Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs - Page 329

sebastian_dangerfield · 01-10-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

That plan is a fiscal disaster.

A plan that likely costs more isn't?

A plan that was focused on cost-cutting before expansion wasn't a preferable idea? Ty's right - the Dems demanded expansion as a concession to do the cost-cutting. That was a political reality. But that doesn't mean it was a wise economic compromise.

I am unaware of any business that takes on non-revenue producing costs as part of a plan to improve its solvency. Might I be surprised that Obamacare does this? Yes. And that would be delightful. Might you be shocked in ten years to discover the plan has been an economic disaster? Yes.

Only difference in those two scenarios is we can't afford your faith being unfounded. And we could have avoided that risk. But we didn't.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-10-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There has been an alternative offered: Do nothing. That's the GOP plan. The Dems refuse that alternative. They set the parameters of the debate so that the alternative must include expansion to those without health care.

That was a deal breaker for the GOP. Now, perhaps you and other Dems says the GOP's alternative is economically and morally a non-starter. Fine. But that's the GOP's position (and the position, I might add, of about 1/2 of the country). I'd say that makes it a position the Dems have to address as a valid counter, whether it offends them or not.

By refusing to do so, they created a zero sum game. In this zero sum game, the Dems won. Congrats to them. But when the GOP sabotages them after the fact and does stupid shit like holding this repeal referendum, the Dems don't have the right to call them out for "not having offered an alternative." They did. You just didn't like it.

I liked that piece as a response to the responses to the Giffords shootings, not because I thought it was a brilliant addition to what's been said on health care.

I agree that the GOP has offered an alternative. An incoherent one -- stop socialized medicine and protect Medicare! -- but an alternative nonetheless. What I have a problem with is the hyperbole that excites the base and misinforms those who aren't really paying attention. HCR was not about death panels, or the introduction of socialism, as everyone on the board knows. Whether or not that sort of rhetoric got anyone killed, it is stupid and embarrassing, which was Ritholtz's point.

You have a political party which is in thrall to its most rabid, ideological supporters, in which the voices of reason are afraid to offend the wingnuts for fear of getting run out of the party, a la Arlen Specter, Robert Bennett, or any of a number of others. For all the complaints about lefty wingnuts, who are undeniably out there and nutty, they don't have any influence in the Democratic Party. Most Democrats would much rather tell off the hippies to prove how Serious they are. Unfortuntely, I don't know what to hope for to make the right-wing crazies lost their influence.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-10-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A plan that likely costs more isn't?

A plan that was focused on cost-cutting before expansion wasn't a preferable idea? Ty's right - the Dems demanded expansion as a concession to do the cost-cutting. That was a political reality. But that doesn't mean it was a wise economic compromise.

I am unaware of any business that takes on non-revenue producing costs as part of a plan to improve its solvency. Might I be surprised that Obamacare does this? Yes. And that would be delightful. Might you be shocked in ten years to discover the plan has been an economic disaster? Yes.

Only difference in those two scenarios is we can't afford your faith being unfounded. And we could have avoided it. But we didn't.

There is no serious Republican plan about how to control healthcare spending. Instead, the party went for short-term political advantage by committing to defending Medicare against cuts. We can't afford that strategy, either.

The Republicans in Congress understand this. They lost the battle last year. They know HCR is not going to be repealed. It's a political tactic, not a policy question anymore. It would be nice if the GOP moved on to the question of how to make HCR actually work better, but their base will not let them, so they have to continue the charade.

Adder · 01-10-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A plan that likely costs more isn't?

You keep doing that. You keep setting up your instinct about budget ramifactions, which is counter to be best available analysis, against actual, you know, facts.

Doing nothing would have been directly contrary to your stated interest in fiscal responsibility. That isn't even open for argument.

sebastian_dangerfield · 01-10-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

You keep doing that. You keep setting up your instinct about budget ramifactions, which is counter to be best available analysis, against actual, you know, facts.

Doing nothing would have been directly contrary to your stated interest in fiscal responsibility. That isn't even open for argument.

I admit that's a suspicion. A suspicion based on math, logic, common sense and historical precedents regarding govt program cost overruns. I said as much. You believe the figures. I think you'll be wrong. I'm quite confident of it. There is nothing productive we can discuss about this further.

Cletus Miller · 01-10-2011, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I admit that's a suspicion. A suspicion based on math, logic, common sense and historical precedents regarding govt program cost overruns. I said as much. You believe the figures. I think you'll be wrong. I'm quite confident of it. There is nothing productive we can discuss about this further.

So, you're going on record that HCR will be worse than *nothing*? Not worse than HCR without coverage expansion, worse than nothing?

And, given the complexity of the intended and unintended consequences (eg, w/o HCR, maybe Hank would have grown his firm into a 1200 lawyer megafirm; with it, perhaps he doesn't hire a part time file clerk), how will anyone be able to prove it, ever?

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-10-2011, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I admit that's a suspicion. A suspicion based on math, logic, common sense and historical precedents regarding govt program cost overruns. I said as much. You believe the figures. I think you'll be wrong. I'm quite confident of it. There is nothing productive we can discuss about this further.

If you were a Republican politician, you could say:

"I didn't like HCR and think that it will be more expensive than the CBO's forecasts, but I take its supporters at their word that controlling costs is essential, and look forward to improving the law so that we can get our long-term entitlements problem under control."

Or, you could say:

"We need to repeal Obamacare to keep the government's hands off Medicare."

It's too bad the first kind of Republican can't get elected in the current Republican party. It makes the country's problems that much harder to solve, and it takes a strain of moderate conservative thought completely out of the equation.

Adder · 01-10-2011, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You believe the figures.

No. I don't believe the figures. I have no means to know one way or the other whether they are right or wrong.

I have as yet seen no serious attempt to refute them, and have reason to believe that they are the best that can be done with the uncertainty inherent in any long term projection.

Quote:

I think you'll be wrong. I'm quite confident of it. There is nothing productive we can discuss about this further.

Right. Which is why I didn't bring up the CBO figures. Instead I mentioned what I thought was beyond dispute - doing nothing would have left major fiscal issues unaddressed.

You jump from that to repeating that we could have had cost containment first. While that's literally true, as we have discussed before, it ignores the facts that that isn't what those in power wanted to do, and it isn't even something those in the minority raised seriously either.

Penske 2.0 · 01-10-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

So how about we revist the islamic fundamentalism over-running Europe thing, eh?

Terrorism is down and the sky is not falling; however the author acknowledges that Europe has demographic and other issues. Personally I don't see Europe falling by the islamofacist suicide bomber anytime sooner, but rather to a demographic shift in 30-50 years. NTTAWWT.

Quote:

Now, I don't want to overdo the point. Europe has major problems with the integration of its Muslim populations and the threat of Islamist terrorism is real. It's also important to note that the number of attacks does not indicate the full extent of the danger, since Islamists, unlike most terrorists, seek to commit indiscriminate slaughter.

Cletus Miller · 01-10-2011, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

You jump from that to repeating that we could have had cost containment first. While that's literally true, as we have discussed before, it ignores the facts that that isn't what those in power wanted to do, and it isn't even something those in the minority raised seriously either.

Exactly who would have voted for Medicare cuts as a stand alone, nevermind proposing the bill. We also *could* have cut the defense budget to zero, but they have about the same level of support in Congress.