Obama on Letterman....

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh for Christ sakes are you this dense?

Where have I EVER said that this by itself would help more than a public option? Where have I EVER said that I disagree with the public option?

Just like with the two-tier system, you simply can't see beyond point A.

Wanting this kind of reform does not mean I disagree with the public option. Is that clear enough? It does not have to be one or the other.

Yes. The problem is clearly that I am dense, and not that you are continually replacing refuted arguments with ones that you never made.

Look, I like debate as much as the next guy, but if you continue to call me stupid I'm going to get tired of it eventually. I don't recall ever calling you names.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Where have I EVER said that this by itself would help more than a public option? Where have I EVER said that I disagree with the public option?

Did you not read this thread?

Or is someone else using your avatar and it's been their posts I've been reading about how subsidization is evil and a fine is Obama sneakily annexing people into his public option?

Originally Posted by Azure

Wanting this kind of reform does not mean I disagree with the public option. Is that clear enough? It does not have to be one or the other.

No, you said that you would overhaul the system and then "maybe start looking at a public option. "

That's like me saying that "I would be interested to see how Jokinen does with a full season as a Flame and then exploring trade oppourtunites."

I said it, but I didn't mean it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Fine. You do realize that a) this isn't what you first said and that b) that isn't what the Whole Foods CEO in the WSJ article that you cited said.

Because it kinda seems like you're moving the goalposts again.

Yes, back to your stupid rhetoric about moving the goalposts. Just like you did in the two-tiered health care thread where you couldn't realize even for a second that wanting two-tiered health care doesn't mean I want a system like the US has.

And I posted that article because it very quickly went over some of the things that happened. It doesn't necessarily mean I agreed with everything or thought it could all work.

From the start I only suggested that the government should do something about out of state insurance providers. When you and Eddy then questioned how that could work I went and looked it up. Because I was actually wondering why so many people were talking about it, and how they could possibly accomplish it without overhauling every single state regulation throughout the country. I provided a way as to how it could work, and suddenly I'm changing the goalposts?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Did you not read this thread?

Or is someone else using your avatar and it's been their posts I've been reading about how subsidization is evil and a fine is Obama sneakily annexing people into his public option?

No, I said subsidization isn't a good idea if it is done without actually trying to reduce health care costs first.

Because it doesn't actually help reduce costs. It just misplaces them. And I think we both agree that the US has money problems.

Also, I said that fining people to force them into a public option is a bad idea because it doesn't exactly help to create competition in the market, which MIGHT lead to another Medicare style program where the coverage is awesome, but it also costs billions more than it should have.

No, you said that you would overhaul the system and then "maybe start looking at a public option. "

Yes, because I happen to think think that just slapping another public option into the game without making sure you fix the existing problems with insurance companies is a bad idea.

Like I told IFF, wanting reform doesn't mean I'm against the public option. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

That's like me saying that "I would be interested to see how Jokinen does with a full season as a Flame and then exploring trade oppourtunites."

I said it, but I didn't mean it.

Sigh, why do I even bother?

For some reason both you and IFF think that if I want reform I'm against the public option. I have numerous times in this thread and a bunch of others said that I happen to agree with a public option, but ONLY if proper reform is put into place first.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

News to me.

Wait, you actually think that just subsidizing the costs without actually trying to reduce them is a good thing?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, back to your stupid rhetoric about moving the goalposts. Just like you did in the two-tiered health care thread where you couldn't realize even for a second that wanting two-tiered health care doesn't mean I want a system like the US has.

So you're being petty because you're bitter at me for a debate we had in a different thread?!?

Okay, let's try this then.
1. I realize that the U.S. is not the only two-tier model.
2. I agree that costs need to be brought down. In fact, cost is the biggest challenge the health care industry faces in my view.
3. I don't think you're stupid.

Satisfied? If not, I'm afraid this isn't going anywhere. You've now called me "stupid" at least six or seven times... and the weird thing is I have no idea why you're angry.

But the "moving the goalposts" thing is not, in my view, totally unwarranted. Let me give just a few examples.

1. First, you said that states should have authority over health care. You really did say this. Now, you think that federal regulation of health insurance is a good idea. These are contradictory.
2. First, as a proxy for your own specific health care reform ideas, you posted a link to an article by a dude writing for the WSJ, who proposed that existing state regulations of the insurance industry be repealed by Obama. Only AFTER it was pointed out that this is monumentally stupid did you replace this with the notion of a federal regulatory structure that is supplementary to existing state regulations.
3. First you said that you opposed a subsidized public option because, like Medicare, it would cost too much. Then you said that a public option could be considered, but only after cost-saving measures are implemented, first and foremost among them portability--which you still haven't explained as a cost-savings technique.

Now, apparently this is just because I'm "stupid" or "dense"--but that sure looks like moving the goalposts to me.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Wait, you actually think that just subsidizing the costs without actually trying to reduce them is a good thing?

I think I'm finally beginning to understand your point. Sorry, it takes us stupid people a little while.

So--you think a public option is good, but only after other reforms are done first. I agree that both are admirable, but I don't understand why only one can be attempted at a time--and I think that requiring them to occur in that order may doom both of them to failure.

First, can you explain to me what other reforms you would do and how they would reduce costs? Because it seems to me that the cumbersome, multi-payer billing structure of U.S. health care is at least part of the reason for rising costs in health care. What reforms would you enact that would do a better job of reducing costs to consumers than a public option could do by itself?

Because it seems to me that the order--reduce costs, then public option if possible--is actually arbitrary--and because in the absence of major reform of the existing cost structure of U.S. health care, costs will continue to rise for the foreseeable future, and we will have accomplished neither objective--that is, neither a public option NOR a reduction in cost.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sigh, why do I even bother?

For some reason both you and IFF think that if I want reform I'm against the public option.

I must be dense, because the following is a complete quote from earlier in this thread. If was was an editor of a newspaper and had to come up with a headline for this newstory it would be "Why I am against the public option"

Originally Posted by Azure

It would only be borne by the public if the guy can't actually pay for it. Which, if he has to have emergency heart surgery, he won't be able too.

My problem is that some people feel, including some here on CP, that adding a public option will increase the competition and help lower the costs of obtaining private insurance. Which we would all agree is a good thing.

But, if the majority of the people without health care are those that can't afford it, making them subject to a fine will only force them to buy public health care. Because the government WILL provide the cheaper option. Which, might be a good thing. Except for the fact that it does nothing in regards to creating competition between the private and public systems.

The result? A Medicare style system that costs billions more than it should because there is no competition in place to lower those costs. And the result of that? Billions more that the taxpayer has to pay for.

The only way you can force people into paying for insurance is through a method like the one we have here in Canada. Where the majority of the coverage is public. Even if you refuse to pay for your premiums(which some provinces still have)....you still help pay for health care. And even WITH that in place, we're still running a health care deficit. But at least to cover 30 million people we're only paying $5000/person, as opposed to Medicare, which costs $10,000/person.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Whoops!

Azure, you got some 'splainin to do!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

1. First, you said that states should have authority over health care. You really did say this. Now, you think that federal regulation of health insurance is a good idea. These are contradictory.

No, they're not. I said that the actual execution of the health care should be run by the states. The regulation should be controlled by the Federal Government so that they can apply the same standard to each state. And to everyone. Like the Canadian Health Act.

2. First, as a proxy for your own specific health care reform ideas, you posted a link to an article by a dude writing for the WSJ, who proposed that existing state regulations of the insurance industry be repealed by Obama. Only AFTER it was pointed out that this is monumentally stupid did you replace this with the notion of a federal regulatory structure that is supplementary to existing state regulations.

Actually, what I did was go look up how it could be done. And then I posted that. Did I ever say that Obama should override state regulations? No, what I initially said was that he should get Congress to work with the States to try and get that kind of reform. And as the leader of this health care reform, he should be pushing for it. Not forcing it through, but asking Congress to work with the States to try and make insurance less costly.

3. First you said that you opposed a subsidized public option because, like Medicare, it would cost too much. Then you said that a public option could be considered, but only after cost-saving measures are implemented, first and foremost among them portability--which you still haven't explained as a cost-savings technique.

For like the 10th time, I said I disagreed with subsidizing health care because it doesn't actually SOLVE one of the biggest problems with frickin' health care. COST.

It only misplaces it and the burden is on someone else to pay for it.

And then I said that there are certain reforms that could be put into place that might help alleviate those costs. Once that is done, I would look at the public option.

Am I a damn Senator? No. Am I the damn President? No. Have I ever legislated frickin' health care laws. No. And yet you expect me to in a detailed analysis provide a indepth explanation of just exactly HOW I would fix US health care.

And if I don't I'm moving the goalposts. That is why I said you come across as dense. That and the fact that you just keep ignoring what I said and choose to focus on technicalities instead.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Wait, you actually think that just subsidizing the costs without actually trying to reduce them is a good thing?

You actually think this is where I was going?

You think the difference in our stances is that you want reform and subsidies whereas I want subsidies but resist reform?




Azure:
When I say people should be able to afford health care it doesn't mean that they should be able to afford it at the expense of more taxes, more debt and bigger deficits which result from subsidizing the costs to MAKE it more affordable.

Azure:
I'm not strictly against subsidies

[zuluking]

Azure, unless you submit a 1200-page document outlining your approach to healthcare in the US, you will continue to be nitpicked on your stance. Every statement you make will be twisted around and thrown back in your face.

This thread needs a lock.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I must be dense, because the following is a complete quote from earlier in this thread. If was was an editor of a newspaper and had to come up with a headline for this newstory it would be "Why I am against the public option"

Incredible.

What I said.

Because the government WILL provide the cheaper option. Which, might be a good thing. Except for the fact that it does nothing in regards to creating competition between the private and public systems.

The result? A Medicare style system that costs billions more than it should because there is no competition in place to lower those costs. And the result of that? Billions more that the taxpayer has to pay for.

The whole basis of that post was based around the idea of Medicare costing so goddamn much because it had nothing to compete with. Nothing to drive down the costs.

So, if the only thing being done about the cost of private insurance is subsidizing it, which for the 11th time doesn't actually fix the idea of health care costing so frickin' much, then creating a public program also doesn't create any competition because the government is already fixing the costs of health care and disallowing the market to do its work to help reduce costs.

Which in turn MIGHT create another Medicare style program. Which would cost billions more than it should have.

If you would actually bother to go back and read my posts where I talked about Medicare, the costs and market competition, you'd notice that I said I had been talking with someone and that was the explanation they had for Medicare running away in cost.

And I still don't understand how any of what I said above means I'm against the public option. I said I'm against the public option if its just slapped onto the table and forced to compete in a market where the costs are all subsidized.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

No, they're not. I said that the actual execution of the health care should be run by the states. The regulation should be controlled by the Federal Government so that they can apply the same standard to each state. And to everyone. Like the Canadian Health Act.

Actually, what I did was go look up how it could be done. And then I posted that. Did I ever say that Obama should override state regulations? No, what I initially said was that he should get Congress to work with the States to try and get that kind of reform. And as the leader of this health care reform, he should be pushing for it. Not forcing it through, but asking Congress to work with the States to try and make insurance less costly.

For like the 10th time, I said I disagreed with subsidizing health care because it doesn't actually SOLVE one of the biggest problems with frickin' health care. COST.

It only misplaces it and the burden is on someone else to pay for it.

And then I said that there are certain reforms that could be put into place that might help alleviate those costs. Once that is done, I would look at the public option.

Am I a damn Senator? No. Am I the damn President? No. Have I ever legislated frickin' health care laws. No. And yet you expect me to in a detailed analysis provide a indepth explanation of just exactly HOW I would fix US health care.

And if I don't I'm moving the goalposts. That is why I said you come across as dense. That and the fact that you just keep ignoring what I said and choose to focus on technicalities instead.

Dude. I don't expect you to be a Senator. All I wanted was for you to name some reasonable grounds according to which Obama could be considered a successful President. You either can't or won't--and I'm not surprised. I AM surprised that you got defensive and started name-calling.

The only reason I asked for details was because you yourself claimed that Obama's bill lacked key reforms that you supported, implying that you knew what they were--so I (innocently enough) asked. When you posted a WSJ article in response, I assumed (innocently enough) that the views expressed were also yours--and I note that you have since clarified most of the points in that article completely out of existence. Now you claim that your point is something totally different, but that asking you for details about it is completely unfair, because you're not an expert. That's fine--but in criticizing the health care bill you are implying that your opinion is at least valuable enough that you can meaningfully criticize the bill. And in that case, I'd like to hear some details. I don't think that's unfair.

As for health care reform, I think we can definitely agree that cost is a major challenge, and that unless someone addresses the fundamental structure of American health care and how it's paid for, those costs are likely to rise. The HCR bill doesn't really do that, and it's unlikely it will lower costs overall. It might, however, reduce costs to the consumer.

I think that's a good thing. It's not the best possible solution, but it's probably better (even if only just) than no solution at all. It's also all that could reasonably have been expected.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Azure:
When I say people should be able to afford health care it doesn't mean that they should be able to afford it at the expense of more taxes, more debt and bigger deficits which result from subsidizing the costs to MAKE it more affordable.

Azure:
I'm not strictly against subsidies

You know when subsidies can be good? When there are 5 million Americans living 5x below the poverty line, and there is no way they could afford any kind of coverage. Subsidizing health care for those people could work.

But subsidizing the cost of private insurance only creates the illusion that the cost is being reduced, and its not.

On one hand, the US can live with the extremely poor people needed subsidized care, on the other hand, there might be better ways to reduce cost so that you don't need to subsidize health care for the rest of the population that isn't covered.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Azure, unless you submit a 1200-page document outlining your approach to healthcare in the US, you will continue to be nitpicked on your stance. Every statement you make will be twisted around and thrown back in your face.

This thread needs a lock.

Sadly, I almost agree. I can clarify something 10x over and it still gets twisted and thrown back into my face because Gozer and IFF don't agree with it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Azure, unless you submit a 1200-page document outlining your approach to healthcare in the US, you will continue to be nitpicked on your stance. Every statement you make will be twisted around and thrown back in your face.

This thread needs a lock.

That's one way to contribute. Or, you could... make an argument. Just thinking out loud here.

The details ARE important when it comes to these issues. Pretty much everyone (a few congressional Republicans excluded) agrees that health care reform is needed in the U.S. What people disagree about is the details.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Dude. I don't expect you to be a Senator.

In fact, that is exactly how you come off as.

I have clarified almost everything I posted in this thread more than once, and when you couldn't find a reasonable defense to your ridiculous positions, you just moved on to the next point.

First I said Obama should overall all state regulations regarding health insurance(which I didn't), then I said I don't support the public option at all(which I didn't)...then I said I don't support subsidies(which I didn't)....and on, and on, and on.

Like I said before, it doesn't have to be one or the other. For you and Gozer apparently it does. Although I don't want to lump Gozer into the same circle as you considering I have had far more revealing discussions with him than I ever had with you.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I can clarify something 10x over and it still gets twisted and thrown back into my face because Gozer and IFF don't agree with it.

This post makes me sad.

That just isn't what happened, Azure. I'm not even sure we disagree that much. I was honestly just trying to clarify your viewpoint on this issue. The result is that I'm confused--you've "clarified" some of your older posts to the point that I can't help feeling that they contradict each other. I don't think I'm being unfair.

One poster started throwing out insults a while back. Seems to me it wasn't "Gozer" OR "IFF."

[Gozer]

edit: I think this string of debate has run its course

I will only add that made a point of quoting Azure's entire "public option / Medicaid" post specifically so it wouldn't be taken out of context.