The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[PilotMan]

Not a recent article, but people who are really suffering at the hands of politicians.

Millions of Poor Are Left Uncovered by Health Law - NYTimes.com

The 26 states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion are home to about half of the country’s population, but about 68 percent of poor, uninsured blacks and single mothers. About 60 percent of the country’s uninsured working poor are in those states. Among those excluded are about 435,000 cashiers, 341,000 cooks and 253,000 nurses’ aides.

....Because they live in states largely controlled by Republicans that have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid, the medical insurance program for the poor, they are among the eight million Americans who are impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help. The federal government will pay for the expansion through 2016 and no less than 90 percent of costs in later years.

Where Poor and Uninsured Americans Live - Interactive Map - NYTimes.com

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Another question:

Subsidies for Obamacare will (conservatively) increase the national debt by about $100 billion per year over the next decade - which is about $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Are you concerned about the national debt, or do you feel confiscation of existing wealth (through devaluing the dollar or other means) should solve the problem?

We've already spent way more than that on some other things. We could be doing a better job of managing costs I agree, but the very same people who are against healthcare because of cost are for lots of spending in other areas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...a60_story.html

The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher.

“As a consequence of these wartime spending choices, the United States will face constraints in funding investments in personnel and diplomacy, research and development and new military initiatives,” the report says. “The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come.”


Bilmes said the United States has spent almost $2 trillion already for the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those costs, she said, are only a fraction of the ultimate price tag. The biggest ongoing expense will be providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of the two conflicts.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Not a recent article, but people who are really suffering at the hands of politicians.

Millions of Poor Are Left Uncovered by Health Law - NYTimes.com


Where Poor and Uninsured Americans Live - Interactive Map - NYTimes.com

I was shocked when Ohio expanded their coverage.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Commonwealth Fund isn't a neutral source (that's putting it kindly). Citing them is like citing Al Gore on topics related to the climate.

Another question:

Subsidies for Obamacare will (conservatively) increase the national debt by about $100 billion per year over the next decade - which is about $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Are you concerned about the national debt, or do you feel confiscation of existing wealth (through devaluing the dollar or other means) should solve the problem?

What a bullshit question.

That's along the same lines as the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

We've already spent way more than that on some other things. We could be doing a better job of managing costs I agree, but the very same people who are against healthcare because of cost are for lots of spending in other areas.

Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion - The Washington Post

Is that a strong argument, though? I'm solidly in the category of being against Obamacare (not health care) and the Iraqi invasion. But that's not relevant.

We could also say Republicans are hypocritical because their response to the Tea Party challenge in Mississippi was for Cochran to set an unofficial pork spending record. Therefore, Republicans can't complain about any waste of taxpayer money. I get it, but I think each waste of money should be addressed - no one group gets to claim all of the responsibility.

My question is relevant because public debt is a real issue. If we spend our grandchildren's money, they pay the price somehow. And if you don't bill people directly, either you have to pump up the economy (as we're doing right now) and double down on the debt or you have to accept inflation.

There are many, many worthwhile uses of taxpayer money. Too many to simply say if it's worthwhile, we should pay for it.

[PilotMan]

There is going to be inflation. There has to be. It's the nature of the beast. It's the desired outcome of a healthy economy. Now the question is how much is healthy? Deflation isn't the answer.

Personally speaking the Bush tax cuts were always temporary in my mind. We had a very healthy system in place and while those cuts were helpful for a time they have become very damaging over the long run. Now they are to be accepted as the norm and further cuts are demanded.

It is the fiscal responsibility of the government to collect taxes to pay for things that benefit the whole and that the smaller states and local governments cannot handle on their own. It is the responsibility of the people to ensure that while they are free to do what they want they also need to be mindful to those who have very little or nothing at all.

I've said for years it's so easy to make money when you have money. It is. Life is easier. You can make an entire families income on interest and dividends doing nothing at all!

I have a problem with taking a program that works, but that some people don't like, and ripping it up and making it totally unusable. Taking a system that functions (or is designed too) and take a hand in tearing it down only to point fingers at what a failure it is.

Yes, spending money we don't have happens all the time. The amount of our national debt as a ratio of our GDP is large but not nearly as large as that of many well respected businesses here who outspend what they make in order to grow the company.

