Actually, I think one person said "death panel" (on Twitter no less) and then the left and the state run news agencies jumped on it completely. Since then, the debate has turned away from socialized medicine vs privitized medicine...and now the only thing we read about is how idiotic the right is, and how they are lying through their teeth about everything, and how they have no real concerns, and how they fake outrage, how scary the right-wing protester is, and blah, blah, blah....same stupid left-wing bullshit that comes up during every debate and gets puked all over the AP, Reuters, CNN, MSNBC, and in newspapers.

In any event, the left own the Executive branch, both houses of Congress, a vast majority of the newspapers, TV, and get great press from the AP, Reuters and hell, even Hollywood. And if you can't make shit happen because of "the right" then my guess is the left is run by a bunch of lunatic morons, but we know the left-wing leaders are much to coy for that and the reality is that you really are trying to push a platform that is way too far to the left.

Do we need to get to quotes from Reps and Senators, because it's a hell of a lot more than one person. Even McCain today wouldn't categorically say there are no death panels.

I'll agree that the Dems should just write the best bill they can and jam it through reconciliation and then deal with the fallout.

been out of town.

Agreed if you dont trust the verbiage than you cant debate either side of it. You can debate Figment though.

no

theyre both almost as impossible to watch as CNN...

Just Sayin'

Oh, see MBBF woke up, read the headline on his GOP talking point memo and regurged it on here with his typical entry line. There you go, now you know where the 'outrage of the day' comes from.

Terry Schiavo had nothing to do with religion.

Are you guys reading the same information that I am? Where do you find this stuff that says that people will even advise others to kill themselves? I see absolutely nothing about that. I see stuff that discusses what options individuals have and the best way to ensure that everyone knows your wishes.

It's essentially advising someone to write a will. Doing so doesn't mean you're advocating their death. How fucking off is reading comprehension these days.

:+1:

at most it's saying "make sure you address in writing what steps you want to be taken to prolong your life in case you're incapacitated so that people don't go against your wishes."

I just don't see the massive liberal media bias. I think it's a convenient crutch and great marketing by the GOP. Any negative article can be chalked up to liberal media bias. Same went for Clinton and the right wing conspiracy.

The media loves Obama but I think it was more of a national vibe that they went with. The public didn't want to see negative stories about him at the time. I do think each network did heavily cover the Rev. Wright issue as well as other negative marks on his resume.

But I also think the media fell in love with many on the right. Bush got a free pass for many years after 9/11 and many in his cabinet like Rumsfeld were media darlings for awhile. If you watch an old press conference with Rumsfeld back in the day, you'd think him and the press were best friends.

News should ultimately be about news. There shouldn't be a bias in news. You report on an event that happened. There are outlets that spin that news and that is wrong. I do think Fox has been the biggest culprit of this over the years though. Every story on Obama gets negative spin. I can't think of a network out there that has given Obama positive spin on every story. I guess I just don't view them as a news source anymore but an entertainment channel that is very tight with a particular political party.

Can you describe how it's selling out the constitution? I don't understand this argument.

And since when did implementing social programs become against the law?

You tell me where they have the power to do what they do...

- Provide for the common defense
- Raise, fund and regulate the Army and the Navy
- Borrow money on the credit of the United States
- Declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal
- Approve treaties, Cabinet and Supreme Court appointments
- Regulate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- Impeach (House only) and try (Senate only) federal officers
- Introduce Constitutional amendments, call a convention
- Override presidential vetoes
- Regulate commerce with foreign countries and between the states
- Establish rules for citizenship
- Coin money and regulate the value thereof, determine punishment for counterfeiting
- Define and punish crimes committed at sea
- Establish federal courts
- Create all bills for raising revenue (House only)
- Levy and collect taxes, duties
- Pay all debts
- Organize and arm the state militias
- Exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia
- Establish post offices and postal roads
- Create bankruptcy laws
- Regulate patents and copyrights
- Assemble at least once in every year on the first Monday in December
- Establish times for elections
- Discipline it's own members
- Oversee all federal property and possessions (what few there should be)
- Fill a vacancy in the Presidency in cases of death or inability
- Receive electoral votes for the Presidency
- Keep and publish a journal of its proceedings
- Conduct a census every ten years

And when something doesn't fall to one of those things, it is specifically set aside for the state to decide what to do.

