Obamanation Re-election MegaThread

[Y2HH]

ER "health care" is only "health care" for certain limited definitions of health care, which was my point. ER's do not treat illnesses like cancer, HIV, mental illnesses, diabetes or anything else that requires routine check-ups and upkeep medication.

 

Some of this treatment can be covered via Medicaid, but there's limitations on qualifying for that (and funding issues).

 

So, are you claiming that middle class Americans without insurance that have these health issues are simply dying without treatment?

 

It's a yes or no question.

[StrangeSox]

So, are you claiming that middle class Americans without insurance that have these health issues are simply dying without treatment?

 

It's a yes or no question.

 

Sometimes. Or going bankrupt. Or not getting preventative care and screenings, leading to illnesses becoming much worse than they might have otherwise been, making them much more difficult to treat, increasing costs and risks.

 

And while it's great that there's some limited access in major metropolitan areas, the same isn't true everywhere. Have you seen the turnouts when groups like Doctors Without Borders hold an annual clinic in Appalachia?

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008...in-borders.html

[Y2HH]

Sometimes. Or going bankrupt. Or not getting preventative care and screenings, leading to illnesses becoming much worse than they might have otherwise been, making them much more difficult to treat, increasing costs and risks.

 

And while it's great that there's some limited access in major metropolitan areas, the same isn't true everywhere. Have you seen the turnouts when groups like Doctors Without Borders hold an annual clinic in Appalachia?

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008...in-borders.html

 

But, but...but...none of this matters anymore...didn't we just reform healthcare and fix everything?

[StrangeSox]

But, but...but...none of this matters anymore...didn't we just reform healthcare and fix everything?

 

It's true, I've never criticized PPACA as a s***ty band-aid before.

 

Instead of playing dumb and pretending that I've been some uncritical supporter of that, do you care to actually talk about the issue?

Edited June 20, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

And I'll edit one thing - I shouldn't say Stroger markets their cancer clinic as free. But it's part of Stroger and it works just like the hospital. If you walk in, regardless of your insurance situation, they treat you. They might try to get payment from Medicaid (which they'll happily assist you with applying for the program). But at the end of the day it's free because they don't collect. Hell, I had a situation where I had to inform Stroger that they were still owed payment.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Y2HH]

It's true, I've never criticized PPACA as a s***ty band-aid before.

 

Instead of playing dumb and pretending that I've been some uncritical supporter of that, do you care to actually talk about the issue?

 

This is merely a continuation of past conversations we've had on this very issue...and nothings changed since. I hold the same opinions I've always held on this matter...it's a broken system, and the "fix" they implemented wasn't a fix at all, it wasn't even a band-aid, as you previously stated...it's worse than that. A band-aid has an actual use when applied properly, such as covering a small cut...but this was akin to putting a bandaid over a hole in someones heart. It accomplished almost nothing. They attacked insurers and left the rest of the battle field untouched. Now, were the insurers abusing some rules? Absolutely, and a few simple fixes could have taken care of that...but meanwhile they still did nothing to fix the root of the problem, and that's the rising cost of care. In addition to creating new laws for insurance companies, they needed to create new laws to control some of the pricing of doctors/hospitals/mal practice insurance (but this isn't as bad as doctors like to make people believe), and drug companies.

 

So, what we have are some new rules to "insure" people, but nothing that controls costs on the back end.

 

With the money they're spending, they could have instituted a program where the government reimburses graduating medical students to help them pay down their loans, and in return, the students that take advantage of the program could owe medical service back to the people, not unlike military service in which they work at dedicated clinics for 4 years (or some other amount of time), in which the care they deliver is ultra low cost or free, and the wage they make is quite low. This could foster a culture of service to the people, while making the profession more affordable for new students to enter.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

They attacked insurers by mandating that every American become their customers.

[Y2HH]

They attacked insurers by mandating that every American become their customers.

 

I see how easy it is to believe that this has somehow made insurance companies rich, but it hasn't...those gains will be offset by the fact they can no longer cherry pick relatively healthy cliental.

[StrangeSox]

Sounds like a good argument for abolishing private health insurance, then.

[Y2HH]

Sounds like a good argument for abolishing private health insurance, then.

 

There are good arguments to be heard on both sides of that equation.

 

That said, if they "abolished" private health insurance, you'd probably create a depression overnight by adding about 10 million people to the unemployment line. Good luck with that.

[StrangeSox]

10 million people work in the private insurance industry? Jesus, what a waste of human effort and labor.

[Balta1701]

Of course, what's the other side of this issue that isn't being asked? Why do nations as a whole have health care systems? Why do they educate children? Is it out of the good of their hearts?

 

No. Of course the reason why you have those systems in the first place is that they enable the economy as a whole. A person sprains a wrist, they go to the doctor and can quickly resume working. A child spends 15 years in school and becomes a...get this...productive member of society.

 

So yes, there are costs to providing health care to people. But the reason why this argument failed in 1830 and the reason why it fails now...is that there are also benefits. A workforce can't get by solely based on wealthy investors founding hedge funds for their kids.

[Jenksismyhero]

Of course, what's the other side of this issue that isn't being asked? Why do nations as a whole have health care systems? Why do they educate children? Is it out of the good of their hearts?

 

No. Of course the reason why you have those systems in the first place is that they enable the economy as a whole. A person sprains a wrist, they go to the doctor and can quickly resume working. A child spends 15 years in school and becomes a...get this...productive member of society.

 

So yes, there are costs to providing health care to people. But the reason why this argument failed in 1830 and the reason why it fails now...is that there are also benefits. A workforce can't get by solely based on wealthy investors founding hedge funds for their kids.

 

I think there's a good argument that workers' compensation has basically killed this "productive workforce" argument.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/star-p...ard_648688.html

 

You'd think the people that did the commercial would have asked him "so, what do you think about Obama" before airing this thing.

 

 

[farmteam]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/star-p...ard_648688.html

 

You'd think the people that did the commercial would have asked him "so, what do you think about Obama" before airing this thing.

 

But that would make too much sense.

[StrangeSox]

FWIW the WS doesn't exactly give a completely accurate picture of Box's objections. If you click through to the original story, Box seems to be expressing the sentiment that Obama hasn't been liberal enough, a sentiment shared by myself and BS.

 

On another note,

by the Obama campaign is exceptionally well-done.

 

Edited July 18, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

FWIW the WS doesn't exactly give a completely accurate picture of Box's objections. If you click through to the original story, Box seems to be expressing the sentiment that Obama hasn't been liberal enough, a sentiment shared by myself and BS.

 

On another note,

by the Obama campaign is exceptionally well-done.

 

 

Because I'm sure the Obama's invest only in American companies...

[StrangeSox]

Regardless of whether you agree with him politically or not, from a technical standpoint (for lack of a better word), that ad is several notches above your typical political ad. You can appreciate a skilled polemicist even if you ultimately disagree with their message.

 

As for the merit, "I was a Successful Business Man" is Romney's entire campaign. Of course his tenure at Bain is going to be brought up as it is his main qualification. Romney really was incredibly successful at Bain; he made an awful lot of money for himself and investors, which isn't inherently wrong or evil. But this ad is a response to his ongoing refusal to release his tax returns and then the discrepancies between what he told elections officials in Mass in 2002, what SEC filings said and what he's told the public for the last several years. For some reason, his campaign had no plan at all on how to address this, so they've been left reeling since, demanding apologies and retroactively retiring.

 

As I see it (and this is borrowed from a compilation of others' thoughts), Romney doesn't exactly have a good way out of this. Even if he left Bain and was CEO in name only, he was still receiving a $100k salary for doing nothing which won't sit well and he was still President and sole stockholder. He still retained as much control over the company as he wanted and profited immensely from the work Bain did between '99 and '02. He still is responsible for the people he picked to run his company and for the culture that existed prior to his departure that enabled those deals to continue. He cannot simultaneously claim to have the Business Man experience while shirking all responsibility for what that experience entailed. The buck still stopped in Romney's bank accounts at the end of the day.

 

Now, an ideologically consistent way out of this would be to mount a robust defense of the 'destructive capitalism' that Bain and other companies engaged in. But so far they aren't doing that, and the deeper they keep digging the hole they're in, the faster they close off that line of defense. Who knows if a strong defense of financial capitalism would really resonate with a public who's still suffering from the financial collapse and is seeing more and more banking scandals, but at least it would give them a shot and wouldn't look as weak as they do now. They needed to have a strong answer for this in place months ago, and its baffling that they seem caught so unprepared.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Regardless of whether you agree with him politically or not, from a technical standpoint (for lack of a better word), that ad is several notches above your typical political ad. You can appreciate a skilled polemicist even if you ultimately disagree with their message.

 

As for the merit, "I was a Successful Business Man" is Romney's entire campaign. Of course his tenure at Bain is going to be brought up as it is his main qualification. Romney really was incredibly successful at Bain; he made an awful lot of money for himself and investors, which isn't inherently wrong or evil. But this ad is a response to his ongoing refusal to release his tax returns and then the discrepancies between what he told elections officials in Mass in 2002, what SEC filings said and what he's told the public for the last several years. For some reason, his campaign had no plan at all on how to address this, so they've been left reeling since, demanding apologies and retroactively retiring.

 

As I see it (and this is borrowed from a compilation of others' thoughts), Romney doesn't exactly have a good way out of this. Even if he left Bain and was CEO in name only, he was still receiving a $100k salary for doing nothing which won't sit well and he was still President and sole stockholder. He still retained as much control over the company as he wanted and profited immensely from the work Bain did between '99 and '02. He still is responsible for the people he picked to run his company and for the culture that existed prior to his departure that enabled those deals to continue. He cannot simultaneously claim to have the Business Man experience while shirking all responsibility for what that experience entailed. The buck still stopped in Romney's bank accounts at the end of the day.

 

Now, an ideologically consistent way out of this would be to mount a robust defense of the 'destructive capitalism' that Bain and other companies engaged in. But so far they aren't doing that, and the deeper they keep digging the hole they're in, the faster they close off that line of defense. Who knows if a strong defense of financial capitalism would really resonate with a public who's still suffering from the financial collapse and is seeing more and more banking scandals, but at least it would give them a shot and wouldn't look as weak as they do now. They needed to have a strong answer for this in place months ago, and its baffling that they seem caught so unprepared.

 

No, I agree, it's an effective ad. And it's well done. But i think the GOP could respond to it pretty easily by pointing out the investments the Obamas have made overseas, or even his administration's bailout of non-American companies as part of the stimulus (i'm sure that'll be brought up later as well). You can't on the one hand praise globalization and then fault a guy for utilizing the benefits of globalization.

 

And yes, Romney is in a tough spot and i've been less than satisfied with his "answer" about his involvement with Bain in 2002. But if he was CEO in name only, even drawing a decent salary, who cares? I see nothing wrong with that. At least he was the guy that started the company and took the risk of opening the doors.

[Y2HH]

No, I agree, it's an effective ad. And it's well done. But i think the GOP could respond to it pretty easily by pointing out the investments the Obamas have made overseas, or even his administration's bailout of non-American companies as part of the stimulus (i'm sure that'll be brought up later as well). You can't on the one hand praise globalization and then fault a guy for utilizing the benefits of globalization.

 

And yes, Romney is in a tough spot and i've been less than satisfied with his "answer" about his involvement with Bain in 2002. But if he was CEO in name only, even drawing a decent salary, who cares? I see nothing wrong with that. At least he was the guy that started the company and took the risk of opening the doors.

 

Just point to Obama appointing Jeffrey Immelt (CEO of GE) to the post of how to create American jobs, all the while GE has been out sourceing American jobs in droves.

 

From Wiki:

Obama administration

 

In February 2009, Immelt was appointed as a member to the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board to provide the president and his administration with advice and counsel in fixing America's economic downturn.[14] When President Obama chose to put Jeffrey Immelt at the head of the Economic Advisory Board, he felt that Immelt had attributions in knowing what would help the global economy. Obama has reported that Immelt has emerged as one of his top economic advisors in regards to trying to rebuild America's economy.[15]

 

On January 21, 2011, President Obama announced Immelt's appointment as chairman of his outside panel of economic advisers, succeeding former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.[16] The New York Times reported that Obama's appointment of Immelt was "another strong signal that he intends to make the White House more business-friendly."[16] Immelt will retain his post at G.E. while becoming "chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a newly named panel that President Obama is creating by executive order."[16] Despite this, in July 2011 Immelt's General Electric announced that it is in the process of relocating its X-ray division from Wisconsin to China.[17][18] Immelt had previously referred to China as GE's "second home market".[19]

[StrangeSox]

I don't think that response would really address the issue either from a practical standpoint or a politics standpoint.

