Healthcare Econ 101
 

Actions have consequences.

Currently there are many US companies (that have been in the business of making things for years, responsible for creating a booming middle class, etc.) that have been supplementing their retiree benefits with an enhanced prescription drug plan as compared to Medicare. These companies have been able to take a tax deduction for this cost, decreasing the net obligation of Medicare and it has been giving millions of retirees a better benefit. A win, win, win, the companies were doing a good thing, getting a deduction, saving Medicare some money and benefiting millions of retirees.

Under the new health care plan, the deduction goes away.

The government is expecting increased taxes collected to help pay for the plan and they have assumed no negative consequences.

Here are a few of the things we may expect:

*Profitability of these companies declines, net worth of investors decline, corporate taxes collected goes down, capital gains taxes goes down.
*These companies become less competitive internationally, costing jobs and further eroding our manufacturing base.
*These companies discontinue the program, causing millions to lose a valuable benefit, increasing the burden on Medicare, and reducing the taxes collected.

Those who believed the CBO scoring, bought into pure fantasy. CBO can not account for these kinds of consequences outside of the direct language in the legislation.

Obama Tax?s $14 Billion Charge Starts at Caterpillar (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

This legislation is loaded with unintended consequences and "hidden" costs (not really hidden for those who actually look into the details), there was never an honest and open debate on the details.

So some possibly bad things "may" happen. Like how the stock market was going to tank immediately after the bill was signed?

I'm not saying nothing bad or unintended won't happen. What I think should be more clear is that there are always unintended consequences, especially with something this huge- so of course the plan is loaded with unintended consequences.

As for honest and open debate, well, that wasn't really possible. It's like raiaiainainaianinanaiannan on your wedding day. Who woulda though? It figgers.

A more useful metric would require weighing the bad things that "may" happen with the good things that "may" happen. So that individual predictions of doom would be balanced out by individual predictions of improvement.

Sounds like several excellent arguments for removing employer paid health care to a single payer system.

Great minds think alike. I was thinking the same thing as I read ace's post.

Still, it's fun to assume theoretically possible consequences of passing healthcare reform are all somehow likely despite having not demonstrated likelihood. Other consequences there might be:

- Having kids stay on their parent's coverage until age 26 could inspire scientists to develop an anti-aging drug that prevents people from aging past 26, thus allowing people to perpetually stay under their parent's plans. The healthcare industry collapses in a decade and mankind devolves into hunter-gatherers again from a lack of modern medicine. Plants evolve emotions and become the dominant form of life on earth.

- Mandated healthcare in 2014 hits, but no one notices because the earth was destroyed in 2012 by space-Mayans.

- Once preexisting conditions have to be covered by the healthcare industry, people are more lax with the use of radioactive materials and the rates of birth defects and mutations skyrockets. The resulting Mutant Registration Act (or Proposition X), will split the mutant population and cause a civil war. Captain America will be assassinated.

Why was there never an open and transparent debate about sentience in plants?

Very few people on either side are being honest about the bill.

Kind of sad the way things work anymore. The more you lie the more people you convince to support you. It's a sick system.

Who predicted that? On a day to day basis there can be many factors that move the market, the long-term question is will the net impact of this legislation be positive or negative - we won't know the answer until decades from now. the concern I have is the unwillingness of some to look at this issue objectively.

Obama sold this to the public on pure fantasy. We are going to cover millions more, lower costs, cut taxes, reduce premiums, and reduce the deficit. Did you, or do you actually believe that? If you don't, did others? Why? Why didn't more questions get asked?

that would have been a good start.

---------- Post added at 07:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------

I actually believe we need single payer or a "free market" system. Our current system and the legislation that just passed is a mess. We did not really fix the underlying problems and we still have a system that is unfair.

---------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 PM ----------

Funny stuff.

The reason I posted what I posted is because today real people are making real decisions, affecting real people because of this new legislation. There are consequences. If one company faces a $100 million charge, to pretend that won't impact future decisions is kinda silly, isn't it? The CBO score doesn't account for these kinds of variables, the CBO score was virtually worthless.

What company would face a $100 milllion dollar charge, and for what?

I am honest about the bill. I have asked honest questions. I have honest concerns. Just because Obama's team and the folks on MSNBC want to paint everyone who has a question with a broad brush, like - if you don't accept Obama's plan you want to do nothing - is simple b.s.

---------- Post added at 07:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------

Read the article in the OP.

Jim Cramer, pan. I imagine other folks did as well. If you were really taking this "let's be objective and wait and see" approach I suspect you might have gone about the OP a bit differently.

I actually expect the legislation to have parts that were designed to be unworkable down the road to encourage further legislation. Toward that end, I won't be surprised if it doesn't work out exactly they way it was pitched. That's the nice thing about legislation is that you can change it if it doesn't work.

The reason that the perception exists that more substantive questions weren't asked is that most of the media time was spent talking about stupid bullshit like death panels and creeping socialism. The media failed, as usual. It's difficult to have a discussion when the folks who are supposed to facilitate it are aiming for the lowest common denominator. It's also difficult to have a discussion when 99% of the people paid to have the discussion are shills for one side or another.

I've read it twice. I still want to know what company WILL have a $100 million charge, and for what?

no company *will* have a 100 million dollar charge, but i suppose a company**could** have one in the same way that the earth **could** be vaporized to atoms by a comet or someone from the future with a time machine **could** erase the entire population that ever had anything to do with contemporary telecommunications by going back to 1350 and killing the wrong person in a skirmish.

the position i have about this thread filtherton already stated.

I don't think this is so radical. Those of us who purchase our insurance on the open market have never been able to deduct it from our taxes.

This sounds a lot more like my position.

ok so will and filtherton.

mea culpa.

Unlike the Republican leadership's dream world, in this things have to be paid for. Of course, one person's "tax increase" is another persons "ending subsidy." And costs should be cut from medicare part D. This is the part where if the republican leadership was honest to its proclaimed ideals, they'd get behind. But right now the republican leadership has changed it's tune from repealing the reform to reforming it to keep the "good stuff" in but doing away with taxes and mandates. Apparently, the "fiscally conservative" thing to do is to spend more but tax less.

And there will always be unintended consequences to everything. Thankfully, congress didn't cease to exist, and so they can further amend it if needed.

---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 PM ----------



Easy now, I believe the 'Stimulus Plan' and this health care reform bill have eclipsed any spending the Republicans have done during the life of the party.

So far, the stimulus has been a huge flop and there is no way the outlined taxes and fees are going to pay for this reform bill. No freakin' way.

