Sarah Palin: Completely bat****

[Imran Siddiqui]

You think I like Romney?

Man, then its going to be awesome when in 2012 it's going to be Romney vs. Obama

[KrazyHorse]

If Romney can figure out how to campaign without being a complete panderer then he will be a legitimate option, but will likely not be able to overcome Obama (though of course this is projecting 3+ years out, so is not a particularly strong claim)

[Japher]

People in the midwest still believe Mormons eat babies, no way Mit will win any of the states out here

[Arrian]

I was unaware that the Maine twins still have a (REP) by their names anymore.

Have they ever voted against the Democrats?

You're a hoot.

Not them, btw. Guys from the deep south (GA and LA, IIRC). Ezra Klein has an interview with one of them up at the WaPo.

I have no problem rationing care through price.

Of course you don't.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

At the end of the day, this argument really comes down to the fact that the Dems are trying to tax the rich to get the poor (the 15% uninsured) insured. Some do not like that, including Ben (surprised? Me neither). It's not actually about killing grandma or baby Trig. It's about paying for health insurance for the undeserving poor. Don't get me wrong: the anger is real. People probably really do think all these awful things they're screaming. But the people spoonfeeding them the hysteria don't give a flying **** about all that. They're looking at the money.

One thing I will say: the "debate" over healthcare reform has convinced me that meangingful cost controls are probably not politically possible. The curve will not be bent (not enough anyway), and we're probably ****ed because we cannot discuss ANYTHING like adults.

-Arrian

[DaShi]

People in the midwest still believe Mormons eat babies, no way Mit will win any of the states out here

And in the east too, if I have my way!

[Dinner]

I do agree that this will force the repugs to rethink and change, but if you look at history, the dems didn't really change, they just waited for things to go into the ****ter and took advantage.

The Dems did change. Compare the party in of the 1970's (which was old school liberal big government) to the Dems which came in with Clinton in 1992. The new guys were very much pro market solutions, etc... something which the old school Dems from the 60's and 70's didn't really like. In short the Dems had almost 20 years in exile and they were forced to remake themselves but so far the Republicans don't seem to be doing that. They've essentially doubled down on a twice losing strategy moving even further to the right, and away from main stream Americans, hoping for the other guy to screw up rather then trying to give voters a reason to vote Republican.

I don't see them changing either unless their losing streak continues for over a decade. If and when that happens then the old school don't tax but spend anyway religious freak Republicans will finally be so discredited that the party will be forced to remake itself. There are all sorts of parallels to this "time in the woods" thing in UK politics but the party never makes a major come back until they make some changes. Here's hoping the Republicans actually do make the needed changes instead of just hunkering down like they've been doing.

[Dinner]

We believe in free enterprise. Increasing taxation massively to pay for a government boondoggle is not fiscally conservative.

Except even the GAO has said the original Med Pack proposal was revenue neutral (I.E. doesn't cost the government more but doesn't save anything either). Now Med Pack was loaded up with special interest crap (no generic drugs, no even trying for cost savings in any way, etc...) so I'm glad its been dead for over two months now but I don't know of a single proposal out there which would cost the government more over a 5-10 year period. Some do cost more up front and others (like not doing any reform) cost more on the back end.

The only "tax increase" would be on employers who refuse to offer any health insurance to their full time workers. They can opt to take part in the public plan or they can shop around for a private insurance deal but everyone would have to offer something for full time workers. If they don't cover health insurance then they'd have to pay a special tax but its entirely avoidable and designed to prevent employers from simply dropping people's insurance and telling them to sign up for the government program. This would only hit a very small percentage of employers, it would be entirely avoidable, and honestly the savings for most companies would make up for it.

[Arrian]

In short the Dems had almost 20 years in exile and they were forced to remake themselves but so far the Republicans don't seem to be doing that.

Yet. As you noted, it took the Dems a while to figure it out.

-Arrian

[rah]

The Dems did change. Compare the party in of the 1970's (which was old school liberal big government) to the Dems which came in with Clinton in 1992. The new guys were very much pro market solutions, etc... something which the old school Dems from the 60's and 70's didn't really like. In short the Dems had almost 20 years in exile and they were forced to remake themselves but so far the Republicans don't seem to be doing that. They've essentially doubled down on a twice losing strategy moving even further to the right, and away from main stream Americans, hoping for the other guy to screw up rather then trying to give voters a reason to vote Republican.

I don't see them changing either unless their losing streak continues for over a decade. If and when that happens then the old school don't tax but spend anyway religious freak Republicans will finally be so discredited that the party will be forced to remake itself. There are all sorts of parallels to this "time in the woods" thing in UK politics but the party never makes a major come back until they make some changes. Here's hoping the Republicans actually do make the needed changes instead of just hunkering down like they've been doing.

Obama is the 70's relived. Clinton was a republican running as a dem. The dems didn't really change.

[chequita guevara]

This legislation will put private enterprises out of business, especially if you charge everyone.

Boo, ****ing, hoo. The insurance companies, at this point, are simply parasites. They bring nothing useful to the table. They are simply middle men who take a cut. If insurance companies were eliminated today, and all the money paid to insurance companies were used for a single payer option, that insured every single person in the United Sates, including the undocumented, there would still be money left over.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you also object this much to mandatory automobile insurance?

Great analogy. I only have to pay auto insurance if I have a vehicle. I have to pay health insurance if I'm breathing.

This is ridiculous considering that it is based on private insurance companies (you know, the ones that worked out a deal with Obama a few months ago?)

You don't think there are going to be job losses in the insurance industry? I have a bridge in Brooklyn. Cheap.

Yes, a whole Hell of a lot of times. They are what a significant wing of the Republican Party used to be (the Rockefeller Republicans). If you'd rather have then be Democrats and give the entire NE to that party, be prepared for the "permanent majority" the Republicans used to talk about.

So my choices are Democrat, or Democrat lite?

I'd rather have Democrat and Republican TYVM.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, the choices are Republican and Extreme Republican. Clinton killed the old Democratic Party.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boo, ****ing, hoo. The insurance companies, at this point, are simply parasites. They bring nothing useful to the table. They are simply middle men who take a cut. If insurance companies were eliminated today, and all the money paid to insurance companies were used for a single payer option, that insured every single person in the United Sates, including the undocumented, there would still be money left over.

I'll make a bet with you that the opposite will happen. The reason why health care is 'cheaper' up here is because it's unfunded. You simply cannot get timely care.

Here's a thought experiment. You like Bacon double cheeseburgers, Che? What happens to the price of Bacon double cheeseburgers if they can be sold in one location in town, "Obama burgers." Is the price going to go up or down?

[chequita guevara]

Right now, insurance companies cost us anywhere from 21% to 33% of the total medical bill. There's plenty of competition. Medicade has 3% overhead. It has no competition.

The Post Office was a monopoly for hundreds of years in the U.S. It was cheaper than the private options that came along, and it still is.

The reason your health care program in Canada is underfunded is because of people like you, deliberately underfunding it. Despite this, even if your system were fully funded, it would still cost you less than our system costs.

You are still a ****ing moron.