Thread Rating:

dm
dm
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 699
Joined: Apr 29, 2010
September 1st, 2010 at 3:27:32 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I've never seen another radio/TV personality strike a chord in this country like Glenn Beck has. His numbers on FOX are extraordinary. He's the right guy in the right place at the right time. I like the guy, he's very likable. His honesty and emotion are refreshing, his knowledge is encyclopedic, and his ability to entertain is amazing. Good for him.




Maybe his ideas are good, but I cannot get past his showboating, ham it to the hilt, adoration of both the camera and himself. Can't stand him, in other words.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29477
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
September 1st, 2010 at 9:18:37 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer



I get that there is disagreement, but Palin isn't simply facing vigorous disagreement, is she? She's being attacked, disparaged, lied-about, laughed-at, etc., in ways that are just horrible. There's something more driving those people than just disagreement.



Its FEAR, my friend, good old fashioned scared out of their wits fear. Sarah Palin is as down to earth and homespun as they come. She goes to church and hunts her own food. She has a special needs child. She speaks her mind. And she's a conservative WOMAN on top of everything else. She appeals to the common voter, the ones that actually go to the polls and pull levers. The Left has absolutely nobody like her, so they hate her guts.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 1st, 2010 at 10:09:10 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Its FEAR, my friend, good old fashioned scared out of their wits fear. Sarah Palin is as down to earth and homespun as they come. She goes to church and hunts her own food. She has a special needs child. She speaks her mind. And she's a conservative WOMAN on top of everything else. She appeals to the common voter, the ones that actually go to the polls and pull levers. The Left has absolutely nobody like her, so they hate her guts.



Obviously, your assertion can't be proved totally wrong, but I doubt that "FEAR", as you put it, is what drives people's loathing of Palin. As far as the Democrats go, having her run for the Presidency, run for any other office, or endorsing any candidate that is running against a Democrat is a wet dream for them. She has no credibility, as a person who bailed on her own job as governor of Alaska.

What you don't understand is that a LOT of the people who loathe Palin aren't Democrats or liberals. I, for one, would rather have seen McCain and her get elected than Obama. That doesn't mean that I think she's qualified to hold high office. So she shoots moose--so bloody what? You can't bring a gun to diplomatic discussions, or to sessions of Congress. Likewise, I don't see how going to church or having a special needs child qualifies her for office.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29477
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
September 1st, 2010 at 10:44:24 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

having her run for the Presidency, run for any other office, or endorsing any candidate that is running against a Democrat is a wet dream for them.



They act like its a nightmare. To have somebody on the conservative side who people like, who has their ear, who understands them and IS them, is a waking nightmare for the Left. The will do anything, say anything, make up anything, to discredit her. The more shrill they get and the more they scream and wring their hands in dismay, the more her popularity grows. Ever watch Keith Olberman on MSNBC? He gets so agitated when he talks about her he actually squirms in his chair and gets little white spittle balls at the corners of his mouth. Its wonderful to behold.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:31:55 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

They act like its a nightmare. To have somebody on the conservative side who people like, who has their ear, who understands them and IS them, is a waking nightmare for the Left. The will do anything, say anything, make up anything, to discredit her. The more shrill they get and the more they scream and wring their hands in dismay, the more her popularity grows. Ever watch Keith Olberman on MSNBC? He gets so agitated when he talks about her he actually squirms in his chair and gets little white spittle balls at the corners of his mouth. Its wonderful to behold.



Destructive attack politics. You don't honestly see this as a problem in general? You really think it's useful to have such feeling on politics? Why do you care what the other side thinks so much. You've failed to state once her policies, the things that make Palin and Beck good leaders with good ideas. Not once. Except that the left hate them.

Pointless. Really pointless.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:40:25 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Destructive attack politics. You don't honestly see this as a problem in general? You really think it's useful to have such feeling on politics? Why do you care what the other side thinks so much. You've failed to state once her policies, the things that make Palin and Beck good leaders with good ideas. Not once. Except that the left hate them.

Pointless. Really pointless.



That's sort of the whole Palin (as in, Palin's handlers') strategy. Speak in generalities. Never say anything substantive or concrete. Wrap yourself in the flag. Be as polarizing as possible. Concentrate on hating, and being hated by, the opposition. That way, you never have to answer any hard questions--and if there's anyone on earth who should avoid answering hard questions, it's Sarah Palin.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:45:18 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

That's sort of the whole Palin (as in, Palin's handlers') strategy. Speak in generalities. Never say anything substantive or concrete. Wrap yourself in the flag. Be as polarizing as possible. Concentrate on hating, and being hated by, the opposition. That way, you never have to answer any hard questions--and if there's anyone on earth who should avoid answering hard questions, it's Sarah Palin.



And thus it goes to Plain's supporters it seems. Well done them.

I read Palin's transcript of here Restoring Honor rally. Actually, as a speech honouring American soldiers went, it was fine. That was all it was, mind, and probably all it was intended or should have been.

Of course the idea was to get there before Obama had his ceremony welcoming the troops back....
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
Headlock
Headlock
  • Threads: 22
  • Posts: 316
Joined: Feb 9, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:10:19 AM permalink
I share mkl's view in that I would rather have seen McCain/Palin in office than Obama. However, I would then FEAR the prospect of Sarah Palin ascending to the highest office.

But if she can get people to the polls to vote Republican, the lesser of two evils in my mind, good for her.
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:32:55 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

it's the same vigorous, horrible disagreement that I've seen Limbaugh and O'Reilly spout, that Ann Coulter uses to sell out speaking engagements, that Al Franken uses in his books, and no doubt hundreds of others bloggers, commentators and politicals take on.



I know that differences of opinion and levels of disagreement exist. But there are such things as facts, and they are discernable. The vitriol Palin receives is far more intense, personal, and hate-filled than what Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Coulter say. To think they're even close is ... a serious error.

I wonder if you've ever given Limbaugh's (or whoever's) show a real listen-to, rather than taking what others like Olbermann say he said? If you find yourself repulsed by it, you can think of Obama ... he was able to sit through 20 years of Rev. Wright's sermons that he later repudiated. You should be able to sit through 20 Limbaugh shows.

I suspect the effort to equate the Palin-haters with Limbaugh, etc., is to dilute Limbaugh's message or audience. Neither is happening. Limbaugh's audience is larger than ever, and so is Palin's.

Making that equivalency is roughly like saying Bill Clinton is the Left's version of Timothy McVeigh.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:44:46 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I wonder if you've ever given Limbaugh's (or whoever's) show a real listen-to, rather than taking what others like Olbermann say he said? If you find yourself repulsed by it, you can think of Obama ... he was able to sit through 20 years of Rev. Wright's sermons that he later repudiated. You should be able to sit through 20 Limbaugh shows.



I have, I lsitened to Rush on American Forces radio back in 2000, 2001, and I've caught a couple of shows in the last couple of years again. I can't stand the man, and he incites the level vitriol in me that some of the liberal commentators seem to incite in people here. I gave up on him at the point he praised Ronnie Regean for increasing the US debt mountain, as it stopped the Democrats spending the money.

I've never listened to Olbermann. There's a lady on MSNBC I do watch occasionally. I get most of my American news from USA Today or CBC, and read around the rest in stories that interest me.

I am an outside oberserver, and I've heard the hate for Palin is no more or less worse than the hate for figures on all sides. I do not think it's even close to a ... serious error. I also do not think ANY of it is useful.

If we want to get back to facts, please give me some examples of excessive hate on against Palin that does not compare to the speeches from Limbaugh et al. I am interested, I will not dismiss them (though i may attempt to find counter examples).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:53:04 AM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer


I wonder if you've ever given Limbaugh's (or whoever's) show a real listen-to, rather than taking what others like Olbermann say he said? If you find yourself repulsed by it, you can think of Obama ... he was able to sit through 20 years of Rev. Wright's sermons that he later repudiated. You should be able to sit through 20 Limbaugh shows.



I think a large part of the vitriol aimed at Palin is not ideological opposition, but rather, outrage that such a lightweight should be getting so much publicity. The sad and annoying fact is that celebrity trumps substance: Palin is fluff, but INTERESTING fluff. At the very least, you regard her with the same dreadful fascination as when you clean out your refrigerator and discover something in the back that's covered in green fur, and MOVING.

Of course, this same objection could be aimed at Obama--a media celebrity whose credentials for the Presidency were virtually nonexistent and whose job performance so far could be given, charitably, a C-minus.

And given Obama's flaccid and insincere repudiation of Wright (after MUCH time had elapsed, and under INTENSE pressure from his handlers), I think the reason that he was able to sit and listen to him for twenty years is that he didn't actually disagree with him. The best clue is to listen to Michele Obama's early public utterances, before those same handlers put a clamp on her mouth. She has a strong sense of racial aggreivance, entitlement, and proxy-rage. A LOT of the things she said were sanitized versions of Wright's rants. It's hard to believe that Obama married someone who doesn't share his political views--he is far more discreet about articulating them, though.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 2:20:29 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

...Of course, this same objection could be aimed at Obama--a media celebrity whose credentials for the Presidency were virtually nonexistent ....

I'm not at all the political type, so it amazes me that I am even posting in this thread.

I am reminded of a conversation I had along about late 2007 at a blackjack table in a Vegas casino. I was talking with a gentleman from Australia, and he was asking whether I thought a black man like Obama had any chance of being elected president in the US. At the time, I had not recognized the level of election support that Obama would receive specifically because he is a black man. My response was that I wasn't really sure that race would be a deciding factor. I felt more strongly that the public would not support a candidate with such a minimum of political and leadership experience and no military experience at all. Just shows how wrong I can be sometimes.

Actually, I will go further in showing just how wrong I can be about politics. There is the moderately old expression, quoted by Spock in one of the Star Trek films, that "only Nixon could go to China." The original point was that we were only able to begin to normalize relations with China by having a staunch anti-communist lead the way. If anyone else had tried, they would have been dismissed as pinko commies by most anyone a hair to the right of the ultra liberals.

The same phenomenon has been observed a number of times. I personally developed the opinion some years ago that the most likely manner for a black man to become president would be for him to first serve effectively for eight years as vice-president on a Republican ticket. I thought it was far more likely for Democrats to cross party lines to vote for a black Republican than for Republicans to do it the other way. I thought that Colin Powell would have been a good candidate to fill that role. So much for that insight.

Similarly, I thought the most likely way for a woman to become president would be for her to first serve effectively for eight years as vice-president on a Republican ticket. I didn't think that Geraldine Ferraro had any chance at all. In 2008, I thought that Palin was following the right course but was not a very strong candidate. I think a far better chance would have been if Elizabeth Dole had been a vice-presidential candidate, but that was not possible, since the peak year for that opening had her husband running for president. I still hold onto the idea that this is the path with the best shot (female Republican vice-president later being elected president.) Don't know that it will ever go that way, but she will need to be a strong candidate with solid experience, and I don't really see Palin being the one that makes it. Again, so much for my insight.

That's why I'm not really into politics.
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 3:23:32 PM permalink
Quote: Doc

I'm not at all the political type, so it amazes me that I am even posting in this thread.

I am reminded of a conversation I had along about late 2007 at a blackjack table in a Vegas casino. I was talking with a gentleman from Australia, and he was asking whether I thought a black man like Obama had any chance of being elected president in the US. At the time, I had not recognized the level of election support that Obama would receive specifically because he is a black man. My response was that I wasn't really sure that race would be a deciding factor. I felt more strongly that the public would not support a candidate with such a minimum of political and leadership experience and no military experience at all. Just shows how wrong I can be sometimes.



It was actually pretty simple to predict the Obama win, given that two subgroups of American voters were virtually certain to vote for him: blacks and children (18-21 year olds). I live in an extremely liberal college town, and you should have seen the Obamalove frenzy (he actually came here twice on the campaign stump, and I kind of wondered what was the point as there was no potential incremental gain for him). I did, however, ask randomly selected members of the cooing kids lovefest crowd whether they knew where Obama was born (not a clue), in what state he had held political office (huh?), and what the title of his bestseller book was (what's a BOOK?). So this was just rockstar love in action, not any rational consideration of, would this be a good man for the job (yet another reason why 18-21 year old children shouldn't be allowed to vote, by the way). As far as the black voters went, Obama got 97.3% of the black vote, which suggests that quite a few blacks voted for him because he was black (which is, by the way, racist), not for any other reason. Though blacks have historically voted 75-80% Democrat anyway.

These two groups--voting minors and blacks--made up about 34% of the electorate. If Obama got 97% of that 34%, then he was winning 33-1 before anyone else's votes were considered. This meant that in order to win a majority, he would only have had to win another 17% of the total electorate, or about 1/4 of the remainder. In light of the above, it's surprising that the race wasn't as close as it was. Yet another way to look at it is if you leave out blacks and minors, more than 2/3 of the remaining electorate did NOT vote for him. The person we have in office is the person that college sophomores and blacks wanted.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
nyuhoosier
nyuhoosier
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 248
Joined: Feb 16, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 3:30:53 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Of course, this same objection could be aimed at Obama--a media celebrity whose credentials for the Presidency were virtually nonexistent and whose job performance so far could be given, charitably, a C-minus.



(NOTE: I WROTE THIS BEFORE I SAW YOUR LAST THREAD. WOW, IS ALL I CAN SAY. With Republicans, someone else's vote is always worth less than theirs. Somebody is always less American. I have to admit, young adults is a new category for me. I think the age group that has supplied the blood and bodies for our two wars has something valid to say in the ballot booth.)

You've made some sharp observations in this thread, but I disagree with your assessment of Obama's job performance. Objectively speaking, the country was in a deplorable state when Obama entered office. No one can argue that. You might disagree with Obama's policy objectives, but you can't be surprised by any of them. From health care reform to cap-and-trade, Obama has more or less done what he said he would do during the campaign. (With the exception of Afghanistan, where he veered RIGHT.)

