I like reading Orson Scott Card's World Watch columns, mainly because I disagree with most of what he says, and I like the laugh I usually get.
I have read the latest installment, and while I normally don't engage in the public discourse, I thought that this time I had to say something, somehow.
In the latest post, OSC states of President Obama that "...all his promises - every one of them - were lies." While OSC has a right to his opinion, it would be nice if he had something to back it up. Why doesn't OSC give any examples? So far, Obama is trying to pass some form of health care, which was one of his campaign promises. That's not a lie. I'm not going to get into details, but there are plenty of independent websites tracking the president's campaign promises, and how far he's come to each of them. I encourage everyone to check that out.
OSC says that Bush never lied about anything. I think there are a lot of people who would disagree with that statement, and I again invite everyone to check out independent analysis of Bush's lies and misrepresentations.
OSC says Obama is incompetent. How exactly? He's had 9 months. People, it's going to take some time to turn things around. I'd like to remind OSC, if he reads this, that Mr. Bush left office with a good portion of New Orleans still destroyed almost 4 years after Katrina, with a hole at ground zero more than 7 years after 9/11, with two wars, with a skyrocketing deficit, with out-of-control national debt, with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs every month, with the collapse of the financial industry, and with millions of foreclosures and hundreds of thousands going bankrupt because they couldn't pay for their medical bills. Mr. Bush left office with almost 45 million Americans with no health insurance. His TARP program, which he rushed to get through Congress, has done virtually nothing to get banks to lend money again.
Mr. Card states that it's the Left that's "calling us names if we disagree." Really, Mr. Card? What about all the Right Wing people comparing Obama to Hitler and carrying signs depicting him as some African witch doctor? What about Joe Wilson's famous "You lie!", even though Joe Wilson was wrong? What about that crazy birther movement?
Mr. Card has a column that a lot of people read. It's his responsibility to check his facts before he posts something. What we need right now is less of the Glenn Beck approach and more civil discussion. We don't need absolutes, like Mr. Card's column is full of. The truth is, there are crazies on both sides of all debates. While Fox News, Glenn Beck and Mr. Card pander to the fringe elements of the Right, and similar outlets pander to the fringe of the Left, the real debate is in the middle, with honest and civil dialogue. It's time to stop the name-calling, the bickering, and start doing something in this country. Mr. Card, you're free to join us any time, but leave your rhetoric at home.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I agree dude Which is why I tend to avoid reading OSC's columns I don't walk away from them feeling intelligent and enlightened but annoyed and frustrated and ready to hammer nails into my brain from the sheer annoyance of OSC's over simplifying of complicated issues! It's all black and white with him. No grey. No various colours. GAH!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I used to be frustrated with OSC's worldwatch stuff because he would basically pile on a handful of offhanded (rarely if ever qualified) assertions and then just sort of grind them through a sausage maker to produce little meat dumplings of offensive generalizations. And actually, he's still doing that, but now and, for I would say the past 18 months at least, he's just sort of floundering about casting aspersion on liberals for reasons he refuses to state, mainly because I think he's just tired of doing it. The whole experience created such a negative feedback loop with his fanbase, I wouldn't be surprised if this latest update is just the swan song- maybe a few more wallowing screeds, and then eventually he'll just give it up as good money after bad. He long since lost interest in discussing the actual issues, and moved on to partisan bickering and name calling several years ago, and I don't think there was any going back. I can't say that disappointments me- if he had never written such an article, I feel his world and this one might be a better place for all the good things he could have spent his time on.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
think I am going to cry. Before hes made at least SOME effort before... but now its like he just didn't care.
I'm going to go into my little corner and cry now, so much of it is just so wrong doesn't he ever watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart?
Commences crying.
Posted by Matek (Member # 9065) on :
It sounds like most of his information comes from Fox news. Kinda sad...
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Didn't provoke a negative reaction for me - actually, it didn't provoke a reaction at all. It just read like mindless blathering to me. I'm a little disappointed aboutt that, I'm used to at least getting a little pissed off at World Watch. The past two haven't even made me so much as laugh.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
There's really nothing that funny about a crash and burn.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Wait a minute. First he castigates the president and his "chums" by pointing out that you get nowhere by insulting the people who disagree with you. Then he invites irony and hypocrisy by excusing his own insults and appraisal of the people he disagrees with, by saying that they're hopeless anyway.
I am absolutely startled that Card can be such a terrible columnist, but this is one of the shoddier, stupider rants I have ever read, left OR right. It reads like terse, emotionally-charged hackwork. What's happened to him?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Classic card. At least he brought the funny.
As far as the midterms...solidly in Republican control after 2010? Doubtful. If they Democrats were smart they'd be able to peg a lack of progress on the Republicans and gain an even larger majority, but that won't happen. I think the GOP will be able to take back some of those moderate seats that Blue Dogs took in 2008, but they'll still be moderates. Either way, I'd actually be a little surprised if the GOP took back Congress, but I think they'll thin the edge in the House. Dems might actually be able to net a seat or two in the Senate.
I'm curious as to how he can prove Obama KNOWINGLY lied about any number of amorphous things that he doesn't specify. Proving that someone knowingly lied is incredibly difficult, as it requires you to more or less have the person in question admit it.
Other than that, the missile shield? Come on man. We've been talking missile defense for FIFTY YEARS! And after tens of billions of dollars it still DOESN'T WORK! And there's not even an encouraging sign that it will work in anything close to the near future! In exchange, we're going to get Russia to put the hammer to Iran, which is absolutely essential in any plan that makes sanctions viable. If the shield is specifically there to stop an Iranian Shahab, doesn't it make more sense to use the shield in any way necessary to stop the missiles? Even if that means not having the shield? Regardless, it was a shield that couldn't stop anything, and instead we're giving them mobile detection platforms in the form of Aegis Destroyers and future interceptor missiles that work even better than the non-existent missile shield, for less money, and don't piss off Russia. He could have handled it more diplomatically so Poland and the like didn't get burned in the process, but we aren't leaving them in the cold, we're making them safer.
As for Afghanistan, where did he get that, his crystal ball? He's put a crapload more focus on Afghanistan than Bush ever did, and he's said numerous times to unfriendly audiences that the struggle there still has a long way to go. Where does he get cutting and running from that?
The only thing I do agree on is that Obama actually has been shockingly awful at gathering support or leading in any meaningful way. I think thus far he's been along for the ride far more than he's been steering the ship.
I hope he gets everything he wants though, so American freedom as we know it can come to an end. As a liberal, I hate freedom, and want it to die.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I'm curious as to how he can prove Obama KNOWINGLY lied about any number of amorphous things that he doesn't specify. Proving that someone knowingly lied is incredibly difficult, as it requires you to more or less have the person in question admit it.
Unless you are a Republican....like Bush. I really love how we now need to change the tone since President Obama took office. I don't seem to recall the clamor for people to treat any other President more fairly. This is just a pathetic attempt to shutdown critiscm of Obama and the Democrats.
quote: What about all the Right Wing people comparing Obama to Hitler and carrying signs depicting him as some African witch doctor?
What about the movies depicting the killing of President Bush? what about all the signs against President Bush? I am sure you were just as outraged then as you are now.
quote: What about Joe Wilson's famous "You lie!", even though Joe Wilson was wrong?
Are illegal immigrants receiving health care now? How does President Obama's vague outline for health care reform prevent illegal immigrants from receiving health care in the future? Will President Obama demand that hospitals and emergency care clinics be forced by law to prove that a patient is a legal citizen before treatment begins?
quote: What about that crazy birther movement?
