I am honestly shocked that I'm the person making this thread. I would have thought you all would be pummeling each other with rhetorical sledgehammers by now.
If you post up in here, BEFORE you begin opining, PLEASE answer the following question: did you WATCH the speech in its entirety?
I am much, much less interested in comments that lack relevancy through not having seen the entire event and which are based on anecdotes trickled out from pundits on morning news shows or brief clips off CNN.com, than I am comments from people who actually saw the speech and who therefore know what they're talking about.
So, yes, I did watch it, all of it. I DVR'ed it so I can watch it again later once I've digested the first run a little more.
First reaction: jesus christ but I love my President. I'm 35 years old and this is the first time I've ever felt that *I* had a President. He's intelligent, thoughtful, knows how to deliver a hell of a speech, hard-working, someone I would actually point out to my kids as someone to look up to.
As I've gotten older, I'm come to think about the President as CiC a lot more often...I think a good President is one who, if he gave me the order to go fight, if he told me the country needed me in arms and potentially sacrificing my life for it, I would answer the call for without question because I trusted him.
I trust Obama. I don't always like him, his style of politics pisses me off sometimes because I think he's too conciliatory (for instance, I think he waited too fething long to give this speech), but I trust him. He inspires confidence, which after the last eight years of chimp-dom is so incredibly refreshing.
Second reaction: I wonder if this was his plan all along. Waiting to give this speech right now, after the session break. He's taken a lot of flak in the media for not delineating what he wanted out of Congress but rather perhaps learning the wrong lesson from Clinton and taking too much of a back seat to the drafting process.
I got to thinking...maybe he knew that the wing-nuts were going to come flying out of the woodwork when this debate began, and he wanted to let the idiots get the steam vented. Maybe he knew that trying to have substantive debate before the wing-nuts had their say was pointless, that the debate would get lost in the shuffle.
All that is spent now. It's been screamed out from the rooftops, disproved, ridiculed, and I really don't think is going to factor into any of this in any meaningful way anymore. Sarah Palin is less relevant than ever thanks to her "death panels" comment...she may have put the final nail in her political coffin with that slowed comment, and good riddance...South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson yelling "You lie!" at Obama may have been the biggest favor the Republicans ever did America. It just goes to show the idiocy on the other side of the aisle...some redneck actually yelling at the President during an address to a joint session of Congress? It makes his whole party seem irrational.
In the end, that's pretty much what it comes down to. The Republicans have nothing substantive to add to this conversation. Their economic theory has proven a disaster. They can't bitch about deficits because the Bush administration and Republican Congress ushered in these record deficits. They have no ideological leg to stand on when it comes to any of this. They're impotent, and I think they know it. Hence Joe Wilson's eloquent retort and excellent manners.
Third reaction: prior to the speech, pundits were trying to couch this not as a game-changer, not the end, but the beginning of the end. I'm not sure...but I think Obama may have gotten to the people he needs to get to.
Hardcore Republicans are out. They were never going to vote for this, but Obama doesn't need them. I suppose that trying to be bipartisan is a noble goal, but politically I think it's stupid. You don't negotiate with a sworn enemy unless you have to. You bury them. It's not like Obama is risking increasing the partisan divide. It's as wide as it's ever been.
One word: reconciliation. 51 votes in the Senate to pass the reform. Obama can get that. It's about riding moderates for their support now, and I think the bully pulpit may do its job. I am never one to believe much in polls, and I know that people polled on the speech are far more likely to be Democrats than Republicans so the data is always in question...so, for now, I will simply hope that the polling data thus far has SOME basis in truth and that Obama's speech will sway independents into supporting the President on this.
Reactions to his proposed plan: the devil's in the details, sure. We were given more of an ideological run-down last night which is yet to be translated into legal language, but:
1) I think it's perfectly reasonable that anyone who can purchase insurance ought to by law. I have friends who have chosen not to get health insurance, and when I think about the cost deferrals which result in higher premiums paid by me it pisses me off.
I don't like paying for health insurance either. It keeps getting more expensive. I have to keep switching plans to get the best price, but get the feth over it. That's life - anyone complaining about having to find the right health care should shut the feth up, because it means they CAN afford health insurance. They're bitching about being able to afford health insurance. That's like bitching about having to make mortgage payments - perhaps you should be lucky you could afford to get a mortgage and make the payments because you own a fething home.
2) I'm glad Obama spoke to tort reform. Defensive medicine sucks. If a doctor amputates the wrong leg yeah, sue the gak out of him, but doctors aren't perfect. Maybe if health care reform allows for more regular check-ups and covers basic tests then doctors will catch more stuff in its early stages and they won't have to practice such defensive medicine, but there does need to be some kind of reform here.
My black sheep Uncle had stomach-stapling, didn't follow his post-op directions, burst the seams and went into a coma for months. He then sued the hospital and eventually they settled for millions.
It was b.s.. My uncle was a stupid feth who didn't follow post-op directions. The hospital shouldn't have paid him a dime...I hope that there's meaningful tort reform which puts SOME responsibility on patients.
3) I'm very glad Obama stuck by the public option. This is a no-brainer; and unless EVERY - SINGLE - LAWMAKER who decries "socialized medicine" is willing, in the same breath, to support a bill immediately repealing Medicare and Medicaid AND is willing to bring that bill to all their Senior Citizen constituents and defend its validity, these contrary lawmakers need to sit the feth down and shut the feth up.
I have a lot of patience for political ethics I disagree with IF THEY ARE CONSISTENT - these hypocritical ladies men who are against a public option out one side of their mouth but who wouldn't DARE try to take away existing government-controlled health care like Medicare and Medicaid are fething cowards, and cowards need to be put in their place, sat down, and silenced.
Those are the three salient points I remember right now...
Last but not least, Ted Kennedy was fething brilliant. I have zero doubt whatsoever that he wrote Obama that letter "to be delivered upon his death" to the President, and specifically for a speech like this. For all I know, the two of them concocted the idea together, but it's brilliant politics. It's not like Obama made that gak up about Ted Kennedy fighting for universal health care and why he did it. It definitely needed to be said, and I don't think anyone could have said it better.
We are very lucky to have a President of this caliber after so many years of just a leadership void in Washington...and honestly, I feel like saying right now that I was never much a fan of Bill Clinton, either. He can't hold a candle to Obama IMHO.
I for one welcome our new healthcare overlords and am sure, absolutely sure, that the hundreds of billions they cut from medicare and medicaide to fund this new pet project will not be missed, at all. Anyone saying they are taking from the elderly to pay for this are clearly not right thinking individuals. They will be educated properly in the new order.
Frazzled wrote:I for one welcome our new healthcare overlords and am sure, absolutely sure, that the hundreds of billions they cut from medicare and medicaide to fund this new pet project will not be missed, at all. Anyone saying they are taking from the elderly to pay for this are clearly not right thinking individuals. They will be educated properly in the new order.
You take money from medicare and medicaid to pay for this because the people on medicare and medicaid will be using this now, with special inclusions for people of certain ages (those on medicare) and those of certain economic status (those on medicaid).
Frazzled wrote:I for one welcome our new healthcare overlords and am sure, absolutely sure, that the hundreds of billions they cut from medicare and medicaide to fund this new pet project will not be missed, at all. Anyone saying they are taking from the elderly to pay for this are clearly not right thinking individuals. They will be educated properly in the new order.
You take money from medicare and medicaid to pay for this because the people on medicare and medicaid will be using this now, with special inclusions for people of certain ages (those on medicare) and those of certain economic status (those on medicaid).
On a slightly more serious note, there should be some level of government support to all citizens in terms of medical care, just as there is a minimum wage (set at a level that allows a person to live with a roof over their head, food in their stomach and clothes on their back), there should be a minimum of healthcare that people should not have to pay for directly (ie through health insurance, or simply "footing the bill" on their way out of the hospital/GP's office.
I posted some interesting statistics a while ago illustrating America spends more per head of the population (I believe it was per head) on health care, yet is something like 27th in terms of overall health ranking.
I really really like our president. I really do, but the health care bill as it sits in the Senate is pure idiocy if only because of the massive amount of money it costs. Here's an idea of the cost of this plan... If you take all of the GROSS income from all of the insurance companies for one year, it will fund this health care bill for three days. If you take the GROSS income from all of the fortune 500 companies for a year and add those funds in, the bill can only run for an additional 5 days. The money involved here is staggering and there is zero chance of it "balancing" out as the President has said. I'm all for reforming health care by placing strong hedges, but the government shouldn't be regulating employer provided health care (which is what they are mandating in the current bill). I'm almost 100% against this bill in its current state, but I'm confident that it will be properly watered down.
Being British I didn't watch the speech, and heard some of it followed by commentary on Radio 4.
The commentary said the rhetoric was excellent, however it remained to be proved that Obama has the moxie to get stuck in on Capitol Hill and fix fix fix until he gets a bill thrashed out.
The economic problem with the whole issue is that the necessary savings have to be made by reducing the profits made by insurance companies. You can't just shuffle money from medicare to mid-life care because elders actually do consume more medical resources (fact of life.) Mid-lifers and the companies they work for are already under the hammer in terms of insurance costs and can hardly be expected to solve the problem by paying more.
Frazzled wrote:I for one welcome our new healthcare overlords and am sure, absolutely sure, that the hundreds of billions they cut from medicare and medicaide to fund this new pet project will not be missed, at all. Anyone saying they are taking from the elderly to pay for this are clearly not right thinking individuals. They will be educated properly in the new order.
You take money from medicare and medicaid to pay for this because the people on medicare and medicaid will be using this now, with special inclusions for people of certain ages (those on medicare) and those of certain economic status (those on medicaid).
THATS NOT CORRECT!!!
Sure it is!
I can go to town halls and yell it over and over again, that must mean it's correct.
The blunt fact is that the USA spends about 16% of its GDP on healthcare now. Other countries (e.g. UK, Canada, Japan) spend about 8%.
Clearly there is a way to resolve the economic issue. It may be too bitter a pill for US voters to swallow, not on cost grounds, but because of ideology.
Good point KK, another issue that comes up is that in the bill, employers actually get a tax break if they drop employee coverage. Here's how: So right now, employers pay some 18% tax per employee in order to provide health coverage. Under this bill if the employer drops employee coverage they are hit with an 8% tax penalty per employee. Well, they just saved themselves 10% in taxes per employee by dropping them!
Isn't the idea that there really IS no bill to be looking at and analyzing right now?
There are four House bills from committee and the Senate Finance Committee still hasn't produced anything as far as I know...Obama just did what he should have done months ago and set forth what he wants. NOW the bill can be written, and THEN we can analyze it.
In terms of the money, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're costing more than health care reform ever will...and there is ZERO RETURN ON INVESTMENT.
We did not get control of the oil. We are not generating profits from those wars. They are economic black holes.
These wars are not bankrupting our economy. We can handle spending the money. Here's an idea - stop fighting stupid, pre-emptive wars and spend the money elsewhere. Health care paid for...and this isn't how you fight Al Qaida anyway. Get rid of the stupid limitations we put on the C.I.A. in the 1970's, train more Special Forces, rapid-deployment troops, sink a ton of money into intelligence, find the enemy and kill him silently while he sleeps.
You don't kill terrorists with Army Groups and Divisions...you kill them with spooks sifting through intel and Deltas slitting their throats.
Anyway...purportedly Obama is meeting with Congresspeople today. He's banging heads together right now.
He made an excellent point about deficits and spending last night during the speech...the same donkey-caves bitching about costs passed the Bush tax plan, an utter disaster, AND paid for two wars, none of which were paid for in the budget. So these bungholes (why did the filter translate "c@cksm@kers" into "ladies men?") have no leg to stand on per NOT voting for health care reform on an economic basis. It's just a matter of which causes they're willing to play the numbers for.
When it comes to the economics, admission time - no one here understands the full ramifications of the costs of this health care reform proposal. No one here is a Harvard-trained economist who has spent six months studying all the necessary data to express an intelligent opinion, and honestly I don't even trust that Harvard-trained economist to know what the feth he is talking about.
This is about ideology and principle. It's about whether or not you think people should have access to health care, and about whether or not you think doctors should have to fear lawsuits to the point of wasting money on stupid tests and medical practices which may be unnecessary. It's about whether you think peoples' coverage should be dropped due to pre-existing conditions, and whether peoples' health or profits are more important.
The details will be figured out - but once there is agreement on principles and ideology, everything else follows. There's plenty of money, probably too much money, in the United States Federal budget right now. More than enough to pay for health care reform. It just means we spend less elsewhere. I may not know all the details, but I know the government is wasting money, I know we're spending a gakload of cash on two wars that need to be over, and I know that it costs a lot of money to pay for the health care of the uninsured.
I'm not worried about the money. I'm worried about consensus of ideology and principle. We're Americans. When we want something done, we do it, and go feth yourself if you tell us we can't do it. That just makes us want to make it happen even more so that we can show you the results and smugly flip you off.
Remember what the commander of the 101st Airborne told the German commander at Bastogne when he received the German's willingness to discuss the American surrender? *grin*
You can't have agreement without the "details" as you call it, if you consider such minor details like how the &^(^ we pay for this, what the triggers are etc. etc.
We're where we were three months ago, except of course, Obama's trust levels are way down.
Cairnius wrote:
In terms of the money, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're costing more than health care reform ever will...and there is ZERO RETURN ON INVESTMENT.
The war in Afghanistan costs about 60 billion a year, health care reform estimated cost is over 100 billion a year. That figure still estimates that several million people will not be covered for one reason or another. Total cost within ten years for the (several) reform bill(s) is (are) just shy of 2 trillion dollars. This isn't even accounting for the negative ripple effect that will shoot through the pharma industry as well as lost incentives for doctors etc.
I agree that the wars are somewhat superfluous and that the Afghanistan war should end ASAP, however large health care reform simply can't be paid for and will increase the national debt far quicker than war does.
Actually, Obama's trust levels just got a major bump is what it looks like thus far.
The more I think about it, I think he was quiet on purpose for all these months. He let the kids fight in the back seat for a while, and then he pulled the car over, turned around, and said "ENOUGH!"
If there's ANY truth to these polls, the clear majority of Americans support his plan. Now he's going to hold Congress' feet to the fire and get it done.
Every single time I second-guess him, turns out he's smarter than I am and might actually know what the feth he's doing. Good for him. I WANT a President who's smarter than I am. I can't really accept anyone else as a leader. I'm not going to follow the orders of someone who I know to be stupid...which is why I couldn't join the military after high school. I knew I'd be taking orders from dumbasses for a long time but be unable to say anything about it...
Cairnius wrote:When it comes to the economics, admission time - no one here understands the full ramifications of the costs of this health care reform proposal. No one here is a Harvard-trained economist who has spent six months studying all the necessary data to express an intelligent opinion, and honestly I don't even trust that Harvard-trained economist to know what the feth he is talking about.
Hilarious .
At this point I think Obama has just tipped the dominoes, and we are in for quite a bit of proper news in the next few weeks. It has been dreadfully obvious that the majority of Republicans have drawn a line in the sand, and that line has basically been tied into the entire parties legend; but I digress .
What I saw was Obama speaking quite a bit about all of the things that he has been saying for a very long time now, with minor adjustments according to the new developments. One thing that I found a bit odd, was the President's sincere finger pointing at the media. Not too sure that is really the best idea, but I doubt it will hurt him very much.
Dunno really... seemed like yesterdays news brought back by the dog in all honesty. Sticking to his guns I think would be the best way to put it... but his guns seem to be awfully deringer-like, and without the staying power of a blunderbuss, I highly doubt the current administration will really take a big bite out of this problem.
Wars. Not war. More than 60 billion a year; and estimates are estimates. They're never right.
youngblood wrote:This isn't even accounting for the negative ripple effect that will shoot through the pharma industry as well as lost incentives for doctors etc.
What about the positive ripple effects of tons of new customers? The pharma industry is actually behind Obama's plan...what you lose in higher prices you more than make up for in higher volume.
youngblood wrote: large health care reform simply can't be paid for and will increase the national debt far quicker than war does.
Speculative. We have no idea whether this is true or not, and won't until the reform has been in play for a while. The Urban Institute study that NY Times blog referenced was quite speculative...and quite honestly, there's a reason why I said I didn't trust the Harvard-educated economist. Show me everyone who called the tech sector bursting in the late 90's when I worked in the stock market for a year as a Compliance officer. Show me everyone who called the housing bubble bursting a few years ago.
Economists are good for "what-if" scenarios and explaining what Keynes meant, but as predictors they're proving to be rather gak. I think our old economic models may be losing their relevance in an integrated world economy. We need some new ones, perhaps.
If there's ANY truth to these polls, the clear majority of Americans support his plan. Now he's going to hold Congress' feet to the fire and get it done.
****************
Thats er, wrong bigtime.
Gallup: 39% against 37% for (pre speech)
Rasmussen: 53% oppose, 44% support (post speech)
One poll. If you want to get serious, do the real work and start pulling aggregate totals and such...and then go do it again because by the time you have presented your data it's all different...and then go do it again because THAT data is wrong now...
And wasn't that a single percentage point? Give us at least three or four if you want to tilt that windmill.
I put very little faith into polling. My point was that there are still gak loads of people that doubt the president's plan and with good reason. There is no huge bump in trust. America's skeptical. They should be, but respectfully skeptical.
I concede. I can't argue with someone who doesn't believe experts. *Throws in towel and goes to the showers... farting on Cairnius' towel on the way*
Glad that we can at least debate this gak. Iran would just shut Dakka down.
Iran... or China, which I consider to have more much potential in the humorous clout department... for various reasons, which are not needed information... pokemon, way too much rice, smog, and... I think they invented death.... pretty sure about that one actually.
Wait... joke fail, we have People Republic of Dakka... people as in one or two posters I think. Korea and Japan just pwn in that area, but I digress profusely and with tangential... lost it, totally gone, never mind.
One poll. If you want to get serious, do the real work and start pulling aggregate totals and such...and then go do it again because by the time you have presented your data it's all different...and then go do it again because THAT data is wrong now...
And wasn't that a single percentage point? Give us at least three or four if you want to tilt that windmill.
"Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress."
There's a reason why I asked people to state whether they watched the speech last night, Frazzled - because they're the only people who have a clue whether to support the president or not. You don't know if those Gallup and Rasmussen polls are polling people who actually saw the speech and can judge in context, or whether those are imbeciles just going on what they're getting from Faux News.
If someone didn't see the speech, didn't hear the entirety of what he's proposing such that they can judge the whole argument on its presented merits, I no more want to hear from them than I want to hear from someone opining on French history who's never opened up a history book.
And youngblood - read up on the "myth of expertise." Who decides who is an "expert?" Do you know what qualifies someone as an "expert" or does someone else tell you who an "expert" is? Do you examine the qualifications of every "expert?" Do you know how often they've predicted something and how often they've been right, and how often they've been wrong, to know whether you should listen to them and to what degree?
You hand away a great deal of your will whenever you bow down to "the expert;" and if recent history has taught us anything it is nothing if not that economists often have no fething clue what they're talking about when it comes to predicting the future. Two MAJOR economic sectors that crashed in a decade, the latter much more critically than the former admittedly, without anyone seeing it ahead of time or planning for it.
"Experts." Sure. Either they were stupid and didn't see it, or complicit in which case I don't trust them. I'll listen to "experts" and take their aggregate feedback as potentialities but not probabilities, thank you.
Anyone who complains about "socialism" - how do you feel about the fire department?
Once upon a time, fire departments were privatized. Once upon a time, people would be issued plaques that they placed on their houses, that would indicate who they had paid for fire protection, and the private fire departments would concentrate on ensuring that the fire didn't spread to their client's homes.
What about water treatment? Should we privatize the sewage treatment industry, lest people become concerned about the socialist nature of our water supply.
Whining about how government involvement in anything is socialist is stupid. The government bailed out the banks and took a partial ownership in several banks and several auto manufacturers. Was this socialist?
My opposition to government controlled health care has nothing to do with the red herring cries of socialism. It's based in realism. Name one thing that government does well? (Well, other than having a fire department and getting us clean water - *gasp* the socialist things)
The IRS is a huge bloated mess of bureaucracy. INS is a joke. And the proposals for national healthcare are just slapping more band-aids on an already broken system - another layer of bureaucracy that the government can screw up. It does nothing to address the real issue - that the costs of healthcare are too high because of where the money ends up going. All it does is put another layer onto this system to squeeze more money out of the middle class in order to pay for it.
Yeah, cutting the costs out involves lawyers, insurance people, and pharmaceuticals accepting less. They won't. They'll fight tooth and nail to keep their profits. They'll lobby hard. This country cannot even get past a tobacco lobby, what makes anyone think that these costs will go away?
Obama, the President of the United States is the leader of the American Imperium, and in the Imperial creed, the Father, Guardian and God of Mankind. He was born in the form of an ordinary man, possessing incredible intellect and physical strength and easily the most powerful entity the galaxy has ever seen. Only he has the vision and the power to unite all the tribes of man into one vast galaxy spanning empire. It is he who created the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and taught humanity how to use the Health Care Bill - H.R.3200 to travel the stars.
I'm just saying they went to school for years, they are students of their given field, whether it be medicine, economics, etc. You are not. To dismiss their estimations as insignificant would be foolish.
As far as polling goes, again I said that I don't place much faith in it. It's an incomplete picture at best and public manipulation at worst. CNN poll isn't worth gak because it was conducted on people who watched the coverage on CNN and if you look at the political demographics of the poll, only 18% were republican. Of course it will look like they loved his plan! Jesus Christ, follow your own advise and look at the details of this gak.
Redbeard wrote:...what makes anyone think that these costs will go away?
Total and epic failure... in other words death. Option one = live.... Option two = die... wait... What was option one again? Oh no, now I HAVE to decide .
There really are very few options right now, of that there is no doubt. In the long run, I cannot imagine any of these "ideas" working anywhere near as well as people expect them too. Government sucks to be sure, but they only suck in comparison to what? Seriously though, the businesses that will "provide" us with some free market is just a ludicrous idea. Why would you change a successful formula to stop raking in enormous amounts of cash? The main fight is obviously from the health care insurance industry.
Beyond any of this nonsense... what are the options seriously? Do I think that Obama is some sort of savior? HELL FRAKKING NO! I see just another politician-dude, but a rather smart one, and he seems to be bringing a strong sense of passion and compassion to this debate. There is no other way beyond this reform, regardless of what steps are taken, it is OBVIOUSLY going to be the government taking them.
If that scares you... well, the end is near I guess? Rocks falling from the sky and all that stuff too, just make sure you have a lawn chair and a six pack ready.
I think arguing about "bumps" in polls the next day is really getting off track. The speech wasn't intended to do that so much as set up the rhetoric in the weeks to come. And it's clear Obama's going after the insurance companies. Which I think is potentially a winning strategy, as they're pretty hard to like and a group the GOP isn't going to be eager to be publicly backing.
Personally, I think some kind of bill has a chance of passing. Obama's shown that he's not going to back down on this (like Clinton did), but he also left some rhetorical room in there for compromise. No doubt the insurance cos. and other interest groups are going to do a full-court press from here on out. But if Obama can demonize the insurance companies enough (whether that's right or wrong), I think we actually might see some form of universal healthcare. I doubt Obama gets exactly what he wants, but some form of it nonetheless.
Redbeard wrote:My opposition to government controlled health care has nothing to do with the red herring cries of socialism. It's based in realism. Name one thing that government does well? (Well, other than having a fire department and getting us clean water - *gasp* the socialist things)
In all fairness Fire Departments are on a State and Local level, not Federal. So using them is sort of mixing your metaphors a bit isn't it?
It seems like we forget there are different layers of government to go along with bipolar views of arguments. It is possible to be, for example, to be liberal in state politics and conservative in Federal. The argument isn't whether the government should be in the Health Care business, but whether the federal government should be in the Health Care business. I know my state has a lot of programs for people without coverage so I am not sure why we need a federal plan on top of them that will give us basically the same thing but increase overall cost to taxpayers. Just because the federal government isn't enforcing something with legislation doesn't mean that states are not doing something. It seems like in a lot of this talk we act like there is only one government. It would be like pretending that the EU is the only governing body in Europe and if the EU isn't doing it then it isn't being done.
I also don't think that it is as simple as the Fed always screws up and that it is socialism vs free markets either. We aren't going to be settling this anytime soon, even if some legislation passes soon.
Redbeard wrote:My opposition to government controlled health care has nothing to do with the red herring cries of socialism. It's based in realism. Name one thing that government does well? (Well, other than having a fire department and getting us clean water - *gasp* the socialist things)
In all fairness Fire Departments are on a State and Local level, not Federal. So using them is sort of mixing your metaphors a bit isn't it?
It seems like we forget there are different layers of government to go along with bipolar views of arguments. It is possible to be, for example, to be liberal in state politics and conservative in Federal. The argument isn't whether the government should be in the Health Care business, but whether the federal government should be in the Health Care business. I know my state has a lot of programs for people without coverage so I am not sure why we need a federal plan on top of them that will give us basically the same thing but increase overall cost to taxpayers. Just because the federal government isn't enforcing something with legislation doesn't mean that states are not doing something. It seems like in a lot of this talk we act like there is only one government. It would be like pretending that the EU is the only governing body in Europe and if the EU isn't doing it then it isn't being done.
I also don't think that it is as simple as the Fed always screws up and that it is socialism vs free markets either. We aren't going to be settling this anytime soon, even if some legislation passes soon.
Gorgon wrote:I doubt Obama gets exactly what he wants, but some form of it nonetheless.
The President has little to no clue about "exactly" what he wants... this whole operation is like hunting down bigfoot, and all you keep finding are potentially rabid DoDo-birds... seriously though .
"Note"
Do-Do birds are actually quite rare... so finding them is... well, it is something I guess.
"Edit"
I need to report that unfortunately... Do-Do birds are in fact extinct... so it is a "technical" blessing that we... found them, yay... kind of.
Well, I'm no doctor, but you must have a very different kind of 'socialised health care' over the pond, because for you it's pretty much Satan Incarnate (tm), but here it's a great syst em in my family's experience.
Would someone care to sum up what's going on with social healthcare over there please, because I haven't followed it very well... are people getting in a tizzy because it's being proposed during an economic crisis?
Cairnius wrote:
Wars. Not war. More than 60 billion a year; and estimates are estimates. They're never right.
Meet...
Cairnius wrote:
In terms of the money, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're costing more than health care reform ever will...and there is ZERO RETURN ON INVESTMENT.
Was this based on a thoughtful calculation of the actual costs of healthcare at this moment, or are you estimating through emotion and using rhetorical force as a replacement for actual rigor?
Cairnius wrote:
When it comes to the economics, admission time - no one here understands the full ramifications of the costs of this health care reform proposal. No one here is a Harvard-trained economist who has spent six months studying all the necessary data to express an intelligent opinion, and honestly I don't even trust that Harvard-trained economist to know what the feth he is talking about.
This is about ideology and principle. It's about whether or not you think people should have access to health care, and about whether or not you think doctors should have to fear lawsuits to the point of wasting money on stupid tests and medical practices which may be unnecessary. It's about whether you think peoples' coverage should be dropped due to pre-existing conditions, and whether peoples' health or profits are more important.
Well, there's one question answered.
This is an economic issue as well as a moral issue. Pretending otherwise is nothing but willful ignorance. The President, clearly someone invested in the outcome of this debate, wasn't even willing to make such a glaringly egregious statement. In fact, he went in precisely the opposite direction when he linked healthcare to the deficit.
Put simply, you can argue that healthcare reform will reduce our overall expenditure; though its a tenuous argument given the inevitable expansion in the number of people covered by Federal programs. You can also argue that it will cost less than certain other outlay items; something which really misses the point given budgetary objections are derived from a concern with respect to our current, overall level of expenditure. But you can't argue that economics is not an issue, not with any degree of honesty.
Cairnius wrote:
Economists are good for "what-if" scenarios and explaining what Keynes meant, but as predictors they're proving to be rather gak. I think our old economic models may be losing their relevance in an integrated world economy. We need some new ones, perhaps.
There is some truth to this, but only in the sense that economics currently lacks a means of accounting for temporal constraints on its predictions. The discipline can produce very certain proclamations of what will happen in the future, but it can't really tell you when they'll happen.
Cairnius wrote:
One poll. If you want to get serious, do the real work and start pulling aggregate totals and such...and then go do it again because by the time you have presented your data it's all different...and then go do it again because THAT data is wrong now...
And wasn't that a single percentage point? Give us at least three or four if you want to tilt that windmill.
"Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress."
What is with you and quoting CNN polls, which are well known for their lax methodology? This is something you've done before, and it reflects poorly on you as an intellectual; especially in light of all those previous posts in which you've lambasted others for using what you consider to be 'substandard' sources.
Say what you will about trusting any individual poll, but youngblood was clearly attempting to refute this comment you made earlier.
Cairnius wrote:Actually, Obama's trust levels just got a major bump is what it looks like thus far....If there's ANY truth to these polls, the clear majority of Americans support his plan. Now he's going to hold Congress' feet to the fire and get it done.
Which you failed to substantiate with any kind actual data; choosing instead to make a vague reference (to what I imagine was the CNN poll ).
Cairnius wrote:
There's a reason why I asked people to state whether they watched the speech last night, Frazzled - because they're the only people who have a clue whether to support the president or not. You don't know if those Gallup and Rasmussen polls are polling people who actually saw the speech and can judge in context, or whether those are imbeciles just going on what they're getting from Faux News.
Doesn't matter. We live in this thing called a democracy, where participation isn't considered to be dependent on whether or not you watched a given speech.
Also, when did the decision to support a political official become dependent on his rhetoric (because that's all this speech was); especially a single piece of rhetoric?
Cairnius wrote:
If someone didn't see the speech, didn't hear the entirety of what he's proposing such that they can judge the whole argument on its presented merits, I no more want to hear from them than I want to hear from someone opining on French history who's never opened up a history book.
He didn't propose anything, nor did he make an argument. He stated a series of facts without substantiating them, which is fine. That's the nature oratory, but don't pretend that the speech is somehow analogous to a history text. More obvious dishonest on your part.
Cairnius wrote:
"Experts." Sure. Either they were stupid and didn't see it, or complicit in which case I don't trust them. I'll listen to "experts" and take their aggregate feedback as potentialities but not probabilities, thank you.
The fact that you're making this statement shows an exceptional level of ignorance regarding the nature of economic predictions. I'm actually astounded that you would mention the myth of expertise before uttering such nonsense. That proposition specifically relates to the necessity of investigating any claim to expert standing, while simultaneously understanding the limits of any potential expert with regard to extrapolation from his body of knowledge. What you're operating on here is a bastardization of the actual theory. It betrays your own ignorance.
Edit: That's also a false dichotomy. Its also possible that the work of solid economists was distorted by the political process, or ignored by those in power.
Cairnius wrote:I am honestly shocked that I'm the person making this thread. I would have thought you all would be pummeling each other with rhetorical sledgehammers by now.
If you post up in here, BEFORE you begin opining, PLEASE answer the following question: did you WATCH the speech in its entirety?
I am much, much less interested in comments that lack relevancy through not having seen the entire event and which are based on anecdotes trickled out from pundits on morning news shows or brief clips off CNN.com, than I am comments from people who actually saw the speech and who therefore know what they're talking about.
So, yes, I did watch it, all of it. I DVR'ed it so I can watch it again later once I've digested the first run a little more.
I wasn't going to comment on this, but seriously dude? This is a public forum, with its own communal standards of exchange that don't turn on academic rigor. Making this type of statement, while simultaneously placing the onus of judgment on yourself, is incredibly arrogant, and deeply elitist. More so than virtually anything I've ever posted here, and I'm one of the most arrogant people on this board.
Wrexasaur wrote:The President has little to no clue about "exactly" what he wants... this whole operation is like hunting down bigfoot, and all you keep finding are potentially rabid DoDo-birds... seriously though .
I don't think that's the case. I think it's a matter of the White House recognizing that an absolute "my way or the highway" approach stands a good chance of getting *nothing* done. As I alluded to, it's a fine line...you have to give a clear outline and back it strongly, but you can't become unwilling to compromise, because that just moves fencesitters into the "NO" column. Obviously, even a Dem-controlled Congress won't rubber-stamp whatever Obama wants. Why not? Because they're Democrats...
Though I'm not saying that Obama didn't let this whole thing get away from him...he clearly did, and should have had a stronger voice over the past few months.
I understand what you mean, but I still think that the President and his administration have been planning for something along these lines for quite a while.
Keep your form loose and you will tend to win a lot more fights. I would argue, as you have, that the President has been less than appreciably vocal. This may or may not be a particularly bad thing, but it serves to show that he has to continue to be much more directly involved from now on.
I cannot even imagine what the GOP could possibly have up it's sleeve at this point besides one of those clown flowers... really classy stuff, at least, sort of, and a bit much at that. Hopefully all of the Dems got the frakking message (again) that they need to be much more cohesive in their gameplans.
I got to tell ya....I was with the Obama plan UNTIL I started researching it a bit more earlier this week. I forgot about the speech, and tuned in late, so only got to see the last 25 minutes or so. Anyway I was thoroughly unimpressed with the part that I saw, and quite frankly thought he kind of threw a tantrum. He did not seem "Presidential" to me. It was more street corner rabblerousing.
Anyway, I think I have stated before that I believe that America needs a socialized health care system, or as some like to call it a National Health care system. We need it badly, but what I have seen proposed so far will be a disaster.
I think the worst mistake he made was stating how messed up medicare/medicaid is, and that somehow eradicating those systems and replacing them with his plan will generate so much money to pay for the new healthcare system. My question is... If mediciad/medicare is generating so much waste, what's to prevent it's replacement from doing the same?
I was really rooting for him, but it's a dismal failure so far.
He did not seem "Presidential" to me. It was more street corner rabblerousing.
I was really rooting for him, but it's a dismal failure so far.
Owch... pretty harsh .
He was Presidential, and I am not particularly clear on how he could have appeared like a rabblerouser... do we have those anymore? Oh... nm, here comes the teabaggers. I simply could not call myself that with a straight face... laughter every time, like clockwork, or one of those wind-up cymbal monkeys...
Never mind then... *ahem*...
Dismal failure is just not a fair assessment, but you are surely entitled to that opinion. Just remember that when skiing down mount everest while juggling two kittens, a dove, a chainsaw, and bobo the clown (he is the funny one); on top of which... meh, not needed. Just remember when doing this to not fall over and do a Sonny Bono. Bobo would not be happy about that.
I don't see how anyone sees his speech last night as a dismal failure, not if they have any experience with public speaking and leadership in general. His speech last night was amazing, taken as a speech. He's one of the best public speakers we've had in politics for a very long time, for as long as I've been paying attention to politics as a matter of fact.
Cairnius wrote:I don't see how anyone sees his speech last night as a dismal failure
Oh, well that is an easy fix. Get out more and do more. With enough experience you can begin to understand both sides of an argument, even if you don't agree with it. For example I can understand why you would be unable to grasp why people might think differently but that doesn't mean I am endorsing you shortcomings.
youngblood wrote:I'm just saying they went to school for years, they are students of their given field, whether it be medicine, economics, etc. You are not. To dismiss their estimations as insignificant would be foolish.
I don't know who you're talking about, but it's not me. You said that arguing with experts was foolish. I'm saying that not arguing with experts is foolish...then again, I have faith that given an "expert" who is willing to answer any and all questions I have, and given my ability to come up with pointed questions and learn things quickly, that I can use an expert to get the information I need to make my own determinations on a subject rather than just swallow what the expert tells me without questioning his or her information/conclusions and then build my own conclusions based on theirs and not any of mine.
That is the trap of the expert. They exist not to lay out your options for you, not to make your decisions for you, but to provide you with the information you require in order to make intelligent decisions for yourself. Experts are pretty useless unless their opinions and conclusions are subject to honest and vigorous questioning by those who are expected to use their opinions and conclusions meaningfully.
So when someone throws a single expert at me, it's anecdotal. When they throw ten experts at me, their aggregate opinions, the mode of their conclusions, is interesting but I want to know how they got there, what information they looked at, what political affiliations they have, etc. I'm not going to take them at face value.
youngblood wrote:CNN poll isn't worth gak because it was conducted on people who watched the coverage on CNN and if you look at the political demographics of the poll, only 18% were republican. Of course it will look like they loved his plan! Jesus Christ, follow your own advise and look at the details of this gak.
Following Frazzled out the door...
"I'm taking my ball and going home!" x2
Yes, I read that only 18% of the people polled were Republicans - all I read from that is that Republicans are being a bunch of close-minded gits who don't even want to hear what the President has to say anymore.
Do you know what that makes those Republicans and their opinions? Irrelevant. You can't not read the book and then hand in a
book report. No one cares what you have to say about the book because you didn't read it. Fail.
Do you know who IS relevant? The people who are actually going to pass this bill or not. Don't think for one second that the reconciliation nuclear bomb is not going to get dropped. I think Obama's done fething around. The Republicans had their chance to get involved, they decided not to, so feth them, they're done.
Obama's not talking to them, their Congresspeople are not going to be part of this process as they're just sticking their heads in the sand. It's the opinions of Democrats that matter right now because they control the Congress; it's specifically the opinions of Moderate Democrats who matter because they're the sticking point in all this.
So, I apologize, let me rephrase: if you look at the opinions of the people who actually matter right now, Obama just got more of their support. Therefore, his speech was a success and his support numbers went up, which is what that CNN poll indicates.
Ahtman wrote:
Cairnius wrote:I don't see how anyone sees his speech last night as a dismal failure
Oh, well that is an easy fix. Get out more and do more. With enough experience you can begin to understand both sides of an argument, even if you don't agree with it. For example I can understand why you would be unable to grasp why people might think differently but that doesn't mean I am endorsing you shortcomings.
That doesn't make any sense, Ahtman. What does doing more have to do with appreciating a speech from the perspective of forensics? That was an excellent speech by any objective measure...that's independent of whether you didn't like what he said. I'm talking about HOW he said it. Perhaps that makes my meaning more clear.
There's no "side" to the argument about the quality of his speech, as a speech, which will come up with "dismal failure." If you're talking about the speech as I speech like I am right now, and you call it "epic fail," that just means you know jack and gak about public speaking.
Cairnius wrote:I don't see how anyone sees his speech last night as a dismal failure, not if they have any experience with public speaking and leadership in general. His speech last night was amazing, taken as a speech. He's one of the best public speakers we've had in politics for a very long time, for as long as I've been paying attention to politics as a matter of fact.
I was refering the progress of health care reform.
As to the speech, I wouldn't call it a dismal failure. But to me it wasn't what I consider a "Presidential" speech. It was a rousing speech, designed to stir up emotions. The same thing happens in pulpits all over the country, and they aren't political speeches (mostly). Hitler did the same thing, albeit he was much more animated.
Also please don't try to insinuate that I'm comparing Obama to Hitler. Just the similarity in the emotional speech making.
Cairnius wrote:You said that arguing with experts was foolish. I'm saying that not arguing with experts is foolish...then again, I have faith that given an "expert" who is willing to answer any and all questions I have, and given my ability to come up with pointed questions and learn things quickly, that I can use an expert to get the information I need to make my own determinations on a subject rather than just swallow what the expert tells me without questioning his or her information/conclusions and then build my own conclusions based on theirs and not any of mine.
generalgrog wrote:As to the speech, I wouldn't call it a dismal failure. But to me it wasn't what I consider a "Presidential" speech. It was a rousing speech, designed to stir up emotions. The same thing happens in pulpits all over the country, and they aren't political speeches (mostly). Hitler did the same thing, albeit he was much more animated.
Also please don't try to insinuate that I'm comparing Obama to Hitler. Just the similarity in the emotional speech making.
I'll call "GODWYN!" but no, I don't think you're comparing Obama to Hitler. No worries.
I'm curious - what would you point to from recent history as a Presidential speech? That's what this would come down to...I could infer from your analysis that you expect a "Presidential" speech to be unemotional and logical.
If I wanted a Vulcan for President I would have nominated Spock.
youngblood wrote:
Cairnius wrote:You said that arguing with experts was foolish. I'm saying that not arguing with experts is foolish...then again, I have faith that given an "expert" who is willing to answer any and all questions I have, and given my ability to come up with pointed questions and learn things quickly, that I can use an expert to get the information I need to make my own determinations on a subject rather than just swallow what the expert tells me without questioning his or her information/conclusions and then build my own conclusions based on theirs and not any of mine.
Cairnius wrote:That doesn't make any sense, Ahtman. What does doing more have to do with appreciating a speech from the perspective of forensics?
So not only do you not know how to understand more than one point of view you also don't understand that broadening ones base level of knowledge can in increase ones learning and perspective? Well, in essence the more you read and the more people you talk to and the more things you experience makes it easier for you to be able to assess situations and the reasoning behind things. Not that difficult really. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
Cairnius wrote:
Yes, I read that only 18% of the people polled were Republicans - all I read from that is that Republicans are being a bunch of close-minded gits who don't even want to hear what the President has to say anymore.
Which is a terrible leap of induction. All you can read into the sample of the CNN poll is that very few Republicans bothered to respond to a CNN poll. Unless you can come up with statistics regarding the general distribution of their viewership, your comment is misplaced.
Cairnius wrote:
Do you know what that makes those Republicans and their opinions? Irrelevant. You can't not read the book and then hand in a
book report. No one cares what you have to say about the book because you didn't read it. Fail.
It might make their opinion irrelevant in the generation of an academic conclusion, but it makes no comment on their value as a political constituency. We don't disqualify votes for ignorance, so your comment is misdirected, again.
Cairnius wrote:
Do you know who IS relevant? The people who are actually going to pass this bill or not.
You mean the people that listen to those constituencies with 'irrelevant' opinions? How good of you to undermine yourself.
Cairnius wrote:
Obama's not talking to them, their Congresspeople are not going to be part of this process as they're just sticking their heads in the sand. It's the opinions of Democrats that matter right now because they control the Congress; it's specifically the opinions of Moderate Democrats who matter because they're the sticking point in all this.
Indeed they are. Largely because they listen to 'irrelevant' opposition emanating from their districts.
Cairnius wrote:
So, I apologize, let me rephrase: if you look at the opinions of the people who actually matter right now, Obama just got more of their support. Therefore, his speech was a success and his support numbers went up, which is what that CNN poll indicates.
See, its not quite that simple. The poll didn't comment on geographic distribution with respect to the respondents (and thus failed to correlate the support of viewers with congressional representation), nor did it ask the obvious question: "If a bill endorsing President Obama's goal were to be put to vote, would you want it to pass?"
Its also worth noting the high rate of correlation with the results of a similar poll conducted after Clinton's speech, and the inevitable fate of that bill.
Other critiques:
1) The sample size is too small to be considered representative.
2) The questions failed to associate the healthcare issue with the economic environment.
3) You're looking at one poll as representative of the entirety of the response to this speech (this one you actually pointed out earlier).
Cairnius wrote:
That doesn't make any sense, Ahtman. What does doing more have to do with appreciating a speech from the perspective of forensics? That was an excellent speech by any objective measure...that's independent of whether you didn't like what he said. I'm talking about HOW he said it. Perhaps that makes my meaning more clear.
There's no "side" to the argument about the quality of his speech, as a speech, which will come up with "dismal failure." If you're talking about the speech as I speech like I am right now, and you call it "epic fail," that just means you know jack and gak about public speaking.
There's a difference between a good speech, and a successful speech. A good speech is aesthetically pleasing (because standards of oration are aesthetic, which also means calling them objective is quite foolish), a successful speech accomplished its intended goal. Obama's speech was probably successful, and I think it was quite good, but I can certainly see how others would consider it rather bland.
You seem to be laboring under the opinion that forensics is somehow scientific in the same sense as physics, or biology, which is a rather poor stance to take in light of your critique of economics in this thread.
I'd have no problem with being encouraged to get health/medical insurance if I could afford it. I honestly could spare maybe $20/month for health care coverage and that won't get me gak for coverage, maybe dental at best. When I was working 60 hours/week it was easy to afford, now that I'm laid off and making 1/3rd of what I did last year at this time I can't afford to spend more than that.
I do have a problem with requiring every eligible person to get health care, even if they can barely afford it. Unfeth* the economy first and get the country on its feet and THEN, when I'm working again and am able to support myself and am able to keep my car and the roof over my head, come to me about buying health/med insurance. Until then I don't want to hear it.
Health/med insurance should be available to everyone, regardless of income but it should not be REQUIRED. If someone doesn't want it or can't afford it and they end up fething themselves up and can't pay the medical expenses because they didn't voluntarily take it than they die. It sounds harsh but it is what it is. I'm opposed to the seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws in this country. I always buckle up and I always wear a helmet but if some fether with no common sense doesn't want to do either and he dies as a result, oh well. It's on his family to mourn his/her stupidity, not mine but it should still be your choice if you want to risk your life, not the governments.
I know I'll have people retort with their OPINION about how good for the country a socialist, I mean national health care reform bill, will be but please save your left wing rhetoric for some illegal alien coming across the borders because he'll have a better living than I will PLUS health care. He/she won't care that it's mandatory because they will be rolling around in their new car, going home to a new house and not lifting a finger to help stimulate the economy while I'm working 40+ hours per week to afford something that should be entirely optional.
Peace out.
*Hmm, word filter missed that one....had to change eff you see kay to feth manually.
Fateweaver wrote:
I know I'll have people retort with their OPINION about how good for the country a socialist, I mean national health care reform bill, will be but please save your left wing rhetoric for some illegal alien coming across the borders because he'll have a better living than I will PLUS health care.
Why would he/she have healthcare? The notion that illegals will be insured under this program is one of the most fallacious arguments out there. Any proposed public option will inevitably be tied to social security numbers, because all healthcare is already tied to social security numbers. Illegals don't have them, and so won't have access to the program. They will have access to emergency services, but they already have that anyway so its a non-issue as far reform goes (at least in the sense you're describing).
Ahtman wrote:I don't see where I wrote that in any of these posts.
Well, usually when I am talking about one thing and someone else answers with a response to something totally different and unrelated to what I was saying, like you just did twice up there, it's usually my wife and she's had a bad day and she's just not thinking very rationally which is why she's responding to what I'm saying like she's actually speaking to someone else in some other conversation who she is hearing when I'm talking instead of actually hearing what I'm saying.
So, I asked if someone had hurt your feelings or something today as that's usually what's wrong with my wife when she gets like that...as far as I know you're not female else I'd ask if you were having your monthly visitor or something, the next most likely explanation.
I am just going to leave this here... DO NOT LOOK ATIT *capitals, wink*
Cairnius wrote:So, I asked if someone had hurt your feelings or something today as that's usually what's wrong with my wife when she gets like that...as far as I know you're not female else I'd ask if you were having your monthly visitor or something, the next most likely explanation.
The link is there... just think about it man.... look deeper into the thing... deeper... deeper... BOO!
Oddly enough this is actually quite un-obtuse... so don't obtuseban me or something over it. Harmless really, like a simple joke that makes you think way too much... just ruined the joke, yeah it is gone now, never to return to it's full glory of humortude.
Cairnius wrote:I'm curious - what would you point to from recent history as a Presidential speech? That's what this would come down to...I could infer from your analysis that you expect a "Presidential" speech to be unemotional and logical.
If I wanted a Vulcan for President I would have nominated Spock.
I guess I should describe what I don't want from my President when he speaks.
I don't want tantrums, I don't want pep rallies and I don't want a shakespearean Henry V "Saint Crispins Day" speech either.
Would you settle for a Coke instead? It comes with clearly printed facts on the label, or it would seem so be... before you realize that this joke is actually not worth writing... yep.
But it does come with a robot, every can that is. And the robot is in fact inside the can, not outside... and he beeps instead of talking, which is annoying. But the best part is the fact that he is not a politician by any stretch of the imagin... wait, no he could do it. I believe in you Soda-Bot!!! GO!!! WOOT!!!
Fateweaver wrote:I'd have no problem with being encouraged to get health/medical insurance if I could afford it. I honestly could spare maybe $20/month for health care coverage and that won't get me gak for coverage, maybe dental at best. When I was working 60 hours/week it was easy to afford, now that I'm laid off and making 1/3rd of what I did last year at this time I can't afford to spend more than that.
Doesn't that mean, under Obama's plan, that you would get access to the emergency coverage thing, or the public option, or waivers?
It sounded like they had you covered...
Fateweaver wrote:I do have a problem with requiring every eligible person to get health care, even if they can barely afford it. Unfeth* the economy first and get the country on its feet and THEN, when I'm working again and am able to support myself and am able to keep my car and the roof over my head, come to me about buying health/med insurance. Until then I don't want to hear it.
Barely afford it means they can afford it. I don't mind paying for someone to go to the hospital if they need the treatment and they have no money and I do have money, but this theoretical person had better be spending money on NOTHING other than clothes, basic food (no candy bars, McDonald's, or anything extraneous in any way), a roof over their heads and a way to get to work.
If they're spending a penny on anything else, well, that's a penny that could go towards their purchase of health care. We live in a country where people on welfare can have cable television....
Fateweaver wrote:If someone doesn't want it or can't afford it and they end up fething themselves up and can't pay the medical expenses because they didn't voluntarily take it than they die.
No, they end up fething ME because I wind up getting the deferred costs of their medical care - so I don't mind forcing people who can afford health insurance to pay for. Time for everyone to grow up. If I want to pay for a child's health insurance it's going to be MY child, not someone else's 25-year-old child who has the money to pay for health insurance but doesn't get it because they're too cheap or too stupid to do so if someone puts an affordable, good health insurance plan right under their nose (which is, ostensibly, the goal).
Fateweaver wrote:I'm opposed to the seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws in this country. I always buckle up and I always wear a helmet but if some fether with no common sense doesn't want to do either and he dies as a result, oh well. It's on his family to mourn his/her stupidity, not mine but it should still be your choice if you want to risk your life, not the governments.
I may be with you on this one...but only if no one ever gets hurt because someone else didn't wear their seat belt or helmet...I'm fairly libertarian in that I think anyone should be allowed to do anything as long as their actions never harm anyone else.
That might be a tough litmus test to pass, but if someone's behavior passes the test, the sky's the limit. If someone wants to shoot heroin into their balls all day and they have no children to whom they have a legal responsibility to support, if they have no rent to be paid, if they don't go to the hospital to get health care which they cannot pay for because they have no job, and if it's okay for the street cleaners to just chuck their OD'd corpse into a fire pit somewhere and not bother informing anyone they're dead (as that costs tax dollars to pay the people for their time figuring out who this heroin addict was, tracking down their family, calling them, etc.) then I am all for someone shooting heroin into their balls all fething day until they OD if they want, and who am I to stop them?
Just don't inconvenience me or drain on my tax dollars in the slightest by whatever it is you're doing. If you do involve me, then I get a say in what you're doing.
Fateweaver wrote:I know I'll have people retort with their OPINION about how good for the country a socialist, I mean national health care reform bill, will be but please save your left wing rhetoric for some illegal alien coming across the borders because he'll have a better living than I will PLUS health care...
This is where I get all nationalist.
I'd love to see massive immigration raids take place around the country simultaneously followed by tossing out every single illegal immigrant across the border, and planting a small tag in them with an explosive device that would be set off should they ever cross more than 5 miles into the United States without first applying legally for citizenship somehow such that the device could be deactivated by immigration officials.
Kind of like that explosive charge Snake Pliskin had injected into his neck in Escape from New York but with a homing beacon? That sort of thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
I guess I should describe what I don't want from my President when he speaks.
I don't want tantrums, I don't want pep rallies and I don't want a shakespearean Henry V "Saint Crispins Day" speech either.
Just give me the facts.
I guess I want my facts somewhere else. I want motivation and leadership from my President, which is always going to involve anger where it's warranted, a pep rally where it's needed, and a nice speech when it's due.
The President is basically just a cheerleader. He's the CiC but he gets all his info from the military...he's no tactician who knows about disposition of forces or anything. He's not actually directly calling all the shots. He doesn't get to make law. He can pass certain edicts but they can get overturned when the next guy comes in. He can veto a bill, but Congress can override him.
The President is a spokesperson, cheerleader, tone-setter, and agenda-pusher. That's about it. He's international public relations for the United States, and an internal figurehead. I think the Founding Fathers made a big mistake establishing a Presidency in the first place. Some sort of Prime Minister tied to the majority party in the Congress would have been a better idea by far.
Cairnius wrote:I guess I want my facts somewhere else. I want motivation and leadership from my President, which is always going to involve anger where it's warranted, a pep rally where it's needed, and a nice speech when it's due.
If this were "independence day", where we are being attacked by ruthless aliens, I'm all for motivational speeches. However he was addressing congress and the nation about health care reform. Give me truthful facts. Not a theatrical performance. That's all I'm sayin'.
Well, we agree on some things but not on others C. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. I didn't vote for Obama because I didn't feel he would be a good president. From what he is proposing, in my opinion, is not going to help this country one iota. In 3 years he will again most likely not get my vote if he decides to run a second time.
I don't believe in welfare or gun bans or supporting illegals and being a Dem it's what he will do or try to do in the case of guns. Billary Clinton did it (see what I did there? LOL) so I'm not convinced Obama won't try it as well.
So you have no problem with the new health care bill if nobody in the country spends any extra money they have AFTER being REQUIRED to get health care on movie rentals or eating out or going to the bar with friends? Yes, because that will so help the economy in this country if nobody does anything other than work, make home cooked meals and then sit by candlelight and read from the Bible.
The best way to unfeth this economy. Drop welfare. You either survive on your own or you don't survive. You don't like the idea of paying for someones medical care because they refuse to get it if offered. I, on the other hand, don't like my taxes being 1/3rd of my income because some lazy, 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
How is paying for someone to get a flu shot any different or worse than what we, as tax payers, already pay for in this country? The HCRB only covers up the real issue, it doesn't solve it or even try to solve it.
Fateweaver wrote: 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
I know this is going a bit off topic but do you have proof of this phenomenon?
Fateweaver wrote:The best way to unfeth this economy. Drop welfare. You either survive on your own or you don't survive. You don't like the idea of paying for someones medical care because they refuse to get it if offered. I, on the other hand, don't like my taxes being 1/3rd of my income because some lazy, 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
Show me evidence of a "welfare mom" doing this. Seriously. Have you ever been around welfare recipients? They're friggin' poor.
Besides, welfare isn't nearly the biggest or most expensive issue out there.
Cairnius wrote:
Well, usually when I am talking about one thing and someone else answers with a response to something totally different and unrelated to what I was saying, like you just did twice up there, it's usually my wife and she's had a bad day and she's just not thinking very rationally which is why she's responding to what I'm saying like she's actually speaking to someone else in some other conversation who she is hearing when I'm talking instead of actually hearing what I'm saying.
And yet more evidence towards your inability to appreciate a diverse set of perspectives. There are other parties to a conversation besides you, and they all have distinct motivations.
Cairnius wrote:
So, I asked if someone had hurt your feelings or something today as that's usually what's wrong with my wife when she gets like that...as far as I know you're not female else I'd ask if you were having your monthly visitor or something, the next most likely explanation.
Of course the motivation for that action has little to do with the fact that her feelings were hurt, but rather than she doesn't feel the need to engage with whatever it is you're saying. In the case of your wife that impulse is derived from a feeling of slight, in the case of Ahtman it appears to be derived from the notion that the point he's attempting to express has nothing to do with the actual line of your reasoning, but its acceptance of contested premises as canon.
Fateweaver wrote:
I, on the other hand, don't like my taxes being 1/3rd of my income because some lazy, 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
That doesn't happen. You can't afford gak nothing on welfare. If people buy (rent to own) that stuff its gone within a month. To even qualify for food stamps, you have to be making under $22,000 a year (for a household of four). That's making $393 a week to clothe and house 4 people. Welfare doesn't make people rich man. If you think that, you be playin a fool.
Fateweaver wrote:
I know I'll have people retort with their OPINION about how good for the country a socialist, I mean national health care reform bill, will be but please save your left wing rhetoric for some illegal alien coming across the borders because he'll have a better living than I will PLUS health care.
Why would he/she have healthcare? The notion that illegals will be insured under this program is one of the most fallacious arguments out there.
Its not actually. We had a lawyer comrade get a hold of a copy of the House Bill and he actually read through (gak why). It would cover them.
I only have myself as proof. It is not anecdotal, it is true fact. I live in a state (Minnesota) where being on welfare is something to be proud of.
I do know people like this. The more kids you have the more you get and it is not proportional to the kids you have. Also, WIC allows parents, single or not, to obtain 95% of the name brand foods on the shelf, foods I can't afford to eat.
I'm sure it's not like this in all 50 states but I have proof unfortunately because some of my aunts live like this. Minnesota is a liberal state and that means, here in Minnesota anyway, the illegals and lazies get to live better than I do.
Mn welfare system says you are REQUIRED to look for a job but that's a crock of gak way of saying "If you apply once a year for a job at McDonalds we won't take your welfare and food stamps from you". It's an ultimatum but one enforced with as much enthusiasm as being assigned to watch paint dry.
Fateweaver wrote: You either survive on your own or you don't survive.
No one survives on their own a social system. That entire premise is intrinsically flawed.
Fateweaver wrote:
I do know people like this. The more kids you have the more you get and it is not proportional to the kids you have. Also, WIC allows parents, single or not, to obtain 95% of the name brand foods on the shelf, foods I can't afford to eat.
If you can't afford name brand foods I find it extremely unlikely that you actually pay income taxes.
Kilkrazy wrote:When you drop welfare, will you start with the banking bailout, the car industry bailout, the Freddie Mac bailout, or the farming industry bailout?
I will have a shake, and a chicken sandwich with an order of fries... Hello? Hmm, this restaurant seems to be politically affiliated for some reason...
Dogma wrote:No one survives on their own a social system. That entire premise is intrinsically flawed.
Yep... that about sums it up right tharr... pass the rum, this whole pirating thing sucks major cannonballs...
If you can't afford name brand foods I find it extremely unlikely that you actually pay income taxes.
Brand name sushi? Hmm... this may be a pretty neat... omg that is rank...
Fateweaver wrote:
I, on the other hand, don't like my taxes being 1/3rd of my income because some lazy, 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
That doesn't happen. You can't afford gak nothing on welfare. If people buy (rent to own) that stuff its gone within a month. To even qualify for food stamps, you have to be making under $22,000 a year (for a household of four). That's making $393 a week to clothe and house 4 people. Welfare doesn't make people rich man. If you think that, you be playin a fool.
I live in a state where it does happen. One of my aunts is not married, has 3 kids at home, her and her bf sit around smoking weed (not selling it as I know they don't deal it), they live in a new house, drive a car that's only a couple of years old and twice per month when she gets the money into her EBT account hits Wal-mart and will buy $500-600 worth of groceries at one time. You be playin' a fool if you think it doesn't happen.
Don't even get me started on the minorities in this state. LOL.
Fateweaver wrote: 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
I know this is going a bit off topic but do you have proof of this phenomenon?
I have never heard of your scenario.
It's a little urban legend Reagan and co. cooked up...the "welfare queen" who kept having kids so she could get rich on welfare. She supposedly drove a Cadillac, etc. It was rhetorically clever (if disgusting) in that it played on prejudices, etc. without doing it overtly. Anyway, everyone "knew" these welfare queens existed, but no one could ever find one.
Someone wrote a book debunking it and won a Pulitzer.
Edit: Apparently we're told Minnesota is a giant welfare state in which this happens, even though the economics of that don't make any sense. In which case the answer is giving MN to Canada.
Holy hell, this thread exploded! I haven't even had a chance to read it all! I wasn't going to post, simply because this seems like a thread that is everyone against one person who just won't listen to reason, but I do have one question, and I apologize in advance if this has been brought up already. Cairnius, since you so wholeheartedly support and worship our president, and you seem like someone who is genuinely concerned about health care reform, why have I not seen your anger and rage directed toward a major problem that WON'T be fixed by any of the current plans, namely tort reform? Do you realize how big of an impact lawsuits, mostly by ambulance chasing lawyers, have on the cost of health care? Do you realize that because President Obama and his wife, and not to mention many members of the Democratic party have extremely close ties with trial lawyers? Don't you think things like this, which are much simpler and could be free to fix, deserve attention to?
Frazzled wrote:
Its not actually. We had a lawyer comrade get a hold of a copy of the House Bill and he actually read through (gak why). It would cover them.
How? Without registration there is no coverage. Illegals are unregistered by definition. Its literally impossible for them to be covered by a public healthcare plan in a way which is distinct from the present system.
Its important to note a single payer system is not the same thing as public option. Under a single payer system it is possible that illegals would covered by the plan; depending on how it was administered (one that depended on physician claim reports, for example). However, Obama didn't propose a single payer system. He alluded to one, but didn't support it.
Frazzled wrote:
Its not actually. We had a lawyer comrade get a hold of a copy of the House Bill and he actually read through (gak why). It would cover them.
How? Without registration there is no coverage. Illegals are unregistered by definition. Its literally impossible for them to be covered by a public healthcare plan in a way which is distinct from the present system.
Its important to note a single payer system is not the same thing as public option. Under a single payer system it is possible that illegals would covered by the plan; depending on how it was administered (one that depended on physician claim reports, for example). However, Obama didn't propose a single payer system. He alluded to one, but didn't support it.
Well in the state of California, and in other states I am sure, illegals can get a driver's license, which is a legal form of ID, and can therefore count for registration. They have access to social programs here, even though they don't pay taxes...
Fateweaver wrote: You either survive on your own or you don't survive.
No one survives on their own a social system. That entire premise is intrinsically flawed.
It is not flawed. You work a job, buy a house, own a car, get health/med insurance if you can afford it. If you refuse to do any of those things on your own you suffer. My family has never gotten handouts of any kind, even when my dad was out of work for a while and my mom was just a SAHM. It was tough. To say you can't survive without the gov't helping you is BS.
Fateweaver wrote:
I do know people like this. The more kids you have the more you get and it is not proportional to the kids you have. Also, WIC allows parents, single or not, to obtain 95% of the name brand foods on the shelf, foods I can't afford to eat.
If you can't afford name brand foods I find it extremely unlikely that you actually pay income taxes.
Okay, I meant years ago WIC was not something to be proud of and years ago it mostly got you the generic foods and nothing fancy. Now it gets 95% of the foods on the shelf. WIC is a joke worst than welfare. How does making $4k/month with 1 kid allow a family to get 8 gallons of milk for free every month or up to 24 boxes of cereal a month for free?
As far as the bank and car bailouts are concerned I didn't support them. The money for AIG bailout should have gone to every tax payer in the country. That would have done a lot more for the economy than getting some bank out of hot water. The cars for clunkers program is also a joke.
Frazzled wrote:
Its not actually. We had a lawyer comrade get a hold of a copy of the House Bill and he actually read through (gak why). It would cover them.
How? Without registration there is no coverage. Illegals are unregistered by definition. Its literally impossible for them to be covered by a public healthcare plan in a way which is distinct from the present system.
I will freely admit I do not have a copy of the House Bill and cannot back that up. But I trust this individual.
Fateweaver wrote:I live in a state where it does happen. One of my aunts is not married, has 3 kids at home, her and her bf sit around smoking weed (not selling it as I know they don't deal it), they live in a new house, drive a car that's only a couple of years old and twice per month when she gets the money into her EBT account hits Wal-mart and will buy $500-600 worth of groceries at one time. You be playin' a fool if you think it doesn't happen.
Don't even get me started on the minorities in this state. LOL.
I be playing the fool indeed, and with quite a bit of grace and majes... OH CRAP STAIRS!!! goddamit...
Dude that argument is about as stale as the bread the Corsican Brothers used to break their way out of jail... But yes, please continue with the rest of your diatribe against the poorest and most unfortunate people in our society. We all know that your state represents the VAST and overwhelming majority, and regardless of the validity of the points you make, the punch behind that is really quite strong... in a sort of, a kind of, a bit of a meaningless way.
Well rocks totally fly sometimes when they are falling, and all rocks fall sooner or later... so the laws of physics must apply to the... wait, I heard something about juice and cookies? I would like some juice please... thank you. This delicious point of juice aside, I do think you are obviously arguing a very unreliable point, with little to no ground to stand on but the immediate and more importantly, directly reflective of your life situation, rather that a scope worth proper anticipation, precipitation, procrastination... got a bit carried away with the pumpkin there... sorry.
Fateweaver wrote:How does making $4k/month with 1 kid allow a family to get 8 gallons of milk for free every month or up to 24 boxes of cereal a month for free?
Is the answer agricultural subsidies? I feel lucky today!!!
Fateweaver wrote: 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
I know this is going a bit off topic but do you have proof of this phenomenon?
I have never heard of your scenario.
It's a little urban legend Reagan and co. cooked up...the "welfare queen" who kept having kids so she could get rich on welfare. She supposedly drove a Cadillac, etc. It was rhetorically clever (if disgusting) in that it played on prejudices, etc. without doing it overtly. Anyway, everyone "knew" these welfare queens existed, but no one could ever find one.
Someone wrote a book debunking it and won a Pulitzer.
Edit: Apparently we're told Minnesota is a giant welfare state in which this happens, even though the economics of that don't make any sense. In which case the answer is giving MN to Canada.
I have first hand evidence of this happening. As I said, don't even start me on the minorities and how well they live in this state. You only have your states welfare laws to go by. Every state is different. Mn is suffering because of the stupid amount of welfare handed out and the stupid amount of people on it. What is keeping this state afloat is the taxes that the Mall of America brings into this state. It brings in $2-3B annually from taxes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I concede. Apparently my eyes deceive me because it is what it is when I see it daily and I have family that are abusing the welfare system but apparently numbers pulled from websites and OTHER states welfare reports trump what I witness first hand.
Ah well. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I was just asking politely someone why they don't mind the current welfare system but have a problem with paying for someone else who has strep throat or a broken arm.
Minnesota is a liberal welfare state. Any number of sources will tell you that much. Believe it or not, I don't care. Apparently I lie and the interwebs are right. I'm out of here.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Well in the state of California, and in other states I am sure, illegals can get a driver's license, which is a legal form of ID, and can therefore count for registration. They have access to social programs here, even though they don't pay taxes...
The people that generally utilize social programs don't pay taxes either. At least not the taxes that fund the programs. To a certain extent we just have to accept that there will a given amount of 'bleed' caused by the presence of illegals. Obviously we should attempt to minimize this (how we should do that is more up in the air), but objecting to the notion of healthcare reform because we might pay for people who aren't citizens/permanent residents/temporary residents doesn't really jive with the current situation.
All that said, I can't imagine that we would have to allow illegals to access the system as there are means already in place to prevent them from doing so. Though there are certainly programs floating around that don't take such measures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
I will freely admit I do not have a copy of the House Bill and cannot back that up. But I trust this individual.
Yeah, I'm seeing it now. Technically illegals would be able to obtain coverage as they are not strictly prohibited from doing so, but I find it unlikely there would be many of them on the program as I can't see it being as simple as raising your hand and asking for insurance once the program is implemented (especially given the need to prove that you are not otherwise insured).
If you're interested its here staring on page 72 and ending on page 76.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:
Okay, I meant years ago WIC was not something to be proud of and years ago it mostly got you the generic foods and nothing fancy.
Cheating the system has become a culturally celebrated ability. This is not something which is limited to welfare recipients.
Fateweaver wrote:
Now it gets 95% of the foods on the shelf. WIC is a joke worst than welfare. How does making $4k/month with 1 kid allow a family to get 8 gallons of milk for free every month or up to 24 boxes of cereal a month for free?
They don't spend money on healthcare, which is part of what WIC is meant to fund.
Fateweaver wrote:
As far as the bank and car bailouts are concerned I didn't support them. The money for AIG bailout should have gone to every tax payer in the country. That would have done a lot more for the economy than getting some bank out of hot water.
Actually, it probably wouldn't have. The 2600 dollars doesn't go a long way when people are losing their jobs in droves due to the absence of credit.
Health care is a FINITE resource, meaning the more give to those who are not working, the less there is left over for me and my family.
The more taken up by illegals either through abuse of the E.R. or through some sort of universal coverage, the less there is for me.
I work hard to give my family gold plated coverage, you want the same as me, good work 60-70 hours a week and you'll get there.
Oh and don't spend all the money you make because someday you will lose your job and its a good idea to have savings. And no an adjustable rate ARM is not a good idea.
Frazzled wrote:
Its not actually. We had a lawyer comrade get a hold of a copy of the House Bill and he actually read through (gak why). It would cover them.
