|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On April 02 2012 03:05 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection. You missed my point entirely. You live in a country that runs tremendous deficits, and faces immediate problems that need solutions, both domestically and internationally, and your political system can't produce solutions or compromises. Whether it be reforming healthcare or social security, the retirement age, appointing judges or CPA directors, or trying to negotiate an israeli-palestinian solution, the entire system is stuck. Supreme court justices become honorary lifetime members of the party of the president that appointed them. The current healthcare legislation is a result of that: Finally a compromise measure was reached between two political parties and now the process is being reverted through what can only be described as a backdoor. Yea, you can turn it into a socialized vs. private debate, but that's not what it actually is about. Both socialized and private healthcare could be perfectly constitutional. The original political problem is that a large part of the population in the US did not have healthcare, due to various reasons, and were essentially freeriding on the system, increasing the total nationwide cost of healthcare, because providing preventive care instead of emergency care to people without insurance would yield savings. Both parties agreed that there needed to be some kind of solution, yet if it gets struck down the original problem is still as big (probably bigger) than before, and your entire political system has wasted what are probably hunderds of thousands of hours of the time of elected officials and the money that goes with that. There's a reason only 12% of americans approve of what congress is doing: They are essentially doing and accomplishing nothing at all.
The debt, the broken health care industry, and much else of what you cited is the result of government actions in the past. The problem isn't that government isn't getting enough done, it's that government has already gotten too much done. The reason compromise is a dirty word is because 100% of the time compromise entails increasing the debt, increasing regulation of the economy, increasing federal control of the citizens daily lives.
And besides, the Affordable Care Act wasn't some kind of lofty compromise of the two parties. The Republicans were strongly opposed to it, and even many of the Democrats opposed it. Even with the large Democrat majority they weren't able to get it easily passed. And the reason for that was because the people themselves opposed the bill. The act was pushed through with weeks of pressure, special favors, and in a couple rare cases, blackmail.
And even after all of that, there is still serious debate about whether this act will actually improve anything in the health care market, or make things worse off than they were before. Employers are already dropping health coverage in anticipation, and many more will likely follow.
|
On April 02 2012 03:20 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 03:05 Derez wrote:On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection. You missed my point entirely. You live in a country that runs tremendous deficits, and faces immediate problems that need solutions, both domestically and internationally, and your political system can't produce solutions or compromises. Whether it be reforming healthcare or social security, the retirement age, appointing judges or CPA directors, or trying to negotiate an israeli-palestinian solution, the entire system is stuck. Supreme court justices become honorary lifetime members of the party of the president that appointed them. The current healthcare legislation is a result of that: Finally a compromise measure was reached between two political parties and now the process is being reverted through what can only be described as a backdoor. Yea, you can turn it into a socialized vs. private debate, but that's not what it actually is about. Both socialized and private healthcare could be perfectly constitutional. The original political problem is that a large part of the population in the US did not have healthcare, due to various reasons, and were essentially freeriding on the system, increasing the total nationwide cost of healthcare, because providing preventive care instead of emergency care to people without insurance would yield savings. Both parties agreed that there needed to be some kind of solution, yet if it gets struck down the original problem is still as big (probably bigger) than before, and your entire political system has wasted what are probably hunderds of thousands of hours of the time of elected officials and the money that goes with that. There's a reason only 12% of americans approve of what congress is doing: They are essentially doing and accomplishing nothing at all. The debt, the broken health care industry, and much else of what you cited is the result of government actions in the past. The problem isn't that government isn't getting enough done, it's that government has already gotten too much done. The reason compromise is a dirty word is because 100% of the time compromise entails increasing the debt, increasing regulation of the economy, increasing federal control of the citizens daily lives.And besides, the Affordable Care Act wasn't some kind of lofty compromise of the two parties. The Republicans were strongly opposed to it, and even many of the Democrats opposed it. Even with the large Democrat majority they weren't able to get it easily passed. And the reason for that was because the people themselves opposed the bill. The act was pushed through with weeks of pressure, special favors, and in a couple rare cases, blackmail.And even after all of that, there is still serious debate about whether this act will actually improve anything in the health care market, or make things worse off than they were before. Employers are already dropping health coverage in anticipation, and many more will likely follow.
Bolded pure speculation and exaggeration. Please provide sources if you're going to make claims like this, otherwise this discussion isn't going anywhere.
Regarding your answer about incentives, withholding medical knowledge doesn't advance overall healthcare which is THE argument against privatization. Even disregarding the option of government funding, hospitals around Amsterdam have been competing not through withholding medical knowledge but through specialization.