I think the birther movement is the equivalent of the truther movement except the birthers are not claiming Bush killed 3000 people, or was it the Jews? President Obama does not want to raise the bar of polite discussion, only stifle his critics.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Regardless, it was a shield that couldn't stop anything, and instead we're giving them mobile detection platforms in the form of Aegis Destroyers and future interceptor missiles that work even better than the non-existent missile shield, for less money, and don't piss off Russia. He could have handled it more diplomatically so Poland and the like didn't get burned in the process, but we aren't leaving them in the cold, we're making them safer.
If you replace one system that may or may not work with another system that may or may not work...how does that make them safer?
[ October 05, 2009, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:from DK: Unless you are a Republican....like Bush. I really love how we now need to change the tone since President Obama took office. I don't seem to recall the clamor for people to treat any other President more fairly. This is just a pathetic attempt to shutdown critiscm of Obama and the Democrats.
You DO however recognize the methodological silliness of setting a standard and then violating it in next sentence don't you? You can't say "This is lying, and there's no proof!" and then say "this is lying, and I don't need proof, I just KNOW." He said/she said about Bush is irrelevant to the point. He's doing the exact same thing he accuses others of doing, and he's doing it in the same paragraph! He can call him a liar if he wants, but he can't dismiss the baseless claims of others and then front his own baseless claim in the same breath. It's ridiculous.
quote:If you replace one system that may or may not work with another system that may or may not work...how does that make them safer?
Safer than if they had nothing at all, not necessarily safer than what was planned...though I do think one could still make that argument given the history of the missile shield. Do you have an opinion one way or the other?
Posted by jxs177 (Member # 12188) on :
I like DarkKnight's post, because it's just more of the same right-wing rhetoric we see on Fox News. Here we go:
1. It may be difficult to tell if someone knowingly lied. However, if you can document hundreds of lies and misrepresentations, then the conclusion would be that a) either that person is knowingly lying, or b) that person is an idiot. George Bush and Co. have been caught, by independent sources representing no major media outlet, in hundreds of lies and misrepresentations during his presidency. Now, I would say that all presidents lie, and all policitians have been guilty of misrepresenting the facts for political gain. My argument is that you cannot say that all of Obama's promises have been lies. There are going to be things he can pass, and things he can't do. Anybody here remember "No new taxes?" If the landscape changes while you're in office, do you think you should be held to the letter of whatever you said during your campaign?
2. The difference with the crazy right-wing group today with Obama and those crazy left-wing people with Bush is that you didn't have a major news outlet promoting it for the past 8 years. Now you've got Fox News sponsoring these tea-bagging fools, and you've got Glenn Beck talking about these "freedom-loving" people who want to take their country back from the fascists. That's not journalism with integrity. That's rhetoric designed specifically to cause rage, and the right-wing has perfected it. The fact is, there are many right-wingers who just can't stand that we have a black president. That get's to the heart of a lot of this.
3. Actually, the house bill proposed BEFORE Joe Wilson's flap reads as follows: "no federal payment for undocumented aliens." That's pretty clear, DarkKnight. Also, illegal immigrants already are treated in emergency rooms. Changing that requires a new law. Children of illegal immigrants that are born in the US are citizens, and are eligible for health care. Changing that requires a new law, too.
4. The birther movement is the direct result of the many rascists in the right-wing who can't stand having a black president. They will go to any lenghts, even forging false Kenyan birth certificates, to prove that Obama is not a US citizen. It's really sad that these people exist, and that they get so much coverage.
5. It's true that the missile defense shield has never worked and will probably never work. We've been trying this, through DARPA grants, in one form or another for close to 30 years. Trying a little diplomacy for once might yield great results. It's at least worth a try.
The problem with people like DarkKnight, just like Glenn Beck and the Fox News circus, is that they say anything to get a response or make their point. They don't care about those inconvenient facts. They feed on sensationalism and fear. They say the government is going to control our health care, even though Medicare is one of the most successful programs in history. How many seniors do you know who would be willing to give up their Medicare for private insurance?
They like to say that Obama is a socialist, yet how is allowing 1% of the population to control more wealth than 95% of the population helping the country? DarkKnight has no answer to this question, just like he has no response to my earlier statement that Bush left office with a huge deficit, huge debt, two wars, the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs every month, hundreds of thousands of foreclosures, health insurance that millions cannot afford. The right wing can only complain and yell; they have no ideas about how to fix anything. DarkKnight, if you have any ideas, I think everyone would love to hear it. Do you want to provide us with any constructive insight?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I like DarkKnight's post, because it's just more of the same right-wing rhetoric we see on Fox News.
Interesting, I wouldn't have pegged you as a Fox News fan from the rest of your post. Takes all kinds though I guess, right?
Hobbes Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You DO however recognize the methodological silliness of setting a standard and then violating it in next sentence don't you? You can't say "This is lying, and there's no proof!" and then say "this is lying, and I don't need proof, I just KNOW." He said/she said about Bush is irrelevant to the point. He's doing the exact same thing he accuses others of doing, and he's doing it in the same paragraph! He can call him a liar if he wants, but he can't dismiss the baseless claims of others and then front his own baseless claim in the same breath. It's ridiculous.
Is the 'He' you are referring to in your post Mr. Card? If so, then I do think Mr. Card would have been much better off responding with at least a list of lies Obama has told...No earmarks would be a good one although that is being spun as he didn't really say or mean NO earmarks, just less than others.
quote: 1. It may be difficult to tell if someone knowingly lied. However, if you can document hundreds of lies and misrepresentations, then the conclusion would be that a) either that person is knowingly lying, or b) that person is an idiot. George Bush and Co. have been caught, by independent sources representing no major media outlet, in hundreds of lies and misrepresentations during his presidency. Now, I would say that all presidents lie, and all policitians have been guilty of misrepresenting the facts for political gain.
So as the tally keeps increasing for Obama and his lies and misrepresentations will you say that Obama is a) knowingly lying or b) he is an idiot? What's the threshold?
quote: 2. The difference with the crazy right-wing group today with Obama and those crazy left-wing people with Bush is that you didn't have a major news outlet promoting it for the past 8 years.
Who would Cindy Sheehan be without wall to wall media coverage? We went through many years of major news outlets lying and misrepresentating the Bush Administration and now you are all upset because Fox chooses to cover stories that other networks will not cover? The Tea Parties are a great example of not covering an event for a political purpose. Yes, Fox news is biased and it's bias shows strongly when compared to the bias of other major news outlets. Dan Rather is a good example of Democrat bias.
quote: 3. Actually, the house bill proposed BEFORE Joe Wilson's flap reads as follows: "no federal payment for undocumented aliens." That's pretty clear, DarkKnight. Also, illegal immigrants already are treated in emergency rooms. Changing that requires a new law.
So Obama did knowingly lie because he knows that illegal immigrants will continue to be treated, or is an idiot?
quote: Children of illegal immigrants that are born in the US are citizens, and are eligible for health care. Changing that requires a new law, too.
I'm not sure what you are going for here. Children born in the US are citizens, not illegal immigrants and have all the rights of any other US citizen.
quote: 4. The birther movement is the direct result of the many rascists in the right-wing who can't stand having a black president. They will go to any lenghts, even forging false Kenyan birth certificates, to prove that Obama is not a US citizen. It's really sad that these people exist, and that they get so much coverage.
and the truthers are....what? They are still out there claiming that it was an inside job. Are they racists or just idiots?
quote: The problem with people like DarkKnight, just like Glenn Beck and the Fox News circus, is that they say anything to get a response or make their point. They don't care about those inconvenient facts. They feed on sensationalism and fear.
What facts have I misrepresented? Oh, this is just you projecting things onto someone else, regardless if they said them or not.
quote: They say the government is going to control our health care, even though Medicare is one of the most successful programs in history.
