Well then, allow me to address your argument based on semantics and rephrase my assertion to say "All of the things the government does in that example were put in place b/c the private sector couldn't or wouldn't do it in a way that benefits the general public."

8/9/2009 4:55:37 PM

That is an entirely different assertion than the first, but equally as questionable. I will leave it there given the subject of this thread.

8/9/2009 5:06:27 PM

I find it rather telling that none of you on the right felt inclined to refute the video from page 12 that Supplanter posted. . .

8/9/2009 5:58:29 PM

I didnt watch it. Its rachel maddow. Its like getting your news from SNL only without some of the facts.

8/9/2009 6:14:26 PM

that's the spirit.

8/9/2009 6:18:30 PM

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Let that put an end to the constitutional question.

8/9/2009 6:40:11 PM

Under today's bastardized interpretation of the commerce clause, it is difficult to argue a universal health-care scheme is outside the purview of the commerce clause. The original intention of the commerce clause was to prevent restrictions on inter-state trade (e.g. state-level tariffs). Unfortunately, a number of SC judges (particularly during the New Deal) have gradually expanded the scope of the commerce clause based on their own interpretation of what the clause ought to mean as opposed to what it did mean to those who ratified it. (i.e. bypassing congress and the states in changing the meaning of the constitution)

[Edited on August 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2009 7:56:52 PM

So given that consumers can't buy health insurance across state lines, what part of health insurance is interstate commerce?

8/9/2009 9:02:21 PM

^

?

I live in VA. I get health insurance from my job who pays me from NJ. My insurer for VA is based in MD.

8/9/2009 9:16:32 PM

^^Congress has the constitutional right to pass a law forbidding such restrictions, but my guess is they have not done so given the lobbying efforts of state governments, who use mandates to satisfy their political ends, and insurance companies, who prefer the limited competition.

^ Large employers self-insure and thus are exempt from state regulations under ERISA

[Edited on August 9, 2009 at 9:27 PM. Reason : ,]

8/9/2009 9:21:15 PM

^^^It's also been arguably expanded to reach anything that affects interstate commerce.

8/9/2009 10:05:35 PM

Quote :

"I didnt watch it. Its rachel maddow. Its like getting your news from SNL only without some of the facts."

How can you possibly know if you don't watch the show?

8/9/2009 10:21:20 PM

Conservatism And Healthcare

Quote :

"I find myself again in agreement with David Frum. It was one thing to oppose greater government involvement in healthcare in 1993. It is another to do so in 2009. There are several reasons for this and it is hard to improve on David's summary of them. The status quo means: "(1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments. We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion." I'd add the crippling health costs for the private sector - costs that are slowly killing their global competitiveness. But the deepest reason for reform is fiscal. No serious plan to reduce deficits without hugely increasing taxes excludes healthcare savings. There's no way to get from spiraling debt to stable public finances without tackling the exponentially rising costs of healthcare. So this is a fiscally conservative issue. Instead of pulling a Palin, conservatives should propose real reforms: ending the tax exemption for businesses; medical malpractice reform; an independent body to provide some kind of data on the relative effectiveness of treatments; incentives to reward doctors less for any and all services provided than for health outcomes within clear budgets. This, actually, is not far from the Romney model, as the NYT notes today. Real conservatives should point out that the current proposals are not tough enough on costs - and criticize Obama for that, not for fantasies like a communist takeover or euthanasia program for special needs kids. The Romney-Obama model will require fiscal boundaries to healthcare provision and this will mean a trade-off that will be hard to postpone much longer. We'll get less innovation, and probably some rationing at some point. But that is already happening - the rationing is done by insurance companies. One final thing: most Americans do not want people dying in the streets. If you have guaranteed emergency room care for the uninsured at public expense, you have already effectively socialized medicine. It makes no sense not to bring these people into the insurance system, and to offer less expensive, long-term preventive healthcare. To insist that ideology stand in the way of this piece of compassionate common sense is irresponsible. I've come to accept that the fiscal and economic costs of the current system, however wonderful it has been for a few decades, simply cannot be sustained much longer. I say that not because I have become a socialist, but because the US is on the brink of the kind of bankruptcy it will be very hard to recover from if we do not tackle its source now. Taking measures to avoid fiscal collapse even greater than today's is a conservative impulse. Letting one sector of the economy destroy the rest of it - and public finances too - is sheer recklessness. What do you want, GOP? A permanent populist culture-war? Or actual solutions to pressing problems? Let us know when you've matured enough to answer that question."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/conservatism-and-healthcare.html

[Edited on August 9, 2009 at 11:50 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2009 11:50:08 PM

that's funny. because gov't involvement in healthcare is what has caused those 4 things he mentioned in the 2nd-ish paragraph. How, then, is more gov't the solution, again?

