Republicans support Obama's health reforms — as long as his name isn't on them (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/republicans-support-obamas-health-reforms--as-long-as-his-name-isnt-on-them/2012/06/25/gJQAq7E51V_blog.html)
It will continue to be called that until it suddenly becomes a success, when it can be renamed "Boehner-Care" or whoever is in office at the time. As long as they are white, of course, and several reputable (white) people were actually in the delivery room when they first saw the light of day... ::)
8)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 25, 2012, 09:21:15 AM
Republicans support Obama's health reforms — as long as his name isn't on them (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/republicans-support-obamas-health-reforms--as-long-as-his-name-isnt-on-them/2012/06/25/gJQAq7E51V_blog.html)
Well, they ought to, since almost everything in the bill originated in Republican/conservative circles.
Now of course the same people who thought up those ideas are the first to call it reckless tyranny, and a clever plot to destroy the health insurance industry because it won't work, and we will then have to adopt single payer insurance along the lines of NHS. Apparetnly BHO and his fellow jihadist Bolsheviks are a truly sneaky group of people.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 25, 2012, 12:14:14 PM
Well, they ought to, since almost everything in the bill originated in Republican/conservative circles.
Now of course the same people who thought up those ideas are the first to call it reckless tyranny, and a clever plot to destroy the health insurance industry because it won't work, and we will then have to adopt single payer insurance along the lines of NHS. Apparetnly BHO and his fellow jihadist Bolsheviks are a truly sneaky group of people.
Thinking of how Republicans would react if Obama came up with the PATRIOT act is a fun thought experiment.
It is obvious that Obama is...mm...'worse' than Bush. :( At least Bush acted stupid. Congress is beholden to Goldman Sachs. No one cares about my health, ha, this whole thing is a sick joke. People used to die every now and then, but, oh no, now we have to keep everyone 'alive' no matter what.
I'm not payin' for the fatties!! >:D
You sick people who live these lifestyles, and eat this garbage,... I'm not bailing you out. You sick insurence companies, and doctors who seem to know nothing but prescribe prescribe prescribe,... oh no, we don't work for Universal Pharma.
Oh yea, let's make sure EVERYONE gets psychotropics now. Yea, you'd have to be 'insane' to be against universal healthcare, oh, what, are you... gasp... a republican?? oh no, they're on our side,... you must be a racist, or a terrorist, or... an antisemite... oh no!... you're not for Government Mandated HealthCare,... oh, we must liposuction the nation,... and all the rich people should get their plastic surgery for free (Nancy Pelosi!),...
oh yes, I'm just a heathen ::)
go ahead, kill as many fetuses as you want then, just leave me out of it. Stay out of MY PRIVATE DOMAIN!!
You all realize we're heading for a Bonhoffer Moment???
Mandated Sterilization
Bush + Obama = business as usual since 1991!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ugh, this fake 'partisanship' BS is nauseating, and anyone falling for it is... what?... willingly ignorant??
Why are we debating gays and bammycare when Dimon & Co. still walk??
LET THE BANKS PAY FOR HEALTHCARE FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!
PFFFFFT!!! >:D
spit spit spit
soon the real bill is gonna be due,... and we're debating 'universal' (giggle... yea, no pun intended) healthcare... oh yea, and don't forget everyone's minority of the hour issue... 800,000 brand spanking new job seeker, oh boy howdy I just can't wait to give these Perfect Human Beings my life since they are so much Greater People than I could ever hope to be,... I'm just a Second Class US Citizen,... not like these Chosen Ones, these Golden Victims of History,...
Israel called latinos, they want their victim crown back. :'(
uh, disgusted am i :-\
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 25, 2012, 12:14:14 PM
Well, they ought to, since almost everything in the bill originated in Republican/conservative circles.
Yes, and the hated individual mandate was stolen from the Heritage Foundation.
Obama should be given a medal by conservatives for trying (one last time,
pleeze!) to save for-profit medicine from its own greedy instincts. How do conservatives get this so wrong? If you don't want socialism you have to improve capitalism. Obama is trying to keep one sixth of the economy in private hands by making it serve the interests of the people it's supposed to serve. If he fails single payer is the only option left.
You know what they say, America always does the right thing after trying everything else. (http://www.city-data.com/forum/members/jill61-603505-albums-emoticons-pic42899-american-flag-smiley.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on June 25, 2012, 08:09:05 PM
Yes, and the hated individual mandate was stolen from the Heritage Foundation.
Obama should be given a medal by conservatives for trying (one last time, pleeze!) to save for-profit medicine from its own greedy instincts. How do conservatives get this so wrong? If you don't want socialism you have to improve capitalism. Obama is trying to keep one sixth of the economy in private hands by making it serve the interests of the people it's supposed to serve. If he fails single payer is the only option left.
You know what they say, America always does the right thing after trying everything else. (http://www.city-data.com/forum/members/jill61-603505-albums-emoticons-pic42899-american-flag-smiley.gif)
By design? Hegelian...
You can all be thankful not to live in über protective insurance-europe ;) I pay 340 EUR/month for healthcare. But c'mon, healthcare... one of the few things where I think which must be paid by the community, because simply you cannot financially afford many health problems.
In Nordrhein-Westfalen (highest populated province in western Germany) the green party got voted again and they will start a second try for forcing every homeowner to prophylactically check wastewater pipes of the house. It's about keeping the groundwater clean, "future of our kids" blahblah... I know friends of mine let it check with a camera: price ~300 EUR which is a typical price I think. But if they find holes in your pipes, or if pipes are not completely connected any more, they will force you to fix it. My friends did it. Costs: EUR 5000. Ground had to be opened, craftsmen prices are between EUR 50 and EUR 100 typically...
And what is it good for? In my house, water runs down maybe 5 Minutes a day. If there was a hole, only a part of it sinks into ground. And what is it? Shower water, water from cleaning dishes.
Is THAT worth it? Our neighbor provinces said NO. But we have a green party, which sucks. We will probably be forced to do this between 2015 (older houses) and 2020 (newer). I will wait, governments change...
Would such a law be possible in the US?
[/whining mode off]
Quote from: Tapio Dimitriyevich Shostakovich on June 26, 2012, 08:46:08 AM
Would such a law be possible in the US?
[/whining mode off]
In some locations, probably it would be. But it would probably be done at the city/town level (or the county level--I'm not sure if American counties have an equivalent in European terms: midway between state and city/town but also including geographic areas that are not incorporated into an existing city/town--like but unlike English counties (shires)--and not the state level, and probably be worked so that you wouldn't need to do it until you did serious plumbing or other renovation work, or sold your house.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 26, 2012, 09:28:21 AM
In some locations, probably it would be. But it would probably be done at the city/town level (or the county level--I'm not sure if American counties have an equivalent in European terms: midway between state and city/town but also including geographic areas that are not incorporated into an existing city/town--like but unlike English counties (shires)--and not the state level, and probably be worked so that you wouldn't need to do it until you did serious plumbing or other renovation work, or sold your house.
