US POLITICS XXXIX

[Lord of Rhinos]

I don't really care to reargue the merits of the bill. We ended up with "this bill or nothing" because the party that controls Congress and the White House wanted this bill and no other.

And the minority party wanted nothing to do with it.

I would agree that Republicans during the Bush era blew their chance to try fixing some of this, though I'm not sure if there was ever the political support to really make a more free market solution practical. No way Dems would have gone along with a federal law eliminating state health insurance mandates, and I'm not sure the GOP had the guts to push that anyway.

And during the Nixon era.

I suppose my ultimate lament in all this is that the idea of pushing state-based solutions never really got moving, perhaps due to how the fed shadow has hung over this issue the whole time. But to be fair, its the GOP who is supposed to push federalism, and for whatever reason, they didn't push that hard enough when they ran things.

Hawaii mandated that anyone working 20 hours or more a week gets health insurance over 40 years ago, Massachusetts has had near universal coverage since 2006, and Maryland has had price controls since 1977 (many other states have tried price controls).

Things to remember: the GOP is only federalist when it suits them, healthcare has changed a lot over the years (see HMOs for an example)--so some laws have been used and then discarded, most people like their healthcare, most people without healthcare are the poor and ignorant or the young and unemployed that think they'll get healthcare soon--the type of people unlikely to agitate for change, the GOP base believes that the US is the greatest country in the world and therefore by default assume that we must have the best healthcare, any attempts to change healthcare runs the risk of pissing off hugely powerful groups--pharma, hospitals, nurses, doctors, insurers, and business in general, the GOP base thinks folks without insurance are lazy and looking for a handout.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Federalism is a steed Republicans ride when convenient, but otherwise it's straight to the glue factory with that horse.

That's right, Neil, and all Republicans agree on everything because we're all straight white males between 35-55 who make over $200,000/year. Your one-note symphony to that effect has been heard many times. I have stated on more than one occasion that I have been disappointed in many things elected Republicans have done, and I thought my last post pointed out another example of where I think they dropped the ball. The only reason you don't acknowledge infighting among Republicans on issues like that is because you prefer to stereotype.

What's the difference between state-level reforms and federal-level reforms when it comes to individual users of health care? I can't see any.

Well, try looking at those users as taxpayers, re-ask your question, and maybe you'll think of something.

[TerraPrime]

Well, try looking at those users as taxpayers, re-ask your question, and maybe you'll think of something.

Umm.... nope. I pay both federal and state income tax. Is it the local sales tax that separates the two? How?

[The Progressive]

Oooh I love this game ...... is it because the taxpayers in the blue states will have to subsidize the lazy leeches of the red states?

Did I win a prize?

[TerraPrime]

Wait, is this an April Fool's Day joke? Or a trick question, like how a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment will lead to lowered cost of health care in the U.S.?

[The Progressive]

I think it's better to ask that if a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment would lead to lowered cost of health care in the US, then why hasn't it been passed already?

Or is that to tricky?

Perhaps trisky could phrase it better.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Umm.... nope. I pay both federal and state income tax. Is it the local sales tax that separates the two? How?

Reread the thread.

[TerraPrime]

Reread the thread.

I just did.

I still don't see the difference between supporting state-level reforms and supporting federal reforms for health care if the objection to the federal reform is that it dampens the response time of the market to user demands.

[The Progressive]

Nah, just go ask the mountain.

[BloodRider]

There's no reason it shouldn't be taught it any of them.

It really is one of the most basic philosophical ideas to do with human interaction.

Oddly enough this problem is oft discussed in Mathematics and Economics classes where it is called "The Prisoner's Dilemma" I think it has more to do with which field advanced the theory the most recently.....

[Lord of Rhinos]

Seems to me that FLoW is talking about Hayek to a certain extent. States govs are closer to their bases and can therefore respond better to the unique needs of their local communities. You also have the ability to try 50 different approaches and see what works.

The whole thing seems a little irrelevant to me though. The bill past. We can armchair quarter back about why the states weren't more aggressive about healthcare reform but ultimately that's going to depend on the local politics and personalities.

BTW, Chataya was commenting on men paying less for health insurance a few pages back. Generally speaking, men utilize health services at much lower frequency than women which leads to cheaper insurance rates. It's entirely possible that men aren't paying for labor and delivery but there are other reasons they have cheaper insurance.

[The Progressive]

Seems to me that FLoW is talking about Hayek to a certain extent. States govs are closer to their bases and can therefore respond better to the unique needs of their local communities. You also have the ability to try 50 different approaches and see what works.

The whole thing seems a little irrelevant to me though. The bill past. We can armchair quarter back about why the states weren't more aggressive about healthcare reform but ultimately that's going to depend on the local politics and personalities.

BTW, Chataya was commenting on men paying less for health insurance a few pages back. Generally speaking, men utilize health services at much lower frequency than women which leads to cheaper insurance rates. It's entirely possible that men aren't paying for labor and delivery but there are other reasons they have cheaper insurance.

If FLOW was making that argument, then it's quite specious given that the same logic would dictate that it should be splintered further into counties, or cities even. Why settle for 50 approaches when you could have 50,000?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I just did.

I still don't see the difference between supporting state-level reforms and supporting federal reforms for health care if the objection to the federal reform is that it dampens the response time of the market to user demands.

The objection I made regarding response times was in another thread, long ago, and would be applicable to a state program as well. II cannot fathom how you pulled that from anything I said in this thread, so I can only assume you really didn't read it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Seems to me that FLoW is talking about Hayek to a certain extent. States govs are closer to their bases and can therefore respond better to the unique needs of their local communities.

Ack! Didn't say that in this thread.

You also have the ability to try 50 different approaches and see what works.

THAT was the point I made. Or more succinctly, that our eggs are now all in one basket with a federal plan if this thing turns out wrong. The other point was that most states have the virtue of balanced budget requirments, which means that the savings promised in this bill would be far more likely to be enforced if the states were running it.

[Guy Kilmore]

Heh - sorry. Guess I didn't see it that way. I'm still not too sure what you mean about the 50 state idea, though. Do you mean that all states had to do some level of reform, even if it varied between states? And if so, would covering the uninsured have been part of the mandate?

I'm not trying to be a tool -- I genuinely am unsure of what you are saying.

Pretty much, all states had to do some level of reform, even if it varied between states. I guess, basically, everyone had to get their skin in the game so to speak. I would say the trick would be affordable healthcare for all, if they coud do that and not insure everyone then what the heck. I will be honest, but I have no idea how I woud craft said legislation

[The Progressive]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0310/Tony_Perkins_urges_conservatives_to_stop_giving_money_to_RNC.html

This will hurt them in November. As of right now, they can't seem to raise as much money as the Democrats, and a large chunk of it will be spent of primaries against insurgent teabagging candidates.

[Swordfish]

No.

ETA: This would have been a much more reasonable question to ask at the start of this vein, instead of the tact you chose. I find that people who are willing to engage in a dialogue will tend to engage reasonable questions. Snark tends to just breed more snark.

Indeed.

Hence my reply to a snarky comment with.... a snarky comment.....

if you think that the post I responded to required some kind of in depth analytical debate, then might I humbly suggest you go back and re-read it?

Before I get into the petty politiking with Swordfish, let's take a look at BARACK OBAMA LOOKING AT AWESOME THINGS

It's my contention that Obama was elected because he wasn't a Republican. He had accomplishments, yes, but for the most part the public was so disenfranchised by the GOP that a Kerry/Clinton ticket would have handily beaten McCain.

So you would agree then, that the democratic voters didn't really care much about accomplishments in the last election either.

Glad you've seen the light.

;)

And Guy might not be the best person for you to be quoting at this point, since he essentially disagreed with you that republicans care less about accomplishments than democrats.

Although you don't seem to even believe that yourself, so i begin to wonder what your argument even is at this point.....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0310/Tony_Perkins_urges_conservatives_to_stop_giving_money_to_RNC.html

Any funding that gets siphoned away from the RNC is something to be happy about, IMO.

Even if it is the money coming in from the crazies.

Maybe even ESPECIALLY if it's the money coming in from the crazies.

[TerraPrime]

Re: FLOW

The objection I made regarding response times was in another thread, long ago, and would be applicable to a state program as well. II cannot fathom how you pulled that from anything I said in this thread, so I can only assume you really didn't read it.

You mean, 3 weeks or less ago?

So since you agree that the argument about response time will apply to the state reforms as well, why does it appear that you're advocating for state-level reforms while criticizing federal reforms? Is there anything that differentiates federal reforms from state reforms when it comes to delaying market response time? I can't see any. So, if I take your recent posts that support state-level reforms at face value, I'm left with the impression that your earlier pages of criticism on response time is, well, much ado about nothing.

That was my point.

THAT was the point I made. Or more succinctly, that our eggs are now all in one basket with a federal plan if this thing turns out wrong.

As Lev already pointed out:

If FLOW was making that argument, then it's quite specious given that the same logic would dictate that it should be splintered further into counties, or cities even. Why settle for 50 approaches when you could have 50,000?

The other point was that most states have the virtue of balanced budget requirments, which means that the savings promised in this bill would be far more likely to be enforced if the states were running it.

If this is true (really? more than 25 states have a balanced budget requirement?), then I can see that as a good reason for those who're concerned about a rigid budget structure to support state-level reform while opposing federal level reform.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Most counties and cities don't really have the ability or power to regulate insurance companies. They do take steps to ensure healthcare access by setting up clinics and helping to fund hospitals and clinics. A lot of cities will ban the setting up of boutique hospitals and specialty services that would harm the overall population. Which is why I feel like this is a bit of a rabbit trail. Most states have tried various means of reforming healthcare, it just takes some digging to find the information.

[The Progressive]

If this is true (really? more than 25 states have a balanced budget requirement?), then I can see that as a good reason for those who're concerned about a rigid budget structure to support state-level reform while opposing federal level reform.

I think that almost every state have some sort of balanced-budget requirements on its book. And in a fiscal conservative's wildest wet dream filled with the force of truthiness, this would actually be enforced.

Unfortunately, we live in the real world, and that's why almost every single state's budget book are in decifit year after year.