Political news, yo.

Maybe this will scare the bejeebaz(sp?) out the bad apples in health care and get them to come to the table in a free market kind of way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geerussell

It makes sense, if I read it correctly it's an argument for the status quo. I just think it's a profoundly counterproductive argument to make.

So if you are on a cliff and the Prez is advocating jumping off, you think that is counterproductive? :)

Sort of. The lack of details is intentional. The thinking behind it, at least as I've read it, is that part of why health care reform died in the incubator under Clinton was they tried to originate a more fully formed, detailed bill from the white house without buy in from congress or other stakeholders.

The strategy this time is to push congress to hash out the details and originate the bill from there with the white house lighting a fire under them to get something crafted. The hope being that if the particulars are worked out in congress first, a finished bill will have more political legs than if the president just handed it down from the top.

This strategy will wear thin, imo.

I call it side-stepping the issue. Specific aspects in which the current situation fails or will soon explode catastrophically have been thrown out on the table. Saying "we don't want a Gov't run health care system" in no way offers a constructive solution to any of them.

Side-stepping? I call it saying NO to an option that sucks.

The alternative sucks more. Healthcare premiums are going through the roof, and people are falling off the map.

I've been paying about 400 a month for quite a few years now... I think thats right anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

I've been paying about 400 a month for quite a few years now... I think thats right anyway.

The thing is, that's a lot for a large portion of our citizens. More than a lot can even afford even though they work 40 hours a week, and are not the dead beats you speak of.

I think there should be gov't help, but with limits. Not limits dependant on what you need, but on what you contribute. As a generalization, something like unemployment. You can get some help for a while, but it will dry up if you aren't contributing. If you put in your hours, but are stuck with a poor employer or don't make much, you get help. etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

It makes sense, if I read it correctly it's an argument for the status quo. I just think it's a profoundly counterproductive argument to make.

So if you are on a cliff and the Prez is advocating jumping off, you think that is counterproductive?

We're rolling towards a cliff. The president is advocating a particular method of avoiding the cliff dive. Reasonable people might argue that a different approach would work better or suggest changes to his plan. Anyone saying leave well enough alone, we're just fine... isn't really very useful.

Sort of. The lack of details is intentional. The thinking behind it, at least as I've read it, is that part of why health care reform died in the incubator under Clinton was they tried to originate a more fully formed, detailed bill from the white house without buy in from congress or other stakeholders.

The strategy this time is to push congress to hash out the details and originate the bill from there with the white house lighting a fire under them to get something crafted. The hope being that if the particulars are worked out in congress first, a finished bill will have more political legs than if the president just handed it down from the top.

This strategy will wear thin, imo.

It might. There are no guarantees the strategy will work, I just wanted to outline that there was one.

I call it side-stepping the issue. Specific aspects in which the current situation fails or will soon explode catastrophically have been thrown out on the table. Saying "we don't want a Gov't run health care system" in no way offers a constructive solution to any of them.

Side-stepping? I call it saying NO to an option that sucks.

No is fine, as long as it's "No, but try this alternative" or "No, but maybe with these changes or compromises" ... a plain "NO" is a vote to go over the cliff.

Politics from Afghanistan...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...ns-rights-rape

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

Our WH and Mr T apparently is continuing the practice of trying to get neighbors to spy (and turn in ) neighbors.

I could only imagine if Bush did this. Y'all have to admit the hypocrisy here.

Liberals would laugh at whoever tried to start this spin. You really, really think the white house can't get as many E-mail forwards as you do on it's own without asking for them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermy

Liberals would laugh at whoever tried to start this spin. You really, really think the white house can't get as many E-mail forwards as you do on it's own without asking for them?

I'll be the first to admit that i'm pissed that obama has not done more to reign in domestic spying. However, complaining about some forwarded emails after 8 years of watching the executive grab more and more power for domestic spying is ridiculous (at tahoe not hermy).

Headline from today's Detroit News is something along the lines of:

Blues to raise rates by 22%

And on other related fronts...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...are/index.html