I have not seen any reaction by American commentators / political analysts, but over here it is assumed that the democrat defeat in Massachusetts means that the reform agenda of Obama is now effectively dead, with all those wavering democrat members of Congress and Senate now even less willing to risk rocking the boat. (and never realising that if they had simply used their majorities and pushed their reforms through their voters would have entirely forgotten about the issue by the next day because it was a subject more complicated than choosing between two brands of beer)

Still, you can not help wonder what made those voters decide that it was time to elect a 'I am so tough I am against everything' candidate? Presumably they wanted to show Obama that they were really mad, but surely they would be able to understand that by increasing the deadlock in Washington they pretty much ensured that -nothing- would get done at all for the next three years. Since they did the same to Bush, and to Clinton before him, I am beginning to wonder if the average American not actually likes being bent over a barrel and flogged with wet noodles...


Eri

by increasing the deadlock in Washington they pretty much ensured that -nothing- would get done at all for the next three years. Since they did the same to Bush

huh

over here it is assumed that the democrat defeat in Massachusetts means that the reform agenda of Obama is now effectively dead, with all those wavering democrat members of Congress and Senate now even less willing to risk rocking the boatThat's overstating the case, but yeah, it's a kick in the balls for the Democrats in Congress and a bad omen for the upcoming real elections. Not that they don't deserve it.Still, you can not help wonder what made those voters decide that it was time to elect a 'I am so tough I am against everything' candidate?Because in America, we have only two choices. So if we don't like one, we have to pick the other, or else we just stay out altogether and let someone else do the choosing.

They didn't pick this guy because he's anything special. They picked him because they're mad at the Democrats for screwing up the one clear opportunity they had to pass real health care reform, and he's the only other option.

And while normally I just shake my head at the idiocy of the average voter, here I completely understand why moderates in Massachusetts became disenchanted with the Democrats in Congress and made this protest vote.

I'm sure some people were mad at Obama too, for not waving the magic wand they thought he had which would wipe out all their problems. But those people are hopeless idiots.but surely they would be able to understand that by increasing the deadlock in Washington they pretty much ensured that -nothing- would get done at all for the next three years.Very little got done anyway. Certainly not on health care.

That is politics in America, Eri. Many of our issues, today, have been from issues from 40 years ago, sometimes more, where something didn't get done, or gave out to much concessions on various issues, or other various reasons such as proactive legislation for the future. The funny thing about all that, for 6 years, Bush had a Republican majority in congress.

any of the legislative issues stems from the limits on the house of representatives. Two years for a term. As compared to the 6 years for a senator. Other issues would be no term limitations on congress members, at times you can make a career doing nothing except passing legislation recognizing some state(s) 50 year as a member of the United States and such, or arguing about abortion, a very popular discussion for the last 40 years in the long term, means nothing. Where as health care has been an issue for easily the last 40-50 years.

Also, other issues such as the Republican and Democrat stranglehold upon the political system in general. Very few moderates, not enough liberatrians(sp), very few socialists, and so on that could actually work together to pass legislation that can work, or will work in the future. They are just freaking out over a seat in congress, oh no, we might actually have to..... yell about it and scream at each other for a few more years, after having 3 years to get it passed.......

This is the part that gets me in the "socialist" name calling which is blatant McCarthism from the 1950's line of reasoning. Consider this, a government's primary objective is to care for the well being of it's citizens, with varying philosophies and methods to accomplish such. Otherwise it would not have much to govern, or would get steam rolled by another government and lose it's ability to govern as it chooses. Or get rolled by it's own citizens as well.

That is what gets me about the "socialist" debate on health care. Many citizens are under the impression the governing body should remove itself from the health care issue and let the private sector work this out. They do not realize the implications of such actions very well. Such as getting stuck with a job they hate simply for the insurance benefits. Other implications are and will be in things like their deductibles, they will keep rising and rising as employers cuts corners here and there working with insurance companies, slowly shifting the majority of the health care burden on the consumers themselves. Eventually, they will be paying for insurance that provides no real benefits. Let's be honest here, they health care reform is for insurance purposes, not actual health care.

In previous arguments on the subject of health care reform, I actually proposed an idea for a socialist system. Some socialized medicines are included in the US system. Elderly, physically and mentally disabled people, service members of the armed forces, congressmen, and such. In that idea I suggested removing the health care burden by a sizable amount from employers as well as consumers.

It might be a small increase in taxes, for some people, but, losing health insurance premiums would negate those for the most part. As well as deductibles, and you would save on things like car insurance with the injury portion of the policy. But, they never think of things like catastrophics deductibles that are what $25k or so now until they have a heart attack or get cancer, very expensive injuries, etc. The US is not a society of masochists at the moment, the only thing that matters is the moment and the opinion of the moment. We have become an instant gratification society.

Consider this, a government's primary objective is to care for the well being of it's citizens

Read this:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

any citizens are under the impression the governing body should remove itself from the health care issue and let the private sector work this out. They do not realize the implications of such actions very well. Such as getting stuck with a job they hate simply for the insurance benefits.
The US government subsidizes insurance plans employers buy their employees, but not insurance plans bought through other means (either non-employer based group plans or individual plans.) It wasn't the invisible hand that made it like this, it was Harry Truman's hand.

Some socialized medicines are included in the US system. Elderly, physically and mentally disabled people, service members of the armed forces, congressmen, and such.
There is no special government run health insurance program that congressmen have access to that private citizens don't. The only congressmen in a 'public option' are in medicare, but other congressmen, like most federal employees, are in private plans purchased by their employer; it just so happens their employer is the government.

It might be a small increase in taxes, for some people
O, I see. You're totally brain washed by the propaganda that comes out of left wing think tanks, thinking that there's something mystical about letting government run the program that saves massive amounts of money.

There is no credible person who can show that private for-profit/public cost differentials explain the cost gap between the US and everywhere else. Considering there are plenty of rich countries with high %'s of their population in private insurance, like Germany, Holland, and Switzerland with health costs far cheaper than ours, it shows that 'government' isn't the driving factor in lower costs.

That's because the primary factor that explains the cost difference between us and every other OECD nation -single payer or multiple payer- is this: Stricter price controls.

You see, we would have 2 options if we took your idea.

1) Expand medicare, keep medicare reimbursement rates on the same course, and have massive tax increases to pay for it.

2) Expand medicare, replace medicare reimbursement rates with Japanese reimbursement rates, and expand health care while saving money.

The US government subsidizes insurance plans employers buy their employees, but not insurance plans bought through other means (either non-employer based group plans or individual plans.)False.Considering there are plenty of rich countries with high %'s of their population in private insurance, like Germany, Holland, and Switzerland with health costs far cheaper than ours, it shows that 'government' isn't the driving factor in lower costs.Those insurers are heavily regulated, and in many cases prices are fixed by law and plans are government subsidized. So 'government' is the driving factor in lowering costs, even though technically the government doesn't own it.

Tudamorf, companies can use pre-tax dollars to buy health insurance for their employees, but can't use pre-tax dollars to buy and sell health insurance to non-employees, nor can individuals buy health insurance using pre-tax dollars.


----

Here's something I find funny. I wrote:

O, I see. You're totally brain washed by the propaganda that comes out of left wing think tanks, thinking that there's something mystical about letting government run the program that saves massive amounts of money.

There is no credible person who can show that private for-profit/public cost differentials explain the cost gap between the US and everywhere else. Considering there are plenty of rich countries with high %'s of their population in private insurance, like Germany, Holland, and Switzerland with health costs far cheaper than ours, it shows that 'government' isn't the driving factor in lower costs.

That's because the primary factor that explains the cost difference between us and every other OECD nation -single payer or multiple payer- is this: Stricter price controls.
You only quoted part of the 2nd paragraph: "Considering there are plenty of rich countries with high %'s of their population in private insurance, like Germany, Holland, and Switzerland with health costs far cheaper than ours, it shows that 'government' isn't the driving factor in lower costs."

And replied with a rehashing of something I said in my third paragraph (see bolding): "Those insurers are heavily regulated, and in many cases prices are fixed by law and plans are government subsidized. So 'government' is the driving factor in lowering costs, even though technically the government doesn't own it."

Try better, Tuda.

Also like the straw man argument you threw in there, "So 'government' is the driving factor in lowering cost." I never said it wasn't. I said: "You're totally brain washed by the propaganda that comes out of left wing think tanks, thinking that there's something mystical about letting government run the program that saves massive amounts of money."

Now, according to Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann, the cost differential between public and private for-profit insurance is 30%. Even if their number were correct (which medicare itself thinks is way too high), it doesn't even account for a fraction of the health care cost differences between the US and other OECD nations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by palamin
Consider this, a government's primary objective is to care for the well being of it's citizens


Read this:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html"

quote"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Right in the preamble of what the constitution is trying to establish, which would fall into line with the primary objective of government is the concerns for the general welfare of the people. Regardless of the philosophies to go about that, via the many methods of a governing body, whether ruthless dictator, monarchy, representative republics etc. Other than that I see many concessions in the legislative articles and their defined powers that would fit the delegated powers. No idea what you are meaning by that.

quote"O, I see. You're totally brain washed by the propaganda that comes out of left wing think tanks, thinking that there's something mystical about letting government run the program that saves massive amounts of money"

The department of defense in 2009 health care budget, services 2.3 million service members and their dependents which is around 6 million. This gives you 8.3 million served at a budget of $42billion costing $5060 per person. The estimates for health care spent on every American, which I will admit, I never can find the costs for private insurance in these numbers, or whether it includes the department of defense health care budget, Veteran Administration budgets, medicare/medicaid, Emtala and so on. That number was $1.74 trillion in 2003, with a 300 million population, at a cost of $5,800 dollars per person, as compared to the German at $2900 per person for health care. Whether or not that is strictly government only costs is up to debate as numbers like those are very flaky. Also, I am sure that number broke the two trillion range as well since then. There is savings to be had.

quote"1) Expand medicare, keep medicare reimbursement rates on the same course, and have massive tax increases to pay for it."

What massive tax increases? Ya, if you are married using one insurance program for your family you will see a tax increase in relation. The part I am trying to impress upon people that think OH MY God he wants to increase taxes someone stop him. Ya, after you realize instead of paying private health care through your employers, having deductibles, worrying about in network/out of network providers costs, after lowering your auto insurance through the injury plan. If you get cancer, well, you get to keep your possessions, I am such a prick.

The beauty part of it is, being able to leverage price controls to more acceptable levels, which means those reimbursement rates will not stay the same. All I am really doing is moving around money in different ways, like medicare prices, department of defense health care budgets, Emtala, workmen's compensation and such. After about 5 years those prices will have gone down significantly, to more German price levels per person.

quote"Stricter price controls"

This part I completely agree with whichever method is used. There is more ways to go about that issue than I am proposing. The private sector has been whining about less regulations. They got it and put the United States where it is today. Obviously there were many oversight issues from the executive branches as well as the legislative branches of the Federal, State, and local levels. There is a balance that can be maintained.

Tudamorf, companies can use pre-tax dollars to buy health insurance for their employees, but can't use pre-tax dollars to buy and sell health insurance to non-employees, nor can individuals buy health insurance using pre-tax dollars.Yes they can. The government has been subsidizing my individual plan for years. It's authorized under section 162(l)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code.