My Feelings on Healthcare
-
I figured I would just make a single thread rather than making new threads for every rant I feel the need to make about this whole healthcare discussion.
To start, I should clarify my opinions on the matter:
I don't support federal involvement in healthcare... at all. I think medicare and medicaid are totally unconstitutional as is any federal government intervention in healthcare.
However, there is pretty much no one in this entire country that would agree with my feelings on the matter. What fucking irritates me more than anything else is that stupid-ass GOP fanbois try to act like they have anything that is even remotely close to "conservative" opinions on the matter. You don't. Sorry. If you think the republican party is taking the correct stance for the correct reasons on this healthcare discussion, you aren't conservative. Stop saying you are; doing so is nothing less than an insult to conservatism and is a barrier to rational discourse.
So, this is basically how it breaks down:
Democrats have an issue on their side that actually helps people. Surely they don't want healthcare reform just because they think it is the right thing to do; they are politicians. But republicans have almost entirely ignored and even demonized the issue over the past half-century, so it is the democrat's issue. A successful healthcare reform would be the single greatest success in policy-making in the past few decades. But more than that, it would help more Americans than any piece of legislation in the history of this country.
The Republicans are assholes, and they tarnish the very principles of conservatism in their twisted, fucked up crusade to crush the legislation for absolutely no coherent reason other than to beat the democrats' efforts. They have chosen to actively support and most likely introduce disgusting lies in an effort to mobilize the most retarded Americans possible against a truly beneficial piece of legislation. They have convinced a huge number of fucking morons that the government will use its barely new-found regulatory powers under healthcare form to perform genocides on the elderly, force abortions on christian teenagers, and a number of other absolutely absurd, fucking nonsense lies.
Mind you, these are the EXACT FUCKING ARGUMENTS that the liberal-piece-of-shit Reagan perpetuated against Medicare. It didn't work, medicare passed, millions of senior citizens received the healthcare that they desperately needed, and the country didn't collapse into an uncontrollable orgy of muslim-homosexual-interracial (depending on the porn you watch)-abortion happy-elderly slaughtering godlessness. Now, the GOP tells the elderly that the government is going to steal their medicare coverage and fucking KILL them. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? How the FUCK do you support this party? Why are you proud to have the Republican name on your fucking voter registration? These scumbags should be run out of office and tarred and feathered, yet you fucking assholes re-elect them at a rate of 95%. Jesus fucking christ; stop being fucking terrible.
And the worst fucking part is, there are a few (a VERY tiny few) that have reasonable beefs with this healthcare discussion. They pose awesome questions like "how are we going to pay for this in 5, 10, 50 years?" They post questions like "how is the government NOT going to regulate medical care for people when people ask for unnecessary and expensive medical care?" These are good questions. Then you fuck it up. You fuck up the rational discourse because you're worried that your grandma is going to be executed. You fuck up a serious debate that could actually HELP people because you're selfish, party-loyal douchebags that care more about shutting down this black muslim homosexual socialist communist fascist marxist nazi liberal democrat's agenda so you can regain the presidency in three years than you do actually fucking helping people. You cunts.
Alright, I'm getting a little angry now (can you tell), so I will switch gears:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q7XH8lfGMc : This is fucking awesome. I'll save you all from the rant I want to do about the idiot "tea party" protesters, but I do want to point out how sweet it is to see a wall of police showing up to ensure that this guy's right to free speech is preserved. Obviously they're probably just concerned with his well-being, but in protecting him from physical harm, they managed to showcase the first amendment like it hasn't been showcased in a long time. Kudos to them and this man.
Finally (for now), why the hell do democrats think these protestors are really that big of a deal? At best there are a few dozen thousands of people at the largest nationwide events. The anti-war demonstrations brought hundreds of thousands of protestors and congress and the president just fucking ignored them. Do 40 million Americans a favor and ignore these fucking retards. -
If your overall point is that we need relevant debate then that is a noble ideal, but you aren't living up to it yourself by totally trashing a whole group of people that can contribute to that debate (even if you think their contributions are useless).
Are the creators of the plan going to respond to your legitimate concerns unless your representative, as a public figure, asks them about it? If your useless Representative does not ask the questions you want and you ignore him in order to get the few people in power with your same concerns to bring them up, then you are passing up a chance to engage in a debate with numbers on your side. Ron Paul can't stop a single piece of legislation on his own. Useless Republicans in a coalition full of people with useless reasons can.
