On February 14 2012 08:10 liberal wrote: From what I can deduce Obamacare seems to simply be a measure intended to sequentially introduce a single-payer government run system. Insurance companies will be forced to increase their premiums, many employers will be forced to drop coverage of employees, and more people will be uninsured because health care is simply unaffordable. At this point the single payer system will likely be offered as the only "solution" to the problem.
I understand a lot of people, particularly on TL, are in support of a European health care model, but I have to say this is a really terrible way of implementing it.
Everyone who was actually paying attention saw this coming back when Obamacare was being proposed and passed. It's a horrible system designed to break the insurance industry, which it will do unless changed.
The insurance industry and the AMA publicly came out in support of the Obama health reform. Try again.
And uh, how is Ron Paul not honest? Or are we just resorting to drive-by comments by people who think they're clever?
On February 14 2012 08:10 liberal wrote: From what I can deduce Obamacare seems to simply be a measure intended to sequentially introduce a single-payer government run system. Insurance companies will be forced to increase their premiums, many employers will be forced to drop coverage of employees, and more people will be uninsured because health care is simply unaffordable. At this point the single payer system will likely be offered as the only "solution" to the problem.
I understand a lot of people, particularly on TL, are in support of a European health care model, but I have to say this is a really terrible way of implementing it.
Everyone who was actually paying attention saw this coming back when Obamacare was being proposed and passed. It's a horrible system designed to break the insurance industry, which it will do unless changed.
The insurance industry and the AMA publicly came out in support of the Obama health reform. Try again.
Yeah, political pressure is a bitch. Just watch though. The result is going to be the same.
Ronald Reagan was elected over 30 years ago. Times have changed.
There is also something to be said for personality. Santorum is no Reagan.
Nobody is unelectable (except maybe pawlenty), but Santorum is about as much of a long shot as you can get.
No, times really haven't changed that much. Bush was just as socially conservative, yet he had no problem winning in 2004.
The internet did not even properly exist during Ronald Reagan's election.
But sure, the world didn't change.
Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true.
And you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, are an authority on the American political electorate because of why?
Seriously. I'm amazed at how rampantly delusional some of you are. Yes, America is slowly moving to the left on social issues, but it is still a very conservative country that is more than capable of electing someone like Santorum as has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent elections.
And here's the other thing to consider. This election is not going to be about social issues. Poll after poll shows that fiscal and economic issues are what voters care about. Accordingly, there will be a lot of people who are willing to overlook what disagreements that they have with Santorum's social views because they prefer his other policies to Obama's.
Being born somewhere doesn't instill magical knowledge of a countries history and inner workings.
Just because the dirt under your place of birth is identified as American doesn't mean you have a deep understanding of it. Just like me being born on Dutch dirt doesn't make me uninformed on American politics.
The fact that you're arguing that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views strongly suggests otherwise.
My economist subscription says otherwise.
I wasn't aware we were just going to throw silly comments at one another without any real substance.
Is your argument truly: "Agree with me or you are uninformed"?
Perhaps make a more compelling case than that.
This really shouldn't be that hard. I have no idea what you're reading in the Economist, so I can't comment on it. However, here's something that should unequivocally settle the issue: go do a little research on which states allow gay marriage and which states have banned it (hint:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States). Pay special attention to which traditionally blue states have enacted bans.
Now, after looking at this list, feel free to make an argument in good faith that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views.
I, for one would never vote for Santorum, primarily because of his stance on social issues and the hypocricy he's shown on multiple issues (tort reform for example). I also don't believe Obama has done a horrible job with the economy starting up again, nor do i think "Obamacare" (which isn't even the name lol) will kill America like conservatives seem to get a rush off of.
There ARE people who wouldnt vote for Santorum, specifically because of his stance on social issues.
So you don't like a republican on social issues, you think he's a hypocrite, you don't think Obama is doing a terrible job, and you don't think Obamacare is dangerous...