You included me with those 'they', can you point to where I said that? I didn't. My opposition to the current health care has to do with the details of the plans, how things are paid for, the fines for non-compliance and so on. Here is a good place to recognize many of the lies and misrepresentations...or they could be idiots...of the Democrats writing the bills. Obama made the claim he can save hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud, waste, and abuse of Medicare...but wait, didn't you just say the Medicare is one of the most successful programs in history? Hard to swallow that one when Obama knows he can save hundreds of billions of dollars from such a corrupt program, unless you are claiming that successful means hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted...but I don't think you are saying that.
quote: They like to say that Obama is a socialist, yet how is allowing 1% of the population to control more wealth than 95% of the population helping the country?
Let's turn this question around, are you proposing to redistribute the wealth of the country from those who have it to those who do not? My answer is that this is just more class warfare rhetoric from jealous angry people who want something for nothing. Those evil wealthy 1% are not preventing you from increasing your own personal wealth. You can become rich too. It's hard work, and risky, but you can do it.
quote: Bush left office with a huge deficit, huge debt, two wars, the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs every month, hundreds of thousands of foreclosures, health insurance that millions cannot afford.
This would take more time than I currently have but I will say that Obama has vastly outspent Bush, has not created new jobs, and has done little, if anything, to improve our economy. GM too big to fail! Oops, failed anyway...That's just one example.
quote: DarkKnight, if you have any ideas, I think everyone would love to hear it.
I suspect this is completely untrue. I have done so in the past only to be shouted down. But for the sake of trying...health care should NOT be done in a massive bill. We should take smaller steps. I fail to see what is wrong with making one bill for electronic records, spend the time to make that right, and passing it. Another bill can be giving hospitals incentives to find if their patients should be covered by Medicare. Millions of those uninsured are covered, they just never got the coverage. Make that a separate bill. Those two should easily pass. Another bill should be allowing the same health insurance tax breaks for self employed individuals that people who get their health insurance through their employers get. Too radical for you? How about NOT punishing an employer when their employees do not take the company's provided health care? There are some ideas...feel free to misrepresent them...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I might agree in principle.
However, there are a number of problems. One, passing legislation in bits and pieces means that there could be gaps and overlaps. It also means the most controversial pieces won't have a chance of passing. I suppose YOU don't care so much about that, but as a supporter of a lot of the ideas running around the liberal side of Washington, I don't want to see what I think are some of the most vital reforms fall by the wayside because Republicans are using parliamentary tricks to stonewall passage of anything that doesn't 100% conform to their demands.
Just passing the parts that both sides agree on is going to leave HUGE holes in health care. Dems don't want necessary tort reform, and Republicans refuse a public option. I think both are necessary, but outside of a comprehensive bill, i think neither will happen, and we'll all suffer.
quote:Is the 'He' you are referring to in your post Mr. Card? If so, then I do think Mr. Card would have been much better off responding with at least a list of lies Obama has told...No earmarks would be a good one although that is being spun as he didn't really say or mean NO earmarks, just less than others.
Campaign promises? Really? You want to go there dovetailed to a Obama vs. Bush honesty discussion using campaign promises as a metric? Do you have a death wish? Bush wins from his second term, since we KNEW what we were getting, but if you want to compare first term Bush to candidate Bush in 2000, then you're going to get smoked.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: One, passing legislation in bits and pieces means that there could be gaps and overlaps. It also means the most controversial pieces won't have a chance of passing. I suppose YOU don't care so much about that, but as a supporter of a lot of the ideas running around the liberal side of Washington, I don't want to see what I think are some of the most vital reforms fall by the wayside because Republicans are using parliamentary tricks to stonewall passage of anything that doesn't 100% conform to their demands.
Just like Democrats, and YOU, do not want to do anything but gain complete control over all aspects of health care so the Government will have power over our very lives. See how the useless rhetoric works both ways? Probably not. Or we could accurately say that Democrats, and YOU, do not want to pass health care reform unless they get every single liberal item 100% their way, there is no compromise! It's either their way, or no way. Again, this is as true as your statements are but not very helpful. The items I mentioned (electronic records or ER, getting covered people into coverage, reducing the fraud and waste in Medicare) will NOT fix health care. They will help reduce some costs and provide better coverage for many but is NOT the total answer. We can work on those 3 ideas, and there are other items too while we continue to talk about a public option or whatever liberal idea it is YOU are pushing for. Even if YOU want a single payer system then you should still want to pass ER, better enrollment procedures, and reducing fraud and waste. All 3 of those can be helpful in a single payer system. But you would rather do nothing than achieve something that will only help you long term. Imagine if President Obama were able to point to the successes of ER, of reducing the millions of uncovered, but eligible, Medicare recipients, and more. He would be able to correctly say that he is reforming health care. It would give him the political capital to do more during his next term. I have a feeling this is totally wasted on you though. You are mad at Republicans because you claim they want 100% of their demands...and at the same time you want 100% of your demands. So they are wrong but somehow you are right?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I have my own political beliefs and think both parties have had their fair share of faults, however I have to agree with Dark Knight on his points.
I have had many concerns with the Bush Administration, and I have concerns with the Obama Administration.
I understand Obama wants to get as much done as he can in the next few years, but I think he needs to slow down a bit.
Blaming the previous administration is only going to last so long before people start to hold Obama responsible. It seems as though he is using this as an excuse to pass all of these bills. If something works, then Obama fixed it. If a program doesn't work, it is Bush's fault. Nevermind that the legislation had to be passed in Congress, and that the President was a member of that Congress at the time. Everytime I hear the president say something such as "We inherited this fromt he previous administation," the "Not Me" kid from the Family Circus comic strip pops into my head.
I wish the President, and congress on both sides of the isle would just buckle down and take responsibility for the economy instead of playing the blame game.
Personally I believe in the more money people have, the more money they have to spend. The more money businesses have, the more people they can hire.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Great thread! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Or we could accurately say that Democrats, and YOU, do not want to pass health care reform unless they get every single liberal item 100% their way, there is no compromise! It's either their way, or no way. Again, this is as true as your statements are but not very helpful.
I wouldn't hem me in with Democrats. I agree with much of what they want, but not all of it, and I even think Republicans have a couple decent ideas that are being ignored or don't have much of a chance, the best of which is tort reform, which I think is absolutely essential.
quote:But you would rather do nothing than achieve something that will only help you long term.
It's a calculated risk though. If I thought that honest and open discussion, negotiation and agreement would follow from passing all the agreed upon stuff now, I'd urge everyone to do it tomorrow. But I think passing those things would mean nothing else gets done. Both sides will pretend they've done something substantive, when in reality they'll have just put a band-aid on the problem. And then we have to wait another decade to fix it.
quote:Imagine if President Obama were able to point to the successes of ER, of reducing the millions of uncovered, but eligible, Medicare recipients, and more. He would be able to correctly say that he is reforming health care. It would give him the political capital to do more during his next term.
His next term? Heh. First off, I don't think we should wait that long for practical reasons. Already the reforms we put in place now are going to take years to really take effect. Waiting another three or four years to do it just compounds the problem that much more. I don't necessarily agree with the Democrats rush rush rush mentality to push some thousand page monstrosity into law, but I don't think waiting a few more years is a good idea either. Second, while it's impossible to know what's to come, and Dems might even get the gift of Palin if she decides to run, I'm skeptical of him getting reelected. I don't mind a lot of what Republicans want to do, but it's the stuff they'll refuse to allow that makes me want to make sure it's passed during Obama's term, otherwise getting any sort of public health care will take decades, and things will get worse and worse in the mean time.
quote:I have a feeling this is totally wasted on you though. You are mad at Republicans because you claim they want 100% of their demands...and at the same time you want 100% of your demands. So they are wrong but somehow you are right?
