Political discussion thread

JJLehto wrote: , but for those that are pro-life their taxes can't go to funding abortion.

I am pro-peace. So my taxes shouldn't fund war?

IVNORD wrote: birdwithteeth11 wrote: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law. Could you provide a link

I don't have a link. All I know is it came from a website called Investor's Business Daily. Not sure how accurate the information is, or if the site is a reliable source. So take it for what you will I guess.

The main thing that concerns me about this plan is the fact that the government could create a single payer plan to compete against private health insurance companies, and most of said companies would probably be killed off if they were forced to compete against the government. Well, that and we can't afford to have a $1-$1.3 trillion health care overhaul.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: IVNORD wrote: birdwithteeth11 wrote: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law. Could you provide a link I don't have a link. All I know is it came from a website called Investor's Business Daily. Not sure how accurate the information is, or if the site is a reliable source. So take it for what you will I guess.

I've heard it on some conservative talk show with the number quoted as high as 130 million. It sounds like scare tactics. You really have to read the entire piece.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: The main thing that concerns me about this plan is the fact that the government could create a single payer plan to compete against private health insurance companies, and most of said companies would probably be killed off if they were forced to compete against the government. Well, that and we can't afford to have a $1-$1.3 trillion health care overhaul.

It remains to be seen... competition with private insurance cos could be extremely expensive. They will have to heavily subsidise the single payer to provide comparable benefits. Unless Obama manages to talk the doctors into drastically cutting their rates and provide the same care, which I sincerely doubt will happen. We all know how well (and fast) HMO doctors work. Even those a****les who applauded him when he virtually told the AMA that he will cut their earnings will realize that making 50k a year will never pay their student loans.

As soon as you make health insurance provided for all by the government, the duplicate administration costs and the excessive CEO salaries will vanish.  Having one set of paperwork for doctors to have to deal with will reduce their costs.  Granted some CEO's, healthcare insurance administrators, and paper shufflers will be put out of work.  If these companies can't compete with a public plan then screw them.  On the bright side at least they will have their healthcare insured.  The big bogeyman floated out there, when the Clinton administration tried to do really nominal reforms, faceless government buerocrats, really pales in comparison to faceless corporate buerocrats.  (Granted they didn't have the right solution but it was better than the status quo) 

So what did we get?  Ever escalating costs for healthcare on every front.  Be it insurance or prescriptions, etc.

Edited by Slartibartfast - July 17 2009 at 21:54

Slartibartfast wrote: As soon as you make health insurance provided for all by the government, the duplicate administration costs and the excessive CEO salaries will vanish.

So you promote a government monopoly on health care insurance? THat's for the government who breaks up companies and doesn't let them merge  to prevent them from monopolizing everything because competition is good? And you call yourself a liberal?

JJLehto wrote: But IVNORD....if private companies can't compete and fail.....well isn't that Libertarianism?

I thought that was Corporate Welfare.

JJLehto wrote: But IVNORD....if private companies can't compete and fail.....well isn't that Libertarianism?

You confuse things. When companies compete free market style the field is levelled, if you fail you fail. Either your business model is bad or your competitors are smarter.  If you compete against the federal government, it can crush you either thru legislation of financially by pouring money into their public system until you're out of business. In case of thye health insurance industry, the feds may subsidize the public option at the rate $1,000 for every dollar a consumer pays. Or $10,000, or picjk any number you like. They may do it at a tremendous loss but they dont care as long as it suits their political goals. Insurance cos cant afford such luxury, they work for profit. THey have to sell you an insurance policy at a reasonable price so they could earn your business and at the same time pay their business costs and make a profit. Say, they sell it to you for $15,000, and you pay the deductible on the first $1,000 in bills, and 20% of every bill thereafter, it comes to $20,000 out of your pocket. THey plan on paying out $18,000 and pocket $2,000 as profits. So if they sell it for $15,000 plus the co-pay, deductible, etc, the government may sell it for $5,000 or $500 and absorb the difference until it lures all customers away from the insurance company. Of course, they won't do that so openly, but in a couple of decades we may end up with a single payer system.

IVNORD wrote: I wanted to see a good coverage on Walter Cronkite. Where else if not CBS?   Alright, Sunday Morning. And now from people who knew Mr. Cronkite "starting with President Obama." What is this idiotic fascination with Obama? If CBS announced a competition for the best monument to Cronkite what could be the first prize? Monument to Obama? What's wrong with these people?!?

Jeez, can't imagine man. Maybe because he's the President.
Also the "idiotic fascination" may just be because...oh I dont know there are people that actually believe in him. Now Im not one of those who think Bama is god and he's going to fix the universe with his brain.....just saying there are people that really do believe a lot in him. We're always fascinated with the President, it's just with Obama that obssesion is positive and not negative.
I know its crazy! A President that, from the very first day, wasn't completely oppoed by half the nation right?

And as for the libertarian comment I made. a F*CKING JOKE! I thought it was pretty obvious.
Do you have NO sense of humor? Are you stupid? Or are you SUCH a Republican drone you must defend then constanly. You never did answer my question...do you like prog? Or just come here to "talk" poltics?


Anyway, putting politics aside for once...it really is sad about Cronkite.
The man was a legend, back when news was really news....not the BS it is now.
As LBJ said in regards to the Vietnam War: "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America"

THAT is a beloved news figure
RIP


Edited by JJLehto - July 19 2009 at 18:44

Well, guess all you can do is brace yourself. You seem pretty convinced this will lead to single payer healthcare inevitably, and it looks like this is going to happen Even if those few democrats more concerned with trying to please Republicans instead of getting this done, go against it....the votes are there.

And IVNORD I'm sure you won't believe it, but at least you have to give Bama props for TALKING about this being deficit neutral. I feel compelled again to say: when it came to Iraq, Republicans did not say a word about f*cking fiscal restraint. And they never said a word about the huge deficit it ran up.  And of course when the Kerry campaign brought up that record surplus that Bush flushed down the toilet it didn't even matter because a few close minded people thought Bush would ban gay marriage (that worked out wonderfully!)

It just pisses me off IVNORD. Obviously you are entitled to your beliefs, and you do make logical points. So my beef is not with you, I can not stand these national Republicans that shove fiscal restraint and the "big evil hand of the government" down our throats....when Bush and Reagan didn't give a flying crap, Clinton balanced the budget, hell I never heard ANYone mention fiscal restraint on the national level till Ron Paul ran...now every Republican speech f*cking talks about it.

Well, the Senate just voted to, after all, cut funding for F-22's.
$2 Billion

Even though I still think the Democrats are weak and impotent and just generally dysfunctional maybe they have learned some lessons from '94. With this vote, as well as the "cap and trade" bill they stuck together to pass them.
Still have to see about the health care drama.