It will probably also depend on what kind of system you have. Some will have sewers, cess pools, septic tanks, natural wells, etc. I think the age of the system (some of Europe has really old infrastructure) may be playing a big role as well. But I think the biggest impact is chemicals and such where you live or even something as simple as salt. I would think that limiting these would have a bigger impact.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 26, 2012, 10:47:02 AMIt will probably also depend on what kind of system you have. Some will have sewers, cess pools, septic tanks, natural wells, etc. I think the age of the system (some of Europe has really old infrastructure) may be playing a big role as well. But I think the biggest impact is chemicals and such where you live or even something as simple as salt. I would think that limiting these would have a bigger impact.
It's all independent from age of private homes here (except, the time limits, as mentioned) - everybody has to have his houses pipes (from where it comes out of the house to the public connection) checked... An argument of the Pro's is: you throw your pills into the toilet... NO, I DON'T.
In my opinion it's a complete waste of the peoples money and all in all making us less competetive. We have too many politicians not knowing how to earn money (teachers, clerks, officials), but how to spend it. Too many leftist parties with a sack full of presents, not their business who earns that money.
Ugh, and this year they'll disallow smoking in every pub and social buildings and playgrounds, without any exception. But I heard even in the "land of the free" it's the case (Florida?). Our green party simply is bourgeois and having fun in forbidding things to others. And we have "Die Linke" - their consensus seems to be: Everything should be state property. Everybody who earned money, must have stolen it from his employees. They suck as well. Oh, I'm complaining again ;D
Quote from: Tapio Dimitriyevich Shostakovich on June 26, 2012, 11:41:46 AM
In my opinion it's a complete waste of the peoples money and all in all making us less competetive. We have too many politicians not knowing how to earn money (teachers, clerks, officials), but how to spend it. Too many leftist parties with a sack full of presents, not their business who earns that money.
Ugh, and this year they'll disallow smoking in every pub and social buildings and playgrounds, without any exception. But I heard even in the "land of the free" it's the case (Florida?). Our green party simply is bourgeois and having fun in forbidding things to others. And we have "Die Linke" - their consensus seems to be: Everything should be state property. Everybody who earned money, must have stolen it from his employees. They suck as well. Oh, I'm complaining again ;D
You don't know how much like a Republican you sound in writing that, Tapio. What you write there could be found almost any day in political blogs belonging to the conservative side here in the US.
I'm a libertarian, so while I tend to think the Republican apparatus is simply another hypocritical set of politicians, I tend to agree with most of what you say there. And being a sensible person who doesn't like clogged up toilets, I throw out my outdated pills into the wastebasket.
And in Florida at least (that's where I live) smoking is forbidden not only in all those places but also all work places, including private offices.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 26, 2012, 01:52:38 PMYou don't know how much like a Republican you sound in writing that, Tapio. What you write there could be found almost any day in political blogs belonging to the conservative side here in the US.
I know, but I'm also sure, even as a die-hard demecrat american in Germany, you'd cry loud and want to escape to the US again, because of latent "communism" (Communism typically is the wrong word). In my opinion, we have a very distinct
Zeitgeist which can be summed up in a simple sentence: "I am not responsible for what I am. Everybody else/the others/the state/the community/
the collective is". Just one example is the education, child care, and food. It's generally expected to have kids at school the full day and giving them best meals. Parents are not expected to care for their kids. If something really goes wrong in families (say, a murder) - the only question is: what did the community do wrong, why did the state fail etc...
More "you are responsible for yourself"! Even if it's completely outdated here.
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on June 25, 2012, 09:53:20 AM
It will continue to be called that until it suddenly becomes a success, when it can be renamed "Boehner-Care"
That sounds like the result of a bad reaction to Cialis or Viagra! :D
Quote from: Toccata&Fugue on June 27, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
That sounds like the result of a bad reaction to Cialis or Viagra! :D
:) I swear to god this is true; on the morning after the 2010 mid-term elections, when Nancy Pelosi lost her job as House Speaker, I was watching CNN news while eating breakfast and the announcer began talking about the new House regime under new Speaker John Boner. I damned near choked. :D
8)
EPIC FACEPALM
>:D >:D >:D
>:D >:D >:D
>:D >:D >:D
Welcome to the United Socialist States of Amerika.
Look in your pockets. Feel any green paper? You will, in the future, surely remember what that feels like.
Hmm, SCOTUS didn't ax the individual mandate. Looks like some legal scholars, and prognosticators everywhere, erred. Conservatives seemed certain, and happy, that the Court would kill it; Liberals seemed certain, and sullen, of same. Oops.
Maybe this will spice up the election campaigns some.
Quote from: Todd on June 28, 2012, 07:36:59 AM
Hmm, SCOTUS didn't ax the individual mandate. Looks like some legal scholars, and prognosticators everywhere, erred. Conservatives seemed certain, and happy, that the Court would kill it; Liberals seemed certain, and sullen, of same. Oops.
Maybe this will spice up the election campaigns some.
Actually, they screwed it up completely. Only SCOTUS can turn an utter mess into complete chaos.
Apparently, they ruled the mandate would be unconstitutional if it was a mandate, but that the mandate in question was not really a mandate, but a tax that couldn't be enforced. So even though it walks like a mandate and quacks like a mandate, it really isn't a mandate.
Or something.
Oh, and on the Medicaid part, you can now expect poor people in blue states to get coverage and poor people in red states to not get coverage.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 28, 2012, 08:06:49 AMActually, they screwed it up completely. Only SCOTUS can turn an utter mess into complete chaos.
Perhaps, but it is chaos that can be managed legislatively now.
It is my understanding that the Court ruled the penalty for not purchasing insurance a tax, and therefore permissible. (Ginsburg's side opinion still supporting the Commerce Clause is less compelling to me.) It is still possible to not purchase insurance and simply pay the tax. It could possibly make economic sense for some people to do this (eg, the young, healthy, and indestructible), depending on the relative cost of insurance versus the penalty. It is really no different from companies purposely not complying with this or that regulation and knowingly paying a fine (ie, tax) instead. I've worked for employers that do this.
I'm less worried about the Medicaid portion of the decision as that seems to basically be about funding, and some types of compromises will be available through normal politics, however ugly.
Now perhaps Congress and the next President can work on fixing and enforcing some elements of Obamacare. For instance, the vaunted continued coverage of people up to age 26 under their parents' plans is awful. My wife works on the administrative side of health care and routinely sees people in their early 20s with two and three policies covering them. (Being covered by up to four policies is easy under the law; more may be possible.) This is no way to contain systemic costs. I suppose I could view my wife's experience as anecdotal and of limited value, but she works for a huge HMO; her experience is not isolated. Also, more pressure on electronic medical records needs to be applied. The resistance on this front is appalling. Perhaps the medical devices tax could be revisited, too. No, it should be revisited.
This country leads the world in health care administration. Overhead in the mostly private system is far higher than in the VA and Medicare systems. If we could somehow get everyone into these systems we'd have more money for care and coverage.
ACA is a start. There will be more reforms. Here's my conspiracy theory: Obama and his fellow conspirators crafted an obviously flawed plan which would either fail leading to increased support for a single payer system, or we would be able to slowly expand the scope of the plan by grandfathering in essentially everyone into a public plan with the private insurers allowed to "administer" their cut (not being cut out entirely). Eventually they would face being squeezed out unless they accepted their diminished role, which they would, having no choice.
Now, what's the difference between what's really happening and my conspiracy theory? I'm not really sure.
Quote from: drogulus on June 28, 2012, 01:29:48 PMThis country leads the world in health care administration.
Huh? What does this mean? Do you mean with respect to insurance, or with respect to delivery? Well, you must mean insurance since only the VA is in the delivery business, and it is not considered a model for either insurance or delivery by anyone. Medicare and Medicaid are public insurance programs and they use their quasi-monopsony power to force health care delivery companies (profit and non-profit alike) to accept defined monthly payments for each member. It's easy to keep overhead low when you can force health care delivery companies to accept defined payments, and leave them to absorb any losses.
Quote from: Todd on June 28, 2012, 03:37:45 PMIt's easy to keep overhead low when you can force health care delivery companies to accept defined payments, and leave them to absorb any losses.
Losses?
Quote from: eyeresist on June 28, 2012, 06:05:39 PMLosses?
Yes, of course. When expenses exceed revenue. Even non-profits cannot go on forever under such circumstances. Even in an ideal world shorn of all profit seeking in health care delivery (and presumably everything else), I would guess that most health care consumers would prefer to rely on institutions that can deliver quality care today and tomorrow, and also deploy new technologies when available. Last I checked, such things require money.
It wasn't meant to be a tax, wasn't supposed to be a tax, so, what, did Roberts just change... what?? He just changes the definition of a word?
Quote from: snyprrr on June 29, 2012, 06:47:30 AMIt wasn't meant to be a tax, wasn't supposed to be a tax, so, what, did Roberts just change... what?? He just changes the definition of a word?
Please explain how a government imposed penalty/fine/user fee/license/permit fee, etc, is not a tax.
Quote from: snyprrr on June 29, 2012, 06:47:30 AM
It wasn't meant to be a tax, wasn't supposed to be a tax, so, what, did Roberts just change... what?? He just changes the definition of a word?
Of all people whom I thought had a grip on semantics... ::) Surely I wasn't wrong and you are just being stubborn.
8)
Quote from: snyprrr on June 29, 2012, 06:47:30 AM
It wasn't meant to be a tax, wasn't supposed to be a tax, so, what, did Roberts just change... what?? He just changes the definition of a word?
I seem to remember when the subject of whether this law was unconstitutional, the argument was made that the mandate was crafted by Congress as a tax, and as such would pass constitutional muster. However, President Obama is on record during an interview in 2010 saying that it was NOT a tax. Probably because he does not wish to be perceived as raising taxes during a difficult economy.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is only constitutional as a tax, saying that the individual mandate as a mandate fails a constitutional test, there is no getting around the fact (at least legally) that the law is a fairly large tax increase.
Raising taxes during a bad economy is not a good idea. Nor is giving employers less of a reason to hire people with unemployment rates hovering around 9%.
If the Republicans play their cards right, John Roberts may have handed them a solid campaign issue.
But I never underestimate the Republican's ability to completely screw up an opportunity.
:)
Quote from: Todd on June 29, 2012, 07:50:53 AM
Please explain how a government imposed penalty/fine/user fee/license/permit fee, etc, is not a tax.
They aren't taxes because they're handy ways of increasing government revenue that don't require politicians to admit that they are proposing or voting for "tax increases".
In this case, it was the Obama Administration and the Democrats who strenously argued that it wasn't a tax, for procedural reasons. Roberts performed a version of legal ju-jitsu on them.
Of course now we are are stuck with the proposition that while the Commerce Clause does have limits on Congressional power, there's no limits on Congress's power to tax.
Quote from: Arnold on June 29, 2012, 07:58:35 AMRaising taxes during a bad economy is not a good idea.
The mandate does not go into effect until 2014. The tax hike during a bad economy argument doesn't hold water in this instance.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 29, 2012, 08:03:04 AMThey aren't taxes because they're handy ways of increasing government revenue that don't require politicians to admit that they are proposing or voting for "tax increases".
True, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . .
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 29, 2012, 08:03:04 AMOf course now we are are stuck with the proposition that while the Commerce Clause does have limits on Congressional power, there's no limits on Congress's power to tax.
That has been the case, practically, since the 16th Amendment was ratified.
Quote from: Todd on June 29, 2012, 08:08:14 AM
The mandate does not go into effect until 2014. The tax hike during a bad economy argument doesn't hold water in this instance.
This is true, but the argument is still valid; with the slow pace of the "recovery" there is no guarantee the economy will be much better off in 2014. Insurance premiums have already risen in many cases, and employers plan for the future and this law will not help unemployment whether it goes into effect this year or 2014. If anything, this law will
insure that any recovery will be weak and unemployment rates will remain disturbingly high.
Quote from: Arnold on June 29, 2012, 08:15:19 AM
This is true, but the argument is still valid; with the slow pace of the "recovery" there is no guarantee the economy will be much better off in 2014. Insurance premiums have already risen in many cases, and employers plan for the future and this law will not help unemployment whether it goes into effect this year or 2014. If anything, this law will insure that any recovery will be weak and unemployment rates will remain disturbingly high.
I rather think that, on the macro scale, the Europeans running around like chickens with their heads cut off (the politicians and the bankers, that is) and the politicians in Washington more interested in winning elections than in actually doing anything substantive (this applies to both sides of the aisle) is far more important. And far more important is the fact that in large parts of the country (for instance, where I live) consumers are not, for one reason or another, consuming/buying as much. Compared to that, nothing else matters: it would be a very bad business man who hires in the expectation of increased sales when in fact there's every expectation that sales and revenues will at best stay flat for the foreseeable future, no matter how favorable the tax codes, regulations, etc. are towards business and investment.
Quote from: Arnold on June 29, 2012, 08:15:19 AMthe argument is still valid
Not really. Tax changes two and more years out have a negligible impact, at most, on economic conditions today. While it is true that the recovery to date has been weak, this has nothing, or at least vanishingly little, to do with health care and health care premiums. Businesses large and small hire based on exisiting and projected business; more business means more hiring. Health care expenses are something to be worked with/around. I work for a small company (<40 employees), and our staffing planning is not based in any way on health insurance costs. Of course, other companies may be forced to make tough choices, but I see arguments that the new health care law will negatively impact employment as basically without merit, rather like the arguments against minimum wage increases, where actual evidence shows no negative impact. It will be the same here.
One consequence of the law will be that some mid-sized firms will opt to not offer coverage and pay the penalty and will force workers to buy insurance or face their own penalties, but it's hard to see how that will have a significant impact on employment. Even here, I think the dire warnings are overblown; health insurance is still a perk used by more than a few companies to attract talent. Granted, not every firm can or will do that, especially those that require less skilled workers, but it will be a few years before it will be known whether or not firms stop providing insurance in droves.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 29, 2012, 08:30:21 AM
I rather think that, on the macro scale, the Europeans running around like chickens with their heads cut off (the politicians and the bankers, that is) and the politicians in Washington more interested in winning elections than in actually doing anything substantive (this applies to both sides of the aisle) is far more important. And far more important is the fact that in large parts of the country (for instance, where I live) consumers are not, for one reason or another, consuming/buying as much. Compared to that, nothing else matters: it would be a very bad business man who hires in the expectation of increased sales when in fact there's every expectation that sales and revenues will at best stay flat for the foreseeable future, no matter how favorable the tax codes, regulations, etc. are towards business and investment.
Sure, but my point is simply that this law only adds to the troubles (like the ones you mentioned) facing this economy.
When spending is suppressed, and recovery stalled and unemployment high and pressures from many sides driving the economic indicators in the wrong direction, it is not a good idea to enact legislation which will cause health insurance premiums to go up and penalize businesses for both not offering health benefits or offering health benefits that are too rich.
Quote from: Arnold on June 29, 2012, 08:40:09 AMit is not a good idea to enact legislation which will cause health insurance premiums to go up
Health care premiums have risen steadily for years without Obamacare.
Quote from: Todd on June 29, 2012, 08:39:18 AM
Not really. Tax changes two and more years out have a negligible impact, at most, on economic conditions today. While it is true that the recovery to date has been weak, this has nothing, or at least vanishingly little, to do with health care and health care premiums. Businesses large and small hire based on exisiting and projected business; more business means more hiring. Health care expenses are something to be worked with/around. I work for a small company (<40 employees), and our staffing planning is not based in any way on health insurance costs. Of course, other companies may be forced to make tough choices, but I see arguments that the new health care law will negatively impact employment as basically without merit, rather like the arguments against minimum wage increases, where actual evidence shows no negative impact. It will be the same here.
One consequence of the law will be that some mid-sized firms will opt to not offer coverage and pay the penalty and will force workers to buy insurance or face their own penalties, but it's hard to see how that will have a significant impact on employment. Even here, I think the dire warnings are overblown; health insurance is still a perk used by more than a few companies to attract talent. Granted, not every firm can or will do that, especially those that require less skilled workers, but it will be a few years before it will be known whether or not firms stop providing insurance in droves.
I've definitely seen how health insurance costs has effected my employer's behavior. We have about 350 employees and each year the plan is renegotiated with different benefits, generally not as good, or a new carrier entirely. Premiums for family members has gone up, and the co-pay and the deducible have gone way up. These costs do effect staffing decisions, especially in bad economic times. When the economy tanked in 2008, we let go 40 people, and the hiring since then has not been as robust as former years. Hiring older employees is not attractive since health plans are negotiated based on collective claims figures and older employees generally file more claims.
My wife's independent policy went up immediately after the law was passed, and again in the last three months.
I'm not saying this law is the main driving force, but do see this law as the wrong medicine for an already unhealthy economy.
Quote from: Todd on June 29, 2012, 08:43:15 AM
Health care premiums have risen steadily for years without Obamacare.
True, but the cost for almost everything has risen steadily over the years. I've not seen our health care premiums rise as fast or as often as I have since the law was passed.
You may love this law; I don't.
Quote from: Arnold on June 29, 2012, 08:52:50 AMWe have about 350 employees and each year the plan is renegotiated with different benefits, generally not as good, or a new carrier entirely.
This is common for many firms that do not self insure, and the reductions in coverage reflect a desire by employers to reduce costs, and on the flip side make more money. This was happening before 2008, too. It makes sense from a managerial perspective, though from the workers' perspective it is awful.
The real issue here is premiums rising faster than inflation, year after year, in good times and bad. This has more to do with cost controls, something Obamacare is decidedly weak on.
Clearly, there are firms that make staffing decisions partly on health care costs, but my experience at both giant firms (eg, 10,000+ employees) and small (<100; two of my last three employers) is that health care is not a significant determinant in hiring. I've seen little evidence that health care has a material impact on employment economy wide, though clearly it does to those who are affected.
Quote from: Arnold on June 29, 2012, 08:56:37 AMTrue, but the cost for almost everything has risen steadily over the years. I've not seen our health care premiums rise as fast or as often as I have since the law was passed.
You may love this law; I don't.
Yes, there has been inflation, but health insurance, like college education, has been rising at a rate far greater than inflation for decades. This was an issue when Clinton tried to reform health care as well.
You may also want to rethink your assumptions. I do not love Obamacare. But I reject arguments against it that lack evidence. That written, certain aspects of the law are quite good. The prohibition against not insuring people with pre-existing conditions is long overdue. Requiring electronic records is also long overdue.
Quote from: Arnold on June 29, 2012, 08:56:37 AM
True, but the cost for almost everything has risen steadily over the years. I've not seen our health care premiums rise as fast or as often as I have since the law was passed.
Then you're lucky. My employer--a large retail company with lots of stores and employees--has tried a number of things over the years to limit its health care exposure, and now self insures. My costs, including premiums and deductibles, are about three times what they were ten years ago, and almost all of that increase came before Barack Obama took the oath of office, and almost all of the rest came during his first year in office, before Obamacare was passed.
About twelve or fifteen years ago--I don't remember the exact year anymore--the company forced many of its employees onto part time status because it felt it needed to limit the number of employees on its health care plan. That was during the Clinton years, so obviously Obamacare had nothing to do with it. And even then it came around to offering a much more basic, less comprehensive plan to new part timers and full timers who had been forced into part time status. I was lucky to be one of the people who were kept on full time. I'm the sort of person who has enough health problems, including a chronic illness, that I have to have insurance, and one main reason I've stuck with the same employer for over twenty years is the fact that I've been able to keep decent insurance with them. If that ever change....time for a new job. But that's the opposite of the problem you're talking about. For me, access to good insurance without it being linked to employment would be a very good thing, although I'm not sure if Obamacare can really deliver that for me.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 29, 2012, 03:56:31 PMFor me, access to good insurance without it being linked to employment would be a very good thing, although I'm not sure if Obamacare can really deliver that for me.
This would be good for everyone, in my opinion. Imagine the benefits that would accompany portability. Labor force mobility would be greatly enhanced, which in my eyes is a very good thing. I've long (secretly?) wished that business in general and
any administration would come to some type of grand bargain on health care. Trade some burdensome regulation (SOX, etc) for some type of (mostly) business tax funded health insurance that meets defined requirements and includes portability. Call it "socialized" medicine, or whatever else you want, the end result would be a good thing, with one benefit being the reduction of some administrative staff in private companies. And right wingers here in the US should realize that some of their now favored economists - of the Austrian persuasion mostly, it seems - were not opposed to universal health care.
Quote from: Todd on June 29, 2012, 05:26:24 PM
And right wingers here in the US should realize that some of their now favored economists - of the Austrian persuasion mostly, it seems - were not opposed to universal health care.
The right wingers will simply say that the Austrian economists were not, er, Austrian enough.
Rather like the Catholics who claim to be more Catholic than the Pope.
This debate regarding public health funding in the US astounds me. The fact that Americans even seem to feel that it needs debating astounds me most.
