Jump to content

American Politics 16


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

Ignoring the fact that it would have to be crafted and enacted to begin with, why would you have more faith once it's on the books? All the same factors will still be in place.

Actually they won't. The system will be in place and hence the arguments will shift to being about how to run the system rather then whether we should have one. Most of the day-to-day stuff will also not get a ton of attention from the media (so it won't cause the kind of shitstorms we've been seeing) and, in fact, won't have much to do with elected officials at all.

So, yeah, VERY different situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will happen if nothing passes this year?

Shssh, and start chanting optimism with me. We can try the maenad trick together: for as long as we believe, it will be so...

Admittedly, it's got it's weaknesses as a strategy, but if we can get 2000 years out of it like Maryann, fuckin' A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

What will happen if nothing passes this year?

End Quote

Well, I guess its Obama's waterloo!! Nothing passing is so much better than the current monstrosities that have been proposed so far. $900 Billion plan = bankrupt America. But wait, we already are bankrupt and owned by the Chinese.

Thank you big government! And that shout out goes to both the Dems and the Repubs. I still think my way is best. Lets just vote them all out of office and start fresh shall we? I wonder if I could get a referundum to do that...

But seriously...how can we have any health care reform that costs so much money? We cant. We cant afford it. Unless it is going to be paid with Cap and Tax maybe? Oh wait, the Cap and Tax bill raises taxes on ALL Americans and will most likely tax more small businesses out of work, breaking Obama's promise to us lowly souls that make less than $250k a year and raising the unemployment level.

Oh well...

Hasta!

Stark Out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But seriously...how can we have any health care reform that costs so much money? We cant. We cant afford it. Unless it is going to be paid with Cap and Tax maybe? Oh wait, the Cap and Tax bill raises taxes on ALL Americans and will most likely tax more small businesses out of work, breaking Obama's promise to us lowly souls that make less than $250k a year and raising the unemployment level.

Oh well...

Hasta!

Stark Out!

Seriously how can America maintain it's economic dominance without a significant change to it's health care system? We can't, we can't afford it. The system is broken past the point of simple fixes and needs a major overhaul.

Fourteen years ago the Clintons tried to reform health care and it's opponents promised that if it was just left alone free market forces would fix it and all would be well. In the past 14 years the reverse happened, the number of un and underinsured people has risen and cost has continued to outpace the rate of inflation. Nothing the opponents has currently proposed has even begun to address those two issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AP

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.

Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.

The provision on business records was long criticized by rights groups as giving the government access to citizens' library records, and a coalition of liberal and conservative groups complained that the Patriot Act gives the government too much authority to snoop into Americans' private lives.

The executive branch never likes to give up new powers once it has acquired them. The more things CHANGE the more they stay the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it will go down just like this, the 900 billion is over 10 years. If you wanted to tax health benefits you could get ~$350 billion right there. You could save another $80 billion according to Rand if we get HIT up and running and that estimate accounts for investments. If you want to use the repeal of the Bush tax cuts to pay for things too you could get another windfall. It's debatable how much tort reform could save. The biggest estimate say that defensive medicine cost the system $200 billion a year, and tort reform could help mitigate this. Medicare fraud may cost as much as $60 billion per year. So reforming both of those things if they were maximized (and I know this is totally unrealistic) would represent $2 trillion and $600 billion in savings over ten years respectively.

Those are just some areas where the potential for cost saving exist. What actually happens remains to be seen. I'm just trying to point out that to simply look at the price tag and say it's unaffordable is an oversimplification.

Just because you can theoretically raise taxes to pay for something doesn't make it a wise investment.

Why does tort reform and medicare fraud have to wait for a redesign of the entire health care sector? Are the Democrats just going to refuse to pursue cost reductions there out of spite or something if they don't get their way on UHC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is using the wrong teacher on health care reform, they're trying to avoid the mistakes the Clinton administration made. Instead they should be trying to replicate the legislative success the Bush Administration had in their first term. They had much tinier majorities but wielded much more massive power much more effectively. the way the health care reform debate has gone has been like a two year old with a lightsaber. the dems handed the lightsaber to the two year old (the repubs) and said, do whatever you want, but make lots of pretty lights and fireworks. And suddenly the person with the weapon is in control. I dunno why the republicans can rule everything that happens when they have a significant minority, but they manage to do it, and it's fucking exasperating, considering the effort the voters have put in to get democrat majorities in congress. A fucking shame. And an absolute enormous fucking waste the way this has played out.

But we have found out that screaming and temper tantrums and shrieking lies nonstop and when challenged to shriek more lies more loudly is the most effective strategy to win the public's favor. Oh wait, we learned that in the Clinton administration to, and then we went to war because those who would shriek and yell and have temper tantrums were cowed by an effective parent with the dire threat of punishment (you're unamerican, you're unpatriotic). When the fuck are we going to wake up, spank the fucking two year old and lay out a stern threat of dire punishment if the liars don't shut the fuck up?

Answer, never. Fucking bullshit liberal nonsense about never punishing kids and listening to the other point of view means we're letting the spoiled kids get their way and run all over us. If a goddamn child has a fucking point of view that putting arsenic in chocolate chip cookies is a good idea I'm not going to listen to it. yet we listen to republicans when they tell us to put arsenic in our health care reform. Fucking absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," (Jimmy) Carter told NBC News. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."

"That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply," Carter said.

CNN

Reaction to this should be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Health care is just a little bit over my head ... too many plates to have to keep spinning at the same time.

Quick question, though: what is the legal argument for treating corporations as persons for the purposes of campaign donations?

I understand the most prominent case that established them as people, but if there is an actual solid legal reasoning, it has to exist outside the contextual limits of any one case, and I'm curious what reasoning can justify the position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is using the wrong teacher on health care reform, they're trying to avoid the mistakes the Clinton administration made. Instead they should be trying to replicate the legislative success the Bush Administration had in their first term. They had much tinier majorities but wielded much more massive power much more effectively. the way the health care reform debate has gone has been like a two year old with a lightsaber. the dems handed the lightsaber to the two year old (the repubs) and said, do whatever you want, but make lots of pretty lights and fireworks. And suddenly the person with the weapon is in control. I dunno why the republicans can rule everything that happens when they have a significant minority, but they manage to do it, and it's fucking exasperating, considering the effort the voters have put in to get democrat majorities in congress. A fucking shame. And an absolute enormous fucking waste the way this has played out.

But we have found out that screaming and temper tantrums and shrieking lies nonstop and when challenged to shriek more lies more loudly is the most effective strategy to win the public's favor. Oh wait, we learned that in the Clinton administration to, and then we went to war because those who would shriek and yell and have temper tantrums were cowed by an effective parent with the dire threat of punishment (you're unamerican, you're unpatriotic). When the fuck are we going to wake up, spank the fucking two year old and lay out a stern threat of dire punishment if the liars don't shut the fuck up?

Answer, never. Fucking bullshit liberal nonsense about never punishing kids and listening to the other point of view means we're letting the spoiled kids get their way and run all over us. If a goddamn child has a fucking point of view that putting arsenic in chocolate chip cookies is a good idea I'm not going to listen to it. yet we listen to republicans when they tell us to put arsenic in our health care reform. Fucking absurd.

The Democrats maintain their majority with the help of the Blue Dogs, who can't be counted on as much as you'd like. The GOP has always had much better party discipline too. On top of this, they have no shame, conscience or knowledge of the word "hypocrisy" and that is, sadly, an asset in politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats maintain their majority with the help of the Blue Dogs, who can't be counted on as much as you'd like. The GOP has always had much better party discipline too. On top of this, they have no shame, conscience or knowledge of the word "hypocrisy" and that is, sadly, an asset in politics.

I think the Blue Dogs' numerical influence is actually overrated. The Democrats in the House (where the Blue Dogs are formally defined) have 257 seats; the Blue Dogs have 52 of them. Since 218 is the key number, the Dems only need to get 13 out of the 52 (25%) to vote party-line, assuming everyone else behaves themselves.

In the Senate on the other hand, an awful lot of that is simply that Harry Reid is an unbelievably shitty majority leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Senate on the other hand, an awful lot of that is simply that Harry Reid is an unbelievably shitty majority leader.

Agreed. Threatening to force one of your own party members to actually filibuster, as he did with Chris Dodd a few years back, is something you'd never catch Republicans doing. And as far as I can see, he has been AWOL in regards to health insurance reform. He should be right in the mix, cajoling and persuading, threatening when that's called for, and making it clear that any Republican filibuster will have to be an actual filibuster and not a courtesy cloture vote.

Also, as has been said before, the cheat code to government is an utter lack of shamelessness, and the GOP has that in spades. That's why we Democrats always wind up getting hosed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so what's going to be the fall-out of Obama calling Kanye West a jackass? Is he going to face criticism over it from the usual suspects, or do they realize that this is something that is generally being seen as so positive that it's stupid to attack him on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you can theoretically raise taxes to pay for something doesn't make it a wise investment.

Just because you can skim on social services and save some money doesn't mean it's a sound policy, either.

