Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    Gents

    We'll get to all this in 12 months, but I'm a curious soul. What sort of person do you see as a good VP pick for Hilary? Someone young & dynamic and probably male (no names in mind, but I'm sure they are knocking about); someone to appeal more to the left of the party; a 'minority' candidate; a guy like Jim Webb who appeals to moderates & has a military record (he seems a bit too old - would have been better with an Obama type).

    With the GOP riding high the Dems will clearly be desperate to get that turnout back up for 2016. Assuming Hilary is the candidate, who helps her most?
    BG:

    Well, it won't be a minority or another woman. There are a lot of good fits on paper, but more likely than not she'll look to someone who can help her in whatever region she may need help in, which we don't know yet. Jack Kennedy picked Lyndon Johnson to get the southern vote, although he disliked him personally. It all depends on where her weaknesses lie.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
      BG: It all depends on where her weaknesses lie.

      She lies, has an extremely leftist view of the world, and she doesn't give a rat's ass if a government official is gunned down by an hours long terrorists attack. Its going to take a miracle worker to overcome all that. But then again all she has to do it look better than whomever the republicans throw against her.
      Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

      Comment


      • I think it's fair to say that the ACA wasn't terribly unusual in terms of sausage-making. However, Obama didn't sell himself as "business as usual." He sold himself as "Hope and Change." The only real difference is the Herculean Effort of the Leftist Technocracy to perform minor legislative changes in order to have the bill pass certain metrics like CBO cost-neutral analysis.
        All so we can look like responsbile technocratic master-minds, while actually we're no different than any standard Political Machine Mob Boss.
        However, Obama's progressive goal, mandate, and selling point was to deliver universal health care cover coverage, and that's what he delivered.
        "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
          I think it's fair to say that the ACA wasn't terribly unusual in terms of sausage-making. However, Obama didn't sell himself as "business as usual." He sold himself as "Hope and Change." The only real difference is the Herculean Effort of the Leftist Technocracy to perform minor legislative changes in order to have the bill pass certain metrics like CBO cost-neutral analysis.
          All so we can look like responsbile technocratic master-minds, while actually we're no different than any standard Political Machine Mob Boss.
          However, Obama's progressive goal, mandate, and selling point was to deliver universal health care cover coverage, and that's what he delivered.
          and what are the estimated numbers of uninsured U.S. citizens in this country still?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
            and what are the estimated numbers of uninsured U.S. citizens in this country still?
            Better question: why are those people still uninsured?
            "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
              All so we can look like responsbile technocratic master-minds, while actually we're no different than any standard Political Machine Mob Boss.
              However, Obama's progressive goal, mandate, and selling point was to deliver universal health care cover coverage, and that's what he delivered.
              For those who believe the ends justify the means, a rude shock awaits them. Maybe not tomorrow, but eventually. When Congress and the President collude to mislead the public on an issue this vast, we have a serious problem. If this sort of thing continues, people will lose all trust in government, not that they had a lot of trust anyway before.
              To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

              Comment


              • GVChamp,

                I think it's fair to say that the ACA wasn't terribly unusual in terms of sausage-making. However, Obama didn't sell himself as "business as usual." He sold himself as "Hope and Change."
                to be fair the Dems did bend over because they were -desperate- for even a fig leaf of bipartisanship.

                and what republicans effectively did were to pocket those compromises and then continue a hard-line. which led to the dems scrambling amongst themselves to keep party discipline, which meant more unsavory deals were cut.

                there was a lot of bad faith negotiating going on during that time period.
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment


                • JAD,

                  When Congress and the President collude to mislead the public on an issue this vast, we have a serious problem. If this sort of thing continues, people will lose all trust in government, not that they had a lot of trust anyway before.
                  you're right to pinpoint that lack of trust in the government is very problematic...and especially more so for the party that actually likes government. :)

                  but, i come at it from a different angle. how many voters do you think are actually informed as to the -process- vice the result? i'd say voters already have a low trust of government due to historical events (vietnam war, tuskugee experiments, nixon); that's why when the snowden revelations/leaks came up, no one seemed particularly shocked, in the US anyway, over the extent of government snooping and access.

                  moreover that doesn't even cover the previous eras where Congress made shady deals left and right to get a bill through.

                  what the public wants to see is -competent- government. less concern about how the sausage is made than whether or not the sausage tastes good.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    GVChamp,

                    to be fair the Dems did bend over because they were -desperate- for even a fig leaf of bipartisanship.

                    and what republicans effectively did were to pocket those compromises and then continue a hard-line. which led to the dems scrambling amongst themselves to keep party discipline, which meant more unsavory deals were cut.

                    there was a lot of bad faith negotiating going on during that time period.
                    I think that's an accurate characterization. That's actually more charitable than the Republicans deserve: they spent their first 2 years hell-bent on styming the Democratic Agenda.
                    Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your point of view, I guess. The Democrats landed huge majorities in 2008, and I don't think its a bad thing the Republicans were staunch opponents in order to slow down whatever nonsense came out of the White House. Keep in mind that the original Obama-plan included a public option that was sunk by Centrist Democrats, not radical Republicans.
                    Still, Dems got Obama-care, they got Dodd-Frank, they got DADT repealed, they got Sotomayor and Kagan on the Supreme Court, and a few other smaller goodies.
                    I think the Republican behavior becomes more problematic with the repeated budget battles, that basically paralyzed the government from doing anything else for several years. But then again, we are recovering from recession and the deficit has dropped dramatically: perhaps that's not all bad.
                    Then you have a more activist Tea Party causing problems in the Repulican Cacacus in the last few years, but that's largely stalling an immigration bill, not any other landmark legislation.

                    Okay, got a little off-track....my problem with health-care policy is that we can't have any sort of adult, reasonable debate about the topic. From the Democratic side it pretty much all boils down to yelling at insurance companies and pharma companies, because everything is "too expensive," and these things should just apparently operate out of the goodness of their hearts. From the Republican side it all boils down to defensive medicine.
                    We can't have an honest discussion about Sovaldi and drug utilization because it'll all boil down into the same stupid arguments. Same with breast cancer screening or Ryan White or BC coverage or even freakin' vaccinations.
                    So there's really no good way to solve these problems.
                    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                    Comment


                    • GVChamp,

                      the irony being that the policies being passed tilt MORE to the left than would otherwise be the case because Republicans wouldn't play.

                      Okay, got a little off-track....my problem with health-care policy is that we can't have any sort of adult, reasonable debate about the topic.
                      really, debate between whom? sure, there's a lot of leftists screeching about corporate greed, etc, but note that the ACA pretty much took those concerns and threw them out the window. modern Democratic -policymakers- tend to have a technocratic bent vice a populist one. note the whole "death panel" brouhaha for instance; it was a mild technocratic bill aimed at encouraging people to think about end-of-life options vice an extremely painful and expensive fight to the end, and made quite a bit of sense.

                      where are the Republican policymakers doing the same thing from their end? ah, that's right, muzzled in the name of political solidarity. (look how much standing "reformist republicans", which largely comprises of these wonks, have in the GOP today. they did a post-mortem following the 2012 elections and to date, i'm not sure if there's been any progress at all on ANY of their recommendations.)

                      the republicans have really been gutting their own technocratic expertise in the name of populism. the once respected Heritage Foundation comes to mind.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • You're talking about party leaders sidelining extremists in order to pass a bill. That's not the same as an actual discussion about our healthcare system. Democrats sold the bill as a bag of goodies financed through taxes on Cadillac Health Plans, taxes on immoral employers that don't provide insurance, taxes on rich people, requiring people to pay into a pool if they don't have insurance, and reductions in FraudWasteAbuse.
                        There was extremely little discussion about serious improvements to our health system, and lots of horror stories and talks about cost-shifting and the extreme cost of the uninsured.
                        Here's a thought: did President Obama tell Americans that they are wasting tons of money on end of life care and that it needs to be reduced? Or did he tell Americans that now they are going to get free birth control and won't be denied for pre-existing conditions? Did the tell Americans that the employer mandate was poorly structured and never going to be implemented, or that the Cadillac Health tax, as designed, would soon tax the majority of health plans in the country?


                        I don't directly blame the politicans for this, because they have to sell this crap to the public. I blame the public. They are the ones who fell for the Death Panel stuff.
                        "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                        Comment


                        • GVChamp,

                          You're talking about party leaders sidelining extremists in order to pass a bill.
                          i'm actually talking more about the wonks whom helped create the bill.

                          sure, the politicians have to SELL it, which means making it sound like the best thing since sliced bread. but even acknowledging that the ACA was a huge kludge, there was a lot of thought that went into ways of improving our medical system, such as electronic systems recording and yes, that end-of-life piece.

                          I blame the public. They are the ones who fell for the Death Panel stuff.
                          frankly how many people are healthcare experts or are even interested in this stuff? most people just want to have healthcare, want coverage to be cheap, and want their insurance to pay for everything, of course.

                          that's why obama didn't even want to touch the principle of employer-provided healthcare, even knowing that this is a substandard system. because there's massive inertia involved, and people just want it taken care of for them once they have a job.

                          so ultimately debate rests among the elites, ie people whom actually have the time/inclination to get all wonky. i suppose we deserve a button for that.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • I'll take that button! But what's the point? You and I aren't policy-makers, just wonks, and there's really not any (social) value in us learning anything if we can't disseminate knowlege...
                            I don't disagree that the policy-makers put some thought into this bill. Believe it or not, I supported the bill! The expanded entitlements are dumb, but the cost controls are needed. We're going to get stuck with the entitlements sooner or later, but we won't necessarily get the cost controls.
                            My problem is with the idea that the Democrats actually tried to have a mature conversation about this bill. The politicians tried to sell us on the idea that Obama was going to lasso the Moon and bring it down to us.

                            They may be a bit more responsbile than Palin screaming "Death Panel," but it's not much. And I agree with you, most of the public isn't interested in extremely nuanced discussions about health care policy, but responding to these tribal, emotional appeals really grates my nerves. For me, the Demorats are more annoying, because I live in Chicago, which is Democrat Utopia.
                            At one point in '08, I had a drunken classmate yell at me for supporting McCain (I didn't, and still don't, I think he's dumb), because her cousin was fighting in Afghanstian, and Obama was going to bring all the troops home from Afghanistan.

                            How the hell do you have an intelligent conversation with someone who thinks like that? At least in her drunken stupor she didn't pretend to listen and revealed her stupidity. I highly doubt I could discuss ANYTHING about health care with her.
                            "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X