Okay, so you are going to be true to your beliefs and only ask the questions that mean anything to you. Cool. So you don't stop a single thing you disagree with for legitimate reasons just because you will not align yourself with people who have useless reasons. Lets watch this shitty Act pass and that shitty Act pass because the opposition party is a piece of shit. Lets watch the country get further away from small government because the party that wants to prevent 1/2 of the increases in government does not want to prevent every single increase in government (and yes the Democrats in the opposition role also wanted to prevent some of the increases in government- like when they asked questions about the Patriot Act).
I guess it makes sense if you want the country to run itself into the ground sooner rather than later so that it can be built back up in the proper way and without halfass ideals as the base. I just read Atlas Shrugged and it made that point beautifully, but I am not sure how I feel about that tactic. -
QUOTE (Governor @ Sep 14 2009, 12:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Now, the GOP tells the elderly that the government is going to steal their medicare coverage and fucking KILL them.
I thought it was the Fox/Limbaugh/Hannity "news" circuit that spread this. -
QUOTE (Jedd @ Sep 14 2009, 08:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I thought it was the Fox/Limbaugh/Hannity "news" circuit that spread this.
hummmm... I wonder where they might have heard this point before being told to hyperbolize and spread it in order to drum up ratings.QUOTEThey have convinced a huge number of fucking morons that the government will use its barely new-found regulatory powers under healthcare form to perform genocides on the elderly
You gotta love the party that argues that government can't be trusted to do anything right as a way to get back into power in ... the government.
You don't hire the plumber who broke your shit and says "aw but that's just the way plumbing works. Here's my card, call me again some time."QUOTEwhy the hell do democrats think these protestors are really that big of a deal?
A big deal? Naw. Fucking rude? Shit yes. Completely disruptive to sensible democratic processes? Absolutely. Empowering to our dumb as shit elected officials to the point that one of them pulled that kind of shit in a CONGRESSIONAL ADDRESS? Yeah.
But a big deal? No. They just poisoned the health care debate in this country for the third time and will make it so unappealing to pursue a public option that it's basically already dead. The party itself is concerned because they are (for whatever reason) in a politically inferior position, regardless of who has the majority. Say what you will about the GOP... they sure know how to control a debate.
1949
1993
2009
If the GOP is really serious about their current platform of "Gov't can do NO right!" I suggest they put their money where their mouth is and drop out of politics.
Eve:
He's being pretty objective about "The GOP". And you back him up pretty well. It's not about informing the public, it's about killing the public option by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Even if this means that millions of people are convinced that a government run healthcare plan will kill their grandmother, abort their 10 month old baby, drive YOUR private insurance into bankruptcy and force you onto the government plan which will draw blood from you twice a week to ensure your health while they provide the absolute BEST care only to illegal immigrants.
If they CAN'T come up with legitimate and compelling reasons to kill the bill, why kill it?
And for christ-sake, do not compare what the GOP is doing now to what the Democrats were doing during the Patriot Act...QUOTEI just read Atlas Shrugged
It shows. Please forget everything you just read from that terrible sophomoric piece of trash literature.
That tea party video made my morning, thanks.
/Read the above with less mouth-foaming than it looks like.
//Heard too much crap from talking heads to not be furious with the state of politics in this country. -
"(and yes the Democrats in the opposition role also wanted to prevent some of the increases in government- like when they asked questions about the Patriot Act)."
Hahahahaha, hahaha, haha.
Oh jesus.
I fail to see the link between the two aside from the fact that there was an opposition involved in both situations. To actually use the Patriot Act by name is actually like throwing mud in your own face when you consider what that act actually allowed to happen. Though I must admit, the Republicans know how to name a fucking act. Maybe if we renamed the health care act to something more along the lines of "The Super Cool Awesome, Go America!" act there wouldn't be as much of an argument from the mouth breathers.
P.S. They still plan on killing your grandmothers. -
QUOTE (Bill @ Sep 14 2009, 10:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>P.S. They still plan on killing your grandmothers.
This is actually why money was invented. It was an ingenious ploy to make people want their grandparents to die and leave them their accumulated wealth, or be pissed at their inevitable passing if they were in terrible debt. It was actually much more successful than anyone could have imagined as it also made people hate other people due to the amounts of money they possessed, or lacked. Sheer genius, really.
/Little known fact. -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Sep 14 2009, 02:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If your overall point is that we need relevant debate then that is a noble ideal, but you aren't living up to it yourself by totally trashing a whole group of people that can contribute to that debate (even if you think their contributions are useless).
Are the creators of the plan going to respond to your legitimate concerns unless your representative, as a public figure, asks them about it? If your useless Representative does not ask the questions you want and you ignore him in order to get the few people in power with your same concerns to bring them up, then you are passing up a chance to engage in a debate with numbers on your side. Ron Paul can't stop a single piece of legislation on his own. Useless Republicans in a coalition full of people with useless reasons can.
