The Democrat Thread

[kapkomet]

Thanks for elevating the discussion.

 

Stay classy, kap.

 

 

I'm just more direct then our pal bmags, who wants to have the veiled little comments. So yea, I'm classy, and direct.

[bmags]

Kap, if the point is that you think that since the dems has 60 sens that they can't complain about anything, that's fine. I think it's stupid because it's completely ignoring very conservative senators. But the fact that just because they have sixty you can accuse them of not having tried to get some republican senators is really inane. They clearly did. They wasted 4 mos. doing it even when it was clear grassley would never vote on it, and even when he stated that yes, he did have an impact on that baucus bill that is so clearly the senate's bill at this point. They clearly tried to court snowe and collins, and snowe, who said she could commit to a triggered PO, is not even going to vote for a billl without any PO at all. And you want me to believe that no, the dems didn't reach out to the GOP at all. it's clearly false.

And in the climate change negotiations, when sens. like Graham and McCain who so clearly agreed with climate change legislation before now say they are adamently against it, you can again claim the democrats clearly never reached out to GOp. But there are two sides. And one side is committed to not even trying to legislate, and do whatever they can to reduce the senate to a halt. They've said as much. But yet you seem intent on pushing this memo that the dems are just pushing this radical leftist legislation, when the hard progressives have shown willing to compromise A LOT to pass something to help the situation. So yeah, I find your comments stupid, especially when you are pushing them in the dem thread.

[kapkomet]

Kap, if the point is that you think that since the dems has 60 sens that they can't complain about anything, that's fine. I think it's stupid because it's completely ignoring very conservative senators. But the fact that just because they have sixty you can accuse them of not having tried to get some republican senators is really inane. They clearly did. They wasted 4 mos. doing it even when it was clear grassley would never vote on it, and even when he stated that yes, he did have an impact on that baucus bill that is so clearly the senate's bill at this point. They clearly tried to court snowe and collins, and snowe, who said she could commit to a triggered PO, is not even going to vote for a billl without any PO at all. And you want me to believe that no, the dems didn't reach out to the GOP at all. it's clearly false.

And in the climate change negotiations, when sens. like Graham and McCain who so clearly agreed with climate change legislation before now say they are adamently against it, you can again claim the democrats clearly never reached out to GOp. But there are two sides. And one side is committed to not even trying to legislate, and do whatever they can to reduce the senate to a halt. They've said as much. But yet you seem intent on pushing this memo that the dems are just pushing this radical leftist legislation, when the hard progressives have shown willing to compromise A LOT to pass something to help the situation. So yeah, I find your comments stupid, especially when you are pushing them in the dem thread.

 

Here's the deal. Yea, they courted Grassley and Snowe. And then they did whatever the hell they wanted anyway. They close doors, they are transparent as a 10,000 foot rock of granite (maybe even Balta will get that one... ), they stiffarm everyone, and then on top of that, Obama spends 80% of his speech last night talking about how the culture needs to change, yet, blasts everyone who doesn't think just like he does.

 

You people have your head so far up your point of view that you never even want to consider anyone else. You know, the "big tent" theory, when in reality, it doesn't exist.

 

BOTH parties are pulled to their radical sides, and frankly, Obama is one of the radicals. None of you want to admit it because then it shows your political spectrum as being far left instead of mainstream. So, let's all hail our radical president, because otherwise it's not fair, and it's not "reaching out" unless you agree with him.

 

And, seriously, your post is a good post, I just totally disagree.

[bmags]

Ideally I want single payer, I find myself rooting and calling and writing for a bill significantly less than that, who ushers in millions of new healthy clients into the insurance industry. That is in fact listening to the other side. You think that the you don't have to compromise to be listened to. That's not how you govern a republic of 300 million. All you wanted to do is open up competition across state lines...that doesn't go nearly far enough to cover or compress costs...so yeah, if people who actually want to solve a problem and you have people who don't, the people who don't will get left out of the process, but their insight was CLEARLY there in the crafting of the bill, to say otherwise is retarded. If you have the ability to pass something with broad appeal, you do that, they tried, the other side was just stalling and trying to kill it in their nihilist view of government, so they mmoved on. That doesn't make republicans shunned, they could jump in at any time if they promised that if they got some of what they wanted they would vote for it. They won't, theyll get some of what they want and then not vote for it. SO f*** them.

