dayman

I did a google search on her district and one lady (who apparently has an MBA)running against had this to say: She told the St. Cloud Times: "I feel this is a real opportunity for a candidate to raise the economic issues that the Occupy movement is talking about." So maybe it's just Minnesota. If you don't have a trendy "movement" to link with you can't speak to them? For the record I didn't click on them all but it looked like other people running too like some Hotel Developer. Na she's special. She's not just an R. I don't just think all people with an R by their name are retarded contrary to popular belief.

LOL my God you are a terrible poster. I certainly don't care if you think I'm an Obamabot or if you don't understand/agree on the timing of shifting the pay-structure as a means to reduce costs w/ Medicare leading the way...but to still not understand what was said in the other topic regarding campaign messaging puts you in total retard territory. You are basically a big ball of emotional idiocy. I still love you though so don't worry.

Would you say her cowtowing and usage of the far right xenophobic conspiracy-loving blogoshpere for popularity/power has backfired and will end with her getting the boot?

Did you tell that to your right wing brethren when they were chanting about death panels to oppose reform during the ACA's creation? And in any event the fight to bring down costs is a system-wide shift that will take about 10 years and the ACA addresses medicare/caid's role in that shift there isn't much more it can do.

As Bird said they are basically the same in a system where insurance is the means by which everybody has access to care, and where most people cannot afford care without it. And in any event, the claim that the ACA doesn't attempt to address healthcare costs shows that you don't really have a strong understanding of the ACA, or the historical impact Medicare had on costs.

I think the thought of 3rd passing it brings a smile to all of our faces.

Try giving them the hard facts on American healthcare as is compared to other nations (who do a bunch of different things...different from us...different from each other) and poll them on if we should do something. That'll be unanimous. Then we can sit here and debate and ACA structure, a medicare for all structure, or just total social medicine. If you really care about small business and state budgets so much I take it you want to socialize the entire thing? At least a public payer? Of course that would take even more taxes...tsk tsk...so now we're back to ACA? But then again the ACA is still ultmately more expensive than single payer...so we should shift back over there at least...and now wait a minute single payer could lower the cost of care more if we go to socialized medicine! But wait socialized medicine doesn't sound good...let's just stick w/ single payer....bleh the taxes! Back to ACA. You know the ACA has a huge lobby against it and seem complicated...let's just do nothing? At some point we have to pick one. We picked the conservative approach. This is Romney's own damned approach. As a nation (and by nation I mean the GOP), we should all stop forcing him to run against it and repeal it and just move forward on implementing it well and revising where necessary.

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?."