Okay, so you are going to be true to your beliefs and only ask the questions that mean anything to you. Cool. So you don't stop a single thing you disagree with for legitimate reasons just because you will not align yourself with people who have useless reasons. Lets watch this shitty Act pass and that shitty Act pass because the opposition party is a piece of shit. Lets watch the country get further away from small government because the party that wants to prevent 1/2 of the increases in government does not want to prevent every single increase in government (and yes the Democrats in the opposition role also wanted to prevent some of the increases in government- like when they asked questions about the Patriot Act).
I guess it makes sense if you want the country to run itself into the ground sooner rather than later so that it can be built back up in the proper way and without halfass ideals as the base. I just read Atlas Shrugged and it made that point beautifully, but I am not sure how I feel about that tactic.
Reading over what I wrote last night, I realize now that I was in no way clear with my use of the pronoun "you." I use it to describe various groups of people separately: registered republicans, the GOP, racists, idiots, conservative fanbois, and even people (like yourself) who frequent these boards and often choose to defend the republican agenda. Just assume I was not referring to you when a context applies to one of these groups that you do not identify with.
However, there is one overarching issue that I didn't directly highlight [in depth] that applies directly to every registered republican or republican supporter on these forums: You support all of the above. By giving the GOP power through your support, you support all the filthy, racist, homophobic, abusive things that the GOP does every single fucking day. And the list is miles long. The GOP is one of the most vile and disgusting organizations involved with politics today. In the history of this country, there has never been a single entity that has been so destructive to conservative principles as the GOP. By touting conservative ideals while simultaneously ushering in an explosion in political corruptness, federal government power, federal government spending, willful ignorance and hate, the GOP has demonized the very principles this country was founded on. By supporting them, you are supporting everything awful that is associated with modern America.
The fact that you think it is OK to ally yourself with all of the disgusting, horrible people in this country in an attempt to push your agenda is baffling to me, and it is so god damn devastating not only to the foundation of this country but the lives of millions of Americans, that it angers me in ways I can't describe. -
QUOTE (Governor @ Sep 14 2009, 11:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The fact that you think it is OK to ally yourself with all of the disgusting, horrible people in this country in an attempt to push your agenda is baffling to me, and it is so god damn devastating not only to the foundation of this country but the lives of millions of Americans, that it angers me in ways I can't describe.
I find pictures help.
And back to Eve:
This is why these tactics are unacceptable. People don't actually disapprove of what is being done. They just disapprove of what they are being told is being done. If the war in Iraq never happened because the Democrats somehow convinced 56% of the population that this was really just a way for Bush to kill poor Americans and that the war would lead to America becoming a 3rd world nation because we'd be building Iraq into an industrialized nation with which we couldn't compete... I suspect you'd have been annoyed. -
QUOTEIf they CAN'T come up with legitimate and compelling reasons to kill the bill, why kill it?
Because there are legitimate reasons to kill it like Gov said- how are we going to pay for it?QUOTEI fail to see the link between the two [Patriot Act and Health Care Plan] aside from the fact that there was an opposition involved in both situations.
That would be the only link I was intending.QUOTEHowever, there is one overarching issue that I didn't directly highlight [in depth] that applies directly to every registered republican or republican supporter on these forums: You support all of the above. By giving the GOP power through your support, you support all the filthy, racist, homophobic, abusive things that the GOP does every single fucking day. And the list is miles long. The GOP is one of the most vile and disgusting organizations involved with politics today. In the history of this country, there has never been a single entity that has been so destructive to conservative principles as the GOP. By touting conservative ideals while simultaneously ushering in an explosion in political corruptness, federal government power, federal government spending, willful ignorance and hate, the GOP has demonized the very principles this country was founded on. By supporting them, you are supporting everything awful that is associated with modern America.
I fail to see how I am supporting them by allying with them to defeat things I do not agree with. I can ally with Democrats for the same reason and not have any intention of supporting Democrats as a whole. You seem to be overlooking the reality of our two party system. It is not going to change any time soon and as long as you refuse to participate in it you will lose every time (until the country is in enough of a shithole that people realize they should vote in a 3rd party which logically seems to be what you want).QUOTEThe fact that you think it is OK to ally yourself with all of the disgusting, horrible people in this country in an attempt to push your agenda is baffling to me, and it is so god damn devastating not only to the foundation of this country but the lives of millions of Americans, that it angers me in ways I can't describe.
