Election 2012

[Super Dude]

Even if it were, I still don't understand what's "horrifying" about that.

[TL]

Even if it were, I still don't understand what's "horrifying" about that.

Neither do I. We've had socialized healthcare here in Canada for decades, and there's nothing 'horrifying' about it.

[ReaPsTA]

Virtually all politicians are self-interested liars who put their re-election and the preservation of the political process above what's good for the country.

Capt there are some who actually do some good, and propose actual good policies, in order to do this. It's also toxic to the political environment to be completely distrustful of anyone who wants to try and do some good. It creates a self fulfilling prophecy. There are more than enough examples through out history to prove that there are people who genuinely want to help other people and the society they live in, not everyone is a selfish, greedy power-hungry asshole.

I'm sure there are some politicians who give a crap.  But they don't seem to have any power.

The rest of it, I honestly don't know where you went off to. You brought up a bunch of stuff that at times feels inaccurate, at times feels irrelevant to what we're talking about now. I never said you have to agree with Obama's policies, and that if you disagree with Obama you are treasonous. Nothing of the sorts. I'm saying that Republicans in Congress are acting in a quasi-treasonous manner.

It's times like these I wonder if maybe I'm just nuts and I don't realize it.

What I was trying to do was to posit the idea that maybe the reason you feel this way is that the Democrats are maneuvering politically to create this impression.  If Democrats made any effort to not look down on Republicans and conservatives as stupid bible thumpers, then maybe relations in government would be better.

My point is, it takes two parties to have an argument.  If there's a political argument happening (and I'm pretty sure there is), then both people in the argument are responsible.

I'd disagree that this is what's going on, really. An argument implies participants willing to put forward logical arguments, and to answer in a logical way. The Democrats are the only one's attempting to do that at the moment, the Republicans insist on simply repeating talking points, playing politics and not moving this country anywhere.

I wasn't talking about that kind of argument.  I'm talking about emotional conflict cycles that exist only to perpetuate themselves.

I mean, I'm guilty of this too, but you can't really look at the Republicans and the Democrats as cohesive entities.  They're made up of multiple diverse groups.  Every Republican only does the horrible things you say?  None of the good Congressmen you're talking about are Republicans?

I'm not a fan of social conservatism.  I think it's borderline inhuman.  I'm not really going to do much to defend religion either.  And even though I'd self-identify as a capitalist, I don't understand why anyone would think businesses should be treated better than people.

But none of these things matter.  You're saying that an entire political party, and by extension the people they represent, are acting "quasi-treasonous."  Don't you see what you're doing?  You're being part of the problem.  You're writing off everything they believe, advocate, and feel.  You're showing contempt and disdain for it.  This would be fine except that conservatives are treated like dogshit by people who believe themselves too "enlightened" for their "backwards" ideals.

Again, I disagree with a lot of what they have to say.  I find it deeply wrong.  But they're still human beings.  You don't treat them well to "be the bigger person," which is ultimately self-serving.  You treat them right because you care if they feel mistreated.

Or, you know, they're just evil.  Whatever.  I've dealt with people who would self-identify as liberal who are completely worthless as human beings too though.

Or, here's another thing.  The biggest objection I have to any sort of socialized healthcare is that now we're relying on the government to provide us our health care.  That's pants-shittingly horrifying.

But it's not the case. Health care is still provided by private entities. Why do you bring this argument?

rumborak

Don't understand point.

Even if it were, I still don't understand what's "horrifying" about that.

Neither do I. We've had socialized healthcare here in Canada for decades, and there's nothing 'horrifying' about it.

So you're saying that if I looked up negative stories about Canada's healthcare on Google I'd find nothing?  Nothing at all?

[Super Dude]

Maybe you would, but horrifying? Come on.

[ReaPsTA]

Maybe you would, but horrifying? Come on.

The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.  You want this entity to be responsible for your medical care?

[hefdaddy42]

If Democrats made any effort to not look down on Republicans and conservatives as stupid bible thumpers, then maybe relations in government would be better.

Every time I do that, some Republican goes out of his way to portray himself (and his party) as a stupid Bible thumper.

Of course, I would also say that if Republicans made any effort to not look down on Democrats as socialist antipatriots, then maybe relations in government would be better.

[Rathma]

The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.

lol

[lordxizor]

Or, here's another thing.  The biggest objection I have to any sort of socialized healthcare is that now we're relying on the government to provide us our health care.  That's pants-shittingly horrifying.

But it's not the case. Health care is still provided by private entities. Why do you bring this argument?
rumborak

Don't understand point.

Your healthcare is provided by the doctors, nurses, dentists and other healthcare professionals. These people have no affiliation with the government. Your insurance company does not provide your healthcare, just a means to help pay for it.

Even if it were, I still don't understand what's "horrifying" about that.

Neither do I. We've had socialized healthcare here in Canada for decades, and there's nothing 'horrifying' about it.

So you're saying that if I looked up negative stories about Canada's healthcare on Google I'd find nothing?  Nothing at all?

Like you can find no negative stories about healthcare in the US? I'd rather have a flawed heathcare plan that everyone can afford than a flawed healthcare system that is quickly becoming unaffordable to even middle class families.

[Super Dude]

Maybe you would, but horrifying? Come on.

The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.  You want this entity to be responsible for your medical care?

I wish I could say this was one of the most insane things I've ever heard. I really wish I could.

[kirksnosehair]

Maybe you would, but horrifying? Come on.

The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.  You want this entity to be responsible for your medical care?

Not sure if serious?  But if so, this is a straw man.  The Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with the government "being responsible for your medical care" - the government is not in the business of medical care.  The Affordable Care act has the most impact on how insurance companies operate.  It sets new guidelines on the level of care that is paid for, who qualifies for it, etc, and it prevents insurance companies from kicking people off their plans because they get sick or refusing to extend coverage to people with preexisting conditions.


Look, I'll be the first person to say that the law is far from perfect.  Personally, I wanted a single payer system akin to Medicare, but Republicans managed to rip all of the good stuff out of this law with their idiotic "death panels" mantra, so we had to limp over the finish line with what we got, which has some damned good provisions in it.

[ReaPsTA]

Of course, I would also say that if Republicans made any effort to not look down on Democrats as socialist antipatriots, then maybe relations in government would be better.

Which is why I said it takes two to have an argument.

I wish I could say this was one of the most insane things I've ever heard. I really wish I could.

Why?  What word of that sentence was even remotely untrue?

Your healthcare is provided by the doctors, nurses, dentists and other healthcare professionals. These people have no affiliation with the government. Your insurance company does not provide your healthcare, just a means to help pay for it.

Right.  What I'm saying is that if you create a healthcare system with more government involvement, does this change?

Like you can find no negative stories about healthcare in the US? I'd rather have a flawed heathcare plan that everyone can afford than a flawed healthcare system that is quickly becoming unaffordable to even middle class families.

Of course you can.  And nothing about what you're saying bothers me.  I just don't like how a lot of posts about healthcare implicitly say "Canada and Europe have figured this out and the US is just too stupid to get on board with the solution."  I've never, ever gotten the impression that was the truth.

Not sure if serious?  But if so, this is a straw man.  The Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with the government "being responsible for your medical care" - the government is not in the business of medical care.  The Affordable Care act has the most impact on how insurance companies operate.  It sets new guidelines on the level of care that is paid for, who qualifies for it, etc, and it prevents insurance companies from kicking people off their plans because they get sick or refusing to extend coverage to people with preexisting conditions.

I was talking more broadly about solutions to healthcare that involve government.  If doctors are employed by the government, or even if you simply rely on the government to pay for your healthcare, now the government holds the cards.

And even under the ACA, with the individual mandate, more people will have to get health insurance provided by the government.  What if your impression of elective vs. non-elective surgery is different than the governments.

A not-very-dramatic but hopefully illustrative example.  I had to get a mole removed from my right cheek a few years ago.  It wasn't cancerous or anything, but it was nasty and the surgery would've cost about a thousand dollars without insurance.  Luckily, I was under an insurance that was willing to cover it and the thing was cut out.

"So basically you're privileged and don't want to lose that privilege."

No, I'm saying that I was treated the way everyone should have the opportunity to be treated.  So what if it wasn't cancerous then.  Why should I have to wait until it becomes cancerous to find that out?  When you introduce mediocre government insurance into the market, you're making it more acceptable to suck.  And the government has no reason to improve the quality of what they do.

Look, I'll be the first person to say that the law is far from perfect.  Personally, I wanted a single payer system akin to Medicare, but Republicans managed to rip all of the good stuff out of this law with their idiotic "death panels" mantra, so we had to limp over the finish line with what we got, which has some damned good provisions in it.

Leave aside the death panels thing.

If the government is responsible for paying for healthcare, then that means the government decides who lives or dies.  Lets say the government was paying for the care of Terry Schiavo.  At some point, do they cut off money for her medical care because it's believed she's too far gone?  I know this happens in Europe because I've seen news stories about it.  If the government is responsible for medicare, it can't do that.  Ever.

"But come on now, you're saying we should have to spend money on everyone, even if they're brain dead?"

Yes.  The moment the government, which is supposed to serve its people, is responsible for medicare, then it has to do its job.  It can't try to be "pragmatic."

"So what you're saying is that if the government doesn't do a perfect job, then it's not good enough for you."

It doesn't actually have to be perfect, but it does have to try.  The government is supposed to act in the best interests of its people.  So if you say "the government is now responsible for paying for X type of medical care," it can't have any reservations designed to impede the access of care to the patient.  At all.  For any reason whatsoever.

This is starting to sound expensive to me.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.

lol

Seriously. What country are you living in?

[The King in Crimson]

I was talking more broadly about solutions to healthcare that involve government.  If doctors are employed by the government, or even if you simply rely on the government to pay for your healthcare, now the government holds the cards.

And even under the ACA, with the individual mandate, more people will have to get health insurance provided by the government.  What if your impression of elective vs. non-elective surgery is different than the governments.

The insurance isn't provided by the government.

It's still provided by private companies.

[ReaPsTA]

I was talking more broadly about solutions to healthcare that involve government.  If doctors are employed by the government, or even if you simply rely on the government to pay for your healthcare, now the government holds the cards.

And even under the ACA, with the individual mandate, more people will have to get health insurance provided by the government.  What if your impression of elective vs. non-elective surgery is different than the governments.

The insurance isn't provided by the government.

It's still provided by private companies.

It's not necessarily provided by the government.  But the government, at least in PA, sells insurance through programs like CHIP.  It might be your only option to get government insurance.

[The King in Crimson]

I was talking more broadly about solutions to healthcare that involve government.  If doctors are employed by the government, or even if you simply rely on the government to pay for your healthcare, now the government holds the cards.

And even under the ACA, with the individual mandate, more people will have to get health insurance provided by the government.  What if your impression of elective vs. non-elective surgery is different than the governments.

The insurance isn't provided by the government.

It's still provided by private companies.

It's not necessarily provided by the government.

Yes, exactly, I'm glad we agree on this.

But the government, at least in PA, sells insurance through programs like CHIP.  It might be your only option to get government insurance.

Well, yes, I can agree with this.

Medicaid will expand under the ACA and if someone is too poor to afford paying for their own insurance, then well, they get Medicaid.  But Medicaid has been around for a while, so has Medicare, this just expands eligibility requirements, which is a good thing, yes?

[ohgar]

Medicaid is probably the best insurance plan you can get on in terms of doctor choice, copays, etc.

[ReaPsTA]

Medicaid will expand under the ACA and if someone is too poor to afford paying for their own insurance, then well, they get Medicaid.  But Medicaid has been around for a while, so has Medicare, this just expands eligibility requirements, which is a good thing, yes?

Maybe.  Like I said on the last page, my understanding of all this is basically non-existent.

Medicaid is probably the best insurance plan you can get on in terms of doctor choice, copays, etc.

Don't really know.

[Siberian Khatru]

The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.

lol

Seriously. What country are you living in?

Hehe, I thought the same exact thing. It's funny how fired up people get about the government spending money on providing citizenry with the things they legitimately need. But everyone's silent when we blow a third of our budget on wars we never needed.

[ReaPsTA]

The role of government is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.

lol

Seriously. What country are you living in?

Try not paying your taxes.  See what happens.

[The King in Crimson]

Let's try a slightly different angle...

The role of a corporation is to threaten citizens with violence and even death in order to perpetuate its own existence.

lol

Seriously. What country are you living in?

Try not paying for their goods.  See what happens.

Hmmmm, still fits.

[ReaPsTA]

Hmmmm, still fits.

No.  If I don't want to pay for something from a corporation, I can just not buy it.  Corporations don't force you to buy their products, so when you steal from them it's theft.

Governments force you to live under them.

[The King in Crimson]

Hmmmm, still fits.

No.  If I don't want to pay for something from a corporation, I can just not buy it.  Corporations don't force you to buy their products, so when you steal from them it's theft.

Governments force you to live under them.

You can still move.  I hear most of Africa's nice this time of year if you're looking for a land with a dearth of organized government.

Besides, I am still required to buy some things.  I need food and medication and shelter, all of which I have to buy from a corporation in order to live.  I have as much leeway in choosing which products to buy as I have with which government to live under.

[Super Dude]

Taxes aren't just burning money; believe it or not, they go towards providing goods and services you may not even be aware you use every single day.

[El Barto]

The fault in your reasoning, Reap, is that the government and the insurance companies both have the same role, but to a different end.  You act as if the government wouldn't have treated your mole because it might have been too expensive, yet this is the decision some asshole in a cubicle makes every day working for Aetna, BCBS, Humana, etc.  Both entities will have to make decisions such as that, and determining what's most cost effective is a task for both of them.  The difference is that the numbers Aetna roll around pertain to profitability. They're required to come out ahead on the deal.  The government, as you at one point suggested, operates in the interest of the citizenry.  The money that pays for stock dividends and huge salaries in private insurance is available for more healthcare on the government side of things.  In fact, the government can operate at a loss if need be with tax subsidization.  Personally, If I needed costly treatment, I'd feel more confident that I'd get it from a government paid plan than a for profit plan.   We don't really know how the government will eventually work out, but we know for a fact how the private insurance companies have been letting expensive people die for years. 

And to be clear, I never said Americans are too stupid to make a single payer system work.  I have suggested we're too arrogant, inflexible and dysfunctional to make it work. 

[rumborak]

On a different election topic, apparently Romney is accusing Obama to not think the US is exceptional enough. Apart from the ridiculousness of the topic (IMHO declaring yourself to be exceptional is just plain a arrogant; let others judge you), I was thinking, can Obama do anything but lose in this matter? He is presiding over an inexorable shift of global power towards Asia. How do you tell people that the days of being the only superpower in town are over?

rumborak

[XJDenton]

1. Play this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h__uutzcQXc
2. Call Romney out for being satisfied with those stats as opposed to wanting to do something to improve them.

[Super Dude]

1. Play this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h__uutzcQXc
2. Call Romney out for being satisfied with those stats as opposed to wanting to do something to improve them.

The sad truth about America is saying so is signing your own political death sentence.

[rumborak]

I guess that's why it has to appear in an HBO series.

rumborak

[ReaPsTA]

The fault in your reasoning, Reap, is that the government and the insurance companies both have the same role, but to a different end.  You act as if the government wouldn't have treated your mole because it might have been too expensive, yet this is the decision some asshole in a cubicle makes every day working for Aetna, BCBS, Humana, etc.  Both entities will have to make decisions such as that, and determining what's most cost effective is a task for both of them.  The difference is that the numbers Aetna roll around pertain to profitability. They're required to come out ahead on the deal.  The government, as you at one point suggested, operates in the interest of the citizenry.  The money that pays for stock dividends and huge salaries in private insurance is available for more healthcare on the government side of things.  In fact, the government can operate at a loss if need be with tax subsidization.  Personally, If I needed costly treatment, I'd feel more confident that I'd get it from a government paid plan than a for profit plan.   We don't really know how the government will eventually work out, but we know for a fact how the private insurance companies have been letting expensive people die for years. 

