The Fall of Barack Obama: polls portend disaster in the midterm elections
The man who seized the White House by fomenting a mood of irrational expectation is now facing the bitter price exacted by reality. The reality is that there can be no "good" American president. It's an impossible hand to play. Obama is close to being finished.
The nation's first black president promised change at the precise moment no single man, even if endowed with the communicative powers of Franklin Roosevelt, the political mastery of Lyndon Johnson and the brazen agility of Bill Clinton, could turn the tide that has been carrying America to disaster for 30 years.
Americans this summer are frightened. Over 100,000 of them file for bankruptcy every month. Three million homeowners face foreclosure this year. Add them to the 2.8 million who were foreclosed in 2009, Obama's first year in office.
Nearly seven million have been without jobs in the last year for six months or longer. By the time you tot up the people who have given up looking for work, the people on part-time, the total is heading towards 20 million.
Fearful people are irrational. So are racists. Obama is the target of insane charges. A hefty percentage of Americans believe that he is a socialist, a charge as ludicrous as accusing the Archbishop of Canterbury of being a closet Druid. Obama reveres the capitalist system.
He admires the apex predators of Wall Street who showered his campaign treasury with millions of dollars. The frightful catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico stemmed directly from the green light he and his Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, gave to BP.
It is not Obama's fault that for 30 years America's policy, under Reagan, both Bushes and Bill Clinton, has been to export jobs permanently to the Third World. The jobs that Americans now desperately seek are no longer here in the Homeland and never will be. They're in China, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Indonesia.
No stimulus programme - giving money to cement contractors to fix potholes along the federal interstate highway system - is going to bring those jobs back. Highly trained tool and die workers, the aristocrats of the manufacturing sector, are flipping hamburgers – at best – for $7.50 an hour because US corporations sent their jobs to Guangzhou, with the approval of politicians flush with the money of the "free trade" lobby.
It is not Obama's fault that across 30 years more and more money has floated up to the apex of the social
More on Fall of Barack Obama: the polls portend disaster
pyramid till America is heading back to where it was in the 1880s, a nation of tramps and millionaires. It's not his fault that every tax break, every regulation, every judicial decision tilts towards business and the rich. That was the neo-liberal America conjured into malign vitality back in the mid 1970s.
But it is Obama's fault that he did not understand this, that always, from the get-go, he flattered Americans with paeans to their greatness, without adequate warning of the political and corporate corruption destroying America and the resistance he would face if he really fought against the prevailing arrangements. He offered them a free and easy pass to a better future, and now they see that the promise was empty.
It's Obama's fault too that, as a communicator, he cannot inspire and rally the nation from its fears. From his earliest years he has schooled himself not to be excitable, not to be an angry black man who would be alarming to his white friends at Harvard and his later corporate patrons. Self-control was his passport to the guardians of the system who were desperate to find a symbolic leader to restore America's credibility in the world after the disasters of the Bush era. He is too cool.
So now Americans in increasing numbers have lost confidence in him. For the first time, in the polls, negative assessments outnumber the positive. He no longer commands trust. His support is drifting down to 40 per cent. The straddle that allowed him to flatter corporate chieftains at the same time as blue-collar workers now seems like the most vapid opportunism. The casual campaign pledge to wipe out al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is now being cashed out in a disastrous campaign viewed with dismay by a majority of Americans.
The polls portend disaster. It now looks as though the Republicans may well recapture not only the House but conceivably the Senate. The public mood is so contrarian that, even though polls show that voters think the Democrats may well have better solutions on the economy than Republicans, they will vote against incumbent Democrats in the November midterm elections. They just want to throw the bums out.
Obama has sought out Bill Clinton to advise him in this desperate hour. If Clinton is frank he will remind Obama that his own hopes for a progressive first term were destroyed by the failure of his health reform in the spring of 1993. By August of that year he was importing a Republican, David Gergen, to run the White House.
Obama had his window of opportunity last year, when he could have made jobs and financial reform his prime objectives. That's what Americans hoped for. Mesmerised by economic advisers who were creatures of the banks, he instead plunged into the Sargasso sea of "health reform", wasted the better part of a year and ended up with something that pleases no one.
What can save Obama now? It's hard even to identify a straw he can grasp at. It's awfully early in the game to say it, but as Marlene Dietrich said to Orson Welles in Touch of Evil, "Your future is all used up."
Anyway, i read a sizeable article in the economist a month back with regards to intelligent Republican business leaders being very concerned about the rise of the right in America, and their despair at people like Sarah Palin. I would have predicted a crash for OB, because he KNEW he wouldnt be able to keep more than half his promises when he made them..
Myself, i prefered Clinton to Obama, and i have never been a big fan of his as he just wrote so many checks he knew he couldnt cash. She at least seemed to attempt to be slightly more honest. I was in the US with the missus for 3 months and saw all of the run up and the actual election, indeed, i went with my missus to vote (she went for an independant as we didnt like Obama and i couldnt get her to vote for Mcain after she saw his VP!) and i took a great interest in the whole thing. For example in the debates people would ask things about the war and Hilary would say "oh i want to bring the troops back but we need to speak to the generals on the ground" whilst Obama would just say "they will ALL be home! less taxes, more prosperity, better healthcare!" and everyone would go "woot!!" He just seemed to be all style and no substance, so i took a dislike to him.
Regardless, i prefer both to the alternative. I am naturally conservative in the UK, and i liked Mcain, but the whole nutty irrational Creationist Jesus no science or stem cells or abortion or God dictates my foreign policy 600 year old earth Noahs flood thing genuinely turns my stomach. And i fear for the future in the USA, i dislike Obama personally, but some of the attacks on him by the right in America have been downright ridiculous, and they seem mix their own foul jingositic clan style religious racism into the mix when they are slating him, calling him "the anti christ" and such.. it makes me genuinelly worried about the future in the US.
I say no, most Americans i know personally are nothing like Europeans seem to think they are like, and i know more than most. Plus all my missus family, i know maybe twenty of them personally, and none are hardcore republican, but thats California.
But the missus says yes (maybe why she lives here and wont go home!) she is far less optimistic about the future in the US and has convinced herself that more than half of her nation are irrational bible thumpers who say "oh im not racist BUT anti-christ socialist n*gger" etc etc
So, theres some smart folks on here, i figured id ask the question, do our American chums think that the republicans are going to walk to the next election?
Who is even likely to run? Do Americans really allow their religious views to affect their political ones? (I will vote for Huck cos he is a young earther like me!)
Will a majority of Americans actually vote for people like Huckerby and Palin or Mitt Romney?
What do you think the future and the next election holds?
Then proceeded to completely stuff them up, run them over budget, backflip on them or dump them altogether.
Man I hope the coalition wins the Oz election so we can have some competent politicians we don't like in instead of the bunch of clown shoes government we have now.
Fearful people are irrational. So are racists. Obama is the target of insane charges. A hefty percentage of Americans believe that he is a socialist, a charge as ludicrous as accusing the Archbishop of Canterbury of being a closet Druid. Obama reveres the capitalist system.
ROFL.
I found this article very strange... Why. So. Many. Short. Sentences.
PERIOD.
Yeah... I am not entirely sure where I stand at this point. I think that we very well may have the best guy for the job, personally. I never expected his farts to be magical, in fact I didn't vote at all. I lack faith in our congress to do THEIR jobs, and while I won't call it unfair to accuse Obama of promising too much, it definitely helps to remember that the dude is a politician, doing his job. IMHO, he appears to be doing it relatively well.
Will he get a second term? What kind of question is that at this point? At any rate, Bush had 8 years, and because of that I simply can't assume that Obama won't do so as well... again, it is frankly a strange question to ask right now, and this article reminded me of listening to radio talkshows. Substance? Yeah, not really.
Great flick, BTW. I doubt that Obama gives a rat's ass what pieces of cardboard have to say. Go hump some runes...
For the kind of sweeping changes that remove the rotten timbers from a decaying system...simply cannot be done in our country.
Go back to the 1930's when our country was at a tipping point in many ways; Communism and Fascism on the rise, strong personality-cults that elevated leaders into gods (for all intents and purposes), a populace looking for deliverance...these were the hallmarks for a revolution. FDR stepped into the breach and offered a radical solution to a problem (debate if it was successful in stopping the depression, but at least he tried).
Since then, our greatest crisis was in suppressing or accepting social change (Communism, civil rights, internationalism, ect) but America has not reached that dramatic of a tipping point that would allow Obama to make the changes he promised. Perhaps the only person since FDR that dramatically altered our nation was...well...hmm...Reagan? And he really didn't do too much (from a change standpoint).
He is making changes, but he is not breaking any "rules" in the process. He is using the system as the way to make his changes in the world.
When I was a kid I came to McDonalds, had an ice cream, then spent the next three hours in those jungle houses our whatever. Fat kids could never catch me.
Looking back, I remember one was simply stuck going down the slide. Not heavy, not going slowly. Just...stuck. Pretty sad now that I think about it.
Eh. I think he's a pretty good president. Except for canceling the NASA Constellation program. Although a new bill is going to allow for the construction of a heavy lift rocket to resume so I iz happeh.
Sorry, I have alot to say about this topic but I am forbidden to go into this by the Hatch Act and other Govt Policies guarding political dicussions by Govt Employees.
My impression is that Obama IS a socialist, but the President of the US is a friend of big business. That's why you see the dichotomy that so confuses people. His personal views are far, far to the left of the American mainstream, but when you're the President of the US, you've got a lot of history and tradition to deal with, and that forces your hand.
The thing about American Democrats, is that they know they're always winning. Slowly or quickly, they're always winning. They win a couple elections, get some majorities, pass a bunch of insane, unfunded social programs, and make promises they can't keep... Everyone gets angry at how screwed up it all is, but by the time they've voted the Democrats out, people are now dependant on the programs, and they're never going away. Then the Republicans, being politicians, and thus incompetent fools, diddle around for a while until they've spent up all their trust and credibility, and the Democrats return for another round of reckless bleeding heart irresponsibility.
Democrats thrive on creating dependants. Obama is doing exactly that, and he knows its hurting his party, but he also knows it will work out in the end. Just get the laws passed. Deal with the fallout later.
He should have focused on gettig the debt and the economy under control. Instead he focused on passing massive entitlement programs we can't afford at all, and tripling the deficit. This was a bad idea, but he's not stupid. He knows what he's doing.
The problem for Obama and Cameron is they are both stuck with massive deficits and they are both stuck fighting a war which is costing billions every year.
However, because of the sheer unpopularity of Brown, Cameron was in a unique position of being able to go into an election promising disaster rather than change and therefore doesn't have to deliver anything other than massive cuts in public services.
Given the economic climate, and the nature of the Republican establishment, I can't envision a scenario in which the deficit wouldn't have seen a massive increase during this Presidential term. Sure, the Republicans wouldn't have rolled out a health care plan, but it seems foolish to presume they wouldn't have made a huge show of cutting taxes and, most likely, pumping out stimulus bills.
Still, it seems ironic that an article that criticizes Obama for being, at want of a better term, "all style, and no subtance" would itself be "all style, and no substance". I would have at least expected some descriptive reference to the 'polls' beyond 'they portend disaster'.
I can't envision a scenario in which the deficit wouldn't have seen a massive increase during this Presidential term.
No question, there's an expectation of any politician running and hiding behind deficit spending...
My problem isn't the current deficit (though I do hate how massively Obama has increased it), my problem is that they're setting things in place that will cement that deficit for years to come. Health Care Reform hasn't even kicked in yet, but when it does, it will make balanced bugets an impossibility.
The financial reforms they just passed are also hilarious, given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two entities most responsible for the crisis are not mentioned. Instead, the bill is named after Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, the two lawmakers most directly responsible for the crisis.
Basically what I'm saying is that the Obama and his Democrat congress seem to have NO idea what needs to be done. That, or this is exactly what they intend, to destroy the mortgage industry and leave only their lending bodies intact... To destroy the health insurance industry, and take over those functions themselves...
That's why I think Obama is a socialist in a job where that's not a popular word. Everything he does is indicative of a desire to socialize industries not by official means, but instead by indirectly putting any private sector player out of business.
I can't envision a scenario in which the deficit wouldn't have seen a massive increase during this Presidential term.
No question, there's an expectation of any politician running and hiding behind deficit spending...
My problem isn't the current deficit (though I do hate how massively Obama has increased it), my problem is that they're setting things in place that will cement that deficit for years to come. Health Care Reform hasn't even kicked in yet, but when it does, it will make balanced bugets an impossibility.
The financial reforms they just passed are also hilarious, given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two entities most responsible for the crisis are not mentioned. Instead, the bill is named after Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, the two lawmakers most directly responsible for the crisis.
Basically what I'm saying is that the Obama and his Democrat congress seem to have NO idea what needs to be done. That, or this is exactly what they intend, to destroy the mortgage industry and leave only their lending bodies intact... To destroy the health insurance industry, and take over those functions themselves...
That's why I think Obama is a socialist in a job where that's not a popular word. Everything he does is indicative of a desire to socialize industries not by official means, but instead by indirectly putting any private sector player out of business.
ANd when was the last time we actually had a balanced budget with out a deficit, hell Clinton was just a few hundred million in surplus.
What does the bill do exactly that 'destroys the health care industry'
Phryxis wrote:
Basically what I'm saying is that the Obama and his Democrat congress seem to have NO idea what needs to be done. That, or this is exactly what they intend, to destroy the mortgage industry and leave only their lending bodies intact...
Truthfully, I don't think any current politician knows what needs to be done. Obviously Fannie and Freddie are huge problems, and the assets they currently hold represent a massive liability to both the federal government and the whole financial system, but what can be done with them? There have been attempts to shift the MSBs off their books, but the only significant buyers have been federal agencies as the assets are simply bad. It may simply be a case where the state has to find a way to manage the loss, rather than turn around a failing enterprise. If that's the case, then it becomes very difficult to include GSEs in any new legislation.
That said, I do think that the Dodd-Frank bill leaves too much power in the hands of regulators; if only because of the sheer breadth of what the bill considers to be a financial institution.
Phryxis wrote:
To destroy the health insurance industry, and take over those functions themselves...
Based on my reading of the health care bill I expect the insurance industry to see a massive surge in profit. The only component of the bill which really seems to hurt them is the elimination of the ability to deny coverage, and that does not itself preclude the use of other methods of turning a profit; premium increases being the most obvious method.
