The biggest problem with the healthcare reform

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Two reasons: 1) because far too many people do not have health insurance right now, which cripples them economically or even costs people their lives, and which is a heavy burden on society at large when those individuals can't pay their costs; and 2) because the current rate of spending on health insurance is simply not sustainable.

Okay, now you're mentioning specifics.

Why do you believe the number is far too high?

Secondly, what do you believe the number is? Working in the health care industry, at least incidentally, I don't believe the big numbers politicians quote.

But a follow up question, what portion of whatever the number is attributable to choice, i.e., college kids risking it to save a few bucks, versus those who are uninsured because of uninsurability or unaffordability?

Now, if you're honest, you'll have to admit we have no idea what the number of uninsured is who are uninsured by choice versus the other subcategory. And if we can't determine what the number is with any reasonable degree of confidence, how can we say it's too high?

But let's move another step, let's assume that the number of uninsurables for cost or coverage is 8 million persons, a lot of persons.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

About 1/6 of our spending goes to health care, and it is increasing rapidly. That isn't sustainable, and it is hurting us economically and competitively.

And you know where costs outstrip demand, costs are reigned in, so why the alarm?

These are two assumptions which liberals make but I don't see proof of it. I see many factors in our international competitiveness, but health care? In many of the countries, such as Brazil, China and India, which are hurting our economic base, they don't grand social contracts for health care.

You'll have to make a good argument that is hurting us.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sure- consumption of fatty foods and a lethargic lifestyle are obviously contributing to high costs, but that isn't even close to the entire answer.

Obviously.

I never said it was, but it's not even part of the liberal equation to "remedy" health care. Why not?

What if this is the primary reason, combined with the impossible to satiate appetite for health care on demand?

Nobody even studies these lifestyles angles, because they don't yield political results which give more power to politicians. Politics is about gaining power and if one can't get power from an issue then you ignore issues such as the ones highlighted.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As measured by...

It has- just two different versions of it. Merging the two is the challenge, primarily due to the 60 vote "requirement" the Republicans are forcing. Remove the filibuster and it passes almost immediately (which is why reconciliation is now on the table).

Because they can and because they view it politically favorable to do so (and when it ceases to be politically favorable, they won't do it- ask Nelson).

You already know the answer to this. It has nothing to do with the House and everything to do with the filibuster.

Good. Then that is what he is doing and it sounds like you agree there is nothing wrong with it- which seems contrary to your original point, but so be it.

No, they are getting precisely the Obama they voted for- the pragmatic leader, which is precisely why health care has advanced this far (further than ever before), and which is why I believe it will ultimately pass.

You're not hearing me. You're wallowing in the minutiae of parliamentary procedure while I'm talking rhetorically. If this legislation is really what the people want, if Obama's 7-pt victory was to affirm American support for just this sort of health care reform, then it should be wildly popular. Democrats--and maybe even some Republicans--should be stepping all over each other just to get their names associated with the bill. Congressmen should be coming home to cheering crowds of adulation from fawning constituents.

It's not happening. Far more people dislike it than like it, and those who dislike it, dislike it a lot. You croon about 40% support like it's something to be proud of, when in reality that's a political disaster. A candidate who gets 40% of the vote in an election is considered to have been slaughtered.

Everything about how this bill has moved through Congress reflects its unpopularity. There's no way for you to dance around that.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No point in arguing it, but if you ask around my guess is you will hear the same sentiment echoed.

This is the sound of me caring:






.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You're not hearing me. You're wallowing in the minutiae of parliamentary procedure while I'm talking rhetorically. If this legislation is really what the people want, if Obama's 7-pt victory was to affirm American support for just this sort of health care reform, then it should be wildly popular. Democrats--and maybe even some Republicans--should be stepping all over each other just to get their names associated with the bill. Congressmen should be coming home to cheering crowds of adulation from fawning constituents.

Um, no. That is almost never the case with any legislation. Can you think of any legislation that has passed with "Congressmen coming home to cheering crowds of adulation from fawning constituents?" The process of legislating is messy. The minority party frequently plays the role of demagogue (and Republicans last year more than any other), and people take unnecessarily extreme (and dishonest) positions on legislation (again- Republicans last year more than others). Some bills when enacted are relatively popular, some aren't, but none get the reaction you describe.

Again, however, you seem to be suggesting that not only is it politically dangerous to pass a bill with 40-50% popularity (polling is hard to gauge on issues), it is inappropriate. Is that your argument or not?

It's not happening. Far more people dislike it than like it, and those who dislike it, dislike it a lot. You croon about 40% support like it's something to be proud of, when in reality that's a political disaster. A candidate who gets 40% of the vote in an election is considered to have been slaughtered.

Everything about how this bill has moved through Congress reflects its unpopularity. There's no way for you to dance around that.

You are arguing as if the polls have been static on the question. Should the Congress have passed health care reform on January 12, when polling was at 49% in favor of passing the bill compared to 46% against? On your continuum, polling was in favor of passing the bill, and the electorate had spoken strongly in favor of health care reform. Did you favor passing the bill on the 12th, then? We all know the answer, so why not? How about in October 2009 when support for passing a bill was at 51% to 41% opposed? Did you favor reform on that date? Or is Gallup the wrong pollster to ask? Should we have only gone by Rasmussen Reports (which showed lower support)?

Should we care that many of those opposed (13% in December) were opposed because the bill wasn't liberal enough?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/im.../21/rel19a.pdf

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...alth-care.html

Given the overwhelming passion people on the left and the right have on the issue, is it even possible to get a bill, any health care bill, to a high level of support? If, as in December, 42% favor the bill and 56% oppose the bill, but 13% oppose because it doesn't go far enough, and 39% oppose because it goes too far, where do you expect to see significantly more support for any proposal on health care? If you make it more conservative, you will definitely lose people who currently support it now, and certainly won't get anyone who already thinks it isn't liberal enough. If you make it more liberal, you lose more who support it now and won't get any of the 39% who think it is too liberal. Honestly- what is your target poll percentage before you favor passage? If polls are what you find important, then there must be a number at which you would support the bill. What's that number? And why the number you pick?

My guess is you don't care at all about the polling, other than you think it supports your opinion today. If it were to change, I am quite certain you would jump off board with it as your benchmark.

The fact that the polling has shifted so much from month to month is precisely why politicians should just be working for the best possible bill they can support, let the polling fall where it may.

This is the sound of me caring:

I already knew that. If you cared, I assume you would have changed by now.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Um, no. That is almost never the case with any legislation. Can you think of any legislation that has passed with "Congressmen coming home to cheering crowds of adulation from fawning constituents?" The process of legislating is messy. The minority party frequently plays the role of demagogue (and Republicans last year more than any other), and people take unnecessarily extreme (and dishonest) positions on legislation (again- Republicans last year more than others). Some bills when enacted are relatively popular, some aren't, but none get the reaction you describe.

It was a bit of playful hyperbole to make a point.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are arguing as if the polls have been static on the question.

Um, no, I haven't. Or have you already forgotten this scatterplot I showed you just a week ago? There is a clear trend against this bill. I also noted back then that there's a distinct difference in polling between this bill, and a bill--a difference you apparently failed to notice when you posted that Gallup link.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Given the overwhelming passion people on the left and the right have on the issue, is it even possible to get a bill, any health care bill, to a high level of support?

No idea. But if you're going to re-architect 1/6 of the American economy, you'd better damn well have some level of consensus on how to do it, rather than pounding it through with parliamentary tricks.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

My guess is you don't care at all about the polling, other than you think it supports your opinion today. If it were to change, I am quite certain you would jump off board with it as your benchmark.

Then you would be wrong, as usual. It's hard to fault politicians who are listening to popular opinion. That's what they're there for. Indeed, I don't blame Obama and the Dems for wanting to tackle health care (their poor timing notwithstanding), since "generic" health care reform gets popular support. But this bill is a disaster. The American people know it, have communicated it in numerous ways, and the thick skulls in DC refuse to listen.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I already knew that. If you cared, I assume you would have changed by now.

Then as I said at the beginning, stop whining about it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It was a bit of playful hyperbole to make a point.



Um, no, I haven't. Or have you already forgotten this scatterplot I showed you just a week ago? There is a clear trend against this bill. I also noted back then that there's a distinct difference in polling between this bill, and a bill--a difference you apparently failed to notice when you posted that Gallup link.

Wait- so you are taking the position that a Gallup poll from January 12, taken within days of an expected final vote on the merging of the House and Senate health care bills, and which expresses support of health care reform 49%-46%, reflected voter opinion on passage of a bill but not on the bills which were actually being considered and very close to final passage? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Your scatterplot is also helpful to make my case. Note how many blue dots there are above 50% (representing approval). Why not look at those polls, if that's what you care about? Sure, we can average all those polls and come up with a trend, but that isn't necessarily right either. Each poll has phrased the question slightly differently, has a varying sample size, a varying margin of error, differences in technique (including live questioner versus robocall), etc. The one poll which has no margin of error is the one taken in 2008.

If the polls were very bad for the health care bill, I could accept an argument that the bill isn't representative of what people want, but with about 40% supporting the bill and another 13% opposing it because it isn't liberal enough, I feel pretty good in saying this bill is splitting the difference about right.

No idea. But if you're going to re-architect 1/6 of the American economy, you'd better damn well have some level of consensus on how to do it, rather than pounding it through with parliamentary tricks.

Language language.

Your consensus comment is addressed above.

Where were your objections with Medicare Part D, which had no funding mechanism whatsoever, has cost us well over $1 trillion, and passed only because Republicans kept the vote open until about 5:00 in the morning, several hours after the vote was scheduled to end, and refused to allow House members to leave (they literally posted "guards" at the doors to intimidate Republican House members to stay until they changed their vote)? Was reconciliation a "parliamentary trick" when it was used to pass the Bush tax cuts in 2001?

Then you would be wrong, as usual.

That's just not polite.

It's hard to fault politicians who are listening to popular opinion. That's what they're there for. Indeed, I don't blame Obama and the Dems for wanting to tackle health care (their poor timing notwithstanding), since "generic" health care reform gets popular support. But this bill is a disaster. The American people know it, have communicated it in numerous ways, and the thick skulls in DC refuse to listen.

If you think pursuing health care reform will be devastating for Democrats, wouldn't you favor them pursuing health care reform? If, as you seem to suggest, they aren't required to follow the polls then there is nothing wrong with them taking a different approach- they may just be punished for it on election day. I am fine with that.

Then as I said at the beginning, stop whining about it.

I am holding out hope that my repeated mention of your refusal to answer questions will one day result in you answering questions more consistently, which is a better result for me.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Wait- so you are taking the position that a Gallup poll from January 12, taken within days of an expected final vote on the merging of the House and Senate health care bills, and which expresses support of health care reform 49%-46%, reflected voter opinion on passage of a bill but not on the bills which were actually being considered and very close to final passage? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Your scatterplot is also helpful to make my case. Note how many blue dots there are above 50% (representing approval). Why not look at those polls, if that's what you care about? Sure, we can average all those polls and come up with a trend, but that isn't necessarily right either. Each poll has phrased the question slightly differently, has a varying sample size, a varying margin of error, differences in technique (including live questioner versus robocall), etc. The one poll which has no margin of error is the one taken in 2008.

If the polls were very bad for the health care bill, I could accept an argument that the bill isn't representative of what people want, but with about 40% supporting the bill and another 13% opposing it because it isn't liberal enough, I feel pretty good in saying this bill is splitting the difference about right.

If, after all the evidence to the contrary, you think public support for this bill is "about right", then no evidence will ever be good enough. As far as I'm concerned, you live in a parallel universe.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Language language.

Your consensus comment is addressed above.

Where were your objections with Medicare Part D, which had no funding mechanism whatsoever, has cost us well over $1 trillion, and passed only because Republicans kept the vote open until about 5:00 in the morning, several hours after the vote was scheduled to end, and refused to allow House members to leave (they literally posted "guards" at the doors to intimidate Republican House members to stay until they changed their vote)? Was reconciliation a "parliamentary trick" when it was used to pass the Bush tax cuts in 2001?

I did not like the Medicare ram-through. But you are changing the subject.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you think pursuing health care reform will be devastating for Democrats, wouldn't you favor them pursuing health care reform? If, as you seem to suggest, they aren't required to follow the polls then there is nothing wrong with them taking a different approach- they may just be punished for it on election day. I am fine with that.

I know you are. You are one of those people who would abuse power when handed it.

The answer to your former question is no, because I still happen to love my country, and I think this health care bill would be bad for it. Contrary to numerous Bush Derangement Syndrome-afflicted liberals (such as yourself), I do not root for the country to fail so that my political wishes can succeed.

Politically, I'm not sure it matters much at this point anyway. Health care has become a symbol of failure for the Obama admin in the mind of the public, and even if they manage to squeak something through, it will be totally anti-climactic. Scott Brown has given the momentum to the R's, at least for the moment.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

If, after all the evidence to the contrary, you think public support for this bill is "about right", then no evidence will ever be good enough.

For something as contentious as health care, yes. Any health care bill will be divisive (because opinions are scattered all over the place on the best way forward). To secure about 40% of the public even after all the lies Republicans have told about the bill isn't bad. Especially since much of the opposition (about 25% of it if polls are to be believed) comes from the left. If you move the bill more to the right, more on the left would oppose it. If you move the bill more to the left, more on the right will oppose it. Given that the left and right are almost equally split in general in the US, getting 40% on board with any proposal is pretty darned good.

As far as I'm concerned, you live in a parallel universe.

Again being rude.

I did not like the Medicare ram-through. But you are changing the subject.

No, just pointing out the inconsistency of the Republican position.

I know you are. You are one of those people who would abuse power when handed it.

Again being rude.

The answer to your former question is no, because I still happen to love my country, and I think this health care bill would be bad for it.

So even if the bill was very popular, you would vote against it because "you love your country." YOU wouldn't require yourself to follow the polls. Why, then, can you not understand someone voting for the bill now regardless of public sentiment (which isn't even all that bad)?

Contrary to numerous Bush Derangement Syndrome-afflicted liberals (such as yourself), I do not root for the country to fail so that my political wishes can succeed.

Again being rude.

Politically, I'm not sure it matters much at this point anyway. Health care has become a symbol of failure for the Obama admin in the mind of the public, and even if they manage to squeak something through, it will be totally anti-climactic. Scott Brown has given the momentum to the R's, at least for the moment.

If you don't think it matters politically to pass the bill, why did you cite the polls in the first place as a reason Democrats shouldn't pass it?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

For something as contentious as health care, yes. Any health care bill will be divisive (because opinions are scattered all over the place on the best way forward). To secure about 40% of the public even after all the lies Republicans have told about the bill isn't bad. Especially since much of the opposition (about 25% of it if polls are to be believed) comes from the left. If you move the bill more to the right, more on the left would oppose it. If you move the bill more to the left, more on the right will oppose it. Given that the left and right are almost equally split in general in the US, getting 40% on board with any proposal is pretty darned good.

If the best you can get is 40%, then maybe you shouldn't touch it at all.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, just pointing out the inconsistency of the Republican position.

It's not inconsistent, but it is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So even if the bill was very popular, you would vote against it because "you love your country." YOU wouldn't require yourself to follow the polls. Why, then, can you not understand someone voting for the bill now regardless of public sentiment (which isn't even all that bad)?

This is bizarre line of thinking. I don't hold public office.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you don't think it matters politically to pass the bill, why did you cite the polls in the first place as a reason Democrats shouldn't pass it?

Because people still don't want it, and basing a decision this important on mere politics is a mistake. But I think the political damage has mostly already been done.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

If the best you can get is 40%, then maybe you shouldn't touch it at all.

Right. Instead we should just linger on with uncontrollable growth in health care costs and leave over 30 million people uninsured, because polls don't get to an unspecified level of support. I don't know why you keep going down this path, given that you have admitted that no matter how high public support got, you wouldn't support the bill. Quite clearly, you aren't interested in what the public says on the issue, you are just saying you do because you think the numbers support your position.

It's not inconsistent, but it is irrelevant.

How is it consistent?

This is bizarre line of thinking. I don't hold public office.

Would your reasoning change if you did? Why?

Because people still don't want it, and basing a decision this important on mere politics is a mistake. But I think the political damage has mostly already been done.

Isn't basing a decision on poll numbers "basing a decision on politics?" If you think it is right to pass the bill, shouldn't you then pass it regardless of the politics? This seems contrary to your entire premise. And if you think politics should play a role, but the "damage has mostly already been done," then what is the political harm of passing it anyways? Shouldn't that lead a Congressperson even more in the direction of doing what they think is right, regardless of the polls?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Right. Instead we should just linger on with uncontrollable growth in health care costs and leave over 30 million people uninsured, because polls don't get to an unspecified level of support. I don't know why you keep going down this path, given that you have admitted that no matter how high public support got, you wouldn't support the bill. Quite clearly, you aren't interested in what the public says on the issue, you are just saying you do because you think the numbers support your position.

Would your reasoning change if you did? Why?

Isn't basing a decision on poll numbers "basing a decision on politics?" If you think it is right to pass the bill, shouldn't you then pass it regardless of the politics? This seems contrary to your entire premise. And if you think politics should play a role, but the "damage has mostly already been done," then what is the political harm of passing it anyways? Shouldn't that lead a Congressperson even more in the direction of doing what they think is right, regardless of the polls?

You've been trying very hard to prove some inconsistency between how I feel a politician should treat public opinion vs. his own judgment, without much success.

I'm starting to have to repeat myself as you continue that fruitless effort, making this discussion increasingly tedious particularly with the multiple blocks of quotations. I'm pretty sure I've responded to most/all of these questions already, so I refer you to my previous comments.