Possible 2012/16 Republican candidate?

cheesehead

As a fairly independent (and cynical) voter, rarely does any candidate elicit more than a "lukewarm" response from me. However, the more I see and hear from Paul Ryan (Republican Congressman from Wisconsin), the more intrigued I become. It appears he is the most articulate spokesperson out there for a conservative economic agenda. Following is a recent clip from an MSNBC appearance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0a_DSuh628

Is this someone to watch as a VP candidate (or higher) for the 2012 or 2016 election cycle? While I'm new to the board, I might suggest poster Amerika's dream ticket for 2012 or 2016 might include NJ Governor Chris Christie for President and Paul Ryan for VP: East Coast and Midwest, passion and logic, action and thought. As both are Catholic, I'm not sure if that would present an issue as a national ticket. Regardless, both probably should get promoted.

Amerika

I want Chis Christie to stay exactly where he is. New Jersey needs to be fixed fast. Hopefully as he works to fix the problems in his state, it will slow the migration of Jerseyites into my state. It boggles the mind why they want to come into my state in order to escape all the problems of NJ, but work so hard to change my state into New Jersey and have the government try and control all aspects of daily living. Other than Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh, many of us just want a Limited, Responsible, and Constitutional Government. Enough with the tax and spend mentality.

Overheal

The guy is articulate but he articulates bs.

"I'd cut the stimulus" - well yeah. Stimulus designed to pull out of recession when we're coming out of a recession? GENIUS!

"Oh you cant raise the tax on individuals earning $250k+ because those are actually small businesses filing as individuals" - why arent they filing as small businesses? Why are they gaming the system? Why do you want to allow them to game it?

Another load of bull.

Black Swan

Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Rand Paul (or Ron Paul) will more than likely be candidates for the Republican presidential primaries in 2012. If so, it will be interesting to see which one the Tea Party Movement (of the GOP) endorses. Also, if there is any conflict or collaboration between Ron Paul and Rand Paul for the Republican nomination.

The 2016 presidential elections are too far out to project.

Clawdeeus

Forget where I heard this, and it might be pie in the sky stuff, but General Petraeus was rumoured to be someone Republican insiders have an eye on.

He is certainly politcally savvy, and if he managed to pull Afghanistan out of the fire would give anyone a run for thier money.

Again, this might be CT stuff, or just some far right propaganda I heard, but after Obama appointed him commander in Afghanistan there were whispers that he did it not only to put him out of the 2012 race, but to tar him in case of eventual defeat. Doubt it, but still interesting little tid bit.

Amerika

Call me crazy, but how exactly is Chris Christie’s logic considered ‘BS?’ Here is a segment on him when he recently appeared on MSNBC (that cable channel of ill-repute ). Sure smacks of sensibility to me. Although I highly doubt he will run, I think his star power will be utilized in the 2012 election process.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/28/gov_christie_shine_a_bright_light_on_greed_and_self-interest.html

As a semi-aside, here is a new video from the Republican Governors Association. And a pretty good spot leading up to the November elections!
http://vimeo.com/13674670

Looks like the GOP will be picking up a net increase of 7 governorships in November. History is repeating itself… After a states fiscal shape goes bad under Democrat governor's rule, they elect Republicans to fix things. (Except of course California, which doesn’t conform to any know sensibility ). Unfortunately many times after things are fixed and all the hard work is done by the Republican, states often put Democrats back into power, feeling a sense of stability and security… only to repeat the tragic cycle. Alas… WASH, RINSE, and REPEAT.

Also,the GOP is looking to pick up 6 US Senate seats, and possibly 30 House seats. Not enough to take control, but enough to curb the current tide of tyranny.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Call me crazy, but how exactly is Chris Christie’s logic considered ‘BS?’

Paul Ryan. I have nothing against what Christie is saying the interview you linked up.

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

Also,the GOP is looking to pick up 6 US Senate seats, and possibly 30 House seats. Not enough to take control, but enough to curb the current tide of tyranny.

I think 6 seats are a bit of a push. 4 is much more likely. By the way, how is it tyranny if the Dems were elected?


As for my prediction, I think the Far-Right will dominate the GOP Primary and it will be Palin/Huckabee for 2012.

Amerika

kev9100 wrote: »

I think 6 seats are a bit of a push. 4 is much more likely.

Here is the backup for my claim.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html

By the way, how is it tyranny if the Dems were elected?

Democrats haven’t let a little thing like the US Constitution stop them. Let the Health Care Reform Bill serve as an example. How is it constitutional to force me through law to purchase insurance from a private entity?

jank

Amerika wrote: »

Not enough to take control, but enough to curb the current tide of tyranny.

Wow must be really bad tyranny if you can just vote these guys out come the fall, oh wait thats not tyranny thats democracy...:rolleyes:

jank

Amerika wrote: »

Here is the backup for my claim.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html


Democrats haven’t let a little thing like the US Constitution stop them. Let the Health Care Reform Bill serve as an example. How is it constitutional to force me through law to purchase insurance from a private entity?

Well that assumes that all toss up states sway to the GOP. It could happen but more likely wont. 4 is about right though.

Oh and that constitution, weren't you banging on about common decency in another thread. How about if I say its common decency for the government to provide universal health care for all of its citizens? Would I get a pass?:rolleyes:

Amerika

jank wrote: »

Oh and that constitution, weren't you banging on about common decency in another thread. How about if I say its common decency for the government to provide universal health care for all of its citizens? Would I get a pass?:rolleyes:

Apples and oranges sort of thing.

And why stop at universal healthcare? Nourishment… we need that to survive don’t we. Free food for all. Shelter… another basic necessity. Free housing. Jobs… everyone needs to work for the greater good. Create government jobs for all. Communication and knowledge… Free cell phones, computers and WiFi for all.

I’m getting a sudden hankrin’ for olivye.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Democrats haven’t let a little thing like the US Constitution stop them. Let the Health Care Reform Bill serve as an example. How is it constitutional to force me through law to purchase insurance from a private entity?

Maybe someone should ask the Supreme Court?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe someone should ask the Supreme Court?

The same Supreme Court that ruled it is constitutional for the government to take a citizens private property through Eminent Domain and give it to private entities? Sorry but I don’t hold the US Supreme Court in the same vaulted regard as I once had. With so many decisions going straight down party lines, with judges putting a greater emphasis on empathy over the rule of law and deciding each case on the facts and the merits alone, I think politics have diminished its guise.

And just about every month a new concern appears about the Democrats disregard for the law and the Constitution. Just yesterday this memo appeared.
http://www2.nationalreview.com/memo_UCIS_072910.html

Not policy, but an indication that this administration is looking for ways of enacting “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action,” without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.

A couple of key lines of the memo which supports this:

“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,”

“In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”

The “Increase the Use of Deferred Action” indicates they are considering a method of using their discretion not to remove illegal aliens from the U.S. for a period of time at their choosing (can you say never ).

Thanks to NRO, as I doubt anybody will hear about this from the MSM (unless the MSM is "forced" to report on it by public outcry): http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/233793/amnesty-memo-robert-verbruggen

Sorry to take it off topic… oscarBravo made me do it.

Memnoch

Amerika, have you ever considered that you are being too partisan?

It seems like any law or action of the democratic government you disagree with just also happens to be against the constitution. I don't know if it's because you interpret the constitution in line with your beliefs or if it is because when someone does something against your beliefs you have to declare it unconstitutional as you feel that adds greater weight to your criticism of a policy.

I'm sure if you look at the other side of the political divide, people say exactly the same thing about the actions of the now gone republican government and if/when they get back in power, that's what they will say.

It seems to me that people don't really understand or care about the constitution beyond how it can be used to justify their own pre-concieved notions, and I think this holds true for both sides. That's not to say that some of the criticisms aren't justified.

I also find your complaints about being "forced" to buy health insurance from a private company to be highly disingenuous. I don't think it bothers you in the least that you should buy private health insurance. I think what bothers you is the aspect of the law that provides care for disadvantaged people who could not afford insurance till recently. But of course, criticising the law as being unconstitutional on the grounds of privacy concern is much more politically palitable and defendible as one can claim to be principled.

And it might fly on the Fox News Network, but you aren't fooling anyone here, so you might as well just be straight about it.

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

Let the Health Care Reform Bill serve as an example. How is it constitutional to force me through law to purchase insurance from a private entity?

Funnily enough, that is one of the parts of HCR that I'm most uncomfortable with. If there was a Public Option with the Mandate, I would have less trouble with it.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

Amerika, have you ever considered that you are being too partisan?

