President Obama Healthcare Speech

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by 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?

That's an interesting way to ignore my challenge. I don't accept the basis of your question in the "success" of other countries for reasons we've debated ad nauseum, such as the definition of success and the heady logistics of those policies in America. Also, don't mistake that the burden of proof in the argument is on the private system. The current American healthcare system is a known entity. The government run is the unknown, with the only relevant evidence to support it being Medicare and Medicaid, and they make a very poor case.

The bottom line is we can find the perfect government run system in some other country, and that would still have zero relevance to an American system working or the existing legislation. Such evidence would be equal to making a decision based on conjecture and "hey, if they did it...".

My questions and assertions in this conversation are based on the current American legislation, American experience with American entitlements, and the American economy.

[TheGame]

Prof I think you're a bit confused about my arguement.

If the public option is created, it cannot be reversed. If it has problems, then there will be changes made to it over time to correct the new problems it presents.

And at the same time, if the limitation for companies to insure people across state lines is dropped, it also cannot be reversed. If it has problems, then there will be changes made to it over time to correct the new problems it presents, but its argueably as hard or harder to change then a government run insurance option.

I disagree with your logic that such a major change to such a major industry can be reversed. Which is why I brought of NAFTA as an example. It dropped a limitation on where industry can operate. It litterally cannot be reversed now because too much of industry has moved outside of the united states.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Prof I think you're a bit confused about my arguement.

No, I understood it completely. My argument is that your opinion on deregulation as being irreversible is moot, because to reverse it is as easy passing a universal government plan if the free market plan doesn't work. There is no reason to reinstate regulations on private care if there is no private care to regulate.

History has shown that it is far easier to install entitlements than end them. So far it's been impossible to end entitlements, and we're currently talking about CREATING another one right now.

Therefore, these two concepts combined = a free market plan being reversible if it fails, and a government plan being irreversible, IMO.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

No, I understood it completely. My argument is that your opinion on deregulation as being irreversible is moot, because to reverse it is as easy passing a universal government plan if the free market plan doesn't work. There is no reason to reinstate regulations on private care if there is no private care to regulate.

History has shown that it is far easier to install entitlements than end them. So far it's been impossible to end entitlements, and we're currently talking about CREATING another one right now.

Therefore, these two concepts combined = a free market plan being reversible if it fails, and a government plan being irreversible, IMO.

I guess that depends on your definition of 'reversible' is. If reversible is making future changes that counter the affect of the changes that are made now.. then they're both reversible in my book. If reversable is adding regulations back on or flipping some switch that magically takes us back to the time before the changes were made.. then no, neither of them are reversible.

And honestly, how many government entitlements has anyone seriously considered reversing? How many of them really failed to cover the group that it was meant to? I know you mentioned that you had given examples before, but I don't see them..

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I guess that depends on your definition of 'reversible' is. If reversible is making future changes that counter the affect of the changes that are made now.. then they're both reversible in my book. If reversable is adding regulations back on or flipping some switch that magically takes us back to the time before the changes were made.. then no, neither of them are reversible.

And honestly, how many government entitlements has anyone seriously considered reversing? How many of them really failed to cover the group that it was meant to? I know you mentioned that you had given examples before, but I don't see them..

I have absolutely no idea what in the world you're talking about in your first paragraph. It makes no sense at all. By "reversible" I mean that it's easily "reversed" to the alternative, and my brain hurts that I feel I actually have to actually explain that.

As for reversing entitlements? As I mentioned earlier, social security just recently. But I'm sure you'll argue what "reversing" means in that sense as well, as if the act of arguing the definition of "reverse" enlightens this discussion at all.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I have absolutely no idea what in the world you're talking about in your first paragraph. It makes no sense at all. By "reversible" I mean that it's easily "reversed" to the alternative, and my brain hurts that I feel I actually have to actually explain that.

I wouldn't call that "reversed".. Bad choice of wording on your part.

If you're saying it would be possible to drop the restriction on insurance across state lines first, then put in the public option later.. but not possible to do the public option first, and then deregulate the private insurance companies later.. Then I agree.. to an extent. I agree that it wouldn't be as practical but I don't think that'd it'd be impossible.

But neither change is really reversible.. You can just over ride one idea with another after a period of time.

As for reversing entitlements? As I mentioned earlier, social security. But I'm sure you'll argue what "reversing" means in that sense as well, as if the act of argue the definition of "reverse" enlightens this discussion at all. I hate semantic games...

Its not my fault that you aren't clear about the intent in the use of your words.

So really, are people putting towards a big effort to get rid of social security? I wasn't aware of that, last I checked both sides were trying to "protect" it. Its not perfect, but it covers who it is meant to.

I think government programs are reversible, but I think that for the most part they all work.. so there is no incentive to try and get rid of them. The most people will try to do is fix their flaws, but its good enough to where the concept of government run progams will never be dropped. IMO

[Professor S]

To reverse is to go in the opposite direction of where you were going.

Logic dictates that if you are moving towards a private solution, to reverse would be to go towards a public solution.

This is not hard, but by God you make it hard.



And with that I'm leaving this conversation before you give me brain cancer.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

To reverse is to go in the opposite direction of where you were going.

Logic dictates that if you are moving towards a private solution, to reverse would be to go towards a public solution.

This is not hard, but by God you make it hard.



And with that I'm leaving this conversation before you give me brain cancer.

I didn't need further clarification as you explained yourself before.. But nice way to bail out of talking about social security. And way not to give any examples of Government programs that there is any incentive to back out of.

[TheGame]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32872749...h_care_reform/

I hope democrats grow some balls and vote against this. From how I read it, this bill will lower the costs for healthcare for the government, and extend coverage... (Which will likely result in lower taxes in the end) but It will also likely make the prices rise for people who already have health insurance and force people who don't have it to get it, and it will funnel the money right into the private insurer's pockets..

[Bond]

The bill was proposed by Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana. Voting against your own party's bill with a 60-seat majority would be quite interesting.

[Vampyr]

It's hard to say without reading the actual bill, but this bill sounds like it sucks.

Not carrying insurance could result in a steep fine, as much as $3,800 per family, or $950 for an individual. People who can't afford their premiums would be exempted from the fine.

What the hell?

1. I'm all for making people have health insurance...but only through taxes that fund a pubic option - not forcing them to give money to for-profit organizations.

2. A fine if you don't pay, but only for people who could afford to pay? First of all, this bill makes mention of people who can't afford premiums. I thought our health care reform was supposed to make sure EVERYONE can have health insurance. According to this language, there will still be a group of people who just don't have health insurance.

3. How do they calculate if you "can't afford the premiums"? Shouldn't this be an individual's decision? This scare's me quit a bit, since it's the government who decides how much a family can contribute to paying for someone's college, and they grossly overestimate that. I don't expect them to be any more lenient on this.

They need to stop trying compromise on this. By trying to be too moderate they are compromising themselves into a bill which will only change the way we do things, and not necessarily improve them by any significant amount. It's not worth changing something this complex unless you're actually going to take a big step forward. This is expensive lateral movement at best, and expensive downward movement at worst.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Bond

The bill was proposed by Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana. Voting against your own party's bill with a 60-seat majority would be quite interesting.

Well its a double edged sword with democrats, the party is split. If they included the public option it would be daring the "conservative democrats" to vote against it, and with it not including the public option it is daring the "progressive democrats" to vote against it... So it is quiite interesting.

To me, the most important thing.. is that no matter what republicans will vote against it. So I agree with Vamp, they need to stop compromising on this bill.. As I posted earlier in the thread, 77% of people are in favor of the public option on average between the two polls. They should just do what the people want instead of bowing down to the minority.

We need campaign finance reform more then anything..

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

As I posted earlier in the thread, 77% of people are in favor of the public option on average between the two polls.

Keep in mind those numbers reflect whether or not people favor a public option, not necessarily any public option plan we've seen or that has been presented. These polls examione people's openess to the idea/concept, not the reality.

IMO the current climate reflect's people's reaction to practical application of that idea/concept.

[TheGame]

That'll circle us back to a debate about why things are changing. I'll agree with you on the first sentance of what you wrote.. But I don't think its "the people" who are killing or watering down healthcare reform, its the people who are paying the politicians who are killing and watering it down.

[Professor S]

Or it could be all the raucus town hall meetings and the thousands that showed up at the Capital over the weekend to protest... unless you think they're all employees of the healthcare companies and pharma companies (most that now support a public option, for the record).

But thats a difference of opinion and as you said, we'd be retreading old arguments.