Health Care Bill Just Passed to Senate Floor

Horde Hoard stuffing this Thanksgiving. The Senate version of the Affordable Healthcare for Americans Act has passed out of committee by a vote of 60-39. After the Turkey Day vacation, the Senate will reconvene for floor debate.

Legislative experts, please correct: Should this bill pass the Senate, that version will then be reconciled with the recently passed House version, and the reconciled version will then be signed by the president.

Enjoy your Sunday morning.

(Thanks to Brian Sorgatz for pointing out my moronic spelling error.)

Comments

[Warty]

Well. Fuck.

[Silentz]

That's pretty much all that needs to be said.

[JW]

Fuck, fuck, fuckity, fuck.

FUCK!

[juris imprudent]

Will you kiss me?

[hellp]

I may be wrong (hell, I only had 3 years in a top law school and passed the bar with flying colors), but I think that "reconciled" means up for another vote, but only straight up or down majority with no chance for filibuster - then on to Dear Leader for his blessing

[hellp]

Well, time for me to apply for my Hong Kong residency ID card

[Chad]

Have fun in Hong Kong. I hope you either got luck or money, because you will need the former to avoid getting sick, and the lots latter if if you do.

[Jeffersonian]

Much better than stealing it, Chad.

[The Libertarian Guy]

To Chad, it's not our money... it's theirs.

[Chad]

Yes, yes. Taxation is "theft". Keep bleating your mantras.

[Justo Montoya]

actually Chad healthcare is much cheaper in Hong Kong

[Chad]

It's cheaper anywhere outside the US. The HK system is basically heavily rationed, super-long wait time care for the masses, and expensive private insurance for the rich and ex-pats. So yes, the ultra-rich like it, because they get theirs. Who cares about the rest?

[EB]

wow, Chad just described the future of the american system

[PapayaSF]

*Rimshot*!

[yonemoto]

no. Taxation isn't theft. It's slavery.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Yes, yes. Taxation is punishment. And you are one of the biggest floggers here.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Um, that was for Chad and his fellow travelers, not yonemoto.

Damn these threaded comments!

[JB]

Hey Chad, what's your address?

So when I decide to come over and take all your shit, you won't call it theft.

[Chad]

I do not support vigilante justice. I doubt you do, either.

Sorry, but you will have to go through due process.

[JB]

Oh, it will be due alright.

[hellp]

Retard. Do you no anything about HK or the health system.

Keep running your mouth.

[hellp]

er ... "Know" not "no". Sorry, had a Chad moment.

[juris imprudent]

Joez law, even though Joe ain't around anymore.

[sage]

I thought the house and senate versions were miles apart. Was that just wishful thinking?

[juris imprudent]

This is where the real sausage making gets done.

[Colonel_Angus]

Fuckity fuck fuck. What's the likeliness of the filibuster happening? What's the likeliness of a bloody war happening?

[sage]

Once joe six pack gets hit with the choice of a huge bill or a huge fine, that'll help things along in a hurry.

[Agent Provacateur]

My informal survey of "Joe Sixpacks" reveals they nearly all think the "public option" is free insurance for when you don't have it through an employer.Most of the Sixpack clan I know is college degreed and well read too.Might be the reason this doesn't start until 2013.The Sixpacks are gonna be pissed if they have to pay anything more than a small co-pay,particularly if the payment is a fine and they still don't have insurance.

[sage]

Oh, and I'll get to drink later...UFC 106 at a friend's house. No Karo Parisyan, unfortunately.

[Snowball]

This is the way the world ends

[Colonel_Angus]

Sadly its something as stupid as this. But its setting us up for a massive statist economy.

[hellp]

"Whats the likeliness of a filibuster happening..?

From Salon (via NRO)

"[T]his is just one procedural vote. The more daunting hurdle of the cloture vote to break a filibuster and hold an up-or-down vote on the bill itself still lies ahead, and there Reid may have serious trouble, especially if a plan to create a government-run insurance provider ? the public option ? remains in it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who is a member of the Democratic caucus, has already said he'll vote to filibuster a bill that contains any form of the public option. (He is voting for cloture tonight, but not, he says, the next time around.) And on Saturday, Lincoln too threatened to support a filibuster of the legislation if it includes the public option.

Both will be tough nuts for Reid to crack. Lieberman's not up for re-election next year, and has already been taunting liberals by saying he's not afraid of possible retribution. Lincoln, on the other hand, is up for re-election ? and that's the problem. She's seriously vulnerable, and is looking at polling numbers that seem to indicate voting with her party to support a public plan would only put her in a more precarious position."

[NAL]

As I understood it, this was just a vote to open up the floor to debating the bill.

[Peter K.]

60 to 39%? Who did not vote?

[Kevin]

george voinovich

[Tulpa]

I didn't vote either.

[Lysander Spooner]

Me neither! And I won't!

[Ted Kennedy]

I'm too busy being dead - and roasting in hell - to vote.

But my colleagues will make sure there are enough illegal aliens to keep voting us into power.

Damn, these flames are hot. I could use a good stiff drink.

[Satan]

Open wide.

[Robert Byrd]

I voted. Well, they wheeled me in and I drooled...
Which passes for voting in the Senate.

[Senate Ethics Committee]

Mr. Byrd, when will you release your Civil War medical records?

[Kelley]

"Hoard" perhaps?

[Brian Sorgatz]

That's right. "Horde" should be "hoard" in Cavanaugh's post. Neither word should be confused with "whored," what the Senators have done.

[Nipplemancer]

voinovich missed the vote

[sage]

George Voinovich was the one who did not vote, if anyone's wondering.

[Lee Cruz]

It's good news... Just another unfunded liability to speed up the destruction of the current regime.

[smartass sob]

Yes, the current regime may very well go under - but I can almost guarantee that you won't like what it's replaced with.

[JB]

Open season on Obama zombies?

I'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing.

[qwerty]

"So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."

Revenge of the Sith

[smartass sob]

God. damn. them. all. to. hell.

[sage]

Eat a bag of dicks. You suck!

[smartass sob]

WTF? I'm against the bill, Sage. Are you for it?

[sage]

Sorry, that was for Tim. For ruining our Sunday morning which isn't here yet.

[Slut Bunwalla]

Hey guys, George Voinovich didn't vote, in case you missed that bit of information.

[sage]

Fuck that guy.

[Colin]

For cloture votes it only matters who votes. Not being present is as good as a "no."

[Xeones]

I'm curious: did George Voinovich vote?

Seriously, though, FUCK.

[George Voinovich]

Yo, don't blame me!

[Joe Kristan]

It's insane, it's unpopular, it can never work, so it gets 60 votes. As bad as the last Congress and administration were, it got much worse.

[NAL]

I think one of the main problems is the mainstream media swoons over every idea that comes out of this administration. That's one of the advantages of a Republican administration...the mainstream press actually does its job.

[Tulpa]

Agreed. Everything the administration does is deemed "historic". Of course any student of history knows that that's usually not a good thing.

[anarch]

Tulpa wins the 6,000-year thread.

[Chad]

I think you need to quit watching FOX long enough to actually watch the "mainstream media".

[*]

I think you got a bug in your browser, Bowser. Hee! Hee!

[Ed Schultz]

That's just a glitch in the brainwashing. Me and Keith Olbermann will have him fully drooling in lockstep by the time he puts up his next anti-capitalist posting.

[juris imprudent]

Will we be able to tell the difference?

[Chad]

I think you need to quit watching FOX long enough to actually watch the "mainstream media".

[Jim Treacher]

I think you need to stop relying on MSNBC to tell you what to think about Fox News.

[Chad]

In case you hadn't noticed, I spend a lot of time away from my choir.

[Tulpa]

Demons carry their hellfire with them. And so it is with liberals.

[Hazel Meade]

That works better if you say "priests".

[Jim Treacher]

Restraining orders are a bitch, huh?

[MJ]

It;s what we get when we give Democrats supermajorities in both houses of Congress and the presidency. The only option if you do not like this is to spank them hard in the 2010 elections.

[jester]

It's what we get when our lazy neighbors give us supermajorities in both houses and the presidency. I don't think a lot of us at H&R are really responsible for what's going on.

[prolefeed]

What's the likeliness of the filibuster happening?

It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. Absent that vote, a filibuster is guaranteed.

***

If by "reconciled", you mean "sent to conference committee, and then if a majority there can agree on joint language, sending out a single bill for a vote in both chambers", then sure.

Or are you talking about some procedure to bypass conference committee.

[brotherben]

I'm seeing a small groundswell down here among middle-class working people for a public option. People are getting a bit worried about losing their job and their insurance with it. That govt healthcare for everyone is gaining ground as the economy seems to be getting weaker. Yes I know. It ignores a few important facts. I'm just mentioning what I am hearing in S.E. Alabama.

[Michael Ejercito]

I think one of the main problems is the mainstream media swoons over every idea that comes out of this administration. That's one of the advantages of a Republican administration...the mainstream press actually does its job.

Why do they not lobby their own state government to pass its public option, like Massachussetts and Tennessee did?

This is something that should be handled at state level.

[Jim Treacher]

"This fire sure is hot. I wish somebody would dump some kerosene on us."

[JB]

There is definitely some justice in watching certain people burn to death.

[lol]

damn, if Jewberman can hold this up, I might consider thinking about forgiving him for his hatred of video games.

[Aresen]

I don't like Lieberman, but I like your anti-semitic crack even less.

[Colin]

+1

[anarch]

He meant Yidberman, entre-nous.

And should have said Yidberperson. Not OK!

[Rich]

"I'd like to ... but I can't."

What everybody's saying.

[smartass sob]

I see the broad from Loserana decided to vote for it after they put $100 billion in it for help for the "poor" in her state. Hell, haven't the taxpayers done enough for them since Katrina?

[smartass sob]

Make that $100 million. Sorry.

[Aresen]

Oh, it will probably work out to $100 billion. Just give it time.

[Tulpa]

It's $100 million, not billion. I'll say this for Landreiu, at least she's transparent about her whoredom; she was gabbing to all sorts of reporters about how she said she'd withhold support from the bill unless they shoveled her state some money in return.

[brotherben]

She's no different from so many others. As long as the govt keeps handing out sackfuls of money, it's her job to bring home as much as possible.

[Eliot Spitzer]

Is she hot? What's it take to get a 'round the world from her?

Not that I want to want to know, but I've got this friend...

[Laoshi]

Who was it who said something to the effect that, "I'm not surprised a politician can be bought, I'm just surprised they can be bought so cheaply."

[ransom147]

according to google, you did.

[*]

Actually, according to Ms. Landrieu herself, it was $300 million. It's to help those poor souls in Louisiana pay for their mandatory health insurance.

[MCab]

I don't appreciate what you call my state. With that said, I do not want more money to go to my state as well.

[smartass sob]

Texas doesn't appreciate your "evacuees" either. Perhaps you'd like them back?

[MCab]

Still a free country in that regard, they can go where they please.

[ransom147]

i bet the dems running houston love them. look to see some heavy state and federal gerrymandering...

[smartass sob]

Many of the people living in Houston don't love them. I've met people who actually moved out of neighborhoods, in which they've resided for many years, because of the increased crime brought by the poor, unfortunate evacuees. Houston really didn't need anymore gangbangers.

[Haakon]

Well it is about damned time that the US started to catch up with the rest of the civilized world and started ignoring all of you tunnel-visioned immoderate loonies... hehe.

That being said, I'll still keep reading Reason and agreeing with a lot of libertarian philosophy...

... health care will have to be an ongoing contention between myself and all of you anarcho-boys.

Not interested in a debate, either, I've made up my mind on the fact that private insurance is a horrible system in which the economic externalities out-sway any sort of free market auto-correction.

It's like highways, the police, etc... more problems caused by not having the government intervene...

...anyways, I know that most of you will never leave your roosts on the mountain of the-government-always-fucks-up...

... but I don't care!

I mainly came to gloat.

😛

[Nipplemancer]

may you die a horrible and painful death at the hands of the state you love so much.

[Colin]

No, may he suffer a horrible disease and have no recourse but the state.

Then, he will surely die the horrible and painful death.

. . . hehe

[Cowards]

Wow! Real intelligent losers here cowardly wishing death upon someone they don't even know. Obviously everything and anything positive happening in our world is taken down a notch by bitches like you guys...

[Art-P.O.G.]

Very astute point...wait...you suck!

[JB]

Fuck off and die you piece of shit.

The sooner the better.

[Sicko]

Laugh while you can monkey boy.

[Warty]

I don't know why it is...

...that kids these days cant rite 4 shit...

..but it makes it hard to take them ...

...srsly...

LOL...

Enjoy pulling your own teeth out 20 years from now because there's an 18-month waiting list for a dentist, fuckface.

[Colin]

+1

[Cowards]

We all need dentists anyway so please tell me how they're doing it nowadays? How is it going to be any different jackass?

[Jim Treacher]

Well said.

[Moose]

Dunno about you, but nowadays I rarely have to wait for an appointment with my dentist. Longest wait I've had has been about a week, but emergency stuff has always been same- or next-day.

Contrast that with the government-run and government-funded dental care I received in the military. Long wait times (four weeks or more), surly dentists, and threats of criminal charges when I complained about the sub-standard treatment.

Since I've been out, I've spent approximately $10k on fixing the damage they did to my mouth. But, hey, it was FREE, right?

[hmm]

That's interesting since most of the externalities, positive or negative, you speak of come from government intervention in one form or another.

Sort of shot yourself in the foot on that one if you know a little about the history of the system and how it works.

[Chad]

The adverse selection problem is inherent in any form of optional health insurance, regardless of who pays for it. It is rooted in the ability for healthy people to drop or reduce their coverage, which in turn increases the costs for those remaining under the insurance, when then causes more people to drop or reduce. The end result is a lot of uninsured but realitively healthy people hoping to stay lucky, and a lot of sick people with really high premiums, which defeat the point of insurance in the first place.

This is compounded by the cherry-picking and lemon-dropping performed by the insurance companies. The lucky healthy people win again as the companies offer all sorts of incentives to stay, while the unlucky sick people are one missed date on a check from losing their insurance forever.

[qwerty]

which defeat the point of insurance in the first place

Actually, the point of insurance is to protect against unexpected losses. When health people are forced to pay for the existing conditions of the sick, that's not insurance, that's a transfer payment.

[Chad]

At some point in time, being really sick IS an unexpected event. The difference between health insurance and other insurances is that sickness can last a lifetime. Car accidents and fires do not.

No one has yet invented a way for a market to deal with this pre-existing condition issue. What would really have to happen is for your current insurance company to be on the hook for any disease you develop while insured by them FOR LIFE. Then, there would be (in principle at least), no problem switching insurers, because your new insurer would not be responsible for the "expected" condition you already have - just like other insurance. However, such a system is unworkable in practice because there are no clear lines between diseases, and your new and old insurance companies would never agree on who owes who what.

[Russ R.]

Chad,

These are two of the few thoughtful and intelligent things you've written, but I suggest you think them through to their conclusions.

"The adverse selection problem is inherent in any form of optional health insurance, regardless of who pays for it. It is rooted in the ability for healthy people to drop or reduce their coverage, which in turn increases the costs for those remaining under the insurance, when then causes more people to drop or reduce."

The problem only exists when insurers are required to cover everyone at the same price, regardless of risk factors. When each individual can be quoted a premium that reflects that individuals risk profile (healthy people pay less than unhealthy people), the adverse selection problem vanishes.

Conversely, when the government becomes the "insurer-of-last-resort" for all high risk individuals and is required to offer insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions or state of health, the adverse selection problem persists and comes to rest on the taxpayer. Unless the "public option" is going to come with higher premiums than private insurers, but that's certainly not how it's being promoted.

"What would really have to happen is for your current insurance company to be on the hook for any disease you develop while insured by them FOR LIFE. Then, there would be (in principle at least), no problem switching insurers, because your new insurer would not be responsible for the "expected" condition you already have - just like other insurance."

If the insurance company is going to underwrite a lifetime of risk coverage for its customers, you have to expect that premiums will need to rise to compensate for that added risk. I'm not sure whether or not you've factored this into your thinking, but it's pretty much inevitable.

[Chad]

Russ, you are right. If insurance companies had perfect information on every one of their customers, they could completely eliminate the adverse selection problem. They would simply charge each person exactly how much they would cost, plus overhead.

But that would imply that THERE IS NO LONGER ANY INSURANCE. Sick people would be paying their full costs, and healthy people almost zero. The only way for the market to "solve" the adverse selection problem is to reduce or eliminate the insurance that is causing it. This can clearly be seen in the debate that was occuring in these bills, where there was argument over how much more the highest premiums could be than the lowest. I am not sure if this has been settled yet, but numbers like 2x and 5x were being thrown around.

If you choose 2x, you get more adverse selection because younger, healthier people will opt out. If you choose 5x, sick people will be paying a hell of a lot for insurance and many will go bankrupt. The direct tradeoff between adverse selection and actually insuring sick people can be seen quite clearly.

You are right about the government (or the public option) becoming an insurer-of-last-resort. This is why the public option, as formulated, probably won't work. The way to defeat adverse selection is to insure everyone all the time. No selection = no selection, adverse or otherwise.

[Russ R.]

"If insurance companies had perfect information on every one of their customers, they could completely eliminate the adverse selection problem. They would simply charge each person exactly how much they would cost, plus overhead."

Close, but there's an important nuance. Perfect information is not a necessary condition for an insurance market to function without adverse selection.

The information can be imperfect as long as it is symmetric.

I don't know what my risk for cancer is, and neither does the insurance company, but as a 32 year old, non-smoking male, with no family history, we can both make pretty reasonable guesses and will probably come up with similarly low probabilities. The information is imperfect, but there is no assymetry, since neither party knows what my actual costs will be. As long as they are allowed to price my premiums to reflect the lower probability, there is no problem.

However, if they quote me a group rate that's substantially higher than what my assessment or my personal risk factors would justify, only then would I opt out of coverage.

"there was argument over how much more the highest premiums could be than the lowest. I am not sure if this has been settled yet, but numbers like 2x and 5x were being thrown around."

Unfortunately, for the market to work, there shouldn't be an arbritrary limit imposed on what insurers can and can't charge. This is another instance of government involvement impairing an otherwise functioning market.

It is these very constraints that drive insurers to drop high risk individuals and cause low risk customers to opt out.

"If you choose 2x, you get more adverse selection because younger, healthier people will opt out. If you choose 5x, sick people will be paying a hell of a lot for insurance and many will go bankrupt."

This is where we will have to agree to disagree. I think sick people SHOULD be paying more for health insurance, just as old people should be paying more for life insurance, and bad drivers should be paying more for auto insurance.

[Chad]

If sick people have to pay a hell of a lot, and really sick people have to pay astronomical sums that nobody but the ultra-rich can afford, what the hell is the point of the insurance? Having to pay more than we can handle is precisely what we are attempting to insure against.

You are right that the insurance industry would only need symmetric information to execute your idea, but your idea is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Every "cure" for the adverse selection problem that libertarians come up with ultimately means un-insuring people, or neutering the insurance to the point as one may as well be uninsured.

The alternative solution, which everyone else on earth has figured out, is to eliminate the selection in the first place.

[anonymous]

"If sick people have to pay a hell of a lot, and really sick people have to pay astronomical sums that nobody but the ultra-rich can afford, what the hell is the point of the insurance?"

Well, you're supposed to buy it before you get sick. And as you point out, it would be perfectly reasonable to force insurers to continue covering ongoing treatment for any illness or complication of an illness that occurred while the policy was in effect, up to the maximum on the policy.

If we also tweaked the system so that people individually had policies rather than through their employer, then they wouldn't be hit with the double whammy of losing their job and their insurance in the first place, so they would be much more likely to be insured when they get sick.

[Chad]

And what happens when people lose their insurance after getting sick? Remember, the day you start costing your insurance company a frickin' nickle, they will look for any excuse to drop you. One late (or "lost") check, or one undotted "i" on your application, and you are bleeped until 65.

In any case, even if you do manage to stay with them, they now own your ass. You cannot switch to anyone else, and they know it.

Such a relationship is utterly disfunctional.

[Yacob]

Chad: at its most basic level, the purpose of insurance is to protect against the risk of loss. Insurance is not designed to serve as pre-payment for future services, or to enable those who need certain services that they can't afford to obtain them at prices they can afford, whatever that may be.

As it relates to healthcare, if you are already really sick, your risk of "loss" is already significant. Therefore an insurance company is necessarily going to charge you more, if it will cover you at all. After all, an auto insurer isn't going to provide cheap collision coverage for an old clunker, or pay to fix body damage that occurred before you had coverage.

You seem to confuse the concept of insurance with the concept of charity. You want a system in which the "insurance" companies become "ensurance" companies. In other words, you would have that they be completely unconcerned with actual risk and instead take on the responsibility of "ensuring" that individuals don't go broke paying for the medical services their policies can cover.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, however. Insurance is not a right, and if you turn insurance companies into "ensurance" companies, there will be little incentive to engage in the business of health insurance. If you want Uncle Sam to provide "affordable" health insurance (or healthcare directly), be prepared to pay for it in the form of greater deficits and greater taxes, including that not-so-fun tax called "inflation".

[Russ R.]

"If sick people have to pay a hell of a lot, and really sick people have to pay astronomical sums that nobody but the ultra-rich can afford, what the hell is the point of the insurance? "

The point of insurance is that people with higher risks pay higher premiums. TANSTAAFL.

"Having to pay more than we can handle is precisely what we are attempting to insure against."

No. Being protected against "unexpected" costs is the point of insurance. Having someone else pay for expected costs that are unaffordable is called welfare. You can't characterize medical insurance as a market failure because it doesn't provide welfare. (That said, the health care industry does provide an inordinate amount of charity -- I don't know of a single hospital that doesn't operate a charitable foundation or endowment.)

"The alternative solution, which everyone else on earth has figured out, is to eliminate the selection in the first place."

You're correct on this, in a very narrow sense, but it raises other problems. Canada (where I live) doesn't have a problem with adverse selection. However, it has other equally severe problems, namely 1. no curbs on demand since nobody pays any costs out of pocket, 2. no incentive to provide quality service, since customers have no alternatives, and 3. no efficient way to allocate the provision of care apart from a waiting list.

My experience is that the Canadian system is fine for issues that require a visit to a doctor and a pharmacy, but if you need an x-ray, MRI, or any form of surgery, be prepared to wait. (It took me 10 days from my first visit to an emergency room to get a cast put on a broken hand.)

But don't take my word for it... I suggest you talk to other people who live in Canada or the UK, and find out how long waiting lists run. Months to years is par for the course.

[Chad]

And I suggest you try any of the many nations who have similar or shorter waiting times than the US. Japan is certainly one. There is nothing inherent about long wait times in a single-payer system. Indeed, while our wait times for surgery are short, our wait times to see our primary care physician are actually fairly poor. Again, don't assume that we are number one, because we ain't.

I also suggest you read the article that I posted at the current bottom of the thread. Here in the US, we actually pay less out of pocket than people of most other nations, as a fraction of our total spending. Clearly, the resulting moral hazard is as great here as just about any of the social systems. The moral hazard is inherent to insurance. You can only get rid of it by upping copays and deductibles. You get rid of it completely only when you have 100% copays and infinite deductibles...in other words, no insurance at all.

When does a disease become "expected"? I buy insurance because to mitigate the costs of unexpected, expensive conditions. If I ever contract one, the expenses immediately become "expected", but I continue to need to purchase insurance. If that insurance sky-rockets in price because I am sick, what did I gain by being insured? At best, I am locked into a contract where I can stick with my old plan at the old price indefinitely, but as I noted above, this is a completely disfunctional monopolistic relationship which one side has every incentive to undermine.

[junior]

Here's a serious idea for dealing with the problem of pre-existing conditions. Government can and is involved at the state level. If you're essentially uninsurable then you can sign up for the state plan. It's a public option at the state level. It's done in many states and works fine.

Why do the feds need to open up a public option to all comers in order to fix this problem?

[oaktownadam]

That's the problem: the state run plans don't "work fine".

They're all going bankrupt, which is one of the reasons Democrats have been talking like the end of the world is at hand if we don't Federalize this mistake.

[Chad]

Right. So all the really sick people get lumped into the same pool, which is therefore outrageously expensive. The sick people then go broke trying to pay for it, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO INSURE AGAINST.

How hard is it for you guys to grasp how adverse selection is inevitable in any optional form of health insurance?

[oaktownadam]

I'm just in awe of how Chad can describe some of the immutable truths of life (getting old and getting sick) as "unexpected".

Or is the only reason anyone dies these days because they don't have state-provided healthcare?

[hmm]

Um, adverse selection really isn't an externality. Forcing everyone to enroll and creating a bunch criminals is. Capping wages and watching business get around the legislation with the incentive of health insurance is an externality. Not taxing such benefits further increasing their use as pay and driving up the subsidized rates of health care is a negative externality.

You see. The people solving the problem, created the problem. This makes my faith in their ability to solve the problem a little shaky.

[hmm]

Government is the reigning king of negative externalities.

[ap]

just another reason i hate this country. schmucks like yourself.

[sage]

I mainly came to gloaton a goat.

How sad. I prefer women. But whatever, so long as the goat consents.

[Michael Ejercito]

I've made up my mind on the fact that private insurance is a horrible system in which the economic externalities out-sway any sort of free market auto-correction.

So why is this limited to health insurance?

Why no public options for auto, fire, and life insurance?

[Chad]

Because car crashes, home fires, and death are one-off, low probability events, which are easy to insure against and have minimal adverse selection problems.

[JB]

Death is a low probability event?

Proof that Chad does live in another universe.

[Chad]

The ones you insure against are.

[hmm]

Ya, there is minimal adverse selection problem in property and death insurance. It's not because of the probability of the event. It's because of the restrictions on getting the contract.

Since you love adverse selection, what about the after the fact issue of moral hazard? YaY I have to have insurance so I can pound twinkies, drive 1000 mph, fuck everything in sight w/o protection, do a little heroin, maybe even engage in some flat out asshatery because uncle sam will fix my ass. That's just as plausible as your seriously misunderstood use of adverse selection and how it is dealt with.

Of course you can argue government can solve the largest problem of both, asymmetric information, by just tracking all citizens. Then no adverse selection or moral hazard.

[Chad]

I agree. Moral hazards are a problem. In this case, however, they are much less of an issue than the adverse selection, as evidenced by how well other nations' systems work.

In any case, the moral hazard issue is inherent to insurance, and not related to who pays for it. Many of the national plans other countries have included co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket maximums much like many of our private plans to, precisely because they mitigate the moral hazard.

[Michael Ejercito]

Because car crashes, home fires, and death are one-off, low probability events, which are easy to insure against and have minimal adverse selection problems.

You forget about the concept of a time horizon.

The probability of a house in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains burning down in the next thirty years is much higher than the probability of the house burning down this year.

Same principle applies to the probability of medical care.

[Chad]

Your house burning down is still a one-off low probability event, and there is little information asymmetry. There is no problem here, just higher payments to reflect the higher risk.

[anonymous]

Care that would be unattainable even if you saved up every year for healthcare is also fairly low probability for most people, otherwise all the insurance companies would be out of business.

[Jim Treacher]

Not interested in a debate, either

Good. Go fuck yourself.

[PapayaSF]

more problems caused by not having the government intervene

Yes, because we all know how the government has never before intervened in the areas of healthcare or insurance! *rolls eyes*

[conncrete]

i think they only have to have 50 votes on the next go round!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Colin]

One more cloture vote requiring 60 votes; and if they get passed that, then we're pretty much doomed. Only Democratic implosion would save us then.

[*]

Well it is about damned time that the US started to catch up with the rest of the civilized world

You'll have to pardon me for wondering if anyone with such a name could be from a place that anyone would actually consider civilized.

[Ed Schultz]

Comrade Chad is correct. Soon, all will bow before myself and Olbermann, for we are all-knowing and not the least bit elitist.

Oh, and Maddow, too.

[Rimfax]

The coolest part is that since the U.S. effectively subsidizes innovation and drug prices for the rest of the world's socialized medicine, the rest of the world will get fucked by this far worse than the U.S. will.

[sage]

Ah, I get it.

We'll kill them off, take their land, and go there for vacation.

[Chad]

Really? We aren't number one in private medical R&D as a fraction of GDP. I'll let you figure out who is.

Pro-hint: Start by looking at the countries with the highest overall R&D. That ain't us, either.

We do, however, generously fund NIH, which does vault is way up the ladder of overall medical R&D. But libertarians oppose NIH. Also, I wonder if you noticed how R&D, particularly at big pharma, has been utterly slaughtered during this recession. This jobs won't come back, to the US at least.

Yet another American assuming we are #1 when we ain't.

[sage]

Well, I can't find the stats for health care R&D, but there's this:

US #1 on health spending as a % of GDP:
http://www.nationmaster.com/gr.....diture-gdp

Am I wrong in assuming we're #1 there?

[JB]

You are not wrong. Chad is an idiot. Something like 90%-98% of drug development happens in the US.

[Chad]

Yes, we SPEND more on health care than everyone else...for care that is no better. That isn't a good thing.

We do the most medical research in raw terms because we are the largest rich nation, but not as a fraction of our economy.

[oaktownadam]

"care that is no better"

Would you care to elaborate? How is it that the US, with its higher risk lifestyles, and higher violent crime rates, can even approach European life expectancies?

Why is it that the average US life expectancy is only half a year less than the EU? After all, we have 5x the violent crime rate, and 2-3x the traffic fatality rate.

So if our healthcare is no better, wouldn't we expect to be doing much, much worse than we are?

[Rimfax]

Many, if not most, companies that do the majority of the R&D are not based in the U.S., but their R&D coffers are filled in the U.S. So, you're kinda right, as long as you ignore where the money comes from.

[smartass sob]

People like Chad always like to ignore where the money comes from.

[tkwelge]

The issue isn't what each country spends on R and D. The issue is the incentive to spend that money on R and D. Obviously, since Americans pay top dollar and don't force drug companies to sell meds at a discount, it is fair to say that the US is driving the demand for all of the newest and hottest medical devices.

[Chad]

Which is why Japan vastly outspends us on all forms of R&D (per GDP), has more of the fancy gadgets, takes more drugs, and doesn't really sell much of its home-grown pharmas here?

[tkwelge]

You missed my damn point. The point is that drug companies need profit to justify R and D. Who's paying for their profits? Is it Japan or the US? Well, Japan spends about half as much on healthcare and many doctors complain that they only receive 4 dollars to treat a broken limb. I would argue that without the profit motive in the US, their would be much less incentive to innovate. Regardless of where the R and D takes place and where it is geographically available, the profits that medical companies can only make in the US is the only thing really driving medical science. The other nations in Europe in addittion to Japan extort companies into taking a loss at many times.

[tkwelge]

In other words, we're not just saying that their is more funding for R and D in the US. That isn't the argument. The point is that US medical spending drives innovation around the world, in lots of different forms. So all of your quoting of other nations' stats is missing the point entirely. Get it? The argument isn't, "We innovate more!" but, "We encourage innovation, even in countries that have national health care, because our country is where the money is, and other nations can simply free ride." Let us shell out the bills to encourage other countries to continue to innovate, so they can receive the benefits with less of the cost. I would argue that, in many cases, drug and tech companies charge citizens of the US even more to make up for the lack of revenue from other countries. Kind of like how Medicare tells hospitals they can only charge X for this and that service, so the hospital charges the regular patients more to make up the difference. It's international competitive collective bargaining. Basically, it's a disguised trade war.

[tkwelge]

The issue isn't whether or not Japan is selling its home grown pharma here. The fact is that their is less INCENTIVE for RESEARCH to take place anywhere at anytime when profits are smaller.

[tkwelge]

The issue isn't whether or not Japan is selling its home grown pharma here. The fact is that their is less INCENTIVE for RESEARCH to take place anywhere at anytime when profits are smaller.

[tkwelge]

It doesn't matter how much money Japan shells out on R and D, it is probably discouraging just as much R and D with its controlled market. I can't think of a way to make this argument any clearer to you.

[tkwelge]

It doesn't matter how much money Japan shells out on R and D, it is probably discouraging just as much R and D with its controlled market. I can't think of a way to make this argument any clearer to you.

[brotherben]

If this means that the writing is on the wall, it's just a matter of time till the republicans facing re-election next year start to cave so they don't get called anti-poor.

[smartass sob]

I'm afraid you are probably correct.

[ap]

in what world do you live? republicans were portrayed as anti-poor with no child left behind and medicare part d, neither of which was remotely anti-poor. republicans are by default and at all times racists and anti-poor in the media.

[ap]

meaning - that won't make a difference to them. unless they are really stupid, which is possible since some of them sold out to keep abortion funding from being in the house bill. i can't believe they trusted that the abortion language will not be gutted as soon as the thing passes

[brotherben]

All I was saying is that when it looks like the bill is a lock, the Rs will start to jump on board so the charge of "letting the poor die without healthcare" can't be brought in a campaign ad. Those with a race in 2010 will be the first onboard.

[JB]

The Republicans only hope is to stop acting like Democrat-lite.

That's what the 2006 and 2008 elections were about. Conservatives stayed home and independents went with real Democrats instead of the fake ones.

[ransom147]

well that means that americans are stupid. the poor already get free medical...

[Chad]

No, Republicans were portrayed as "anti-poor" when they gave loads of tax-breaks (and now out-right cash) to Wall Street, and indebted main street until the end of time.

I am sorry, but the Goldman gang can afford to pay a whee bit more in taxes.

[Jeffersonian]

If you think it's just the G-S gang that's going to be paying through the ass for this, Chad, you're dumber than I thought.

[Chad]

Actually, several proposals on the table would hit them pretty good, such as increases in capital gains rates and increases in the Medicare tax (which has no limit, unlike social security).

I am sure all their yacht and ferrari hobbies will ring up a nice bit of VAT and carbon tax, too.

[The Libertarian Guy]

There you go, right back to the "raise taxes and increase the power of the government and that will fix everything" well. You just can't keep the bucket out of it, can you?

Why hasn't the war on poverty cured poverty, Chad? We've spent trillions since FDR and LBJ foisted their horseshit policies on us. We could've just given thousands of dollars to every man, woman, and child instead... and it would've probably had the same net effect as ladling out food stamps and shitty public housing.

Well, at least MY welfare footprint is tiny. How big is yours?

[Michael Ejercito]

Why hasn't the war on poverty cured poverty, Chad? We've spent trillions since FDR and LBJ foisted their horseshit policies on us. We could've just given thousands of dollars to every man, woman, and child instead... and it would've probably had the same net effect as ladling out food stamps and shitty public housing.

That is an interesting point.

[Chad]

Actually, our definition of poverty just keeps shifting. Poor Americans today are a hell of a lot richer than poor people in the sixties.

[Michael Ejercito]

So why can they not afford to pay for their own food and housing?

[ransom147]

you're a fool or a liar. increases in capital gains rates decrease revenue.

[Chad]

You are seriously claiming that the Laffer curve sets in at fifteen percent? Citation, please.

Do you really think that if Warren Buffet had to pay 25% rather than 15%, he would quit investing and use the money to build himself a castle or blow it all on hookers and expensive wine?

[The Angry Optimist]

So can you.

Don't believe me? Send my girlfriend (she's a CPA) your financial information. I guarantee we can find some "wiggle room" in your budget to pay for other people's empty stomachs.

"It didn't take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure, he hated to smoke a nickel's worth of tobacco or chew a stick of gum, worrying whether somebody had more need for that nickel. He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat, to be a sucker, but not a blood-sucker..."

[MNG]

Ah TAO, glad to see you back here, though still full of shit!

[Michael Ejercito]

No, Republicans were portrayed as "anti-poor" when they gave loads of tax-breaks (and now out-right cash) to Wall Street, and indebted main street until the end of time.

Did Barack Obama vote against the bailout?

[Art-P.O.G.]

Exactly. What the hell, Chad?

[Chad]

When the ship is sinking, do you save the ship, or let it go under just to spite the people who poked holes in its sides while screwing around?

[Russ R.]

When the ship is sinking, I think it's sensible to find a lifeboat...

...and a sidearm.

[Michael Ejercito]

When the ship is sinking, do you save the ship, or let it go under just to spite the people who poked holes in its sides while screwing around?

Get a new ship.

And to think that you would not be fooled by President Bush's fearmongering.

[JB]

It's obvious we need higher taxes on Democrats.

They want to pay more in taxes? Well, they should get their wish.

And this will take care of a good chunk of the Goldmand guys too since many of them are Democrats.

[Michael Ejercito]

in what world do you live? republicans were portrayed as anti-poor with no child left behind and medicare part d, neither of which was remotely anti-poor. republicans are by default and at all times racists and anti-poor in the media.

It is too bad that the media can not be regulated, held to the same standard as other goods and services.

[Rhywun]

it is about damned time that the US started to catch up with the rest of the civilized world

You mean all those countries that are groaning under the weight of the cost of socialized medicine? And area just now coming to the conclusion that it's not--here's a word you'll like--sustainable?

[Michael Ejercito]

You mean all those countries that are groaning under the weight of the cost of socialized medicine? And area just now coming to the conclusion that it's not--here's a word you'll like--sustainable?

How has the public option worked in Tennessee, Massachusetts, and Maine?

[Hugh Akston]

Not interested in a debate, either

Funny, Congress and the MSM have said the same thing.

[LoneSnark]

Does it not take only 51 votes to end filibustering for all time? I wonder why they have any reservations over that...

[Aresen]

Because someday it will the their turn.

[Colin]

And they -- quite thankfully -- cried fowl when the Republicans tried to do it a few years back.

[Tulpa]

To be fair, Bill Frist and Denny Hastert do look sort of birdlike.

[ransom147]

60 votes to close debate.

[Burrow Owl]

I suppose I really should thank the thieving scumbags on Capitol Hill for their assistance in helping me to arrive at an important decision.

Several months ago, I entered into holding pattern of sorts- ie, I chose to abandon my career in favor of taking a job which was not only far, far below my skill level- but I negotiated a pay rate which allowed me to maintain an absolute minimum tax liability while still being able to provide for my needs as I waited to see how events played out.

It seems that the wait is now nearly over.
If this insane piece of legislation is signed into law- as I expect it will be- I will, as of Dec. 31st, permanently remove myself from the tax rolls.
Fuck 'em. I didn't ask for this shit- nor am I going to pay for it.

[hellp]

I'm in a similar position as you are. I recently left behind a very lucrative profession that is not lifestyle friendly. I think I would have stayed at it for a few more years except that, after stashing away the cash, I have enough to make the decision that I just don't want to work to support morons like Chad anymore. I have down sized to a job that pays less, is far less challenging but allows me more time. But even at this reduced pay, I have seen amount I pay in total taxes creeping up (and an avalanche on the horizon). At some point, my wife and I are going to pack it in and move to Hong Kong, where we can enjoy private medical care and a low flat tax rate.

Before I was mugged by reality, I wrote a paper in college to the effect that the Laffer Curve was bullshit ... now I'm living it.

[Chad]

If you had been paying less taxes, you would have had "enough" stocked away sooner, and probably semi-retired sooner, not later. It is not clear at all from our anecdote whether society got more or less out of you because of your very high pay.

If your taxes are going up at your "reduced" pay, you are filthy stinking rich. Yes, a few of you might flee the country, but that will be a pretty small minority, and one that will become ever less relevant as tax laws are gradually synchronized around the world. Indeed, I would guess that most of the Laffer curve as it exists is people moving to difference jurisdictions. This is a solvable problem in the long term, and is fairly small at the international level. However, it does create some issues when comparing states, as it is often not too hard to live in Jersey, while working in New York, etc. Most of the studies that I have seen that try to measure the Laffer effect mostly capture this phenomenon, not people quitting their jobs.

[Burrow Owl]

"If you had been paying less taxes, you would have had "enough" stocked away sooner, and probably semi-retired sooner, not later."

Is this a problem for you?
Oh, wait....

"It is not clear at all from our anecdote whether society got more or less out of you because of your very high pay. "

Oh my. The horror. Someone, somewhere, might be dodging a few leeches.

Sadly, the parasites rarely- if ever- possess the wit to understand why their hosts wish to be rid of them.
...and invariably, they blame the host when they finally bleed it to death.

[Chad]

Somehow, I seriously doubt hellp will be bled to death.

[*]

If your taxes are going up at your "reduced" pay, you are filthy stinking rich. Yes, a few of you might flee the country, but that will be a pretty small minority, and one that will become ever less relevant as tax laws are gradually synchronized around the world.

What, a one-world government? Yeah, I thought I smelled a supporter of world-wide communism.

[Chad]

It is inevitable. You may as well get used to it.

Ask yourself which you prefer: a world where we ain't number one, or a world where there is no number one.

Those are the only two choices you have.

[*]

No, world-wide communism is not inevitable - you merely wish it were, because it would drive the world back into the dark ages - a kind of world that slavers like you would prefer. There are more than two choices: the US goes on being the greatest, most free country in the Earth's history and commie scum like you end up on the trash heap of history, along with your atavistic beliefs.

[MatTrue]

So everyone in CA is filthy rich? I have a consulting biz in Nevada, where we're supposed to have low taxes... they just doubled every single license fee you can think of. Don't like tax hikes? Don't go to the DMV, cuz registration fees just went up too! For EVERYONE! stop talking out of your ass, Chad. " oh the solution to tax avoidance is to just have high taxes everywhere" fuck you Joe Biden wannabe!

["Markets Are Magical!"]

It's getting closer my socially retarded friends. Closer.

Boo!

Of course, you know as well as I do that if doesn't happen now, then it will happen later. However, I do find it hilarious to watch the "I'm leaving the country if this passes" crowd hurl their threats like anyone gives a shit.

The Bush administration didn't move them to make those kinds of threats, but affordable health care does. It's all you need to know, really.

[Marc]

Well, we just fucking hate affordable health care that much.

[Michael Ejercito]

How did universal child health care work out in Hawaii?

[prolefeed]

About how you would expect -- turns out that "universal child health care" wasn't "universal", and the "health care" part wasn't the same as "health", and then it ran into problems with paying for it -- but, judging from the behavior of the legislature, the "childish" part was right on track.

[prolefeed]

And, what with a huge hole in the budget, and the public school teachers not working on Fridays, and the subsidized state-run hospitals running up red ink faster and faster, it turns out that programs like this weren't -- what's the liberal word -- sustainable.

[Michael Ejercito]

And yet, people are refusing to look at history.

Can anyone explain how much of a surplus Massachussetts's public option runs?

[The Libertarian Guy]

Some of your idiot liberal friends threatened to leave the country if Bush got re-elected... but they didn't, the fucking liars.

Hell, people may not be allowed to leave, if Obama succeeds in turning this country into North Korea Jr.

But you'd like that, wouldn't you, you traitorous bastard?

[Rimfax]

Oh, is somebody talking about affordable health care? The only debate I've heard about is the Massachusetts system that is costing everyone more than ever before and busting the state budget. I can't wait to hear more about this other thing that you're talking about.

[hmm]

However, I do find it hilarious to watch the "I'm leaving the country if this passes" crowd hurl their threats like anyone gives a shit.

I think it was the liberal base that threatened that when Bush was elected, again. (WTF is with that?) None the less, the wacky l's tend to stick around and throw rocks rather than feign a retreat to Canada. Think you got your social cliques mixed up.

[Paul]

"I'm leaving the country if this passes"

Who said that in this thread?

[hellp]

Well, I support I came close to saying it. It is a viable option for me ... when my total tax burden exceeds 50% of income, when the government can throw me in jail for NOT buying insurance and when less than 50% of the population is paying ordinary income tax and can vote themselves unlimited goodies from a runaway government, I don't see what would hold me back.

[Jim Treacher]

Enjoy your affordable health care as your mom dies of breast cancer. Tears are free!

[The Libertarian Guy]

And sooo yummy.

["Markets Are Magical!"]

"Fuck 'em. I didn't ask for this shit- nor am I going to pay for it."

No one has to ask you. This is not a direct Democracy as many of you feeble minded twats so often point out.

Your team didn't win the election, because your team has shiftless fans that would rather bitch than be politically viable.

The other team won, and is doing what they are legally allowed to do. There is nothing shady about it. You simply disagree. We get it.

I'm loving it. Move to another country. Tax evasion is illegal here.

[Marc]

You know who else did a lot of stupid shit that was legally allowed?

[Marc]

PS I'm not thinking of Bush, but I would also accept that answer.

[smartass sob]

Tax evasion is illegal here.

But tax avoidance is not. Know why that is? It's because the con artists in government don't like to pay taxes either.

[The Libertarian Guy]

I don't want you to pay for my health care.

Why do you want me to pay for yours?

Oh, and I'm not rich. I have a five-figure income, just barely. But even I will be taxed for something I do not want, just to make you goddamned liberals happy and more powerful.

Fuck, one-party rule is what the Dems are after. Just like Castro has.

Traitors.

[The Libertarian Guy]

That was for "Markets are Magical", who is obviously so convinced of his views, he's willing to sacrifice the future of America to make it come true.

Eh, fuck it. My grandchildren deserve to blow 90% of their pay in taxes, no matter how much they make when they grow up... IF they grow up.

[The Libertarian Guy]

"This is not a direct Democracy"

No, it's a Constitutional Republic. But you stupid goddamned liberals WANT it to be a democracy.

Would be nice if you asshats weren't such poor sports - "we won, we get to lord it over the people and abuse power now, sh;ut the fuck up and do what we say and agree with what we do" is what got the Bush admin in hot water.

Proud, are you?

[Michael Ejercito]

Tax evasion is illegal here.

So why is not Timothy Geithner in prison?

[hellp]

Don't tell the Chairman of Ways and Means, oh, and the Treasury Secretary.

[Laoshi]

Tax evasion is illegal unless BHO is considering you for a position in his government, then it is mandatory.

[JB]

When the time comes, I will take my time with fuckers like you.

[ransom147]

+ 1

[juris imprudent]

Tax evasion is illegal here.

Unless you get a job with the Obama administration.

[Burrow Owl]

"The other team won, and is doing what they are legally allowed to do. There is nothing shady about it."

Goddamn.
The stupid is making my hair hurt.

"

[Democrats]

We won! We won! We're taking the ball and you can't play! Nyah nyah!

But we're not elitists! Don't call us that, you uneducated racist inbred wife-beaters!

[SusanM]

As it is now, we're on that "last inch of liberty". There's nowhere to run to. All that can be hoped for is a court challenge - and that a "wise latina" and others actually give a shit about the constitution.

[Chad]

Yes, SCOTUS is highly likely to overturn half of the government.

Dream on!

[SusanM]

Oh yeah that's never happened before. Ever hear of checks and balances? And it would be 2/3ds not half.

[The Libertarian Guy]

SCOTUS dropped the ball on NOT overturning McCain/Feingold - which, btw, should forever prevent either man from ever holding office, presidential or otherwise.

[sage]

Don't whip out the math on Chad. He's dumb as dip. Fuck that guy.

[Balls Deep Foot Sweep]

'direct Democracy'? How fucking big are the words in the coloring book you call a Civics Text?

[Marc]

+1

[Aresen]

Your team didn't win the election, because your team has shiftless fans that would rather bitch than be politically viable.

So, when the current economic mismanagement and deficits from this piece of legislation create a backlash that hands both Houses back to Team Blue and Team Blue wins the Presidency with say, Huckabee, then decides to outlaw abortion, you're ok with that? I mean, they would have won, wouldn't they? Wouldn't that give them the right to do exactly as they please.

And, BTW, I trust you fully supported the Iraq War, because Bush had a mandate after all.

[NAL]

I think you mean "Team Red", but I agree with your sentiment.

[Aresen]

You're right dammit. I meant Team Red.

I blame the error on the fact that it is Saturday night and I haven't had any ethanol.

[Russ R.]

Obviously a Canadian.

[SusanM]

Why is it that every political hack who just barely squeaks over the 50% mark thinks he (or she) has a mandate?

[Michael Bloomberg]

Wait'll you see the shit I come up with this time around.

[The Ghost of Karl Marx]

I sure hope so. Bloomberg is one of our best sleeper agents.

Now, if you will excuse me, it is time to shove more pineapples up Hitler's ass. Not for punishment, just for fun. Even Ted Kennedy joins in on the fun!

[Aresen]

I do not think even 99.99% of the vote gives any politician the right to dictate to the minority.

But, hell, I'm just a crazy guy who believes in liberty and personal responsibility.

[Paul]

Houses back to Team Blue and Team Blue wins the Presidency with say, Huckabee, then decides to outlaw abortion, you're ok with that?

Considering the fact that a very conservative Team Red (I assume you meant 'team red') has already held all three branches of government and we never got within 10,000 yards of outlawing abortion, I'm not losing any sleep.

[Michael Ejercito]

So, when the current economic mismanagement and deficits from this piece of legislation create a backlash that hands both Houses back to Team Blue and Team Blue wins the Presidency with say, Huckabee, then decides to outlaw abortion, you're ok with that? I mean, they would have won, wouldn't they? Wouldn't that give them the right to do exactly as they please.

If this bill passes, the government will have the power to suddenly decide that abortions will no longer be covered.

I wonder how many pro-choicers are aware that those so-called civilized countries with universal health care also have tighter restrictions on abortion.

[NAL]

One thing that's really depressing is that even if they fail in getting this bill with the public option, they're going to get a bill and it's going to have mandated insurance at the very least--that's pretty much guaranteed. The public option is the real sticking point (along with the Stupak ammendment).

[Tulpa]

A lot of the die-hard liberals in Congress have said they won't vote for a bill without a public option. So there is a scenario in which we get no bill at all. A slim hope, but not a nonexistent one.

[SusanM]

No hope at all. Remember that this is essentially the tipping point. Those die-hards have that in mind and know that if this passes the next two steps are "public option" and "single payer".

[smartass sob]

they're going to get a bill and it's going to have mandated insurance at the very least--that's pretty much guaranteed.

And that is the very worst part of the whole thing. It amounts to a head tax, if they can get away with passing it. Once they do they will, in effect, be able to strip you of your citizenship for not paying it or a fine. Your only other option would be to live completely off the books, much like an illegal immigrant - except that if the government catches you, it won't treat you as well.

[John]

Leftist are just evil. Chad and Lefiti and whoever the fuck else is posting on here are just craven assholes. They will get this by one vote and scream "fuck this is not a direct Democracy we won." Then when the Democrats get destroyed in 2010 (and they will) they will fillabuster to keep it from being changed screaming "we can't let the majority rule". Either we start shooting people like Chad or we lose are country. I am serious. There is no negotiating with them or trying to play by the rules. You either let them run your life or shoot them. There is no middle ground.

[smartass sob]

Well if the left wants a civil war, they just might get one over this. Thing is - even if they won it, they would still lose, and so would the rest of the country, I fear.

[John]

The economy is crashing. THe budget deficit is astronomical. And these people want to spend a trillion dollars taking over healthcare. They really have lost their minds. This isn't going to end well. It is going to be the biggest calamity since the civil war. I have always been optimistic. But for the first time in my life, I think thinks are going to get really bad.

You are only as good as the people who make up your country. And when your country consists of large numbers of people like Chad, you are pretty much screwed.

[sage]

when your country consists of large numbers of people useless, scum-lapping shitbags like Chad, you are pretty much screwed.

You're welcome.

[Chad]

You are right. Our economy is crashing, because for thirty years we have borrowed tens of trillions, pubically and privately, in order to fuel our SUVs with middle eastern oil, build homes far larger than anyone needs or can afford, and fill them with cheap shit from China.

We will suffer for decades because of these choices.

[Jeffersonian]

So you're advocating a trade war on top of this shit?

[Chad]

No, I am advocating raising taxes (including mine and yours) to pay off our debts. There are a few cuts I wouldn't mind making, but they are smaller than new spending I also advocate.

A carbon tax and a 5% VAT will just about do it. Higher capital gains taxes on the very wealthy should also be implemented in some form.

[Burrow Owl]

"our debts"??

Have you got a fucking mouse in your pocket?

Oh, never mind. Why do I bother?

That roadkill 'possum down the street has a much better chance of understanding the basic concepts of freedom and economics then you ever will.

[*]

There isn't going to be any "carbon tax," I think. You global warming scammers have just run into a very serious public relations problem. It seems someone made public a certain lot of very embarrassing emails over the weekend. Read it and weep, commie.

[Rimfax]

You either let them run your life or shoot them. There is no middle ground.

Okay, Rorschach, you've galloped right over the line there. You now officially can't complain when retarded leftists argue that libertarians are really totalitarians.

[Art-P.O.G.]

If you imagine John's post in a gravelly, baritone voice-over, it's kind of cool, though.

[Vince]

I was hearing it in Col Jessup's voice.

[Voros McCracken]

Your god damned right I was!!

[JB]

Bullshit.

When there is no law and order because the US dollar is completely worthless and the government has collapsed, what do you think is going to happen?

Anyone with a gun will be shooting people.

[Agent Provacateur]

Damn, I don't even have to do my job.

[prolefeed]

Once they do they will, in effect, be able to strip you of your citizenship for not paying it or a fine.

They'll throw you in jail, not strip you of your citizenship. They don't want to lose one of their marks, and they want to make an example of anyone who stands up to them.

[smartass sob]

If they throw you in prison, you might just as well not be a citizen. And if it is made a federal felony, you will enjoy significantly fewer rights after your conviction. Plus they can do the same damned thing to you again, if you don't pay....over and over.

[JB]

They can try.

If the choice is:

1. Paying a fine.

or

2. Killing lots of government fuckbags.

I know which one I'm choosing.

[Burrow Owl]

"I know which one I'm choosing."

Agent provocateur?

Or just pissed off and practicing poor OPSEC?

[smartass sob]

They'll throw you in jail, not strip you of your citizenship.

If you are in prison, you might just as well not be a citizen. And if they make it a felony offense, you will enjoy significantly fewer rights after a conviction. Furthermore, if you refuse again after you get out of prison, they can do the same damned thing to you all over again.

[Michael Ejercito]

If you are in prison, you might just as well not be a citizen. And if they make it a felony offense, you will enjoy significantly fewer rights after a conviction. Furthermore, if you refuse again after you get out of prison, they can do the same damned thing to you all over again.

What if there was no one to throw you in prison?

[SusanM]

The most amazing irony here is the dems have just made the very people they're supposedly helping into would-be criminals.

[smartass sob]

Yup.

[Russ R.]

4 years ago, I had to decide between living in Toronto or moving to NYC after finishing my MBA.

Same company, same job, same pay, just a different office. The taxes were lower in New York City, but the cost of accommodations was higher. At the time, I was pretty excited about escaping Canada's sleepy socialism and starting a career in the "real" business world.

Ultimately being close to my family kept me in Canada, despite my far greater alignment with the American ideal of "Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness" than Canada's promise of "Peace, Order and Good Government".

The events of the last couple of years have made me realize that staying out of the US was the best move I have ever made.

The sheer number of astoundingly bad policy decisions made by your government, both under the previous and current administrations, defies belief.

Your Federal Reserve and Treasury have exploited the taxpayer to bail out irresponsible investment banks (Bear Stearns), mortgage financiers (Fannie & Freddie), insurers (AIG), and car manufacturers (Chrysler & GM). They have loaned money to just about every financial institution in the country (TARP), bought hundreds of billions of dollars worth of junk assets (TALF), and agreed to absorb 90% the risk for bankers to speculate on junk assets (PPIP).

Less obvious to many, the Federal Reserve has started paying interest on deposits at the Federal Reserve, while lowering borrowing rates to effectively zero, allowing fortunate financial institutions to turn the Fed discount window into a money machine at taxpayer expense. Financial regulators have also imposed arbitrary short-selling restrictions, and relaxed mark-to-market accounting requirements allowing banks to value their junk assets at whatever they want, thereby booking substantial "trading profits" and bonus pay.

The FDIC, PBGC, FHA and other federal programs are flirting with insolvency, and many state governments are already past that point, with California resorting to issuing "IOUs" instead of cash payments.

Your lawmakers have signed on to spend nearly $800 billion of taxpayer money as "economic stimulus". This includes, tax rebates, home buyer tax credits, "cash for clunkers", and thousands of other pork-barrel programs that promise to "create or save" jobs. At no point did anyone bother to consider where this stimulus money would come from.

Your administration has granted itself the authority to intervene in private companies' compensation policies (BofA, etc.), bankruptcy proceedings (Chrysler), and labor negotiations (GM & Chrysler). Clearly, none of this is in any way Constitutional.

In the meantime, your national unemployment rate has soared to over 10%, foreclosures have been accumulating faster than they can be processed or liquidated, over 100 smaller banks have failed, the value of the US dollar has been plummeting and the Federal Reserve continues to flood the system with money by holding short term interest rates at zero.

The national debt is now over $12 trillion, and will soon exceed the nation's GDP. Deficits of $400 billion used to be considered a problem... deficits of $1400 billion are now touted as a solution.

Despite election promises to the contrary, taxes will be increased on the rich and middle class alike. The nation is already perilously close to having more than 50% of the electorate as net tax beneficiaries. What crossing over that tipping point will do to the concept of democracy should come as no surprise to anyone.

Beyond his failure to keep the economy on track, your president has quietly reversed course on important issues like ending the military campaigns in Iraq and Afganistan (actually increasing troop commitments instead), closing the detention facilities in Guantanamo and granting detainees their right of habeus corpus, and restoring the civil liberties lost to the USA PATRIOT Act.

Now your government is well on its way to taking over or dictating terms for every individuals' health care and insurance, with absolutely no Constitutional authority to do so. It is telling people how they have to spend their money, and criminalizing non-compliance.

In less than a month, your leadership and their representatives in Copenhagen will agree to pay billions of dollars to developing countries because environmentalists believe that your greenhouse gas emissions are somehow worse for the planet than those from developing countries, despite the fact that they emit far more in total than you do. If they get their way, they'll impose a carbon cap-and-trade regime on the country, that will increase everyone's energy costs, while channeling cash and benefits to a few selected industry groups and well-connected companies.

I've probably overlooked a number of other things that are equally outrageous, but the pattern should be clear. Your government is gradually destroying everything that once made your country free and prosperous, and the envy of people worldwide.

I'll be on the sidelines, watching in dismay and fascination as history's greatest experiment in liberty, the United States of America, crumbles like so many great civilizations before it. Hopefully the Second Republic will fare better.

[JB]

I suggest you stock up on guns and ammo and move further north because that collapse will be far-reaching.

[toddb]

Russ,
Thanks for this outstanding synopsis of recent history and current events. I'm going to print it off and just hand it to friends and co-workers who refuse to see the fundamental changes that are taking place.

The sad thing, is that it is the legacy of liberty and the accumulation of generations of wealth that make current events possible. They protect us and blind us from the decay that is ongoing and accelerating. It reminds me of the beautiful old oak tree in your yard that surprisingly blows over in a storm one day...and suddenly you realize that it was rotten and dying on the inside while all the time maintaining its outward appearance. That is how it will happen with us. I don't think many realize just how far the decay has advanced.

Best of Luck

[*]

Most of what you describe is happening on Obama's watch. It's almost as if he wants the country to collapse. Why - so a totalitarian socialist government can take over? Goddamn the United States? Is that it? Sounds like high treason to me.

["Markets are Chadical"]

Since we won, now it's our turn to be the bullies with all the power, and we're going to do our best to nail the lid shut on free minds and free markets and bury both of them twelve feet under, just to make sure they're both dead and will never return.

Anyone who isn't willing to part with seventy-five percent of their income, is a selfish prick that needs to be thrown into the deepest prison cell. And with any luck, we'll be able to consolidate all power in the Glorious Democratic Workers' Paradise Party, with no opposition of any kind.

For Obama is the Truth, and the Life, and the Shining Path. When he offers us His Cock, we willingly take It into our undeserving mouths.

[*]

Anyone who isn't willing to part with seventy-five percent of their income, is a selfish prick that needs to be thrown into the deepest prison cell.

We already part with 75 percent or more of our income to taxes and fees of one kind or another, you moron. All taxes, license fees, permits, etc. are added to and passed along in the final price of products and services for the end consumer or user to pay.

[Art-P.O.G.]

That thar was a sockpuppet/parody.

[Chad]

Naah, more like a third to half, depending on how much you make. Once you get much past fifty percent, Laffer effects start to really bite in.

[sage]

Yeah, because if the right people get taxed just enough, we'll be able to pay for anything we want.

[Chad]

No, but if we taxed 25% of the economy at the federal level rather than 19%, we'd at least be able to pay our bills rather than sticking them to our kids.

I am sorry, but there is essentially zero evidence that a 25% of GDP net federal tax rate would have major negative implications for the economy. Plenty of nations have higher tax rates, and they are doing just fine.

[sage]

Or we could, you know, roll back spending to 2000 levels and be back to raking in more than we spend. But no, fuck that, 2000 is like the stone age!

[juris imprudent]

As soon as the Feds do take in 25% they will be spending 30%.

[The Libertarian Guy]

Add in state, local, federal taxes - and the possible VAT and cap-and-trade taxes you fucking liberals love so much - and it still won't be enough.

I swear, we could be NOT at war at all, have a decent economy and small debt, and liberals would *still* want to raise taxes.

[SusanM]

and spend more

["Government is Magical"]

Sing it, Brother Comrade! Someday, we will all be faceless automatons, working for the Glory that is Obama, finally shed of our individuality and all will be equally poor and miserable - for it is only then, can we be truly happy.

[Chicago ChaTony]

Da to that! Please, Big Brother, take 99% of our pay, and give us three squares of toilet paper and a potato! We are worthy of no more than that!

[Barack Obama]

Patience, my children. Soon, very soon, all your dreams will come true... and more.

Now, open your ungrateful, undeserving mouths. I have a load to share with you.

*zzzip*

[Rimfax]

Okay, this is the shittiest piece of legislation since the Prescription Drug Bill of last administration, possibly the shittiest since Medicare, but chattering like this kind of kidney punch to the nation's economic and political structure is even a faint shadow of the atrocities brought about by Maoist regimes is a heinous insult and a demand that you not be taken seriously. Get a motherfucking grip.

[SusanM]

The Repubs thought about delaying the bill but didn't because it would have ruined their Thanksgiving vacations (and we can also think about the irony about all this happening now, but I digress). If that's the mentality of the last line of defense of freedom then there's not a whole hell of a lot to do about it except chatter.

[SusanM]

It's worth noting that this bill is a major re-alignment in the relationship between the government and the governed. It's not some dipshit recycling law.

[JB]

+100

These fuckers think they can fine me for how I take care of my body?

They gonna get learnt.

[Onan]

Wins!

[The Angry Optimist]

ooh, look out for the "measured" man. You can tell his level of sophistication by simultaneously agreeing with 95% of the commentariat while simultaneously experiencing gripping pains in his uterus about how said opinion is expressed.

I salute you, sir.

[Tulpa]

The medium is the message, friend. I don't think misogynistic undertones such as the above are going to help our cause any, either.

[Rimfax]

I'm touched. Sarcasm noted and enjoyed.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

If you think this doesn't have the potential to turn into something just as bad as Chairman Mao's China, you need to get a motherfucking grip.

Because everything you eat, how many pounds you weigh, whether or not you choose to exercise, etc etc for ever and ever ah-men, just because a matter of public interest.

[Paul]

even a faint shadow of the atrocities brought about by Maoist regimes

At least in Maoist China they had free healthcare...

[Paul]

You know what, now that I think about it, you're right. We should ignore these 535 dipshits that run every aspect of our lives until after they fuck everything up.

[Rimfax]

Mmmmmm!! Them was some tasty words you stuffed in my mouth. I think I'll go suck Harry Reid's cock now, since he's not bringing the Maoist revolution until February.

[Trooper Jones]

Thank you, Rimfax.

All of this talk about the end of the Republic is as dumb as it was during the elections of 2004 and 2008. It's likely dumber.

Oh, and if you really meant it John, I need hardly remind you that the Army will stand with the federal government. Any rebellion will be crushed.

Some of us will even enjoy it, because anyone stupid enough to rebel and through the country into chaos over national healthcare will deserve what they get.

[The Angry Optimist]

huh - and look, Rimfax, your statement about hyperbole looks patently silly now. You have American Soldiers openly fantasizing about killing American Citizens.

[Rimfax]

So, what someone else says about soldiers killing citizens completely undermines my argument about perspective. I don't see how that works. Can you explain?

[Space Fiend]

I really don't believe that the Army would fire on unarmed civilians in great numbers or on a large scale, especially conservative protesters.

[hmm]

I do. They have done it more than once.

[hmm]

Some of us will even enjoy it, because anyone stupid enough to rebel and through the country into chaos over national healthcare will deserve what they get.

I was going to write something coherent and witty, which is rare for me. But all I could come up with was this sentence.

Fuck you moron, I hope drown in a pool of goat sperm.

[The Army]

The Army will stand with the federal government. Any rebellion will be crushed.

Says you...

[smartass sob]

Any rebellion will be crushed.

Uh...yeah. And what do you suppose crushing a civilian rebellion would do for the public image of the federal government and the present administration? What did the Waco fiasco do for the image of the federal government and the Clinton administration?

[Demosthenes]

It did wonders for Lincoln's image.

[smartass sob]

It also got him the bloodiest war this country has ever been in - a war the country might not survive the next time.

[Voros McCracken]

"the Army will stand with the federal government. Any rebellion will be crushed."

You're right that's not at all like Maoist China. That sounds more like Czechoslovakia in 1968.

[sage]

Any rebellion will be crushed.

I wouldn't go so far as to say any rebellion would be crushed. After all, we have more people and guns. And I'm sure the Army would lose a few deserters who would rather fight the good fight than fire on their own fucking family.

[JB]

They can't even win in Afghanistan vs a bunch of goat-herders.

You think they stand any chance in urban warfare where there are tons of gas stations and lots of metal to spare?

The American revolution was 1/3 patriots, 1/3 loyalists, and 1/3 who didn't care. Guess who won?

[Tulpa]

The ones who don't care always win. Apathy == invincibility

[Art-P.O.G.]

Well said, Tulpa. And get it right, JB. The military's struggling in Afghanistan with scruffy nerf-herders, not goat-herders.

[Trooper Jones]

Look at how easily our military is crushing the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. A revolt in the USA would be easy, AND FUN.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Ooh, that's good sockpuppetry.

[bmp1701]

Oh, I've no doubt that the Army brass would stand with the government. The rednecks who actually do the shooting, well...

[2999]

Yeah, everyone is being kinda melodramatic about this. It isn't even over yet, since it still has to get regular cloture, simple majority vote, and make it through conference committee.

There is still a decent pretty good chance that they will fall short of 60 votes to end debate on the bill, since Lincoln and Lieberman won't vote for a bill with public option.

If they fail pass something before the 2010 elections heat up, things will get much tougher for the bill.

[Alice Bowie]

I agree, this can still fall apart. But all they need is a simple majority vote.

[Tulpa]

No -- it still has to get through cloture. The vote on Saturday was to allow the bill out of committee; there's still a 60-vote threshhold to cut off debate at some point in the future.

[prolefeed]

And then the House and Senate have to agree on a common piece of legislation, and, IIRC, get 60+ votes again in the Senate to end a filibuster on the conference bill.

[Paul]

Decent healthcare... it was nice while it lasted.

[hmm]

In a completely different direction. I was surprised that capitalism is what saved humanity in 2012 movie. Although I think it was meant more as a dig at capitalism it seemed almost poetic.

I was shocked there were no pseudo UN references. Not even one blue flag.

[JB]

I didn't see what the toilet paper looked like.

[Michael Ejercito]

Have any of you wondered why we need insurance to pay for health care, but not to pay for food and gas? It is because the price of health care is insanely high.

When food and gas prices go down, people tend to use more food and gas. By contrast, when the price of chemotherapy goes down, people do not get cancer more often.

We should use price controls to make health care affordable.

[Chad]

Why? Because my food and gas bills never randomly spike to into the six figures.

Duh.

[The Libertarian Guy]

You seem sure food and gas bills won't spike. Willing to bet on it?

[Chad]

Spike to six figures? Yes, I am quite willing to bet on that one.

I expect prices to rise, even vs inflation. But a price rise of 50% or 100% can easily be adjusted to.

[Tulpa]

Nothing about the rising cost of health care has been "random".

[Michael Ejercito]

Why? Because my food and gas bills never randomly spike to into the six figures.

Duh.

Price controls can stop that.

[Ihateliberals]

I am tired of trying to explain to people how a 2 Trillion dollar expense for this bill is not good for this country. Yet, they somehow want to believe everything that is on NBC, MSNBC, and all the other media left wing nut jobs.

One thing I know for sure, come 2010...all congress members who are up for re-election need to be voted out...I don't care if they are R or D. Both parties as you honestly know are corrupt and don't care about Joe Sixpack. We seriously need to come together on this in 2010 and give the Gov't and the Media a big wake up call and remind them who runs this country...WE THE PEOPLE...and if you don't agree with that...You are just going to be a big tool.
http://brandon912.org

[Alice Bowie]

The problem is (mr. liberal hater) that many liberals will vote as well.

Being a conservative is a privledge. And, I'm happy that things are goin' well for u financial, healthwise, etc.

However, it's very very easy 2 bcome 1 of US than it is 2 bcome 1 of them.

So, 4 ur sake, i hope u keep hate'n liberals

[Prospero]

The individual mandate = a license to be alive.

The "right to healthcare" is a "right" to plunder, to suck a little life from your neighbors by force.

Pelosi/Reid/Obama appear to have all the sense of a junkie on angel dust who, perched on a high building, swears he can fly. When he jumps, he pulls the rest down with us....and reason cannot reach him!

[Art-P.O.G.]

Some of us will even enjoy it, because anyone stupid enough to rebel and through the country into chaos over national healthcare will deserve what they get.

STFU, Trooper Jones.

[Alice Bowie]

Health Care Bill Just Passed to Senate Floor

!!!That calls for a Negro spiritual!!!

I hope it passes!

[Art-P.O.G.]

Racist.

[Alice Bowie]

'Oh I don't mean that in any racist way.

I myself and latino with black mom.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Relax, I'm just messing with you. But I do honestly hate how some people will sing an Old Negro Spiritual hen they pass some bullshit entitlement program or something.

You didn't just beat Jim Crow or travel north on the Underground Railroad. Sorry.

[ransom147]

rather ironic, singing a negro spiritural in celebration of more slavery and less freedom. you alice, are a fool.

[ransom147]

and i can't spell...

[Rich]

The Army will stand with the federal government. Any rebellion will be crushed.

Check out the Oath Keepers.

[Art-P.O.G.]

That's a pretty cool organization that I'll strongly look into joining. Thanks.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Especially if Trooper Jones "crushes the rebel attack", lol.

[BakedPenguin]

Crushing the rebel attack? That's Stormtrooper Jones, then, right? Maybe we can ask Naga Sadow if he knows the guy, although I suspect Naga's a little to highly placed to deal with a mere Stormtrooper.

[Art-P.O.G.]

That's true. Plus, Stormtroopers all look the same.

[Mikey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZenCHhbJHFI

If it sounds like this, I could dig it.

[DEA]

I'm surprised you hippie dopers aren't upset about the mandatory universal drug testing provision in the bill.

[Hippie Doper]

The one that says congresscreatures and administration officials get tested first?

[Alice Bowie]

Look,

If we hippie-dopers have 2 give up smok'n dope 2 get universal healthcare...we will

[Art-P.O.G.]

That's why I hate hippies, man.

[John]

The big thing is to kill off the public option. Mandates can be repealed. But, government programs never die. If there is no public option and the mandates don't kick into effect until after 2012, it will be a pyric victory because a later Congress and President can kill the whole thing.

One other thing, has anyone bothered to explain how you can mandate that poor people buy insurance? If I don't have a job or the money, it does no good to mandate I buy it. And if we are going to be paying for poor people's insurance, the monstrosity is hardly budget neutral.

[MNG]

I think its interesting you hate the public option more than the mandate. Hating the mandate involves hating the nannyism and burden it will place on the poor, hating the option means hating the fact that some of your money may go to provide a service for the poor...

[Tulpa]

John's point was that he hates both, but thinks the mandate will be easier to repeal in the future.

[John]

What Tulpa said. The public option is less objectionalble than the mandate. But it is harder to undo.

[James Ard]

Don't worry, selfish politicians aren't about to let their idiology get in the way of their reelections.

[John]

I keep hoping that to. The bill is unpopular. But the left is dellusional. They honestly think the reason why BO's poll numbers are tanking is because he hasn't delivered on healthcare, not because of 10+% unemployment. I worry that the Dems know they are toast in 2010 and maybe beyond so they might figure their best chance is to plaicate the dellusional left and pass an unpopular bill and hope their base can save a few of their jobs.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

You know, I'd have said the same thing about the bailouts.

I was wrong.

[Franz Kafka]

Scary times because our country will never be the same if this bill passes.

[JImbo Solomon]

Sadly, if we ever do see any benefit, it will be so watered down it doesnt matter.

RT
http://www.ultimate-privacy.br.tc

[Art-P.O.G.]

Sad when anonymity guy is more insightful than Chad.

[ransom147]

hahaha

[wylie]

Sad? I find it strange and amazing.

[Attorney]

Great Britain, here we come!

We held off the inevitable for 50 years -- not so bad, considering.

"In the low-ceilinged canteen, deep underground, the lunch queue jerked slowly forward. The room was already very full and deafeningly noisy. From the grille at the counter the steam of stew came pouring forth, with a sour metallic smell which did not quite overcome the fumes of Victory Gin. On the far side of the room there was a small bar, a mere hole in the wall, where gin could be bought at ten cents the large nip."

[Chad]

Actually, the bills in Congress are moving us towards a system something like Switzerland's or Japan's, and nothing at all like Britains.

[ransom147]

you're really quite daft. there is a bigger picture he is referring to...

[John]

Also, it looks like Lieberman could be the vote that kills this or at least kills the public option. If that is the case, the country owes him an enormous debt of gratitude. And he will always be a great American on my list. All of his previous sins (which are granted many) will be forgiven.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

I'll drink Victory Gin to that!

[BakedPenguin]

Then you'll be happy to know this bill will raise our allowance of Victory Gin from 1 liter a week to 2 liters a month.

[MNG]

Watching the Dems continue to push this monstrosity of a bill despite the fact that it becomes ever more unpopular every day largely deservedly so) is for me like watching an ex-alcoolic you sympathize with start taking the first Long Island Ice Teas in a binge that will inevitably end badly.

[P Brooks]

STFU, Trooper Jones.

Thanks, Art.

[P Brooks]

Here's a little observation; the other day, some Senator (probably Judd Gregg) was saying, "Americans clearly do not want this."

That's nice and all, but when the phone calls, letters, and e-mails about TARP were running fifty-to-one against, you guys weren't particularly worried about what "the People" wanted.

All of these gutless motherfuckers need to be booted out on their asses.

[Tulpa]

Actually the House voted down TARP during the period where the calls were massively against. After a propaganda blitz by the administration and truly blatant cheerleading by the entire MSM (including Fox News!), the ratio went way down, and it was at that point that Congress passed it.

[prolefeed]

TARP passed when they paid off some House members with pork.

The vote switchers didn't switch because of public sentiment, they switched because they were holding out for the payoff they knew was coming.

[Tulpa]

That's true, but the point is that the calls weren't running 50:1 against when TARP actually passed. It was much closer to even.

[ed]

All this fretting! And Reason just collected $55K to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
Oh ye of snarky faith.

[The Libertarian Guy]

At least Reason didn't go hat in hand to the public trough... unlike, say, ACORN.

[P Brooks]

Should this bill pass the Senate, that version will then be reconciled with the recently passed House version, and the reconciled version will then be signed by the president.

And as a byproduct of that reconciliation process all of the "objectionable" provisions (and more) will magically reappear, in the wee hours of the morning, and somehow remain utterly unnoticed until the thing has been signed into law.

Enjoy your Sunday morning.

thx, jrk

[Mike M.]

Health care bill? Who cares about any steenking health care bill? Let's talk about Sarah Palin some more.

[MNG]

It's a stupid bill, as usual the Dems have put together a bill that combines some of the worst ideas for health care reform possible with few of the possible benefits.

But some of the hyperbole around here is absolutely laughable. Great Britian is not some hellhole tyranny like Maoist China or Stalinist Russia, not even close. If you want to argue it is a step closer to those hells, then ok, but to argue "now we are there" is laughable. It's the same goofy attitude seen in "taxation equals TEH SLAVERY" kinds of statements. Differences in degree exist, and wide differences in degree can constitute differences in kind.

[Art-P.O.G.]

MNG, I agree with this, but I'm still pissed.

[Fist of Etiquette]

I disagree, but like previous moves toward centralization in this country, it will be several years before either of us is proved right.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Still, what's the point of being Britain if we don't have the charming accents?

[sage]

We're on our way to getting their teeth.

[Attorney]

The thing is, by the time we do get there, it will be too late to do anything about it. Now is the time to get riled up, because this may be our last chance to stop the final destruction of our unique federal system. If we're not already too late.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

I agree, but --

What does it mean when our congress has gone on a "ignore the people and what they clearly want" bender?

[Tulpa]

You seem not to have been paying attention to the British government's behavior lately. Did you see the story the other day about the Brit equivalent of DCFS performing random child safety inspections of family homes?

[tarran]

I would argue that Britain *is* a hellgole.

Take the case of the guy who found some weapons on his property and took them around to the police station to turn them in. He faces a mandatory sentence of 4 years in jail for handling firearms without a license.

Take the new law that requires parents of school age children to open their homes to permit social services to "montiro lifestyles" even when no credible allegation of a crime exists.

look at the crushing taxes.

Consider Anti-Social Behavioral Ordanances, which allow the police to place permanent restraining orders on individuals with no trial and minimum of due process, which if disobeyed are treated as serious felonies.

People pulling their own teeth out with pliers as a better alternative to the dentistry the state makes available to them.

Moreover, many of the laws passed by the current parliament have been described by the devil's kitchen as "a series of Enabling Acts":

This is the really terrifying thing about NuLabour: they have pushed though thousands?tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands?of new laws, many of which contain these mini-Enabling Acts. And the Civil Contingencies Act is only the most egregious of these; there are others which allow ministers to remove our liberties on a whim.

Sure, they are far smaller matters, but taken together they all add up to an Executive wielding power with no brakes upon it: statutory instruments are bad enough and would, were your humble Devil in charge, be rendered illegal?these Enabling Clauses are, quite simply, the fence-posts for a totalitarian regime.

[Enyap]

Wheres guy fawke when you need him

[Art-P.O.G.]

Thanks, Art.

Anytime, P.

[The Libertarian Guy]

"Fuck 'em. I didn't ask for this shit- nor am I going to pay for it."

No one has to ask you. This is not a direct Democracy as many of you feeble minded twats so often point out.

***

Translation:

We're in power, and we get to tell the states - and the populace - what the fuck to do, when the fuck to do it, and we'll toss your asses in fucking prison if you rebel.

[MNG]

I don't think it's such a fuck you attitude. What happened is that the administration raised these high expectations among the left (remember "hope and change?"), and then they said they were going to push comprehensive health reform through quickly. This was foolish because what has killed past health reform measures is that the more "comprehensive" they are the more toes they step on and the more monstrous and idiotic they become (the nature of congress with their committees and such making big bills, every whiner gets a provision making the bill longer and stupider). A backlash among the right was created, but by then the left had bought into all the promises and so they raged that anything less than what was promised would be an outrage or let down. Now the Dems are stuck with this awful bill. It will eneergize the right either way, alienate independents, but if they don't deliver their base will be furious. They are stuck. Sadly, we all may be stuck with the results of such a stupid bill.

If they had any foresight, humility and good sense they would have slowly and introduced piece by piece measures for debate (pre-existing conditions reform, portability protections, covering children, tort reform, computerizing records, etc). Some would have passed and some would not. The left should have been invited to celebrate what passed and told that work towards what didn't could occur in the future.

But the Dems, being the Dems, acted in a stupid fashion.

May I point out that long ago I lamented Obama's lack of experience in the big leagues, and I think it is showing. It seems he had little grasp of how Congress works these things and how the politics play out, perhaps he relied on overly-idealistic handelers because of this inexperience, but whatever the cause this was handled poorly no matter what side you are on. I just hope it doesn't screw up my health care any more than it is...

[John]

They also could have listened to a few of the Republican ideas like allowing for health insurance to be written accross state lines and having real tort reform instead of just telling everyone on the other side "fuck you we won".

I mean 47% of the country voted for McCain. I don't see how either side could redo something as emotional and important as healthcare without listening to the otherside. I don't care how big of a majority they have. If they had built a smaller bill that had some Republican support, Obama would be in a lot better postion.

BTW, when the Republicans take back over you can hold me to the idea that you shouldn't redo healthcare with no support from the other side.

[Tulpa]

Tort reform? You do realize the trial lawyer lobby has the Dems by the urethra, correct?

Computerizing medical records? We can't afford to put all the medical clerks out of a job at a time like this.

[P Brooks]

Chad|11.22.09 @ 9:49AM|#

Because car crashes, home fires, and death are one-off, low probability events, which are easy to insure against and have minimal adverse selection problems.

WTF?

[robc]

No one has yet invented a way for a market to deal with this pre-existing condition issue.

Bullshit. Buy term insurance before you get the pre-existing condition. Life insurance companies wont sell you life insurance if you are dying, but they will sell you long ranging term insurance when healthy knowing you have a damn good chance of dying during the term.

At birth (or maybe even before) parents can buy the child a lifetime term health insurance policy. It would probably be surprisingly pricey during the healthy parts of your life but dirt cheap later on.

[jester]

robc, what he's really saying is that no one has invented how to get people to understand what markets are and that in the end if you're trying to cheat, the market will bite you in the ass.

[MNG]

robc
It strikes me as just common sensical that for-profit insurance companies are going to find a certain % of the population to be uninsurable. There job is, rightly, to make money for their shareholders, and some people are bad bets (the premiums they may pay will not cover the benefits they will get).

What should be done about these people?

[Russ R.]

Easy.

Charge higher premiums to cover the higher risk, or exclude the specific risk from their coverage.

If they don't want to pay the higher premiums, they can self insure and pay for their treatments out of pocket.

If they can't afford treatment, they can turn to family, friends, communities or charity.

Or else they can forego treatment.

Not sure why the government needs to be involved.

[JB]

Because waving magic wands is easy!!

[juris imprudent]

Not sure why the government needs to be involved.

Because only the government can insure that you are compassionate enough you self-[ish][sufficient] fuck.

[tarran]

I don't know. The best thing is voluntarily funded charity. Some people's survival is dependent on consuming vast amounts of resources, and at some point someone has to draw the line as to who is saved and who isn't.

I think that a system where the choice is made by the person who produces the resources being consumed is far more humane to one where the resources are commandeered by force.

That's not to say I am twirling my moustache like Surgarfree; I merely know that tragedy is part of life, and that the state commandeering resources to provide a service and to shut down private actors while solving some tragedies, will also create manifold new ones.

It does tear at the heart though.

[MNG]

At least tarran's answer is honest. Markets won't cover a lot of people. Private charity may help those folks, but any they do or can not, they will go untreated.

I myself cannot imagine how a system that gives choice to the one's whose resources are commandeered but which has more actual human beings suffering is "more humane" than one that limits choice but has less actual human suffering. How one divorces "humane" from the actual well being of humans is interesting.

[jester]

I ask this question about social engineers (like Paul Ehrlich) who would deem entire populations unworthy of existing. I guess it's humane as long as you painless euthanasia or forced birth control. Market economics? I guess that's bat-shit crazy. No one except me could ever be enlightened enough to understand things because of my superior intellect inherent in my genes that has nothing to do with my economic standing in a more fortunate place. Sorry, but that is hubris.

[tarran]

MNG,

I don't think the state creates less human suffering than it causes.

I mean, if it didn't, then the Cubans, who sarted out with better health than many so called first world nations in 1953, would be doing much better than they actually are.

Private charities are dependent on popular good will to continue functioning to a degree far in advance of governmental institutions.

A piece of bad press that creates outrage, and a charity can see most of its funding evaporate, never to return. Thanks to the prisons, tasers and hand-guns backing the state, governmental institutions can behave outrageously, and the jobs of its staff are safe.

MArk my words, the quality of health care will decline under state control. In the absence of freely set prices they cannot know what services are in greater demand, and which are in lesser demand. They lack the incentive of profits to encourage innovation. It's the difference between a team working 65 hours a day to get a product to market and a a team working 45 hours a week with no particular urgency.

[MNG]

Tarran
I see that your opinion is that government attempts to alleviate suffering will generally cause more of it. I should have got that in your first post when you said "the state commandeering resources to provide a service and to shut down private actors while solving some tragedies, will also create manifold new ones." I disagree as an empirical or conceptual matter that this is the case, but I can see your point. What would disturb me would be a view that a system with even small amounts of coercion but in which the average person suffers less is worse than one with less coercion but the average person suffers more. That would be inhumane imo, but if I read you right I don't think that is what you are saying.

[P Brooks]

My (previous) favorite Congressional "compromise" under reconciliation: Federal deposit Insurance. One side wanted $15,000, and the other side wanted $25,000 coverage. They "compromised" on $100,000.

Awesome.

[JB]

Amusing.

Though since it wasn't indexed for inflation, then $100,000 now is a lot like those amounts then.

[jester]

Markets of course are not 'magical'. I have never heard that expressed around here except by maybe some snarky statist that truly doesn't understand markets or refuses to understand them or accept them. Markets are not magic, they are a force of nature, a law.

Truly, this piece of legislation could be replaced with one outlawing unfair market results. While they are at it, the Congress/Administration could outlaw the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy and solve the Global Climate Crisis once and for all.

[Attorney]

As someone once put it (Arnold Kling? Tyler Cowen?), it's the economic equivalent of trying to walk through walls.

[MNG]

What bullshit. Markets are shaped by, and in large part dependent upon, other institutions, many of which are governmental (private property, contract law, etc.). This reification of markets is indeed the kind of magical type thinking that deserves mockery and scorn.

[Attorney]

Markets are shaped by, and in large part dependent upon, other institutions, many of which are governmental (private property, contract law, etc.).

I don't think anything jester said is inconsistent with that.

[MNG]

Do you think the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy is dependent on human institutions?

[jester]

Surely you understand what satire is. Yes?

[MNG]

Your point, even as satire, is this idea that the laws of markets are as immutable as laws of nature, so we either play along with them or disaster strikes. But whatever laws of markets exist are very different than laws of nature, and that in itself suggests that they are not the immutable forces that must be heeded or disaster strikes that you suggest.

[jester]

The fundamental difference between you and me: you think that individuals can be conditioned into behavior that serves an entity you call mankind (which is reification in my mind) and that is a good thing. I on the otherhand agree that individuals can be conditioned into behavior that serves an entity except I wouldn't call it mankind, I would call it the ego of some other individual, and I wouldn't call it a good thing because I value freedom over security and I believe that to achieve this 'mankind' ideal a lot of people will be involuntarily sacrificed.

In the absence of conditioning individuals to acquiesce to the Utopia, which I believe is theoretically impossible, I believe we should all be free to pursue our own paths.

Market theory is really a study of how humans complete transactions with eachother, so it is based on nature, human nature. It recognizes that some people can be talked out of their wealth by a religion or a governmental regime or even a savvy salesman.

But at its core it also recognizes that you can diminish food scarcity by growing more food but you can't diminish money scarcity by conjuring it up out of thin air.

Disciplines such as evolutionary psychology, sociology, political science add to market theory perhaps in explaining why someone would see Obama as an economic messiah, but they don't really change much the principles set forth by say David Ricardo.

[MNG]

It's interesting that those who invoke human nature often have little idea about the fields that actually study it. As you say, even though you admit your classical market theory is based on human nature you assert confidently that its findings are secure despite what goes on in the very fields that study that human nature!

"My perspective is based on human nature."

"Interesting, let's talk about your axioms about human nature in light of the findings of psychological, sociological, evolutionary research."

"Oh, shit, I don't need none of that stuff, it doesn't change the conclusions of my perspective."

"But I thought you said the conclusions of your perspective are based on human nature?"

"Er, Socialist! Freedom! Individuals!"

[jester]

Macroeconomic models are likely to change with more inputs from other fields of study. Microeconomics is unlikely to be stood on its head any time soon.

I suppose that is why macroeconomic models that seem to follow principles of microeconomics are more appealing to me.

Call me a simpleton if you will but don't accuse me of worship. The economic models I admire explain the things I experience. If you can explain to me how fiat currency is superior to market currency and how Gresham's Law is folly then go for it.

Quantum physics certainly tweaks Newtonian physics but hardly sends them to the dustbin. Similarly, I doubt any new findings about human nature are going to relegate supply and demand curves, comparative advantage, or price equilibrium to the dustbin.

[MNG]

"Microeconomics is unlikely to be stood on its head any time soon."

Have you heard of behavioral economics? Institutional economics? Some of their stuff seems to make some of classical microeconomics either wrong or at least simplistic.

[jester]

I accept that human nature includes a certain percentage of people who will acquiesce their freedom for security.

But there are some of us who won't or at least don't until we are forced to.

How does your favorite model deal with that?

[Chad]

That would be around 100%. Even libertarians generally don't object to paying taxes for cops and soldiers, at least to some extent.

Once you concede that is ok to "sacrifice freedom for security" once, why not stop as long as what you get is worth more than what you receive?

[jester]

Pure sophistry.

[Josh]

Sure. Otherwise we wouldn't know about it.

[jester]

'Black Markets' are called such because they are outside of the law. Does that mean they don't exist? Of course not.

[Tulpa]

Evolution depends on a lot of favorable conditions, too. Whenever a human farmer goes out to a field and pulls weeds, he's thwarting evolution. An environment subject to high radiation would probably not experience evolution either. That doesn't mean evolution isn't a natural law.

[jester]

Actually, evolutionary theory, like market theory only attempts to explain what happens (or happened) to an organism or population of organisms when subjected to stumuli. Weed pulling actually will affect both the weed (its population will veer towards adaptations resulting in less weed pulling such as roots that break off or more as in a hydra effect or become extinct) and the farmer (higher or lower yields will affect his health and ability to breed). So he isn't thwarting evolution, just like printing money or creating more Obama disciples doesn't thwart market theory. Market theory still exists for you to either apply, ignore or deny the existence of.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

Markets are not magic, they are a force of nature, a law.

Now, *this* is one of the banners that should be plastered on the top of the libertarian platform.

MNG may not get it yet, but even Chairman Mao could not escape this aspect of reality in the end.

[jester]

MNG was clear when he considered markets as most of us understand them to be a reification. Call something a god and then say you don't believe in that god.

I don't think that is fair. I for example don't agree with Marxist Theory and I can tell you why (I really can!) And it's not because someone else thinks it's magical or has superior explanatory powers.

[MNG]

You know something I just love about Austrian economics devotees? Economics is supposed to be so mysterious and incomprehensible that putting forth and testing hypotheses is impossible and foolish, yet economics also possesses natural like, simple enough for the layman immutable Laws which can be used to predict doom when such laws are not followed...

It's the religion that keeps on giving!

[jester]

Economics is really areligious. It's principles can be used to shape sound policy or to shape perverse policy.

Apparently, your perversions seem quite sound to you and my soundness seems perverse to you. Fair enough. Just a difference in perspective.

But, seriously, there is nothing mysterious or incomprehensible about it. We can compare say North Korea's economy with that of South Korea thus controlling for people's work ethic and conclude whatever we want to. And we can perhaps predict doom using economics but we'd rather use it to avoid doom.

[hmm]

You mean predictions like the "it would have been worse prediction?" You know, the mantra of the New-Keynesians. I see a lot more Austrians explaining what happened and saying repeat that than Keynesian and interventionist economic theories. Where the proof is in saying it would have been worse every time the model falls apart.

[jester]

And to admit, some economic laws do appear to be very Newtonian. Like, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Although, admittedly, the Health Care plan seems to be following counter this: Health Care is Outrageously Expensive, so let's make it free (by decree).

Okay, so that's unfair, none of the Dems are declaring that it's free, but that's only if you read the fine print. And that is something they know most Americans won't do.

[the Unibomber]

Like, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

But you can have your cake and eat it too - although you can't eat your cake and still have it too.

[tarran]

Sigh, MNG,

That's actually quite wrong.

No. The Austrians claim that hypothesis testing and controlled experiments are impossible because people don't behave in deterministical ways, unlike an electron (or an animal that make decisions based solely on instinct).

No. what they claim that it is possible to deduce the principles of economics a priori from basic premises. (for example, you don't have to do a randomized controlled study to prove that rasing the minimum wage reduces employment, but that a demonstration that on the margin it makes some people unemployable while not making anyone employable is a sufficient proof).

The real Austrian economists (the ones who publish articles in refereed journals) spend a great deal of time going through historical records to analyze stuff.

Some even use records of GDP do illustrate their arguments(!) despite the fact one pillar of Austrians theory is that aggregate statistics are poor proxies for the economy in that it amounts to adding apples and orranges and getting one number.

That is not to say that there are many fanbois who listened to a few Ron Paul speeches and think they've got it all figured out. Those guys genuinely have earned your criticism.

But, as someone still slogging his way through Man Economy and State, I recognize that many of the accusations that the Austrian school practices a sort of religion is absolutely false. There is a genuine effort to start with a set of axiomatic premises (economic scarcity, people try to choose the actions that maximize their subjective benefits) and to proceed logically from that to, among other things, come up with a brillian system for explaining the prices of factors of production.

[jester]

Tarran, 'Austrians' is an emotional trigger used to marginalize those he disagrees with. To him, Adam Smith and David Ricardo are 'Austrians'. The problem is micro-economics altogether. Economics is all about Keynes, Galbraith and Krugman.

[MNG]

It's empirical after the fact? WTF?

Are their propositions set out in testable hypotheses? I mean, even if they only explain things that already happened they should be able to state testable hypotheses about past phenomena, and then look at the empirical evidence of the past to verify or falsify the hypo, right?

And if they think all predictions are bunk, then predictions about what the minimum wage will do are bunk, right?

[jester]

Do you understand the difference between pure sciences and social sciences and why they are called such?

[MNG]

The social sciences study human behavior with each other. I'm not sure why that would mean it shouldn't generate falsifiable hypotheses.

[tarran]

Hypothesis testing in statistics works as follows: you make a bunch of observations and measure the likelihood that the observations you made could have been produced by random variation despite the fact your hypothesis was false.

If the confidence interval is sufficiently low (say 1%) and you see this over and over again in experiment after experiment, you can argue that you have demonstrated that the hypothesis is likely true.

The problem here is that to make the measurements, you must ensure that the only variation is in the inputs whose effects you are trying to observe. This is hard; experimental design must ensure that uncontrolled factors aren't influencing the results.

This is completely impossible for much of economic phenomena. Why, because people don't behave deterministically. I can argue that outlawing speculation will cause the price of a good to vary wildly in a way that it wouldn't under speculation. But how do I design the experiment? There is no chance to control external variables. Do I have one decade where speculation is outlawed in a market then ten years when it is permitted? How do I prove that it wasn't technological advances that caused the improvement in that case?

Do I haveone state with price controls and one state without? How do I prove that the volatility isn't due to some other difference? Or how do I keep the two markets from communicating or from having arbitrage synchronize their prices?

You can use historical data to illustrate economic phenomena. But rigorous hypothesis testing is pretty much impossible.

[MNG]

tarran
But then of course you can't make any comment about, say, the minimum wage having negative effect. I mean, even if you found a statistically significant negative effect, you could never control for the many variables like you mention.

And even if people don't behave deteriminstically (which btw is something different than saying there are so many variables which may determine any human behavior we could never control for them all), we do see regular statistically significant patterns (like that men commit murder and suicide much more than women). We can make hypotheses about such things that are falsifiable (women could commit more murders or suicide next year).

[Some Senator]

All of these gutless motherfuckers need to be booted out on their asses.

Americans clearly do not want this ...

do they?

[The Money Fairy]

What are you guys worried about?

Of course we can provide unlimited free health care to every American!

*sprinkles magic beans*

["Markets are Magical"]

Fuck your magic beans. They are as much an illusion as free markets and free minds. Onward, comrade Democrats!

[MlR]

Liberaltarianism, woohoo.

[JB]

lol

[Reaganite Republican]

Look, most people don't want this bill- and they're starting to get pretty mad about the power-drunk Dems' continued rampage.

The Democrats face a bloodbath next year... some are saying they could lose over 100 seats.

And by 2012?

The GOP could take forty states running Gilbert Gottfried, lol

Hope-n-Change = Train Wreck

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

[John]

There are currently 80 Dems who are from districts that voted for McCain. How do any of those guys win in 2010 if the Dems don't get their heads out of their asses?

[Tulpa]

That's why Nancy gave so many House Dems permission to vote against their version of the bill.

Not sure if that will help though. Remember 2006, when Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee lost his seat over the Iraq War even though he voted against it?

[Rich]

Indeed. If voters really pay attention, Nancy's permission-giving shenanigan is *even* more reason to vote 'em out.

BTW, I agree with the "symbiotic relationship" observation downthread. They aren't called Republicrats for nothin'.

[sage]

The Democrats face a bloodbath next year... some are saying they could lose over 100 seats.

THEY DON'T CARE. All they want to do is get a government program going because once it's there, it will never ever go away, even if there's an atomic attack.

And of course they'll give up their majority, but they will get it back, when the GOP has their turn to be the bozos in charge. It's a symbiotic relationship, I tells ya.

[Art-P.O.G.]

It's a symbiotic relationship, I tells ya.

+1. Not a doubt in my mind.

[Michael Ejercito]

THEY DON'T CARE. All they want to do is get a government program going because once it's there, it will never ever go away, even if there's an atomic attack.

Like universal child health care in Hawaii?

[Michael Ejercito]

The Democrats face a bloodbath next year... some are saying they could lose over 100 seats.

That would require absolute ineptness, an unprecedented level of ineptness.

At least the Democrats under President Woodrow Wilson were competent enough that they kept power for eight years.

[prolefeed]

The other team won, and is doing what they are legally allowed to do. There is nothing shady about it. You simply disagree.

The "legally" part requires one to not read the Constitution, and the "shady" part requires one to assume the "legally" part holds true ...

But other than being completely fucking wrong about everything other than "might makes right", well, sure ...

[Michael Ejercito]

My three biggest problems with this bill:

1) This should not be considered at the federal level; this issue should be handled by the individual states.

2) Even if an identical bill were considered in the California state legislature, I would oppose it because it does not exclude sex offenders who are out of jail or prison.

3) There is nothing that restrains costs.

[SugarFree]

I will never see the attraction some of you have for letting Chad jack off in your mouth.

[Tulpa]

He has a cinnamon-heavy diet.

[prolefeed]

The big thing is to kill off the public option. Mandates can be repealed. But, government programs never die. If there is no public option and the mandates don't kick into effect until after 2012, it will be a pyric victory because a later Congress and President can kill the whole thing.

Any part of this legislation that gets enacted stays enacted, because repealing it means getting Republican control of the House and White House, and 60+ R votes in the Senate.

Not counting on that happening anytime soon.

[Tulpa]

If the mandates prove horribly unpopular when they actually go into effect, there's a good chance you'll see enough Dems jumping ship to get them repealed.

[prolefeed]

One other thing, has anyone bothered to explain how you can mandate that poor people buy insurance?

You simply write it into legislation -- and then either exempt poor people from the provision, or start throwing them into jail for non-compliance.

I don't think the Ds have thought through how the reenactment of debtor's prisons will play out with the electorate.

[jester]

'I don't think the Ds have thought through...'

Who has to think? It's free isn't it?

[jester]

Are you suggesting all of us American's will be put in debtor's prison when our country goes bankrupt? Good thing I like rice.

[Tulpa]

You know who really deserves to be kicked in the head over this? All the Republican senators who retired last year and put the Dems in the position to do this. Yo, fuck Chuck Hagel and Kurt Warner or whatever his name is.

[Michael Ejercito]

Any part of this legislation that gets enacted stays enacted, because repealing it means getting Republican control of the House and White House, and 60+ R votes in the Senate.

Do not be too sure.

Look at what liberal Democrats did about universal child health care in Hawaii.

[Trooper Jones]

I got about the reaction I expected. Apoplectic.

A rebellion would be gloves off. It would wreck the country. It would be a catastrophe. And all over something as minor as some healthcare program.

That's why I don't want it but I, like the vast majority of soldiers, would fulfill my duty to protect and defend the Constitution, etc. Anyone who counts on desertions or sees rebellion as a childish Tucker Diaries fantasy is a fool. You've got a professional army now, not one of unwilling conscripts.

That was the sole point.

[hmm]

Grats on the expected reaction.

You're still a dipshit that expressed joy in killing your own citizens.

Fucking moron.

[hmm]

I'm going to wager you haven't even read the Constitution. Or understand anything beyond "We the people..."

Way to disgrace the uniform with expressions of joy in killing those you are charged with defending.

[Trooper Jones]

I am sure you already know that I am charged with protecting and defending the Constitution which I took an oath to do. You also know that the Constitution, specifically addresses the subjects of war, rebellion, insurrection and treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Civilian citizens have the right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (A right I shall be happy to recover upon retirement from the army.) You do not have a constitutional right to engage insurrection or rebellion.

I concede that in many circumstance, one could have a moral right to rebel, but I am not concerned with those. No soldier should be.

[Art-P.O.G.]

I concede that in many circumstance, one could have a moral right to rebel, but I am not concerned with those. No soldier should be.

Sez you, fucker.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Hey, did you see Valkyrie?

[Trooper Jones]

So the current federal government has engaged in aggressive warfare and the mass murder of civilians?

[Art-P.O.G.]

Whoa, who said that? I as just mocking your assertion that no Soldier should be concerned with "a moral right to rebel".

[anonymous]

Does it have to be in the U.S. to count?

[robc]

The Blackfoot say Hi.

[tarran]

So when the COngress violates the Consistution, and threatens us with armed agents throwing people into jail, you will call the people who resist them "traitors"?

Dude, if you want to look for treason, look no farther than the White House and Capitol Hill. 😉

If the U.S. military took its oath to defend the Constitution seriously, the streets of DC would run red with the blood of politicians.

Out of curiosity, what would it take for you to rebel? I suppose if Obama ordered the U.S. Navy to launch a Trident targetting your home town, you would probably rebel. So where on the continuum between the U.S. President nukes an American city and the U.S. government passes laws the status quo would you disobey your orders, or desert, or even take up arms against your former comrades? Where do your lines lie?

[Tulpa]

If the U.S. military took its oath to defend the Constitution seriously, the streets of DC would run red with the blood of politicians.

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not diss the military like that. That's uncalled for.

There's an easy, peaceful way to wrestle power from politicians, which requires no discoloration of the streets. It's called voting, and your fellow civilians haven't used it. So don't bag on the military for not pulling a coup.

[tarran]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't want them massacring politicians. It was a descriptive statement not a normative one.

First, because I don't consider the Constitution worth defending having been convinced by Lysander Spooner's arguments in the Constitution of No Authority.

Moreover, I have long recognized that violence is usually counterproductive to building a free society.

The only thing I want soldiers to do is to desert their posts. Just walk away. I want them to become productive people engaged in decent and honorable trades.

They need not stain themselves with the blood of anyone. Merely refuse to obey the tyrants, and they become the absolute rulers on nothing.

[hmm]

reason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Context. It's useful. You see that last part, the part you omitted to justify you enjoying killing civilians of your own nation.

You and your mind set are the exact thing the framers feared when contemplating a standing army.

[Trooper Jones]

To the extent that rebels remain citizens, I plead guilty and freely admit that it is a failure of character on my part.

[hmm]

I guess the military can only go so far based on what they start with.

You're an excellent example of the adverse selection mentioned above.

[Art-P.O.G.]

That's why I don't want it but I, like the vast majority of soldiers, would fulfill my duty to protect and defend the Constitution

Do you even know what this means?

[Art-P.O.G.]

C'mon, Trooper Jones, you're making our Army look bad.

[Trooper Jones]

If you don't like the mailed fist of the state, abolish it. Until then, don't complain about your standing army that is firmly bound, by law, tradition and sentiment, to follow the lawful orders of the federal government.

Would you rather have a politicized army?

[Art-P.O.G.]

Dude, I'm in the Army. I'm getting out very soon, that's all I'm saying.

I'm an OIF Vet. I definitely don't regret that part, but I'm not sure how much longer I can stand not being permitted to say exactly what I mean.

And how exactly am I to abolish the "mailed fist of the state"?

[Trooper Jones]

Those of us who think the Iraq War a blunder have gone again and again - just as you have - because we are professionals who obey lawful orders. Despite our opinion that the war has not necessarily been in the national interest. It's the logic of both law and duty (although it's beyond me to determine which is stronger.)

As for your last question, vote Libertarian? Congress does wield the power to raise and maintain armies. (Unfortunately, it is as much a fantasy to think we will ever significantly demobilize as it is to think a rebellion could succeed.)

[Art-P.O.G.]

I do vote Libertarian (mostly). It doesn't really seem to do any good.

[MlR]

You're a fool. You didn't swear an oath to the Federal Government, you swore an oath to the Constitution which it has unlawfully ignored at will.

[hmm]

...don't complain about your standing army that is firmly bound, by law...

Posse comiwhat?

Of course, your cheering brethren that like mail fists have inserted work arounds for the executive branch to circumvent this this.

[Burrow Owl]

"And all over something as minor as some healthcare program."

Just one more straw on the camels back...

I agree that revolution would indeed be an ugly thing- which begs the question:

Why are your masters so hell-bent upon pursuing policies which will at some point make revolution inevitable?

"You've got a professional army now, not one of unwilling conscripts.

That was the sole point."

Yep. That new digital camo is a lovely shade of brown....

[Kolohe]

400+ comments for the Godwin.

It's about frickin time.

[Burrow Owl]

Alas, I can't claim full credit.
Marc beat me to it last night.

[Agent Provacateur]

Who will guard the walled compounds your family will have to live in while you are out "enforcing the Constitution" Mr.Trooper?

[Trooper Jones]

So now we're not only talking about armed insurrection but about murdering civilians as well?

[Art-P.O.G.]

Should I bring the smelling salts, Mr. Trooper?

[Tulpa]

I see. So murdering civilians is only permissible when duly ordered by the federal government.

[Trooper Jones]

According to my copy of the UCMJ, Geneva Conventions, etc. noncombatants are protected but enemy soldiers, rebels and insurrectionists are not.

I shall not require any smelling salts. I have not implied that an American version of National Health would be the beginning of the end of the Republic. I have not suggested that such an enactment could be the basis of armed resistance to the duly constituted civil authority. I have merely noted the likely results of an insurrection and then defended my position while noting the implications of other's arguments.

[JB]

When the US dollar is worthless what do you think the US government is going to be paying you in?

[prolefeed]

Evolution depends on a lot of favorable conditions, too. Whenever a human farmer goes out to a field and pulls weeds, he's thwarting evolution. An environment subject to high radiation would probably not experience evolution either. That doesn't mean evolution isn't a natural law.

You can't "thwart" evolution, any more than you can thwart gravity. If you pull weeds, you create changes in the environment that affects the survival and reproduction of the weeds and crops.

If you subject an environment to abnormally high levels of radiation, you will create a huge incentive for evolutionary changes, both from the increase in mutations and from the wrenching changes in the environment, causing the survivors of the radiation to be drastically different than the mix of species and individuals prior to the radiation.

[jester]

Prole,

I already corrected this mistake at 2:08. I know... it's the threading.

And we both forgot to say that evolution doesn't depend on anything 'favorable'. It explains events based on any conditions thrown at it.

Example: Huge meteor slams into Earth. Dinosaurs go extinct. But of course that was favorable to smaller creatures.

[prolefeed]

Yeah, posted the rebuttal, went back to reading the thread, and there you had beat me to the punch.

[Tulpa]

If the radiation levels are high enough, mutations will happen so fast that advantageous adaptations can't be passed on to the next generation.

And you guys are talking about natural selection, which is not quite the same thing as evolution. Evolution usually refers to the development of complex organisms from simpler ones. The adaptations made by weeds in response to being pulled are disadvantageous in other ways. Breakable roots, for instance, lead to less efficient water transport.

If aliens colonized Earth three billion years ago, and laser-blasted any native creature that left the ocean, you could argue that this was just another example of natural selection. You could not argue that it was conducive to evolution, however.

[jester]

Natural selection is only one aspect of evolutionary theory.

Had I discussed genetic drift perhaps then I would have suggested that severe radiation would have caused total extinction of subjected population.

But I still stand by what I stated. I am not sure where you are going with your evolutionary theory analogy. I deduct that it was borne by the MNG assertion about market theory but you don't have to put constraints on evolutionary theory in order to show that MNG is putting constraints on Market Theory. He isn't putting constraints on the theory, he is putting constraints on the inputs. Theory applied to the new constraints doesn't affect the theory, it affects the outcome.

So to refute your posit: 'If aliens colonized Earth three billion years ago, and laser-blasted any native creature that left the ocean', I would counter that genetic drift i.e. the element of dumb-luck (or in this case dumb-unluck) entered the sphere.

Admittedly, it is the huge aspect of evolutionary theory that few grasp but albeit is perhaps the most important. But the roll-of-the-dice is nevertheless an essential part of evolutionary theory. 'Survival of the fittest' is a dumbed down version that unfortunately clouds many a mind.

[Tulpa]

By that standard, government action is an essential part of market theory. I don't like classifying genetic drift (which I have heard of, thanks Mr Condescension) as a part of evolutionary theory because it reeks of fudge factor.

[prolefeed]

Evolution refers to species changing ... it can be toward more or less complexity. Whatever works.

[prolefeed]

If aliens colonized Earth three billion years ago, and laser-blasted any native creature that left the ocean, you could argue that this was just another example of natural selection. You could not argue that it was conducive to evolution, however.

That would inhibit the development of a very large ecological niche. It wouldn't be "conducive", nor would it be non-conducive, to evolution -- creatures simply adapt to whatever environment gets thrown at them, and the resulting adaptations are evolution.

[*]

Yeah, and if you hand out free goodies stolen from the fit and the productive, you get more parasites. Evolution is just swell.

[jester]

He who hands out stolen (not free) goodies gets more acolytes, not parasites. Society gains a parasite in the form of him who hands out stolen goodies.

[prolefeed]

The evolutionary process doesn't give a fuck about homo sapiens, or that rare subset, libertarians, or statists that prey on libs, or anything else. It is a non-sentient process devoid of emotion. 99.99%+ of all species have gone extinct, and we will too in time.

And on that cheery note, drink!

Cheers!

[J sub D]

Fuck, fuck and fucking fuck!

The abortion that health care reform will ultimately become will -
A) Be enacted
B) Cost at least 50% more than projected.
C) Reduce the numer of uninsured by at most 50%, far less than projected.
D) do nothing to slow the increase in costs,
E) After that epic FAIL, lead to calls for single payer universal coverage (except for illegal aliens, who will still be showing up at emergency rooms or dying to avoid Homeland Security detection at same).

Anyone want to bet against me?

Fuck, fuck and fucking fuck!

[jester]

I'll bet against the point spread. It'll be worse.

[crimethink]

I'll bet against you. Whoever loses has to give up sex for a year.

[jester]

What's your definition of sex?

[Art-P.O.G.]

Sorry, I thought that was a Bill Clinton joke.

[jester]

It is but I hate copyright law.

[prolefeed]

Passing this mess isn't a done deal, J sub D. It's teetering right on the ragged edge of SOMETHING getting enacted. The question is whether it is some cosmetic minor change so the Ds can save face and say they DID something, or whether it is much of the huge clusterfuck that would screw things up royally that they are trying to enact.

It could come down to Al fucking Franken or someone else elected by a razor-thin margin being the deciding vote.

[James Anderson Merritt]

We should be seeking to minimize the importance of insurance in health care. The present bills only cement it more firmly and permanently in place.

It is madness to go yet further in the same direction that has led our health care system to massive dysfunction. So of course, the Congress proposes to mandate that very folly by law.

The "Affordable Healthcare for Americans Act" states our proper goal admirably, but the bill itself will not achieve that goal. It will achieve the exact opposite of the stated aims, as has been the case with so many other mistakenly entitled Acts of Congress. What WOULD achieve the goal would be to restore true free-market competition and innovation to the health care sector, but the present bills do not even come close to such an approach. Nor are we seriously discussing such an approach in the "national health care debate." Instead, the insurance-based model is tacitly accepted as the paradigm, primarily on the basis of our being accustomed to it after decades of conditioning, and in the case of the "public option" because "all the other civilized nations do it."

If we had wanted to be like all the other "civilized" nations, we could have stayed a part of Britain, and we could have welcomed permanent and ever-growing European presence in our hemisphere. But we fought and won a war of independence, and we pursued the Monroe Doctrine, in large part because we believed we had (or could come up with) a better way, and we wanted the space and liberty to try.

Sadly, health care as we now know it is not "a better way." But health care as we once knew it -- say about 50 years ago -- WAS. If we went back to it, we wouldn't be "turning back the clock." We would be getting back on the right road.

