News As Obamacare goes into effect, new criticisms leveled

[Gokul43201]

But congressmen, not lobbyists, are responsible to the people for their votes.

In the modern era of electoral history, one could argue that Congresspersons are responsible to their lobbies to a significant extent (possibly even a greater extent than to which they feel responsible to their constituents), since money largely determines a campaign's ability to rally the electorate.

 

[Al68]

In the modern era of electoral history, one could argue that Congresspersons are responsible to their lobbies to a significant extent...

One could argue that a congressperson may "feel" responsible to lobbies, but they are not. They are responsible to the people via the constitution for their votes.

 

[nismaratwork]

One could argue that a congressperson may "feel" responsible to lobbies, but they are not. They are responsible to the people via the constitution for their votes.

The legislative evidence supports Gokul's assertion AFAIK. In theory you're right, but we live in practice...

 

[WhoWee]

I've read it. I'm sure at least a few others have. I don't think anyone argues that it covers all the issues, rather that it is a step in the right direction.

Further, why is it a joke? Your complaints are entirely general- specifically, what do you think this bill does wrong? "Its long" is not a reasonable complaint.

1. Is the focus on evidence based medicine a good idea? Will it reduce costs?
2. Should people with pre-existing treatments have some medical safety net? Should this safety net be a single-payer system, or a market system?

I have not read or heard a single argument against finding a way to cover pre-existing conditions - anywhere - have you?

 

[ParticleGrl]

So then, again, what specific problems do you have with the law?

 

[Al68]

The legislative evidence supports Gokul's assertion AFAIK. In theory you're right, but we live in practice...

You seem to have misread my post, again. My point was that congressmen are responsible to the people instead of lobbyists. I made no assertion about who had more influence.

 

[nismaratwork]

You seem to have misread my post, again. My point was that congressmen are responsible to the people instead of lobbyists. I made no assertion about who had more influence.

I'd argue that given the history of lobbying and legislation, while in principle you're right, in practice they are in fact responsible to their lobbies. It's not legal, but it is reality, and that's all I've ever been arguing about here.

 

[WhoWee]

So then, again, what specific problems do you have with the law?

I've posted an estimated 200 times in the discussion of healthcare legislation reform on a variety of PF threads. With this noted, my primary concern is the legislation does not address the current problems - instead - it overlays a new set of regulations on top of a failing system.

 

[Al68]

I'd argue that given the history of lobbying and legislation, while in principle you're right, in practice they are in fact responsible to their lobbies. It's not legal, but it is reality, and that's all I've ever been arguing about here.

It seems you're using a non-standard definition of "responsible". I have to assume you do not believe they are responsible to lobbyists instead of the people using the standard definition.

 

[nismaratwork]

It seems you're using a non-standard definition of "responsible". I have to assume you do not believe they are responsible to lobbyists instead of the people using the standard definition.

Correct, I'm talking about their practical interests and actions, not their legal and (if you believe in it) moral responsibilities to those who elected them. Of course, you could argue that the largest participents in elections are not people voting, but external factors such as money, which case their constinuancy truly isn't the people.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I've posted an estimated 200 times in the discussion of healthcare legislation reform on a variety of PF threads. With this noted, my primary concern is the legislation does not address the current problems - instead - it overlays a new set of regulations on top of a failing system.

Believe it or not, I've read every word of this thread. I don't have the time or inclination to revisit every thread on healthcare legislation.

Be specific- what current problems aren't being addressed by the law? I think most would agree that the single greatest current problem is the runaway growth in cost, which is largely at the hospital/treatment end of things. Using scientific methods to identify effective treatment is, in my mind, the best long term way to reduce cost. This is a big part of the law. Do you feel this isn't an effective way to address cost? What is it about this area of the law that you dislike?

The other major problem, most would agree, is the high percentage of uninsured. Luckily, much of the legislation is involved in expanding the number of insured by making it easier to get individual insurance. Of course, this only will work if the individual mandate to purchase is upheld by the courts. We will have to see. Do you feel this doesn't effectively address the problem? Is it too market driven? Would you prefer a sweeping expansion of medicade or medicare to cover these people?

