How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[Sirrus_Asura]

No, he's talking to hear himself speak.

90% of all politicians. What point were you making on the Oil company btw?

[Beckwin]

What are you referring to in those comparisons btw?

you have this conservative from the Ways and Means committee bellyaching over hundreds of billions over ten years so that americans stop dying/suffering due to not being able to get proper healthcare but there was nothing coming out of the CBO/Ways and Means committee during the the Iraq War or during the reagan days, especially from conservatives/republicans.

in each of those mentioned ~8 year periods, the national debt grew by 4 trillion or more.

[Olo401]

what bothers me so much is that billions over ten years is seen as unfeasible yet trillions over 8 years is ok.


OK If You're A Republican

OKIYAP

and yes, I'm talking about the house/senate/etc republicans before any of you no-true-scotsman conservatives cry about this post

What are you referring to in those comparisons btw?

See if this clears things up Sirrus. I've actually got a fairly timely comparison for you today!

Total cost of wars started since 2001 from costofwar.com : Approx. $902 Billion (avg. $117.65 Billion/year and increasing)
Total cost of the proposed health care plan : Approx. $1 Trillion over 10 years (avg. $100 Billion/year)

And don't forget to take into account how much everyone will save individually on their health care costs as they come down, which will also lower the cost of the proposal & save the government money year after year.

How about adding in the running cost of the Bush Tax Cuts to the wealthiest 1% and largest corporations? Once they expire, that cost will become savings to the government and can be used to pay down the national debt again once the economy recovers.

[Olo401]

90% of all politicians. What point were you making on the Oil company btw?

That unfortunately worthwhile public works projects, like improving the nation's railways & roadways in general (or Amtrak specifically), are not funded and NEED TO BE. Yet we have no problem in this country with textbook Mussolini-style fascism - giving billions to companies that are already plenty profitable on their own. And I'm saying this in general because it's gone on for decades through both Dem and Repub ownership. You want to look for wasted taxdollars? There it is.

[Acturus]

you have this conservative from the Ways and Means committee bellyaching over hundreds of billions over ten years so that americans stop dying/suffering due to not being able to get proper healthcare but there was nothing coming out of the CBO/Ways and Means committee during the the Iraq War or during the reagan days, especially from conservatives/republicans.

in each of those mentioned ~8 year periods, the national debt grew by 4 trillion or more.

The nation wasn't on the same verge of panic over recession during those other 8-year periods that it seems to be on today, or was it? I was still in diapers for part of the Reagan era, but I don't remember much in the way of economic concerns during the first years of the Iraq war stuff.

For that matter, has it been concluded that either one of those 4-trillion 8-year periods were ultimately beneficial to the nation?

Saying that that "no one complained before" isn't a very valid reason for people to be okay with another multi-trillion dollar impact to the nation over the next decade.

I mean, unless you're just jabbing at Republicans because it's fun. If that's the case, go right ahead.

[Sirrus_Asura]

That unfortunately worthwhile public works projects, like improving the nation's railways & roadways in general (or Amtrak specifically), are not funded and NEED TO BE. Yet we have no problem in this country with textbook Mussolini-style fascism - giving billions to companies that are already plenty profitable on their own. And I'm saying this in general because it's gone on for decades through both Dem and Repub ownership. You want to look for wasted taxdollars? There it is.

No argument here whatsoever.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

The nation wasn't on the same verge of panic over recession during those other 8-year periods that it seems to be on today, or was it? I was still in diapers for part of the Reagan era, but I don't remember much in the way of economic concerns during the first years of the Iraq war stuff.

For that matter, has it been concluded that either one of those 4-trillion 8-year periods were ultimately beneficial to the nation?

Saying that that "no one complained before" isn't a very valid reason for people to be okay with another multi-trillion dollar impact to the nation over the next decade.

I mean, unless you're just jabbing at Republicans because it's fun. If that's the case, go right ahead.

Bill Clinton inherited a deficit from Reagan and Bush Sr., and turned it into a surplus. So when Bush entered office Clinton had the country up and running.

Bush Jr., in grand Republican less-gumment fashion, took that surplus and turned it right back into a deficit.

You see the pattern? The ones who cry wolf the loudest get all of the attention and put us in the worst situations with that attention. They whine abut fiscal issues in which they've never fixed or attempt to, they just give their corporate and wealthy buddies kickbacks, subsidies, tax cuts and go run our credit tab up and impose fascist social policies while screaming terms like "freedom" and "Constitution" out of the other side of their mouth.

It's the most hypocritical party with the most backwards, unpatriotic constituency that votes on Bible issues and has severe xenophobia. They're told what to think and say and how to act and they follow blindly, and amazingly have the gall to call the Dems Nazi's. It's quite clever and frightening and our progressive leadership is too reasonable to levy these accusations against them, they get caught in defense constantly.

tl;dr conservatives are a Zerg army blindly consuming and multiplying with no actual thought process.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Bill Clinton inherited a deficit from Reagan and Bush Sr., and turned it into a surplus. So when Bush entered office Clinton had the country up and running.

Bush Jr., in grand Republican less-gumment fashion, took that surplus and turned it right back into a deficit.

You see the pattern? The ones who cry wolf the loudest get all of the attention and put us in the worst situations with that attention. They whine abut fiscal issues in which they've never fixed or attempt to, they just give their corporate and wealthy buddies kickbacks, subsidies, tax cuts and go run our credit tab up and impose fascist social policies while screaming terms like "freedom" and "Constitution" out of the other side of their mouth.

It's the most hypocritical party with the most backwards, unpatriotic constituency that votes on Bible issues and has severe xenophobia. They're told what to think and say and how to act and they follow blindly, and amazingly have the gall to call the Dems Nazi's. It's quite clever and frightening and our progressive leadership is too reasonable to levy these accusations against them, they get caught in defense constantly.

tl;dr conservatives are a Zerg army blindly consuming and multiplying with no actual thought process.

So are you saying the GoP sucks really bad and the Dems are good? Or just that the GoP is bad?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

So are you saying the GoP sucks really bad and the Dems are good? Or just that the GoP is bad?

I'm saying conservatives never add anything substantial to the debate. In the national debate and our little circle-jerk debate here I have not heard or read an alternative idea on what exactly to do about our broken healthcare system.

All I have seen is Cold War era rhetoric poorly hobbled together with Elmer's glue and Scotch tape.

I hear you don't want your tax dollars being spent on someone else who can't take care of themselves, but you don't say a fucking word about no-bid contracts at exorbitant prices ( you know the $10,000 for a screw joke? ) going to buds of the last legislation for Iraq and Afghanistan, or subsidies to oil and pharmaceutical companies - two of the most profitable and powerful industries in the world.

You attack a proven method of insuring the uninsured and lob these half-assed ideas about free market that have a) not been proven, and b) you refuse to debate or offer an alternative.

So in standard conservative/libertarian fashion you attack, and in standard progressive fashion we simply defend. Well now I'm attacking, and I dare you to prove me wrong on any issue I've pointed out.

I mean if you really want to get down to brass tacks, why aren't you up in arms about shit like this? Shit like this never even makes it into the news. This is not the free market capitalism you're defending. You're picking and choosing hot button issues and shaping a bullshit argument around it because you want to be a victim.

News flash pal, you've been a victim since you were born, and you're letting blowhards on a soap box shape your already narrow view of the situation. Naturally it's easier to defend something to the death than to admit you may be wrong or even concede a point or two, which is why the conservative spin machine is so effective. Palin had people pissed off at intellectuals wanting to run the country.

Fucking un be lieve able.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

And no, I'm not saying Democrats are better than Republicans. Politics is politics and nearly everyone who gets into politics is trying meet some end of personal gain.

However, the small fringe percentage of politicians in this country that want to make real change are motivated by hardcore social policy on the right ( abortion, gay marriage, sex ed, 10 commandments in federal and state buildings), and hardcore social policy on the left ( gay marriage, sex ed, abortion, healthcare, poverty ).

Fiscal policy is a byproduct of the legislation that fringe wants to pass. And I'm sorry to say the fringe left is rooted much more in decency, reason, and factual analysis along with their ideology than the fringe right is.

The fringe right idealism is nothing short of lunacy. Bleeding heart liberal jokes aside, we have facts to back our idealism up.

[Sirrus_Asura]

News flash pal, you've been a victim since you were born, and you're letting blowhards on a soap box shape your already narrow view of the situation. Naturally it's easier to defend something to the death than to admit you may be wrong or even concede a point or two, which is why the conservative spin machine is so effective. Palin had people pissed off at intellectuals wanting to run the country.

Fucking un be lieve able.

I admit things are fucked up as is. I do think there needs to be reform in how insurance is handled. I just don't think our public option should be dealt with on a federal level (/rage incoming).

Palin is trash. We both know this.

And I agree that tobacco subsidies are trash. I really don't think government has ANY place for the most part giving money to private businesses.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I admit things are fucked up as is. I do think there needs to be reform in how insurance is handled. I just don't think our public option should be dealt with on a federal level (/rage incoming).

Palin is trash. We both know this.

Ok then what is your solution? What is your offering to the debate other than you don't like a public option?

[Sirrus_Asura]

Ok then what is your solution? What is your offering to the debate other than you don't like a public option?

State level public option if the state wants it. State level single payer if the state wants it. No reform if the state doesn't want any reform on their end. And for gov. to get out of private insurance entirely.

I've said this quite a few times, but I can understand the confusion, its been a shitstorm around here.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

State level public option if the state wants it. State level single payer if the state wants it. No reform if the state doesn't want any reform on their end. And for gov. to get out of private insurance entirely.

I've said this quite a few times, but I can understand the confusion, its been a shitstorm around here.

And what examples do you have of a similar program succeeding? Won't people leave a state for another state for better insurance, thus hurting a particular states economy? Will the go across state borders for cheaper or better procedures, thus hindering the healthcare economy of their home state if they don't like the plans?

How is this better than a blanketed federal initiative?

[Olo401]

State level public option if the state wants it. State level single payer if the state wants it. No reform if the state doesn't want any reform on their end. And for gov. to get out of private insurance entirely.

I've said this quite a few times, but I can understand the confusion, its been a shitstorm around here.

Well the problem is you're creating the confusion - you say you want state run insurance, but then say you want the govt to not run any insurance? Who do you think the state is? You're saying yes and no in the same sentence there.

[Sirrus_Asura]

And what examples do you have of a similar program succeeding?

The problem from what I understand is that the attempt at doing state level insurance was managed very poorly(MA was it?). I feel it deserves a 2nd chance under some good management.

Won't people leave a state for another state for better insurance, thus hurting a particular states economy? Will the go across state borders for cheaper or better procedures, thus hindering the healthcare economy of their home state if they don't like the plans?

Great questions. Thanks for taking the high road and being reasonable. I really appreciate it.

Anywho; Lemme start by saying it's the United States of America.

And your answer: Yes and that is the point of it.

For those who feel as strongly about health care as they do, they will probably move to the state that best represents the way they feel how healthcare should be done. (Reasonable y/n?)

Regarding the states that do offer a option / single payer plan: States that blatantly offer poor coverage or mismanage in general will feel it. Just as a company that offers poor service looses customers. Negligent decisions on part of the state will have repercussions, just as the free market would. (People leaving that state, etc) (Reasonable y/n?)

People who want a single payer system can move to Cali. People who want their companies to support them can move to TX. Fill in the blanks etc. (Reasonable y/n?)

As for the border hopping, that could probably be solved with something as simple as a drivers license check. (Probably a better solution somewhere)

[Sirrus_Asura]

Well the problem is you're creating the confusion - you say you want state run insurance, but then say you want the govt to not run any insurance? Who do you think the state is? You're saying yes and no in the same sentence there.

State =/= Federal in this case.

[Olo401]

State =/= Federal in this case.

That clears it up then.. need to be more specific.

Anyways, you're basically saying your ideal public option would be modeled on SCHIP and/or Medicare, where the administration is done at a state level with a federal support structure.... which is in the bill already since the choice of Medicare would be part of the private/public insurance exchange.

[Sirrus_Asura]

That clears it up then.. need to be more specific.

Anyways, you're basically saying your ideal public option would be modeled on SCHIP and/or Medicare, where the administration is done at a state level with a federal support structure.... which is in the bill already since the choice of Medicare would be part of the private/public insurance exchange.

Not even asking for federal support. If a state flat out doesn't want anything to do with Medicare, they shouldn't have to deal / pay for it.

Edit: might be misunderstanding what you said. But Ill go with this for now

[Olo401]

Not even asking for federal support. If a state flat out doesn't want anything to do with Medicare, they shouldn't have to deal / pay for it.

Edit: might be misunderstanding what you said. But Ill go with this for now

I think you might be misunderstanding how the Constitution works. Because I'm getting the idea that you're saying that states should just be allowed to disregard federal law.