The fact that I am participating in the process means I am perpetuating the very thing I don't agree with...yes this is straight out of Atlas Shrugged and I told you I don't know how I feel about it.QUOTEAnd back to Eve:
This is why these tactics are unacceptable. People don't actually disapprove of what is being done. They just disapprove of what they are being told is being done. If the war in Iraq never happened because the Democrats somehow convinced 56% of the population that this was really just a way for Bush to kill poor Americans and that the war would lead to America becoming a 3rd world nation because we'd be building Iraq into an industrialized nation with which we couldn't compete... I suspect you'd have been annoyed.
According to your link there is a 55% support rating for creating a gov't insurance plan that could compete with private companies but that does not mean that same 55% must approve of the specific way to go about that. I don't see the inconsistency. And about the Iraq example, yes I would have been annoyed but I would have argued against those allegations and would be willing to live with not going into Iraq just as you should be willing to live in a country that does not pass health care reform. -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Sep 14 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>According to your link there is a 55% support rating for creating a gov't insurance plan that could compete with private companies but that does not mean that same 55% must approve of the specific way to go about that. I don't see the inconsistency. And about the Iraq example, yes I would have been annoyed but I would have argued against those allegations and would be willing to live with not going into Iraq just as you should be willing to live in a country that does not pass health care reform.
You completely missed the point of those statistics.
"If I ask this question the way it's being framed in the public debate what do you think?"
BAD.
"If I ask that same question in a way that doesn't affix it to talking points from either side of the aisle, what do you think?"
NOT SO BAD.
Conclusion:
The debate has been framed poorly. And people agree or disagree with a plan of which they have only a cursory understanding based on what they are told about it by sources they trust. How many of those people do you think disapprove because of "the specific way" the president seems to "go about it" and how many of those people do you think disapprove because they REALLY believe that a public option will lead to government mandated euthanasia? Honestly now.
If you think it's not the latter, I'm curious about what specific way they've gone about it and why that makes it so unappealing. -
QUOTE (Governor @ Sep 13 2009, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't support federal involvement in healthcare... at all. I think medicare and medicaid are totally unconstitutional as is any federal government intervention in healthcare.
Reasonably in agreement with you on that actually. But you've probably gathered as much from my commentary on providing for the general welfare previously.QUOTEHowever, there is pretty much no one in this entire country that would agree with my feelings on the matter. What fucking irritates me more than anything else is that stupid-ass GOP fanbois try to act like they have anything that is even remotely close to "conservative" opinions on the matter. You don't. Sorry. If you think the republican party is taking the correct stance for the correct reasons on this healthcare discussion, you aren't conservative. Stop saying you are; doing so is nothing less than an insult to conservatism and is a barrier to rational discourse.
Depends on how you define conservatism actually. If we used the original definition of Conservative, and the original form of the left-right political spectrum(who sat on left-hand and right-hand side of the Speaker in Revolutionary France's Legislatures). As a more amusing side-note, in the US House of Representatives the Republicans sit to the speakers left, and that is likewise the case in the United States Senate where they sit to the left of the Vice President's Seat(as the V.P. Presides over the Senate like the Speaker does in the House).
Of course, going from Wiki, things get more confusing from that point when trying to apply their general standards today:QUOTEOriginally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, and the church, while "The Left" implied support for republicanism, secularism and civil liberties.[2] Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and Free markets were counted as being on the left; today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right.
But that is a digression.
------------
"Conservative" is a very fungible term. 200 years ago, few/none of the founding fathers would have identified as being one, as that would have meant being a Royalist as well. All it means to be a Conservative is to be in favor of the status quo over changing things or rapid change. So in that respect, the Republicans perform their role as the "Conservative Party" rather well, they functionally serve the purpose of slowing down, and attempting to stop any attempts to make radical sweeping changes away from the status quo.
Where Governor is slipping up is he is trying equate what is basically "Classical Liberalism" with Conservatism when talking about the United States. He isn't alone in making that error. Of course, others try to take "Classical Liberalism" even further and wind up on the Libertarian side of the spectrum.
That being said, the one term I am upset about having been corrupted/redefined over the past 200 years is the word "Liberal" itself.
For those too lazy(or mis-trustful of wiki-graffiti) to Wiki Classical Liberalism:QUOTEThe phrase Classical liberalism is used in standard academic sources to mean early liberalism,[1] sometimes with particular emphasis on the liberalism of Jacksonian democracy in the 19th Century, which stressed laissez-faire economics and strict constructionism.
The phrase "classical liberalism" is also used to describe a form of liberalism in which the government does not provide social services or regulate industry and banking, and followers of this brand of classical liberalism today often claim that early liberals shared these beliefs
In this latter sense, classical liberalism is sometimes called laissez-faire liberalism.
The philosophy of classical liberalism in the latter sense includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to facilitate global free trade and place fiscal constraints on government.