That my be the case... but this is the US Politics section, and being "too partisan" is not against the guidelines. As a matter of fact I think it adds to the debate.

It seems like any law or action of the democratic government you disagree with just also happens to be against the constitution. I don't know if it's because you interpret the constitution in line with your beliefs or if it is because when someone does something against your beliefs you have to declare it unconstitutional as you feel that adds greater weight to your criticism of a policy.

I'm sure if you look at the other side of the political divide, people say exactly the same thing about the actions of the now gone republican government and if/when they get back in power, that's what they will say.

It seems to me that people don't really understand or care about the constitution beyond how it can be used to justify their own pre-concieved notions, and I think this holds true for both sides. That's not to say that some of the criticisms aren't justified.

I take and argue the side of the GOP and Conservatives, there are plenty here that argue blindly for the Democrats and Progressives/Liberals. I haven't seen you complain about the other side when they spout vile and offensive partisan comments. But that's okay... It's all politics. And I do care as I watch the US Constitution being eaten away without the benefit of Ammendments.

I also find your complaints about being "forced" to buy health insurance from a private company to be highly disingenuous. I don't think it bothers you in the least that you should buy private health insurance. I think what bothers you is the aspect of the law that provides care for disadvantaged people who could not afford insurance till recently. But of course, criticising the law as being unconstitutional on the grounds of privacy concern is much more politically palitable and defendible as one can claim to be principled.

And it might fly on the Fox News Network, but you aren't fooling anyone here, so you might as well just be straight about it.

No, I fear the slippery slope of the greater move towards socialism.

If you look back at some of my posts of the past, you will see I advocate for a means of getting health care for the "truely" disadvantaged.

And yes I buy health care insurance. I can afford it. But if my circumstances change and I am forced to either pay for food and shelter for my family, or health care insurance dictated by our goverment, I want to choose food and shelter and not be looking at criminal charges because of that choice.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Sorry but I don’t hold the US Supreme Court in the same vaulted regard as I once had.

Fair enough, but - like it or not - the Supreme Court is the only body with the authority to definitively state whether or not something is constitutional. Anybody can express an opinion as to whether or not a law is constitutional, but you know what they say about opinions...

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

And yes I buy health care insurance. I can afford it. But if my circumstances change and I am forced to either pay for food and shelter for my family, or health care insurance dictated by our goverment, I want to choose food and shelter and not be looking at criminal charges because of that choice.

Will indigents be required, on pain of conviction, to purchase health insurance they can't afford? Genuine question.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough, but - like it or not - the Supreme Court is the only body with the authority to definitively state whether or not something is constitutional. Anybody can express an opinion as to whether or not a law is constitutional, but you know what they say about opinions...

Fair enough.

Curious... do you agree with the US Supreme Court's ruling on Eminent Domain in the Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 case?

I thought the glue that holds this forum together is "opinions."

And do you mean... "Sometimes opinions are dead on?"

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Will indigents be required, on pain of conviction, to purchase health insurance they can't afford? Genuine question.

Honestly I can't say. I remember hearing that the requirement to purchase health care insurance, back when we still had debate on the topic, didn't take "means" into consideration... but that's about the best I can offer. And if you think about it... 47% here don't pay any income taxes. I doubt the government will or wants to provide free healthcare insurance to all of them. And if they do... then God help us... as we are doomed. Maybe there is someone here who actually read the over 2,000 pages of the bill and can provide better insight? Anyone... Bueller (sorry, had to do it).

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Curious... do you agree with the US Supreme Court's ruling on Eminent Domain in the Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 case?

I honestly don't know. I could read up on it, but my opinion on it would be orthogonal to my basic point, which is that the USSC is the sole authority on constitutionality.

I thought the glue that holds this forum together is "opinions."

And do you mean... "Sometimes opinions are dead on?"

Nope. And of course we can have and express opinions here, but sometimes you need an objective measure of something - and the objective measure of constitutionality in the US is the SC's take on it.

Amerika wrote: »

Honestly I can't say.

With respect, should you be arguing against something when you don't even know if it's true?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

With respect, should you be arguing against something when you don't even know if it's true?

I am arguing it based on the information that I am aware of. I even asked if anybody could provide better information?



From the movie "Men In Black." In a shooting range, confronted with numerous menacing-looking targets, Edwards shoots a cardboard little girl.

Zed: May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?

James Edwards: Well, she was the only one that actually seemed dangerous at the time, sir.

Zed: How'd you come to that conclusion?

James Edwards: Well, first I was gonna pop this guy hanging from the street light, and I realized, y'know, he's just working out. I mean, how would I feel if somebody come runnin' in the gym and bust me in my ass while I'm on the treadmill? Then I saw this snarling beast guy, and I noticed he had a tissue in his hand, and I'm realizing, y'know, he's not snarling, he's sneezing. Y'know, ain't no real threat there. Then I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, y'know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books? She about to start some ****, Zed. She's about eight years old, those books are WAY too advanced for her. If you ask me, I'd say she's up to something. And to be honest, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it.

[pause]

James Edwards: Or do I owe her an apology?

Overheal

we had that discussion in 1st quarter I think and I do recall you were very concerned about this jailtime business. I suppose you could pull up the conversation. I need to get some work done; but its there, and I do not believe that the jailtime is really the issue that the GOP has warped it into.

edit: from post #60 on

edit: bear in mind discussion is aged - Dec 09

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I am arguing it based on the information that I am aware of. I even asked if anybody could provide better information?

Well, the most cursory Google search turned this up.

The idea that you would have to purchase health insurance, at the cost of not being able to afford to buy food and shelter, struck me as so ridiculous that it couldn't be true. So I checked, and it seems it's not true.

It also seems you didn't look too hard to see whether it was true before using it as a talking point.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

The idea that you would have to purchase health insurance, at the cost of not being able to afford to buy food and shelter, struck me as so ridiculous that it couldn't be true. So I checked, and it seems it's not true.

It also seems you didn't look too hard to see whether it was true before using it as a talking point.

Since you’ve decided to move this to a personal level, I will answer it on that basis. Let’s say our current family yearly income is $100,000. And say much of my debt is gauged on that level. Let’s say I become unemployed and our income is severely reduced… but still above the income level that requires me, per the government, to purchase health care insurance. Lets say with the current economy I believe it will be some time before I can again find employment at my desired level. I temporarily decide to make the choice of paying my mortgage and electric (in order not to lose the house), food and clothing, auto and gas, and of course taxes. There is no money left for anything else, and it is my choice not to pay other bills... as is my right. Why is it constitutional for the IRS to impose the pain of conviction upon me, because I choose not to pay for medical insurance to a private company?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Since you’ve decided to move this to a personal level, I will answer it on that basis. Let’s say our current family yearly income is $100,000. And say much of my debt is gauged on that level. Let’s say I become unemployed and our income is severely reduced… but still above the income level that requires me, per the government, to purchase health care insurance. Lets say with the current economy I believe it will be some time before I can again find employment at my desired level. I temporarily decide to make the choice of paying my mortgage and electric (in order not to lose the house), food and clothing, auto and gas, and of course taxes. There is no money left for anything else, and it is my choice not to pay other bills... as is my right. Why is it constitutional for the IRS to impose the pain of conviction upon me, because I choose not to pay for medical insurance to a private company?

In that scenario, where are your savings? I know people above the same income bracket that have enough money to go jobless for three and a half years without reducing their standard of living. I even have 20% of my annual income in savings.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

In that scenario, where are your savings? I know people above the same income bracket that have enough money to go jobless for three and a half years without reducing their standard of living. I even have 20% of my annual income in savings.

You have to make things difficult don't you. Let’s say the government took all my savings for failing to pay prior taxes (I was given the choice of paying the back taxes or head up some department in the Obama administration, and I went with the lesser evil... pay back taxes ). Or let’s say my savings was depleted for any number of reasons… using it for the down payment on the house, investment in a green energy source that went sour and is valued at nothing, stolen by illegal aliens (or should I call it an undocumented withdrawl?), etc… . Bottom line either way is that there is no savings. But that is besides the point.

And according to Al Gore, the ice will melt and the water level will rise by 20 feet. Supposedly this is inevitable. Why does the government not require everyone to purchase flood insurance?

MCMLXXXIII

Amerika wrote: »

Fair enough.

Curious... do you agree with the US Supreme Court's ruling on Eminent Domain in the Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 case?