So in other words you are a democrat
I actually agree with you on most of those points, but I do agree with conservatives that the health care reform is going to do far more harm than good. I'm not sure how many people caught this news, but it sure seems relevant to this thread:
Over the weekend it was revealed that MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, the chief architect of ObamaCare, backtracked on the analysis he performed two years ago. He told officials in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado the price of insurance premiums will “dramatically increase” under the reforms.
Gruber didn’t merely rebut the president’s contention. He rebutted his own, made in 2009, after he reviewed a report by the insurance industry that contended premiums would rise sharply with the passage of the healthcare bill. At that time Mr. Gruber argued that the industry report failed to take into account government subsidies provided to help moderate-income Americans purchase insurance, or administrative overhead costs he predicted would “fall enormously” once insurance polices were sold through the anticipated government-regulated marketplaces, or exchanges.
As Jonathan Gruber reveals, the fog is still lifting. In backtracking on his original analysis Gruber noted that “even after tax credits some individuals are ‘losers,’ in that they pay more than before reform.” How much more? Gruber was blunt in a presentation to Wisconsin officials last August. “After the application of tax subsidies, 59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent,” Gruber reported.
From what I can deduce Obamacare seems to simply be a measure intended to sequentially introduce a single-payer government run system. Insurance companies will be forced to increase their premiums, many employers will be forced to drop coverage of employees, and more people will be uninsured because health care is simply unaffordable. At this point the single payer system will likely be offered as the only "solution" to the problem.
I understand a lot of people, particularly on TL, are in support of a European health care model, but I have to say this is a really terrible way of implementing it.
Well, yes i'm democrat leaning, but i don't feel like Obama has been democrat enough. I'm actually quite far left on social issues compared to democrats (pro choice, gay marriage legalized, marijuana legalized, etc). I'm not well read on economics seeing as i'm in high school and haven't taken anything remotely close to an econ class. I also believe war mongering and unconstitutional wars (who does that sound like? ) aren't the way to go either. Basically, Santorum and i wouldn't like each other very much. There are republicans i respect however, (Ron Paul, Huntsman basically) and Santorum doesn't earn mine.
On February 14 2012 08:10 liberal wrote: From what I can deduce Obamacare seems to simply be a measure intended to sequentially introduce a single-payer government run system. Insurance companies will be forced to increase their premiums, many employers will be forced to drop coverage of employees, and more people will be uninsured because health care is simply unaffordable. At this point the single payer system will likely be offered as the only "solution" to the problem.
I understand a lot of people, particularly on TL, are in support of a European health care model, but I have to say this is a really terrible way of implementing it.
Everyone who was actually paying attention saw this coming back when Obamacare was being proposed and passed. It's a horrible system designed to break the insurance industry, which it will do unless changed.
The insurance industry and the AMA publicly came out in support of the Obama health reform. Try again.
And uh, how is Ron Paul not honest? Or are we just resorting to drive-by comments by people who think they're clever?
He's a politician so public choice theory tells us that Paul, like all government actors, is self interested and prone to lying.
On February 14 2012 05:53 zalz wrote: I would like it if the republican party picked Santorum as their guy.
It would mark the low point for the republican party, and after a crushing defeat they will realize that they need to stop paying lip service to religious crazies and focus on the majority of Americans.
With the economy growing again it will be impossible to defeat Obama anyway. Might as well throw the insane candidate at Obama.
You do realize that, policy/platform-wise, Santorum and Ronald Reagan aren't too far apart, right? In fact, they're basically identical on social issues. Nonetheless, that didn't stop Reagan from winning two elections in landslides. Sure, Santorum obviously is not the communicator that Reagan is. However, it's foolish to presume that he's unelectable.
Ronald Reagan was elected over 30 years ago. Times have changed.
There is also something to be said for personality. Santorum is no Reagan.
Nobody is unelectable (except maybe pawlenty), but Santorum is about as much of a long shot as you can get.
