Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: It's time for national healthcare - Page 49







Post#1201 at 02-24-2010 12:06 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-24-2010, 12:06 PM #1201
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Just an update on the politics. I would say it's now a near-certainty that comprehensive HCR will pass and go into law. There's some more political song-and-dance to do, but the hard part is already done. The Senate can use reconciliation to modify their bill, and then all that's necessary is for the House to pass it and the president to sign it. Naturally the Republicans will howl that the Democrats are "using procedural tricks to ram it through against the rules," but the bill already passed using the normal rules and all they need to do now is modify it; even if the requirement of getting 60 votes were reasonable to begin with (which IMO it's not), it makes absolutely no sense to make the same bill pass that same hurdle TWICE.

We may or may not see a public option as part of the package yet (I wouldn't bet on it), but we will see the bill pass.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1202 at 02-24-2010 12:27 PM by Weave [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 909]
---
02-24-2010, 12:27 PM #1202
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
909

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Just an update on the politics. I would say it's now a near-certainty that comprehensive HCR will pass and go into law. There's some more political song-and-dance to do, but the hard part is already done. The Senate can use reconciliation to modify their bill, and then all that's necessary is for the House to pass it and the president to sign it. Naturally the Republicans will howl that the Democrats are "using procedural tricks to ram it through against the rules," but the bill already passed using the normal rules and all they need to do now is modify it; even if the requirement of getting 60 votes were reasonable to begin with (which IMO it's not), it makes absolutely no sense to make the same bill pass that same hurdle TWICE.

We may or may not see a public option as part of the package yet (I wouldn't bet on it), but we will see the bill pass.
We'll see. I have seen several House members say they do not have the vote as of yet to pass the final bill.







Post#1203 at 02-24-2010 12:29 PM by K-I-A 67 [at joined Jan 2005 #posts 3,010]
---
02-24-2010, 12:29 PM #1203
Join Date
Jan 2005
Posts
3,010

Quote Originally Posted by princeofcats67 View Post
KIA: Can't we all just get along?(LOL) FWIW, I do respect BR's opinions(eventhough I disagree) and am trying to learn how to state my opinions as coherently as he does. It sucks, but it's true IMO. PoC67
I have issue with communicating things that are viewed, taken in as or apply as being second nature stuff to me to others as well. Writing his views is a second nature thing for Brian.
Last edited by K-I-A 67; 02-24-2010 at 12:56 PM.







Post#1204 at 02-24-2010 12:35 PM by Weave [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 909]
---
02-24-2010, 12:35 PM #1204
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
909

Interesting video posted on Drudge. Its the Dems whining about how breaking the filibuster by the "nuclear option" is an abuse of power....

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-i...unders-intent/







Post#1205 at 02-24-2010 12:35 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
02-24-2010, 12:35 PM #1205
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Just an update on the politics. I would say it's now a near-certainty that comprehensive HCR will pass and go into law. There's some more political song-and-dance to do, but the hard part is already done. The Senate can use reconciliation to modify their bill, and then all that's necessary is for the House to pass it and the president to sign it. Naturally the Republicans will howl that the Democrats are "using procedural tricks to ram it through against the rules," but the bill already passed using the normal rules and all they need to do now is modify it; even if the requirement of getting 60 votes were reasonable to begin with (which IMO it's not), it makes absolutely no sense to make the same bill pass that same hurdle TWICE.

We may or may not see a public option as part of the package yet (I wouldn't bet on it), but we will see the bill pass.
I wonder how many Democratic Party politicians view their party membership as a suicide pact. I guess we'll find out. Trying to ram this bill through, which is overwhelmingly, vehemently opposed by the American people, is sort of the political equivalent of suicide bombing. "We may be going out, but we're going out in a blaze of glory!"

When that bill has been explicitly repudiated by MASSACHUSETTS, and they're still thinking of trying to pass it...they are literally insane.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 02-24-2010 at 12:38 PM.







Post#1206 at 02-24-2010 12:41 PM by K-I-A 67 [at joined Jan 2005 #posts 3,010]
---
02-24-2010, 12:41 PM #1206
Join Date
Jan 2005
Posts
3,010

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Just an update on the politics. I would say it's now a near-certainty that comprehensive HCR will pass and go into law. There's some more political song-and-dance to do, but the hard part is already done. The Senate can use reconciliation to modify their bill, and then all that's necessary is for the House to pass it and the president to sign it. Naturally the Republicans will howl that the Democrats are "using procedural tricks to ram it through against the rules," but the bill already passed using the normal rules and all they need to do now is modify it; even if the requirement of getting 60 votes were reasonable to begin with (which IMO it's not), it makes absolutely no sense to make the same bill pass that same hurdle TWICE.

We may or may not see a public option as part of the package yet (I wouldn't bet on it), but we will see the bill pass.
Fine by me, all your doing is opening the door to be politically and systematically destroyed by a new 51 Republican Tea Party majority. Liberally speaking, I'm a bad guy because I FIRE IDIOTS or KILL THE IDIOTS JOB.
Last edited by K-I-A 67; 02-24-2010 at 12:44 PM.







Post#1207 at 02-24-2010 01:12 PM by K-I-A 67 [at joined Jan 2005 #posts 3,010]
---
02-24-2010, 01:12 PM #1207
Join Date
Jan 2005
Posts
3,010

Quote Originally Posted by princeofcats67 View Post
The US Electorate has a short attention span IMO. That said, the TPP has legs, but the average American will most likely Vote with the Economy. I study Economic Indicators on a daily basis and there's arguments to be made for improvement and deterioration. Govt Intervention has really screwed-up the normal Data-Points.
Once they can get the Structure in place, it's very difficult to reverse. Rep Ryan(Wisc-R) was saying that they believe the Dems don't have the votes, but Pelosi has been able to get them everytime so far. I wouldn't bet against her.
It's the Mandate that sickens me the most. PoC67
I think the American people are going to kill Obama's Health Care Reform the same way it killed Bush's Immigration Reform.







Post#1208 at 02-24-2010 01:33 PM by K-I-A 67 [at joined Jan 2005 #posts 3,010]
---
02-24-2010, 01:33 PM #1208
Join Date
Jan 2005
Posts
3,010

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I wonder how many Democratic Party politicians view their party membership as a suicide pact. I guess we'll find out. Trying to ram this bill through, which is overwhelmingly, vehemently opposed by the American people, is sort of the political equivalent of suicide bombing. "We may be going out, but we're going out in a blaze of glory!"

When that bill has been explicitly repudiated by MASSACHUSETTS, and they're still thinking of trying to pass it...they are literally insane.
As I recall, an American recently opted to go out in a blaze of glory as well. Do you think Peloci has the rational wisdom and common sense to put two and two together? Do you think Peloci and her liberal pals have the fundamental courage to accept the consequences that come afterwards or during? SHE IS A TWIT! Do you think I'm going to extend her any sympathy or support for her position or any of her liberal ilk? Nope, as far as I'm concerned, she/they brought it on and she/they deserves to live with the consequences of their actions.







Post#1209 at 02-24-2010 01:37 PM by K-I-A 67 [at joined Jan 2005 #posts 3,010]
---
02-24-2010, 01:37 PM #1209
Join Date
Jan 2005
Posts
3,010

Quote Originally Posted by princeofcats67 View Post
KIA: Can't we all just get along?(LOL) FWIW, I do respect BR's opinions(eventhough I disagree) and am trying to learn how to state my opinions as coherently as he does. It sucks, but it's true IMO. PoC67
Honestly, I think we'd get along just fine without them.







Post#1210 at 02-24-2010 02:01 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-24-2010, 02:01 PM #1210
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Amazing how many people don't look at the details of the polls when the surface of them says things one wants to hear.

The Democrats would be committing suicide NOT to pass this bill. The reason it's not popular is because it doesn't go far enough (given that 70% of the people support the idea of the public option), and also because people don't understand it (given that when the provisions of it are broken out and presented separately, almost all of them have high levels of support).

To suggest that low support for the bill itself, when presented without explanation of details, means that people don't want comprehensive health-care reform, is sheer twisting of the available facts. It's not true. Comprehensive health-care reform in general is VERY popular, and as people understand this bill and see it in action, it will be, too. If the Democrats fail to pass it, they will be perceived as a party that can't get anything done even when they have big majorities in Congress.

That, not passing the bill, would be electoral disaster for them.
Last edited by Brian Rush; 02-24-2010 at 02:11 PM.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1211 at 02-24-2010 02:53 PM by K-I-A 67 [at joined Jan 2005 #posts 3,010]
---
02-24-2010, 02:53 PM #1211
Join Date
Jan 2005
Posts
3,010

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Amazing how many people don't look at the details of the polls when the surface of them says things one wants to hear.

The Democrats would be committing suicide NOT to pass this bill. The reason it's not popular is because it doesn't go far enough (given that 70% of the people support the idea of the public option), and also because people don't understand it (given that when the provisions of it are broken out and presented separately, almost all of them have high levels of support).

To suggest that low support for the bill itself, when presented without explanation of details, means that people don't want comprehensive health-care reform, is sheer twisting of the available facts. It's not true. Comprehensive health-care reform in general is VERY popular, and as people understand this bill and see it in action, it will be, too. If the Democrats fail to pass it, they will be perceived as a party that can't get anything done even when they have big majorities in Congress.

That, not passing the bill, would be electoral disaster for them.
Dude, if 70% supported it or wanted it, the liberals wouldn't be in the position that they're currently in and trying to change the rules to get it passed.







Post#1212 at 02-24-2010 02:55 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-24-2010, 02:55 PM #1212
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by K-I-A 67 View Post
Dude, if 70% supported it or wanted it, the liberals wouldn't be in the position that they're currently in and trying to change the rules to get it passed.
They're not changing the rules.
Last edited by Brian Rush; 02-24-2010 at 03:02 PM.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1213 at 02-24-2010 03:05 PM by aadams1980 [at Port Orchard, WA joined Feb 2010 #posts 281]
---
02-24-2010, 03:05 PM #1213
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Port Orchard, WA
Posts
281

Changing the Rules

The Republicans are filibustering it because if we ever DID move towards government health care it could destroy the Republican Party. Imagine if people received affordable health care from the government. The balance would produce a long-term realignment. Show me a Republican alternative that isn't produced by, or in the interests of, the health insurance lobby.







Post#1214 at 02-24-2010 03:09 PM by haymarket martyr [at joined Sep 2008 #posts 2,547]
---
02-24-2010, 03:09 PM #1214
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
2,547

I think KIA means the same rules that the Republicans used repeatedly to cut taxes on the richest Americans..... reconciliation I believe is the dirty word. The GOP embraced reconciliation like drunks embracing Jim Beam but now want nothing to do with it.

Gimme an H...... Y ..... P .... O .... C .....

you know the rest.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.







Post#1215 at 02-24-2010 03:16 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-24-2010, 03:16 PM #1215
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Using reconciliation to pass tax cuts was within the rules. Stupid, but legitimate by Senate rules. So is using it to pass amendments to the Senate health care bill that have primarily budget effects. The parts of the bill that can't be passed by reconciliation have been passed already and don't need to be passed again.

The changes to be made to the bill involve how it is to be financed, mostly. Using reconciliation for that is perfectly legitimate.

The Democrats are not changing the rules.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1216 at 02-24-2010 03:19 PM by MillieJim [at '82 Cohort joined Feb 2008 #posts 244]
---
02-24-2010, 03:19 PM #1216
Join Date
Feb 2008
Location
'82 Cohort
Posts
244

Quote Originally Posted by aadams1980 View Post
The Republicans are filibustering it because if we ever DID move towards government health care it could destroy the Republican Party. Imagine if people received affordable health care from the government. The balance would produce a long-term realignment. Show me a Republican alternative that isn't produced by, or in the interests of, the health insurance lobby.
I actually favor selling policies across state lines. But there must be federal regulations that accompany it. You can't just wipe out all state regulation and turn the industry into a more pernicious version of the credit card industry, where everybody is based out of North Dakota because North Dakota was able to write the most industry-friendly laws.

The problem with both the liberal and conservative conception of health care today, IMO, is that neither side is willing to take the steps needed to restructure the market in a way that will promote open and fair competition.

Republicans seem to favor just opening it up and doing nothing to back it up from the federal side. This would be a disaster.

