The right-wing reactions to Frum are predictably acerbic and dismissive. Not much in the way of reasoning as to why he is erring - they just decided he was a bad man, basically.
One link at memeorandum said "David Frum is a RINO and has no credibility". I thought that was an ironic heading at a left-wing site, but lo and behold it was a completely non-ironic header underneath a confederate saber Ifuckingkidyounotsonnyjim. At times I feel a significant segment of humanity only exists to provide entertainment and cautionary examples for the others.
It's just another way of showing that bipartisanship is pointless right now. The GOP opposes everything the Democrats want solely because the Democrats want it.
There's no ideology to fight. No viewpoint to argue with.
Here is an interview with Lindsey Graham, who I thought was an A-grade rube until I looked through the text. He appears perfectly capable of coherent, autonomous thought. He talks about the current situation and the pros and cons of the Wyden-Bennett plan.
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
Seeing how many other Presidents have failed to get anything at all out of a healthcare fight- and I am starting to see that talking point circulated in the media- any bill at all, even a severely watered-down one, is going to be seen- or at least portrayed- as a huge, gigantic victory. But the thing is, however far they got along, all those other Presidents ultimately failed. Obama's going to have to get a passed bill on his desk before he can cash in.
As for DADT and executive power, it all comes back to the order-of-agenda thing I've mentioned. One of the most important decisions is in what order do you tackle the individual parts of your agenda.
*First came the traditional flurry of executive orders to get a couple quick guaranteed victories. Add in a few Republican voices of reason- which actually kind of helped result in the nearly pure hatred we see now, so that is partly Obama's fault (remember Limbaugh wouldn't have gotten quite as big a platform if Gibbs hadn't called him out)- and there's a quick buildup of capital.
*Next is the stimulus. Had to happen quickly, big ol' victory.
*Sotomayor is next, came out of nowhere. Always good to get to make a Supreme Court seating. Easy win.
*DADT people are getting antsy they haven't shown up yet. Healthcare is next, Obama can't afford to leave any capital to non-healthcare issues, so Obama gives an executive order for a meeting halfway to try and calm them down for later.
*Healthcare now. EVERYTHING has to go into it, and Obama found that out when he left it alone for a bit and it started to die on him. Now it's healthcare and after that, take a number.
*In the meantime, Cash for Clunkers- big win, easy passage, helps build up the capital reserves. You'll probably see that throughout the administration. If it's easy to pass, is going to work, and results in a big political win, Obama's going to get it rammed through and bank the capital.
*Hastings puts forth and withdraws a DADT bill, blames the administration. Again, they can't afford DADT at the moment- too much of a can of worms even if it's reasonably popular; might suck the air away from healthcare, too many critical people might go 'You repeal DADT and kiss your healthcare bill goodbye'.
*Climate change looks to be next, but you haven't seen word one about it recently. Why? Because all the attention is going to healthcare and Obama knows that's how it has to be if he wants the bill to pass. Once Obama starts giving attention to climate change, that's how you know he's getting confident in passage. This is the last of his big three objectives on the year, so we'll see if DADT and executive power get breathing room.
Basically, all the pre-healthcare stuff, whatever its own merits, served to build up Obama's reserves of political capital for the healthcare fight. You may remember some people wondering why he wasn't spending any capital on this or that. This is why. Anything else can wait because Obama doesn't know what his situation is going to look like yet.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Anecdotally, everyone around here hates Obama and the Dems for things they haven't done and aren't planning to do like taking their guns away, killing grandma, doubling affirmative action (I've heard this claim but was just called a liberal when I asked him to elaborate), cutting the defense budget, spying on Americans, suspending habeas corpus, setting up secret camps to send american citizens to (an aside, the last two are hilarious claims to make for someone who still to this day supports Bush), raising taxes (I have not met a single individual who complains that their taxes have gone up who's actually seen a federal tax increase. They got state tax increases and are confused), being an atheist, being a muslim, not being an american, and the biggest one is being a socialist.
I get warned by one of my professors on a weekly basis that the country is in the grip of a socialist tyrant.
I'm not saying this is true of the entire opposition to UHC, but I would wager most of them fall into a few of those traps. Right now there isn't a health care debate in the United States. There is one group pitching ideas of varying qualities, one group that are just extended employees of big pharma, and another group that gets a disproportionate amount of time in the media that is a bunch of escaped monkeys masturbating and throwing their own feces at others.
override367 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Right now there isn't a health care debate in the United States. There is one group pitching ideas of varying qualities, one group that are just extended employees of big pharma, and another group that gets a disproportionate amount of time in the media that is a bunch of escaped monkeys masturbating and throwing their own feces at others.
Yeah . . .
Please tell me you see the hypocrisy in your statement here . . .
Yeah, the vocal anti-reform crew has really gone off the deep end. It's somewhat amazing how much batshit crazy has percolated up to mainstream discourse on the right. And there's the cruel irony of a lot of the opposition being from old folks, who already have government run Medicare, or will soon.
I really hope that the GOP isn't able to come out of the wilderness using this sort of a strategy, as the implications of it would be dire. If you can shut down any attempts to fix the system on by loudly screaming "they're going to kill your family!" then our system and the political discourse around it are going to be poisoned and crippled for a long time.
If the GOP had enough sanity and actually had good faith towards healthcare, then what they should be doing is something like promoting the Swiss system. This would of course be contrary to their current strategy of being a sockpuppet for the healthcare industry and a collection of loonies for the primary purpose of flipping Obama and friends the bird.
Yeah, the vocal anti-reform crew has really gone off the deep end. It's somewhat amazing how much batshit crazy has percolated up to mainstream discourse on the right. And there's the cruel irony of a lot of the opposition being from old folks, who already have government run Medicare, or will soon.
I really hope that the GOP isn't able to come out of the wilderness using this sort of a strategy, as the implications of it would be dire. If you can shut down any attempts to fix the system on by loudly screaming "they're going to kill your family!" then our system and the political discourse around it are going to be poisoned and crippled for a long time.
If the GOP had enough sanity and actually had good faith towards healthcare, then what they should be doing is something like promoting the Swiss system. This would of course be contrary to their current strategy of being a sockpuppet for the healthcare industry and a collection of loonies for the primary purpose of flipping Obama and friends the bird.
I'm going to make this very simple for you: just because someone opposes Obama's health plan doesn't make that person "anti-reform." The folks who oppose Obama's health plan (myself included) are in favor of the kind of health reform that truly grants people the capability of getting their own private health benefits. Some ideas of doing so include truly encouraging competition amongst the private insurers and protecting good doctors and hospitals from reckless lawsuits with tort reform.
