American Politics: the Lost Generation

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I make no claim as to the strengths or merits of my arguments (though they are, in fact, both mighty and meritous).

This, I challenge!

Further, I take keen and personal offense as being categorized as a "lefty".

My apologies. That was an uncalled for slur on my part.

This is where I doubt your claim of mighty and meritous arguments. Previously, you rightly pointed out that my reluctance to engage on this topic was due to being either lazy or cowardly.

I have no quarrel with your addition of "arrogant", because it is both accurate and not inconsistent with your prior observation. But I strongly object to your apparant rejection of the "lazy" alternative in favor of "cowardly". Your rejection of "lazy" is both unwarranted and inconsistent with your prior accusation. This naturally leads me to doubt the vaunted might and merit of your putative arguments.

[Swordfish]

not really going to go anywhere with it because it would be rude since its so personal. I just wanted to know if his family was benefiting from those onerous entitlements at the moment.

Predictable.

'Not going to, but then did anyway even though i know it's rude.'

keep it classy kid.....

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

'Not going to, but then did anyway.'

keep it classy kid.....

No problem. If I was going to get offended at something like that, I wouldn't have brought it up because I knew some would have that reaction.

[Week]

Translation: "I am either a coward, lazy or both, and am unwilling to face the actual implications of my odious views, so I will attempt to evade the question by saying 'gee, this is really hard you guys' and throw in there a halfassed ad populum fallacy."

Being too lazy to defend abhorrent, immoral beliefs speaks to the flawed morality and ethics of whomever holding said beliefs. I could not be less surprised.

[TrueMetis]

To be honest, there IS a lot of waste. Most of it in the US military (which every economist I've heard of claims to be one of the most innefficient organizations in the country, mainly with regards to "basic" supplies, not wepaons, but say, milk, or boots)

Weapons to, I read an article that said the price for many things the U.S. military buys can cost almost double to develop and make because they are so out of touch with the sub-contractors. If the department in charge makes a change they will not tell the subcontractors and when it comes time to put whatever it is together they will have to remake parts becuase they no longer fit properly.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Being too lazy to defend abhorrent, immoral beliefs speaks to the flawed morality and ethics of whomever holding said beliefs. .

That's a tautology, you twit. You asserted without analytical support that a belief was abhorrent, which is a moral judgment. You then used that unsupported label you created to "prove" the person holding that belief had flawed morality. You are awarded zero points.

Note to Yagathai:

See what I mean? That's the kind of stuff to which I'd have to respond. I trust your arguments would have more puissant than that one.

[TerraPrime]

No, really, I don't know how Balanced Budget Amendment will lower cost of health care for people. Limiting entitlement programs, if successful, would lead to what, exactly, that will lower my insurance premium? I don't get it. When asked for proposals to control the rising cost of health care, the Balanced Budget Amendment seems like an utter non-sequiter to me.

Similarly, the reasons behind why increased HSA will lead to lower cost seems quite a lot of hand-waving. Increased HSA might allow more people to afford health care, but how will that rein in the rising cost is not apparent to me.

Further, the criticism on tort reform being a negligible component of mechanisms that can control cost is sort of just ignored. Two different CBO reports have calculated the savings, under different models of tort reform, and it has never gone above 1% of the total health care cost.

Oh well. I guess we'll never find out the answers to these questions from the person who threw them out there. Perhaps some other conservative/Republican will come in to help us out.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, really, I don't know how Balanced Budget Amendment will lower cost of health care for people.

Gee, that's too bad. Though I said it would help "control costs of entitlements", which is not quite the same thing..

Now if you are cognitively unable to grasp for yourself how a balanced budget might control entitlement costs, and my last attempt to explain it to Lord Caspen still went over your head, your only hope would be to find someone to explain it to you in words of one syllable. Or less. Good luck!

Interesting that you seem to be the only one to have trouble with grasping the concept, though. I guess public education isn't what it used to be.

[TerraPrime]

< verbage >

All snark, no substance.

[Annelise]

So there have been prosecutions? Indictments? Carpet calls? No? Everyone got away with it scot free, and were paid for their services. How does this send the message that the actions are unacceptable?

There comes a point when we have to stop blaming the pols and look to the left, right and in the mirror. The majority of Americans don't support the above and I don't think this is a complex issue, like health care, which can difficult for people to follow.

The admin is pushing it with what they have done, IMO. If the public wants more, it has to freakin' stand up for it. If the public wants the administration to stop Bush era national security policies, it needs to stand up for it. There's been some backlash from the left over it but that's reflective of a minority, IMO. I actually think the administration's policies generally reflect the majority. Further, I think the Bush admin's big sin, in the majority of the public's eyes, is that torture did not remain covert. The public doesn't want to be put on the spot, it doesn't want to wrangle with the issue of torture, and that's why there's not more of a push for accountability, IMO.

Moreover, I think we get further from accountability every time the public starts panicking over things like bringing Gitmo detainees to the US or supports existing Democrat stereotypes, because it keeps the admin on constant, "We're not soft on national security!" alert.

I'm starting to think that having a powerful military has actually helped turn us into a nation of chicken shits.

[Shryke]

There comes a point when we have to stop blaming the pols and look to the left, right and in the mirror. The majority of Americans don't support the above and I don't think this is a complex issue, like health care, which can difficult for people to follow.

The admin is pushing it with what they have done, IMO. If the public wants more, it has to freakin' stand up for it. If the public wants the administration to stop Bush era national security policies, it needs to stand up for it. There's been some backlash from the left over it but that's reflective of a minority, IMO. I actually think the administration's policies generally reflect the majority. Further, I think the Bush admin's big sin, in the majority of the public's eyes, is that torture did not remain covert. The public doesn't want to be put on the spot, it doesn't want to wrangle with the issue of torture, and that's why there's not more of a push for accountability, IMO.

Moreover, I think we get further from accountability every time the public starts panicking over things like bringing Gitmo detainees to the US or supports existing Democrat stereotypes, because it keeps the admin on constant, "We're not soft on national security!" alert.

I'm starting to think that having a powerful military has actually helped turn us into a nation of chicken shits.

That chicken shit stuff certainly scuttled any major plans to completely shut down Gitmo.

[Annelise]

Though I said it would help "control costs of entitlements", which is not quite the same thing..

Well, by the same token, you know what he's asking. I understand you're more enthusiastic about cutting entitlement spending and think that the more pressing of the two, but you did also say you think addressing rising costs of private insurance would be a good idea.

And I'm sorry to hear about your Dad. :( My Mom's health and her experiences with private insurance have certainly added emphasis to my concerns about that aspect of the debate.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There comes a point when we have to stop blaming the pols and look to the left, right and in the mirror. The majority of Americans don't support the above and I don't think this is a complex issue, like health care, which can difficult for people to follow.

The admin is pushing it with what they have done, IMO. If the public wants more, it has to freakin' stand up for it. If the public wants the administration to stop Bush era national security policies, it needs to stand up for it. There's been some backlash from the left over it but that's reflective of a minority, IMO. I actually think the administration's policies generally reflect the majority. Further, I think the Bush admin's big sin, in the majority of the public's eyes, is that torture did not remain covert. The public doesn't want to be put on the spot, it doesn't want to wrangle with the issue of torture, and that's why there's not more of a push for accountability, IMO.

I think you're exactly right. Majority opinion doesn't define moral correctness, but it does tend to direct political realities. And I suspect you're correct about people just wanting it to remain covert.

[The Progressive]

Gee, that's too bad. Though I said it would help "control costs of entitlements", which is not quite the same thing..

Actually, he asked for measures that would control the rising cost of health care (exemplified here by the increasing rate of health insurance premiums), which definitely is not quite the same thing. A Balanced Budget Amendment might control the cost of Medicare entitlement and reduce the deficit, but we're all scratching our head as to how it would control the rising cost of health care.

[Shryke]

There's already tools in place to control the rising cost of Medicare.

It just gets ignored every year because if they ACTUALLY used it, (more) doctors would refuse to take Medicare because it wouldn't pay enough.

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

There's already tools in place to control the rising cost of Medicare.

It just gets ignored every year because if they ACTUALLY used it, (more) doctors would refuse to take Medicare because it wouldn't pay enough.

Doesn't that just underline the fact that the system can't control costs and meet its objectives?

[Shryke]

Shryke,

Doesn't that just underline the fact that the system can't control costs and meet its objectives?

The current system (for Medicare) doesn't TRY to control costs.

It tries to control the government pay-outs (and thus the budget) by limiting the amount the government is supposed to pay out in Medicare. As I remember it, it does this by essentially tying Medicare to the growth of GDP (ie - Medicare pay-outs by the government should never grow faster then the GDP)

Of course, every year Congress over-rules this because otherwise Doctors wouldn't accept Medicare because it would pay too little.

Because Health Care Costs are rising faster then GDP. :)

But yes, it's just another point among many showing how Health Care costs are rising too fast under the current system and thus reform needs to be enacted to control them.

[ThinkerX]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Health care is a giant bubble at the current time, one that is starting to deflate. Before too much longer, that bubble will burst and health care costs will come down. Like the utter morons in the housing bubble a few years ago, health care costs are way, way overinflated, to the point where fewer and fewer people can actually afford their services, even with insurance. With the economy in the straights it is now, this situation is going to get worse - not better. Hence, the few medical companies with the intellect to realise this will lower their costs accordingly or they will go out of biz with the rest of them.

Think about it. *TWENTY PERCENT* of the country is either unemployed or underemployed, meaning that there is no way in hell they will be able to buy into any insurance plan. Probably another twenty percent - at the very least - is hurting real, real bad, and they are going to go for the cheapest health care package they can get away with, or they are going to sneak over the border, or try home remedies or something of that sort. This situation is not going to change this year. It is probably not going to change next year, or even the year after. So...just how are these companies going to stay in business if nobody can afford their services or products?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, by the same token, you know what he's asking.

Actually, I don't. I suspect he was attempting to use the Socratic method to eventually make some point, though.

I still don't know if I understand you're more enthusiastic about cutting entitlement spending and think that the more pressing of the two, but you did also say you think addressing rising costs of private insurance would be a good idea

Well, I think you had asked if there was anything I'd actually support that would address the issue of rising costs given that I was opposed to the President's plan. The status quo and the President's plan have both a private and public component, so I thought a fair answer would have to address both.

And I'm sorry to hear about your Dad. :( My Mom's health and her experiences with private insurance have certainly added emphasis to my concerns about that aspect of the debate.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, by the same token, you know what he's asking.

Actually, I don't. I suspect he was attempting to use the Socratic method to eventually make some point, though.

I still don't know if I understand you're more enthusiastic about cutting entitlement spending and think that the more pressing of the two, but you did also say you think addressing rising costs of private insurance would be a good idea

Well, I think you had asked if there was anything I'd actually support that would address the issue of rising costs given that I was opposed to the President's plan. The status quo and the President's plan have both a private and public component, so I thought a fair answer would have to address both.

And I'm sorry to hear about your Dad. :( My Mom's health and her experiences with private insurance have certainly added emphasis to my concerns about that aspect of the debate.

Thank you, and I hope your mom is doing better. It's such a tough issue because it is so personal at its core.