According to Razeen Sally the "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that a laissez-faire economic policy will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though this does not necessarily prevent the state from providing some limited basic public goods.
...Which shouldn't be confused with Libertarians who in many cases feel the Government should be providing no public services(goods) at all. -
You kind of clarified it in your later post, but I think trying to lump everyone who supports the conservative party as idiots as little harsh. It was said already, it's a two party system and there isn't much alternative to that. I don't particualarly identify with either party on everything, but I do support some of the issues they work at. I didn't vote Republican this last election, I voted anti-Democrat. The republicans may be misguided in some things, and their reasons for not supporting something may be illogical, but it's more of a means then an ends. The reality is, most of the political figures don't really believe some the propaganda they are spouting, but politics isn't about doing what's right, it's about getting re-elected. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and in this case, the enemy is health care.
Now, according to your post I must be against healthcare because they want to kill all the old people. While potentially beneficial in some regards, I don't think its really ethical. I don't support healthcare for mainly 3 reasons.
1. How the hell do we pay for it? We're in the middle of a war right now, a recession, a disentigrating social security system, and have record levels of debt. Can't we fix those financial difficulties before trying to dump another one on our system?
2. I've said this before; I don't think support a free public healthcare system because I frankly don't think everyone deserves it. I feel the same about all the other government handout programs that exist out there. Too many people manage to survive in this country without doing their part and milking the government system. Bring back the survival of the fittest. That's is arguably what made this country as great as it is in the first couple of centuries. The strong survived while the weak didn't. This country is being destroyed internally by the weak end of the gene pool that isn't getting cleaned fast enough anymore.
3. I don't believe I've seen a solution to healthcare that would work. I haven't put a whole lot of research into it, mostly because I'm against healthcare for the two reasons above, but in what I have seen I don't think it's a viable solution at this point and time. -
QUOTE (Pheylan @ Sep 14 2009, 09:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The republicans may be misguided in some things, and their reasons for not supporting something may be illogical, but it's more of a means then an ends.
It's also contributing pretty significantly to the erosion of democracy.
Seriousy:
If the reasons you stated are not enough to convince and mobilize a large enough coalition of voters/interests to coerce the government to give up on health care, then you are literally holding people who might think differently hostage with mis-information.
I honestly can't think of an analog from my lifetime. This doesn't strike me as 'politics as usual'. This strikes me as 'lying to my constituents in order to carry water for private insurance'. But I could be wrong.
Meanwhile, the Republican party is so embarrassed by that "You Lie!" outburst that Fox has been covering a series of exposes on ACORN for the last week or so... So while the means to the end is apparently noble, the party knows that they're the only ones who feel that way. -
QUOTE (Andrew @ Sep 14 2009, 08:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Seriousy:
If the reasons you stated are not enough to convince and mobilize a large enough coalition of voters/interests to coerce the government to give up on health care, then you are literally holding people who might think differently hostage with mis-information.
I honestly can't think of an analog from my lifetime. This doesn't strike me as 'politics as usual'. This strikes me as 'lying to my constituents in order to carry water for private insurance'. But I could be wrong.
...Which if you pay much attention to Glenn Beck, as much as some people in this forum seem to hate the guy, is attempting to do with his "9/12 Project" which got itself aligned with the Tea Party Movement somehow(lol Faux News). He's hostile to the GOP and DNC alike currently.
Going to be interesting to see what comes next for the 9/12'ers and the Tea Party people in the months ahead. Looks like they were largely blown off, and that is likely to be very bad news for the established order that the powers that be are content with. As this particular movement is likely going to feed off of being ignored, and will grow considerably as a result of it.
Biggest mistake Obama and the DNC made was that they took what happened in November to be an endorsement of their platform, and their agenda. That wasn't what happened, what happened was a repudiation of the Republicans and specifically the Bush Administration. Mainly by the moderate (and other fringe-wing) population within the United States, but also by many of the Republicans themselves(many of whom by all reports simply didn't vote this last time).
The 2010 election cycle is going to be a very interesting one to watch, and if the DNC and Obama don't watch what they do very carefully, they're going to create an echo-backlash that will come bearing down against them directly. Due to the realities of politics as they stand currently, that will undoubtedly mean playing into the favor of the Republicans in 2010. But the Republicans are going to have to watch themselves in turn, because if they fuck it up, a new grass-roots level political party is going to end up gaining considerable influence in the United States as a very likely outcome of this.
...but then, this is also stuff I largely expected to happen back when Obama and Hillary were still fighting for the DNC nomination. Too bad those comments exist on a private board. Basically my commentary was along the lines of "If you are looking for a genuine change in the American Political system in the long term, of the three candidates to pick from. Obama is the one most likely to cause it to happen. Unfortunately for him, the 'change' he is talking about(or intending) bringing to Washington isn't going to be the shape of the ultimate change that happens."
Yay for playing with fire. The thing making it more interesting is checking in on what Glenn Beck is saying. Sharing the same religious background as he does, and being aware of some more obscure (150+ year old, prophetic) stuff that is kicking around that is quite unique to that venue... He's off in true believer land. Though to be honest, I was also generally getting that impression from Romney when I watched his concession speech for the Republican Nomination in 2008, and still got that same sense when I had occasion to review it recently.
Change is certainly coming, what shape it ultimately takes is anybody's guess at this point, but I wouldn't count on the ride being very gentle. Fasten your seat belts and keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle at all times./wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />
-
I think Glenn Beck is probably the best thing that ever happened to the GOP. He accomplishes two things for them. He presents a position that they'd like to advance (albeit in the most extreme and theatrical way possible), not as a news anchor but under the guise of unassailable, unrepentant, unscrupulous *entertainment*. Second, he serves as a punching bag for the extreme right in ACTUAL politics, making them appear to be more moderate, driving the overall political spectrum yet FURTHER to the right. I think they probably LOVE Glenn Beck, and Hannity, and Limbaugh, and Boortz, et al.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an attempt on Pelosi or Obama's life before the 2010 elections. I REALLY wouldn't be surprised to see one if those elections end up in favor of the democrats. But I disagree that the election wasn't an endorsement of the victor's platform. Yes, it was primarily a rejection of republican ideals and certainly specific republicans, but when you vote for a guy, you are endorsing the person, the platform, and the agenda as it's presented to you during the campaign. Don't forget there were primaries, and Obama was chosen over a number of other non-republicans there.
-
QUOTE (Andrew @ Sep 15 2009, 07:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I wouldn't be surprised to see an attempt on Pelosi or Obama's life before the 2010 elections. I REALLY wouldn't be surprised to see one if those elections end up in favor of the democrats. But I disagree that the election wasn't an endorsement of the victor's platform. Yes, it was primarily a rejection of republican ideals and certainly specific republicans, but when you vote for a guy, you are endorsing the person, the platform, and the agenda as it's presented to you during the campaign. Don't forget there were primaries, and Obama was chosen over a number of other non-republicans there.
Do you not remember the sentiment from 2004 in particular, where people were saying that they were "voting for the lesser of two evils" on that election cycle? The Republican's didn't win that year because people endorsed their platform. The Republicans won because they felt the Republican choice was less bad than the Democratic one.
The biggest reason it wasn't so openly voiced in 2008 was that Obama headlined one simple word that people had been yearning for over the past many years, that word being: Change.
If you asked many of them, I think you'd find they didn't really care what change was brought, they just wanted a change away from anything resembling the status quo. And Obama was promising exactly that, where many voters failed due diligence(as they typically do) was they didn't really dig any deeper than that. Obama was the candidate for change, he sounded like the candidate for change much more-so than McCain did. With change being their most fervent hope, they went with Obama as the stuff sounded good at first glance.
2008 was the ultimate culmination of "anybody but Bush" and "anything but the status quo" with most people convinced that Obama's platform was the one most likely to break the status quo.
Which he has.
Problem is people are starting to get buyers remorse. -
I wholeheartedly agree that Obama's election was a repudiation of the Bush administration and not necessarily an endorsement of Obama's policies. Winning the election gave him the chance to push his policies, but that does not mean they will be easy to pass unless they are rammed through. But I disagree that the Republicans are doing anything right to deserve gaining seats in 2010 and I think the current Democratic majorities in the two houses will hold but might be reduced a bit.
And about people wanting a public insurance option to compete with private insurance option but differing on the methods of creating such an option, I think some people might want a public option run by the government while other people might want a private conglomerate (coop?) to manage the option that the government underwrites and sanctions. People opposing the current iteration of the bill pushing a coop may very well be against it because they think it is a public option due to misinformation so you would be right. Or you could say that a big enough proporion of those opposing the bill understand what it creates and still want the method of creating the entity to compete with private insurance cos to be different. -
I'll just leave this here.
edit: In response to your supposition that these folks who oppose this vocally are doing so for rational reasons.
edit2: It's like what Howard Stern did to Obama supporters, only more legit. -
quote]To force competition with private insurers, Baucus chose creating nonprofit consumer-owned cooperatives over the public insurance option, which most Democrats prefer.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/...l#ixzz0RHMpsTYJ[/quote] -
QUOTE (mungo @ Sep 16 2009, 10:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>quote]To force competition with private insurers, Baucus chose creating nonprofit consumer-owned cooperatives over the public insurance option, which most Democrats prefer.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/...l#ixzz0RHMpsTYJ
This bill has everything in it that people have been bitching about for months EXCEPT the public option, which it replaces with consumer owned co-ops.
