State of the Union Address

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Did anybody catch Obama addressing/having a Q and A with the GOP today??
 
yeastfan21 said:
Dude dude dude dude. I know we disagree VASTLY on matters of policy, but I really can't comprehend how you could think the Fox News article is better reporting.
Click to expand...

Not trying to call you out specifically but I saw this article today that reminded me of all these kinds of posts on here about Fox News.

Fox News Most Trusted

JaggerPlate said:
For 8 billion dollars it ****ing better be.
Click to expand...

Haha, that was kind of my thinking, just wanted to check the way our government spends.

JaggerPlate said:
Did anybody catch Obama addressing/having a Q and A with the GOP today??
Click to expand...

Missed that, got any links to videos or anything?
 
JaggerPlate said:
Did you not see when he insulted the freaking Supreme Court with them in the room and the nation watching??? Respect? Dignity? Taunting the Republicans to their face with 'that's budgeting,' comments after they giggled because he complete fumbled around with his comments? When he campaigns for Coakley by bashing Scott Brown's ad campaign saying 'Anyone can buy a truck,' when our unemployment rate has reached 10%, something he said wouldn't touch 8%???? Dignity isn't something he has in spades.
Click to expand...

sorry man, but that's politics! It was a campaign speech. If we are going to play this game, let's look back at the campaign when Obama was "pallin' around with terrorists." This truck comment was mild as far as campaign speeches go.

I think if you look at the content of the SOTU, it was a fairly right-leaning speech (tax-cuts, spending freeze, etc).

And please. A bad projection has nothing to do w/ his, or anybody else's, dignity. I'm sure I've made some bad projections. I like to think that I've got some dignity. Do you think he himself, Pres. Obama, got out his slide rule and predicted that 8%? You are totally entitled to disagree with his policies. But come on.... you are pissed at him b/c this projection? A projection that was made after tons of calculation from many, many economists? And this projection makes him....lacking in...dignity? A super-majority of the country thinks that this president is a good guy. They like him personally. They think he's got dignity.

And spending sucks. No one likes spending. I'm pretty liberal myself, and the national debt terrifies me. Terrifies. But where do you think unemployment would be now without the stimulus bill? Probably a bit higher than 10% (virtually every leading economist, conserv or liberal, thought the stimulus was too small). Personally, I thought the bill had too much emphasis on tax cuts and too little on actual infrastructure (tax cuts are great! But in a bad economy, if I get a tax cut, I am going to save. Not spend. And to stimulate an economy, cash needs to flow, flow, flow).

Anyways, you're entitled to your own opinions, but I think this was pushing it. These personal attacks are frustrating. Sigh...
 
Last edited:
ksegnhu said:
[/I]A super-majority of the country thinks that this president is a good guy. They like him personally. They think he's got dignity.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that recent polls showed close to the majority were dissatisfied thus far.
 
ksegnhu said:
sorry man, but that's politics! It was a campaign speech. If we are going to play this game, let's look back at the campaign when Obama was "pallin' around with terrorists." This truck comment was mild as far as campaign speeches go.

I think if you look at the content of the SOTU, it was a fairly right-leaning speech (tax-cuts, spending freeze, etc).

And please. A bad projection has nothing to do w/ his, or anybody else's, dignity. I'm sure I've made some bad projections. I like to think that I've got some dignity. Do you think he himself, Pres. Obama, got out his slide rule and predicted that 8%? You are totally entitled to disagree with his policies. But come on.... you are pissed at him b/c this projection? A projection that was made after tons of calculation from many, many economists? And this projection makes him....lacking in...dignity? A super-majority of the country thinks that this president is a good guy. They like him personally. They think he's got dignity.

And spending sucks. No one likes spending. I'm pretty liberal myself, and the national debt terrifies me. Terrifies. But where do you think unemployment would be now without the stimulus bill? Probably a bit higher than 10% (virtually every leading economist, conserv or liberal, thought the stimulus was too small). Personally, I thought the bill had too much emphasis on tax cuts and too little on actual infrastructure (tax cuts are great! But in a bad economy, if I get a tax cut, I am going to save. Not spend. And to stimulate an economy, cash needs to flow, flow, flow).

Anyways, you're entitled to your own opinions, but I think this was pushing it. These personal attacks are frustrating. Sigh...
Click to expand...

