This is why the Democrats cannot - will not - "negotiate"

[BoberFett]

Are you enraged to the point of violence with the Tea Party? I know that I am. I am terrified what these lunatics are doing to my retirement. How the hell did we reach the point where a handful of fucked up nutters can essentially hold the rest of the WORLD hostage? Make no mistake, what they are engaging in right now has mammoth international implications. Default on one payment, just one, and the recession of '08 will be eclipsed.... you are looking at a catastophe that could overwhelm even the Great Depression. And these shitheels are cheerleading it!!!!

I put this in another thread but it bears repeating...

LOL, Democrats.

 

[BoberFett]

Gonad,

Are you getting out of the market? I got my entire life savings in there and I am getting really effing nervous. I'm just not 100% convinved the assholes would actually pull the trigger and collapse the world economy. They have already succeeded in trimming my retirement accounts 5% in one week.

Wait a second, you have money in the stock market? That makes you a capitalist pig, and you deserve to be strung up.

 

[boomerang]

Wait a second, you have money in the stock market? That makes you a capitalist pig, and you deserve to be strung up.

I'm sure it's all invested "green".

 

[BoberFett]

Down with capitalists! They're affecting my portfolio!

 

[kage69]

They need some lessons in history.
The Texans lost at the Alamo, and were either killed or executed by the Mexican army and then had their bodies burned.
William Wallace lost at Falkirk, and was eventually captured and then executed by the British.

The TeaBagged, learning from history?


*catches breath*


Crackrabbit, you gotta can that lightning and save it for the stand up clubs! You're gonna slay'em!

 

[kage69]

From Gonad's linked article:

Indeed, the claim that Democrats “refuse to negotiate” is a lie by omission of the term “under threat.” There are 365 days in a year. Dems are willing to negotiate through about 335 of them. Republicans, only in the remaining 30 before default.

For weeks now I've been having a huge problem understanding how people can defend the House given the bolded portion above.

I keep hearing pubs sound indignant with the "This isn't a damn game" regarding this situation. I can't wait for them to start acting like they believe it.

 

[dainthomas]

Depends on what you mean by fail, I suppose. I'm of the opinion that Obamacare has two goals, the short term goal of providing access (via both subsidies and forcibly redrawing the risk-premium equation) and the long term goal of destroying the private insurance industry and moving everyone to a single payer government system. I don't see it outright failing, although obviously there will be winners and losers. Some people will be able to afford health insurance who previously could not, some people will find their health insurance suddenly much more expensive (though still within rough equivalency as to percentage of income.) Some who had crap insurance or no insurance through employers will find they now have better insurance, some will find they no longer have jobs. That's unavoidable; can't have major change without winners and losers.

It will no doubt run woefully over cost projections and have a lot of collateral damage, but that's only failure if you discount the long term goal. And it won't meet it's target goals in percentage insured - such programs always fail in that limited sense because they must assume a static model whereas in the real world behavior changes with risk and reward and punishment - but those failings will be addressed via administrative changes. Either way, most parts of it will have a constituency, people who value that particular part whether or not they support the entire bill. Thus I don't see it ever actually failing. Even federal programs that are miserable failures in meeting their nominal goals, such as the Department of Education or the Department of Energy or the War of Drugs, never really fail, they simply shift the goal posts. The Department of Education has been a miserable failure at improving educational results, so it does standardized tests so that even if education keeps getting worse, at least we can quantify the problem, and it identifies problem school districts and attempts to deal with them directly with funding or control. The Department of Energy has been a miserable failure at getting us off imported oil, but funds important research and manufacturing initiatives aimed at clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency. Like any entity, government programs must adapt or die, and I see no reason the ACA won't likewise adapt and find things people want done in place of things it cannot do. In fact, as much as I viscerally dislike the idea of moving health care to the federal government and especially to an un-elected bureaucracy, in some respects this will make it much easier to adapt. Consider the ADA - virtually every attempt to fix its problems utterly fails because so many powerful entities have wish lists and vested interests they wish addressed, so the bills typically get so bloated and controversial that even their sponsors won't have them. The ACA will have decisions made for political and/or ideological reasons, but it will also be much, much more easily amended to react to changing reality.