Where is the middle ground? The problem isn't that Democrats want A,B, and C and Republicans want X, Y and Z. It's that Democrats and Republicans both want A and B, and then Democrats want C and Republicans want Z, but C and Z aren't even somewhat related. (C, by the way, is public health care, and Z is tort reform). A perfect compromise is a public option for tort reform, and I'm absolutely on board with that. But where do you see room for a non-100% victory? If Republicans get the public option killed, they win, and if it goes through, Democrats win. When there are only two sides, it's hard to have anything short of a 100% win.
And of course I think I'm right and they're wrong. If I didn't, I'd agree with them wouldn't I? You seem to mean that strategically, as in, it's okay for me to want everything I want and wrong for them to want everything that they want, but we agree on so many things, it's really just down to a couple things of huge importance, as I explained above.
Posted by jxs177 (Member # 12188) on :
This discussion is getting all over the board. It seems that everyone has moved on to health care, with DarkKnight seeming to hang on to the normal GOP line that a government-run public option would be akin to a government takeover of health care.
Now, I think most people actually checking facts (instead of showing everyone that he knows how to type YOU a lot), would agree that this is just not the case. The whole idea of a public option is to give the general public an OPTION (my keyboard has a CAPS key, too) so that they don't have to buy private health insurance if they don't want to. Republicans and health insurance CEOs are worried that the public option will compete with private insurance. It is true that a public option will create competition for private insurance. However, how many times in history has competition actually been a bad thing? I can't think of any examples. Competition forces companies to lower prices while leading to innovation. If you don't provide a good product at a reasonable price, consumers go elsewhere. GM is the best example. They used to have a virtual stranglehold on the American automotive market, but years of sub-par products and inflated prices allowed the Japanese automakers to get a foot in the door, so to speak, in the market. GM wasn't able to produce quality cars at a price comparable to Honda and Toyota, and they failed to see the declining demand for large trucks and SUVs. Now look at them. Competition always helps the consumer. Always.
And just to leave everyone with another point (and hopefully to get back on track), a majority of the population, according to the latest polls, supports a public option of some sort. The New York Times poll suggests 65% of Americans want the public option. And just to debunk DarkKnight's inevitable claim that the NYT is part of the "liberal media," a similar poll conducted by the GOP-leaning Resurgent Republic suggests that 31% say the government should provide universal health coverage, while another 35% say the government should provide health coverage to those who cannot afford it. That's 66%, from a conservative polling institution, favoring some sort of public option.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, the last time I checked, our elected officials were supposed to speak for us in Congress. I fail to see why, if nearly two-thirds of Americans favor some form of a government-run public option, we should not do it.
Remember, this is the United States. It is unacceptable for so many of our friends and neighbors to be uninsured. It is unacceptable for someone to declare bankruptcy and lose his house because he got sick.
That's all I have to say on this matter.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the line you're taking issue with is this:
quote:Just like Democrats, and YOU, do not want to do anything but gain complete control over all aspects of health care so the Government will have power over our very lives. See how the useless rhetoric works both ways?
Note the part in bold at the end there. He was being hyperbolic on purpose to make a point. I disagree with Dark Knight a lot, but he's not a party hack. And even though I do disagree with him so often, I'm glad he continues to post despite the fact that he's generally a lone voice. Keeps me honest.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by jxs177: This discussion is getting all over the board.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I have a feeling this is totally wasted on you though. You are mad at Republicans because you claim they want 100% of their demands...and at the same time you want 100% of your demands. So they are wrong but somehow you are right?
DK, who in hell are you talking to? Who on this board has ever agreed 100% with anyone? Moreover, in what way is the current health care reform bill representative of a 100% liberal agenda? Because I don't see single-payer in there. Hell, I don't even see a public option being passed any time soon. So where is the lack of compromise exactly? Where have people failed to change their expectations to meet their real possibilities? Please, enlighten us, because from where I'm sitting, you're just spinning a web of crap that doesn't match a reasonable picture of events.
Lately this mantra has been reading more and more like the whining of a little boy who has walked into a store, and is now asking his mother to buy him every attractive item he sees, and becoming more and more agitated at each successive refusal, throwing items into the aisles and running his hands across everything, knocking it all out of place. "WE HAVE TO COMPROMISE!!!"
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by jxs177: And just to leave everyone with another point (and hopefully to get back on track), a majority of the population, according to the latest polls, supports a public option of some sort. The New York Times poll suggests 65% of Americans want the public option. And just to debunk DarkKnight's inevitable claim that the NYT is part of the "liberal media," a similar poll conducted by the GOP-leaning Resurgent Republic suggests that 31% say the government should provide universal health coverage, while another 35% say the government should provide health coverage to those who cannot afford it. That's 66%, from a conservative polling institution, favoring some sort of public option.
Careful with this. You are talking about 2 polls out of hundreds that are taking place on a weekly basis. The majority of the polls still show that that the amount that want government run health care is about 20 points below what you stated above.
You don't exactly know if these answers came from the same question either. Its possible 31% said they favored government run healthcare, and there could have been a second question about people that can't afford it.
I am not saying your information is wrong, just stating that polls, on both sides of the aisle, are often skewed. Just remember, according to polls John Kerry won a landslide victory in 2004 and Hillary was without a doubt the choice for the presidential election in 2008.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Just remember, according to polls John Kerry won a landslide victory in 2004 and Hillary was without a doubt the choice for the presidential election in 2008.
I was very carefully watching the electoral polling process for both of the events you describe.
"according to polls, John Kerry won a landslide victory" is completely false. Metadata on the polls suggested an overall electoral college tabulation that favored kerry but was decidedly within the margin of error.
"Hillary was without a doubt the choice for the presidential election in 2008" is also false.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Every now and then I poke my head up and read one of the World Watches, and I always regret it.
What's particularly sad is there's just about enough anecdote to make a case about some of the more self-destructive tendencies of unions. And then he tries to push it into a blackwash of the usual suspects- the Democrats, the far left, the feminists, the gay-rights groups. And I go- doesn't he realize he's raving? Doesn't he realize that if this were a conversation, almost any rational second party would be walking away at this point?
It wouldn't actually surprise me if the GOP took back a number of seats in the next election. But to think it's because the country is tired of the Democratic platform is "because the real americans all think like me" nonsense. It's the same platform that got Obama into office with a greater margin and more votes than Bush had either time. (Including when he had a "mandate"... Okay, sorry, I'm getting snarky.) It has a lot more to do with that the Democrats lack the consensus that the so-called "supermajority" would suggest, and where they have concensus, they lack spine. When all else goes to heck, the electorate would generally prefer the candidates that appear strong, confident, and certain. If we get to the 2010 elections without accomplishing anything with the "supermajority", the public is going to be smelling fear.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: DK, who in hell are you talking to?
Not you.
quote: Who on this board has ever agreed 100% with anyone?
Thank your for once again misinterperting my responses and not reading what I posted.
quote: Moreover, in what way is the current health care reform bill representative of a 100% liberal agenda?
Again, reading comprehension and following along with the conversation is key here. I would explain to you how that was in reference to what Lyrhawn was saying not liberals....but nevermind. You wanted to go on the attack with your normal rhetoric, so good job on that.
quote: Please, enlighten us, because from where I'm sitting, you're just spinning a web of crap that doesn't match a reasonable picture of events.
Of course it doesn't match....because the crap you continue to attribute to me isn't what I said! You are very clueless. You have what you want to say and will say no matter if it fits or not. Please don't pay closer attention though, you amuse me.
quote: Lately this mantra has been reading more and more like the whining of a little boy who has walked into a store, and is now asking his mother to buy him every attractive item he sees, and becoming more and more agitated at each successive refusal, throwing items into the aisles and running his hands across everything, knocking it all out of place. "WE HAVE TO COMPROMISE!!!"
Wow. Nice analogy. I wonder how that fits at all into the conversation? Oh, that's right. It doesn't. Not at all surprising coming from you though.
I stay around because of people like Lyrhawn who at least reads and thinks about what I post instead of just attack attack attack. I also read his (got it right this time:)) posts, think about them, and respond. At least he and I agree on a lot things, we disagree about other things.
quote: This discussion is getting all over the board. It seems that everyone has moved on to health care, with DarkKnight seeming to hang on to the normal GOP line that a government-run public option would be akin to a government takeover of health care.
Huh? I said that? Really? Hmm. Oh wait, I didn't. I do believe that a government-run option would be very tricky and could (I said COULD Orincoro, not will, but COULD) lead to severe unintended consequences. The things I propose would lead to real improvements now. My ideas would begin to get millions of people who are eligible for coverage finally get covered now, and not waiting for another election cycle or however many years a lot of these policies will need to take effect. I will definitely state again, EHR should be separate and be worked on by IT people, hospitals, insurance, government, and 'average citizens' in some kind of panel or research group to come up with EHR standards and best practices. I would not include EHR in the overall reform.
quote: I wouldn't hem me in with Democrats. I agree with much of what they want, but not all of it, and I even think Republicans have a couple decent ideas that are being ignored or don't have much of a chance, the best of which is tort reform, which I think is absolutely essential.
This is why I continue to come here. Lyrhawn understands, has a differing viewpoint on some issues, yet still looks at both sides. Thank you, Lyrhawn.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Mmm. Despite chopping my post up into parts in order to respond to each individually, you managed to be non responsive in every single reply.
But no, yeah, no, next time I say something you don't like, go back to your usual do-a-double-take-and-act-like-you-have-no-clue-what-I'm-talking-about routine. It's a great way to deal with criticism.
Posted by Matek (Member # 9065) on :
I'd like to make a follow up post in regards to the sadness I feel when people take Fox as a legitimate news network:
This is my first time posting so please forgive any mistakes.
Quote from jfx177 " However, how many times in history has competition actually been a bad thing? I can't think of any examples. Competition forces companies to lower prices while leading to innovation. If you don't provide a good product at a reasonable price, consumers go elsewhere......Competition always helps the consumer. Always."
I respectfully disagree with this section. The conclusion that the public health option would create competition in the market is not entirely true. I say this because the premise that the public option would be a true competitor in the free market is false.
A public option sponsored by the government would have unfair advantages that no other company could possibly compete with. All these advantages ultimately come down to the fact that the government option in fact does not have to make money or break even. The government can always recoup losses by printing money (causing inflation), increasing taxes, or a multitude of different methods not available to the private sector. Thus, there could never be true competition between a public option and private insurers.
In addition, the inflation from printing money or tax increases would ultimately hurt the health care consumer, not benefit as jxs117 stated.
[ October 12, 2009, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Rr ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*forgives Rr*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:A public option sponsored by the government would have unfair advantages that no other company could possibly compete with. All these advantages ultimately come down to the fact that the government option in fact does not have to make money or break even. The government can always recoup losses by printing money (causing inflation), increasing taxes, or a multitude of different methods not available to the private sector. Thus, there could never be true competition between a public option and private insurers.
Well, the post office doesn't take special appropriations from the government, and yet they still manage to stay afloat and compete with UPS, FedEx and DHL. The public option would have two advantages over private enterprise that are touted: 1. They'd have a massive base of customers, similar to what Medicare has, that most private companies wouldn't be able to achieve, and thus they'd be able to leverage better rates. 2. Like you say, they don't have to turn a profit, they just need to break even.
The latest compromise measure being talked about is an opt-out, rather than an opt-in, method. If I thought they were going to use a government blank check, I wouldn't support it as much (though, I probably still would). Ultimately, when it comes to health care, I don't have huge concerns over the nature of capitalism. What do I want? Whatever system that makes the best quality health care the cheapest for the most people. Shouldn't that be our goal? Are we really, as a nation, willing to let millions suffer and die in debt-ridden poverty out of an adherence to capitalism that borders on religiosity?
Why can't they just include in the legislation that the private option isn't allowed to draw extra appropriations from Congress, and that they have to survive on their own? Government entities that compete with the private sector exist, and they continue to exist because they are successful, not because they're feeding off the federal money spigot. Why do we think this will be different? And for that matter, how else do we introduce serious competition? Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The easiest way to learn the quoting schematic, Rr, is to use the "full reply form" button and study what it does to the quoted message. On a basic level it's mostly putting things between bracketed commands, with <quote> marking the beginning of a quote and </quote> marking the end (substituting brackets for <>.)
Your point seems to assume that any government-funded health care option necessarily implies the government as providing an infinite purse, which is not at all necessarily the case. Certainly one of the biggest advantages of government-run health care is the face that such a system doesn't demand a 30% profit rate, but two points need to be made on that account: one, those who view the private sector as the cure for all ills generally imply that a free-market-driven company will almost always be leaner and more innovative than a government-driven bureaucracy; why is health care suddenly the exception? Two, part of the reason many favor a public health care option is that far too many cases get dropped onto the public system anyway: chronic conditions get excluded one way or another until their sufferer is so debilitated that they qualify for Medicare or Medicaid; people without insurance use the emergency room as their primary health care provider, and pass off the bill to everyone else. In many ways a public health care option is just demanding a genuine accounting for the costs of those who already squeeze through the cracks.
The bottom line is that whatever system we ultimately devise, it needs to provide health care. The current patchwork system is failing to do so in myriad and highly visible ways.
Posted by Rr (Member # 12198) on :
Now my original point was that there is no real competition that would make the private sector "do better" in an attempt to compete with the public option because as you admitted, the public option does not need to turn a profit. What other company can do this?
As you brought up, I think the post office is a good example. They have no real competitors in basic mail services because they do it cheaper with no profit margin. The only competition is in premium mail services which, in my opinion, ups and fedex does a faster and more secure job of and are providing a different service altogether.
However, my response was mainly in regards to capitalism as you said and doesn't address the real Crux of my problem with the public option (and much of modern policy I guess). Can we ensure no taxpayers dollars will go into a public option and that only those who are buying the service pays for it? Because if not, why would all other citizens pay for something they are not using and gain no benefit from. I know people will respond with other cases where everyone is taxed/paying for things they do not directly benefit from, so to clear that argument, I believe that income tax is probably the least fair tax systems (especially our graduated tax brackets) and favor the revolkation of income tax altogether.
Thank you for your responses in advance.
Posted by Rr (Member # 12198) on :
Also,
Quote lyrhawn: "Why can't they just include in the legislation that the private option isn't allowed to draw extra appropriations from Congress, and that they have to survive on their own?"
iby 'private option' I assume you meant 'public option'. If so, I completely agree and would sign on to that provision anyday. But we'll have to see if it happens.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Why can't they just include in the legislation that the private option isn't allowed to draw extra appropriations from Congress, and that they have to survive on their own?
I think this is a good start, but somehow the wording needs to be about Congress keeping their hands out of it to a bigger extent. It's not enough that they can't fund it from tax money but there needs to be some protection for potential 'profits' as well. EDIT
quote: And for that matter, how else do we introduce serious competition?
We can start by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm all for allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. I think that will bring the price of insurance down, and will make the reforms that Congress is going to mandate an easier pill to swallow for insurance companies, but I don't think it will be enough. Insurance at the moment is only getting more expensive. We need not only to halt the growth in cost, but to reverse it. I think that's going to demand something more dramatic.
I would also be in favor of language being added to the legislation that kept the budget of the public option and the general fund entirely separate. That way, Congress can't borrow from it the way they have from Social Security, and they can't use general funds to pay for it either. It will sink or swim on its own. If it really does end up turning a profit, the money can go back into the system in the form of decreased rates or maybe added coverage, like dental.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I think that's going to demand something more dramatic.