[kapkomet]

Ideally I want single payer, I find myself rooting and calling and writing for a bill significantly less than that, who ushers in millions of new healthy clients into the insurance industry. That is in fact listening to the other side. You think that the you don't have to compromise to be listened to. That's not how you govern a republic of 300 million. All you wanted to do is open up competition across state lines...that doesn't go nearly far enough to cover or compress costs...so yeah, if people who actually want to solve a problem and you have people who don't, the people who don't will get left out of the process, but their insight was CLEARLY there in the crafting of the bill, to say otherwise is retarded. If you have the ability to pass something with broad appeal, you do that, they tried, the other side was just stalling and trying to kill it in their nihilist view of government, so they mmoved on. That doesn't make republicans shunned, they could jump in at any time if they promised that if they got some of what they wanted they would vote for it. They won't, theyll get some of what they want and then not vote for it. SO f*** them.

 

The problem is, you and others make this too simplistic. Forget the lobby money and the industry for a little bit - long enough to understand that one of the primary reason for the increase of costs is government itself. And yes, I said PRIMARY, not secondary.

 

There's a lot of usual and customary fees tied to the medicare standard. Then, it's adjusted by contractual obligation down to some sort of pay scale to the physicians. Because the government has a heavy hand in regulating the base fees being charged, you get a skewed pricing index. That's a large problem.

 

Now on to the government side. As I've said before and just get ignored and shunned because I'm a "republican shrill"... *gag* ... the whole damn bill is a "public option" because it sets the marketplace for insurance. It doesn't do ANYTHING to actually control costs. It just regulates the s*** out of the industry to back it into a corner that the government gets control. I know you all don't see it that way because you didn't get a specific, single payor government intervention (aka, the savior to all costs and health care issues... which in reality is a disaster because you destroy all supply and demand tencendcies in such an environment).

 

The GOVERNMENT should not have say over a population like this. I know you all see it different, and it's a great "equalizing issue" and a "utopia" where everyone should be afforded the same rights, rules, and regulations to health care, but it's just not that simple, and people don't want what's a pretty damn good system taken away and a government plan shoved up their ass in its place. The people are speaking REALLY loudly about it, and yet, the liberal elite seem to know best. Some negotiations.

 

And again, thanks for sticking to your point. I don't mind seeing this as your point of view at all.

[BigSqwert]

via Josh Marshall...

 

Paragons of fiscal discipline, every Senate Republican today voted against reestablishing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting rules that mandate that any new spending must be paid for. The rule passed on a 60-40 party line vote.

Edited January 29, 2010 by BigSqwert

[Y2HH]

The problem is, you and others make this too simplistic. Forget the lobby money and the industry for a little bit - long enough to understand that one of the primary reason for the increase of costs is government itself. And yes, I said PRIMARY, not secondary.

 

There's a lot of usual and customary fees tied to the medicare standard. Then, it's adjusted by contractual obligation down to some sort of pay scale to the physicians. Because the government has a heavy hand in regulating the base fees being charged, you get a skewed pricing index. That's a large problem.

 

Now on to the government side. As I've said before and just get ignored and shunned because I'm a "republican shrill"... *gag* ... the whole damn bill is a "public option" because it sets the marketplace for insurance. It doesn't do ANYTHING to actually control costs. It just regulates the s*** out of the industry to back it into a corner that the government gets control. I know you all don't see it that way because you didn't get a specific, single payor government intervention (aka, the savior to all costs and health care issues... which in reality is a disaster because you destroy all supply and demand tencendcies in such an environment).

 

The GOVERNMENT should not have say over a population like this. I know you all see it different, and it's a great "equalizing issue" and a "utopia" where everyone should be afforded the same rights, rules, and regulations to health care, but it's just not that simple, and people don't want what's a pretty damn good system taken away and a government plan shoved up their ass in its place. The people are speaking REALLY loudly about it, and yet, the liberal elite seem to know best. Some negotiations.

 

And again, thanks for sticking to your point. I don't mind seeing this as your point of view at all.

 

I've pointed out many times before, and have been ignored many times before, that this bill was merely a reform on insurance, but not the industry as a whole. Once again, the hospitals/doctors send the bills to the insurance companies, not the other way around. If you're not going to bother reforming hospitals and how costs are calculated, applied, and what have you, then reforming insurance will do nothing to lower the bills being sent. Therein lies the problem. While vilifying the insurance companies, and trust me in many ways they need to be, they've given a free pass to the rest of the industry, including pharma, doctors, hospitals, etc. In the end, this equates to insurance companies going out of business due to new restrictions/mandates while the bills they receive remain the same or higher. The government, in turn, would have to increase it's subsidies (and thus control), but it does nothing to save money. The money is just going to/coming from another place.

 

Congratulations, you've successfully saved people 3000$+ a year on insurance costs they no longer have to pay, while simultaneously raising their taxes 3000$+ in various ways so the government can subsidize the cost. In the end, the people gained nothing, the bills from the hospitals remained the same, the insurance companies disappear, and the government pays -- only the government can't just pay with magical fairy money fresh off the printing press, so your taxes increase, be it soda, liquor, coffee, water, sales, internet fees, taxes, they'll all be rising in order to cover this.

[BigSqwert]

I've pointed out many times before, and have been ignored many times before, that this bill was merely a reform on insurance, but not the industry as a whole. Once again, the hospitals/doctors send the bills to the insurance companies, not the other way around. If you're not going to bother reforming hospitals and how costs are calculated, applied, and what have you, then reforming insurance will do nothing to lower the bills being sent. Therein lies the problem. While vilifying the insurance companies, and trust me in many ways they need to be, they've given a free pass to the rest of the industry, including pharma, doctors, hospitals, etc. In the end, this equates to insurance companies going out of business due to new restrictions/mandates while the bills they receive remain the same or higher. The government, in turn, would have to increase it's subsidies (and thus control), but it does nothing to save money. The money is just going to/coming from another place.

 

Congratulations, you've successfully saved people 3000$+ a year on insurance costs they no longer have to pay, while simultaneously raising their taxes 3000$+ in various ways so the government can subsidize the cost. In the end, the people gained nothing, the bills from the hospitals remained the same, the insurance companies disappear, and the government pays -- only the government can't just pay with magical fairy money fresh off the printing press, so your taxes increase, be it soda, liquor, coffee, water, sales, internet fees, taxes, they'll all be rising in order to cover this.

 

How is that exactly?

[Y2HH]

How is that exactly?

 

If insurance companies start losing money because of new mandates placed on them, but the bills they're receiving from the hospitals are no lower (and they wont be) -- they'll be operating in the red, be it for profit or non profit -- thus they are forced to close down eventually. When they close down, someone has to pick up the tab, and here is where the government steps in, because who else is gonna pay it? Nobody? It's pretty simple, actually.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Y2HH

[kapkomet]

How is that exactly?

 

 

I know you all are looking at this through a prism that says they get a boondoggle by a mandate that people must get insurance. But, they're not going to get insurance like it is today, they're going to get an exchange based insurance program - which by definition in the bill insurance companies will lose money over time. Especially if they are taxed 40% because said programs are "cadillac plans"... which means they will be forced to offer programs that are not profitable. Oh, now there's that evil word. Keep in mind that "profits" for insurance companies are some of the lowest in industry by percentage, and would go much lower once the effects of the bill go into fruition - over time, to the point where they would just become Fannie and Freddie, which is the goal.

 

As has been said many many times, it's not that there needs to be reform, it's that there needs to be reform that doesn't eliminate the market over time, and that's what the (current) bills do.

[Balta1701]

One question for you folks...what benefit does it bring us to have private insurance companies?

[BigSqwert]

We can invest in them and hope they have a great bottom line.

[Balta1701]

We can invest in them and hope they have a great bottom line.

In all seriousness. What benefit do they bring? Do they increase efficiency or improve the quality of care at any point in the system?

[NorthSideSox72]

In all seriousness. What benefit do they bring? Do they increase efficiency or improve the quality of care at any point in the system?

Having non-government insurance companies means that the insurance value is increased, theoretically, because costs are controlled better, and private business tends to innovate and implement business better than government agencies (in general - not 100% of the time).

 

The PROBLEM they cause is, quite simply, you wreck the capitalist equation. This can be seen in many facets of the business, but there is a core business problem, and a resulting economic problem. The core business problem is that profitable insurance companies do not marry well with providing great health care - they work in opposition, at times. The economic problem is that consumer choice, and consumer behavior, are non-normal in an insured space.

 

[Balta1701]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, basically your argument is that costs should be controlled better in the case of private insurance, but that actually doesn't happen. Thus, we wind up with the situation where we currently are in; costs aren't controlled and health outcomes aren't improved.

[kapkomet]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, basically your argument is that costs should be controlled better in the case of private insurance, but that actually doesn't happen. Thus, we wind up with the situation where we currently are in; costs aren't controlled and health outcomes aren't improved.

 

Why is this? Hint: it's not about "profits".

[Balta1701]

Why is this? Hint: it's not about "profits".

I'm sure you're going to blame the government, but I'll bite, what's your answer?

[kapkomet]

I'm sure you're going to blame the government, but I'll bite, what's your answer?

 

 

Of course I am. Because it's true. How is the fee structures set up? How much regulation is tied to how they do it? What is the medicare usual and customary fee schedule for? How are reimbursement rates determined? What's the competetive value of regulation? What happens when you cannot offer a plan that has some scalability because of having to operate (at least) 50 companies within different states? Etc.

[NorthSideSox72]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, basically your argument is that costs should be controlled better in the case of private insurance, but that actually doesn't happen. Thus, we wind up with the situation where we currently are in; costs aren't controlled and health outcomes aren't improved.

Actually, I think they DO control costs pretty well in some ways, but not in others.

 

And yes, government regulations are part of the problem - but certainly not all of it, or even most of it, IMO. Plus, some of those regulations cost money but are still good to have.

 

[lostfan]

Kap, if the point is that you think that since the dems has 60 sens that they can't complain about anything, that's fine. I think it's stupid because it's completely ignoring very conservative senators. But the fact that just because they have sixty you can accuse them of not having tried to get some republican senators is really inane. They clearly did. They wasted 4 mos. doing it even when it was clear grassley would never vote on it, and even when he stated that yes, he did have an impact on that baucus bill that is so clearly the senate's bill at this point. They clearly tried to court snowe and collins, and snowe, who said she could commit to a triggered PO, is not even going to vote for a billl without any PO at all. And you want me to believe that no, the dems didn't reach out to the GOP at all. it's clearly false.

And in the climate change negotiations, when sens. like Graham and McCain who so clearly agreed with climate change legislation before now say they are adamently against it, you can again claim the democrats clearly never reached out to GOp. But there are two sides. And one side is committed to not even trying to legislate, and do whatever they can to reduce the senate to a halt. They've said as much. But yet you seem intent on pushing this memo that the dems are just pushing this radical leftist legislation, when the hard progressives have shown willing to compromise A LOT to pass something to help the situation. So yeah, I find your comments stupid, especially when you are pushing them in the dem thread.

I think all the talk about radicals trying to impose an agenda on the country is kind of hilarious actually because if you look at "THE LEFT" (ooooo scary omg) and what "THE LEFT" wants to happen, since Obama's been elected (hell you may as well go back to 2006) they haven't gotten a god damn thing that they've wanted, at least in the form they've wanted and with the expediency they've wanted, and they aren't going to get it, even if Obama gets re-elected. They know it, too. Which is why they're so pissed off, which I think they have every right to be, but I think where the blog commenters and such who rant so much are wrong is that they think if they elect a "real" progressive (like Obama is supposed to be) that that will change everything. It's as if 2008 taught them nothing, they should've learned that lesson in patience already.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think all the talk about radicals trying to impose an agenda on the country is kind of hilarious actually because if you look at "THE LEFT" (ooooo scary omg) and what "THE LEFT" wants to happen, since Obama's been elected (hell you may as well go back to 2006) they haven't gotten a god damn thing that they've wanted, at least in the form they've wanted and with the expediency they've wanted, and they aren't going to get it, even if Obama gets re-elected. They know it, too. Which is why they're so pissed off, which I think they have every right to be, but I think where the blog commenters and such who rant so much are wrong is that they think if they elect a "real" progressive (like Obama is supposed to be) that that will change everything. It's as if 2008 taught them nothing, they should've learned that lesson in patience already.

 

This is because the liberal system has no idea what to do. They're the better party at pointing a finger and saying "oh! oh! you messed up! you're awful! I can't believe you did that!" But when it comes down to actually coming up with a solution/answer, they have no unified goal. They have differing philosophies that the inner circle can't agree on. Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Obama - none of them want the same thing, and none agree with each other on the best solution to any problem. Hell, they can't even agree on what issue is most important at any given time.

 

As unintelligent as everyone wants to paint the Repubs, at least they have (generally, on important issues) a unified vision of their principles. They just have a hard time communicating that message to the masses.

[kapkomet]

This is because the liberal system has no idea what to do. They're the better party at pointing a finger and saying "oh! oh! you messed up! you're awful! I can't believe you did that!" But when it comes down to actually coming up with a solution/answer, they have no unified goal. They have differing philosophies that the inner circle can't agree on. Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Obama - none of them want the same thing, and none agree with each other on the best solution to any problem. Hell, they can't even agree on what issue is most important at any given time.

 

As unintelligent as everyone wants to paint the Repubs, at least they have (generally, on important issues) a unified vision of their principles. They just have a hard time communicating that message to the masses.

 

Exactly.

[GoSox05]

This is because the liberal system has no idea what to do. They're the better party at pointing a finger and saying "oh! oh! you messed up! you're awful! I can't believe you did that!" But when it comes down to actually coming up with a solution/answer, they have no unified goal. They have differing philosophies that the inner circle can't agree on. Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Obama - none of them want the same thing, and none agree with each other on the best solution to any problem. Hell, they can't even agree on what issue is most important at any given time.

 

As unintelligent as everyone wants to paint the Repubs, at least they have (generally, on important issues) a unified vision of their principles. They just have a hard time communicating that message to the masses.

 

 

The Democratic Party has no idea what to do. The left knows exactly what they want. The problem is that when people think of the Democratic party they think of the left. Which is wrong. I'd say 75% of the Democratic party is moderate or close to the middle

 

The left or progressives are just as mad at Obama and the Democratic party as the right is.

 

Thats why I find the whole "Obama is a socialist marxist" crap so funny. Go to the Socialist USA Party website and you won't find "I love Obama" shirts.

 

 

Same goes for the right. Most libertarians or objectivists aren't to happy with Republicans.

 

[bmags]

The left know exactly what to do, the problem is that senators with populations in total less than 1 million get to control what to do.

[Jenksismyhero]

The left know exactly what to do, the problem is that senators with populations in total less than 1 million get to control what to do.

 

If the party really had their s*** together those people would be squeezed out/given zero party support. But they don't.

 

On a similiar note, is this the Do Nothing Congress Part Duex? It's been over 3 years now, what exactly have they accomplished (that wasn't reactionary)?