PDA

View Full Version : Defunding Obamacare - Can it happen?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Taco John
09-20-2013, 02:33 AM
It actually probably will be defunded if momentum continues in the way it has.

First of all, before anyone points the finger for its impending failure, we have to remember that it was passed using reconciliation - a procedural maneuver. It didn't pass due to popular support. In fact, they had a hard time getting it through the senate at all, losing the referendum in Massachusetts of all places, when Scott Brown was elected. This legislation has been doomed ever since, and the dominoes are falling into place to knock it down.

This defund Obamacare movement that is going on - I don't think this is going to play out the way it's being portrayed in the media where the Republicans take a lot of blame and Obama comes out looking like a hero. I think that the country is split enough on Obamacare and its impact that it will end up being a fight.

Anyone who is anywhere close to someone working in a small business has heard first hand the nervousness that these businesses have over the legislation. I'm sure this defund legislation is going to pass the House - I'm starting to wonder about the Senate.

Ted Cruz in the Senate says that we will use any procedural move possible to defund. That includes filibuster. After the success that Rand had with it, I have a hard time seeing whyCruz wouldn't go there. And if that's the direction that this goes in, America will be faced with a moment where for, say 12 hours, they're being confronted with a barrage of facts about what is going on with Obamacare, why it's not working right now, and why they should think twice about NOT defunding it.

I honestly don't think it's going to take too much of that kind of talk to get the American people stirred up about it and what this thing is doing to our economy, not to mention the concerns around what it will do to healthcare itself. It's not popular legislation by a long shot. Already Rassmussen has favorability for defunding it at 51% (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2013/51_favor_government_shutdown_until_congress_cuts_h ealth_care_funding). Whatever anyone things about Rassmussen, his polls aren't 10 points off. They're in the neighborhood.

The mainstream media is playing this off like it's a tempest in a teapot, but I think it's going to be more of a battle than most are imagining. And regardless of what happens in the next two weeks, Ted Cruz is going to come out a winner.

Even if Cruz fails to get the defund through now, he puts key Senate Democrats on the line for mid-terms in state where there is a lot of grass roots support to defund. Despite what any Democrat will tell you, that is hugely significant:

Consistent with previous analyses, we find that supporters of health care reform paid a significant price at the polls. We go beyond these analyses by identifying a mechanism for this apparent effect: constituents perceived incumbents who supported health care reform as more ideologically distant (in this case, more liberal), which in turn was associated with lower support for those incumbents. Our analyses show that this perceived ideological difference mediates most of the apparent impact of support for health care reform on both individual-level vote choice and aggregate-level vote share. We conclude by simulating counterfactuals that suggest health care reform may have cost Democrats their House majority.

http://apr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/02/08/1532673X11433768.abstract

The Republicans are 6 seats away from a Senate majority, and they are headed towards likely picking up 3 of them in Montana, West Virginia, and South Dakota. And according to Nate Silver, the other three are out there:

Republicans could then win three more seats from among red states like Louisiana and Arkansas, where vulnerable Democratic incumbents are on the ballot, or they could take aim at two purple states, Iowa and Michigan, where Democrats have retired. More opportunities could also come into play if the national environment becomes more favorable to Republicans (such as because of a further slide in Mr. Obama’s approval ratings). Meanwhile, while Kentucky and Georgia are possibly vulnerable, Republicans have few seats of their own to defend; unlike in 2012, they can focus almost entirely on playing offense. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/senate-control-in-2014-increasingly-looks-like-a-tossup/?_r=0

In that light, this move is politically brilliant. It turns the midterms into a referendum on Obamacare just as the thing is coming out of the gates. That'll be a slam dunk for Republicans. Anything can happen after that.

I think this is what will happen: There will be a fight in the Senate, and Cruz will narrowly lose, but the eventual compromise will be the bill getting funded until sometime shortly after 2014 elections. At that point, whether Obamacare continues will be determined by how the Senate turned out. If the Republicans have the votes, they'll defund and replace Obamacare with their own legislation. If they don't, Obamacare will survive at least until 2016 - but probably longer. It might have enough inertia at that point to be safe.

I think Obamacare is on the ropes. I would no longer be surprised to see Obama have to sign an act that defunds and replaces his signature legislation.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 02:42 AM
Most of the law is permanent and cannot be "defunded" as such. It's more or less a myth.

elsid13
09-20-2013, 04:49 AM
Here a thought, instead waste everyone freaking times and stopping the federal government from doing what it needs to. Pass a CR and address this issue separately.

peacepipe
09-20-2013, 06:03 AM
won't happen. the referendum on obamacare already happened in the last election and even if reps took control of both houses they still wouldn't overcome a veto by the president. reps would need to win the WH in 2016 which is pretty unlikely. also obamacare may by name be unpopular only 23% want to see it repealed.

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 07:29 AM
Most of the law is permanent and cannot be "defunded" as such. It's more or less a myth.

Anything can be defunded. But that's not the right play here.

They should be pushing for delay and hammering on the fact that the Emperor already delayed most of it anyway, except for the part that kicks Joe Six Pack square in the nuts for being a dirtbag lazy non-insured freeloader. :)

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2013, 07:59 AM
If law makers that voted for it opted out, then that should tell your everything you need to know.

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2013, 08:01 AM
won't happen. the referendum on obamacare already happened in the last election and even if reps took control of both houses they still wouldn't overcome a veto by the president. reps would need to win the WH in 2016 which is pretty unlikely. also obamacare may by name be unpopular only 23% want to see it repealed.

I don't see that as being true because the law has not been implemented. We'll see though. I personally hope it gets trashed.

Rohirrim
09-20-2013, 08:12 AM
We'll be playing this game over and over again until we decide, like wiser industrialized nations before us, that healthcare must be nationalized into a single payer system, which is the best of all the bad options available. You won't invent the perfect system. Why? Because people die no matter what you do.

Obamacare is a band-aid. The continual rise in costs will eventually bankrupt the health care system in the U.S., and maybe the U.S. itself if we let it. Pay me now. Pay me later. Das macht nichts. ;D

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2013, 08:14 AM
We'll be playing this game over and over again until we decide, like wiser industrialized nations before us, that healthcare must be nationalized into a single payer system, which is the best of all the bad options available. You won't invent the perfect system. Why? Because people die no matter what you do.

Obamacare is a band-aid. The continual rise in costs will eventually bankrupt the health care system in the U.S., and maybe the U.S. itself if we let it. Pay me now. Pay me later. Das macht nichts. ;D

Yep...if we're gonna do it and be as fiscally sound as possible...single payer.

Rigs11
09-20-2013, 08:33 AM
i wonder what the libertarians on the right think about this. I mean the supreme court did rule it was constitutional. hmmmm..

Rigs11
09-20-2013, 08:36 AM
the gop wants to cut food stamps for those freeloaders, i wonder how much money they have spent trying to defund this bill

Fedaykin
09-20-2013, 08:43 AM
We'll be playing this game over and over again until we decide, like wiser industrialized nations before us, that healthcare must be nationalized into a single payer system, which is the best of all the bad options available. You won't invent the perfect system. Why? Because people die no matter what you do.

Obamacare is a band-aid. The continual rise in costs will eventually bankrupt the health care system in the U.S., and maybe the U.S. itself if we let it. Pay me now. Pay me later. Das macht nichts. ;D

^^

Like I've said a billion times, trying to treat health care as a for profit, insurable thing is idiotic.

Everyone gets sick, and it's not monetarily profitable to actually take care of sick people.

bronco militia
09-20-2013, 08:43 AM
If law makers that voted for it opted out, then that should tell your everything you need to know.

honestly, I only think it means the next election. Most of these clowns are spineless.

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2013, 09:05 AM
^^

Like I've said a billion times, trying to treat health care as a for profit, insurable thing is idiotic.

Everyone gets sick, and it's not monetarily profitable to actually take care of sick people.

It is for the Doctors, Hospitals, Medical Suppliers, and Pharma. They are the ones raking us over the coals.

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 09:19 AM
^^

Like I've said a billion times, trying to treat health care as a for profit, insurable thing is idiotic.

Good luck with that system built on all-volunteer Doctors, Nurses, Scientists, and Technologists. :)

Personal interest (profit motive) drives all of them. It drives everyone. Even when you don't like it.

The real problem is cost. Overinsurance and it's Tragedy of the Commons effect on the market only help to make it worse.

Single Payer's only solution is price control and rationing, with the side effects of disincentive and stagnation.

Private Pay's only solution is means. with the side effect of significant disparity.

Irish Stout
09-20-2013, 09:23 AM
Lets defund social security while we're at it. Solve that problem right now.

Rohirrim
09-20-2013, 09:26 AM
Good luck with that system built on all-volunteer Doctors, Nurses, Scientists, and Technologists. :)

Personal interest (profit motive) drives all of them. It drives everyone. Even when you don't like it.

The real problem is cost. Overinsurance and it's Tragedy of the Commons effect on the market only help to make it worse.

Single Payer's only solution is price control and rationing, with the side effects of disincentive and stagnation.

Private Pay's only solution is means. with the side effect of significant disparity.

Tragedy of the Commons does not apply. Medical treatment is not a limited resource. Use a graduated, progressive single payer system combined with a strong, health care education system. Like I said, there can be no perfect system. Disease happens. People die.

Rohirrim
09-20-2013, 09:27 AM
Lets defund social security while we're at it. Solve that problem right now.

Throw in Medicare and Medicaid while your at it. See what happens.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 09:29 AM
Good luck with that system built on all-volunteer Doctors, Nurses, Scientists, and Technologists. :)

Personal interest (profit motive) drives all of them. It drives everyone. Even when you don't like it.

The real problem is cost. Overinsurance and it's Tragedy of the Commons effect on the market only help to make it worse.

Single Payer's only solution is price control and rationing, with the side effects of disincentive and stagnation.

Private Pay's only solution is means. with the side effect of significant disparity.

Uhh

Doctors, nurses, etc. make good money in places with those types of health care systems.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 09:29 AM
You know what? **** it. Defund the military. Problems solved.

LOL

Fedaykin
09-20-2013, 09:34 AM
Good luck with that system built on all-volunteer Doctors, Nurses, Scientists, and Technologists. :)

Personal interest (profit motive) drives all of them. It drives everyone. Even when you don't like it.


You are confusing personal profit and institutional profit. Individuals profit from non-profit ventures all the time.

Irish Stout
09-20-2013, 09:36 AM
Good luck with that system built on all-volunteer Doctors, Nurses, Scientists, and Technologists. :)

Personal interest (profit motive) drives all of them. It drives everyone. Even when you don't like it.

The real problem is cost. Overinsurance and it's Tragedy of the Commons effect on the market only help to make it worse.

Single Payer's only solution is price control and rationing, with the side effects of disincentive and stagnation.

Private Pay's only solution is means. with the side effect of significant disparity.


All volunteers? Not quite. Though health care practitioners in single-payer countries do on average get paid less than in the US, they're far from being volunteers and they still get paid significantly more than an average professional.

Check out this comparison from 2009:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in-other-countries-make/?_r=0

Also, I'd argue that disincentives and stagnation shouldn't be a real concern. Most well paid Doctors aren't going out of their way to develop new theories, treatment, etc... most of those things come from Doctors across the world and at home who have new and better ideas on how to best help their patients. Plus, nothing in a single payer system would limit those Doctors and others from being able to patent procedures, techniques, or new tech, which could then be sold for extra profit to themselves above and beyond salary. Nothing stops them from publishing. In fact, nothing really changes, except in the long run their school costs likely come down somewhat as well as their long term salary expectations, but not significantly.

It is recognized generally that western Europe and the US have the worlds best doctors and part of that is that those doctors are coming out of US medical schools.

So your position is that people become healthcare practitioners for the money, not because they have a drive to do that? Typically that is the opposite concept of most people with success in their field. Usually they go to do what they love and the money follows. The only time that doesn't seem to be true is with Wall Street types and sometimes lawyers... and probably most politicians.

B-Large
09-20-2013, 09:38 AM
Most of the law is permanent and cannot be "defunded" as such. It's more or less a myth.

Basically this. Its mandatory spending, so the strategy is to whip up BS about the law and make it as miserable for everybody as possible is the last resort action.

If the GOP really feels this law is the end of america as we know it, much like Medicare and SS, they can get super majorities and repeal away...

B-Large
09-20-2013, 09:43 AM
We'll be playing this game over and over again until we decide, like wiser industrialized nations before us, that healthcare must be nationalized into a single payer system, which is the best of all the bad options available. You won't invent the perfect system. Why? Because people die no matter what you do.

Obamacare is a band-aid. The continual rise in costs will eventually bankrupt the health care system in the U.S., and maybe the U.S. itself if we let it. Pay me now. Pay me later. Das macht nichts. ;D

Really, in the end, who cares who pays the bill anyway?

The Government pays through taxes and relatibely low admin expense

Private Insurers who cut 20% out of every $1 of premium for admin and other non-health related BS.

Honestly if you want savings, take the difference between Medicares 4% overhead and Private insurance's 20% overheard (and its only 20% because its mandated to be by law) and you should have Billions and Billions in money to pay actual expenses.

Rohirrim
09-20-2013, 09:45 AM
All volunteers? Not quite. Though health care practitioners in single-payer countries do on average get paid less than in the US, they're far from being volunteers and they still get paid significantly more than an average professional.

Check out this comparison from 2009:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in-other-countries-make/?_r=0

Also, I'd argue that disincentives and stagnation shouldn't be a real concern. Most well paid Doctors aren't going out of their way to develop new theories, treatment, etc... most of those things come from Doctors across the world and at home who have new and better ideas on how to best help their patients. Plus, nothing in a single payer system would limit those Doctors and others from being able to patent procedures, techniques, or new tech, which could then be sold for extra profit to themselves above and beyond salary. Nothing stops them from publishing. In fact, nothing really changes, except in the long run their school costs likely come down somewhat as well as their long term salary expectations, but not significantly.

It is recognized generally that western Europe and the US have the worlds best doctors and part of that is that those doctors are coming out of US medical schools.

So your position is that people become healthcare practitioners for the money, not because they have a drive to do that? Typically that is the opposite concept of most people with success in their field. Usually they go to do what they love and the money follows. The only time that doesn't seem to be true is with Wall Street types and sometimes lawyers... and probably most politicians.

Yep. The massive amount of profit being gouged from the American people by the American health care industry does not go to doctors. It goes to insurance companies.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 09:47 AM
I suppose we could always ask epicnyukllama why he/she/it got into the "nursing" field.

LOL

Except I know several nurses, and I already know the answer wasn't $$$.

Irish Stout
09-20-2013, 09:52 AM
I won't lie, I am a huge supporter of universal healthcare. Its the absolute most liberal-socialist thing about me. Had a friend in college with cancer and no insurance when he was diagnosed. Basically destroyed his family.

I truly believe that if we are to be the greatest country in the world we need to treat our dregs with as much respect and dignity as is afforded to those who can. And I believe whole heartedly that we can and should be able to afford healthcare for one and all.

That being said, I hate social security, and if we don't have a system whereby everyone can get healthcare with government assistance, we shouldn't allow anyone to get healthcare by government assistance. So I am fine with not raising the debt ceiling, but lets can medicare and social security. I'm sure all the old people, especially the old poorer right leaning folks, would love that. It meets the same needs and claims the GOP is calling for right now. Defund it all I say.

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 10:05 AM
Tragedy of the Commons does not apply. Medical treatment is not a limited resource. Use a graduated, progressive single payer system combined with a strong, health care education system. Like I said, there can be no perfect system. Disease happens. People die.

Virtually every resource is a limited resource. Especially one bound by as much regulation as Healthcare.

And single payer systems all have a budget. That is a limited resource.

Patient A receiving an cutting-edge surgery to try to add a year or two to his life might cost as much as insulin for a few hundred Patient B diabetics over the same timeframe.

Give Patient A unfettered access to the "commons" (the single payer budget) and he'll take whatever he needs. All those Patient B's would get to fight over whatever's left.

For that reason, all single payer systems feature a gatekeeper to the "commons" Employing spreadsheets and formulas (or even who's who lists) to determine what Patient A is really worth compared to Patients B.

Well Funded Patient C gets to laugh at all of them and see his own provider who doesn't dink around with Patients A, B or their gatekeeper. :)

Taco John
09-20-2013, 10:12 AM
I won't lie, I am a huge supporter of universal healthcare. Its the absolute most liberal-socialist thing about me. Had a friend in college with cancer and no insurance when he was diagnosed. Basically destroyed his family.

I truly believe that if we are to be the greatest country in the world we need to treat our dregs with as much respect and dignity as is afforded to those who can. And I believe whole heartedly that we can and should be able to afford healthcare for one and all.

That being said, I hate social security, and if we don't have a system whereby everyone can get healthcare with government assistance, we shouldn't allow anyone to get healthcare by government assistance. So I am fine with not raising the debt ceiling, but lets can medicare and social security. I'm sure all the old people, especially the old poorer right leaning folks, would love that. It meets the same needs and claims the GOP is calling for right now. Defund it all I say.

Personally, I think this is a much better idea than what we're doing now.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 10:18 AM
I still say defund the military. It's so corrupt and broken. I mean, what a bunch of freeloaders, amirite?

Mind you, I don't have any plan to replace it, but I figure with all the guns out there, we shouldn't have any problems.

Besides, everyone can just fend for themselves, and when you can't, welp! That's just your lot in life. Blame your parents, kids!

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 10:20 AM
Yep. The massive amount of profit being gouged from the American people by the American health care industry does not go to doctors. It goes to insurance companies.

Keep livin' that fantasy, man.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/health-insurance_industry_stil.html

Insurance's main contribution to this problem is that it makes you not care whether you pay $100 or $1,000 for that CT. Single payer doesn't make you care either. It makes everyone not care. Except the gatekeeper. He gets to care for you. Which is kind of ironic, considering all the talk about not wanting government to come between (Half of) people and their doctors. :)

houghtam
09-20-2013, 10:28 AM
Keep livin' that fantasy, man.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/health-insurance_industry_stil.html

Insurance's main contribution to this problem is that it makes you not care whether you pay $100 or $1,000 for that CT. Single payer doesn't make you care either. It makes everyone not care. Except the gatekeeper. He gets to care for you. Which is kind of ironic, considering all the talk about not wanting government to come between (Half of) people and their doctors. :)

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3792056&postcount=68

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3847278&postcount=54

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3847426&postcount=62

typical Ezra bull****

Ezra Klein? I smell bull**** already.

Yes, the genius of Ezra Klein is truly beyond most of us. Maybe all of us. He's an economic idiot savant. Or at least the first part.

Good to know you are back to using arguments that suit you.

Now go eat a bag of *****.



Oh wait, almost forgot...

:)

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 10:31 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3792056&postcount=68

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3847278&postcount=54

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3847426&postcount=62







Good to know you are back to using arguments that suit you.

Now go eat a bag of *****.



Oh wait, almost forgot...

:)

I used Ezra intentionally, Dumbass. The more you can get people arguing with their own Preachers, the better.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 10:32 AM
I used Ezra intentionally, Dumbass. The more you can get people arguing with their own Preachers, the better.

Sure.

:)

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 10:34 AM
Sure.

:)

What, you don't think I could've cited Cato or Heritage saying worse? LOL

houghtam
09-20-2013, 10:43 AM
What, you don't think I could've cited Cato or Heritage saying worse? LOL

Yeah but either way it's ARGUMENT BY HYPERLINK! :Whaaaa!:

:)

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 10:48 AM
Anyway, the real problem with health care is it's neccessity, combined with how removed consumers are from cost. And I guess add in a sprinkle of how complex (difficult to comprehend for the consumer) the product offering is.

I'm kinda sorta paraphrasing something I read somewhere before, but imagine if you went car shopping knowing you were only going to pay for 10% (out of pocket) of whatever car it is you chose to buy.

Most of us would make some pretty extravagant decisions that would never occur to us if we were writing a check for the whole bill. Also imagine that the car salesman already knows you're only paying 10% of the cost. Do you think he's going to show us the $6,000 well-maintained 2004 Civic in the back that is maybe really all we need?

No, he's taking us to the factory-new car lot. And only selling top of the line. And we'll buy it.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-20-2013, 10:50 AM
I work for a small privately owned company. I can't afford $800-$1000 a month for health insurance. Someone tell me how this healthcare plan is suppose to help the common person?

Oh that's right, that's not what it's intention is. It may have started that way, but when Obama made a closed door deal with the insurance lobbyists to get the legislation passed everything changed. No goverment healthcare offered, just buy insurance on "the free market" or else.....

Nice..

houghtam
09-20-2013, 10:52 AM
Anyway, the real problem with health care is it's neccessity, combined with how removed consumers are from cost. And I guess add in a sprinkle of how complex (difficult to comprehend for the consumer) the product offering is.

I'm kinda sorta paraphrasing something I read somewhere before, but imagine if you went car shopping knowing you were only going to pay for 10% (out of pocket) of whatever car it is you chose to buy.

Most of us would make some pretty extravagant decisions that would never occur to us if we were writing a check for the whole bill. Also imagine that the car salesman already knows you're only paying 10% of the cost. Do you think he's going to show us the $6,000 well-maintained 2004 Civic in the back that is maybe really all we need?

No, he's taking us to the factory-new car lot. And only selling top of the line. And we'll buy it.

And yet if you attempt to address those issues you get idiots from Alaska calling it a death panel.

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 10:55 AM
And yet if you attempt to address those issues you get idiots from Alaska calling it a death panel.

And idiots from California saying we need a federal panel to decide what Cars should cost.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 10:59 AM
And idiots from California saying we need a federal panel to decide what Cars should cost.

No different from big business auto makers blocking legislation which would allow straight to consumer auto sales instead of having to go through a dealership.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 11:11 AM
Hope not. My best friend has to choose between bankruptcy and treatment right now, this could save her life or house.

Blart
09-20-2013, 11:28 AM
The idea of defunding Obamacare is a joke played on the GOP, by the GOP.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 11:35 AM
The idea of defunding Obamacare is a joke played on the GOP, by the GOP.

Yep, it's to the point where people inside the party are opining only half-jokingly that Cruz is a Democratic plant placed there to destroy the party from within. If only the Dems were that smart.

Can't happen, and more importantly, won't happen.

We're stuck with it until we go single payer, and not a second before.

Join or die. :)

Rigs11
09-20-2013, 11:59 AM
Lol. what a joke the GOP has become

Peter King: Ted Cruz 'is a fraud'

Washington (CNN) - The government shutdown showdown is getting ugly.

Republican Rep. Peter King said Friday that his Republican colleague in the Senate, Ted Cruz, "is a fraud" who will "no longer have any influence in the Republican Party" after the House votes on a measure that could potentially lead to a government shutdown.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/20/peter-king-ted-cruz-is-a-fraud/?hpt=hp_t1

Rigs11
09-20-2013, 12:04 PM
http://media.cagle.com/23/2012/08/19/117150_600.jpg

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 12:12 PM
No different from big business auto makers blocking legislation which would allow straight to consumer auto sales instead of having to go through a dealership.

Manufacturer-restricted sales channels are the same as federal price controls.

Got it. ?

houghtam
09-20-2013, 12:16 PM
Manufacturer-restricted sales channels are the same as federal price controls.

Got it. ?

It equates to the same thing: price fixing. And if you don't think manufacturers are using laws to stack the deck in their favor, think again.

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 12:18 PM
It equates to the same thing: price fixing. And if you don't think manufacturers are using laws to stack the deck in their favor, think again.

I'm sure they are. But that's not really price fixing. Doesn't mean it's good for consumers. But forcing both Toyota and GM to have dealership networks isn't anything like price fixing.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 12:19 PM
I'm sure they are. But that's not really price fixing. Doesn't mean it's good for consumers. But forcing both Toyota and GM to have dealership networks isn't anything like price fixing.

Excuse me...price increasing.

Call it what you want.

One side is in favor of legislation which effectively lowers prices, the other has already passed legislation that has long since raised prices.

Here's some light reading for you:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm

(WARNING: ARGUMENT BY HYPERLINK)

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 12:25 PM
Excuse me...price increasing.

Call it what you want.

One side is in favor of legislation which effectively lowers prices, the other has already passed legislation that has long since raised prices.

Here's some light reading for you:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.htm

(WARNING: ARGUMENT BY HYPERLINK)

Ha. Anticompetitiveness.

Nothing's more anti-competitive than a government price list.

Anyway. Some people believe Legislation can fundamentally lower prices. In reality all it really accomplishes is restricting services. Except for those in the 1% who can laugh it all off.

B-Large
09-20-2013, 12:52 PM
I work for a small privately owned company. I can't afford $800-$1000 a month for health insurance. Someone tell me how this healthcare plan is suppose to help the common person?

Oh that's right, that's not what it's intention is. It may have started that way, but when Obama made a closed door deal with the insurance lobbyists to get the legislation passed everything changed. No goverment healthcare offered, just buy insurance on "the free market" or else.....

Nice..

you wil have option like 150-300/month with deductible, and if you are economcially challnged as you claim, you will get tax credit to but that insurance, so perhaps that 200/month policy becomes $100/mo..

if you are serious: http://www.healthcare.com/insurance/online-quotes/?CID=3676&SRC=hc_msn&bw_brand=0&bw_type=0&bw_state=Colorado&utm_content=622324566&kid=175620649212726&pdv=c&Sub_ID=co%20health%20insurance%20plans&bw_keyword=co%20health%20insurance%20plans&Pub_ID=colorado%20health%20care%20exchange&bw_query=colorado%20health%20care%20exchange&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=bing&utm_term=co%20health%20insurance%20plans&utm_campaign=%28national%29+State+Terms

if you are just posting to be partisan and inflammatory, then by all means...

B-Large
09-20-2013, 12:54 PM
http://media.cagle.com/23/2012/08/19/117150_600.jpg

and those are the well read informed ones..... I kid, I kid...

houghtam
09-20-2013, 12:55 PM
you wil have option like 150-300/month with deductible, and if you are economcially challnged as you claim, you will get tax credit to but that insurance, so perhaps that 200/month policy becomes $100/mo..

if you are serious: http://www.healthcare.com/insurance/online-quotes/?CID=3676&SRC=hc_msn&bw_brand=0&bw_type=0&bw_state=Colorado&utm_content=622324566&kid=175620649212726&pdv=c&Sub_ID=co%20health%20insurance%20plans&bw_keyword=co%20health%20insurance%20plans&Pub_ID=colorado%20health%20care%20exchange&bw_query=colorado%20health%20care%20exchange&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=bing&utm_term=co%20health%20insurance%20plans&utm_campaign=%28national%29+State+Terms

if you are just posting to be partisan and inflammatory, then by all means...

And they're not great plans, by any means...but they are better than nothing, and definitely better than visiting the emergency room.

B-Large
09-20-2013, 01:13 PM
Anyway, the real problem with health care is it's neccessity, combined with how removed consumers are from cost. And I guess add in a sprinkle of how complex (difficult to comprehend for the consumer) the product offering is.

I'm kinda sorta paraphrasing something I read somewhere before, but imagine if you went car shopping knowing you were only going to pay for 10% (out of pocket) of whatever car it is you chose to buy.

Most of us would make some pretty extravagant decisions that would never occur to us if we were writing a check for the whole bill. Also imagine that the car salesman already knows you're only paying 10% of the cost. Do you think he's going to show us the $6,000 well-maintained 2004 Civic in the back that is maybe really all we need?

No, he's taking us to the factory-new car lot. And only selling top of the line. And we'll buy it.

If most people had a $2,500 deductible to pay before insurance kicked in, they woud ask WAY more questions about recommended services, treatment plans and alternatives.

My only issue with the car anology is that a person who can't afford/ doesn;t need a car can simple make arrangement to get rides, ride a bike, ride a bus... it works like a market should, you either find value in the product and buy or pursue other alternatives... inhealthcare, that market doesn't always exist and the consequense is not no car, but dead.

It is simlpe one of the hardest issues to solve, effectively and fairly

B-Large
09-20-2013, 01:15 PM
And they're not great plans, by any means...but they are better than nothing, and definitely better than visiting the emergency room.

yes. but for most it doesn't have to be a great plan, just cover me in case of a 300K cancer treatment, or t-bone car accident... the whole idea is to not destroy me financially is I get sick...

I just don't get it, just about everybody epecially those with Children understand such a premise, why do so many people have a problem with buying basic insurance to hedge their risk...

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 01:20 PM
you wil have option like 150-300/month with deductible, and if you are economcially challnged as you claim, you will get tax credit to but that insurance, so perhaps that 200/month policy becomes $100/mo...

I'm assuming you mean per person. Which would be right about where he says assuming an average size family.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 01:21 PM
inhealthcare, that market doesn't always exist and the consequense is not no car, but dead.

And not just the one hypothetical person, either. Whooping cough is going around...we're getting an influx of diseases that haven't been around in decades. It can't just be the cause of those idiots who don't get vaccines by choice. Then we're also talking about medical costs which can't be paid by the treated which end up getting passed on to the public.

But no, let's demonize a solution that at least attempts to help while not offering solutions of our own. Sounds like a plan.

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 01:31 PM
If most people had a $2,500 deductible to pay before insurance kicked in, they woud ask WAY more questions about recommended services, treatment plans and alternatives.

I agree. Health Insurance should be catastrophic. Not for 'routine maintenance' so to speak.

My only issue with the car anology is that a person who can't afford/ doesn;t need a car can simple make arrangement to get rides, ride a bike, ride a bus... it works like a market should, you either find value in the product and buy or pursue other alternatives... inhealthcare, that market doesn't always exist and the consequense is not no car, but dead.

It is simlpe one of the hardest issues to solve, effectively and fairly

No analogy is perfect. Transportation is pretty important though, especially depending on where you live. And when it comes to market forces, importance makes applying them more important... not less.

But you could use food. Or housing. All essential. But if you only paid 10% of your food bill, most people would eat much more expensive diets. Or if you only paid for 10% of your house, we'd all live in McMansions.

You get the point.

Fedaykin
09-20-2013, 01:48 PM
If most people had a $2,500 deductible to pay before insurance kicked in, they woud ask WAY more questions about recommended services, treatment plans and alternatives.

And then a cheaply and successfully treatable condition becomes enormously expensive and much harder to treat.

An outpatient colonoscopy and polyp removal for a few thousand turns into emergency colon resection/colostomy surgery, 2 weeks hospital stay, 8 months of chemotherapy, rehabilitation, and of course reversing the colostomy.

It's why insurance companies often waive preventative care deductables, etc. It makes them more money in the long run.

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 01:57 PM
And then a cheaply and successfully treatable condition becomes enormously expensive and much harder to treat.

An outpatient colonoscopy and polyp removal for a few thousand turns into emergency colon resection/colostomy surgery, 2 weeks hospital stay, 8 months of chemotherapy, rehabilitation, and of course reversing the colostomy.

It's why insurance companies often waive preventative care deductables, etc. It makes them more money in the long run.

Only when targeted. On the whole (Preparation H :) ) Preventative care is a money loser.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/08/congressional-budget-expert-says-preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs/

So says the CBO.

That's not to say it isn't worth it to the individual receiving it. But to a socialized system, it's a cost the system works to control, not encourage.

Fedaykin
09-20-2013, 02:21 PM
Only when targeted. On the whole (Preparation H :) ) Preventative care is a money loser.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/08/congressional-budget-expert-says-preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs/

So says the CBO.

That's not to say it isn't worth it to the individual receiving it. But to a socialized system, it's a cost the system works to control, not encourage.

I'm responding to the idea of creating a huge barrier to preventative care.

$2,500 deductibles for even preventable care is an insurmountable barrier for a lot (maybe even most) people.

Do you think insurance agencies don't know how to minimize their costs? Companies whose primary business function is cost and risk analysis of medical care are wrong?

Bronco Yoda
09-20-2013, 02:27 PM
I think most of us know the answer to this one already.

The real question is "how much damage will/can they do to the economy over this pissing match this time around.

BroncoBeavis
09-20-2013, 02:33 PM
I'm responding to the idea of creating a huge barrier to preventative care.

$2,500 deductibles for even preventable care is an insurmountable barrier for a lot (maybe even most) people.

Do you think insurance agencies don't know how to minimize their costs? Companies whose primary business function is cost and risk analysis of medical care are wrong?

It is a barrier to preventative care. But one that an emotionally non-invested stakeholder cares nothing about.

Your personal life is of $0 value to that decision maker. In a socialized system, you are only a cost to be managed. And if you die at 50 because you didn't do any cancer screening, you'll probably still be less expensive to them than if you live to be 90 and die of something else.

If you have any doubt, I can pull out CMS' CT Colonography example again. Despite the fact that it works well. And many more people would be willing to get the screening (vs the probe-up-the-ass kind) meaning it would save many lives. And is cheaper per-procedure than the probe-up-the-ass.

Yet federal gatekeepers still won't pay for it. Why? Currently only about half of people keep up on the recommended frequency of preventative colonscopy. Because the probe-up-the-ass is unpleasant. The virtual CT procedure is much less unpleasant. And would be far more heavily utilized. Plainly put, it would cost Medicare more.

CMS is literally trading lives for dollars. And single payer will absolutely do the same thing.

I guess put another way, if you don't care enough to keep up on preventative care, nobody else is going to care for you. And nobody is going to take that on in the name of saving money. Because nobody, other than you and your loved ones, derives any real $$$ benefit from it.

Now there are targeted cases, where if a screening test is cheap and easy, and then it makes sense. But when looking at the entire 'preventative' market (again in pure dollars and cents), the old thinking about an ounce of prevention, etc, is mostly a myth.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 02:40 PM
http://media.cagle.com/23/2012/08/19/117150_600.jpg

Haha people are stupid!

Taco John
09-20-2013, 02:42 PM
"It's already impacting the economy, and will only get worse as the mandates and penalties start to be implemented."

That's the fourth panel that you could put me into on that comic. It's terrible legislation that isn't going to work like intended, and put a lot of people out of work.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:02 PM
It's a shame Calgary Cruz ruined his 2016 nomination chances over this, I was really looking forward to the comedic debate performances.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:04 PM
It's a shame Calgary Cruz ruined his 2016 nomination chances over this, I was really looking forward to the comedic debate performances.

I think the guy is a shoe in for the next Senate Majority leader. I'm not too sure his ambitions are presidential at this point.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:08 PM
besides that, the guy would be a very viable candidate in the Republican field. WHo would beat him? Rick Perry?

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:08 PM
I think the guy is a shoe in for the next Senate Majority leader. I'm not too sure his ambitions are presidential at this point.

I think it's almost a certainty him and Paul are going to run based on their actions. Cruz would've flamed out anyways, but it would've been a fun ride when he had his moment in the sun as a front runner. Of course, the nomination is all Christies at the end if he chooses.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:10 PM
besides that, the guy would be a very viable candidate in the Republican field. WHo would beat him? Rick Perry?

Paul will get that part of the wing. But the power players and money (and sanity) will align with Christie. Like it did with Romney.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:11 PM
I think it's almost a certainty him and Paul are going to run based on their actions. Cruz would've flamed out anyways, but it would've been a fun ride when he had his moment in the sun as a front runner. Of course, the nomination is all Christies at the end if he chooses.

I don't think Christie has a prayer of winning it. He'll have establishment money backing him at a time when the base is trying to escape the establishment. I think what's going to happen is Christie will be perceived as too far left - Cruz will be perceived as too far right... and there in the center will be Rand Paul, who will walk away with the nomination after winning Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Cruz will win SC. Christie will win Florida. Eventually, Rand will be seen as the happy medium between the three.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 03:12 PM
I think the guy is a shoe in for the next Senate Majority leader. I'm not too sure his ambitions are presidential at this point.

LOL

What, is he turning Democrat or something?

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:13 PM
Paul will get that part of the wing. But the power players and money (and sanity) will align with Christie. Like it did with Romney.

Romney is a big part of why Christie doesn't have a prayer.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 03:13 PM
Romney is a big part of why Christie doesn't have a prayer.

Except Christie isn't a dolt and doesn't have the baggage Romney did.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:16 PM
Except Christie isn't a dolt and doesn't have the baggage Romney did.

He sure does. Romney and Obama being bag left and bag right.

The only people who think Christie has a shot are Obama voters. You're going to have a hard time finding a conservative Republican who is excited about turning their vote over to another East Coast Republican. The grass roots wants nothing to do with Christie. Good luck with that!

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:17 PM
The base was trying to escape in 2012 too, and easily nominated a much weaker candidate in Romney than an extremely popular Christie. Of course, Paul is a stronger outsider candidate than you had to choose from that election too.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:21 PM
The base was trying to escape in 2012 too, and easily nominated a much weaker candidate in Romney than an extremely popular Christie. Of course, Paul is a stronger outsider candidate than you had to choose from that election too.

The base was still in flux in 2012. It no longer is. It's moving in a clear libertarian direction now, and anyone not moving with them is going to be left out in the cold, no matter how much money Karl Rove can raise for them. There are fundamental things that Christie will have a hard time speaking to - and he knows it too, which is why he's trying to attack Rand Paul now.

Mark my words - it'll come down to Paul, Cruz, and Christie, and in that equation Paul will walk away with the nomination. Cruz will end up Senate majority leader. Christie will end up golfing with Romney and Obama somewhere.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 03:22 PM
He sure does. Romney and Obama being bag left and bag right.

The only people who think Christie has a shot are Obama voters. You're going to have a hard time finding a conservative Republican who is excited about turning their vote over to another East Coast Republican. The grass roots wants nothing to do with Christie. Good luck with that!

Even if that were the case, and I don't think it is because I believe you're overestimating the pull of the "grass roots" (read: angry old white teapublicans), so you run Paul??

So what's the Democrat margin of victory, 10? 15? Paul has no clout, particularly up against a juggernaut like Clinton, like her or not.

Good luck with that!

Ha!

houghtam
09-20-2013, 03:24 PM
Senate majority leader. It's a pipe dream, TJ. As in, put down the pipe, and stop dreaming. No way the Party of No picks up 6 seats.

Not. A. Chance.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:28 PM
The base was still in flux in 2012. It no longer is. It's moving in a clear libertarian direction now, and anyone not moving with them is going to be left out in the cold, no matter how much money Karl Rove can raise for them. There are fundamental things that Christie will have a hard time speaking to - and he knows it too, which is why he's trying to attack Rand Paul now.

Mark my words - it'll come down to Paul, Cruz, and Christie, and in that equation Paul will walk away with the nomination. Cruz will end up Senate majority leader. Christie will end up golfing with Romney and Obama somewhere.

You could be right, tho Cruz is out of it. He Rubio'd himself on this issue. Paul would be good news for Hillary if she decides, that would be more lopsided than '08.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:28 PM
Senate majority leader. It's a pipe dream, TJ. As in, put down the pipe, and stop dreaming. No way the Party of No picks up 6 seats.

Not. A. Chance.

It's very possible, unfortunately.

Just to add, the seats that are up were the ones won during the 2008 sweep. So they're very weak seats in an off year election.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:33 PM
Even if that were the case, and I don't think it is because I believe you're overestimating the pull of the "grass roots" (read: angry old white teapublicans), so you run Paul??

So what's the Democrat margin of victory, 10? 15? Paul has no clout, particularly up against a juggernaut like Clinton, like her or not.

Good luck with that!

Ha!

Haha... Hillary is a mess. I welcome a Paul v. Hillary matchup knowing that Paul would pull a ton of Democrat voters if they run Neocon Hillary up there. The Democrats have huge cracks in their foundation right now, and those cracks are only going to become more pronounced the longer this lame duck presidency drones on...

The democrats have never been in a weaker position in my life time. In 2016, it is very likely that the Republicans will own all three branches of government.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:34 PM
Senate majority leader. It's a pipe dream, TJ. As in, put down the pipe, and stop dreaming. No way the Party of No picks up 6 seats.

Not. A. Chance.

Are you kidding? It's a virtual certainty at this point. What is going to reverse the momentum? They've already got three of the seats pretty well locked down, and picking up the three others isn't insurmountable by any stretch of the imagination.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:37 PM
You could be right, tho Cruz is out of it. He Rubio'd himself on this issue. Paul would be good news for Hillary if she decides, that would be more lopsided than '08.

I don't see how you can say that about Cruz. What he's doing is unpopular with the democrats and with the neocon establishment. Everyone else loves what he's doing. In the media it's unpopular, of course. But out in voting base, Cruz is seen as a hero.

Cruz is a force to recon with.

Paul would beat Hillary by 5 points at least. Probably closer to 8. She's nowhere near as strong as you imagine she is. Obama has damaged her brand considerably, and it's only going to get worse.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:37 PM
Haha... Hillary is a mess. I welcome a Paul v. Hillary matchup knowing that Paul would pull a ton of Democrat voters if they run Neocon Hillary up there. The Democrats have huge cracks in their foundation right now, and those cracks are only going to become more pronounced the longer this lame duck presidency drones on...

The democrats have never been in a weaker position in my life time. In 2016, it is very likely that the Republicans will own all three branches of government.

The liberal left backs Clinton. And she'll pull in the working right-wing. I saw polls not long ago that had her up in Texas. Granted polls aren't all that relevant in 2013, but that says a lot.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:39 PM
The liberal left backs Clinton. And she'll pull in the working right-wing. I saw polls not long ago that had her up in Texas. Granted polls aren't all that relevant in 2013, but that says a lot.

I think you're imagining support where it's dropping off the fastest. Hillary is a neocon, and the liberal left is starting to recognize that. I listen to a lot of political podcasts, including on the left. Hillary is not well loved by progressives. She is seen as a center-right neocon who is preventing real progressive candidates from having a chance.

The left is going through their own "tea party" like split. They're not going to have their act together by 2016. They are now where the Republicans were in 2008. Hear me now and believe me later.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:39 PM
I don't see how you can say that about Cruz. What he's doing is unpopular with the democrats and with the neocon establishment. Everyone else loves what he's doing. In the media it's unpopular, of course. But out in voting base, Cruz is seen as a hero.

Cruz is a force to recon with.

Paul would beat Hillary by 5 points at least. Probably closer to 8. She's nowhere near as strong as you imagine she is. Obama has damaged her brand considerably, and it's only going to get worse.

He's been attacked from the right of him today. He's in a lose-lose situation. He's finished on a national level.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:40 PM
Are you kidding? It's a virtual certainty at this point. What is going to reverse the momentum? They've already got three of the seats pretty well locked down, and picking up the three others isn't insurmountable by any stretch of the imagination.

I took your side, but virtual certainty is just a wee bit of an exaggeration. It's about a coin flip.

peacepipe
09-20-2013, 03:41 PM
I don't see that as being true because the law has not been implemented. We'll see though. I personally hope it gets trashed.It almost all in full effect already. as of oct 1 it is running in its entirety except for like one part of it. this train has already left the station and reps will never have the votes to overcome a veto. Obama isn't going sign away one of his biggest achievements.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:41 PM
He's been attacked from the right of him today. He's in a lose-lose situation. He's finished on a national level.

Hahahaha.... I think you're doing your analysis with your feelings rather than your knowledge of conservative politics. Fair enough. When Cruz is a presidential candidate, I'll remind you that you said that he's finished on a national level. When he becomes Senate Majority Leader, I'll remind you again.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:42 PM
I think you're imagining support where it's dropping off the fastest. Hillary is a neocon, and the liberal left is starting to recognize that. I listen to a lot of political podcasts, including on the left. Hillary is not well loved by progressives. She is seen as a center-right neocon who is preventing real progressive candidates from having a chance.

The left is going through their own "tea party" like split. They're not going to have their act together by 2016. They are now where the Republicans were in 2008. Hear me now and believe me later.

I assure you, I know the liberal left. And we back Clinton almost unanimously. Kos already practically endorsed her.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:43 PM
I took your side, but virtual certainty is just a wee bit of an exaggeration. It's about a coin flip.

You're right it is a "wee" bit of an exaggeration. But currently republicans have momentum in picking up those seats. I struggle to see what would change that at this point.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 03:43 PM
It's very possible, unfortunately.

It's not. The Senate doesn't get gerrymandered the way the House does. The Republicans may be able to pick up the three Silver is talking about (MT, WV, SD) because the Democrats don't have very strong candidates, even though the previous Democratic Senators in these states were fairly popular. They would still need an additional 3 seats.

Landrieu in LA has done a decent job, and the Republicans don't have a strong candidate to go against her. She leads the likely candidate (Cassidy) by 10 points in most polls.

Pryor in AR is probably in the weakest position, but it's split 50/50, and Pryor has had a steady approval rating above 50. History shows us it's very difficult to beat an incumbent with an approval rating over 50.

Kay Hagan in NC is in the strongest position because NC just isn't a red state anymore. She leads all challengers in most polls by 5-10%.

They would have to win all three, or two of the three and steal one like Iowa (LOL) or Michigan (quadruple LOL).

Then you add in the fact that even IF they picked up six seats, they still wouldn't be able to override a veto, and there is no Republican candidate other than Christie who can take out Clinton.

A lot can change in a year, but "mark my words - Cruz Senate Majority Leader and Paul GOP candidate" is laughable, particularly if the Republicans let this shutdown happen. It was worth about 5 points for Clinton back in the 90s.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:45 PM
I assure you, I know the liberal left. And we back Clinton almost unanimously. Kos already practically endorsed her.

We'll see. I hope you guys nominate her. She'll go down again the same way she did the last time. She's the McCain of the Democrat party right now - very toxic - a paper tiger. She's the strongest the Democrats currently have to offer, and Paul will beat her by 5 points at least.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:45 PM
Hahahaha.... I think you're doing your analysis with your feelings rather than your knowledge of conservative politics. Fair enough. When Cruz is a presidential candidate, I'll remind you that you said that he's finished on a national level. When he becomes Senate Majority Leader, I'll remind you again.

Senate Majority Leader isn't a nationally picked position. I could see that, unlikely, but it's possible.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 03:47 PM
Hahahaha.... I think you're doing your analysis with your feelings rather than your knowledge of conservative politics. Fair enough. When Cruz is a presidential candidate, I'll remind you that you said that he's finished on a national level. When he becomes Senate Majority Leader, I'll remind you again.

What kind of field day is the media and any potential Republican candidate going to have with this when it comes to primary time?

Ted Cruz: 'We Need 100 More Like Jesse Helms' In The Senate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/ted-cruz-jesse-helms_n_3909610.html

Cruz is done.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:51 PM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-rep-cruz-has-abused-bullied-house-republicans

Cruz has had a very bad day

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:53 PM
Very bad day...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/cruz-ing-on-empty-ted-exposed-by-shutdown-debacle

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:53 PM
I think you underestimate how unpopular Obamacare is and will increasingly be as it goes into implementation over the election cycle.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 03:56 PM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-rep-cruz-has-abused-bullied-house-republicans

Cruz has had a very bad day

Pshaw.... Talking points memo... Who cares.

It doesn't matter what these whiners are saying right now. Yelping like puppies just makes them look weak. The establishment is going to lash out agianst Cruz, but it won't matter. Cruz is playing the long game, and whether he wins or loses will be reflected by what happens at the mid terms in 2014.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 03:56 PM
Very bad day...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/cruz-ing-on-empty-ted-exposed-by-shutdown-debacle

Indeed.

He's a firebrand in the mold of Bachmann, and while he's more intelligent than she, he doesn't understand how Washington "works". That doesn't mean you need to go along with everything anyone says and business as usual, but when you go on nonsensical tirades, claim kinship with one of the great racists of the 20th Century, and call out fellow senators by name, flying in the face of all pre-established political mores of decorum, well...you're basically ****ed.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 03:57 PM
I think you underestimate how unpopular Obamacare is and will increasingly be as it goes into implementation over the election cycle.

I work for a Fortune 500 insurance company. It's not taking away jobs, period. It's covering 30 million people. The GOP has misrepresented it very well, but people support almost all the actual provisions in it (outside of mandate), and will eventually support it in great numbers.

Bronco Yoda
09-20-2013, 03:58 PM
I don't think Christie has a prayer of winning it. He'll have establishment money backing him at a time when the base is trying to escape the establishment. I think what's going to happen is Christie will be perceived as too far left - Cruz will be perceived as too far right... and there in the center will be Rand Paul, who will walk away with the nomination after winning Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Cruz will win SC. Christie will win Florida. Eventually, Rand will be seen as the happy medium between the three.

Oh good grief TJ...With your anti-powers of political prognostication ROFL!

I'd now put money on Christie :P

houghtam
09-20-2013, 03:58 PM
I think you underestimate how unpopular Obamacare is and will increasingly be as it goes into implementation over the election cycle.

I think you underestimate how popular most of the individual tenets of Obamacare are with the country and how once they go into effect, people won't want to see them go away.

Except this time it will be angry old white men shouting at town halls "Take your government hands off my Obamacare!"

houghtam
09-20-2013, 03:59 PM
Oh good grief TJ...With your anti-powers of political prognostication ROFL!

I'd now put money on Christie :P

IKR

Just go look at the 2012 Election Thread.

Some real gems in there.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 04:00 PM
I work for a Fortune 500 insurance company. It's not taking away jobs, period. It's covering 30 million people. The GOP has misrepresented it very well, but people support almost all the actual provisions in it (outside of mandate), and will eventually support it in great numbers.

I work around small business. It's definitely taking away jobs, and causing small businesses to cut full time work forces into part time work forces except in mission critical positions. It's terrible legislation that will continue to do damage to the poor economically, and grow increasingly unpopular.

I'm not surprised that someone with an insurance agency favors the gravy train that they're on though. When you're riding easy money, it's the best thing in the world.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 04:00 PM
Indeed.

He's a firebrand in the mold of Bachmann, and while he's more intelligent than she, he doesn't understand how Washington "works". That doesn't mean you need to go along with everything anyone says and business as usual, but when you go on nonsensical tirades, claim kinship with one of the great racists of the 20th Century, and call out fellow senators by name, flying in the face of all pre-established political mores of decorum, well...you're basically ****ed.

Yeah. Plus his skin isn't the right shade of white for many GOP primary voters. Like Rubio.

peacepipe
09-20-2013, 04:00 PM
Haha... Hillary is a mess. I welcome a Paul v. Hillary matchup knowing that Paul would pull a ton of Democrat voters if they run Neocon Hillary up there. The Democrats have huge cracks in their foundation right now, and those cracks are only going to become more pronounced the longer this lame duck presidency drones on...

The democrats have never been in a weaker position in my life time. In 2016, it is very likely that the Republicans will own all three branches of government.

based on what? what demographic is going to vote republican by such a wide margin that a republican wins the presidency? trust me once people realize how far to the right pauls policies are domesticly he'll be kicked out the door. I can agree with some of his policies on foreign issues but no way in hell is that going to outweigh his domestic policies. I would bet that you see more rethugs voting hillary then dems voting paul.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 04:01 PM
Oh good grief TJ...With your anti-powers of political prognostication ROFL!

I'd now put money on Christie :P

Not sure what you're talking about. I've got a great record of political prognostication, calling the Obama nomination years before it even happened. My track record is better than most.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 04:02 PM
I work around small business. It's definitely taking away jobs, and causing small businesses to cut full time work forces into part time work forces except in mission critical positions. It's terrible legislation that will continue to do damage to the poor economically, and grow increasingly unpopular.

I'm not surprised that someone with an insurance agency favors the gravy train that they're on though. When you're riding easy money, it's the best thing in the world.

Businesses are always looking to do this. Now they just have something to blame it on other than greed.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 04:02 PM
I work around small business. It's definitely taking away jobs, and causing small businesses to cut full time work forces into part time work forces except in mission critical positions. It's terrible legislation that will continue to do damage to the poor economically, and grow increasingly unpopular.

I'm not surprised that someone with an insurance agency favors the gravy train that they're on though. When you're riding easy money, it's the best thing in the world.

Wish I made good money! I work for workers comp btw, so it's irrelevant to me, but I know the industry inside and out.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 04:02 PM
Yeah. Plus his skin isn't the right shade of white for many GOP primary voters. Like Rubio.

And he's Canadian.

*GASP*

Taco John
09-20-2013, 04:03 PM
Businesses are always looking to do this. Now they just have something to blame it on other than greed.

Yes of course. Businesses are evil, yadda yadda yadda... That will be a great election message for people as they're losing their jobs.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 04:04 PM
Gotta run. I've got a 30 mile ride I've got to do before it gets dark. Cycling is my health care strategy.

frerottenextelway
09-20-2013, 04:05 PM
Gotta run. I've got a 30 mile ride I've got to do before it gets dark. Cycling is my health care strategy.

It was a good discussion. Not even any flames lol

Rohirrim
09-20-2013, 09:04 PM
“Having practiced most of my career in the U.S., and now practicing in Canada, the contrast is quite evident. The U.S. health care system is not designed to get you the care you need, it is designed to get you the care that someone can make a profit giving you. If you're poor and uninsured, that's none - no matter how much you need it. If you're well-insured, it's a lot - including quite a bit you don't need, and even some that is harmful.”
Dr. Lee Green

Rohirrim
09-20-2013, 09:13 PM
The US Government Accountability Office concluded that if we could get administrative costs of our medical system down to the Canadian level, the money saved would be enough to pay for health care for all the Americans who are uninsured.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/why-is-american-health-care-so-ridiculously-expensive/274425/

Taco John
09-20-2013, 09:19 PM
It was a good discussion. Not even any flames lol

Libertarians are actually pretty good at conversation if you give them a chance... :)

25 mile ride tonight, putting me over 550 miles for the ride season. Not too shabby... :strong:

pricejj
09-20-2013, 09:30 PM
Mark my words - it'll come down to Paul, Cruz, and Christie, and in that equation Paul will walk away with the nomination.

^Marco Rubio by a landslide.


To all the Socialists, for all the crying you do about corporations, Obamacare is a HUGE cost shift away from corporations onto their employees and other taxpayers.

Congrats. The big, evil corporations couldn't have done a better job if they crafted the legislation themselves...oh wait....

You guys are such idiots.

pricejj
09-20-2013, 09:34 PM
The most inexpensive, and efficient health care system will always be two party patient-doctor transactions where the individual takes responsibility for payment with pre-tax HSA's that can be used for education, healthcare, and retirement.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 09:42 PM
^Marco Rubio by a landslide.


To all the Socialists, for all the crying you do about corporations, Obamacare is a HUGE cost shift away from corporations onto their employees and other taxpayers.

Congrats. The big, evil corporations couldn't have done a better job if they crafted the legislation themselves...oh wait....

You guys are such idiots.

Rubio doesn't have a snowball's chance. He's far too immature to be invested very heavily, and those that might are currently courting Christie. Rubio might be a worthwhile candidate in 2020 or 2024, but I have real doubts that he'd even carry Florida, which pretty well would be his finishing ground.

Rohirrim
09-20-2013, 09:46 PM
I think the Republicans will do what they always do: Stand around in a circle and shoot each other in the feet.

houghtam
09-20-2013, 09:54 PM
Rubio has been a no-go for months.

Get with the programs and follow some politics.

pricejj
09-20-2013, 09:55 PM
Rubio doesn't have a snowball's chance. He's far too immature to be invested very heavily, and those that might are currently courting Christie. Rubio might be a worthwhile candidate in 2020 or 2024, but I have real doubts that he'd even carry Florida, which pretty well would be his finishing ground.

Rubio would be same age as Obama during entering 1st term (47). He would also have the support of the fiscal conservative base, he's extremely personable, smart, and photogenic.

Perfect candidate to beat Hillary Clinton.

pricejj
09-20-2013, 09:59 PM
Ted Cruz may even be a better candidate than Rubio. Time will tell.

Taco John
09-20-2013, 10:01 PM
Rubio would be same age as Obama during entering 1st term (47). He would also have the support of the fiscal conservative base, he's extremely personable, smart, and photogenic.

Perfect candidate to beat Hillary Clinton.

Why would he have the support of the fiscal base? I don't see it. He'll have to out-flank Paul to get that set, and he's not done anything of note to manage it. His big accomplishment to date is to anger the right with his immigration stance, and then tucking tail and hiding when the waters got too rough.

Rubio as a presidential candidate is such a long shot right now that I have a hard time seeing how he manages to get his name back into the picture without simply forcing the issue by showing up.

The way I see it, Rubio's campaign would end up a lot like Rick Perry's campaign ended up. Rubio is like Obama in that there's not a lot of substance there, but he looks pretty doing it.

Rohirrim
09-20-2013, 10:20 PM
Here's the dilemma the Republicans have: How do you run as a fringe radical in the primary (in order to win the psycho base) and then veer back toward the center to win in a general election. You have to eat babies in the primary and they declare you're a vegan in the general. ;D

pricejj
09-20-2013, 10:20 PM
Why would he have the support of the fiscal base? I don't see it. He'll have to out-flank Paul to get that set, and he's not done anything of note to manage it. His big accomplishment to date is to anger the right with his immigration stance, and then tucking tail and hiding when the waters got too rough.

Rubio as a presidential candidate is such a long shot right now that I have a hard time seeing how he manages to get his name back into the picture without simply forcing the issue by showing up.

The way I see it, Rubio's campaign would end up a lot like Rick Perry's campaign ended up. Rubio is like Obama in that there's not a lot of substance there, but he looks pretty doing it.

I don't know much about Rand Paul yet. I would have much rather voted for his dad.

Rubio's stance on immigration is by no means a 'show-stopper'. Garnering Latino support is imperative for any winning Republican Presidential campaign.

I'd vote for Cruz, Ryan, Rubio, or Paul.

Rohirrim
09-20-2013, 10:21 PM
Who was Romney's running mate? I forget now. He went poof!

pricejj
09-20-2013, 10:27 PM
Here's the dilemma the Republicans have: How do you run as a fringe radical in the primary (in order to win the psycho base) and then veer back toward the center to win in a general election. You have to eat babies in the primary and they declare you're a vegan in the general. ;D

It's funny how you radical Socialists keep using these words in an attempt to paint your opponents, who only want to preserve the American dream, and improve the greatest democracy the world has ever seen.

The only extremists here are you. Hell bent on 'transforming' the US into an unworkable, corrupt, and bankrupt cesspool.

Rohirrim
09-20-2013, 10:30 PM
It's funny how you radical Socialists keep using these words in an attempt to paint your opponents, who only want to preserve the American dream, and improve the greatest democracy the world has ever seen.

The only extremists here are you. Hell bent on 'transforming' the US into an unworkable, corrupt, and bankrupt cesspool.

http://media.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/31254/I-Sense-Butthurt-75000244666.jpg

SoCalBronco
09-20-2013, 11:29 PM
Here's the dilemma the Republicans have: How do you run as a fringe radical in the primary (in order to win the psycho base) and then veer back toward the center to win in a general election. You have to eat babies in the primary and they declare you're a vegan in the general. ;D

This is the long and short of it. It disincentives our best candidates.

pricejj
09-20-2013, 11:48 PM
http://generatormeme.com/media/created/r2i5br.jpg

houghtam
09-21-2013, 07:44 PM
Looks like TJ's hero doesn't even agree with him.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/21/rand-paul-on-obamacare-democrats-will-get-what-they-want/?hpt=hp_t2

Rand Paul on Obamacare: Democrats will get what they want

LOL

Taco John
09-21-2013, 09:25 PM
Looks like TJ's hero doesn't even agree with him.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/21/rand-paul-on-obamacare-democrats-will-get-what-they-want/?hpt=hp_t2

Rand Paul on Obamacare: Democrats will get what they want

LOL

I actually agree with everything he said there. Getting the defund bill past the Senate will be a huge task that likely won't happen - certainly not this time around. That doesn't change the long term strategy that Cruz seems to have set up. Whatever anyone thinks about the bit of theatre this week, it's clear that Cruz is playing the long game on this one.

razorwire77
09-21-2013, 09:34 PM
Christie/Susana Martinez

Hillary/Cory Booker

Lock it up. It'll be close. Christie is the only R that has a legitimate chance of sinking the SS Clinton machine.

No way the establishment Eastern Wall Street money Republicans will let a Rand Paul or Cruz get the nomination. If by some unlikely circumstance that it does happen, we're talking about Barry Goldwater in 64 levels of fail. Also, I have about as much of a chance of being Senate Majority leader as Ted Cruz does.

houghtam
09-21-2013, 09:55 PM
Christie/Susana Martinez

Hillary/Cory Booker

Lock it up. It'll be close. Christie is the only R that has a legitimate chance of sinking the SS Clinton machine.

No way the establishment Eastern Wall Street money Republicans will let a Rand Paul or Cruz get the nomination. If by some unlikely circumstance that it does happen, we're talking about Barry Goldwater in 64 levels of fail. Also, I have about as much of a chance of being Senate Majority leader as Ted Cruz does.

I don't think it will be Booker. Not yet, anyway. Though, with Clinton on the ticket, it won't much matter. Especially against anyone not named Christie.

razorwire77
09-21-2013, 10:13 PM
I don't think it will be Booker. Not yet, anyway. Though, with Clinton on the ticket, it won't much matter. Especially against anyone not named Christie.

I think the Dems might try to Brock Osweiler him under Hillary for a couple of terms, but you're right. His lack of big stage experience might eliminate him from contention.

Rohirrim
09-21-2013, 10:16 PM
If after all that's happened, and what's happening now, the Dems run Clinton, especially with income inequality this bad, it means they've learned nothing, they intend to do nothing except support the status quo, and they deserve no one's support. They sure as hell won't get mine.

Taco John
09-21-2013, 10:31 PM
If after all that's happened, and what's happening now, the Dems run Clinton, especially with income inequality this bad, it means they've learned nothing, they intend to do nothing except support the status quo, and they deserve no one's support. They sure as hell won't get mine.

This sentiment is exactly why Hillary has no chance to win the nomination, let alone the election. The Democrat party is on the cusp of their own civil war much like the Republicans are experiencing. They are now where the Republicans were in 2007.

Hillary Clinton is seen as poison by half of the Democrat base.

Camille Paglia: “It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton is our party’s best chance”

As a registered Democrat, I am praying for a credible presidential candidate to emerge from the younger tier of politicians in their late 40s. A governor with executive experience would be ideal. It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband? She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move — with the tunnel-vision workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private thoughts.

As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, “What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?” Democrats have got to shake off the Clinton albatross and find new blood.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/21/camille_paglia_it_remains_baffling_how_anyone_woul d_think_that_hillary_clinton_is_our_party%E2%80%99 s_best_chance/

houghtam
09-21-2013, 10:32 PM
If after all that's happened, and what's happening now, the Dems run Clinton, especially with income inequality this bad, it means they've learned nothing, they intend to do nothing except support the status quo, and they deserve no one's support. They sure as hell won't get mine.

That may be the case, but we're talking realistically here. You are in the vast minority of people who, when it comes down to it, won't vote for "their" candidate.

I personally don't believe that all the people who say I voted for Ron Paul/Gary Johnson/Whoever the **** actually do...which is why those candidates end up with a sliver of a percent of the vote. If I had more faith in that, I would throw my vote behind someone I agree with closer to 100% ideologically.

However, since we've been talking about basic facts in several threads here today, the basic fact is that we are in a two party system. My first criterium for a candidate is that they are in favor of opening up the voter rolls, not closing them, as I believe the right to vote is the most important right we have remaining. That automatically negates the Republican party, based on their actions for the past several years (decades). At the moment, that only leaves the Democratic party to ensure that the Republicans don't gain power.

I'm pretty sure you and I had this exact same conversation leading up to the election.

If Libertarians could divorce themselves from the economic ideology that taxes = bad, I could easily support a Libertarian candidate. But that, much like Democrats growing backbones or Republicans not basing themselves entirely on leaving out whole segments of the population, is never going to happen.

Least worst for me. I vote on reality, not a hope and a prayer.

pricejj
09-22-2013, 12:30 AM
Anybody who thinks Hillary Clinton won't be the Democrat nominee for President in 2016 is plain smoking rocks.

After Obama, nobody stirs up the liberal base better than Hillary Clinton. Why? Because she's a woman.

Blart
09-22-2013, 02:28 PM
The most inexpensive, and efficient health care system will always be two party patient-doctor transactions where the individual takes responsibility for payment with pre-tax HSA's that can be used for education, healthcare, and retirement.


Based on what evidence?

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif



Anybody who thinks Hillary Clinton won't be the Democrat nominee for President in 2016 is plain smoking rocks.

After Obama, nobody stirs up the liberal base better than Hillary Clinton. Why? Because she's a woman.


Just because you judge people by their gender/race (which you are doing right now) doesn't mean other people do as well.

Examples: Democrats aren't going to vote for Michelle Bachmann. Ralph Nader earned more votes as a green party candidate than Jill Stein. There have been zero women US presidents in history.

This is similar to the debunked racist claim that people voted for Obama "'cause he's black" - when statistic modeling shows that Obama would have earned at least 2% more of the vote had he been white.

bowtown
09-22-2013, 03:05 PM
Christie/Susana Martinez

Hillary/Cory Booker

Lock it up. It'll be close. Christie is the only R that has a legitimate chance of sinking the SS Clinton machine.

No way the establishment Eastern Wall Street money Republicans will let a Rand Paul or Cruz get the nomination. If by some unlikely circumstance that it does happen, we're talking about Barry Goldwater in 64 levels of fail. Also, I have about as much of a chance of being Senate Majority leader as Ted Cruz does.

Christie doesn't have a prayer in the primaries.

razorwire77
09-22-2013, 05:06 PM
Christie doesn't have a prayer in the primaries.

We'll see. It depends on if the banksters and 1 percent power structure want a Republican candidate that can actually win. Paul or Cruz would get absolutely eviscerated in the general. If they do want an R to win, they'll be unprecedented corporate primary money behind Christie. Balance him with a popular Hispanic Western female governor like Martinez and they have a real shot.

My guess is that even though Wall Street made out pretty well under Obama's "Socialist" lolerz policies, they'd prefer Christie over Hilldawg.

houghtam
09-22-2013, 05:54 PM
We'll see. It depends on if the banksters and 1 percent power structure want a Republican candidate that can actually win. Paul or Cruz would get absolutely eviscerated in the general. If they do want an R to win, they'll be unprecedented corporate primary money behind Christie. Balance him with a popular Hispanic Western female governor like Martinez and they have a real shot.

My guess is that even though Wall Street made out pretty well under Obama's "Socialist" lolerz policies, they'd prefer Christie over Hilldawg.

It is telling that of the only three candidates anyone is talking about, Cruz and Christie are getting blasted by their own party and wouldn't win the nomination, and the other would end up losing in one of the most lopsided elections ever.

Rand is not his dad; he sold his soul to the Republicans, which means he won't get the youth vote. Just who do people think will vote for this guy?

But you're right...and I think it will be interesting to hear what he has to say about national issues. He's stayed pretty quiet so far.

peacepipe
09-22-2013, 07:49 PM
This sentiment is exactly why Hillary has no chance to win the nomination, let alone the election. The Democrat party is on the cusp of their own civil war much like the Republicans are experiencing. They are now where the Republicans were in 2007.

Hillary Clinton is seen as poison by half of the Democrat base.

Camille Paglia: “It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton is our party’s best chance”

As a registered Democrat, I am praying for a credible presidential candidate to emerge from the younger tier of politicians in their late 40s. A governor with executive experience would be ideal. It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband? She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move — with the tunnel-vision workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private thoughts.

As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, “What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?” Democrats have got to shake off the Clinton albatross and find new blood.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/21/camille_paglia_it_remains_baffling_how_anyone_woul d_think_that_hillary_clinton_is_our_party%E2%80%99 s_best_chance/
BS it's why every pundit viewed hillary as the largest figure in the room with rethugs looking small. she handed them their asses in that congressional hearing. the only people looking at it any differently are the ones with a sore ass over it.
fact is,there is no civil war brewing in the demacratic party,if hillary decides to run she'll sail through the primaries and get the nomination. It's not harry reid or nancy pelosi that are getting embarrassed like john boehner or getting challenged in his primary like Mitch McConnell. With rethugs attacking ted cruz and john boehners inability to lead his own party it's no surprise that they try deflect from it. there's a civil war going on and it is not in the dem party.

BTW,if rethugs & conservatives truely believed that hillary wouldn't make out of the primaries they wouldn't already be forming super pacs to run against her. they are trying to use the terry Mccauluff/ cucinelli governors race as a proxy to attack clinton and it failing miserably.

Taco John
09-22-2013, 07:52 PM
fact is,there is no civil war brewing in the demacratic party...

If you say so...

peacepipe
09-22-2013, 07:55 PM
If you say so...

where is it? have you noticed what's been going on with reps and the tea party wing of their party???

Rohirrim
09-22-2013, 08:36 PM
Anybody who thinks Hillary Clinton won't be the Democrat nominee for President in 2016 is plain smoking rocks.

After Obama, nobody stirs up the liberal base better than Hillary Clinton. Why? Because she's a woman.

You have no idea what the term means. Hillary a liberal? Right. Like Bubba? The guy who took down Glass/Steagle, dismantled the welfare system and pretty much single-handedly deflated the unions with NAFTA? Liberal?

If the political landscape now matched that of the 70s, the Clintons would be pure Nixonians. The Right in America has gone so far Right that the political scale is tilted beyond absurdity. There are so few liberals around now, it's hard to gauge. Use Bernie Sanders as your litmus test for what a liberal is, not Clinton. How many times has Bernie agreed with Clinton? About 5% of the time? Maybe.

Taco John
09-22-2013, 11:10 PM
where is it? have you noticed what's been going on with reps and the tea party wing of their party???

It's not nearly as intelligent and organized, that's for certain. The first wave of the democrat civil war showed itself with OWS. They didn't get much accomplished because, unlike the tea party, they were too afraid to challenge their own establishment out of fear of losing power. Typical left stuff - spineless that way.

But after seeing the success of the tea party, I think they're going to figure out the game. Already there are a lot of liberals who have woken up to the idea that Hillary Clinton is nothing more than John McCain in drag. I mean, look at the post just above mine. That's coming from someone who would have been Hillary's base in 2008.

I could very well be wrong, but in my observations, the left is starting to take a step back and really ask themselves what they want, and reject what doesn't fall into that circle. This is what the tea party has already done years ago, and now they're moving into an election cycle where candidates are having to bend to the tea party will in order to get elected.

For what it's worth, I do think Hillary will get the nomination. I just think she's going to lose and it's going to be ugly. She matches up really badly with Rand Paul - hear me now and believe me later. The progressive base will be so confused with these two candidates on stage, with Hillary sounding like McCain of 2008, and Paul sounding like Obama of 2008. Their heads are going to spin when topics like Syria and other neocon hot buttons are brought up.

SoCalBronco
09-22-2013, 11:20 PM
Taco....there is no way Paul is going to get the nomination much less beat Clinton. Demographics alone means the Democrats start off with like 250 EVs. No libertarians or Tea Party types could ever attract the center enough to win in this climate much less come within 8%. Unfortunately, the only type of nominee from the GOP that could win (Huntsman) has even less of a chance of being nominated than Paul.

Clinton is the POTUS in waiting unless something goes horribly wrong. I don't like it either but it is what it is.

Rohirrim
09-23-2013, 01:11 AM
Not to mention the damage the Republicans are doing with this tilting at the Obamacare windmill over and over again. If the Republicans close down the government and the economy gets worse, they could get torched in the next election.

peacepipe
09-23-2013, 06:11 AM
It's not nearly as intelligent and organized, that's for certain. The first wave of the democrat civil war showed itself with OWS. They didn't get much accomplished because, unlike the tea party, they were too afraid to challenge their own establishment out of fear of losing power. Typical left stuff - spineless that way.

But after seeing the success of the tea party, I think they're going to figure out the game. Already there are a lot of liberals who have woken up to the idea that Hillary Clinton is nothing more than John McCain in drag. I mean, look at the post just above mine. That's coming from someone who would have been Hillary's base in 2008.

I could very well be wrong, but in my observations, the left is starting to take a step back and really ask themselves what they want, and reject what doesn't fall into that circle. This is what the tea party has already done years ago, and now they're moving into an election cycle where candidates are having to bend to the tea party will in order to get elected.

For what it's worth, I do think Hillary will get the nomination. I just think she's going to lose and it's going to be ugly. She matches up really badly with Rand Paul - hear me now and believe me later. The progressive base will be so confused with these two candidates on stage, with Hillary sounding like McCain of 2008, and Paul sounding like Obama of 2008. Their heads are going to spin when topics like Syria and other neocon hot buttons are brought up.not really. once libs hear Paul views on domestic/fiscal policies, be it SS or medicare, unions, they'll kick him to curb without thinking twice about it. His foriegn policy,which I agree with to some extent,isn't going to pull libs to his corner. it isn't going to pull me into his corner,trust me what will count most is what he does here in america and there won't be nothing about Pauls liberatarian/ultra-conservative views that will attract libs.

frerottenextelway
09-23-2013, 08:37 AM
Taco, you read Judd Greg's slam piece of Cruz in The Hill? Like I said, Cruz is done.

frerottenextelway
09-23-2013, 08:40 AM
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/judd-gregg/323853-opinion-defunders-play-russian-roulette-with-gop-a-former-senator-writes

Rigs11
09-23-2013, 09:08 AM
Gotta love how the righties see their party imploding and all they can do is sling the term liberal around.LOL

Rigs11
09-23-2013, 09:13 AM
It's not nearly as intelligent and organized, that's for certain. The first wave of the democrat civil war showed itself with OWS. They didn't get much accomplished because, unlike the tea party, they were too afraid to challenge their own establishment out of fear of losing power. Typical left stuff - spineless that way.

But after seeing the success of the tea party, I think they're going to figure out the game. Already there are a lot of liberals who have woken up to the idea that Hillary Clinton is nothing more than John McCain in drag. I mean, look at the post just above mine. That's coming from someone who would have been Hillary's base in 2008.

I could very well be wrong, but in my observations, the left is starting to take a step back and really ask themselves what they want, and reject what doesn't fall into that circle. This is what the tea party has already done years ago, and now they're moving into an election cycle where candidates are having to bend to the tea party will in order to get elected.

For what it's worth, I do think Hillary will get the nomination. I just think she's going to lose and it's going to be ugly. She matches up really badly with Rand Paul - hear me now and believe me later. The progressive base will be so confused with these two candidates on stage, with Hillary sounding like McCain of 2008, and Paul sounding like Obama of 2008. Their heads are going to spin when topics like Syria and other neocon hot buttons are brought up.

didn't you say something similar about Obama last year?

houghtam
09-23-2013, 10:35 AM
didn't you say something similar about Obama last year?

Are you talking about the part where he said Ron Paul would beat both Romney and Obama? Or the part where he said Obama's presidency was on the ropes and there was no way he could win against a Republican?

Of course, he walked it all back once Romney was nominated and started opening his mouth. So there's that.

But hey, he's got a pretty good track record, so he says. Like when he called Obama as the nominee after his speech in 2004...something that every Democrat and liberal knew when he was announced as the speaker.

LOL

pricejj
09-23-2013, 12:01 PM
Based on what evidence?


http://blog.jparsons.net/2009/08/why-singapores-health-care-system-beats.html

It's funny that you only post European-style healthcare systems that aren't sustainable (and the U.S. system which Medicare and Medicaid have rendered unworkable).

Singaporeans live longer than people in the Western European countries whose health care systems the Democrats want to copy:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3bGnkNeoPxk/SofF-7rqldI/AAAAAAAADIQ/LxF5yUMUG04/s400/international-life-expectancy.png

Singapore's health care system costs less than those in the Western European countries that the Democrats want to copy:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3bGnkNeoPxk/SofF-Zu9ESI/AAAAAAAADII/1Fmsv6wF9T4/s1600/total-health-care-expenditure.png

pricejj
09-23-2013, 12:15 PM
Just because you judge people by their gender/race.

More insipid insults from the Socialist Left?

On the contrary, I don't discriminate on gender/race, and never have. I am strongly against Socialist Democrats who continue to push the U.S. towards bankruptcy (on all levels):




Let's judge Hillary Clinton by her actual record (what little there is):

Voted for Iraq War
Voted for Afghanistan War
Voted to extend Afghanistan War
Voted to authorize military force against Iran

You have proven you are only anti-war when it is convenient. This shows you to not only be HIGHLY discriminatory, but also intellectually and morally bankrupt.

BroncoBeavis
09-23-2013, 12:18 PM
http://blog.jparsons.net/2009/08/why-singapores-health-care-system-beats.html

It's funny that you only post European-style healthcare systems that aren't sustainable (and the U.S. system which Medicare and Medicaid have rendered unworkable).

Singaporeans live longer than people in the Western European countries whose health care systems the Democrats want to copy:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3bGnkNeoPxk/SofF-7rqldI/AAAAAAAADIQ/LxF5yUMUG04/s400/international-life-expectancy.png

Singapore's health care system costs less than those in the Western European countries that the Democrats want to copy:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3bGnkNeoPxk/SofF-Zu9ESI/AAAAAAAADII/1Fmsv6wF9T4/s1600/total-health-care-expenditure.png

And life expectancy is a next-to-worthless indicator of health care quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Qatar beats out most of the countries on that (very selective) list. I doubt anyone would argue it's because their Healthcare system is the best. In reality, life expectancy is more about demographics than medicine.

Oh, and Qatar's not a socialized system. No wonder it's not on the list. Selection bias is fun. :)

pricejj
09-23-2013, 12:22 PM
There are so few liberals around now, it's hard to gauge.

LOL One of the most absurd statements I have ever read in my life.

Hillary Clinton supports unsustainable single payer healthcare. You claim she's not liberal. It is impossible to hold a fact-based conversation with someone who not only denies the facts, but makes up things as they go. Unfortunately, you have ZERO credibility.

Blart
09-23-2013, 12:29 PM
Ah yes, I recall when the conservative think-tanks were hailing Singapore as the pinnacle of free-market healthcare. I wonder why they didn't point out the truly free-market healthcare in Somalia?

Time for a dose of facts: Singapore's healthcare system is pretty much Obamacare, if Obamacare relied more on government.

1) Mandate much? Individuals are required to contribute a percentage of their monthly salary based on age to a personal fund to pay for treatments and hospital expenditures.

2) Don't have enough savings? No worries, the Singapore government provides a safety net to cover expenses for which people can't afford.

3) Private health care plays an overall small role in Singapore, where public healthcare boasts the majority of doctors, nurses, and procedures.

Even conservative David Frum admits Singapore's healthcare is pretty much Obamacare with more government:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/28/conservatives-love-obamacare-when-it-s-singaporecare.html


When you cheer for Singapore's healthcare, you're cheering for Obamacare.

pricejj
09-23-2013, 12:29 PM
And life expectancy is a next-to-worthless indicator of health care quality.



It's Blart's parametric, not mine. You should take it up with him.

I merely introduced a health care model that is not only one of the cheapest in the world, but one of the most efficient, and effective.

Singapore blows all Western European single payer countries out of the water in any measurable facet.

pricejj
09-23-2013, 12:34 PM
Here's the issue I have: Singapore's healthcare system is pretty much Obamacare, if Obamacare relied more on government.

Then you must absolutely LOVE Singapore's healthcare system? Unfortunately, Singapore and Obamacare are very different.




Mandate much? Individuals are required to contribute a percentage of their monthly salary based on age to a personal fund to pay for treatments and hospital expenditures.


Yes, money you get to keep. You can use your family HSA to pay for healthcare, education, housing, or retirement. It's also commutable from family member to family member. The best part? YOU make the choice where to spend YOUR money. Which is in essence what the free market is all about. This enables you to receive the highest quality care for the lowest price.

Obamacare forces an individual mandate to pay for health insurance premiums. Money which you never see again, nor can you use to pay for actual healthcare.

Blart
09-23-2013, 12:48 PM
Here are some other things I love about Singapore's Healthcare:

1) 36% of each paycheck is automatically taken into mandated savings accounts. 36%! And that's before taxes.

2) There’s a Marriage and Parenthood Package, where you get S$6000 (nearly $5k USD) per each child you have. If the child has a congenital condition, you get even more. The government will also match every dollar you put into your child development account. We should definitely introduce this in the USA.

3) The government controls the number of students and physicians that are licensed in the country. It also controls how much they can earn. It also uses bulk purchasing power to spend less on drugs. They're using centralized authority to keep costs low, not the free market.

4) The Prime Minister of Singapore sounds pretty great :) Check out this speech from last month:


Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced a number of policy adjustments on Sunday evening in areas such as medical insurance and education, outlining a strategic shift in his approach to nation building.
Individuals must still do their best, but the community and government must do more to reduce the pressures on individuals, he said at the annual National Day Rally.

In one of the key changes announced in the evening, Lee said that the government is revamping the country’s medical insurance system to move towards universal and life-long coverage.


Oh well, conservatives still have Somalia.

BroncoBeavis
09-23-2013, 12:51 PM
It's Blart's parametric, not mine. You should take it up with him.

I merely introduced a health care model that is not only one of the cheapest in the world, but one of the most efficient, and effective.

Singapore blows all Western European single payer countries out of the water in any measurable facet.

I know it wasn't yours. It's just a statistic that blows itself up (when it comes to Healthcare) if you look at it.

Blart
09-23-2013, 12:53 PM
I actually prefer the WHO's rankings. They measure healthcare on these factors:



Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy)

Overall or average : 25%
Distribution or equality : 25%


Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities

Overall or average : 12.5%
Distribution or equality : 12.5%


Fair financial contribution : 25%



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_system s

BroncoBeavis
09-23-2013, 01:05 PM
Here are some other things I love about Singapore's Healthcare:

1) 36% of each paycheck is automatically taken into mandated savings accounts. 36%! And that's before taxes.

You do realize that's mostly a retirement plan, right?

And the contribution is split between employer and employee.

Anyway how does a large combined retirement/HSA style account in any way resemble what Obamacare does? If anything, Obamacare did the opposite and scaled down HSA-type solutions.

BroncoBeavis
09-23-2013, 01:07 PM
I actually prefer the WHO's rankings. They measure healthcare on these factors:



Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy)

Overall or average : 25%
Distribution or equality : 25%


Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities

Overall or average : 12.5%
Distribution or equality : 12.5%


Fair financial contribution : 25%



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_system s

I've seen that ranking before. It's basically a ranking that's specifically built to favor socialized payment above individual payment. In other words, useless to compare one against the other.

Blart
09-23-2013, 01:10 PM
I've seen that ranking before. It's basically a ranking that's specifically built to favor socialized payment above individual payment. In other words, useless to compare one against the other.

Please show me a rating system that shines a beacon of light on the great healthcare system that is runaway capitalism, and which countries use such healthcare.

BroncoBeavis
09-23-2013, 01:18 PM
Please show me a rating system that shines a beacon of light on the great healthcare system that is runaway capitalism, and which countries use such healthcare.

You're the one that highlighted "Fair Financial Contribution"

Basically it gives a 25% head start to single payer. Just because that's what they prefer.

Seems like an illogical place to look if you want to actually compare single payer against private pay.

BroncoBeavis
09-23-2013, 01:33 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2011/11/CONCORD-table1.jpg

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2011/11/National-Life-Expectancy1.png

W*GS
09-23-2013, 01:46 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/

AKA mathturbation to meet the desired political viewpoint.

Sorta like removing African-Americans from group "citizens" so comparisons with other nations don't look so ****ing bad.

BroncoBeavis
09-23-2013, 02:00 PM
AKA mathturbation to meet the desired political viewpoint.

Sorta like removing African-Americans from group "citizens" so comparisons with other nations don't look so ****ing bad.

Yeah, totally. Trying to isolate out demographic and environmental variables to compare actual health care outcomes is like totally inappropriate.

Thanks Mr Science. LOL

Nope, when Wagsy looks for a good health care indicator, he wants to know how many people die in car wrecks. Because Socialized Medicinebearpig!

frerottenextelway
09-23-2013, 03:18 PM
Btw just an update on the original topic, Cruz's senate colleagues have firmly tossed him and his "plan" to defund ACA under the bus, and are voting in almost unison against him.

Blart
09-23-2013, 03:37 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/


^ Painfully stupid research from the Koch-funded, neo-conservative Manhattan Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Res earch).

Even if we take the fascist for his word and ignore all the US deaths he doesn't like to acknowledge, we're still looking at one of the most wasteful healthcare systems in the world. He's promoting a system that spends nearly 90% more than Canada and 176% more than Japan per capita for an insignificant increase in life expectancy, according to the figures in the article.

And the cancer "survival" rates are inflated, since the US heavily overdiagnoses and overtreats non-life-threatening cancer. Prostate cancer especially.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/7/29/scientists-call-forstricterdefinitionofcancer.html

You can't "survive" something that was never going to kill you.

Requiem
09-23-2013, 03:41 PM
You can't "survive" something that was never going to kill you.

False. 9/11 and Katrina. Even the USS Cole. Nailed it.

BroncoBeavis
09-23-2013, 04:01 PM
^ Painfully stupid research from the Koch-funded, neo-conservative Manhattan Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Res earch).

Even if we take the fascist for his word and ignore all the US deaths he doesn't like to acknowledge, we're still looking at one of the most wasteful healthcare systems in the world. He's promoting a system that spends nearly 90% more than Canada and 176% more than Japan per capita for an insignificant increase in life expectancy, according to the figures in the article.

And the cancer "survival" rates are inflated, since the US heavily overdiagnoses and overtreats non-life-threatening cancer. Prostate cancer especially.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/7/29/scientists-call-forstricterdefinitionofcancer.html

You can't "survive" something that was never going to kill you.

Wow there's a lot here. First, attacking a theoretical Koch-link while openly linking to Al Jazeera. Nice... :)

And we can argue the ins and outs of cancer survival and how many dollars and cents life years are really worth. That's where the real argument is to be had, and as I think you're getting at, it's not a simple argument by any stretch.

But the simple takeaway should be... One, Life Expectancy means next to nothing. And Two, while actual Healthcare in the US may be wasteful, and/or non-universal, in most cases it produces very good outcomes. Better than the rest of the world in many cases.

houghtam
09-23-2013, 04:36 PM
Wow there's a lot here. First, attacking a theoretical Koch-link while openly linking to Al Jazeera. Nice... :)

And we can argue the ins and outs of cancer survival and how many dollars and cents life years are really worth. That's where the real argument is to be had, and as I think you're getting at, it's not a simple argument by any stretch.

But the simple takeaway should be... One, Life Expectancy means next to nothing. And Two, while actual Healthcare in the US may be wasteful, and/or non-universal, in most cases it produces very good outcomes. Better than the rest of the world in many cases.

Why link a graph showing life expectancy if it means next to nothing?

Oh, that's right. Because it suited your argument at the time.

Example # 2,345 and counting.

TonyR
09-23-2013, 07:35 PM
Wow there's a lot here. First, attacking a theoretical Koch-link while openly linking to Al Jazeera. Nice... :)


What's your issue with Al Jazeera in this context? Or is Al Jazeera just automatically "bad" and because it's not an American based organization and has a name that sounds scary to you?

Missouribronc
09-23-2013, 09:17 PM
Meh...it's just cancer.

Rub some dirt on it, you pussy.

pricejj
09-23-2013, 10:40 PM
Here are some other things I love about Singapore's Healthcare:

1) 36% of each paycheck is automatically taken into mandated savings accounts. 36%! And that's before taxes.


Actually, only 6% of salary (pre-tax) is used to set aside in Health Savings Accounts. And even that is paid for by both employers and employees.

Please do some research before posting inaccurate information.

pricejj
09-23-2013, 10:54 PM
The remainder of Singapore's mandatory savings can go toward education, real estate, or retirement...and can be used by ANYONE in your family. Singapore enjoys the highest rate of home-ownership (85%) in the world, the highest infant birth survival rate in the world, and the 4th longest life expectancy in the world.

Singapore is simply the cheapest, most efficient, and effective healthcare system in the world (by far). It is a 4-payer system (just like the U.S.). The U.S. can get there, but needs to separate Medicare/Medicaid from the private system first. The U.S. also needs to prevent over-utilization by requiring copays for ALL medical services (not encouraging over-utilization like Obamacare).

Socialist Democrats (like Blart) would rather confiscate your money to pay for unworkable, unsustainable, over-priced, government-controlled systems whose costs increase faster than inflation...rather than let you save and spend your money yourself.

BroncoBeavis
09-24-2013, 07:18 AM
What's your issue with Al Jazeera in this context? Or is Al Jazeera just automatically "bad" and because it's not an American based organization and has a name that sounds scary to you?

Well it's a pretty tough sell to go from linking every fact you don't like to the Koch Brothers, with the follow up of "Now let's see what the Qatari Royal Family thinks." :)

Rohirrim
09-24-2013, 07:48 AM
Singapore is an extremely restrictive, 234 sq. mile city/state with a population of 5 million and a GDP of 270 billion. Not exactly a model that works for the rest of the world.

TonyR
09-24-2013, 07:48 AM
Well it's a pretty tough sell to go from linking every fact you don't like to the Koch Brothers, with the follow up of "Now let's see what the Qatari Royal Family thinks." :)

Ah, I see you quickly googled "Al Jazeera" and learned that it's based in Doha as opposed to some Islamist stronghold. The most important part of the previous sentence was "learned".

BroncoBeavis
09-24-2013, 08:04 AM
Ah, I see you quickly googled "Al Jazeera" and learned that it's based in Doha as opposed to some Islamist stronghold. The most important part of the previous sentence was "learned".

You can think of Qatar as more 'moderate' than the Koch Brothers if you like. Very Gaffenean of you, but be my guest. LOL

W*GS
09-24-2013, 08:04 AM
Singapore is an extremely restrictive, 234 sq. mile city/state with a population of 5 million and a GDP of 270 billion. Not exactly a model that works for the rest of the world.

I spent a week in Singapore a couple years ago.

It is an authoritarian state.

No wonder right-wingers here admire it. It's a model for them.

The Singapore pledge is as follows:
We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation.

Note that "liberty", "freedom" and "rights" are not mentioned.

houghtam
09-24-2013, 08:19 AM
Singapore.

Here we go again.

Get pwnt in one thread, just wait a year and hope everyone forgot.

Great discussion! A++

BroncoBeavis
09-24-2013, 08:27 AM
Singapore is an extremely restrictive, 234 sq. mile city/state with a population of 5 million and a GDP of 270 billion. Not exactly a model that works for the rest of the world.

Sounds a lot like Norway, other than the square footage. I'm sure I've said that before. But just to be fair, we can clean that popular example off the board as well.

Rohirrim
09-24-2013, 09:55 AM
Sounds a lot like Norway, other than the square footage. I'm sure I've said that before. But just to be fair, we can clean that popular example off the board as well.

And the same people who are hysterical about death panels want to cut $40 billion from food stamps. ???

BroncoBeavis
09-24-2013, 10:00 AM
And the same people who are hysterical about death panels want to cut $40 billion from food stamps. ???

I'm not sure they're entirely the same people. But I agree, the foodstamp thing is moronic. Of all the things they could go after...

pricejj
09-24-2013, 05:42 PM
Singapore is an extremely restrictive, 234 sq. mile city/state with a population of 5 million and a GDP of 270 billion. Not exactly a model that works for the rest of the world.

Norway has a population of 5 million and a GDP of 499 billion. Yet you keep trying to shove unsustainable western European single-payer down everyone's throat.


Singapore's 4-payer health care system is superior. No matter how much you deny it, you can't change the facts. Australia's 4-payer system is even moving more towards free market. With steps in the proper direction, the U.S. will get there someday.

The first step to drastically reduce costs would be to separate the public (Medicare/Medicaid) and the private markets.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-25-2013, 08:41 AM
you wil have option like 150-300/month with deductible, and if you are economcially challnged as you claim, you will get tax credit to but that insurance, so perhaps that 200/month policy becomes $100/mo..

if you are serious: http://www.healthcare.com/insurance/online-quotes/?CID=3676&SRC=hc_msn&bw_brand=0&bw_type=0&bw_state=Colorado&utm_content=622324566&kid=175620649212726&pdv=c&Sub_ID=co%20health%20insurance%20plans&bw_keyword=co%20health%20insurance%20plans&Pub_ID=colorado%20health%20care%20exchange&bw_query=colorado%20health%20care%20exchange&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=bing&utm_term=co%20health%20insurance%20plans&utm_campaign=%28national%29+State+Terms

if you are just posting to be partisan and inflammatory, then by all means...

No, my intention was not be partisan. That may be all it would cost if I was single, but I have a wife and 4 kids.

What I stated about Obama is a fact. He made a closed door deal with officials from major healthcare insurance companies so they would stop spreading negative propaganda about him.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-25-2013, 08:47 AM
And they're not great plans, by any means...but they are better than nothing, and definitely better than visiting the emergency room.

We have medical clinics here. That's where I send my family if they really need to see a doctor. Paying $100 out of pocket once every 3 or 4 months is a lot more affordable than $800 out of pocket per month for health insurance.

Rigs11
09-25-2013, 09:08 AM
Don't worry righies, your future presidential candidate is on it.Hilarious!These are the type of members of your party. He might give batshet palin a run for her money.

Cruz conjures Darth Vader 18 hours into Senate marathon

As he hit the 18-hour mark on the Senate floor Wednesday morning, Sen. Ted Cruz compared his anti-Obamacare effort to "Star Wars." And he tried out his vocal impression of Darth Vader.Referring to having heard someone use the phrase "rebellion against oppression," Cruz said those words "conjured up to me the rebel alliance fighting against the empire. The empire being the Washington, D.C., establishment."

"And indeed immediately on hearing that phrase I wondered if at some point we would see a tall gentleman in a mechanical breathing apparatus come forward and say in a deep voice, `Mike Lee, I am your father.' "

Sen. Mike Lee is one of several Republicans who have taken turns at the microphone, giving their colleague a break.

Cruz and a few others in the Republican caucus want to prevent the Senate from taking up the government funding bill passed last week by the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. The Democratic-controlled Senate plans to strip a provision that removed funding for Obamacare.

At one point Tuesday night, the senator from Texas read the Dr. Seuss children's classic "Green Eggs and Ham" to his daughters.

At 9 a.m. Wednesday, Cruz was alone on the floor, except for the presiding officer, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/25/politics/shutdown-showdown/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

BroncoBeavis
09-25-2013, 09:12 AM
We have medical clinics here. That's where I send my family if they really need to see a doctor. Paying $100 out of pocket once every 3 or 4 months is a lot more affordable than $800 out of pocket per month for health insurance.

The good news /sarc is now you can do both!

Although the primary care copay will probably be something like $50. So for that $800 plus a month (likely more), you'll at least get a slight discount on those office visits.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-25-2013, 09:15 AM
The good news /sarc is now you can do both!

Although the primary care copay will probably be something like $50. So for that $800 plus a month (likely more), you'll at least get a slight discount on those office visits.

Hmmm, do I pay for health insurance, or buy food? tough choice.....

Pony Boy
09-25-2013, 09:23 AM
Hmmm, do I pay for health insurance, or buy food? tough choice.....

Which monthly bill will get paid first by the 20 and 30 year old generation, the health insurance premium or the cell phone bill?

TonyR
09-25-2013, 11:31 AM
The only real way to repeal the healthcare law is to win elections. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324492604579087342347257028.html

Crushaholic
09-25-2013, 11:55 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324492604579087342347257028.html

You're absolutely correct. I despised Romney, but I saw it as a way to get Obamacare repealed. Also, the Republicans needed to take the Senate. That didn't happen, either. Fast forward to today, the Republicans can stomp their feet all they want. They don't have the votes to get rid of Obamacare. The only hope is if Democrats start listening to the small businesses and people who had chosen not to buy healthcare insurance...

Meck77
09-25-2013, 12:08 PM
Our government can barely avoid shutting every few months yet some of you want to put your healthcare in their hands? Insanity.

Blart
09-25-2013, 12:15 PM
One, Life Expectancy means next to nothing. And Two, while actual Healthcare in the US may be wasteful, and/or non-universal, in most cases it produces very good outcomes. Better than the rest of the world in many cases.

Yes, US healthcare is unquestionably top-notch, but what happens when your insurance denies you that top-notch care?

Don't feel so comfy because you have "great health insurance". Someone's job at that insurance company is to deny you care, and they're some of the best detectives in the country. If your claim for treatment is denied by Aetna/BlueCross/Company X and you die, the adjustor who denied you is getting a bonus. Profiting from death? That's capitalism.

In 2007, CIGNA refused to pay for the liver transplant 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan desperately needed to survive because it was "too experimental." She ended up dying from lack of treatment.

A 12-year-old boy who was born with only one arm, had been denied coverage for his prosthesis on the grounds that he had reached his "lifetime maximum benefit for prosthetic devices." The insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Otto Raddatz, a lymphoma patient, lost his health care coverage while still undergoing chemotherapy. Fortis Insurance said it terminated his policy because he didn't disclose a note that a doctor once wrote in his file -- that he didn't know about -- indicating he had a small aneurysm and gallstones.

Blue Cross agreed to insure Wittney Horton and accepted her premium payments -- until she got sick. After Horton sought treatment, Blue Cross opened an investigation into her medical records and found a note from one of her doctors suggesting that she might have polycystic ovaries. Based on the note, which Horton never knew about, Blue Cross rescinded her medical coverage.

Ian Pearl, who was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy soon after birth, survives with the help of medical technology, including the ventilator he needs to breathe. Late last year, however, his insurer, Guardian, scaled back his coverage even though the limited care is, according to his family, likely to kill him.

Shortly before Robin Beaton was scheduled to undergo a double mastectomy in 2008, her insurance company revoked her policy. Beaton, a breast cancer patient, never disclosed that she'd previously seen a dermatologist for acne, a condition her insurer, Blue Cross, said qualified as a pre-existing condition. "The sad thing is, Blue Cross gladly took my high premiums, and the first time I filed a claim and was suspected of having cancer, they searched high and low for a reason to cancel me," Beaton told a House committee.

They'll deny you for acne. Hope the guy who found that got a lot of money.

Also, I looked into the data you posted. It was based on AEI (right-wing think tank) research from the 80's & 90's, and the data shows fatal injury rates relative to the average. Which is why there are so many anomalies in the graph, like Japan having lower life expectancy without fatal injuries. In other words, it's not showing life expectancy minus fatal injuries as the image states, and seems more like outdated mathturbation as Wags pointed out.

Fedaykin
09-25-2013, 12:27 PM
Yes, US healthcare is unquestionably top-notch, but what happens when your insurance denies you that top-notch care?

Don't feel so comfy because you have "great health insurance". Someone's job at that insurance company is to deny you care, and they're some of the best detectives in the country. If your claim for treatment is denied by Aetna/BlueCross/Company X and you die, the adjustor who denied you is getting a bonus. Profiting from death? That's capitalism.



This is what the righties don't get. When you have something that is not profitable to do (actually provide care), relying on profit motive to regulate is insane.

BroncoBeavis
09-25-2013, 12:40 PM
Yes, US healthcare is unquestionably top-notch, but what happens when your insurance denies you that top-notch care?

Don't feel so comfy because you have "great health insurance". Someone's job at that insurance company is to deny you care, and they're some of the best detectives in the country. If your claim for treatment is denied by Aetna/BlueCross/Company X and you die, the adjustor who denied you is getting a bonus. Profiting from death? That's capitalism.

In 2007, CIGNA refused to pay for the liver transplant 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan desperately needed to survive because it was "too experimental." She ended up dying from lack of treatment.

A 12-year-old boy who was born with only one arm, had been denied coverage for his prosthesis on the grounds that he had reached his "lifetime maximum benefit for prosthetic devices." The insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Otto Raddatz, a lymphoma patient, lost his health care coverage while still undergoing chemotherapy. Fortis Insurance said it terminated his policy because he didn't disclose a note that a doctor once wrote in his file -- that he didn't know about -- indicating he had a small aneurysm and gallstones.

Blue Cross agreed to insure Wittney Horton and accepted her premium payments -- until she got sick. After Horton sought treatment, Blue Cross opened an investigation into her medical records and found a note from one of her doctors suggesting that she might have polycystic ovaries. Based on the note, which Horton never knew about, Blue Cross rescinded her medical coverage.

Ian Pearl, who was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy soon after birth, survives with the help of medical technology, including the ventilator he needs to breathe. Late last year, however, his insurer, Guardian, scaled back his coverage even though the limited care is, according to his family, likely to kill him.

Shortly before Robin Beaton was scheduled to undergo a double mastectomy in 2008, her insurance company revoked her policy. Beaton, a breast cancer patient, never disclosed that she'd previously seen a dermatologist for acne, a condition her insurer, Blue Cross, said qualified as a pre-existing condition. "The sad thing is, Blue Cross gladly took my high premiums, and the first time I filed a claim and was suspected of having cancer, they searched high and low for a reason to cancel me," Beaton told a House committee.

They'll deny you for acne. Hope the guy who found that got a lot of money.

Also, I looked into the data you posted. It was based on AEI (right-wing think tank) research from the 80's & 90's, and the data shows fatal injury rates relative to the average. Which is why there are so many anomalies in the graph, like Japan having lower life expectancy without fatal injuries. In other words, it's not showing life expectancy minus fatal injuries as the image states, and seems more like outdated mathturbation as Wags pointed out.

Dude, I can find you a million different sources who will tell you that Life Expectancy is nearly the ****tiest way imaginable to measure a healthcare system.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/28/life_expectency_health_care.html

Now please please please show me the dreaded Yglesias/Koch smoking gun. :)

Anyway you can nitpick and slam sources all you want, but it's undeniably true that this particular favored stat of the left has next to zero relevance when it comes to health care. How long we live has much more to do with how we live our lives as opposed to what doctors we see when.

As far as sob stories, we don't live in a perfect world. Turning it over to the government doesn't make it any less so:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-62671/NHS-waiting-list-scandal-revealed.html

The supply is limitless.

Blart
09-25-2013, 01:32 PM
this particular favored stat of the left has next to zero relevance when it comes to health care. How long we live has much more to do with how we live our lives as opposed to what doctors we see when.


This has the feel of "moving the goalposts (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts)", but fine. Life expectancy isn't totally accurate, it's a bit like comparing QB's based on their TD/INT ratio. It's not going to tell you if John Elway was better than Joe Montana, but a quick glance can tell you which one is Brian Griese and which one is Peyton Manning:

1.20
2.14

Regardless, let's throw out life expectancy. Long lives are a tool of the left (the longer you live, the more taxes they take)!


We still have the WHO comparisons.
We have OECD comparisons of mortality amendable to healthcare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_systems#International_comparisons) (people who die that could have been treated with healthcare), physicians & hospital beds per capita, and other metrics.
We have the non-partisan Commonwealth Fund comparisons, which I believe to be the most precise:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2010/Jun/~/media/Images/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/jun/MM2010l.gif
Source: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf

We don't need life expectancy to show the problem with US healthcare.

My question is: If the methodologies are so murky and can go either way, where are the comparisons from non-partisan organizations showing the efficiency and success of US healthcare?

W*GS
09-25-2013, 01:42 PM
My question is: If the methodologies are so murky and can go either way, where are the comparisons from non-partisan organizations showing the efficiency and success of US healthcare?

There ain't none - other than right-wing blatant cherry picks designed to defend the privileges of wealth.

BroncoBeavis
09-25-2013, 02:11 PM
This has the feel of "moving the goalposts (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts)", but fine. Life expectancy isn't totally accurate, it's a bit like comparing QB's based on their TD/INT ratio. It's not going to tell you if John Elway was better than Joe Montana, but a quick glance can tell you which one is Brian Griese and which one is Peyton Manning:

1.20
2.14

Regardless, let's throw out life expectancy. Long lives are a tool of the left (the longer you live, the more taxes they take)!


We still have the WHO comparisons.
We have OECD comparisons of mortality amendable to healthcare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_systems#International_comparisons) (people who die that could have been treated with healthcare), physicians & hospital beds per capita, and other metrics.
We have the non-partisan Commonwealth Fund comparisons, which I believe to be the most precise:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2010/Jun/~/media/Images/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/jun/MM2010l.gif
Source: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf

We don't need life expectancy to show the problem with US healthcare.

My question is: If the methodologies are so murky and can go either way, where are the comparisons from non-partisan organizations showing the efficiency and success of US healthcare?

All of them call themselves "non-partisan"

AEI, Heritage... Brookings, Commonwealth Fund, etc. Yet all have ideological bents.

non-partisan does not mean non-ideological. Commonwealth Fund is no more objective than Cato. That's not to say you can't listen to either or both. But one's face value is no higher than the other's.

Blart
09-25-2013, 02:32 PM
All of them call themselves "non-partisan"

AEI, Heritage... Brookings, Commonwealth Fund, etc. Yet all have ideological bents.

non-partisan does not mean non-ideological. Commonwealth Fund is no more objective than Cato. That's not to say you can't listen to either or both. But one's face value is no higher than the other's.

Commonwealth Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund) is a think-tank? When was the last time CATO built hospitals?

OECD is a liberal think-tank? :D That's a first.


If this were think tank vs think tank, the right would win since they dominate think-tank funding.

BroncoBeavis
09-25-2013, 02:41 PM
Commonwealth Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund) is a think-tank? When was the last time CATO built hospitals?

OECD is a liberal think-tank? :D That's a first.


If this were think tank vs think tank, the right would win since they dominate think-tank funding.

I didn't say they were all think tanks. I said they all called themselves 'nonpartisan' yet are all obviously in one ideological camp or the other.

Trivia Question. You like connecting dots. I've seen it.

What was the head of the Commonwealth Fund's job before he took leadership of the organization? Oh, and which party does his brother, who just coincidentally happens to be a US Senator belong to? LOL

houghtam
09-25-2013, 02:48 PM
Surprise! Obamacare foe Cruz votes with Democrats on spending plan

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/25/politics/shutdown-showdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

LOL You can't make this **** up.

Blart
09-25-2013, 02:56 PM
I didn't say they were all think tanks. I said they all called themselves 'nonpartisan' yet are all obviously in one ideological camp or the other.

Trivia Question. You like connecting dots. I've seen it.

What was the head of the Commonwealth Fund's job before he took leadership of the organization? Oh, and which party does his brother, who just coincidentally happens to be a US Senator belong to? LOL

At the time of the above report (2010) Karen Davis (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Bios/D/Davis-Karen.aspx)was president of the Commonwealth Fund. Prior to that, she was a chairman at John Hopkins School of Public Health, which is arguably the best public health school in the country.

Taco John
09-25-2013, 03:35 PM
Surprise! Obamacare foe Cruz votes with Democrats on spending plan

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/25/politics/shutdown-showdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

LOL You can't make this **** up.

I don't understand what the point of voting against a procedural step would be. You're acting like this is a huge gotcha, and it's just a vote on allowing amendments. Doesn't it make sense that Cruz might have amendments of his own to add?

What do I expect - you're touting a CNN headline... ::)

UNBELIEVABLE! He voted in favor of adding amendments to the bill! YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP!

Your overreaction is puzzling.

houghtam
09-25-2013, 03:43 PM
I don't understand what the point of voting against a procedural step would be. You're acting like this is a huge gotcha, and it's just a vote on allowing amendments. Doesn't it make sense that Cruz might have amendments of his own to add?

What do I expect - you're touting a CNN headline... ::)

UNBELIEVABLE! He voted in favor of adding amendments to the bill! YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP!

Your overreaction is puzzling.

You honestly think his constituents will be able to put that logic together, particularly when he was taking the stance of "stop Obamacare at all costs"?

I can't wait until the next town hall meeting he hosts when he has to answer the question on why he voted for Obamacare.

"Well...because...I had to vote for it...so I could vote against it!"

Yeah, that will go over well.

And in addition...please, regale us on what amendment he's going to propose that has any chance of passing. His own party hates him, how do you think the Democrats feel about him, other than in an "awww, how cute" sort of way?

Taco John
09-25-2013, 03:43 PM
I think this is the context that people are missing in this recent theatre:

The last 24 hours wasn't Ted Cruz vs. Democrats. Not at all really. The last 24 hours was about Ted Cruz (and the new school republicans) vs. John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and everyone else in the old school. This is just an extension of the Republican civil war.

Ted Cruz, whether people have the savvy to understand this or not, just fired across Mitch Mconnell's bows, and the entire Republican establishment. If you get a chance, watch the exchange that he had during primetime during the speech with Dick Durbin. He laid out the whole strategy there. Or better yet, just check the first post of this thread - which pretty well nailed everything that happened this week before it even happened.

This whole thing is about the senate fight in 2014 and the new guard letting the old guard know "we have the floor now - stand down."

Taco John
09-25-2013, 03:46 PM
You honestly think his constituents will be able to put that logic together, particularly when he was taking the stance of "stop Obamacare at all costs"?[quote]

Uh what? I don't think it will matter. Nobody cares about procedural votes except apparently CNN and you. This doesn't even count as a blip on the political radar. It's like voting to adjourn for a bathroom break - big whoop.

You (and CNN) are desperate to find a gotcha here, and it doesn't exist.


[quote]I can't wait until the next town hall meeting he hosts when he has to answer the question on why he voted for Obamacare.


Wow. What? Dude do you even know what's going on? Your line of attack is bizarre and out of focus.

Taco John
09-25-2013, 03:47 PM
And in addition...please, regale us on what amendment he's going to propose that has any chance of passing. His own party hates him, how do you think the Democrats feel about him, other than in an "awww, how cute" sort of way?

I wouldn't guess what amendments he might propose, but I couldn't care less about "his party hating him." Those guys have their necks out right now, not Cruz. Visit any grass roots web site (such as RedState.org). Cruz is a hero with the base right now, while these old school guys are being talked about as hens ready for the slaughter.

Taco John
09-25-2013, 03:52 PM
Read this article - just one of hundreds you can find right now, and tell me that the Republican party hates Ted Cruz:
http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/25/the-great-big-gop-establishment-obamacare-lie/

You're getting your information from the establishment media if you think that's true, and they're doing everything they can to rally around the president.

Ted Cruz is winning big right now.

houghtam
09-25-2013, 03:54 PM
[QUOTE=houghtam;3924551]You honestly think his constituents will be able to put that logic together, particularly when he was taking the stance of "stop Obamacare at all costs"?[quote]

Uh what? I don't think it will matter. Nobody cares about procedural votes except apparently CNN and you. This doesn't even count as a blip on the political radar. It's like voting to adjourn for a bathroom break - big whoop.

You (and CNN) are desperate to find a gotcha here, and it doesn't exist.




Wow. What? Dude do you even know what's going on? Your line of attack is bizarre and out of focus.

You're attributing too much intelligence to the average voter, and are apparently unable to comprehend the effect that the media has on people's opinions.

Once the media keeps playing this vote over and over again, and then when his opponent picks it up, you can rest assured he's going to have to answer those questions, likely from the same guy who shouted "get your government hands off my Medicare."

Cruz is done.

Yeah, yeah, "mark my words", "hear me now, believe me later" and all those other favorite sayings of yours that turn out to be woefully incorrect.

Taco John
09-25-2013, 04:03 PM
You're attributing too much intelligence to the average voter, and are apparently unable to comprehend the effect that the media has on people's opinions.

Pfffft!

First of all, this silly procedural vote means nothing to the average voter. It actually means nothing to the sophisticated voter as well. It's just a procedural vote. It got one silly article on CNN in a flurry of news about a million other things. Who do you think is paying attention to this silly story outside of "Gotcha Monkeys" who are trying to drum up whatever it is you're trying to drum up...


Once the media keeps playing this vote over and over again....

Really? You think this procedural vote is going to get even a news cycles worth of coverage? Bizzare.

Cruz is done.

Yeah, clearly:
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-09-25.html

I hate Ann Coulter. She's a front running media bag. But let me say that again: she's a front running media bag. Ted Cruz is not going anywhere. You can't possibly believe what you're writing here. You spend your time in politics forums. How can you understand so little about political calculus? It's almost like you just straight up believe what the media says and aren't able to critically evaluate it based on the actual facts on the ground.

Yeah, yeah, "mark my words", "hear me now, believe me later" and all those other favorite sayings of yours that turn out to be woefully incorrect.

Yeah. Huh. Anyone can read the first post of this thread and tell me how "woefully incorrect" I am. Go ahead. Read it again.

houghtam
09-25-2013, 04:05 PM
Read this article - just one of hundreds you can find right now, and tell me that the Republican party hates Ted Cruz:
http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/25/the-great-big-gop-establishment-obamacare-lie/

You're getting your information from the establishment media if you think that's true, and they're doing everything they can to rally around the president.

Ted Cruz is winning big right now.

Hmm..let's see...how many people pay attention to redstate.com?

How many people follow CNN?

Watch the evening news (any channel) tonight, see what they're saying and how they characterize it.

Hell, watch Fox News (America's most watched network) even they're characterizing him as an outsider.

But hey, you're the one who thought Ron Paul could beat both Romney and Obama. You're the one who thinks Rand Paul is going to be the next president. You're the one who thinks Ted Cruz will be the House Majority leader, assuming the Republicans will pick up enough seats for that AND that they will then choose a guy to lead them who they hate.

And then you say you don't care whether his party hates him.

You're waaaay out there, buddy. Hilarious!

Taco John
09-25-2013, 05:04 PM
Yeah, it sure sounds like Ted Cruz is finished...

https://soundcloud.com/senator-ted-cruz/sen-ted-cruz-talks-defund

Like with Coulter, I'm no fan of Limbaugh, but Limbaugh speaks to a large part of the base. The establishment is the one out on a limb right now. McConnell is about to get primaried...

DenverBrit
09-25-2013, 06:24 PM
All of them call themselves "non-partisan"

AEI, Heritage... Brookings, Commonwealth Fund, etc. Yet all have ideological bents.

non-partisan does not mean non-ideological. Commonwealth Fund is no more objective than Cato. That's not to say you can't listen to either or both. But one's face value is no higher than the other's.

So why don't you address the data The Commonwealth Fund is using.

Which is incorrect?? Based upon their history and the data that we see each year, I'd say little or none.

The US system has been broken for decades, whilst no system is perfect, we have a most dysfunctional and absurdly expensive system.

I just don't understand (never have) the resistance to updating our healthcare.......other than lobbyists influence.

Rigs11
09-25-2013, 07:54 PM
Yeah, it sure sounds like Ted Cruz is finished...

https://soundcloud.com/senator-ted-cruz/sen-ted-cruz-talks-defund

Like with Coulter, I'm no fan of Limbaugh, but Limbaugh speaks to a large part of the base. The establishment is the one out on a limb right now. McConnell is about to get primaried...

Limbaugh? Really taco? The guy who compared obamacare to slavery? You've gone off the deep end

Taco John
09-25-2013, 08:19 PM
Limbaugh? Really taco? The guy who compared obamacare to slavery? You've gone off the deep end

I don't get it? What do you mean "Limbaugh, Really taco?"

Do those words take away the enormous amount of influence Limbaugh has with the conservative base? Am I supposed to ignore that influence just because I don't personally like the guy?

I'm for discussing the substance of what his happening on the playing field right now, not talk about whether or not anyone likes the players in the game.

Rigs11
09-25-2013, 09:06 PM
I don't get it? What do you mean "Limbaugh, Really taco?"

Do those words take away the enormous amount of influence Limbaugh has with the conservative base? Am I supposed to ignore that influence just because I don't personally like the guy?

I'm for discussing the substance of what his happening on the playing field right now, not talk about whether or not anyone likes the players in the game.

Nope, the guy is an idiot and so is Cruz,just because they have a big influence on all the wackos in the GOP does not mean that you guys will win the presidency. If you need an example look no further than what happened with Palin.they may fire up the far right but will turn off moderates.

houghtam
09-25-2013, 09:20 PM
Nope, the guy is an idiot and so is Cruz,just because they have a big influence on all the wackos in the GOP does not mean that you guys will win the presidency. If you need an example look no further than what happened with Palin.they may fire up the far right but will turn off moderates.

Not only will it turn off the moderates, it will turn off the majority of the "base". Hint: the Tea Party is not the base.

Just look at the latest Pew poll. The ONLY segment in favor of not compromising, of shutting down the government to get what they want, is the Tea Party. The rest is in favor of compromise, and it's pretty much at 60-70% across the board on all voting blocs except the Tea Party.

And they are in the vast minority.

But keep beating that drum. Hear me now, believe me later. Uhh

BroncoBeavis
09-25-2013, 09:36 PM
At the time of the above report (2010) Karen Davis (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Bios/D/Davis-Karen.aspx)was president of the Commonwealth Fund. Prior to that, she was a chairman at John Hopkins School of Public Health, which is arguably the best public health school in the country.

Carter Administration official, previously worked for the Brookings Institution (Liberal Think Tank)

Textbook.

Taco John
09-25-2013, 10:56 PM
Responding to the confusion in here about Cruz's vote today in favor of cloture...

There is a lot of confusion out there about which cloture vote is important. Even most of the pundit class doesn't understand this like they should and are making fools of themselves because of it.

This one that happened today was not important to oppose. Not matter what, the Senate isn't going to accept a house bill without amendments. Everyone knows that, including Cruz. There's nothing to gain by voting against this procedural step, which is simply to call up the bill for debate. Why would Cruz be against that?

The cloture vote today passed at 100%. What happens next is that Harry Reid will get first crack at the floor - he'll wipe out the house bill and replace it with his own, and THEN file cloture. THIS is the cloture vote that matters.

Here's Cruz's own words on the subject:
"The central vote the Senate will take on this fight will not occur today and it will not occur tomorrow. The first vote we are going to take on this is a vote on what is called cloture on the motion to proceed. Very few people not on this floor have any idea what that means and even, I suspect, a fair number of people on this floor are not quite sure what that means. That will simply be a vote whether to take up this bill and to begin debating this bill. I expect that vote to pass overwhelmingly, if not unanimously. Everyone agrees we ought to take this up, we ought to start this conversation.

The next vote we take will occur on Friday or Saturday and it will be on what is called cloture on the bill. That is the vote that matters. Cloture on the bill, the vote Friday or Saturday, is the vote that matters.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/government-shutdown-ted-cruz-obamacare-senate-filibuster-cloture-2013-9#ixzz2fyHbTLBB

So look at your calendar. Today is the 25th. The government shut down is October 1st. Cloture was filed today, so there is a 30 hour clock right now allowing debate on this bill (every bill is given at least 30 hours of opportunity for debate as part of the legislative rules around cloture). This also gives the people a chance to contact their senators and let them know what they think.

Friday is when the rubber meets the road in the Republican party, and those dudes are sweating bullets right now because Reid needs 60 votes for cloture, and there are 20 Democrat and 15 Republican seats in play for 2014.

Reid will get his cloture vote, but the score card for 2014 for the Republicans races will be set based on how this vote goes. Any of those 15 Republicans who vote in favor of cloture are basically voting in favor of being primaried - and many of the Democrats will be voting in favor of an expensive primary race.

So sometime Friday, Reid will pull his maneuver, and another cloture vote will happen, and once that vote passes (which everyone expects it will, including Cruz), Senate rules kick in and the floor will be open to debate Reid's new bill for 30 hours. Which means that it won't be until sometime late Saturday night or Sunday morning that they can vote on the final bill itself.

Sunday, the 29th.

...and it's not even done then because then the bill goes back to the House. I have no idea what is going to happen once it gets to that point.

frerottenextelway
09-26-2013, 08:06 AM
If you're explaining in politics, you're losing. Ted Cruz was the big loser in all this, his own party "f..ing hates" him and Obamacare is here to stay.

Rigs11
09-26-2013, 08:20 AM
Hilarious!

<embed style="display:block" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:colbertnation.com:429309" width="288" height="247" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowFullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000"></embed>

houghtam
09-26-2013, 08:25 AM
If you're explaining in politics, you're losing. Ted Cruz was the big loser in all this, his own party "f..ing hates" him and Obamacare is here to stay.

That's the thing. No one here is "confused" about a mundane political process like cloture. Uhh

There is a big difference between political science and political reality. If you don't understand that, regardless of whether it was a procedural vote or not, it will be brought up multiple times by Cruz's next opponent, and that he'll have to answer questions about it, and that it will have a negative impact on his campaign, well...you're living in a dream world, and probably think Rand Paul will be the next president. So there you are.

Look at John Kerry. "I voted for it before I voted against it." No one cared that it was a vote for a democrat-supported amendment to the bill that would increase funding for the troops. All they cared about was that it "seemingly" negated Kerry's vote against the next bill.

But whatever, you can't convince the deaf to hear.

houghtam
09-26-2013, 08:50 AM
Side note, CNN, MSNBC and that bastion of liberalism C-SPAN (LOL) aired Obama's speech about the ACA in Maryland this morning live and unedited.

Fox News ran an editorial on a Somali terrorist network and the government shutdown.

BroncoBeavis
09-26-2013, 09:56 AM
There is a big difference between political science and political reality. If you don't understand that, regardless of whether it was a procedural vote or not, it will be brought up multiple times by Cruz's next opponent, and that he'll have to answer questions about it, and that it will have a negative impact on his campaign, well...you're living in a dream world, and probably think Rand Paul will be the next president. So there you are.

Dream World as described by the guy talking about the risk of a Texas Republican Senator losing his seat to a Democrat over some Obamacare demagogue theater. :)

houghtam
09-26-2013, 10:18 AM
Dream World as described by the guy talking about the risk of a Texas Republican Senator losing his seat to a Democrat over some Obamacare demagogue theater. :)

Did I say democrat?

I said opponent. :)

Taco John
09-26-2013, 11:43 AM
That's the thing. No one here is "confused" about a mundane political process like cloture. Uhh

You are clearly very confused. The cloture vote that matters happens this weekend. Cruz's opponent in 2018 isn't going to mention the vote that happened yesterday, are you kidding me? I can't decide if you're trolling me, or if you're really don't understand this stuff.

Pony Boy
09-26-2013, 11:56 AM
You are clearly very confused. The cloture vote that matters happens this weekend. Cruz's opponent in 2018 isn't going to mention the vote that happened yesterday, are you kidding me? I can't decide if you're trolling me, or if you're really don't understand this stuff.

No he's not trolling but yes to confused and don't understand stuff................

Meck77
09-26-2013, 12:04 PM
Taco good effort and you made a lot of strong points. At the end of the day the war forum is a liberal forum and they simply believe in more spending and want/need the government to take care of them. It's that simple.

Hell I don't even think there is a right or wrong. It's just the way it is. Some people look to the government for help and some of us prefer the government to stay our of our way so we can create jobs, websites, businesses etc.

Rigs11
09-26-2013, 12:06 PM
What I don't get is all the teabaggers kept saying that Obama wasn't born in america, and now they are flocking to a guy that was born in canada and likes to read green eggs and ham, quotes duck dynasty, and star wars? yep you can't make this shet up.Hilarious!

TonyR
09-26-2013, 12:09 PM
...they simply believe in more spending and want/need the government to take care of them...

Oh good grief...

Pony Boy
09-26-2013, 12:16 PM
Taco good effort and you made a lot of strong points. At the end of the day the war forum is a liberal forum and they simply believe in more spending and want/need the government to take care of them. It's that simple.Hell I don't even think there is a right or wrong. It's just the way it is. Some people look to the government for help and some of us prefer the government to stay our of our way so we can create jobs, websites, businesses etc.

That's the nice way to put it, but I prefer liberal circle-jerk. I think most of us agree that Rush Limbaugh is a radio personality that for the most part is an overbearing buffoon but to deny that he's not a major influence over the ultra-conservative vote is asinine.

Taco John
09-26-2013, 12:52 PM
Boehner says he will not pass a clean bill from Reid

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) insisted Thursday that the government would not shut down, but he also flatly refused to pass a "clean" spending bill to keep Uncle Sam in business next week when the bank account runs dry.

"I do not see that happening," Boehner told reporters on Capitol Hill after meeting with Republican legislators.

The House passed a measure last week to fund the government after Sept. 30 only if Democrats agree to strip spending from Obamacare. The Senate is in the process of removing the health care defunding and plans to send a simple spending bill back to the House by this weekend. That bill would keep the government running until Nov. 15.

Boehner declared, "I don't expect" the government to close. But he did not explain how he and his Republican caucus could amend the Senate bill, debate it, vote on it and send it back to the Senate for more action there before Oct. 1.

"There will be options available to us," Boehner said. "There's not going to be any speculation about what we're going to do or not do until the Senate passes their bill."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/john-boehner-shutdown_n_3996800.html

Rigs11
09-26-2013, 12:56 PM
Taco good effort and you made a lot of strong points. At the end of the day the war forum is a liberal forum and they simply believe in more spending and want/need the government to take care of them. It's that simple.

Hell I don't even think there is a right or wrong. It's just the way it is. Some people look to the government for help and some of us prefer the government to stay our of our way so we can create jobs, websites, businesses etc.

what a crock, there are just as many "conservatives" here as there are liberals.the only difference is that many only want to be conservative when a dem is in the white house. When it's one of their own they don't give a rat's ass about spending. For all the belly aching about food stamps and obamacare costs they pale in comparison to the $600 billion that is spent on defense each year. But the "consevatives" will get their panties in a wad if anyone dares mention spending cuts there.

Rigs11
09-26-2013, 12:59 PM
That's the nice way to put it, but I prefer liberal circle-jerk. I think most of us agree that Rush Limbaugh is a radio personality that for the most part is an overbearing buffoon but to deny that he's not a major influence over the ultra-conservative vote is asinine.

wow, glad that you finally admit that the ultra conservatives are bufoonsHilarious!

Fedaykin
09-26-2013, 01:06 PM
Taco good effort and you made a lot of strong points. At the end of the day the war forum is a liberal forum and they simply believe in more spending and want/need the government to take care of them. It's that simple.

Same old tripe. Can't deal with the actual conversation, so make (deeply flawed) personal attacks.

Pathetic.

Fedaykin
09-26-2013, 01:14 PM
what a crock, there are just as many "conservatives" here as there are liberals.the only difference is that many only want to be conservative when a dem is in the white house. When it's one of their own they don't give a rat's ass about spending. For all the belly aching about food stamps and obamacare costs they pale in comparison to the $600 billion that is spent on defense each year. But the "consevatives" will get their panties in a wad if anyone dares mention spending cuts there.

Actually it's still around $1T a year in total spending (DoD, DoE, DHS, VA, treasury dept which pays military pensions, etc.). About $500bn/year more than just a little over a decade ago (inflation adjusted).

Pony Boy
09-26-2013, 01:28 PM
Obama wasn't born in america

Wow, I'm glad you said that not me ........Hilarious!