Jump to content

U.S. Politics, 12


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

What is OT? I really should stop by more often. Does it mean

Terra is not speaking as a mod? Anyway, I shall disagree with Terra. Suppose the act were consensual (which it is not). Even then, being called a f*cker is an insult, even though (consensual) f*cking is great.

On the "fun columns" front, do not miss Peggy Noonan calling Sarah Palin a noncompoop in her latest column:

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Normally, I consider criticism of Palin boring - all too conventional/unoriginal. But this is interesting because of the source and reason it was made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is OT? I really should stop by more often. Does it mean

Terra is not speaking as a mod?

Normally, I consider criticism of Palin boring - all too conventional/unoriginal. But this is interesting because of the source and reason it was made.

OT: off topic.

Criticism of Palin conventional/unoriginal? I am wagering you are talking about a very specific kind of criticism as I fail to see how, on a general level, holding any kind of political figure under scrutiny is somehow a bad thing.

eta: spelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that Rand Paul won, he's letting the crazy out of the bag again:

"What if they just raised taxes on the richest, those making more than 250,000 dollars a year?" Blitzer asked.

"Well, the thing is, we're all interconnected. There are no rich. There are no middle class. There are no poor," Paul explained.

I'd have to say if it wasn't confirmed before, it should be now. This guy is either an idiot or nuttier than a pecan pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is OT? I really should stop by more often. Does it mean

Terra is not speaking as a mod? Anyway, I shall disagree with Terra. Suppose the act were consensual (which it is not). Even then, being called a f*cker is an insult, even though (consensual) f*cking is great.

On the "fun columns" front, do not miss Peggy Noonan calling Sarah Palin a noncompoop in her latest column:

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Normally, I consider criticism of Palin boring - all too conventional/unoriginal. But this is interesting because of the source and reason it was made.

She was right on the money with her criticisms of Palin, and made some great points about the tea parties as well:

What the tea party, by which I mean members and sympathizers, has to learn from 2010 is this: Not only the message is important but the messenger.

Even in a perfect political environment, those candidates who were conservative but seemed strange, or unprofessional, or not fully qualified, or like empty bags skittering along the street, did not fare well. The tea party provided the fire and passion of the election, and helped produce major wins—Marco Rubio by 19 points! But in the future the tea party is going to have to ask itself: Is this candidate electable? Will he pass muster with those who may not themselves be deeply political but who hold certain expectations as to the dignity and stature required of those who hold office?

Which is a great point. But I still think Noonan doesn't really get it because she still focuses too much on style over substance. She attacks Obama for not showing enough humility, being too detached emotionally, etc., but almost completely ignores his policies. It's almost like she's swallowed the entire Obama/Reid spin: the election had nothing to do with dissatisfaction with the actual legislation the Democrats passed, but rather that they didn't talk about it very well. And the only lesson they took from the election is that they must explain themselves better, and that Republicans must cooperate more to help pass more of the same agenda.

It's gonna be an ugly next two years....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But O'Donnell and Angle are absolute morons. The smartest kid in the 6th grade class is markedly smarter than these adults are. And they came within one election of the US Senate. Staggering.

I don't think intelligence and electability equates to each other in many voters nowadays. Part of the appeal of the Tea Party is the exultation of the common man and the elevation of the Average Joe as an ideal to strive for. They don't want candidates who are exceptionally smart, competent, or capable. They want their candidates to look (metaphorically) just like themselves, it seems. The Tea Party people will continue to throw their support behind people like Bachman (who's no smart cookie, either) and Angle and O'Donnell, because that's the kind of politicians they want to support. At its core, the Tea Party movement is reactionary and they are more about protesting and complaining than about implementing changes. If, or when, their political movement shifts from just throwing tantrums about things that they don't like to being concerned about making policy changes that can work, they'll start considering electability of their candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think intelligence and electability equates to each other in many voters nowadays. Part of the appeal of the Tea Party is the exultation of the common man and the elevation of the Average Joe as an ideal to strive for. They don't want candidates who are exceptionally smart, competent, or capable. They want their candidates to look (metaphorically) just like themselves, it seems. The Tea Party people will continue to throw their support behind people like Bachman (who's no smart cookie, either) and Angle and O'Donnell, because that's the kind of politicians they want to support.

Knowing some of those folks myself, they clearly elevate values over intelligence. They are deeply suspicious of politicians who seem so impressed with their own intelligence that they believe the government can solve all our problems if only we elect them. Or put another way, they believe that a government operating within it's proper limits doesn't require policy wonks, lawyers, and administrative geeks. They'd rather have someone who would simply say "back off", which doesn't require a whole lot of gray matter. That's not to say they'd admit to not valuing intelligence -- just that they are deeply suspicious of the glib, intelligent pols both parties have tended to elect.

Personally, I don't see why you can't have both, which is why I'm not fan of Palin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even saying that there isn't an element of the electorate not liking the policies. That's a piece of the puzzle. But it's only a small piece with the economy being by far #1, so it's just amazing to see these people write with a straight face that this election was somehow all about a "rejection of liberalism."

I think all of that other stuff fits in there as well. But if the Democrats don't believe that a majority of voters objected specifically and pretty strongly to the level of government spending under this Administration, then I hope they continue with a loud, public push in that same direction. If they do, the GOP is going to pick up a lot more than just 6 seats in the Senate in 2012.

My prediction is that the entitlement portion of the ACA is going to be a major issue in 2012. Whatever attraction some of those other elements may have, the entitlement/subsidy portion is really just another form of welfare, and I think that's going to go over like a fart in an elevator in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was right on the money with her criticisms of Palin, and made some great points about the tea parties as well:

Which is a great point. But I still think Noonan doesn't really get it because she still focuses too much on style over substance. She attacks Obama for not showing enough humility, being too detached emotionally, etc., but almost completely ignores his policies. It's almost like she's swallowed the entire Obama/Reid spin: the election had nothing to do with dissatisfaction with the actual legislation the Democrats passed, but rather that they didn't talk about it very well. And the only lesson they took from the election is that they must explain themselves better, and that Republicans must cooperate more to help pass more of the same agenda.

It's gonna be an ugly next two years....

OK, I confess advertising the column as a sort of Palin/Noonan cat fight in part because I thought the Palin remarks interesting, but also to stir interest in a good column. I for one am greatly relieved to see Peggy Noonan take a balanced view of the tea party (I'd considered wearing black over her 100% supportive columns, heh). But I can't fault her for her criticism of Obama's emotions **in context** with her many other columns addressing his policy.

The obvious problem needing addressing on this date (maybe not on others) is not that Obama's policies were sad, but that he does not "get it" that his policies were sad. Which was evidenced by the tone of his speech.

If we were waiting for "I feel your pain" we did not get it. That is something to be remarked upon in the election aftermath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Peggy Noonan column was such shit. Although I guess one expects no better from the opinion column of the WSJ. The Broderism was so thick, I gagged.

She also engages in the kind of "why doesn't Obama feel more" or whatever identity politics bullshit. Mostly, it seemed to cover up her attempts to paint the situation in the light she wants to justify her broderistic stance.

PS - Seriously Firefox, it's been 3 years now, Obama is a real word dammit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to add, as I sift through this year's open enrollment plan and try to compare my current plan through my husband's employer - now $511/month for both of us - to the two dozen or so plan options I have as a federal employee, and weigh HMOs (which are apparently great if I live in the covered area - wherever that is) against PPOs (which are great for allowing a flexible choice of provider, but offer better coverage for the preferred provider, and possibly the participating providers also, but less coverage for non-participating providers, or no coverage for non-participated or participating providers if you choose the "basic" option instead of standard"), and then BCBS against Aetna against Kaiser against SAMBA, etc., etc., etc.

Apparently, under some plans, my health insurance provider will pay a non-participating anesthesiologist. up to 100% of the plan payment, but I will be responsible for the remainder, whatever that might be. And the chances of a non-participating (or would that be non-preferred?) anesthesiologist. working at my preferred (or participating?) hospital are apparently good.

Or is okay if a participating doctor works at my preferred hospital, but not okay for non-participating doctors at my preferred hospital, or is it a participating hospital with preferred doctors that's OK?

Oh, plus, my doctors of course, are not on the same calendar year as I am, and so they might drop out of my preferred network at any time. At which point I'm stuck until the next open enrollment period.

Seriously, who wants this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raidne, I made the mistake (well, not actually a mistake, but still) of actually reading all the terms of my student insurance (mailed to me before the reform). I was pissed off for the rest of the day.

I get 100% of anesthesiology up to my yearly or lifetime limit (at least that's not a concern anymore), except when there isn't a "plan" anesthesiologist, then it's only 75%, even in an emergency. If they decide it wasn't an emergency, and I should have been able to ask in advance or go to a "plan" person, they can pay way, way less. Most shit is like that. If I'm in a crash of a non-commercial airliner (I guess if I had my pilot's license) or doing a whole host of other things they deem "reckless", they can decide not to pay anything.

The thing that really pissed me off, though, was the chemotherapy section. While surgery and most prescription drugs are generally well-covered (unless they deem them "experimental", and they list no guidelines for how that's decided) they covered only 75% of chemotherapy up to your lifetime or yearly limit, even when approved and administered by an in-coverage doctor. A course of some monoclonal drugs can be 30 to 60k or more. The difference between a poor student, especially an undergrad, covering all of that and 25% of that is absolutely nothing, because they can't pay any of it.

They also had about four paragraphs of fine print defining exactly what kind of congenital defects they would cover if I had kids, and the eventual answer I eked out was "almost none".

Perversely, I still feel lucky that I have any insurance at all (yours costs more than my--admittedly controlled grad student--rent, by the way, though I guess it's for two people.)

Ugh. At least the lifetime limit thing is over. My best friend was in a really horrific car accident three years ago, and blew threw her lifetime limit on her school insurance after less than a week in the hospital--except she was there for a month, and then had to do physical therapy for almost a year. Her mother basically lost her house so my friend could learn to walk again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, great. Now imagine that you have all that fine print, but for nearly two dozen different plans.

Now go pick the best one. Don't screw up - it's only your health and possible bankruptcy at stake.

ETA: My student insurance in law school was $100/month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very interesting column on FrumForum talking about how bad some of the Republican proposals on health care have been. Of course, it may be that the GOP has no interest in things like selling insurance across state lines. They may have just needed to come up with alternatives for whenever they were pressed.

It's true that selling across state lines would permit "lowest common denominator" type of policies. But I don't see what's wrong with that. The problem right now is that you have 50 different state mandates for what must be included in plans, whether it's different deductibles, mandatory coverage of certain conditions, etc. That greatly complicates administrative issues for providers who sell in more than one state because they have to tweak each policy for each state. Simplifying that process, and permitting policies to be offered that don't contain certain minimums, would create a new class of more affordable policies. Sure, they wouldn't offer as much coverage as more expensive policies, but they'd at least create an option for folks who couldn't afford policies with more mandates.

There is no logical basis for the idea that selling across state lines would inevitably result in a "race to the bottom", so that everyone would end up with the crappiest policies. Employers already have the ability to choose between "bare-bones" plans and more inclusive plans, and most don't choose the minimum even now. Why assume they'd choose an even lower minimum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because right now I care at all about confusing the whole mess is for the insurance companies. I'm not seeing any real commitment at clarity and transparency from their end, that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that selling across state lines would permit "lowest common denominator" type of policies. But I don't see what's wrong with that. The problem right now is that you have 50 different state mandates for what must be included in plans, whether it's different deductibles, mandatory coverage of certain conditions, etc. That greatly complicates administrative issues for providers who sell in more than one state because they have to tweak each policy for each state. Simplifying that process, and permitting policies to be offered that don't contain certain minimums, would create a new class of more affordable policies. Sure, they wouldn't offer as much coverage as more expensive policies, but they'd at least create an option for folks who couldn't afford policies with more mandates.

There is no logical basis for the idea that selling across state lines would inevitably result in a "race to the bottom", so that everyone would end up with the crappiest policies. Employers already have the ability to choose between "bare-bones" plans and more inclusive plans, and most don't choose the minimum even now. Why assume they'd choose an even lower minimum?

Except, you know, that this EXACT THING happened with Credit Cards. Which is why all those companies are now based out of Delaware.

If seems though that you aren't getting what "race to the bottom" means. It means the companies will relocate to which ever state gives them the sweetest deal on minimum standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm not sure I really get what we're talking about here - we're saying that the law should be amended to state that the insurance plan is only bound by the law of the state that it is incorporated in, regardless of the law of the state that the insured entity, i.e. me, lives in?

ETA: Also, did a conservative really just say "The problem right now is that you have 50 different state mandates...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except, you know, that this EXACT THING happened with Credit Cards. Which is why all those companies are now based out of Delaware.

If seems though that you aren't getting what "race to the bottom" means. It means the companies will relocate to which ever state gives them the sweetest deal on minimum standards.

I understand exactly what "race to the bottom" means. What you're missing is that the choice of what policies employees are offered really is the employer's, not the insurance company's. The insurance companies will offer whatever is demanded by employers because otherwise, they'll lose business to companies that will. So the real question is whether such a change would encourage employers to race to the bottom.

Employer provided health care is an employee-benefit offered by employers to attract and keep employees. Employers don't "race to the bottom" on providing that benefit even now, because if they did, the "bottom" would be offering no health insurance at all. All this would do, besides lowering administrative costs, is give employers who currently can't afford to offer any insurance the ability to offer more more-stripped down policies to employees who otherwise would have nothing.

ETA: Also, did a conservative really just say "The problem right now is that you have 50 different state mandates...."

That's more of a federalism issue than a "conservative" issue but yes, you're right. This really is actual "interstate commerce", equivalent to a state taxing imports from other states. Ensuring the free flow of commerce between the states is sort of the core of what the interstate commerce clause actually is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But...the whole point of creating state-based exchanges was to make health insurance available to individuals who are self-employed or otherwise without insurance. Exchanges don't even get going for small businesses until 2014.

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...