LGP Political Discussion Thread

[shafnutz05]

Public option back?

http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama ... lic-option" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... -today/?hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is Harry Reid more progressive than socialist Obama?

Shouldn't conservatives be in favor of this since it has a choice of "opt-out"?

No, no, no, no.

Harry Reid is going down in a blaze of glory right now. There is no way in hell he is getting reelected in Nevada. Last I checked, he was getting trounced by "Unnamed Republican".

The opt-out clause is yet another example of the Democrats' trying to use wordplay to make this garbage bill look more palatable. Every single state will be paying for this massive bill, regardless of whether or not they "opt out". So how many states do you think are going to say "You know what, we don't want to take part in this healthcare bill, but we will still have our taxes raised to pay for it". Not in a million years, and the Dems know that.

Oh, and did you hear that Pelosi/Reid are thinking about renaming the public option the "consumer option"? There was another alternative proposed to, I forget what it was. This bill is designed so that it is cheaper for employers to pay the one-time fine for not providing their employees health insurance then it would be to provide a plan. So what's gonna happen? Most employers will drop their employer-run insurance plan, thus forcing YOU to accept the public option. It is not an "option", just like the "opt out clause" is unrealistic.

The emphasis over the past couple weeks for Pelosi and Reid has been to change the wording, use different phrases to try and convince more people it isn't what it is. For anyone here that supports this public option/government run system, every single time a Democratic politician has been asked if they would accept the same system for themselves and their family, they have either found an excuse to say no or dodged the question. That should be a point of alarm for anyone with a rational mind.

[eddysnake]

Public option back?

http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama ... lic-option" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

not for long

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10 ... ment-plan/

Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman said Tuesday that he would back a Republican filibuster against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's health care reform bill if a government-backed insurance plan remains in the package.

[shafnutz05]

In other news, Joe Lieberman is bucking Reid and saying that he will attempt to filibuster the bill if Reid's version goes through. There is no way in hell that a bill without a full public option and single payer system will make it through Congress. The far-lefties have been clamoring for this system for years, and they FINALLY have their chance to get it done. They will never let their Democrats pass this bill without a full-blown option.

Which is why I believe that any bill is passed will, for all practical purposes, create a single payor system. Whether it explicitly tells us it will or not, I believe that's the case.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html

[shafnutz05]

lol eddy...we both caught that I guess. Good for Lieberman. Remember when McCain bucked the Republican Party, the mainstream media fawned over him, called him a brave maverick, and depicted him as some sort of modern-day Wyatt Earp? Funny that Lieberman's coverage hasn't been nearly as kind.

[Guinness]

You'll have to point me to the part that talks about better prosperity "across classes." I'd particularly like to know how that better prosperity breaks down for each class.

You once told me you wouldn't do my research for me... And when I said, "better prosperity exists..." I should clarify that I mean relative to less economically free countries.

Really? Because OASDI drastically lowered the rate of poverty among the elderly. In the absence of that program, people were either not taking "a greater responsibility for planning for their future" or taking that greater responsibility wasn't having an impact.

These quick replies... "and if they don't, how is that everyone else's responsibility?"

Then again, I was mostly talking here about who's going to fix our bridges, not about welfare programs.

My point remains.

[doublem]

There is no way in hell that a bill without a full public option and single payer system will make it through Congress. The far-lefties have been clamoring for this system for years, and they FINALLY have their chance to get it done. They will never let their Democrats pass this bill without a full-blown option.

I'm confused. You don't support an opt-out becasue "every state will have to pay for it", becasue you are saying that will lead to a single payer? If every state is going to pay for it anyway, regardless of the opt out, why wouldn't you just favor a single payer system? Are you just against reform in general? This even gives more choice than the original public option, out of the control of the federal government, No? Isn't this giving more power to the states, like we always hear should happen?

[Guinness]

How much of a "states rights guy" could Jefferson have been when he was clearly in support of drafting the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation? The Articles were far more protective of states' rights than the Constitution; it was the weakness of federal authority in the Articles that they were trying to fix by replacing them with the new Constitution. Morris wrote the preamble to the Constitution, and on the most pressing states' rights issue of the time he ardently supported federal government abolition of slavery.

My understanding is that Jefferson was luke-warm to the Constitution?

I don't think that reflects in his correspondence with Madison. He thought initially that the problems with the Articles could be fixed by amendment rather than overhaul, but ultimately Madison convinced him and he supported it with the reservation that he wanted to see a declaration of rights attached. The above should read that he was clearly in support of changing the Articles.

Gotcha - I agree with that.

[Guinness]

I would be against any central bank, vigorously. Since 1913, the dollar has lost it's commodity backing, has lost 95% (NINETY-FIVE PERCENT) of it's value, and is about to become worth less than the paper it's printed on. With a commodity backed currency, a central bank is completely unnecessary. Centrally controlled fiat currency has allowed government to wage war without end almost from the day the Fed came into existence, has allowed government to manipulate foreign governments and markets, and has utterly destroyed the value of the money that people hold through inflation. It has too much influence on policy-making.

I do agree with you 100% on the Federal Reserve. People hear the word "Federal" and think this is a branch of our government. I think everyone should look it up. See what it really is. Who owns these banks. I'll tell you one thing. There were two presidents who wanted to pull away from our dependence on the system: Lincoln and JFK. I have a lot of great links somewhere. I'll try to find a particular one I'm thinking of.

Lincoln? Really? The guy who put the fiat greenback into place to fund his war?

[doublem]

These quick replies... "and if they don't, how is that everyone else's responsibility?"

You don't think anyone should fix the bridges? If "force" isn't involved? Is that correct? So, what you are saying is that no individual money should go to repairing infrastructure? If no tax dollars go to that, and no one "elects" to fix broken things, how should they be repaired? It doesn't seem to practical.

Edit: You do see how this could be taking away someones liberty?

[shafnutz05]

I'm confused. You don't support an opt-out becasue "every state will have to pay for it", becasue you are saying that will lead to a single payer? If every state is going to pay for it anyway, regardless of the opt out, why wouldn't you just favor a single payer system? Are you just against reform in general? This even gives more choice than the original public option, out of the control of the federal government, No? Isn't this giving more power to the states, like we always hear should happen?

Oh come on now....you know better than that. You are missing my point. Yes, I am against this healthcare bill, and I think a single payer system is a horrible idea. That being said, what is REALLY disgusting me right now is the blatant way that the Democratic leadership is now resorting to doublespeak and buzzwords to try and convince an extremely skeptical public to support this thing.

Explain to me how the "opt out" clause gives more power to the states. Governors and state legislatures are going to be put in this position: OK, sure! You can opt out of the public option and go your own way. Unfortunately, we are going to raise your taxes as well to fund this $1 trillion+ monstrosity, regardless of whether or not you want the system or not. Good luck explaining that to your taxpayers!!

It will be an untenable position for the states...this is not reform. It's coercion. This is from a Kaiser/ABC/USA Today poll from late 2006:

A survey conducted jointly by the Kaiser Family Foundation, ABC News and USA Today, released in October 2006, found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care, but only 44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system. The survey is the only recent poll for which data is publicly available that allows for a comparison of the satisfaction of insured and uninsured Americans. (The data from a just-completed New York Times/CBS poll won't be publicly available for several months; the results that have been reported so far don't make the comparisons discussed in this article.)

Those with recent serious health problems, possibly the people with the best knowledge of how health care is working, were generally the most satisfied. Ninety-three percent of insured Americans who had recently suffered a serious illness were satisfied with their health care. So were 95 percent of those who suffered from chronic illness.

When Barack Obama tells you that you will be able to keep the plan you have, he is lying through his teeth. The bill is designed to encourage employers to drop you off their rolls, thus shoehorning you into the public option. And new studies are coming out, showing that this ridiculous bill will only actually cover about half of the uninsured. So we are going to eliminate a system that 80% of people are happy with, to cover half of a much smaller portion of the population that is uninsured? Brilliant.

This shouldn't surprise anyone, coming out of the mouths of these charlatans. Of course, Reid is the same idiot that had the gall to claim that a strict cap and trade bill would "raise energy costs, but create many new jobs". What he means to say is that the bill will "drastically increase your home energy costs, while companies will be forced to lay off workers due to the huge hit they are taking in their energy consumption price." For all the talk about Republicans lying, the Democrats have mastered Orwellian doublespeak.

[shafnutz05]

On another note, the Indecisive One once again delays making any kind of decision on Afghanistan. I am sick and tired of hearing about this. He has said since Day One of his campaign that Afghanistan was the central front in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Yet two years later, he still can't make up his mind? This isn't about making the right decision, this is about trying to come up with a little political solution that will both placate the left-wing pacifist base, while at the same time not blatantly selling out in Afghanistan.

I said it once, I will say it again. When you elect a man to chief executive who has never led a single thing in his entire life except a community organizing group, the glaring lack of leadership ability must come through at some point. We are now at the first critical juncture of Obama's job as commander-in-chief, and he does not have the political courage to make a much-needed decision.

At this point, if he wants to pull out of Afghanistan (which i am almost certain he would like to do in his heart), then go ahead and do it. But don't straddle the fence while our outnumbered troops are getting massacred over there. It's a simple choice, Mr. President. Send more reinforcements so we don't get slaughtered, or pull everyone out and face the future consequences. But please, for the love of God, show some leadership.

[doublem]

That being said, what is REALLY disgusting me right now is the blatant way that the Democratic leadership is now resorting to doublespeak and buzzwords to try and convince an extremely skeptical public to support this thing

I don't understand. What do you want them to say? What buzzwords are you talking about with the opt-out?

Explain to me how the "opt out" clause gives more power to the states. Governors and state legislatures are going to be put in this position: OK, sure! You can opt out of the public option and go your own way. Unfortunately, we are going to raise your taxes as well to fund this $1 trillion+ monstrosity,

If the states are against it, why would they raise taxes that much or at all? If everyone is satisfied with there health care, taxes shouldn't go up, right? This is giving each state control over there own health care?

When Barack Obama tells you that you will be able to keep the plan you have, he is lying through his teeth.

As I posted before Obama has nothing to do with this, and if reports are correct isn't in favor of it.

And new studies are coming out, showing that this ridiculous bill will only actually cover about half of the uninsured. So we are going to eliminate a system that 80% of people are happy with, to cover half of a much smaller portion of the population that is uninsured? Brilliant.

Okay, but you keep claiming that people are happy with the current system , so why would they change from a choice- choice opt-out system? If each state is happy with the system, I'm assuming nothing much would change, and they would opt- out? I still don't understand why you would be against a choice of the states unless its just on principle .

[shafnutz05]

Doublem, you keep missing the point I am trying to make. Most people in the states DO NOT WANT to switch to this public system. But here is what I am saying. If you raise taxes on every single state, regardless of whether or not they want or believe in the single payer/public option, there is going to be a problem. People will start demanding to know why they are paying much higher taxes to pay for everyone ELSE's insurance. Eventually, they will demand that they become a part of the public system as well. People will only tolerate the opt out for so long. And if you think the Democrats will allow non-participating states to not participate in the taxation as well, you're insane.

BTW, you are right on one account. Most of this right now is courtesy of Harry Reid and Queen Pelosi. Apparently, the queen is mad at one of her Democrat congressmen in Michigan, for daring to try and remove a part of the bill that states all abortions will be bought and paid for by the taxpayers. So yes....Reid/Pelosi are the two-headed dragon in the room right now. To be honest with you, I think Obama is a little shellshocked right now, and doesn't really know how to approach the rapidly growing political problem he has.

[doublem]

If you raise taxes on every single state, regardless of whether or not they want or believe in the single payer/public option, there is going to be a problem.

Right, and my point is why would they do this is everyone is satisfied? Also, going from the opt-out to a single payer is a pretty big jump.

. People will start demanding to know why they are paying much higher taxes to pay for everyone ELSE's insurance. Eventually, they will demand that they become a part of the public system as well. People will only tolerate the opt out for so long.

You are against people making a choice for a public system? To me that is the same as "forcing" people into a government system.

[shafnutz05]

You are against people making a choice for a public system? To me that is the same as "forcing" people into a government system.

The people are not making a "choice" for the public system. The Democratic leadership in Congress is making a "choice" for the public system. The majority of citizens do not want it. Why not make it a referendum?

I will go back to what I said before. Every time a Democratic politician is asked the tough question: "Will you accept the coverage you are passing for you and your surrounding family?", they either say no or dodge the question. They aren't stupid.

[doublem]

The people are not making a "choice" for the public system. The Democratic leadership in Congress is making a "choice" for the public system. The majority of citizens do not want it. Why not make it a referendum?

Yes, and that is how our system works.This isn't a direct democracy; it's a republic. We have representatives that work for us. That is the point. Bring up your issues with James Madison if you have a problem. Even if you have a referendum, the same issues will happen, someone not happy with the other side.

Anyways it seems like people support a PO.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... nt-option/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/2 ... ic-option/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[shafnutz05]

That's an interesting poll, and I definitely get your drift about the direct democracy/republic deal.

Have you noticed that senior citizens are still the main group standing in firm opposition to this? As well they should.

I wish with these polls you could specifically see what question was asked. For example, did they say "Do you support the existence of a public-run insurance option, that would compete with private insurers and hopefully generate more affordable premiums and care for everyone?" Hell, I would almost say yes if I heard that!

Here's another poll for you....MUCH more skeptical of the bill.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform

[shafnutz05]

FYI, Rasmussen has been much more consistent numbers-wise, which is why I tend to trust it. They were also the closest in the presidential elections as well.

On a side note, I would love to figure out how support among independents has risen for this bill by 10 points...that makes no sense.

[HomerPenguin]

You'll have to point me to the part that talks about better prosperity "across classes." I'd particularly like to know how that better prosperity breaks down for each class.

You once told me you wouldn't do my research for me...

That would include asking you to cite your own evidence instead of pointing me to a website and expecting me to read through the papers there to find it.

Really? Because OASDI drastically lowered the rate of poverty among the elderly. In the absence of that program, people were either not taking "a greater responsibility for planning for their future" or taking that greater responsibility wasn't having an impact.

These quick replies... "and if they don't, how is that everyone else's responsibility?"

Because large populations of destitute seniors would kill the economy for everyone? Because at some point the Ayn Rand utopia turns into a society where we all eat each other because there's literally no social consciousness beyond whatever's in it for me? I don't know. The society you consider to be paradise sounds like Beyond Thunderdome to me. I'll pass.

Then again, I was mostly talking here about who's going to fix our bridges, not about welfare programs.

My point remains.

So you don't use the national infrastructure at all? There's no piece of that $2.2 trillion mess that will impact you when it goes unmaintained?

[Guinness]

That would include asking you to cite your own evidence instead of pointing me to a website and expecting me to read through the papers there to find it.

I apologize - I've been pretty busy the past couple days. Here's a link to the study. It's large, but it's an interesting read... http://www.freetheworld.com/2009/report ... 9_BOOK.pdf

Because large populations of destitute seniors would kill the economy for everyone? Because at some point the Ayn Rand utopia turns into a society where we all eat each other because there's literally no social consciousness beyond whatever's in it for me? I don't know. The society you consider to be paradise sounds like Beyond Thunderdome to me. I'll pass.

Hyperbole much? Large populations of impoverished oldsters would be roaming the streets, dying in snow drifts? Living and dying miserable lives because the Benefactor isn't there to provide for them... the last great hope for mankind is the federal government, then?

Funny you should mention Rand. I'm not entirely on-board with her Objectivist philosophy, but what she has to say about the "looters" is spot on...

What of the collectivist utopia, then? All good things come from the state. Surely, if only the federal government can take care of our aging population, wouldn't the state also be better at providing all things to all people?

So you don't use the national infrastructure at all? There's no piece of that $2.2 trillion mess that will impact you when it goes unmaintained?

Again, the problem can only be solved by the Federal government (ignoring the fact that the Federal government is responsible for the problem of inflation to begin with... not to mention driving up the real cost of construction through a stack of regulation almost literally a mile high)? I never said that the problem shouldn't be addressed, nor even implicated that because I might not be impacted I shouldn't bear a measure of the cost - what I implied was that the Federal government is not the answer to all of life's great questions, as it seems to be in the liberal mindset.

[HomerPenguin]

Hyperbole much? Large populations of impoverished oldsters would be roaming the streets, dying in snow drifts? Living and dying miserable lives because the Benefactor isn't there to provide for them... the last great hope for mankind is the federal government, then?

Not mankind, poor seniors. I find it fascinating that the utopian vision doesn't allow for actually looking at actual societal conditions that actually existed in the period before enaction of these government programs that are so universally rotten. It's not hyperbole; around half of seniors lived in poverty before OASDI as compared with something around 10% today, and that reduction in the number of poor folks impacts the number of consumers available to generate economic activity. I guess empiricism means nothing when we're imagining the perfect society.

What of the collectivist utopia, then? All good things come from the state. Surely, if only the federal government can take care of our aging population, wouldn't the state also be better at providing all things to all people?

I'm able to envision a set of differences between the retired elderly and the younger working population such that the fact that government can help the former does not necessarily make it the savior for the latter. Aren't you?

Again, the problem can only be solved by the Federal government

So who is going to solve it? Don't argue theory; tell me who would step in to repair our crumbling national infrastructure if it's not going to be the government, and if you would please include an answer to the question of why they aren't already getting involved.

[Guinness]

Not mankind, poor seniors. I find it fascinating that the utopian vision doesn't allow for actually looking at actual societal conditions that actually existed in the period before enaction of these government programs that are so universally rotten. It's not hyperbole; around half of seniors lived in poverty before OASDI as compared with something around 10% today, and that reduction in the number of poor folks impacts the number of consumers available to generate economic activity. I guess empiricism means nothing when we're imagining the perfect society.

Care to cite that 50% mark? Because, though I don't have my "historical poverty rates for elderly Americans" table here in front of me, a quick Google search gave me a number around half of that... nevermind the theft "expense" associated with it, including the inflation necessary to sustain it... how many of those confiscated dollars make it down to the sewers and ditches to save the miserable, anyway?

I wonder if either number takes into account the number of seniors who lived with family prior to 1965, and if the levels are calculated using income only. Of course, savings has been discouraged through federal policy... leave it to the government to create a problem and purport to be the solution to it.

I'm able to envision a set of differences between the retired elderly and the younger working population such that the fact that government can help the former does not necessarily make it the savior for the latter. Aren't you?

Aren't you a big advocate of single-payer? So much for differentiating between the young and old...

What I'm able to envision is the fact that, in order to cover the cost of it's social programs, federal government has committed a greater immorality.

So who is going to solve it? Don't argue theory; tell me who would step in to repair our crumbling national infrastructure if it's not going to be the government, and if you would please include an answer to the question of why they aren't already getting involved.

Is it really so hard to conceive of why "they" aren't already getting involved? States cannot so much as tie their proverbial shoes without federal permission. What states besides California, Texas, and a few others have the financial wherewithal to defy federal mandates and survive in our inflationary culture? Tho' I'm not (yet) a proponent, there are good arguments out there for private ownership of roads - edit to add: An example... in my parents' neighborhood, the homeowners got together, pooled their resources, and paid to have the 5 or 6 gravel roads paved. Not even county government money was used to fund the project. And no one was coerced to accept dictates from above in order to secure the money. 20 or so families got together and addressed a need. Amen.

Be that as it may, it seems you're suggesting that the only way our country can survive at all is through the forced confiscation of the citizens wealth. One wonders, if that's the case, if it's worth saving at all...

[bh]

I'm getting a very grim picture here for the near future. Here in MD, the unemployment fund is going bankrupt because of the high number of people unemployed. To offset this they are going to raise the amount a business has to pay per person. I heard it was about $250 a head and now it's rising to over $1100 a head. Some owners are saying that because of this they are going to have to lay off even more people because they can't afford to pay unemployment benefits, so then these people will be taking even more money from the fund. Back when the huge stimulous bill was passed our state did two things to attract more stimulous money. They upped the amount given to unemployed people and they extended the length that could collect unemployment. Great ideas all around.
http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltim ... tory1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then I look around the country and see that California, Oregon, and Houston are going bankrupt. Our dollar is falling fast and there appears to be no job recovery. That's great the stock market is doing well and all, but where are the new jobs? How much longer will the rally last without any new jobs?

I have been really busy lately and was just wondering how this healthcare program is going to be funded? Is it all tax funded and will be just added to the debt? If so that's nuts. With so many people unemployed I can see revenues going down for a while. How can we pay all of this with debt? Serously it looks more and more like a crash is comming every day. People want everything, but this is a world of limited resources, and sometimes you can't have what you want because the price is too high.

[shafnutz05]

bh, that is exactly my point. I have no idea how in the hell all of these genius economists got the idea that "the recession is OVER!". That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I don't care what "market indicators" say...every friggin benchmark that we use to measure economic progress looks dire, to say the least.

[pittsoccer33]

I'm getting a very grim picture here for the near future. Here in MD, the unemployment fund is going bankrupt because of the high number of people unemployed. To offset this they are going to raise the amount a business has to pay per person. I heard it was about $250 a head and now it's rising to over $1100 a head. Some owners are saying that because of this they are going to have to lay off even more people because they can't afford to pay unemployment benefits, so then these people will be taking even more money from the fund. Back when the huge stimulous bill was passed our state did two things to attract more stimulous money. They upped the amount given to unemployed people and they extended the length that could collect unemployment. Great ideas all around.
http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltim ... tory1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then I look around the country and see that California, Oregon, and Houston are going bankrupt. Our dollar is falling fast and there appears to be no job recovery. That's great the stock market is doing well and all, but where are the new jobs? How much longer will the rally last without any new jobs?

I have been really busy lately and was just wondering how this healthcare program is going to be funded? Is it all tax funded and will be just added to the debt? If so that's nuts. With so many people unemployed I can see revenues going down for a while. How can we pay all of this with debt? Serously it looks more and more like a crash is comming every day. People want everything, but this is a world of limited resources, and sometimes you can't have what you want because the price is too high.

This is exactly the kind of fear and chaos this administration needs to pass their radical agenda. They hate everything about the American economy and the how the American way of life has been for the last 60+ years. Its not fair and they are thrilled to help push it off the cliff.