Anyone else watch his speech tonight? I only caught the tail end, which seemed pretty weak, and mostly a rehash of his earlier speeches. As i said, though, I only came in at the end. What says Languish?
Here's an early summary:
QuotePresident Obama on Wednesday backed a health insurance mandate, saying Americans should be required to get health insurance just as they are required to get auto insurance.
Obama opposed the idea during the presidential campaign, but offered his public support as he laid out new details of his plan in a bid to jump-start the debate.
"Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part," the president said.
Obama also urged Congress to stop "bickering" over health care reform and get to work fixing a system that is at its "breaking point." Declaring it is "time to deliver," the president said he is "determined" to break the gridlock and forge a deal on health care reform that has been decades in the making.
The president spoke during a rare address to a joint session of Congress, a day after lawmakers returned from a rocky summer recess during which constituents flooded town hall meetings to voice their concerns about the bills on the table.
In the face of public discontent, sagging poll numbers and stiff Republican opposition, Obama is trying to invigorate the push for reform -- even as he feels resistance from some members of his own party.
"The time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action," Obama said. "Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together ... Now is the time to deliver on health care."
Obama is stressing his resolve to bring lawmakers together and clear away hurdles to passing an overhaul package.
"I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last," Obama said.
But striking a combative tone, Obama took a firm stance against those he claims are stonewalling the process for political reasons.
"We've seen Washington at its best and at its worst. We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform," Obama said. "But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise."
I have avoided Presidential speeches* like the plague since as long as I can remember (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama), and I see no reason to change this policy.
*Well, political speeches generally.
"Jobs, education, healthcare, defense..."
*snore*
I saw a good portion of it, but when he started repeating himself in different language I turned it off.
I clicked through it. I lasted about one sentence because Congressional tourettes kicked in and they all started ovating :bleeding:
Sorry, I was busy watching SYTYCD.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 08:14:10 PM
Sorry, I was busy watching SYTYCD.
It saddens me that I can figure out what that stands for.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2009, 08:13:51 PM
I clicked through it. I lasted about one sentence because Congressional tourettes kicked in and they all started ovating :bleeding:
I read this as ovulating the first time through. :lol:
Quote from: Kleves on September 09, 2009, 08:16:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 08:14:10 PM
Sorry, I was busy watching SYTYCD.
It saddens me that I can figure out what that stands for.
Meh, they run ads frequently enough. More sad that Grey Fox watches it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2009, 08:18:43 PM
Quote from: Kleves on September 09, 2009, 08:16:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 08:14:10 PM
Sorry, I was busy watching SYTYCD.
It saddens me that I can figure out what that stands for.
Meh, they run ads frequently enough. More sad that Grey Fox watches it.
Is that like Strictly Come Dancing? If so I'll defend GF to the grave. A great show :wub:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2009, 08:20:55 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2009, 08:18:43 PM
Quote from: Kleves on September 09, 2009, 08:16:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 08:14:10 PM
Sorry, I was busy watching SYTYCD.
It saddens me that I can figure out what that stands for.
Meh, they run ads frequently enough. More sad that Grey Fox watches it.
Is that like Strictly Come Dancing? If so I'll defend GF to the grave. A great show :wub:
What the hell is that?
I dind't watch. I don't have cable and decided that watching old MST3k shorts on youtube would be more enlightening than listening to a rambling politician.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 09, 2009, 08:22:27 PM
What the hell is that?
There used to be a BBC show called Come Dancing, which was like a ballroom dancing contest for amateurs. Strictly Come Dancing is like it renovated. So instead of amateurs, minor celebrities who are paired with a professional dancer who choreographs and trains. They add some wonderfully surreal judges and a public vote and hit TV gold :wub: :mmm:
Barry's best speech since the 2004 convention, IMHO.
But short on specifics. Stupid red meat throw to the GOP on malpractice reform, which is a real problem like fucking elven cobblers eliminating the call for fine footwear.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2009, 08:20:55 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2009, 08:18:43 PM
Quote from: Kleves on September 09, 2009, 08:16:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 08:14:10 PM
Sorry, I was busy watching SYTYCD.
It saddens me that I can figure out what that stands for.
Meh, they run ads frequently enough. More sad that Grey Fox watches it.
Is that like Strictly Come Dancing? If so I'll defend GF to the grave. A great show :wub:
More like original Come Dancing but with all genres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You_Think_You_Can_Dance_(disambiguation)
Quote from: Kleves on September 09, 2009, 08:07:11 PM
Anyone else watch his speech tonight? I only caught the tail end, which seemed pretty weak, and mostly a rehash of his earlier speeches. As i said, though, I only came in at the end. What says Languish?
Here's an early summary:
I already voted for him, I don't have to listen anymore.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2009, 08:20:55 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2009, 08:18:43 PM
Quote from: Kleves on September 09, 2009, 08:16:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 08:14:10 PM
Sorry, I was busy watching SYTYCD.
It saddens me that I can figure out what that stands for.
Meh, they run ads frequently enough. More sad that Grey Fox watches it.
Is that like Strictly Come Dancing? If so I'll defend GF to the grave. A great show :wub:
Lol, strictly come.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2009, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2009, 08:20:55 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2009, 08:18:43 PM
Quote from: Kleves on September 09, 2009, 08:16:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 08:14:10 PM
Sorry, I was busy watching SYTYCD.
It saddens me that I can figure out what that stands for.
Meh, they run ads frequently enough. More sad that Grey Fox watches it.
Is that like Strictly Come Dancing? If so I'll defend GF to the grave. A great show :wub:
Lol, strictly come.
Yes. More likely strictly cum when the time for auditioning comes up.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2009, 08:25:00 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 09, 2009, 08:22:27 PM
What the hell is that?
There used to be a BBC show called Come Dancing, which was like a ballroom dancing contest for amateurs. Strictly Come Dancing is like it renovated. So instead of amateurs, minor celebrities who are paired with a professional dancer who choreographs and trains. They add some wonderfully surreal judges and a public vote and hit TV gold :wub: :mmm:
I've never seen it, but my impression is it's more like American Idol with dancing. What you're describing is similar to the American show Dancing with the Stars, which I do occasionally catch a couple minutes of.
Sorry, I was too busy annihilating Burgundy with the French in EU3 to pay attention to his speech.
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2009, 08:53:53 PM
Sorry, I was too busy annihilating Burgundy with the French in EU3 to pay attention to his speech.
Obama's map sucks.
Someone shouted "LIES!!!" in the middle of his speech and the look on Nancy's face was priceless. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2009, 08:53:53 PM
Sorry, I was too busy annihilating Burgundy with the French in EU3 to pay attention to his speech.
Why would anyone ever play France in EU3? They've got such a huge advantage how can it be fun?
Once I build modern France I usually get bored and quit.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 08:14:10 PM
Sorry, I was busy watching SYTYCD.
The one thing more wretched than a presidential speech, and yet Grey Fox manages to find it.
Why are you such a jerk?
I grew up on Languish.org.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 09:21:31 PM
I grew up on Languish.org.
Most of Languish would look on reality show like that with contempt.
He's in his rebellious years: his mid-twenties.