 

Let's start with the politics side because that's an easier case for me to make. As you've agreed, that's a powerful ad. Romney's role at Bain, Bain's role in outsourcing American jobs and Romney's continued refusal to release his tax returns coupled with his offshore banking accounts are all tied into this short ad. Responding with "but Obama has foreign investments too!" isn't going to counter that; sure, it'll give something for the pundit class to write and talk about, but that sort of response is usually received as petty whining (the Democrats are pros at these sorts of terrible responses and constantly being on the defensive). The political response needed to be quick and effective burying the concerns or effectively deflecting them back on Obama, and tu quoque rarely works for that. Pointing out that the stimulus had some funds going to non-American companies might work a little better and in a stand-alone context could be a minor point, but it still doesn't get to the heart of the issue, which leads me to the practical point.

 

Romney's primary positive attribute in this campaign is his business experience. He knows how to create jobs because he did it in the private sector, or so the rhetoric goes. And in the process of creating these jobs he touts in his speeches and on his website, he made himself and a few others incredibly wealthy. In that process, Bain also closed a lot of companies and put a lot of people out of work; their business model is premised on generating returns for investors, not on creating jobs. What his role was at Bain and how he made money is certainly a legitimate question given what Romney is running on.

 

For a while now, Romney has distanced himself from Bain after '99 because that it when the outsourcing and the acquire-and-close really started to pick up. But now we know different. He remained CEO and sole owner until 2002. He was paid well, twice the income of the average family, for essentially nothing if his claims are accurate; he already has "wealthy banker" image problems, and that will not help. It also fails to address the inconsistency in his statements and the filings. However, even if he truly was CEO "in name only," he still bears responsibility for the actions of Bain. He still maintained control, he still could hire and fire as he pleased, he still profited immensely. Romney had still created the culture at Bain and picked the replacements who took over for him. Pointing out that Obama has some foreign investments or foreign income completely misses the point. Obama is not running as Investor-in-Chief. Whatever foreign companies he may be invested in are not central to his platform or his message. He's never been in direct control of a company that was actively outsourcing American jobs.

 

If the message is "jobs jobs jobs" this year, then Romney needs to answer directly for what happened to companies under Bain through 2002 until he was no longer the sole shareholder, CEO and President. Responding by pointing to Obama's foreign income from book sales looks like a weak flail.

 

eta: crosspost with Y2HH but it's essentially the same thing. Pointing out that Obama appointed the guy from GE still doesn't address Romney's role at Bain or why he won't release his tax returns. Politically, if Romney wants "job creator" to be the headline on his resume, he needs to be able to explain the profits generated by outsourcing under his watch.

Edited July 18, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

eta: crosspost with Y2HH but it's essentially the same thing. Pointing out that Obama appointed the guy from GE still doesn't address Romney's role at Bain or why he won't release his tax returns. Politically, if Romney wants "job creator" to be the headline on his resume, he needs to be able to explain the profits generated by outsourcing under his watch.

 

Actually, all Romney needs to do is spend tons of money advertising he created jobs, even if he didn't. It doesn't matter if these ads are true or not...they can be distorted truths to the point the become lies, and if you spend enough money, and keep telling some variation of the same lies, people will believe them.

 

Since there really are no laws/rules governing political ads...why bother with the truth at all? Just create a bunch of commercials showing Obama is the single person responsible for job losses...even if it's not true...because congress is more responsible for such things than a president could ever be.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think that response would really address the issue either from a practical standpoint or a politics standpoint.

 

Let's start with the politics side because that's an easier case for me to make. As you've agreed, that's a powerful ad. Romney's role at Bain, Bain's role in outsourcing American jobs and Romney's continued refusal to release his tax returns coupled with his offshore banking accounts are all tied into this short ad. Responding with "but Obama has foreign investments too!" isn't going to counter that; sure, it'll give something for the pundit class to write and talk about, but that sort of response is usually received as petty whining (the Democrats are pros at these sorts of terrible responses and constantly being on the defensive). The political response needed to be quick and effective burying the concerns or effectively deflecting them back on Obama, and tu quoque rarely works for that. Pointing out that the stimulus had some funds going to non-American companies might work a little better and in a stand-alone context could be a minor point, but it still doesn't get to the heart of the issue, which leads me to the practical point.

