Defunding Obamacare - Can it happen?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by pricejj

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]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

Taco, you read Judd Greg's slam piece of Cruz in The Hill? Like I said, Cruz is done.

[frerottenextelway]

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnist...senator-writes

[Rigs11]

Gotta love how the righties see their party imploding and all they can do is sling the term liberal around.

[Rigs11]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

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.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Blart

Based on what evidence?

http://blog.jparsons.net/2009/08/why...tem-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:



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/_3bGnkNeoPx...xpenditure.png

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Blart

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]

Originally Posted by pricejj

http://blog.jparsons.net/2009/08/why...tem-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:



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/_3bGnkNeoPx...xpenditure.png

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_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]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

There are so few liberals around now, it's hard to gauge.

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]

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/article...aporecare.html


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

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by BBII

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]

Originally Posted by Blart

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.

Originally Posted by Blart

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]

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]

Originally Posted by pricejj

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]

I actually prefer the WHO's rankings. They measure healthcare on these factors:

• Health (50%) : disability-adjusted 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_H...health_systems

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Blart

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]

Originally Posted by Blart

I actually prefer the WHO's rankings. They measure healthcare on these factors:

• Health (50%) : disability-adjusted 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_H...health_systems

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]

Originally Posted by BBII

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]

Originally Posted by Blart

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]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...fe-expectancy/