The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[HarthorneWingo]

guys quick question i dont know if it was asked already but WHEN DOES THE NEW HEALTHCARE SYSTEM kick in does anybody know?

Some provisions over the next few months. Some more like 4 years out, and even further like 7-8 years out. It is best to go google some of this to see the exact details. I did post a link now in this thread as a starting point.

- Rich

I tried googling it but can't really find anything, The one I am looking for is having Kids that are under 26 being allowed to be under there guardians Insurance, do you by any chance know when that kicks in?

This is what I found. Somewhat helpful. I thought I had saved an article from the NY Times that layed it all out, but I can't find it right now.

http://health-insurance.suite101.com/ar ... eform-bill

[cgf]

Ron Paul is republican in name only given how the neo-cons have driven the party insane. Discrediting Ron Paul with the GOP is as unfair as comparing Kucinich to the democratic party. I understand that you're on the government dole and thus can't be a Libertarian, but that's exactly it, don't try and present yourself as some Libertarian at heart when you aren't.

As for a libertarian solution I've gone into how we could drastically re-vamp the system to cut costs dramatically and make health care actually affordable, letting us ultimately cut out the cruel insurance companies we all loathe. But that won't happen because the established players make too much money with the stat quo to let politicians deliver any positive change.

Ron Paul is a Republican in the mold of Goldwater, going back to Paleo-Conservatives, with a stronger focus on State's Rights. One can argue that he is not representative of the current form of the Republican party, but one can see he does go back to Pre-Reagan Republicans that actually led to Reagan in power. Due to Paul having a focus on state's rights (in ALL things), he will differ from the Buchanan wing of the GOP. Buchanan believes we need the federal government to get involved with issues like pornography, drug use, prostitution and abortion, because these are believed to be too important to be left in the hands of the states to decide (well, the push to make abortion go back to the states is just to make it illegal some places, because of failure to outlaw abortion via the constitutional amendment route).

I actually never said I am a Libertarian at heart. In the case of myself, I did test as a centrist, right on the cusp of Libertarian, but I can't say I am in camp with Libertarian fully, at least as a life philosophy. I do believe, however, that it is important that people do what is needed without government, so that government isn't needed. I believe solutions do need to start locally, and would likely fall more in the Buchanan camp in that I do believe we do have a social fabric of values that, if it gets trashed, ends up resulting in with society sliding down a slope into destruction. This would be similar to what Huckabee stands for also.

- Rich

Either you use the more classic understanding of what being a republican is or you use the current GOP standard for what a republican is, either way ron paul is in one camp and the rest of the GOP is in another.

Rich you should know better than most that people are lazy and if you take away their incentives they won't do a damn thing and will never break their dependence on government. Thus you need to for force them to adjust and become responsible and not just ask politely.

And rich you bring up mugzi's suggestion of selling cigarettes as a bad thing? Dude if you need money go out and make your money, selling cigarettes illegally is a victimless crime, the police disagree but morally no one gets hurt. So if you really need that money badly why the **** wouldn't you go do something like that? Hell sell weed or coke for all I care, I know I made it the years I spent in buffalo with a steady side income from reservation cigarettes, knowing everyone with weed, an acid connect. and stockpiling aderall for finals week.

And mugzi WTF are you doing bitching about procedure when the GOP uses the same ****. Only difference is when the republicans do it it's because they're patriotic, whereas when the dems do it they're communists. It's a bad bill and will only be expanded and made worse as time passes, but the tactics used to get it passed aren't why it's a **** bill.

CGF, since you know so much about reconciliation, why dont you pull up the bills the GOP used to get passed with this tactic and compare them in SIZE, SCOPE AND EFFECT to the healthcare bill?

Yup, I thought so.

It was an underhanded power grab to gain control of 1/6th of the economy, when more than half of this country was against the bill in the first place. Thats my gripe with it, and its valid.

I dont expect the resident crypto Marxists here to see it that way but when your proposing something that will affect every American directly or indirectly and use this tactic its a black eye on the legislative process and will only lead to states suing to block it from happening and more rancor and partisan divide in Washington.

Come on man, at least stand by your hypocrisy. If you're going to attack the tactics attack the attacks aknowledge your hypocrisy and hope your boys don't do it again, don't try rationalize your hypocrisy by claiming that the patriot act was harmless while healthcare will be the death of america. Both are evil bills that got pushed through with similar methods, one isn't magically good.

[richardhutnik]

Either you use the more classic understanding of what being a republican is or you use the current GOP standard for what a republican is, either way ron paul is in one camp and the rest of the GOP is in another.

All this came up out of myself saying I am not a Democrat.

Rich you should know better than most that people are lazy and if you take away their incentives they won't do a damn thing and will never break their dependence on government. Thus you need to for force them to adjust and become responsible and not just ask politely.

And in situations where there isn't an option, then what? Is getting tough with people in Katrina who got wiped out going to fix things? What I do know is if there isn't any options left, people will lean on government. That is how it works. There also had better be better options, or people won't act. Getting "tough" alone doesn't do anything. What I do know is people are a lot of things. People without hope don't do anything. People who aren't inspired don't do anything. And people who are stuck don't do anything. I also know the system is set up (speaking of welfare) to put people on a downward path where they want you to hit rock bottom, and then start over. They want you to become homeless. I personally couldn't stand putting myself in a place where I wouldn't even have a car and undermined my chance of landing a job, so I got out where they are. OIthers have resigned themselves to this. What I had seen is a range of people, those who do good for its own sake, and those who don't. I also seen a guy go from being an Engineer into accounting, and now will likely get laid off after tax season is over (he did my taxes, and was a former IBMer. What I have seen is a range of people and human experiences that make your case overly simplistic. I know also people can be driven to such dispair they will take their own lives.

And rich you bring up mugzi's suggestion of selling cigarettes as a bad thing? Dude if you need money go out and make your money, selling cigarettes illegally is a victimless crime, the police disagree but morally no one gets hurt. So if you really need that money badly why the **** wouldn't you go do something like that? Hell sell weed or coke for all I care, I know I made it the years I spent in buffalo with a steady side income from reservation cigarettes, knowing everyone with weed, an acid connect. and stockpiling aderall for finals week.

Exactly HOW sustainable was that idea, given that I don't even smoke? It was a hairbrain scheme that isn't sustainable. As far as no one being hurt, well you are selling things that give people cancer. I guess no one is hurt by that. An alternative would possibly be the electronic cigarettes, but I don't smoke, so what sense does it make? Throw on myself getting arrested and a criminal record for doing something like this, or paying fines.

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

Putting healthcare aside for the moment, I find what's going on with Israel, East Jerusalem and the Brits very interesting. As far as I'm concerned, Israel needs to STFU and start doing what we tell it to do or we can start calling in loans; withholding the $30 billion a year we give them; withhold our veto of U.N. resolutions to compel Israel to disclose its nuclear arsenal; etc. If they want to go it alone, let them. Europe has had enough. Turkey has had enough. And I've had enough. The tail does not wag the dog.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1158641.html

Last update - 06:30 24/03/2010
Britain has dealt a blow to Israeli arrogance
By Amir Oren

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1158599.html

How can so many Israelis back the construction freeze?
By Yehuda Ben Meir

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/2 ... 10838.html (scroll down to comments section)

[cgf]

Unfortunately in this case the tail is smarter than the dog so it does actually wag the dog, OT but I recently re-watched Wag the Dog and it continued it's march up my personal rankings, such a great film.

[HarthorneWingo]

Unfortunately in this case the tail is smarter than the dog so it does actually wag the dog, OT but I recently re-watched Wag the Dog and it continued it's march up my personal rankings, such a great film.

I'm Albanian ... lol. Albanians also made their way into the movie Taken with Liam Neeson. In that movie, the Albanians were responsible for kidnapping and then selling young girls as sex slaves, including Neeson's (an ex-CIA operative) daughter. But it made no sense because when the Albanians were supposedly speaking "Albanian" in the movie they weren't, they were speaking some kind of russian dialect. That made no sense to me. Why not just have "Russians" be the kidnappers and they can speak russian?