Ofcourse all this is anecdotal evidence but there is no factual 'proof' unless you consider America's current state of healthcare vs most of the western worlds' healthcare.
|
On April 02 2012 03:20 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 03:05 Derez wrote:On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection. You missed my point entirely. You live in a country that runs tremendous deficits, and faces immediate problems that need solutions, both domestically and internationally, and your political system can't produce solutions or compromises. Whether it be reforming healthcare or social security, the retirement age, appointing judges or CPA directors, or trying to negotiate an israeli-palestinian solution, the entire system is stuck. Supreme court justices become honorary lifetime members of the party of the president that appointed them. The current healthcare legislation is a result of that: Finally a compromise measure was reached between two political parties and now the process is being reverted through what can only be described as a backdoor. Yea, you can turn it into a socialized vs. private debate, but that's not what it actually is about. Both socialized and private healthcare could be perfectly constitutional. The original political problem is that a large part of the population in the US did not have healthcare, due to various reasons, and were essentially freeriding on the system, increasing the total nationwide cost of healthcare, because providing preventive care instead of emergency care to people without insurance would yield savings. Both parties agreed that there needed to be some kind of solution, yet if it gets struck down the original problem is still as big (probably bigger) than before, and your entire political system has wasted what are probably hunderds of thousands of hours of the time of elected officials and the money that goes with that. There's a reason only 12% of americans approve of what congress is doing: They are essentially doing and accomplishing nothing at all. The debt, the broken health care industry, and much else of what you cited is the result of government actions in the past. The problem isn't that government isn't getting enough done, it's that government has already gotten too much done. The reason compromise is a dirty word is because 100% of the time compromise entails increasing the debt, increasing regulation of the economy, increasing federal control of the citizens daily lives. And besides, the Affordable Care Act wasn't some kind of lofty compromise of the two parties. The Republicans were strongly opposed to it, and even many of the Democrats opposed it. Even with the large Democrat majority they weren't able to get it easily passed. And the reason for that was because the people themselves opposed the bill. The act was pushed through with weeks of pressure, special favors, and in a couple rare cases, blackmail. And even after all of that, there is still serious debate about whether this act will actually improve anything in the health care market, or make things worse off than they were before. Employers are already dropping health coverage in anticipation, and many more will likely follow.
That doesn't contradict anything I said. I don't know (I doubt anyone does at this point) if the ACA will do harm or good, all I said was that there is an objective problem: freeriding and the possibility of reducing costs by lowering ER attendance by those that are freeriding.
You have your own political opinion, but you have to realize that people on the opposite side of the isle feel differently, and will frequently do everything they can to delay and obstruct the other side; both US political parties have become extremely good at it. The contempt for actual compromise is what keeps the status-quo intact, without even adressing the most basic problems. What's the solution here? Wait for one of the parties to obtain a supermajority in both the house and the senate, win the presidency and simultaneously have a favorable court? That's obviously never going to happen.
This is, and has been for quite a while, rapidly becoming the reality of the American political system, and both conservative and liberal opinion leaders have made the same observation. There's hardly any room for moderates left as it is, and those that still remains are rapidly leaving (Snowe for one), forced out by the true ideologues on both parties.
|
On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system
Maintain what? Seriously? Health is not a fuckin normal market. Either is the police or basic education.
|
On April 02 2012 03:20 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 03:05 Derez wrote:On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection. You missed my point entirely. You live in a country that runs tremendous deficits, and faces immediate problems that need solutions, both domestically and internationally, and your political system can't produce solutions or compromises. Whether it be reforming healthcare or social security, the retirement age, appointing judges or CPA directors, or trying to negotiate an israeli-palestinian solution, the entire system is stuck. Supreme court justices become honorary lifetime members of the party of the president that appointed them. The current healthcare legislation is a result of that: Finally a compromise measure was reached between two political parties and now the process is being reverted through what can only be described as a backdoor. Yea, you can turn it into a socialized vs. private debate, but that's not what it actually is about. Both socialized and private healthcare could be perfectly constitutional. The original political problem is that a large part of the population in the US did not have healthcare, due to various reasons, and were essentially freeriding on the system, increasing the total nationwide cost of healthcare, because providing preventive care instead of emergency care to people without insurance would yield savings. Both parties agreed that there needed to be some kind of solution, yet if it gets struck down the original problem is still as big (probably bigger) than before, and your entire political system has wasted what are probably hunderds of thousands of hours of the time of elected officials and the money that goes with that. There's a reason only 12% of americans approve of what congress is doing: They are essentially doing and accomplishing nothing at all. The debt, the broken health care industry, and much else of what you cited is the result of government actions in the past. The problem isn't that government isn't getting enough done, it's that government has already gotten too much done. The reason compromise is a dirty word is because 100% of the time compromise entails increasing the debt, increasing regulation of the economy, increasing federal control of the citizens daily lives. And besides, the Affordable Care Act wasn't some kind of lofty compromise of the two parties. The Republicans were strongly opposed to it, and even many of the Democrats opposed it. Even with the large Democrat majority they weren't able to get it easily passed. And the reason for that was because the people themselves opposed the bill. The act was pushed through with weeks of pressure, special favors, and in a couple rare cases, blackmail. And even after all of that, there is still serious debate about whether this act will actually improve anything in the health care market, or make things worse off than they were before. Employers are already dropping health coverage in anticipation, and many more will likely follow.
The affordable care act was as much of a compromise as you could possibly expect given the political climate. Republicans were literally opposed to everything. The public option and several other parts of the original bill, and the individual mandate were all compromises. Just because the republicans were being blatantly obstructionist doesn't mean the act wasn't a compromise.
