User Tag List

First 3111213141523 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 365

  1. #121
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    This is what I mean. You have misgivings. You can say what you don't like about ACA. But satisfaction with American health care as it exists is very low. It needs to be changed, and I do not see and positive, affirmative suggestions in this post. What is your alternative to both ACA and the crap situation before ACA?
    It's a little ridiculous to ask me, one otherwise occupied individual, to (on the spur of the moment) come up with what the current administration is is still figuring out 5 years after the fact.

    The conversation is still nascent on the right, but the following article has the broad strokes if you care to read it.

    Conservative Health-Care Reform: A Reality Check

    Oh, God. You believe Mitt Romney's post-defeat temper tantrum about "gifts".
    Turn down the histrionics buckaroo.

    It makes perfect sense on the part of the administration to expand the class of people seeing the fruits of their labor.

    Politically its gold and I don't blame them for playing the game.

    Because that game is dangerous, the more you expand the receiving class (of entitlements) the more you burden the already creaky financing infrastructure we have in place in the US.

    To explain why the game is dangerous I must use the term Ratchet Effect as explained by Robert Higgs in Crisis and Leviathan which in a much condensed version [From the wiki

    The Ratchet Effect

    Daniel McCarthy praised Higgs and summarized his ratchet effect theory in a review of Against Leviathan that appeared in The American Conservative. In the review, McCarthy remarked that,

    What made Crisis and Leviathan a milestone was the rigor with which it elaborated upon the logic of James Madison's 1794 warning against "the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in government." Other political economists had studied the growth of state power during times of war, depression, and general upheaval before, but none had done so as thoughtfully and thoroughly as Higgs. He took special care in describing the "ratchet effect" — once a crisis has passed state power usually recedes again, but it rarely returns to its original levels; thus each emergency leaves the scope of government at least a little wider than before.[6]
    That tendency to grow ever larger with every new emergency is what is beginning to reveal the creakyness within our infrastructure (both military and otherwise). Without any moderating influence, the tendency to grow gov't at every chance eventually overwhelms the tax paying public's ability to financially support it.

    More to the point you are misunderstanding my argument. I don't blame people for suckling at the teat. The right has been tripping over its shoelaces where its public image is concerned (to greatly exaggerated media fanfare I might add), and as such there did not seem to be much of a choice.

    However, ever since the Drone filibuster the conversation (at least in public eyes [its been changing among the think tank types for awhile]) has been changing.

    Slowly but surely, a strain of thought is emerging that I predict will ultimately win out over the older blocs within the Republican party.

    That strain of thought has been articulated by writers like Ben Domenech of The Transom and The Federalist.

    This conversation is nascent as well, a good summation of it can be found here from RealClearPolitics The Libertarian Populist Agenda.

    This all brings me back around to your original point, that my argument and Mitt's are the same.

    They are not...

    I don't blame the people for taking subsidies, they aren't the one's coming up with the policy.

    It makes perfect sense given the incentives involved for (some on the left) to want to expand the recipient class as much as possible.

    However, the problem is that this strategy assumes an ever increasing willingness of the voting public to be taxed. That is not the case.

    In this is where you are precisely the opposite of correct. Because if the system were single payer and implemented some kind of price determining body, it would be vastly superior to ACA or what we had before, but I presume you'd consider that even more of a top down technocratic solution.
    Allow me to translate, "We pushed through the most liberal bill we could given the prevailing political winds at the time. Despite huge amounts of funding, several years, and some of the best minds the left can throw at it, this program isn't working. Because this isn't working, let me take a page out of the most extreme conservatives book and say to myself, "let's blame the problem on things not being extreme enough! If only the program was more partisan it would work better."

    In your dreams pall. If you think you've seen opposition, just wait until you push single payer.

    You'd have to explain what single payer is to the public for several months before we could get good polls, but once the knew what single payer meant, especially after the kind of big gov't scares we've had, NSA et. al., I think the polling would be pretty terrible.

    With what political capital do you think you will be able to make single payer happen if the PPACA goes tits up???????

    We aren't France bro. We weren't rebelling against a plutocratic aristocracy when we had our revolution, we were rebelling against a distant monarch who thought he could make American's pay through the nose for benefits that only accrued to those in the UK.

    So quit trotting out the European Social Democracies, who for a host of reasons (not the least of which being that they don't have to subsidize the military needs of the rest of the free world) can afford to spend money in ways that the US can not financially sustain, not to mention the cultural differences arising from the beginnings of the country mentioned above.

