Support NeoGAF

[Deus Ex Machina]

PHOTOS New Official Photos (July 5)

President Barack Obama jokingly reacts to news that staffer Nora Becker will be leaving to pursue a joint MD and PhD in healthcare economics, during the White House staff picnic on the South Lawn, June 26, 2009.

President Barack Obama kisses a baby while greeting military families at the White House on July 4, 2009.

President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama in the Green Room prior to the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Pride Month reception in the East Room of the White House, June 29, 2009.

President Barack Obama in the Oval Office with former White House Communications Director Ellen Moran and her family, June 24, 2009.

President Barack Obama, stands next to a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, as he waits for President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia to walk in the door of the Oval Office, June 29, 2009.

Personal secretary Katie Johnson whispers to President Barack Obama during the White House staff picnic, and after the House of Representatives voted to pass an energy bill, on the South Lawn of the White House, June 26, 2009.

President Barack Obama walks with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel during the White House staff picnic, and after learning that the House voted to pass the energy bill, on the South Lawn of the White House, June 26, 2009

President Barack Obama during an interview with journalists in the Rose Garden of the White House on June 29, 2009.

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama greet guests at the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender reception in the East Room of the White House, June 29, 2009.

The view of the South Lawn of the White House as the Foo Fighters performed on July 4, 2009.

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama watch the fireworks over the National Mall from the White House on July 4, 2009.

The silver shoes of a guest stand out as President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama pose for a photo before the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender reception in the East Room of the White House, June 29, 2009.

President Barack Obama listens to Senior Advisor David Axelrod in the outer Oval Office on June 26, 2009. At left is Personal Secretary Katie Johnson.

President Barack Obama stands in the Oval Office with a Hawaiian paddle that was given to him as a gift by chef Allen Wong, who catered the 2009 Presidential Luau, June 26, 2009.

President Barack Obama tosses a football with Trip Director Marvin Nicholson in the outer Oval Office on June 26, 2009. Personal Secretary Katie Johnson watches from her desk.

President Barack Obama greets Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany at the front door of the Oval Office, June 26, 2009.

President Barack Obama holds a football while taking a phone call in the Oval Office of the White House, June 26, 2009.

President Barack Obama meets with advisors during the Presidential Economic daily briefing in the Oval Office, June 26, 2009.

President Barack Obama calls a foreign leader from the Oval Office, June 26, 2009.

President Barack Obama watches as a child attempts to dunk Press Secretary Robert Gibbs during the Congressional Luau on the South Lawn of the White House, June 25, 2009.

President Barack Obama cheers on a child attempting to dunk Press Secretarty Robert Gibbs at the Congressional Luau on the South Lawn of the White House, June 25, 2009.

President Barack Obama meets with members of Congress for a roundtable discussion about immigration reform, June 25, 2009.

President Barack Obama talks to a Congressman about the impending energy bill during a phone call from the Oval Office, June 25, 2009

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama talk backstage before an event for the "United We Serve" service project with at Fort McNair in Washington DC, June 25, 2009.

President Barack Obama leaves the White House en route to Ft. McNair to speak at an event promoting the "United We Serve" service project, June 25, 2009.

President Barack Obama tosses a footbal in the Rose Garden of the White House, June 24, 2009.

President Barack Obama tosses a football with personal aide Reggie Love in the Rose Garden of the White House, June 24, 2009

President Barack Obama leans on a football while making a phone call in the Oval Office on June 24, 2009.

President Barack Obama talks with assistant Eugene Kang in the Oval Office, June 24, 2009.

President Barack Obama with actress Reese Witherspoon in the Oval Office on June 25, 2009. The president was also joined by actors Paul Rudd and Jake Gyllenhaal; they are filming a movie in Washington, D.C.

 

[PantherLotus]

Props for getting those in at the top of the page, and for meeting criticism of those pictures with twice as many. Well done!


(do you wait to post to get them at the top!? LOL)

 

[Macam]

You know, me and my friends would take this thread SO much more seriously if we didn't have those ridiculous photos everywhere! You're stifling our imaginary debate!

 

[NetMapel]

Uh oh ?

 

[PantherLotus]

I have to say I thought the exact same thing. But only if you mean Monica Uh-Oh, not Florida-Classroom Uh-oh.

 

[Spire]

The expression on McCain's face is perfect. :lol

 

[PantherLotus]

The expression on McCain's face is perfect. :lol

THAT one is touching me!

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Props for getting those in at the top of the page, and for meeting criticism of those pictures with twice as many. Well done!

I have some Russia, Day One photos i'm about to post

 

[charlequin]

Yeah, a great example of this is how cancer survival rates are higher in the USA than all of Europe (and probably the rest of the world). Oh wait...

Well, that really seems to make offhand sense: the thing the US system is best at is providing extensive care for individual, highly complex conditions (whether or not it goes unpaid for because people's insurance can't or won't cover it), while the thing it's worst at is providing broad-spectrum preventative medicine and health/wellbeing treatment to the population at large (thus our terrible infant mortality, mediocre life expectancy, etc. statistics.)

Looking at studies about why our cancer survival rate is higher, though, one discovers the interesting truth: the difference arises almost entirely from a much more aggressive effort in the US to detect cancer early, with more than half of the difference being in preventative screenings of men 65 and older for prostate cancer -- that is, men whose medical coverage is paid for through Medicare.

Well if you want to get into it, the US probably has much higher cancer incidence rates compared to third world countries.

We trend towards the higher end of incidence, although I can't find a good overall list. And a lot of that just has to do with otherwise shitty conditions -- The Gambia has a cancer incidence about 1/6th of ours, but a lot of that almost certainly stems from having a life expectancy that's 14 years shorter.

What part of that comment is stupid, exactly?

I wouldn't say "stupid" (and I don't think the person CD responded to was), but the self-defeating part of the argument is that it's actually better to pay $100 on purpose into a system that is built to cover the smart and the stupid alike than to pay $200 into a system that claims only to cover the smart but ends up inefficiently paying for the stupid anyway, and getting indignant over someone getting a "free ride" when they broke their hand doing something foolish is asking to pay that $200.

 

[gkryhewy]

Jebus christ, mccain looks like fucking hell in that photo. When are they going to finish embalming him?

 

[NetMapel]

Jebus christ, mccain looks like fucking hell in that photo. When are they going to finish embalming him?

McCain is old, looks old, and feels old. I honestly think there was a good chance he wouldn't have survived his first term if he was the president. The job is demanding and you can see the toll it has taken on Obama already... imagine if it was McCain instead :O

 

[speculawyer]

McCain is old, looks old, and feels old. I honestly think there was a good chance he wouldn't have survived his first term if he was the president. The job is demanding and you can see the toll it has taken on Obama already... imagine if it was McCain instead :O

Don't worry . . . Palin could have taken over.


:lol

 

[PantherLotus]

Don't worry . . . Palin could have taken over.


:lol

And quit already. That would mean...Pelosi would be President!

 

[mckmas8808]

I wouldn't say "stupid" (and I don't think the person CD responded to was), but the self-defeating part of the argument is that it's actually better to pay $100 on purpose into a system that is built to cover the smart and the stupid alike than to pay $200 into a system that claims only to cover the smart but ends up inefficiently paying for the stupid anyway, and getting indignant over someone getting a "free ride" when they broke their hand doing something foolish is asking to pay that $200.

Yeah I didn't get that. Why is he acting like we already don't pay for people that are uninsured?

 

[Mrs. Manky]

Uh oh ?

I just love the expression on the face of the man on the far left. "What the hell are you looking at?"

 

[mAcOdIn]

Yeah I didn't get that. Why is he acting like we already don't pay for people that are uninsured?

Something to keep in mind is that it is entirely possible that some people think the necessary reform needed would be to stop paying for the uninsured.

Everyone acts as if the only two choices is for health care reform:
1. Cover everyone under the same plan.
or
2. Cover those with no plan of their own.
When there's also:
3. Stop paying for those without coverage.

 

[mckmas8808]

Something to keep in mind is that it is entirely possible that some people think the necessary reform needed would be to stop paying for the uninsured.

Everyone acts as if the only two choices is for health care reform:
1. Cover everyone under the same plan.
or
2. Cover those with no plan of their own.
When there's also:
3. Stop paying for those without coverage.

So who pays the hospitals that treat people without insurance?

 

[Hootie]

U MAD

 

[Monroeski]

Yes. Government Bureaucrats will show up at your door telling you that gutter_trash broke his hand and demand that you pay for his health expenses in full, kinda like the publisher's clearing house sweepstakes in reverse.

Way to exaggerate. I'm not saying they'd send the bill to my house, I'm saying the tax dollars that they took from me would be going towards helping this guy with his silly, fully self inflicted injury.

Uh, but the money could be from his taxes, too.

No shit; it SHOULD be from his taxes. I'm not the one that got pissed off at my own lateness and broke my hand on a wall.

You're not really this stupid, are you?

I'm not actually arguing against (or for) universal health care, I'm arguing against using an example of other people's money paying for your own completely avoidable, self inflicted idiocy to try to sell people on the idea.

How could you possibly think that basically saying "Our health care system is great because after I made myself late for a bus I flew off the handle, punched something really hard, and broke my hand I didn't have to pay anything extra for it because everybody else already was!" is a GOOD example?

 

[mAcOdIn]

So who pays the hospitals that treat people without insurance?

That's the thing.

You're assuming that whenever someone makes an argument against UHC that they're still for the idea of treating the uninsured. So in other words, it's not a question of who pays for treatment, or which way is ultimately cheaper to pay for the same treatment, but whether uninsured people get treated at all.

When you look at it from that perspective the argument against UHC or a private option makes a lot more sense.

That said, I don't agree with that mind set, just that when arguing against people you can't always assume that they have the same end goal as you.

 

[Cloudy]

Katie Johnson could get it

 

[PantherLotus]

I'm actually starting to have an attraction for the personal secretary.

 

[mckmas8808]

That's the thing.

You're assuming that whenever someone makes an argument against UHC that they're still for the idea of treating the uninsured. So in other words, it's not a question of who pays for treatment, or which way is ultimately cheaper to pay for the same treatment, but whether uninsured people get treated at all.

When you look at it from that perspective the argument against UHC or a private option makes a lot more sense.

That said, I don't agree with that mind set, just that when arguing against people you can't always assume that they have the same end goal as you.

Jesus macodin I'm asking you what you end goal is. Do you want these hospitals to service people that don't have insurance or not?

 

[gcubed]

That's the thing.

You're assuming that whenever someone makes an argument against UHC that they're still for the idea of treating the uninsured. So in other words, it's not a question of who pays for treatment, or which way is ultimately cheaper to pay for the same treatment, but whether uninsured people get treated at all.

When you look at it from that perspective the argument against UHC or a private option makes a lot more sense.

That said, I don't agree with that mind set, just that when arguing against people you can't always assume that they have the same end goal as you.

i'm having issues thinking today, but i cant come up with a proper comparison to how stupid it is to complain about uninsured getting treatment. (i'm not speaking to you, but to the people you speak of)

 

[Binabik15]

Way to exaggerate. I'm not saying they'd send the bill to my house, I'm saying the tax dollars that they took from me would be going towards helping this guy with his silly, fully self inflicted injury.

No shit; it SHOULD be from his taxes. I'm not the one that got pissed off at my own lateness and broke my hand on a wall.

So he should pay with his own taxes. Okay. But since his broken hand didn´t cost millions of dollars to fix you can chalk it up to the taxes he paid. No tax money from other people involved.

Of course it was a silly thing to do. But he and everybody else should be treated. And how the government spends the tax money is up to them. If you don´t like it move away or vote somebody else. Or run for an office yourself.

 

[GhaleonEB]

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Well, that really seems to make offhand sense: the thing the US system is best at is providing extensive care for individual, highly complex conditions (whether or not it goes unpaid for because people's insurance can't or won't cover it), while the thing it's worst at is providing broad-spectrum preventative medicine and health/wellbeing treatment to the population at large (thus our terrible infant mortality, mediocre life expectancy, etc. statistics.)

Looking at studies about why our cancer survival rate is higher, though, one discovers the interesting truth: the difference arises almost entirely from a much more aggressive effort in the US to detect cancer early, with more than half of the difference being in preventative screenings of men 65 and older for prostate cancer -- that is, men whose medical coverage is paid for through Medicare.

It's funny, because most of the ads and education about it seems to come from drug companies trying to get people to buy their drugs related to enlarged prostate and telling men to get prostate exams :lol

We trend towards the higher end of incidence, although I can't find a good overall list. And a lot of that just has to do with otherwise shitty conditions -- The Gambia has a cancer incidence about 1/6th of ours, but a lot of that almost certainly stems from having a life expectancy that's 14 years shorter.

It is most certainly something that you have to have age as a control for, which I was assuming his comment did, because the only way for cancer incidence rate comparisons to make sense is to apply the proper controls, whether they be age, race, gender or whatever.

I wouldn't say "stupid" (and I don't think the person CD responded to was), but the self-defeating part of the argument is that it's actually better to pay $100 on purpose into a system that is built to cover the smart and the stupid alike than to pay $200 into a system that claims only to cover the smart but ends up inefficiently paying for the stupid anyway, and getting indignant over someone getting a "free ride" when they broke their hand doing something foolish is asking to pay that $200.

There's a third option there, but it seems that the pro-public group always ignores it, unfortunately. But that's all irrelevant because nothing in the original statement had anything to do with what system of payment was better, and everything to do with the appeal of that particular argument. :lol

 

[mckmas8808]

There's a third option there, but it seems that the pro-public group always ignores it, unfortunately. But that's all irrelevant because nothing in the original statement had anything to do with what system of payment was better. :lol

What's the 3rd option?

 

[backbreaker65]

funny fox news palin conversation liz went in on Palin, to the suprise of the host.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvj-...or-rips_n_226370.html&feature=player_embedded

 

[mAcOdIn]

Jesus macodin I'm asking you what you end goal is. Do you want these hospitals to service people that don't have insurance or not?

I didn't know you were specifically asking me.

Myself, this is one of two areas I diverge from the more traditional right leaning concepts, I support a single payer system personally.

I understand the frustration involved with having to pay for a self inflicted wound, I do, but the alternative in my opinion is worse. The only thing worse to me than paying for some idiot who hurt himself, is the prospect of investigating every single injury and the shit that'd come from that, like say determining that a wound that wasn't self inflicted was and then penalizing or refusing treatment for that person, then that person has paid for essentially nothing. And what would constitute a self inflicted wound? Could someone who doesn't like skydiving refuse to pay for someone who gets injured skydiving, someone who's impotent refuse to allow treatment to people who get an STD?

So, I accept that yes, money will be wasted on idiots who hurt themselves, but truth is, almost all of us are idiots and if we were all allowed to determine what constituted idiotic self inflicted wounds then no one would get treatment.

Easiest to just treat everything and leave personal opinions out of it. Further, if the whole country and government starts footing the whole bill, perhaps we'll see more movement on the food and water quality of the country and shit like that.

 

[HamPster PamPster]

Late to the story but I just saw on the npr planet money blog that Cali is actually issued IOUs? WTF? Any gaffers get one instead of a paycheck? Is there a thread about this or are you talking about it here when not arguing over pictures being posted

Wow ::hugs real paycheck::

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

What's the 3rd option?

Actually, there's more than three, but if you really want one go talk to JayDubya or eznark.

I've talked many a time about what I feel could be done to remedy the problem, so you could even chalk that up to a fourth option. Basically my point is that the choice isn't solely between A) some sort of public option and B) the current status quo. Basically, being against option A doesn't put you into the group who thinks the current "$200 payment" system is the best either.

 

[Monroeski]

So he should pay with his own taxes. Okay. But since his broken hand didn´t cost millions of dollars to fix you can chalk it up to the taxes he paid. No tax money from other people involved.

Of course it was a silly thing to do. But he and everybody else should be treated. And how the government spends the tax money is up to them. If you don´t like it move away or vote somebody else. Or run for an office yourself.

Ah, the old tried and true "if you don't like it get out!" argument. Always a good one. :lol

Of course, if you had actually read my whole post, you would know that I'm not actually arguing against universal health care. I'm just saying that using an example of your own totally avoidable mistake isn't the best way to get your point across particularly in that case; this wasn't even some random boating mistake, or sports accident, or anything like that, it was purely a totally childish overreaction to a problem he brought upon himself in the first place. That's not going to convince anybody.

Well, I'm out of this one now. The only people replying to me are the ones that are so blindly faithful to UHC they can't even imagine the other side of the argument anyway.

 

[PantherLotus]

funny fox news palin conversation liz went in on Palin, to the suprise of the host.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvj-...or-rips_n_226370.html&feature=player_embedded

Wow.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Ah, the old tried and true "if you don't like it get out!" argument. Always a good one. :lol

Of course, if you had actually read my whole post, you would know that I'm not actually arguing against universal health care. I'm just saying that using an example of your own totally avoidable mistake isn't the best way to get your point across particularly in that case; this wasn't even some random boating mistake, or sports accident, or anything like that, it was purely a totally childish overreaction to a problem he brought upon himself in the first place. That's not going to convince anybody.

Well, I'm out of this one now. The only people replying to me are the ones that are so blindly faithful to UHC they can't even imagine the other side of the argument anyway.

I tried Monroeski. I tried.

 

[speculawyer]

I like the drawing of Obama.

Hey National Review . . . how are those wars you pushed for that would cost no more than $100 Billion doing? Yeah, I thought so. So shut the fuck up when it comes to wasteful spending.

 

[PantherLotus]

I like the drawing of Obama.

Hey National Review . . . how are those wars you pushed for that would cost no more than $100 Billion doing? Yeah, I thought so. So shut the fuck up when it comes to wasteful spending.

Aren't they the ones that put him in a turban with a terrorist fist bump?

Anyway, the pic reminds me of an old joke my dad used to tell: "Take the watch off doctah!"

 

[Gaborn]

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that he has advised the president "to move in a measured way" on overturning the military's gay ban, a policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

"It's very clear what President Obama's intent here is. He intends to see this law changed," Admiral Mullen said on CNN's State of the Union With John King. "I've had conversations with him about that. What I've discussed in terms of the future is I think we need to move in a measured way. We're at a time when we're fighting two conflicts. There's a great deal of pressure on our forces."

His comments are the most recent indication that talks about the policy change are taking place between President Barack Obama and military leadership. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Pentagon lawyers were reviewing alternative ways for the policy to be implemented within the Department of Defense.

"Secretary Gates spoke recently about reviewing the policy to make sure that we were executing it in the most humane way possible," Mullen said of the Defense secretary's statement.

"The strategic intent is clear," Mullen repeated. "I am internally discussing this with my staff -- on how to go forward, and what the possible implementation steps could be. I haven't done any kind of extensive review. And what I feel most obligated about is to make sure I tell the president, you know, my -- give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times."

Mullen's remarks outraged many LGBT advocates, including former adviser to President Bill Clinton, Richard Socarides. "Mullen's comments are offensive and insulting. It's shocking that the civilian leadership allows him to talk about a group of Americans as if we were second-class citizens," Socarides was quoted as saying on Americablog.com. "How can you advocate a measured approach to equality? Deliberate is what I'm looking for. Deliberate is what we were promised. And his comments about 'the impact [of a policy change] on our people and their families' is outrageous. What about the impact of the current policy on gay service members? Are they not 'his people.' Not to mention the chilling effect official, government-sanctioned discrimination has on all of us as Americans."

Story Here

I think for me, the most troubling thing is the continued insistence that ANY application of law where DADT is not wholly repealed is "humane". It's not humane. It's despicable.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Yeah you made that point loud and clear

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Palin can't do it all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY9W0byqGQo&fmt=18

A.B. Stoddard delves into the Sarah Palin resignation story and answers questions about how Senate Democrats will fare with their 60 seat super majority.

 

[Malleymal]

Katie Johnson will Lead to the downfall of Obama...

 

[CharlieDigital]

I'm not actually arguing against (or for) universal health care, I'm arguing against using an example of other people's money paying for your own completely avoidable, self inflicted idiocy to try to sell people on the idea.

How could you possibly think that basically saying "Our health care system is great because after I made myself late for a bus I flew off the handle, punched something really hard, and broke my hand I didn't have to pay anything extra for it because everybody else already was!" is a GOOD example?

I don't see how it's a BAD example. People do stupid shit all the time - that's part of the reason why we have insurance. Running out of a building in a rush and tripping and spraining an ankle or chipping a tooth. Eating too fast and choking on a large piece of food. Cutting your finger while chopping veggies because your dog bites you or your kid comes up and pulls on your pants to ask for a drink. This is pretty much everyday type of stuff; whether it's your own stupidity or someone else's, that's pretty much what insurance is for (any type of insurace -- auto, life, health).

I fact, I think it's a great example as it shows that treatment isn't dependent on any circumstance; ultimately it really doesn't matter how he broke his hand -- it still needs to be treated if we are to expect him to be able to be a productive, tax paying member of society.

 

[Killthee]

U.S. Government Launches New Broadband Website by Karl Bode
226 Days until we actually have a broadband plan...

