies and scare stories that the Republicans peddled about healthcare in the UK. God, that made my blood boil, and made me want to fly over there and put my boot up some Republican backsides!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the extraordinary things claimed about the UK and Canadian healthcare systems. And France to a lesser extent.
Poor Australia, we always get missed when people in the US make up weird political claims. Unless its gun control, then we get some awesome nonsense
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I remember some of the lies and scare stories that the Republicans peddled about healthcare in the UK. God, that made my blood boil, and made me want to fly over there and put my boot up some Republican backsides!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the extraordinary things claimed about the UK and Canadian healthcare systems. And France to a lesser extent.
Poor Australia, we always get missed when people in the US make up weird political claims. Unless its gun control, then we get some awesome nonsense
<way past your bedtime? 3am in Perth?>
I want the German model. (not to familiar with Australia's)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I remember some of the lies and scare stories that the Republicans peddled about healthcare in the UK. God, that made my blood boil, and made me want to fly over there and put my boot up some Republican backsides!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the extraordinary things claimed about the UK and Canadian healthcare systems. And France to a lesser extent.
Poor Australia, we always get missed when people in the US make up weird political claims. Unless its gun control, then we get some awesome nonsense
Some of the more lunatic fringe of the American right were claiming that Stephen Hawking would have been killed by the UK style health service in the USA, until Hawking himself dismissed it as nonsense and defended the UK health service for saving his life.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whembley, there's a reason why I don't criticise gun owners in the USA anymore, and it's not because I'm scared of getting a hail of lead my way
but because I respect the cultural aspect and of course, your country your rules. I take this viewpoint because the ignorance of some Americans towards health care in the UK, made me see things differently. The UK health service is a major cultural thing in our society, just like your guns. We don't like foreigners attacking it, and I emphasise with Americans who resent being lectured by foreigners on gun control.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whembley, there's a reason why I don't criticise gun owners in the USA anymore, and it's not because I'm scared of getting a hail of lead my way
but because I respect the cultural aspect and of course, your country your rules. I take this viewpoint because the ignorance of some Americans towards health care in the UK, made me see things differently. The UK health service is a major cultural thing in our society, just like your guns. We don't like foreigners attacking it, and I emphasise with Americans who resent being lectured by foreigners on gun control.
I do understand that.
FWIW... I know of two... (TWO) British expats living here in Missouri. After living here for years, they came to hate what the NHS became home. :shrugs:
It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.
Someone from dakka needs to *use* the NHS or Australia's System... then, move to the US for a bit and try ours out and give a good report.
Just like our gunz. Come visit... we can show you a good time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whembley, there's a reason why I don't criticise gun owners in the USA anymore, and it's not because I'm scared of getting a hail of lead my way
but because I respect the cultural aspect and of course, your country your rules. I take this viewpoint because the ignorance of some Americans towards health care in the UK, made me see things differently. The UK health service is a major cultural thing in our society, just like your guns. We don't like foreigners attacking it, and I emphasise with Americans who resent being lectured by foreigners on gun control.
I do understand that.
FWIW... I know of two... (TWO) British expats living here in Missouri. After living here for years, they came to hate what the NHS became home.
:shrugs:
It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.
Someone from dakka needs to *use* the NHS or Australia's System... then, move to the US for a bit and try ours out and give a good report.
Just like our gunz. Come visit... we can show you a good time.
I am planning on moving to North America one day...but it's Canada for me
Ahtman wrote: I think we may have found our next motto.
Dakka OT: It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.
Heh.
The point I was trying to drive at is that it's hard to truly compare and contrast things like healthcare between countries.
That's why sebster drives me bonkers.... he talks from a well reasoned, rational standpoint regarding our healthcare debates... but, it's acedemic. Why? Because just like it's unfair to trash the NHS or AU's Healthcare system... it's just as unfair to trash the US' without having experienced both.
Sorta akin to our famous gun violence debates here.
An article, which I first came across a few months back, with an anecdotal comparison of the two services. I can say that, having repeatedly escorted my wife to the hospital for an ongoing health concern, that it sounds correct to me for the British side.
An article, which I first came across a few months back, with an anecdotal comparison of the two services. I can say that, having repeatedly escorted my wife to the hospital for an ongoing health concern, that it sounds correct to me for the British side.
Not bad...
How is the NHS paid for? Is that spelled out on your paystubs?
For frame of reference: I paid effective federal tax rate of 27%. (state about 11% from memory). Part of those funds the Medicare (over 64 yo) "single-payor lite system" and Medicaid (State insurance for the needy). I don't use those systems.
But I pay for part of my insurance premiums... here's a breakdown out of my bi-weekly paycheck I pay Medical: $117, my employer pays $363 I pay Dental: $18, my employer pays $13 I pay Vision: $6
So, per pay check, I pay $141 for my various insurances (and my employer pays $376).
The insurance plan is solid, in that it's covers just about every non-elective things.
The one where Politifacts lie of the year, wasn't a lie.
I don't see how the "If you like your plan, you keep it." fiasco has anything to do with the circumstances surrounding the drafting and passage of ACA.
whembly wrote: Because just like it's unfair to trash the NHS or AU's Healthcare system... it's just as unfair to trash the US' without having experienced both.
Sure, if you consider any sort of criticism to be an attempt to "trash" a system.
If you want anecdotes: it was much easier for me to obtain care for my knee (chronic issues related to ACL reconstruction) during my 5 month stay in the UK than it was for me to obtain it out of network in the US; despite the fact that my US insurance was being leveraged in both cases.
An article, which I first came across a few months back, with an anecdotal comparison of the two services. I can say that, having repeatedly escorted my wife to the hospital for an ongoing health concern, that it sounds correct to me for the British side.
Not bad...
How is the NHS paid for? Is that spelled out on your paystubs?
For frame of reference: I paid effective federal tax rate of 27%. (state about 11% from memory). Part of those funds the Medicare (over 64 yo) "single-payor lite system" and Medicaid (State insurance for the needy). I don't use those systems.
But I pay for part of my insurance premiums... here's a breakdown out of my bi-weekly paycheck
I pay Medical: $117, my employer pays $363
I pay Dental: $18, my employer pays $13
I pay Vision: $6
So, per pay check, I pay $141 for my various insurances (and my employer pays $376).
The insurance plan is solid, in that it's covers just about every non-elective things.
What gets pricey for me are the elective stuff.
:shrugs:
Keep in mind, though, that your insurance plan is essentially chosen by your employer. They may offer you more than one choice, but if you want your employer to chip in on it, then you gotta go with what they have decided on. Sure, good employers will offer good plans, but not all of them would. I pay about the same as you do for a very good plan, but my wife didn't get anywhere near as good options in her job as a schoolteacher.
Keep in mind, though, that your insurance plan is essentially chosen by your employer. They may offer you more than one choice, but if you want your employer to chip in on it, then you gotta go with what they have decided on. Sure, good employers will offer good plans, but not all of them would. I pay about the same as you do for a very good plan, but my wife didn't get anywhere near as good options in her job as a schoolteacher.
And as the old addage goes, you get what you pay for.... the "free" healthcare that I got in the army was what ultimately put me out of the army
One of the few upsides to army medicine that I've seen over some civilian medical systems, is that the army doesn't particularly care about costs, and so the "good" doctors will see your ankle swollen and say, "hmm, I think we need an MRI of this... Go get an X-ray today, then once I've looked at it, we'll get the MRI scheduled"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whembley, there's a reason why I don't criticise gun owners in the USA anymore, and it's not because I'm scared of getting a hail of lead my way
but because I respect the cultural aspect and of course, your country your rules. I take this viewpoint because the ignorance of some Americans towards health care in the UK, made me see things differently. The UK health service is a major cultural thing in our society, just like your guns. We don't like foreigners attacking it, and I emphasise with Americans who resent being lectured by foreigners on gun control.
I do understand that.
FWIW... I know of two... (TWO) British expats living here in Missouri. After living here for years, they came to hate what the NHS became home. :shrugs:
It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.
Someone from dakka needs to *use* the NHS or Australia's System... then, move to the US for a bit and try ours out and give a good report.
Just like our gunz. Come visit... we can show you a good time.
Well I would, but without PPACA I wouldn't be able to get insurance
I found this part of the comparison aka the conclusion of the piece to be very interesting.
The bottom line: I prefer the NHS to the American private system. It's a little more inconvenient in terms of appointment times, but due to the fact that it is free, has no paperwork, and the treatment on the day is super-fast, the NHS wins. That Rolls Royce is moving at a pretty decent clip.
And, of course, there is the small matter of the fact that the NHS covers everyone equally, whereas Americans get care based on their ability to pay, leaving tens of millions with only minimal access to care. (Obamacare is changing that, but it's leagues behind the NHS if you're comparing them by the standard of universal full-service coverage.)
Americans think they have the best healthcare in the world. Take it from me, a fellow American: They don't.
Wife was having a movie sleepover at her sisters, I was looking after bubby so I got wild and posted on the internet until like 3.30am. Life in the fast lane
I want the German model. (not to familiar with Australia's)
The German model is actually pretty damn expensive for what you get. I think any model that drags in employers is going to be, just because you end up adding a stakeholder who isn't a provider or beneficiary. But it has lots of strengths all the same (insurers as not-for-profit, coverage determined by technical committees) and it's probably the best system that the US could reach from where it is today. But if people freaked out about ACA, imagine trying to get the insurance companies to basically convert to not-for-profit organisations
The Australian model is quite similar to the German one, but ours is a lot messier on the split between private and public.
Honestly, I think from a purely economic point of view, the US system could benefit from massive reforms just by doing one thing - tax employer contributions as if they were income (this is actually in the recently released Republican proposal, and is honestly the best thing to come out of the Republican party since Bush's proposed removal of double taxation on dividends). That subsidy costs billions in federal govt revenue, and so you can take that money and build a really healthy income assessed subsidy scheme, similar to what's in place now but far more extensive (so it could effectively replace the medicaid expansion).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.
Worthless anecdotes? I've got one of those!
When I honeymooned in the US we booked our travel insurance, and depending on where you go you get a risk rating. Europe, Japan and all the other first world places get put together as the cheapest insurance... except the US. The US gets lumped in with Africa and South America. This is because if you get sick in the US the bill is astronomically higher than it would be anywhere else.
Someone from dakka needs to *use* the NHS or Australia's System... then, move to the US for a bit and try ours out and give a good report.
The issue here is that the comparison is going to come down to personal factors more than an overall view of either system. Whether a condition is easily identifiable and treated and stuff like that will determine your experience with the medical system far more than any real difference between countries.
Just like our gunz. Come visit... we can show you a good time.
Man I want to take you up on that offer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The point I was trying to drive at is that it's hard to truly compare and contrast things like healthcare between countries.
That's why sebster drives me bonkers.... he talks from a well reasoned, rational standpoint regarding our healthcare debates... but, it's acedemic. Why? Because just like it's unfair to trash the NHS or AU's Healthcare system... it's just as unfair to trash the US' without having experienced both.
But my point about the US system isn't about which system is the nicest to experience. My point has always been about what you pay, compared to the outcomes you get.
It is well established that the US system costs about twice the average of other industrialised nations. And in terms of outcomes, the US is pretty much the same as the rest of the developed world*. I think most people, once they realise they've just paid $50k for a car that was almost identical to a car that is selling for $25k they'd feel ripped off.
*There's a lot of studies that rank the healthcare outcomes of different countries, and the US is pretty consistently middle of the road in all of these. But the bigger story is you look behind the numbers and you'll see that rankings actually mask extremely small differences in performance. All developed countries have live baby numbers are fairly close, have life expectancy figures that are pretty close, and variations in malpractice are almost all due to legal differences, not the actual quality of care provided. There are differences in one technique or another from place to place, but across the whole you're getting more or less the same experience.
Honestly, I think from a purely economic point of view, the US system could benefit from massive reforms just by doing one thing - tax employer contributions as if they were income (this is actually in the recently released Republican proposal, and is honestly the best thing to come out of the Republican party since Bush's proposed removal of double taxation on dividends). That subsidy costs billions in federal govt revenue, and so you can take that money and build a really healthy income assessed subsidy scheme, similar to what's in place now but far more extensive (so it could effectively replace the medicaid expansion).
Not really in favor of that...This is basically a huge tax rise for the middle class/working poor while hardly a tax rise at all for the upper class. Granted, doesn't affect the really poor who don't have employer-provided health care.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I remember some of the lies and scare stories that the Republicans peddled about healthcare in the UK. God, that made my blood boil, and made me want to fly over there and put my boot up some Republican backsides!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the extraordinary things claimed about the UK and Canadian healthcare systems. And France to a lesser extent.
Poor Australia, we always get missed when people in the US make up weird political claims. Unless its gun control, then we get some awesome nonsense
Some of the more lunatic fringe of the American right were claiming that Stephen Hawking would have been killed by the UK style health service in the USA, until Hawking himself dismissed it as nonsense and defended the UK health service for saving his life.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whembley, there's a reason why I don't criticise gun owners in the USA anymore, and it's not because I'm scared of getting a hail of lead my way
but because I respect the cultural aspect and of course, your country your rules. I take this viewpoint because the ignorance of some Americans towards health care in the UK, made me see things differently. The UK health service is a major cultural thing in our society, just like your guns. We don't like foreigners attacking it, and I emphasise with Americans who resent being lectured by foreigners on gun control.
Whereas in Australia, they would have joined him with a large simple fellow, and the two of them would have run Bartertown...
This could get interesting. The Pope is about to release an official statement in support of fighting against climate change. I wonder how the various candidates will respond to this.
Even if you don't believe in global warming and such, I'm sure we can all agree that spewing all sorts of crap into the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the earth we grow our food in certainly isn't good for anybody's health.
I thought the Hillary logo was pretty terrible, until Jeb! appeared. Truly we are in a dark age of political logos if these two are the standard. I think there really is no option but a nation wide political boycott until both parties commit to producing logos that don’t make us fear for the future of human innovation.
skyth wrote: Not really in favor of that...This is basically a huge tax rise for the middle class/working poor while hardly a tax rise at all for the upper class. Granted, doesn't affect the really poor who don't have employer-provided health care.
Just look at the basic structure. Right now you can have a guy working for himself, he makes $60k over the year, and so he he pays taxes on $60k and then has to find his own healthcare. Another guy works for a company, he gets $55k, and then get a $5k medicare package on top of that. His real earnings are $60k, but he only pays taxes on $55k.
It's a basic unfairness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Whereas in Australia, they would have joined him with a large simple fellow, and the two of them would have run Bartertown...
Say what you like about the brutality of Bartertown, but they found jobs for everyone.
An article, which I first came across a few months back, with an anecdotal comparison of the two services. I can say that, having repeatedly escorted my wife to the hospital for an ongoing health concern, that it sounds correct to me for the British side.
Not bad...
How is the NHS paid for? Is that spelled out on your paystubs?
For frame of reference: I paid effective federal tax rate of 27%. (state about 11% from memory). Part of those funds the Medicare (over 64 yo) "single-payor lite system" and Medicaid (State insurance for the needy). I don't use those systems.
But I pay for part of my insurance premiums... here's a breakdown out of my bi-weekly paycheck
I pay Medical: $117, my employer pays $363
I pay Dental: $18, my employer pays $13
I pay Vision: $6
So, per pay check, I pay $141 for my various insurances (and my employer pays $376).
The insurance plan is solid, in that it's covers just about every non-elective things.
What gets pricey for me are the elective stuff.
:shrugs:
Keep in mind, though, that your insurance plan is essentially chosen by your employer. They may offer you more than one choice, but if you want your employer to chip in on it, then you gotta go with what they have decided on. Sure, good employers will offer good plans, but not all of them would. I pay about the same as you do for a very good plan, but my wife didn't get anywhere near as good options in her job as a schoolteacher.
True.
Philosophically, it's part of your overall compensation package. I don't think many folks try to make that distinction.
Wife was having a movie sleepover at her sisters, I was looking after bubby so I got wild and posted on the internet until like 3.30am. Life in the fast lane
I want the German model. (not to familiar with Australia's)
The German model is actually pretty damn expensive for what you get. I think any model that drags in employers is going to be, just because you end up adding a stakeholder who isn't a provider or beneficiary. But it has lots of strengths all the same (insurers as not-for-profit, coverage determined by technical committees) and it's probably the best system that the US could reach from where it is today. But if people freaked out about ACA, imagine trying to get the insurance companies to basically convert to not-for-profit organisations
The Australian model is quite similar to the German one, but ours is a lot messier on the split between private and public.
Honestly, I think from a purely economic point of view, the US system could benefit from massive reforms just by doing one thing - tax employer contributions as if they were income (this is actually in the recently released Republican proposal, and is honestly the best thing to come out of the Republican party since Bush's proposed removal of double taxation on dividends). That subsidy costs billions in federal govt revenue, and so you can take that money and build a really healthy income assessed subsidy scheme, similar to what's in place now but far more extensive (so it could effectively replace the medicaid expansion).
I should also add when I say "I want the German Model™"... I also mean: How clinics and hospitals are operated.
Here, in the states, everything is so specialized. You barely see your attending physician. It's the Nurses, Respiratory Therapists, Lab tech, Radiologist, etc...
Physician are becoming more like, research analyst than actual caregiver. In Germany, your doctor is very immersed into your care.
It's a cultural thing I guess...
As to taxing the employee insurance as income, I'd be alright with that... but, not in a vacuum. There's a feth ton of other "easy" thing to incrementially fix.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.
Worthless anecdotes? I've got one of those!
When I honeymooned in the US we booked our travel insurance, and depending on where you go you get a risk rating. Europe, Japan and all the other first world places get put together as the cheapest insurance... except the US. The US gets lumped in with Africa and South America. This is because if you get sick in the US the bill is astronomically higher than it would be anywhere else.
This is one area, that's easy to tweak... allow insurance to offer catastrophic insurance for super cheap. IE, cheap premium, high deductable... but protects you from financial ruin. (ironically, the plans on the PPACA function like these plans).
Someone from dakka needs to *use* the NHS or Australia's System... then, move to the US for a bit and try ours out and give a good report.
The issue here is that the comparison is going to come down to personal factors more than an overall view of either system. Whether a condition is easily identifiable and treated and stuff like that will determine your experience with the medical system far more than any real difference between countries.
That's so very true.
Another local anecdotes... my company can *see* that there's more insured folks walking in the door (something like 7% increase), however, we're seeing 10% increase in ED visits (the most expensive delivery).
My VP anonymously sat in the ED waiting room for 3 weekends in a row to talk to the patients (and the staff).
You know what he found? Even though some of them have insurance for the first time... they STILL go to the ED because "it's the best in the area".
O.o
How do you answer to that?
That is one reason why we, as in the US, must do a better job in providing cheap/accessible clinics. The hospital systems can't do that by themselves... they'd need at least the State to pitch in somehow.
Complex layers.
Just like our gunz. Come visit... we can show you a good time.
Man I want to take you up on that offer.
Either that, I'll knock on your door one day. Truthfully, visiting Australia and New Zealand is on my bucket list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The point I was trying to drive at is that it's hard to truly compare and contrast things like healthcare between countries.
That's why sebster drives me bonkers.... he talks from a well reasoned, rational standpoint regarding our healthcare debates... but, it's acedemic. Why? Because just like it's unfair to trash the NHS or AU's Healthcare system... it's just as unfair to trash the US' without having experienced both.
But my point about the US system isn't about which system is the nicest to experience. My point has always been about what you pay, compared to the outcomes you get.
It is well established that the US system costs about twice the average of other industrialised nations. And in terms of outcomes, the US is pretty much the same as the rest of the developed world*. I think most people, once they realise they've just paid $50k for a car that was almost identical to a car that is selling for $25k they'd feel ripped off.
*There's a lot of studies that rank the healthcare outcomes of different countries, and the US is pretty consistently middle of the road in all of these. But the bigger story is you look behind the numbers and you'll see that rankings actually mask extremely small differences in performance. All developed countries have live baby numbers are fairly close, have life expectancy figures that are pretty close, and variations in malpractice are almost all due to legal differences, not the actual quality of care provided. There are differences in one technique or another from place to place, but across the whole you're getting more or less the same experience.
Okay... my bad. I took it as the quality of care suffered.
You're absolutely right that we pay through the nose here. The ironic thing here is that it isn't the insurance industry driving up the cost. IT's the Fed/State regulations, combined with our patent laws and malpractice environment are the biggest overall costs.
Because of that, when you go to the hospital... everything is nothing more than a shell game. It's a bloody mess.
Hence why I'm pining for the German (or Canadian) system.
This could get interesting. The Pope is about to release an official statement in support of fighting against climate change. I wonder how the various candidates will respond to this.
Even if you don't believe in global warming and such, I'm sure we can all agree that spewing all sorts of crap into the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the earth we grow our food in certainly isn't good for anybody's health.
Interesting.
We need more comprehensive strategy ( the kitchen sink ) imho. However, I still question how much of climate change is truly man made vs the natural order of things.*
*Don't get me wrong, I don't want to needlessly pollute the planet... it's just that, I don't agree with doing things like instituting Carbon Tax on the economy on something that we don't fully understand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: I thought the Hillary logo was pretty terrible, until Jeb! appeared. Truly we are in a dark age of political logos if these two are the standard. I think there really is no option but a nation wide political boycott until both parties commit to producing logos that don’t make us fear for the future of human innovation.
Dear lord they're both horrendus.
I did watch Jeb's announcement speech.
He ain't nothing like his brother... Jeb comes off very cerebral here and works the crowd really well.
He's not my first choice (nor my 2nd or 3rd!), but... if he's the nominee... I'll vote for him.
This is one area, that's easy to tweak... allow insurance to offer catastrophic insurance for super cheap. IE, cheap premium, high deductable... but protects you from financial ruin. (ironically, the plans on the PPACA function like these plans).
That's basically all health insurance in a nutshell, in theory.... In reality, if people want to be actually protected in the event of a catastrophic emergency, or a catastrophic diagnosis, they NEED supplemental insurance. Much as I disagree with the "need" for separate insurance, it's the way things have gone in the US.
At the same time, and it really pisses me off, is that during the lead-up to the passage of ACA, so many people were like "my insurance doesn't cover doctors visits!"... when in reality it does, you just don't like having to pay a $50 co-pay at the door. To put it like this, and this is exactly how I phrased it to clients buying insurance from me: do you call up Allstate, or GEICO (usually I ask who they have) for their car insurance so that they can pay to get their oil changed? No, and THAT is exactly how health insurance works in the US... YOU as a person are still responsible for maintenance and upkeep (part of that is annual or semi-annual check ups)
And like you whembly, I would honestly prefer the German system as well. In the bit of experience of it that I did have, things worked so much better than any of the healthcare I got directly from the army, or through a "regular" american doc.
skyth wrote: Not really in favor of that...This is basically a huge tax rise for the middle class/working poor while hardly a tax rise at all for the upper class. Granted, doesn't affect the really poor who don't have employer-provided health care.
Just look at the basic structure. Right now you can have a guy working for himself, he makes $60k over the year, and so he he pays taxes on $60k and then has to find his own healthcare. Another guy works for a company, he gets $55k, and then get a $5k medicare package on top of that. His real earnings are $60k, but he only pays taxes on $55k.
It's a basic unfairness.
The self-employed person can write off the health insurance costs.
From page 60:
Just a heads up for the thread. Much as I had to say in the UK politics thread, this is a US politics thread. US. If you want to discuss UK politics, create your own thread. Cheers
And now from page 65:
This is a US politics thread. If you want to do UK politics and the UK politics thread from the election is dead and done, then start a new one, political junkie UK edition 2.0 or some such. I've removed the OT posts. I'm aware that talk about the NHS and such may have muddied the lines, but that seems to be always discussed in terms of its relation to the US healthcare reforms, and the effects of those reforms, rather than the politics behind the NHS, if that helps clear up any confusion about why that is sweet but other posts about it aren't.
Jihadin wrote: The rest of the contenders need to tightening the Hell up and step up their game and commitments.
And I for one would like to propose pugil sticks in a sawdust pit instead of lame ol' debates where they spit out 15 second soundbite type talking points.
I've just found a way to circumvent the mods' ban on British politics being mentioned in this thread.
Today, First Lady, Michelle Obama, visited London, and met with the Prime Minister David Cameron, met Prince Harry, toured the house of commons, and listened to some debates. One of those debates was about...ok I won't push my luck
Anyway, my question for Americans is this: will this visit improve Anglo-American relations?
Thank you Mrs Obama for visiting London.
Back OT.
I was watching Donald Trump's speech today, and although a lot of it was garbage, he did make a point about the American dream - how the elites have pulled up the ladder behind them, and why another Bush as president would be bad for the USA, as dynasty it something that should be frowned upon.
I was watching Donald Trump's speech today, and although a lot of it was garbage, he did make a point about the American dream - how the elites have pulled up the ladder behind them, and why another Bush as president would be bad for the USA, as dynasty it something that should be frowned upon.
Soooo..... he's saying almost the exact same thing as Bernie Sanders, just in a more "Trump" kind of way. Granted, Sanders hasn't really touched the whole Bush thing that I know of.... But calling out the "elites" of the country? You betcha, that's been his number one thing to talk about.
This could get interesting. The Pope is about to release an official statement in support of fighting against climate change. I wonder how the various candidates will respond to this.
Even if you don't believe in global warming and such, I'm sure we can all agree that spewing all sorts of crap into the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the earth we grow our food in certainly isn't good for anybody's health.
Interesting.
We need more comprehensive strategy ( the kitchen sink ) imho. However, I still question how much of climate change is truly man made vs the natural order of things.*
*Don't get me wrong, I don't want to needlessly pollute the planet... it's just that, I don't agree with doing things like instituting Carbon Tax on the economy on something that we don't fully understand.
See, the thing is, the Rs keep arguing against climate change, when they should just be sidestepping it altogether and go for the health benefits of a cleaner environment. Compared to when I was in school 25 years ago and what my wife (a schoolteacher) tells me, it sure seems like there are far more autistic kids, ADHD kids, and kids with all sorts of substance allergies than there were "back in my day," and there's got to be a reason for that.
Anyway, found this article and thought it was funny:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/politics/being-moody-south-carolina-2016/ Short version: when asked who the greatest president alive today is, several of them said Reagan. If I were one of them, I would have said Bill just to troll everybody.
Secondly, is it only me who really really wants to see Sanders actually do well? Maybe even get the nomination? I mean I look at what he wants to do and I know that I would vote for him in a heartbeat if I was a yank.
Secondly, is it only me who really really wants to see Sanders actually do well? Maybe even get the nomination? I mean I look at what he wants to do and I know that I would vote for him in a heartbeat if I was a yank.
You're not the only one... If you look back over the past number of years I've been a member of these esteemed ( ) forums, I had traditionally been very Libertarian, and quite conservative (at least, fiscally conservative)
But, I personally see Sanders as a guy who is saying all the right things, backing up his speech, largely, with action and, unlike many political rats, believes what he says and is actually for The People. So yeah... I actually want Sanders, not just for the nomination, but for the White House.
This could get interesting. The Pope is about to release an official statement in support of fighting against climate change. I wonder how the various candidates will respond to this.
Even if you don't believe in global warming and such, I'm sure we can all agree that spewing all sorts of crap into the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the earth we grow our food in certainly isn't good for anybody's health.
Interesting.
We need more comprehensive strategy ( the kitchen sink ) imho. However, I still question how much of climate change is truly man made vs the natural order of things.*
*Don't get me wrong, I don't want to needlessly pollute the planet... it's just that, I don't agree with doing things like instituting Carbon Tax on the economy on something that we don't fully understand.
See, the thing is, the Rs keep arguing against climate change, when they should just be sidestepping it altogether and go for the health benefits of a cleaner environment. Compared to when I was in school 25 years ago and what my wife (a schoolteacher) tells me, it sure seems like there are far more autistic kids, ADHD kids, and kids with all sorts of substance allergies than there were "back in my day," and there's got to be a reason for that.
Anyway, found this article and thought it was funny:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/politics/being-moody-south-carolina-2016/ Short version: when asked who the greatest president alive today is, several of them said Reagan. If I were one of them, I would have said Bill just to troll everybody.
That's because the diagnosis over the years changed. There was a HUGE study on this at Washington University of St. Louis (the Harvard west of Mississppi)... and they've found no meaningful increase/decrease with respect to the idea that the environment is causing more Austic/ADHD/allergic kids. I'll see if I can find the public summary... stay tuned.
As to your idea of side-stepping the "global warming" debate... good call. I don't think anyone would resoundedly reject policies for cleaner environment... just be fething honest about it.
I honestly do not see how anyone who has any libertarian leanings can believe a socialist is the best person for President. He may say things you like to hear, but his solution will ALWAYS be the expansion of the Federal Gov't and its power. He'll erode personal freedom for the Good of Us All and use the gov't to do so. That really ought to be abhorrent to a libertarian, who by definition is supposed to think shrinking the gov't and its power is the best thing for personal liberty.
Yeah, he wants to stick it to the banks. His methods and tools to do so should scare the gak out of libertarians.
Lol, I said that when I started on these boards, I had more libertarian leanings....
I guess in reality, I'm more of a utilitarian, the most good for the most people.
But, the more I look at our history, as well as what's going on right now, I'm more afraid of the gak the Republicans want to get up to than I am of what Sanders is after (and at least he's more honest and up-front about his views and leanings than most Rs are)
whembly wrote: He ain't nothing like his brother... Jeb comes off very cerebral here and works the crowd really well.
He's not my first choice (nor my 2nd or 3rd!), but... if he's the nominee... I'll vote for him.
He’s an odd sort of candidate. As you say his campaigning skills are strong, and that should carry him quite far. But get past that and you’ve basically got the same song that every Republican is singing. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but anyone can do that, in order to stand out you need something. Jeb is relying on his time as Florida governor to try and substantiate that he really knows how to hold back government and let growth flourish… but the most cursory look past Jeb’s own story will show it’s pretty much a crock.
Nothing he did created extra growth in Florida, he basically sat on an even bigger housing bubble than we saw in other states, and when it popped the slump that followed was harder than you see in other states, so much so the state still hasn’t recovered, and is lagging the rest of the country by quite some way.
As a precautionary tale for unregulated markets and wasted booms with excessive tax cuts, Jeb has a lot to offer, as a Republican candidate he really should be DOA.
EDIT – Just thinking about this, it kind of reads as a general dig at Republicans. That isn’t my intent, at least it isn’t my intent this time My point is more that there are candidates out there that can sell the Republican message with their achievements way better than Jeb Bush. Perry, for instance, actually presided over a state that showed sustained growth above the national average, but you can actually link that growth to Texas small government principles.
As a precautionary tale for unregulated markets and wasted booms with excessive tax cuts, Jeb has a lot to offer, as a Republican candidate he really should be DOA.
If only you could meet my neighbor... you're so much more eloquent than I in convincing people
I think he means compared to countries like mine, where your primary point of contact is your GP, and you get farmed out to specialists less. It's a common aspect that gets pointed out as a difference between our two systems that I have heard from a lot of people. Admittedly they were all Australians, so take it with salt since they haven't all been to the US, but yeah.
motyak wrote: I think he means compared to countries like mine, where your primary point of contact is your GP, and you get farmed out to specialists less.
In the US the primary point of contact is a GP's office, you just may not see the GP himself. If the RN determines that your issue is serious you'll probably be passed on to an NP. If it is really serious, or your insurance is really good, the RN will say "Hey, GP, come look at this person." In that event the GP won't likely be caring for you, he'll probably write a prescription or a referral; same as an NP in that office would do.
dogma wrote: In the US the primary point of contact is a GP's office, you just may not see the GP himself. If the RN determines that your issue is serious you'll probably be passed on to an NP. If it is really serious, or your insurance is really good, the RN will say "Hey, GP, come look at this person." In that event the GP won't likely be caring for you, he'll probably write a prescription or a referral; same as an NP in that office would do.
There’s been various attempts to get registered nurses to take on a lot of the work that GPs do here. They’ve never really gotten anywhere but I’ve always thought they make a lot of sense. Sitting in the waiting room for 20 minutes after my appointment time just to get a repeat prescription for my gout medication just seemed like a waste of everyone’s time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I should also add when I say "I want the German Model™"... I also mean: How clinics and hospitals are operated
Sorry mate, I didn’t respond to this for a while because it took me a while to put in to words what I finally realised about how we’ve debated this issue all the way through. You’ve looked at this issue from a procedural point of view, how different parts of the healthcare system are processed daily, because that’s what you do for a living. Whereas I’ve looked at it from an economic point of view, a big picture approach, because to be honest that’s really been the only area I’ve had the ability to engage on the issue, and the interest to do so.
I’m not sure that produces any kind of insight that will help us discuss this more constructively or anything like that, but it’s interesting, I think.
As to taxing the employee insurance as income, I'd be alright with that... but, not in a vacuum. There's a feth ton of other "easy" thing to incrementially fix.
Absolutely, it couldn’t be in a vacuum. Hell, I’d only agree with it if the money raised went to sensible things (like low income health insurance subsidies, or a change to low income tax rates).
motyak wrote: I think he means compared to countries like mine, where your primary point of contact is your GP, and you get farmed out to specialists less.
In the US the primary point of contact is a GP's office, you just may not see the GP himself. If the RN determines that your issue is serious you'll probably be passed on to an NP. If it is really serious, or your insurance is really good, the RN will say "Hey, GP, come look at this person." In that event the GP won't likely be caring for you, he'll probably write a prescription or a referral; same as an NP in that office would do.
I've never known anyone in the US including under Medicare or Medicaid who ran under the system you just described.
Maybe different doctors handle it differently. When I go to my doctor's office, it's the doctor I see. He does have a PA to help lighten the load for those who just need a quick referral to a specialist, though. But the only place I've experienced "triage" at is the emergency room.
I've never known anyone in the US including under Medicare or Medicaid who ran under the system you just described.
You've never known a person who encountered, or engaged in, triage?
EDIT: Frazzled typing hostilly like a jerk for no reason. On a normal doctor visit, no. Unless you are going to an emergency room. Even then you'll still see the doctor. Are you referring to ER visits?
I see the RN, and maybe the NP or physician; unless I am already seeing a specialist. In that case the appointment is usually a surgical followup or an in-office procedure.
Note: I edited my comment for being harsh for no reason. I blame the lack of barbeque due to Tropical Storm Bill.
dogma wrote: I see the RN, and maybe the NP or physician; unless I am already seeing a specialist. In that case the appointment is usually a surgical followup or an in-office procedure.
Again, thats not how it worked for my family on Medicare, nor how I've ever heard of it working. You must have some different sort of plan.
On a normal doctor visit, not at all. Unless you are going to an emergency room. Even then you'll still see the doctor.
What is a normal doctor visit?
What? You know normal checkups. Are you still a youngin and don't have those yet? remember, when the doc puts the glove on, stop him and say "Get your jollies somewhere else doc. I know there's a blood test for that now!"
whembly wrote: I should also add when I say "I want the German Model™"... I also mean: How clinics and hospitals are operated
Sorry mate, I didn’t respond to this for a while because it took me a while to put in to words what I finally realised about how we’ve debated this issue all the way through. You’ve looked at this issue from a procedural point of view, how different parts of the healthcare system are processed daily, because that’s what you do for a living. Whereas I’ve looked at it from an economic point of view, a big picture approach, because to be honest that’s really been the only area I’ve had the ability to engage on the issue, and the interest to do so.
I’m not sure that produces any kind of insight that will help us discuss this more constructively or anything like that, but it’s interesting, I think.
This is basically how it was explained to me, by a German when I was living there:
Everyone is required, by law, to have health insurance. Now, there are a number of "private" insurance plans (read: corporate, like Humana or BC/BS), but if you cannot afford to pay for insurance, and there are numerous forms to fill out to show this, you and your family are put onto a State plan. The reason this works is because through regulation, every health insurance company in Germany pays into a single "pool" which keeps costs down for most people. On top of that, unlike the US, these same insurance companies can only charge a certain percentage of your monthly income for your premiums each month.
By capping how much you pay, and combining the "wealth" they have a practical, and artificial means of making insurance affordable for all.
The same is true of GPs and NPs, but they are all licensed. So long as the person was acting within their competence it would be difficult for a plaintiff to win a suit.
whembly wrote: I should also add when I say "I want the German Model™"... I also mean: How clinics and hospitals are operated
Sorry mate, I didn’t respond to this for a while because it took me a while to put in to words what I finally realised about how we’ve debated this issue all the way through. You’ve looked at this issue from a procedural point of view, how different parts of the healthcare system are processed daily, because that’s what you do for a living. Whereas I’ve looked at it from an economic point of view, a big picture approach, because to be honest that’s really been the only area I’ve had the ability to engage on the issue, and the interest to do so.
I’m not sure that produces any kind of insight that will help us discuss this more constructively or anything like that, but it’s interesting, I think.
Indeed man. We're definitely debating this from different angles.... nothing wrong with that, because maybe we can educate each other on these issues (or at least spawn of avenues of research on our own time).
From my perspective, we can do much, MUCH better with our system... which doesn't necessarily means throwing more money at the current model.
This industry is so heavily regulated... we might as well as go to a single payer system, ala NHS/Canada. Can't cost that much more than it does now.
This is basically how it was explained to me, by a German when I was living there:
Everyone is required, by law, to have health insurance. Now, there are a number of "private" insurance plans (read: corporate, like Humana or BC/BS), but if you cannot afford to pay for insurance, and there are numerous forms to fill out to show this, you and your family are put onto a State plan. The reason this works is because through regulation, every health insurance company in Germany pays into a single "pool" which keeps costs down for most people. On top of that, unlike the US, these same insurance companies can only charge a certain percentage of your monthly income for your premiums each month.
By capping how much you pay, and combining the "wealth" they have a practical, and artificial means of making insurance affordable for all.
Indeed... this is how the PPACA should've evolved into....
Indeed... this is how the PPACA should've evolved into....
Legislation capping premiums and creating a public option will not pass in the present US environment unless a conservative Republican introduces it. This is very unlikely.
dogma wrote: For some reason many people don't respect nurses. Probably a combination of misogyny and the association of nursing with femininity.
That’s probably part of it. I think another part is the expectations people have when it comes to healthcare – people feel uncomfortable about seeing a less skilled person, just in case it might be something more than a regulation cold. This is compounded by healthcare systems in which the person receiving the treatment pays little of the cost of the visit – if they were paying $100 out of their own pocket for the doctor, or $50 for the nurse you might see a lot more people accept the nurse.
Indeed... this is how the PPACA should've evolved into....
Legislation capping premiums and creating a public option will not pass in the present US environment unless a conservative Republican introduces it. This is very unlikely.
I agree.
A start would be to somehow enforce pricing/cost visibility on every facet of healthcare.
It's so opaque, it's largely immune to *market* pressure. The public's ire towards the insurance industries themselves is largely misplaced.
I have far more respect for nurses than doctors, nurses at least seem to wash their hands, doctors seem to have disease resistant physicians hands (TM)
dogma wrote: For some reason many people don't respect nurses. Probably a combination of misogyny and the association of nursing with femininity.
That’s probably part of it. I think another part is the expectations people have when it comes to healthcare – people feel uncomfortable about seeing a less skilled person, just in case it might be something more than a regulation cold. This is compounded by healthcare systems in which the person receiving the treatment pays little of the cost of the visit – if they were paying $100 out of their own pocket for the doctor, or $50 for the nurse you might see a lot more people accept the nurse.
Having a sister-in-law who is a nurse, and hearing her stories, I actually have pretty much changed my views on the Doctor/nurse relationship/respect.... As she once ranted to me (well, me and my wife, her husband wasn't home yet).. she regularly has to correct doctors on medication. It is her and her coworkers that actually know the patients, it's they who take BP, medical history, connect IVs and fluids, clean up poo and pee and all manner of bodily fluids... the doctor's rarely interact with the patients, instead they interact more with the chart and the nurse.
whembly wrote: Indeed man. We're definitely debating this from different angles.... nothing wrong with that, because maybe we can educate each other on these issues (or at least spawn of avenues of research on our own time).
I’ve learned a bit from you, I like to think you’ve maybe learned a bit from me on this issue as well.
Just as an aside, I read a great piece on NPR a while ago, which might interest you as I know you’ve mentioned the crazy pricing arrangements for hospital care a few times before. The article was about agencies who fight excessive billing for patients. Faced with bills in the tens or hundreds of thousands, people can employ this agency, who have done the research to know how much the hospital would charge an insurer for the procedure, and they will then tell the hospital that’s how much the patient will pay. Apparently the hospitals will accept that amount pretty much every time.
If you’re interested I’ll find the article.
From my perspective, we can do much, MUCH better with our system... which doesn't necessarily means throwing more money at the current model.
From my perspective, the reforms in ACA are an improvement. They’re a million miles from perfect, and left many bad parts of the old system, but they have resulted in much reduced denial of coverage, and far fewer uninsured people.
This industry is so heavily regulated... we might as well as go to a single payer system, ala NHS/Canada. Can't cost that much more than it does now.
Single payer actually costs less than private systems. There’s a bunch of reasons, and not all of them are good, but the overall effect is a cheaper system. But I agree with your point - right now you’ve got all the waste and nonsense of for-profit health, combined with all the waste and nonsense of government control, so as you say might as well go to total government control and get rid of some of that waste.
But there’s a lot of political headwind that makes that basically impossible. I mean, look at the campaign waged by the private insurers against ACA, and all this did was cap their profit margins and remove denial of coverage. Imagine what they’d do if they were faced with a single payer system that would make them no longer exist.
whembly wrote: Indeed man. We're definitely debating this from different angles.... nothing wrong with that, because maybe we can educate each other on these issues (or at least spawn of avenues of research on our own time).
I’ve learned a bit from you, I like to think you’ve maybe learned a bit from me on this issue as well.
Indeed... you (and others here) do challenge me to refine my positions, and at times I've changed my mind.
Just as an aside, I read a great piece on NPR a while ago, which might interest you as I know you’ve mentioned the crazy pricing arrangements for hospital care a few times before. The article was about agencies who fight excessive billing for patients. Faced with bills in the tens or hundreds of thousands, people can employ this agency, who have done the research to know how much the hospital would charge an insurer for the procedure, and they will then tell the hospital that’s how much the patient will pay. Apparently the hospitals will accept that amount pretty much every time.
If you’re interested I’ll find the article.
I remember reading about that too...
It's really just as simple as calling the Patient Accounting dept and tell them that you can't pay this bill. It's to their interest to work with you in any way they can... rather than sending the bill to collection agency where they can scant returns.
It's how I paid for my 1st born's hospital stay... I ended up negotiating a $25/month plan for 2 yrs, which was about 1/5th of the original bill.
I always tell everyone I know that if they've incurred a large out-of-pocket expense at the hospital... just call the patient account depart and demand why "x service" or "x treatment" cost so much. They'll work with ya rather than trying to explain an itemized bill.
From my perspective, we can do much, MUCH better with our system... which doesn't necessarily means throwing more money at the current model.
From my perspective, the reforms in ACA are an improvement. They’re a million miles from perfect, and left many bad parts of the old system, but they have resulted in much reduced denial of coverage, and far fewer uninsured people.
This industry is so heavily regulated... we might as well as go to a single payer system, ala NHS/Canada. Can't cost that much more than it does now.
Single payer actually costs less than private systems. There’s a bunch of reasons, and not all of them are good, but the overall effect is a cheaper system. But I agree with your point - right now you’ve got all the waste and nonsense of for-profit health, combined with all the waste and nonsense of government control, so as you say might as well go to total government control and get rid of some of that waste.
But there’s a lot of political headwind that makes that basically impossible. I mean, look at the campaign waged by the private insurers against ACA, and all this did was cap their profit margins and remove denial of coverage. Imagine what they’d do if they were faced with a single payer system that would make them no longer exist.
My thoughts exactly.
:shrugs:
That's why I've advocated incremental reforms.
We'll see what the Supreme Court does next monday regarding the ACA subsides. If they rule against the government... ho-lee-gak... this industry is going to take a beating.
That’s probably part of it. I think another part is the expectations people have when it comes to healthcare – people feel uncomfortable about seeing a less skilled person, just in case it might be something more than a regulation cold. This is compounded by healthcare systems in which the person receiving the treatment pays little of the cost of the visit – if they were paying $100 out of their own pocket for the doctor, or $50 for the nurse you might see a lot more people accept the nurse.
But that all feeds into a lack of respect for the position and education. In the US RNs, at a minimum, have 2 years of education and must pass a certification exam. NPs have at least 6 years of education (often 8) and a significant amount of experience as RNs. These are skilled, knowledgeable people.
But that all feeds into a lack of respect for the position and education. In the US RNs, at a minimum, have 2 years of education and must pass a certification exam. NPs have at least 6 years of education (often 8) and a significant amount of experience as RNs. These are skilled, knowledgeable people.
Personally, I think it stems from a lack of knowledge of the various nursing levels. For instance, my sister-in-law became an LPN fairly quickly, and used that LPN as a paid internship at the hospital where she worked (it was actually part of her training/schooling program). She became an RN after around 4-6 years, and has now gone back to school for another 2-3 to become an NP.
Aside from people who are related to nurses, are nurses, or work in the medical field to where they'd have some "professional knowledge"... how many people really know the difference between an LPN or an NP?
But that all feeds into a lack of respect for the position and education. In the US RNs, at a minimum, have 2 years of education and must pass a certification exam. NPs have at least 6 years of education (often 8) and a significant amount of experience as RNs. These are skilled, knowledgeable people.
Personally, I think it stems from a lack of knowledge of the various nursing levels. For instance, my sister-in-law became an LPN fairly quickly, and used that LPN as a paid internship at the hospital where she worked (it was actually part of her training/schooling program). She became an RN after around 4-6 years, and has now gone back to school for another 2-3 to become an NP.
Aside from people who are related to nurses, are nurses, or work in the medical field to where they'd have some "professional knowledge"... how many people really know the difference between an LPN or an NP?
I don't. Here is Aus it is (atm)
AIN: assistant in nursing - showering ect
Enrolled Nurse - a step above AIN
Registered Nurse - general care obs and medication.
Nurse Specialist* - specialised nurse in each ward on that wards classification
Nursing Educator* - trains nurses , resolves issues in training and practice in conjunction with the NUM
Nursing Unit Manager - runs the ward
*not official title.
what's an NP? I gather LPN is our equivalent of an AIN/EN.
And the Pope's encyclical is out. It will be very interesting to see how the politicians express their opinions on climate change without appearing to disrespect someone who is probably the most loved and respected religious leader in years. I'm not Catholic, but I think the world would be a much better place if we could clone this guy a few times, creating one for each major religion.
But that all feeds into a lack of respect for the position and education. In the US RNs, at a minimum, have 2 years of education and must pass a certification exam. NPs have at least 6 years of education (often 8) and a significant amount of experience as RNs. These are skilled, knowledgeable people.
Personally, I think it stems from a lack of knowledge of the various nursing levels. For instance, my sister-in-law became an LPN fairly quickly, and used that LPN as a paid internship at the hospital where she worked (it was actually part of her training/schooling program). She became an RN after around 4-6 years, and has now gone back to school for another 2-3 to become an NP.
Aside from people who are related to nurses, are nurses, or work in the medical field to where they'd have some "professional knowledge"... how many people really know the difference between an LPN or an NP?
I don't. Here is Aus it is (atm)
AIN: assistant in nursing - showering ect
Enrolled Nurse - a step above AIN
Registered Nurse - general care obs and medication.
Nurse Specialist* - specialised nurse in each ward on that wards classification
Nursing Educator* - trains nurses , resolves issues in training and practice in conjunction with the NUM
Nursing Unit Manager - runs the ward
*not official title.
what's an NP? I gather LPN is our equivalent of an AIN/EN.
NP = nurse practitioner.
I'm over-simplifiying this as it can be different state-by-state, but think of them as Practicing MD's that can do just about anything except for order Narcotics. (even then, that's changing).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: And the Pope's encyclical is out. It will be very interesting to see how the politicians express their opinions on climate change without appearing to disrespect someone who is probably the most loved and respected religious leader in years. I'm not Catholic, but I think the world would be a much better place if we could clone this guy a few times, creating one for each major religion.
Meh.
He's a latino socialist. He'll use any means to distribution wealth.
For those who's praising the Pope on this... what about his stance against abortion?
Tannhauser42 wrote: And the Pope's encyclical is out. It will be very interesting to see how the politicians express their opinions on climate change without appearing to disrespect someone who is probably the most loved and respected religious leader in years. I'm not Catholic, but I think the world would be a much better place if we could clone this guy a few times, creating one for each major religion.
Think the first step should be to clone him in order to replace many of the hardline Bishops in the catholic church. Without them in the way I think reforms would come a lot faster.
A start would be to somehow enforce pricing/cost visibility on every facet of healthcare.
Why can't people subject to the US system figure that out on their own? It isn't like it is overly complicated.
Because, for most people, it *is* complicated.
We have a system that's trying to play both sides of the "Capitalistic Model" and "Socialistic Model" within the same industry. Basically, this is textbook on how the government encourages the most inefficient environment to deliver healthcare.
If we truly want to lower costs of insurance and medical services... the only way to do it is make sure there are no artificial government barriers to provisioning these services AND to make sure that the people using them pay the ACTUAL cost.
Cost and Pricing visibility.
This is exactly how it works in the elective surgery industry, like Plastic Surgery.
That is the only way to ensure that people CAN make INFORMED decisions about what they are willing to pay for...
Anything else is really a political scheme that will end of with the Government offering "MOAR and for FREE!"
Otherwise, we might as well just cut to the inevitable endgame... ala, single payer, and save everyone from further bickering.
Eh, she still needs to appeal to the middle, though. The Rs still need to find someone they can all rally behind (or at least tolerate). Whoever can reach out to the middle while still keeping their own party's support should be the one to win.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Eh, she still needs to appeal to the middle, though. The Rs still need to find someone they can all rally behind (or at least tolerate). Whoever can reach out to the middle while still keeping their own party's support should be the one to win.
Generally speaking... yeah.
But, I think this is one of those weird election season where there's going to be surprises.
I also wanted to point out that Poll Chart, showing that the Democrats are indeed being "more" lefty. Some in this thread challenged me on that saying it's only the Republicans are going more to the right.
It's both, being repelled from each other. And that, the moderates is getting smaller, and smaller.
There does come a point where fundamental differences in principles/thoughts of governance are not going to have workable compromises. When you attempt to force change in core beliefs, you will find resistance. I don't know we are at that point yet, but I can see a future where we reach it. The political class on both sides seem to only present the divides which helps to further the gap.
CptJake wrote: There does come a point where fundamental differences in principles/thoughts of governance are not going to have workable compromises. When you attempt to force change in core beliefs, you will find resistance. I don't know we are at that point yet, but I can see a future where we reach it. The political class on both sides seem to only present the divides which helps to further the gap.
That reads like something out of the 1850s
I wonder if our National Health Service style system would work in the USA? Money comes out of your wages (people would complain, but you're paying for it in the USA anyway, why not cut out the paperwork) and you still have the private option, so competition is there.
CptJake wrote: There does come a point where fundamental differences in principles/thoughts of governance are not going to have workable compromises. When you attempt to force change in core beliefs, you will find resistance. I don't know we are at that point yet, but I can see a future where we reach it. The political class on both sides seem to only present the divides which helps to further the gap.
That reads like something out of the 1850s
I wonder if our National Health Service style system would work in the USA? Money comes out of your wages (people would complain, but you're paying for it in the USA anyway, why not cut out the paperwork) and you still have the private option, so competition is there.
I also wanted to point out that Poll Chart, showing that the Democrats are indeed being "more" lefty. Some in this thread challenged me on that saying it's only the Republicans are going more to the right.
It's both, being repelled from each other. And that, the moderates is getting smaller, and smaller.
Here's a thought, what if it's because the political middle is growing bigger? Maybe enough people are bailing on both parties that it only looks like the extremes are getting bigger as a percentage of who is still left in the party?
I wonder if our National Health Service style system would work in the USA? Money comes out of your wages (people would complain, but you're paying for it in the USA anyway, why not cut out the paperwork) and you still have the private option, so competition is there.
I don't think so. Too many people don't earn or don't earn enough that it would still be a redistributive policy where middle class earners like my wife and I end up subsidizing the even more of health care of others (we already have medicaid/medicare as pointed out). Our smaller pay check would ensure that we could not then afford that private option. Enough already comes out of our paychecks that I do not feel like giving even more to the gov't. Call me selfish, but when I negotiated my salary, I negotiated it for an amount acceptable to me with the assumption I get to keep the lion's share of what I earn. I didn't negotiate it for an amount that lets me pay a crap ton of new taxes.
I wonder if our National Health Service style system would work in the USA? Money comes out of your wages (people would complain, but you're paying for it in the USA anyway, why not cut out the paperwork) and you still have the private option, so competition is there.
I don't think so. Too many people don't earn or don't earn enough that it would still be a redistributive policy where middle class earners like my wife and I end up subsidizing the even more of health care of others (we already have medicaid/medicare as pointed out). Our smaller pay check would ensure that we could not then afford that private option. Enough already comes out of our paychecks that I do not feel like giving even more to the gov't. Call me selfish, but when I negotiated my salary, I negotiated it for an amount acceptable to me with the assumption I get to keep the lion's share of what I earn. I didn't negotiate it for an amount that lets me pay a crap ton of new taxes.
We had that same argument in the UK. People were asking why poor people should get free medicine, but it turned out it was cheaper to give somebody heart pills for five years than pay a heart surgeon to do the work when they got ill. Multiply that cost over thousands of people.
Plus you likely are paying for insurance out of your paycheck (in addition to the amount your employer pays towards it that you don't see and theoretically should go to you if there is a nhs.)
Plus you are already subsidizing the people who don't have health insurance through your taxes plus higher insurance rates because of people who don't pay.
skyth wrote: Plus you likely are paying for insurance out of your paycheck (in addition to the amount your employer pays towards it that you don't see and theoretically should go to you if there is a nhs.)
Plus you are already subsidizing the people who don't have health insurance through your taxes plus higher insurance rates because of people who don't pay.
1st: I am very aware I already subsidize it, I am very much against coughing up MOAR. I already pay my 'fair share'. And screw anyone who thinks I ought to pay MOAR.
2nd: The insurance is the easiest part to fix. Allow the insurance companies to sell across state lines and set their risk pools correctly and charge according to the risk pool. You want to live on a diet of cigarettes, cheetos and mountain dew? Fine, don't expect to be in the same risk pool I'm in and see what your premiums look like. Decide not to have insurance? Fine, expect to be turned away for anything but life saving emergency procedures and then expect to have to file bankruptcy. Allow folks to buy only catastrophic coverage if that is what they want.
It is a hard world. Forcing me and my family to subsidize 'hoverounds' for fat folks to clog up the aisles of walmart and buy junk food is immoral. Stopping that type of abuse of the system goes a long way towards getting folks to be willing to subsidize those truly in need.
So your argument is that most US citizens are so lazy, stupid, or disabled that they cannot do research on their healthcare plan?
In essence, yes. You wouldn't believe the number of people I sat in front of who had no idea how copays worked, or the 50/50 or 80/20 breakdowns for standard plans.
Most people have it in their heads, mostly due to ridiculous obamacare commercials: "I want my doctor visits covered"
On top of that, I am convinced that hospital bills specifically, are designed in the most convoluted and difficult to use way possible, precisely so that people will get frustrated and just overpay to be done with it.
Allow the insurance companies to sell across state lines and set their risk pools correctly and charge according to the risk pool.
Insurance companies already set premiums according to their risk. As to out of State sales: good luck convincing State governments to allow them. As Georgia figured out, you'll need more than one.
Decide not to have insurance? Fine, expect to be turned away for anything but life saving emergency procedures and then expect to have to file bankruptcy.
That isn't a solution. In that situation the individual is likely to go into Chapter 13 which will significantly delay the service provider's ability to collect, raising costs for everyone else. Like it or not you are going to pay for the healthcare of other citizens, getting upset because the state is making you do so is irrational.
In essence, yes. You wouldn't believe the number of people I sat in front of who had no idea how copays worked, or the 50/50 or 80/20 breakdowns for standard plans.
I probably would. Average people are average, and average isn't very good. But I would think that in the aftermath of the healthcare debate people would think "Yeah, I should research my insurance plan.", the resources are easily available.
On top of that, I am convinced that hospital bills specifically, are designed in the most convoluted and difficult to use way possible, precisely so that people will get frustrated and just overpay to be done with it.
dogma wrote: But that all feeds into a lack of respect for the position and education. In the US RNs, at a minimum, have 2 years of education and must pass a certification exam. NPs have at least 6 years of education (often 8) and a significant amount of experience as RNs. These are skilled, knowledgeable people.
Sure, I didn’t ever say or imply they weren’t. But they aren’t the most qualified person in that clinic – you don’t need sexism to explain why a two year course is seen differently from a 6+ year course. And when it comes to healthcare people insist on the best, even when the actual benefit of being seen by the best is minimal, or non-existant. And the problem is made worse when the patient isn’t directly paying.
Remember I said this would happen. In response to the Republican shift to the right, Democrats would respond by moving further to the left.
So... I don't think HRC is going to do what Bill did during his tenure... Bill moderated his stance quite a bit.
With Sanders within 12 pts of HRC in NH in two polls... she's going have to move to the left a bit... no?
Hillary’s announcement speech was pretty left wing, but then Obama said plenty of left wing stuff through his primary run as well, only to backtrack in the general. Playing to the left in the primary and then swinging back to the centre for the general is a pretty central part of any presidential run these days.
That said, I think your chart shows an underlying trend that will come to play more and more – the disappearance of swing voters. There just isn’t that many people left who are engaged in politics but unsure whether they prefer elephants or donkeys. Both sides now rely mostly on getting out their core voters.
That doesn’t mean a hard left/hard right strategy is optimal though, because part of the art is to avoid pissing off the other side and seeing them vote against you. A lot of 2008 votes weren’t cast for Obama, but against Bush/Republicans in general. Similarly Romney probably got approximately 4 people excited about a Romney presidency, but millions showed up to vote against Obama. Getting your core voters excited while not giving the other side to get angry about is a real strategy – GW Bush’s 2000 election was probably the perfect example of how to achieve this.
whembly wrote: Indeed... you (and others here) do challenge me to refine my positions, and at times I've changed my mind.
Never admit that on the internet.
It's really just as simple as calling the Patient Accounting dept and tell them that you can't pay this bill. It's to their interest to work with you in any way they can... rather than sending the bill to collection agency where they can scant returns.
It's how I paid for my 1st born's hospital stay... I ended up negotiating a $25/month plan for 2 yrs, which was about 1/5th of the original bill.
It's actually pretty good advice whenever you owe money, be proactive and contact them to negotiate. It works pretty well whenever the bill has a lot subjectivity and some legal fuzziness in it, like the itemised bill you mention.
We'll see what the Supreme Court does next monday regarding the ACA subsides. If they rule against the government... ho-lee-gak... this industry is going to take a beating.
sebster wrote: But they aren’t the most qualified person in that clinic – you don’t need sexism to explain why a two year course is seen differently from a 6+ year course.
Then why are NPs less respected than MDs? After all MDs usually only get 8-9 years of formal education, after which the informal requirement of residency begins; something NPs likely completed as RNs during their 6-8 year education.
Because people are idiots Dogma. The nurse is the one that keeps you alive, notices reactions to medications and circumstances and makes it possible for doctors to do their job. Without nurses, doctors are useless. Big statement true, but without the nurses doing regular obs the doctor has no idea what is happening.
dogma wrote: Then why are NPs less respected than MDs? After all MDs usually only get 8-9 years of formal education, after which the informal requirement of residency begins; something NPs likely completed as RNs during their 6-8 year education.
I'd guess that few people have any idea about the different types of nursing. I doubt many people hear NP and think 'masters level qualification'.
Again, I'm not saying there isn't some element of sexism in play here, just that there's another issue that's more prominent - the demand for the most healthcare possible, even when it’s overkill or entirely pointless. It’s why people walk in with a viral infection and walk out with a prescription for anti-biotics.
There’s a basic truth at the core of what she’s saying – the nation of China really sucks at innovation. This is because it’s a state planned economy with heavy levels of government intervention and oversight really hurts open and diverse creativity.
Fiorina has not only noted that issue, she’s experienced it directly in her dealings with China. But she’s then gone straight making it part to some kind of cultural or inherent thing in Chinese people, rather than a product of China’s systems. So I don’t want to call it poorly worded, because it’s more than that - poorly thought through is probably the better way of explaining what’s wrong with she said. But there really isn’t much of a news story in ‘politician is somewhat right in their observation, but fairly wrongheaded in thinking about why that thing exists’.
So of course the political angle is to call it racist, but it’s a very weak attack because she’s clearly talking about people in China, not everyone of Chinese descent. But you know, that’s politics, it’s really no different to the efforts to try and invent a story of corruption out of the Clinton Foundation, or any of the other minor things that people try to contort in to big stories at this stage of election season.
Eh... it feeds into a stereotype that shouldn't really be expoused by a potential President.
It's tapping into the fear that foreigners are stealing US jobs and at the same time, she's trying to be a cheerleader for that American Exceptionalism™ trope.
Although, I do hope that she makes it to the debate cutoff... if to keep Trump off.
whembly wrote: It's tapping into the fear that foreigners are stealing US jobs and at the same time, she's trying to be a cheerleader for that American Exceptionalism™ trope.
Which is odd because she's a known supporter of the H-1B visa program. Unless of course she's changed her mind.
whembly wrote: It's tapping into the fear that foreigners are stealing US jobs and at the same time, she's trying to be a cheerleader for that American Exceptionalism™ trope.
Which is odd because she's a known supporter of the H-1B visa program. Unless of course she's changed her mind.
Not really.
She's a businesswoman... who's been a CEO.
Ask yourself a few questions:
So, what was her job?
Spoiler:
-answer: as CEO, to maximize shareholder's value.
Why should she support the visa proram?
Spoiler:
-answer: Labor is one of the largest cost of doing business... as CEO, it's her job to maximize productivity while keep cost as low as possible. Hiring cheaper labor is one way of doing that.
As long as she frames her answer along those lines, she'll be fine.
whembly wrote: She's a businesswoman... who's been a CEO.
A terrible CEO, I might add.
As long as she frames her answer along those lines, she'll be fine.
No she won't because she won't make it anywhere. Besides, those "answers" you gave are a terrible defense to the question of why she supports a program largely criticized for replacing American workers with cheap, foreign replacements.
whembly wrote: It's tapping into the fear that foreigners are stealing US jobs and at the same time, she's trying to be a cheerleader for that American Exceptionalism™ trope.
Which is odd because she's a known supporter of the H-1B visa program. Unless of course she's changed her mind.
Not really.
She's a businesswoman... who's been a CEO.
Ask yourself a few questions:
So, what was her job?
Spoiler:
-answer: as CEO, to maximize shareholder's value.
Why should she support the visa proram?
Spoiler:
-answer: Labor is one of the largest cost of doing business... as CEO, it's her job to maximize productivity while keep cost as low as possible. Hiring cheaper labor is one way of doing that.
As long as she frames her answer along those lines, she'll be fine.
Not for me. I will never ever ever vote for her. I'd vote for Billary before that .
whembly wrote: She's a businesswoman... who's been a CEO.
A terrible CEO, I might add.
Arguable... HP's strength wouldn't have existing w/o her push. (merging w/ Compaq & divesting printer business from enterprise solutions)
As long as she frames her answer along those lines, she'll be fine.
No she won't because she won't make it anywhere. Besides, those "answers" you gave are a terrible defense to the question of why she supports a program largely criticized for replacing American workers with cheap, foreign replacements.
Then you have no concept in what's the CEO's role in a company.
whembly wrote: It's tapping into the fear that foreigners are stealing US jobs and at the same time, she's trying to be a cheerleader for that American Exceptionalism™ trope.
Which is odd because she's a known supporter of the H-1B visa program. Unless of course she's changed her mind.
Not really.
She's a businesswoman... who's been a CEO.
Ask yourself a few questions:
So, what was her job?
Spoiler:
-answer: as CEO, to maximize shareholder's value.
Why should she support the visa proram?
Spoiler:
-answer: Labor is one of the largest cost of doing business... as CEO, it's her job to maximize productivity while keep cost as low as possible. Hiring cheaper labor is one way of doing that.
As long as she frames her answer along those lines, she'll be fine.
Not for me. I will never ever ever vote for her. I'd vote for Billary before that .
Fair enough...
It's basically the same problem that Romney faced.
I'd figure the TX GOP would be pulling hard for Perry...
Also... stay classy AP... stay classy:
Spoiler:
The hardcores are. These are the same people who call Cornyn a "libtard."
There was a lot of love/hate with Perry. they liked Perry, but the vaccination issue lost him the mouthbreather militia member vote, which has now gone to Cruz.
Cruz has started to disappoint as well.
Thats why Team TBone sees an opening. Remember folks, a vote for the Wiener Dog Party is a vote for Freedom!
Then you have no concept in what's the CEO's role in a company.
But she isn't running for the role of a CEO, right? Supporting something because it is good for your company isn't necessarily going to impress people come election time.
whembly wrote: Arguable... HP's strength wouldn't have existing w/o her push. (merging w/ Compaq & divesting printer business from enterprise solutions)
...and laying off thousands of employees, destroying employee satisfaction, and halving HP's stock prices.
You're so predictable... You fret endlessly about what the Clintons and their foundation did with money, while the performance of a person that nearly destroyed a successful company before they were gak-canned is only "arguably" bad.
Then you have no concept in what's the CEO's role in a company.
Unsurprisingly, you misunderstood my point, either honestly or intentionally in order to get a jab in.
This has nothing to do with what I think (or know, in reality) what a CEO does. Those answers are not good enough for a person running for President and will not sway any voter that already has a negative opinion on immigration (like, you know, the entire Republican base). It was a nice dodge though.
Frazzled wrote: one would hope the job of POTUS is not to run the country into the ground as badly as she did HP...
Okay...let’s set the record straight… I think she's a far more appealing candidate than most of the candidates we have today.
Here's we go...
She was chosen to be VP at At&T where she did an amazing job.
Then, she was chosen to be CEO of Lucent, again an amazing job.
If you want to criticise her HP tenure, that's fair game. If you do that, don't you think she should be given *some* credit for both her AT&T and Lucent tenure???
So, let's talk about her tenure as CEO of HP...
Here are the facts, HP was on the ropes, it was losing market share and was behind the times... her merger with Compaq, as controversial at the times (Walter Hewlett fething fought tooth and nail ), is now credited with not only saving HP, but making it the premiere IT company it is today.
She opened up Central and South America to the HP printing business, a HUGE move which solidified HP in that market area.
Her merger with Compaq killed Compaq and nearly killed HP. Thousands and thousands were laid off in that fiasco.
She sucked eggs and got fired, hard.
You may think thats a winning strategy for a Presidential candidate but its probably the only way Sanders could win. Yes, even the Socialist would beat her....like Fiorina at a classic Compaq computer convention...
You may think thats a winning strategy for a Presidential candidate but its probably the only way Sanders could win. Yes, even the Socialist would beat her....like Fiorina at a classic Compaq computer convention...
Yup... she lost her job over a very unpopular decision (the merger)... which many of the industry now praise her for taking that step.
And many more condemn.
Let's not forgot what she was doing while HP was floundering: being paid fir lectures, posing for magazine covers, and giving herself huge bonuses while laying off thousands of people.
Of course there are people that defend her, she's a controversial figure after all, but there is no denying that there are legitimate reasons she routinely makes "worst CEO" lists.
So you've been to the future and have seen how this all plays out then, eh??
From the stuff I've been seeing lately, Sanders has been picking up steam in arguably the most important demographic: under 35s. Think about it, the one demographic that traditionally has, by and large abstained from voting is actually waking up and supporting him, perhaps even enough to actually vote this time around. On the other side, I've seen one R candidate gathering up some younger followers as well, but I don't think it's been quite to the level that Sanders has gotten.
So you've been to the future and have seen how this all plays out then, eh??
Dontcha know? The Clinton's are Teflon™.
From the stuff I've been seeing lately, Sanders has been picking up steam in arguably the most important demographic: under 35s. Think about it, the one demographic that traditionally has, by and large abstained from voting is actually waking up and supporting him, perhaps even enough to actually vote this time around. On the other side, I've seen one R candidate gathering up some younger followers as well, but I don't think it's been quite to the level that Sanders has gotten.
Never gunna happen. Clinton only has to move a shade to the left more to appeal to Sander's base.
Hmm decades of Pro-corporate rule in America and look where it has us. We need gov't for the people, by the people, of the people, The corporate Lobby masters have crashed the ship on the rocks already.
CptJake wrote: Well, POTUS is indeed the chief executive of the USA... That is kind of the point of the office, right?
Not really. I mean, in terms of a leading an organisation it's the same job. But the expectations of the two roles is miles apart. A CEO drops a few thousand jobs and improves profits - he's done a great job for the people who put him there - the the investors. But a president is put there by voters who are more often employees than investors, so if a candidate has a rap for cutting jobs that is very clearly not a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Eh... it feeds into a stereotype that shouldn't really be expoused by a potential President.
It's tapping into the fear that foreigners are stealing US jobs and at the same time, she's trying to be a cheerleader for that American Exceptionalism™ trope.
Sort of, and she fumbled it for a bunch of reasons, but I'm inclined to try and ignore that as much as possible when she's touching on a point that is actually worth discussing.
If we don't do that and we just sit on the sidelines hammering politicians whenever they say something that's a bit controversial, well then it shouldn't be a surprise when they say so little of interest.
That's fair enough, to be honest. I mean, socialism is an actual set of political beliefs that not many Americans agree with, honestly I'm surprised it's as high as 47% - might be the current popularity Sanders is feeling driving that.
Honestly, it's some of the other numbers that are pretty shameful. On the face of it we could get outraged by the fact that anyone says they wouldn't vote for a black or jewish person, or a woman etc, but those numbers are all under 10% and that's pretty much the threshold for 'people giving smart arse answers'. Some of the other numbers are bad though - 40% of people say they won't vote for an atheist, 38% won't vote for a muslim, those are terrible.
The 24% who won't vote for a gay person, and the 25% who won't vote for an evangelical christian... well both groups are bigoted, and I just hope that each group sees the irony in being so evenly matched.
Then, she was chosen to be CEO of Lucent, again an amazing job.
She wasn't the CEO of Lucent. She was a high level executive, but not CEO. And I would hardly want to put "Lucent executive in the late 90's." on my resume after the nose dive that company took.
Why don't we talk about Carly Fiorina Enterprises, and the Fiorina Foundation? If you want to talk about the Clinton Foundation it would be only fair.
The Fiorina Foundation never really existed, it was basically just Fiorina paying people out of her own pocket while pretending that it did, and Carly Fiorina Enterprises was an attempt to create an NPO without registering it. In both cases she displayed clear lack of understanding regarding the way business law works in the US.
CptJake wrote: Well, POTUS is indeed the chief executive of the USA... That is kind of the point of the office, right?
Not really. I mean, in terms of a leading an organisation it's the same job. But the expectations of the two roles is miles apart. A CEO drops a few thousand jobs and improves profits - he's done a great job for the people who put him there - the the investors. But a president is put there by voters who are more often employees than investors, so if a candidate has a rap for cutting jobs that is very clearly not a good thing.
Well, those of us who pay taxes are 'investors'. And a CEO is supposed to do the right thing for the company to make it profitable. In some cases that may be cut jobs (companies are not welfare entities nor should they be) but in other cases it is not. As CEO of the country, POTUS has many of the same functions, he/she just has a much different tool box to use. He/She is still supposed to come up with policies that strengthen and grow the US.
The 24% who won't vote for a gay person, and the 25% who won't vote for an evangelical christian... well both groups are bigoted, and I just hope that each group sees the irony in being so evenly matched.
As if the groups were in any way equivalent. Evangelical 'Christians' have a record of putting forth laws that force other people to obey the tenets of their religion. Gays are just born differently. It's not bigotry to not want to vote for an Evangelical...It's a response to the likely laws they will try to pass and how reprehensible they would be.
CptJake wrote: Well, POTUS is indeed the chief executive of the USA... That is kind of the point of the office, right?
Not really. I mean, in terms of a leading an organisation it's the same job. But the expectations of the two roles is miles apart. A CEO drops a few thousand jobs and improves profits - he's done a great job for the people who put him there - the the investors. But a president is put there by voters who are more often employees than investors, so if a candidate has a rap for cutting jobs that is very clearly not a good thing.
Well, those of us who pay taxes are 'investors'. And a CEO is supposed to do the right thing for the company to make it profitable. In some cases that may be cut jobs (companies are not welfare entities nor should they be) but in other cases it is not. As CEO of the country, POTUS has many of the same functions, he/she just has a much different tool box to use. He/She is still supposed to come up with policies that strengthen and grow the US.
CEO's job is to make the company profitable. When you have a CEO that lays off thousands of workers but gives themselves huge bonuses, that's really indicative of someone who will screw over hard working Americans if it means a little more reward for them. That is not something you want in a president. You want a president that is concerned with the welfare of the people of the country, not only themselves and their buddies.
In other words, how many jobs could have been saved if they decided to forgo the bonuses?
CptJake wrote: Well, POTUS is indeed the chief executive of the USA... That is kind of the point of the office, right?
Not really. I mean, in terms of a leading an organisation it's the same job. But the expectations of the two roles is miles apart. A CEO drops a few thousand jobs and improves profits - he's done a great job for the people who put him there - the the investors. But a president is put there by voters who are more often employees than investors, so if a candidate has a rap for cutting jobs that is very clearly not a good thing.
Well, those of us who pay taxes are 'investors'. And a CEO is supposed to do the right thing for the company to make it profitable. In some cases that may be cut jobs (companies are not welfare entities nor should they be) but in other cases it is not. As CEO of the country, POTUS has many of the same functions, he/she just has a much different tool box to use. He/She is still supposed to come up with policies that strengthen and grow the US.
CEO's job is to make the company profitable. When you have a CEO that lays off thousands of workers but gives themselves huge bonuses, that's really indicative of someone who will screw over hard working Americans if it means a little more reward for them. That is not something you want in a president. You want a president that is concerned with the welfare of the people of the country, not only themselves and their buddies.
In other words, how many jobs could have been saved if they decided to forgo the bonuses?
If you look at POTUS as a CEO though, the way to make sure his/her "Company" (the country) is more profitable, is through increased labor pool... this means that as "CEO of a country" the POTUS is looking to increase profits, through increased tax revenue, which usually stems from more people having jobs, and fewer unemployed people.
Sure, a CEO would have some of the qualifications needed to be POTUS, but I feel that there is one single litmus test to rule out many candidates, CEO or otherwise: do you trust them to order your sons and daughters to die halfway across the world in the name of "American Interests?" Most politicians don't pass that test, either.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Sure, a CEO would have some of the qualifications needed to be POTUS, but I feel that there is one single litmus test to rule out many candidates, CEO or otherwise: do you trust them to order your sons and daughters to die halfway across the world in the name of "American Interests?" Most politicians don't pass that test, either.
I sure as hell don't trust Hillary.
Amb. Stevens is unavailable for comment.
Out of the current Rep. candidacy... Perry and Cruz are my picks for that.
Tannhauser42 wrote: do you trust them to order your sons and daughters to die halfway across the world in the name of "American Interests?" Most politicians don't pass that test, either.
There's only been one current candidate, IIRC, that has really addressed any of that, and that's Bernie Sanders. And let me tell you, I absolutely LOVE what he has to say about it:
Now, IF he were elected, do I think he'd send troops to war? I honestly think that for him, it'd be a tough decision, but ultimately he would give that green light if the situation truly warranted it.
Tannhauser42 wrote: do you trust them to order your sons and daughters to die halfway across the world in the name of "American Interests?" Most politicians don't pass that test, either.
There's only been one current candidate, IIRC, that has really addressed any of that, and that's Bernie Sanders. And let me tell you, I absolutely LOVE what he has to say about it:
Now, IF he were elected, do I think he'd send troops to war? I honestly think that for him, it'd be a tough decision, but ultimately he would give that green light if the situation truly warranted it.
Nothing short of a direct attack on US soil is the only way he's going to give that green light, imo.
CptJake wrote: Well, those of us who pay taxes are 'investors'.
No, taxpayers are not investors. An investor puts in capital up-front, with the expectation of receiving a flow of money later on (or possibly the plan to sell that flow of money to another person). A tax payer puts money in and never stops, in exchange for government services like police & courts of law, roads and other infrastructure, defence, and welfare & transfer payments. The nature of the two relationships and the expectations of each are so different that comparison is utterly useless.
In some cases that may be cut jobs (companies are not welfare entities nor should they be) but in other cases it is not. As CEO of the country, POTUS has many of the same functions, he/she just has a much different tool box to use. He/She is still supposed to come up with policies that strengthen and grow the US.
It’s amazing that you’ve actually described the difference but didn’t realise it – when assessing jobs or any other company decision it considers its own welfare – it is not a welfare entity as you say. The concerns of other groups, including it’s own employees, are secondary at best, and more often irrelevant. Whereas government worries about national interests as a whole, worries about what strengthens and grows the US as a whole. The difference between representing a single group of investors, and representing every single person and organisation in the US is massive.
skyth wrote: As if the groups were in any way equivalent. Evangelical 'Christians' have a record of putting forth laws that force other people to obey the tenets of their religion. Gays are just born differently. It's not bigotry to not want to vote for an Evangelical...It's a response to the likely laws they will try to pass and how reprehensible they would be.
Who said the two groups were equivalent?
Read the actual question asked – it asks if you would vote for a person who is otherwise qualified for the role, but happened to be x. A quarter of people said they would not vote for a person who is otherwise qualified for the role, but happens to be Christian/Gay. Either way that is crap.
And the reason that is crap is sewn up right there in your assumption that an evangelical President must automatically want to pass reprehensible laws. That’s a massive piece of stereotyping on your behalf. And if you don’t see how this plays out in the real world, I can give you some links about gay Christians who face bigotry from both Christians and gay people.
Which is a political disaster for Obama and the Democrats.
First up, of course Gruber was a major part of the bill. The Democrat decision to distance themselves from him after the videos emerged was a scared, weak political decision made by a party that’s more or less defined by scared, weak political decisions.
But the bigger issue here is that Gruber finally fething spoke some honesty about the whole process. ACA has a whole pile of smoke and mirror to hide some basic and very positive mechanisms, and when it was sold to the public there was little effort made to explain how it actually worked. Gruber recognises this and says it’s necessary because, frankly, voters are fething stupid. It’s hard to find any part of that that’s wrong, except possibly that he should have pointed out that’s how every bill is constructed and sold to the public.
The mature to this would be to recognise that’s how the sausage factory of politics works, and then recognise if people want that to change then we need to address the issue of stupid voters (and the even stupider media debate that panders to them). But we don’t get that. Instead the thing is contorted in to being just another stupid, meaningless Republican attack on ACA, because feth decent political discourse when there’s points to be scored.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: On the positive, Gruber is the ideal example for my Boy. Be a professor and make gazillions on the side.
Economics is the way - you get all the intellectual freedom of a university life, with near complete freedom to work in the private sector for mad cash at the same time.
First up, of course Gruber was a major part of the bill. The Democrat decision to distance themselves from him after the videos emerged was a scared, weak political decision made by a party that’s more or less defined by scared, weak political decisions.
But the bigger issue here is that Gruber finally fething spoke some honesty about the whole process. ACA has a whole pile of smoke and mirror to hide some basic and very positive mechanisms, and when it was sold to the public there was little effort made to explain how it actually worked. Gruber recognises this and says it’s necessary because, frankly, voters are fething stupid. It’s hard to find any part of that that’s wrong, except possibly that he should have pointed out that’s how every bill is constructed and sold to the public.
The mature to this would be to recognise that’s how the sausage factory of politics works, and then recognise if people want that to change then we need to address the issue of stupid voters (and the even stupider media debate that panders to them). But we don’t get that. Instead the thing is contorted in to being just another stupid, meaningless Republican attack on ACA, because feth decent political discourse when there’s points to be scored.
Yeah... feth political discourse when the Democrats shut out the Republicans during the crafting/passage of the PPACA. Just can't help to try to lay any sort of blame on the Republicans...eh?
*shrug*
And the "smoke and mirrors" are justified because voters to stupid? Dude, they're politicians... not our benevolent overlords.
Re-read what you typed man... take a drink of your favorite beer/cocktail and think about it.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
The answer is to hash this out, in the open and hope for the best.
whembly wrote: Yeah... feth political discourse when the Democrats shut out the Republicans during the crafting/passage of the PPACA. Just can't help to try to lay any sort of blame on the Republicans...eh?
Once again, when you set out on a campaign of community hall discussion on healthcare reform, and the other side sends astro-turfers to shout down discussion and build a narrative of scary, scary Democrat reforms, and then continue that with a campaign of shouting insane nonsense about the proposed reform... you don't get to the end of the process and start complaining that you weren't included.
And the "smoke and mirrors" are justified because voters to stupid? Dude, they're politicians... not our benevolent overlords.
Once again, sausage factory. No matter how good the bill is overall, you have to go through a weird kind of marketing operation, because any honest discussion about the bill will produce little more than a combination of lies and confusion, driven largely by what Gruber calls stupidity, but really is more a weird combination of laziness and self-martyrdom.
I mean, in this case one part of the smoke and mirrors were drawn up around the basic mechanic of poor people paying for the care of sick people. In a sensible, honest debate everyone would know that's how insurance works, for feth's sake, but we don't have a sensible, honest debate, so you deal with what you've got.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
Then you oppose everything, ever.
I agree that there are many times where some "smoke and mirrors" are a good thing. IF the law is truly the greatest thing ever, and will make everyone's lives so much better, that smoke and mirrors should probably be just "telling" us what the law is, what it does and how it works, in plain English that "Joe the Plumber" can understand without needing a PhD in in Law.
skyth wrote: As if the groups were in any way equivalent. Evangelical 'Christians' have a record of putting forth laws that force other people to obey the tenets of their religion. Gays are just born differently. It's not bigotry to not want to vote for an Evangelical...It's a response to the likely laws they will try to pass and how reprehensible they would be.
Who said the two groups were equivalent?
Read the actual question asked – it asks if you would vote for a person who is otherwise qualified for the role, but happened to be x. A quarter of people said they would not vote for a person who is otherwise qualified for the role, but happens to be Christian/Gay. Either way that is crap.
And the reason that is crap is sewn up right there in your assumption that an evangelical President must automatically want to pass reprehensible laws. That’s a massive piece of stereotyping on your behalf. And if you don’t see how this plays out in the real world, I can give you some links about gay Christians who face bigotry from both Christians and gay
There is a difference between Evangellical and Christian. One distinction that you are missing. Evangellical describes a behavior not just a being. If a presidential candidate didn't engage in those behaviors and suppport a certain worldview, they wouldn't be Evangellicals(at least enough to affect someone's vote)
Also qualified is different from 'will pass laws I agree with'. Perry is 'qualified' to be President. However he would pass laws I find reprehensible. It is not bigotry to vote against someone like that.
Being gay doesn't affect what policies you would support. (At least ones that affect other people). Voting against someone because they are gay IS bigotry. Voting against Evangellicals is different. If the poll results were tied between gay and Christian then you might have a point.
whembly wrote: Yeah... feth political discourse when the Democrats shut out the Republicans during the crafting/passage of the PPACA. Just can't help to try to lay any sort of blame on the Republicans...eh?
Once again, when you set out on a campaign of community hall discussion on healthcare reform, and the other side sends astro-turfers to shout down discussion and build a narrative of scary, scary Democrat reforms, and then continue that with a campaign of shouting insane nonsense about the proposed reform... you don't get to the end of the process and start complaining that you weren't included.
And the "smoke and mirrors" are justified because voters to stupid? Dude, they're politicians... not our benevolent overlords.
Once again, sausage factory. No matter how good the bill is overall, you have to go through a weird kind of marketing operation, because any honest discussion about the bill will produce little more than a combination of lies and confusion, driven largely by what Gruber calls stupidity, but really is more a weird combination of laziness and self-martyrdom.
I mean, in this case one part of the smoke and mirrors were drawn up around the basic mechanic of poor people paying for the care of sick people. In a sensible, honest debate everyone would know that's how insurance works, for feth's sake, but we don't have a sensible, honest debate, so you deal with what you've got.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
Then you oppose everything, ever.
No... you just ditch trying to make a fething comprehensive plan.
You incrementally address the issues one-by-one.
Ie, prohibit pre-existing condition clauses. Vote for that. It would've passed in 2010.
Ie, limit profit margins on private insurances. Vote for that. It would've passed in 2010.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
Then you oppose everything, ever.
I agree that there are many times where some "smoke and mirrors" are a good thing. IF the law is truly the greatest thing ever, and will make everyone's lives so much better, that smoke and mirrors should probably be just "telling" us what the law is, what it does and how it works, in plain English that "Joe the Plumber" can understand without needing a PhD in in Law.
And that's why I think America missed a golden opportunity with Herman Cain...
Remember, if he'd been elected his first law would've been the "Kitchen table amendment" stating that a federal law can be no more than 2 pages long, so it can be read at the kitchen table
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And that's why I think America missed a golden opportunity with Herman Cain...
Remember, if he'd been elected his first law would've been the "Kitchen table amendment" stating that a federal law can be no more than 2 pages long, so it can be read at the kitchen table
I loved Cain... and his 7/7/7 tax plan too.
But, be honest here, he could never pass that amendment as it's under Congress' purview to draft/pass federal laws. He, however, can certainly do that for Federal regulations.
Can I go slightly OT and offer some praise to America.
I'm talking guns here, and I know what you're thinking, but stick with me.
Anyway, it's off-season for the football (soccer) here in the UK, and as a massive football fan, I need my football hit, so I've started watching your Major League Soccer.
Long story short, I've been following New England Revolution, and every time they score a goal, some militia men start blasting muskets
I think it's quite cool. Didn't know you could fire guns in a sports stadium in America.
Was also surprised to learn that the two Texas teams compete against each other to win a cannon a cannon!
I'm talking guns here, and I know what you're thinking, but stick with me.
Anyway, it's off-season for the football (soccer) here in the UK, and as a massive football fan, I need my football hit, so I've started watching your Major League Soccer.
Long story short, I've been following New England Revolution, and every time they score a goal, some militia men start blasting muskets
I think it's quite cool. Didn't know you could fire guns in a sports stadium in America.
Was also surprised to learn that the two Texas teams compete against each other to win a cannon a cannon!
You guys love your guns.
Us mere peasants cannot fire guns in sports stadiums.... Those guys are hired "props" as the New England Patriots (the Tom Brady team that plays American Football) do the same thing. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers have a pirate ship on one end of the stadium and whenever they score a touchdown, they fire off a "broadside volley" (which, given the state of the team now, is fairly rarely, lol)
I'm talking guns here, and I know what you're thinking, but stick with me.
Anyway, it's off-season for the football (soccer) here in the UK, and as a massive football fan, I need my football hit, so I've started watching your Major League Soccer.
Long story short, I've been following New England Revolution, and every time they score a goal, some militia men start blasting muskets
I think it's quite cool. Didn't know you could fire guns in a sports stadium in America.
Was also surprised to learn that the two Texas teams compete against each other to win a cannon a cannon!
You guys love your guns.
Us mere peasants cannot fire guns in sports stadiums.... Those guys are hired "props" as the New England Patriots (the Tom Brady team that plays American Football) do the same thing. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers have a pirate ship on one end of the stadium and whenever they score a touchdown, they fire off a "broadside volley" (which, given the state of the team now, is fairly rarely, lol)
Still think it's pretty cool for a bunch of militia men to march up and unload a volley.
Wouldn't catch on in the UK. We tried flying Spitfires over the stadiums, but nobody noticed
First up, of course Gruber was a major part of the bill. The Democrat decision to distance themselves from him after the videos emerged was a scared, weak political decision made by a party that’s more or less defined by scared, weak political decisions.
But the bigger issue here is that Gruber finally fething spoke some honesty about the whole process. ACA has a whole pile of smoke and mirror to hide some basic and very positive mechanisms, and when it was sold to the public there was little effort made to explain how it actually worked. Gruber recognises this and says it’s necessary because, frankly, voters are fething stupid. It’s hard to find any part of that that’s wrong, except possibly that he should have pointed out that’s how every bill is constructed and sold to the public.
