The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree with your statements about pacifism. Policy should be made in respects to the best interest of the people. Not to justify one's own moral beliefs.

Everyone does that, you can't seperate them that easily. Isn't the idea that everyone should have free health care a moral belief? Or the idea that murder should be illegal, or that gays should be allowed to marry? Or that we should tax the rich to subsidize people that are deemed "disabled"? Or that we should end the war in Iraq? The fact that one person utilizes the structure of religion to express and find their moral beliefs, and another gets them from the Daily Show or their parents doesn't immediately invalidate the former.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You will always tie those views opposing yours to Rush Limbaugh, and then use that as validation that your viewpoint is superior.

Cute, but disproven in the very same post you quoted, where I said I respected the differing viewpoints from mine on this issue that were based in real fiscal concerns about the plans being discussed.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

What about a company like BCBS that is non-profit?

Not all of BCBS is non-profit.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We've been at that point for a long time. In all seriousness though (as opposed to me joking about this point earlier), the devil is in the details. It'd be like the world's biggest custody battle.

Surely Palestine/Israel is more difficult....

Originally Posted by panerd

How do 50 million people joining the fold not increase costs? (or whatever the number of uninsured is)

Very broadly speaking I believe the crux of that argument is:

economies of scale + greater preventative treatment vs reactive (and expensive) critical treatment = savings when compared to projected escalation in costs of the current system

Any one of those points can be argued, but in general I think that's the basic formulation.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Because (let me see if I have the President's statements right here) we can stop duplicating tests, and we can take the blue pill instead of the red pill for our heart disease because the blue pill is cheaper but works just as well!

Quality contribution.

A real world example would be if a generic version of Lipitor was sold for a fraction of the price, and worked exactly the same, why wouldn't you buy it?

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Right now, the loans are backed and guaranteed by the government, but administered by banks for God knows what reason.

This, actually, is exactly the kind of privatization of government services I can completely support. A core business of banks is executing financial transactions, like loans, and it stands to reason they can do this more efficiently than the government. The problem, in my opinion, is likely to be poor, sporadic and/or misguided oversight by the relevant government agencies.

In fact, in my experience the problem with most privatization enterprises is rooted in government oversight (or the lack of competency thereof). Most government oversight is process-based (as long as you're filling out form X and then filing form Y, we're OK with anything else you do) as opposed to results-based (your contract is contingent on fulfilling the following metrics for efficiency, cost, and quality as well as not doing anything illegal or unethical).

[lungs]

Does anybody know how I could get on one of those Death Panels? I donated money to Obama so I think that would qualify me, wouldn't it?

[Dutch]

Cute, but disproven in the very same post you quoted, where I said I respected the differing viewpoints from mine on this issue that were based in real fiscal concerns about the plans being discussed.

Of course, because you are a moderate between liberals and conservatives. We get what you are selling, but who's buying that crap?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

Everyone does that, you can't seperate them that easily. Isn't the idea that everyone should have free health care a moral belief? Or the idea that murder should be illegal, or that gays should be allowed to marry? Or that we should tax the rich to subsidize people that are deemed "disabled"? Or that we should end the war in Iraq? The fact that one person utilizes the structure of religion to express and find their moral beliefs, and another gets them from the Daily Show or their parents doesn't immediately invalidate the former.

This.

When religion is discovered as a foundation for a morale belief, that belief is inherently flawed. When someone's personal experiences/family beliefs (often just as tainted) are used as a foundation, the belief is completely fair. I don't think I will ever understand this line of thinking.

Either it's OK for personal morality to be a part of a governing person's decision making or it isn't. It doesn't matter if that morality comes from a belief in Jesus Christ or the Spaghetti Monster. The focus should be on the decisions made as a president/governing leader, not on how much his morale values/religion played a part in those decisions.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Of course, because you are a moderate between liberals and conservatives. We get what you are selling, but who's buying that crap?

Have I ever claimed to be a moderate, overall?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Have I ever claimed to be a moderate, overall?

Eh, good point.

[duckman]

Everybody and their mothers know that flere is a pinko commie bastard.

And Flasch is Captain Hyperbole®!

[Dutch]

Interesting article.

