ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Night Strike]

Paying less =/= better care. In fact, it typically makes things worse, which is why you gets tons of cases where people with what is deemed as minor issues or needing elective care have to continue to live under pain longer than they would have to under a system based in freedom. I heard of one case recently in the US where a person had to have an elective test performed and got it the same day as it was requested. The average wait time in Canada for the exact same elective procedure is 6 weeks. How is that an improvement in care? Obamacare does nothing to actually address or improve the level of care people get: it only decides who pays for it and how.

ONE CASE in Canada (which has among the worst systems, one not at all like what we would get here even in a "fully socialized" system, never mind the healthcare reform act).

The wait list for more than a few procedures here is weeks... and, if you are talking about getting approval from Blue Cross for some treatments, it can be months, not weeks.

My husband had to wait about 2 months to get some basic injections.. just as an example.

You act like Blue Cross is the only insurance provider in the country. However, the only provider in a single-payer system would be the government, so you're going to get the exact same "care" without any options. You should be working to free up the free market to actually work instead of just transferring everything to the government. Nothing will improve with the government running it.

[PLAYER57832]

The left-wing wants to perpetually grow the federal government into an unsustainable monstrosity.

And you try to claim you are a moderate?.. and make statements like that?

Liberals want an EFFECTIVE government, one that serves the PEOPLE, not just large corporations and the wealthy. They want the government to do its job. The Right wing doesn't want "limited" government.. they are quite happy to have it when it serves their needs, such as stealing people's land through eminent domain, allowing companies to put out toxic products because testing takes "too long" or is "too inconclusive". They are quite happy to have their own key industries given special tax breaks.. so they can out-compete their competitors. They are even happy when government research funds THEIR companies.. but talk about paying a few extra pennies to schools, to food and housing for the poor, or even holding large companies, like banks responsible for the actions they take..

THEN the cry is "large government.. bad."

[Symmetry]

Paying less =/= better care. In fact, it typically makes things worse, which is why you gets tons of cases where people with what is deemed as minor issues or needing elective care have to continue to live under pain longer than they would have to under a system based in freedom. I heard of one case recently in the US where a person had to have an elective test performed and got it the same day as it was requested. The average wait time in Canada for the exact same elective procedure is 6 weeks. How is that an improvement in care? Obamacare does nothing to actually address or improve the level of care people get: it only decides who pays for it and how.

ONE CASE in Canada (which has among the worst systems, one not at all like what we would get here even in a "fully socialized" system, never mind the healthcare reform act).

The wait list for more than a few procedures here is weeks... and, if you are talking about getting approval from Blue Cross for some treatments, it can be months, not weeks.

My husband had to wait about 2 months to get some basic injections.. just as an example.

You act like Blue Cross is the only insurance provider in the country. However, the only provider in a single-payer system would be the government, so you're going to get the exact same "care" without any options. You should be working to free up the free market to actually work instead of just transferring everything to the government. Nothing will improve with the government running it.

But the so-called "Obamacare" ain't a single payer system. And your analysis of single payer systems is clearly false anyway, even if it were true of the proposed system.

[PLAYER57832]

Paying less =/= better care. In fact, it typically makes things worse, which is why you gets tons of cases where people with what is deemed as minor issues or needing elective care have to continue to live under pain longer than they would have to under a system based in freedom. I heard of one case recently in the US where a person had to have an elective test performed and got it the same day as it was requested. The average wait time in Canada for the exact same elective procedure is 6 weeks. How is that an improvement in care? Obamacare does nothing to actually address or improve the level of care people get: it only decides who pays for it and how.

ONE CASE in Canada (which has among the worst systems, one not at all like what we would get here even in a "fully socialized" system, never mind the healthcare reform act).

The wait list for more than a few procedures here is weeks... and, if you are talking about getting approval from Blue Cross for some treatments, it can be months, not weeks.

My husband had to wait about 2 months to get some basic injections.. just as an example.

