From a doctor's perspective, is it better to repeal or keep healthcare reform

[SurfingDoctor]

Look, nobody thinks the Constitution is a perfect document. But the key is the fundamental idea of limiting government power and control.

Actually, this is incorrect. The Articles of Confederation had limited government centralization and power. However, the founders knew this would not and could not work, which was why the shelf life of the document was so short. The Constitution that replaced it had more centralization and power in the government because only that way could the collective group of states function. The Constitution was written to create a centralized government, with representatives voted by the people (that's probably the most important part) with inherent checks and balances in power among the different government branches (not the among the individuals) to prevent totalitarianism. So the fundamental idea of the Constitution at the time it was written was to empower the government, not limit it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted103644]

Actually, this is incorrect. The Articles of Confederation had limited government centralization and power. However, the founders knew this would not and could not work, which was why the shelf life of the document was so short. The Constitution that replaced it had more centralization and power in the government because only that way could the collective group of states function. The Constitution was written to create a centralized government, with representatives voted by the people (that's probably the most important part) with inherent checks and balances in power among the different government branches (not the among the individuals) to prevent totalitarianism. So the fundamental idea of the Constitution at the time it was written was to empower the government, not limit it.

Ding ding ding.

The Constitution was specifically written to increase the powers of the federal government over the ineffectual loose confederation of states that existed before.

It's why the southern states called their rebellion "The Confederacy" (they wanted to go back to something closer to the Articles, with the added benefit of continued slavery).

It's funny how much the conservative interpretation of the Constitution would be more in line with what the Confederates wanted, albeit without references to slavery.

If anything, a weak federal government is the opposite of what the founders intended in the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

 

[JackShephard MD]

I'm not saying this wasn't a waste of taxpayer money, but couldn't one argue the banks handing out huge (i.e. billions in) bonuses while they were technically bankrupt also constitute a form of taxpayer fraud?

Absolutely.

 

[Dave89]

Actually, this is incorrect. The Articles of Confederation had limited government centralization and power. However, the founders knew this would not and could not work, which was why the shelf life of the document was so short. The Constitution that replaced it had more centralization and power in the government because only that way could the collective group of states function. The Constitution was written to create a centralized government, with representatives voted by the people (that's probably the most important part) with inherent checks and balances in power among the different government branches (not the among the individuals) to prevent totalitarianism. So the fundamental idea of the Constitution at the time it was written was to empower the government, not limit it.

True enough, relative to the Articles of Confederation. But the system of checks and balances is, in theory, a constraint on any one branch from gaining too much power.

 

[Dave89]

Ding ding ding.

The Constitution was specifically written to increase the powers of the federal government over the ineffectual loose confederation of states that existed before.

It's why the southern states called their rebellion "The Confederacy" (they wanted to go back to something closer to the Articles, with the added benefit of continued slavery).

It's funny how much the conservative interpretation of the Constitution would be more in line with what the Confederates wanted, albeit without references to slavery.

If anything, a weak federal government is the opposite of what the founders intended in the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

That's why few people suggest a "weak" federal government. Rather, one with limited powers.

 

[deleted103644]

That's why few people suggest a "weak" federal government. Rather, one with limited powers.

What do you think I mean by "weak"? The Articles failed because the federal government needed more authority to keep the states in check The federal government should have limited powers over citizens, but should have a fair amount of leeway to keep states in line. Interstate commerce is a very very broad sphere of influence, affecting almost everything.

 

[Dave89]

Now there are some fine mental contortions. The private health insurance market is the private health insurance market, regardless of the existence of incentives to purchase a policy.

Yes...? We're not talking about the "private health insurance market", we're talking about purchasing of health insurance by individuals who wouldn't otherwise. The government wants to create that market. Furthermore, the very idea that ERs are required to treat even patients who cannot pay is a government-created market (regardless of whether it's morally right or not).

Furthermore, as should be abundantly clear by now, there is already no choice whether or not to participate in the market. Everyone already does. The only question is whether people buy in up-front or push the costs they incur onto others.

Until you get that in your head this discussion isn't going anywhere.

Apparently, 4 Justices found your argument pretty weak last week (we have no idea what Thomas thought). You can't say "everyone already does" participate in the market by virtue of the fact that they eventually will. If that is indeed a legally logical approach, why then cannot the government mandate burial insurance? I thought this was a good argument by Alito. Same with broccoli by Scalia.

 

[deleted103644]

Yes...? We're not talking about the "private health insurance market", we're talking about purchasing of health insurance by individuals who wouldn't otherwise. The government wants to create that market. Furthermore, the very idea that ERs are required to treat even patients who cannot pay is a government-created market (regardless of whether it's morally right or not).



Apparently, 4 Justices found your argument pretty weak last week (we have no idea what Thomas thought). You can't say "everyone already does" participate in the market by virtue of the fact that they eventually will. If that is indeed a legally logical approach, why then cannot the government mandate burial insurance? I thought this was a good argument by Alito. Same with broccoli by Scalia.

There are only a few stable options for health care:

1) Repeal EMTALA (and no healthcare reform). This is the law signed by Reagan that requires every ER to treat every patient who comes in without regard to ability to pay. This will be sustainable, but people without insurance or ability to pay will die outside hospitals.

2) Force everyone to get insured. This is only possible through an individual mandate. If the government instead mandated insurance companies to provide affordable coverage without excluding preexisting conditions, they would go bankrupt.

3) Have a public insurance plan that enrolled everyone (ie a tax) that covers emergency, primary, and preventative care. People would be free to purchase supplemental insurance for higher levels of care.

 

[SteinUmStein]

There are only a few stable options for health care:

1) Repeal EMTALA (and no healthcare reform). This is the law signed by Reagan that requires every ER to treat every patient who comes in without regard to ability to pay. This will be sustainable, but people without insurance or ability to pay will die outside hospitals.

The fact that I can realistically envision this happening under a Republican administration shows how far down politics in this country have sunk.

I can hear it now from future Fox News: "These people are taking your money and forcing doctors to treat them, without paying a penny! A doctor's labor is not their right! Healthcare is a good to be purchased - if you don't pay for Nike sneakers, you don't get the sneakers! You go to an ER without coverage or cash, you leave empty-handed!"

 

[deleted103644]

The fact that I can realistically envision this happening under a Republican administration shows how far down politics in this country have sunk.

I can hear it now from future Fox News: "These people are taking your money and forcing doctors to treat them, without paying a penny! A doctor's labor is not their right! Healthcare is a good to be purchased - if you don't pay for Nike sneakers, you don't get the sneakers! You go to an ER without coverage or cash, you leave empty-handed!"

In all honesty, I wish they were talking about this. It's the natural solution to healthcare from their perspective, but they understandably don't like talking about it, both for PR and St. Reagan.

 

[SteinUmStein]

In all honesty, I wish they were talking about this. It's the natural solution to healthcare from their perspective, but they understandably don't like talking about it, both for PR and St. Reagan.

I can almost guarantee you that the majority of Repubs would love to be rid of EMTALA. It's anathema to everything they are for. It would also lead to a swift death in any general election, so the only way I could see option #1 happening is full Republican control of the Senate, House, and Oval Office and getting it done without having run with it as part of their platform.

It sure would fix runaway health care costs though... dead poor people don't cost money. Would make for some dramatic scenes on the nightly news - children of uninsured man having an MI plead with ER docs and nurses to treat their dad as he dies outside the waiting room.

 

[deleted103644]

I can almost guarantee you that the majority of Repubs would love to be rid of EMTALA. It's anathema to everything they are for. It would also lead to a swift death in any general election, so the only way I could see option #1 happening is full Republican control of the Senate, House, and Oval Office and getting it done without having run with it as part of their platform.

It sure would fix runaway health care costs though... dead poor people don't cost money. Would make for some dramatic scenes on the nightly news - children of uninsured man having an MI plead with ER docs and nurses to treat their dad as he dies outside the waiting room.

No, I think a good portion of them haven't thought about it, and the rest are trying to keep it that way.

The Democrats are guilty of ignoring repercussions too - just look at the Medicare cuts agreed to in the debt bargain.

Sure, no one was going to lose coverage, they were just going to cut reimbursements for doctors/hospitals. No mention of how that would cause more doctors to drop Medicare.

 

[Dave89]

I can almost guarantee you that the majority of Repubs would love to be rid of EMTALA. It's anathema to everything they are for. It would also lead to a swift death in any general election, so the only way I could see option #1 happening is full Republican control of the Senate, House, and Oval Office and getting it done without having run with it as part of their platform.

It sure would fix runaway health care costs though... dead poor people don't cost money. Would make for some dramatic scenes on the nightly news - children of uninsured man having an MI plead with ER docs and nurses to treat their dad as he dies outside the waiting room.

You mean like this Republican?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BXTKrbGbZs

Yeah I know, that's unrealistic. To expect good people to take the initiative without government bureaucrats forcing them to.

Conservatives are, in many respects, more concerned with the needy than so-called liberals. E.g. they consistently give more charity. The main difference? They like to do it themselves, without the indirect kick-in-the-@$$ from government.

 

[redsquareblack]

Yes...? We're not talking about the "private health insurance market", we're talking about purchasing of health insurance by individuals who wouldn't otherwise. The government wants to create that market.

No, it doesn't. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at play here. The Government isn't creating a market so that it can regulate it; it is regulating a market that already exists, which is surely within the scope of its powers.

The question is, which market? The market ultimately being regulated here is the health care market, a highly-regulated market that almost everyone will, at some point, enter, whether they like it or not. And the way in which it is being regulated is by establishing the means by which it will be payed for.

Immediately, one could ask, "By what right?" And the answer is that the health care market almost certainly represents interstate commerce, if you consider that most people would not buy health insurance knowing that insurance companies couldn't discriminate based on preexisting conditions. If you doubt this, that's fine, though that would put you in very limited company.

Furthermore, the very idea that ERs are required to treat even patients who cannot pay is a government-created market (regardless of whether it's morally right or not).

No, it's the Government doing it's damn job to consider externalities that a private market most likely would not. It isn't creating a market, it's regulating a market that already exists, which is within its power to do.

Apparently, 4 Justices found your argument pretty weak last week (we have no idea what Thomas thought). You can't say "everyone already does" participate in the market by virtue of the fact that they eventually will. If that is indeed a legally logical approach, why then cannot the government mandate burial insurance? I thought this was a good argument by Alito. Same with broccoli by Scalia.

It was a terrible argument by Scalia. It was as though these justices couldn't even be bothered to actually read what they were supposed to be considering. To what extent are they comparable?

The difference isn't in the way the argument is constructed, but rather in the impact of the absence of a mandate. In the case of health insurance, the absence of the mandate has a profound direct impact on commerce between the states, while failure to buy burial insurance or broccoli doesn't.

But in a broader sense, it has less to do with the fact that everyone will at some time enter the health care market, but rather that they are entering it. In any given 5-year period, something like 95% of the population is in the market, whether by seeing their doctor for a physical, or picking up a prescription.

To pretend as though the burial insurance or broccoli arguments are somehow comparable is either disingenuous or foolish. I'll let you choose which.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

That's why few people suggest a "weak" federal government. Rather, one with limited powers.

The American Revolution and the associated documents afterwards that formed the United States and Constitution was not about limiting government, it was about the people having representation in the government. Most colonists actually enjoyed being part of England and the English empire and liked the British government. They only got upset because the were not given a say in the government and they felt taxes were unequally distributed to them. Hence the slogan "No taxation without presentation", as no colonists were allowed to be part of Parliament. People may want to interpret that as "limiting government" but that's not really ture. If the British had let colonist be part of Parliament, the United States would not be in existence today.

As for the people suggest "limited powers", that's way too vague to have any meaning. People generally agree that totalitarianism and dictatorship at not good form of government, the rest is just opinion on which no majority agrees on (hence the numerous types of democratic (ie democracy) governments in the world).

 

[SteinUmStein]

You mean like this Republican?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BXTKrbGbZs

Yeah I know, that's unrealistic. To expect good people to take the initiative without government bureaucrats forcing them to.

Conservatives are, in many respects, more concerned with the needy than so-called liberals. E.g. they consistently give more charity. The main difference? They like to do it themselves, without the indirect kick-in-the-@$$ from government.

No, it's not unrealistic. What is unrealistic is expecting generous wealthy donors to intelligently coordinate their efforts to target aid where it is most needed, and to put in place programs that continue to assist those in need over decades. What is unrealistic is expecting the whims of wealthy donors to align perfectly with the needs of society's least fortunate.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

I don't think it's accurate to say that the PPACA co-opted their ideas. That makes it sound like the people behind the PPACA nefariously swiped those ideas in an order to somehow take them from the right. This is inaccurate.

The fact of the matter is that the PPACA is a solidly centrist act that was deliberately crafted to be a compromise position that would appeal to people across the political spectrum. The idea was that our health care system desperately needs reforming, and so if it was necessary to for everyone to meet halfway on an arrangement that wasn't anyone's dream situation, that would be the way to go. The democrats bent over backwards to accommodate republican and conservative ideas, meeting them more than halfway in hopes of having a bill that would receive widespread support. Despite the fact that the democrats crafted a bill that is heavier on conservative than liberal ideas and methods, the republicans flew into fit of outrage. Not a single republican voted for the PPACA, and they've done nothing but try to stonewall, obstruct, and undermine it since it passed.

It's hard to look at this an see anything other than that the republicans are acting in bad faith, that they have no particular objection to the content of the bill, that they just want to make sure they win and the democrats lose. The fact that there's real governing that needs to happen, and that the American people desperately need for _someone_ to step up and be an adult and craft good policy is apparently of no interest to them.

If someone has a clear explanation of why I'm wrong, I'd love to hear it. It's pretty disheartening to feel like our political system is being unilaterally driven into the ground by one party which has lost any interest in having an effective government if they're not the ones in charge of it.

I have actually pointed out exactly what you now say in previous posts in this thread. I'm not sure why you think there is a 'nefarious' element to the fact that PPACA co-opted the idea of the mandate from a conservative think-tank. This is actually one of the undisputed facts about the mandate - that it was a Republican idea with original support from party stalwarts like Newt Gingrich! You are spot on with the 'centrist' angle in PPACA because including the mandate was actually an attempt to compromise and bridge the gap between political foes (essentially marking the death of the 'Public Option'). You are also right about the fact that bad faith seems to guide political actions in this matter to the detriment of tangible 'grown-up' solutions. I agree that the more adults we can have that see this as a problem needing solutions and not another opportunity for ideological bloodsport, the more likely it is we can incorporate good ideas from everyone into reform efforts. I do not think you are wrong in your overall assessment (and if anyone thinks you are, they have not been paying attention to the goings-on at Capitol Hill!!) but you clearly misconstrued the spirit of my statement on the source of the mandate in PPACA.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

What's the deal with the recent push to consider the US Constitution some sort of holy, perfect document? We've had to heavily modify and add to it to keep it up to date and it still shows its age. It wasn't sent down to us from on high, a bunch of white dudes in wigs did the best job they could writing it (and it was a pretty fantastic job for the time period in which it was written), but we could spend hours here pointing out the numerous flaws and holes that have been stitched together over 200+ years. It's a work in progress, not a pristine, timeless document that should never be altered.

Amen!! And I might add that the invoking of constitutionality by predominantly old/older activists seen in organized protests, defines hypocrisy because we did not see them in full force as virile youth in the 60's during the civil and women's rights movements despite the fact that the constitution explicitly proclaimed the equality of men from the day it was first written! It would have been uplifting to see a whole bunch of them with their American flags protesting the failure of govt/laws to respect the constitution, and demand 'freedom' for blacks and women, an end to segregation, etc...but those must not have been causes they were sympathetic to...bummer!

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

No, it's not unrealistic. What is unrealistic is expecting generous wealthy donors to intelligently coordinate their efforts to target aid where it is most needed, and to put in place programs that continue to assist those in need over decades. What is unrealistic is expecting the whims of wealthy donors to align perfectly with the needs of society's least fortunate.

You make absolutely perfect sense! It is not even within the realm of reason that somehow, we cannot constitute a body that is better placed to respond to societal needs - oh, wait...we did that - it is called 'government', and the last I checked, it was 'of the people', 'by the people', and 'for the people'. But that's too easy! I will be the first to say government is not perfect - but enforcing a defeatist approach with government for it's failings will not fix the problems it was conceived to address. The overwhelming handicap presiding over government failure is partisan politics. I think you have figured out by now that there are some who will never consider government a good thing unless it can execute their narrow set of desirables, and superficially skirt concerns of public good. I am very curious to see factual data that backs up the assertion that conservative philanthropy overwhelmingly exceeds everyone else's efforts/regard for the needy that Dave speaks about.

 

[SteinUmStein]

Right. Even if conservatives were documented to give to charities at 10 times the rate of liberals, it doesn't mean those charitable efforts (as laudable as they are) are funding programs that are most needed and most 'high-yield' to use medical-speak. Getting a bunch of super-rich conservatives to coordinate their efforts and create holistic programs that systematically aid those most in need would make herding cats look really easy.

 

[Gut Shot]

Yes...? We're not talking about the "private health insurance market", we're talking about purchasing of health insurance by individuals who wouldn't otherwise. The government wants to create that market. Furthermore, the very idea that ERs are required to treat even patients who cannot pay is a government-created market (regardless of whether it's morally right or not).

Here you go, Dave: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72069555/DC-Aca-Opinion

That's senior federal judge (and Reagan appointee) Laurence H. Silberman's opinion on the individual mandate. You will find pages 28-37 of particular interest.

Apparently, 4 Justices found your argument pretty weak last week (we have no idea what Thomas thought).

1. It's not my argument.

2. Asking tough questions is not tantamount to finding an argument weak.

3. I know EXACTLY what Thomas was thinking during the proceedings: "Damn, when is this thing going to be over? I can't wait to get home and watch 30 Rock. I do love that Tina Fey."

 

[Gut Shot]

More evidence that the government is wasteful:

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20120402/AGENCY04/204020302/1001

These are just the few that get caught.

***BREAKING NEWS***

This just in... organization with 2.8 million employees and multi-trillion dollar budget does not operate with 100% efficiency...

 

[scarshapedstar]

Meanwhile, MF Global and JP Morgan can steal 1.2 billion in plain sight with no consequences and no outcry from the fiscally conscious.

 

[SteinUmStein]

Meanwhile, MF Global and JP Morgan can steal 1.2 billion in plain sight with no consequences and no outcry from the fiscally conscious.

Ahem... "fiscally conscious". They may claim to be, but reality begs to differ.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/18/tax-cuts-rich_n_848933.html

 

[redsquareblack]

***BREAKING NEWS***

This just in... organization with 2.8 million employees and multi-trillion dollar budget does not operate with 100% efficiency...

No, surely you don't say, good man!

 

[SteinUmStein]

No, surely you don't say, good man!

But... but... if my money isn't being used 100% efficiency, I don't want the government to have any of it! It's MINE, precious, MINE! I don't need your stinkin' government roads, schools, police, fire, military, any of it! I'm a 110% self-made man!

 

[deleted103644]

Here you go, Dave: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72069555/DC-Aca-Opinion

That's senior federal judge (and Reagan appointee) Laurence H. Silberman's opinion on the individual mandate. You will find pages 28-37 of particular interest.



1. It's not my argument.

2. Asking tough questions is not tantamount to finding an argument weak.

3. I know EXACTLY what Thomas was thinking during the proceedings: "Damn, when is this thing going to be over? I can't wait to get home and watch 30 Rock. I do love that Tina Fey."

What Clarence Thomas was thinking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddyZ0XZZbbw

It's embarrassing that he was picked to replace Thurgood Marshall.

 

[Dave89]

You make absolutely perfect sense! It is not even within the realm of reason that somehow, we cannot constitute a body that is better placed to respond to societal needs - oh, wait...we did that - it is called 'government', and the last I checked, it was 'of the people', 'by the people', and 'for the people'. But that's too easy! I will be the first to say government is not perfect - but enforcing a defeatist approach with government for it's failings will not fix the problems it was conceived to address. The overwhelming handicap presiding over government failure is partisan politics. I think you have figured out by now that there are some who will never consider government a good thing unless it can execute their narrow set of desirables, and superficially skirt concerns of public good. I am very curious to see factual data that backs up the assertion that conservative philanthropy overwhelmingly exceeds everyone else's efforts/regard for the needy that Dave speaks about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576036010174911064.html

http://www.freakonomics.com/2006/11/22/it-turns-out-conservatives-really-are-compassionate/

P.S.: I never said the word "overwhelmingly."

 

[SteinUmStein]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576036010174911064.html

http://www.freakonomics.com/2006/11/22/it-turns-out-conservatives-really-are-compassionate/

P.S.: I never said the word "overwhelmingly."

To put it somewhat bluntly - who cares? All the disjointed, unorganized, random, on-a-whim charity in the world will not fix the deep, systemic, chronic problems of poverty, homelessness, lack of medical care, etc etc that this country faces.

I know you were just addressing his question, but I'm genuinely curious why anyone thinks this changes anything.

 

[Lysinee]

Judge upset by Obama's comments on health care law

"HOUSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court judge on Tuesday seemed to take offense to comments President Barack Obama made earlier this week in which he warned that if the Supreme Court overturned his signature health care overhaul it would amount to overreach by an "unelected" court.

On Monday, Obama issued a direct challenge to the Supreme Court, saying he didn't believe the high court would take the "unprecedented" step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of Congress."

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-upset-obamas-comments-health-care-law-010429840.html

 

[JackShephard MD]

***BREAKING NEWS***

This just in... organization with 2.8 million employees and multi-trillion dollar budget does not operate with 100% efficiency...

Lol, not operating at 100% efficiency is somehow equivalent to a gross misuse of federal funds?

That's like a negligent drunk surgeon killing a patient and saying "***breaking news*** I'm not successful 100% of the time. I do thousands of operations."

It's sad that this has become acceptable.

 

[Gut Shot]

Lol, not operating at 100% efficiency is somehow equivalent to a gross misuse of federal funds?

Government officials wasted a portion of their budget, so yes.

That's like a negligent drunk surgeon killing a patient and saying "***breaking news*** I'm not successful 100% of the time. I do thousands of operations."

No, not really. It's more like a grad student who spends his book fund on hookers.

It's sad that this has become acceptable.

Considering it resulted in the head of the agency "resigning", in addition to the firing of two top level officials within the agency, in addition to others being placed on leave pending further disciplinary action, while this has been plastered all over the media as a highly embarrassing scandal, you have an odd definition of "acceptable."

 

[phltz]

Lol, not operating at 100% efficiency is somehow equivalent to a gross misuse of federal funds?

That's like a negligent drunk surgeon killing a patient and saying "***breaking news*** I'm not successful 100% of the time. I do thousands of operations."

It's sad that this has become acceptable.

No, it's rather more like a hospital with millions of surgeons finding out that one of their surgeons was operating drunk, and then firing said surgeon and most of their scrub team. And then publicizing the whole thing, to make sure everyone else learns the lesson.

If you really want to make a surgeon analogy, this is the one.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576036010174911064.html

http://www.freakonomics.com/2006/11/22/it-turns-out-conservatives-really-are-compassionate/

P.S.: I never said the word "overwhelmingly."

Correct...you did not say 'overwhelmingly' because clearly, it would be just as ludicrous for liberals to claim they care more about the needy than conservatives. There is no way your claim has empirical merit because framing philanthropy along ideological lines does little to further the causes that stand to benefit. Do you still not see it - the futility of ideological spin?? You, my friend are intellectually trapped deep within the trenches of ideological warfare that will never have a clear victor, but will always have clear victims. You provided 3 sources that are OP ED - hardly scholarly, and definitely not scientific - as a medical scholar, you don't need me reminding you this - come on now! Stop thinking like a 'conservative jedi' for just a few moments...there is much to be gained by it! Ask yourself this - is it more important that the needy are cared for, OR that a conservative/liberal is doing the caring?

 

[deleted103644]

Correct...you did not say 'overwhelmingly' because clearly, it would be just as ludicrous for liberals to claim they care more about the needy than conservatives. There is no way your claim has empirical merit because framing philanthropy along ideological lines does little to further the causes that stand to benefit. Do you still not see it - the futility of ideological spin?? You, my friend are intellectually trapped deep within the trenches of ideological warfare that will never have a clear victor, but will always have clear victims. You provided 3 sources that are OP ED - hardly scholarly, and definitely not scientific - as a medical scholar, you don't need me reminding you this - come on now! Stop thinking like a 'conservative jedi' for just a few moments...there is much to be gained by it! Ask yourself this - is it more important that the needy are cared for, OR that a conservative/liberal is doing the caring?

The freakonomics post is actually pretty factual - they do interesting economic analyses.

You're right that individual charity contributions are no substitute for government programs, but you're starting to fall into the same trap with him.

For the most part, people of all ideologies are rational, they're just working with different sets of priorities and assumptions about how the world works (and more recently it seems, different sets of facts). We'd be better off if people tried to figure out where the other side is coming from before arguing.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

No, it's rather more like a hospital with millions of surgeons finding out that one of their surgeons was operating drunk, and then firing said surgeon and most of their scrub team. And then publicizing the whole thing, to make sure everyone else learns the lesson.

If you really want to make a surgeon analogy, this is the one.

Spot on! I still cannot understand why simple objectivity goes out the window when it comes to honestly evaluating the problems we face as a society. You are doing a good job countering the ideological melodrama that is rife in here but I fear that there is such a thing as focusing too much on substance - I am always guilty of it, and I think I detect a co-defendant in you

 

[Dave89]

Correct...you did not say 'overwhelmingly' because clearly, it would be just as ludicrous for liberals to claim they care more about the needy than conservatives. There is no way your claim has empirical merit because framing philanthropy along ideological lines does little to further the causes that stand to benefit. Do you still not see it - the futility of ideological spin?? You, my friend are intellectually trapped deep within the trenches of ideological warfare that will never have a clear victor, but will always have clear victims. You provided 3 sources that are OP ED - hardly scholarly, and definitely not scientific - as a medical scholar, you don't need me reminding you this - come on now! Stop thinking like a 'conservative jedi' for just a few moments...there is much to be gained by it! Ask yourself this - is it more important that the needy are cared for, OR that a conservative/liberal is doing the caring?

That's rich, coming from someone who has posted multiple comments mocking people you deem to be on the other side. All I'm doing by posting those is proving the inanity of these comments that Republicans don't care if people die, are poor, etc.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

The freakonomics post is actually pretty factual - they do interesting economic analyses.

You're right that individual charity contributions are no substitute for government programs, but you're starting to fall into the same trap with him.

For the most part, people of all ideologies are rational, they're just working with different sets of priorities and assumptions about how the world works (and more recently it seems, different sets of facts). We'd be better off if people tried to figure out where the other side is coming from before arguing.

I respect your assessment but disagree with 'fall into the same trap'. I acknowledge the fluidity of the approach needed to solve problems, and abhor the tightening of the grip on ideological reins in an attempt to steer the solution to partisan goals.

No matter how factual Freakonomics is, I don't think an 'interesting analysis' can supplant scientific objectivity - and even more, it will never be able to empirically confirm that conservatives are more sympathetic to the needy than their liberal brethren.

I make no arguments based on ideology (I have never been a liberal or conservative at any point in my life). I have always stated elesewhere in this thread that even intelligent people get swallowed up by ideological groundswell - the danger is in letting it dictate the tone and tenor of responses to societal problems especially because doing so excludes and alienates a great many who do not think the same. Most times, it is enough to realize that there is a 'trap' but it is clear that 'ideological jedis' are so deep in the muddle that they cannot acknowledge the reality outside their convictions (hence the loss of rationality). The problems we face do NOT need ideology as an ingredient to the solution. A good idea, is a good idea irrespective of its origin because if it addresses the problem, everyone benefits. Partisan ideology that is - sadly - also well represented in this forum results in ideas that are specifically crafted to appeal to the zealotry - that is the Achilles Heel of infusing ideology into problems that affect a broad spectrum of society. If we were ever able to stumble into a perfect compromise on health care - the effort will succeed not because it is a Republican or Democratic idea but because it reasonably satisfies the problems it set out to address, ideology notwithstanding. Even a mildly intelligent but objective lay-person can appreciate the inevitability of that!

 

[Dave89]

The freakonomics post is actually pretty factual - they do interesting economic analyses.

You're right that individual charity contributions are no substitute for government programs, but you're starting to fall into the same trap with him.

For the most part, people of all ideologies are rational, they're just working with different sets of priorities and assumptions about how the world works (and more recently it seems, different sets of facts). We'd be better off if people tried to figure out where the other side is coming from before arguing.

Actually, (s)he was posting partisan comments way before I got involved on this thread.

And again, I didn't post those links to paint conservatives as better than so-called liberals. I'm just saying, with the actual data available, the assertion that conservatives are stingy or evil has a heavy burden of justification. (love that phrase now )

 

[scarshapedstar]

I'm just saying, with the actual data available, the assertion that conservatives are stingy or evil has a heavy burden of justification. (love that phrase now )

Well, there is the perennial, contrarian holiday musing on why Ebenezer Scrooge was actually a pretty cool guy.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

That's rich, coming from someone who has posted multiple comments mocking people you deem to be on the other side. All I'm doing by posting those is proving the inanity of these comments that Republicans don't care if people die, are poor, etc.

Again, you missed my point with that whole 'other side' argument - and if you feel mocked, that is unfortunate. There is no need to dig in your party heels...that is my point - you do not need a 'side' to have constructive participation because the solution has no sides! I don't know how much clearer I can be. You can actively contribute solutions without ideological preach-speak. If that is mockery - then I am guilty, and apologize for hurting your 'side's' feelings. I have no side to protect in this argument because none is necessary!!

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

Actually, (s)he was posting partisan comments way before I got involved on this thread.

And again, I didn't post those links to paint conservatives as better than so-called liberals. I'm just saying, with the actual data available, the assertion that conservatives are stingy or evil has a heavy burden of justification. (love that phrase now )

Laugh out Loud! I do not need to defend against this coz anyone can go back and read what I wrote...nice try though!

 

[Dave89]

Laugh out Loud! I do not need to defend against this coz anyone can go back and read what I wrote...nice try though!

Totally agree! They have been foaming at the mouth about 'freedom' and 'government takeover' - red veins and all bulging ferociously out of their furrowed foreheads! I'm just ready for a ruling - any ruling - so we can hopefully lower the blood pressure stats of 'the American people'...coz you know the rest of us with normal BP stats in the argument are un-American traitors

The SCOTUS framed the issue in today's prelim round of hearings to be an opposition to the PPACA requiring individuals to purchase insurance (aka Individual Mandate...also ironically the brainchild of brilliant Republican minds). I was NOT surprised to learn that the GOPer lawyers have no opposition to the penalties associated with not purchasing insurance - this is strategic because if the mandate was found to be constitutional, but they successfully challenged the penalties, then that would signal trouble for the profit margins of their corporate sponsors in the industry who would then be forced to insure 'the American people' only when they got sick - because 'the American people' would no longer be required to carry coverage at all times - which Republicans initially wanted arguing that 'the American people' needed to show some 'personal responsibility' on the issue!

At this point, it is clear that Obama is hated for no other reason other than the fact that they are Republicans and he is Obama. They have shown that they will spite themselves and their own ideas, as long as they appear to be spiting Obama If it is not healthcare they hate, it will be one of a gazillion other things about him that they can't stand...like the fact that his birth certificate is fake...well, scratch that...it is actually genuine and was issued by the Kenyan Government Independents are slightly amused by the circus, transfixed by the histrionics...but thankfully, as one, I know most of us vote with our brains.

I believe you hit the head on that proverbial nail! God help us all...sorry...they have God and the bible on their side, too

I think, one should also be able to see diminishing premiums based on longevity of the policy so that people who have been in the system longer or used it less/kept themselves healthy get an incentive to keep coverage. This is the type of brainstorming we need...not the vile simplistic rhetoric on 'freedom' and 'socialism'.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment but I am a lot more sceptical of Scalia's vote despite your stare decisis justification because conservative thinking on what Obama desires has become so rabid as to be self-deleterious if there's even a slight chance of destroying Obama in the aftermath.
A serious overhaul is needed but the voices of opposition are getting louder as the inevitable approaches. I am more interested in hearing solutions dissenters can propose to the sticking points rather than the blind amplification of the 'Policy of No' that is relegating once reasonable conservative positions into callous histrionics. The Michele Bachmann-esque approach that prescribes throwing out PPACA, and doing nothing is even more irresponsible than exaggerating the lies about 'loss of freedom', 'socialism', and 'government takeover' that talking heads have adopted.

Conservatives are not unreasonable - the fact that they have been consumed by blind hate for all things Obama is what is unreasonable, and is defeating any discourse on important problems we face as a society.

I think I get your game. You champion independence from political partisanship, yet somehow your posts criticize only Republicans. Nothing about the negatives of Democrat proposals, which are fairly obvious to anyone who has access to news from all points of view.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

I think I get your game. You champion independence from political partisanship, yet somehow your posts criticize only Republicans. Nothing about the negatives of Democrat proposals, which are fairly obvious to anyone who has access to news from all points of view.

You have conveniently left out statements where I openly stated I was not sympathetic to Obama in this matter. Republicans in pandering to the zealotry have invoked the constitution, God, religion, freedom, socialism, etc...so this is all included as proof of the ideological banter that I decry. I want to see you dispute that. None of those conservative charges brings us closer to a solution.

You also conveniently left out the post where I stated that I spoke as an independent, disinterested in the histrionics that ideology has spawned.

Democrats are on the board with pushing reforms - proof is in the imperfect PPACA that you rile against, and that not a single Republican voted for. I also said I was (and still am) waiting for a conservative solution that weighs in constructively (like their idea of the mandate) and does not just say 'NO' to everything.

The disingenuity is on an unprecedented scale given that the individual mandate which accounts for more gastric reflux in conservatives that anything else, is a BRILLIANT Republican idea. This is all ideological demagoguery that you are happy to repeat instead of actually offering solutions that will satisfy the challenges of an ailing healthcare system.

Bottom line...if your 'side' is culpable for the zealotry that is defeating the process, my pointing it out does not make me partisan. I know several respectable Republicans (also called moderates) who do not think like you - but their voices have been drowned out in the ideological bloodsport.

You can spin this any way you want - The fact is PPACA is a Democratic vehicle, and the loudest opposition is coming from Republicans - ideological foes. My pointing out that you have chosen to argue from an idelogical platform hardly makes me sympathetic to Democrats beyond the fact that they were willing to do something when Republicans refused to play! If you think your party has no blame in the state of PPACA, then you should take issue with that fact - they made a political calculation - at the detriment of several people on the sidelines - because by not participating responsibly, we are all captive to the idelogical preach-speak that you have repeated here instead of moving towards a solution.

 

[deleted103644]

I think I get your game. You champion independence from political partisanship, yet somehow your posts criticize only Republicans. Nothing about the negatives of Democrat proposals, which are fairly obvious to anyone who has access to news from all points of view.

To be fair, a lot of Republican positions are currently nuts. There's far more cognitive dissonance in the Republican party right now than the Democratic party.

You can't simultaneously be for deficit reduction and tax cuts, even if you believe in the Laffer curve it has limits.

There's also the disconnect between limiting government control over corporations/states and increasing government control over individuals (particularly regarding sex).

The Democrats have their blind spots too (lawyers, unions), but you're less likely to see outright hypocrisy on the left partially because there's less of an effort to make everyone tow the same line. Plus they're a bunch of ineffectual wusses.

There's a reason comedians make fun of Republicans more, and it's not because there's a left wing comedian conspiracy.

It's just that Republican politicians are more prone to behaving ridiculously. The current required mantra for candidates in the Republican primary is so incoherent that they either need to be liars (Romney) and pretend they believe in it, idiots/clowns (Cain), or nuts (Bachmann).

I dislike the party system and wish we had more choices. But the truth is, if you look at a different country like Australia for example, the entire spectrum of their left and right fits inside the current Democratic party. The Republican party had gone off the deep end, and even a few Republicans have started to admit it (eg David Frum).

 

[SteinUmStein]

The NEJM just came out with a really nice overview of the Supreme Court arguments and their interpretation of the more likely outcomes. Give it a read if you have a chance.

 

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

To be fair, a lot of Republican positions are currently nuts. There's far more cognitive dissonance in the Republican party right now than the Democratic party.

You can't simultaneously be for deficit reduction and tax cuts, even if you believe in the Laffer curve it has limits.

There's also the disconnect between limiting government control over corporations/states and increasing government control over individuals (particularly regarding sex).

The Democrats have their blind spots too (lawyers, unions), but you're less likely to see outright hypocrisy on the left partially because there's less of an effort to make everyone tow the same line. Plus they're a bunch of ineffectual wusses.

There's a reason comedians make fun of Republicans more, and it's not because there's a left wing comedian conspiracy.

It's just that Republican politicians are more prone to behaving ridiculously. The current required mantra for candidates in the Republican primary is so incoherent that they either need to be liars (Romney) and pretend they believe in it, idiots/clowns (Cain), or nuts (Bachmann).

I dislike the party system and wish we had more choices. But the truth is, if you look at a different country like Australia for example, the entire spectrum of their left and right fits inside the current Democratic party. The Republican party had gone off the deep end, and even a few Republicans have started to admit it (eg David Frum).

Agreed. Pointing out the obvious hardly makes one partisan. Your statements are very true in as far as they point out the obvious flaws of pursuing a purely ideological stance on any matter of importance. It is an approach that lends itself to the absurdities that are presiding over the arrested development we now face in health care reform. Not even the most conservative talking-heads have argued against the need for reform - but in the same breath, a vociferous segment of the movement has lost the basic sense of responsibility that requires them to constructively participate in the process, instead of invoking a defeatist agenda. No party has a monopoly when it comes to good ideas so it is a blatant act of bad faith to deny us all as Americans, the right to good ideas that we elected them to craft into law.

I also dislike the duocracy, and wish we could have representation beyond political parties because party politics make hostages out of reasonable legislators. But alas, we are stuck with what we have, and have to deal with the histrionics, and point them out for what they are - a distraction.

 

[SteinUmStein]

I'm still waiting for a comprehensive Republican approach to health care reform that is not essentially, "Um, the market will take care of it. Vouchers... and portability. And stuff." Who knows, maybe I'll like it.

Maybe we'll hear something out of Romney once his primary grandstanding is over. "Nuh uh, I'm more conservative!"

 

[phltz]

I'm still waiting for a comprehensive Republican approach to health care reform that is not essentially, "Um, the market will take care of it. Vouchers... and portability. And stuff." Who knows, maybe I'll like it.

Maybe we'll hear something out of Romney once his primary grandstanding is over. "Nuh uh, I'm more conservative!"

We had a comprehensive conservative/republican approach to health care reform. It was cooked up by the prestigious conservative think tank, the Heritage foundation, and was enacted by republican governors like Mitt Romney. It consisted of ideas like a health insurance mandate.

 

[SteinUmStein]

We had a comprehensive conservative/republican approach to health care reform. It was cooked up by the prestigious conservative think tank, the Heritage foundation, and was enacted by republican governors like Mitt Romney. It consisted of ideas like a health insurance mandate.

I just don't understand where we go from here if the ACA is struck down. I understand that Republicans reflexively hate anything related to Obama, but what is their plan? If the ACA is entirely struck down and Romney wins (a full sweeping win by the right by all accounts), he is going to have to do something about health care or his first term is going to be a disaster of millions of Americans losing coverage. Not exactly a strong conservative leap forward, and not beneficial to our economy in the long or short-run.