The long term goal is even harder to visualize failing. We've become a nation that expects high quality health care at someone else's expense - which is really just part of our overall entitlement mentality. We've also become a nation that increasingly shuns personal responsibility; when we have young people who do not believe Social Security will be there for them but also don't want the responsibility of managing their own retirement account, obviously individual health insurance is on its way out. (Although ironically I could just as easily make an argument FOR the ACA on this same basis, for breaking the employer-controlled health insurance equation and returning control to the individual.) This movement is probably irreversible, so there is little likelihood that the ACA will fail in this goal either, although obviously the exact form of socialized medicine has yet to be determined.

Excellent reply. For or against the ACA, we need to get away from employer sponsored health care and get people more invested in the actual cost of their care. I believe the ACA at least starts to do this, by allowing people to easily shop around (independent of their employer). This will hopefully drive costs down in the long run as these insurance companies compete more visibly with each other.

Or the whole thing will collapse and we end up with single payer.

 

[ivwshane]

Excellent reply. For or against the ACA, we need to get away from employer sponsored health care and get people more invested in the actual cost of their care. I believe the ACA at least starts to do this, by allowing people to easily shop around (independent of their employer). This will hopefully drive costs down in the long run as these insurance companies compete more visibly with each other.

Or the whole thing will collapse and we end up with single payer.

I agree 100% and I've been saying for a while now that employer provided health care is a bad idea. It stifles competition, competition between businesses competing for employees, it doesn't allow the market to adjust to consumer demands (there are more consumers than businesses therefore consumers have more power).

My idea for health cars reform is:
Decouple it from employers
One standardized billing system and medical record database
Single payer system with no insurance middleman (coverage is for preventative care, and catastrophic {like a broken leg - to cancer}, no elective surgeries are covered
Tax credits to businesses and individuals who are healthy or who promote a healthy work place (ie free gym membership)
A "truth in billing" law that requires doctors to bill honestly and transparently (ie 4 Tylenol shouldn't cost $60)
Tax credits to doctors for curing and not the treatment (curing cancer gets a tax break whereas just treating it doesn't)
The creation of government ran and funded medical schools (for the specific purpose of bringing competition to education market)
"Unhealthy" tax on bad consumables (ie junk food tax, cig tax, fried fast food)
Tax credits to food manufacturers who use healthy ingredients
And lastly more investment in curing problems rather than the treatment of problems

 

[Dannar26]

It seems to work for some countries, but I guess it's a matter of us finding our own way to it, huh? But I find it hard to dismiss all the broken eggs along the way...omelet or no. Seems to me most of those eggs will hail from the middle class.

The employer thing is pretty dumb. Really seems to screw people who don't want a traditional job, societal leaches non-withstanding. I'd love to see us get away from that...somehow...

But I'd love to see the outrageous costs of health care go first! After my wife gave birth to our son, she compared bills on a forum of other expecting mothers. Our final bill was vastly different from other mothers who pretty much had the same scenario (natural birth, no complications). Of course I'd expect a small variance, afterall no two births are completely alike, but varying by tens of thousands? Give me a break! Where's the accountability?

 

[Tom]

Over half of the elected representatives of the citizens of this country are Republicans (278) vs. only (254) Democrats. Why do you feel that the Democrats shouldn't have to negotiate when they are in the minority?

First of all they do negotiate.

Secondly, the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and they also represent the citizens.

Thirdly, the President is a Democrat and he has veto authority over legislation. He also represents the citizens.

So they all have to negotiate and they all do. What is happening here is one of the facets, that along with the other parts are responsible for running the system, is trying to force their agenda on the other facets or they will destroy the system.

And, btw, those 278 Republicans represent a minority of citizens, not a majority.

 

[monovillage]

First of all they do negotiate.

Secondly, the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and they also represent the citizens.

Thirdly, the President is a Democrat and he has veto authority over legislation. He also represents the citizens.

