CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Health Care Reform Gearing Up
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Health Care Reform Gearing Up - Page 30

post #1451 of 2590
10/26/09 at 7:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
Thanks for the insight, Judd. I meant "who makes the decision on behalf of the state".
Their legislatures.
Reply
post #1452 of 2590
10/26/09 at 7:53pm
So what was up with Obama supposedly fighting with Reid over the Public Option. Was that a bit of political theater? Is Obama playing a deep game or is he really gun shy? I'm opting for the first option at this point.
Reply
post #1453 of 2590
10/27/09 at 3:39pm
Roger Ebert's wonderful blog entry on Universal Haelthcare: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009..._contract.html

Be sure to read the comments, too:

Quote:
By Thanny on October 22, 2009 11:50 PM

I don't think the moral case for universal health care is made strongly enough. Not even in this post, which is quite good.

An analogy is appropriate. Say you have a group of people with enough food to feed every member. But some people have more of it than others, and they want it to trade for trinkets - things they don't need and can live without - and don't much care if some of those without food don't have the trinkets to trade (they were too busy trying to find food to make trinkets, naturally). They don't need to give trinkets up entirely, just one or two, and everyone would have enough to eat.

Now, you're the chief of this group of people, and it's within your power to decree that everyone has to put extra food into the kitty, to be doled out to those whose crops or hunting expeditions failed. Some of those people who dearly love their trinkets don't want to give the food up. If you're a moral person, you don't worry about the trinkets. You simply decide that everyone eats, period. You deal with the consequences later, and if some people have to give up a couple of trinkets, that's just the price you pay for living in a group where you're able to acquire trinkets in the first place, rather than being forced to always live or die by your own luck at finding food. Because the unsaid thing is, the ones with enough spare food to trade for trinkets aren't the same people from one month to the next. Sometimes your luck runs out, and you have to depend on the good will of others to survive long enough for luck to return.

This is a "lesson" that natural selection learned aeons ago, and can be found in animals as distasteful (to some) as vampire bats, which have a brisk trade in reciprocal altruism, where the currency is blood.

We're supposed to be the supremely morals animals on this planet. It's rather ironic that those most vocally claiming that title are vastly more likely to be those who oppose such obviously moral policies, though exceptions must be made for the special case of Libertarians, who combine social liberalism with economic conservatism. That group is composed of selfish people who lack morality, and moral people who are confused about what a Libertarian actually is (if a person talks about politics for half an hour without making you vomit, and claims to be a Libertarian, that person is not actually a Libertarian). (emphasis mine)

More to the point, money is worthless. You can't eat it, and even the wealthiest person alive, with all cash converted to singles, couldn't survive one winter by burning it. It has value only in a society, and if you live in a society which allows you to acquire wealth beyond being able to feed yourself daily, it is your obligation to support the continued existence of that society. That includes providing for the basic survival of everyone born into it. If you do not agree with that sentiment, then you are not a moral person.
Edit: HAHAHAHA! Ebert rules:
Quote:
By Evan on October 23, 2009 12:00 AM

Had there been universal health care in this country back when Roger had cancer, he'd probably wouldn't be alive today.

Ebert: Look at it this way. I probably would be.
Reply
post #1454 of 2590
10/27/09 at 3:44pm
Lieberman is going to filibuster the Senate Bill.

That man is such a fucking prick.
Reply
post #1455 of 2590
10/27/09 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
Lieberman is going to filibuster the Senate Bill.

That man is such a fucking prick.
He is no longer even representing the interests of the United States.
Reply
post #1456 of 2590
10/27/09 at 3:55pm
I really hate that asshole.
Reply
post #1457 of 2590
10/27/09 at 3:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarence Boddicker View Post
I really hate that asshole.
I hate the idiot voters of CT for falling for his nonsense. He doesn't even represent the United States anymore in congress. It's as if a lobbiest somehow wormed their way into our government and is now doing everything in their power to steer the ship of state into the rocks
Reply
post #1458 of 2590
10/27/09 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
He is no longer even representing the interests of the United States.
He doesn't represent the interests of the United States.

He represents the interests of the citizens of the State of Connecticut.


That said, they do support the public option.


http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/diary/11...ut-by-district
Reply
post #1459 of 2590
10/27/09 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
He doesn't represent the interests of the United States.

