U.S. Politics

[Annelise]

So apparently Dems and Republicans struck a deal on credit card legislation, which evidently is tougher than the House version: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22393.html

The Dodd-Shelby compromise allows credit card companies to slap on a higher interest rate only if the card holder is 60 days late in making a minimum payment. However, if the consumer pays on time for the next six months, the lender would have to drop the interest rate down to the original level.

[..]Under the Dodd-Shelby compromise, credit card companies would not be able to increase rates at all in the first year after an account is opened. Moreover, if a card company increases a consumer’s rate, the legislation would require them to periodically review the account and lower the rate in the future if warranted.

Dodd’s bill also sets somewhat stricter rules than the House bill on marketing cards to younger consumers. Several Senate Republicans, including Shelby, had voiced support for these types of provisions.

Credit card companies would have to get a co-signer for anyone under 21 years old or obtain proof that the applicant has an independent means of paying the card bills. The co-signer would also be liable for the cardholder’s debts. Card issuers would be barred from raising the credit limit on the card unless the co-signer agreed.

The House bill would set underwriting standards for student-held credit cards, including a cap of $500 or 20 percent of the student’s annual income — whichever is higher — on the total credit line extended, unless there was a co-signer.

Under Dodd’s bill, the new rules would take effect nine months after the legislation became law — a point of contention with the credit card companies. The Federal Reserve has put forth its own set of new rules governing credit card billing practices — some of which were included in Dodd’s bill — but those don’t kick in until July 2010. The industry says it needs that much time to get its systems in line with the new rules.

And the admin has moved to replace Gen. David McKiernan with Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal (behind special ops successes in Iraq) as top commander in Afghanistan:

The new Afghan strategy employs the same model that McChrystal used effectively in Iraq, where small teams of special forces deployed repeatedly on shorter tours and built up expertise that military commanders said proved helpful against the insurgency.

The decision to replace McKiernan comes as the United States and its allies are investigating whether a recent U.S. airstrike caused dozens of Afghan civilian casualties. The incident has angered some Afghans and has been used by the Taliban to incite opposition to the expanding U.S. presence.

Privately, some Pentagon officials have said that McKiernan was too combat-focused in recent months in a conflict that required careful attention to keeping the support of ordinary Afghans.

While declining to talk about why McKiernan was removed, Gates and Mullen stressed that McChrystal and Rodriguez had the necessary counterinsurgency experience and, in Rodriguez’s case, a successful prior tour as a division commander in Afghanistan.

They have “a combined skill set that give us some fresh opportunities looking forward,†Mullen said.

Gates said McKiernan had agreed to stay in Afghanistan until the Senate acts on McChrystal's nomination as the new commander.

The decision by Obama and Gates to replace McKiernan is reminiscent of the decision by former President George W. Bush and Gates in 2006 to install Petraeus as the top commander in Iraq, a move that coincided with a strategy shift there and an improvement in security conditions as additional forces focused more directly on protecting Iraqi civilians.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22375.html

[Commodore]

Tomorrow Obama will announce that Big Health Insurance, Big Pharma, and hospitals leaders have committed to him that they will cut $2 trillion in costs over the next decade.

Is a comittment sufficient or does that actually have to happen? I assume the commitment will be enough to justify whatever massive new health care entitlement is coming. A promise of future cost cuts is as good a guarantee as you will find right? Especially in the health care industry, those costs are never higher than estimated, right?

Once again, Don Obama calls the heads of the five families of some industry and tells them how it's gonna be (again, straight out of Atlas Shrugged). That's the Chicago way. I wonder what Obama would do to a CEO who refused to answer his call.

The only way health care costs are going down is if there is less care, i.e. rationed care, i.e. some government agency deciding what treatment one is entitled to.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

The only way health care costs are going down is if there is less care, i.e. rationed care, i.e. some government agency deciding what treatment one is entitled to.

Care is already rationed. What do you think money is?

[TrackerNeil]

The only way health care costs are going down is if there is less care, i.e. rationed care, i.e. some government agency deciding what treatment one is entitled to.

As opposed to the current system, in which big business decides what treatment one is entitled to. I'm not sure why you think business cares more about Americans' health than the government they elect, but whatever.

