New Developments III

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Most may not share his opinion about film, but damned if he's not a solid liberal commentator.

I especially love this statement from one of his commentors about another comment (funny!):



While you're at it, look at the teeth of almost everyone in Britain.

The most ill informed comment I have read. This smacks of someone who doesn't even own a passport. What is it with this teeth thing? I live in the UK and know of nobody with bad teeth at all (except a few tramps).

I have no idea where you get this stereotype.. If it's from TV, then firstly... Just to spoil the illusion, we don't all live in castles, we're not all foppish like Hugh Grant, and (here's the kicker) we pay for dental treatment... So read up, because to 90% of the world you come across as an idiot.

On the same note, I see plenty of films depicting American's with bad teeth. In fact, if movies are to be believed, if you live anywhere considered south, you have bad teeth, a very basic grasp of the English language and probably are the product of an illicit liaison.

But I am smart enough to figure out the difference between fact and fiction.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Thanks for sharing, Greg. Ebert's blog entry is excellent as are most of the responses.

I love his retort to one of the few idiotic responses in which he points out that the man is not quoting the Constitution as he thinks, but the Declaration of Independence.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

Roger Ebert gives his personal perspective on health care reform:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert....ra.html




Edited By Greg on 1250611008
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

After Sebelius' remark over the weekend that the public option doesn't have to exist, but that non-profits could act as the competition to the insurance industry to help drive princess down, just tells me the option isn't dead yet. The key to driving down prices is primarily competition. If there is no competition, prices will rise.

But that's beside the point, IMO. I think what will happen is that congress, the non-endangered members, will pass a form of the bill with a public option included. Obama will sign the legislation, and it will go into effect giving Obama two years to allow it to work and show what can be done before his re-election while the endangered Dems vote against so that their Republican opponents can't toss that in their faces and thus deal with the sticky issue of the election just next year. Then, hopefully, by 2011, we should see that all is good with the world and Health Care will no longer be an issue.

Of course, guilt by association may kill a couple of the Dems, but the pubes are still in disarray. They have not done anything but obstruct over the last year which may hurt them as well. But, right now, I don't see how Health Care reform WON'T come out of congress.

I also predict that shortly after it does, a number of the big insurance companies will suddenly change their plans to drive people off of them and thus create a panic in middle America over lost health care making it seem like Obama's critics were right and that he was wrong about people getting to keep their plans and doctors. It will of course be spun so that it's Obama's fault and not the greedy insurance industry, but that's what I think will happen. But when those people have access to affordable health care through the public option and it proves NOT to be much different from their previous care, much of those concerns should disappear. It may take a decade to get where it needs to be, but it will get there.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Sonic Youth wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:I wouldn't take the interpretation of anyone in the mainstream media -- especially the AP, which has been carrying GOP water since Ron Fournier took it over -- for gospel. If I hear the plan has actually been dropped, I'll be disappointed. Hearing "some people tonight SEEM to be signalling it's dropped" is worse than worthless, and exactly the sort of bad reporting that's marked all coverage of this debate.

Oh, I disagree. I think the term for what's going on is "trial balloon".

The New York Times reported this much the same way in yesterday's paper. And I'd stay away from news blogs and other outlets to the left of them, because they'll probably be less than charitable in their read of what's going on.

The New York Times, and the rest of the press, also reported that: Hillary had exposed Obama's fatal weakness with white working class voters; Sarah Palin was going to single-handedly swing the election to McCain; Cash for Clunkers would be stopped by the Senate; and Sonia Sotomayor could never be confirmed before Fall. The Times in particular has a "Democrats in disarray" article-template they trot out periodically, of which this is the latest variant.

I do agree that portions of the lefty blogosphere are equally guilty -- Arianna leading the way -- because in their Nader-ite souls they want to be disappointed, as it will confirm their dim view of American society. They'd have screamed at the compromises FDR made to get Social Security through.

As I say, I wait for the final legislation before I pronounce on it. And I'm open to the possibiity ths is gambit to overcome the biggest current obstacle to a bill: getting something, anything through the Senate Finance Committee. Prima donnas like Baucus and Conrad may well need to believe something like ths before they'll let a bill get out of their committee. But, once something's out, whatever it says, it goes into the negotiation process, with other Senate committee bills plus the House bill, all of which contain the public option. We can't know until that wrangling's finished what the final bill will be.




