"If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.

For a real piece of passable legislation, however, it looks very good. It wouldn't transform our health care system; in fact, Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we've done before.

This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise."

Not only the less fortunate among us, but the more independent among us who have to pay much more for health care not associated with being employed by a large business with better buying power.

It's not the plan I want either, but if Howard Dean and former CIGNA VP Wendell Potter are for it, I'll go with them instead of Dennis the K, who can afford to be more pure, on this one.

ah the medicare etc argument

same as the deficit argument that bush raised it to 460 billion so that means obama can send it intot he multiple TRILLIONS...

and you simply cannot deny the CROOKED numbers given to the cbo where TEN years of tax paying will get back 6..or is it 4..years of benefits.
IF you believe in this shit..then go to your car dealer and tell them you want to pay for a new car for 4 years but tell them not to give it to you UNTIL then .......

and you can certainly go with howard dean anywhere he wants you to go

first stop will be to bankruptcy...

Did Krugman just make the argument that costs are going to go up unhindered one way or the other so we might as well figure out a way to get the uninsured along with the rest of us? I thought the argument all along has been that the rising costs of healthcare were unsustainable. Insuring everyone is great, but if the boat is still going to sink....?

I'm just trying to understand whether or not he just moved the goalposts.

senator TURBIN durbin said just the other day that premiums will go up.
wonder if rhom asked him into the shower after THAT...

no coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions, coverage dropped when you get sick, and huge premium increases in the middle of an economic crisis.

Best system in the world!

Sincerely,

The I got Mine crowd.

wonder if rhom asked him into the shower after THAT...

#5 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-03-12 03:07 PM | Reply |

Keep your fantasies to yourself.

I'm not saying... I'm just saying.

I've never said this is anywhere close to the best system possible, 7, but if the point at the onset was the the cost was breaking us, then while we are insuring more in the short term, the system is still going to break us in the long under the current legislation. That's all I'm saying.

oh 7...can I call you 7 for short...

thats so funny my legs are trimbling with excitement.....lol

Well, if having the government regulate and subsidize health insurance is a "takeover," that takeover happened long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs already pay for almost half of American health care, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third (the rest is mostly out-of-pocket expenses). And the great bulk of that private insurance is provided via employee plans, which are both subsidized with tax exemptions and tightly regulated.

Take that as admission that government drove up the costs of health care, not an "unregulated" health care industry.

The second myth is that the proposed reform does nothing to control costs.

Maybe so. But price controls will result in shortages of services.

The second myth is that the proposed reform does nothing to control costs. To support this claim, critics point to reports by the Medicare actuary, who predicts that total national health spending would be slightly higher in 2019 with reform than without it.

Medicare has a $74 trillion unfunded deficit that gives a false impression it is cheap. I hate to imagine what the bill will be for the whole country.

I can't think of any government program that doesn't exceed costs by wide margin. Hidden in the bill is package of taxes that has the potential to be the highest tax increase ever. Corkey is delusional and a fool.

-Corkey is delusional and a fool.

That's a Badge of Honor, coming from this guy....

How do the Medicare cost controls in the new bill work exactly? Those I have been very concerned about as our hospital already struggles to make ends meet and we end up eating losses on Medicare already.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2010-03-12 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag: Gets his news from cartoons

FTA: The first of these myths, which has been all over the airwaves lately, is the claim that President Obama is proposing a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, the share of G.D.P. currently spent on health.

Well, if having the government regulate and subsidize health insurance is a "takeover," that takeover happened long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs already pay for almost half of American health care, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third (the rest is mostly out-of-pocket expenses). And the great bulk of that private insurance is provided via employee plans, which are both subsidized with tax exemptions and tightly regulated.

America is already paying for Health Care for all.

Yer just not getting it.

Be Well.

Krugman is unwittingly admitting that government is the cause of our dysfunctional health care system. The dimwits on DR still think they're going to get something for nothing.

government is the cause of our dysfunctional health care system.

Correct in that government allowed a virtual monopoly to game the public due to corporate over-influence.

Incorrect in that allowing the free hand of the market to have it's way would be any kind of improvement.

Be Well.

Correct in that government allowed a virtual monopoly to game the public due to corporate over-influence.

Wrong. Government did not "allow," it sponsored a corporate takeover.

Incorrect in that allowing the free hand of the market to have it's way would be any kind of improvement.

Wrong. When government is the cause, it can't be the solution.

Spud makes the common error of confusing effect for cause. There is no free market, not even close.

Wrong. Government did not "allow," it sponsored a corporate takeover.

Wrong, both parties were "sponsored" by Big Insurance and that leverage allowed them to influence policy to the point where you are at today.

Wrong. When government is the cause, it can't be the solution.

Wrong. It wasn't a case of too much government but of not enough government. Lack of government oversight and regulation due to corporate over-influence is the problem. Governmental regulations are supposed to allow for a level playing field that balances the needs of the health care consumer with the desires of the Health Care providers. That system is dangerously out of balance and there is no hope for change until corporate money is removed or diminished from the electoral process.

Be Well.

Oh please, Spud! I'm always amazed how so many people refuse to find fault with the greatest crime syndicate in this country: the federal government. I mean the crimes are massive!

Wrong, both parties were "sponsored" by Big Insurance and that leverage allowed them to influence policy to the point where you are at today.

Oh those poor politicians. Those bribes are just too good to resist. Then the dimwitted voters return the same crooks to office every election. Why? Because the same politicians bribe them with promises of more free money.

It wasn't a case of too much government but of not enough government. Lack of government oversight and regulation due to corporate over-influence is the problem.

As the Madoff scandal proves, regulators are paid to look the other way.

That system is dangerously out of balance and there is no hope for change until corporate money is removed or diminished from the electoral process.

Oh pity the poor hapless voters. They take no responsibility for the mess they support election after election. They brought their miseries on themselves.

Oh please, Spud! I'm always amazed how so many people refuse to find fault with the greatest crime syndicate in this country: the federal government. I mean the crimes are massive!

Spud "refuses to find fault" with government?

S'rsly? Have you ever, you know... read one of Spud's posts?

Oh those poor politicians. Those bribes are just too good to resist. Then the dimwitted voters return the same crooks to office every election. Why? Because the same politicians bribe them with promises of more free money.

Again with the faulty causality, Ray?

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are bought and paid for by a grab bag of special interests both foreign and domestic. If the corporations exert undue influence on policy by buying every pol on both sides of the aisle then who's really at fault?

That's right they both are but the anti-people pro-corporate zero-sum agenda is originating from the corporate side not vice versa as you seem to be contending.

As the Madoff scandal proves, regulators are paid to look the other way.

Yeah, cos they and their masters are bought off by special interests. Thanks fer making Spud's point fer him. The lack of effective regulation can be traced directly to corporate over-influence.

Oh pity the poor hapless voters. They take no responsibility for the mess they support election after election. They brought their miseries on themselves.

The voters? Spud does pity them. Their choices at the moment boil down to "All out corporate whores" ie. the Republicans and the "corporate-lite Dems".

Another good entity to blame for all this is the corporate MSM who deflect from realities such as those Spud rails on about in favor of gossip, leaks calculated to shape public opinion, fluff pieces, ads disguised as news and pure whaargarbl and propaganda such as you see on FOX news.

Be Well.

S'rsly? Have you ever, you know... read one of Spud's posts?

I have. You typically shrug it off, then expect government to solve the problems it created.

The voters? Spud does pity them. Their choices at the moment boil down to "All out corporate whores" ie. the Republicans and the "corporate-lite Dems".

Then don't vote for them; the system is rigged against you. Either vote third party, vote against the incumbent or don't vote at all. If you're going to vote for crooks, then you (whoever) deserve what's coming. Trust me. We haven't seed the worst of this. The federal government, with whom you imagine will protect you from the imaginary free market, is running the biggest financial fraud in history. Right in front of you, and you don't see it.

is running the biggest financial fraud in history. Right in front of you, and you don't see it.

#8 | Posted by Ray

On this, we agree 100%. We also agree that you should hang on to Gold, but we disagree on what is coming next.

I think our economy is in for the cleansing truth of hyper-inflation. Nothing makes a fixed number seem lower than placing it next to a rapidly expanding number.

Then don't vote for them.

Technically, Spud can't vote fer any of them.

Being a maple syrup sucking Canucklehead Spud aint really got a dog in the hunt.

Either vote third party, vote against the incumbent or don't vote at all.

All viable options albeit not particularly utile in terms of achieving any positive ends.

If you're going to vote for crooks, then you (whoever) deserve what's coming.

They say "People get the government they deserve" but quite frankly Spud don't think anyone deserves the corrupt system (both sides) you got now.

Trust me. We haven't seen the worst of this.

Of course, the US economy is heading straighter fer the shitter at the moment. The twin deficits are ultimately unsustainable. If the US creditors all called in their chips tomorrow the US would be in a world of hurt.

The federal government, with whom you imagine will protect you from the imaginary free market, is running the biggest financial fraud in history. Right in front of you, and you don't see it.

They are doing so at the behest of massive multinational corporations who own them.

...and you don't see it.

Be Well.

you should hang on to Gold

No shiat.

Gold is real and will only gain value against a falsely inflated US currency.

Some people around here tend to belittle Ray for his insistence that gold is a good hedge against the coming bad times but Spud aint one of them.

Be Well.

I think our economy is in for the cleansing truth of hyper-inflation. Nothing makes a fixed number seem lower than placing it next to a rapidly expanding number.
#9 | POSTED BY LIPZOIDIAL

We're close in agreement. As best I can assess, we're close to a hyper-deflation in dollar assets and a hyper-inflation in dollar value, the worst of both. The first from massive defaults and the second from loss of faith in the dollar brought on by massive federal borrowing and monetization.

When your barn is burning, get the hell out. Stock up on as much gold and silver you can afford while it's affordable.

They say "People get the government they deserve" but quite frankly Spud don't think anyone deserves the corrupt system (both sides) you got now.

I reserve my scorn to voters, about half the population. Half scorn to those who honestly don't understand and full scorn to those don't or refuse to understand.

The personal stories are very disheartening.

Being a maple syrup sucking Canucklehead Spud aint really got a dog in the hunt.

Canada has the same problems. In particular to this thread, a dysfunctional health care system operated by government.

I'm plagiarizing myself here, but....

Did Krugman just make the argument that costs are going to go up more or less unhindered whether we enact reform or not, so we might as well figure out a way to get the uninsured in the boat along with the rest of us? I thought the argument all along has been that the rising costs of healthcare were unsustainable. Insuring everyone is goal, of course, but if the boat is still going to sink....?

I'm just trying to understand whether or not he just moved the goalposts.

I've never said this is anywhere close to the best system possible, but if the point at the onset was the the cost was breaking us, then while we are insuring more in the short term, the system is still going to break us in the long under the current legislation. That's all I'm saying.

Did Krugman just make the argument that costs are going to go up more or less unhindered whether we enact reform or not, so we might as well figure out a way to get the uninsured in the boat along with the rest of us?

An on yopic post?

wOOt!

The Reforms are aimed at two main things.

First, finding a way to restrain the sky rocketing costs and second, to insure the millions of currently uninsured people many of them children.

Krugman talks about this when discussing the second myth.

The second myth is that the proposed reform does nothing to control costs. To support this claim, critics point to reports by the Medicare actuary, who predicts that total national health spending would be slightly higher in 2019 with reform than without it.

Even if this prediction were correct, it points to a pretty good bargain. The actuary's assessment of the Senate bill, for example, finds that it would raise total health care spending by less than 1 percent, while extending coverage to 34 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. That's a large expansion in coverage at an essentially trivial cost.

And it gets better as we go further into the future: the Congressional Budget Office has just concluded, in a new report, that the arithmetic of reform will look better in its second decade than it did in its first.

A 1 percent rise in order to insure an extra 34 million people in a day and age when HC costs rise by double digits annually is a good deal.

Be Well.

The dimwits on DR still think they're going to get something for nothing.

#15 | Posted by Ray

That seems to be the goal of many. That is why scams work.

A 1 percent rise in order to insure an extra 34 million people in a day and age when HC costs rise by double digits annually is a good deal.
#28 | Posted by dethspud

Agreed, in principle. But how does this legislation address the unsustainability of those costs? Getting everyone insured for roughly the same price doesn't change the fact that the price is more than we can afford. Uninsurability and rising costs are not just the twin problems of healthcare reform, they are the conjoined twins of healthcare reform. And they're attached at the chest, sharing the same lungs and heart. Attempting to address one while ignoring the other may be a disaster in the long run.

"or don't vote at all. "

Yeah, that's an effective way to make change you want to see.

So Ray, can I conclude that you are so disillusioned and disenfranchised that you don't vote?

And what would you like to see in place of what we have? Are you for a new system, or do you just want the fools to wise up and vote the bums out, and send in some new bums? (I'm being facetious about the new bums. But I do wonder--and yes, I should probably know this, given that I've been reading your posts for something like a year--what you'd like to see in lieu of what we have.)

As for legislation, I'd like to see start with cost containment (including reining in the health insurance companies--double digit increases every year? WTF?) and elimination of pre-existing conditions (competing for the business of the sick as well as the business of the healthy). The rest of it is either smoke and mirrors or lobby/special interest shenanigans in various ways.

And we don't need a 1200-page bill to do these things (as we generally don't need bills that run hundreds of pages).

Get rid of lobbyists and horse trading for dealmaking; get rid of riders and institute single-issue up-down votes.

pra, if you think 3% profit is gouging, then we are getting ripped by the health insurance companies. It would seem to me that we realy need to see what is behind the high costs of healthcare and quit jumping to conclusions.

Take a long hard look at the high tech equipment that is used to check you out. Look at the high cost and many years to get a new drug on the market. Look at all the freeloaders that use the emergency rooms for their primary care. Look at the cost to transport accident victims with a chopper. Look at the cost of medical lawsuits and all the extra tests ordered to cover a doctors ass.

I am not in the healthcare business so I am sure I am leaving many expensive things out.

We do have the best healthcare is the world. If you want second rate, move to Canada or England. As you well know many Cnadians come to the US for their care.

Krugman does a good job of debunking the whole value of health care reform. Every point he makes is a counterpoint to Obama's plan.

Yet he doesn't see it. Typical liberal blindness to the facts.

Pragmatist.. I agree with your post above. There is no need for a 1200-2000 page bill that no one can understand and it would probably be 3000-4000 pages if it actually included all the wording but most of it refers to other bills.

Krugman didn't change my mind about this bill about his 3 "myths". I hate the fact that people think that if you are against this bill, you are against health care reform. I want health care reform, just not this bill. It's been, what, 10 months fighting for this massive bill instead of doing little things, one thing at a time?

I think the first start is to reduce health care cost for all and then work on including the uninsured. But, like the stimulus, they are trying to fit as much "uneeded extras" into the bill as they can.

The only problem I foresee is trying to get insurance companies to bid for the business of the people with preexisting conditions. That's just a money lossing business.

We have to incorporate personal responsibility in here somewhere and then take those who really need the help into a government backed umbrella.

People who can afford insurance but elect to not get it should be held responsible for their actions when they actually get sick or hurt.

For those who don't have insurance through their companies, please keep in mind that companies pay up to 70% of health insurance cost for their employee's which is why their employee's don't have to pay as much.

We also need to hold big phamra responsible along with the insurance companies in an effort to bring down cost.

"pra, if you think 3% profit is gouging, then we are getting ripped by the health insurance companies. "

I did not use the word gouging. Please be careful; I was. I said "including." Cost containment applies to providers as well. Why is the same treatment 1100 bucks if you have insurance and 300 bucks if you pay cash (an actual case heard on the radio, from a politician who is NOT a leftwinger and NOT in favor of this bill). But again, I cannot for the life of me believe that double digits every year is purely the result of soaring healthcare costs. Where'd you get your 3%? From external audits? Then we can talk.

"It would seem to me that we realy need to see what is behind the high costs of healthcare and quit jumping to conclusions."

Agreed. Except that I didn't jump to any conclusions. Do you hold this same "jump to conclusions" line out to those who have mysteriously concluded that tort reform is the largest key to solving this problem? Hm? Oh, I guess you are one of them--I see that medical lawsuits line now. *sigh*

But you do bring up some good things that need to be looked out--hence my "cost containment" phrase.

"We do have the best healthcare is the world."

I don't believe that for a second. I've seen too much evidence that shows otherwise. And no, I haven't collected the links. But man, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. The best if you're stinkin' rich, sure, but our record on morbidity is pretty piss-poor for a country commonly held up as the richest and best in the world.

" If you want second rate, move to Canada or England. As you well know many Cnadians come to the US for their care."

Canard alert! Some do, most for elective. For every story you might show me where someone "proves" that Canadian healthcare is bad, I can share a story, from an actual Canadian, that shows the opposite.

Thanks, T Man. I agree with much of what you said. Apparently, however, other countries have worked out some profitability models for competing over those with pre-existing conditions. I don't understand the economics of that well enough to present a case, but I've seen some pretty convincing stuff. (Sorry, no, I don't have a link. Hence "apparently." : ) )

The killer here is, I just said a few things that we should all be able to agree on, and the first anti-HC bill person to speak up could only criticize my point and repeat a canard about certain other countries. It's sad, really. Here I was gettin' all pragmatical...

Krugman does a good job of debunking the whole value of health care reform. Every point he makes is a counterpoint to Obama's plan.

Yet he doesn't see it. Typical liberal blindness to the facts.

Dyer has a good analysis at: Paul Krugman is The Man

#35 | Posted by daprof at 2010-03-13 12:35 PM

That was an interesting and funny read all at the same time.

"For those who don't have insurance through their companies, please keep in mind that companies pay up to 70% of health insurance cost for their employee's which is why their employee's don't have to pay as much."

This is an interesting point. I wonder how it averages out. My contract provides for my employer to pay 80%--virtually unheard of! I have worked jobs where I got nothing in the way of healthcare, but I once had a job where it was fully paid. I wonder how it averages out.

But again, 70 or 100 years ago, we didn't have this insurance industry, right? People paid or didn't get services, right? What percentage of the populace was dying 'cause they couldn't afford to pay? Or suffering 'cause they couldn't afford whatever treatments were then available? (This would be hard to figure, I think, because we also didn't have a great many of the treatments we have now. I mean, the actual medicines didn't exist, so maybe there's no way to compare...)

What if we contained costs and got rid of health insurance? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

I wish Krugman would solve the myth of how it costs the hospital $1,000 for 6 gowns.

Pragmatist, the "government backed umbrella" that I mentioned would be a government/insurance backed fund that would cover those in need of care who could not be covered by conventional insurance.

As someone mentioned, there will always be people who try to use the system to their advantage. We just have too many people using emergency rooms for primary care and too many people who could afford healthcare who choose to not get it and then end up in a hospital.

I don't condone the 1000 dollar insurance cost versus the 300 dollar cash cost. Typically, things are cheaper when you pay cash then when by credit but this is to big of a difference and I'd like to see all the numbers behind it. I will say that when you pay cash, you are paying the hospital directly. When you pay with your insurance, you are paying for all those who your insurance covers. This is just a question, but if insurance companies only covered healthy people who went to the hospital every once in a while for checkup's and the expected yearly sicknesses, would that cost go from 1000 to 400?

The same thing happens with car insurance where if there is a higher percentage of bad drivers and injury lawsuit in your county, your insurance will be higher. I would like to see benifits go to those who maintain good health like automotive insurance reduce cost for good drives.

But again, 70 or 100 years ago, we didn't have this insurance industry, right? People paid or didn't get services, right? What percentage of the populace was dying 'cause they couldn't afford to pay? Or suffering 'cause they couldn't afford whatever treatments were then available? (This would be hard to figure, I think, because we also didn't have a great many of the treatments we have now. I mean, the actual medicines didn't exist, so maybe there's no way to compare...)

What if we contained costs and got rid of health insurance? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

#40 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-03-13 01:01 PM

You are correct about 50-70 years ago when doctors actually made house calls. Then again, I don't think they went to school for 10 years and racked up thousands of loans so they didn't charge what they charge now.

Yes, doctors actually made house calls and almost EVERYTHING was done by your primary care physician so cost were way down. People also didn't sue if the doctor couldn't save a person's life. If the doctor saved a life, he was praised, if he didn't, then he did all he could.

As a society, we are a big part of the problem of rising health care cost.

here is a myth or is it hypocricy to the max..
that the insurance industries are the main problem to higher costs...

head of afl cio calling insurance the 'dark titans of greed" and also called them criminals..
when its this HOOK NOSED looking fuck who heads a union that just got in on a SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLAR kickback from BARRY by way of MY TAX MONEY...and yours too....my return wont show QUITE that much made this year...
and unions also have the BEST BENEFITS this side of congress..

what a bunch of lying dogs.

From #35 link--DAPROF

All of this debunking brings Krugman to the third myth, which is that "health care reform is fiscally irresponsible." In spite of gerrymandered CBO numbers showing that new revenues over a 10-year period would, sure enough, amount to more than projected costs over 7 of those years, Krugman slyly invites the reader to stipulate that the CBO predicts health care reform will really, truly reduce the federal deficit. Granted, the invitation is necessary to set up this uproarious sequence:
Critics argue that we should ignore what's actually in the legislation; when cost control actually starts to bite on Medicare, they insist, Congress will back down.
But this isn't an argument against Obamacare, it's a declaration that we can't control Medicare costs no matter what.
And Krugman says that argument is just hooey. Of course we can control Medicare costs.
What a kidder this Dr. Krugman is! I mean, who in his right mind would actually approve the prospect of Congress faithfully withholding medical treatment from seniors as a cost-control measure? With a mere 45 words, Krugman clarifies what just about everyone understands anyway: that "controlling costs" means "biting on Medicare" means "no MRI for you, Mr. Smith! You've had your lifetime quota. Go line up for your one-way ticket to the ice floe."
OK. I think we have to admit the middle bit with the oil prospecting analogy is a tad murky. That's not Krugman's strongest interlude in this little gem of a polemic. But in terms of making the critics' points about O-care that government controlling large chunks of the health care industry makes things worse, and that this particular reform proposal is carved out of the backsides of our seniors Krugman couldn't have done it better if he were Rush Limbaugh himself.
But not content with half-measures, Krugman puts a cherry on top with these words to introduce his conclusion:
So what's the reality of the proposed reform? Compared with the Platonic ideal of reform, Obamacare comes up short. If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.
Now, that's a thigh-slapper. Yeah, we get it. With Medicare for all, Congress could bite down to control costs and nail everybody! Wouldn't that be something. You might almost have to worry about, well, death panels.
The priceless Krugman sign-off:
"This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise."
Sure, sure. We won't. Wink. Nudge.

Krugman is a dufus.

HEY KRUGMAN

what sort of myths did you consult ENRON on?

I wonder how many folks who deem government as the enemy instead of our own alter ego realize that health reforms would save about 30 percent of what the nation pays every year. Immediately gone would be gigantic corporate profits and administrative costs. Hell, the savings could finance our Mideast atrocities. herm

ALSO KRUGMAN

what about the cbo info that it WONT save as much as obama says ....

and thats WITH the 'altered' data or left out date from barrys world.

"The best if you're stinkin' rich, sure, but our record on morbidity is pretty piss-poor for a country commonly held up as the richest and best in the world."

Seeing as we are the fattest and laziest nation in the world, how rich you are has nothing to do with how healthy you live. When one considers the incredible costs to our society because of preventable diseases, it is obvious our thinking is backward. As usual the government is reacting to the problem as opposed to preventing the problem.

"When one considers the incredible costs to our society because of preventable diseases, it is obvious our thinking is backward."

I agree with you. What you wrote, however, does not contradict what I said. Or maybe what I meant.

I think we have to react to the problem AND prevent the problem. It's like school reform. If you have kids graduating who can't read at grade level, we in the schools have to do two things: 1. Address the problem in the upper grades through remediation, to catch the kids who are out of grade school. 2. Address the problem of kids getting to HS being unable to read at grade level by doing a better job teaching (with whatever multiple factors that entails) them how to read while they are still in grade school.

prag...my worthy advisary...I am sure you would add something in those two points about including the parents in the solution?
what way would you suggest for that?

also at any level...just how much class time is taken to teach statewide tests?? I think its considerable.

THE STATE doing things like NY are not the answer

telling restuarants they CANT ADD SALT...
or you kidding me

or the coke tax..do they REALLY think adding a dime or so to the cost will keep people from thier "COKE" fix..

please.......

"I agree with you. What you wrote, however, does not contradict what I said. Or maybe what I meant."
#51 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-03-13 02:06 PM

I wasn't trying to dispute what you said about the morbidity rate, I was trying to point out there is a reason why the rate is so high. The kids who can't read is a perfect example, you can give the student all the help and resources to improve his reading skills, but if he chooses to ignore them, he will never improve.

"prag...my worthy advisary...I am sure you would add something in those two points about including the parents in the solution?
what way would you suggest for that?"

I don't have one. You can't legislate it, as we've discussed again and again. But I sure would like it if education critics would halt their kneejerk targeting of teachers, as if the kids' volition and parent engagement are irrelevant.

"also at any level...just how much class time is taken to teach statewide tests?? I think its considerable."

Depends on the school and the discipline, really. I have never taught to any test. I teach the standards, which are tested on the test... Too, I don't teach levels that are tested. In my district, 8th and 11th grade are tested (and sundry levels below), and they are tested on the knowledge/skills gained in the previous year. I teach 9th, 11th, and 12th. Which is one problem with basing pay on test performance.

But we digress--I was just using an example...

+++++

"THE STATE doing things like NY are not the answer
telling restuarants they CANT ADD SALT...
or you kidding me
or the coke tax..do they REALLY think adding a dime or so to the cost will keep people from thier "COKE" fix..
please......."

As we've seen with cigarettes, increasing taxes does not result in any serious decrease in consumption. As for that, I think cigarettes should be banned. I wouldn't make a serious move to ban them, but it's what I think. (And gee gosh, all the free marketeers would come runnin' at me anyway...)

+++++

"I agree with you. What you wrote, however, does not contradict what I said. Or maybe what I meant."
#51 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-03-13 02:06 PM
I wasn't trying to dispute what you said about the morbidity rate, I was trying to point out there is a reason why the rate is so high. The kids who can't read is a perfect example, you can give the student all the help and resources to improve his reading skills, but if he chooses to ignore them, he will never improve."

Crispee, that's only part of the equation. You are right, of course, that personal choice to follow medical advice, to change lifestyle, etc. are relevant. (Just as, in education, and in testing, choice and engagement are relevant. Oh, shit, I just made two sweet analogies.) But the system is also fucked up in many ways. The instance of the nurse (?) who misread the chart, or didn't read the chart, cited here last week as a horror of the English (?) system, could and does happen right here at home.

So I don't take away from your point by saying there are other factors, and you don't take away from mine by asserting yours (as apt as it is).

Pragmatist.. Your example about school was not irrelevant. A lot of it comes down to personal responsibility. People always look to blame someone else. Even people without kids will join in to blame someone of power just because it's the thing to do to big government, companies, and people of power.

I'm not saying that I'm not compasionate towards people in need of help, I'm just saying that people used to help themselves a lot more and now they depend on others for their daily lives and blame others when they don't get what they "think" they deserve.

I guess I just came from a different lifestyle where my family were sharecroppers. If they didn't work, we didn't eat or actually, we wouldn't have had anything. Back then, work was your contribution to your family and everyone played their part.

Without personal responsibility, we will continue on the path we are in and bigger government will only make things worse. We shouldn't look to the government to ourselves from ourselves.

Out of the about 40 million uninsured, only about 12-15 million actually need assistance. That's not to say that we don't need to bring down overall cost and if that was done, that 12-15 million might drop to 8-10 million.

I meant to say, We shouldn't look to the government to save ourselves from ourselves.

again krugman mischaracterizes the reason that liberals oppose these bills: they are nothing more than corporate payoffs justified with voodoo economics.

another corporate hack opens his hole on command from his masters.

krugman is just another clueless marxist piece of shit, coming out for the piece of shit in the White House, the only myth krugman has exposed is that he is a credible journalist. Pull your head out of your ass moron, why are the marxist looking for ways to pass this obamanation without actually voting for it? Americans will remember who voted to progress the bill through the cluster fuck process of bribes, backroom deals, and lies, don't vote for it, we already know who are complicit in this cluster fuck. Backlash is going to be ugly.
America will repeal this piece of shit, obama will be able to wipe his ass with it. And if Americans are smart, they will vote to get rid of the other marxist ponzi schemes socialist suckurity, medicaide and medicare.
This week the marxist will all go to the obama sword sale, and America will be able to see first hand all these worthless marxists fall on the sword to advance a worthless ideology that has failed everywhere in the universe.

Rightnut exposes the very reason Republicans will never hold a majority outside of a klan cross burning: They seriously do want to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Old People Vote. And not all of them are brain dead fucks like Rightnut and the Babbler.

reichnut is a blackshirt.

Krugman: Top 3 Health Reform Myths

Another Myth that Krugman forgot to mention:

Krugman is not a dipshit.....HUGE MYTH!

#50 "Seeing as we are the fattest and laziest nation in the world . . ."
We may be the fattest but not the laziest.
For over 200 hundred years dozens of countries have attempted to copy our government, but no one has tried to copy our health care system. So why is it the best in the world?

Krugman ought to actually read the bill:

Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have
real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this
section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272.! section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a
prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates
advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counceling.)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

Not a "TAKE OVER?" Not massive intrusion into our lives?...not a prescription for total medical chaos?

I know he is a socialist - but at some point in time even socialist have to say "Enough" ...or at least that is what happened in Poland, East Germany, Czech Rep. and Hungary...and even Russia itself.

I hate for the US and my kids to go through THAT sort of pain before the population wises up. But you people are driving us down that path.

this bill is death to the dems..........................
...again, it's not about heathcare it's about controlling your vote.

this initial bill is a "foot in the door"

64 -- speaking of blackshirts...

foshaffer

You're in big trouble there buddy!

Actually showing what's in the bill...:0

Barry, Nancy & Harry don't want any light to be shown on the steaming pile until it's already been passed.

The Marxists want their "useful idiots" (see Krugman) to keep trumpeting how great this will be and you let the cat out of the bag....SWEET!

"Hope and Change is not a policy!"

C'mon November!

apparently, quite obviously, we are stiil fighting the Nazis.

you can tell who they are but who and what they call their enemy.

that is the real summation of TFA.

The greatest myth of them all ----Krugman knows what he is talking about (other then trade issues).

"C'mon November!"

What are you expecting to happen in November? The president isn't going anywhere, and this Congress has hardly been effective in using that supermajority that its Democratic leaders enjoyed for a rather short amount of time. (If you're one of those hoping for some sort of impeachment, you're as foolish as those who cried for Bush's. Ain't gonna happen.)

I'd like to see bunches of incumbents go away, including Pelosi and Reid. But I'd like to see them replaced by Democrats. And by smart people. : )

"(If you're one of those hoping for some sort of impeachment, you're as foolish as those who cried for Bush's. Ain't gonna happen.)

Posted by pragmatist"

Pray for a WH BJ!

1040's the breading began
1950's suburbs explode
1960's teenagers find "free love"
1970's time to divorce your spouse
1980's time to flaunt your status
1990's time to max out your credit
2000's time for a low mortgage rate on the McMansion
2010's time for free health care
2010 and beyond, let the "kids" pick up the bill on the party

It appears the "Greatest Generation" has produced exactly the opposite.

1040's the breading began
1950's suburbs explode
1960's teenagers find "free love"
1970's time to divorce your spouse
1980's time to flaunt your status
1990's time to max out your credit
2000's time for a low mortgage rate on the McMansion
2010's time for free health care
2010 and beyond, let the "kids" pick up the bill on the party

It appears the "Greatest Generation" has produced exactly the opposite.

breeding

"Pray for a WH BJ!"

HA! In this regard, methinks Barry is smarter than Billy. He'd be smart enough to cover his tracks. Also, who, really, was surprised at ol' Bill's actions? The history was there. Barack, not so much. (Go ahead--let the jokes begin.)

So Dirk, you're talking general decline of America and personal responsibility, not tied to any particular party, eh?

C'mon November!"

What are you expecting to happen in November?

I'd like to see bunches of incumbents go away, including Pelosi and Reid. But I'd like to see them replaced by Democrats. And by smart people. : )

#70 | Posted by pragmatist

I believe he's expecting a whole lot of new folks to be voted in that will compromise Obummer's, Pelosi's and Reid's leftist leaning agenda---but again, I can only guess what he meant---I think he believes their chances of cramming things through will be passe.

#75 | Posted by pragmatist

Obviously I think there are enablers that tend to cater to humanities worst fears rather than focus on those aspects that are uplifting however it is hard to deny the "big picture" of what is going on.

Also on a personal note I own you an apology for the last time we talked a few months back. I tend to play a little rough when I think someone needs taken down a notch. Not that anyone here should mistake kindness for weakness:)

I am still not sure if it is good that I am back in here as there are still too many simpletons claiming "Right=bad Left=good" and the name callers well fuck them I am still going to take them out at the knees. Your mothers aren't off limits here girls!

All joking aside do you think "jackass", "danni" and some of the others are really individuals from the right attempting to make individuals from the left look like compete idiots?

Foshaffer

how about a link to that?

All joking aside do you think "jackass", "danni" and some of the others are really individuals from the right attempting to make individuals from the left look like compete idiots?

#77 | Posted by Dirk

I've often wondered about that possibility.

#79 | Posted by matsop

It is either that or they genuinely do view everything in that simple of terms.

I understand that we all have an ego that we need to overcome and constantly be on guard against however the sacrificing of the truth, others and in general common sense in order to maintain that sense of self is quite a commentary. This whole REP vs. DEM thing is treated like it is some sort of fucking sporting event.

In my mind there are only those with power and those without and the only way to create a land of equal opportunity is to create an environment in which power is decentralized not an environment in which it is transferred from a "Big" corrupt corporation that pays off government officials with good jobs to a "Big" corrupt Federal Government.

"Also on a personal note I own you an apology for the last time we talked a few months back. I tend to play a little rough when I think someone needs taken down a notch. Not that anyone here should mistake kindness for weakness:)"

Ha! Apology accepted. I don't remember the instance, but it might have been you who drove me to some serious vitriol--which I generally don't indulge in here. Hm. Maybe I can't accept your apology. : ) Ah, hell. Yes, I can. Done.

"I am still not sure if it is good that I am back in here as there are still too many simpletons claiming "Right=bad Left=good" ..."

Right on. But hardly restricted to here. And equally right on is that there are too many simpletons claiming "Left=bad Right=good"... That sort of binary thinking is hardly limited to leftwing DR members. I see a lot of it on both sides. Which rather makes sense if we think of DR as a microcosm of the country.

"All joking aside do you think "jackass", "danni" and some of the others are really individuals from the right attempting to make individuals from the left look like compete idiots?"

I dunno, do you think that of any who purport to be rightwing? I try not to leap from a conclusion that one or two or ten individuals are idiots to a larger conclusion that all or even many who align themselves similarly are also idiots. That would be... idiotic. Danni, I think, is quite sincere. I agree with her sometimes, and disagree sometimes--I've done so publicly. I don't think she's simplistic (any more than a lot of us can be, even some of us who are also capable of extensive logical threads), and I don't think she's an idiot. Jackass I'm not so sure about. Sometimes, I have wondered the same thing about him (if him he is). And sometimes I have thought he just sounds like a fool. But hey, I'm sure that at least a few here have thought the same of me. Certainly, a few have told me so. : )

As for your last thought in #80, Dirk, I don't think corrupt anything is good for us (though as the saying goes, power corrupts), but then I don't, as many do, assume that either corporations or government are always going to be corrupt. Some are; some aren't. I have a certain comfort level with the idea of a government that is active and present (social programs, regulation, taxation to provide certain things), and with the idea of a social contract, a society wherein we all (including gov't) have to give as well as receive--and yes, someone has to administer these things. I have a certain discomfort level with corporations, a distrust (mistrust?) if you will, but I try not to jump to the concept that all corporations are evil. (This is where I _want_ to see value in Ray's idea about capitalism and morals, in all its idealism. No, Ray, if you're reading, that's not a dig.) The bigger issue for me is, Why do you have to be wrong if I am to be right? (That's a general "you" and a general "I.") There are more things we could agree on, individually and within the govt structures we have, than we do agree on. If govt is the stuff we do together to make society work, why does it have to be so fucked up? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question.)

#81 | Posted by pragmatist

Personally I feel the role of those in government is number one to be reelected via the process of vote purchasing (health care, social-welfare, corporate-welfare etc....) and a distant second to act as representative leaders. I am a big fan of term limits in order to remove that element, which appears to breed the corruption.

Crap. Dirk and I are agreeing again (term limits). (Next thing you know, Ray and Afk and I will all find something to agree on.) But of course, as you know, I meant role as in the job they are supposed to do.

Dragon,