dayman

Shhh...everyone just got free care anyway for the last 50 years there wasn't any problem (and btw it was truly free!)..shhhh...don't spoil the talking points that blast the ACA as the devil...sshhh

Well first off you have to realize the first paragraph there is me saying "don't demonize the private insurance companies" but I admit there is basically no reason that they provide any benefit it was purely political reality that the right wing (and some of the left) wouldn't' get rid of them. The second part is me talking not about the ACA...but about a public provider system. AKA...Great Britan. Which I came to the conclusion that in the end that would still probably be the better option for the most people...despite both private and public provider systems having their strengths. So when you ask about your dad's shoulder and picking your doctor realize I was talking about public payer and later on public provider...neither of which we have now under the ACA or had before (although we have public payer for basically everyone that is old or poor).

I don't disagree that we could probably save about 12% administrative costs going to public payer. My point is, in terms of the system we have...the insurance companies NEED about 20% of that dollar. It's not pure waste in the environment we have so they shouldn't be demonized over it. The fact of the matter the common wisdom that the private sector is more efficient that the public sector just doesn't match up when it comes to healthcare...I don't deny that...but it's not b/c they're evil or making a killing off us...it's just the facts of life. To say "why have private insurers who get 20% when Britan and Canada have admin costs closer to 6-8%?" is fair...to say "our private insurers don't need 20% they're dirty cheats who steal" is not fair. As for gov't run healthcare system I don't doubt they could it more it more cheaply. It's a fact. But it's questionable if the service would be the same per dollar...for many non-emergency procedures the wait time could be months and even then they would cover everyone...but not everything...and yet taxes would still be high to pay for it. So what's the difference between the taxes you pay there and the premium you pay here as compared to a procedure not covered there but covered on your plan here? The answer to that question will vary depending on your income and the procedures you end up needing. But the idea is the same...both systems have their pros and cons...which is better for any given individual depends on that individual and their circumstances. I would agree though that ultimately I think the total socialization of that market is probably better for more more people than less. But that's neither here nor there b/c we will NEVER have that in America. As I said earlier I would say the best system for the US would ultimately be public payer, private provider...or "medicare for all" as you call it. But for now, given the circumstances...the ACA will have to do.

Plus it's not that absurd to begin with guys. They DO do a lot. You can't sit there and acknowledge how complicated the medical services sector is and then roll over and say the insurance companies do nothing. There are large administrative costs. And you can't sit there and say "yes, we need to work on transitioning pay structures and experiment with different ideas to control costs" and then say "the insurance companies do nothing." Not to mention it stayed private...so there are marketing costs as they compete with each other. And then yes, God forbid they take a profit which for most insurance companies is about 2%...putting it at the low end of all business. Don't demonize the insurance companies. They're the most picked on group in this whole mess and the damned truth is it's more the government and the medical providers that have ****ed up everything in the past. There is a lot of stuff here that will nudge (probably not enough) the doctors/hospitals and some serious stuff that will attempt to remedy the mistakes in the way medicare has paid stuff out as quickly as possible...so they're working on it as are the insurance companies...but you shouldn't demonize the insurance companies for making 2% profit and b/c you don't understand where the 20% on that dollar goes. How much off a $15K 12 hour hospital stay where the patient gets fluids and a Xanex do you think went to "patient care?" 20%?

Scalia will be on Piers Morgan Tongith at 9 I think for an hour long interview

Allow me to clarify he "gaffe" that I'm talking about is the: "If you've got a business you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen" as opposed to "you didn't build it alone" b/c of all the other things he was saying. That's the gaffe/sound byte. Not the entire speech. Romney isn't going to go around using his entire speech against him....that's his damn pitch you are right it may well turn some people off but they're both talking at different crowds. It's that line they want circulating. "If you've got a business you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." = the sound byte. The entire speech =/= sound byte. Attacking the entire speech = campaign messages clashing = going to last. I'm sorry if you didn't read all the previous posts or didn't understand what you were reading etc. It's not that confusing. Obama saying you we're all in it together and you didn't do anything on an island is on message. Saying you didn't build your business someone else did is a gaffe. Any Republican saying the government should be small and people should pull themselves up etc is on message. Saying black people want free stuff or something along those lines is a gaffe that those candidates walk the line with sometimes (I think Santorum might have literally said this at one point but I could be wrong...in any event Romney has come close but avoided literally saying that). Do you understand basic media now?

World you don't understand the conversation I'm trying to have. It has nothing to do with how you feel or what the candidates are in your mind or even in reality. Basic messaging, and attack tactics...of both campaigns. It's politics talk in here. So you can leave your emotion at the door.

All in all you can reason from basic ideology but we live in a messy public private model as is. To me the above is a step in the right direction...I honestly do believe that a public payer private provider done right is the most efficient way but if we aren't going to do that then this is the first step in doing the only other thing possible to do what every other rich nation does...try to provide basic healthcare to all citizens.

Through the entire scheme. It's all estimates but they (CBO) estimate over 30M more insured raising our overall insured to roughly 94% of legal non-elderly population The basic scheme as I generally understand it is as follows (includes my opinion): Guarantee issue and community rating (read: no preexisting discrimination ... generally if you are older and sicker you pay less if you are younger and healthier you pay more per community rating...controversial) Mandate to make that work (obvious controversy) Failure of political nerve to include "death panels" which we desperately need (there is a board that performs VERY limited functions that determine payment amounts not procedures and even then only when cost goals for medicare/medicaid goals fall short...this is our biggest shortfall w/ the bill IMO you NEED a board ) 80-20 rule (most like) 26 stay on insurance (most like) no life time limits on essential benefits (most like) preventative care w/ no cost sharing (ideally keep you healthy lowering your overall costs, critics say it prevents free market from working to lower costs IMO that's wrong the costs crisis is in the more serious care that represents 50% of the overall costs that 5% of us use) No dropping you when you are sick except for fraud (most like) mandatory appeals (no objections here) Medicaid expansion for basic minimum coverage for less then 133% of poverty line (for states taht take the money, it's free until 2020 then fed draws back and covers 90%....this is where a huge amount of uninsured come in) exchanges w/ credits and subsidies for those getting insurance on their own (This has problems imo most obviously there's a 2% tax on these plans but we are subsidizing/crediting the plans...classic government) Aggressive cost control experimentation in medicare/medicaid payment structures to slow rate of cost increases promotion of PCP/Health centers by giving them more money! (PCPs can make more from medicare/medicaid...encourage preventative/regular care and entry into this field...hospitals and specialists get less it hurts them) increased tools for fraud identification in medicare/medicaid CBO budget estimates are what they are nobody trusts them but they aren't bad

Stop attempting to give an actual response indicating how you feel to a flawed question by writing a poli-sci thesis . In any event, I agree with most (but not all) of what you have said in this post

There's actually a fantastic documentary on HBO on demand about Bush Sr. and he's real frank and open but when asked if he'll talk about Perot he just says: "No...I don't like him and I think he cost me the election and that's all I'll say about that." lol

Obama 83% Romney 21% Paul 11% Somehow with nobody on economics and Romney on domestic policy lol. Also strong showing for !@#$ing Jill Stein whoever the hell that is but I think that's b/c of by my science emphasis? Funny survey.

At it's core it's going to be "Blue Collar Obama" v. "White Collar Romney" and Obama is going to be able to explain/appeal to people pretty well in that way. And Romney will be able to sell his pitch well as well. All I was saying with regards to the Obama blurb is that even though a botch, it's somewhat on message with his blue collar pitch and it will be naturally clarified and damage minimized as a matter of course. Where as Romney's tax issues and any suspicion over that they keep drummed up while the campaign goes on hurt his pitch and won't be explained by it. Hence...one will last longer. They will hammer Romney on taxes until the end or until they're released.

That'll be the way you and many choose to take his pitch as, and thus you won't identify with it, but that isn't what his pitch will be. It's simple he'll say the middle class makes it all possible and the other side will say the upper class pulls everyone up. It's all nonsense b/c they're both true. But this is what they'll run on and see what resonates more and who can pitch their nonsense better. The reason I say the attack on his quote there is less substantial is simply b/c it was not well said and a blurb they will attack, but it is something he'll be able to clarify given the long term pitch of his campaign. Where as Romney's tax attack isn't something his pitch over time does anything to clarify or marginalize. The tax attacks will probably continue to November unless he releases some more...just my opinion it won't just go away. The attacks on one quote when Obama will continue to give his pitch...that will fade that much if obvious. Hence, the tax issue will stick around longer than the current Obama blurb. EDIT: LOL look this topic is about the politics. His campaign narrative isn't' that he's a Marxist and government is responsible for all. That is obvious. Calm down, understand we're talking messages here...and that no way in hell would anyone in their right mind run on that message.

B/c it just is. Which is fine, of course they need to take that soundbite and run with it. His message is that all things are possible based on the strength of the middle class as America's base. Not that all things are possible through government. The GOP will take the other reasonable position that our wonder is more b/c of those who strive/sour and they pull the rest up...and it's them that provide the value. Those are the two narratives. Obama's narrative that he is running on, and that he was speaking about is not that everybody owes the government. GOP can and should jump on the sound byte now, but over time it's just a soundbyte...and it doesn't have the staying power that the vilification of Romney's tax issues has if in fact Romney continues to not release them. This general clashing of the middle class v. successful class will carry through the election b/c it's the narrative they'll both frame...it's what Obama (and probably Romney) will run on. But the "all things through government" isn't something Obama is actually running on or will go around saying in the future where as Romney indicates (as of now anyway) that he won't release the additional tax information. Therefore one is a sound byte to jump on, the other appears to be a lingering problem that Romney won't address. Now maybe he will address it. Who knows. All I'm saying is sound byte not framing his pitch perfectly v. not actually doing something ... the not actually doing something is more substantial in terms of political ammo w/ staying power.

B/c that is a mischaracterization of what Obama was saying. Which is totally fine mischaracterizations fly on both sides it's valid political ammo...but Romney's nondisclosure (be it legit to attack or not...once again this is all political) is not a mischaracterization. Now the substance of what he's pitching is still something the GOP can attack, the more middle class pitch and that the base of America is where what makes it work as opposed to those who ultimately succeed. They can and will still attack that narrative but Obama is running with that narrative. It's less substantive in terms of it's political ammo b/c he wasn't actually trying to say they owe success to the government and will correct/be sure to say pitch his middle class value angle more delicately in the future. Where as Romney may never release any tax information.

This whole Bushcuts for under 250 but not over is political. That much is clear to all. I doubt it will end that way regardless of who is president come next year. But it might. In either event...nothing will be done before the election anyway.

That was clearly a mistake by Obama and has given Mitt a one ledge of many he needs to pull himself past this. At least and opening to try to change the dialogue and adopt a new narrative. That said a it's not nearly as substantive as Romney's actual nondisclosure (whether relevant or not in anybody's opinion) so it wont' completely dwarf it. But it is a classic example of one slip up in the millions of speeches both candidates give provides momentum to change a bad situation...long race etc. This may well be the theme at the convention which carries through the rest of the election. "Economy bad, Obama doesn't celebrate entrepreneurial America so how can he fix it?."

Don't you think your question is basically absurd? It seems first off that smart people, people with PHDs and Nobel Prizes can't even agree on the past, let alone what will work in the future. Most of them agree that to do nothing would have been disastrous so that is just absurd IMO. So nobody, not Obama, not Romney, not George Bush (who now has a book out now about how to obtain 4% growth lol) has the magic solution. It's just not true (contrary to what the Romney campaign would have you believe...he ain't the magic man). The general idea that the stimulus didn't help...or the bailout sucked...you can pull articles from wherever you want...people like the bailout...and a lot of people think the stimulus helped and could have helped much more if it was larger. The most important thing to note is there is disagreement and anyone can pull anything they want from any source and just say "see, see" and the discussion just gets bogged down. It's great to talk about and important for the country to work out and be informed about to vote...but anyone that thinks they "know what's up" is just not realizing they don't and nobody does. But that's all pre-2010...you know before every single bill of any meaningful note is all the sudden filibustered and obstructed. Before Congress became crazy and started doing nothing but working against the President and itself. Before we insisted on cuts cuts cuts, while still in trouble. Maybe you think that is wise? That really is fair enough, but a lot of other people didn't...and pointing to this is not really excuses or pointing fingers or crying. People who say that just don't understand government. Washington broke down, b/c politicians refused to cooperate. Congress is huge as to what has gone on with the recovery. Are you asking what has Congress done? What has that body's contribution been? Personally, I wouldn't validate anybody on either side of the isle in Congress this next election who isn't trumpeting cooperation and breaking gridlock in the next election w/ my vote. B/c that's crippling the country. What has John Boehner done for the country? Boehner can't keep his own loony Tea Party GOP freshman in line in the House and Obama is supposed to be able lead the Tea Party and the rest of the recently-more-conservatized GOP? These people are basically the Joker (to be like Rush for a moment) sent to create chaos and disrupt all the socialist free-fall-spending policies of Obama (lol yes that is a half-joke so don't go crazy). They aren't working with him...they won't even work with Boehner unless Boehner is sure to not cooperate "too much." All that said, say what you want and this is where we'll probably disagree...Obama did not create or necessitate this Washington environment. This was basically the GOP being pissed that they didn't like what was happening and not handling being in the minority so they did everything they could in the house, filibustered everything they could (record numbers) in the senate, and attacked the President publicly every chance they had. That is what they did as we were coming off a legitimate !@#$ing depression. This is important. Their goal was to make him a 1 term president. And they certainly made damn sure not to cooperate in making him a success during is first term on anything they could control. And all that, considering all that. Considering the dysfunction in Washington coming off the worst economic crisis since the great depression. Considering apparently Obama has a war on business and can't lead his own dick into his wife. Considering apparently the GOP radicalized and went rogue and threw a fit b/c they were in the minority and didn't like it. Considering the Democrats apparently went nuts w/ spending power while at the same time the GOP went nuts about cutting. We still...kind of...ever so slowly...failed to collapse. We still out grew Europe. We still grow in a Global Slowdown and European contraction. Every single recovery is taking longer, and longer, and longer (for reasons outside the scope of this post)...and this one is not exception and it follows a different sort of dip...and damn cliff drop. Considering all this taken together and having an actual realistic outlook on what happened, where we are, where the global economy is, and where we can ACTUALLY go/expect to be and how quickly we can do it...I assert to you that we're not actually doing that terrible. We're not doing well enough to be happy, I'll give you that nobody is. But we aren't dying. No policies for sure would have had us in a better spot (certainly IMO austerity or cuts or nothing during the fall would have had us worse but that's just my opinion). And the real thing to remember is...we had limited policies enacted anyway b/c we went into political gridlock. So the idea that the economy is just SOOOOO terrible...it's overblown. It's nothing to toot your horn about...and sure it's nothing really "to run on" I'll give Romney that. That's true. But it's not the disaster in my eyes everyone thinks it is all things considered. To sum up...I simply ask what the hell are you talking about when you ask "what has Obama done?" Have you been paying attention? What the hell has anyone done, what the hell has happened, where are we, what do you expect, what would you have had him do? What policies could anyone have pushed, passed, and watched heal us all so magically that you condeme Obama for not adopting over the last 3.5 year? Anyway I don't mean that to discount the question (all though it does lol I can't help but be a dick I know)...I'm just saying that represents why I generally just don't like this "Economy not great, Obama what has he done? Elect Romney magic solution man." Just my opinion I'm sure I'm just making excuses or naive or retarded of blah blah...but I would like to hear all you guys opinion on my opinion.

All of the above plus Sunday Shows these last two weeks and particularly Sunday shows this last week (all of them). Even Fox has talked a bit about it and got onto him slightly for it so you know it's bad. It's been MSNBC's main story for a while and Stewart and Cobert killed him on it...I don't watch but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't leak over to Saturday Night Live b/c the surrogates and Romney himself are starting to sound a bit Sarah Palin-ish just giving the same non-answer over and over.... All that said it's bad but it's early and it's not like he just got caught in a truck stop bathroom on his knees. The main thing is there's no excuse as I said earlier and also that they just are turning into a comedy show with really doing tons of interviews (him and surrogates) where they just say the same non-answer to questions that while maybe not about the economy (as he would like) are somewhat legitimate.

Well I don't know about if that is necessarily true right now...he may be damned either way and may have calculated he's less damned just not releasing them. My overall point is just that it didn't have to be that way if he planned in advance and he's been running since '07 so I really don't see how he just walked himself into such a predictable hole. You can only talk about the economy so much either way, it may be the main issue but it will never be the only issue...and generally speaking if you get sort of labeled a shifty "vulture capitalist" who is "hiding his taxes" and is "rich and 1% boogeyman" then your speaking on the economy can be marginalized by the whole Obama "middle class built to last/not doing what we did under Bush which is what Romney wants to do/we don't need more of this in charge" type campaign pitch. So it's not as if it's a completely unrelated distraction in the sense that if it's effective it will actually HELP Obama on the economy argument. Polls are the most retarded thing in the world to me but on the Sunday shows I heard some polls that said recently since "taxgate" (lol I'm waiting on someone to call it that in the media) Obama is making grounds in some swing states when asked "who is better for the economy" (and really making grounds overall in Ohio particularly). That just shows the effect this can have not only on Romney but on everything Romney is trying to say/sell. If Romney falls behind in that metric he'll be crushed. Once again I don't put too much stock in polls but taking them for all their worth which is just an indicator of the wind blowing and the effectiveness of current strategy...it suggests Romney is getting hurt by this. In Florida, Obama leads Romney 45 percent to 41 percent, and in Ohio his lead is 47 percent to 38 percent, according to the most recent survey by Quinnipiac University. The two men were essentially tied in both states in a similar survey released at the beginning of May. In Pennsylvania, Obama holds a six point lead over Romney, compared to a nine point lead he held in May. But more Florida voters think Romney will do better on the economy than Obama, though they are tied when it comes to which candidate voters think will improve their own bottom line. Ohio voters give Obama the edge on the economy and think his re-election would improve their economic future compared to a Romney presidency. Voters in Pennsylvania are essentially split between Obama and Romney when it comes to their ability to lift the national economy and their own financial future. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot-2012/2012/06/27/poll-obama-extends-lead-in-key-states Romney would do a better job on the economy, 46 percent of Florida voters say, while 44 percent say Obama would do a better job. Obama would be better for their personal economic future, 46 percent of voters say, compared to 45 percent for Romney. Voters say 47 - 42 percent, however, that Obama would do a better job on the economy than Romney and say 47 - 42 percent that the president would be better for their personal economic future. Pennsylvania voters split 44 - 44 percent on who would do a better job on the economy and 44 - 43 percent on who would be better for them personally. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/presidential-swing-states-(fl-oh-and-pa)/release-detail?ReleaseID=1767

In the context of the political discussion it all just comes back to Romney inexplicably not being ready. Honestly if I were a big time GOP supporter or wanted Romney to win or Obama to be beaten at all costs I would be legitimately pissed at him. This is a guy who has basically been running for President since...2007? At least as far back as 2007? And his taxes are ready and released at least since he started running? Why wasn't anything blatantly toxic (assuming there is something) cleaned up AT LEAST when you KNEW YOU WERE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. He should have had the last 6 or so years ready and put out long ago and taken any hit for that in the primaries and earlier than this if there was going to be one. Does that mean he should have not made money for the last 6 years? Of course not. But clean up the off short accounts for that time period, not b/c they're evil but b/c you are running for president. Make sure that whatever your finances are you are paying some income tax hopefully at least 15% each of those years (not saying he wasn't we don't know). Just generally have it ready to go and out in advance. Then if people wanted more info about your past dating back to when you were at Bain, etc...you can say "look I gave 6 years. Have some Presidential candidates given more? Yes. But I gave 6. And that's enough." He would be a lot better off than where he is now if that was the case. And since he was running...that entire time...there is no excuse from a political strategy for him not to do this. He would still catch heat for info on his finances in his Bain years and info taht shows what/where he was during those '90s year and particularly the 98-'02 years but at least he would have a decent showing of recent taxes. It just seem sort of stunning (worst word would be arrogant) that he let become such an issue that has circulated for this long and is only getting worse. His surrogates on this issue sound pathetic also now they have nothing to say that even remotely satisfies the questions...a lot of Republican pundits/figures are saying basically "for Gods sake put more out and put them out quickly to move on" too. This is a self inflicted wound. Say what you want about team Obama but this isn't really political brilliance. It's well executed for sure, but it's sort of right out of the book of basic politics.

In any event "breaking news" reports 3 members of high level gov't killed including Assad's brother-in-law. Leon Panetta says he's concerned about violence "rapidly spinning out of control." They have chemical weapons compounds. As we have seen with a lot of these dictators...when stuff gets too bad and they're in too deep they can lose their minds. The human rights issues are not to be trivialized. They are real. They are not a cover for a "western conspiracy" as you think. No way Assad keeps power for another week with out a HUGE escalation in violence. He could go insane. Right now he's in Saddam mode sitting around knowing he's done, waiting to be bombed, probably going paranoid, angry, cornered, and still in control of an army and some chemical weapons. (that's not to imply he's literally cornered as of yet...but you get the point...this **** is reaching a tipping point) http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/18/4639238/panetta-violence-in-syria-spinning.html

Meh, not really. Not nearly as much as a lot of European countries. I for one love Indian food? Are Indians Arabs? I don't know... ...maybe? If so Bobby Jindal? Will that let us off the hook if Romney taps him?

But what do you think about my response to your accusations that this is all about Israel and Saudi Arabia? The entire world is concerned about massacres, as are we. We didn't create the situation at all, "but for" the domestic revolt and subsequent crack down and massacres there would be no issue. As such, there is...almost the entire world takes issue with it...we take the same side as them...for substantially the same reasons as I see it. To assume that we are taking sides in this conflict to meddle in regional politics under these circumstances is bizzare...and even assuming it is true we are still only engaged in diplomacy anyway working within the channels of the international community and refusing to go in and rampage around without the consensus approval of the UN. This is not the example you are looking for to make your point, that's all I'm saying. This is not Iraq. This is not Afghanistan v. the Soviets. This is nothing like that at all. This is plain and simple and Syrian civil war in which the international community is concerned about human rights violations and we are working within the legitimate global channels to encourage the organization to stop bloodshed. That's it. There's really nothing as I see it that is wrong with that. You would argue simply b/c we are taking a side? Everyone takes a side. Everyone debates and says "yes we should do something (be it extreme like going in or passive like some sanctions)" or "no we're going to let it be." The only reason Russia and China take the approach they take is b/c in Russia's case they were loose allies who relied on Assad's regime for various things and in China's case b/c they don't want people meddling in their human rights issues so they will turn a blind eye to others so as not to set precedent. But the rest of the global community agrees...while not on every tactical point...that something (whatever that something may be) needs to be done to encourage the timely resolution to this before more people die. Simply put your argument that it is political meddling is very weak I think given the circumstances as I have laid out. And even then, we are merely taking sides in the international debate...nothing more. Taking a side an international debate is not the kind of thing that creates the backlash you fear...dropping troops in or sending boat loads of weapons and money to radicals is.