Analysis: Press Largely Ignored Incendiary Rhetoric at Bush Protest
Analysis: Press Largely Ignored Incendiary Rhetoric at Bush Protest - Political News - FOXNews.com

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Interesting article.

Analysis: Press Largely Ignored Incendiary Rhetoric at Bush Protest
Analysis: Press Largely Ignored Incendiary Rhetoric at Bush Protest - Political News - FOXNews.com

People will disregard that because its FoxNews but that certainly wasn't a one-time event. The Bush hatred was wildly over the top and calls for assasination and chants of terrorist were pretty common. If that happened to Obama to that degree, the spin would be that the protests were racist. Hell, when someone calls him "socalist" it's considered over-the-line.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Wait, now the right is bring up Bush? Can you only compare Bush to Obama when it makes the point you want?

[JediKooter]

I don't know, all this muddling from both sides seems to be a clever plot to just annoy us into submission where we finally just throw our hands up in the air and tell the politians to just get it over with already no matter how crappy of a deal it is.

If the people who don't have health care want free health care, give it to them. Just don't screw with what I have.

And that's my opinion on this day, August 12, 2009. Good day.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Wait, now the right is bring up Bush? Can you only compare Bush to Obama when it makes the point you want?

It'd be pretty weird to randomly bring up Bush if it wasn't to make a point. That'd be like bringing up Christian fundamentalists every time someone disagreed with them.

[sterlingice]

I know, it's a bit snarky but I love Nate Silver's Canada vs England socialist health care comparison (and who doesn't love making fun of our two closest "neighbors")

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Not All Socialist Countries are Alike

SI

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by duckman

Everybody and their mothers know that flere is a pinko commie bastard.

And Flasch is Captain Hyperbole®!

Damnit, with the Restricted symbol on it Ill have to cancel my Cafe Press T-shirt order!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Which is totally incorrect. A nut job ranting at Specter's odds of going to hell doesn't mean that religion is at the forefront of the health care debate. It just means that a nut job told Specter to go to hell.

Head over to the major Christian groups websites and tell me what you see. Tell me where that huge viral e-mail that started the nonsense about death camps, forced abortions and euthanasia came from.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Head over to the major Christian groups websites and tell me what you see. Tell me where that huge viral e-mail that started the nonsense about death camps, forced abortions and euthanasia came from.

So you're pointing to a group of nut jobs similar to this man as proof that religion is at the forefront of this debate? If your dumb enough to buy into their perceived self-importance that doesn't even register with most Americans, then we have little to discuss. They can send all the e-mails they want. They aren't the reason for most of this dissent. They're just responsible for the goofballs that honestly hurt the good arguments against this bill being made by the rest of us with some form of common sense. They provide fodder for people like you who actually believe that anyone of note takes them seriously and distract from the real argument.

[Young Drachma]

As for the student loan business, I say, cut out federal aid from the whole situation and be done with it. Student loans are a boondoggle, college costs have risen out of control due to the fact that schools know the money is subsidized from the government.

It's the biggest scam ever and a degree is hardly worth what it used to. It'll never happen, but getting government out of higher education finance would do more to help kids than making Uncle Sam a direct lender.

(Though it is indeed better than the status quo, it's a half measure)

Only make federal aid in the form of grants, if anything, cap the amount and schools will start merging and lowering tuitions and using their endowments for things like actually benefiting students, rather than building palatial campuses aimed at attracted faux blue bloods who want nothing to do with their third tier selves.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Quality contribution.

A real world example would be if a generic version of Lipitor was sold for a fraction of the price, and worked exactly the same, why wouldn't you buy it?

It's not like I was making that up. This is from The One himself.

“If there’s a blue pill and a red pill and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that’s going to make you well?”

Here's another. From the New York Times coverage of the health-care townhall in N.H. yesterday.

Obama said health care reform would free up doctors to concentrate on treatment because they would not be prodded to schedule unnecessary tests.

Perhaps you should be sending your suggestions of better examples to the White House. They could use it more than I could.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Head over to the major Christian groups websites and tell me what you see. Tell me where that huge viral e-mail that started the nonsense about death camps, forced abortions and euthanasia came from.

I saw porn, but I think I may have typed in the wrong address.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Only make federal aid in the form of grants, if anything, cap the amount and schools will start merging and lowering tuitions and using their endowments for things like actually benefiting students, rather than building palatial campuses aimed at attracted faux blue bloods who want nothing to do with their third tier selves.

It's such a double-edged sword but I almost agree with this. Endowments now are basically to make campuses look pretty and cater to rich alumni rather than actually pouring the money back into education. But, we all know that a college degree has basically become the equivalent of a high school diploma 30 years ago and, heck, even more valuable as we have gotten more and more service-oriented.

SI

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Endowments do a lot more than make campuses look pretty and cater to rich alumni, at least at the two schools I am most familiar with. *shurg*

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I saw porn, but I think I may have typed in the wrong address.

Wrong heavenly bodies, Cam

SI

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Endowments do a lot more than make campuses look pretty and cater to rich alumni, at least at the two schools I am most familiar with. *shurg*

Well right, they use their endowments to fund the school's expenses from year to year (at private institutions anyway, depending on the school it's about 3-5% of the endowment. at smaller, tuition dependent schools it's a lot more than that..) but a lot of the money isn't devoted to helping students afford to go there and so forth. And it probably shouldn't be. But a lot of the direct giving these days is aimed at facilities and the "arms race" that's gotten completely out of hand and doesn't as much as it should trickle down to students.

Let's put it this way. If higher ed were another industry, people would be outraged at the way things have escalated. If private, independent schools (K-12) can survive without the largess of a federal system aimed at propping them up and have endowments that in most cases dwarf colleges and universities, then I think the government can better allocate resources at helping students get educated and contribute in fields where we need them, rather than trying to prop up largely private institutions who are just focused largely on keep up with the Joneses.

And this is after spend close to a decade in higher ed.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Wrong heavenly bodies, Cam

SI

Actually, I think my laptop is possessed by Jimmy Swaggart.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Actually, I think my laptop is possessed by Jimmy Swaggart.

Or Jim Bakker

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Or Jim Bakker

SI

Get with the times! It's Reverend Haggard!

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Head over to the major Christian groups websites and tell me what you see. Tell me where that huge viral e-mail that started the nonsense about death camps, forced abortions and euthanasia came from.

So how do you explain non-religious people that have concerns with Obama's plan? Are we just some kind of anomoly? What does it say, at all, about my opinion, what someone on a Christian group website says? Does it say anything about your opinion that many people though Bush planned 9/11, was going to invade Syria, Iran, and North Korea, declare martial law and then stay in power after 2008?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

So how do you explain non-religious people that have concerns with Obama's plan? Are we just some kind of anomoly? What does it say, at all, about my opinion, what someone on a Christian group website says? Does it say anything about your opinion that many people though Bush planned 9/11, was going to invade Syria, Iran, and North Korea, declare martial law and then stay in power after 2008?

I don't know what you're trying to argue here. I said religious groups have had a big impact on the debate. I never said they were the only voice and I never said there weren't people who aren't Christian but still had doubts.

What are you trying to argue about my statement that religious groups have been pushing heavily against health care reform?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

If private, independent schools (K-12) can survive without the largess of a federal system aimed at propping them up and have endowments that in most cases dwarf colleges and universities

Umm, just out of curiosity ... am I overestimating the collective endowment funds at the average university, are you overestimating the collective endowment at the average K-12 private, or are you thinking more about the elite (and predominantly northeastern) private schools/prep schools?

I'll go ahead & give you my portion of that so you can compare.

As far as I'm aware, the school my son is at now would be the envy of 90%+ of the private K-12's in Georgia because they're finally (after 20+ years) getting within sight of their $5m sustaining endowment goal; i.e. neither the principal nor the interest in that fund has ever been touched for any reason, and only after they hit $5m will they begin to use the interest to help fund other items like projects targeted by the capital fund, which rolls largely from year to year or at least project to project.

Given the size of any number of endowments and/or sustained giving to most state universities, I'd have to think the average is larger than $5m and would really think the median is too.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know what you're trying to argue here. I said religious groups have had a big impact on the debate. I never said they were the only voice and I never said there weren't people who aren't Christian but still had doubts.

What are you trying to argue about my statement that religious groups have been pushing heavily against health care reform?