No, times really haven't changed that much. Bush was just as socially conservative, yet he had no problem winning in 2004.
Yeah, but listen to the difference in rhetoric. Bush talked about compassionate conservatism and (in 2001) winding down troop presence. As bumbling as Bush seemed, he comes across as a nice guy. Santorum is just bombastic. Santorum chose to make his distinguishing feature the marriage question. That is of all the social conservative things to promote, that was his cornerstone (well that and Jihadists is hiding under every bush.) It's the image they've built and quite frankly, Santorum's is not very appealing. I'd trust Bush's social conservatism over Santorum's any day regardless of how similar they may or may not be.
On February 14 2012 08:10 liberal wrote: From what I can deduce Obamacare seems to simply be a measure intended to sequentially introduce a single-payer government run system. Insurance companies will be forced to increase their premiums, many employers will be forced to drop coverage of employees, and more people will be uninsured because health care is simply unaffordable. At this point the single payer system will likely be offered as the only "solution" to the problem.
I understand a lot of people, particularly on TL, are in support of a European health care model, but I have to say this is a really terrible way of implementing it.
Everyone who was actually paying attention saw this coming back when Obamacare was being proposed and passed. It's a horrible system designed to break the insurance industry, which it will do unless changed.
I have considerable experience in the insurance field. None of the major companies are at all worried, the legislation that was imposed on them was great for them, at least those who weren't ass backwards terrible to begin with. They protected themselves from actual competition and increased their their risk pool and customer market through mandated insurance.
The only concession they gave up was that 80% had to actually be spent on providing care, the short fall in this case will go to independent agents like myself who will see a reduction in compensation. That said selling health was always for the birds if you weren't selling to large corps.
On February 12 2012 08:25 Yongwang wrote: Ron Paul is actually winning the GOP race! Take a look at this:
Ugh. I'm on the RP mailing lists and FB pages and I am so fucking sick of RP supporters making every God damn minor thing into a big deal. Second place in whatever state it was 39% behind Santorum and they cheer like fuck as if they won it. Yet none of them are willing to put money where their mouths are and in a real world market system they would all be placing their bets on Romney winning the nomination. I say to all RP supporters (including myself): Stop fucking claiming you're going to win or stop claiming far second or third place finishes are major victories. If you really think RP is getting traction or on point to winning then fucking invest your money to back up your hyperbole.
well the funny thing is that all those polls in the states dont mean anything because in the end the delegates have to decide who they vote for so it will be quite interesting to see if what the PR guy was saying becomes true and Paul wins the nomination through the delegates.
this weird delegate system is one of the biggest flaws in the US elections and I never really understood why they exist anyway. Are they a relic of pre-telegraph times?
We're a republican and representative democracy, not a direct democracy. While many changes (amendments 12 and 17 mostly) have been heading towards direct democracy, our traditions and the way the original constitution was framed was to be a republic "group" that was governed from bottom up instead of from top down.
It's not so much a "flaw" as it is an actual representation of how our government actually works.
How is the Seventeenth Amendment a move towards direct democracy? In fact that's the worst amendment on the Constitution and is undoubtedly going to be repealed in the future. It didn't do anything for "direct democracy," it just completely destroyed states and gave the federal government more control, ending federalism as we know it.
On February 14 2012 08:10 liberal wrote: From what I can deduce Obamacare seems to simply be a measure intended to sequentially introduce a single-payer government run system. Insurance companies will be forced to increase their premiums, many employers will be forced to drop coverage of employees, and more people will be uninsured because health care is simply unaffordable. At this point the single payer system will likely be offered as the only "solution" to the problem.
I understand a lot of people, particularly on TL, are in support of a European health care model, but I have to say this is a really terrible way of implementing it.
Everyone who was actually paying attention saw this coming back when Obamacare was being proposed and passed. It's a horrible system designed to break the insurance industry, which it will do unless changed.