8/10/2009 12:11:55 AM

Healthcare has a largely inelastic demand. When you get sick, you don't call around and price shop, especially for emergency care. Its not like shopping around for a used car or an XBox 360 game. There's not enough competition in healthcare to keep prices down. Only one side has the information and the organization to effectively negotiate prices, and then they lobby and get decisionmakers to create policies that empower them even more. That is not a free market, that is an anti-competitive market. And at least the government does not have a financial incentive to drop my coverage or deny my claims to satiate some "shareholder" somewhere.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 12:55 AM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 12:52:23 AM

couple questions about the bill and I'm hoping someone on here is a lawyer or knows legal speak. I am simply posting a specific line in the health bill (with the exact location of it) and am hoping that someone can either confirm or deny (with actual proof) my take on what it says. Since I haven't read everything and even if I had, I'd be lying if I said I understood what they were referring to in each line, so perhaps we can at least agree on what it says, regardless of whether or not we/you/I think it is right/wrong or good/bad.

quick link http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
First up: page 59, lines 21-24

Quote :

"(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;"

This says to me that the govt will have access to everyone's bank accounts in order to transfer funds in/out.

8/10/2009 4:58:46 AM

^
I assume you're referring to the House bill.

I've found through looking through it that it's most comprehensible to take into context the entire section of any given subsection.

That being said, most of what I have gathered is that the bill primarily provides provisions for various different services regarding a wide range of aspects concerning health care.

Automatic funds transfer, I assume, would be no different than what millions of Americans already elect as their preferred payment method to thousands of corporations for countless services.

8/10/2009 5:53:12 AM

^^i really doubt it. especially considering plenty of americans don't have bank accounts.

and that seems to say to me that they will have to allow for electronic funds transfers. not that they will require them.


this is what it is amending:
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1173.htm


[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 7:49 AM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 7:35:53 AM

Oh, sweet Jesus!

'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
By Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer
August 10, 2009

Quote :

"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html

I didn't hear shit from these clowns when conservatives were shouted down and attacked on campuses across this country. Typical left-wing loons--silence the opposition by any means necessary.

8/10/2009 7:50:27 AM

Quote :

"when conservatives were shouted down and attacked on campuses across this country"

really now?

Quote :

"silence the opposition by any means necessary"

isn't that kind of the point of this shouting down of town hall meetings?

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 7:51:33 AM

I don't think people should be shouting down others--I've been consistent in this. And concerning health care, I would much rather see a reasoned debate and discussion in the arena of ideas.

But my point is that I didn't see Pelosi et al anywhere in sight when conservatives were being verbally and physically attacked. But now that it's happening to liberal Democrats, it's suddenly somehow "un-American."

In any event, I think the type of uproarious meetings we've seen are quintessentially American. For God's sake, haven't Pelosi and Hoyer ever seen The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance?

8/10/2009 8:20:09 AM

The Democrats are running scared because they know that either their political careers or the pack of lies they are selling is doomed.

8/10/2009 8:27:54 AM

Not to defend the liberal democrat healthcare boondoggle or say that two wrongs make a right but the rhetoric

Quote :

"'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate "

sounds exactly like what many Republicans on capital hill would have said to anyone in opposition to the gross abuses of power executed by the white house in the name of national security, war in iraq, passing of the "Patriot" Fascism Acts, etc

I supposed when shitty legislation comes from your own party than its best to respect and follow your leader as its the
patriotic thing to do.

when the shitty legislation comes from the opposition party or they denounce said legislation or acts than those people are unamerican or unpatriotic.

8/10/2009 8:35:16 AM

^ Except. . .

Quote :

"The [Patriot] Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

Quote :

"YEAs -- 98 NAYs -- 1 Not Voting -- 1"

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 8:43 AM. Reason : Don't try to rewrite history, dude. ]

8/10/2009 8:41:36 AM

Quote :

"they know that either their political careers or the pack of lies they are selling is doomed."

Actually, I'd argue the opposite. They really don't have to worry about their careers at all. Unless they're selling weapons to Al Qaeda, politicians' respective parties will always overlook any fucked up thing they do.

8/10/2009 8:52:29 AM

Quote :

"YEAs -- 98 NAYs -- 1 Not Voting -- 1"

One month after 9/11.

In 2005:

Quote :

"Aye: 257 (59%) Nay: 171 (39%)"

8/10/2009 9:03:48 AM

Quote :

"But my point is that I didn't see Pelosi et al anywhere in sight when conservatives were being verbally and physically attacked."

i just don't remember this happening much. and certainly not any more frequently than at any other time.

8/10/2009 9:09:01 AM

^ What, conservatives being attacked?! Meet my thread about it:

message_topic.aspx?topic=500124&page=1

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 9:33 AM. Reason : And have you already forgotten the Tancredo incident at UNC?]

8/10/2009 9:23:23 AM

i'm sorry if i don't feel sorry for the conservative pundits like buchanan and coulter trying to get a rise out of people. that is the entire point of their careers. and really i don't see the list in that thread as particularly long or impressive in regards to liberal attacks on conservatives. i could probably find an equally damning list about conservatives just from tea parties or people threatening ACORN employees.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 9:35 AM. Reason : omg a pie!!!]

^did i say it had never happened? i just don't think the equivalence is there.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 9:36 AM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 9:34:32 AM

Quote :

" I'd add the crippling health costs for the private sector - costs that are slowly killing their global competitiveness. "

Not true. The costs are passed on to employees, who receive either lower cash wages, lower non-health benefits (e.g. lower 401k matches) or a combination of the two. Health-care costs, therefore, have no affect on U.S. business’ global competitiveness.

Quote :

" Instead of pulling a Palin, conservatives should propose real reforms: ending the tax exemption for businesses; medical malpractice reform; an independent body to provide some kind of data on the relative effectiveness of treatments; incentives to reward doctors less for any and all services provided than for health outcomes within clear budgets. "

Quote :

" What do you want, GOP? A permanent populist culture-war? Or actual solutions to pressing problems? Let us know when you've matured enough to answer that question." "

Thus far, the GOP plan out there, the Patient’s Choice Act, is the only plan to actually address the incentive structure that is necessary for lower costs. If anything, the plans from the democrats expand on the status quo: ever-expanding subsidies without regard to the underlying problem of rising health-care costs.

Quote :

" Healthcare has a largely inelastic demand. When you get sick, you don't call around and price shop"

It is relatively inelastic, but in no way perfectly inelastic. Real-world examples of this would be LASIK and elective surgeries, where suppliers have to compete on quality and price given their consumers foot most of the bill and thus price shop. The result has been significant advances in technology that actually reduce prices - just as in every other sector of our economy where the consumer foots the bill.

Another example would be treatments for slow, growing early-stage prostate cancer. There are five different treatment options, but none has been shown to be more effective than the others. One is to basically do nothing, another involves a 23k surgery and another involves 100k radiation therapy. If patients were not given blank checks, they would be asking more questions about the latter two and a sufficient number would choose the former.

Additionally, there is little incentive for providers to weigh the costs and benefits of expensive medical equipment. They, therefore, often buy the latest and greatest despite how much value is added relative to costs.

Quote :

" That is not a free market, that is an anti-competitive market. "

It is anti-competitive precisely because of government regulations. The solution should not be more government regulations.

Quote :

" And at least the government does not have a financial incentive to drop my coverage or deny my claims to satiate some “shareholder” somewhere. "

Firstly, there are a plethora of non-profit health-insurance companies, none of whom has shown to deny fewer claims. Secondly, as mentioned before, there is no reason to believe the government does not have an incentive to deny fewer claims. MassHealth has the highest claim rejection in the entire state of Massachusetts. Lastly, in a competitive market, insurance firms would care more about their reputations than they do now and would thus try to avoid getting a bad rap in order to stay in business. They have less of an incentive (although it is obviously still present) to do so now because regulations prevent out-of-state competition and employer-sponsored plans lead employees to be stuck with the one-sized-fits all plan chosen for them by their employers.



[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 9:39 AM. Reason : ,]

8/10/2009 9:36:03 AM

Quote :

"The [Patriot] Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties.""

ya b.c anyone that would have voted against this or dissented some parts of the act likely would have been labelled a turrist sympathizer
or "soft" on national defence.

Quote :

"It is relatively inelastic, but in no way perfectly inelastic"

I'd say a large part of health care is Elastic

If i'm feeling sick but not necessarily running a 104 deg temperature; I could just go home and tough it out.

On the other hand this wednesday I'm having an endoscopy down my throat due to some acid reflux taht has gotten really bad. My co-insurance is
$67. If i had to pay out of pocket $700 (espicially if i did not have a job); I may have just elected to pop a tums everyday and sweat it out.

A different example is when i was a sophmore in college and had a broken finger that healed up incorrectly and needed to be reset. Had i been someone with no support
or medical insurance; there is no way I would have been able to afford the $5000+ in surgical and follow up visits. I would have been
just fine using that finger except for the fact it was crooked.

8/10/2009 10:38:35 AM

Quote :

"ya b.c anyone that would have voted against this or dissented some parts of the act likely would have been labelled a turrist sympathizer or 'soft' on national defence."

So they didn't have the courage of their convictions? Dude, just STFU.

First, a growing number of people have genuine concerns about the health-care reform process--and there isn't even one bill to consider at this point.

And this type of concern about health-care reform is nothing new. Watch Dan Rostenkowski get run off from a meeting back in the early '90s (he later went to prison):

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8287296

8/10/2009 10:57:27 AM

I forgot to also mention in my previous post that the 15-year RAND health-insurance experiment concluded that there was no significant difference in the health outcomes between those who paid zero out-of-pocket and those who paid high coinsurance rates despite the former group using services much more often.

8/10/2009 11:23:17 AM

What are you telling me to "STFU" about.

I was in a large part agreeing with you and talking shit about Pelosi's comments as well as my concerns over the healthcare bill.
This was your chance to be like "yeah no matter who does this they are wrong.

Instead you actually indirectly support my argument through example. So anyone who voted against the said actions in the 2001-2003 era are unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers yet those who supported it lacked the balls and were pussies for following along.

So when push comes to shove you do in fact hooksaw care more about carrying the party line, dissenting teh opposition at all costs (even in the rare case the logic circuits in your brain turn on to recognize an instance the democrats MAY be right about any particular issue), and playing partisan hack (b.c it makes everything way more exciting like having a UNC v NCSU game 52 weeks a year).

Surely compromise and working together to find the best solution for all of america (not just special interests, big corporations, and minority poor voters) is unpatriotic pussy silly stuff.



[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM. Reason : a]

8/10/2009 11:31:14 AM

^ You must be stupid or something. This is the deal on the Patriot Act:

Quote :

"The [Patriot] Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

Period. Anything else is just your buffoonish and skewed take on just about everything.

Many, many people--including lawmakers on both sides of the aisle--are having trouble with the details (if they can find them) in the half dozen or so health-care reform bills going around. And the people referring to the opposition as "astroturf" are simply attempting Alinsky-style misdirection to take attention off their failings.

The Democrats are so determined to win here that they're probably going to use a provision known as "reconciliation"--during which a bill cannot be filibustered--to ram this sucker through. I find this disturbing, to say the least.

FTR--and for the gazzilionth time--I'm not a member of any political party, so I don't toe anybody's line. If you like, you go right ahead and "compromise" your principles concerning the issue in question--I'd rather not.

8/10/2009 12:00:29 PM

Quote :

"so I don't toe anybody's line"

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=566787

8/10/2009 12:04:41 PM

Quote :

"Instead of pulling a Palin, conservatives should propose real reforms: ending the tax exemption for businesses; medical malpractice reform; an independent body to provide some kind of data on the relative effectiveness of treatments; incentives to reward doctors less for any and all services provided than for health outcomes within clear budgets. This, actually, is not far from the Romney model, as the NYT notes today. Real conservatives should point out that the current proposals are not tough enough on costs - and criticize Obama for that, not for fantasies like a communist takeover or euthanasia program for special needs kids. "

pretty sure this is what i've been trying to point out all this time. Neither the current plan or proposed legislation does enough to control costs. As i said previously in my big ass post full o' words we need to fix underlying problems first before we attempt healthcare.

8/10/2009 12:06:04 PM

To be honest, without Republicans acting in good faith to limit the cost of this reform, it more than likely will be much more expensive than it should be.

But yeah, the base responds better to retarded youtube videos, it seems.

8/10/2009 12:12:24 PM

^^^ If I were, I would--but I'm not.

Quote :

"Troll much?"

8/10/2009 12:21:14 PM

If you want to play the independent card, you're going to have to disagree with Republicans at some point.

8/10/2009 12:22:34 PM

The republicans are perfect though! They always act in a patriotic American way and always support the bills most fulfilling to freedom, Jesus, and the interests of all American people. The democrats though are just freedom hating communists that are just trying to win the minority vote by handing out welfare checks and destroying big businesses. They also threaten national security by attempting a pussy thing called "diplomacy" instead of just sending in (or threatening to send in) the tanks and making all the evil doers in other countries agree with our values in liberty.

8/10/2009 12:29:47 PM

^^ and ^ You're both idiot trolls.

Quote :

"There are a number of issues that I have disagreed with President Bush about: spending, border enforcement, stem cell research, and so on."

hooksaw

message_topic.aspx?topic=504034

8/10/2009 12:32:02 PM

That's hilarious.

Because those three things are the same three things every other Republican didn't like about George Bush, too.

8/10/2009 12:35:56 PM

^ And? Except I'm not a Republican--do mine have to be different? Says who, you?

And that is not an all-inclusive list, dumbass. Perhaps I'll provide one for you sometime--in the meantime, you can piss off, idiot troll.

8/10/2009 12:46:28 PM

"I'm a Republican! Except I'm not!"

And then the classic hooksaw personal attack. The hallmark of a winning argument.

8/10/2009 12:53:36 PM

Quote :

"Because those three things are the same three things every other Republican Conservative didn't like about George Bush, too."

There, fixed it for you.

FYI, Conservatives called Republicans out on spending in GW's last term. This, in part, caused the Republican party lost its Conservative base.

If this had been earlier in American history, we would have seen the Republican party diappear and some new party take its place, maybe Libertarian. Of course, this isn't going to happen now since the Government rigs ballots with Ds and Rs and straight ticket voting.

Democrats, on the other hand, complained about the national deficit and the spending, under Bush's terms, but all of a sudden have no problem with it now that Obama is in charge......

I'd much rather go to a deregulated private health care system than a massive, beuracratic health care system. I'm telling you guys right now, if this passes and middle class tax rates increase, there is going to be hell to pay.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 12:57:11 PM

Quote :

"Republican party lost its Conservative base"

WHAT DIMENSION/UNIVERSE ARE YOU LIVING IN?

HOW ARE YOU COMMUNICATING WITH THIS DIMENSION/UNIVERSE?

Quote :

"there is going to be hell to pay"

More youtube videos?

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2009 1:03:42 PM

^Boone, I truly feel sorry for you if you dont remember that basically EVERY NEWS SHOW IN THE NATION was covering the implosion of the Republican party late last year/early this year. A 2 year old has a better memory than that.

And this has nothing to do with Youtube. If the middle class has to pick up any burden to pay for worse healtcare than what it already recieves, there is going to be a backlash.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 1:12:43 PM

If you can identify a single member of the conservative base who voted for Obama, I'll concede that you might not be posting via interdimensional wormhole.

8/10/2009 1:17:57 PM

Quote :

"FYI, Conservatives called Republicans out on spending in GW's last term. This, in part, caused the Republican party lost its Conservative base."

Lol so says Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh.

I think merely a particular wing of the GOP became ever so dominant during the 90's that culminated with the election of George Dubya, Cheney, and friends.

Their ideas and politics are slightly offset than the traditional "Conservative" platform and are a little to controversial with to much gov't involvement to interest the moderate Republican and Libertarian crowd.

Don't act like though the GOP has "lost" its conservative base. No way in hell do i see an american flag waving, nascar loving, small gov't, Jesus fanatic individual that represents the Conservative base ever stepping across the aisle to vote on Obama and Friends.

8/10/2009 1:23:38 PM