The problem with any limits on spending is that you can't define what counts as spending and what doesn't. What if I personally run an ad that's pro Obama? What if I just run an ad that's pro Democrat? How about anti-Republican? How about just pro-specific issues (that happen to align to a candidate or party)?
At what point is it campaign spending or donation, versus simply using my own money to spread my own, free, speech?
The fundamental problem isn't that they throw money, but that itworks.
I'm not even sure that it's always the sheer amount of money they throw, so much as the amount and the duration of the noise that it creates. That's part of the problem with putting spending limits on these things; it's not the money that's the issue, but the amount of presence that the money creates. If you restrict the money you can spend directly on it, they'll simply circumvent that and create noise in other ways.
If you restrict the money you can spend directly on it, they'll simply circumvent that and create noise in other ways.
But you can't restrict the noise.
Well, you CAN restrict the noise, but that would infringe on our freedoms.
Restrict the funds and create sufficient, continuous counter-noise. Single events won't do it; you need a steady stream of discourse to keep things alive in people's minds.
Or, y'know, burn it all down. That's always an option.
Or, y'know, burn it all down. That's always an option.
If a system of control is in place, and there is no alternative, your first step should be to subvert the system to achieve better ends, as a good result from a bad system is better than a bad result from a bad system.
Before anyone slams me that this is from Huffington Post, and therefore biased, it is the comments by the Health and Human Services Department that are what I wanted to share.
Luckily, my HSA is ludicrously cheap to begin with. They could double or triple the premiums, and it would still be cheaper than lunch.
HSA-style care is probably the way to go for a public option. You get coverage for preventative/maintenance care, and coverage for expensive/catastrophic care, but have to pay the first $x per year for everything else. In return, you have much lower premiums (since they do not have to recoup the deductible through premiums, and you thus end up paying effectively for what you use).
If you couple that with a reasonable deductible (say, $1000/year), and require participants to invest in some safe manner money that goes toward paying those deductibles when necessary, you can effectively straddle the line between personal responsibility and public assistance. The government could, say, guarantee coverage of the deductible for families or individuals who are below a certain income level. And, once someone has saved up the full amount of the deductible (or maybe, 2-3 years worth: some benchmark or other) perhaps they would be allowed to draw the interest off for personal use. In between these two states, financial assistance to help people save could go a long way. Couple all of this with free financial counseling, and you're on a good road to success.
Basic/preventative care should be free for all. Catastrophic care should also be, largely, the burden of the state (though I understand and expect that exotic catastrophic care should probably remain in the hands of the wealthy and charity cases: the burden is too great otherwise). Everything in between, however, should probably be a personal responsibility in some manner, with the idea that the state would assume this burden as well whensoever it was unbearable to someone due to their economic status.
The goal of the last assumption of responsibility, however, MUST be that everyone is encouraged toward self-reliance wherever possible, while simultaneously given all of the assistance they need to achieve said self-reliance.
A state where every citizen is 100% self-reliant and socially responsible is the (unachievable) goal, as I think we can all agree that, if everyone were actually willing and able to manage their own affairs without drama or conflict, we would all be better off. Since this is not likely possible, a good compromise would be to encourage self-reliance wherever possible, and guide people on the path toward self-reliance, while simultaneously accepting as a society the burden of assisting those who can not achieve self-reliance as best we can.
We somehow need to reward skill and success while simultaneously affording all equal opportunity to pursue both. Our social safety nets must gently guide everyone toward whatever success they could achieve while minimizing suffering. They must, however, be sub-optimal in the sense that no person would willingly choose these nets over personal success (or even failure); to do otherwise is to only exacerbate the poverty trap.
Or, to summarize: 1. Stupid should be painful, but it should not be fatal. 2. Help should always be available, but should encourage people to help themselves if they can.
The Senate can block this nomination to the bench, but isn't this old fashioned corruption? Whether or not it arises to that level, I expected better from Obama. This is the very type of activity that has turned people away from support of the health care reform bill. Did he learn nothing after the backlash at the payoff over LA and NE?
If he was doing this to get a good bill passed it would be one thing, but all of this shady activity to pass a bill that does more to prop up corporate interests than anything else? Ouch.
The Senate can block this nomination to the bench, butisn't this old fashioned corruption?Whether or not it arises to that level, I expected better from Obama. This is the very type of activity that has turned people away from support of the health care reform bill. Did he learn nothing after the backlash at the payoff over LA and NE?
If he was doing this to get a good bill passed it would be one thing, but all of this shady activity to pass a bill that does more to prop up corporate interests than anything else? Ouch.
Give me a break. That was all baseless accusations. The guy is actually talented and qualified for the position. You realize there are conservatives looking for any connection to anything and just drawing conclusions that are not even remotely based in facts. Surprise! a politically connected attorney is going for a judge position in a area that a vote Obama needs for health care, these things MUST be connected. LOOK at the corruption. I mean there is no way this WELL qualified person would ever get the job if Obama didn't need the vote for health-care. Kilarney, I am ashamed you just posted the equivalent of a lying republican E-mail. A accusation that some operative at the weekly standard thought would cause trouble when other then the writers "opinion" there are no facts that really lead one to believe it's directly linked to health-care.
You realize that any of those congressmen that want to switch their vote will be looked at for any sliver of a connection that they can try and make it look underhanded. I'm experiencing this with the council meetings I watch, every item on the agenda and individual move one of the democratic councilpersons make is questioned by the republicans as them meeting in private with the other three and working out how they will vote ahead of time... I know this isn't happening because I talk to all of them and they talk about how they never see each other anymore.... The republicans on council are trying to make it seem like they leaving them out when in reality the democrats are reaching out everytime. They are trying to make the illusion of corruption when there really isn't. Your post is literally the same thing.
The Senate can block this nomination to the bench, butisn't this old fashioned corruption?Whether or not it arises to that level, I expected better from Obama. This is the very type of activity that has turned people away from support of the health care reform bill. Did he learn nothing after the backlash at the payoff over LA and NE?
If he was doing this to get a good bill passed it would be one thing, but all of this shady activity to pass a bill that does more to prop up corporate interests than anything else? Ouch.
Give me a break. That was all baseless accusations. The guy is actually talented and qualified for the position. You realize there are conservatives looking for any connection to anything and just drawing conclusions that are not even remotely based in facts. Surprise! a politically connected attorney is going for a judge position in a area that a vote Obama needs for healthcare, these things MUST be connected. LOOK at the corruption. I mean there is no way this WELL qualified person would ever get the job if Obama didn't need the vote for health-care. Kilarney, I am ashamed you just posted the equivalent of a lieing republican E-mail. A accusation that some operative at the weekly standard thought would cause trouble when other then the writers "opinion" there are no facts that really lead one to believe it's directly linked to health-care.
Oh and just a note about the "connecting evidence". (that is in no way connected with the article but mentioned at the bottom of it for what reason?) "The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job."
This is a typical move in any primary. The candidates or party will work to try and get the unendorsed candidate to bow out of the race for some position in their government. Joe Sestak (who I'm voting for in the PA primary) is a extremely talented and driven man, I'm not surprised they have offered him the Secretary of the Navy job in lieu of him not running against Spector (though things are starting to look better for Spector lately in PA). That's politics not corruption...... And of course I'm confused why this is even mentioned at the bottom of an article talking about attempting to buy a vote for appointing a judge. It's not remotely close to campaign election politics...
Friend: Now, whether or not you think the government should do something to help people get health care, the ways Congress is trying to shovel the current bill through is getting retarded. The Senate bill was a fucking joke in the first place, and while Pelosi is promising to "amend" the bill if it gets passed, she's also not saying *how* she's going to amend it, she's saying dumb shit like "We have to pass the bill if you want to see what will be in it." And no matter how much the bill is "deficit neutral" now, you can't see into the future and see what will happen later. Personally I feel that if Pelosi is having as much trouble as she is passing it, she should suck it up, and tell Congress to start from square one, instead of trying to pass it just to make it look like Congress *did something*. I wish that Democrats controlled one house and Republicans had the other so that the two of them would actually have to listen to each other. :P... http://cnsnews.com/news/article/62812 Also, government health care issues aside, I think there are other problems that need to be addressed first. Like the fact the current medical system CANNOT support a large amount of influx of patients.
Me: Just a note on that link, I seriously doubt a significant amount of doctors will quit if this is passed. Not to mention the question is "Would you quit if the public option was included" The public option is not in this bill.... doesn't really make any sense.
Friend: The link was really just there as a reference, the fact still stands that there isn't enough personal care physicians available to meet the demand, as they are the lowest paid and drowning in med school debt, and the taxes being added to the bill are just going to make it even less appealing to be one.
Me: But there are not additional taxes leaved on family physicians in this bill.... One hopes that soon our nation will realize we should provide cheaper school options (in the form of loans or grants) for people who want to be doctors... I don't really see how more costumers will causes them to get paid less... in a way this will be very helpful to hospitals and doctors who already have a hard enough time dealing with people without insurance...
Friend: Doctors are already having a hard time getting insurance companies to cover the base costs of what they do. Beyond that, what good is increasing insurance if something isn't being done to fix care coverage at the same time? It'll be like Canada, where if you need a procedure done right away, you need to look to the U.S. or you'll need to wait too long due to a lack of doctors. Except if you flood the U.S. market too, then it'll just make things even worse. I'm not saying that fixing health care isn't a valid concern, I'm saying that you can't try to ram more people into an overrun system and not expect it to burst at the seams. You need to make room for it first.
Me: You do realize that this bill doesn't increase the number of people on government heath-care plans right? Everyone has to get actual private insurance.... This plan does not include the public option nor any of the other options that have the government providing health-care....
Friend: Yes, but that still adds more people who will be able to see a primary care physician on a regular basis, when there is already a current and future shortage. Don't fool yourself into thinking all the people currently without insurance regularly see a doctor. In my opinion they are putting the cart before the horse. They want everyone to be able to afford healthcare, which is a great goal, but the care is just not there to give, at least, not in the quantities we want.
Am I missing something in this conversation.. I feel like this argument is going in a crazy direction...
Friend: Now, whether or not you think the government should do something to help people get health care, the ways Congress is trying to shovel the current bill through is getting retarded. The Senate bill was a fucking joke in the first place, and while Pelosi is promising to "amend" the bill if it gets passed, she's also not saying *how* she's going to amend it, she's saying dumb shit like "We have to pass the bill if you want to see what will be in it." And no matter how much the bill is "deficit neutral" now, you can't see into the future and see what will happen later. Personally I feel that if Pelosi is having as much trouble as she is passing it, she should suck it up, and tell Congress to start from square one, instead of trying to pass it just to make it look like Congress *did something*. I wish that Democrats controlled one house and Republicans had the other so that the two of them would actually have to listen to each other. :P... http://cnsnews.com/news/article/62812 Also, government health care issues aside, I think there are other problems that need to be addressed first. Like the fact the current medical system CANNOT support a large amount of influx of patients.
There is no "me:" response to that, just a note on the link.
In response to the heathcare bill, I would just like to state that in spite of it, I'm still going to work to become an interventional radiologist.
This can also be read as "fuck you" to all people who say that no one in the US will become a doctor. That's simply not true. The truth is more likely, "Few in the US will become surgeons."
There is no "me:" response to that, just a note on the link.
I assume every-time you have a discussion and someone brings up 5 points you answer all points and continue all 5 paths of the conversation until they are resolved never leaving a thread hanging to be picked up later.
Comments
At what point is it campaign spending or donation, versus simply using my own money to spread my own, free, speech?
Restrict the funds and create sufficient, continuous counter-noise. Single events won't do it; you need a steady stream of discourse to keep things alive in people's minds.
Or, y'know, burn it all down. That's always an option.
Your next step is to dismantle the system.
Pillage, then burn.
How about the interview a few days ago when he said Bush was the reason Brown got elected?
Before anyone slams me that this is from Huffington Post, and therefore biased, it is the comments by the Health and Human Services Department that are what I wanted to share.
HSA-style care is probably the way to go for a public option. You get coverage for preventative/maintenance care, and coverage for expensive/catastrophic care, but have to pay the first $x per year for everything else. In return, you have much lower premiums (since they do not have to recoup the deductible through premiums, and you thus end up paying effectively for what you use).
If you couple that with a reasonable deductible (say, $1000/year), and require participants to invest in some safe manner money that goes toward paying those deductibles when necessary, you can effectively straddle the line between personal responsibility and public assistance. The government could, say, guarantee coverage of the deductible for families or individuals who are below a certain income level. And, once someone has saved up the full amount of the deductible (or maybe, 2-3 years worth: some benchmark or other) perhaps they would be allowed to draw the interest off for personal use. In between these two states, financial assistance to help people save could go a long way. Couple all of this with free financial counseling, and you're on a good road to success.
Basic/preventative care should be free for all. Catastrophic care should also be, largely, the burden of the state (though I understand and expect that exotic catastrophic care should probably remain in the hands of the wealthy and charity cases: the burden is too great otherwise). Everything in between, however, should probably be a personal responsibility in some manner, with the idea that the state would assume this burden as well whensoever it was unbearable to someone due to their economic status.
The goal of the last assumption of responsibility, however, MUST be that everyone is encouraged toward self-reliance wherever possible, while simultaneously given all of the assistance they need to achieve said self-reliance.
A state where every citizen is 100% self-reliant and socially responsible is the (unachievable) goal, as I think we can all agree that, if everyone were actually willing and able to manage their own affairs without drama or conflict, we would all be better off. Since this is not likely possible, a good compromise would be to encourage self-reliance wherever possible, and guide people on the path toward self-reliance, while simultaneously accepting as a society the burden of assisting those who can not achieve self-reliance as best we can.
We somehow need to reward skill and success while simultaneously affording all equal opportunity to pursue both. Our social safety nets must gently guide everyone toward whatever success they could achieve while minimizing suffering. They must, however, be sub-optimal in the sense that no person would willingly choose these nets over personal success (or even failure); to do otherwise is to only exacerbate the poverty trap.
Or, to summarize:
1. Stupid should be painful, but it should not be fatal.
2. Help should always be available, but should encourage people to help themselves if they can.
If he was doing this to get a good bill passed it would be one thing, but all of this shady activity to pass a bill that does more to prop up corporate interests than anything else? Ouch.
You realize that any of those congressmen that want to switch their vote will be looked at for any sliver of a connection that they can try and make it look underhanded. I'm experiencing this with the council meetings I watch, every item on the agenda and individual move one of the democratic councilpersons make is questioned by the republicans as them meeting in private with the other three and working out how they will vote ahead of time... I know this isn't happening because I talk to all of them and they talk about how they never see each other anymore.... The republicans on council are trying to make it seem like they leaving them out when in reality the democrats are reaching out everytime. They are trying to make the illusion of corruption when there really isn't. Your post is literally the same thing.
"The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job."
This is a typical move in any primary. The candidates or party will work to try and get the unendorsed candidate to bow out of the race for some position in their government. Joe Sestak (who I'm voting for in the PA primary) is a extremely talented and driven man, I'm not surprised they have offered him the Secretary of the Navy job in lieu of him not running against Spector (though things are starting to look better for Spector lately in PA). That's politics not corruption...... And of course I'm confused why this is even mentioned at the bottom of an article talking about attempting to buy a vote for appointing a judge. It's not remotely close to campaign election politics...
Friend: Now, whether or not you think the government should do something to help people get health care, the ways Congress is trying to shovel the current bill through is getting retarded. The Senate bill was a fucking joke in the first place, and while Pelosi is promising to "amend" the bill if it gets passed, she's also not saying *how* she's going to amend it, she's saying dumb shit like "We have to pass the bill if you want to see what will be in it."
And no matter how much the bill is "deficit neutral" now, you can't see into the future and see what will happen later.
Personally I feel that if Pelosi is having as much trouble as she is passing it, she should suck it up, and tell Congress to start from square one, instead of trying to pass it just to make it look like Congress *did something*. I wish that Democrats controlled one house and Republicans had the other so that the two of them would actually have to listen to each other. :P...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/62812
Also, government health care issues aside, I think there are other problems that need to be addressed first. Like the fact the current medical system CANNOT support a large amount of influx of patients.
Me: Just a note on that link, I seriously doubt a significant amount of doctors will quit if this is passed. Not to mention the question is "Would you quit if the public option was included" The public option is not in this bill.... doesn't really make any sense.
Friend: The link was really just there as a reference, the fact still stands that there isn't enough personal care physicians available to meet the demand, as they are the lowest paid and drowning in med school debt, and the taxes being added to the bill are just going to make it even less appealing to be one.
Me: But there are not additional taxes leaved on family physicians in this bill.... One hopes that soon our nation will realize we should provide cheaper school options (in the form of loans or grants) for people who want to be doctors... I don't really see how more costumers will causes them to get paid less... in a way this will be very helpful to hospitals and doctors who already have a hard enough time dealing with people without insurance...
Friend: Doctors are already having a hard time getting insurance companies to cover the base costs of what they do. Beyond that, what good is increasing insurance if something isn't being done to fix care coverage at the same time? It'll be like Canada, where if you need a procedure done right away, you need to look to the U.S. or you'll need to wait too long due to a lack of doctors. Except if you flood the U.S. market too, then it'll just make things even worse. I'm not saying that fixing health care isn't a valid concern, I'm saying that you can't try to ram more people into an overrun system and not expect it to burst at the seams. You need to make room for it first.
Me: You do realize that this bill doesn't increase the number of people on government heath-care plans right? Everyone has to get actual private insurance.... This plan does not include the public option nor any of the other options that have the government providing health-care....
Friend: Yes, but that still adds more people who will be able to see a primary care physician on a regular basis, when there is already a current and future shortage. Don't fool yourself into thinking all the people currently without insurance regularly see a doctor. In my opinion they are putting the cart before the horse. They want everyone to be able to afford healthcare, which is a great goal, but the care is just not there to give, at least, not in the quantities we want.
Am I missing something in this conversation.. I feel like this argument is going in a crazy direction...
This can also be read as "fuck you" to all people who say that no one in the US will become a doctor. That's simply not true. The truth is more likely, "Few in the US will become surgeons."