American Politics XIII

[Inigima]

Sort of switching gears here...has everyone heard about the guy at one of the town hall meetings who exclaimed "Keep your government hands off of my Medicare!" ???? Awesome.

Not only this this far from uncommon, but Arthur Laffer said it on national television. Conservatives, you wonder why we think you're a laughingstock? It's stuff like this.

Ector, citing "a guy on the radio" is not evidence, please try again.

[Guy Kilmore]

I would be curious to see what people feel a true moderate is. I see that term bandied about alot, but I get the feeling that people are utilizing different definitions of the word. Of course this is probably more due to a perception bias and/or a self concious desire to be seen as part of a group.

How would free market selection work in the use of roads? I have a driveway, I can only use the road adjacent to it. I would have no control over the private entity that would own said road. That private entity, infact, could change the rules use of the road and prevent me from being able to leave my home by vehicle.

[Lightning Lord]

We've all read that Sen. Martinez (R-FL) is stepping down. I just wanted to point out the following quote from a story on the resignation:

Crist quickly said he would not install himself as the incumbent leading up to the GOP primary. The governor, who has earned a reputation for having a strong political antenna, will want to make his pick appear as one that won't look like it's clearing the path for his election next year.

"The best way to make it easy for him would be to do the right thing and that is pick a well qualified person to do the job," said former state GOP party boss Van Poole. "And I think that's what he's going to do."

My concern/comment is not directed at any particular party here, though it is brought on by a former GOP member. A senator is stepping down and it was felt necessary to point out the importance of picking a well qualified member? Shouldn't that just be a given, an assumption? When did our politics become so ridiculous that a quoted, party-affiliated source thinks it has to be pointed out that a well qualified person should represent a state in the US Senate? :tantrum: Have we really gotten to the point that a governor could stand up and say "Well, I had two choices...one was well qualified, the other not so much. After a lot of soul-searching, I reluctantly went with the qualified candidate. I know that was a radical approach, but it seemed like the right thing to do, this being my state and all."

I know Van Poole didn't say the governor was considering unqualified people. But...really? A degree of qualification is now national news? I had to have qualifications to get a job ringing up groceries in a super market. I now need to lower my standard to "Does this person, this APPOINTED PERSON, have any qualifications?"

Gah, sorry if this is non-sensical. Had a few beers with the boys, then read this. Bah.

[The Iceman of the North]

Guy, don't tell me you don't recognise true moderates when you see them?

[Greg]

If some company screwed over it customers constantly, nobody would buy from them and they would go out of business. Where is my logic flawed?

Because, according to the following survey, for many people the market doesn't provide viable options.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Ne...-Consumers.aspx

(For those more savvy in science or the proper construction of surveys please feel free to criticise this study on its methodology or on its merits. Baseless, ideologically based criticism is unwelcome, because it doesn't help us arrive at some kind of Truth or at any sort of compromise or agreement.)

Ector, on the whole I agree that the market is the best way to satisfy the needs of consumers. But because the market is a profit driven instument, it does not respond well when the consumer has a need which cannot be met profitably. There are some instances where state(wind and high risk driver insurance pools) and Federal(National Flood Plan, Medicare, and Medicaid) governments step in to fill insurance needs where it is highly unprofitable for private companies to do so.

Customer service and responsiveness to customer needs are only held up as a corporate virtues when it is profitable, viable, and necessary to do so. This is why auto and home insurance companies try so hard to be warm and fuzzy and your local utilities companies rarely are. When you go to Geico you save money and have 24 hour service, Travelers offers you the safety of their umbrella, and Progressive will sell to anyone and give you great product choices. All of those companies offer a plethora of friendly payment plans, etc. etc. Your local electrical or gas monopoly? Their customer service motto might as well be "We have power, you need it, so pay up or go fuck yourself".

For a large percentage of Americans, we do not have viable choices outside of employer provided/subsidized health insurance. I might be able to shop around for health insurance and even get a number of quotes, but I can't afford any on them. The only ones my wife and I can afford are offered through our employers. We are lucky in that our health plans provide excellent value for our premiums. However, as the study shows above, many are not so fortunate.

[Annelise]

Oh, but it does serve very well to draw the wrath of the swarm down upon you.

Plenty of derision to go around, it's true. The thread would be better off if that was toned down. Just don't make the mistake of equating taking issue with an individual's style/MO for a refusal to engage a different POV or a lack of intellectual curiosity. Throwing a carpet over "It's not me, they are just close-minded!" doesn't do anything to advance the debate, either. The possession of a political stripe, whatever it may be, is no guarantee of your debate/discussion bona fides.

As I have said before, having an opposing POV is not an entitlement card. The internet is big, there are others out there who have x opinion; we have choices. Demand more.

[Foreverlad]

We've all read that Sen. Martinez (R-FL) is stepping down. I just wanted to point out the following quote from a story on the resignation:

My concern/comment is not directed at any particular party here, though it is brought on by a former GOP member. A senator is stepping down and it was felt necessary to point out the importance of picking a well qualified member? Shouldn't that just be a given, an assumption? When did our politics become so ridiculous that a quoted, party-affiliated source thinks it has to be pointed out that a well qualified person should represent a state in the US Senate? :tantrum: Have we really gotten to the point that a governor could stand up and say "Well, I had two choices...one was well qualified, the other not so much. After a lot of soul-searching, I reluctantly went with the qualified candidate. I know that was a radical approach, but it seemed like the right thing to do, this being my state and all."

I know Van Poole didn't say the governor was considering unqualified people. But...really? A degree of qualification is now national news? I had to have qualifications to get a job ringing up groceries in a super market. I now need to lower my standard to "Does this person, this APPOINTED PERSON, have any qualifications?"

Gah, sorry if this is non-sensical. Had a few beers with the boys, then read this. Bah.

Lightning,

I think it was just filler. Crist has been planning to step down and run for the position himself. Instead of giving himself a headstart or tilting things toward his favor, he's going to do the right thing and fill the position with whoever is best qualified, while finishing up his own term as governor. The article is just stating the fact that he's maintaining his own role.

[Foreverlad]

Just had myself a personal experience (of sorts) with the "Nobamacare" crowd.

Half hour ago I went out to the supermarket to pick a few things up. As I was leaving, a 20 to 40 car motorcade started driving through the shopping center, perpetually honking and waving fists in the air. These cars/vans/motorcycles all had cheap American flags in their windshields along with signs reading messages ranging from "The Freedom of Speech is not Free!!!" to images like Trencher's avatar of the 'joker Obama'. The most prevalent signs/window paints mentioned things about/against 'socialized' health care.

These fools wouldn't stop their honking, kept running through the crosswalk stop signs. Looks like they're making a day of driving through all the various shopping centers on U.S. 19 as some form of mobile protest.

I couldn't tell exactly how many vehicles there were. Motorcycles were 2-across and the line of vehicles were still pulling in off the side road as I was pulling out. Like I said though, somewhere between 20 and 40 vehicles doing this.

[Atreides]

I still don't get the joker Obama thing. Clearly they are trying to imply he's frightening, but the best way they could get at a "socialist" was to portray him as an anarchist?

[Annelise]

Suppose what I would like to know is what exactly they are against. A public option? Expanding coverage to everyone? HCR in general? It would also be useful to know what they are for. Protesting is fine but it's even more useful to say something more than no. Like, "Instead of a public option, I would like to see something resembling the McCain plan." I am not bothered when informed people object to what Obama is suggesting. But then what *do* you want, because the majority seems to agree it's a problem that needs to be dealt with. Simply rejecting Obama's proposal, say, doesn't address the problem. An incidentally, it has not appeared to me that majority is bound by party lines.

[Shryke]

I still don't get the joker Obama thing. Clearly they are trying to imply he's frightening, but the best way they could get at a "socialist" was to portray him as an anarchist?

AFAIK it's based off some popular-on-the-right interpretation of The Dark Knight.

Basically, Batman is Bush The Lesser. I'm sure you can figure out rest.

[Darkostar]

AFAIK it's based off some popular-on-the-right interpretation of The Dark Knight.

Basically, Batman is Bush The Lesser. I'm sure you can figure out rest.

Sean Hannity is Robin in ultra tight boy shorts?

[Annelise]

Continuing with my train of thought..

Indies, Republicans and Democrats alike agree it's a problem. That is not the partisan part of the issue. Republicans (56% in June according to Kaiser) think we can't afford to do it right now, so in some cases no undoubtedly just means no HCR right now because we can't afford it, rendering the policy debate moot. Not that it sounds like that's what Foreverlad's motorcade was objecting to, unless they figured the "socialized medicine" stuff would be more effective than "we can't afford it". Anyway, that concern is obviously not limited to Republicans they just polled the highest on that. Dems were at 74% we can afford it and Indies were at 59%.. I believe those numbers slipped in July though, as worry on that point has increased.

Anyway, saw this and figured I'd include it too:

The underlying problems that have motivated the public to care about health reform, such as skipping or delaying care due to costs, remain high and largely unchanged from previous surveys, with a majority (55%) of Americans reporting that they or another member of their household have put off some needed medical care because of cost in the past 12 months, such as skipping a recommended test or treatment or not filling a prescription for medication.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?act=p...71308&st=80

[Watcher]

Message boards would be fantastic for this. You could start a thread asking for "health insurance company fucked me stories" and get the names of the companies who you feel screwed their clients and cross them off your list. Their is bound to be similar threads on other message boards. To a much lesser degree you could read the newspaper or watch the news. Liberal media loves a good "big insurance abusing little guy" story. How about you support legislation that forces companies to show these stats ( I have no idea if thats in the ObamaCare bill). Personally I would be against that but it would seem to be right up your alley.

Part of the proposal is that insurance companies would have to prove there was intentional fraud before they can drop that person. Since these stories aren't all over the news, that says something about your faith in the so-called liberal media, doesn't it?

Why would you be against full enclosure? How can I make an informed choice without complete knowledge? Nice catch 22, it's my fault I can't check out the company for their practices but you'll deny me the tools I'd need to do so.

Getting a message board full of horror stories would be nice, but it's all heresay until something can be proven.

[Foreverlad]

Suppose what I would like to know is what exactly they are against. A public option? Expanding coverage to everyone? HCR in general? It would also be useful to know what they are for. Protesting is fine but it's even more useful to say something more than no. Like, "Instead of a public option, I would like to see something resembling the McCain plan." I am not bothered when informed people object to what Obama is suggesting. But then what *do* you want, because the majority seems to agree it's a problem that needs to be dealt with. Simply rejecting Obama's proposal, say, doesn't address the problem. An incidentally, it has not appeared to me that majority is bound by party lines.

I had been watching Real Time with Bill Maher last night. Instead of a panel of 3, there were only two guests: Reps Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) and Jack Kingston (R-Georgia). The big topic of the evening was HCR. Outside of the financial aspects, the two brought up some good points at times, but it's pretty obvious (to me) that these issues are not what your average Republican is bitching about. No one at the town hall meetings warns that medicare patients usually (forget the %) maintain a supplementary insurance plan, so government plans can't be that great.

Those are complaints I accept. Those that bitch because Obama is a commie and his plans involve making the U.S. the world's bitch aren't doing themselves any favors arguing against health care with Fox News talkings points repeated verbatim.

Long story short: I agree with you Annelise

[BloodRider]

I would be curious to see what people feel a true moderate is.

You could try this tool, I reckon.

Supposedly I am more Libertarian and more liberal than most.

My Political Views

I am a left moderate social libertarian

Left: 4, Libertarian: 2.83

Political Spectrum Quiz

[Annelise]

I had been watching Real Time with Bill Maher last night. Instead of a panel of 3, there were only two guests: Reps Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) and Jack Kingston (R-Georgia). The big topic of the evening was HCR. Outside of the financial aspects, the two brought up some good points at times, but it's pretty obvious (to me) that these issues are not what your average Republican is bitching about. No one at the town hall meetings warns that medicare patients usually (forget the %) maintain a supplementary insurance plan, so government plans can't be that great.

Those are complaints I accept. Those that bitch because Obama is a commie and his plans involve making the U.S. the world's bitch aren't doing themselves any favors arguing against health care with Fox News talkings points repeated verbatim.

Long story short: I agree with you Annelise

Kudos to Maher, it seemed like he was getting away from having any conservatives on there for awhile. Get a couple Republicans, a couple Indies and a couple Dems at a table on ABC for an hour with an outline. I think Americans would heave a sigh of relief to have people just talk reasonably on the big points for an hour, rather than getting bombarded with political ads and people who yell at each other for a 5-10 minute segment on a news show. ETA: TApe that then hand it over to some non-profits like Kaiser, to add a factcheck at the end. Or hell, give those people a seat at the table to begin with.

[Watcher]

You could try this tool, I reckon.

Supposedly I am more Libertarian and more liberal than most.

My Political Views

I am a left moderate social libertarian

Left: 4, Libertarian: 2.83

Political Spectrum Quiz

According to that site not more left leaning then me. Which I admit I'm not a centralist lefty by American standards. But we both have about the same Libertarian leaning

My Political Views

I am a left moderate social libertarian

Left: 6.22, Libertarian: 2.24

[Foreverlad]

Kudos to Maher, it seemed like he was getting away from having any conservatives on there for awhile.

To the best of my understanding, Bill was having a difficult time getting Republicans to come on his show. Love him or hate him, he's more than willing to give just about anyone an opportunity to speak, except maybe 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Both reps had been guests on his show before.

[Annelise]

No one at the town hall meetings warns that medicare patients usually (forget the %) maintain a supplementary insurance plan, so government plans can't be that great.

Making cookies so in another chopped up response.. :P

My relatives who are on medicare do have supplementary plans. The ones they chose cost $150-200 a month (they mentioned that they used to pay less but costs have obviously been going up). I'm not sure what they get with that but I know there are so many supplementary plans that it's overwhelming and you need help sorting through it all. On the other hand, you really get to tailor it according to your needs.

I was just talking to my MiL today and she said she is satisfied, mentioning that she paid nothing for the $10,000 helicopter ride to Columbus when she started having a heart attack in a relatively remote area of Ohio. Anyhow, my uncle and my MiL pays $150-200 and my Mom pays $600 for private insurance.