I don't want to be drawn into an income disparity debate, because it'll just sidetrack, but unless you are making more than about $200,000 a year you probably aren't paying anything close to what you are getting back from the government. The fact that the discussion about middle class doesn't even contain the middle 50% quartile of US families should be all that we need to say about income disparity and the direction of it here.

This kind of turned into a rambling grouping of statements, sorry for the lack of organization. It's all connected in my head, just can't verbalize it the right way.

I'll just leave it with this from the US Govt's own Public Debt site.

Between 1980 and 1990, the debt more than tripled as the government borrowed money to fund military build-ups and many elaborate new policies, such as "the war on drugs." Americans began relying more and more on credit cards and jumbo mortgages, and being "in debt" became a new way of life in America.


And yet, as the Cold War drew to a close, the economy of the United States remained essentially healthy. How could this be? It is said that the Cold War was fought not by armies, but by banks. From the 1950s through the 1980s, both sides built massive debt during their international shadow-boxing match. Western powers "won" this match not by the size of their debt, but by the nature of that debt, according to a 1995 article in USA Today. "The U.S. financed its battles in the Cold War by borrowing against the future, constraining, but not really limiting, social spending," the article posits. "The Eastern bloc financed its Cold War battles the only way it could: by taking shortcuts on every imaginable count, saving a ruble here... and a ruble there." Thus, when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, the U.S., guided by policy carried out by the Treasury, was better able to take advantage of economic growth to come.

Economic growth will come. We will leverage it more. It may in truth come back to bite us in the ass. Pretty much every economic "pop" has had significant damage to the people. However, we've also tried to go back and fix those things that lead to the damage only to have them restricted by the people in power for one reason or another. They don't seem interested in really fixing the problem as in just perpetuating the disharmony.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Follow-up questions:

1) Of those among the 84% who had insurance when Obamacare was passed, how much more expensive is your insurance today, and do you still have access to the same doctors as you did in 2010, with the same deductible?

The answer would be more expensive and a higher deductible. And it would've been the answer the 4 years before that. And the 4 years before that.

2) Of those who would not have insurance today without Obamacare, can you afford health care, given the deductible?

If they're getting a subsidy, then they're getting cost sharing reduction on the deductible as well. And a low out of pocket maximum. Furthermore, the deductible doesn't apply for preventative or diagnostic care.

Your argument here is kind of interesting, because people have been complaining that the subsidies have been overly generous if anything. Also, ACA has caps on deductibles and out of pocket maximums, which is again interesting because earlier people were complaining that their high deductible plans were being canceled. Now the deductibles are too high?

[Solecismic]

The top 6% of individuals make $200k or more. At $200k, you're paying about 31.5% of your income in taxes. Which amounts to $63k. The government will spend about $6.3 trillion this year. At $63k per person, that means it would take about 100 million people making $200k to balance the budget. These figures include sales tax, so it's an attempt to be complete with the numbers.

So, I don't think $200k is accurate for the "you're paying your fair share" argument.

Let's divide $6.3 trillion by our population, which is about 314 million. That gives us about $20k per person per year in government spending at all levels. If you want to get to $20k in tax revenue, $70k in earnings is a more accurate balance point - which about 1/3 of people earning money make.

Of course, we have to account for the fact that only about 140 million people file taxes and show income. Most who don't are children, spouses who exclusively raise children, the disabled, etc.

But, the remaining 175 million still generate tax revenue through purchases. And those purchases help stimulate the economy every bit as much as purchases from earners.

So calling this a nation of taxpayers and 47%ers, or whatever it was that Romney gaffed with during the campaign, is a relatively useless argument.

Is it better to divide total spending by 140 million, giving you an estimate of total earner income? I'll try that. Now we have a government spending burden of $45k per earner and we're up around $157k in earnings per family. Now that's just 1/6 of MFJ families.

And then we're still not even getting into the argument about justifications for specific spending items. What is government waste? We'd all define it differently. How do we balance for people paying for services they don't need if they earn income? How do we balance for people like me who consume more infrastructure because we live more in the country? Or people who live in urban centers and consume more in other services?

It would take a Ph.D. thesis to analyze this properly, but I'm comfortable saying that we could lower the tax rate if every family had an earner at the 50% level. Which is, of course, completely unrealistic.

We agree that people in power tend to try and preserve their power through dysfunctional leadership. Neither party seems to have an upper hand when it comes to dysfunction.

As for inflation, yes, things work well when there's a small amount. But if you look at the changes in debt rate and money printed during Obama's presidency, you will see some differences we've never seen before. We'd have Carter-level inflation if the Fed weren't propping up this house of cards.

[RainMaker]

Inflation isn't a problem. The Fed is a lot smarter than people give it credit for. They've learned from a lot of past mistakes.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Put it this way, I'm a Hillary Democrat. Which tends to mean Obama and now Warren supporters just don't fully get that.

You're a "Hillary Democrat" and you voted for McCain? Do you really think there would have been a lot of similarity in those two hypothetical administrations?

Conservatives like Andrew Sullivan consider Obama a moderate. Do you really think he's far left?

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not perfect, but doing a lot for a lot of people.

The trendline is hard to argue against (though I'm sure someone will).

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Commonwealth Fund isn't a neutral source (that's putting it kindly). Citing them is like citing Al Gore on topics related to the climate.

It cites data and sources. If you're so certain the impacts are negative, show your proof. I'm guessing there's no source that would convince you, should it show positive impacts of the PPACA

Subsidies for Obamacare will (conservatively) increase the national debt by about $100 billion per year over the next decade - which is about $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Are you concerned about the national debt, or do you feel confiscation of existing wealth (through devaluing the dollar or other means) should solve the problem?

We've spent $1.4 trillion on the F-35 program so far, for a plane that's grounded every other week for fuel leaks, engine fires and thunderstorms. Oh, and it can't fly effectively in rain. I'd rather that money be spent on health care. Hell, I'd rather that money be returned as tax rebates.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Is that a strong argument, though? I'm solidly in the category of being against Obamacare (not health care) and the Iraqi invasion. But that's not relevant.

Aren't you also a self-avowed libertarian? You're not going to agree that any spending is good spending, so the argument's a non-starter for you anyway.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The top 6% of individuals make $200k or more. At $200k, you're paying about 31.5% of your income in taxes. Which amounts to $63k. The government will spend about $6.3 trillion this year. At $63k per person, that means it would take about 100 million people making $200k to balance the budget. These figures include sales tax, so it's an attempt to be complete with the numbers.

So, I don't think $200k is accurate for the "you're paying your fair share" argument.

Let's divide $6.3 trillion by our population, which is about 314 million. That gives us about $20k per person per year in government spending at all levels. If you want to get to $20k in tax revenue, $70k in earnings is a more accurate balance point - which about 1/3 of people earning money make.

Of course, we have to account for the fact that only about 140 million people file taxes and show income. Most who don't are children, spouses who exclusively raise children, the disabled, etc.

But, the remaining 175 million still generate tax revenue through purchases. And those purchases help stimulate the economy every bit as much as purchases from earners.

So calling this a nation of taxpayers and 47%ers, or whatever it was that Romney gaffed with during the campaign, is a relatively useless argument.

Is it better to divide total spending by 140 million, giving you an estimate of total earner income? I'll try that. Now we have a government spending burden of $45k per earner and we're up around $157k in earnings per family. Now that's just 1/6 of MFJ families.

And then we're still not even getting into the argument about justifications for specific spending items. What is government waste? We'd all define it differently. How do we balance for people paying for services they don't need if they earn income? How do we balance for people like me who consume more infrastructure because we live more in the country? Or people who live in urban centers and consume more in other services?

It would take a Ph.D. thesis to analyze this properly, but I'm comfortable saying that we could lower the tax rate if every family had an earner at the 50% level. Which is, of course, completely unrealistic.

We agree that people in power tend to try and preserve their power through dysfunctional leadership. Neither party seems to have an upper hand when it comes to dysfunction.

As for inflation, yes, things work well when there's a small amount. But if you look at the changes in debt rate and money printed during Obama's presidency, you will see some differences we've never seen before. We'd have Carter-level inflation if the Fed weren't propping up this house of cards.

Individual income taxes typically make up less than half of the revenue generated by the government.

[flere-imsaho]

Here's the detail, anyway:

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Shit, I'll argue it. The uninsured rated since Obama took office didn't go from 18% to 13% as the graph is likely to suggest. It went from 14% to 18% to 13%. Why the fuck did it jump from 14% to 18% under Obama? And how did none of you graph making watchdogs not get that graph before Obamacare graphs were circulated?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Shit, I'll argue it. The uninsured rated since Obama took office didn't go from 18% to 13% as the graph is likely to suggest. It went from 14% to 18% to 13%. Why the fuck did it jump from 14% to 18% under Obama? And how did none of you graph making watchdogs not get that graph before Obamacare graphs were circulated?

Really? History is a bitch ain't it?

[Dutch]

Dumb graphs are a bitch.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I pay more for health care now than I did in 2010. I pay more for pretty much everything now than I did in 2010.

No relevant change in doctors or deductibles.

I believe I am paying more than 2010, but I think I am getting better coverage for things (like orthodontics) than I did before. That's largely from my company having grown and switching coverages (UnitedHealthcare -> Aetna) though.

I did get a letter in the mail the other day from Aetna telling me to expect changes in coverage stemming from the ACA. It didn't say what they would be, only that there would be changes. It didn't sound like they would be favorable ones.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Shit, I'll argue it. The uninsured rated since Obama took office didn't go from 18% to 13% as the graph is likely to suggest. It went from 14% to 18% to 13%. Why the fuck did it jump from 14% to 18% under Obama?

Puts hand up - Sir, was it possibly because in 2008/9 there was a recession and so many more people were unemployed and thus uninsured ... as such as the job market has recovered more of these people will have jobs once again and thus be eligible for insurance.

Regardless of this even taking that into account Obamacare has decreased the number of uninsured people - however by 'how much' its debatable.

(as with practically everything at a national level its really difficult to tell the full effect of a single policy or decision because there are lots of factors pulling at them - one of the biggest problems with politics today imho is that voters decide their opinions on the 'now' yet the effects of decisions being made can take decades to show their full effects ...)

[flere-imsaho]

Here's what it looked like back to 1999:



A consistent upward trend. Note the sharp drop for 19-25-year-olds as the ACA provision extending parents' coverage to dependents up to 26 kicked in.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Subsidies for Obamacare will (conservatively) increase the national debt by about $100 billion per year over the next decade - which is about $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Are you concerned about the national debt, or do you feel confiscation of existing wealth (through devaluing the dollar or other means) should solve the problem?

Really? I'm going to side with DT with this being, well, not the best way to phrase or frame the question. It sounds more like wanting to just throw the argument out than to actually debate it.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Solecismic is arguing via a false choice fallacy anyway.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Really? I'm going to side with DT with this being, well, not the best way to phrase or frame the question. It sounds more like wanting to just throw the argument out than to actually debate it.

SI

I explained why I chose to phrase it in that manner, but I can see why people might see it as a loaded question if they don't agree that the national debt is the single largest problem we face as a country, moving forward.

If you don't, that's fine. Maybe we should have that debate as well. Seems as obvious to me as others see the global warming issue, so, again, I understand why my question might seem more irritating than thought-provoking.

My thought is that debt is an issue of government control. The greater the debt, the less future value our money holds. This is a disincentive in savings and (this is what I see as the crucial part) increased dependence on the government to provide retirement sustenance. All while we know Social Security will need restructuring as it is.

People are not saving for retirement anymore. They're counting on the government to provide. And as long as the government is willing to incur more and more debt, that works.

Yesterday I was reading yet another bond request from the local schools. The superintendent is talking about another 30-year loan, and how taxes will probably return (they never do) to current levels in 30 years. And in the meantime we will enjoy more technology in the classrooms, athletic fields, a bunch of other stuff - all this stuff will be obsolete within 15 years, let alone 30. And that's great, but it is making fiscal decisions today and leaving the next generation to pay the bill. This is how government works these days and it needs to change at all levels.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

People are not saving for retirement anymore. They're counting on the government to provide.

Given how any dime anybody can manage to earn is taxed to death, not much other choice for a lot of people ... other than simply not retiring and hoping to die about the same time your last job ends. THAT is the new American dream, ain't it lovely?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Shit, I'll argue it. The uninsured rated since Obama took office didn't go from 18% to 13% as the graph is likely to suggest. It went from 14% to 18% to 13%. Why the fuck did it jump from 14% to 18% under Obama? And how did none of you graph making watchdogs not get that graph before Obamacare graphs were circulated?

It's easier than that - why doesn't the vertical axis start at 0? Common statistical trick.

Segue: I love the Blue Cross ad running in North Carolina right now that points out how much of our healthcare spending is on administration. That's mostly thanks to Blue Cross and how insurers have changed how we pay for medical care

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Follow-up questions:

1) Of those among the 84% who had insurance when Obamacare was passed, how much more expensive is your insurance today, and do you still have access to the same doctors as you did in 2010, with the same deductible?

2) Of those who would not have insurance today without Obamacare, can you afford health care, given the deductible?

3) Are you actually insured, given that policies are not necessarily in full effect if you haven't completed the registration process, paid the premiums, and are, in fact, entitled to the subsidies you claimed?

Not perfect, doing something for some people, but making a bad situation a lot worse for many.

I maintain we need real health care reform, not a band-aid written by industry lobbyists, unread by those who passed it, that merely extends a broken system. There's good reason even those who are most likely to be Obama supporters (union members) actively seek exemptions from Obamacare.

We need health reform, not just health care reform. How exactly do fix the former? Without it, we are still going to have to pay-regardless of how it's paid it (universal, insurance, private, ect.) for all of the problems that come with the big concerns we have today (obesity, diabetes, poor eating/lack of execrise, aging).

I've read in several areas-particularly in the public sector-that unions are battling over the tax on so-called Cadillac Plans-which employers/public negotiators certainly don't want to have to pay on.

[molson]

I know there really wasn't any other option that would have gotten through, but I hate how "number of insured" is the standard for success. Health care reform shouldn't be this great for insurance companies, or we're not doing it right yet. As a country, before and after Obamacare, we spend so much more per person than anyone else, and still get a crappy product out of it. It's better than it was before for a lot of people, but it still doesn't feel like step forward when the insurance companies won so much.

[JPhillips]

For those talking about real health reform, what are you advocating?

The ACA isn't perfect, but since it's gone into effect millions more are covered, the spending on Medicare is about 50 billion lower than projected in 2010 and the overall medical inflation rate has dropped. Now the second and third items may or may not be due to the ACA, but they are real.

molson: I don't think the number of insured is the standard, but it is a standard. You can't discuss the benefits/detriments of the ACA without acknowledging that millions more getting access to healthcare is part of the equation. I'd agree that cost still matters, but expanded coverage benefits people.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You're a "Hillary Democrat" and you voted for McCain? Do you really think there would have been a lot of similarity in those two hypothetical administrations?

Probably not, but Obama has governed far more towards the middle than his primary language seemingly indicated (Obama has done A LOT of things that his primary language indicated - like pushing for the individual mandate when he hammered Clinton for suggesting it).

And I think you (as well as other lefties who are in the Obama/Warren bent) kind of miss the distinction among the different kinds of Democrats.

Conservatives like Andrew Sullivan consider Obama a moderate. Do you really think he's far left?

Conservatives like Andrew Sullivan...

That's about as far as I need to go with that statement. Though, I realize Sullivan likes to calls himself a conservative, though, in the same way, Zell Miller still likes to refer to himself as a Democrat.

[ISiddiqui]

To back that last statement out, when Bill Maher (of all people) calls you out for it, it's time to abandon the fallacy:

Bill Maher Nails Andrew Sullivan - YouTube

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Puts hand up - Sir, was it possibly because in 2008/9 there was a recession and so many more people were unemployed and thus uninsured ... as such as the job market has recovered more of these people will have jobs once again and thus be eligible for insurance.

Regardless of this even taking that into account Obamacare has decreased the number of uninsured people - however by 'how much' its debatable.

(as with practically everything at a national level its really difficult to tell the full effect of a single policy or decision because there are lots of factors pulling at them - one of the biggest problems with politics today imho is that voters decide their opinions on the 'now' yet the effects of decisions being made can take decades to show their full effects ...)

I'd need another graph to show how the recession pushed the levels up to 14% to begin with, assuming that under Bush, the recession also likely pushed it up. Where was it before that? Less than 13%? Yikes.

[larrymcg421]

Number of insured is absolutely a good statistic considering that one of the goals is to get people healthier, which should lower costs in the long run.

[NobodyHere]

Sorry everyone, but I need to inject Lebron James into this thread

James’ return to Cleveland could complicate GOP

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Sorry everyone, but I need to inject Lebron James into this thread

James’ return to Cleveland could complicate GOP

In other news. LeBron James and RNC Convention compete to rebuild Democratic Stronghold Cleveland from cesspool into viable living option.

[cartman]

Interesting read on one area's struggles with jobs and multi-national corporations.

Losing Sparta | VQR Online

[DaddyTorgo]

OH. MY. GOD.

THE STUPID. IT...BURNS

[W]hen questioned about his position on social issues, [Minnesota House candidate Bob Frey (R)] added that it “does certainly need to be addressed for what it is. It’s not about the gay agenda but about the science and the financial impact of that agenda. It’s more about sodomy than about pigeonholing a lifestyle.”

Frey then explained his view: “When you have egg and sperm that meet in conception, there’s an enzyme in the front that burns through the egg. The enzyme burns through so the DNA can enter the egg. If the sperm is deposited anally, it's the enzyme that causes the immune system to fail. That’s why the term is AIDS – acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.”

Minnesota House candidate makes AIDS, 'Gay Agenda' campaign issues | MinnPost

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You can't discuss the benefits/detriments of the ACA without acknowledging that millions more getting access to healthcare is part of the equation.

They were getting care - it was just via emergency rooms and other poor ways of getting it.

We can talk about insurance and quality of care, but saying things like "millions more getting access to healthcare" is inaccurate.

[gstelmack]

Another question: if millions more suddenly have access to healthcare, where did all the doctors providing it suddenly materialize from? We also had a shortage of nurses before all these people suddenly started getting care.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Another question: if millions more suddenly have access to healthcare, where did all the doctors providing it suddenly materialize from? We also had a shortage of nurses before all these people suddenly started getting care.

Shhhh.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Another question: if millions more suddenly have access to healthcare, where did all the doctors providing it suddenly materialize from? We also had a shortage of nurses before all these people suddenly started getting care.

There's an inherent contradiction with your two statements. If people already had access to care then they were already being seen by doctors.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's an inherent contradiction with your two statements. If people already had access to care then they were already being seen by doctors.

That's exactly my point. We have a change in how people are receiving care, not that they are suddenly receiving care where they were not. So stop saying "millions more are now receiving care".

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

That's exactly my point. We have a change in how people are receiving care, not that they are suddenly receiving care where they were not. So stop saying "millions more are now receiving care".

Can we all agree that getting care at a primary care doctor is better than at the emergency room? And thus "millions more are now receiving proper care"?

SI

[JPhillips]

Emergency room care only covers a portion of healthcare. That won't include regular vaccinations, regular physicals, blood tests to monitor chronic conditions, etc. Emergency room care is great when there's an obvious problem, but it isn't good at maintaining health.

[PilotMan]

Saying a person is getting health care because they visit an emergency room is a total joke and an insult to those who aren't insured. The quality of care isn't even a comparison as to what is available to you with a primary care doctor.

[Solecismic]

More patients flocking to ERs under Obamacare

[Edward64]

More health care, better health care, always having access to ER for healthcare etc. eh, its semantics.

You can parse/Clintonian it how you want but there is a population that now has more healthcare options, be it thru accessibility, affordability etc.

Is it perfect, definitely not. Will there be abuses, sure. Will some people probably be paying more than before, likely. Will overall healthcare prices increase, not sure. But we have a chance to make it work ...

Its not as-if the prior trajectory was good either. What did the Republicans offer during in 2008? A tax credit. What did Republicans offer in 2012? Romney ran away from his platform as a governor.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I think you (as well as other lefties who are in the Obama/Warren bent) kind of miss the distinction among the different kinds of Democrats.

I've frequently referred to the Democratic party as a "big tent", often, it must be said, when conveying my frustration that they can't work in concert.

Also, what's the pejorative analog to "lefties", so I can start using that.

Conservatives like Andrew Sullivan...

That's about as far as I need to go with that statement. Though, I realize Sullivan likes to calls himself a conservative, though, in the same way, Zell Miller still likes to refer to himself as a Democrat.

OK, so where is the center of the political spectrum for you, today?


You know what the real truth is? We can no longer call folks like Sullivan a conservative because they are progressive on social issues, and if there's one thing the modern GOP hates, it's people being progressive on social issues, regardless of their other beliefs.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

More patients flocking to ERs under Obamacare

As the article points out, much of this is attributed to new Medicaid recipients going to the only provider they've ever known (an ER), them not realizing primary care doctors are an option, and lastly too few primary care doctors not being available.

All of these are solvable issues, with the last being the most difficult.

But since you're a known critic, what would be your preferred solution? Not letting poor people have access to health care at all?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

OK, so where is the center of the political spectrum for you, today?

Susan Collins is probably closest to it. Or Kay Hagan. Or Mark Pryor.

FWIW, the Daily Kos may actually have a decent chart, as biased as they are, re: Senators (this is as of 2011, btw):

Senate Rankings

You know what the real truth is? We can no longer call folks like Sullivan a conservative because they are progressive on social issues, and if there's one thing the modern GOP hates, it's people being progressive on social issues, regardless of their other beliefs.

Obviously you don't read Sullivan on a daily basis. You are talking about someone who enthusiastically backed an expansive stimulus package and actually has said we need a larger one. Has called for tax increases. Has constantly called for increased regulation. Enthusiastically supports the PPACA and has expressed the notion that the US should have a Britain like HHS.

Sullivan is on the center left and that's being generous (he is more left than he is center). It's the same as Bill Maher calling himself a libertarian a few years back, when everyone realized he was already on the left and continuing further and further that way.

Which is fine, but he's not a conservative. Moderate conservative pundits are Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Conor Freidersdorf, David Frum, David Brooks. Sullivan was among their ranks even 10 years ago (heck, he argued for both the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War), but he's gone far to the left of them.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Susan Collins is probably closest to it. Or Kay Hagan. Or Mark Pryor.

FWIW, the Daily Kos may actually have a decent chart, as biased as they are, re: Senators (this is as of 2011, btw):

Senate Rankings

Makes for an interesting "middle"

Originally Posted by article

Centrists with Liberal Tendencies:
4 (all of them take liberal positions at least 45% and take about 30% centrist, 25% conservative)
45. Johnson (favors broadening death penalty, voted for 2001 Bush tax-cuts, voted to confirm Alito, voted to relax gun regulations) (SD)
46. Baucus (MT) (pro-gun, not very supportive of public option, pro-death penalty, anti-gay marriage, pro drilling in ANWR, voted to repeal estate tax, voted for 2001 Bush tax-cuts, supportive of low income tax on wealthy)
47.Conrad (ND) (pro-drilling in sensitive areas, anti-public option, pro-life, voted for Alito, opposed to gay marriage)
48. Hagan (against DREAM ACT, against act weakening tobacco industry, anti-gun-control)*
Centrist (one of a kind):
49. Lieberman (Iraq, endorsed McCain, anti-public option, and numerous other issues)
Moderate Conservatives *:
8
50. Pryor (60% conservative, 30 centrist, 10% liberal)
51. Landrieu (60% conservative, 30% centrist, 10% liberal)
52. Manchin (70% conservative, 25% centrist, 5% liberal)
53. Ben Nelson (85% conservative, 10% centrist, 5% liberal)
54. Brown (85% conservative, 15% liberal)
55. Collins (90% conservative, 10% liberal)
56. Snowe (85% conservative, 15% liberal)
57. Murkowski (85% conservative, 15% liberal)


Bipartisan Conservatives:
4 (show wiliness to compromise, but are at least 93% conservative)
58. Alexander
59. Graham
60. Lugar
61. Hatch

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Furthermore, since all those Republican "Moderate Conservatives" are ones that JIMG would love to toss out of the GOP, I think they can fit in their label

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Furthermore, since all those Republican "Moderate Conservatives" are ones that JIMG would love to toss out of the GOP, I think they can fit in their label

That's not enough close to what I'd love to do the most of them, just tbh.

If you put Nancy, Hillary and Harry in a room together one of them is the farthest left, one is the most centric of the group and one is the farthest right. That doesn't make any of the trio "conservative".