Playwrite:

I remind you once again that we are in a 4T. The limits you are placing on the politically possible should not be taken for granted.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Indeed. And the main part of the reality that confronts us in the US is a system that priorities Big Cash Prizes to whatever special interest groups over the actual provision of medical care to people needing it. We use outside, independent yardsticks to help get a clearer view ... a sense of scale, if you will ... of what permeates the environment in which we live.

ACA, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you in what I think have been pretty clear terms, not only fails to address this fundamental problem in the way the system in America is broken -- it enshrines it as a major protected part of the thing. You seem to recognize that point yourself when you write that, thanks to the ACA, the American medical care industry will be completely safe from reform for the decades that it takes to guarantee the safe, cushy retirement of institutional investors. No need for them to worry -- the Big Cash Prizes are now guaranteed them. People will even go to jail if they won't contribute to them.

ACA is a major victory, to be sure. Just not for the consumers of health care.

Yes, little Justy, you're so right! Yes, we're not at the beach; we're at the pool. Thanks again for your insight.

Now, would you like to come into the pool and play some Marco or are you going to go back and study your impaled navel again before giving us the EXACT SAME insight in a few mintues?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Playwrite:

I remind you once again that we are in a 4T. The limits you are placing on the politically possible should not be taken for granted.

The magic pony pull is strong! You must resist!

Don't go into the light!!!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I remind you once again that we are in a 4T. The limits you are placing on the politically possible should not be taken for granted.

Establishment Men live and die in their boxes, Brian. It's just not pw's time anymore.

-----
-edit-
And even if fixing things isn't possible; and even if making them worse is inevitable; no one of any worth is well-served by lying about what is happening.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Establishment Men live and die in their boxes, Brian. It's just not pw's time anymore.

-----
-edit-
And even if fixing things isn't possible; and even if making them worse is inevitable; no one of any worth is well-served by lying about what is happening.

Ah, you're the one who injected subterfuge, i.e "the trap."

Let's leave it at this - we apparently want to have two different discussions. You want to discuss how horrid the US system is, perhaps made more horrid by the ACA - yadda, yadda, yadda. I see that as a fruitless discussion and have grown tired of it after three years; I have no interest in it any more. That does not mean I agree or disagree with whatever points you want to make about the horror you see. Again, I'm just not interested in what I see as a pointless circle jerk.

I do want to discuss what the roll out of the ACA means particularly the potential to obtain certain objectives that I see as progressive, i.e Medicaid expansion and state/regional exchanges that may include a public option if not single payer. I'm sure you see that as a circle jerk.

Here's the deal, you keep your jerking off of my discourse and I'll keep mine off of yours. Best of luck, have fun, and all of that.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Who died and left YOU King of the Discussion?

This is a proposal to agree to disagree and move on with our separate interests rather than continue to each undermine what the other wants.

I realize how hard that may be for someone like you to understand.


But frankly, my Queen, I don't give a damn.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is a proposal to agree to disagree and move on with our separate interests rather than continue to each undermine what the other wants.

Which is a fair proposal to make, when the wants of neither party involve harm to the other.

In the case of this matter, it's pretty clear that your wants (as stated here; granted that may not be a good representative sample, but it's all we've got) not only deserve undermining -- opposing them wherever they may crop up is the responsibility of anyone who aims for an increase in the overall good.

I'm sure any decent person would do the same, confronted with a person who just wants to be left alone while he discusses and plans out the optimal modes of torturing criminal defendants to obtain confessions. Some discussions, if they are to be had, require us to mark the participants with big flashing neon signs reading "MONSTER! DO NOT FEED!" For the good of the kids, you know

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, you're the one who injected subterfuge, i.e "the trap."

Let's leave it at this - we apparently want to have two different discussions. You want to discuss how horrid the US system is, perhaps made more horrid by the ACA - yadda, yadda, yadda. I see that as a fruitless discussion and have grown tired of it after three years; I have no interest in it any more. That does not mean I agree or disagree with whatever points you want to make about the horror you see. Again, I'm just not interested in what I see as a pointless circle jerk.

I do want to discuss what the roll out of the ACA means particularly the potential to obtain certain objectives that I see as progressive, i.e Medicaid expansion and state/regional exchanges that may include a public option if not single payer. I'm sure you see that as a circle jerk.

Here's the deal, you keep your jerking off of my discourse and I'll keep mine off of yours. Best of luck, have fun, and all of that.

The Queen got me thinking about this some more. This could actually be an interesting experiment on this forum.

We could label the two discussions: mine would be "dealing with reality" and yours could be "bitching about reality." We would use the appropriate label in the topic title - "More bitching about reality" and "More dealing with reality."

The experiment could have several folds. For example, who gravitates to which discussion particularly by generation? Where does a Rani spend her time posting as opposed to say where a Brian? Generationally, we might be able to discern if the Xers are coming into their own it terms of having any impact - are they still mostly bitching or have they moved on to dealing? It could be a good indicator of what the overall forum is about as measured by number of posts under each topic area - is the forum mostly about bitchin or is it more about dealing?

Just a thought; not a royal decree – as yet.

Originally Posted by playwrite

We could label the two discussions: mine would be "dealing with reality" and yours could be "bitching about reality."

Actually, the discussion involves whether "reality" is or is not limited to the ACA and amendments thereto plausible via the political process as it currently exists. To frame matters in the way you just described cedes you the victory.

Nice try. No cigar.

Originally Posted by playwrite

We could label the two discussions: mine would be "dealing with reality" and yours could be "bitching about reality." We would use the appropriate label in the topic title - "More bitching about reality" and "More dealing with reality."

Did you ever stop to think about the consequences of the reality you see? You're basically telling us that this bad deal won't reduce costs, it won't even hold costs steady, but it is the best we'll get in our lifetimes and any attempt to compare it to other countries is unreasonable.

Essentially, you're making the argument that America is too dysfunctional and corrupt to compete with the modern world in terms of quality of life. If that is "reality" and anything else is just "fantasy," bitching is rather mild on the list of appropriate reactions.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Which is a fair proposal to make, when the wants of neither party involve harm to the other.

In the case of this matter, it's pretty clear that your wants (as stated here; granted that may not be a good representative sample, but it's all we've got) not only deserve undermining -- opposing them wherever they may crop up is the responsibility of anyone who aims for an increase in the overall good.

I'm sure any decent person would do the same, confronted with a person who just wants to be left alone while he discusses and plans out the optimal modes of torturing criminal defendants to obtain confessions. Some discussions, if they are to be had, require us to mark the participants with big flashing neon signs reading "MONSTER! DO NOT FEED!" For the good of the kids, you know

So part of your bitchin includes anyone even talking about dealing with reality. That does make it more complex. Since you're not up to the task, I'll provide the ready discernment with the appropriate label. For yours -

Whhheeeeee!!!!!!!!!


[/QUOTE]

And for mine -

Deal with it -

Originally Posted by MONSTER! DO NOT FEED!

So part of your bitchin includes anyone even talking about dealing with reality.

"Dealing with reality" doesn't mean acceding to the wishes of people who want to do you harm. It just means that harm may come.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, the discussion involves whether "reality" is or is not limited to the ACA and amendments thereto plausible via the political process as it currently exists. To frame matters in the way you just described cedes you the victory.

Nice try. No cigar.

Okay, so you want to stradle the line between reality and magic pony land, I use to do that on the topic as well - when it was being debated in Congress. I see it now as fruitless, but perhaps more importantly, boring. Is there really anything new to say on the topic?

Anyway, how about: "Dealing with Realtiy as it Currently Exist" v. "Bitching about Reality as it Currently Exist." Or, I'd be okay even using Justin's language - "Dealing inside the box v. "Bitching about the box."

I think what you are missing is the latter topic has not, and not likely to become given the active participants, a discussion of what can actually be done to get out of the box.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Okay, so you want to stradle the line between reality and magic pony land

No, I simply remind you, once again, that we are in a 4T, and the arbitrary limits you are placing on what is possible are not necessarily accurate. You should be careful of what you are calling a "magic pony" idea. The implication is that it is impossible. If it's impossible because it violates some law of physics, biology, or economics, that's one thing. If you're saying it's "impossible" not for these reasons but because you don't think the political system is capable of enacting it, that's another.

In the latter case -- which is what applies here -- you should expect to be surprised.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Did you ever stop to think about the consequences of the reality you see? You're basically telling us that this bad deal won't reduce costs, it won't even hold costs steady, but it is the best we'll get in our lifetimes and any attempt to compare it to other countries is unreasonable.

Essentially, you're making the argument that America is too dysfunctional and corrupt to compete with the modern world in terms of quality of life. If that is "reality" and anything else is just "fantasy," bitching is rather mild on the list of appropriate reactions.

Ah, I don't think I said any of those things.

Actually, as I laid out to Justin who was too busy being amused by his "trap," the ACA is making a major assault on one of the major elements of health costs - uncompensated care - in a way that removes this from muddling the discussions as to why provider rates are so high. I know you all would put this as a tiny step, but I would put it up there with Romney showing us 10 years of tax returns, i.e. game changer.

Now that I've given you something on the "deal with it," perhaps you can give me something on "bitch about it" -

Other that moving to lovely Mother Russia, just exactly how do you propose changing the situation we have now to anything close to what you see as better?

Please, amuse me.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, I don't think I said any of those things.

You implied them, very much so. We know that systems such as are being advocated on this forum by those you are putting down work -- we know because they are in place elsewhere and they work fine. You are saying that they cannot be enacted here because the political system can't put in place such a sensible and proven-to-work set of ideas.

That's pretty much a textbook case of a "dysfunctional and corrupt" political system.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

People will even go to jail if they won't contribute to them.

Actually that isn't true; per the SCOTUS ruling the "penalty" is a tax (if the mandate had criminal penalties the ruling probably would've gone the other way). And from what I've been told as the law is written now the only means the IRS has to enforce the collection of the "penalty" is to withhold tax refunds.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, I simply remind you, once again, that we are in a 4T, and the arbitrary limits you are placing on what is possible are not necessarily accurate. You should be careful of what you are calling a "magic pony" idea. The implication is that it is impossible. If it's impossible because it violates some law of physics, biology, or economics, that's one thing. If you're saying it's "impossible" not for these reasons but because you don't think the political system is capable of enacting it, that's another.

In the latter case -- which is what applies here -- you should expect to be surprised.

Let's be clear here. I see no possibilities of any major overhaul at the national level that would require major legislation equivalent to the New Deal.

On the other hand, I see enormous possibilities under new legislation, passed and certified by the SCOTUS, nearly equivalent to the New Deal, that is barely underway in its implementation at the now critical state/regional levels where it can careen off in a myriad of directions.

From a likely return on investment perspective, I want to focus on the latter and not the former. I have no qualms, however, with others wanting to do what I consider for myself a waste of time.

It is interesting to me that the same probabilities apply to any one regardless of position on the issues, and yet certain folks, Right or Left, prefer to peddle their wares in the political equivalent of a wasteland after a nuclear bomb has gone off as opposed to dealing in what has now become a politically vibrant metro center – that is a measurable reality in terms of legislative and rule making agendas at the national vs regional/state levels.

Perhaps out in the wasteland, any success is so unlikely that the lack of any likely achievement takes the pressure off of having to actually do much, including thinking. It's a wonderful refuge for the intellectually lazy – interesting to see who gravitates there.

Originally Posted by Kelly85

Actually that isn't true; per the SCOTUS ruling the "penalty" is a tax (if the mandate had criminal penalties the ruling probably would've gone the other way). And from what I've been told as the law is written now the only means the IRS has to enforce the collection of the "penalty" is to withhold tax refunds.

Now you're just being silly. If I elect not to support the profit margins of industry profiteers, then I necessarily will be resisting providing any funds that go to support those profit margins. Tell me exactly what is the expected end-result of a person resisting to the end of their abilities any and all demands that they provide those funds.

In America, it ends with that person being confined to a rape-cage for at least several years (at best).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You implied them, very much so. We know that systems such as are being advocated on this forum by those you are putting down work -- we know because they are in place elsewhere and they work fine. You are saying that they cannot be enacted here because the political system can't put in place such a sensible and proven-to-work set of ideas.

That's pretty much a textbook case of a "dysfunctional and corrupt" political system.

You can call it whatever you want, and rail against it as much as you want - more power to you.

But maybe you could think about where it is most interesting to bring that perspective to bear. For example, Medicaid is single payer and in many ways superior to what you and others consider better systems in other lands - at a minimum it is backed by a monetary sovergn that can never NOT pay the bill - something that can't be said for EU countries that owe their debt in a foreign curreny know as the Euro. Moreover Medicaid is for the most vulnerable in our society. If you consider yourself a Progressive, wouldn't it be worthwhile to spend time understanding the situation whereby millions will be denied these otherwise provided benefits due to Red state govenors and legislators?

Personally, I find it way more interesting that running over the same stale old ground of the last thre years. But apparently folks that claim that they don't like boxes are aghast that I would prefer to move out of their sandbox. Again, I think at the heart of it, new sandboxes require a little bit of thinking particularly where the bumper stickers haven't yet been issued. For example, if you Google “Florida state health exchange” and “mises.org” you don’t get any hits until you remove the quotes and then you get nothing relevant. Fresh fields to plow.

- for those interested in such things, here is a good summary of what issues the state/regional exchanges must address and where they have flexibilities and where they don't -

http://www.cbpp.org/files/state-poli...ementation.pdf

State Policy Decisions in Exchange Implementation

State-based Exchanges (SBE)
August 2012

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishes a health insurance exchange in every state, either
operated by the state or administered by the federal government. Exchanges are new competitive
marketplaces offering an array of affordable, comprehensive health insurance plans for small
businesses and individuals, some of whom may qualify for federal tax credits. The U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) — the federal agency charged with overseeing state
development of exchanges as well as administering the Federally facilitated Exchange (FFE) — has
issued regulations, guidance and notices that define the standards and options for states establishing
a State-based Exchange (SBE).1 While there are a number of functions and standards that are
required for a state to obtain HHS approval of its exchange plan, there are certain areas in which a
state has significant flexibility to customize its exchange to best meet the needs of its residents.

The summary below — updated periodically to reflect additional federal guidelines as they
emerge — outlines these decision points and is intended to aid state consumer advocates,
policymakers and other stakeholders involved in exchange implementation. It encompasses the
following areas in which states have flexibility:

It's good background and lexicon for what is rolling out in the next 30 or so months. Coming to a theater near you!

Oh, a summary of the summary for those with shorter attention spans -

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3821

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Now you're just being silly. If I elect not to support the profit margins of industry profiteers, then I necessarily will be resisting providing any funds that go to support those profit margins. Tell me exactly what is the expected end-result of a person resisting to the end of their abilities any and all demands that they provide those funds.

In America, it ends with that person being confined to a rape-cage for at least several years (at best).

I thought it ended with death panels. Did I miss the latest memo from Sarah Palin? Gawl darn that thar Obama fella, messin with da mail again! Annie, get me gun!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Let's be clear here. I see no possibilities of any major overhaul at the national level that would require major legislation equivalent to the New Deal.

I know. I think you're wrong. I think you're looking at what is possible within the limits of the current political system, in its present corrupt and dysfunctional character, and wrongly setting those limits as the limits of what is possible, period.

If it were only the health-care system in play that might be so, but it isn't. The failure of the economic system and the corruption and dysfunctionality of the political system itself are also issues that this 4T must resolve, and will, one way or another.

The last time around, we would probably have had a revolution, either socialist or fascist, but for Roosevelt leveraging the popular unrest (at a slightly more advanced stage of the 4T than we are in at present) to enact major reforms. If he had been unwilling or unable to do that, however, as may be the case with the president and Congress we have today, that would not have meant no sweeping reforms would have taken place. It would have meant, instead, revolution. If the government is paralyzed, corrupt, and dysfunctional to the point that no New New Deal can be enacted -- that's what it means now, too.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I thought it ended with death panels. Did I miss the latest memo from Sarah Palin? Gawl darn that thar Obama fella, messin with da mail again! Annie, get me gun!

It's amusing (in, granted, a black sort of way) that you can make fun of rape rooms. Not many five-year-olds are so sophisticated and worldly.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It's amusing (in, granted, a black sort of way) that you can make fun of rape rooms. Not many five-year-olds are so sophisticated and worldly.

It is an interesting question what the government could and would do if, like myself, a person has no tax refund to garnish. Would a prison sentence for tax evasion ensue if one refused to pay the tax, as you are implying? Bear in mind that most tax evaders are not charged with a criminal offense:

http://taxattorneydaily.com/topics/c...tax-crimes.php

"It is a crime to cheat on your taxes. In a recent year, however, fewer than 2,000 people were convicted of tax crimes —0.0022% of all taxpayers. This number is astonishingly small, taking into account that the IRS estimates that 15.5% of us are not complying with the tax laws in some way or another. . . .

"Tax crimes are most likely to be first spotted during an audit. If you are caught in a tax lie by an auditor, she can either slap you with a penalty or refer your case to the IRS’s criminal investigation division (CID). In the vast majority of cases, the auditor won’t call in the CID."

No criminal penalties are imposed in the ACA legislation for failure to pay the tax. If refusal to pay the tax comes under the rubric of tax evasion and so is covered by existing criminal penalties, you are still highly unlikely to go to prison for failure to pay the tax, unless the IRS makes a special policy just for this tax. A lawsuit and attachment of assets is much more probable.