Cutting government also requires the government to compromise, so saying that "100% of the time compromise entails increasing government" is just silly and stupid. I don't even understand how your internal checker didn't pick up on that.
|
radiatoren asked me to copy paste my primary arguments. I decided to consolidate several of the posts I made earlier here for simple viewing.
Uncompensated care from the uninsured is not a major cost
+ Show Spoiler +You cannot put the blame of high costs on uncompensated care. According to the American Hospital Association, uncompensated care only accounts for about 6% of total expenses. Other studies of the total amount of uncompensated care show even lower percentages for the entire health care industry. For example, a study done by the Urban Institute puts the number at about $57 billion a year, or only 2.8 percent of total health care expenditures for that year. In other words, even if the individual mandate works exactly as planned, it will affect only around a mere 3 percent of health care expenditures, and that's assuming 100% compliance, which is an unreasonable assumption. Now when a woman gets charged $1,200 for an ambulance ride that was less than a mile, what goes into the costs? If we take the AHA number and mandate absolutely everyone has insurance, the cost drops 6%. So instead of $1,200 for a half mile ambulance ride, we pay $1128. Spreading the cost to more people is not a reduction in cost. The inherent costs are still there, it's just been spread over more people. The individual mandate does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental problems with this system. And the majority of the problems are government made, not market. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http://www.aha.org/content/00-10/10uncompensatedcare.pdf&ei=FaxzT42NIsOC2AXGxKz6Dg&usg=AFQjCNFqnuLrSgD8AVx42jpViiGtglmdYQhttp://www.ems1.com/ambulances-emergency-vehicles/articles/1046116-Ambulance-ride-cost-angers-Calif-patient/http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412045_cost_of_uncompensated.pdf
Private insurance profit margins are not a significant cost
+ Show Spoiler +
A high percentage of health care spending is simply waste, partly due to poor regulations
+ Show Spoiler +WASHINGTON — The official in charge of Medicare and Medicaid for the last 17 months says that 20 percent to 30 percent of health spending is “waste” that yields no benefit to patients, and that some of the needless spending is a result of onerous, archaic regulations enforced by his agency. The official, Dr. Donald M. Berwick, listed five reasons for what he described as the “extremely high level of waste.” They are overtreatment of patients, the failure to coordinate care, the administrative complexity of the health care system, burdensome rules and fraud. “Much is done that does not help patients at all,” Dr. Berwick said, “and many physicians know it.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/health/policy/parting-shot-at-waste-by-key-obama-health-official.html?_r=3&emc=eta1
Third and fourth party transactions are a major factor of increasing health care costs, as they negate the price mechanism and allow for fraud, excessive pricing, and abuse.
+ Show Spoiler +Yes, this is one of the factors I've been mentioning regarding higher costs. The normal system of supply and demand is breaking down because we have third and fourth parties acting as intermediaries in every transaction. The person consuming the service is not faced with the direct cost, except perhaps a small deductible, and so they have no incentive at all to seek cheaper doctors, to forego unnecessary visits or care, and most importantly, to hold the suppliers accountable for fraudulent charges or prices... It is far more expensive for a company to try and police all of these millions of transactions instead of having the individual consumer police their own behavior based upon prices.
This is the brilliance of the concept of the "invisible hand" that probably serves as the butt of a joke for most people here. Millions of people being influenced by personal incentives as dictated by price will always be more effective than paying a third party to try and manage it for them. Could you imagine how expensive it would be for you to pay an adviser to tell you what to buy at the supermarket instead of just buying it yourself? The situation is exacerbated by the fact that most people are now getting their third party insurance through a fourth party, their employer, due of course to government regulation in the matter. The more middle men you insert in the equation and the more you separate the actual consumers and suppliers from the price mechanism, the more waste, inefficiency, and direct fraud and abuse will arise.
Argument that regulation and barriers to entry into the market are a primary cause for the high costs of health care
+ Show Spoiler +Here's another way of looking at it, it might clarify what I mean. Personally, when I hear that a visit to the doctor costs upwards of $150, that an ambulance ride costs upwards of $1,200, that some minimally invasive surgery costs some ridiculous amount like $75,000.... it sounds absurd to me. After all, the costs should not be anywhere near any of those numbers. I know for a fact that I could get the education necessary to do any of these things and charge people significantly less for any of these services.
So what's stopping me, or anyone else? Suppose I wanted to get in the health care market myself. Suppose I wanted to start an ambulance company and give people rides to the hospital with all the care of a normal ambulance. I know for a fact I could provide such a ride for much less than $1,200 a trip. So what's stopping me? What's stopping anyone from getting in these markets and undercutting costs? When a doctor in India can do the same surgery for $8,000 that we charge for $75,000, what's stopping him from moving to America and opening up shop?
The answer can only be one thing: The myriad system of regulations we have in place. I'm not saying that aren't sometimes good or desired, but are the people willing to pay the costs that we are bearing now? No, we aren't. You can tell that just by the rising medical tourism, where people are willing to forego the safety of our system to simply save themselves from bankruptcy.
Someone asked for an example of regulations which increase cost. Here is a clear barrier to entry into the market, among hundreds of others.
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.azmd.gov/PhysicianCenter/1422.aspx
Other nations which have significantly fewer restrictions are able to provide care to uninsured Americans for a fraction of the cost
+ Show Spoiler +One of the points I made is that health care is not incredibly expensive everywhere. Countries like Panama, Costa Rica, Brazil, and India can provide excellent care and some of the most difficult surgeries for amounts that people can afford without a dime of health insurance.
For example, Apollo Hospital in New Delhi charges $4,000 for cardiac surgery, while the same procedure would cost about $30,000 in the U.S. It really is possible to provide people with medical care for all but the most extreme of conditions without health insurance, which is a point everyone seems to be missing when they suggest that mandated insurance coverage for those with pre-existing conditions is the only possible option.
Pharmaceutical companies profits are a significant cost, because the government grants them a patent monopoly, forcing Americans to effectively subsidize the research and development which other nations benefit from.
|
On April 02 2012 02:15 liberal wrote:
Screamingpalm, it's clear you just have some kind of emotional hatred of capitalism. You are railing against the system instead of actually objectively looking at the facts regarding health care in particular. First of all, what they have in the US is not even close to a free market. You exaggerate the effects of advertising in modern society. I'm sure you imagine the ignorant masses are getting brainwashed and somehow you can transcend it. But in either case, I fail to see how these arguments or your comments on agricultural businesses has anything to do with capitalism and the free market, or with health care in particular. Agricultural industry colludes with government regulation, as does the entire health care industry.
I've cited numerous sources again and again stating explicit government failures which are leading to skyrocketing health care costs, and I've cited numerous sources explaining the source of skyrocketing costs is not insurance industry profits, uncompensated care, or the general health of the American people, but they repeatedly get ignored in favor of these sweeping indictments of a system which does not even exist in the first place.
There is a lot of information out there on the direct effects of agri-business on health. If you are interested in the subject, there are the books other posters have already mentioned, there is the documentary "Food Inc", Michael Pollan's books (Omnivore's Dilamna, In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto, etc).
An interview with Michael Pollan to give you a brief and basic overview:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/14/omnivores_dilemma_author_michael_pollans_new
|
Here is an article that challenges that information as deceptive:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-rome/the-truth-about-health-in_b_863632.html
In response to astonishingly high first-quarter profit reports from health insurance companies, the industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), claims it is among the least profitable health care industries. AHIP says the health insurance industry profit margin is only 4.4%, and that this "low margin" represents less than one penny out of every dollar spent on all health care in the U.S. These are simplistic and misleading statistics.
AHIP's focus on profit margins is misleading and designed to protect their massive income by shifting attention away from their return on equity -- a key measure of profits as a percentage of the amount invested. That return is a phenomenal 16.1% as of today. By that measure, health insurers are ranked fourth highest of the 16 industries in the health care sector. They also deliver a higher return for investors than cellphone companies, beer companies, mortgage companies, life insurance companies, TV broadcasters, drug store companies or grocery stores.
AHIP likes to talk about how insurance profits are a small share of national health spending -- less then one penny of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. -- but that is an absurd, deceptive and self-serving statistic. Yet even their own chart of this data shows that the share of the health care economy sucked up by health insurance profits has more than tripled over the past decade.
I don't really agree with the author's conclusions and opinions aside from that, but found it interesting.
|
just move to Canada it will solve all your healthare issues.
|
I'm not going to enter the whole debate, but seeing people being opposed to having the State take part of healthcare for the poors and stuff feel very weird from my point of view.
I know it's probably more complicated than that but it's still pretty weird. I'm sure other foreigner pointed that out before.
|
It looks like the individual mandate or the whole think got shoot down by the court.. why else would obama come out and attack the court like he did yesterday?
|
On April 03 2012 16:46 Noocta wrote:
I'm not going to enter the whole debate, but seeing people being opposed to having the State take part of healthcare for the poors and stuff feel very weird from my point of view.
I know it's probably more complicated than that but it's still pretty weird. I'm sure other foreigner pointed that out before.
I don't think anyone has said they oppose helping the poor. The means used to help the poor is far more important than simply the stated intention to do so.
On April 04 2012 05:15 .Wilsh. wrote:
It looks like the individual mandate or the whole think got shoot down by the court.. why else would obama come out and attack the court like he did yesterday?
From what I heard the court already made their votes but they won't release the results until about June or July. I'm not sure why that is... Anyway the court almost never leaks information on votes to the public. It's possible Obama has inside information on this, but very unlikely.
|
On April 02 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 03:20 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 03:05 Derez wrote:On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection. You missed my point entirely. You live in a country that runs tremendous deficits, and faces immediate problems that need solutions, both domestically and internationally, and your political system can't produce solutions or compromises. Whether it be reforming healthcare or social security, the retirement age, appointing judges or CPA directors, or trying to negotiate an israeli-palestinian solution, the entire system is stuck. Supreme court justices become honorary lifetime members of the party of the president that appointed them. The current healthcare legislation is a result of that: Finally a compromise measure was reached between two political parties and now the process is being reverted through what can only be described as a backdoor. Yea, you can turn it into a socialized vs. private debate, but that's not what it actually is about. Both socialized and private healthcare could be perfectly constitutional. The original political problem is that a large part of the population in the US did not have healthcare, due to various reasons, and were essentially freeriding on the system, increasing the total nationwide cost of healthcare, because providing preventive care instead of emergency care to people without insurance would yield savings. Both parties agreed that there needed to be some kind of solution, yet if it gets struck down the original problem is still as big (probably bigger) than before, and your entire political system has wasted what are probably hunderds of thousands of hours of the time of elected officials and the money that goes with that. There's a reason only 12% of americans approve of what congress is doing: They are essentially doing and accomplishing nothing at all. The debt, the broken health care industry, and much else of what you cited is the result of government actions in the past. The problem isn't that government isn't getting enough done, it's that government has already gotten too much done. The reason compromise is a dirty word is because 100% of the time compromise entails increasing the debt, increasing regulation of the economy, increasing federal control of the citizens daily lives. And besides, the Affordable Care Act wasn't some kind of lofty compromise of the two parties. The Republicans were strongly opposed to it, and even many of the Democrats opposed it. Even with the large Democrat majority they weren't able to get it easily passed. And the reason for that was because the people themselves opposed the bill. The act was pushed through with weeks of pressure, special favors, and in a couple rare cases, blackmail. And even after all of that, there is still serious debate about whether this act will actually improve anything in the health care market, or make things worse off than they were before. Employers are already dropping health coverage in anticipation, and many more will likely follow. The affordable care act was as much of a compromise as you could possibly expect given the political climate. Republicans were literally opposed to everything. The public option and several other parts of the original bill, and the individual mandate were all compromises. Just because the republicans were being blatantly obstructionist doesn't mean the act wasn't a compromise. Cutting government also requires the government to compromise, so saying that "100% of the time compromise entails increasing government" is just silly and stupid. I don't even understand how your internal checker didn't pick up on that.
Obamacare isn't the result of any compromise between democrats and republicans. It is strictly a democrat bill. In case you have forgotten, Obamacare did not get one republican vote. Any "compromise" that was made was strictly between democrats -- specifically between democrat party leaders and moderate (blue dog) democrats who worried about being thrown out of office for voting for Obamacare. Turns out that they were right.
|
On April 04 2012 09:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:On April 02 2012 03:20 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 03:05 Derez wrote:On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection. You missed my point entirely. You live in a country that runs tremendous deficits, and faces immediate problems that need solutions, both domestically and internationally, and your political system can't produce solutions or compromises. Whether it be reforming healthcare or social security, the retirement age, appointing judges or CPA directors, or trying to negotiate an israeli-palestinian solution, the entire system is stuck. Supreme court justices become honorary lifetime members of the party of the president that appointed them. The current healthcare legislation is a result of that: Finally a compromise measure was reached between two political parties and now the process is being reverted through what can only be described as a backdoor. Yea, you can turn it into a socialized vs. private debate, but that's not what it actually is about. Both socialized and private healthcare could be perfectly constitutional. The original political problem is that a large part of the population in the US did not have healthcare, due to various reasons, and were essentially freeriding on the system, increasing the total nationwide cost of healthcare, because providing preventive care instead of emergency care to people without insurance would yield savings. Both parties agreed that there needed to be some kind of solution, yet if it gets struck down the original problem is still as big (probably bigger) than before, and your entire political system has wasted what are probably hunderds of thousands of hours of the time of elected officials and the money that goes with that. There's a reason only 12% of americans approve of what congress is doing: They are essentially doing and accomplishing nothing at all. The debt, the broken health care industry, and much else of what you cited is the result of government actions in the past. The problem isn't that government isn't getting enough done, it's that government has already gotten too much done. The reason compromise is a dirty word is because 100% of the time compromise entails increasing the debt, increasing regulation of the economy, increasing federal control of the citizens daily lives. And besides, the Affordable Care Act wasn't some kind of lofty compromise of the two parties. The Republicans were strongly opposed to it, and even many of the Democrats opposed it. Even with the large Democrat majority they weren't able to get it easily passed. And the reason for that was because the people themselves opposed the bill. The act was pushed through with weeks of pressure, special favors, and in a couple rare cases, blackmail. And even after all of that, there is still serious debate about whether this act will actually improve anything in the health care market, or make things worse off than they were before. Employers are already dropping health coverage in anticipation, and many more will likely follow. The affordable care act was as much of a compromise as you could possibly expect given the political climate. Republicans were literally opposed to everything. The public option and several other parts of the original bill, and the individual mandate were all compromises. Just because the republicans were being blatantly obstructionist doesn't mean the act wasn't a compromise. Cutting government also requires the government to compromise, so saying that "100% of the time compromise entails increasing government" is just silly and stupid. I don't even understand how your internal checker didn't pick up on that. Obamacare isn't the result of any compromise between democrats and republicans. It is strictly a democrat bill. In case you have forgotten, Obamacare did not get one republican vote. Any "compromise" that was made was strictly between democrats -- specifically between democrat party leaders and moderate (blue dog) democrats who worried about being thrown out of office for voting for Obamacare. Turns out that they were right.