[cgf]

Unfortunately in this case the tail is smarter than the dog so it does actually wag the dog, OT but I recently re-watched Wag the Dog and it continued it's march up my personal rankings, such a great film.

I'm Albanian ... lol. Albanians also made their way into the movie Taken with Liam Neeson. In that movie, the Albanians were responsible for kidnapping and then selling young girls as sex slaves, including Neeson's (an ex-CIA operative) daughter. But it made no sense because when the Albanians were supposedly speaking "Albanian" in the movie they weren't, they were speaking some kind of russian dialect. That made no sense to me. Why not just have "Russians" be the kidnappers and they can speak russian?

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.

That movie was pure awesomeness. As for why it's Albanians it's because we Russians are too important, gotta stop having every villain be a Russian and spread the hate around the former USSR.

[HarthorneWingo]

Hahahaha. Very good. I'm impressed. What was the "Albanian" kidnapper's name who he tied to the chair and electrocuted? I liked that scene!

[richardhutnik]

Unfortunately in this case the tail is smarter than the dog so it does actually wag the dog, OT but I recently re-watched Wag the Dog and it continued it's march up my personal rankings, such a great film.

I wait word about the B-3 bomber getting out.

- Rich

[cgf]

Unfortunately in this case the tail is smarter than the dog so it does actually wag the dog, OT but I recently re-watched Wag the Dog and it continued it's march up my personal rankings, such a great film.

I wait word about the B-3 bomber getting out.

- Rich

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jqEjchRrLM[/youtube]

[HarthorneWingo]

So, the Pope is a piece of shyt too. Why am I surprised? Yawn. This mtherfcker turned the other cheek after he found out another priest - excuse me, make that priests - under his supervision molested 200 deaf children!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world ... tican.html

Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: March 24, 2010

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

The documents emerge as Pope Benedict is facing other accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican’s chief doctrinal enforcer.

-more-

[richardhutnik]

Wow, cgf. By the way, can you find the "B-3 Bomber" reference also?

On another note, I wanted to ask you as an "anarcho-capitalist" if people can be trusted to do the right thing, why do we need to enforce laws?

- Rich

[cgf]

Wow, cgf. By the way, can you find the "B-3 Bomber" reference also?

On another note, I wanted to ask you as an "anarcho-capitalist" if people can be trusted to do the right thing, why do we need to enforce laws?

- Rich

I was looking for that press conference just because I love that scene, but alas youtube has let me down and if I were to use final cut to do it I'd feel guilty about not doing my homework instead.

As for your question, people can't be trusted to do the right thing, in fact it's a much safer bet to expect people to do the wrong thing, but that's because there are no consequences, people are not held responsible for their wrong decisions. I do think people can learn, but if they don't have to learn why should they? Why worry about the ridiculous risks you run up if you know that your corporation can not only borrow money at 0% from the Fed but also get direct money in the form of bailouts?

[HarthorneWingo]

Not that this should make a difference - because the Constitution says nothing about opinion polls trumping the right and duty of elected officials to make decisions based on what they perceive as the merits - but there are two points I want to make about the republican/fox news talking point that "Obamacare" is unpopular with the American people.

First, it's unpopular with some Americans because it didn't go far enough (no single payer; no public option).

Second, the American people, by admittedly a small margin, are glad that the bill passed. Check out this Gallup poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim- ... ssage.aspx

[cgf]

Not that this should make a difference - because the Constitution says nothing about opinion polls trumping the right and duty of elected officials to make decisions based on what they perceive as the merits - but there are two points I want to make about the republican/fox news talking point that "Obamacare" is unpopular with the American people.

First, it's unpopular with some Americans because it didn't go far enough (no single payer; no public option).

Second, the American people, by admittedly a small margin, are glad that the bill passed. Check out this Gallup poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim- ... ssage.aspx

You know what else is popular with the people...the snuggie...and hannah montana.

[seren]

I have trouble grasping the logic of distrusting government, which we elect, but putting our trust to big businesses. So our elected officials are corrupt, but big businesses are for our benefit? Insurance, by definition, requires really large firms (you have to have a large pool of people to insure), usually end up being monopolies or large oligopolies that given returns to scale. These for profit companies make money, again by definition, by denying health care.

It is really funny some people mention government wants to control 1/6 of the economy. But it didn't use to be 1/6th of the economy and it is not 1/6th of the economy in any other part of the world. it became this way due to out of control prices. Prices are out of control due to monopolies that exist in both insurance industry as well as health care industry. We don't mind monopolies controlling everything but we mind regulation?

[HarthorneWingo]

I have trouble grasping the logic of distrusting government, which we elect, but putting our trust to big businesses. So our elected officials are corrupt, but big businesses are for our benefit? Insurance, by definition, requires really large firms (you have to have a large pool of people to insure), usually end up being monopolies or large oligopolies that given returns to scale. These for profit companies make money, again by definition, by denying health care.

It is really funny some people mention government wants to control 1/6 of the economy. But it didn't use to be 1/6th of the economy and it is not 1/6th of the economy in any other part of the world. it became this way due to out of control prices. Prices are out of control due to monopolies that exist in both insurance industry as well as health care industry. We don't mind monopolies controlling everything but we mind regulation?

seren, welcome to the club. Nice to have fresh blood infused into our little gang of misfits.

I had no trouble distrusting the government when Bush/Cheney were in office. But that's because they were in bed with big business and the rich.

You pose an interesting point re the control of pricing in the health care industry. Is that in fact true?

[seren]

I have trouble grasping the logic of distrusting government, which we elect, but putting our trust to big businesses. So our elected officials are corrupt, but big businesses are for our benefit? Insurance, by definition, requires really large firms (you have to have a large pool of people to insure), usually end up being monopolies or large oligopolies that given returns to scale. These for profit companies make money, again by definition, by denying health care.

It is really funny some people mention government wants to control 1/6 of the economy. But it didn't use to be 1/6th of the economy and it is not 1/6th of the economy in any other part of the world. it became this way due to out of control prices. Prices are out of control due to monopolies that exist in both insurance industry as well as health care industry. We don't mind monopolies controlling everything but we mind regulation?

seren, welcome to the club. Nice to have fresh blood infused into our little gang of misfits.

I had no trouble distrusting the government when Bush/Cheney were in office. But that's because they were in bed with big business and the rich.

You pose an interesting point re the control of pricing in the health care industry. Is that in fact true?

Absolutely. Excellent paper on the issue if you are interested:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/re ... 2/3/89.pdf

The title of the paper: It is the prices, stupid.

Summary: we have the same number of doctors per population, same number of nurses per population as OECD averages (many countries beat us by the way). We have less hospital beds per population, we have less average stay in hospitals per population, we have less acute care (a costly part of health care) per population. There are only few items we consume more than averages, but even for those, we pay more than countries that use them more than us (ie catscan, dialysis etc.)

Overall, we consume less health care in the United States than the rest of the developed world. Then why do we spend twice the amount? Because it is damn expensive.

This is what happens when you have a for-profit health care industry that thrives, when you have for-profit hospital industry that has been killing, when your entire drug industry is heavily subsidized and heavily protected via outrageously long patents, when your medical schools produce twice the specialists and half the practitioners that you need because it is damn expensive to go to medical school and being a practitioner just does not pay off.

The system is broken. And we need a radical change. This bill was a start, but we need more.

[cgf]

I have trouble grasping the logic of distrusting government, which we elect, but putting our trust to big businesses. So our elected officials are corrupt, but big businesses are for our benefit? Insurance, by definition, requires really large firms (you have to have a large pool of people to insure), usually end up being monopolies or large oligopolies that given returns to scale. These for profit companies make money, again by definition, by denying health care.

It is really funny some people mention government wants to control 1/6 of the economy. But it didn't use to be 1/6th of the economy and it is not 1/6th of the economy in any other part of the world. it became this way due to out of control prices. Prices are out of control due to monopolies that exist in both insurance industry as well as health care industry. We don't mind monopolies controlling everything but we mind regulation?