At least we agree so far...what would be the more dramatic measure?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A public option. I think it's vital.
A lot of the reforms being proposed are going to cut into the profit margins of insurance companies. If they can't deny claims, can't place restrictions on the amount of claims a person can make every day, can't drop people and can't deny people based on prior medical conditions, they'll have lost all their tools for taking our money and not giving us anything in return, which is essentially where the major moneymaking part of their scheme lives. Stuff like EMR, agreements with drug companies to lower prescription costs, and allowing companies to compete across state lines will help a bit. Electronic medical records will cut down on mistakes and probably cut down on costs for hospitals, but hospitals are already struggling. Those savings are likely going to take the edge off of rising costs rather than actually lowering them. Crossing state lines will provide some much needed competition in markets that are overwhelmingly dominated by a single choice, or perhaps two choices. But I think most insurance companies, faced with the prospect of this new legislation and a huge hit to their profit margins, are not going to make sweeping new competing offers to customers. They're used to huge profit margins, and lowering their price point while being legislatively forced to offer more coverage is going to be a hard pill to swallow.
A public option, which doesn't need to run any sort of profit, and which most every poll and study says will not have more than a fraction of the national population taking part in, will be necessary as a scare tactic to get private insurance to lower their expectations of what profits they can expect to enjoy, and will force them to become leaner, and provide better, more efficient services. I have no inherent problem with private insurance. I have no inherent love of government solutions. I do however have a deep seated mistrust of private insurance, and I don't think they'll do anything to help the health of the general population unless forced to do so.
As far as I'm concerned, the public option can be used as leverage to force lower prices out of them, and I wouldn't even care if only 1% of the population actually signed on to it, so long as the prices fall.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Didn't Hawaii offer a program and it ended because of people dumping private insurance for the state option?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Off the top of my head, I have no idea. I'd be interested in reading the material though if you come across it.
Why would they drop the plan if everyone bought into it though? And for that matter, doesn't the fact that everyone switched away from private insurance indicate some sort of flaw in the status quo?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Didn't Hawaii offer a program and it ended because of people dumping private insurance for the state option?
Do you still beat your wife?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Nobody learns from history -- isn't that sad? Now it's the extreme Left (the only kind that seems to exist any more)
...
The Left exposes its raw hatred of democracy whenever democracy threatens their hold on power.
Yeah, I'm now in agreement with the people who noticed that Card has just gotten sloppy. His last two World Watches have been caricatures of far-right whinging.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Off the top of my head, I have no idea. I'd be interested in reading the material though if you come across it.
Orincoro, please knock it off.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's a well known rhetorical question. Will I get you to pay attention when people insult me if I just whine about it? Is that what you're trying to tell me I should start doing?
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
You're welcome to whistle any post you feel it necessary to report, and I will endeavor to react appropriately and evenhandedly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Off the top of my head, I have no idea. I'd be interested in reading the material though if you come across it.
Ohh, okay. I see what you're saying, but I think you're off the mark.
First off, that's not the type of health care being discussed by Congress with regards to a public option. That's an SCHIP program. The problem with the Hawaiian program was that it offered health insurance to child that didn't have it, so parents perfectly able to afford it dumped theirs and jumped on the gravy train.
Differences, at the very least, between that and what's being discussed now are: 1. If you join the public option, you pay more into it, just like you would a premium to any other health insurance provider, it's not a free program that you just sign up for and get access to. 2. When the SCHIP bill was passed in Congress, it didn't give ALL kids free health care, it pegged access to parental income, so upper middle and upper class parents couldn't get a freebie from the government, thus draining the funds too fast to be of use for their intended audience.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Ohh, okay. I see what you're saying, but I think you're off the mark.
I am off the mark, unless the public option turns out to be cheaper than any private insurance can offer coverage.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In your example, that wasn't the issue at all. Drawing a comparison between the two is comparing apples to oranges.
quote:cheaper than any private insurance can offer coverage.
But not currently right? That's the whole point of the public option. Private insurance could offer cheaper coverage, maybe even cheap enough to beat a public option's price, but they aren't going to lower their prices out of sheer good will. The public option is as much a crowbar as it is useful in its own right.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Ohh, okay. I see what you're saying, but I think you're off the mark.
I am off the mark, unless the public option turns out to be cheaper than any private insurance can offer coverage.
Why read this and ignore everything else he just posted? The reasons the program in Hawaii was canceled was that it was a *free program* that was underfunded and turned out to be too expensive. Makes perfect sense considering it provided an incentive not to buy insurance, and was completely taxpayer funded, making it an automatic political and practical loser. Big shocker. That's exactly what the article tells you. Single payer is not free. Ergo, you are off the mark when you talk about "Universal Health Care" (the child part you ignored in referencing it, btw) as if there is only one way to do it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: But not currently right? That's the whole point of the public option. Private insurance could offer cheaper coverage, maybe even cheap enough to beat a public option's price, but they aren't going to lower their prices out of sheer good will. The public option is as much a crowbar as it is useful in its own right.
So would allowing private companies to compete across state lines but we already agree on that. My concern is that a public option needs to be done right. If it is done poorly, like Hawaii, that will create a nightmare. Simply providing a 'public option' without a lot of preplanning will have many unintended consequences. We already talked about how to fund it and somehow I don't think Congress is going to get it right. There are 5 bills out there, and I wonder how much time we will have to review whatever final bill comes of all of this.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Conferencing on something this contentious could take some time, and then it'll head right to the president to sign, assuming it survives another vote.
I agree that it has to be done right, but Hawaii's system has some obvious pitfalls that have already been addressed, and I know this because we have a national SCHIP program now that was passed back when Obama first entered office, and it isn't having any of the funding issues that Hawaii's system had, mostly because who can participate is far more limited. Likewise funding the public option would also be very different.
Looking at poorly designed plans is a great way to make sure we get it done right in the future, and the fact that we A. Have good models to choose from, and B. Had a failed model like Hawaii and have since see revised models come out shows that we have the ability to adapt, and aren't inherently flawed.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote: Remember, this is the United States. It is unacceptable for so many of our friends and neighbors to be uninsured. It is unacceptable for someone to declare bankruptcy and lose his house because he got sick.
The United States isn't about making sure no one suffers. It's about giving people the freedom to succeed or fail. Living without risk kind of kills the soul.
Indeed, the cost of healthcare is a problem. But putting us further in debt in order to fix it while also adding fines and taxes to businesses and individuals isn't a sound solution.
As for OSC's World Watch, I loved his essay on unions. I thought it was well-reasoned.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Indeed, the cost of healthcare is a problem. But putting us further in debt in order to fix it while also adding fines and taxes to businesses and individuals isn't a sound solution.
Sure it is. The notion that the United States is about giving people the chance to succeed or fail on their own is crap. Much touted, ballyhooed crap. In reality, the US government has had zero problems using tax dollars to prop up business at the expense of the average citizen. What did that lead to? Mass unrest, rioting, industrial chaos. Eventually government figured out that pissing off the average American worker in the name of business wasn't a sound long term solution, so they went back the other way and started to regulate business for the first time, and you know what happened? Unparalleled stability in the US market, followed by the sharpest series of rises in American wealth and purchasing power.
The government hasn't been about a level playing field from day one, and the notion that they are is a fantasy, right up there with America being a land of freedom and equality. It's part of our national mythos, but I'd like think we're all smart enough here to argue the issue intelligently, rather than resorting to useless slogans.
I've seen no proof that this will put us further into debt, but even if it did, it would come with long term benefits both financially, and by making us healthier. It reduces costs across the country, as our fat, unhealthy little country pays a prohibitive portion of our GDP on health care costs. It's a long term landmine that the vaunted capitalistic system isn't designed to fix.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sure it is. The notion that the United States is about giving people the chance to succeed or fail on their own is crap. Much touted, ballyhooed crap.
When you actually look at the numbers and metrics like upwards class mobility, financial empowerment, and the propensity of the economic environment to be conductive to individual economic ventures, most of the european nations are significantly better at providing "The American Dream" than America is.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I've seen no proof that this will put us further into debt, but even if it did, it would come with long term benefits both financially,
quote: Indeed, perhaps the most significant reason Americans are drowning in health care debt may shock you: Americans are getting far too much unnecessary care. Of our total $2.3 trillion health care bill last year, a whopping $500 billion to $700 billion was spent on treatments, tests, and hospitalizations that did nothing to improve our health. Even worse, new evidence suggests that too much health care may actually be killing us. According to estimates by Elliott Fisher, M.D., a noted Dartmouth researcher, unnecessary care leads to the deaths of as many as 30,000 Medicare recipients annually.
This gives me a lot of concern that we will indeed have even higher costs as more and more overtesting and overtreatments are performed.
quote: and by making us healthier.
I don't see how improving health care will make Americans, in general, less fat or even healthier overall. Overall, too many Americans lead, for lack of a better term, an obese lifestyle whether they have health insurance or not. Further down in the article they explain more about why doctors overtreat or overtest their patients. I do want to improve how health insurance works but I do not believe we will become healthier overall as a result.
quote: The notion that the United States is about giving people the chance to succeed or fail on their own is crap.
Maybe we interpert this differently. Everyone does have a chance to succeed, some 'starting' chances are higher than others but the chance has more to do with the individual person (personal drive, motivation, luck) than being handed down from the Government. People can start their own businesses and become 'successful'. Lots of people try and don't make it for many reasons. The government, federal, state, or local can certainly assist in starting a business or whatever it is someone wants to do but they are not the only source. There are hundreds of other ways to start a business. Not every job will be a high paying job though and high pay is certainly not everyone's definition of success. Plus it's only a chance. There is nothing that says you will succeed but you do always have a chance to change your current circumstances. It may take months or years to change your current circumstances but it can be done. I equate it a lot with weight loss. At it's most basic, if calories expended is greater than calories consumed then you must lose weight. A very simple concept that is very complex and difficult to achieve. Some of the people I have worked with simply say they cannot lose weight no matter what they do. The problem, in my experience, is with the individual person. They make choices all the time that they know are 'wrong' if you want to lose weight yet they knowingly continue to make those choices. I do understand that is another simple statement and making those choices is very complex.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: ... It's about giving people the freedom to succeed or fail. Living without risk kind of kills the soul.
Universal Healthcare : Soul Killer A DC adaptation coming to a movie theatre near you
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
DK -
quote:This gives me a lot of concern that we will indeed have even higher costs as more and more overtesting and overtreatments are performed.
Reducing defensive medicine and inflated medical costs is a chief goal of revamping the health care infrastructure of the country, and it goes way, way beyond simple health insurance. A major focus of the new outlook on healthcare is on preventative care, in other words, lifestyle choices. As far as over treatment, why do you think this will lead to more? Is that a random gut feeling, or are you basing it on anything specific?
Personally I think the changes that Obama himself has pointed to in the health care field are very promising if your goal is to increase health and reduce costs. The Mayo Clinic, as well as a health care system I can't remember the name of in central Pennsylvania among others have totally revamped the way they offer health care. Electronic medical records drastically cut down on accidental deaths, as you know, and that's a key feature of the new bill. There's an article in TIME I would suggest that I'll link to later when I have more time to find it that I think you should read about where Obama might like to take us, as far as a total overhaul goes, and I think it WILL make us healthier, and it will cost less, because it's not an a la carte system designed to squeeze as many high cost tests out of the system as possible.
Right now the focus is swirling around the insurance half, but the actual care half is getting far less attention than it should. I expect that will be the next debate, and I expect it too will be heated, but absolutely critical.
Anyway, to more directly address the block you quoted: Yes, that's a concern. I see nothing inherent in the new legislation being proposed to suggest that it will get WORSE with what is being proposed. Do you?
quote:I don't see how improving health care will make Americans, in general, less fat or even healthier overall. Overall, too many Americans lead, for lack of a better term, an obese lifestyle whether they have health insurance or not. Further down in the article they explain more about why doctors overtreat or overtest their patients. I do want to improve how health insurance works but I do not believe we will become healthier overall as a result.
Because health care until now has focused on responsive rather than preventative methods of treating Americans. We'd much rather hack off a limb than make sure someone keeps their diabetes under control, despite the fact that the amputation is far more expensive. I think if insurance is expanded to cover preventative care, people will take advantage of it, and will live healthier lives, but currently don't have full access to the tools to do so.
quote:Maybe we interpert this differently. Everyone does have a chance to succeed, some 'starting' chances are higher than others but the chance has more to do with the individual person (personal drive, motivation, luck) than being handed down from the Government.
I'm going to refer to you as Horatio Alger for the remainder of this thread.
I get why this is a popular assertion, but it's just not true. It WAS true (by and large) until the 1860s or so, and then took a nosedive. Why? Because back then, the capital necessary to start a business, such as they were, was considerably smaller, and being "successful" meant having a piece of land that you farmed yourself, which was pretty easy with the US government clearing the land of their native populations at an astonishing clip. But what happened in the middle of the 19th century? Corporations arose and accumulated massive sums of wealth to themselves. Now, this in itself wouldn't necessarily be a problem. The problem was the tools the average citizen had to combat this.
What do you do? Get an education. Okay, how? This was back when the population of the American people that went to school was measured in single digits as a percentage of the total population. It was primarily an avenue for the wealthy, why? Because the average person couldn't afford it, and the government didn't give out loans for it. So okay, there's a pretty large avenue of advancement cut off to the average person. Next, get a job, save up! This was difficult when the idea of a "living wage" was a hotly contested issue mostly dismissed by the US government. The idea that the government should step in to mandate a wage that would allow the average person to simply get by was anathema to most people in government, ans especially in industry. Well then, if the government won't step in, we'll just do it ourselves! So people did the same thing that corporations do: They banded together to use their collective power to force higher wages out of corporations in the form of strikes and boycotts. After all, if corporations can band together for monetary reasons, why can't people band together to use their power, which in this case was labor?
The answer to that question isn't easily answerable, but the government response is well documented. They sided with business without question for a good 40 years. They issued injunctions to shut down labor, they sent in troops to beat peaceful demonstrators, they killed hundreds of protesters and then blamed the whole mess on labor to give them a bad image. It was impossible to amass any sort of savings when rents were being jacked up by cruel landlords, wages never rose, and banks tended to fail at alarming rates. Add to that banking regulations in the 20s and 30s that more or less outlawed ethnic and local banks that until that point had been the only avenue for insular communities to amass wealth and you complete the difficult picture.
You know what the first cases tried under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act were? They were cases that attacked labor has having created an unfair trust within the labor market to obstruct competition. Now, arguably they actually had a tiny bit of a point when it came to attacks on scab labor, when they happened, but a law that was ostensibly passed to protect the average America was first used to ATTACK the average American before it was ever even applied to big business.
The popular song in American society is that anyone who has the ability and tries hard can succeed because there's a level playing field. But until the post-world war two era, there was nothing even close to an even playing field, and it was the government who subverted efforts to make it so.
