U.S. Politics, 7

[Swordfish]

With all due respect, as I touched on a bit earlier, it's not that odd of an argument if the person you are arguing against's main objection is that the bill is going to be a financial disaster. So, imo, when someone trots out the CBO score showing deficit reduction, they're not saying "this is exactly what it will cost and therefor it's an awesome bill." They're saying "While I'm sure it could cost more than this projection, it seems unlikely to me that this prediction will be wildly off to the tune of a financial disaster."

We're just circling now.

I think your order of events is off.

It was actually, as i've said, more of:

UHC supporter: 'What kind of immoral asshole supports a bill that is morally correct (which I mostly agree with) AND will cut the deficit.

Me: Um... No. You want to make a moral argument in favor of it, that's fine, but the argument that it's going to SAVE money is redonkulous.

Peanut gallery: Why do you hate poor people?

Some did, but plenty of others said "even if it increased costs, wouldn't it still be worth it as long as it didn't increase costs by a disastrous amount due to the other benefits in it?" I'm pretty sure the new projections still have it decreasing costs if you add 32.5 million people and then judge it by cost per person covered. And most of those people who did fling that argument around were more concerned with access than cost if you go back further.

But if you're correct that the projections including the new CMS actuary one prove to be wildly inaccurate and it costs tons more, I'll be happy to say that you were correct all along about the cost aspect. I'm not discounting it a real possibility at all. I'm just saying as I have been for some time that all of these projections show costs being somewhere in the realm of where they otherwise would be, but with a substantial coverage expansion.

You may be saying that, sure.

Most were not.

:rofl:

That first line is hilarious. Props. Hey, this is what a lot of free-marketers say about the housing market and the stimulus act. Let it get as bad as it needs to get asap instead of delaying it.

Well, the difference is that arguing against additional expansionary spending in the short term is an a means to an end to preventing long term financial difficulties.

It's not a scorched earth argument.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The problem with tax increases as a way of closing deficits is that they just give politicians more money to spend.

Tax increases to close a deficit don't give the government more money to spend. It just means that the spending that is *already being made* involves using money that the Government has, rather than the Government writing IOUs.

Yes, an increase can close the deficit for awhile. But then they'll just start spending again, and need another increase down the road to close that gap.

Or perhaps they'll just cut taxes for their rich mates, forcing some poor bastard to come along later and re-increase them when it turns out that tax cuts are not free after all.

[sologdin]

SETPEMBAR 111 NEVIR FROGEAT!!!

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

They aren't frogs, they're freedom amphibians!

[drawkcabi]

SETPEMBAR 111 NEVIR FROGEAT!!!

I assume you are mocking those that think the U.S. has a right to do anything they want to any country, those who are protesting the building of the mosque, those that think we now have a right to hate anyone with brown skin, and other close minded beliefs all by using this tragedy as an excuse.

Also, maybe you are making a statement about we focus to much attention on this tragedy and ignore others in other countries because we are so U.S. centric.

I think all these are valid points and if you wanted to discuss them in this thread or start another thread about why we should be thinking about this other sad event but discuss it in your normal grandiloquent style, I wouldn't have a problem.

Or I could be totally wrong and you are posting this for an altogether different reason.

But what it all comes down to for me is what you posted, how you posted it, is just in incredibly poor taste.

[awesome possum]

But what it all comes down to for me is what you posted, how you posted it, is just in incredibly poor taste.

Not really. 9/11 isn't some sacred memorial that too many pretend it is. It should, and would be, if the Bush administration hadn't shat all over that day and those who died by using it to bend this country over, slap on a King Dong strap-on dildo and proceed to fuck it until it hemorrhaged.

But hey, get offended because of an all-caps misspelled sentence. Priorities are priorities after all.

[drawkcabi]

Not really. 9/11 isn't some sacred memorial that too many pretend it is. It should, and would be, if the Bush administration hadn't shat all over that day and those who died by using it to bend this country over, slap on a King Dong strap-on dildo and proceed to fuck it until it hemorrhaged.

But hey, get offended because of an all-caps misspelled sentence. Priorities are priorities after all.

I guess offended is a right word, but moreso I guess I just felt disappointed in seeing that.

You don't know how I prioritze what I find the things I feel I need to speak out against. Many things discussed here I know have a higher priority but many times what needs to be said about them has been said by others far better than I could say and I don't want to constantly be pulling out the "I agree" post, only when I feel particularly strong I need to add my voice.

Anyway I said what I felt I needed to say. Disagree with me at your pleasure I won't remark on it anymore.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

Which is why I'm disturbed by the very real prospect that you conceded earlier, this bill will not end up getting more people covered and increasing the pool of healthy people paying for health insurance.

If that's why you supported the bill why continue offering support when the means for not achiving your main goal is right there in the text?

[Renasko]

Not really. 9/11 isn't some sacred memorial that too many pretend it is. It should, and would be, if the Bush administration hadn't shat all over that day and those who died by using it to bend this country over, slap on a King Dong strap-on dildo and proceed to fuck it until it hemorrhaged.

But hey, get offended because of an all-caps misspelled sentence. Priorities are priorities after all.

What the administration did or didn't do is irrelevant. It was in poor taste.

[Trebla]

What the administration did or didn't do is irrelevant. It was in poor taste.

Agreed.

[The Progressive]

Triskele,

Which is why I'm disturbed by the very real prospect that you conceded earlier, this bill will not end up getting more people covered and increasing the pool of healthy people paying for health insurance.

If that's why you supported the bill why continue offering support when the means for not achiving your main goal is right there in the text?

Scot,

Could you clarify what you meant here, Scot? What text?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

A concrete number for a fine that may be lower than the cost of health insurance while health insurance is now available regardless of pre-existing conditions. If the fine is cheaper than the premium where's the incentive to et health insurance if you don't think youneed it in the first place.

That's what I'm refering to.

[ThinkerX]

A concrete number for a fine that may be lower than the cost of health insurance while health insurance is now available regardless of pre-existing conditions. If the fine is cheaper than the premium where's the incentive to et health insurance if you don't think youneed it in the first place.

Pretty much the situation I'm in: I'd rather pay the (less expensive) tax penalty than the (more expensive) insurance. Of course, I view the entire set-up as nothing but a 'corporate welfare' type scam anyhow. Even if I did pay for the insurance, I am positive that company (whichever one I went with) would do absolutely everything in its power to completely deny even legitimate claims, even if doing so meant resorting to outright fraud on their part. They want people paying in, not paying money out. Even if through some chance or fluke they did pony up, the next insewerance bill IU'd get would show a giant rate hike, and if they had to pay out on enough claims, well, then everybodies insewerance goes up. (and yes, the spelling is deliberate 'Pratchett')

You want to get health care affordable. Well, then, the place you start is with the *COSTS*, not with some idiotic corporate handout.

[sologdin]

drawk, ren, treb--

i yield to the considered judgment of reasonable forum members. apologies.

but yes, it is mockery of a certain strain of political propaganda that backburners real issues for the sake of xenophobic posturing, war-mongering, and other causes that seek to associate an imagined national injury in the abstract (as opposed to a real injury inflicted on living persons) with their own picayune interests.

that said, i wouldn't extend the apology too far--after all, provocation is meant to offend, but for a purpose other than arbitrary spite; apparently, it offends the wrong people in this case. i guess i need to work on that a bit.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

But here's the thing. If insurance premiums are driven sky high by the increased access how many of us who are currently covered and healthy will have to face the unwelcome choice of dropping coverage because we can't afford it anymore with the full knowledge we may face a fine that's cheaper than maintaining coverage but that coverage is available any time we have an acute need to get coverage due to some medical emergency or illness? How is that going to promote people not getting care only in emergencies?

[drawkcabi]

drawk, ren, treb--

i yield to the considered judgment of reasonable forum members. apologies.

but yes, it is mockery of a certain strain of political propaganda that backburners real issues for the sake of xenophobic posturing, war-mongering, and other causes that seek to associate an imagined national injury in the abstract (as opposed to a real injury inflicted on living persons) with their own picayune interests.

that said, i wouldn't extend the apology too far--after all, provocation is meant to offend, but for a purpose other than arbitrary spite; apparently, it offends the wrong people in this case. i guess i need to work on that a bit.

Thanks Solo, you're a stand up guy.

And I totally get where your coming from and agree with you. I don't like using 9/11 as political propaganda like you said it's being done and I despise the opportunists and just flat out dumb asses who do so. But the back and forth between the propagandists and those who mock gives me a feeling that both sides are being disrespectful of people who we don't their political agenda, if they had any at all, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time that day and died for it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The people screaming "Never forget 9/11" tend to be the ones that weren't affected by it at all.

I always thought that all Americans were affected by 9/11. Or should people on the mainland not have cared when Pearl Harbor was attacked because they weren't present there at the time?

[Altherion]

People waving little flags does not get me choked up; not everyone waving one of those little flags was affected by 9/11. Outside of relatives and people living in the two cities and the PA towns, watching TV does not make you affected.

You have a very narrow definition of "affected". Even those who do not care about their fellow citizens in New York and Pennsylvania would be affected if they merely took a single flight in the last 9 years. I've seen this myself and I've spoken to people whose jobs mean they fly for a living: September 2001 saw a precipitous drop in the quality of air travel. Less directly, they'd be affected by the economic fallout -- NYC is the single largest city in the US and also the largest financial center. And the wars you speak of are also part of the effect. The one in Afghanistan is caused directly by 9/11: once the second plane hit and it became clear that this is an attack and not an accident, it was perfectly obvious that there would be war -- somebody had to pay, it was only a matter of who. The Iraq one is not as clear cut; it might not have happened if Gore rather than Bush had won the 2000 election. However, I am absolutely sure that the neocons would not have succeeded in pushing it through if not for 9/11.

[MinDonner]

If you're broadening the definition that much, then why stop at US citizens?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If you're broadening the definition that much, then why stop at US citizens?

I don't think it does stop at just U.S. citizens. It's a continuum -- people who were injured or killed and their families were affected the most. Friends, perhaps people who were there but not injured, perhaps a bit less, etc. United 93 went right over my city, and we evacuated our buildings. One thing that also makes this a bit different from some past events is that much of it happened live as we watched on tv, adding an immmediacy and emotional impact that I think affected anyone watching. Those were my fellow Americans jumping out the 100th floor of those buildings. I'll admit I still tear up every year when listening to memorial services on the radio or watching on tv. It was a horrible, horrible thing, and I'd imagine it generally affects Americans emotionally more than others, but that's not to say others weren't affected emotionally by it on a basic human level.

We still remember Pearl Harbor, and that was an attack on an American territory, not even a state, with the vast majority of the victims being military personnel. This was a deliberate, large-scale attack on American civilians. The thought that only those Americans living in New York or northern Va. were "affected" by it is just odd.