He represents the interests of the citizens of the State of Connecticut.


That said, they do support the public option.


http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/diary/11...ut-by-district
That may be the oath he took, but in fact over the past 9 years he has essentially turned his senate office into an arm of J Street. Time and time again he has lobbied for the interests of a foreign nation at the expense of the oath he took to defend and protect this nation. His despicable comments during campaign 08 should have made this obvious to anyone who reads the news.
Reply
post #1460 of 2590
10/27/09 at 4:08pm
J Street? Really? I mean: Really?

Fuck you.
Reply
post #1461 of 2590
10/27/09 at 4:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
J Street? Really? I mean: Really?

Fuck you.
They call themselves J Street. It's not a slur for crying out loud. Huffingtonpost has had a whole series of articles on J Street over the past month. Should I link to them?

That's like talking about "Mad Men" to John Hamm and having him bark out "What did you just call my show?!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_332906.html

Quote:
J Street, an advocacy and lobbying firm created 18 months ago, is holding its first annual conference beginning Sunday, with participation from about 150 Democratic members of Congress
Reply
post #1462 of 2590
10/27/09 at 4:12pm
More from Ebert's blog comments: a selfish defense of Universal Health Care

Quote:
By DCGeek on October 23, 2009 9:35 AM

Hi Roger,

Although your appeals to compassion strike a chord with me, I think you're arguing this the wrong way. We don't need compassion in order to defend universal health care. The plain, simple, economic truth is that the selfish person should support health care reform. It's flatly in his best economic interest.

Here are a few arguments, based on bedrock economic principles, that should appeal to the rationally self-interested utility-maximizer:

1) Insurance pooling. A lot of people talk about insurance without ever thinking about what it really is. Insurance is simply a system whereby people pool their resources to protect against costly bad fortune. As long as there are more lucky people paying into the pool than unlucky people drawing from it, the system works, and everyone can go about their day without fearing the future. That enables people to take risks, which is a very good thing for the economy.

And here's the thing: the bigger the pool, the easier it is to maximize efficiency. Because bigger pools diversify risk. If three people are in an insurance scheme together and one of them gets sick, that's a pretty big burden for the other two to bear. But if 1,000 people are in the pool? No big deal, right? So it is categorically less efficient to have a dozen small insurance schemes than to have one big insurance scheme. Much to the chagrin of health-care opponents, government supplied health insurance would be an efficiency-maximizing intervention in the market, if it broadened the insurance pool. Everyone, from the people drawing on the policies to the people paying into the policies, would be less exposed to risk, and would bear less of a financial burden. This is part of what makes single-payer systems more cost-effective.

Are you listening to this you selfish bastards??

2) Maximizing public goods. The free market is generally the most efficient way of allocating resources, because it allows people to trade things they don't want for things they do, without any planning or oversight involved. It's the simplest possible utility-maximizing strategy. It is extremely powerful. This can't be denied.

However, the market is not always an efficiency maximizer. A "market failure" occurs when the market fails to promote what we call "public goods" - simply put, things everyone values. To solve market failures, we create institutions (like governments) that can coordinate people in ways the free market doesn't.

Consider education. The private market sets prices much higher than most people can afford (for good reason: that's the price at which they can maximize revenues). But society benefits as a whole when we have an educated population (we're more productive, more innovative, more wealthy, etc.). So the government quite rightly intervenes to subsidize your education. And this is positive sum, because after the governments done paying for you to go to school, you go out and earn better money than you would have. Thus, the government is able to earn its investment back from you several times over in higher taxes - and does the same for the next person. And everyone's a winner. Ta-da!

Also consider insurance pooling, as mentioned above. Theoretically, we don't need government to make this work - we just need everyone to realize the gains they can reap from a larger insurance pool, and then pour their smaller pools into one larger one. Then everyone wins. But there are two problems to doing this: first, not everyone realizes that they can maximize efficiency by pooling their policies (an "information problem"); second, no one is coordinating this activity, so people wouldn't know where to start (a "collective action problem"). So we need an institution (government) to coordinate this activity - to everyone's benefit.

(Yes, this comes at the price of some freedom: the freedom to pay more for less. Do you really care?)

In the case of health care, there are enormous public goods associated with a healthy society, but the free market is not producing as much of these goods as intervention could. To name a few:

a) Competition between health insurers is not presently controlling costs (for many, many reasons). Introducing a public option would introduce more competition and make prices lower. This means that billions of dollars currntly being allocated to health care costs could be re-allocated to other (more innovative?) areas of the economy.

b) Providing universal insurance would change people's behaviour: it would allow them to visit the doctor more often. This is a good thing - it would contribute to preventative medicine, catch illnesses early, and generally keep costs down (it's way more expensive to treat an illness than to prevent one). In other words, people will be drawing less from the pool. Again, everyone benefits.

c) Controlling costs will make it cheaper for businesses (who pay for insurance) to hire new people, and possibly pay higher wages to their workers. Thus contributing to a wealthier, more productive economy.

...And on and on and on.

Listen, I speak the language of the free market. I understand why people defend it. But I'm not so crazy as to suggest that it's infallible - no serious person could be. And when it fails to maximize efficiency, it's perfectly appropriate for the government to intervene, to your benefit, my benefit, that rich bastard's benefit - everyone's benefit! (We call this "pareto optimality".)

So there you have it, you selfish jerks. If you can't find it in yourself to care about others, at least think about yourself. You - yes you! - will be richer, healthier, and less exposed to risk by allowing the government to intervene in the health sector. So stop being so damn stupid.
Reply
post #1463 of 2590
10/27/09 at 4:14pm
Is that really a valid term for the jewish community? Well, forgive my french then but that sounds aweful for my ears and the "They" in the context of your post does not neccessarily shed another light on my interpretation.

But if that was indeed a misunderstanding I guess a slight redaction and sorry would be in order. That I live to see this day...
Reply
post #1464 of 2590
10/27/09 at 4:23pm
jdate.com, etc. Isn't there a Jewish magazine called "Heeb" or something like that?
Reply
post #1465 of 2590
10/27/09 at 4:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
Is that really a valid term for the jewish community? Well, forgive my french then but that sounds aweful for my ears and the "They" in the context of your post does not neccessarily shed another light on my interpretation.

But if that was indeed a misunderstanding I guess a slight redaction and sorry would be in order. That I live to see this day...
No worries, Jan. I am not talking about the Jewish Community. I was talking about specific interests that lobby for Israel. There is a J Street group, so the "They" referred to J Street. J Street referring to itself as J Street can also be typed as "They refer to themselves as J Street".

I really bristle at accusations of anti semitism being tossed at anyone critical of Zionism. In fact, the Jewish Anti Defamation League flatly states "Anti-Zionism IS Anti-Semitism". For someone whose top 3 friends are Jewish, has Jewish relatives, and whose father helped liberate a concentration camp, that really pisses me off. I can criticize the actions of a lawless nation without being called a racist. It just so happens that Israel chooses to conflate their nation state with their religion , so that people cannot criticize one without being afraid of being accused of disliking the other. I won't cower in fear of being called a racist if I have a legitimate gripe about that nation.
Reply
post #1466 of 2590
10/27/09 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
Is that really a valid term for the jewish community? Well, forgive my french then but that sounds aweful for my ears and the "They" in the context of your post does not neccessarily shed another light on my interpretation.

But if that was indeed a misunderstanding I guess a slight redaction and sorry would be in order. That I live to see this day...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Street

She's got you here Jan. Sorry.
Reply
post #1467 of 2590
10/28/09 at 2:56pm
It just hit me... Joe Lieberman is the white and/or jewish version of Senator Clay Davis from the Wire.

SHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTT
Reply
post #1468 of 2590
10/28/09 at 2:58pm
BTW: To "add" to the jew talk...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKxnICixF7g
Reply
post #1469 of 2590
10/31/09 at 7:08pm
This made me chuckle...then I thought it over and realized "...shit."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_340161.html
Reply
post #1470 of 2590
11/3/09 at 12:02pm
Surprised it's taken this long for this to come up.

Quote:
As the health care battle moved forward last week, Phil Davis, a senior Christian Science church official, hurriedly delivered bundles of letters to Senate offices promoting a little-noticed proposal in the legislation requiring insurers to consider covering the church's prayer treatments just as they do other medical expenses.

Critics say the proposal would essentially put Christian Science prayer treatments on the same footing as science-based medical care by prohibiting discrimination against "religious and spiritual health care."

While advancing below the radar as debate focuses on larger issues such as the "public option," the Christian Scientists' proviso has begun to stir controversy because it rekindles debate on three long-running and sensitive issues: freedom of religion; the constitutional separation of church and state; and the question of whether faith-based approaches should be treated as equivalent to science-based medicine.
Well, it would sure make a malpractice suit a lot less of a risk. Who do you sue? God?
Reply
post #1471 of 2590
11/3/09 at 12:10pm
Guh.

Well, it's probably not as bad as Modern Warfare 2, at any rate.
Reply
post #1472 of 2590
11/3/09 at 5:51pm
Hyperbole is a harsh mistress. Of course, she probably doesn't consider the people who killed Dr. Tiller and their ilk terrorists.
Reply
post #1473 of 2590
11/8/09 at 1:47am
And, we have healthcare reform!
Reply
post #1474 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CocoaSugarbaker View Post
And, we have healthcare reform!
Not yet. One body passed a bill. But it's farther than we've ever been in history.

Question on the anti-abortion amendment though.
Reply
post #1475 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:04am
I should be happy about this, but I can't abide the Dems' continued cowardice. This amendment prohibiting funding for abortion services in the public option is BS. Abortion in the US is legal, it should be covered. When will we respect female reproductive rights?
Reply
post #1476 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:06am
The STUPAK AMENDMENT? For fuck's sake.

EDIT: Sorry, somehow this just doesn't really feel like a step forward to me with that fucking brainless amendment shoehorned in. We'll see. My cynicism's overrun my idealism for the night, though, for sure.
Reply
post #1477 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:14am
Conservative/Blue Dog/Moderate Dems are really throwing their power around in the Health Care debate. Interesting that Obama's platform will be constantly hampered by them. When are these fuckers up for reelection?
Reply
post #1478 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:18am
Yes, the anti choice amendment is really putting a hamper on whatever feeling of triumph I would normally be feeling right now.
Reply
post #1479 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
The STUPAK AMENDMENT? For fuck's sake.

EDIT: Sorry, somehow this just doesn't really feel like a step forward to me with that fucking brainless amendment shoehorned in. We'll see. My cynicism's overrun my idealism for the night, though, for sure.
If the GOP and conservaDems have their way, we'll catch up with Afghanistan in its treatment of women. F these horrible people.
Reply
post #1480 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:21am
Your exquisite pain gives me strength, Free Republic. Your tears quench my thirst. Suffer! And suffer more!
Reply
post #1481 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMR View Post
Your exquisite pain gives me strength, Free Republic. Your tears quench my thirst. Suffer! And suffer more!
And of course it only takes a few posts before they start demanding the names of those traitors who voted with the Dems. Off with their heads!
Reply
post #1482 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMR View Post
Your exquisite pain gives me strength, Free Republic. Your tears quench my thirst. Suffer! And suffer more!
Thanks for the link. I'm stealing it!
Reply
post #1483 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:36am


Found this pic from the link given. Granny on the right has a fucked up view of birth right's if you ask me.
Reply
post #1484 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:39am
I hope that women gets cancer, so I can stand over he hospital bed and LOL.
Reply
post #1485 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:58am
Well, I don't wish anyone Cancer (and I'm sure you don't either) but it would be hilarious for her to be denied health care at some point. Bet her opinion would change quickly.
Reply
post #1486 of 2590
11/8/09 at 7:59am
I wonder if the abortion amendment will be the 21st century equivalent of "Okay, fine, we'll keep slavery if it'll get you to approve this damn Constitution, but we're coming back to it!"
Reply
post #1487 of 2590
11/8/09 at 11:59am
The New York Times has an interactive chart listing all the Democrats who voted against the bill. The vast majority of them are from districts McCain carried in the presidential election. I guess they know what side their bread is buttered on.
Reply
post #1488 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:42pm
I wonder if Kucinich would have voted if they hadn't thrown abortion funding out the window.
Reply
post #1489 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I wonder if Kucinich would have voted if they hadn't thrown abortion funding out the window.
Probably not. He seemed to take a hardline stance against anything not single-payer. Also I think he used to be pro-life.
Reply
post #1490 of 2590
11/8/09 at 2:47pm
This vote really doesn't matter on its face mainly because the Senate has to vote on their own bill and then both houses will decide in conference what stays and what goes.

My feeling is that the public option will more than likely die in conference and we won't see it the final form of the bill.

More than likely there'll be some sort of a trigger plan and we'll see cross state insurance prohibition lifted as well as pre-existing conditions eliminated as well.

But, who knows.
Reply
post #1491 of 2590
11/8/09 at 3:01pm
I'm happy that we're closer to health care reform for a number of reasons, but I find it hard to celebrate when one of the ways it got passed at all was thorough that sickening Stupak Amendment compromise. My concern is that the Senate sees how narrow it was and what an important part it was to get it passed, and tries to push their luck.
Reply
post #1492 of 2590
11/8/09 at 4:13pm
I'm actually glad they agreed on that amendment. The goal here is clear, affordable health-care for all without distractions.

Keep at it Mr. president.
Reply
post #1493 of 2590
11/8/09 at 5:19pm
I bet Boehner's feeling a little let down by rep. Cao. Good on the guy to vote based on his district, and telling Michael Steele to go pound sand.
Reply
post #1494 of 2590
11/8/09 at 5:20pm
So the abortion amendment doesn't cover elective abortions, is that correct?
Reply
post #1495 of 2590
11/9/09 at 12:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
I wonder if the abortion amendment will be the 21st century equivalent of "Okay, fine, we'll keep slavery if it'll get you to approve this damn Constitution, but we're coming back to it!"
Didn't 'coming back to it' end up becoming 'going to war'?

I'm just sayin'

...and seriously is this bill really nation-changing or is it just toothless and symbolic?

I've been following this issue all year and I still can't quite tell from this side of the globe honestly.
Reply
post #1496 of 2590
11/9/09 at 2:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I wonder if Kucinich would have voted if they hadn't thrown abortion funding out the window.
He voted the exact same way I would have on this sham. I guess if we need reform we should do it in the most pain free, neutered and compromising way possible.
Reply
post #1497 of 2590
11/9/09 at 4:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
He voted the exact same way I would have on this sham. I guess if we need reform we should do it in the most pain free, neutered and compromising way possible.
Excellent. The fire of a true revolutionary.



"In a serious struggle there is no worse cruelty than to be magnanimous at an inopportune time."



And ElCapitan would've been fine with the Missouri Compromise as well, one suspects. The Ex-Lax approach to solving problems of this magnitude only lead to an overflowing bowl of shit an hour later.
Reply
post #1498 of 2590
11/9/09 at 9:13am
Well, at least the Republicans are intelligently articulating their opposition to this legislation....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_349587.html

Why not just hold your breath and stamp your feet?
Reply
post #1499 of 2590
11/9/09 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dajuice7 View Post
I should be happy about this, but I can't abide the Dems' continued cowardice. This amendment prohibiting funding for abortion services in the public option is BS. Abortion in the US is legal, it should be covered. When will we respect female reproductive rights?
Speaking as someone who was pretty fundamentally pro-life and is becoming more and more pro-choice, I can understand when someone says they don't want their tax money to pay for it. I tell them that I guarantee that their tax money is paying for things they don't like, and their only choices are to accept it or stop paying taxes, but I can understand the thought and sentiment behind it.

Then I ask them if they minded their tax money paying for the war in Iraq, and they usually reply that "That was necessary, so I feel fine about it." That reminds me that people who use that defense are usually just selfish assholes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Well, at least the Republicans are intelligently articulating their opposition to this legislation....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_349587.html

Why not just hold your breath and stamp your feet?
For fuck's sake! Why are these people still treated like adults?
Reply
post #1500 of 2590
11/9/09 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Well, at least the Republicans are intelligently articulating their opposition to this legislation....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_349587.html

Why not just hold your breath and stamp your feet?
Oh my God that video made me want to punch people in the face.

It's like a fucking kindergarten in there.

"I OBJECT I OBJECT I OBJECT!"
"Why are you objecting?"
"..... I DUNNO..... I OBJECT I OBJECT I OBJECT"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Health Care Reform Gearing Up