The single best thing the government should do in regards to health insurance is allow competition within states. It would drive down prices, allow for competition, etc. People would get the same coverage if not more for the same prices if not less. Plus, it would actually be constitutional.

You are really for abolishing the FDA, CDC, EPA, FAA, NTSB, OSHA, and all other governing and regulating bodies in the government. As well as tearing up all the national highways that are not used for postal services. Seceding ownership of all national parks. Dissolving emergency groups such as FEMA.

Must say it would make for an interesting daily life.

Do you have any clue what the purpose of the national highways are?

To transport from one place to another?

Indirectly yes but not who you might think. The interestate system was built as a national defense system to get troops, etc. from one major city to another as quickly as possible. It had nothing to do with a citizen going from one place to another. That's how the funding was passed through for it.

As for your questions about the other agencies -- yes, I would get rid of most of the ones you mentioned and if each individual state wanted to develop a similar agency for their state then it would be okay. Just as working on a state insurance plan would be acceptable.

But I'm lost here. Last time I was on one of these national highways, there were non-military people on the roads (including myself-GASP!). Surely these roads should only be used for military personnel according to the constitution. I'm assuming our fine military doesn't need an 8-lane superhighway with signs for the next rest stop and Hardees posted along the way. I'm also assuming you refuse to drive on these roads since you stand for the strong principles of the constitution. As well as call for the removal of all non-military personnel from these highways.

You would really feel better having 50 seperate Centers for Disease Control? Because God knows that if Illinois has a great one, there is no way that deadly diseases could ever spread from poorly funded states to mine. It also makes a lot of sense for major food and drug companies to be approved 50 seperate times and abide by 50 seperate sets of rules when it comes to what they can and can't sell to the public. I also know it'll be a ton of fun flying places across country and having our pilot deal with 15 seperate aviation administrations. Definitely won't be confusing or a big hassle.

Why did you conveniently leave off the last part of the sentence? :)

Doesn't congress have the authority to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"?

To me that would include social programs.

I cut and paste it from another site without doing more than glancing at it to be honest. The general welfare clause is used often as a defense for most things the government passes. They never follow the rest of that part though where taxes/duties are uniform throughout the country.

As for your other two pieces...

1. I have no problem with the CDC (national defense in my opinion) or the FAA (commerce between states)

2. The military allows the citizens to use the interstate highway system and I certainly drive on it. It's legal. However, the military is in total control of the system and could stop people from driving on part or all of it with a declaration of such.

See response to rainmaker about the taxes not being uniform throughout the United States with almost all government programs.

The income tax amendment allowed Congress the leverage they wanted to do the crap they wanted and get around that little part the founding fathers were smart enough to include.

No. They are owned and operated by the states and/or toll authorities. It would take a declaration of martial law to remove civilian traffic.

Yes, the states own the roads but at least in my mind, the group that has the final word has ultimate control.

You're doing the same thing you're criticizing, you just have fewer things you'd permit that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Where does it say all taxes have to be uniform in that clause? I'm under the impression that duties, imposts, and excises are uniform.

See my previous statement.

Fair enough...eliminate them too then.

You don't think it's a tad convenient that they just so happen to cut off something in mid-sentence. Surely they aren't trying to hide something that would discredit their point.

Constitutionality of something is up to the courts. If he passes something that is felt to be unconstitutional, people are more than welcome to challenge it in court.

I have no problem if you're against the bill for a number of reasons. But trying to take some antiquated approach to the constitution is just silly. Technology and transportation has made things fluid between people throughout the country. There are too many things that need to be done on a federal level for not only easy but overall safety. You don't want to see organizations like the FDA running on a state level.

Trying to make these statements about how our highway system is strictly made for the military and post office is just silly. We all know what it's there for now and we all approve of the spending on it. Society and government works in shades of grey. If you think one is too dark or too light, than comment on it. But you are speaking in terms of black and white. Might be nice on paper but is certainly not realistic in the real world.

It's 2009, not 1776. The Founding Fathers also didn't want women to be able to vote and didn't mind bringing blacks over from Africa to work as slaves.

