ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Juan_Bottom]

There's no debate about it because the claims aren't true, so people don't waste their time discussing it. This law increases federal spending on health care and does nothing to improve the system to make private insurance costs go down. The only way they even claimed that the law decreased federal spending on health care is because it forced states to pay for the Medicaid expansions, but then the Supreme Court threw out those portions.

Oh so the facts don't fit your agenda?
Just claim the facts aren't true.
REPUBLICAN 2012!

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not saving any revenue right now anyway, so your argument is disingenuous.

I didn't say that it would save money today. But everyone except the Republican nutters acknowledge that it will save a shit-ton of money for our nation. So your argument is disingenuous. There's no debate about this here.

So, where's the evidence of this?

By nation, do you mean the government and its debt, or do you mean the people? And would a reduction in costs lead to higher quality, and how?

[Symmetry]

It's not saving any revenue right now anyway, so your argument is disingenuous.

I didn't say that it would save money today. But everyone except the Republican nutters acknowledge that it will save a shit-ton of money for our nation. So your argument is disingenuous. There's no debate about this here.

So, where's the evidence of this?

By nation, do you mean the government and its debt, or do you mean the people? And would a reduction in costs lead to higher quality, and how?

I've kind of argued this with you before, but looking at almost any comparison with countries who have implemented public healthcare, costs are less, and results are better.

The evidence is in the examples of countries that have implemented effective public healthcare, and pay less for it.

Look to the examples of it working, and consider the value of imitating said systems.

If you want it to cost less, they do that.

If you want it to do a better job, they do that.

If you're concerned that it will go against freedom, they are wildly popular.

If you're bothered by it making the US too European or Socialist, look to places like Israel or Japan.

But don't think that there's no evidence.

[Phatscotty]

Unfortunately, the Tea Party started moving into the realm of abortion and issues like that, which really had no place for them. That's when the Tea Party was absorbed by the right-wing.

source?????

I'm sorry, but that is 100% incorrect, which means most of what you base your knowledge on the Tea Party on must be equally skewed.

Example: I am hardcore Tea Party, and I don't care about the issue of abortion, and I only would care when it was my personal business. I have been proud that the Tea Party has not taken a position on abortion. All we are about, as you damn well know, is less taxes, less debt, and less government intervention. That's all.

[Night Strike]

It's not saving any revenue right now anyway, so your argument is disingenuous.

I didn't say that it would save money today. But everyone except the Republican nutters acknowledge that it will save a shit-ton of money for our nation. So your argument is disingenuous. There's no debate about this here.

So, where's the evidence of this?

By nation, do you mean the government and its debt, or do you mean the people? And would a reduction in costs lead to higher quality, and how?

I've kind of argued this with you before, but looking at almost any comparison with countries who have implemented public healthcare, costs are less, and results are better.

The evidence is in the examples of countries that have implemented effective public healthcare, and pay less for it.

Look to the examples of it working, and consider the value of imitating said systems.

If you want it to cost less, they do that.

If you want it to do a better job, they do that.

If you're concerned that it will go against freedom, they are wildly popular.

If you're bothered by it making the US too European or Socialist, look to places like Israel or Japan.

But don't think that there's no evidence.

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.

[GreecePwns]

Why always Canada and/or the UK? Why do you cherrypick the absolute worst of the worst?

[Symmetry]

Unfortunately, the Tea Party started moving into the realm of abortion and issues like that, which really had no place for them. That's when the Tea Party was absorbed by the right-wing.

source?????

I'm sorry, but that is 100% incorrect, which means most of what you base your knowledge on the Tea Party on must be equally skewed.

Example: I am hardcore Tea Party, and I don't care about the issue of abortion, and I only would care when it was my personal business. I have been proud that the Tea Party has not taken a position on abortion. All we are about, as you damn well know, is less taxes, less debt, and less government intervention. That's all.

The Tea Party, Religion and Social Issues

Pew indicates that the Tea Party is indeed very socially conservative on abortion, more so than Repubs in general.

[Phatscotty]

Unfortunately, the Tea Party started moving into the realm of abortion and issues like that, which really had no place for them. That's when the Tea Party was absorbed by the right-wing.

source?????

I'm sorry, but that is 100% incorrect, which means most of what you base your knowledge on the Tea Party on must be equally skewed.

Example: I am hardcore Tea Party, and I don't care about the issue of abortion, and I only would care when it was my personal business. I have been proud that the Tea Party has not taken a position on abortion. All we are about, as you damn well know, is less taxes, less debt, and less government intervention. That's all.

The Tea Party, Religion and Social Issues

Pew indicates that the Tea Party is indeed very socially conservative on abortion, more so than Repubs in general.

Social issues have no place in the Tea Party platform. end of story, regardless of the big lies repeated by media, and heard by people who participate in pew research polls.

[Lootifer]

Social issues have no place in the Tea Party platform. end of story, regardless of the big lies repeated by media, and heard by people who participate in pew research polls.

I agree with your statement but the Pew Research shows that this doesnt reflect reality. Also if your statement is correct they should not be supporting either of the US presidential candidates/parties.

Maybe you and others who share your opinion need to fix things internally in the tea party before pushing its message so strongly? Bacause right now your message is being tainted (I cant think of a neutral word for it, but not tainting in a bad way, just a reality of the situation, for example as an external observer I think of the tea party as largely a conservative movement rather than a libertarian movement) by the religious/conservative right.

Sure theres a lot of media bias involved here, but if I was in a position of power in the tea party (just hypothetical, I couldnt think of anything worse ) I would be doing a lot more to distance the tea party from the religious/conservative right if your message is as you say it is.

[Symmetry]

Social issues have no place in the Tea Party platform. end of story, regardless of the big lies repeated by media, and heard by people who participate in pew research polls.

I agree with your statement but the Pew Research shows that this simply isnt the case in reality.

Maybe you and others who share your opinion need to fix things internally in the tea party before pushing its message so strongly? Bacause right now your message is being tainted (I cant think of a neutral word for it, but not tainting in a bad way, just a reality of the situation, for example as an external observer I think of the tea party as largely a conservative movement rather than a libertarian movement) by the religious/conservative right.

Sure theres a lot of media bias involved here, but if I was in a position of power in the tea party (just hypothetical, I couldnt think of anything worse ) I would be doing a lot more to distance the tea party from the religious/conservative right if your message is as you say it is.

Indeed, and the Pew poll, if Mr Scotty would care to look at it, was not of what people thought about the Tea Party's take on social issues, but what people who considered themselves members of the Tea Party thought.

[Phatscotty]

Social issues have no place in the Tea Party platform. end of story, regardless of the big lies repeated by media, and heard by people who participate in pew research polls.

I agree with your statement but the Pew Research shows that this doesnt reflect reality. Also if your statement is correct they should not be supporting either of the US presidential candidates/parties.

Maybe you and others who share your opinion need to fix things internally in the tea party before pushing its message so strongly? Bacause right now your message is being tainted (I cant think of a neutral word for it, but not tainting in a bad way, just a reality of the situation, for example as an external observer I think of the tea party as largely a conservative movement rather than a libertarian movement) by the religious/conservative right.

Sure theres a lot of media bias involved here, but if I was in a position of power in the tea party (just hypothetical, I couldnt think of anything worse ) I would be doing a lot more to distance the tea party from the religious/conservative right if your message is as you say it is.

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.

We are in no way close to the religious right, so there is no need to spend time distancing ourselves from them. The only reason people think we are on the right is because the left said so. However I would points to the actions of people rather than their words.

The Republicans hate the Tea Party just as much as the Democrats, if not more. That should be evidence enough

[Night Strike]

Social issues have no place in the Tea Party platform. end of story, regardless of the big lies repeated by media, and heard by people who participate in pew research polls.

I agree with your statement but the Pew Research shows that this doesnt reflect reality. Also if your statement is correct they should not be supporting either of the US presidential candidates/parties.

Maybe you and others who share your opinion need to fix things internally in the tea party before pushing its message so strongly? Bacause right now your message is being tainted (I cant think of a neutral word for it, but not tainting in a bad way, just a reality of the situation, for example as an external observer I think of the tea party as largely a conservative movement rather than a libertarian movement) by the religious/conservative right.

Sure theres a lot of media bias involved here, but if I was in a position of power in the tea party (just hypothetical, I couldnt think of anything worse ) I would be doing a lot more to distance the tea party from the religious/conservative right if your message is as you say it is.

It's called having political allies. The liberals will not have anything to do with cutting the size of government, so the only way the Tea Party can enact that change is to ally with conservatives. A lot of conservatives had already joined up with the Tea Party because they realized that the Republicans were behaving just like the liberals and needed to be reigned in as well. That's why so many Republicans have been defeated in primaries by Tea Party people. But just because conservatives believe abortion is wrong doesn't mean that position will be defining them in this election. What defines this election is the fiscal cliff we're barreling towards and how we are going to avert the impending dive. Social issues are irrelevant if we don't have a sane fiscal network in place. We'll figure those social issues out after our fiscal house is in order.

[Phatscotty]

if you think the way to grow and move in the right direction is by borrowing less, taking less from workers, and regulating less, then you agree with tea party platform. you can be an atheist and agree with the TP, and you can be a devil worshipper and agree with the TP. or you can be catholic or jewish or anything and still agree with the TP. you can be a democrat or a republican, pro or anti abortion. for the death penalty or against it, both can agree with the Tea Party platform.

I hope now some can begin to understand what has been happening over the last couple years.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not saving any revenue right now anyway, so your argument is disingenuous.

I didn't say that it would save money today. But everyone except the Republican nutters acknowledge that it will save a shit-ton of money for our nation. So your argument is disingenuous. There's no debate about this here.

So, where's the evidence of this?

By nation, do you mean the government and its debt, or do you mean the people? And would a reduction in costs lead to higher quality, and how?

I've kind of argued this with you before, but looking at almost any comparison with countries who have implemented public healthcare, costs are less, and results are better.

The evidence is in the examples of countries that have implemented effective public healthcare, and pay less for it.

Look to the examples of it working, and consider the value of imitating said systems.

If you want it to cost less, they do that.

If you want it to do a better job, they do that.

If you're concerned that it will go against freedom, they are wildly popular.

If you're bothered by it making the US too European or Socialist, look to places like Israel or Japan.

But don't think that there's no evidence.

I recall that discussion, but we only went over health care costs at a superficial level (i.e. only looking at costs with each country). We didn't examine any of the nuances of such systems, the differences and similarities, the effectiveness of relevant private industries and public bureaucracies (because healthcare isn't a blackbox), etc. I especially recall about my point on the quality of each healthcare system, but you only went on about the relative costs, # of doctors (which doesn't mean much), etc. I mentioned the unseen costs and how that's disregarded, so the evidence so far isn't convincing. Time-series data on the relative quality of healthcare for country X was not provided by your links either. Some of your above single-liners have yet to be defended, aren't true, or aren't sufficient.


In light of the above, I have yet to see the argument that:

(1) ObamaCare is actually similar to other public healthcare plans currently implemented in Europe, Israel, Japan. How similar?
(2) ObamaCare will result in lower costs (to who?) without a decrease in quality.
(3) Conflicting predictions from the same source, the CBO, on future costs. Which one is true?
(4) Unintended Consequences:

(4a) Will future costs decrease or increase for health insurance in the private sector?
(4b) How will Obamacare affect the prices of doctors, nurses, etc.?
(4c) How will the political donations to Obama from certain insurance companies affect his future behavior in implementing policy? Will he deviate even further from the "public good"?

[Symmetry]

It's not saving any revenue right now anyway, so your argument is disingenuous.

I didn't say that it would save money today. But everyone except the Republican nutters acknowledge that it will save a shit-ton of money for our nation. So your argument is disingenuous. There's no debate about this here.

So, where's the evidence of this?

By nation, do you mean the government and its debt, or do you mean the people? And would a reduction in costs lead to higher quality, and how?

I've kind of argued this with you before, but looking at almost any comparison with countries who have implemented public healthcare, costs are less, and results are better.

The evidence is in the examples of countries that have implemented effective public healthcare, and pay less for it.

Look to the examples of it working, and consider the value of imitating said systems.

If you want it to cost less, they do that.

If you want it to do a better job, they do that.

If you're concerned that it will go against freedom, they are wildly popular.

If you're bothered by it making the US too European or Socialist, look to places like Israel or Japan.

But don't think that there's no evidence.

I recall that discussion, but we only went over health care costs at a superficial level (i.e. only looking at costs with each country). We didn't examine any of the nuances of such systems, the differences and similarities, the effectiveness of relevant private industries and public bureaucracies (because healthcare isn't a blackbox), etc. I especially recall about my point on the quality of each healthcare system, but you only went on about the relative costs, # of doctors (which doesn't mean much), etc. I mentioned the unseen costs and how that's disregarded, so the evidence so far isn't convincing. Time-series data on the relative quality of healthcare for country X was not provided by your links either. Some of your above single-liners have yet to be defended, aren't true, or aren't sufficient.


In light of the above, I have yet to see the argument that:

(1) ObamaCare is actually similar to other public healthcare plans currently implemented in Europe, Israel, Japan. How similar?
(2) ObamaCare will result in lower costs (to who?) without a decrease in quality.
(3) Conflicting predictions from the same source, the CBO, on future costs. Which one is true?
(4) Unintended Consequences:

(4a) Will future costs decrease or increase for health insurance in the private sector?
(4b) How will Obamacare affect the prices of doctors, nurses, etc.?
(4c) How will the political donations to Obama from certain insurance companies affect his future behavior in implementing policy? Will he deviate even further from the "public good"?

And you won't be able to get the comparisons you want until it's implemented fully. What you have as evidence is the countries that have similar systems in place, and the stats on the status quo.

I appreciate your concern, perhaps more than you know, but step 1 is to look at similar examples of countries that have dealt with the issue.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's not true (re: your first sentence). If you want to make the case that "hey, public healthcare works in these countries; therefore, it'll work in the US with Obamacare!," then you'll have to explain why. You'll have to compare the institutions (markets, regulatory agencies, law, etc.), and see which influences produce better outcomes when each country's particular plan is sifted through each particular country and its institutions. (Without this analysis, then the argument isn't convincing. So far, I've seen you fit aggregated facts to fit preconceived conclusions with little regard for the details and descriptive ability of the actual data used).

The ideal policymaking is to conduct a comparative analysis of the institutions alongside each particular plan. This would probably take 1-2 years, probably 15-30 professors, and with lots of money thrown into it. Then with this data in mind, present it to the plan implementers, who should compare their previously formed part of the plan with reality, and then adjust their plan to one that seems most suitable to the US. (another year or so?). But this doesn't happen. Why?

Honestly, I don't think the implementers take such cautious steps. As long as the politician has complicated-looking data and a tidy executive summary, then that's enough justification for passing on benefits to his political contributors and to target voting markets. Time is money votes, and the politicians needs short-term benefits with no regard to long-term costs. The above plan would consider long-term costs (unintended consequences), yet the politician has little incentive to plan for this.

How about later improvements? There's multiple issues like legal entanglement, lack of political will (perhaps, politically suicide to improve something for the better), no incentive for taxes (revenue) will always be collected, bureaucratic infighting, etc.


So, if someone could write a plan which explains and addresses all the above issues, then I'd be convinced. This would lead to better public policy, but the political and bureaucratic incentives simply aren't tuned to long-term planning for the better. This explains why I have little faith in government-controlled or -owned endeavors.

[Symmetry]

If "Obamacare" hasn't been fully introduced, and you're dismissing the idea of looking at examples of public healthcare in other countries, you're essentially demanding examples that don't exist be compared to examples you're dismissing.

You ask a difficult set of questions BBS.

[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.

[Woodruff]

It's not saving any revenue right now anyway, so your argument is disingenuous.

I didn't say that it would save money today. But everyone except the Republican nutters acknowledge that it will save a shit-ton of money for our nation. So your argument is disingenuous. There's no debate about this here.

There's no debate about it because the claims aren't true, so people don't waste their time discussing it. This law increases federal spending on health care and does nothing to improve the system to make private insurance costs go down. The only way they even claimed that the law decreased federal spending on health care is because it forced states to pay for the Medicaid expansions, but then the Supreme Court threw out those portions.

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

That really isn't true, necessarily. Do you get all of your information from propoganda?

It's not propaganda when it's true.

Well, it's NOT true, first of all. So that pretty much eliminates your entire argument.

Just look at what the government is actually doing.

If you actually WOULD look at what the government is actually doing, you sure as hell wouldn't think Obama was a liberal. I don't. He's far from a liberal.

actuallyProgressives want to expand the government in every avenue possible, no matter what the costs are. If they aren't making enough money to pay for it, they demand that "the rich" give even more money to the government to pay for it. They don't question whether a program is good or beneficial (muchless even trying to figure out if it's Constitutional) while going to enact it anyway.[/quote]

This is an idiotic, unsupported and ludicrous bit of propoganda. Statements like these just make you appear honestly ignorant, Night Strike.

[Woodruff]

An independent who is also actively involved in the GOP primary delegation of Minnesota?

And apparently, being paid to speak by the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is closer to the center than it is the right. For every 10 tea party members, 4 are Republican, 5 are independent or Libertarian, and 1 is a Democrat. But, even after all these years Woodruff, and all your talk about the Tea Party, you still don't accept it for what it is, and have not begun to try to understand either, a lot like trolling.

I recognize the Tea Party for what it is. I was a part of the Tea Party when it started out. Then it became absorbed into the right-wing machine, and I lost interest in being a part of it. I still believe the Tea Party could have been a great thing for this nation, but I would suggest to you that trying to play like the Tea Party ISN'T now a part of the right-wing is disengenuous at best, and more likely downright dishonest.

You were part of the Tea Party.....until you bought the media bullshit about it.

Media bullshit? No, I really don't listen to what the media has to say about things. No, I saw what the politicians that the Tea Party were putting forward themselves were saying about it.

The only place I can agree with you is that we are fiscally on the right, and when it comes to civil liberties we are on the left, and with the military we are in the center.

That's how the Tea Party was created, yes...and why I loved it. Unfortunately, that's not what it is today. The Tea Party's own politicians, outside of Ron Paul himself, have stated so quite clearly. He's the only one of the entire bunch that I trust much. And frankly, your own statements in these fora solidify my opinion of the Tea Party, as well.

[Woodruff]

Unfortunately, the Tea Party started moving into the realm of abortion and issues like that, which really had no place for them. That's when the Tea Party was absorbed by the right-wing.

source?????

The statements by the Tea Party's own politicians. I'm not the first to say this, Phatscotty...you know very well that thegreekdog agrees with me wholeheartedly, and I don't think you'd mistake him for a dirty liberal.

I'm sorry, but that is 100% incorrect, which means most of what you base your knowledge on the Tea Party on must be equally skewed.

Based on your typical unwillingness to recognize competing information, I'm not surprised that you would think so.

Example: I am hardcore Tea Party, and I don't care about the issue of abortion, and I only would care when it was my personal business. I have been proud that the Tea Party has not taken a position on abortion. All we are about, as you damn well know, is less taxes, less debt, and less government intervention. That's all.

Your Tea Party politicians disagree.

[Woodruff]

Unfortunately, the Tea Party started moving into the realm of abortion and issues like that, which really had no place for them. That's when the Tea Party was absorbed by the right-wing.

source?????

I'm sorry, but that is 100% incorrect, which means most of what you base your knowledge on the Tea Party on must be equally skewed.

Example: I am hardcore Tea Party, and I don't care about the issue of abortion, and I only would care when it was my personal business. I have been proud that the Tea Party has not taken a position on abortion. All we are about, as you damn well know, is less taxes, less debt, and less government intervention. That's all.

The Tea Party, Religion and Social Issues

Pew indicates that the Tea Party is indeed very socially conservative on abortion, more so than Repubs in general.

Social issues have no place in the Tea Party platform. end of story, regardless of the big lies repeated by media, and heard by people who participate in pew research polls.

When do you stop plugging your ears and saying "nananananananana"?

[Night Strike]

actuallyProgressives want to expand the government in every avenue possible, no matter what the costs are. If they aren't making enough money to pay for it, they demand that "the rich" give even more money to the government to pay for it. They don't question whether a program is good or beneficial (muchless even trying to figure out if it's Constitutional) while going to enact it anyway.

This is an idiotic, unsupported and ludicrous bit of propoganda. Statements like these just make you appear honestly ignorant, Night Strike.

What's idiotic?

Woodrow Wilson: Income tax and IRS
FDR: Social Security and New Deal
LBJ: Medicare
Obama: Bailouts and Obamacare

Every single progressive has instituted a massive governmental program that has just driven our country into debt. Obamacare was designed to cause private insurance to collapse so the government can come in and institute their coveted single-payer system (Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and others said that it was the first step to lead directly to such a system). There is no propaganda needed when we can all see what progressives in our government have produced. What's ignorant is to claim that the government is not expanding its powers into totality.

[Woodruff]

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?

[Woodruff]

If "Obamacare" hasn't been fully introduced, and you're dismissing the idea of looking at examples of public healthcare in other countries, you're essentially demanding examples that don't exist be compared to examples you're dismissing.

He doesn't WANT to see it as the answer, so he's essentially refusing to, you see.