The 01 and 03 tax cuts that primarily benefited the top bracket cost over $1 trillion and no offsets were provided.

The 05 Medicare Prescription Drug bill cost nearly $1.2 trillion (the Republicans ignored the CBO score at the time of the vote and said it would cost less than $1/2 trillion) and no offsets were provided.

The war in Iraq cost nearly $1 trillion and was purposefully kept off budget (so it wouldnt show up as Bush deficits) and no offsets were provided.

Both the stimulus program and the health reform bill have offsets that the CBO scored at various levels (best case to worst case), while the offsets may not all materialize (in the way of savings), both major pieces of legislation are far closer to deficit neutral than anything the Republicans enacted.

As dc_dux mentioned, these recent plans all are at least partially offset by tax increases.

Medicare part D alone is an unfunded liability not offset by ANY tax increases, and it's unfunded liability has been estimated as being anywhere between 17 and 35 trillion dollars over the next 75 years. The stimulus, which actually contained a hefty chunk of tax cuts that expire, will cost between 1 and 1.5 trillion over its entire life. Similarly, current estimates see the health care reform bill to actually be deficit reducing over the long term. Even if a lot of the offsets never materialize, that is still very far from 17 to 35 trillion over 75 years.

One amusing fact about the stimulus program is that most middle class taxpayers will benefit in some manner by the $285 billion in tax cuts in the bill....and in a recent survey, most Republican (and Tea Party) respondents were clueless about this largest single component of the stimulus program and believe their taxes will go up as a result of the stimulus bill.

I think the real question here is, why are large companies getting $100 million of tax credits in the first place? Where does that number come from?

How many employees do they have in order to get up to $100 million?

(This is the problem with these short news stories, they don't go into the details of where they get these numbers from, or what type of people they polled, or even if they are stating facts or opinions.)

My tax bill went down a whopping .4% this year. I'll wait a few years until I see what happens to my taxes before claiming this made that big a difference. I would have gotten along just fine without this stimulus bill being passed.

You do realize that whatever happened to you, personally, doesn't change the aggregate, right? That the amount of the stimulus that was tax breaks, and the number of people who got tax breaks are what they are regardless of what happened to you, personally, right?

Yes, and I know that for me personally, between the stimulus fiasco and the health care fiasco, the Democratic party has done nothing for me, and that I don't expect to ever vote for any Democrat in the future, and these two fiascoes have resulted in my no longer being politically passive.

It remains to be seen whether they will be anywhere near what the CBO predicts. And don't get me wrong, I don't think either party is taking responsibility for their actions. They both spend our money like drunken sailors on Meth. With taxes to offset the deficit or not, in the end it all comes from the same place, our pockets.

It just makes my testicles shrivel to see 3.5 trillion in spending signed into law in a year. No matter who's pen it was.

Not your pockets, investors who are buying bonds' pockets. Taxes haven't been enough to cover spending in a while, and most of that spending is on social security, medicare, and the military. So unless when the time comes you refuse medicare and social security, you are actually paying less than what you are getting out of the government.

The result is that some taxes eventually will have to go up, and a lot of this new spending actually comes from cuts in medicare.

Bonds, investments, dividends, rent all qualify, you're assuming I'm not vested in one or more of these. And that I make less than $250K/yr. Alright, ya got me on the last one. But my boss does and when he takes a hit, I'll take a hit.

I'm not talking about bonds as an investment strategy. I am talking about who is financing the US deficit. It's whoever buys US treasury bonds, and they are being paid interest for that.

The bottom line being, the vast majority of people complaining about taxes take out more than they put it.

https://getwhatyouwant.ceridian.com/mk/get/HCALERT1

posting this in all health care threads. Just received in an email from Ceridian Corp. They manage all of my groups flexible spending accounts.

I don't understand your point, can you expand upon it? CAT, $100 million, DE $150 million, T announced today a $1 billion charge.

AT&T sees $1 billion healthcare related charge - Yahoo! News

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ----------

Correct, we either should go to a single payer system, or a true "free" market system. Under the current system the playing field is not fair.

Ace...why should companies like CAT and ATT continue to receive tax credits for subsidies paid by the federal government for retiree drug benefits....particulary when the bill provides a direct $250 payment to those seniors to help close the Medicare donut hole and better drug benefits down the road for those seniors?

Those companies can simply pay those retirees $250 less and save that cost.

I again assert why not just remove employers from the loop of health all together. Why should your health care be linked to your job? Move it all to a single payer system and stop these pay out and kick backs.

That is what many preferred, but not enough for it to be a feasible option at this time. Pragmatism prevailed and the new law is far better than the status quo for most Americans.

But you are certainly right about the loopholes from which companies like CAT and ATT have benefited.

Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits - including the subsidies - from their taxable income.

The new law allows companies to only deduct the 72 percent they spent.

I like this, not sure how accurate it is since it lists Mexico as trying to start a national health care system. I live and Mexico and at least where I live national health care is available. Hell I'm a US citizen and IMSS is available to me for less then $500 a year.

http://www.gadling.com/media/2007/07...reworldbig.jpg

Anyway if this is correct then we don't have national health care for our citizens but the US tax payer is providing just that for both Iraqis and Afghans. Makes sense, right?

I don't understand your thinking either. Are you suggesting this issue is not real and won't have a real impact on people, Medicare, budget issues including deficit projections?

ace..I dont understand why you are opposed to closing corporate tax loopholes.

Why should companies like CAT and ATT be able to deduct the entire amount they spent on retiree drug benefits - including the govt. subsidies - from their taxable income....and not just the 72 percent they spent on those benefits?
able i
Isnt that like double dipping...getting a 28% govt subsidy and also deducting that subsidy from their taxable income.

There are multiple concerns, but I agree corporations should not get tax deductions that individuals can not get in the area of health care. I would support either no deductions or deductions for everyone.

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------

I would support this.

---------- Post added at 09:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

Finally some meat.

The benefit to retirees offered by these companies was better than the Medicare prescription plan. The retirees wanted to maintain what they had.

The federal government would have incurred added costs if the employees under these plans converted, everyone knew that.

Companies had been taking a deduction for 100% of these costs, but the costs were and are voluntary. The subsidy was to give incentive for the companies to keep these plans, most did. And there still is a net cost.

This illustrates my point. The government creates these complex entanglements rather than relying on simple systems. And the folks in Washington don't know or don't care about the consequences of these entanglements. Like I have been saying either, single payer or true "free" market systems. The hybrid systems are inefficient, ineffective, unpredictable, and far too complex. To think CBO or anyone can predict the impact of this legislation 10, 20 years down the road is a joke. So, why do they pretend otherwise?

---------- Post added at 09:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 PM ----------

Because you don't read what I write. I support single payer or true "free" market. In a true "free" market there would be no special subsidies, loopholes, or anything else from government.

You are looking too closely at the trees and can not see the forest. Re-read the OP, the issue presented is a little broader than your post here suggests.

---------- Post added at 10:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------

I was recently talking to a person from China, the way he described health care in China was: "you get sick, you die".

Thinking about most of the countries in Africa a question comes to mind, what is the difference between national health care and no national health care when the country has no doctors and medical facilities? Answer: There is no difference.

Ya lost me here. You're comparing China and most African nations to our paying for national health care in Iraq and Afghanistan why? Are you saving there are no doctors in either country? Because I keep seeing news reports of people going to the hospitals there all the time. Just last week I saw a report on the BBC about some disabled kid in Iraq getting an operation to restore his hearing. According to the map I used that means the US tax payers likely paid the cost of that op.

I find it ironic that the kid in Iraq gets US paid health care while many kids in the US do not. In fact I don't really find it ironic as much as it flat out pisses me off.

I simply looked at the map posted. China provides some form of national health care, but so what! If what my friend says is true, and he has never given me a reason to doubt him, generally people not connected in China have very little in the form of medical care compared to what we get here, even the uninsured. In most non-urban areas of China any form of professional medicare care is rare. In Africa the same is true. So, connecting the two - does national health care really matter, if there are no doctors, no facilities, no medicine, etc.?

I think in the US we confuse access to medical care with health insurance.

So your point now is relevant because we don't have enough doctors in the states to handle it even if we did have national health care? If that's the case, which it might be in some rural areas, I'd say we do what Mexico does and offer free med school to those who meet or exceed set standards in their first four years of college. Then have them serve a rural area for 4-5 yrs. My current doctor went to med school at UCLA, completely paid for by the Mexican government, she then provided medical services in small town near here named Ticul for 4 yrs. So I agree- US needs health care and access to it.

Still haven't heard anyone address why were paying for health in other countries but failing to do so in our own.

I'm having a hard time understanding what the fiascoes were if your taxes went down (albeit slightly)?

My taxes went down a small amount. However, government spending and borrowing went way up. At some point, interest rates and inflation are going to go up because of this or places like China are going to stop lending us money because our debt to GDP ratio is too high. All of the stimulus spending has had very little effect. Unemployment is still a mess. The housing market is still a mess. Credit markets are still messed up. The only thing that seems to have recovered significantly is the stock market. Obama's instituted so many government giveaways that I wonder why I even bother to work any more. I would have been better off to heavily mortgage my house, hide the money somewhere and let Obama bail me out.

I don't believe for a second that I can ever borrow my way to prosperity, and neither can the US government. Obama is digging a very large hole to bury the US.

As far as the health plan, well, it's only been a couple days since it's been signed and I've already read about three large companies cutting health care plans. I can hardly wait to see what my employer does when my insurance comes up for renewal and how much that is going to cost me.

By the way, I compared my taxes a few years after Bush was elected to what they were when Clinton was president and my taxes went down then too.

The bigger question is why is healthcare 1/6th of our economy? Why do we need so much care? Why does it cost so much more in the US compared to other countries? Where is the money going to? And why are these large companies paying so much?

My projected healthcare costs this year is $150, next year it will be $0 (known or planned numbers). I pay $800-$1000/year in insurance, and I think my employer pays $3000. That would be close to $30-$50 million for 10,000-15,000 employees if they use a younger person rates for everyone (which they don't). The company may make a billion or two a year, so it can handle paying that, but I wonder if we get anywhere close to $10 million in healthcare expenses.

oops video won't embed, see below

As mentioned before, the "hole" Obama is digging is much, much smaller than the hole Bush dug. The problem is that the hole Bush dug will only really be visible in the future because they are mostly unfunded mandates that make the deficits under both Bush and Obama seem like child's play. Which is why the complaints about tax increases, or, as in this thread, ending subsidies, cannot be reconciled with a view that cares about deficits.

Worth watching


YouTube - Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.

ObamaCare, the future of America.


How will we pay for this new bill, the VAT will be coming, it’s basic economics.

This is a logical outcome, you all know the possibility of this happening is relevant, and yet you all seem to be holding hand and singing kum by ya, reality isn’t a one sided perspective, in all matters, the “facts” come from both sides. This scenario is just as much a reality for America as it is not and as much as I am a believer of American Exceptionalism, I just don’t see how we are going to get around the facts and the reality of this bill.

It really is that basic and that simple the economics of this bill and the payments we will make just don’t equal up to freedom, let alone a relevant cohesive health care system. We can do Better than this, we have to do better than this, for all our children and our parents, we must do better than where this bill will lead our society.

Trying to compare what has been passed to what constitutes "universal health care" in central European and Scandinavian countries is a joke. Trying to put what has been passed as similar to what real social democracies do is a joke. This project is incredibly similar to what was suggested by republicans in 94 and what Romney actually ran on in 08.

And to call this the biggest expansion of the welfare state in so many years is another joke. Medicare part D costs significantly more than this reform, even when we take away all cost offsets. In less than a decade Medicare part D is expected to account for 1/3 of all medicare payments. But unlike this legislation, medicare part D has no cost offsets and is pretty much a gift to pharma companies, given how it prohibits negotiation for lower prices.

Finally, taxes SHOULD go up, and last I checked the VAT is the dream child of conservatives, as opposed to the progressive income taxation of real social democrats. The fact is that government programs are much more popular than most would acknowledge, with less than 1/5 of republicans (nevermind the general public) willing to cut medicare, medicaid, or social security. Sure, we would all like government programs that gave out benefits but didn't cost anything, but as we must remind conservatives this time around, there is no free lunch.

First of all, I have a question: do you want us to take you seriously?

Second, I don't know where Dick Morris is getting his data, but the WHO numbers show that between Canada and the U.S. the cancer mortality rates are far more parallel.

The cost of universal health care and the challenges it poses to budgets in the developed world is something that needs to be addressed. The problem with the U.S. is not universal health care in itself, it's the cost of health care period. It is much higher than it is compared to most (if not all) developed nations. The costs need to be reigned in somehow. Also, the U.S. needs to reexamine its overall budget. It might want to consider the dollars it spends on its military budget. I don't think its currently getting a good return for its investment. How's that for a reality?

As for "American Exceptionalism," I don't think I know what that is. All I can say at this point is that it sounds like a myth.

And how does an accountant record "freedom" on the ledger and balance sheet?

If you need something better, how do you propose getting health care to all members of American society?

I know they did it wrong. It's not quite universal health care so much as it is a national insurance plan.

What should be done?

AT&T sees billion-dollar-hit from health care reform - Yahoo! News

So, is keeping retirees on the companies prescription drug insurance plans instead of sending them to Medicare cost that much money to the company or the insurance companies? Or did they government in 2003 just give companies a large tax write-off and now they are bitching about it going away?

So here is what really is going on. There was a tax loophole that allowed companies to receive a subsidy of $1,330 per retiree. The companies would then write off that same $1,330 dollars as an expense lowering their taxable income. Basically they were falsely claiming an expense they never had in order to avoid paying taxes. I'm glad they closed down this loophole.

Baraka: American exceptionalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your instincts are correct.

How about this study, how many will it take to realize the truth, it is what it is.

What part of facts is misrepresented here, I can find more articles by professionals that say the same thing, whether you like it or not, this is the reality of government controlled health care plans.

As for American Exceptionalisms being myth, or notating a sense of superiority, you all need to stop this inane attack on semantics, it seems less like me being irrational and more like others being unable to grasp the basic definition of a word or attempting to alter it to fit there own definition.

If you can’t recognize the base concept of exceptiolism for what it is as opposed to a comment of superiority or self worth, then you don’t understand the fundamental expression of this word or what its definition represents to the U.S. and it’s uniqueness, Tocqueville is lost on you, oh well.

As for “myth,” I’m beginning to think the world is full of a lot of you myth graspers who live in your “it will all be wonderful” world were health care is free and service is exceptional, therein lies the true myth, magazines in the lobby, enjoy your wait.

SilentMethod70, read the definition of American Exceptionalism again, this time without any preconceived notions, or contempt for my post, if it still doesn't make sense, read Tocqueville. Leave it to the left to pervert a perfectly good word.

Stop pigeon holing conservative remarks as ignorant, elitist, chicken little's and look in the mirror at the reality of your own remarks and what they represent, hopelessly lost in wishful thinking.

Apparently being taken seriously on this sight seems to depends on whether you agree with "them" or not.

Economics of the Health Care Reform = VAT

You link Betsy McCaughey? The queen of the "death panels" fear monger?

And you want to be taken seriously?

---------- Post added at 10:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------

My personal opinion of American exceptionalism is that it is a wish to look back to better times when the demographics of the country was more representative of those who espouse that belief.

How is de Tocqueville relevant to the 21st century?

---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 AM ----------

And, for the record, for the umteenth, time, the health care reform enacted is in no way comparable to any European style health care. It is an expansion of privately provided health care to 30+ million more Americans and, for the first time, new coverages and safeguards for the rest of us to ensure that no one goes broke as a result of an illness or medical crisis.

It's nice little bundle of truth, but it doesn't go into a number of factors that lead up to the numbers. But if you like bottom lines, then there's this: "Canada also trails the USA in cancer survival: for men 61% USA, 58% Canada, for women 57% USA, 53% Canada." That's "trailing," yes, but if this were a competition, then Canada's still "in the game." But if you go beyond the summarizations, you get different pictures. How many families had their finances ruined by cancer in the U.S. vs. Canada? Do we want to go into that?

There are other factors as well, that could be read into this. Canada has a more sparse population density, and so you get problems in remote areas and finding adequate help in time. There are several other factors as well, but if you want to focus on the bottom line, I'll take Canada's care over the U.S.'s If I ever get cancer or heart disease, I won't be able to afford treatment on my own.

Find all the articles you want. The U.S. has a great health care track record; that's great. But it costs a fortune compared to other systems and 30,000,000 haven't had access at all. (That's a population about the size of Canada, btw.) It's great system, yes. Awesome. (Congratulations, even?) But it's geared towards those with nice jobs or a lot of money.

Okay, I know what exceptional means....

...but what Tocqueville means by American Exceptionalism is different. It's a specific usage of the word to make it a specific term and idea. But it's an idea of the past. It's stale. It leads to questions such as, what about Canadian Exceptionalism? Chinese Exceptionalism? EU Exceptionalism?

We are all so exceptional! It's like postmodernism never happened, when, in fact, it did. And I will even acknowledge that postmodernism is dead and gone. It died on 9/11. You'd think that if the zombie of American Exceptionalism were still shifting around that it would have finally died then as well.

Who's living in the "wonderful world"? You believe in American Exceptionalism. If America were so exceptional, you'd think it would be able to provide for a basic human right to all of its citizens. Health care isn't "free," but neither is "freedom."

So the more I think of it, the more I see American Exceptionalism as an old idea to describe a new phenomenon that was America. That's in the past. What's exceptional about America now isn't the same as what was exceptional then. This is why I have a problem with the term.

I have no idea in what capacity you're using that term. Maybe you could explain. American Exceptionalism is so awesome that it should prevent universal health care from happening? I don't get it.

You'd think that since America can afford such a ruinously expense, wasteful, and ineffectual military apparatus that they could afford to give access to health care. Maybe the two are at odds?

I agree the America is exceptional, but I take that as being exceptionally good and bad.

It isn't necessarily informative to compare cancer outcomes between different regions as an indicator of overall health care quality without also comparing cost. Any guesses on which system costs more and by how much (US spending as a percentage of GDP was 158% of Canada's in 2007)?

via http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,33..._1_1_1,00.html

An interesting question would be how much more effective a Canadian type system would be if it were to spend the kind of money the US spends.

That is a false statement. Just because someone doesn't have health insurance here doesn't mean they don't have access to health care. You cannot be refused emergency medical care any place that receives public or tax monies, which is virtually every single hospital in the United States with the exception of perhaps a handful. You can still go to any doctor you want to go to for non emergency care but you will have to pay for it out of your pocket. Many doctors will give you a discounted rate if you tell them you don't have insurance. Also there are low cost clinics that can be found everywhere that will take you in for a hugely discounted rate. Everyone here has access to health care, the question is whether they can afford it or not. This bill has done nothing to address the real problems with health care in this country. All it has done is force everyone the government deems able to afford it to purchase insurance whether or not they can is another story. By some accounts there will still be some not able to get insurance so it has already failed before it even began.

Fair enough, scout. Then take my statement to mean "affordable access." I take not being covered as not having the access one should have.

Access is meaningless if costs are prohibitive. Most chronic medical conditions can't be treated solely through ERs, and I think everyone has heard stories about people dying from treatable diseases because they lacked the money to pay for the treatment.

Let's not forget this guy Saul William Seidman and his book Inevitable Incompetence: Soaring Medical Costs, Dangerous Medical Care, which in the product description for the book on Amazon the first line says:
Most likely another like some here who have never been to a country with Universal Health Care, or they assume they know how it is here or elsewhere through article and studies, that apparently have quite the slant to them as well.

I would love to know more about the "health care = vat" but I guess we will be waiting forever, just like everything else.

As for cancer survival rates, why don't we go into the statistics into more detail?

Sure, the US does better than Canada, and than "European men" on the aggregate. But why don't we break it down?

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/7/43947803.xls

Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD) : The Lancet Oncology

You know what the selective comparison presented in that op-ed fails to mention?

The only type of cancer where the US is number 1 in survival rates worldwide is prostate cancer. It is #2 in breast cancer behind Cuba. It is #5 in colorectal cancer behind Cuba, Japan, Iceland and France.

And though we don't have data for Cuba on cervical cancer, among OECD nations the US is 8th in cervical cancer survival.

Not so much better after all, right?


Even that doesn't tell you the whole story. The cancer where the US does best, which is prostate, has a median onset age of 72. That means that the vast majority of prostate cancer treatments are covered by medicare.

And to put the final nail on the coffin of this silliness, the study cited there, which i presented here, only covers a few types of cancer. When we look at cancer mortality in the aggregate, by age standardized mortality rate the US is not even top 5 in the developed world. The things where the US is number 1 on among the developed world is infant mortality, and it is also top 3 on maternal mortality and years of life lost to communicable diseases.


As an aside, I find it annoying that instead of addressing other people's counterpoints, you just ignore them and post another op-ed by a random conservative talking head. If this is going to be your m.o. here, let me know and I'll start ignoring your posts.

I don't reckon it's people can't grasp the definition, seems pretty simple, maybe you have a different definition as to what it means.
exceptional - definition of exceptional by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
and Exceptionalism
exceptionalism - definition of exceptionalism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

If you don't have insurance and you have medical problems beyond your means to pay there was always Medicare/Medicaid you could fall back on after you had expended your available cash. I've never personally known anyone to die from a preventable disease and I seriously doubt you have either. It isn't all that common and if someone has died from a preventable disease it's probably because they made a bad decision so please don't exaggerate it like people are dropping like flies because they can't afford insurance. I don't understand how you folks can be so thrilled to have hooked and crooked and gotten this bill passed. It does nothing for the middle class but raise rates in the short term and undoubtedly our taxes in the long run. It does absolutely nothing to help bring down costs. Essentially it will raise everyone's insurance rates and do nothing to reduce the actual high rates being charged by doctors and the hospitals. Making everyone purchase insurance without offering a public option is beyond asinine.

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance | Reuters

'nuff said.


Predictions of doom aside, what it will actually do remains to be seen. I don't know anyone who thinks it's a perfect bill, bit I do know that a lot of people, myself included, think it's a good start.

This whole argument blows big chunks.

First, Health care in any form is not a human right. You do not now, nor should you ever have the right to infringe on the life of another for your personal gain. Without said person volunteering to do so, or stating the conditions they see fit to impose. This is a free market society, we have the right to charge for our goods and services. If you disagree, see the invitation below. Oh by the way, my car broke down so I'm going to borrow yours. I may return it when I'm done, but more likely I'll let a friend take it instead. And while you're being so generous, I'll have your TV, stereo, job and house as well. They're all better than mine and although I didn't earn them, I'm sure you'll be glad to help out a fellow human being. Right?

Second, we as a nation, we were founded because we like to do things our own way. Affording liberties to the individuals that no other nation, in their grand socialist dreams, saw as worth while. Those principles put forth in the Constitution do set us apart from the rest of the world. And only by our model and military strength has the rest of the world been able to follow its path. Don't feel left out my Northern brothers, we could have let Russia walk across the Bering Sea at any time, you like Vodka and Borscht don't you? I hear Beats go good with beers to eh. Europe, France in particular, can kiss my shiny American ass. Not once, but twice we saved your pathetic, self righteous asses from a life of speaking German and eating sauerkraut. On second thought, France, you can tongue my ass.

I'll remind every United States Citizen here today, no matter your political, religious or social views. You are here today because you, or one of your ancestors, said 'Fuck You' to the rat hole over governed twat of a country from whence you were spawned. And now some of you would like to not only take that right from the rest of the world, but you would like to 'reform' us in their image. To you I say; there is an airport in every major city in the US, go find one, buy a ticket, get on a plane and have a great fuckin' day.

Now this is pure speculation, but I'm willing to bet that not one of you self important, save the world from US domination and carbon emissions, assholes, immigrated in your lifetime. Further more, I invite you to find and visit your oldest living relative, hopefully the one who did immigrate, so they can kick you in the nuts hard enough to pop your head out of your ass, before you get on a plane.

Back to reform and the Oblahblah plan to save the sick. It costs 940 Billion dollars, does not do as advertised and is not supported by the majority of informed or otherwise, citizens. Being mandatory is an affront to the values of our founders and our nation as a whole.

As far as people dying from treatable diseases. It is sad, I feel for their friends and families. More people die in car accidents every year, than treatable diseases. It must be time to remove all private transportation from the roads and pay up to replace it with public transportation to avoid those deaths. It will be better for us all.

Next we better get rid of all electricity, more electrical related deaths every year than untreated, treatable disease deaths, time for it to go.

The top four preventable killers in the US; Tobacco, high blood pressure, obesity and physical activity (really, check the CDC or PLoS). Obviously cigarettes, food and exercise should be completely eradicated immediately! They're a menace to society. Okay, I agree with getting rid of cigarettes and yes, I am a smoker. But that's up to me isn't it.

What? You say you're a good driver, you don't blow your hair dry in bathtub full of water, don't smoke, you eat healthy foods and exercise responsibly? Tough shit, 10% of the population is to fuckin' stupid, broke or inbred to keep themselves alive, so we have to cater to the lowest common denominator and because they're stupid, broke and inbred. You get to pay the bill. Happy Birthday Bitch.

The total cost of health care under Oblahblah's plan? You.


..

..




...

That is unless of course your ancestors lived on the North American Continent 500-or 600 plus years ago. Then you're here because you manged to survive what the invading peoples did to your peoples.

Some of your arguments make some sense as long as you don't consider all the facts. Some are just complete nonsense talking points. No one's taking yours (or anyone else's) car, stereo etc...

America is a democracy. People vote others to lead it, to pass laws etc... The people leading it have been trying to pass some type of national health care for decades. Just like when Bush was in office, don't like? Then vote for change. Or you could take your own advice and go directly to one of the many great airports available to you.

Either way have a great day.

Over 100 years, in fact.

A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US | Physicians for a National Health Program

Wow, talk about ego, you alone saved Europe? Really you want to go down that path, I mean jesus if that's what American Exceptionalism is, well it's just some revisionist history bullshit.

Indeed, for one thing geography has played a huge role in American history. We're in a pretty good place here. I like that, but I'm under no illusion about how lucky we are for that.

I mean I can appreciate being proud of ones country and contributions, but to claim they were more than they were just down plays and insults other contributions, especially some of the claims of single handedly stopping the Russians from 'walking across the Bering Sea', now I didn't know Russians could walk on water, I'd like to see that trick, or single handedly saving Europe, I mean I believe they were called the Allies for reason, meaning there were more than one involved, but hey my history may be off......

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25 (posted in another health care thread, I believe):

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

I suppose it is entirely possible that some Americans would want to overlook this, though I imagine if a nation would have aims to be the greatest in the world, this is one thing they might want to focus on...if it's a problem.

I think it's a problem.

I'll reiterate that the bill that was passed is problematic. It's not akin to the social democratic forms of health care that it should be. I think there is enough support for universal health care. I think the goal should be universal health care.

There are measurable benefits to providing health care to your public.

I stand corrected, it was indeed Canada that stepped in when Europe and Africa were being over run.

Single handedly, no, but without us Germany rules Europe.

And if there were anywhere else in the world I could go and enjoy the freedoms I have here, I would have left long ago. I'm sure you also understood the sarcasm in the 're-purposing' of the possessions others have earned.

Why am I interested in the opinion of those who are unaffected by this bill? Okay, that's a little strong. I value the opinions of those who have first hand knowledge of an situation.

Natives? Ditto, every other country on the face of the earth, unless they were stopped.

The $940 billion over 10 years is offset...the biggest pieces are cutting $150 billion in overpayments to Medicare Advantage providers and $250 billion with a .9 percent tax increase on the Medicare payroll tax on people making more than $200k. Much of the rest is from long-term savings resulting from the bill's investment in technology.

Most polls show majority support for the legislation.

The founding fathers were the first to impose a mandatory health care payment:

When it comes to mandating health insurance, it began with the Founding Fathers who established the first health insurance program in America which was imposed by the federal government.

The effort began July 20, 1789 during the First Congress, which established a committee to come up with ways to ensure health of American merchant mariners, who worked in one of, if not the largest industry of the day.

In 1790, the Founding Fathers enacted a law requiring ships to carry medical supplies and provide health care for crew.

In 1798, those same Founding Fathers enacted the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen which created the U.S. Public health Service as well as the Marine Hospital Services (MHS).

The law forced every merchant mariner to pay 20 cents a month into a fund to pay for their medical care. This was one of the first direct taxes on individual citizens.

At the same time, the federal government established a system of MHS hospitals in seaports and inland waterways.

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

The founding fathers and the first Congress also imposed a mandate on all citizens under the Militia Act of 1792.

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder

Government mandates on the people are as old as the country itself.

Well considering Canada declared in 1939, and Pearl wasn't bombed until 1941 when they Americans declared on December 11, I'd hardly say the US 'stepped in when Europe and Africa were being over run', but hey again, my history may be off, I don't follow this revisionist version some seem to use.....
see now that says one thing in the first 2 words, then the opposite in the final 6, I mean you don't know that for sure, it's saying the US contributed more than others, which is just false, al lthe Allied countries made sacrifices, and it's just the American ego getting involved again, you contributed to the war, be happy, even if you happened to show up 2 years after the dance started......

Without the French arms and money, would there be a US?

Long live Lafayette. :thumbsup:

Really? I always thought the US, Canada and the Aussies were in a small group of nations that ran the natives off. Maybe I need a history lesson.


Soooo...

Who did the Chinese run (or slaughter) out of China?

The Japanese out of Japan?

The Russians out of Russia?

The Germans out of Germany?

The French out of France?

English out of England?

Indians out of India?

I remember reading about Rome trying to take over a bunch of places, didn't end well if I read correctly. And the Brits did their best at several places but they're pretty much back on the island last I heard.

First off, let's start with the bits of revisionist history:

The US was merely a supporting actor in the defeat of Nazi Germany. The bulk of the German army was on the eastern front, where they had more than twice as many troops as they had in the west. You might say that being ruled by Stalin's Soviet Union is not much of an upgrade over Hitler, but the fact remains.

As to the "ancestors who said fuck you," you mean other than the Natives (as already pointed out), the Africans, and the Mexicans who used to own about half the land that is now the US, right?

This isn't to deny the great things the US has done. But it has also done some pretty shitty things which also must not be forgotten.


In any case, the reform was passed through all the institutions set up by the founding fathers and so on. You can't at the same time preach about the exceptionalism and perfection of the form of government set up originally and then decry the outcome of those same form of government. This health care reform isn't an imposition from abroad, but a home grown product.

You don't know much about the conservative movement in the US, do you?

I mean it was all the rage to question and or insult the POTUS during war time when Clinton held the office, as it is now with Obama. But when Bush Jr. was in the Oval Office it was nothing less then treason.

Just watch Fox News, they'll fill you in on all the awful stuff Obama's up to. Of course for eight years you heard nothing but how great the POTUS was and how anyone who question him was a treasonous sore loser and should leave the country immediately, if not sooner.


I bet right now they're working in a way to prove that by visiting the troops in Afghanistan Obama is really a socialist.

What's amusing is that many will just look at you blankly when you point out the hypocrisy of their blind support of POTUS during the Bush years versus what they are doing to the same institution today.

They seem to have forgotten the rhetoric of the past.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Thus the unless they were stopped part.

Romans? Yeah, they had no impact on the world. That's why we use the Latin Alphabet. Brits? No impact their either.

Looking back at almost any region, several groups moved into a single area, lived either unknown to each other or in harmony. Until the stronger group rose up and either slaughtered or assimilated the weaker. So, which is worse, the assimilation/annihilation of a culture or what you see in modern day US, Canada and Australia? What about Mexico's indigenous people? Not a lot of Mayans and Incas running around these days.

Just because it's recent history, doesn't make it the only history.

Japan has it's own little history:

In 645, Nakatomi no Kamatari started the era of the Fujiwara clan that was to last until the rise of the military class (samurai) in the 11th century. In the same year, the Taika reforms were realized: A new government and administrative system was established after the Chinese model. All land was bought by the state and redistributed equally among the farmers in a large land reform in order to introduce the new tax system that was also adopted from China. This was after taking over several island islands now part of Japan, who did not (some still do not) consider them selves Japanese.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------


All history is revisionist. The victor writes history, it is never completely represented.

And you are right, Germany was getting stomped by Russia, so it is more likely Europe would be Russian speaking now.

It may sound as though I'm claiming we were the soul reason, that was not my intent. However, without us, it would have gone differently. Europe was defeated, North Africa over run. I find it hard to believe Russia would have stopped at Berlin. Why not keep pushing south all the way to Africa? The hard work was already done for them.

I'm also not defending our government, but the founding ideals of a nation. Our government went off the reservation long ago. We the people, have lost control of it and that will be our down fall. This last act is just one more in a long line of atrocities committed in the name of the American people, by a government run-a-muck.

Home grown health care? I'd say politically manipulated health care. I don't think any one believes that everyone in the Senate and Congress read and understands this 2000 page bill and it's 500 page education bill. So why would they vote for it? Not a foreign imposition? That doesn't even makes sense when half the arguments for it contain the phrase 'we are the only industrialized nation that doesn't have it'. It also makes no sense in that, there are there are vastly superior alternatives that limit government involvement. Yet they've chosen to model it on existing systems. That is foreign influence.

Not to mention I find it odd, debating this with a Canadian.

Not that I dislike Canadians. I live in a border town and have as many Canadian neighbors as American. I just find it odd debating an issue with someone non-vested.

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------

Oop, my bad Dippin. I guess 'the ether' could be in the US.

I'm not Canadian and I actually live in the US, if I am the person you are referring to.

Yeah, that swings both ways with the media now doesn't it.

Think of all the Liberals who were gnashing their teeth and crying in the streets over the heinous acts of the Bush's in the middle east. Now strangely quiet with Obama in office.

It's all a sick evil joke. So what is it this week? Laugh or Cry?

Still it's saying 2 separate things, I'm not saying we were the soul reason, but if we weren't there Europe would have been fucked, is basically what you just said, which sounds an awful lot like we were the soul reason they weren't screwed, which is just wrong, and is still just revisionist history bullshit as I said before.

Except... they're not.

Just one example that I read today: The Last War Supplemental Ever | Firedoglake

Liberals have continued complaining about Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanimo, the PATRIOT Act, and the list goes on.

Taxes shouldn't go up. The government should learn to spend within it's means. Congress, the Senate and every other government employee from the president to your local ditch digger should make the same pay as their equivalent in the private sector. Granted, it's hard to find the equivalent of a Senator in the private sector, the useless are normally unemployed. Really, why do these idiots have the power to vote themselves raises?

It's like it has become a game to see how much of our money they can take. Unfortunately, they have control and we have a short attention span.

---------- Post added at 08:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 PM ----------

That was in direct response to the media question. That was one paper today. Four years ago it was every paper, every day.

I think we live in different realities.

I'm not understanding your confusion. I understand it was a group effort, I understand the US did not win alone. I understand that our total troop commitment was greater than the entire population of Canada at the time. So what exactly is the confusion?

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------

Is yours better, I'm looking for a new one.

---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------


Did you actually read what you linked too??


"Last April, shortly after beginning his first term as president, Barak Obama promised that the war supplemental he requested from Congress would be the last one ever:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that this will be the last supplemental spending request for the wars. The administration has already earmarked $130 billion for military operations next year, but officials have said they do not want that funding tagged “emergency.”

“The honest budgeting and appropriations process that the president has talked about falls somewhat victim to the fact that this is the way that wars have been funded previously,” Gibbs said. “So we can’t wait until the appropriations process is done in … August or September to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in June.”

And suddenly a lot of the members of Congress who had opposed war supplementals in the past and promised not to vote for another one, decided “just this one last time” to go along.

Well guess what, even though “the … Congress has approved [$128.3 billion] for war-related expenses in fiscal 2010,” there’s a new war supplemental being prepared. This time it’s for $33 billion and while originally proposed for passage around Memorial Day, Sec Def Gates is now pushing to move up approval of the latest blank check.

At the same time “congressional defense committees will continue to be enmeshed in hearings on the Pentagon’s request for a $548.9 billion base budget and $159.3 billion in war funding for FY ’11, which begins Oct. 1.”

The drumbeat for the added funds moved into high gear with the president’s surprise visit to Kabul this morning. Expect a lot more – from reports of “success” from the hyped up battle for Marjah to an upcoming big fight for Kandahar. With so much cash on the line, the sales pitch is sure to be quite loud – and irresistable to a congress who once again will break their promises to stop these off budget supplementals."

This sounds more like the Libs are giving up more money for the war, not complaining about it.

And how is this obscure blog compared to network news and major newspapers????

Is this the Johnny Cochran defense??? Look at the monkey, look at the monkey.....

You don't seem to understand that though, you say you do but clearly you don't, as ou say one thing out of one side of your mouth, then the opposite out of the other. Having more troops committed than Canada's population means what exactly? Oh of course that must mean the US shouldered all the work in your distorted view of history.

You must have been referring to the comments below. Not what I would hope for, but better than nothing.

I falsely assumed the same public servants would be upset too.

---------- Post added at 09:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------


Go back and read all the posts, you are the only one saying the US did all the work.

You also seem to be having a really hard time understanding the impact 13 millions troops, tanks, aircraft, aircraft carriers, and battleships have in a war.

That is not to say, they would or could have won it alone. Simply that without them, things were not going so well and after they arrived, things got better.

Now if you are looking for an ego driven statement, how about this. I do believe you could have removed any other single country from the war and still won. If we were still there. It's a matter of numbers and power. We accounted for roughly 38% of the troops and 50% (discounting the atomic bomb, which only we had at the time) of the fire power. In a war involving 15 or so allies. Now you can revise your history any way you like, but facts are facts. We made a significant difference.

---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ----------

This is straying way off topic, I will cease and desist.

Really? You remember this from last page, it really wasn't that long ago.
Nice try though.
Not at all, I understand what that means, it isn't rocket science to figure out, I just want you to understand you didn't do it all alone as you seem to think.
I never said you didn't make a significant difference at all, no where did I say that, I merely pointed out you never did it all alone as you stated last page.
Yep it is, that's what happens when patriotism gets in the way of facts.

You missed the point here completely.

Whaat Obama promised was no more war supplementals, which was the way Bush kept the war funding out of the budget, and thus, not contributing to the Bush deficit. In fact, nearly $1 billion of Iraq war funding between 2003-09 was off budget. While it contributes to the long term national debt, it never showed up in annual budget deficits.

Spending for the war in Afghanistan is now included in the annual DoD appropriations. No budget gimmicks.

You said-

Did the Romans and Brits have an impact, sure. Do they still control all the land they invaded. No.

As for Japan, you're talking, other then some small islands near the main island, about hostilities within Japan, not some foreign attacking force wiping out the indigenous people.

As for your comments on Mexico. The Incas never were in Mexico. They were in Western South America. Mexico's history includes several distinct civilizations. The main ones being Olmec, Izapa, Teotihuacan, Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Huastec, Tarascan, "Toltec" and Aztec. Some of these faded out prior to the arrival of the Europeans in the 16th century. After the Europeans arrived many were in fact slaughtered but really the main idea was to enslave the indigenous people, rather then wipe them out. The result has been a large number of people who are still around and are most certainly native. I live in the state of Yucatan here in Mexico. I can assure you the Mayan people and Mayan culture are alive and well. My landlord is Mayan. Most of his family speaks Mayan, Spanish and English. There are many town within a 50 mile radius of my house where the majority of people are of direct Mayan decent. I had a funny thing happened to me not long after moving here, I'd been invited to a party and at the party an older couple decided they needed to leave early. I think the husband was not feeling well. The party host asked if I could drive them home so they wouldn't have to take the bus. I said "sure." They got in my truck and I asked "which way?" They answered but I didn't understand one word. I figured my Spanish was just really, really bad. I asked "left, right, forward???" Again they spoke and spoke and spoke some more... I understood not one word. Finally in Spanish worse then mine (which is saying something) the wife stated they only speak Mayan. I got them home but only through hand gestures.

But this all started when you stated-

Which I answered with-

Which lead to your response-


Nothing you've posted shows all nations have either been taken over or fought off some invading foreign force. I believe your understanding of world history is a bit lacking.

---------- Post added at 06:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 AM ----------

I agree with much of what you're saying here. I think the news is reporting on the protests currently happening by the right. Though Fox is more cheer leading then reporting. It's not reporting when your producers stand behind the reporter and make gestures to whip up the crowd. It's also not reporting when you use footage that's two months old to show what a huge crowd has gathered to protest.

I think the left was upset with Bush over a lot more then just his actions in the Middle East. Just as I think the right is upset with Obama for a lot more then just the health care law.

Personally I think it's important to note that Bush was elected by 50.7% to Kerry's 48.3%. Not exactly a mandate. Obama won with 53% to McCain's 47%. Again not exactly a mandate. But as you pointed out when Bush won and was in office many on the left were "gnashing their teeth and crying in the streets." Now that Obama is POTUS we're seeing the same thing by people on the right.

So laugh or cry seems to depend on whether or not your side is in power.

Tully-
First off I need to learn how to quote segments like you just did, that would make this soooo much easier.

Since I haven't yet, moving on.

Yes I exaggerated. As far as my history being lacking, I will never know enough about history. The fact that it is being rewritten almost annually by new anthropological discoveries doesn't help. Nor does the fact that the victors get to write their version and the defeated nothing. I tend to view history in a broader scope and generalities.

My point is, everyone came from somewhere else at some time and once they were there had to defend their land or be slaughtered. Often the first to settle an area are not now the current inhabitants. You are correct, it did not happen everywhere. It did happen more often than not. That was why I included "unless they were stopped". Anthropology is not showing virtually
all existing nation lie on the ruins of a former people. The US, Canada and Australia still having Aboriginal people intact are just easier to point a finger at.

I disagree with your assessment of Japan as well. If you are an inhabitant of an Island and consider yourself and your people to be 'of' that island, you are a native nation. When a neighboring (non-native to your island) island invades you and makes you part of their nation, you have indeed been invaded and assimilated by a foreign nation. Wiped out, no. Although certainly there were casualties.

I'm not sure how you define 'foreign force'. We (Europeans) were here and established before the real blood shed began. I don't condone what happened, nor do I look at it as a foreign invading force. As history shows, when two or more nations occupy the same territory and don't have agreeable life styles, the stronger will destroy the weaker.

They too left their native lands to arrive here, be it long before we did. They did come looking for greener pastures.
Also Native Americans are a sovereign nation within our borders, I was not referring to them in the original statement.

African Americans (or whatever the politically correct phrase of the day is), immigrants now out number the descendants of slavery. Former slaves were granted amnesty by Lincoln and had the choice to return to Africa if they so desired. They did not, so while they did not leave their home nation by choice, they did effectively abandon it by not returning.

Mexican, thank you for the correction, I was confusing Incas and Aztecs. They, non-the-less, are not doing so well. Thank you Spain.

Originally, I was referring specifically to the media coverage of protesters in the street. It has dropped off significantly with the new administration, yet the war continues. Personally, I'm having a hard time finding any reliable American Media. They all seem to have an agenda. I view all the news channels, read several newspapers, scour the web and seek outside media (mostly BBC and Canadian news). I then develop my own opinion of what is happening based on all I have seen and read. The disparities amongst the various sources are numerous. There is no single news source I trust to deliver the truth.

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

SWEET! It looks like I did figure out how to multi-quote. Yea me.

Maybe it's just me but I think your tone has changed a lot. I think that's a good thing.

I will say from what I've seen the Mayans are doing fine, Spanish couldn't break all of them. Not that they didn't try. Some of those that did break ended up assimilating. Of course there's many that were killed too. But I think over all the indigenous people here in Mexico fared far better then those in the US.

I'll also say IMO the reason you can't find a reliable news source is they no longer exist. Given the choice between watching an hour of MSNBC or Fox on any given night and slamming my head in door... I'll take the door. Be less painful and over with quicker.

First off, I agree with Tully. You have come around in your attitude. "Tongue my ass" isn't far from where you are now but it's a lot more reasoned and respectable.

I do have small issue with your comment above. I find it difficult to say that the blacks that Lincoln emancipated somehow abandoned their home nation by not returning to Africa. We are talking about people who were born and raised in slavery in the US and not people who were fresh off the slaver's boat. Some did return to Africa (see Sierra Leone and Freetown) but most, decided to stay because they had no connection to the land of their ancestors.

Need to re-think this line of thought on many levels but the most glaring is the fact that when Lincoln was President most slaves were born in this country and had no connection to the African continent or awareness of where their ancestors were from.