(08-13-2009 12:41 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2009 11:32 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Isn't what you're really talking about not the 'hidden costs of oil' but the hidden costs of our countries standard of living / lifestyle?

Currently, without oil (transportation, our individual mobility, energy, etc) we could not maintain our standard of living. Alternatives are currently more costly and have their own drawbacks.

Yes, our profligate oil consumption does raise our current standard of living. The issue is that I don't think it's sustainable. We can continue to try to secure foreign oil supplies through military action, and continue to ignore the environmental costs, but I think over time we'll be faced with increasing problems and decreasing success in getting oil.
Passing the costs of oil through to consumers doesn't have to mean a net increase in taxation; income taxes could be decreased a corresponding amount. That would have the impact of shifting tax burden towards heavier oil consumers and away from people who consume less, redistributing the costs of using oil to more accurately reflect the reality of the situation.

But I'm under no illusions that just because we could make it tax neutral, doesn't mean there wouldn't be a net decrease in our standard of living. People have optimized utility by making decisions (such as where to live, what transport to use, etc) according to their tastes but based on underlying assumptions about things such as the price of oil. Increasing the price of oil would cause some/many of those decisions to no longer be optimal, and many of these decisions are not easily or quickly changed.
Over time, of course, people would have the opportunity to change those decisions and re-optimize under the new conditions.

As someone who hasn't fled to the school districts and higher socio-economic environs of the suburbs, in part because I don't want a 45 minute to 1.5 hour commute, I already pay a high cost for that decision (i.e. the check I wrote yesterday to a private school that amounts to a ludicrously large percentage of my Net Income). Forcing more and more people back to the City is not likely going to improve my standard of living.

Don't get me wrong, I think gas can and probably should cost more. But as someone raising kids and sitting firmly in the middle class, . . . when you talk about lowering the standard of living, it doesn't sound good.

One thing has proven over time, those with the best standards of living rarely are impacted by stuff like this. Jimmy Carter sent Amy to public schools, but Bill and Barack are not leading by example here. (i.e. their faith in public run institutions doesn't get through their front door - - much like Congress who are not plugged in Social Security, etc.)

(08-13-2009 02:05 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  One thing has proven over time, those with the best standards of living rarely are impacted by stuff like this. Jimmy Carter sent Amy to public schools, but Bill and Barack are not leading by example here. (i.e. their faith in public run institutions doesn't get through their front door - - much like Congress who are not plugged in Social Security, etc.)

Sometimes I wonder what would happen it public schools didn't exist at all.

When it comes to food, we have:
- top-shelf boutique stores that cater to the wealthy, or to those who aspire to status.
- large-scale chain grocery stores of various types, offering considerable (if not always interesting) variety with some neighborhood variation.
- convenience stores with lousy products, especially in poor neighborhoods, where the store's main concern is not getting robbed.
- the occasional exceptional store (e.g. a neighborhood grocery that is neither boutique nor Kwik-E-Mart) or innovation (the urban farmer's market).

Isn't that pretty much what we have in education now?

Education may be a basic need, but it's hard to argue that it's more basic than food. If schooling, like food, were distributed mostly through private businesses, would the outcomes be much different than they are now? Across the board, some people would seek out the best food/education they can find; others would accept whatever is convenient. Stores/schools would sometimes battle food manufacturers/textbook publishers to offer better products. In general, the rich would still eat/learn better than the poor. Some poor families (but not all) would make sacrifices to eat/learn better because it's important to them. And some rich people would squander their advantages and still be unhealthy/uneducated.

I'm not saying this is the outcome I would like to see. But I do sometimes wonder: if that's the outcome we get, do we need a complex public apparatus to provide it?

And no matter how much you might disdain the modern food industry, consider this: ours is the only age in history in which even poor people have more food than they need. Imagine if the education industry ever achieved an outcome like that!

(08-12-2009 03:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would ask one more question if given the chance: Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel with health care instead of taking an existing model that has been successful and adapting it? Since the French model is generaly regarded as the gold standard, why are we not simply taking it and adapting it?

Sounds worth a look to me. It looks to me as though what we're going to get is not a reinvention, but a tweaking. The health industry will not allow much more than that, and their cause is being aided and abetted by all this peripheral nonsense.

(08-12-2009 03:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would ask one more question if given the chance: Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel with health care instead of taking an existing model that has been successful and adapting it? Since the French model is generaly regarded as the gold standard, why are we not simply taking it and adapting it?

Can you imagine the field day the Republicans would have if Obama said he wanted to model it after the French system? These are the same people that renamed French Fries "Freedom Fries" and thought it was a *bad* thing that John Kerry spoke French. It would make the current debate look like a model of deliberative democracy.

On a more substantive note, I think many Republicans are simply against any sort of national health system, whatever the form, and the French system has as large a government element as the Dems' would if the public option survives. So you'd still have exactly the same non-discussion we are having now.

Perhaps in some alternative universe there's an America which engages in serious, rational, civil, gun-free discourse and they are discussing the French system.

(08-18-2009 08:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2009 03:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would ask one more question if given the chance: Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel with health care instead of taking an existing model that has been successful and adapting it? Since the French model is generaly regarded as the gold standard, why are we not simply taking it and adapting it?

Can you imagine the field day the Republicans would have if Obama said he wanted to model it after the French system? These are the same people that renamed French Fries "Freedom Fries" and thought it was a *bad* thing that John Kerry spoke French. It would make the current debate look like a model of deliberative democracy.
On a more substantive note, I think many Republicans are simply against any sort of national health system, whatever the form, and the French system has as large a government element as the Dems' would if the public option survives. So you'd still have exactly the same non-discussion we are having now.
Perhaps in some alternative universe there's an America which engages in serious, rational, civil, gun-free discourse and they are discussing the French system.

I was hoping for intelligent discussion. I'm sorry to have gotten this kind of response instead. I thought the whole "freedom fries" thing was ridiculous, but I fail to see relevance here. I guess you must be bitter about something.

The French system doesn't have as large a government element as ours does now, much less what we'd have under any version of Obamacare.

And what's with the gratuitous "gun-free" comment? Are you aware of a single incident where guns have been used by parties to a discussion about health-care? The rest of the statement is absurd enough on its own. It takes two sides to have rational discussion, and I see no willingness on either side to do that.

We have legitimate problems in health care--just as in many other areas. If you look at what has and has not worked in the world around us, you find little to indicate that any of Obama's proposed "fixes" will actually fix--or even improve--anything. We should be looking at solutions that work instead of name-calling each other.

(08-18-2009 09:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I was hoping for intelligent discussion. I'm sorry to have gotten this kind of response instead. I thought the whole "freedom fries" thing was ridiculous, but I fail to see relevance here. I guess you must be bitter about something.

I'm pointing out what would happen if the Dems tried to point to the French system as a model. I think Republican Francophobia, or rather Republican exploitation of American Francophobia is enough to prevent reasonable examination of the French system in our discourse.

I was answering your question. You asked why we aren't discussing it. I think this is the single biggest reason. Not sure why you are attacking me. Do you seriously think the Republicans/Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity et. al wouldn't be going ape$#!% if Obama proposed importing the French system? We’d be deaf from the screaming about "Turning America into France!"

Bitter? Perhaps about the the xenophobia and provincialism that constantly derails intelligent discussion in this country.

(08-18-2009 09:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The French system doesn't have as large a government element as ours does now, much less what we'd have under any version of Obamacare.

I guess that's debatable based on how you define "government element" but even accepting your formulation, I think Republicans would be just as opposed to it as they are to the current plans even if Obama could somehow prevent them from realizing he was using the French system as a model.

(08-18-2009 09:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We have legitimate problems in health care--just as in many other areas. If you look at what has and has not worked in the world around us, you find little to indicate that any of Obama's proposed "fixes" will actually fix--or even improve--anything. We should be looking at solutions that work instead of name-calling each other.

Regarding the point about looking around the world, I agree completely, but I think it is undeniably true that it is extremely difficult to do that in an intelligent way because of xenophobia, Europhobia, and nationalistic American triumphalism, which is much more prevalent on the Republican side. As far as Obama’s proposals, they aren’t my ideal either, but I don’t necessarily find the same things you do. I’ve lived under and received care from the NHS, and liked it a lot better than my HMO/Kelsey Seybold experience in Houston, for example. I know Canadians who love their system. Etc. Technically, I’ve lived under the French system, but briefly and as a student and never needed care.

(08-18-2009 09:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And what's with the gratuitous "gun-free" comment? Are you aware of a single incident where guns have been used by parties to a discussion about health-care? The rest of the statement is absurd enough on its own. It takes two sides to have rational discussion, and I see no willingness on either side to do that.

It’s not gratuitous at all. Multiple town halls have been canceled due to death threats against the Congressmen. People are showing up at rallies with holstered guns and assault rifles. Again: people are showing up with *assault rifles*. They are holding up signs saying things like “Death to Obama, Death to Michelle and her two kids”. A Republican congressman yesterday *encouraged* health care opponents to bring guns to town halls.