The regulatory regime under which the health care system "operates" today has done little, if anything, to improve the quality and availability of health care, and quite a lot to hinder the speed and scope of improvement. We should be talking about bills that let the medical industry take off its heavy, clumsy army boots and sprint forward on some proper running shoes. But all we get is yet another step in the government takeover of health care. How pathetic.

[hmm]

Health care, LHC online, we are all going to die!

[Kolohe]

Against my better judgement I'll wade into the sidebar conversation.

1) Look at how many liberties most people were willing to part with in the name of the War on Terror - esp from Team Red - when you consider the hypothethicals regarding 'the resistance'

2) Most of you seem a little to overly sure you yourselves wouldn't be first against the wall and/or caught up in a Jacobin maelstrom.

3) Zombie Jefferson Davis, Zombie Robert E Lee, et al., send their respects and best wishes. (and a request for BRAIIIINS)

[Art-P.O.G.]

Yeah, I'm no John Connor. If the shit really ever hit the fan, I'd grow a sweet beard and hide in the mountains.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Actually, I'm kind of messed up right now. I should probably stop commenting for awhile.

[prolefeed]

Being fucked up has never been a disqualifying event for commenting on H&R before. No need to start now.

[jester]

Hypotheticals are 'virtual reality'. Points taken, but I think posters here in a real emergency would already have all three racing through their heads. A gentle reminder never hurts.

[hmm]

Since we are on a jackboot fest. How about tazering those 10 year old snotty kids with issues.

I have a hard time short of an armed kid thinking of anytime I can't take out a 10 year old girl with my bare hands and not harm her or myself.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Really. I would've had her parents restrain her for me, I mean, WTF?

[Trooper Jones]

The more bloodthirsty among us - the Shermans, if you will - will likely be restrained by those with cooler heads.

I further predict that the posters on Hit and Run will remain unmolested. They will be seen as Washington saw the rebels he pardoned. As simpletons or insane. Me included.

Unless one of hmm's roadside or car bombs gets me. Then I'll be dead.

[hmm]

I take no joy in killing. Even the most despicable humans.

Just because you disgust me on many levels does not mean I want to kill you.

There in lies the difference between you and I.

[Trooper Jones]

Sunshine patriot.

Come on. We could fence off Texas and fight the rebellion there. No one would care if we wrecked the place.

[hmm]

Sunshine patriot.

Far from it. Your remark was without honor and despicable.

[*]

Texans might. Don't think it hasn't been noticed by some of us that the largest US military base is right smack dab, deep in the heart of Texas(to coin a phrase.) Of course, if the local cops don't want to help them out again, I don't know how much of a threat they'd actually be.

[jester]

...between you and me! Object of a preposition!

You can be libertarian and still believe in grammar, right?

[hmm]

There's a reason nothing written by with my name on it leaves my possession without me proof reading it at least 4 times. The best part is I leave out whole words most of the time.

Sorry, Imatard and I know it.

[jester]

Fucker! You were s'posed to tell me to fuck off! Otherwise MNG will claim that grammar is a reification to all us 'tards.

[hmm]

I embrace my inner stupid. You should see my first drafts. I swear I am dyslexic or have some form of rare ADD that disallows linear thought. It comes in handy with complex or multiple thought processes, sucks when trying to explain or convey things in text.

Whiteboards, post-it notes, and cut and past are my saving grace.

[Russ R.]

"2) Most of you seem a little to overly sure you yourselves wouldn't be first against the wall..."

Everybody's gonna die... best to go out standing up for something you believe in.

[Rich]

It is madness to go yet further in the same direction that has led our health care system to massive dysfunction. So of course, the Congress proposes to mandate that very folly by law.

It's OK -- the plan covers mental illness.

[Art-P.O.G.]

A lot of my best friends in the Army have already left the Army. Turns out that with unemployment so high, military recruiting is also high and the Army doesn't really need us anymore.

Truthfully, I'll be glad when I separate.

[John]

A lot of BS. great job but after you do it a while the BS gets annoying. I don't miss it.

[Trooper Jones]

I've heard the same complaints since 1985 and yet we still have a pretty good army.

I've heard that there is a lot of bullshit in every large, bureaucratic organization or perhaps I'm just inured to it.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Considering you've been in since '85 (?), you must outrank me quite a bit. That being said, I've heard the period of about '76 to '86 as about the low point for the Army.

[*]

Or perhaps you're just part of the bullshit. Man, they'll never get me back into the military. Not ever.

[Attorney]

Just sent this to my two Senators. I just tossed it off in a couple of minutes, since the first sentence is the key message:

Dear Senator:

I write to express my strong opposition to the healthcare bill that was sent to the floor on Saturday evening (Nov. 21).

The country's economy is in no shape to be taking on the huge cost of the programs called for by the bill. Although the bill is touted as deficit-neutral, such an outcome depends on a list of occurrences that we know are extremely unlikely to take place. The types of changes envisioned by the bill will cost the country well over $1 trillion, and healthcare costs will continue to rise.

Moreover, the individual mandate is unconstitutional, since Congress does not have the authority to impose such a requirement. It would require every citizen, simply by virtue of being alive in this country, to purchase insurance or obtain an exemption. If the power to do that is within the Commerce Clause, then the Commerce Clause is completely meaningless.

The bill's programs would also give the federal government excuses to become involved in the most personal aspects of our lives. Since taxes are used to pay for insurance, then (the argument would run) the government is entitled to control how much we eat, drink, exercise, and so on. Such intrusions have already occurred in Great Britain.

The "healthcare crisis" is not a ticking timebomb. It's a slow-moving problem that can and should be addressed carefully and thoughtfully, with programs no broader than absolutely necessary. It would be irresponsible to saddle the American people with anything resembling the Senate bill or the House bill.

Very truly yours,

[Art-P.O.G.]

Well said. Maybe I should try something like that.

[Attorney]

Thanks. Feel free to C&P.

[Rich]

I further predict that the posters on Hit and Run will remain unmolested. They will be seen as Washington saw the rebels he pardoned. As simpletons or insane.

We will probably remain unmolested, since Obama is on record saying criticism makes him better. However, this ain't Washington's time -- if we get branded as simpletons or insane, brace yourself for mandatory health treatment.

[hmm]

and sterilization.

[J sub D]

It's the progressive way.

[jester]

Progress. Never stand in the way of progress.

[Hazel Meade]

I'm not going to leave the country or rebel. I'm just going to not buy insurance until the day after I get sick. Like anyone else with half a brain will do.

I'm also going to ask my employer to pay me more rather than sign me up for health insurance.

At most, I'll get an HSA/high-deductible combo, even if they don't qualify as "real" coverage under the bill. Heck I can make my own HSA - it's called a savings account.

I'm not going to participate in some scheme where I am forced cough up thousands more every year than I actually consume so as to subsidize the health care of people who guzzle whiskey and get unnecessary MRIs.

And there's always the cash economy to supplement one's income. Plenty of young twenty-something hipsters who probably voted for Obama are about discover that it's much easier to stop paying taxes and start earning only through "informal" methods.

[Jeffersonian]

Question: If the Commerce Clause somehow permits the federal government to compel citizens to purchase something they'd rather not, what's to stop Congress from forcing us all to buy a GM or Chrysler jalopy on "general welfare" grounds?

[Hazel Meade]

Moreover, forcing thme to buy something that it is not in their interest to buy - given that insurance rates are much, much more than the likely health care expenses for many people.

[Jeffersonian]

I think that goes without saying. If it was in my interest to buy it, I wouldn't need Harry Reid standing over me with a whip demanding I do so.

[jester]

You must buy only that which is Union Made.

[Jeffersonian]

You jest, but there's a lot in this bill that is going to do precisely that. Andy Stern didn't mortgage the farm to get Obama elected for nothing. Blago and his gang of criminals did this aready in Illinois.

[JB]

So is it more insulting to call Obama Andy Stern's dog or Andy Stern's slave?

Whichever it is, call him that.

[Lee Cruz]

The American Century came and went anyways. The Country is sitting on 15.1 T SS + 88.9 Medicare Trust = Total Unfunded Obligations of 104.0 T + US Debt of 10.7 T/ = 114.7 T for US Gov Obligations(unless the Baby Boomers decide to get rid of the Welfare State). When the USD is dethroned as the World's Reserve Currency, all of this will have seemed like a dream. America will wake up, take two aspirin and wonder what the hell the big deal was.

[jester]

so you're saying that the American Dream was only that...a dream?

Shane! Shane! Come Back! Shane!

[Warty]

This is a magnificent thread.

[Naga Sadow]

DOOM!
DOOOOOOM!!
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!

Inspired by Warren

[Rich]

I'm not going to participate in some scheme where I am forced ... to subsidize the health care of people who guzzle whiskey

Even if those people are *children*?

[JB]

Abortion...it's for the children.

Especially these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPI5BXR97_g

[jester]

It could be worse. It could be next week and the goddammed thing is signed into law.

[Brian Sorgatz]

(Thanks to Brian Sorgatz for pointing out my moronic spelling error.)

At no point in our correspondence did I use the word moronic. That is Mr. Cavanaugh's word.

[Art-P.O.G.]

Yeah. An ad homonym attack would seem out of character for you.

[Mad Max]

Too many comments about abortion - this thread is supposed to be about health care, people! Stay on topic and quit threadjacking.

[Chad]

I ran across this nice report today by the Congressional Research Service.

Its basic conclusion of why our system is so ridiculously expensive? We pay too damned much for just about everything. Our medical professionals are overpaid, we overpay for non-generic drugs, we overpay for gadgets, we overpay for beds, we overpay for everything.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts.....070917.pdf

[tarran]

Very good chad!

Now, to the next point. When people are making obscene profits in performing at rap concerts, or riding children's fantasy, producing computer software, or maintaining ethernet networks, what happens to drive prices down?

People see the high profits and try to get in on the action. Just as the number of Network Engineers exploded in the late 1990's and drove wages down to a reasonable level, we should be seeing lots of companies entering the medical industry, opening new hospitals, expanding the number of medical students they train.

Yet, that ahsn't been hapenning... I wonder what could be preventing new hospitals from being built, limiting the number of students that schools were permitted to graduate, and th enumber of doctors permitted to practice medicine. I wonder what organization could prevent numerous manufacturers from manufacturing swine flu vaccine?

What organization or group or organizations could override the natural effect of free market provisioning of medical care and related services/goods?

[Jeffersonian]

Why, I bet it's the same organization that's been log-rolling with the Obama Administration in exchange for an endorsement! Imagine that, rent-seeking in DC.

[Chad]

I agree. I have spoken out on these threads numerous times about how the AMA cartel needs to beaten down.

There are plenty of people who want to be doctors. Only 40% of those who apply ever get in to med school.

[tarran]

You mean the big bad AMA is physically preventing schools from opening their doors to more paying customers?

Are AMA thugs blocking the entrances? Making vague threats about fires happening?

Or are they hiring another organization to make the threats? An organization that, if de-fanged would not only prevent the AMA cartel from limiting competition in the medical field, but the many other would be cartels from simmilarly forcing people to do business with the cartel?

Hmmm, I wonder who actually enforces the AMA cartels dictates?

[prolefeed]

Dammit, don't keep me in suspense! What is this mysterious organization of which you speak?

[Chad]

The AMA controls both the number of medical schools and how many applicants they can accept. Not surprisingly, we have fewer doctors per person than most nations. The AMA also prevents nurses and technicians from being allowed to do a lot of things they are permitted to do in other countries, further pushing business into the doctor oligopoly. As a result, our doctors are overpaid relative to those around the world, even if you include the loan payments, by a fairly wide margin.

As I like to note, a doctor and a scientist require about the same kind of training, and the same kind of smarts, the only difference is the loan. Scientists can expect to make $110,000 mid-career, which implies doctors should make around $125000-$130000. Specialist should get around another $15000-$20000 per extra year they spend in residency. The actual numbers are much higher. Note that scientists work in a highly competitive market, so they should provide a good idea of what "market" salaries should be.

[tarran]

No matter how hard I pull on the reins, your head isn't going near the water, huh?

[*]

If you think prices are too high, then don't pay them. You not only think you have some sort of god-given right to health care, you even think you have a right to it at the price that you would like to pay. You don't have a right to either, you commie slaver.

[Hazel Meade]

Well, duh.

You think that might have something to do with the fact that most healthcare bills are paid for by third parties that can't refuse to pay for things?

The only way to control costs fairly is for the patient to be the person that decides what he's going to pay for. At least let the patient pay his own insurance premiums. Then you will see some downward pressure on prices.

[Attorney]

+1

[Joy]

Microchip included in Healthcare Bill. This is JUST NOW leaked??? AZwholes

Like slavery was bad...now you wouldn't have a moment's peace....EVER!!!

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/105079

[Andrew S.]

As outrageous as this all is, that's a complete misreading of the bill, and it's the kind of rhetoric that's going to be used by bill supporters to say "see? The people who oppose this bill don't even know what they're talking about/are lying!"

[hmm]

Looks like a huge jump to get to that conclusion, might even need a cape for that one.

That said things like this point out what should be an obvious flaw in a 2K page bill. It would take months to dig through and calculate all the unintended consequences, errors in judgment, and mistakes.

[Harry Reid]

It would take months to dig through and calculate all the unintended consequences, errors in judgment, and mistakes.

It wouldn't take even a minute, because it doesn't have any of those. It will work fine. We made no mistakes.

[*]

It wouldn't take even a minute, because it doesn't have any of those. It will work fine. We made no mistakes.

It will work fine if your aim is to turn the country into a socialist workers paradise, you fucking Marxist slaver.

[SusanM]

anyone wanna try for 1000 posts here?

[Chris]

Is likely to result in the apocalypse?

No.

Is it going to lead to a near term collapse of the republic?

Probably not.

Is it another erosion of our liberty?

Definitely. I will not tolerate the government having a financial stake in my health. I do not care if the government could provide the best care and gum-balls. I would choose inferior care over government mandated anything. Good, bad, or indifferent.

[Attorney]

It's far more than just another erosion. If passed, it will be a massive erosion, not least because it paves the way for so many further erosions. Historians will look back a century from now and pinpoint Obamacare as the end of the American experiment.

["Markets Are Magical!"]

"Definitely. I will not tolerate the government having a financial stake in my health. I do not care if the government could provide the best care and gum-balls. I would choose inferior care over government mandated anything. Good, bad, or indifferent."

Well, folks, that about sums it up.

Of course, what you don't realize is that you can choose other care options that are inferior. What you don't have a right to do is to tell everyone else that they must endure that system, based on principles that they didn't even vote for.

However, I've know for quite sometime that these arguments aren't about facts, or results. They're clearly about a warped personality disorder that cherishes fairly trivial, and subjective "liberties" over much more important issues that affect a much larger number of people.

In short, you think like a angry teenager, which makes arguing with people like you a waste of time.

["Markets Are Magical!"]

"I embrace my inner stupid. You should see my first drafts. I swear I am dyslexic or have some form of rare ADD that disallows linear thought. It comes in handy with complex or multiple thought processes, sucks when trying to explain or convey things in text."

You are the classic Libertarian perosnality.

You're incompetent when it comes to using language, so it makes it much easier for you to abuse logic, and remain paranoid like the rest of these nuts.

Your world is black, and white. Nuance, and deeper education is harmful to your cult. Like religious zealots, you distill the world down into a series of supposedly common sense principles that, if violated, will destroy the imagined order.

Simply take a look at how small the average Libertarian/Conservative world is.

Almost every foreign country is some kind of liberal threat to you. Science is a liberal threat. The media is a liberal threat. Universities are a liberal threat Public schools are Liberal threat. Only an incredibly small number of people are not a threat to your world view, and it's getting worse.

These are the same paranoid delusions that Conservative religious wackos function under. Of course, it's never caused you to stop and wonder why such a relatively small number of people in the U.S. suffer from this perceived threat, and the rest of the world doesn't really see it that way?

Face it, you're just a bunch of Conservative minded goons with black and white world views who don't have the intellect to understand these issues in a more well-nuanced fashion. You like the Fisher Price version of it all.

You're like The Discovery Institute for politics. You learn the language of your opponents, and then you abuse it in order to muddle the discussion.

You goal is paralysis through confusion. It's certainly not due to a desire for intellectual honesty.

You're better off just being marginalized, and mocked until the end of time.

Sincerely,
Traitor

[Scottsdale tile]

This is good!

[wizard of oz books]

With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.