President Obama Healthcare Speech

[TheGame]

All I'll say is, media will twist things as they please. You should listen to the whole speech for yourself and judge it.

I would call it his most sucsessful speech in a very long time personally.

[KillerGremlin]

Joe Wilson is a vagoo and I am going to enjoy watching his career blow up in his face like the orgasm that Michael Duvall gave to his two mistresses.

Stay classy politicians.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Joe Wilson is a vagoo and I am going to enjoy watching his career blow up in his face like the orgasm that Michael Duvall gave to his two mistresses.

Stay classy politicians.

I agree his venue was inappropriate and shameful, but his point was not. Those pushing government care constantly point to "48 million uninsured"... the problem is the census says 9+ million of them of them are illegal aliens. Now perhaps President Obama clarified that last night in saying no illegals will get coverage... but then they have to stop using the 48 million number in their arguments...

So one way or another, there is a lie in there somewhere.

EDIT: Also, for the record there is no mechanism in the current plans to actually check for citizenship, and an amendment to verify citizenship before care is given was voted down on party lines. So in the end under current plans there is no need to state "we cover illegals". We will by default.

I'm going to see whether or not I can see the whole speech during lunch today, and offer my full thoughts.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I didn't see the Republican response, but I'm sure it was condescending, if recent history is any indicator. I prefer John McCain's overall healthcare response, converting the contentious un-insurable via government organized, but not funded, risk pools to sell to private insurance to reduce their risk by injecting volume into the equation and lower costs overall. That would 100% necessitate nationwide competition, though, if we wanted it to work. Personally, I think his plan driven organically by market forces is as comprehensive as I've seen and borderline brilliant.

It does sound like a good plan. I'm just very skeptical since the free market has failed epically thus far, and would prefer something that has a more concrete set of results.

Like, what if we do that and it doesn't reduce costs like we thought it would? Or if the costs are reduced, but not as significantly as we needed them to be for the plan to be successful? And who gets to define what the word "uninsurable" means? I have a very bad feeling it would work along the same lines as the "expected family contribution" for sending a kid to college.

If you've ever looked at those, they are hilariously high, and not at all what a family can reasonably afford without selling their home or something.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Vamp you missed the majority of the Speech, he touched on the public option in a strong way, and talked about people who couldn't afford healthcare. go to www.msnbc.com it should have the full video there.

That makes me happy to hear. I guess your 1% came true? :P

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

It does sound like a good plan. I'm just very skeptical since the free market has failed epically thus far, and would prefer something that has a more concrete set of results.

I would say that we haven't had a real free market in a very long time in terms of healthcare. Not allowing companies to compete with one another outside of state lines is not competition, it's regulation impeding competition. Curently, the healthcare industry is one of the most heavily regulated in the entire country, outside of financial industry.

So we've seen two industries have significant difficulty/failure, healthcare and financial, they are are the two most heavily regulated in the country...

Meanwhile things like food (beyond the FDA) and especially clothing (items everyone needs) have been the some of the least regulated in the country and we've seen their prices remain relatively cheap and accessible over very long periods of time. (I'm not comparing their complexity, only their oversight and government intervention relating to success and affordability.)

Like, what if we do that and it doesn't reduce costs like we thought it would? Or if the costs are reduced, but not as significantly as we needed them to be for the plan to be successful? And who gets to define what the word "uninsurable" means? I have a very bad feeling it would work along the same lines as the "expected family contribution" for sending a kid to college.

I don't see how a government option automatically answers any of those questions either. If the government option doesn't reduce costs, and the CBO says it won't reduce costs but increase them even more, will we switch to a free market system after spending an estimate $1 Trillion to establish the government program?

How will the government defined the uninsured? How will they define who gets treatment, especially if we see a continued drop in the number of available doctors? What if survivability odds for life threatening diseases drop to levels we see in other socialized nations? Will that be a failure, or deemed acceptable? If we don't like any of these things that government healthcare imposes, will we even have a choice or an alternative anymore or will our only recourse left be to petition our government to change it?

Here's a great question: If the government really wants competition, why will they only fine company's without insurance 8% of their revenue, when companies pay FAR more than that in providing healthcare to employees? Isn't that encouraging companies to drop care to save costs? Isn't it easier to do so when there is a government option waiting to gobble up their employees?

If you've ever looked at those, they are hilariously high, and not at all what a family can reasonably afford without selling their home or something.

I don't disagree with the problem, and quite honestly this debate is beyond recognition of the problem. It's the solution that is causing the divide.

[TheGame]

I don't see how a government option automatically answers any of those questions either. If the government option doesn't reduce costs, and the CBO says it won't reduce costs but increase them even more, will we switch to a free market system after spending an estimate $1 Trillion to establish the government program?

The problem is, if we switch to a free market first, there's no telling what the results will be. Giving companies more freedom and money doesn't nessicarily mean they'd use it to the greater good of the country. Ask George W. Bush.

I'd rather see more controlled and planned out results, then just taking the leash off of private insurers.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

The problem is, if we switch to a free market first, there's no telling what the results will be.

And we know what the results of a government run plan will be? Every question we can ask of private solutions we can easily ask of government solutions.

If we wat to make judgments based history and evidence there is far more failure shown in government run entitlements than privately run businesses. At least private business has examples of reducing costs and increasing efficiency. I have yet to see a government entitlement that does this and I'd honestly love to know of one if anyone can point one out. Perhaps I'm simply ignorant on the subject. Medicare is bleeding money like crazy, social security is on the road to death and our public schools spend more per student than any other country per for mediocre results (and for the record I'm a public school supporter, but the system needs to be blown up).

But most importantly a system based on free markets (not 100% free market, as that has as many pitfalls as 100% government) is a REVERSIBLE path if it doesn't work. The current bills are essentially designed to overcome the speed-bump that is private care, and once government care is the norm, it will be virtually impossible to reverse, and we'll simply tolerate failure. Entitlements don't go away, and they are rarely improved when they prove to be at best inefficient and wasteful, regardless of how poorly they run or how much everyone recognizes the problem.

I'll choose the option that is reversible first, rather than the entitlement that in practice will likely not be.

[TheGame]

I don't think either option is reverseable. Its not like they can open up the market 5 years and say "Oops, that didn't work.. everyone drop your national insurance, we're going back to the old way!". In both cases, the only thing they can do is build onto the ideas that they had offered if it fails.

I think in one option you trust that private insurance companies will lower the rates, and in the other option you trust that the government will lower rates. But neither way is really reverseable.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I don't think either option is reverseable. Its not like they can open up the market 5 years and say "Oops, that didn't work.. everyone drop your national insurance, we're going back to the old way!". In both cases, the only thing they can do is build onto the ideas that they had offered if it fails.

I think in one option you trust that private insurance companies will lower the rates, and in the other option you trust that the government will lower rates. But neither way is really reverseable.

That may be your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see any truth in it as I can't think of any evidence to support it. The discussion we're having right now is about a change that would literally "reverse" a private system.

We have a long history in this country of "reversing" private systems to government run ones. For examples just see the failing entitlements I posted above. We don't have any history of reversing government entitlements, not even social security could get changed and that program virtually a corpse. Once again, if you know of any national entitlements that have been dropped in favor of private systems/business, please let me know. I'm trying to think of one and I can't.

EDIT: Thinking even harder, I can think of times when Reagan and Bush Sr. and Jr. deregulated to an extent, but even they weren't able to eliminate entitlements to my knowledge.

[BreakABone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xboKq4rzYZg

The Republican Response if anyone wants to check it out.

[Professor S]

Here is the response without having to sit through Keith Olberman's nonsense at the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAuPB54ObU8

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

That may be your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see any truth in it as I can't think of any evidence to support it. The discussion we're having right now is about a change that would literally "reverse" a private system.

Ok, lets say the government reversed free market things that are happening now. Lets say car insurance no longer could be sold accross state lines, lets say that banks can't function accross state lines. Or, lets say they made it no longer illegal to drive without car insurance..Honestly, do you know what kind of uproar that would cause?

So if they changed insurance to working accross state lines, then there is no going back. They would only be able to implement ideas to make it work more efficiently across state lines, but there will be no REVERSING what they did.

Same goes with the public option, there would be no reversing it. Once its there they can add regulations and make changes to it, but its not going away completly.

We have a long history in this country of "reversing" private systems to government run ones. For examples just see the failing entitlements I posted above. We don't have any history of reversing government entitlements, not even social security could get changed and that program virtually a corpse. Once again, if you know of any national entitlements that have been dropped in favor of private systems/business, please let me know. I'm trying to think of one and I can't.

I don't see any examples of the government dropping such a huge regulation on a private sector industry and then re adding it. Do you think NAFTA will be reversed any time soon?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Ok, lets say the government reversed free market things that are happening now. Lets say car insurance no longer could be sold accross state lines, lets say that banks can't function accross state lines. Or, lets say they made it no longer illegal to drive without car insurance..Honestly, do you know what kind of uproar that would cause?

So if they changed insurance to working accross state lines, then there is no going back. They would only be able to implement ideas to make it work more efficiently across state lines, but there will be no REVERSING what they did.

Sure you could reverse it: A government plan covering everyone, exactly what they're pushing right now all things considered. There is no uproar over state lines or what have you when there is no competition to roar.

I don't see any examples of the government dropping such a huge regulation on a private sector industry and then re adding it. Do you think NAFTA will be reversed any time soon?

We're not talking about regulation, we're talking about government run and operated entitlements. They are very different. NAFTA is not an entitlement that feeds, cares or pays people, it's a trade agreement aimed at industry.

I have given several examples of systems that the government has taken over that used to be supplied by private industry, can you name any entitlements that the private sector has replaced?

[Vampyr]

I'm assuming that a public option, universal health care system will work based on the fact that it has had moderate to great success in every other developed country. Certainly better than what our health care system is now. What other examples do we have to say that a free market and private health care system can work the way it needs to? What other examples do we have that tell us this will insure that EVERYONE has health insurance?