If the government's healthcare insurance is so good...

[Satya]

I was more worried who the government would turn to if there was a large failure (on par or above) with the financial crisis. I think the government should be involved in monitoring what is going on within the markets to protect consumers.

I think that people will be dependent on government for some services. I am wary of overdependence though because you could put yourself in a bad situation if the programs that you depend on won't be able to cover your needs completely (and you have no other way of meeting those needs). An example would be a senior on Social Security and Medicare (with a fixed income).

Lots of new agencies apparently. I have a peculiar feeling that our best interests are being bartered and sold in closed room deals.

There is a lot to be concerned about. I think it is strange that so few people are offering solutions. The innovation in our country really seems to be dying. People seem to be a little more obsessed with arguing ideology than with considering pragmatic solutions. For example, if I were a Republican right now I would accept that the government is going to overhaul health care simply because that is the reality of the seat numbers, and that is what the American public decided they wanted at the voting booth. I would then seek to find the best solutions I could and advocate those throughout the health care discussion, so that the system would at least work, even if I didn't agree with the government involvement.

 

[BenW]

For example, if I were a Republican right now I would accept that the government is going to overhaul health care simply because that is the reality of the seat numbers, and that is what the American public decided they wanted at the voting booth. I would then seek to find the best solutions I could and advocate those throughout the health care discussion, so that the system would at least work, even if I didn't agree with the government involvement.

Right... So, Republicans, moderates (centrist Democrats included), and Libertarians should just roll over, toss aside the platforms upon which THEY were elected for, and side with Democrats because they happen to be outnumbered?

Truly brilliant, Satya...

I think, in reality, you are a lot less "pragmatic" then you seem to enjoy painting yourself as.

 

[Phyllotaxis]

There is a lot to be concerned about. I think it is strange that so few people are offering solutions. The innovation in our country really seems to be dying. People seem to be a little more obsessed with arguing ideology than with considering pragmatic solutions. For example, if I were a Republican right now I would accept that the government is going to overhaul health care simply because that is the reality of the seat numbers, and that is what the American public decided they wanted at the voting booth. I would then seek to find the best solutions I could and advocate those throughout the health care discussion, so that the system would at least work, even if I didn't agree with the government involvement.

The legislature is elected to represent the interests of their constituents, not to default to the nation's party of choice or to act on national opinion polls.

The Republicans have offered alternatives which have to do with controlling costs by reducing waste and limiting doctor liability rather than reducing the number of uninsured. You have either failed to notice their alternatives, or just don't care to acknowledge them.

 

[Satya]

Right... So, Republicans, moderates (centrist Democrats included), and Libertarians should just roll over, toss aside the platforms upon which THEY were elected for, and side with Democrats because they happen to be outnumbered?

No. I think they should look out for the interest of the American public by seeking a system that works for the time being. If there is validity behind their ideology, they can find compromises which will reduce the amount of government involvement, limit spending, and reduce taxes.

Frankly, it doesn't surprise me Ben, that you could only oversimplify the entire to situation to a "you are with us or against us" argument. Health care reform is going to pass, it is only a question of to what degree people seek to find ways to make it more effective and more in tune with their respective ideology when it does. The Centrist Democrats have done an excellent job of this. They have effectively killed the public option and federal funding for abortion services. If the Republicans had been willing to play ball by seeking bipartisan compromises instead of staunchly opposing the entire health care reform, then the legislation could have been all the better.

 

[Satya]

The legislature is elected to represent the interests of their constituents, not to default to the nation's party of choice or to act on national opinion polls.

It's always in the interest of an elected official to serve the interests of their constituency, but they can do that all the better by seeking compromises which benefit their constituency rather than simply staunchly opposing the entirety.

The Republicans have offered alternatives which have to do with controlling costs by reducing waste and limiting doctor liability rather than reducing the number of uninsured. You have either failed to notice their alternatives, or just don't care to acknowledge them.

I've noticed they stepped up to the plate with options that the Congressional Budget Office indicated would have no impact. Take for example the idea of cooperatives. The Republicans did not really step up to the plate on this one. Sorry.

 

[Norton]

The innovation in our country really seems to be dying...

Innovation isn't dying, but it's not easy. The problem is that all those who yell "the sky is falling, and that new government regulation (e.g., regarding proposed environmental standards) is going to hurt business fail to understand that America's inventors need challenge and always respond amazingly. Managers and administrators inhibit innovation at the same time that they brag about how innovative Americans are. Well, I've got 16 US patents and I've made money on half of them. But, it's very hard to succeed as an inventor in this society despite the pride Americans supposedly have in their supposed ability to innovate.

 

[BenW]

No. I think they should look out for the interest of the American public by seeking a system that works for the time being.

They should look out for the interest of the American public by catering to things that they think are directly contrary to the interest of the American public?
K...

If there is validity behind their ideology, they can find compromises which will reduce the amount of government involvement, limit spending, and reduce taxes.

If there is validity to their ideology, they should do exactly the opposite. If somebody is against healthcare at a conceptual/ideological level, I would expect them to do nothing less then everything they can to obstruct said legislation from being pased. Whether or not they succeed in doing so is moot.

This is one of the reasons I view the Democrats as fairly pathetic.
They are, at the moment, the most powerful they have been in recent history, and yet healthcare legislation has been essentially gutted of most of the things they wanted in the first place, but they remain content to tepidly accept whatever they can get.

 

[Phyllotaxis]

It's always in the interest of an elected official to serve the interests of their constituency, but they can do that all the better by seeking compromises which benefit their constituency rather than simply staunchly opposing the entirety.

I've noticed they stepped up to the plate with options that the Congressional Budget Office indicated would have no impact. Take for example the idea of cooperatives. The Republicans did not really step up to the plate on this one. Sorry.

You expect no one to call you out on that? That is not what the Congressional Budget Office concluded. Their conclusion was that the Republican plan would save $68 billion compared to the $104 billion offered up by the Democratic plan. Considerably less, but that is without any measures to reduce the number of uninsured which can eventually be worked in with more of a consensus. The Republican point of view is that health care is an extremely wasteful industry and just throwing everyone into it is just going to compound that waste.

 

[Satya]

You expect no one to call you out on that? That is not what the Congressional Budget Office concluded. Their conclusion was that the Republican plan would save $68 billion compared to the $104 billion offered up by the Democratic plan. Considerably less, but that is without any measures to reduce the number of uninsured which can eventually be worked in with more of a consensus. The Republican point of view is that health care is an extremely wasteful industry and just throwing everyone into it is just going to compound that waste.

Which Republican plan? The CBO concluded that only $54 billion over 10 years would be saved by stringent reforms to doctor liability, with no real change to the number of uninsured. Also, the point of this reform is not simply to reduce costs, but to decrease the number of uninsured. To argue that it could be worked out with more "consensus" when the Republicans have done anything but the sort is bordering on delusional. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been hammering the "cut the waste" aspect of health care reform, so I don't know why you are trying to pander it off as a Republican talking point.

 

[Phyllotaxis]

Innovation isn't dying, but it's not easy. The problem is that all those who yell "the sky is falling, and that new government regulation (e.g., regarding proposed environmental standards) is going to hurt business fail to understand that America's inventors need challenge and always respond amazingly. Managers and administrators inhibit innovation at the same time that they brag about how innovative Americans are. Well, I've got 16 US patents and I've made money on half of them. But, it's very hard to succeed as an inventor in this society despite the pride Americans supposedly have in their supposed ability to innovate.

Innovation is indeed dying and it's intellectual property that is doing it. The patent trolling wars have been going strong. You want to reinvent the wheel? You can't, someone owns the concept of the wheel. Why would anyone in their right mind want to be an inventor or innovator at a time like this. Behind every door their is a lawsuit to be filed against you or your company.

 

[Satya]

They should look out for the interest of the American public by catering to things that they think are directly contrary to the interest of the American public?
K...

Interesting point of view. Exactly how is health care reform meant to stave off a total collapse of the health care system not in the American public's interest? How is it not in America's interest to have universal care comparable to that of other industrialized nations?

 

[Phyllotaxis]

Which Republican plan? The CBO concluded that only $54 billion over 10 years would be saved by stringent reforms to doctor liability, with no real change to the number of uninsured. Also, the point of this reform is not simply to reduce costs, but to decrease the number of uninsured. To argue that it could be worked out with more "consensus" when the Republicans have done anything but the sort is bordering on delusional. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been hammering the "cut the waste" aspect of health care reform, so I don't know why you are trying to pander it off as a Republican talking point.

Yes, because offering a plan that is only 33% less effective and could potentially be more effective when you do add in measures to reduce the uninsured is quite delusional and really amounts to nothing. The Republican plan was not the Democratic plan minus universal health care. Their plan heavily relied on cutting waste while the Democratic plan heavily relied on cutting the uninsured.

 

[Norton]

You expect no one to call you out on that? That is not what the Congressional Budget Office concluded. Their conclusion was that the Republican plan would save $68 billion compared to the $104 billion offered up by the Democratic plan. Considerably less, but that is without any measures to reduce the number of uninsured which can eventually be worked in with more of a consensus. The Republican point of view is that health care is an extremely wasteful industry and just throwing everyone into it is just going to compound that waste.

Given that you "work a job that is purely manual labor and [are] not paid well," you'd benefit more from the Democrat plan than the inchoate Republican plan. Your Canadian girlfriend, OTOH, has much better, cheaper healthcare coverage than you'll ever get here unless you become more successful economically. I personally don't really care because I can afford the absolute best in healthcare. But, I'm always amazed at the "tea party" types who vote against their own best interests (for which I would, undoubtedly, pay much more in taxes). They've really been taken in. What morons.

 

[Satya]

Yes, because offering a plan that is only 33% less effective and could potentially be more effective when you do add in measures to reduce the uninsured is quite delusional and really amounts to nothing. The Republican plan was not the Democratic plan minus universal health care. Their plan heavily relied on cutting waste while the Democratic plan heavily relied on cutting the uninsured.

I've not seen anything to indicate that the Democrat's plan, either the one in the House or in the Senate, does not do the most to cut waste. Could you provide some examples of where the Democrat's plan is lacking in this area but the Republican plan is not?

 

[Satya]

Given that you "work a job that is purely manual labor and [are] not paid well," you'd benefit more from the Democrat plan than the inchoate Republican plan. Your Canadian girlfriend, OTOH, has much better, cheaper healthcare coverage than you'll ever get here unless you become more successful economically. I personally don't really care because I can afford the absolute best in healthcare. But, I'm always amazed at the "tea party" types who vote against their own best interests (for which I would, undoubtedly, pay much more in taxes). They've really been taken in. What morons.

You sir, speak the truth.

 

[BenW]

Interesting point of view. Exactly how is health care reform meant to stave off a total collapse of the health care system not in the American public's interest? How is it not in America's interest to have universal care comparable to that of other industrialized nations?

What said healthcare reform is "meant" to do, and what it will do are entirely separate things.

As far as why Republicans (among others) are against healthcare; I don't feel much obligation to explain their position(s). They are against healthcare, which you yourself don't seem to disagree. So right or wrong, on this basis I don't expect them to "compromise" an inch.
They have in mind what they feel is best for the American public, as does the Left.

It's basically impossible for me to personally take part in typical political discourse, for reasons you probably aren't naive to.

 

[Satya]

What said healthcare reform is "meant" to do, and what it will do are entirely separate things.

I don't believe in psychics.

As far as why Republicans (among others) are against healthcare; I don't feel much obligation to explain their position(s). They are against healthcare, which you yourself don't seem to disagree. So right or wrong, on this basis I don't expect them to "compromise" an inch.
They have in mind what they feel is best for the American public, as are the Left.

The Republicans are against health care? Do you mean they are against health care reform? They are against universal health care? From what I have seen, the Republicans have as good a grasp of the health care system as you seem to. You should feel jipped Ben. You aren't being paid big dollars by the insurance industry to have that kind of grasp like the politicians are.

It's basically impossible for me to personally take part in typical political discourse, for reasons you probably aren't naive to.

ROFL.

 

[BenW]

The Republicans are against health care? Do you mean they are against health care reform? They are against universal health care? From what I have seen, the Republicans have as good a grasp of the health care system as you seem to. You should feel jipped Ben. You aren't being paid big dollars by the insurance industry to have that kind of grasp like the politicians are.

I think it was fairly obvious what form of healthcare I was referring to.
Of which, most Republicans are "against", to varying capacities.
The fact that you need to resort to cute grammatical diversions is pretty representative of your argument, though.

 

[Satya]

I think it was fairly obvious what form of healthcare I was referring to.
Of which, most Republicans are "against", to varying capacities.
The fact that you need to resort to cute grammatical diversions is pretty representative of your argument, though.

Just trying to specify.

If you don't like a little verbal sparring, then perhaps you should stick to the PAX threads bud.

 

[Phyllotaxis]

I've not seen anything to indicate that the Democrat's plan, either the one in the House or in the Senate, does not do the most to cut waste. Could you provide some examples of where the Democrat's plan is lacking in this area but the Republican plan is not?

Simple enough, Democrats have no interest in tort reform. Also, the Republican plan would also allow citizens to buy out-of-state insurance which in theory would greatly improve the efficiency of the industry. These are two rather large differences.