Alabama Democrat defecting to the GOP

[Fate]

There are methods of controlling costs other than rationing/triage or whatever.

Does this involve supply side economics or magic?

[KRonn]

I kind of wish that all Democrats who vote with Republicans on all the key issues just go ahead and switch now.  What's the point of being in the party when you're constantly voting against it?  The only thing they're doing is contributing to the perception that liberals are in solid control, when in fact they're not (especially not in the Senate).

Yeah, really. Let the rational ones change parties now, rather than suffer while remaining in place with government ideas they don't agree with. Spector did that, went Demotard, since he was already pretty in line with that anyway, or he felt his chances of getting elected were better.

Oh, please.  Being in disagreement with your own party doesn't make you a rational one.  This is what I found so annoying about "moderates": they seem to base their entire world view, and certainly the way they view themselves, on the fallacy of middle ground.

I can certainly see the appeal in adopting this world view; after all, there is no need to think critically.  All one needs to do is to bellyache about the extremists on both sides, and wish pox on both houses.  There is no need to evaluate the merits of the arguments, just pick a point in the middle and marvel at your exceptional rationality.

Yeah, right. You keep dumbing things down to "a pox on all houses", instead of doing, oh, thinking critically. We have problems in this country brought about by business as usual, no matter who is in power. Please, why don't you, instead, spare me.

[KRonn]

Most seem to want health care for all.

The Republicans do not want health care for all.

And cost containment = instantly demagogued by the right as death panels.

How the frig would you have any clue? You're part of the Kool aid drinking crowd that feels "your side" can do no wrong.

[Fate]

Most seem to want health care for all.

The Republicans do not want health care for all.

And cost containment = instantly demagogued by the right as death panels.

How the frig would you have any clue? You're part of the Kool aid drinking crowd that feels "your side" can do no wrong.

Are you by any chance a member of the teabagger movement?

[Fate]

I kind of wish that all Democrats who vote with Republicans on all the key issues just go ahead and switch now.  What's the point of being in the party when you're constantly voting against it?  The only thing they're doing is contributing to the perception that liberals are in solid control, when in fact they're not (especially not in the Senate).

Yeah, really. Let the rational ones change parties now, rather than suffer while remaining in place with government ideas they don't agree with. Spector did that, went Demotard, since he was already pretty in line with that anyway, or he felt his chances of getting elected were better.

Oh, please.  Being in disagreement with your own party doesn't make you a rational one.  This is what I found so annoying about "moderates": they seem to base their entire world view, and certainly the way they view themselves, on the fallacy of middle ground.

I can certainly see the appeal in adopting this world view; after all, there is no need to think critically.  All one needs to do is to bellyache about the extremists on both sides, and wish pox on both houses.  There is no need to evaluate the merits of the arguments, just pick a point in the middle and marvel at your exceptional rationality.

Yeah, right. You keep dumbing things down to "a pox on all houses", instead of doing, oh, thinking critically. We have problems in this country brought about by business as usual, no matter who is in power. Please, why don't you, instead, spare me.

We have problems in this country brought on by Republicans and the useful idiots like you who continue to vote for them.

[MadImmortalMan]

There are methods of controlling costs other than rationing/triage or whatever.

Does this involve supply side economics or magic?

Limiting liabilities, consumer cost control/"patient shopping", even the medicare method of setting limits on procedure costs seems to be a pretty effective way of doing it. I'm no expert though. Changes in regulatory requirements could have a pretty big effect on costs too. None of that stuff is either supply-side or magic. Maybe HSA's could be called supply-side, though it definitely doesn't qualify as laissez-faire.

[KRonn]

So, I guess that most of you are happy with the Democratic Party stewardship so far.

Carry on then.

I see serious problems looming with the massive spending, deficits getting higher and higher. Senate raised debt ceiling to 12.4 trillion, another 290 billion to get us through two months. This admin has spent more in less than a year than all other admins before it? All pretty scary, and no end in sight. I'm wary how this will impact the average person, family, businesses and economy in the near future.  Even Pres Obama has expressed serious concerns over huge deficits.

[Admiral Yi]

Limiting liabilities, consumer cost control/"patient shopping", even the medicare method of setting limits on procedure costs seems to be a pretty effective way of doing it. I'm no expert though. Changes in regulatory requirements could have a pretty big effect on costs too. None of that stuff is either supply-side or magic. Maybe HSA's could be called supply-side, though it definitely doesn't qualify as laissez-faire.

Tort reform is supply side.

[Fate]

There are methods of controlling costs other than rationing/triage or whatever.

Does this involve supply side economics or magic?

Limiting liabilities, consumer cost control/"patient shopping", even the medicare method of setting limits on procedure costs seems to be a pretty effective way of doing it. I'm no expert though. Changes in regulatory requirements could have a pretty big effect on costs too. None of that stuff is either supply-side or magic. Maybe HSA's could be called supply-side, though it definitely doesn't qualify as laissez-faire.

I do not understand how "setting limits on procedure costs" results in anything less than death panels if reimbursements are coming in at below market cost.

Why hasn't limiting liabilities in Texas resulted in lower malpractice insurance rates? Here the insurance companies simply pocketed the profits from lower claims.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, Obama is in trouble for not being left enough for his base! And that's supposed to make me feel good? It does, but only to a point since his base is so left. He's in trouble for actually wanting to try for success in Afghanistan, sheesh.

Well the left's unhappy with him on healthcare and Afghanistan.  They're also unhappy about what I think is the only position where he's taken a significantly different stance than when he campaigned: homeland security/civil liberties.

Pushing at first for single payer health care

Isn't it problematic when your definition of hard-left includes the entire Democrat party to the left of Ben Nelson and Max Baucus?

Union Card check (removing secret ballots. So heavily in bed with Unions, SEIU and Andy Stern a frequent visitor to the White House.

I don't know much about unions in the US so I'll give you this.  But what Democrat isn't in bed with the unions?

Managed to try and trash the Chamber of Commerce for daring to disagree (Remember Dems used to say that dissent was the highest form of Patriotism)

Have you any details of this?

leaving them and other small business orgs out of job summit talks.  But Stern and other toadies were there.

Summits mean nothing.  Who are the toadies you're thinking of?

Spendulus bill gave so much to government spending but about zilch for small business, which actually employ the vast majority of workers.

Well stimulus is, by definition, government spending.  A tax cut without concurrent spending cuts is government spending.  As I've said before the vast, vast majority of the stimulus has been spent on a tax cut and plugging the holes in state budgets.  There's nothing for small businesses in the same way that there's nothing for large businesses.  The way any government spending works is that everything that's being spent for, for example, decommissioning that nuclear site in South Carolina will be done through contractors.

Could it have been done more elegantly?  Of course, if you were ruled by economist philosopher kings.  However, as Rumsfeld put it, freedom's messy.  I think, however, that it was overwhelmingly worth it and economic research companies who make their money by selling projections and forecasts all say that the stimulus has helped ease unemployment and help growth by not insignificant amounts.

I keep saying the both parties are issues, so I'm not about to say the Dems are the main or only problem. We have problems with the way our Congress does its business, and more and more Americans are a lot more in tune with how things happen, and not very happy about it.

To be honest I think it sounds like you think the Democrats have more issues.  In which case I think you should say they've got the main problems and we can have an honest debate about it.  I think the fig-leaf of condemning both parties is almost more of a problem, because saying 'they're all shit/corrupt/wrong' basically condemns the entire political system.  Saying 'those guys are wrong on this and that and here's why' is something that can be debated and in a wider political context it's something that can be addressed. 

The sense I have is that you want to have a go at the Dems more - so do.

I see serious problems looming with the massive spending, deficits getting higher and higher. Senate raised debt ceiling to 12.4 trillion, another 290 billion to get us through two months. This admin has spent more in less than a year than all other admins before it? All pretty scary, and no end in sight. I'm wary how this will impact the average person, family, businesses and economy in the near future.  Even Pres Obama has expressed serious concerns over huge deficits.

The deficits are a worry, of course.  But they need context - these deficits are after what is, in the UK at least, the most serious recession since the 1930s. 

Stimulus and Obama's budget (the increases, odd tax cut and so on) represents about 10% of the deficit.  The overwhelming majority of it comes from TARP, from bailing out banks and from the fiscal effect of a recession. 

The loss of tax receipts and the increase of food stamp programmes and unemployment costs (all inevitable in a recession) was almost double the size of the stimulus.  Most of the deficit spending from 2008 through 2009 was actually taking over companies or TARP.  Now it doesn't matter that that wasn't ideal and that was unfortunate but I think almost everyone would agree that it was actually the right thing to do.  It's unpleasant us all owning AIG, but it's better than the recession we'd currently be enduring after financial sector wipeout had the government not got involved.

[Sheilbh]

Limiting liabilities, consumer cost control/"patient shopping", even the medicare method of setting limits on procedure costs seems to be a pretty effective way of doing it. I'm no expert though. Changes in regulatory requirements could have a pretty big effect on costs too. None of that stuff is either supply-side or magic. Maybe HSA's could be called supply-side, though it definitely doesn't qualify as laissez-faire.

This article on the cost-control stuff in the bill is interesting:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/a_milestone_in_the_health_care_journey.php

One thing which I don't know if it mentions but which I've seen hyped elsewhere is that there's some legal requirement for price transparency on the part of the insurance companies.

[Admiral Yi]

Stimulus and Obama's budget (the increases, odd tax cut and so on) represents about 10% of the deficit.  The overwhelming majority of it comes from TARP, from bailing out banks and from the fiscal effect of a recession. 

I think you mean national debt, not deficit.  I also think you're a little confused on the relative magnitudes of stimulus and TARP.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, right. You keep dumbing things down to "a pox on all houses", instead of doing, oh, thinking critically. We have problems in this country brought about by business as usual, no matter who is in power. Please, why don't you, instead, spare me.

No, he has a point.  Complaining about extremists on both sides is at best lazy at worst showing incredible susceptibility to demagoguery.  Demagogues do best when paint their opponents in a bad light.  Seeing everyone in a bad light does mean you are some kind of enlightened cynic.  It means you are believe the demagogues of both sides to the degree that it has sapped you into inaction.

[Razgovory]

Who is this Stern guy?  This sounds like an issue that get makes waves on talk radio but doesn't exist in the real world.

[Neil]

Maybe if the Democrats did less whining about death panels and that sort of nonsense, more would get done.