It's different eras in time. We can't keep harping back on them. They wrote their beliefs down when they couldn't possibly comprehend the advancement in technology. They had no idea I could fly across the country in 4 hours or have real time conversations with people across the globe. It's unrealistic to expect their beliefs be relevant in today's society.

Which statement? The one that makes no sense or the one that is flat out wrong?

There is nothing in the constitution about taxes being uniform.

Both of the things you mention came to be because the country grew into them and passed amendments to make sure they came to pass. The Constitution is designed to allow the country room to grow. It's in there. They realized they wouldn't anticipate where things would go but they made sure to allow a way for things to be change. So, if the people wanted to grant Congress the authority to institute a national healthcare system then it could go to the process and the people could decide if they wanted to approve it. If not, well then the people have spoken but the law was followed. If it passes, Congress gets a power not originally given to them. If it doesn't, then they don't.

People will say the amendment process is too difficult and time consuming to be used in modern times. It'll take too long, too much discussion, etc. That's by design...so that the people really make sure they want something and don't give power to a government in haste.

It is unconstitutional when it court says so. So far the Supreme Court has not overturned Medicare and other benefits for the needy.

The bill on the table is also not a national healthcare system. Not even close.

and this is why we are where we are, nothing more nothing less....at least you were honest about it.

Had we not bailed out the banks, unfortunately, we would be living in an utter nightmare IMO. Luckily for me my support of said bailout has begun to come around where we're seeing the money come back (some of it anyways) plus interest, and the warrants we hold when they are optioned up to 10 years from now I think will be worth more than they were when we dealt.

Bailing out the car companies gets a little more blurry and cash for clunkers simply brought up sales from next year which is why when this expires AND the Frist time homebuyer tax credit expires we'll be staring straight down the barrel of a double dip recession.

Regarding the health care debate from both ends, unless youre debating the verbiage of the bill it's all crap spun by the want to "win". That hasnt changed but the players, the big players, continue to use rhetoric and lying to move the arrow.

my $.02

I don't even have to say anything anymore - it's like you say exactly what i'm thinking in this case!

That's not some crazy modern day federal bureaucrat. That's a Supreme Court opinion from 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland).

Either way, it authorizes doctors to provide the service at particular intervals. That means doctors can get paid to do it, that means they will do it. Connecting the dots, the legislation going to make these consultations happen.

During the consultations, the doctor MUST explain the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care, hospice and the government benefits available to pay for the services. Hospice and Plliative care are basically, don't do anything, just try to make me as comfortable as possible as I die. This is also in a section on reducing health care costs.

How about you just leave that out of the bill? What qualifies legislatures and then gov. employees (who will ultimately decide what consultation will get paid via insurance) to decide what should be in an advance care planning consultation? I think most people feel more comfortable letting a doctor and their patient have this type of talk without the government dictating what needs to be in the conversation.

Now, I would not call this "death panels" and I also think it has no business in a health care bill.

why? because doctors shouldn't explain to a patient what all of their options and what the pluses and minuses of all of the options are??

isn't that what doctors should be doing anyways?

If you don't define the procedure it's ripe for abuse. A doctor could say, you should have living will and get paid by Medicare. There's nothing coercive in the language of the bill, it's just a definition of what qualifies for payment.

But like I told Molson earlier, if there are specific problems, look to change the language of the bill to fix those concerns. There's no good reason to accept the current bullshit spray as legitimate debate.

Bingo. They are spending the money they are Constitutionally allowed to collect from the general population. In addition to...


Universal Health Insurance (commerce between states)

Of course this probably isn't "universal" (no mandate, unfortunately).

If doctors are doing it anyway, why do you have to put specific language ragarding what MUST occur in this bill?


Sure, but that is the problem with government option health care. You can't afford to pay for everything, so you have to figure out how to cut costs. Which means rationing services. As for your first point, every service or procedure provided by a health care practioner is not defined in this manner. Another reason why you should just take it out of the bill.

That and some other changes would allow you to get the bill passed, then you can start making all the details and it will be much harder for people to fight it. Of course I don't want government run health care, so I hope it crashes and burns.

By the way, you should read "Welcome to The Monkey House" by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. It is fantasy and certainly not spot on with this death panel conversation. But it will give you an extreme view of why many people think this whole thing is bad.

LOL - THERE IS ALREADY RATIONING OF CARE BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!!!!

Not to the extent that people fear would happen under the reality of government-controlled health care (whether we get there with this bill or the next one or the next one).

I mean, that's a standard fear of government, I don't think it's unreasonable in any context. With corporations and the private industry, things are polluted by profits. With government, things are polluted by politics.

fear is an interesting word choice there and I wonder where this fear is coming from, could it be.....mmmmmmmmm

I'm trying to wonder how this bill is even close to "government-controlled health care"? It seems like a Swiss system. Private insurance companies, lots of government regulation, mandated health insurance coverage and government assistance for the poor to buy health care.

Maybe I just think that people who believe that regulation = government controlled are just nuts.

Right, any concern with anything the government does must be influenced by Rush Limbaugh or Foxnews. If we weren't so tainted by that media we'd all be 100% loyal subjects. Maybe we'd even obtain the one-party system it seems like many posters here would prefer.

Some early indicators of what could happen next year if Obama and the Democrats in Congress don't start working together. Harry Reid is currently trailing beyond the margin of error against both Republican candidates opposing him. Nevada is a state that swung to Obama in the last election, but is now suffering from one of the largest unemployment rates in the country.

2010 SENATE CAMPAIGN: Polls show potential GOP challengers would beat Harry Reid - News - ReviewJournal.com

The only reason why it's not close yet is the resistance being put up against it. This isn't something we should sail into recklessly (when was Obama's original deadline for getting this done? Last month?) Dissension and the airing of concerns is a positive thing. I agree that the concerns about government involvement in end-of-life decisions should be debated in the context of the bill itself instead of what we have, but at least there's still a strong check on anything that goes through. That check should involve more Democratic disagreement and less Republican involvement, because that's the Congress America has decided on, but as long as everybody wants to just settle up into two teams, I guess that's better than one team.

I guess I'm not 100% sure how you define rationing. I don't experience any type of rationing of services. It is basically to restrict consumption. If an insurance company covers it great, if they don't you can still get it by paying out of pocket. Places like Canada and the UK have rationing in the sense they cannot purchase something even if they want it. Or they have to wait beyond a reasonable amount of time (rationing because health services can be time sensitive) to get it even if paying for it. I don't think we have that problem in the US.


I don't think regulation equals government run. I do think the "public option" in this bill is fair to call government run.

That's not true. You have every right to get get treatment privately in those countries. The public plan is just an option and an option that works most of the time for residences.

Huge +1 on both of these. Very basic factual stuff here.

Anecdotal but not once during my father-in-law's decade long struggle with, and to recover from, an aortic aneuryism and all of the attendant problems that followed did I ever see a single treatment or procedure denied by insurance. .Not by Medicare, not by private, not by anyone. And that includes multiple hospitalizations of more than a month, multiple stints in physical rehab that followed in order to get him back on his feet after weeks in bed, etc & et al into what seemed like infinity.

And believe me, it was well beyond the "major multi-thousand dollar" threshold. Heck, he passed that point en route to the hospital the first night somewhere in the air between his hometown & the closest major hospital.

Nor did we encounter any denial of service during my grandfather's bouts with cancer. Nor during the additional health problems that eventually killed him. And his was the more traditional Medicare + private supplement scenario (aka Medigap coverage). Nor with my grandmother's shorter but brutal fight with cancer. Nor with her broken shoulder, surgical repair, and extensive rehab therapy.

In fact, outside of the games that facilities play with time tables (30 day limits on Medicare coverage for certain services & situations) the only time I've ever actually run into anything more extensive than reasonably legitimate questions for coverage was when my wife gave birth & that seemed more like Blue Cross-Blue Shield being the sorry ass cheap bastards they are.

New LA Times article detailing how much private insurance providers stand to gain if health care reform is passed........

Healthcare insurers get upper hand -- latimes.com

Factcheck.org with another good article detailing another Obama denial that isn't totally accurate.......

Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating? | FactCheck.org

Great clip here to watch for those of you that don't have HBO (If you do have HBO, you should watch a replay of this week's episode). Jeremy Scahill was on Bill Maher's show the other day and did a great job taking Bush, Obama, and the media to task for letting Blackwater continue to land major contracts overseas despite their reputation. I also had no idea that the number of military contractors has increased by 25% or more in both Iraq and Afghanistan under Obama. Loved watching Chuck Todd get taken to the mat over his hypocrisy in regards to Blackwater. Some great questions by Jay Leno as well.

Jeremy Scahill Slams Chuck Todd, Media, Congress Over Blackwater On "Real Time With Bill Maher" (VIDEO)

Then why does anyone in those countries come to the US for services? Why are there wait lists in those countries and not in the US? I think that illustrates rationing far better then stories about somebody you know, etc.

Yeah, my anecdotal issues would be similar. Issues my grandfather had with a fall and complications after it some time ago were covered beautifully by Medicare.

BCBS North Carolina continues to directly fuck over my father by denying him medication that we have seen work wonders on his short term memory loss that he suffers as a result of cancer/brain surgery years ago. Not because they don't cover the medication... they do, but only if you have the right diagnosis. You have to have Alzheimers. My dad doesn't, but the impact on my dad's brain and memory equates to "Alzheimers like symptoms" that are alleviated/improved by this medication, which costs $180/mo when not covered. But the diagnosis isn't exactly right, so BCBS gives us the finger even after letters and calls from both our family doc and neurologist.

I'm not about to tell anyone where to side on any of these debates. But some of this shit is just blatantly factually wrong and people are basing their decisions on this stuff. That pisses me off.

Bolded for emphasis.

Even if we get UHC those that see their wait times longer than they'd like I am certain will be able to find that the marketplace creates a solution, for profit, to help meet their needs. That argument in my opinion holds zero water.

The same reason many people in the United States travel to Canada for prescription meds and procedures. Some stuff about our system is better, some stuff about their system is better. This ain't black and white.

Sounds a lot like the kind of thing that happens when I go to the DMV to get my license renewed, or call the IRS to ask a question, or try to figure out the process for paying a parking ticket. Has the government somehow made huge strides in the (your words) "twelve bucks an hour" service category? How exactly is the government going to be any better at this?

Since you and the administration care so much about the common man why does your boss feel the need to vacation in a $35,000 a week house? Couldn't he just go back to Chicago?

(I understand that the $35K is out of his pocket and not a taxpayers, but it seems a little... what is your talking point? Out of touch)

Factcheck.org is one of the best sites on the web IMO. Everyone ought to go there often, not to bolster their side, or attack the other side. For once fuck sides. This site does an incredible job of remaining non-partisan and wading through the bullshit on both sides. their recent pieces on their front page, all about healthcare reform, do a great job to try to find the truth in the talking points and oversimplifications that both sides are constantly making.

:lol:

Really?

He's got a very stressful job. If he wants to vacation (out of his own pocket, with his own money) somewhere different and "away from it all" then I'm pretty sure that's his right. I have zero problem with it. Just like I had zero problem with any of the previous president's vacationing (well except for Bush who spent historically absurd levels of time at his ranch instead of in Washington)

Didn't think I'd ever say this, but Ross Douthat nails it:

I am shocked by this. I worked for a year doing some tax law and some administrative law in 2002-03. I found that, by far, the IRS was the most user-friendly government agency with whom I interacted. DOT also wasn't too bad. The military was impentrable. Other agencies were hit or miss.

The IRS public web site is one of the best Q&A places that I have seen. And they are easy to call on the phone, get a human being, and ask a question. They once called me back to clarify an answer that they gave me previously.

When did you try and call them? Why was it so bad?

I am, again, shocked. Sure the IRS has a bad reputation, but that's just BS that come from people who have never tried to call them--or frustration with the complexity of the law--which is Congress' fault, not the IRS's. Anyone who actually tries to interact with IRS has almost nothing but positive things to say about the level of information and service provided.

So, what happened? When did it happen? I often sing IRS's praises in this regard, and if I am wrong, I'd like to be informed of that.

(I, of course, agree that the DMV sucks donkey balls.)

Relying on so many contractors has always been a bad policy. If we don't have a large enough military to do the job then we should expand, but national security can't be effectively handled by mercenaries. I'd prefer a no contractors in a war zone policy personally.

+1

contractors in combat bad

As noted in the interview, we would also save quite a bit of money if we weren't hiring out contractors. Many of the U.S. military soldiers are leaving the military and moving to work for these contracting companies because of the increase in pay. Cutting off these contracts would help keep people in the military if we neutralized that alternative.

It was a great Op-ed. Of course we come from different sides on this because I think Douthat is the best columnist working today, and nails a lot of issues. ;).

Africa requests $67B from wealthy countries to combat global warming effects on that continent. I'm sure that will be used well. :rolleyes:

http://www.reuters.com/article/lates...s/idUSLO544093

Rationing as a problem depends on how big the public option ends up being. For now, it actually seems pretty meaningless, like an experiment, so in that sense I feel a lot better about it.

If you tried to offer a public option to anyone who wanted it, the rationing concern wouldn't be profits obviously, but doctor/clinic shortages. And perhaps political agendas to care (not a concern for you when the government leans Democrat, but what if we have a switch?) You're just taking the concerns of the private system (profit system), and then noting that it doesn't apply to government, which is obvious, but then ignore the unique risks of AMERICAN government involvement in order to make your case. That's gone on again and again in this thread. Highlight the postivies, deny or ignore the negatives and risks. It doesn't fill me with confidence when its assumed everything will be perfect. You talk about European perspectives being ignored, but nothing's being ignored more then the regular downsides and risks. It's like, "what if X happens?"..."Oh no, that would never happen here, it hasn't happened in Denmark, so it can't possibly happen here". Which isn't really responsive to the question.

I'm still trying to figure how much exactly the "Public option" premiums are going to cost, if that option is going to be self-sufficient. And who exactly is elligible for the public option, that would actually buy it, that could afford premiums out-of-pocket to the extent that the option will be self-sufficient, as has been promised. Ask a question like that - nobody has any idea (but they might write something in all caps about what Europe does or how there won't be death counsels).

I figured when the Obama administration sent out people to popular websites to spread their propaganda that they would also have you defend his other decisions.

Of course I guess it's possible that you maybe just randomly visited a sports text-sim website where your only posts are in the Obama presidency thread. Which sports sims do you play again?

So are we now becoming elitist in that he can't express a political opinion without having a history of playing text-sims/posting in other threads? He has to do that before he can express his political opinions here?

Steve's been anything but a troll - his posts are coherent and well thought-out and referenced. Even humerous sometimes. He's hardly here inciting conflict.

Really panerd, I'd expect better from you. :(

And yes, if he was a lefty-troll I'd excoriate him too - I'm against trolling by either side (even my own)...we've managed to maintain fairly good decorum and a high level of discussion in here, and on this board in general as far as politics go...I'd hate to see that dragged down.

Not sure what's so radical about that thought. It makes sense, from a evolutionary biology standpoint (and you know how I stand on other things - it's not like we're on radically different sides). That may be one of the biological reasons why CERTAIN women have a certain amount of difficulty achieving orgasm. Not all though. And it may not always lead to monogomy - particularly if they end up for some length of time with someone who loses/never had the ability to cause them to orgasm.

From a Jared Diamond "Third Chimpanzee" evolutionary-biology standpoint, this actually makes a whole lot of sense.

I'm a male feminist too, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is opposed is a horrible person. Regardless, I find nothing that bad in that quote you posted. What is so horrid about it? The man is thinking out loud about an evolutionary creation and it isn't out of left field at all.

And who you work with drives you down? I realize Bob Herbert is absolute dreck and sucks like a black hole, but that shouldn't drive down the rest of the staff.

Or.. what DaddyTorgo just said :D

Another consideration is the upward spiraling defecit. A future administration now runs the real problem of having to make drastic cuts just to keep the government afloat. Medicare and any version of a 'public option' would be prime targets in that case, given what would be their huge contributions to the increasing defecit.

The sum total of my family experiences with Medicare do not any include any real problems with getting them to pay for services that doctors requested. In fairness there would also have to be a reasonable grain of salt added there, or a reality check of sorts at least, in that doctors seem to pretty much know what will/won't be covered in most cases and tend to tailor treatment options with that in mind (which has both pros & cons obviously).

{insert 2 hour pause here, as I had to run out in mid-post for an appointment I almost forgot about}

If anything, it's things like prescription drugs, secondary issues (eyeglasses for a quick example of the top of my head) where I've seen some issues but nothing I would attribute to Medicare/Insurance directly.

The doctors unwillingness to treat certain problems adequately when they're getting Medicare rates, that's a whole different topic.

Given the latest deficit projections, I'm not even sure if 'deficit neutral' is good enough anymore.

The premiums issue isn't that complicated. The idea is that the public option would have to survive on it's premiums, without extra governmental aid.

Most of the people who sign up for the public option are assumed to be lower income/chronically ill who don't have access to other insurance plans.

The government will subsidize premiums for those under a certain income level.

Most of these subsidies will go to pay for premiums in the public option.

Whatever those premiums are, will be the cost for those who don't qualify for subsidies.

The exact cost of the premiums has yet to be determined.

He's against birth control because of his religious faith (he's Catholic). And his views are somewhat prudish, but he attempts to flesh them out and be honest with them. I've never seen him as a misogynist, but rather someone who actually reasons out his views from his starting spoints (which I find rather rare... most people have at least a few views that they rationalize away from where their starting points would lead them).

Your quote is also one of the reasons I like Douthat. It's very easy for people to jump on him, but when you actually take time to read his stuff, it is very thoughtful and makes sense. And the man has the balls to say what he thinks, regardless of who he gets attacked by (his feud was Limbaugh was great).

Regardless, I also disagree with your comparison, obvious, as I consider Douthat the best columnist out there and Herbert to be one of the worst.

Newer treatments, different methods, a better doctor perhaps. The same reason many cancer patients were flying over to Germany over the last few years for experimental treatments. I'd bet you that the number of people coming to the United States for treatment is miniscule.

You keep using this word rationing but I'm telling you that Canada and the UK have private options available. The same as the United States. The public option is just that, an option. If you aren't satisfied with the wait times on the public option, you are free to go the private route. They have the same exact private system available that we do.

How very socialist of you.

Medicare works fairly well. The scenarios you described would not have been as smooth on a strictly private health insurance plan.

Having a handicapped mother, I've dealth more than I wanted to with health insurance companies. I can tell you every game they play when she has to make a hospital trip. I can tell you that virtually any new medicine she gets prescribed will be denied off the bat. I can tell you that they will conveniently forget to pay bills to hospital and doctors. They will fight just about everything they can with you. It's almost a full time job to send in appeals and documentation for everything. When people talk about the insured and how great having health insurance is, they are typically talking about it as a healthy person.

I'd also add that in my experiences, I've lost a lot of respect for doctors as they've been one of the only people that actually made me feel bad for insurance companies. I guess I grew up thinking doctors were holier than thou. I learned that many (not all) are no better than used car salesman and will pad their bills with bogus shit all the time.

How much we betting? I know for a fact you'd lose, but I'm just curious how much you'd prefer to lose. The interesting part is that many prominent people come the U.S. to be treated anonymously. They do that to avoid the "What? We're not good enough?" backlash from the health care providers in their own country. I'm sure that most Americans aren't even aware that it happens quite often.


Saving money using cheaper alternatives is now socialist? I thought you were the one that said most people don't know what the word 'socialist' means?

Another day, another overgeneralization about a group with little basis in reality.

The biggest draw to the military is the training received and the ability to slide into a similar job that offers financial security whenever your time is up. Eliminate those positions and you likely see a big drop-off in recruitment, especially in Intel and similar fields where it's hard to keep these people to begin with. Contract positions allow the military to keep the highly skilled and experienced people that don't want to stay in the military or are unable to stay in the military for a variety of reasons.

No one joins the military for the pay and very few leave it simply because there are high paying contractor jobs they can get. The military is something you either want to do or you don't. I'm sure the other former/current military on this board can tell you that job opportunities are more of a bonus once you've decided your time in the military is up than anything else. There are usually a lot of factors considered when leaving and pay is actually fairly low on the list from what I've seen.

If you really think people would just opt to stay in the military because the contractor jobs are eliminated you're nuts. On top of forcing the very best of these to jobs where their skills aren't helping the military you'd likely see a drastic falloff in recruitment in the handful of job fields where contracting opportunities after you're done are the big draw (such as intel). The main attraction to these these fields is the training and experience the military can offer which translate to job opportunities when your done. Eliminating those opportunities by creating roadblocks to the outside would be a disaster as jobs that rely on the level of experience and skill that these contractors are able to bring would end up filled by people with little to no experience.