Also, the GOP isn't being a "sockpuppet for the healthcare industry" or solely fighting against Obama's plan for the sake of opposing Obama and his buddies. It's just trying to make sure people can keep their private health benefits and trying to get the government to focus on helping people get hold of private health coverage instead of supporting plans that may push people out of their private health coverage and prevent those that don't have private coverage from ever getting such private benefits.
As for elderly who oppose it who are on government-run medicare, they're worried that with the high costs of government healthcare that will occur as a result of this plan, the government may end up delaying or denying treatments for them to compensate for the higher costs. That and the fact that there's going to be more government bureaucracy which may complicate things even further. Adding more bureaucracy to the government is the last thing anybody wants or needs.
Yeah, the vocal anti-reform crew has really gone off the deep end. It's somewhat amazing how much batshit crazy has percolated up to mainstream discourse on the right. And there's the cruel irony of a lot of the opposition being from old folks, who already have government run Medicare, or will soon.
I really hope that the GOP isn't able to come out of the wilderness using this sort of a strategy, as the implications of it would be dire. If you can shut down any attempts to fix the system on by loudly screaming "they're going to kill your family!" then our system and the political discourse around it are going to be poisoned and crippled for a long time.
If the GOP had enough sanity and actually had good faith towards healthcare, then what they should be doing is something like promoting the Swiss system. This would of course be contrary to their current strategy of being a sockpuppet for the healthcare industry and a collection of loonies for the primary purpose of flipping Obama and friends the bird.
I'm going to make this very simple for you: just because someone opposes Obama's health plan doesn't make that person "anti-reform." The folks who oppose Obama's health plan (myself included) are in favor of the kind of health reform that truly grants people the capability of getting their own private health benefits. Some ideas of doing so include truly encouraging competition amongst the private insurers and protecting good doctors and hospitals from reckless lawsuits with tort reform.
Also, the GOP isn't being a "sockpuppet for the healthcare industry" or solely fighting against Obama's plan for the sake of opposing Obama and his buddies. It's just trying to make sure people can keep their private health benefits and trying to get the government to focus on helping people get hold of private health coverage instead of supporting plans that may push people out of their private health coverage and prevent those that don't have private coverage from ever getting such private benefits.
As for elderly who oppose it who are on government-run medicare, they're worried that with the high costs of government healthcare that will occur as a result of this plan, the government may end up delaying or denying treatments for them to compensate for the higher costs. That and the fact that there's going to be more government bureaucracy which may complicate things even further. Adding more bureaucracy to the government is the last thing anybody wants or needs.
And the cycle is complete.
The Fourth Estate on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yeah, the vocal anti-reform crew has really gone off the deep end. It's somewhat amazing how much batshit crazy has percolated up to mainstream discourse on the right. And there's the cruel irony of a lot of the opposition being from old folks, who already have government run Medicare, or will soon.
I really hope that the GOP isn't able to come out of the wilderness using this sort of a strategy, as the implications of it would be dire. If you can shut down any attempts to fix the system on by loudly screaming "they're going to kill your family!" then our system and the political discourse around it are going to be poisoned and crippled for a long time.
If the GOP had enough sanity and actually had good faith towards healthcare, then what they should be doing is something like promoting the Swiss system. This would of course be contrary to their current strategy of being a sockpuppet for the healthcare industry and a collection of loonies for the primary purpose of flipping Obama and friends the bird.
I'm going to make this very simple for you: just because someone opposes Obama's health plan doesn't make that person "anti-reform." The folks who oppose Obama's health plan (myself included) are in favor of the kind of health reform that truly grants people the capability of getting their own private health benefits. Some ideas of doing so include truly encouraging competition amongst the private insurers and protecting good doctors and hospitals from reckless lawsuits with tort reform.
Also, the GOP isn't being a "sockpuppet for the healthcare industry" or solely fighting against Obama's plan for the sake of opposing Obama and his buddies. It's just trying to make sure people can keep their private health benefits and trying to get the government to focus on helping people get hold of private health coverage instead of supporting plans that may push people out of their private health coverage and prevent those that don't have private coverage from ever getting such private benefits.
As for elderly who oppose it who are on government-run medicare, they're worried that with the high costs of government healthcare that will occur as a result of this plan, the government may end up delaying or denying treatments for them to compensate for the higher costs. That and the fact that there's going to be more government bureaucracy which may complicate things even further. Adding more bureaucracy to the government is the last thing anybody wants or needs.
And the cycle is complete.
What are you talking about? People are completely wrong on the boards all the time.
Yeah, the vocal anti-reform crew has really gone off the deep end. It's somewhat amazing how much batshit crazy has percolated up to mainstream discourse on the right. And there's the cruel irony of a lot of the opposition being from old folks, who already have government run Medicare, or will soon.
I really hope that the GOP isn't able to come out of the wilderness using this sort of a strategy, as the implications of it would be dire. If you can shut down any attempts to fix the system on by loudly screaming "they're going to kill your family!" then our system and the political discourse around it are going to be poisoned and crippled for a long time.
If the GOP had enough sanity and actually had good faith towards healthcare, then what they should be doing is something like promoting the Swiss system. This would of course be contrary to their current strategy of being a sockpuppet for the healthcare industry and a collection of loonies for the primary purpose of flipping Obama and friends the bird.
I'm going to make this very simple for you: just because someone opposes Obama's health plan doesn't make that person "anti-reform." The folks who oppose Obama's health plan (myself included) are in favor of the kind of health reform that truly grants people the capability of getting their own private health benefits. Some ideas of doing so include truly encouraging competition amongst the private insurers and protecting good doctors and hospitals from reckless lawsuits with tort reform.
Also, the GOP isn't being a "sockpuppet for the healthcare industry" or solely fighting against Obama's plan for the sake of opposing Obama and his buddies. It's just trying to make sure people can keep their private health benefits and trying to get the government to focus on helping people get hold of private health coverage instead of supporting plans that may push people out of their private health coverage and prevent those that don't have private coverage from ever getting such private benefits.
As for elderly who oppose it who are on government-run medicare, they're worried that with the high costs of government healthcare that will occur as a result of this plan, the government may end up delaying or denying treatments for them to compensate for the higher costs. That and the fact that there's going to be more government bureaucracy which may complicate things even further. Adding more bureaucracy to the government is the last thing anybody wants or needs.
And the cycle is complete.
What are you talking about? People are completely wrong on the boards all the time.
A conservative poster will bring up a laundry list of talking points, we'll go through all of them reaching conclusions (mostly) then another poster will come in and make the same original post, starting things afresh.
Yeah, the vocal anti-reform crew has really gone off the deep end. It's somewhat amazing how much batshit crazy has percolated up to mainstream discourse on the right. And there's the cruel irony of a lot of the opposition being from old folks, who already have government run Medicare, or will soon.
I really hope that the GOP isn't able to come out of the wilderness using this sort of a strategy, as the implications of it would be dire. If you can shut down any attempts to fix the system on by loudly screaming "they're going to kill your family!" then our system and the political discourse around it are going to be poisoned and crippled for a long time.
If the GOP had enough sanity and actually had good faith towards healthcare, then what they should be doing is something like promoting the Swiss system. This would of course be contrary to their current strategy of being a sockpuppet for the healthcare industry and a collection of loonies for the primary purpose of flipping Obama and friends the bird.
I'm going to make this very simple for you: just because someone opposes Obama's health plan doesn't make that person "anti-reform." The folks who oppose Obama's health plan (myself included) are in favor of the kind of health reform that truly grants people the capability of getting their own private health benefits. Some ideas of doing so include truly encouraging competition amongst the private insurers and protecting good doctors and hospitals from reckless lawsuits with tort reform.
Also, the GOP isn't being a "sockpuppet for the healthcare industry" or solely fighting against Obama's plan for the sake of opposing Obama and his buddies. It's just trying to make sure people can keep their private health benefits and trying to get the government to focus on helping people get hold of private health coverage instead of supporting plans that may push people out of their private health coverage and prevent those that don't have private coverage from ever getting such private benefits.
As for elderly who oppose it who are on government-run medicare, they're worried that with the high costs of government healthcare that will occur as a result of this plan, the government may end up delaying or denying treatments for them to compensate for the higher costs. That and the fact that there's going to be more government bureaucracy which may complicate things even further. Adding more bureaucracy to the government is the last thing anybody wants or needs.
Out of curiosity what do you think of Wyden-Bennett, unknown?
The Fourth Estate on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yeah, the vocal anti-reform crew has really gone off the deep end. It's somewhat amazing how much batshit crazy has percolated up to mainstream discourse on the right. And there's the cruel irony of a lot of the opposition being from old folks, who already have government run Medicare, or will soon.
I really hope that the GOP isn't able to come out of the wilderness using this sort of a strategy, as the implications of it would be dire. If you can shut down any attempts to fix the system on by loudly screaming "they're going to kill your family!" then our system and the political discourse around it are going to be poisoned and crippled for a long time.
If the GOP had enough sanity and actually had good faith towards healthcare, then what they should be doing is something like promoting the Swiss system. This would of course be contrary to their current strategy of being a sockpuppet for the healthcare industry and a collection of loonies for the primary purpose of flipping Obama and friends the bird.
I'm going to make this very simple for you: just because someone opposes Obama's health plan doesn't make that person "anti-reform." The folks who oppose Obama's health plan (myself included) are in favor of the kind of health reform that truly grants people the capability of getting their own private health benefits. Some ideas of doing so include truly encouraging competition amongst the private insurers and protecting good doctors and hospitals from reckless lawsuits with tort reform.
Also, the GOP isn't being a "sockpuppet for the healthcare industry" or solely fighting against Obama's plan for the sake of opposing Obama and his buddies. It's just trying to make sure people can keep their private health benefits and trying to get the government to focus on helping people get hold of private health coverage instead of supporting plans that may push people out of their private health coverage and prevent those that don't have private coverage from ever getting such private benefits.
As for elderly who oppose it who are on government-run medicare, they're worried that with the high costs of government healthcare that will occur as a result of this plan, the government may end up delaying or denying treatments for them to compensate for the higher costs. That and the fact that there's going to be more government bureaucracy which may complicate things even further. Adding more bureaucracy to the government is the last thing anybody wants or needs.
And the cycle is complete.
What are you talking about? People are completely wrong on the boards all the time.
A conservative poster will bring up a laundry list of talking points, we'll go through all of them reaching conclusions (mostly) then another poster will come in and make the same original post, starting things afresh.
Follow the link in my sig. It's a summary of the Swiss and Dutch systems. The new Dutch system came into effect Jan 2006 and is essentially a copy of the Swiss system, with some Sauce Hollandaise.
Highlights of the Swiss (and Dutch) system:
1. Universal Mandate. (No free riding)
2. Community Rating. (Everyone 25+ pays the same rate. No one is denied coverage.)
3. Risk equalization handled by the government on the back end. (No adverse selection.)
4. No government run plan.
5. All premiums (and care prices at Doctors and hospitals) must be publicly posted and equal for all.
6. Government subsidies for low income folks, spendable at any carrier.
Results:
A. Swiss health care is arguable the best in the world. If not the best, certainly better than the U.S.
B. Cheaper, we're looking at less than 11% of GDP. Admin overhead + profit < 5% in both Netherlands and Switzerland. Basically 2. + 3. + 5. means carriers can only compete on lower cost/ higher efficiency.
C. Over 99% of population covered.
That's the theory. Here's the bottom line:
Follow this link. Enter 8004 (ZIP Code, Zurich) at the top. Select the top radio button for all choices. That means: Adult 25+, Traditional insurance, and accident coverage. Hit the button.
The resulting list is what you (yes you) would pay for health insurance in Zurich. Carriers are on the left, deductibles at the top. All plans are identical, so pick the cheapest. Careful with comparisons to U.S. premiums, as this is the whole premium. The employer pays nothing. Also, it's the same for anyone 25+.
It should be noted that the Swiss transitionted to this system in 1996 coming from an essentially American system. So practically and politically, this should be doable. Just steal it. The Swiss have worked out the details for us already. (With precision!)
Right now there isn't a health care debate in the United States. There is one group pitching ideas of varying qualities, one group that are just extended employees of big pharma, and another group that gets a disproportionate amount of time in the media that is a bunch of escaped monkeys masturbating and throwing their own feces at others.
Yeah . . .
Please tell me you see the hypocrisy in your statement here . . .
Oh for crying out loud I MEAN IN WASHINGTON.
Obviously people are talking about it, people are talking about the benefits of legalizing marijuana too. In Washington it's more or less a song and dance routine except for a couple of politicians (the president being one of them).
