Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Taibbi on Healthcare reform
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
note1



Joined: 10 Jul 2002
Posts: 1260
Location: providence
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

Democrats are too scared to push a public option for fear of being labeled socialist and being voted out of office because of it, instead of rationally explaining the benefits of such a plan. It's pathetic.



yeah there may be a bit of this...i think it has more to do with what the actually believe and who they actually serve. Fire up the left to get elected, then work like hell for the status quo. It's kinda like the Repubs and their god talk...it's mostly just useful in getting elected.

PS I'm glad to see you still have hope redball really I am, but think the horse is out of the barn on this one.

Futur---yes the preexisting conditions thing would be some solace.....I'll believe it when I see it.
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19374
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Except the republicans actually make laws based on their god talk. The Dems don't make laws based upon their fringe base.
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:04 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
note1



Joined: 10 Jul 2002
Posts: 1260
Location: providence
 Reply with quote  

I bet if you asked the average right leaning religious person about that, they would feel the opposite is true. That's it's scary secular liberals pushing their agenda, and they're the ones under attack. It's quite a trick, but you can feel disenfranchised even when your not.
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:10 am
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

note1 wrote:
I'm glad to see you still have hope redball really I am, but think the horse is out of the barn on this one.


You still don't get it. I'm not saying there's hope for what progressives have deemed to be the only answer. I'm saying that there's still plenty of room left to make positive substantive reforms to the system... if only we could get past this one fucking thing.

Also, of course, that "the horse is out of the barn" means that you've given up. So if you just don't fucking care anymore then a) shut the fuck up; b) accept that by simply giving up you are part of the problem; c) get fucking mad and tell them. Show even half the passion of those old crazy fucks at the town halls any you may make some headway.


Quote:

Futur---yes the preexisting conditions thing would be some solace.....I'll believe it when I see it.


Futuristxen listed a few alternatives that we could explore to start to fix things. Taibbi basically hinted at other ways that we could reduce costs [re: filing costs], yet he was too densely focused on a reform that Obama said wouldn't happen BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED, and another was clearly dead in the water from the very beginning of this process. So he didn't stop to think that maybe we could make standard forms for the industry so that hospitals, doctors offices, labs, etc. could reduce their overhead. No one is thinking about this, and few people are fighting strongly for the type of reforms that Futur mentioned, because the entire issue hinges on one fucking topic right now.
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:01 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

There are other issues with fighting for a public option, too. The assumption is that even a public option based on market rates would be somewhat cheaper. That isn't necessarily likely. For instance, what if we cut all those highly compensated executives out of it? It so happens that FactCheck explored this earlier this year:


Quote:

Those figures are for 10 of the largest publicly traded companies in 2007. HCAN lists the profit and pay numbers in a report, and we verified that the figures were correct by checking the companies’ filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. But while the ad claims the “CEO bonuses” totaled $119 million, HCAN’s own report says that amount was for “total compensation,” not just bonuses (see page 8). Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending.


http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/pushing-for-a-public-plan/

So, based on that if we cut out the profit incentive and the executive compensation, we would save a whopping 0.6% on our premiums. Hooray! Thus, we have to run a money losing operation in order for this to be a success. Yet, by not swaying on the public option issue we've set ourselves up for the inevitable: We'll get a public option that merely competes with private insurance. We'll get that because all of the people who don't know what the public option is, will figure that it's whatever we get with that name. It's a way for Democrats to win on both sides. The only upside is that if we get a public option like this we're likely to have no issues funding it. Hell, it may even make money.

As for the bureaucracy that Taibbi says is costing so much: What makes us think that even a single payer system would necessarily be cheaper in that respect? Surely a public option wouldn't have any significant advantage. Government run operations tend to have more bureaucracy than private. As he said, it wouldn't fix the other side either. One could argue that single payer isn't likely to do so either, especially if one is familiar with other kinds of government filings. I would disagree in the end, but it's an argument to be had. Of course, as I said before, we could fix this without either of these via regulations. So this is savings that can be had without government run health care and is thus a non-issue.

Again, I challenge you: Fight this on its merits. If you can't get a public option then demand other, similarly substantive reforms. Don't give up.
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:31 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
note1



Joined: 10 Jul 2002
Posts: 1260
Location: providence
 Reply with quote  

I guess I don't get it then.


Quote:

Also, of course, that "the horse is out of the barn" means that you've given up. So if you just don't fucking care anymore then a) shut the fuck up; b) accept that by simply giving up you are part of the problem; c) get fucking mad and tell them.


Actually I don't think i'm part of the problem..and I don't think it's worthless to be pointing out how pointless and clusterfucked this whole debate has been.


Quote:

I'm saying that there's still plenty of room left to make positive substantive reforms to the system... if only we could get past this one fucking thing.



Good luck with that. No seriously...good luck getting them into the debate. Good luck getting anyone to see them as a political victory. Good luck campaigning in 2012 with those changes. They could very well help tons of people and still be seen as a negative.

Edit...i was really just trying to predict how all this would play out politically. I stand by my prediction that this is a clusterfuck no matter what reforms are actually achieved.
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:40 am
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

And it's been a clusterfuck because of the logic that you show in your posts. Chicken or egg?

Edit: Here's another good Nate Silver opinion.

Also, I'd like to mention that this is the exact same moody up-and-down crap that so many so-called democrats played with respect to Obama's campaign. Why do you constantly lose faith in his tactics? I won't defend his opinions or ethics, but the man has been pretty damned good as a tactician and has made his doubters look like idiots time and time again.
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:45 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Joshua Kane



Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 670
Location: Carlsbad, CA
 Reply with quote  

redball wrote:
And it's been a clusterfuck because of the logic that you show in your posts. Chicken or egg?

Edit: Here's another good Nate Silver opinion.

Also, I'd like to mention that this is the exact same moody up-and-down crap that so many so-called democrats played with respect to Obama's campaign. Why do you constantly lose faith in his tactics? I won't defend his opinions or ethics, but the man has been pretty damned good as a tactician and has made his doubters look like idiots time and time again.


Actually, Obama's 'tactics' (which have indeed been lilly-livered) have allowed Wall Street insiders to play Obama like a fiddle; if you think the last financial crisis was scary, wait til the next one, which is guaranteed on-the-way since Obama left the rewriting of financial reforms to the same cabal that fucked shit up to begin with (i.e. Goldman and its many lackeys). Sound familiar? Listen redball, I have no problem with your points over the public option and liberal citizen strategies; i.e. liberals don't study the issues well, but have very defined opinions, so either get what they think they want (which they actually don't), or just give up cause they kinda don't get it and don't want to admit it, or some other such ego-based moralistic liberal bullshit.

However, this healthcare debacle started an ends with Obama - his strategy, not the strategy of the liberal electorate who hired him. We hired Obama to have a backbone, to present a vision of change, and then push for it until the lobbying logjam breaks and his vision (or something close to it) is brought to fruition. Is this what Obama has done with the stimulus? With financial reforms? With healthcare? No, no, no, god fucken damn it, no.

SO Obama ain't doing the job the electorate hired him to do. His confused and rushed push for healthcare has now turned into a debacle, which threatens the entire liberal movement that put him in power. We hired a lilly-livered fucker! I think we may have made a mistake. Its not quite time to begin discussing where the left moves from here, what strategies to take given Obama's inability to break the lobbying logjam, but its already gettin time. And that is disappointing, very disappointing, period.

I'd have alot more respect for Obama's first year if he had provided a clear and articulate vision regarding the initial issues he chose to tackle, even if he had failed. Rather than leaving policy up to the same old cast of characters, and then failing anyway, in fact, failing precisely because of that. We voted for change, and we're getting politics as usual.
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:46 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

You bought the sizzle, not the steak. Obama is doing what he promised, or what he promised if you read between the lines. You're upset that he isn't living up to a couple of campaign slogans.

Lets see what he says tonight. He still has a great opportunity to flip shit and proclaim the process in Congress to be failed, and that he'll take the work that they've done but present his own plan instead. If he tries to sell us on a specific version, especially the gang of six one, then we should accept what gains we can and rally against losses.