Edited By Mister Tee on 1250519119
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Mister Tee wrote:I wouldn't take the interpretation of anyone in the mainstream media -- especially the AP, which has been carrying GOP water since Ron Fournier took it over -- for gospel. If I hear the plan has actually been dropped, I'll be disappointed. Hearing "some people tonight SEEM to be signalling it's dropped" is worse than worthless, and exactly the sort of bad reporting that's marked all coverage of this debate.
Oh, I disagree. I think the term for what's going on is "trial balloon".

The New York Times reported this much the same way in yesterday's paper. And I'd stay away from news blogs and other outlets to the left of them, because they'll probably be less than charitable in their read of what's going on.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Sonic Youth wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:Anyway, I know there's alot of noise out there, and some of the rhetoric is quite scary. But I think too often we forget that the election last Fall happened, that we do have a Democratic (if not dependably progressive) majority, and that our worst fears are not likely to be realized in such an environment.
This administration sure seems to have forgotten that, much like congress did two years ago. Obama is ready to concede 'public option':

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Some 'leader'.
I wouldn't take the interpretation of anyone in the mainstream media -- especially the AP, which has been carrying GOP water since Ron Fournier took it over -- for gospel. If I hear the plan has actually been dropped, I'll be disappointed. Hearing "some people tonight SEEM to be signalling it's dropped" is worse than worthless, and exactly the sort of bad reporting that's marked all coverage of this debate.

Again, see me in the Fall when the final package is assembled. Till then, it's like predicting next year's Oscars -- all wankery at this stage.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Mister Tee wrote:Anyway, I know there's alot of noise out there, and some of the rhetoric is quite scary. But I think too often we forget that the election last Fall happened, that we do have a Democratic (if not dependably progressive) majority, and that our worst fears are not likely to be realized in such an environment.
This administration sure seems to have forgotten that, much like congress did two years ago. Obama is ready to concede 'public option':

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Some 'leader'.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Heksagon »

The last time when I discussed the American health care system on this board, it was Akash who suggested to me that it was business interests who were driving up the cost of health care. There may be a grain of truth in that theory, but I think it misses the point. Business interests are powerful in almost every country of the world (although Americans sometimes think otherwise), and they are powerful not only in the health care sector, but in almost every sector. So it would be difficult to explain why is it that only in one specific sector of a specific country are the costs spiralling so much.

Also, I don't fully believe the theory that Americans are more conservative than Europeans in this regard. If the cost of health care in Europe was spiralling the same way as it is in the United States, and European governments would introduce reforms to cut costs and, for example, to extend public health care to illegal immigrants (who are not covered by public health care in all European countries), there would be similar protests in Europe. (Incidentally, wasn't Greece one of the last countries in Europe to adopt a universal governmental health care system?)

The difference in this respect is that the American health care reformers have, so to speak, painted themselves into a corner. Reformers in Europe and Canada, for most part, have achieved the objectives they set out for themselves in the 1950s, and they have no further need to challenge the status quo, while the American reformers have not yet reached their old objectives, and they still feel that further reform is necessary. The traditional response that social reformers have had to any criticism is that any imaginable problems in their plans can be solved by throwing more money at it. That road, however, seems to be blocked for health care reformers in the United States, at least for the moment.
taki15
Assistant
Posts: 541
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Post by taki15 »

The United States might be the world pioneer in everything, from technology to show business, but regarding health care it must be one of the most backward nations in the world.

For all their anti-government rhetoric, Americans it seems to me that have created a bureaucratic nightmare which leaves a lot to be desired in the area of efficiency and cost control.

I'm astounded also by the ease with which the people believe even the most outrageous accusations against the current plans. That shows to me that despite their misgivings about the status quo, deep inside them Americans are as conservative and afraid of change as they were 20 years ago. They are just looking for excuses, no matter how ridiculous they are.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Well, most of the rise in cost can be directly attributed to the Insurance Industry, the Healthcare industry and the drug companies. The drug companies need to pay for their multi-billion dollar ad buys. The insurance industry needs to make its investors money and the healthcare industry has tons of doctors to take care of as well as (here comes another insurance industry jab) increased premiums for malpractice. Of course, this last one is just as big a fault of the sue-happy populace of the country.

But, what they really need is competition. If there is good quality competition at lower prices, the health care industry and associated special interest groups would have to lower their costs to compete. It's why the drug companies have fought for years to prohibit purchase of drugs from Canada as it drives down their prices in the U.S.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Post by Heksagon »

Big Magilla wrote:
Heksagon wrote:It appears to me that the Democratic Party is mainly trying to expand the scope of the present health care framework, rather than trying to actually "reform" the existing framework.

That's pretty much the crux of it. Cut cost by cutting down on the overhead, which makes sense.

With all the flack they're getting just for wanting to do that, there might be actual blood in the streets if they went for a complete overhaul.

Well, what I have been wondering is whether it is possible to significantly cut costs without a major overhaul. The cost of health care in the United States has been rising very rapidly, and I just find it hard to believe that it could be changed by the relatively minor tweaks which the Democrats are offering.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

My observations on this whole health care thing:

The Obama team believed (most think correctly) that the biggest Clinton mistake in 93/'94 was trying to dictate legislation from the White House, stepping on the ego-inflated toes of the Congressional barons. Thus, they set out a general statement of principles, and let the Congress come up with the details. This approach has obviously had its own flaws, partly from the general mess that is Congress, but more particularly the make-up of the Senate Finance Committee and its less-than-progressive chairman Max Baucus. All the other committees working on bills have reported them out to the floor (something, it might be pointed out, that in the last 60 years has never happened with the sole exception of the Medicare/Medicaid bills during the lopsidedly Dem '56-'66 Congress), but Baucus has been deferring over and over to GOPers like Grassley and Enzi whose motives are questionable to put it mildly.

The reason the White House wanted an August deadline was to head off what Sonic references: that Dems are forced to defend against a bill that doesn't technically, exist. Now that they see the results, it appears the rest of the Dems have had it with Baucus, and are going to force him to kick the Pubs to the curb by early September to get something through the committee.

And once it gets through, it all comes down to the conference. There are many passionate supporters of the public option, and I think they'll force at least some version of it into the final bill. The question then becomes, for the Blue Dogs and the "centrist" Senators (I use quotes because, though the press will always designate them such, they are in fact well to the right of mainstream American opinion), not will they vote for the final proposal -- some will certainly vote against -- but will they take part in a filibuster that denies a straight vote and kills a publicly-popular proposal by a president of their own party? My guess is, in the end, enough of them won't, and we'll have some solid version of health care reform this year.

To watch cable TV, you'd think the town hall brownshirts were swinging the debate decisively rightward, but I have my doubts about that. I think the tactics have been so transparently over the top and so full of falsehoods that they're having much the same effect as the Palin rallies last Fall -- they're making people with tepid objections to Obama's plan line up behind him for fear of being identified with the loonies. The ludicrous "death panel" canard is so self-evidently false that even the press has been mostly calling it so -- though of course they usually "balance" it with some minor mistake in something a Dem has said so they can cling to their precious "Both sides do it" formulation. Do they not realize that as long as they hold to that stance, there will always be a massive advantage to the side most willing to lie? Do they understand that, no matter what they do, they'll never win over the eliminationist right, but they're now permanently alienating the only audience thye've ever had?

Anyway, I know there's alot of noise out there, and some of the rhetoric is quite scary. But I think too often we forget that the election last Fall happened, that we do have a Democratic (if not dependably progressive) majority, and that our worst fears are not likely to be realized in such an environment. Whatever you're hearing on TV.

And now, I'm back to watching the Yankees.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Heksagon wrote:It appears to me that the Democratic Party is mainly trying to expand the scope of the present health care framework, rather than trying to actually "reform" the existing framework.
That's pretty much the crux of it. Cut cost by cutting down on the overhead, which makes sense.

With all the flack they're getting just for wanting to do that, there might be actual blood in the streets if they went for a complete overhaul.
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events”