So they all have to negotiate and they all do. What is happening here is one of the facets, that along with the other parts are responsible for running the system, is trying to force their agenda on the other facets or they will destroy the system.

And, btw, those 278 Republicans represent a minority of citizens, not a majority.

Wrong, Obama has said he won't negotiate.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-calls-boehner-says-still-wont-negotiate-152530279.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/obama-calls-john-boehner_n_4064154.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-22/obama-says-he-won-t-negotiate-on-raising-debt-ceiling.html

 

[michal1980]

From Gonad's linked article:

Indeed, the claim that Democrats “refuse to negotiate” is a lie by omission of the term “under threat.” There are 365 days in a year. Dems are willing to negotiate through about 335 of them. Republicans, only in the remaining 30 before default.

For weeks now I've been have a huge problem understanding how people can defend the House given the bolded portion above.

I keep hearing pubs sound indignant with the "This isn't a damn game" regarding this situation. I can't wait for them to start acting like they believe it.

LOL democrats negotiate. Kind of like they did on Obamacare right? were they passed it in the middle of the night without reading it. without any republican votes.

Obama is more willing to talk to Iran about a possible nuke they are making, then to talk to fellow American's.

 

[ivwshane]

LOL democrats negotiate. Kind of like they did on Obamacare right? were they passed it in the middle of the night without reading it. without any republican votes.

Obama is more willing to talk to Iran about a possible nuke they are making, then to talk to fellow American's.

I dare you for one week to try and not use talking points in your post. My guess is that we wouldn't see you for a week.

 

[kage69]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...blicans_n_4069528.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

A brief yet succinct rundown from Stewart (with help from Boner) in video form so the GOTP apologists can grasp the situation a little better (sorry reading comprehension, you'll have to sit this one out).

I don't expect you all to develop the intellectual honesty needed to realize you'd probably be doing the same thing in Obama's shoes, but hopefully there can be enough realization involved to limit the number of posters trying to furiously polish that orange turd.

 

[kage69]

Obama is more willing to talk to Iran about a possible nuke they are making, then to talk to fellow American's.

This is a pathetically weak talking point cop out, even by your abysmal standards.

Sad stuff. You just double down on the monovillageidiots echoes with some of your own. It's nice to be proven right, sure, but I think I'd rather have you guys not embarrassing yourselves and cheerleading national risk if it's all the same to you.

 

[michal1980]

I dare you for one week to try and not use talking points in your post. My guess is that we wouldn't see you for a week.

I'd dare you to do the same, and not personally attack people.

We'd never see you.

 

[michal1980]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...blicans_n_4069528.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

A brief yet succinct rundown from Stewart (with help from Boner) in video form so the GOTP apologists can grasp the situation a little better (sorry reading comprehension, you'll have to sit this one out).

I don't expect you all to develop the intellectual honesty needed to realize you'd probably be doing the same thing in Obama's shoes, but hopefully there can be enough realization involved to limit the number of posters trying to furiously polish that orange turd.

a liberal comedian has problems with republicans. In other news water is wet.

 

[BlueWolf47]

The republican party has just broken gallups lowest recorded approval rating for any party since gallup first began polling. Congratulations!

[T]he Republican Party is now viewed favorably by 28% of Americans, down from 38% in September. This is the lowest favorable rating measured for either party since Gallup began asking this question in 1992.

http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politi...s-are-setting-new-records-unpopularity/70367/

 

[Bowfinger]

a liberal comedian has problems with republicans. In other news water is wet.

This is a typical example of one of the (many) reasons you are so totally useless. Not only are you incapable of refuting the specific, factual information provided, you are apparently incapable of even attempting to address it. Instead you wave your hands stupidly and pretend you can just wish it away.

 

[Bowfinger]

The republican party has just broken gallups lowest recorded approval rating for any party since gallup first began polling. Congratulations!



http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politi...s-are-setting-new-records-unpopularity/70367/

Pity the mid-terms are still a year away.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Pity the mid-terms are still a year away.

I don't think we'd be having this conversation if they were closer.

 

[dank69]

Pity the mid-terms are still a year away.

