|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:06 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Every actual compromise in this bill was a compromise forced by Democrats (well, and Joe Lieberman). |
The only meaningful reform was the public insurance option. Obama promised the insurance firms it wouldn't be included. He did that in August.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html
Obama killed it. not Lieberman. Not George Bush. Not the Republicans. Not Tea Baggers. Obama. |
Lieberman outright said he wouldn't accept a public option. Several other Democrats did too. Obama's opinion was irrelevant; if the Senate won't accept a public option, what Obama did or didn't promise doesn't matter.
|
Many progressive members said they wouldn't vote for it w/o a public option. Then voted for it.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/18/progressives |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
It's starting to feel like 1965 again. The government is actually being used to address important problems. Next up is Wall Street reform. DADT can't be far behind. Then there is immigration reform--there was a big rally on the Mall yesterday and Obama promised to try for it in the campaign--hope that one ripens just before Election Day.
At least there is a feeling of movement now and that creates more momentum. Yeeha!
I haven't noticed much complaint about the government take over (a real one!) of the student loan program from the twenty-somethings. |
Funny to hear the 1960's broughtinto it: for the most part, a generation of whining, self indulgent hypocrites and sell outs. Yata is a shining example f this. At least back then the people were actually somewhat free though, too bad it was taken for granted. Government hadn't taken over every aspect of society yet.
Anyway, this is nothing like the 60's - it's worse by an order of magnitude. There has never been a time in American history where the government was corrupt enough to actually force people into buying services. Until now. I seriously doubt the public (with the exception of people like Yata, who would happily lick the bottom of the boot that's been stomping their face) will accept this - expect the Dems to get voted out en masse (not that the GOP will actually repeal anything, because they're all for it, despite the empty rhetoric). Obama has committed high treason.
Overall this health care bill is a complete catastrophe. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE "FREE" THING ABOUT IT! Every one of us will have to fork out thousands of dollars by law and if it is not paid, then the IRS will have the authority to enforce it at gunpoint. All the money will go to insurance companies and government bureaucracy, and we'll get thrown a few miserable crumbs in return. Quality of care will go down drastically (less money to go around for actual service and government regulation to keep it as low as possible to cut costs), and the government will then be free to infringe on every aspect of our lives in the name of health care. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
Being a Canadian this health care bill looks like some compromise to appease the republicans, help keep the private insurers in business, and help them get re-elected. Why waste all this effort when it seems like Universal Health Care is no closer to being a reality. Isn't Universal Health Care what the Democrats and Obama really wanted?
Why this weird system where you still have to go through private insurance? Shouldn't a public insurer be the default, and private insurance be optional?
I'm confused... |
It'll all make more sense when you realise that Obama is a liar. If you listen to his lies and think he's telling the truth, then of course you'll be confused. This whole thing is nothing more than giant hand out to private insurance companies (who wrote the stinking bill), which at the same time allows the government to have more power over the everyday aspects of our lives (that's the "universal" side of it). It's all about money and power for the corporatocracy and they care nothing whatsoever about actual health care. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Every one of us will have to fork out thousands of dollars by law and if it is not paid, then the IRS will have the authority to enforce it at gunpoint. |
Not that I'm arguing with your sentiment here, but I just wanted to let you know in case you haven't heard already that expats are exempt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Every actual compromise in this bill was a compromise forced by Democrats (well, and Joe Lieberman). |
The only meaningful reform was the public insurance option. Obama promised the insurance firms it wouldn't be included. He did that in August.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html
Obama killed it. not Lieberman. Not George Bush. Not the Republicans. Not Tea Baggers. Obama. |
Lieberman outright said he wouldn't accept a public option. Several other Democrats did too. Obama's opinion was irrelevant; if the Senate won't accept a public option, what Obama did or didn't promise doesn't matter.
|
Many progressive members said they wouldn't vote for it w/o a public option. Then voted for it.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/18/progressives |
So, again, are you saying that the opposition of a public option by people like Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus was a lie, and they would have voted in favor of one if Obama hadn't made this promise? I'm not trying to give Obama an out; I think he behaved pathetically on this topic. I just also think that the likes of Lieberman, etc would have sold out to the healthcare industry no matter what the president wanted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiknkorea
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Every one of us will have to fork out thousands of dollars by law and if it is not paid, then the IRS will have the authority to enforce it at gunpoint. |
Not that I'm arguing with your sentiment here, but I just wanted to let you know in case you haven't heard already that expats are exempt. |
I was curious about that and haven't had time to verify it, but I really hope you're right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kiknkorea wrote: |
| Street Magic wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Every one of us will have to fork out thousands of dollars by law and if it is not paid, then the IRS will have the authority to enforce it at gunpoint. |
Not that I'm arguing with your sentiment here, but I just wanted to let you know in case you haven't heard already that expats are exempt. |
I was curious about that and haven't had time to verify it, but I really hope you're right. |
I posted this in another thread on that topic:
http://knifetricks.blogspot.com/2009/11/senate-health-care-bill-expats-exempt.html
I believe Fox (the member, not the channel) verified the provision the above linked guy mentioned is legit by finding it in his actual copy of the bill.
EDIT: Here's that other thread--
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?p=2337841&highlight=#2337841 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Every actual compromise in this bill was a compromise forced by Democrats (well, and Joe Lieberman). |
The only meaningful reform was the public insurance option. Obama promised the insurance firms it wouldn't be included. He did that in August.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html
Obama killed it. not Lieberman. Not George Bush. Not the Republicans. Not Tea Baggers. Obama. |
Lieberman outright said he wouldn't accept a public option. Several other Democrats did too. Obama's opinion was irrelevant; if the Senate won't accept a public option, what Obama did or didn't promise doesn't matter.
|
Many progressive members said they wouldn't vote for it w/o a public option. Then voted for it.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/18/progressives |
How does bargaining work? You start with a price much lower than you're willing to pay, in the hopes of eventually getting the best price.
Obama should've leveraged Universal Health Care to get his Public Option. Instead, Obama took Universal off the table, and was hesitant to embrace the Public Option as even desirable.
Governing from the center means that you accept the political compromises necessary. But a President should start negotiations from within the deep, reasonable ranks of that President's base. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Governing from the center means that you accept the political compromises necessary. But a President should start negotiations from within the deep, reasonable ranks of that President's base. |
I generally agree with this, but not in this case. Obama campaigned not only on health care reform but also an end of fierce partisanship. By never even considering single-payer at the start, and never actively pushing for the public option, wasn't Obama signaling to the GOP that he was open to making a centrist deal, one they could live with? How was he to know the GOP would respond by adopting a hard-line oppositionist stance rather than play ball?
I want universal single payer health too, but the fact is, the votes for it just aren't there. Support for this watered down bill was exclusively Democratic; the opposition to reform was 'bipartisan'. It took a major struggle to get the three extra votes (219). Politics is the art of the possible, as they say.
In real, practical, terms...where would the votes for either a public option or a single payer have come from? More Cornhusker Kickbacks?
Second question: Suppose they had gotten the public option through the House and Senate, given the virulence of the opposition with what we did get, what would the reaction have been like? The political calculation requires the president and other leaders to try to reduce the intense partisanship before it gets completely out of hand. Don't they have to be concerned that people are now openly speaking of secession for the first time in 150 years? What if Idaho, for example, claims the right of nullification on this issue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiknkorea
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiknkorea
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The talking heads on MSNBC this morning are comparing the bill to the civil rights legislation. Which seems incredibly rude to me. |
Agree. Good response here concerning that -
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589831,00.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
IMHO, forcing citizens to purchase a product will not pass Constitutional muster.
States Sue Over Overhaul That Will Bust State Budgets
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama faces a fight over the health-care overhaul from states that sued today because the legislation�s expansion of Medicaid imposes a fiscal strain on their cash-strapped budgets.
Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania are among 14 states that filed suit after the president signed the bill over the constitutionality of the burden imposed by the legislation. The health-care overhaul will make as many as 15 million more Americans eligible for Medicaid nationwide starting in 2014 and will cost the states billions to administer.
States faced with unprecedented declines in tax collections are cutting benefits and payments to hospitals and doctors in Medicaid, the health program for the poor paid jointly by state and U.S. governments. The costs to hire staff and plan for the average 25 percent increase in Medicaid rolls may swamp budgets, said Toby Douglas, who manages the Medicaid program for California, which hasn�t joined the lawsuits.
�The states are coming through the worst fiscal period in the history of record keeping,� said Vernon Smith, a former Medicaid director for Michigan and now a principal at the research and consulting firm Health Management Associates in Lansing, Michigan. �Medicaid is the most significant, most visible and most costly part of this expansion and states fully expect to see increases in their spending.�
California�s Deficit
For California, with a $20 billion budget deficit, the extra load will cost at least an additional $2 billion to $3 billion annually, said Douglas, chief deputy director for California�s health care programs. He said the overhaul is currently projected to add 1.6 million people to the 7 million enrolled in his state�s program.
�We face enormous challenges just sustaining our existing program,� said Douglas in a March 18 telephone interview. �I just don�t see states having the capacity to move forward on these changes in this environment.�
The numbers of new enrollees because of the overhaul are based on current estimates and may be low, he said in an e-mail. The estimate doesn�t incorporate the growth that the program, known in California as Medi-Cal, may experience even without the new federal legislation, he said.
Medi-Cal recipients are projected to increase 4.3 percent to 7.3 million in fiscal 2011, which begins July 1, spokesman Norman Williams said.
Court Challenge
continues at link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Easter Clark
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Location: Hiding from Yie Eun-woong
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Funny to hear the 1960's broughtinto it: for the most part, a generation of whining, self indulgent hypocrites and sell outs. Yata is a shining example f this. At least back then the people were actually somewhat free though, too bad it was taken for granted. Government hadn't taken over every aspect of society yet.
Anyway, this is nothing like the 60's - it's worse by an order of magnitude. There has never been a time in American history where the government was corrupt enough to actually force people into buying services. Until now. I seriously doubt the public (with the exception of people like Yata, who would happily lick the bottom of the boot that's been stomping their face) will accept this - expect the Dems to get voted out en masse (not that the GOP will actually repeal anything, because they're all for it, despite the empty rhetoric). Obama has committed high treason.
Overall this health care bill is a complete catastrophe. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE "FREE" THING ABOUT IT! Every one of us will have to fork out thousands of dollars by law and if it is not paid, then the IRS will have the authority to enforce it at gunpoint. All the money will go to insurance companies and government bureaucracy, and we'll get thrown a few miserable crumbs in return. Quality of care will go down drastically (less money to go around for actual service and government regulation to keep it as low as possible to cut costs), and the government will then be free to infringe on every aspect of our lives in the name of health care. |
My vote for the year's most dramatic post!
You forgot to mention how in 2012 the earth will be torn apart by earthquakes and floods. The fact is, most people lack even the responsibility to buy their own healthcare--"It won't happen to me." But I hear you...the government shouldn't take away your right to be irresponsible by not insuring yourself.
You should have the right to get sick without any form of insurance whatsoever. You should have the right to submit your family to the danger of losing your home because you can't pay your medical bills. You should have the right to spend all of your money on liquor and not worry about costs associated with the POSSIBILITY of getting cirrhosis. How dare the government take those rights away! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| IMHO, forcing citizens to purchase a product will not pass Constitutional muster. |
It will, because the law is set up to give citizens a choice: buy private insurance, or be taxed. Congress has the Constitutional power to tax citizens, and nothing prevents it from waiving that tax if individuals meet certain criteria (for instance, purchasing health insurance). Although people use the term mandate because in effective it is one, from a legal perspective there's no actual mandate, just a choice.
The Democrats may be sellouts, but they aren't idiots. They recognize the Supreme Court isn't on their side from an ideological perspective, and they recognize that Republicans would bring legal challenge against the bill right away. This bill was designed with the Constitution in mind, because its authors knew it would be tested against it.
If the Supreme Court rules against this bill, it will just be another example of the Court willfully misinterpretting the law for ideological purposes. And I say that without enthusiasm, as I don't find the bill to my liking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html
| Quote: |
With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis
...
Let's be clear. A "budget crisis" is not some minor accounting exercise. It's a wrenching political, social and economic upheaval. Large deficits and rising debt -- the accumulation of past deficits -- spook investors, leading to higher interest rates on government loans. The higher rates expand the budget deficit and further unnerve investors. To reverse this calamitous cycle, the government has to cut spending deeply or raise taxes sharply. Lower spending and higher taxes in turn depress the economy and lead to higher unemployment. Not pretty.
Greece is experiencing such a crisis. Until recently, conventional wisdom held that only developing countries -- managed ineptly -- were candidates for true budget crises. No more. Most wealthy societies with aging populations, including the United States, face big gaps between their spending promises and their tax bases. No one in Congress could be unaware of this.
Two weeks before the House vote, the Congressional Budget Office released its estimate of Obama's budget, including its health-care program. From 2011 to 2020, the cumulative deficit is almost $10 trillion. Adding 2009 and 2010, the total rises to $12.7 trillion. In 2020, the projected annual deficit is $1.25 trillion, equal to 5.6 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That assumes economic recovery, with unemployment at 5 percent. Spending is almost 30 percent higher than taxes. Total debt held by the public rises from 40 percent of GDP in 2008 to 90 percent in 2020, close to its post-World War II peak.
To criticisms, Obama supporters make two arguments. First, the CBO says the plan reduces the deficit by $143 billion over a decade. Second, the legislation contains measures (an expert panel to curb Medicare spending, emphasis on "comparative effectiveness research") to control health spending. These rejoinders are self-serving and unconvincing.
Suppose the CBO estimate is correct. So? The $143 billion saving is about 1 percent of the projected $12.7 trillion deficit from 2009 to 2020. If the administration has $1 trillion or so of spending cuts and tax increases over a decade, all these monies should first cover existing deficits -- not finance new spending. Obama's behavior resembles a highly indebted family's taking an expensive round-the-world trip because it claims to have found ways to pay for it. It's self-indulgent and reckless.
But the CBO estimate is misleading, because it must embody the law's many unrealistic assumptions and gimmicks. Benefits are phased in "so that the first 10 years of [higher] revenue would be used to pay for only six years of spending" increases, a former CBO director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, wrote in the New York Times on March 20. Holtz-Eakin also noted the $70 billion of premiums for a new program of long-term care that reduce present deficits but will be paid out in benefits later. Then there's the "doc fix" -- higher Medicare reimbursements under separate legislation that would cost about $200 billion over a decade.
Proposals to control health spending face restrictions that virtually ensure failure. Consider the "Independent Payment Advisory Board" aimed at Medicare. "The Board is prohibited from submitting proposals that would ration care, increase revenues or change benefits, eligibility or Medicare beneficiary cost sharing," says a summary by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. What's left? Similarly, findings from "comparative effectiveness research" -- intended to identify ineffective care -- "may not be construed as mandates, guidelines or recommendations for payment, coverage or treatment." What's the point then?
So Obama is flirting with a future budget crisis. Moody's emphasizes two warning signs: rising debt and loss of confidence that government will deal with it. Obama fulfills both. The parallels with the recent financial crisis are striking. Bankers and rating agencies engaged in wishful thinking to rationalize self-interest. Obama does the same. No one can tell when or whether a crisis will come. There is no magic tipping point. But Obama is raising the chances. |
The health bill is very bad public policy. In fact, it incentivizes people to go off insurance, take the tax hit and wait for an illness to buy insurance. America is on a very bad fiscal path. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