I would not bring my kids to one of these meetings for fear for their safety. Does it take two sides for civil discourse? Sure. But to claim equivalency in this case is nonsense. If one side is showing up with guns, they don’t want civil debate.

(08-18-2009 09:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The French system doesn't have as large a government element as ours does now, much less what we'd have under any version of Obamacare.

I have an earnest question here, since you obviously know a lot more about the French system than I. How can you state this, when the bulk of the French system is based on a government insurance program? Here's a quote I found: "About seventy five percent of the total health expenditures are covered by the public health insurance system." And: "To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system." I understand it is unlike what we think of as "socialized medicine," but how does this constitute a smaller element of government than our system?

(08-18-2009 10:55 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Multiple town halls have been canceled due to death threats against the Congressmen. People are showing up at rallies with holstered guns and assault rifles. Again: people are showing up with *assault rifles*. They are holding up signs saying things like “Death to Obama, Death to Michelle and her two kids”. A Republican congressman yesterday *encouraged* health care opponents to bring guns to town halls.
I would not bring my kids to one of these meetings for fear for their safety. Does it take two sides for civil discourse? Sure. But to claim equivalency in this case is nonsense. If one side is showing up with guns, they don’t want civil debate.

So, all hyperbole aside, do I correctly understand that you are not aware of a single incident where anyone has actually used a gun in a town hall discussion about health care?

It seems to me that the left wants to exaggerate problems with the current system, and then to present a government takeover as the only solution to a "failed" system. It's not a perfect system, but it's not a "failed" system either. And Obama's solution is not the only one or even the best one. But try to discuss an alternative solution, and you get the kinds of straw men thrown up that you've posted here And, oh yes, while you're throwing up those straw men, be sure to blame the republicans.

I do blame the republicans--and the democrats--for being so wedded to ideology that they have failed to look around and see what works and what doesn't. I've used NHS and the Canadian system as well as the French. Both NHS and the Canadian system work great--until there's something seriously wrong with you. The French system works well then, too. Brits go to France with serious ailments, just like Canadians come here. That's why the French want no part of what they call "socialized medicine."

(08-18-2009 11:40 AM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 09:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The French system doesn't have as large a government element as ours does now, much less what we'd have under any version of Obamacare.

I have an earnest question here, since you obviously know a lot more about the French system than I. How can you state this, when the bulk of the French system is based on a government insurance program? Here's a quote I found: "About seventy five percent of the total health expenditures are covered by the public health insurance system." And: "To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system." I understand it is unlike what we think of as "socialized medicine," but how does this constitute a smaller element of government than our system?

The French "public health insurance system" is not a government system. It is a private sector insurance system, essentially a group policy covering 99.9% of French residents. The government simply pays the premium, like an employer does here. Premiums are funded out of "social security" contributions. The 21% figure is total "social security" including health care plus what we call social security, plus a few other things.

The French government "spends" about half as much per capita on health care as the US government does. That alone suggests significantly less government involvement.

But even that overstates the extent of government involvement. That government "spending" is really just collecting the money through the social security system and passing it along to the insurance companies that actually run what I will call the "free" program. Essentially, what everybody gets "free" is an insurance policy that provides a level of care something like the VA or a very bad HMO here. There is no Medicare, no Medicaid, no NHS, nothing like any of those, nor any of the new agencies to be involved in Obamacare.

The government has no role but to collect the premiums and pass them on, with two exceptions. The two exceptions are (1) a government funded catastrophic umbrella for people with things like cancer or AIDS or permanent disability, and (2) refunding of copayments (which are pretty hefty, even on the "free" side) for the truly indigent.

Because the "free" system has the same problems with quotas and queues for advanced treatments as a single-payer or single-provider system (although it is actually neither), there is a parallel "pay" system where the French are free to pay for those themselves or to purchase supplemental insurance to cover them. 90+% of French do have private supplemental insurance, meaning that they have far fewer people without private insurance than we do. And they have much more variety in their private insurance plans than we do. I would describe their "pay" system as comparable to US health care but cheaper.

The French intend for the "free" system to control costs with quotas and queueing, and for people to go to the "pay" side for elective care. The debate they are having right now is between those who want to provide more and better services on the "free" side, to shorten the queues, and those who want to keep the cost of the "free" side down. Either way, their costs are way lower than ours.

(08-18-2009 10:55 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Multiple town halls have been canceled due to death threats against the Congressmen. People are showing up at rallies with holstered guns and assault rifles. Again: people are showing up with *assault rifles*. They are holding up signs saying things like “Death to Obama, Death to Michelle and her two kids”. A Republican congressman yesterday *encouraged* health care opponents to bring guns to town halls.

I've heard of only one death threat...would you please show me where the others are? Just surprised they haven't been reported by CNN. As well, hadn't seen that sign. Not really sure I want to get into a pissing contest on what each side has done to the other.

The gun thing is well, interesting. From what I can tell, what was done wasn't against the law. Not sure it was all that smart, but not against the law.

(08-18-2009 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, all hyperbole aside, do I correctly understand that you are not aware of a single incident where anyone has actually used a gun in a town hall discussion about health care?

Do I correctly understand you that you think it's OK to show up at public meetings with signs with death threats toward the president's children and carrying assault rifles, and trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you? That it's appropriate for members of Congress to encourage this behavior? Is your position that this is all OK, so long as they don't *actually* shoot someone? If so, that's just nuts. Paranoia + rage + loaded weapons=scary situation I want no part of. I mean really, if someone is screaming at you, red in the face, AND has a sidearm or an assault rifle, that's not affecting the "discussion"? To me that's an attempt to intimidate, and frankly, if it was me, I'd get the hell out of there.

(08-18-2009 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It seems to me that the left wants to exaggerate problems with the current system, and then to present a government takeover as the only solution to a "failed" system. It's not a perfect system, but it's not a "failed" system either.

That's your opinion, not a fact. I think the number of uninsured we have is indicative of failure. The fact that medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy and that most of those are middle class people with insurance is a sign of failure, IMHO. That's not dishonest or an exaggeration, it's just my opinion.

I also don't see Obama's proposals as a government takeover.

(08-18-2009 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And Obama's solution is not the only one or even the best one. But try to discuss an alternative solution, and you get the kinds of straw men thrown up that you've posted here And, oh yes, while you're throwing up those straw men, be sure to blame the republicans.

You seem to be missing my point. I said Obama's isn't my ideal solution. I'd vastly prefer the French system to ours. A major reason it's not being proposed is because the Republicans would have a field day politically. Many of the shortcomings in Obama's plan are political, in response to past Republican/Blue Dog attacks on health care reform. (For example, end of life counseling will probably be dropped now, thanks to the dishonest "death panel" attacks, never mind that many of the Republicans attacking it voted for it a few years ago.)

If the Republicans said tomorrow "Hey Obama, we'll support the wholesale adoption of the French system" I guarantee Obama and the Dems (except perhaps the insurance company owned Blue Dogs) would go along. Which would seem to me to show that it *is* the Republicans fault we aren't debating the French system. They've made it a non-starter.

(08-18-2009 12:47 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  I've heard of only one death threat...would you please show me where the others are? Just surprised they haven't been reported by CNN. As well, hadn't seen that sign. Not really sure I want to get into a pissing contest on what each side has done to the other.

The gun thing is well, interesting. From what I can tell, what was done wasn't against the law. Not sure it was all that smart, but not against the law.

Just the first thing that came up on my google search:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics...78311.html

Mentions two specifically and then says capital police have advised "a few" congresspeople to cancel their town halls based on threats. And the article is over a week old.

I don't care if carrying guns to these things is legal - it's dangerous, irresponsible, and a blatant attempt to intimidate. So long as Republican leaders won't condemn it, or in the case of one Georgia Republican encourage it, or as Sen. Coburn did this weekend, say that the MoC have "earned" the threats, I can't take Republican claims of wanting a civil debate seriously.

(08-18-2009 01:28 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 12:47 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  I've heard of only one death threat...would you please show me where the others are? Just surprised they haven't been reported by CNN. As well, hadn't seen that sign. Not really sure I want to get into a pissing contest on what each side has done to the other.

The gun thing is well, interesting. From what I can tell, what was done wasn't against the law. Not sure it was all that smart, but not against the law.

Just the first thing that came up on my google search:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics...78311.html

Mentions two specifically and then says capital police have advised "a few" congresspeople to cancel their town halls based on threats. And the article is over a week old.

I don't care if carrying guns to these things is legal - it's dangerous, irresponsible, and a blatant attempt to intimidate. So long as Republican leaders won't condemn it, or in the case of one Georgia Republican encourage it, or as Sen. Coburn did this weekend, say that the MoC have "earned" the threats, I can't take Republican claims of wanting a civil debate seriously.

Ok, well, you can take our claim of civil debate here. I don't particularly care about a few people going over the line. If I really want to be a conspiracy theorist, I could say the phone calls could be coming from liberal-Obama supporters to make conservatives look bad. I don't know. No one does.

If you don't believe the town halls, then just look at the poll numbers. Pretty sure the overall anger with the policy is real. 53% disapproval v. 42% approval on the most recent Rasmussen poll. I can probably go get others if need be. Those numbers and the President's numbers are falling like a rock. Thus, he floats out the test balloon about not having the public option. That didn't go well within his own party. If he forces this thing through Congress, the 2010 mid-term elections ought to be interesting.

(08-18-2009 10:55 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  They are holding up signs saying things like “Death to Obama, Death to Michelle and her two kids”.

If one side is showing up with guns, they don’t want civil debate.

Former - you use the plural in this sentence. Please post link. Not saying a sign like that doesn't exist, but it surprises me, and if it does exist, I would think it would be an isolated idiot.

I don't own a gun, but I don't presume that the mere presence of a gun would preclude civil debate. To some extent, I would hope that it would guarantee it.

(08-18-2009 02:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Former - you use the plural in this sentence. Please post link. Not saying a sign like that doesn't exist, but it surprises me, and if it does exist, I would think it would be an isolated idiot.

I was wrong it said "death to her two *stupid* kids".

http://washingtonindependent.com/54885/d...-town-hall

Look, stories about various signs and threats, talk of bloodshed, have been all over the media. I'm not going to embark on any more homework assignments finding links.

(08-18-2009 02:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I don't own a gun, but I don't presume that the mere presence of a gun would preclude civil debate. To some extent, I would hope that it would guarantee it.

Then our worldviews are so different, there's no point discussing anything. Instruments of death <> civility

(08-18-2009 01:14 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  That's your opinion, not a fact. I think the number of uninsured we have is indicative of failure.

On whose part?

Is there an obligation that is being ignored?

Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge there are problems, but the presence of problems is not necessarily a definition of failure.

What portion of your income are you willing to donate to pay someone else's insurance? Are you willing to do it if no one else does?

Don't get me wrong, but I think many are preaching without leading (i.e., politicians who preach ever increasing spending on public education, but send their kids to private schools).

Mother Theresa speaking on health care has my ear.

Most politicians who only want to force others to fund bureacracy, and who are motivated by polls, and what will produce a majority at the next election, do not.

Some problems can be solved. Some cannot. But that is not the same thing as saying the system is irreparable. And it doesn't guaranteed that wholesale change will be an improvement.

(08-18-2009 02:20 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I don't own a gun, but I don't presume that the mere presence of a gun would preclude civil debate. To some extent, I would hope that it would guarantee it.

Then our worldviews are so different, there's no point discussing anything. Instruments of death <> civility

It sounds like you'll be happy when everyone thinks exactly like you.

It also sounds like you're willing and quick to make assumptions about what others believe. I imagine my worldview is not nearly so different as you seem to believe, although I allow there are differences.

You realize your fear of the most extreme fringe is no different or less paranoid (fearing you'd get shot for showing up somewhere), than the fear that conservatives have over the fringe of the left?

If you guys go to google and click on the 'news' link, you can search any of the assorted keywords from his post to find articles on the imbecile who brought the sign (and subsequently spent several hours talking to the Secret Service...), and on the few town halls disrupted by death threats.

(08-18-2009 02:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I don't own a gun, but I don't presume that the mere presence of a gun would preclude civil debate. To some extent, I would hope that it would guarantee it.

wut?

JustAnotherAustinOwl is right in some extent. We don't have civil debate. We have a pissing contest between the two sides. Neither side is allowing for civil debate. However, when has this ever been different from the norm in the last decade? You either pick one or the other. There is no compromise. If we could find middle ground on stuff any more, we could fix a hell of a lot of our problems (health care, energy policy to name a couple). But, nope. It is either my way or the highway for either side. And that's why this country is where it is.

(08-18-2009 02:30 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  You realize your fear of the most extreme fringe is no different or less paranoid (fearing you'd get shot for showing up somewhere), than the fear that conservatives have over the fringe of the left?

What a load of BS. Armed people screaming about "bloodshed", calling people traitors, telling them they'll have to stand before god, etc. is threatening behavior.

Sane, rational people don't need to bring guns to a public policy debate.

If this is the extreme fringe, why are Republicans in congress not condemning them, even when put on the spot on television? Because it's not the fringe, it's the base.