The insurance industry and the AMA publicly came out in support of the Obama health reform. Try again.
Yeah, political pressure is a bitch. Just watch though. The result is going to be the same.
Babes in the woods those insurance companies are. Never mind that they torpedoed Clinton's proposal in '93. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and short-sell health insurance stocks?
The top three Republican presidential candidates pledged a war on porn today which means that they have promised more action to ban porn than to create jobs.
The conservative group Morality In Media is head over heels today after all three top Republican candidates promised to go war against the distribution of porn. In a written statement, Rick Santorum said, “Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”
Not to be outdone, Mitt Romney gave a statement to the group that said, “(I)t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.”
Then we have Newt Gingrich, who wasn’t satisfied with a written statement. In a face to face meeting, Gingrich told Morality In Media that, “Yes, I will appoint an Attorney General who will enforce these laws.” The existing laws that each of these candidates were referring to are federal laws that they and Morality In Media feel make the distribution of pornography illegal.
What the candidates and the group really are saying through the usual right wing code is that they want to ban pornography.
On one of their many websites, the group claims blames pornography for most of society’s ills and believes that porn causes brain damage, “Simultaneously, medical research documenting how pornography harms brain function is now available, yet it is still relatively unknown to parents, medical personnel, legislators, and law enforcement.”
While combing through the group’s websites, I could not find a distinction between “legal” and “illegal” porn, but in their press release they express the belief that the distribution of all hardcore pornography is illegal.
If you really want to know how the Republican Party got so screwed up, consider that the top three candidates for the Republican presidential nomination has given more detail about how they would ban pornography than they have about how they would create jobs. I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their homes, and you would think that supposedly “small government” conservatives wouldn’t either.
Each candidate has a different reason for taking this position. Rick Santorum is a true believer. Mitt Romney is shamelessly pandering and trying to prove that he is a real conservative, but the real jaw dropper is serial adulterer Newt Gingrich promising to ban the distribution of porn. If anyone knows firsthand about the dangers of porn, it’s Newt.
The party of small government doesn’t want to put people back to work. No, their most pressing priority is to arrest people who distribute porn, which really tells you everything you need to know about the current state of the Republican Party.
We have had the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror, and if a Republican gets elected president, we will have the war on porn.
On February 14 2012 08:10 liberal wrote: From what I can deduce Obamacare seems to simply be a measure intended to sequentially introduce a single-payer government run system. Insurance companies will be forced to increase their premiums, many employers will be forced to drop coverage of employees, and more people will be uninsured because health care is simply unaffordable. At this point the single payer system will likely be offered as the only "solution" to the problem.
I understand a lot of people, particularly on TL, are in support of a European health care model, but I have to say this is a really terrible way of implementing it.
Everyone who was actually paying attention saw this coming back when Obamacare was being proposed and passed. It's a horrible system designed to break the insurance industry, which it will do unless changed.
The insurance industry and the AMA publicly came out in support of the Obama health reform. Try again.
And uh, how is Ron Paul not honest? Or are we just resorting to drive-by comments by people who think they're clever?
He's a politician so public choice theory tells us that Paul, like all government actors, is self interested and prone to lying.
It's not so much lying that keeps politicians from delivering on promises as it is the system of checks and balances that makes it hard for a bill to become law. If Obama can't deliver on most of his promises, how do Paul's supporters expect Paul, a man who often can't find a single ally to vote his way on bills, to get anything done?
The top three Republican presidential candidates pledged a war on porn today which means that they have promised more action to ban porn than to create jobs.
The conservative group Morality In Media is head over heels today after all three top Republican candidates promised to go war against the distribution of porn. In a written statement, Rick Santorum said, “Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”
Not to be outdone, Mitt Romney gave a statement to the group that said, “(I)t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.”
