Political news, yo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glan

I am optimistic that starting with the current generation, that a dramatic shift is coming. And coming soon.

I'm not trying to argue here but I am optimistic that Obama will make a dramatic shift in the country, but I feel it will shift in the opposite direction than you are hoping for.

Also, I like peeps in this country more than the arrogant peeps who we've elected to serve. I'm hopefull capitalism will remain in this country and we won't go the way of Europe.

My neighbor said the other day that he came to this country cuz you can work hard and get ahead. He lamented that we will be like Europe before long.

I'm for free markets (obviously with some regulation) and let the chips fall where they may. Let companies fail when they have been mismanaged. Let peeps fail when they have mismanaged themselves. We have a huge safety net already in place so peeps won't go homeless or hungry. Its enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

I agree on the post office. They are broke and, once again, our Gov't can do shit right. Let the private sector handle it.

Police and Fire are funded locally.

Locally funded means you still forced to pay for a public service not mandated by the constitution, that was my point.

I'm not sure we'll ever get to a good universal health care system. I think it's a good thing, but I'm not confident we can get things right based on all the barriers people put in place.

That being said, the system is certainly broken right now. It will take something as drastic as universal health care to fix it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

Also, I like peeps in this country more than the arrogant peeps who we've elected to serve. I'm hopefull capitalism will remain in this country and we won't go the way of Europe.

My neighbor said the other day that he came to this country cuz you can work hard and get ahead. He lamented that we will be like Europe before long.

I'm for free markets (obviously with some regulation) and let the chips fall where they may. Let companies fail when they have been mismanaged. Let peeps fail when they have mismanaged themselves. We have a huge safety net already in place so peeps won't go homeless or hungry. Its enough.

I'm not a fan of all these safety nets for businesses either. Some things need to be helped, others should be allowed to fail. I still don't understand how these companies getting aid are giving bonuses...

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFchris

I'm not a fan of all these safety nets for businesses either. Some things need to be helped, others should be allowed to fail. I still don't understand how these companies getting aid are giving bonuses...

Agree and some bizs are just too big to save.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermy

First paragraph-Come now. That's a pretty isolated deal there. Should I buy them a car so they can get to the hospital faster? That would play a much, much larger role in saving kids.

In the 2nd example I have no problem with regulating costs, make them charge private the same as insured, that's fair. You can always call your medical provider and negotiate, I've done that several times.

And in the 3rd paragraph I'll just disagree.

It is not terribly isolated to suggest that parents without health care would delay treatment. Consider appendicitis, where it is unclear whether the kid just has a stomach ache. Alternatively, the kid could have strep throat turn into pneumonia. Another kid might have a tumor that could be operated on if diagnosed early enough. Providing health care insurance for children is not terribly expensive, because most are healthy. However, the few sick ones can be terribly expensive and much more than a working class family could afford. Providing insurance for all children provides many more benefits than costs imo. I'm sure it could be done for 1% of the defense budget.

What happens if a kid with cystic fibrosis or some other long term costly disease is born to poor parents without insurance. Are those parents forced to pay health care bills they can't afford for the rest of their lives. Do you stop providing care if the parents can't pay for it? Giving away free cars has nothing to do with this.

Also, you can only negotiate in non-emergencies. There's not much you can do if you need emergency care after a car accident.

Giving away free cars would cost less and save more children than your suggestion, but you don't care about any of that.

You can negotiate after treatment. I have done it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

Also, I like peeps in this country more than the arrogant peeps who we've elected to serve. I'm hopefull capitalism will remain in this country and we won't go the way of Europe.

My neighbor said the other day that he came to this country cuz you can work hard and get ahead. He lamented that we will be like Europe before long.

Good lord, Tahoe. Have you ever been to Europe? Have you forgotten that I went to Denmark this summer? Home of some of the highest tax rates and biggest social entitlement programs in the civilized world? Where everyone receives not only free health care, but also unlimited unemployment, free college, and a staggering system of state property?

And also, apparently, the winners of the Newsweek World Happiness Index?

If you went to Europe because you were hoping you could find some place that didn't have capitalism, you'd be HUGELY disappointed. In a lot of ways, they put us to shame.

Honestly, if your neighbor left Europe because no one can get ahead in Europe, he must have been from Eastern Europe during the Iron Curtain years. If not, he's not very bright. He could have easily gotten a government-guaranteed bank loan to start up a new small business in a country like Denmark - something you can't count on over here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermy

Giving away free cars would cost less and save more children than your suggestion, but you don't care about any of that.

You can negotiate after treatment. I have done it.

Not sure how a free car improves a child's quality of life, but whatever.

If you can negotiate it is certainly not common knowledge. And even if you can, getting a $100,000 organ transplant cut in half isn't going to do shit for most people in terms of affording it.

A day in the life of Tahoe.*

Tahoe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Tahoe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Tahoe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Tahoe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Tahoe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Tahoe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Tahoe’s employer pays these standards because Tahoe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Tahoe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Tahoe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Tahoe’s deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some liberal wanted to protect Tahoe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Tahoe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Tahoe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Tahoe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Tahoe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Tahoe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Tahoe enjoys throughout his day) Tahoe agrees, "We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have".

*Not actually Tahoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFchris

Not sure how a free car improves a child's quality of life, but whatever.

If you can negotiate it is certainly not common knowledge. And even if you can, getting a $100,000 organ transplant cut in half isn't going to do shit for most people in terms of affording it.

You can drive a child to a hospital quickly. Much, much more likely to help a child than the "not going due to affordability".

And heaven help you if you are so lucky as to get an organ transplant and now have to work an extra job to pay it off. What an awful country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

I am a veteran, but not in long enough to get lifetime health care. But the peeps I talk to say it sucks

I'd love to fold vets into the same medical coverage as Medicare or other public health programs, simply to fix the screwy screI wed-up VA medical system. Lots chant "Medicare for all", no one chants "VA care for all". I'd line up vets in commercials to tell their horror stories and say "no guv'mint healthcare" if I were an entity intent on beating down guv'mint healthcare.

I had a relative who was a burn victim who was forced to spend time in the hospital to take a drug where he could've otherwise been discharged. This was a drug that, with every other coverage plan, could be administered by a doctor, but NOOOooo... not with the VA. He ended up getting MRSA from the hospital visit, which didn't react well to his burns, and was there for 2 months longer than he should've been. I have lots of veterans in my family, and even dated someone who worked at a VA hospital, and have observed a lot of horror stories. I suspect that with larger economies of scale, things wouldn't have played out so stupidly.

And by the way, I agree that the government-provided healthcare option will suck, if it ever gets created. Because the Republicans will constantly be whining about how much it costs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermy

You can drive a child to a hospital quickly. Much, much more likely to help a child than the "not going due to affordability".

And heaven help you if you are so lucky as to get an organ transplant and now have to work an extra job to pay it off. What an awful country.

First of all, I'm pretty sure they would be better off with some $500 beater car and health care than a nice ride to the hospital and the thousands of dollars in medical bills. Just because they had a nice car doesn't mean they'd go to the hospital anyway.

And it's not like they give you a loan for a transplant at the hospital. They don't say "ok, it's 100 k for a transplant that you don't have...well, you can just pay us back" You are dreaming. That transplant will never happen in a million years.

That post was way below your standards Hermy.

No, I'm giving them the beater. Do you know how many Americans don't have a car Chris? Now they can get there thanks to my federal "Cars for Cancer" program. Who can be against that? Nazis.

Tons of childrens hospitals have interest free financial assistance. Heaven help them, they're broke for life, but what price can you put on your child?

The Swiftboating of Health Reform
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t...th-reform.aspx

Quote:

Originally Posted by Times

"There are about 84 million Americans who are covered by either Medicaid or Medicare," says Kristina Newman of the Kaiser Family Foundation. "But there are about 40 million uninsured people who are not quite old enough or poor enough to qualify. If they have a serious accident, they're really up a creek." Perhaps an additional 10 million to 15 million people have some coverage but not enough--belonging to plans that offer not much more than the basics. For them, a little insurance can be almost as bad as none at all. "Sometimes we tell people simply to stop working and spend all their money," says Mehmet Oz, the director of the Cardiovascular Assist Device Program at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City and a technical adviser for John Q. "Then at least they qualify for Medicaid."

Even barebones policies ought to cover "medically necessary" procedures (a term that can be slippery), and in many cases, coverage doesn't dwindle as hours do, though such workers may be required to pay more to maintain the policies they have. Yet no one disputes that the health-insurance safety net remains badly frayed. "There are many people who still fall through the cracks," says Ray Werntz, of the Employee Benefits Research Institute

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glan

The Swiftboating of Health Reform
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t...th-reform.aspx

I'm not so sure that "Swiftboating" is the right term here. "Swiftboating" is what happens when a rich person buys up a ton of media time for their stupid ideas. What's happening here is more accurately described as "Astroturfing," which is when a rich person funds a fake grass-roots movement to make a bunch of noise about their stupid ideas. See: Tea Parties.

Tea baggers.

Well I was trying to be charitable, but if you want to fling the nutsack reference out there I am not going to stop you.

Y'all just can't handle that some folks don't want to pay for others health care. I'm taxed enough, I don't need to pay for dead beats health care too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Swami

And by the way, I agree that the government-provided healthcare option will suck, if it ever gets created. Because the Republicans will constantly be whining about how much it costs.

And if it doesn't get created you'll be whinning about not stealing my hard earned money to pay for others health care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFchris

Locally funded means you still forced to pay for a public service not mandated by the constitution, that was my point.

re: police and fire depts

Out here, I'm pretty sure they are property taxes. No dead beat houses. Someone is paying.

I'm not against everyone pitching in for a service. I'm against Obama socializing the country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

Y'all just can't handle that some folks don't want to pay for others health care. I'm taxed enough, I don't need to pay for dead beats health care too.

You already do, and you pay a premium for it because the dead beats suck up pricey emergency room resources, often over pricey matters that wouldn't have been as pricey if regular care were done sooner.

The reality is that our society values not having a lot of indigent dead bodies just sitting around collecting diseases and making people feel shameful. We spend a lot of money creating a system that costs twice as much and doesn't have any more bang for the buck than socialist healthcare. I don't want to pay twice as much because some folks are a buncha fucking buttheads who can't see the forest from the trees. I don't want jobs leaving the country because healthcare is a whole lot less hassle there than it is here. My taxes pay for public roads that even dead beats can use because it's better than trying to create tariff systems where the roads cost twice as much but aren't any better maintained or utilized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy

You already do, and you pay a premium for it because the dead beats suck up pricey emergency room resources, often over pricey matters that wouldn't have been as pricey if regular care were done sooner.

The reality is that our society values not having a lot of indigent dead bodies just sitting around collecting diseases and making people feel shameful. We spend a lot of money creating a system that costs twice as much and doesn't have any more bang for the buck than socialist healthcare. I don't want to pay twice as much because some folks are a buncha fucking buttheads who can't see the forest from the trees. I don't want jobs leaving the country because healthcare is a whole lot less hassle there than it is here. My taxes pay for public roads that even dead beats can use because it's better than trying to create tariff systems where the roads cost twice as much but aren't any better maintained or utilized.

And I don't want to do it more than I alread do.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

And I don't want to do it more than I alread do.

Do public healthcare right and we all pay less. A whole lot of countries in the world have figured this out. The halfass approach is killing us. Either do it right or don't do it at all, and the "don't do it at all" crowd lost a long time ago with Medicare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

And I don't want to do it more than I alread do.

That's an excellent sentiment that most reasonable people would agree with as a starting point. If that's also the end of the discussion for you, if your next step is "therefore don't touch anything, leave the status quo as it is" then you're being neither realistic nor constructive.

The reality is the current system has serious structural problems that can't be ignored.
.
Many people with coverage get less than they need when the time comes, or lose it when they change jobs.

Many people with coverage get less than they need when the time comes, or lose it when they change jobs. Those aren't deadbeats by any reasonable measure.

Many people who have jobs and work just as hard as the next guy are under-insured or uninsured. They aren't well served by the current system and they aren't deadbeats.

Actual deadbeats... Mxy covered that pretty well. There are ways forward to get more and pay less.

In a few years, with no changes, commitments under medicare/medicaid are going to exceed the total revenue of the federal government. This is an according-to-hoyle train wreck.

That's real talk. Opponents of Obama's plans need to bring some ideas to the table and engage constructively. If they succeed in simply shouting down the discussion and making sure nothing gets done, they haven't done themselves or anyone else any favors.

They aren't shutting down the discussion though, they are saying they don't want it. And I know you are going to have fun with that line.

Also, from what his own backers say, it isn't in stone yet anyway. AARP is still waiting to see what the final bill looks like and so are blue C, etc, I'm sure.

This is another one of BO's 'push something through (getting the money first) before we have all the details"

You can call it shutting down the converstation before it starts but I think its more of we don't want a Gov't run health care system (anymore than it alread is <-- thats for you mxy :) )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

They aren't shutting down the discussion though, they are saying they don't want it. And I know you are going to have fun with that line.

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.

Quote:

Also, from what his own backers say, it isn't in stone yet anyway. AARP is still waiting to see what the final bill looks like and so are blue C, etc, I'm sure.

This is another one of BO's 'push something through (getting the money first) before we have all the details"

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.

Quote:

You can call it shutting down the converstation before it starts but I think its more of we don't want a Gov't run health care system (anymore than it alread is <-- thats for you mxy :) )

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.

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