The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[leswp1]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

No, I totally agree with your last sentence.

But at the same time, he's the President for goodness sakes. If it didn't resemble what it was supposed to look like, he wasn't exactly powerless to do anything about it.

I am not in love with his leadership style for sure but I honestly thing JC himself couldn't have passed anything reasonable. The era of statesmanship and reasonable gov't is in hiatus right now.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The gov't, not Obama is defending it. I didn't mean he had no responsibility for it, only it doesn't resemble what it was supposed to look like. I view it more as something the Hill (both sides) totally messed up, whined about and then got passed as the only option other than nothing.

Well, Obama certainly has defended it in the court of public opinion. Still, the actual framework of the law is certainly more of Pelosi's handiwork than it is Obama's.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

As I said, I really don't know the legality of it. If I recall no matter how they were trying to fund it the opposition had the high pitched whine going. Don't think there is a way to win on the funding thing. People want the service (whether it is education, medical care, roads to drive on, etc) but don't think they need to pay for it any way that is suggested. Some of the more reasonable options had the people with the most money to throw into lobbying against it.

I am not in love with his leadership style for sure but I honestly thing JC himself couldn't have passed anything reasonable. The era of statesmanship and reasonable gov't is in hiatus right now.

I just don't see, "But being President is hard!" as a compelling argument. Of course it's hard. Of course it's partisan. This is hardly a development that began January 2009 (more like 1789).

You asked if there were other alternatives available. There were. President Obama chose, probably partly for political reasons, partly because he thought it was the best policy, this one. Now he's dealing with the consequences. Tough.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I just don't see, "But being President is hard!" as a compelling argument. Of course it's hard. Of course it's partisan. This is hardly a development that began January 2009 (more like 1789).

You asked if there were other alternatives available. There were. President Obama chose, probably partly for political reasons, partly because he thought it was the best policy, this one. Now he's dealing with the consequences. Tough.

Again, not defending him in particular. I just don't see anyone being able to develop a consensus at this point. Power is more important than solving a problem and working together. Anytime one group declares their intention to kill anything the other side proposes just because it is proposed by the other side you aren't going to have rational governance. It doesn't matter which side you believe is right. We have not elected people to the Hill who are rational or pragmatic when they vote or debate. It is more like you have 2 siblings yelling "is not!", "is to!"

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Still, the actual framework of the law is certainly more of Pelosi's handiwork than it is Obama's.

Probably by design; then BHO can complain that Congress passed a bad law, it wasn't his doing! And if it is found unconstitutional, I can guarantee that BHO will put that forward as a reason to re-elect him: so that this time he can "get it right."

 

[duper]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Again, not defending him in particular. I just don't see anyone being able to develop a consensus at this point. Power is more important than solving a problem and working together. Anytime one group declares their intention to kill anything the other side proposes just because it is proposed by the other side you aren't going to have rational governance. It doesn't matter which side you believe is right. We have not elected people to the Hill who are rational or pragmatic when they vote or debate. It is more like you have 2 siblings yelling "is not!", "is to!"

You're missing the point. Everything Obama wants should be totally blocked by his opposition, then he should be blamed completely for the result! Remember, this is politics in 2012, if you're not with us you're against us. I can't believe that you would have the gall to try to see things from the point of view of a politician that you don't especially support! /sarcasm

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

You're missing the point. Everything Obama wants should be totally blocked by his opposition, then he should be blamed completely for the result! Remember, this is politics in 2012, if you're not with us you're against us. I can't believe that you would have the gall to try to see things from the point of view of a politician that you don't especially support! /sarcasm

Sorry. Fatal brain flaw of actually looking at the issue and trying to see all sides (sometimes unsuccessfully) instead of baaing like a sheep

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

You're missing the point. Everything Obama wants should be totally blocked by his opposition, then he should be blamed completely for the result! Remember, this is politics in 2012, if you're not with us you're against us. I can't believe that you would have the gall to try to see things from the point of view of a politician that you don't especially support! /sarcasm

Yes. Exactly my argument. Exactly.

Seriously, who in the world was that directed at?

Sorry. Fatal brain flaw of actually looking at the issue and trying to see all sides (sometimes unsuccessfully) instead of baaing like a sheep

Please. Who on this thread was baaing like a sheep? You asked what other options they had besides this specific mechanism. I listed some.

I agree that it was tough to develop a consensus. In fact, that's kind of my point. If Obama knew he wasn't going to get support, why not grow a set and go for the gutsy option for funding, like a "sweet drinks" tax or a "millionaire's" tax? Or hell, even single payer. Instead, he took the comparatively easy way out, and now he's in this constitutional pickle.

Likewise with the stimulus. He wasn't getting the votes anyways, why not go for the Krugman wet dream package (bigger, less tax cuts, etc.) rather than the bucket of spit he settled on?

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Yes. Exactly my argument. Exactly.

Seriously, who in the world was that directed at?



Please. Who on this thread was baaing like a sheep? You asked what other options they had besides this specific mechanism. I listed some.

I agree that it was tough to develop a consensus. In fact, that's kind of my point. If Obama knew he wasn't going to get support, why not grow a set and go for the gutsy option for funding, like a "sweet drinks" tax or a "millionaire's" tax? Or hell, even single payer. Instead, he took the comparatively easy way out, and now he's in this constitutional pickle.

Likewise with the stimulus. He wasn't getting the votes anyways, why not go for the Krugman wet dream package (bigger, less tax cuts, etc.) rather than the bucket of spit he settled on?

This was in response to duper as a humorous thing. This thread is great. More in commentary to some of the other threads where people post stuff that declares something right or wrong. I actually am curous what other people think. On occasion I have changed my mind when someone has presented an opinion. Other times I may not agree but at least I understand why they think the way they do.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Probably by design; then BHO can complain that Congress passed a bad law, it wasn't his doing! And if it is found unconstitutional, I can guarantee that BHO will put that forward as a reason to re-elect him: so that this time he can "get it right."

Not with the current idiots in Congre$$ he can't.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

This thread is great. More in commentary to some of the other threads where people post stuff that declares something right or wrong. I actually am curous what other people think. On occasion I have changed my mind when someone has presented an opinion. Other times I may not agree but at least I understand why they think the way they do.

one of the reasons I am really suspicious of centralized "command and control" solutions is because all people are fallible. We have limited capabilities as part of the human condition. Often it requires more than one point of view to see the whole picture, and it is just not possible for one person -- nor a group of like-minded people -- to do this.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

one of the reasons I am really suspicious of centralized "command and control" solutions is because all people are fallible. We have limited capabilities as part of the human condition. Often it requires more than one point of view to see the whole picture, and it is just not possible for one person -- nor a group of like-minded people -- to do this.

That's the reason government solutions are often better than private sector schemes. A democratically elected body has more perspectives than a handful of homogenous board members.

I'll see your Economic Calculation Problem and raise you a Participatory Diagnostic Theorem.

BTW, nobody wants a Stalinist Command and Control system. As useful a straw man as that is in Hayekian circles, it's still just a straw man.

The world's complicated. Ideological cliches don't cut it.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

That's the reason government solutions are often better than private sector schemes. A democratically elected body has more perspectives than a handful of homogenous board members.

Does this mean you're saying that a solution that originates within our government must be implemented by the government as well? I'd prefer collaboration between government and business (if it makes sense) as opposed to another inefficient government program.

It is also a pretty broad brush you're using to paint all private sector leaders as "homogenous"; in addition, to assume that any given group of elected politicians can automatically understand and legislate within the intracacies of complex economic sectors is presumptuous at best.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Does this mean you're saying that a solution that originates within our government must be implemented by the government as well? I'd prefer collaboration between government and business (if it makes sense) as opposed to another inefficient government program.

It is also a pretty broad brush you're using to paint all private sector leaders as "homogenous"; in addition, to assume that any given group of elected politicians can automatically understand and legislate within the intracacies of complex economic sectors is presumptuous at best.

Social Security runs at 2% overhead. Try doing that in the private sector.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Social Security runs at 2% overhead. Try doing that in the private sector.

Name an organization in the private sector whose only function is to mail out checks.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

A democratically elected body has more perspectives than a handful of homogenous board members.

.... BTW, nobody wants a Stalinist Command and Control system.

Are you really that unversed in the actual workings of PPACA? Decisions are centralized in HHS panels whose appointees are not even subject to Congressional review and approval.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Social Security runs at 2% overhead. Try doing that in the private sector.

There are numerous private investment funds that operate at less than 0.50%; some less than 0.10%. They've tried. And succeeded.

 

[Plante26]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Are you really that unversed in the actual workings of PPACA? Decisions are centralized in HHS panels whose appointees are not even subject to Congressional review and approval.

Don't forget that the legislation puts caps on insurance rate hikes while forcing insurers to accept pre-existing conditions and cover certain procedures without exception.

Try to do the job of an insurance actuary with these stipulations. It is virtually impossible. Thus my belief that this bill is specifically intended to bring about single payer or universal health care. There are already numerous companies pulling out of the individual insurance marketplace.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

There are numerous private investment funds that operate at less than 0.50%; some less than 0.10%. They've tried. And succeeded.

Sure. Private Sector does everything better. Time to farm out the military.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Don't forget that the legislation puts caps on insurance rate hikes while forcing insurers to accept pre-existing conditions and cover certain procedures without exception.

Try to do the job of an insurance actuary with these stipulations. It is virtually impossible. Thus my belief that this bill is specifically intended to bring about single payer or universal health care. There are already numerous companies pulling out of the individual insurance marketplace.

For the insurance company to survive they need to make a profit. To make a profit they need to dump the hard luck cases. Then the hard luck cases have no insurance. Then we all get burdened with higher medical costs after we treat the hard luck cases. Then the insurance rates go up. And the circle continues.

So, you have two choices.

1. Start denying care. (private method)
2. Eliminate the need for medical insurance. (public method)

Take your pick.