Obama healthcare, accept it or go to jail.

[cylon]

Sorry aggie it seems your political leanings are showing through, which like you say, is not what we should be doing. Seems inconsistent to me that I'm not allowed to criticize Obama yet you just start going off on the republicans.

[aggie]

i am not going off on republicans, i just really wonder why there hasn't been this intense interest in healthcare before now...and i don't idolize obama....i would have been ecstatic if bush had some kind of reform when he was in office....i am neither dem or rep.

i work in healthcare, which may affect how i feel.

i truly do apologize if i offended you.

[cylon]

I'm not offended I just thought it was funny.

Should have put a this --> at the end

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by cylon

We got Fox News, that's it. If you're not hearing the message, then maybe you aren't watching any media that is favorable to the right. Because Fox is the only place you will ever hear a single story on how Republicans are trying to help anything, so if you aren't watching, I wouldn't be surprised that you've never actually heard that Republicans are a part of the solution, too.

So, yes, you can just assume that I am demonizing Obama and discrediting his plan, there's no substance to what I say, and that I really am not passionate about what I'm talking about. But if you feel that way then what I'm saying is pretty much falling on deaf ears anyway.

Time will tell, things are heating up and eventually we'll know what the outcome was.

I didn't mean that you personally are demonizing Obama. That comment was aimed at the Republican Leadership and right-wing media. They are the ones who I think should be trying to show what they have to offer that is better than what is currently on the table. And if you are demonizing Obama, that is ok with me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just get frustrated when it seems that politicians prefer to attack their opponents rather than offer read alternative solutions. I hope that isn't what is happening with healtchare.

[rei]

+1 SomeRandomGuy

[cylon]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I just get frustrated when it seems that politicians prefer to attack their opponents rather than offer read alternative solutions. I hope that isn't what is happening with healtchare.

Fortunately for the both of us, that's not the case here.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I didn't mean that you personally are demonizing Obama. That comment was aimed at the Republican Leadership and right-wing media. They are the ones who I think should be trying to show what they have to offer that is better than what is currently on the table. And if you are demonizing Obama, that is ok with me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just get frustrated when it seems that politicians prefer to attack their opponents rather than offer read alternative solutions. I hope that isn't what is happening with healtchare.

Criticizing does not require knowledge expertise or competent preparedness.
Proposing something may fry their brains...

[cylon]

they've been proposing. So, obviously their brains aren't fried.

I'm going to stop providing links to news stories and videos that back up my position because no one bothers to engage them.

I'll just start talking to, and agreeing with, myself.

Is that a good idea cylon? Yeah, it is cylon. I like this new Claude VonStroke album. Me too man, that is some funky stuff. Alright later man. Yeah man, take it easy. Later dude. Yup, lates. I'm going to go grab a beer. Cool get me one too. It's just BudLight. Bud's fine.

[aggie]

lol and continuing to lol

[cylon]

Oh hey aggie I'll save one for you too. Cool, talk to you later.

Ok cylon, let's see, I might watch a Hitchcock movie tonight...

[Parthon]

Cylon: Umm, you just kind of proved that while people see things in black and white, there can never be a middle ground for a better option.

This is what I want to say:

I think government is made up of greedy, misled people just as much as big corporations are, or small corporations, or small businesses, or households, or individuals. That doesn't excuse the fact that most of America's health care problem is caused by the insurance companies.

But if the problem is the insurance companies, then how can the solution be the insurance companies?

Government should never compete with the private sector. Regulation though is needed, and often. The insurance companies are all working together to keep prices high in order to keep profits high. There's no competition between them, they set their prices based on how much they can scrape off the general public, then do everything they can to avoid paying out claims, even when they should. The health system is a shambles because the free market has been allowed to reign supreme for the last 30 years. The people that are involved

This is what will actually make the difference: Health care is each everyone's own responsibility. We can't leave it up to companies and governments to do what is right for us. Until the populace comes together as a group to overthrow the regime, we are under their control, whoever "they" are. It's up to us, noone else.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Parthon

Cylon: Umm, you just kind of proved that while people see things in black and white, there can never be a middle ground for a better option.

You'll have to provide a quote to back that up. There is a middle ground when people in office are forced to actually work together. The big democratic losses in Tuesday's election are going to force them to listen to the other side, Obamacare just slowed down considerably, if not indefinitely, and the only option now is to have both sides have a say.

[DaveM]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I didn't mean that you personally are demonizing Obama. That comment was aimed at the Republican Leadership and right-wing media. They are the ones who I think should be trying to show what they have to offer that is better than what is currently on the table. And if you are demonizing Obama, that is ok with me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just get frustrated when it seems that politicians prefer to attack their opponents rather than offer read alternative solutions. I hope that isn't what is happening with healtchare.

Republicans have counter-proposals for all proposals that Obama and the Democrats have. You never hear about them because it has no chance of being passed or even considered.

The media likes to talk about proposals that get passed, peoples opinion on that, not stuff that has no chance of passing and isn't whacko. They also like conflict and disaggrement. Republicans only get air time when commenting on Obama or his plans. Their plan won't get passed and as such Democrats never talk or argue about their plan. They did a little when it came to stimulus, nothing since.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by DaveM

Republicans have counter-proposals for all proposals that Obama and the Democrats have. You never hear about them because it has no chance of being passed or even considered.

The media likes to talk about proposals that get passed, peoples opinion on that, not stuff that has no chance of passing and isn't whacko. They also like conflict and disaggrement. Republicans only get air time when commenting on Obama or his plans. Their plan won't get passed and as such Democrats never talk or argue about their plan. They did a little when it came to stimulus, nothing since.

Right, I linked to a republican plan in this thread but it's being ignored. I don't think it's fair to ignore a plan just because it's from the other party, but clearly, the republicans don't have much influence right now (even though the dems are blaming them for the split in their own party) so I don't think anyone can truly expect that their plans will get looked at. That's just the nature of politics.

In theory it's called "bipartisanship", and it's a word candidates love to throw around when running for office, but seem to have a difficult time implementing once they actually are IN office. When there is a majority, they just like having all the say.

[WorkitSmart]

It's interesting to hear big business bashed as the bad guys, and that the government will take care of all the needy people.

First off, the gov. doesn't take care of anybody, the tax payers do.

Secondly, what do you think the government is? Our current administration is in the business to take over as much control of the people as possible. If health care was the real issue, there are a hundred and one ways to begin implementing reform, beginning with competition across state lines for insurance companies. Nothing like a little competition to get prices leveled out.

I finally realized, it's not about affordable health care.. it's about the power to control every inch of our lives.

Let's pray we can stop this bill in the Senate.

----------------------------------------

[rei]

i shall not pray for that. i don't think this is an excuse for some Big Brother plot though.

[WorkitSmart]

Dave.. the republicans have released a 219 page health care proposal - Republicans Release Their Own Health Care System Reform Bill - Kaiser Health News - with a one page summary of all key points.

Just for fun, watch O'reilly (Fox News) sometime this week and tell us what you think.. You might be amazed... and honestly shocked at what you'll learn. There is a whole other world out there besides what the mainstream media portrays.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by WorkitSmart

Let's pray we can stop this bill in the Senate.

House bill passed but the Senate is not going to touch it this year, and next year being an election year, I think there's a good chance it won't see the light of day (current fascist state of the house bill--which indeed includes jail time for non-compliance).

There's reason to be optimistic that the people are turning the tide. Washington isn't ignoring what happened last Tuesday... now it's just a question if all these politicians are willing to not be re-elected.

[ar81]

Executives hate to change their business models.
They like lots of money with little effort.
The problem of the public option is that it finally adds some competition to the market, because government led healthcare is more efficient because of scale economy and lower transaction costs.
Unlike a company, government is not interested in inflating prices for health customers.
This is why republicans do not like Obama's proposal. They like easy money.

The republican proposal transfers the non profitable services to government, and leaves the profitable ones in private hands.
It means, people pay taxes to heal very sick people (the most expensive and non profitable), while companies take the profitable business. It is just another banking bailout, but it would be permanent.

It would only increase the deficit, because it creates no incentive to heal people, just to make money, so the population causing deficit to government would not be reduced under republican proposal, as it ecourages to deny health to people and make rich richer with less effort.

[Illustro Cado]

Originally Posted by ar81

Executives hate to change their business models.
They like lots of money with little effort.
The problem of the public option is that it finally adds some competition to the market, because government led healthcare is more efficient because of scale economy and lower transaction costs.
Unlike a company, government is not interested in inflating prices for health customers.
This is why republicans do not like Obama's proposal. They like easy money.

The republican proposal transfers the non profitable services to government, and leaves the profitable ones in private hands.
It means, people pay taxes to heal very sick people (the most expensive and non profitable), while companies take the profitable business. It is just another banking bailout, but it would be permanent.

It would only increase the deficit, because it creates no incentive to heal people, just to make money, so the population causing deficit to government would not be reduced under republican proposal, as it ecourages to deny health to people and make rich richer with less effort.

The economy doesn't work like that. A government option isn't competition because it can always be propped up by tax money. This eliminates free-market forces which would normally bring costs down which causes the opposite to happen. And government, instead of reforming their programs or shutting them down, tends to respond by throwing more money at it, like with education. This makes government programs astronomically expensive in the long term.

Furthermore, the government controls a big portion of the healthcare industry already. The proposed reform isn't going to change anything, it's just going to take us a step further toward corporatism. (Can we take a step further when we're already there?) Big companies like that because it makes it easy to protect their monopolies. They can charge whatever they want. (And there are lots of big groups who stand behind this legislation. Don't believe for a second they have the public's interest at heart.)

Make no mistake, I agree with your criticism of the republicans. For the most part they only pay lip-service to small government. Neo-cons and democrats have little to separate them. However, plenty of people have made suggestions like allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, along with other measures which would increase competition without increasing government involvement. We know it would bring costs down because costs didn't start rising until after the insurance companies got a foothold in the healthcare industry. Insurance for anything beyond the unforeseen (broken bones, cancer, heart attack, etc.) is a scam and will never be profitable (or sustainable), that's why the insurance companies should basically disappear except for the ones who could stay afloat through honest money. (Assuming they could.)

[Illustro Cado]

Originally Posted by cylon

House bill passed but the Senate is not going to touch it this year, and next year being an election year, I think there's a good chance it won't see the light of day (current fascist state of the house bill--which indeed includes jail time for non-compliance).

There's reason to be optimistic that the people are turning the tide. Washington isn't ignoring what happened last Tuesday... now it's just a question if all these politicians are willing to not be re-elected.

I just wonder which one of these will get voted in:

1. A strong third party

2. A reformed republican party run by the Ron Paul republicans

3. Neo-cons

I'd wager if it's the third the vote is rigged and their "victory" will backfire on them. Even if they take office by legitimate means, people won't stomach business as usual.

[cylon]

1--suggests the GOP is done. I think the problem is that we (GOP) have allowed a lot of people to run as republicans but once they get in office, they start playing the big government game. The NY23 race was the boiling point for that type of politician, and that's why it got such coverage in the media.

I think democrats and republicans are going to stop allowing their representatives to revert on their campaign promises once they get in office. MoveOn.Org is already threatening sitting democrat senators that they will try to defeat them next election if they don't swallow Obama's public option. Gay Rights groups are turning on Obama as well for saying he supports gay rights, but not seeming to actually do anything that counts. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, the political parties in this country are not popular right now with their bases.

2--I don't know about Ron Paul, but I definitely see the republicans with some new life and new commitment to their constituents. People are not thinking along party lines anymore, they're thinking along ideological lines (as it should be) so having an R or D in front of your name no longer means anything--you have to back it up.

As far as who will be the party leaders, it could be anyone. Newt Gingrich was almost universally loved by republicans, until he supported the liberal republican candidate in the NY23 race (the candidate that dropped out and supported the democrat) and now he is like persona non grata. So the party will turn against its "heroes" if they abandon their principles.

I predict Sarah Palin will have quite a lot to do with the future of the republican party.

3--I don't care for that term, it sounds like neo-nazi, and since it's a favorite word of the left (along with teabaggers) to use when attacking republicans, I don't care for it. If it means RINO, then no, they are over and done. But a lot of normal conservatives are being called neo-cons because of that "neo" part, so I'm not sure if the term means what it once did.

I think a conservative is a conservative, and conservatives find their ideology best represented by the republican party. But their party has to stay consistent to get their support. If by some weird circumstance the GOP refused to go back to its roots, I think the Libertarian party would probably grow significantly. That's where I would go, personally.

[Illustro Cado]

Originally Posted by cylon

1--suggests the GOP is done.

If a third party gained a significant following, both the democrats and republicans would be done with. They'd persist but in name only-a major loss to a third player would demand that kind of shift.

2--I don't know about Ron Paul, but I definitely see the republicans with some new life and new commitment to their constituents.

Note that when I say Ron Paul, I'm not suggesting he'll become the new leader of the party, I'm saying it would fall in line with his ideology-small government, honest money, constitutional liberty, and so on. It's a popular message right now so I'd say we'll either see this or a strong third party contender.

3--I don't care for that term, it sounds like neo-nazi,

To be fair, there isn't a lot of difference. Bush era neo cons supported fascism. I'm not saying everyone who aligned themselves with the republican party fell into that camp. In fact, one of the reasons Bush won the 2000 primary is because he claimed he was against nation building. It seems neo cons have had to rely primarily on deception to get into office and it's doubtful their tactics will keep working.

But a lot of normal conservatives are being called neo-cons because of that "neo" part, so I'm not sure if the term means what it once did.

It seems most people don't understand the words they use. It's like conservatives that call the current health bill socialistic. If we have socialism in this country it's for the wealthy, and that isn't socialism it's corporatism. The fact that the terms people use are so ill-defined makes discussing these issues much harder than it should be.

[JMan]

Well if we went to a 3 party system, it would be pretty easy to go with a Conservative Party, Moderate Party, and Liberal Party.

Here's the latest Gallup poll on how the U.S. shakes out on those 3 fronts:

Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group

[James81]

I think this would only work if it's in conjunction with a cheap public option.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

The economy doesn't work like that. A government option isn't competition because it can always be propped up by tax money. This eliminates free-market forces which would normally bring costs down which causes the opposite to happen. And government, instead of reforming their programs or shutting them down, tends to respond by throwing more money at it, like with education. This makes government programs astronomically expensive in the long term.

Nope.

Free market works when prices are elastic enough. But in health sector prices are inelastic, so free market has no effect in lowering prices.

Also, a profit driven market works when high demand is desirable. But in health sector high demand means more sick people.

Companies take care only of profitable health problems, so their approach to health is not complete and comprehensive. Government programs in the other hand have the advantage of scale economy.

Government programs do national planning of health according to demographics for the future. Private sector plans short term in their locations only.

Now let's face a real problem:
Sex infections still growing in U.S., says CDC | U.S. | Reuters
Who is going to take care of this? Will companies help those who can't pay, or will infections spread among Americans, just like in Africa? Who will conduct preventive campaigns? Preventive campaigns to reduce demand is not profitable for private health sector.

If government does not take care, and companies do not care, then nobody cares.

If you have one ill person, and that person has no money, another person may be infected.
If that person has sex before knowing about the infection, there might be 4 people.
So if you meet someone, and that someone is unfaithful with any of those 4 ill people, you may be sick becuase someone else had no money, and because your partner was not faithful.

There are social pressures among the young people to have sex.
If they get ill, and their parents have not enough money, basically you have an African scenario: No heath care and strong social incentives to spread infections.

[Brutha]

3--I don't care for that term, it sounds like neo-nazi, and since it's a favorite word of the left (along with teabaggers) to use when attacking republicans, I don't care for it. If it means RINO, then no, they are over and done. But a lot of normal conservatives are being called neo-cons because of that "neo" part, so I'm not sure if the term means what it once did.

NeoCon includes things like being interventionalist and favoring NAFTA. The kind of people that write at the Weekly Standart would be examples of clear neocon ideology.

Well if we went to a 3 party system, it would be pretty easy to go with a Conservative Party, Moderate Party, and Liberal Party.

I don't think that the left right paradigm really get at the issue about what the important policy decisions in the US are about.
Whether you support the rule of law or don't isn't about left vs. right.
Whether you supported the bailout of the banks wasn't about left vs. right either.
Those questions are about power of the elites.

The health care bill would probably also look better if the Pharma industry wouldn't have written part of it.

I think democrats and republicans are going to stop allowing their representatives to revert on their campaign promises once they get in office. MoveOn.Org is already threatening sitting democrat senators that they will try to defeat them next election if they don't swallow Obama's public option. Gay Rights groups are turning on Obama as well for saying he supports gay rights, but not seeming to actually do anything that counts. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, the political parties in this country are not popular right now with their bases.

There still democrats who like Obama despite Obama doing things like trying to get crimeless detention law (or preventative detention) passed and reauthorized the patriot act.

There democrats who complain about conservative bias at the Huffington post when the Huffington post releases an article detailing that the Obama administration tries to prevent a strong public option.

Don't underrate the power of clever political maneuvering and telling people what they want to hear but doing something else when it comes to getting political power.

I predict Sarah Palin will have quite a lot to do with the future of the republican party.

If you take someone like Sarah Palin it is virtually impossible to predict what she will do after being elected.
Remember the debate where she said in effect that to Joe Biden that she's okay with civil unions.

Politics isn't a solo sport and it's not quite clear which kind of people Palin would pick in her team in the case of her being a presidential candidate.
In Alaska she did a lot of kicking out old people and bringing in people she knew before being Governor.
If she tries to do something similar as a presidential candiate and get bunch of other Alaskans in her team I would doubt that it would work out well.

If she doesn't she has to pick alliances with normal Republicans from Washington. Part of that political game is to stick to positions of other people and counting for their support in return.
That can result in enough blunders to prevent her from getting real power inside the party and being a presidential candidate.