I just had a doctor ask me "What I wanted to do."

that was another thread and Ill be leaving that doctor. He's a nightmare.

BTW Im about 95%, thanks for asking.

witty answer: "find a doctor who will tell me what i should do."

It's unclear to me how Obama is supposed to reach out in a "non-partisan" manner to a group whose stated aim is to oppose pretty much every one of his policy initiatives.

If the test for Obama's ability to be "non-partisan" or "bi-partisan" is his success in bringing groups like the teabaggers, or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck under his happy umbrella, then someone has an unrealistic view of the Messiah Obama, and it certainly isn't me.

Which was never a point that anyone made. No one expects him to bring them under his 'happy umbrella'. I just expect him to act presidential and put aside the partisan snipes as he advocated during his campaign. Just ignore them or confront their ideals in an intelligent manner to disarm them. Don't stoop to their level.

And yet the example you use for this is:


I see Obama discussing the reality of electoral politics. You see a partisan snipe. Tell me how, exactly, is Obama stooping to the teabaggers' level? Is he shouting them down in public? Is he seeking to intimidate them at their public gatherings? Does he completely fabricate details of their policy initiatives?

I mean, LOL. :D Tell me, MBBF, how did "confront their ideals in an intelligence manner to disarm them" work out for Democrats at their town halls this summer?

You'd think he would have thought of that before basing his campaign on being able to bridge the divide between red state America and blue state America.

Look, it's really simple. He promised something that most people understand he could never deliver, but some Americans bought into it and are now disappointed that he's not the amazingly different politician that he said he was. I don't know why this is such a contentious thing to say, or such a difficult thing for lefties to accept.

umm Cam - if you look at this thread it's not the "lefties" who are having a difficult time accepting it, it's the "righties" who are using it as a basis to snipe at him.

Your belief in candidates' fidelity to their campaign promises is touching.


You think there's a big chunk of people who voted for Obama who are gravely disappointed that he can't make common ground with the teabaggers? Really?

Obama got elected (and nominated) on his promises.

I'm not losing sleep over the non-partisian promise, I don't even know what that means, but I expect him to fall far short of the more tangible ones. That is relevant. You think we're just supposed to disregard what a candidate says he'll do when he's elected? What else is there to vote on? Experience?

This I agree with. I'm much more disappointed at the lack of movement of DADT, gay marriage, Patriot Act abuses, financial industry regulation, etc. than I am with the lack of a unity pony.

+1

ummm DT, the only reason I chimed in last night was JPhillips insistence that Obama never ran as a non-partisan.

So that means they should stoop to that level? I'm obviously not part of the boisterous people you're pointing out at the town halls. I want him to stay above the fray as he promised and focus on what he wants to do. He's not staying above the fray and he's certainly not getting anything done right now. And we're approaching the quarter-pole in his presidency.

You think the teabaggers are the only people not under the 'unity umbrella'?

The article you quoted as evidence for your position revolved around a very specific description of the teabaggers. But sure, let's let you expand your argument since your original defense failed.

List some of the other groups not under the "unity umbrella" who are:

a) inclined to try and work with Obama, i.e. are not clearly trying to be obstructionist

b) have been attacked by Obama in a partisan manner

I'm very interested in examples.


This whole exchange started from an article you posted which described Obama making the point that Democrats in the House shouldn't concern themselves with the teabaggers because the teabaggers aren't going to vote for Democrats anyway, even Democrats who vote against a health care bill. Somehow you & Cam (and others, I suppose) want to conflate this into an argument that Obama doesn't want to work with anyone.

So, let's see some evidence of that.

I don't know. Is deciding not to try and work with a group that is clearly and unambiguously opposed to your every policy "stooping to their level"? Because you seem to be suggesting that it is.

Once again, a straw man argument. I never said that he had to work with them. The term that he used to describe them was intended to be a put-down. He should be above that. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to conduct yourself in a professional manner, which Obama has not. He takes pot-shots at his opponents, often in the form of jokes, on a regular basis. The defense has been 'well, other presidents did that'. I was under the assumption that Obama was supposed to be above the fray compared to other presidents, specifically because he said he would be. I guess I expect too much and should quit this idealism that Mr. Obama told us was achievable.

:lol:

so it's ok for others not to behave in a professional manner (see Wilson, Joe)?

Last I checked, I criticized his actions. C'mon now, DT. You can make a better argument than just a weak 'guilt by association' argument that has little relevance to my stances.

i didn't remember if you criticized him or not...lol

Of course, if Obama didn't lash out at his attackers, then he would be piled on for being a wimp.

And if I remember right, that was a criticism leveled by Democrat supporters early on in the presidency. He upped his attacks on the opposition after that.

It's in this thread somewhere. I basically called him an idiot and said I was impressed that the posters weren't wasting much time discussing his actions. Something to that effect.

Oh, the irony.


Yep. Go back and read what you wrote again (the full paragraph I've only partially-quoted above). If those are the things you honestly expected from Obama, then frankly you expected a lot more than I'd guess the majority of people who actually voted from Obama did.

I mean, honestly, refraining from casual put-downs and jokes about your most rabid opponents, who basically make caricatures out of themselves?

Posts like yours continue to do nothing but solidify your standing as this thread's resident concern troll. By describing Obama's pre-election promise and intentions in nothing but saintly terms you can suggest that any deviation from this image, created by no one but you, means that Obama has failed.

Ya, I would definitely make the opposite critisism of the silly "he's being partisan" stuff. I'm far from an Obama supporter, and I didn't like his campaign, but I certainly didn't think he was promising to what, get Republicans to agree with him? The promise of "change" to me wasn't achieving a one-party system.

I think the far more accurate criticism is that with the majority of congress, he's still been sluggish to push forward his agenda.

Which is simply not true. He hasn't failed yet, but he has failed to deliver thus far.

But I thought they weren't getting care? If they are, and we are paying for it anyway, why make everyone get on the gov't gravy train?


IIRC, there was a lot more to that situation that a doctor that asked you "What I wanted to do."

Obama has not yet failed, but he has failed to live up to the expectations of his most vehement backers.

I personally think the system is so broken that no bill is going to fix it. It's not just the system in place, it's our psychological mindset we have toward health care. If we have a headache, we want them to run the CAT scan and MRI in the event it's that 1 in 100,000 chance that it's something more serious. We want them to extend the life of our terminally ill relative by a month despite the costs.

I'm not sure how you fix that. Can we ever move to a society where we are told to take some morphine home and die in peace instead of spending $500,000 to live another two months? Can we use a system that is built on probabilities and not go bonkers with tests?

Both sides are hypocrites. The Dems want everyone to be covered but don't give a shit how it's paid for or how much it costs. The Republicans pretend they like free markets except when it comes to allowing more competition in the health insurance industry, opening up the borders for prescription drug trade, or allowing people to choose when to end their life.

That's a good point and kind of where I'm at. I was all for the U.S. getting back to the same level as other countries in terms of health care and life expectancy. But now I just don't care to hear about it anymore. I'll be able to afford it for myself and family so those who don't want it can suffer the consequences.

What a country!

The short answer is "No, we can't". We're basically arguing that the devil we don't know is better than the devil we do know and have adjusted to. Here are the two sides as I see it:

Existing system -
Pros:
-Short wait times
-Fairly low expense for 80+% of the population
-Doctors have the freedom to choose which plans to accept to help their business

Cons:
- High malpractice insurance
- 10-12% don't have good coverage options available
- Large costs for those uncovered or limited coverage when major health events occur
- variability in what is covered for certain plans

New System -
(Potential) Pros:
- Everyone is covered in some form
- Costs could go down via price controls (or non-major service rationing)
- Initially, people can keep their current employer coverage

Cons:
- High malpractice insurance
- Chance employer coverage is phased out leading to additional costs for private insurance (to get to the current level of service people have now)
- unknown on the impact to patient wait times, availability of medicine and the infrastructure for surgeries/doctor visits
- Doctors forced to take certain plans that may not pay fairly/in a reasonable time frame. Could impact their ability to stay in private practice.