I thought the glue that holds this forum together is "opinions."

And do you mean... "Sometimes opinions are dead on?"

I don't agree that the government can take land for private companies. However, this situation shows how shallowly our laws are written. The city I live in recently built a new road to run along side of an expressway. Previously, there was about a quarter-mile wide strip of land there. Walmart saw these plans years in advance and bought the land. The city tried to buy the land from Walmart, but the company wouldn't sell. (BTW, Walmart had attempted to put a store here multiple times, but the city had successfully blocked it - citing statistical economic factors, land values, etc.). So the city tried to take the land by eminent domain. The city won, because it was to build a much-needed road. Walmart sued the city. This held up the process, but eventually Walmart lost. Walmart sued again. It held everything up longer, and Walmart lost. This happened for four years, and Walmart eventually told the city "we have a lot more money than you do, and we're going to keep taking you to court until you let us build a store." The city relinquished, and they build the road with Walmart finishing construction on their store just as the road opened.

There are way too many loopholes for either side.

Amerika wrote: »

Honestly I can't say. I remember hearing that the requirement to purchase health care insurance, back when we still had debate on the topic, didn't take "means" into consideration... but that's about the best I can offer. And if you think about it... 47% here don't pay any income taxes. I doubt the government will or wants to provide free healthcare insurance to all of them. And if they do... then God help us... as we are doomed. Maybe there is someone here who actually read the over 2,000 pages of the bill and can provide better insight? Anyone... Bueller (sorry, had to do it).

You are not forced to buy health care, but any company with more than 12 employees must offer it to their workers. I don't think they are forced to subsidize to cost, but I'm not sure about that. All I know is that they must offer it to the employees. Also, if you do not work, the government is setting up "markets" where people can buy their own private health care if they would like.

Amerika

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I don't agree that the government can take land for private companies.

Oh yes it can! The US Surpeme court says so in the case I mentioned above. And the ruling has been abused by cities ever since. They can take your land and home and give it to Walmart claiming it will generate more revenue to the area and more taxes... all for the greater good Comrade.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

You have to make things difficult don't you. Let’s say the government took all my savings for failing to pay prior taxes (I was given the choice of paying the back taxes or head up some department in the Obama administration, and I went with the lesser evil... pay back taxes ). Or let’s say my savings was depleted for any number of reasons… using it for the down payment on the house, investment in a green energy source that went sour and is valued at nothing, stolen by illegal aliens (or should I call it an undocumented withdrawl?), etc… . Bottom line either way is that there is no savings. But that is besides the point.

And according to Al Gore, the ice caps will melt and the water level will rise by 20 feet. Supposedly this is inevitable. Why does the government not require everyone to purchase flood insurance?

Such a wild scenario.

- Why do you have back-taxes?
- Why are you depleting your savings for a deposit; why deplete your entire savings on a single discretionary expense?
- How did you allow yourself to be the victim of identity fraud? Did you not have IF insurance? Homeowners Insurance? Burglary Insurance?
- Flood Insurance is another kettle of beans.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Lets say with the current economy I believe it will be some time before I can again find employment at my desired level. I temporarily decide to make the choice of paying my mortgage and electric (in order not to lose the house), food and clothing, auto and gas, and of course taxes. There is no money left for anything else, and it is my choice not to pay other bills... as is my right. Why is it constitutional for the IRS to impose the pain of conviction upon me, because I choose not to pay for medical insurance to a private company?

Let's take a step back. Do you understand the reasoning behind the move to require universal health coverage?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's take a step back. Do you understand the reasoning behind the move to require universal health coverage?

You've got me a bit gun shy and feel I must be careful how to answer the question, or be hit with a gotcha. I understand the reasoning to find measures to reduce costs and make health care affordable, but not to require universal health care coverage.

Amerika

Overheal... again all besides the point. It is my right to do with my money as I see fit, as long as it is legal.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

You've got me a bit gun shy and feel I must be careful how to answer the question, or be hit with a gotcha.

You can answer the question any way you want, within the forum rules. If I see what I feel is a flaw in your reasoning (or your research), I'll call you on it. Fair enough?

I understand the reasoning to find measures to reduce costs and make health care affordable, but not to require universal health care coverage.

How do you propose to reduce costs and make health care affordable without requiring universal insurance?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can answer the question any way you want, within the forum rules. If I see what I feel is a flaw in your reasoning (or your research), I'll call you on it. Fair enough?

Fair enough, as long as we don't dwell on the minutiae.

How do you propose to reduce costs and make health care affordable without requiring universal insurance?

Several methods including Tort reform... Not requiring doctors to purchase malpractice insurance (let the patients decide if they want to see doctors that don't have it)... Allow healthcare insurance to be sold nationwide... Make pensions more reasonable in hospitals (big problem).... Less paperwork for doctors and hospitals... Make it so Hospitals can't upcharge you for other debts, etc...

And it has been reported that Obama's health care reform will actually increase costs, not reduce them.

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

And it has been reported that Obama's health care reform will actually increase costs, not reduce them.

It may have been reported, but that doesn't make it so. As far as I'm aware, the CBO said it would reduce costs.

Amerika

kev9100 wrote: »

It may have been reported, but that doesn't make it so. As far as I'm aware, the CBO said it would reduce costs.

I stayed away from a right leaning sources and went with a left leaning source for you.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/23/politics/main6423757.shtml

MCMLXXXIII

Amerika wrote: »

Oh yes it can! The US Surpeme court says so in the case I mentioned above. And the ruling has been abused by cities ever since. They can take your land and home and give it to Walmart claiming it will generate more revenue to the area and more taxes... all for the greater good Comrade.

Wow. Yes. I know they can. I'm saying that I agree with you...I think it's wrong for the government to take land and give it to anything private.

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

I stayed away from a right leaning sources and went with a left leaning source for you.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/23/politics/main6423757.shtml

Well, that is definitely worrying. Still, we really should wait a few years before passing judgement over such a huge and complicated piece of legislation.

Amerika

kev9100 wrote: »

Well, that is definitely worrying. Still, we really should wait a few years before passing judgement over such a huge and complicated piece of legislation.

Let’s face it, this health care reform bill is a nightmare. Due to the payment cuts in the bill, doctors are already dropping medicare patients. Hospitals will stop taking medicare patients except for emergencies or go bankrupt. The only way to reduce costs under Obama’s plan is to reduce services and have death panels – or as Obama said take the red pill instead of the blue pill. Scary I know but true… looks like Palin was right. I know this, and deep down I think most of us know this. We can candy-coat it all we want, but we have no other options under this plan, and Obama has already spent the next several generation's money IMO. I have already accepted the fact that if progressives stay in control, when I actually do get to retire and end my usefulness to the state, I'm on my own - both financially and medically. But with the benefits of dual citizenship... EU here I come.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

The only way to reduce costs under Obama’s plan is to reduce services and have death panels...

The very use of a loaded phrase like that is so utterly partisan as to render discussion meaningless.

Please, please tell me you're sufficiently capable of even-handedness to be aware that "death panels" were invented as a bogeyman to avoid having to have a rational discussion about healthcare reform.

...looks like Palin was right.

If Sarah Palin has ever been right about anything, it was by accident.

MCMLXXXIII

Amerika wrote: »

...Not requiring doctors to purchase malpractice insurance (let the patients decide if they want to see doctors that don't have it)...

Doctors are forced to purchase malpractice insurance to protect them. The theory of giving them "freedom from insurance" might sound great on paper, but I don't think it would work in real life. A large part of the problem we have right now is that there are a lot of uninsured people that require medical treatment. The law requires (public) hospitals to treat them - so those of us with money, insurance, etc. end up footing the bill. The people with money or insurance would flock to see insured doctors, leaving the underprivelaged people no choice but to see the cheaper, uninsured doctors. Then, if the doctor makes a mistake, people would have to sue the doctor, and people without money can't afford a lawyer. But if one of them do actually take a case to court and win, that doctor would most likely be put into bankruptcy and not be able to practice anymore.

Amerika wrote: »

...Allow healthcare insurance to be sold nationwide...

Nationwide healthcare would make all healthcare companies move to South Dakota - the state with the most lax healthcare laws. Then, each state's healthcare laws and regulations would be obsolete since the services are being purchased in another state. People vote for some laws, and they vote for other people to make other laws to protect the public. Industialized states such as Pennsylvania have very different laws than states like Wyomg with mostly farms and cattle ranches. Then you have states like Conneticut with mostly office-type jobs or California with a mixture of everything. Each state has different laws to suit their public. Also, there are plenty of options already, and any insurance company can set up shop in any state as long as they follow the local laws and regulations. Making healthcare companies nationwide is a big job killer.

Amerika wrote: »

...Make pensions more reasonable in hospitals (big problem)...

Again, that shold be left up to the hospitals. Just as you are saying you should be able to do what you want with your money, and if hospitals want, or agree to, pensions then that's going to be part of their cost structure. It really doesn't have anything to do with government regulations. A hospital with a good pension will attract good doctors and nurses, etc.

Amerika wrote: »

...Less paperwork for doctors and hospitals...

I agree. ...and I think part of the healthcare overhaul is to have all records computerized by the 2014 date. Most of the hospitals around here are already computerized.

Amerika wrote: »

...Make it so Hospitals can't upcharge you for other debts...

Going along with what I was saying before - if everyone is insured, then hospitals won't need to upcharge to make up for any losses associated with treating the poor and uninsured.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

The very use of a loaded phrase like that is so utterly partisan as to render discussion meaningless.

What was that about opinions? We're in US Politics... most in the US know what death panels mean. Most in the US, I would gather, have never heard of the NICE guidelines.

MCMLXXXIII

Amerika wrote: »

We're in US Politics... most know what death panels mean. Most I would gather have never heard of the NICE guidelines.

Really, Amerika? Death panels were going to be other services that would be covered under the health insurance plan such as creating and maintaining wills, trusts, etc., and making sure someone is held responsible for anyone that has problems with diseases like alzheimer's, demensia, etc. Also, there are always cases where someone gets hit by a bus and no one knows who to ask whether or not they should "pull the plug."

So, while the government wants to make sure there is someone there to make those decisions, the government itself will not be responsible for those decisions in the very least.

Amerika

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Really, Amerika? Death panels were going to be other services that would be covered under the health insurance plan such as creating and maintaining wills, trusts, etc., and making sure someone is held responsible for anyone that has problems with diseases like alzheimer's, demensia, etc. Also, there are always cases where someone gets hit by a bus and no one knows who to ask whether or not they should "pull the plug."

So, while the government wants to make sure there is someone there to make those decisions, the government itself will not be responsible for those decisions in the very least.

Would Obama's grandmother have gotten that hip replacement under the NICE guidelines? Would Ted Kennedy have gotten that brain operation?

MCMLXXXIII

Amerika wrote: »

Would Obama's grandmother have gotten that hip replacement under the NICE guidelines? Would Ted Kennedy have gotten that brain operation?

I don't know.

But, I'm not really worried about it either. This isn't Great Britain, we didn't adopt NICE, and I don't necessarily agree with the goals of NICE. I think that if/when we actually implement any legislation - it should be all or nothing. I think everyone should be required to have health care, but I don't think employers should be the ones to supply it. I also know it's hard to enforce - it would be much easier to enforce if it was run by the government, but somewhere down the line (at least two generations from now) the possibility of adopting our own version of the NICE guidelines would be inevitible...people will look at the money and they won't understand where we have come from and why we didn't have it in the first place.

However, Medicare has been run by the government for years without denying anyone any care. So, I will repeat myself: I don't know.

Amerika

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

However, Medicare has been run by the government for years without denying anyone any care. So, I will repeat myself: I don't know.

Sorry, but Medicare denies more medical procedures as a percentage of requests, than any private health care insurance carrier.
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2009/10/12/medicare-denies-most-claims/

MCMLXXXIII

Amerika wrote: »

Sorry, but Medicare denies more medical procedures as a percentage of requests, than any private health care insurance carrier.
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2009/10/12/medicare-denies-most-claims/

Well, like I said, I think it would be better if everyone were forced to have some form of health insurance (such as car insurance if you have a car), but it shouldn't be provided by an employer, nor by the government. If everyone is on their own, there won't be a disparity when it comes to pricing (vs. group pricing).

rovert

Using death panels when trying to make a serious point in August 2010 :eek:

evenmicheal

George P Bush. Nephew of George W Bush. Think he is a serious contender in the future. Is Hispanic, got the Bush political machine behind him, an attorney and is a US Navy Reserve officer. Only a matter of time before a Bush is president again.