President Obama's Healthcare Speech

[Username17]

The thing is that not giving coverage to illegals is an incredibly shitty plan. Even if we don't pay their emergency room bills, we're still going to be paying for their emergency room stays because that money will be folded back into the hospital's costs. Emergency room stays are more expensive than regular doctor visits, so we'd save ourselves money by just giving all the illegals full coverage. The same way single payer would save money at every other level of our society.

But the provision for not paying the bills of illegals is in the bill. It's a shit plan, but the Republicans did get it in. Why are they willing to break decorum to complain about its lack of inclusion when it was totally included?

Joe Wilson is a moron. And people who agree with Joe Wilson are at best misinformed.

-Username17

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Actually, the original bill would have barred illegals from subsidies to purchase insurance on the exchange, but would have allowed them to pay for it with their own money. Now the administration, in an attempt to compromise with the Joe Wilsons of the world, is lobbying to put in a provision barring illegals from going on the exchange even with their own money.

[Koumei]

Joe Wilson is a moron. And people who agree with Joe Wilson are at best misinformed.

Who wants to take bets on when tzor is going to say he agrees with Joe?

[PhoneLobster]

Considering his recent posts I somewhat more expect Tzor to just put some underwear on his head, stick some pencils up his nose and say "Wibble".

And not in a good faking it to get out of the army kind of way. If you know what I mean.

[A Hammer]

Joe Wilson is a moron. And people who agree with Joe Wilson are at best misinformed.

Who wants to take bets on when tzor is going to say he agrees with Joe?

I, uh, I think he already did.

[mean_liar]

The thing that irks me is that "tort reform" doesn't limit health care expenditures. It lowers malpractice premiums, but for whatever reason in Texas it didn't carry over into lowered costs. Those lowered premiums did result in more doctors coming to Texas, increasing their doctors-per-capita but if you implement that on a national scale you won't get any similar results because there's no incentive to reallocate practices.

They passed their first reform in '95 and the second in '03. Their aggregate citizen health expenditures in that period increased 5.3%; the nation's average is 5.5%. There are ample states outperforming that metric that don't have any limitation on malpractice.

The data just isn't there, and I don't know why Republicans fixate on it.

I do wish there was a more honest debate on this. The House plan isn't that great and the GOP plan is worse, but there's more grandstanding on ideology than there is numbers and I fear its just going to turn dreadfully useless no matter what gets pushed through.


...


I'll add that a WSJ op-ed bashing Keynesian economics while using the example of socialist countries where recovery is quicker is so abashedly stupid as to boggle me. I wonder if the author realizes how those socialist economies function: the real question to ask is, "is American fear of Keynesian economics leaving us more vulnerable to crashes?" as opposed to "look at all these Keynesian countries that didn't have to mobilize grand resources to aid their recoveries doesn't that prove Keynesian plans don't work".

Ugh.

[Username17]

The data just isn't there, and I don't know why Republicans fixate on it.

Because with enough tort reform on the table, Union Carbide can settle for full possible damages and move on, writing that sort of thing off as a cost of doing business. Once negligent behavior that is almost certain to lead to the deaths of people becomes an affordable expense, the amount of cost cutting that major corporations can do is staggering.

Medical Malpractice is only a very small slice of that pie. They want to bring down the cost of murder.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'll add that a WSJ op-ed bashing Keynesian economics while using the example of socialist countries where recovery is quicker is so abashedly stupid as to boggle me. I wonder if the author realizes how those socialist economies function: the real question to ask is, "is American fear of Keynesian economics leaving us more vulnerable to crashes?" as opposed to "look at all these Keynesian countries that didn't have to mobilize grand resources to aid their recoveries doesn't that prove Keynesian plans don't work".

Economics is an extremely low-budget field so a few well-funded cranks can completely change the discourse; Austrian and Chicago schools are a complete joke but they still win Nobels.

But anyway, a lot of people are surprised to learn that Sweden ended their depression much, much earlier than other countries by following a Keynesian policy. This doesn't get much play for three reasons--one it paints the economic hardship of the United States as avoidable and solvable without going to war, two is due to the ongoing exceptionalism of United States history, and three is mostly because people don't want to talk about it.

That's why I am reluctantly forced to agree right now that the field of macroeconomics right now isn't even a science. Imagine if biology got hijacked by creationism and four humours and that people who advocated for evolution were not only mocked by the government but t there was an active effort to roll biology back to its 18th-19th century roots. You would have a hard time describing 'biology' in such an environment as a science. Economics is in the same state.

The USA almost had a Vice President in 1996 that believed in the motherfucking gold standard. Think about that for a moment.

[Neeeek]

The data just isn't there, and I don't know why Republicans fixate on it.

Because with enough tort reform on the table, Union Carbide can settle for full possible damages and move on, writing that sort of thing off as a cost of doing business. Once negligent behavior that is almost certain to lead to the deaths of people becomes an affordable expense, the amount of cost cutting that major corporations can do is staggering.

Medical Malpractice is only a very small slice of that pie. They want to bring down the cost of murder.

Considering how tort damages are calculated, the only form of tort reform that isn't basically taking money from victims and giving to to the people who hurt them (or, more likely, their insurance companies) is adopting a loser pays system.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Economics is an extremely low-budget field so a few well-funded cranks can completely change the discourse; Austrian and Chicago schools are a complete joke but they still win Nobels.

"Nobels". Remember that's there not actually a prize in economics given out by the Nobel committee.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

What part of "YOU LIE" don't you understand? The president LIES.

You act as if that separates Obama from, well, every single president we've ever had. Bush lied, Clinton Lied, Bush Sr. Lied, Reagan lied, Carter lied, they all lied. Saying that Obama is the greatest snake oil salesman ever elected is like saying you've found the greenest blade of grass in Wrigley field. Big fuckin' deal.

[Kaelik]

What part of "YOU LIE" don't you understand? The president LIES.

You act as if that separates Obama from, well, every single president we've ever had. Bush lied, Clinton Lied, Bush Sr. Lied, Reagan lied, Carter lied, they all lied. Saying that Obama is the greatest snake oil salesman ever elected is like saying you've found the greenest blade of grass in Wrigley field. Big fuckin' deal.

It's also blatantly untrue. There are way fucking better liars even if we assume every single thing Obama has ever said is a lie. Even if he was born in Kenya and is a Lizardman he still isn't as good a snake oil salesman as FDR. The man couldn't even fucking walk and most people didn't even know.

[Korwin]

Economics is an extremely low-budget field so a few well-funded cranks can completely change the discourse; Austrian and Chicago schools are a complete joke but they still win Nobels.

Austrian schools gets nobel prices?
Didnt know that...

[Count Arioch the 28th]

What part of "YOU LIE" don't you understand? The president LIES.

You act as if that separates Obama from, well, every single president we've ever had. Bush lied, Clinton Lied, Bush Sr. Lied, Reagan lied, Carter lied, they all lied. Saying that Obama is the greatest snake oil salesman ever elected is like saying you've found the greenest blade of grass in Wrigley field. Big fuckin' deal.

It's also blatantly untrue. There are way fucking better liars even if we assume every single thing Obama has ever said is a lie. Even if he was born in Kenya and is a Lizardman he still isn't as good a snake oil salesman as FDR. The man couldn't even fucking walk and most people didn't even know.

Saying that FDR is a better liar than Obama doesn't refute my point that saying the president is the best liar is essentially irrelevant.

[Kaelik]

Saying that FDR is a better liar than Obama doesn't refute my point that saying the president is the best liar is essentially irrelevant.

No it doesn't. Did I say it does?

Tzor: Obama is the best liar ever.

You: It doesn't even matter if he is, you retard.

Me: Yeah, he's also retarded because he's wrong.

You: You didn't refute me!

Recursive: Duh.

There is a reason I said 'it is also untrue' instead of 'but it is untrue'

[tzor]

Here we see the liberal view of the world through polarized rose colored glasses at work; anything that doesn’t act as the voice of The One is clearly trash and unreliable, even if it is such publications as the Wall Street Journal.

While wishful thinking may wish otherwise, I think it is clear that the President knows what he is doing. He knows what support he may have and what support he doesn’t have. He knows what subjects are simply non starters and off the table from the outset. None of that matters when you are making campaign promises. Since that is what he does well, that’s what he does, even if making addresses to joint sessions on congress.

Given his current track record, I think the burden is on the other side. When the president states that a bill will have this or that (given his normal hands off approach to writing legislation, even when he was a senator) how can anyone give it an ounce of credibility? “Deficit neutral” (or your money back) … now there’s a laugh! “Medical malpractice reform” … I’m rolling on the floor from that one. P.T. Barnum is giving his approval; which way is the egress?

What part of, "The Wall Street Journal's Opinions page has no ombudsman," have you not understood, tzor?

P.S. Have you confused the term ombudsman with editor and more precisely do you even have an understanding what an opinion page is about? Max Baucus dropped his attempt at tort reform. If that doesn’t prove the point that it is dead among the Democrats, I don’t know what proof you will accept. There are still many things that are non starters and tort reform is one of them.

[tzor]

Who wants to take bets on when tzor is going to say he agrees with Joe?

I agree with Joe.

On the other hand, I don't see this as a major issue. There are far many more significant problems with this bill than the lack of card checking people applying for benefits.

The true test is not whether a token phrase is in a given bill but whether, when all is said and done and everything is signed and enacted into law whether or not a thing happens or does not happen.

[tzor]

It's also blatantly untrue. There are way fucking better liars even if we assume every single thing Obama has ever said is a lie. Even if he was born in Kenya and is a Lizardman he still isn't as good a snake oil salesman as FDR. The man couldn't even fucking walk and most people didn't even know.

FDR lived in a different era. The media was, for the most part, limited to print journalism. It was also a different time, especially if you are simply considering his terms as President. His first election was at the worst point in the Depression. Unlike Obama, FDR had a good track record as Governor of New York, and his strong support of scouting gave him a lot of brownie points.

FDR had already been a New York State Senator, the Assistant Secretary to the Navy and had mounted an unsuccessful attempt at Vice President of the United States before polio paralyzed his legs. Given the general mood of the country from depression to world war and given the general lack of charity towards those who were disabled in any shape or form, it is understandable why the press would and did ignore this general truth.

However, had the circumstances not been that dire, he probably would have been thrown to the sharks.

[Koumei]

Okay, just tell me this. Let's put aside every other part of the entire bill for now, and in fact every other promise he's made and all the rest.

In regards to giving everyone health care, do you, tzor, think:

a) it seriously won't work, and giving everyone cover, even illegal immigrants and those evil poor people, will be more expensive than just covering their visits to the ER, and might very well cause more problems than it'd solve.

b) that's a good idea, you don't disagree with that particular thing, but you view the majority of his stance as bullshit,

or c) we're looking at it from the wrong angle, the trick is that we shouldn't be admitting them to ER either. Let the fuckers die.

d) another answer that I forgot, as I don't want to set up a false trichotomy here.

No really. Because currently I see you as the funny conservative religious nutjob we like to keep around to argue with (and who sticks around to argue with those crazy atheistic liberals, bless 'em), but if you're answering c), well, I don't think any further debate can happen because you're advocating for a world that is objectively bad, are evil, and should be banned from influencing political matters.

[tzor]

You act as if that separates Obama from, well, every single president we've ever had. Bush lied, Clinton Lied, Bush Sr. Lied, Reagan lied, Carter lied, they all lied. Saying that Obama is the greatest snake oil salesman ever elected is like saying you've found the greenest blade of grass in Wrigley field. Big fuckin' deal.

Obama, however, raises the bar. You almost can expect that if he says "I'm not going to sign something unless" that he will sign it and that unless never happened. No president has gone before the public and congress and basically told bold faced lies non stop and gotten away with it. None. This is why his popularity and his credibility dropped like a rock once he took office; the lies started piling on top of each other.

[CatharzGodfoot]

...
or c) we're looking at it from the wrong angle, the trick is that we shouldn't be admitting them to ER either. Let the fuckers die.

d) another answer that I forgot, as I don't want to set up a false trichotomy here.

No really. Because currently I see you as the funny conservative religious nutjob we like to keep around to argue with (and who sticks around to argue with those crazy atheistic liberals, bless 'em), but if you're answering d), well, I don't think any further debate can happen because you're advocating for a world that is objectively bad, are evil, and should be banned from influencing political matters.

Just to be perfectly clear: you really mean "c)", right? At any rate, I'd also like to see Tzor's stance on government policy rather than just attacking its figurehead.

[violence in the media]

I'd like a semi-serious answer to Koumei's question as well, because the conservative stance in all this comes across as a simple, "I got mine, fuck 'em what don't" bit of doushebaggery.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

No president has gone before the public and congress and basically told bold faced lies non stop and gotten away with it. None.

Have you actually been living in the US? You are talking like you haven't. Arguing which president lies the most is like discussing the world's worse staph infection. I'm sure a metric can be devised, but I don't think it's a productive use of my time.

[Koumei]

Shit, yeah, I meant c). Fixed.

And I agree with Count here. But I'm not actually surprised at what tzor is parroting.

[tzor]

Okay, just tell me this. Let's put aside every other part of the entire bill for now, and in fact every other promise he's made and all the rest.

In regards to giving everyone health care, do you, tzor, think:

Koumei, we often get so bogged down in details that we never get to how I think.

One of my biggest problems with the current health care system is that we often play a shell game with costs. Medicare is a good example of this; underpaying doctors and hospitals which in turn results in overpaying those on private plans (who, being on corporate based plans neither notice nor have an incentive to care). The same is true for emergency room services; all are accepted, those with plans are billed (extra).

Ignoring an underlying problem that illegal immigration promotes an underground slave economy, my one and only concern (and unlike some Republicans this is, for me, only a concern) is that in giving illegal aliens the ability to access quality health care services, it may increase the potential for illegal immigration into the United States.

(Of course if the Democrats have their way and convert the nation into a crappy nationalized health care system it might be possible this immigration pressure would be reduced, reversed even, but that’s not the scenario I’m hoping for.)

But aside from the potential for a massive influx of low and middle class Canadians crossing the border (why wait for the town’s lottery, get service now) I think that it is still always better to properly treat people than it is to over stress the emergency room system.

Speaking of emergency rooms, I have a radical idea that no one will like. I believe that since it is a reasonable argument that we should provide such services to everyone that the costs for emergency room services should not be considered a cost of “health insurance” but paid by general funds (since you get the treatment policy or not). Health insurance premiums will be reduced because of the lack of expense; general taxes (mostly income) would increase as a result (no free lunch here) but at least it would be a more equitable distribution and not cause an undue burden to people trying to purchase their own policies.

The same would be true for health clinics; places where you can go when you have the flu. Since there are always concerns about treating potential sources of contagion and since combining such treatment with normal health care treatment could scare those who should be receiving normal health care (people are often uncomfortable going into a waiting room full of people with the flu when they are only getting their sugar / blood pressure / cholesterol checked), it also makes sense for them to be general funded as well.

If you do this right; not only illegal immigrants but legal ones could benefit. Tourism might actually increase because people will know, even though they may never have to use it, if they get sick or hurt here they have access to the finest health system in the world. (But we are paying for this … some complain as they collect tourism revenue.)