I'm not ready to jump on the train saying the second system will be better. Plus, there may end up with even more unintended consequences. I still feel the best action is to come up with publicly funded (ie, tax credits/deductions) to get the 10-12% without coverage some affordable private options and work on the malpractice issue. IMO, that is the best system we can hope to achieve with the current mindset of our population.

It would be great if we could remove social security or health insurance and have people save properly, but there will always be 25-30% who don't and kill costs. So, some form of insurance is needed. On the other side, it's completely silly to work towards a system that throws out the working system for 70+% of us with good coverage just to make sure that same 25-30% is completely taken care of. Finally, I'm not sure this economy can handle the trillions this will cost (esp when the marginal (at best) improvements are taken into account).

Arles: How do you reconcile "fairly low cost" with the fact that we pay more per capita by quite a large margin than any other industrialized country?

I still think Health Care Reform should be led by the States. Some states will create good ideas and some will create bad ideas and some will do nothing.

It's better than changing a sixth of our economy and praying (even us atheists) that this bill is for the best.

My views have flip-flopped a lot on the issue of health care. I personally don't believe that everyone has a right to it anymore. I do believe as a country we should be covering children as well as those who are disabled or have genetic conditions that make them uncoverable. But as a healthy, able-bodied adult, I'm sort of getting tired of the expected handouts.

Maybe the disabled/genetic issue is only important to me because of my Mom. The thing is, she has money, her kids have money, but no insurance company will take her. That's fine some will say if you have money, just pay out of pocket. The problem is that you don't get the same treatment without health insurance, many doctors just won't see you. So it's not a matter of cost to her, she could be a multi-millionaire and it would still not get her good coverage in today's system. She is being punished because she lost the genetic lottery.

Which is the same issue for kids. They don't have the ability to get a good job, to work hard in their life to afford health insurance. I think as a country we owe them proper health care until they are 18 (or 24 if a college student).

Outside of that though, I don't know if anyone is owed it anymore. I was watching a show about health care where they profiled families who had been hit hard. You knew these people weren't educated and didn't have good jobs. Some of the conditions were brought on by their own lifestyle (overweight). I know it's a 180 on where I've stood on the issue before, but I'm starting to believe that a complacent society that gets things for free is worse.

That's one thing I disagree with Arles about. Everything costs way more in this country.

Wait, the problem is he said teabag people? It's that fucking stupid? Type in I'm a teabagger into the Google and see how many people refer to themselves with those words. It was teabaggers that said they were going to teabag the White House.

I support universal coverage because I think it's morally correct and getting everyone into the pool is the only way to bring down the overall costs of healthcare. If it's done right it can lower costs and be a boon to business.

Interestingly enough the so-called "teabaggers" don't refer to themselves as such either (except for a few wackies). They call themselves tea partiers, but some media outlets would perfer to use the other term.

Sure, but there are plenty of instances where tea partiers referred to themselves as teabaggers or their actions as teabagging. It's hardly some out of bounds insult to call them teabag people. It's certainly just bullshit to get whipped up into a faux froth of outrage.

That's probably a bad idea.

+1

That's because of the 10-12% uncovered skewing the numbers. Most families with one working parent having a fairly low health care cost. Take my example. I'm in the "top family option" PPO offered by our employer. I pay $176 a month in premiums. I also have a $1200 medical savings account which I barely use fully by about November each year. So, it costs me around $3300 pre-tax (so well under 3K in real dollars) to cover myself and my son. That ends up being around 3% of my salary.

I don't see why my case would be any different than a majority of other people covered by their employer. So, are you saying 3% is way too much?

The point here is that everyone is saying "our system sucks" and "everything costs too much". But, the reality is that most people covered by their employer are coming away just fine if you believe that 3-6% of our salary is a fair expense for health care. To put it another way - a good friend of mine works on the factory floor (hourly) and chose the same plan as me. He makes about half what I do and has 2 more kids. We were talking about this the other day (we play fantasy football together) and his plan costs the same as me and he puts in 2K to his flex fund. So, in his case, it's around 6% of his salary in post-tax money. Our company isn't known for great benefits and I doubt he's much different than many others in the 40-60K range.

If you have employer-provided insurance, chances are the system works very well for you. If you don't, you will struggle. So, again, why not work on ways to get those uncovered (pre-existing conditions, no employer coverage, self employed, kids) better access to subsidized private coverage than throw out the baby with the bath water and institute a new system? Atleast we know this system works fairly well for the vast majority with solid employer-provided coverage - we have no clue how the system will work if we go public coverage. It's all guesswork and hoping - not to mention the huge initial cost while we are all struggling through 10% unemployment.

One final note. I noticed a 5.4% additional tax for people making over 500K that is non-indexed for inflation for the next 10 years (meaning it will apply to businesses/people making 500K in 2020). It's not very hard to find a business owner, LLC or s-corp right now having declared revenues of over 500K (not to mention that level in 2020). So, if you bring in 750K, that cost is around 40K to you - that means you are forced with cutting 40K in expenses once this comes through (esp considering many small businesses in the 500K to $1 mil area don't provide health insurance). Any takers on what the average small business job makes? The answer is 30-40K. I'm guessing a somewhat substantial loss in small business provided jobs will be one of those "unintended consequences" we will be lamenting about a year or two into this new system.

I understand, but I've gotten to a point where I think that's how people want it. I know people like being patriotic and shouting "We're #1", but we aren't. We've fallen way behind in technology, education, and more.

The Red states and districts are the ones that are against the health care reform. They are also the ones that have the lowest life expectancy, highest levels of obesity, and worst infant mortality rates. You have a higher life expectancy if you were born in the Dominican Republic or Lebanon than you do in Mississippi.

So the people who need help the most are the ones who are against it. So why bother? Why not just continue to be the laughing stock of the industrialized world when it comes to this stuff and look out for our own individual needs? If you hand a homeless guy a $10 bill and he tells you to fuck off, do you continue to hand him that bill?

This country isn't interested in being the best at things anymore. It isn't concerned with being smarter or better than others. So why keep trying to force it?

The text of Obama's speech today at Fort Hood:

I understand what you're saying, but can we stop with the whole trickle down stuff yet? A business hires/fires based on what they feel is necessary to provide the maximum profit. Just because you have your income cut $40,000 doesn't mean you cut $40,000 out of your expenses. That $40,000 cut on your expenses may end up costing you $100,000 if it's someone vital to the company. You are trying to say the person being fired adds absolutely nothing to the company, which in that case, probably should be fired.

Just make the argument that the rich already get taxed way too much and shoulder the burden for way too much stuff. It's better than these hypotheticals that never have played out in real life.

Most bankruptcies involve self-employed or unemployed people. Saying that a majority of those come from health insurance costs is like saying a majority of vehicle fatalities comes from drunk drivers. That's probably the case but that doesn't mean we need to redo our freeway system to improve the accident fatality rate.

There is a hole in the current system when it comes to people that don't have employer provided health care. Let's work on filing that hole via credits/stipends/incentives to the existing insurance system before we throw it all out and start over.

It's actually closer to 60%, and much fewer than that involve employer-provided care (many are self-employed businesses with very low purchased coverage). I have seen the 46% number for bankruptcies involving health care costs (many are often triggered by other larger costs relating to businesses/investments). You should read this by factcheck.org, does a real nice job in explaining the reality of some of these studies (here's a portion but the full link is below):


FactCheck.org: What is the percentage of total personal bankruptcies caused by health care bills?

I think most people with employer-provided coverage will find they pay well below 8% of their annual salary in medical expenses after tax savings. That seems like a fair price and not one that needs a complete overhaul. Of course, the "holes" in the system (non-employer, self employed with poor elected coverage, pre-existing conditions) will more than skew some of the data. So, why not focus on plugging those holes before throwing out a system that works for most Americans?

I don't know the details for the original statement however, if you are paying $176 a month in premiums, your company is probably paying the other 70%-80%.

If I had to guess, I would assume the per capita cost statement also reflects some of the end of life medical treatment where I think there is a large disproportionate $ to treat them.

This is not to say that the not covered is not skewing the numbers, but I think your personal calculation cannot be extrapolated in by itself and the 10-12% uncovered does not explain the full story.