The mature to this would be to recognise that’s how the sausage factory of politics works, and then recognise if people want that to change then we need to address the issue of stupid voters (and the even stupider media debate that panders to them). But we don’t get that. Instead the thing is contorted in to being just another stupid, meaningless Republican attack on ACA, because feth decent political discourse when there’s points to be scored.
Yeah... feth political discourse when the Democrats shut out the Republicans during the crafting/passage of the PPACA. Just can't help to try to lay any sort of blame on the Republicans...eh?
*shrug*
And the "smoke and mirrors" are justified because voters to stupid? Dude, they're politicians... not our benevolent overlords.
Re-read what you typed man... take a drink of your favorite beer/cocktail and think about it.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
The answer is to hash this out, in the open and hope for the best.
Please stop for a moment and try to see the real message Sebster was making: ...to recognise that’s how the sausage factory of politics works, and then recognise if people want that to change then we need to address the issue of stupid voters (and the even stupider media debate that panders to them). But we don’t get that. Instead the thing is contorted in to being just another stupid, meaningless [insert any party name here] attack on [insert any one of the last 1000 bills, from the budget on down, in Congress here], because feth decent political discourse when there’s points to be scored.
Yes, I made a slight edit. Because the particular party and the particular bill are entirely irrelevant to the point being made, so I removed them because some people just can't see past such things.
First up, of course Gruber was a major part of the bill. The Democrat decision to distance themselves from him after the videos emerged was a scared, weak political decision made by a party that’s more or less defined by scared, weak political decisions.
But the bigger issue here is that Gruber finally fething spoke some honesty about the whole process. ACA has a whole pile of smoke and mirror to hide some basic and very positive mechanisms, and when it was sold to the public there was little effort made to explain how it actually worked. Gruber recognises this and says it’s necessary because, frankly, voters are fething stupid. It’s hard to find any part of that that’s wrong, except possibly that he should have pointed out that’s how every bill is constructed and sold to the public.
The mature to this would be to recognise that’s how the sausage factory of politics works, and then recognise if people want that to change then we need to address the issue of stupid voters (and the even stupider media debate that panders to them). But we don’t get that. Instead the thing is contorted in to being just another stupid, meaningless Republican attack on ACA, because feth decent political discourse when there’s points to be scored.
Yeah... feth political discourse when the Democrats shut out the Republicans during the crafting/passage of the PPACA. Just can't help to try to lay any sort of blame on the Republicans...eh?
*shrug*
And the "smoke and mirrors" are justified because voters to stupid? Dude, they're politicians... not our benevolent overlords.
Re-read what you typed man... take a drink of your favorite beer/cocktail and think about it.
Even if a hypothetical bill/law is the best thing ever... if congress has to use "smoke and mirrors" in order to pass it, I don't want any part of it.
The answer is to hash this out, in the open and hope for the best.
Please stop for a moment and try to see the real message Sebster was making: ...to recognise that’s how the sausage factory of politics works, and then recognise if people want that to change then we need to address the issue of stupid voters (and the even stupider media debate that panders to them). But we don’t get that. Instead the thing is contorted in to being just another stupid, meaningless [insert any party name here] attack on [insert any one of the last 1000 bills, from the budget on down, in Congress here], because feth decent political discourse when there’s points to be scored.
Yes, I made a slight edit. Because the particular party and the particular bill are entirely irrelevant to the point being made, so I removed them because some people just can't see past such things.
That only assumes that politics is forevermore a sausage factory.
Feth that.
I don't care what party or for what bill/laws... if smoke and mirrors is needed to be employed in order to pass these laws, then we don't have a fething Representative Democracy anymore.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I agree that there are many times where some "smoke and mirrors" are a good thing. IF the law is truly the greatest thing ever, and will make everyone's lives so much better, that smoke and mirrors should probably be just "telling" us what the law is, what it does and how it works, in plain English that "Joe the Plumber" can understand without needing a PhD in in Law.
I wouldn't say so much that smoke and mirrors are a good thing, as much as they are a necessary, inevitable thing. People simply don't understand how laws and processes work, and what's worse is that they don't want to know. The first instinct of almost every voter is to ask how a new law will harm them, and typically they will only learn the negatives of the law. This is why politicians don't talk with complexity and nuance, but in bland soundbites. And it's why bills get passed with a whole lot of smoke and mirrors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: There is a difference between Evangellical and Christian. One distinction that you are missing. Evangellical describes a behavior not just a being. If a presidential candidate didn't engage in those behaviors and suppport a certain worldview, they wouldn't be Evangellicals(at least enough to affect someone's vote)
Actually, 'evangelical' describes a group of churches. Those churches typically espouse certain kinds of behaviour and political beliefs, and typically those members follows those beliefs and political views, but not always, because life and people and organisations are diverse and complex, and that's why stereotyping is a bad thing.
Also qualified is different from 'will pass laws I agree with'. Perry is 'qualified' to be President. However he would pass laws I find reprehensible. It is not bigotry to vote against someone like that.
No, but it is bigotry to hear that person belongs to a certain group, and then to just assume that person must follow all the traits common to people in that group.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: No... you just ditch trying to make a fething comprehensive plan.
You incrementally address the issues one-by-one.
Ie, prohibit pre-existing condition clauses. Vote for that. It would've passed in 2010.
Except just banning pre-existing clauses means people don't bother to get insurance. They just wait until they're sick. So you need the individual mandate. And because healthcare is beyond the budgets of many people, you need subsidies. To fund the subsidies you need to tax the higher end plans, and once that's in place then to make it clear and open to the market you need the exchanges. And there you go - you've got ACA.
Now, other parts like limited profit margins, employer mandate etc, those weren't essential, but really, once you commit to prohibiting pre-existing conditions, you need most of the ACA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That only assumes that politics is forevermore a sausage factory.
No, it merely looks at why politics is a sausage factory, and explains why. People ask all the time for politicians to be honest but when someone comes out and speaks honestly every freaks out. Gruber spoke about how ACA is a smoke and mirrors exercise... he spoke honestly about the process, and the response to that honesty was a bunch of ridiculous nonsense and point scoring efforts. The reaction actually proved why that approach is necessary.
I don't care what party or for what bill/laws... if smoke and mirrors is needed to be employed in order to pass these laws, then we don't have a fething Representative Democracy anymore.
Ya see Seb... that's all they had to do to convince the public.
The problem I'm yammering about, is that the political and media classes themselves never accurately explained how PPACA would work -- they only presented Obama's predictions about how wonderful it would be. Not the details of how it would allegedly work -- who would pay for it, and who would actually benefit.
We gotta pass it, in order to read it!
Bad fething policy seb... no one in their right mind should support this mechanism.
The PPACA was sold by Obama[i] himself on THREE BIG LIES:
1) If you like your plan, you can keep your plan!
2) If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!
3) If you voluntarily choose the Obamacare plan, it will be 14% to 20% CHEAPER!
THE PRESIDENT: …
One thing, Jon, you shook your head when I said that people would be able to choose the better plan because the notion was, well, people are mandated. Actually, any insurance that you currently have would be grandfathered in so you could keep it. And so you could decide not to get in the exchange the better plan — I could keep my Acme insurance, just a high-deductible catastrophic plan — I would not be required to get the better one. If I chose to get the better one, it would be 14 to 20 percent cheaper than if I were going into the individual market. I just wanted to clarify that issue.
Just listen to him here... Plz, try to take the time:
As Gruber admitted... the plan when in fact THE PLAN was to hide the inner-mechanism of the PPACA from the "stupid" American voters, all along.
Feth that man.
On something of this magnitude, I don't buy into the idea that we must "break a few eggs" in order to make omelettes.
I don't care what party or for what bill/laws... if smoke and mirrors is needed to be employed in order to pass these laws, then we don't have a fething Representative Democracy anymore.
Except just banning pre-existing clauses means people don't bother to get insurance. They just wait until they're sick. So you need the individual mandate. And because healthcare is beyond the budgets of many people, you need subsidies. To fund the subsidies you need to tax the higher end plans, and once that's in place then to make it clear and open to the market you need the exchanges. And there you go - you've got ACA.
Now, other parts like limited profit margins, employer mandate etc, those weren't essential, but really, once you commit to prohibiting pre-existing conditions, you need most of the ACA.
The problem there is, With the setup we were "given" of having Bronze, Silver, and Gold plans in basically all states (some states had a "platinum" plan, but most did not) is that people's natural tendency is to automatically say, "I need the gold plan" even when it runs counter to their actual needs. The very reason why Silver and Gold plans exist is because there are people who are already sick, and sick on a long term basis (things such as Type 1 diabetes, various forms of Arthritis, cancers, etc). The reason why the premium is higher, is because there is less copay, and the 505/50 partial pays are hit much, much sooner than on a bronze plan.
This is actually why I was able to get people into "health" insurances that actually helped people, and for cheaper than most plans they thought they needed.
whembly wrote: Ya see Seb... that's all they had to do to convince the public.
The problem I'm yammering about, is that the political and media classes themselves never accurately explained how PPACA would work -- they only presented Obama's predictions about how wonderful it would be. Not the details of how it would allegedly work -- who would pay for it, and who would actually benefit.
Hey, I've been pointing out from the start how badly sold ACA was. Starting with the Democrats starting to talk about the reform before they'd hashed out a broad plan for what that reform would be, to Obama's weird decision to champion healthcare reform but step away from the specifics of the reform, then compounded because no Democrat leader in congress ever stood up and took ownership and responsibility to sell the bill, the whole thing was a clusterfeth from the get go. No argument there.
But what I described above... that was repeated countless times. I read it in countless columns, and I then repeated it endlessly on this forum. It barely registered because people didn't give a gak, because hardly anyone was interested in learning how ACA actually worked. The Republicans just wanted to find stuff to hate, the Democrats wanted to repeat the standard defences, and independents went looking for stuff to get scared about. It's just politics as it always is.
I mean, if you really want to get moralistic about this, what’s your opinion on the campaign of lies and insanity run by the Republicans to oppose healthcare reform?
We gotta pass it, in order to read it!
Come on. I've explained so many times how misleading and bs that quote was. It was Pelosi being asked about the details of the senate plan prior to reconciliation, to which Pelosi sensibly said that's the senate's bill, and she won't know what's in the final version until it is passed.
Bad fething policy seb... no one in their right mind should support this mechanism.
The PPACA was sold by Obama[i] himself on THREE BIG LIES:
1) If you like your plan, you can keep your plan!
2) If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!
3) If you voluntarily choose the Obamacare plan, it will be 14% to 20% CHEAPER!
Eh, I think it’s a stretch to say the plan was sold on those three things alone. I don’t disagree with those being lies (the first two anyway), but the overall selling of the bill was way more complex than that.
On something of this magnitude, I don't buy into the idea that we must "break a few eggs" in order to make omelettes.
Especially on something of this magnitude. And seriously, if you’re going to get moralistic on this, just walk away from politics.
Maybe so, but it isn't far from the truth.
Our current democracies are far from perfect because political debate is so weak and so based on tribalism. But it does let us vote out people that really piss us off, and that’s good enough for the most part.
Our current democracies are far from perfect because political debate is so weak and so based on tribalism. But it does let us vote out people that really piss us off, and that’s good enough for the most part.
Indeed... the ACA was part of the reason why Congressional Democrats got spanked last election.
Moving on...
Ya'll call for Republican Civil War™?
This... THIS has a making of a Civil War:
http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/house-freedom-caucus-warns-of-blowback-for-boehner/?dcz=
The House Freedom Caucus has a secret it wants to share with Democrats.
“If the Democrats were to file a motion to vacate the chair and were to vote for that motion unanimously, there probably are 218 votes for it to succeed,” one member of the House Freedom Caucus told CQ Roll Call Tuesday night, as he exited an meeting in the basement of Tortilla Coast.
If that’s true, Democrats could certainly use a vote to remove Speaker John A. Boehner as leverage in any number of upcoming battles: the Export-Import Bank, a highway bill, all sorts of spending measures. But absent any real talk from Democrats, the official response from Boehner’s communications director, Kevin Smith, was simply to dismiss CQ Roll Call’s reporter.
“Matt Fuller is a prop for Freedom Caucus propaganda,” Smith wrote via email.
While the HFC member in question wouldn’t say whether a vote to take Boehner’s gavel was part of the discussion Tuesday — and other members said it was not — it’s clear the decision to strip North Carolina Republican Mark Meadows of his subcommittee chairmanship has stirred the already excitable Freedom Caucus into a new frenzy.
The HFC looks ready for war, as does GOP leadership and more moderate Republicans who are sick and tired of conservatives voting against the team — and that could signal more retaliation to come from both sides.
Rep. Jim Jordan, the HFC chairman, and Raúl R. Labrador, one of the founding members of the secretive conservative group, had plenty to say to CQ Roll Call Wednesday about leadership’s recent moves against members who voted against the rule for Trade Promotion Authority.
“The reason this is happening is pretty clear,” Labrador said of Meadows’ demotion and the dismissal of other HFC members from the whip team. “The leadership is afraid.”
Labrador said GOP leaders sense their influence slipping, as 34 Republicans defied Boehner and others on the TPA rule. “And they know that that 34 is really not 34,” Labrador said. “They know that that number is really much larger.”
That may be true, with HFC membership now up to around 40 — according to Jordan’s best estimate, because he said he didn’t have the classified roster in front of him.
There’s been some discrepancy in reports on the size of the caucus — The Daily Caller put its total at 70. The Hill says it’s between 50 and 60 — but that’s due in part to group’s own obsessive secrecy about its rules and membership. And, for the record, it takes a four-fifths majority to reach an official position, according to members.
Labrador notes that, while at least 25 of the 34 “no” votes on the rule were from members of the conservative caucus, it’s not just conservatives upset about TPA, or the rule for the legislation or the resulting “shenanigans,” to use Labrador’s word for leadership’s crackdown.
“They’re afraid,” Labrador said. “They want to break our backs, because they’re afraid that that number is just going to continue to grow.”
If leaders are afraid, they’re not exactly backing down. On Wednesday, Boehner said he “absolutely” supported Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz removing Meadows, and affirmed that, “when it comes to procedural votes in the House, the majority has to stick together.”
That reasoning doesn’t sit well with HFC members. “This was a substantive rule. This wasn’t your typical rule,” Labrador said, calling Boehner’s claim it was simply a procedural vote “B.S.”
Jordan and Labrador both laid out a case that the rule made major self-executing policy changes — Jordan, in his fifth term, called it “the most convoluted rule I’ve ever seen” — and therefore, he viewed it more like a vote on a bill than procedure.
Some Republicans may be comforted that the HFC has a reason why it voted against the rule. It indicates the Freedom Caucus isn’t really prone to just voting against procedural motions in quixotic or retributive fashion.
“It’s about principles,” Labrador said. “It’s not about tit-for-tat.”
The Idaho Republican — who unsuccessfully ran for majority leader almost exactly a year ago and wouldn’t rule out another run in the future — said many in the GOP conference think differently than conservatives. “They think that being a member of Congress is just so dang cool, and that there’s nothing greater than this,” Labrador said.
Conservatives are in Washington to stand on principle, he said, not to get titles like vice chairman. That, he said, is what really scares leadership and others — “that they can’t control you.”
Jordan, who sat silently while listening to Labrador, was less critical of leadership and other Republicans in the conference, focusing instead on what he believes the Freedom Caucus is about: doing what you said you would do.
“That’s much more important than if you’re a subcommittee chairman, or if you’re on a certain committee,” Jordan said.
Jordan is a subcommittee chairman on Oversight and Government Reform — as Meadows was before he lost his gavel — and, like Meadows, Jordan voted against the TPA rule. Also, like Meadows, he hasn’t contributed a dime to the National Republican Congressional Committee this year. (Labrador said it was difficult to give to the NRCC when a group led by Boehner’s former chief of staff was running ads against conservatives. “And then to have the speaker and his cronies to come to you and say you need to give money to the NRCC.”)
So why Meadows and not Jordan?
“Good question,” Jordan said.
Neither Labrador nor Jordan thought Chaffetz acted on his own. Meadows doesn’t think that either. And even though Chaffetz was the executioner, Meadows isn’t holding much of a grudge. (When he entered Tortilla Coast Tuesday night for the HFC meeting, he spotted Chaffetz dining separately with Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and went right over to say “Hi.”)
CQ Roll Call asked Chaffetz Wednesday why Meadows was punished but not Jordan, and the Utah Republican went back to his talking points. “I said it was a variety of factors,” Chaffetz said.
Labrador offered his own theory.
“Mark Meadows is not a three-time national wrestling champion,” said Labrador, who was the one laughing hardest at his own joke.
(For the record, the wiry Jordan won the NCAA Division I wrestling championship twice, not three times.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Breaking news from twittah!
SCOTUS rules in favor of Government in ACA subsidies case 6-3.
Well then... interested in reading how the Justices contorted that the "state" = "federal" arguments....
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: Chief Justice cites Marbury in ACA case... thats... um... interesting.
Man... the Warren camp has seriously got be thinking about jumping in...
Nah... I wouldn't be surprised in the least if both "camps" talked about it before Sanders announced and decided to support the other by not taking votes/attention away from each other.
I mean, I don't think the Dems want to turn their party into a veritable clown car of politicians, the way the Republicans have (I'm not calling the Rs clowns, just that there's a gak ton of them in a "small" space)
I don't know. I imagine they wouldn't mind seeing Sanders in. And if he is, who knows who he would choose as VP. Additionally, if he makes it, her run in 4 years becomes much much more likely as the US will have softened more towards the left following his presidency (I believe) and he's, well, old so I dunno if he'd shoot for 8...
I think it'd be great if Sanders get the nomination. Because that guarantee's a Republican President (unless it's Trump... if it's Trump, I'd man the fething phones for Sanders).
Socialism is still pretty damned toxic in American politics.
It's Hillary... all that way though. I don't see him beating her.
You say that, but it's not that bad, socialism is mostly only the devil incarnate with conservatives, who aren't going to be voting for him anyway. And what he actually believes in isn't extreme or anything, it's about in line with a lot of the European nations. If he doesn't rely on the word "socialism", and just states his position, he'll be fine. Not a shoe-in, mind you, but most definitely not an auto-lose. And if the republicans run a really extreme candidate (which seems pretty likely, they have only gotten more extreme over time), that will really help him.
whembly wrote: Indeed... the ACA was part of the reason why Congressional Democrats got spanked last election.
It was the reason the Democrats were spanked (well there was also the fact it was a mid-term, which is bad for Democrats and sitting presidents), but in terms of policy it was the one reason for the Republican victory.
So now, if ACA is truly that unpopular, then Republicans need to use it to drive more gains, until Republicans have the power to replace it with something they like, or at least force Democrats to yield and allow it be repealed. That’s politics.
On the other hand, Democrats will rely on the ACA now being in place, and believe the 10 million newly insured and complete absence of a death spiral means the electoral impact will fade pretty quickly.
And that’s politics, same as it’s ever been.
Ya'll call for Republican Civil War™?
The inside game is such a mess. You couldn’t pay me enough to take Boehner’s job. Also, Raúl R. Labrador is the most preposterous name I’ve heard in a long time.
EDIT
Just looked up what Boehner got paid - $200k. Not worth it by a long shot, I think.
Slightly off topic, but did anybody happen to catch Ted Cruz on Tavis Smiley last night? He almost came across as a human. Damn, he is good at deception,
whembly wrote: Indeed... the ACA was part of the reason why Congressional Democrats got spanked last election.
It was the reason the Democrats were spanked (well there was also the fact it was a mid-term, which is bad for Democrats and sitting presidents), but in terms of policy it was the one reason for the Republican victory.
So now, if ACA is truly that unpopular, then Republicans need to use it to drive more gains, until Republicans have the power to replace it with something they like, or at least force Democrats to yield and allow it be repealed. That’s politics.
On the other hand, Democrats will rely on the ACA now being in place, and believe the 10 million newly insured and complete absence of a death spiral means the electoral impact will fade pretty quickly.
And that’s politics, same as it’s ever been.
Ya'll call for Republican Civil War™?
The inside game is such a mess. You couldn’t pay me enough to take Boehner’s job. Also, Raúl R. Labrador is the most preposterous name I’ve heard in a long time.
EDIT
Just looked up what Boehner got paid - $200k. Not worth it by a long shot, I think.
I read a poll that for the first time more people have a favorable view of the ACA than unfavorable.
Granted, a good portion of those 'opposed' to the ACA before were ones who thought it didn't go far enough. It was never wildly unpopular as was repeatedly claimed.
I heard it in the car so I thought I would share...
In the wake of last week's Charleston, S.C., church shootings, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders explained his competing concerns between gun rights and gun safety.
"I think guns and gun control is an issue that needs to be discussed," Sanders told NPR's David Greene in an interview airing on Thursday's Morning Edition. "Let me add to that, I think that urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law abiding people."
In the wake of the shooting deaths of nine African-Americans at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, many Democratic politicians have renewed calls to tighten gun-control measures. Sanders said he's open to a conversation about what to do next on gun-control measures and would go along with stricter background checks, for example. But he noted in the interview that those measures alone wouldn't solve the problem of gun violence in America.
"So obviously, we need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it," Sanders told Greene. "But some people think it's going to solve all of our problems, and it's not. You know what, we have a crisis in the capability of addressing mental health illness in this country. When people are hurting and are prepared to do something terrible, we need to do something immediately. We don't have that and we should have that."
For left-leaning senators from largely rural, pro-gun states — like Vermont — it can be tough to strike a balance talking about guns. Sanders has had a mixed voting record on guns. He voted to end the "gun-show loophole" and in favor of the 2013 universal background check bill and assault-weapons ban following Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre that left 20 children dead. But, previously, Sanders voted to allow guns on Amtrak and against the Brady bill.
It's a stance that could prove problematic for the insurgent White House hopeful. While Sanders has staked out forthright positions mostly to the left of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, guns is one issue where he is more toward the middle of the current field. It's one he doesn't bring up as often as his other rivals, either.
Sanders explained that as a representative of his state, he has to have their interests at heart, but argued that could put him at a good place to bridge a compromise.
"I think the people of Vermont and I have understood for many years that what guns are about in Vermont are not what guns are about in Chicago, Los Angeles or New York, where they're used not for hunting or target practice but to kill people," Sanders said. "I think, interestingly enough, I'm in a very good position representing a rural state to bring forth common-sense legislation regarding guns."
He added, "I can understand if some Democrats or Republicans represent an urban area where people don't hunt, don't do target practice, they're not into guns. But in my state, people go hunting and do target practice. Talking about cultural divides in this country, you know, it is important for people in urban America to understand that families go out together and kids go out together and they hunt and enjoy the outdoors and that is a lifestyle that should not be condemned."
I heard it in the car so I thought I would share...
Definitely an interesting take. And I kind of think, or suspect that the "main" reason why he voted "yes" on the Sandy Hook stuff, was simply because it was so close to home, and that there'd be a fairly big risk to his career overall if he had gone against it.
Of course, he's fairly spot on when he says gun control won't solve the problems, especially as it pertains to the distastrous state our mental health apparatus is across the country.
I heard it in the car so I thought I would share...
Spoiler:
In the wake of last week's Charleston, S.C., church shootings, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders explained his competing concerns between gun rights and gun safety.
"I think guns and gun control is an issue that needs to be discussed," Sanders told NPR's David Greene in an interview airing on Thursday's Morning Edition. "Let me add to that, I think that urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law abiding people."
In the wake of the shooting deaths of nine African-Americans at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, many Democratic politicians have renewed calls to tighten gun-control measures. Sanders said he's open to a conversation about what to do next on gun-control measures and would go along with stricter background checks, for example. But he noted in the interview that those measures alone wouldn't solve the problem of gun violence in America.
"So obviously, we need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it," Sanders told Greene. "But some people think it's going to solve all of our problems, and it's not. You know what, we have a crisis in the capability of addressing mental health illness in this country. When people are hurting and are prepared to do something terrible, we need to do something immediately. We don't have that and we should have that."
For left-leaning senators from largely rural, pro-gun states — like Vermont — it can be tough to strike a balance talking about guns. Sanders has had a mixed voting record on guns. He voted to end the "gun-show loophole" and in favor of the 2013 universal background check bill and assault-weapons ban following Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre that left 20 children dead. But, previously, Sanders voted to allow guns on Amtrak and against the Brady bill.
It's a stance that could prove problematic for the insurgent White House hopeful. While Sanders has staked out forthright positions mostly to the left of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, guns is one issue where he is more toward the middle of the current field. It's one he doesn't bring up as often as his other rivals, either.
Sanders explained that as a representative of his state, he has to have their interests at heart, but argued that could put him at a good place to bridge a compromise.
"I think the people of Vermont and I have understood for many years that what guns are about in Vermont are not what guns are about in Chicago, Los Angeles or New York, where they're used not for hunting or target practice but to kill people," Sanders said. "I think, interestingly enough, I'm in a very good position representing a rural state to bring forth common-sense legislation regarding guns."
He added, "I can understand if some Democrats or Republicans represent an urban area where people don't hunt, don't do target practice, they're not into guns. But in my state, people go hunting and do target practice. Talking about cultural divides in this country, you know, it is important for people in urban America to understand that families go out together and kids go out together and they hunt and enjoy the outdoors and that is a lifestyle that should not be condemned."
It sounds like Bernie is what is commonly called a Fudd, someone who thinks that firearms should only be used for hunting.
Seriously, the more I learn about Sanders the more I like him. Though some of his stances/ideas are a little extreme I think Congress (especially a Republican controlled one) would keep the worst parts in check and thus render the crazy parts moot. Plus, a solid cabinet and VP to focus his ideas would make him pretty formidable as President.
skyth wrote: I read a poll that for the first time more people have a favorable view of the ACA than unfavorable.
Granted, a good portion of those 'opposed' to the ACA before were ones who thought it didn't go far enough. It was never wildly unpopular as was repeatedly claimed.
Yeah, that last part is a really good point - while a majority didn't like ACA they were split on what they didn't like about it, it was either too socialist or not socialist enough. Any attempt to replace ACA will split that group, a reform built around privatisation will drive many people to support ACA over that reform, while a reform based around single payer will see the rightwing support either disappear, or even move to defend ACA.
The only hope to get rid of ACA rested on the program itself failing - failing to enroll new people, or an insurance price spike leading to a death spiral. None of that happened, though, and so ACA steadily becomes as embedded in the system as medicare or any other reform.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That's because he's providing liberal red meat dripping with bloody gore right now.
What you see with Sanders is no different than Cruz does for righties.
Yep. That's pretty much the perfect summary. Most primaries will see at least one guy do very well by saying a bunch of stuff that resonates really well with a specific part of their party's demographic. Lately the Republican primaries have had an average of about four of these guys each time.
I mean, I really like Sanders, even outside of politics he's just a really funny guy, but he isn't going to be the next president, not by a long way.
The biggest difference is that the 'Socialist' talking points are showing that you care about other people and want to help them. Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.
skyth wrote: The biggest difference is that the 'Socialist' talking points are showing that you care about other people and want to help them. Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.
No, the difference is: Socialist trying to convince you how much they care.
The Right-wingers just want to be left the feth alone.
skyth wrote: The biggest difference is that the 'Socialist' talking points are showing that you care about other people and want to help them. Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.
No, the difference is: Socialist trying to convince you how much they care.
The Right-wingers just want to be left the feth alone.
Considering how the Repubs are all about gay marriage being bad...I don't see how that plays into 'wanting to be left alone'. Quite frankly, it's very dishonest to say they are about wanting to be left alone when they are running on a platform of gays are bad and poir people are bad people...
skyth wrote: The biggest difference is that the 'Socialist' talking points are showing that you care about other people and want to help them. Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.
No, the difference is: Socialist trying to convince you how much they care.
The Right-wingers just want to be left the feth alone.
Considering how the Repubs are all about gay marriage being bad...I don't see how that plays into 'wanting to be left alone'. Quite frankly, it's very dishonest to say they are about wanting to be left alone when they are running on a platform of gays are bad and poir people are bad people...
I think it is more they want themselves to be left alone but also that the government should meddle in the lives of people they don't like.
I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.
I've never really gotten the big government argument that always seems to get trotted out every election.
As I've said before on this forum, American history is a hobby of mine, and I've been hearing about big government since the days of Andrew Jackson's presidency
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.
I've never really gotten the big government argument that always seems to get trotted out every election.
As I've said before on this forum, American history is a hobby of mine, and I've been hearing about big government since the days of Andrew Jackson's presidency
It is a simple argument. The base document for the Federal gov't is the constitution. It grants a limited set of powers to the branches of the federal gov't. Our current federal gov't has stampeded across the lines which were drawn to contain it and it is now brandied about as the remedy for all things. And when that remedy does not work, the answer seems to always be "We didn't spend enough! You didn't give us enough power! Give us MOAR and we'll get it right this next time!". And they've been saying that sine before Andrew Jackson. And often that increase in power and spending benefits very few in proportion to the resources spent (gov't is generally inefficient at the level of our Federal gov't, see the VA as an example). Often cronyism comes into play which decreases efficiency even more (see the Solyndra and other green energy initiatives recently).
The TSA is in my opinion a fantastic example of Big Gov't gone wrong. A HUGE expense to us taxpayers that has never done more than put measures into place which give a false appearance of security but which do little if anything to provide actual security. And we grow the organization and dump more and more into it. It is a massive waste.
Many conservatives think we've tilted the scales a bit too much and would like to see it go back at least a bit the other direction. It really is a simple idea.
)
I am outraged! 
.
