|
uncurable mlady posted:The front page of truecostofhealthcare.org still works for me. I recall skimming it before and remember it making some salient points. Huh, might be something with my internet then that is keeping it from showing. And yeah certain conditions and illnesses have a massively disproportionate cost. That's just the nature of the beast though. It would be great if you could get some chemo treatments down to the cost and effectiveness of tylenol for aches and pains, but its just not in the cards. The optimal solution is getting the costs of treatments as under control as possible, and then going nuts on R&D to come up with better treatments relative to benefit to the patient. Whoops, there I go again - imagining society is structured to provide the greatest overall quality of life at highest efficiency, rather than being the rigged game it is.
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
fwiw incrementalism is a better option than the status quo
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Actually there was a week there where it was proposed that the eligibility age for Medicare be lowered 5 years every 10 years as part of a compromise, and it looked like that was going to break the logjam (being able to go back and tell seniors you increased their Medicare was a big hit). Except after about 3 days of it moving forward faster than anything else in that long slog had Joe Lieberman absolutely lost his poo poo and threatened to kill the whole thing if that provision got in. The reason he was so adamant against it? Because the idea was proposed by a Connecticut professor and democrat activist who had backed Ned Lamont in 2006. Pure, no poo poo out in the open spite was what sunk that idea. What in the gently caress did Gore see in him  ? Was Conneticut looking like it was going to go red or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
I'll never stop finding reasons to dislike Joe Lieberman will I. I'm really glad he was forced into retirement by his lovely track record.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:It was dropped right quick for AHIP support if I remember correctly, in even while it was still being discussed. It was compromised before discussions even got going. Well, you're shifting the goalposts here because your initial claim was that it was never brought up. Regardless, as Jonathan Bernstein puts it: quote:well, the public option only had somewhere around 51, 52, or 53 votes in the Senate. Oh, and that's for a very weak public option, something that the actual policy experts believed was largely inconsequential. For better or worse, a "robust" public option didn't have the votes in the House, and certainly didn't have the votes in the Senate -- a strong public option had somewhere between 45 and 48 votes in the Senate, by my count. Putting it in initially got a concession from the hospitals, and it was never going to pass so it was a no-brainer trade. Isn't that good negotiating?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:
Hmm. So the best law that could be passed was passed? Hmmm. Seriously though, your point seems to be that most Democrats didn't want to pass a "better law" and thus they passed what could get votes. You're basically saying the same thing I am, just in a somehow more obnoxious manner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Well, you're shifting the goalposts here because your initial claim was that it was never brought up. I mean it wasn't ever really on the table. And it wasn't, the talk in the senate was after Obama had already made the deal to kill it for AHIP support. quote:Putting it in initially got a concession from the hospitals, and it was never going to pass so it was a no-brainer trade. Isn't that good negotiating? No, because as you pointed out, it was a weak public option, so you're telling me that a gaining something by giving up the compromise of a compromise is good negotating. No, getting something for something is simply negotiating. Not good negotiating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I mean it wasn't ever really on the table. And it wasn't, the talk in the senate was after Obama had already made the deal to kill it for AHIP support. It was something for nothing because it did not have the votes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Hmm. So the best law that could be passed was passed? No, A law that could be passed was passed. quote:Seriously though, your point seems to be that most Democrats didn't want to pass a "better law" and thus they passed what could get votes. You're basically saying the same thing I am, just in a somehow more obnoxiously manner. I'm saying that a better law could probably be passed if people gave a poo poo, which we both agree they didn't. Your saying they passed the best law they could at the time, which is different, because it implies nothing better could be passed no matter how hard people tried. The difference being that probably a better law could have made it through. How much better? Who the gently caress knows, I don't think anyone in power was trying. Bernies great but he has no real power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Family Values posted:It was something for nothing because it did not have the votes. Oh my, a thing was proposed that would never pass to provide a starting point for negotiations? I am but a simple boy who is unwise in the world of politics. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Oh my, a thing was proposed that would never pass to provide a starting point for negotiations? I am but a simple boy who is unwise in the world of politics. So what is your actual point then? They started the negotiations with something unpassable, got concessions, and passed something. Like I don't even get the criticism here. ACA is imperfect but something that would be better in my mind would never have been enacted by congress. I too wish that Obama could just ignore congress and enact my perfect laws.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Family Values posted:So what is your actual point then? They started the negotiations with something unpassable, got concessions, and passed something. Like I don't even get the criticism here. I dunno maybe start reading my posts instead of skimming for what you want to hear?  quote:ACA is imperfect but something that would be better in my mind would never have been enacted by congress. I too wish that Obama could just ignore congress and enact my perfect laws. Yes clearly my hope is that Secret Leftist Obama was a dictator. Also lol at decent healthcare reform being an impossible dream of perfection. Though I suppose it is in the US, which is kinda my point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Also lol at decent healthcare reform being an impossible dream of perfection. Though I suppose it is in the US, which is kinda my point. I'm just saying how could it have been better at the time? Your claim (I think) is that the ACA could've been so much better right form the start if only <X>, and I want to know what <X> is, specifically. You believe a robust public option was possible in 2009; how?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
I'd honestly settle on exchanging single payer for reading comprehension lessons for the lot of you. He, I and others have clearly been saying that if democratic leaders started from a stronger position and then didn't cave instantly when Joe scumbag Lieberman objected to something that wasn't a blowjob to his health lobbyists more reform of the system may have been possible. Now here's where y'all bring up your dumb premise that TRYING to get anything more than what we got got would have collapsed the whole 'deal'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Now here's where y'all bring up your dumb premise that TRYING to get anything more than what we got got would have collapsed the whole 'deal'. "Just try harder" isn't all that specific. Name some no votes that could've been flipped in the Senate, and what it would've taken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Family Values posted:I'm just saying how could it have been better at the time? Your claim (I think) is that the ACA could've been so much better right form the start if only <X>, and I want to know what <X> is, specifically. You believe a robust public option was possible in 2009; how? I have no interest in making a list because you're missing the point. All a list is going to be is you attempting to tell me how congress couldn't pass whatever reform it is because it didn't have votes The argument you are trying to make, explicitly or not, is that we have magically arrived at the Best Possible Law which is just painfully naive. The ACA was not the best possible law that could be passed, it was a law that could be passed. You keep saying this poo poo about dictators and perfect laws, i'm not the one being naive here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Hell you don't even need to flip the no's. Come down like a ton of bricks of Lieberman until he stops being a whiny baby for a few minutes and then cut the same deal with Nelson.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Family Values posted:"Just try harder" isn't all that specific. Name some no votes that could've been flipped in the Senate, and what it would've taken. LOL do think somebody was writing this bill in such a way that the eeked out every possible reform that had votes to pass This is fantastic. You're trying to play off leftists as naive here but it's actually going over your head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Gee we can keep our parents insurance until 26 If we had tried to go 26 and 2 months the whole deal would have crashed the whole thing I tell you! Silly lefties, 26.16666 just didn't have the votes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I have no interest in making a list because you're missing the point. All a list is going to be is you attempting to tell me how congress couldn't pass whatever reform it is because it didn't have votes The argument you are trying to make, explicitly or not, is that we have magically arrived at the Best Possible Law which is just painfully naive. Huh? I said it was imperfect, like literally used that word. You even quote me, so I'm not sure why you're putting words in my mouth. Now I'm asking how could it have been better and still gotten the votes. You claim that was possible and I'm asking how. For instance, which Senators were a no on the public option that could've been flipped?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Huh? I said it was imperfect, like literally used that word. You even quote me, so I'm not sure why you're putting words in my mouth. You said: Family Values posted:I too wish that Obama could just ignore congress and enact my perfect laws. Implying that this was something I even close to thought. quote:Now I'm asking how could it have been better and still gotten the votes. You claim that was possible and I'm asking how. For instance, which Senators were a no on the public option that could've been flipped? Are you saying there is not any single reform, small or large, that could have been improved or added?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Hell you don't even need to flip the no's. Come down like a ton of bricks of Lieberman until he stops being a whiny baby for a few minutes and then cut the same deal with Nelson. They needed to flip about 6 noes, not just Lieberman. ^^ No I'm asking you how a robust public option was possible in 2009. Stop being evasive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Gee we can keep our parents insurance until 26 Why didn't lefties push for 26 years 60 days 9 hours 23 minutes 45 seconds? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Hell you don't even need to flip the no's. Come down like a ton of bricks of Lieberman until he stops being a whiny baby for a few minutes and then cut the same deal with Nelson. Did you forget the part of recent history where Joe Lieberman lost the democratic primary, created his own political party, then went on to win the election under that ticket? I'm not quite sure what you'd expect the party establishment could have done to force him to flip considering he had literally just won re-election without the party's support a few years earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Why didn't lefties push for 26 years 60 days 9 hours 23 minutes 45 seconds? We crunched the numbers and this was the best law we could have, sorry I just can't make Obama ignore congress to pass perfect laws!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:We crunched the numbers and this was the best law we could have, sorry I just can't make Obama ignore congress to pass perfect laws! More like, 26 is a nice, whole number around which notification can easily be sent out. Why is the retirement age a whole number? Because its loving easy. If you don't like 26, then we could've done 25. Personally, I like 26.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:Did you forget the part of recent history where Joe Lieberman lost the democratic primary, created his own political party, then went on to win the election under that ticket? I'm not quite sure what you'd expect the party establishment could have done to force him to flip considering he had literally just won re-election without the party's support a few years earlier. Threaten to strip him of every committee assignment he has and make sure no bill of his ever comes to the floor again so he has nothing to show for it when up for reelection.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:More like, 26 is a nice, whole number around which notification can easily be sent out. Why is the retirement age a whole number? Because its loving easy. Could have done 30, or "if you live with your parents you can get it" Wait are trying to spin 26 into a win over 25 because that is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:What in the gently caress did Gore see in him Running away screaming from noted sex-haver Bill Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Threaten to strip him of every committee assignment he has and make sure no bill of his ever comes to the floor again so he has nothing to show for it when up for reelection. That sounds like the easiest ticket to re-election actually.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Threaten to strip him of every committee assignment he has and make sure no bill of his ever comes to the floor again so he has nothing to show for it when up for reelection. It wasn't just Joe Lieberman, goddamn. The public option didn't even have 50 votes, never mind 60 .
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Family Values posted:They needed to flip about 6 noes, not just Lieberman. How are we counting votes and is there some record of early whip counts while the bill was being worked on? I'm basically going off the numbers on Wikipedia which just say 58 democrats and then note Lieberman and Nelson as the very last hold outs. In my mind you push for a tougher bill, make deals to get the 60 cloture votes and then just pass the bill as is, allowing the hold outs to vote no on the final bill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Huh? I said it was imperfect, like literally used that word. You even quote me, so I'm not sure why you're putting words in my mouth. That's the thing being claimed. They're not saying you'd get a public option out of it, but that starting from (perhaps) that position would have had a good chance of getting more than the ACA did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:How are we counting votes and is there some record of early whip counts while the bill was being worked on? I'm basically going off the numbers on Wikipedia which just say 58 democrats and then note Lieberman and Nelson as the very last hold outs. In my mind you push for a tougher bill, make deals to get the 60 cloture votes and then just pass the bill as is, allowing the hold outs to vote no on the final bill. The right way of going about the votecount: Get one of Steny's staffers from the time drunk and ask. Assume that Pelosi and Reid had enough votes for what they wanted and strategically released votes based upon electoral concerns and whatnot. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:When you start negotiating, you start from a position that has decent support in your party and that you think you could get the other side to come to a compromise on. You do this because you might be able to get them to concede on things if you give up something, too! Fancy how that works. And the thing is that in negotiations you might not know exactly what they'll give up or what they'd want you to give up. If you're negotiating from a position of power like the Democrats were when they were trying to pass health care reform, it would be silly to not try and leverage that position to get more good poo poo in the bill. Except the position of strength will be the position the public comes to expect as passing with the bill, forcing you to pass something you don't want or dealing with a shitload of pissed off Members whose base were expecting medicare for all. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Family Values posted:It wasn't just Joe Lieberman, goddamn. The public option didn't even have 50 votes, never mind 60 . Well now we're back to the democrats being lovely. Also your link's argument is wholly dependent on a misunderstanding of what the reconciliation process is as one can only adjust budget items in it, not use it to back doors anything you want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Except the position of strength will be the position the public comes to expect as passing with the bill, forcing you to pass something you don't want or dealing with a shitload of pissed off Members whose base were expecting medicare for all. Yes a better move to energize the base, is to pass a confusing mess that nobody likes or gets and makes poo poo more complex and then don't run on any of the wins it created when you go up for reelection.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Yes a better move to energize the base, is to pass a confusing mess that nobody likes or gets and makes poo poo more complex and then don't run on any of the wins it created when you go up for reelection. 2010: A Year of Energized Democratic Bases Thats loving stupid, base wouldn't be energized because if they were energized you'd be negotiating from that position. You don't energize with handouts, you give handouts to energized constituencies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Let's face it, Democrats will never energize anything because they're spineless turds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Can you explain how gerrymandering affects Senate elections? Gerrymandering keeps idiots in their elected seats within districts. This was used to compare to voting withing congress retaining completely incompetent people despite there being no gerrymandering What is difficult to understand relative to that? Edit: I have forgotten that the notion of, "public pressure" is a myth, though. As CaptainCarrot alludes to, people keep their positions by helping other people keep their positions. Any explanation about someone being "ousted" is a veil for some backdoor reason about someone who got kicked out for not playing ball. I am naive for thinking that some kind of objective reality will affect ballots whether in the republic as a whole or in congressional procedures. Low turnout or not, the party that threatens to sabotage the country, like clockwork, several times every year is the one that swept the mid-terms. Post 9-11 User fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:2010: A Year of Energized Democratic Bases You're not going to energize the base either way what party do you think this is? That super pumped 22 year old at the phone bank is not the base.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 03:16
|
|