Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/20/10 02:35 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Coakley lost because she was complacent. She assumed that all she had to do to win in Massachusetts was be a Democrat. Meanwhile, Brown was out campaigning. The Republicans were enthused (like the Democrats were in 2008) and the Democrats were not.

The Republicans were not all that enthused. Brown spent $40,000 in the primary and did not have significant monetary support from the National Committee until the final weeks when he suddenly surged in the polls.

Then there are the polls. Brown came out and said flat-out that he would not vote for cloture on a new Senate healthcare bill. His poll numbers skyrocketed. This is an indication that Brown's election is a refudiation of Healthcare, while other focus groups and pollsters are finding out it was also a vote against the Democrats governing from the Left.

On the other hand, while this is a HUGE victory for the Republicans and a HUGE loss for the Democrats; it is not a mandate for the Republicans to swerve right. What the American people are looking is governance from the center (except for the 20% on the Left and 20% on the Right who are ideological fundamentalists).

If you want real health care reform, you need to stick it to the insurance companies. No one seems to get that.

And why do we give the government a pass for all the ways they've increased healthcare costs? Why is it people who want healthcare reform don't want to look at how fucked up healthcare is when Washington runs it? (ie: Medicare, Tricare and the VA.)

At 1/20/10 11:29 AM, TheMason wrote: 1) Do away with medicare. (The reason my bill would not get passed.)

True.

2) Using the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution make it where health insurance companies can provide coverage across state lines.

All for that.

2a) This means the risk pool increases allowing insurance agencies to lower premiums.

While this would probably happen it doesn't address the single largest problem with private insurance care:

They make money by NOT paying claims, by not taking high-risk patients (or charging them extraordinary amounts on their programs, co-pays or deductibles), and by screwing as many people in the system as they can. This needs to be addressed in order for anything to change in a fundamental way, and the only way I see it happening is via government involvement.

3) Provide subsidies for low income individuals to buy private health insurance...to include the elderly (so Medicare is no longer needed).

May work, but it seems like just giving them a public insurance plan (since it's very unlikely that any private insurance company will be willing to take those patients most in need of a Medicare-like program) would be the more efficient choice. I realize you've had troubling encounters with government health care, but just tossing the entire idea instead of trying to fix it seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Rav your question makes the erroneous assumption that I think it is possible for the government to pass a good bill on healthcare.

Touche'.

I've had government run healthcare. It is horrible. Everything that Obama and the Democrats have trumpeted as being reasons why we need reform...happened to me while I was on active duty in the Air Force.

But if it is acknowledged that those issues need reform... then aren't they doing a good thing by seeing the issue and trying to fix it?

And oh yeah...I couldn't sue. These government doctors and healthcare institutions are immune from lawsuits.

There's one reform that could help, include it in your plan instead of a full scale dismantling of the entire thing... instant accountability.

So why do you want the government invovled? Why do you think they will do better than what we have now? Why do you think they are not responsible for current state of healthcare?

I do believe that they are partially responsible for our current state of affairs, but I think that some of the controls that are necessary in order to protect people from insurance companies themselves are only possible through the government. Some of those controls are being put in place by this bill.

So healthcare prices go up in large part because of the government's involvement in healthcare.

And coverage goes down because of the profiteering of insurance companies... there needs to be a medium ground here. All of one or all of another is not the solution.

At 1/20/10 07:04 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Mason is right about the poll results. Notice how Coakley tanks a week before the election.

But are you sure that's about healthcare and not about baseball? I mean, everyone knew the republicans weren't going to support healthcare, so why did it take so long for that particular issue to affect the poles?

well hopefully the CC will just try to take the Senate's bill and pass it in the house, but good luck at that happening...

People who said this will make Obama fail as a President and maybe not win in 2012... eh, I mean we have still only seen 1 year of the man. I'll admit he is off to a slow start but most of the issues he has had to deal with aren't things that get fixed in an instant. Say jobs get back in the green like they were in what October was it? then maybe approval ratings will go back up a little. I hope Obama will be a little smarter in the 2012 election, For instance right now the parties have become very polar, if he plays the middle ground sure he might lose some voted to 3ed party ultra librals, but on the other hand i think there's still a large chunk of America who were either in the middle or slightly republican who are now seeing the GOP moving away from what they believe who Obama could pick up.

taking a while to fix problems is one thing

taking actions that actually make the problems worse is a whole other thing

At 1/21/10 10:58 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: taking a while to fix problems is one thing

taking actions that actually make the problems worse is a whole other thing

If you can imprint this in the heads of all those who still don't get this and think the Reps are "bad" and "killing the country", I will build a solid gold statue in your honor and worship you as a GOD.
This is a much more succinct way of phrasing it than my "Express train to Hell" analogy......

At 1/20/10 08:56 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Either way the next decade is going to suck, and without an economic recovery, we can be pretty sure the dollar will fail as well.

Leave the country, then.

No, seriously. Pack your shit, head north, and when you get to Canada, go to a U.S. Embassy somewhere and denounce your citizenship. Because if you're so wrapped up in the idea that Obama's health-care plan is going to be the saving grace of this nation and help to solve all our ills, then there's no convincing you otherwise and there's no reason for you to stay in this country. Get out while you can.