If this bill passes easily with bipartisan support I'm going to punch every republican who claims to be a fiscal conservative in the nuts until they can no longer procreate.QUOTEthe legislation calls for imposing a 35 percent excise tax on high-end insurance plans, assessing fees on industry players, including device manufacturers, insurers and clinical laboratories, and making a series of tax code changes.
raises taxesQUOTEThe bill requires individuals to buy insurance, or else face penalties as high as $3,800 for a family. It would not mandate businesses to provide coverage for their employees – as the House bills do – but it would require them to defray the cost of any government subsidies for which their employees would qualify.
Requires coverage or levies penalties. Though it doesn't seem to penalize businesses for failure to do so. I don't like that. Because I've never trusted my employer. Ever.QUOTEpurchase insurance plans through a new marketplace known as an exchange.
This looks familiar.QUOTEprohibiting them from dropping or denying coverage based on preexisting conditions
I've heard this will drive insurers into bankruptcy.
You probably won't hear as much nonsense about this bill because it's not "OBAMACARE", but I doubt we'll see more than 2 or 3 republicans sign onto it because, as they article states:QUOTEThe absence of Republicans could also damage President Barack Obama's efforts to convince Americans that his reform plan has broad support.
They aren't going to get any more R's in seats if they can't paint the president as a failure, and this is still his project, no matter who writes the bill.
BTW, I like the bill as outlined in this article. I'd prefer a public option, but between the co-op and the subsidies, which are code for "the public option", I think it could do a pretty good job. -
QUOTE (Andrew @ Sep 16 2009, 08:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I've heard this will drive insurers into bankruptcy.
You probably won't hear as much nonsense about this bill because it's not "OBAMACARE"
It will drive many insurers out of the market based largely on "luck of the draw" in regards to how many healthy customers they have vs how many (expensively) unhealthy customers they have.
Eventually the insurance market will stabilize as the people who were signed onto the failed insurance company either get absorbed by another insurance provider, or disperse to other companies.
Though I suspect the "prefered" method within industry is going to be for the provider to cease providing coverage(forcing their customers to disperse to other various providers), at which point they might have their remaining assets taken over by someone else. Nobody is going to want to outright absorb a block of customers they know to be unprofitable to support, they'll just cross their fingers and hope the people with the "pre-existing condition" sign up with their competitors instead.
Maybe after the first couple rounds of insurance companies folding there will be some regulations put into place for a kind of profit-sharing thing to occur when it comes to taking on high-cost/low return customers. (Much like I understand Denmark does) But if left alone, the health insurance market will simply end up consolidating into a much smaller number of companies, the smallest of which are likely to be in the 750,000+ customer range(allowing for some ~406 insurance providers remaining, assuming none get much larger than 750K in size, though I expect you'd find a few providing health insurance benefits to 50 million+ customers each. Denmark is my point of reference on this, they have a national requirement for people to have health insurance, there is no "government option" and subsidies are provided for those who can't afford care. They have 6 insurance companies operating there, and a national population of 5.5 Million(about 916,000 customers each).
Some small exchanges/co-ops may exist here and there, but they'll very much be an exception, not the rule. The good news is that the small exchanges/co-ops should be able to help keep the new ultra-mega insurance companies from setting their premiums too high, at least as long as they're allowed to continue to exist.. But it is still going to create some extremely powerful corporations.
The plus side being that they're not part of the Government Bureaucracy directly. So in theory the "free market" should be able to generally keep them in line.
The likely down side being that they'll have so much money at their disposal that Government Bureaucracy, c/o the politicians, will likely end up doing their bidding on those (health-insurance) matters. Which means that the health insurance market isn't likely to be a very "free market" when all is said and done. They'll make sure it is so tightly regulated/controlled that only the big boys are able to successfully operate. (Barrier for entry, never mind for sustainability of operations, set even more obscenely high) -
Daemon.
Let me explain this to you in as few words as possible, and you can please reply to it directly, and with as few words as possible:
There are only 27 health insurance companies in the united states. They service 250 million people. That's about 10 million people per company.
WE DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPETITION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WE NEVER WILL. THE MARKET IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF ECONOMICS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T (REALLY) JUST DECIDE TO NOT BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. -
QUOTE (mungo @ Sep 16 2009, 10:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>To force competition with private insurers, Baucus chose creating nonprofit consumer-owned cooperatives over the public insurance option, which most Democrats prefer.QUOTE
-
Do we believe this?QUOTE45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A....aspx?id=506199
Granted, taking a poll and quitting your job are very different. And quitting your job and considering quitting your job are also very different. -
QUOTE (mungo @ Sep 17 2009, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Do we believe this?
