Gas Bandit's Analysis of the Midterm Results

[Sparhawk]

My analysis:

Gridlock is good when it comes to Washington DC.

That is all.

 

[Krisken]

Well, get ready for a celebration, cause the next 2 years will make the last two years look like a speed train.

 

[@Li3n]

BTW, i'm interested, what was the over-all turnup compared to 2008...

A difference of a week or two to read the bill, as was promised in the campaign, would not have caused deaths. As a matter of fact, it was found that people weren't actually dying in the streets to begin with. The entire crisis was largely manufactured out of whole cloth.

Let me guess, you looked out the window just before you posted this...

Seriously, i took the "people dying in the street" and all that as "death panels" type rhetoric, while the idea that not passing it in a timely fashion will lead to more people being dropped etc.

So not so much fake, as exaggeration...

...

And a few more weeks to read it... i swear, it's like you're trying to make yourselves look like morons to the rest of the world... one of your politicians even said it's 1000 pages, who's gonna read that, why is he alive?!

IF YOU COULDN'T READ 1000 PAGES DURING ALL THE TIME THEY DEBATED IT (it took forever for me, and i only saw it through Daily Show clips) YOU WHERE NEVER GONNA READ IT... freaking americans.

You used the proper nomenclature, but you're still half wrong - it's not a good, it's a service. And competition helps the consumer in the service industry as well as in retail goods. Basically, it's been shown repeatedly throughout the course of human experience that if there's no competition, there's no motivation either.

If i had used it i assume you would have understood what i was getting at...

There are good where competition (by an alternative good) doesn't actually affect prices like you think they will... like prices for a Ferrari don't go down because Maseratti also makes 500k cars and stuff like that...

I don't actually recall how that works for services, or even if there is a concept for services like the one for good i was referring to (could have missed that class). Point is that competition for a service that will kill you if you don't get it might not be as effective as you think.

Sure, a lot of people might decide not to get it, and firms might lower prices to attract them, but that has many hidden social and economic costs too...

Objectivity is irrelevant. They are the ones who are charging and paying the lions's share of said premiums, so it's more a statement of fact. Plus, it's also common sense - you can't add millions more people to a system without increasing costs.

Nobody's saying things didn't need fixing with health care - costs are and were too high, and there were too many ways for insurance companies to weasel out of claims. But this doesn't address the latter, and even exacerbates the former.

Also - remember the "if you like your current coverage, you keep it?" Turns out that was yet another huge lie.

Actually my point was more about the fact that asking the guy selling stuff if he'll increase his prices when he gets the opportunity to do it while blaming someone else is hardly the best way to do it...

Now if you're talkng about it having perverse incentives, well duh, that's more certain then taxes or death (stupid being able to go through puberty again jellyfish).

 

[GasBandit]

BTW, i'm interested, what was the over-all turnup compared to 2008...

A difference of a week or two to read the bill, as was promised in the campaign, would not have caused deaths. As a matter of fact, it was found that people weren't actually dying in the streets to begin with. The entire crisis was largely manufactured out of whole cloth.

Let me guess, you looked out the window just before you posted this...

Seriously, i took the "people dying in the street" and all that as "death panels" type rhetoric, while the idea that not passing it in a timely fashion will lead to more people being dropped etc.

So not so much fake, as exaggeration...

There was not anything even approaching an epidemic of people getting dropped. And as I referenced, their figures on the numbers of uninsured was a mixture of fiction and intellectual dishonesty. As usual, all that was really done was a few fractions of a percent had really had a rough time of it, and they were trotted out in front of cameras by the left as "look how horrible this is! And it's happening all around us!"

And a few more weeks to read it... i swear, it's like you're trying to make yourselves look like morons to the rest of the world... one of your politicians even said it's 1000 pages, who's gonna read that, why is he alive?!

IF YOU COULDN'T READ 1000 PAGES DURING ALL THE TIME THEY DEBATED IT (it took forever for me, and i only saw it through Daily Show clips) YOU WHERE NEVER GONNA READ IT... freaking americans.

Entire sections of the bill were not even actually written until hours before the vote. There's been a very bad habit over the last few years of democrats only posting complete versions bills at midnight the night before they were to be voted on. And don't forget the immortal words of (thankfully soon to be ex-) house speaker Nancy Pelosi... "It's very exciting. Congress has to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it!"

I don't actually recall how that works for services, or even if there is a concept for services like the one for good i was referring to (could have missed that class). Point is that competition for a service that will kill you if you don't get it might not be as effective as you think.

An important distinction in this conversation is the difference between DIE and KILL. A year or so ago, Darkaudit and I got into this health care stuff, and he accused me of wanting him to die, and saying that he has a right to "not die."

The truth of the matter is nobody has a right to not die. There is nothing in the world that can stop you from dying at some point. You do not have a right to immortality. You DO have the right not to be harmed or killed through the actions of others. This is why there's no "right to health care."

Now, even with that, nobody in the United States who needs lifesaving emergency procedures ever is denied it. That was one of the bombshells that got swept under the rug during the debate. Nobody who staggers into an emergency room with a knife in their back is turned away, regardless of his ability to pay. Now, he might rack up debt, or in some cases the taxpayers DO end up footing the bill, but the crisis that was displayed was largely fiction.

Lack of insurance doesn't kill you. When I was in college I voluntarily went without health insurance, as did millions of other Americans in all sorts of situations. It did not kill me.

So the whole "service that can kill you" argument completely deflates. It's a service like any other. Competition forces competing services to find ways to improve services or lower prices, or more often, both. Bad service providers go out of business. Good ones flourish. It's the law of capitalism, it's the law of nature, and it's what made the US the powerhouse it is.

Actually my point was more about the fact that asking the guy selling stuff if he'll increase his prices when he gets the opportunity to do it while blaming someone else is hardly the best way to do it...

Now if you're talkng about it having perverse incentives, well duh, that's more certain then taxes or death (stupid being able to go through puberty again jellyfish).

It's less akin to a threat and passing the blame, than it is to a gas station owner saying more regulations and higher taxes on oil will make the price of gas go up.

It's a marvelous masterstroke of anticapitalism. It requires every American to buy health insurance, and yet requires the health industry to do business in such a way that it will put the insurance industry OUT of business. All while raising the cost of health care so that the sound of gnashing teeth and political pressure continues to build. It's the middle step between what we had and single payer, which is the real goal for the leftists here. And before he had national aspirations, back in 03 Obama was very candid about his belief in single payer... and he also knew that there would have to be intermediate steps to get there.

 

[@Li3n]

Yeah, seriously not in any state of mind to actually look up half the stuff you posted... but i'll do some that don't require reading through millions of webpages, just for fun.

Just to be clear, this is about gaps in your logic, not socialism for everyone...

Entire sections of the bill were not even actually written until hours before the vote.

Then why where they talking about a 1000 page bill way before the vote? Where they blank pages?! Coz in my experience blank pages are really easy to read.

An important distinction in this conversation is the difference between DIE and KILL. A year or so ago, Darkaudit and I got into this health care stuff, and he accused me of wanting him to die, and saying that he has a right to "not die."

Actually i believe the Hippocratic oath does kinda say that.

But that's a philosophical debate about what are and aren't human rights waiting to happen... but i will point out that it is "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Debating whether or not the system proposed will work is another thing though.

Now, even with that, nobody in the United States who needs lifesaving emergency procedures ever is denied it. That was one of the bombshells that got swept under the rug during the debate. Nobody who staggers into an emergency room with a knife in their back is turned away, regardless of his ability to pay. Now, he might rack up debt, or in some cases the taxpayers DO end up footing the bill, but the crisis that was displayed was largely fiction.

So they only let you die when it's a slow process?! It's one of those ,99 things, isn't it.

Lack of insurance doesn't kill you. When I was in college I voluntarily went without health insurance, as did millions of other Americans in all sorts of situations. It did not kill me.

Neither does thinking before posting something...

 

[GasBandit]

Yeah, seriously not in any state of mind to actually look up half the stuff you posted... but i'll do some that don't require reading through millions of webpages, just for fun.

Let me run that through the translator: "You've completely taken me apart, so I'm going to not respond and hope the most damaging bits go quietly away." Ah.

Just to be clear, this is about gaps in your logic, not socialism for everyone...

Entire sections of the bill were not even actually written until hours before the vote.

Then why where they talking about a 1000 page bill way before the vote? Where they blank pages?! Coz in my experience blank pages are really easy to read.

Technically, blank pages are impossible to read. And yes, large sections were basically marked "to be filled in later."

An important distinction in this conversation is the difference between DIE and KILL. A year or so ago, Darkaudit and I got into this health care stuff, and he accused me of wanting him to die, and saying that he has a right to "not die."

Actually i believe the Hippocratic oath does kinda say that.

Show the part where it does please. The part that says we have a right to not die. Because that's bordering on insanity. Immortality is not a right.

The point of the Hippocratic oath is "above all do no harm." As in, even if you can't make it better, don't make it worse. I don't think there's anything in the Hippocratic oath about who pays who for services. But if I'm wrong, please show me that part too.

But that's a philosophical debate about what are and aren't human rights waiting to happen... but i will point out that it is "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

That guarantees that no one can DEPRIVE you of those things. To DEPRIVE you of life is to kill you. You are not guaranteed continued life in perpetuity. Just as if you choose to imprison yourself, or make yourself unhappy, it is not the government's place (or even ability) to FORCE you to be free or happy.

Think about it. We have a right to bear arms. Does that mean it's the governments responsibility to buy me guns? No, of course not. Just as the right to life doesn't mean the government is required to buy you health care.

Now, even with that, nobody in the United States who needs lifesaving emergency procedures ever is denied it. That was one of the bombshells that got swept under the rug during the debate. Nobody who staggers into an emergency room with a knife in their back is turned away, regardless of his ability to pay. Now, he might rack up debt, or in some cases the taxpayers DO end up footing the bill, but the crisis that was displayed was largely fiction.

So they only let you die when it's a slow process?! It's one of those ,99 things, isn't it.

Again, see above.

Lack of insurance doesn't kill you. When I was in college I voluntarily went without health insurance, as did millions of other Americans in all sorts of situations. It did not kill me.

Neither does thinking before posting something...

Right back atcha.

 

[Necronic]

Now, even with that, nobody in the United States who needs lifesaving emergency procedures ever is denied it. That was one of the bombshells that got swept under the rug during the debate. Nobody who staggers into an emergency room with a knife in their back is turned away, regardless of his ability to pay. Now, he might rack up debt, or in some cases the taxpayers DO end up footing the bill, but the crisis that was displayed was largely fiction.

That's not really true.

Yes, no one who walks in with an accute symptoms will be treated. But that's not what kills most people and that's not what the entire health care bill was about. A hospital is only required to stabilize a patient. Stabilizing someone with a knife wound means treating them thoroughly. Stabilizing someone with heart disease or cancer doesn't require much treatment at all. You stabilize them, then you bounce them. Hospitals that recieve no payments from the government can refuse you flat out. However, the latter group is essentially non-existant as it would require the hospital to not take medicaid/care payments.

The law governing this is called EMTAL I think.

The health care dillemma is philosphically difficult at its core.

Lets say, on the one hand, you shoot for a truly universal health care system. Everyone is treated and it is all paid from taxes. As everyone presumably understands, preventative/predictive medicine is the cheapest way to treat something. Prices go up exponentially when illnesses are untreated. This creates a dillemma as the government is on the hook for paying while the patient has a lot of influence on the cost. Would the patients be responsible and take care of the preventative care? Some probably would, but there is reason to believe that some people would look to the safety net below them and not get physicals etc. as they should.

The problem extends when you start thinking about cost structures more. Take for isntance the homeless. Even as homeless they have the rights to the healthcare as well (assuming they are citizens.) With cost and preventative medicine in mind, one of the most important steps would be getting them off the street and making sure they have appropriate nutrients. Ok, well the universal health care system now has to overlap with welfare.

Going beyond that, the government now has a financial reason to become far more involved in the health of its constituents. How will the government justify tobacco or fast food sales? Possibly higher taxation on those goods could be used to pay for the added health costs. Should people be encouraged to excersize more? Maybe even a tax on video games makes sense. Obviously some examination and intervention on the increasing diabetes rates should be done. Although, that said, longer life span is good but what you also want is cheap death.

That of course, is the extreme, but it follows both the philosophy of universal health care advocates and logical fiscal discipline.

Now lets look at the other extreme. In this system we have effectively no health care coverage beyond private, medicaid/medicare, CHIPs, and the EMTA coverage. Basically what we had a couple years ago.

Lets just look at the EMTA system for the moment. All that the government provides for people not covered in the other systems is emergency care, and it isn't paid for by the government, just mandated. Often times you will see people coming in for items that could have been handled in a preventative system far better and far cheaper, diabetes comes to mind again. Or late stage cancer. Or any number of issues. It would be cheaper to have dealth with these items quicker.

That added cost, the government isn't paying for it, so who is? There are arguments that the costs incurred by hospitals due to unpaid emergency rooms has contributed to increasing insurance rates for everyone else. That is a VERY dangerous and wholly unsustainable cycle as the increasing insurance rates will result in less people being insured or less coverage for the dollar. This means that those preventable items will be missed more often and emergency room visits will increase. Which will then raise insurance rates.

----------------

I don't believe either philosophy works or is sustainable. I don't know what the answer is to the philosophy. As I have said before, ideology is a red herring, so in this argument as well as others I choose to ignore it.

That said, there are obvious logical failures in the system as it stands, and why these have not been fixed is beyond my understanding and highlights my general frustration with ideologically derived arguments. They are superficial and don't look at the strange details that clearly cause issues. Like these:

1) Medical services pricing is not fixed. Not even close. An appendix removal in location A will cost one insurance company $3,000 and another $30,000. This is at the same hospital, just different insurance companies. This is caused by how doctors and hospitals negotiate with insurance companies, and can cause massive problems (beyond the fact that it would be illegal in many industries to do this.) The federal government should design regional pricing structures with an acceptable negotiation margin that would be based around real costs. This is how things are done in a couple of states already.

2) Medicare/medicaid reimbursement rates need to rise. The fact that we even considered a universal health care bill without first fixing the largest current version of that in the US is apalling. Especially because these low medicare rates damage private insurance, and private insurance was already being put into a corner. This can be dealt with by examining item 1.

3) True cost/benefit analyses of medications and treatments need to be done on a federal level. Neither doctors nor patients care about the cost of a treatement that the insurance company will pay, and has lead to doctors suggesting medication/treatments that are massively more expensive than other generally identical versions. Who would ever hire a plumber that didn't care about the cost/value ratio of the equipment they were installing?

Then you have the ridiculous parade of medical equipment that has happened in the last 20 years. FYI, for many many many situation an MRI from the 90s is just as good as the top of the line one that rolled out last week. Yet again though, there is a massive disconnect between cost and value. The only people who seem to see this are the insurance companies.

4) Medical Informatics is a massive joke, if not a total failure. And that is a HUGE waste of money. The government should work with hospitals and patient advocate groups to design a national database of patient medical information. The fact that this has not been done is horrifying. People that argue about the need for privacy need to understand the real benefits of this, and should be shown that something like this could be managed in a safe and secure manner. After that, they can STFU because this will save so much money AND also save lives. The amount of research that could be done on a national medical database is mind-boggling.

5) Drug discovery needs to come back. There is no incentive for discovery sciences anymore, and that is bad as it has stagnated our medical advancement. Most of the advancements in the last 30 years has been about the mechanical nature of the treatments. The government should be putting more money into drug discovery, and should also understand the difference between a new drug and an old drug with a different delivery mechanism.

....

more later.

 

[GasBandit]

You've got a lot of good points there Necronic, but jezus that's a wall of text even JCM would be proud of

I definitely agree with the parts about costs versus benefits and trying to address that. That we tried to tackle universal coverage without addressing the underlying reasons for the high cost of medical care was definitely a big headslapper.

 

[Necronic]

The high cost of medical care is a really hard one, and is partially rooted in American culture. As American's, we like big, fast, and new. Our cars, our houses, our mortgages. We don't just do it bigger in Texas. It's everywhere. We want the best. Even a Motel 6 could be considered a fine hotel compared to places I have seen in Europe.

This is part of the root of the recession, but also causes a lot of excess spending in our healthcare. American hospitals are 4 star hotels. You don't see many places where there are more than a couple of people per room. They even have the machine that goes *ping*. It extends in many more subtle places as well.

One of the worst is the "Throwaway Culture" in the medical industry. Does it bother you when you get to-go boxes? What about all those plastic water bottles? Don't feel too bad about it, because the medical industry is a million times worse. At some point hospitals got away from re-usable sterilizable equipment, switching over to single use pre-sterilized stuff. Now, that in and of itself is bad, because there is no real reason for using single-use equipment. Good stainless steel can be autoclaved to perfection many many times. What's worse is that a lot of equipment gets opened, isn't used (as its one of a couple items or whatever) and is just thrown away.

Ignoring the amount of medical waste being generated (yummy), how much money is this wasting? Medical equipment is not cheap (for good reason), and just because its single-use doesn't mean it is that much cheaper. No other industry would accept that much financial wastage. Concepts like Lean and TPS and seven Muda are focused around reducing them.

The medical industry is a bit different than traditional industry because it is a "left of zero" kind of environment. There is no acceptable level of failure (hence, left of zero), but there are still places for reduction of waste, and they haven't been addressed. Moreover there are places for introduction of error/failure which haven't been addressed and would have been addressed in any other industry allready.

But I digress.

The point is that part of the problem is us, the consumer. Our doctors want us as customers. We want the best. Not just the best treatment, but the sexiest. The "American Best". We don't want the "Canadian Best" which serves the same purpose but always seems like a crappier version of the "American Best". The Go-Bots to our Transformers. And that is stupid, because at the end of the day both the Go-Bots and the Transformers get the job done, it doesn't matter that the latter are cooler and transform better.

 

[@Li3n]

I don't know what the answer is to the philosophy.

It's philosophy... if it actually give you any objective answer instead of more questions you're doing it wrong.

Let me run that through the translator: "You've completely taken me apart, so I'm going to not respond and hope the most damaging bits go quietly away." Ah.

Because interpreting it as the fact that you posted a wikipedia article of stuff without even putting in those nice little reference link things and that it would need me to do actual in-depth research to confirm or deny what you said would break your translator.

Technically, blank pages are impossible to read. And yes, large sections were basically marked "to be filled in later."

And technically no one should be complaining that the bill has 1000 pages if most where empty...

And if true, that's incredibly sad... and not just because a bill like that gets voted on, but that the other side didn't scream bloody murder everywhere about such a thing instead focusing on it's length.

Actually i believe the Hippocratic oath does kinda say that.

Show the part where it does please. The part that says we have a right to not die. Because that's bordering on insanity. Immortality is not a right.

It's the part that says the doctor should do everything he can to help the patient... one might even argue the part about doing no harm applies as letting the patient die is causing harm.

Immortality... how should i run that through my translator?!

The point of the Hippocratic oath is "above all do no harm." As in, even if you can't make it better, don't make it worse. I don't think there's anything in the Hippocratic oath about who pays who for services. But if I'm wrong, please show me that part too.

Why yes, nothing about who pays, just that the health care must be performed...

That guarantees that no one can DEPRIVE you of those things. To DEPRIVE you of life is to kill you. You are not guaranteed continued life in perpetuity. Just as if you choose to imprison yourself, or make yourself unhappy, it is not the government's place (or even ability) to FORCE you to be free or happy.

Think about it. We have a right to bear arms. Does that mean it's the governments responsibility to buy me guns? No, of course not. Just as the right to life doesn't mean the government is required to buy you health care.

The government isn't buying you health care, it is forcing you to buy health care... so that no one can deprive you of life saving treatments just because you can't afford it...

Just like all those other taxes are used to make sure guns and other liberties you're supposed to have are available. Plus infrastructure, and i'm pretty sure the right to have roads isn't in the constitution...

Oh course as a libertarian you're probably against all that too...

So they only let you die when it's a slow process?! It's one of those ,99 things, isn't it.

Again, see above.

Are you being serious?! You think not having money to pay for medicine to save your life is choosing to die?!

Lack of insurance doesn't kill you. When I was in college I voluntarily went without health insurance, as did millions of other Americans in all sorts of situations. It did not kill me.

Neither does thinking before posting something...

Right back atcha.

So you're rubber and i'm glue...

It's less akin to a threat and passing the blame, than it is to a gas station owner saying more regulations and higher taxes on oil will make the price of gas go up.

No see, the question is how much of that raise is because the law cuts into profits based on overpricing the gas...

Like you said before, another company raised the premiums less... but why wasn't your employer already with that guy already?! Maybe because before their prices weren't cheaper then...

That's why you don't just believe the snake oil salesman on his word when he says that making him prove it works will increase prices.

It's a marvelous masterstroke of anticapitalism. It requires every American to buy health insurance, and yet requires the health industry to do business in such a way that it will put the insurance industry OUT of business. All while raising the cost of health care so that the sound of gnashing teeth and political pressure continues to build. It's the middle step between what we had and single payer, which is the real goal for the leftists here. And before he had national aspirations, back in 03 Obama was very candid about his belief in single payer... and he also knew that there would have to be intermediate steps to get there.

Obama is such a smooth operator... and not managing to pass every law he liked while having an overwhelming majority and the giant swing in the November elections are all part of his plan...

 

[GasBandit]

Let me run that through the translator: "You've completely taken me apart, so I'm going to not respond and hope the most damaging bits go quietly away." Ah.

Because interpreting it as the fact that you posted a wikipedia article of stuff without even putting in those nice little reference link things and that it would need me to do actual in-depth research to confirm or deny what you said would break your translator. [/quote] I see, so now your inability to defend your positions is MY fault. Glad we got that sorted out.

Technically, blank pages are impossible to read. And yes, large sections were basically marked "to be filled in later."

And technically no one should be complaining that the bill has 1000 pages if most where empty...

And if true, that's incredibly sad... and not just because a bill like that gets voted on, but that the other side didn't scream bloody murder everywhere about such a thing instead focusing on it's length.

They did try to scream about it, but the screams don't quite make it into the news cycle when the bill isn't available for review until midnight before the vote. Actually it's also a mash-up of two different problems - at one point there were several "proposed versions" of the not-finalized bill floating around, and usually when someone starts talking about the 2000-page bill they're talking about the senate version that got passed around even though it hadn't been passed by the house. The whole affair was (probably deliberately) obfuscated and confused, as the last thing any proponent of the bill wanted was actual attention paid to it. Remember Pelosi's "we have to pass it so you can learn what's in it" gaffe.

Actually i believe the Hippocratic oath does kinda say that.

Show the part where it does please. The part that says we have a right to not die. Because that's bordering on insanity. Immortality is not a right.

It's the part that says the doctor should do everything he can to help the patient... one might even argue the part about doing no harm applies as letting the patient die is causing harm.

That is a complete and utter falsehood. You obviously have absolutely no grasp of the Hippocratic oath.

Immortality... how should i run that through my translator?!

To put claim on the right to "not die" is to do no less than demand immortality.

The point of the Hippocratic oath is "above all do no harm." As in, even if you can't make it better, don't make it worse. I don't think there's anything in the Hippocratic oath about who pays who for services. But if I'm wrong, please show me that part too.

Why yes, nothing about who pays, just that the health care must be performed...

Actually, just for this thread I went and looked it up again, and there's nothing in the hippocratic oath about being required to practice without payment either. See above.

That guarantees that no one can DEPRIVE you of those things. To DEPRIVE you of life is to kill you. You are not guaranteed continued life in perpetuity. Just as if you choose to imprison yourself, or make yourself unhappy, it is not the government's place (or even ability) to FORCE you to be free or happy.

Think about it. We have a right to bear arms. Does that mean it's the governments responsibility to buy me guns? No, of course not. Just as the right to life doesn't mean the government is required to buy you health care.

The government isn't buying you health care, it is forcing you to buy health care... so that no one can deprive you of life saving treatments just because you can't afford it...

That's an asinine way to interpret it, much moreso even because it's false. Or rather, it was false until obamacare. Now the government IS requiring everyone to buy health insurance. Which is kind of like trying to cure world hunger by making it illegal to not eat.

Just like all those other taxes are used to make sure guns and other liberties you're supposed to have are available. Plus infrastructure, and i'm pretty sure the right to have roads isn't in the constitution...

Quite right, there isn't a right to roads in the constitution, because there isn't a right to roads. That's why you have to have a DRIVERS LICENSE to use them. And the government can revoke that license. But that's a responsibility of state government, not federal. But you came dangerously close to having an epiphany of truth with your first sentence - the right to something means that the government cannot IMPEDE you getting it. A RIGHT to guns means they can't stop you from SPENDING YOUR OWN MONEY to get guns. Rights are not about things being PROVIDED for you, they're about your freedom to get them for yourself, if you have the means. If you cannot afford to buy a gun, the 2nd amendment does not enable you to take one without paying, nor does it mean the government must buy one for you. And if Obamacare had been about guns, it would have meant that every person was REQUIRED to buy a gun.

Are you being serious?! You think not having money to pay for medicine to save your life is choosing to die?!

I never said that, and I never even implied it. What I said was that the right to something means the right not to be prevented from it by others. But doctors have rights too - first and foremost, they have the right to expect to be paid for their services. And your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.

Lack of insurance doesn't kill you. When I was in college I voluntarily went without health insurance, as did millions of other Americans in all sorts of situations. It did not kill me.

Neither does thinking before posting something...

Right back atcha.

So you're rubber and i'm glue...

What, are you implying I was supposed to actually address that point in some way other than flippantly? It was a childish ad-hominem.

It's less akin to a threat and passing the blame, than it is to a gas station owner saying more regulations and higher taxes on oil will make the price of gas go up.

No see, the question is how much of that raise is because the law cuts into profits based on overpricing the gas...

Like you said before, another company raised the premiums less... but why wasn't your employer already with that guy already?! Maybe because before their prices weren't cheaper then...

That's why you don't just believe the snake oil salesman on his word when he says that making him prove it works will increase prices.

It's a little more convincing when the "snake oil salesman" has his words corroborated by economists and the CBO.

It's a marvelous masterstroke of anticapitalism. It requires every American to buy health insurance, and yet requires the health industry to do business in such a way that it will put the insurance industry OUT of business. All while raising the cost of health care so that the sound of gnashing teeth and political pressure continues to build. It's the middle step between what we had and single payer, which is the real goal for the leftists here. And before he had national aspirations, back in 03 Obama was very candid about his belief in single payer... and he also knew that there would have to be intermediate steps to get there.

Obama is such a smooth operator... and not managing to pass every law he liked while having an overwhelming majority and the giant swing in the November elections are all part of his plan...

He didn't get EVERY law he wanted, but he got an important (ie: very damaging) one passed, and it expended every drop of his political capital to do. It cost him mightily, but in the long run if it leads to a weakened and more socialist United States, he'll probably deem it worth the effort.

 

[Krisken]

Oh no, the Socialist Dictator Tyranical leader!

:aaahhh::aaahhh::aaahhh:

 

[GasBandit]

No, THAT would be giving him too much credit. He's not a tyrannical dictator, he's a saboteur. That's about it.

 

[Krisken]

See, and that is just silly. It's implying he wants the country to fail, which is a charge which has no basis in fact. It's as crazy as when people said Bush wanted the country to be attacked. No one in power really wants these things.

 

[GasBandit]

See, and that is just silly. It's implying he wants the country to fail, which is a charge which has no basis in fact. It's as crazy as when people said Bush wanted the country to be attacked. No one in power really wants these things.

He doesn't want it to "fail," he just wants to see it taken down a peg. It's manifestly obvious from his writings, his speeches (pre 2008), his behavior as president and the company he kept until it was no longer politically expedient to do so that he believes that America (and all wealthy people for that matter) came by wealth illegitimately, by exploitation, abuse, or fraud. That it should be "less powerful." Just Yet Another Country, as opposed to being the best and brightest that it can. Basically, the exact opposite of Regan's "shining city on a hill."

 

[Krisken]

I guess I haven't seen the "We are awful" message you've seen. I've watched most of his speeches and didn't see any of that. I think our nation does suffer from hubris, and that is what he is trying to combat.

 

[GasBandit]

I guess you missed the foreign tour where he went around apologizing for us and bowing before foreign leaders.

 

[Krisken]

It's called diplomacy, and I don't fault anyone for it.

 

[Tress]

It's called diplomacy, and I don't fault anyone for it.

Conservatives don't believe in diplomacy these days. Haven't you noticed that? Our leaders have to thump their chests and punch the other guy in the face, or we're being weak.

 

[AshburnerX]

I guess you missed the foreign tour where he went around apologizing for Bush Jr.'s dismissive and downright hostile attitude to our friends & allies and bowing before foreign leaders.

Fixed that for you. Obama's attempts to repair our severely damaged international relations are nothing to deride.

 

[GasBandit]

Those arguments might hold water if not for the fact that the two biggest "obama bowing" stories were about the king of Saudia Arabia, which Bush was notoriously chummy with, and the Emperor of Japan, who Bush was also friendly with. It's not like Obama was going around bowing to disgruntled European Allies, not that that would have been ok either.

You can be diplomatic without genuflecting. After all, your all-time favorite recent president, Bill Clinton, tipped his head a little bit to the Emperor, and the white house started VEHEMENTLY DENYING he was bowing.

You also might want to re-check into his apologies in the Egypt speech, who he was apologizing to, and for what.

 

[Krisken]

Well, it's not like Obama kissed him on the lips.

You're trying to make hay where there isn't any, distinctions that don't exist.

 

[GasBandit]

Well, it's not like Obama kissed him on the lips.

That'd actually have been less awful. Heck, Bugs Bunny did that to Elmer Fudd all the time, and it wasn't a sign of subservience, or even affection, in the least

 

[Krisken]

Neither is this, Gas. But, you'll see it that way if you want. I much prefer bowing and diplomacy to the 'go fuck yourself' attitude of 2000's.

 

[GasBandit]

Neither is this, Gas. But, you'll see it that way if you want. I much prefer bowing and diplomacy to the 'go fuck yourself' attitude of 2000's.

If memory serves, the only people we told to go fuck themselves was the French (because they peremptorily told us to go fuck ourselves, first). For everybody else, there was "we're gonna do what we need to do. Come along if you want." And funny, how a good number of them did.

"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without an accordion: All you're really doing is leaving behind a bunch of useless noisy baggage." - Jed Babbin, 2003

But we made up after that. Sarkozy is a lot more level headed than Chirac was.

 

[Krisken]

It wasn't just France. There were a lot of countries which didn't agree with our decision to go to war with Iraq. I'm not just talking about that, either. Do some searching on John Bolton to get an idea on why the rest of the world found our foreign policies to be lacking severely.

 

[AshburnerX]

It was actually more like "We're gonna do what we want, no matter what you say. If you don't help out, don't expect our support ever again." or at least that was what it sounded like when we went to war in Iraq after the UN refused to authorize the war, making it illegal under international law. Mind you, that was only once the subject of Iraq came up... everyone was falling over themselves to help us out in Afghanistan, as they could see the clear link between it's government and the terrorists they were protecting.

 

[Necronic]

The problem with the bridge burning before the war was not how it affected our ability to commit to war. That's easy. America could conquer pretty much any traditional army in the area. The problem was that we weren't able to use the international community to their max in rebuilding and restabilizing those countries, and it was the height of arrogance to think that was going to be anything less than a momumental task.