You (Americans) need to realise there will always be people in a society who are less able to look after themselves, sometimes through no fault of themselves. It is in the interest of all members of that society that they still have access to health care. Society is improved, poverty, violence and misery are alleviated when the wealthier chip in to look after those less fortunate or less able.
All OECD nations in the world, except for the USA, has some sort of large-scale public health funding. The manner in which it is funded varies from country to country - sometimes a direct tax, sometimes compulsory health insurance (which equates to almost the same thing).
Here is Australia, we have had government-funded health care since 1974. We each pay an extra 1 - 1.5% tax (depending on income level) called the Medicare levy, on top of our income tax. What we get for our money is free, universal health care, free for every Australian citizen. Doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, young or old, sick or well, employed or not, everyone is entitled to top-notch health care, essentially for free. We can also elect to take out extra private health insurance, which then pays for private hospital treatment or dental and other benefits. It means that those who can least afford to pay are looked after by those who are more well-off. It means that we don't have to worry about how to pay for our health care. It means we have almost no mentally ill people homeless on the streets. It means we have almost no beggars on street corners. It means we look after each other.
When I lived in Canada for two years, I was pleasantly surprised by how similar their health care system was to ours, and justifiably proud of it they were. Here in Australia, we seem to take ours for granted after so many years. Any politician who would be stupid enough to try to campaign for its removal would be instantly voted out. It is entrenched and popular.
Given that the government is then the largest health care provider in the country, it is in its own interests to make sure the health it delivers is efficient, economic, rational and evidence-based. While these ideals are not always met, there are constant reviews of policy to aim for that ideal.
What do you need to debate? You pay a small % of your income and everybody benefits.
Quote from: Dungeon Master on June 30, 2012, 09:17:24 PMAll OECD nations in the world, except for the USA, has some sort of large-scale public health funding.
Strictly speaking, this is not the case. Medicare and Medicaid are indeed large-scale programs, they just don't cover everyone. Now with the Affordable Care Act, the US is moving to universal insurance and accompanying higher taxes. The US political system ensures that we will never have a system like any other nations. Also strictly speaking, the US does have universal health care delivery by law right now (ie, emergency rooms cannot turn anyone away), just not universal insurance.
One other thing, and perhaps this is a peculiarly American trait that focuses on money, but a 1-1.5% tax is not in any way free. That's not to say that universal insurance is not worth such a tax, just that universal insurance is not free. It's more than just semantics.
Though I envy the Austrailian system, I did have to smile at the sentence "What we get for our money is free, universal health care, free for every Australian citizen."
Quote from: Wendell_E on July 01, 2012, 11:20:21 AM
Though I envy the Austrailian system, I did have to smile at the sentence "What we get for our money is free, universal health care, free for every Australian citizen."
I stand corrected. Very few things in life are free.
However, the tax is so disconnected from the benefits that it seems free. Furthermore the 1.5% tax is a very small price to pay for universal health care. For most Australians, it equates to about $2 per day. I dare say most of us would spend more than that on our daily coffee or cable TV. I regard universal health care as somewhat more important than those.
And I accept that unlike the coffee and TV, the Medicare tax is compulsory. As a wage earner in Australia, you do not have a choice. Many Americans I suspect would find that the main argument against. However, I think that is the best argument for. It means that we all chip in a very small amount, and it is returned as a greater good. Those that are the most vulnerable and least able to pay in society are looked after.
Its a concept known as "caring".
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/why-i-might-be-okay-with-obamacare/ (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/why-i-might-be-okay-with-obamacare/)
Foes of Obamacare will have to learn to be okay with it, because it's not going to be repealed, even if Romney gets into the White House. Hell, if history is a guide (eg, Medicare Part D), government funded programs will mushroom in coming years. How can I get a piece of the action?
Quote from: Todd on July 02, 2012, 08:25:54 AM
Foes of Obamacare will have to learn to be okay with it, because it's not going to be repealed, even if Romney gets into the White House. Hell, if history is a guide (eg, Medicare Part D), government funded programs will mushroom in coming years.
This seems a reasonable assessment. I've seen a lot of cries from the left lately about how it is necessary to vote for Obama (rather than staying home) and actively advocate for other people to vote for Obama because repeal of Obamacare is guaranteed if Romney wins. There seems to be some sort of idea in place that Romney has near magical powers of persuasion that will result in his being able to convince Congress to repeal it, no matter what the make-up of congress is during his presidency. I have some serious doubts. Even if he could persuade Congress to go along with the repeal (or had an unusually strong-willed group of Republicans running both houses of Congress that were adamant that it be repealed) I seriously doubt that he would have the spine to try to repeal it once it got rolling.
Quote from: Dungeon Master on June 30, 2012, 09:17:24 PMGiven that the government is then the largest health care provider in the country, it is in its own interests to make sure the health it delivers is efficient, economic, rational and evidence-based. While these ideals are not always met, there are constant reviews of policy to aim for that ideal.
You are probably aware of the recent hospital scandals in NSW, particularly the Royal North Shore Hospital - cockroaches on the operating table! Preemies in the public toilets! :o Some of this was due to budget-related staffing restrictions, some due to managerial negligence, or staff incompetence. The new government is supposedly fixing things - time will tell whether they are just rearranging the deck-chairs.
In the larger scheme, these are glitches. What really gets me is that we have been promised dental coverage for years, and it still hasn't come through. I have an impoverished friend with a head full of rotten teeth who has been waiting years for the chance to get some serious work done.
Quote from: Geo Dude on July 02, 2012, 03:46:52 PM
This seems a reasonable assessment. I've seen a lot of cries from the left lately about how it is necessary to vote for Obama (rather than staying home) and actively advocate for other people to vote for Obama because repeal of Obamacare is guaranteed if Romney wins. There seems to be some sort of idea in place that Romney has near magical powers of persuasion that will result in his being able to convince Congress to repeal it, no matter what the make-up of congress is during his presidency. I have some serious doubts. Even if he could persuade Congress to go along with the repeal (or had an unusually strong-willed group of Republicans running both houses of Congress that were adamant that it be repealed) I seriously doubt that he would have the spine to try to repeal it once it got rolling.
If the Republicans gain control of House and Senate, I figure that Romney would have no choice but to sign its repeal.
Quote from: Todd on July 02, 2012, 08:25:54 AM
Foes of Obamacare will have to learn to be okay with it, because it's not going to be repealed, even if Romney gets into the White House. Hell, if history is a guide (eg, Medicare Part D), government funded programs will mushroom in coming years. How can I get a piece of the action?
Same as always. Work for a congressman, then get a job lobbying for some company, then back working for congress, and back, and back; if you're telegenic maybe a stint on a news show telling people what your party wants us to believe, then back. Just swing through that revolving door till you're on the boards of half a dozen companies, funneling tax dollars or public goods into your Christmas bonus and calling it the free market. No change since the railroad barons.
Quote from: Sammy on July 02, 2012, 10:25:33 PMIf the Republicans gain control of House and Senate, I figure that Romney would have no choice but to sign its repeal.
If there are 41 or more Democrats in the Senate, Obamacare will not be repealed. Throw in insurance industry support - after all, they get millions of new customers by law - and it's hard to see how the major provisions get repealed. A provision here or there may get changed, but Obamacare as a whole is going nowhere. I can think of no major entitlement program that has shrunk or been eliminated once enacted.
Quote from: Todd on July 03, 2012, 06:30:52 AM
If there are 41 or more Democrats in the Senate, Obamacare will not be repealed. Throw in insurance industry support - after all, they get millions of new customers by law - and it's hard to see how the major provisions get repealed. A provision here or there may get changed, but Obamacare as a whole is going nowhere. I can think of no major entitlement program that has shrunk or been eliminated once enacted.
If it is a tax, they apparently would need only 50 as it could be approved a different way (the same way the original law was passed as I understand it).
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 03, 2012, 06:42:29 AMIf it is a tax, they apparently would need only 50 as it could be approved a different way (the same way the original law was passed as I understand it).
Someone with a detailed knowledge of all Senate rules would obviously have a better understanding of how and when this could come to a vote, and by what mechanisms, but let's assume only a simple majority is needed remove the mandate, with a strong Democratic Senate minority led by someone who is adept at the rules - Harry Reid, say - and all of the interested parties who benefit from the law (insurance companies, health care delivery companies, perhaps a few citizens) applying pressure, as well as the fact that whole-scale repeal would begin reversing some changes that have started being instituted, it's very hard to see how, even with an all-Republican government, the law gets repealed. Perhaps the next Congress will be more principled and less beholden to vocal and financially generous interests in their districts than the current Congress, but I have my doubts.
Quote from: Todd on July 03, 2012, 06:55:04 AM
Someone with a detailed knowledge of all Senate rules would obviously have a better understanding of how and when this could come to a vote, and by what mechanisms, but let's assume only a simple majority is needed remove the mandate, with a strong Democratic Senate minority led by someone who is adept at the rules - Harry Reid, say - and all of the interested parties who benefit from the law (insurance companies, health care delivery companies, perhaps a few citizens) applying pressure, as well as the fact that whole-scale repeal would begin reversing some changes that have started being instituted, it's very hard to see how, even with an all-Republican government, the law gets repealed. Perhaps the next Congress will be more principled and less beholden to vocal and financially generous interests in their districts than the current Congress, but I have my doubts.
AH HA! I found the article I read about this. The whole thing is here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/could-republicans-really-repeal-obamacare-091546012.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/could-republicans-really-repeal-obamacare-091546012.html)
But here is the relevant excerpt:
QuoteWhat about the filibuster? Don't you need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate?
Not in this case. Because Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion ruled the individual mandate a "tax," a Republican-led Senate could repeal that provision--and others--using what is called "budget reconciliation," a procedural tactic that requires only a simple majority vote. The Republican vice president, in this hypothetical scenario, would break the tie. (Democrats used the same method in 2010 to pass the health care bill.)
I would be much more supportive of any Republican initiative if I had even the vaguest hint of belief in the possibility that they intended to replace it with something better. But the fact of the matter is that if they manage in some way to get it repealed, there won't be even a salute to health care reform in my lifetime, or possibly ever at all. The intention of this drive is NOT to get a better health care plan in place, it is to remove any restraints whatsoever on health care providers. This is what has happened with telecommunications, and with the finance industry and many others. And isn't that working out nicely? ::)
So despite the fact that I am rather on the conservative side of several essential issues, I sure can't back them on this one. :-\
8)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 03, 2012, 09:58:24 AMBut here is the relevant excerpt:
I understand that using the budget reconciliation process makes it a simple majority vote, but there are other delaying tactics in the Senate. Just ask Mitch McConnell. Harry Reid and company have a lot of non-filibuster tools at their disposal (as well as filibustering other legislation just to slow the entire process down), they know how to use them, and they would fight as hard as McConnell has to slow down the Obama administration. And then there's the question of what, precisely, would be repealed. Repealing the ACA in its entirety is more challenging, since portions are in effect, and therefore there are already vested interests. The rhetorical (and principled?) target is the mandate, yes, and without that, some of the other elements of the plan are untenable – such as guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions – but eliminating those carry political risks that not all Republicans will be willing to accept.
There will definitely be a lot of political theater. Republicans now have a live horse to beat on for a while. But it's hard to see the confluence of events necessary to make swift repeal a possibility. That would require a Republican sweep at the national level, Democrats simply rolling over, and the beneficiaries of the law, including giant companies that stand to make tens of billions of dollars, simply accepting repeal. I'm not sure that the stars will align thusly.
The Democrats were smart in the way they approached the legislation. It was primarily a congressional undertaking (ie, the White House didn't send a big, detailed package to Congress), with lots of input from lobbyists, who give to both parties. This makes repeal in early 2013 very unlikely, and if it is not repealed by 2014, it's very difficult to see how repeal will ever be possible. I'm not familiar with large scale government programs that were subsequently killed (war time programs aside), and while that doesn't mean ACA won't be the first, I see it as improbable.
Test your knowledge of Obamacare with this handy quiz! (http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz) (I got 100%, but guessed on some of 'em.)
Quote from: Brian on July 03, 2012, 11:37:49 AMTest your knowledge of Obamacare with this handy quiz! (http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz) (I got 100%, but guessed on some of 'em.)
Were only all things in life as easy as this quiz. Seeing the low percentage of correct answers is somewhat disheartening, though not unexpected.
Quote from: Todd on July 03, 2012, 11:49:03 AM
Were only all things in life as easy as this quiz. Seeing the low percentage of correct answers is somewhat disheartening, though not unexpected.
I got 7 out of 10 simply by making educated guesses and I have made no effort whatsoever to learn about the law beyond the basic, broad details. I was particularly shocked that 55% of people got the death panels question wrong given that the 'death panels' were removed almost immediately after the lies about them started. Talk about an effective propaganda campaign.
Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on July 03, 2012, 10:42:41 AM
I would be much more supportive of any Republican initiative if I had even the vaguest hint of belief in the possibility that they intended to replace it with something better. But the fact of the matter is that if they manage in some way to get it repealed, there won't be even a salute to health care reform in my lifetime, or possibly ever at all. The intention of this drive is NOT to get a better health care plan in place, it is to remove any restraints whatsoever on health care providers. This is what has happened with telecommunications, and with the finance industry and many others. And isn't that working out nicely? ::)
So despite the fact that I am rather on the conservative side of several essential issues, I sure can't back them on this one. :-\
8)
The ironic thing is that single payer healthcare, or any other plan that would de-link employment and health insurance, would be excellent for businesses and the labor market, but almost any proposal that would have this effect is either a) bitterly opposed by the Republicans, those stalwart friends of business or b)so costly and confusing for individuals that it would either keep people from getting health insurance or keep them wedded to employer provided plans just like they are now.
When you come down to it, the Republican agenda on health care is anti--business. Anti almost anything else too except the possibility of making health care unaffordable for most people....
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 03, 2012, 06:37:22 PM
The ironic thing is that single payer healthcare, or any other plan that would de-link employment and health insurance, would be excellent for businesses and the labor market, but almost any proposal that would have this effect is either a) bitterly opposed by the Republicans, those stalwart friends of business or b)so costly and confusing for individuals that it would either keep people from getting health insurance or keep them wedded to employer provided plans just like they are now.
When you come down to it, the Republican agenda on health care is anti--business. Anti almost anything else too except the possibility of making health care unaffordable for most people....
Well, it's not strictly anti-business if you look at it from the right angle...I've heard one of the stand-ins on Rush Limbaugh's show argue that even without health care reform insurance should be de-coupled from employment because 'my employees' health issues have nothing to do with my business.' (or something along those lines, I'm paraphrasing) and therefore employees should have to take their paycheck and pay for insurance out of their own pocket. ::) Good luck getting Republican politicians to publicly admit to sharing this viewpoint, though.
My Republican ex-boss (left last week) volunteered to me the opinion that instead of Obamacare, we should ban all health insurance. I was speechless.
Quote from: Brian on July 03, 2012, 07:14:25 PM
My Republican ex-boss (left last week) volunteered to me the opinion that instead of Obamacare, we should ban all health insurance. I was speechless.
Republicans have a strange fantasy that health insurance, encourages people to overuse doctors, etc.; and interferes with people being able to find out the cheapest prices/fees--in other words, cuts down on the ability to shop for doctors and hospitals. People direclty spending their own money would be more careful how much they spend, of course, so in part that's true, but it's mostly unrealistic. If you're in an accident or life threatening emergency, the last thing you're going to worry about is how much you're being charged, and there's no time to call different hospitals to see if they will charge less. Most consumer goods are subject to price competition because consumers are able to search out the best price if they want to. That's not true in most fields of medicine, and the more important the medicine involved, the less able consumers are to find out prices.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 03, 2012, 09:29:16 PM
Republicans have a strange fantasy that health insurance, encourages people to overuse doctors, etc.; and interferes with people being able to find out the cheapest prices/fees--in other words, cuts down on the ability to shop for doctors and hospitals. People direclty spending their own money would be more careful how much they spend, of course, so in part that's true, but it's mostly unrealistic. If you're in an accident or life threatening emergency, the last thing you're going to worry about is how much you're being charged, and there's no time to call different hospitals to see if they will charge less. Most consumer goods are subject to price competition because consumers are able to search out the best price if they want to. That's not true in most fields of medicine, and the more important the medicine involved, the less able consumers are to find out prices.
They also have a strange fantasy that Obama-care is a conspiracy designed to replace insurance companies by forcing them out of business. Among other things, my father has informed me that the Heritage Foundation (or maybe it was Human Events, I can't be bothered to remember the details) has 'discovered' a rule within the bill which stipulates that if your insurance company makes changes to your policy that they must hand over their customers to medicare (or perhaps some shady new government insurance company that is being hidden from the public) and therefore the insurance companies will be dropping like flies since they tend to make small alterations to their policies on a yearly basis. Rather strange that none of the insurance companies have discovered this plot and tried to inform the public about it given how much they have to lose.
EDIT: Speaking of strange fantasies, Rush Limbaugh was on earlier today and ranting about how Obamacare is intentionally designed to be complex and messy because that will force the government to make 'adjustments' which will result in the government gaining more power. He continued on to say that the motivation behind Obamacare had nothing whatsoever to do with helping people have access to health care and was entirely about expanding the government and having more control over citizens with the idea of access to health care being a trojan horse. Whatever one thinks of Obamacare (or Obama) I think that he was overplaying his hand, to say the least.
Quote from: Geo Dude on July 03, 2012, 09:47:11 PM
They also have a strange fantasy that Obama-care is a conspiracy designed to replace insurance companies by forcing them out of business. Among other things, my father has informed me that the Heritage Foundation (or maybe it was Human Events, I can't be bothered to remember the details) has 'discovered' a rule within the bill which stipulates that if your insurance company makes changes to your policy that they must hand over their customers to medicare (or perhaps some shady new government insurance company that is being hidden from the public) and therefore the insurance companies will be dropping like flies since they tend to make small alterations to their policies on a yearly basis. Rather strange that none of the insurance companies have discovered this plot and tried to inform the public about it given how much they have to lose.
EDIT: Speaking of strange fantasies, Rush Limbaugh was on earlier today and ranting about how Obamacare is intentionally designed to be complex and messy because that will force the government to make 'adjustments' which will result in the government gaining more power. He continued on to say that the motivation behind Obamacare had nothing whatsoever to do with helping people have access to health care and was entirely about expanding the government and having more control over citizens with the idea of access to health care being a trojan horse. Whatever one thinks of Obamacare (or Obama) I think that he was overplaying his hand, to say the least.
There is some rule that limits how employers can make changes to employee health plans, and which it is claimed (by the Republicans) will force employers to drop health care benefits and force people into government run exchanges.
That might be the rule your father heard about.
And Limbaugh is saying the same things that appear almost every day on conservative blogs. The GOP is energetically preaching the idea that Obamacare is the mechanism that will turn the US into a totalitarian state, and that the US medical system will soon be reduced to the same low level as the UK's NHS. You, the National Health Service run by the dictatorial British government.....
EDIT: You have to understand. American conservatives believe that the greatness of the US medical system does not lie in how many people it cures/saves lives/etc., but that the greatness of the US medical system lies in the fact that Americans can currently choose whatever doctor,hospital they want and pay through the nose for the privilege. Yes, any American can take advantage of all the miracle drugs and technology they want, as long as they have the money to actually pay for it. And those that don't have the money--well, they can take solace in the fact that if they had enough money, they would have been able to be cured too.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 04, 2012, 05:59:36 AM
There is some rule that limits how employers can make changes to employee health plans, and which it is claimed (by the Republicans) will force employers to drop health care benefits and force people into government run exchanges.
That might be the rule your father heard about.
Most likely, but they've taken the propaganda a step further and claimed that it also applies to insurance plans that are paid for by individuals rather than employers, and therefore people are likely to lose any insurance they have and be forced onto the government system. Anything to keep the anti-Obama machine rolling.
By the way, I'm very happy to speak to someone of a libertarian orientation that can discuss this issue sanely. I'm something of an unorthodox libertarian myself and it's been very sad for me to see sites like CATO (not so surprising, I suppose) and Reason take a hard-line Republican stance on the matter from day one and brook no reasonable opposition of any kind. (Your point about how a system that decouples employment from insurance would be good for businesses, for example.) I believe strongly in keeping an eye on government and watching for signs of abuse of power but it has been taken into insane levels of paranoia.
Quote from: Geo Dude on July 04, 2012, 06:18:51 AM
By the way, I'm very happy to speak to someone of a libertarian orientation that can discuss this issue sanely. I'm something of an unorthodox libertarian myself and it's been very sad for me to see sites like CATO (not so surprising, I suppose) and Reason take a hard-line Republican stance on the matter from day one and brook no reasonable opposition of any kind. (Your point about how a system that decouples employment from insurance would be good for businesses, for example.) I believe strongly in keeping an eye on government and watching for signs of abuse of power but it has been taken into insane levels of paranoia.
Thank you. It comes from the fact that I was born and raised a Democrat, and still maintain my registration as a Democrat. In fact, I often find it handy to label myself as a "blue dog Democrat" in general conversation, as people understand that more than they understand "libertarian".
But I could never think of voting for any Republican presidential candidate. The dangers of GOP foreign policy are worse than any type of Obama domestic policy. (Of course, it's not easy to find the difference between Obama's foreign policy and GOP foreign policy, except the propaganda labels.) The only GOP candidate I would have voted for is Ron Paul, and you see how well received he was by the GOP faithful. As it is, I wil probably vote in November for Gary Johnson, candidate for the Libertarian party--meaningless, of course, except as a good way of saying "Pox on both your houses!" to the two main wings of the Duopoly.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 04, 2012, 07:11:54 AM
Thank you. It comes from the fact that I was born and raised a Democrat, and still maintain my registration as a Democrat. In fact, I often find it handy to label myself as a "blue dog Democrat" in general conversation, as people understand that more than they understand "libertarian".
But I could never think of voting for any Republican presidential candidate. The dangers of GOP foreign policy are worse than any type of Obama domestic policy. (Of course, it's not easy to find the difference between Obama's foreign policy and GOP foreign policy, except the propaganda labels.) The only GOP candidate I would have voted for is Ron Paul, and you see how well received he was by the GOP faithful. As it is, I wil probably vote in November for Gary Johnson, candidate for the Libertarian party--meaningless, of course, except as a good way of saying "Pox on both your houses!" to the two main wings of the Duopoly.
I'm pretty much on the same street as you. I was always registered as a Democrat but eventually came to the conclusion that both major parties sucked. So I'm now registered as Libertarian and will definitely vote for Gary. Some folks scoff at my selection, stating that my vote will just be wasted. I don't feel that way - every vote (and non-vote also) tells us something.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 04, 2012, 07:11:54 AM
In fact, I often find it handy to label myself as a "blue dog Democrat" in general conversation, as people understand that more than they understand "libertarian".
I know what you mean. My position is complicated even more because I have strong left-wing tendencies when it comes to certain environmental issues (wilderness preservation in particular) and while the standard term for my set of viewpoints is 'green libertarian' people who
do know what a libertarian is are either shocked by the idea of an environmentally friendly libertarian existing (too much CATO?) or think that a 'green libertarian' is someone who wants pot legalized even more than your average libertarian. As a result of this I've settled on 'unorthodox libertarian' because 'What the
hell is a libertarian?' can make an interesting conversation starter.
I come from a significantly different background than you or Sammy, or most of the members of this board, I would guess: My family (parents and extended) started out as paleo-conservatives simply by farm family tradition and are too locked into tribal Us vs Them politics to see how much the Republican party has changed since the late '60s/ early '70s when they came of age, politically speaking. (Not to say that it was great then, but could you imagine a modern Republican president signing, much less fighting for, the Endangered Species Act? At that time there was at least room for dissent.) They're all lost in a quagmire consisting of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Worldnutdaily, Heritage Foundation, and conservative e-mail forwards and can't see out of it. When Republicans advertise positions they oppose (repealing the minimum wage law, for example) they're thoroughly convinced that those are just a fringe group. These are all intelligent people by the way, so it terrifies me to see how easily they've been brainwashed - and what this (admittedly small) sample size might have to say about the population at large. If anyone's wondering I propose no solution to this and contrary to what some members have advocated in the past I certainly don't think that banning Fox News, for example, is the correct way to deal with this.
In short: I grew up in a home where medical marijuana is just an excuse to smoke dope, the Iraq War was only opposed by filthy hippies who think we should never go to war, even for defensive purposes, and anyone who votes Democrat is just a lazy bastard looking to have the government steal your money so they don't have to work. Fortunately, I discovered the internet. :D
Quote from: Brian on July 03, 2012, 07:14:25 PMMy Republican ex-boss (left last week) volunteered to me the opinion that instead of Obamacare, we should ban all health insurance. I was speechless.
There's no cure for stupid.
Quote from: Geo Dude on July 04, 2012, 12:54:00 PMI grew up in a home where medical marijuana is just an excuse to smoke dope
It is. "Medical" marijuana is one of the most blatantly dishonest political campaigns in the US. I'd have far more respect for its proponents if they simply and consistently came out and said that they want to end prohibition of marijuana, that doing so would reduce the financial and social costs associated with this particular aspect of the war on drugs, that adults should be able to smoke it if they so choose, and that it should be legalized rather than the sanctimonious claptrap about how it will help people with various ailments. And the arguments for using hemp as an industrial product again need to be dropped. The continued use of this argument shows that the people supporting it are indeed smoking the wacky tobacky.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 04, 2012, 07:11:54 AMThe dangers of GOP foreign policy are worse than any type of Obama domestic policy. (Of course, it's not easy to find the difference between Obama's foreign policy and GOP foreign policy, except the propaganda labels.)
There is little to no difference between the parties when it comes to foreign policy. Dubya started one war with popular support, which our current President has called a good war, and one war that initially had support from the public and both parties, though it was, presumably, a bad war in the end. Obama hasn't invaded any countries in the same fashion, but he sent more troops to Afghanistan, has ratcheted up drone attacks in friendly nations, expanded the scope of drone use, has taken on the duty of personally selecting targets to murder, set up more operations in Africa, and failed to close Gitmo. Before Bush, Clinton occasionally used cruise missiles against various targets and directed the bombing of European cities. (There are people who claim that Clinton is a war criminal and should be prosecuted by the ICC - good luck with that.) Bush Sr of course had the first Gulf War, but he had the good sense to make it truly multilateral, and he had James Baker to strong arm the Saudis into paying a good chunk of the bill. He also took out Noriega, which seems to be less noted nowadays. The late- and post-Cold War United States has been quite assertive in foreign policy, and it won't change depending on the party in charge.
Quote from: Todd on July 04, 2012, 01:42:53 PM
It is. "Medical" marijuana is one of the most blatantly dishonest political campaigns in the US. I'd have far more respect for its proponents if they simply and consistently came out and said that they want to end prohibition of marijuana, that doing so would reduce the financial and social costs associated with this particular aspect of the war on drugs, that adults should be able to smoke it if they so choose, and that it should be legalized rather than the sanctimonious claptrap about how it will help people with various ailments.
While I agree that it is often used dishonestly as an argument by people who want to end marijuana prohibition it does have medical uses (helping with nausea during cancer treatment, for example). Perhaps I should have been more clear: What I heard in my home is that every person who has ever used marijuana for medical purposes (including countries where it is legal) was just doing so because they wanted to get high and that it has no medical benefits whatsoever, and to hell with evidence to the contrary.
QuoteAnd the arguments for using hemp as an industrial product again need to be dropped. The continued use of this argument shows that the people supporting it are indeed smoking the wacky tobacky.
I've always felt that argument to be particularly stupid given that the government could simply say 'Okay, we'll legalize hemp plants that have a low THC content for use as an industrial product and keep those gardens well regulated.'
By the way, when you said that I couldn't help but think of this:
http://youtu.be/e3C9rMIRuF8
Spot on.