The Obama Administration thread

[freedom78]

I am kind of with D on Bill.  I would rather have him than Obama no doubt and I am pretty sure Clinton wouldn't do half this crazy shit Obama is doing.  Even if he is using a lot of Clinton retreads.  They didn't send Hilary, they sent Bill.  That says a lot to me right there.  What the fuck is in Kenya?  They knew Bill commanded the respect it took to get the deal done. 

As far as the tax thing goes, every head economist says taxes will have to be raised, its mathematically impossible for them not to be.  So Obama will say no as long as he can and will lower the new number to $150,000 that he won't go below or something.  Atleast Geitner (a fucking weasel) and Summers are being honest.  Why can't Barack?  And this rumor has been out there for a few weeks, so there is something to it.

I dunno.  Bill was saddled with Newt & Co. for six years, so we can hardly look at his Presidency and claim it's an accurate representation of how liberal he might be.  If he had another term, unhitched from a Republican Congress and his own scandals, I think we'd see a very liberal President.  But we'll never know.  In general, I think term limits for Congress make more sense than those for the Presidency. 

Also, the reason they sent Bill instead of Hilary seems clear to me.  He's higher profile.  He and Bush are probably the two highest profile people who could be sent, short of Obama himself.  Kim wanted the big show. 

And of course Bill should be applauded, because he does command the respect to get it done.  But part of getting it done was the show itself.  Kim is an egomaniac and wants to show off and create propaganda.  D is under the impression that Bill did this all by his lonesome.  Thus, when he surprise landed in NK, it's a stunning coincidence that he was greeted there by the country's top nuclear negotiator and attended a banquet in his honor.  That's why it's amazing that a country more secretive than any other was ready with press releases, including a picture of the ex-President with the rumored to be ill Kim.  At the very least, he went knowing a list of things that could be negotiated away to secure their release, knowing that the elevated profile of his visit would be one of those criteria.  After all, ex-Presidents can't make agreements for their country, without the full backing and knowledge of those currently in office.     

[Smoking Guns]

I am kind of with D on Bill.  I would rather have him than Obama no doubt and I am pretty sure Clinton wouldn't do half this crazy shit Obama is doing.  Even if he is using a lot of Clinton retreads.  They didn't send Hilary, they sent Bill.  That says a lot to me right there.  What the fuck is in Kenya?  They knew Bill commanded the respect it took to get the deal done. 

As far as the tax thing goes, every head economist says taxes will have to be raised, its mathematically impossible for them not to be.  So Obama will say no as long as he can and will lower the new number to $150,000 that he won't go below or something.  Atleast Geitner (a fucking weasel) and Summers are being honest.  Why can't Barack?  And this rumor has been out there for a few weeks, so there is something to it.

I dunno.  Bill was saddled with Newt & Co. for six years, so we can hardly look at his Presidency and claim it's an accurate representation of how liberal he might be.  If he had another term, unhitched from a Republican Congress and his own scandals, I think we'd see a very liberal President.  But we'll never know.  In general, I think term limits for Congress make more sense than those for the Presidency. 

Also, the reason they sent Bill instead of Hilary seems clear to me.  He's higher profile.  He and Bush are probably the two highest profile people who could be sent, short of Obama himself.  Kim wanted the big show. 

And of course Bill should be applauded, because he does command the respect to get it done.  But part of getting it done was the show itself.  Kim is an egomaniac and wants to show off and create propaganda.  D is under the impression that Bill did this all by his lonesome.  Thus, when he surprise landed in NK, it's a stunning coincidence that he was greeted there by the country's top nuclear negotiator and attended a banquet in his honor.  That's why it's amazing that a country more secretive than any other was ready with press releases, including a picture of the ex-President with the rumored to be ill Kim.  At the very least, he went knowing a list of things that could be negotiated away to secure their release, knowing that the elevated profile of his visit would be one of those criteria.  After all, ex-Presidents can't make agreements for their country, without the full backing and knowledge of those currently in office.     

Sound like to me its good to have a balance of power... Cause the Dems have full power right now and they still fuck up.  And for the record, I am not a republican either.  I am an independant.  Either way, I like some balance....  93-2001 weren't that bad.  However, we were headed to recession at the end of clionton's term.

[freedom78]

Sound like to me its good to have a balance of power... Cause the Dems have full power right now and they still fuck up.  And for the record, I am not a republican either.  I am an independant.  Either way, I like some balance....  93-2001 weren't that bad.  However, we were headed to recession at the end of clionton's term.

I suppose it just depends how you look at it.  You see Dems fucking up.  I see Republicans being as obstructionist as a party has been in the history of our country, threatening filibuster on nearly every issue.  Talk about your tyranny of the minority. 

[D]

Bill may not have been 100 percent responsible but without Bill does that shit get done?

I think not.

[Smoking Guns]

Sound like to me its good to have a balance of power... Cause the Dems have full power right now and they still fuck up.  And for the record, I am not a republican either.  I am an independant.  Either way, I like some balance....  93-2001 weren't that bad.  However, we were headed to recession at the end of clionton's term.

I suppose it just depends how you look at it.  You see Dems fucking up.  I see Republicans being as obstructionist as a party has been in the history of our country, threatening filibuster on nearly every issue.  Talk about your tyranny of the minority. 

The Dems have the votes for a plan that they don't really support or know how to explain.

Lets look at a huge Gov't program that competes with private industry.  The US Post Office.

The US Post Office is in bad financial shape.  They can't compete and their service sucks compared to UPS and Fed Ex (private companies).  The USPS is the most one of the most inefficient things in our country.  The Postal Service should be a lesson to us in health care.

[freedom78]

Bill may not have been 100 percent responsible but without Bill does that shit get done?

I think not.

No, it does not.  Unless Obama, Biden, or Sec. Clinton actually GO to NK.  It has to be very high profile and it couldn't just be done through the media.  I don't know why (though, again, I'd guess it's about the show), but when a leader visits NK, they tend to get results. 

Check this vid:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32295947#32295947

[ppbebe]

i saw on the news that it was nk that designed Clinton to do the job. they tipped off the girl's families if the former prez would visit them they'd consider releasing the reporters.

[D]

U think Obama has that kind of respect from NK?

no way

Clinton is my favorite President obviously and his stats speak for themselves. Unlike every other President it seems, Clinton actually delivered most of what he promised. Unlike empty politicians who promise the world to get elected and don't deliver.

[freedom78]

U think Obama has that kind of respect from NK?

no way

Clinton is my favorite President obviously and his stats speak for themselves. Unlike every other President it seems, Clinton actually delivered most of what he promised. Unlike empty politicians who promise the world to get elected and don't deliver.

I don't think anyone has much respect from NK.  They respect or disrespect as suits their needs.  IN this case, they got to make a very high profile show of their "peaceful and humanitarian policy" (they said something like that...not an exact quote) and all it cost them was two prisoners.  They lose pretty much nothing and gain a lot.  We also lose very little (unless there are details yet unknown) and gain a lot. 

When they were first charged and found guilty, it was widely speculated that the purpose here was to set up a scenario where Kim could portray himself as a benevolent leader willing to compromise.  Lo and behold, that's exactly what happened.     

[Axl4Prez2004]

U think Obama has that kind of respect from NK?

no way

Clinton is my favorite President obviously and his stats speak for themselves. Unlike every other President it seems, Clinton actually delivered most of what he promised. Unlike empty politicians who promise the world to get elected and don't deliver.

D, you're kidding, right?  NK would have bent over backwards to have the leader of the Free World come to NK.
Obama would have been criticized mightily (even more than he is already for allowing Bill to do this) for an act like this that the Right sees as "legitimizing" the NK dictator's rule. (which in my opinion it doesn't)
"Clinton delivered most of what he promised."  Revamping healthcare went nowhere fast under Bill. 
btw, as usual, Freedom's correct.  Excellent analysis. 

[Smoking Guns]

A4P, no thoughts on my US Postal Service Analysis and how it can't hang with UPS or Fed Ex and our health care system? 

[Axl4Prez2004]

A4P, no thoughts on my US Postal Service Analysis and how it can't hang with UPS or Fed Ex and our health care system? 

Granted, the US postal service isn't the picture of efficiency...but, what should the government do?  Should we outsource everything?  How 'bout national defense?  I thought we had one bad-ass military?  Apparently the federal government can do something right, eh?  On a personal note, I have to say I've been very happy with the US postal service.  Years back, we were victims of identity theft.  The cops wouldn't touch it...but guess who did?  Yup, since this low-life was getting mail under our name, the Postal Inspector got into the game.  The bitch was caught (got off light in my eyes) but everything was solved because of the postal inspector. 

Health care.  Something has to be done.  The current system is unsustainable.  I don't have the answers...but I do know that requiring every person to have health insurance is a good thing.  It's not "socialism."  Was it "socialist" to require all drivers carry car insurance?   

I had another thought out mowing the lawn tonight.  (keep in mind I was a bit tired as I had finished 3000 yards of swimming and it was a hot day out there mowing...) hypothetically, assume Social Security didn't exist, and President Barack Obama supported the creation of something called "Social" Security.  Wouldn't it be hilarious watching everybody calling it socialism?  Pardon me, I'm tired.

[Smoking Guns]

A4P, national defense if one of the few items everyone agrees the Gov't should provide.  Even libertarians.  It says so in the constitution.  We have a badass military. 

We need major reform.  We need Tort Reform.  Insurance companies been stealing from us for years.  We need to clean them up, but don't try to compete with them.

[freedom78]

Sound like to me its good to have a balance of power... Cause the Dems have full power right now and they still fuck up.  And for the record, I am not a republican either.  I am an independant.  Either way, I like some balance....  93-2001 weren't that bad.  However, we were headed to recession at the end of clionton's term.

I suppose it just depends how you look at it.  You see Dems fucking up.  I see Republicans being as obstructionist as a party has been in the history of our country, threatening filibuster on nearly every issue.  Talk about your tyranny of the minority. 

The Dems have the votes for a plan that they don't really support or know how to explain.

Lets look at a huge Gov't program that competes with private industry.  The US Post Office.

The US Post Office is in bad financial shape.  They can't compete and their service sucks compared to UPS and Fed Ex (private companies).  The USPS is the most one of the most inefficient things in our country.  The Postal Service should be a lesson to us in health care.

Hmm...I don't think their service sucks.  Six days a week, someone comes to my house to give me things that other people sent.  I rarely have to actually venture out to pick anything up.  What's the problem?   

Also, USPS operates under rules that UPS/FedEx don't.  They are FORBIDDEN to make a profit, for example. 

That said, it will slowly grow smaller, as more and more regular mail (bills and letters to other people) are done electronically.

Also, you may be missing something in your comparison of this to healthcare.  Let's say there were no USPS...only UPS, Fedex, etc.  Now, imagine that they would offer at home pickups for you IF you lived in the nicer parts of town, and it was hit or miss otherwise.  And perhaps sometimes they'd pick up your package, but then refuse to deliver it. 

It's not a good comparison, I'm afraid.  Health insurance companies have an inherent conflict of interests.  Once you pay your premium, the least they can pay on you will make them the most money.  And, since it's essentially a game of probability, they don't know how much you'll cost them AFTER you pay.  UPS, on the other hand, knows exactly how much your package weighs, where it's going and how long/what costs will be required to get it there.  Sure, some prices fluctuate, such as gas, but it's not tough to set prices in a way to make an easy profit on each and every package.  Insurance...well, they might get two seemingly identical people, and one gets little more than a check up per year, while the other undergoes surgery for a malignancy and follow up with four cycles of chemo and numerous CT scans.  They're jsut not comparable.  The amount that each company knows going in is completely different.  If UPS breaks your package or doesn't deliver it, you'll not go with them again.  But if BlueCross/BlueShield denies your claim, waht can you do?  Look for another insurer, sure, but now you've got that thing they won't pay for on your history.  What if it's cancer?  No one will take you. 

At a MINIMUM, we need to do away with the idea that you can be denied coverage.  At BEST, we need to get the word "profit" out of health care.  We're a long way from that best case scenario, but if this plan gets done we should be well past the minimum change necessary and get something covers almost everyone (I'd love to scratch the word "almost"), that lowers costs for everyone, that doesn't deny coverage, and that prevents an insurance company from dictating to YOUR doctors. 

Health care.  Something has to be done.  The current system is unsustainable.  I don't have the answers...but I do know that requiring every person to have health insurance is a good thing.  It's not "socialism."  Was it "socialist" to require all drivers carry car insurance?   

Agreed.  This plan is not socialism.  Look to the UK, where essentially doctors work for the government...that's who writes their paychecks.  That is government ownership of a sector of the economy...also known as socialism.  On the other hand, this plan would be creating one or both of the following: (1) an insurance exchange with increased regulation or (2) a public health insurance plan.  Admittedly, the public option is closer to a socialistic plan than the exchange, though both fall well short of true socialized medicine.  Anyone calling this "socialist" either doesn't know what socialism actually is or is trying to scare people with the boogeyman of the Cold war or, more likely, both.   

[Smoking Guns]

Freedom, I think they can regulate and get rid of lobbyist power... Oops, forgot, most of congress is in the insurance company's back pocket.  They take money from them, they won't go after them.  The Doctors are fairly compensated.  We need to let them make money to make sure we get a good crop of future doctors. 

The USPS sux.  Very unreliable.  If I have an important document, I don't us the USPS unless I pay them a lot of money to make sure it actually gets there.  I can't tell you how many times I have written checks that took 3 months to go just a few miles, that "fell" between the cracks.  They are going bankrupt in towns across the country.  The offer outstanding benefits.  Its a great gig.  UPS and Fed Ex offer better service for sending packages.  If they didn't, nobody would use them.  The USPS is raising the rate every few months it seems and they are in financial chaos.  Seriously. 

We don't need a public option in health care, we need better private options on insurance.

[freedom78]

Freedom, I think they can regulate and get rid of lobbyist power... Oops, forgot, most of congress is in the insurance company's back pocket.  They take money from them, they won't go after them.  The Doctors are fairly compensated.  We need to let them make money to make sure we get a good crop of future doctors. 

The USPS sux.  Very unreliable.  If I have an important document, I don't us the USPS unless I pay them a lot of money to make sure it actually gets there.  I can't tell you how many times I have written checks that took 3 months to go just a few miles, that "fell" between the cracks.  They are going bankrupt in towns across the country.  The offer outstanding benefits.  Its a great gig.  UPS and Fed Ex offer better service for sending packages.  If they didn't, nobody would use them.  The USPS is raising the rate every few months it seems and they are in financial chaos.  Seriously. 

We don't need a public option in health care, we need better private options on insurance.

Odd...I've never had any trouble with a check not getting somewhere.

[pilferk]

I am kind of with D on Bill.  I would rather have him than Obama no doubt and I am pretty sure Clinton wouldn't do half this crazy shit Obama is doing.  Even if he is using a lot of Clinton retreads.  They didn't send Hilary, they sent Bill.  That says a lot to me right there.  What the fuck is in Kenya?  They knew Bill commanded the respect it took to get the deal done. 

As far as the tax thing goes, every head economist says taxes will have to be raised, its mathematically impossible for them not to be.  So Obama will say no as long as he can and will lower the new number to $150,000 that he won't go below or something.  Atleast Geitner (a fucking weasel) and Summers are being honest.  Why can't Barack?  And this rumor has been out there for a few weeks, so there is something to it.

Just FYI:  Those economist forecasts you're talking about are basing their projections on current tax revenue and/or a very conservative tax model, which, in turn, is based on current taxable incomes/revenue.

If incomes/revenue goes up (for a number of reasons) for the populace, then tax revenue goes up.  That's what Obama is counting on, and it's why he's sticking to his guns.  He's committed to that model.  IF it doesn't come to pass, I assume he'll address it when the time comes.  But THEY'RE forecasts show that it WILL come.  Witness the "cash for clunkers" program.  That's generating a ton of new revenue that might otherwise not have been generated.  Sales tax on the vehicle, a bunch of governmental revenue, revenue for the auto manufacturers, AND for those working in sales for them, and then property tax for the municipality over the life of the vehicle.  There are a bunch of programs like that, and his supposition is that the increases in downstream tax revenue will offset any needed tax rate increase.

Geitner and Summers were doing what they're supposed to do: Not making promises they have no right to make. 

[pilferk]

A4P, national defense if one of the few items everyone agrees the Gov't should provide.  Even libertarians.  It says so in the constitution.  We have a badass military. 

We need major reform.  We need Tort Reform.  Insurance companies been stealing from us for years.  We need to clean them up, but don't try to compete with them.

Step ONE in any nationalized healthcare system HAS to be that.

It's what has made systems work in other countries.....because one of the leading costs to your healtcare provider is malpractice insurance.  I know docs who are paying upwards of 6 figures PER YEAR to cover their practice's (and the practice is 2 surgeons, FYI) insurance costs.  That's nuts.

I think I've said this before:  If you walked into one of our department of surgery's meetings and said "Hey, we're cutting your reimbursement rate and the amount we consider "reasonable and customary" on procedures, BUT we're also taking over your malpractice insurance to control your premiums (which with good tort reform could drop 50% or more)", you'd likely hear a cheer that could be heard around the hospital.

[pilferk]

Also, you may be missing something in your comparison of this to healthcare.  Let's say there were no USPS...only UPS, Fedex, etc.  Now, imagine that they would offer at home pickups for you IF you lived in the nicer parts of town, and it was hit or miss otherwise.  And perhaps sometimes they'd pick up your package, but then refuse to deliver it. 

It's not a good comparison, I'm afraid.  Health insurance companies have an inherent conflict of interests.  Once you pay your premium, the least they can pay on you will make them the most money.  And, since it's essentially a game of probability, they don't know how much you'll cost them AFTER you pay.  UPS, on the other hand, knows exactly how much your package weighs, where it's going and how long/what costs will be required to get it there.  Sure, some prices fluctuate, such as gas, but it's not tough to set prices in a way to make an easy profit on each and every package.  Insurance...well, they might get two seemingly identical people, and one gets little more than a check up per year, while the other undergoes surgery for a malignancy and follow up with four cycles of chemo and numerous CT scans.  They're jsut not comparable.  The amount that each company knows going in is completely different.  If UPS breaks your package or doesn't deliver it, you'll not go with them again.  But if BlueCross/BlueShield denies your claim, waht can you do?  Look for another insurer, sure, but now you've got that thing they won't pay for on your history.  What if it's cancer?  No one will take you. 

In additon, the government program (in this case USPS) does a fair amount of "cost controlling" and service dictation to the private countries.  They don't do it directly, but indirectly through providing a government controlled competitor.  If USPS can deliver a package next day for $10, assuming the same size and weight...UPS can't charge $100 unless they can provide some premium to the customer to justify that difference.

You'd suspect that government supplied healthcare could have the same effect.  By providing a government controlled competitor to the private insurance companies...it would keep them a bit more "honest".  Because if they don't at least come close to the government's cost and level of service (and you'd THINK private industry could do better in both, right?), then people will leave them in droves and they'll go out of business.  Isn't that the "free market" at work that so many Repubs love?  It's just a free market that happens to have a government entity as one of the competitors...and that competitor chooses to give their product to SOME people for free or at a reduced cost.....(note: before anyone blows up...there is a touch of sarcasm in that last bit)

[freedom78]

Also, you may be missing something in your comparison of this to healthcare.  Let's say there were no USPS...only UPS, Fedex, etc.  Now, imagine that they would offer at home pickups for you IF you lived in the nicer parts of town, and it was hit or miss otherwise.  And perhaps sometimes they'd pick up your package, but then refuse to deliver it. 

It's not a good comparison, I'm afraid.  Health insurance companies have an inherent conflict of interests.  Once you pay your premium, the least they can pay on you will make them the most money.  And, since it's essentially a game of probability, they don't know how much you'll cost them AFTER you pay.  UPS, on the other hand, knows exactly how much your package weighs, where it's going and how long/what costs will be required to get it there.  Sure, some prices fluctuate, such as gas, but it's not tough to set prices in a way to make an easy profit on each and every package.  Insurance...well, they might get two seemingly identical people, and one gets little more than a check up per year, while the other undergoes surgery for a malignancy and follow up with four cycles of chemo and numerous CT scans.  They're jsut not comparable.  The amount that each company knows going in is completely different.  If UPS breaks your package or doesn't deliver it, you'll not go with them again.  But if BlueCross/BlueShield denies your claim, waht can you do?  Look for another insurer, sure, but now you've got that thing they won't pay for on your history.  What if it's cancer?  No one will take you. 

In additon, the government program (in this case USPS) does a fair amount of "cost controlling" and service dictation to the private countries.  They don't do it directly, but indirectly through providing a government controlled competitor.  If USPS can deliver a package next day for $10, assuming the same size and weight...UPS can't charge $100 unless they can provide some premium to the customer to justify that difference.

You'd suspect that government supplied healthcare could have the same effect.  By providing a government controlled competitor to the private insurance companies...it would keep them a bit more "honest".  Because if they don't at least come close to the government's cost and level of service (and you'd THINK private industry could do better in both, right?), then people will leave them in droves and they'll go out of business.  Isn't that the "free market" at work that so many Repubs love?  It's just a free market that happens to have a government entity as one of the competitors...and that competitor chooses to give their product to SOME people for free or at a reduced cost.....(note: before anyone blows up...there is a touch of sarcasm in that last bit)

Exactly.

A4P, national defense if one of the few items everyone agrees the Gov't should provide.  Even libertarians.  It says so in the constitution.  We have a badass military. 

We need major reform.  We need Tort Reform.  Insurance companies been stealing from us for years.  We need to clean them up, but don't try to compete with them.

Step ONE in any nationalized healthcare system HAS to be that.

It's what has made systems work in other countries.....because one of the leading costs to your healtcare provider is malpractice insurance.  I know docs who are paying upwards of 6 figures PER YEAR to cover their practice's (and the practice is 2 surgeons, FYI) insurance costs.  That's nuts.

I think I've said this before:  If you walked into one of our department of surgery's meetings and said "Hey, we're cutting your reimbursement rate and the amount we consider "reasonable and customary" on procedures, BUT we're also taking over your malpractice insurance to control your premiums (which with good tort reform could drop 50% or more)", you'd likely hear a cheer that could be heard around the hospital.

I don't know enough about this to know what it would entail.  I'm sure there are nuisance suits but I'd say that people absolutely have a right to sue if a doctor fucks up and costs someone their life or causes some other serious problem.  I'm also realistic enough to know that when you're sick, there are risks.  There are risks to most treatments and surgeries.  So how do we balance out the need for a right to sue but make it drop premiums 50%?