I wish the conservative blue dogs would just jump ship and move over to the dark side where they belong. The Democratic Party umbrella is way too large, and would really serve to focus and strengthen the left if they would just gtfo already lol.
/endrant
|
On April 04 2012 11:01 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 09:31 xDaunt wrote:On April 02 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:On April 02 2012 03:20 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 03:05 Derez wrote:On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection. You missed my point entirely. You live in a country that runs tremendous deficits, and faces immediate problems that need solutions, both domestically and internationally, and your political system can't produce solutions or compromises. Whether it be reforming healthcare or social security, the retirement age, appointing judges or CPA directors, or trying to negotiate an israeli-palestinian solution, the entire system is stuck. Supreme court justices become honorary lifetime members of the party of the president that appointed them. The current healthcare legislation is a result of that: Finally a compromise measure was reached between two political parties and now the process is being reverted through what can only be described as a backdoor. Yea, you can turn it into a socialized vs. private debate, but that's not what it actually is about. Both socialized and private healthcare could be perfectly constitutional. The original political problem is that a large part of the population in the US did not have healthcare, due to various reasons, and were essentially freeriding on the system, increasing the total nationwide cost of healthcare, because providing preventive care instead of emergency care to people without insurance would yield savings. Both parties agreed that there needed to be some kind of solution, yet if it gets struck down the original problem is still as big (probably bigger) than before, and your entire political system has wasted what are probably hunderds of thousands of hours of the time of elected officials and the money that goes with that. There's a reason only 12% of americans approve of what congress is doing: They are essentially doing and accomplishing nothing at all. The debt, the broken health care industry, and much else of what you cited is the result of government actions in the past. The problem isn't that government isn't getting enough done, it's that government has already gotten too much done. The reason compromise is a dirty word is because 100% of the time compromise entails increasing the debt, increasing regulation of the economy, increasing federal control of the citizens daily lives. And besides, the Affordable Care Act wasn't some kind of lofty compromise of the two parties. The Republicans were strongly opposed to it, and even many of the Democrats opposed it. Even with the large Democrat majority they weren't able to get it easily passed. And the reason for that was because the people themselves opposed the bill. The act was pushed through with weeks of pressure, special favors, and in a couple rare cases, blackmail. And even after all of that, there is still serious debate about whether this act will actually improve anything in the health care market, or make things worse off than they were before. Employers are already dropping health coverage in anticipation, and many more will likely follow. The affordable care act was as much of a compromise as you could possibly expect given the political climate. Republicans were literally opposed to everything. The public option and several other parts of the original bill, and the individual mandate were all compromises. Just because the republicans were being blatantly obstructionist doesn't mean the act wasn't a compromise. Cutting government also requires the government to compromise, so saying that "100% of the time compromise entails increasing government" is just silly and stupid. I don't even understand how your internal checker didn't pick up on that. Obamacare isn't the result of any compromise between democrats and republicans. It is strictly a democrat bill. In case you have forgotten, Obamacare did not get one republican vote. Any "compromise" that was made was strictly between democrats -- specifically between democrat party leaders and moderate (blue dog) democrats who worried about being thrown out of office for voting for Obamacare. Turns out that they were right. I wish the conservative blue dogs would just jump ship and move over to the dark side where they belong. The Democratic Party umbrella is way too large, and would really serve to focus and strengthen the left if they would just gtfo already lol. /endrant
You already got your wish (which was also Nancy Pelosi's wish). The blue dogs got slaughtered in 2010.
On another note (and not that I am accusing screamingpalm of this), it is incredibly hypocritical how the media and pundits chide republicans for flushing the "moderates" out of their party while ignoring the fact that the democrats are no different -- and arguably even more intolerant of "moderates." Of course, these are the same people who believe that "compromise" means capitulation by republicans to democrat demands. I'm not sure what I am expecting.
|
On April 04 2012 11:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 11:01 screamingpalm wrote:On April 04 2012 09:31 xDaunt wrote:On April 02 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:On April 02 2012 03:20 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 03:05 Derez wrote:On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection. You missed my point entirely. You live in a country that runs tremendous deficits, and faces immediate problems that need solutions, both domestically and internationally, and your political system can't produce solutions or compromises. Whether it be reforming healthcare or social security, the retirement age, appointing judges or CPA directors, or trying to negotiate an israeli-palestinian solution, the entire system is stuck. Supreme court justices become honorary lifetime members of the party of the president that appointed them. The current healthcare legislation is a result of that: Finally a compromise measure was reached between two political parties and now the process is being reverted through what can only be described as a backdoor. Yea, you can turn it into a socialized vs. private debate, but that's not what it actually is about. Both socialized and private healthcare could be perfectly constitutional. The original political problem is that a large part of the population in the US did not have healthcare, due to various reasons, and were essentially freeriding on the system, increasing the total nationwide cost of healthcare, because providing preventive care instead of emergency care to people without insurance would yield savings. Both parties agreed that there needed to be some kind of solution, yet if it gets struck down the original problem is still as big (probably bigger) than before, and your entire political system has wasted what are probably hunderds of thousands of hours of the time of elected officials and the money that goes with that. There's a reason only 12% of americans approve of what congress is doing: They are essentially doing and accomplishing nothing at all. The debt, the broken health care industry, and much else of what you cited is the result of government actions in the past. The problem isn't that government isn't getting enough done, it's that government has already gotten too much done. The reason compromise is a dirty word is because 100% of the time compromise entails increasing the debt, increasing regulation of the economy, increasing federal control of the citizens daily lives. And besides, the Affordable Care Act wasn't some kind of lofty compromise of the two parties. The Republicans were strongly opposed to it, and even many of the Democrats opposed it. Even with the large Democrat majority they weren't able to get it easily passed. And the reason for that was because the people themselves opposed the bill. The act was pushed through with weeks of pressure, special favors, and in a couple rare cases, blackmail. And even after all of that, there is still serious debate about whether this act will actually improve anything in the health care market, or make things worse off than they were before. Employers are already dropping health coverage in anticipation, and many more will likely follow. The affordable care act was as much of a compromise as you could possibly expect given the political climate. Republicans were literally opposed to everything. The public option and several other parts of the original bill, and the individual mandate were all compromises. Just because the republicans were being blatantly obstructionist doesn't mean the act wasn't a compromise. Cutting government also requires the government to compromise, so saying that "100% of the time compromise entails increasing government" is just silly and stupid. I don't even understand how your internal checker didn't pick up on that. Obamacare isn't the result of any compromise between democrats and republicans. It is strictly a democrat bill. In case you have forgotten, Obamacare did not get one republican vote. Any "compromise" that was made was strictly between democrats -- specifically between democrat party leaders and moderate (blue dog) democrats who worried about being thrown out of office for voting for Obamacare. Turns out that they were right. I wish the conservative blue dogs would just jump ship and move over to the dark side where they belong. The Democratic Party umbrella is way too large, and would really serve to focus and strengthen the left if they would just gtfo already lol. /endrant You already got your wish (which was also Nancy Pelosi's wish). The blue dogs got slaughtered in 2010. On another note (and not that I am accusing screamingpalm of this), it is incredibly hypocritical how the media and pundits chide republicans for flushing the "moderates" out of their party while ignoring the fact that the democrats are no different -- and arguably even more intolerant of "moderates." Of course, these are the same people who believe that "compromise" means capitulation by republicans to democrat demands. I'm not sure what I am expecting.
Well, "moderate" is one thing, but when you're talking about the conservative blue dogs, there is so very little in common with the rest of the left. I have always seen the right to be much more unified and organized than the fractured left, and believe that it is because the Democratic Party is trying to accept far too many platforms (to the extent of contradicting itself). I couldn't name very many "liberal" Republicans, for example. One point I certainly agree with is the severe intolerance shown by the Democratic Party. After all it was they who are so active in blocking third party candidates and spewing propaganda about Nader causing Gore to lose, etc. I mean, how "democratic" is that?
Of course, intolerance is a funny word and I guess technically, I could be seen as such for not accepting blue dog conservatives on the left. I think you have to draw the line somewhere though. I also think that more accurately, the left/far left need to be the ones that break away from the corporatist Democratic Party. There are just too many pragmatists and lesser of two evils fear mongering prophets for it to actually happen (not to mention legal barriers and a well-funded Democratic Party to ensure retention of political monopoly).
|
Uhhh what? The left is less tolerant of moderates because they attack the moderates of their party as opposed to the republicans who have no moderates in their party? Obviously people get criticism all the damn time.
Have you been paying attention the primary? Any republican moderate is completely eaten alive. There isn't any room for moderation in the current republican atmosphere. It pushes the black and white mentality further and shuts down compromise. Obstruction. Blue dogs should be perfectly acceptable in the democratic party.
There is more than one side to many issues. The monolith of the republican party isn't a positive thing imo. I think it reeks of corruption (even if corruption is on both sides).
|
On April 04 2012 11:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 11:01 screamingpalm wrote:On April 04 2012 09:31 xDaunt wrote:On April 02 2012 05:33 DoubleReed wrote:On April 02 2012 03:20 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 03:05 Derez wrote:On April 02 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:On April 02 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
As much as the public-private debate matters, the ironic part is that it isn't actually what the case is about. Socialized, public healthcare is perfectly possible in the United States, much in the same way that medicare and social security are fine when it comes to their constitutionality. The only reason that the current law could be unconstitutional is because of the compromise solution reached in congress, which included the individual mandate.
The US political system has come to such an absolute standstill that one of the only major measures passed over the last 4 years might get struck down by the courts, and its not like the future is looking any brighter. Both democrats and republicans are becoming more polarized, there is less of a middle ground and the supreme court is becoming politicized to a point where people, including political parties, feel it should reflect majority opinion instead of the law. None of it will ever be reformed because of the awesome supermajority rules and other stalling measures.
