Congratulations to my fellow Democrats

[Unabogie]

I see. Why do you care? They had years in which to address this issue, and they didn't. So the answer is as Shalamar has said: they're in favor of the status quo.

The bandwagon healthcare reform proposals that the Republicans came up with (after the Democrats made this an issue, largely based on the result of the 2008 election) generally would not get us much closer to anything like universal coverage. (Some of them that I looked at, were focused on cutting costs and achieved this largely by further reducing access to healthcare.)

I suspect you're right, but sometimes it helps to break a question down into fundamentals. I asked this question of my neighbor, and he had no answer. I figured someone had thought about this and attempted to reconcile it with his libertarian philosophy.

Really, it's the question at the heart of the debate. What should happen to people who can't afford to see a doctor or who get really really sick and rack up thousands in debt? My boss's ICU bill was $800,000. Just staggering.

 

[Shalamar]

Compared to what? Allegations of "death panels" and "euthanizing grandma"?

Even this evening, when the House was discussing the Republican motion to recommit the bill, a Republican representative shouted out "baby killer!" when Rep. Bart Stupak was explaining why he opposed the Republican motion.

Frankly, I think remarks like the one Shalamar made are far more appropriate to an on-line forum discussion than the kinds of remarks made by Republican leaders in much broader national forums.

I will admit that I am terribly frustrated by the whole mess. It certainly looks like that is what the GOP wants to have happen, with the cries of 'SOCIALISM!', 'COMMUNISM!', along with the death panels and the like.

I'm Canadian, I grew up there. Moving to the USA was a Huge shock. I need.. Health Insurance? It can be denied? People actually need CHARITY if they get seriously ill?

And the US claims to be First World? I hear about 'deadbeats', and people who exist just to suck off of the government teat. I hear about hard working families driven to bankruptcy because their child developed Cancer. This is not right.

Unless.. you are a Republican!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Even this evening, when the House was discussing the Republican motion to recommit the bill, a Republican representative shouted out "baby killer!" when Rep. Bart Stupak was explaining why he opposed the Republican motion.

Stupak knows that executive orders can't override the law. He knowingly gave up the pro-life card.

Shouting "baby killer" wasn't quite parliamentary etiquette, but pro-lifer isn't something Stupak can claim anymore.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, not for more than a decade now at least.

I just have no faith in government operations.

So are you an anarchist? Would you rather just do without government?

I will insist on using the "conspiracy theory" accusation when people keep making these claims about the CBO reports. They're the same reports Congress has always used as a non-partisan estimate of the fiscal effects of proposed legislation.

People keep saying the CBO is making some sort of assumption or relying on bad starting information from the Democrats, but the -$507.1 figure is the result of their estimate, not something that was fed in as a starting assumption.

I agree there is no conspiracy. The CBO really is a non-partisan office and is doing their job--providing the best estimate of the fiscal results of the proposed legislation.

And how odd that when I point out all of this, the response is to say that the bill won't remain intact for 10 years. It seems to me that if that's one's position, one should argue in favor of the bill.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Stupak knows that executive orders can't override the law. He knowingly gave up the pro-life card.

Shouting "baby killer" wasn't quite parliamentary etiquette, but pro-lifer isn't something Stupak can claim anymore.

That's irrelevant to the point I was making. I think compared to remarks like these, Shalamar's was not "intellectually vapid".

 

[Shalamar]

They'd rather not have the economy collapse when no one wants to lend America anymore money.

So yes, They would rather that people Go bankrupt, or die, if they cannot afford Healthcare, or if it is arbitrarily denied.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I suspect you're right, but sometimes it helps to break a question down into fundamentals. I asked this question of my neighbor, and he had no answer. I figured someone had thought about this and attempted to reconcile it with his libertarian philosophy.

Really, it's the question at the heart of the debate. What should happen to people who can't afford to see a doctor or who get really really sick and rack up thousands in debt? My boss's ICU bill was $800,000. Just staggering.

I agree. It seems like the rugged individualists don't consider that most of the people with very serious conditions requiring very expensive medical treatment can't possibly pay into the system anywhere near what they will take out.