Why does tort reform and medicare fraud have to wait for a redesign of the entire health care sector? Are the Democrats just going to refuse to pursue cost reductions there out of spite or something if they don't get their way on UHC?

Tort reform has always been a distraction to the discussion on health care reform in the U.S. Not only are the tort reforms being touted typically the wrong sort of tort reform (Raidne had explained it quite well in the last go around), but the impact of tort reform on the overall cost of health care is minimal, as well. For states that have implemented tort reform, the results range from absent to minimal, when it comes to health care cost. We should definitely attempt it, in a logical way, but it cannot not the central issue. For any genuine desire to reform health care, tort reform cannot be a major pillar of the plan.

As for Medicare fraud, we should think of ways to better regulate and enforce the rules, but let's face it, there are no systems that cannot be gamed by some people. Reducing fraud is a worthwhile goal, but like tort reform, the impact on the actual causes for the increasing cost of health care and the lack of coverage for millions of Americans will be minimal at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only are the tort reforms being touted typically the wrong sort of tort reform (Raidne had explained it quite well in the last go around), but the impact of tort reform on the overall cost of health care is minimal, as well.

Here's an article on Obama's approach to tort reform, which favors some state level experiments like Bush evidently wanted to run but never did. IIRC, it does somewhat reflect what Raidne spoke of in trying to reduce malpractice litigation rather than offer caps on winning suits: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9091001865.html

"I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet" to curb medical spending, the president said, "but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs."

[...]

The question of whether the medical malpractice climate contributes to the nation's health-care spending has been examined by government agencies and academic researchers. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the federal Government Accountability Office have concluded in recent years that the link between medical liability and health costs is scant. The most often-cited studies by proponents of limits on malpractice awards looked at spending on certain elderly patients hospitalized with heart problems and concluded that caps might lower expenditures on those patients by perhaps 6 percent -- a reduction far greater than those found by other analyses.

In a lengthy report of key issues in evaluating health insurance proposals, the Congressional Budget Office concluded last December: "After carefully considering the economic literature and conducting its own statistical analysis of the data, CBO has not found consistent evidence that changes in the medical malpractice environment would have a measurable impact on health care spending."

http://instituteforlegalreform.com/compone...2363762161.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Baucus finally released his compromise or centrist bill. Which, as it turns out, has no GOP support either. Snowe abandoned it. But..

“I think there will be Republican support when the bill is reported out, at the very latest,†he said. “It may be earlier there will be a Republican or two that will announce support.â€

That would be next week, at the latest. But if not, this is what we appear to be looking at:

Democrats control 59 seats in the Senate. Without a single Republican vote, they would be forced to advance healthcare using a budgetary maneuver that requires only a simple majority.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that Democrats are prepared to use budget reconciliation as a last resort.

“We’ve always had a place at the table for Republicans. There’s one there today. We hope it bears fruit,†he said. “If we can’t get the 60 votes we need, then we’ll have no alternative but to use reconciliation.â€

Honestly, if they have to use reconciliation just to get the Baucus bill through, might as well go for the gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, if they have to use reconciliation just to get the Baucus bill through, might as well go for the gold.

Exactly. Screw Baucus and his insurance-paid-for campaign contribution. Get to 57 or 58 votes, with Snowe plus whoever GOP you can find, and ignore the blue dogs. If they want to grand-stand and fillibuster, let them. The responsibility of making sure no health care reform passes will be on their heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, I share this worry with Sen. Snowe, regarding the Baucus bill:

Snowe said that lawmakers cannot expect people to comply with a federal mandate to buy health insurance if affordable plans are not available.

“The affordability question is crucial,†said Snowe. “It’s a central component, because at the end of the day people have high expectations they will have access to affordable health insurance.â€

This bill relies on co-opts, but no one seems to think they will be more than minimally effective at lowering costs. Suffice it to say, it will be disastrous if they mandate everyone buying insurance if they can't bring costs down enough so it's affordable. Baucus' bill taxes insurance companies for charging more than $8000 for an individual and more than $21,000 per family, but I think those marks are too high. My Mom, for instance, pays $7200 a year and that's too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snowe said that lawmakers cannot expect people to comply with a federal mandate to buy health insurance if affordable plans are not available.

“The affordability question is crucial,†said Snowe. “It’s a central component, because at the end of the day people have high expectations they will have access to affordable health insurance.â€

If she's serious, then perhaps the good senator should reconsider her opposition to the public option. If she's serious.

Fuck them. Send this to budget reconciliation and ram it through. Then we Democrats can claim all the credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...