Oh you're liberal huh ... :meanie:

Listen, there is nothing wrong with being 'off' in a projection, but don't state in firm plain english 'it will never go above 8%' when you can't control it. At least do the popular thing and blame it on Bush first. And as far as the 'super majority' thing ...
As of today, it doesn't look so great
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
 
J1515 said:
I was under the impression that recent polls showed close to the majority were dissatisfied thus far.
Click to expand...

In terms of how people view Obama personally, no.

In terms of job approval / disapproval:

approve: 47.6 %
disapprove: 49.1 %

In terms of favorable / unfavorable:

favor: 52.7 %

unfavor: 40.7 %

These #'s are national trends (aggregates of all reliable polls) from www.pollster.com. Real clear politics (which can lean right...objectively, they sometimes filter polls) shows Obama with a spread of ~+2% favorable (~2% more think about his performance this past year favorably).

The poll #'s I was referencing have to do w/ what people think about Obama personally. I was getting at the whole "arrogant" and lack of "dignity" thing.

From the most recent NBC/ WSJ poll:

A combined three-quarters say they personally like Obama, and 52 percent have a positive view of him, compared with 35 percent who have a negative one.
​
 
JaggerPlate said:
Oh you're liberal huh ... :meanie:

Listen, there is nothing wrong with being 'off' in a projection, but don't state in firm plain english 'it will never go above 8%' when you can't control it. At least do the popular thing and blame it on Bush first. And as far as the 'super majority' thing ...
As of today, it doesn't look so great
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Click to expand...


See above for the specific poll questions I was referencing. I was getting at the whole lack of dignity thing. Not job approval / disapproval. That's a whole different thing (and a much more complicated one).

When did Obama ever say "it will never." As in, "I guarantee, it will never."

I really don't recall that type of language. In fact, I really don't recall a politician ever using such absolutes.
 
What do you guys think of the 5.7% GDP Q4 growth, it's pretty impressive, best figure in 6 years. The gov't's stimulative policies are definitely turning things around....
 
ksegnhu said:
In terms of how people view Obama personally, no.

In terms of job approval / disapproval:

approve: 47.6 %
disapprove: 49.1 %

In terms of favorable / unfavorable:

favor: 52.7 %

unfavor: 40.7 %

These #'s are national trends (aggregates of all reliable polls) from www.pollster.com. Real clear politics (which can lean right...objectively, they sometimes filter polls) shows Obama with a spread of ~+2% favorable (~2% more think about his performance this past year favorably).

The poll #'s I was referencing have to do w/ what people think about Obama personally. I was getting at the whole "arrogant" and lack of "dignity" thing.

From the most recent NBC/ WSJ poll:

A combined three-quarters say they personally like Obama, and 52 percent have a positive view of him, compared with 35 percent who have a negative one.
​
Click to expand...

What the hell is the difference between liking someone personally and having a positive view of them?

Geez, wtf is wrong with our nation. Either you think the guy's doing a good job or you don't. Are we really that bored that we need to poll people to see if he's a nice guy, like him personally, have a positive view, like his haircut, etc... Who the eff cares. Have we really become that dumb of a country that we would let how much we like a president as a person override his stance on issues? Apparently so.
 
After a bit of searching, I see where Obama's economic team predicted unemployment maxing at 8% w/ the stimulus bill.... (the logic being any less would be more unemployment, and more stimulus would result in less unemployment).

But even in June (and earlier) Obama was saying publicly that unemployment would reach 10%.

From June:

Jake Tapper and Karen Travers report: In an interview with Bloomberg News’ Al Hunt today, President Obama says he thinks unemployment will hit 10% this year.

Will unemployment reach 10%? asks Hunt.
“Yes,” says the president.
Before the end of this year? asks Hunt.
“Yes,” says the president.


​
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...dicts-unemployment-will-hit-10-this-year.html


Just saying. 🙄
 
J1515 said:
What the hell is the difference between liking someone personally and having a positive view of them?

Geez, wtf is wrong with our nation. Either you think the guy's doing a good job or you don't. Are we really that bored that we need to poll people to see if he's a nice guy, like him personally, have a positive view, like his haircut, etc... Who the eff cares. Have we really become that dumb of a country that we would let how much we like a president as a person override his stance on issues? Apparently so.
Click to expand...

Woah....

the argument I was making was all about how Obama lacks "dignity." I think Obama has a lot of dignity, and so do most other people.

Clearly, objective data on how people view Obama personally would help.

So, that's what I referenced. It helped my argument.

I am sorry you don't like the fact that polling companies ask those types of questions.

The more data, the more you understand.

And yes, whether or not people think you're a nice guy / gal matters a heck of a lot in politics. A lot.
 
ksegnhu said:
After a bit of searching, I see where Obama's economic team predicted unemployment maxing at 8% w/ the stimulus bill.... (the logic being any less would be more unemployment, and more stimulus would result in less unemployment).

But even in June (and earlier) Obama was saying publicly that unemployment would reach 10%.

From June:
Jake Tapper and Karen Travers report: In an interview with Bloomberg News’ Al Hunt today, President Obama says he thinks unemployment will hit 10% this year.

Will unemployment reach 10%? asks Hunt.
“Yes,” says the president.
Before the end of this year? asks Hunt.
“Yes,” says the president.


​
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...dicts-unemployment-will-hit-10-this-year.html


Just saying. 🙄
Click to expand...


The point is, the whole 8% controversy is a red herring. People just want to criticize for political points, just like the blame-game over the failed christmas bomber. The fact is economists are notorious to inaccurate forecasts, pretty much all economic indicators get revised, under all administrations. Better yet look at how often Wall St economists accurately predict a companies performance, almost never. It's just an inexact science, it's essentially forecasting be it weather or GDP.

To blame the President for inaccurate forecasts from his economists is plain silly. Meanwhile, he doesn't get much credit for taking unpopular measures to stabilize our economy, which has improved a lot in a year.
 
Bernoull said:
The point is, the whole 8% controversy is a red herring. People just want to criticize for political points, just like the blame-game over the failed christmas bomber. The fact is economists are notorious to inaccurate forecasts, pretty much all economic indicators get revised, under all administrations. Better yet look at how often Wall St economists accurately predict a companies performance, almost never. It's just an inexact science, it's essentially forecasting be it weather or GDP.

To blame the President for inaccurate forecasts from his economists is plain silly. Meanwhile, he doesn't get much credit for taking unpopular measures to stabilize our economy, which has improved a lot in a year.
Click to expand...

Exactly. 👍
 
JaggerPlate said:
A reform bill that doesn't include tort reform or competition across state lines is just a bummer for me. Those are honestly the two proponents I've wanted all along. I feel like these elements will alleviate stress and allow implementation of getting basic coverage to the 12 million, etc, but I think ripping up the entire playbook and dropping it all down in one big thud (ie the senate bill), is too much in this economic and political climate.
Click to expand...

The legislation actually does allow private insurance to be sold across state lines. The House bill does that through the creation of the national insurance exchange. The Senate bill does that by allowing 2 or more states to form "compacts" in which health plans can be sold in the individual markets of all these states, while only having to meet the regulations of the state in which the health plan was written or issued. To read the actual provision in the bill, go to page 219 here: http://documents.nytimes.com/senate-health-care-bill/page/219#p=219

Now it's true that there could be a much more aggressive measure that would totally abolish restrictions on where insurance plans are sold. But that's probably not even desirable, because it would effectively invalidate all the state-level regulations establishing the minimum set of benefits that must be included in insurance plans. A lot of these "health insurance benefit mandates" are probably important, like coverage for screening for colorectal, cervical, and prostate cancer. A law immediately allowing plans to be sold across all state lines would likely be beneficial from a cost standpoint, but it would also create a race-to-the-bottom in terms of the kinds of medical procedures covered. The Senate bill's approach allows us to move towards a system in which there's more competition across state lines, but it does so in a prudent way by permitting states with compatible sets of regulations to voluntarily link up. Frankly, it's a perfect example of how the Senate bill tries to tackle lots of different issues, usually in a fairly cautious and incremental way.

As for tort reform, I'm kind of torn. My dad's a cardiologist, and over the years I've been able to witness both the impediments placed on his practice by the need for extensive malpractice insurance, and also the number of times he has been the target of ridiculous suits. At the same time, though, in all these cases the court system has "worked" (from our perspective at least... these cases were thrown out), and it's not immediately clear to me why the court system isn't the fairest way to decide whether a suit is legitimate or "frivolous." Moreover, I've just never seen convincing evidence that tort reform would have a significant impact on health care costs (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm). It would do something, but I'm not sure it is worth the downside of discouraging potentially legitimate legal action. According to the article I linked to, just ~4% of injured patients or their families sue, and the plaintiffs only win 1 in 5 cases... do we really want to discourage more patients to take action, considering the high rate of medical errors?

As I said, though, I'm torn--mostly because I need to read much, much more on the issue. If you have any information that has helped to make you feel so strongly about tort reform, I'd be interested in reading it.

What do you mean "12 million"? Are you saying that this is the number of uninsured Americans? (Please no...)
 
ksegnhu said:
Woah....

the argument I was making was all about how Obama lacks "dignity." I think Obama has a lot of dignity, and so do most other people.

Clearly, objective data on how people view Obama personally would help.

So, that's what I referenced. It helped my argument.

I am sorry you don't like the fact that polling companies ask those types of questions.

The more data, the more you understand.

And yes, whether or not people think you're a nice guy / gal matters a heck of a lot in politics. A lot.
Click to expand...

I think it's all bull$h*t. Either someone's doing a good job or they're not. I don't care if they nice to me. I'm not inviting them to dinner, I'm not marrying them. Same idea with surgeons. I want the best and smartest surgeon to operate on me. I don't care if he's nice to me or if he calls me a jackass to my face.

It's disgusting what this world has come to.
 
yeastfan21 said:
The legislation actually does allow private insurance to be sold across state lines. The House bill does that through the creation of the national insurance exchange. The Senate bill does that by allowing 2 or more states to form "compacts" in which health plans can be sold in the individual markets of all these states, while only having to meet the regulations of the state in which the health plan was written or issued. To read the actual provision in the bill, go to page 219 here: http://documents.nytimes.com/senate-health-care-bill/page/219#p=219

Now it's true that there could be a much more aggressive measure that would totally abolish restrictions on where insurance plans are sold. But that's probably not even desirable, because it would effectively invalidate all the state-level regulations establishing the minimum set of benefits that must be included in insurance plans. A lot of these "health insurance benefit mandates" are probably important, like coverage for screening for colorectal, cervical, and prostate cancer. A law immediately allowing plans to be sold across all state lines would likely be beneficial from a cost standpoint, but it would also create a race-to-the-bottom in terms of the kinds of medical procedures covered. The Senate bill's approach allows us to move towards a system in which there's more competition across state lines, but it does so in a prudent way by permitting states with compatible sets of regulations to voluntarily link up. Frankly, it's a perfect example of how the Senate bill tries to tackle lots of different issues, usually in a fairly cautious and incremental way.

As for tort reform, I'm kind of torn. My dad's a cardiologist, and over the years I've been able to witness both the impediments placed on his practice by the need for extensive malpractice insurance, and also the number of times he has been the target of ridiculous suits. At the same time, though, in all these cases the court system has "worked" (from our perspective at least... these cases were thrown out), and it's not immediately clear to me why the court system isn't the fairest way to decide whether a suit is legitimate or "frivolous." Moreover, I've just never seen convincing evidence that tort reform would have a significant impact on health care costs (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm). It would do something, but I'm not sure it is worth the downside of discouraging potentially legitimate legal action. According to the article I linked to, just ~4% of injured patients or their families sue, and the plaintiffs only win 1 in 5 cases... do we really want to discourage more patients to take action, considering the high rate of medical errors?

As I said, though, I'm torn--mostly because I need to read much, much more on the issue. If you have any information that has helped to make you feel so strongly about tort reform, I'd be interested in reading it.

What do you mean "12 million"? Are you saying that this is the number of uninsured Americans? (Please no...)
Click to expand...



I share u ambivalence on tort reform also. Similarly, my dad's a physician (ENT) I can understand the cost burdens of malpractice insurance and the associated cost inflation esp for high risk specialties etc etc.. However, I can also relate to the need for legal recourse for patients bcos 3 yrs ago my mom also died at the hands on a neglient surgeon. He left a surgical sponge in her abdomen, and she ultimately became septicemic. She underwent another surgery, the sponge was removed and she made a complete recovery. Interestingly enough, she chose not to sue and she's a lawyer BTW.

So I definitely empathize with patients in similar situations and I believe that they should have adequate legal recourse when harmed. I also think our legal system works well to weed out deserving suits from the frivolous ones. I mean, if we can trust our legal system to adjudicate guilt and execute people on that basis, then sure that same legal system must be capable of discerning worthiness of suits. Ultimately, we need some way to keep malpractice ins affordable and protect patients' rights also.
 
JaggerPlate said:
Did anybody catch Obama addressing/having a Q and A with the GOP today??
Click to expand...

I actually did. And I think Obama owned. While I do not agree with all of his viewpoints, the way he handled all the questions was excellent. He answered every question in a very precise and articulate manner (without the use of a teleprompter too!) - and gave very reasonable answers to all the questions from the GOP.

In fact, it was going so well for Obama that Fox News cut the broadcast TWENTY MINUTES before it ended. He rebuked so many of these so-called "facts" that people (even in this forum) have been spouting about the deficit and healthcare (some of them that even I naively started to believe). Even some GOP aides after the Q&A confessed that it was a "bad idea" to let the event be broadcasted.

It was pretty amazing - I enjoyed watching it immensely. I think they should do this every couple of months. And I couldn't help thinking about how Sarah Palin would have performed if she were being questioned by the Democrats the way the GOP questioned Obama. Considering that many actually think she will run against Obama in 2012, I couldn't help but laugh - her running against Obama would be the best thing that could possibly happen for the Democrats in 2012. He would destroy her. The Republicans need to find someone else who can go against Obama.
 
strummin said:
I actually did. And I think Obama owned. While I do not agree with all of his viewpoints, the way he handled all the questions was excellent. He answered every question in a very precise and articulate manner (without the use of a teleprompter too!) - and gave very reasonable answers to all the questions from the GOP.

In fact, it was going so well for Obama that Fox News cut the broadcast TWENTY MINUTES before it ended. He rebuked so many of these so-called "facts" that people (even in this forum) have been spouting about the deficit and healthcare (some of them that even I naively started to believe). Even some GOP aides after the Q&A confessed that it was a "bad idea" to let the event be broadcasted.

It was pretty amazing - I enjoyed watching it immensely. I think they should do this every couple of months. And I couldn't help thinking about how Sarah Palin would have performed if she were being questioned by the Democrats the way the GOP questioned Obama. Considering that many actually think she will run against Obama in 2012, I couldn't help but laugh - her running against Obama would be the best thing that could possibly happen for the Democrats in 2012. He would destroy her. The Republicans need to find someone else who can go against Obama.
Click to expand...

I watched the entire thing and Obama came off solid. Some pointed questions but he held his own. I think he wants tone down the bickering and work with Republicans. However, I've also noticed that since the SOTU, he's more willing to take the gloves off and defend his record against the charges of leftism, deficits etc which starkly contrasts with his approach last year.

I enjoy the British Parliament's back and forth between the PM and opposition. I think it's healthy to have these debates especially on substantive policy issues.

We should do something similar and televising it will be great. The public needs to privy to these discussions.
 
Bernoull said:
I watched the entire thing and Obama came off solid. Some pointed questions but he held his own. I think he wants tone down the bickering and work with Republicans. However, I've also noticed that since the SOTU, he's more willing to take the gloves off and defend his record against the charges of leftism, deficits etc which starkly contrasts with his approach last year.

I enjoy the British Parliament's back and forth between the PM and opposition. I think it's healthy to have these debates especially on substantive policy issues.

We should do something similar and televising it will be great. The public needs to privy to these discussions.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I think it would be great if we could see politicians do more of this in general. I think the politicians who really know the issues well will be rewarded.
 
strummin said:
He rebuked so many of these so-called "facts" that people (even in this forum) have been spouting about the deficit and healthcare (some of them that even I naively started to believe).
Click to expand...

Yeah, because if a politician rebukes it, it must be wrong. 🙄
Again, we are so willing to give away our own "authority" or label someone as an "expert" without any real self education or research. Sad really.
 
I find amazing and shocking that even with poll after poll showing that the majority of WE, THE PEOPLE do not want the health care proposals that Obama and the majority in congress are trying to push, the President - arrogantly - continues the same path. That attitude is more unbelievable after the loss of the Massachusetts senate seat, which was a direct result of Brown's anti health care agenda.

Ted Kennedy must be rolling around in his grave right now...
 
strummin said:
I actually did. And I think Obama owned. While I do not agree with all of his viewpoints, the way he handled all the questions was excellent. He answered every question in a very precise and articulate manner (without the use of a teleprompter too!) - and gave very reasonable answers to all the questions from the GOP.

In fact, it was going so well for Obama that Fox News cut the broadcast TWENTY MINUTES before it ended. He rebuked so many of these so-called "facts" that people (even in this forum) have been spouting about the deficit and healthcare (some of them that even I naively started to believe). Even some GOP aides after the Q&A confessed that it was a "bad idea" to let the event be broadcasted.

It was pretty amazing - I enjoyed watching it immensely. I think they should do this every couple of months. And I couldn't help thinking about how Sarah Palin would have performed if she were being questioned by the Democrats the way the GOP questioned Obama. Considering that many actually think she will run against Obama in 2012, I couldn't help but laugh - her running against Obama would be the best thing that could possibly happen for the Democrats in 2012. He would destroy her. The Republicans need to find someone else who can go against Obama.
Click to expand...

I missed the actual broadcast because of Eastern time confusion, so all I saw was his opening statement before the Q and A ... unfortunately, can't really comment how he 'did.'

If Sarah Palin gets the nod in 2012 ... I'm no longer a Republican.
 
yeastfan21 said:
The legislation actually does allow private insurance to be sold across state lines. The House bill does that through the creation of the national insurance exchange. The Senate bill does that by allowing 2 or more states to form "compacts" in which health plans can be sold in the individual markets of all these states, while only having to meet the regulations of the state in which the health plan was written or issued. To read the actual provision in the bill, go to page 219 here: http://documents.nytimes.com/senate-health-care-bill/page/219#p=219

Now it's true that there could be a much more aggressive measure that would totally abolish restrictions on where insurance plans are sold. But that's probably not even desirable, because it would effectively invalidate all the state-level regulations establishing the minimum set of benefits that must be included in insurance plans. A lot of these "health insurance benefit mandates" are probably important, like coverage for screening for colorectal, cervical, and prostate cancer. A law immediately allowing plans to be sold across all state lines would likely be beneficial from a cost standpoint, but it would also create a race-to-the-bottom in terms of the kinds of medical procedures covered. The Senate bill's approach allows us to move towards a system in which there's more competition across state lines, but it does so in a prudent way by permitting states with compatible sets of regulations to voluntarily link up. Frankly, it's a perfect example of how the Senate bill tries to tackle lots of different issues, usually in a fairly cautious and incremental way.

As for tort reform, I'm kind of torn. My dad's a cardiologist, and over the years I've been able to witness both the impediments placed on his practice by the need for extensive malpractice insurance, and also the number of times he has been the target of ridiculous suits. At the same time, though, in all these cases the court system has "worked" (from our perspective at least... these cases were thrown out), and it's not immediately clear to me why the court system isn't the fairest way to decide whether a suit is legitimate or "frivolous." Moreover, I've just never seen convincing evidence that tort reform would have a significant impact on health care costs (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm). It would do something, but I'm not sure it is worth the downside of discouraging potentially legitimate legal action. According to the article I linked to, just ~4% of injured patients or their families sue, and the plaintiffs only win 1 in 5 cases... do we really want to discourage more patients to take action, considering the high rate of medical errors?

As I said, though, I'm torn--mostly because I need to read much, much more on the issue. If you have any information that has helped to make you feel so strongly about tort reform, I'd be interested in reading it.

What do you mean "12 million"? Are you saying that this is the number of uninsured Americans? (Please no...)
Click to expand...

12 million = number that has no access otherwise. The 47 million number thrown around is grossly exaggerated
http://grandrants.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/risch-chart-of-uninsured.jpg

As far as tort reform goes, not only would it save a ton of money (says 54 billion here over 10 years - worth a shot imo)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100904271.html

but it would also help cease (to some extent and in my opinion) the practice of defensive medicine, which, as selfish as it may sound, I am interested in as a future doc.
 
yeastfan21 said:
The legislation actually does allow private insurance to be sold across state lines. The House bill does that through the creation of the national insurance exchange. The Senate bill does that by allowing 2 or more states to form "compacts" in which health plans can be sold in the individual markets of all these states, while only having to meet the regulations of the state in which the health plan was written or issued. To read the actual provision in the bill, go to page 219 here: http://documents.nytimes.com/senate-health-care-bill/page/219#p=219

Now it's true that there could be a much more aggressive measure that would totally abolish restrictions on where insurance plans are sold. But that's probably not even desirable, because it would effectively invalidate all the state-level regulations establishing the minimum set of benefits that must be included in insurance plans. A lot of these "health insurance benefit mandates" are probably important, like coverage for screening for colorectal, cervical, and prostate cancer. A law immediately allowing plans to be sold across all state lines would likely be beneficial from a cost standpoint, but it would also create a race-to-the-bottom in terms of the kinds of medical procedures covered. The Senate bill's approach allows us to move towards a system in which there's more competition across state lines, but it does so in a prudent way by permitting states with compatible sets of regulations to voluntarily link up. Frankly, it's a perfect example of how the Senate bill tries to tackle lots of different issues, usually in a fairly cautious and incremental way.

