As I have stated before, I liked one of the 'stated' goals of Obamacare, to level the playing field, so to speak. Many of us are lucky enough to have been born healthy. But we all know people that suffer with lifelong ailments, which occurred through no fault of their own, and which can be catastrophically expensive.

No one deserves to be so penalized for being born with chronic medical conditions. And while I'm no expert on the economics of healthcare, it seems fair to me that we could all pay an "average" amount into some pool. Those who are healthy might never need that money. Those that are sick through no fault of their own, could have the security of knnowing that they won't lose everything because of something they had no control over.

I don't know if Obamacare was the best way to accomplish this, but I liked the idea of that.

Anyway, the fact is, Obama was unbelievably dishonest when he repeatedly stated that if you liked your plan, you could keep it - "period". There was no ambiguity or qualifying limitations in his statements. Millions and millions of Americans will have an experience that's very different from what he promised.

Many folks who currently pay a small premium for basic, catastrophic coverage...will see huge premium increases as they move to plans that have the mandated bells and whistles. My bet is that people will remember that next November. Many people will pay hundreds of dollars more a month.

You could argue that as a sociaty, we are better off if everyone has more comprehensive coverage, and that as a society, human decency dictates that we all pay a share to help the small number of Americans with chronic health issues. Unfortunately for Obama, he chose not to sell it that way, and he deserves the shellacking that he's getting right now.

I don't know if Obamacare was the best way to accomplish this, but I liked the idea of that.
That is exactly the point of adverse selection and why the HCB has an individual mandate.

Anyway, the fact is, Obama was unbelievably dishonest when he repeatedly stated that if you liked your plan, you could keep it - "period". There was no ambiguity or qualifying limitations in his statements. Millions and millions of Americans will have an experience that's very different from what he promised.
Well, the Administration made public the fact that many would see a change back in 2010...it was reported by FOX News.

I don't think it's dishonesty but rather over-simplification, he's speaking to the vast majority versus the minority. The topic is complex enough...

Many folks who currently pay a small premium for basic, catastrophic coverage...will see huge premium increases as they move to plans that have the mandated bells and whistles. My bet is that people will remember that next November. Many people will pay hundreds of dollars more a month.
While some of the minimum coverage provisions may go over the line (should a 70 year old woman have to pay for birth control?) a lot of the inexpensive individual plans really didn't provide very much. Even those for catastrophic situations tend to have high deductibles and low limits.

In economic terms I'd be willing to wager that those plans look closer to uninsured than those with real coverage.

If this is a real problem or not ultimately will come down to the individual States to run effective exchanges.

-spence

That is exactly the point of adverse selection and why the HCB has an individual mandate.


Well, the Administration made public the fact that many would see a change back in 2010...it was reported by FOX News.

I don't think it's dishonesty but rather over-simplification, he's speaking to the vast majority versus the minority. The topic is complex enough...


While some of the minimum coverage provisions may go over the line (should a 70 year old woman have to pay for birth control?) a lot of the inexpensive individual plans really didn't provide very much. Even those for catastrophic situations tend to have high deductibles and low limits.

In economic terms I'd be willing to wager that those plans look closer to uninsured than those with real coverage.

If this is a real problem or not ultimately will come down to the individual States to run effective exchanges.

-spence

"Well, the Administration made public the fact that many would see a change back in 2010"

Do you have any further info on that? I'm not being a smart-azz, just wondering. Because I keep seeing video footage of Obama saying with zero ambiguity, that if you like your plan, you can keep it - "peeriod". He aded the word "period" at the end on multiple occasions, and you and I both know what he was trying to convey there. He might as well have said "read my lips".

"I don't think it's dishonesty but rather over-simplification, he's speaking to the vast majority versus the minority. The topic is complex enough..."

I'd say you are being a bit too kind. There is an administration memo, dated in 2010, that said that 40% - 70% of those on individual plans, would lose current coverage. That's not remotely similar to anything I have heard Obama say in public. That memo, seems to suggest that Obama had to know that what he was saying in order to sell the law to the public, was not remotely true.

You call it a small oversight. It's millions and millions of Americans who will br required to pay a lot more (for more coverage, to be fair). We'll see in the coming months if Americans are as forgiving as you of Obama's "over simplification" of the impact.

Personally, I think this will clobber the Democrats in 2014. But I was 100% wrong on what I thought would happen in 2008.

Also Spence, what about the fact that Obama said the "average" family would save $2500 a year? Whose premiums are decreasing by that much? And for similar coverage?? I'm not heariing about reductions across the board...

Do you have any further info on that?
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/06/20100614e.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/health/policy/14health.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1383041169-arjQMjccjEDlp1HhI8W1bg&_r=0

I'd say you are being a bit too kind.
Considering how much difficulty Obama has had promoting the HCB it's par for the course.

Personally, I think this will clobber the Democrats in 2014. But I was 100% wrong on what I thought would happen in 2008.
Depends, but I'll bet that once the "I was booted off my coverage and premiums went up" stories are replaced with "I lost my job and no preexisting conditions means I get my cancer medication" stories come forth people may quickly forget a shaky launch.

Also Spence, what about the fact that Obama said the "average" family would save $2500 a year? Whose premiums are decreasing by that much? And for similar coverage?? I'm not heariing about reductions across the board...
There was a story about the economist who was advising Obama in 2008 who said Obama got the talking point wrong. The $2500 figure was total health related expenses rather than directly off the premium.

-spence

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/06/20100614e.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/health/policy/14health.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1383041169-arjQMjccjEDlp1HhI8W1bg&_r=0


Considering how much difficulty Obama has had promoting the HCB it's par for the course.


Depends, but I'll bet that once the "I was booted off my coverage and premiums went up" stories are replaced with "I lost my job and no preexisting conditions means I get my cancer medication" stories come forth people may quickly forget a shaky launch.


There was a story about the economist who was advising Obama in 2008 who said Obama got the talking point wrong. The $2500 figure was total health related expenses rather than directly off the premium.

-spence

Spence is this guy , ever , in your mind, responsible for anything that comes out if his mouth??
He is either the most incompetent president ever or a pathalogical lier.
I believe your saying he isn't a lier .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/06/20100614e.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/health/policy/14health.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1383041169-arjQMjccjEDlp1HhI8W1bg&_r=0


Considering how much difficulty Obama has had promoting the HCB it's par for the course.


Depends, but I'll bet that once the "I was booted off my coverage and premiums went up" stories are replaced with "I lost my job and no preexisting conditions means I get my cancer medication" stories come forth people may quickly forget a shaky launch.


There was a story about the economist who was advising Obama in 2008 who said Obama got the talking point wrong. The $2500 figure was total health related expenses rather than directly off the premium.

-spence

Here is the first line from your first link...

"The U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury today issued a new regulation that makes good on President Obama’s promise that Americans who like their health plan can keep it."

I think people could argue that Obama's promise, that we could keep the plans if we liked them, is a false promise. If Obama says that we can keep our existing plans, but upwards of 70% of those in individual plans cannot keep their plan, then Obama's statement is demonstrably false. All Obama had to do, was say "if your plan meets the new minimum standards, you can keep it. If not, you will move to a new plan that increases your coverage at an increased cost". I don't think his mis-statement was accidental. Because if people knew what the impact was going to be, I don't think the bill would have passed.

The ironic thing, again, is that I respect the goal of spreeading those long-term, chronic costs among people who are lucky enough to be healthy. But the way Obama went about it, may cost him.

"I'll bet that once the "I was booted off my coverage and premiums went up" stories are replaced with "I lost my job and no preexisting conditions means I get my cancer medication" stories come forth people may quickly forget a shaky launch."

You may well be right. But I'm sure that the number of healthy people whose premiums will skyrocket, dwarfs the number of sick people who will be better off.

"The $2500 figure was total health related expenses rather than directly off the premium. "

Fair enough. How is the average family saving $200 a month on healthcare expenses? That's very, very difficult for me to accept. Healthcare costs move in one direction, up. Maybe Obama assumed that we could all go work for the teachers unions, in which case I'd believe that my out-of-pocket healthcare expenses would go down by $200 a month!

Have a good weekend Spence, hope your kids enjoyed Halloween.

Here is the first line from your first link...

"The U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury today issued a new regulation that makes good on President Obama’s promise that Americans who like their health plan can keep it."

I think people could argue that Obama's promise, that we could keep the plans if we liked them, is a false promise. If Obama says that we can keep our existing plans, but upwards of 70% of those in individual plans cannot keep their plan, then Obama's statement is demonstrably false. All Obama had to do, was say "if your plan meets the new minimum standards, you can keep it. If not, you will move to a new plan that increases your coverage at an increased cost". I don't think his mis-statement was accidental. Because if people knew what the impact was going to be, I don't think the bill would have passed.

The ironic thing, again, is that I respect the goal of spreeading those long-term, chronic costs among people who are lucky enough to be healthy. But the way Obama went about it, may cost him.

"I'll bet that once the "I was booted off my coverage and premiums went up" stories are replaced with "I lost my job and no preexisting conditions means I get my cancer medication" stories come forth people may quickly forget a shaky launch."

You may well be right. But I'm sure that the number of healthy people whose premiums will skyrocket, dwarfs the number of sick people who will be better off.

"The $2500 figure was total health related expenses rather than directly off the premium. "

Fair enough. How is the average family saving $200 a month on healthcare expenses? That's very, very difficult for me to accept. Healthcare costs move in one direction, up. Maybe Obama assumed that we could all go work for the teachers unions, in which case I'd believe that my out-of-pocket healthcare expenses would go down by $200 a month!

Have a good weekend Spence, hope your kids enjoyed Halloween.

Jim, it sounds to me like you're just quibbling. You don't seem to have much against Obamacare, you just don't like the lies, and in the end it will cost the Dems politically. If Obmacare is a good thing, then the Dems are to be admired for their courage and willingness to lose votes.

Jim, it sounds to me like you're just quibbling. You don't seem to have much against Obamacare, you just don't like the lies, and in the end it will cost the Dems politically. If Obmacare is a good thing, then the Dems are to be admired for their courage and willingness to lose votes.

I am not necessarily saying I think Obamacare is a good thing, not at all.

I am saying, that it seems fair and decent to me, that we have some risk-sharing mechanism where healthy people (who could get sick at any time) subsidize sick people in some way. If we could accomplish that without the federal government being involved, I would prefer that. I know that Catholic hospitals (which I donate to) will treat folks regardless of their ability to pay. So we do have some of that. But maybe we could level the playing field a bit more?

I don't think anyone should endure a lifelong financial burden for something they have zero control over. Nor do I think that healthy people 'deserve' the lifelong financial windfall that comes with being healthy.

I am not talking about health expenses that are within one's control...if you choose to smoke and get lung cancer, I don't want you reaching into my pocket.

I'm not saying I like Obamacare. But I guess I am saying that the strict libertarian view on this, seems a bit callous to me.

Maybe I'm not saying anything, I don't know.

Fair enough. How is the average family saving $200 a month on healthcare expenses? That's very, very difficult for me to accept. Healthcare costs move in one direction, up. Maybe Obama assumed that we could all go work for the teachers unions, in which case I'd believe that my out-of-pocket healthcare expenses would go down by $200 a month!
The interesting thing is that premiums through the exchanges are actually LOWER than anticipated...We'll see come spring when the CBO updates their projections what long-term impact this really would have, but it's a positive sign.

-spence

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

So these 93 million that were projected to lose their coverage, by the administration, in 2010 should be able to keep their doctors? Sounds like he is either not in touch with how the real world operates or he lied?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Jackbass;1019986

So these 93 million that were projected to lose their coverage, by the administration, in 2010 should be able to keep their doctors?[/QUOTE]

How will others keep Doctor when insurance companies like United Health Care are dropping 10-15% 0f their Doctors nationwide? In addition, just like with Medicare, Doctors will drop out and not take the insurance. The good ones have enough patients that they don't need to take insurance they don't want.

A friend of mine an, internist/infectious disease specialist, gave me a peek into the future. He no longer takes any insurance, period. He has 22 patients that pay him $20,000/yr and he is available to them 24/7. He's happy making $400,000/yr without all the paper work and it's costs. Just sayin, there will be all kinds of things like this that will limit the # of doctors available and increase appointment times.

I am not necessarily saying I think Obamacare is a good thing, not at all.

I didn't think you did. I was just baiting you to bring you out into a wider discussion. To delve into more than the economics and feasibility of it. Which, to a brief extent, you did.

I am saying, that it seems fair and decent to me, that we have some risk-sharing mechanism where healthy people (who could get sick at any time) subsidize sick people in some way.

That is an economic consideration that needs to be worked out after the decision to implement such a mechanism. The initial stage involves the fairness of forcing people to share in something they don't wish to do. And it involves who decides. It involves PRINCIPLES of fairness and decency and coercion and liberty. Collectivist societies have little problem deciding and implementing such mechanisms, and the cost, for such societies, is secondary, or even less in importance. Consider in what kind of society you live in, or wish to live in, before you decide what kind of mechanism creates the subsidies and who, or what part of your society decides.

If we could accomplish that without the federal government being involved, I would prefer that.

I agree with that. Further, I believe it is beyond preference, but a necessity that the federal government stay out of mandating, decision making, and the mechanics of how it works. I believe, not just because of constitutionality, that the federal gvt. would be far more effective and less costly to run if it stuck to its constitutional limitations. The all expansive role it plays in our lives and the massive and expanding size of its bureaucracy, are absolute prescriptions for failure, for snafus, breakdowns, constant need of repair and reform, not to speak of the accompanying dictatorial methods required to operate as it does. How less likely a Benghazi incident would be if the federal gvt. were only involved with its constitutional duties. The time, resources, money, effort, systemic planning involved in managing a myriad of duties is far more costly and susceptible to failure compared to the focus on more limited objectives and their financing. Benghazi is a constitutional federal responsibility. More attention paid to it than on nonconstitutional objectives would auger more success in eliminating such tragedies.

I was amazed how the government's prescription for making General Motors successful was to downsize it, to eliminate two of its car lines, renegotiate union contracts and pension liabilities so that they were affordable, yet it couldn't look in the mirror and see that it needed to do the same thing. So GM is now financially viable, mean and lean heading toward a future of success--so long as it stays the course of fiscal responsibility and remains a competitive size. The federal gvt. on the other hand is a bureaucratic mess, verging on the bankruptcy it bailed GM out of, failing on many "small" missions while it tries to gather larger and more expansive ones--as was GM before it employed the government prescription.

I know that Catholic hospitals (which I donate to) will treat folks regardless of their ability to pay. So we do have some of that. But maybe we could level the playing field a bit more?

Yeah, and the Obamacare mandate on contraceptives may mean that those hospitals will either have to abandon a core belief or abandon the wonderful charitable work. I haven't followed that--maybe that has been favorably resolved?

And I strongly believe we would have much more of that kind of charity if mandated federal "help" to the needy were eliminated and left to local governments and private concerns. That has always been an American tradition which has been dampened by government takeover of charity. That has "leveled the playing field" but dampened the natural human spirit of kindness, compassion, and charity. I think that has even contributed to an expansion of cruelty, violence, and lack of human empathy in our society.

I don't think anyone should endure a lifelong financial burden for something they have zero control over. Nor do I think that healthy people 'deserve' the lifelong financial windfall that comes with being healthy.

I am not talking about health expenses that are within one's control...if you choose to smoke and get lung cancer, I don't want you reaching into my pocket.

Charitable help exists even outside of Catholic charities--there are actual charities that can be applied to for help by the needy and to whom hospitals can refer patients who are unable to pay. I do think that those who are more conscious of health maintenance and practice it (which BTW can be costly) do deserve a financial break for their effort

I'm not saying I like Obamacare. But I guess I am saying that the strict libertarian view on this, seems a bit callous to me.

Maybe I'm not saying anything, I don't know.

Yeah, you are saying something. You are a very fair and decent man. Your heart is very much in the right place and you have good things to say about most issues. I don't know what a libertarian is, nor a strict one. So many say they are libertarian but disagree on much. If the core value that all subscribe to is liberty with its cognate of responsibility, I don't thing that portion is callous. I think it is that portion that creates the wealth, and innovation, and distribution of both in society at large. What may seem compassionate, if doled out by a dispassionate distant monopolizing central power, can be destructive of the spirit that informs that portion.

Good debate as usual detbuch. My fear is that in the absence of government programs, more sick people will suffer than I am comfortable with. The government programs, however, must be well-run, and our federal government doesn't do much well.

Some famous person said something to the effect of "that government is best which governs the least". I subscribe to that. One of the limited things that I'd prefer that the government attempt to do, is help people, especially those who are suffering through no fault of their own.

There are a lot of people out there, doing incredible charitable work, but I'm assuming there's not enough voluntary charity to help everyone who needs it. I'm no expert on these things, but I wouldn't mind paying some tax dollars to help relieve the financial burden of our neighbors who weren't born as lucky as I was to be healthy.

My view on a strict libertarian is someone who believes everyone should be left to their own devices. I always found that to be self-centered.

Thanks for the kind words.

"The U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury today issued a new regulation that makes good on President Obama’s promise that Americans who like their health plan can keep it."

I still have my health plan. No cancellation letter, so yes, they did make good on that promise.

Its not their fault that people with sketchy cheap plans are getting told they're getting cancelled by their health insurance company. It was the health insurance company that made that decision. Not the government.

Happy to see some of these #^&#^&#^&#^&ty PPO's that have been floating around finally going down the tube.

Obama could put a gun to the head of any republican & pull the trigger on national TV and the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing liberal Moonbats would still worship him.

There are a lot of people out there, doing incredible charitable work, but I'm assuming there's not enough voluntary charity to help everyone who needs it. I'm no expert on these things, but I wouldn't mind paying some tax dollars to help relieve the financial burden of our neighbors who weren't born as lucky as I was to be healthy.

My view on a strict libertarian is someone who believes everyone should be left to their own devices. I always found that to be self-centered.



should probably start with a pretty good definition...like most things there is a spectrum...there is in fact "libertarian socialism"..I assume a true libertarian socialist would agree that he may and is free to "reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management" but not force that ideaology on others through government force..:uhuh:

I think you confuse "left to their own devices" with a desire to be "free" from the "initiation of force" from government....I think a libertarian would tell you that charities would benefit far more in terms of charitable works and contributions if the individual, "left to their own devices", was working more for their own benefit and those that they associate with and less an effort to support the machinations of a behemoth central government, the government that you would like to have dole out only what charity is necessary and to only those who need it has sufficiently proven itself unable to do so in any responsible or sustainable way....this concept that without government there to provide, many would be left to wallow is something that I've heard many times from our President

"President Obama today delivered an impassioned attack on what he called Republicans’ “cramped narrow conception” of liberty, during a fiery speech at a campaign fundraiser in Vermont.

Liberty is the value of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions). Different conceptions of liberty articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different ways— these conceptions relate to life under a social contract, existence in an imagined state of nature, and related to the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty. Understanding liberty involves how we imagine the individual's roles and responsibilities in society in relation to concepts of free will and determinism, which involves the larger domain of metaphysics.

Classical liberal conceptions of liberty typically consist of the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion, also known as negative liberty. This conception of liberty, which coincides with the libertarian point-of-view, suggests that people should, must, and ought to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions, while in contrast, Social liberal conceptions of (positive liberty) liberty place an emphasis upon social structure and agency and is therefore directed toward ensuring egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")—or, rarely, equalitarianism[1][2]—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[3] The Cultural theory of risk holds egalitarianism as defined by (1) a negative attitude towards rules and principles, and (2) a positive attitude towards group decision-making, with fatalism termed as its opposite.[4] According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two distinct definitions in modern English.[5] It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights[6] or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralisation of power . Some sources define egalitarianism as the point of view that equality reflects the natural state of humanity.

so you see the.... "positive conception of liberty"(conveniently created) is not liberty at all but socialism which is the polar opposite of "negative conception of liberty"(mis-named by the creators of the positive conception of liberty) and the two are not compatible which explains the ultimate problem that we have currently in our society....the most successful dictators on the planet historically have built their causes on the "positive conceptions of various "liberties", it's a ruse ...and it works"



Before an electrified crowd of 4500 – his largest of the campaign to date – Obama framed the 2012 campaign as a stark choice between two diametrically opposed political and economic philosophies.

“Their philosophy is simple: you’re on your own,” Obama said of the GOP.

“You’re on your own if you’re out of work, can’t find a job. Tough luck you’re on your own. You don’t have health care: That’s your problem. You’re on your own. If you’re born into poverty, lift yourself up with your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own. They believe that’s how America is advanced,” he said.

“That’s the cramped narrow conception they have of liberty, and they are wrong,” he said. “They are wrong.”


under Obama's "warped concept of liberty"....we give government the excuse to take and dole out and grow beyond it's necessity and means as it pleases all on the assumption that individuals are incapable of taking care of themselves and those around them when it is fact proven time and again that it is government that is ill equipped to preform this task(I think you have pointed this out repeatedly)...pretty sure the Founding Fathers pointed this out too...a long time ago when the concept of libertarianism was hatched:uhuh:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free")[1] is a set of related political philosophies that uphold freedom as the highest political end.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5] political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism.[6] Different schools of libertarianism disagree over whether the state should exist and, if so, to what extent.[7] While minarchists propose a state limited in scope to preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud, anarchists advocate its complete elimination as a political system.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] While certain libertarian currents are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management[14][15][16][17] (see libertarian socialism).

In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[18] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[19] The U.S. Libertarian Party promotes individual sovereignty and seeks an end to coercion, advocating a government that is limited to protecting individuals from the initiation of force.[20


btw...if you "wouldn't mind paying some tax dollars to help relieve the financial burden of our neighbors who weren't born as lucky as I was to be healthy"...that should be something that you are free to do as often as you wish(libertarian concept) but should not result in your neighbors being forced to do so(other half of the libertarian concept) and wouldn't it make more sense to give those dollars directly to a hospital or charity(libertarian concept) that doesn't have a multi, multi bazillion dollar website that doesn't work?????(evidence for the basis of libertarian concept)

I still have my health plan. No cancellation letter, so yes, they did make good on that promise.

Its not their fault that people with sketchy cheap plans are getting told they're getting cancelled by their health insurance company. It was the health insurance company that made that decision. Not the government.

Happy to see some of these #^&#^&#^&#^&ty PPO's that have been floating around finally going down the tube.

Jim, this would be "self-centered" :uhuh:

How will others keep Doctor when insurance companies like United Health Care are dropping 10-15% 0f their Doctors nationwide? In addition, just like with Medicare, Doctors will drop out and not take the insurance. The good ones have enough patients that they don't need to take insurance they don't want.

A friend of mine an, internist/infectious disease specialist, gave me a peek into the future. He no longer takes any insurance, period. He has 22 patients that pay him $20,000/yr and he is available to them 24/7. He's happy making $400,000/yr without all the paper work and it's costs. Just sayin, there will be all kinds of things like this that will limit the # of doctors available and increase appointment times.


been seeing much more of this..middle class screwery again

How will others keep Doctor when insurance companies like United Health Care are dropping 10-15% 0f their Doctors nationwide?
I believe that statistic only applies to Medicare Advantage, which isn't expected to last. If those same doctors took Medicare they'd still be covered...

The funny thing about Medicare Advantage is that they basically bribe insurance companies to provide supplementary insurance. It costs the taxpayer more than regular Medicare.

-spence

Obama could put a gun to the head of any republican & pull the trigger on national TV and the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing liberal Moonbats would still worship him.

Snort snort snort snort...

-spence

I still have my health plan. No cancellation letter, so yes, they did make good on that promise.

Its not their fault that people with sketchy cheap plans are getting told they're getting cancelled by their health insurance company. It was the health insurance company that made that decision. Not the government.

Happy to see some of these #^&#^&#^&#^&ty PPO's that have been floating around finally going down the tube.

Yes, but those sketchy cheap plans were their sketchy cheap plans.

Ran across this today...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/10/31/the_chart_that_could_save_obamacare.html

-spence

I still have my health plan. No cancellation letter, so yes, they did make good on that promise.

Its not their fault that people with sketchy cheap plans are getting told they're getting cancelled by their health insurance company. It was the health insurance company that made that decision. Not the government.

Happy to see some of these #^&#^&#^&#^&ty PPO's that have been floating around finally going down the tube.

"did make good on that promise"

No, he didn't. Because I don't recall Obama saying that only you would get to keep your plan. If he had said that, he would have kept that promise. But what he said, was that everyone who liked their plan would be able to keep it. Likwid, if you still maintain that he kept that promise, you are far beyond help.

"It was the health insurance company that made that decision. Not the government."

Absolutely, 100% wrong. Obamacare included new minimum coverage limits that plans had to offer. Obamacare rendered many existing plans illegal. Thus, those plans were forced to non-renew their insureds. Try making that wrong! Get some facts before you start suggesting that Obama had no hand in this.

I don't feel ethically compelled to pay for Sandra Fluke's rubbers. If she wants to fornicate, she can do it on her own dime. Why stop at the birth control? If I have to pay for her condoms when the time is right, why not require me to pay for the dinner and the movie (most likely a vegan dinner followed by a Michael Moore flick) that set the tone for the evening's festivities?

btw...if you "wouldn't mind paying some tax dollars to help relieve the financial burden of our neighbors who weren't born as lucky as I was to be healthy"...that should be something that you are free to do as often as you wish(libertarian concept) but should not result in your neighbors being forced to do so(other half of the libertarian concept) and wouldn't it make more sense to give those dollars directly to a hospital or charity(libertarian concept) that doesn't have a multi, multi bazillion dollar website that doesn't work?????(evidence for the basis of libertarian concept)

What I'm saying is that if EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government programs can fill the inevitable gaps that charities could not fix, I'm OK with that. I am not saying that Obamacare fits that description.

Jim, this would be "self-centered" :uhuh:

I live in a house, therefore there is no such thing as homelessness.

I have a job, therefore the unemployment rate must be exactly 0.0%

I am bald, therefore I cannot fathom the existence of barber shops. Don't they know that no one needs their services?

Absolutely, 100% wrong. Obamacare included new minimum coverage limits that plans had to offer. Obamacare rendered many existing plans illegal. Thus, those plans were forced to non-renew their insureds. Try making that wrong! Get some facts before you start suggesting that Obama had no hand in this.
Well, you're not really right either. The insurance companies make the decision to terminate the old plans. They can always adjust the plan to comply...or not make significant changes to grandfathered plans either. Certainly though the law is influencing the behavior.

Funny thing is the notices being reported aren't kicking people off insurance, they're to shift them onto other plans. I can't believe how the Right Wing media got this story so wrong????

I don't feel ethically compelled to pay for Sandra Fluke's rubbers. If she wants to fornicate, she can do it on her own dime. Why stop at the birth control? If I have to pay for her condoms when the time is right, why not require me to pay for the dinner and the movie (most likely a vegan dinner followed by a Michael Moore flick) that set the tone for the evening's festivities?
I thought Rush Limbaugh's Sandra Fluke remarks were some of the most ugly and vile things he's ever said...that you'd choose to parrot them surprises me. I actually thought you were better than that Jim.

-spence

Well, you're not really right either. The insurance companies make the decision to terminate the old plans. They can always adjust the plan to comply...or not make significant changes to grandfathered plans either. Certainly though the law is influencing the behavior.

Funny thing is the notices being reported aren't kicking people off insurance, they're to shift them onto other plans. I can't believe how the Right Wing media got this story so wrong????


I thought Rush Limbaugh's Sandra Fluke remarks were some of the most ugly and vile things he's ever said...that you'd choose to parrot them surprises me. I actually thought you were better than that Jim.

-spence

"They can always adjust the plan to comply"

Yes, they can. But then it's not the same plan. And the ability to keep the current plan, is what Obama promised. You're not spinning his way out of that demonstrable lie.

"the notices being reported aren't kicking people off insurance, they're to shift them onto other plans"

Wrong. The regs are rendering the current plans illegal. And most folks can't get into a new Obamacare plan, because with 3.5 years and a jillion dollars,. the website they came up with is a POS. Obamacare is thus increasing the number of uninsured, which is pretty ironic.

Sandra Fluke is a parasite and a shameless skank. I'm not parroting Rush Limbaugh, whose show I have literally never heard. That I happen to agree with Rush on this topic does not mean I am parroting him, that's my own conclusion based on the empirical evidence.

Wrong. The regs are rendering the current plans illegal. And most folks can't get into a new Obamacare plan, because with 3.5 years and a jillion dollars,. the website they came up with is a POS. Obamacare is thus increasing the number of uninsured, which is pretty ironic.
The changes aren't immediate...people aren't being kicked off and left with no insurance.

Sandra Fluke is a parasite and a shameless skank. I'm not parroting Rush Limbaugh, whose show I have literally never heard. That I happen to agree with Rush on this topic does not mean I am parroting him, that's my own conclusion based on the empirical evidence.
Great minds must troll the same gutters then.

Why you'd call her a "shameless skank" is beyond me. Do you know ANYTHING about her personal life?

Perhaps you should run this one by your wife.

-spence

What I'm saying is that if EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government programs can fill the inevitable gaps that charities could not fix, I'm OK with that. I am not saying that Obamacare fits that description.

name one :uhuh: and what exactly are these "inevitable gaps"?

"CNN has been pondering what they call “a particularly tough few days at the White House.” “Four out of five Americans have little or no trust in their government to do anything right,” says chief political analyst Gloria Borger. “And now Obama probably feels the same way.” Our hearts go out to him, poor wee disillusioned thing. We are assured by the headline writers that the president was “unaware” of Obamacare’s website defects, and the NSA spying, and the IRS targeting of his political enemies, and the Justice Department bugging the Associated Press, and pretty much anything else you ask him about. But, as he put it, “nobody’s madder than me” at this shadowy rogue entity called the “Government of the United States” that’s running around pulling all this stuff. And, once he finds out who’s running this Government of the United States rogue entity, he’s gonna come down as hard on him as he did on that videomaker in California; he’s gonna send round the National Park Service SWAT team to teach that punk a lesson he won’t forget."

"But the fact remains that nowhere in the Western world has the governmentalization of health care been so incompetently introduced and required protection by such a phalanx of lies. Obamacare is not a left–right issue; it’s a fraud issue."

brilliant.. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/362922/print

Why you'd call her a "shameless skank" is beyond me. Do you know ANYTHING about her personal life?

Perhaps you should run this one by your wife.

-spence

I know she wants to fornicate, and that she wants me to pay for it. That tells me everything I need to know about her.

My wife, who was captain of the Union college rugby team, would describe her in words that would get her booted off this site. If you are so simple-minded that you think that all women think exactly alike, you don't know much about women, do you? I went to church yesterday, and I saw many women who are vehemently opposed to everything Sandra Fluke stands for.

name one :uhuh: and what exactly are these "inevitable gaps"?


brilliant.. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/362922/print

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.

I still have my health plan. No cancellation letter, so yes, they did make good on that promise.

Its not their fault that people with sketchy cheap plans are getting told they're getting cancelled by their health insurance company. It was the health insurance company that made that decision. Not the government.

Happy to see some of these #^&#^&#^&#^&ty PPO's that have been floating around finally going down the tube.

Why UUU putting down people with less costly plans?....some people can not afford a larger plan....yours is probaly paid for by the company U work for....people bought plans that they could afford on their own

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.

I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons, should we create an "EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government program" for each of those as well because "it should never, ever happen"??

you just provided the rationale for every massive bureaucratic transfer system that we have, please name one that is EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT.......one that did not start from sentiment like the one you expressed only to grow exponentially beyond it's promised purpose and cost....one that is not unsustainable and headed for disaster as you've pointed out countless times....:)

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.

Would it have been possible for those people (how many?--I don't know any--is this a rampant problem?)--would it have been possible for them to refinance their home for a loan to pay off their medical bills? And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty? If not, couldn't the money they paid for an apartment been used to pay notes on the refinanced house? Lots of questions to be answered here before government mandates that everyone else should pay for their medical bills.

Should old folks be able to keep or pass on all of their assets to family (homes, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and still have the "government" pay for their expensive care in nursing homes?

Should people who lose a job have the "government" subsidize their house notes so they can stay their rather than move to crappy apartments.

There are so many situations which affect millions of people from which they have to extricate themselves that could easily be "fixed" by the "government" paying for the fix.

Sorry Scott--posted this while you were posting yours.

All one has to do to see how poorly government runs it health program we just have to look at how the VA treats its wounded soldiers....it is socialist medicine

I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons, should we create an "EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government program" for each of those as well because "it should never, ever happen"??

you just provided the rationale for every massive bureaucratic transfer system that we have, please name one that is EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT.......one that did not start from sentiment like the one you expressed only to grow exponentially beyond it's promised purpose and cost....one that is not unsustainable and headed for disaster as you've pointed out countless times....:)

In my opinion, which you disagree with...I'd rather have some kind of public program that levels the playing field to lessen the financial impacts of catastrophic health costs which (1) those afflicted have zero control over, and which (2) could happen to any of us at any time. I'd rather have it at the local level than in DC.

"I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons"

Me too. I'm not talking about allowing people to avoid responsibility for bad decisions. I'm talking about helping those who did absolutely nothing to contribute to their predicament. If someone could devise a well run program to achieve that goal, I'd support it. Maybe you wouldn't.

I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons, should we create an "EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government program" for each of those as well because "it should never, ever happen"??

you just provided the rationale for every massive bureaucratic transfer system that we have, please name one that is EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT.......one that did not start from sentiment like the one you expressed only to grow exponentially beyond it's promised purpose and cost....one that is not unsustainable and headed for disaster as you've pointed out countless times....:)

It seems that government programs are most effective in creating a greater need for their service than existed before the programs started. That appears to be the nature of providing "help". The appearance is that they are "working" because more seek the help. So the "help" expands and the cost gets larger not only because of larger numbers to be "helped" but because the large pool of govt. money also raises the cost of the "help".

In reality, people become less "efficient" in solving their own problems because it is easier to let government do it.

It is such an obvious circle of events. But the allure of easier living is too great to resist. That it is heading toward a collapse of a system of individual responsibility to one of government dependence appears not to be a problem. It can all be replaced with an effectively efficient system of total government control. That such systems have not worked due to that mysterious desire in human nature to be free of them is not a problem. Our way will be better.

Would it have been possible for those people (how many?--I don't know any--is this a rampant problem?)--would it have been possible for them to refinance their home for a loan to pay off their medical bills? And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty? If not, couldn't the money they paid for an apartment been used to pay notes on the refinanced house? Lots of questions to be answered here before government mandates that everyone else should pay for their medical bills.

Should old folks be able to keep or pass on all of their assets to family (homes, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and still have the "government" pay for their expensive care in nursing homes?

Should people who lose a job have the "government" subsidize their house notes so they can stay their rather than move to crappy apartments.

There are so many situations which affect millions of people from which they have to extricate themselves that could easily be "fixed" by the "government" paying for the fix.

Sorry Scott--posted this while you were posting yours.

"And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty?"

No. The family I know, had medical bills that ran in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not mane people can write a check for that amount and not see a big downward shift in their standard of living, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they were in "financial difficulty" to begin with. They weren't uber-rich, but they were not in financial difficulty by my standards.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that the feds could pull it off without waste and abuse. Nor am I so cynical and callous that I'm willing to say "tough cookies" to people who are so afflicted.

In my opinion, which you disagree with...I'd rather have some kind of public program that levels the playing field to lessen the financial impacts of catastrophic health costs which (1) those afflicted have zero control over, and which (2) could happen to any of us at any time. I'd rather have it at the local level than in DC.

We already have a system wherein it can and must be had at the local level--the governmental structure prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. Having it at a centralized national level destroys the constitutional structure. It's not a question of "rather" having it at the local level. It either "must" be there or it entirely changes the political structure and the relationship of the individual to the government.

"I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons"

Me too. I'm not talking about allowing people to avoid responsibility for bad decisions. I'm talking about helping those who did absolutely nothing to contribute to their predicament. If someone could devise a well run program to achieve that goal, I'd support it. Maybe you wouldn't.

Many of those reasons Scott was talking about also involve situations where the individual has, as you put it, "zero control over". Two that I mentioned above, growing old and in need of 24/7 care and the loss of job and income. Their is no such thing as a well run "government" program to solve them without changing the nature of our society. If you think a "safe" government manipulated society is better than one of individual choice fraught with messy problems, than we differ in more than minor preferences.

"And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty?"

No. The family I know, had medical bills that ran in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not mane people can write a check for that amount and not see a big downward shift in their standard of living, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they were in "financial difficulty" to begin with. They weren't uber-rich, but they were not in financial difficulty by my standards.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that the feds could pull it off without waste and abuse. Nor am I so cynical and callous that I'm willing to say "tough cookies" to people who are so afflicted.

Now you're really losing me. We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars? If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now? And if the government was willing to pay for them all, wouldn't that even raise the cost of the medicine even more? It sounds like the prescription for more of the same escalating costs we are experiencing now--on steroids.

Wouldn't it be more effective, and more economically reasonable for the rest of society, if the individual negotiated those prices rather than the government either just paying them or instead controlled them.

If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect. Either negotiation or default would occur. Third party has distorted this into a spiral of higher costs, government intervention, and unsustainable debts.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that the feds could pull it off without waste and abuse.

that's a relief:)

Nor am I so cynical and callous that I'm willing to say "tough cookies" to people who are so afflicted.

that statement presumes that the only option for "those so afflicted" is assistance from some benevolent government entity or death in the streets, which I think would fit quite nicely into an Obama campaign speech

Now you're really losing me. We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars? If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now? And if the government was willing to pay for them all, wouldn't that even raise the cost of the medicine even more? It sounds like the prescription for more of the same escalating costs we are experiencing now--on steroids.

Wouldn't it be more effective, and more economically reasonable for the rest of society, if the individual negotiated those prices rather than the government either just paying them or instead controlled them.

If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect. Either negotiation or default would occur. Third party has distorted this into a spiral of higher costs, government intervention, and unsustainable debts.

"We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars?"

Our consciences should demand that we need something to lessen the burden tee people face. In the absence of private programs providing the safety net, the gubmint could do it.

"If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now?"

Yes. Detbuch, you and Scott are sharp enough to play devil's advocate, where you could articulate dozens of potential pitfalls and abuses. In the meantime, innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control. If we can split an atom, perhaps we can figure out a way to address this too.

"If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect."

These are dear friends. They could afford to pay most of it, and it cost them everything they had. They had a child born with leukemia and bad kidneys, and they were absolutely wiped out by the bills. Household income was about $125k, and they had decent insurance.

They had decent insurance, they got help from family and friends, our town had fundraisers, they relied on charities like Ronald McDonald House. And still, they got wiped out. Every cent of home equity, gone. Every cent they had saved since they started working, gone. Credit cards maxed out. Every cent was for medical expenses.

I don't claim to be able to answer any of the "well, what about THIS" gotcha arrows you can sling my way. But my claim is that we can do a little better in this area.

"We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars?"

Our consciences should demand that we need something to lessen the burden tee people face. In the absence of private programs providing the safety net, the gubmint could do it.

"If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now?"

Yes. Detbuch, you and Scott are sharp enough to play devil's advocate, where you could articulate dozens of potential pitfalls and abuses. In the meantime, innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control. If we can split an atom, perhaps we can figure out a way to address this too.

"If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect."

These are dear friends. They could afford to pay most of it, and it cost them everything they had. They had a child born with leukemia and bad kidneys, and they were absolutely wiped out by the bills. Household income was about $125k, and they had decent insurance.

They had decent insurance, they got help from family and friends, our town had fundraisers, they relied on charities like Ronald McDonald House. And still, they got wiped out. Every cent of home equity, gone. Every cent they had saved since they started working, gone. Credit cards maxed out. Every cent was for medical expenses.

I don't claim to be able to answer any of the "well, what about THIS" gotcha arrows you can sling my way. But my claim is that we can do a little better in this area.

so if your friends had "decent insurance" and still got wiped, what would the government do or how would the government prevent that?....would decent insurance purchased through government exchanges rather than decent insurance purchased through the private market or provided by an employer have been any different?

you are going through all sorts of emotional gymnastics without any solid point or explaining exactly how this should work.... and ignoring your own repeated mantra....I feel like I'm listening to Obama or Hillary during their primary...:uhuh: "we should do something....anything...our consciences demand it...innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control".....GOOD GRIEF...WHAT????? WOULD....YOU....DOOOO


wait...I think I've got this....from what I can discern from what you've written....you'd like to create a efficient and effective benevolent government program run from a benevolent government office that will be efficient and effective...and filled with benevolent government officials and underlings who will likewise be efficient and effective and what?...non-union?...and whose job it will be to decide who gets assistance from their benevolent budgets despite your railing against and pointing out the problems with all of this benevolence for quite some time....so that things like what happened to your friend will never happen to anyone again because that is the only way to prevent such things from happening....

sadly...the only thing that skirts reality in all of that is the story about your friend........

so if your friends had "decent insurance" and still got wiped, what would the government do or how would the government prevent that?....would decent insurance purchased through government exchanges rather than decent insurance purchased through the private market or provided by an employer have been any different?

you are going through all sorts of emotional gymnastics without any solid point or explaining exactly how this should work.... and ignoring your own repeated mantra....I feel like I'm listening to Obama or Hillary during their primary...:uhuh: "we should do something....anything...our consciences demand it...innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control".....GOOD GRIEF...WHAT????? WOULD....YOU....DOOOO

Scott, the difference between me and them, as that I wouldn't mandate that we all pay for the voluntary, sometime-unethical choices that we make. I'm not saying you pay for my drug needles.

I'm not saying I have a vision for how this would work. I am saying that we can do better, in my opinion. If you need some details, I'd say that we all pay some amount into a pool, that could be tapped into to ease the burden of catastrophic and uncontrollable medical expenses.

I'm glad you weren't in the Army Chief Of Staff in 1938. You want to increase the military tenfold? Impossible. Stop showing news reels of European Jews being gassed, I'm not persuadable by such 'emotional gymnastics'. How can we fight on 2 fronts? Why should we have to sacrifice to save Europe and China from enslavement?

Obamacare, clearly, is about much more than helping our neighbors. It's a vehicle to fund a whole liberal wishlist like contraceptives, and to increase the scope of the feds - that's the goal. I'm talking about things, I think, that are more vital to the human condition.

That something is hard, or will be flawed, doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth doing.

well...looks like I nailed that...except that the benevolent government official will efficiently and effectively decide what are ethical and unethical choices :uhuh:

I'm glad you weren't in the Army Chief Of Staff in 1938. You want to increase the military tenfold? Impossible. Stop showing news reels of European Jews being gassed, I'm not persuadable by such 'emotional gymnastics'. How can we fight on 2 fronts? Why should we have to sacrifice to save Europe and China from enslavement?



"glad you weren't in charge when Hitler was killing Jews"...that's good one Jim...real original :)

Jim, I understand how you must feel, especially being these people are friends of yours and a child is involved. I don't think there are any answers at this time to pay for such an event that no one could predict. Any Govt. program would be a losing proposition with waste fraud and the usual incompetency.

The only thing I could think of would be some kind of a catastrophic insurance policy, similar to an Umbrella Policy which you can add to a Home Owners Policy,added to a medical insurance policy to cover those kind of medical issues. The cost, I am sure would be very expensive, but the cost of medicine, which will never go down, and is now a fact of life. As our technology's progress costs will continue to rise and everyone wants the best. The days of Doc Adams getting paid with vegetables are long gone, although I do know of some Docs who do NC work for those who can't pay, but that's not the big costs of high tech and hospital costs.
Competition is the only way to keep things some what in check, and the Govt. is unwilling to do what they could do to reduce costs by allowing Interstate Competition and Tort Reform.
I feel for this family as they are truly between a rock and a hard place.

no one can argue that the circumstances for this family are tragic...it's a little surprising to see Jim however, who spends significant time railing about the inefficiencies and looming financial disaster created by various government programs and the inherent dynamics that occur when government involves itself in many things, would seek to have government attempt to solve this issue...but more and more we seem to think that government should and could provide the solutions to many things, with the right people in charge of course....government seems quite content to supplant private charity with it's own form of compassion

"glad you weren't in charge when Hitler was killing Jews"...that's good one Jim...real original :)

The fact that it wasn't original, doesn't mean that it wasn't on point. Your argument against my thought, was that it would be difficult and imperfect. Some causes are noble enough that you take them head-on, even though they will be difficult and imperfect. Sometimes when you have the ability to do something, then you also have the responsibility to do it. That was Bush's argument wen he launched his AIDS treatment plan in Africa. It was difficult, and it was imperfect, and probably has some waste. But Stanford University estimates that it saved more than one million lives. If I have to work an extra month or two before I retire, to pay for my share of the cost of saving a million lives, that's something I'll gladly take.

Scott, you and Detbuch pointed out a long lit of absolutely valid concerns about why such a thing would likely be inefficient, wasteful, possibly ineffective, and maybe unconstitutional. I concede all of that.

I did try to answer most of your points. Maybe you can answer one of mine. Just one. My friends will likely never be able to purchase a home, and likely never be able to retire. What would YOU say to him when he's 75 years old, and working at McDonalds or as a greeter at WalMart, because his daughter will still need expensive care? "Too bad?" "That's the way life goes?" "That's the way the cookie crumbles"?

I think we can do better. That's just my $0.02.

Jim, I understand how you must feel, especially being these people are friends of yours and a child is involved. I don't think there are any answers at this time to pay for such an event that no one could predict. Any Govt. program would be a losing proposition with waste fraud and the usual incompetency.

The only thing I could think of would be some kind of a catastrophic insurance policy, similar to an Umbrella Policy which you can add to a Home Owners Policy,added to a medical insurance policy to cover those kind of medical issues. The cost, I am sure would be very expensive, but the cost of medicine, which will never go down, and is now a fact of life. As our technology's progress costs will continue to rise and everyone wants the best. The days of Doc Adams getting paid with vegetables are long gone, although I do know of some Docs who do NC work for those who can't pay, but that's not the big costs of high tech and hospital costs.
Competition is the only way to keep things some what in check, and the Govt. is unwilling to do what they could do to reduce costs by allowing Interstate Competition and Tort Reform.
I feel for this family as they are truly between a rock and a hard place.

I don't pretend to have any kind of a solution. But I don't believe that it's beyond the abilities for us to improve the current situation. One of the my favorite things about this country, is that we are at our best when things are at their worst.

[QUOTE=scottw;1020128it's a little surprising to see Jim however, who spends significant time railing about the inefficiencies and looming financial disaster created by various government programs and the inherent dynamics that occur when government involves itself in many things, would seek to have government attempt to solve this issue...[/QUOTE]

Scott, I agree with you on the vast majority of the issues, an dI respect the way you state your opinions, including the way you are stating your opinions here. You make a very, very compelling case, and I admit I don't have an effective response to many of your arguments.

I do rail against the hole we are in with entitlements, as it was avoidable...I don't want to go broke myself, so that we can reward blocks of citizens with financial perks that are insanely expensive.

My assumption is that we could, collectively, make a big dent in reducing stress of people like my friends, without making extreme sacrifices. Hell, if the feds could wisen up and gut (or eliminate) wasteful boondoggles like the Dept of education, dept of energy, etc...that alone might provide the funds. It'd be a better allocation of those dollars, that's for sure...

Good jousting, though.

Good jousting, though.

:)

I did try to answer most of your points. Maybe you can answer one of mine. Just one. My friends will likely never be able to purchase a home, and likely never be able to retire. What would YOU say to him when he's 75 years old, and working at McDonalds or as a greeter at WalMart, because his daughter will still need expensive care? "Too bad?" "That's the way life goes?" "That's the way the cookie crumbles"?

I think we can do better. That's just my $0.02.

I see people who are at that age working in the places that you speak of, one that comes right to mind is working at the cash register at the CVS down the street...he was an owner of a furniture store here for most of my life...I don't know the circumstances but he has to work at that age for whatever reason, he may need a government program to cure that? I fully expect to still be working at that age, maybe I need a government program....as unfortunate as your friend's circumstance is...people get kicked in the nuts by life all of the time...he could also be a millionaire by the time he's 75 with the right circumstances... you seem to be assuming the worst for him...there are plenty of examples of people that turn these things into great successes... but it's less likely he'll succeed in this economy being strangled by all of the debt that we owe due to the other misguided programs that were sold as intended to prevent people from having to deal with the unfortunate things that happen in life and our steady move to a government assisted society rather than an entrepreneurial free market capitalistic model ever since we reached "peak capitalism" back during the recovery summer

"We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars?"

Our consciences should demand that we need something to lessen the burden tee people face. In the absence of private programs providing the safety net, the gubmint could do it.

When you say "our" do you mean that everybody has the same "conscience"? That we all march to the same drummer? You are free to demand things because of your conscience, but not mine. I do not say that to be callous nor that my conscience is different than yours. In general, individual ethics, moralities, matters of conscience, differ in large, diverse societies. In them, there will be no consensus, much less unanimity, on how to achieve a perfect safety net--that is, if those societies are based on free association and liberty. Totalitarian societies are a different matter. Nor does government have a conscience. At least according to my understanding of conscience being the recognition of right and wrong in respect to one's own conduct. Asking government to replace conscience is a negation of conscience. Only private entities comprised of like minded individuals, or even just single individuals, can act on matters of conscience.

"If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now?"

Yes. Detbuch, you and Scott are sharp enough to play devil's advocate, where you could articulate dozens of potential pitfalls and abuses. In the meantime, innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control. If we can split an atom, perhaps we can figure out a way to address this too.

If you choose to live in a collectivist, totalitarian type of society it can see to it that you are relieved of those burdens--that is if it agrees with your conscience--that is, it replaces your conscience with its mandates. It will control the things which you could not possibly control--as well as those you could.

If on the other hand you choose to live in a society of free wills in free association, coercing everyone into the same patterns of conscience is not possible, nor desirable. You are required to find your way out of situations you could not avoid. Even to seek or accept the help of those who are sympathetic to your plight.

Now, splitting an atom, is not analogous to finding a way out of your plight, nor concerned with escaping plights. It can lead to ways that make your plights easier. But its intensions are to discover realities not to escape them. Its solution requires curiosity rather than conscience.

"If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect."

These are dear friends. They could afford to pay most of it, and it cost them everything they had. They had a child born with leukemia and bad kidneys, and they were absolutely wiped out by the bills. Household income was about $125k, and they had decent insurance.

I sincerely hope that their child was cured. Not just because of the terrible financial cost they bore, but far more importantly because who they love is with them, which is indescribably greater than that cost. But here's a catch about their not possibly being able to avoid what happened to their daughter--there is a way of avoiding the cost without asking the rest of us to be coerced into donating. Don't by a "decent" insurance policy, buy the absolutely best available--if such one exists that covers all possible medical catastrophes. If such a one doesn't exist, how could a few extra tax bucks confiscated from all of us make one come to be? Or must we be satisfied that gold Cadillac government mandated policies will cover this with a few extra bucks per person?

They had decent insurance, they got help from family and friends, our town had fundraisers, they relied on charities like Ronald McDonald House. And still, they got wiped out. Every cent of home equity, gone. Every cent they had saved since they started working, gone. Credit cards maxed out. Every cent was for medical expenses.

I don't claim to be able to answer any of the "well, what about THIS" gotcha arrows you can sling my way. But my claim is that we can do a little better in this area.

I don't know if "we" can do a little better. I'm sure philanthropic donors could. Voluntary free hospitals could. Pro-bono services by other hospitals in rare cases. Various children's charities, even ones for specific diseases such as leukemia and cancer. There is something called Catastrophic Illness in Children Relief Program that's sponsored by individual states. Connecticut had such a House Bill 5498 proposed in 2008. I don't know if it was passed. Massachusetts and New Jersey have versions of it. Even other local and state government assistance and regulations where such is closer to the people to approve at ballot boxes. But if you let the federal gvt. stick its nose in the door, it will soon walk in entirely and add your problems to its unsustainable budget as well as regulating it in ways that you may not like, and for which you will have no control. And that will be precedence to expand to other peoples various personal catastrophes. Not just the rare ones in which we could do a little better.

But if you let the federal gvt. stick its nose in the door, it will soon walk in entirely and add your problems to its unsustainable budget as well as regulating it in ways that you may not like, and for which you will have no control. And that will be precedence to expand to other peoples various personal catastrophes. Not just the rare ones in which we could do a little better.

it was fascinating to watch him roll through just about every classic modern liberal reasoning/argument and mode of argument for a federal government program to cure an ill or correct a societal wrong....:uhuh: thought he was being possessed by Spence after a visit to the witchdoctor or something

...I don't know the circumstances but he has to work at that age for whatever reason, he may need a government program to cure that?

No. I wouldn't say that we need a government program for every conceivable reason that someone may be struggling.

Let me try to articulate my feeling this way...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity.

For example, I had friends at UCONN whose parents worked hard to pay tuition, and my friends didn't work hard and graduated with worthless degrees in things like communications. Those friends are struggling a bit, and I have no problem whatsoever with the fact they are struggling. They had the opportunity, they made bad choices, so it's just and fair that they face the consequences.

I can't bring myself to feel the same way about people who struggle with medical expenses. If my friends (with the sick daughter) were struggling because they made bad business decisions, or because they flushed their money away on expensive cars, that's one thing. But their struggles are from causes that they had zero control over.

In a perfect world, we'd all have the same oppotunities to be successful. I have no issue with people who make stupid choices, having to live with the consequences of their choices. However, I don't think that's equivalent to someone struggling because they, or someone in their family, was born sick. Those are distinguishable scenarios.

it was fascinating to watch him roll through just about every classic modern liberal reasoning/argument and mode of argument for a federal government program to cure an ill or correct a societal wrong....:uhuh: thought he was being possessed by Spence after a visit to the witchdoctor or something

My Catholicism trumps my political conservatism...

...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. but that is what you are asking for in a sense...removal of life's roadblocks to "guarantee" the outcome would be what it would have been if not for life's bumps...or in this case hurdles...and you'd like government to decide which are bumps and which are hurdles But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity. we have many...how are those working out in your opinion?...rhetorical

For example, I had friends at UCONN whose parents worked hard to pay tuition, and my friends didn't work hard and graduated with worthless degrees in things like communications. Those friends are struggling a bit, and I have no problem whatsoever with the fact they are struggling. They had the opportunity, they made bad choices, so it's just and fair that they face the consequences.

I can't bring myself to feel the same way about people who struggle with medical expenses. If my friends (with the sick daughter) were struggling because they made bad business decisions, or because they flushed their money away on expensive cars, that's one thing. But their struggles are from causes that they had zero control over.

In a perfect world, we'd all have the same oppotunities to be successful. yes I have no issue with people who make stupid choices, having to live with the consequences of their choices. However, I don't think that's equivalent to someone struggling because they, or someone in their family, was born sick. Those are distinguishable scenarios.

you should know by now that when government takes the reigns they tend to blur those "distinguishable differences" so as to include as many in their "charity' as possible...there are plenty of current examples

you should know by now that when government takes the reigns they tend to blur those "distinguishable differences" so as to include as many in their "charity' as possible...there are plenty of current examples

I'm not about to argue with that irrefutably correct statement. I wouldn't trust this current federal government with much.

But I do disagree with your statement that I am looking to guarantee equality of outcomes. If people make stupid or irresponsible decisions, they can deal with the consequences of that. I can't say that any more clearly, and that should convey that I am not looking to make outcomes equal.

But it would be worthwhile, I think, to do what we can to remove this opportunity-limiting event.

Let me try to articulate my feeling this way...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity.

The difference between equal "opportunity" and equal "outcome" is a convenient rhetorical distinction used to politically strive for the latter. The glue that equates the two concepts is the word "equal". In reality there is no such thing as an equal opportunity. Opportunities cannot be equal in actual time, space, and matter. Even less so within the more complex realm of human beings and human nature.

If by "opportunity" you mean the chance to acquire a finite existing object, obviously, not only is it not possible for "everybody" to acquire that object, but no matter how assiduously "everybody" attempts to meet the requirements needed to get that object, there are those factors which you keep insisting must be overcome for everyone to have the same "opportunity"--those pesky things that no one can possibly control--hereditary differences that physically or mentally or psychologically (even spiritually, if you will), qualify in some way some more than others to get the object. There is a pre-existing condition which nullifies an "equal" opportunity to achieve the goal.

On the other hand, if you mean by opportunity one's individual capacity to achieve personal goals, even in the face of difficult obstacles, that is, treating every obstacle as an opportunity rather than a defeat, that would be a "more" equality of opportunity, one which cannot be tampered with by politics. If you politically remove the obstacle, you erase the opportunity for the individual to overcome it. You do not create "more" equal opportunity, you erase the opportunity in the hope of creating a more equal outcome.

For example, I had friends at UCONN whose parents worked hard to pay tuition, and my friends didn't work hard and graduated with worthless degrees in things like communications. Those friends are struggling a bit, and I have no problem whatsoever with the fact they are struggling. They had the opportunity, they made bad choices, so it's just and fair that they face the consequences.

You judge that the reason those supposedly less fortunate friends are deservedly struggling is because they didn't take advantage of opportunity to make good choices rather than bad ones. How many choices in the sphere of what you consider good and bad were there to make? If the good choices were narrowed to a smaller finite number, would it be possible for everybody to succeed in the limited space provided by the market? Would some, even most, not win the coveted positions which would go to the "most qualified" amongst all?

And what part did those factors which they had zero ability to control have in making choices--inherited abilities and personality characteristics? And those that chose "communications," did they all fail? Or did some succeed in doing "well" with that choice? And in filling the limited number of positions that excluded others who made "bad choices"? Some will "do better" in the financial arena than others. And that will be the case, no matter how hard everyone tries nor how wise they are. The political guise of creating equal opportunity (outside of obvious discriminatory practices such as race) cannot do so, and any attempts are actually trying to create equal outcomes. As far as "more" equal opportunities, some are more equal than others.

I can't bring myself to feel the same way about people who struggle with medical expenses. If my friends (with the sick daughter) were struggling because they made bad business decisions, or because they flushed their money away on expensive cars, that's one thing. But their struggles are from causes that they had zero control over.

In a perfect world, we'd all have the same oppotunities to be successful. I have no issue with people who make stupid choices, having to live with the consequences of their choices. However, I don't think that's equivalent to someone struggling because they, or someone in their family, was born sick. Those are distinguishable scenarios.

Did your friend's daughter survive and is she better? Are your friends recovering from the economic disaster? Are they gradually doing better. I hope all of that is the case. If it is, then they seized the opportunity they were given to overcome a terrific obstacle, and they should be a lot stronger for it.

If not, is the answer then to "more" equalize financial outcomes for everyone by eliminating disasters for some?

No. I wouldn't say that we need a government program for every conceivable reason that someone may be struggling.

Let me try to articulate my feeling this way...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity.

.

I think if you put your feelings aside for a moment and look at what you've written you'll realize that you are arguing myopically for more of what you constantly rail against simply because you have an experience or a tragedy close to you that you feel needs being corrected....this is how all of these "safety nets" get set up, some politician finds a sad story, demands that this "never, ever happen to anyone again", proposes a government managed solution, claims anyone that disagrees is coldhearted and draconian and..... poof...we have a new government program sold to cure some societal ill...funded by tax dollars from a "general fund" that is never fully funded.... forever ...but we know how it always ends up....Jim...if you start a fund to help your friends today, I'll be the first to contribute without even knowing them....or...I could send the same money to some government agency and let it trickle through the machinations of the bureaucracy where they might end up with a tiny percentage of the original "contribution" which means many others must be made to "contribute"...of course, if you set up your "safety net to guarantee more equality of [U]opportunity"...you authorize the government to take and spend from others as/when it sees fit and where it sees need for equality of opportunity...if it's a local institution, you may have some measure of control but if it's the federal government, I doubt you'll like how it picks and chooses eventually and there is nothing that you can do once that ball gets rolling....this is a microcosm of what's wrong with the way that government inherently operates, a symptom of how we've been conditioned to "feel" that wrongs should be righted and not only don't you seem to see it, you are participating in it and feeding the beast, :)

I think if you put your feelings aside for a moment and look at what you've written you'll realize that you are arguing myopically for more of what you constantly rail against simply because you have an experience or a tragedy close to you that you feel needs being corrected....this is how all of these "safety nets" get set up, some politician finds a sad story, demands that this "never, ever happen to anyone again", proposes a government managed solution, claims anyone that disagrees is coldhearted and draconian and..... poof...we have a new government program sold to cure some societal ill...funded by tax dollars from a "general fund" that is never fully funded.... forever ...but we know how it always ends up....Jim...if you start a fund to help your friends today, I'll be the first to contribute without even knowing them....or...I could send the same money to some government agency and let it trickle through the machinations of the bureaucracy where they might end up with a tiny percentage of the original "contribution" which means many others must be made to "contribute"...of course, if you set up your "safety net to guarantee more equality of [U]opportunity"...you authorize the government to take and spend from others as/when it sees fit and where it sees need for equality of opportunity...if it's a local institution, you may have some measure of control but if it's the federal government, I doubt you'll like how it picks and chooses eventually and there is nothing that you can do once that ball gets rolling....this is a microcosm of what's wrong with the way that government inherently operates, a symptom of how we've been conditioned to "feel" that wrongs should be righted and not only don't you seem to see it, you are participating in it and feeding the beast, :)

If you knew me before my friends were in this situation, you'd know that I felt exactly the same way. Exactly the same way. I'm sure I'm more emphatic about it now, but it did not alter my thinking.

What I rail against is waste, stupidity, political kickbacks/bribery, and spending more than we can ever afford on things we don't need. I'm not an anti-government anarchist, there are some things I'd like the government to do. This is one of them.

Did your friend's daughter survive and is she better? Are your friends recovering from the economic disaster? Are they gradually doing better. I hope all of that is the case. If it is, then they seized the opportunity they were given to overcome a terrific obstacle, and they should be a lot stronger for it.

If not, is the answer then to "more" equalize financial outcomes for everyone by eliminating disasters for some?

She is doing better, thanks God.

They are not recovering economically. They will likely never be able to own a home, and likely never be able to retire.

"is the answer then to "more" equalize financial outcomes "

Not to equalize outcomes. The answer is to equalize opportunity. Those 2 things are very different, and I must be doing a terrible job articulating that, because it seems you and Scott are under the impression I'm talking about equalizing outcomes.

Let's say the average family will soend $150,000 on medical expenses oveit lives. SOme families might spend none, some spend a lot more. I'm making this up...but if there was some public fund that we all poaid into, that paid for all of our medical expenses (for thjings that are random, which we have no control over) over $150,000, that would eliminate the "penalty" that some families suffer, and give them the opportunity to achieve the same success that others enjoy.

I don't think the unlucky families "deserve" the financial struggles and limited opportunities that they will face through no fault of their own, nor do I think the people born healthy "deserve" the financial windfall that comes with being lucky enough to be born healthy.

It would be moral, in my opinion, to normalize opportunity for life-altering events that are completely beyond anyone's control.

I cannot make the case that it will be perfect, flawless, inexpensive, without waste, easy, or constitutional. You and Scott have me there, I concede that. But it feels right to me.

Scott and detbuch, you keep stating that I'm advocating for equality of outcome. Not even close.

A made-up, hypothetical scenario. Lat's say it costs $500,000 to open a McDonalds. Let's say my friends were able to save that much. But all of a sudden, that $500k is wiped out to pay for catastrophic medical expenses. In that case, because of the specific event which they had no control over, let's assume there was a federal program that picked up that tab.

Now he has the $500k to open a McDonalds. I am not suggesting, in any way, that his success should be guaranteed. If the business fails because he is incompetent, or lazy, or because he blows the money betting on college football, or because a better businessman opens up a Burger King across the street, I would never say that society has a responsibility to provide him the wealth he could not acquire.

Say there are 2 identical famillies who want to open a McDonalds. Each family has squirreled away the $500k to pay the fees. Family A has an unforseen medical situation that wipes out their savings. I don't think that Family B 'deserves' the opportunity to open a McDonalds any more than family A does. I'd like to see them both have the same chance to succeed.

Opportunity. Not outcome.

the WHOLE political system is in SHAMBLES because of his presidency....

I doubt it'll ever recover....

he's about as QUALIFIED as Michael Jackson playing for the NFL.

well, that's just my less than Humble Opinion....

ok rant over CARRY on

Scott and detbuch, you keep stating that I'm advocating for equality of outcome. Not even close.

A made-up, hypothetical scenario. Lat's say it costs $500,000 to open a McDonalds. Let's say my friends were able to save that much. But all of a sudden, that $500k is wiped out to pay for catastrophic medical expenses. In that case, because of the specific event which they had no control over, let's assume there was a federal program that picked up that tab.

Now he has the $500k to open a McDonalds. I am not suggesting, in any way, that his success should be guaranteed. If the business fails because he is incompetent, or lazy, or because he blows the money betting on college football, or because a better businessman opens up a Burger King across the street, I would never say that society has a responsibility to provide him the wealth he could not acquire.

Say there are 2 identical famillies who want to open a McDonalds. Each family has squirreled away the $500k to pay the fees. Family A has an unforseen medical situation that wipes out their savings. I don't think that Family B 'deserves' the opportunity to open a McDonalds any more than family A does. I'd like to see them both have the same chance to succeed.

Opportunity. Not outcome.

See, your overlooking the pre-existing condition that people have, as you say, "zero control" over. The most obvious one in the case of your hypothetical scenario is that there are no two "identical" families. Unless by some rare twist identical twin brothers married identical twin sisters. But even in that event differences would occur through nature and nurture. So if it takes equal identity to create equal opportunity ... well, you get the picture.

But, if in your scenario what makes the families identical is that they both saved up $500k so that they both had the same financial opportunity to open a McDonalds, but one lost the money due to uncontrollable circumstances, it would only be "fair" for the rest of society to make the losing family whole by giving them a $500K gift from the rest of us . . . umm, that is problematic. Are you assuming that the rest of us have the "opportunity" to save $500K? What about the many somebodies that are born into families that lack such attitudes of thrift or potential to even earn that amount? What about the individual that didn't have the "opportunity" to earn the $500K due to family background, negative inherited capabilities, and so on that he had no control over? If he/she wanted to open a McDonalds should the rest of us give him/her the $500K gift? Are you saying that if we all put in a few extra bucks into some anti-catastrophic fund it would cover the massive potential of payouts to "deserving" recipients to do what they wish but are not capable because of things they had no control over.

And if the federal gvt. owns this insurance fund, will it even restrict itself to whatever minimal enumerations you limit it to which you think would make this fund fair and operable? The evidence is, as you might say, "irrefutable" that it wouldn't. This sort of "fairness," of so-called "equal opportunity" is what gives the federal leviathan the legitimacy to totally control our lives.

Detbuch, you guys are very, very skilled (and fair, by the way) at playing devil's advocate. As you say, no 2 situations are identical, and my lefty pie-in-the-sky collecticivist notion here would entail a lot of difficulties. All I can counter with, all I have, is this...everything that is wonderful, is hard. Sometimes, you do what's right even if it's really hard, even if it can never be perfect. This feels like one of those things to me, but reasonable people can certainly disagree...

But, if in your scenario what makes the families identical is that they both saved up $500k so that they both had the same financial opportunity to open a McDonalds, but one lost the money due to uncontrollable circumstances, it would only be "fair" for the rest of society to make the losing family whole by giving them a $500K gift from the rest of us . . . umm, that is problematic.

ya think?....

btw Jim, this has not at all been "playing devil's advocate"...it's pointing out the obvious problems with your logic, it "feels" right to you in your scenario, the government simply writing a check to your friends in this case...but applied broadly, given what we know about the propensities of those that you'd like to see administering this and the Pandora's box you'd be opening...it makes no sense...but nothing else makes sense....come up with a catchy name for it and I'm sure it will pass......" The Elimination of Life's Hardships And Equal Opportunity(but not Outcomes) Through Government Benevolence Act of 2013"...need a jingle that sort of rhymes too...that always works..."when things get bad...we'll pick up the tab"

Originally Posted by Jim in CT
All I can counter with, all I have, is this...everything that is wonderful, is hard. Sometimes, you do what's right even if it's really hard, even if it can never be perfect.


looking to the government to write a check..is not "hard"...it's actually the "easy" solution...which is why it's so popular....holding fund raisers, rallying a community and media, swallowing your pride and "asking for help", calling charities and corporations and others who have interests in these types of situations ...is "hard"...but often prove wildly successful

Detbuch, you guys are very, very skilled (and fair, by the way) at playing devil's advocate. As you say, no 2 situations are identical, and my lefty pie-in-the-sky collecticivist notion here would entail a lot of difficulties. All I can counter with, all I have, is this...everything that is wonderful, is hard. Sometimes, you do what's right even if it's really hard, even if it can never be perfect. This feels like one of those things to me, but reasonable people can certainly disagree...

So, being hard, overcoming obstacles, losses, tragedies must be beautiful. Are they less beautiful if government makes it easier? Is the beauty lost if the difficulty is lost?

We don't disagree a whole lot. Mostly on one small item--the fundamental damage done to founding principles when the federal government goes beyond its enumerated powers to "solve" societal or individual problems. It has never been a secret what happens to moral or governing principles when they are violated and then accepted. That it not only changes the rule for a temporary "good," it sets a precedent for constant changes so that the principle is eventually lost.

Your Catholicism, I think, would agree with your political conservatism on that point. Maybe not.

How about the greatest poet/writer in the English language, Shakespeare? In his play, The Merchant of Venice when Portia in disguise is acting as a judge is asked "To do a great right, do a little wrong," she replies,

"'Twill be recorded for a precedent,
And many an error by the same example
Will rush into the State. It cannot be."

The great right you wish to be accomplished by establishing a way to help individuals in time of catastrophic need is noble. Many have done such great things. I think even your Catholicism, which has charity as a prime action, would agree that its fundamental faiths and structures must not be subverted for charity. That no charity should take from an individual his responsibility toward church and God and shift it to the State. We have fundamental founding principles that not only place the burden of responsibility for their own lives on individuals, but prevent the State from usurping those responsibilities to grow its own power. The Federal Government was founded to have no business in charity. That was left to individuals and their local and state governments. That was an extremely important restriction. Without it, individual sovereignty is lost. That cannot be overstated.

Individuals and local governments have always been involved with charity. They are less so now that the central government has taken on so much of what individuals and their States had done. You have argued against what has become of this country because of it. Go ahead and be charitable. Campaign in your city, county, State, to help when individuals can't.

Just don't insist that the federal government do it. That is the little difference between us.

Why UUU putting down people with less costly plans?....some people can not afford a larger plan....yours is probaly paid for by the company U work for....people bought plans that they could afford on their own

You mean just like the people having their plans cancelled? Carry on.

I still would like to know, where in the Constitution does it allow the Govt. to decide what you need for yourself, and if what your buying doesn't come up to their standards, you have to buy what they tell you to or pay a penalty?

You mean just like the people having their plans cancelled? Carry on.


I know U believe in Obama and believe like him that policies R being cancelled because they R inferior to his debacled plan ....U know he is a liar.... cancellations of his doing... where insurance companies would not cover condoms or abortions does not mean people had bad policies....some of them cancelltions had great policies....UUUU should explain it to this lady Edi Littlefield.... and your president bullied this person....if all of yours or partially paid for by a company UUU may be losing yours next year....and he blames the insurance companies

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446

I still would like to know, where in the Constitution does it allow the Govt. to decide what you need for yourself, and if what your buying doesn't come up to their standards, you have to buy what they tell you to or pay a penalty?

When the Supreme Court was bought and declared it a tax and not a penalty .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When the Supreme Court was bought and declared it a tax and not a penalty .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, that pesky liberal Roberts appointed by Obama......

Yeah, that pesky liberal Roberts appointed by Obama......

You're half right as usual :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, that pesky liberal Roberts appointed by Obama......

Yeah, that pesky whatever (progressive/neo-con/establishment Republican/independent/goofy or bribed?/whatever) Roberts appointed by quasi-progressive/compassionate conservative/mixed bag/whatever (oh yeah that dumb as a rock) Bush. The labels really matter,don't they? Let us not pay attention to the actual constitutionallity of Roberts' decision, lets use shifty labels to end the discussion.

Actually, Roberts' calling it a tax is not found in the Constitution. The Constitution prescribes two specific taxes that the federal gvt. can impose and a third specific type, the direct income tax, was added by ammendment. There is no general, unspecified tax allowed by the Constitution. The Obamacare tax does not fit into any of the three specific types of taxes listed in the Constitution. Roberts justifying his decision by the government's power to tax implies there is a general, unlimited power to tax. There is no such power in the Constitution given to the federal government. Why he did it only he knows. If he felt personally that it was the moral thing to do, or that if was the best social or economic answer to medical costs, or if thuggish politicos threatened to expose some deep dark horrible secret about him or his family, only he knows. But none of those motivations are judicially justified.

Yeah, that pesky whatever (progressive/neo-con/establishment Republican/independent/goofy or bribed?/whatever) Roberts appointed by quasi-progressive/compassionate conservative/mixed bag/whatever (oh yeah that dumb as a rock) Bush. The labels really matter,don't they? Let us not pay attention to the actual constitutionallity of Roberts' decision, lets use shifty labels to end the discussion.

Actually, Roberts' calling it a tax is not found in the Constitution. The Constitution prescribes two specific taxes that the federal gvt. can impose and a third specific type, the direct income tax, was added by ammendment. There is no general, unspecified tax allowed by the Constitution. The Obamacare tax does not fit into any of the three specific types of taxes listed in the Constitution. Roberts justifying his decision by the government's power to tax implies there is a general, unlimited power to tax. There is no such power in the Constitution given to the federal government. Why he did it only he knows. If he felt personally that it was the moral thing to do, or that if was the best social or economic answer to medical costs, or if thuggish politicos threatened to expose some deep dark horrible secret about him or his family, only he knows. But none of those motivations are judicially justified.

You sir, put my thoughts in a much more articulate way, then I ever could.
Well put!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You sir, put my thoughts in a much more articulate way, then I ever could.
Well put!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, especially so when it comes to the Constitution.

I know U believe in Obama and believe like him that policies R being cancelled because they R inferior to his debacled plan ....U know he is a liar.... cancellations of his doing... where insurance companies would not cover condoms or abortions does not mean people had bad policies....some of them cancelltions had great policies....UUUU should explain it to this lady Edi Littlefield.... and your president bullied this person....if all of yours or partially paid for by a company UUU may be losing yours next year....and he blames the insurance companies

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446

You know, before you start swinging and patting yourself on the back, you should make sure you know what you're talking about. Maybe use paragraphs, and intelligible language.

If you read the article, she lost her insurance almost a year ago, before the mandated date. Not now. Why is this news now? Oh right, it fits your agenda *now*. So United long pulled out of Cali after announcing it, what? Oh almost a year prior! So it was a known fact it was going away.

Do you take people in when they lose their house to foreclosure when they knew they were going to lose it for a year? No, you tell them "too effing bad you leech!"

But this is about cancer. Cancer is bad, everyone knows someone who's died of cancer.

As far as my personal insurance, I won't be losing mine, we've long changed plans with BCBS that fit the model for Obamacare. And infact its less expensive than my prior insurance. Clean the mud off your face. :rotf2:

As far as my beliefs in the system, I don't trust it, sorry to burst your bubble. And I think people who throw around "oh I know YOU trust him" are complete losers. Enjoy being on ignore.

I'm not sure her being dumped a year ago means all that much. What's more important is that UHC is leaving the individual market in California because they don't make any money.

Employer provided insurance shifts all the time, I have to change every few years and with it doctors and coverage change. Should I be outraged also?

-spence

Very interesting...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2013/10/01/4-ways-new-exchanges-will-radically-alter-health-insurance/

-spence

Very interesting...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2013/10/01/4-ways-new-exchanges-will-radically-alter-health-insurance/

-spence

But at what cost
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Back to my original question, it appears the Dems will pay a price. Obama's approval ratings now start with a '3', still absurdly high, but moving in the right direction. And in VA, where there was a (1)tea party Republican running for governor, AND (2) an idiot libertarian running as a third party candidate, the Democrat won 48-45 in an election that should have been a rout.

To the Libertarians who like running as a 3rd party candidate - all you are doing is handing victories to the Democrats. In a place like VA especially, that is all you are doing, because no place with that many federal workers is ever going to elect a Libertarian, ever. If you want to change the Republican Party, you do what the Tea Party did, and they didn't even exist 5 years ago.

Is the problem that insurance companies are so drastically changing plans that it is forcing people to change p,ans and pay higher premiums?

Honestly what could happen to him politically now, he has his two terms as president and he is going to be forever done with politics unless his wife runs for office. Screw them both

Back to my original question, it appears the Dems will pay a price. Obama's approval ratings now start with a '3', still absurdly high, but moving in the right direction. And in VA, where there was a (1)tea party Republican running for governor, AND (2) an idiot libertarian running as a third party candidate, the Democrat won 48-45 in an election that should have been a rout.

To the Libertarians who like running as a 3rd party candidate - all you are doing is handing victories to the Democrats. In a place like VA especially, that is all you are doing, because no place with that many federal workers is ever going to elect a Libertarian, ever. If you want to change the Republican Party, you do what the Tea Party did, and they didn't even exist 5 years ago.

Totally agree.

Screw them both

Totally agree!

Is the problem that insurance companies are so drastically changing plans that it is forcing people to change p,ans and pay higher premiums?



Here's my understanding, based on the tortured jibberish that Obama has been spouting since his approval ratings took a dive.

From what I understood Obama to say...Obamacare set minumum guidelines that plans had to meet. In the individual market, many plans did not meet those guidelines. It looks like existing plans that did not meet the guidelines would be grandfathered in (not required to meet the new requirements), UNLESS those plans changed in any way. For a cheapo plan to get grandfathered, it had no stay identical to what it was last year. If those plans changed at all, then they now had to meet the new minumum standards. And I gather that it's unheard of for those plans to not change at least a bit, so essentially, very few plans would be able to get grandfathered.

This time next year, Obamacare could clobber the Dems worse than it did in 2010. Back then, it was all theory. Next year, many Americans will be keenly aware that they are paying a lot more, and businesses will be keenly aware that Americans suddenly have less disposable income.

Is the problem that insurance companies are so drastically changing plans that it is forcing people to change p,ans and pay higher premiums?

People are getting forced to take up preventative plans, instead of catastrophic plans.

Sorry for bringing facts to the party.

Here's my understanding, based on the tortured jibberish that Obama has been spouting since his approval ratings took a dive.

From what I understood Obama to say...Obamacare set minumum guidelines that plans had to meet. In the individual market, many plans did not meet those guidelines. It looks like existing plans that did not meet the guidelines would be grandfathered in (not required to meet the new requirements), UNLESS those plans changed in any way. For a cheapo plan to get grandfathered, it had no stay identical to what it was last year. If those plans changed at all, then they now had to meet the new minumum standards. And I gather that it's unheard of for those plans to not change at least a bit, so essentially, very few plans would be able to get grandfathered.

This time next year, Obamacare could clobber the Dems worse than it did in 2010. Back then, it was all theory. Next year, many Americans will be keenly aware that they are paying a lot more, and businesses will be keenly aware that Americans suddenly have less disposable income.
Americans suddenly had less disposable income a long time ago.. Specifically when oil prices started climbing and food costs started climbing.. Who was president then??? ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Americans suddenly had less disposable income a long time ago.. Specifically when oil prices started climbing and food costs started climbing.. Who was president then??? ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gas was under 2 bucks a gallon when Bush left office ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People are getting forced to take up preventative plans, instead of catastrophic plans.



Yes, forced and mislead would exactly be the right words when talking
about Obamacare.

Gas was under 2 bucks a gallon when Bush left office ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only because the economy was imploding. Buck, you know better...

-spence

Only because the economy was imploding. Buck, you know better...

-spence

I know and the robust economy we have now explains the high gas prices :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know and the robust economy we have now explains the high gas prices :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

GDP today is much stronger than in 2008/2009. Oil price is largely a product of consumption which includes manufacturing...not to mention speculation...geopolitical issues are a concern.

Were you serious when you typed that?

-spence

He was desperate. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you guys can blather on about Bush all you want but the fact remains that there is no meaningful recovery, what little good news exists that you can rest your hat on is the stock market which is a complete mirage thanks to the Fed, and it's going to get worse not better for most Americans, Obamacare is a debacle in every sense, more Americans are dependent on government than ever before...record numbers of Americans not working...oil prices remain high(how's that Keystone Pipeline going?) this president has been lying repeatedly to the American people and that is no longer debatable, he's eclipsed every former president in many areas and now clearly in terms of dishonesty and incompetence, but those two often go hand in hand, one attempting to cover up for the other. His "signature accomplishment" was forced on the country through tricks and lies....not a good way to do business but if you lack a conscience I guess you just carry on as though everyone must now live with what you've perpetrated....will he pay a political price? he doesn't have to get elected again but narcissists like this are often consumed with their image and so legacy construction might be a concern to him, tough to know if he considers further destruction of the country a positive or a negative in terms of his legacy, those that support him and will continue to carry his water going forward will do so as a result of a desire for further destruction(fundamental change)....he'll have to decide if he'd rather be loathed by many and idolized by a few or settle for less destruction and perhaps a more favorable public opinion of his presidency, he can count on the dems and the media to go all out to paint him in the most favorable light if he chooses the latter, he is, afterall, their "signature accomplishment" and one that we have to live with for 3 more years

Americans suddenly had less disposable income a long time ago.. Specifically when oil prices started climbing and food costs started climbing.. Who was president then??? ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't talk to me about desperate :)
At least you're now acknowledging it was a long time ago . Maybe now you can acknowledge that the only people making out under the Obama administration are the very wealthy. That must really frost your a$$
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you guys can blather on about Bush all you want but the fact remains that there is no meaningful recovery, what little good news exists that you can rest your hat on is the stock market which is a complete mirage thanks to the Fed, and it's going to get worse not better for most Americans, Obamacare is a debacle in every sense, more Americans are dependent on government than ever before...record numbers of Americans not working...oil prices remain high(how's that Keystone Pipeline going?) this president has been lying repeatedly to the American people and that is no longer debatable, he's eclipsed every former president in many areas and now clearly in terms of dishonesty and incompetence, but those two often go hand in hand, one attempting to cover up for the other. His "signature accomplishment" was forced on the country through tricks and lies....not a good way to do business but if you lack a conscience I guess you just carry on as though everyone must now live with what you've perpetrated....will he pay a political price? he doesn't have to get elected again but narcissists like this are often consumed with their image and so legacy construction might be a concern to him, tough to know if he considers further destruction of the country a positive or a negative in terms of his legacy, those that support him and will continue to carry his water going forward will do so as a result of a desire for further destruction(fundamental change)....he'll have to decide if he'd rather be loathed by many and idolized by a few or settle for less destruction and perhaps a more favorable public opinion of his presidency, he can count on the dems and the media to go all out to paint him in the most favorable light if he chooses the latter, he is, afterall, their "signature accomplishment" and one that we have to live with for 3 more years

You left out that median incomes are down more than 5% since he took office, and now those people with lower incomes will be shelling out a few hundred more a month, which they no longer have, for health insurance which they didn't want. Obama borrowed and spent at paces that blow away previous records, and what we have to show for it is lower median incomes.

The one bright spot is the stock market, which is really ironic considering that Obama's base and his Occupy Wall Street anarchists would say that's a bad thing, because all that does is help the rich get richer on backs of the little man.

The one bright spot is the stock market, which is really ironic considering that Obama's base and his Occupy Wall Street anarchists would say that's a bad thing, because all that does is help the rich get richer on backs of the little man.

depends on how you look at it, the market isn't moving based on the performance of the economy but rather it responds and fluctuates based on what the Fed is signaling, whether or not it will continue to pump....it's not real, it's not on the backs of the little man but a result of gimmickry like everything else associated with this administration, it has a shelf life and it's running out .....a tiny bright spot perhaps...if you are really searching for one... on a very dark and unavoidable horizon......:uhuh:

depends on how you look at it, the market isn't moving based on the performance of the economy but rather it responds and fluctuates based on what the Fed is signaling, whether or not it will continue to pump....it's not real, it's not on the backs of the little man but a result of gimmickry like everything else associated with this administration, it has a shelf life and it's running out .....a tiny bright spot perhaps...if you are really searching for one... on a very dark and unavoidable horizon......:uhuh:

Oh, I agree with you that it's not real...it just makes it more krazy that the one bright spot, is the one symbol of the economy that liberals despise the most. If Romney were president, and the only indicator that improved was the stock market, liberals would be saying that Romney was rigging the economy to enrich Wall Street fatcats. You can't make this stuff up.

Obamacare may well hurt the Democrats more in 2014 than it did in 2010.

Yes, forced and mislead would exactly be the right words when talking
about Obamacare.

How were they mislead? The government only regulates (on a state level) insurance. Not govern.

The lady in Florida with the $54 plan turns out was being scammed by bcbs of Florida on the $591/most plan replacement. Her plan was garbage and basically covered nothing (those plans you're looking at for instance 10k out of pocket before they kick in, and I'd bet most who had plans like that leave the taxpayer with the bill).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Ruling Class realizes that the Wall Street Fat Cats pay more than half of the taxes and the wannabe fat cats pay the other half; this allows our Rulers to spend freely and buy the votes they need to stay in power.

That being said, the "pumping" won't stop...

I have also heard said that inflation is welfare for the rich...

How were they mislead? The government only regulates (on a state level) insurance. Not govern.

The lady in Florida with the $54 plan turns out was being scammed by bcbs of Florida on the $591/most plan replacement. Her plan was garbage and basically covered nothing (those plans you're looking at for instance 10k out of pocket before they kick in, and I'd bet most who had plans like that leave the taxpayer with the bill).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"How were they mislead?"

Really?...when Obama was selling Obamacare, he said (dozens of times on camera) that if you liked your current plan, you could keep it - period. Turns out that's not true for millions and millions of Americans. It was a major selling point of Obamacare that you could keep you current plan if you liked it.

What could be more misleading than that?

Worse, there are memos that the Administration has in its possession, which make it clear that they knew for a fact that not everyone would be able to keep their plans, but Obama continued to make that claim anyway.

That qualifies as misleading...Obama himself apologized on NBC yesterday, for the fact that his assurances did not bear out.

There goes likwid again picking one out of a thousand. Obama did not even apologize, all he said was, "I'm sorry." This shows that he was insincere.

and I put that in sentences that U would like to C likwid

"How were they mislead?"

Really?...when Obama was selling Obamacare, he said (dozens of times on camera) that if you liked your current plan, you could keep it - period. Turns out that's not true for millions and millions of Americans. It was a major selling point of Obamacare that you could keep you current plan if you liked it.

What could be more misleading than that?

Worse, there are memos that the Administration has in its possession, which make it clear that they knew for a fact that not everyone would be able to keep their plans, but Obama continued to make that claim anyway.

That qualifies as misleading...Obama himself apologized on NBC yesterday, for the fact that his assurances did not bear out.


Exactly, and in addition it turns out many will not be able to keep their Doc as promised. They will be forced to use another Doc as insurance companies drop their policies and Doc choice, and people are forced to use what is mandated by the Govt. Another freedom lost, especially hard on the elderly and those that are seriously ill who trust and are comfortable with their Doctor. Meantime,the same Govt. that makes the mandates for us has no consequences,as they have their own health care plan that is not affected.

this president has been lying repeatedly to the American people and that is no longer debatable, he's eclipsed every former president in many areas and now clearly in terms of dishonesty and incompetence, .

Absolutely accurate!

Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

No. Politicians are expected to lie. They lie to get elected. They paint negative portraits of their opponents in the primaries. They paint negative portraits of their opponents in the finals. They make promises they can't or won't keep. They lie to pass bills. They make back door deals to pass those bills all the while they pretend to be fighting each other. They lie to get re-elected. They again paint negative portraits of their opponents. They promise their donors to sweeten legislation to give them breaks or advantages. They spend most of their visible time on spin and "optics" to persuade us that they are fighting the good fight for us. When they achieve a secure status as tough, experienced warriors for the people, they achieve a comfort with each other and understand that the jabs they take against each other is just show for their constituencies, so are able to make
"bipartisan" deals that keep the ball rolling and keep the "trust" with their voters. Their constituents are perfectly happy to accept the lies which enable their warriors to win. They secretly cheer the lies, even if they have to justify them as not so bad, perhaps exaggerations, a means to a good end.

Politics is war. It is winning and losing. A politician's first priority is to win. They are subject to the principles of war. Wars require deceit.

Those that don't understand the rules and principles of war, but choose to run on rules and principles of governance, are considered purists--too naïve to win. They may inspire a following, even a considerable one, but the "smart" folks in the political, business, and media world don't respect their narrow naivete, so they are easily marginalized, made to look like fringe radicals or fools. The "smart," experienced and well backed pols on either side of the aisle use the "purists" for a push, then discard them when their goals are achieved.

Lying is not the issue. It is the mode. Unless you believe the medium is the message. But then you would be a purist. The issue is what is "good" for the people--do you subscribe to the "smart, pragmatic" ideology that society is best for all if it is directed by a bureaucracy of experts, Hobbes' version of the Leviathan--or if it is best for all if individuals determine how to live their lives, the Lockean concept.

Obama may seem to be "lying" more than most. I don't know if that is true. I think he believes in the progressive message, and that it is separate from the medium of lying. He is good at it. His handlers and his party seem to be better at it than their opposition. He and they are very successful. For the most part, their opposition not only seem foolish, but don't very much separate themselves in policy--they are not choosing a Lockean path of governing. For instance, they are trying to come up with an "alternative" to Obamacare. That is, another Hobbesian method--central planning. Those in their party, Tea Partiers, who would choose John Locke's method, were useful to win some elections, but are now seen to be an obstacle and are shunned.

The issue, then, is choosing either principle or progressivism. The former are adherents, the latter are the strategists. We have been guided by the strategies to be concerned primarily with economic conditions and with creating centralized economies of distribution rather than allowing free individuals wide reign to create wealth and distribute it through markets. And the public sympathy has been trained to favor government intervention in personal problems and catastrophes rather than private solutions.

Political progress has arrived at a historical place where most people do not feel adequate to live a modern life without government help. And the progression of how much help is needed has grown from little to a lot. Those who voted for Obama and his party have been persuaded that a lot of help is needed, and the more the better. He and his party and their fellow traveler "Republicans" have been very successful at engendering that attitude. Obama won't pay a price with them. He will be lauded.

And if "Republicans" win congressional seats or the Presidency, but continue to play Democrat-lite, it will merely slow down "progress" a bit.

Their constituents are perfectly happy to accept the lies which enable their warriors to win. They secretly cheer the lies, even if they have to justify them as not so bad, perhaps exaggerations, a means to a good end.



I would agree until it hits the" constituent's pocketbook" or takes away some
perk they have enjoyed under "their " politicians tenure. That's when the rubber
meets the road and suddenly the "stretched truth" ,which doesn't mean a good end
for them, becomes a lie.

I would agree until it hits the" constituent's pocketbook" or takes away some
perk they have enjoyed under "their " politicians tenure. That's when the rubber
meets the road and suddenly the "stretched truth" ,which doesn't mean a good end
for them, becomes a lie.

So true. But that is the natural spiral which actually grows the power of the progressive administrative State. That we have, as John Hayward put it, had an attitude adjustment--what I see as a worship of our "pocketbook" above the principle of freedom and the reverence for life and the human spirit necessary to achieve that life. Life is more than manna, but if the State can shrink us to worker bees who depend on it for sustenance, then spirit loses its function. Life becomes a matter of material economics. And when the perks the State gives us are lost, we look to it to fix the loss and give it ever more authority to rule us. New lies are fresher and more promising, and the State's promise to fill our pocketbooks in more equitable quantities becomes the mantra by which we live. If we "throw the bums out" the new crop continues the growth of the State with the same methods and lies. Our addiction grows.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/08/obamas-second-term-slide-continues/

the question is what will happen when the "state" can't keep it's "promises" as it further exceeds it's boundaries, we've seen "three more years" scapegoat just about anyone/everthing for his failures...the most obvious scapegoats will be those "benefitting" from the phony stock market bubble and anyone that threatens all of these "entitlements"....

Originally Posted by detbuch

..."I think he believes in the progressive message, and that it is separate from the medium of lying.(it's still lying, whether or not you think it is separate from the medium because the message/purpose is noble in your mind.... the progressive message ignores reality and trounces the principles that we live under as a result of our founding, it requires lying or ignorance) He is good at it. (convincingly distorting truth)His handlers and his party seem to be better at it than their opposition. He and they are very successful. (when you operate, as a group, without conscience, not bound by the rules that you require others to adhere to...it's easy to be good, in fact, you should win most of your battles against those that will not descend to your level , I guess we should take solace in the fact that history shows us that while they win many battles and cause great misery it doesn't always end well -)

At some point the charade will be up and forces will require an accounting, it can't continue...they are wallowing in a mess , none can point to anything that indicates a sustainable or sufficient recovery to maintain the current levels of spending and promises let alone the additional future promises to be made as they double down on their "progressive message".......

http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/08/obamas-second-term-slide-continues/

the question is what will happen when the "state" can't keep it's "promises" as it further exceeds it's boundaries, we've seen "three more years" scapegoat just about anyone/everthing for his failures...the most obvious scapegoats will be those "benefitting" from the phony stock market bubble and anyone that threatens all of these "entitlements"....

It's difficult to determine at what stage the growth of the progressive State is in. But the method which has remained the same throughout has always been to "double down" when predictable failures occur. Failure is not due, in their view, to the progressive idea, but to inadequate implementation of it. So when promises appear to have been broken, it is explained that obstruction has stood in the way of fulfillment. And the target of blame has always been to accuse the "wealthy" and those who supposedly support them. Scapegoating, lying, are merely the necessary means to clear the path to their ultimate goal--the completion of the administrative State.

What will happen next depends on how successful they have been in transforming enough of the population to accept their "message". What happens after that depends on how much longer progressivism can expand before it collapses.

Originally Posted by detbuch

..."I think he believes in the progressive message, and that it is separate from the medium of lying.(it's still lying, whether or not you think it is separate from the medium because the message/purpose is noble in your mind.... the progressive message ignores reality and trounces the principles that we live under as a result of our founding, it requires lying or ignorance)

That's true, and he must know that he is lying (merely expanding the truth), but that the "good" he is trying to accomplish merely makes lying a tactic. Lying is one of the peculiar functions of language. Without language of some sort, lying would not be possible. Since the whole progressive idea is built on language rather than reality, all the possibilities of language are its tool.

Now, one might say that our constitutional founding was built on language. But the distinction is in its use of language to tell the truth. Truth being based on experience. And to arrive at "principles" dependent on human nature and that aspect of it which desires liberty. When language is based on its initial function of describing and communicating the observable "real world" it is fact or truth based. When language is removed from experience and drifts into pure theories of what is "good" it is already in a state which can lead to falsehood. It is merely one more step to use falsehood to achieve a desired theoretical end. And, yes, ignorance on the part of those you wish to deceive is necessary. But the desired end (whether they realize it or not) is supposed to be for their own good.


He is good at it. (convincingly distorting truth)His handlers and his party seem to be better at it than their opposition. He and they are very successful. (when you operate, as a group, without conscience, not bound by the rules that you require others to adhere to...it's easy to be good, in fact, you should win most of your battles against those that will not descend to your level , I guess we should take solace in the fact that history shows us that while they win many battles and cause great misery it doesn't always end well -)

Yes, the noble truth is difficult to defend against massive ignorance. Conscience being "the faculty of recognizing the distinction between right and wrong in regard to one's own conduct" is defenseless against those without principle who appeal to mass ignorance, the very ignorance they create with their lies and promises. And yes, all humanly constructed things, good or bad, eventually come to an end. Even Madison predicted that the republic the founders created would only last a hundred years. Though it has lasted longer, in some respects he was right. The gnawing away at it began after about a century and the final bites are taking place. But the true believers will fight to the end....

At some point the charade will be up and forces will require an accounting, it can't continue...they are wallowing in a mess , none can point to anything that indicates a sustainable or sufficient recovery to maintain the current levels of spending and promises let alone the additional future promises to be made as they double down on their "progressive message".......

And "what will happen" when the end comes may be "good" or "bad." Whether we return to a foundation built on experience and has individual liberty as its goal, or continue on to some new theory on how to rule the people may be a toss-up. In the meantime, the battle rages. If the minority who still see the value of our founding can convince enough with their "message" then the end of the Republic may be put off for a long time. If not, welcome brave new world.

So when liberals lie it's strategic but when conservatives lie it's principled? That's pretty slick...

I doubt Obama is lying about the insurance issue. He was likely told the vast majority of people wouldn't be impacted and those who were would likely end up with a better deal anyway...which is how it appears to be playing out.

I also doubt Obama is any generally more/less honest than other recent presidents. The big difference is that he has a motivated hate machine and the Internet has matured to the point where information access and misinformation campaigns are cheap and effective. Clinton and Bush certainly suffered from some of this but nothing like we're seeing today.

-spence

--what I see as a worship of our "pocketbook" above the principle of freedom and the reverence for life and the human spirit necessary to achieve that life. Life is more than manna, but if the State can shrink us to worker bees who depend on it for sustenance, then spirit loses its function. Life becomes a matter of material economics.

The problem lies in the self-centeredness of human nature where the Love of money is the root of all evil. Only a higher good can overcome it.
We have lost our moral compass in this country. Go back in the 30's, 40's and 50's and you'll see main stream Americans putting God and Country first. We were the beacon of Freedom to the rest of the world and had A PURPOSE in defending that Freedom.
Then came the drugs in the 60's and greed in the 70's which led us down the path we are on now, with no real purpose except the quest for material things.
Go back to Nixon where the impeachment proceedings were started because of lying. Compare that with today where, if it fits their purpose, lying becomes a wink and a nod, or a stretching of the truth, supposedly for the greater good. The problem is that lying is a falsehood and there is no reality in it. Problems cannot be solved unless their solution is based on truth.

So when liberals lie it's strategic but when conservatives lie it's principled? That's pretty slick...

That would have been slick if I said it. But I didn't. Never mentioned "liberals" or "conservatives" nor "principled lies." Slick try though by setting up a semi-straw man as if you were questioning something I did say.

I doubt Obama is lying about the insurance issue. He was likely told the vast majority of people wouldn't be impacted and those who were would likely end up with a better deal anyway...which is how it appears to be playing out.

I didn't say he was. And I wasn't merely referring to Obamacare in speaking about political lying. As far as Obama is concerned, there has been a pattern of truth twisting, to be generous, throughout his campaigns to get elected and re-elected and the continuous campaign mode and cover-ups he has maintained afterward. I didn't attribute such "lying" only to him but to "politicians" in general. I specifically said politics is war and war requires deceit.

Anyway, If he was told the vast majority wouldn't be impacted and those who were would likely end up with a better deal anyway, then his constant reiteration that you wouldn't lose your plan and could keep your doctor, period, was a typical stretching of the truth (a lie) to sell his plan and to help re-election.

And it sounds like you're buying the spin (lie).

I also doubt Obama is any generally more/less honest than other recent presidents. The big difference is that he has a motivated hate machine and the Internet has matured to the point where information access and misinformation campaigns are cheap and effective. Clinton and Bush certainly suffered from some of this but nothing like we're seeing today.

-spence

I didn't say he was more/less honest. And I certainly don't share your spin that the "big difference" is that he has a motivated hate machine dogging him, subtilely and falsely implying that Bush and Clinton didn't, but then switching to if they did it was nothing like today because the internet has "matured" (or immatured) enough to make it so. Quite a quick maturation. Am I to assume this hate machine waited five (a whole 5!) years for the internet to mature, and that the internet was just too unmatured for it to roar at this rate when he first ran for office and is spewing out "hate" at record amounts now?--kudos for a very imaginative spin. And that the negativity is merely about hatred not about reaction to policy, betrayal, and lying?--spin, spin, spinning.

You are good at that spin stuff.

As you often do, you set up tiny straw men, and totally ignore the majority, if not actually the entirety, of the post you respond to. Is there a bit of that strategic "lying" inherent in your attempts to justify? You thinking of running for political office? :devil2:

I doubt Obama is lying about the insurance issue. He was likely told the vast majority of people wouldn't be impacted and those who were would likely end up with a better deal anyway...which is how it appears to be playing out.



-spence

Spence, you meant to post this on Scuppers Joke of the Day, right ? :hihi: :D

The problem lies in the self-centeredness of human nature where the Love of money is the root of all evil. Only a higher good can overcome it.

Along those lines a major difference between those who adhere to our founding principles and those who replace those principles with the progressive model of government is in what each views to be the most important aspect of human nature.

The founding idea was based on that portion of human nature which sought an individual liberty to define ones life with the least amount of interference from government. The progressive idea saw individual humans as basically helpless against the flow of history. For Progressives the most important aspect of human nature was its need to be protected from life's misfortunes.

The Founders saw history as a consequence of human activity. The Progressives saw history as an inexorable force, a sort of Hegelian dialectic which could not be resisted and against which individuals were meaningless.


The Founders understood that there was a role for government in the protection of a society of individuals. A limited role that served the people. The Progressives saw government as the only power that could protect the people and that it must not be limited in its scope to do so.

The Founders devised a government which would promote what they considered the higher, nobler portions of human nature--to strive in those self defined ways in which they were endowed by a higher power, a creator, against the vicissitudes of life. The Progressives transformed that government to provide for the needs of that "lower" portion of human nature, the need to be sheltered against misfortune.

Problems cannot be solved unless their solution is based on truth.

Truth is a principle by which the Founder's system must operate, and on which the system was devised. In hammering out that system, they did not lie or dissemble to one another. They argued and debated about what they truly believed and desired. Their "truth" was based on the recorded history of human experience and the experience they were living. They were not afraid to face the difficulties of life as individuals, but understood that there was a need to provide for the common defense and welfare and to protect the free association and commerce among one another. They provided a constant, predictable social pact based on immutable principles, but provided for the necessity of change. The individual freedom, the free association, the common defense and commerce among each other depended on truth to be effective. Falsehoods would eventually distort and destroy the foundation and principles on which society depended.

For the Progressives, truth was relative. What was true in one generation might not be true in another, or even from moment to moment in the extreme. Constant change was the mode of existence and the way of governing. Principles were obstacles to change. Solutions would not be based on "truth" but on expediency. The exigence of the moment dictated how and what would be changed. Only an all-powerful central control of society could cope with this constantly shifting existence. "Hope and change" is not merely a catchy and attractive phrase, it is the essence of progressivism. And if those you wish to convert from so-called individual freedom to being protected and nourished by the collective, a few lies about what you are doing will eventually be appreciated when the greater good is established.

Of course, don't expect any change to last long. Time and history march on. The central power must constantly upgrade and reform. What may appear to be failures are just inevitable changes. New "theses" will always be followed by new"antitheses" from which new "syntheses" will be achieved--and the change will be faster as we technologically progress--until the ultimate synthesis is achieved--the perfect synthesis--utopia--the perfect society. Kinda like what Marx said.

So when liberals lie it's strategic but when conservatives lie it's principled? That's pretty slick...

I doubt Obama is lying about the insurance issue. He was likely told the vast majority of people wouldn't be impacted and those who were would likely end up with a better deal anyway...which is how it appears to be playing out.

I also doubt Obama is any generally more/less honest than other recent presidents. The big difference is that he has a motivated hate machine and the Internet has matured to the point where information access and misinformation campaigns are cheap and effective. Clinton and Bush certainly suffered from some of this but nothing like we're seeing today.

-spence

clown :uhuh:

Truth is a principle by which the Founder's system must operate, and on which the system was devised.

and it is a system that is/was unique in history, we have many examples of progressive(statist) movements to one degree or another throughout history but in each case the foundation that they were trying to erode(or in many cases they filled a vacuum) was not constructed to quite the degree and with the forethought and focus on individual liberty and limited government that our founders managed to engender. By doing this they, at least, perpetuated the inherent desire for individual freedom that I think represents the push back against all of these progressive agenda items that we see to this day...they were quite aware of the sophists and others throughout history who would use their "talents" to debase a culture and turn truth on it's head and advantage to a few in order to bring the balance of power about to a centralized form of governing and control..., but I'm not sure that the Founders provided a remedy for this, when truth becomes a casualty and those that benefit from the ignoring/twisting of fact and reality have wrested so much control over people and process

Debutch, being a simple man I found your comparisons between our Founding Principles and the Progressive Model one of the best I have ever read.

I guess you could say a simple example would be a Declaration of Independence
vs. a Declaration of Dependence.

[QUOTE=spence;1020897]So when liberals lie it's strategic but when conservatives lie it's principled? That's pretty slick...

I doubt Obama is lying about the insurance issue. He was likely told the vast majority of people wouldn't be impacted and those who were would likely end up with a better deal anyway...which is how it appears to be playing out.

He openly lied and did get caught....and he has not apologized like the news media said he did.....he only said he was sorry.....there is a difference in the two words.

A better deal????.....some had excellent plans for less then what it will cost them under Obamas plan

[QUOTE=spence;1020897].some had excellent plans for less then what it will cost them under Obamas plan

NO, they thought they had good plans, but our Dear Leader knows better.

Come next year, I expect to be grateful for Obamacare. Of the 33 Senate seats up, there are about twice as many Democrats up for re-election than Republicans. Next year, many many more people will realize Obama screwed them. Could be a repeat of 2010...

and it is a system that is/was unique in history, we have many examples of progressive(statist) movements to one degree or another throughout history but in each case the foundation that they were trying to erode(or in many cases they filled a vacuum) was not constructed to quite the degree and with the forethought and focus on individual liberty and limited government that our founders managed to engender. By doing this they, at least, perpetuated the inherent desire for individual freedom that I think represents the push back against all of these progressive agenda items that we see to this day...they were quite aware of the sophists and others throughout history who would use their "talents" to debase a culture and turn truth on it's head and advantage to a few in order to bring the balance of power about to a centralized form of governing and control..., but I'm not sure that the Founders provided a remedy for this, when truth becomes a casualty and those that benefit from the ignoring/twisting of fact and reality have wrested so much control over people and process

No remedy is possible if the people don't want it. This brought to mind the quote "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". Out of curiosity I searched the quote and its source, which revealed different variations and attributions. But what I found most enlightening, interesting, was this item, a bit longish but well worth the read, or even sketchy perusal. It is a very thorough compilation of quotes on the subject of liberty, and by a wide spectrum of authors from the "right" or the "left", from the religious or the atheistic, from ancient times to the present, from the most famous to the lesser known--all with similar and incisive views on individual liberty vs. authoritarian power or vs. the security of that power or vs. ignorance or other related comparisons:

http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm

It can be read all at once in few minutes, or digested a few quotes at a time. Well worth looking at. I felt compelled to pick some quotes as examples, but there were so many really good ones that I let that go and just linked to the entire list.

Actually, justplugit's "a declaration of independence vs. a declaration of dependence" would be a good one.

That would have been slick if I said it. But I didn't. Never mentioned "liberals" or "conservatives" nor "principled lies." Slick try though by setting up a semi-straw man as if you were questioning something I did say.

You did say "The issue, then, is choosing either principle or progressivism. The former are adherents, the latter are the strategists" just after claiming that all politicians lie. Sure sounds slick to me...

I didn't say he was. And I wasn't merely referring to Obamacare in speaking about political lying. As far as Obama is concerned, there has been a pattern of truth twisting, to be generous, throughout his campaigns to get elected and re-elected and the continuous campaign mode and cover-ups he has maintained afterward. I didn't attribute such "lying" only to him but to "politicians" in general. I specifically said politics is war and war requires deceit.
So why be so critical? Hey, everybody does it.

Anyway, If he was told the vast majority wouldn't be impacted and those who were would likely end up with a better deal anyway, then his constant reiteration that you wouldn't lose your plan and could keep your doctor, period, was a typical stretching of the truth (a lie) to sell his plan and to help re-election.

Interestingly enough there's a video of Obama with House Republicans discussing the bill back in 2010 where Obama admits at least 10 million will lose their old plans. If this is some big lie I'd think he would have been called on it quite some time ago.

I didn't say he was more/less honest. And I certainly don't share your spin that the "big difference" is that he has a motivated hate machine dogging him, subtilely and falsely implying that Bush and Clinton didn't, but then switching to if they did it was nothing like today because the internet has "matured" (or immatured) enough to make it so. Quite a quick maturation. Am I to assume this hate machine waited five (a whole 5!) years for the internet to mature, and that the internet was just too unmatured for it to roar at this rate when he first ran for office and is spewing out "hate" at record amounts now?--kudos for a very imaginative spin. And that the negativity is merely about hatred not about reaction to policy, betrayal, and lying?--spin, spin, spinning.

The hate machine started well before his first term and has eclipsed anything we've witnesses in recent memory. Yes, some of the opposition is legitimate policy differences, but the bulk of it is personal...

As you often do, you set up tiny straw men, and totally ignore the majority, if not actually the entirety, of the post you respond to. Is there a bit of that strategic "lying" inherent in your attempts to justify? You thinking of running for political office? :devil2:
I think my body of work here on this site alone would likely keep me from public office. Unless I ran as a conservative, the libs really don't know how to exploit the Internet that well :hihi:

-spence

You did say "The issue, then, is choosing either principle or progressivism. The former are adherents, the latter are the strategists" just after claiming that all politicians lie. Sure sounds slick to me...

There you go again. I didn't say all politicians lie. I said they are expected to lie. Why--because they are politicians. The post was mostly meant to be provocative. The neutral tone I took regarding political lying was meant to be ironic. If I was so accepting of government by lies, how explain my posts that followed, or the many posts in other threads. Did I all of a sudden convert into a Machiavelli? I detest the lying, even the lying by that Gordon fellow in the 60 minute Benghazi piece. I prefer statesmanship over politics. Politics is usually looked at as a mean, mendacious process. One that not only destroys opponents' character, but also eats at our founding principles, destroying them and the entire constitutional system. The founders warned about the dangers of politics, factionalism, but Madison relied on there being so many factions that they would nullify each other. But when partisanship has grown so huge and two-sided, each side incorporating many otherwise diverse and competing factions, rather than neutralizing each other they induce the
destruction of our political process. Politics becomes a dirty word. John F. Kennedy once quipped "Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process."

The more serious "choosing principle or progressivism" bit was a departure from the rest of the post. I intended no irony there. By choosing principle I meant adherence to the founding principles and particularly the Constitution. Adherence not requiring strategy, but compliance to the rule of law. Strategy being a means to circumvent it or even twisting truth to adhere to the Constitution.

By choosing progressivism I meant abandoning principles and ruling by the whim of the moment. I don't know of any stated principles of progressivism.

At this point in the post I had departed from the ironic view of political lies, and certainly didn't refer to the concept of principled lies, whatever that is.


So why be so critical? Hey, everybody does it.

I was being ironic, not in agreement that everybody does it.

Interestingly enough there's a video of Obama with House Republicans discussing the bill back in 2010 where Obama admits at least 10 million will lose their old plans. If this is some big lie I'd think he would have been called on it quite some time ago.

So not only was he told about the paltry sum of 10 million losing old plans but he even admitted it before he kept repeating that you would not. Period. I don't know if that's a "big" lie, but potentially a very effective one for election purposes, especially to the "vast majority" of those unaware of the video.

The hate machine started well before his first term and has eclipsed anything we've witnesses in recent memory. Yes, some of the opposition is legitimate policy differences, but the bulk of it is personal...

If you say so, must be true . . . nah.

I think my body of work here on this site alone would likely keep me from public office. Unless I ran as a conservative, the libs really don't know how to exploit the Internet that well :hihi:

-spence

I think your body of work would be high qualification to be a politician. The "conservative politicians" would love to have you on their side. I think the "libs" would more so. And the libs are very good at exploiting the internet.

There you go again. I didn't say all politicians lie. I said they are expected to lie. Why--because they are politicians. The post was mostly meant to be provocative. the convenient conversation ending phrase "they all lie...blah...blah...blah" is a wonderful tool for those that willfully support the lying as a means to an end, if you know that your liar(politician) is committed and lacking shame, declaring that all involved are liars suggests that noone can be considered truthful or trustworthy, we've seen this time and again, we were told this during Clinton's trouble, everyone lies therefore noone may judge lying even in degrees...may the best liar win...relatavism

The more serious "choosing principle or progressivism" bit was a departure from the rest of the post. I intended no irony there. By choosing principle I meant adherence to the founding principles and particularly the Constitution. Adherence not requiring strategy, but compliance to the rule of law. Strategy being a means to circumvent it or even twisting truth to adhere to the Constitution.

this was pretty simple and straight forward, not sure how he missed the concept

I was being ironic, not in agreement that everybody does it.

probably confused by the context:)

So not only was he told about the paltry sum of 10 million losing old plans which is now like a paltry 52 million? but he even admitted it before he kept repeating that you would not. Period. yes...PERIOD...which he says a lot and probably means in Progressive speak..the opposite of PERIOD...which would be .......until I decide to say something else...PERIOD I don't know if that's a "big" lie, but potentially a very effective one for election purposes, especially to the "vast majority" of those unaware of the video.

if this video confirms that he knew of such losses .... and there are many videos where he repeated over and over and very confidently that there would be no such losses PERIOD ...it would indicate that he was very aware at the time when he was lying, that he was indeed... lying





I think your body of work would be high qualification to be a politician.

or at least a replacement for Jay Carney :)