It's not like we were going to get universal healthcare anyway, not in any way that the democrats were promising at least. Oh yeah, we might have had a more toned down version of it for a year, and even if it a watered-down version of it does get through now, I doubt it would last that long. We're coming up on a major financial crisis with the glorified ponze-scheme known as Social Security in the next few years where the government isn't going to have the money to make full payments (if they pay at all) to people who've paid into that system their entire working lives.... if they can't afford to do that, do you think for a second your government sponsored health-care benefits won't get cut to cover just the bare minimum, or at the very least be gutted like a deer in a slaughter house? HA HA HA!!!

At 1/21/10 08:31 PM, dabboy wrote: People who said this will make Obama fail as a President and maybe not win in 2012... eh, I mean we have still only seen 1 year of the man.

You do realize how bad a sign this is for the democrats, right? I mean, Massachusetts is deep in the middle of blue State Country and they consistently voted Ted Kennedy as they're senator for almost 40 years. And they turned around and voted in a republican by almost a 5% majority? I think this has stronger connotations behind it than anybody realizes at this point.

At 1/22/10 01:14 PM, Proteas wrote: Get out while you can.

I've never heard anything less in the American spirit than what you just said. Fuck off loser.

It's not like we were going to get universal healthcare anyway, not in any way that the democrats were promising at least. Oh yeah, we might have had a more toned down version of it for a year, and even if it a watered-down version of it does get through now, I doubt it would last that long.

You can't seem to get it through your skull that the system we have is failing and needs an upgrade, regardless of what that upgrade is. Public option OR Exchange OR Public Co-ops OR simple regulations.

There are several viable options that aren't public health care. It just remains that public health care isn't a bad thing and is feasible if set up correctly.

You do realize how bad a sign this is for the democrats, right? I mean, Massachusetts is deep in the middle of blue State Country and they consistently voted Ted Kennedy as they're senator for almost 40 years. And they turned around and voted in a republican by almost a 5% majority? I think this has stronger connotations behind it than anybody realizes at this point.

No, it really doesn't. The woman ran a shit campaign and alienated voters. And 5% is enough of a swing that its easily that uninformed voters who didn't care about issues or know much about either candidate made the deciding decision.

And its just as likely she failed because she didn't know anything about baseball and wasn't personable as it was they didn't like the democratic policies. 5% isn't that much.

At 1/22/10 01:23 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I've never heard anything less in the American spirit than what you just said. Fuck off loser.

Didn't you just write this long post eulogizing the fall of the Untied States because one republican got elected to the senate? And you call me a defeatist? I'm just giving you some sound advice; if you need healthcare that badly, go somewhere that you can get it. You've already resigned yourself to the reality that you're not and can't get healthcare here, and that this country is going to go down the shitter anyway, so what's stopping you from going somewhere where you can actually get the help you need?

You can't seem to get it through your skull that the system we have is failing and needs an upgrade, regardless of what that upgrade is. Public option OR Exchange OR Public Co-ops OR simple regulations.

And you can't get it through yours that we aren't going to get that system in any form close to what you actually think it's going to be. Either it's going to be so watered down that the dems will get republicans to vote for it and it will be almost useless, or the upcoming social security debacle we're going to face is going to put the financial hurting on this bill and we'll get our medical benefits cut.

Well, yours will anyway, I can actually afford my own health insurance through where I work. Have fun with your bottle of government funded robitussin, because that's probably what you're going to wind up getting.

And 5% is enough of a swing that its easily that uninformed voters who didn't care about issues or know much about either candidate made the deciding decision.

Uh huh...

5% isn't that much.

I rest my case.

At 1/22/10 01:14 PM, Proteas wrote: You do realize how bad a sign this is for the democrats, right? I mean, Massachusetts is deep in the middle of blue State Country and they consistently voted Ted Kennedy as they're senator for almost 40 years. And they turned around and voted in a republican by almost a 5% majority? I think this has stronger connotations behind it than anybody realizes at this point.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3972608/the-o ne-thing-119/?playlist_id=86917#/v/39745 54/well-be-watching-scott-brown/?playlis t_id=86917

At 1/22/10 01:23 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: OR simple regulations.

You can't seem to get it through YOUR skull that regulations are the reason why healthcare is so expensive in the first place

There are several viable options that aren't public health care. It just remains that public health care isn't a bad thing and is feasible if set up correctly.

As Imperator has pointed out, since when has the government been able to set up ANYTHING correctly?

and most of the things it fucks up aren't even close to the magnitude of a nationwide public health system

At 1/23/10 02:47 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: http://video.foxnews.com/v/3972608/the-o ne-thing-119/?playlist_id=86917#/v/39745 54/well-be-watching-scott-brown/?playlis t_id=86917

The guy makes sense when he's not yelling and screaming and carrying on like a little drama queen, doesn't he?

What really kills me is the way he presents that chart about the S&P, because how many times did we have to sit back and listen to the talking heads on mainstream media go on about how "oh the market's rallied today on the news that President Obama did such and such," and yet strangely, we don't hear that anymore. Apparently the good fluctuations of the market can be tied to Obama's actions, but bad fluctuations and nobody says shit...

