obama bitch slapping gop

[Magox]

lmao yeah should i also provide links that smoking causes cancer. you gotta be kidding me, that info has been out there for a while now, its not in debate. i will remind you again i dont play these silly partisan gotcha games so if i dont respond you know why

 

the ama does have its flaws, partially due to the inevitability that any new program will. but the biggest reason imo is bc the republicans demagoged the public option and forced it out of the program. if that was still there it would permanently force competitive improvements, including keeping downward pressure on price escalation. it was a massive error to allow that to be eliminated, which is one reason i refused to cast my first vote for obama

 

 

 

You didn't answer the question. For that matter, you barely addressed any of the points I brought up.

such as:

 

Which serious politician is looking to "mercilessly slash the programs" ? And can you outline or at least give an example of how they are proposing to do this?

 

 

 

Secondly, how do you justify that a vast expansion of Medicaid is not an entitlement?

 

 

 

To my third point, Even if we were to accept your argument that the Public Option would of brought on more competition, that still doesn't answer address these flaws:

 

 

ranging from taxes, to national debt implications, busting state budgets, small business activity, quality of health care deterioration and consumer behavior patterns which will lead to even higher premiums.

 

 

Also the public option was riddled with faults. How in the world is a private insurer who has limited pockets going to compete with the Federal Government who basically has unlimited funds at their disposal? You don't think that if they lowered rates that it would put private insurers out of business? And if rates are artificially lowered by the government, that means quality of care would go down, simply because there aren't enough doctors who will take on even scheduled Medicare rates, which is what their goal would of been. Or, if they didn't artificially lower rates, their would of been an explosion in the overall costs to the federal budget because of the massive infusion of clients shifting from Private insurers to the public option. I can go on for hours regarding this topic, why don't we start off with the point I brought up, and we'll go from there.

 

 

You also never addressed this point:

 

 

Also, when you mention life expectancy and "entitlements' health care, you imply that there is a direct connection. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a false equivalence. If you truly want to know why we have a shorter life expectancy than some other developed nations, it's for one major reason, gluttonous consumer behavior. We are a country of fat asses, and until that changes, you won't see those numbers change much.

 

Let's see how serious you are about have a real discussion.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Magox

[Magox]

we will always be burdened by the lazy. so what to do with/for them? we can provide nothing and let them starve but that will surely lead to the armed revolts some, even here, secretly lust after. lawlessness and crime will flourish and security for the currently secure will be difficult, if not impossible, to preserve. desperate people do desperate things.

 

we can provide everything and see more and more people coming to the realization that doing nothing is the right path.

 

or we can provide subsistence level support for the truly intransigent lazy and training and jobs paid at higher rates than welfare for those industrious enough to work, hoping that the rewards of those motivated to pursue higher callings will motivate those that are not. this is what i believe we're trying to do now. it's far from being perfected but it's the point at which we should start with aims at continuing improvements.

 

To your first point, I believe that serious reforms are in order. People who willfully decide to do little with their lives other than go about with their daily nothingness while sucking off the government tit need to be identified. Once identified, there has to be some sort of claw back, now what does that entail? I don't know, maybe a reduction of entitlement benefits?

 

I completely agree that there has to be job training, but there will always be people no matter how much you do for them, that won't push forward. And when you have a society that continues to pile benefits for doing less you will naturally continue to have more and more people who won't have incentive to get off their asses. People become complacent when too much is handed to them, apathy sets in, which leads to erosion of job skills.

 

So the question is how do you provided an effective safety net, while not creating a segment of the society dependent of government?

[B-Man]

OBAMA AND THE “ACTING ALONE” FALLACY: “The idea that you’re ‘alone’ unless you’re being directed by the government strikes me as dehumanizing and almost abusive.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

 

The "acting alone" fallacy

 

President Obama said this in his 2nd inaugural address:

 

"

For the American people can no more meet the demands of today's world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we'll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together

."

 

I object to this move, which seems to have become popular with Democrats in the past couple years, of equating "doing things together" with government.

 

To suggest that anyone who'd like to see less heavy-handed government regulation thinks one person can do everything alone is a straw-man argument.

 

It indicates a lack of understanding of how the private-sector economy works and how libertarians or conservatives actually think about economics.

 

The private sector isn't just a bunch of people "acting alone." As Matt Welch pointed out in his critique of the speech, making and selling an object as basic as a pencil is such a complex endeavor that it takes lots of different specialists. No one person has the knowledge to accomplish that seemingly simple task; that's how decentralized knowledge is in society. And with a truly complex product, like a computer or movie, the need for people to work together is even greater still. The private sector isn't fundamentally about everyone being secluded and isolated from each other; it typically involves many people working together.

 

Government regulation often rules out the options people would otherwise want to pursue that would let them work together more. The idea that you're "alone" unless you're being directed by the government strikes me as dehumanizing and almost abusive. So I resist this scare tactic of presenting the government as the alternative to being "alone."

[TakeYouToTasker]

"The private sector isn't just a bunch of people "acting alone." As Matt Welch pointed out in his critique of the speech, making and selling an object as basic as a pencil is such a complex endeavor that it takes lots of different specialists. No one person has the knowledge to accomplish that seemingly simple task; that's how decentralized knowledge is in society. And with a truly complex product, like a computer or movie, the need for people to work together is even greater still. The private sector isn't fundamentally about everyone being secluded and isolated from each other; it typically involves many people working together."

 

I, pencil, is a fantastic read, and should be required reading in any serious college econ program.

Edited January 24, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Meathead]

because frankly to me the questions appear silly to me and have already been answered in public discourse by now

 

"Which serious politician is looking to "mercilessly slash the programs" ? And can you outline or at least give an example of how they are proposing to do this?"

 

um how about the party leaders themselves who for months and months insisted in big cuts to medicare in exchange for cooperation on the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff. how about the candidates that ran for president, the vouchers program would obviously shift the burden back to the poor and the elderly. its nonsense that i even have to point these obvious examples out, which is why i dont usually get into these conversations bc they are ridiculously vapid

 

"Secondly, how do you justify that a vast expansion of Medicaid is not an entitlement?"

 

ive already made that point. at this time in history we (including all developed countries that already do it besides us) have plenty enough resources to cover everybody with minimal standards of care and we should. medicaid expansion is to cover those at the bottom as mandated by the aca

 

"How in the world is a private insurer who has limited pockets going to compete with the Federal Government who basically has unlimited funds at their disposal? You don't think that if they lowered rates that it would put private insurers out of business? And if rates are artificially lowered by the government, that means quality of care would go down, simply because there aren't enough doctors who will take on even scheduled Medicare rates, which is what their goal would of been. Or, if they didn't artificially lower rates, their would of been an explosion in the overall costs to the federal budget because of the massive infusion of clients shifting from Private insurers to the public option."

 

i already covered that too. its obvious youve never spent any time in the lower levels of healthcare in this country, and if you can avoid it you should. that care is simply inferior to what you can get from private insurers. speaking bluntly, medicaid doctors suck. they are a lot better than nothing but they struggle to provide consistent quality. there would always remain a gap between the quality of care because there will always be a gap in the quality of the doctors that provide it - and what they get paid to do it

 

this would certainly shrink the pool of clients the insurance companies would have but they would shift to the higher ends and decide to compete at the lower ends to the extent that they can make it profitable. believe me, if you ever get exposed to the lower levels of care you will run to the private insurers begging to provide you with something better. besides, im simply not going to apologize for putting the health of people before protecting the low ends of the markets for private insurers

 

it is hard for someone who has never been exposed to the lower end to understand this but leaving it to market forces was a major disaster. until those horror stories hit you or those close to you they are just brushed off as isolated incidents when in fact they were happening at an alarming frequency to more and more people. we need that public option to ensure minimally acceptable standards are supplied to the low end and keep putting cost pressure on the big insurers

 

"Also, when you mention life expectancy and "entitlements' health care, you imply that there is a direct connection. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a false equivalence. If you truly want to know why we have a shorter life expectancy than some other developed nations, it's for one major reason, gluttonous consumer behavior. We are a country of fat asses, and until that changes, you won't see those numbers change much."

 

just because its true our gluttonous behavior drives a lot of our health problems doesnt mean better access to hc wont save massive amounts at the other end. just getting in front of a doctor and getting details on tests for things like cholesterol and prediabetes is going to get more people to avoid the costly treatment of the problems those habits present if left unsupervised and without feedback. this is admittedly an area with the weakest empiricle evidence but there is some out there. its also a common sense type of argument, letting people fend for themselves without access to minimal standards of care not only leads to more problems, its also immoral

 

you have to do a lot of ignoring to not already be aware of these realities. however, i am under no delusion that i am going to convince you. if you havent come to this conclusion on your own by now its unlikely you will any time soon

[Magox]

because frankly to me the questions appear silly to me and have already been answered in public discourse by now

 

"Which serious politician is looking to "mercilessly slash the programs" ? And can you outline or at least give an example of how they are proposing to do this?"

 

um how about the party leaders themselves who for months and months insisted in big cuts to medicare in exchange for cooperation on the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff. how about the candidates that ran for president, the vouchers program would obviously shift the burden back to the poor and the elderly. its nonsense that i even have to point these obvious examples out, which is why i dont usually get into these conversations bc they are ridiculously vapid

 

"Secondly, how do you justify that a vast expansion of Medicaid is not an entitlement?"

 

ive already made that point. at this time in history we (including all developed countries that already do it besides us) have plenty enough resources to cover everybody with minimal standards of care and we should. medicaid expansion is to cover those at the bottom as mandated by the aca

 

"How in the world is a private insurer who has limited pockets going to compete with the Federal Government who basically has unlimited funds at their disposal? You don't think that if they lowered rates that it would put private insurers out of business? And if rates are artificially lowered by the government, that means quality of care would go down, simply because there aren't enough doctors who will take on even scheduled Medicare rates, which is what their goal would of been. Or, if they didn't artificially lower rates, their would of been an explosion in the overall costs to the federal budget because of the massive infusion of clients shifting from Private insurers to the public option."

 

i already covered that too. its obvious youve never spent any time in the lower levels of healthcare in this country, and if you can avoid it you should. that care is simply inferior to what you can get from private insurers. speaking bluntly, medicaid doctors suck. they are a lot better than nothing but they struggle to provide consistent quality. there would always remain a gap between the quality of care because there will always be a gap in the quality of the doctors that provide it - and what they get paid to do it

 

this would certainly shrink the pool of clients the insurance companies would have but they would shift to the higher ends and decide to compete at the lower ends to the extent that they can make it profitable. believe me, if you ever get exposed to the lower levels of care you will run to the private insurers begging to provide you with something better. besides, im simply not going to apologize for putting the health of people before protecting the low ends of the markets for private insurers

 

it is hard for someone who has never been exposed to the lower end to understand this but leaving it to market forces was a major disaster. until those horror stories hit you or those close to you they are just brushed off as isolated incidents when in fact they were happening at an alarming frequency to more and more people. we need that public option to ensure minimally acceptable standards are supplied to the low end and keep putting cost pressure on the big insurers

 

"Also, when you mention life expectancy and "entitlements' health care, you imply that there is a direct connection. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a false equivalence. If you truly want to know why we have a shorter life expectancy than some other developed nations, it's for one major reason, gluttonous consumer behavior. We are a country of fat asses, and until that changes, you won't see those numbers change much."

 

just because its true our gluttonous behavior drives a lot of our health problems doesnt mean better access to hc wont save massive amounts at the other end. just getting in front of a doctor and getting details on tests for things like cholesterol and prediabetes is going to get more people to avoid the costly treatment of the problems those habits present if left unsupervised and without feedback. this is admittedly an area with the weakest empiricle evidence but there is some out there. its also a common sense type of argument, letting people fend for themselves without access to minimal standards of care not only leads to more problems, its also immoral

 

you have to do a lot of ignoring to not already be aware of these realities. however, i am under no delusion that i am going to convince you. if you havent come to this conclusion on your own by now its unlikely you will any time soon

 

 

So the premium support plan which was originally proposed by Bill Clinton's staff members is a draconian measure that in your words mercilessly slashes Medicare? What's clear is that you don't fully don't understand the premium support plan....

 

Tell me in specifics how this plan will unfairly shift the burden on the poor?

 

If you can't provide an answer, then we all know that you aren't equipped to answer the question.

 

Regarding your non answer about the expansion of medicaid... Did you just say that "we have plenty of resources" ? With that, we all know where you stand.

 

 

 

"How in the world is a private insurer who has limited pockets going to compete with the Federal Government who basically has unlimited funds at their disposal? You don't think that if they lowered rates that it would put private insurers out of business? And if rates are artificially lowered by the government, that means quality of care would go down, simply because there aren't enough doctors who will take on even scheduled Medicare rates, which is what their goal would of been. Or, if they didn't artificially lower rates, their would of been an explosion in the overall costs to the federal budget because of the massive infusion of clients shifting from Private insurers to the public option."

 

i already covered that too. its obvious youve never spent any time in the lower levels of healthcare in this country, and if you can avoid it you should. that care is simply inferior to what you can get from private insurers. speaking bluntly, medicaid doctors suck. they are a lot better than nothing but they struggle to provide consistent quality. there would always remain a gap between the quality of care because there will always be a gap in the quality of the doctors that provide it - and what they get paid to do it

 

 

just because its true our gluttonous behavior drives a lot of our health problems doesnt mean better access to hc wont save massive amounts at the other end. just getting in front of a doctor and getting details on tests for things like cholesterol and prediabetes is going to get more people to avoid the costly treatment of the problems those habits present if left unsupervised and without feedback. this is admittedly an area with the weakest empiricle evidence but there is some out there. its also a common sense type of argument, letting people fend for themselves without access to minimal standards of care not only leads to more problems, its also immoral

 

 

 

Where did I say that people should just "fend for themselves" or even make that implication?

 

I'll tell you where, nowhere.

 

What I proposed long before you ever began visiting PPP was that we should build medical centers through out the U.S, hired by the government to care for the poor. I also proposed that this should be partially funded by philanthropists and anyone who wanted to participate in donations to the charities, facilitated by the government through extremely friendly tax deductions. I also proposed that we should have a government funded pre existing medical pool. This way you can get a lot of the sick people out of the private health insurance pools, which would reduce premiums for the rest of us. I went in a lot more detail, and don't have the energy to go more into detail, but that's the gist of it.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Magox

[Rob's House]

 

 

 

So the premium support plan which was originally proposed Bill Clinton's staff members is a draconian measure that in your words mercilessly slashes Medicare? What's clear is that you don't fully don't understand the premium support plan....

 

Tell me in specifics how this plan will unfairly shift the burden on the poor?

 

If you can't provide an answer, then we all know that you aren't equipped to answer the question.

 

Regarding your non answer about the expansion of medicaid... Did you just say that "we have plenty of resources" ? With that, we all know where you stand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where did I say that people should just "fend for themselves" or even make that implication?

 

I'll tell you where, nowhere.

 

What I proposed long before you ever began visiting PPP was that we should build medical centers through out the U.S, hired by the government to care for the poor. I also proposed that this should be partially funded by philanthropists and anyone who wanted to participate in donations to the charities, facilitated by the government through extremely friendly tax deductions. I also proposed that we should have a government funded pre existing medical pool. This way you can get a lot of the sick people out of the private health insurance pools, which would reduce premiums for the rest of us. I went in a lot more detail, and don't have the energy to go more into detail, but that's the gist of it.

Why do you feel the need to come up with solutions that take reality into account.

 

The morally superior stance is that everyone should have unlimited access to the most advanced medical technology & services known to man. If someone says we can't realistically afford to do that just side step the substance of the argument and say (with righteous indignation) that "we can't afford NOT to do it".

 

Get a clue.

[Meathead]

ive said for years i dont care how it gets done as long as it gets done. if they wanted to do your idea thats fine with me, though i can see some flaws in that suggestion. seems like the expansion of medicade is the more logical solution but whatever, as long as it gets done

 

and again, im not a democrat nor a partisan so associating me with party positions is presumptive. i didnt have a problem with clintons premium plans suggestion. as we all know now, thats always been the reality anyway and always will be

[Magox]

i didnt have a problem with clintons premium plans suggestion. as we all know now, thats always been the reality anyway and always will be

 

The premium support plan is the "voucher" plan you were just criticizing.

 

um how about the party leaders themselves who for months and months insisted in big cuts to medicare in exchange for cooperation on the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff. how about the candidates that ran for president, the vouchers program would obviously shift the burden back to the poor and the elderly.

 

Edited January 24, 2013 by Magox

[Meathead]

then i misunderstood you

 

i was going by memory but i thought the clinton plan was for various levels of care that would give more and better options to those that could afford it, which i dont have a problem with. the voucher program was a fixed cost stipend of sorts that lost value over time and thus shifted the burden to seniors and poor people

 

but this sounds to me like youre trying to draw me into that gotcha stuff, so if i disappear its bc i dont play those games. keep it smart and nonpartisan or i aint playing

[TakeYouToTasker]

then i misunderstood you

 

i was going by memory but i thought the clinton plan was for various levels of care that would give more and better options to those that could afford it, which i dont have a problem with. the voucher program was a fixed cost stipend of sorts that lost value over time and thus shifted the burden to seniors and poor people

 

but this sounds to me like youre trying to draw me into that gotcha stuff, so if i disappear its bc i dont play those games. keep it smart and nonpartisan or i aint playing

Define "non-partisan"...

[Magox]

then i misunderstood you

 

i was going by memory but i thought the clinton plan was for various levels of care that would give more and better options to those that could afford it, which i dont have a problem with. the voucher program was a fixed cost stipend of sorts that lost value over time and thus shifted the burden to seniors and poor people

 

but this sounds to me like youre trying to draw me into that gotcha stuff, so if i disappear its bc i dont play those games. keep it smart and nonpartisan or i aint playing

 

Gotcha stuff? What are you talking about? You mistakenly believed that Clinton's premium support plan wasn't basically the same as Paul Ryan's. If anything, Paul Ryan's plan is more generous than Clinton's was.

 

First off, the plan set by Paul Ryan isn't "fixed". The premium support payment is capped at the growth of GDP, plus 0.5 percent. The subsidy will be adjusted based on the income level of the consumer.

 

Secondly, Paul Ryan's plan gave you the option to either enroll in the premium support plan or remain in traditional Medicare. So there is choice.

 

Third, the plan doesn't even begin until 2023, which means seniors will remain in the current system. In 2023 people over 65 would pick an insurance plan in a new Medicare exchange system, with Medicare competing with other insurers for their business.

 

So you're characterization of savage cuts are simply false. To say that you supported Clinton's premium support plan but not Ryan's who is factually more generous to Medicare recipients, by definition through example, does make you "partisan".

 

Also, when someone asks you a question, it's reasonable to expect an answer. Sorry, but when you respond with blanket liberal talking points such as "savage medicare cuts" , "shift the burden back to the poor and the elderly" that isn't considered to be a substantive reply. And when asked to expound on your reply, which is reasonable, you know so you can actually seriously defend your claims, you come back with nonsense, such as "questions appear silly to me and have already been answered in public discourse by now".

 

That's your reply? Reasonable debate includes hard data and logical reasoning, and a good healthy back and forth, not empty talking points and deflections. Every time you get confronted to back up your claims, you come back with deflections. Like "these questions appear silly to me", "its nonsense that i even have to point these obvious examples out" (which btw, those examples weren't cogently related to what I was talking a bout) or "sounds to me like youre trying to draw me into that gotcha stuff", and "so if i disappear its bc i dont play those games. keep it smart and nonpartisan or i aint playing"

 

If you "disappear" it's because you don't have anything substantive further to offer.

[BillStime]

🎯