GOP Reality Show

[Valles]

I stand by what I said before. Essentially, the closer someone's beliefs are to your own, the more centrist they are.

It's always the other guy whose policies will destroy the economy too.

-Morgan.

True! That said, Obama's noticeably right of where I'd hope to see things - I'd vote Green if the US's election system didn't make that effectively a vote for theocracy, military aggression, and de facto aristocracy.
===========

===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."

[Bob Schroeck]

I stand by what I said before. Essentially, the closer someone's beliefs are to your own, the more centrist they are.

It's always the other guy whose policies will destroy the economy too.

As the old joke goes, there are two parties:  the evil ones and the incompetents.  Which one is which depends on which one you support.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ordnance11]

I stand by what I said before. Essentially, the closer someone's beliefs are to your own, the more centrist they are.

It's always the other guy whose policies will destroy the economy too.

As the old joke goes, there are two parties:  the evil ones and the incompetents.  Which one is which depends on which one you support.

Come to Montgomery Alabama. the majority party is neither evil or incompetent. It's both!
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[khagler]

The version I've seen goes like this:

We have two parties here, and only two. One is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party. I’m very proud to be a member of the stupid party. Occasionally, the two parties get together to do something that’s both evil and stupid. That’s called bipartisanship.

I've seen this attributed to various people, but always Republicans.

Not having a personal stake in pretending there are two parties, I prefer this one from libertarian writer Joel Simon:

Left wing - right wing: Same stinking carrion bird in between.

[Glidergun]

universal government-funded healthcare (not the user-pay system your folks just introduced)

In what way are these different?

Economies of scale, price negotiation and payment, parallel standards.

[ECSNorway]

universal government-funded healthcare (not the user-pay system your folks just introduced)

In what way are these different?

Economies of scale, price negotiation and payment, parallel standards.

So instead of competition for willing customers, you have a monopoly backed by the threat of force, funded by the ability to loot the taxpayers' pockets at will.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Valles]

Instead of a system deliberately designed to give the least result for the most money (in order to produce profit for the small subset of the population who are shareholders), we could have a system actually designed to efficiently provide care for the sick (in order to produce 'profit' in the form of good health for the entire population who are 'shareholders' of the government. The result - lowered personal and systematic expenditures on health care for no loss or even an increase in effectiveness - is not a theory, an illusion, or a pie-in-the-sky fantasy, but a proven and accomplished fact wherever it's been tried.

More, no one, not one single person I've ever met or heard of[/i], has suggested outlawing people from seeking private care if they so choose.

Given the demonstrated effectiveness and affordability of single-payer health care systems in the real world, trying to argue for the supposed 'virtues' of private health care is a symptom of either ignorance (from someone who doesn't know how public health care has, in fact, worked in every other properly civilized country in the world), insanity (from someone who has started with an ideological conviction and determined to throw out the evidence that would otherwise disprove it), or evil (from someone who is prepared to pay more for their health care for the sake of increasing the suffering and risks of others).
===========

===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."

[Dartz]

It also means the insurance industry actually has to work for their money.... because there is a viable alternative to being insured, insurance providers have to make insurance a worthwhile investment. There's even a state-owned insurance provider which was fora long time the only insurance provider. Prior to the 90's the market was just too small for anyone to take the risk so it had to be.

Never mind that, the average Irish taxpayer - even one paying for health insurance - pays less in total of healthcare than the average US taxpayer. And receives a much better service. There're a few things that aren't available... but only because the population is so small that they'd lie idle or unused for years before being required.

Ultimately, however, I hate Insurance companies. Ultimately, they have an incentive to not pay out on claims. While purchasing health insurance is effectively mandatory unless you like being bankrupted by a broken arm.

At least I like my healthcare to be accountable to the government.... because as a taxpayer I can call the government to account.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[ECSNorway]

Given the demonstrated effectiveness and affordability of single-payer health care systems in the real world,

I am quite honestly shocked that anyone can say that with a straight face. Every time I've looked for evidence supporting these kind of allegations, I find stories of Canadians coming to the US for treatment because they can't get it at home or have to wait ridiculous amounts of time; I find stories of Britons who wait months on end for what should be basic outpatient procedures, and an ever-increasing percentage of patients who simply -die- because the waiting list for treatment is so long their condition worsens to the point that it kills them.

Sorry, but I find it difficult to believe that there is a single drop of sanity in what you have to say.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Dartz]

As opposed to people who die because they're uninsured. Or lose their homes. Or go without basic preventative medicine.... Or pay anyway and get shafted on a loophole. Or have their insurer refuse to pay for the treatment needed in the hope of finding something 'cheaper'.

Part of the reason why there're more medical proceedures available in the US is because there're more people who will actually need them. 400 million[?] is a lot of people. And they get a lot of stuff done. As opposed to about 4.

Part of the reason people wait months on end is because they're so basic. It's not serious enough to hurry with If it's something important like cancer, it'll get dealt with pretty bloody quickly. Other waiting lists are a result of organs simply not being available for transplant. Or because regional population growth has outstripped investment and provisioning in the hospitals.

And because there are some failings in a public system, it gives a niche for Private hospitals to occupy, and for insurers to work.

But ultimately, there's only so much medicine to go around. Someone has to decide who doesn't get treated and who does.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Florin]

ECSNorway wrote:

I am quite honestly shocked that anyone can say that with a straight face. Every time I've looked for evidence supporting these kind of allegations, I find stories of Canadians coming to the US for treatment because they can't get it at home or have to wait ridiculous amounts of time;

.

If you have the money to pay to get those treatments faster, you can. If you don't have the money to pay for those treatments, you'll still get them. That's the whole point of Universal Health Care. And if your looking at medical tourism as a measure of effectiveness, vastly more people leave the U.S. for medical treatment than enter it
--
If you become a monster to put down a monster you've still got a monster running around at the end of the day and have as such not really solved the whole monster problem at all. 

[robkelk]

Every time I've looked for evidence supporting these kind of allegations, I find stories of Canadians coming to the US for treatment because they can't get it at home or have to wait ridiculous amounts of time;

I've heard that propaganda, too. Got a documented case anywhere?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Morganite]

This article discusses something similar, although it's about (possibly illegal) private clinics and not medical tourism.

For me, the problem is that based on the US government's track record of providing health care, which on the one hand is incredibly waste and fraud ridden, and on the other hand has had a lot of spectacular failures to provide proper care to people who need it... well. This:

system actually designed to efficiently provide care for the sick (in order to produce 'profit' in the form of good health for the entire population who are 'shareholders' of the government. The result - lowered personal and systematic expenditures on health care for no loss or even an increase in effectiveness

... That'd be pretty awesome. But I think the chances of it being done here are only slightly less likely than me winning the lottery without buying a ticket. Instead, I expect increased costs, soaring debt, a decreased overall standard of care, and more fraudsters than ever.

-Morgan.

[Glidergun]

This article discusses something similar, although it's about (possibly illegal) private clinics and not medical tourism.

For me, the problem is that based on the US government's track record of providing health care, which on the one hand is incredibly waste and fraud ridden, and on the other hand has had a lot of spectacular failures to provide proper care to people who need it... well.

This is probably not as big a deal as you think it is! The US generally has pretty bad health care metrics as it is. For example, our life expectancy is pretty low for a first-world nation. However, a funny thing happens when you start looking at the remaining life expectancy of older people: it's generally competitive with other countries. This tends to happen around the age at which Medicare kicks in - i.e. the point at which the government starts paying for your health care.

[ordnance11]

Karl Rove's new project post meltdown

My thoughts on this:
Koch and company et al spent all that money fertilizing the Tea Party movement into the kudzu it has now become. Now they're spending money trying to put it underground if not eradicating it. I wish them luck.

All the last paragraph caught my attention:

This theory may be reasonable or it may be poppycock. Either way, Rove’s
detractors should thank him for bringing the debate into the open.
Rove’s new effort is good for the Tea Party in the way that doubters are
good for religions. No faith worthy of its Sunday parishioners crumbles
under a challenge. Leaving aside whether Rove is really challenging the
core of Tea Party beliefs, his efforts force those who hold a different
view into being clearer about what they believe. Only if they go
through that process can they make their case to Republicans who aren't
already true believers. Plus, if they can't beat Karl Rove at the
internal game, they're not going to be able to beat the Democrats. 

The assumption is a church that is open to new converts, not burning and stoning the heretics. If anything, the Tea Partiers had become more fervent in their beliefs.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

... Is anyone else here miffed at the Republicans' reaction to Obama's choice for a new Sec Def? I mean, if they really wanted to embarrass the US, then they're succeeding. And yes, I am giving you the stink-eye, Ted Cruz. It is a rare day that I agree with much of anything John McCane has to say.

I sincerely hope that the Texas Republicans keep going the route they've been going. It'll be so wonderful to see the Hispanic backlash at the next set of elections. At least this batch in the Texas State Senate is looking to undo a lot of harm the last Senate did. Like pouring funding back into education and tapping the Rainy Day Fund for infrastructure improvements. This is why we do not like super-majorities. And on that note, I eagerly anticipate the carnage that Oklahoma is about to inflict on itself. It should prove, once and for all, just how bad of an idea the Republican platform of austerity and tax cuts really is. Sure, we've had Europe to go by so far, but apparently there's this idea that it'll work just fine here in the US. Different culture and all. Heh. Interesting times, indeed.

[ECSNorway]

Most governors and presidents who have actually studied economics, rather than marxism, have noted that lower taxes tend to attract business and investment away from higher-tax regions. The result is that government takes a smaller slice of a much larger pie and ends up with more revenue in the end, which can then be used to reverse those austerity measures.

The real concern right now is that national debt is becoming unmanageable, to the point where we have basically mortgaged the country and are waiting nervously for China to foreclose.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[classicdrogn]

Yeah, I've been only half sarcastically reccomending my nieces and nephews take Chinese as their language elective in college for a few years now.
--
"Anko, what you do in your free time is your own choice. Use it wisely. And if you do not use it wisely, make sure you thoroughly enjoy whatever unwise thing you are doing." - HymnOfRagnorok as Orochimaru at SpaceBattles
woot Med. Eng., verb, 1st & 3rd pers. prsnt. sg. know, knows

[ordnance11]

Since there is a report that ted Cruz is mooting a 2016 run, now you have to wonder. Are we going to see Donald Trump demand to see his birth certificate? I mean, he did it for Obama, fairness would have to make it do it to the junior senator from Texas.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[khagler]

ordnance11 wrote:

---

Since there is a report that ted Cruz is mooting a 2016 run, now you have to wonder. Are we going to see Donald Trump demand to see his birth certificate? I mean, he did it for Obama, fairness would have to make it do it to the junior senator from Texas.

Why? It's a matter of public record that Cruz was born in Canada. I expect that if he ever were the Republican presidential candidate, the more silly Democrats would skip demanding to see his birth certificate and go straight to claiming that he wasn't eligible because he definitely wasn't born in the US. John McCain (born in Panama) got that from silly Republicans during their primaries, before he got the Republican nomination.

[ordnance11]

The White House that never was
 The federal government is a holding company?
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Black Aeronaut]

...... You know, while I have no qualms about the Federal Government becoming better organized, I am stricken with mortal terror that this was all planned out by what is, in all essence, Corporate America.

Seriously, does anyone think this was a good idea? And if so, please explain to me why.

[robkelk]

Well, I like the idea of training political appointees in how to actually manage their staff - that's a skillset that should be taught to people in charge if they don't have it already.

But the rest of the plan misses the point. Government is not a business - it does things that businesses cannot (or will not) do. Trying to turn it into a business would make it less effective.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ECSNorway]

robkelk wrote:

---

Well, I like the idea of training political appointees in how to actually manage their staff - that's a skillset that should be taught to people in charge if they don't have it already.

But the rest of the plan misses the point. Government is not a business - it does things that businesses cannot (or will not) do. Trying to turn it into a business would make it less effective.

Very true.
It does require -some- of the skillset that is involved in running a business. Most of it, in fact. But the key motivations and strategies required are very different. Being a corporate CEO is no better a qualifier for an Executive position in government than being a Senator or Representative is.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[ordnance11]

robkelk wrote:

---

Well, I like the idea of training political appointees in how to actually manage their staff - that's a skillset that should be taught to people in charge if they don't have it already.

But the rest of the plan misses the point. Government is not a business - it does things that businesses cannot (or will not) do. Trying to turn it into a business would make it less effective.

Rob, the main point of those briefings is to attempt to turn U.S. government into the 1890's version, with a few exceptions. The DOD would be given a free hand and purse so that the military industrial complex can happily make a profit. Whether the weapons they make will be reliable or not will be the question. The DOJ will be harnessed in pursuit of corporate America. Every regulatory agency will be turned into hollow shells. The VA will be definitely starved of funds. Taking care of wounded vets would cost too much.   Disaster relief?....if we can't take the money from another line item, it ain't gonna to happen. It's the 47 percent that voted for the other party anyway. All of this presided by the Makeover Chairman in Chief.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell