US politics 2

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Related to my earlier link -

http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-santorum-dead-north-korean-scientists-are-a-wonderful-thing-2011-10

Rick Santorum says that dead foreign scientists are "A wonderful thing", and threatens to assassinate scientists in Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He does this while the US Secretary of Defense is IN North Korea, trying to talk peace.

What a flaming bag of ass.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Wow.

(null)

[DanteGabriel]

Related to my earlier link -

http://www.businessi...l-thing-2011-10

Rick Santorum says that dead foreign scientists are "A wonderful thing", and threatens to assassinate scientists in Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He does this while the US Secretary of Defense is IN North Korea, trying to talk peace.

What a flaming bag of ass.

He is a great Christian and an example to all us amoral heathens.

[awesome possum]

He's only doing what Jesus would have done.

ETA:

Rambo. I meant Rambo. It's easy to confuse those two sometimes.

[Shryke]

He's only doing what Jesus would have done.

ETA:

Rambo. I meant Rambo. It's easy to confuse those two sometimes.

Nah, Rambo was in places like Cambodia. Santorum couldn't even find Cambodia.

[awesome possum]

Isn't that a province of Canada? They sound similarly socialistic.

Oh, and remember part 3 Rambo was in Afghanistan. He's been branching out from jungles.

[Shryke]

Im not saying I agree with it, but I think he can build a much more valid argument around being able to drop your insurance provider if they are shit (in reality it's not going to work out that way for the vast majority of people, but its the argument that he's making). To me that seems a lot less harmful than the sound byte will be.

Not really. It showcases a viewpoint so alien to the common experience as to be harmful.

Here's a good link on it:

The key part of what's off-putting about the gaffe isn't the first part about liking to fire people, so much as the second part about "who provide services to me." Liking to fire people is bad enough, but this is the real kicker.

When it comes to basic services like healthcare, almost no one in America sees the relationship that way. Most of us wouldn't speak of "firing" our health insurance company. No matter how much we might detest our insurance company, we probably wouldn't describe the experience of removing ourselves from their rolls an enjoyable one.

But most of all, we don't see the health insurance company as providing us a service. We see ourselves, rather, as indentured supplicants forced to pay exorbitant monthly rates for a basic need that responsible people with means can't get out of paying for if we can help it. We don't see ourselves as in control of the relationship with them. They are in control of us--and no more so than when we get sick and need the insurance most. If the company decides to restrict our coverage or tell us we have a pre-existing condition after all, we're in the position of begging a capricious and heartless corporation to cover costs we assumed we were entitled to based on a contractual obligation. It's precisely when we need insurance most that we're least able to "fire" the insurance company.

Romney talks about paying for health insurance as if it were the same as getting a pedicure, hiring an escort or getting the fancy wax at a car wash. It's a luxury service being provided to him, and he doesn't like it, he can take his business elsewhere. Romney's is the language of a man who has never wanted for anything, never worried about where his next paycheck would come from, never worried about going bankrupt if he got sick.

It is the language of an entitled empowerment utterly alien to the experience of most Americans, who feel victimized and bled dry without recourse by these rentier corporations. Romney sees himself as in charge of the relationship between himself and these entities. Most Americans don't. That's why the statement rankles and feels so off-putting to us.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-romneys-firing-gaffe-resonates-by.html

[Shryke]

Isn't that a province of Canada? They sound similarly socialistic.

Oh, and remember part 3 Rambo was in Afghanistan. He's been branching out from jungles.

Rambo was in Afghanistan palling around with Osama Bin Laden. :lol:

[Shryke]

The fact that the U.S. implicitly sanctions such actions by Israel really takes away from your argument.

Oh, and since we're prosecuting a global war on terror, I assume that Israel will be the next nation on our list for engaging in terrorist actions?

:rofl:

The US can't even tell Israel off for selling US military secrets to the Chinese.

The US is Israel's bitch.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The US can't even tell Israel off for selling US military secrets to the Chinese.

The US is Israel's bitch.

The US can't even tell off it's own President for doing so. (still don't understand why the Republicans didn't impeach Clinton over that).

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There is no extent to which health care is in any way a luxury good.... What a ridiculous argument.

I'm sorry, but it is not "ridiculous" if you understand the economic concept of a luxury good, which (in short)exists when demand increases with income. There has been scholarship arguing both ways on it, but I haven't seen anyone on either side of the debate ridicule the concept.

[DanteGabriel]

The US can't even tell off it's own President for doing so. (still don't understand why the Republicans didn't impeach Clinton over that).

Maybe long range tit-for-tat for the Democrats not pressing too hard into their investigation into the Reagan administration selling weapons to terrorists.

[ThinkerX]

So...barring something weird or terrible out of the blue (assassination, accident, or some such)....

Romney beomes the Republican presidential candidate, and then proceeds to loose to Obama when the actual election rolls around.

Any serious dissenters from that? I don't see *any* of the remaining republican candidates actually being able to win the nomination, and sad a case as Obama is, Romney has more negatve baggage.

[Brienne the Beauty]

I'm sorry, but it is not "ridiculous" if you understand the economic concept of a luxury good, which (in short)exists when demand increases with income.

If we do really well this year, I'm planning on having an appendectomy and spending my vacation in an ICU. Should be fun. [/sarcasm]

Healthcare does not increase in demand the more money you have. It only appears to do so, because people put off any healthcare they can avoid if they can't afford it. It does not mean the healthcare was unnecessary, just avoidable.

A luxury good would be something like jewellery. There is very little limit to how much jewellery a person can enjoy if they have unlimited funds, but if it is all taken away they are not appreciably harmed. Not so with healthcare.

Romney's idea about letting people change their insurer at will is a good one, but how does he plan to implement it? It's not really in government's power to cause companies to offer many plans to their workers instead of just one, without forcing them to do it, which is surely too Socialist for him to palate. His actual ideas seem to have been lost in the kerfuffle over his phrasing, and I would be interested to know them.

[lupis42]

If we do really well this year, I'm planning on having an appendectomy and spending my vacation in an ICU. Should be fun. [/sarcasm]

Healthcare does not increase in demand the more money you have. It only appears to do so, because people put off any healthcare they can avoid if they can't afford it. It does not mean the healthcare was unnecessary, just avoidable.

A luxury good would be something like jewellery. There is very little limit to how much jewellery a person can enjoy if they have unlimited funds, but if it is all taken away they are not appreciably harmed. Not so with healthcare.

Romney's idea about letting people change their insurer at will is a good one, but how does he plan to implement it? It's not really in government's power to cause companies to offer many plans to their workers instead of just one, without forcing them to do it, which is surely too Socialist for him to palate. His actual ideas seem to have been lost in the kerfuffle over his phrasing, and I would be interested to know them.

I can't speak for Romney, but it's just possible he's advocating for some of the same things Republicans were asking for when Obama was trying to get the ACA passed - an end to tax-breaks for employer provided healthcare, and an end to restrictions against buying health-plans across state lines.

[ThinkerX]

MSN webcam debate between three 'Occupy Wall Street' represenatives and three 'Tea Party' represenatives.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/13/9424662-tea-and-occupy-a-discussiondebate-between-members-of-the-two-movements

I find it interesting that the oldest OWS participant is about the same age as the youngest Tea Party participant.

I am also somewhat puzzled that Coco isn't on the panel.

And the comments are interesting in and of themselves.

[Brienne the Beauty]

an end to tax-breaks for employer provided healthcare, and an end to restrictions against buying health-plans across state lines.

Interesting. But surely the former would just drive up prices for most employed people, and the latter would be ineffectual. If you have Texas health insurance, and live in Alaska, it might be cheaper, but if there are no doctors in that network in your area, what's the point?

Perhaps instead of giving employers tax breaks for offering a plan, people could get plans independently, and be given tax breaks, or (gasp!) government aid if they don't earn enough to pay tax?

[lupis42]

Interesting. But surely the former would just drive up prices for most employed people, and the latter would be ineffectual. If you have Texas health insurance, and live in Alaska, it might be cheaper, but if there are no doctors in that network in your area, what's the point?

Perhaps instead of giving employers tax breaks for offering a plan, people could get plans independently, and be given tax breaks, or (gasp!) government aid if they don't earn enough to pay tax?

Some of the plans proposed did include tax breaks for people buying their own plans, to offset the higher taxes - the idea was to try to break the association between employment and insurance, so that changing jobs didn't come with the added burden of changing insurance, and potentially doctors.

As for buying across state lines, some plans have networks, some don't - last time I was shopping for it, several years ago, there was a plan that was available from a small(ish) PA insurer that was low premiums, with a 100% deductible on routine care, and a $3k max annual out-of-pocket limit, but which offered 90% coverage on emergency services and 95% coverage for vaccines, certain types of preventive treatments, and long term care, and discounts for non-smokers and people who had gym memberships. I liked it a lot, but I couldn't get it because I don't live in PA.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Some of the plans proposed did include tax breaks for people buying their own plans, to offset the higher taxes - the idea was to try to break the association between employment and insurance, so that changing jobs didn't come with the added burden of changing insurance, and potentially doctors.

As for buying across state lines, some plans have networks, some don't - last time I was shopping for it, several years ago, there was a plan that was available from a small(ish) PA insurer that was low premiums, with a 100% deductible on routine care, and a $3k max annual out-of-pocket limit, but which offered 90% coverage on emergency services and 95% coverage for vaccines, certain types of preventive treatments, and long term care, and discounts for non-smokers and people who had gym memberships. I liked it a lot, but I couldn't get it because I don't live in PA.

It seems like those things together would make a lot of sense. What is the existing reason for people not being able to buy across state lines? I imagine it would be difficult because regulations are different in each state, and cost of living is different, so would it even be possible for insurers to offer identical products for the same price in different states?

[TrackerNeil]

It seems like those things together would make a lot of sense. What is the existing reason for people not being able to buy across state lines? I imagine it would be difficult because regulations are different in each state, and cost of living is different, so would it even be possible for insurers to offer identical products for the same price in different states?

Some states require insurers to cover all comers, while others do not. If we allowed purchase of policies across state lines, you'd see those states that do getting stuck with all of the sick people, and those that don't getting all the healthy ones. Premiums in the "do" states would likely skyrocket, crushing the sick people.

Any system that separates the sick from the healthy is going to suck.