Also, I find it curious that the insurance industry only finds room for massive savings when there are plans on the table to institute some kind of government-run or government-sponsored health care system. One would think, Commodore, that the magic of the market would have unleashed this kind of efficiency, and not evil and unwarranted pressure from government. How can this be explained, do you think?

[Elrostar]

This idea that insurance companies determining what treatment is best for people is a perfectly valid approach, but that government interference would be a terrible thing just kind of baffles me.

First of all this makes the assumption that governments actually do mess in treatment decisions, something I have never heard of happening in countries with UHC. I have heard of it happening in the US, of course, but that's a different matter. The idea that the US Congress could spend its time legislating about Terry Schiavo still blows my mind. But anyway.

Secondly, insurance companies are working for profit. And they are making decisions about coverage of items, and billable procedures based on that. How on earth is that the model that will lead to the best results in terms of public health, or individual health?

[Commodore]

I would rather care be a function of ability to pay (whether that be your ability or someone else voluntarily paying for you) and willingness to provide. No one should be forced to provide care or top pay for someone else's care unless they have a contractual obligation to.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of pooling one's money together for the benefit of all (collective care), that's all insurance is. I just don't think anyone should be forced into that arrangement.

It's a neat little trick by Obama, he can take credit if costs go down, and blame the health care industry if costs don't, since he isn't the one doing the promising.

Of course, Obama has not reduced the cost of anything, and has no record of ever doing so. Promises of future deeds and outcomes are meaningless, especially without any kind of track record of following through.

We have a $3.6 trillion budget and a $1.8 trillion deficit (borrowing $0.50 for every dollar spent, just unreal), and he wants us to believe he will reduce entitlement costs?

The more we borrow and print, the more inflation and interest rates increase, that is an unavoidable truth. The only alternative to borrowing and printing is taxation, swallowing an even larger portion of the nation's GDP .Which begets private sector job loss. Which begets increased unemployment benefit costs and loss of tax revenue. Which begets more taxation to try and make up for those losses. Until there is nothing left. We had the stagflation cycle during the Carter administration, and the laws of economics guarantee the same outcome this time.

The stealth taxation has already begun. Cap-and-trade will be the biggest wealth grabber, but sin taxes from the moralist leftist meddlers are already in the works:

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.

Doesn't get any more regressive than a soda tax.

[TrackerNeil]

I would rather care be a function of ability to pay (whether that be your ability or someone else voluntarily paying for you) and willingness to provide. No one should be forced to provide care or top pay for someone else's care unless they have a contractual obligation to.

Umm...Commodore, you already pay for someone else's care; you simply pay when that care is at its most expensive, i.e. in the emergency room. Unless you are ready to let uninsured people die in the street, you will always pay for the health care of others, and so will I. You speak of unavoidable truth, yet you seem reluctant to face that truth.

[awesome possum]

Once again, Don Obama calls the heads of the five families of some industry and tells them how it's gonna be (again, straight out of Atlas Shrugged). That's the Chicago way. I wonder what Obama would do to a CEO who refused to answer his call.

I don't know, maybe declare that if they're not "with us, they're against us" like your Georgie-boy used to do?

Good thing hypocrisy doesn't stink, else you'd need to shower almost every time after you hit the Post button.

[sToNED_CAT]

I have no problem with "sin taxes". In fact I think they are much more fair than normal income taxes. I think tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy food, sweetened drinks etc. shouldn be taxed heavily so that lung cancer and obesity related diseases would be completely covered by those taxes. Consider it health insurance. It's much more fair for people who live unhealthy live to pay for their own future care than for all others to do the same.

[lokisnow]

The Dodd-Shelby compromise allows credit card companies to slap on a higher interest rate only if the card holder is 60 days late in making a minimum payment. However, if the consumer pays on time for the next six months, the lender would have to drop the interest rate down to the original level.

oh this is nice, in college I had a credit card I'd had for three years and the due date was on the 15th of every month. then they changed it to the 13th without telling me (or my noticing) and when my minimum payment went through on the 14th I got slapped with a charge and my 9% interest rate skyrocketed to 30% interest. This would prevent that sort of shenanigans. I'm still pissed about that, the additional interest was really burdensome on a college work study income. After a year or so of making payments on time I called them and asked to get my original orate back, no dice, of course. I haven't missed a payment since then and remain alert for attempts to screw with the dates payments are due (though I no longer pay the minimum and rarely carry a balance anymore)

[mcbigski]

Also, I find it curious that the insurance industry only finds room for massive savings when there are plans on the table to institute some kind of government-run or government-sponsored health care system. One would think, Commodore, that the magic of the market would have unleashed this kind of efficiency, and not evil and unwarranted pressure from government. How can this be explained, do you think?

We'll have to see how it all shakes out, but I suspect the end result will be, in some very obvious ways, analogous to the tobacco company settlements where the big established business pays off the government shakedown and then continues business as usual, slightly less profitably. Also, these 'massive savings' are in the same category as Congressional 'spending cuts' where two years ago they spent $100mil on Program X, last year they spent $110mil and this year instead of $120mil, they're only going spend $115mil for $5 mil in 'savings'. They don't actually exist.

Makes me wonder if Obama's plan is to run up the authorized spending tab for TARP, stimulus, etc to say $5 trillion, only spend $4T and run for reelection on some sort of frugality platform. If he did, enough of the media would fellate him for his fiscal restraint that a fair number of folks would believe it.

[TrackerNeil]

We'll have to see how it all shakes out, but I suspect the end result will be, in some very obvious ways, analogous to the tobacco company settlements where the big established business pays off the government shakedown and then continues business as usual, slightly less profitably.

Sounds to me like this "government shakedown" managed to shake some savings out of the insurance industry, which I thought was the job of the market. Could it be that in some circumstances government outperforms the free market?

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Makes me wonder if Obama's plan is to run up the authorized spending tab for TARP, stimulus, etc to say $5 trillion, only spend $4T and run for reelection on some sort of frugality platform. If he did, enough of the media would fellate him for his fiscal restraint that a fair number of folks would believe it.

Hmm.. reminds me of Obama "gutting" military by increasing the spending by 4%. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[EHK for Darwin]

Motherfucker. I know some people who really could've used that credit card bill last year. Fuck you George Bush.

[Galactus]

The only way health care costs are going down is if there is less care, i.e. rationed care, i.e. some government agency deciding what treatment one is entitled to.

Nah, there are a few ways to cut down costs anyway. One is the benefits of economy of scale, another is pushing for better preventative care (which is usually cheaper and more efficient than surgery)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

anguy,

I have no problem with "sin taxes". In fact I think they are much more fair than normal income taxes. I think tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy food, sweetened drinks etc. shouldn be taxed heavily so that lung cancer and obesity related diseases would be completely covered by those taxes. Consider it health insurance. It's much more fair for people who live unhealthy live to pay for their own future care than for all others to do the same.

With regard to "unhealthy food and sweetened drinks" what if you are underweight and need to eat fattening stuff to maintain your health. Should you be exempted from sin taxes on those items?

[Galactus]

anguy,

With regard to "unhealthy food and sweetened drinks" what if you are underweight and need to eat fattening stuff to maintain your health. Should you be exempted from sin taxes on those items?

You can do it that way. Just have your doctor hand out cupouns exempting you from taxes for your daily "ration" of sugar.

[TrackerNeil]

With regard to "unhealthy food and sweetened drinks" what if you are underweight and need to eat fattening stuff to maintain your health. Should you be exempted from sin taxes on those items?

Are there many people who require junk food to maintain their health? I'm no physician, but it seems to me that if I were underweight and desirous of weight gain, I'd eat things like eggs and milk and other protein-rich foods, and not Ho-Ho's and Twinkies and Jolt cola. But that's just me.

[Yagathai]

Sounds to me like this "government shakedown" managed to shake some savings out of the insurance industry, which I thought was the job of the market. Could it be that in some circumstances government outperforms the free market?

In that I could pull a gun on you and take your money and that's more efficient than giving you a 1040EZ form, yes.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

Are there many people who require junk food to maintain their health? I'm no physician, but it seems to me that if I were underweight and desirous of weight gain, I'd eat things like eggs and milk and other protein-rich foods, and not Ho-Ho's and Twinkies and Jolt cola. But that's just me.

I don't know. I do know there were a few people in one of the past fitness thread who have to eat a lot to maintain weight. If you have to eat things to maintain weight why eat crap that tastes like cardboard when you can eat stuff that tastes good? Why punish someone for eating something that isn't hurting them?