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A....aspx?id=506199
Granted, taking a poll and quitting your job are very different. And quitting your job and considering quitting your job are also very different.Nate Silver says that
Polls that don't explain themselves
Are not trustworthy.
/hot this picture is
//yet full of zeal, I post it
///in defiance of "rules" -
QUOTE (Andrew @ Sep 16 2009, 01:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Daemon.
Let me explain this to you in as few words as possible, and you can please reply to it directly, and with as few words as possible:
There are only 27 health insurance companies in the united states. They service 250 million people. That's about 10 million people per company.
WE DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPETITION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WE NEVER WILL. THE MARKET IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF ECONOMICS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T (REALLY) JUST DECIDE TO NOT BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.
Well then, this is already applicable:QUOTE (TheDeamon)The likely down side being that they'll have so much money at their disposal that Government Bureaucracy, c/o the politicians, will likely end up doing their bidding on those (health-insurance) matters. Which means that the health insurance market isn't likely to be a very "free market" when all is said and done. They'll make sure it is so tightly regulated/controlled that only the big boys are able to successfully operate. (Barrier for entry, never mind for sustainability of operations, set even more obscenely high)
A good thing would be getting some new exchanges/non-profits into the mix, as they should/could help shake things up a bit.
Still don't want a government run/government backed ("public option") insurance option. -
QUOTE (TheDeamon @ Sep 19 2009, 12:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>A good thing would be getting some new exchanges/non-profits into the mix, as they should/could help shake things up a bit.
Still don't want a government run/government backed ("public option") insurance option.
That's legit. You just can't use 'freemarketcompetition' as the reason.
There's good reasons, and you've nailed many of them. I could be convinced that co/ops could replace a public option, maybe.
I definitely think that any bill on this matter can come in below 500 pages, rather than 1100 or whatever the fuck we're talking right now. -
QUOTE (Andrew @ Sep 19 2009, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I definitely think that any bill on this matter can come in below 500 pages, rather than 1100 or whatever the fuck we're talking right now.
That would be part of that whole "barrier to entry" thing.
Funny thing about government regulation of industry. Large businesses may complain about it because it makes them do things they wouldn't otherwise be doing in some cases.
However, the flip side of that is that Large Businesses also like large tomes of governmental regulations about how certain things are supposed to be done... Because for them, hiring and paying for the legal expertise(and any other special skill-sets needed) to make sure they are (mostly) compliant is going to be a much smaller portion of their overall budget expenses than it will be for a new businesses that doesn't have a significant market share(at that time).
It makes for an interesting continuum. It is in the public interest to make sure products are safe and work as expected. It is in the governments interest to help make sure industry delivers on doing exactly that, which does call for some regulation and oversight.
However, the more regulation and oversight placed upon the market, the less that particular market continues to function as a free market. Which eventually stratifies that market and leads to new competition entering that market becoming nearly impossible. Which leads to decreased (or no) competition, which then likewise becomes potentially bad for the consumer.
...Like how in some states(according to wiki) that as few as 3 health insurance companies are able to operate within their borders.
Nothing like regulatory monopolies to make a further mess of things. -
QUOTE (Andrew @ Sep 20 2009, 07:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>they get to write them.
see: Baucus.
Possibly so.QUOTENew food producers don't really have an issue dealing with the FDA.
That's because food is a pretty basic commodity, it's hard to mess up with 50 million regulations. Until you start getting into processed foods.
-
QUOTE (TheDeamon @ Sep 21 2009, 12:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That's because food is a pretty basic commodity, it's hard to mess up with 50 million regulations. Until you start getting into processed foods.
My point being this:
At what level of complexity does your theory that more regulation = inevitable monopolization start to kick in?
Clearly not at the level of food.
What about phone service?
What about the internet?
What about education?
If your theory pertains specifically to health insurance, then you should be able to point out where this has happened before.
/btw, the reason there are 3 insurance companies in some states is because that is the way insurers want it to be.
//not because they're overregulated.
PS: if Obama continues to support the Baucus bill, and it's passed, I'm not only not voting for the man next time around. I'm going to be campaigning against him. Not FOR anyone in particular, just against Obama. He wants healthcare reform? Fine, me too. But if that healthcare reform consists of "pay private insurance what they are asking for or face potential fines, which we will use to pay private insurance what they are asking for", then the pre-existing condition clause that may or may not make it into the final draft is bupkiss.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!