(09-30-2015 09:34 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 09:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 12:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What we NEED is a multi-party system where coalitions must be formed. Although most politicians in our current system agree on spending more, they disagree a lot on 'where'.... so although individual compromises may have winners and losers, in aggregate, everyone spends more.... because that is the only thing 60% of them agree on.

Without some sort of PR electoral system at minimum, and probably a switch to a parliamentary system, we probably aren't going to see it.

But I would absolutely support both of those changes.

And they may be more achievable than you might think. Conventional wisdom has it that in order to switch to a parliamentary system, we'd have to amend the Constitution. But we know that it's really a living document which evolves with society to address contemporary needs as they are perceived. As long as five justices believe in their hearts that a law is a good idea, the question of whether it comports with the language of some musty old document is easily finessed. "Amendments" are so 20th Century!

We just need both parties to agree on a pro-PR/pro-parliamentary "litmus test" for new SC judges and we're set!

One reform I've long supported is moving at least the House to four year terms elected in Presidential years. (Personally I'd also do the same for the Senate, but would accept just the House. See, totally willing to compromise!) Not strictly speaking a move to a parliamentary system, but it gets rid of the two year terms - just too short for the modern world, IMHO -and more importantly they know and voters know they are stuck with each other for four years and theoretically voters will hold them accountable if they spend four years bickering and pointing fingers.

(10-01-2015 08:54 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Anecdotally, yesterday 2/3 of House Republicans voted to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding, even though polls show the majority of Americans oppose defunding Planned Parenthood, let alone shutting down the freakin' government over it. And based on discredited "sting" videos at that. Sorry, that's not a party that's serious about governing or compromise. (Yes, I realize it was a free vote for many of them b/c the outcome was determined.)

How many democrats voted for compromise?

Personally, I think PP should donate the fetal waste to research organizations free of charge, and not rely on accounting devices.

I think government funding for PP is a separate question.

(10-01-2015 08:54 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Anecdotally, yesterday 2/3 of House Republicans voted to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding, even though polls show the majority of Americans oppose defunding Planned Parenthood, let alone shutting down the freakin' government over it. And based on discredited "sting" videos at that. Sorry, that's not a party that's serious about governing or compromise. (Yes, I realize it was a free vote for many of them b/c the outcome was determined.)

This really is a stupid thing for republicans to be making into a major political issue. I'm no fan of PP, and I'm certainly no opponent of shutting down the government for a while. But now is not the time, and this is not the issue, to have that battle over.

(10-01-2015 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 08:54 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Anecdotally, yesterday 2/3 of House Republicans voted to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding, even though polls show the majority of Americans oppose defunding Planned Parenthood, let alone shutting down the freakin' government over it. And based on discredited "sting" videos at that. Sorry, that's not a party that's serious about governing or compromise. (Yes, I realize it was a free vote for many of them b/c the outcome was determined.)

How many democrats voted for compromise?

Personally, I think PP should donate the fetal waste to research organizations free of charge, and not rely on accounting devices.

I think government funding for PP is a separate question.

They were only able to pass it because of Dem votes. It's not what they would pass if they were in the majority, so that's pretty much compromise by definition. They could have refused to vote for it and left Boehner to figure out how to keep his party from shutting down the government.

My understanding is that PP "sells" fetal tissue at cost. I don't have an issue with telling them to donate it and take the loss, though I'm not convinced the GOP would support that. And I think it's a lot less simple than that - I'll admit I don't know enough about the actual costs to know what's reasonable. Most arguing PP is overcharging are people who hate PP to start out with...

(10-01-2015 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think government funding for PP is a separate question.

Why the heck do they have direct Federal funding anyway? They're already tax-exempt, for Pete's sake.

I know the average Democrat doesn't like to hear this, but the fact of Federally funding something is what "politicizes" it.

(10-01-2015 09:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think government funding for PP is a separate question.

Why the heck do they have direct Federal funding anyway? They're already tax-exempt, for Pete's sake.

I know the average Democrat doesn't like to hear this, but the fact of Federally funding something is what "politicizes" it.

Agreed.

In the above example, the 'free' vote allows them to express an opinion that some people (probably many of their constituents) have without actually a threat of shutting down the government, yet it is portrayed as people 'actually' willing to shut down the government.... even by someone who obviously knows and admits that it had zero chance of actually doing that. Not picking on that person... it is how the game gets played.

In other words, people from both sides are using it for political purposes, with zero actual impact on the rights of anyone.

I think we spend more private money arguing about abortion than we do on abortions themselves. If you ake public funding away, there should still be plenty of money to fund them and you've taken away the 'standing' of lots of people to challenge it, since they aren't paying for it and the SCOTUS has already determined and repeatedly affirmed that the mother's rights are superior until 'viability'.

I'm no attorney, but it seems to me that if private people are paying for it and it is legal... that this is a clear argument, especially to 'true' conservatives.

(10-01-2015 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think government funding for PP is a separate question.

Why the heck do they have direct Federal funding anyway? They're already tax-exempt, for Pete's sake.

I know the average Democrat doesn't like to hear this, but the fact of Federally funding something is what "politicizes" it.

Agreed.

In the above example, the 'free' vote allows them to express an opinion that some people (probably many of their constituents) have without actually a threat of shutting down the government, yet it is portrayed as people 'actually' willing to shut down the government.... even by someone who obviously knows and admits that it had zero chance of actually doing that. Not picking on that person... it is how the game gets played.

In other words, people from both sides are using it for political purposes, with zero actual impact on the rights of anyone.

I think we spend more private money arguing about abortion than we do on abortions themselves. If you ake public funding away, there should still be plenty of money to fund them and you've taken away the 'standing' of lots of people to challenge it, since they aren't paying for it and the SCOTUS has already determined and repeatedly affirmed that the mother's rights are superior until 'viability'.

I'm no attorney, but it seems to me that if private people are paying for it and it is legal... that this is a clear argument, especially to 'true' conservatives.

I think this glosses over the point that, while it ended up being a free vote, until Boehner's resignation there was a very real chance there would be a government shutdown.

Now, you could argue that that was more about getting rid of Boehner, and I wouldn't disagree, but a main complaint about him boiled down to his desire to avoid government shutdowns. And the argument that they needed the "free vote" to avoid getting primaried also highlights the problem I'm talking about. Again, I've heard Republicans make this argument and complaint about their base and the Tea Party. Cruz isn't wrong when he says the Republican establishment holds much of their base in contempt...


Back to the PP issue - no federal funds go to abortions there. I think the problem many Republicans have is that it is money going to fund women's health and family planning. Some because of more general opposition to social programs, but some because it specifically has to do with women's sexuality. And that's icky and naughty, and their husbands/dads should be in charge of that any way. Not saying that's the case for any one here, but for many Republicans, I think it clearly is.

(I also don't understand anti-abortion activists who oppose trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but that's a different story.)

[quote='JustAnotherAustinOwl' pid='12446563' .

My understanding is that PP "sells" fetal tissue at cost. [/quote]

"Cost" is a malleable concept. That's why I said they should not rely on accounting devices. That is the Big Pharma can claim they are selling that $700 pill at cost.

if I go into my kitchen and make a sandwich, and then cut off the crusts, I have two choices. I just throw away the waste. Or I can sell it to JAAO at cost. let's see, the cost of the bread, the cost of the paper napkin, the cost of going to the store for the napkin, the cost of the knife, depreciation on the building, a pro-rata share of the electric bill, the cost of preparing the cost estimate, the cost of researching the cost, and of course, my time...I think $49.57 will break me even on my costs.

Long ago, I worked for accountants, and the ongoing joke was, when asked what 2+2 is, the accountant replies "What do you want it to be."

cost should be a given figure, not a negotiated one. ICost shouldn't go up $30 because a doctor has coffee with a buyer. I think the best way is just to take the cost off PP's shoulders. Let the recipient collect and package the donated tissues, and be done with it.

Please note I didn't say to abolish PP or abortions. I am old enough to have experience life before RVW. I see good and bad on both sides of this issue.

Funding PP is another matter. I wonder why they deserve funding and not the Boy Scouts, the Sierra Club, the Little Sisters of the Poor, One Drop, Big Cat Rescue, and a hundred others. I am willing to listen to arguments pro and con. They already have tax exempt status, which would be called a subsidy in many circles.

(10-01-2015 11:53 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Back to the PP issue - no federal funds go to abortions there.

In 1987 they gave thousands of free condoms to Wiess College to distribute at Night of Decadence. Your tax dollars at work!

(10-01-2015 11:53 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think this glosses over the point that, while it ended up being a free vote, until Boehner's resignation there was a very real chance there would be a government shutdown.

But that glosses over the fact that regardless of what they may have said, you don't really know how they would have voted if it really meant a shut down. You don't know because it never happened, right? Governments threaten to do all sorts of things... it's part of how they get and keep power.

The best example to me was Clinton and Newt. Publicly, they were almost always at odds, but they compromised and worked together on lots of things.

Quote:Now, you could argue that that was more about getting rid of Boehner, and I wouldn't disagree, but a main complaint about him boiled down to his desire to avoid government shutdowns. And the argument that they needed the "free vote" to avoid getting primaried also highlights the problem I'm talking about. Again, I've heard Republicans make this argument and complaint about their base and the Tea Party. Cruz isn't wrong when he says the Republican establishment holds much of their base in contempt...

This is an entirely different discussion. Personally, I think the Democrats aren't in disarray, but that isn't necessarily a good thing. They are still just as 'controlling' and 'against individual liberty' as the Republican establishment... in other words, the disarray in the Republican party leads to something better (imo, smaller less intrusive government) while the 'establishment' of both the r's and d's represent different priorities within the same desire to control.

If you are an establishment democrat, then this is all good to you (the disarray in the R's).. but I don't know that many of those who think they are establishment democrats would really like what that would look like. Hillary represents the establishment and Bernie is WAY outside it, but very popular.

Quote:Back to the PP issue - no federal funds go to abortions there. I think the problem many Republicans have is that it is money going to fund women's health and family planning. Some because of more general opposition to social programs, but some because it specifically has to do with women's sexuality. And that's icky and naughty, and their husbands/dads should be in charge of that any way. Not saying that's the case for any one here, but for many Republicans, I think it clearly is.

(I also don't understand anti-abortion activists who oppose trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but that's a different story.)

Understood and agree. I think that's a far smaller group of people than some want to believe though... that men should be in charge of their women's sexuality. Dads ARE responsible for their daughters, but so are moms... those responsible dads I understand aren't the ones you're talking about and am not trying to paint you with that brush. I DO know those people and share your concerns about them. They're vocal because of where their beliefs come from, but they aren't especially numerous. It's difficult when your 'motivation' comes from God, but your specific beliefs are in a minority. The support for a Christian perspective is large... but the support for men controlling women's sexuality within Christianity isn't. They are easily co-mingled. A man being the hunter/head of the household and the woman being a primary caretaker predates religion... and believing in that as an ideal doesn't mean that other 'mixes' are somehow against God or unholy or whatever.

The line of 'no $$ for abortions' is a bit of semantics to lots of people... I think far more than those who find it 'icky' or want to control their wives... though often for the same religious reasons. If I give a bum money that he uses to buy food and then he uses money that otherwise would have gone to buy food to buy booze, I've not really bought him booze, but I made it so that he could buy it himself. I don't personally have a problem with PP so it doesn't really matter to me.... but I know lots of people that do.... and this argument (that federal monies don't go to it) ring hollow to them. I can see their point.

(10-01-2015 09:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think government funding for PP is a separate question.

Why the heck do they have direct Federal funding anyway? They're already tax-exempt, for Pete's sake.

I know the average Democrat doesn't like to hear this, but the fact of Federally funding something is what "politicizes" it.

Why to they have direct Federal funding? Because they provide health care. Maybe there's some nuance to "direct" that I'm missing?

Medicaid reimbursements and Title X Family Planning grants don't politicize PP.

The fact that PP provides abortions politicizes PP.

(As an aside: If PP completely spun off providing abortions from the PP umbrella, they would effectively decouple the women's health argument from this discussion. Why would they do that? Esp. if they sincerely believe that abortion is part of the health care continuum.

I'm sure that fact that both PP and the anti-abortion crowd get to raise millions off this fight doesn't play a role in any of this.)

(09-25-2015 11:40 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 11:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for rejecting compromise of any sort, that is certainly not limited to republicans. Reid, Pelosi, and Obama have been at least as unwilling to make genuine compromise with republicans as republicans have with them.

Sorry, but I think that's fundamentally not true.

Where have they been willing to compromise? What was the compromise offered? What were the respective positions of the two parties before the compromise? How did the compromise offer something to each?

(10-01-2015 09:36 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Why to they have direct Federal funding? Because they provide health care. Maybe there's some nuance to "direct" that I'm missing?

Hmmm .... some healthcare providers would argue otherwise

(10-01-2015 11:56 PM)CrabCake Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:36 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Why to they have direct Federal funding? Because they provide health care. Maybe there's some nuance to "direct" that I'm missing?

Hmmm .... some healthcare providers would argue otherwise

Technically, they wouldn't be providing the care. The physicians and other practitioners might be, and they can bill for those services... Medicare, Medicaid, Insurance and they often do. THAT is really how they should be set up.

(10-02-2015 09:59 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 11:56 PM)CrabCake Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:36 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Why to they have direct Federal funding? Because they provide health care. Maybe there's some nuance to "direct" that I'm missing?

Hmmm .... some healthcare providers would argue otherwise

Technically, they wouldn't be providing the care. The physicians and other practitioners might be, and they can bill for those services... Medicare, Medicaid, Insurance and they often do. THAT is really how they should be set up.

Maybe there's a nuance that I'm missing? Some PP clinics accept Medicare for providing health services. They also accept private insurance for those services.

Are you saying that it's "just" PP branding the clinics, then practitioners are independent contractors and do the billing? I honestly don't know, curious. I've always understood that when a client gets services from PP, it's not really different than when I go to see my GP at Austin Diagnostic Clinic, etc.

From a random PP website for clinics in Austin:

Insurance Plans Accepted
If you don't have insurance, you may be able to get covered under Obamacare. Open enrollment is over. See if you can still get coverage. With or without insurance, you can always come to us for your health care.
Aetna
Aetna Better Health
Ambetter
Amerigroup
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Cigna
Community First
Humana Military Tricare
Molina
Superior
Texas Medicaid
Unitedhealthcare Community Plan of TX

I think PP are a bunch of charlatans. I think shutting the government down for a while would be a good thing. But I also think that this was and is an incredibly stupid political move for republicans to attempt.

(10-02-2015 10:59 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

Quote:Technically, they wouldn't be providing the care. The physicians and other practitioners might be, and they can bill for those services... Medicare, Medicaid, Insurance and they often do. THAT is really how they should be set up.

Maybe there's a nuance that I'm missing? Some PP clinics accept Medicare for providing health services. They also accept private insurance for those services.

Are you saying that it's "just" PP branding the clinics, then practitioners are independent contractors and do the billing? I honestly don't know, curious. I've always understood that when a client gets services from PP, it's not really different than when I go to see my GP at Austin Diagnostic Clinic, etc.

Your GP doesn't lobby nor get private donations. S/he may or may not employ non-practitioners, but that expense comes out of his reimbursement. PP is more like a hospital where you have both clinical and non-clinical operations taking place.

It's not pertinent to PP, but Medicare part A vs B is what drives the hospital model and thus insurers, and similarly (imo) it should drive PP's model in that the services provided by the facility are separated from the services provided by the practitioners. This creates a clear barrier between 'healthcare' and anything else. Your example is essentially correct... PP 'brands' and provides the facilities, administration, counseling, lobbying and 'support groups'... funded by 'profits' from healthcare and donations... and practitioners provide the healthcare... with the assistance of the government and insurers.

My intention is to compartmentalize the healthcare into a bucket that is undeniably the 'job' of government and keep it distinctly separate from all of these political hot buttons which cloud the issues (imo). Owl 69/70/75's comment exemplifies the problem. If you take out healthcare services and reimbursement for healthcare services, there is still appx 1/3 of the budget that only really exists to lobby and raise money to fund itself.

Getting back to the horse race:

Biden is supposed to decide by this time next week. I'm going to be genuinely surprised, though not shocked, if he runs.

Also, I would like to say to my GOP friends, PLEASE nominate Jeb! Please! Seriously, "Stuff Happens" as a response to another mass shooting?

Also, sending thanks to Kevin McCarthy, the (former?) favorite to succeed Boehner for admitting what we all already knew - that the purpose of the Bengazhi/email investigation is to damage Clinton politically.

**** sorry to re-de-rail the thread, but I wanted to say one more thing....

Much of the 'good' of PP is measured by its delivery of healthcare... which isn't really what PP does. Practitioners who work through PP do, but PP can't bill insurance for what they do. If we stripped all of that out, it would not only make more sense and compartmentalize the political issues, but IMO it would treat PP like any other charity.

This may not be correct, but if you take the 770mm in actual 'medical services' out of their budget (most of it paid by the government to practitioners) here is what they look like

45mm on sexuality education
34mm on public policy
25mm on community outreach
65mm increasing access
15mm build advocacy capacity
5mm on renewing leadership and refreshing brand

146mm on management and
64mm on fundraising.

That looks a whole lot more like a lobbying firm than a charity.

(10-05-2015 12:39 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Also, I would like to say to my GOP friends, PLEASE nominate Jeb! Please! Seriously, "Stuff Happens" as a response to another mass shooting?

It was not the full response.

The unedited version, the context is:

“It’s been a difficult time in our country, and I don’t think more government is necessarily the answer to this,” Bush said. “I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else. It’s just, it’s very sad to see, but I resist this notion and I did — I had this challenge as governor — we had, look, stuff happens. There’s always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something, and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”