So what’s going on with this hopey, changey healthcare stuff? My bookies have it a 50/50 and I’m trying to decide if I should go out and buy some cloth grocery bags, a save a whale license plate, and a commie flag.
So what’s going on with this hopey, changey healthcare stuff? My bookies have it at 50/50 and I’m trying to decide if I should go out and buy some cloth grocery bags, a save a whale license plate, and a commie flag.
So what are the odds on the Dems losing control of both the house and Senate? I suspect there will be a huge turn over. More Dems but some Repubs also will lose elections this Nov.
I tried to get you a link to an MP3 of the thing, but I can’t find one that like works right. If you do decide to revolutionate, will you please shoot all the web-site designers you can get your hands on?
And considering if we had to pick a prominant black political leader to put in clown face the titular leader of the Republican Party would seem to be a better choice.
Which scenario is more pathetic? That the Chairman of the DNC did not know what his on Finance Chair had signed off on so his Finance Director could give a presentation, or that he actually did know and now is pathetically claiming this is a line they would not cross. Sorry Mike the line was already crossed, the presentation was already made. Maybe next time you shouldn’t distribute hard copies of your PowerPoint presentations. Nice that you threw your own folk under the bus.
In a normal cycle I would be worried but the combination of Steele, Ryan’s Roadmap, and Tea Party embrace of Trutherism accompanied by a willingness to take on the Republican Establishment from the Right leaves me reasonably sure Dems will hold onto control. And if not that most of the losses will be to Blue Dogs who mostly were not team players to start with.
And Republicans will not take over the Senate. Period. And once again the most vulnerable seats of AR, IN, and NV would not necessarily benet losses, a 53 or 55 vote majority under Durbin being more effective than a 59 vote majority under Reid.
The democrats chance of losing the senate today is 29 percent and losing the senate is a about 45 percent. I doubt the two are independent so I don’t think you can multiply them together to get the probability of the joint event.
So Obama going nuclear on health care. This is unbelieveable. He is risking his party and his presidency to pass a $1T program that effectively nationalizes the health industry, that the overwhelming majority of the citizens do not want. Through a back door!
Why? Why? This is way too hot for the country to handle, and he would actually be better off losing this battle.
Bruce, as for the Senate I think you forgot DE, CN, PA, IL, WI and CA. Not all will go, but it is not unlikely most. So, a 9 seat loss is possible.
For the House it is a little more difficult to guesstimate. It is possible this midterm will be worse than Clinton’s. There certainly is more emotion in the conservative electorate. If that continues it will assure a huge conservative turn out, and if the Dem emotion is similar to VA, MA and NJ elections, then the Dem losses will be extreme.
Interesting. Nice pasting on the picture, someone is technical.
Why worry about the Trillion?
The pentagon is plundering more than that.
And in health delivery your main concern is the Trillion to be taxed rather than plundered with profit by insurance monopolists in their betting rooms for the healthy wealthy.
* Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions);
* Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply);
* Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favourable priority treatment;
* Is “interpersonally exploitative”, i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends;
* Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others;
* Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly;
* Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, “above the law”, and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy. * Subtly misrepresents facts and expediently and opportunistically shifts positions, views, opinions, and “ideals” (e.g., about campaign finance, re-districting). These flip-flops do not cause him overt distress and are ego-syntonic (he feels justified in acting this way). Alternatively, reuses to commit to a standpoint and, in the process, evidences a lack of empathy.
Ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world, or with his inflated and grandiose self-image. This has to do with magical thinking. Obama already sees himself as president because he is firmly convinced that his dreams, thoughts, and wishes affect reality. Additionally, he denies the gap between his fantasies and his modest or limited real-life achievements (for instance, in 12 years of academic career, he hasn’t published a single scholarly paper or book).
“Haughty” body language – The narcissist adopts a physical posture which implies and exudes an air of superiority, seniority, hidden powers, mysteriousness, amused indifference, etc. Though the narcissist usually maintains sustained and piercing eye contact, he often refrains from physical proximity (he is “territorial”).
Hope is not a Plan. Your side needs to run the table to get to 50. California really? Conn weak with Dodd but reachable without? PA do your think Toomey a lock? Is there really a solid farm team behind HOF Bunning?
Somehow ‘whistling past the graveyard comes to mind’. In a normal year Crist vs Meeks for FL Senate should be a no-brainer, the TeaBaggers managed to turn this into a contest. The biggest state in the country is faced with fiscal meltdown and the Daddy Party puts forward Meg Whitmanand Carly Fiorini plus crazy uncle Chuck DeVore?
Sammy in your world “overwhelming” is defined as “50% low information” and “back door” is defined as “majority rule”. Maybe you should have paid more attention in Statistics and Civics. Particularly since big segments of the “overwhelming opposition” is made up from the “too small, too slow folk”
“Haughty” body language? Did you just miss all the language and imagery around “Mission Accomplished” in May 2003 when Bush announced that “major combat operations were over three years before the Surge even was proposed?
Jesus Christ you just described the modus operandi of the whole Bush/Cheney operation without no sense of irony at all.
Bruce, attack??? Just an analysis by several analysts. But, since we are whistling by the graveyard, an explanation of our Prez’s personality defects is appropriate.
At this point “O” is headed toward being the worst president in recent history, and perhaps, ever. Not an enviable position, and not a comfortable person to be supporting. Eh?
CoRev, not quite yet. Bush’s place in history as a President will surely be in the lowest percentages. Obama’s place in history is nowhere close to being determined yet. He has only completed 1/4 of his first term, correct?
As far as Sammy’s post. Do you mean to infer that the RNC members even understand data points? Cause from my experience they are more interested in political ideology than actual evidence based data. They don’t give a crap about the American people, the only thing they care about is winning elections in November, and they know that by being obstructionist, they can accomplish this.
They [GOP] don’t give a crap about the American people, the only thing they care about is winning elections in November, and they know that by being obstructionist, they can accomplish this.
They also treat “Teabaggers” as reactionary low information voters that can be manipulated through fear tactics. Straight from the GOP playbook…literally:
The GOP certainly is careless with their Powerpoint briefings. Back in 2002 the briefing package that outlined how Republicans were going to use the “war card” as a political tool to win votes…this before the war had even been approved by Congress. And last spring Politico.com got hold of GOP memos that outlined their plan to obstruct Obama and to use the filibuster on everything as part of their 2010 election strategy. And now this little gem that the RNC Finance guy left behind at a DC hotel.
This statement about republicans is partly true: “They don’t give a crap about the American people,”.
The RNC gives a huge crap about the ownership society, that is about the 2% who run the place.
What they don’t give a crap about is the 98% other than as their value as hoodwinked voters, cheap labor, no social safety net, cannon fodder for the next CinC’s militarist war profiteers.
They give a crap about bailing out bankers and keeping Lockheed sending out dividend.
They give a crap about their psywar points which keep the 98% cowed.
The RNC cares about everyone worth more than $20M.
TheRNC does feel their pain when the growth of their hoards is threatened.
They feel the pain of an elite, much smaller, well heeled demographic than Bill Clinton.
I had a stomach flu for a couple of days this week with all of the fun symptoms that go with it. I looked on the internet and found a story that there was a flash outbreak in pockets around the area. The article listed three symptoms and I had all of them so I figured that I had what was going around.
Now is this analysis. You know i’m not a doctor but I read a definition and it seemed that the symptoms fit that definition. So what’s the problem making a statement by trying to fit observation with definition to put a label on a phenomena.
Sammy looked up the definition of Narcissistic beharior and thinks Obama fits the defintion. So what’s the problem with doing so. Lets face it, had he looked up the definition or a strong leader or nice guy you would not have jumped on his back.
Obama tells us that he is helping something like 30 million uninsured. This he passes off as caring for Americans without healthcare. Then he tells us that we can’t have a partial solution to healthcare and he needs to have everyone insured. Without forcing those that don’t buy a $2 thousand expected beneift for $4-$5 thousand cost he can’t make his plan work. Thus he sees those 30 million as people he’ll force into the system and overcharge double what their actual costs are and use the overcharge to pay for the rest of his plan. This overcharge he passes off as caring from the American people.
Paul Krugman has been making some waves concerning the economics of a “climate policy ramp,” by which he means the rate at GHG prices must increase…for example, starting out fairly low and then gradually increasing versus starting out fairly high and not changing. The interesting part isn’t the science…afterall, he’s an economist, not a scientist. The interesting part is his treatment of the economics. He treats the rate at which the price of carbon should change as a kind of upside down Tobin’s “q” investment model.
It’s just a “toy model” (his term) to help clarify thinking; i.e., it helps in understanding when a policy of starting out slow and gradually increasing carbon prices would make sense and when it wouldn’t. Note: although the paper does assume some grasp of relatively simple FODEs, you can still follow his argument by focusing on the geometrical representation (a simple phase diagram).
In a follow-up he clarified his position of the discount rate as being the pure time preference discount rate. What’s less clear is whether he has in mind a representative agent model of a private discount rate or a social discount rate. A social discount rate could be slightly negative.
You know perfectly well that without such provision people like you would game the system. If you thought you could get away with it you’d be a free rider as long as you were healthy and then demand healthcare at a low rate once your health inevitably started to deteriorate. So health insurance becomes a lifetime commitment under the Obama plan and not one that you can manipulate to suit your purposes and temporary situation.
I don’t see how you can criticize Obama’s healthcare plan and then turn right around and sing the praises of Mitt Romney when Obama’s plan is probably 95% identical to what you already have in Massachusetts. In fact, it turns out that many people voted for Brown precisely because the Democratic plan would have cost Bay state voters more (in the form of subsidies to red states) just to get the same basic healthcare plan that Massachusetts voters already have. So for Massachusetts voters the Obama plan is a bad deal because they would end up paying more for the same plan.
Anyone remember that Bush 43 could not participate in a debate or hold a press conference without Carl Rove being connected to his ear? Thank you Bush 43 for setting the bar so low!
2slugs, yawn. Dems/Libs/progressives keep putting those nails in that election coffin.
Instead of trying to raise even more taxes to continue more expanded Govt spending, why not try Ryan’s plan? Even “the nonpartisan” CBO has scored it as a success at cutting deficits, eliminating Fed Govt debt and getting to a “balanced” budget.
Ryan’s plan is a GOP smokescreen. The crux of Ryan’s budget proposal is to cut Medicare by two-thirds. Even a caveman could balance the budget by cutting Medicare by two-thirds. It essentially privatizes Medicare. What’s that about angry old teabaggers warning politicians to keep their government hands “off my Medicare” and apparently forgetting that Medicare is already a government program?
What makes this a smokescreen is that the GOP just got done clobbering the Democrats for recommending relatively trivial cuts in the waste/fraud/abuse section of Medicare spending, so why should be we believe they are at all serious about painful cuts. This is just a nonserious proposal designed to fool teabaggers into thinking that the GOP has a real plan.
BTW, according to the CBO, here’s how Ryan’s plan works:
Both the level of expected federal spending on Medicare and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would decline, but enrollees’ spending for health care and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would increase. Under the Roadmap, the value of the voucher would be less than expected Medicare spending per enrollee in 2021, when the voucher program would begin. In addition, Medicare’s current payment rates for providers are lower than those paid by commercial insurers, and the program’s administrative costs are lower than those for individually purchased insurance. Beneficiaries would therefore face higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by Medicare. Moreover, the value of the voucher would grow significantly more slowly than CBO expects that Medicare spending per enrollee would grow under current law. Beneficiaries would therefore be likely to purchase less comprehensive health plans or plans more heavily managed than traditional Medicare, resulting in some combination of less use of health care services and less use of technologically advanced treatments than under current law. Beneficiaries would also bear the financial risk for the cost of buying insurance policies or the cost of obtaining health care services beyond what would be covered by their insurance.
Translation: the rate at which the vouchers increase is less than the rate at which healthcare costs increase, so seniors would have to make up the difference out of their own pockets. In other words, this is a cost shifting exercise rather than a cost reduction exercise. It’s typical of a lot of GOP proposals. They don’t understand the difference between cost reduction and cost shifting.
Right you are, 2slugs. To further nail down your point, look at the beginning date of Ryan’s proposal–2021. How likely is it that anything projected to begin that far into the future would ever happen, let alone perform as described? Right. QED.
The Ryan plan would hit the dust bin the second the GOP came into the majority. That makes it a political documnent, not a budget plan. It’s not a serious proposal because it assumes away the central problem, which is political opposition from seniors against any cuts to Medicare.
A real plan would recognize that cuts to Medicare have to be cuts in nonvalue added features. A real plan would recognize that the goal is to maximize welfare (or utility) and not to minimize the government budget. The Ryan plan would lower government spending, but it would increase total spending on healthcare, so net welfare would be reduced. As I said, it’s cost shifting, not cost reduction.
I think the American public needs to start thinking “outside the box.”
The political system is close to bankruptcy. Both the Republican party and Democratic party stopped being public servants long time ago. Just look at the elected official, they have more in common with their own respective party than the people they suppose to represent. Any party member dared to deviate from their party ideologies risk losing their party’s support, and their own election support from the party machinery.
