As we start deregulating the health care market, we can go ahead and drop the requirement that doctors and surgeons have accredited medical licenses. After all, this is an artificial increase of market entry cost and therefore a restriction on free competition in health care.
Let the quackery begin! :D
Moongoose
Well Rand Paul already does. He coudnt get the actual certification so he made one up.
Yet another thing i want to add here. The progressive take on why the dems lost and their reaction to it. ANd i coudnt agree more with them.
What's frustrating is that I don't think we'll get any of them - not even proposals. You can call me cynical if you want, but I really think this Congress will be characterized less by policy and governance and more by what McConnell termed the GOP's number one priority - making Obama look bad to the public.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Obama's not going to face many vetos if you can't get your agenda through the Senate... let's not get ahead of yourself. Also, I'd be super interested in seeing the types of policies you expect to be proposed. So far Boehner, McCarthy, and Cantor have been mum on an agenda. Pence referred to the Pledge for America, but that wasn't so much a policy agenda as a series of philosophical maxims. What do you expect a Republican Congress to try to do? Repeal health care? Beyond fighting the good fight to get those temporary tax reductions for the upper 1% extended indefinitely without cutting any significant spending to offset the loss in revenue, I mean.
Don't be so sure... with 21 Democrats up for re-election in the Senate in 2 years, all of which cast the same votes for Obamacare and the other measures which created the backlash we just had, you could say that Republicans have de facto control there. Remember, virtually no Democrats ran on their Obamacare votes and distanced themselves from Obama during the campaigns for Tuesday's election.... how many of those 21 Democrat Senators are going to have to show a much more pointed resistance to moving Obamacare forward and not extending the Bush tax cuts if they want to get re-elected?
Per the Blue Dog theory- my guess is most of them got booted because unlike the true liberals, they promoted themselves as fiscal conservatives but folded like cheap lawn chairs when Pelosi put the smack down and voted in lock step for all the spending measures. $5 trillion in new deficits after Pelosi announced in 2007 that "there will be no new deficit spending" made them look like horrible liars; running on a platform promising to rein in the fiscal irresponsibility that had been rampant during the spendthrift Bush administration doesn't lend itself to success in future elections what that happens. It's funny to see the ones who survived now openly challenging Pelosi.
And if we have more tax payers in the system, a la job creation which happens when the top 1% are optimistic enough to invest their money and grow businesses, you won't have to worry about offsets in revenue losses.
quote:
Haha, what are the demographics of people who own pets and take them to the vet? I think you've missed the point about who isn't insured. If you've got a better idea for how to drive down costs to the consumer at the emergency room than insurance, I'd love to hear it.
Bush famously declared that we already had universal health care in this country - called the emergency room. What he cynically doesn't mention is that emergency care does nothing to either prevent future health care crises (and costs), and it just results in costs being passed on to other consumers. Legally emergency rooms can't deny anyone care - but in order to cover bills that can't be paid, the cost of emergency care in this country has sky-rocketed.
Insurance does defray costs for the consumers in many ways - to deny that just isn't being forthright with the facts.
I was wondering if we would even need insurance to the degree we do now if the healthcare industry was run like the animal hospital industry (or any regular private industry for that matter!). I'm not going to comment on or defend Bush's dumb statement there though... remember, he lost me around 2005/2006.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Moongoose
Also i didnt buy your percentages of liberals in the us the first time you posted the numbers and im not likely to do so the more you post them. Yes people may perceive a lie as truth the more you say it, but im calling you on your BS.
Still calling me out on it, smart guy? These are the most recent numbers. What... did you think I pulled that number out of my ass, or do you think I actually read it in the event that some deluded liberal like yourself would try to challenge me on it. I didn't know a simple internet search was so difficult.
Edit: Face it man... you know less about the U.S. than an actual U.S. citizen who has lived here his whole life and pays attention to what's going on.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
As an olive branch to Kevin, I just want to say that I could live with most of the agenda items included in this NRO piece: http://www.nationalreview.com/agend...ss-reihan-salam
What's frustrating is that I don't think we'll get any of them - not even proposals. You can call me cynical if you want, but I really think this Congress will be characterized less by policy and governance and more by what McConnell termed the GOP's number one priority - making Obama look bad to the public.
I agree with you for the most part. And I understand the cynicism, believe me. I'm a bit more optimistic right now because of recent events, but I fully understand that things have to be done now; they can't play the "we aren't Democrats" card from this point forward.
MrJiveBoJingles
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Still calling me out on it, smart guy? These are the most recent numbers. What... did you think I pulled that number out of my ass, or do you think I actually read it in the event that some deluded liberal like yourself would try to challenge me on it. I didn't know a simple internet search was so difficult.
Polling on a label is not all that informative, as people will have quite different ideas of what is "conservative" or "liberal." If you read further down in the second link, for example, 23% of Democrats apparently characterize themselves as "conservative," but I seriously doubt we can take that to mean that they support the substance of right-wing goals in American politics; else why would they be voting Democratic in the first place?
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Polling on a label is not all that informative, as people will have quite different ideas of what is "conservative" or "liberal." If you read further down, for example, 23% of Democrats apparently characterize themselves as "conservative," but I seriously doubt we can take that to mean that they support the substance of right-wing goals in American politics; else why would they be voting Democratic in the first place?
Spintastic! I don't know, a lot of people vote Democrat based solely on the social issues but are fiscally conservative. A lot of people vote for one party because their parents and grandparents voted that way, and that's just how it is. But ideology identification is what it is on that graph. And Mongoose looks dumb.
edit: ps- your avatar is freaking me out. :nervous:
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Don't be so sure... with 21 Democrats up for re-election in the Senate in 2 years, all of which cast the same votes for Obamacare and the other measures which created the backlash we just had, you could say that Republicans have de facto control there.
Hmm, I think this is true - if 2012 goes badly for Democrats again, it could be a long Republican majority. However, there are some tangible differences in 2012 - Democrats have to be feeling encouraged that Obama will be at the top of the ballot. His GOTV team is a lot better than the decentralized mess that was this midterm season, where Democrats largely decided in March that they'd be taking a big hit.
Also, a lot can happen between now and then, so it's hard to project much of anything at this point. Could break either way.
quote:
Remember, virtually no Democrats ran on their Obamacare votes and distanced themselves from Obama during the campaigns for Tuesday's election.... how many of those 21 Democrat Senators are going to have to show a much more pointed resistance to moving Obamacare forward and not extending the Bush tax cuts if they want to get re-elected?
Well... that was my point, too. In the House, at least, it was the Democrats who voted AGAINST health care reform that did so poorly - those that voted for it did significantly better (relatively speaking, of course). If there's a lesson to be learned, it could very well be that Dems shouldn't be running away from their party.
quote:
Per the Blue Dog theory- my guess is most of them got booted because unlike the true liberals, they promoted themselves as fiscal conservatives but folded like cheap lawn chairs when Pelosi put the smack down and voted in lock step for all the spending measures. $5 trillion in new deficits after Pelosi announced in 2007 that "there will be no new deficit spending" made them look like horrible liars;
Ok, hold on. Not that I don't disagree with the specifics of the argument you're making - deficits did increase after 2007 - but c'mon. A major economic crisis and a Wall Street bailout orchestrated by a Republican President represent a significant chunk of that deficit and not to acknowledge that seems misleading.
quote:
running on a platform promising to rein in the fiscal irresponsibility that had been rampant during the spendthrift Bush administration doesn't lend itself to success in future elections what that happens. It's funny to see the ones who survived now openly challenging Pelosi.
And if we have more tax payers in the system, a la job creation which happens when the top 1% are optimistic enough to invest their money and grow businesses, you won't have to worry about offsets in revenue losses.
That's a huge IF, with very little economic theory to support it. If we do see a surge in employment numbers over the next two years (if the tax decreases for the top 1% are approved), there's still little economic evidence to suggest that tax cuts will be the cause - remember, we're still only halfway into the stimulus!
I'm very skeptical to believe that tax cuts for the upper 1% will spur enough job creation to truly offset the massive loss in revenue ($700 billion annually) until I see data to support it.
quote:
I was wondering if we would even need insurance to the degree we do now if the healthcare industry was run like the animal hospital industry (or any regular private industry for that matter!). I'm not going to comment on or defend Bush's dumb statement there though... remember, he lost me around 2005/2006.
Noted re: Bush, but the principle is the same. Without insurance, how do those who can't afford health care get treated without dispersing more and more costs to those who can? That seems like free-market socialism (or something) to me!
I made the comment about demographics largely because I suspect that poor people aren't taking Fluffy to the vet. There is probably very little overlap between the uninsured and those utilizing veterinary services for their pets, so I don't know that the analogy is really apples to apples.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Spintastic! I don't know, a lot of people vote Democrat based solely on the social issues but are fiscally conservative. A lot of people vote for one party because their parents and grandparents voted that way, and that's just how it is. But ideology identification is what it is on that graph. And Mongoose looks dumb.
edit: ps- your avatar is freaking me out. :nervous:
Haha, I am one of that 23% of Dems who self-identify as conservative... fiscally, at least.
igottaknow
quote:
Originally posted by Moongoose
Well Rand Paul already does. He coudnt get the actual certification so he made one up.
Yet another thing i want to add here. The progressive take on why the dems lost and their reaction to it. ANd i coudnt agree more with them.
I'm unhappy that Obama hasn't done enough, but these guys don't address the reality of the situation. No matter how much Obama wanted healthcare and financial/bank reform it required Congress to pass the legislation. The Rep were going to block any bill for political advantage. This was clear when they refused to detail changes they wanted in the healthcare bill. If you could read their minds they were thinking, 'how about you put in something that will make it fail or how about we keep debating it until the elections and you'll be voted out for not accomplishing anything?'
On the Dems side, they walked a tight rope of passing something to show they accomplished something while on the other hand watering it down enough it wouldn't upset the special interests, who make large campaign donations to both sides.
The lesson learned from Clinton is you'll never be able to pass a bill that a powerful industry doesn't like. You can't win a two front war. Both the opposition party and the special interest will bombard the public with attack tv ads and industry will threaten to withdraw campaign donations to anyone who votes for it.
For the Healthcare industry (particularly health insurance) this was in a win/win situation. Don't pass anything we're making good money the way things are. Or pass something that we can take advantage of. For example, require everyone to buy health insurance while not putting in any competition measures, like a public option. Sure we'll agree not to deny or drop coverage for a pre-existing condition. How about we raise your rates until you can't afford coverage? We can always offer you a plan that you can afford that has a high deductible. Like you pay the first $10,000 every year and we'll kick in a percentage after that.
The problem the legislation didn't address with the current profit system we have is there is no incentive to insure sick people, high risk, pre-existing conditions, etc. You make money by insuring healthy people and denying as many claims as you can. I don't want to pin the entire problem on the insurance industry, after all the cost of care is so dam high they be out of business if they gave you coverage at an affordable price.
Same scenario played out for financial reform. I didn't have a problem with Tarp loans that were necessary to prevent a economic collapse, it was the lack of any legislation with teeth to prevent it from reoccurring. The Rep are worse than the Dems, they could have worked together and put their stamp on it but instead they choose win at all costs even if it means hurt the country in the process.
Once you understand how Congress works then its no mystery why term limits aren't on the list.
WhooCares
plain and simple
the CURRENT republican party is a cancer to American Democracy and progression
