US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[Marcuslandia]

Medicare and Medicaid are very niche policies. They only cater to those that truly--I say very generously--cannot take care of themselves. However, Medicaid is too compassionate.

Not being hostile here, but in what way is it "too compassionate"? What things should be done to make it not "too compassionate"? What would be the immediate effects of it no longer being "too compassionate"?

[The repetition is because I get the feeling that what is meant is "Those people (whoever "those people" may be) should not get treatment paid for by Medicaid!" Leading to the question of, "Should we then _deny_ them treatment, possibly resulting in their deaths?" Forgive me if I'm way off; I quite frankly would not be surprised if I was.]

[Space Libertines]

Which doesn't even remotely explain your previous conclusion.

Yes it does. There was never a public option plan in the first place that had any shot of being passed. The public option plan that they have been proposing right now is controlled/written/infleunced by the health insurance industry. A real public option plan won't happen. The whole "debate" was controlled by the health insurance industry from the start. It's very simple. Because it is a fact that they have poured a ton of more lobbying money than any other group in this "debate".

Your inane conspiracy theorizing fails to explain how the public option specifically had anything to do with the insurance industry.

Here is a good article
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 820260.htm
Also, as I've said, do your own research and check out the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org) and follow the money.

[Erich Dahmer]

I don't show my fucking work in public---I'm pretty sure that's public nudity and lewd behavior---but I can link you to some sources for the claims I made.

And it all came from one author. And there were no charts or data sets, no hard numbers. It read like a lot of sociology; a lot of warm-fuzzies, some shitty graphics, and one or two socially and psychologically contaminated observers using anecdotes to try to prove their point. I don't claim to be a social scientist — I prefer engineering and physics and chemistry, stuff that has forumlas that can predict shit with a fair amount of certainty; stuff with numbers and other nuggets of cold, hard fact — but when you start out looking for some behavior in lower primates you'll probably find at least a few examples of it. Just remember that chimps also fling their shit and will grab, bite, beat and kill things for reasons that aren't always easy to interperet assuming there is any reason at all.

As for your refutation of empathy: of course you can't know what another person is 'actually' feeling. Only the individual knows what's in her/his mind. Empathy describes the ability to imagine oneself in another's position, to see from her/his perspective and gain an understanding not of what the person *is* thinking and feeling, but what the person *might* think or feel, based on the surrounding circumstances and the person's behavior, communication, etc.

Really? I thought it was "the vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another" or "the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself". Basically delusion or personification.

Some people think of me as a sociopath because they think I lack empathy and remorse and I question the moral precepts that have been so firmly ingrained in our society. What is so great fooling yourself into think you can feel what others feel or project your emotions onto other things? And why can't I question moral precepts? That's certainly not objective yet it's treated as such.

[Marcuslandia]

or "the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself".

Trivial nitpick: that's "projection".

[Erich Dahmer]

or "the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself".

Trivial nitpick: that's "projection".

One definition of Empathy is projection.

[Marcuslandia]

or "the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself".

Trivial nitpick: that's "projection".

One definition of Empathy is projection.

Twelve lookups later, the score stands at 3-9 for including projection!

I think that in practical terms, projection is when the person thinks he has empathy, but pointedly is NOT getting an accurate reading.

[The Infinite Dunes]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/au ... ion-reform

So it would seem Obama is in retreat over his health reform proposals. I can only see this being a mistake, especially considering the right's rhetoric. They'll sniff victory and keep pressing until he caves completely.

Obama was elected on a landslide majority and yet he's unable get this reform through so early on in his presidency. It's was obviously going to be controversial, so it also shows an inability to avoid the bipartisan politics he said he wanted to avoid.

To me, he has exposed himself as weak and ineffective. I don't expect much from his presidency. I probably wouldn't go so far to call it a failed presidency though -- he still has the rest of his term to try and do something useful.

[Marcuslandia]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/17/healthcare-obama-public-option-reform

So it would seem Obama is in retreat over his health reform proposals. I can only see this being a mistake, especially considering the right's rhetoric. They'll sniff victory and keep pressing until he caves completely.

Obama was elected on a landslide majority and yet he's unable get this reform through so early on in his presidency. It's was obviously going to be controversial, so it also shows an inability to avoid the bipartisan politics he said he wanted to avoid.

To me, he has exposed himself as weak and ineffective. I don't expect much from his presidency. I probably wouldn't go so far to call it a failed presidency though -- he still has the rest of his term to try and do something useful.

Hmm. I perceive that much of Obama's perceived "weakness" comes from his very strong and very obvious desire to have some bipartisan accord in the process.

Out of curiosity, if at this point Obama cracked down and capitalized on the fact that he finally has solid control of the House AND 60 compliant seats in the Senate, how would you feel if he simply pushed EVERYTHING through Congress with EVERYTHING boiling down to passage by Democrat majority and _every_ Republican voting against? No more attempts at compromise; just simple brute force. (Sort of like Bush from 2000-2006.)

[Treznor]

[The_pantless_hero]

Yes it does. There was never a public option plan in the first place that had any shot of being passed. The public option plan that they have been proposing right now is controlled/written/infleunced by the health insurance industry. A real public option plan won't happen. The whole "debate" was controlled by the health insurance industry from the start. It's very simple. Because it is a fact that they have poured a ton of more lobbying money than any other group in this "debate".

Your inane conspiracy theorizing fails to explain how the public option specifically had anything to do with the insurance industry.

Here is a good article
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 820260.htm
Also, as I've said, do your own research and check out the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org) and follow the money.

From your own source:

The industry has already accomplished its main goal of at least curbing, and maybe blocking altogether, any new publicly administered insurance program that could grab market share from the corporations that dominate the business.

The insurance industry was NOT in support of a public option, which is what you said and I disagreed with.

[The_pantless_hero]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/17/healthcare-obama-public-option-reform

So it would seem Obama is in retreat over his health reform proposals. I can only see this being a mistake, especially considering the right's rhetoric. They'll sniff victory and keep pressing until he caves completely.

Obama was elected on a landslide majority and yet he's unable get this reform through so early on in his presidency. It's was obviously going to be controversial, so it also shows an inability to avoid the bipartisan politics he said he wanted to avoid.

To me, he has exposed himself as weak and ineffective. I don't expect much from his presidency. I probably wouldn't go so far to call it a failed presidency though -- he still has the rest of his term to try and do something useful.

Hmm. I perceive that much of Obama's perceived "weakness" comes from his very strong and very obvious desire to have some bipartisan accord in the process.

That was a valid stance before he tried to negotiate with the right on the stimulus bill and they voted against it to the member. Now it is just showing Obama as an ineffectual idiot.

Out of curiosity, if at this point Obama cracked down and capitalized on the fact that he finally has solid control of the House AND 60 compliant seats in the Senate, how would you feel if he simply pushed EVERYTHING through Congress with EVERYTHING boiling down to passage by Democrat majority and _every_ Republican voting against? No more attempts at compromise; just simple brute force. (Sort of like Bush from 2000-2006.)

I would support that because the Democrats arn't trying to push through things that limit our Constitutional rights and strip us of our privacy. Democrats should refuse to compromise on items like HEALTHCARE REFORM. There is no god damn compromise, either you reform healthcare or YOU DON'T. Brute force it or try to compromise and you get the same results - the Republicans OPPOSING IT ANYWAY and capitalizing on that to take back Congress in 2010. If Obama wants to compromise, he can do it next year. This year he needs to GET SHIT DONE.

[Tiesabre]

-snip-

[Psychotic Mongooses]

-snip-

*sigh*

[Cameroi]

the real death panels. link to smerking chimp says it better then i can:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/news/23316

i have to second what pantless hero just said above too.

[Tech-gnosis]

Medicare and Medicaid are very niche policies. They only cater to those that truly--I say very generously--cannot take care of themselves. However, Medicaid is too compassionate.

Medicare is a universal program, It covers everyone from sick poor elderly and rich super wealthy people. Medicaid fees are often so stingy that many doctors won't see those on medicaid. How is it too generous?

[Space Libertines]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/17/healthcare-obama-public-option-reform

So it would seem Obama is in retreat over his health reform proposals. I can only see this being a mistake, especially considering the right's rhetoric. They'll sniff victory and keep pressing until he caves completely.

Obama was elected on a landslide majority and yet he's unable get this reform through so early on in his presidency. It's was obviously going to be controversial, so it also shows an inability to avoid the bipartisan politics he said he wanted to avoid.

To me, he has exposed himself as weak and ineffective. I don't expect much from his presidency. I probably wouldn't go so far to call it a failed presidency though -- he still has the rest of his term to try and do something useful.

Hmm. I perceive that much of Obama's perceived "weakness" comes from his very strong and very obvious desire to have some bipartisan accord in the process.

That was a valid stance before he tried to negotiate with the right on the stimulus bill and they voted against it to the member. Now it is just showing Obama as an ineffectual idiot.

Out of curiosity, if at this point Obama cracked down and capitalized on the fact that he finally has solid control of the House AND 60 compliant seats in the Senate, how would you feel if he simply pushed EVERYTHING through Congress with EVERYTHING boiling down to passage by Democrat majority and _every_ Republican voting against? No more attempts at compromise; just simple brute force. (Sort of like Bush from 2000-2006.)

I would support that because the Democrats arn't trying to push through things that limit our Constitutional rights and strip us of our privacy. Democrats should refuse to compromise on items like HEALTHCARE REFORM. There is no god damn compromise, either you reform healthcare or YOU DON'T. Brute force it or try to compromise and you get the same results - the Republicans OPPOSING IT ANYWAY and capitalizing on that to take back Congress in 2010. If Obama wants to compromise, he can do it next year. This year he needs to GET SHIT DONE.

They're probably trying to compromise that way if this plan ends up failing, they can blame the Republicans for "watering it down." It's quite smart politics.

[Treznor]

They're probably trying to compromise that way if this plan ends up failing, they can blame the Republicans for "watering it down." It's quite smart politics.

That's precisely what happened during the Clinton administration, and the GOP successfully saddled Clinton with the blame. It's not really smart politics, but it is the hallmark of a centrist.

[The_pantless_hero]

They're probably trying to compromise that way if this plan ends up failing, they can blame the Republicans for "watering it down." It's quite smart politics.

It's smart politics if you are completely unfamiliar with American political history.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

If this fails then Rahm Emmanuel should probably be fired.

[Maurepas]

*snip*

Sometimes I wish they'd act more like republicans, just without the crazy,

[The Infinite Dunes]

Hmm. I perceive that much of Obama's perceived "weakness" comes from his very strong and very obvious desire to have some bipartisan accord in the process.

Out of curiosity, if at this point Obama cracked down and capitalized on the fact that he finally has solid control of the House AND 60 compliant seats in the Senate, how would you feel if he simply pushed EVERYTHING through Congress with EVERYTHING boiling down to passage by Democrat majority and _every_ Republican voting against? No more attempts at compromise; just simple brute force. (Sort of like Bush from 2000-2006.)

Of course consensus is a good thing. But you can only come to a compromise with someone who is actually willing to compromise. To me it doesn't seem like the Republicans are interested in any compromise, Palin has even gone so far to call the reforms 'evil'. They simply want the reform to fail. At this point Obama should crack down. The rhetoric should be that Obama wants a bipartisan agreement. But that if the Republicans don't come to the table with any compromises then they shouldn't expect to have any say in the governance of the country. The Republicans hold the weaker hand here, but are acting as if they hold all the cards still. It is they who should be taking the first step in any negotiations towards a compromise.

Perhaps Obama should even be considering character assassinations on some of the more stalwart opposers of the reforms. They must have some skeletons hidden in the closet.

They're probably trying to compromise that way if this plan ends up failing, they can blame the Republicans for "watering it down." It's quite smart politics.

Smart politics, bad government. It would have been like Bush saying --
Let's go to war... but hey those democrats don't think we should. Maybe I'll only send a fraction of the troops needed. That way I achieve a bipartisan consensus, and if it all fails then I can blame it on the democrats.

[Marcuslandia]

The Republicans hold the weaker hand here, but are acting as if they hold all the cards still.

At least in the Senate:
Republicans = minority
BUT
Republicans + Blue Dog Democrats = nothing can pass

Not sure about the balance in the House. But unless you can get both houses to agree, the Republicans accomplish their goal of nothing getting through unless _they_ allow it.

That's not precisely a "weak" hand.

[The Infinite Dunes]

The Republicans hold the weaker hand here, but are acting as if they hold all the cards still.

At least in the Senate:
Republicans = minority
BUT
Republicans + Blue Dog Democrats = nothing can pass

Not sure about the balance in the House. But unless you can't get both houses to agree, the Republicans accomplish their goal of nothing getting through unless _they_ allow it.

That's not precisely a "weak" hand.

Infect the Republican senators with swine flu and then take the vote whilst they're all laid up in bed. <_<;

But really I was just responding to your implication that Obama had a strong hand in the previous post.

edit: Oh, I think wiki, with it's section on the Senate quorum means that you'd only a minimum of one Senator to pass a bill in the Senate.

[Marcuslandia]

Oh, I think wiki, with it's section on the Senate quorum means that you'd only a minimum of one Senator to pass a bill in the Senate.

That would be provided you get all of the _Blue Dogs_ to support the motion as well.

The silly ass filibuster rules require at least **60** Senators to vote for closing discussion (cloture). That is NOT the same as mustering 40 "Nay" votes to end discussion. That means ALL of the Dems (including ALL of the Blue Dogs) and ALL of the Independents (which includes Lieberman, the Republican-in-all-but-name Senator) and one more Republican Senator, just to be on the safe side.

It's actually amazing that anything ever gets through. Certainly NOTHING gets through if the Republicans adamantly do NOT want it. (Hmm. Just noticed the word play: to arrive at "NOTHING", you start with, "NO way!", and add a little "NOT if we have anything to say about it!" for emphasis.)

[Grave_n_idle]

I wish this wasn't true.