Then we have Newt Gingrich, who wasn’t satisfied with a written statement. In a face to face meeting, Gingrich told Morality In Media that, “Yes, I will appoint an Attorney General who will enforce these laws.” The existing laws that each of these candidates were referring to are federal laws that they and Morality In Media feel make the distribution of pornography illegal.
What the candidates and the group really are saying through the usual right wing code is that they want to ban pornography.
On one of their many websites, the group claims blames pornography for most of society’s ills and believes that porn causes brain damage, “Simultaneously, medical research documenting how pornography harms brain function is now available, yet it is still relatively unknown to parents, medical personnel, legislators, and law enforcement.”
While combing through the group’s websites, I could not find a distinction between “legal” and “illegal” porn, but in their press release they express the belief that the distribution of all hardcore pornography is illegal.
If you really want to know how the Republican Party got so screwed up, consider that the top three candidates for the Republican presidential nomination has given more detail about how they would ban pornography than they have about how they would create jobs. I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their homes, and you would think that supposedly “small government” conservatives wouldn’t either.
Each candidate has a different reason for taking this position. Rick Santorum is a true believer. Mitt Romney is shamelessly pandering and trying to prove that he is a real conservative, but the real jaw dropper is serial adulterer Newt Gingrich promising to ban the distribution of porn. If anyone knows firsthand about the dangers of porn, it’s Newt.
The party of small government doesn’t want to put people back to work. No, their most pressing priority is to arrest people who distribute porn, which really tells you everything you need to know about the current state of the Republican Party.
We have had the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror, and if a Republican gets elected president, we will have the war on porn.
The top three Republican presidential candidates pledged a war on porn today which means that they have promised more action to ban porn than to create jobs.
The conservative group Morality In Media is head over heels today after all three top Republican candidates promised to go war against the distribution of porn. In a written statement, Rick Santorum said, “Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”
Not to be outdone, Mitt Romney gave a statement to the group that said, “(I)t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.”
Then we have Newt Gingrich, who wasn’t satisfied with a written statement. In a face to face meeting, Gingrich told Morality In Media that, “Yes, I will appoint an Attorney General who will enforce these laws.” The existing laws that each of these candidates were referring to are federal laws that they and Morality In Media feel make the distribution of pornography illegal.
What the candidates and the group really are saying through the usual right wing code is that they want to ban pornography.
On one of their many websites, the group claims blames pornography for most of society’s ills and believes that porn causes brain damage, “Simultaneously, medical research documenting how pornography harms brain function is now available, yet it is still relatively unknown to parents, medical personnel, legislators, and law enforcement.”
While combing through the group’s websites, I could not find a distinction between “legal” and “illegal” porn, but in their press release they express the belief that the distribution of all hardcore pornography is illegal.
If you really want to know how the Republican Party got so screwed up, consider that the top three candidates for the Republican presidential nomination has given more detail about how they would ban pornography than they have about how they would create jobs. I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their homes, and you would think that supposedly “small government” conservatives wouldn’t either.
Each candidate has a different reason for taking this position. Rick Santorum is a true believer. Mitt Romney is shamelessly pandering and trying to prove that he is a real conservative, but the real jaw dropper is serial adulterer Newt Gingrich promising to ban the distribution of porn. If anyone knows firsthand about the dangers of porn, it’s Newt.
The party of small government doesn’t want to put people back to work. No, their most pressing priority is to arrest people who distribute porn, which really tells you everything you need to know about the current state of the Republican Party.
We have had the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror, and if a Republican gets elected president, we will have the war on porn.
New numbers from the Pew Research Center show a major jump for former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) in the national GOP race -- Santorum now leads the contest by two percent, locked in a statistical dead heat with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Santorum gets 30 percent in the nationwide survey, Romney 28, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has faded to third with 17 and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is at 12.
"In the early GOP primaries, Romney has struggled at times in winning over the conservative elements of the Republican electorate – Tea Party supporters, conservatives and white evangelical Republicans," Pew wrote in its analysis. "The new poll shows that nationally he trails Santorum among all three groups."
However, national matchups still show Romney to be the better candidate against President Obama, marginally. Obama bests Romney 52 - 44, has a ten point advantage over Santorum, and an eighteen point lead over Gingrich, all outside the margin of error. "Obama has made gains among independent voters," Pew wrote. "Today, 51% of independents favor Obama in a matchup against Romney, up from 40% a month ago." The national GOP race has been reshaped by Santorum's wins in the Minnesota and Colorado Republican caucuses last Tuesday. Santorum now leads our TPM Poll Average of the race after strong showings in Pew and Public Policy Polling (D) numbers, and now catching Romney in the daily tracking poll of the race from Gallup.
On February 14 2012 08:10 liberal wrote: From what I can deduce Obamacare seems to simply be a measure intended to sequentially introduce a single-payer government run system. Insurance companies will be forced to increase their premiums, many employers will be forced to drop coverage of employees, and more people will be uninsured because health care is simply unaffordable. At this point the single payer system will likely be offered as the only "solution" to the problem.
I understand a lot of people, particularly on TL, are in support of a European health care model, but I have to say this is a really terrible way of implementing it.
There are countries that have similar healthcare systems which appear stable; Netherlands is a good example.
I don't like the way Obama implemented this -- a similar system based on individual coverage rather than employer-based coverage would be better. (which is what Netherlands actually has) But I'd be surprised if that difference ends up breaking the system, or if it is problematic, it should be easy to switch from employer-based to individual coverage.
Does santorum actually have a change? He won the last 3 states i saw, is he on a comeback or is it more like a last straw? (hard to judge from here)
o ty, i thought he was realy controversial, reading this tread but apearently its been a bit biased.
"Ron Paul is your only honest politician. Why is he not winning?
Hearing him speak in debates with other politicians is like something out of the twilight zone. It's like he's the last sane (uncorrupted) person left on the planet"
ha ha this so much Think paul would make a terrible president btw, even though i want him to win He seems to naive
On February 14 2012 14:08 Rassy wrote: Does santorum actually have a change? He won the last 3 states i saw, is he on a comeback or is it more like a last straw? (hard to judge from here)
Ugh. I'm on the RP mailing lists and FB pages and I am so fucking sick of RP supporters making every God damn minor thing into a big deal. Second place in whatever state it was 39% behind Santorum and they cheer like fuck as if they won it. Yet none of them are willing to put money where their mouths are and in a real world market system they would all be placing their bets on Romney winning the nomination. I say to all RP supporters (including myself): Stop fucking claiming you're going to win or stop claiming far second or third place finishes are major victories. If you really think RP is getting traction or on point to winning then fucking invest your money to back up your hyperbole.
well the funny thing is that all those polls in the states dont mean anything because in the end the delegates have to decide who they vote for so it will be quite interesting to see if what the PR guy was saying becomes true and Paul wins the nomination through the delegates.
this weird delegate system is one of the biggest flaws in the US elections and I never really understood why they exist anyway. Are they a relic of pre-telegraph times?
We're a republican and representative democracy, not a direct democracy. While many changes (amendments 12 and 17 mostly) have been heading towards direct democracy, our traditions and the way the original constitution was framed was to be a republic "group" that was governed from bottom up instead of from top down.
It's not so much a "flaw" as it is an actual representation of how our government actually works.
How is the Seventeenth Amendment a move towards direct democracy? In fact that's the worst amendment on the Constitution and is undoubtedly going to be repealed in the future. It didn't do anything for "direct democracy," it just completely destroyed states and gave the federal government more control, ending federalism as we know it.
I doubt you'd find a respectable expert on the subject who honestly believes the 17th would ever be repealed. Ludicrous statement.
EPT
) aren't the way to go either. Basically, Santorum and i wouldn't like each other very much. There are republicans i respect however, (Ron Paul, Huntsman basically) and Santorum doesn't earn mine.
