Okay I am speaking as an outsider here, I don't have access to all the news that Americans seem to follow... but I'm going to give a quick two cents on what's irking me about Barack Obama at the moment.
I'll quickly make it clear that I fully advocate healthcare reform and am a firm supporter of the NHS (and any American attempts to slug that make my lip wobble).
I believe that every person has the right to access healthcare and I believe that the state should (and hopefully is) fully accountable to the people as an elected body, it should mirror, in theory, the beliefs of the nation. Thus I trust the state to handle healthcare as I believe it has the resources to do so and is the one body that can truly be said to not "be out for a profit".
At any rate, that's settled, onto Obama:
Whilst he's not exactly fervent enough on healthcare for my liking, I considered his policies progressive for America and I rooted for him after his election (beforehand I referred to him as a "coconut", which I guess I still believe). But now that the bill is being hacked into I feel furious with him. I put it to the head of the Obama Campaign in Europe when she came to visit the Liberal Democrat Society at my University that Obama was making a mistake by not criticising the criticisms levelled at him and not denouncing anti-healthcare reform proponents as murderers: Sarah Palin claiming that the elderly would have to face bueracratic "death panels" and the blatant prejudices shown by FOXNews (please see LiberalViewer on YouTube for many, MANY examples... he pretty much stalks FOX) are nothing short of deliberately misinformative and thus, in my opinion, accessory to suffering. Anyway, the woman to whom I put this question told me, and actually at the time had me believe, that Obama was coming out on top with this approach: The more the Republicans yelled, the crazier their yelling got... and thus Obama appeared to be rising above it. But considering recent events, I've come up with a different explanation: Perhaps Obama genuinely seeks to be bipartisan? Could it be that Obama simply lacks the conviction to carry through what the Democrats expected from him? I really believe that he is isolating his core supporters and we're going to see losses in 2012.
I don't understand what's going through his head, I must be wrong really... I mean, I study Politics, I understand how powerless the President really is but a lot of influence can still stem from what he says and I believe he can honestly say that he commands one of the firmest democratic mandates a President has seen: Most of the Nation really was behind him! And yet he does not denounce his opposition (and if he was convicted on this issue, he would genuinely hold them to be despicable, surely?) and doesn't appease his own supporters?! That's political suicide! Lastly, if I recall GoLeftTV (yes, a YouTube cartoon.. my sources of information vary eh? You guys should see their Joe Lieberman skits ;> the only individual he has denounced was a guy who actually appears to be on his left rather than his right? Well I'm guessing now so I'll shush...
It's all politics. 'Calling out' your opponents doesn't make them go away, and taking actions like that would probably further solidify party opposition in the Legislative branch, so not only are you fighting tooth and nail to try and get the important stuff you want passed passed, but they start digging in their heels for the more inconsequential stuff too.
Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.
Frazzled wrote:Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.
The problem is that he's tried that but unless he does strictly what the Rethuglicans want, there's going to be no compromise. That's why a 2 party system sucks.
Secondly, from the whole "most people would vote against Obama"...where did this poll take place? All over the country?
On that same point, a comment from that article...
I am a rightwinger that thinks this type of reporting is idiotic. First of all, we have no idea who the republican nominee will be so you really cannot say who you would vote for until you know who the other candidate is. Second, Obama and the democrats will do less controversial stuff in the runup to the election, so the people will forget whatever he has done that has made them upset. This polling means absolutely NOTHING. Things change very quickly in politics. PLEASE REPORT REAL NEWS!!!!
Frazzled wrote:Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.
Harry Reid, perhaps the least astute political mind in the US, just figured out that Snowe was never going to vote for the bill, and once Reid's figured out the GOP is committed to
Most of us had an idea the GOP was never going to go for a compromise bill when they released memos talking about this as the issue where they could break the Democrats, and calling on members to be as deliberately disruptive as town hall meetings as possible. Or when the DNC offered up malpractice reform and asked what any GOP members would consider negotiating on, and not one even raised a proposal. Or when Snowe voted to simply move the bill out of committee, and the GOP spazzed out entirely, some calling her a traitor.
But Reid's finally cottoned on. Maybe you will too.
Really, you shouldn't use Harry "he don't got no negra accent hep hep" Reid in any context to be taken seriously Sebster.
It amazing to me that in the 200+ years of the USA, most bills have managed to get support from both sides. That hasn't occurred since CapNTax. To blame everything on the Republicans is complete and utter nonsense.
Obama let the hard left run with this bill and this is what he got. instead of some real needed improvements we have this porkbarrel nonses thats going to raise taxes onthe Middle class in a big way (or at least the bill he supports). Kiss the House goodby in 2010 and President/Senate in 2012.
I'm out. This topic has been talked to death a hundred times.
Frazzled wrote:Really, you shouldn't use Harry "he don't got no negra accent hep hep" Reid in any context to be taken seriously Sebster.
Which is the point, he's a staggering idiot and managed to figure out that perhaps all that stuff the GOP said about opposing any healthcare reform possibly indicated they were about to oppose any healthcare reform.
It amazing to me that in the 200+ years of the USA, most bills have managed to get support from both sides. That hasn't occurred since CapNTax. To blame everything on the Republicans is complete and utter nonsense.
There's been no GOP support for any bill because they've set themselves to oppose everything. It isn't as if they've even pretended otherwise.
There were healthcare reform had bills in both houses for months, but there was never any proposal from the GOP to amend any bill towards something they could vote for. Not one. When the Democrats approached them, offering malpractice reform as an olive branch, not one Republican could raise even a single issue they might concede in order to reach a bi-partisan agreement.
Instead there were complaints about death panels and socialism. And now the GOP is complaining the the Democrats weren't being bi-partisan. And there seem to be people believing it. Incredible.
And blame what on the GOP? Congratulations are in order, they faced DNC control of both houses and the presidency, and have managed to force the Democrats to squander that utterly, passing no meaningful legislation. And despite the overt filibuster and obstruction goals they set themselves, they've copped almost no negative media - instead the Democrats have been labeled as ineffective (which is, to be fair, completely true). The Republicans have done brilliantly given the hand they were dealt. Pretending it was anything other than politics to spite the DNC is just plain wrong, but as far as politics goes it was very impressive.
Obama let the hard left run with this bill and this is what he got.
HAHAHAHAHA
Lieberman is the hard left now? Who's the centre, Lindsey Graham?
Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.
Concessions like cutting out the public options, half the reforms, abortion aid, and every other thing the republicans asked for.
Maybe you should realize nothing is good enough because it's a bill put forth by a liberal president, regardless of it's actual content. There could be a resolution about how the moon exists and after fox news trawled the conservative voerbase for a month you would see a partisan split 51 49 with every conservative saying the moon is smaller than the earth.
Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.
Concessions like cutting out the public options, half the reforms, abortion aid, and every other thing the republicans asked for.
Maybe you should realize nothing is good enough because it's a bill put forth by a liberal president, regardless of it's actual content. There could be a resolution about how the moon exists and after fox news trawled the conservative voerbase for a month you would see a partisan split 51 49 with every conservative saying the moon is smaller than the earth.
So what you're saying is...
'He who controls the Fox News...controls the universe'?
Frazzled wrote:Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.
You mean like the healthcare exchanges to supply portable coverage, medicare reform, and a lean on private insurers. The things that are either in the current bill, or being discussed in compromise?
Approval ratings for the same period from Gallup. There has been so much variation in general approval on a week-to-week, and poll-to-poll basis that any change inside of the adjusted standard deviation is meaningless.
Where's the limitation on malpractice suits?
Why on earth are you cutting Medicare?
Why are you trying to tax medical insurance?
But you're right. Its all because of those evil Republicans. if only the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House they could get something done. Evil Republicans! Why are they even allowed in Congress if they are not going to get with the program?
Frazzled wrote:
Obama let the hard left run with this bill and this is what he got. instead of some real needed improvements we have this porkbarrel nonses thats going to raise taxes onthe Middle class in a big way (or at least the bill he supports). Kiss the House goodby in 2010 and President/Senate in 2012.
First of all, allowed, what? Right, well when the President carries more authority in Congress than the Majority leaders you can go ahead with that theory. Or are you actually advocating a stronger executive here?
In any case, the bill is a 3% net spending increase in the form that was put back to the House. The excise tax, which certainly will hit the middle class, covers 55-60% of it and roughly works out to an average tax increase of $260 per year. This falls considerably in the likely event that the public option will be cut, which effectively leaves a bill which is substantively identical to what Republicans have floated (at least outside the expansion to Medicaid, and postulated expansion of Medicare).
Not that the Republicans really want anything to pass. From a political perspective any healthcare legislation which goes through is a significant victory for the Democrats.
Frazzled wrote:Where's the limitation on malpractice suits?
Why on earth are you cutting Medicare?
Why are you trying to tax medical insurance?
Malpractice is a state issue which cannot be directly addressed due to the 10th amendment. There are provisions in the bill which address malpractice (Title VI, Part III, Subtitle I, Section 6801), but they should be more thorough. Medicare will expand by .6% less over the next ten years than it otherwise would have, that's a cut but not a significant one. Medical insurance is being taxed in order to cover the costs of expanding Medicaid, and the public option. It works out to an average increase of $280 a year.
I had no idea that compromise meant getting everything you wanted.
Frazzled wrote:
But you're right. Its all because of those evil Republicans. if only the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House they could get something done. Evil Republicans! Why are they even allowed in Congress if they are not going to get with the program?
When did I say anything about Republicans, and when did your name become Captain Hyperbole?
Vladsimpaler wrote:Secondly, from the whole "most people would vote against Obama"...where did this poll take place? All over the country?
On that same point, a comment from that article...
I am a rightwinger that thinks this type of reporting is idiotic. First of all, we have no idea who the republican nominee will be so you really cannot say who you would vote for until you know who the other candidate is. Second, Obama and the democrats will do less controversial stuff in the runup to the election, so the people will forget whatever he has done that has made them upset. This polling means absolutely NOTHING. Things change very quickly in politics. PLEASE REPORT REAL NEWS!!!!
Yeah, the trouble is that Obama won't be running against "candidate X", he'll be running against someone with a name and their own strengths and weaknesses, etc. Which makes the poll question both stupid and leading. Good polling would have tested Obama against some of the rumored candidates for the GOP nomination.
Didn't John Kerry just prove six years ago that the candidate actually matters, and that dissatisfaction with the incumbent isn't enough for people to vote for you?
Frazzled wrote:
Obama let the hard left run with this bill and this is what he got. instead of some real needed improvements we have this porkbarrel nonses thats going to raise taxes onthe Middle class in a big way (or at least the bill he supports). Kiss the House goodby in 2010 and President/Senate in 2012.
That's complete nonsense, this bill is going to SAVE money: Obama has actually stated his numbers in an address.
I mean, sorry, but when something like that is so blatantly wrong... it just absolutely destroys my faith in the neutrality of the media o.O (as I assume you've heard that rubbish somewhere)
Henners91 wrote:
That's complete nonsense, this bill is going to SAVE money: Obama has actually stated his numbers in an address.
I mean, sorry, but when something like that is so blatantly wrong... it just absolutely destroys my faith in the neutrality of the media o.O (as I assume you've heard that rubbish somewhere)
The bill is unlikely to save money in the short term (10-15 years). It might save money over the long term through expanded care, and the resultant reduction of financial burden on hospitals. However, over the short term, it will cost more, not much more, but more; especially if we're only looking at government outlay.
Frazzled wrote:The Brit believes Obama. Thats cute.
Didn't you warn me for being that derisive? Maybe it wasn't you, but it was definitely a mod.
Frazzled wrote:Other estimates have it costing $2.1 Trillion in the next two years. it will cost more.
When you have to start taxing now four years ahead of time just to make it balance its way off.
Not really, that's what would be considered fiscal responsibility. You know, generating capital in order to cover transition costs.
The $2.1 trillion figure, over 2 years anyway, was a different bill. I've seen estimates that high for the current bill, but not over a period of 2 years. That's just an absurd estimate, there simply aren't enough potential costs in either the House or Senate the bill to produce that kind of fiscal obligation; especially if the public option is cut.
Frazzled wrote:Other estimates have it costing $2.1 Trillion in the next two years. it will cost more.
When you have to start taxing now four years ahead of time just to make it balance its way off.
Not really, that's what would be considered fiscal responsibility. You know, generating capital in order to cover transition costs.
The $2.1 trillion figure was a different bill.
tahts such staggering bu it I don't know where to begin. Its basdic math that if you need 14 years of tax receipts to "balance" 10 years of spending then its not balanced. It costs more on an annual basis. Seriuosly the though thats fiscal responsibility is just utterly absolutely shocking. Thats flamy level playing with numbers to fit what you want.
Of course that double counted the medicare savings too.
I really am done now, this conversation is asinine. Its freaking basic math, basic budgeting.
Frazzled wrote:
tahts such staggering bu it I don't know where to begin. Its basdic math that if you need 14 years of tax receipts to "balance" 10 years of spending then its not balanced. It costs more on an annual basis.
Yes, that's what I said. In fact, I don't think you'd find anyone who would claim that healthcare reform shifts healthcare costs away from the Federal government. People who claim that it will save money are claiming that it will reduce the net cost of healthcare (so spending on healthcare as a percentage of GDP) within the United States.
Where are you even getting this stuff about 14 years? The taxes built into the bill run within the 10 year cost projection.
Frazzled wrote:
Seriuosly the though thats fiscal responsibility is just utterly absolutely shocking. Thats flamy level playing with numbers to fit what you want.
No, it isn't. Its a recognition of costs, and how to address them. Fiscal responsibility is predicated on spending no more than taxation permits. If that involves taxation prior to the provision of benefits, then its still within the framework of responsibility. You're effectively claiming that saving is fiscally irresponsible. I'd understand a claim based on the notion that the government does not save, but that's not what you're saying here at all.
Frazzled wrote:
I really am done now, this conversation is asinine. Its freaking basic math, basic budgeting.
You barely even know what the conversation is about as you continually let your emotions get in the way of discussing matters of substance.
Instead of thinking with sense, or at least abstaining from comment, you've decided to snipe at people by calling their opinions 'cute' or 'asinine'.
Spendin starts four years AFTER the taxation begins. Thats pri8ma facae proof, if everything went as planned its not budget nuetral.
That doesn't count the more important issue that it rips medicare to pieces.
You're stealing money from old people who worked all their lives to pay for this travesty. We don't even know whats in the bill at this point. Its a joke, its obscene.
Frazzled wrote:Spendin starts four years AFTER the taxation begins. Thats pri8ma facae proof, if everything went as planned its not budget nuetral.
Its not really, as the issue of transitional costs is separate from that of sustained costs. A program can be budget neutral over its lifetime, even if it isn't during the first few years. Though I would agree that the bill is not budget neutral in the sense that it will cause an increase in expenditure if passed.
Frazzled wrote:
That doesn't count the more important issue that it rips medicare to pieces.
You're stealing money from old people who worked all their lives to pay for this travesty.
The Senate bill reduces Medicare growth by roughly 10% (given the worst case scenario) over ten years. That's hardly ripping it to shreds given that estimates of waste in the system verge on 20%, and the altered payment language present in both bills; substituting quality of care, for amount of care, where 'amount' is defined is the number of people being supplied benefits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Neither in an American's whats your point?
I've been denied healthcare for athletic injuries.
tblock1984 wrote:A smart man that the people despise because he has ideas to bring change to the established order that the public at large don't understand.
I'd agree with that in the sense that politics, for the people who don't study it seriously, tends to be more about brand loyalty and emotion than reason and information.
tblock1984 wrote:A smart man that the people despise because he has ideas to bring change to the established order that the public at large don't understand.
Hardly...
Proof, please...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I'd agree with that in the sense that politics, for the people who don't study it seriously, tends to be more about brand loyalty and emotion than reason and information.
Proof of what? That I, along with many of my friends, disagree with the man on a political level? Ok, we do. The burden of proof lies in you; he who made such a haughty declaration. Indeed, you were all too hasty to put forth such a generalist statement with a quick scratch at the keyboard. Truly, there are some individuals who are exactly as you describe, but can you name their numbers, or even the percentage of the eligible voting population that they make up? Considering the number of people who wholeheartedly approve of Barack Obama's presidency and the policies of his administration, I could just as easily reverse your statement and declare, "A smart man that the people love because he has ideas to bring change to the established order that the public at large don't understand." I disagree with the president, as do many that I know, simply because we have one desire: to stop spending money we don't have! I like the man, I really do, but I don't care for his politics. I consider myself well informed and an intellectual. You may consider that in contradiction to my criticism, but on the same token I don't believe in true equality or in democracy. I have heard from you and others, those who tend to be of the leftist persuasion, the rantings of equality and brotherhood and all that sort of rubbish, but in the same breath declare your fellow man to be below you on an intellectual level. I find the whole thing both hypocritical and annoying. Dogma, like myself, doesn't even presume to hide his own presumptions, which is altogether honest and laudable IMHO. So to your request I retort: You first.
tblock1984 wrote:
dogma wrote:I'd agree with that in the sense that politics, for the people who don't study it seriously, tends to be more about brand loyalty and emotion than reason and information.
BINGO!
And I am sure that you are among the enlightened who is alone in a sea of dark ignorance. The tendency for people to throw others under the bus because of their own self-proclaimed superiority never ceases to amaze me. This annoyed me so much that I felt it double the deserved disdain, derision, denigration and disparagement from myself. This reply has been brought to you today by the letter D folks.
Nice. I see what you did there. I like how you made me look like an arrogant donkey-cave for not thinking like you. Very American. Case in point. I just wanted to lighten the tension in the thread with some lolz...
I was asking for proof to support your claim that my OPINION was "hardly" accurate. I remember you saying that about my religion once (or lack thereof). What was it? Oh, yeah:
JEB_Stuart wrote:The cynicism that drips from your point of view is nowhere near the reality that most Christians, I can't speak for other religions, live in. Why do you hate something so much, especially when it provides hope and faith to billions? I am all for someone having their own opinion, but you border on the irresponsible by constantly trashing other peoples beliefs and belittling their intellect. It is completely disrespectful and uncalled for. If you have to make yourself feel more confident in your own beliefs by trashing those of others, then fine, but please don't do it here. You should try to be tolerant of others' opinions and beliefs, and not treat them like gak all the time. Just my two cents....
I never said anyone couldn't share their opinions. If you read my post you would note that I only demanded respect.
I don't believe in God. You don't believe in Obama. I accept that. But instead, you refused to answer my question and turned it back on me... Again. You, sir, will never have my respect if you continually talk down to me, accusing me of being the arrogant one because you disagree with me.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't believe in true equality
Apparently
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW, here is your fething proof...
The Wall Street Journal wrote:It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.
Whats this bipartisan nonsense? He can't get 51% to approve much less any Republicans or moderates. To be bipartisan you have to include, you know, things that are bipartisan and "the other side" wants.
Concessions like cutting out the public options, half the reforms, abortion aid, and every other thing the republicans asked for.
Maybe you should realize nothing is good enough because it's a bill put forth by a liberal president, regardless of it's actual content. There could be a resolution about how the moon exists and after fox news trawled the conservative voerbase for a month you would see a partisan split 51 49 with every conservative saying the moon is smaller than the earth.
tblock1984 wrote:A smart man that the people despise because he has ideas to bring change to the established order that the public at large don't understand.
Hardly...
JEB, I appreciate most of your input, but it is very clear who started this whole mini-flame war.
Commenting with sarcastic one-liners, then flipping the convo 'into your favor', is hardly what I would expect from you. I know that most, if not all of your opinions are informed to a high degree. I would appreciate if these threads did not have to be so ridiculously personal.