How? Without registration there is no coverage. Illegals are unregistered by definition. Its literally impossible for them to be covered by a public healthcare plan in a way which is distinct from the present system.
I will freely admit I do not have a copy of the House Bill and cannot back that up. But I trust this individual.
Forward this analysis to them. I'm curious what they say.
We suspect it's rare that the president gets heckled during a speech to a joint session of Congress, but Rep. Joe Wilson didn't hold back.
"You lie!" shouted the South Carolina Republican. This was in response to President Barack Obama's statements on illegal immigrants.
"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants," Obama said. "This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
So who's right here? Wilson or Obama?
Incidentally, Wilson apologized for the outburst after the speech, but said he still disagreed with Obama's statement.
We've been monitoring claims about health care reform and illegal immigrants for some time now. Most notably, a chain e-mail claimed that page 50 of the House bill gave free health care to illegal immigrants. That page didn't say that. Rather, it included a generic nondiscrimination clause that said insurers may not discriminate with regard to "personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." So we rated the chain e-mail's claim Pants on Fire.
We read all 1,000-plus pages of the health care bill and were struck by the fact that it is largely silent on health care for illegal immigrants. Keep in mind that experts estimated there were 6.8 million uninsured illegal immigrants in the United States in 2007, out of a total of 11.9 million illegal immigrants. Right now, there are laws on the books that require hospitals to treat severely ill people who arrive at the hospital, regardless of immigration status, and we didn't see anything that would change those laws, either.
Most illegal immigrants are also now excluded from Medicaid, the government-run health care for the poor. We didn't see anything that would change that.
One place where the bill does mention immigration status is for "affordability credits." These are tax credits for people of modest means need to buy health insurance. The credits would help them buy insurance on a national health insurance exchange. The bill specifically says that people in the United States illegally are not eligible for tax credits, on page 132, section 242.
Still, given all that, we have heard from people who said that other aspects of reform could benefit illegal immigrants.
One of the most detailed responses was from the anti-immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform, called FAIR. You can read their statement on the matter on their Web site.
Primarily, they argue that illegal immigrants would be permitted to purchase insurance on the national health insurance exchange because the bill does not include a mechanism for verifying citizenship. So illegal immigrants would have the chance to purchase insurance in the public option, a government-run health care plan that would offer basic coverage at a low price.
FAIR also argues for more robust verification measures for the affordability credit and making sure that illegal immigrant parents won't be able to receive coverage if their citizen children are eligible.
FAIR has a point that illegal immigrants would likely be able to buy insurance on the national health insurance exchange. We don't see anything in the bills that would hinder that. A Congressional Research Service report issued Aug. 25, 2009, confirmed our observation. The House bill "does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchange—whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently," the report said.
But it's worth pointing out that illegal immigrants participating in the exchange would be paying for their insurance like everyone else. That's similar to the current system -- we're not aware of any particular restrictions that stop illegal immigrants from buying private insurance now. Under health care reform, illegal immigrants would be able to buy private insurance or the public option.
When we look at all of this evidence, it seems that health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants. We hope to look at this issue more in the days ahead, because some hospitals are particularly concerned about recouping their costs for treating illegal immigrants, and we're curious to know more about that problem and how it might or might not be solved by reform.
The best argument that we find that health reform would help illegal immigrants is that some might be able to purchase the public option -- if it passes, and it might not -- on the new health insurance exchange. They would purchase that at full cost. Obama's said "the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," which Wilson said was a "lie." Actually, Obama can make a pretty thorough case that reform doesn't apply to those here illegally. We don't find the public option argument enough to make the case that Obama "lied." We rate Wilson's statement False.
generalgrog wrote:If this were "independence day", where we are being attacked by ruthless aliens, I'm all for motivational speeches. However he was addressing congress and the nation about health care reform. Give me truthful facts. Not a theatrical performance. That's all I'm sayin'.
I agree with you in principle...I just don't call that a theatrical performance. That's not what it was. He wasn't emotional at all...I actually find Obama rather reasoned and cold in his speeches. He may get "stern" at times but that's about it. He gives very professional speeches. They're inspiring but not schmaltzy. I think he said precisely what he had to say - here's what I want to get done, enough with the bs. It was exactly what needed to be said.
It's been mathmatically shown that spreading the money used to bail out AIG amongst every legal taxpayer in the country would have amounted to everyone getting over $100k/per person.
$100k would have paid off my house, bought me a new car (or nice used one) and maybe allowed me to go shopping thus stimulating the economy more.
AIG bailout only allowed it's shareholders to reap benefits and of course the execs got millions each even though they failed as a business. Really crappy to reward failure by bailing a company out and then still allowing the execs to walk away with millions.
Fateweaver wrote:So you have no problem with the new health care bill if nobody in the country spends any extra money they have AFTER being REQUIRED to get health care on movie rentals or eating out or going to the bar with friends? Yes, because that will so help the economy in this country if nobody does anything other than work, make home cooked meals and then sit by candlelight and read from the Bible.
What I meant to say was this: there are people who have the money to purchase health care, but they choose not to because they don't want to spend it. These are people with discretionary income at their disposal. I am saying that if someone has discretionary income and they CHOOSE not to purchase health care then I have absolutely zero problem with forcing them, by law, to purchase health care for themselves because otherwise I'm paying for their stupid asses when they go to the hospital. They're fething me on account of being irresponsible, so I have no problem with, from their perspective, the government fething them.
People need to take responsibility for themselves, and stop suckling off the government teat.
Fateweaver wrote:The best way to unfeth this economy. Drop welfare. ...I, on the other hand, don't like my taxes being 1/3rd of my income because some lazy, 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
How is paying for someone to get a flu shot any different or worse than what we, as tax payers, already pay for in this country? The HCRB only covers up the real issue, it doesn't solve it or even try to solve it.
I have always felt that welfare should be attached to honest effort to find work, or rather perhaps we can put people to work in order to earn welfare checks. In a lot of cases, we're looking a physically-able people who could be taught some kind of manual labor skill and perform work for thier money. There's plenty of work to be done around here...
No offense, but if you're going to start quoting percentages and fractions of where your taxes go, that's not difficult information to come by. First, taxes are not 1/3 of your income. No one without a LOT of income pays 33%. You're likely paying 25% at the most between State and Federal if you live in a tax-heavy State like Mass. where I'm from - but if I were to make some deductions based on your statements you don't sound like a member of the upper class who is swimming in money, no offense, so you're not losing 1/3 of your income to taxes.
I believe that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security comprise the largest portion of the Federal budget, without going to look it up again, so that would be the majority of where your tax dollars are spent.
The real issue, if you will, might be that not enough people can make enough money to purchase health care, and that is, indeed, a larger issue of having moved as a nation from a production economy to a service economy when service jobs can be easily outsourced. America no longer really has any industries other than the arms industry within which we are "brand leader." Anything we can do besides produce weapons someone else can do just as well or better.
Perhaps if we got back to building things we could start more companies, hire more workers, earn more money and everyone could afford to purchase health care and we wouldn't need anything but private insurance companies, though things like making it illegal for insurance companies to cancel your insurance due to illness just makes sense. You've paid into the system to get that insurance. The insurance company runs the risk of actually having to pay out for your health care. Tough gak if they don't like it, they should stop being a health insurance company if they don't want to pay for their clients' medical care. There would still be work to do per regulation even if we remained a 100% private insurance system for all time. The companies are literally getting away with murder on a regular basis.
fateweaver wrote:
So you have no problem with the new health care bill if nobody in the country spends any extra money they have AFTER being REQUIRED to get health care on movie rentals or eating out or going to the bar with friends? Yes, because that will so help the economy in this country if nobody does anything other than work, make home cooked meals and then sit by candlelight and read from the Bible.
Rhetoric much?
I suppose its unfair that you probably have to get auto insurance too. After all you're a safe driver so you should be exempt. So you can spend more money at the pub. My great great grandfather didn't get 40 acres and a mule either. We all learn to cope.
But Home cooked meals actually might help the country! See also: The Cosby 'Pound Cake' speech A little good parenting might not be out of order, and reading a history book or two, but I digress.
Health insurance for all our citizens isn't just a good idea. Its socially responsible. Making our country find ways to make it better and more efficient will spur the economy. I'm certain lots of folks are looking for another Tennessee Valley Authority. I'm a fan of public works projects but this is just as efficient, and better thought out than the TSA.
Fateweaver wrote:So you have no problem with the new health care bill if nobody in the country spends any extra money they have AFTER being REQUIRED to get health care on movie rentals or eating out or going to the bar with friends? Yes, because that will so help the economy in this country if nobody does anything other than work, make home cooked meals and then sit by candlelight and read from the Bible.
What I meant to say was this: there are people who have the money to purchase health care, but they choose not to because they don't want to spend it. These are people with discretionary income at their disposal. I am saying that if someone has discretionary income and they CHOOSE not to purchase health care then I have absolutely zero problem with forcing them, by law, to purchase health care for themselves because otherwise I'm paying for their stupid asses when they go to the hospital. They're fething me on account of being irresponsible, so I have no problem with, from their perspective, the government fething them.
People need to take responsibility for themselves, and stop suckling off the government teat.
Fateweaver wrote:The best way to unfeth this economy. Drop welfare. ...I, on the other hand, don't like my taxes being 1/3rd of my income because some lazy, 24yo single mom can sit in her brand new house, watching her brand new plasma tv and driving her 2009 Honda Accord into Wal-mart twice a month to buy $500 worth of groceries.
How is paying for someone to get a flu shot any different or worse than what we, as tax payers, already pay for in this country? The HCRB only covers up the real issue, it doesn't solve it or even try to solve it.
I have always felt that welfare should be attached to honest effort to find work, or rather perhaps we can put people to work in order to earn welfare checks. In a lot of cases, we're looking a physically-able people who could be taught some kind of manual labor skill and perform work for thier money. There's plenty of work to be done around here...
No offense, but if you're going to start quoting percentages and fractions of where your taxes go, that's not difficult information to come by. First, taxes are not 1/3 of your income. No one without a LOT of income pays 33%. You're likely paying 25% at the most between State and Federal if you live in a tax-heavy State like Mass. where I'm from - but if I were to make some deductions based on your statements you don't sound like a member of the upper class who is swimming in money, no offense, so you're not losing 1/3 of your income to taxes.
I believe that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security comprise the largest portion of the Federal budget, without going to look it up again, so that would be the majority of where your tax dollars are spent.
The real issue, if you will, might be that not enough people can make enough money to purchase health care, and that is, indeed, a larger issue of having moved as a nation from a production economy to a service economy when service jobs can be easily outsourced. America no longer really has any industries other than the arms industry within which we are "brand leader." Anything we can do besides produce weapons someone else can do just as well or better.
Perhaps if we got back to building things we could start more companies, hire more workers, earn more money and everyone could afford to purchase health care and we wouldn't need anything but private insurance companies, though things like making it illegal for insurance companies to cancel your insurance due to illness just makes sense. You've paid into the system to get that insurance. The insurance company runs the risk of actually having to pay out for your health care. Tough gak if they don't like it, they should stop being a health insurance company if they don't want to pay for their clients' medical care. There would still be work to do per regulation even if we remained a 100% private insurance system for all time. The companies are literally getting away with murder on a regular basis.
I agree with this entire paragraph.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oldgrue wrote:
fateweaver wrote:
So you have no problem with the new health care bill if nobody in the country spends any extra money they have AFTER being REQUIRED to get health care on movie rentals or eating out or going to the bar with friends? Yes, because that will so help the economy in this country if nobody does anything other than work, make home cooked meals and then sit by candlelight and read from the Bible.
Rhetoric much?
I suppose its unfair that you probably have to get auto insurance too. After all you're a safe driver so you should be exempt. So you can spend more money at the pub. My great great grandfather didn't get 40 acres and a mule either. We all learn to cope.
But Home cooked meals actually might help the country! See also: The Cosby 'Pound Cake' speech A little good parenting might not be out of order, and reading a history book or two, but I digress.
Health insurance for all our citizens isn't just a good idea. Its socially responsible. Making our country find ways to make it better and more efficient will spur the economy. I'm certain lots of folks are looking for another Tennessee Valley Authority. I'm a fan of public works projects but this is just as efficient, and better thought out than the TSA.
I won't even start on the unfairness of certain peoples not needing car insurance and certain others needing it by law. Car insurance is different in that most auto accidents are multi-car. If somebody rear ends me it would be very difficult to collect if that person had no insurance and even then getting auto insurers to reimburse you at times is like trying to squeeze blood out of a rock. Most house fires are accidental, then their are natural disasters. House insurance is not required IF the house was payed cash and in full but you are awfully fething dumb if you don't take house insurance.
Leave medical and health insurance optional. Making me pay a fine of so much a year because I feel I don't need it or maybe can't afford it (I somehow doubt my insurance premium under the Obamanation will be less than the $80 I pay per month) is plain absurd and is going to downright piss off more people than just me. If I can get the same coverage for half the price under the new Bill than I'll be the first to sign up but ONLY because I want to, not because I feel I have to.
How does a home cooked meal stimulate the economy anymore than eating at BK? Grocers and BK get their fruits and veggies and meat from farmers. Only thing eating at home might do is support the local mom and pop supermarket but if that family shops at Wal-mart they are feeding the corporate machine just the same as anyone buying movies or cd's or dvd's.
Not saying anything wrong with staying at home and doing things as a family but we have to be realistic. We, as Americans will continue to use the technology we keep developing. Expecting the citizens of this country to give up iphones and ipods and internet and ps3 is like expecting the Obama administration to send you a check in the mail for $200,000. It's not going to happen and to think otherwise is just plain absurd.
Fateweaver wrote:It's been mathmatically shown that spreading the money used to bail out AIG amongst every legal taxpayer in the country would have amounted to everyone getting over $100k/per person.
No it hasn't. That's complete and utter rubbish. There's about 150 million tax payers in the US. Giving each of them $100,000, costing $15 trillion, or slightly more than US GDP. The AIG bailout was in fact $85 billion, or around $600 per tax payer. You said it was mathematically shown that is was $100,000, when it was $600.
Fateweaver wrote:Leave medical and health insurance optional. Making me pay a fine of so much a year because I feel I don't need it or maybe can't afford it (I somehow doubt my insurance premium under the Obamanation will be less than the $80 I pay per month) is plain absurd and is going to downright piss off more people than just me. If I can get the same coverage for half the price under the new Bill than I'll be the first to sign up but ONLY because I want to, not because I feel I have to.
Thing is, right now people are dropped from their health insurance for anything and everything that can be classified as a pre-existing condition. This is bad, and is one of the reasons that the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is health related expenses.
So they're bringing in legal requirements that say you can get healthcare even if you have a pre-existing condition. This would produce a situation where no-one would bother to get insurance as you could just wait until you got sick and then get insurance. So now they're putting a tax incentive in place to get coverage while you're well. It isn't required, it is a 2.5% tax above an income threshhold.
It isn't a great solution. It would simpler, cheaper and more effective to expand basic coverage, and decouple health insurance from companies allowing people to directly choose their own coverage (the health insurers wouldn't dare cut people if they knew it would get out and their coverage changed to company that actually kept them covered when they got sick). But that's not going to happen. You won't see an expansion of medicare to cover everyone for basic care, because a significant proportion of the US has a ridiculous delusion about the wonders of the profit motive. And you won't get market reform that actually forces competition between insurers, because both parties take piles of cash from the health insurers.
This is a reasonable solution, once you consider the best solution is impossible due to the state of US politics.
Fateweaver wrote:It's been mathmatically shown that spreading the money used to bail out AIG amongst every legal taxpayer in the country would have amounted to everyone getting over $100k/per person.
No it hasn't. That's complete and utter rubbish. There's about 150 million tax payers in the US. Giving each of them $100,000, costing $15 trillion, or slightly more than US GDP. The AIG bailout was in fact $85 billion, or around $600 per tax payer. You said it was mathematically shown that is was $100,000, when it was $600.
$100,000... $600.
Oh come on Sebster, we all know that your math is just to real! The way we spend money in the US, usually by just making it, everyone would have $100K in no time! Not to be sarcastic Fateweaver, but your numbers were pretty ridiculous...
Frazzled wrote:
Its not actually. We had a lawyer comrade get a hold of a copy of the House Bill and he actually read through (gak why). It would cover them.
How? Without registration there is no coverage. Illegals are unregistered by definition. Its literally impossible for them to be covered by a public healthcare plan in a way which is distinct from the present system.
Its important to note a single payer system is not the same thing as public option. Under a single payer system it is possible that illegals would covered by the plan; depending on how it was administered (one that depended on physician claim reports, for example). However, Obama didn't propose a single payer system. He alluded to one, but didn't support it.
The bill doesn't require any proof of citizenship. While it technically rules our illegal immigrants, someone would basically have to come up to the official through whom they are applying for health coverage and say "I'm really not supposed to be here, I came over from Cuba in a beer firkin. Want a hand rolled Cohiba?"
youngblood wrote:
The bill doesn't require any proof of citizenship. While it technically rules our illegal immigrants, someone would basically have to come up to the official through whom they are applying for health coverage and say "I'm really not supposed to be here, I came over from Cuba in a beer firkin. Want a hand rolled Cohiba?"
That depends on how its administered. If it works anything like medicaid, it will be very difficult for illegals to gain access to it (tied to SSN). If it works like a standard insurance system any illegal will be paying into the system like any other person, which is no different from the way it works now with private insurance.
youngblood wrote:
The bill doesn't require any proof of citizenship. While it technically rules our illegal immigrants, someone would basically have to come up to the official through whom they are applying for health coverage and say "I'm really not supposed to be here, I came over from Cuba in a beer firkin. Want a hand rolled Cohiba?"
That depends on how its administered. If it works anything like medicaid, it will be very difficult for illegals to gain access to it (tied to SSN). If it works like a standard insurance system any illegal will be paying into the system like any other person, which is no different from the way it works now with private insurance.
True, I know that its not similar to medicaid. IIRC its closer to standard insurance. Still a problem though.
youngblood wrote:
True, I know that its not similar to medicaid. IIRC its closer to standard insurance. Still a problem though.
Politically, probably. It makes more strategic sense to overtly close the bill to immigrants so that immigration reform can be raised as a separate issue.
Practically, I don't have a problem with illegals paying for government insurance. If anything it will probably cut down on unnecessary ER visits, which is a pretty big hit to the balance sheet for urban hospitals.
youngblood wrote:
The bill doesn't require any proof of citizenship. While it technically rules our illegal immigrants, someone would basically have to come up to the official through whom they are applying for health coverage and say "I'm really not supposed to be here, I came over from Cuba in a beer firkin. Want a hand rolled Cohiba?"
That depends on how its administered. If it works anything like medicaid, it will be very difficult for illegals to gain access to it (tied to SSN). If it works like a standard insurance system any illegal will be paying into the system like any other person, which is no different from the way it works now with private insurance.
IIRC, something like a third of all medicaid assisted births in hospitals in California are going to illegal immigrants...Doesn't sound to hard to me...
I know a guy that has lived in this country as an illegal since he was a young kid. He somehow went to school here (they must have never checked I guess), he also worked here, as well as being married to a native U.S. citizen, and having a 5 year old kid nonetheless. The problem here, is that this guy is just as much of a citizen, if not more than I am, in my eyes; even if he tries to apply he has to go back to his country for like 2-3 years... which is totally frakking lame.
Anyone know how I could help this cat out? I have been wondering for some time how he could possibly skip that whole insane endeavor.
In order to get a passport and all that malarkey he will have to go home for the entire duration of processing.
This means that his wife will have to, essentially, be a single mother for that period of time. This could be as long as 3 whole years, my Father took around 10 to get his, although I think his route was much less direct, and most definitely less urgent. My dad was with green card since he arrived, so his situation was a lot different.
As soon as this guy applies for a green card, I am quite sure he will be taking his first steps to being kicked out on a technicality.
JEB_Stuart wrote:IIRC, something like a third of all medicaid assisted births in hospitals in California are going to illegal immigrants...Doesn't sound to hard to me...
That's a hospital thing. They have to assist in the birth by law, and then they bill medicaid in order to recoup costs.
A UK citizen married a Canadian girl who is 19. However, a new UK law makes it illegal for someone aged under 21 to be married and brought into the country.
The Canadian gilr got married while in the UK, however her visa then expired and she had to be deported, and now she can't come back.
Wrexasaur wrote:In order to get a passport and all that malarkey he will have to go home for the entire duration of processing.
This means that his wife will have to, essentially, be a single mother for that period of time. This could be as long as 3 whole years, my Father took around 10 to get his, although I think his route was much less direct, and most definitely less urgent. My dad was with green card since he arrived, so his situation was a lot different.
As soon as this guy applies for a green card, I am quite sure he will be taking his first steps to being kicked out on a technicality.
I guess is sucks to be him. At least he doesn't pay income taxes...
More or less. At this point I am pretty sure his best option would be to just go with the flow, and get applied. Waiting until his kid is older could be a good idea.
fateweaver wrote:
How does a home cooked meal stimulate the economy anymore than eating at BK? Grocers and BK get their fruits and veggies and meat from farmers. Only thing eating at home might do is support the local mom and pop supermarket but if that family shops at Wal-mart they are feeding the corporate machine just the same as anyone buying movies or cd's or dvd's.
Let's go over that. Its a good question.
1: Supporting local grocers stimulates the local economy. Local producers supply local business who in turn supply non chain restaurants and local residents. Food distributors are as likely to draw from local producers as distant and all hire their staff locally thus keeping more money in motion locally.
2: Immigrant workers (or in my case contract workers. Its odd how the parallel still functions) with families are incentivized to live well below their means in order to send a significant portion of their income out of the area. This takes the money out of the local economy.
3: I've beaten that 'Pound Cake' speech to death over the last two days. The principle of reinforcing social expectations implies that the expectations will be further applied outside the home. More money circulating locally raises the relative standard of living locally before migrating outward for luxuries. By keeping a workforce available (rather than say in prison) locals compete on value added services rather than lowest initial cost.
4: Chain food providers are incentivized to use the lowest cost product they can. Lower quality and more processed foodstuffs carry a significant correlation to increased health risks, and related health maintenance costs. Increasing the quality of food consumed quite likely could reduce long term health costs.
Not saying anything wrong with staying at home and doing things as a family but we have to be realistic....
Pardon me. What the devil does this have to do with
A:healthcare and its economic impacts?
B:Staying home for dinner?
I missed the transition.
Fair is about the same rules for everyone, not complaining that there might be another bill every month.
I somehow doubt my insurance premium...will be less than the $80 I pay per month
But you don't know, and most importantly, the speech specifically lays out:
President Barack Obama wrote:We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country...
Sounds like there's an opportunity for your $80 to drop.
President Barack Obama wrote:...No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance...
So, you don't have to participate. You already have insurance.
Much like Joe Wilson (R, SC) you're presuming this guy is out to get your precious little dollar rather than giving him the respect due his position and a rational ear.
.
.
).
.