And to be clear, I never said Americans are too stupid to make a single payer system work.  I have suggested we're too arrogant, inflexible and dysfunctional to make it work. 

Maybe.  In general though humans do the least amount possible, and the government is made up of humans.  Private companies are pushed by competition.  The government is pushed by nothing.

1. Play this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h__uutzcQXc
2. Call Romney out for being satisfied with those stats as opposed to wanting to do something to improve them.

Both of those speeches hurt my brain.

In the first one, the focus of the character isn't so much on arguing a point so much as it is talking down a 20 year old and venting his rage.

In the second speech, he simultaneously idealizes the past and simplistically judges the present.

He says something to the effect of 'we were informed by great men.'  What he means is great men like himself.

The speech is all about him.

So here's my question.  Why would you emotionally connect with a speech by a character that's purely about making himself feel important?

[Super Dude]

^ And that's why.

I'll concede that he may idealize "the good old days," but I don't think excessively or nostalgically so.

[ReaPsTA]

^ And that's why.

Not sure what your point is.

[Rathma]

Hmmmm, still fits.

No.  If I don't want to pay for something from a corporation, I can just not buy it.  Corporations don't force you to buy their products, so when you steal from them it's theft.

Governments force you to live under them.

first world problems

[ReaPsTA]

first world problems

Not sure if serious.

[El Barto]

The fault in your reasoning, Reap, is that the government and the insurance companies both have the same role, but to a different end.  You act as if the government wouldn't have treated your mole because it might have been too expensive, yet this is the decision some asshole in a cubicle makes every day working for Aetna, BCBS, Humana, etc.  Both entities will have to make decisions such as that, and determining what's most cost effective is a task for both of them.  The difference is that the numbers Aetna roll around pertain to profitability. They're required to come out ahead on the deal.  The government, as you at one point suggested, operates in the interest of the citizenry.  The money that pays for stock dividends and huge salaries in private insurance is available for more healthcare on the government side of things.  In fact, the government can operate at a loss if need be with tax subsidization.  Personally, If I needed costly treatment, I'd feel more confident that I'd get it from a government paid plan than a for profit plan.   We don't really know how the government will eventually work out, but we know for a fact how the private insurance companies have been letting expensive people die for years. 

And to be clear, I never said Americans are too stupid to make a single payer system work.  I have suggested we're too arrogant, inflexible and dysfunctional to make it work. 

Maybe.  In general though humans do the least amount possible, and the government is made up of humans.  Private companies are pushed by competition.  The government is pushed by nothing.

Well, a common gripe is that the government often does far too much.  It's perfectly conceivable that the inefficiency we've come to know and love from Uncle Sammy results in more coverage as apposed to less. 

[The King in Crimson]

The fault in your reasoning, Reap, is that the government and the insurance companies both have the same role, but to a different end.  You act as if the government wouldn't have treated your mole because it might have been too expensive, yet this is the decision some asshole in a cubicle makes every day working for Aetna, BCBS, Humana, etc.  Both entities will have to make decisions such as that, and determining what's most cost effective is a task for both of them.  The difference is that the numbers Aetna roll around pertain to profitability. They're required to come out ahead on the deal.  The government, as you at one point suggested, operates in the interest of the citizenry.  The money that pays for stock dividends and huge salaries in private insurance is available for more healthcare on the government side of things.  In fact, the government can operate at a loss if need be with tax subsidization.  Personally, If I needed costly treatment, I'd feel more confident that I'd get it from a government paid plan than a for profit plan.   We don't really know how the government will eventually work out, but we know for a fact how the private insurance companies have been letting expensive people die for years. 

And to be clear, I never said Americans are too stupid to make a single payer system work.  I have suggested we're too arrogant, inflexible and dysfunctional to make it work. 

Maybe.  In general though humans do the least amount possible, and the government is made up of humans.  Private companies are pushed by competition.  The government is pushed by nothing.

Private companies are pushed by profit, not competition.  A private company will gladly collect profit with the absence of competition and will often do the barest minimum in order to make profit.

A government, generally, has to keep a large percentage of its constituents happy or, in a Citizens United world, at least keep a large percentage of rich motherfuckers happy.