US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[The South Islands]

Addressing the protests a minute, they're really, really annoying. Obama needs to bust open the Sedition Acts again and start cracking heads to get this thing through.

Are you referring to the Sedition Act of 1918, the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 or the Sedition Act of 1661 in England? Regardless, protesting is not disloyal. Let it also be known that the most Sedition Act only referred to wartime protest. Protest towards Healthcare Reform would not be included.

--K.D.

1798. I know it isn't law anymore, but I think for times like this where the population is being disloyal to a President, it needs to be dusted off. As I stated in another thread, there is a huge difference between respectfully disagreeing with a president and equating his programs and administration to Nazi Germany. That does not belong in a civilized democracy, and people that say such disloyal things need to be taught a lesson in proper respect for government.

[Krypton-Zod]

Addressing the protests a minute, they're really, really annoying. Obama needs to bust open the Sedition Acts again and start cracking heads to get this thing through.

What goes around, comes around. If he wants to be Oswalded, all he has to do is ask for it. Not that I support that but there are plenty of crackpots around who will take any reason.

[The South Islands]

Addressing the protests a minute, they're really, really annoying. Obama needs to bust open the Sedition Acts again and start cracking heads to get this thing through.

What goes around, comes around. If he wants to be Oswalded, all he has to do is ask for it. Not that I support that but there are plenty of crackpots around who will take any reason.

Which is why they need to be found out before they strike. PATRIOT Act for the rather ironic save.

[Ryadn]

Addressing the protests a minute, they're really, really annoying. Obama needs to bust open the Sedition Acts again and start cracking heads to get this thing through.

What goes around, comes around. If he wants to be Oswalded, all he has to do is ask for it. Not that I support that but there are plenty of crackpots around who will take any reason.

Suggesting that there are legitimate grounds to assassinate the sitting President is sedition itself, and it is not canceled out by a flimsy "not that I support that".

[Cannot think of a name]

Addressing the protests a minute, they're really, really annoying. Obama needs to bust open the Sedition Acts again and start cracking heads to get this thing through.

Are you referring to the Sedition Act of 1918, the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 or the Sedition Act of 1661 in England? Regardless, protesting is not disloyal. Let it also be known that the most Sedition Act only referred to wartime protest. Protest towards Healthcare Reform would not be included.

--K.D.

1798. I know it isn't law anymore, but I think for times like this where the population is being disloyal to a President, it needs to be dusted off. As I stated in another thread, there is a huge difference between respectfully disagreeing with a president and equating his programs and administration to Nazi Germany. That does not belong in a civilized democracy, and people that say such disloyal things need to be taught a lesson in proper respect for government.

You can't silence descent just because the descent (I'm probably using the wrong 'descent' and yet I don't care...) is fucking stupid, and here's why: It's all in who gets to decide who's being fucking stupid. Not four short years ago an entirely different group would have been the ones who decided what 'fucking stupid' was and use that to silence descent. Suddenly the use of force isn't so rosy. If we're to have a 'marketplace of ideas' that means that we have to allow for some pretty craptacular products in that marketplace.

[Psychotic Mongooses]

You can't silence descent just because the descent (I'm probably using the wrong 'descent' and yet I don't care....

[Sdaeriji]

Addressing the protests a minute, they're really, really annoying. Obama needs to bust open the Sedition Acts again and start cracking heads to get this thing through.

Are you referring to the Sedition Act of 1918, the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 or the Sedition Act of 1661 in England? Regardless, protesting is not disloyal. Let it also be known that the most Sedition Act only referred to wartime protest. Protest towards Healthcare Reform would not be included.

--K.D.

1798. I know it isn't law anymore, but I think for times like this where the population is being disloyal to a President, it needs to be dusted off. As I stated in another thread, there is a huge difference between respectfully disagreeing with a president and equating his programs and administration to Nazi Germany. That does not belong in a civilized democracy, and people that say such disloyal things need to be taught a lesson in proper respect for government.

Disagreeing with the President is not disloyalty.

[The South Islands]

You can't silence descent just because the descent (I'm probably using the wrong 'descent' and yet I don't care...) is fucking stupid, and here's why: It's all in who gets to decide who's being fucking stupid. Not four short years ago an entirely different group would have been the ones who decided what 'fucking stupid' was and use that to silence descent. Suddenly the use of force isn't so rosy. If we're to have a 'marketplace of ideas' that means that we have to allow for some pretty craptacular products in that marketplace.

Now we have the right people deciding what is dissent and what is sedition. Newsflash: We don't have a corrupt, conservative government anymore. We have a good one now. We can trust our government again. We just have to make sure we never get a bad government again. Cracking down on sedition would help that.

Disagreeing with the President is not disloyalty.

Calling the President Hitler and his policies Nazi-like probably is.

[Sdaeriji]

Calling the President Hitler and his policies Nazi-like probably is.

There might be a tenuous libel/slander case involved, but it certainly isn't treasonous. The standard for treason is rather stringent, and you seem intent on broadening it to include people who make fun of Obama.

[The South Islands]

Calling the President Hitler and his policies Nazi-like probably is.

There might be a tenuous libel/slander case involved, but it certainly isn't treasonous. The standard for treason is rather stringent, and you seem intent on broadening it to include people who make fun of Obama.

Now wait, I didn't say anything about Treason. Treason is pretty specifically defined in the Constitution. However, a simple label of "Disloyalty" has no constituional definition. And these statements certainly are disloyal to the United States.

[Antilon]

3. Start exercising. Bike to work or for your grocery shopping instead of driving. Walk around the neighborhood for a half hour a day (and actually meet your neighbors AND be an automatic Neighborhood Watch program at the same time...) or go swimming.
.

I tried doing that back around Feburary/March to get some exercise after staying inside all winter, but I got picked up by the cops for "loitering". It's kinda of hard to explain to a cop that all I'm doing is just exercising by walking around the neighborhood at night, which is the preferably (and really, the only) time of day I can do it...

[Cannot think of a name]

You can't silence descent just because the descent (I'm probably using the wrong 'descent' and yet I don't care...) is fucking stupid, and here's why: It's all in who gets to decide who's being fucking stupid. Not four short years ago an entirely different group would have been the ones who decided what 'fucking stupid' was and use that to silence descent. Suddenly the use of force isn't so rosy. If we're to have a 'marketplace of ideas' that means that we have to allow for some pretty craptacular products in that marketplace.

Now we have the right people deciding what is dissent and what is sedition. Newsflash: We don't have a corrupt, conservative government anymore. We have a good one now. We can trust our government again. We just have to make sure we never get a bad government again. Cracking down on sedition would help that.

Disagreeing with the President is not disloyalty.

Calling the President Hitler and his policies Nazi-like probably is.

Newsflash: In a democracy, the government changes. Using the current government to silence dissent (fine, I'll use the right one...) would be corrupt, regardless of the outcome. If the government uses its power to silence dissent, it is in fact not a government we can trust, even if the dissent it is silencing we happen to disagree with. You don't get good government by silencing voices, you get dictatorships that way. No thanks.

[Antilon]

You can't silence descent just because the descent (I'm probably using the wrong 'descent' and yet I don't care...) is fucking stupid, and here's why: It's all in who gets to decide who's being fucking stupid. Not four short years ago an entirely different group would have been the ones who decided what 'fucking stupid' was and use that to silence descent. Suddenly the use of force isn't so rosy. If we're to have a 'marketplace of ideas' that means that we have to allow for some pretty craptacular products in that marketplace.

Now we have the right people deciding what is dissent and what is sedition. Newsflash: We don't have a corrupt, conservative government anymore. We have a good one now. We can trust our government again. We just have to make sure we never get a bad government again. Cracking down on sedition would help that.

This really has me on the fence... As much as I agree with the principle, I still think that free speech is paramount. However, the U.S. has a history of restricting rights, albeit for war, but those restrictions ultimately didn't cost the U.S. much...

[Free Glamorran]

Here in the UK, the NHS is considered a British institution. Even Margaret Thatcher, one of the most right-wing people in our political history and a vital part of the battle against communism was in favour off the NHS. For those that can pay the extra, we also have private healthcare firms, for example BUPA.

[Berkshire-Hathaway]

Here in the UK, the NHS is considered a British institution. Even Margaret Thatcher, one of the most right-wing people in our political history and a vital part of the battle against communism was in favour off the NHS. For those that can pay the extra, we also have private healthcare firms, for example BUPA.

Quite true--Steven Hawking did praise the NHS when someone fallaciously proposed the notion that he would be left to die if we were to adopt universal healthcare. Alas! There are still substantial differences between the United Kingdom and the United States.

--K.D.

[Yootopia]

There are still substantial differences between the United Kingdom and the United States.

Quite, like "we're better than them".

[Berkshire-Hathaway]

There are still substantial differences between the United Kingdom and the United States.

Quite, like "we're better than them".

I am agreeing with the fact that the NHS is a successful institution in the English government, and that Thatcher--even as a staunch Conservative--supported it. Elitism was not intended. But, it's hard for the wealthy Conservatives not to be. Ha.

[Soheran]

Do they not have an incentive to provide good health-care to their employees?

I'm thinking in relative terms, not absolute ones. While it is undoubtedly true that employers have some incentive to invest in the good health of their employers insofar as this best reduces their labor costs, this reasoning is only going to pay for fairly limited health care costs--not for the most expensive treatment (which would be counterproductive), nor for, as you state, conditions that will prevent them from maintaining their job. But the overall effect of this as compared to one where health care coverage was controlled by individuals would be lower costs, not higher costs. (Maybe. All of this depends on the OP's judgment that third-party agents cannot be effectively controlled by the market to behave well. This may be the case, but I'm not sure directly dealing with private insurance companies would be any better; the information problems are still there.)

The OP appears to believe that third-party agents, rather than looking after their own interests, are simply magically "inefficient" as such, resulting in higher costs even if the agent has even stronger incentives than the recipient to lower them.

[Berkshire-Hathaway]

Do they not have an incentive to provide good health-care to their employees?

I'm thinking in relative terms, not absolute ones. While it is undoubtedly true that employers have some incentive to invest in the good health of their employers insofar as this best reduces their labor costs, this reasoning is only going to pay for fairly limited health care costs--not for the most expensive treatment (which would be counterproductive), nor for, as you state, conditions that will prevent them from maintaining their job. But the overall effect of this as compared to one where health care coverage was controlled by individuals would be lower costs, not higher costs. (Maybe. All of this depends on the OP's judgment that third-party agents cannot be effectively controlled by the market to behave well. This may be the case, but I'm not sure directly dealing with private insurance companies would be any better; the information problems are still there.)

The OP appears to believe that third-party agents, rather than looking after their own interests, are simply magically "inefficient" as such, resulting in higher costs even if the agent has even stronger incentives than the recipient to lower them.

Quick question: What is OP? I have seen it mentioned on this thread as well as the Israel thread. Is there some kind of relation?

[Chazaka]

Don't know if this has been posted yet and I haven't finished reading it myself so have at it...
But my initial reaction is to say Fu&# the republicans...

edit OP equals opening post.

White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had wanted the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but didn't include it as one of his core principles of reform.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.

With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.

"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."

Obama's spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice.

"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.

A day before, Obama appeared to hedge his bets.

"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."

It's hardly the same rhetoric Obama employed during a constant, personal campaign for legislation.

"I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest," Obama said in July.

Lawmakers have discussed the co-op model for months although the Democratic leadership and the White House have said they prefer a government-run option.

Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a "wasted effort." He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan.

"It's not government-run and government-controlled," he said. "It's membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's why it has appeal on both sides."

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled.

"I don't know if it will do everything people want, but we ought to look at it. I think it's a far cry from the original proposals," he said.

Republicans say a public option would have unfair advantages that would drive private insurers out of business. Critics say co-ops would not be genuine public options for health insurance.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, said it would be difficult to pass any legislation through the Democratic-controlled Congress without the promised public plan.

"We'll have the same number of people uninsured," she said. "If the insurance companies wanted to insure these people now, they'd be insured."

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said the Democrats' option would force individuals from their private plans to a government-run plan as some employers may choose not to provide health insurance.

"Tens of millions of individuals would be moved from their personal, private insurance to the government-run program. We simply don't think that's acceptable," he said.

A shift to a cooperative plan would certainly give some cover to fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats who are hardly cheering for the government-run plan.

"The reality is that it takes 60 percent to get this done in the Senate. It's probably going to have to be bipartisan in the Senate, which I think it should be," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who added that the proposals still need changes before he can support them.

Obama, writing in Sunday's New York Times, said political maneuvers should be excluded from the debate.

"In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain," he wrote. "But for all the scare tactics out there, what's truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing."

Congress' proposals, however, seemed likely to strike end-of-life counseling sessions. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has called the session "death panels," a label that has drawn rebuke from her fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, declined to criticize Palin's comments and said Obama wants to create a government-run panel to advise what types of care would be available to citizens.

"In all honesty, I don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats setting health care for my aged citizens in Utah," Hatch said.

Sebelius said the end-of-life proposal was likely to be dropped from the final bill.

"We wanted to make sure doctors were reimbursed for that very important consultation if family members chose to make it, and instead it's been turned into this scare tactic and probably will be off the table," she said.

Sebelius spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" and ABC's "This Week." Gibbs appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation." Conrad and Shelby appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Johnson, Price and Ross spoke with "State of the Union." Hatch was interviewed on "This Week."

[Soheran]

Quick question: What is OP? I have seen it mentioned on this thread as well as the Israel thread. Is there some kind of relation?

"Original post" or "original poster." Kind of hard to find on this compilation thread--it was Robustian's one about solving the health care problem by individualizing the purchase of private insurance.

[Treznor]

Addressing the protests a minute, they're really, really annoying. Obama needs to bust open the Sedition Acts again and start cracking heads to get this thing through.

Are you referring to the Sedition Act of 1918, the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 or the Sedition Act of 1661 in England? Regardless, protesting is not disloyal. Let it also be known that the most Sedition Act only referred to wartime protest. Protest towards Healthcare Reform would not be included.

--K.D.

1798. I know it isn't law anymore, but I think for times like this where the population is being disloyal to a President, it needs to be dusted off. As I stated in another thread, there is a huge difference between respectfully disagreeing with a president and equating his programs and administration to Nazi Germany. That does not belong in a civilized democracy, and people that say such disloyal things need to be taught a lesson in proper respect for government.

As one of the people who vehemently (but non-violently) disagreed with the Bush administration, let me add my voice to the chorus of people shouting Hell, No! to this idea. Just because "our guy" is in the driver's seat right now doesn't make this a good idea. It sets a bad precedent, and it's harder to end bad precedents than to avoid starting them in the first place. The next time "our guy" loses and the "other guy" wins, suddenly the shoe is on the other foot.

Let's make this about the best ideas winning, not about who has their finger on the trigger at the moment.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Can someone tell me something about the public option. It would be a non-profit insurance company started by the government but it would not be subsidized by the government after the initial investment. The logic being that the private insurers could never compete if the public option was subsidized. Am I right so far? So wouldn't it basically be the same thing if someone set up a non-profit insurance company, kind of like the way Vanguard is set up as a non-profit financial services company? Has anyone ever tried that? That way there would be no government intervention in the market. Am I missing something here?

[Berkshire-Hathaway]

Addressing the protests a minute, they're really, really annoying. Obama needs to bust open the Sedition Acts again and start cracking heads to get this thing through.

Are you referring to the Sedition Act of 1918, the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 or the Sedition Act of 1661 in England? Regardless, protesting is not disloyal. Let it also be known that the most Sedition Act only referred to wartime protest. Protest towards Healthcare Reform would not be included.

--K.D.

1798. I know it isn't law anymore, but I think for times like this where the population is being disloyal to a President, it needs to be dusted off. As I stated in another thread, there is a huge difference between respectfully disagreeing with a president and equating his programs and administration to Nazi Germany. That does not belong in a civilized democracy, and people that say such disloyal things need to be taught a lesson in proper respect for government.

Dusting off the Nation's citizens defeats the purpose of a Democracy, as I'm sure you know is the current form of government in the US of A.

[Muravyets]

Now wait, I didn't say anything about Treason. Treason is pretty specifically defined in the Constitution. However, a simple label of "Disloyalty" has no constituional definition. And these statements certainly are disloyal to the United States.

The American people do not owe loyalty to the president, nor to any other person or office of government. We owe loyalty to the nation and to each other. And the government owes both its loyalty and service to us, not the other way around.

I loathe and detest these astroturfed fake protesters more than I can express, but I cannot tolerate anyone calling for Sedition Acts to be used against them. Sedition Acts are an evil in US history and a sign of administrations that were weak and lacking in legitimacy.

I will not tolerate handing this nation back to that backstabbing fuck Dick Cheney just because of some "Nazi!" screaming droolers. They may deserve to get told to shut the fuck up by their fellow citizens, but NOT by the government. NEVER by the government.