Yup, plenty of time for people to forget this ever happened. Reminding people about this incident during the 2014 campaigns will be characterized as mud-slinging.

 

[glenn1]

They won't yet, but like I said before give it time. Some people are too ignorant to understand the consequences of their ideology. If we do breach the debt ceiling I imagine this has a good chance of being part of the mad scramble to undo the damage.

Like I told you last night I hope it doesn't come to it but if it does, you'll learn.

So how's that Senate action coming along Eskimospy? Just give it a bit more time, eh?

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...an-by-reid-to-push-debt-limit-until-next-year

 

[Juddog]

The republican party has just broken gallups lowest recorded approval rating for any party since gallup first began polling. Congratulations!

http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politi...s-are-setting-new-records-unpopularity/70367/

Wow... you know it's gotta be bad when even the sheeple and Fox-faithful start to get annoyed with the teahadist antics. I was listening to an interview yesterday on the radio with a GOP house member and even she was expressing distaste with the way the tea party GOP house members were conducting business.

 

[werepossum]

Excellent reply. For or against the ACA, we need to get away from employer sponsored health care and get people more invested in the actual cost of their care. I believe the ACA at least starts to do this, by allowing people to easily shop around (independent of their employer). This will hopefully drive costs down in the long run as these insurance companies compete more visibly with each other.

Or the whole thing will collapse and we end up with single payer.

Thanks, and I agree, in the long run the only way we don't get single payer is with individually purchased health insurance.

I agree 100% and I've been saying for a while now that employer provided health care is a bad idea. It stifles competition, competition between businesses competing for employees, it doesn't allow the market to adjust to consumer demands (there are more consumers than businesses therefore consumers have more power).

My idea for health cars reform is:
Decouple it from employers
One standardized billing system and medical record database
Single payer system with no insurance middleman (coverage is for preventative care, and catastrophic {like a broken leg - to cancer}, no elective surgeries are covered
Tax credits to businesses and individuals who are healthy or who promote a healthy work place (ie free gym membership)
A "truth in billing" law that requires doctors to bill honestly and transparently (ie 4 Tylenol shouldn't cost $60)
Tax credits to doctors for curing and not the treatment (curing cancer gets a tax break whereas just treating it doesn't)
The creation of government ran and funded medical schools (for the specific purpose of bringing competition to education market)
"Unhealthy" tax on bad consumables (ie junk food tax, cig tax, fried fast food)
Tax credits to food manufacturers who use healthy ingredients
And lastly more investment in curing problems rather than the treatment of problems

Some good ideas there. One of the biggest market distortions in my opinion is the negotiating that goes on with huge insurance companies who have a need to have perceived value. They negotiate huge discounts and the health care providers then jack up the prices to make the discounted rates profitable (or break-even for not-for-profits and charities.) Thus the Tylenol that might cost the hospital $5 to put in your hand (including labor and burden) costs $60 so that the health insurance provider can negotiate it back down to $5. We'd be much better off were insurance companies limited to taking premiums and paying claims and health care providers had to charge everyone exactly the same.

It seems to work for some countries, but I guess it's a matter of us finding our own way to it, huh? But I find it hard to dismiss all the broken eggs along the way...omelet or no. Seems to me most of those eggs will hail from the middle class.

The employer thing is pretty dumb. Really seems to screw people who don't want a traditional job, societal leaches non-withstanding. I'd love to see us get away from that...somehow...

But I'd love to see the outrageous costs of health care go first! After my wife gave birth to our son, she compared bills on a forum of other expecting mothers. Our final bill was vastly different from other mothers who pretty much had the same scenario (natural birth, no complications). Of course I'd expect a small variance, afterall no two births are completely alike, but varying by tens of thousands? Give me a break! Where's the accountability?

Besides the factors mentioned above, the particular hospital's burden includes its percentage of non-paying clientele. This produces bizarre outcomes, so that a hospital in a high income area which does not have a lot of non-paying customers may well be significantly cheaper on a particular procedure. And I suspect that there's also a headless chicken factor applied. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY