The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The media hardly questioned the Bush Administration on going into Iraq. They took them at their word on everything.

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.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I do find it amazing how yet another criticism of the current administration has been diverted to an attack on the Bush administration. It seems no one is willing to defend the current administration on its own merits, but so be it.

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

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Can you show me one instance where Obama promised to be non-partisan?

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

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too:

We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States.

We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States.

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?

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

Thank you, Iowa.

You know, they said this day would never come.

They said our sights were set too high.

They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

But on this January night – at this defining moment in history – you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do. You have done what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days. You have done what America can do in this New Year, 2008. In lines that stretched around schools and churches; in small towns and big cities; you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come.

You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that's consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that's been all about division and instead make it about addition – to build a coalition for change that stretches through Red States and Blue States. Because that's how we'll win in November, and that's how we'll finally meet the challenges that we face as a nation.

We are choosing hope over fear. We're choosing unity over division, and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America.

...

I'll be a President who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American the same way I expanded health care in Illinois – by--by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done.

I'll be a President who ends the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and put a middle-class tax cut into the pockets of the working Americans who deserve it.

I'll be a President who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.

And I'll be a President who ends this war in Iraq and finally brings our troops home; who restores our moral standing; who understands that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes, but a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the twenty-first century; common threats of terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.

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

[JPhillips]

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.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

[RainMaker]

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.

[RainMaker]

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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 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.

[panerd]

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)

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by panerd

Why would we expect to believe any campaign promises anymore?

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.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What's Obama supposed to do when the other side has made the tactical decision that any compromise is bad?

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

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

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.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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!)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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.

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.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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:

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

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

From his speech announcing his candidacy:

What's stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.

For the last six years we've been told that our mounting debts don't matter, we've been told that the anxiety Americans feel about rising health care costs and stagnant wages are an illusion, we've been told that climate change is a hoax, and that tough talk and an ill-conceived war can replace diplomacy, and strategy, and foresight. And when all else fails, when Katrina happens, or the death toll in Iraq mounts, we've been told that our crises are somebody else's fault. We're distracted from our real failures, and told to blame the other party, or gay people, or immigrants.

And as people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what's filled the void. The cynics, and the lobbyists, and the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play. They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this government, but we're here today to take it back. The time for that politics is over. It's time to turn the page.

From a speech at the California Democratic Convention in 2007:

That’s how change has always happened – not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up.

And that’s exactly how you and I will change this country. California, if you want a new kind of politics, it’s time to turn the page.

If you want an end to the old divisions, and the stale debates, and the score-keeping and the name-calling, it’s time to turn the page.

Apparently you can turn the pages backwards as well.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

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.

[Flasch186]

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]

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Not me, I was hoping both sides would come together and work together for the betterment of our country and you and me.

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[Warhammer]

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

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

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

+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.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

+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.

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.

[Flasch186]

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)...

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

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.

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

[GreenMonster]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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...

or theyre interpretive like you did above and have done repeatedly in this thread...

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..

[Flasch186]

Democratic Party activists have pointed out that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[10] Rasmussen Reports have also performed paid work for Bush opponents. For example, the anti-war organization After Downing Street commissioned a Rasmussen poll on support for impeachment of President Bush. [11]. According to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com, while there are no apparent records of Scott Rasmussen or Rasmussen Reports making contributions to political candidates and its public election polls are generally regarded as reliable, "some observers have questioned its issue-based polling, which frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys."[12].

John Marshal of Talking Points Memo has said, "The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they're pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around — because they're based on robocalls — gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends."[13] Some have speculated that the reason Rasmussen's polls trend more Republican than other mainstream polls is simply that he samples likely voters.[14]

In 2004 Slate magazine “publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.[15] Near the end of the 2008 Presidential Election, progressive statistician Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com analyzed the eight national presidential tracking polls. Silver concluded that while none were perfect, "Rasmussen -- with its large sample size and high pollster rating -- would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."[16]

MSNBC does not use Rasmussen polls.[17] Conversely, conservative media frequently refers to Rasmussen, praising them for being the first to ask about a relevant issue or to ask questions that other pollsters do not.[18][19]

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:

While voters are skeptical of the plan working its way through Congress, 54% say major changes are needed in the health care system. Sixty-one percent (61%) say it’s important for Congress to pass some reform.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by GreenMonster

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

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!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

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?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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 doctor's over test, but getting rid of insurance just creates even bigger problems IMO.

seriously

[Warhammer]

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.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Let's not forget that insurance companies are also making their profits. That's an extra say 10%.

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

[JPhillips]

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

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.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

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?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

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?

[miked]

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.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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?

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

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.

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.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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?

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

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.