At 1/23/10 12:09 PM, Proteas wrote: The guy makes sense when he's not yelling and screaming and carrying on like a little drama queen, doesn't he?

well yeah, but be easy on him, he does have ADD (literally, lol)

At 1/22/10 10:59 PM, Proteas wrote: Didn't you just write this long post eulogizing the fall of the Untied States because one republican got elected to the senate?

No, I SAID, I was upset because this meant an end to health care legislation, not because it was a fuck Republican.

And you call me a defeatist?

I called you a loser.

I'm just giving you some sound advice; if you need healthcare that badly, go somewhere that you can get it. You've already resigned yourself to the reality that you're not and can't get healthcare here, and that this country is going to go down the shitter anyway, so what's stopping you from going somewhere where you can actually get the help you need?

I happen to like America and there's plenty stopping me just like there's plenty stopping you from moving away from Obama.

And you can't get it through yours that we aren't going to get that system in any form close to what you actually think it's going to be. Either it's going to be so watered down that the dems will get republicans to vote for it and it will be almost useless, or the upcoming social security debacle we're going to face is going to put the financial hurting on this bill and we'll get our medical benefits cut.

Most of the solutions that could be offered or would have been in the bill would not have been solutions directly from the state, especially as there was not going to be a public option. So I don't understand your argument, and its probably due to your ignorance in regard to what was in the bill.

Well, yours will anyway, I can actually afford my own health insurance through where I work. Have fun with your bottle of government funded robitussin, because that's probably what you're going to wind up getting.

I can currently get it through my place of business too. But what you don't understand is that you only pay 16% of the total cost of your health care a year and that your company is soaking up the rest. In the current economic climate, the likelihood of another crash is quite high and if your company has to pick between health care and employees, good luck.

And 5% is enough of a swing that its easily that uninformed voters who didn't care about issues or know much about either candidate made the deciding decision.

Uh huh...

5% isn't that much.

I rest my case.

Because I'm saying 5% is small enough voters could have easily been duped into voting because of a baseball quote and a guy who happened to drive a truck at the time? Do you really know what case you are arguing?

At 1/25/10 08:28 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:
No, I SAID, I was upset because this meant an end to health care legislation, not because it was a fuck Republican.

Normally I would be very critical of people saying "if you don't like it, then leave" because I feel it is a stark contrast to "Give me your tired, poor, huddled masses", but in your case.....I might make an exception.

Your post was nothing more than verbal diarrhea based purely on the emotions of the moment. Not needed.

I can currently get it through my place of business too. But what you don't understand is that you only pay 16% of the total cost of your health care a year and that your company is soaking up the rest. In the current economic climate, the likelihood of another crash is quite high and if your company has to pick between health care and employees, good luck.

That's more a matter of small business being taxed and choked to death with regulations than a matter of health care costs. 800 million bailout, and some dismal number went to small businesses....

This is also a union issue, since regulations permit employers from firing employees before running through red tape and hoops, and since regulations and union power keep adding benefits to people's salaries. This is why UAW workers get paid ungodly amounts of money, and can still bitch about only making 40K. They have 40K salaries, with nearly 80K in benefits, all paid at the expense of the companies. Not a shocker to figure out why the Big 3 fell to crap.

Because I'm saying 5% is small enough voters could have easily been duped into voting because of a baseball quote and a guy who happened to drive a truck at the time? Do you really know what case you are arguing?

And if the vote went the other way, would you be saying that 5% was duped into voting for the democrat? Your position is bullshit. If they vote your way, they're well informed. They voted the other way, so they must have been duped.

How about this? Either you're an idiot with an emotional rant, or you're a moron with unsubstantiated opinions. Choose one please.

At 1/25/10 12:03 PM, Imperator wrote: Normally I would be very critical of people saying "if you don't like it, then leave" because I feel it is a stark contrast to "Give me your tired, poor, huddled masses", but in your case.....I might make an exception.

So, then you only sometimes are a model example of what YOU consider to be a model American citizen?

That's more a matter of small business being taxed and choked to death with regulations than a matter of health care costs. 800 million bailout, and some dismal number went to small businesses....

No, this is a number being charged by private companies on to you. This isn't regulation. Or at least its not solely from regulation. AND IT IS ENTIRELY HEALTHCARE COSTS because 16% of health care costs are what you pay and the rest is paid by your employer. So, you are wrong.

This is also a union issue, since regulations permit employers from firing employees before running through red tape and hoops, and since regulations and union power keep adding benefits to people's salaries. This is why UAW workers get paid ungodly amounts of money, and can still bitch about only making 40K. They have 40K salaries, with nearly 80K in benefits, all paid at the expense of the companies. Not a shocker to figure out why the Big 3 fell to crap.

No this is not just companies that have unions. This is the average cost of health care across all occupations for all businesses. You can't hide behind "unions are evil" for this argument.

And if the vote went the other way, would you be saying that 5% was duped into voting for the democrat? Your position is bullshit. If they vote your way, they're well informed. They voted the other way, so they must have been duped.

No, I'd still say with 5% in favor of the democrat that the 5% (likely more) of the people who voted were probably uninformed; but, we'd have health care reform.

How about this? Either you're an idiot with an emotional rant, or you're a moron with unsubstantiated opinions. Choose one please.

After you.

At 1/25/10 08:28 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: No, I SAID, I was upset because this meant an end to health care legislation, not because it was a fuck Republican.

Health care is dead for another 10 years in the U.S. and likely beyond that now.

If we want anything to happen, it'll need to happen piecemeal, which I don't really have a problem with anyway, but I don't think anyone will touch it now. Which sucks for the following reason:

Health care costs are going to continue to grow at an exponential rate, bankrupting private companies and small businesses everywhere. That combined with rising gas prices, inflated education prices, and a high unemployment rate is going to strain all systems, and the health care system especially sometime after the stimulus bills effects begin to fade (probably in another year or two, seven at most).

What we will be left with is one of the following two options: Massive deflation and a depression since were unable to correct prices now while we still had a chance or people not getting treatment which might, given a perfect storm, create an epidemic of some sort, which is more likely to happen if the first happens anyways. At which point, a lot of the population will die off from starvation or disease and the market will eventually bottom out and correct for the hyperinflation of the last and next few years. There is of course, no guarantee that the market "correcting" prices will lead to a better life for anyone or even higher employment rates, prices will simply have to be lower.

Either way the next decade is going to suck, and without an economic recovery, we can be pretty sure the dollar will fail as well.

That's what you said, unedited and in plain view. You presented a veritable doomsday scenario where all hell breaks loose and the world ends because 1 republican got elected and it's going to put a hamper on the democrat's ability to pass a healthcare plan, not stop it mind you, just slow it down.

I called you a loser.

And you have no grip on reality.

I happen to like America and there's plenty stopping me just like there's plenty stopping you from moving away from Obama.

Like what? You obviously have no trust in this country or hope for it's future, so what's stopping you from leaving?

Most of the solutions that could be offered or would have been in the bill would not have been solutions directly from the state, especially as there was not going to be a public option. So I don't understand your argument, and its probably due to your ignorance in regard to what was in the bill.

I'm referring to how our government is going to be able to afford to pay for this plan based off of financial projections for what socialized healthcare we do have in this country, namely Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security (of which you lead me to believe you were so broke as to actually need help from), and looking at the wiki page for it....

an expansion of Medicaid to include more low-income Americans by increasing Medicaid eligibility limits to 150% of the Federal Poverty Level and by covering adults without dependents so as long as either or any segment doesn't fall under the narrow exceptions outlined by various clauses throughout the proposal.[7][8]

So... with an estimated 12% of the population living underneath the federal poverty level in this nation, they're going to jump up to include about 30% of the population? Really? How are they going to do that and still pay for it when...

reductions in projected spending on Medicare of $400 billion over a ten-year period

And the Social Security Administration itself has projections of becoming insolvent by 2016 and bankrupt by 2036 (clicky), which brings me back to what I said earlier... how the fuck are they going to pay for all this and NOT cut somebody's health beneifts?

I can currently get it through my place of business too. But what you don't understand is that you only pay 16% of the total cost of your health care a year and that your company is soaking up the rest. In the current economic climate, the likelihood of another crash is quite high and if your company has to pick between health care and employees, good luck.

So you're excuse for not getting healthcare through where you work is because another economic downturn might cause your employer to cut benefits? Are you serious? You can't be that stupid to be walking around without health insurance right now bitching about how expensive it is and hinging EVERYTHING on Obama's plan when you can actually afford to buy it.

Or are you?

Because I'm saying 5% is small enough voters could have easily been duped into voting because of a baseball quote and a guy who happened to drive a truck at the time? Do you really know what case you are arguing?

Imperator took the words right out of my mouth. If it was 5% in the other direction you would have been talking about how this was a victory for healthcare and how it was a mandate from the people that they wanted it...

Of course, I could simply take your idea of "5% doesn't mean shit" and apply it to the 2008 President Election and say "7.2% doesn't mean shit" either.

At 1/25/10 02:06 PM, Proteas wrote:

I happen to like America and there's plenty stopping me just like there's plenty stopping you from moving away from Obama.

Like what? You obviously have no trust in this country or hope for it's future, so what's stopping you from leaving?

Mostly being with the people I care about, honestly. Location doesn't really matter to me. And I still appreciate the freedoms I'm afforded here. I just believe we're going someplace that's going to be extremely hard to get back from.

(of which you lead me to believe you were so broke as to actually need help from)

I am not broke and I have never needed to be on those programs. I am severely in debt and will be for the rest of my life.

And the Social Security Administration itself has projections of becoming insolvent by 2016 and bankrupt by 2036 (clicky), which brings me back to what I said earlier... how the fuck are they going to pay for all this and NOT cut somebody's health beneifts?

I do not believe Medicare was the appropriate way to approach this problem, mostly because the plan was to shift it onto the states and require them to do it.

I'm still a much larger fan of an insurance exchange.

So you're excuse for not getting healthcare through where you work is because another economic downturn might cause your employer to cut benefits?

I have healthcare. What I'm saying is that the prices are rising so quickly that in another economic downturn like the last one we'll see unemployment over 10% if companies choose to keep health care over having employees. The cost of healthcare is too high for companies which pay more out of pocket than their employees are often aware of. Which you have ignored out of my argument at least twice now, or have missed it.

It is impossible for companies to continue to afford healthcare and keep employees in the long run. Wages have stagnated in this economy, but every business has had to pay MORE for each employee due to benefits. As such, there's no room for adjusting salaries up.

You can't be that stupid to be walking around without health insurance right now bitching about how expensive it is and hinging EVERYTHING on Obama's plan when you can actually afford to buy it.

I do have insurance. And I can currently afford it through my company, but because everyone gets their insurance through their company its costs too much. HMOs are part of the problem.

It would make more sense to to have a health care exchange.

Of course, I could simply take your idea of "5% doesn't mean shit" and apply it to the 2008 President Election and say "7.2% doesn't mean shit" either.

I don't care about who is in office so long as they are working towards solutions. As it stands. Republicans haven't attempted any solutions in 7 years and the Dems have just been undercut on trying anything because Republicans want to hold the party line instead of join in on negotiations and actually try. Its a political ploy engineered to make it look like Dems didn't accomplish anything so that they can win races, not so that they can fix anything having to do with the country.

At 1/25/10 02:27 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Its a political ploy engineered to make it look like Dems didn't accomplish anything so that they can win races, not so that they can fix anything having to do with the country.

..... by who? The republicans?

I won't argue with you on the rest of your points because I either misinterpreted half of what you were saying (your healthcare) or agree with you (medicare sucks) and I'm certainly not going to venture a guess as to wether or not we will have another economic downturn, but I will on this one because it's so glaringly stupid that it's need to be addressed. The democrats have been in control now for almost a year, they were the majority party in our government and they could have easily forced any legislation through at any time they want without having to worry about the republicans. But instead they've dragged they're feet and done nothing of any real substance with the matter and have been trying (very stupidly) to get republicans on board with the idea this whole time.

And now? Now they're still the majority party, they've just lost their super majority and if they want to force anything through, they'll have to use a cloture vote. Now they'll HAVE to work with the republicans to keep them from using their ability to fillibuster and generally fuck everything up, which means it's going to be that much longer until we see this bill come to light IF it comes at all.

So if anything, the democrats have undercut themselves, and have nobody else BUT themselves to blame for their folly in this instance.

I think we all no who is really to blame for this predicament.

Ted Kennedy.

Fuck you Ted Kennedy and your dying. If it wasn't for your brain tumour, If you hadn't selfishly died at an inconvenient time for the democrats the US might be able to have better healthcare!

I say this because from everything I've seen on the interwebs, this is about the only person I've NOT seen the democrats blame for either the loss of the seat to the Republicans, or for what seems to be the now inevitable failure of the healthcare reform.

At 1/25/10 03:10 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/25/10 02:27 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Its a political ploy engineered to make it look like Dems didn't accomplish anything so that they can win races, not so that they can fix anything having to do with the country.

..... by who? The republicans?

we'll get there

The democrats have been in control now for almost a year, they were the majority party in our government and they could have easily forced any legislation through at any time they want without having to worry about the republicans. But instead they've dragged they're feet and done nothing of any real substance with the matter and have been trying (very stupidly) to get republicans on board with the idea this whole time.

That's politically incorrect. The democratic party is much less united than the Republican party, having several members (including sort of but not really people like lieberman) or others who did not fully buy into the legislation they tried to pass.

It is possible that the legislation strayed too far from center, in fact it probably did, but that was after the point at which Republicans simply walked out of all talks because of incindiary comments by the likes of Palin outside of congress.

Up until the death panels comment and it became politically risky, but not actually impossible to enact reform, some Republicans had pretended or maybe not pretended to be interested.

To me this appeared to be a calculated move by the Republicans to have some very wishy washy people sort of show up for the show of bi-partisanship, but when the radical portion of the republican party rose up the senators chose instead to stick it to "evil reform" rather than continue the work they had at first pledged to be a part of.

The first 6 months were dedicated to fixing the economy. It wasn't until about July that any serious move was made on health care. By September the Democrats figured out they wouldn't make any headway with the other team and that left the last 3 months (not a whole lot of time) to try to reconcile differences and get things passed, which didn't happen well at all.

The Republicans knew that if they let external talking heads and insurance groups with interest in anything do what they would, then the same thing that happened during Clinton's administration would happen again. The pundits were pretty much acknowledging it the entire time, but thought if the Dems moved fast enough it would go through.

That didn't happen, and now the Republicans with the threat of filibuster have even more power to make it look like Democrats can't get anything done. Well, when 40% of congress refuses to do anything with the other 60%, then of course nothing will get done because even in 60% there are some ideological differences.

I have much more respect for anyone who at least joins in the debate and offers solutions than someone who sits on the side lines like a vulture to serve their own private interests.

And now? Now they're still the majority party, they've just lost their super majority and if they want to force anything through, they'll have to use a cloture vote. Now they'll HAVE to work with the republicans to keep them from using their ability to fillibuster and generally fuck everything up, which means it's going to be that much longer until we see this bill come to light IF it comes at all.

Cloture looks bad, so it probably won't happen. The point is that this SHOULD NOT be an all Democratic party effort. I simply don't believe Republicans will do anything to help. In my opinion, no one party could get this done, but from where I'm sitting only one of the parties was even trying to do anything.

So if anything, the democrats have undercut themselves, and have nobody else BUT themselves to blame for their folly in this instance.

They made mistakes. I'll admit that. And the Republicans are choosing to capitalize on them at the cost of the country like a bunch of opportunists.

At 1/18/10 08:24 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 1/18/10 02:37 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: ffs gum if you would lose your hard-on for government for a minute you would see that they're a large part of the reason that healthcare is so expensive in the first place

wah wah wah government is evil, I can't say anything else because I'm brainwashed ffs

Yes you are, the statists on this channel have repeatedly, and consistently failed to provide any counter to the blatantly obvious fact that the majority of health care costs are a product of the state.

People who continue to support state meddling in the health care industry therefore shouldn't be surprised that their costs go up as they continue to support measures to further cartelize and bureaucratize the medical industry, frankly, they get what they deserve.

At 1/25/10 04:35 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 1/18/10 08:24 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 1/18/10 02:37 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: ffs gum if you would lose your hard-on for government for a minute you would see that they're a large part of the reason that healthcare is so expensive in the first place

wah wah wah government is evil, I can't say anything else because I'm brainwashed ffs

Yes you are, the statists on this channel have repeatedly, and consistently failed to provide any counter to the blatantly obvious fact that the majority of health care costs are a product of the state.

People who continue to support state meddling in the health care industry therefore shouldn't be surprised that their costs go up as they continue to support measures to further cartelize and bureaucratize the medical industry, frankly, they get what they deserve.

I'll do my best now. I'd like to see actual statistical evidence and papers from you proving the opposite, not youtube videos of doctors just claiming that. Because I feel you are requesting something you have not given yourself.

I'm dividing sources here. The first section is about the actual cost, not the rise in costs due to government:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692 _02.pdf
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hidd encosts/index.html

I'd like to point out that we actually DO need to ration health care. Here is an example for why. This is a video from a person who actually does research into the situation and provides hospice. He is not just a man making a video on the internet for the sake of views, largely supporting his claims by personal experience only:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5 737138n

Studies on most other public health care systems in other countries show that governments can run public health systems at the same cost we publicly fund healthcare today:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/23/40905 066.pdf

I will note this final sample is not a rigorous proof, but it has several quotes from doctors saying that the price of health care is inflated compared to what it should be. It talks about a bill from a patient and some of the actual costs for the examples. For instance a tetnus shot ($27 real market) was charged $300 on the bill. Also, I'm not a fan of the LA times, but there's very little info out there on where health care bills come from.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/22/
local/la-me-lopez22-2009nov22

Most of this is because emergency rooms generally are filled with people who don't have insurance. So, hospitals have to charge people who do have insurance more.

So, while you may think the increases are mostly due regulation (in some cases like prescription medicine they undoubtedly are due to patent abuse which is granted by the government, and medicare quirks), there are in general much higher costs incurred for other reasons. And, while you may think paying for just yourself is all you're doing in the current system, that's not really true. You're still paying for the people who can't pay at all, only in the current system its fucking you over more than it should because its up to hospitals who haggle with your insurance companies to figure out how much you really pay.

The best part of this is that you are ignorant of most if not all of the costs, so you rarely have any idea how much you are overpaying.

Consider the recent over the counter allergy medicines such as Zyrtec. This drug cost 100+ behind the counter without insurance, but the drug that is a generic over the counter equivalent today only costs $10. Yes the government allowed this to happen, but its the company that is choosing to charge more. Whats more, we would still need reform to fix this problem, but any attempt to do so would "obviously end up worse because its the statists trying to do something"

At 1/25/10 03:45 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: That's politically incorrect.

What's politically incorrect is your idea that the appearance of the democrats inability to get anything done in this country this year is somehow the fault of the republicans. The republicans only just got the ability to fuck with the democrats ability to do anything on any level with the election of Scott Brown.

Now, in the interests of fairness, I'm going to ask you this; what possible reason would the democrats want with associating themselves with the republicans by making any bill a partisan matter? They've made a name for themselves these last few years by NOT being the Republicans and NOT associating with them, so why would they want anything to do with them?

You know what I think it is? I think it's a ploy by the democratic party to have the republicans as their scapegoat should anything go wrong. That's they're platform afterall, nothing is EVER the fault of a democrat, it's always the republicans who are at fault.

God I hate party politics.

There was an emphasis at the beginning of last year to make everything bipartisan to show that change had come to Washington and defeat old cronyism and whatnot thanks to Obama's speeches about a "new" Washington.

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMB _enUS334US334&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q =Obama+bipartisan

The reality of the situation is that not every democrat was on board with the health care issue, so they never had a super majority when it came to the issue to begin with and to pretend otherwise is a huge misnomer.

The larger question here is that if health care is such a problem for a multitude of issues, why has the Republican party been so obstinate in doing absolutely nothing to help? Why didn't they champion options that fit their beliefs instead of only shooting down anything else?

Its one thing to say a rather diverse group of democrats (blue dogs and all) couldn't get it done, but its another to also ignore the fact that there were 39 other people in the room doing fuck all but making speeches about the evil of doing anything.

Regardless of what you place the blame on:

Protectionist laws
Inflated prices
Separation of supply and demand from the value of the product
Run away law suits (which actually make up less than 1% of of the rise in health care cost, btw)

you still have to wonder why they aren't willing to do anything, especially when their constituents are suffering as well. Prices didn't rise 50% since 2000 for one group of people, it was everyone and it wasn't merited.

At 1/25/10 12:43 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: So, then you only sometimes are a model example of what YOU consider to be a model American citizen?

Do I really have to explain to you what "exception to the rule" means?
Or are you being purposefully dense just to be irritating?

No, this is a number being charged by private companies on to you. This isn't regulation. Or at least its not solely from regulation. AND IT IS ENTIRELY HEALTHCARE COSTS because 16% of health care costs are what you pay and the rest is paid by your employer. So, you are wrong.

Ah, 16% is what we pay now, with the rest being covered by our employers. And why do our employers cover the rest again?

You do bring up a nice point though, and that's that companies cover lion's share of the cost.....aaand you want to expand that coverage WHY again? At least under the current system, employers have responsibilities to their employees. Under Obama's system, employers would have responsibilities for EVERYONE. You really think businesses are gonna keep letting us pay 16% if they have to cover more people? Fuck no, they're passing that buck, and dropping jobs to cover the rest.

Push Obama's bill, and we'll see 15% unemployment nationwide, and our costs will bump to 25%.

Of course, I only base this on the massive sums of money poured into small businesses during the bailout, which of course don't employ very many people or contribute to job growth in the country......

Oh by the way, the small business I work at had to let 2 people go due to the economy. But they can always get a job at AIG, AM I RITE?!?!?

No this is not just companies that have unions. This is the average cost of health care across all occupations for all businesses. You can't hide behind "unions are evil" for this argument.

I wasn't aware I was hiding it.....But again, you sort of make my point. All companies and businesses are paying large sums of money to cover employee healthcare. Who makes them do that again?

And once again, the average cost now, with our limited healthcare system. Expanding the healthcare system is going to reduce our costs.....how? How many people are covered by Medicare?
How many people have to pay taxes for Medicare?

Can you add? Honestly, you realize 3 is smaller than 4 right?

No, I'd still say with 5% in favor of the democrat that the 5% (likely more) of the people who voted were probably uninformed; but, we'd have health care reform.

Ah I see. So when they vote Republican, they are being duped, ie, purposefully led astray. But when they vote Democrat, they may be uninformed.

Isn't this exactly what I said? You view the Reps as "duping" the public, but not the democrats. Keep playing favorites, I'm starting to enjoy it.

After you.

Why thank you. I think you're a moron with unsubstantiated opinions. But I'd love to hear which side of the debate you fall on. So do you feel you are an idiot, or a moron? Remember, your vote counts!

You seem to avoid the simple question:
Medicare is already overburdened and running out of money.

How would expanding coverage fix the problem?

Follow my logic here, and feel free to point out the flaws:
Input (taxes and grants) is less than output (# of people and quality of care). This is why the system is tanking, as seen in the links already provided.

Obama's bill wants to expand the output. How is adding the output gonna help stabilize the system?
If it helps, use numbers. Input =10. Output = 15. Right now we have a reserve, so we'll be ok for a decade or so, but unless Input grows (or Output is reduced), the system will collapse.

This is my simple understanding of the problem. Too little money, too much to do.
Now the solution in Obama's bill is to expand coverage universally.....which lowers cost......in Bizzaro world.....

If you think this bill is the good thing, and a step in the right direction, show me where I'm getting it wrong.

Because there are only two ways I see out of this:
Raising taxes....ie, increasing Input.
Reducing coverage (scrapping the system).....ie, reducing Output.

So put up your guns, and show me the option C that this bill was supposed to display.

you still have to wonder why they aren't willing to do anything, especially when their constituents are suffering as well. Prices didn't rise 50% since 2000 for one group of people, it was everyone and it wasn't merited.

And it's just coincidence the Baby Boomers have started retiring?

Prices have risen because the system is trying to cover MORE people than it has the capacity to cover.

I will repeat:
There are two ways this ends well:

More taxes to meet with the higher demand.
Less coverage to keep the costs even.

More coverage is not an option. You and the jackasses in charge of making this clusterfuck bill need to stop taking business classes at Enron University.

Why don't we just expand Social Security for that matter? Hell, let's cover everyone from 35 on up! That'll mean our costs decrease! Also, I have a pencil shoved in my ear!!

Medicare already is what? 15% of the budget?
And Social Security is 20%?

Entitlement programs in total count for how much of the Federal budget? Because if it's over 50%, I am well within reason to start throwing the term "Socialist fucktard" around as a replacement for "liberal".

