Political Roundtable - Part V

[hands11]

Having so much faith in government programs to "do the right thing" shocks me...

If this was a healthcare program which covered everyone in the country, complete socialized healthcare...then bravo. But that would cause major waves in the medical sector. Bring a doctor in France, Netherlands is simply not as lucrative as the US. The best treatments are still provided by cash only clinics for the rich (like the orthokine clinic Kobe Bryant goes to in Germany).

As it is, the US implementation is a half assed equivalent to many existing affiliate based marketplaces like ehealthinsurance etc.

If the uninsured wouldn't use those private marketplaces, why the hell would they use a broken online system to receive quotes even higher than the private marketplaces.

Sadly after all of this fails, the current administration will have given private insurance companies a completely defensible reason to excessively raise their rates.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Thats where the competition of free markets kicks in.

Look, once we decided we would pay to help people if they had insurance or not, this kind of system was inevitable. At that point, there was already no per-existing conditions. It was only a matter of quality of life. How long would someone suffer before they were helped and how much would that cost ?

So our government set limits for plans and set up exchanges.

Short of just letting people die and not helping them if they aren't covered, I have no idea what the Rs are complaining about. This was their Fing solution to the problem.

The rest is all politics and hate of Obama.

They have done everything they could to try to win election running against it. They lost.
They have done everything they could to try to make it fail, they have had some effect. These should have been state run exchanges but to many red states didn't do their jobs.

But the ACA is not a web site. Its more than that. And its going to end up working and when it does, the Rs are going to be in even a deeper political hole then they already are.

What is left of that party except obstruction, hate, war, fear, corporations are people and give the 1% more so they can piss some down to the rest.

Its all politics and they are going to fail because they played it wrong. They could have had part ownership in this solution to begin with but they thought they could win an national election running against it. Obama and the Dems out maneuvered them by taking their idea and implementing it.

They got punked.

You keep coming back to your hate of the Republicans... not to a discussion of the ACA. Just because Republicans are against it doesn't make it good policy.

Republicans hate it, therefore it must be good isn't a very good argument.

I did address more then my hate of Republicans.

The ACA is a good system. My point was, it would have gone better if Rs did try to savage it at every turn trying to make political points and they would have done that state things they were supposed to do instead on putting in on the Fed to pick up where they dropped the ball.

So the latest horse the Rs want to beat on like the sky is falling is that Obama lied about how some portion for 5% of the people who policies suck so bad they don't meet the new standards will have to get new policies that might cost more or might cost less. Specially when I heard 80& of people on those kind of plans get kicked off of them.

When its all said and done, that will be totally forgotten. But they will beat the crap out of it while they can. Its going to work or not. That's not going to be an issue about Obama selling it by telling 95% of people how it would work for them correctly.

I just heard Mitt on Meet the Press. Man I can't stand listening to him talk. Talk about lairs and hyperbole. My God. He is as bad as Bohner.

[noworriesinmd]

This is a serious question (please don't get lost in the Obama or Bush thing).

Is it ok for a President to lie to the American people, if the outcome honorable (i.e. healthcare/domestic issues - or taking out Saddam - not talking about obvious national security things like where are are nukes)?

If it is ok in some circumstances, what are the circumstances and where is the line that they can't cross?

[barelyawake]

"

And economists said the reason why this would not work is that all insurance would run to the state with the least regulation and there would be less competition, in fact, there would be monopolies and a race to bottom of unregulated insurance. It would also pool the young, the old and the sick -- causing insurance for most people to increase in price.

You are making my argument. The key principle to your argument is that Government would be the reason why this would not work. Regulate and do your job properly and markets work efficiently.

I'm for regulation, but I'm not for corruption determining winners and losers.

No, the reason why it wouldn't work is the same reason healthcare doesn't work now -- insurance companies lie and people are unaware of their lies until it is too late.

If I buy insurance in New Jersey and live in New York, which government do I appeal to when my insurance company screws me over? Also, if all the young/healthy people opt for cheaper, junk insurance (or no insurance), then premiums go up for everyone and the hospitals once again bare the cost.

No marketplace insurance strategy will ever offer more services and protections for less than a governmental plan would. As I said, it's because the private insurance entity has to make a profit (and passes those costs on to customers). No new way of bundling policies will ever make up for that -- especially since government can mandate things to healthcare providers and drug companies which private insurers cannot. You can argue that medtech and drug tech would take an innovation hit. What you can't argue is the market can provide cheaper insurance with more services, while still making a profit. It's economically impossible.

[barelyawake]

This is a serious question (please don't get lost in the Obama or Bush thing).

Is it ok for a President to lie to the American people, if the outcome honorable (i.e. healthcare/domestic issues - or taking out Saddam - not talking about obvious national security things like where are are nukes)?

If it is ok in some circumstances, what are the circumstances and where is the line that they can't cross?

Who are your "news guys"? If I show you times they have lied, would you stop believing them?

Rush Limbaugh lies continually, but one major one I can point out is he lied repeatedly about Sandra Fluke. Hannity lied about death panels repeatedly. O'Reilly lied to his callers for six months about weapons of mass destruction, calling anyone who suggested that Iraq didn't have them unpatriotic pinheads (as he hung-up on them). He promised to his audience he would quit if they didn't find weapons of mass destruction.

No, it is not OK for politicians to lie. However, they do it every, single day. I would like you to show me one politician in history who ever fulfilled all of his campaign promises exactly how he proposed them on the campaign. Most of those "promises," end up being lies that they know can never be accomplished.

And Btw, the reason what he said was a "lie" is because he didn't explain that people with junk insurance will be dropped because they have junk insurance and because insurance companies want to get out of that market anyway. Btw, that's 3% of the market. And of that 3%, a majority will find subsidized better (and cheaper) insurance via ACA -- that is regulated to insure they actually have the insurance they think they have. AND that 3% had their plans grandfathered in. So, reason they are being dropped is the insurance companies.

Now, explain that in a campaign slogan...

[nate33]

This is a serious question (please don't get lost in the Obama or Bush thing).

Is it ok for a President to lie to the American people, if the outcome honorable (i.e. healthcare/domestic issues - or taking out Saddam - not talking about obvious national security things like where are are nukes)?

If it is ok in some circumstances, what are the circumstances and where is the line that they can't cross?

Who are your "news guys"? If I show you times they have lied, would you stop believing them?

Rush Limbaugh lies continually, but one major one I can point out is he lied repeatedly about Sandra Fluke. Hannity lied about death panels repeatedly. O'Reilly lied to his callers for six months about weapons of mass destruction, calling anyone who suggested that Iraq didn't have them unpatriotic pinheads (as he hung-up on them). He promised to his audience he would quit if they didn't find weapons of mass destruction.

No, it is not OK for politicians to lie. However, they do it every, single day.

When did Limbaugh lie about Sandra Fluke? He had a controversial opinion about her, but I don't see how it's a lie. He called her a slut based on the deduction that she was having so much sex that she literally couldn't afford the cost of birth control. It's a common rhetorical tactic of his to illustrate absurdity by being absurd, and I think he went too far in this instance; but I don't consider it a "lie" that serves to discredit his accuracy on other political matters.

Limbaugh has probably made factual errors from time to time and I'm sure you can dig up some from media matters. But when you consider that the man has talked live on the air, unscripted, for a total of roughly 20,000 hours over the past 25 years, I'd say his accuracy is comparable to most news media outlets. He certainly spins and slants the facts his way, but outright lies are few and far between.

[barelyawake]

Limbaugh lied about 50 times over three days about Sandra Fluke. He lied about what she was testifying to. He lied about what she was asking congress for. He lied about why she was asking congress for what she was asking for. He lied about the current law. And he lied about her personally. I listened to all three days and knew the truth while listening -- because I saw her testimony in full live.

[montestewart]

This is a serious question (please don't get lost in the Obama or Bush thing).

Is it ok for a President to lie to the American people, if the outcome honorable (i.e. healthcare/domestic issues - or taking out Saddam - not talking about obvious national security things like where are are nukes)?

If it is ok in some circumstances, what are the circumstances and where is the line that they can't cross?

Who are your "news guys"? If I show you times they have lied, would you stop believing them?

Rush Limbaugh lies continually, but one major one I can point out is he lied repeatedly about Sandra Fluke. Hannity lied about death panels repeatedly. O'Reilly lied to his callers for six months about weapons of mass destruction, calling anyone who suggested that Iraq didn't have them unpatriotic pinheads (as he hung-up on them). He promised to his audience he would quit if they didn't find weapons of mass destruction.

No, it is not OK for politicians to lie. However, they do it every, single day.

When did Limbaugh lie about Sandra Fluke? He had a controversial opinion about her, but I don't see how it's a lie. He called her a slut based on the deduction that she was having so much sex that she literally couldn't afford the cost of birth control. It's a common rhetorical tactic of his to illustrate absurdity by being absurd, and I think he went too far in this instance; but I don't consider it a "lie" that serves to discredit his accuracy on other political matters.

Limbaugh has probably made factual errors from time to time and I'm sure you can dig up some from media matters. But when you consider that the man has talked live on the air, unscripted, for a total of roughly 20,000 hours over the past 25 years, I'd say his accuracy is comparable to most news media outlets. He certainly spins and slants the facts his way, but outright lies are few and far between.

Rush thinks the cost of any birth control increases "per use." he also thinks all birth control is "ribbed for her pleasure."

[hands11]

This is a serious question (please don't get lost in the Obama or Bush thing).

Is it ok for a President to lie to the American people, if the outcome honorable (i.e. healthcare/domestic issues - or taking out Saddam - not talking about obvious national security things like where are are nukes)?

If it is ok in some circumstances, what are the circumstances and where is the line that they can't cross?

Who are your "news guys"? If I show you times they have lied, would you stop believing them?

Rush Limbaugh lies continually, but one major one I can point out is he lied repeatedly about Sandra Fluke. Hannity lied about death panels repeatedly. O'Reilly lied to his callers for six months about weapons of mass destruction, calling anyone who suggested that Iraq didn't have them unpatriotic pinheads (as he hung-up on them). He promised to his audience he would quit if they didn't find weapons of mass destruction.

No, it is not OK for politicians to lie. However, they do it every, single day. I would like you to show me one politician in history who ever fulfilled all of his campaign promises exactly how he proposed them on the campaign. Most of those "promises," end up being lies that they know can never be accomplished.

And Btw, the reason what he said was a "lie" is because he didn't explain that people with junk insurance will be dropped because they have junk insurance and because insurance companies want to get out of that market anyway. Btw, that's 3% of the market. And of that 3%, a majority will find subsidized better (and cheaper) insurance via ACA -- that is regulated to insure they actually have the insurance they think they have. AND that 3% had their plans grandfathered in. So, reason they are being dropped is the insurance companies.

Now, explain that in a campaign slogan...

I heard it was 5% but otherwise you nailed it.

Because of the grandfathering, he didn't outright lie. He was telling the truth about that. You could keep plans that didn't meet the new standards if the insurance company wants to continue to offer that plan if you had them before that date.

So if he did lie, it was the language that you can keep your insurance if they liked it, cause that was never true. Its wasn't true in the older market. Its not going to be true of the new markets. Insurance companies can end offering whatever plans they want to.

As for is it ok to lie. Depends on the scale of the lie. Was it being disingenuous or an outright lie ?

This level of lie is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of the ACA. The new plans those people will get on are way less likely to change moving forward like those plans did in the past. Plus people were regularly kicked off those plans. What different now it is happening all at once for them this one time. This will pass. No one is going to be talking about this a year from now.

I find it much more offensive that someone lies about things like .... how tax cuts increase government revenues, but ignore those increase revenues don't offset the cost of generating them ( they are called tax expenditures for a reason ) because this kind of lie teaches people flawed macro economics that generation after generation vote based on. Or a lie that leads up to a war. Or a lie that leads to greater environmental decay.

vs Clinton saying he didn't have sex with that women. Is a BJ sex ? Did he really actually have sex with her ? Personally I don't really care other then the fact it was stupid for him to do that with a person of her stature and look how it affected the country because he "exposed" himself to getting caught. I care more about him being stupid than that he lied about it.

What the lie is matters. The magnitude and the topic.

[hands11]

This is a serious question (please don't get lost in the Obama or Bush thing).

Is it ok for a President to lie to the American people, if the outcome honorable (i.e. healthcare/domestic issues - or taking out Saddam - not talking about obvious national security things like where are are nukes)?

If it is ok in some circumstances, what are the circumstances and where is the line that they can't cross?

Who are your "news guys"? If I show you times they have lied, would you stop believing them?

Rush Limbaugh lies continually, but one major one I can point out is he lied repeatedly about Sandra Fluke. Hannity lied about death panels repeatedly. O'Reilly lied to his callers for six months about weapons of mass destruction, calling anyone who suggested that Iraq didn't have them unpatriotic pinheads (as he hung-up on them). He promised to his audience he would quit if they didn't find weapons of mass destruction.

No, it is not OK for politicians to lie. However, they do it every, single day.

When did Limbaugh lie about Sandra Fluke? He had a controversial opinion about her, but I don't see how it's a lie. He called her a slut based on the deduction that she was having so much sex that she literally couldn't afford the cost of birth control. It's a common rhetorical tactic of his to illustrate absurdity by being absurd, and I think he went too far in this instance; but I don't consider it a "lie" that serves to discredit his accuracy on other political matters.

Limbaugh has probably made factual errors from time to time and I'm sure you can dig up some from media matters. But when you consider that the man has talked live on the air, unscripted, for a total of roughly 20,000 hours over the past 25 years, I'd say his accuracy is comparable to most news media outlets. He certainly spins and slants the facts his way, but outright lies are few and far between.

Limbaugh is nothing more then a propagandist entertainer who is raking in the money by feeding fools the red meat they so want. His set play is to find some gem of fact and then pivot into something that makes nonsense in how he connect things. Then he predicts the obvious and pats himself on the back. And in all that he fill the air with a lot of fluff and nonsense while he sets you up for something big coming right after the next commercial break that happens every five minutes. If you listen to him for an hour he might say something meaningful once. Listening to him makes my head explode.

He constantly lies. Once you know his set play you can pretty much predict whats going to come out of his mouth once he starts a topic.

I respect him for one thing. He knows how to make himself a lot of money. He did a masterful job of taking over AM radio and marketing his entertainment product. AM used to be just pure news. Very dry. The EIB network is brilliant marketing. Ditto heads. Taking on people with half his drug induced brain tied behind his back. Tapping into the day time truck driving USA. That is all brilliant.

[barelyawake]

Hands, 3% to 5%... BUT, remember, for it to be a lie, those people would have had to like their old insurance more than the exchange option. That will be considerably less. I'm in the 5%. And I don't think it's a lie, because I didn't like my insurance. And I believe I will like my new options better (right after the governor's race is done).

[dckingsfan]

I thought we agreed that lying is ok - remember - people are stupid.

[dckingsfan]

Thats where the competition of free markets kicks in.

Look, once we decided we would pay to help people if they had insurance or not, this kind of system was inevitable. At that point, there was already no per-existing conditions. It was only a matter of quality of life. How long would someone suffer before they were helped and how much would that cost ?

So our government set limits for plans and set up exchanges.

Short of just letting people die and not helping them if they aren't covered, I have no idea what the Rs are complaining about. This was their Fing solution to the problem.

The rest is all politics and hate of Obama.

They have done everything they could to try to win election running against it. They lost.
They have done everything they could to try to make it fail, they have had some effect. These should have been state run exchanges but to many red states didn't do their jobs.

But the ACA is not a web site. Its more than that. And its going to end up working and when it does, the Rs are going to be in even a deeper political hole then they already are.

What is left of that party except obstruction, hate, war, fear, corporations are people and give the 1% more so they can piss some down to the rest.

Its all politics and they are going to fail because they played it wrong. They could have had part ownership in this solution to begin with but they thought they could win an national election running against it. Obama and the Dems out maneuvered them by taking their idea and implementing it.

They got punked.

You keep coming back to your hate of the Republicans... not to a discussion of the ACA. Just because Republicans are against it doesn't make it good policy.

Republicans hate it, therefore it must be good isn't a very good argument.

I did address more then my hate of Republicans.

The ACA is a good system. My point was, it would have gone better if Rs did try to savage it at every turn trying to make political points and they would have done that state things they were supposed to do instead on putting in on the Fed to pick up where they dropped the ball.

So the latest horse the Rs want to beat on like the sky is falling is that Obama lied about how some portion for 5% of the people who policies suck so bad they don't meet the new standards will have to get new policies that might cost more or might cost less. Specially when I heard 80& of people on those kind of plans get kicked off of them.

When its all said and done, that will be totally forgotten. But they will beat the crap out of it while they can. Its going to work or not. That's not going to be an issue about Obama selling it by telling 95% of people how it would work for them correctly.

I just heard Mitt on Meet the Press. Man I can't stand listening to him talk. Talk about lairs and hyperbole. My God. He is as bad as Bohner.

Wait, lying is bad or lying is good - I guess you want it both ways.

And the ACA isn't a good system - it doesn't fix the inherent problems in the system listed before. And since you are using economists as your supporting argument, a vast majority of economists do not support the ACA because most of the costs will be burdened by the middle class which will slow down growth.

The ACA may be the best system we can get politically, but it isn't close to optimal. And its implementation forced the country to focusing on healthcare vs. growth of the economy. Add that to the poor implementation of the stimulus package...

But sometimes one is so deeply wed to a party, they can't see the flaws.

[Higga]

Ugh at the VA governor's race. Don't like either candidate...

[dckingsfan]

Ugh at the VA governor's race. Don't like either candidate...

Hey Higga, what do you dislike about both candidates?

[barelyawake]

"And the ACA isn't a good system - it doesn't fix the inherent problems in the system listed before. And since you are using economists as your supporting argument, a vast majority of economists do not support the ACA because most of the costs will be burdened by the middle class which will slow down growth."

Thus why we need a public option.

Btw, I'm not a Democrat either. I'm an independent who has just never voted for a Republican (like every other "independent" on this board).

And yes, lying is bad. And so is fire. Fire bad. Love good. Crabs sometimes very good, sometimes very bad.

[montestewart]

I voted for a Republican once. It made me feel cheap and dirty. I loved it.

[noworriesinmd]

barelyawake, to answer your questions about my news guys:

I intensely dislike Rush, Hannity, Maddow, etc... I just don't like political hacks. I used to like Chris Matthews, because I thought he was fair...but he got really bad a few years ago.

FYI, I was listening to MSNBC around 6AM and Meeka called what the President did "deeply dishonest" because they knew there were nuances to the argument. I listen to all news outlets. I read many local, domestic, international papers daily. I try hard to get as many sides to an issue as possible.

In the end, I got my answer, it's ok if the person you voted for lied, but not ok if you didn't vote for that person.

R's will never hold Bush accountable
D's will never hold Obama accountable

I don't consider myself an R or D. I think this proves to me why politics don't work for many programs. WE need to hold everyone to a higher standard, but I'm in the minority. I don't believe in anarchy, but if I had a chance to vote for all candidates in Congress...I'd choose the challenger, because none of them deserve their job.

[dobrojim]

I voted for a Republican once. It made me feel cheap and dirty. I loved it.

let me guess, John Warner after he supported Coleman as a 3rd party candidate
when Ollie won the GOP nomination?

[montestewart]

I voted for a Republican once. It made me feel cheap and dirty. I loved it.

let me guess, John Warner after his supported Coleman as a 3rd party candidate
when Ollie won the GOP nomination?

No. I did work on an anti-North ad, but they rejected my Natural Born Liar movie theme.

[dobrojim]

predictions for tomorrow -

Christy figures to win big. Reports are the dems are repaying CC for
his appearing with BHO a year ago after Sandy by basically not supporting
their own in what was probably a lost cause anyway. CC was probably
doing the same thing come to think about it...not supporting his own
party in a lost cause.

VA is weird. McAu is ahead but Kooch voters are reportedly more enthusiastic.
Usually enthusiasm carries the day in off years. The polls (not the ones on Faux)
are usually right. I doubt Kooch wins. My 18 yo is registered and my wife is so
excited to go with her to vote. We're lucky. The polling place is right across the
street from where I live. A two minute walk.