The constitution doesn't seem to be doing you a whole lot of good at the moment, which is to be expected when you try to run a 21st century country on an 18th century document. The premise that the constitution isn't doing good, or that the (imagined, imo) gridlock in government is bad, are both predicated on the assumption that socialized medicine is desirable. I admit it would be a step forward from the broken system we have now, but I don't think it is close to the ideal system. It would be much better to maintain the effective attributes of the market system, to reduce costs by repealing the heavy government restrictions, and to have the government directly subsidize those individuals who cannot afford the care they need in the market. The market does work when it's allowed to work. We have no problem at all getting 99% of our goods and services at a reasonable price. The only exceptions are cases where a natural or technical monopoly arises, and health care isn't close to being monopolistic except where government has granted that protection. You missed my point entirely. You live in a country that runs tremendous deficits, and faces immediate problems that need solutions, both domestically and internationally, and your political system can't produce solutions or compromises. Whether it be reforming healthcare or social security, the retirement age, appointing judges or CPA directors, or trying to negotiate an israeli-palestinian solution, the entire system is stuck. Supreme court justices become honorary lifetime members of the party of the president that appointed them. The current healthcare legislation is a result of that: Finally a compromise measure was reached between two political parties and now the process is being reverted through what can only be described as a backdoor. Yea, you can turn it into a socialized vs. private debate, but that's not what it actually is about. Both socialized and private healthcare could be perfectly constitutional. The original political problem is that a large part of the population in the US did not have healthcare, due to various reasons, and were essentially freeriding on the system, increasing the total nationwide cost of healthcare, because providing preventive care instead of emergency care to people without insurance would yield savings. Both parties agreed that there needed to be some kind of solution, yet if it gets struck down the original problem is still as big (probably bigger) than before, and your entire political system has wasted what are probably hunderds of thousands of hours of the time of elected officials and the money that goes with that. There's a reason only 12% of americans approve of what congress is doing: They are essentially doing and accomplishing nothing at all. The debt, the broken health care industry, and much else of what you cited is the result of government actions in the past. The problem isn't that government isn't getting enough done, it's that government has already gotten too much done. The reason compromise is a dirty word is because 100% of the time compromise entails increasing the debt, increasing regulation of the economy, increasing federal control of the citizens daily lives. And besides, the Affordable Care Act wasn't some kind of lofty compromise of the two parties. The Republicans were strongly opposed to it, and even many of the Democrats opposed it. Even with the large Democrat majority they weren't able to get it easily passed. And the reason for that was because the people themselves opposed the bill. The act was pushed through with weeks of pressure, special favors, and in a couple rare cases, blackmail. And even after all of that, there is still serious debate about whether this act will actually improve anything in the health care market, or make things worse off than they were before. Employers are already dropping health coverage in anticipation, and many more will likely follow. The affordable care act was as much of a compromise as you could possibly expect given the political climate. Republicans were literally opposed to everything. The public option and several other parts of the original bill, and the individual mandate were all compromises. Just because the republicans were being blatantly obstructionist doesn't mean the act wasn't a compromise. Cutting government also requires the government to compromise, so saying that "100% of the time compromise entails increasing government" is just silly and stupid. I don't even understand how your internal checker didn't pick up on that. Obamacare isn't the result of any compromise between democrats and republicans. It is strictly a democrat bill. In case you have forgotten, Obamacare did not get one republican vote. Any "compromise" that was made was strictly between democrats -- specifically between democrat party leaders and moderate (blue dog) democrats who worried about being thrown out of office for voting for Obamacare. Turns out that they were right. I wish the conservative blue dogs would just jump ship and move over to the dark side where they belong. The Democratic Party umbrella is way too large, and would really serve to focus and strengthen the left if they would just gtfo already lol. /endrant Of course, these are the same people who believe that "compromise" means capitulation by republicans to democrat demands. I'm not sure what I am expecting.
Yes, except that it's the EXACT OPPOSITE, as Republicans have repeatedly shown since Obama's election.
|
On April 05 2012 01:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhhh what? The left is less tolerant of moderates because they attack the moderates of their party as opposed to the republicans who have no moderates in their party? Obviously people get criticism all the damn time.
Have you been paying attention the primary? Any republican moderate is completely eaten alive. There isn't any room for moderation in the current republican atmosphere. It pushes the black and white mentality further and shuts down compromise. Obstruction. Blue dogs should be perfectly acceptable in the democratic party.
You're missing the point. You say that "blue dogs should be perfectly acceptable in the democratic party," but ignore the fact that, in many democratic circles, they are not as described above.
And again, how is what is going on in the republican primary right now any different than any democratic primary where the democrats have to race to the left to capture the base? It's not.
|
On April 05 2012 01:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2012 01:03 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhhh what? The left is less tolerant of moderates because they attack the moderates of their party as opposed to the republicans who have no moderates in their party? Obviously people get criticism all the damn time.
Have you been paying attention the primary? Any republican moderate is completely eaten alive. There isn't any room for moderation in the current republican atmosphere. It pushes the black and white mentality further and shuts down compromise. Obstruction. Blue dogs should be perfectly acceptable in the democratic party. You're missing the point. You say that "blue dogs should be perfectly acceptable in the democratic party," but ignore the fact that, in many democratic circles, they are not as described above. And again, how is what is going on in the republican primary right now any different than any democratic primary where the democrats have to race to the left to capture the base? It's not.
And in many circles they ARE described as above. So? It's okay to have mixed opinions in a party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