You act like Blue Cross is the only insurance provider in the country.

It does provide over 80% of US health insurance, so not far off. However, though I used Blue Cross as my specific example, all the insurance companies operate about the same. They have to. THAT is what competition has done.. mean poorer and poorer coverage for more and more money, while stockholder incomes/CEO incomes in the insurance companies rise.

However, the only provider in a single-payer system would be the government, so you're going to get the exact same "care" without any options. You should be working to free up the free market to actually work instead of just transferring everything to the government. Nothing will improve with the government running it.

I "should be".... how about getting off your high horse and actually looking at FACTS.

See, here is the part you utterly miss. Many of us who are criticizing you so heavily have actually used systems in other countries, not to mention actually looked at the DATA, rather than just propoganda and opinion.

AND.. as Symmetry just noted, Obamacare is NOT A SINGLY PAYER SYSTEM. And, your idea of what a "single payer system must be" is wrong. There ARE other models besides Canada and the UK. You continue to ignore them. -- perhaps understanding the variety of systems is just too difficult for you? Maybe the only thing you CAN understand is the simplistic "government pays all -- therefore bad"? In other contexts you can actually seem intelligent. Why do you persist in utter stupidity here? LOOK AT THE FACTS, NOT THE PROPOGANDA!

[PLAYER57832]

The people who are there and elected on the Tea Party platform does not mean that they cannot say or do things that are not about the Tea Party platform.

I understand our message is being tainted, but let me ask you, how in the world could we have the message we do and not have our opponents try to taint the message? Don't give the republicans and democrats so much power over defining us.

It's funny...because you sure don't have this view when it comes to the Occupy Wall Street folks. I wonder why that is?

You don't have to taint the Occupiers' message. They're all about government handouts in demanding a $20/hour minimum wage, government erasing all student loan debt, and other governmental powers. That's from people directly at these events, not the media rewriting what they stand for.

I see, and where you do get this information? How do you come to believe this is true?

[PLAYER57832]

Jimmy Carter was so horrible that he wasn't even coherent enough to pass a progressive piece of legislation. His legacy is stagflation.

And yet, very "strangely", the economy seemed to just magically boom after his policies were implemented.

Of course, Reagan was in office and so took credit... and took the steps that have lead to our current debt, passing on largess to his backers instead of ensuring the future stability of our country in the long term.

[Night Strike]

You act like Blue Cross is the only insurance provider in the country.

It does provide over 80% of US health insurance, so not far off.

So only 125 million people have health insurance in a country of over 300 million people? Because their website says they cover 100 million people and you say they provide 80% of health insurance.

The left-wing wants to perpetually grow the federal government into an unsustainable monstrosity.

And you try to claim you are a moderate?.. and make statements like that?

Liberals want an EFFECTIVE government, one that serves the PEOPLE, not just large corporations and the wealthy. They want the government to do its job. The Right wing doesn't want "limited" government.. they are quite happy to have it when it serves their needs, such as stealing people's land through eminent domain, allowing companies to put out toxic products because testing takes "too long" or is "too inconclusive". They are quite happy to have their own key industries given special tax breaks.. so they can out-compete their competitors. They are even happy when government research funds THEIR companies.. but talk about paying a few extra pennies to schools, to food and housing for the poor, or even holding large companies, like banks responsible for the actions they take..

THEN the cry is "large government.. bad."

No, I'm a conservative. Actually, you try to label yourself as moderate yet all we ever see you doing is demanding more governmental programs and less free market. I don't agree with using eminent domain to build malls, I don't agree with letting companies go if their products are found to be toxic, and I don't agree with the federal government using the tax code to pick and choose industries to support. However, I also don't agree with the government giving handouts to everybody or creating new programs in perpetuity, or adding 10,000 pages of regulations every single year. You act like the government is the only entity who can actually feed and house the poor. Why can't private entities do that? Why are we forced to give the money to the government first instead of organizations that actually do those things first hand? Why do we have to continue to give blank checks to schools when their quality has gone down ever since the federal government decided to control them (despite expanded spending)? And I've never once supported the large company bailouts, so you can't pin that on me. And yes, a large government is bad because our currently large government refuses to stop growing larger. So we have to elect representation that will have a spine and stand up to force it to stop growing. Your assumption is that a growing government is good, yet all we're seeing is that it sucks more and more money out of the private sector and completely stagnates growth and economic wellness.

[PLAYER57832]

Ouch, how will NS deal with his fantasy being debunked?

By ignoring it, as he does for anything that doesn't match his worldview.

The only "facts" to Nightstrike are those put out by the far right propagandists.. with a couple of exceptions in very narrow areas. (he is not, by all accounts a racist)

[Night Strike]

Jimmy Carter was so horrible that he wasn't even coherent enough to pass a progressive piece of legislation. His legacy is stagflation.

And yet, very "strangely", the economy seemed to just magically boom after his policies were implemented.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

That's priceless!!

[Symmetry]

ROFLMAO!!!!!

That's priceless!!

When did you morph into Scotty? The only things missing are the smilies for sheer laziness, Oh, and spamming youtube videos if you don't have an argument.

[PLAYER57832]

You act like Blue Cross is the only insurance provider in the country.

It does provide over 80% of US health insurance, so not far off.

So only 125 million people have health insurance in a country of over 300 million people? Because their website says they cover 100 million people and you say they provide 80% of health insurance.

80% of those with private insurance, not 80% of the population

The left-wing wants to perpetually grow the federal government into an unsustainable monstrosity.

And you try to claim you are a moderate?.. and make statements like that?

Liberals want an EFFECTIVE government, one that serves the PEOPLE, not just large corporations and the wealthy. They want the government to do its job. The Right wing doesn't want "limited" government.. they are quite happy to have it when it serves their needs, such as stealing people's land through eminent domain, allowing companies to put out toxic products because testing takes "too long" or is "too inconclusive". They are quite happy to have their own key industries given special tax breaks.. so they can out-compete their competitors. They are even happy when government research funds THEIR companies.. but talk about paying a few extra pennies to schools, to food and housing for the poor, or even holding large companies, like banks responsible for the actions they take..

THEN the cry is "large government.. bad."

No, I'm a conservative. Actually, you try to label yourself as moderate yet all we ever see you doing is demanding more governmental programs and less free market.

Not at all, but we all know you ignore realities that don't match your beliefs.

I don't agree with using eminent domain to build malls, I don't agree with letting companies go if their products are found to be toxic, and I don't agree with the federal government using the tax code to pick and choose industries to support.

Great, then you are truly a liberal!

Except.. you forget that the things you are truly advocating will and HAVE resulted in those exact things.

However, I also don't agree with the government giving handouts to everybody or creating new programs in perpetuity, or adding 10,000 pages of regulations every single year.

Nice rhetoric. But when it comes to specifics, you only seem to pay attention to the meager bucks given to some people who need food, clothing and a house.. you somehow ignore all the corporate largess.

That's what bullies do, though.. target the weak.

You act like the government is the only entity who can actually feed and house the poor. Why can't private entities do that?

Because, throughout the history of humanity, they never have, not fully.

Because people are happy to buy over-priced cookies from well fed girls in uniforms, popcorn from smiling little boys in blue.. but ask to pay even 1/2 that amount so those kids' friends and neighbors can eat or have clothing and suddenly -- well, they aren't the "nice, neat, attractive poor", so forget it. The real poor "don't deserve help".

Yet.. the issue here is not what people do or not deserve (that IS an issue, but there is a more important one when it comes to answering "why we should provide... as taxpayers"), the issue is that it is far more COST-EFFECTIVE and beneficial to the long term health of a society to ensure that people are fed, clothed and housed. Else you get many more expensive problems ranging from increased crime (hungry people tend to be desperate) to increased disease (hard to stay clean, never mind healthy when you don't have a house or food). AND, let's not forget that kids of derelicts do grow up. They can grow up with full tummies and have a reasonable chance at a healthy adulthood, or you can subject them to malnurishment and hunger with LIFETIME implications. Now, none of this is to claim that our current system is perfect. However, there is a big difference between saying "tweek this system, modify it" and "do away with it because I don't like it".

Why are we forced to give the money to the government first instead of organizations that actually do those things first hand?

We are not. However, there are not enough organizations to do that. You tend to get too many duplications in a few big cities (parts of cities), but very little in other areas. Besides, a lot of those "private" groups actually do depend on various types of government aid.


See, you keep trying to claim that government is automatically inefficient, but when it comes to things like food aid, the truth is that only a government program is organized and widespread enough to handle it. Now.. don't bother coming up with "Walmart serves hurricane areas" or such. They serve a specific population for a profit. There is no direct profit in serving the poor. People are happy to contribute a bit, to feel good. BUT, they are not happy to give day in and day out for long periods of time to people who may never be able to stand on their own two feet. Your own rhetoric shows that pretty well.

Yet, if we don't provide for those people... we, as a society experience more harm than we do by simply providing some food and clothing, etc., to them.

Why do we have to continue to give blank checks to schools when their quality has gone down ever since the federal government decided to control them (despite expanded spending)?

It Hasn't gone down because the federal government got involved. It went down because the REPUBLICAN conservative wing got involved.

Even so, basic reading and math scores have apparently gone up in many places. Its that science and creative thinking are not being promoted.

And I've never once supported the large company bailouts, so you can't pin that on me.

Niether have liberals. BUT.. you have supported tax breaks and other benefits to corporations that liberals do not support. You tend to pass those issues by when challenged and turn the focus on "but I don't want my money to go to deadbeats", but turning away is not the same as opposing, either.

And yes, a large government is bad because our currently large government refuses to stop growing larger.

So your theory is that we should have the same sized government as we had when our country was just a few meagerly populated colonies without any of the general scientific/ecological/medical or technical understandings we have today?

So we have to elect representation that will have a spine and stand up to force it to stop growing. Your assumption is that a growing government is good, yet all we're seeing is that it sucks more and more money out of the private sector and completely stagnates growth and economic wellness.

No, my assumption is that removing government is not the panacea you wish to put forward. We do need to control government, contain it. You are not really advocating that, though. You just want it gone.. which means we will be ruled by corporations. I see the problem today as too much corporate influence, not too little.

[Night Strike]

You act like Blue Cross is the only insurance provider in the country.

It does provide over 80% of US health insurance, so not far off.

So only 125 million people have health insurance in a country of over 300 million people? Because their website says they cover 100 million people and you say they provide 80% of health insurance.

80% of those with private insurance, not 80% of the population

You're obviously wrong. United Healthcare covers 70 million people. That obviously means that two companies cover $170 million people so it's mathematically impossible for Blue Cross to cover 80% of people. And that's just one other company. I looked up Assurant Health also (the ones who provide health insurance to USAA customers), but I couldn't quickly find a stated number of people covered.

Because, throughout the history of humanity, they never have, not fully.

Since when has the government done better? LBJ started the government's War on Poverty, yet we still have poverty. In fact, in many regards, we have even more poverty. So obviously the government is not doing it fully.

[PLAYER57832]

You act like Blue Cross is the only insurance provider in the country.

It does provide over 80% of US health insurance, so not far off.

So only 125 million people have health insurance in a country of over 300 million people? Because their website says they cover 100 million people and you say they provide 80% of health insurance.

80% of those with private insurance, not 80% of the population

You're obviously wrong. United Healthcare covers 70 million people. That obviously means that two companies cover $170 million people so it's mathematically impossible for Blue Cross to cover 80% of people. And that's just one other company. I looked up Assurant Health also (the ones who provide health insurance to USAA customers), but I couldn't quickly find a stated number of people covered.

Yet, both the president's and AMA’s numbers are misleading as they look at less than half of the insurance market. About 55 percent of those insured receive their insurance from a “self-insured” employer, where the employer acts as the insurer, rather than from a traditional insurance company. These "self-insured" employers often hire other firms, including insurance companies, to help administer the plans (they handle the paperwork and form networks with doctors and hospitals). While employees often naturally think that the insurance company named on their insurance cards is providing the coverage, employers determine the details of coverage – from benefits to what premium the employee contributes – and they are responsible for putting aside money to cover employee medical costs.

The self-insured market consists of thousands of employers acting as insurance providers and competing for workers based on the salary they pay and the benefits they offer. Over 900 companies handle the administration of self-insured plans, with fees typically running three to eight percent of the total cost of insurance, depending on the employer’s size.

To see the difference this makes, take the president's worst-case example of Alabama. The largest insurance company, Blue Cross/ Blue Shield of Alabama, accounts for 83 percent of the “fully insured” market, as opposed to self-insured employer plans. The fully insured market is therefore highly concentrated. But 57 percent of those insured in Alabama get their coverage through thousands of employer self-funded plans. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama thus has only 36 percent of the total insurance market. The next largest insurance company in the state, Health Choice, has just 5 percent of the fully insured market, or 2.2 percent of the entire market.

Leave it to you to concentrate on a minor side point that I did not actually make in my initial argument.

(whether Blue Cross is the only provider or not is irrelevant to whether the companies are or are not insuring people the way people think).

BUT...
here is an "explanation" claiming to refute what I said, though its really picking out technicalilties that don't matter to most people. The point of saying Blue Cross insures most americans is not about who pays the insurance bill, its who sets the limits and such. AND, even though this article wants to claim that employers do that, its arguing semantics, not reality. Employers select from the offering Blue Cross provides. In the past, employers had economic incentive to provide better insurance as a cheaper way to provide additional compensation to employees (cheaper than increasing wages or other benefits). In more recent years that has changed, so employers are more and more looking for the cheapest policies that will provide the minimum of legal coverage. Blue Cross is quite happy to provide that, but it is still Blue Cross insurance. The claim that self-paying employers are somehow not part of the Blue Cross machine is just wrong.

OH, and note, I did not pick some "liberal blather". I specifically picked an article attempting to refute the numbers I cited. Except.. it doesn't really.

But now, care to answer any of the REAL POINTS I ACTUALLY MADE? Instead of diverting to nitpicking irrelevancies?

Because, throughout the history of humanity, they never have, not fully.

Since when has the government done better? LBJ started the government's War on Poverty, yet we still have poverty. In fact, in many regards, we have even more poverty. So obviously the government is not doing it fully.

OK, I will make it easier on you. Show, exactly how a fully private system has done better.

And... I do NOT mean small, isolated programs. That's a very disengenuous argument. The whole point is that while private entities can do a good, even better job in some specific areas , they cannot do so overall.

But hey, just look above. Despite your claim to the contrary, we saw an eradication of childhood hunger in the 1980's largely do to school meal programs and other food aid. Similarly, poor people can get healthcare coverage.

And, not sure how you say we have "more poverty". We have homelessness now, which formerly was not such an issue. It is an issue precisely becuase hunger is mostly no longer an issue.

To the extent we DO have "more poverty" it is because reductions/failures to enforce government regulations over "Wall street" and the banks directly caused millions of foreclosures and a slump in our economy.

[Woodruff]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:


(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

[Woodruff]

The left-wing wants to perpetually grow the federal government into an unsustainable monstrosity.

And you try to claim you are a moderate?.. and make statements like that?

I don't remember Night Strike ever making that claim, to be honest.

[BigBallinStalin]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:


(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

(1) Which countries have implemented this, and what were the outcomes?

(2) What would prevent others forms of finance? Of course, you could say, "the limit is $10 million." But what about resources donated? Or facilities used?

[Lootifer]

The last page reminded me of bum fighting for some reason...

[Juan_Bottom]

[GreecePwns]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:


(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

Exactly. My position includes the banning of said donations altogether.

[Woodruff]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:

(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

(1) Which countries have implemented this, and what were the outcomes?

Where did I say it has been implemented? I made the statement that it absolutely can. Do you disagree?

(2) What would prevent others forms of finance? Of course, you could say, "the limit is $10 million." But what about resources donated? Or facilities used?

Clearly, you're not understanding the term "limitation on spending of funding". It doesn't matter how much money the candidate has...they're limited on spending only a certain amount. That would help significantly in getting the money out of politics, in my opinion.

[Woodruff]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:


(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

Exactly. My position includes the banning of said donations altogether.

Mine as well, which is why I like the public funding of campaigns idea.

[BigBallinStalin]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:

(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

(1) Which countries have implemented this, and what were the outcomes?

Where did I say it has been implemented? I made the statement that it absolutely can. Do you disagree?

(2) What would prevent others forms of finance? Of course, you could say, "the limit is $10 million." But what about resources donated? Or facilities used?

Clearly, you're not understanding the term "limitation on spending of funding". It doesn't matter how much money the candidate has...they're limited on spending only a certain amount. That would help significantly in getting the money out of politics, in my opinion.

(1) I asked to see if it was implemented in other countries. If it was, then it helps to know the outcomes. Obviously, you're not aware of the literature, so I shouldn't bother asking you again.

(2)Clearly, you underestimate humanity's ability to find substitutes, or work around the rules. If a candidate can only spend a certain amount, then why couldn't someone spend for him? If the candidate's party can only spend a certain amount, then why not have the expenditures burdened by relevant organizations which directly support the candidate's party? If the candidate can't spend over a certain amount, then others could give him facilities for $0.00. See what I mean?

"Limitation on spending of funding" doesn't mean much. Besides, why? What good would it do?

Then, how? How can such a reform be implemented? (saxi brought a good point earlier).

[Woodruff]

You're asking for something that is impossible currently, BBS, mostly because of the lack of political incentive or will to carry out such a change. The political system (namely, the campaign finance system) needs to be overhauled before any meaningful popular reform can take place.

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:

(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

(1) Which countries have implemented this, and what were the outcomes?

Where did I say it has been implemented? I made the statement that it absolutely can. Do you disagree?

(2) What would prevent others forms of finance? Of course, you could say, "the limit is $10 million." But what about resources donated? Or facilities used?

Clearly, you're not understanding the term "limitation on spending of funding". It doesn't matter how much money the candidate has...they're limited on spending only a certain amount. That would help significantly in getting the money out of politics, in my opinion.

(1) I asked to see if it was implemented in other countries. If it was, then it helps to know the outcomes. Obviously, you're not aware of the literature, so I shouldn't bother asking you again.

What literature? You mean I can't have an idea without knowing all the literature about it as to when and where it has ever been implemented?

(2)Clearly, you underestimate humanity's ability to find substitutes, or work around the rules. If a candidate can only spend a certain amount, then why couldn't someone spend for him? If the candidate's party can only spend a certain amount, then why not have the expenditures burdened by relevant organizations which directly support the candidate's party? If the candidate can't spend over a certain amount, then others could give him facilities for $0.00. See what I mean?

No, I do not see what you mean. I mean that explicitly, nothing would be spent on that campaign outside of what the candidate spent. Let the candidates be their own voice for a change.

Then, how? How can such a reform be implemented? (saxi brought a good point earlier).

We have these neat things called laws. Now, I'll be the first to admit that passing such a law through Congress is...to put it mildly...less than a snowball's chance in hell. After all, I can't imagine that more than an exceptional few would have any interest in cutting off their moneybags. Which of course points out exactly why it needs to be done.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's only impossible in the implementation stage at the political level, mainly because:

(1) the application is at a federal level. If it was at a State level, or smaller, then there would be less political/bureaucratic resistance to the plan, greater local knowledge, and greater feedback from the constituents.


I don't see how campaign finance reform won't adjust political and bureaucratic incentives. Even with a fixed amount of political money distributed by the state, the politicians will always need more, so there's always organizations out there willing to donate. If you could somehow annihilate the demand for campaign contributions, then I'm all ears.

Campaign finance reform can absolutely include limitations on spending of funding. By doing so, there is no longer a demand for those campaign contributions, as they wouldn't be able to use them.

(1) Which countries have implemented this, and what were the outcomes?

Where did I say it has been implemented? I made the statement that it absolutely can. Do you disagree?

(2) What would prevent others forms of finance? Of course, you could say, "the limit is $10 million." But what about resources donated? Or facilities used?

Clearly, you're not understanding the term "limitation on spending of funding". It doesn't matter how much money the candidate has...they're limited on spending only a certain amount. That would help significantly in getting the money out of politics, in my opinion.

(1) I asked to see if it was implemented in other countries. If it was, then it helps to know the outcomes. Obviously, you're not aware of the literature, so I shouldn't bother asking you again.

What literature? You mean I can't have an idea without knowing all the literature about it as to when and where it has ever been implemented?

(2)Clearly, you underestimate humanity's ability to find substitutes, or work around the rules. If a candidate can only spend a certain amount, then why couldn't someone spend for him? If the candidate's party can only spend a certain amount, then why not have the expenditures burdened by relevant organizations which directly support the candidate's party? If the candidate can't spend over a certain amount, then others could give him facilities for $0.00. See what I mean?

No, I do not see what you mean. I mean that explicitly, nothing would be spent on that campaign outside of what the candidate spent. Let the candidates be their own voice for a change.

Then, how? How can such a reform be implemented? (saxi brought a good point earlier).

We have these neat things called laws. Now, I'll be the first to admit that passing such a law through Congress is...to put it mildly...less than a snowball's chance in hell. After all, I can't imagine that more than an exceptional few would have any interest in cutting off their moneybags. Which of course points out exactly why it needs to be done.

1) I don't get it. Clearly, you don't have an answer to the question. That's okay, Woodruff. Get over it.

2) Ah, yes, laws.

"Hey, BBS, so how's that anarcho-capitalism gonna work?"

Oh, you know, competitive legal systems and laws. You know, laws. Yeah, that's it. Laws.

(2)Clearly, you underestimate humanity's ability to find substitutes, or work around the rules. If a candidate can only spend a certain amount, then why couldn't someone spend for him? If the candidate's party can only spend a certain amount, then why not have the expenditures burdened by relevant organizations which directly support the candidate's party? If the candidate can't spend over a certain amount, then others could give him facilities for $0.00. See what I mean?

No, I do not see what you mean. I mean that explicitly, nothing would be spent on that campaign outside of what the candidate spent. Let the candidates be their own voice for a change.

Yeah, because laws, Woodruff. Laws!

[Juan_Bottom]

Ouch, how will NS deal with his fantasy being debunked?

Our annual debt has been over $1 trillion since Obama took office. The total federal debt has grown by $5 trillion under Obama, which is a 50% increase over what it was when he took office. He's done nothing to actually cut spending. Plus, he enacted Obamacare where only the taxes have already started: the majority of the spending doesn't start until 2014. The only reason that annualized amount looks so small is because the government spending was already way too high to begin with, which means Obama can keep adding to it without the percent change going up as much. When your budget is 50% higher than your predecessor, you can have a much larger increase in actual dollars spent before you change the annualized numbers by a percentage. Simple math there.

That image came from Forbes.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?




Also:
Job Creation Under Democratic Presidents Roughly Double That Of GOP: Report

sorry about your little butt