    If the left were brave and powerful enough to push whatever they wanted through, you'd have aforementioned single player and price controlling body. It's because of more conservative members of the Democratic party and strategically anxious members of the left wing that ACA is like it is. Now, those attempts to placate anyone outside of the Democratic party totally failed, and those attempts to make the Democrats face less backlash for the law totally failed, but that was the intention never the less. The law you see is not the law a monomaniacal left wing would have given you.
    Do you follow the news?

    From USA today (but the story is all over just google) Democrats beginning to support Obamacare delays

    You don't even have your entire senate majority on the same page with this bill.

    Could you imagine single payer working with the voting public outside of some liberal enclaves?

    I could not.

    Way to double down on your extremism argument by the way.

    I'm not so sure, but you might be right, and if does it won't do so as much as it should. But that's pretty much because of it being a moderate, wishy-washy bill.
    Make that way to triple down on that extremism argument.

    I'd get by that only if people understand that avoiding the problem in round 2 means the adjustments I suggested above.

    ...And that the Republican party has persisted in refusing to provide any requested funding to the ACA rollout thus are partly complicit in the troubles its currently facing.
    That's what you get when you push a big bill like this through without bipartisan support.

    Good luck on the SS Obamacare.

    Hope she doesn't sink on you.

  2. #122
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    And before anyone strikes at Robert Higg's credibility here is his background:

    From the wiki.

    Higgs received his Ph.D. in Economics from the Johns Hopkins University and has held teaching positions at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, and Seattle University. He has also been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University. He held a visiting professorship at the University of Economics, Prague in 2006,[2] and has supervised dissertations in the Ph.D. program at Universidad Francisco Marroquín,[3] where he is currently an honorary professor of economics and history.

    He is a Senior Fellow in Political Economy at the Independent Institute (since September 1994), and is Editor at Large of The Independent Review (since 2013, after having been Editor from 1995 to 2013).[2] He is a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute[4] and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.[5]

  3. #123
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I'll be interested to see what those who disagree come up with on this one.

  4. #124
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It's a little ridiculous to ask me, one otherwise occupied individual, to (on the spur of the moment) come up with what the current administration is is still figuring out 5 years after the fact.
    No, I don't think it is ludicrous in the least. In the same way I can propose single payer and price regulations, I would assume you have some idea of what you'd want to see instead of what we have that isn't just a description of what you don't like about ACA.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Turn down the histrionics buckaroo.

    It makes perfect sense on the part of the administration to expand the class of people seeing the fruits of their labor.

    Politically its gold and I don't blame them for playing the game.

    Because that game is dangerous, the more you expand the receiving class (of entitlements) the more you burden the already creaky financing infrastructure we have in place in the US.

    To explain why the game is dangerous I must use the term Ratchet Effect as explained by Robert Higgs in Crisis and Leviathan which in a much condensed version [From the wiki



    That tendency to grow ever larger with every new emergency is what is beginning to reveal the creakyness within our infrastructure (both military and otherwise). Without any moderating influence, the tendency to grow gov't at every chance eventually overwhelms the tax paying public's ability to financially support it.
    The USA is not particularly tax burdened as of yet. It is less so than pretty much any developed country. And the thing is about growing the government, is perhaps it can be done too fast, but it will be done. Technological advancement and population growth goes a long with breadth, depth, and power of government.

    The idea behind something like a health care system as it exists in Canada is that it actually costs less, not more, than not having it. It's not an accurate argument to reject for contributing to the price the public is paying in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    More to the point you are misunderstanding my argument. I don't blame people for suckling at the teat. The right has been tripping over its shoelaces where its public image is concerned (to greatly exaggerated media fanfare I might add), and as such there did not seem to be much of a choice.

    However, ever since the Drone filibuster the conversation (at least in public eyes [its been changing among the think tank types for awhile]) has been changing.

    Slowly but surely, a strain of thought is emerging that I predict will ultimately win out over the older blocs within the Republican party.

    That strain of thought has been articulated by writers like Ben Domenech of The Transom and The Federalist.

    This conversation is nascent as well, a good summation of it can be found here from RealClearPolitics The Libertarian Populist Agenda.

    This all brings me back around to your original point, that my argument and Mitt's are the same.

    They are not...

