EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 17, 2014 12:46:14 GMT -5
The easiest way would be to open Medicare to everyone and ban private insurance for anything that Medicare covers.
The main idea is everyone in the risk pool and everyone is covered regardless of job, income, condition, etc. The rest is up for debate- but I would keep it payroll deducted and leave the other private entities alone.
We do not have a problem with food and shelter like we do with healthcare. The biggest problem- next to being unable to get treatment-is being on an insurance plan and still wind up bankrupt. That should not be possible- not over medical bills.
We can definitely afford to do it considering we are paying about double what other countries are for their systems. Just no political will.
Why the fuck would you "ban" private insurance? I mean seriously, what is WRONG with you statists? I didn't say ban private insurance- I said ban it from covering what would be covered by a single payer insurance program.
They would be free to cover anything else.
I would ban malpractice insurance though and replace it with some form of medical error claims system. No more lawsuits over ordinary negligence.
Don't worry- us 'statists' think insurance can be a good thing- but only when both parties know exactly what the deal is.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 19, 2014 6:10:08 GMT -5
You said ban it. Banning is banning- and your ban is the worst- banning the private market from competing with government.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on May 19, 2014 7:57:55 GMT -5
I was wondering if no one showed up because they were busy working to support those who don't? It's very easy to rally for illegals when you're an illegal and working whenever. It's easy to rally for a lot of things when you arent struggling to keep your head above the water because the govt pisses away your tax dollars and grabs more from you. Keep the middle class struggling and they don't have time to get angry and take back their govt. the rich can and do hide their riches, the poor don't need to bother, the middle class pays for it all and it's JUST WRONG.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 19, 2014 8:33:47 GMT -5
no, that is a single payer ONLY system, and i am totally opposed to that. the best systems are dual systems, like France, not single payer only, like Canada. OK, I'm starting to understand your position much better now. You are in fact not supporting a single payer position like some here do. Would your position be better described as a "dual system" instead of "single payer"? I would be curious to know how many here advocating for "single payer" actually would be supporting what DJ describes as a "dual system". I know some have specifically lised the Canadian system as the model they would use for ours.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2014 10:01:32 GMT -5
no, that is a single payer ONLY system, and i am totally opposed to that. the best systems are dual systems, like France, not single payer only, like Canada. OK, I'm starting to understand your position much better now. You are in fact not supporting a single payer position like some here do. medicare is a single payer system that exists next to a private system. what i am against is SINGLE PAYER ONLY.Would your position be better described as a "dual system" instead of "single payer"? I would be curious to know how many here advocating for "single payer" actually would be supporting what DJ describes as a "dual system". I know some have specifically lised the Canadian system as the model they would use for ours. i don't think anyone that advocates single payer ONLY has thought it through, or is looking at works BEST. i know that a lot of conservatives use Canada's single payer ONLY system as an example of what doesn't work, and i would rather that advocates of public health insurance would avoid that example.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on May 19, 2014 10:08:06 GMT -5
So why not take the uninsured or those who didn't like their plan and put them into the Medicare pool? Why make the majority suffer for the minority? You lose your job or it doesn't provide health care? In you go. Maybe temporary or maybe permanent.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2014 10:10:46 GMT -5
So why not take the uninsured or those who didn't like their plan and put them into the Medicare pool? Why make the majority suffer for the minority? You lose your job or it doesn't provide health care? In you go. Maybe temporary or maybe permanent. i think that this is a fine idea, zib. but medicare is on a collision course with bankrupsy unless we increase the premiums. so, we really should fix that first, then we can implement your idea.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on May 19, 2014 10:14:16 GMT -5
I'm all for upping the premiums based on income. DF and I should pay more than someone who is more financially challenged.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 19, 2014 10:17:05 GMT -5
OK, I'm starting to understand your position much better now. You are in fact not supporting a single payer position like some here do. medicare is a single payer system that exists next to a private system. what i am against is SINGLE PAYER ONLY.Would your position be better described as a "dual system" instead of "single payer"? I would be curious to know how many here advocating for "single payer" actually would be supporting what DJ describes as a "dual system". I know some have specifically lised the Canadian system as the model they would use for ours. i don't think anyone that advocates single payer ONLY has thought it through, or is looking at works BEST. i know that a lot of conservatives use Canada's single payer ONLY system as an example of what doesn't work, and i would rather that advocates of public health insurance would avoid that example. Thanks for clearing that up. It was getting quite confusing trying to understand your comments relative to others here who seem to want a real "single payer" system. I am much more in line with your suggestions but would need to know alot more detail about it before supporting even a "dual system" like France's. They were ranked as the best healthcare system by some but it really remains to be seen how this system will work in the long run. There are some definite areas of concern with their plan by critics who think it will become very expensive and inefficient as time goes on. I also think most of these plans require individuals to pay something like 30% of their cost out of pocket which would be a big shocker for a lot of our people. Also in reference to Medicare, this system was popular and worked well when we had ten working people supporting it for every person collecting but remains to be seen what happens when those numbers get reversed. It may no longer be popular, sustainable or practical at that point.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2014 10:41:29 GMT -5
i don't think anyone that advocates single payer ONLY has thought it through, or is looking at works BEST. i know that a lot of conservatives use Canada's single payer ONLY system as an example of what doesn't work, and i would rather that advocates of public health insurance would avoid that example. Thanks for clearing that up. It was getting quite confusing trying to understand your comments relative to others here who seem to want a real "single payer" system. I am much more in line with your suggestions but would need to know alot more detail about it before supporting even a "dual system" like France's. They were ranked as the best healthcare system by some but it really remains to be seen how this system will work in the long run. their public health system turns 70 next year. is that "long run" enough for you?There are some definite areas of concern with their plan by critics who think it will become very expensive and inefficient as time goes on. the cost for healthcare/insurance in france is 11.6% of GDP. the costs in the US are 17.2% of GDP. based on that alone, i would have to say that our system is expensive and inefficient, and that there are many vultures in our system that take advantage of that, and want it to stay that way. i am all for starving those vultures out of existence.I also think most of these plans require individuals to pay something like 30% of their cost out of pocket which would be a big shocker for a lot of our people. first of all, the public health system in France charges very little. the copay you refer to is for the private system. and their private system is quite similar to ours.Also in reference to Medicare, this system was popular and worked well when we had ten working people supporting it for every person collecting but remains to be seen what happens when those numbers get reversed. It may no longer be popular, sustainable or practical at that point. i don't think those numbers are right. but even if they were, i know that health care costs as a % of GDP have risen significantly since MC was created, but taxes have not. that seems like a major problem to me.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 19, 2014 10:58:57 GMT -5
Thanks for clearing that up. It was getting quite confusing trying to understand your comments relative to others here who seem to want a real "single payer" system. I am much more in line with your suggestions but would need to know alot more detail about it before supporting even a "dual system" like France's. They were ranked as the best healthcare system by some but it really remains to be seen how this system will work in the long run. their public health system turns 70 next year. is that "long run" enough for you? Actually the article I read said the major changes were made in 2000. (Just a teenager yet.)There are some definite areas of concern with their plan by critics who think it will become very expensive and inefficient as time goes on. the cost for healthcare/insurance in france is 11.6% of GDP. the costs in the US are 17.2% of GDP. based on that alone, i would have to say that our system is expensive and inefficient, and that there are many vultures in our system that take advantage of that, and want it to stay that way. i am all for starving those vultures out of existence. Again there are many variables that may or not included in that number. I would want to do a much more detailed comparison before reaching conclusions. Our current system is very expensive in comparison to most. The question is why?I also think most of these plans require individuals to pay something like 30% of their cost out of pocket which would be a big shocker for a lot of our people. first of all, the public health system in France charges very little. the copay you refer to is for the private system. and their private system is quite similar to ours. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France This link seems to suggest that they use a reimbursment system where a patient is reimbursed 75-85% of their cost from a doctor or dentist. Not sure if that matches your research.Also in reference to Medicare, this system was popular and worked well when we had ten working people supporting it for every person collecting but remains to be seen what happens when those numbers get reversed. It may no longer be popular, sustainable or practical at that point. i don't think those numbers are right. but even if they were, i know that health care costs as a % of GDP have risen significantly since MC was created, but taxes have not. that seems like a major problem to me. So you saying MC has driven up the cost of our healthcare? "health care costs a a % of GDP have risen signifigantly since MC was created"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2014 11:08:08 GMT -5
i don't think those numbers are right. but even if they were, i know that health care costs as a % of GDP have risen significantly since MC was created, but taxes have not. that seems like a major problem to me. So you saying MC has driven up the cost of our healthcare? "health care costs a a % of GDP have risen signifigantly since MC was created"no, i am saying that healthcare costs have risen as a % of GDP. i believe that the reasons for this inflation have been well documented, but i can't recall those reasons with enough clarity to comment at this time.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2014 11:14:04 GMT -5
their public health system turns 70 next year. is that "long run" enough for you? Actually the article I read said the major changes were made in 2000. (Just a teenager yet.)i don't know of any significant changes, but i have little reason to. link? There are some definite areas of concern with their plan by critics who think it will become very expensive and inefficient as time goes on. the cost for healthcare/insurance in france is 11.6% of GDP. the costs in the US are 17.2% of GDP. based on that alone, i would have to say that our system is expensive and inefficient, and that there are many vultures in our system that take advantage of that, and want it to stay that way. i am all for starving those vultures out of existence. Again there are many variables that may or not included in that number. I would want to do a much more detailed comparison before reaching conclusions. Our current system is very expensive in comparison to most. The question is why? ibid. I also think most of these plans require individuals to pay something like 30% of their cost out of pocket which would be a big shocker for a lot of our people. first of all, the public health system in France charges very little. the copay you refer to is for the private system. and their private system is quite similar to ours. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France This link seems to suggest that they use a reimbursment system where a patient is reimbursed 75-85% of their cost from a doctor or dentist. Not sure if that matches your research. interesting. hadn't heard that before. but i am not sure how they are arriving at this statistic. nor am i sure how this applies to the average French person. edit: one of my businesses just opened a branch office in Paris. i don't know much about the DETAILS of that system today, but i predict that i shall.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2014 11:28:48 GMT -5
rockon: i found this reimbursement table at the wiki site:
Act Fee % reimbursed Patient charge Generalist consultation 23 € 70% 6,60 € Specialist consultation 25 € 70% 7,50 € Psychiatrist consultation 37 € 70% 11,10 € Cardiologist consultation 49 € 70% 14,17 € Filling a cavity 19,28 € – 48,20 € 70% 5,78 € – 14,46 € Root canal 93,99 € 70% 28,20 € Teeth cleaning 28,92 € 70% 8,68 € Prescription Medicine variable 35 – 100% variable 30 Ibuprofen 200 mg 2,51 € 60% 1,00 €
let's compare to my cost....
when i go to the doctor, i have a $30 copay. in France it would be $10. for psychiatry, i have to pay 100%. they have to pay 30%. dentistry? i pay 100%. when i had dental insurance, the copay was way higher than $20-40 that they average in France. i don't buy ibuprofin at the hospital, so i can't comment on that one.
so, i am not sure how meaningful these numbers are for your average French person. i agree that 30% seems "not good" in the abstract. but above are the practical amounts. and they are lower.
edit: i should also add that many people in the US complain that single payer would result in people cluttering up hospitals because it would be "free". it is pretty clear that in France, the hospitals are neither cluttered nor free, so that would seem to be rather a spurious objection.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 19, 2014 13:12:28 GMT -5
their public health system turns 70 next year. is that "long run" enough for you? Actually the article I read said the major changes were made in 2000. (Just a teenager yet.)i don't know of any significant changes, but i have little reason to. link? There are some definite areas of concern with their plan by critics who think it will become very expensive and inefficient as time goes on. the cost for healthcare/insurance in france is 11.6% of GDP. the costs in the US are 17.2% of GDP. based on that alone, i would have to say that our system is expensive and inefficient, and that there are many vultures in our system that take advantage of that, and want it to stay that way. i am all for starving those vultures out of existence. Again there are many variables that may or not included in that number. I would want to do a much more detailed comparison before reaching conclusions. Our current system is very expensive in comparison to most. The question is why? ibid. I also think most of these plans require individuals to pay something like 30% of their cost out of pocket which would be a big shocker for a lot of our people. first of all, the public health system in France charges very little. the copay you refer to is for the private system. and their private system is quite similar to ours. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France This link seems to suggest that they use a reimbursment system where a patient is reimbursed 75-85% of their cost from a doctor or dentist. Not sure if that matches your research. interesting. hadn't heard that before. but i am not sure how they are arriving at this statistic. nor am i sure how this applies to the average French person. edit: one of my businesses just opened a branch office in Paris. i don't know much about the DETAILS of that system today, but i predict that i shall. Well bottom line for me is that I'm all for reviewing the good and bad points of everyone's system and tailoring changes to ours accordingly. What I most oppose is what happened a few years ago where a party shoved through 2700 pages full of crap in the middle of the night that most likely will not help our national health care cost but is predicted to create even more debt. No one should support that!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2014 13:29:24 GMT -5
their public health system turns 70 next year. is that "long run" enough for you? Actually the article I read said the major changes were made in 2000. (Just a teenager yet.)i don't know of any significant changes, but i have little reason to. link? There are some definite areas of concern with their plan by critics who think it will become very expensive and inefficient as time goes on. the cost for healthcare/insurance in france is 11.6% of GDP. the costs in the US are 17.2% of GDP. based on that alone, i would have to say that our system is expensive and inefficient, and that there are many vultures in our system that take advantage of that, and want it to stay that way. i am all for starving those vultures out of existence. Again there are many variables that may or not included in that number. I would want to do a much more detailed comparison before reaching conclusions. Our current system is very expensive in comparison to most. The question is why? ibid. I also think most of these plans require individuals to pay something like 30% of their cost out of pocket which would be a big shocker for a lot of our people. first of all, the public health system in France charges very little. the copay you refer to is for the private system. and their private system is quite similar to ours. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France This link seems to suggest that they use a reimbursment system where a patient is reimbursed 75-85% of their cost from a doctor or dentist. Not sure if that matches your research. interesting. hadn't heard that before. but i am not sure how they are arriving at this statistic. nor am i sure how this applies to the average French person. edit: one of my businesses just opened a branch office in Paris. i don't know much about the DETAILS of that system today, but i predict that i shall. Well bottom line for me is that I'm all for reviewing the good and bad points of everyone's system and tailoring changes to ours accordingly. What I most oppose is what happened a few years ago where a party shoved through 2700 pages full of crap in the middle of the night that most likely will not help our national health care cost but is predicted to create even more debt. No one should support that! the only reason i find the 2700 page crappile excusable is it was pretty much the only healthcare insurance reform that COULD be passed. would it pass today? not a chance in hell. but that is not because we are just so much better today- so much more capable of coming up with ANYTHING, let alone something better. we are far worse. so, i view the piece of crap as a necessary first step. should it be reworked? absolutely.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 19, 2014 13:34:35 GMT -5
Agree there- pretty much the only thing we could get through and barely at that. Still fighting about it- so if a real reform plan was presented it would be destroyed from countless angles. Nevermind that the public supports the idea of a universal system. Since when has public support of anything mattered to congress? We had- what 90% on the background check legislation that got killed? Representatives my ass- not of the public.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 19, 2014 13:52:43 GMT -5
Well bottom line for me is that I'm all for reviewing the good and bad points of everyone's system and tailoring changes to ours accordingly. What I most oppose is what happened a few years ago where a party shoved through 2700 pages full of crap in the middle of the night that most likely will not help our national health care cost but is predicted to create even more debt. No one should support that! the only reason i find the 2700 page crappile excusable is it was pretty much the only healthcare insurance reform that COULD be passed. would it pass today? not a chance in hell. but that is not because we are just so much better today- so much more capable of coming up with ANYTHING, let alone something better. we are far worse. so, i view the piece of crap as a necessary first step. should it be reworked? absolutely. No here we really part ways. Your statement is completely false IMO. With a majority in both houses of congress and a Democrat in the Whitehouse they COULD have passed ANYTHING they wanted to but didn't. Instead they forced legislation through with almost no pretense of caring what anyone else thought about it, lost their majority as a result and a lot of public support. A major strategic mistake from my perspective.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2014 14:17:30 GMT -5
the only reason i find the 2700 page crappile excusable is it was pretty much the only healthcare insurance reform that COULD be passed. would it pass today? not a chance in hell. but that is not because we are just so much better today- so much more capable of coming up with ANYTHING, let alone something better. we are far worse. so, i view the piece of crap as a necessary first step. should it be reworked? absolutely. No here we really part ways. Your statement is completely false IMO. With a majority in both houses of congress and a Democrat in the Whitehouse they COULD have passed ANYTHING they wanted to but didn't. sorry, but you are totally wrong. they could not pass the public option. they couldn't even bring it up for a vote. trust me on this. i was watching the proceedings VERY carefully. they needed every vote, including the Blue Dog Democrats, who were NEVER going to vote for a public option. if you need me to prove it, i can- but i respectfully ask you to not make me go through the trouble, or look it up yourself (as you seem more than capable of doing).
so, your claim is FALSE. this was a very moderate bill, and it was the best bill they could manage.
Instead they forced legislation through with almost no pretense of caring what anyone else thought about it, lost their majority as a result and a lot of public support. A major strategic mistake from my perspective. i disagree with you, here, too. they could have rammed through a bill in february of that year. instead, they subjected it to a withering nine months of "town hall" bullcrap and debates, and ended up with pretty much the same thing they started with (worse, imo). they should not have wasted any time and rammed it through. unfortunately, that is not Obama's style.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 19, 2014 20:06:59 GMT -5
Well bottom line for me is that I'm all for reviewing the good and bad points of everyone's system and tailoring changes to ours accordingly. What I most oppose is what happened a few years ago where a party shoved through 2700 pages full of crap in the middle of the night that most likely will not help our national health care cost but is predicted to create even more debt. No one should support that! That would be the smart thing to do if we were actually interested in fixing our health care system. Unfortunately too many stakeholders have decided what is off limits before that even happens. That's all we have really- the stakeholders and the spineless politicians- and at the very bottom of the pile the patients. So this is the best we can do- a law written by the insurance industry. It was a deal with the devil. Yet I still support it compared to what we had- baby step in the right direction.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 20, 2014 10:15:42 GMT -5
I guess it always comes back to the fact that we never defined the actual goal before we started trying to "fix" the problem.
If the goal was simply to insure more people then one could claim that this is a step in the right direction and could have been fixed with two paragraphs of legislation that mandated that everyone purchase insurance. If the goal was to improve the quality of the benfits of the insurance one must purchase then I guess one could claim that a step has been taken in the right direction again and again could have been mandated with very little legislation required and would have received overwhelming support from the general public as polls have indicated. If the goal was to reduce our national healthcare cost (and many have stated this goal) then ACA takes us several steps backwards. If the goal is to make doctors and services more available then I will respectfully submit that we have taken steps backwards. If the goal wa to reduce the influence of mega insurance companies on this segment of our economy then we have taken many leaps backwards. If the goal was to encourage more new research and development in this segment I would also suggest that we have taken steps backwards.
So in short my position remains that we now require everyone to buy a specific level of insurance at an increase to our overall national medical costs, have strengthed the monopoly the insurance industry has on us and have very little if anything to address the real cost drivers of our healthcare. A deal with the devil is definetly not always better then no deal. We could have and should have done much better then this and the way this was approached set the tone for Obama's entire presidency. I specificly blame that on Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and also Barack Obama for not showing any leadership and allowing these two to create this mess.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 20, 2014 10:27:44 GMT -5
No here we really part ways. Your statement is completely false IMO. With a majority in both houses of congress and a Democrat in the Whitehouse they COULD have passed ANYTHING they wanted to but didn't. sorry, but you are totally wrong. they could not pass the public option. they couldn't even bring it up for a vote. trust me on this. i was watching the proceedings VERY carefully. they needed every vote, including the Blue Dog Democrats, who were NEVER going to vote for a public option. if you need me to prove it, i can- but i respectfully ask you to not make me go through the trouble, or look it up yourself (as you seem more than capable of doing).
so, your claim is FALSE. this was a very moderate bill, and it was the best bill they could manage.
Instead they forced legislation through with almost no pretense of caring what anyone else thought about it, lost their majority as a result and a lot of public support. A major strategic mistake from my perspective. i disagree with you, here, too. they could have rammed through a bill in february of that year. instead, they subjected it to a withering nine months of "town hall" bullcrap and debates, and ended up with pretty much the same thing they started with (worse, imo). they should not have wasted any time and rammed it through. unfortunately, that is not Obama's style. ( Now from my perspective) Your right they could have rammed it through in Feburary but couldn't agree amongst themselves on how to proceed. Once they determined the direction they basicly said we will consider all other ideas as long as they align with ours and then proceeded to write thousands of pages of legislation and cut back room deals to not only force through their health insurance legislation, allowed no time for peer review but also included all kinds of little things not even related to the subject. They even admitted that they themselves had not read it before passing it. That's no way to conduct business or make good decisions, the public agreed and they paid for it in the 2010 election. Defend it and the process if you like but I will call horseshit what it is.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 20, 2014 11:13:16 GMT -5
i disagree with you, here, too. they could have rammed through a bill in february of that year. instead, they subjected it to a withering nine months of "town hall" bullcrap and debates, and ended up with pretty much the same thing they started with (worse, imo). they should not have wasted any time and rammed it through. unfortunately, that is not Obama's style. ( Now from my perspective) Your right they could have rammed it through in Feburary but couldn't agree amongst themselves on how to proceed. i agree with that. they had to prune out everything liberal that the original ACA contained, and added in a bunch of conservative stuff to appease their own conservatives. it infuriated the vast majority of the party, but it was the only way to make it pass.Once they determined the direction they basicly said we will consider all other ideas as long as they align with ours and then proceeded to write thousands of pages of legislation and cut back room deals to not only force through their health insurance legislation, allowed no time for peer review but also included all kinds of little things not even related to the subject. They even admitted that they themselves had not read it before passing it. That's no way to conduct business or make good decisions, the public agreed and they paid for it in the 2010 election. Defend it and the process if you like but I will call horseshit what it is. i am not defending anything. i am merely stating that this was very moderate reform, and it was the best they could do, given the party structure and politics at the time. what most conservatives don't realize is that the party coherence that we Republicans had at the time has not existed in Democratic politics perhaps ever, but certainly has not existed since 2000. the Democratic Part of 2008/2009 contained a significant conservative element. that element was needed to pass the ACA. the GOP is far more coherent from a policy standpoint. they have very few defectors. in other words, what happened to Democrats in passing the ACA would NEVER happen to the GOP. or, should i say, it was unimaginable prior to 2010. this party stands together, and has way more "discipline" (that is the DC term) than the Democrats. in other words, it is NOT the case that the Democrats can simply pass "anything they want", because there is divisiveness in the party itself, and one wing needed to negotiate with the other. the ACA is a reflection of that battle. it is a bill that Gingrich would probably have supported in 1995, but the GOP has moved a long way to the right since then.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 20, 2014 11:28:04 GMT -5
( Now from my perspective) Your right they could have rammed it through in Feburary but couldn't agree amongst themselves on how to proceed. i agree with that. they had to prune out everything liberal that the original ACA contained, and added in a bunch of conservative stuff to appease their own conservatives. it infuriated the vast majority of the party, but it was the only way to make it pass.Once they determined the direction they basicly said we will consider all other ideas as long as they align with ours and then proceeded to write thousands of pages of legislation and cut back room deals to not only force through their health insurance legislation, allowed no time for peer review but also included all kinds of little things not even related to the subject. They even admitted that they themselves had not read it before passing it. That's no way to conduct business or make good decisions, the public agreed and they paid for it in the 2010 election. Defend it and the process if you like but I will call horseshit what it is. i am not defending anything. i am merely stating that this was very moderate reform, and it was the best they could do, given the party structure and politics at the time. what most conservatives don't realize is that the party coherence that we Republicans had at the time has not existed in Democratic politics perhaps ever, but certainly has not existed since 2000. the Democratic Part of 2008/2009 contained a significant conservative element. that element was needed to pass the ACA. the GOP is far more coherent from a policy standpoint. they have very few defectors. in other words, what happened to Democrats in passing the ACA would NEVER happen to the GOP. or, should i say, it was unimaginable prior to 2010. this party stands together, and has way more "discipline" (that is the DC term) than the Democrats. in other words, it is NOT the case that the Democrats can simply pass "anything they want", because there is divisiveness in the party itself, and one wing needed to negotiate with the other. the ACA is a reflection of that battle. it is a bill that Gingrich would probably have supported in 1995, but the GOP has moved a long way to the right since then. Yeah I think your conclusion is in fact quite correct. I think my statement "could have passed anything" was based on the fact that they could have IF they wanted too or collectively agreed too as a party. In other words it could have been their collective option to do it IF they could have all agreed. Instead they blamed it on the Tea Party. (I never understood that one) I often hear the statement made about the GOP moving a long way to the right but could never really understand that one either. It seems they have pretty much always held some very specific conservative views on both fiscal and social issues but have never done a good job of actually doing what they claim to believe in. I guess if finally standing up for the position you have always claimed to support is the moving you reference then maybe I could agree the Tea Party seems to have driven them to stand up for their principles better then they have in the past.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 20, 2014 11:40:03 GMT -5
i am not defending anything. i am merely stating that this was very moderate reform, and it was the best they could do, given the party structure and politics at the time. what most conservatives don't realize is that the party coherence that we Republicans had at the time has not existed in Democratic politics perhaps ever, but certainly has not existed since 2000. the Democratic Part of 2008/2009 contained a significant conservative element. that element was needed to pass the ACA. the GOP is far more coherent from a policy standpoint. they have very few defectors. in other words, what happened to Democrats in passing the ACA would NEVER happen to the GOP. or, should i say, it was unimaginable prior to 2010. this party stands together, and has way more "discipline" (that is the DC term) than the Democrats. in other words, it is NOT the case that the Democrats can simply pass "anything they want", because there is divisiveness in the party itself, and one wing needed to negotiate with the other. the ACA is a reflection of that battle. it is a bill that Gingrich would probably have supported in 1995, but the GOP has moved a long way to the right since then. Yeah I think your conclusion is in fact quite correct. I think my statement "could have passed anything" was based on the fact that they could have IF they wanted too or collectively agreed too as a party. In other words it could have been their collective option to do it IF they could have all agreed. Instead they blamed it on the Tea Party. (I never understood that one) totally agree. my ONLY point was that MOST of the party wanted a lot MORE from the ACA than they got. this is, in fact, why half the people that don't like the ACA don't like it: that it does not go far ENOUGH. the other half don't like it because it goes too far. in other words, a STRONGER bill would have had probably 60% approval. a WEAKER bill would probably have also had 60% approval. the crapola that we got has 50-60% disapproval.I often hear the statement made about the GOP moving a long way to the right but could never really understand that one either. well, you need to understand it. it is a fact. and it is a real problem for moderates like me. it is also a NATIONAL problem, because it hamstrings the ability for congress to forge legislation through compromise.It seems they have pretty much always held some very specific conservative views on both fiscal and social issues but have never done a good job of actually doing what they claim to believe in. I guess if finally standing up for the position you have always claimed to support is the moving you reference then maybe I could agree the Tea Party seems to have driven them to stand up for their principles better then they have in the past. no, it is really on a broad spectrum of issues. if you are interested in the subject, i will start a thread on it. i think it is fascinating.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 20, 2014 13:24:41 GMT -5
Yeah I think your conclusion is in fact quite correct. I think my statement "could have passed anything" was based on the fact that they could have IF they wanted too or collectively agreed too as a party. In other words it could have been their collective option to do it IF they could have all agreed. Instead they blamed it on the Tea Party. (I never understood that one) totally agree. my ONLY point was that MOST of the party wanted a lot MORE from the ACA than they got. this is, in fact, why half the people that don't like the ACA don't like it: that it does not go far ENOUGH. the other half don't like it because it goes too far. in other words, a STRONGER bill would have had probably 60% approval. a WEAKER bill would probably have also had 60% approval. the crapola that we got has 50-60% disapproval.I often hear the statement made about the GOP moving a long way to the right but could never really understand that one either. well, you need to understand it. it is a fact. and it is a real problem for moderates like me. it is also a NATIONAL problem, because it hamstrings the ability for congress to forge legislation through compromise.It seems they have pretty much always held some very specific conservative views on both fiscal and social issues but have never done a good job of actually doing what they claim to believe in. I guess if finally standing up for the position you have always claimed to support is the moving you reference then maybe I could agree the Tea Party seems to have driven them to stand up for their principles better then they have in the past. no, it is really on a broad spectrum of issues. if you are interested in the subject, i will start a thread on it. i think it is fascinating. No need for a new thread. I would like to understand it and if possible just a couple sentences explaining in which areas they have moved "a long way to the right" might do that for me.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 20, 2014 13:33:29 GMT -5
Yeah I think your conclusion is in fact quite correct. I think my statement "could have passed anything" was based on the fact that they could have IF they wanted too or collectively agreed too as a party. In other words it could have been their collective option to do it IF they could have all agreed. Instead they blamed it on the Tea Party. (I never understood that one) totally agree. my ONLY point was that MOST of the party wanted a lot MORE from the ACA than they got. this is, in fact, why half the people that don't like the ACA don't like it: that it does not go far ENOUGH. the other half don't like it because it goes too far. in other words, a STRONGER bill would have had probably 60% approval. a WEAKER bill would probably have also had 60% approval. the crapola that we got has 50-60% disapproval.I often hear the statement made about the GOP moving a long way to the right but could never really understand that one either. well, you need to understand it. it is a fact. and it is a real problem for moderates like me. it is also a NATIONAL problem, because it hamstrings the ability for congress to forge legislation through compromise.It seems they have pretty much always held some very specific conservative views on both fiscal and social issues but have never done a good job of actually doing what they claim to believe in. I guess if finally standing up for the position you have always claimed to support is the moving you reference then maybe I could agree the Tea Party seems to have driven them to stand up for their principles better then they have in the past. no, it is really on a broad spectrum of issues. if you are interested in the subject, i will start a thread on it. i think it is fascinating. politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/30/cnn-poll-gives-ammunition-to-both-sides-in-health-care-battle/Hopefully you don't seriously believe that half of the people who dont like ACA do so because it don't go far enough right?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 20, 2014 13:33:53 GMT -5
no, it is really on a broad spectrum of issues. if you are interested in the subject, i will start a thread on it. i think it is fascinating. No need for a new thread. I would like to understand it and if possible just a couple sentences explaining in which areas they have moved "a long way to the right" might do that for me. the GOP became the most conservative party in history in 1999, and has got more conservative every year since then: voteview.com/images/House_party_Means_46-111.jpg
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 20, 2014 13:40:39 GMT -5
um....did you read that article? Supporters of the law point to the second number in the survey: That 35% oppose the health care law because it's too liberal, with 16% saying they oppose the measure because it isn't liberal enough. Add that 16% to the 44% who say they favor the law and that means that six in ten either support the law or don't think it goes far enough. Or in other words, 60% are on the other side of the most vocal conservative critics of Obamacare. 60% think it EITHER goes too far or not far enough. that is precisely what i said.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 20, 2014 13:57:09 GMT -5
No need for a new thread. I would like to understand it and if possible just a couple sentences explaining in which areas they have moved "a long way to the right" might do that for me. the GOP became the most conservative party in history in 1999, and has got more conservative every year since then: voteview.com/images/House_party_Means_46-111.jpgI have no idea what the bases of this chart is or who even made it. It looks like someones opinion to me. I'm looking for specificly what position they changed that made them more conservative.
|
|