I believe the strategy advocated here is too close to the one that was an abject failure for Clinton.
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:05 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Joshua Kane



Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 670
Location: Carlsbad, CA
 Reply with quote  

redball wrote:
You bought the sizzle, not the steak. Obama is doing what he promised, or what he promised if you read between the lines. You're upset that he isn't living up to a couple of campaign slogans.

Lets see what he says tonight. He still has a great opportunity to flip shit and proclaim the process in Congress to be failed, and that he'll take the work that they've done but present his own plan instead. If he tries to sell us on a specific version, especially the gang of six one, then we should accept what gains we can and rally against losses.

I believe the strategy advocated here is too close to the one that was an abject failure for Clinton.


Ok, I'm upset about alot more than failed campaign slogans, I'm upset about failed policy, or what will surely be failed financial reform policy in the future, but I digress. I agree Obama could salvage this, we'll see. I've said it once, I'll say it 1000 times, what happened with Obama in '08 was special beyond the Clinton experience. In fact, part of what makes Obama's moment more momentous is the lateness and lack of movement on these issues since Hillary failed.

So Obama to begin with had far more political capital to marshal towards a clear goal than Hillary ever did; then beyond that, time is getting late for America, time is getting late for the left, time is getting late for the world. The time is far too late for lily-livered-ness. Obama needs to become the leader we hired him to be, and he needs to do this now, on healthcare, tonight. We'll see...
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:14 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

You knew when he backed TARP that real financial reform was not in the books. Be glad we don't have McCain or Clinton in office, either one of them would probably be making things worse right now. I say this without really being against TARP, but that is a different debate.

I'm done for now. We'll see what happens tonight.

ps. Could you find a different adjective by then?
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:18 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Joshua Kane



Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 670
Location: Carlsbad, CA
 Reply with quote  

redball wrote:

I'm done for now. We'll see what happens tonight.

ps. Could you find a different adjective by then?


Prolly not.

Edit: I like this reply better -

I could, but I likely won't.
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
sandman00000



Joined: 13 Jul 2002
Posts: 111
Location: Providence
 Reply with quote  

What is the problem with our health care system that requires overhaulinjg/dramatic reform?

One problem is those without insurance obviously. What about those with insurance? Do those insurance policies need reform?

What else is wrong?
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:52 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Stumbleweed



Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 9740
Location: Denver
 Reply with quote  

sandman00000 wrote:
What is the problem with our health care system that requires overhaulinjg/dramatic reform?

One problem is those without insurance obviously. What about those with insurance? Do those insurance policies need reform?

What else is wrong?

$300 million per year wasted on nothing but unnecessary paperwork, denying people coverage based on pre-existing conditions, not having a cap on the total amount paid out of pocket per year, coverage is too expensive for both employers and employees, doctors and pharmacies are rewarded for more prescriptions, tests, and procedures instead of for economizing/streamlining the process, patients rarely see the actual doctor for more than 10 minutes and always get referred separately for a specialist at additional cost, tests aren't shared well between doctors and specialists, studies have shown that more frequent care (i.e. what is encouraged by our current system) doesn't actually yield better health outcomes for patients and much of it is completely unnecessary... I can go on.
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Joshua Kane



Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 670
Location: Carlsbad, CA
 Reply with quote  

GrantherBirdly wrote:
...As our healthcare system is sick and gangrenous to the core, only a solution that treats it holistically (i.e., reforms it fundamentally) can hope to cure it. Which is to say, meaningful reform would have to drastically realign incentives...


I was thinking about this, and what I was thinking was this: The Obama experience thus far suggests the above idea should be applied to the entire US Government. How though? My own personal hero this month is Larry Flynt, and I quote:

"I'm calling for a national strike, one designed to close the country down for a day. The intent? Real campaign-finance reform and strong restrictions on lobbying. Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics. Nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful. Let's set a date. No one goes to work. No one buys anything. And if that isn't effective -- if the politicians ignore us -- we do it again. And again. And again."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/common-sense-2009_b_264706.html
Post Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:05 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon