I am 45 and I work with and am somewhat influential with smart, younger people (25-30), most of who voted for Obama. To them “socialist”, “big government” and “european model” are not a scary thing. What would you say to someone who is not a dyed in the wool anti-capitalist, but who has been to Europe on vacation and has seen a very pleasant place and is also influenced by the pressure of not wanting to disappoint or appear unsophisticated to the leftwing european friends they visit.

How would you answer Kristof’s “Wrong Side of History” piece in the 11/18 NYT? If Medicare, Social Security and similar past advances of the welfare state didn’t do us in, why should anyone believe this one (healthcare takeover) will be the one that kills our economy? Are we suffering from a “boy who cried socialism” effect from past protestations?

When push comes to shove next year with state budgets, are we more likely to see the end of entitlements in the crisis states like California and New York, or Federal bailouts? What do think would be the consequences of either?

Why is Huron_Stupidity still allowed to post here?

Where the hell has the Q&A thread been, especially considering that even though it gets less response than it used to, it still gets more responses than the majority of the posts?

Is fuel efficiency for our vehicles a matter of national security?

What are your picks for the NFL playoffs this year?

“why should anyone believe this one (healthcare takeover) will be the one that kills our economy?”

Our economy is nearly dead already, look around. Socialism lasts until you run out of other people’s money and we’ve run out. We’re $12 trillion in debt. 60% and climbing of the Federal budget is entitlement payouts. 20% of the US workforce is unproductive or underproductive. The Baby Boomer population bubble is going to begin hitting age 65 next year.

This economic crisis wasn’t a housing bubble or a credit bubble. It was an entitlement bubble. People aren’t going broke paying for their health care, they’re going broke paying for other people’s health care. The states are going broke and what makes up about half of their budgets? Entitlements, especially state Medicaid.

Adding a new trillion dollar entitlement is an act of lunacy. Borrow another $1000 from every one of the billion people in China so *most*(it’s not even universal) lazy fat Americans can get free health care? And we wonder why the world hates us?

What are your picks for the top winter movies to see?

My suggestion is “Ninja Assasin”.

Why does the Republican Party have “death panels” as part of its employees health insurance?

Are Manny Pacquiao and Anderson Silva the best fighters in the entire world?

If the republicans take the House next year, do you think that Obama will moderate and work with republicans, like Clinton, and have a shot at reelection at 2012; or he is just too liberal for that and will continue with his policies, risking defeat at 2012?

Is Sarah Palin running for President in 2012?

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 15:39:28

Unsure of your statement that she is Nixon sees.

Have you noticed an explosion of animosity amongst liberals towards the concept of Senatorial representational equality for the states? Could you explain to all the confused liberal journalists, bloggers, and TV pundits out there why our Constitution gives 2 Senators to each state, regardless of population? They keep citing the fact that a low population state like Nebraska has the potential to supercede the political will of a high populaton state like California, as if this were some sort of Constitutional flaw or accident.

As the decade is winding down, how about your Top Three Of The Double-Aughts for the following categories?

Movies
Music (albums or individual songs)
Books

Having proven yourself over the last few election cycles to be a better-than-average political handicapper, how many seats do you think the GOP will pick up next year in the House and Senate?

Would you say the Tea Party movement leans more conservative or libertarian?

How many women more are going to die from breast cancer now that the Obama Administration has encouraged fewer mammograms?

Most conservatives seem fairly certain that the GOP will pick up seats in the House next year, but to me the more important question is this: Will many, if any, incumbent RINO’s in reliably rightwing districts be replaced by true conservatives in the GOP primaries next year? It is notoriously difficult to replace lame incumbents, but I think if it can’t be done in this political environment, then it can’t be done. Do you think it will happen? Do you have your eye on any particular races?

Is Hillary going to pull off some kind of machination for 2012 or do you think she’s accepted the fact that her Presidential ambitions are dead?

They keep citing the fact that a low population state like Nebraska has the potential to supercede the political will of a high populaton state like California, as if this were some sort of Constitutional flaw or accident.
Posted by President_Friedman
2009-11-19 15:49:40

They are simply political opportunists. That formula might work for them now, but it sure doesnt when you start asking poeple about gay marriage.

How many women more are going to die from breast cancer now that the Obama Administration has encouraged fewer mammograms?

Posted by Mike_M
2009-11-19 16:04:45

Mike,

The Obama administration has done nothing of the kind, why do you feel the need to lie?

Why does the right feel the need to scare the crap out of people dishonestly in order to make their political points?

Is Tony Romo over-rated just because the media has a desparate need for a Dallas QB to succeed?

Why does the right feel the need to scare the crap out of people dishonestly in order to make their political points?

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 16:41:58

D-Vega,

That is the only way they know how to lead, their ideas are old and expired, they have nothing left.

What if the Republicans lose more seats in the House & Senate next year?

Please describe, in detail, with dialouge, your version of a vampire fight between Blade and Edward Cullen.

Are video games a fad, or are they the future of entertainment?

Please tell us 3 (only 3) instances where Rush Limbaugh has been wrong about something.

Why does the right feel the need to scare the crap out of people dishonestly in order to make their political points?
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 16:41:58

I could ask the same of the left DV. Global warming being just the most recent major example.

I’ve noticed that since the de facto Honduran government of Roberto Micheletti engaged in a bit of chicanery of its own in suspending constitutional liberties, the conservative blogosphere has gone pretty quiet in its defense of this regime. My question is whether or not this autocratic and antidemocratic behavior of the Micheletti government calls into question whatever legitimacy it may have mustered and whether or not this then calls into question the legitimacy of the results of the upcoming elections?

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 17:11:59

1) “If I’m this good on radio, imagine how well I’d do on TV!”
2) “The NFL would love to have a guy like me owning a team.”
3) “I can quit anytime I want.”

What will it take for Andrew Sullivan to be finally ignored by bloggers, and have his name taken off so many major blog rolls? Just how insane and horrid does he have to get?

the conservative blogosphere has gone pretty quiet in its defense of this regime.

Once the Obama administration stopped backing the tyrant wanna-be Zelaya and decided that they would recognize the election, our concern with that affair ended. Our frustration and anger was with Obama’s apparently wanting a leftist tyrant to take over the country and backing the effort by Zelaya to make himself president for life.

Why does the Republican Party have “death panels” as part of its employees health insurance?

Why do you lie all the time?

Why do you suppose Foxnews is using old stock footage to mislead their viewers on how many people are showing up to conservative rallies or Sarah Palin book signings?

Why do democrats continue to claim their stimulous (that 10% ?of has been spent) brought us back from the brink?

“The Obama administration has done nothing of the kind, why do you feel the need to lie?”

You can always tell when I hit a sore spot when the trolls come marching out immediately after.

The health bill hasn’t even passed and Obama is rolling out the death panels. Women will be hit first. At least he waited until Breast Cancer Awareness Month (October) was over to demand decreased awareness of breast cancer.

Man the lefties are really working the left blogger talking points lately aren’t they? Its getting creepy how lockstep they’re getting.

Do you think the dollar will fail in the near future? Like 3-5 years from now. And how bad will things get if it does?

If Republicans fail to make strong gains in 2010, or worst case scenario, lose seats, how much longer to you think the American economy will be able to last?

The health bill hasn’t even passed and Obama is rolling out the death panels. Women will be hit first. At least he waited until Breast Cancer Awareness Month (October) was over to demand decreased awareness of breast cancer.
Posted by Mike_M
2009-11-19 21:58:19

Mike,

Again specifically which govt agency has done this? You are so full of shit, blatant lying. Your credibility on this is nada, zilch.

“Again specifically which govt agency has done this? You are so full of shit, blatant lying. Your credibility on this is nada, zilch.”

Oooo, using swear words. The truth hurts, doesn’t it? Cry harder, you baby.

White House Deputy Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer attacked critics of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (which is part of the Department of HHS and issued the report), trying to claim that being in favor of mammograms is an insurance company ploy.

These liberals are paranoid, psychotic, and obsessed with death. Members of Obama’s White House want women to die and cry corporate conspiracy when called on it. Forget frog-marching them out of the White House in handcuffs, they need to me marched out in straitjackets.

Your credibility on this is nada, zilch.
Posted by whats_up
2009-11-20 01:37:47

David Dulke voted for Bush in 04, didn’t he crthns? Or is is realpolitik, fwankie, m88tha, and another banned poster?

Attorney General Holder has no idea if there are ANY legal precedents for a civilian trial of a war criminal captured on the battlefield.

He has no rationale for trying some combatants in civil court, but others by military tribunal.

Our illustrious President has already said that KSM was tortured.

It is admitted that KSM was never read his Miranda rights before questioning.

Obama has tainted the entire national jury pool by calling KSM guilty even though his “trial” has not begun yet.

It is widely admitted that KSM will NEVER be released, no matter WHAT the “verdict” is.

There is the tricky question of, Who the hell in America can be called one of KSM’s “peers” needed for a jury? Major Hasan and 11 of his jihad friends?

So I ask: How can this mockery of a “trial” be perceived by the world as anything other than a politically-motivated show trial put on by Obama to score cheap points against George W. Bush?

And, should KSM be lucky enough to draw the same jurors OJ had, and is found “innocent” but Obama holds him anyway because we all know that he must, what will be the impact on America’s Standing in the World at that point?

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with this Charlie Foxtrot?

Your credibility on this is nada, zilch.
Posted by whats_up
2009-11-20 01:37:47

…says the King of Nada, Zilch and No Credibility.

Really, whsts_up, do you ever pause for one second to consider that if your Leftist BS hadn’t once again impaired the War on Terror, those 13 people shot dead and a score of others maimed for life would be alright right now?

The blood drips from your claws, sir.

Again specifically which govt agency has done this? You are so full of shit, blatant lying. Your credibility on this is nada, zilch.
Posted by whats_up
2009-11-20 01:37:47

Specifically, you utter tool, it was a 16 member “advisory panel” appointed by Obama to “Advise” the medical industry on how to ration care.

So you see, that punk you call President is essentially saying that women under the age of 50 don’t deserve a chance to survive breast cancer through early detection. Besides, by dying early they’ll put less strain on Social Security. Because Liberals would rather see more women die of breast cancer than see their precious entitlement programs bite the dust thru inevitable bankruptcy.

Of course, Obama backed off from this recommendation once the crap hit the fan and says the his Death Panel’s role is only “advisory.” Left UNSAID is that the Death Panel’s rulings on Obamacare would be MANDATORY and could NOT BE APPEALED. Because, presumably, you America-loathing liberals are so enamored of Europe that you wish to impose European-style Breast Cancer Death Rates on American women.

Way to go, Champ.

How DO you sleep at night, with so many deaths attributable to your views?

Posted by CoolCzech
2009-11-20 09:34:50

I would also like to see a thread on Eric Holder’s testimony before Congress.

So you see, that punk you call President is essentially saying that women under the age of 50 don’t deserve a chance to survive breast cancer through early detection.

That’s a lie, Czech, and you know it.

Specifically, you utter tool, it was a 16 member “advisory panel” appointed by Obama to “Advise” the medical industry on how to ration care.

Posted by CoolCzech
2009-11-20 09:47:34

They were not appointed by Obama, they are not a govt agency and their recommendations are just that recommendations. CC why do you feel the need to lie about this? Ignorance is running rampant with conservatives lately.

Really, whsts_up, do you ever pause for one second to consider that if your Leftist BS hadn’t once again impaired the War on Terror, those 13 people shot dead and a score of others maimed for life would be alright right now?

The blood drips from your claws, sir.
Posted by CoolCzech
2009-11-20 09:38:06

What utter bullshit CC, no one on the left impaired the fight against AQ. Stop trying to blame the left and put the blame where it lies on Mr. Hasan and his twisted philosophy. However we know you poor conservatives are just victims right, dont you get tired of playing that victim mentality?

More shameless exploitation from right. Next thing you know, Sarah Palin will be flying to Ft Hood to promote her book.

Posted by Mike_M
2009-11-20 08:40:59

Mike you do realize that those were recommendations only, and the HHS has decided not to follow those recommendations. Oh wait in your stupidity you probably dont, heres a clue, get educated on the facts before spouting off, it will save you some embarrasment latter.

Ignorance is running rampant with conservatives lately.
Posted by whats_up
2009-11-20 10:16:24

It’s more than just ignorance. It’s falsehood and fear.

Just cause you say things aren’t so don’t make it true, guy. Ehere did this panel suddenly come from, your Mom’s basement?

Of course they were appointed, by Obama’s government. And yes, my post SAYS it’s only “advisory” now… Buy will be BINDING under Obamacare.

So what’s your beef?

You want to know what impaired the War on Terror? Liberal insistence that there is No Such Thing. That, coupled with liberal Multicultural, Diversity, and Tolerance PC bullshit that allowed a guy with “Soldier of Allah” on his business card openly advocating jihad at conference to walk our streets. THAT is what led to the killings, and I don’t doubt it will turn out it was “guidance” from Holder about “no domestic monitoring” that contributed mightily to the terror attack.

Posted by CoolCzech
2009-11-20 10:35:43

Blah, blah, blah, blame the left, blah, blah, blah.

“Mike you do realize that those were recommendations only, and the HHS has decided not to follow those recommendations.”

Yeah, Sebelius’ lips were moving so she’s lying. She works for the White House, which approves of the death panel guidelines.

And we all know how these things work. You think a liberal panel would take the blame for something? No liberal makes a decision. The panel makes the guideline but has no power to enforce it. Then sometime down the road, Congress or HHS will stop Medicare funding for mammograms…but you can’t blame them, they were just following the guideline. Then once Obamacare passes, yearly mammograms won’t be in private health insurance plans that are on the “approved” list. If you want such a plan you’ll have to pay the outrageous taxes for it, or just go to jail for not participating in what the government says is a legal plan.

Obama wants women dead. They’re expensive. They have babies and get breast cancer. Early detection of breast cancer costs money. Chemo ain’t cheap. Just wait until a later stage when it’s too late. Costs go way down and the woman just dies. But the government will be sure to hit them up for the Obamacare abortion surcharge until they finally cooperate and die.

Question for Hawkins: What would be happening right now if Ayn Rand had written Atlas Shrugged about Dr. Galt and Dr. Taggart in the health care industry instead of making it about railroads?

Obama wants women dead. They’re expensive. They have babies and get breast cancer. Early detection of breast cancer costs money. Chemo ain’t cheap. Just wait until a later stage when it’s too late. Costs go way down and the woman just dies. But the government will be sure to hit them up for the Obamacare abortion surcharge until they finally cooperate and die.
Posted by Mike_M
2009-11-20 10:39:55

LOL

And folks say that conservatives don’t have a sense of humor.

Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-20 10:22:41

Ever seen one person pretend to be two?
You at the wifi cafe or the truck stop today?

Posted by Mike_M
2009-11-20 10:39:55

More fear and lies, you conservatives must live a sad life when all you can do is lie, feel sorry for you Mike.

Ever seen one person pretend to be two?
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-11-20 10:52:18

This from dixon the wannabe Nixon. LOL

Damn, Mike. I loved you, man. You have really flown the coop.

If it were up to conservatives, those services wouldn’t exist in first place when it comes to Medicare, which is a public option.

If it were up to conservatives, their tax dollars wouldn’t be paying for other people’s healthcare, especially expensive cancer screenings like mammograms.

These women could be dying on the streets and a real conservative wouldn’t care. If they don’t have insurance, its their problem. I got mine.

“…Medicare, which is a public option…”

Medicare is a public option?
Great, how do I opt out!?!?

Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-20 10:56:20

Must take a lot of time to run all of your sockpuppets here. You must have a pretty empty home life. Damnedable shame if you ask Nixon.

Damnedable shame if you ask Nixon.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-11-20 11:02:29

No one ever asks dixon – he’s dead and brain dead.

Medicare is a public option?
Great, how do I opt out!?!?
Posted by President_Friedman
2009-11-20 10:59:23

Dont sign up for it.

Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-20 11:05:43

What is it now, 4 or 5 posters that are really you? All those poster names and nothing say or add to the discussion.
Sucks to be you.

These women could be dying on the streets and a real conservative wouldn’t care. If they don’t have insurance, its their problem. I got mine.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 10:57:19

Vega,

That sums up how conservatives feel about the issue allright.

Yes, whats_up, you liberals are famously unafraid – until people like Hasan have you in their sights.

Pity you showed far more fear of Bush than the terrorists you prefer to pretend don’t exist.

Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-11-20 11:09:42

Paranoia much, dixon?

These women could be dying on the streets and a real conservative wouldn’t care. If they don’t have insurance, its their problem. I got mine.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 10:57:19

Vega,

That sums up how conservatives feel about the issue allright.
Posted by whats_up
2009-11-20 11:12:08

It does indeed.

Paranoia much, dixon?
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-20 11:13:49

Just the facts my young padawan. Just the facts.

Pity you showed far more fear of Bush than the terrorists you prefer to pretend don’t exist.
Posted by CoolCzech
2009-11-20 11:13:20

CC,

I know the terrorists exist, I just dont let them control my life, unlike you who thinks that we should be afraid 24/7 and never venture out into the world.

Posted by Mike_M
2009-11-20 10:39:55

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 10:57:19

I don’t think Obama “wants women dead”, but Mike’s point is valid, and it is one of the important underlying issues in the healthcare debate that often gets sidelined by emotional rhetoric: No matter what kind of system we have, there will have to be some kind of factors and metrics to determine the timing and quality of the healthcare one recieves. It is true, in the literal sense, that we have “death panels” operating right now in the private sector, deciding who gets what treatment and when. The liberal assumption is that government can more efficiently and fairly make these types of decisions, and if you are going to make that argument then you should own up to the fact that it does ultimately involve making concrete judgments about cost-vs-life.

Dont sign up for it.
Posted by whats_up
2009-11-20 11:09:17

Great, now how do I opt out of paying for it?
Because one of Obama’s biggest arguments (I call it a lie, but some call it an argument) in favor of ‘the public option’ is that it will not be subsidized by taxpayers.

Great, now how do I opt out of paying for it?

Posted by President_Friedman
2009-11-20 11:18:10

Pres,

You dont get to, just like I dont get to opt out of paying for my share of the war in Iraq. Thats how the game is played, we dont get to decide where our tax money is spent.

Posted by whats_up
2009-11-20 11:23:36

So then, the correct answer is: Medicare is a public option, but only when viewed in a completely different context than what is generally meant by the word ‘public option’.

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

So then, the correct answer is: Medicare is a public option, but only when viewed in a completely different context than what is generally meant by the word ‘public option’.

Thanks for clearing that up for me!
Posted by President_Friedman
2009-11-20 11:25:51

Pres,

It makes perfect sense, you can either enroll for it or not, that is the option. What part of that were you unclear about?

Late Question:

If the recently revealed documents and data allegedly hacked from the British Hadley Climate Research Unit turn out to be genuine, and the scientific aristocracy behind the climate change scam are exposed in their fraud, what recourse do we the people have to recover the $89 billion our government has handed over to climate researchers over the past 10-12 years to “prove” man-made climate change? Will there be any accountability for the money that was obtained under false pretences?

I don’t think Obama “wants women dead”, but Mike’s point is valid, and it is one of the important underlying issues in the healthcare debate that often gets sidelined by emotional rhetoric: No matter what kind of system we have, there will have to be some kind of factors and metrics to determine the timing and quality of the healthcare one recieves.

Then Mike doesn’t have a valid point, as that is not what he said.

It is true, in the literal sense, that we have “death panels” operating right now in the private sector, deciding who gets what treatment and when.

Why is it that Republicans and Conservatives can’t be honest about that?

The liberal assumption is that government can more efficiently and fairly make these types of decisions, and if you are going to make that argument then you should own up to the fact that it does ultimately involve making concrete judgments about cost-vs-life.

The thing is, PF, that we already have that in place when it comes to Medicare. And old folks across the nation aren’t being herded in front of panels and awaiting a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down vote.

And, the main liberal goal here is have a cheap option for health insurance, not to cheapen healthcare in general. The hospitals would be suffering even more now if not for Medicaid and Medicare. What is the Conservative alternative? Portability, lower malpractice premiums and inter-state purchasing? How does that address the large amount of people who get healthcare right now, today with a public option without putting a dime back into it?

Great, now how do I opt out of paying for it? Because one of Obama’s biggest arguments (I call it a lie, but some call it an argument) in favor of ‘the public option’ is that it will not be subsidized by taxpayers.

That’s the current system, PF. Hopefully, something can be worked out where premiums are much smaller for those who are currently on Medicaid, instead of having it just be free. That’s the idea in principle, anyways.

But “death panels” is nothing more than an intentionally dishonest grenade to be used to scare people (again, we have conservatives irrationally scaring people) which can only lead to things staying the way they are.

(again, we have conservatives irrationally scaring people)

Sort of like liberals fearmongering over The Patriot Act.

I would have to agree, Nixon.

You see? This is why we need a Q&A thread, as well as a consistent Open Thread. Let’s the traffic guide the discussion.

“I don’t think Obama “wants women dead”, but Mike’s point is valid,”

Same damn result.

Besides, his trusted advisors have been advocating for a drastic reduction in the human population. Liberals constantly lie about the facts but rarely about their intentions.

Let’s then create two alternate realities, Mike.

Mine will have a public health insurance option which is more efficient than what we currently have.

Yours will have immediate elimination of every entitlement program, including SS, Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, and Food Stamps.

Then we’d really see who is advocating for drastic reductions in our population.

“How does that address the large amount of people who get healthcare right now, today with a public option without putting a dime back into it?”

They’re going to have to get a job and start paying.

See for yourself starting next summer when the California budget implodes and they cut entitlements entirely. New York is racing to beat them.

This country is broke. The fact that we’re even talking about a new $1 trillion entitlement shows how far into fantasyland we’ve gone.

“Then we’d really see who is advocating for drastic reductions in our population.”

So how did the human race survive before food stamps and welfare, vega?

You’ve placed the shackles of slavery around your own wrists vega, and scream if somebody suggests you take them off. You’re the perfect liberal, a slave of your own free will. Too bad you once expressed some thought and intellect.

They’re going to have to get a job and start paying.

For one, that doesn’t address Medicare recepients, unless you know some booming job market for people over 60.

Two, lots of these people already have jobs, unless you know of some booming job market somewhere for them.

Three, paying what exactly? Unless you know of some affordable private insurance currently out there for the poor household income level.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 12:23:41

1. We do have an obligation to pay for retirees since it was promised to them and they have no real alternative. It’s the moochers that are of sound mind and body I have a problem with.

2/3. Yeah, a lot of working people are going broke paying for health care for the people that don’t. Half of your state tax goes to other people’s health care along with a big chunk of Federal tax and a portion of any hospital bill you pay. Add all that up and insurance looks a lot more affordable.

So how did the human race survive before food stamps and welfare, vega?

I didn’t know humanity’s survival was your benchmark. So vast reductions in population due to disease and hunger is fine with you as long as you get a tax break and humanity survives. Now it all makes sense.

You’ve placed the shackles of slavery around your own wrists vega,

What does my marriage have to do with this discussion?

and scream if somebody suggests you take them off.

Only in regards to my Prince Albert.

You’re the perfect liberal, a slave of your own free will.

It’s better than being a slave to recycled dogma. There once was a time when conservatives respected the dynamics of free will in a free society.

Too bad you once expressed some thought and intellect.

Likewise. BTW, have you registed with the Death Panel Registry yet?

Mine will have a public health insurance option which is more efficient than what we currently have.

Damned shame that isn’t what Congress is pushing or the Obamateur.

1. We do have an obligation to pay for retirees since it was promised to them and they have no real alternative.

Socialist! An entitlement is a promise, that’s why its called an entitlement. An “IOU”, right?

Real alternative? They could have made better choices years ago to save and invest their money instead of squandering it away for ridiculous things like food, homes and cars. They wasted their lives because they knew they could enjoy a retirement of shitty senior homes & cat food on our taxpaying teat.

Let them go back to work. It’s not my problem either way.

It’s the moochers that are of sound mind and body I have a problem with.

Who are these moochers, Mike? Tell you what, why don’t we set up a commitee (or panel) that could determine that.

We could call it… I dunno… maybe a “Survival Panel”?

2/3. Yeah, a lot of working people are going broke paying for health care for the people that don’t. Half of your state tax goes to other people’s health care along with a big chunk of Federal tax and a portion of any hospital bill you pay. Add all that up and insurance looks a lot more affordable.

But insurance ain’t more affordable, that’s the problem. Either you want to make the current system more efficient and self-sustaining, or you want to eliminate or vastly reduce the entitlements. Either way, somebody feels the pain.

“Then Mike doesn’t have a valid point, as that is not what he said.”

Well, his point as I understood it was that Obama wants the government, and not the market, to be ultimate arbiter of who gets care and when.

“Why is it that Republicans and Conservatives can’t be honest about that?”

Show me somebody here who has ever denied this. The outrage isn’t over “death panels”, it is over “government death panels”. That’s my entire point: There is no nice happy pleasant fair way to decide who lives and who dies, but the market is at least efficient.

“The thing is, PF, that we already have that in place when it comes to Medicare. And old folks across the nation aren’t being herded in front of panels and awaiting a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down vote. ”

But Medicare is a demographically unsustainable program that is leading us into financial ruin. Medicare is proof positive that the government is completely incapable of adjusting to market realities. The only ways to make Medicare sustainable is to a) massivley raise taxes or b)start herding those old folks towards the thumbs up/thumbs down panel. Of course those people are pleased with Medicare, they are collectively gaining exponentially larger payouts from the system than they ever contributed to it. The problem is that reality is not infinitely elsastic, and those people know (or hope) that by the time we reach the edge they will be gone.

“What is the Conservative alternative? Portability, lower malpractice premiums and inter-state purchasing? How does that address the large amount of people who get healthcare right now, today with a public option without putting a dime back into it?”

I agree that the conservative alternative is not sufficient to put an end to the problem, but neither is the liberal solution. Politically speaking, we are trying to manage a failing system, trying to figure out a way to put more gas in the car without ever accounting for the fact that the car is pointed towards a cliff, and until we face reality that’s the best we can hope for: management of a failing system. The reality is that with our currrent medical infrastructure there is NO sufficient way to offer care to everybody while also maintaining the high quality of care we are accustomed to. A choice must be made to sacrafice one or the other. Life on earth entails a lot of sickness and pain, and we simply don’t have the resources to alleviate this for everyone. The hardest thing to do is to get people to understand what they already know but refuse to admit.

“What does my marriage have to do with this discussion?”

OK, all other disagreements aside, that was some funny shit.

“It’s better than being a slave to recycled dogma. There once was a time when conservatives respected the dynamics of free will in a free society.”

Free will is what we’re asking for. Only you continue your fanatical crusade to become a slave to the government. Want to be a slave, fine. Just don’t expect me to pay for it.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY vega, right out of 1984. Rand and Orwell were 100% right. Collectivism is a disease on society that leads to voluntary self-obliteration. You’re providing an excellent example.

“A choice must be made to sacrafice one or the other.”

Yeah. I’m just all done sugar coating the truth for the liberals around here.

Entitlements or the dollar. Pick one. It’s gone in the next three years. We’re out of other people’s money.

“I’m just all done sugar coating the truth for the liberals around here.”
Posted by Mike_M
2009-11-20 13:16:35

To be fair, there is still a lot of sugarcoating that goes on amongst conservatives. It’s not like the conservative plan for tort reform, portability, and plans that cross state line is going to solve the problem either (although I believe the conservative plans are at least ethical).

The 900 pound gorilla in the room is the legal structure that forces medical professionals, at gunpoint, to accept and treat patients who they know cannot pay for their healthcare. In my experience, conservatives aren’t any more than liberals to be willing to address that problem.

“The 900 pound gorilla in the room is the legal structure that forces medical professionals, at gunpoint, to accept and treat patients who they know cannot pay for their healthcare.”

Uncompensated care is a problem, but I don’t think it’s the overriding issue. It adds up to about $6 billion a year. Not exactly chump change, but it’s something like 5% of total costs in the industry.

The greater issue is that it contributes to the assinine view that health care is a “right” (and rights are free) instead of a service provided by educated and trained professionals. Federal Medicare alone costs almost $400 billion a year. Medicaid which is shared by the Feds and states adds up to nearly the same amount.

$800 billion in freebies is a lot bigger problem than $5 billion in freebies.

Just a fun fact. There are currently about 43 million people enrolled in Medicare 40 million in Medicaid.

That’s equal to the entire population of California, and Texas, and New York combined. Well…Not quite, throw in Iowa too.

Just a fun fact. There are currently about 43 million people enrolled in Medicare 40 million in Medicaid.

That’s equal to the entire population of California, and Texas, and New York combined. Well…Not quite, throw in Iowa too.

Posted by Mike_M
2009-11-20 14:41:06

Goes to show you how high health care costs are and they continue to rise, had these programs not been available 83 million Americans might not be around right now.

Well, his point as I understood it was that Obama wants the government, and not the market, to be ultimate arbiter of who gets care and when.

I don’t know why he would think that, as there is no proposed plan to do that, nor has Obama even said that. In fact, he said the opposite.

Show me somebody here who has ever denied this. The outrage isn’t over “death panels”, it is over “government death panels”. That’s my entire point: There is no nice happy pleasant fair way to decide who lives and who dies, but the market is at least efficient.

Efficient in terms of what’s the most profitable rather than moral. There is no insurance company that would gladly cover hundreds of thousands in cancer care for someone without the means to be a good money-making customer. How is that efficient in terms of healthcare in United States? How can I be covered in this country if I get cancer and didn’t have or want or have a need for insurance until I got sick?

But Medicare is a demographically unsustainable program that is leading us into financial ruin.

I would agree, but then what is the solution? Not the conservative plans, I don’t believe.

I agree that the conservative alternative is not sufficient to put an end to the problem, but neither is the liberal solution.

The liberal solution would kick the can down the road, but that’s better than leaving it as is.

The hardest thing to do is to get people to understand what they already know but refuse to admit.

I would agree with that as well. But if the people don’t want it, then how can you ever hope to pass meaningful reform? Idealogues and talking points aren’t an opposition or alternative.

Free will is what we’re asking for. Only you continue your fanatical crusade to become a slave to the government. Want to be a slave, fine. Just don’t expect me to pay for it.

No, you’re not. You are asking that people not committ anything to the whole of society. That is, in fact, the base of conservative philosophy. “Screw you, you are on your own.”

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY vega, right out of 1984. Rand and Orwell were 100% right.

Fuck Rand & Orwell. Must any discussion with conservatives have citation of something decades ago?

1984 & AS were ficitonal bastardizations of something that has been inherent in our country since its founding – community. And as part of a community you make a fair contribution. Who decides what’s fair? People you put into office to represent you.

Collectivism is a disease on society that leads to voluntary self-obliteration. You’re providing an excellent example.

Society is a collective. The utopian conservative wetdream of a society where no one contributes any responsibility for the benefit of the whole is not only unable to be sustained, but is more similiar to fuedal times that the period of when this country was founded.

The greater issue is that it contributes to the assinine view that health care is a “right” (and rights are free) instead of a service provided by educated and trained professionals.

No one more understands that healthcare is not a right, but a paid servce, than the people who cannot afford health insurance.

had these programs not been available 83 million Americans might not be around right now.
Posted by whats_up
2009-11-20 14:59:59

Gosh you are fucking stupid.

The 900 pound gorilla in the room is the legal structure that forces medical professionals, at gunpoint, to accept and treat patients who they know cannot pay for their healthcare.

I think if taxes were lower and medical prices lower (which the conservative approach would accomplish, over time), then that will be increasingly less of a problem due to a better economy, more ability to help friends and families, and more giving to charities which historically always increases following a tax cut.

If we could as a society move more toward older ethical principles and the old virtues now mocked and derided by the left, we’d also see a society where helping the needy and poor was thought of as a personal responsibility rather than government task.

And that, I suspect, is the basic conservative answer to that problem. Back off and let the market deal with it, and leave more money in people’s pockets while reducing federal size and influence. Liberty, ethics and the free market. Pretty conservative.

It ain’t ethical to let people die while the conservative approach kicks in, if it ever does.

If it were up to conservatives, those services wouldn’t exist in first place when it comes to Medicare, which is a public option.

Vega, if it were up to conservatives, their tax dollars wouldn’t be paying for other people’s healthcare, especially expensive cancer screenings like mammograms.If it were up to the founding fathers and if the politicians in Washington obeyed the law – the US Constitution – the federal government wouldn’t be paying for those things, you’re right.

But since President Obama thinks its the government’s responsibility for everyone to get health care, then it is not just hypocritical but pernicious to start denying people care they need under his own plan.

Granted, as Reich plainly said not long ago, the plan is for people to die and not get as good coverage as they do now, in the name of equality and greater government power. They just usually aren’t so open and obvious about it.

Don’t lie to yourself, you know as well as we do this is about a huge socialist step and building more dependents on the US government’s largesse. That means more Democratic Party power and more control by the people who you consider enlightened and right. That’s what this is about, not health care, not worrying about the sick and the poor.

This is about liberty vs tyranny, and you’re on the wrong side of history on this, bub.

“I don’t know why he would think that, as there is no proposed plan to do that…”

It seems to me that if you going to point a gun at people and tell them they have to buy insurance, and then point another gun at insurance companies and tell them they have to sell it to them, you are doing the same thing, only by proxy.

“Efficient in terms of what’s the most profitable rather than moral.”

As opposed to what other system? If you have 2 kids who are going to die if they don’t get to a surgeon immediately, but only one surgeon available to see them, is it immoral for the surgeon to make time for the kid whose family can pay him for his services? That’s the efficiency of the market. The efficiancy of the government is to have the surgeon split his time time between both patients, even though he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that doing so will result in two deaths. You tell me which decision is moral.

“How can I be covered in this country if I get cancer and didn’t have or want or have a need for insurance until I got sick?”

How can you get an insurance policy for your house after it has caught on fire? The actuarial science that makes the concept of insurance possible does not, can not, will not work under the circumstances you are describing. You are talking about charity, not insurance.

“I would agree, but then what is the solution? Not the conservative plans, I don’t believe. The liberal solution would kick the can down the road, but that’s better than leaving it as is.”

I believe the conservative plans you mentioned would do more to kick the can down the road than the liberal plan, but if we both agree that there is a cliff at the end of the road (and that is a huge development, I had no idea we agreed on that), why are we mindlessly arguing about how far we should kick the can towards it?

“But if the people don’t want it, then how can you ever hope to pass meaningful reform?”

You can’t, and thus we are fucking doomed, which is why people are buying up guns and ammo. THOSE people understand what everybody else is refusing to admit.

Vega: if you cannot refute a point, please avoid just snarking bitterly.

D-Vega Said: That is, in fact, the base of conservative philosophy. “Screw you, you are on your own.”

To which I reply: I’ll take that every time over “Screw you, you are coming with us.”

That is my refuation, CT. It’s not ethical to let people die once the safety nets are removed for the sake of reduction in gov’t costs for healthcare. That’s not a snark.

On another note: What give, were all our questions lame? It’s 4PM on the east coast and there are no posts up for Q&A Friday!

Vega, if it were up to conservatives, their tax dollars wouldn’t be paying for other people’s healthcare, especially expensive cancer screenings like mammograms.If it were up to the founding fathers and if the politicians in Washington obeyed the law – the US Constitution – the federal government wouldn’t be paying for those things, you’re right.

And that is why the populist-driven mantra of “give me my money back” wouldn’t work, because as soon as people started dying, there would be a change of course.

But since President Obama thinks its the government’s responsibility for everyone to get health care, then it is not just hypocritical but pernicious to start denying people care they need under his own plan.

True. People shouldn’t get less for investing more. That’s means the plan doesn’t accomplish the principle, whether you agree with that principle or not.

Granted, as Reich plainly said not long ago, the plan is for people to die and not get as good coverage as they do now, in the name of equality and greater government power. They just usually aren’t so open and obvious about it.

Nonsense. There would be no more people dependent on the gov’t then there are now. In fact, people would be less dependent, as they would have a more personal stake in their insurance, rather than just applying for Medicaid/Medicare.

Don’t lie to yourself, you know as well as we do this is about a huge socialist step and building more dependents on the US government’s largesse. That means more Democratic Party power and more control by the people who you consider enlightened and right. That’s what this is about, not health care, not worrying about the sick and the poor.

You can keep citing the talking points over and over, but it doesn’t make it so. The Dems & Obama could accomplish that much more easily by loosening the restrictions on Medicare and Medicaid. This is liberal reform, not a gov’t takeover. Not in any shape is it a gov’t takeover.

This is about liberty vs tyranny, and you’re on the wrong side of history on this, bub.

This is about Republicans or Conservatives getting back into power.

Would you like to bet that if the Reps seized control of the House & Senate next year, and they take the POTUS in 2012, that all that would happen is they would find a way to extend the current situation rather than enacting true conservative reform?

Vega are you arguing that someone dying at all in any circumstances means an idea or plan is a failure? Because that seems to be your position here.

Plainly if charitable giving went up, people cared more for their friends and family, and costs went down then the primary barriers to health care (cost and availability) would be greatly eliminated. That means the safety net – which only exists because of government interference and taxation caused a need – would be unnecessary.

We’ve tried your plan for decades and its not only failing by your very own standards, its going bankrupt and has made costs skyrocket. Lets try something different, shall we? Instead of presuming it would be a total failure without even bothering to sit and wonder whether it would or not, lets give it a try. Because your answer is “well so far what I want has sucked and failed, but that just means we need even more of it. and that’s simply madness.

You didn’t refute my point at all. You just presumed a position and then attacked me for holding what you invented – a straw man.

Have you ever, once, stopped to question whether what you think is right or not on this topic? To genuinely and with an open mind demonstrate intellectual curiosity about what we’re saying and believe? Or is that simply so repugnant (and scary) you can’t bring yourself to even try?

Would you like to bet that if the Reps seized control of the House & Senate next year, and they take the POTUS in 2012, that all that would happen is they would find a way to extend the current situation rather than enacting true conservative reform?

I guarantee you that’s what would happen. In no way is the Republican party conservative, and that’s exactly what I and most of the rest of us here have been screaming for years. What, exactly, does it take for that fact to sink into your gray matter? When will you finally comprehend that this is why we’re so angry at the GOP? Are you just not bothering to read when we say that or are you just forgetting it on purpose?

Where did I call for Republicans to be elected? When did I say “if only we had Republicans this would happen?”

I’ll save you time: I did not, nor did I remotely even hint or imply such a ridiculous thing.

Vega are you arguing that someone dying at all in any circumstances means an idea or plan is a failure? Because that seems to be your position here.

People die all the time because of lack of coverage, so no. But if you removed the safety nets, you would have widespread chaos and death.

Think about it. How many people did Mike just cite who were on Medicare & Medicaid? 84 million? Let’s say just one percent die over the course of 5 years. That more than 800 thousand people.

Plainly if charitable giving went up, people cared more for their friends and family, and costs went down then the primary barriers to health care (cost and availability) would be greatly eliminated. That means the safety net – which only exists because of government interference and taxation caused a need – would be unnecessary.

Holy cow, CT. That’s just what I’m talking about. You think charities and families would be able to cover the hundreds of billions in medical costs covered by the gov’t?

Even if the costs went down 20%, a generous number. It would still be huge amounts of money.

And you are still assuming this would all happen.

The idea that safety nets don’t need to exist at all and were caused by interverenve and taxation is a whole ‘nother can of worms. Let me just shorten it by saying I don’t believe that.

We’ve tried your plan for decades and its not only failing by your very own standards, its going bankrupt and has made costs skyrocket. Lets try something different, shall we? Instead of presuming it would be a total failure without even bothering to sit and wonder whether it would or not, lets give it a try. Because your answer is “well so far what I want has sucked and failed, but that just means we need even more of it. and that’s simply madness.

Why should we when the Republicans themselves didn’t have enough faith in it to attempt it when they were in power? And, what would be this plan, exactly?

You didn’t refute my point at all. You just presumed a position and then attacked me for holding what you invented – a straw man.

You are saying the conservative approach would reap benefits down the road. But what would be the immediate consequences?

And if “death panels” isn’t a strawman, then I don’t know what is.

Have you ever, once, stopped to question whether what you think is right or not on this topic?

Yes.

To genuinely and with an open mind demonstrate intellectual curiosity about what we’re saying and believe?

Yes. They are not new ideas, you know.

Or is that simply so repugnant (and scary) you can’t bring yourself to even try?

I have tried. But I fail to see a real plan from conservatives. Lowering taxes and cutting entitlements is not a plan, it’s a tactic.

One more point before I have to get to work.

The present “public option” scheme was invented by a guy who said plainly and openly that it was meant to be a precursor for a complete government takeover of the health care industry. He even went so far as to say it was not a trojan horse, because it was so obvious.

Not only him, but people working in the Obama administration and President Obama himself while running for the presidency admitted that they couldn’t get the full takeover passed, so an intermediary plan would be needed.

How will it work, if passed?

1) Insurance companies cannot compete with the federal government who has effectively unlimited funds (if Democrats are in charge) and need not make any money to survive.
2) If the plan fails to do what it was promised (and it would) the immediate response would be what you’re doing here: we need more! more government, more power, more spending.

This isn’t a secret. It is absolutely deliberate. Is there a genuine, absurdly misguided concern for the public and health care mixed in? Sure. But the agenda is about more Democrats being elected, more people dependent on the federal government, and more central government socialist power.

It is absolutely either idiotic or deliberately a lie to say that this will not result in more people dependent on the federal government. Every single person who signs up on this plan to get government health insurance would 100% be more dependent on the plan. Every single one of them.

Why can’t you just stop and think about the positions you hold? Why not consider them critically? Why don’t you look at what you believe and see if it stands up to the light of reason and reality?

Because you simply spew these knee jerk talking points about people dying and safety nets without bothering to consider or apparently even read what’s being offered you.

That is just deeply disappointing to me. Stop just instantly rejecting something you see because it came from someone not a leftist, for once. Please.

I am not rejecting something just because it comes from you, CT. This is not a new argument. This goes waaaay back, most recently during Clinton.

I do believe lots of liberals would like Euro-care, but they know a lot of people don’t want it here. So a balance needs to be struck.

Now, are you willing to strike a balance? I didn’t think so. Are you willing to accept gov’t safety nets in any form? And gov’t subsidized healthcare in any form?

I have thought about this for some time. I’ve been without healthcare for a period late in college when I couldn’t afford it, didn’t have a job that covered it and couldn’t remain on my parents policy. It’s not cool. And once I was hospitalized for a staph infection and had to pay.

I’m not some liberal zombie drone. I would probably guess that the HCR bills in the Houses are shitty bills. That doesn’t surprise me. But that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the principle of quality, low-cost healthcare for the poor and others in this country. I think you would find most Americans would agree with me on this, just not agree with me on this particular plan.

How many Americans you think would support the elimination of all entitlements and instead relying on charity and the market to figure it out when it comes to their very health?

D-Vega, be sane for just one minute.

The money… the incredible money. Where are you going to get it?

What will you do if the Chinese decide this is crazy and refuse to lend it to you? Print it? Raise taxes? In the middle of what that hysterical whimp Obama calls “the worst crisis since the Great Depression,” you’re going to raise taxes by trillions of dollars?

It’s just insanity, fiscally.

Never mind that no one in right mind can even begin to pretend that Government control results in a better economic outcome, EVER, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. I mean, good Lord man, did you sleep thru the last 30 years?

Actually, Czech, the economy of this country soared in the last 30 years as the gov’t regulated MORE, not LESS.

Actually, Czech, the economy of this country soared in the last 30 years as the gov’t regulated MORE, not LESS.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 16:51:41

Dont confuse them with fact Vega, this will go against everything they believe in, despite the fact that you are right.

Yeah, tell that to the Soviet, D-Vega.

But you failed utterly to address the Central Point:

The Money. Where does it come from?

What will Trillions of Dollars of either new taxes or ever higher deficits do to an economy Obama has already driven to the brink with his already obscenely outrageous deficits?

“Actually, Czech, the economy of this country soared in the last 30 years as the gov’t regulated MORE, not LESS.”

And it’s worked out great, hasn’t it? 17% un- and underemployment and $11 trillion in debt. Big government has failed.

Freedom is coming vega, no matter how much you plead for the chains of government. There’s no more money to spend or borrow.

But unlike you that thinks people will sit there and die without a government handout, I think those 83 million dependents will mostly get along alright. Need is a great motivator.

I remember when you were bitching about Bush’s deficits, D-Vega & whats_up.

Tell me, when did suddenly tripling them and extending them out for the next decade with no end in sight suddenly become OK in your book? Is it because the current President is black, is that it?

Actually, Mike, during the Bush years there was a huge amount of DEREGULATION, especially in cases of breaking down the “wall” between financial services & products and how they can be traded.

Hmmmm… now what has happened recently that could be attributed to this?

Tell me, D-Vega & Whats_up:

What if the Chicoms tell you the Jig is Up, We won’t lend you the money for your insane ideas?

Hmmmm… now what has happened recently that could be attributed to this?
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-20 17:02:07

The Federal Government forced the banks to make trillions of dollars worth of bad loans to deadbeats? Could THAT have been it, D-Vega?

Boy, that kind of “regulation” turned out great didn’t it?

But you keep avoiding the question: how do you plan to pay for all this? What if the Chinese don’t play along?

Well, your silence speaks volumes, D-Vega & Whats_up.

Funny how whenever there is an economic crisis, capitalism is the victim, and poor people are the culprits.

Need is a great motivator.

So is death & hunger. No snarkiness intended.

how do you plan to pay for all this?

Easy. The same way the three previous Republican Presidents who started really jacking up our debt did.

What if the Chinese don’t play along?

They have no choice, unless they want another cultural revolution. They need our debt.

Goodnight and have a good weekend everyone.

Actually, Mike, during the Bush years there was a huge amount of DEREGULATION, especially in cases of breaking down the “wall” between financial services & products and how they can be traded.

Hmmmm… now what has happened recently that could be attributed to this?
Posted by D-Vega

6000 pages of new Federal regulations went on the books under W. An Inconvenient Truth.

The same way the three previous Republican Presidents who started really jacking up our debt did.

So your plan is to ruin the entire country just to spite the Republican Party. Wonderful.

Check this out…

[...] that is the end of this article. Here you’ll find some sites that we think you’ll appreciate, just click the links over[...]……