Gingrich

[NightRychune]

people expected obama would actually change things? pffhahahahahaha

the point of obama was to inspire hope so people would go "look look we can really have a leader that's gonna make things better don't worry everyone it's gonna be okay!"

overall, electing mccain would have been far more beneficial to the country as a whole - and not because of face-value policy decisions, but because it would have been a continuation of the united states' policies over the past 8 years without the veiled "THINGS ARE GONNA BE BETTER EVERYONE" garbage that millions of people bought into.

as a result, the tea party would have never even been a thing, a movement similar to OWS would have likely occured years ago in its stead and the republicans would not have won anywhere near as many seats in 2010, and we could be hearing mccain crying about how a democratic congress won't let him continue to slash taxes and make destructive spending cuts instead of obama going "CONGRESS WON'T WORK WITH ME oh well that's okay i didn't really care anyway"

if only, if only

[germloucks]

QUOTE (Camaro @ Dec 5 2011, 06:22 PM) Obamacare, in its current form, might do a slight bit of good, but overall is toothless and will not help bend down trend, which is the real drag on healthcare. They shoulda just stolen Switzerland's universal coverage private model... I mean I guess they sorta did as is, but I don't really see it helping very much at all. The only cool thing that comes from it are the public and private exchanges and an acceleration into looking into ACO's (HMO Redux Baby!), and even then those won't do much more than cut down admin costs, which is GREAT, but cutting down on a small fraction of your total costs will yield negligible results as medical inflation continues its rather quick march into oblivion.

Still, ideologically, I believe Federal medical programs to be unconstitutional. This is something that the States should do as they wish. I have no qualms with states doing stuff like this (Massachusetts) or even a public single payer system! But it simply is not within the scope of unabused Federal Powers.

So overall I view him as more or less of accomplishing not a whole lot, HOWEVER, there is one very high praise I must give him. On MOST subjects he has deferred to congress to act. Now many whine and complain that that means he isn't showing leadership, or he doesn't want to act so hes leaving it to a congress which he knows wont actually pass anything... but the President is only supposed to be the EXECUTOR OF CONGRESSES WILL (supposedly closer to the People's will). So for that I give him credit as everyone else bashes him.

The healthcare bill is something that was a long time in the making. Its incarnation is not necessarily the best or most effective, but its really along the lines of the evolution of government over the last few centuries. Capitalism as a whole has tended more and more towards socialist programs in many ways to smooth out the bumps and provide "the people" with a bigger slice of the "pie" as a whole (which is essentially counter-capitalist) This is a global trend, with practically any democratically based government.

Capitalism with a human face, is the best way i've seen it described.

Now, on the issue of whether or not this is legal on constitutional grounds is definitely not for me to speculate on, although i am tempted to. I just havent studied that issue enough to be able to come up with any kind of educated opinion. However, i generally feel like the "general welfare" clause tends to give enough legitimacy. (interstate commerce clause aside) After all, noone is up in arms about mandates about auto-insurance. This really feels more like a partisan issue, than a legitimate constitutional one. Im SURE i could come up with a state constitution where their grounds to mandate car insurance is shaky at best, but noone care about that. Authority aside, mandating people to have car insurance makes sense. Same with the healthcare mandate, in my opinion.

Now on a purely political point of view, i think Hillary would have been able to manage this much better than Obama did. I feel like Obama largely allowed large-scale republican revolt on the issues all in the name of Bipartisanship. This is mostly impossible in the polarized political atmosphere that we have now (at least publicly acknowledged bipartisanship) Republicans are much to blame as well for their HOLD THE LINE strategy - read: "NONONO $#@! NO NO" I think Hillary would have been able to rally the troops much better than Obama did.

QUOTE (NightRychune @ Dec 5 2011, 09:07 PM) people expected obama would actually change things? pffhahahahahaha

the point of obama was to inspire hope so people would go "look look we can really have a leader that's gonna make things better don't worry everyone it's gonna be okay!"

overall, electing mccain would have been far more beneficial to the country as a whole - and not because of face-value policy decisions, but because it would have been a continuation of the united states' policies over the past 8 years without the veiled "THINGS ARE GONNA BE BETTER EVERYONE" garbage that millions of people bought into.

as a result, the tea party would have never even been a thing, a movement similar to OWS would have likely occured years ago in its stead and the republicans would not have won anywhere near as many seats in 2010, and we could be hearing mccain crying about how a democratic congress won't let him continue to slash taxes and make destructive spending cuts instead of obama going "CONGRESS WON'T WORK WITH ME oh well that's okay i didn't really care anyway"

if only, if only

I disagree. Hillary would have been the better choice here, instead of Obama or McCain. I think McCain would have made some disastrous foreign policy mistakes, especially with Iran and Pakistan, or even N Korea. What do you think McCain would have done about the Cheonan incident with the all the hawks in his cabinet? Kim Jong Il is like a $#@!ing honey badger. I'm not saying he was destined to $#@! something up, but i think the republican perspective on foreign policy long ago lost its big stick, but they will never admit that.

In my opinion, our domestic security largely depends on how much we avoid pissing off other people. In that regard, i think the Democrats generally do a better job because they dont have those national security and "American Exceptionalism" hawks freaking out at every perceived slight and recalcitrant foreign nation. At least, they arent trying to get re-elected by them.

[Camaro]

QUOTE (germloucks @ Dec 5 2011, 07:30 PM) Now, on the issue of whether or not this is legal on constitutional grounds is definitely not for me to speculate on, although i am tempted to. I just havent studied that issue enough to be able to come up with any kind of educated opinion. However, i generally feel like the "general welfare" clause tends to give enough legitimacy. (interstate commerce clause aside) After all, noone is up in arms about mandates about auto-insurance. This really feels more like a partisan issue, than a legitimate constitutional one. Im SURE i could come up with a state constitution where their grounds to mandate car insurance is shaky at best, but noone care about that. Authority aside, mandating people to have car insurance makes sense. Same with the healthcare mandate, in my opinion.

Oh I don't disagree with you about the mandate per se. I am just saying it is beyond the scope of the FEDERAL government. I see no issue with State governments doing the same however. You will notice there is no FEDERAL mandate for auto-insurance.

Very big difference.

The administrative savings of having 1 Federal Bureaucracy doing administration over 50 states would be rather negligible. I would prefer the greater customization and tailoring of benefits that 50 states could provide.

That being said, it does nothing to bend the rapid increase in medical inflation, which is the crux of the problem.

[germloucks]

QUOTE (Camaro @ Dec 5 2011, 10:36 PM) Oh I don't disagree with you about the mandate per se. I am just saying it is beyond the scope of the FEDERAL government. I see no issue with State governments doing the same however. You will notice there is no FEDERAL mandate for auto-insurance.

Very big difference.

The administrative savings of having 1 Federal Bureaucracy doing administration over 50 states would be rather negligible. I would prefer the greater customization and tailoring of benefits that 50 states could provide.

That being said, it does nothing to bend the rapid increase in medical inflation, which is the crux of the problem.

I know its not a Federal mandate for auto insurance, thats why i said that i was sure i could find a state constitution where the grounds for mandating auto insurance are shaky at best. My point was that noone cares about auto insurance mandates. If you ask almost anyone, it makes sense. It drives down the cost and provides protection for everyone.

You say there are benefits to States doing it, but i completely disagree. Leaving it to the states will leave a completely unnavigable patchwork of healthcare bills where each state tries to make its own point to its own people about this controversial issue. Its going to drive up the cost purely with the increase of cost of doing business in each state.


EDIT: If we want actually drive down costs, its going to require a cultural shift in addition to good legislation. People cant be clogging up the system with minor cold and flu stuff. More prevantative medicine, less obesity etc.

[Raveen]

Speaking as a pinko leftie liberal, wouldn't it be a good idea for the republicans to nominate a centrist candidate in the hope of attracting swing voters rather than someone who appeals to the grass roots (who will vote republican anyway)?

I've seen the same mistake made by opposition parties in the UK over the last 30 years and it makes for poor democracy as you have a 2 party system with 1 unelectable party.

[Bard]

QUOTE (Camaro @ Dec 5 2011, 08:22 PM) Obamacare, in its current form, might do a slight bit of good,

It's going to do more than that.

Insurers will now be forced to spend a minimum of 80% of their premium receipts on actual health care for their customers. Larger group insurers will have to spend at least 85%. If they fail to spend that much, they will have to issue refunds to the insured.

They will not be allowed to count marketing, salaries, sales commissions, or other overhead toward the 80%.

[CronoDroid]

QUOTE (Raveen @ Dec 6 2011, 08:21 AM) Speaking as a pinko leftie liberal, wouldn't it be a good idea for the republicans to nominate a centrist candidate in the hope of attracting swing voters rather than someone who appeals to the grass roots (who will vote republican anyway)?

I've seen the same mistake made by opposition parties in the UK over the last 30 years and it makes for poor democracy as you have a 2 party system with 1 unelectable party.

Ah, but the way the US primary system works leads to a very insidious outcome. The US Supreme Court struck down what they call a "blanket primary" back in 2000 where California changed the law to make it so that everyone could vote in one big primary for whichever candidate they want. The person from each party that gets the most votes then becomes the nominee. However since this was found unconstitutional, the US still uses mainly closed primaries (where only members of the party can vote), semi-closed primaries (where only members of the party and independents can vote) and open primaries (where you're allowed to vote in any primary but you're locked into that choice).

Thus by my reckoning in order to secure the nomination, you really have to appeal to the core Republican/Democratic demographic to ensure you get the nomination in the first place. Then later on during the Presidential election, we slowly see a shift towards the center in order to appeal to the swing voters like you say.

The insidious part comes in with the swing voters. I think I'm fairly accurate when I say that the majority of these guys are what they like to call "low information voters", that is they're fairly ignorant and easily swayed by the news media, plus they're most likely going to "vote by pocketbook", ie if we're in a recession, vote for the non-incumbent, if we're not, vote for the incumbent, regardless of what actually happened in American politics. Example: the huge Republican sweep of the last midterm elections because Obama came into office just as the recession hit.

Now the idea is to exploit these LIVs, since they're not fully aware of the happenings and stances of the candidates. They're voting on face value pretty much. Usually it's the media's job to keep these swing voters informed but since the mainstream media is largely complicit in ensuring the people stay mostly unaware of the real issues, and there we have the US democracy in action. As they say, the more things change the more they stay the same.

The solution to this would be to make people more informed, and I think social media and the internet are doing a good job of this. But progress is slow as always.

[Camaro]

QUOTE (germloucks @ Dec 6 2011, 07:09 AM) I know its not a Federal mandate for auto insurance, thats why i said that i was sure i could find a state constitution where the grounds for mandating auto insurance are shaky at best. My point was that noone cares about auto insurance mandates. If you ask almost anyone, it makes sense. It drives down the cost and provides protection for everyone.

You say there are benefits to States doing it, but i completely disagree. Leaving it to the states will leave a completely unnavigable patchwork of healthcare bills where each state tries to make its own point to its own people about this controversial issue. Its going to drive up the cost purely with the increase of cost of doing business in each state.


EDIT: If we want actually drive down costs, its going to require a cultural shift in addition to good legislation. People cant be clogging up the system with minor cold and flu stuff. More prevantative medicine, less obesity etc.

As a Constitutionalist I have to follow the law. The States are free to do this, the Feds cannot. The Feds can, of course, pass laws to help ease the process, but they cannot be the providers of Medical insurance (as Medicare and Medicaid should not be Federal programs either).

Passing laws at the Federal level does nothing but piss off half the country, doing so at lower levels of government will ensure that their programs are more tailored for their populace rather than just a blanket nation one. Hell some states may even figure out a way to unify the system without really doing much in the way of regulations.

QUOTE (Raveen @ Dec 6 2011, 07:21 AM) Speaking as a pinko leftie liberal, wouldn't it be a good idea for the republicans to nominate a centrist candidate in the hope of attracting swing voters rather than someone who appeals to the grass roots (who will vote republican anyway)?

I've seen the same mistake made by opposition parties in the UK over the last 30 years and it makes for poor democracy as you have a 2 party system with 1 unelectable party.

Romney and Paul have the greatest Independent Appeal. Paul has greater Far-Left appeal due to his anti-war stance... I believe any other nominee will have a hard fought war against Obama.

QUOTE (Bard @ Dec 6 2011, 09:19 AM) It's going to do more than that.

Insurers will now be forced to spend a minimum of 80% of their premium receipts on actual health care for their customers. Larger group insurers will have to spend at least 85%. If they fail to spend that much, they will have to issue refunds to the insured.

They will not be allowed to count marketing, salaries, sales commissions, or other overhead toward the 80%.

:yawn:

You won't see any improvement from that piece... at least not in the group markets. You see, the insurer across its X spectrum has to have at least X% MLR. MLR of course, is not defined yet, and is going to be defined differently than the industry currently defines it.

So if Business A has a loss ratio of 50%, and Business B has a loss ratio of 150%. Then the Carriers loss ratio for the product is 100% and thus no one gets refunds.

Normally if a carrier erred too far on the conservative side in their rating, they would give a rate pass (or a very tiny increase) the following year... after their client gets bids from other carriers they may even back off and give a rate decrease.


That being said, I am entirely unfamiliar with the individual market and so cannot comment on that... however considering that nearly ever carrier has been running deep into the red on individual policies as of late (the risk pool in the individual market is abhorrent as healthy people drop their coverage), I don't see this coming into play AT ALL.


No, the only savings you will see from the bill is its promotion of ACOs and the allowing of exchanges private and public (this may increase costs for employers however if they lose their good risk to the exchanges).

Any actual savings will need to come from, as germ said, a cultural shift... and... far more importantly... a great overhaul of our hospital system which, as a business model, is woefully archaic.

[Adept]

QUOTE (NightRychune @ Dec 6 2011, 07:07 AM) overall, electing mccain would have been far more beneficial to the country as a whole - and not because of face-value policy decisions, but because it would have been a continuation of the united states' policies over the past 8 years without the veiled "THINGS ARE GONNA BE BETTER EVERYONE" garbage that millions of people bought into.

as a result, the tea party would have never even been a thing, a movement similar to OWS would have likely occured years ago in its stead and the republicans would not have won anywhere near as many seats in 2010, and we could be hearing mccain crying about how a democratic congress won't let him continue to slash taxes and make destructive spending cuts instead of obama going "CONGRESS WON'T WORK WITH ME oh well that's okay i didn't really care anyway"

if only, if only

Deliciously cynical viewpoint Virulence... and probably all too true. Nicely done

[Camaro]

The Tea Party started in 2008. The upswing is that it wouldn't have been co-opted by the Republicans because it woulda remainded a sleeper force rather than an overt one.

Anyways I like this ad, deliciously anti-war:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY...player_embedded