Broadband.gov has launched as the centerpiece of the government's effort to figure what to do to resolve our thoroughly mediocre showing when it comes to broadband speed, price and penetration. The (beta) website notes there's 226 days until the plan's finalized, and offers a timetable for the various workshoups, discussions and roundtables the government's conducting as the plan gets cemented. While we're guessing AT&T, Verizon and Comcast lobbyists will still get the best seats, the website's part of the FCC's effort to make the plan's design "transparent, inclusive, and participatory." The FCC has a tall order; rarely do consumer advocates and carriers agree on anything (net neutrality, municipal broadband bans, deregulation, consumer protection, etc.)​

 

[mAcOdIn]

Ah, the old tried and true "if you don't like it get out!" argument. Always a good one. :lol

Of course, if you had actually read my whole post, you would know that I'm not actually arguing against universal health care. I'm just saying that using an example of your own totally avoidable mistake isn't the best way to get your point across particularly in that case; this wasn't even some random boating mistake, or sports accident, or anything like that, it was purely a totally childish overreaction to a problem he brought upon himself in the first place. That's not going to convince anybody.

Well, I'm out of this one now. The only people replying to me are the ones that are so blindly faithful to UHC they can't even imagine the other side of the argument anyway.

Actually, there's more than three, but if you really want one go talk to JayDubya or eznark.

I've talked many a time about what I feel could be done to remedy the problem, so you could even chalk that up to a fourth option. Basically my point is that the choice isn't solely between A) some sort of public option and B) the current status quo. Basically, being against option A doesn't put you into the group who thinks the current "$200 payment" system is the best either.

I agree with you both that gutter_trash's statement was beyond idiotic. One, the kid thinks it's free when in reality everyone pays for it through taxes and of course second, for thinking his experience is a strength of a single payer system. Completely retarded, perhaps they should have checked his head while they were at it.

Past that though, I think we need to be clear about what everyone's end games are.

If the end goal is to have every citizen covered then I really fail to see how anyone could be against a single payer or government option. No matter how "affordable" we aim to make private health care it's never going to be affordable for everyone, it's a fact. So no matter how much dancing around this subject we do the government is always going to be picking up the tab for people. We can reduce the costs a little bit of course through various reforms and the like but the end result without a government or single payer system will always be the "status quo." So if we want every American covered the options are single payer, government option and the status quo.

Now if the end goal is to not cover every American but instead to control the ridiculous government spending then there is of course more options. We can finally decide to stop treating the uninsured, that'd put an end to that expenditure. We could reform what's covered by the government, deciding to treat some things but not others. We could keep things the same and just introduce what reforms we can to try and minimize the cost.

I always found the idea of having a government option, but not single payer, with the option of opting out in place of a fine and yet still treating people in emergency rooms absurd. Just what fucking stupid shit would that accomplish?


Personally, from my point of view we already have a single payer system in America, just the poor are the only ones who truly benefit since you can't squeeze blood from a rock.

Everyone who has health care is already paying for it, either through reduced wages, their own money or a combination of the two and they pay for the uninsured.
So, if that's the case why not simplify the whole thing?

What I'd personally like to see is a single payer system with the option of buying additional coverage from a private company. Lets face it, whether private sector or government there is going to be a limit on how much they cover you for, after a point you're going to get cut off, it's just how it is. We're all saddened by stories of people getting turned down for an expensive or risky procedure from insurance companies as well as the stories from Canada and abroad where they're denied.
I'd like to see what the chances of having an additional coverage type private insurance on top of a single payer system, because I think it'd be quite profitable. Honestly speaking, how many people would need more coverage than what the government would provide? And with so little pay outs it'd seem like this type of additional coverage could be significantly cheaper than current insurance.

But anyways, back to the discussion.

I think it's quite obvious that the arguments for or against a government option are really for or against everyone having health care, period. I don't see any way else to put it. You can say you're all for personal responsibility, or you're for making it as affordable as possible but it will always be too expensive for some and there will always be some who choose not to get it.

So, in reality, I think it's only right to call a spade a spade and admit that this discussion isn't about anything but do the masses pay for the poor or not which translates to does everyone get guaranteed treatment or not?

 

[soul creator]

if OnLive (and really any company that wants to push digital distribution and streaming services) was smart, they'd be lobbying their ass off for more reliable and consistent national broadband access

 

[krypt0nian]

Yeah you made that point loud and clear

You know what? Shut the spoonybard up already. OR tell the guy posting pics to stop, or the people talking about health care to take it elsewhere.

Gaborn posted new info on the topic. Don't like it? Don't read it.



Edited for family viewing. I'm just tired of being told what we can or cannot post here in the lovefest.

 

[charlequin]

That's the thing.

You're assuming that whenever someone makes an argument against UHC that they're still for the idea of treating the uninsured.

Well, no. I'm making a two-pronged assumption: either they are actually, on balance, okay with treating the uninsured (and therefore should properly support the most efficient way to do it), or they don't but aren't actively and publically advocating for it because most people recognize that the end result of that line of thought (letting people die in the streat of treatable illness because they were uninsured) is monstrous, in which case... well, I think people should at least own it. :lol

I've talked many a time about what I feel could be done to remedy the problem, so you could even chalk that up to a fourth option. Basically my point is that the choice isn't solely between A) some sort of public option and B) the current status quo.

But the reason that it's between these options is that the moneyed interests (existing health insurance companies, etc.) are largely aligned in favor of the status quo, and people who are interested in a healthcare system that provides good health care for as many people as possible at an effective cost all pretty much universally (and accurately) identify a larger government role as a necessity. I don't think "people who curmudgeonishly dislike the idea that someone, somewhere, is paying for health procedures with their tax dollars!!!" is actualy a big enough constituency for a policy designed to appeal to them to gain traction in two-thousand-ought-nine.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Well, no. I'm making a two-pronged assumption: either they are actually, on balance, okay with treating the uninsured (and therefore should properly support the most efficient way to do it), or they don't but aren't actively and publically advocating for it because most people recognize that the end result of that line of thought (letting people die in the streat of treatable illness because they were uninsured) is monstrous, in which case... well, I think people should at least own it. :lol

So you and I are actually in agreement as I believe that's what's really felt by those against a government option. (I covered this in the post before you)

Truthfully, I don't understand why anyone would be afraid to say as much however.

 

[charlequin]

I always found the idea of having a government option, but not single payer, with the option of opting out in place of a fine and yet still treating people in emergency rooms absurd.

I agree, although I want to point out that it's not the progressives who are at fault here. If I could wave a wand and pass a single-payer bill, I'd do it right this friggin' second.

What I'd personally like to see is a single payer system with the option of buying additional coverage from a private company.

This is my preference too. Canada's system of forbidding private insurance and treatment really only functions because people can cross the border to the US and get treated here.

if OnLive (and really any company that wants to push digital distribution and streaming services) was smart, they'd be lobbying their ass off for more reliable and consistent national broadband access

Well, there's a problem where they're lobbying against Comcast et al who are in the very profitable business of providing really shitty, geographically locked broadband.

So you and I are actually in agreement as I believe that's what's really felt by those against a government option. (I covered this in the post before you)

Truthfully, I don't understand why anyone would be afraid to say as much however.

Yep, we agree on this. And speaking as a freelancer, and the son of a small-business owner, it seems to me that providing coverage for everyone is an important economic issue as well as a moral one -- if people are stuck buying insurance, they're going to gravitate towards jobs that provide it, even without the tax break, and that's going to privilege employers and large businesses over employees, part-timers, small-business owners, and freelancers.

 

[Gaborn]

U.S. representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran who earned a Bronze Star, has become the lead sponsor of a bill that would lift the ban on openly gay personnel serving in the military, confirming earlier reports.

"It is vital to our national security," Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said to The Morning Call newspaper. "We have troops that are fighting in two wars and we need every qualified able-bodied individual who is able to serve."

Ellen Taucher, who is leaving Congress to take a position with the Obama administration, was the leading sponsor of the bill when it was reintroduced to Congress earlier this year.

The legislation currently has 150 cosponsors in the House. President Obama and members of his administration have indicated that they are interested in repealing the ban through Congress and not by executive order.

Murphy, 35, is a former prosecutor, West Point professor, and captain in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. In a 2008 hearing on "don't ask, don't tell," Murphy went toe-to-toe with Elaine Donnelly, the president of the Center for Military Readiness, which is fighting to keep the ban in place.

"You're basically asserting that straight men and women in our military aren't professional enough to serve openly with gay troops while completing their military missions," he said. "You know, as a former Army officer, I can tell you I think that's an insult to me and to many of the soldiers. … 24 countries…allow [gay] military personnel to serve openly without any detrimental impact on unit cohesion."

A Gallup poll in May shows that more than two thirds of Americans -- 69% -- favor lifting the ban; 26% remain opposed.

Story Here

While Obama is waiting for a "review" by his secretary of defense and other advisors it looks like there IS still a congressional voice on the MREA. Too bad Obama has so far refused to endorse the MREA.