You are taking tblocks words, and twisting them. You started with a one lined response, to which you got a two line response. Not particularly surprising given the personalized way, in which you have continued this conversation.
I enjoy both listening to both sides here, it would be awesome if we could kick the nonsense to the curb.
Wrexasaur wrote:I enjoy both listening to both sides here, it would be awesome if we could kick the nonsense to the curb.
As always... I agree with Wrex. I think it is the fresh salty air of the Marine layer here in the Bay Area... (BTW, this morning's fog was AWESOME!!!) That, or we have the same dealer. You ARE in Berkley, after all...
@JEB_Stuart: Sorry, bro. Lost mah cool...
For the record, I think my satirical analogy comparing comparing Obama to President Not Sure was pretty accurate when taken in the light-hearted context I wrote it in. Not to mention freakin' hilarious! I love that scene.
President Not Sure wrote:There was a time when reading wasn't just for fags. And neither was writing. People wrote books and movies. Movies with stories, that made you care about whose ass it was and why it was farting. And I believe that time can come again!
tblock1984 wrote:Nice. I see what you did there. I like how you made me look like an arrogant donkey-cave for not thinking like you.
No, I called you out on being in contradiction with your own beliefs. I fear it was your declaration that broke the camel's back as it were. This seems to be a constant theme on Dakka lately: I am smart, and everyone else is stupid. Frankly its annoying and childish. Also you started by declaring that those who disagree with this smart man do so out of fear and ignorance. How do you think those who disagree should feel about that?
tblock1984 wrote:I don't believe in God. You don't believe in Obama. I accept that. But instead, you refused to answer my question and turned it back on me... Again.
You, sir, will never have my respect if you continually talk down to me, accusing me of being the arrogant one because you disagree with me.
Excuse me, but how the hell did that have anything to do with what I said? I don't even know what you were trying to accomplish with that. It was completely unrelated to the discussion at hand, and even to your own comments. If you remember that quote was directed at MDG, not at your religion. I do feel bad about the harshness of my post, but you are grasping at logical straws on this one.
tblock1984 wrote:BTW, here is your fething proof...
So you cite an opinion article that is from a decidedly conservative newspaper. Not the proof I was looking for.
Wrexasaur wrote:JEB, I appreciate most of your input, but it is very clear who started this whole mini-flame war.
You're absolutely right, I did start it. And I do feel bad about how harsh I was in my response. As I have already said my anger and frustration has just boiled over to the spouting point, not just with Dakka, but with a number of other things. I shouldn't have let it get the best of me. Apologies to all on Dakka, especially tblock. Thanks for your vote of confidence though Wrex.
Wrexasaur wrote:Commenting with sarcastic one-liners, then flipping the convo 'into your favor', is hardly what I would expect from you. I know that most, if not all of your opinions are informed to a high degree. I would appreciate if these threads did not have to be so ridiculously personal.
Again, it was a mistake that I chalk up to a moment of emotion and anger. It happens from time to time, I am simply human after all.
Wrexasaur wrote:I enjoy both listening to both sides here, it would be awesome if we could kick the nonsense to the curb.
dogma wrote:I'd agree with that in the sense that politics, for the people who don't study it seriously, tends to be more about brand loyalty and emotion than reason and information.
BINGO!
Keep in mind that this goes both ways. Most people don't study politics seriously, so most people engage with the subject on an emotional basis. Which is to say that most people base their decisions on attachments to certain terms, rather than the actual meaning of those terms in the context of a policy debate.
dogma wrote:I'd agree with that in the sense that politics, for the people who don't study it seriously, tends to be more about brand loyalty and emotion than reason and information.
BINGO!
Keep in mind that this goes both ways. Most people don't study politics seriously, so most people engage with the subject on an emotional basis. Which is to say that most people base their decisions on attachments to certain terms, rather than the actual meaning of those terms in the context of a policy debate.
I am not sure if that was meant for me or JEB, but that is exactly what I was getting at with my analogy. True story, my Dad voted to re-elect Bush simply because my Dad is a republican. I don't think that is conductive to the democratic process.
I would hardly call it uncommon on either side though. People have reservations about voting for politicians that are not generally toting their own 'set' of political beliefs.
I mean I won't vote Republican, because I have yet to see one that even remotely represents a large portion of the policies I would like. I can say the same things about many Democrats, but in that case, I simply won't vote at all.
Which... may be worse for the democratic process overall. I really don't care though, I won't vote for a douche OR a turd sandwich, no. freaking. way.
To be clear though, I did not see either of the last candidates all that badly overall. In Obama I saw an inexperienced politician that would inevitably work against his voters at some point, and McCain just scared the living crap out of me, before, AND after Palin jumped on the Choo-Choo train to 'not getting elected town'...
Wrexasaur wrote:I would hardly call it uncommon on either side though. People have reservations about voting for politicians that are not generally toting their own 'set' of political beliefs.
I mean I won't vote Republican, because I have yet to see one that even remotely represents a large portion of the policies I would like. I can say the same things about many Democrats, but in that case, I simply won't vote at all.
Which... may be worse for the democratic process overall. I really don't care though, I won't vote for a douche OR a turd sandwich, no. freaking. way.
To be clear though, I did not see either of the last candidates all that badly overall. In Obama I saw an inexperienced politician that would inevitably work against his voters at some point, and McCain just scared the living crap out of me, before, AND after Palin jumped on the Choo-Choo train to 'not getting elected town'...
QFT. That is why I didn't vote. I am a QA tester (until tomorrow... Junior Level Designer title change FTW!!!), I observe and report.
Wrexasaur wrote:I would hardly call it uncommon on either side though. People have reservations about voting for politicians that are not generally toting their own 'set' of political beliefs.
True, but before everyone assume it's other people that are voting based on loyalty or emotion... who out there has actually read any of the healthcare reform bills?
And I am sure that you are among the enlightened who is alone in a sea of dark ignorance. The tendency for people to throw others under the bus because of their own self-proclaimed superiority never ceases to amaze me.
I haven't thrown anyone under an actual bus yet, so you should probably re-calibrate your meter and wait.
I would hardly call it uncommon on either side though. People have reservations about voting for politicians that are not generally toting their own 'set' of political beliefs. I mean I won't vote Republican, because I have yet to see one that even remotely represents a large portion of the policies I would like. I can say the same things about many Democrats, but in that case, I simply won't vote at all.
Which... may be worse for the democratic process overall. I really don't care though, I won't vote for a douche OR a turd sandwich, no. freaking. way.
It's why we vote in representatives and don't use a direct democracy. The public by and large is neither studious nor involved enough to self govern. The unforunate side effect of representative democracy when combined with a deregulated news environment is the creation an information state where public officials concern themselves not with how well legislation works, but how good it looks. The breakdown of democracy now directly falls on the shoulders of the masses which it now, so unlike before, accurately represents.
sebster wrote:True, but before everyone assume it's other people that are voting based on loyalty or emotion... who out there has actually read any of the healthcare reform bills?
The real question is how much those bills have changed, and what it is we are actually left with. After all of the misinformation from the past few months, and my lack of interest in reading such a massive piece of legislation, all I want is an accurate summary.
Whatever the hell is left of the original bills, fails to impress me in any way. So little seems to actually have been accomplished, that I honestly wonder how much will be left of all of it, come the next Pres. election.
Frazzled wrote:Really, you shouldn't use Harry "he don't got no negra accent hep hep" Reid in any context to be taken seriously Sebster.
It amazing to me that in the 200+ years of the USA, most bills have managed to get support from both sides. That hasn't occurred since CapNTax. To blame everything on the Republicans is complete and utter nonsense.
Obama let the hard left run with this bill and this is what he got. instead of some real needed improvements we have this porkbarrel nonses thats going to raise taxes onthe Middle class in a big way (or at least the bill he supports). Kiss the House goodby in 2010 and President/Senate in 2012.
I'm out. This topic has been talked to death a hundred times.
I agree. There's a giant lack of bipartisanship on the side of Democracts in the House and Senate. An example if I remember correctly was when the You lie, outburst occured. From a direct result of Democrats going forward with closed meetings that didnt involve any GOP members from the April before.
Also, a lot of people don't seem to be able to read too well, or weren't able to at the time, but when Palin came out with her Death Panel remark it was due to the portion being in the bill before it was edited out.
you mean a closed door meeting that you wass about democratic policy was only for Democrats, gasp. That must mean that republicans also have closed door policy meetings, oh god the worlds going to end.
that death panel thing is about funds going to end of life consoling
Both sides lack have acted like children this entire debate, the current incarnation of the bill lost most of it's meet but it stil has important things like not allowing insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions, and preventing HMO's from dropping patients because they are sick or old
It amazing to me that in the 200+ years of the USA, most bills have managed to get support from both sides. That hasn't occurred since CapNTax. To blame everything on the Republicans is complete and utter nonsense.
They didn't have to deal with the new face of corporate news conservatism 200 years ago. Washington would not have been able to beat Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, and thats ignoring conservative talk radio.
See next post.
Also, a lot of people don't seem to be able to read too well, or weren't able to at the time, but when Palin came out with her Death Panel remark it was due to the portion being in the bill before it was edited out.
That portion was never in the bill, and it's quite telling about our culture when even now people still think it was. Family doctor discussions about the event of death are not "death panels" nor are the discussions involved with ending coverage for the incurably terminally ill. Those are all things private insurance already did.
Wrexasaur wrote:The real question is how much those bills have changed, and what it is we are actually left with. After all of the misinformation from the past few months, and my lack of interest in reading such a massive piece of legislation, all I want is an accurate summary.
Whatever the hell is left of the original bills, fails to impress me in any way. So little seems to actually have been accomplished, that I honestly wonder how much will be left of all of it, come the next Pres. election.
Which is the staggering thing, to me. All significant reform has been steadily pulled from the bill, to the point where as I understand it we're left with basically correcting the most obvious failings of the system... and the right is still decrying this as far left legislation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:Nobody in Congress that is for sure....
