Originally Posted by dailykos

In our weekly poll last week, 80 percent of Republicans are definitely or probably going to vote. For Democrats, it was just 55 percent. Those aren't bloggers or political junkies, it's rank and file Democrats, and they're seeing no reason to turn out and vote. Those voters were promised some pretty basic items, and they delivered big for the Democratic Party -- super majorities and a White House landslide. Democrats pissed away their mandate with a series of corporate bailouts, but nothing for main street. The signature Democratic policy item -- health care -- has been hijacked by Lieberman, Lincoln, Baucus, Snowe, and Ben Nelson, to the detriment of pretty much everyone else, all with the full support of a "bipartisan" obsessed White House.

I'm going to vote, and you guys are too. We're not the problem. Heck, in the generic congressional ballot, Democrats still have a decent lead, 37-33. The problem are the marginally engaged Democrats, and without them, we're going to get creamed next year. According to that latest poll, only 39 percent of 18-29 year olds will definitely or probably vote. 39 percent. And why should they? They're likely to get stuck with an expensive mandate to reward insurance companies by purchasing their overpriced, under-delivering products. African Americans are only 32 percent definitely or probably likely to turn out, and 42 percent for Latinos. While 61 percent of men -- who skew heavily Republican -- are definitely or probably going to turn out, that number is just 51 percent for women -- who skew heavily Democratic.

Originally Posted by dailykos article by steve singiser

Congratulations, Senate Dems!!!

by Steve Singiser

Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:12:03 AM PST

Before we begin what I suspect will be a furious attempt to rebrand the reported "compromise" (read: capitulation) on health care as the most meaningful piece of progressive legislation since ever, I think Senate Democrats deserve recognition for doing something that most thought would have been impossible--crafting health care legislation that will, ultimately, please no one.

The Democratic base is going to voice strong objections, because instead of taking bold steps in the face of a health care crisis, you allowed a guy that spent 2008 campaigning for a Republican presidential nominee to have unilateral veto power over the legislation (the optics of that aspect of this story could not possibly be worse).

Good luck getting that base to the polls in 2010. Their motivation to keep or expand a Democratic majority looks like it was rendered meaningless.
Worse yet, the months of dithering on the bill accomplished the worst possible scenario: the whiplash effect of raising, and then subsequently lowering, expectations. The neverending litany of mixed messages coming from both the Senate and the White House left the left-of-center Democratic base with false hopes that emanated from the false starts of those entities, who vacillated between bold and contemptibly timid.
The GOP, for what it is worth, was always through with you, despite your numerous attempts to find ways to please them and appeal to them. This will still get scant, if any, Republican votes, no matter how much the bill was neutered in response to their criticism. And they will still, after all this, find ways to call you dangerous socialists about 23,000 times between now and November of 2010.

The "independent voter", meanwhile, has seen the spectacle of the past several months. They have seen Senate Democrats, "led" by their Majority Leader, adopt six different bargaining positions a day, where reports of negotiation (and/or capitulation) were met with an immediate forceful denial from some spokesperson, only to be confirmed within hours.
They have concluded that Democrats cannot govern worth a damn. They may well be right.

So, congratulations, guys. It takes a tremendous amount of skill to singlehandedly imperil a Congressional majority and return bargaining power to a political party that has been spending the last five years circling the drain. Perhaps John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will send you a "thank you" card.

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2186020)

If they're going to stick us with a watered down giveaway for PhArma and still let Lieberman keep his chair they deserve whatever losses are coming. You want an excited base, how about you do something besides obsess about covering your asses.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2186127)

Not term limits. All term limits do is make the lobbyist's stronger as they have all the institutional memory. What they need is public financing.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2186150)

that too. 100% public financing - no exceptions. and term limits. i probably should have mentioned that i'm totally in favor of public financing.

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2186190)

I think we should do public financing with an opt-out clause if we think we can blow the doors off the competition with private financing. :)

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2186736)

As a side note, why libertarianism will never come to America.

From the American Enterprise Institute, not exactly a liberal bastion of thought.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/RoleOfGovernment.pdf


Questions that ask Americans whether they would like a smaller government with fewer services or a larger government with more services usually produce a preference for smaller government.
***
But when abstractions about government in general become concrete questions about individual programs, Americans don’t want to cut funding for most programs.

In the most recent poll (2008) cited in the paper, foreign aid, the Pentagon, "welfare," and "space exploration" were the four areas where respondents said the federal government was spending "too much." The much longer list of areas where people said the government was spending too little of the correct amount included:

• Improving & protecting environment
• Improving & protecting nation’s health
• Solving problems of big cities
• Halting rising crime rate
• Dealing with drug addiction
• Improving nation’s education system
• Improving the conditions of blacks
• Highways and bridges
• Social Security
• Mass transportation
• Parks and recreation

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2186741)

Because right now they pass all these spending bills without any increases in taxes even though anyone with half a brain knows where the money is coming from. How about asking how they feel about each of those issues with a corresponding increase in tax? I love the idea of national A+ health care for everyone but I realize the trillion+ dollars has to come from somewhere.

At zero cost I would favor most of these things. What a useless study.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2186751)

But the thing is, this undercuts the argument that Americans are at their core a freedom-loving, small government society and if only true small government conservatives got into office, the country would get behind them.

Sure, they'll say they want smaller government because it's been drilled in their heads for 30 years that big government is teh evil. But, when it comes down to the actual programs, they don't want to eliminate anything that would be on your average libertarian's chopping block.

Also, just because it's fun to link to. A reminder of what the government actually spends their cash on in discretionary spending.

http://torrentchannel.com/gfx/Death_and_Taxes.jpg

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2186766)

If the American people truly wanted the bear-minimum, lasseiz-faire, stripped-down government that libertarians wanted, they would've voted for less spending by the government in these sectors. After all the government is inefficient, can't do anything right, and I'm sure the invisible hand of the free market could easily fix the nation's health, mass transit, and the environment.

Originally Posted by Libertarians on the enviornment (Post 2186774)

Who's the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical companies? The nuclear power plants? If you guessed "none of the above," you'd be correct. Our government, at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest polluter in the land. In addition, our government doesn't even clean up its own garbage! In 1988, for example, the EPA demanded that the Departments of Energy and Defense clean up 17 of their weapons plants which were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals -- enough contamination to cost $100 billion in clean-up costs over 50 years! The EPA was simply ignored. No bureaucrats went to jail or were sued for damages. Government departments have sovereign immunity.


In 1984, a Utah court ruled that the U.S. military was negligent in its nuclear testing, causing serious health problems (e.g. death) for the people exposed to radioactive fallout. The Court of Appeals dismissed the claims of the victims, because government employees have sovereign immunity.

Hooker Chemical begged the Niagara Falls School Board not to excavate the land where Hooker had safely stored toxic chemical waste. The school board ignored these warnings and taxpayers had to foot a $30 million relocation bill when health problems arose. The EPA filed suit, not against the reckless school board, but against Hooker Chemical! Government officials have sovereign immunity.

Government, both federal and local, is the greatest single polluter in the U.S. This polluter literally gets away with murder because of sovereign immunity. Libertarians would make government as responsible for its actions as everyone else is expected to be. Libertarians would protect the environment by first abolishing sovereign immunity.

By turning to government for environmental protection, we've placed the fox in charge of the hen house -- and a very large hen house it is! Governments, both federal and local, control over 40% of our country's land mass. Unfortunately, government's stewardship over our land is gradually destroying it.

For example, the Bureau of Land Management controls an area almost twice the size of Texas, including nearly all of Alaska and Nevada. Much of this land is rented to ranchers for grazing cattle. Because ranchers are only renting the land, they have no incentive to take care of it. Not surprisingly, studies as early as 1925 indicated that cattle were twice as likely to die on public ranges and had half as many calves as animals grazing on private lands.

Obviously, owners make better environmental guardians than renters. If the government sold its acreage to private ranchers, the new owners would make sure that they grazed the land sustainably to maximize profit and yield.

Indeed, ownership of wildlife can literally save endangered species from extinction. Between 1979 and 1989, Kenya banned elephant hunting, yet the number of these noble beasts dropped from 65,000 to 19,000. In Zimbabwe during the same time period, however, elephants could be legally owned and sold. The number of elephants increased from 30,000 to 43,000 as their owners became fiercely protective of their "property." Poachers didn't have a chance!

Similarly, commercialization of the buffalo saved it from extinction. We never worry about cattle becoming extinct, because their status as valuable "property" encourages their propagation. The second step libertarians would take to protect the environment and save endangered species would be to encourage private ownership of both land and animals.

Environmentalists were once wary of private ownership, but now recognize that establishing the property rights of native people, for example, has become an effective strategy to save the rain forests. Do you remember the movie, Medicine Man, where scientist Sean Connery discovers a miracle drug in the rain forest ecology? Unfortunately, the life-saving compound is literally bulldozed under when the government turns the rain forest over to corporate interests. The natives that scientist Connery lives with are driven from their forest home. Their homesteading rights are simply ignored by their own government!

Our own Native Americans were driven from their rightful lands as well. Similarly, our national forests are turned over to logging companies, just as the rain forests are. By 1985, the U.S. Forest Service had built 350,000 miles of logging roads with our tax dollars -- outstripping our interstate highway system by a factor of eight! In the meantime, hiking trails declined by 30%. Clearly, our government serves special interest groups instead of protecting our environmental heritage.

Even our national parks are not immune from abuse. Yellowstone's Park Service once encouraged employees to trap predators (e.g., wolves, fox, etc.) so that the hoofed mammals favored by visitors would flourish. Not surprisingly, the ecological balance was upset. The larger elk drove out the deer and sheep, trampled the riverbanks, and destroyed beaver habitat. Without the beavers, the water fowl, mink, otter, and trout were threatened. Without the trout or the shrubs and berries that once lined the riverbanks, grizzlies began to endanger park visitors in their search for food. As a result, park officials had to remove the bears and have started bringing back the wolves.

Wouldn't we be better served if naturalist organizations, such as the Audubon Society or Nature Conservancy, took over the management of our precious parks? The Audubon Society's Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary partially supports itself with natural gas wells operated in an ecologically sound manner. In addition to preserving the sensitive habitat, the Society shows how technology and ecology can co-exist peacefully and profitably.

The environment would benefit immensely from the elimination of sovereign immunity coupled with the privatization of "land and beast." The third and final step in the libertarian program to save the environment is the use of restitution both as a deterrent and a restorative.
.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2186755)

Give it a break. The two don't go together at all. Libertarians are tired of their money (ie taxes) being spent on bullshit programs. Spin it however you want. Using this study as proof of the demise of small government is something a 6th grader would do in a persusive essay in arts class.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2186761)

Steve: Answer this question...

"How do you feel about the government spending 1 quadrillion dollars to help sick kids?"

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2186782)

Late last week, I gave $200 to our local Ecumenical Services Ministry solely for the purpose that three families can get their needed medicinal prescriptions filled. I will be doing more by the end of the month. What personal responsibilities have everyone else taken to help those in need? Paying taxes to the federal government doesn't count. ;)

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186780)

But that's not how small government people are attacking the issue. They are using a blanket "small government" argument when it comes to everything. Health care reform? Big government! Financial regulations? Big government!

Which is why when you actually ask these people what they feel about specifics, they tend to be on the big government side. These people don't want to see social security and medicare gone (which is huge government). They don't want our roads to be privately owned. They want better schools and a nice environment.

Small government is nothing more than a political rallying cry. It should be "Government we don't like" as they don't want small government, just different government. There are true libertarians out there who want government to be real small, but they are still a small minority.

When there are actual specifics from the "small government" types that are consistent across the board, I'll believe it. Otherwise the small government group is just a front for different government.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2186786)

I don't disagree. Republicans (Glenn Beck being one of the worst offenders) have hijacked the end big government movement.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186789)

LOL at Libertarians using private ownership in Africa as evidence of it being better for the environment. Tourism is not only big business there, but one of the only businesses. It's a unique part of the world that people will pay to see animals they can't find anywhere else. That is why private ownership has worked there at times.

Also leaving out the fact that many of these countries added drastic animal rights laws to the books to protect native species from poachers and other negative interests. They knew how much their economy needed the tourism. Why not pull up some of the data before these laws were enacted? I'll tell you why. Because poachers and farmers had a field day killing everything they could with no repurcussions.

I don't mind the argument of no government on different grounds, but distorting the African enviromental movement and comparing it to the United States is laughable. For the few examples cited, I can name hundreds of examples where government saved species and parts of the environment. Ask yourself where the Galapagos would be without the government declaring 97% of it a national park and creating strict rules on tourism there.

Originally Posted by sabotai (Post 2186793)

This is why I won't even use the term "libertarian" to describe myself anymore. It's been hijacked by conservatives that realized that "conservative" was going out of favor and needed a new label. I see people talk about "libertarians" but what they describe are typical conservatives...

So yeah, I stopped using it to refer to myself. The last thing I need is someone thinking I agree with conservatives on just about any social issue (or most fiscal issues).

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2186786)

I don't disagree. Republicans (Glenn Beck being one of the worst offenders) have hijacked the end big government movement. We have already seen what they can do when given both the executive and legislative branches of government and if they regain power in 2010 and 2012 they will spend about 3 months fiscally conservative and then go a spending spree again.

Just speaking personally I like Obama better than Bush Jr. It probably doesn't show much in my rants but at least Obama agrees with me on some social issues. Bush wanted to control everyone's social lives and spend money like a drunken sailor.

Give me an issue (I showed the environment above) and I will give you a third point of view that actually uses some logic and doesn't just bash the other two parties. (It does bash the government, but that is kind of the point)

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2186790)

But the key is that you can make a difference in someone's life and seeing the joy of giving.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2186798)

As far as the whole joy of giving and all that, I don't really care about individually making a difference if by passing legislation, we can help millions of people.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2186795)

but it sure does show why the answer is not going to be found in either of the parties we have today.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186796)

It's not about point of view though. The argument is about what people want. We can both give great poitns of view on how smaller government in a certain area would be better for the country. But if people don't want that, it doesn't matter. The report posted was simply pointing out that while people may talk about wanting smaller government, when it comes down to it, they really don't.

If people did want government out of their lives, we'd be seeing people campaigning to shut down Medicare and Social Security. You don't because it's political suicide.

As for an issue, lets go with Medicare and health care for the elderly. How about not regulating hospitals so that they must care for people in emergency situations regardless of whether the patient can afford it. Give me the small government stance on Medicare and the regulation on hospitals that force them to cover people that are not financially lucrative to them.

Originally Posted by Libertarians on health care (Post 2186796)

.Making Healthcare Safe and Affordable

As recently as the 1960s, low-cost health insurance was available to virtually everyone in America - including people with existing medical problems. Doctors made house calls. A hospital stay cost only a few days' pay. Charity hospitals were available to take care of families who could not afford to pay for healthcare.

Since then the federal government has increasingly intervened through Medicare, Medicaid, the HMO Act and tens of thousands of regulations on doctors, hospitals and health-insurance companies.

Today, more than 50 percent of all healthcare dollars are spent by the government.
Health insurance costs are skyrocketing. Government health programs are heading for bankruptcy. Politicians continue to pile on the regulations.

The Libertarian Party knows the only healthcare reforms that will make a real difference are those that draw on the strength of the free market.

The Libertarian Party will work towards the following:

1. Establish Medical Saving Accounts.
Under this program, you could deposit tax-free money into a Medical Savings Account (MSA). Whenever you need the money to pay medical bills, you will be able to withdraw it. For individuals without an MSA, the Libertarian Party will work to make all healthcare expenditures 100 percent tax deductible.

2. Deregulate the healthcare industry.
We should repeal all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of medical services. For example, every state has laws that mandate coverage of specific disabilities and diseases. These laws reduce consumer choice and increase the cost of health insurance. By making insurance more expensive, mandated benefits increase the number of uninsured American workers.

3. Remove barriers to safe, affordable medicines.
We should replace harmful government agencies like the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with more agile, free-market alternatives. The mission of the FDA is to protect us from unsafe medicines. In fact, the FDA has driven up healthcare costs and deprived millions of Americans of much-needed treatments. For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propanolol Propranolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans.

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2186802)

And the vast majority of the population choose not to see how making a difference in someone's life brings joy. I don't think that will ever change too much.

Selfishness dooms Communism and selfishness would certainly doom any libertarian utopia. Selfishness is human nature.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2186811)

I am sure people will poke holes in this, before you do ask yourself change is this trillion dollar bill about to bring? One trillion dollars!

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2183188)

FWIW on the mortgage mod front, my parents have had to do it and have had to resend documentation to their lender, Wells Fargo, multiple times because they would lose it or miscategorize it. sometimes upon further review they'd already have it.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2186816)

The idea is to not perpetuate the problem but to encourage more local control and accountability.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186832)

And lets tackle 1,2, and 3 next. The problem with their stance is they act like everyone is magically going to be able to save up hundreds of thousands of dollars for late life health care. The funny thing about giving tax cuts to people to save is that poor people don't really pay much in taxes at all. So if you aren't paying taxes, how is a tax-cut for a Medical Savings Account going to help out at all?

Fact is that the majority of Americans would not be able to afford health care at a later stage in life. With no regulations or help from the government, they would literally be forced to treat themselves and most likely die. There is definitely an argument that people have made that says that we shouldn't be spending money on medical care later in life to extend our lives by a few years. But the public wants it and if it was a loved one of yours, you'd want it too. You aren't going to turn around and say "well Mom, you didn't save up enough when you were younger so you're just going to have to die because we can't afford a 3-week hospital stay".

This notion that the majority of people can save up enough money to cover their own health care is the stuff of fairy tales.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186828)

Why not come up with a better solution for the FDA? How about allowing people to take non-FDA approved drugs if they want? If people are desperate and want to take an untested drug, they can. But leave it in place for those who want to have drugs that have been thoroughly tested.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2186841)

Well, that's probably because your mortgage was sold and resold so many times that they don't actually have the paper anymore. There's been multiple cases of foreclosures being thrown out because the bank can't prove they actually own the property.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2186854)

I bet you won't find one Republican or Democrat who is willing to compromise like this. That's the problem. Get rid of the FDA? Kind of extreme. Compromise, not so much so.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2186851)

We have health savings accounts along with health insurance at my job. I can opt into either program. The way my health savings account works is I get around $1000 a year to put into an account. I can choose to visit the doctor for a runny nose or swollen ankle or treat myself. After about 5 years I have about $4700 in the account. There is also a catatrophe clause that will cover anything over like $3000 a year so I am pretty much set now that I have gotten past the 3 year stage. This money will earn interest and I can use it when I retire or God forbid some catistrophic happens to my family. I am certain the HSA's must cost my company a lot less or they wouldn't offer them. I also know co-workers who have switched to the plans and don't visit the doctor as often. I am sure some people get unlucky and get cancer or in a bad car accident but the reality is most people don't think at all about their health coverage and spend their money like federal government. What happened to having a nest egg? What happened to eating well and exercising instead of being obese? Why is the nation's out of control health problems (partially caused by lifestlye) my responsibility? Fuck the nanny society. (The following paragraph is not endorsed by the Libertarian platform and is solely panerd's opinion)

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2186862)

And to avoid a dola post and prove I can slam the Obama admin & the Democrat's, this is bullshit.

Senate kills drug re-importation - UPI.com

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2186856)

I'll tell the family barely keeping the lights on because Dad and Mom are working only 30 hours a week that they need to just sock more money away.

Also, the vast majority of increases in people's spending over the past thirty years is in child care, health care costs, transportation, and housing. Relatively little is due to brand-name jeans and DVD's.

And, it's your responsibility because we are a nation, not an island of single people all in their own little orbits. We help other people up because we hope they would do the same if we were in the same situation.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186780)

Which is why when you actually ask these people what they feel about specifics, they tend to be on the big government side. These people don't want to see social security and medicare gone (which is huge government). They don't want our roads to be privately owned. They want better schools and a nice environment.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186869)

And coming down with cancer when you are retired will wipe out your entire account in a few weeks. The problem isn't health care necessarily at your age, it's what happens when you're 70.

I agree with personal responsibility. I don't think smokers or morbidly obese should be covered under the plan (they should be at first and told they need to meet requirements for weight loss over a time frame). You could also make those of high risk lifestyles pay more in taxes for it. But there are a lot of things that you can't control. Are you saying that if you didn't save up enough in your lifetime to cover it, you should just die? I don't know if you've seen the costs of health care later in life, but if you think $5700 in a savings account is going to cover it, you're out of your mind. That will barely cover a trip in an ambulance to the emergency room.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2186872)

That's where we disagree. I think we both may overgeneralize but this nation is not made up of what you describe either. Sorry I don't agree that everyone else's health care is my responsibility. Just like I don't agree that everyone else having a job is my responsilbity. We just don't agree on this. I work hard, feel bad for some of the unfortunate, and don't give a fuck about the lazy asses.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186878)

You're still in a minority position though. There are just not a lot of people who want to have people dying in this country because they can't affod treatment. Just not a lot of people who want hospitals to be able to deny admission because the person doesn't have insurance. It would definitely be a solution to many of the problems if we let that 70 year old with chest pains die in his home because he can't pay for an ER visit, but more people in this country feel morally responsible to see that person get some care.

And for the record, I agree that this country is really lazy at times and I'm for the reduction in things like welfare. At the same time though, I think health care is something different and I prefer to live in a country that doesn't let its sick die on the streets because they don't have the resources.

I'd also add that not everyone in a bad situation is there because they are lazy. This financial mess was caused by a bunch of greedy billionaires who wanted an extra couple bucks on their share prices. As well as some dumb people who signed loans they couldn't afford. That mess has caused a lot of innocent people to lose their jobs through no fault of their own.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2186876)

It's $5700 more on top of my regular savings. Unlike the government I plan for unforseen problems in my life. Will it suck if something happens that I can't cover? Sure. Should some fucknut be able to sit on his ass and have the government pay for his laziness? Absolutely not. That's the difference I seem to have with some of this board. A lot of poor people abuse welfare and don't even try to work and I don't care any more about them than I do about somebody who pulls the same shit in Australia. The difference is that some of the people on this board don't care about the Australian but for some reason care about a lazy American piece of shit just because of where he was born.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2186877)

States largely can't do large-scale health care reform or any other large kind of social spending because they're require by law or their State constitution to have a balanced budget. States have tried to have guaranteed health care for all (Hawaii, Tennesse, Washington), but it's all fallen apart quickly because the programs have to be cut during recessions, which is ironically when those programs are needed the most.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2186880)

I respect your position. You have always seemed capable of seeing other points of view and not sticking with a Democratic or Republican line. I feel like there is a federal reserve/fannie freddie mac/low interest rates component you are missing on your last paragraph but I will agree that some really rich people profited off other people's backs. I just don't buy the number of people dying in the streets due to no coverage being anywhere near the problem it is being presented as. Hilary Clinton gave us the same stories in 1992 and I am sure we could get a headcount somewhere of all of the deaths for the past 15 years.

And I said earlier in a post that nobody responded to. I don't want soldiers dying from unnecessary wars or police officers dying fighting a fruitless/unwinnable war on drugs. Outrage comes and go though for the Democrats and Republicans. In the meantime count me as one who just doesn't believe the bill of goods they are trying to sell us on this issue.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186878)

This financial mess was caused by a bunch of greedy billionaires who wanted an extra couple bucks on their share prices.

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2186887)

Well, they should be easy enough to identify. Which ones are we talking about?

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2186888)

Yes, it's true, we should avoid a long-term structural debt that continues to grow but every major economist who's not a major right-winger agreed that deficit spending is necessary during a time of recession to make up for the lack of output in the private and consumer sectors.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2186888)

Finally, I have no fear of the big, bad federal government. Despite my problems with their political positions at times, most Congressman are fairly intelligent people who understand what's going on. Comparatively, most local government is made up of rubes and most state governments are corrupt as hell in one form or the other. So, yes, I trust the guys in DC who people actually know more than the state rep or city commissioner who only 12 people know. You probably disagree with that notion, that's fine.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186870)

That is horseshit and it angers me more than anything in this health care debate. Drug companies want free markets when it comes to insurance companies and doctors, but not when it comes to their products. This is nothing more than 51 politicians bending the American public over to help the pharmaceutical industry and their shareholders.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186889)

I don't know the names of everyone, but I'd imagine you could prod through the list of major financial and banking firms that fell massively in debt and required bailouts/assistance and pull up their top executives, boards of directors, and largest shareholders. The people that made $10 look like $15 in a cloud of smoke and mirrors.

The millions who have been laid off are not the ones that caused this mess, they are just the casualties.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186870)

That is horseshit and it angers me more than anything in this health care debate. Drug companies want free markets when it comes to insurance companies and doctors, but not when it comes to their products.

Originally Posted by Grammaticus (Post 2186905)

I think you may have a different definition of a free market. Allowing re-importation is allowing a fixed market outside of the US to undermine an arguable free market within the US.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2186931)

It isn't a fixed market outside the U.S. though. Those countries are entities in a global market. No one is forcing Pfizer to sell a drug to Germany at a certain rate, that is simply what has been negotiated. Pfizer has every right to say that the price is too low for their drugs in those countries and that they won't sell them to them without a better price. Their citizens can decide then if their leaders are making the right decisions in regards to that.

What we have now is a fixed market. You have companies that have a monopoly on a product because they have allowed the government to eliminate all competition. It's hardly a free market when a company has a patent on a drug and won't allow you to buy it anywhere but from them at their price. If your county had milk prices much higher than the rest of the country because they banned you from buying it anywhere else, that wouldn't be a free market.

I understand the argument about these companies needing to make money for R&D. But it's also time that other countries started pitching in for this. We are the ones that pay for all of it because some lobbyists tell our politicians to buttfuck us. I understand some regulations on 3rd world or developing countries, but there is no reason that Canada should be paying half the price we do for a drug.

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2187042)

Canada and European nations have copyright agreements with the U.S. They do negotiate lower prices, but they follow the agreements made.

Originally Posted by Grammaticus (Post 2187045)

Your missing the point. The agreement is made with the understanding that US copyright laws will not be honored. They extort an agreement and that is not a free market. Sure the drug company agrees on it, they don't have a choice. Unless you think losing all rights to your product outside of the US is a reasonable choice.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2187044)

I'm not sure why Democrats are even pressing forward with this botched health care bill at this point. These poll numbers keep going the wrong way for them.

Democrats' Blues Grow Deeper in New Poll - WSJ.com

Obama's Approval Ratings Low for Economy, Health Care - ABC News Washington Post Poll - ABC News

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2187054)

another awesome leadin by MBBF.

Leave out the adjective and youre not spun. Pull an MBBF and you are. You cant even help it at this point.

Originally Posted by Grammaticus (Post 2187045)

Your missing the point. The agreement is made with the understanding that US copyright laws will not be honored. They extort an agreement and that is not a free market. Sure the drug company agrees on it, they don't have a choice. Unless you think losing all rights to your product outside of the US is a reasonable choice.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2187075)

There's an entire thread on this board where both liberal and conservative posters agree that the current bill is very underwhelming. If by spin, you mean everyone agrees that it's a debacle due to the weakening of the bill to please moderates, then I agree. If by spin, you mean that the general public confidence in this bill is low, then I agree.

Originally Posted by Grammaticus (Post 2187041)

It is not a free market outside of the US because Germany, Canada or whoever will say to Pfizer, you can sell this new drug that you spent a billion dollars developing in our country for the price we tell you is right or else we will just copy and sell it without giving you any money. If you now let Germany re-import that drug into the US and sell it for a cheaper price, Pfizer cannot recover the cost of development.

Now you confuse me when you say other countries should help pay the R+D costs. By purchasing the drug at a free market price, they would be helping pay for the R+D. Since other countries refuse to honor copyrights without extorting lower prices, they are free riders. If you want to be a free rider too, you will see nobody paying free market prices and therefore a severe drop in drug development. Most drugs do not recoup R+D costs. The successful drugs pay the way for the others.

Also, once a drug cycles, it becomes relatively cheap.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2187044)

I'm not sure why Democrats are even pressing forward with this botched health care bill at this point.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2187170)

What don't you like about the health care plan? Just curious.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2187183)

It's not even a question of what I like. I call it botched because the Democrats have dumped most of what they promised to their supporters and the public in favor of letting the moderates and the insurance/pharm lobbyists have their way with the bill and watering it down to the point where there's very little true reform. As many have stated in the other thread, if it's worth fighting for, go ahead and fight. Stick the public option in. Cover ALL citizens. Hold a knife to the pharm/insurance lobby's throat and call their bluff. Write the bill so it achieves everything that you feel will truly reform the industry and hold your ground. Just do it already.

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2187189)

Obama did make a campaign promise that Americans would be able to buy imported cheaper drugs from other countries. I'll patiently wait for that to happen (LOL) (though I've been reading the WH feels that keeping that promise is "unnecessary" after the health care reform is done, which I don't quite understand. Wasn't some kind of health care reform assumed when the drug promise was made?).

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2187183)

It's not even a question of what I like. I call it botched because the Democrats have dumped most of what they promised to their supporters and the public in favor of letting the moderates and the insurance/pharm lobbyists have their way with the bill and watering it down to the point where there's very little true reform. As many have stated in the other thread, if it's worth fighting for, go ahead and fight. Stick the public option in. Cover ALL citizens. Hold a knife to the pharm/insurance lobby's throat and call their bluff. Write the bill so it achieves everything that you feel will truly reform the industry and hold your ground. Just do it already.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2187192)

So you're not against the bill, just how the politics was played? Shouldn't this be about the bill and what's best for the country? I mean even if it's stripped down, if it's good, shouldn't we want it to pass?

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2187200)

So you've now moved to the concern troll phase.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2187192)

So you're not against the bill, just how the politics was played? Shouldn't this be about the bill and what's best for the country? I mean even if it's stripped down, if it's good, shouldn't we want it to pass?

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2187216)

As one who hates MBBF's debating style as much as anyone, he did have the key bit "watering it down to the point where there's very little true reform" in there, which is my issue with this whole process as well.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2187194)

I am of the belief now that special interests have such a hold of not only our politicians, but also voters, that we'll likely never see a government run in the best interest of its citizens.

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2187250)

For example:

Kay Bailey Hutchinson just coted against a second term for Bernanke but when asked who would be a better candidate for the position she said, "From this administration, no one....." - CNBC 5 minutes ago

Its just obstruction at every turn now. No alternatives no recommendation just no.

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2187250)

For example:

Kay Bailey Hutchinson just coted against a second term for Bernanke but when asked who would be a better candidate for the position she said, "From this administration, no one....." - CNBC 5 minutes ago

Its just obstruction at every turn now. No alternatives no recommendation just no.

Originally Posted by Kodos (Post 2187384)

Bucc's sig:



Why do libertarians only "tolerate" diverse lifestyles? Shouldn't they "promote" those as well (instead of merely tolerating diverse lifestyles), if they are truly about personal liberty?

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2187365)

Shorter MBBF:

I'm opposed to HCR, but what really angers me is that Dems won't pass HCR.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2187405)

no, that doesn't make sense at all.

Originally Posted by Kodos (Post 2187413)

But they should promote everyone's right to lead the lifestyle of their choice, right? Not merely tolerate different lifestyles.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2187521)

I think you might be taking that to mean something it doesnt. Tolerate, in the purest sense, is to not make action against regardless of personal preference. It doesn't imply approval, nor imply disapproval...just that it isn't to be judged.

Originally Posted by Kodos (Post 2187606)

But to "support maximum liberty", you need to support different lifestyle choices, not merely tolerate. Otherwise, you are limiting the liberty of individuals - for instance, the liberty of individuals to marry any other individual that they want to, regardless of their gender.

Originally Posted by Kodos (Post 2187413)

But they should promote everyone's right to lead the lifestyle of their choice, right?

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2187169)

That is completely false. First of all, copyright has nothing to do with prescription drugs. We are talking patents here.

Second, there is a massive agreement with most industrialized countries when it comes to intellectual property. It's called Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It requires countries to respect the patent laws of pharmaceutical companies. Virtually every industrialized country abides by this agreement. Pfizer is not forced to sell to any country and that country has no right to tell them to fuck off and make it themselves.

I have no problem debating the topic of re-importation, but I can't if you're just going to completely make shit up.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2187241)

Face it: The insurance companies are in the Republicans pockets, the lawyers in the democrats, the pharmaceutical companies and doctors are in both.