:lol:
Obama talks a lot.
YOU LIE!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia3.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2F090909-wilson-vmed-627p.widec.jpg&hash=9b87eeb4e334aa96cad5f6f8bb6efafd23305adb)
Quote Wilson calls W.H., apologizes to Rahm
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) apologized Wednesday night to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for shouting "You lie!" during President Obama's healthcare speech before a joint session of Congress.
Emanuel accepted Wilson's apology on behalf of the president, according to a Democratic source familiar with the call.
In addition to his phone call to Emanuel, Wilson also issued a statement separately, calling his comments "inappropriate and regrettable."
The Republican's outburst came after Obama, in laying out his views on healthcare, said: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
"You lie!" Wilson shouted, pointing his finger at the rostrum. His statement prompted President Obama to quietly say, "It's not true" and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to glare at the Republican side of the chamber.
The moment, captured by a telling photograph, prompted embarrassment among Republicans.
"Totally disrespectful, no place for it in that setting or any other and he should apologize immediately," McCain said on CNN's "Larry King Live."
Meanwhile, Democrats sought to use that moment, with many contributing money to Wilson's 2010 Democratic congressional opponent.
"This evening I let my emotions get the best of me," Wilson said in his statement. "While I disagree with the president's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility."
As of 11:30 PM, his House website had crashed and it only read: This site is down for maintenance. Please check back again soon
Well that was classy.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 08:37:19 PM
More like original Come Dancing but with all genres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You_Think_You_Can_Dance_(disambiguation)
Now I understand why you shave your armpits
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2009, 02:12:32 AM
Well that was classy.
No shit. When was the last time someone had an outburst like that on the Congressional floor during a Presidential address? The Depression?
What do you expect? He's from South Carolina.
Even the usually reliably pro-Obamateur AP couldn't swallow this crap, though they're still being charitable:
QuoteFACT CHECK: Obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge
By CALVIN WOODWARD and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writers Calvin Woodward And Erica Werner, Associated Press Writers
Thu Sep 10, 3:15 am ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama used only-in-Washington accounting Wednesday when he promised to overhaul the nation's health care system without adding "one dime" to the deficit. By conventional arithmetic, Democratic plans would drive up the deficit by billions of dollars.
The president's speech to Congress contained a variety of oversimplifications and omissions in laying out what he wants to do about health insurance.
A look at some of Obama's claims and how they square with the facts or the fuller story:
___
OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."
THE FACTS: Though there's no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.
House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill actually was deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.
Their reasoning was that they already had decided to exempt this "doc fix" from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for.
The administration also said that since Obama already had included the doctor payment in his 10-year budget proposal, it didn't have to be counted again.
That aside, the long-term prognosis for costs of the health care legislation has not been good.
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf had this to say in July: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
___
OBAMA: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."
THE FACTS: That's correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they'd be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.
In the past Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." Now he's stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan "requires" any change.
___
OBAMA: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized.
THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn't get tax subsidies to help them. Still, Republicans say there are not sufficient citizenship verification requirements to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded from benefits they are not due.
___
OBAMA: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. ... That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."
THE FACTS: Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies.
Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage.
Supporters contend that providers could absorb the cuts by improving how they operate and wouldn't have to reduce benefits or pass along costs. But there's certainly no guarantee they wouldn't.
___
OBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies "makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."
THE FACTS: Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it. That's because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they're relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing.
The Congressional Budget Office wrote in August: "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall."
That doesn't mean preventive care doesn't make sense or save lives. It just doesn't save money.
___
OBAMA: "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage."
THE FACTS: It's not just a matter of being able to get coverage. Most people would have to get coverage under the law, if his plan is adopted.
In his speech, Obama endorsed mandatory coverage for individuals, an approach he did not embrace as a candidate.
He proposed during the campaign — as he does now — that larger businesses be required to offer insurance to workers or else pay into a fund. But he rejected the idea of requiring individuals to obtain insurance. He said people would get insurance without being forced to do so by the law, if coverage were made affordable. And he repeatedly criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage.
"To force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh penalty," he said in a February 2008 debate.
Now, he says, "individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."
He proposes a hardship waiver, exempting from the requirement those who cannot afford coverage despite increased federal aid.
___
OBAMA: "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."
THE FACTS: Obama time and again has referred to the number of uninsured as 46 million, a figure based on year-old Census data. The new number is based on an analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which concluded that about two-thirds of Americans without insurance are poor or near poor. "These individuals are less likely to be offered employer-sponsored coverage or to be able to afford to purchase their own coverage," the report said. By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance.
Quote from: Scipio on September 10, 2009, 06:23:51 AM
What do you expect? He's from South Carolina.
They are a rowdy bunch. Jackson had the right idea how to deal with that.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2009, 02:12:32 AM
Well that was classy.
I'm amazed your post only had one sentence and lacked a second one to the effect of "All Republicans are this way" or something. Are you becoming less: narrow minded? :)
Quote from: Caliga on September 10, 2009, 07:01:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2009, 02:12:32 AM
Well that was classy.
I'm amazed your post only had one sentence and lacked a second one to the effect of "All Republicans are this way" or something. Are you becoming less: narrow minded? :)
No. If I know the truth what good would it be to er on the side of falsehood?
Heard on NPR that a few Blue Dogs (Ben Nelson is the name I remember) have said they will vote against any bill that doesn't have at least "some Republican support."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2009, 07:13:05 AM
Heard on NPR that a few Blue Dogs (Ben Nelson is the name I remember) have said they will vote against any bill that doesn't have at least "some Republican support."
The blue dogs are really a positive political force. They are one of the main reasons I have hope the government can eventually come up with some decent reforms to the medical system.
I listened to some of Obama's speech. Speeches are alright and he delivered a fine one but, you know, until we have a bill to debate there is really not much else to talk about.
Was i listening? no. I was having my knobs polished.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 10, 2009, 07:55:27 AM
Was i listening? no. I was having my knobs polished.
Good. Having tarnished knobs can ruin even the finest of doors.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 07:49:45 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2009, 07:13:05 AM
Heard on NPR that a few Blue Dogs (Ben Nelson is the name I remember) have said they will vote against any bill that doesn't have at least "some Republican support."
The blue dogs are really a positive political force. They are one of the main reasons I have hope the government can eventually come up with some decent reforms to the medical system.
Yep, the Blue Dogs are keeping the Democrats from going too far to the left on so many issues, keeping the party sane and trying to stave off the slide into political defeat at the next polls, like the Dems and Repubs have both suffered for their hubris before.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 08:01:03 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 10, 2009, 07:55:27 AM
Was i listening? no. I was having my knobs polished.
Good. Having tarnished knobs can ruin even the finest of doors.
Wait, we are talking about doors now?
Quote from: KRonn on September 10, 2009, 08:03:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 07:49:45 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2009, 07:13:05 AM
Heard on NPR that a few Blue Dogs (Ben Nelson is the name I remember) have said they will vote against any bill that doesn't have at least "some Republican support."
The blue dogs are really a positive political force. They are one of the main reasons I have hope the government can eventually come up with some decent reforms to the medical system.
Yep, the Blue Dogs are keeping the Democrats from going too far to the left on so many issues, keeping the party sane and trying to stave off the slide into political defeat at the next polls, like the Dems and Repubs have both suffered for their hubris before.
Like civil rights. When the Blue dogs left look what happened!
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 07:49:45 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2009, 07:13:05 AM
Heard on NPR that a few Blue Dogs (Ben Nelson is the name I remember) have said they will vote against any bill that doesn't have at least "some Republican support."
The blue dogs are really a positive political force. They are one of the main reasons I have hope the government can eventually come up with some decent reforms to the medical system.
I listened to some of Obama's speech. Speeches are alright and he delivered a fine one but, you know, until we have a bill to debate there is really not much else to talk about.
Well it appears the GOP are going to say no to any bill regardless of how much the President might negotiate so he's stuck with a catch 22 for Blue Dog support. How do you get the Blue Dogs to sign on if the GOP won't support it under any circumstances?
From the little bits I am picking up about the American health care debate it appears the quality of the discussion has been reduced to the level of saying Obama is worse then hitler. Doesnt surprise me that some idiot would get lost in his own rhetoric and call the President a liar during his speech.
Quote from: Vince on September 10, 2009, 08:12:59 AM
Well it appears the GOP are going to say no to any bill regardless of how much the President might negotiate so he's stuck with a catch 22 for Blue Dog support. How do you get the Blue Dogs to sign on if the GOP won't support it under any circumstances?
The GOP is not some monolithic bloc that will all vote en masse. They have their moderates who are reasonable as well.
The entire thing is a waste of time though, since none of the health care "reform" actually addresses what is broken about health care in the US. If anything, it is going to make it worse.
Quote from: Vince on September 10, 2009, 08:12:59 AM
Well it appears the GOP are going to say no to any bill regardless of how much the President might negotiate so he's stuck with a catch 22 for Blue Dog support. How do you get the Blue Dogs to sign on if the GOP won't support it under any circumstances?
Surely some of them will. I mean Obama could just start copying and pasting Ronald Reagan's policies and the nutters of the GOP would still oppose him just because but surely there are a few who can be negotiated with.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2009, 08:12:41 AM
Like civil rights. When the Blue dogs left look what happened!
Woah a leftist blaming moderate Democrats for segregation! Shocking.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:17:02 AM
Quote from: Vince on September 10, 2009, 08:12:59 AM
Well it appears the GOP are going to say no to any bill regardless of how much the President might negotiate so he's stuck with a catch 22 for Blue Dog support. How do you get the Blue Dogs to sign on if the GOP won't support it under any circumstances?
The GOP is not some monolithic bloc that will all vote en masse. They have their moderates who are reasonable as well.
The entire thing is a waste of time though, since none of the health care "reform" actually addresses what is broken about health care in the US. If anything, it is going to make it worse.
:yes:
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:17:02 AM
The entire thing is a waste of time though, since none of the health care "reform" actually addresses what is broken about health care in the US. If anything, it is going to make it worse.
What would actually address the problems? I think we need some sort of force to drive prices down and create some sort of competition, I kind of liked the idea of putting small businesses and individuals to broker collectively.
Also worrying about damaging an already incredibly horrible system doesn't really bring up that much fear for me. There may be a risk of making shit stinkier but it was already shit.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 08:18:25 AM
Quote from: Vince on September 10, 2009, 08:12:59 AM
Well it appears the GOP are going to say no to any bill regardless of how much the President might negotiate so he's stuck with a catch 22 for Blue Dog support. How do you get the Blue Dogs to sign on if the GOP won't support it under any circumstances?
Surely some of them will. I mean Obama could just start copying and pasting Ronald Reagan's policies and the nutters of the GOP would still oppose him just because but surely there are a few who can be negotiated with.
Snowe could probably vote in favor but I'm not sure who else would.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 08:16:36 AM
From the little bits I am picking up about the American health care debate it appears the quality of the discussion has been reduced to the level of saying Obama is worse then hitler.
:rolleyes:
Only 1936 Hitler.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 08:21:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:17:02 AM
The entire thing is a waste of time though, since none of the health care "reform" actually addresses what is broken about health care in the US. If anything, it is going to make it worse.
What would actually address the problems? I think we need some sort of force to drive prices down and create some sort of competition, I kind of liked the idea of putting small businesses and individuals to broker collectively.
Also worrying about damaging an already incredibly horrible system doesn't really bring up that much fear for me. There may be a risk of making shit stinkier but it was already shit.
It is not "incredibly horrible" at all in fact, it is just ridiculously expensive.
The basic problem is one any basic economist can point out - they is no market force driving down costs or rewarding efficiency. The only market force is to drive billing up forever, and this will continue no matter what "plan" is put in place to cover more and more poor people with insanely expensive "insurance".
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:25:48 AM
The basic problem is one any basic economist can point out - they is no market force driving down costs or rewarding efficiency. The only market force is to drive billing up forever, and this will continue no matter what "plan" is put in place to cover more and more poor people with insanely expensive "insurance".
Is there a solution to this problem?
QuoteIt is not "incredibly horrible" at all in fact, it is just ridiculously expensive
Bad service for high prices with tons of overhead sounds pretty horrible to me but I am not sure what service you are comparing it to.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2009, 08:12:41 AM
Like civil rights. When the Blue dogs left look what happened!
Woah a leftist blaming moderate Democrats for segregation! Shocking.
They used to be called Dixiecrats. So don't get to close to them.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 08:28:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:25:48 AM
The basic problem is one any basic economist can point out - they is no market force driving down costs or rewarding efficiency. The only market force is to drive billing up forever, and this will continue no matter what "plan" is put in place to cover more and more poor people with insanely expensive "insurance".
Is there a solution to this problem?
QuoteIt is not "incredibly horrible" at all in fact, it is just ridiculously expensive
Bad service for high prices with tons of overhead sounds pretty horrible to me but I am not sure what service you are comparing it to.
It's not easy but there are a lot of good ideas out there, by Dems, Repubs and others. Just not many of those in the bill perhaps, at least not the original bill which was more about govt take over than addressing many of the real health care problems.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2009, 08:29:10 AM
They used to be called Dixiecrats. So don't get to close to them.
Um...there are Blue Dogs from every region of the country.
Quote from: KRonn on September 10, 2009, 08:30:46 AM
It's not easy but there are a lot of good ideas out there, by Dems, Repubs and others. Just not many of those in the bill perhaps, at least not the original bill which was more about govt take over than addressing many of the real health care problems.
I have some confidence that a simple government take over will not be what end up with thanks to the opposition. Any reform that increases the public cost is simply not feasible or realistic. The Federal Government already pays way too much for health care.
Bush already played the 'huge unfunded government health program' game and those toys are played out.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 08:28:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:25:48 AM
The basic problem is one any basic economist can point out - they is no market force driving down costs or rewarding efficiency. The only market force is to drive billing up forever, and this will continue no matter what "plan" is put in place to cover more and more poor people with insanely expensive "insurance".
Is there a solution to this problem?
Of course there is - quit removing the buying decisions from the person getting the service, and force healthcare providers to compete on cost and quality like every other business in the entire world.
Quote
QuoteIt is not "incredibly horrible" at all in fact, it is just ridiculously expensive
Bad service for high prices with tons of overhead sounds pretty horrible to me but I am not sure what service you are comparing it to.
It isn't bad service at all -the US has some of the very best healthcare available anywhere in the world.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 08:28:03 AM
Is there a solution to this problem?
Outsource it overseas.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:34:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 08:28:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:25:48 AM
The basic problem is one any basic economist can point out - they is no market force driving down costs or rewarding efficiency. The only market force is to drive billing up forever, and this will continue no matter what "plan" is put in place to cover more and more poor people with insanely expensive "insurance".
Is there a solution to this problem?
Of course there is - quit removing the buying decisions from the person getting the service, and force healthcare providers to compete on cost and quality like every other business in the entire world.
Quote
QuoteIt is not "incredibly horrible" at all in fact, it is just ridiculously expensive
Bad service for high prices with tons of overhead sounds pretty horrible to me but I am not sure what service you are comparing it to.
It isn't bad service at all -the US has some of the very best healthcare available anywhere in the world.
Top half at least.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 09, 2009, 08:42:50 PM
I've never seen it, but my impression is it's more like American Idol with dancing. What you're describing is similar to the American show Dancing with the Stars, which I do occasionally catch a couple minutes of.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2008/sep/29/strictly.come.dancing.stars (http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2008/sep/29/strictly.come.dancing.stars)
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:34:00 AM
It isn't bad service at all -the US has some of the very best healthcare available anywhere in the world.
Rescission sucks, shifting doctors every year sucks, having the percentage covered decrease every year sucks, etc. I'm sure it's still better than Mexico, but from everything I've read I'd rather take my chances with the Canadian, British, or French systems.
Quote from: ulmont on September 10, 2009, 08:39:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:34:00 AM
It isn't bad service at all -the US has some of the very best healthcare available anywhere in the world.
Rescission sucks, shifting doctors every year sucks, having the percentage covered decrease every year sucks, etc. I'm sure it's still better than Mexico, but from everything I've read I'd rather take my chances with the Canadian, British, or French systems.
I've had the same doctor for the last..decade? Something like that. My coverage has not decreased, although the costs have certainly risen dramatically - but that is kind of my point.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:34:00 AM
Of course there is - quit removing the buying decisions from the person getting the service, and force healthcare providers to compete on cost and quality like every other business in the entire world.
Except that is not what drives business in the entire world usually is advertising. Health care works the same way, they advertise some drug and then everybody buys it. Unless you think McDonalds really provides the best food for the best price in the world.
It is even worse in health care becuase the product is incredibly complex and contains costs even a genius would have a hard time explaining.
But even if people could somehow be expected to have the extensive medical knowledge necessary to really know who is providing the best care for the best cost how practically and politically could we reform the system to ensure that happens?
QuoteIt isn't bad service at all -the US has some of the very best healthcare available anywhere in the world.
I am sure it has some of the best, but it also has alot of the worst.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 08:42:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:34:00 AM
Of course there is - quit removing the buying decisions from the person getting the service, and force healthcare providers to compete on cost and quality like every other business in the entire world.
Except that is not what drives business in the entire world usually is advertising. Health care works the same way, they advertise some drug and then everybody buys it. Unless you think McDonalds really provides the best food for the best price in the world.
McDonalds provides a desirable product at a competitive price, and the market for fast food is incredibly competitive, which results in very inexpensive food, generally excellent service, and very high "quality" product (albeit terribly unhealthy - I am defining quality by it level of desireability).
Quote
It is even worse in health care becuase the product is incredibly complex and contains costs even a genius would have a hard time explaining.
BS. The product is no more complex than air travel. I cannot explain how an airplane flies, or design my own, but I can certainly price shop for the best service and cost for a airplane trip. Can I do that for my health care? Not at all - in fact, I don't even know what a routine test costs.
I don't need to know anyhing to know about how MRIs work to make an informed decision about which one I want to purchase, if in fact I was allowed to make such a decision.
Quote
But even if people could somehow be expected to have the extensive medical knowledge necessary to really know who is providing the best care for the best cost how practically and politically could we reform the system to ensure that happens?
I don't know - the healthcare industry is very entrenched, and the hysteria over health care is so insane in this country with the insistence that it is some kind of inalienable right to have a HMO, that it probably isn't going to be fixed.
And it is easy to figure out who provides the best care at the best cost - at least, it isn't impossible. Lots of ways to measure, like previous outcomes, professional evaluations, etc., etc. Health care is not special or magically different from every other service in the world.
Hell, you don't see anyone saying we can't possibly let people shop for lawyers services, because it is just too complicated for people to possibly understand.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 09:09:04 AM
McDonalds provides a desirable product at a competitive price, and the market for fast food is incredibly competitive, which results in very inexpensive food, generally excellent service, and very high "quality" product (albeit terribly unhealthy - I am defining quality by it level of desireability).
BS. The product is no more complex than air travel. I cannot explain how an airplane flies, or design my own, but I can certainly price shop for the best service and cost for a airplane trip. Can I do that for my health care? Not at all - in fact, I don't even know what a routine test costs.
I don't need to know anyhing to know about how MRIs work to make an informed decision about which one I want to purchase, if in fact I was allowed to make such a decision.
Because you understand the goal of air travel pretty clearly: you want to get to point B. But how would you know an MRI is even the best thing to do here? How many people exactly know what an MRI is and what exactly it is supposed to do? You just have to trust the doctor has your best interests at heart when making recomendations...and then there is the issue today where you do not even get told how much whatever service you are using costs much of time. But that is more related to your main point than this one.
QuoteI don't know - the healthcare industry is very entrenched, and the hysteria over health care is so insane in this country with the insistence that it is some kind of inalienable right to have a HMO, that it probably isn't going to be fixed.
And it is easy to figure out who provides the best care at the best cost - at least, it isn't impossible. Lots of ways to measure, like previous outcomes, professional evaluations, etc., etc. Health care is not special or magically different from every other service in the world.
Hell, you don't see anyone saying we can't possibly let people shop for lawyers services, because it is just too complicated for people to possibly understand.
Yes so my point here is that incremental change and reform to take the system in another direction is probably desireable. At least in the short term I would like to see the system reformed to encourage people to take the plunge into self-employment and so forth and not avoid it because of the ridiculous health care costs...it may not remove the disparaty between them and corporate drones but it may help.
As for the second part I never said it was impossible just very difficult. You really have to be assertive and not trust what the medical people are telling you and be very well informed on your medical condition to get good service in my experience. That is alot to ask from the everyday consumer but you clearly feel differently and in fact feel somehow insulted I even bring that up so I think we should just end that conversation. I never ever said we should not let people shop around btw, I think most people want a system where people can pick their own doctors.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:25:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 08:21:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:17:02 AM
The entire thing is a waste of time though, since none of the health care "reform" actually addresses what is broken about health care in the US. If anything, it is going to make it worse.
What would actually address the problems? I think we need some sort of force to drive prices down and create some sort of competition, I kind of liked the idea of putting small businesses and individuals to broker collectively.
Also worrying about damaging an already incredibly horrible system doesn't really bring up that much fear for me. There may be a risk of making shit stinkier but it was already shit.
It is not "incredibly horrible" at all in fact, it is just ridiculously expensive.
The basic problem is one any basic economist can point out - they is no market force driving down costs or rewarding efficiency. The only market force is to drive billing up forever, and this will continue no matter what "plan" is put in place to cover more and more poor people with insanely expensive "insurance".
So legislate the price then.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2009, 08:34:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:34:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 08:28:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:25:48 AM
The basic problem is one any basic economist can point out - they is no market force driving down costs or rewarding efficiency. The only market force is to drive billing up forever, and this will continue no matter what "plan" is put in place to cover more and more poor people with insanely expensive "insurance".
Is there a solution to this problem?
Of course there is - quit removing the buying decisions from the person getting the service, and force healthcare providers to compete on cost and quality like every other business in the entire world.
Quote
QuoteIt is not "incredibly horrible" at all in fact, it is just ridiculously expensive
Bad service for high prices with tons of overhead sounds pretty horrible to me but I am not sure what service you are comparing it to.
It isn't bad service at all -the US has some of the very best healthcare available anywhere in the world.
Top half at least.
I've gotten top notch service with medicaid.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 06:32:29 AM
Even the usually reliably pro-Obamateur AP couldn't swallow this crap, though they're still being charitable:
No they aren't really. Let's grade the AP.
QuoteOBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."
THE FACTS: . . .
No dispute here - I agree with the AP writers that this is not a credible pledge.
QuoteOBAMA: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."
THE FACTS: That's correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they'd be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether.
So the short answer is that he is correct. The long answer also includes the idea that because obama - despite what hans may believe - is not in fact imposing a Marxist dictatorship - he will not be able to prevent individual employers from changing coverage. Which indeed is the same situation that exists now. As a practical matter, employers that currently offer plans that are no better than what the proposed "public option" would offer might very well just abandon their plan and pay their employees more money instead. I don't see the problem.
QuoteOBAMA: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized.
THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama.
hans did you actually read this stuff before posting. :D
QuoteOBAMA: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. ... That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."
THE FACTS: Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies.
Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage.
Supporters contend that providers could absorb the cuts by improving how they operate and wouldn't have to reduce benefits or pass along costs. But there's certainly no guarantee they wouldn't.
As AP admits, this is all speculative - it depends on how the new program is implemented and how the cuts are implemented. Obama is not saying the program itself guarantees no cuts, but that he personally he won't implement it in a way that results in benefit cuts. You can express whatever skepticism you want but there is no way to know until it happens.
QuoteOBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies "makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."
THE FACTS: Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it. That's because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they're relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing.
This is misleading - what the studies show is that preventative care doesn't result in decresed
medical spending. In order to conclude it doesn't "save money" overall, you have to further conclude that saving lives (or more accurately life-years or QALYs) has no economic value, which is very obviously wrong according to any known CBA methodology.
QuoteOBAMA: "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage."
THE FACTS: It's not just a matter of being able to get coverage. Most people would have to get coverage under the law, if his plan is adopted.
So Obama is telling the truth but not responding to some different concern the AP writers have.
QuoteOBAMA: "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."
THE FACTS: Obama time and again has referred to the number of uninsured as 46 million, a figure based on year-old Census data. The new number is based on an analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which concluded that about two-thirds of Americans without insurance are poor or near poor. "These individuals are less likely to be offered employer-sponsored coverage or to be able to afford to purchase their own coverage," the report said. By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance.
Again - bottom line is that Obamas speech was accurate and truthful and indeed quite conservative in its calculation.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 09:09:04 AM
BS. The product is no more complex than air travel. I cannot explain how an airplane flies, or design my own, but I can certainly price shop for the best service and cost for a airplane trip. Can I do that for my health care? Not at all - in fact, I don't even know what a routine test costs.
I don't need to know anyhing to know about how MRIs work to make an informed decision about which one I want to purchase, if in fact I was allowed to make such a decision.
Assume that airplane are prone to crash considerably more frequently than they do today. Assume further that it is theoretical possibly to determine with some accuracy (but far from total precision) the rough probability of a given plane crashing beforehand, and also that is possible to determine with some (but far less than 100%) accuracy the affect certain interventions on the probability of crash. But further assume that doing these calculatutions is very complex and requires expertise, and that all the people who have such expertise are employed by airline companies.
What you would get in free competition is competing claims about safety, but with consumers having no way to assess the validity of those claims. And because of the dire consequences of getting it wrong - there would be a tendency to be safe and get gold-plated service even if not really necessary.
QuoteHell, you don't see anyone saying we can't possibly let people shop for lawyers services, because it is just too complicated for people to possibly understand.
Lawyer advertising is strictly regulated in most states for that reason. it is definitely a problem in the professsion and some clients get ill-served as a consequence of their inability to accurately assess lawyer skill and honesty ex ante. Fortunately, this problem rarely results in death or serious bodily injury, just an exorbitant bill and poor case results.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 09:19:17 AM
You just have to trust the doctor has your best interests at heart when making recomendations...
That seems like a very foolish thing to do.
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2009, 12:41:54 PM
That seems like a very foolish thing to do.
Indeed which is why you need to have alot of expertise yourself in order to know whether or not you are getting good service for your money.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 12:43:20 PM
Indeed which is why you need to have alot of expertise yourself in order to know whether or not you are getting good service for your money.
Triple bid.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 10, 2009, 08:25:03 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 08:16:36 AM
From the little bits I am picking up about the American health care debate it appears the quality of the discussion has been reduced to the level of saying Obama is worse then hitler.
:rolleyes:
Only 1936 Hitler.
Not sure why you are rolling your eyes. The CBC ran a story yesterday in which they played tape of a person saying she opposed the health care reforms because the "death committees" proposed by Obama are worse then what hitler did. :P
I thought the level of debate in Canada was low. At least I have American experience to reassure myself that we are not the worst on the planet when it comes to political discussion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 12:45:59 PM
Not sure why you are rolling your eyes. The CBC ran a story yesterday in which they played tape of a person saying she opposed the health care reforms because the "death committees" proposed by Obama are worse then what hitler did. :P
I thought the level of debate in Canada was low. At least I have American experience to reassure myself that we are not the worst on the planet when it comes to political discussion.
We once called Presidents Monarchists, Dictators, and Soft on Communism...now we tend to label them all Worse Than Hitler. It makes me intrigued to see if we come up with something else in the future.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 12:20:11 PM
QuoteOBAMA: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized.
THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama.
hans did you actually read this stuff before posting. :D
As I understand it Illegals are barred from getting covered, however recipients aren't required to offer verification that they are legal residents. So in practice they will be getting covered.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 10, 2009, 12:53:30 PM
As I understand it Illegals are barred from getting covered, however recipients aren't required to offer verification that they are legal residents. So in practice they will be getting covered.
