Speaking of hypocrisy...

Orrin Hatch: Republicans Will Use Reconciliation To Repeal Obamacare

You guys have heard of the Republican Party , yes? Not sure why this type of hypocrisy surprises you.

Lol. Did you just realize this about him?

Because this is a situation that requires people to avoid making it personal. I'm not opposed to that person receiving care at all. I'm 100% behind finding a way to make that happen. With that said, I don't think the current option is the right one.

You can be reasonable while still being compassionate. Let's just say this moves forward and we follow the plan currently laid out by this law. If this health care law goes south and becomes a further anchor to our mounting debt situation, will our Congress/President be smart enough to repeal it and admit they made a mistake or will they apply bandages that make a bad situation worse in order to save face and not be called 'hypocritical'. History has shown that bandages are the likely road. Color me skeptical.

Like an enforced tax which people have to pay? ...

(combined with allowing the government to actually negotiate agressively with drug companies to cut costs rather than tying their hands would be a bloody good start imho - after all this is a 'capitalist' country, so why prevent capitalism and economies of scale from working?)

Glorious.

How Low Can The Stock Markets Go? - Forbes.com
Nouriel Roubini Says Nationalizing the Banks Is the Market-Friendly Solution - WSJ.com

At some point people need to stop giving him attention. You can't be wrong 99 out of 100 times and then run around claiming to be a genius the one time you are right. If people listened to Roubini on the markets, they would be broke.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has a solution for it.

Letting people die because they lost the genetic lottery doesn't seem like something a civilized country should be doing.

And here we go with the 'people are falling dead through no fault of their own' argument. People need to visit inner city teaching hospitals throughout the country. There are people walking in each night with all sorts of ailments and getting treatment (both long and short term) despite being poor/homeless/etc with no insurance.

There's always room for improvement, but that doesn't mean THIS plan is 'improvement'.

A civilized country shouldn't be burdening its citizens with unneeded debt pursuing incorrect solutions to many of our problems either, but that's exactly what we're doing.

So what would you propose as the correct solution?

I'm not saying people are falling dead. I'm saying if you support a stance of not providing medical care to those people because they can't afford it or got some bad genes at birth, they will. Currently we have a socialized system of health care because we can't turn down patients. If you support eliminating that, you support people dying if they can't afford treatment.

Do you honestly think the inner city teaching hospitals have the resources to treat everyone who can't afford or can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions?

But I agree that we need improvements. That's why I suggest we copy any one of the other countries that have a national health care system and get better results than our current one.


Well I was against the wars.

Remote Area Medical was founded to bring free healthcare to some of the world's poorest people. Recently they've been running expeditions to places all over the U.S. When they arrive, thousands line up for their chance at a visit to the dentist, eye doctor or primary care physician.

It should embarrass us that the richest country in the world can't find a better way to bring healthcare to the most vulnerable.

http://www.ramusa.org/

I just hate the whole "affordable" argument. Even if everyone is in the system, the costs of these treatments aren't going to suddenly come down.


And other industrialized nations are feeling health care costs squeeze, and seeing their overall financial situation being hammered. France may be the poster child for this. It's simply not feasible, at least to me.

We pay far more per capita for medical treatments than any other industrialized country. If we paid what France pays we wouldn't have a deficit crisis.

I agree that prices aren't going to drop instantly, but I do believe we can slow the rate of growth. If we can do that, over time that will put us in much better financial shape.

?

Edit: I don't think liberals are brainwashed and/or liars. So, your response is incorrect, though predictable.

I don't much about the Massachusetts health care system (except that there's rhetoric here that it's "exactly" like Obamacare.). One thing that's surprising to me is aren't hearing more accolades for it as a policy argument/justification for Obamacare. It is working, does everybody have healthcare, is a good thing to model? Are there any unforeseen issues that have come up?

I know there's all kind of reasons why it's not a strict apples to apples comparison (which is why I disagreed with the people here that say that they're exactly the same and that people are brainwashed or whatever if they support Romney but not Obamacare).

But if it's working in MA why aren't more states utilizing this? Were they all just waiting for Obamacare? Was there a conscious collective strategy about timing? If it worked in say, 10 states, and people in some states just didn't have the same worries about healthcare that people in other states did, I could see the tide turning some in the national consensus on this. I think there's something to be said for that type of economic/healthcare change to happen in that matter. If people feel you're forcing something on them as a big brother to a little brother that doesn't know any better, they're going to find ways to oppose it, ways to challenge it, ways to find problems with it. Obviously some people will still find those things, but I think that psychological aspect is often discounted as far as effectuating the change you want. I think the acceptance of say, gay marriage has grown a ton in the last 10 years among moderates, just from people and states actively pressing ahead with it in their own states, making it a norm. And I like I was saying a few pages ago, I think healthcare systems have spread throughout Europe in a similar manner. What would Europe be like if it was just one big, arrogant, corrupt, bureaucracy the last 50 years? Would they have the same healthcare systems, the other programs (that most people would like if they thought they could afford them.)

Vermont passed single payer. It's popular there by wide margins by companies and individuals alike.

Most states haven't passed health care like Massachusetts because its been vilified and they're run by plutocrats who are in the pockets of that (and a bevy of other) industries.

This. The amount of sheer profit makes changing the system such a uphill fight. Those advocating change are fighting several large and very wealthy beasts that make up a large portion of political donations to the very people who would need to make the changes.

Couldn't it pass in most blue states? Or even in half of them?

It's hard to believe it's easier to pass healthcare reform in the national legislature than it is Rhode Island or Delaware.

But you often say "liberals do X" or "Dems do X".

1. I am frustrated with the lack of correlation between the bragging and the accomplishments, as are many liberals I know. That's not in any way "calling all liberals liars".

2. "You guys" was specifically directed toward the posters here who were pushing the morality thing that annoys me so much.

3. "liberals in power" clearly distinguishes the liberals in power from those, like the ones on this board, with more sincere beliefs. Yes, there are some liberals in power that have sincere beliefs, so I should have qualified that a bit more. I meant to frame that in terms of what I think the general Democratic party strategy is - which is the end result of those in real power (though clearly those in power can disagree too). Again, it's not "calling all liberals liars".

4. I do believe that if Obamacare doesn't work out that will be the general line, that this was flawed from the start because of Republican opposition. I should have qualified that one better, obviously there are Democrats who don't think Obamacare is all that now, and there will be those who admit they were wrong about it. So fair point there, but it's not "calling all liberals liars" either. This point I should have just reserved for you specifically, since you blame nearly everything on Republican opposition. Which is certainly not something "all liberals" do.

Isn't it likely that the same general ideas apply when people criticize conservatives or conservative policies? Why do you think that those criticisms are always directed at everyone even slightly right of center?

I've said on numerous occasions that I think the Dems are spineless and too in bed with monied interests. I do think the current GOP is full of John Birch type crazies that are given a platform by the more moderate members of the party, but don't let that fool you into believing that I think the Dems are perfect.

+1

It's just a matter of "the lesser of two evils" IMO at the moment.

For many people, sure when they criticize conservatives or conservatives policies, that's the same general idea. I get that feeling from people posters all the time. And I admit too, that I accidentally group those people into those that don't sometimes, and I could do better at identifying that. I'm not a fan of the characterization of conservative opinions as the product of brainwashing or simply not understanding the issues, but, yes, I suppose those types of statements, especially here, are more often just directed to a minority of conservatives who are in fact, brainwashed or simply don't the issues (people of which character are of course, all over the spectrum).

Do you think a better, more skilled, more sincere, more effective Democratic party could have enacted much better healthcare reform than Obamacare, in the current climate, with the current Republican opposition? I definitely do. Which makes Dems the problem, doesn't it? There will always be opposition.

Which goes back to the gay marriage/state thing. If somehow, there was legislation in 1999 that forced all states to recognize gay marriage, I think that would have set back gay rights decades. Maybe they'd be able to technically marry, but there's be loopholes, compromises, and huge fights on everything, and huge resistance to any other social or legal progress in gay rights. Instead, by letting states tear down those walls, I think the culture has changed in a more organic way, and I know plenty of people who are still "against" gay marriage but who have pretty much thrown in the towel on it. It's happened pretty quickly.

Obamacare is clearly not what the liberals wanted, so that's not just the line, but the truth. I'm not sure how it could be argued any other way. The liberals wanted single payer and the public option was supposed to be a compromise. Then Obamacare was a bitter pill to swallow but still considered better than the status quo. You're setting the stage for some kind of future hypocrisy that does not exist.

I'm not saying it's anybody's perfect solution, but it's clearly something (most) liberals want as opposed to nothing, or as opposed to some other type of reform that could have been pursued instead. You "want it" in the sense that it's an improvement, or is a step towards single payer, right?

I'm saying if it makes things worse, causes health costs to rise, hurts the economy, or takes us even further away from single payer, that in that case, some will disclaim it as something they never really wanted anyway. Which is why I reacted to people proclaiming the greatness of European plans or single-payer, and I'm all, "wait, what about Obamacare? Are you disclaiming it already?" Is this thing going to be awesome or not? I mean, if you guys think it's going to suck already, we're in big trouble. It was just weird that in the days after Obamacare got the constitutional green light, people were still talking about the greatest of other plans we don't have. I wish they were a little more excited about this one.

But that's not really happening. It's being torn down in some states, but not in others as we saw with North Carolina. I have friends in Georgia who would like to get married, but cannot because of the same sex marriage ban. How long are they supposed to wait for a majority of Georgians to change their mind on the issue? 59% are still opposed to repealing that ban and only 27% are in favor of repealing it.

Doesn't that just paint people with two brushes? Are the "you guys" that you're talking about people that were for Obamacare, or are they just liberals?

I understand the not wanting to wait around for rights thing, I just think there's something to be said for the broader effects of cultural changes v. tangible rights, depending on the importance of the tangible right i guess.

Nobody's getting married in Idaho anytime soon but I believe it's a much less hostile environment for gays than it was even 10 years ago. At least, real hate has gone underground, there are different societal rules and norms. Would that still be the case if the feds tried to force acceptance on the state 10 years ago? Would it be better if today, there was some right to gay marriage, but more gay ignorance and hatred in society? I guess that's more a question for gay people, but it's just a thought.

Edit: And yes, I'm sure people made this argument over civil rights too. I'm not saying, "can't you just use your own separate water fountain so that whites like you more!" I just wonder though, if we'd have more racial acceptance and civil rights faster, more gay rights faster, and in the long run, without picking those fights in those ways. (and maybe picking sneakier fights to get gay marriage into the culture).

People who supported Obamacare. I was asking if they are still excited about it, on it's own merits. "You guys" was a hypothetical group question, but I understand that if every liberal in the world could answer they would be a lot of different answers.

I thought there was an interesting tension shift - before the Supreme Court ruling, there was a lot of nervousness, built-up anger ready to explode if it went the other way - but then now, the discussion is about single payer and the superiority of Europe again. Could just be a coincidence. But I would have expected more, "now you'll see, things will be better now."

I think this is the statement that's a bit misleading. You seem to be painting with a brush that says "Happier with Obamacare than not". That is one statement and one that I'm not sure many liberals even agree with

But as opposed to some other type of reform that could have been pursued instead? Considering you see (and saw) people advocating for single payer, a public option, or a massive expansion of Medicare on the left and some combination of voucher program and tort reform on the right, I think the above bolded simple isn't a true statement. I would even argue that if you offered the "center" of the country a choice between "Obamacare" and "Medicare for all", that the latter would be the overwhelming choice.

This leads me to believe that the ACA is even to the right of center and that's why you have so many liberals disenchanted with the result. The parties didn't meet at 50-50 but Obama settled at 30(l)-70(c) because he had to get 60 in the Senate (why it was never passed under reconciliation and a much better bill is the frustrating part). And even tho it's more conservative than not, the GOP hung it like a political noose around his neck because it wasn't 20-80 or 10-90.

So to describe it as being anything more of disappointing but (arguably) better than nothing would be a mischaracterization. I don't see much of anyone with a full throated endorsement of it anywhere.

SI

Why does it have to be one or the other? There were 50+ votes in the Senate for the public option, but with the GOP filibustering everything there weren't 60. Is that the fault of the Dems? The GOP?

That's what I'm learning, I guess. There are much fewer people than I thought that feel positive about this gigantic piece of legislation that will impact our healthcare system and economy in dramatic ways.

Because you just can't say France pays this much per person, then compare to a different country and say they pay this much. You need to dig deep and examine the countries, their health care system, who pays what, what are people willing to pay for (the latest and greatest drugs and technology on the market), R&D and investment costs for drugs, hospitals/health care facilities, technology, training, staff, demographics and genetics, and lifestyles.

France is in the black hole in terms of debt. The UK just basically revamped it's NHS system.

Maybe it's just semantics. But if two people want two different things, and one person gets their way somehow, is it their "fault" that the other person didn't? They're part of the cause for it, no doubt. But I'm not sure the person who got what they wanted is "to blame" for not going along with what the other person wanted. I don't think either person is entitled to cooperation from the person that wants something else.

Edit: Like if you lose a boxing match, I don't think it's the other guy's "fault".

Why is the U.S. in a unique position that requires a CT scan to cost up to twice as much as the next highest OECD country price? Why do we pay more for drugs? Why do medical devices cost more? In short, why are American consumers in the unique position of having to pay far more for healthcare than any other person in an industrialized country?

Ok, but in the absence of any action, there is still the current system which is getting worse by the day. The current system is badly flawed and this is a marginal improvement on the current system. I'd also argue that it's better than some voucher system which is even worse than the current system. The options on the table were make a bad system worse with a voucher program, keep the current bad system, or marginally improve the bad system. A marginal improvement is still better than continuing to get worse.

However, it's substantially worse than a public option or Medicare expansion. However, the GOP's Plan A was worse and their Plan B was just to sit around and do nothing, then, yes, ACA is better than both of those options.

Then again, I would have run the Presidency a lot differently than Obama, granted I have the benefit of hindsight. I would have just gone reconciliation and slammed through a non-profit public option and say "hey, if the government is so bad at stuff, then insurance companies should be able to compete with the government and beat them on overhead and do better on profits".

(While we're playing this game, I would then have done the same with Cap and Trade and my political capital still wouldn't have been as hurt as Obama's. Dodd-Frank would have been actually been effective but it would have had to have been written by someone who had a vested interest in fixing the damn thing and not crapped all over by Dodd or Frank or Schumer or any number of the Dems who carved it up just as much as the GOP. Then I'd have handed the CPB over to Elizabeth Warren on a recess appointment. But Obama's pretty beholden to Wall Street so that had no chance at happening. And we wouldn't be talking about the Bush era tax cuts because they would have become a think of the past so, you know, we could pay for stuff. And I'd have pushed for an additional $1M tax bracket. Then I'd have spent some of it on a new WPA to get people back to work- not contractor labor like we did but honest to goodness actual labor for actual people. That said, I would not have had nearly the foreign policy success he would have. At least if I'm going to be accused of being a liberal, I'd act like one and get crap done. )

SI

I fucking <3 you right now.

SI for President '2014

Probably part of the problem is that the American health care industry is a for profit industry.

I don't really agree with this. Things are calmer now due more to generational changes than any public policy. Young people are more supportive of gay rights and that's not going to change if gay rights were mandated nationwide. If anything, I think forcing changes can actually speed up public acceptance. As more gay people became out, then people realized they were no different than themselves and became more accepting. And if gay marriage were legalized nationwide, eventually people would be more supportive of it because they would meet married gay couples and realized they were just like any other married couple and not a threat at all. The vocal people in opposition who are frothing at the mouth are going to do that whether gay marriage is legal or not.

If we didn't go through with forced integration in the 50s and 60s, then I think racial relations would even be worse, because fewer whites (especially younger ones) would have interacted with African-Americans and given them the impression that they are no different.

Well, of course, my first act as not-yet-President would be to pass the 62nd Amendment, which would, of course, allow for elections in 2014 :D

SI

Like I was saying, from the perspective of sincere Dems, I think Dems are the problem. You're not going to change Republicans' minds on things. But maybe you could change your party if enough people wanted that. I think there's too much focus on boogeymen on the other side. Probably because that helps with fundraising. Fine, there's boogeyman, but you can't get boogeyman to change their opinions on boogeying I don't think, or make them more agreeable to your contrary anti-boogeying views.

I'm still stunned that the right so viciously turned on the idea of the mandate, when that was the preferred solution for many decades, and championed by the very conservative Heritage Foundation. The mandate was the choice the Republicans presented in the 90s when the Clinton Administration was pushing for single payer.

That is part of the reason for distaste for the mandate from many on the left, as the mandate is pretty much co-opted from the right's playbook.

There's plenty of efforts to get more progressive Dems in office. Your idea, though, would be electoral suicide. How do you increase your margin if you spend your time ignoring the opposition and instead focus your attacks on your own party.

That doesn't make sense-you still need to develop all of these things (usually buy for-profit businesses) that go into health care, pay the salaries, train your talent, and since those in favor the government health care don't seem to understand how financial statements work because they like to spit out the "for profit" lines, health insurance profit margins are rather razor-thin. The cost problems isn't that simple as black and white. We have problems, but I don't see any clear way to really "fix" the cost structure without being realistic in the kind of health care quality each person gets.

Is there a industrialized country that is as big (population wise) and diverse (demographic wise) as the United States that has our level of health care quality in terms of the standards and tools we have at our disposal?

Mitt Romney at the NAACP today:

Translation: If you weren't all stupid you'd vote for me.


Way to win over voters Mittens - insult their intelligence. This guy just can't get out of his own way when it comes to this type of stuff.