[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Mar 4 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 07:53 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 4 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

For the record, there are direct quotes from Republican strategists discussing the need to block health care reform to deprive the Democrats of any electoral success and prevent the emergence of a new constituency that supports government supported health care the same way they support Social Security, Medicare, COBRA, and the like.

That's a far cry from opposing it because they believe it will be a huge success that would reflect favorably on Obama.

And that's a far cry from opposing it because Obama would have success if it became law, which was the original comment.

I think that the "Because"s in P.O.'s post are consistent with my reading of that post, i.e. not just "success" in that a bill that was supported did in fact pass, but "success" in that it would provide a massive cost savings that would translate into better care, etc.

[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 08:20 PM, said:

I think that the "Because"s in P.O.'s post are consistent with my reading of that post, i.e. not just "success" in that a bill that was supported did in fact pass, but "success" in that it would provide a massive cost savings that would translate into better care, etc.

If you equate the word "huge" with "long-term," we differ in our understandings of the English language. Perhaps I have not mentioned enough that I would have preferred more aggressive cost savings.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 08:20 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 4 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 07:53 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 4 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

For the record, there are direct quotes from Republican strategists discussing the need to block health care reform to deprive the Democrats of any electoral success and prevent the emergence of a new constituency that supports government supported health care the same way they support Social Security, Medicare, COBRA, and the like.

That's a far cry from opposing it because they believe it will be a huge success that would reflect favorably on Obama.

And that's a far cry from opposing it because Obama would have success if it became law, which was the original comment.

I think that the "Because"s in P.O.'s post are consistent with my reading of that post, i.e. not just "success" in that a bill that was supported did in fact pass, but "success" in that it would provide a massive cost savings that would translate into better care, etc.

You must be a lawyer to insist you are right when you are not. Rather than inferring what he meant from prior sentences I prefer to just read the words in the actual sentence, which refer to Obama being a success if the bill were to pass but do not refer to the bill being a success.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Mar 4 2010, 08:33 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 08:20 PM, said:

I think that the "Because"s in P.O.'s post are consistent with my reading of that post, i.e. not just "success" in that a bill that was supported did in fact pass, but "success" in that it would provide a massive cost savings that would translate into better care, etc.

If you equate the word "huge" with "long-term," we differ in our understandings of the English language. Perhaps I have not mentioned enough that I would have preferred more aggressive cost savings.

No, that was hurried typing while not looking at your first post while typing.

The gist I took from your post, though, is that the political benefit that would presumably accrue to Obama would be due to the content of the bill and it's beneficial results; not generic political capital that would come from sponsoring a major bill that passed.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Mar 4 2010, 08:40 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 08:20 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 4 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 07:53 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 4 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

For the record, there are direct quotes from Republican strategists discussing the need to block health care reform to deprive the Democrats of any electoral success and prevent the emergence of a new constituency that supports government supported health care the same way they support Social Security, Medicare, COBRA, and the like.

That's a far cry from opposing it because they believe it will be a huge success that would reflect favorably on Obama.

And that's a far cry from opposing it because Obama would have success if it became law, which was the original comment.

I think that the "Because"s in P.O.'s post are consistent with my reading of that post, i.e. not just "success" in that a bill that was supported did in fact pass, but "success" in that it would provide a massive cost savings that would translate into better care, etc.

You must be a lawyer to insist you are right when you are not. Rather than inferring what he meant from prior sentences I prefer to just read the words in the actual sentence, which refer to Obama being a success if the bill were to pass but do not refer to the bill being a success.

And you must be a non-lawyer, and a non-English major to ignore the clause "Because anyone with a head for business can see that too," which

1) is part of the final sentence as well, and
2) incorporates (at least some portion of the) prior sentences by reference (i.e. "that").

[jdonn]

I'll stick with the opinion of the author. It's ok I just passed inquiry, nothing can bring me down now.

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Mar 5 2010, 04:40 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 4 2010, 08:33 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 08:20 PM, said:

I think that the "Because"s in P.O.'s post are consistent with my reading of that post, i.e. not just "success" in that a bill that was supported did in fact pass, but "success" in that it would provide a massive cost savings that would translate into better care, etc.

If you equate the word "huge" with "long-term," we differ in our understandings of the English language. Perhaps I have not mentioned enough that I would have preferred more aggressive cost savings.

No, that was hurried typing while not looking at your first post while typing.

The gist I took from your post, though, is that the political benefit that would presumably accrue to Obama would be due to the content of the bill and it's beneficial results; not generic political capital that would come from sponsoring a major bill that passed.

Then you are pretty damn ignorant about the topic being discussed...

1. Almost any serious discussion of this topic includes questions related to political momentum

2. No one in their right mind believes that we'll be able to make an objective evaluation about the "success" of health care reform in the near term. The only way to evaluate this is in terms of short term political gains.

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Mar 4 2010, 08:49 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 5 2010, 04:40 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 4 2010, 08:33 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 08:20 PM, said:

I think that the "Because"s in P.O.'s post are consistent with my reading of that post, i.e. not just "success" in that a bill that was supported did in fact pass, but "success" in that it would provide a massive cost savings that would translate into better care, etc.

If you equate the word "huge" with "long-term," we differ in our understandings of the English language. Perhaps I have not mentioned enough that I would have preferred more aggressive cost savings.

No, that was hurried typing while not looking at your first post while typing.

The gist I took from your post, though, is that the political benefit that would presumably accrue to Obama would be due to the content of the bill and it's beneficial results; not generic political capital that would come from sponsoring a major bill that passed.

Then you are pretty damn ignorant about the topic being discussed...

1. Almost any serious discussion of this topic includes questions related to political momentum

2. No one in their right mind believes that we'll be able to make an objective evaluation about the "success" of health care reform in the near term. The only way to evaluate this is in terms of short term political gains.

I'm responding to a specific post. That post suggests that one of the reasons Republicans have been trying to block reform is solely to prevent Obama from having long-term success that he is certain to gain if the bill becomes law BECAUSE "anyone with a head for business can see [that]."

"That" appears to = "it is absolutely clear that the reforms Obama advocates will cut costs now and in the future."

I agree that almost any serious discussion of the topic INCLUDES questions related to political momentum, but it seemed pretty obvious to me that the post I was responding to wasn't LIMITED to political capital, but rather was a comment on the substance of the legislation, as well. To suggest otherwise would pretty much eviscerate P.O.'s post, which was about the content of the bill, not the politics of whether or not it passes.

But if the question is really going to be construed as, "Are there Republicans who oppose the bill in part because Obama supports it?" then sure there will. Just like every other bill sponsored by either party. But answering that question implies nothing favorable about the content of the bill, which is why it appears pretty clear to me that it wasn't the question in question, so to speak. This construction is essentially tautological; bills that have no purely partisan opposition whatsoever are few and far between.

The more interesting question, and the question that I still think was obviously implied by the post, is "Are there Republicans who oppose the bill because it's so obviously good that those Republicans perceive that it will have a beneficial impact and don't want that impact attributed to Obama?".

I agree the answer to the silly question is, "Yes, WTP?" Sorry for briefly hijacking the thread by perceiving a meaningful question.

[Winstonm]

The infamous liberal Glenn Greenwald calls out the Demacrats and especially Marxist (if you believe my idiot brother) Obama on healthcare:

Quote

If -- as they claimed all year long -- a majority of Congressional Democrats and the White House all support a public option, why would they possibly whip against it, and ensure its rejection, at exactly the moment when it finally became possible to pass it?   If majorities of the House and Senate support it, as does the White House, how could the inclusion of a public option possibly jeopardize passage of the bill?

I've argued since August that the evidence was clear that the White House had privately negotiated away the public option and didn't want it, even as the President claimed publicly (and repeatedly) that he did.

So if you say publicly you support a public option, but in private negotiate with the insurance companies to make certain public option never sees the light of day, are you simply another politician or are you a liar - or am I being redundant?

[cherdanno]

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 02:43 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 3 2010, 11:07 PM, said:

Because anyone with a head for business can see that too, I suspect that one of the reasons the republicans have been trying so hard to block reform is solely to prevent Obama from having the long-term success he is certain to gain if the bill ever becomes law.

I think this is unlikely enough that you could count the number of republicans trying to block reform for this reason on one hand, and pay down the national debt with 5 leftover fingers.

Have you read Mitt Romney's suggestions for health care reform?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/mr-...s-the-rush.html
It is hard to find a fundamental difference between his suggestions and Obama's compromise plan.

[y66]

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 09:21 PM, said:

The more interesting question, and the question that I still think was obviously implied by the post, is "Are there Republicans who oppose the bill because it's so obviously good that those Republicans perceive that it will have a beneficial impact and don't want that impact attributed to Obama?".

...

Sorry for briefly hijacking the thread by perceiving a meaningful question.

Is it possible that you recast P.O.'s assertion that "this bill will clearly cut costs" as "a bill that is so obviously good" because this serves your argument better?

I realize this conflicts with your expression of regret for misperceiving (misrepresenting?) the gist of P.O.'s post.

[luke warm]

y66, on Mar 15 2010, 09:40 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 09:21 PM, said:

The more interesting question, and the question that I still think was obviously implied by the post, is "Are there Republicans who oppose the bill because it's so obviously good that those Republicans perceive that it will have a beneficial impact and don't want that impact attributed to Obama?".

...

Sorry for briefly hijacking the thread by perceiving a meaningful question.

Is it possible that you recast P.O.'s assertion that "this bill will clearly cut costs" as "a bill that is so obviously good" because this serves your argument better?

I realize this conflicts with your expression of regret for misperceiving (misrepresenting?) the gist of P.O.'s post.

this seems to be the post being argued about

PassedOut, on Mar 3 2010, 11:07 PM, said:

I've mentioned before that I wish Obama and the democrats had gone more aggressively after the waste in the system, but I understand that they had to consider the firestorm of opposition from those who feed on that waste. However, it is absolutely clear that the reforms Obama advocates will cut costs now and in the future.

Because anyone with a head for business can see that too, I suspect that one of the reasons the republicans have been trying so hard to block reform is solely to prevent Obama from having the long-term success he is certain to gain if the bill ever becomes law.

it seems to me that he's saying here that the bill obama favors will obviously cut costs, and since "anyone with a head for business" can see this, there is only one reason ("solely") for opposition to "reform" - to prevent obama from having long-term success... i don't think that's an accurate view... while it's likely that some may oppose it for that reason, it's also possible that there are people who actually think it will cost money in the long run (those without po's 'head for business' maybe)... and some may oppose it for purely philosophical reasons

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Mar 15 2010, 10:49 AM, said:

i don't think that's an accurate view... while it's likely that some may oppose it for that reason, it's also possible that there are people who actually think it will cost money in the long run (those without po's 'head for business' maybe)... and some may oppose it for purely philosophical reasons

And, of course, that is why I used the phrase "one of the reasons" instead of "the only reason." To avoid confusion, I should have left out the word "solely."

I've discussed in these forums some of the philosophical objections the republicans have expressed, such as not wanting the federal government to set minimum standards for policies in the insurance exchange.

[Lobowolf]

y66, on Mar 15 2010, 09:40 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 09:21 PM, said:

The more interesting question, and the question that I still think was obviously implied by the post, is "Are there Republicans who oppose the bill because it's so obviously good that those Republicans perceive that it will have a beneficial impact and don't want that impact attributed to Obama?".

...

Sorry for briefly hijacking the thread by perceiving a meaningful question.

Is it possible that you recast P.O.'s assertion that "this bill will clearly cut costs" as "a bill that is so obviously good" because this serves your argument better?

I realize this conflicts with your expression of regret for misperceiving (misrepresenting?) the gist of P.O.'s post.

I don't think I recast or mischaracterized it at all. I simply assumed (and still believe) that he included the words "Because anyone with a head for business can see that to" because they were relevant, i.e. they added non-redundant meaning to the sentence, and from the rest of the post I inferred what that meaning was.

P.O. is intelligent, articulate, and well-organized in his thoughts and posts. I think that it would be insulting to assume that the phrase in question was meaningless. I also think that it's fairly obvious what the phrase referred to, i.e. what the entire preceding portion of the post was about - the substance of the bill.

"Sorry for briefly..." was intended as irony, in the form of sarcasm. I don't think I misperceived the gist of his post. I think, as usual, that he expressed himself more than clearly enough; frankly, I'm surprised at many of the responses to my response. But you know what happens when you predict a unanimous poll!

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Mar 15 2010, 11:19 AM, said:

And, of course, that is why I used the phrase "one of the reasons" instead of "the only reason." To avoid confusion, I should have left out the word "solely."

I think it made for a very interesting sub-thread on semantics!

On the other hand, I think I was one of two or three people who enjoyed the class "Statutory Interpretation."

[Lobowolf]

cherdanno, on Mar 14 2010, 10:28 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 4 2010, 02:43 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 3 2010, 11:07 PM, said:

Because anyone with a head for business can see that too, I suspect that one of the reasons the republicans have been trying so hard to block reform is solely to prevent Obama from having the long-term success he is certain to gain if the bill ever becomes law.

I think this is unlikely enough that you could count the number of republicans trying to block reform for this reason on one hand, and pay down the national debt with 5 leftover fingers.

Have you read Mitt Romney's suggestions for health care reform?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/mr-...s-the-rush.html
It is hard to find a fundamental difference between his suggestions and Obama's compromise plan.

Thanks for the link...I had not seen this. I'm very interested in seeing what ends up happening with this. In my case, it's more than a political/philosophical topic; my girlfriend has M.S. Thus far, it's been mostly well-behaved, with periodic flares that go away (i.e. the relapsing remitting version), but as pre-existing conditions go, it's an expensive one, and one that certainly limits her options.

[y66]

Lobowolf, on Mar 15 2010, 11:31 AM, said:

... frankly, I'm surprised at many of the responses to my response.

"The devils' advocate's life is terrible hard" -- says* Alice [with irony ].

*paraphrasing.

[kenberg]

As I read the Romney article, the cost for Mass is $723,000,000 per year. I looked up the population. It's 6,593,587. So that works out to a little less than $110 per person. That's the cost to the government of the program, not the total health care costs!

Now the US population is 307,006,550 so we are up somewhere between 33 and 34 billion to run a US program at the same per capita cost as the Mass plan. Help me out here.What are currently accepted estimates of the cost to the government (again, cost to gov, not total cost of health care) of the Obama plan?

At the moment I am not claiming anything about the value of any plan, I am just trying to fit the numbers together to see what is being said when the cost to the state government of the Mass plan is discussed along with the cost to the US government of the Obama plan.

[luke warm]

do you think we're in for this type problem?

Quote

A union representing Dutch nurses will launch a national campaign Friday against demands for sexual services by patients who claim it should be part of their standard care. The union, NU'91, is calling the campaign "I Draw The Line Here," with an advert that features a young woman covering her face with crossed hands.

The union said in a statement Thursday that the campaign follows a complaint it had received in the last week from a 24-year-old woman who said a 42-year-old disabled man asked her to provide sexual services as part of his care at home. The young woman witnessed some of the man's other nurses offering him sexual gratification, the union said. When she refused to do the same, he tried to dismiss her on the grounds that she was unfit to provide care. "This type of action is not part of the job responsibilities of carers and nurses," NU'91 said.

probably only applies to the head nurses

finally some health care reform we can get behind

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Mar 15 2010, 05:03 PM, said:

do you think we're in for this type problem?

Quote

A union representing Dutch nurses will launch a national campaign Friday against demands for sexual services by patients who claim it should be part of their standard care. The union, NU'91, is calling the campaign "I Draw The Line Here," with an advert that features a young woman covering her face with crossed hands.

The union said in a statement Thursday that the campaign follows a complaint it had received in the last week from a 24-year-old woman who said a 42-year-old disabled man asked her to provide sexual services as part of his care at home. The young woman witnessed some of the man's other nurses offering him sexual gratification, the union said. When she refused to do the same, he tried to dismiss her on the grounds that she was unfit to provide care. "This type of action is not part of the job responsibilities of carers and nurses," NU'91 said.

probably only applies to the head nurses

finally some health care reform we can get behind

If they gave hookers a nursing license. it would bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "Charge Nurse".