As for tort reform, I'm kind of torn. My dad's a cardiologist, and over the years I've been able to witness both the impediments placed on his practice by the need for extensive malpractice insurance, and also the number of times he has been the target of ridiculous suits. At the same time, though, in all these cases the court system has "worked" (from our perspective at least... these cases were thrown out), and it's not immediately clear to me why the court system isn't the fairest way to decide whether a suit is legitimate or "frivolous." Moreover, I've just never seen convincing evidence that tort reform would have a significant impact on health care costs (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm). It would do something, but I'm not sure it is worth the downside of discouraging potentially legitimate legal action. According to the article I linked to, just ~4% of injured patients or their families sue, and the plaintiffs only win 1 in 5 cases... do we really want to discourage more patients to take action, considering the high rate of medical errors?

As I said, though, I'm torn--mostly because I need to read much, much more on the issue. If you have any information that has helped to make you feel so strongly about tort reform, I'd be interested in reading it.

What do you mean "12 million"? Are you saying that this is the number of uninsured Americans? (Please no...)
Click to expand...

Most cases do not go to trial, they are settled without going in front of a jury because the insurance thinks it's cheaper and the hospital does not want bad publicity. This happens regardless of whether true errors were committed or not. I'd argue that the low numbers of cases won buy suing patients do not include settlements, which constitute the vast majority of claims.
Have you looked into this?
 
7starmantis said:
Yeah, because if a politician rebukes it, it must be wrong. 🙄
Again, we are so willing to give away our own "authority" or label someone as an "expert" without any real self education or research. Sad really.
Click to expand...

He didn't just rebuke these "health care myths" - he rebuked them with facts that quick google searches would verify as true. Just because I agreed with him in these matters, I am not giving up my "authority". I listened to both sides and happened to side with him.

Try not to be too divisive sometimes. I know Obama is inherently polarizing (even before he was elected, he was quite polarizing... and analysts have proposed different reasons for this) - but at least try to listen to him objectively, instead of looking for every tiny thing that you can criticize him on... or responding in a sneering manner to anyone who happens to agree with him on certain issues.
 
strummin said:
He didn't just rebuke these "health care myths" - he rebuked them with facts that quick google searches would verify as true. Just because I agreed with him in these matters, I am not giving up my "authority". I listened to both sides and happened to side with him.

Try not to be too divisive sometimes. I know Obama is inherently polarizing (even before he was elected, he was quite polarizing... and analysts have proposed different reasons for this) - but at least try to listen to him objectively, instead of looking for every tiny thing that you can criticize him on... or responding in a sneering manner to anyone who happens to agree with him on certain issues.
Click to expand...

This. 👍
 
JaggerPlate said:
If Sarah Palin gets the nod in 2012 ... I'm no longer a Republican.
Click to expand...

Add me to that list of dropping Republicans - though thats just my registration, as I vote for Dems and Independents too

Straight ticket is for people >45 :laugh:
 
He confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence...Obama fail.
 
Birdsbeak said:
To sum it all up, I am very pleased with President Obama.
Click to expand...
I agree. People expected way too much of President Obama too soon. He will get a lot of things done. He is talking about getting to work on getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell", which is long overdue. To those who aren't happy with him, just give him more time.
 
Chops369 said:
He said something like "the Constitution says that all men were created equal," when it's actually the Declaration of Independence that says that.
Click to expand...

The guy was a constitutional law Professor, I'm sure he knows the consitution from the declaration. Assuming this is true, it's still human to mis-speak...
 
strummin said:
He didn't just rebuke these "health care myths" - he rebuked them with facts that quick google searches would verify as true. Just because I agreed with him in these matters, I am not giving up my "authority". I listened to both sides and happened to side with him.

Try not to be too divisive sometimes. I know Obama is inherently polarizing (even before he was elected, he was quite polarizing... and analysts have proposed different reasons for this) - but at least try to listen to him objectively, instead of looking for every tiny thing that you can criticize him on... or responding in a sneering manner to anyone who happens to agree with him on certain issues.
Click to expand...
:laugh: I'm sorry, I forgot about Google. 🙄 🙂

I listen to him objectively every time he speaks, I just happen to disagree with him. I think its great to patronize those with differing views by suggesting they just aren't objective.


Bernoull said:
The guy was a constitutional law Professor, I'm sure he knows the consitution from the declaration. Assuming this is true, it's still human to mis-speak...
Click to expand...

I think thats a great strategery to take.
 
yeastfan21 said:
But, sure, go ahead and invest in gold if that makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

I wish I had.....

up $800 since 2001, $650 since 2005, and $175 since last March, but ya, I bet that gold is just a silly investment...I mean, com'on, who wouldn't want to make $200/ounce in the last 9 Months... 🙄

gold_10_year_o_usd.png


gold_5_year_o_usd.png


gold_1_year_o_usd.png


In regards to the US being the largest manufactoring country, I will agree with you on that fact; unfortunately, that won't last very much longer:

"Recent forecast revisions suggest that China will overtake the United States as the world's leading manufacturer earlier than previously anticipated. Measured in real value-added terms, China's share in global manufacturing is projected to overtake that of the United States by 2016–17. This is helped by the Asian giant's rapid gains in the market shares of textiles, basic metals, computer equipment, appliances, and mineral products."
 
Bernoull said:
The guy was a constitutional law Professor, I'm sure he knows the consitution from the declaration. Assuming this is true, it's still human to mis-speak...
Click to expand...


He uses a teleprompter.
 
Yes, and like we've learned from the example of housing prices, what goes up for a few years always continues to go up. 😉

But my point is not that it's stupid to invest in gold (it certainly wasn't in 2001, 2006, or 2009... though it might be ill-advised now). It's that it's stupid to listen to these nutjubs who claim that the U.S. is on the precipice of a hyperinflationary period that will render the Dollar worthless. Especially nutjobs who base their argument on an assertion that the U.S. doesn't manufacture anything anymore.

As long as the majority of the world continues to use the dollar as its reserve currency, I will feel quite safe with it. Though I'd agree with 7starmantis that having a safe full of gold would be sweet. 🙂
 
Really nice graphs, I wish I racked up gold too. But I think this is another bubble in the making. Everyone and their dog is fearmongering about inflation and drumming up gold, which leads to speculative price runs. Oil was a $150/barrel based on a good sum of speculation.

The fact is for most of 2009, the US is experienced deflation NOT inflation, much less hyperinflation. The seasonally unadjusted rate for 2009 is 2.7%. There's a risk for worrisome inflation given the 0% fed interest rates and the gov't stimulative fiscal policies but this concern hasn't materialized bcos consumer demand is still weak and employment is high. So invest in gold after doing u homework (and determining that it's prudent) but not bcos some charlatan yells hyperinflation or the sky is falling.

Current%20Inflation%20Rates%20-%20Monthly%20and%20Yearly%20Chart,%20Graph%20and%20Table-%202000-2009%20Data%20-%20US%20Inflation%20Calculator_1258390308967.jpg


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/worrying_about_inflation.html

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf
current-inflation-rates
 
Last edited:
Ag2007 said:
He uses a teleprompter.
Click to expand...

Yes he's addicted to it. He needs to cut it down, I saw him using it in a classroom b4, it crazy. It's good when used as needed but he needs to work on impromptu public speaking...
 
UTMBstudent said:
I agree. People expected way too much of President Obama too soon. He will get a lot of things done. He is talking about getting to work on getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell", which is long overdue. To those who aren't happy with him, just give him more time.
Click to expand...
He better hurry up. He only has 3 more years.

The voting block he depended on to win the election, won't be out in the same numbers the second time around.
 
I was just glad it wasn't another "Pelosi in a Box" night...🙄

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQto3HZvkYU[/YOUTUBE]
 
Bernoull said:
The fact is for most of 2009, the US is experienced deflation NOT inflation, much less hyperinflation. The seasonally unadjusted rate for 2009 is 2.7%. There's a risk for worrisome inflation given the 0% fed interest rates and the gov't stimulative fiscal policies but this concern hasn't materialized bcos consumer demand is still weak and employment is high. So invest in gold after doing u homework (and determining that it's prudent) but not bcos some charlatan yells hyperinflation or the sky is falling.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf
current-inflation-rates
Click to expand...

I would consider 17% unemployment as high. 😕 How much higher does it have to go before you consider it high?
 
ChiDO said:
I would consider 17% unemployment as high. 😕 How much higher does it have to go before you consider it high?
Click to expand...

:laugh:

I wish employment was high, I meant to say unemployment. What's ur source for 17% or is that a typo too (it's 10%).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Messed up Address
Replies
1
Views
194
wysdoc
wysdoc
jakewagmin
Should I address the dip in my GPA?
Replies
6
Views
493
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
premadbaddie
Changing Address/State Residency
Replies
0
Views
736
premadbaddie
premadbaddie
L
State of residency ambiguity
Replies
4
Views
909
Dral
Dral
P
Help with how to address one of the OHSU prompts
Replies
0
Views
964
pleasehelpme12
P
Top