• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

Wrangor said:
That isn't the fault of the tea party or republicans. They had democratic super in both and the presidency. If they have issues within their own party so be it but the result of this legislation is 100% on democrats for better or worse. Compromising within your own party is vastly different than bipartisan legislation.

Republicans are still responsible for the Tea Party whether we like or not. We can't blame it on the Democrats even if the Tea Party was fueled by Anti-Obama/ACA gasoline. They are our responsibility and we somehow have to figure out how to deal with them. The conservative Democrats in your party are still your responsibility. You can't pass a law with unanimous Democratic support and 0% Republican support and blame any of the negative effects on the Republicans. It is your baby, for better or for worse.
Click to expand...

"It means....stop blaming Republicans for the 'compromises' the Democrats made in ACA. We had nothing to do with it. Any compromise you might have made was within your own party."

The entire bill is a Republican bill. It is a watered down version of the American Enterprise Institute bill that Bob Dole offered in the 1990s.

The Republicans voted against a bill that THEY created.
 
Wrangor said:
It means....stop blaming Republicans for the 'compromises' the Democrats made in ACA. We had nothing to do with it. Any compromise you might have made was within your own party.
Click to expand...

I don't blame "republicans," I blame conservative ideology. There's a difference, and that freedom and liberty socialism fear-mongering filberttygibbet peddled to the masses seeps into some dem districts and moves the line. Knowwhatimsayin?
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
I don't blame "republicans," I blame conservative ideology. There's a difference, and that freedom and liberty socialism fear-mongering filberttygibbet peddled to the masses seeps into some dem districts and moves the line. Knowwhatimsayin?
Click to expand...

I gotcha. That makes more sense. My bad. How do you explain the last 200 years of American culture being predominantly a conservative based economy? I mean we have had a pretty good run as a nation, and the vast majority of our time has been with a heavy heavy dose of conservative economic policy. Did we just beat the odds?
 
I think most Econ historians, certainly conservative ones, would say that since FDR we have not been a "conservative" economy at all. And pre-industrial revolution is apples to oranges. So the period between industrialization and the New Deal was considered conservative, right? Not sure that ended too well, but I am oversimplifying. I will defer to better posters on that.

When were the "good ole days" that modern conservatives harken back to as an example of any of their ideas working?
 
There are no good old days but our economy was founded and grew on the basis that individuals economic worth was directly tied to their ability to produce. I am not a firm believers in trickle down but supply side is just the opposite side to a narrow view coin.

The farther away we get from production as the driver for economic worth the closer we get to a failing economy. The government cannot be the driver. That should be the one lesson that history has taught us. Eventually there is no greater temptation to corrupt than government if we tie political and economic power to the same group of people.

We are already seeing it now in both parties. Compare bush and Obamas actions towards Wall Street. Are they similar or different? The proper balance in my view is economic power in the hands of the people and political power in the hands of government.

The closer you tie those two strands the quicker it becomes a noose around the neck of private industry which is the true driver of the economy. Just a few thoughts. I am not a return to the good ole days. We have had issues throughout our history but the theme is fairly consistent. When either side is left unchecked we make foolish decisions. We are better off balancing each other than swinging left and right constantly.
 
I don't really see how the ACA is the "government taking over production." In fact, I don't see either party proposing anything close to that. Not sure where you are headed with your point but I agree that something like you are describing would be bad.

The way I see it, the financial and insurance sectors are making up more and more of the economy as a result of deregulation and a powerful lobby, and I don't consider them "production " at all. They produce nothing. It's not he government we have to worry about, it's those assholes. Hey own and operate the government and then use their media outlets to bamboozle you into believing the government is taking over your life so you vote to give them even more freedom to take a bigger slice.
 
WakeandBake said:
I don't really see how the ACA is the "government taking over production." In fact, I don't see either party proposing anything close to that. Not sure where you are headed with your point but I agree that something like you are describing would be bad.

The way I see it, the financial and insurance sectors are making up more and more of the economy as a result of deregulation and a powerful lobby, and I don't consider them "production " at all. They produce nothing. It's not he government we have to worry about, it's those assholes. Hey own and operate the government and then use their media outlets to bamboozle you into believing the government is taking over your life so you vote to give them even more freedom to take a bigger slice.
Click to expand...

Well, they have too much power, but to say they don't produce anything isn't true. You couldn't spread your risk of catastrophic illness on your own. They make a market we couldn't make.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Well, they have too much power, but to say they don't produce anything isn't true. You couldn't spread your risk of catastrophic illness on your own. They make a market we couldn't make.
Click to expand...

yeah, I guess. I don't know, maybe. Didn't we do it with co-ops and non-profits before?

Still, the idea that the government is too intrusive and is even sniffing the ballpark of 'taking over production' is laughable. For the past few decades, its been going in the exact opposite direction. That giant sucking sound you hear is the financialization of our economy. That, and the perpetual jones for cheap exploited labor and energy to satisfy a small few in the rest of the board rooms across America.

And the board rooms and banks have won, so what you see around you here in the Shining City on the Hill is the glorious result. The government didn't cause the current economic situation, they stepped aside and allowed it to happen. Follow the money. You think the government is hedging in on production? Who's got all the money? Who has made out the best since the 70s? Use your head. (not you jhmd, I mean the royal "your.")

Now Libertarianism is the chic new conservatism buzz. They've gotten half of it right - leave the queers and the potheads alone. But the idea that an industrialized, high-tech economy can and will self-govern itself into a level playing field that rewards good business and punishes bad is fool's gold - and the presence of such nonsense mucks up our political dialogue with this fantasyland talk, and we get nothing done except the unraveling of much-needed regulation and oversight - much to the delight of the string-pullers in the board rooms. It's hackneyed idealism, with Ayn Rand's crappy books at its very core. Its like the Scientology of political philosophy. The ideas of a half-assed writer with a vivid imagination glommed onto as the end-all be-all for the intellectually lazy - with major profits for those who proffer it.
 
WakeandBake said:
yeah, I guess. I don't know, maybe. Didn't we do it with co-ops and non-profits before?

Still, the idea that the government is too intrusive and is even sniffing the ballpark of 'taking over production' is laughable. For the past few decades, its been going in the exact opposite direction. That giant sucking sound you hear is the financialization of our economy. That, and the perpetual jones for cheap exploited labor and energy to satisfy a small few in the rest of the board rooms across America.

And the board rooms and banks have won, so what you see around you here in the Shining City on the Hill is the glorious result. The government didn't cause the current economic situation, they stepped aside and allowed it to happen. Follow the money. You think the government is hedging in on production? Who's got all the money? Who has made out the best since the 70s? Use your head. (not you jhmd, I mean the royal "your.")

Now Libertarianism is the chic new conservatism buzz. They've gotten half of it right - leave the queers and the potheads alone. But the idea that an industrialized, high-tech economy can and will self-govern itself into a level playing field that rewards good business and punishes bad is fool's gold - and the presence of such nonsense mucks up our political dialogue with this fantasyland talk, and we get nothing done except the unraveling of much-needed regulation and oversight - much to the delight of the string-pullers in the board rooms. It's hackneyed idealism, with Ayn Rand's crappy books at its very core. Its like the Scientology of political philosophy. The ideas of a half-assed writer with a vivid imagination glommed onto as the end-all be-all for the intellectually lazy - with major profits for those who proffer it.
Click to expand...

Does this mean contemporary liberalism has gotten it all right? B/c I'm not so sure, what with the institutionalizing of dependency and such. Henry Ford's quote about misplaced faith in government is dead on. It certainly performs a necessary function, but it isn't the catch-all solution for everything that doesn't fix itself. In many ways, it is as much problem as solution.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Does this mean contemporary liberalism has gotten it all right? B/c I'm not so sure, what with the institutionalizing of dependency and such. Henry Ford's quote about misplaced faith in government is dead on. It certainly performs a necessary function, but it isn't the catch-all solution for everything that doesn't fix itself. In many ways, it is as much problem as solution.
Click to expand...

But....how are those noble captains of industry who own all the production that drives our economy doing? I think the past few decades, in which this "institutionalizing of dependency" that drives you so nuts has occurred, has been very very good for them. The best in our nation's history, I believe. Instead of paying them a decent wage - just outsource the work to China and Bangladesh, throw American labor a few shekels in the form of food stamps/welfare, and then demonize them to death for being freeloaders. Brilliant.

I think I'm starting to see your point, jhmd. But its not Dem pols doing it to keep their power - its Dem (and Pub) pols doing it to line the pockets of their industry captain buddies and secure lucrative boardroom positions and lobby positions after they retire from gov.
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
But....how are those noble captains of industry who own all the production that drives our economy doing? I think the past few decades, in which this "institutionalizing of dependency" that drives you so nuts has occurred, has been very very good for them. The best in our nation's history, I believe. Instead of paying them a decent wage - just outsource the work to China and Bangladesh, throw American labor a few shekels in the form of food stamps/welfare, and then demonize them to death for being freeloaders. Brilliant.

I think I'm starting to see your point, jhmd. But its not Dem pols doing it to keep their power - its Dem (and Pub) pols doing it to line the pockets of their industry captain buddies and secure lucrative boardroom positions and lobby positions after they retire from gov.
Click to expand...

I'm not particularly interested in sticking up for the true captains of industry. They'll be fine. I'm worried about the people that are being warehoused on failed subsistency programs we need to change.
 
Aren't the captains of industry supposed to trickle down to them?
 
PhDeac said:
Aren't the captains of industry supposed to trickle down to them?
Click to expand...

No, b/c that just makes them subject to a different type of dependence. We need to build people with skills an entrepreneurial marketplace wants. Effective, funded, accountable, performance-based public education, and rebuilding the family structure is the way to do that. You could trickle down all day to a single mother with three kids and a tenth grade education, and it wouldn't move her needle.
 
If only we could go back to those times when slaves were picking cotton and Asians were building railroads and children were burning to death in textile factories and Irish immigrants were being ground to death and mixed with turpentine in sausage factories, or when women were being paid shit for building war supplies while their brother's and husbands died in the war; You know the good old days when our manufacturing economy was humming along and the only people voting were rich white men. Those were the days.
 
jhmd2000 said:
No, b/c that just makes them subject to a different type of dependence. We need to build people with skills an entrepreneurial marketplace wants. Effective, funded, accountable, performance-based public education, and rebuilding the family structure is the way to do that. You could trickle down all day to a single mother with three kids and a tenth grade education, and it wouldn't move her needle.
Click to expand...

What if the spectre of financial annihilation by injury/illness was removed? I bet lots of family structure would be spared if financial ruin didn't fuck up so many marriages.

I know traditional family structure is your big cause, and your de facto cause for all that ails America, so it's vexing that you are anti single payer. You know, in the good ole days of the family structure that you harken back to, health care expenses were not wiping out family budgets. They were a fraction of what they are now. (as were energy, education, housing).

As for your post on education, I hear ya! But how will it be funded when your guys refuse any revenue increases?
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/20...nce-premium-increases-shock.html#.UlEo4ozD_IV
Click to expand...

Adam Linker, a policy analyst at the North Carolina Health Access Coalition, said the Blue Cross letters are scaring people unnecessarily.

“What people need to do is ignore the price that’s on those letters,” Linker said. “That’s just Blue Cross trying to guess at what may be a comparable plan.

“People just need to go shop for insurance in the marketplace and find plans that are probably more comprehensive than what they had and are much less expensive than Blue Cross is saying their new price would be.”

Those who buy insurance through the exchange may also qualify for federal subsidies that can make the premiums more affordable, Linker said. The subsidies are tax credits that are available to individuals who make between $11,490 and $45,960 per year. Families of four who make between $23,550 and $94,200 can qualify for subsidies.

Steve Graybill, a senior benefits consultant in Mercer’s Charlotte office, said the “new world of health care reform” is disrupting some people’s lives more than others’, depending on where they live. For example, in Massachusetts and New York, where state insurance requirements were similar to the new federal benefit requirements, changes in premiums are less drastic.

Another reason premiums are higher in North Carolina, Graybill said, is the lack of competition among health care providers.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/20...ce-premium-increases-shock.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...
kjdkjdf
 
WakeandBake said:
What if the spectre of financial annihilation by injury/illness was removed? I bet lots of family structure would be spared if financial ruin didn't fuck up so many marriages.

I know traditional family structure is your big cause, and your de facto cause for all that ails America, so it's vexing that you are anti single payer. You know, in the good ole days of the family structure that you harken back to, health care expenses were not wiping out family budgets. They were a fraction of what they are now. (as were energy, education, housing).

As for your post on education, I hear ya! But how will it be funded when your guys refuse any revenue increases?
Click to expand...

Bold 1: I am? Are you sure? I'm for an individual mandate for catastrophic care and the jhmd2000care: primary clinics staffed by tuition subsidized MD's repaying their debts to the taxpayer, a la reverse GI Bill style. Expands pool of providers at public expense without disrupting the current highest level of care in the world.

Bold 2: You guys? is that like "you people"? I'm in favor of education spending. Heavy education spending, in fact, accompanied by the cessation of tenure to be replaced by increases in teaching fellowships and incentive pay based upon performance metrics as rendered by the parents of the students of each class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top