How can details like that be available before the final bill is even written?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 12:31:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 09:09:04 AM
BS. The product is no more complex than air travel. I cannot explain how an airplane flies, or design my own, but I can certainly price shop for the best service and cost for a airplane trip. Can I do that for my health care? Not at all - in fact, I don't even know what a routine test costs.
I don't need to know anyhing to know about how MRIs work to make an informed decision about which one I want to purchase, if in fact I was allowed to make such a decision.
Assume that airplane are prone to crash considerably more frequently than they do today. Assume further that it is theoretical possibly to determine with some accuracy (but far from total precision) the rough probability of a given plane crashing beforehand, and also that is possible to determine with some (but far less than 100%) accuracy the affect certain interventions on the probability of crash. But further assume that doing these calculatutions is very complex and requires expertise, and that all the people who have such expertise are employed by airline companies.
Why would I make all these assumptions?
Are you saying that the current system solves these problems somehow - that NOT being able to shop for services means that we somehow magically get the best possible service in all cases, from a price/quality ratio? Or even that we get decent service at a decent price? Or that we never get adverse results, like terrible service at a terrible price?
Why would I assume that all the people capable of making these evaluations work for the airline industry - certainly if in fact I was allowed to make decisions on health care based on cost and service, I could employ people to help me make those decisions who are not.
The point is that right now we have a system that hides all these things - not because we don't trust consumers to make good decisions (that is true for everything anyway - and making bad decisions costs people money all the time), but because the system we have is so fucked up when it comes to pricing health services that it is better for people to just be ignorant about what the myriad of tests they get costs,
at least from the perspective of the people charging for the services.
Quote
What you would get in free competition is competing claims about safety, but with consumers having no way to assess the validity of those claims. And because of the dire consequences of getting it wrong - there would be a tendency to be safe and get gold-plated service even if not really necessary.
QuoteHell, you don't see anyone saying we can't possibly let people shop for lawyers services, because it is just too complicated for people to possibly understand.
Lawyer advertising is strictly regulated in most states for that reason. it is definitely a problem in the professsion and some clients get ill-served as a consequence of their inability to accurately assess lawyer skill and honesty ex ante. Fortunately, this problem rarely results in death or serious bodily injury, just an exorbitant bill and poor case results.
No reason that medical advertising can be regulated as well. Saying that the pricing model used now is broken isn't an argument for some kind of uber libertarian no regulation alternative.
There is no getting around the facts here - health care costs in America have risen at rates that are simply not economically possible under any kind of basic free market system. The pricing is broken, and it is pretty obvious why - there are no pressures on prices to go anywhere but up.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 12:56:53 PM
How can details like that be available before the final bill is even written?
Tim knows things.
You know, anime things. He's probably wrong about the bill.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 12:50:14 PM
We once called Presidents Monarchists, Dictators, and Soft on Communism...now we tend to label them all Worse Than Hitler. It makes me intrigued to see if we come up with something else in the future.
"Why, politico X is so bad ... he's
worse than Obama!"
:P
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2009, 01:02:55 PM
"Why, politico X is so bad ... he's worse than Obama!"
:P
Now THAT would just be going too far. :angry:
Seriously though I think every President prior to WWI was portrayed as being a Monarchist at some point.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.archives.gov%2Fexhibits%2Ftreasures_of_congress%2FImages%2Fpage_9%2F30a.jpg&hash=37b4249fa5bcb25ec1c3895a9448dc04b35f80b3)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 10, 2009, 12:53:30 PM
As I understand it Illegals are barred from getting covered, however recipients aren't required to offer verification that they are legal residents. So in practice they will be getting covered.
As I understand it, the issue is that the Congressional dems fought back an attempt to impose specific verification systems - including SAVE - whose realiability and accuracy have been repeatedly questioned by the IGs and the GAO.
It is OK for the GOP to argue that even a flawed verification system is better than none (although those adversely affected may beg to differ).
What is not OK is to argue that a decision to reject a flawed verification system amounts to a positive grant of benefits. In fact, the proper way to describe that position would be "lie"
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 08:17:02 AM
The GOP is not some monolithic bloc that will all vote en masse. They have their moderates who are reasonable as well.
The problem politically is that two of the moderates who are negotiating with Blue Dogs, in the gang of six, have actually said that even if they got everything they wanted they wouldn't vote for the Bill if the GOP didn't. I think that's because the base is very angry and a number of them, such as Grassley, fear a primary challenge.
As an example Bob Bennett of Utah and Rob Wyden of Oregon worked together to produce a bill called the 'Healthy Americans Act'. Now it's more right-wing but it's the nearest thing to a genuine Republican plan that would achieve what the Democrats want: universal coverage. It's got a few GOP co-sponsors, though it's been suggested that many of them wouldn't actually vote for it and some left-wing Democrats wouldn't vote for it.
Anyway this is a genuine, moderate, bipartisan bill, albeit one with limited support. The problem is Bob Bennett's facing a primary challenge and his leading opponent the Attorney General of Utah has attacked it vociferously and has recently picked up support because the Club for Growth - a very mainstream Republican organisation - is running a campaign against Bennett for advocating a 'government takeover' of healthcare.
Now that's just untrue but I think it reflects a genuine anger in the base and threatens moderates. I don't know that most of the Republican party hasn't just decided that killing this bill is safer than being threatened as supporting 'a government takeover'. Now I think around 45% of Republicans in a recent poll believed in death panels. If you're facing a primary would you want to have voted for a bill, no matter how much you've actually negotiated and how much you've changed it, that leads to death panels.
Negotiations need two parties operating in good faith. I think the Gang of Six doesn't seem likely to work because one side has said they may not support a bill, even if they get everything they want. If you're a GOP Senator with an election coming up and you want to work on healthcare you may decide it's safer to just give it a miss rather than face the sort of attacks and distortions that, for example, Bennett's now facing.
Having said that I do think there are a few GOP Senators who could feel able to negotiate in good faith. Olympia Snowe is - she's the one who wants a trigger for a public option. I think the Senators from Maine could do it, maybe Orrin Hatch too, though I'm not sure about that.
This is the rough outline of Bennett-Wyden bill:
QuoteThe general premise of the Bennett-Wyden bill is that employers would get out of the business of choosing their health insurance plans. Instead, employers would give employees the amount they had previously paid for health insurance so they could choose whatever health insurance plan they wanted.
Insurers would not be allowed to preclude people from buying insurance based on pre-existing coverage. All insurance plans would be required to meet the same standards as the coverage for federal employees.
Employers who don't provide money for health insurance would be required to make payments to the government to help subsidize those who can't afford health insurance plans on their own.
Which a mainstream Republican group considers 'a government takeover'. There's also a proposal written by the Bipartisan Policy Center (http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/about) which is basically a draft bill. Again this isn't something Republicans have taken up as a decent end-result from potential negotiations.
To all that I'd add that I'm not entirely convinced Raz is wrong about the Blue Dog-Civil Rights thing. My understanding is that bipartisanship in the 20th century was largely a product of parties not actually being that coherent. They were made up of a number of different groups. Republicans had conservative Westerners and paternalist North-Easterners, while the Democrats had both Dixiecrats and white ethnic Northerners (this is very much a simplification). So what happened, most especially in the 60s with Civil Rights and the Great Society, was that votes were more often divided on geographical lines than party lines. I think with Bill Buckley and his renaissance of conservatism you see the start of the two parties becoming ideologically coherent groups, rather than trans-national coalitions. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I'm not sure, but I think that's the reason why bipartisanship has generally declined from the 1960s. There are less North-Eastern Republicans and less Southern Democrats.
It could be the first symptom of America becoming more parliamentary - which was something I worried about a lot in the Bush years. I hope it's not the case though.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 10, 2009, 02:52:24 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 09, 2009, 08:37:19 PM
More like original Come Dancing but with all genres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You_Think_You_Can_Dance_(disambiguation)
Now I understand why you shave your armpits
There is nothing wrong with that. :ultra:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 10, 2009, 03:50:22 PM
There is nothing wrong with that. :ultra:
Exactly. He shaves his armpits, not that there's anything wrong with that. :contract:
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 12:56:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 10, 2009, 12:53:30 PM
As I understand it Illegals are barred from getting covered, however recipients aren't required to offer verification that they are legal residents. So in practice they will be getting covered.
How can details like that be available before the final bill is even written?
This is all based on the House bill, which Obama has already endorsed. Of course, Obama doesn't actually have a plan, just platitudes and wishful thinking. Just as with the Stimulus and Cap-and-Trade he will endorse whatever the final product is no matter if it doesn't meet a single of his criteria that he now promises. Remember the "no earmarks" and "shovel-ready projects" promises from the Stimulus "plan"?
Another good aalysis from Reason http://www.reason.com/news/show/135976.html (http://www.reason.com/news/show/135976.html)
QuoteObama's Lies Matter, Too
The president pushes back against health care misinformation, then spreads a bunch of his own.
Matt Welch | September 10, 2009
On Wednesday night a broad chunk of the American left, and an overlapping circle of media commentators, got what they'd been aching for since the beginning of August: A presidential bitch-slap of the lying liars who've been, in the words of stereotypical L.A. Times columnist Tim Rutten, "crowding out nearly all substantive and realistic discussion of the critical issues surrounding healthcare reform."
"But know this," President Barack Obama said in one of several such satisfying passages in his health care speech last night. "I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out."
Salon Editor in Chief Joan Walsh could barely contain herself at this nearly Snoop Doggesque display. "'We will call you out' on lies," she Tweeted. "love it!"
It is telling that so many people who claim to be speaking on the side of Truth, Justice, and the American Way of Journalism have consistently focused their outrage-o-meters at individual townhall attendees, political broadcast entertainers, and the lesser lights of a lame (if resurgent-by-default) opposition party, while letting walk nearly fact-check-free the non-irrelevant occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If calling out lies and misrepresentations about a significant policy proposal is such pressing journalistic business—and it should be!—you'd think the watchdogs might start with the guy doing the proposing.
The lies last night began in Obama's opening paragraph. "When I spoke here last winter," he began, "credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse." In fact, Obama spoke on Feb. 24, at least six weeks after credit markets began to thaw, and one week after he proclaimed that the passage of his $787 billion stimulus marked "the beginning of the end, the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans." Obama's speech that day wasn't about staving off a collapse, it was about cleaning up the mess and tackling long-ignored issues. Such as health care.
It's never encouraging when a politician who desperately needs to convince skeptical Americans of his fiscal sobriety starts off by slurring his words. As you might then infer, Obama was just warming up. "Insurance companies," the president announced, "will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies," in part because such prevention "saves money." Looks like someone forgot to tell the Congressional Budget Office, or other non-White House sources that have analyzed the cost-benefit of prevention.
Again and again last night, the president's numbers didn't add up. "There may be those—particularly the young and healthy—who still want to take the risk and go without coverage," he warned, in a passage defending compulsory insurance. "The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits." No, it means that, on balance, the healthy young don't pay for the unhealthy old. The whole point of forcing vigorous youth to buy insurance is using their cash and good actuarials to bring down the costs of covering the less fortunate.
Such fudges reveal a politician who, for whatever reason, feels like he can't be honest about the real-world costs of expanding health care. "Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years," he said, trying hard to sound like those numbers weren't pulled out of Joe Biden's pants, and won't be dwarfed by actual costs within a year or two. "We've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system–a system that is currently full of waste and abuse," he said, making him at least the eighth consecutive president to vaguely promise cutting Medicare "waste" (a promise, it should be added, that could theoretically be fulfilled without drastically overhauling the health care system). Any government-run "public option," he claimed, somehow "won't be" subsidized by taxpayers, but instead would "be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects."
And in a critical, tic-riddled passage that many of even his most ardent supporters probably don't believe, Obama said: "Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits–either now or in the future. Period." In case you couldn't quite read his lips, the president repeated the line for emphasis. Then: "And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."
If that "one dime" formulation sounds familiar, that's because Obama made—then almost immediately broke—the same promise regarding taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 a year. Surely the no-new-deficits pledge is headed for the campaign dustbin faster even then that "net spending cut" we'll never see.
Such bending of the truth-curve matters, I daresay even more than the pressing issue of Marc Ambinder's "umpiric objections" to having the media take a former Republican vice presidential candidate seriously as a health policy commentator. Aside from the disturbing—if-predictable aspect of a commander in chief falling far short of telling the whole truth, there are practical impacts of presidential prevarications that should worry even those who'd rather live in China than in an America without universal coverage.
As the reform supporter and professional skeptic Mickey Kaus noted before the speech, "Obama doesn't need to get 'Republicans on board.' He doesn't need to get Blue Dog Democrats on board. He needs to get voters on board." And if there's any tactic less effective at wooing skeptics than number-fudging insincerity, it's number-fudging insincerity coupled with attacks on the veracity, motivation, and worldview of the skeptics themselves.
Again last night, Obama invoked the boogeyman of "special interests" who "lie" in order "to keep things exactly the way they are," despite the fact that the special interests in this case are lining up to support the president, and that the critics of his plan tend to bemoan, not defend, the status quo. Opponents of his plan, he said, were "ideological"; Ted Kennedy's support for health care reform, meanwhile, "was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience." Obama said his door was "always open" to those bringing "a serious set of proposals," and he slammed that door shut on any attempts to break the almost universally unloved link between employment and insurance. He yearned to "replace acrimony with civility," then got Democrats stomping on their feet with attacks against the Iraq War and "tax breaks for the wealthy." The center of the debate, as always, was wherever he chose to stand.
And above all else, Obama chose to shadowbox against the more extreme claims of the Sarah Palins of the world, rather than engage the most serious of the skeptics' arguments. No, the administration doesn't "plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens," but what about the possibility of government cost-cutters frowning upon expensive hip replacement surgeries for the chronically old? No, the proposal doesn't amount to a complete "government takeover" of health care, but it does continue to expand the government's role (and, promises aside, expenses) in ways that make a deficit-whiplashed nation nervous. No, "no one would be forced to choose" a public option, but what about the argument that incentives would eventually push Americans from private insurance to the public plan?
