Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Raiders Army]

If Clinton can't control her people, how can she be the goddam president? Jesus, these are two "firings" in the past three months of her campaign manager and campaign strategist. These aren't people way down the totem pole from her.

So she can't control her husband, she can't control her campaign, and yet she wants to be the leader of the free world? Better yet, people vote for her?

[JPhillips]

I see it rather differently. Firing Penn is one of the first examples of good judgment I've seen from her campaign. If only it would have happened a year ago.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I see it rather differently. Firing Penn is one of the first examples of good judgment I've seen from her campaign. If only it would have happened a year ago.

Any way you cut it, this being one of the first examples of good judgment at this point in the campaign isn't good either.

[JPhillips]

Mark Penn is the Arizona Cardinals of politics. Why he continues to run high profile Democratic races is a complete mystery to me.

[-apoc-]

He has only been fired in name only he is still on the campaign. I really wish he would have been tossed out on his ass properly.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Mark Penn is the Arizona Cardinals of politics. Why he continues to run high profile Democratic races is a complete mystery to me.

He sure mucked this one up pretty good. Proves that all you have to do is get attached to a "high powered PR firm" and then hype yourself. And of course, make friends and influence people.

[CamEdwards]

My friend Jim had an interesting post today. I recommend reading it from the site as there are a lot of links.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.c...NkMDUwOTk3YjQ=

Back in February, the Washington Post said that Barack Obama was starting to "waffle" on public financing, which he had pledged to take if the Republican candidate did so as well. McCain said he was game, but because his fundraising had been going so well, Obama suggested he was starting to have second thoughts.

Well, Obama's not waffling anymore. Now he's more or less coming out and saying that his public pledges meant nothing.

The Post said his previous commitment was "unequivocal."

Now he says, "We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."

Obama had the audacity to announce his breaking of his public financing pledge before a $2,300 per head fundraising dinner. Really, when are the members of the press going to call horsepuckey on this?

By a "parallel public financing system," Obama means that he is getting a lot of money from private donors. If this is "public", then every other candidate who has ever run for office has used a "parallel public financing system" too.


Come on, Senator. Don't tell me words don't matter.

And speaking of words mattering, Michelle Obama made one of those statements that makes me say "uh-oh" today.

http://www.charlotte.com/112/story/572303.html

"If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership...for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care," she said.

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

Step away from my pie, Mrs. Obama.

[Buccaneer]

You mean the Obamas are not libertarians?!?!

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And speaking of words mattering, Michelle Obama made one of those statements that makes me say "uh-oh" today.

Step away from my pie, Mrs. Obama.

FWIW, I make a pretty good living, and if I have to pay higher premiums so that children living in poverty get better health care, I'll give up some of my pie any day.

I can see why conservatives hear that and say "uh-oh". I imagine liberals hear it and say "all right" - that's why we want Obama to win.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, but the problem is when you give someone a pie, and they smash it in somebody's face rather than eat it.

[albionmoonlight]

The difference between the two parties right now seems to be (1) what they want to spend the money on, and (2) whether to borrow the money from our grandchildren or tax it out of us.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

FWIW, I make a pretty good living, and if I have to pay higher premiums so that children living in poverty get better health care, I'll give up some of my pie any day.

I can see why conservatives hear that and say "uh-oh". I imagine liberals hear it and say "all right" - that's why we want Obama to win.

Apparently the pie you're already giving up isn't enough though. How much more are you willing to give up?

I'd like to be able to take care of my own children (two of whom were born into a family below poverty level) before the government demands more of my pie on another bloated government program. I mean, take a look at the thread about gov't employees using gov't issued credit cards to buy $13,000 dinners and lingerie. We really need to add more of this kind of bureaucracy considering how well it's working now?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

FWIW, I make a pretty good living, and if I have to pay higher premiums so that children living in poverty get better health care, I'll give up some of my pie any day.

I can see why conservatives hear that and say "uh-oh". I imagine liberals hear it and say "all right" - that's why we want Obama to win.

But that's the key with the federal govt - they will take more of your pie for very little gain and many children currently living in poverty will still be living in poverty without adequate health care. You are much better off giving to local aid groups that can provide basic health care to those in need. But then again, many would just use this as a political tool instead of working at actually making a difference to those around you.

[Buccaneer]

By the way, I will continue to put my money with my mouth is and will be giving a sizable donation this week to both our local Ecumenical Services Ministry and to the Marion House Soup Kitchen, both provides food, necessities and funds for basic health care needs to those individuals and families that are in dire situations. Better to feed them yourselves (esp. if you can volunteer) than to feed the federal bureaucracies.

[albionmoonlight]

The biggest problem I see in terms of cutting government spending (other than the obvious breads and circuses point) is that the parties go in and out of power.

Let's say that Bush had been a fiscal conservative and run balanced budgets. And let's say that Clinton or Obama wins in November. You could argue that all Bush would have done was save money so the Democrats could spend it on their programs. Instead, he spent the money on his programs. Can't say that isn't rational of him.

In contrast, let's say that, instead of trying to increase federal involvement in health care, Obama/Clinton spends their time and energy putting our fiscal house back in order. All that will happen is a Republican will end up spending the money when they get back in power.

Seems like a classic variation on the tragedy of the commons.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But that's the key with the federal govt - they will take more of your pie for very little gain and many children currently living in poverty will still be living in poverty without adequate health care. You are much better off giving to local aid groups that can provide basic health care to those in need. But then again, many would just use this as a political tool instead of working at actually making a difference to those around you.

When it comes to health care, especially preventative health care, personally I think it'd make far more sense to have the government handle the use of my money to help poor folk rather than "local aid groups". I do at least know that the government will be less likely to discriminate or push their beliefs in giving out benefits at least.

Besides, some local aid groups (like the Salvation Army) are just freaking evil sometimes.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

When it comes to health care, especially preventative health care, personally I think it'd make far more sense to have the government handle the use of my money to help poor folk rather than "local aid groups". I do at least know that the government will be less likely to discriminate or push their beliefs in giving out benefits at least.

Besides, some local aid groups (like the Salvation Army) are just freaking evil sometimes.

Does the federal government dole that money out directly to people living in poverty? Or does the federal government dole that money out to other groups to dole it out to people living in poverty? In my mind, the more hands the money passes through the greater a chance that those people will not see a dime.

I've also seen a lot of people live off welfare and they would welcome universal health care. Maybe if the government evaluated families properly, there would be enough money for the real poor people instead of the people living off the government.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

FWIW, I make a pretty good living, and if I have to pay higher premiums so that children living in poverty get better health care, I'll give up some of my pie any day.

++

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Apparently the pie you're already giving up isn't enough though. How much more are you willing to give up?

Last I checked, we had some of the lowest, if not the lowest, tax burdens in the developed world.

I mean, take a look at the thread about gov't employees using gov't issued credit cards to buy $13,000 dinners and lingerie. We really need to add more of this kind of bureaucracy considering how well it's working now?

Because most government employees engage in this type of behavior, obviously....

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Does the federal government dole that money out directly to people living in poverty? Or does the federal government dole that money out to other groups to dole it out to people living in poverty? In my mind, the more hands the money passes through the greater a chance that those people will not see a dime.

Depends on the plan, of course. I believe most plans have the government working as a basic level of insurance or helping people get very cheap insurance (rather than just giving $$ to the people) for preventative & catastrophic care.

[Buccaneer]

It's amazing to me that those that have been crying about the "severe loss of liberties" (not to mention deficit spendings) these past 7 years are readily willing to give the federal govt more powers, more expenditures and more blackmail at the expense of states rights. Haven't you seen the results of "nationalized" programs and the various "War on ---" these past 40 years? Now you somehow expect them to do this right???

[JPhillips]

Buc: I'm actually for national healthcare because I think it's the single biggest thing we could do for business. I know HR folks that spends hours every week dealing with healthcare and not their business. Compared to the rest of the world it's a huge competitive disadvantage.

I'll freely admit it can be a disaster, but because it can be fucked up isn't a reason to say it must be fucked up. There are several examples of national healthcare working and the task would be to emulate what works as opposed to what doesn't. Will it be difficult, of course, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to say the current system is the best we can come up with. Currently we spend more per capita and get less than many other countries. Our high end care is the best in the world, but our day to day care is mediocre at best.

Healthcare also won't be much of a drag on states' rights as long as it's done well. Of course I'd easily sacrifice some theoretical states' rights for systems that cost less and work better. We pay for a national healthcare system already it's just that now over thirty percent gets spent n overhead.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

++



Last I checked, we had some of the lowest, if not the lowest, tax burdens in the developed world.



Because most government employees engage in this type of behavior, obviously....

Marginal tax rate for most people according to the National Bureau of Economic Research is 40%. Frankly, I don't give a damn how that compares to other countries.

And no, most government employees don't engage in that type of behavior. According to the audit, only 1 in 2 do. As Cartman pointed out:

Nearly half of transactions made in the 2006 fiscal year with government credit or debit cards -- referred to as "purchase cards" -- were improper, the study found, and the audit condemned the government-wide "rate of failure" as "unacceptably high."

Your answer, I'm presuming, would be to further increase the size of government in order to provide stricter scrutiny for the government employees and their use of government issued credit cards?

Sorry for threadjacking, btw. We can still talk about Obama's changing stance on public financing for his campaign.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It's amazing to me that those that have been crying about the "severe loss of liberties" (not to mention deficit spendings) these past 7 years are readily willing to give the federal govt more powers, more expenditures and more blackmail at the expense of states rights. Haven't you seen the results of "nationalized" programs and the various "War on ---" these past 40 years? Now you somehow expect them to do this right???

If you can't see the difference between invading privacy of individuals and having the government help out those who cannot afford health insurance or prevent middle class folk from getting their savings wiped out by a catastrophic medical event, then we can't help you.

And as pointed out, plenty of examples around the world of national healthcare working. Are there craptastic systems? Sure... but that doesn't mean they all are or have to be.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And no, most government employees don't engage in that type of behavior. According to the audit, only 1 in 2 do. As Cartman pointed out:

I fail to see how "half the transactions" equals "1 in 2" government employees abuse the system. This argument by you, above, is called manipulating numbers... or you didn't notice the transactions part in the article (I'd imagine those who are scamming Uncle Sam are making far, far, far more transactions on their government card than those who are playing by the rules.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If you can't see the difference between invading privacy of individuals and having the government help out those who cannot afford health insurance or prevent middle class folk from getting their savings wiped out by a catastrophic medical event, then we can't help you.

So, you have a middle-aged man paying $200 a month (pre-tax) for good health benefits through his employer for his entire family and he gets to choose his own doctor and specialist for a low copay and high quality of service. Somehow telling that man now that he must pay more in taxes for coverage not as good for his kids is LESS of an invasion than forcing certain people to go through extra inspections when boarding a plane?

According to the US Census, almost 85% of US citizens have health care coverage. Out of the remaining 15%, 12% are kids under the age of 18. 25% are people who make under $25,000. Why not start with a process to address those two areas and then take inventory after? If you found a way to take a bit out of those two areas, over 90% of Americans would have insurance. Then, take a look at options on improving catestrophic care.

Scrapping the whole system and starting over seems like a huge waste. It would be like saying because we have 5% unemployment, we should send welfare checks out to Bill Gates to make sure everyone gets a paycheck. Fix the areas that have problems and leave the vast majority of people that currently have quality coverage alone.

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us...0campaign.html

Mr. Obama, who has shattered fund-raising records for candidates of either party, is sending fresh signals that he may bypass public financing for the general election. He argues that his small contributors, many of whom have given again and again over the Internet, have injected a new democracy into fund-raising, with the result that a kind of “parallel public financing system” has been created.

Are you fucking kidding me? Talk about "politics as usual"!

[Young Drachma]

I'm opposed to nationalised health care, because I feel like the government has already mucked up almost anything it can get its hands on. The only thing I think that it can do is merge all of the federal health care programs it already manages into one bureaucracy and make that the program for health care for those who don't have it or can't get it. I think covering kids always makes the most sense, but if there are working adults who can't get coverage, then I feel like they ought to get some semblance of care too.

I do think getting companies out of the health care business would be super sensible, because with bloating student loan debts for many younger workers and shrinking retirements for many older ones, giving people more access to their money while they are healthy (rather than shifting it to paying for health care plans they never use) is just a smart way to motivate and invigorate a workforce.

I feel like we already have federal health care, between the VA system, the screwed up military system, the health care plan that federal workers get and of course, Medicare and Medicaid. If they can't find a way to envelope that junk into some sort of streamlined health care bureaucracy, then how do they expect us to buy that their new "Americare" would do just the trick to "helping the children" as they say.

It's my biggest quibble with the Dems, because I feel like any reasonable person would be fine with setting aside a small part of cash each year to help those who don't have health care. But to basically say that we all have to adopt some crappy plan that we don't want and that'll be forced out of our checks just like FICA, Income taxes and all of the other stuff they take out now are..is just unacceptable.

Like it or not, we are taxed ridiculously in this country and the "benefits" we receive aren't anything close to be comparable to "those in other countries."
The ones who are hurt the most by the tax burden aren't people who make over $100,000 a year or two-income families who earn over $75,000. It's people who are making less than that, who are working class and who don't know anything about shielding income, capital gains taxes or anything else.

But I guess the Dems are too busy fighting each other to get off the grid and think about that. Not that the GOP are lining up to do anything about it, either. Which exposed the fraud of the current political landscape.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, you have a middle-aged man paying $200 a month (pre-tax) for good health benefits through his employer for his entire family and he gets to choose his own doctor and specialist for a low copay and high quality of service. Somehow telling that man now that he must pay more in taxes for coverage not as good for his kids is LESS of an invasion than forcing certain people to go through extra inspections when boarding a plane?

More in taxes for basic coverage for those who cannot afford it. His kids may get just as good coverage through their jobs when they get older. They'd still be covered under his employer's plan until they reach the age when they get booted.

And yes, that is far less of an "invasion". The middle aged man is already paying taxes for social security, medicare, etc, etc. An increased tax burden to help the poor recieve preventative medical care and, perhaps, catastrophic medical care to be covered is not all that much of an imposition.

The other benefit, of course, is that hospitals that around said middle aged man may not have to close because they are getting too many emergency patients who don't have insurance (IIRC, a major hospital in NJ just closed because of that).

According to the US Census, almost 85% of US citizens have health care coverage. Out of the remaining 15%, 12% are kids under the age of 18. 25% are people who make under $25,000. Why not start with a process to address those two areas and then take inventory after? If you found a way to take a bit out of those two areas, over 90% of Americans would have insurance. Then, take a look at options on improving catestrophic care.

Scrapping the whole system and starting over seems like a huge waste. It would be like saying because we have 5% unemployment, we should send welfare checks out to Bill Gates to make sure everyone gets a paycheck. Fix the areas that have problems and leave the vast majority of people that currently have quality coverage alone.

Um... the vast majority of people WOULD be left alone. I mean, do you really think that most people would leave their employer sponsored plan to jump on a very, very basic health plan, which may cover, what one doctor's visit a year and a few preventative measures?

I don't think any of the Democratic candidates since Kucinich dropped out were proposing a single payer system.

Hillary Clinton's is the most encompassing, IIRC, and her plan consists of offering the choice of government private health insurance plans (ie, what federal employees get). In addition, tax rebates to low income individuals and small businesses to make insurance affordable. And some more requirements for insurance companies (such as in coverage). I'm not sure how that's replacing anything really, or even scrapping the entire system and starting over.

[ISiddiqui]

Like it or not, we are taxed ridiculously in this country and the "benefits" we receive aren't anything close to be comparable to "those in other countries."

Um... what? What benefits do you see, say, European citizens get that are far better than American citizens (based on the comparative tax rates, which are much higher over the pond)?

[Buccaneer]

As Arles has said several times, let's start with looking at those without coverage and go from there. For the 85% of us, we are paying a lot (in part because of the lawyers) but we also demand good health care.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

As Arles has said several times, let's start with looking at those without coverage and go from there. For the 85% of us, we are paying a lot (in part because of the lawyers) but we also demand good health care.

The "lawyers" thing is complete bullshit. Studies have shown that medical malpractice costs only account for an incredibly small amount of increased insurance costs. Most of it is due to insurance companies jacking up rates (even while they try to screw people on their plans).

And, apparently you aren't aware what the plans are, giving people the option of choosing an employer sponsored, private, or government sponsored plan with tax breaks for poor individuals for health care and small businesses to offer health care plans is a very effective way of providing health care to those without coverage. How else would you provide health care to those without coverage (and locate all of them as well)?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

More in taxes for basic coverage for those who cannot afford it. His kids may get just as good coverage through their jobs when they get older. They'd still be covered under his employer's plan until they reach the age when they get booted. [merged] Um... the vast majority of people WOULD be left alone. I mean, do you really think that most people would leave their employer sponsored plan to jump on a very, very basic health plan, which may cover, what one doctor's visit a year and a few preventative measures?

See, this is where I saw some double-speak on the side of the nationalized health care crowd. On one hand, a benefit is to get employers out of the business of managing heath care (like JPhillips says above), yet one of the fallbacks is "well, if they don't like the national care, they can just stay with their employer". What happens when many employers decide (esp for middle class jobs) that they really don't need to provide health care anymore because of the national plan already provided? So much for choices then...

And yes, that is far less of an "invasion". The middle aged man is already paying taxes for social security, medicare, etc, etc. An increased tax burden to help the poor recieve preventative medical care and, perhaps, catastrophic medical care to be covered is not all that much of an imposition.

Why stop at healthcare, then? Why not tax him for everytime he takes a crap to use the toilet so that better toilets can be built in other neighborhoods or everytime his kid uses a phone so that kids in other neighborhoods can have better phones? The problem with these nationalized health care plans is they stick it to people making 40-60K who have solid health care, but barely get by. Now, this guy making 50K has to keep his $200-300 a month coverage to get his kids good coverage, but also pay $200 a month in taxes so that other people can have health coverage when he's struggling as it is.

The other benefit, of course, is that hospitals that around said middle aged man may not have to close because they are getting too many emergency patients who don't have insurance (IIRC, a major hospital in NJ just closed because of that).

Uninsured cost is a major issue (esp out here in Arizona). That's why I said look at a way to cover kids under 18 and a base plan for people who make under 25K. We also need to find a way to get a better handle on illegal immigration. But none of these issues involve creating a blanket health care plan that can cover Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Hillary Clinton's is the most encompassing, IIRC, and her plan consists of offering the choice of government private health insurance plans (ie, what federal employees get). In addition, tax rebates to low income individuals and small businesses to make insurance affordable. And some more requirements for insurance companies (such as in coverage). I'm not sure how that's replacing anything really, or even scrapping the entire system and starting over.

You really think that the moment this gets passed, a bunch of low to middle class jobs won't just drop health coverage for their workers? There are two reasons for an employer to offer health coverage: 1. entice people to work for them. 2. Public pressure to provide coverage. If you remove number 2, then there is no reason for every middle to low skill job (ie, easily replaced) to provide health coverage. Then, we have most jobs under 50K not offering health care. So, what happens if this government plan doesn't work out from a quality/cost standpoint?

Having the government cover people who already have solid insurance is a terrible thing to do. Not only is the cost an issue, but you risk losing the system that is currently working for much of the middle class. Just focus on the groups that don't have it (and really need it). If you find better ways (maybe through tax incentives) to help small businesses better afford coverage, cover kids and cover people under 25K, you've essentially solved the "health care crisis". Not to be heartless, but it's not the government's job to cover a 22-year old single guy who passes on health care coverage from his employer to have more beer money.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I fail to see how "half the transactions" equals "1 in 2" government employees abuse the system. This argument by you, above, is called manipulating numbers... or you didn't notice the transactions part in the article (I'd imagine those who are scamming Uncle Sam are making far, far, far more transactions on their government card than those who are playing by the rules.

No, you're right. I should've edited that. Still, are you okay with "half the transactions" being improper? Is that a sign that the government bureaucracy is being managed well?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

See, this is where I saw some double-speak on the side of the nationalized health care crowd. On one hand, a benefit is to get employers out of the business of managing heath care (like JPhillips says above), yet one of the fallbacks is "well, if they don't like the national care, they can just stay with their employer". What happens when many employers decide (esp for middle class jobs) that they really don't need to provide health care anymore because of the national plan already provided? So much for choices then...

It isn't necessarily to get employers out of the business of managing health care, but making health care more affordable. Coverage of those in poverty will drive down hospital expenses (due to not losing a ton of indigent patients) and thus premium costs (though some regulation will also have to account for that). It has really been the rapid rise of health care premium costs which have hurt American business in competition with firms from the continent.

And some businesses may drop their health care plan, but then others that offer it will be more attractive for employees (benefits are, of course, a form of pay).

Why stop at healthcare, then? Why not tax him for everytime he takes a crap to use the toilet so that better toilets can be built in other neighborhoods or everytime his kid uses a phone so that kids in other neighborhoods can have better phones? The problem with these nationalized health care plans is they stick it to people making 40-60K who have solid health care, but barely get by. Now, this guy making 50K has to keep his $200-300 a month coverage to get his kids good coverage, but also pay $200 a month in taxes so that other people can have health coverage when he's struggling as it is.

Because certain folks believe basic guarentees of healthcare is a basic human right, and we'd rather not have hospitals be stuck with the bill (and have to fold or charge insane hospital costs to recoup the lost money), but for it to be spread out over society.

Uninsured cost is a major issue (esp out here in Arizona). That's why I said look at a way to cover kids under 18 and a base plan for people who make under 25K. We also need to find a way to get a better handle on illegal immigration. But none of these issues involve creating a blanket health care plan that can cover Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

You mean a mandated national health plan for kids under 18 and those under the poverty line? Why is an option for a government subsidized plan that much worse? I doubt many people who have jobs with decent health care are going to drop it for the basic government plan.

You really think that the moment this gets passed, a bunch of low to middle class jobs won't just drop health coverage for their workers? There are two reasons for an employer to offer health coverage: 1. entice people to work for them. 2. Public pressure to provide coverage. If you remove number 2, then there is no reason for every middle to low skill job (ie, easily replaced) to provide health coverage. Then, we have most jobs under 50K not offering health care. So, what happens if this government plan doesn't work out from a quality/cost standpoint?

No, I don't think those jobs will just drop health coverage. First of all, they won't get the tax breaks for having a health plan and there will always be in competition to entice people to work for you and someone will be offering coverage.

As for the quality/cost standpoint, there are plenty of available insurance providers under government health care plans. If you don't like the quality/cost of one, transfer to another during the next open enrollment period.

Government health care is really just the government, using its bargaining power and economies of scale to get lower premiums from insurance companies. You realize that, right? Currenly I'm on the Federal Employees Program with Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Georgia. I'm quite positive that I probably pay a little bit more than plenty of large scale private employers.

If you find better ways (maybe through tax incentives) to help small businesses better afford coverage, cover kids and cover people under 25K, you've essentially solved the "health care crisis". Not to be heartless, but it's not the government's job to cover a 22-year old single guy who passes on health care coverage from his employer to have more beer money.

A) You do realize that both the Clinton and Obama plans have a central piece tax incentives for small businesses, right?
B) The 22 year old single guy will still have to pay premiums, so if he passes on health care coverage from his employer, it isn't like he's going to paying all the less on a government sponsored health plan.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

No, you're right. I should've edited that. Still, are you okay with "half the transactions" being improper? Is that a sign that the government bureaucracy is being managed well?

We have barely any problems with government charge cards in our agency. Though a few years back there was one guy who was gaming the system (he was fired and almost thrown in jail). Sometimes you have managers who are on top of the ball on these things and sometimes you don't. The only way to really deal with it is to do more thorough investigation of travel vouchers, really.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And no, most government employees don't engage in that type of behavior. According to the audit, only 1 in 2 do.

Your answer, I'm presuming, would be to further increase the size of government in order to provide stricter scrutiny for the government employees and their use of government issued credit cards?

For what it is worth, whatever Cartman quoted was not what the report said, which is on my desk as I write this. The statistic being referred to is that 41% of the purchase card transactions audited by GAO were either not authorized properly by superiors or that the goods had not been received and signed for by someone other than the person making the purchase. The number of actual improper purchases -- the lingerie, iPods and big dinners -- is only a fraction of this. But still disturbingly high and needs to be addressed.

And, yes, the answer is to increase the respective Inspectors General in each agency to ensure that the cards aren't abused. Typical of this Administration and the past leadership in this Congress, they substantially cut back on the IGs accross the board. If no one sees it, it isn't a problem! In this case, adding to government increases efficiency.

[JPhillips]

Cam: The 40% number is right, but using it as you do is misleading. I'm not an expert on tax policy so I can't explain it well, but there is often a substantial difference between marginal rate and effective rate. Americans are not paying 40% of their income in taxes.

And as Chesapeake said, the credit card issue is a problem, but Republicans have spent a couple of decades wrecking government and then claiming that incompetence proves that government can't work. I'd also like to put those numbers in context by comparing them to private industry. At first glance I would guess that there isn't much difference.

On healthcare, I differ from Siddiqui and both candidates in that I would go for single payer or nothing. I think adding another layer of complexity onto our already impossible system will be much more likely to fail than starting over.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And some businesses may drop their health care plan, but then others that offer it will be more attractive for employees (benefits are, of course, a form of pay).

If I run a factory with a fairly high turnover rate or another low-skill job, why would I offer health care coverage? To me, the ones that keep it are the white collar jobs. Meanwhile, a lot of the middle class blue collar workers may be forced to join the federal plan.

Because certain folks believe basic guarentees of healthcare is a basic human right, and we'd rather not have hospitals be stuck with the bill (and have to fold or charge insane hospital costs to recoup the lost money), but for it to be spread out over society.

That's great in theory, but how is it better for 2000 middle class workers to pay more so that one hospital can pay less?

You mean a mandated national health plan for kids under 18 and those under the poverty line? Why is an option for a government subsidized plan that much worse?

For the same reason having unemployment available to unemployed people is OK, but having unemployment checks available to everyone is wasteful. Target the areas where most people need the help, then take another look. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water here in trying to address the 15% without coverage.

A) You do realize that both the Clinton and Obama plans have a central piece tax incentives for small businesses, right?

I think this is a good idea. Like I said above, targeted actions to improve certain areas through tax incentives is the way we should start this. Not come out with a blanket government HMO everyone has to pay for whether they need it or not.

B) The 22 year old single guy will still have to pay premiums, so if he passes on health care coverage from his employer, it isn't like he's going to paying all the less on a government sponsored health plan.

No, but the point is if you think health care coverage is a major issue, you should focus on the high return areas like kids, small businesses and people making under 25K. There are plenty of single guys between the age of 18 and 26 not covered, but for many that is a choice they make. Citing the fact that they are not covered to justify a national plan is faulty, IMO.

[Young Drachma]

I know people who prefer to be contractors rather than full-time employees, so they don't have to get company health care and get can get paid 20k more money. I didn't realize this was a practice by many, but have to come to understand that it is in high-growth industries or those where the money flows.

I'd much rather have a job that paid more and where I could secure my own health insurance plan. But right now? It's not even a choice. A national plan would just shift who steals the money from my check for coverage I might never use.

It's what Bush was talking about in his poorly worded part of his SotU address about 'gold-plated' health plans and how we need to shift this from employers to employees and make the market more competitive, by giving people real choices.

Government plans won't work, no matter how idealist and warm and fuzzy they make modern liberals. They already fail in the status quo and I can't see how Hillarycare (Pt. 2) or ObamaCare will do anything to make this situation better, short of giving us wispy platitudes about sick kids who can't get health care or parents who work lots and can't get it either.

A federal plan is simply not the way to go.

[ISiddiqui]

Not come out with a blanket government HMO everyone has to pay for whether they need it or not.

Where exactly does this idea come from? I think people are imparting what THEY believe a universal health care plan to be rather than looking at the ones advanced by Clinton or Obama.

There are plenty of single guys between the age of 18 and 26 not covered, but for many that is a choice they make.

And they can continue to not make that choice. They'll just have to help out a bit in paying for those who can't afford anything else.

For the same reason having unemployment available to unemployed people is OK, but having unemployment checks available to everyone is wasteful.

A better analogy is the government offers a choice between offering unemployement checks from the government, or payroll checks from your employer. Even that fails at some level because any government plan gives you a wide variety of choice among different insurance agencies. It'd basically be treating those without coverage as they were getting employer health care and offering another choice to those who already have employer health care.

If I run a factory with a fairly high turnover rate or another low-skill job, why would I offer health care coverage?

Why do they offer it now?

[JPhillips]

The problem with minimal heathcare policies is that when you need better coverage for a major accident or illness someone is going to have to pay. It isn't like home owner's insurance where you'd lose your house and be able to move on. We aren't going to let the 25 yaer old with leukemia die because he has minimal insurance.

In theory competition and shopping around sounds great, but if that policy isn't enough the hospital, which ends up meaning the patients, is going to get stuck with the costs of treatment. If we're going to look at the morality of forced insurance we need to include that side as well.

[Young Drachma]

And they can continue to not make that choice. They'll just have to help out a bit in paying for those who can't afford anything else.

WHY?! does people on the modern left feel like everyone has to be entitled to stuff? Why do folks feel like there should be a bevy of government programs in place that many of the people who actually need them will refuse to use because of the stigma, feel like we need to create an extra layer of safety net for people who are on the absolute bottom?

What is the marginal benefit to another apparatus for what amounts to more and more government waste? Or is that part of the whole "greater good" element involved in "you get to live here, so you can contribute..."

As if that well-intentioned boondoggle entitled Social Security isn't enough of a fraud, trying to create another government sponsored ponzi scheme intended to help, when all it'll really do is fail to yield any effective results, given the track record of what's already out there in the status quo.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why do they offer it now?

As an incentive to work there. The problem is if the government starts offering health care there are one of two things that happens:

1) The employee takes the system offered by his employer and pays for this program and the government program.

2) The employee declines the system and goes on the government program.

Neither case is really all that great in my mind.

What would be great, but would never happen, is that the government could put out three insurance programs. These are offered to uninsured families. One is $25 per month, one is $50 per month, and the other is $100 per month. Let he uninsured decide what they want. If they decline, screw 'em they wanted a free meal ticket.

[JPhillips]

DC: I truly believe that we can create a single payer system that provides the same level of care at a lower per capita cost. That doesn't mean that a piece of legislation won't fuck it up, but everything I've read makes it clear that we spend more for less than most other countries. Health care isn't anywhere close to efficient now as upwards of one third of every dollar spent goes to overhead. Just in the area of preventive care tracking and data management we could save billions, but there is little incentive for nay healthcare provider to invest in that when people switch coverage so often.

I'm also firmly of the belief that a single payer health plan will put billions into the bottom line for U.S. businesses. The time and money that's spent by HR departments on healthcare related work is staggering.

I'll freely admit that some people will pay more under a single payer plan then they do now, but overall I do believe that costs will be reduced if it's done well. The one area I'll agree with you and Buc is that there is too high a liklelihood that Congress will fuck it up. I just think that the possibility of failure isn't a reason to abandon hope.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just in the area of preventive care tracking and data management we could save billions, but there is little incentive for nay healthcare provider to invest in that when people switch coverage so often.

This is an overlooked point. Insurers have little incentive to pay pennies for prevention in order to save dollars in treatment years down the line. Each insurer figures that the odds are good that someone will change jobs a few times and end up on some other insurer's plan when the costly treatment is needed.

Again, a tragedy of the commons. If we could (through whatever mechanism) make it likely that the insurance company in charge of your preventative care would be in charge of your treatment, then they would have an incentive to reduce costs in the system and invest more in prevention.

I don't have any answers. I just like saying "tragedy of the commons."

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

WHY?! does people on the modern left feel like everyone has to be entitled to stuff? Why do folks feel like there should be a bevy of government programs in place that many of the people who actually need them will refuse to use because of the stigma, feel like we need to create an extra layer of safety net for people who are on the absolute bottom?

What is the marginal benefit to another apparatus for what amounts to more and more government waste? Or is that part of the whole "greater good" element involved in "you get to live here, so you can contribute..."

As if that well-intentioned boondoggle entitled Social Security isn't enough of a fraud, trying to create another government sponsored ponzi scheme intended to help, when all it'll really do is fail to yield any effective results, given the track record of what's already out there in the status quo.

It isn't necessarily the "modern left". Public opinion polls have shown that a majority of Americans don't think our health care system is sufficient. There is a reason that every Democratic candidate had to have a health care system (or wanted a system) to be a viable candidate. That's the way the country is headed. Sure, it's about decades behind other Western industrialized countries, but too many horror stories and dealing with evil insurance companies have convinced folk that something needs to be done.

They don't want single payer (and hardly any Dem candidates actually offered that), but they do think people who can't go in for preventative health care should be offered a choice to be able to do so. Kind of like how food stamps are considered something we should do for people, that is why a reasonable oppertunity of health care should be offered.

As I said, some believe it is a basic human right. And plenty of people don't consider Social Security to be a failure, btw (now if they could only keep their grubby mitts out of the surplus that had come out of it in order to pay for higher costs during baby boomer retirement, things may have been easier).

[JPhillips]

I do know that tragedy of the commons is common in modern tragedy.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It isn't necessarily the "modern left". Public opinion polls have shown that a majority of Americans don't think our health care system is sufficient. There is a reason that every Democratic candidate had to have a health care system (or wanted a system) to be a viable candidate. That's the way the country is headed.

