rob Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 This whole "Obama is a malicious liar" shtick is about as annoying as Michael Moore. Way to be, FW, way to be. Did you see this article? He really nailed the ANGER just right. DO you also believe Obama is "plotting the destruction of America"? Conservatives aren’t “terrorists.” We are patriots and saviors. We represent the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. We are the heroes and good guys. Unless you get all this through your thick skulls, America is lost…forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Not sure how this can be spun as an "unintended consequence." (Or how you can justify it.) He and his fellow Dems wrote the law and this was clearly a lie. [video:youtube]CuLp--VveIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 That poor law was cut apart and modified by so many people, it's pretty disingenuous to make it sound like Obama and his friends just wrote it down and passed it. Don't you remember? *some* people have been able to keep their old policies -- even if they're non-conformant. It's too bad yours didn't fit within the (too) narrow qualifications to be grandfathered in or whatever, and I understand your frustration, but suddenly accusing the president of maliciously , knowingly and intentionally deceiving people is a claim I've never even made about GW (who'm I honestly believe thought he was doing the right thing.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Whether it was a lie or a broken promise doesn't really make any difference to me--or millions of other middle-class Americans. As for the law being a "poor product of compromise," well, I recall one party rule at the time it was passed. The fact that it was seen by most Democrats and Obama as a "stepping stone" to single-payer was no secret then, and it's no secret now. In the long run, it may be exactly what Generation E wants. But there are still a lot of us who don't, and I don't think it's going to work out well for the Dems in the near or medium term. The Republican bungling that shut down the government will be a thing of the past by Nov 2014--but this healthcare fuckup will still be on everyone's mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Fairweather, come let's take a sail on my yacht and tell me all about your troubles. You'll feel better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 3. you keep citing "studies", yet you don't produce a single study. Here are 1,783 studies: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ge-crops-safety-pub-list-1.xls It would be nice to be able to access even one of the articles on that list, wouldn't it? Nah, it wouldn't matter to you, would it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) Single-payer? Heck, this idiot president and his Democrat moron worshipers can't even get a much simpler program right with four years of lead time. seems like a single-payer system would be a good deal simpler than obamacare, which is the massively complex beast it is precisely becuase private enterprises didn't want to lose all that business and democrats were eager to have their approval lest the whole thing turn into a hillary-care redux. you say "socialist dreamers" like its some sorta secret folks should be guilty to admit - what's wrong with wanting health care to be affordable for everyone and everyone being covered? it's not like we're looking to get everyone obama tats n' sing loyalty songs. folks in socialist countries seem to be no more dissastisfied than americans either, yet they're all covered and they feel that their system is more affordable than americans. Edited October 30, 2013 by ivan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 30, 2013 Author Share Posted October 30, 2013 Single payer's way simpler. We've had a working version for decades - nothing new. Knowing that FW took it in the shorts because of Obamacare is yet one more reason to keep voting Dem. The boy can HOWL! Not in throw water on this typical knee/circle jerk, but eventually somebody will write an intelligent post mortem re: the ACA and I have a feeling that the blame won't all fall on the Kenyan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 seems like a single-payer system would be a good deal simpler than obamacare, which is the massively complex beast it is precisely becuase private enterprises didn't want to lose all that business and democrats were eager to have their approval lest the whole thing turn into a hillary-care redux. you say "socialist dreamers" like its some sorta secret folks should be guilty to admit - what's wrong with wanting health care to be affordable for everyone and everyone being covered? it's not like we're looking to get everyone obama tats n' sing loyalty songs. folks in socialist countries seem to be no more dissastisfied than americans either, yet they're all covered and they feel that their system is more affordable than americans. "Three thousand kilometers east it is already night… Leonid Vitalevich [Kantorovich] is sitting by himself optimizing the manufacture of steel tubes. Five hundred producers. Sixty thousand consumers. Eight hundred thousand allocation orders to be issued each year. But it would all work out if he could persuade them to measure output in correct units …" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Kantorovich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) yet centralized planning of the us economy during WW2 worked pretty well and was deemed necessary for victory? i don't pretend to be a technocrat - i see a place for the private healthcare industry, it just seems simpler the more its centralized, and that folks who live in such societies aren't screaming bloody murder about it, despite having freedom of the press Edited October 30, 2013 by ivan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 30, 2013 Author Share Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) - Edited October 31, 2013 by Off_White Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Has anybody gone climbing??? If not could somebody provide the CC.com Spray Forum consensus oppinion on I522, Obamacare or whatever you've been talking about for 7 pages. [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLQhLcKyGs8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Has anybody gone climbing??? 52 of 303 days so far this year at the bacon wand http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1114830/Re_Beacon#Post1114830 still leaves plenty of time to spray you see... 522 seems to be a "meh" for me - i'll likely vote no but won't cry if it goes the other way - obamacare i'm hopeful for, though i suspect it will be trashed on by conservatives until the stars fall from the sky, or at least until it becomes wildly popular, at which time they'll take as much credit for it as possible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 yet centralized planning of the us economy during WW2 worked pretty well and was deemed necessary for victory? i don't pretend to be a technocrat - i see a place for the private healthcare industry, it just seems simpler the more its centralized, and that folks who live in such societies aren't screaming bloody murder about it, despite having freedom of the press Yeah - there's lots of situations where command and control production works better than the alternative. Pretty much every complex production process takes place in a command and control environment. Think Henry Ford's factory vs a process where every rivet you pop into a piece of sheet metal requires a separate transaction between two separate businesses. The critical mistake lies in thinking that something that works when it's embedded in a market economy can work just as well on it's own. There are lots of zoos that work very well in a particular context, but scaling them up to encompass the entire ecosystem would be a bit more challenging. Worth thinking about when you're trying to decide if it makes more sense to give people food stamps, or turn the entire food growing/buying/selling/distributing enterprise into a vertically integrated monopoly run by the same sort of folks who oversee the corn ethanol program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 many nations run successful socialized medical systems, yes? it's not like it's a wildly unpredictable, untried experiment, no? seems like a basic question: do you want everyone to be covered, regardless of the value of the particular human receiving decent and affordable services, or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 Yeah, what if, what if - seriously, save it. We've been doing single payer forever. Our current system clearly blows, its unsustainable, its dragging the economy down, and here's the real cost: it makes every American worry more that we should - it's past time to make modernize the American health care system and get rid of this clusterfuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 yet centralized planning of the us economy during WW2 worked pretty well and was deemed necessary for victory? i don't pretend to be a technocrat - i see a place for the private healthcare industry, it just seems simpler the more its centralized, and that folks who live in such societies aren't screaming bloody murder about it, despite having freedom of the press Yeah - there's lots of situations where command and control production works better than the alternative. Pretty much every complex production process takes place in a command and control environment. Think Henry Ford's factory vs a process where every rivet you pop into a piece of sheet metal requires a separate transaction between two separate businesses. The critical mistake lies in thinking that something that works when it's embedded in a market economy can work just as well on it's own. There are lots of zoos that work very well in a particular context, but scaling them up to encompass the entire ecosystem would be a bit more challenging. Worth thinking about when you're trying to decide if it makes more sense to give people food stamps, or turn the entire food growing/buying/selling/distributing enterprise into a vertically integrated monopoly run by the same sort of folks who oversee the corn ethanol program. What are you trying to say, Jay? Seriously. It is not as if we are talking about some new idea. Where has the free market or some competitive private business model proven better than a more centralized approach when it comes to medical care? How have public health outcomes been shown to be better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I see you've shifted from "you're lying" to a more informed "who cares, you have it coming." Well done. Medicare is great since it supports older, typically retired folks. But it's supported by the larger system and most I know--including my parents--have to spend between $200 and $350 per month (each) in additional private insurance to cover the "gaps" that the government won't pay for. What's more, Obama is taking $700Bn out of Medicare over the next ten years to pay for...Obamacare. Kind of a shell game. Finally, I don't expect a civil discussion with cc.com's resident thug, but if you could avoid this in the future, it would be great. The Rightycuntz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 yet centralized planning of the us economy during WW2 worked pretty well and was deemed necessary for victory? i don't pretend to be a technocrat - i see a place for the private healthcare industry, it just seems simpler the more its centralized, and that folks who live in such societies aren't screaming bloody murder about it, despite having freedom of the press Yeah - there's lots of situations where command and control production works better than the alternative. Pretty much every complex production process takes place in a command and control environment. Think Henry Ford's factory vs a process where every rivet you pop into a piece of sheet metal requires a separate transaction between two separate businesses. The critical mistake lies in thinking that something that works when it's embedded in a market economy can work just as well on it's own. There are lots of zoos that work very well in a particular context, but scaling them up to encompass the entire ecosystem would be a bit more challenging. Worth thinking about when you're trying to decide if it makes more sense to give people food stamps, or turn the entire food growing/buying/selling/distributing enterprise into a vertically integrated monopoly run by the same sort of folks who oversee the corn ethanol program. What are you trying to say, Jay? Seriously. It is not as if we are talking about some new idea. Where has the free market or some competitive private business model proven better than a more centralized approach when it comes to medical care? How have public health outcomes been shown to be better? -In developed countries, variations in aggregate public health stats are a reliable indicator for how well a given population takes care of themselves, and tell you very little about the clinical efficacy of specific interventions delivered by doctors and hospitals, such as treating cancers, strokes, heart-attacks, etc. When you look at clinical efficacy, the variation between hospitals within a given country is often higher than the variations between different countries, and even demographic cohorts treated within the same facilities can have significantly higher rates of mortality/morbidity after identical clinical interventions. Within the US there are massive variations between cities, counties, and states and every conceivable demographic cohort that simply can't be accounted for by provider or payor variations. The point being that the variations in payor regimes simply aren't reliably associated with outcomes in any meaningful way because they are so massively confounded by intra-country variations, cultural and behavioral variations, etc. -Most countries have a mixed public/private systems. Can you identify any other than Canada in which the collection and disbursement of funds to pay for care is a prerogative exercised by the state alone? One could just as easily ask why the rest of the world hasn't done away with private health care delivery if the benefits of doing so are so tangible and unambiguous, no? -Neither of the two most significant studies to look at the issue (the RAND study from 1971-1982 and the recent Oregon Medicaid Study) found a consistent/significant association between insured status and health status, though there were some minor exceptions. ' RAND http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9174/index1.html OMS http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) In developed countries, blabitty blah. Payor regimes blabbitty blabitty blabbity blah. blah. Blah blah blabity bla. Health status blah. Blah. [/Quote] Your assertion was that a more centralized approach would lead to worse medical care. I think. Or maybe that the government shouldn't run Montesanto and Safeway? Can you clarify your argument, and indicate where comparisons of the health systems actually in place around the world supports it? I don't care whether you agree that public health is the right term or not. Edited October 31, 2013 by mattp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) - Edited October 31, 2013 by Off_White Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) - Edited October 31, 2013 by Off_White Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Voters are smart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Voters are smart. update this after they have had their say on 522? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Well, we're talking a historical total of only 66 Teajaddists here - most from some of the poorest, least educated, and most religious districts in the country. They've managed to calcify the federal government - it only takes one log to stop a train but... ...its no secret that nearly all the reform is happening in the States now. As WA has recently proven - if you step away from the kind of unethical crap we see from both sides of I522 and provide sound, vetted information, voters will vote to improve the course of history - they will tackle the hardest problems. I've spoken to thousands of voters on a variety of complex civil liberties subjects. Voters, and pre-voters (high school age) never fail to impress me with their intelligence, decision making, presentation (many of these sessions are interactive and require very rapid synthesis and presentation to the rest of the group), and grasp of the issues of our time. My fellow speakers share my favorable opinion of the public. Guess you actually have to get out there and do the thing to understand the thing. I'd say American voters are doing just fine, no small thanks to social media. There have long been progressives who have an overarching need to be the smartest person in the room. They forever play the consummate outside critic - after all, having any real responsibility for execution in the real world is a messy business. These folks invariably share the same dim view of voters - but in so doing guarantee the continuance of today's unethical politics. The peace movement - which I was a part of during the build up for Iraq, is full of them. They never get what they want because they cannot put together a workable plan, with all the fund raising, phone banking, lobbying, and other drudgery required to so. They get their asses handed to them repeatedly. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for those who do jail time for their moral beliefs - which I share, for the most part, but the road to turning this Titanic around requires a bit more of a comprehensive, long term program that sit ins, biking to meetings with ones kindred spirits, and making fun of the Stupid American Voter. Although we have several examples of how to successfully win the support of voters for really difficult reform, the I522 campaign marks a return to politics as usual on both sides - lets spoon feed some sound bite bullshit to these infants and see which way they throw the rattle. Edited October 31, 2013 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.