    I don't blame the people for taking subsidies, they aren't the one's coming up with the policy.

    It makes perfect sense given the incentives involved for (some on the left) to want to expand the recipient class as much as possible.

    However, the problem is that this strategy assumes an ever increasing willingness of the voting public to be taxed. That is not the case.
    There is a relationship between the policy maker and the voter, of course, but I never think it's really voters saying "I vote for this guy because I get more hand outs" and the Democrats saying "If we give more handouts we get more voters". Your position still sounds like Romney's in so far as it sounds like a claim of vote buying.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Allow me to translate, "We pushed through the most liberal bill we could given the prevailing political winds at the time. Despite huge amounts of funding, several years, and some of the best minds the left can throw at it, this program isn't working. Because this isn't working, let me take a page out of the most extreme conservatives book and say to myself, "let's blame the problem on things not being extreme enough! If only the program was more partisan it would work better."
    I anticipated this response. The bold part is not accurate, and here is why. You can see me advocating this policy back in 2009. I'm not reacting to any problems on the part of ACA and suggesting we should go even further left, I'm suggesting we do exactly what I suggested before ACA was even a law. And I had misgivings about ACA when it was passed. You can see it on this forum if you look hard enough for it. I feared that ACA, by being a compromised, half-measure, would be dysfunctional and mislead people into thinking a real health care system doesn't work. Nothing that's going on is anything I've had to react to, it's something I've seen coming and I'm still right about what I said in 2009..

    Another thing is I've been arguing since then is that it was not the most liberal bill they could have pushed, by they were to scared, and they got absolutely nothing in return for compromising. Their compromise still had them trounced in the elections, as I figured it would. They could have based something more left wing, and they would not have noticeably paid a greater price for it. The thing is, whatever the Democrats do, the Republicans will claim it is as left-wing as possible, and the ill-informed public just might believe it, so there isn't much incentive for holding back. But Democrats never seem to figure this out.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    In your dreams pall. If you think you've seen opposition, just wait until you push single payer.

    You'd have to explain what single payer is to the public for several months before we could get good polls, but once the knew what single payer meant, especially after the kind of big gov't scares we've had, NSA et. al., I think the polling would be pretty terrible.

    With what political capital do you think you will be able to make single payer happen if the PPACA goes tits up???????
    It might be difficult. No amount of political opposition makes the system any less effective, it doesn't make me wrong. What I propose would still be better than ACA or what we had before, or anything Republicans suggest. So to the extent that it is not politically viable is the extent to which all of the USA suffers.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We aren't France bro. We weren't rebelling against a plutocratic aristocracy when we had our revolution, we were rebelling against a distant monarch who thought he could make American's pay through the nose for benefits that only accrued to those in the UK.

    So quit trotting out the European Social Democracies, who for a host of reasons (not the least of which being that they don't have to subsidize the military needs of the rest of the free world) can afford to spend money in ways that the US can not financially sustain, not to mention the cultural differences arising from the beginnings of the country mentioned above.
    I'll say it again, if the USA is worried about being strapped for cash, it ought to adopt single payer and a price controlling body, because that will save it money.

    And you need to expand Europe to the entire rest of the developed world. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, I could go on. It's so politically and culturally diverse that one wonders how the USA is so special.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Do you follow the news?

    From USA today (but the story is all over just google) Democrats beginning to support Obamacare delays

    You don't even have your entire senate majority on the same page with this bill.

    Could you imagine single payer working with the voting public outside of some liberal enclaves?

    I could not.
    The opportunity may be missed now, thanks to ACA. We could have done it back then, and the results would have been so effective that in the long run the bill would be in no danger. I'm not entirely sure how to move forward now. We may have to stick with ACA for a while, it's still better than anything I've heard a Republican suggest.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Way to double down on your extremism argument by the way.



    Make that way to triple down on that extremism argument.



    That's what you get when you push a big bill like this through without bipartisan support.
    You prevent anyone from finding out it works and you were wrong to not support it by sabotaging it?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #125
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You prevent anyone from finding out it works and you were wrong to not support it by sabotaging it?
    You only get one strike in politics.

    Your party should not have acted with such hubris to think that it could implement it's will with no bipartisan buy in.

    Just because you have been arguing for single payer for a while doesn't make that position any less far left within our political continuum.

    Your opinion, and those that echo it will continue to see their position marginalized as the public see's the Democratic party unable to make the ONE thing they really tried to do during this administration fall apart.

    You can argue as much as you want about how much better America would be if it was liberal enough to conform to your understanding of reality, fortunately for the rest of us that's about as likely to happen as the White House releasing ACA enrollment figures.

  6. #126
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You only get one strike in politics.

    Your party should not have acted with such hubris to think that it could implement it's will with no bipartisan buy in.

    Just because you have been arguing for single payer for a while doesn't make that position any less far left within our political continuum.
    No. If you want to do something meaningful, you have to throw all the power you have behind it while you still have it. Like I said, there was no payoff for the Democratic compromise. They could have passed a system like the one I promote and it would have cost them nothing more. I posit less, because it would have been very popular once it was in action. Those are the political opportunities that have to be taken for anyone to make history.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Your opinion, and those that echo it will continue to see their position marginalized as the public see's the Democratic party unable to make the ONE thing they really tried to do during this administration fall apart.
    Not necessarily, and hopefully not, but that is exactly what the Republicans would want. That is the point. Strategically, the Republicans and a functional government are no longer mutually compatible.

    The problem with ACA right now is, I think, exaggerated anyway. It's not forever, it will come to an end and things will proceed. The question is how we go forward. The opportunity for Democrats in the future exists in the fact that anybody who looks to Republicans for answers will get nothing. People actually want a government that helps them, and people were very dissatisfied with health care in this country. If Republicans can only appear to fuck things up but never make anything work, it pretty much leaves an open field for Democrats to decide what the government is to become. Rand Paul is no exception to this, he is rather a poster child of it.

    As I've pointed out, Obama does not seem to be faring well, but polls do not indicate that ACA's problems have done jack shit for the Republican party's brand. Nobody cares for someone who's only two abilities are to point out problems and to cause problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    You can argue as much as you want about how much better America would be if it was liberal enough to conform to your understanding of reality, fortunately for the rest of us that's about as likely to happen as the White House releasing ACA enrollment figures.
    The time it may take to get there is unfortunately probably longer now thanks to this half-ass ACA bill, but it should be a matter of time. History is already decided. Universal health care won. The question is how long it takes for the USA to choose to participate in modernity. I hope, and I do believe, it will do so before it simply ceases to exist.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #127
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The USA is not particularly tax burdened as of yet. It is less so than pretty much any developed country. And the thing is about growing the government, is perhaps it can be done too fast, but it will be done. Technological advancement and population growth goes a long with breadth, depth, and power of government.

    The idea behind something like a health care system as it exists in Canada is that it actually costs less, not more, than not having it. It's not an accurate argument to reject for contributing to the price the public is paying in any way.
    The "tax the rich trope" can only take you so far.

    There is a striking and growing level of tax inequality in this country.

    As I have said before, take we need to raise your taxes argument to the middle class, to help reflect the rates of taxation seen among the middle class of those social democracies you like to crow about.

    How attractive will your agenda be to the public then?



    There is a relationship between the policy maker and the voter, of course, but I never think it's really voters saying "I vote for this guy because I get more hand outs" and the Democrats saying "If we give more handouts we get more voters". Your position still sounds like Romney's in so far as it sounds like a claim of vote buying.
    Because that's (a very dumbed down version of whats going on) exactly whats happening.

    I anticipated this response. The bold part is not accurate, and here is why. You can see me advocating this policy back in 2009. I'm not reacting to any problems on the part of ACA and suggesting we should go even further left, I'm suggesting we do exactly what I suggested before ACA was even a law. And I had misgivings about ACA when it was passed. You can see it on this forum if you look hard enough for it. I feared that ACA, by being a compromised, half-measure, would be dysfunctional and mislead people into thinking a real health care system doesn't work. Nothing that's going on is anything I've had to react to, it's something I've seen coming and I'm still right about what I said in 2009..
    How long you've held the view has no bearing on where it lies in the political continuum.

    Dennis Kucinich land must be fun.

    Another thing is I've been arguing since then is that it was not the most liberal bill they could have pushed, by they were to scared, and they got absolutely nothing in return for compromising. Their compromise still had them trounced in the elections, as I figured it would. They could have based something more left wing, and they would not have noticeably paid a greater price for it. The thing is, whatever the Democrats do, the Republicans will claim it is as left-wing as possible, and the ill-informed public just might believe it, so there isn't much incentive for holding back. But Democrats never seem to figure this out.
    You had a chance to legislate and you failed.

    You will be forced to own this as a party.

    It might be difficult. No amount of political opposition makes the system any less effective, it doesn't make me wrong. What I propose would still be better than ACA or what we had before, or anything Republicans suggest. So to the extent that it is not politically viable is the extent to which all of the USA suffers.
    It makes you perfectly wrong. I will never work because the American public doesn't want it.

    You can argue theory until the cows come home and it will change nothing.

    You will have wasted your energy.

    I'll say it again, if the USA is worried about being strapped for cash, it ought to adopt single payer and a price controlling body, because that will save it money.

    And you need to expand Europe to the entire rest of the developed world. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, I could go on. It's so politically and culturally diverse that one wonders how the USA is so special.
    And none of those countries have to deal with being the main buttress and support of the global financial system, our military obligations, or had our founding and the role that has played culturally.

    What they have works for them, what the left has come up with has manifestly failed for the US at this point.


    The opportunity may be missed now, thanks to ACA. We could have done it back then, and the results would have been so effective that in the long run the bill would be in no danger. I'm not entirely sure how to move forward now. We may have to stick with ACA for a while, it's still better than anything I've heard a Republican suggest.
    We move forward by handing the reins over to someone else who knows not just how to identify problems, but also how to actually implement solutions that work in the real world.

  8. #128
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    You believe we will never come up with a reasonable alternative.

    Never say never.

  9. #129
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    No. If you want to do something meaningful, you have to throw all the power you have behind it while you still have it. Like I said, there was no payoff for the Democratic compromise. They could have passed a system like the one I promote and it would have cost them nothing more. I posit less, because it would have been very popular once it was in action. Those are the political opportunities that have to be taken for anyone to make history.
    Your, single payer would cost less argument is thin ice and you know it.

    Do you have any evidence to support this that isn't as facile an understanding of the problem as "well other countries do X, so X will work for the US" if so I would love to hear it.

    It takes more people paying increased taxes etc. to support sicker poorer folks than that additional number of poorer sicker folks helped.

    The math just doesn't work like that.

    Not necessarily, and hopefully not, but that is exactly what the Republicans would want. That is the point. Strategically, the Republicans and a functional government are no longer mutually compatible.

    The problem with ACA right now is, I think, exaggerated anyway. It's not forever, it will come to an end and things will proceed. The question is how we go forward. The opportunity for Democrats in the future exists in the fact that anybody who looks to Republicans for answers will get nothing. People actually want a government that helps them, and people were very dissatisfied with health care in this country. If Republicans can only appear to fuck things up but never make anything work, it pretty much leaves an open field for Democrats to decide what the government is to become. Rand Paul is no exception to this, he is rather a poster child of it.

    As I've pointed out, Obama does not seem to be faring well, but polls do not indicate that ACA's problems have done jack shit for the Republican party's brand. Nobody cares for someone who's only two abilities are to point out problems and to cause problems.
    The public wont judge the Republicans for being excluded from the legislative process and being justifiably angry about that, especially as fears espoused by the right continue to come to fruition.

    If the ACA tumbles so does all credibility.

    The time it may take to get there is unfortunately probably longer now thanks to this half-ass ACA bill, but it should be a matter of time. History is already decided. Universal health care won. The question is how long it takes for the USA to choose to participate in modernity. I hope, and I do believe, it will do so before it simply ceases to exist.
    I hope you can hold your breath for a long time.

  10. #130
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The "tax the rich trope" can only take you so far.

    There is a striking and growing level of tax inequality in this country.

    As I have said before, take we need to raise your taxes argument to the middle class, to help reflect the rates of taxation seen among the middle class of those social democracies you like to crow about.

    How attractive will your agenda be to the public then?
    I don't know how attractive it will be. It is true that we need higher middle class taxes though. We also need to remove various breaks, and close various loopholes, available to the rich and to corporations. Before one even gets around to who should pay how much of the taxes, the fact is that the USA just doesn't raise enough tax revenue. There needs to be more. The fact that Americans might think they have too much of a tax burden when they pay so little is ridiculous, but what's more ridiculous is that they also tend to want things that require taxes, and they don't make the connection.

    We have a difference in that you seem to think a sizable number of votes have political convictions and are sufficiently informed. I don't. They are very suggestible. It's mostly a competing game of campaigns that decides what they will believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Because that's (a very dumbed down version of whats going on) exactly whats happening.
    I don't think it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    How long you've held the view has no bearing on where it lies in the political continuum.

    Dennis Kucinich land must be fun.



    You had a chance to legislate and you failed.

    You will be forced to own this as a party.



    It makes you perfectly wrong. I will never work because the American public doesn't want it.

    You can argue theory until the cows come home and it will change nothing.

    You will have wasted your energy.
    I mostly consider these comments chest puffing and I really don't know what to say to them other than this.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    And none of those countries have to deal with being the main buttress and support of the global financial system, our military obligations, or had our founding and the role that has played culturally.

    What they have works for them, what the left has come up with has manifestly failed for the US at this point.
    Well, ACA is nothing like health care in other developed countries, so it doesn't tell us much. And I'm going to stick by my point that it saves us money, so would not require us to compromise spending on anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We move forward by handing the reins over to someone else who knows not just how to identify problems, but also how to actually implement solutions that work in the real world.
    That doesn't sound like a Republican.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Your, single payer would cost less argument is thin ice and you know it.

    Do you have any evidence to support this that isn't as facile an understanding of the problem as "well other countries do X, so X will work for the US" if so I would love to hear it.
    It's pretty much an objective fact, and I know it. And I don't believe you'd love to hear it, because you've already heard, but never comprehend it.

    First of all, regarding comparison to other countries, you act like that isn't meaningful. To say it works for other countries, specifically, is to say that overwhelming statistical evidence shows it pays off for every country that tries it, which happens to include every other developed country in the world. And this includes countries of different areas, with different populations, with different amounts of diversity, and different political roles in the world. It begins to seem like an odd use empiricism to decide that it tells us nothing about the policy general or the USA's potential adoption of it.

    But there explanations, of course, for why it works in other countries. And I target three points, universal coverage, single payer, and price controlling.

    Universal coverage would save the USA money because people who aren't covered just go to the ER, which is extremely expensive. It is more expensive than having someone use insurance coverage. This is known.

    Single payer saves money by largely removing the administrative and overheads costs. You don't have each different provider paying for their own organization costs (economies of scale), you don't have the price of various different organizations all interacting with and trying to account for each other, and you don't have the inefficiencies of people joining and leaving various different organizations all the time.

    The price controls are most important. In the UK, you just have a government body that just sets a cap on the costs of health care and that's that. In Germany, you have a mediated summit between providers to agree amongst themselves where to cap things for a time (until the next one). However you want to do it, controlling the costs is pivotal. If you look at the congressional budget projections, you will see that nearly all of the projected deficit is from health care. And if you look at the breakdown of the health care, you will find that the cost is almost entirely the prices of health care. It's not the aging baby boomer generation or anything like that. It's just the prices. If you fix those, you pretty much evaporate the projected deficit.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It takes more people paying increased taxes etc. to support sicker poorer folks than that additional number of poorer sicker folks helped.

    The math just doesn't work like that.
    You have your answer as to why it works, and you have your evidence of it working in other countries. And yes, even including the taxes, they pay less. But by all means, explain away the rest of the world.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The public wont judge the Republicans for being excluded from the legislative process and being justifiably angry about that, especially as fears espoused by the right continue to come to fruition.

    If the ACA tumbles so does all credibility.
    The extent to which those fears come to fruition is basically to the extent the right makes them come to fruition. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's alarm about a problem they engineered. It is totally cynical. Of course, that doesn't mean it won't work. But you don't describe the whole picture. You don't describe the absence of solutions. You don't describe the government shutdowns and the threats to not raise the debt ceiling. These are the things the Republican party is known for now, and I suspect it's what they will continue to be know for because I know they are empty handed. If it stops being about that, it starts being about the solutions they don't have, which is even worse for them.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I hope you can hold your breath for a long time.
    Thanks, but I don't need it.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. If the inferior function is so bad than what's made of the remaining four functions?
    By Willow Tree in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-18-2016, 07:31 PM
  2. What is so fascinating about gender politics?
    By Ingrid in grids in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-02-2016, 05:58 AM
  3. [ENTJ] ENTJ Ladies . . . what do you see is good/bad about being an ENTJ?
    By Windigo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 04-09-2012, 09:38 PM
  4. What's so bad about wanting a Union job?
    By miss fortune in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 11:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO