There was definately a surge of positive press for Bush after 9/11, and an uptick of positive press during military operations in Iraq.

As for taking the Bush Admin at their word on everything, that's obviously not fair. Bush wasn't saying anything new.

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." - Senator Hillary Clinton, September 13, 2001

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." - Senator John Edwards, October 2002

"We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands." - President Clinton, 1998

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." - President Clinton, July 2003

I thought the media went to town on Bush for saying some of these things. But I might not remember correctly, it's been a minute. Perhaps jouranlists have been willing to not contest the President (take the stimulus package as an example). Some things perhaps are off-limits. Even still, that doesn't mean bias doesn't exist.

Before it was "Blame Clinton". Now it's "Blame Bush". I'm not sure how it's amazing in any way or form.

Well, it's not a promise per se, but from his 2004 DNC speech:


And from his victory speech after the Iowa caucuses...


There's more out there, but you get the idea.

He certainly pledged to work together, but he never once promised non-partisan. Even if he did, it's awfully hard to be non-partisan when the other side is looking for your Waterloo.

Okay Flasch.

Do me a favor and google "Obama non-partisan" and "Obama end partisan bickering". Regardless of what words Obama specifically used, one of the driving themes of Obama's career, going back to his 2004 speech at the DNC, was supposedly his ability to rise above partisanship.

I think what we're seeing is the fact that Obama is in a real position to lead for the first time in his political career, and he's just as divisive as every other executive we've had recently. In that sense, yes, he's failed to deliver what his campaign promised. You can blame Republicans all you'd like, but that's kind of like blaming the other team's defense for not letting you score a touchdown.

I agree with the people who said he did campaign on being non-partisan. That was one of the reasons people elected him.

I also think he did try to do that but has learned that it just doesn't work in Washington. One guy can't change decades of bickering over power. He got burned on that and has probably learned his lesson now.

I am just worried about my parents being sent to death camps, the future mandatory abortions on my unborn child, and the jailtime I'll receive for not buying insurance. :lol:

I think there's a significant difference from working for bi-partisan solutions and being non-partisan. You want to call me out on words, but you can't find any examples of Obama saying he'd be non-partisan.

What's Obama supposed to do when the other side has made the tactical decision that any compromise is bad? He has more opposition appointees than any modern president and Republicans are still putting holds on numerous appointments including until recently the Surgeon General. He bent over backwards to find a moderate for his first court appointee and that judge has been refused a vote for nearly 200 days. He agreed to have 40% of the stimulus in GOP demanded tax cuts and he got zero votes for it. He adopted a number of GOP suggestions for the healthcare bill and was still attacked as being a socialist Hitler Mao Stalin who wanted to go back in time and abort the fetus of your grandmother.

At some point it's time to say fuck it you guys are unreasonable dicks and get to work passing your agenda.

I have been siding with the Republicans a lot lately but it is weak to try and nail Obama on his campaign promises. Presidents say whether they need to say to get elected and then do something totally different. Bush Jr. was against nation building and was a compassionate conservative, Bush Sr. said "No new taxes". To steal the phrase of the day they are all populist whores. They are for war in 2002 when Americans are pissed off, against it in 2004, and back for it when Obama decides he wants to keep the military industrial complex going. Why would we expect to believe any campaign promises anymore?

Did Kerry continue doing any of his pledges from the 2004 presidential election when he was a senator from 2005-2008? Is McCain keeping any of his presidential campaign pledges now? I seem to recall McCain saying health care has to be fixed, did he suddenly just now figure out after 20 years in the Senate that the government spends too much! These guys play to a base and then they vote with special interests, it’s really as simple as that.

(And I thought I could go the whole time without mentioning it... but it sure would nice to have another party to call them on their bullshit. You can't keep running only against ideas when a legit 3rd party enters the picture)

We don't. At least I don't. But there's a big difference between not believing a campaign theme and refusing to acknowledge that the theme existed.

I dunno. But then again, I wasn't the one running for president with a theme of bridging the blue state/red state divide.


And at that point you've failed to change the tenor and tone of Washington... just like every other politician who vowed to make D.C. a better place.

I'm not saying it makes Obama the worst person in the world. In fact it's the opposite. At the the end of the day, there's really nothing special about Barack Obama the man. As Panerd said, he's just another politician, even if his campaign promised something different.

Yeah and it is actually really sad. I think Obama really beleives in the stuff he promised in the campaign. (Not saying I agree with him but I think he truly in his heart favors gay rights, ending the war on drugs, ending American agression overseas, universal health care, regulating wealthy people's salaries, even changing the tone and role of Washington) Now either the power got to his head (most likely) or something more sinster happened but he is now completely a normal politician, beholden to all that has money in this country. He is no different than Bush or Clinton. I guess we really are all fools for thinking after thousands of years of governments pulling the same shit over and over that somehow it will ever change.

(The thing that scares me most is that the day the Libertarian party does somehow pull off the unthinkable they will end up being the same old shit as the rest of them. They ran Bob Barr is their candidate in 2008, not exactly a champion of their social issues!)

I don't think I've ever argued that Obama is anything but a pragmatic politician. My only point is that the non-partisan or post-partisan crap attributed to him never came out of his mouth. He only offered to try to work with everyone and from my vantage point he tried, but you can't dance the tango by yourself.

My only objection is to the bolded statement. From his victory speech:


Except if you're a "teabagger", apparently.

From his speech announcing his candidacy:


From a speech at the California Democratic Convention in 2007:


Apparently you can turn the pages backwards as well. :)

How LONG have many people on both side of the issue on this very board been begging for the Democrats to do exactly that? Yet the lone victory is a lame duck bill that Pelosi gutted to get passed that will never pass again in the House. Some Democrats in the House who supported the last bill have already said they will vote against the bill when the Senate adds many of those provisions back?

I'm pretty sure at this point that we'll get a do-nothing bill next summer before elections just to say they passed something, but it'll have absolutely no teeth and very little of what was promised by the Democratic leadership.

Not me, I was hoping both sides would come together and work together for the betterment of our country and you and me. You and the GOP would rather "win". [Looking for the Waterloo was a great comment above]

Yes, we need more non-partisan Americans who are solely worried about the greater good such as yourself, Flasch.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to 'win'. I just don't want a health care bill that's not good for the country as a whole. If that's winning, then yes, I want exactly that.

Then why to you bitch so often about Obama being partisan?

If I didn't know you better I'd think you would complain about anything Obama does regardless of what you've said in the past.

And that's exactly what defeating this bill will do, or at least leave it in better shape than passing it will do. Maybe that's just "a win" to you, but to a lot of us who oppose it, it's a lot more significant than going 1-up in a game of checkers.

Because he's the one that promised 'change' and 'setting aside our differences'. Being partisan appears to be the STRENGTH of this administration, despite the huge majorities in both sides of Congress that should allow them to do the work needed all on their own if they'd put forth reasonable legislation.

I side with Obama on a number of issues. I think it's clear that this is an issue with the policies that I disagree with.

All I can say is pot meet kettle.

The Democrats on the board are mad that their President is not doing what Bush attempted to do when he was President and that was advance their party's agenda. The other side is not interested in bettering the country, they "would rather 'win'".

A few points, when Bush was first elected he was tried to fulfill many of his campaign promises. I remember the press being amazed that he was actually trying to do the things he promised (Steel tariff anyone?). Plus, Bush's presidency was in three stages, the pre-9/11 stage was very aimless. The big issue at that point was stem cell research. After 9/11, everything changed. What was he supposed to do, round up the usual suspects?

Look at FDR, he ran in 1940 on a platform that promised no foreign wars, meanwhile he did everything he could to get us in the war. Does anyone beat on him for that?

Obama may not have used the words "bi-partisan" but his rhetoric was very much along the lines of all of us living under one big umbrella and we could all get along. The problem Obama has, is that he is too much of a politician. He has yet to get up and actually lead the push to advance his agenda. Instead, he has been very guarded and unwilling to risk his reputation on any issue.

The problem that Obama and the Democrats have is that they won because they were not the party in power. They did not win because of their agenda. Health care is a great example. There is no large public outcry for it. Much of the public is skeptical of it. That was one of their central tenets in the campaign, and where is the cry for it? However, the Republicans are going to fall a foul of the same sentiment after the mid-term elections where they will make up ground, but incorrectly assume that it was due to their agenda.

most of the public is skeptical on healthcare? not in the studies i've seen. if the question is phrased in a truthful and non-leading way then most of the public is for healthcare reform

I wish that the people in Washington opposed it for the reasons you probably do but when some of the leaders 'lie' about the proposals in an effort to steer debate that shows disingenuity. Also when one of the leaders negotiating a bill says he'd vote against it anyways, his very own bill, it rings hollow that theyre not playing checkers. Now for those like you, who Im sure debate the health bill on its own merits than I would respect your opinion eventhough it differs from my own but when people show up at the town halls and cry about the bailouts, death panels, birth certificates it minimizes what you might be trying to get people to pay attention to.

+1

Almost every poll Ive seen outside of MBBF's state that a great VAST majority of Americans want change in the current health care system. shoot even the Insurance Companies know that because they have had to 'give in' to the momentum and say that 'they want change to'. then they run their ads opposing change and wrapping it in all sorts of scary propaganda.

They are skeptical of this bill.

The problem is that if you ask the question, "Are you for healthcare reform?" or "Do you think the healthcare industry should be cleaned up?" I would venture to say that over 70% of Americans would say yes. The problem is that everyone differs in the details.

I am for healthcare reform. However, my belief is that we need to get rid of the insurance companies and put restrictions on how the drug companies advertise. Outside of that, we have a good system. But you will get answers across the spectrum how to clean up the system.

EDIT: In no case should the government be in charge of providing care or a care option. Go to any ER after 10 PM and tell me that the poor cannot get healthcare in this country.

An excellent summation of the situation. Well done.

This new tactic of yours is fantastic. Wrap an ill-conceived argument in a package with a bow on top stating that MBBF thinks the exact opposite and shovel it out to the masses as being legitimate because MBBF disagrees.

Genius. Pure genius.

Facts are Facts...

unless of course theyre a poll you garner bad info from, like you did in the Election thread OR

theyre assumptions and spin, like you did in the Iran thread (BTW did that revolution occur like you said it was?)...

or theyre interpretive like you did above and have done repeatedly in this thread ("Looks like","Vast",etc)...

Maybe you mistyped, but how can you get rid of insurance companies and offer no government alternative?

Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports™

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124202/No...re-Reform.aspx

These are facts and I am not sure 45% is a vast majority..

as pointed out, no bill will be perfect and after swathed in 'death panel', kill autistic children, rationing paint Im sure ANY bill will be hard pressed to get everyone to support it.

What I stated above was that a VAST majority of people think a change to the current system is needed....is that not correct?

Found it in that article:

I love how the percentage of people with "no opinion" on whether to vote for the Health Care Bill has gone up from 22% to 33% over the last two months. Way to go, Washington!

That is rather nice work, isn't it? ;)

More seriously though, it isn't lost on me (nor a lot of people who pay attention) that fatigue is one of the more useful weapons in the opposition arsenal. That's true on health care deform, true on a lot of other stuff too. Handy item in the toolbox regardless of which side of an issue you're on really.

Easy, if I didn't have to pay insurance premiums, I would save $700 a month. How many times have I been to the doctor in the last six months, twice? So I would have an extra $4200 in my pocket over that time frame. I could have paid for my two visits and still had a chunk of cash left over.

Not to say that with a true free enterprise system, doctor's offices would be encouraged to lower costs for care, while maintaining adequate standards for care.

I'll give another example. Over 30 years ago I lost half of my front tooth in an accident. To repair the tooth and fix it, the doctor charged us $25. I remember my mom asking, "No, not for the doctor's visit, how much for the procedure." Answer, $25. Taking into account inflation, etc., that procedure should cost $50 now. Instead, it costs hundreds of dollars. Why?

When was the last time you went to a doctor and they did not take blood? It has been several years for me. At first I thought it was great, now I realize that it is just another procedure that the doctor can charge the insurance companies for. The problem is that no one questions it. Why should they? The additional test does not come out of their pocket, it comes out of the insurance company's pocket. Heck, when I go in for a sinus infection and have the symptoms of it, running a fever, congestion, headaches, etc., you don't need to take a blood test to tell you that. Especially, if you are giving me antibiotics anyway!

My point is that doctors are not operating in a free market, they have constructed these additional measures that have insulated them from free market forces that would otherwise keep costs in check. Not to mention, what happens if your insurance company takes a bath on their investments, that cost is being passed on to you.

What other market or service do we have to get insurance for normal maintenance? Car insurance is for accidents, theft, personal injury, etc. Life insurance is for unexpected death. All of these are unexpected occurrences. Why do we treat the medical industry any different? Why is it a precondition for services, unless you go to the ER?

When young lawers/law students start writing appeals, they mostly try the "discuss every possible mistake in the case" strategy on the theory that they can just wear down the appellate court with the long list of mistakes made.

And, as they learn, you can wear down the appellate court. Pretty easily in fact. And, being worn down by your brief, the appellate court will then rule against you and affirm the district court.

In general, the best appellate strategy is to find the worst thing that happened at trial and discuss it as quickly as possible. It's hard to argue that a mistake was so obvious that it demands correction when it takes you 45 pages to explain that mistake to a judge. Not a 100% rule there, but a pretty good rule of thumb.

I agree with Jon that fatigue is an under-rated weapon for those who want to keep the status quo. At some point, people start to wonder why they should care.

That may work for the young and healthy, but seems a terrible plan for serious accidents and major illnesses. How do you handle the child with brain cancer or the teenager in an auto accident or the forty year old with a heart attack?

I do think doctors over test, but getting rid of insurance just creates even bigger problems IMO.

seriously

You're right, so you keep medical insurance in the realm of life threatening situations. Heart attacks, cancer, etc., keep insurance for them, but why does your family practioner need to require insurance? Going in to have a baby? Have your insurance for complications, otherwise insurance is not involved. The problem is that for many that do not need it, it has become a requirement for care.

Promote HSAs and remove the incentives for insurance. Let's not forget that insurance companies are also making their profits. That's an extra say 10%.

The key is to make the process more transparent to the customer so that we can make informed decisions. Unfortunately, the system is not set up that way. There are laws that could be passed to help, force doctors to advise the price of the treatments (again family practioners) and to advise of the different options and risks involved (which they should be doing anyway). Most car dealers post the popular car care items, oil change, tire rotation, brakes, alignment, etc. Doctors could do the same thing. Checkup, physicals, drug test, etc., could all be posted and people could shop their doctors. The way the system is setup there is no incentive to do it, so there is no incentive for the doctors to run a lean, efficient, business.

Huge, mind-blowing profits when most other companies are struggling.

What I don't like about that system is it forces me to be the physician. I'm not in any position to know if a particular test is necessary or not. Do I need an AFP test? Maybe I'll do this one but not the followup six months later. Is this headache really a cause for an MRI? I'm not a trained physician and I'm in no position to make those decisions. I want the best care I can get because my life is on the line. It's a lot different from shopping for a new stereo system.

i have enough else to think about day-to-day that i don't want to be shopping for doctors or thinking about what treatments i need. that's somebody else's job so that i can do my job.

otherwise i'm going to be sitting around doing that every night instead of relaxing...and thus i'm going to be more stressed and my health is going to get worse...

edit: like jphillips said also - i'm not a trained doctor. and even if i'm educated, what about those who are less educated, or where they can't manage to save enough because they're not fiscally responsible enough or circumstances don't allow it.

That is what your doctor is for. Seriously, how is it any different than getting your car checked? Are you familiar with all the systems in a car? Probably not, or to your DT's point, what about the next guy who isn't?

Are you saying that everytime you get a headache, you think you need an MRI? Your doctor is there to say, look, this isn't serious because your other vitals don't support it, but if you want to be sure, we can give you an MRI. Or based upon family history, you should get it checked. My point is that you have the choice. You have the choice of where to go get it, etc.

If I skip out on my car maintainence it will hurt my car, but I'll still live. If I cut corners on my maintainence it could cost me my life. The margin for error is significantly different when talking about your life.

If insurance was taken away a lot of people wouldn't have the money to afford an MRI. I think the average cost is well over 1000$. How do people living paycheck to paycheck pay for each individual test? At what point does the catastrophic insurance kick in? As it currently stands a huge number of personal bankruptcies have a significant medical expense component. How would this not exacerbate that problem?

So when you first moved into an area, you looked at the list of doctors and went to one? Heck, you could ask your friends who they go to and go there. The insurance company's job is not to tell you who the best doctor is, all they tell you is who they have arrangements with.

You're saying that you would rather have the government/insurance company step in and tell you where to go and who to see rather than determining that yourself? If that is the case, then we are going to have to agree to disagree because I want to determine who I can and cannot see, and make my own decision about who is the right caregiver for me.

To your last point, are we supposed to bail out companies who were not fiscally responsible enough to make good judgements? Should we as a country bail out people not responsible enough to take care of themselves? Just because someone makes bad decisions does not mean you or I should have to pay for it.