At 1/25/10 05:03 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

I'll do my best now. I'd like to see actual statistical evidence and papers from you proving the opposite, not youtube videos of doctors just claiming that. Because I feel you are requesting something you have not given yourself.

I'm dividing sources here. The first section is about the actual cost, not the rise in costs due to government:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692 _02.pdf
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hidd encosts/index.html

The Video below hasn't loaded up yet. I'm trying to see if there is a you tube version of it. But the fact that it is 60 minutes isn't very inspiring. In the meanwhile i'll deal with these two links. Both of these links make the same point and There's nothing necessarily factually inaccurate about what they are saying; health care costs are going up. But neither link bothers answering the giant question WHY are health care costs going up when other market goods like IT have continually seen falling prices.

I'd like to point out that we actually DO need to ration health care. Here is an example for why. This is a video from a person who actually does research into the situation and provides hospice. He is not just a man making a video on the internet for the sake of views, largely supporting his claims by personal experience only:

Because anyone who tries to show that laws about health care and health insurance are driving up the cost of health care is simply trying to increase their view count.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5 737138n

Studies on most other public health care systems in other countries show that governments can run public health systems at the same cost we publicly fund healthcare today:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/23/40905 066.pdf

"The public sector is the main source of health funding in all OECD countries, except in the United States
and Mexico where public spending in 2007 was the lowest at 45.4% and 45.2% respectively. In Norway,
84.1% of health spending was funded by public sources in 2007, over 10 percentage points above the
average of 72.8% in OECD countries and higher than in other Nordic countries, except Denmark (84.5%)."

A highly misleading statistic. They're trying to fool the reader in to thinking that the US doesn't actually spend more per person on health care than Norway, which they do. Norwegians spend a smaller amount of private money on health care.

I am not arguing that if the government nationalized the entire health care industry, and forced prices down (And rationed it as it would have to be rationed) would make health care cheaper. Sure, some people would die waiting, but it would be cheaper.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/22/
local/la-me-lopez22-2009nov22

Most of this is because emergency rooms generally are filled with people who don't have insurance. So, hospitals have to charge people who do have insurance more.

And WHY do hospitals have to charge people who have insurance more? You keep pointing to statistics that show that medical care is expensive but give no explanation as to why.

So, while you may think the increases are mostly due regulation (in some cases like prescription medicine they undoubtedly are due to patent abuse which is granted by the government, and medicare quirks),

Yes, the US is the only country that has to fork over money for new drugs so companies can make up the money they produce in R+D as well as ridiculous and necessary amounts of testing as required by the FDA.

there are in general much higher costs incurred for other reasons.

Please tell me, the suspense is killing me!

And, while you may think paying for just yourself is all you're doing in the current system, that's not really true. You're still paying for the people who can't pay at all, only in the current system its fucking you over more than it should because its up to hospitals who haggle with your insurance companies to figure out how much you really pay.

\

That is EXACTLY why insurance is expensive, and that is the problem with the system AS IT EXISTS today. The state forces insurance companies to have low risk individuals share premiums with high risk people, it forces insurance companies to cover things regardless of whether or not they want to be covered.

Quite simply the state gives individuals perverse incentives to consume as much and the most expensive health treatments available because they're insured when they shouldn't be.

You say health care needs to be rationed and i agree with you, We need the price system and more freedom on the part of insurance companies (And customers of insurance companies) to ration health care by chosing who they will pool their risks with and who they will not associate with. Stop subsidizing the employer based health insurance that hides costs from consumers. Any alternative to this; rationing via a free price system, is sloppy, inefficient, and chaotic, even if it is comparatively less expensive then the hybrid private-public collusion of health care that exists at present.

Consider the recent over the counter allergy medicines such as Zyrtec. This drug cost 100+ behind the counter without insurance, but the drug that is a generic over the counter equivalent today only costs $10. Yes the government allowed this to happen, but its the company that is choosing to charge more. Whats more, we would still need reform to fix this problem, but any attempt to do so would "obviously end up worse because its the statists trying to do something"

You yourself already gave the reasons why a drug company would either have to, or would be able to charge 100+ dollars for a drug that has a much lower production cost. Patent laws and FDA regulations and the fact that none of the other socialist countries are willing to share the cost of recouping R+D with the US. If you want a world where drug regulations are what they are and at the same time companies can ONLY charge generic prices for drugs, that's fine, but then don't be surprised when people notice 5 years later that no new drug has been made since then, and who knows how many people died needlessly because a drug never came into existence.

Any solution that comes out of washington would not be a solution, socialist or not, that would benefit anyone other than the drug companies, the AMA, Unions, insurance companies, and any powerful political group, not the working man that the left supposedly is fighting for. Those lawmakers will NOT write anything in to effect that will come at the expense of the people who invest thousands of dollars in putting them into those seats of power, this should be obvious. This is why something as simple and clearly socially beneficial as tort reform has never survived through the house of representatives; Washington is composed almost entirely of trial lawyers.

Health care was cheaper and comparatively better (Not in absolute terms but relative to the technology that existed at the time and relative to other countries) Back when government expenditures and regulations of health care in general were infinitesimally smaller than they are today.