Phryxis wrote:
That's why I think Obama is a socialist in a job where that's not a popular word. Everything he does is indicative of a desire to socialize industries not by official means, but instead by indirectly putting any private sector player out of business.
I don't think the intention is to socialize any given industry. He had plenty of opportunities to do so with the health care bill, and he never took a particularly strong stand on any given element of it; even giving up the public option that he had originally voice at least limited support for. Similarly, the Dodd-Frank bill seems more like poorly timed, supply-side, Keynesian meddling than anything else.
He admires the apex predators of Wall Street who showered his campaign treasury with millions of dollars. The frightful catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico stemmed directly from the green light he and his Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, gave to BP.
Should I stop reading here? This is a pretty trashy article already, but this one's just plain factually incorrect to the point that a child could notice the plothole. I'll continue reading anyway.
No stimulus programme - giving money to cement contractors to fix potholes along the federal interstate highway system - is going to bring those jobs back. Highly trained tool and die workers, the aristocrats of the manufacturing sector, are flipping hamburgers – at best – for $7.50 an hour because US corporations sent their jobs to Guangzhou, with the approval of politicians flush with the money of the "free trade" lobby.
Yep, tool and die workers, people that automation or cheap labor directly replaces are being given away by previous presidents. This article certainly likes to blame the realities of capitalism at the feet of leaders that have truly little to do with it.
But it is Obama's fault that he did not understand this, that always, from the get-go, he flattered Americans with paeans to their greatness, without adequate warning of the political and corporate corruption destroying America and the resistance he would face if he really fought against the prevailing arrangements. He offered them a free and easy pass to a better future, and now they see that the promise was empty.
Yep, americans are seeing that the promise was empty because the black voodoo magic can't fix 130 years of evolving and ethereal "corrupt tradition" in two years.
So now Americans in increasing numbers have lost confidence in him. For the first time, in the polls, negative assessments outnumber the positive. He no longer commands trust. His support is drifting down to 40 per cent. The straddle that allowed him to flatter corporate chieftains at the same time as blue-collar workers now seems like the most vapid opportunism. The casual campaign pledge to wipe out al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is now being cashed out in a disastrous campaign viewed with dismay by a majority of Americans.
Afghanistan is still a hedge issue among most voters and trails significantly behind things like healthcare or the economy. People don't really give a damn about promises concerning Iraq or Afghanistan so long as they have the simplistic belief that things are "being taken care of" in some way. A majority of americans don't know or care about particulars of campaign pledges and a random sampling will more often than not show a significant amount of apathy concerning the mideast and the wars we're engaged in.
The polls portend disaster. It now looks as though the Republicans may well recapture not only the House but conceivably the Senate. The public mood is so contrarian that, even though polls show that voters think the Democrats may well have better solutions on the economy than Republicans, they will vote against incumbent Democrats in the November midterm elections. They just want to throw the bums out.
The polls are going to have to wait until the actual election season (which is two years away) when the conservatives inability to rule themselves out of a paper bag and absolute lack of economic sense is brought back into the light along with those same candidates that scared the voting block so much before (A palin presidential run would hand the presidency to Obama with a nice pink bow). Whoever wrote this article probably thinks he's a fething psychic, the presidential election is still a ways off and the licking Obama took during healthcare reform is fading from the fickle memories of the American gossip reader.
Obama had his window of opportunity last year, when he could have made jobs and financial reform his prime objectives. That's what Americans hoped for. Mesmerised by economic advisers who were creatures of the banks, he instead plunged into the Sargasso sea of "health reform", wasted the better part of a year and ended up with something that pleases no one.
The bill pleases no one because no one knows the bill. The magical power of the modern yellow news sphere has twisted a complex and sizeable document into a black morass of unintelligible faux debate aimed at sparking false controversy. The bill is universally superior to the previous system, yet so many people wish it hadn't happened. The metaphor of the sheep and the shepard has always been apt for the american public.
What can save Obama now? It's hard even to identify a straw he can grasp at. It's awfully early in the game to say it, but as Marlene Dietrich said to Orson Welles in Touch of Evil, "Your future is all used up."
He admires the apex predators of Wall Street who showered his campaign treasury with millions of dollars. The frightful catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico stemmed directly from the green light he and his Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, gave to BP.
Should I stop reading here? This is a pretty trashy article already, but this one's just plain factually incorrect to the point that a child could notice the plothole. I'll continue reading anyway.
No stimulus programme - giving money to cement contractors to fix potholes along the federal interstate highway system - is going to bring those jobs back. Highly trained tool and die workers, the aristocrats of the manufacturing sector, are flipping hamburgers – at best – for $7.50 an hour because US corporations sent their jobs to Guangzhou, with the approval of politicians flush with the money of the "free trade" lobby.
Yep, tool and die workers, people that automation or cheap labor directly replaces are being given away by previous presidents. This article certainly likes to blame the realities of capitalism at the feet of leaders that have truly little to do with it.
But it is Obama's fault that he did not understand this, that always, from the get-go, he flattered Americans with paeans to their greatness, without adequate warning of the political and corporate corruption destroying America and the resistance he would face if he really fought against the prevailing arrangements. He offered them a free and easy pass to a better future, and now they see that the promise was empty.
Yep, americans are seeing that the promise was empty because the black voodoo magic can't fix 130 years of evolving and ethereal "corrupt tradition" in two years.
So now Americans in increasing numbers have lost confidence in him. For the first time, in the polls, negative assessments outnumber the positive. He no longer commands trust. His support is drifting down to 40 per cent. The straddle that allowed him to flatter corporate chieftains at the same time as blue-collar workers now seems like the most vapid opportunism. The casual campaign pledge to wipe out al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is now being cashed out in a disastrous campaign viewed with dismay by a majority of Americans.
Afghanistan is still a hedge issue among most voters and trails significantly behind things like healthcare or the economy. People don't really give a damn about promises concerning Iraq or Afghanistan so long as they have the simplistic belief that things are "being taken care of" in some way. A majority of americans don't know or care about particulars of campaign pledges and a random sampling will more often than not show a significant amount of apathy concerning the mideast and the wars we're engaged in.
The polls portend disaster. It now looks as though the Republicans may well recapture not only the House but conceivably the Senate. The public mood is so contrarian that, even though polls show that voters think the Democrats may well have better solutions on the economy than Republicans, they will vote against incumbent Democrats in the November midterm elections. They just want to throw the bums out.
The polls are going to have to wait until the actual election season (which is two years away) when the conservatives inability to rule themselves out of a paper bag and absolute lack of economic sense is brought back into the light along with those same candidates that scared the voting block so much before (A palin presidential run would hand the presidency to Obama with a nice pink bow). Whoever wrote this article probably thinks he's a fething psychic, the presidential election is still a ways off and the licking Obama took during healthcare reform is fading from the fickle memories of the American gossip reader.
Obama had his window of opportunity last year, when he could have made jobs and financial reform his prime objectives. That's what Americans hoped for. Mesmerised by economic advisers who were creatures of the banks, he instead plunged into the Sargasso sea of "health reform", wasted the better part of a year and ended up with something that pleases no one.
The bill pleases no one because no one knows the bill. The magical power of the modern yellow news sphere has twisted a complex and sizeable document into a black morass of unintelligible faux debate aimed at sparking false controversy. The bill is universally superior to the previous system, yet so many people wish it hadn't happened. The metaphor of the sheep and the shepard has always been apt for the american public.
What can save Obama now? It's hard even to identify a straw he can grasp at. It's awfully early in the game to say it, but as Marlene Dietrich said to Orson Welles in Touch of Evil, "Your future is all used up."
Yeah. It is.
POST BETTER ARTICLES.
See above for the questions i posed Shuma, theres only 4 or 5.
mattyrm wrote:So, theres some smart folks on here, i figured id ask the question, do our American chums think that the republicans are going to walk to the next election?
Ummm... 'walk to the next election'. I will assume you mean 'lagging' behind the dems, but I am not entirely sure I understand this query.
Who is even likely to run? Do Americans really allow their religious views to affect their political ones? (I will vote for Huck cos he is a young earther like me!)
This is two questions.
A.) Do religious individuals (more directly, religious communities, and all that is involved in the politics behind that) vote with their ideologies in mind? What!? Really Mattyrm... of course they do, I don't even follow the premise of this question.
B.) Who is likely to run... I dunno, maybe Obama vs Palin. That would be an absolutely hilarious match-up. Seriously.
Will a majority of Americans actually vote for people like Huckerby and Palin or Mitt Romney?
Ask again in two years... or accept No/Yes as a reasonable answer.
What do you think the future and the next election holds?
Peanut butter.
Take note that Shuma answered your questions within his last post, although in a way that did not match the 1-4/5 question array you laid out. The answers are there, at least from Shuma's perspective.
do our American chums think that the republicans are going to walk to the next election?
No, despite what this article states Obama is still doing pretty well in the polls. Approval ratings are rarely a compass for the health of a presidency when they are within a few points of the 50 mark. At that point they generally reflect media attention and flash issues.
Who is even likely to run?
Huckabee? Romney probably. Maybe Palin, though I personally think she's happy making millions of dollars after having a disastrous half term in alaska by telling retards what to think on fox news. She's managed to pull a larry the cable guy maneuver, she's invented a fake person. I don't think she's that stupid, but I think she realizes her audience loves the act and will continue to take spots on air for so long as she can get handed ludicrous sums of money to act the fool. It's hard to pick new runners out of the rough, they have to make it through the conservative machine first, and the tea parties going to have someone thrown in there for fun.
Do Americans really allow their religious views to affect their political ones? (I will vote for Huck cos he is a young earther like me!)
Sometimes, but that process broke down after the bush presidency. Christian conservatism has fractured but is still a powerful force.
Will a majority of Americans actually vote for people like Huckerby and Palin or Mitt Romney?
It's possible, but neither one is particularly electable. Huckabees campaign in the last election was a joke and Romney was the master Gaffer and a giant tool. Neither has the chops to survive the harsh spotlight once they are put directly on the conservative pedestal in my opinion.
What do you think the future and the next election holds?
Barring an unforeseen disaster laid directly at Obamas feet (instead of an unforeseen disaster that most understand he didn't have much to do with) my assumption is that Obama will hold onto the presidency. I can't say with any certainty how the house or senate will go though. I don't know the local politics of every state in the union and presidential popularity doesn't hold as much sway as people like to believe in those elections.
Shuma wrote:Sometimes, but that process broke down after the bush presidency. Christian conservatism has fractured but is still a powerful force.
Powerful enough to override any fracturing. Obama would need to do an awful lot of kowtowing to the Christian community, in order to actually bring a substantial number of votes over to his side.
Shuma wrote:Sometimes, but that process broke down after the bush presidency. Christian conservatism has fractured but is still a powerful force.
Powerful enough to override any fracturing. Obama would need to do an awful lot of kowtowing to the Christian community, in order to actually bring a substantial number of votes over to his side.
Conservative christians vote conservative. Thats why conservative is in their name. The fracturing of their edifice effects their ability to evangelize for individual candidates at an organized national level. They are a force that is now less capable of effecting an overarching agenda and they often times sit in direct contrast to the tea party which vies for the same base but is significantly less focused and significantly more hostile and derisive.
See above for the questions i posed Shuma, theres only 4 or 5.
Im lleathered . .. i like your craic
I would like to punch the man that wrote that article in his mouth.
How much capability have they lost, and how far has that taken them from being what they once were?
If we are talking about 50 years, a serious gap can be seen, but within the last two presidencies, as far as I know, the gap is not particularly significant.
Wrexasaur wrote:How much capability have they lost, and how far has that taken them from being what they once were?
As I understand it there has been a great deal of division in the conservative Church with respect to the role of politics in evangelism. After the Bush Administration so deftly manipulated them, large swathes of the community decided to wipe their hands of politics insofar as faith is concerned.
Wrexasaur wrote:How much capability have they lost, and how far has that taken them from being what they once were?
If we are talking about 50 years, a serious gap can be seen, but within the last two presidencies, as far as I know, the gap is not particularly significant.
And yea: 'conservative christians'. My bad.
They haven't lost much capability financially, but at an organizational level they have "fractured" in the sense that a driving leadership between congregations is no longer largely present. The coalition still has the same driving forces but it's no longer the well oiled machine it became during the early bush presidency. Over the last four years and the bombastic end to the bush term walls started to go up between groups over issues like torture and immigration reform (or more accurately what to do with illegal immigrants) as well as the conflicting ideas of conservatism as the war party and Christianity as a religion of peace. The rise of the tea party has further exacerbated this as it's conflicting agenda runs counter to more christian ideals concerning how to handle prisoners or how to prosecute wars.
It's a simplistic answer to your question, but your question was a little bit open. We're discussing tens of thousands of loosely (or strongly) affiliated groups here.
There are a great deal of variables involved, and money is not tantamount to success.
Within the republican constituency, you can see a rather strong separation, but I don't feel that it carries over when it comes to dems vs. reps. The democratic base has a much stronger aversion to voting for candidates within their own party, as compared to simply not voting at all.
Reps appear to be more apt to vote rep, just because they are somewhat associated with the policies associated with their party. Dems tend to be all over the place, but that could be no more than my opinion, and reliance on data that could be faulty.
I think that the fault-lines are no where near as large as you are suggesting, within the republican party. Not to say that no gap exists, just that the gap is not as significant as it is made out to be.
dogma wrote:
Wrexasaur wrote:How much capability have they lost, and how far has that taken them from being what they once were?
As I understand it there has been a great deal of division in the conservative Church with respect to the role of politics in evangelism. After the Bush Administration so deftly manipulated them, large swathes of the community decided to wipe their hands of politics insofar as faith is concerned.
I wasn't aware of that. Could you link an article or something?
What does the bill do exactly that 'destroys the health care industry'
I didn't say it did. It destroys the health INSURANCE industry by requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions. This puts insurers in a position where they HAVE to cover people, and it puts people in a position where it makes no sense NOT to abuse that system.
People will not carry any insurance, then when they need it, they'll buy it, keep it until the problem is dealt with and drop it.
The only way around that problem is to simply FORCE people to pay for health insurance all the time. How do we do that? Through taxation.
Tada... No more private health insurance industry.
but what can be done with them?
EXACTLY.
That's how Democrats do things. They turn their policies into unsolvable problems, so that NOBODY can ever get rid of them.
This whole "bailout" system is a new approach to liberal overspending. It used to be that they'd at least make a show of asking for the money. Now they simply steer things into a catastrophe, get everyone terrified, and then spend the money they wanted to, making sure to kick something down to ACORN and all the other shady orgs that got them into power in the first place.
premium increases being the most obvious method.
As I said, you can't charge an increased premium against somebody who isn't paying for it.
I realize there are fines for people who aren't insured, but honestly, how long do you think those fines will outstrip the benefits to only paying for insurance when you need it?
That's the exact PLAN. They will levy small fines for now, and then when health insurer's premiums soar, because people are abusing the system, and uninsurable people HAVE to be insured, then whatever Democrat is in office will say "well, we're not going to increase the fine, we're friends of the little guy, not big business!" And then there will be a "crisis" and then they'll set up a Fannie/Freddie equivalent in the health insurance sector, run them at a massive loss, and then just underwrite that with taxpayer dollars (or debt).
Boom. Socialized industry. Liberals win again. Because they ALWAYS do.
He had plenty of opportunities to do so with the health care bill
It's "triangulation." He's just watching the polls, saying what he thinks works best to keep him popular. If the Republicans had a single person of any talent, Obama would have lost the 2012 election ALREADY. But they don't.
So, you can think that him backing off of things means he had a change of heart, but it doesn't. It means he saw how much he could get done above the table, and now the rest will get done out of sight. Democrat strategists have been saying this all along... They're going to get single payer.
I wasn't aware that competition for the insurance industry was such a bad thing...
It's a bad thing when that competition can run at a loss, and then simply take the difference out of taxpayer money. The free market doesn't work if it's not free. But, then, you can bet that the liberals will claim it was free, and pat themselves on the back for disproving free market efficiency.
You should also get into the habit of naming who you are quoting, Phryxis.
I've heard sound bytes, I don't have an actual source I can link. Honestly, I didn't think this was even a point of contention. Obama himself as said he wants single payer. I'm suggesting he still wants it, but takes what he can get. Honestly, does that even need to be supported? It's just a fact...
No. I was referring to your lack of reference for the quotes in this thread.
No worries man. You quote without naming who you are quoting, not that it matters all that much, it just gets confusing.
Phryxis wrote:It's a bad thing when that competition can run at a loss, and then simply take the difference out of taxpayer money. The free market doesn't work if it's not free. But, then, you can bet that the liberals will claim it was free, and pat themselves on the back for disproving free market efficiency.
I understand your point, and see where a problem could arise, and probably would.
Given my perspective, and all the crap my family has had to put up with... I just feel strongly enough that the problems that could arise, are not sufficient to cross the possibility of single-payer out entirely. I like the idea, and generally have a background that supports the implementation of government run insurance anyway.
I don't like jumping through hoops, and I would expect fewer hoops from the government, leading to better competition for Ins companies. I won't call them pigs, but I would get damn close.
Wait, how can a single payer system promote competition at all? It would cease to be the "single payer" if other institutions were offering the same service, would it not?
Phryxis wrote:
As I said, you can't charge an increased premium against somebody who isn't paying for it.
I realize there are fines for people who aren't insured, but honestly, how long do you think those fines will outstrip the benefits to only paying for insurance when you need it?
They don't outstrip them now, though I'm not entirely clear on what it means to prohibit 'preexisting exclusions' as the term is never (as far as I can recall) explicitly defined in the legislation. It could involve either the prohibition of excluding certain preexisting conditions from coverage, the prohibition of denying people coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions, or some combination of the two.
Phryxis wrote:
That's the exact PLAN. They will levy small fines for now, and then when health insurer's premiums soar, because people are abusing the system, and uninsurable people HAVE to be insured, then whatever Democrat is in office will say "well, we're not going to increase the fine, we're friends of the little guy, not big business!"
How many people do you think are uninsured because they were actually denied coverage, and not simply because they cannot afford it?
Phryxis wrote:
So, you can think that him backing off of things means he had a change of heart, but it doesn't. It means he saw how much he could get done above the table, and now the rest will get done out of sight. Democrat strategists have been saying this all along... They're going to get single payer.
Maybe, maybe not. Single payer isn't the only option floating around in Democratic circles.
Nobody answered my question regards potential nominess for the future, who do you guys envisage actually being able to challenge the dems?
My missus keeps saying Huckabee and Palin, but she is a bitter woman with a hearty dislike of her own country.
I honestly cant see that, they wouldnt stand a hope in hell would they? I think even the most devout tea partying fox news loving republican wouldnt vote for her, she has zero credibility and everyone knows she is an idiot, so who do you forsee launching a credible attempt for office?
It just seems like the cupboards a bit bare to me.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Wait, how can a single payer system promote competition at all? It would cease to be the "single payer" if other institutions were offering the same service, would it not?
I should have thought about that, but I didn't because I was in a rush to head out earlier.
'Public option' would have been an appropriate term, but I didn't think about it enough, and responded in kind.
At any rate, it depends on how loosely you are using the term 'single-payer', and some would consider medicare something along those lines. That was not was Phryxis was referring to, at least I assume so, and my response was a bit pointless overall. Oh well.
mattyrm wrote:I honestly cant see that, they wouldnt stand a hope in hell would they? I think even the most devout tea partying fox news loving republican wouldnt vote for her, she has zero credibility and everyone knows she is an idiot, so who do you forsee launching a credible attempt for office?
It just seems like the cupboards a bit bare to me.
Two years is a very long time, and things could change substantially. As it stands, there aren't many options from my perspective. That is likely to change to some degree over the coming years, but not necessarily in a positive direction overall.
Bobby Jindall has been floated out there as a potential runner for '12 but I don't think he's expressed any desire to run or even been rumored to be putting out feelers. He seems to be doing a good job in Louisianna from what admittedly little I read about him. There's also a small minority who want to see him run simply to remove the "race card" from the ballot as they see it.
Mitt Romney could have a shot if the economy remains in the tank. He's been one of the more vocal Republican front runners in his opposition to the stimulus bills and such. His business background will give him credibility with Republicans, and he seems to have some cross-party appeal as he was elected in Massachusetts as a republican (twice I believe).
I don't think Palin will run. I don't think she's as big an idiot as everyone here claims, and I definitely think the American media has hit some new lows in their treatment of her and her family, but it was effective and I think her name has significant baggage attached to it. McCain did his own election run a disservice by letting her hijack it.
I was referring to your lack of reference for the quotes in this thread.
Ok, then I'm confused, I don't recall directly quoting anybody... I had a few made up quotes, but so did a bunch of other posters. It was just in the form of what we imagine someody would say, or to emphasize that the word isn't reality, but what people call it. For example, governmnet spending is "responsible."
I would expect fewer hoops from the government
Oh jeez... Yeah, that's not even close to reality. You will NEVER see more hoops than you will when dealing with government.
Here's the thing...
Let's say you work for a small business, and know the owner personally. The company has a policy of not letting people enroll in the healh insurance plan until their 3rd month with the company, but you've got a baby due soon, so the owner pulls some strings and gets you on.
Now imagine you work for a very large corporation. Your boss's boss's boss has never even MET the CEO. If you want something to happen, it has to travel all the way up the chain of command. By the time it gets to anybody that can actually do anything about it, that person is too high ranking to concern themselves with such little things.
And what's the United States Government? It's the largest corporation in the world. I work for the Feds. Let me assure you, you've never seen so much hoop jumping in your LIFE. Sometimes I think that they've set up so many hoops that you spend 39 hours a week jumping through hoops to get 1 hour of actual work done.
They don't outstrip them now
Sure, but they haven't put the reforms into effect yet. And, honestly, I think that's the exact plan. Set a precedent for the fines, set an expectation... Then start driving premiums up until the fine is far less, and then act amazed at how greedy the insurance companies are.
How many people do you think are uninsured because they were actually denied coverage, and not simply because they cannot afford it?
That's not really relevant to my point. The real question is how many people will stop paying for coverage, knowing they can simply get it when they need it?
I'd think that basically ALL workers between the age of 21 and 30 would not bother to carry coverage. I know I spent that whole period of my working life paying into a pot that I never took out of. When you start having kids, it changes, but even then, you're still not taking out as much as you put in.
There are just SO many ways that this is going to hurt the system...
The one I keep harping on is that people will be encouraged not to carry insurance, and then buy it when they have an expensive medical condition.
The other is the simple fact that we just don't treat some people currently. Some folks may consider this a problem that has to be fixed, I certainly don't disagree that it sucks to let sick people get worse and worse, then give them some attention right before they die... But then again, if you simply can't AFFORD to do any better, pretending you can helps nobody. The medical community calls it "triage" and they didn't invent the concept because they're stinky mean meanies. It's because reality dosn't care how sorry we feel for sick people.
Mitt Romney could have a shot if the economy remains in the tank
At this early stage, I agree. Romney or Guiliani. I'd actually really hope it's Giuliani, I think he's the only name out there, in any party, that really has some accomplishments in his resume, and in a pretty bipartisan context.
I'm sure liberals will find a way to turn on him and pretend he didn't do a lot for NYC because the partisan rancor is so ridiculous.
jeez... Yeah, that's not even close to reality. You will NEVER see more hoops than you will when dealing with government.
Here's the thing...
Let's say you work for a small business, and know the owner personally. The company has a policy of not letting people enroll in the healh insurance plan until their 3rd month with the company, but you've got a baby due soon, so the owner pulls some strings and gets you on.
Now imagine you work for a very large corporation. Your boss's boss's boss has never even MET the CEO. If you want something to happen, it has to travel all the way up the chain of command. By the time it gets to anybody that can actually do anything about it, that person is too high ranking to concern themselves with such little things.
And what's the United States Government? It's the largest corporation in the world. I work for the Feds. Let me assure you, you've never seen so much hoop jumping in your LIFE. Sometimes I think that they've set up so many hoops that you spend 39 hours a week jumping through hoops to get 1 hour of actual work done.
The largest employer in America is WalMart, a business known for it's lack of benefits and harsh policies concerning unions or strike workers. In fact the majority of Americans work in large-scale companies. Your example would hold up better if it actually reflected real world conditions and didn't fall into a boilerplate government inefficiency textwall (as if the price fixed and bloated insurance agencies we had before were anything but inefficient, corrupt, and greedy).
Sure, but they haven't put the reforms into effect yet. And, honestly, I think that's the exact plan. Set a precedent for the fines, set an expectation... Then start driving premiums up until the fine is far less, and then act amazed at how greedy the insurance companies are.
Wasn't that what we were doing before? Insurance premiums had risen beyond inflation by an order of magnitude over the last 20 years while the operating costs of insurers had not.
That's not really relevant to my point. The real question is how many people will stop paying for coverage, knowing they can simply get it when they need it?
I'd think that basically ALL workers between the age of 21 and 30 would not bother to carry coverage. I know I spent that whole period of my working life paying into a pot that I never took out of. When you start having kids, it changes, but even then, you're still not taking out as much as you put in.
There are just SO many ways that this is going to hurt the system...
It's possible it could, though logically thinking that the majority of Americans will be willing to pay repetitious fines so that in the event that they need it they can jump through likely weeks of beuracratic hoops in order to get free fallback insurance is a bit silly, also your repeated implication that the previous system was sustainable and can somehow be "damaged" is incorrect.
The one I keep harping on is that people will be encouraged not to carry insurance, and then buy it when they have an expensive medical condition.
That is unless they want preventative care which was prohibitively expensive in our last system and which this bill is supposed to foster. I would think most people would want to catch the cancer early.
The other is the simple fact that we just don't treat some people currently. Some folks may consider this a problem that has to be fixed, I certainly don't disagree that it sucks to let sick people get worse and worse, then give them some attention right before they die... But then again, if you simply can't AFFORD to do any better, pretending you can helps nobody. The medical community calls it "triage" and they didn't invent the concept because they're stinky mean meanies. It's because reality dosn't care how sorry we feel for sick people.
Actually that exact process is within the bill. It was part of the whole death panel fiasco though it got pretty well distorted in the public perception.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
At this early stage, I agree. Romney or Guiliani. I'd actually really hope it's Giuliani, I think he's the only name out there, in any party, that really has some accomplishments in his resume, and in a pretty bipartisan context.
I'm sure liberals will find a way to turn on him and pretend he didn't do a lot for NYC because the partisan rancor is so ridiculous.
I still doubt Romneys chops as a candidate that makes it past primary. He speaks too losely. Guliani could work but I don't think he could afford to have a harsh spotlight shown on his past, I suspect quite a few things in his office aren't on the level.
But what do I know? What does the SBA know? Let's all defer to you, full time student with a Major in Nacissim and a Minor in Internet Snark.
Insurance premiums had risen beyond inflation by an order of magnitude over the last 20 years while the operating costs of insurers had not.
And that's why you see people pointing to tort reform as a better solution.
Why have those prices gone up? We're talking about multi-billion dollar industries here. It's not all going to executive compensation.
If there was a way to do it for less, somebody would be able to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Why is that no happening?
That is unless they want preventative care which was prohibitively expensive in our last system and which this bill is supposed to foster.
While there's no question that efficiencies are being missed in the areas of preventative care, as I already said, most people between 21 and 30 don't really need preventative care, and as little as they need it, their youthful optimism will convince them they need it even less than that.
A quick google suggests that the penalty for not carrying insurance is about $950 a year. That's not going to keep pace with insurance premiums. Not only that, but the Democrats can score a political win by refusing to increase it. Win/win situation for them.
I suspect quite a few things in his office aren't on the level.
It's all just a matter of spin. Obama has numerous things in his past that I would NEVER have believed a candidate could survive, but if the mainstream media want somebody, they'll get what they want.
Giuliani would need to show up with his conservative fiscal policy at a time when it looks good, and then play up his more liberal social policy without alienatig conservatives. You HAVE to win (or at least not lose) the mainstream media.
But what do I know? What does the SBA know? Let's all defer to you, full time student with a Major in Nacissim and a Minor in Internet Snark.
Small businesses continue to play a vital role in the economy of the United States. During the 1998- 2004 time period, small businesses produced half of private nonfarm GDP.2 It is worth noting that while the share of GDP attributable to small business has remained relatively stable over the years, a detailed look at the industry level reveals a more dynamic picture. While the small business share of many of the industries studied declined during this time period, strong growth in small business-dominated sectors helped the overall share remain at 50 percent. The small business share of GDP has held virtu- ally constant from 1998 through 2004 starting at 50.5 percent in 1998, reaching 49.9 percent in 2000 then rising to 50.7 percent in 2004. This represents sev- eral years of relative stability in the small business share since the mid-1980s.
You should check your own FAQ sources more often when posting older articles. Post crash, and even post fours years of the bush presidency after 2004 private small business jobs have been on the decline, sharply contracting in 2008 and having still not rebounded. They do not comprise a current majority.
And that's why you see people pointing to tort reform as a better solution.
Why have those prices gone up? We're talking about multi-billion dollar industries here. It's not all going to executive compensation.
If there was a way to do it for less, somebody would be able to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Why is that no happening?
Price fixing and non competition agreements between major firms increasing net profitability for all involved while under the blanket protection of previously precedented U.S. law making it incredibly difficult to establish a new competing firm. The ailments of the insurance and especially medical insurance agencies are fairly well documented at this point, it's one of the most visibly unethical business sectors in America.
While there's no question that efficiencies are being missed in the areas of preventative care, as I already said, most people between 21 and 30 don't really need preventative care, and as little as they need it, their youthful optimism will convince them they need it even less than that.
It can also be argued that they were most often uninsured under the previous system and that statistically it's unlikely that they would (as you said) require preventative care and would in a statistically relevant way only be insured via their employers or parents (the latter of which has been lengthened decreasing the probably period of insurancelessness). You're arguing for a lack of forethought in a problem that was endemic previous, the burden has simply been placed on the government instead of the private hospitals that would be taking the same hit. I also don't believe that it will be typical for the young to forgo insurance within the bills system, however thats to be seen. It's a living document and is sure to change many, many times. That alone makes it superior to what we had.
A quick google suggests that the penalty for not carrying insurance is about $950 a year. That's not going to keep pace with insurance premiums. Not only that, but the Democrats can score a political win by refusing to increase it. Win/win situation for them.
Are you assuming insurance premiums are going to rise? The common mode of thought is to assume that given a sizeable competitive entry into the market that they would fall to recover market share. Something they haven't had in 20 years.
It's all just a matter of spin. Obama has numerous things in his past that I would NEVER have believed a candidate could survive, but if the mainstream media want somebody, they'll get what they want.
The mainstream media doesn't have the infatuation with Guliani that it had with Obama, nor even Bush or Mccain. About the only crisis he has under his belt is 9/11 and some skillfull crime reduction policies, but he doesn't have the starpower to overcome a lack of point winning previous accomplishments (wheres the freedom tower?) and he's getting under quite a few peoples skins in both parties. He's very similar to the governator in the regard that he doesn't seem to care to please anyone outside of the NY electoral machine and his own direct constituents. It makes him sell on the news and popular in his state, but a target nationally.
Giuliani would need to show up with his conservative fiscal policy at a time when it looks good, and then play up his more liberal social policy without alienatig conservatives. You HAVE to win (or at least not lose) the mainstream media.
I'm just not entirely convinced he can pull that off and running outside of the two parties platforms isn't going to win him favors. It's how McCain lost. The conservative base wants to be energized by a snakeoil salesmen and the liberals are going to vote for Obeezy regardless. To get out the vote you can't really try to cater cross isle against an incumbent. The way you pull off elections against sitting presidents is by bringing out your own votes.
Don't be surprised if Obama gets re-elected. Especially if the House and Senate go GOP. All that needs to happen is for the economy to improve between now and 2012. Demographics are moving the Dems' way more every year, and the power of incumbency is very strong in Presidential elections.
Plus often all you need to do is stay out of your own way and let your opponents and critics stumble...
I was referring to your lack of reference for the quotes in this thread.
Ok, then I'm confused, I don't recall directly quoting anybody... I had a few made up quotes, but so did a bunch of other posters. It was just in the form of what we imagine someody would say, or to emphasize that the word isn't reality, but what people call it. For example, governmnet spending is "responsible."
I believe what he was referring to is the light gray quote box that's right above these letters; the one that you use to quote what other posters have said in this thread. As you can see, the box with your quote in it says "Phryxis wrote" in the corner; that's what Wrex was meaning by assigning names to the quotes (it helps other people keep track of who you're responding to).
Wrexasaur wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Wait, how can a single payer system promote competition at all? It would cease to be the "single payer" if other institutions were offering the same service, would it not?
I should have thought about that, but I didn't because I was in a rush to head out earlier.
'Public option' would have been an appropriate term, but I didn't think about it enough, and responded in kind.
At any rate, it depends on how loosely you are using the term 'single-payer', and some would consider medicare something along those lines. That was not was Phryxis was referring to, at least I assume so, and my response was a bit pointless overall. Oh well.
No worries, I had those mixed up with each other not too long ago, and I was concerned I'd already mixed them up again!
Price fixing and non competition agreements between major firms increasing net profitability for all involved while under the blanket protection of previously precedented U.S. law making it incredibly difficult to establish a new competing firm.
I won't bother rephrasing what this guy said, so I can look like I knew it off the top of my head:
Notice also the average costs of health insurance plans relative to the proposed penalty...
You're arguing for a lack of forethought in a problem that was endemic previous, the burden has simply been placed on the government instead of the private hospitals that would be taking the same hit.
I think I'm actually arguing that there IS forethought, and they fully intend to place the burder on the government as a stepping stone to fully absorbing the function of private insurers into government.
That said, I do like the idea of addressing problems with health costs at the appropriate level. By forcing hospitals to provide unpaid care, you create a false perception of what healthcare costs. If we're going to force hospitals to provide care, we should assure that they get paid for their services, and make the accounting accurate.
Are you assuming insurance premiums are going to rise?
Absolutely. Even if nobody games the system, simply forcing insurers to take on people with pre-existing conditions will drive up costs for everyone.
He's very similar to the governator in the regard that he doesn't seem to care to please anyone outside of the NY electoral machine and his own direct constituents.
That's why I like him. If you don't hold both parties in some level of contempt, then you're a crook or a liar.
The way you pull off elections against sitting presidents is by bringing out your own votes.
Against Obama, sure. There's simply too much media spin defending him, and, honestly, he's been dealt a tough hand, which I think people recognize. People won't dump him in huge numbers.
Somebody like Rush Limbaugh would argue that you rally your base, and forget the "moderates." He may be right, I don't know.
Don't be surprised if Obama gets re-elected.
I wouldnt be surprised AT ALL. I fully expect him to get re-elected. I fully expect the mainstream media to line up behind him and start damage control in late 2011, so he's fully cleaned up and ready to beat whatever buffoon the Republicans come up with.
I believe what he was referring to is the light gray quote box that's right above these letters
Ohhhhhh, I got it. Yeah, I just type notesboard markup version. Sorry.
Notice also the average costs of health insurance plans relative to the proposed penalty...
Yeah, a solid generation of price fixing and zero sum anticompetitiveness generally leads to poor bottom line direct profitability margins given administrative bloat. Line that up with executive pay and shareholder benefits and you get a different story however as insurance executives rank among some of the most commonly well paid (note, not highest paid but instead most commonly highly paid. The giants of the industry certainly absorb massive executive payments, but the average salaries of virtually the entire spectrum within upper level management are quite high). Insurance companies didn't need to grow they just needed to exist. That was more than enough for them.
I think I'm actually arguing that there IS forethought, and they fully intend to place the burder on the government as a stepping stone to fully absorbing the function of private insurers into government.
Thats certainly possible, and it's a move that I would personally support. However the bill as written and as spoken of by its authors don't actually imply that it's a procedural step in that direction. It would be a difficult next step to take given the heavy opposition such a move would inevitably encounter.
Absolutely. Even if nobody games the system, simply forcing insurers to take on people with pre-existing conditions will drive up costs for everyone.
Certainly possible, however I would wait to see how that actually ends up on the bottom line. Keep in mind the insurers can often make significant profits from the estates of those deceased after a lengthy hospital treatment and not being able to refuse someone is not the same as not being able to charge significant fees to ensure a new high risk customer.
That's why I like him. If you don't hold both parties in some level of contempt, then you're a crook or a liar.
I'm of the distinct opinion that Guliani is both a crook and a liar. When you do nothing but game the local political system the same could be said and the back rooms of new york are famous.
Against Obama, sure. There's simply too much media spin defending him, and, honestly, he's been dealt a tough hand, which I think people recognize. People won't dump him in huge numbers.
Somebody like Rush Limbaugh would argue that you rally your base, and forget the "moderates." He may be right, I don't know.
Worked for bush in his second term though post 9/11 bush was every bit the PR darling that Obama was during his presidential bid. Guy had starpower coming out of his ears.
So, theres some smart folks on here, i figured id ask the question, do our American chums think that the republicans are going to walk to the next election?
Who is even likely to run? Do Americans really allow their religious views to affect their political ones? (I will vote for Huck cos he is a young earther like me!)
The average American voter will vote for whatever candidate their party puts forward. ie, if palin runs for the republicans then the vast majority of people who call themselves republican will vote for her and they will do it with a smile.
So the majority of voters will vote depending on if the candidate has a R or D next to their name.
Some will also vote on one issue the best example of this is "pro life" vs "pro choice" I know people who vote on this one issue if a candidate says that roe v wade should be overturned then all the "pro lifers" will vote for them, same for goes for "pro choice" people voting for "pro choice" candidates.
So yes, Americans will let their religious views effect their political views, its less "I will vote for Huck cos he is a young earther like me!" and more "I will vote for huck because he won't allow abortions because life begins at conception, because that’s what my bible says" This is also Palins view and why people liked her.
It is truly better to be a radical Islamic cleric in America then it is to be an atheist. At least as a radical Islamic cleric people will respect your right to worship in your own way.
I could go on (for quite a bit) but talking about my countries political and social landscape makes me physically sick and depressed… sad isn’t it?
Yeah, a solid generation of price fixing and zero sum anticompetitiveness generally leads to poor bottom line direct profitability margins given administrative bloat.
So, if I understand you correctly, the reason that the health insurance industry is not making huge profits is that they are running inefficiently, paying a higher scaled salary across the boards, and thus not making a profit...
Why would shareholders tolerate this?
Why is this sort of price fixing present in this industry, but not in others?
Thats certainly possible, and it's a move that I would personally support.
I would also support a single payer option, except that I have zero faith in the government administering it honestly. Fannie and Freddie are the history for this sort of thing.
I'd like to see a sort of "core" offering provided by the government, and then "features" added on by private industry which combine with the core offering. So, basically, everyone would get regular checkups at public clinics... If they wanted upscale clinics with easier scheduling, whatever, they could get their own coverage.
I'm sure that would rapidly degenerate into the government/private sector arguing over who was responsible for what payment, and people waging class warfare over having to go to "government cheese" health clinics, but whatever...
not being able to refuse someone is not the same as not being able to charge significant fees to ensure a new high risk customer.
I was under the impression that was not an option. I mean, what insurer would deny coverage if they were allowed to charge a million dollars a month, or whatever? They could care less how much the treatments are, so long as they're less than what you're paying them.
though post 9/11 bush was every bit the PR darling that Obama was during his presidential bid. Guy had starpower coming out of his ears.
I'm not sure I ever saw that... The President of the United States had star power at that point in time, and that happened to be GWB. It was well before 2004 that the mainstream press had returned to demonizing virtually everything he did.
Phryxis wrote:
Sure, but they haven't put the reforms into effect yet. And, honestly, I think that's the exact plan. Set a precedent for the fines, set an expectation... Then start driving premiums up until the fine is far less, and then act amazed at how greedy the insurance companies are.
You misunderstand. The fines are far lower, at ~700 USD if I recall correctly, than any reasonable health insurance premium. For example, I pay nearly 2000 USD per year for my insurance plan.
Phryxis wrote:
That's not really relevant to my point. The real question is how many people will stop paying for coverage, knowing they can simply get it when they need it?
I think it is relevant insofar as we're discussing 'uninsurable' people, which is what I was commenting on.
Phryxis wrote:
I'd think that basically ALL workers between the age of 21 and 30 would not bother to carry coverage. I know I spent that whole period of my working life paying into a pot that I never took out of. When you start having kids, it changes, but even then, you're still not taking out as much as you put in.
Presently, the majority of insurance plans will cover the consequences of preexisting conditions. Its actually really hard to have a claim denied on that basis so long as coverage is approved.
My mom works in insurance, not that it makes me an expert, and I've heard nothing but praise singing as a result of this bill. That doesn't mean it will actually improve health care, but it certainly doesn't seem like it will kill the insurance industry; it simply isn't significant enough to break their bottom line.
Phryxis wrote:
The one I keep harping on is that people will be encouraged not to carry insurance, and then buy it when they have an expensive medical condition.
We still don't know the meaning of 'preexisting exclusion' so its not certain that will be the case.
Phryxis wrote:
The other is the simple fact that we just don't treat some people currently. Some folks may consider this a problem that has to be fixed, I certainly don't disagree that it sucks to let sick people get worse and worse, then give them some attention right before they die... But then again, if you simply can't AFFORD to do any better, pretending you can helps nobody. The medical community calls it "triage" and they didn't invent the concept because they're stinky mean meanies. It's because reality dosn't care how sorry we feel for sick people.
Sure, but other nations don't seem to have that issue, so why are we pretending that its impossible to offer universal coverage? Triage is about prioritization on the basis of need, not on the basis of payment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:ugh.. my fething head.
Nobody answered my question regards potential nominess for the future, who do you guys envisage actually being able to challenge the dems?
My missus keeps saying Huckabee and Palin, but she is a bitter woman with a hearty dislike of her own country.
Its still to early to be certain, but I doubt that Palin will run. Other than that, I would expect a Republican primary very similar to the last one, maybe adding Jindal.
mattyrm wrote:
I honestly cant see that, they wouldnt stand a hope in hell would they? I think even the most devout tea partying fox news loving republican wouldnt vote for her, she has zero credibility and everyone knows she is an idiot, so who do you forsee launching a credible attempt for office?
You give to much credit to the American public. Being a "good ol' gal" is almost always more important than being intelligent. Remember, the mob is stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:
I was under the impression that was not an option. I mean, what insurer would deny coverage if they were allowed to charge a million dollars a month, or whatever? They could care less how much the treatments are, so long as they're less than what you're paying them.
According to the current legislation it isn't a legal issue. I've heard talk of 'deductible windows' in the health insurance plans where the insured is essentially required to pay all health costs within the first 3 months of the policy. Brilliant idea really, I wish I had thought of it.
Thats certainly possible, and it's a move that I would personally support.
I would also support a single payer option, except that I have zero faith in the government administering it honestly. Fannie and Freddie are the history for this sort of thing.
I'd like to see a sort of "core" offering provided by the government, and then "features" added on by private industry which combine with the core offering. So, basically, everyone would get regular checkups at public clinics... If they wanted upscale clinics with easier scheduling, whatever, they could get their own coverage.
I'm sure that would rapidly degenerate into the government/private sector arguing over who was responsible for what payment, and people waging class warfare over having to go to "government cheese" health clinics, but whatever...
Wait, you just described england health care system to a tee
Everyone gets coverage but you always have the choice to go to private clinic for better care or quicker waits.
There once was a man caught in a flood. He saw a box that would support him so he he dragged it outside to the tree with a tire swing tied to it. He then grabbed a piece of wood to use as a paddle/pole and then hopped into it the box.
Now the as the water rose the man noticed that the box was not floating and surmized that the scrap wood and metal bits were weighing the box down. He hopped out of the box, hitting his head on the tire swing and, cursing, he emptied the box. When he was done the box was floating but bumping into the tire swing. Annoyed the man drug the box a few feet away and hopped in.
The box held his wieght but was unstable and leaking. The man tried to plug the holes but to no avail. He contented himself with bailing the water out while trying to keep the box stable. As he was doing this the box drifted over towards the tree and the tire swing knocked him over.
Cursing the d*mned tree and swing, he got back into the box that was now about a third full of water. He tried to bail the box out. but as it filled with water more leaks appeared. The water rushed in faster than he could bail it out and the box was soon floundering. The man was about to hop out and try to dump the box out in the now neck high water but his pants had become caught on a nil in the box. He tried to kick his way free of the box but failed and ended up drowning in his own back yard.
This cheesy bad story describes the U.S. and its people.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Man I hope the coalition wins the Oz election so we can have some competent politicians we don't like in instead of the bunch of clown shoes government we have now.
Umm, the alternative isn’t competence, it’s Abbott.
Phryxis wrote:My impression is that Obama IS a socialist, but the President of the US is a friend of big business. That's why you see the dichotomy that so confuses people. His personal views are far, far to the left of the American mainstream, but when you're the President of the US, you've got a lot of history and tradition to deal with, and that forces your hand.
I wouldn’t go anywhere near calling him a socialist (because unlike the US, over here that word has a meaning) but I do agree that his personal beliefs are more progressive than the realities of his office allow him to be. And I think it is fairly astute observation that that might be causing a significant portion of the dissatisfaction with his presidency.
The thing about American Democrats, is that they know they're always winning. Slowly or quickly, they're always winning. They win a couple elections, get some majorities, pass a bunch of insane, unfunded social programs, and make promises they can't keep... Everyone gets angry at how screwed up it all is, but by the time they've voted the Democrats out, people are now dependant on the programs, and they're never going away. Then the Republicans, being politicians, and thus incompetent fools, diddle around for a while until they've spent up all their trust and credibility, and the Democrats return for another round of reckless bleeding heart irresponsibility.
No, that’s a grand sweeping belief that has simply got nothing to do with the history of US politics.
It’s nonsense because you assume unfunded spending programs are a Democrat thing. It’s nonsense because you assume the GOP wastes it’s time in government while the DNC gets things done – US politics is more or less defined by the ineffectiveness of the Democrats. Its nonsense because you assume the history of the US in recent memory has been a move to the left – the last 20 years have been defined by neo-liberal policies and the dismantling of social systems.
I think you could be making some really interesting political observations, but you’ve got to give up on this left v right grand philosophy you keep falling into. It’s a line of thinking that will take you nowhere.
Phryxis wrote:It's a bad thing when that competition can run at a loss, and then simply take the difference out of taxpayer money. The free market doesn't work if it's not free. But, then, you can bet that the liberals will claim it was free, and pat themselves on the back for disproving free market efficiency.
Please reconcile this grand sweeping belief of yours with the Australian system, in which we have a public healthcare system that gives a basic level of free coverage and private insurers.
It is possible to have both, and your new system dosn't even offer the basic free care that ours does.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Wait, how can a single payer system promote competition at all? It would cease to be the "single payer" if other institutions were offering the same service, would it not?
I think that's a point of confusion between a single payer system and a government option existing alongside private options. The latter can promote competition by giving a base level of care that private insurers have to improve upon to attract customers (as opposed to being complete bastards and knowing it doesn't matter because people don't have an alternative).
sebster wrote:No, that’s a grand sweeping belief that has simply got nothing to do with the history of US politics.
It’s nonsense because you assume unfunded spending programs are a Democrat thing. It’s nonsense because you assume the GOP wastes it’s time in government while the DNC gets things done – US politics is more or less defined by the ineffectiveness of the Democrats. Its nonsense because you assume the history of the US in recent memory has been a move to the left – the last 20 years have been defined by neo-liberal policies and the dismantling of social systems.
I think you could be making some really interesting political observations, but you’ve got to give up on this left v right grand philosophy you keep falling into. It’s a line of thinking that will take you nowhere.
To the point of government spending and irresponsibility, I found this thread from XKCD a pretty interesting read.
For those that want a summary, it calculates the share of the national debt given to each president (post war) for the budgetary year they were responsible for.
Final Tally:
Truman -7.4%
Eisenhower 0.0%
Kennedy 0.4%
Johnson 0.0%
Nixon 0.9%
Ford 1.0%
Carter -1.1%
Regan 18.4%
GHWB 10.5%
Clinton 3.7%
GWB 37.4%
Obama 13.4%
Ahtman wrote:It's fall already? I thought it was still summer.
Lets get specific.
12 days left in July
15 days in August until the temperature breaks and the long slide to cooldown starts.
641 hours from point of writing.
In the words of the current flash in the pan club girl sing. TICK TOCK TICK TOCK
58 days until the end of Frazzled Hurricane Season, when storms typically steer north towards the East Coast.
Nobody answered my question regards potential nominess for the future, who do you guys envisage actually being able to challenge the dems?
My missus keeps saying Huckabee and Palin, but she is a bitter woman with a hearty dislike of her own country.
I honestly cant see that, they wouldnt stand a hope in hell would they? I think even the most devout tea partying fox news loving republican wouldnt vote for her, she has zero credibility and everyone knows she is an idiot, so who do you forsee launching a credible attempt for office?
It just seems like the cupboards a bit bare to me.
Please they are losers the Dems would love to see.
Real possibilities:
Potentials:
Mitt Romney (most likely)
Chris Christie
outliers:
Bobby Jindal
Perry
somoebody nobody heard of.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
In the words of the current flash in the pan club girl sing. TICK TOCK TICK TOCK
I was speaking to our lass about this, couldnt Mcain have got Condi to run as VP? She was a woman, and she was black, so ticked two boxes for the republicans with regards to bringing people into the party, but unlike Palin she was actually smart.
I think to underestimate the conservatism of the average Joe in the US is a mistake.
Obama rode in on dislike for the previous administration, nothing more. He's done enough in the last two years to ensure he gets booted by the same sentiment that swept him into office.
In my opinion focusing on the race for the President is a mistake. Other than being the figurehead CiC it's a beauty contest. The real race is the Congress. Old fethers like Kennedy and Byrd get into office and ride that horse for fifty or sixty years. They are the real power brokers (and the problem with the US political system IMHO).
There will be a major turnover with this November's election. I predict incumbents of both parties will lose their seats in massive numbers. People are slowly waking up to the fact that the same Congress expressing shock and dismay at the economy today is the one that steered this ship into the storm in the first place.
It certainly helps wake up the American voter when several Congressmen died this year and the news headline reads that they all served for over 40 years...
Actually the turnover has been pretty reasonable since 2008. I would expect similar levels of turnover in the House and a moderate amount in the Senate. Considering how jerrymandered districts are, its amazing any politician ever loses their seat.
Personally I am in a quandary on the governor side. Perry makes my butt itch, but is an ardent 2nd Amendment/CHLer.
White is different, but pushed that Houston is a sanctuary city nonsense, and much of Houston (city) didn't get cleaned up until fed money came in, whereas certain areas reshuffled their budgets and cleaned everything up in just a few weeks. Translation: they both suck. I wonder if Friedman is running again-as his motto stated "Kinky for Governor, why the hell not?"
The tea party ruined the republican's Pres chances, and a few of tihe senate seats. Charile Crist was on the fast rtrack ti the White house, with broad support. Now he will most likely win a independant seat in florida. Huckabee was a favorite of mines, but he has been going crazy right after he got his tv and radio show. The purity test the tea pardy has is a fail test. Moderates win, and BO ran as a moderate. But he's just another weak spined dem.
mattyrm wrote:I was speaking to our lass about this, couldnt Mcain have got Condi to run as VP? She was a woman, and she was black, so ticked two boxes for the republicans with regards to bringing people into the party, but unlike Palin she was actually smart.
Has she got no interest in the job or something?
As Frazz said, she was too close to Bush. She also had a very significant role in the prelude to war in Iraq. I think her political career, outside the role of Executive apparatchik, is essentially done.
inquisitor_bob wrote:
I'd go for Colin Powell if he would ever run. We need another General as President.
Powell is done with the GOP after his endorsement of Obama. But, if the Republicans don't win this time around, you may see Petraeus in 2016.
dogma wrote:As Frazz said, she was too close to Bush. She also had a very significant role in the prelude to war in Iraq. I think her political career, outside the role of Executive apparatchik, is essentially done.
There are a lot of talented people left in the wake of the Bush administration. A lot of talented people and Condoleeza Rice.
Seriously, she's a smart lady with an incredibly underwhelming record of analysis.
mattyrm wrote:I was speaking to our lass about this, couldnt Mcain have got Condi to run as VP? She was a woman, and she was black, so ticked two boxes for the republicans with regards to bringing people into the party, but unlike Palin she was actually smart.
Has she got no interest in the job or something?
Bushes war cabinet was/is cursed and her role in the WMD fiasco and the horrific execution of the Iraq war would have made her a constant target.
sebster wrote:
There are a lot of talented people left in the wake of the Bush administration. A lot of talented people and Condoleeza Rice.
Seriously, she's a smart lady with an incredibly underwhelming record of analysis.
No kidding. When I was in school I very often referenced Rice as an example of the sort of person to avoid emulating when considering national security. Bellicosity for its own sake is usually a bad idea.
"I had 2 terms, 5% unemployment, and a balanced budget. Miss me yet?"
I do. I really do.
IMO, Clinton would still be POTUS in the absence of term limits. He'd have mopped the floor with anyone and everyone since 2000.
Not saying he was really a great president, mind you. Greatness implies transformational qualities, and I don't think Clinton was that kind of president. However, he was a great campaigner.
dogma wrote:
mattyrm wrote:I was speaking to our lass about this, couldnt Mcain have got Condi to run as VP? She was a woman, and she was black, so ticked two boxes for the republicans with regards to bringing people into the party, but unlike Palin she was actually smart.
Has she got no interest in the job or something?
As Frazz said, she was too close to Bush. She also had a very significant role in the prelude to war in Iraq. I think her political career, outside the role of Executive apparatchik, is essentially done.
She's also more of a policy wonk than candidate material, IMO. Setting aside her less-than-stellar track record, she's almost completely lacking in charisma. She and Palin are mirror images (in the proper meaning for that term).
My prediction for 2010-2012 is that we'll see a replay of the 1994-1996 period. The GOP will make large gains in the midterms, then interpret that as a mandate for their agenda rather than a rejection of incumbents. So they'll overreach, and Obama will ride the following backlash to victory.
gorgon wrote:
My prediction for 2010-2012 is that we'll see a replay of the 1994-1996 period. The GOP will make large gains in the midterms, then interpret that as a mandate for their agenda rather than a rejection of incumbents. So they'll overreach, and Obama will ride the following backlash to victory.
That's about where I'm at as well. The only caveat, I think, is the Tea Party. If we see a large numbers of 3, or even 4, way races, then it will be much more difficult for the Republicans to claim seats. Of course, they'll still probably make significant gains, they just won't be quite as significant as they would have been otherwise.
I thought Condi did a decent job of cleaning up Rummies mess though. The first "surge" was her brainchild(along with generals in the field) and it did work.
As far as her stint as NSA I don't think you can blame her as much as you can Rummy and stankawizz.
Rice has always said she didn't want to run for high office anyway.
focusedfire wrote:This cheesy bad story describes the U.S. and its people.
Anyone care to translate the story and its moral?
That Americans talk too much?
Seriously man, it's Monday morning and that story needed to be more to the point...
This reply here is depressing on many levels, but most dissappointing in its failure to recognize that the Story was very much to the point. However the reply is, on some levels, ironically amusing in how it went for the jab about americans talking to much.
It’s nonsense because you assume unfunded spending programs are a Democrat thing.
That's not what I assume... There's no question, the Republicans have done deficit spending in the past. Reagan basically invented it, as American Presidents go.
The point I'm making, is that Democrats will do it to fund social welfare type projects which people then become addicted to, reliant upon, and unwilling to give up.
One of the big reason that the budget ran a surplus under Clinton (and a Republican Congress), was cuts to military spending. Military spending has always been a favorite of Republicans, and a major source of their deficits. It's also not something that people directly latch on to and rely on, so it's something that's much more easily cut.
Democrats tend to like programs that people whine about when they're passed (welfare queens, etc.), but then by the time there's the votes to repeal them, people have learned to depend on them.
Its nonsense because you assume the history of the US in recent memory has been a move to the left – the last 20 years have been defined by neo-liberal policies and the dismantling of social systems.
It may be that the oversimplied nature of the term "left" is to blame here...
For example, the size and scope of the US government has done nothing but increase for as long as it's existed. That may not be a surprise, it seems like most governments do this, but that's something that's often seen as a "left v right" issue.
In terms of social policy, the US has also done nothing but move left. Again, this may not be clasically "left" so much as "in the direction that Democrats have traditionally desired," but it's still going on. Abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, etc. etc. Not huge deals, but all ongoing wins for the "left" viewpoint.
It is possible to have both, and your new system dosn't even offer the basic free care that ours does.
I think I've already spoken to the idea of a tiered system, where the government provides a basic set of services and then private industry provides the "Cadillac" plans on top.
Honestly, I'm not really sure what you're asking... I think it's pretty obvious that to whatever extent the government provides a service, and makes itself immune to financial reality via taxpayer money, it's destroying the free market. If it restricts itself to only a part of a market, then it's not destroying the entire market, but it's still interfering.
IMO, Clinton would still be POTUS in the absence of term limits. He'd have mopped the floor with anyone and everyone since 2000.
It certainly does seem like he was a different generation than the current lightweights. I wonder if that isn't somewhat due to the new news cycle, and the new level of partisan blathering, where we're constantly deluged with vitriolic back and forth between talking heads.
It’s nonsense because you assume unfunded spending programs are a Democrat thing.
That's not what I assume... There's no question, the Republicans have done deficit spending in the past. Reagan basically invented it, as American Presidents go.
Fair enough, I didn’t really want to make it a ‘Republicans do it too issue’ because that isn’t really the point.
The point I'm making, is that Democrats will do it to fund social welfare type projects which people then become addicted to, reliant upon, and unwilling to give up.
And my point, quite simply, is that isn’t true. Social welfare programs are not addictive, properly administered they facilitate movement up the social ladder. On the other hand, poverty is a trap, the dysfunctions that come with long term unemployment or underemployment are passed on to future generations, and it is an extremely difficult trap to break out of.
This is a major reason that the US, which has considerably smaller social welfare programs compared to the rest of the developed world, has a much lower rate of social mobility. Simply put, the children of the poor are much more likely to be poor themselves, compared to elsewhere in the world, and a large cause of that comes from the differences in welfare programs.
The trick, of course, is the bit where I say ‘properly administered’. Building effective welfare programs that facilitate people out of the poverty trap is a difficult thing to do, and programs don’t always work (many of the programs aimed to get single mothers working for their welfare cheque are incredibly exploitative and result in the child growing up more or less by herself while the mother works a crap job and doesn’t actually expand her marketable skills at all).
One of the big reason that the budget ran a surplus under Clinton (and a Republican Congress), was cuts to military spending. Military spending has always been a favorite of Republicans, and a major source of their deficits. It's also not something that people directly latch on to and rely on, so it's something that's much more easily cut.
That’s not true. Clinton also made substantial cuts to social programs, and defence is a notoriously difficult thing to cut – all those R&D and manufacture contracts are focussed in individual states whose senators will fight tooth and nail to keep them. Look at the ‘controversy’ over Obama’s claimed defence budget cuts, what he actually did was reduce the growth of the defence budget – for all the wailing and gnashing it still grew more than 4%.
The real story of the Clinton surplus was the tax increase it was built around. Reagan believed in the Laffer Curve, the incredibly stupid idea that any tax cut would stimulate the economy so much that it would generate more income than it lost, and the result was big deficits. Clinton didn’t agree, and the result was surpluses. Bush felt the Laffer Curve wasn’t given a fair try, cut taxes again and the big deficits returned.
For example, the size and scope of the US government has done nothing but increase for as long as it's existed. That may not be a surprise, it seems like most governments do this, but that's something that's often seen as a "left v right" issue.
It’s not really either, to be honest. The growth in government really is the product of an increasingly interconnected world. In a simpler economic environment there isn’t that much of a place for government. But the modern world simply needs a lot more government to function, it needs the skilled workers that education provides, it needs the road and communications networks that government provides. It needs the capital markets that can only exist within government created frameworks. It needs the low transaction costs and consumer confidence that can only exist when a third party ensures product quality. It needs the contract law that can only exist when government courts enforce it.
One thing a lot of people fail to realise is how important government actually is to the modern free market system.
Honestly, I'm not really sure what you're asking... I think it's pretty obvious that to whatever extent the government provides a service, and makes itself immune to financial reality via taxpayer money, it's destroying the free market. If it restricts itself to only a part of a market, then it's not destroying the entire market, but it's still interfering.
I already explained how government can encourage competition. Right now in the US, you need to go with a private insurer, they can be obnoxious, money grubbing donkey-caves, but the alternative is to basically hope you don’t get sick. If government provides a basic level of care then the insurers will need to actually provide a decent option to encourage people to shift to them.
Simply put, the children of the poor are much more likely to be poor themselves, compared to elsewhere in the world, and a large cause of that comes from the differences in welfare programs.
A quick googling confirms that this is indeed a case made by statisticians. It's odd, given that one of the major points of pride in the American mythology is the degree of econimic mobility that is offered. The whole Oprah Winfrey story...
And, to be clear, we're talking about economic mobility. There's no real class system in the US, unless you have yet more facts I've never heard before.
It also makes statistical sense that countries that bring more families out of poverty will see a pronounced improvement in the ratio of children's income to parents, as the smaller the income, the easier it is to double, triple, etc.
Clinton also made substantial cuts to social programs, and defence is a notoriously difficult thing to cut – all those R&D and manufacture contracts are focussed in individual states whose senators will fight tooth and nail to keep them.
I don't mean to "blame" Clinton for either side of this... Both the cuts, and the surplus that resulted, were passed by a Republican Congress and a Democrat President. Probably the last time in our history that the American government accomplished anything of any real merit, and odd considering how bad the Republicans hated Clinton.
But, it is true, Clinton did cut the military extensively. Some cuts happened under GHWB, but after the end of the Cold War, some cuts were reasonable. Clinton's cuts led to a budget surplus. Have to respect that.
I'm not able to find the greatest documentation on it, but what I do see suggests that Clinton took the majority of the cuts he made out of military spending. Civillian programs saw big cuts too, but it appears to be a 60/40 sort of thing.
All that is whatever, though... While you're right that Congress will fight to keep military dollars in their district, it's still a second or third tier concern. It's a lot easier to sell "vote for me or you lose your welfare check" than it is to sell "vote for me, or the military base in the next town over will shut down, which will in turn reduce the local economy, and in 2-3 years will negatively impact your area, and possibly result in a loss in income, but possibly not."
As far as the tax cut/increase stuff goes, I find it endlessly painful that people can't just get it right, and set the taxation levels in such a fashion that revenue is maximized. I don't want to hear class warfare hogwash about "fair share" and "the rich get richer." Tax what it takes to maximize long term revenue. Find somebody who's smart enough to know what that is, and shut up about social justice.
Not that you're saying that, it's just that it's all the politicians say. Either the rich are raping the little guy, or the evil Democrats are destroying business with their hateful taxes. I don't want to hear emotion and hate, I want to hear financial information that explains why something will or will not work.
This I say even as the IRS wants another $1500 out of me. I think I'll write "For Bombs Only" in the note section of my check.
If government provides a basic level of care then the insurers will need to actually provide a decent option to encourage people to shift to them.
Sure, all of that is well and good, so long as the government program doesn't charge too little, lose money, and then takes taxpayer money to make up the difference. There's no competition there, the government program has the additional income vector of "pay us or we put you in jail." The insurance companies just sell insurance. This is so obvious that I know you know it, so I'm not clear where we're missing each other.
Phryxis wrote:Sure, all of that is well and good, so long as the government program doesn't charge too little, lose money, and then takes taxpayer money to make up the difference. There's no competition there, the government program has the additional income vector of "pay us or we put you in jail." The insurance companies just sell insurance.
A big problem is whether you actually get what you are paying for, and while you can suggest that it would be the same thing in the case of the government providing a baseline of insurance, it is a reality that insurance companies are genuinely ripping people off right now. Outright denying to provide service after payments have been made for years, then throwing people around an endless cycle of bs, just so they can get what they paid for in the first place.
It is downright outrageous what private insurance companies have gotten away with. No less that thieves in business suits, some of the time.
Most everything else in your post appeared very sensible, and I generally agree with it.
Well, he's right about the need for a public option (meant as a level competitor against other insurance providers) to derive all of its funding in the same way that private insurance companies do. If it can't compete without (exclusive) subsidies, then evidently there wasn't the opportunity for competition there was thought to be.
If a public option is meant to force the insurance industry into actually being competitive in the first place, and not to just be another insurance company, then it doesn't really matter. There could be problems with insurance companies refusing to compete, but I would not lay the blame directly on a public option in that case.
The competition is meant for the insurance industry, although you could say that no competition would be possible with a public option, and I would just have to disagree. Without assuming the government can't do anything right, ever, there isn't a massive case to be made against forcing competition into the private sector.
They just don't compete now. The assumption that a public option would undercut insurance companies as they are now, is basically the point in the first place.
Well.. yeah, the assumption is that insurance industries are running inefficiently now because they lack motivation to compete, and so a public option will force them back into competition through heightened efficiency. This all operates under the assumption that the public option can support itself while reducing costs, through the gains in efficiency.
If it isn't efficient enough to support itself, then it's not any better than the insurance companies. Yeah, people would benefit from the artificially lowered prices, but they would have to pay all of that back in the taxes used to support the program. You may as well just set up a single-payer system in this case, competition is no longer the goal, but rather a transfer of wealth to make insurance more affordable, or something along those lines.
The insurance companies can't run at a loss and finance the difference through taxes; the presence of a public option with the ability to do so won't spur them into competition, it will just cause them to shut down as they figure there's no way to compete. The only way operating at a loss would make sense from the standpoint of promoting competition would be to assume that the public option will be inherently inefficient, to such a point that subsidization will be required to merely put it on parity with private companies. (I don't see much evidence of this being the case, however, and if this was the case I think I would try some other plan to promote competition instead.)
it is a reality that insurance companies are genuinely ripping people off right now.
I would have to see more evidence of that to believe it.
We know they don't make especially huge profits, so the question is if they are indeed as inefficient as Shuma claims. I'm not suggesting he's wrong, but I'm not convinced he's right, either.
The fact is, healthcare is expensive. The premiums being charged don't strike me as particularly far out of sync with the costs.
Outright denying to provide service after payments have been made for years, then throwing people around an endless cycle of bs, just so they can get what they paid for in the first place.
This is a phenomenon I have (thankfully) no personal experience with.
Even if it's true that there is widespread conduct of this sort, they're STILL not making massive profits by doing it. They could be much more benificent in honoring claims, but then they'd have to charge even higher premiums to still make the 3% they make now.
"Results In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada."
As I understand this, they're talking about two seperate things... Health care overhead and health insurance overhead.
In the US, thats:
Health Care Overhead: 31%
Health Insurance Overhead: 11.7%
Daily Kos seems to think that the insurance companies are taking 31%, but as I understand it, what is actually being said is that 31% of every dollar given to a hospital goes to that hospitals administrative expenses.
SO, unless somebody can show me how I'm misreading, I'm gong with 11.7% as the overhead imposed by American private health insurance.
I will further assume that the large majority of the cost of running a health insurance company is salary. Let's go with 75%. That's probably high, but whatever.
So, 75% of 11.7% is 8.78%.
Let's further assume that these people are overpaid to the tune of a whopping 25%, which is, again, probably high.
8.78% times 25% is 2.2%
So, if we cut all the salaries of everyone in the health insurance industry by 25%, it would save us all of 2.2% on our premiums. Can this really be such a massive source of overcharging?
At the WORST the health insurer amounts for no more than 11.7% of our bill. This isn't the orders of magnitude that some people seem to think they're overcharging.
If anything, the numbers from the NEJM article point to improving efficiencies in the administration of the hospitals themselves. What could lead to increased administration costs?
Fear of lawsuits and compliance with regulations seem pretty likely to me.
Tort reform and simplification of legislation seem like more useful of an idea than demonizing insurance companies.
Phryxis wrote:A quick googling confirms that this is indeed a case made by statisticians. It's odd, given that one of the major points of pride in the American mythology is the degree of econimic mobility that is offered. The whole Oprah Winfrey story...
It is very poignant given the US belief as a land of opportunity. I suspect the myth has to a large extent destroyed itself. If a society believes itself to be a meritocracy where talent and hard work will create success regardless of background, then there is no incentive to build programs to counter the disadvantages of an impoverished background.
And, to be clear, we're talking about economic mobility. There's no real class system in the US, unless you have yet more facts I've never heard before.
Yeah, talking about economic classes, not social classes. Every country has economic classes like that, although for various cultural reasons they tend to think of them quite differently – I read somewhere that something like 90% of US citizens consider themselves middle class, which kind of defeats the point a bit.
It also makes statistical sense that countries that bring more families out of poverty will see a pronounced improvement in the ratio of children's income to parents, as the smaller the income, the easier it is to double, triple, etc.
Yes, but we’re talking about social mobility compared to countries with reasonably equal levels of income. Germany, France, the UK, Australia and so on.
I don't mean to "blame" Clinton for either side of this... Both the cuts, and the surplus that resulted, were passed by a Republican Congress and a Democrat President. Probably the last time in our history that the American government accomplished anything of any real merit, and odd considering how bad the Republicans hated Clinton.
I think Clinton’s fiscal successes goes a long way to explaining the GOP hatred for him. When your opponent achieves your party’s #1 platform that’s just infuriating.
But the big thing to remember is that Clinton also raised taxes on the rich. He did this with a Democratic majority, and passed the bill without a single Republican vote. It was a big part of the subsequent surpluses, just as Bush tax cuts were a big part of subsequent deficits.
The cuts were also hugely important, but those tax cuts really mattered as well.
All that is whatever, though... While you're right that Congress will fight to keep military dollars in their district, it's still a second or third tier concern. It's a lot easier to sell "vote for me or you lose your welfare check" than it is to sell "vote for me, or the military base in the next town over will shut down, which will in turn reduce the local economy, and in 2-3 years will negatively impact your area, and possibly result in a loss in income, but possibly not."
I think you’re overstating the value of the support of the poor (who typically vote in very small numbers) compared to the power of lobby groups and defence industry towns.
As far as the tax cut/increase stuff goes, I find it endlessly painful that people can't just get it right, and set the taxation levels in such a fashion that revenue is maximized. I don't want to hear class warfare hogwash about "fair share" and "the rich get richer." Tax what it takes to maximize long term revenue. Find somebody who's smart enough to know what that is, and shut up about social justice.
But there isn’t a single answer to tax structure that is absolutely correct. Even if there was a correct position on tax, that position will change as society changes. If economic conditions create a greater wealth disparity between the rich and poor you need to retool your tax levels towards the top, if economic conditions create a more equitable society then you can retool towards a flatter range of taxes.
And the point of maximum revenue is not a factor, quite simply, the idea that any society has tax rates anywhere near the point of maximum overall revenue is completely ludicrous. It’s funny that a trained economist like Laffer tried to convince us that was true, it’s tragic that people believed him.
Sure, all of that is well and good, so long as the government program doesn't charge too little, lose money, and then takes taxpayer money to make up the difference.
In Australia we charge nothing for the basic level of care, and there’s still sufficient incentive to purchase private healthcare. In part the incentive comes from a tax surcharge once you hit a decent income (I think it’s about $70k AUD). But mostly the incentive comes from the difference in the quality of care. You get your own room in private care, there’s very low waiting periods for elective procedures, you get greater choice in your doctors, that kind of thing.
it is a reality that insurance companies are genuinely ripping people off right now.
I would have to see more evidence of that to believe it.
We know they don't make especially huge profits, so the question is if they are indeed as inefficient as Shuma claims. I'm not suggesting he's wrong, but I'm not convinced he's right, either.
The fact is, healthcare is expensive. The premiums being charged don't strike me as particularly far out of sync with the costs.
I understand that healthcare is expensive, but if basic healthcare is not affordable for a person making 35k a year, that strikes me as no less than ludicrous. BASIC HEALTHCARE.
I don't claim to know all of the information behind this, and I would have to find articles and things of the sort to prove my point. I can and will do so, but I can't pull it out of my butt. Healthcare in the US is messy, and I do not support anything besides the government providing a baseline of care for every citizen, if they choose to take it. The cost of preventative care is minimal, especially when you begin to sort out problems with hospitals, as well as the insurance industry.
I'll try to get back to you quickly with some information that will hopefully answer your questions.
Outright denying to provide service after payments have been made for years, then throwing people around an endless cycle of bs, just so they can get what they paid for in the first place.
This is a phenomenon I have (thankfully) no personal experience with.
Even if it's true that there is widespread conduct of this sort, they're STILL not making massive profits by doing it. They could be much more benificent in honoring claims, but then they'd have to charge even higher premiums to still make the 3% they make now.
...
Fear of lawsuits and compliance with regulations seem pretty likely to me.
Tort reform and simplification of legislation seem like more useful of an idea than demonizing insurance companies.
Tort reform has been touted as a sort of magical bullet IMO, and from what articles I have read, and reports I have seen and heard, it simply doesn't amount to much at all. A bit of a distraction if you ask me.
Anyway, 3% seems like maximum lowballing, but I will admit that I could have been misled by the sources I was following. Give me a bit and I will get back to you with a bunch of articles on this. 30% versus 3%... we can compromise and call it 15%, but it doesn't matter when my point was about customers being screwed over in general by their healthcare providers. We are rated poorly in terms of healthcare, because the healthcare we get on average is just not that great, and quite expensive to boot.
I'll get back to you with that info, and you can scrutinize it as much as you want.
Phryxis wrote:The fact is, healthcare is expensive. The premiums being charged don't strike me as particularly far out of sync with the costs.
Healthcare is expensive, but US healthcare is twice as expensive as it is elsewhere in the world, while delivering middling to poor results. I agree with you that it isn’t just a case of private insurers ripping everyone off (they do make very healthy profits consistently but it doesn’t explain the 5 or 6% additional GDP US health costs compared to elsewhere in the world).
There is simply a lot of waste in the US system, largely because the incentives are all screwy.
And yeah, from what I remember private insurance in the US recorded around 10 to 12% overheards. This typically consisted of around 5% admin and the rest in legal fees.
In public systems the number floated between 2 and 5%.
So, if we cut all the salaries of everyone in the health insurance industry by 25%, it would save us all of 2.2% on our premiums. Can this really be such a massive source of overcharging?
The primary cause of the greater overheads in the US is legal costs, because private insurers have a profit motive in denying care. So they play the game and deny care, because some people accept that, others will settle for a portion of their claim, and the insurers will occasionally win a case in court. All those court fees are very expensive, but when the alternative is paying out for expensive medical treatment, it’s the rational, profit seeking position.
Tort reform and simplification of legislation seem like more useful of an idea than demonizing insurance companies.
Tort reform would produce a saving of around 2 or 3% - which is great but ultimately is just stuffing around the edges of a system that costs twice what it does elsewhere in the world. The problem is a structural one, the incentives are all screwed up and doctors make money from over-proscribing treatments, while the insurers make money from denying coverage.
The profit motive only works when the right actions are incentivised, and right now the US system doesn’t do that. Your system incentivises over treatment and non-coverage, simultaneously making it extremely expensive and failing to cover basic needs.
Your system incentivises over treatment and non-coverage, simultaneously making it extremely expensive and failing to cover basic needs.
There has been talk of applying metrics to the communities serviced by a given hospital, and using that as a basis for payment, etc.
I'm a huge fan of the application of metrics. I think we should require it of all politicians, require them to make material promises and admit it when they fail. The problem is that I'm sure they'd just screw those up as well, and end up doing ridiuclous crap just to hit numbers.
I'm also unclear on how unpaid care is accounted for in the US, vs. other countries.
If they determine that, say, childbirth costs twice as much in the US as in England, is that actually the cost? Or is it the cost for one American that paid, and one that just skipped on the bill?
Old, but still depressing. I am trying to find a legit graph that shows all of this information, I know I have seen several that summarize it very well.
Ironically, the thing that got Barack Obama in the White House is what will destroy his party. He promised 'change', and while he has made at least some helpful changes, things are still going down the gakker, though he had very little to do with it. Now people are dissapointed and angry that the economy is still tanking that they'll vote for anyone else, even the Republicans, who people KNOW will do even worse. But its still change, and change is good, right? :/
IMO, Clinton would still be POTUS in the absence of term limits. He'd have mopped the floor with anyone and everyone since 2000.
It certainly does seem like he was a different generation than the current lightweights. I wonder if that isn't somewhat due to the new news cycle, and the new level of partisan blathering, where we're constantly deluged with vitriolic back and forth between talking heads.
University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson has written a lot of this topic. I could say a lot here (one of my grad school profs studied under Jamieson) but basically she's highly critical of the media and how they frame political races. It's interesting stuff, and actually fairly infuriating when you start paying attention to how the media more or less ignores all substantive content in favor of the "horse race."
1) He's an incumbant - Carter and Bush1 notwithstanding, incumbants generally hold onto their seats.
2) He really hasn't screwed up badly yet, despite what the right has indicated.
3) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be stable. Iraq is maybe trending good, Afghan is maybe trending bad, but for the most part they're not occupying the forefront of American thoughts and worries.
4) The economy really isn't getting better, but it's more or less stable at the moment. Folks want him to fix it, but they're not blaming it on him either. He still has the option of doing a *real* infrastructure overhaul instead of the half-assed stimulus, but I'm guessing he's waiting until closer to election season to use that card.
5) The health care thing made a lot of noise but you've got pretty much as many people for it as against it so it'll be more or less neutral for him.
6) The only real catastrophe that's come across his desk so far is the BP spill, and BP is getting more blame than BO.
So while I have a hard time saying he's making things better, he's not really making it worse. If the economy starts to genuinely rebound in the next year or two (And I'm inclined to think that it will), he should have no problems taking credit and then breezing through the election in a walk. If the economy stagnates, he'll have a fight on his hands but I think he'll still probably squeak by. If the economy tanks and the Republicans field somebody competent, he would still have a fighting chance.
The Dems will probably lose at least one house (The Senate most likely), but that's the normal state of American politics - we don't like one party having conrol over the White House, Senate, and House because it gives them too much power.
The biggest problem Republicans have is their bench is so slim. There's a definite feeling that the right has been obstructionist. In a way, that's helped the president. "Things aren't getting better because I can't get the Republicans to cooperate." It's mostly nonsense of course, but it gives him a pretty good screen. It also severely hampers accomplishments that future republican candidates can put on their resume.
The current big names for 2012 are Mitt Romney (Mass Gov.) and and Sarah Palin (Whom I'm sure you know about). Both are long shots at best.
Mitt Romney is moderate enough that he'd actually stand a chance, but he's a Mormon, and that's a huge problem. We've had a whopping ONE Catholic president (JFK) and mormons are generally viewed as being...how can I put this without stepping on toes...even more different. Every couple of years we get a polygamy story or secret society extremist bit and that refreshes folks' memories about how different the mormon church is from other protestant sects. I know that's NOT the majority and I don't mean offense at all, but the mormon faith is still relatively new and I just don't think it's quite there yet with main-stream acceptance. I'm not positive the US would elect a Jewish or Jehova's Witness president either (Yes, I know Leiberman was nearly a VP), but that's my own pessimism about how open-minded the majority of Americans are. Religion unfortunately does play a very significant role in American elections, to the point where you pretty much have to pay some sort of lip-service to it to hope to be elected.
Palin is playing rockstar at the moment but I don't think anybody seriously considers her a viable candidate any more (ever?), ESPECIALLY since she called it quits 1/2 through her term as gov of Alaska.
Newt Gingrich's name has been thrown around, and I think he's actually plausible, but I suspect there's too much baggage from the Clinton years. I seem to remember he was tied up in some pretty good scandals, although the details escape me. He's getting pretty old though and that's a liability. I'd consider him a long shot, but he might be put up as a sacrificial candidate if things start breaking Baraks way (Similar to the way Dole was put against Clinton).
Bobby Jindahll (sp?) stuck his neck out into the national spotlight shortly after Obama's election and got smacked down pretty good if I recall. I think he's spending a bit of time regrouping, resume building, and maturing, but he'll probably be a good shot for 2016. I hope he kept things on the up-and-up for all the Katrina money/relief that poured in though (I can't help but think there are some serious skeletons in closets after that fiasco).
General Petreaus has a lot of good-will if he ever decides he wants to try to become president and will probably be unbeatable if Iraq and Afghanistan straighten out. Right now though national security isn't as important as the economy and neither war will be finished by 2012. We might see him 2016 or 2020 though.
Condi Rice isn't dead yet, but she still needs to let the Bush stink wear off. Again, if the wars in the Middle East straighten out her future gets brighter. Give it another 10 years and people will forget (See: Newt Gingrich).
It's very difficult to say anything because so much is going to depend on how things turn out and develop in the next year and a half. If the economy recovers and unemployment goes down even to 8% or so, Barack will probably be unbeatable. If the course is maintained he'll have a fight but still probably win out given that the Republicans don't seem to have a really strong candidate at the moment. If unemployment is 12% and Iraq enters a civil war while US troops are still over there, BO still has a fighting chance, although it will be uphill if there's a strong Republican found.
My prediction? BO wins comfortably against Mitt Romney and a yet to be named Hispanic VP.
I think it's certainly possible that BO could lose in a landslide if things go badly enough. Carter lost in a landslide to Reagan, for instance, thanks to a heap of domestic and foreign issues that really weren't his fault.
Then again -- supporting your point -- Reagan was a better-than-average candidate and that race was very close until things broke majorly for Reagan after the second debate just *one week* before the election.
Incumbents have huge power in presidential races just because people take them more seriously and are theremore more likely to err on the side of picking "the devil they know."
I know i dont know that much about US politics, although, more than most Europeans after spending so long over there! But, to me, well.. Mitt is a Mormon. Up until very recently a racist organisation, and still a fruity little club. I have disdain for all religious groups, but surely even 'other' American Christians have disdain for Mormons? I mean, they made a stink about Kennedy not being Christian enough! You really think People will vote for a mormon? Id have thought in America that would be like being an atheist. I.e Political suicide.
mattyrm wrote:I know i dont know that much about US politics, although, more than most Europeans after spending so long over there! But, to me, well.. Mitt is a Mormon. Up until very recently a racist organisation, and still a fruity little club. I have disdain for all religious groups, but surely even 'other' American Christians have disdain for Mormons? I mean, they made a stink about Kennedy not being Christian enough! You really think People will vote for a mormon? Id have thought in America that would be like being an atheist. I.e Political suicide.
More of "too Christian," IIRC. Most of the stink about Kennedy involved the problem of whether he'd do his duty as an American first, or put his obligation to obey the Pope first. He answered it pretty well in his "American first" speech, although it lost him a lot of Catholic votes.
The idea that catholics feel compelled to follow orders from the pope completely baffles me as someone raised as an irish catholic. We always figured he was just a funny ould fella with a silly hat and a magic chair. It's not like the parish priest has a remote control in the vestry he can use to take over parishoners when he needs to. I think american catholics might identify more strongly than irish catholics though, due to being something other than the mainstream. Things always get more intense when they're not mainstream.
IMO, being Mormon would cost him some votes but wouldn't be a major issue.
But that's not to say that there wouldn't be Dem-affiliated groups whispering nasty things to *try* to make it one. Obama's campaign would obviously publicly stay clear of it, but I'm sure there'd be PACs producing web sites and ads listing "10 Weird Facts about Mormons" and such.
IMO, Clinton would still be POTUS in the absence of term limits. He'd have mopped the floor with anyone and everyone since 2000.
It certainly does seem like he was a different generation than the current lightweights. I wonder if that isn't somewhat due to the new news cycle, and the new level of partisan blathering, where we're constantly deluged with vitriolic back and forth between talking heads.
University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson has written a lot of this topic. I could say a lot here (one of my grad school profs studied under Jamieson) but basically she's highly critical of the media and how they frame political races. It's interesting stuff, and actually fairly infuriating when you start paying attention to how the media more or less ignores all substantive content in favor of the "horse race."
To paraphrase de Tocqueville, "In a democracy, people get the kind of media they deserve."
The news cycle is determined by what the electorate want to watch.
Sounds like cable news, which is not a great source of information, and is usually no less than infotainment.
I try to read at least 3-4 stories from 2-3 sources per day, and I will watch some crapformation once or twice a day. To be honest, I am not entirely sure why I watch clips from cable news, other than to get some idea about how stories are being spun. There are a great deal of sources from which you can get your news, unfortunately cable news is easy to digest while being relatively uninformative. This leads to people that just want to relax and watch the news, getting much of their info from talking heads on cable news.
Crosstalk is actually a pretty decent show, you can catch it on RTs Youtube channel. Sometimes it is stupid (half an hour of people talking over each other... wow), but it doesn't compare to much of the stuff you can find on the leading American networks.
n0t_u wrote:So like Rudd?
I didn't read through it all but it just seemed like that from what I did read.
thats exactly what i was about to say, the exact same thing happened to K-rudd (being an australian living in england) im not surprised, they both promised the same things, both promising change especialy around economics and the wars in the middle east and both failing to deliver when the time came, i must say though that america is in ALOT more trouble than australia is and changing a president mid term isnt gonna help them in ANY way.
Phryxis wrote:There has been talk of applying metrics to the communities serviced by a given hospital, and using that as a basis for payment, etc.
I'm a huge fan of the application of metrics. I think we should require it of all politicians, require them to make material promises and admit it when they fail. The problem is that I'm sure they'd just screw those up as well, and end up doing ridiuclous crap just to hit numbers.
Yeah, I believe one element of the bill is to trial patient treatment paid for on the basis of metrics, instead of paying based on specific procedures performed. Like you say, it will depend on execution and the accuracy of those metrics.
I'm also unclear on how unpaid care is accounted for in the US, vs. other countries.
If they determine that, say, childbirth costs twice as much in the US as in England, is that actually the cost? Or is it the cost for one American that paid, and one that just skipped on the bill?
The big measure is the total cost of healthcare as a portion of GDP. In the US its around 16% of the total, in other developed countries it’s between 6 and 10%. And remember, your GDP per capita is higher than most other places, so as a dollar cost per citizen you’re looking at a crazy expensive system.
The exact cause driving that cost is hard to quantify exactly. In part it’s overheads, legal costs from denial of treatment strategies and also straight up paperwork – you have a whole lot of insurers and a whole lot of hospitals all running their own admin systems, all running bills and recoveries through the patient. In part it’s the cost of doctors (who have to be paid more to recover the much higher cost of medical schooling). In large part it’s the over-treatment.
And they don’t skip out on the bill as much as go bankrupt and lose their house.
gorgon wrote:Then again -- supporting your point -- Reagan was a better-than-average candidate and that race was very close until things broke majorly for Reagan after the second debate just *one week* before the election.
Yeah, there doesn’t appear to be anyone like Reagan among the current crop of Republicans. They’re all basically running on the playsheet that Reagan wrote, and it is an increasingly tired message.
And there was also the issue of Teddy Kennedy’s run against Carter causing fracture within the Democrats. While the poor economic circumstances are similar to Carter’s, the other factors aren’t there. Not at this point, anyway, two years is a long time.
mattyrm wrote:I know i dont know that much about US politics, although, more than most Europeans after spending so long over there! But, to me, well.. Mitt is a Mormon. Up until very recently a racist organisation, and still a fruity little club. I have disdain for all religious groups, but surely even 'other' American Christians have disdain for Mormons? I mean, they made a stink about Kennedy not being Christian enough! You really think People will vote for a mormon? Id have thought in America that would be like being an atheist. I.e Political suicide.
Kennedy still won. Obama was black (and a secret muslim!). The Mormon thing will cost him some votes among core Republican groups, but I don’t think it’d be a significant problem.
Romney’s problem is going to be his ability to attract votes outside of the core of Republicans. There would have to be a major protest movement for him to start picking up enough votes in swing states.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:There has been talk of applying metrics to the communities serviced by a given hospital, and using that as a basis for payment, etc.
I'm a huge fan of the application of metrics. I think we should require it of all politicians, require them to make material promises and admit it when they fail. The problem is that I'm sure they'd just screw those up as well, and end up doing ridiuclous crap just to hit numbers.
Yeah, I believe one element of the bill is to trial patient treatment paid for on the basis of metrics, instead of paying based on specific procedures performed. Like you say, it will depend on execution and the accuracy of those metrics.
I'm also unclear on how unpaid care is accounted for in the US, vs. other countries.
If they determine that, say, childbirth costs twice as much in the US as in England, is that actually the cost? Or is it the cost for one American that paid, and one that just skipped on the bill?
The big measure is the total cost of healthcare as a portion of GDP. In the US its around 16% of the total, in other developed countries it’s between 6 and 10%. And remember, your GDP per capita is higher than most other places, so as a dollar cost per citizen you’re looking at a crazy expensive system.
The exact cause driving that cost is hard to quantify exactly. In part it’s overheads, legal costs from denial of treatment strategies and also straight up paperwork – you have a whole lot of insurers and a whole lot of hospitals all running their own admin systems, all running bills and recoveries through the patient. In part it’s the cost of doctors (who have to be paid more to recover the much higher cost of medical schooling). In large part it’s the over-treatment.
And they don’t skip out on the bill as much as go bankrupt and lose their house.
gorgon wrote:Then again -- supporting your point -- Reagan was a better-than-average candidate and that race was very close until things broke majorly for Reagan after the second debate just *one week* before the election.
Yeah, there doesn’t appear to be anyone like Reagan among the current crop of Republicans. They’re all basically running on the playsheet that Reagan wrote, and it is an increasingly tired message.
And there was also the issue of Teddy Kennedy’s run against Carter causing fracture within the Democrats. While the poor economic circumstances are similar to Carter’s, the other factors aren’t there. Not at this point, anyway, two years is a long time.
mattyrm wrote:I know i dont know that much about US politics, although, more than most Europeans after spending so long over there! But, to me, well.. Mitt is a Mormon. Up until very recently a racist organisation, and still a fruity little club. I have disdain for all religious groups, but surely even 'other' American Christians have disdain for Mormons? I mean, they made a stink about Kennedy not being Christian enough! You really think People will vote for a mormon? Id have thought in America that would be like being an atheist. I.e Political suicide.
Kennedy still won. Obama was black (and a secret muslim!). The Mormon thing will cost him some votes among core Republican groups, but I don’t think it’d be a significant problem.
Romney’s problem is going to be his ability to attract votes outside of the core of Republicans. There would have to be a major protest movement for him to start picking up enough votes in swing states.
sebster wrote:
Kennedy still won. Obama was black (and a secret muslim!). The Mormon thing will cost him some votes among core Republican groups, but I don’t think it’d be a significant problem.
Romney’s problem is going to be his ability to attract votes outside of the core of Republicans. There would have to be a major protest movement for him to start picking up enough votes in swing states.
Kennedy had a tremendous amount of charisma and charm, Romney doesn't. Oh he's got some, but there's a difference between "CEO" charisma and "World Leader" charisma. Romney has the former, Kennedy had the latter, with BO being somewhere inbetween.
BO's mixed race heritage was a tremendous benefit to him. While there are elements in the country that under NO circumstance want to see any minority in power (Interestingly, some white supremecist groups game out in favor of BO, assuming that a black man as president would whip their followers into the frenzy required to start some sort of revolution), the majority felt it was time to have somebody other than a white male in charge. This means pretty much EVERY minority group lined up behind BO and gave them their support. Addionally, Barack was "White" enough not to scare away many potential voters who would have balked at putting somebody TOO different in power. Unfortunately for him, I suspect this was a one-time alignment, but his incumbancy will probably cancel out the voter apathy that will arise now that a bi-racial man in the White House isn't a new thing.
Romney being a Mormon is completely different. Nobody feels the Mormons are owed anything so he won't pick up votes on that front. Additionally, Mormons in this country are *not* viewed with complete acceptance, partially because of their own secrecy. Folks in Utah think they're the norm and that's fine. Utah is a very small state vote-wise. Folks in the midwest think they're on the weird side, and they don't vote for weird. I don't think it will necessarily drive folks to vote Democrat in droves, but I do think it will hamper fund-raising and enthusiasm for the Republicans. When folks aren't enthusiastic about their candidate and the incumbant isn't screwing things up royally, they stay home.
Romney's biggest problem though is he's basically John Kerry - a generic candidate who's main draw for votes is the D or R next to his name. He's got a *little* bit of juice because he's a businessman in a time period where the economy is the #1 worry, but he hasn't exactly turned things around in his own neck of the woods so there's no real reason to believe he can do so for the entire country. Oh, and he can mention he was involved in a successful Olympics.
Republicans need to field somebody with real accomplishments next to their name. Guilliani gets a nod because of 9/11. He's also doomed because he's got more skeletons in his closet than a serial killer with OCD due to NY politics. Which is a shame, because I actually think he'd do a pretty good job. Bobby Jindahll gets a nod because he's helped rebuild after Katrina and gets bonus points for being a minority. He's just not quite ripe yet and the republicans would be smart to grow him a little bit more and put some grey in his hair. 2016 I think really will be a sweet-spot for him (again, assuming he did everything on the up-and-up with the Katrina reconstruction money that poured in). General Petreaus gets the nod (IF the wars turn out ok) because the U.S. has tremendous respect for its troops at the moment and are sick of all the pseudo-military service that keeps being flouted.
You want a real darkhorse presidential candidate? Steven Chu, the secretary of energy (although he'll probably go Democrat so don't expect him until 2016 and even then only if he gets a taste for politics). He's a technocrat in what can arguably be considered the most important concern of our time. He has ties to Korea and China, the most important diplomatic region in world atm (Middle East is a black hole for diplomacy - a "diplomatic solution" is fine and dandy, but it'll be on their timetable and not ours). If he picks a *strong* military-oriented VP (I actually liked General Clark quite a bit - I don't understand why he didn't do better in the primaries) he could be a contender (IF he choses to do so, he very well may want to stay in the academic world), but that's more for Democrat I'm guessing than thOP's original question about Republicans.
sebster wrote:
Kennedy still won. Obama was black (and a secret muslim!). The Mormon thing will cost him some votes among core Republican groups, but I don’t think it’d be a significant problem.
Romney’s problem is going to be his ability to attract votes outside of the core of Republicans. There would have to be a major protest movement for him to start picking up enough votes in swing states.
Kennedy had a tremendous amount of charisma and charm, Romney doesn't. Oh he's got some, but there's a difference between "CEO" charisma and "World Leader" charisma. Romney has the former, Kennedy had the latter, with BO being somewhere inbetween.
BO's mixed race heritage was a tremendous benefit to him. While there are elements in the country that under NO circumstance want to see any minority in power (Interestingly, some white supremecist groups game out in favor of BO, assuming that a black man as president would whip their followers into the frenzy required to start some sort of revolution), the majority felt it was time to have somebody other than a white male in charge. This means pretty much EVERY minority group lined up behind BO and gave them their support. Addionally, Barack was "White" enough not to scare away many potential voters who would have balked at putting somebody TOO different in power. Unfortunately for him, I suspect this was a one-time alignment, but his incumbancy will probably cancel out the voter apathy that will arise now that a bi-racial man in the White House isn't a new thing.
Romney being a Mormon is completely different. Nobody feels the Mormons are owed anything so he won't pick up votes on that front. Additionally, Mormons in this country are *not* viewed with complete acceptance, partially because of their own secrecy. Folks in Utah think they're the norm and that's fine. Utah is a very small state vote-wise. Folks in the midwest think they're on the weird side, and they don't vote for weird. I don't think it will necessarily drive folks to vote Democrat in droves, but I do think it will hamper fund-raising and enthusiasm for the Republicans. When folks aren't enthusiastic about their candidate and the incumbant isn't screwing things up royally, they stay home.
Romney's biggest problem though is he's basically John Kerry - a generic candidate who's main draw for votes is the D or R next to his name. He's got a *little* bit of juice because he's a businessman in a time period where the economy is the #1 worry, but he hasn't exactly turned things around in his own neck of the woods so there's no real reason to believe he can do so for the entire country. Oh, and he can mention he was involved in a successful Olympics.
Republicans need to field somebody with real accomplishments next to their name. Guilliani gets a nod because of 9/11. He's also doomed because he's got more skeletons in his closet than a serial killer with OCD due to NY politics. Which is a shame, because I actually think he'd do a pretty good job. Bobby Jindahll gets a nod because he's helped rebuild after Katrina and gets bonus points for being a minority. He's just not quite ripe yet and the republicans would be smart to grow him a little bit more and put some grey in his hair. 2016 I think really will be a sweet-spot for him (again, assuming he did everything on the up-and-up with the Katrina reconstruction money that poured in). General Petreaus gets the nod (IF the wars turn out ok) because the U.S. has tremendous respect for its troops at the moment and are sick of all the pseudo-military service that keeps being flouted.
You want a real darkhorse presidential candidate? Steven Chu, the secretary of energy (although he'll probably go Democrat so don't expect him until 2016 and even then only if he gets a taste for politics). He's a technocrat in what can arguably be considered the most important concern of our time. He has ties to Korea and China, the most important diplomatic region in world atm (Middle East is a black hole for diplomacy - a "diplomatic solution" is fine and dandy, but it'll be on their timetable and not ours). If he picks a *strong* military-oriented VP (I actually liked General Clark quite a bit - I don't understand why he didn't do better in the primaries) he could be a contender (IF he choses to do so, he very well may want to stay in the academic world), but that's more for Democrat I'm guessing than thOP's original question about Republicans.
Chu sucks balls. H's knowledegeable about physics but has sucked royally with the BP crisis.
Frazzled wrote:
Chu sucks balls. H's knowledegeable about physics but has sucked royally with the BP crisis.
You might be right, but he's got plenty of time to make decisions to put things right so I wouldn't count him out yet. He COULD still screw up FEMA/Katrina style, but he's not nailed yet.
The BP spill is mostly an indication of the currently borked status we're at regarding off-shore drilling, but really energy exploitation in general. Nobody is going to blame Chu for the Deepwater's problems because it's looking like BP took shortcuts and Chu's only been around a year and a half or so. Most of the trouble Chu is going to have is the decidely ineffective response and reliance on BP itself to fix the problem. Chu could use this as an opporunity to put mechanisms/agencies/equipement into place that would greatly increase the amount of clout the U.S. gov has over oil companies (aside from the option to lease or not to lease, which is pretty political). I'm not saying something like that is right or wrong, but he IS in a position to make a power play IF he wants to. If he starts bemoaning the lack of infrastructure in place and how he's lacking to tools to do what needs to be done, he'll have the opportunity to have massive influence. Look at Homeland Security as a prototype.
Again, this assumes he WANTS the power and he's competent enough to put together something that will be (or at least appear) effective. It's a long shot, but it's a fun exercise in speculation.
Frazzled wrote:
Chu sucks balls. H's knowledegeable about physics but has sucked royally with the BP crisis.
You might be right, but he's got plenty of time to make decisions to put things right so I wouldn't count him out yet. He COULD still screw up FEMA/Katrina style, but he's not nailed yet.
He's already screwed up. Anyone at all related to the government response will get 0 votes from the Gulf Coast states. He's dead man walking if he tries. And thats BEFORE the horror show of what is called Cap and Trade.