You've moved to a different point. No one is saying that there shouldn't be freedom in selecting a physician. The problem as you originally stated it was that individual procedures should be questioned by the consumer. That's what I find troubling. I choose a doctor because I trust their judgment. When they tell me what procedures I need I'm either going to do what was suggested or find a new physician. I can't/don't want to figure out what procedures I should get based on comparative shopping.

Your second point leaves out the class of people that through no fault of their own can't afford their medical care. You may be comfortable withholding care from the irresponsible, but what about the merely unfortunate?

The reason your doctor takes blood everytime is to check for other issues other than one you are having. It is also so you don't sue them if you visit them and they fail to diagnose some hidden illness. I know you of all people would never bring a frivolous lawsuit like the doctor missing you had LDL levels of 250 when you went in for a cold, but there are plenty of people who will.

Also, HSA's blow, the hospitals will not charge less because insurance companies don't exist, and there are way to many potential procedures/illnesses for you to just cherry pick which ones should have insurance or not.

Agreed. But you plan for car maintenance, at least I do. If I needed to, I would also plan for medical expenses as well. Heck, my father had colon cancer, due to his and some other members of my family's medical history, I am having a colonoscope first part of next year. I fail to see a major difference between the two as far as planning for it is concerned. Get a physical once a year, you put that into your budget same as anything else.



MRI costs would go down. If an insurance company will allow X amount for the MRI, you can be sure that the doctors are charging X for that MRI. When the next year rolls around, they adjust X for inflation if possible. If MRI centers have to compete for business, costs/prices will come down. Heck, how much does an X-ray cost now days? Not much.

How do people living paycheck to paycheck pay for the test now? I can tell you that most hospitals, at least here, will allow you to pay any amount on a bill, as long as it is something (minimum might be $10 have to check with the wife). So they will work with you on getting that amount paid. But, I would maintain that costs would come down as labs have to compete for business. What happens now? Your doctor instructs you to go to lab X (you need to verify they are covered by your insurance or you are SOL), why? Typically because they have an arrangement or partially own the lab. So they are fully incentivized to do extra unneeded tests to line their pockets. I mean do you know where you would need to go have the tests done? No, but you can find out the places pretty quickly by looking them up online. Plus, shopping for the service, its no different than shopping various service shops for who will charge you the least to put a new transmission in your car.

What I find amusing is that people will go to the ends of the earth to find out where they can pay 5 cents less per gallon of gas, or where game X is being sold for $5 or $10 less, but when it comes to YOUR LIFE, we can't take the time to do so.

no...i don't want the insurance company to tell me who to go to. i'll use doctor-ranking websites for that or referrals from people i know. i didn't mean to imply that. i meant with regard to what tests i absolutely NEED or what procedures I have available to me. I think there'd be no discernable difference in the number of unnecessary procedures done, as people would choose to have things done they didn't need because they didn't know better or were talked into it by people out to make a buck.

newsflash - we're already paying for people who can't afford it. a significant percentage of your insurance premiums go to pay for people who cannot afford regular care who use the public ER's as their primary care physicians because those public ER's have a mandate to "turn nobody away."

And call me nieve and an idealist, but I do actually believe with every fiber of my being that when it comes to healthcare (as opposed to profit-making by companies) we do have a moral imperative to provide healthcare to all Americans as a fundamental birthright. It's part of Winthrop's whole "we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us" sermon.

The way that we treat the most impovrished and worst-off or neediest among us says a great deal about our societal values and morals - and frankly the idea of leaving people to go bankrupt or die because of lack of affordable medical treatment doesn't say anything positive about us as a society. It's something that pretty much every other developed country has recognized and implemented.

No, I was addressing the issues that DT brought up. Not a different point, you would have to go to his post for that.

My point is that you don't shop pricing every single time. When you are new to an area, you would shop for a doctor's services. You might from time to time check prices for a checkup if you think you are being charged too much. For a major decision, you get a second opinion. Just as you would with a car, or current medical practice.

My point with the unfortunate is that they are getting care anyway! I have never, never seen anyone who could not pay for services get turned away. Go to any major hospital's ER after say 8PM, and see who is there. You'll have the 2-3 people with actual emergencies, the rest are the poor who have the cold or the flu. They do get medical care.

and we pay for it.

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.