America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

More whits of wisdom from the GOP's next great hope, and quitter. Death panels, still?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html

While she clearly missed the mark, and is only towing the party line, with the Death Panels crap, the rest of that Op-Ed was fairly spot on. The absurdity of a government, who perfected the art of wasteful spending and inefficiency, telling us they are going to rid the health care system of wasteful spending and inefficiency is mind blowing. Unfortunately the good points in that Op-Ed will be largely ignored or rejected simply because of who wrote it.

 

[The Paragon of Virtue]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

While she clearly missed the mark, and is only towing the party line, with the Death Panels crap, the rest of that Op-Ed was fairly spot on.

"Except for the insanely stupid stuff, the rest was OK."

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Unfortunately the good points in that Op-Ed will be largely ignored or rejected simply because of who wrote it.

I doubt she wrote it. Too many big words, and I really doubt she's ever read anything from Cato. And no "you betcha".

However this, IMHO, highlights why the GOP has failed to discuss the issue responsibly:

As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.

These points should be articulated and refined by the GOP, rather than relying on people like Limbaugh, Palin, Gingrich, etc. to merely oppose whatever the Dems are discussing.

Considering Baucus plans to bring his plan to committee next week, I think Grassley et al. have really muffed a good chance to frame the debate.

 

[Kepler]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

I doubt she wrote it.

Is there an Understatement Award?

It's true that anything Palin scrawls her X on will be ignored, but she made that bed by being a dingbat, and the GOP made its bed by tying itself to a dingbat.

In any case, it's just boilerplate and you can pick it up under any GOP operative byline. Calling it "analysis" is like calling an autonomic reflex "carefully considered."

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

I doubt she wrote it. Too many big words, and I really doubt she's ever read anything from Cato. And no "you betcha".

HAAH HAAH HAAH HAAH HAAH HAAH dats FUNNEY because she'z so DUMM LolLOLOLOLOLZORZ

 

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

I doubt she wrote it. Too many big words, and I really doubt she's ever read anything from Cato. And no "you betcha".

Very True.

However this, IMHO, highlights why the GOP has failed to discuss the issue responsibly:




These points should be articulated and refined by the GOP, rather than relying on people like Limbaugh, Palin, Gingrich, etc. to merely oppose whatever the Dems are discussing.

Considering Baucus plans to bring his plan to committee next week, I think Grassley et al. have really muffed a good chance to frame the debate.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

I can always count on USCHO when I'm looking for liberals to tell conservatives how they need to act and think.

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

I can always count on USCHO when I'm looking for liberals to tell conservatives how they need to act and think.

What's the matter, little guy? Seeing your centerfold rightfully lambasted for being a dullard makes you mad? And if you think these comments sting, you should see the comments section on the WSJ.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

What's the matter, little guy? Seeing your centerfold rightfully lambasted for being a dullard makes you mad? And if you think these comments sting, you should see the comments section on the WSJ.

Sting? Mad? I'm laughing my backside off.

Ad hominems already, Scott? That's even funnier.

Let's put it this way, Scott. Would you have listened to me back in 2004 if I told liberals what THEY needed to do in order to become relevant again? I don't know why you would, so why should I give a rat's rear what you and your ilk think? The mere thought that you are just looking out for our best interest only adds to the laughter.

You're no Rover when it comes to accidentally resembling the effects of nitrous oxide, but you're OK at it.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Here's what bother me most: They aren't listening to their own budget watchdogs.

... Congressional Budget Office ... director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

They're working on a "fix" that isn't.

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Sting? Mad? I'm laughing my backside off.

Ad hominems already, Scott? That's even funnier.

Let's put it this way, Scott. Would you have listened to me back in 2004 if I told liberals what THEY needed to do in order to become relevant again? I don't know why you would, so why should I give a rat's rear what you and your ilk think? The mere thought that you are just looking out for our best interest only adds to the laughter.

You're no Rover when it comes to accidentally resembling the effects of nitrous oxide, but you're OK at it.

If you think I'm "liberal", whatever that means, you really haven't been paying attention. But whatever blows your skirt up ...

 

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Sting? Mad? I'm laughing my backside off.

Ad hominems already, Scott? That's even funnier.

Let's put it this way, Scott. Would you have listened to me back in 2004 if I told liberals what THEY needed to do in order to become relevant again? I don't know why you would, so why should I give a rat's rear what you and your ilk think? The mere thought that you are just looking out for our best interest only adds to the laughter.

You're no Rover when it comes to accidentally resembling the effects of nitrous oxide, but you're OK at it.

Just because the message came from a liberal (and the below post suggests otherwise), doesn't automatically make it wrong. I happen to think he is completely correct, as do many of my fellow conservative friends. Further, I feel that other then the occasional hot-button issue the GOP has been anything but conservative for a couple decades now. And there is no better evidence then the GOP's refusal to offer a conservative health care reform proposal to counter the Democrat's plan to look good politically but not actually do any reforms. Instead they act like little school children hoping for a chance to say "I told ya so" in 4 years by screaming "no, no, no, no, no" and plugging their ears to anything and everything that comes out of a Democrat's mouth.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

These points should be articulated and refined by the GOP, rather than relying on people like Limbaugh, Palin, Gingrich, etc. to merely oppose whatever the Dems are discussing.

Considering Baucus plans to bring his plan to committee next week, I think Grassley et al. have really muffed a good chance to frame the debate.

The GOP has authored 3 bills in congress. Unfortunately, they haven't gotten much coverage.

 

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Members of the GOP have authored 3 bills in congress that the full party has routinely refused to get behind. Unfortunately, they haven't gotten much coverage.

Fixed.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Just because the message came from a liberal (and the below post suggests otherwise), doesn't automatically make it wrong. I happen to think he is completely correct, as do many of my fellow conservative friends. Further, I feel that other then the occasional hot-button issue the GOP has been anything but conservative for a couple decades now. And there is no better evidence then the GOP's refusal to offer a conservative health care reform proposal to counter the Democrat's plan to look good politically but not actually do any reforms. Instead they act like little school children hoping for a chance to say "I told ya so" in 4 years by screaming "no, no, no, no, no" and plugging their ears to anything and everything that comes out of a Democrat's mouth.

Who said anything about the GOP? Focus.

 

[leswp1]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

While she clearly missed the mark, and is only towing the party line, with the Death Panels crap, the rest of that Op-Ed was fairly spot on. The absurdity of a government, who perfected the art of wasteful spending and inefficiency, telling us they are going to rid the health care system of wasteful spending and inefficiency is mind blowing. Unfortunately the good points in that Op-Ed will be largely ignored or rejected simply because of who wrote it.

Not that I think government is going to be able to work everything out but I love the dichotomy that this kind of statement presents. I love my country but I have no faith in the form of government it has, the people who are in the government (that people elected) and there is no solution to the crop of idiots.

If this is true- what is the point of the democracy other than it prevents a dictatorship?

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

If you think I'm "liberal", whatever that means, you really haven't been paying attention. But whatever blows your skirt up ...

How exactly is calling me "little" or a girl, funny, Scott?

I'm sorry, I won't call you liberal anymore. Do you prefer socialist or just ignorant?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

HAAH HAAH HAAH HAAH HAAH HAAH dats FUNNEY because she'z so DUMM LolLOLOLOLOLZORZ

I watched her press conferences and her campaign and came to the same conclusion. I find it hard to believe anyone with half a brain could conclude anything else.

 

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Not that I think government is going to be able to work everything out but I love the dichotomy that this kind of statement presents. I love my country but I have no faith in the form of government it has, the people who are in the government (that people elected) and there is no solution to the crop of idiots.

If this is true- what is the point of the democracy other than it prevents a dictatorship?

You're reading WAY more into that post then I actually said. The dichotomy is with liberals, who by definition are proponents of a big and inefficient government, claiming they can rid a sector of our lives of inefficiencies with a big and inefficient government program. And perhaps I could have worded my post better in that regard.

 

[Kepler]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

(1) liberals, who by definition are proponents of a big and inefficient government, (2) claiming they can rid a sector of our lives of inefficiencies with a big and inefficient government program.

(1) "By definition" is way too strong. Many things are more efficient the bigger you get. Economy of scale. Not too many one-off handmade TV sets around. In any case the goal of liberal policies is not to increase inefficiency. It isn't even necessarily to increase government -- many of us would like to see the corporate welfare state and the military-intelligence bureaucracy scaled back, for example.

(2) A more fair critique, although it conflates the proposed government program -- insurance -- with where the inefficiencies are -- health care provision. In truth (and this is a mistake both sides make in the rhetoric) the efficiencies being targeted by the administration are logically separate from the "controversial" aspects of the plan (increased coverage, inability to reject on the basis of pre-existing condition, preventing the loss of insurance with the loss of the job, etc).

But as a general statement, yeah we can probably live with the idea that government does increase "friction" in the system. Any kind of oversight or regulation does -- that in and of itself is not a reason to oppose oversight and regulation.