Given the inability of the DNC to properly summarise the bill for public consumption, or the GOP to make meaningful criticism based on the substance of the bill, that may be right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VermGho5t wrote:Also, a lot of people don't seem to be able to read too well, or weren't able to at the time, but when Palin came out with her Death Panel remark it was due to the portion being in the bill before it was edited out.
That portion of the bill subsidised the efforts of an individual to formalise his wishes if he rendered incapable of expressing that desire himself. It was a purely voluntary option, and that support was available whether they wanted to express their desire to die with dignity or to have every possible piece of technology used on them to stay alive.
The effort by Palin and others to describe this as a death panel was either gross stupidity or a deliberate attempt to lie to the public. Your attempt after all this time to defend it is absurd.
sebster wrote:Which is the staggering thing, to me. All significant reform has been steadily pulled from the bill, to the point where as I understand it we're left with basically correcting the most obvious failings of the system... and the right is still decrying this as far left legislation.
It's why we vote in representatives and don't use a direct democracy. The public by and large is neither studious nor involved enough to self govern. The unforunate side effect of representative democracy when combined with a deregulated news environment is the creation an information state where public officials concern themselves not with how well legislation works, but how good it looks. The breakdown of democracy now directly falls on the shoulders of the masses which it now, so unlike before, accurately represents.
sebster wrote:
Given the inability of the DNC to properly summarise the bill for public consumption, or the GOP to make meaningful criticism based on the substance of the bill, that may be right.
The information has been made available. Really I simply think the problem is that the majority of the public is either unwilling, or unable to consume it. At least not in a manner which produces insightful commentary.
sebster wrote:
Given the inability of the DNC to properly summarise the bill for public consumption, or the GOP to make meaningful criticism based on the substance of the bill, that may be right.
The information has been made available. Really I simply think the problem is that the majority of the public is either unwilling, or unable to consume it. At least not in a manner which produces insightful commentary.
Actually, that first summary is pretty good. Looks like everything that was in the last version of the bill I followed is there in the final copy. Ideally the summary would cut out the paragraphs and have 1-2 lines per point, keeping the thing under one page, but ultimately if you aren't willing to read two pages then you really don't belong in the debate (though I really question the logo - surely someone realised it looked like sperm?)
Anyhow, thanks for providing that, and I retract my claim on there being no decent summary of the reform out there.
sebster wrote:(though I really question the logo - surely someone realised it looked like sperm?)
Wow, no kidding. I didn't even see that until you mentioned it, but then I didn't even recall there being a logo at all. I guess its meant to be a spur of some sort?
I think its meant to be a stethescope. I think, at first I thought 'man that looks like sperm, it couldn't possibly be meant to be sperm, could it?' then 'I think maybe its meant to be a computer mouse' and then after about 10 seconds I figured it was probably a stethescope.
Proof of what? That I, along with many of my friends, disagree with the man on a political level? Ok, we do. The burden of proof lies in you; he who made such a haughty declaration. Indeed, you were all too hasty to put forth such a generalist statement with a quick scratch at the keyboard. Truly, there are some individuals who are exactly as you describe, but can you name their numbers, or even the percentage of the eligible voting population that they make up? Considering the number of people who wholeheartedly approve of Barack Obama's presidency and the policies of his administration, I could just as easily reverse your statement and declare, "A smart man that the people love because he has ideas to bring change to the established order that the public at large don't understand." I disagree with the president, as do many that I know, simply because we have one desire: to stop spending money we don't have! I like the man, I really do, but I don't care for his politics. I consider myself well informed and an intellectual. You may consider that in contradiction to my criticism, but on the same token I don't believe in true equality or in democracy. I have heard from you and others, those who tend to be of the leftist persuasion, the rantings of equality and brotherhood and all that sort of rubbish, but in the same breath declare your fellow man to be below you on an intellectual level. I find the whole thing both hypocritical and annoying. Dogma, like myself, doesn't even presume to hide his own presumptions, which is altogether honest and laudable IMHO. So to your request I retort: You first.
tblock1984 wrote:
dogma wrote:I'd agree with that in the sense that politics, for the people who don't study it seriously, tends to be more about brand loyalty and emotion than reason and information.
BINGO!
And I am sure that you are among the enlightened who is alone in a sea of dark ignorance. The tendency for people to throw others under the bus because of their own self-proclaimed superiority never ceases to amaze me. This annoyed me so much that I felt it double the deserved disdain, derision, denigration and disparagement from myself. This reply has been brought to you today by the letter D folks.
Henners91 wrote:
That's complete nonsense, this bill is going to SAVE money: Obama has actually stated his numbers in an address.
I mean, sorry, but when something like that is so blatantly wrong... it just absolutely destroys my faith in the neutrality of the media o.O (as I assume you've heard that rubbish somewhere)
The bill is unlikely to save money in the short term (10-15 years). It might save money over the long term through expanded care, and the resultant reduction of financial burden on hospitals. However, over the short term, it will cost more, not much more, but more; especially if we're only looking at government outlay.
Frazzled wrote:The Brit believes Obama. Thats cute.
Didn't you warn me for being that derisive? Maybe it wasn't you, but it was definitely a mod.
the Mods play by different rules on some inconsequential internet backwater message board? What?
Henners91 wrote:
That's complete nonsense, this bill is going to SAVE money: Obama has actually stated his numbers in an address.
I mean, sorry, but when something like that is so blatantly wrong... it just absolutely destroys my faith in the neutrality of the media o.O (as I assume you've heard that rubbish somewhere)
The bill is unlikely to save money in the short term (10-15 years). It might save money over the long term through expanded care, and the resultant reduction of financial burden on hospitals. However, over the short term, it will cost more, not much more, but more; especially if we're only looking at government outlay.
Frazzled wrote:The Brit believes Obama. Thats cute.
Didn't you warn me for being that derisive? Maybe it wasn't you, but it was definitely a mod.
the Mods play by different rules on some inconsequential internet backwater message board? What?
Wrexasaur wrote:The real question is how much those bills have changed, and what it is we are actually left with. After all of the misinformation from the past few months, and my lack of interest in reading such a massive piece of legislation, all I want is an accurate summary.
I to would like an "accurate" summary. But is this possible? Given the tendency of either party to spin things out of proportion.
The real problem is not so much the politician but the new media age in which we live. Internet society demands constant updates, so if something doesn't work instantaneously it's written off as a failure straight away.
Flashman's Theory of New Media Intolerance can also be applied to football managers, Strictly Come Dancing presenters and whichever actor happens to be playing James Bond.
It may not be the classiest statement but it's the truth.
His promise of a more open and transparent administration has been once again, another lie.
Ironic how Obamanation rushed the HCR Bill through behind closed doors so that nobody knew what was going on with it. feth, I bet even the people pushing it through don't know what those thousands of pages contain.
Rushing something behind closed doors to prevent anyone from stopping it or questioning it is not being very transparent.
His promise of a more open and transparent administration has been once again, another lie.
The final stretch of the talks being behind closed doors doesn't really do away with the fact that he set up several agencies for persistent online bill tracking, stimulus fund tracking, and campaign and lobby fund reform.
Ironic how Obamanation rushed the HCR Bill through behind closed doors so that nobody knew what was going on with it. feth, I bet even the people pushing it through don't know what those thousands of pages contain.
Yes. No one. People like you. Who didn't look at it when it was FULLY AVAILABLE ON LINE THE ENTIRE TIME. Regardless though, the reconciled bill is likely to look incredibly similar to the one that is already on public record, which you haven't looked at.
Rushing something behind closed doors to prevent anyone from stopping it or questioning it is not being very transparent.
More realistically it's being done behind closed doors because of statements comparing the bill to nazism and the general utter disinformation thats been conveyed to the public by mass media outlets. It's behind closed door because they tried to do it in the open and the American public is too fething lazy and reactionary to do anything but cry death panels for six months. I would have loved it to be public, but it probably would have just been a chance for more grandstanding on CSPAN, pulling the entire process down.
Howlingmoon wrote:
the Mods play by different rules on some inconsequential internet backwater message board? What?
Of course they do, that doesn't mean we shouldn't remind them when they are.
Especially since they tend to be fairly responsive to people who avoid exploding in irony every time they post about trolls, or internet tough guys.
I guess the question naturally arises, if Howlingmoon views this as "some inconsequential internet backwater message board," why does he deign to grace us with his presence? But that would derail this thread and we can't have any thread derailing now.
Fateweaver wrote:
Rushing something behind closed doors to prevent anyone from stopping it or questioning it is not being very transparent.
What closed doors? And what rushing? All the legislation is available for you to read, and has been throughout the process (including when the most official thing being discussed were draft bills);with the debate itself having so far lasted nearly a year.
Representative democracy is not about total transparency, which is why the promise to televise negotiations was stupid. Not only because there's no reason for them to be on TV, but because any televised negotiation would be unlikely to differ from nominal session of Congress in terms of formality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Regardless though, the reconciled bill is likely to look incredibly similar to the one that is already on public record, which you haven't looked at.
I expect either the public option, or mandatory carriage to get the axe in the course of negotiations. But we'll see.
I love how this thread had turned away from "What's wrong with Obama" to "America is too stupid to understand anything and needs really smart people to think for them".
What's wrong with Obama is he is a politician. He's willing to lie, cheat and steal to get power and prestige. He thinks that scoring higher on an IQ test than some people makes his morality higher than others. He thinks that he can tell the stupid, huddled masses anything to get elected and that he doesn't have to follow through. He thinks his agenda for America is more important than the average Joe putting food on the table. He thinks only big government can provide all the requirements for life and happiness to people. He's in love with government and will do everything in his power to cram his agenda down our throats whether we like it or not, because he thinks he can.
In short, he knows what's best for you and you best sit down, shut up and do what he says.
I love how this thread had turned away from "What's wrong with Obama" to "America is too stupid to understand anything and needs really smart people to think for them".
Glad we have you to shepherd it back to the right path with your insightful comments.
In short, he knows what's best for you and you best sit down, shut up and do what he says.
No thats me, it's true, and I don't think most of your post is particularly true or well thought out. However! I also think it utterly pointless to refute.
Wheres that bus.. I'm thinking it's time to use it.
The Green Git wrote:I love how this thread had turned away from "What's wrong with Obama" to "America is too stupid to understand anything and needs really smart people to think for them".
It has nothing to do with intelligence, not really. Intelligence governs how quickly a person can learn, and understand something. Anyone can learn anything provided they are willing to devote enough effort to the task. The problem is that the majority of people don't devote a whole lot of effort to politics; preferring to follow first impressions instead of continuing the process of reflection on an idea. Realistically that's true of most disciplines which aren't considered by a given individual to be a specialization.
The Green Git wrote:
He thinks that he can tell the stupid, huddled masses anything to get elected and that he doesn't have to follow through.
History proves that thought correct; primarily because the huddled masses tend to be, if not stupid, ignorant of the relevant issues.
The Green Git wrote:
In short, he knows what's best for you and you best sit down, shut up and do what he says.
He doesn't know what's best for individuals, nor could anyone. He doesn't know what's best for the nation, nor could anyone. However, he believes that certain policies will make the nation a better place. That has very little to do with the best choices to be made by individuals. Individuals are functionally irrelevant to demographics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:However! I also think it utterly pointless to refute.
Picked up that belief around the time of that 3-way discussion of the meaning of 'republic'?
The Dems don't read the bills, and even make fun of the voters that ask them to read it.
My problems with the bill(s)
1. You are taxed for 4 years before coverage starts. Thats like making a house payment for 4 years before you get to move in it.
2. I don't like the fact that the Federal government can require you to purchase something you may or may not need. Whats next? Requiring all Americans to purchase a new Chevy every 2 years?
3. The government has never been able to control cost of anything they do. $500.00 Hammers anyone?
4. The power of this bill far exceeds the limits placed on the Federal Government in the Constitution. (see #2)
jbunny wrote:The reason we are paying for years, is because we are paying for people who are not working and contributing their share.
That and the incessant whining whenever they talk about raising taxes to pre bush era levels. Who exactly are you talking about in this instance though? Illegals? I bet its illegal foreign workers, since in a nation with 10% unemployment you can't mean everyone else. That would just be insensitive.
Note to self, Don`t start a tread about anything remotely political here. In fact NEVER discuss that subject here. But back on topic, I have not been following the news about the previous mentioned president, what has changed since last? Anyone care to enlighten me?
jbunny wrote:The reason we are paying for years, is because we are paying for people who are not working and contributing their share.
That and the incessant whining whenever they talk about raising taxes to pre bush era levels. Who exactly are you talking about in this instance though? Illegals? I bet its illegal foreign workers, since in a nation with 10% unemployment you can't mean everyone else. That would just be insensitive.
I mean people that do not work due to various factors. People not able to work due to health problems, as well as people who just don't want to work. Funny thing about the unemployment rate, it only counts people actually looking for employment. So they guy that just sits on his moms couch does not effect the unemployment rate.
We are also paying for the childern of the people that do not work. I knew a guy who collected SS in highschool, and never had a job because his parents were that old.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Anshal wrote:I have not been following the news about the previous mentioned president, what has changed since last?
Obama appears to have finally passed a big pork barrel in the name of healtcare.
This is exciting, because it means that he'll finally have actually done *something* as President.
Shuma, you mean the tax rates we had under that leftie Reagan?
The American people are pretty easy to figure out. We want the government to provide universal healthcare, protect us from growing outside and inside threats, repair aging roads, bridges and infrastructure, bail us out if we make bad financial decisions or make risky investments, extend unemployment benefits and COBRA...
...and never have a bill come due for any of it. 'Cause you know, if it wasn't for welfare moms with 37 kids and freeloading illegal aliens using up trillions in resources, we could do all the above and give every red-blooded American citizen a 20% tax cut. Rush told me so.
Frazzled wrote:Medicare for Sr. citizens of poor income. Medicaid for everyone of poor income.
Raise the tax burden high enough, and everybody becomes "poor".
Which is the plan, right?
Yeah, raise the taxes high enough and we might actually start making as much per capita as Denmark or Germany. How awful that would be!
He also brought about change. Democrats are becoming Republicans and it looks like Mass. will have a Republican in TK's old seat.
And all he had to do was have absolutely nothing to do with the recession that cause that very change! Remember kids, vote republican when you want economic bubbles, and vote republican because democrats don't know how to handle the economy. I mean, the economy crashed then a Democrat got into office! He must have caused it! Vote red!
O.o thanks for enlightening me fellow Dakkataits, your all in my cookie book now. Anyways so to sum it up he has frakked it up? Or has he salvaged the situation? I ask as a person who normally gives a squid about politicians outside my own land. But I sense a fractured DakkaDakka on the subject of Obama & co
Frazzled wrote:Medicare for Sr. citizens of poor income. Medicaid for everyone of poor income.
Raise the tax burden high enough, and everybody becomes "poor".
Which is the plan, right?
Yeah, raise the taxes high enough and we might actually start making as much per capita as Denmark or Germany. How awful that would be!
I must admit, I did my studies before "new math," but the mathmatics of that statement eludes me.
I was just using the same logic DD was. That being hyperbolicdemsareeviltaxeswillkillusDEATHPANELSDEATHPANELSDEATHPANELSmuslimsareruiningourculturewithminnarettes! logic.
Frazzled wrote:Well his statement is mathmatically accurate. Raise taxes enough and their remaining income can fall into the definition.
True. You can also eat yourself to death and spend so much time on a beach you die of cancer. Mathematical possibility and modern precedent do not line up. America has some of the lowest taxes of any modern western nation. It also spends more per capita on health care than any other nation. Those two facts line up perfectly. Not all "taxes" come from the government.
jbunny wrote:Please enlighten me as to what taxes do not come from the governement?
Many would argue the insurance infrastructure we now have. We by law must participate in it to receive health care (or drive!) beyond simple emergency care and the rising cost business health care providers is one of the leading drivers preventing the rise of wages in jobs in America (wallmart for instance is quite pro health reform, and is the nations largest employer).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:US has some, if not The highest tax rates in the developed world. Fed, state, and local can meet or exceed 50%.
You just described virtually every western developed nation on the planet.
Frazzled wrote:Medicare for Sr. citizens of poor income. Medicaid for everyone of poor income.
Raise the tax burden high enough, and everybody becomes "poor".
Which is the plan, right?
Yeah, raise the taxes high enough and we might actually start making as much per capita as Denmark or Germany. How awful that would be!
I must admit, I did my studies before "new math," but the mathmatics of that statement eludes me.
I was just using the same logic DD was.
Excuse me?
If the Dems have their way and apply confiscatory taxes as they want to, then people's discretionary incomes go down. It's not ordinary people get raises when taxes go up. If discretionary income goes down, you have less money available for fixed costs like food, shelter, clothing. Ergo, higher takes, broadly applied will make us all poorer, while simultaneously giving Big Government an even larger share in people's lives by taking more and more choices away from the person.
Frazzled wrote:Which eliminates your argument that we have lower tax rates. We have the same rates PLUS healthcare costs.
Remember boys and girls, in the US, if you're happy with the DMV, you'll love government healthcare.
Please see attached graph. I was a bit late in attaching it. I figured a visual aid would help our friends who like shiny colors.
If the Dems have their way and apply confiscatory taxes as they want to, then people's discretionary incomes go down. It's not ordinary people get raises when taxes go up. If discretionary income goes down, you have less money available for fixed costs like food, shelter, clothing. Ergo, higher takes, broadly applied will make us all poorer, while simultaneously giving Big Government an even larger share in people's lives by taking more and more choices away from the person.
Funny then, how the most rapidly rising cost to the average american household is healthcare costs. The reformation of which being something you are trying every step of the way to prevent. Go ahead, keep taxes low, cut down health reform, and watch as healthcare continues to bloat and becomes 20% of gdp. Then 30%. Not that the economy could handle that much.
Hence my statement that your argument is mathmatically correct.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Which eliminates your argument that we have lower tax rates. We have the same rates PLUS healthcare costs.
Remember boys and girls, in the US, if you're happy with the DMV, you'll love government healthcare.
Please see attached graph. I was a bit late in attaching it. I figured a visual aid would help our friends who like shiny colors.
Graph is pretty but irrelvant.
What the comparable?
Federal only?
Local and state?
Include average VAT and user fees
How about SSI and other programs across nations?
Frazzled wrote:Medicare for Sr. citizens of poor income. Medicaid for everyone of poor income.
Raise the tax burden high enough, and everybody becomes "poor".
Which is the plan, right?
Yeah, raise the taxes high enough and we might actually start making as much per capita as Denmark or Germany. How awful that would be!
He also brought about change. Democrats are becoming Republicans and it looks like Mass. will have a Republican in TK's old seat.
And all he had to do was have absolutely nothing to do with the recession that cause that very change! Remember kids, vote republican when you want economic bubbles, and vote republican because democrats don't know how to handle the economy. I mean, the economy crashed then a Democrat got into office! He must have caused it! Vote red!
Democrats aren't jumping ship because of the crappy economy. They are jumping ship because Obamanation is disgracing them.
Of course being a liberal flunkie you'll see it like all other liberal flunkies do. "Oh it's Bush' fault the economy is bad and the Democrats that are jumping ship because of the pork barrel HCR Bill are only doing so because of the economy.
Yeah, because I'm sure Senators and governors who make 6 figure salaries are being hurt by the economy so bad that they feel the need to blame Obama and so are jumping ship.
Love how you attack me by bringing up a point I did not even introduce into the conversation. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are sub-par Shuma.
Democrats aren't jumping ship because of the crappy economy. They are jumping ship because Obamanation is disgracing them.
I see you know nothing about the local politics of Massachusetts then.
Of course being a liberal flunkie you'll see it like all other liberal flunkies do. "Oh it's Bush' fault the economy is bad and the Democrats that are jumping ship because of the pork barrel HCR Bill are only doing so because of the economy.
Mmm. Yes, eight years of mis applied stimulus, encouraging de regulation, and refusing to enforce trade deals because of a twisted sense of trickle down globalized economics. Absolutely nothing to do with it there!
Yeah, because I'm sure Senators and governors who make 6 figure salaries are being hurt by the economy so bad that they feel the need to blame Obama and so are jumping ship.
Senators like Arlen Specter!
Love how you attack me by bringing up a point I did not even introduce into the conversation. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are sub-par Shuma.
Well if you ever brought up a good point I wouldn't have too.
I brought up the point Dems are jumping ship because of Obamanation; from their own fething mouths.
What other point do I have to make. You brought up the economy thing, I didn't because Dems are NOT jumping ship because of the economy. They are jumping ship because the HCR Bill is a failure and Obama and associates are failures.
You know as well as I do if Obama was doing a semi-competent job in this country the Dems would be backing him, economy be damned.
ShumaGorath wrote:Funny then, how the most rapidly rising cost to the average american household is healthcare costs. The reformation of which being something you are trying every step of the way to prevent. Go ahead, keep taxes low, cut down health reform, and watch as healthcare continues to bloat and becomes 20% of gdp. Then 30%. Not that the economy could handle that much.
As we're dealing in hypotheticals, if the Dems had their way, healthcare would have grown even faster.
It's funny, but how is it that anybody can argue that government healthcare will magically "reform" and become super efficient. Have Mediare costs come down year over year? How about Medicaid? Or VA costs? Or military health? You'd think that, if the government really were reform-oriented, they'd be able to show us how this would work, given their volume. Particularly if you fold in the various state and local governments.
But maybe you're talking about similar cost savings and reform from things like Homeland Security? Or Transportation?
Go on, give me a concrete, multi-Billion dollar (Trillion-dollar) government program that exemplifies the sort of "reform" savings and efficiency that we'd get in healthcare.
jbunny wrote:Please enlighten me as to what taxes do not come from the governement?
Many would argue the insurance infrastructure we now have. We by law must participate in it to receive health care (or drive!) beyond simple emergency care and the rising cost business health care providers is one of the leading drivers preventing the rise of wages in jobs in America (wallmart for instance is quite pro health reform, and is the nations largest employer).
.
Not sure if I follow your logic on this one. Are you saying that since we are forced to have health care it's a tax?
If you are then you are wrong on a few things. We are not forced to have insurance YET. It might be wise to have, and I do, but you are not required to have any insurance. You will also be treated if you go to the hospital, even if you have no insurance or are not able to pay.
Under Obama'a plan we would be required to have insurance and that would be a tax. Under the propsed law if we do not buy insurance then we would be taxed ( correctly termed a "fine" by the IRS).
What about Auto insurance you say? Well first you are not required to have auto insurance. If you want to drive your car on public roads you are required to have insurance. You are not required or obligated to drive on public roads. Also those are state laws and not Federal laws.
People seems to forget that the Federal Government only has limited power according to the Constitution. If the Constitution does not state it then the Federal government does not have it.
Fateweaver wrote:I brought up the point Dems are jumping ship because of Obamanation; from their own fething mouths.
What other point do I have to make. You brought up the economy thing, I didn't because Dems are NOT jumping ship because of the economy. They are jumping ship because the HCR Bill is a failure and Obama and associates are failures.
You know as well as I do if Obama was doing a semi-competent job in this country the Dems would be backing him, economy be damned.
Comprende?
You are making the mistake of thinking the Democrats are a unified movement like the Republicans. They are not, and never were. They are a coalition of smaller interests gathered together for a variety of reasons. President Obama could be at 100% approval and still lose Democrats. This is why the Republicans have been so successful at opposing everything so far.
Fateweaver wrote:I brought up the point Dems are jumping ship because of Obamanation; from their own fething mouths.
What other point do I have to make. You brought up the economy thing, I didn't because Dems are NOT jumping ship because of the economy. They are jumping ship because the HCR Bill is a failure and Obama and associates are failures.
You know as well as I do if Obama was doing a semi-competent job in this country the Dems would be backing him, economy be damned.
"Respectfully, I disagree. to quote the Clinton administration "its the economy stupid." Obama was actually trailing until everything went to heck in a handbasket. In time honored US tradition, we fired the CEO and are trying a new CEO. If he doesn't turn the ship around we'll fire him to. The US electorate does not tolerate losers on the military or economic front. Its like clockwork."
Or maybe we can go with this post, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/258336.page#1008616;
"In 2 weeks my car gets repossessed and my auto insurance will get canceled. Again, tell me why this HCR Bill is so damned important to me. Wow so I can get coverage if I get swine flu. Big deal. Had I not lost my job I could pay cash out of my pocket for a 15 min visit to have Doc. Quacknuts tell me I have a flu, give me a shot and send me home."
You may or may not care what that guy had to say, but he seemed to think the economy was the important issue. Admittedly, his politics are all over the shop, the most important issue day by day is whatever allowed him to complain about Obama. Still, look him up if you want, he goes by the name fateweaver.
The problem I see for Obama is that no matter what he does it will never, ever match the soaring rhetoric that he blathered about in eloquent speeches before the election.
With McCain you knew you would get a guy who would knuckle down to business in the domestic front and smite foes in foreign policy.
Obama had to cure cancer, bring world peace, shower gold upon the masses and make GW have an across the board 10% price drop.
to make matters worse he got the Nobel Peace prize for doing absolutely nothing and recieved it as he ramped up troop numbers in the Middle east.
Problem for the republicans is that they need a candidate who not only rally the right but also appeal to the centre.
Obama should lose plenty of votes as the next election will not be as historic so fewer people should be voting.
"Respectfully, I disagree. to quote the Clinton administration "its the economy stupid." Obama was actually trailing until everything went to heck in a handbasket. In time honored US tradition, we fired the CEO and are trying a new CEO. If he doesn't turn the ship around we'll fire him to. The US electorate does not tolerate losers on the military or economic front. Its like clockwork."
This one was healthcare, but the economy was the underlying factor. The American people did not elect obama to convert hard left. they voted him because the economy sucked and he WAS NOT BUSH (as his administration constantly reminds). But if the economy was rocking along, yea I'd have put good money on the Democrat. 10% unemployment means the economy is Job #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The Obama adminstration forgot that, and let Congress craft a slew of left wing legislation that had nothing to do with the economy. Its now coming home to roost.
Just like Reagan they are going to get hammered in 2010. However, if the econmoy is still at 9-10% it will be like Clinton, not Reagan.
Frazzled wrote:This one was healthcare, but the economy was the underlying factor. The American people did not elect obama to convert hard left. they voted him because the economy sucked and he WAS NOT BUSH (as his administration constantly reminds). But if the economy was rocking along, yea I'd have put good money on the Democrat. 10% unemployment means the economy is Job #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The Obama adminstration forgot that, and let Congress craft a slew of left wing legislation that had nothing to do with the economy. Its now coming home to roost.
Just like Reagan they are going to get hammered in 2010. However, if the econmoy is still at 9-10% it will be like Clinton, not Reagan.
That sounds about the sum of it - the election was definitely a straw poll on healthcare*, with a heavy dose of the economy, all rounded off with Coakley's woeful performance.
I didn't post your comment on the economy to challenge you - I think you've been pretty consistant on this. But I stumbled across your post while I was looking for fateweaver's quote and thought I'd chuck it in there to see if having a respected rightwinger like yourself might make him reconsider. Then I found his own words saying the same thing... but funnily enough he hasn't returned to this thread.
*I would certainly disagree that the healthcare bill is leftwing, I can't say it clearly enough but it simply isn't. But the bill is certainly costing the Dems support - the very idea of Democrat healthcare reform has got the rightwing scared enough that they've already returned to the GOP despite the Bush years, while the actual bill is so watered down that the progressives aren't as inspired as they were when they though they were going to get meaningful reform.
*I would certainly disagree that the healthcare bill is leftwing, I can't say it clearly enough but it simply isn't. But the bill is certainly costing the Dems support - the very idea of Democrat healthcare reform has got the rightwing scared enough that they've already returned to the GOP despite the Bush years, while the actual bill is so watered down that the progressives aren't as inspired as they were when they though they were going to get meaningful reform.
I am not saying that the current abomination is leftwing either-sorry if that came across. I am saying that its an abomination all its own making. its not a healthcare reform bill-its a horror show of special interest givebacks to pharma, AARP, and other special interests, bribes to various districts, no tort reform, and a robin hood method that eviserates Medicare. As I said here or another thread, show me a CD style system that everyone has to be in (no system for haves and have nots) adjusted to the lessons learned from the Canadians or others, and you've my vote. i;ve been through the current systems and know they are barely functional. But I want to fix it, not create a monster even worse.
But that would take time, and we had to rush out a plan...
I think that's something worth pointing out. I think most people would agree something needs to be done about the healthcare system. It's a dysfunctional monstrosity. What it comes down to is a disagreement on the way it should be fixed. What's being proposed doesn't look like it's going to fix anything.
Blame the Left for Massachusetts
Democrats should be willing to seek common-ground reforms.Article Comments (329) more in Opinion »Email Print Save This ↓ More
By LANNY J. DAVIS
Liberal Democrats might attempt to spin the shocking victory of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts by claiming that the loss was a result of a poor campaign by Martha Coakley. Would that it were so. This was a defeat not of the messenger, but of the message—and the sooner progressive Democrats face up to that fact, the better.
It's the substance, stupid!
According to polls, fears about the Democrats' health-care proposal played a prominent role in Mr. Brown's victory yesterday. In the last several months, the minority congressional Republicans have dominated the message on health care—and stamped on the Democratic Party the perception that we stand for big government, higher taxes, and health insecurity when it comes to Medicare.
How is that possible? The Democrats have a simple message on health care that has still not really gotten through: If our bill passes, you never have to worry about getting, or losing, health insurance for the rest of your life. How is it that so few people have heard that message?
View Full Image
Associated Press
President Barack Obama
•Slideshow Then there were the two "deals" that put congressional Democrats in a worse light than the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere"—as impossible as that might have seemed—as an emblem of the special interest politics Barack Obama ran against. We Democrats had to explain to Massachusetts voters and other Americans why non-Nebraskans and nonunion members have to pay more taxes, while Nebraskans and union members get to pay less. Those two deals seem to have alienated most people across the political spectrum. That's not easy.
Somehow, in the last 12 months, we allowed the party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to morph into the party of George McGovern (or more accurately, his most ardent supporters) and Howard Dean, who called for the defeat of the Democratic health-care bill if it had neither a public option or Medicare buy-in. (He couldn't possibly have been speaking for the 31 million uninsured people in taking that all-or-nothing position.)
In 1996, Mr. Clinton was the first Democrat to win re-election since FDR—expanding the electoral map once again into western, southern, and sunbelt states. He did so by creating a new ideological hybrid for a still-progressive Democratic Party: balanced-budget fiscal conservatism, cultural moderation, and liberal social programs administered by a "lean and mean government." This New Democrat combination appealed to Ross Perot independents concerned about deficits, and also to traditional Republican suburbanites who were culturally moderate on issues like abortion and gay rights but opposed to high taxes and wasteful, big-government bureaucracy.
Then, in 2008, Barack Obama added something extra: a commitment to a "new politics" that transcended the "red" versus "blue" partisan divide. He explained this concept clearly in his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech and during his 2008 presidential campaign. It meant compromise, consensus and bipartisanship, even if that meant only incremental change. The purists on the left of the Democratic Party who demanded the "public option" or no bill at all apparently forgot that candidate Obama's health-care proposal did not include a public option; nor did it include a government mandate for everyone to either purchase insurance or pay a significant tax approximating the cost of that insurance—the "pay or play provision" in both the Senate and House bills.
Bottom line: We liberals need to reclaim the Democratic Party with the New Democrat positions of Bill Clinton and the New Politics/bipartisan aspirations of Barack Obama—a party that is willing to meet half-way with conservatives and Republicans even if that means only step-by-step reforms on health care and other issues that do not necessarily involve big-government solutions.
That's what Massachusetts Democrats and independent voters were telling national Democrats yesterday. The question isn't just, will we listen? The question is, will we stop listening to the strident, purist base of our party who seem to prefer defeat to winning elections and no change at all if they don't get all the change they want.
Stay tuned.
Mr. Davis, a Washington, D.C., attorney and a weekly columnist for "The Hill" newspaper, was special counsel to President Bill Clinton from 1996-98. He is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).
I sincerely doubt there will be any new movement on healthcare this generation. Politicians are a cowardly lot and none would be brave enough to actually vote for it now. Maybe in 2020.
Crimson Devil wrote:I sincerely doubt there will be any new movement on healthcare this generation. Politicians are a cowardly lot and none would be brave enough to actually vote for it now. Maybe in 2020.
The waiting game is dangerous considering the upward spiral of health care costs per capita and as part of GDP.
Agreed, but do you really think either party will risk tackling this issue again so soon? They'll talk about it, but they won't do anything until healthcare is around 25% GDP.
Crimson Devil wrote:I sincerely doubt there will be any new movement on healthcare this generation. Politicians are a cowardly lot and none would be brave enough to actually vote for it now. Maybe in 2020.
The waiting game is dangerous considering the upward spiral of health care costs per capita and as part of GDP.
At some point (and apparently, we're not even close to being there, yet), America will reassess healthcare in a rational way. The idea that the trend will continue unchecked isn't realistic - people just don't get that sick that often.
The problem is that healthcare isn't inherently rational. The question is how America will handle the hard choices, like terminal care. A LOT people will have to die, sooner rather than later, and expensive, heroic care just isn't realistic for everyone.
No, it's called being realistic. Right now my 89 year old great grandmother is in the hospital. She was just diagnosed with cancer. Her doctor, without even waiting for the test results to get back (late today or early tomorrow) began telling her she needs chemo. The woman, and I love her dearly, is already on 14 different medications. She's got congestive heart failure but has survived for over a decade with it. Quite frankly I question the doctor's sanity in recommending that a nearly 90 year old woman with multiple health issues under go chemo therapy without even seeing the test results to identify the specific type of cancer and get a better assessment. That's the modern US medical system.
I reiterate, I love my great grandmother but I have a hard time agreeing that she needs to undergo chemo. I honestly have my doubts that she'll even survive it given her dodgy health right now. She'd be putting herself through multiple bouts of chemo therapy when she's already in poor health for a chance to live a few more years. I don't like either option right now. On one hand the odds are good that the cancer will kill her within a year to two years tops. If the chemo is successful, and it might not be, she'll suffer through it for months along with months of recover, and still likely die within the next five years.
At some point you have to accept defeat and that death is a natural part of life. Rather than dragging it out and condemning her to months or even years in the hospital maybe it would be better for her to go home and enjoy what time and health she's got left without going through chemo and die with a little dignity.
It's an ugly unpleasant choice, especially for her most of all but that's the choice to be made and its already obvious what side the medical establishment is coming down on. It's the side to spend a huge amount of money to put her through a lot of agony and rob her of the joy in her life to try and stave off the reaper for another year or two. That's the attitude of modern medicine and frankly I don't think its the right one, but I also don't think that choice should belong to anyone but my grandmother.
Crimson Devil wrote:Are you applying to work on a Death Panel?
No, but we'll need them if we're going to contain health costs in any significant way.
AARP card? No long-term care for you! ____
@Tyyr: thanks for sharing. That's gotta be tough on all of you, and utmost respect to you and your family. I'm going to continue the example for just a bit.
Terminal care with chemo, etc is expensive. Rationally, if those treatment costs became low-cost end-of-life hospice care (e.g. morphine drip) it would free up money for FREE flu and H1N1 vaccinations for EVERYONE. Or simply FREE scheduled vaccinations for everyone - "childhood" disease epidemics could be completely eradicated across the nation. That's powerful stuff that costs money that we don't have, simply due to money being a finite resource that disproportionally (by its very nature) goes into heroic terminal care.
But it's a problem because it's hard to explain that managed health care costs are a zero-sum game. If we do national vaccinations, we cannot provide ANY Stage 3 Cancer care aside from end-of-life hospice, nor ANY Stage 2 for seniors. Not a happy message to send to the most selfish generation of seniors the world has ever seen (Boomer Seniors). Tough Love, indeed.
Better idea. No health care until you're thirty. At that point your genes have proven themselves a little more and you're worth taking care of. Too many young punks trying to walk on my yard.
But companies won't hire until they know exactly how much healthcare for their employees will cost them.
But the healthcare package keeps getting delayed.
Which means companies are still waiting to know how much employees will cost them before they hire any more.
Which means no jobs.
The American people need to realize that you need to finalize the healthcare issue first (whether or not there is a universal plan is irrelevent, the companies simply need to know what will happen) before they will consider hiring again.
The longer this drags out, the better it is, actually, for the Republicans, who want the Democrats to look bad to the American public. So it is actually in the Republican political interest to delay any healthcare reform for as long as possible until the November elections to keep the job pressure on the Democrats.
JohnHwangDD wrote:If we do national vaccinations, we cannot provide ANY Stage 3 Cancer care aside from end-of-life hospice, nor ANY Stage 2 for seniors. Not a happy message to send to the most selfish generation of seniors the world has ever seen (Boomer Seniors).
Call me selfish, but I'd kinda hate to get treatable stage II or III cancer and have to just watch it progress so that we can end chicken pox. Stages II and III aren't necessarily death sentences, you know.
People die from all sorts of causes, most of which are not very-expensive-to-sort-of-cure cancer, like strokes, heart attacks, dementia and
The full range of childhood vaccinations is available free to all infants. It's quite cheap to do and saves huge costs in preventable diseases later in life. Adult vaccinations are fairly cheap though not free, if you have a job.
JohnHwangDD wrote:If we do national vaccinations, we cannot provide ANY Stage 3 Cancer care aside from end-of-life hospice, nor ANY Stage 2 for seniors. Not a happy message to send to the most selfish generation of seniors the world has ever seen (Boomer Seniors).
Call me selfish, but I'd kinda hate to get treatable stage II or III cancer and have to just watch it progress so that we can end chicken pox. Stages II and III aren't necessarily death sentences, you know.
Stage II and Stage III Cancer can be death sentences for most people if you have to cover all the cost on your own and aren't independently wealthy. And that's the whole point of Death Panels - it's not treatment at any cost, it's weighing costs across the entire spectrum for everybody, and allocating a fixed pool of health dollars to specific, cost-effective courses of care. Expensive care simply isn't offered because there isn't money to give to everybody.
@KK, completely agreed. The cost of vaccination, vs care for full-blown whooping cough is a no-brainer.
Can we stop calling them death panels? It's not an accurate title and it carries a significant stigma.
Do they not (indirectly) choose who lives and who dies?
The only real way to cut cost to the customer is to cut the services - fewer expensive tests, fewer expensive services. Ultimately, it means that some people die sooner.
The sooner we face up to the fact that socialized medicine chooses who lives and who dies (based on the cost of treatment), the sooner we can move forward with health cost "reform". Pretending that there is any other outcome is disingenuous, as is any effort to try and sugar-coat things.
Don't insurance companies also choose who lives and who dies in practical terms?
Also a lot of criticism of 'socialised' medicine, neglects the fact that private options are still available for those who can afford them. In that respect, the choice isn't made for you.
Frazzled wrote:I am not saying that the current abomination is leftwing either-sorry if that came across. I am saying that its an abomination all its own making. its not a healthcare reform bill-its a horror show of special interest givebacks to pharma, AARP, and other special interests, bribes to various districts, no tort reform, and a robin hood method that eviserates Medicare. As I said here or another thread, show me a CD style system that everyone has to be in (no system for haves and have nots) adjusted to the lessons learned from the Canadians or others, and you've my vote. i;ve been through the current systems and know they are barely functional. But I want to fix it, not create a monster even worse.
But that would take time, and we had to rush out a plan...
Yeah, there's a lot in that bill that's just plain bad. Ultimately I think the bill would be better than the current situation as it would stop insurance companies rejecting people for pre-existing conditions. That said, it certainly isn't meaningful reform and won't address spiraling healthcare costs (though I suspect the only way to address that is to build a whole new model centred around a public system). Then you add in the retreat on generic drugs, the exemption for Nevada and all that, and I can certainly understand the mood of the electorate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Better idea. No health care until you're thirty. At that point your genes have proven themselves a little more and you're worth taking care of. Too many young punks trying to walk on my yard.
As a man who just turned thiry I wholly approve of this message.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:The only real way to cut cost to the customer is to cut the services - fewer expensive tests, fewer expensive services. Ultimately, it means that some people die sooner.
US healthcare has outrageous administration costs. Legal costs are an order of magnitude greater than anywhere else in the world (all those cases over whether a person is entitled to coverage or not add up big time). There is little use of generic drugs in the US system, which can be 10 times as cheap. Proper use of preventative care can save billions. There is also a basic market problem, where you have profit driven insurance companies that aren't selected by the consumer but by the consumer's employer - all the problems of a basic need provided by a private company with none of the benefits of market competition.
You certainly raise an important issue, we're finding more and more ways to extend life but these methods are increasingly expensive, so we are going to have to acknowledge at some point we simply can't do everything medically available to keep people alive. But that's a worldwide issue, while the terrible return on dollars invested is a US issue in particular.
Those "administration" costs are CYA legalities. If we simply absolve all providers of any risk of malpractice (even gross negligence and outright incompetence), along with denying all people the right to sue (except in the case of wilful misconduct with deliberately malicious intent), then *ALL* of those costs disappear, with or without socialized medicine.
More to the point, you need to stack the deck against the lawyers. Make it *crushingly* punitive to "gamble" with lawsuits, and expand the scope of legal, financially-sanctionable misconduct to the point at which people only sue in the most egregious of cases, rather than the sheer amount of BS currently clogging the courts. Give judges the leeway to completely drop the hammer on plaintiff counsel.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Those "administration" costs are CYA legalities.
Except they're not, not by a long way. The trail of paper in the US system is horrendous, as a bill moves from party to party, each with their own reasons to delay payment as long as possible. If you're not in finance it can be hard to understand how quickly AR/AP costs can mount up. Entering invoices, scheduling payment, recouping from third parties, engaging debt collectors... these are very expensive things.
Malpractice in the US is a problem, but if it is only a portion of the overblown admin costs.
If we simply absolve all providers of any risk of malpractice (even gross negligence and outright incompetence), along with denying all people the right to sue (except in the case of wilful misconduct with deliberately malicious intent), then *ALL* of those costs disappear, with or without socialized medicine.
More to the point, you need to stack the deck against the lawyers. Make it *crushingly* punitive to "gamble" with lawsuits, and expand the scope of legal, financially-sanctionable misconduct to the point at which people only sue in the most egregious of cases, rather than the sheer amount of BS currently clogging the courts. Give judges the leeway to completely drop the hammer on plaintiff counsel.
There's a lot to be said for reducing the costs of legal action by clarifying malpractice law and encouraging arbitration as a first step. There's a lot less to be said for saving costs by making doctor's immune to the consequences of their failings.
No, I understand how AP/AR accounting works. Or doesn't.
But that's a back office problem.
I still say that the thing that drives real time and cost is the extra stuff that creates more workon the AP/AR system. If you don't do a CAT scan in the first place, there's no CAT scan to bill, and no AP/AR cost for it.
Can we stop calling them death panels? It's not an accurate title and it carries a significant stigma.
If they decide how much money to allocate to cancer, then its a highly accurate term. Thats what healthcare rationing is.
Which is again why there should be no healtchare until you're thirty. Cleanse the genepool a little bit and prove you're worthy of healthcare. Its what the ROmans would have done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Don't insurance companies also choose who lives and who dies in practical terms?
Often times yep.
Also a lot of criticism of 'socialised' medicine, neglects the fact that private options are still available for those who can afford them. In that respect, the choice isn't made for you.
This I am against actually. I want Bill Gates and Soros to be forced to have the same health care as me and my family. Else there's crap care and then there's RIchboy care (translation what we have now).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:Those "administration" costs are CYA legalities. If we simply absolve all providers of any risk of malpractice (even gross negligence and outright incompetence), along with denying all people the right to sue (except in the case of wilful misconduct with deliberately malicious intent), then *ALL* of those costs disappear, with or without socialized medicine.
More to the point, you need to stack the deck against the lawyers. Make it *crushingly* punitive to "gamble" with lawsuits, and expand the scope of legal, financially-sanctionable misconduct to the point at which people only sue in the most egregious of cases, rather than the sheer amount of BS currently clogging the courts. Give judges the leeway to completely drop the hammer on plaintiff counsel.
The blood sucking lawyer has a point here. Texas has lower costs (and beaucoup more docs) in comparison because we limited malpractice awards.
Before or after they all got lead poisoning, split up the empire, then died to the mongolians?
If before then it's quite comparable, dying of poor health, experience an intense divide within the state, then losing badly to a resurgent asian superpower. Glad we're still emulating them.
The Allies fought the Huns in WWI, not the Romans.
Wrong again. They fought the Bosch. It wasn't a fight. We kicked the crap out of the Huns in football when our team came on the field. After we snapped the neck of the QB, we put like 47 points on the board.
Frazzled wrote:This I am against actually. I want Bill Gates and Soros to be forced to have the same health care as me and my family. Else there's crap care and then there's RIchboy care (translation what we have now).
Frazzled wrote:This I am against actually. I want Bill Gates and Soros to be forced to have the same health care as me and my family. Else there's crap care and then there's RIchboy care (translation what we have now).
The Huns may have been from Mongolia, but no one's sure. At any rate, wasn't it the Goths and Vandals who were hitting the Romans? (Running away from the Huns, granted.)
Orkeosaurus wrote:The Huns may have been from Mongolia, but no one's sure. At any rate, wasn't it the Goths and Vandals who were hitting the Romans? (Running away from the Huns, granted.)
Huns as well. Who do you think were pushing the Goths southwest?
Lots of other tribes towards the end as well Saxons, early Franks etc.
Rome was getting sucker punched by all sorts of villains and blackguards near the end. Though even after the collapse of the West, the glory of Rome lived on for another 1000 years in the form of the Byzantine Empire.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Rome was getting sucker punched by all sorts of villains and blackguards near the end. Though even after the collapse of the West, the glory of Rome lived on for another 1000 years in the form of the Byzantine Empire.
True that, even creating the largest church (which also was the largest cement dome) in Christendom. Still may be.
Frazzled wrote:True that, even creating the largest church (which also was the largest cement dome) in Christendom. Still may be.
Nah, not anymore. The Hagia Sophia may be huge, but it is a shadow of its former self. I can never feel good will towards the Turks because of what they have done to something so wonderful. Besides, St Peter's in Rome is now the largest church in Christendom.
Actually there's a church just down the way that took over the old Summit stadium where the Rockets used to play, and converted it. I wonder if thats bigger?
Frazzled wrote:True that, even creating the largest church (which also was the largest cement dome) in Christendom. Still may be.
Nah, not anymore. The Hagia Sophia may be huge, but it is a shadow of its former self. I can never feel good will towards the Turks because of what they have done to something so wonderful. Besides, St Peter's in Rome is now the largest church in Christendom.
Should they have left it as a dilapidated mess?
Meh that's unfair of me to say, I guess you're talking about the Islamic imagery.
But they hardly behaved like barbarians in Constantinople...
Henners91 wrote:Should they have left it as a dilapidated mess?
Some parts of Constantinople were undoubtedly dilapidated, brought on by the constant wars the muslims had waged against Byzantium, but the Hagia Sophia was not so.
Henners91 wrote:Meh that's unfair of me to say, I guess you're talking about the Islamic imagery.
They literally cast down the works and symbols of Christians and converted the church to a mosque. Such priceless artifacts and relics of Christianity as they destroyed, the world will never see again. Whats more, they have now turned the church into a museum of Turkish culture, and long refused to return it to the governance of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even more, they treat the Patriarch of Constantinople as a dog, and deny him his rightful authority within the Church. As you can tell, I have no fondness for the Turks...
JEB_Stuart wrote:They literally cast down the works and symbols of Christians and converted the church to a mosque. Such priceless artifacts and relics of Christianity as they destroyed, the world will never see again. Whats more, they have now turned the church into a museum of Turkish culture, and long refused to return it to the governance of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even more, they treat the Patriarch of Constantinople as a dog, and deny him his rightful authority within the Church. As you can tell, I have no fondness for the Turks...
If the situation had been reversed, I think invading Christians would have been a lot harsher to the building. As in burned to the ground. Think you're being a *little* overdramatic here.
jbunny wrote:What does the Roman empire have to do with the discussion on Obama?
Well Shuma said the Mongols attacked Rome, and it kind of went downhill after that. There's absolutely no proof that motorcycle gangs ever attacked the Capital of Italy. Thats just utter nonsense. Liechtenstein, yea but who hasn't wanted to open a can of whoop on Liechtenstein? Its like a right of passage.
the only individual he has denounced was a guy who actually appears to be on his left rather than his right? Well I'm guessing now so I'll shush...
it I don't know where to begin. Its basdic math that if you need 14 years of tax receipts to "balance" 10 years of spending then its not balanced. It costs more on an annual basis. Seriuosly the though thats fiscal responsibility is just utterly absolutely shocking. Thats flamy level playing with numbers to fit what you want.
.