When did America become a place where people had a better chance to survive? The last couple decades really. Over the objections of a lot of the people you support, Horatio, government stepped in with unparalleled efforts to extend to the average American a helping hand, to really give them a chance to climb out of their collective holes and make something of themselves. This is generally viewed as a handout or some other derogatory term from the Right. The truth of the matter is that America is still climbing out of the hole that we spent a century building for ourselves, and every person doesn't have a real chance at success.
Perhaps where we diverge the most is on defining what a "real" chance at success is, and I suspect that your definition would be a great deal more inclusive than mine. You might say that it's not fair that a black kid from the inner city of Detroit has a worse chance of success than does a white kid from Beverly Hills, but it's our legacy of hostility towards this equality of opportunity that has created the situation where the black kid is likely to have been killed before he even gets to college, whereas the white kid is probably prepping for the Ivy League. I'm more than willing to account for generational progress. I think as a society we don't and shouldn't guarantee that everyone can become a millionaire. It's okay if your father is a janitor, and you get a college degree, and then your kid goes to law school, and your granddaughter ends up as the CEO of a big company or owns their own company. We do these things in stages. But when you have a system that was designed from its inception to be hostile to the average worker, a couple decades of efforts in the other direction aren't going to be good enough to dig you out of the hole.
The idea that an Einstein or a Mozart could have been born in Compton and could have risen out of their surroundings due to hard work and talent ignores far too many competing factors. Not everyone has a chance. Not everyone can work hard and succeed. That's not America.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I don't know who said there was a "level playing field" in the U.S. No one did. But, yes, everyone has a chance to succeed.
Not everyone is going to get rich, and some of us will have to work a lot harder to get anywhere, but the opportunity is there.
quote:But when you have a system that was designed from its inception to be hostile to the average worker, a couple decades of efforts in the other direction aren't going to be good enough to dig you out of the hole.
In Orson Scott Card's article about the unions, the point he made was that a good solution can be taken too far.
The same government that you claim subverted all efforts to level the playing field decades ago has now swung sharply in the opposite direction, to the point where it intends to force a level playing field via "social justice."
How far is that going to go?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: Not everyone is going to get rich, and some of us will have to work a lot harder to get anywhere, but the opportunity is there.
By that metric, the opportunity for success exists in every society. Out of the one side of your mouth you admit and even opine a systemic bias in the US, and out of the other, you proclaim that it matters not! We still have our chances! Think about it- a wealthy and empowered class exists in virtually every society throughout the world and throughout history. And every single member of every single such class comes from circumstances, at some remove, similar to that of their society's most common and powerless people. Now, you may venerate the rich and powerful as examples hard work and sacrifice, but in so doing you must also acknowledge that either a) their unique circumstances placed them in a position to attain success, or b) they are inherently superior to others in similar situations, and so succeeded where others failed. I don't subscribe to that latter brand of social Darwinism, because unnumbered examples of successful individuals prove that a person's unique circumstances are vital to their success within their society. I have yet to come across an exception, and for every bootstrap story I have heard, I have heard an equally convincing explanation that placed a person's circumstances, dire as they might appear to be on the surface, as positively vital to their later successes.
So, I want a society that promotes broad access not only to the opportunity for advancement, but to the elements of life that lead us to advance ourselves. The "level playing field" is not about retarding the progress of the inherently advantaged individual, but trying to increase the advantages enjoyed by every person in the fields of education, health care, and culture.
quote: The same government that you claim subverted all efforts to level the playing field decades ago has now swung sharply in the opposite direction, to the point where it intends to force a level playing field via "social justice."
Do tell us where you think this is happening. Really, I'm intrigued as to what this might mean. First, I would like to know, to which government of the now you referring? The current administration, which is 10 months old? The previous administration, which pursued a policy of supply side economics proven to increase disparity of wealth? If the current administration, then which policies have shown that the government has "swung sharply" toward a pursuit of "social justice?"
Personally, I don't believe there has *ever* been a government with a policy that authentically pursued social justice. I don't think it can be done, nor would I want it to be done, if for no other reason, than it would be a fool's errand. Really, do explain to us why the government actually believes in social justice, and further explain to us in what way the government intends, as you say, to instill it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I don't know who said there was a "level playing field" in the U.S. No one did. But, yes, everyone has a chance to succeed.
Not everyone is going to get rich, and some of us will have to work a lot harder to get anywhere, but the opportunity is there.
Okay? There's opportunity in Zimbabwe, too. Or the DPRK.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:The previous administration, which pursued a policy of supply side economics proven to increase disparity of wealth?
Proven?
For the record, I've lost faith in both republicans and democrats on most issues. But I'm unabashedly in favor of supply side economics.
quote:Social justice is a notion used to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
What do you consider "authentic social justice?" I'm not asking this in a smart-alecky way. I'm just curious.
quote:By that metric, the opportunity for success exists in every society. Out of the one side of your mouth you admit and even opine a systemic bias in the US, and out of the other, you proclaim that it matters not!
We all have limitations, some inborn, some environmental. That is what I mean.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What measures would you take to systemically reduce or eliminate those limitations?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook:
quote:The previous administration, which pursued a policy of supply side economics proven to increase disparity of wealth?
Proven?
For the record, I've lost faith in both republicans and democrats on most issues. But I'm unabashedly in favor of supply side economics.
Supply side economics is and has always been a folk religion among conservatives. It appeals to all the fallacies and wishful imaginings of the would be "self-made man," but in practice it has been shown to increase wealth disparity, reduce tax revenues without growing the tax base, and ultimately slow economic performance as the demand side of the economy shrinks.
I'm by no means in favor of whatever sinister social justice program you believe is the agenda of our current government (though it isn't), but we cannot view supply side and Keynsian economics as binary opposites. They are not. Among many differences, Supply side economics hinges on a belief that free markets tend towards an overall, and long term, economic benefit. We know from painful experience in the industrial revolution, as well through our depression era and more recent financial crises, that financial and industrial innovation without proper regulation do not always lead to a net long term economic benefit, according to any metric. Whether you choose to focus on how the top 10% of earners are doing in any given period and draw your conclusions from that, is up to you- but I'm looking at overall performance, health of the economy, the state of the lowest wage worker, and the size of the middle class. Keynesian economics urges us to seek ways of encouraging economic growth, while attempting to protect ourselves from damaging our economy while attaining short term gains. A mixed economy got us out of the depression, with WW2 providing a huge impetus for the government to pursue public sector projects that private business could never have financed, nor would ever have had any reason to.
My main thing with this is that we shouldn't treat economic policies as matters of faith. There are right and wrong ways to do things, and there is more validity in some ideas than in others. I prefer to remain agnostic- if I see something working, and more importantly if I see something working in a way that satisfies me as to its long term sustainability, I will like it. The reason I want the middle class and working class well protected against private business is the same as the reason I want private business to remain strong. Both things benefit our lives and enrich our culture in the long term. As I said, I don't believe a socialist authoritarian government is even feasible, in any country. But I do think a well run government that knows its business and knows its strengths and weaknesses is possible, and that's what I want.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Keynesianism at least faded from its high point with some of its reputation intact. Supply-side economics exited having been proven to be a pretty bad idea. Does anyone take the Laffer curve theory seriously anymore?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Um....To the best of my knowledge, yes, people take the Laffer curve seriously. It's just not particularly predictive. The central thrust of the idea -- that there is a point at which diminishing returns are obtained by increased taxation -- is still considered valid, obviously.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The Laffer Curve as defined by Ibn Khaldun is worth taking seriously. The Laffer Curve as presented and incorporated into Arthur Laffer's general economic theories ('laffernomics?') is silly and ignorable.
Laffer himself has been sort of drifting from network to network saying painfully ignorant things about economics and social policy for a while now so hopefully interest in his ideas is waning considerably still.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Have a look at the UK's economy in the seventies, with the 98% marginal taxes on top earners, and tell me that there's no diminishing returns.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)