Well maybe I'm just recalling your previously common refrain, "these are the same people that...", where you take the opposition, highlight an unflattering characteristic that a few of them have in order to invalidate those with that opinion on the whole, whether they share the characteristic or not. Then, such a member of the opposition (usually me) will say, "that's such a tiny number of people, and anyway, liberals have their kooks too", and then you and others will respond with examples of said characteristic in the "mainstream" (usually a reference to a blog), then there's a debate about whether there's more crazy people on the left or right. That's happened at least 3-4 times in this thread. Maybe I jumped the gun a little here, but I think, am using a less tiring approach - Christian fundamentalism has nothing to do with my concerns about Obama's plan, nor anyone's that's posting here. Surely it has something to do with someone's view in America, both for and against. But when you bring it up, it just sounds like an attempt to group people and invalidate them. What else is the intention?

[flere-imsaho]

Some data:

At Elite Prep Schools, College-Size Endowments - New York Times

Boarding Schools with the Largest Endowments - All Schools

List of Colleges and Universities in the United States by endowment

Edit: I haven't analyzed this too much, but in the list of boarding schools you hit $5 million or less in endowments after about 150 schools whereas you don't hit the same level for colleges until after 777. Unfortunately I don't have a list for non-boarding private K-12s, so I don't know how that would skew the number.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Some data:

At Elite Prep Schools, College-Size Endowments - New York Times

Boarding Schools with the Largest Endowments - All Schools

List of Colleges and Universities in the United States by endowment

Thanks, that makes more sense to me if we're talking in terms of the elite schools (and apparently even more specifically the elite boarding schools based on things in the article you linked). It was just so contrary to my experience with the majority of private schools in Georgia that I was having problems getting my head around it being anything like the norm/average nationwide.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Get with the times! It's Reverend Haggard!

It wasn't gay porn.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know what you're trying to argue here. I said religious groups have had a big impact on the debate. I never said they were the only voice and I never said there weren't people who aren't Christian but still had doubts.

What are you trying to argue about my statement that religious groups have been pushing heavily against health care reform?

All groups are heavily involved because it impacts everyone. Pointing to a group of Christians with poor arguments is as useless as me pointing to a group of natural healing medicine atheists.

There's too much focus on the source in these debates and not enough on the arguments. I am more interested in an atheist with an interesting opinion on the health care bill/agenda than I am in a very religious person spouting off gibberish (and vice versa). All focusing on the sources does is allow people to toss out certain interesting viewpoints because some people like them are kooks. It's the lazy way of dealing with an issue.

Here's the main issue I have with this health coverage/insurance debate: I have yet to see any data/information/studies on how the suggested changes in the bill will keep the current level of care for 80+% of the people in the US (with current health coverage) at or above in quality compared to what they have now as we move ahead. If a strong case cannot be made that those with coverage will not see a decrease in care quality (wait time, doctor quality/workload, ...) then the argument is moot. Reducing the quality of care for 80-85% of people with coverage to marginally improve it for 10-15% without is a tough sell for me. Yet, this idea that we will cover an additional 15% of the American people without seeing additional waits, reduced care quality or increased cost seems nonsensical logically.

Public education and medicare are the only remotely close comparisons to a public health care system. Public education has increased by 300% per pupil the last 20 years (when adjusted for inflation) and we perform even worse than we did in the early 1980s when compared to other countries. Medicare has already passed the 45% trigger (warning for general spending required) and is costing much more than anticipated in the 2003 reform bill. If these two systems are a harbinger of what is to come for a public health system, we are in big trouble.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Well maybe I'm just recalling your previously common refrain, "these are the same people that...", where you take the opposition, highlight an unflattering characteristic that a few of them have in order to invalidate those with that opinion on the whole, whether they share the characteristic or not. Then, such a member of the opposition (usually me) will say, "that's such a tiny number of people, and anyway, liberals have their kooks too", and then you and others will respond with examples of said characteristic in the "mainstream" (usually a reference to a blog), then there's a debate about whether there's more crazy people on the left or right. That's happened at least 3-4 times in this thread. Maybe I jumped the gun a little here, but I think, am using a less tiring approach - Christian fundamentalism has nothing to do with my concerns about Obama's plan, nor anyone's that's posting here. Surely it has something to do with someone's view in America, both for and against. But when you bring it up, it just sounds like an attempt to group people and invalidate them. What else is the intention?

The religious knock had nothing to do with health care. Jon made multiple statements about all the idiots on the left and everyone who voted for Obama being a moron. I simply pointed out that the party he is behind is made up of a majority of people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

You are really stretching to turn the statement into something it's not.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Arles

All groups are heavily involved because it impacts everyone. Pointing to a group of Christians with poor arguments is as useless as me pointing to a group of natural healing medicine atheists.

There's too much focus on the source in these debates and not enough on the arguments. I am more interested in an atheist with an interesting opinion on the health care bill/agenda than I am in a very religious person spouting off gibberish (and vice versa). All focusing on the sources does is allow people to toss out certain interesting viewpoints because some people like them are kooks. It's the lazy way of dealing with an issue.

Here's the main issue I have with this health coverage/insurance debate: I have yet to see any data/information/studies on how the suggested changes in the bill will keep the current level of care for 80+% of the people in the US (with current health coverage) at or above in quality compared to what they have now as we move ahead. If a strong case cannot be made that those with coverage will not see a decrease in care quality (wait time, doctor quality/workload, ...) then the argument is moot. Reducing the quality of care for 80-85% of people with coverage to marginally improve it for 10-15% without is a tough sell for me. Yet, this idea that we will cover an additional 15% of the American people without seeing additional waits, reduced care quality or increased cost seems nonsensical logically.

Public education and medicare are the only remotely close comparisons to a public health care system. Public education has increased by 300% per pupil the last 20 years (when adjusted for inflation) and we perform even worse than we did in the early 1980s when compared to other countries. Medicare has already passed the 45% trigger (warning for general spending required) and is costing much more than anticipated in the 2003 reform bill. If these two systems are a harbinger of what is to come for a public health system, we are in big trouble.

Your questions about the health care plan is in regards to quality yet when you bring up medicare you only mention its cost. You're skipping over the fact that from a consumer standpoint medicare could very well be the best healthcare plan in the country. 60% of people with medicare rate their coverage 9 or higher out of 10 (public healthcare average is around 35-40%) and 84% rate it as a 7 or higher.

Spending is a concern with both Medicare and this healthcare plan, but if your concern is quality of care you can do a hell of a lot worse than medicare.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The religious knock had nothing to do with health care. Jon made multiple statements about all the idiots on the left and everyone who voted for Obama being a moron. I simply pointed out that the party he is behind is made up of a majority of people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

You are really stretching to turn the statement into something it's not.

Do you really believe the majority of Republicans believe that? Or, is it that they get the most attention in the media? Hey...look at these crazies.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Your questions about the health care plan is in regards to quality yet when you bring up medicare you only mention its cost. You're skipping over the fact that from a consumer standpoint medicare could very well be the best healthcare plan in the country. 60% of people with medicare rate their coverage 9 or higher out of 10 (public healthcare average is around 35-40%) and 84% rate it as a 7 or higher.

Spending is a concern with both Medicare and this healthcare plan, but if your concern is quality of care you can do a hell of a lot worse than medicare.

The problem is we don't have a "general fund" to bail out a public health care system (potentially for 300 million people down the road) once it greatly exceeds it's funding caps. If we had an unlimited supply of money, I would expect that a national program would be comparable to medicare. But, given none of us want 70% tax rates to pay for it, cost becomes an issue in that it will tax an extremely high cost to keep the quality of care similar to what it is right now for the 80-85% with health coverage.

There are two arguments I see for national health care. One is that it will allow price controls and get overall cost of health care down. The next is that everyone will be covered. For the first to occur, some kind of rationing needs to occur and it will certainly cost more to the average employed health care recipient (I pay $150 pretax a month total in premiums for PPO coverage). For the second point to occur, you will see a large increase in stress on our infrastructure (wait times, access to services) and an increased cost (to cover the 40 million uninsured).

The end result is no plan from Washington will get me the high quality of care I have for myself and my son right now at a price anywhere near $150 a month (plus copays). But what's worse is that there's a real strong chance that I will see longer doctor wait times and risk my company (not a huge company) potentially dropping health benefits because of the government option. So, there's a good chance that if this bill gets enacted, I will face the following scenario a few years down the road:

A. Pay more
B. Wait more
C. Have less access to specialists/coverage than I do now

Seems to me like this is something worth fighting against.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

All groups are heavily involved because it impacts everyone. Pointing to a group of Christians with poor arguments is as useless as me pointing to a group of natural healing medicine atheists.

There's too much focus on the source in these debates and not enough on the arguments. I am more interested in an atheist with an interesting opinion on the health care bill/agenda than I am in a very religious person spouting off gibberish (and vice versa). All focusing on the sources does is allow people to toss out certain interesting viewpoints because some people like them are kooks. It's the lazy way of dealing with an issue.

Here's the main issue I have with this health coverage/insurance debate: I have yet to see any data/information/studies on how the suggested changes in the bill will keep the current level of care for 80+% of the people in the US (with current health coverage) at or above in quality compared to what they have now as we move ahead. If a strong case cannot be made that those with coverage will not see a decrease in care quality (wait time, doctor quality/workload, ...) then the argument is moot. Reducing the quality of care for 80-85% of people with coverage to marginally improve it for 10-15% without is a tough sell for me. Yet, this idea that we will cover an additional 15% of the American people without seeing additional waits, reduced care quality or increased cost seems nonsensical logically.

Public education and medicare are the only remotely close comparisons to a public health care system. Public education has increased by 300% per pupil the last 20 years (when adjusted for inflation) and we perform even worse than we did in the early 1980s when compared to other countries. Medicare has already passed the 45% trigger (warning for general spending required) and is costing much more than anticipated in the 2003 reform bill. If these two systems are a harbinger of what is to come for a public health system, we are in big trouble.

Great post!

you posed questions, analyzed, and not once lost focus on the bigger garbage that is bastardizing the issue at hand.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Well right, they use their endowments to fund the school's expenses from year to year (at private institutions anyway, depending on the school it's about 3-5% of the endowment. at smaller, tuition dependent schools it's a lot more than that..) but a lot of the money isn't devoted to helping students afford to go there and so forth. And it probably shouldn't be. But a lot of the direct giving these days is aimed at facilities and the "arms race" that's gotten completely out of hand and doesn't as much as it should trickle down to students.

Let's put it this way. If higher ed were another industry, people would be outraged at the way things have escalated. If private, independent schools (K-12) can survive without the largess of a federal system aimed at propping them up and have endowments that in most cases dwarf colleges and universities, then I think the government can better allocate resources at helping students get educated and contribute in fields where we need them, rather than trying to prop up largely private institutions who are just focused largely on keep up with the Joneses.

And this is after spend close to a decade in higher ed.

The problem with endownments is that the money is usually restritced (in general). A school could have a $1-billion endownment, but they can't spend it freely. The gifts usually come with restrictions, such as it may only be used towards one department, may be used to support a specific type of scholarship fund, used towards a certain project/building, ect.

They also could have spending requirements.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Arles

The problem is we don't have a "general fund" to bail out a public health care system (potentially for 300 million people down the road) once it greatly exceeds it's funding caps. If we had an unlimited supply of money, I would expect that a national program would be comparable to medicare. But, given none of us want 70% tax rates to pay for it, cost becomes an issue in that it will tax an extremely high cost to keep the quality of care similar to what it is right now for the 80-85% with health coverage.

There are two arguments I see for national health care. One is that it will allow price controls and get overall cost of health care down. The next is that everyone will be covered. For the first to occur, some kind of rationing needs to occur and it will certainly cost more to the average employed health care recipient (I pay $150 pretax a month total in premiums for PPO coverage). For the second point to occur, you will see a large increase in stress on our infrastructure (wait times, access to services) and an increased cost (to cover the 40 million uninsured).

The end result is no plan from Washington will get me the high quality of care I have for myself and my son right now at a price anywhere near $150 a month (plus copays). But what's worse is that there's a real strong chance that I will see longer doctor wait times and risk my company (not a huge company) potentially dropping health benefits because of the government option. So, there's a good chance that if this bill gets enacted, I will face the following scenario a few years down the road:

A. Pay more
B. Wait more
C. Have less access to specialists/coverage than I do now

Seems to me like this is something worth fighting against.

I'm a disabled Vet lucky enough to live on a military installation right now so I really haven't read too much about the health care plan as its unlikely to ever apply to me. However, I have concerns over how it will paid for along with questions on how it would effect those that don't opt for the public option. Essentially the same questions and concerns you have. I've just been annoyed that instead of attacking the plan with facts the vocal minority is simply making shit up and using scare tactics to generate public fear. You have valid concerns, but I honestly don't think they're being heard.

As you mentioned, about 80-85% of the people in our country have health care. Ideally, that number would 100% but I don't feel we have the health care infrastructure to serve that many people in any efficient way. There would have to be major changes in the way we do things that go beyond what this plan seems to offer (more doctors, more clinics, less bullshit tests/exams to drive patients bills up, ect).

If this plan passes, and the numbers I've seen show that it will come down to those on the fence, those that are against it have the vocal minority to thank for it, IMO. Its really hard to take a cause seriously when your talking about death panels and euthanasia for the elderly because they're no longer productive members of society. As unfair as it is, those that have rational, well-reasoned issues with the proposed plan are getting lumped together with these idiots and it brings those that are for it together along with many on the fence who don't want to be identified with the vocal minority.

Sorry for getting slightly off topic, but watching videos from these town halls is sickening.

[Arles]

When you are dealing with a passionate issue, you will often have a vocal minority that is easy to setup as a scarecrow. The Bush administration and others did it on the war in Iraq and Obama and the democrats are doing it here. It's not all that difficult to find people like that and set them up sacrificial lambs/scarecrows to deflect from the issue at hand. Politicians have been doing it for years on every major issue.

The main change in this instance is the shock and surprise by many reporting the story. They act as if this is the first time in recorded history that organized protests have occurred against a divisive public policy initiative.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The religious knock had nothing to do with health care. Jon made multiple statements about all the idiots on the left and everyone who voted for Obama being a moron. I simply pointed out that the party he is behind is made up of a majority of people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

You are really stretching to turn the statement into something it's not.

And how do you prove that the Earth is older then 6,000 years old?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And how do you prove that the Earth is older then 6,000 years old?

By using tools of the devil. Like science.

[cartman]

Great points you brought up, Arlie. Here's my take on a couple of your concerns.

I agree that the current medical infrastructure will not be ready on Day 1 for 40+ million new patients. I also don't think that there are 40+ million people putting off doctors visits, waiting for universal coverage to become a reality before seeing a doctor. Urban centers are probably the most ready for the new patient loads. The problem is going to be more pronounced in rural areas. Since the medical industry isn't going to be nationalized (a common misconception about the current reform proposals), doctors will go to where they can make money. I think it would take two, three years at the most for the infrastructure to grow to the size needed. The infrastructure isn't going to grow until the funding is there.

As for the costs, I can easily see a scenario that will cause costs to go down with universal coverage. Right now, a hospital has to treat someone who comes into the emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay. People that need urgent care aren't going to simply decide to wait it out. The costs are passed on to those who can pay, in the form of higher charges across the board at the hospital. ER visits are among the costliest visits. Patients declaring medical bankruptcies are a significant hit to revenues of medical professionals and instiutions. This is one example I could think of off the top of my head.

As for the concerns about your company dropping health care for the government option, your employment and health coverage aren't guaranteed right now. A company can go out of business or restructure, and your current coverage can either change or get canceled. At least with an universal option you aren't exposed while looking for a new job or an alternative insurance offering.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by lungs

By using tools of the devil. Like science.

Science, huh? So you just buy into whatever science says is true?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Science, huh? So you just buy into whatever science says is true?

On this topic, certainly. More so than some book written a few thousands years ago. Again, talking about this topic. Not dismissing what that book has to say in its entirety but on this topic I certainly do find the scientific evidence a hell of a lot more compelling.

So just to get this out of the way... Are you one of those people???

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Science, huh? So you just buy into whatever science says is true?

Ever thought about how you are communicating at this very second?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by lungs

On this topic, certainly. More so than some book written a few thousands years ago. Again, talking about this topic. Not dismissing what that book has to say in its entirety but on this topic I certainly do find the scientific evidence a hell of a lot more compelling.

So just to get this out of the way... Are you one of those people???

I dont believe the Earth is 6000 years old. But I do believe God created it.

So how did humans come about?