See, I think these polls are extremely faulty to draw conclusions from. Take the NYT/CBS poll done in March here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNew...ealth_care.pdf

1. 64% feel the government should guarantee coverage for all people.
2. 30% feel the government will do better than private, 44% think they will do worse.

Interesting logic. Basically, a large chunk of people in this poll feel they should have a system worse than the system they have right now - and that's their "solution".

3. 90% say they think fundamental changes need to be made or the health care system completely rebuilt. 38% are somewhat or very satisfied with the quality of care in the US.
4. 77% were either somewhat or very satisfied in their own personal coverage quality.

So, again, most feel the country is terrible at health care and we need fundamental changes. But, they are happy with the current system they have individually.

Again, this is like all the doom and gloom economy polls where people are happy with their financial situation, but worried about their neighbor. In essence, according to these polls, we get the following info:

People feel satisfied with their own coverage and don't think the government would do as well. But, major changes need to be made and that the government should run it.

Makes a ton of sense, doesn't it? All these polls reflect is the guilt people with good coverage have - so, we end up with these grand schemes to fix a problem that really isn't nearly as bad as most make it out to be.

[QuikSand]

Let's say you actually sat down with one of these mysterious survey respondents, and he said this to you:

I have a job, and I'm fairly secure. With my job I get health insurance, and that doesn't seem like it's going to change. So, my coverage is basically okay -- I might not love everything my HMO does, but I get the care that my family needs.

Meanwhile, my brother lost his job last year, and now he doesn't have health insurance any more while he is looking for real work. He got ill last month, and had to go to the emergency room, and he couldn't pay for it. As I understand it, the hospital basically just eats that cost, and basically send the bill to the people who do pay for their care -- people like me, even though it's supposedly my employer who is paying for my coverage. They could be giving me that extra money instead of spending it on inflated premiums.

I guess I'm glad that my uninsured brother got his emergency treatment, but it seems dumb that everyone else pays for it. It also seems dumb that he and his pregnant wife don't go to the doctor for checkups because it would cost them $100 to do so, and they don't have the $100. They aren't dirt poor, but times are tight and it seems they would be making better decisions if this were out of the day-to-day mix for them. I wonder what might happen to me if I lost my job... I might end up in just the same situation, and I'd hate to have to decide whether I pay the electric bill or take my kid to the doctor.

If that's a fair statement about a person's state of affairs... isn't it conceivable that such a person could indeed honestly respond to questions that:

-Yes, my current coverage is okay
-I still think this overall system should be better

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

DC: I truly believe that we can create a single payer system that provides the same level of care at a lower per capita cost. That doesn't mean that a piece of legislation won't fuck it up, but everything I've read makes it clear that we spend more for less than most other countries. Health care isn't anywhere close to efficient now as upwards of one third of every dollar spent goes to overhead. Just in the area of preventive care tracking and data management we could save billions, but there is little incentive for nay healthcare provider to invest in that when people switch coverage so often.

I'm also firmly of the belief that a single payer health plan will put billions into the bottom line for U.S. businesses. The time and money that's spent by HR departments on healthcare related work is staggering.

I'll freely admit that some people will pay more under a single payer plan then they do now, but overall I do believe that costs will be reduced if it's done well. The one area I'll agree with you and Buc is that there is too high a liklelihood that Congress will fuck it up. I just think that the possibility of failure isn't a reason to abandon hope.

I think you and I are far more close on the view of this than it seems.

I don't know we'll avoid some measure of a federal health care programme. I don't think people should have health care that shifts each time they change a job and the current economies of scale don't really allow anyone to have "portable" health care and neither the proposals on the Democratic or Republican side address the issues as I think they're being experienced by people who live in the "real world."

My personal position and my pragmatic political position on the issue are different. I realize the pragmatics behind altering the status quo and realize that it's going to result in some semblance of government managed health care. They're already in the business of it, so my position is, fix it and create a system that works...versus just slapping more layers and more taxes on trying to add a new layer to a bloated system that's not working very well to begin with.

I'd love to have a situation where we can lower the tax burden and begin to revolutionize the way Americans view personal responsibility and the role of government -- especially at the federal level.

But I see no indication of any sort of tide heading in that direction, which leaves me far more pragmatic about a solution that would at least get us to a place where what we have works efficiently (at least, as efficiently as one can expect a large federal bureaucracy to work)

I just have a hard time reading well-intentioned, but misguided logic that says "OMG, we have to HELP!?! Tax the people who have moved up the chain, because it's their fault?!"

I know that's not what's being said, but...in the end, I just can't rationalize any system that hitches its wagon to the most vulnerable of those in the middle class. We should do what we can to help those at the bottom have at least basic medical care and services and increase access to quality medical support around the country.

That would require an investment of private and public sector dollars in areas that we've just ignored. I don't know if a government health care system of any kind would help this, but if it were to be devised, it would have to be targeting more heavily the areas that need primary care the most, because that's almost as much of a problem as the lack of health insurance for people..is the lack of available care in rural or micropolitan areas.