I'm going to make this very simple for you: just because someone opposes Obama's health plan doesn't make that person "anti-reform." The folks who oppose Obama's health plan (myself included) are in favor of the kind of health reform that truly grants people the capability of getting their own private health benefits. Some ideas of doing so include truly encouraging competition amongst the private insurers and protecting good doctors and hospitals from reckless lawsuits with tort reform.
Nobody is fighting Obama's health plan, because Obama's health plan isn't even a possibility. There aren't enough liberals in the senate for it to be close to a serious contender.
This has nothing to do with its merits, it's just not realistic politically.
It should be noted that the Swiss transitionted to this system in 1996 coming from an essentially American system. So practically and politically, this should be doable. Just steal it. The Swiss have worked out the details for us already. (With precision!)
The Swiss system seems like it would require significantly more regulations on the health care industry, which is probably why the Republicans oppose it.
override367 on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
It should be noted that the Swiss transitionted to this system in 1996 coming from an essentially American system. So practically and politically, this should be doable. Just steal it. The Swiss have worked out the details for us already. (With precision!)
Noone's proposed it though. At this point in the "debate", I don't know how much traction any new kind of proposal is going to get given that it would then have to go through the same process the current bill has gone through.
It should be noted that the Swiss transitionted to this system in 1996 coming from an essentially American system. So practically and politically, this should be doable. Just steal it. The Swiss have worked out the details for us already. (With precision!)
The Swiss system seems like it would require significantly more regulations on the health care industry, which is probably why the Republicans oppose it.
Anything other than the current system will require more regulation. The current scenario is best for the insurance companies, as the lack of a mandate essentially means we are subsidising insurance companies by taking their high-risk customers and treating them through Medicare/ER.
Yes, and as I think I've mentioned before, all this misinformation has placed many working poor families who are conservative in the hilarious position of defending the health insurance industry.
You know, the industry that only exists because it fucks people. Their entire profit margin depends on fucking people, this is simply fact.
Yes, and as I think I've mentioned before, all this misinformation has placed many working poor families who are conservative in the hilarious position of defending the health insurance industry.
You know, the industry that only exists because it fucks people. Their entire profit margin depends on fucking people, this is simply fact.
In their defense, this applies to all non-mandated insurance, it's just that the negative ramifications of being denied healthcare are several orders of magnitude worse than being denied payouts on other forms of insurance.
What do you guys think of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer's op-ed in USA Today? Taken from another poster, the obvious thing for Pelosi to do is to create a committee to investigate the protestors—call it the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
Yes, and as I think I've mentioned before, all this misinformation has placed many working poor families who are conservative in the hilarious position of defending the health insurance industry.
You know, the industry that only exists because it fucks people. Their entire profit margin depends on fucking people, this is simply fact.
In their defense, this applies to all non-mandated insurance, it's just that the negative ramifications of being denied healthcare are several orders of magnitude worse than being denied payouts on other forms of insurance.
Not really.
There is not an assurance your house will catch fire or be robbed. There is not a guarantee you will smash into another person's car and cause $150,000 in medical bills for both of you.
You will get old and get sick. This is simple biological fact. Health insurance is insuring you against something that will happen for everyone that doesn't get hit by a bus and die suddenly. This is why it is in the best interest of a company to dump someone as soon as they get past their mid 30s.
What do you guys think Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer's op-ed in USA Today? Taken from another poster, the obvious thing for Pelosi to do is to create a committee to investigate the protestors—call it the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.
What, precisely, is unreasonable about calling out for civil discourse and actual debate? One side is acting in bad faith here, and it is not the proponents of reform.
The Fourth Estate on
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
Follow the link in my sig. It's a summary of the Swiss and Dutch systems. The new Dutch system came into effect Jan 2006 and is essentially a copy of the Swiss system, with some Sauce Hollandaise.
Highlights of the Swiss (and Dutch) system:
1. Universal Mandate. (No free riding)
2. Community Rating. (Everyone 25+ pays the same rate. No one is denied coverage.)
3. Risk equalization handled by the government on the back end. (No adverse selection.)
4. No government run plan.
5. All premiums (and care prices at Doctors and hospitals) must be publicly posted and equal for all.
6. Government subsidies for low income folks, spendable at any carrier.
Results:
A. Swiss health care is arguable the best in the world. If not the best, certainly better than the U.S.
B. Cheaper, we're looking at less than 11% of GDP. Admin overhead + profit < 5% in both Netherlands and Switzerland. Basically 2. + 3. + 5. means carriers can only compete on lower cost/ higher efficiency.
C. Over 99% of population covered.
That's the theory. Here's the bottom line:
Follow this link. Enter 8004 (ZIP Code, Zurich) at the top. Select the top radio button for all choices. That means: Adult 25+, Traditional insurance, and accident coverage. Hit the button.
The resulting list is what you (yes you) would pay for health insurance in Zurich. Carriers are on the left, deductibles at the top. All plans are identical, so pick the cheapest. Careful with comparisons to U.S. premiums, as this is the whole premium. The employer pays nothing. Also, it's the same for anyone 25+.
It should be noted that the Swiss transitionted to this system in 1996 coming from an essentially American system. So practically and politically, this should be doable. Just steal it. The Swiss have worked out the details for us already. (With precision!)
Switzerland is also a wealthier country than we are. I think they have a poverty rate of around 3%, where ours is around 20%. The cost to taxpayers of health insurance subsidies would therefore be much higher here than there. Doesn't necessarily mean it's not a good place to start, but it won't be as simple as I think you think it would be.
Follow the link in my sig. It's a summary of the Swiss and Dutch systems. The new Dutch system came into effect Jan 2006 and is essentially a copy of the Swiss system, with some Sauce Hollandaise.
Highlights of the Swiss (and Dutch) system:
1. Universal Mandate. (No free riding)
2. Community Rating. (Everyone 25+ pays the same rate. No one is denied coverage.)
3. Risk equalization handled by the government on the back end. (No adverse selection.)
4. No government run plan.
5. All premiums (and care prices at Doctors and hospitals) must be publicly posted and equal for all.
6. Government subsidies for low income folks, spendable at any carrier.
Results:
A. Swiss health care is arguable the best in the world. If not the best, certainly better than the U.S.
B. Cheaper, we're looking at less than 11% of GDP. Admin overhead + profit < 5% in both Netherlands and Switzerland. Basically 2. + 3. + 5. means carriers can only compete on lower cost/ higher efficiency.
C. Over 99% of population covered.
That's the theory. Here's the bottom line:
Follow this link. Enter 8004 (ZIP Code, Zurich) at the top. Select the top radio button for all choices. That means: Adult 25+, Traditional insurance, and accident coverage. Hit the button.