Democrats seem to favor repealing the antitrust exemption or putting a public option in place to help mitigate the worst effects of a national exchange. The antitrust exemption is IMO much less effective than advertised- insurance companies are already subject to merger law today, so it wouldn't stop the consolidation of the industry by itself. Additionally, the McCarran-Ferguson Act also says insurance companies are subject to antitrust scrutiny for boycotts and other specified abuses of competition. Yes, it would put insurance on the hook for price fixing and market allocation schemes, as well as overt abuses of monopoly, but it's unclear that this a) occurs at a rate high enough to actually produce a substantial effect on the market, or b) would be enforced by the FTC/DOJ, or c) would make it through the courts if it was. This antitrust exemption deal is a nice little distraction IMO, an excuse to pretend to restructure the market without actually messing around with the market. Nibbling at the edges. Were they serious about competition, they'd have been stopping health insurance mergers for 20 years now.

Similarly, the public option is no substitute for real insurance regulation. It's theorized that insurance companies would have to alter their practices to compete with the public option, but why is this necessary? Why can't they just enact a regulatory scheme that accomplishes similar things as the public option would? They have 50 ready-made templates for how to regulate insurance already in the states. Take what the states have done right and pre-empt the things that don't work.

All of these half-measures, and the histrionics that accompany them from both sides, get tiring sometimes. If you want a competitive market, just put rules in place that will ensure there is competition in most markets, instead of repealing an antitrust exemption that wouldn't address most people's complaints about the insurance market (concentration of market power in a few firms), or putting a public option in place as a way of regulating insurance practices without actually regulating them (and in the process look like government is busting into healthcare as a competitor in an open market, to the terror of many tea partiers).







Post#1217 at 02-24-2010 03:23 PM by aadams1980 [at Port Orchard, WA joined Feb 2010 #posts 281]
---
02-24-2010, 03:23 PM #1217
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Port Orchard, WA
Posts
281

Competition

The only problem with relying on market competition is that what determines success is not whether or not you can deliver the highest quality of care, but whether or not you are the cheapest.







Post#1218 at 02-24-2010 05:21 PM by Weave [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 909]
---
02-24-2010, 05:21 PM #1218
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
909

Looks like Bart Stupak and many other Dems have a problem with the current bill.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...se-health-plan







Post#1219 at 02-24-2010 07:18 PM by aadams1980 [at Port Orchard, WA joined Feb 2010 #posts 281]
---
02-24-2010, 07:18 PM #1219
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Port Orchard, WA
Posts
281

Not if you look at who the customer is

I worked in the health care industry before (I was in sales for a home medical equipment company and owned 50% of one for several years). On an RFP for a regional health insurance company they told us that quality of patient care was only 10% of what they considered for their rubric. The customer for the insurance companies is the business that has a contract with them. In these times their chief concern is cutting costs. It's only if it gets to the point where people are threatening to quit en masse that they reconsider providers based on quality. The trend has continued in that direction for some time.







Post#1220 at 02-24-2010 08:03 PM by aadams1980 [at Port Orchard, WA joined Feb 2010 #posts 281]
---
02-24-2010, 08:03 PM #1220
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Port Orchard, WA
Posts
281

response

But, these are two cases where the market didn't act as it was supposed to.

Before Reagan did away with regulations we used to have regulations for teh sake of protection not punishment (or so I've read).

1. You are correct about the free market not applying to health care, which is why I think the government should play an activist role. Insurance competition didn't result in better choices. The free market works when the profit motive is a net positive for the people.

2. Can we agree that the financial crisis was at least 90% the free market's fault?







Post#1221 at 02-24-2010 08:18 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-24-2010, 08:18 PM #1221
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Now that we're talking about free markets, let me posit an axiom: a "free market" is possible only when all participants to exchanges are able to regard the exchange as optional. If either or both parties are, for whatever reason, unable to walk away and NOT make the trade, the exchange is not free.

A party is able to walk away and not make the trade when:

1) Failure to acquire (or sell) the product/service in question will not produce unacceptable consequences; OR

2) Sufficient alternative sources (or markets) for the product/service in question exist offering substantially different terms for the transaction that the person is able to regard the particular deal as meaningfully optional.

Examples:

I am trying to buy a car. My current vehicle is good enough, but I want to upgrade to something fancier. I go into a Mercedes dealership and look at a 2010 model. I don't like the price, though, and the dealer won't come down to a point I find acceptable. Both 1) and 2) above apply. I already have a perfectly good car, so if I don't buy this Mercedes the worst that will happen is I will go on driving my old car, and that's acceptable. Also, there are other Mercedes dealerships, or I can go look at BMWs instead, so if I walk away from this deal I can still find another source for what I want. From my perspective, this is a free transaction.

I am trying to buy an anniversary present for my wife. I go into a jewelry store and look at a diamond necklace. Again, I don't like the price. 1) above does NOT apply (if I don't get my wife a present she will run away with my boss), but 2) above does; I don't have to get this specific necklace, and there are other sources of presents that would keep my marriage intact. This, too, is a free transaction.

Given this concept, the purchase of health-care services is at times not a free transaction, because it is necessary for survival and the options are often limited. For this reason, health care is intrinsically not a free market.

Where a market is intrinsically unfree, failure to regulate by government action results in exploitation of either buyers or sellers, whichever is in the powerless position.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1222 at 02-24-2010 08:24 PM by aadams1980 [at Port Orchard, WA joined Feb 2010 #posts 281]
---
02-24-2010, 08:24 PM #1222
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Port Orchard, WA
Posts
281

Brian's song

Brian,

I think what Brian's trying to tell us is:

1. Even though he's not a Republican, he can afford to be one

2. His wife needs to reexamine her values.
We're here if u need to talk

jk











Post#1223 at 02-24-2010 08:36 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-24-2010, 08:36 PM #1223
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by aadams1980 View Post
Brian,

I think what Brian's trying to tell us is:

1. Even though he's not a Republican, he can afford to be one

2. His wife needs to reexamine her values.
We're here if u need to talk

jk




Those were hypothetical examples, not personal ones.

My EX-wife was an atrocious person for completely different reasons. I never worried about her running off with my boss.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1224 at 02-24-2010 08:43 PM by aadams1980 [at Port Orchard, WA joined Feb 2010 #posts 281]
---
02-24-2010, 08:43 PM #1224
Join Date
Feb 2010
Location
Port Orchard, WA
Posts
281

princeofcats67 - Hold on, I now know you are too well-informed about this issue to believe that the government's home-ownership policy caused the housing crisis. The mortgages that the government encouraged the creation of were not a significant % of the defaults. It was mostly lower-income buyers when the real damage was done by defaults of middle-class and upper-middle class homes. Unless you can show me data that says otherwise, I do believe that it was the greed of the mortgage companies in trying to fit as many people into a mortgage that would be sold to another financial institution (and not be their problem) that caused it.

Crony Capitalism allowed the market to get its way (thus the "crony" aspect). If your point is that the government was asleep at the switch I agree. However, government failed by letting the market do what it wanted. If you and I go to a bar, and you get too drunk to drive, I do not stop you from driving your car, and you hit a tree on the way home, am I at fault? Sure! But you're mostly at fault. So again, will you not agree that the free market did 90% of this?







Post#1225 at 02-24-2010 09:02 PM by independent [at Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here joined Apr 2008 #posts 1,286]
---
02-24-2010, 09:02 PM #1225
Join Date
Apr 2008
Location
Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here
Posts
1,286

Quote Originally Posted by aadams1980 View Post
So again, will you not agree that the free market did 90% of this?
There is no free market in banking and debt. We're 100 years in to an "independent" (but government-sponsored) cartel.

While the dominant members of the cartel are certainly at fault, they also knew that the government would be there to keep them alive - regardless of how foolish their financial decisions were.

Basically, in any sort of philosophically or practically justified private ownership society, JPM, GS, BoA, AIG, and Citi should all be completely out of business. Debts owed to insolvent institutions would be shredded as illegitimate. If we treated the insolvent banks the same way we treated those delinquent on mortgages, the CEOs would be sleeping under bridges and having wages garnished until they paid back every penny they owe.

Anyway, subprime might have hit low-income housing first, but the next wave is going to break on the $500,000+ mortgage market. Get ready to bail out the bankers a second time when its their own houses & neighborhoods on the line...
'82 iNTp
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." -Jefferson
-----------------------------------------