 

Romney's primary positive attribute in this campaign is his business experience. He knows how to create jobs because he did it in the private sector, or so the rhetoric goes. And in the process of creating these jobs he touts in his speeches and on his website, he made himself and a few others incredibly wealthy. In that process, Bain also closed a lot of companies and put a lot of people out of work; their business model is premised on generating returns for investors, not on creating jobs. What his role was at Bain and how he made money is certainly a legitimate question given what Romney is running on.

 

For a while now, Romney has distanced himself from Bain after '99 because that it when the outsourcing and the acquire-and-close really started to pick up. But now we know different. He remained CEO and sole owner until 2002. He was paid well, twice the income of the average family, for essentially nothing if his claims are accurate; he already has "wealthy banker" image problems, and that will not help. It also fails to address the inconsistency in his statements and the filings. However, even if he truly was CEO "in name only," he still bears responsibility for the actions of Bain. He still maintained control, he still could hire and fire as he pleased, he still profited immensely. Romney had still created the culture at Bain and picked the replacements who took over for him. Pointing out that Obama has some foreign investments or foreign income completely misses the point. Obama is not running as Investor-in-Chief. Whatever foreign companies he may be invested in are not central to his platform or his message. He's never been in direct control of a company that was actively outsourcing American jobs.

 

If the message is "jobs jobs jobs" this year, then Romney needs to answer directly for what happened to companies under Bain through 2002 until he was no longer the sole shareholder, CEO and President. Responding by pointing to Obama's foreign income from book sales looks like a weak flail.

 

eta: crosspost with Y2HH but it's essentially the same thing. Pointing out that Obama appointed the guy from GE still doesn't address Romney's role at Bain or why he won't release his tax returns. Politically, if Romney wants "job creator" to be the headline on his resume, he needs to be able to explain the profits generated by outsourcing under his watch.

 

No, he's just been in charge of the country that isn't creating jobs. That's the counter Romney's campaign has hit pretty well. Instead of relying on his community activist experience as a reason why he'd be a good President, we've now had 3 years of him as President as a reason why he's not a good President. I guess I don't see some great advantage to this Romney/Bain thing. It's too complicated for the average voter to care about, so they're not going to care. We're talking about two very rich guys acting as though they understand the plight of an average American.

 

[Rex Kickass]

No, he's just been in charge of the country that isn't creating jobs. That's the counter Romney's campaign has hit pretty well. Instead of relying on his community activist experience as a reason why he'd be a good President, we've now had 3 years of him as President as a reason why he's not a good President. I guess I don't see some great advantage to this Romney/Bain thing. It's too complicated for the average voter to care about, so they're not going to care. We're talking about two very rich guys acting as though they understand the plight of an average American.

 

How much control of that he has is, of course, debatable. However, the private sector has been growing jobs for over 2 years consecutively, adding over 4 million jobs since the moment where job growth bottomed out. That's more than the private sector job growth seen during both Bush 41 and Bush 43 combined.

[StrangeSox]

No, he's just been in charge of the country that isn't creating jobs. That's the counter Romney's campaign has hit pretty well. Instead of relying on his community activist experience as a reason why he'd be a good President, we've now had 3 years of him as President as a reason why he's not a good President. I guess I don't see some great advantage to this Romney/Bain thing. It's too complicated for the average voter to care about, so they're not going to care. We're talking about two very rich guys acting as though they understand the plight of an average American.

 

"Romney made hundreds of millions which he's stashed in foreign countries to avoid taxes from outsourcing American jobs" isn't very complicated. For whatever it's worth, Nate Silver is essentially agreeing with you that this shouldn't move polls all that much, but he believes that Romney's response has only made things worse and that he'll be watching the polls for the next several weeks to see if anything shows up.

 

I find a little bit of irony in labeling Obama as an out-of-touch rich guy considering that many on the fever-swamp right still lambaste him for being a community organizer and never having a "real job." The sitting President is definitely not in touch with the 'average Joe' once they're in office, but Obama does have a background of working directly with low-income Americans.