Those few that do keep because there are less job opportunities available are people that don't want to be there to begin with. You don't want these people in the military. Its entirely different to have someone that realizes the military isn't for them and they simply have to fulfill their current contract and be done than having experienced people filling important jobs that don't want to be there because you eliminated job opportunities. Building an experienced, low morale military is a great way to run our nation's defense.

Not an overgeneralization at all. Plenty of statistics to support that doctors run up bills on insurance companies. Check out data on what tests are performed on someone with insurance and without. On what tests are performed when the doctor owns the machine and makes a cut off each test.

You obviously took my point to an extreme. If you minimize or eliminate the contracting positions, you're going to have a lot more money to offer additional pay and benefits to the existing military. I'd agree with you every step of the way that they're not paid enough. All the money is going to the paid mercenaries.

Contracting is a long-standing tradition in all branches of government (not just the military)that needs to be curtailed. This is coming from a person who is currently employed as a government contractor. It's honestly ridiculous that they don't have a full-time employee on staff rather than me.

not to mention that contracting in warzones gives them plausible deniability about atrocities and things that wouldn't be sanctioned by the Geneva convention - and since we haven't signed onto the International Criminal Court fully those "contractors" are at no risk of being forced to account for their crimes

Well, I think there are some examples where they would be held accountable, but I'd agree with you that it's not nearly the extent that a soldier would be. I think you'd agree it's a pretty weak reason to do it that way.

Lets see your statistics then. This reports that surveyed many hospitals seems to believe that Canadians being treated are miniscule numbers.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...20(%3Ca%20href

Saving money isn't, expanding a government controlled industry is. Isn't that the whole reason you are against health care? Private companies can do it better.

Not taking a side on that issue, just thought it was funny how you lambast government control and call it socialism. But when it comes to the socialized military, it's OK to expand and cut out the private sector. Hypocrisy, thy name is MBBF.

Agreed. In addition, I'd like to say, if we are talking anecdotally, as someone who works for the agency regulates pension and health plans, doctor's offices plans are the worst. Mostly because doctors think they can do everything themselves (hey, they are DOCTORS, right?) and manage to completely fuck over their participants as a result of overconfidence in their abilities.

That's a load of bullshit, but feel free to drive that train if you'd like to do so. Provide all the propaganda and we'll shovel through it piece by piece.

As someone who has seen my profession (lawyers) been dragged down by overgeneralizations and misrepresentations, even if doctors are being dragged down that way (and I don't think Rainmaker is doing so), I have no sympathy.

So we're only talking about Canada here?


There's a HUGE difference between a government contractor situation and a private company on its own without any government involvement.

This topic is covered at about the 3:30 mark of the video.

Just wait until the phenomenon of widespread "government doctors". Especially when we really start needing to scrape the bottom of the barrel of medical schools. It's much easier to rip off the government than a private company.

I base my judgment on statistics.

Equal Treatment for the Uninsured? Don't Count on It. - washingtonpost.com

Doctor Self-Referrals Part of Health-Care Cost Trend - washingtonpost.com

Virtually every study has shown that a doctor will schedule more tests if they receive financial incentive for doing so (referral fee or own the machine). This is basic economics, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Virtually all studies on what doctors do for insured and uninsured patients have shown that insured patients get more tests and time with doctors. Again, financial incentive.

Do you have some statistics to dispute this or not?

As I said, the military really isn't about pay. It's either something you want to do or something you don't. Pay and benefits greatly increased under Bush and retention went down even in the areas that weren't really affected by the war.

Curtailing contracting in certain sectors I can agree to. Eliminating it would be idiotic as there are job fields that rely heavily on these contractors and a good number of them are unable to serve either because they're too old, disabled, or a number other reasons.

As for you and your position, I don't know exactly what it is you do, but generally contractors offer experience and stability to a job position that a military person can't match. Contractors can stay in a position until they retire while the average military person probably stays at a particular job for less than 2 years before ETSing, PCSing, being moved, ect.