American people seems to be hijacked by three types of people.
1. Politicians: Always champainging and promising… what about public service for a change?
2. Wall street thugs: These people sitting on the board of major multimiilion company appoints their own CEO clowns and they have one purpose only, profit for themselves… Do not represent the shareholders… Who cares anyway, they can run the companies to the ground and still gets away with bonuses… I.E. government tax cuts and bailout… Screw the shareholders…
3. Public servants: What happened to the “service” part? It’s all about their own entitlement, they have more allegiance to their own unions than the people of United States. They seemed to forget that the “People” needs to do well to support their lifestyle, not the other way around. A little sacrifice can save a lot of jobs…including their own junior union members…
Accountability: The missing vocabulary of the U.S.A.
P.S. Why did the Democratic Party put up Jerry Brown for governer? Can the California people get a better choice? It’s like Sarah Palin for California governer… LOL
2slugs, when have we not seen more cost sharing? Nearly each budget has done it recently. As Cantie points out, something has to give.
Lessee, the Dem plan is to increase the current entitlements which are and have been slowly strangling the discretionary spending while they have expanded spending on medicare and medicaid.
Not going to be happy until there is no discretionary spending? ILSM would be happy.
slugs said: “The Ryan plan would lower government spending, but it would increase total spending on healthcare, so net welfare would be reduced. As I said, it’s cost shifting, not cost reduction.” What part of this does not do the following? 1) Lower Fed Govt deficits? 2) Lower Fed Govt debt? 3) Start us on the road to balancing the budget?
Since when has means testing not been a good idea? Isn’t that the Dem dream? Y’ano, all that tax the rich stuff, progressive taxing?
I am no fan of the fascist appeasing Obama. But I won’t deal that ad hominem today.
I am also no fan of private insurers’ republican tools gaming health care reform.
But, I will answer this: “he needs to have everyone insured.”
As 2 Slugs points out private health insurers are running gambling parlors (not health delivery) they bet the healthy, wealthy that they will get sick and the house wins when they don’t and win when they get sick by tossing them.
That you think a healthy wealthy should not get into the pool with the unhealthy poor or old sharks is the same that I should refuse to go off to Afghanistan if there were a draft.
Civilization implies a society and a set of norms.
Among the oldest social deicts about 5000 years is “do not harm”, another is truth.
You can do harm by omission, and ignorance as well as by commission.
Why cut medicare when all you need to save $300B over the next 10 years is to recognize the F-35 failed all tests scheduled and kill it like you would flunk out an immigrant kid from a public college and take away his scholarship?
F-35 is just one example, killing all the corporate welfare in the militarism cabal would reduce spending by $100B a year.
How about balancing the budget on the welfare of the militarist?
See comments above about ending militarists’ welfare and how easily it would cut the federal deficit.
Thanks for pointing out it is indeed corporate welfare (discretionary/militarist plundering) versus individuals’ welfare (entitlements or taking care of Grandpa).
There are in the universe of RNC feudalist con artists a slim array of cronies, vassals and serfs who enjoy their discretionary spending sacking the productive side of the US.
And they are against the entitlements, individual spending filtered through the markets to deliver productivity.
Discretionalry ruins productivity and is not beneficial as it drags on the productive sector to create military and corporate welfare jobs in manufacturing, resources, engineering and science which supply and resources are better used elsewhere.
Socialism always worked in the feudal societies, only it worked for the ownership society, just like the republican and neocons wish.
An RNC feudal society where the suzereign and cronies own everything and the serfs belong to the corporate landlords.
It’s easy to balance the budget if you assume away all of the problems, which is what Ryan’s plan does. As I said, even a GEICO caveman could do it. But voters are just interested in lowering the deficit, they are also interested in their overall welfare. The Ryan plan basically guts Medicare. That saves the govt a lot of money. But it doesn’t save taxpayers any money, in fact, it ends up costing them more money for less healthcare. That’s a net reduction in welfare. What part of that is so hard to understand?
We could also balance the budget by raising taxes. Why didn’t Ryan advance that alternative?
I dismiss your attempt to divert the issue to me or someone else.
The issue at hand is Obama’s outrageous lie that he set out to do uninsured Americans a favor when in fact he set out to screw them by overcharging them. So to him he’s like the machines and bad computer programs in the movie the “the matrix” and the 30 million are the human beings that he intends to suck their life force to keep his failing enterprise running. This is what the democrats pass off as a success.
That’s not what happened to the contract for America. It’s not what happened with Bush’s tax cut. And Bush did promise to try to reform social security. Entitlements are going to be reformed one way or another and this mainly means curtailed. It’s just a matter of time.
You’re totally wrong. What you’re witnessing is our political system with its accountability to voters working things out. Sometimes you don’t see this in broken countries such as Greece, or in places were the citizens have made a forced faustian dealth with their politicians like in China. We still set the standards.
You’re totally wrong. What you’re witnessing is our political system with its accountability to voters working things out. Sometimes you don’t see this in broken countries such as Greece, or in places were the citizens have made a forced faustian deal with their politicians like in China. We still set the standards.
If you will recall, the contract with America died right out of the box, and it was Gingrich’s attempt to impose a small reduction in Medicare benefits that caused the govt shutdown, which is what undid the GOP revolution. The Republicans aren’t going there again and you know it. That’s why they beat up the Democrats for even suggesting that we abolish waste/fraud/abuse scams in Medicare.
Bush didn’t try to reform Social Security, he tried to privatize a program that was not and is not in serious fiscal trouble. Social Security’s problems are small and manageable. As problems go, SS ranks about 37th on a long list of things to worry about. Bush also said that we could have tax cuts and still have a surplus. Bush lied. What else is new.
Medicare is a canary in a coal mine. The problem isn’t with Medicare per se, the problem is with the growth in healthcare costs in general. Private insurance costs are growing faster than Medicare. Were it not for Medicare healthcare would be a lot bigger chunk of GDP than 17%. We need to get healthcare costs under control and then Medicare takes care of itself. That means streamlining administrative costs. It means only paying for treatment that works. It means cutting the salaries of doctors. It means better use (and less abuse) of testing procedures. Doctors and hospitals have a vested interest in testing because they very often own the test equipment. That’s a much bigger problem than tort reform…orders of magnitude bigger. And lowering healthcare costs means a rethinking of the way we develop and market medicines. The Big Pharma model isn’t sustainable.
Lessee, the Dem plan is to increase the current entitlements
That’s not the Democratic plan. I wish it were, but it’s not. I would support universal Medicare, but that’s not what the Democratic plan is about. You seem to have fallen for the GOP misdirection. The Democratic plan actually reduces entitlements by about $400B over 10 years (that’s the part that the GOP opposed!). The Democratic plan reduces the federal government’s spending on healthcare by about $100B over 10 years. So your facts are just wrong.
The essence of the Democratic plan is to make healthcare universally available. It does this by mandating coverage. And since the main reason people don’t have coverage is that they can’t afford it, the govt provides subsidies for those with low incomes. The subsidies are paid for by mandating insurance for people who are currently in a low risk pool and by reducing the useless parts of Medicare Advantage. The Obama plan also begins to bend the cost curve. Not a lot…but it’s a beginning.
The Ryan plan just eliminates Medicare and tells seniors to go find their own private insurance. In other words, it tells seniors to just die.
2slugs said: “We could also balance the budget by raising taxes. Why didn’t Ryan advance that alternative?” Blancing the budget cann not succeed without stopping spending increases, your party’s big preference. Ryan has a plan which recognizes the liklyhood of stopping spending. Want to show us (“O’s”, Pelosi’s and Reid’s) plan(s), and their reduction in spending?
Wasn’t it you who was telling me/us that entitlement spending wasnt the big issue in Fed budget planning. That I was taught incorrectly by the schools? So to fix the huge entitlement budget, your party’s plan is to significantly increase it? Uh, huh, that’ll work.
2slugs, I do get so tired of your out right lies. Saying this is just plain ignorant: “The Ryan plan just eliminates Medicare and tells seniors to go find their own private insurance. In other words, it tells seniors to just die.”
If anything the “O” healthcare plan says that. Ryan OTH makes Medicare means tested. It does not touch any existing recipients benefits. Not eliminated, and not told to die. But, just keep on blowing your smoke. Those ignoranti who wish to believe it can.
And, Nancy, that is why Ryan’s plan does not start til 2021. But, you just go on thinking the current administration is there for you.
You started off this thread with a note that the CBO said Ryan’s plan lowered the deficit…in fact, it eliminated the deficit over the long run. Fine. I agree. But you keep lying about how Ryan’s plan does that. As the CBO points out, Ryan’s plan basically cuts two-thirds of Medicare benefits and moves seniors on their own to go find private insurance. That’s what it does. Since very few seniors will be able to find insurance at anything like an affordable rate, the Ryan plan has the practical effect of telling seniors to just go and die. The fact that it doesn’t affect any “existing recipient benefits” doesn’t alter the fact that Ryan’s plan still leaves seniors out in the cold.
At one point I thought that you were at least decently informed about the healthcare debate. We disagreed a lot, but I thought you at least understood the broad outlines of the argument. Clearly I was mistaken. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that you really don’t understand any of this. Just clueless Fox News talking points. You brought up the Ryan plan without apparently understanding what was actually in the plan. Now you’re squirming and trying to pretend that Ryan’s plan doesn’t hurt seniors. Ryan’s plan effectively eliminates Medicare and makes the rump piece that’s left an extension of Medicaid.
BTW, Ryan’s “plan” begins in 2021 because that is exactly just outside the 10 year budget window. It’s an old GOP trick. Ryan knows that CBO scoring that is outside the 10 year window is different than scoring inside the window.
Cantab, like Steven Colbert said: the Republicans wag their finger in your face and say f*** you. And I would add: but I still want and will get your vote.
Blancing the budget cann not succeed without stopping spending increases, your party’s big preference. Ryan has a plan which recognizes the liklyhood of stopping spending.
Ryan’s plan, if actually implemented, would cut Medicare spending. Of course, it would increase total healthcare spending as a percent of GDP with no increase in real healthcare output, but apparently that doesn’t bother you. I guess you like paying more and getting less as long as your taxes are lower. Whatever. Personally I would prefer to see a plan that cuts healthcare spending overall as a percent of GDP for a given output level. I’m just funny like that. Maybe it’s the economist in me.
As to Obama’s plan, note that his healthcare plan does cut $400B in Medicare spending over the next 10 years…and he does it in a fairly responsible way. That’s the part that the GOP opposed, remember?
Wasn’t it you who was telling me/us that entitlement spending wasnt the big issue in Fed budget planning.
No, it wasnt. In fact, I’m the one who corrected buffpilot everytime he put up that CBO chart. I’m the one who showed him that almost all of the outyear deficit problem is with Medicare and Medicaid spending. No one disputes that we need to get Medicare and Medicaid spending under control. The problem with Ryan’s plan is that it doesn’t even attempt to get those costs under control. The Ryan solution is to sweep the problem under the rug by shifting the cost off the federal government’s budget and onto the budgets of seniors and state governments. Ryan’s plan is an example of cost shifting, not cost reduction. Understand the difference?
Lys said: “the Republicans wag their finger in your face and say f*** you.” While completely ignoring what the Dems just did/said with the HC bill. ~78% of American voters disagree with the current bill and/or want them to start over, but the Dems gave them the finger and said f**ck you! We know best!
Implying that the voters are all ignorant is the best way to win? or lose? the next election.
The voters are confused. An overwhelming majority want healthcare reform. A majority want each of the three major pieces of Obama’s plan when you ask them about each pieace separately. But the voters are also stupid enough to fall for much of the GOP’s lies about creeping socialism…not a surprise since the GOP has been caught red handed on that one thanks to Politico.com. No one likes the bill as it is, so that 78% includes both those that think it goes too far and those that think it doesn’t go far enough. But most people support the main elements of the bill and that’s what counts.
2slugs, stop the misinformation campaign. “The Democratic plan actually reduces entitlements by about $400B over 10 years (that’s the part that the GOP opposed!).” Remember that ole double counting thing going on by pulling the Dr fix out of the HC bill? Nah, you wouldn’t admit to that.
Then saying this (my responses embedded in italics): “The essence of the Democratic plan is to make healthcare universally available. (And that’s after claiming that entitlements are reduced.) It does this by mandating coverage. (And that’s after claiming healthcare costs are reduced.) And since the main reason people don’t have coverage is that they can’t afford it, the govt provides subsidies for those with low incomes. (In healthcare a large percentage of those recipients are the young.) The subsidies are paid for by mandating insurance for people who are currently in a low risk pool (There’s those young folks again.) and by reducing the useless (Useless? I guess that is only a Dem concpet and not one held by the actual elderly using that service?) parts of Medicare Advantage.“
So, for a large portion of those required to buy HC insurance but seldom need it, will be subsidized by those who are older and more likely to need HC insurance or used the (no longer) available services of Medicare.
Yup! You have a thourough undestaning of the HC bill. Not! But, what really, really bothers me is the loss of your respect. Oh, my! 🙂 (Dan Where’s the smiley faces?)