The result of this challenge-dodging counterpunch was a speech that pleased Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, but I doubt will sway the many Americans who are both on the fence and off Sarah Palin's e-mail list.
There was one line in the speech last night that pointed to an alternative, more promising future: "My guiding principle," Obama said, "is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition." Unfortunately, the president evinces zero understanding of how increased regulation can reduce consumer choice, even or especially when the government joins the competition. And even if he did see the connection, we'd have good reason to suspect that he wouldn't talk about it openly with the American people. That, ultimately, worries me more than a senior citizen who wants to keep the government out of Medicare.
Matt Welch is editor in chief of Reason magazine.
Reason? When did you become a libertarian? You are a Republican not dog barking mad.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 07:21:03 PM
This is all based on the House bill, which Obama has already endorsed. Of course, Obama doesn't actually have a plan, just platitudes and wishful thinking. Just as with the Stimulus and Cap-and-Trade he will endorse whatever the final product is no matter if it doesn't meet a single of his criteria that he now promises. Remember the "no earmarks" and "shovel-ready projects" promises from the Stimulus "plan"?
Yeah but the eventual bill will probably have key differences from the current house bill. I do have a feeling it will not resemble Obama's original "wishful thinking" but it could be something useful.
I will wait and see.
QuoteAnd in a critical, tic-riddled passage that many of even his most ardent supporters probably don't believe, Obama said: "Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits–either now or in the future. Period." In case you couldn't quite read his lips, the president repeated the line for emphasis. Then: "And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."
If that "one dime" formulation sounds familiar, that's because Obama made—then almost immediately broke—the same promise regarding taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 a year. Surely the no-new-deficits pledge is headed for the campaign dustbin faster even then that "net spending cut" we'll never see.
Wow the speech was so full of lies there was even a lie about things that have not happened yet.
Did we raise taxes already? I thought we were just running up big deficits. About time the American people man up and pay for all the shit our elected representatives have been doing on our behalf.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2009, 12:32:36 AM
Did we raise taxes already? I thought we were just running up big deficits. About time the American people man up and pay for all the shit our elected representatives have been doing on our behalf.
There's been a tax cut, within the stimulus for most people but other tax rises. It's interesting in that it was the first example I can think of where the government used these 'nudge' ideas. Basically the worry was that tax cuts generally don't work as stimulus because during economic turmoil as we had earlier in the year people save money, which doesn't stimulate. The government actually wanted you to spend the money. Apparently there's some way when there's a tax cut that the government makes you realise there's a tax cut - by sending a cheque? I don't know, I've never received a tax cut. Anyway for this one they didn't do any of that, people just took home a little extra. The theory being that if they didn't notice they'd be more likely to spend a little more, if they understood that x amount was a new tax cut then they would save x amount.
I don't know if it's worked or if it's even gone into effect yet. But it's being watched in this country by the Tories because they're very interested in this 'nudging' theory.
And just for balance the WSJ:
QuoteMedicare for Dummies
Contradictions worthy of the Marx Brothers..ArticleComments
The thing about the bully pulpit is that Presidents can make the most fantastic claims and it takes days to sort the reality from the myths. So as a public service, let's try to navigate the, er, remarkable Medicare discussion that President Obama delivered on Wednesday. It isn't easy.
Mr. Obama began by depicting a crisis in the entitlement state, noting that "our health-care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers," especially Medicare. Unless we find a way to cauterize this fiscal hemorrhage, "we will eventually be spending more on Medicare than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health-care program is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close."
On this score he's right. Medicare's unfunded liability—the gap between revenues and promised benefits—is currently some $37 trillion over the next 75 years. Yet the President uses this insolvency as an argument to justify the creation of another health-care entitlement, this time for most everyone under age 65. It's like a variation on the old Marx Brothers routine: "The soup is terrible and the portions are too small."
President Barack Obama addresses a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2009.
.As astonishing, Mr. Obama claimed he can finance universal health care without adding "one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period," in large part by pumping money out of Medicare. The $880 billion Senate plan he all but blessed this week would cut Medicare by as much as $500 billion, mainly by cutting what Mr. Obama called "waste and abuse." Perhaps this is related to the "waste and abuse" that Congresses of both parties have targeted dozens of times without ever cutting it.
Apparently this time Mr. Obama means it, though he said this doesn't mean seniors should listen to "demagoguery and distortion" about Medicare cuts. That's because Medicare is a "sacred trust," and the President swore to "ensure that you—America's seniors—get the benefits you've been promised."
So no cuts, for anyone—except, that is, for the 24% of senior beneficiaries who are enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program, which Democrats want to slash by $177 billion or more because it is run by private companies. Mr. Obama called that money "unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies—subsidies that do everything to pad their profits but don't improve the care of seniors."
In fact, Advantage does provide better care, which is one reason that enrollment has doubled since 2003. It's true that the program could be better designed, with more competitive bidding and quality bonuses. But Advantage's private insurers today provide the kind of care that Mr. Obama said he would mandate that private insurers provide for the nonelderly—"to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventative care."
Advantage plans have excelled at filling in the gaps of the a la carte medicine of traditional Medicare, contracting with doctors and hospitals to coordinate care and improve quality and covering items such as vision, hearing and management of chronic illness. If seniors in Advantage lose this coverage because of the 14% or 15% budget cut that Mr. Obama favors, well, that's "waste and abuse."
Mr. Obama did also promise to create "an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead." That kind of board is precisely what has many of the elderly worried about government rationing of treatment: As ever-more health costs are financed by taxpayers, something will eventually have to give on care the way it has in every other state-run system.
But Mr. Obama told seniors not to pay attention to "those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut, especially since some of the folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program."
This is a partisan swipe at one of the best GOP ideas to rationalize the federal budget, despite Mr. Obama's accusations that his opponents want to do "nothing." This reform would get Medicare out of the business of spending one out of five U.S. health dollars, and instead give the money directly to seniors to buy insurance to encourage them to be more conscious of cost and value within a limited budget. Democrats would rather have seniors dance to decisions made by his unelected "commission of doctors and medical experts."
Mr. Obama also called for "civility" in debate even as he calls the arguments of his critics "lies." So in the spirit of civility, we won't accuse the President of lying about Medicare. We'll just say his claims bear little relation to anything true.
:lol: Okay that's a good one.
As most of us realize, this whole issue of Health Care reform has been handled badly. The Obama admin bungled it, contradicted itself too often, said things that didn't add up enough which began to lose it a lot of support. Much of that was due to the vagueness and huge manner of the bill in the first place. Few of those who would be voting on it had a clue what it was about, certainly had no grasp of the details. The Repubs did just as badly with the scare tactics, disinformation, like with the death panels and other obstructionism. But the main problems in my opinion have been the poor handling of a bad bill, way over priced, poorly defined bill that the original bill certainly was. And there was a mad scramble to ram it through! That outraged a lot of people and did a lot of harm to the process. The original idea was a government take over, a huge and expensive plan. While Pres Obama was talking about the needs for it to save costs, just the opposite seemed to be happening. The plans being proposed at first also had legislators scrambling for ways to pay for it. Which led to another question of who has been running things anyway?