The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

1. It is required. I am firmly of the belief that a federal government shouldn't be able to force someone to purchase something in order to remain a lawful citizen of the country they were born into.

2. I don't like the way they couldn't pass it without adding in other bills. The entire addition of the Student Loan section to win votes (which would have thrilled me in a stand-alone bill) tells me that not enough people thought this bill was good to pass it on its own.

Both of these (the first, especially) trouble me. I have refused to get involved in the fray though, and will have to see how it is implemented before making a final decision. (Doesn't the government mandate car insurance? As in, "Sir, you were going 200 in a 25 zone. Could I see your license and proof of insurance?"😉

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Both of these (the first, especially) trouble me. I have refused to get involved in the fray though, and will have to see how it is implemented before making a final decision. (Doesn't the government mandate car insurance? As in, "Sir, you were going 200 in a 25 zone. Could I see your license and proof of insurance?"😉

I'm glad they trouble you. And I think you're referring to car insurance. It's only mandated if you want to drive.

Insurers, drug companies came on board early and may profit from it

WASHINGTON - When historians write the book on how President Barack Obama's health care overhaul became law, they'll need to leave space for some unlikely advocates: lobbyists for the drug, insurance and hospital industries.

Funny how many democrats don't understand that this helps insurance companies..

This is interesting. I'm talking to a friend from Romania about his health care and he says it's a pain in the ass.

because I get treated like I'm 60+ years. wait in the line, go get a number to visit the doctor.... sucks

I also have a privatate medical insurance but not a lot of people have it and its so much better

The only think I like about US (been there already) is the decentralized system for everything.... here is the other way around

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'm glad they trouble you. And I think you're referring to car insurance. It's only mandated if you want to drive.

Doesn't the government mandate car insurance? As in, "Sir, you were going 200 in a 25 zone. Could I see your license and proof of insurance?"

Anyways, the idea seemed great at first. Yay! Lets help people! 60 million people are in dire str- a dire situation! (Couldn't remember which "straits" to use).

Then I found out that of those 60 million, at least 15 million were choosing not to purchase health insurance. That's their prerogative (risk mitigation is usually dependent on how risk averse someone is). Sweet. 45 million left.

45 million! (Then that article, which I'm sure you've seen, continued to whittle down the number to a much smaller number.)

That smaller number was something like 13 million people. In a nation of 300 million it just seems like there were more urgent crusades. I mean, I get it. Big business is screwing over the poor. Great. That isn't new, it is just a little more blatant than we're used to (trust busting made them a little less obvious about it for a while). There were so many different crusades to fight, but instead:
[list]
[*]We bungled the Climate talks, pushing real progress in that area back years, even without ratifying Kyoto.
[*]Soldiers continue to be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, throwing more and more American lives into jeopardy for poorly defined objectives.
[*]inconsistent foreign policy posturing led to a missed opportunity in Iran, leaving a dangerous leader in place, and a meltdown (allah forbid) in Pakistan, putting theocracy closer than ever before. (Not to mention the absence of any sort of progress in alleviating the suffering of the Palestinians or securing Israel; nothing has helped either effort. (Which is to say nothing of Obama's tacit endorsement of [Saudi Arabian?] censorship and oppreshun.))
[/list]

It isn't that I dislike Obama. I don't. He is dealing with a fundamentally difficult situation in that the blowback from the Clinton/Bush eras (like deregulation of the banking sector) that is all too easy for his opponents to pin onto him. I recognize that to move too quickly (especially in the war) could be counterproductive for all his goals. I am finding, however, that where I had expected a primarily liberal president to be pulled to the middle by the pressures of government, we got a fundamentally centrist president pulled right by the FauxNews machine.

It is like getting a fountain drink and putting Ice in it because, let's face it, the makers expect you to and if you don't then the drink is just a little bit too syrupy to drink without having gum to clean off your teeth. BUT: the maker expected you not to get ice (because it ruins the drink--sweet baby Jesus do I hate putting ice into my drinks)-- and the ice you put in compensates for something already compensated for and you get a watery mess that is equally undrinkable.

That distinction is why my father is disappointed in him, and why I'm counting on the next three years to see some progress.

(ALSO A LARGE PART OF THE PROBLEM MAY BE THE INCOMPETENCE OF THE DEMOCRATIC SUPERMAJORITY WHICH, LET'S FACE IT, SUXD ASS CONSTANTLY)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Both of these (the first, especially) trouble me. I have refused to get involved in the fray though, and will have to see how it is implemented before making a final decision. (Doesn't the government mandate car insurance? As in, "Sir, you were going 200 in a 25 zone. Could I see your license and proof of insurance?"😉

To that end Red: It clearly states in the driver's manual of most states that driving is a privilege, not a right. 1st page of the Indiana driver's manual in fact.

Do you want to say the same thing about life? Life is a privilege, not a right?

EDIT:

And i saw your other post there. You about are with ME on this actually. I'm not entirely against this. I think the system is sorta broken. I don't think its a crisis though, and I definitly don't think the government should be able to force insurance companies to take on clients. (pre-existing conditions.) that mettles with free trade. The government should insure those people, and i'm thinking it would STILL be cheaper than what we have now.

Originally posted by truejedi
To that end Red: It clearly states in the driver's manual of most states that driving is a privilege, not a right. 1st page of the Indiana driver's manual in fact.

Do you want to say the same thing about life? Life is a privilege, not a right?

EDIT:

And i saw your other post there. You about are with ME on this actually. I'm not entirely against this. I think the system is sorta broken. I don't think its a crisis though, and I definitly don't think the government should be able to force insurance companies to take on clients. (pre-existing conditions.) that mettles with free trade. The government should insure those people, and i'm thinking it would STILL be cheaper than what we have now.

Re:edit:
My textbook called the danger of unlimited acceptance the "death spiral," (I think? it is upstairs I'll check later) because it necessarily raises the premium, which phases out the less risk-averse, which causes an even greater rise in premiums (etc.). The public option would evade this by easing other costs (like those associated with profit margins) and allowing for (much cheaper) preventative medicine. (I lol when the teabaggers get upset about government run healthcare, when so many of them are old enough to get medicare.)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
It isn't that I dislike Obama. I don't. He is dealing with a fundamentally difficult situation in that the blowback from the Clinton/Bush eras (like deregulation of the banking sector) that is all too easy for his opponents to pin onto him. I recognize that to move too quickly (especially in the war) could be counterproductive for all his goals. I am finding, however, that where I had expected a primarily liberal president to be pulled to the middle by the pressures of government, we got a fundamentally centrist president pulled right by the FauxNews machine.
(ALSO A LARGE PART OF THE PROBLEM MAY BE THE INCOMPETENCE OF THE DEMOCRATIC SUPERMAJORITY WHICH, LET'S FACE IT, SUXD ASS CONSTANTLY) [/B]

I'm glad you're understanding what's going on, but I'm afraid I have a problem with this post. I'm not sure what part of Obama is "centrist to right", that's being pulled in by fox news.. Perhaps you can clarify...

Lets get one thing clear. I'm predominantly right, but I hate insurance companies. They screw people over so much (including me and my favor), I would advocate the death penalty for their CEOs. With that said, the private sector has limits, government does NOT. I would prefer to be screwed over by the private sector than the government. At least in most cases, when the private sector fails, these companies stay that way (aside from the bullshit bailouts). Obama's attempt to expand government is ridiculous. That's not what this country was founded on, and that's not what this country is going to have, if the people have a say.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'm glad you're understanding what's going on, but I'm afraid I have a problem with this post. I'm not sure what part of Obama is "centrist to right", that's being pulled in by fox news.. Perhaps you can clarify...

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
My textbook called the danger of unlimited acceptance the "death spiral," (I think? it is upstairs I'll check later) because it necessarily raises the premium, which phases out the less risk-averse, which causes an even greater rise in premiums (etc.). The public option would evade this by easing other costs (like those associated with profit margins) and allowing for (much cheaper) preventative medicine. (I lol when the teabaggers get upset about government run healthcare, when so many of them are old enough to get medicare.) [/B]

I love when liberals say "lolz medicare IS government run health care so why would you oppose it!!!"

Not to mention, I think you're not understanding the # of people currently on medicare, versus the # that would be on a public option. Finally, please tell me what these cost cutting techniques would be with the public option. I'm very interested. So far I've heard talk from the left, without any kind of backing.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Lets get one thing clear. I'm predominantly right, but I [b]hate insurance companies. They screw people over so much (including me and my favor), I would advocate the death penalty for their CEOs. With that said, the private sector has limits, government does NOT. I would prefer to be screwed over by the private sector than the government. At least in most cases, when the private sector fails, these companies stay that way (aside from the bullshit bailouts). Obama's attempt to expand government is ridiculous. That's not what this country was founded on, and that's not what this country is going to have, if the people have a say. [/B]

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
That is mostly in response to specific questions like foreign policy (maintaining drone strikes in tribal Pakistan, shying away from climate treaties (as an administration), and (ESPECIALLY) escalating the War), rather than overall goal; I'm convinced that he is sufficiently liberal to stay in the Democratic party's good graces.

The problem with his foreign policies is the same for every president. The generals aren't going to listen to you when they're half way across the world. Furthermore, America has maintained various foreign policies that have remained constant for decades, regardless of what political party and ideals the president is associated with. Which means that while Obama and Hilary are ****ing up ties with Israel like we haven't seen in half a century, ultimately the generals in the Middle East aren't going to giev a damn.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
The question really becomes on of market failure: is the (exaggerated, but still significant) percentage of people without healthcare (or, at the very least, functional access to treatment) a result of changing societal factors or of market failure? The latter necessitates action, the latter, perhaps only perseverance. (Wait until all of the baby boomers sweep through?)

Market failure? Please explain.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I love when liberals say "lolz medicare IS government run health care so why would you oppose it!!!"

More generally, why do you love it? The analogy is apt, because (ignoring questions of funding, which is a whore of another color) the same service is provided.

Not to mention, I think you're not understanding the # of people currently on medicare, versus the # that would be on a public option.

Finally, please tell me what these cost cutting techniques would be with the public option. I'm very interested. So far I've heard talk from the left, without any kind of backing.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
[/b]
Ignoring medicare for a moment, have you seen the Daily Show segment where the TeaBagger movement is in Hawaii for a convention about how "Socialized Medicare can never work in actual societies," while the Hawaiians around them all have access to that service?

More generally, why do you love it? The analogy is apt, because (ignoring questions of funding, which is a whore of another color) the same service is provided.

See second paragraph. There aren't any death panels (that are worthy of Faux's Ire) in medicare.

I was under the impression that
[list]
[*]there would be fewer administrative costs. Again, look at medicare with something like 3%, while Blue Cross had 11%. (These numbers are vague memories, google them yourself.)
[*]The public option would be able to reduce costs by, ironically, ignoring the bottom line. Because the concern is about welfare rather than profit, preventative care can (from an ideological standpoint) be advocated and encouraged.
[*]The public option would also (were it to charge a premium of some kind) prevent even tacit collusion between providers.
[/list]

Those are some ideas right off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more available? Reducing the (already very small, like ~5%ish of total cost) costs of malpractice lawsuits? I hate to advocate tort reform, loaded as it is with potential for manipulation by the industry, but that is one Republican idea that, if applied honestly, could yield some results. 5% isn't much, but 5% of a hundred billion (or whatever the total cost of healthcare is) certainly adds up. [/B]

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Market failure? Please explain.

If the Health Care companies are experiencing market failure (which would be very profitable for them) because of asymmetry in information or collusion then the government must intervene. It is also worth looking at if life should be, as TJ identified it, a right or a privilege. If the person holding the key to that question is concerned only about your pocketbook then there may be other considerations.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Market failure (according to my textbook) is when a market fails to be efficient. It goes on to say that there are some reasons for this situation that includes prevention of beneficial trades by one party (monopoly), side effects of choices (externalities) and the very nature of the goods (ex. non-rival vs rival, which are especially influenced by private (or asymmetrical) information).

If the Health Care companies are experiencing market failure (which would be very profitable for them) because of asymmetry in information or collusion then the government must intervene. It is also worth looking at if life should be, as TJ identified it, a right or a privilege. If the person holding the key to that question is concerned only about your pocketbook then there may be other considerations. [/B]

Why must the government intervene? What makes the government any different than the health care companies? They don't have limits. Government shouldn't intervene in the private sector at all, at least those are my thoughts.

14 states already filed lawsuits against the bill. THAT is a LOT of states. I can't wait for it to play out in court.

This bill wasn't good enough. Just wasn't. I don't think the insurance companies are solely to blame either. Their profit margins are not all that high. The cost that hospitals charge for services is EXTREMELY high. I'm not saying the cost isn't justifiable, but I am saying it isn't just the insurance companies to blame here.

Originally posted by truejedi
14 states already filed lawsuits against the bill. THAT is a LOT of states. I can't wait for it to play out in court.

This bill wasn't good enough. Just wasn't. I don't think the insurance companies are solely to blame either. Their profit margins are not all that high. The cost that hospitals charge for services is EXTREMELY high. I'm not saying the cost isn't justifiable, but I am saying it isn't just the insurance companies to blame here.

Ironically, this helps insurance companies in the short run, while the constitutional court proceedings can be drawn out for years. It's funny that the Democrats' goal was to pass a public option, and what they got was a bunch of shit nobody's read, that they had to shove down our throats.