If you will recall, the contract with America died right out of the box,
No, I don’t recall that at all. Gingrich as promised pushed legislation forward on just about all the items. Won several of them, and caused a democrat president to reverse himself and become a de-facto republican with his repudiation of big government and welfare reform. Gingrich made good on his promises.
It funny though that all the grass roots movement seen come from the republican side. I think this goes with emphasizing the individual while democrats favor the institution.
The Republicans aren’t going there again and you know it.
Sure they will since the money is going to start coming up short.
Bush didn’t try to reform Social Security, he tried to privatize a program
Privatization is reform and private accounts are real saving. Something the existing system with it trust fund gimmick does not have.
Were it not for Medicare healthcare would be a lot bigger chunk of GDP than 17%.
Wrong again, government programs, law suits, and not getting individuals involved in price searching is why prices are so high in our system.
That’s great news for the republicans because it means the voters are likely to throw over the democrats and then have the republicans do a healthcare reform consistent with free market capitalism, with perhaps some manipulative tinkering of the tax code. I want to get individuals looking to cut costs and have no faith in top down solutions.
So, for a large portion of those required to buy HC insurance but seldom need it, will be subsidized by those who are older and more likely to need HC insurance or used the (no longer) available services of Medicare.
I’m sorry, but this paragraph is so mangled that I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
If you want to learn about healthcare economics, you might want to begin with the one guy that is just about universally recognized as the expert on the subject, Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton. Here’s his homepage, which includes some of his papers:
Try actually reading some serious stuff on the issue. At least it will show some evidence that you’re actually trying to be a serious voice instead of just an angry teabagger.
CBO scored it as eliminating the debt only by following Ryan staff insistance that total revenue would not change which could only happen if capitalists ALL agreed to take the choice to file under the old rules and NONE took advantage of the elimination of taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains. An outcome with a probability of zero. Why CBO agreed to score it under those rules is a mystery but they did in fact score the whole tax cut package as revenue neutral. GIGO.
Cantab, you know something, comedians are truthtellers, like the court jesters of yore. They sure beat recovering alcoholic HS grads like Beck, and dopeheads like Rush, and knucklehead Hannity. Colbert could say what many think and are not allowed to say on the news.
The Daily Show reported on the Hawaii socialized health care system, MSM and Fox did not.
Cantab, yes I too disagree with the current bill because it is not good enough. But I also have reached the point like many others that even a little is better than nothing.
What I watched over all the months the epic fight for health care reform played out was the power of the corporations. Not that it is new, but never before was it so much in the open, they did not bother to hide it. I came to the conclusion that the Obama people had to make backroom deals in order to get at least a few crumbs. And the progressive Democrats and Bernie Sanders fought as hard as they could.
The Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats protected and fought for the interests of the corporations and yes they did just as Steven Colbert said: they wagged their fingers in our faces and yelled, f*** you. They also know stupid people will vote for them.
I also believe the Republicans will win the next elections if the corporations want them to win. But maybe they need the Democrats more, they cut a much better figure on the international stage. Obama looks good with a teleprompter or not.
Cantab, What we are seeing is a political system unable to function. We have the tyranny of the minority, we see the lobbyists for the corporations in control of the government. The middle class, the backbone of the nation is broken and the tea party is the result of that. The right wing extremists have hijacked the Republican party. Just a reminder, Hitler usurped the power in Germany with the help of the middle class, the people who lost the most after the war.
Lys, the Daily Show did NOT report on the Hawaii health care system. It did do a skit that was aimed at making HC opponents look dumb. Your were taken in by a comedian’s skit. Brilliant!
Fox News did report on the canccelling of the Hawaii Universal Child Health Care system after just seven months in operation. It becamse so out of fiscal control Hawaii could not afford to continue it.
What Hawaii does have is a mandatory employer provided healthcare system for all workers who work for 1/2 time or for a minimal amount of full time days. Sounds good until we pull back the covers. Here’s what one commenter explained:
“Hawaii businesses have tended to use part-time workers more than full-time because of the mandate on employers. It is not uncommon to hold 2 part-time jobs in place of a full-time job in Hawaii.”
So that ole rule of unanticipated consequences strikes again.
This is why I kept saying the system is closed to being broken! There are too many special interests out there unfortunately to come to any sensible agreement.
We are a democracy and people will disagree. But it seems to me, all this arguing, there aren’t many people asking questions to their doctors and nurses, what are their suggestions? Afterall, they are the ones they provided real health care? Instead of asking the government, corporations, insurance companies and politicians to come out with a solution, what about the real players???
Let’s face it, the US have a three tiered system in place.
1. The county hospital 2. The VA system 3. The private hospital
How about just face reality that we are not going to reach an agreement in the USA and agree to disagree. Let’s just tax everyone who do not want to carry their own insurance 5% of their income and distribute it to the county system? Right now the responsible people that have their own insurance(2/3) is already subsidizing those whom aren’t insured(1/3) anyway!
Rest of the world: If you don’t have money to pay, go to public hospital… In the USA… you go to any open emergency room. Which system is better?
CoRev, employers have always gone for part time employment in order to skip benefits. Now the Hawaii government makes them insure part time workers. That is socialism or not? Comedy does always have a kearnel or more of truth and it still is a fact of no reporting at all by MSM of the system in Hawaii. I admit, I trust Colbert and Stewart more than Fox.
Cantab, in Europe people use the emergency room for emergencies only. Also, there are no public hospitals for people with no insurance in Europe either because all people are insured.
Pax Romana, people without insurance are not irresponsible, most likely they can’t afford or are denied insurance. Yes there are young people who do believe they will always be young and healthy and don’t need insurance. You know, that youthful stupidity.
Probably not better exactly. But maybe not as bad as it is made out to be. I’m 98% sure that our lunatic health care system transfers all sorts of costs from elsewhere to the Emergency Room. So a $150 visit for a rash or whatever gets booked as a $450 Emergency Room visit which the hospital then sets out to extort from someone … with just enough success to warrant continuing the practice.
I’m suggesting that the purported high cost of providing routine health care via the Emergency Room may be largely an artifact of dingbat accounting rather than actual costs.
I agree that the high emergency costs are mostly due to accounting. When you think about it the main additional cost is the extra compensation that you have to offer people in the emergency room to work odd hours. Moreover, there are some efficiency gains by having people treating in the emergency room since you have equipment, space, and at least some staff to deal with a situation where there was a real major emergency. If people were not being treated this space would be sitting idle as would be the staff on duty.
Lyst makes another comedic statement based upon her knowledge gained from “The Daily Show?” She unequivocably states: “Also, there are no public hospitals for people with no insurance in Europe either because all people are insured. “
But a quick seach finds many private hospitals in Europe, and few list Govt pricing, but do list their private prices. Here is an example of what one article says: “Europe is known for having single-payer, government provided healthcare. But just because there is significant government involvement in the financing of medical services does not mean that private hospitals are non-existent. An interesting series of post by HealthcareEuropa looks at private hospitals that operate in Bulgaria, Turkey and Germany.”
So, Lys, why would EU-based private hospitals advertise for foreign patients? Is it because of their Govt provided insurance? Or is it more likely their rates are higher and payment more immediate?
Lys, please watch Fox News versus comedy shows. You will appear better informed and less blindly biased in these discussions.
I just don’t believe the high cost of healthcare is materially driven by either emergency room visits or insurance industry profits.
And by the way, Obama is not selling us on taking national healthcare costs down to 10-12 percent of GDP. So he’s not doing Europe. It’s just hillary care again — a scheme to move government to manage and direct a large part of our economy.
CoRev, just google the Hawaii health insurance record or read up in the NYT last October or so. You can look it up, google or read the article in the NYT from last October.
Don’t let your bias prevent you to inform yourself. Do your fact check.
How does an overcrowded emergency room affect the real emergencies? And you think your sore throat or cough will be better treated because of all the equipment sittng there? You don’t mind sitting for hours in an emergency room waiting to be treated?
Obama is not selling us on taking national healthcare costs down to 10-12 percent of GDP.
Agreed. So what’s your point? You’re offering up a false choice. We’re long past the point where we talk about healthcare costs as a percent of GDP that are roughly in line with most other developed countries. We’ll never get there in any of our lifetimes. But that’s not a reason to at least slow down the rate of growth, and the Obama plan does at least do that. In fact, according to the CBO, the long run effect of the Senate plan would be to reduce healthcare as a percent of GDP by roughly one-quarter of one percent of GDP. And by long run the CBO means years 11-20 after enactment. We’d all like to see a reduction of more than one-quarter of one percent of GDP, but at least it’s a beginning. And at least it’s more than what the GOP is proposing, which would actually increase the rate of healthcare costs as a percent of GDP.
BTW, your guys looked really pitiful on the Sunday morning talkinghead shows. They were even repeating each other’s talking points verbatim. Rich Lowrey (on MTP) used exactly the same words and phrases as Mitch McConnell (This Week).
What’s the difference? I thought Fox News was a comedy show. I really like the part where they reliably identify a Republican as a Democrat whenever the Republican says something that sounds especially stupid. And a couple weeks ago they had a piece on Yucca Mountain and misidentified Harry Reid as being the Democratic senator from Utah. Gotta love it. It’s funny stuff.
Cantab, Obama is not selling us on taking national healthcare costs down to 10-12 percent of GDP.
Agreed. So what’s your point? Obama is not controlling costs like in Europe (or coming close) so his healthcare bill is not worth doing, especially since he can’t sell it straight. In fact, according to the CBO, the long run effect of the Senate plan would be to reduce healthcare as a percent of GDP by roughly one-quarter of one percent of GDP. This is not good enough, and in fact it looks like a joke.
CoRev, I never, never said there are no private hospitals in Europe. Of course they have expensive society doctors and cosmetic surgery and whatever else your heart desires. What I do say, there are no public hospitals for charity cases, people without insurance.
Cantab, Obama is not doing Europe, that is right. And Obama is not doing it because he can’t. The insurance industry and medical providers will not let it happen, they have more clout than the people have. Did Fox tell you how many more lobbyists there are in DC now and how much money they invest in their congress man and senator? I don’t think Obama had choice when he negotiated with Billy Tauzine, he had to.
2slugs, just watched McLaughlin and the consensus was that the House is lost, and the Senate may see as many as 9-10 Dem losses.
Liberal policies have been on display for three years, and they are being found ineffective and wrong. Not a very auspicious start for “O”, and worse for Dems wishing re-election. I think the count of Dems retiring is up to 17. How many more before the impacts get noticed in Dem senior political circles?
Recent article by Maggie gets into some depth on how the latest proposal impacts healthcare costs. I think you may find Maggie’s articl interesting and also this:
“The reform proposal now being debated in Washington would put a brake on health care inflation. As an eye-opening essay in the most recent (March 4) issue of the New England Journal of Medicine explains, Medicare would, at last, have the power it needs to lead the way, not by cutting benefits, but by restructuring how it does business.” http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=3108&query=home As taken from here: http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2010/03/peggy-noonan-vs-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine.html “Peggy Noonan versus The New England Journal of Medicine” Maggie Mahar, Health Beat Blog
Both the Senate Bill and Obama’s healhcare proposal put in place actions and the power under the HHS to reduce Medicare costs free on congressional approval. That some refuse to acknowledge such parts of either of these bills is silly. They are simply parroting.
How does an overcrowded emergency room affect the real emergencies? And you think your sore throat or cough will be better treated because of all the equipment sittng there? You don’t mind sitting for hours in an emergency room waiting to be treated? If a real emergency happens then those getting routine care get pushed off into a waiting roomsuntil space becomes available. The extra equipment does not get used and is there for use in specific emergencies thus it’s a sunk cost and has no impact on the cost of treating people coming into an emergency room for care.
Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have the worst shows on television since they go beyond being opinionated, which is what you get on Fox, to being grossly misleading. So the worst is on the left.
***How does an overcrowded emergency room affect the real emergencies?***
Doesn’t I think. Low priority patients can be abandoned — maybe for hours if somebody in urgent need of care comes in. In one of my few emergency room visits — to get 13 stitches after misguessing where the other soccer team’s Center Forward was headed — my problem got put on hold when a guy ran in and yelled, “My buddy … I think he’s dead”
***This is not good enough, and in fact it looks like a joke.***
You’d prefer that health care costs keep on growing at a few percent every year as they have for the last 50 years?
Think it through man. Simply arresting the growth in health care costs would be a major breakthrough.
Don’t like Obama’s health care plan, propose a better one. We’ve heard not one single constructive thought about healthcare from “conservatives”. Not one. Worthless dimwits …. more of a menace to the US than Al Queadda … maybe evern worse than bankers (although I’d have to think about that a bit) …. grumble …
People that are working but not paying into the system needs to pay into the system. Those people can’t work- won’t be able to pay anyway.
County hospitals aren’t the best solution, but if everyone that works and do not pay/cannot afford their own health insurance pays an income tax surcharge, its a better than nothing solution. At least sick people can go to public hospital to get proper care. Because I said earlier 2/3 insured are basically taxed by health insurance companies to pay for 1/3 that don’t have insurance.
CoRev, Jon and Steven are better educated, they have college and are funny and factual when it counts. Hannity, and Beck have a HS diploma and never made an effort to educate themselves and are not funny. Rachel is even better, she does have a Phd. I don’t like Keith and Rachel’s style, but so far I don’t know of any deliberate misinformation. If they do make errors they do correct them. But yes, they do have different opinions than you have, most of the time I agree with them.
We’ve heard not one single constructive thought about healthcare from “conservatives”. Not one.
I think that’s 99% correct; however, Sen. Coburn is the one Republican who has offered some fairly constructive positions and alternatives. Even Paul Krugman has some good things to say about some of Coburn’s ideas. And Obama has accepted some of Coburn’s recommendations. For instance, Sen. Coburn recommended that the govt send out undercover cops to sniff out billing and Medicare fraud by doctors. Obama agreed with that recommendation at the health summit. Of course, the GOP leadership has disowned that and many other suggestions advanced by Coburn. One reason is that Coburn (a physician) actually seems genuinely interested in healthcare reform as opposed to blindly following Mitch McConnell’s plan for the 2010 election. That’s not to say that everything Coburn says makes sense, but I do give him credit for at least being sincere and offering up some constructive ideas.
I think it’s unlikely that the Democrats lose the House, but it’s always possible. It will certainly be a very closely divided House.
I believe the number of GOP retirements is still greater than the number of Democratic retirements, but we’ll see.
What’s been on display is an audacious campaign of lying and obstructionism by Republicans that quite frankly borders on treason. And as I’ve said before, treason is nothing new for the base of the GOP. Afterall, the red states are the only states to have actually led an armed rebellion against the Union. Worse yet, that disgraceful history is still celebrated by many southern Republicans. A sad irony given the genesis of the Republican party.
As Cantab can attest, I’ve never held the American voter in much regard. Most are just nitwits who are easily taken in by lies if those lies are repeated often enough and loud enough. Teabaggers are an especially pathetic example of this phenomenon. Teabaggers tend to be earnest in their opinions, but completely without the intellectual tools needed to understand public policy. Perfect suckers for GOP talking points.
Obama is not controlling costs like in Europe (or coming close) so his healthcare bill is not worth doing, So are you endorsing a European style solution to healthcare? Did you spend too much time listening to the Internationale? Just because the Democratic plan doesn’t completely solve the problem of healthcare costs is not an argument to not implement the Democratic plan. The perfect cannot be allowed to become the enemy of the good. The Republican leadership hasn’t offered up anything that improves things and a lot that makes things worse. But if you want to join the socialist revolution and demand single payer/single provider, then welcome aboard. In the meantime I’ll settle for Obama’s incremental improvement.
UH OH! Here comes a major test of “O’s” policies: “KARACHI, Pakistan — The American-born spokesman for al-Qaida has been arrested by Pakistani intelligence officers in the southern city of Karachi, two officers and a government official said Sunday, the same day Adam Gadahn appeared in a video urging U.S. Muslims to attack their own country.”
Gonna bring him home? Gonna try him in a civilian court? Gonna water board him for recent info? Gonna just let the Pakis do the job?
The answers will show who/what he cares about, Lib Left or the country?
The Republican leadership hasn’t offered up anything
“Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act”
“The purpose of this Act is to take meaningful steps to lower health care costs and increase access to health insurance coverage…..without 1) Raising taxes 2) Cutting Medicare benefits 3) adding to the national deficit 4) intervening in the doctor-patient relationship 4) adding to the national deficit 5) instituting a government takeover of health care.” Summary: http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan_Updated_11-04-09.pdf
Don’t you suppose Obama should go through due process?
Or do you require lawless fascism and concentration camps from Obama to keep them bad al qaeda cave dwellers in Pakistan from hurting you?
A 6 or better earthquake happens in the eastern US about every 50 years or so, be worried. Infinitely more likely the capitol will endure a cracked foundation than you getting in the way of a al qaeda bomber from Karachi.
If Obama is not going to cut costs down to the Europe/Japan level then the bulk of what you have left is a power grab. No wonder low information voters instinctively sense Obamacare is a bad idea.
The only idea I have is to increase supply, liberalize who gets to offer healthcare service, and commoditize it as much as possible, and get individuals involved in price search. After that I got nothing and if this won’t do its not going to get down with a plan and the chips will just land where they will.
Those that have long memories might recall that a year ago I said that during this winter we would start seeing a bunch of round-ups of big AQ and Taliban kingpins. Go check the archives. This wasn’t just a lucky guess. Shortly after taking office the Obama Administration started to lay the groundwork for the rolling up of AQ and Taliban leaders. The Obama Administration had the good fortune of not having to work with Musharraf, but it’s also the case that Team Obama adopted a complicated plan to sew distrust within the AQ network. This is a good example of what you can do when you decide to outsmart your opponent and represented a complete turnaround of the Bush policy with respect to Afghanistan.
I’m impressed that we’re having such great success in picking up AQ kingpins in Karachi. It’s a rough town. My brother-in-law had the unfortunate job of leading the team of Americans into Karachi to pick up the decapitated body of the WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl. Even with the aid of the Pakistani security forces he still could only move through the streets of Karachi in an armored vehicle. So this is a rough part of the world.
“The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.”
“The Republican plan does not call for a government insurance plan but rather attempts to reform the system by creating high-risk insurance pools, allowing people to purchase health insurance policies across state lines and instituting medical malpractice reforms.” “According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.”
Rachel Maddow’s show is not a news show; it’s an interview show. It’s like Hannity’s show except smarter. Keith’s show is a news show of sorts, but unlike Fox, Keith doesn’t try and pretend that he’s not opinionated. Here again, Keith is just smarter and funnier than the competition over at Fox. Most of MSNBC’s straight news is during the daytime. In any event, I don’t watch either Maddow or Keith for their news. I get most of my news either online or from NPR.
In other words, according to the CBO the Democratic plan would save almost twice as much money ($130B vs $68B) and cover 10 times as many folks. Sounds like the Democratic plan is better. Again, thanks for providing the links to support my case.
Pax Romana, I just wanted to say that people without insurance are just irresponsible. I too think all should pay in to the system. I do support mandatory insurance but it must be affordable and the insurance corporations must be regulated. It can’t be that premiums keep going up without any restrictions and people just have to pay.
Yeah, right. You probably believe in Global Warming too…..oh wait…….
Besides, the GOP plan could cover as many people as Obamacare. All you would have to do is add one sentence to the bill: “All citizens must buy health insurance or be fined $12,000.” Viola, universal coverage, Dem style.
Cantab, my insurance did not go up, I have government insurance, socialized insurance if you will. I am not complaining. If you lived in LA and you have employer paid groupe insurance there is not much you can do. But maybe you can tell me where people can get cheaper insurance without increasing the deductibles to thousands of $$$, if they can get it that is.
First, it isn’t entirely clear that the guy was actually captured. Reports are conflicted. We also have no idea what the Pakistanis intend to do with him. If he is turned over to US officials, then presumably he would be read his Miranda rights at some point. Whether he is interrogated first is not terribly important because it’s not like we need any information from him in order to gain a conviction. In fact, the charge that the US is likely to seek (treason) requires very specific criteria to convice…the criteria are stated in the Constitution. The reading Miranda rights is only meaningful if you want to take statements taken from the accused during interrogation and then use those statements in the prosecution. I don’t think prosecutors need any interrogation statements in order to get a conviction, so the timing of when he gets his Miranda rights read is largely irrelevant.
The stupidest thing we could do would be to try him in a military court. As a number of legal scholars have pointed out, many of the things that are crimes in a civilian court are not crimes in military courts because international treaties provide defenses for killing Americans that are not available to defendants in civil courts but are available in military courts.
For those of us who would like to see KSM executed, trying him in a military court is not good news. If tried under military courts it’s all but certain that he will die from natural causes while on death row long before he is ever executed. Basically he gets about twice the number of appeals. And KSM will also have new defenses that are not currently available to him. And of course the entire case goes back to square one and the clock starts all over again. That means several years before the first trial ever even starts followed by a series of appeals in the military court system followed by automatic appeals to the Supreme Court. Really dumb.
I believe in the mathematics of fat tails under conditions of uncertainty.
Besides, the GOP plan could cover as many people as Obamacare.
I know conservatives tend to be math challenged (I don’t expect you to understand my comment about fat tails under conditions of uncertainty), but even Republicans should be able to understand that 3 million is not equal to 30 million. The GOP plan only reduces the number of uninsured by 3 million. Just because they have a mindless PR sheet that says it will provide “access” to insurance for everyone doesn’t mean everyone will have insurance. The GOP plan provides “access” in the same way that Marie Antoinette provided bread for all by claiming that they could all eat cake. Saying you have the right to buy something that is too expensive for your budget is a meaningless right.
So what’s going on with this hopey, changey healthcare stuff? My bookies have it a 50/50 and I’m trying to decide if I should go out and buy some cloth grocery bags, a save a whale license plate, and a commie flag.
So what’s going on with this hopey, changey healthcare stuff? My bookies have it at 50/50 and I’m trying to decide if I should go out and buy some cloth grocery bags, a save a whale license plate, and a commie flag.
So what are the odds on the Dems losing control of both the house and Senate? I suspect there will be a huge turn over. More Dems but some Repubs also will lose elections this Nov.
Cantie, what are the odds running?
***some cloth grocery bags,***
Really should have some already. They don’t bust and dump your groceries all over the driveway.
***a save a whale license plate,***
Naw, just send some money to Greenpeace. Advertising your decency is kind of tacky, don’t you think.
***and a commie flag***
I believe that traditionally, you are supposed to sew your own just prior to taking to the barricades.
***and a commie flag***
Just in case you need it, here’s a link to the English lyrics of the Internationale: http://www.uv.es/~pla/red.net/intaoter.html
I tried to get you a link to an MP3 of the thing, but I can’t find one that like works right. If you do decide to revolutionate, will you please shoot all the web-site designers you can get your hands on?
33 House Incumbants is a lot to knock off.
And considering if we had to pick a prominant black political leader to put in clown face the titular leader of the Republican Party would seem to be a better choice.
Which scenario is more pathetic? That the Chairman of the DNC did not know what his on Finance Chair had signed off on so his Finance Director could give a presentation, or that he actually did know and now is pathetically claiming this is a line they would not cross. Sorry Mike the line was already crossed, the presentation was already made. Maybe next time you shouldn’t distribute hard copies of your PowerPoint presentations. Nice that you threw your own folk under the bus.
In a normal cycle I would be worried but the combination of Steele, Ryan’s Roadmap, and Tea Party embrace of Trutherism accompanied by a willingness to take on the Republican Establishment from the Right leaves me reasonably sure Dems will hold onto control. And if not that most of the losses will be to Blue Dogs who mostly were not team players to start with.
And Republicans will not take over the Senate. Period. And once again the most vulnerable seats of AR, IN, and NV would not necessarily benet losses, a 53 or 55 vote majority under Durbin being more effective than a 59 vote majority under Reid.
Of course I meant RNC.
Contab.
Stop the psywar.
Talking points, huh?
Any view independent of the RNC clown drawers?
The democrats chance of losing the senate today is 29 percent and losing the senate is a about 45 percent. I doubt the two are independent so I don’t think you can multiply them together to get the probability of the joint event.
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/
Gen. Petraeus was in Ottawa, Canada recently. Looks like he and his Canadian counterpart have a special relationship.
Better get rid of “Don’t ask. Don’t tell”. They can now openly serve.
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00517/FXC103-U_S__Gene_517902gm-b.jpg
But he was really there drumming up support to get the Canadians to bankrupt themselves like he and his pals are bankrupting the US.
Petraeus has added another clock to the many clocks ticking away on Afghanistan and Iraq.
“There’s an Afghan clock, a Washington clock, an Ottawa clock and a lot of other clocks out there…
Does anyone know what time it is? And how the US can be plundered for 80 years?
Or when the plundering leave the US in the same shape as the soviets. A third world country with nukes?
Did the Bush bail out “intrade”?
Don’t they underwrite ABS?
This will do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpvwh292VKI&feature=related
So Obama going nuclear on health care. This is unbelieveable. He is risking his party and his presidency to pass a $1T program that effectively nationalizes the health industry, that the overwhelming majority of the citizens do not want. Through a back door!
Why? Why? This is way too hot for the country to handle, and he would actually be better off losing this battle.
I think Obama suffers from a personality disorder. “By choosing the “nuclear option,” Obama is demonstrating do-or-die fanaticism” http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/obamas_malignant_narcissism.html
Bruce, as for the Senate I think you forgot DE, CN, PA, IL, WI and CA. Not all will go, but it is not unlikely most. So, a 9 seat loss is possible.
For the House it is a little more difficult to guesstimate. It is possible this midterm will be worse than Clinton’s. There certainly is more emotion in the conservative electorate. If that continues it will assure a huge conservative turn out, and if the Dem emotion is similar to VA, MA and NJ elections, then the Dem losses will be extreme.
Sammy, “O” is a narcissist, and can not easily relate to a loss. He surely can not relate to his being the cause of that loss.
If the “Bill” is passed through reconciliation, then we will see a two word campaign slogan. “Repeal it!”
Going against 78% of the electorate is folly, but let me refer you to my first sentence.
Has anyone heard anything more of the cancelation of the civil trials for the AQ leadership?
I am not sure what you mean by narcissist. And why bring Oprah into this?
But your 78% polling is Fox/Rupert Murdoch polling.
So givre the source nd the questions.
Interesting. Nice pasting on the picture, someone is technical.
Why worry about the Trillion?
The pentagon is plundering more than that.
And in health delivery your main concern is the Trillion to be taxed rather than plundered with profit by insurance monopolists in their betting rooms for the healthy wealthy.
Yes, Obama is giving in to the fascists.
Just like he gave in to Mc Chrystal on a wasteful, useless surge in Afghanistan.
A bankrupting of the US which some think will need 81 years (if ever) to make any difference in brainwashing the Pashtun to give in.
Barack Obama – Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?
Behavior Patterns
* Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions);
* Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply);
* Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favourable priority treatment;
* Is “interpersonally exploitative”, i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends;
* Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others;
* Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly;
* Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, “above the law”, and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy.
* Subtly misrepresents facts and expediently and opportunistically shifts positions, views, opinions, and “ideals” (e.g., about campaign finance, re-districting). These flip-flops do not cause him overt distress and are ego-syntonic (he feels justified in acting this way). Alternatively, reuses to commit to a standpoint and, in the process, evidences a lack of empathy.
Ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world, or with his inflated and grandiose self-image. This has to do with magical thinking. Obama already sees himself as president because he is firmly convinced that his dreams, thoughts, and wishes affect reality. Additionally, he denies the gap between his fantasies and his modest or limited real-life achievements (for instance, in 12 years of academic career, he hasn’t published a single scholarly paper or book).
“Haughty” body language – The narcissist adopts a physical posture which implies and exudes an air of superiority, seniority, hidden powers, mysteriousness, amused indifference, etc. Though the narcissist usually maintains sustained and piercing eye contact, he often refrains from physical proximity (he is “territorial”).
His speech is peppered with “I”, “my”, “myself”, and “mine”.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/25109-barack-obama-elections
Hope is not a Plan. Your side needs to run the table to get to 50. California really? Conn weak with Dodd but reachable without? PA do your think Toomey a lock? Is there really a solid farm team behind HOF Bunning?
Somehow ‘whistling past the graveyard comes to mind’. In a normal year Crist vs Meeks for FL Senate should be a no-brainer, the TeaBaggers managed to turn this into a contest. The biggest state in the country is faced with fiscal meltdown and the Daddy Party puts forward Meg Whitmanand Carly Fiorini plus crazy uncle Chuck DeVore?
Sammy in your world “overwhelming” is defined as “50% low information” and “back door” is defined as “majority rule”. Maybe you should have paid more attention in Statistics and Civics. Particularly since big segments of the “overwhelming opposition” is made up from the “too small, too slow folk”
You got to be shitting me.
What part of “I am the Decider” did you shove down the Memory Hole here?
Sammy you are at substantial risk of self-parody here.
Oh and does anyone have video evidence of Bush delivering a major policy address without a Teleprompter
“Haughty” body language? Did you just miss all the language and imagery around “Mission Accomplished” in May 2003 when Bush announced that “major combat operations were over three years before the Surge even was proposed?
Jesus Christ you just described the modus operandi of the whole Bush/Cheney operation without no sense of irony at all.
Holy Crap. First three points Bush’s insistance on embroadsring Commander of Chief on EVERYTHING.
Fourth point “Interpersonally Exploitive”. Like Karl Rove rejoiced in being dubbed “Turd Blossom”
“Devoid of empathy” as if inviting Osama to “Bring it On!” as in calling for assaults on US Military was a good thing.
Oh and don’t even get me down to “subtly misrepresents facts” and “ignores data”
seriously Sammyis the avenue of attack you want to launch on Obama?
Bruce, attack??? Just an analysis by several analysts. But, since we are whistling by the graveyard, an explanation of our Prez’s personality defects is appropriate.
At this point “O” is headed toward being the worst president in recent history, and perhaps, ever. Not an enviable position, and not a comfortable person to be supporting. Eh?
CoRev, not quite yet. Bush’s place in history as a President will surely be in the lowest percentages. Obama’s place in history is nowhere close to being determined yet. He has only completed 1/4 of his first term, correct?
As far as Sammy’s post. Do you mean to infer that the RNC members even understand data points? Cause from my experience they are more interested in political ideology than actual evidence based data. They don’t give a crap about the American people, the only thing they care about is winning elections in November, and they know that by being obstructionist, they can accomplish this.
Anonymous hit pieces are not analysis.
“Ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world, or with his inflated and grandiose self-image. This has to do with magical thinking.”
Kind of like you and buried WMD in Syria. Still planning to fly a C-130 in circles over Damascus? I guess to scare the slopes?
sammy,
So Obama going nuclear on health care.
What do you mean by the phrase “going nuclear”?
Michael says it much nicer than I.
To claim analysis as a description for this series by sammy and corev is unfortunate for them. Nah nah nah is closer to the mark, with eyes closed.
Michael Halasy,
They [GOP] don’t give a crap about the American people, the only thing they care about is winning elections in November, and they know that by being obstructionist, they can accomplish this.
They also treat “Teabaggers” as reactionary low information voters that can be manipulated through fear tactics. Straight from the GOP playbook…literally:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html
The GOP certainly is careless with their Powerpoint briefings. Back in 2002 the briefing package that outlined how Republicans were going to use the “war card” as a political tool to win votes…this before the war had even been approved by Congress. And last spring Politico.com got hold of GOP memos that outlined their plan to obstruct Obama and to use the filibuster on everything as part of their 2010 election strategy. And now this little gem that the RNC Finance guy left behind at a DC hotel.
Michael Halasy,
This statement about republicans is partly true: “They don’t give a crap about the American people,”.
The RNC gives a huge crap about the ownership society, that is about the 2% who run the place.
What they don’t give a crap about is the 98% other than as their value as hoodwinked voters, cheap labor, no social safety net, cannon fodder for the next CinC’s militarist war profiteers.
They give a crap about bailing out bankers and keeping Lockheed sending out dividend.
They give a crap about their psywar points which keep the 98% cowed.
The RNC cares about everyone worth more than $20M.
TheRNC does feel their pain when the growth of their hoards is threatened.
They feel the pain of an elite, much smaller, well heeled demographic than Bill Clinton.
Rdan,
I had a stomach flu for a couple of days this week with all of the fun symptoms that go with it. I looked on the internet and found a story that there was a flash outbreak in pockets around the area. The article listed three symptoms and I had all of them so I figured that I had what was going around.
Now is this analysis. You know i’m not a doctor but I read a definition and it seemed that the symptoms fit that definition. So what’s the problem making a statement by trying to fit observation with definition to put a label on a phenomena.
Sammy looked up the definition of Narcissistic beharior and thinks Obama fits the defintion. So what’s the problem with doing so. Lets face it, had he looked up the definition or a strong leader or nice guy you would not have jumped on his back.
ilsm,
Obama tells us that he is helping something like 30 million uninsured. This he passes off as caring for Americans without healthcare. Then he tells us that we can’t have a partial solution to healthcare and he needs to have everyone insured. Without forcing those that don’t buy a $2 thousand expected beneift for $4-$5 thousand cost he can’t make his plan work. Thus he sees those 30 million as people he’ll force into the system and overcharge double what their actual costs are and use the overcharge to pay for the rest of his plan. This overcharge he passes off as caring from the American people.
Paul Krugman has been making some waves concerning the economics of a “climate policy ramp,” by which he means the rate at GHG prices must increase…for example, starting out fairly low and then gradually increasing versus starting out fairly high and not changing. The interesting part isn’t the science…afterall, he’s an economist, not a scientist. The interesting part is his treatment of the economics. He treats the rate at which the price of carbon should change as a kind of upside down Tobin’s “q” investment model.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/toyclimate.pdf
It’s just a “toy model” (his term) to help clarify thinking; i.e., it helps in understanding when a policy of starting out slow and gradually increasing carbon prices would make sense and when it wouldn’t. Note: although the paper does assume some grasp of relatively simple FODEs, you can still follow his argument by focusing on the geometrical representation (a simple phase diagram).
In a follow-up he clarified his position of the discount rate as being the pure time preference discount rate. What’s less clear is whether he has in mind a representative agent model of a private discount rate or a social discount rate. A social discount rate could be slightly negative.
Cantab,
You know perfectly well that without such provision people like you would game the system. If you thought you could get away with it you’d be a free rider as long as you were healthy and then demand healthcare at a low rate once your health inevitably started to deteriorate. So health insurance becomes a lifetime commitment under the Obama plan and not one that you can manipulate to suit your purposes and temporary situation.
I don’t see how you can criticize Obama’s healthcare plan and then turn right around and sing the praises of Mitt Romney when Obama’s plan is probably 95% identical to what you already have in Massachusetts. In fact, it turns out that many people voted for Brown precisely because the Democratic plan would have cost Bay state voters more (in the form of subsidies to red states) just to get the same basic healthcare plan that Massachusetts voters already have. So for Massachusetts voters the Obama plan is a bad deal because they would end up paying more for the same plan.
Geez. Memories sure are short around here.
Anyone remember that Bush 43 could not participate in a debate or hold a press conference without Carl Rove being connected to his ear? Thank you Bush 43 for setting the bar so low!
2slugs, yawn. Dems/Libs/progressives keep putting those nails in that election coffin.
Instead of trying to raise even more taxes to continue more expanded Govt spending, why not try Ryan’s plan? Even “the nonpartisan” CBO has scored it as a success at cutting deficits, eliminating Fed Govt debt and getting to a “balanced” budget.
“Repeal It!” the next campaign slogan.
CoRev,
Ryan’s plan is a GOP smokescreen. The crux of Ryan’s budget proposal is to cut Medicare by two-thirds. Even a caveman could balance the budget by cutting Medicare by two-thirds. It essentially privatizes Medicare. What’s that about angry old teabaggers warning politicians to keep their government hands “off my Medicare” and apparently forgetting that Medicare is already a government program?
What makes this a smokescreen is that the GOP just got done clobbering the Democrats for recommending relatively trivial cuts in the waste/fraud/abuse section of Medicare spending, so why should be we believe they are at all serious about painful cuts. This is just a nonserious proposal designed to fool teabaggers into thinking that the GOP has a real plan.
CoRev,
BTW, according to the CBO, here’s how Ryan’s plan works:
Both the level of expected federal spending on Medicare and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would decline, but enrollees’ spending for health care and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would increase.
Under the Roadmap, the value of the voucher would be less than expected Medicare spending per enrollee in 2021, when the voucher program would begin. In addition, Medicare’s current payment rates for providers are lower than those paid by commercial insurers, and the program’s administrative costs are lower than those for individually purchased insurance. Beneficiaries would therefore face higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by Medicare.
Moreover, the value of the voucher would grow significantly more slowly than CBO expects that Medicare spending per enrollee would grow under current law. Beneficiaries would therefore be likely to purchase less comprehensive health plans or plans more heavily managed than traditional Medicare, resulting in some combination of less use of health care services and less use of technologically advanced treatments than under current law. Beneficiaries would also bear the financial risk for the cost of buying insurance policies or the cost of obtaining health care services beyond what would be covered by their insurance.
Translation: the rate at which the vouchers increase is less than the rate at which healthcare costs increase, so seniors would have to make up the difference out of their own pockets. In other words, this is a cost shifting exercise rather than a cost reduction exercise. It’s typical of a lot of GOP proposals. They don’t understand the difference between cost reduction and cost shifting.
Slugs,
Something has to give. Ryan at least has a plan.
Right you are, 2slugs. To further nail down your point, look at the beginning date of Ryan’s proposal–2021. How likely is it that anything projected to begin that far into the future would ever happen, let alone perform as described? Right. QED.
Cantab,
The Ryan plan would hit the dust bin the second the GOP came into the majority. That makes it a political documnent, not a budget plan. It’s not a serious proposal because it assumes away the central problem, which is political opposition from seniors against any cuts to Medicare.
A real plan would recognize that cuts to Medicare have to be cuts in nonvalue added features. A real plan would recognize that the goal is to maximize welfare (or utility) and not to minimize the government budget. The Ryan plan would lower government spending, but it would increase total spending on healthcare, so net welfare would be reduced. As I said, it’s cost shifting, not cost reduction.
I think the American public needs to start thinking “outside the box.”
The political system is close to bankruptcy. Both the Republican party and Democratic party stopped being public servants long time ago. Just look at the elected official, they have more in common with their own respective party than the people they suppose to represent. Any party member dared to deviate from their party ideologies risk losing their party’s support, and their own election support from the party machinery.
American people seems to be hijacked by three types of people.
1. Politicians: Always champainging and promising… what about public service for a change?
2. Wall street thugs: These people sitting on the board of major multimiilion company appoints their own CEO clowns and they have one purpose only, profit for themselves… Do not represent the shareholders… Who cares anyway, they can run the companies to the ground and still gets away with bonuses… I.E. government tax cuts and bailout… Screw the shareholders…
3. Public servants: What happened to the “service” part? It’s all about their own entitlement, they have more allegiance to their own unions than the people of United States. They seemed to forget that the “People” needs to do well to support their lifestyle, not the other way around. A little sacrifice can save a lot of jobs…including their own junior union members…
Accountability: The missing vocabulary of the U.S.A.
P.S. Why did the Democratic Party put up Jerry Brown for governer? Can the California people get a better choice? It’s like Sarah Palin for California governer… LOL
2slugs, when have we not seen more cost sharing? Nearly each budget has done it recently. As Cantie points out, something has to give.
Lessee, the Dem plan is to increase the current entitlements which are and have been slowly strangling the discretionary spending while they have expanded spending on medicare and medicaid.
Not going to be happy until there is no discretionary spending? ILSM would be happy.
“Repeal it!” The next winning campaign slogan.
slugs said: “The Ryan plan would lower government spending, but it would increase total spending on healthcare, so net welfare would be reduced. As I said, it’s cost shifting, not cost reduction.” What part of this does not do the following? 1) Lower Fed Govt deficits? 2) Lower Fed Govt debt? 3) Start us on the road to balancing the budget?
Since when has means testing not been a good idea? Isn’t that the Dem dream? Y’ano, all that tax the rich stuff, progressive taxing?
“Repeal it!” The next winning campaign slogan.
Thanks 2 Slugs,
Cantab,
I am no fan of the fascist appeasing Obama. But I won’t deal that ad hominem today.
I am also no fan of private insurers’ republican tools gaming health care reform.
But, I will answer this: “he needs to have everyone insured.”
As 2 Slugs points out private health insurers are running gambling parlors (not health delivery) they bet the healthy, wealthy that they will get sick and the house wins when they don’t and win when they get sick by tossing them.
That you think a healthy wealthy should not get into the pool with the unhealthy poor or old sharks is the same that I should refuse to go off to Afghanistan if there were a draft.
Civilization implies a society and a set of norms.
Among the oldest social deicts about 5000 years is “do not harm”, another is truth.
You can do harm by omission, and ignorance as well as by commission.
Cantab,
Why cut medicare when all you need to save $300B over the next 10 years is to recognize the F-35 failed all tests scheduled and kill it like you would flunk out an immigrant kid from a public college and take away his scholarship?
F-35 is just one example, killing all the corporate welfare in the militarism cabal would reduce spending by $100B a year.
How about balancing the budget on the welfare of the militarist?
CoRev,
Thank You!
See comments above about ending militarists’ welfare and how easily it would cut the federal deficit.
Thanks for pointing out it is indeed corporate welfare (discretionary/militarist plundering) versus individuals’ welfare (entitlements or taking care of Grandpa).
There are in the universe of RNC feudalist con artists a slim array of cronies, vassals and serfs who enjoy their discretionary spending sacking the productive side of the US.
And they are against the entitlements, individual spending filtered through the markets to deliver productivity.
Discretionalry ruins productivity and is not beneficial as it drags on the productive sector to create military and corporate welfare jobs in manufacturing, resources, engineering and science which supply and resources are better used elsewhere.
Socialism always worked in the feudal societies, only it worked for the ownership society, just like the republican and neocons wish.
An RNC feudal society where the suzereign and cronies own everything and the serfs belong to the corporate landlords.
Thanks for the opening.
CoRev,
It’s easy to balance the budget if you assume away all of the problems, which is what Ryan’s plan does. As I said, even a GEICO caveman could do it. But voters are just interested in lowering the deficit, they are also interested in their overall welfare. The Ryan plan basically guts Medicare. That saves the govt a lot of money. But it doesn’t save taxpayers any money, in fact, it ends up costing them more money for less healthcare. That’s a net reduction in welfare. What part of that is so hard to understand?
We could also balance the budget by raising taxes. Why didn’t Ryan advance that alternative?
Slugs,
I dismiss your attempt to divert the issue to me or someone else.
The issue at hand is Obama’s outrageous lie that he set out to do uninsured Americans a favor when in fact he set out to screw them by overcharging them. So to him he’s like the machines and bad computer programs in the movie the “the matrix” and the 30 million are the human beings that he intends to suck their life force to keep his failing enterprise running. This is what the democrats pass off as a success.
Slugs,
That’s not what happened to the contract for America. It’s not what happened with Bush’s tax cut. And Bush did promise to try to reform social security. Entitlements are going to be reformed one way or another and this mainly means curtailed. It’s just a matter of time.
Pax Romana,
The political system is close to bankruptcy.
You’re totally wrong. What you’re witnessing is our political system with its accountability to voters working things out. Sometimes you don’t see this in broken countries such as Greece, or in places were the citizens have made a forced faustian dealth with their politicians like in China. We still set the standards.
Pax Romana,
The political system is close to bankruptcy.
You’re totally wrong. What you’re witnessing is our political system with its accountability to voters working things out. Sometimes you don’t see this in broken countries such as Greece, or in places were the citizens have made a forced faustian deal with their politicians like in China. We still set the standards.
Cantab,
If you will recall, the contract with America died right out of the box, and it was Gingrich’s attempt to impose a small reduction in Medicare benefits that caused the govt shutdown, which is what undid the GOP revolution. The Republicans aren’t going there again and you know it. That’s why they beat up the Democrats for even suggesting that we abolish waste/fraud/abuse scams in Medicare.
Bush didn’t try to reform Social Security, he tried to privatize a program that was not and is not in serious fiscal trouble. Social Security’s problems are small and manageable. As problems go, SS ranks about 37th on a long list of things to worry about. Bush also said that we could have tax cuts and still have a surplus. Bush lied. What else is new.
Medicare is a canary in a coal mine. The problem isn’t with Medicare per se, the problem is with the growth in healthcare costs in general. Private insurance costs are growing faster than Medicare. Were it not for Medicare healthcare would be a lot bigger chunk of GDP than 17%. We need to get healthcare costs under control and then Medicare takes care of itself. That means streamlining administrative costs. It means only paying for treatment that works. It means cutting the salaries of doctors. It means better use (and less abuse) of testing procedures. Doctors and hospitals have a vested interest in testing because they very often own the test equipment. That’s a much bigger problem than tort reform…orders of magnitude bigger. And lowering healthcare costs means a rethinking of the way we develop and market medicines. The Big Pharma model isn’t sustainable.
CoRev,
Lessee, the Dem plan is to increase the current entitlements
That’s not the Democratic plan. I wish it were, but it’s not. I would support universal Medicare, but that’s not what the Democratic plan is about. You seem to have fallen for the GOP misdirection. The Democratic plan actually reduces entitlements by about $400B over 10 years (that’s the part that the GOP opposed!). The Democratic plan reduces the federal government’s spending on healthcare by about $100B over 10 years. So your facts are just wrong.
The essence of the Democratic plan is to make healthcare universally available. It does this by mandating coverage. And since the main reason people don’t have coverage is that they can’t afford it, the govt provides subsidies for those with low incomes. The subsidies are paid for by mandating insurance for people who are currently in a low risk pool and by reducing the useless parts of Medicare Advantage. The Obama plan also begins to bend the cost curve. Not a lot…but it’s a beginning.
The Ryan plan just eliminates Medicare and tells seniors to go find their own private insurance. In other words, it tells seniors to just die.
2slugs said: “We could also balance the budget by raising taxes. Why didn’t Ryan advance that alternative?” Blancing the budget cann not succeed without stopping spending increases, your party’s big preference. Ryan has a plan which recognizes the liklyhood of stopping spending. Want to show us (“O’s”, Pelosi’s and Reid’s) plan(s), and their reduction in spending?
Wasn’t it you who was telling me/us that entitlement spending wasnt the big issue in Fed budget planning. That I was taught incorrectly by the schools? So to fix the huge entitlement budget, your party’s plan is to significantly increase it? Uh, huh, that’ll work.
“Repeal it!” The next winning campaign slogan.
2slugs, I do get so tired of your out right lies. Saying this is just plain ignorant: “The Ryan plan just eliminates Medicare and tells seniors to go find their own private insurance. In other words, it tells seniors to just die.”
If anything the “O” healthcare plan says that. Ryan OTH makes Medicare means tested. It does not touch any existing recipients benefits. Not eliminated, and not told to die. But, just keep on blowing your smoke. Those ignoranti who wish to believe it can.
And, Nancy, that is why Ryan’s plan does not start til 2021. But, you just go on thinking the current administration is there for you.
“Repeal it!” The next winning campaign slogan.
The voters who demand accountability are the ones with 8 figure networths.
The rest are not listened to.
Get off Fox News.
CoRev,
You started off this thread with a note that the CBO said Ryan’s plan lowered the deficit…in fact, it eliminated the deficit over the long run. Fine. I agree. But you keep lying about how Ryan’s plan does that. As the CBO points out, Ryan’s plan basically cuts two-thirds of Medicare benefits and moves seniors on their own to go find private insurance. That’s what it does. Since very few seniors will be able to find insurance at anything like an affordable rate, the Ryan plan has the practical effect of telling seniors to just go and die. The fact that it doesn’t affect any “existing recipient benefits” doesn’t alter the fact that Ryan’s plan still leaves seniors out in the cold.
At one point I thought that you were at least decently informed about the healthcare debate. We disagreed a lot, but I thought you at least understood the broad outlines of the argument. Clearly I was mistaken. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that you really don’t understand any of this. Just clueless Fox News talking points. You brought up the Ryan plan without apparently understanding what was actually in the plan. Now you’re squirming and trying to pretend that Ryan’s plan doesn’t hurt seniors. Ryan’s plan effectively eliminates Medicare and makes the rump piece that’s left an extension of Medicaid.
BTW, Ryan’s “plan” begins in 2021 because that is exactly just outside the 10 year budget window. It’s an old GOP trick. Ryan knows that CBO scoring that is outside the 10 year window is different than scoring inside the window.
Cantab, like Steven Colbert said: the Republicans wag their finger in your face and say f*** you. And I would add: but I still want and will get your vote.
CoRev,
Blancing the budget cann not succeed without stopping spending increases, your party’s big preference. Ryan has a plan which recognizes the liklyhood of stopping spending.
Ryan’s plan, if actually implemented, would cut Medicare spending. Of course, it would increase total healthcare spending as a percent of GDP with no increase in real healthcare output, but apparently that doesn’t bother you. I guess you like paying more and getting less as long as your taxes are lower. Whatever. Personally I would prefer to see a plan that cuts healthcare spending overall as a percent of GDP for a given output level. I’m just funny like that. Maybe it’s the economist in me.
As to Obama’s plan, note that his healthcare plan does cut $400B in Medicare spending over the next 10 years…and he does it in a fairly responsible way. That’s the part that the GOP opposed, remember?
Wasn’t it you who was telling me/us that entitlement spending wasnt the big issue in Fed budget planning.
No, it wasnt. In fact, I’m the one who corrected buffpilot everytime he put up that CBO chart. I’m the one who showed him that almost all of the outyear deficit problem is with Medicare and Medicaid spending. No one disputes that we need to get Medicare and Medicaid spending under control. The problem with Ryan’s plan is that it doesn’t even attempt to get those costs under control. The Ryan solution is to sweep the problem under the rug by shifting the cost off the federal government’s budget and onto the budgets of seniors and state governments. Ryan’s plan is an example of cost shifting, not cost reduction. Understand the difference?
Lys said: “the Republicans wag their finger in your face and say f*** you.” While completely ignoring what the Dems just did/said with the HC bill. ~78% of American voters disagree with the current bill and/or want them to start over, but the Dems gave them the finger and said f**ck you! We know best!
Implying that the voters are all ignorant is the best way to win? or lose? the next election.
I’ll sit by the sidelines waiting your answer.
“Repeal it!” The next winning campaign slogan.
Lysistrata,
You know you’re quoting a comedian from comedy central as your most trusted man in Americal. Well good night and good luck with that one.
CoRev,
The voters are confused. An overwhelming majority want healthcare reform. A majority want each of the three major pieces of Obama’s plan when you ask them about each pieace separately. But the voters are also stupid enough to fall for much of the GOP’s lies about creeping socialism…not a surprise since the GOP has been caught red handed on that one thanks to Politico.com. No one likes the bill as it is, so that 78% includes both those that think it goes too far and those that think it doesn’t go far enough. But most people support the main elements of the bill and that’s what counts.
2slugs, stop the misinformation campaign. “The Democratic plan actually reduces entitlements by about $400B over 10 years (that’s the part that the GOP opposed!).” Remember that ole double counting thing going on by pulling the Dr fix out of the HC bill? Nah, you wouldn’t admit to that.
Then saying this (my responses embedded in italics): “The essence of the Democratic plan is to make healthcare universally available. (And that’s after claiming that entitlements are reduced.) It does this by mandating coverage. (And that’s after claiming healthcare costs are reduced.) And since the main reason people don’t have coverage is that they can’t afford it, the govt provides subsidies for those with low incomes. (In healthcare a large percentage of those recipients are the young.) The subsidies are paid for by mandating insurance for people who are currently in a low risk pool (There’s those young folks again.) and by reducing the useless (Useless? I guess that is only a Dem concpet and not one held by the actual elderly using that service?) parts of Medicare Advantage.“
So, for a large portion of those required to buy HC insurance but seldom need it, will be subsidized by those who are older and more likely to need HC insurance or used the (no longer) available services of Medicare.
Yup! You have a thourough undestaning of the HC bill. Not! But, what really, really bothers me is the loss of your respect. Oh, my! 🙂 (Dan Where’s the smiley faces?)
“Repeal it!” The next winning campaign slogan.
Slugs,
If you will recall, the contract with America died right out of the box,
No, I don’t recall that at all. Gingrich as promised pushed legislation forward on just about all the items. Won several of them, and caused a democrat president to reverse himself and become a de-facto republican with his repudiation of big government and welfare reform. Gingrich made good on his promises.
It funny though that all the grass roots movement seen come from the republican side. I think this goes with emphasizing the individual while democrats favor the institution.
The Republicans aren’t going there again and you know it.
Sure they will since the money is going to start coming up short.
Bush didn’t try to reform Social Security, he tried to privatize a program
Privatization is reform and private accounts are real saving. Something the existing system with it trust fund gimmick does not have.
Were it not for Medicare healthcare would be a lot bigger chunk of GDP than 17%.
Wrong again, government programs, law suits, and not getting individuals involved in price searching is why prices are so high in our system.
Slugs,
An overwhelming majority want healthcare reform.
That’s great news for the republicans because it means the voters are likely to throw over the democrats and then have the republicans do a healthcare reform consistent with free market capitalism, with perhaps some manipulative tinkering of the tax code. I want to get individuals looking to cut costs and have no faith in top down solutions.
CoRev,
So, for a large portion of those required to buy HC insurance but seldom need it, will be subsidized by those who are older and more likely to need HC insurance or used the (no longer) available services of Medicare.
I’m sorry, but this paragraph is so mangled that I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
If you want to learn about healthcare economics, you might want to begin with the one guy that is just about universally recognized as the expert on the subject, Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton. Here’s his homepage, which includes some of his papers:
http://www.princeton.edu/~reinhard/publications.html
Try actually reading some serious stuff on the issue. At least it will show some evidence that you’re actually trying to be a serious voice instead of just an angry teabagger.
CBO scored it as eliminating the debt only by following Ryan staff insistance that total revenue would not change which could only happen if capitalists ALL agreed to take the choice to file under the old rules and NONE took advantage of the elimination of taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains. An outcome with a probability of zero. Why CBO agreed to score it under those rules is a mystery but they did in fact score the whole tax cut package as revenue neutral. GIGO.
Cantab, you know something, comedians are truthtellers, like the court jesters of yore. They sure beat recovering alcoholic HS grads like Beck, and dopeheads like Rush, and knucklehead Hannity. Colbert could say what many think and are not allowed to say on the news.
The Daily Show reported on the Hawaii socialized health care system, MSM and Fox did not.
Cantab, yes I too disagree with the current bill because it is not good enough. But I also have reached the point like many others that even a little is better than nothing.
What I watched over all the months the epic fight for health care reform played out was the power of the corporations. Not that it is new, but never before was it so much in the open, they did not bother to hide it. I came to the conclusion that the Obama people had to make backroom deals in order to get at least a few crumbs. And the progressive Democrats and Bernie Sanders fought as hard as they could.
The Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats protected and fought for the interests of the corporations and yes they did just as Steven Colbert said: they wagged their fingers in our faces and yelled, f*** you. They also know stupid people will vote for them.
I also believe the Republicans will win the next elections if the corporations want them to win. But maybe they need the Democrats more, they cut a much better figure on the international stage. Obama looks good with a teleprompter or not.
Cantab,
What we are seeing is a political system unable to function. We have the tyranny of the minority, we see the lobbyists for the corporations in control of the government. The middle class, the backbone of the nation is broken and the tea party is the result of that. The right wing extremists have hijacked the Republican party. Just a reminder, Hitler usurped the power in Germany with the help of the middle class, the people who lost the most after the war.
Lys, the Daily Show did NOT report on the Hawaii health care system. It did do a skit that was aimed at making HC opponents look dumb. Your were taken in by a comedian’s skit. Brilliant!
Fox News did report on the canccelling of the Hawaii Universal Child Health Care system after just seven months in operation. It becamse so out of fiscal control Hawaii could not afford to continue it.
What Hawaii does have is a mandatory employer provided healthcare system for all workers who work for 1/2 time or for a minimal amount of full time days. Sounds good until we pull back the covers. Here’s what one commenter explained:
“Hawaii businesses have tended to use part-time workers more than full-time because of the mandate on employers. It is not uncommon to hold 2 part-time jobs in place of a full-time job in Hawaii.”
So that ole rule of unanticipated consequences strikes again.
CoRev,
Too bad A widely reported California insurance gaming house is raising antes by 40%, your Fox News guys are on the spot.
Do you get all your “facts” from Fox?
No wonder you cannot argue here.
This is why I kept saying the system is closed to being broken! There are too many special interests out there unfortunately to come to any sensible agreement.
We are a democracy and people will disagree. But it seems to me, all this arguing, there aren’t many people asking questions to their doctors and nurses, what are their suggestions? Afterall, they are the ones they provided real health care? Instead of asking the government, corporations, insurance companies and politicians to come out with a solution, what about the real players???
Let’s face it, the US have a three tiered system in place.
1. The county hospital
2. The VA system
3. The private hospital
How about just face reality that we are not going to reach an agreement in the USA and agree to disagree. Let’s just tax everyone who do not want to carry their own insurance 5% of their income and distribute it to the county system? Right now the responsible people that have their own insurance(2/3) is already subsidizing those whom aren’t insured(1/3) anyway!
Rest of the world: If you don’t have money to pay, go to public hospital… In the USA… you go to any open emergency room. Which system is better?
So you can read my mind and motivation? Looking up a definition and cut and paste is not analysis.
Rest of the world: If you don’t have money to pay, go to public hospital… In the USA… you go to any open emergency room. Which system is better?
The Emergency room is better since not all injuries and ailments happen 9-5.
For a sore throat?
And the corollary data point is the: percent of ER visitors whose bills go to the accounting label “uncollectible”.
Your bookie is a Rupert Murdoch talking head.
CoRev, employers have always gone for part time employment in order to skip benefits. Now the Hawaii government makes them insure part time workers. That is socialism or not? Comedy does always have a kearnel or more of truth and it still is a fact of no reporting at all by MSM of the system in Hawaii. I admit, I trust Colbert and Stewart more than Fox.
Cantab, in Europe people use the emergency room for emergencies only. Also, there are no public hospitals for people with no insurance in Europe either because all people are insured.
Pax Romana, people without insurance are not irresponsible, most likely they can’t afford or are denied insurance. Yes there are young people who do believe they will always be young and healthy and don’t need insurance. You know, that youthful stupidity.
***The Emergency room is better***
Probably not better exactly. But maybe not as bad as it is made out to be. I’m 98% sure that our lunatic health care system transfers all sorts of costs from elsewhere to the Emergency Room. So a $150 visit for a rash or whatever gets booked as a $450 Emergency Room visit which the hospital then sets out to extort from someone … with just enough success to warrant continuing the practice.
I’m suggesting that the purported high cost of providing routine health care via the Emergency Room may be largely an artifact of dingbat accounting rather than actual costs.
Spin ignorance any way you wish, but being taken in by a comedy skit is an example of ignorance due to blind beliefs.
“Repeal it!” The next winning campaign slogan.
VtCodger,
I agree that the high emergency costs are mostly due to accounting. When you think about it the main additional cost is the extra compensation that you have to offer people in the emergency room to work odd hours. Moreover, there are some efficiency gains by having people treating in the emergency room since you have equipment, space, and at least some staff to deal with a situation where there was a real major emergency. If people were not being treated this space would be sitting idle as would be the staff on duty.
Lyst makes another comedic statement based upon her knowledge gained from “The Daily Show?” She unequivocably states: “Also, there are no public hospitals for people with no insurance in Europe either because all people are insured. “
But a quick seach finds many private hospitals in Europe, and few list Govt pricing, but do list their private prices. Here is an example of what one article says: “Europe is known for having single-payer, government provided healthcare. But just because there is significant government involvement in the financing of medical services does not mean that private hospitals are non-existent.
An interesting series of post by HealthcareEuropa looks at private hospitals that operate in Bulgaria, Turkey and Germany.”
So, Lys, why would EU-based private hospitals advertise for foreign patients? Is it because of their Govt provided insurance? Or is it more likely their rates are higher and payment more immediate?
Lys, please watch Fox News versus comedy shows. You will appear better informed and less blindly biased in these discussions.
“Repeal it!” The next winning campaign slogan.
Lysistrata,
I just don’t believe the high cost of healthcare is materially driven by either emergency room visits or insurance industry profits.
And by the way, Obama is not selling us on taking national healthcare costs down to 10-12 percent of GDP. So he’s not doing Europe. It’s just hillary care again — a scheme to move government to manage and direct a large part of our economy.
CoRev, just google the Hawaii health insurance record or read up in the NYT last October or so. You can look it up, google or read the article in the NYT from last October.
Don’t let your bias prevent you to inform yourself. Do your fact check.
How does an overcrowded emergency room affect the real emergencies? And you think your sore throat or cough will be better treated because of all the equipment sittng there? You don’t mind sitting for hours in an emergency room waiting to be treated?
CoRev, “report” may be an unfortunate word, the skid made me look it up and yes, it made the Republicans look real stupid.
Cantab,
Obama is not selling us on taking national healthcare costs down to 10-12 percent of GDP.
Agreed. So what’s your point? You’re offering up a false choice. We’re long past the point where we talk about healthcare costs as a percent of GDP that are roughly in line with most other developed countries. We’ll never get there in any of our lifetimes. But that’s not a reason to at least slow down the rate of growth, and the Obama plan does at least do that. In fact, according to the CBO, the long run effect of the Senate plan would be to reduce healthcare as a percent of GDP by roughly one-quarter of one percent of GDP. And by long run the CBO means years 11-20 after enactment. We’d all like to see a reduction of more than one-quarter of one percent of GDP, but at least it’s a beginning. And at least it’s more than what the GOP is proposing, which would actually increase the rate of healthcare costs as a percent of GDP.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf
BTW, your guys looked really pitiful on the Sunday morning talkinghead shows. They were even repeating each other’s talking points verbatim. Rich Lowrey (on MTP) used exactly the same words and phrases as Mitch McConnell (This Week).
CoRev,
please watch Fox News versus comedy shows.
What’s the difference? I thought Fox News was a comedy show. I really like the part where they reliably identify a Republican as a Democrat whenever the Republican says something that sounds especially stupid. And a couple weeks ago they had a piece on Yucca Mountain and misidentified Harry Reid as being the Democratic senator from Utah. Gotta love it. It’s funny stuff.
Cantab,
Obama is not selling us on taking national healthcare costs down to 10-12 percent of GDP.
Agreed. So what’s your point?
Obama is not controlling costs like in Europe (or coming close) so his healthcare bill is not worth doing, especially since he can’t sell it straight.
In fact, according to the CBO, the long run effect of the Senate plan would be to reduce healthcare as a percent of GDP by roughly one-quarter of one percent of GDP.
This is not good enough, and in fact it looks like a joke.
Lys, a skit is still a skit. Were they actors? Were they actually representing any group? Dunno, nor do any of us.
And, yes, I did look up your definition. I did not follow all of the many, many links. Why bother, when it was obvious you were misguided.
“Repeal it!” The next winning campaign slogan.
CoRev, I never, never said there are no private hospitals in Europe. Of course they have expensive society doctors and cosmetic surgery and whatever else your heart desires. What I do say, there are no public hospitals for charity cases, people without insurance.
Cantab, Obama is not doing Europe, that is right. And Obama is not doing it because he can’t. The insurance industry and medical providers will not let it happen, they have more clout than the people have. Did Fox tell you how many more lobbyists there are in DC now and how much money they invest in their congress man and senator? I don’t think Obama had choice when he negotiated with Billy Tauzine, he had to.
2slugs, just watched McLaughlin and the consensus was that the House is lost, and the Senate may see as many as 9-10 Dem losses.
Liberal policies have been on display for three years, and they are being found ineffective and wrong. Not a very auspicious start for “O”, and worse for Dems wishing re-election. I think the count of Dems retiring is up to 17. How many more before the impacts get noticed in Dem senior political circles?
“Repeal it!” The next winning campaign slogan.
good morning 2slugs:
Recent article by Maggie gets into some depth on how the latest proposal impacts healthcare costs. I think you may find Maggie’s articl interesting and also this:
“The reform proposal now being debated in Washington would put a brake on health care inflation. As an eye-opening essay in the most recent (March 4) issue of the New England Journal of Medicine explains, Medicare would, at last, have the power it needs to lead the way, not by cutting benefits, but by restructuring how it does business.” http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=3108&query=home As taken from here: http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2010/03/peggy-noonan-vs-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine.html “Peggy Noonan versus The New England Journal of Medicine” Maggie Mahar, Health Beat Blog
Both the Senate Bill and Obama’s healhcare proposal put in place actions and the power under the HHS to reduce Medicare costs free on congressional approval. That some refuse to acknowledge such parts of either of these bills is silly. They are simply parroting.
Lysistrata,
How does an overcrowded emergency room affect the real emergencies? And you think your sore throat or cough will be better treated because of all the equipment sittng there? You don’t mind sitting for hours in an emergency room waiting to be treated?
If a real emergency happens then those getting routine care get pushed off into a waiting roomsuntil space becomes available. The extra equipment does not get used and is there for use in specific emergencies thus it’s a sunk cost and has no impact on the cost of treating people coming into an emergency room for care.
Slug,
What news programs do you watch on TV.
Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have the worst shows on television since they go beyond being opinionated, which is what you get on Fox, to being grossly misleading. So the worst is on the left.
***How does an overcrowded emergency room affect the real emergencies?***
Doesn’t I think. Low priority patients can be abandoned — maybe for hours if somebody in urgent need of care comes in. In one of my few emergency room visits — to get 13 stitches after misguessing where the other soccer team’s Center Forward was headed — my problem got put on hold when a guy ran in and yelled, “My buddy … I think he’s dead”
I didn’t think that was inappropriate.
***This is not good enough, and in fact it looks like a joke.***
You’d prefer that health care costs keep on growing at a few percent every year as they have for the last 50 years?
Think it through man. Simply arresting the growth in health care costs would be a major breakthrough.
Don’t like Obama’s health care plan, propose a better one. We’ve heard not one single constructive thought about healthcare from “conservatives”. Not one. Worthless dimwits …. more of a menace to the US than Al Queadda … maybe evern worse than bankers (although I’d have to think about that a bit) …. grumble …
People that are working but not paying into the system needs to pay into the system. Those people can’t work- won’t be able to pay anyway.
County hospitals aren’t the best solution, but if everyone that works and do not pay/cannot afford their own health insurance pays an income tax surcharge, its a better than nothing solution. At least sick people can go to public hospital to get proper care. Because I said earlier 2/3 insured are basically taxed by health insurance companies to pay for 1/3 that don’t have insurance.
Like I said earlier, agree to disagree.
Cantab,
it is not much but it sure beats an increase, raising insurance premium by 39%. Don’t you think so?
We had 30 years of Republican policies and the impact they had is apparent, people did notice and voted democratic.
CoRev,
Jon and Steven are better educated, they have college and are funny and factual when it counts. Hannity, and Beck have a HS diploma and never made an effort to educate themselves and are not funny. Rachel is even better, she does have a Phd. I don’t like Keith and Rachel’s style, but so far I don’t know of any deliberate misinformation. If they do make errors they do correct them. But yes, they do have different opinions than you have, most of the time I agree with them.
VtCodger,
We’ve heard not one single constructive thought about healthcare from “conservatives”. Not one.
I think that’s 99% correct; however, Sen. Coburn is the one Republican who has offered some fairly constructive positions and alternatives. Even Paul Krugman has some good things to say about some of Coburn’s ideas. And Obama has accepted some of Coburn’s recommendations. For instance, Sen. Coburn recommended that the govt send out undercover cops to sniff out billing and Medicare fraud by doctors. Obama agreed with that recommendation at the health summit. Of course, the GOP leadership has disowned that and many other suggestions advanced by Coburn. One reason is that Coburn (a physician) actually seems genuinely interested in healthcare reform as opposed to blindly following Mitch McConnell’s plan for the 2010 election. That’s not to say that everything Coburn says makes sense, but I do give him credit for at least being sincere and offering up some constructive ideas.
CoRev,
I think it’s unlikely that the Democrats lose the House, but it’s always possible. It will certainly be a very closely divided House.
I believe the number of GOP retirements is still greater than the number of Democratic retirements, but we’ll see.
What’s been on display is an audacious campaign of lying and obstructionism by Republicans that quite frankly borders on treason. And as I’ve said before, treason is nothing new for the base of the GOP. Afterall, the red states are the only states to have actually led an armed rebellion against the Union. Worse yet, that disgraceful history is still celebrated by many southern Republicans. A sad irony given the genesis of the Republican party.
As Cantab can attest, I’ve never held the American voter in much regard. Most are just nitwits who are easily taken in by lies if those lies are repeated often enough and loud enough. Teabaggers are an especially pathetic example of this phenomenon. Teabaggers tend to be earnest in their opinions, but completely without the intellectual tools needed to understand public policy. Perfect suckers for GOP talking points.
Cantab,
Obama is not controlling costs like in Europe (or coming close) so his healthcare bill is not worth doing,
So are you endorsing a European style solution to healthcare? Did you spend too much time listening to the Internationale?
Just because the Democratic plan doesn’t completely solve the problem of healthcare costs is not an argument to not implement the Democratic plan. The perfect cannot be allowed to become the enemy of the good. The Republican leadership hasn’t offered up anything that improves things and a lot that makes things worse. But if you want to join the socialist revolution and demand single payer/single provider, then welcome aboard. In the meantime I’ll settle for Obama’s incremental improvement.
CoRev accusing others of giving in to their blind beliefs really belongs on Comedy Central.
UH OH! Here comes a major test of “O’s” policies: “KARACHI, Pakistan — The American-born spokesman for al-Qaida has been arrested by Pakistani intelligence officers in the southern city of Karachi, two officers and a government official said Sunday, the same day Adam Gadahn appeared in a video urging U.S. Muslims to attack their own country.”
Gonna bring him home?
Gonna try him in a civilian court?
Gonna water board him for recent info?
Gonna just let the Pakis do the job?
The answers will show who/what he cares about, Lib Left or the country?
The Republican leadership hasn’t offered up anything
“Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act”
“The purpose of this Act is to take meaningful steps to lower health care costs and increase access to health insurance coverage…..without 1) Raising taxes 2) Cutting Medicare benefits 3) adding to the national deficit 4) intervening in the doctor-patient relationship 4) adding to the national deficit 5) instituting a government takeover of health care.”
Summary: http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan_Updated_11-04-09.pdf
Amendment: http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf
What goes on is Washington especially on the “hill” is the best source of irony I can see.
Heck, I could take 5 minutes of Hannity and do what Maher does.
Oh, come on!
I know a young fellow, was between jobs.
Had emerency appendectomy through ER.
Was healthy, but not wealthy, had no assets, no job, no insurance. I think that about #30000 went to uncollectibke, no complications……………….
What should an emergency “appie” with no more than recovery post op treatment, go for?
They did not take his beamer! You can keep a car in most states.
Co Rev,
Key phrase: “arrested by Pakistani intelligence.” They ain’t gonna Mirandize nothin’
I also wonder if there be an outcry from the Left. My guess is no. Very limited posturing opportunity, and we might get some good intel.
Don’t you suppose Obama should go through due process?
Or do you require lawless fascism and concentration camps from Obama to keep them bad al qaeda cave dwellers in Pakistan from hurting you?
A 6 or better earthquake happens in the eastern US about every 50 years or so, be worried. Infinitely more likely the capitol will endure a cracked foundation than you getting in the way of a al qaeda bomber from Karachi.
sammy,
Thanks for posting the GOP proposal. I think you helped make our point that the GOP plan is useless. Thanks again.
VtCodger,
If Obama is not going to cut costs down to the Europe/Japan level then the bulk of what you have left is a power grab. No wonder low information voters instinctively sense Obamacare is a bad idea.
The only idea I have is to increase supply, liberalize who gets to offer healthcare service, and commoditize it as much as possible, and get individuals involved in price search. After that I got nothing and if this won’t do its not going to get down with a plan and the chips will just land where they will.
Lysistrata,
Did your premiums go up 39 percent? If so I suggest you find another healthcare plan. That’s what I would do if I lived in LA.
Slugs,
If the democrats want to sell us Europe then I think the European Cost/GDP ought to be part of the package.
sammy,
Those that have long memories might recall that a year ago I said that during this winter we would start seeing a bunch of round-ups of big AQ and Taliban kingpins. Go check the archives. This wasn’t just a lucky guess. Shortly after taking office the Obama Administration started to lay the groundwork for the rolling up of AQ and Taliban leaders. The Obama Administration had the good fortune of not having to work with Musharraf, but it’s also the case that Team Obama adopted a complicated plan to sew distrust within the AQ network. This is a good example of what you can do when you decide to outsmart your opponent and represented a complete turnaround of the Bush policy with respect to Afghanistan.
I’m impressed that we’re having such great success in picking up AQ kingpins in Karachi. It’s a rough town. My brother-in-law had the unfortunate job of leading the team of Americans into Karachi to pick up the decapitated body of the WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl. Even with the aid of the Pakistani security forces he still could only move through the streets of Karachi in an armored vehicle. So this is a rough part of the world.
2slugbaits,
the GOP plan is useless
“The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.”
“The Republican plan does not call for a government insurance plan but rather attempts to reform the system by creating high-risk insurance pools, allowing people to purchase health insurance policies across state lines and instituting medical malpractice reforms.”
“According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/CBO-Prepublican-health-plan-would-reduce-premiums–69270747.html#ixzz0hWtUlmTN
New Obama Administration interrogation:
Eric Holder: What is your quest?
Terrorist: To spread the word of Allah.
Eric Holder: What is your favorite color?
Terrorist: Blue.
Holder: Right. Off you go.
Good job by Obama then!
Now, back to Co Revs question: whatcha gonna do? Mirandize or interrogate?
Cantab,
Rachel Maddow’s show is not a news show; it’s an interview show. It’s like Hannity’s show except smarter. Keith’s show is a news show of sorts, but unlike Fox, Keith doesn’t try and pretend that he’s not opinionated. Here again, Keith is just smarter and funnier than the competition over at Fox. Most of MSNBC’s straight news is during the daytime. In any event, I don’t watch either Maddow or Keith for their news. I get most of my news either online or from NPR.
sammy,
In other words, according to the CBO the Democratic plan would save almost twice as much money ($130B vs $68B) and cover 10 times as many folks. Sounds like the Democratic plan is better. Again, thanks for providing the links to support my case.
Pax Romana,
I just wanted to say that people without insurance are just irresponsible. I too think all should pay in to the system. I do support mandatory insurance but it must be affordable and the insurance corporations must be regulated. It can’t be that premiums keep going up without any restrictions and people just have to pay.
I wanted to say are NOT irresponsible.
slugs,
Yeah, right. You probably believe in Global Warming too…..oh wait…….
Besides, the GOP plan could cover as many people as Obamacare. All you would have to do is add one sentence to the bill: “All citizens must buy health insurance or be fined $12,000.” Viola, universal coverage, Dem style.
Cantab, my insurance did not go up, I have government insurance, socialized insurance if you will. I am not complaining. If you lived in LA and you have employer paid groupe insurance there is not much you can do. But maybe you can tell me where people can get cheaper insurance without increasing the deductibles to thousands of $$$, if they can get it that is.
Part D is the most expensive part of Medicare and it is a republican addition. Why did they not know about the meaningful and easy steps then?
sammy,
First, it isn’t entirely clear that the guy was actually captured. Reports are conflicted. We also have no idea what the Pakistanis intend to do with him. If he is turned over to US officials, then presumably he would be read his Miranda rights at some point. Whether he is interrogated first is not terribly important because it’s not like we need any information from him in order to gain a conviction. In fact, the charge that the US is likely to seek (treason) requires very specific criteria to convice…the criteria are stated in the Constitution. The reading Miranda rights is only meaningful if you want to take statements taken from the accused during interrogation and then use those statements in the prosecution. I don’t think prosecutors need any interrogation statements in order to get a conviction, so the timing of when he gets his Miranda rights read is largely irrelevant.
The stupidest thing we could do would be to try him in a military court. As a number of legal scholars have pointed out, many of the things that are crimes in a civilian court are not crimes in military courts because international treaties provide defenses for killing Americans that are not available to defendants in civil courts but are available in military courts.
For those of us who would like to see KSM executed, trying him in a military court is not good news. If tried under military courts it’s all but certain that he will die from natural causes while on death row long before he is ever executed. Basically he gets about twice the number of appeals. And KSM will also have new defenses that are not currently available to him. And of course the entire case goes back to square one and the clock starts all over again. That means several years before the first trial ever even starts followed by a series of appeals in the military court system followed by automatic appeals to the Supreme Court. Really dumb.
sammy,
You probably believe in Global Warming too
I believe in the mathematics of fat tails under conditions of uncertainty.
Besides, the GOP plan could cover as many people as Obamacare.
I know conservatives tend to be math challenged (I don’t expect you to understand my comment about fat tails under conditions of uncertainty), but even Republicans should be able to understand that 3 million is not equal to 30 million. The GOP plan only reduces the number of uninsured by 3 million. Just because they have a mindless PR sheet that says it will provide “access” to insurance for everyone doesn’t mean everyone will have insurance. The GOP plan provides “access” in the same way that Marie Antoinette provided bread for all by claiming that they could all eat cake. Saying you have the right to buy something that is too expensive for your budget is a meaningless right.
Aw Crap!! It appears that early reports are incorrect. Another American was caught.