I would like some examples of natural monopolies that were able to last on their own? Let's talk about these monopolies that are responsible for these exorbitant prices. I'm going to start by focusing on big pharma since that is the field I know the most about, know the most people in and understand best. The industry spends between 1-5 billion dollars per drug that gets introduced every year, depending on who's numbers you're using. What it would cost to actually develop a drug would be closer to 10 million, another 10 to test it to satisfaction so a total of 20 million ish with no FDA approval, just a safe enough drug that you'd give it to a friend with a terminal illness. That's a thousand times less than what companies actually pay. While the loss due to bureaucracy that big pharma incurs plays a part in that the major difference is the cost of the FDA.

Why is the FDA so costly? Well first of all their procedures are remarkably costly in and of themselves, but also they result in so many delays for the most moronic possible reasons. What happened to a company that the lab I was with was working with was that their drug was at the human testing stage and in one of the studies they suddenly got a weird side effect, namely that one patient had experienced a peculiar discoloration around her breasts. If you saw the pictures this discoloration just so happened to look exactly some grabbed her breasts but because this woman refused to admit that they had to wait another 3 months for more costly testing to go down and for the drug to move on. That's just one story of simply pointless delays that end up costing the people who will need this drug.

Now the completely legit question is that if there were no FDA to incur these costs why wouldn't companies just skip the testing and pocket the 10 million they'd have to shell out to do that testing? Well first of all releasing an unhealthy drug will not only lead to lawsuits, but will give you a **** reputation and thus hurting your sales. You'd also have a much harder time convincing people that they need your drug if people knew that you released one unsafe drug.

Additionally this would create an industry of experts who would review these drugs. Which would have great control over sales which would force the drug companies to gather enough evidence that their drug is safe and would also create a whole new series of jobs.

I've gotta get to work so I'm going to wrap here and hope yall have as much fun with this theoretical discussion.

[cgf]

I have trouble grasping the logic of distrusting government, which we elect, but putting our trust to big businesses. So our elected officials are corrupt, but big businesses are for our benefit? Insurance, by definition, requires really large firms (you have to have a large pool of people to insure), usually end up being monopolies or large oligopolies that given returns to scale. These for profit companies make money, again by definition, by denying health care.

It is really funny some people mention government wants to control 1/6 of the economy. But it didn't use to be 1/6th of the economy and it is not 1/6th of the economy in any other part of the world. it became this way due to out of control prices. Prices are out of control due to monopolies that exist in both insurance industry as well as health care industry. We don't mind monopolies controlling everything but we mind regulation?

seren, welcome to the club. Nice to have fresh blood infused into our little gang of misfits.

I had no trouble distrusting the government when Bush/Cheney were in office. But that's because they were in bed with big business and the rich.

You pose an interesting point re the control of pricing in the health care industry. Is that in fact true?

Absolutely. Excellent paper on the issue if you are interested:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/re ... 2/3/89.pdf

The title of the paper: It is the prices, stupid.

Summary: we have the same number of doctors per population, same number of nurses per population as OECD averages (many countries beat us by the way). We have less hospital beds per population, we have less average stay in hospitals per population, we have less acute care (a costly part of health care) per population. There are only few items we consume more than averages, but even for those, we pay more than countries that use them more than us (ie catscan, dialysis etc.)

Overall, we consume less health care in the United States than the rest of the developed world. Then why do we spend twice the amount? Because it is damn expensive.

This is what happens when you have a for-profit health care industry that thrives, when you have for-profit hospital industry that has been killing, when your entire drug industry is heavily subsidized and heavily protected via outrageously long patents, when your medical schools produce twice the specialists and half the practitioners that you need because it is damn expensive to go to medical school and being a practitioner just does not pay off.

The system is broken. And we need a radical change. This bill was a start, but we need more.

The system is broken, because of intervention, it's broken because of regulation on medical training, because of patents and subsidies, not because there isn't enough government involvement.