So why all the outrage and vitriol? I think much of it is being driven by folks who never accepted Obama in the first place -- kooks who refuse to believe he's an American citizen, for God's sake. In a telling recent poll, nearly 60 percent of Republicans falsely believe Obama is a Muslim. Quite frankly, I'm shocked that the demographics of this board seem to mirror those of Fox News so closely. Really it's a shame what that network has done to stir up racial hatred and overall distrust in the government.

Yeah, I think Obama has had a rough time, but that was to be expected because of the economy and the two wars. His major missteps have been in communication and public relations -- selling his accomplishments. The so-called Tea Party claims to be outraged by deficits and spending, but where were all those people when George Bush dragged the country to war on either a lie or a colossal intelligence blunder. A war, by the way, that Obama opposed even as a state senator. A war that will cost us nearly $2 trillion when all is said and done. 2 trillion!! That makes the marginal health care benefits passed this year look like Speaker Boehner's travel budget. And where were all these outraged people when Bush pushed through those budget-busting tax cuts?

So yes, I think many Tea Partiers are hypocrites who are using fake outrage as a cover for their overall discomfort with Obama, be it racial, political or otherwise. It's really not even worth wasting my breath, but there you have it.
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 3:44:25 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

You've made some sharp observations in this thread, but I disagree with your assessment of Obama's job performance. Objectively speaking, the country was in a deplorable state when Obama entered office. No one can argue that. You might disagree with Obama's policy objectives, but you can't be surprised by any of them. From health care reform to cap-and-trade, Obama has more or less done what he said he would do during the campaign. (With the exception of Afghanistan, where he veered RIGHT.)



My assessment was policy-neutral. Obama has had the luxury of leading a government that was essentially one-party rule, to an extent only dreamed of by Democrats up to that point. He (appropriately, in the minds of liberals) waved aside and dismissed the feeble Republican opposition, and embarked on remaking America according to his storied vision. So what the hell happened? One thing you have to say about dictatorships, they get things done. Obama had one for a good year or so before there started to be rumblings of discontent in the ranks. Despite his repeated whining about "obstructionist" Republicans, they really couldn't obstruct anything; he had carte blanche. Obama had more power, functional, real, effective power, and less opposition, than Josef Stalin or Mao Tse Tung. So why wasn't he able to implement his own Great Leap Forward?

The only cause I can tease out is that he squandered large portions of his political capital trying to shove health care down the nation's throat, drastically underestimating its unpopularity (the most distasteful aspect being its mandatory nature). He then proceeded to escalate a war that he had campaigned against for the entire election.

For someone who spent the better part of a year bleating about "the failed policies of George W. Bush", and chanting "change change change change change CHANGE change change change change", he sure seems to be continuing a lot of those same policies, and he doesn't seem to have changed much of anything. In December 2008, I remember remarking to a friend that despite his rhetoric and bluster, he was going to do most things the EXACT SAME WAY as his predecessor. She laughed. I reminded her the other day of what I had said then, and her reaction. She didn't laugh.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
September 2nd, 2010 at 3:51:10 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Quote: Doc

I'm not at all the political type, so it amazes me that I am even posting in this thread.

I am reminded of a conversation I had along about late 2007 at a blackjack table in a Vegas casino. I was talking with a gentleman from Australia, and he was asking whether I thought a black man like Obama had any chance of being elected president in the US. At the time, I had not recognized the level of election support that Obama would receive specifically because he is a black man. My response was that I wasn't really sure that race would be a deciding factor. I felt more strongly that the public would not support a candidate with such a minimum of political and leadership experience and no military experience at all. Just shows how wrong I can be sometimes.



It was actually pretty simple to predict the Obama win, given that two subgroups of American voters were virtually certain to vote for him: blacks and children (18-21 year olds). I live in an extremely liberal college town, and you should have seen the Obamalove frenzy (he actually came here twice on the campaign stump, and I kind of wondered what was the point as there was no potential incremental gain for him). I did, however, ask randomly selected members of the cooing kids lovefest crowd whether they knew where Obama was born (not a clue), in what state he had held political office (huh?), and what the title of his bestseller book was (what's a BOOK?). So this was just rockstar love in action, not any rational consideration of, would this be a good man for the job (yet another reason why 18-21 year old children shouldn't be allowed to vote, by the way). As far as the black voters went, Obama got 97.3% of the black vote, which suggests that quite a few blacks voted for him because he was black (which is, by the way, racist), not for any other reason. Though blacks have historically voted 75-80% Democrat anyway.

These two groups--voting minors and blacks--made up about 34% of the electorate. If Obama got 97% of that 34%, then he was winning 33-1 before anyone else's votes were considered. This meant that in order to win a majority, he would only have had to win another 17% of the total electorate, or about 1/4 of the remainder. In light of the above, it's surprising that the race wasn't as close as it was. Yet another way to look at it is if you leave out blacks and minors, more than 2/3 of the remaining electorate did NOT vote for him. The person we have in office is the person that college sophomores and blacks wanted.



You make some valid points, but your numbers are staggeringly wrong. The electorate was only 12.1% African-American (source: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnic-voters-presidential-election) where Obama did win 95%, and even if you break it down 18-24, they were only 10% (12.5 million)(source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2008/tables.html)(and Obama won them 68-32%, not 97%). We also have to consider that many of those voters are DOUBLE counted, any African-American between 18-24. But even if we ignore that, it's only 22% and McCain still won almost a quarter of them.

See the problem is turnout. It's a moving target. I know I've discussed this before, but it takes much more effort to convince an undecided voter that you are better than it does to target your base. We look at a swing from 2004 (Republican 51 Dem 48) to 2008 (Dem 53 Rep 45) and assume that about 6% of the people changed their minds and flipped. Not at all. Many Republicans who voted in 04 for Bush didn't feel like voting for McCain. You need to look at the total pool of voters and figure out what NUMBER of them you need to win. Percentages are not relevant when you are running that kind of campaign. For example, even if your numbers were right (they aren't), he can't just get "another 17%" of the electorate. He doesn't know what percentage of those demos (African American/youth) are going to turnout relative to the the other demos. In fact, the youth vote still was only about 48% turnout, much less than the population as a whole. But if he sees that he will win the election if he can muster X votes (65million?), then he can say that if he wins the youth 2 to 1 and half turnout, he's got a base of 8 million votes. Only 57 million to go! My main point is campaign strategy is so much more than who's winning the straight up polls that are published in the paper, especially if the race is close.
nyuhoosier
nyuhoosier
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 248
Joined: Feb 16, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:03:44 PM permalink
Apparently, Mkl9875403820, you have never heard of the filibuster. It's laughable to even suggest Obama had a "dictatorship."

The problem with the health care package was that it was too SMALL -- it didn't do enough to control costs. A single-payer government program would have been far superior in addressing the huge money suck that is our health care system. In case you're ignorant of history, Reagan and Nixon wanted health care programs that went further than Obama's. We should have bit the bullet decades ago and got ourselves a system like Canada's. It would have paid for itself several times over by now. Instead, we pay a whole lot more per capita than any other country, but we have nothing to show for it.

The reason we didn't get single payer or even a public option? Mostly Republican obstructionism. Yeah, I said it.

Many of the people shouting about health care are themselves the beneficiaries of that crazy socialist pinko program called Medicare. Sure, it's unpopular with that group -- they have theirs and to tell with everybody else. Many of them are too dumb to even know that Medicare is a government program.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:13:43 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Despite his repeated whining about "obstructionist" Republicans, they really couldn't obstruct anything; he had carte blanche. Obama had more power, functional, real, effective power, and less opposition, than Josef Stalin or Mao Tse Tung. So why wasn't he able to implement his own Great Leap Forward?



I REALLY hope you are exaggerating to make your point there. I don't recall Obama having the ability to send his opponents to the Siberia. Or for a sharp 6 foot drop.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:16:16 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

Apparently, Mkl9875403820, you have never heard of the filibuster. It's laughable to even suggest Obama had a "dictatorship."

The problem with the health care package was that it was too SMALL -- it didn't do enough to control costs. A single-payer government program would have been far superior in addressing the huge money suck that is our health care system. In case you're ignorant of history, Reagan and Nixon wanted health care programs that went further than Obama's. We should have bit the bullet decades ago and got ourselves a system like Canada's. It would have paid for itself several times over by now. Instead, we pay a whole lot more per capita than any other country, but we have nothing to show for it.

The reason we didn't get single payer or even a public option? Mostly Republican obstructionism. Yeah, I said it.

Many of the people shouting about health care are themselves the beneficiaries of that crazy socialist pinko program called Medicare. Sure, it's unpopular with that group -- they have theirs and to tell with everybody else. Many of them are too dumb to even know that Medicare is a government program.



You also make valid points, but when you are FORCED to pay into something, there's nothing wrong with accepting the benefits while railing against the underlying theory of its operation. For example, in NJ the Education Commish Bret Schundler was just fired and will be going on unemployment. Liberals branded him a hypocrite because "Republicans don't support nanny-state programs." But in NJ, we pay a SUI (State Unemployment Insurance) fee in every paycheck. He's been paying into that fund his whole life. To not accept the payout when available based on some kind of principled stand is stupid. He could still argue that SUI should be done away with. But until it is, he should get his own money back when he can. Put it a simpler way: How many Democrats who railed against the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" decided to keep paying the higher rates so THEY wouldn't look like hypocrites? Answer: None.
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:22:29 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

Apparently, Mkl9875403820, you have never heard of the filibuster. It's laughable to even suggest Obama had a "dictatorship."

The problem with the health care package was that it was too SMALL -- it didn't do enough to control costs. A single-payer government program would have been far superior in addressing the huge money suck that is our health care system. In case you're ignorant of history, Reagan and Nixon wanted health care programs that went further than Obama's. We should have bit the bullet decades ago and got ourselves a system like Canada's. It would have paid for itself several times over by now. Instead, we pay a whole lot more per capita than any other country, but we have nothing to show for it.

The reason we didn't get single payer or even a public option? Mostly Republican obstructionism. Yeah, I said it.

Many of the people shouting about health care are themselves the beneficiaries of that crazy socialist pinko program called Medicare. Sure, it's unpopular with that group -- they have theirs and to tell with everybody else. Many of them are too dumb to even know that Medicare is a government program.



Filibusters can be broken with sufficient votes, as the Demos eventually managed to amass. In any case, even before the Demos got the 60 votes, no major legislation was blocked by a filibuster.

The problem with the health care bill is that for Americans that already had health care, their costs would go up--in some cases, WAY up. And those that had health care already were in the majority, so the bill stood to displease more people than it pleased. I think that the American people would have been okay with that if the administration hadn't insisted on persistently lying, over and over, about what it would cost. Pretending that adding another thirty million people onto the health-care rolls was going to be revenue-neutral was a bad tactic: it insulted the electorate's intelligence. Then they tried the "don't worry everybody, we'll just rape the rich" approach. That dog didn't hunt, either.

In any case, puh-LEEZ, let's stop the horsecrap of calling it Republican "obstructionism" when they vote as a bloc, but "fortitude and solidarity in the pursuit of a noble goal" when the Democrats do the same thing. There are plenty of perfectly legitimate objections to universally mandated health care, and if something is going to be brought about by COERCION, there had better be an unequivocal mandate. The rising storm of public opinion against Obamacare should have made him think twice--but the man is arrogant, and he thinks he has some kind of universal mandate, That's the kind of thinking that comes from dismissing the opposition's objections as mere "obstructionist" behavior.

(For what it's worth, I actually DO think we should have universal health care AVAILABLE to THOSE WHO WANT IT. That's what we have where I live, in fact. I can CHOOSE to buy it or not buy it. You can blame the fact that Obamacare is a half-measure on them dirty steenkin Repubblekins if you wish, but the real element that crippled the bill was that the insurance companies insisted on the mandatory provision, saying they couldn't make any money unless everyone was FORCED to buy their product. Hogwash--but the Demos bought it.)
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:25:10 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

(For what it's worth, I actually DO think we should have universal health care AVAILABLE to THOSE WHO WANT IT. That's what we have where I live, in fact. I can CHOOSE to buy it or not buy it.



What's the difference between that and the current system? That's a non-rhetorical question, by the way.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:41:11 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

What's the difference between that and the current system? That's a non-rhetorical question, by the way.



If by "the current system", you mean the one we have right this moment, the difference is that in most places, many people can't get health insurance even if they are willing to pay for it. Where I live, you have the option to join an "assigned risk" pool, and you CANNOT be turned down. You choose your own health care provider, and by law, you cannot be charged more than 125% of the prevailing average premium. You can also get catastrophic or high-deductible coverage, if you so desire. It's very much like assigned-risk-pool auto insurance. The only prerequisite for joining the program is that you have to have been turned down for medical insurance by at least one provider.

If by "the current system", you mean the impending one, we ain't gonna have no choice in whether to buy it or not.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:44:22 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

Apparently, Mkl9875403820, you have never heard of the filibuster. It's laughable to even suggest Obama had a "dictatorship."

I am neither defending nor challenging mkl's comments. I just have a question I don't know the answer to, and perhaps someone here can fill me in:

There has been a lot of talk about the Republicans being obstructionist via filibuster. How many instances these past 18 months or so have the Republicans actually filibustered against a bill? I know that there has been a bunch of speculation that they might filibuster something and might or might not have the votes, but how often have they actually filibustered? I don't recall that being reported widely. Anyone know?
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:51:35 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

(NOTE: I WROTE THIS BEFORE I SAW YOUR LAST THREAD. WOW, IS ALL I CAN SAY. With Republicans, someone else's vote is always worth less than theirs. Somebody is always less American. I have to admit, young adults is a new category for me. I think the age group that has supplied the blood and bodies for our two wars has something valid to say in the ballot booth.)



I ain't no stinkin' Republican. Just because I oppose many of the current administration's policies doesn't mean I therefore identify with the opposition.

My discounting of the validity of the "young adult" vote comes from the fact that I'm surrounded by them (college town), and I constantly hear naive, uninformed, ludicrously unsophisticated, and appallingly shallow opinions bandied about by them. It gives me a sinking feeling when I realize that these persons (undoubtedly earnest, well-meaning, and heartbreakingly sincere) are going to have such a strong impact on my life in the very near future. A couple of years ago, nine-tenths of the kids waving anti-war signs on the street couldn't find Afghanistan or Iraq (or the United States, for that matter) on a world map.

I'm not at all convinced by the argument that being eligible to get blown up necessarily confers the right to vote. I think ANY person should have to pass something like a high school civics exam before they are allowed to vote at all. If you can tell me what a Congressman does, and how many of them there are, then you can vote for the Congressman that will represent us. Until then, no.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
nyuhoosier
nyuhoosier
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 248
Joined: Feb 16, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:53:08 PM permalink
Quote: cclub79

You also make valid points, but when you are FORCED to pay into something, there's nothing wrong with accepting the benefits while railing against the underlying theory of its operation. For example, in NJ the Education Commish Bret Schundler was just fired and will be going on unemployment. Liberals branded him a hypocrite because "Republicans don't support nanny-state programs." But in NJ, we pay a SUI (State Unemployment Insurance) fee in every paycheck. He's been paying into that fund his whole life. To not accept the payout when available based on some kind of principled stand is stupid. He could still argue that SUI should be done away with. But until it is, he should get his own money back when he can. Put it a simpler way: How many Democrats who railed against the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" decided to keep paying the higher rates so THEY wouldn't look like hypocrites? Answer: None.



I agree with your first point on the whole. But your comparison to the NJ official falls apart because many of the people railing about "Obamacare" liked their Medicare just fine. "Hands off my Medicare!" They are so uninformed that they don't know Medicare is administered by the government, or they didn't care about other people as long as they got theirs. That's why they're hypocrites and why the two examples are not apples-to-apples.

To your second point, of course everyone loves tax cuts, but the question is whether they were PRUDENT during two costly wars. I sure wasn't giving my tax cut back, but I think the move was unwise. Now, 10 years later, we certainly need more revenue and should let some of the cuts expire in accordance with the law, but this is where the Tea Partiers lose credibility. They want to keep the tax cuts. Huh? To really tackle the deficit, there have to be sacrifices all around, and this is an easy one.

Quote: mkl654321

For what it's worth, I actually DO think we should have universal health care AVAILABLE to THOSE WHO WANT IT. That's what we have where I live, in fact. I can CHOOSE to buy it or not buy it. You can blame the fact that Obamacare is a half-measure on them dirty steenkin Repubblekins if you wish, but the real element that crippled the bill was that the insurance companies insisted on the mandatory provision, saying they couldn't make any money unless everyone was FORCED to buy their product. Hogwash--but the Demos bought it.)



We force people to buy other kinds of insurance. You can't be uninsured and operate a car because if you cause a wreck and land someone in the hospital, the government has to pick up the tab. It's the same principle with health insurance. Why should we allow people to go uninsured when taxpayers will wind up footing the bill when they have a heart attack, or are shot or fall off the balcony.

Covering everybody upfront is win-win-win. You save money with preventive care and hey, everybody has health insurance. Does anybody want to refuse health coverage? Seriously? One way or another we pay for it, so you might as well do it upfront. I just can't understand comments like yours that this is some kind of oppression. All the companies sucking money out of the health care system want you to buy into it -- that our current system equals freedom. Yeah, right.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14426
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:58:37 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

If by "the current system", you mean the one we have right this moment, the difference is that in most places, many people can't get health insurance even if they are willing to pay for it. Where I live, you have the option to join an "assigned risk" pool, and you CANNOT be turned down. You choose your own health care provider, and by law, you cannot be charged more than 125% of the prevailing average premium. You can also get catastrophic or high-deductible coverage, if you so desire. It's very much like assigned-risk-pool auto insurance. The only prerequisite for joining the program is that you have to have been turned down for medical insurance by at least one provider.

If by "the current system", you mean the impending one, we ain't gonna have no choice in whether to buy it or not.



You can get some kind of health coverage pretty much no matter what in the USA. It is the paying for it that causes the problem. People forget it is health INSURANCE. They want to pay $150/month yet be able to gobble $200 of Rx meds and a few free doctor visits. If you make it an HMO they cry because "they can't see who they want or get what they want!"

The best soultion and the one no one ever dares propose is Health Savings Accounts joined with say a hospitalization and also catasthropic coverage. Then you pay for what you want, not what the company says you can have. But in the age of Obama people want "free" health care and think they should not have to pay for even a regular doctor visit.

The above is a proven way to reduce costs, make people shop, and increase service levels. THe LASIK market proves it.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:59:42 PM permalink
Quote: Doc

I am neither defending nor challenging mkl's comments. I just have a question I don't know the answer to, and perhaps someone here can fill me in:

There has been a lot of talk about the Republicans being obstructionist via filibuster. How many instances these past 18 months or so have the Republicans actually filibustered against a bill? I know that there has been a bunch of speculation that they might filibuster something and might or might not have the votes, but how often have they actually filibustered? I don't recall that being reported widely. Anyone know?



According to wikipedia, there's been a record number of cloture votes in 111th Congress (117). These votes are normally made to avoid a filibuster.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:05:41 PM permalink
Quote: Doc

I am neither defending nor challenging mkl's comments. I just have a question I don't know the answer to, and perhaps someone here can fill me in:

There has been a lot of talk about the Republicans being obstructionist via filibuster. How many instances these past 18 months or so have the Republicans actually filibustered against a bill? I know that there has been a bunch of speculation that they might filibuster something and might or might not have the votes, but how often have they actually filibustered? I don't recall that being reported widely. Anyone know?



It's been THREATENED, but in the four cases where a cloture vote has been asked for by the majority, the cloture motion passed all four times. (In the vast majority of such cases, the threat of a cloture vote was enough to stifle the filibuster; the four cases I refer to are where the filibustering party refused to give in and the cloture vote was actually taken.)

The most contentious bill(s), i.e., the health care "reform" bill(s), had been made filibuster-proof by a neat little do-si-do by the Democrats: the bill was renamed a "reconciliation" bill, ostensibly having only to do with the federal budget: it only takes a simple majority vote to stop a filibuster against a reconciliation bill.

There have been filibusters by the minority in every Congress since the 1st. The current atmosphere isn't conducive to them, though, since the Demos can muster a functional supermajority and crush the Republicans like so many bugs.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:16:21 PM permalink
Quote: nyu

They are so uninformed that they don't know Medicare is administered by the government, or they didn't care about other people as long as they got theirs. That's why they're hypocrites and why the two examples are not apples-to-apples.



Perhaps some were uninformed, but I never saw proof that the protesters didn't know Medicare was administered by the govt. They only see it every two weeks coming out of their salary. It is "Their Medicare" though, if they worked and paid that tax their whole lives. When you have a mandate that is specifically funded by a specific line item on every paycheck you've ever earned, and then you don't want those funds to go for other things. I don't see that as being hypocritical.

By the way, I knew when I saw this thread's title when there was only 1 post that it would be in the Top Posts section before too long. Didn't think it was going to be THIS fast, though.
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:20:51 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

We force people to buy other kinds of insurance. You can't be uninsured and operate a car because if you cause a wreck and land someone in the hospital, the government has to pick up the tab. It's the same principle with health insurance. Why should we allow people to go uninsured when taxpayers will wind up footing the bill when they have a heart attack, or are shot or fall off the balcony.

Covering everybody upfront is win-win-win. You save money with preventive care and hey, everybody has health insurance. Does anybody want to refuse health coverage? Seriously? One way or another we pay for it, so you might as well do it upfront. I just can't understand comments like yours that this is some kind of oppression. All the companies sucking money out of the health care system want you to buy into it -- that our current system equals freedom. Yeah, right.



Your first point is invalid. In reality, if a person is uninsured, HE picks up the tab. The only medical care an indigent person can get is in the emergency room, where he will receive enough care so that he can walk out of the place under his own power and die somewhere else. Likewise, many, many people pay for their own medications, sporadic and insufficient care, etc. Taxpayers don't wind up footing the bill when someone (who is uninsured) falls off the balcony--there is no bill because he receives no care. From a personal standpoint, I have two serious medical conditions and receive no treatment for them, and no government agency is going to pay for my treatment.

The distinction that you are missing is that in the case of auto insurance, the mandate is that people insure OTHERS, not THEMSELVES (i.e., liability insurance). You don't have to buy collision, nor do you have to buy uninsured motorist coverage. In the case of medical insurance, the negative consequence of not having insurance falls on the person who chose not to have insurance; in the case of auto insurance, the negative consequence of not having liability insurance falls on the OTHER person.

I understand and even partially agree with your position that everybody having health care would be a positive outcome for society. So would everybody giving up hamburgers, but I still don't want to see an armed guard barring the entrance to my local Burger King. At its heart, the debate is about coercion "for people's own good". Should the government be entitled to FORCE you to behave "properly" for the sake of yourself and of society? I would be more inclined to say "yes" if I had seen that the government was any kind of expert on what is good for you and me.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
nyuhoosier
nyuhoosier
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 248
Joined: Feb 16, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:27:38 PM permalink
Quote: cclub79

Perhaps some were uninformed, but I never saw proof that the protesters didn't know Medicare was administered by the govt. They only see it every two weeks coming out of their salary. It is "Their Medicare" though, if they worked and paid that tax their whole lives. When you have a mandate that is specifically funded by a specific line item on every paycheck you've ever earned, and then you don't want those funds to go for other things. I don't see that as being hypocritical.




C'mon now, most of the people screaming "SOCIALISM!" and "TYRANNY!" didn't understand that Medicare is more "socialistic" than the current package.

And you saw no proof? In lots of TV interviews, protesters revealed themselves to be totally ignorant of what was actually in the bill. That goes to my next point. When you ask people about eliminating denial of coverage based on preexisting conditions (a cornerstone of the bill), they are overwhelmingly in favor. So it will get more popular when these things kick in.

If anything, Obama underdelivered on health care.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14426
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:36:07 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

To your second point, of course everyone loves tax cuts, but the question is whether they were PRUDENT during two costly wars. I sure wasn't giving my tax cut back, but I think the move was unwise. Now, 10 years later, we certainly need more revenue and should let some of the cuts expire in accordance with the law, but this is where the Tea Partiers lose credibility. They want to keep the tax cuts. Huh? To really tackle the deficit, there have to be sacrifices all around, and this is an easy one.



You fall into the same old trap. Tax cuts can pay for themselves by increase economic activity and thus revenue. Picture a bell curve--at both 0% and 100% revenue is zero since 0% of 0 is 0 and no one will work if you give up 100%. People deciding to invest look at rate of return. Every 1% you take in taxes is more people not investing for business. And I *love* how you lefties say we need "sacrifices" but as soon as someone proposes to cut any non-miltary spending it is as if the world will end. An easier place to cut back would be to close the Department of Education. It has had negative results since it opened and is an unconstitutional power grab. (Powers not given to the federal government nor prohibited to the state go to the states.")



Quote:


Covering everybody upfront is win-win-win. You save money with preventive care and hey, everybody has health insurance. Does anybody want to refuse health coverage? Seriously? One way or another we pay for it, so you might as well do it upfront. I just can't understand comments like yours that this is some kind of oppression. All the companies sucking money out of the health care system want you to buy into it -- that our current system equals freedom. Yeah, right.



Not really. Why is this better? I would far rather have minimal coverage and put money into a Medical Savings Account with my money working for me than pay premiums for things I may or may not want. eg: many states require health coverage cover "mental health," or "substance abuse recvovery" -- things I do not want. You do not pay $800/month for auto insurance to get $3 oil changes, why is health insurance sold that way?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:37:00 PM permalink
Car insurance is a horrible analogy for exactly why mlk said. The health plan should have always been about providing insurance for UNINSURED people who couldn't afford it or didn't have it. A low cost program to provide primary care. It should have had nothing to do with the rest of the population (80%+) that either have it already or don't want it right now. If people don't want to have insurance, they shouldn't be forced to have it. "Yeah yeah, but what if Johnny Fairplay is riding his moped and he gets creamed by a pickup?" (http://freebeerandhotwings.com/pg/jsp/general/webvideos.jsp?vid=430532789277773872) If they are uninsured and need medical help, then they will be billed for the services and will have to pay it off. Why is this so wrong? It's the way it works for everything else in life. You can't afford college? You take loans and you pay them off. You don't want the extended service plan? You have to foot the bill if the plasma screen shatters. You should have the choice. The response is always, "Well what if you can't pay it back?" Well how is that any different than the people that can't pay back their college loans or their mortgages? It's a bill.

-

The discussion has gotten much better on the last couple of pages with good arguments and no personal attacks. Thanks to everyone for elevating the dialogue.

By the way, I need me some ObamaHurriCare, because I'm on Cape Cod and about to get popped.
nyuhoosier
nyuhoosier
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 248
Joined: Feb 16, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:43:35 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Your first point is invalid. In reality, if a person is uninsured, HE picks up the tab. The only medical care an indigent person can get is in the emergency room, where he will receive enough care so that he can walk out of the place under his own power and die somewhere else. Likewise, many, many people pay for their own medications, sporadic and insufficient care, etc. Taxpayers don't wind up footing the bill when someone (who is uninsured) falls off the balcony--there is no bill because he receives no care. From a personal standpoint, I have two serious medical conditions and receive no treatment for them, and no government agency is going to pay for my treatment.

The distinction that you are missing is that in the case of auto insurance, the mandate is that people insure OTHERS, not THEMSELVES (i.e., liability insurance). You don't have to buy collision, nor do you have to buy uninsured motorist coverage. In the case of medical insurance, the negative consequence of not having insurance falls on the person who chose not to have insurance; in the case of auto insurance, the negative consequence of not having liability insurance falls on the OTHER person.



Emergency room care is the most expensive type of treatment -- by far. Thanks to your hero Ronald Reagan, nobody can be turned away, so even illegal immigrants have de facto emergency room health coverage, paid for by you and me and the Wizard and everybody else.

Here's what the legislation says: Any patient who "comes to the emergency department" requesting "examination or treatment for a medical condition" must be provided with "an appropriate medical screening examination" to determine if he is suffering from an "emergency medical condition". If he is, then the hospital is obligated to either provide him with treatment until he is stable or to transfer him to another hospital in conformance with the statute's directives.

When uninsured folks ignore their problems until it's nearly too late and then stumble into the ER, we all pay for that. Medical costs are so high that many people can't pay. And so many people can't pay that medical costs go up and up. It's a vicious cycle.

So to bring it back to my comparison to auto insurance, universal coverage has many benefits, but the best is that it insures OTHERS against YOUR catastrophic illness. It's completely valid.

Quote: AZDuffman

You fall into the same old trap. Tax cuts can pay for themselves by increase economic activity and thus revenue. Picture a bell curve--at both 0% and 100% revenue is zero since 0% of 0 is 0 and no one will work if you give up 100%. People deciding to invest look at rate of return. Every 1% you take in taxes is more people not investing for business.




Oh no! Not another Laffer curve lecture. Ask any serious economist: The Laffer curve is laughable. I think most people would agree that we did just fine under the Clinton administration's tax rates ( which, by the way, were a reduction from Bush 1 rates.)

On your other comment: OK, then go ahead and opt out of your employer's health plan. What are you waiting for?
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:44:31 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

C'mon now, most of the people screaming "SOCIALISM!" and "TYRANNY!" didn't understand that Medicare is more "socialistic" than the current package.



I disagree. Medicare only benefits a subgroup of society--the elderly. By definition, that isn't "socialistic." Collecting taxes from ALL earners to benefit another, smaller group (of non-earners) is certainly redistributive, and quite possibly unfair, but the current package is orders of magnitude more "socialistic": the government collects from all, dispenses (in its infinite wisdom) to all.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
nyuhoosier
nyuhoosier
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 248
Joined: Feb 16, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:54:00 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

I disagree. Medicare only benefits a subgroup of society--the elderly. By definition, that isn't "socialistic." Collecting taxes from ALL earners to benefit another, smaller group (of non-earners) is certainly redistributive, and quite possibly unfair, but the current package is orders of magnitude more "socialistic": the government collects from all, dispenses (in its infinite wisdom) to all.



Thank you for making my point for me. It's abundantly clear that YOU don't even understand what's in the bill. You described a single-payer system, and the current package is several orders of magnitude below that. Medicare is single-payer; Obamacare, to borrow your phrase, is not. Check and uh-mate.
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:56:08 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

Emergency room care is the most expensive type of treatment -- by far. Thanks to your hero Ronald Reagan, nobody can be turned away, so even illegal immigrants have de facto emergency room health coverage, paid for by you and me and the Wizard and everybody else.

Here's what the legislations says: Any patient who "comes to the emergency department" requesting "examination or treatment for a medical condition" must be provided with "an appropriate medical screening examination" to determine if he is suffering from an "emergency medical condition". If he is, then the hospital is obligated to either provide him with treatment until he is stable or to transfer him to another hospital in conformance with the statute's directives.

When uninsured folks ignore their problems until it's nearly too late and then stumble into the ER, we all pay for that. Medical costs are so high that many people can't pay. And so many people can't pay that medical costs go up and up. It's a vicious cycle.

So to bring it back to my comparison to auto insurance, universal coverage has many benefits, but the best is that it insures OTHERS against YOUR catastrophic illness. It's completely valid.



Somehow, you think that treatment "until he is stable" equates to full medical treatment. I die laughing. In an emergency room, they'll patch a guy up--MAYBE--after making him wait until everybody else has been treated. They will NOT give him medication (though they may write a prescription--so what). He will NOT be entitled to a return visit for the same condition--not even to change his bandages. He will NOT receive treatment for an ongoing but not immediately life-threatening condition, such as emphysema or cancer. He will NOT be treated for any dental or ocular condition, even if he is in agony from an abscessed tooth or is going blind.

Has it occured to you that the reason uninsured folks "ignore their problems", as you put it, is because they are unable to pay for treatment? Doubtless there is a cost for treating this millions-strong zombie army that swarms into emergency rooms, but it's probably cheaper than having them die in some messy way in someplace inconvenient.

It is ridiculous to assert that more than a small fraction of the total human cost of illness falls on anyone other than the actual person who is ill. You postulate that if an uninsured person becomes sick or injured, then the cost of his care falls on society at large. This is, of course, wrong--the cost of his care falls on himself. Frequently that cost comes in the form of continuing to suffer, or dying.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14426
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:05:16 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier





Oh no! Not another Laffer curve lecture. Ask any serious economist: The Laffer curve is laughable. I think most people would agree that we did just fine under the Clinton administration's tax rates ( which, by the way, were a reduction from Bush 1 rates.)



Tax revenue went up under cuts of Reagan and Bush43. What is laughable is thinking raising taxes does not affect economic behavior. Or perhape you might like to explain why high-tax states and countries are always crying about lower-tax places "stealing" their taxpayers. Clinton 's rates were not a reduction of Bush41 rates. Clinton raised the highest marginal rates in 1993, over Bush41 who (foolishly) let congress raise them from Reagan's 28% top rate. Remembher the term "jobless recovery" in 1991-1994? BTW: You can't have it both ways. If we did fine under clinton and rates reduced from Bush41 as you quote then the Laffer curve is proven. If Clinton raised rates and we did better than Bush41 then Clinton raised taxes. He did raise them, to much cheering in the Dem congress, who lost control in 1994.

Under Bush43's tax cuts, the GDP of the USA grew by the size of France. Or in other words, under lower taxes we built another French Economy (minus the socialism) in the USA



Quote:

On your other comment: OK, then go ahead and opt out of your employer's health plan. What are you waiting for?



I am already at the lowest level plan my employer offers. I'd go lower if I could have a HSA that is portable and does not need to be emptied every Dec 31 or be lost.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
nyuhoosier
nyuhoosier
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 248
Joined: Feb 16, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:05:44 PM permalink
You're living in a fantasy world if you think uninsured folks somehow magically pay for their ER care and that the rest of us aren't subsidizing it.

The county-run hospital in Las Vegas runs hundreds of millions of dollars in the red each year because it has to treat the uninsured. That's just one hospital, and yes, the taxpayers do fit the bill.
nyuhoosier
nyuhoosier
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 248
Joined: Feb 16, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:16:51 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321


Has it occured to you that the reason uninsured folks "ignore their problems", as you put it, is because they are unable to pay for treatment? Doubtless there is a cost for treating this millions-strong zombie army that swarms into emergency rooms, but it's probably cheaper than having them die in some messy way in someplace inconvenient.



Of course it has occurred to me. That's my point! They delay routine and inexpensive treatment because they're uninsured and can't pay. Then it morphs into a heart attack or a liver failure and the treatment becomes exponentially more expensive -- and mandatory and paid for by the public.

The tone of the rest of your comment betrays a total lack of empathy. It almost sounds as if you regard the uninsured as some degenerate alien race unworthy of human compassion.

Well, guess what? For the first time in my life, I am uninsured, and not by choice. So I guess I'm in that group you despise so. And no, I'm not a bum or a fuck-up or whatever you think. I went to a top-tier university, studied hard and graduated ahead of schedule. I've always had a job. I'll get back on insurance soon, no doubt. But if god forbid something happens before then, I'll be sure to try to die somewhere convenient, OK?
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29477
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:18:33 PM permalink
edit)
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:19:21 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

You're living in a fantasy world if you think uninsured folks somehow magically pay for their ER care and that the rest of us aren't subsidizing it.

The county-run hospital in Las Vegas runs hundreds of millions of dollars in the red each year because it has to treat the uninsured. That's just one hospital, and yes, the taxpayers do fit the bill.



I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth--I didn't give you permission to do that.

What I SAID was that the emergency room care the uninsured receive was starkly minimal, and restricted to, as YOU said, immediate, life-threatening conditions, so it's a wee bit implausible that such treatment costs the skillion gazillion bazillion dollars nationwide, or the hundreds of millions in a single hospital, that you say it does. That's nothing more than hyperbole to try to prove your point, that no one is disputing, that the uninsured do inflict SOME of their medical costs on society.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:25:43 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

Of course it has occurred to me. That's my point! They delay routine and inexpensive treatment because they're uninsured and can't pay. Then it morphs into a heart attack or a liver failure and the treatment becomes exponentially more expensive -- and mandatory and paid for by the public.

The tone of the rest of your comment betrays a total lack of empathy. It almost sounds as if you regard the uninsured as some degenerate alien race unworthy of human compassion.

Well, guess what? For the first time in my life, I am uninsured, and not by choice. So I guess I'm in that group you despise so. And no, I'm not a bum or a fuck-up or whatever you think. I went to a top-tier university, studied hard and graduated ahead of schedule. I've always had a job. I'll get back on insurance soon, no doubt. But if god forbid something happens before then, I'll be sure to try to die somewhere convenient, OK?



I'm not trying to pry into your situation, but you should get some gap insurance. I was between jobs (literally, I resigned one and had a month before my new care would start, and Cobra was too much because of the expensive plan my old employer was providing). I went online and got a reasonable policy for $170/month. It wasn't all-inclusive, but it gave me peace of mind. I didn't use it at all. If you can't afford that, you may be able to get an even cheaper alternative that would cover catastrophic injury and emergencies. Of course, it will depend on your state. If you looked into it and it won't work for you, I apologize. I wouldn't have known about it when I was in college and I didn't want you to overlook something that could help.
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:27:23 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

Of course it has occurred to me. That's my point! They delay routine and inexpensive treatment because they're uninsured and can't pay. Then it morphs into a heart attack or a liver failure and the treatment becomes exponentially more expensive -- and mandatory and paid for by the public.

The tone of the rest of your comment betrays a total lack of empathy. It almost sounds as if you regard the uninsured as some degenerate alien race unworthy of human compassion.

Well, guess what? For the first time in my life, I am uninsured, and not by choice. So I guess I'm in that group you despise so. And no, I'm not a bum or a fuck-up or whatever you think. I went to a top-tier university, studied hard and graduated ahead of schedule. I've always had a job. I'll get back on insurance soon, no doubt. But if god forbid something happens before then, I'll be sure to try to die somewhere convenient, OK?



Good Lord, man, I was being ironic. Are you that irony-proof? I was responding to your expressed sentiment that the uninsured cost society so much because they spread disease and cough and bleed on people and sometimes die in the public fountain in the city park. I, in fact, am one of those uninsured people, because of my financial condition. I, too, expect that position to be temporary.

There's one place where you're dead wrong, though---that heart attack or liver failure won't be treated unless it happens right at the hospital. And even if it DOES happen there, remember that the hospital is only obligated to "stabilize" the patient. He won't receive full care by ANY stretch of the imagination. So your assertion that the uninsured burden society with the entire cost of their health care is ludicrous. What happens, in fact, is that they receive inadequate care, minimal care, or no care at all. Doesn't your present experience confirm this? Has someone from the government shown up at your door and offered to pay all your medical bills?
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29477
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:30:21 PM permalink
I was in the hospital 10 years ago for some work on my arm and guy in the bed next to me was an illegal Mexican. He had been pulling a big trailer full of cow manure up a big hill on a paved road with a lawn tractor. It got about halfway up the hill when the tractor, going slower and slower, was overpowered by one of Newton's Laws and the load of manure won and started pulling the tractor back down the hill. It tipped the tractor over and dragged the idiot driver for about a quarter of a mile, trapped underneath it. They took him to the emergency room and his bill was over 100K when I was there, who knows what it was when he got out. God Bless America.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:31:03 PM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

Thank you for making my point for me. It's abundantly clear that YOU don't even understand what's in the bill. You described a single-payer system, and the current package is several orders of magnitude below that. Medicare is single-payer; Obamacare, to borrow your phrase, is not. Check and uh-mate.



You are conveniently ignoring the fact that for Medicare and Medicaid, the set of persons paying for it is not the same as the set of beneficiaries. This is a rather large and significant distinction. Sorry. You dropped your knight in the toilet.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:33:04 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I was in the hospital 10 years ago for some work on my arm and guy in the bed next to me was an illegal Mexican. He had been pulling a big trailer full of cow manure up a big hill on a paved road with a lawn tractor. It got about halfway up the hill when the tractor, going slower and slower, was overpowered by one of Newton's Laws and the load of manure won and started pulling the tractor back down the hill. It tipped the tractor over and dragged the idiot driver for about a quarter of a mile, trapped underneath it. They took him to the emergency room and his bill was over 100K when I was there, who knows what it was when he got out. God Bless America.



Exactly how did you know he was an "illegal" Mexican (or for that matter, that he was a Mexican in the first place), and how did you know what the amount of his hospital bill was?
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29477
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:35:38 PM permalink
I read last week that the big selling point of Obamacare, covering people with pre-existing conditions, is turning into a big joke. Take the example of someone with diabetes who needs ongoing care. From what they calculate so far, his 'free' Obamacare is going to cost him a MINIMUM of $12,000 a year and could cost as much as $30,000 a year in out of pocket expenses not covered under the 'free' care. And thats just a preliminary estimate, the medical experts aren't done plowing through the million and one pages of this obscenity yet. Free medical care is an oxymoron, apparently.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 442
  • Posts: 29477
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:37:10 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Exactly how did you know he was an "illegal" Mexican (or for that matter, that he was a Mexican in the first place), and how did you know what the amount of his hospital bill was?



My sister in law was a nurse in that dept, thats how I found out the whole story. The manure part was known by everybody, it was a running joke while I was there.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 243
  • Posts: 14426
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 2nd, 2010 at 6:44:13 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I read last week that the big selling point of Obamacare, covering people with pre-existing conditions, is turning into a big joke. Take the example of someone with diabetes who needs ongoing care. From what they calculate so far, his 'free' Obamacare is going to cost him a MINIMUM of $12,000 a year and could cost as much as $30,000 a year in out of pocket expenses not covered under the 'free' care. And thats just a preliminary estimate, the medical experts aren't done plowing through the million and one pages of this obscenity yet. Free medical care is an oxymoron, apparently.



Limbaugh has it right--there will be virtual riots when Obama's supporters find out Obamacare will not be "free."

Heck I heard sporadic reports about people showing up at providers offices the day after it was signed looking for their "free health care."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
  • Jump to: