Re: You (all) lie!
 

See? Your health care reform hasn't provided me with the drugs necessary to understand your humor.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Oh, you seem to get plenty on the free market.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Why is it either-or? What is motivating the desire for redistribution? I don't think it's as simple as "everyone wants shit for free" because you aren't seeing the same pressures or activities on alll other sectors where people want stuff.

For example, how is the notion of not denying coverage based on preexisting conditions motivated by redistributional beliefs (other than in the very abstract sense, as indicated below)? Rather than on a recognition of how such denials are actually used in a purely free market?

Beyond that, sure -- redistributional beliefs are part of it. But those beliefs are part of all government activity, aren't they?

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Yes, and if only Stalin hadn't fucked things up the Soviet Union really would have been a workers' paradise.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I missed the post where you explained why a patient making all the decisions about his own care in the hospital is just like buying a box of Cheerios. My bad.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

The patient in the hospital is unconscious, on drugs and would be unable to think straight if awake, and Burger likes Cheerios after .... wow! how come your hair is blue? Man, we need more cheetos!

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Joe Biden is truly a poet.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I think the problem here is this is an obvious economic loser. We redistributed a shitload to Wall St. because if we didn't, loads of old people's retirements would have been fucked. And the banks (most of them) paid the Fed back a hefty pile of interest. The redistribution here won't bring new money into the system. The people who couldn't afford HC aren't going to pay anything into the system (the assumption they would via mandate, when many don't even pay taxes, is the most laughable thing in the projections). The overwhelming majority of them are going to be a purely subsidized cost. Unlike the banks, or even the car companies, there's no real chance of making money back, or even breaking even, on these people. And in the current climate, any program that even smells like "Welfare!" is going to be wildly unpopular.

That's fact. Most sensible people realize the program's going to be a huge giveaway to a largely unproductive slice of society, and realize it'll be seen as such. That the Dems would plow forward with it shows they truly have a redistributive bent. Hell, they're going to lose a fuckload of seats in November because of this, including, probably, Reid's. Nothing wrong with that, of course. If you believe in helping people the way this bill attempts to assist the uninsured, that's laudable. But it sure as fuck isn't going to be popular in the vortex of a monster recession. And when someone argues it's not fueled by redistributive political leanings, one only has to ask, "Why the fuck else would you do it this way, now?" to show them a liar.

So, like it or not, fair or not, the Dems are now the party of Profligate Redistribution. I say wear the label proudly. Only way to blunt the GOP slamming you over the head with the allegation this November.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I have come to understand that you do not know much about healthcare and next to nothing about the bill. Still, that's more that most opponents who are spouting off on it.

Expanding healthcare insurance to 32 million will indeed add governmental burdens. However, it will have very substantial benefits to both healthcare providers and insurers. And, there will be costs to them, though one hopes many of these will be costs moved from inefficient ways of purchasing healthcare services to more efficient ways.

But, right now, the Dems are getting a bit of a bounce out of this. Come November, we'll see whether this costs the Dems. Right now, I'd bet you a month that the Dem's losses in the House will be limited to the average mid-term for the incumbent party.

Because we are winners, and that is always better than being losers like the Rs (and sore, bitter, petty losers to boot), and because we'll be seeing some bounce on the economy and more focus on economic legislation.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I don't buy any of the projections. That doesn't mean I don't know the bill. That means I don't agree that any of the cost savings projected to come in in the bill are going to pan out.

Can I make that clearer? Here: I don't buy the numbers. You do. When I say, "This bill is a piece of shit," it's not because I am unfamiliar with its specifics. It's because I am familiar with them and, unlike you, I don't buy the assumptions or the projections. You and Ty and everybody else here argues a pile of projections, and pledges of future action in re: cost savings as though they're fact. They're not.

And no shit it will benefit providers and insurers. They're going to get a waterfall of federal money. WTF does that have to do with savings? Really? What exactly was your point there, other than to help prove mine?

And I'm not sore about this in the least. I don't really care, and why should I? It won't impact me, and if it does, I'll find a way to carve around whatever adverse impact that might be. I just happen to think you're a pack of deluded clowns for having a hard on for this bill. "Yay! Hope! Everybody gets a pony!" The more things change, the more they stay the same. If we're here in seven years, I'll take great pleasure in laughing at you when the press starts talking about how "Health care reform is hurting those it was supposed to help." It will. Seven years. Put a pin in it.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I didn't mean you, I meant congression republicans. That trashy Republican blog, politico, has the story right for once: they are pondering the costs of losing ugly.

The don't-buy-it-because-its-washington-and-to-hell-with-it is a nice emotional response, but leaves no room for reasoned discussion and is part of what made the Rs lose ugly. They didn't respond to CBO numbers with anything but a raspberry, and that just doesn't cut it.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

It would be easier to give your views about the efffects of HCR some credence if you provided the scantest basis for them. Just sayin'. I rely on the CBO because it seems to make more sense than making shit up. But I can't tell where you come up with your notions.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

if things look as bleak in 2012 as they do right now does he dump Joe and put Hil on the ticket? I don't think that helps, frankly, but Biden is like Billy Carter, only with an office.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Things look bleak?

Here's the bet: one month on whether the Dems lose more or less seats in the House than the average incumbent party during the midterms.