American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Sidney]Using idiotic social ideas to ascend![/QUOTE]Sid, Jackson and company, maybe you should climb down off the window ledge!

On Sunday, Republican US Senator Olympia Snowe, from Maine, dismissed the outlandish claims of those who characterize President Obama as a big-government liberal moving heedlessly to expand Washington's role or something worse.

Snowe says: "I almost sense the opposite." She places Obama on the ideological spectrum as "more moderate than liberal."

Her portrait diverges drastically from the "radical" "socialist" "communist" "Marxist" "anti-Capitalist" "fascist" described by other Republicans and the McCarthyites in the media such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Joe Azar, Alan Keyes, and some of our AP crew.

They say: "I Takes One To Know One" – so the moderate lady from Maine probably knows whereof she speaks! And together with House Republican leader Boehner's admitting Obama is no socialist, the debate now is between reasonable conservatives and the unhinged.

Several posters on the Political forum who oppose Obama's attempt to fix the broken US health care and insurance system, have claimed that every American citizen has "access" to "quality" health care because they can be treated in emergency rooms. Well, guess what? That's pure balderdash. The reality is less pretty.

A new medical study links 45,000 U. S. Deaths annually to lack of insurance. The reality is that one American dies every 12 minutes because they lack health insurance and can not get good care. The disturbing situation is detailed in a Harvard Medical School study, published in the American Journal of Public Health.

The study shows that without proper care, uninsured people are more likely to die from complications associated with preventable diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are closing or scaling back across the country as the poor economy has reduced their financial resources.

The Harvard researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

"For any doctor. It's completely a no-brainer that people who can't get health care are going to die more from the kinds of things that health care is supposed to prevent," said Dr. James Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard and a primary care physician in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The Harvard researchers analyzed data on patients tracked by the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Today, US Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) one of the most conservative members of Congress, [b]admitted[/b] that President Obama is not a socialist![/QUOTE]Ricardo,

I'm sure you mean to use the word "acknowledged" in the above statement.

Obviously, the word "admitted" would be used by a writer who was subliminally trying to invoke a sensation of guilt, which is clearly not the intent of Boehner's statement.

Oh, unless, of course, you specifically intended to warp the intended meaning of his statement, which would be a standard liberal practice.

Anyway, the fact that two Republican politicians declined to use the word "socialist" to describe the Messiah in a publicly broadcasted interview does not mean that he is NOT a socialist, but I understand you are clinging to any evidence you can to convince us clear-thinking individuals otherwise.

Nice try.

Thanks,

Jackson

Yep he's going on Letterman tonight. Anyone going to catch a feed tonight?

[QUOTE=Jackson]Ricardo,

I'm sure you mean to use the word "acknowledged" in the above statement.

Obviously, the word "admitted" would be used by a writer who was subliminally trying to invoke a sensation of guilt, which is clearly not the intent of Boehner's statement.

Oh, unless, of course, you specifically intended to warp the intended meaning of his statement, which would be a standard liberal practice.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]I don't know if Boehner felt guilty, but he looks guilty all the time. It may be the bottle tan!

You say warping meanings is standard liberal practice - yah sure. Here you raise an obvious question - not of etymology, but of psychology - do you understand the concept of projection?

Just in case, here is the definition:

"Psychological projection (or projection bias) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and / or emotions, which are then ascribed to another person or people, the government, etc.

"Projection is the most profound and subtle of our psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature, it is hidden. It is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep our selves uninformed about ourselves.

"Humor has great value in any attempt to work with projection, because humor presents a forgiving posture and thereby removes the threatening nature of any enquiry into the truth."

Ring any bells? (chuckling quietly to myself)

As for "admitted" versus "acknowledged" - that is called "a distinction without a difference" among us literate elite!

[QUOTE=Jackson]Us clear-thinking individuals otherwise.

Jackson[/QUOTE]Damn Jackson, kind of a "Holier Than Thou" statement. Never believed you to be so closed minded.

Let me tell you, I am impressed with the raw intelligence of the people who post on this board. Obviously approaching Einstein level insight.

I would not be surprised if the United States Embassy in Buenos Aires was instructed to clear out several thousand square feet of office space in order to house senior members of Argentina Private.

Sort of a think tank fueled by 200 octane pussy.

45,000 is roughly.0015% of the US population.

In 2008, 37,261 died in car crashes, which was actually down 9.7% from 2007 (41,059 deaths) and which has steadily been decreasing over time.

"Automobile Deaths" is a rough example of something we deal with every day that is close to the quanitity (if not the quality - hard to define exactly) of what are claimed as deaths that are attributed to lack of insurance.

I'm not sure that the number mentioned for lack of medical insurance deaths is enough to warrant the government getting farther into debt and expanding something like Medicare (for example) to ensure that everyone is ensured when the following are considered:

How many of those 45K eat like pigs and smoke like chimneys, take drugs (including too much alcohol) and put THEMSELVES at risk for diabetes, cardiac problems, cancer related to lungs and colon, liver and kidney problems, and so on and so on?

How many of those 45K chose not have insurance (there are those of us who chose not to - me for example)

How many of those 45K simply didn't even try to go see a doctor, even if it would have cost them something, for something simple like a check up where the doctor could have said "geez you're fat, you really should go on a diet and excerise!"

How many of those deaths were in accidents and the people involved simply did not have health insurance (I don't know where the numbers quoted came from as far as the raw data that was collated and examined)

How many of those 45K are illegal aliens?

Now, another question:

If everyday healthcare was reasonably affordable WITHOUT insurance, and insurance was only for the really BIG things that most people could not afford, would we need the government to provide a second option to provide "competition" to private industry in a vain attempt to keep costs down? Could we not just use our own judgement as to when we needed to go to the doctor, or do we really NEED health insurance to ensure that people would go to the doctor and make sure they are not dying of something preventable?

In the above question, I meant not just costs paid to the system by clients - after all, will the government really do things more efficiently and truly cost less? Or will the subsidies the government provides to keep costs down to the client really be more in line with what private industries are charging already due to things like fraud, high medical malpractice costs due to wrongly-balanced judgements, high costs of running unneccesary tests to CYA, etc? After all, without much TRUE REFORM in the medical system, how much in the BEST POSSIBLE of circumstances can the US government bring down costs?

Or is it more likely that the amount of cost the government can save will be about the amount of the profits that "for-profit" medical systems currently make, but will be offset (maybe even more so) by the inefficiency that WILL exist in a government-run system?

I believe human life is precious, but not always priceless. That is a hard thing to say, but it has to stop somewhere. If it didn't, we would never be permitted to eat anything that is unhealthy, never be allowed to breath air that has the slightest possible taint of pollutants, never be allowed outside in the daylight, or if we did drive, driving in cars like tanks to ensure we couldn't hurt ourselves, etc, etc. Of course, things like that are growing every day anyway - who the HELL gives ANYONE the right to tell someone they have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle or wear their seat belts in a car or truck if they choose to be stupid and not do so? Where does it stop? I could see a corporation requiring such things to keep their insurance costs down related to their opwn commercial interests, but not a law for everyone.

Can we stop the 35-40K deaths that occur every year via cars? Well, we could legislate cars out of existence but that would be costly. Too costly obviously. I'm not saying that legislating IN health insurance would be as costly, the legislating away cars was an extreme example of trying to keep everyone safe.

Can we say the government can step in and ensure that 100% of the people who die as a result of not having insurance will live? No way. Who knows what the real precentage point of lives saved would be.

What does that 45K really mean? I think it's more likely just another statistic that those on both sides like to use to scare the shit out of people to get their way.

And Ricardo, I don't think there is a single person on this board who really thinks health reform is unneccessary (I could be wrong!). I think most of us think that it is unrealistic to be tackling such an item in the MANNER that Obama proposes because (very short list) 1) it's not quite as big a problem as Obama and the Democrats make it out to be for the BIG MAJORITY of people in this country and 2) the way he is going about it is not going to fix anything (in many opinions, anyway) and we would rather stay with the status quo than make things worse and get more government involved where it doesn't belong.

We'd really rather see things FIXED, but that ain't likely to happen.

I commend you for adding to this thread and understand your thinking on this, but the fact that 45,000 Americans die each year who might have lived longer with insurance is just one of many, many problems with the broken US health system. It is a fatal problem for those who die and poses a moral dilemma for society as a whole.

I won't go into great detail on the intertwined and massive problems with the current system. The information is readily available online.

I will just point out that the US spends more per capita than any other industrial country on health care while leaving large numbers of people with no or inadequate care and gets worse results on a wide range of health measures.

I will also point out that the cost of US care is rising much faster than inflation and will continue to rise, unless the system is reformed - taking more and more essential resources - individual, corporate and government - away from other key priorities.

Unless change occurs the US economy will continue to struggle to right itself and stay globally competitive.

Last week, Obama provided the key points of the new system he will push to get Congress turn into legislation and send to him.

I trust this will clear up lots of confusion that has spread with the President's opponents distortions and the media focussed more on the fight than the content.

Basics.

1. If you like your insurance, you can keep it.

2. No more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

3. No dropped coverage when you get sick.

4. Eliminates yearly and lifetime caps on coverage.

5. Caps out-of-pocket expenses.

6. Required coverage for preventative care.

If you don't have insurance:

1. A new insurance marketplace, the Exchange.

2. New tax credits for individuals and small business.

3. Low-cost coverage for all individuals and small businesses.

4. A public health insurance option.

For All Americans:

1. Won't add a dime to deficit and paid for upfront.

2. Independent medical experts to identify waste, fraud, and abuse.

3. Required coverage for preventative care.

4. Eliminates the prescription drug "Donut Hole"

5. Immediate medical malpractice reform projects

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Let me tell you, I am impressed with raw intelligence of the people who post on this board. Obviously approaching Einstein level insight.

I would not be surprised if the United States Embassy in Buenos Aires was instructed to clear out several thousand square feet of office space in order to house senior members of Argentina Private.

Sort of a think tank fueled by 200 octane pussy.[/QUOTE]Careful. It could turn into a stink tank!

[QUOTE=El Queso]I don't think there is a single person on this board who really thinks health reform is unnecessary (I could be wrong! I think. It's not quite as big a problem as Obama and the Democrats make it out to be for the BIG MAJORITY of people in this country.[/QUOTE]The Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs of leading US companies, that comprise nearly a third of the total value of the U. S. Stock markets and pay nearly half of all corporate income taxes paid to the federal government has issued a policy study calling on Congress to reform the American health care system.

The Key Findings include:

• Without significant reforms, if current trends continue, annual health care costs for employers will rise 166 percent over the next decade, from $10,743 per employee today to $28,530 by 2019.

• These runaway costs, combined with a $56 billion cost shift to payers from uncompensated care, would cripple the employer-based system that currently provides coverage for the majority of Americans and their families.

• If nothing changes, by 2019, total health care spending will reach $4.4 trillion, consuming more than 20 percent of the U. S. Gross Domestic Product.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Last week, Obama provided the key points of the new system he will push to get Congress turn into legislation and send to him.

I trust this will clear up lots of confusion that has spread with the President's opponents distortions and the media focussed more on the fight than the content.

Basics.

1. If you like your insurance, you can keep it.

[AND, IF YOU DON'T LIKE YOUR INSURANCE, YOU STILL HAVE TO KEEP IT. THIS WILL BE THE OBJECTION HEARD FROM THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE COVERAGE BUT DON'T LIKE IT.]

2. No more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

[ONLY IF THE PUBLIC OPTION PASSES, WHICH IS UNLIKELY]

3. No dropped coverage when you get sick.

[RARELY HAPPENS EVEN TODAY, THOUGH MIAMI BOB WOULD DISAGREE. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE 'DENIED' COVERAGE, CITED BY OBAMA IN HIS SPEECH, ARE GOOD REMINDERS OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND PICK THE WRONG EXAMPLES OF THESE SUPPOSEDLY COMMON PRACTICES. BUT, OF COURSE, THE LEFT WING MEDIA ONLY LIGHTLY REPORTED ON THIS.]

4. Eliminates yearly and lifetime caps on coverage.

[YEP. EVERYONE LIKES "FREE," BUT "THERE'S A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE." HERE, THOSE TWO CONCEPTS ARE BEING MARRIED TOGETHER. THIS WILL BE QUITE EXPENSIVE.]

5. Caps out-of-pocket expenses.

[SEE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.]

6. Required coverage for preventative care.

[MOST MAJOR STUDIES ON PREVENTIVE CARE SHOW THAT THEY AREN'T WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T REALLY SAVE MONEY. ADMITTEDLY, THERE AREN'T MANY STUDIES ON THIS. THOSE THAT ARE BASED ON REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE PUT THE LIE TO THE IDEA THAT THIS RESULTS IN NET SAVINGS.]

If you don't have insurance:

1. A new insurance marketplace, the Exchange.

[SIMPLY WON'T WORK THE WAY IT'S PITCHED.]

2. New tax credits for individuals and small business.

[I'm NOT HOLDING MY BREATH ON THIS ONE.]

3. Low-cost coverage for all individuals and small businesses.

[NOT REALLY. THE TAX ON THE "MIDDLE CLASS" TO PAY FOR THIS IS $3,800 OR SO FOR A FAMILY. AS I've ALWAYS SAID, I'm NOT IN FAVOR OF NEW TAXES FOR ANYONE. THE IDEA THAT THIS ISN'T A TAX IS LAUGHABLE. CITIZEN: "BUT I DON'T WANT INSURANCE." GOVERNMENT: "YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT." CITIZEN: "BUT I WON'T GO TO THE DOCTOR." GOVERNMENT: "THAT'S NOT OUR FAULT. FORK OVER THE $3,800."]

4. A public health insurance option.

[GET YOUR INSURANCE FROM UNCLE SAM. THE SAME FOLKS WHO BROUGHT YOU MEDICAID, AMTRAK, FANNIE MAE AND THE POST OFFICE. HAVING MASTERED THOSE AREAS, HE'S NOW MOVING INTO HEALTH CARE. PERSONALLY, I GET THIS IMAGE OF THE SNAKE OIL SALESMAN FROM THE MEDICINE SHOW IN HUCK FINN EVERY TIME I HEAR SOMEONE CLAIM THAT THE PUBLIC OPTION IS GOING TO KEEP THE PRIVATE SECTOR "HONEST." RIGHT. GEE, WHAT ELSE CAN THE GOVERNMENT CURE?]

For All Americans:

1. Won't add a dime to deficit and paid for upfront.

[HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! BROOKLYN BRIDGE, MEET YOUR NEW OWNER. SORRY, I KNOW THAT'S MEAN-SPIRITED. RICARDO, IF YOU'VE REALLY WORKED IN GOVERNMENT ALL THIS TIME, YOU KNOW THIS ONE IS SILLY. IF YOU BELIEVE IT, YOU'RE A HOPELESS IDEALOGUE. MORE LIKELY, EVEN YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS ONE, BUT YOU BELIEVE IT'S BETTER TO INCREASE THE DEFICIT TO SOME DEGREE THAN STICK WITH THE STATUS QUO. IF IT'S THE LATTER, IT WOULD BE WHERE YOU AND I PART COMPANY. I'LL TAKE STATUS QUO OVER THIS PLAN. THE SOPS THAT ARE BEING OFFERED TO DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUENTS [B]ALREADY[/B] (E. G. UNIONS) WILL DRASTICALLY INCREASE THE DEFICIT.]

2. Independent medical experts to identify waste, fraud, and abuse.

[RIGHT. JUST AS THEY DO WITH MEDICARE AND MEDICAID. HOPEFULLY, THEY'VE BEEN HOLDING BACK ON THE "REAL" EXPERTS FOR JUST THIS MOMENT SO THEY COULD LURE ALL OF THE WASTERS, FRAUDSTERS AND ABUSERS INTO A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY.]

3. Required coverage for preventative care.

[DOESN'T DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO.]

4. Eliminates the prescription drug "Donut Hole"

[LOTS OF AMERICANS LIKE DONUT HOLES. I WOULDN'T BE SO QUICK TO ELIMINATE THESE, IF I WAS OBAMA.]

5. Immediate medical malpractice reform projects.

[WILL NOT HAPPEN IN REALITY. PLAINTIFFS LAWYERS ARE TOO LARGE A SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. OBAMA IS TOO SMART TO CUT HIS NOSE OFF TO SPITE HIS FACE, AND THIS GROUP WILL NOT WILLINGLY PARTICIPATE IN TORT REFORM JUST BECAUSE IT IS THE "RIGHT THING TO DO." THIS IS EVEN MORE IMPLAUSIBLE THAN #1 RE DEFICIT SPENDING. DON'T GET ME WRONG. THEY'LL PROBABLY PAY LIP SERVICE TO TORT REFORM. BUT IT WILL BE ONLY THAT.] [/QUOTE]My personal opinion: If they don't get this passed before Thanksgiving, they won't get it passed at all. Mid-term elections are less than a year away at that point and campaigning will begin in earnest for 1/3 of the senate. Legislators are going to get another earful on this when they go back to their constituents. Enough senators will be scared straight that it won't pass. The more folks find out about this plan, the less they'll want it.

This will be especially true with respect to the mandatory insurance tax. I understand why they're doing it. But, there will be a significant minority of folks who will object to the idea that they are forced to purchase insurance. And well they should object. In reality, this is government's effort to force those who don't need insurance (the young and healthy) to subsidize those who do (the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions) It is unquestionably a tax. More importantly, there are serious questions as to whether this portion will be Constitutional. If, as I suspect, it is unConstitutional, then who's going to subsidize the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions? I'll give you two guesses.

We'll see. At least it's kept Congress distracted long enough such that they haven't been able to do too much more damage.

Should be interesting -- at least as interesting as watching sausages get made.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]My personal opinion: If they don't get this passed before Thanksgiving, they won't get it passed at all.

Should be interesting -- at least as interesting as watching sausages get made.[/QUOTE]Based on a few years working on the Hill and working in poliitics for almost 20 years, my (semi) professional opinion is Obama will be signing health care reform into law before mid-January 2010.

It will deny the insurance companies the freedom to fuck their customers that they have enjoyed (my choice of a verb is deliberate) for too long.

It will include both a mandate requiring Americans to insure themselves and a triggered public option.

It will cover most, but not 100% of Americans.

A small handful of Republicans in the both houses will support it.

The right wing noise machine will say its the end of the world as we know it and within 48 hours will find some other evil thing to pin on Obama the antichrist.

You heard it hear first!

My 2 cents:

If that happens, I predict O BAMA will also have to pay a price; maybe someone will make a move to "integrate" Mount Rushmore. A tribute to his ambition and socialist causes. Personally I think it would be defacing a nation monument.

Oh well, I guess when the talking stops, and logic fails, and a dictator refuses to listen, it's Americans right and privilege too defend democracy. Something Argentineans know little to nothing about.