American Politics 18

[Peter Irving]

I am worried that these nutjobs are going to distract people from Rep. Bachmann from the my great state of Minnesota. Don't make her pull off the kids gloves in this crazy-off. She'll put her tin hat on in public and start a fire in the Supreme Court building after locking in the activist judges.

:lol: You know she probably would!

[TrackerNeil]

Ha....

Because the federal government is good at getting rid of ineffective entitlement programs?

Got an example?

;)

It's true...the feds have not yet been able to get Haliburton off the public teat.

[Swordfish]

It's true...the feds have not yet been able to get Haliburton off the public teat.

It's funny because it's true.

Thanks for helping me make my point!

;)

[Peter Irving]

I'm against it because of cost. Personally I say that the federal goverment should provide for its own like giving free lifetiuime health care to anyone who works for it more than two years as wellas their spouse and any childrn under 18.

[Swordfish]

I still believe the public option is either effective and worth being an entitlement program, or innocuous and unimportant. Meaning that if it is effective at controlling costs then I don't care if it sticks around and if it's not effective at cutting costs then it just won't be significant.

This is the attitude I just don't get. It has the potential to be enormously expensive. How is that not significant?

It's particularly puzzling given the rest of your post where you seem to acknowledge the risks.

If we put in place a bill that is overly expensive, all possibility of meaningful reform is finished. it will be the albatross that breaks the camels back, because it will consume too many resources and sour the public on it for the foreseeable future.

if they put it in, they'll never take it out, so basically, they get one shot at it.

[Shryke]

More on the public option opt-in or out by state variation:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/opt...ion-purism.html

No one will take the opt-out option. It's no different then the stimulus money.

They'll RAGE against it over and over again, and then they'll quietly take it and start handing out huge novelty checks at photo-ops with their own names signed on them and go around yelling about how they brought jobs and money home to their state and aren't they great and fuck those damn Feds who don't care about us.

[Shryke]

This is the attitude I just don't get. It has the potential to be enormously expensive. How is that not significant?

It's particularly puzzling given the rest of your post where you seem to acknowledge the risks.

If we put in place a bill that is overly expensive, all possibility of meaningful reform is finished. it will be the albatross that breaks the camels back, because it will consume too many resources and sour the public on it for the foreseeable future.

if they put it in, they'll never take it out, so basically, they get one shot at it.

Doing nothing or not enough is already enormously expensive.

[Peter Irving]

so anyone like my idea?

[Annelise]

Annelise - On the public option, #6 is one of the reasons that I think it's worth trying. If it is effective it's a good thing for most people and if it's not there isn't much harm done.

Right. I am going to ignore Swordfish's reply because I just got called for an interview for the job I want, so I am all about the hope right now. :P

[Swordfish]

Swordfish – It also has the potential to create a paradigm shift that lowers insurance premiums across the board. As Shryke said, we’re already in a bad situation. The public option might be something that can make it better. I don’t think that it will even gain much traction unless it’s cost-effective. That is why I think it’s worth trying.

I think you place too much on the relationship between perception and cost effectiveness. See also: Medicare, SSI.....

To the people receiving the benefit, the cost effectiveness of the programs is only a secondary concern. When you are perceiving that you are getting something of value, and that you are paying less than fair market value for it, your primary concern is that the benefit continue, and it's someone elses problem to figure out how to pay for it.

Essentially if people perceive they are getting something for nothing, they are not generally concerned about whether that something is particularly cost effective.

How do you envision it costing a ton and making things worse?

The incentive for the feds to control cost is far outweighed by their incentive to pander to special interests voting blocks. (like they currently do with seniors)

If given the choice between adding a benefit that is particularly popular to a voting block or cutting an inefficient, costly benefit that people like, which do you think most politicians are likely to choose?

And i won't even bother to go into the potential for pork, graft, and waste in a federal bureaucracy off that size and scope.....

[Swordfish]

So you're not one of those people who fears government rationing of care, you fear government not rationing care?

Absolutely.

I don't think the government is capable of rationing anything, at least when it comes at the expense of votes.

[The Progressive]

So you're not one of those people who fears government rationing of care, you fear government not rationing care?

That's a legitimate concern for the fiscally conservatives. The solution here would be careful benefit analysis of new or expensive procedures, frequent audits by independent panels, and robust anti-fraud measures.

[BloodRider]

It's true...the feds have not yet been able to get Haliburton off the public teat.

DAMMIT - That was gonna be my line.

Actually I was going to reference the Franken Amendment, but close enough.....

[BloodRider]

This is the attitude I just don't get. It has the potential to be enormously expensive. How is that not significant?

It's particularly puzzling given the rest of your post where you seem to acknowledge the risks.

If we put in place a bill that is overly expensive, all possibility of meaningful reform is finished. it will be the albatross that breaks the camels back, because it will consume too many resources and sour the public on it for the foreseeable future.

if they put it in, they'll never take it out, so basically, they get one shot at it.

I know it has a large priceag, but there are opportunity costs associated with going with the status quo. And I think (and evidence leans in this direction) that not having a public option will cost us much much more.

I see your argument as analagous to an argument that one should continue leasing cars because buying them costs too much.

[DanteGabriel]

It's true...the feds have not yet been able to get Haliburton off the public teat.

Which reminds me... where do we stand with the enforcement of the anti-ACORN law that should have made Halliburton and other right wing corporate welfare queens ineligible for federal money?

[Swordfish]

I know it has a large priceag, but there are opportunity costs associated with going with the status quo. And I think (and evidence leans in this direction) that not having a public option will cost us much much more.

We don't even know what 'it' is yet, so.....

you are making an argument supporting the general need for healthcare reform. i don't think that is something that many people dispute.

I see your argument as analagous to an argument that one should continue leasing cars because buying them costs too much.

if we're into the bad analogy section of the conversation, then it's more like I'm making the argument that you don't send homer simpson to buy you a new car, because you end up with an overly expensive lemon that's been sold based upon how many bells and whistles it has, when what you need is basic, reliable transportation.

And then you can't get rid of it, and you can't afford to buy something else because too much of your income is making the payments on the lemon.

i'm not even going to bother to go into the fact that sometimes leasing a car instead of buying a car DOES make more sense, because I don't think the analogy is relevant anyway.

[The Progressive]

Which reminds me... where do we stand with the enforcement of the anti-ACORN law that should have made Halliburton and other right wing corporate welfare queens ineligible for federal money?

The silence about this from the wingnut is hilariously deafening.

Drudge/Beck/Limbaugh are also choking up with righteous rage over the Franken amendment to the new defense bill, lol.

[TrackerNeil]

Which reminds me... where do we stand with the enforcement of the anti-ACORN law that should have made Halliburton and other right wing corporate welfare queens ineligible for federal money?

I wish I knew. I've read that the various defense contractors who have defrauded the federal government receive, all together, more money in one day than ACORN has in twenty years. Leave it to Congress to target the minnow whilst the great whale swims on unmolested.

[lokisnow]

You mean Whitewater, but I don't remember the details, sorry.

LMAO! :blush:

posted at 7 in the morning (I work nights so I'd been up twenty hours) right before I went to sleep. I'm sort of delighted I made such a hilarious and boneheaded mistake. :-p

[Maltaran]

That's a legitimate concern for the fiscally conservatives. The solution here would be careful benefit analysis of new or expensive procedures, frequent audits by independent panels, and robust anti-fraud measures.

In other words, another thing you can copy from us Brits - in this case, it would be NICE