The resulting list is what you (yes you) would pay for health insurance in Zurich. Carriers are on the left, deductibles at the top. All plans are identical, so pick the cheapest. Careful with comparisons to U.S. premiums, as this is the whole premium. The employer pays nothing. Also, it's the same for anyone 25+.
It should be noted that the Swiss transitionted to this system in 1996 coming from an essentially American system. So practically and politically, this should be doable. Just steal it. The Swiss have worked out the details for us already. (With precision!)
Switzerland is also a wealthier country than we are. I think they have a poverty rate of around 3%, where ours is around 20%. The cost to taxpayers of health insurance subsidies would therefore be much higher here than there. Doesn't necessarily mean it's not a good place to start, but it won't be as simple as I think you think it would be.
Would the cost of subsiding 20% of workers be higher than the amount you currently spend on Medicare, though?
What do you guys think of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer's op-ed in USA Today? Taken from another poster, the obvious thing for Pelosi to do is to create a committee to investigate the protestors—call it the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
I think your concerns are stupid and meritless given the actual text that you linked. It's also quite ironic, considering that conservatives spent the last 8 years saying worse about left-wing protesters who arguably had more defensible positions and tactics. Where were you when conservative politicians were calling people un-American for not cheerleading our invasin of Iraq or Gitmo or the Patriot Act?
the Swiss system would certainly be more expensive per person in the US, however it would have to be cheaper than what we have now if for no other reason than the health insurance/pharma price regulations
What do you guys think of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer's op-ed in USA Today? Taken from another poster, the obvious thing for Pelosi to do is to create a committee to investigate the protestors—call it the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
I think your concerns are stupid and meritless given the actual text that you linked. It's also quite ironic, considering that conservatives spent the last 8 years saying worse about left-wing protesters who arguably had more defensible positions and tactics. Where were you when conservative politicians were calling people un-American for not cheerleading our invasion of Iraq or Gitmo or the Patriot Act?
It's also important to note that Pelosi was not calling the protesters' opposition to reform un-American, but their disruptive conduct so. Completely unlike the Patriot act of course.
The Fourth Estate on
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
Follow the link in my sig. It's a summary of the Swiss and Dutch systems. The new Dutch system came into effect Jan 2006 and is essentially a copy of the Swiss system, with some Sauce Hollandaise.
Highlights of the Swiss (and Dutch) system:
1. Universal Mandate. (No free riding)
2. Community Rating. (Everyone 25+ pays the same rate. No one is denied coverage.)
3. Risk equalization handled by the government on the back end. (No adverse selection.)
4. No government run plan.
5. All premiums (and care prices at Doctors and hospitals) must be publicly posted and equal for all.
6. Government subsidies for low income folks, spendable at any carrier.
Results:
A. Swiss health care is arguable the best in the world. If not the best, certainly better than the U.S.
B. Cheaper, we're looking at less than 11% of GDP. Admin overhead + profit < 5% in both Netherlands and Switzerland. Basically 2. + 3. + 5. means carriers can only compete on lower cost/ higher efficiency.
C. Over 99% of population covered.
That's the theory. Here's the bottom line:
Follow this link. Enter 8004 (ZIP Code, Zurich) at the top. Select the top radio button for all choices. That means: Adult 25+, Traditional insurance, and accident coverage. Hit the button.
The resulting list is what you (yes you) would pay for health insurance in Zurich. Carriers are on the left, deductibles at the top. All plans are identical, so pick the cheapest. Careful with comparisons to U.S. premiums, as this is the whole premium. The employer pays nothing. Also, it's the same for anyone 25+.
It should be noted that the Swiss transitionted to this system in 1996 coming from an essentially American system. So practically and politically, this should be doable. Just steal it. The Swiss have worked out the details for us already. (With precision!)
Switzerland is also a wealthier country than we are. I think they have a poverty rate of around 3%, where ours is around 20%. The cost to taxpayers of health insurance subsidies would therefore be much higher here than there. Doesn't necessarily mean it's not a good place to start, but it won't be as simple as I think you think it would be.
Would the cost of subsiding 20% of workers be higher than the amount you currently spend on Medicare, though?
Don't know, but I don't think subsidizing them gets us off the hook for medicare costs. We just go from current, not-in-poverty workers subsidizing old folks (and, to a lesser extent, poor kids) to subsidizing them and the poor (to an extent greater than the current and much discussed emergency room abuse).
Follow the link in my sig. It's a summary of the Swiss and Dutch systems. The new Dutch system came into effect Jan 2006 and is essentially a copy of the Swiss system, with some Sauce Hollandaise.
Highlights of the Swiss (and Dutch) system:
1. Universal Mandate. (No free riding)
2. Community Rating. (Everyone 25+ pays the same rate. No one is denied coverage.)
3. Risk equalization handled by the government on the back end. (No adverse selection.)
4. No government run plan.
5. All premiums (and care prices at Doctors and hospitals) must be publicly posted and equal for all.
6. Government subsidies for low income folks, spendable at any carrier.
Results:
A. Swiss health care is arguable the best in the world. If not the best, certainly better than the U.S.
B. Cheaper, we're looking at less than 11% of GDP. Admin overhead + profit < 5% in both Netherlands and Switzerland. Basically 2. + 3. + 5. means carriers can only compete on lower cost/ higher efficiency.
C. Over 99% of population covered.
That's the theory. Here's the bottom line:
Follow this link. Enter 8004 (ZIP Code, Zurich) at the top. Select the top radio button for all choices. That means: Adult 25+, Traditional insurance, and accident coverage. Hit the button.
The resulting list is what you (yes you) would pay for health insurance in Zurich. Carriers are on the left, deductibles at the top. All plans are identical, so pick the cheapest. Careful with comparisons to U.S. premiums, as this is the whole premium. The employer pays nothing. Also, it's the same for anyone 25+.
It should be noted that the Swiss transitionted to this system in 1996 coming from an essentially American system. So practically and politically, this should be doable. Just steal it. The Swiss have worked out the details for us already. (With precision!)
Switzerland is also a wealthier country than we are. I think they have a poverty rate of around 3%, where ours is around 20%. The cost to taxpayers of health insurance subsidies would therefore be much higher here than there. Doesn't necessarily mean it's not a good place to start, but it won't be as simple as I think you think it would be.
The price tag (10.9% of GDP) is total health expenditures for the country, private and public. It is not the cost of the subsidy. Assuming that a Swiss person is no more expensive to treat than an American, the cost should be comparable. The poverty rate should not impact the cost.
Granted, the Swiss may not be comparable. They have longer life expectancy, more smoking, and more high blood pressure. But they also have less diabetes and obesity. So our cost may vary, but there's no fucking way it'll be as expensive as the current system.
The Swiss system seems like it would require significantly more regulations on the health care industry, which is probably why the Republicans oppose it.
Here's the wild and crazy part. The Republicans do not oppose it. Heck, Papa Bear has endorsed the Swiss system.
What do you guys think of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer's op-ed in USA Today? Taken from another poster, the obvious thing for Pelosi to do is to create a committee to investigate the protestors—call it the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
I think your concerns are stupid and meritless given the actual text that you linked. It's also quite ironic, considering that conservatives spent the last 8 years saying worse about left-wing protesters who arguably had more defensible positions and tactics. Where were you when conservative politicians were calling people un-American for not cheerleading our invasin of Iraq or Gitmo or the Patriot Act?
Did George W. Bush ever publish anything calling the anti-war protesters un-American??? Ever? Once?
How the Democrats lost this health care debate is one for the history books.
What do you guys think of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer's op-ed in USA Today? Taken from another poster, the obvious thing for Pelosi to do is to create a committee to investigate the protestors—call it the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
I think your concerns are stupid and meritless given the actual text that you linked. It's also quite ironic, considering that conservatives spent the last 8 years saying worse about left-wing protesters who arguably had more defensible positions and tactics. Where were you when conservative politicians were calling people un-American for not cheerleading our invasin of Iraq or Gitmo or the Patriot Act?
Did George W. Bush ever publish anything calling the anti-war protesters un-American??? Ever? Once?
Nope, and neither did Obama. Now don't go off on a tangent.
What do you guys think of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer's op-ed in USA Today? Taken from another poster, the obvious thing for Pelosi to do is to create a committee to investigate the protestors—call it the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
I think your concerns are stupid and meritless given the actual text that you linked. It's also quite ironic, considering that conservatives spent the last 8 years saying worse about left-wing protesters who arguably had more defensible positions and tactics. Where were you when conservative politicians were calling people un-American for not cheerleading our invasin of Iraq or Gitmo or the Patriot Act?
Did George W. Bush ever publish anything calling the anti-war protesters un-American??? Ever? Once?
How the Democrats lost this health care debate is one for the history books.
Did you even bother to read the article that you posted?
"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."
What do you guys think of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer's op-ed in USA Today? Taken from another poster, the obvious thing for Pelosi to do is to create a committee to investigate the protestors—call it the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
I think your concerns are stupid and meritless given the actual text that you linked. It's also quite ironic, considering that conservatives spent the last 8 years saying worse about left-wing protesters who arguably had more defensible positions and tactics. Where were you when conservative politicians were calling people un-American for not cheerleading our invasin of Iraq or Gitmo or the Patriot Act?
Did George W. Bush ever publish anything calling the anti-war protesters un-American??? Ever? Once?
How the Democrats lost this health care debate is one for the history books.
There are plenty of quotes from Republicans calling left wing demonstrators "blame America first activists". Hint: that's a code word for un-American if I ever saw one.
But here's a good question for you: do you think attempting to subvert the democratic process warrants the adjective "un-American"? And just so you don't get confused, yelling so that people can't openly debate is not only disruptive to democracy, it's also a form of censorship.
Follow the link in my sig. It's a summary of the Swiss and Dutch systems. The new Dutch system came into effect Jan 2006 and is essentially a copy of the Swiss system, with some Sauce Hollandaise.
Highlights of the Swiss (and Dutch) system:
1. Universal Mandate. (No free riding)
2. Community Rating. (Everyone 25+ pays the same rate. No one is denied coverage.)
3. Risk equalization handled by the government on the back end. (No adverse selection.)
4. No government run plan.
5. All premiums (and care prices at Doctors and hospitals) must be publicly posted and equal for all.
6. Government subsidies for low income folks, spendable at any carrier.
Results:
A. Swiss health care is arguable the best in the world. If not the best, certainly better than the U.S.
B. Cheaper, we're looking at less than 11% of GDP. Admin overhead + profit < 5% in both Netherlands and Switzerland. Basically 2. + 3. + 5. means carriers can only compete on lower cost/ higher efficiency.
C. Over 99% of population covered.
That's the theory. Here's the bottom line:
Follow this link. Enter 8004 (ZIP Code, Zurich) at the top. Select the top radio button for all choices. That means: Adult 25+, Traditional insurance, and accident coverage. Hit the button.
The resulting list is what you (yes you) would pay for health insurance in Zurich. Carriers are on the left, deductibles at the top. All plans are identical, so pick the cheapest. Careful with comparisons to U.S. premiums, as this is the whole premium. The employer pays nothing. Also, it's the same for anyone 25+.
It should be noted that the Swiss transitionted to this system in 1996 coming from an essentially American system. So practically and politically, this should be doable. Just steal it. The Swiss have worked out the details for us already. (With precision!)
Switzerland is also a wealthier country than we are. I think they have a poverty rate of around 3%, where ours is around 20%. The cost to taxpayers of health insurance subsidies would therefore be much higher here than there. Doesn't necessarily mean it's not a good place to start, but it won't be as simple as I think you think it would be.
The price tag (10.9% of GDP) is total health expenditures for the country, private and public. It is not the cost of the subsidy. Assuming that a Swiss person is no more expensive to treat than an American, thee cost should be comparable. The poverty rate should not impact the cost.
Granted, the Swiss may not be comparable. They have longer life expectancy, more smoking, and more high blood pressure. But they also have less diabetes and obesity. So our cost may vary, but there's not fucking way it'll be as expensive as the current system.
There are two costs to consider - total cost of the system, and cost to the government (or taxpayer). Both are important. The current reform proposals are in limbo because of the latter (the trililon dollar price tag being bandied about), and the latter is most definitely effected by the poverty rate.
Also, I'm not sure that you're correct about the other cost. If the cost of treating a Swiss and an American are roughly equal in terms of dollar (or Euro) costs, then we should expect a country with a higher GDP per capita to spend a smaller percentage of that higher GDP on medical costs.
Pelosi: "Making debate at town-halls impossible is un-American."
Morons: "Pelosi just called everyone who disagree with reform un-American! Let's ululate and wail as loud as we can and not stop!"
This is exactly like the NHS report. It warned about the problem of right-wing extremists and assorted whack-jobs. The righty blogosphere immediately decided said report was about them.
There are plenty of quotes from Republicans calling left wing demonstrators "blame America first activists". Hint: that's a code word for un-American if I ever saw one.
But here's a good question for you: do you think attempting to subvert the democratic process warrants the adjective "un-American"? And just so you don't get confused, yelling so that people can't openly debate is not only disruptive to democracy, it's also a form of censorship.
I think calling citizens protesting un-American derails the health care debate altogether.
There are ways to handle the yelling and some Democrats are doing that already. However Pelosi is just not helping.
Posts
It's just another way of showing that bipartisanship is pointless right now. The GOP opposes everything the Democrats want solely because the Democrats want it.
There's no ideology to fight. No viewpoint to argue with.
Here is an interview with Lindsey Graham, who I thought was an A-grade rube until I looked through the text. He appears perfectly capable of coherent, autonomous thought. He talks about the current situation and the pros and cons of the Wyden-Bennett plan.
Frank Rich perfectly pinpoints how Obama's real problem isn't public worry about HC reform but rather the overall sensation of him not even trying to live up to his campaigning ethos. Disappointment over his sluggishness on DADT and limiting potential power abuse from his office should not be underestimated, and the final HC bill will serve as a reflection of how capable Obama is of defending the interests of his voters from corporatism, lobbying etc.
As for DADT and executive power, it all comes back to the order-of-agenda thing I've mentioned. One of the most important decisions is in what order do you tackle the individual parts of your agenda.
*First came the traditional flurry of executive orders to get a couple quick guaranteed victories. Add in a few Republican voices of reason- which actually kind of helped result in the nearly pure hatred we see now, so that is partly Obama's fault (remember Limbaugh wouldn't have gotten quite as big a platform if Gibbs hadn't called him out)- and there's a quick buildup of capital.
*Next is the stimulus. Had to happen quickly, big ol' victory.
*Sotomayor is next, came out of nowhere. Always good to get to make a Supreme Court seating. Easy win.
*DADT people are getting antsy they haven't shown up yet. Healthcare is next, Obama can't afford to leave any capital to non-healthcare issues, so Obama gives an executive order for a meeting halfway to try and calm them down for later.
*Healthcare now. EVERYTHING has to go into it, and Obama found that out when he left it alone for a bit and it started to die on him. Now it's healthcare and after that, take a number.
*In the meantime, Cash for Clunkers- big win, easy passage, helps build up the capital reserves. You'll probably see that throughout the administration. If it's easy to pass, is going to work, and results in a big political win, Obama's going to get it rammed through and bank the capital.
*Hastings puts forth and withdraws a DADT bill, blames the administration. Again, they can't afford DADT at the moment- too much of a can of worms even if it's reasonably popular; might suck the air away from healthcare, too many critical people might go 'You repeal DADT and kiss your healthcare bill goodbye'.
*Climate change looks to be next, but you haven't seen word one about it recently. Why? Because all the attention is going to healthcare and Obama knows that's how it has to be if he wants the bill to pass. Once Obama starts giving attention to climate change, that's how you know he's getting confident in passage. This is the last of his big three objectives on the year, so we'll see if DADT and executive power get breathing room.
Basically, all the pre-healthcare stuff, whatever its own merits, served to build up Obama's reserves of political capital for the healthcare fight. You may remember some people wondering why he wasn't spending any capital on this or that. This is why. Anything else can wait because Obama doesn't know what his situation is going to look like yet.
Anecdotally, everyone around here hates Obama and the Dems for things they haven't done and aren't planning to do like taking their guns away, killing grandma, doubling affirmative action (I've heard this claim but was just called a liberal when I asked him to elaborate), cutting the defense budget, spying on Americans, suspending habeas corpus, setting up secret camps to send american citizens to (an aside, the last two are hilarious claims to make for someone who still to this day supports Bush), raising taxes (I have not met a single individual who complains that their taxes have gone up who's actually seen a federal tax increase. They got state tax increases and are confused), being an atheist, being a muslim, not being an american, and the biggest one is being a socialist.
I get warned by one of my professors on a weekly basis that the country is in the grip of a socialist tyrant.
I'm not saying this is true of the entire opposition to UHC, but I would wager most of them fall into a few of those traps. Right now there isn't a health care debate in the United States. There is one group pitching ideas of varying qualities, one group that are just extended employees of big pharma, and another group that gets a disproportionate amount of time in the media that is a bunch of escaped monkeys masturbating and throwing their own feces at others.
Yeah . . .
Please tell me you see the hypocrisy in your statement here . . .
I really hope that the GOP isn't able to come out of the wilderness using this sort of a strategy, as the implications of it would be dire. If you can shut down any attempts to fix the system on by loudly screaming "they're going to kill your family!" then our system and the political discourse around it are going to be poisoned and crippled for a long time.
If the GOP had enough sanity and actually had good faith towards healthcare, then what they should be doing is something like promoting the Swiss system. This would of course be contrary to their current strategy of being a sockpuppet for the healthcare industry and a collection of loonies for the primary purpose of flipping Obama and friends the bird.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF3qLH5M8Tg
I'm going to make this very simple for you: just because someone opposes Obama's health plan doesn't make that person "anti-reform." The folks who oppose Obama's health plan (myself included) are in favor of the kind of health reform that truly grants people the capability of getting their own private health benefits. Some ideas of doing so include truly encouraging competition amongst the private insurers and protecting good doctors and hospitals from reckless lawsuits with tort reform.
Also, the GOP isn't being a "sockpuppet for the healthcare industry" or solely fighting against Obama's plan for the sake of opposing Obama and his buddies. It's just trying to make sure people can keep their private health benefits and trying to get the government to focus on helping people get hold of private health coverage instead of supporting plans that may push people out of their private health coverage and prevent those that don't have private coverage from ever getting such private benefits.
As for elderly who oppose it who are on government-run medicare, they're worried that with the high costs of government healthcare that will occur as a result of this plan, the government may end up delaying or denying treatments for them to compensate for the higher costs. That and the fact that there's going to be more government bureaucracy which may complicate things even further. Adding more bureaucracy to the government is the last thing anybody wants or needs.
And the cycle is complete.
A conservative poster will bring up a laundry list of talking points, we'll go through all of them reaching conclusions (mostly) then another poster will come in and make the same original post, starting things afresh.
Out of curiosity what do you think of Wyden-Bennett, unknown?
Follow the link in my sig. It's a summary of the Swiss and Dutch systems. The new Dutch system came into effect Jan 2006 and is essentially a copy of the Swiss system, with some Sauce Hollandaise.
Highlights of the Swiss (and Dutch) system:
1. Universal Mandate. (No free riding)
2. Community Rating. (Everyone 25+ pays the same rate. No one is denied coverage.)
3. Risk equalization handled by the government on the back end. (No adverse selection.)
4. No government run plan.
5. All premiums (and care prices at Doctors and hospitals) must be publicly posted and equal for all.
6. Government subsidies for low income folks, spendable at any carrier.
Results:
A. Swiss health care is arguable the best in the world. If not the best, certainly better than the U.S.
B. Cheaper, we're looking at less than 11% of GDP. Admin overhead + profit < 5% in both Netherlands and Switzerland. Basically 2. + 3. + 5. means carriers can only compete on lower cost/ higher efficiency.
C. Over 99% of population covered.
That's the theory. Here's the bottom line:
Follow this link. Enter 8004 (ZIP Code, Zurich) at the top. Select the top radio button for all choices. That means: Adult 25+, Traditional insurance, and accident coverage. Hit the button.
The resulting list is what you (yes you) would pay for health insurance in Zurich. Carriers are on the left, deductibles at the top. All plans are identical, so pick the cheapest. Careful with comparisons to U.S. premiums, as this is the whole premium. The employer pays nothing. Also, it's the same for anyone 25+.
It should be noted that the Swiss transitionted to this system in 1996 coming from an essentially American system. So practically and politically, this should be doable. Just steal it. The Swiss have worked out the details for us already. (With precision!)
Oh for crying out loud I MEAN IN WASHINGTON.
Obviously people are talking about it, people are talking about the benefits of legalizing marijuana too. In Washington it's more or less a song and dance routine except for a couple of politicians (the president being one of them).
Nobody is fighting Obama's health plan, because Obama's health plan isn't even a possibility. There aren't enough liberals in the senate for it to be close to a serious contender.
This has nothing to do with its merits, it's just not realistic politically.
The Swiss system seems like it would require significantly more regulations on the health care industry, which is probably why the Republicans oppose it.
Noone's proposed it though. At this point in the "debate", I don't know how much traction any new kind of proposal is going to get given that it would then have to go through the same process the current bill has gone through.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Anything other than the current system will require more regulation. The current scenario is best for the insurance companies, as the lack of a mandate essentially means we are subsidising insurance companies by taking their high-risk customers and treating them through Medicare/ER.
You know, the industry that only exists because it fucks people. Their entire profit margin depends on fucking people, this is simply fact.
In their defense, this applies to all non-mandated insurance, it's just that the negative ramifications of being denied healthcare are several orders of magnitude worse than being denied payouts on other forms of insurance.
'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html
Not really.
There is not an assurance your house will catch fire or be robbed. There is not a guarantee you will smash into another person's car and cause $150,000 in medical bills for both of you.
You will get old and get sick. This is simple biological fact. Health insurance is insuring you against something that will happen for everyone that doesn't get hit by a bus and die suddenly. This is why it is in the best interest of a company to dump someone as soon as they get past their mid 30s.
Way to completely misrepresent the article.
What, precisely, is unreasonable about calling out for civil discourse and actual debate? One side is acting in bad faith here, and it is not the proponents of reform.
Switzerland is also a wealthier country than we are. I think they have a poverty rate of around 3%, where ours is around 20%. The cost to taxpayers of health insurance subsidies would therefore be much higher here than there. Doesn't necessarily mean it's not a good place to start, but it won't be as simple as I think you think it would be.
Would the cost of subsiding 20% of workers be higher than the amount you currently spend on Medicare, though?
I think your concerns are stupid and meritless given the actual text that you linked. It's also quite ironic, considering that conservatives spent the last 8 years saying worse about left-wing protesters who arguably had more defensible positions and tactics. Where were you when conservative politicians were calling people un-American for not cheerleading our invasin of Iraq or Gitmo or the Patriot Act?
It's also important to note that Pelosi was not calling the protesters' opposition to reform un-American, but their disruptive conduct so. Completely unlike the Patriot act of course.
Don't know, but I don't think subsidizing them gets us off the hook for medicare costs. We just go from current, not-in-poverty workers subsidizing old folks (and, to a lesser extent, poor kids) to subsidizing them and the poor (to an extent greater than the current and much discussed emergency room abuse).
The price tag (10.9% of GDP) is total health expenditures for the country, private and public. It is not the cost of the subsidy. Assuming that a Swiss person is no more expensive to treat than an American, the cost should be comparable. The poverty rate should not impact the cost.
Granted, the Swiss may not be comparable. They have longer life expectancy, more smoking, and more high blood pressure. But they also have less diabetes and obesity. So our cost may vary, but there's no fucking way it'll be as expensive as the current system.
Here's the wild and crazy part. The Republicans do not oppose it. Heck, Papa Bear has endorsed the Swiss system.
Did George W. Bush ever publish anything calling the anti-war protesters un-American??? Ever? Once?
How the Democrats lost this health care debate is one for the history books.
Good enough for ya? I could bring out a shitloads of quotes from adminstration officals and Conservative yammer-heads.
Nope, and neither did Obama. Now don't go off on a tangent.
Did you even bother to read the article that you posted?
"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."
There are plenty of quotes from Republicans calling left wing demonstrators "blame America first activists". Hint: that's a code word for un-American if I ever saw one.
But here's a good question for you: do you think attempting to subvert the democratic process warrants the adjective "un-American"? And just so you don't get confused, yelling so that people can't openly debate is not only disruptive to democracy, it's also a form of censorship.
There are two costs to consider - total cost of the system, and cost to the government (or taxpayer). Both are important. The current reform proposals are in limbo because of the latter (the trililon dollar price tag being bandied about), and the latter is most definitely effected by the poverty rate.
Also, I'm not sure that you're correct about the other cost. If the cost of treating a Swiss and an American are roughly equal in terms of dollar (or Euro) costs, then we should expect a country with a higher GDP per capita to spend a smaller percentage of that higher GDP on medical costs.
Morons: "Pelosi just called everyone who disagree with reform un-American! Let's ululate and wail as loud as we can and not stop!"
This is exactly like the NHS report. It warned about the problem of right-wing extremists and assorted whack-jobs. The righty blogosphere immediately decided said report was about them.
On the other, I habitually ignore anyone telling me what is and isn't "American." (Colbert being the exception that proves the rule.)
I think calling citizens protesting un-American derails the health care debate altogether.
There are ways to handle the yelling and some Democrats are doing that already. However Pelosi is just not helping.