Are there other problems you feel aren't being addressed by the law? What are they?

 

[Al68]

Correct, I'm talking about their practical interests and actions, not their legal and (if you believe in it) moral responsibilities to those who elected them.

Like I said, non-standard definition. The word "responsible" means the latter, not the former. It's an adjective, not a verb, and doesn't refer to any actions or interests of its subject.

The only way "responsible" is effectively a verb is as an adverb with a modifier, such as "acting responsibly" or "accepting responsibility", neither of which was used.

Man, I hate arguing semantics.

 

[nismaratwork]

Like I said, non-standard definition. The word "responsible" means the latter, not the former. It's an adjective, not a verb, and doesn't refer to any actions or interests of its subject.

The only way "responsible" is effectively a verb is as an adverb with a modifier, such as "acting responsibly" or "accepting responsibility", neither of which was used.

Man, I hate arguing semantics.

I made it pretty clear in this thread and elsewhere what my beliefs are... I'm not sure why you're surprised. I don't think it is semantics, I think it's a profoundly different view of the world.

 

[WhoWee]

Believe it or not, I've read every word of this thread. I don't have the time or inclination to revisit every thread on healthcare legislation.

Be specific- what current problems aren't being addressed by the law? I think most would agree that the single greatest current problem is the runaway growth in cost, which is largely at the hospital/treatment end of things. Using scientific methods to identify effective treatment is, in my mind, the best long term way to reduce cost. This is a big part of the law. Do you feel this isn't an effective way to address cost? What is it about this area of the law that you dislike?

The other major problem, most would agree, is the high percentage of uninsured. Luckily, much of the legislation is involved in expanding the number of insured by making it easier to get individual insurance. Of course, this only will work if the individual mandate to purchase is upheld by the courts. We will have to see. Do you feel this doesn't effectively address the problem? Is it too market driven? Would you prefer a sweeping expansion of medicade or medicare to cover these people?

Are there other problems you feel aren't being addressed by the law? What are they?

The individual mandate - enforced by the IRS - is a concern.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The individual mandate - enforced by the IRS - is a concern.

Why? be specific. Should people with pre-existing conditions be coverable by insurance? How is that possible without an individual mandate? How else would a mandate be enforced?

Is an individual mandate preferable to a sweeping overhall of medicare/medicaid? Either the public or private sectors have to pick these people up. What is the alternative?

 

[nismaratwork]

The individual mandate - enforced by the IRS - is a concern.

Not being trite, but how is it different from mandating car insurance? If this is a state's rights issue, there are ways to make this less than a mandate, and use funding as a cudgel instead. Nasty, but legal and common (drinking age for example).

 

[WhoWee]

Not being trite, but how is it different from mandating car insurance? If this is a state's rights issue, there are ways to make this less than a mandate, and use funding as a cudgel instead. Nasty, but legal and common (drinking age for example).

There are two points. First, you are not required to have a car or a drivers license. Second, you are required to purchase the insurance to protect other people and their property - not yours.

 

[WhoWee]

Why? be specific. Should people with pre-existing conditions be coverable by insurance? How is that possible without an individual mandate? How else would a mandate be enforced?

Is an individual mandate preferable to a sweeping overhall of medicare/medicaid? Either the public or private sectors have to pick these people up. What is the alternative?

There are 4 reasons people don't purchase individual health insurance currently:
1.) don't want it
2.) don't need it
3.) can't afford it
4.) can't have it - pre-existing

Next, other than the mandate, this legislation does not address all of the "gaps" in coverage. The most significant problem is long term care. Medicare does not cover nursing homes. Nursing home care is expensive, it consumes assets (houses) and places a major burden on Medicaid.

 

[nismaratwork]

There are two points. First, you are not required to have a car or a drivers license.

...and just like that, I feel like an idiot. You have a free "duh" to use on me anytime you wish.

Second, you are required to purchase the insurance to protect other people and their property - not yours.

Hmmm... all of that being true... is it still not possible to use federal funds as a goad to induce states to "volunteer"? Again, much like the drinking age and higheway funds. I'm not arguing the morality of it, just the legality.. would that have potential?

 

[ParticleGrl]

There are 4 reasons people don't purchase individual health insurance currently:
1.) don't want it
2.) don't need it
3.) can't afford it
4.) can't have it - pre-existing

Next, other than the mandate, this legislation does not address all of the "gaps" in coverage.

I've never in my life met a "don't want it", and further "don't need it" is naive and irrational. An accident can wrack up millions of dollars of medical fees. I think we can agree that these two groups are at most a trivial percentage of the uninsured.

Three and four are certainly the largest group of uninsured. The bill certainly covers 4, you agree? Now, how well it covers 3 is a matter of debate- but certainly the hope is that as more people are required to enroll, everyone's premium will go down.

The most significant problem is long term care.

The CLASS section of the health care bill does address long term care. Do you have a problem with the voluntary long-term-care insurance type solution?

I'm still not hearing actual, specific complaints from you. You have a vague issue with the individual mandate but you haven't outlined why. Even in this post- you say that the insurance doesn't address gaps in coverage, without outlining why you think that.

 

[WhoWee]

I've never in my life met a "don't want it", and further "don't need it" is naive and irrational. An accident can wrack up millions of dollars of medical fees. I think we can agree that these two groups are at most a trivial percentage of the uninsured.

Three and four are certainly the largest group of uninsured. The bill certainly covers 4, you agree? Now, how well it covers 3 is a matter of debate- but certainly the hope is that as more people are required to enroll, everyone's premium will go down.



The CLASS section of the health care bill does address long term care. Do you have a problem with the voluntary long-term-care insurance type solution?

I'm still not hearing actual, specific complaints from you. You have a vague issue with the individual mandate but you haven't outlined why. Even in this post- you say that the insurance doesn't address gaps in coverage, without outlining why you think that.

The don't want it types might have an accident plan. The group would include world travelers and people who live in very remote areas. Wealthy people might also fit into this group or might opt for a high deductible - maybe $25,000 or more?

Wealthy people might also fit into the don't need it group along with military personell, employer and small groups, association groups, retiree groups, etc. These are some of the people who might be forced into individual policies if the mandate survives the courts.

As a business owner, I can asssure you companies will compare the cost of the penalty to the increased costs of the policies due to the new coverage mandates.

 

[Al68]

I made it pretty clear in this thread and elsewhere what my beliefs are... I'm not sure why you're surprised. I don't think it is semantics, I think it's a profoundly different view of the world.

In this case, it's both. We have a profoundly different view of the world, and you interpreted my post very different from its intended meaning.

But this seems to be very common. As I pointed out in another thread, it's somewhat similar to a language barrier, where the errors in translation are unrecognized, leading to the result that what is heard is very different from what is said.

Regardless, I was not using the word "responsible" to refer to any action, interest, or belief of congressmen.

 

[nismaratwork]

In this case, it's both. We have a profoundly different view of the world, and you interpreted my post very different from its intended meaning.

But this seems to be very common. As I pointed out in another thread, it's somewhat similar to a language barrier, where the errors in translation are unrecognized, leading to the result that what is heard is very different from what is said.

Regardless, I was not using the word "responsible" to refer to any action, interest, or belief of congressmen.

Well, the important thing is that we manage to stick with these things until clarity is achieved, and in the future we don't need to retread this.

 

[Al68]

I've never in my life met a "don't want it", and further "don't need it" is naive and irrational.

While very few people would not want or need any medical insurance, you can put me, and many people I know, into the "don't want it and don't need it" category for the type of health plan required by Obamacare to avoid the penalty.

It's just plain wrong to refer to an unwillingness to buy an "Obamacare approved health care plan" as if it were equivalent to an unwillingness to buy medical insurance in general.

Especially when the new law prohibits every kind of medical insurance I have ever had any interest in buying. They can't outlaw something then blame me for not having it, when their "substitute plan" is very different, and very much more expensive.

And yes, if I have an accident without insurance it is the fault of Obamacare for outlawing the type of medical insurance that I do want and need: the cheap kind that covers major unexpected medical bills only.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The don't want it types might have an accident plan. The group would include world travelers and people who live in very remote areas. Wealthy people might also fit into this group or might opt for a high deductible - maybe $25,000 or more?

Wealthy people might also fit into the don't need it group along with military personell, employer and small groups, association groups, retiree groups, etc. These are some of the people who might be forced into individual policies if the mandate survives the courts.

Travelers aren't subject to the mandate anyway. Also, its worth noting, the vast majority of people are covered by plans through their employers, and won't fall under the individual mandate. Niether will military personel, who are still covered, etc.

So far- the only specific complaint you have against the health care legislation is that wealthy people with high deductible plans might have to spend slightly more to purchase lower deductible plans, depending on the specifics of their current plan.

Also, I'd be surprised if the mandate didn't survive the courts. There is precedent-the US has already had a federal health insurance mandate in the past- some of the framers of the constitution enacted it: http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2...dicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

 

[WhoWee]

Travelers aren't subject to the mandate anyway. Also, its worth noting, the vast majority of people are covered by plans through their employers, and won't fall under the individual mandate. Niether will military personel, who are still covered, etc.

So far- the only specific complaint you have against the health care legislation is that wealthy people with high deductible plans might have to spend slightly more to purchase lower deductible plans, depending on the specifics of their current plan.

Also, I'd be surprised if the mandate didn't survive the courts. There is precedent-the US has already had a federal health insurance mandate in the past- some of the framers of the constitution enacted it: http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2...dicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

Please explain why a corporation will choose to pay a premium that costs more than a penalty? Also, have you noticed that hundreds of companies have requested special treatment already?
By the way please support your assertion that travelers aren't subject to the mandate anyway - please clarify. As for "wealthy" people who want a high deductible plan - this is what is known as "insurance" - protection against a catastrophic loss. To eliminate the truest form of the product from the table is incorrect. Further, pre-Obama, the fastest growing type of plan was the health savings account (there are several varieties). Basically a combination tax, insurance, and savings product that lowered premiums, expanded care (mostly PPO), increased the savings rate and allowed the funds to roll over. This plan helped people save and kept money in local banks. An average person might start with a $5,000 deductible and build to a $15,000 or $25,000 deductible if healthy. Whatever the strategy, adults should be free to have choices.

 

[Vanadium 50]

and further "don't need it" is naive and irrational.

You have touched on a key question of political philosophy, one that has been debated for at least two thousand years: "In a free society, are people allowed to make decisions that the government feels are irrational or unwise? If so, what responsibility does this government have to protect these people from the consequences of these actions?"

Note that people make irrational decisions all the time: "I'd like to date this person and not that person". "I'd like to be a baker, even though there is more money in being a plumber." "I'd rather have the flashy sports car than the sensible minivan". And even "I'll take the green one."

 

[WhoWee]

The CLASS section of the health care bill does address long term care. Do you have a problem with the voluntary long-term-care insurance type solution?

I want to address this separately. You've waded into the deep water of healthcare and to say it's "addressed" is comparable to stating that space travel is "addressed" - accurate - but not "correct".
-------
First a little background:
http://assets.aarp.org/external_sites/caregiving/options/nursing_home_costs.html

"What it Costs
Brace yourself. Most people already know nursing home care can be expensive. Although the average cost is more than $50,000 a year and climbing, it can vary widely depending on where you live. Employee health insurance does not pay for nursing home care. About a third of nursing home residents pay all of their nursing home costs from their own funds. Extended nursing home care can eat up your or your loved one's savings quickly—many people exhaust their finances after just six months. A fraction of them—about 5 percent—buys long-term care insurance, which covers the cost of a nursing home or other extended care. Medicare, the federal health insurance program for older persons and some younger ones with disabilities, pays for short-term nursing home stays."
-----
Please note - the average for newer and more modern facilities is approaching $70,000 per year.

Now stats (albeit dated) a must read:
http://www.efmoody.com/longterm/nursingstatistics.html
"Consumer Reports recommends that if you can set aside about $160,000 (or enough to cover four years of care), you may not need long-term care insurance. Frankly, I don't think that is much different than stating that if you got $250,000 (or whatever), you don't need to buy fire insurance for your house. Or if you got $1,000,000, don't bother with liability insurance.

Insurance is a dirty word with many people but it simply is a way of playing the odds and spreading them over a very large group. You do NOT want to commit large sums. You want to commit small sums where you may never get a return of premiums because the problems (loss, sickness, accident, etc) never befall you. And another gem from Consumer's Union. "If you buy a policy early, you may want to make sure that it contains a non-forfeiture clause. Under most policies, if you let your coverage lapse, you get nothing for all the premiums you've paid in the past." True, but it may cost you 15%+ more. And I'll state the obvious once again. You don't get anything back if your house does not burn down. I have not had an auto accident in over 30 years. I ain't getting any of my premiums back. That's O.K.- I didn't want an accident in the first place. Consumer Reports seems to have forgotten what insurance is and how it is supposed to work- long term care or otherwise

NURSING HOME COSTS: (1998) The cost of nursing home care rose an average of 9.7% a year between 1985 and 1994. Average length of long term care nationally is about 2 years.

NURSING HOME COSTS: 2000 (Pete Peterson) Per capita nursing home spending on the frail elderly aged eighty-five and over is OVER TWENTY TIMES HIGHER than spending on the young elderly, aged sixty-five to sixty-nine. Second, the number of these frail elderly is expected to triple or quadruple as America ages. We have no choice but to close loopholes that allow seniors to qualify for Medicaid through subterfuge--for instance, by transferring assets to their children.

NURSING HOME PATIENTS: (2000) About 2/3rd's of people in nursing homes have no living relatives. And about 70% of all nursing home patients are women."
---
Please note the hourly wage component when this was written stated "Nurses aids average wage is $6.65 per hour".
----
Next, is the program CLASS - community living assistance services and support.
You said "The CLASS section of the health care bill does address long term care. Do you have a problem with the voluntary long-term-care insurance type solution?

I'm still not hearing actual, specific complaints from you. You have a vague issue with the individual mandate but you haven't outlined why. Even in this post- you say that the insurance doesn't address gaps in coverage, without outlining why you think that. "
--
http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/a-new-long-term-care-insurance-program/
"The Class Act, a legacy of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat whose widow and son were present to see the president sign it into law, sets up a voluntary government-run long-term care insurance program available through employers. Those who participate will pay monthly premiums. After five years, they’ll be covered and can receive benefits if they need care — whether they are 20-somethings in snowboard accidents or 80-somethings with Parkinson’s disease.


The program is not designed to pay the entire cost of long-term care, which can reach horrifying levels, but it will provide substantial help. And because participants will receive cash — $50 a day or more, depending on how disabled they are — they can buy the kind of assistance that makes sense to them. One person may choose to retrofit his home so he can remain there; another may hire a home care aide or a family member who wants to help but can’t afford to forgo income. People can use their Class benefits for assistive devices, adult day programs, assisted living or nursing homes."
---
When I said there were "gaps" and cited Long Term Care - this program was taken into consideration. Some states have premium matching programs for LTC insurance, etc.

I'm involved with these issues on a daily basis. While CLASS and other programs "address" some issues - there are still plenty of "gaps" to fill.

 

[nismaratwork]

You have touched on a key question of political philosophy, one that has been debated for at least two thousand years: "In a free society, are people allowed to make decisions that the government feels are irrational or unwise? If so, what responsibility does this government have to protect these people from the consequences of these actions?"

Note that people make irrational decisions all the time: "I'd like to date this person and not that person". "I'd like to be a baker, even though there is more money in being a plumber." "I'd rather have the flashy sports car than the sensible minivan". And even "I'll take the green one."

This is where her call for scientific examination of these issues makes so much sense, "evidence-based medicine", to quote. The idea is to render the opinions of individuals AND the government moot in the face of evidence... in practice...

*lights a Gauloises... absurdly deep inhale* "Ahhh... Life..."

 

[WhoWee]

This is where her call for scientific examination of these issues makes so much sense, "evidence-based medicine", to quote. The idea is to render the opinions of individuals AND the government moot in the face of evidence... in practice...

*lights a Gauloises... absurdly deep inhale* "Ahhh... Life..."

Can we agree medicine and insurance make strange bedfellows?

IMO - the doctors should have more input. We especially need to listen to them when they complain of the high cost of malpractice claims/insurance and the need to practice defensive medicine - none of this is a productive use of resources. Unfortunately, the Government does not make "efficiency" a priority - does it?

 

[nismaratwork]

Can we agree medicine and insurance make strange bedfellows?

IMO - the doctors should have more input. We especially need to listen to them when they complain of the high cost of malpractice claims/insurance and the need to practice defensive medicine - none of this is a productive use of resources. Unfortunately, the Government does not make "efficiency" a priority - does it?

Yes we can, and yes we do, and I even agree with your last point.

Over time any sufficiently large body becomes bogged down in its own bureaucracy, but a government's is by definition, not subject to any authority except its own, or a massive mandate from voters that is sustained.

 

[Al68]

This is where her call for scientific examination of these issues makes so much sense, "evidence-based medicine", to quote. The idea is to render the opinions of individuals AND the government moot in the face of evidence... in practice...

Vanadium 50 was referring to the private decisions, not opinions, of individuals. The point was that individuals in a free society are free to make bad decisions. And especially decisions that are considered bad by government.

 

[nismaratwork]

Vanadium 50 was referring to the private decisions, not opinions, of individuals. The point was that individuals in a free society are free to make bad decisions. And especially decisions that are considered bad by government.

We don't live in a society that free.

 

[Al68]

We don't live in a society that free.

I agree 100%. But this thread, and politics in general, is about what government should or shouldn't do, not simply to state what it currently does and doesn't do.

And even if laws were completely "evidence-based", free from politics, that might make my opinion moot, but it won't make my private decisions moot. And it wouldn't make it moot whether or not government uses force to restrict individual liberty.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree 100%. But this thread, and politics in general, is about what government should or shouldn't do, not simply to state what it currently does and doesn't do.

And even if laws were completely "evidence-based", free from politics, that might make my opinion moot, but it won't make my private decisions moot. And it wouldn't make it moot whether or not government uses force to restrict individual liberty.

I believe that a discussion of politics isn't a discussion of what we personally wish for, unless that's the topic of the discussion. Anything less is ideology taking over your argument.

 

[Al68]

I believe that a discussion of politics isn't a discussion of what we personally wish for, unless that's the topic of the discussion.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Politics is about what government should and shouldn't do. If you're referring to me using myself as an example, it was just for convenience. This is about the freedom of a nation, not just me.

Anything less is ideology taking over your argument.

Not sure what you mean by that, but you can't advocate the use of force to change, better, or control society, then accuse opponents of being too ideological because they oppose it.

Any political position has its root in ideology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Political_ideologies", but it seems self-evident to me that those who advocate using force to control others are far more ideologically driven than those who don't.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Politics is about what government should and shouldn't do. If you're referring to me using myself as an example, it was just for convenience. This is about the freedom of a nation, not just me.Not sure what you mean by that, but you can't advocate the use of force to change, better, or control society, then accuse opponents of being too ideological because they oppose it.

Sure I can, it even has a name: Realpolitik http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

Any political position has its root in ideology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Political_ideologies", but it seems self-evident to me that those who advocate using force to control others are far more ideologically driven than those who don't.

True, but some cling to it and others try to be free of it, while most just struggle in the grey areas. I try to be as grey as possible, not on any given issue, but as a statistical spread. It helps to be a moral relativist, and not believe in absolutes, yet also not being nihilistic.

 

[Al68]

Sure I can, it even has a name: Realpolitik http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

Authoritarian pragmatism is an ideology by definition. "The ends justify the means" is an especially notable ideology. Moral relativism is an ideology.

How about if I just deny that libertarianism is an ideology? Can I then just say that I don't have an ideology? Can I then say my opposition to authoritarianism is non-ideological?

 

[nismaratwork]

Authoritarian pragmatism is an ideology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Political_ideologies". "The ends justify the means" is an especially notable ideology. Moral relativism is an ideology.

How about if I just deny that libertarianism is an ideology? Can I then just say that I don't have an ideology? Can I then say my opposition to authoritarianism is non-ideological?

I suppose you could, but am I ALWAYS morally relative? No, I try to be. Am I always pragmatic? No.

As I was trying to point out with the "grey" comment, there is a difference between what you take from ideologies, and being an ideologue.

I would argue that Libertarianism in the sense that it's used today is nihilism with a touch of arch-conservatism... in other words, a pastiche of dung. I don't think it IS a cohesive ideology, just a general sense of oppositon with semantic shielding.

 

[Al68]

I would argue that Libertarianism in the sense that it's used today is nihilism with a touch of arch-conservatism... in other words, a pastiche of dung. I don't think it IS a cohesive ideology, just a general sense of oppositon with semantic shielding.

That makes no logical sense whatsoever. Is this "opposite day"?

 

[nismaratwork]

That makes no logical sense whatsoever. Is this "opposite day"?

I think our world-views, while not mutually hostile, are utterly incompatible. So... in a way... yes.

 

[WhoWee]

There's more (apparently): my bold
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BachmannBlastsHidden105BObamacareTab/2011/03/08/id/388679

"Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., says she is willing to see the government shut down unless a $105 billion appropriation the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress hid in Obamacare is returned and the GOP House leadership will meet Tuesday afternoon to consider its next step. Her comments came on the heels of her making the funding-deception revelation in an exclusive Newsmax interview.

Bachmann said members of Congress didn’t know the money to implement Obamacare was in the healthcare legislation until a Congressional Research Service report came out in February, because they couldn’t read the bill before they voted and it passed.

“This is an enormous sum of money – this was tucked away inside the Obamacare bill,” Bachmann Monday said on Fox News. “People say: ‘Well, what’s wrong with you members of Congress, why didn’t you know it’s there?’ It’s because we didn’t get the bill until literally a couple of hours before we were supposed to vote on it, and it’s 2,900 pages long.

“What they did is they took the bill – this amount of money – split it up and put it in different sections of the bill,” she said. “Nobody knew until February when it [the report] came out. We had an eagle eye from the Heritage Foundation, Ernest Istook, a former [Oklahoma] member of Congress, found this in this report – he wrote a few blog posts. One of my colleagues, [Rep.} Steve King from Iowa, also found out about this, and we’ve been trying to do everything we can to alert people and say: Give the money back!”

Bachmann said she thinks the deception was intentional. "

 

[nismaratwork]

Didn't you just post this?... She's still an idiot, and she's still about as trustworthy and accurate (check her truth-o-meters online if you like) as a crocodile on a bad day.

 

[WhoWee]

Ruffled feathers over the recent report?


http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=ec1aeae8-7220-4b00-9128-1f3ab6f25105

"Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) today sent a letter to McKinsey Consulting Company Managing Director Dominic Barton, calling on the company to release the methodology behind a health care survey it published in early June."

 

[CAC1001]

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/jul/05/states-rights-advocate-upholds-obamacare/"

 

[WhoWee]

This column appears on the State of Ohio Department of Insurance website:

http://www.insurance.ohio.gov/Newsroom/Pages/09282011ObamacareImpact.aspx

"Earlier this year, as the Director of the Ohio Department of Insurance, I hired an independent consultant, Milliman, Inc., to review the requirements and mandates of Obamacare to determine its impact for Ohioans. They spent several months researching Ohio’s insurance market and laws to assess what our state will look like in 2014 and beyond.

The bottom line – health insurance premiums for individuals in Ohio will increase anywhere from 55 to 85 percent on average (not including current medical trends that are averaging 7 to 8 percent nationwide). Moreover, some Ohioans – depending on their current health status – may see their premiums increase by as much as 90 to 130 percent. These historic spikes in cost will hurt consumers at a time when health insurance is already going up."

 

[WhoWee]

A little memory lane tidbit - Herman Cain vs Bill Clinto in 1994 regarding healthcare costs.