According to many of these people, anything that suggests people should contribute what they can and take out what they need is "SOCIALISM!!!"

That may or may not be so, but then your question is paramount: if you reject this sort of "socialism", then what do you do with these very expensive medical treatments?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So are you an anarchist? Would you rather just do without government?

I will insist on using the "conspiracy theory" accusation when people keep making these claims about the CBO reports. They're the same reports Congress has always used as a non-partisan estimate of the fiscal effects of proposed legislation.

People keep saying the CBO is making some sort of assumption or relying on bad starting information from the Democrats, but the -$507.1 figure is the result of their estimate, not something that was fed in as a starting assumption.

I agree there is no conspiracy. The CBO really is a non-partisan office and is doing their job--providing the best estimate of the fiscal results of the proposed legislation.

And how odd that when I point out all of this, the response is to say that the bill won't remain intact for 10 years. It seems to me that if that's one's position, one should argue in favor of the bill.

When has a newly created entitlement ever brought spending down?

 

[sylvan8798]

They had years in which to address this issue, and they didn't.

This is my position exactly. They had years to do something. If they wanted to do something, why didn't they? They did squat, now they have to live with what the democrats have done. As granny used to say "you made your bed in the rose garden, now you have to lie in it, thorns and all."

 

[sylvan8798]

That may or may not be so, but then your question is paramount: if you reject this sort of "socialism", then what do you do with these very expensive medical treatments?

Well, Rush seemed to suggest that you just do like you would do with your dog...

 

[Unabogie]

I agree. It seems like the rugged individualists don't consider that most of the people with very serious conditions requiring very expensive medical treatment can't possibly pay into the system anywhere near what they will take out.

According to many of these people, anything that suggests people should contribute what they can and take out what they need is "SOCIALISM!!!"

That may or may not be so, but then your question is paramount: if you reject this sort of "socialism", then what do you do with these very expensive medical treatments?

Right.. And look at this thread. So far, all of the opponents of this bill just seem incapable of answering this very simple question.

 

[sylvan8798]

Right.. And look at this thread. So far, all of the opponents of this bill just seem incapable of answering this very simple question.

Who wants to stand up and admit that they believe people should be put down like dogs? Other than Rush.

 

[Shalamar]

Right.. And look at this thread. So far, all of the opponents of this bill just seem incapable of answering this very simple question.

The answer is actually quite sad. The response is 'Wait.. I'm ok, I'm not sick, and have GREAT insurance.. where's the problem?'

 

[Peephole]

What did the COB predict Medicare costs would be forty years after its passage? Medicare Part D? I'd put them down in the "Sylvia Browne" category of accuracy.

The CBO overestimated the cost of Medicare Part D.

Oops, try again.

Edit: Loving the Republican freak out.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When has a newly created entitlement ever brought spending down?

The goal of this legislation was not deficit reduction. Obama just wanted it to pay for itself. The CBO estimates that it will.

By the way, how exactly do you define "entitlement"?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What did the COB predict Medicare costs would be forty years after its passage? Medicare Part D? I'd put them down in the "Sylvia Browne" category of accuracy.

So do you think there is some kind of conspiracy going on? The CBO isn't non-partisan and has ulterior motives in making skewed estimates? The Democratic Party somehow can have the CBO do its bidding?

 

[Cobalt]

The entertainment is excellent!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The goal of this legislation was not deficit reduction. Obama just wanted it to pay for itself. The CBO estimates that it will.

But it won't.

Tricky predicts over in the other thread:

. There will be anti-tax people who will scream each time it is augmented to cover more things,

It's just going to get bigger and bigger.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So do you think there is some kind of conspiracy going on? The CBO isn't non-partisan and has ulterior motives in making skewed estimates? The Democratic Party somehow can have the CBO do its bidding?

There's never been a need for a conspiracy to explain a government entitlement program going over budget.

 

[Tricky]

It's just going to get bigger and bigger.

Yep. People are going to expect the government to provide more basic services to keep their people alive. But don't worry too much. England is still there. So is Canada. Even Costa Rica, Rush Limbaugh's personal escape from socialized health care. You'll survive.