Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Everything Political

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:15 am

So.....ummmmm, yeah. Obama was gonna "CHANGE" things. He was different. It was not gonna be business as usual in DC. All the promises....ho hum.

But in reality, it is the same old, same old:

Political pressure to give $ to save ShoreBank?

The FDIC Inspector General’s office has launched a wide-ranging probe into the failure of Chicago-based ShoreBank earlier this year, including the role played by Bair in prodding Wall Street’s biggest firms, from Goldman Sachs (snip) to JPMorgan (snip) to Morgan Stanley (snip), in donating tens of millions of dollars to prevent the bank, with close ties to the Obama administration, from failing.

ShoreBank did fail in August, with the FDIC taking over $2.16 billion in faulty assets, including risky investments in urban real estate, from the bank. But the Wall Street money raised during the summer wasn’t returned. Instead, it used by ShoreBank’s management with the approval of the FDIC to form a new bank that will take over some of the bank’s better-performing assets and its deposits under a new name, the Urban Partnership Bank.


Sounds like a little of the old Chicago version of Bait & Switch.

ShoreBank’s failure came after months of political haggling about whether a bank of its size should be bailed out since so many other banks, without ties to the administration, have been allowed to fail since the financial crisis of 2008. At first Bair was pushing for federal bank bailout money to be used to supplement the funds from Wall Street. But that effort failed following a Federal Reserve report that cast doubt on whether the bailout was enough to keep ShoreBank from failing down the road.


One wonders who are the principal investors in the new Urban Partnership Bank? Regardless, there is little doubt that soon it will be time to throw Sheila Bair under the bus...

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:57 pm

Dems Upset At Obama Tax Deal

Oh the irony is delicious. So let's see... I wonder who can now be given the title "The Party Of No?"

And if we turn the clock back less than a year, we were hearing all the charges of how people who did not agree with Obama and his health care proposals were just "racist". Of course, a reasonable person would then ask: So when the Dems disagree with Obama striking a deal with Repubs (following the Bill Clinton midterm pivot tactic to preserve his chances for re-election), does that make the Dems defacto racists? Can't have it both ways, but they sure will try.

And even more delicious irony:

About 20 House Democrats lined up at microphones at the evening meeting to complain about the president's proposal. According to the senior Democratic aide, in addition to concerns about the substance of the proposal, equally upsetting to attendees was how "House Democrats were left out of the process at the end."


I guess there is a new sheriff in town, come this January. Clearly, Obama understands this reality, and even though Obama is not voicing it, he also understands the message the voters sent in November. But perhaps those Democrats who feel "left out of the process" can now understand how the Repubs felt when a great many of their proposals for health care (tort reform, anyone?) were shot down by Dems? And then, go back to the Pelosi/Reid rhetoric way before she was swept into the Speaker's chair in the election of 2006:

Pelosi wrote:Democrats are not about getting even ... This election is about the future, not about the Republicans.


And this was followed-up by closed-door DEM sessions on the health care reform bill.

Reid wrote:Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who's likely to become Senate majority leader, echoed Pelosi's conciliatory tone. "We are not going to treat the Republicans like they've treated us," he said.


And yet, the record clearly shows they treated the Republicans pretty much exactly how the Republicans treated them (closing out their ideas from being incorporated into legislation).

Al From, the founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, said that between now and 2008, "if Democrats act as problem solvers, not polarizers, that future will be very bright."


And how does their record from 2007 until now stand about acting as "problem solvers, not polarizers"? Not so good, it seems, especially since they are polarizing the nation with respect to the leaders of their own party (Obama and his willingness to make a deal).

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:11 pm

Score another hit for Ray:

I believe, if one looks back into the history of this thread, I was clearly saying that the mandatory insurance element of Obamacare was never going to pass muster as constitutional. Turns out, a federal judge decided just that:

Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Virginia's Central Challenge to Health Care Law

Casting an unmistakable and perhaps permanent pockmark on the face of the Obama administration, a federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a major component of the new health care reform law is unconstitutional.

Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday for the state's claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution's Commerce Clause or under the General Welfare Clause.


And no, there is no relation between myself and the judge! :lol: Although a great many highly intelligent people throughout history have held the surname Hudson! :wink:

Yes, of course, the socialist extremist Dems will challenge this ruling. Because they must. But I told you so! :P
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:14 pm

Here is one a colleague sent to me today that I thought was appropriate for this thread:

Cynicism is the label Pollyanna gave to 'reality'. Here is a systemic version of how it works:
a) Those who would govern others encourage themselves by noting (accurately or not) that citizens are underinformed and greedy, especially those citizens who engage in corporations. Therefore people need to be governed.
b) Governing works because, under the guise of the Rule of Law, they devised the ICI remedy --- Indict, Convict, Imprison. It works. Governing happens. Citizens become subjets.
c) From what labor pool do those who govern arise? The only one we have --- the underinformed and greedy.
d) Except that they who write the laws exempt themselves from ICI.
e) Governing does not happen to governors.

Now run this two-stage, implicit system about three cycles and notice the outcome ---
1) increasingly underinformed subjects (check your public school trends) and increasingly greedy subjects (Tragedy of the Commons when citizens can write themselves a check, as Benjamin Franklin warned) and
2) public servants morph to public serpents. Prof. Zimbardo, Stanford U., has been informing us about this system of human nature he called Lucifer Effect.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Those EVIL Tax Cuts?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:33 am

And now, as the Dem controlled House closes the door on its failed time at the helm, we should start to review the lies that were told on behalf of the Democratic Party...who will constantly tell you that Republicans are the only ones who lie.

But let's start with the Bush Tax Cuts, and the Democratic lies about them:

So, if the Bush tax cuts for the last 10 years have been the singular most destructive policy for USA since they were implemented... and both Clinton and Obama BOTH now want to continue them then:

1) Either Obama and Clinton have been lying up until last week or
2) Obama and Clinton want to continue the destruction of the USA.

If 1), then are they also lying that the healthcare plan is good for USA?
If 2), is the USA going to be further destroyed?

They can't keep their lies straight any more.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Access Denied » Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:01 am

The return of the straw men...

The only reason Obama agreed to extend the tax cuts is to protect the middle class... Republicans threatened to block any legislation that only raised taxes on the rich. Of course it’s not the rich who caused the economy to collapse so they shouldn’t have to pay more for the recovery just because they can afford to right?

Anyway…

I find it interesting that the same people who killed the public option are the same people who are arguing the health care bill is unconstitutional… hmm.

All in favor of a new law requiring anybody who wants to deny their social responsibility to carry health care insurance because they don’t think they need it be denied any medical care if they can’t pay the bill up front please raise your hand…

It’s only seems fair if the cost of my medical coverage is increased because some people think they’re bulletproof and will never have any catastrophic medical costs they can’t afford to pay right? After all, I’m effectively covering them because I’m paying into the system even when I don’t need it…

Here in California we have laws that require everybody who operates a motor vehicle to provide proof of financial responsibility. That proof can be in the form of an insurance policy or if one objects under the “commerce clause” they can deposit $35,000 cash with the DMV or post a bond for the same amount.

I don’t see why those who object to the government requiring everybody to purchase health care insurance shouldn’t be able to deposit say $15,000 with the state to cover an emergency and after that pay as they go? After all, health care's not a right, it's a privilege, correct?
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:37 pm

Catching up now that puppywatch is not a full 24/7 operation.

Hmmmm, let's see here... in another thread:
Access Denied wrote:(which, by the way, is why I don't debate politics with you anymore) :lol:

A reasonable person would then have to interpret the above, in conjunction with this post I am responding to, as a sign that you have lied. Because we all know that only women have the prerogative to change their minds! :wink: In any event, with that little non-sequitor pointed out... onward:
Access Denied wrote:The return of the straw men...

I believe it is customary, and also polite, to point out exactly what someone has wrote that you believe is a straw man. This is most often done using the quote feature... that is, unless you have your wide dispersion shotgun out again and are trying for any hit you can score?
I find it interesting that the same people who killed the public option are the same people who are arguing the health care bill is unconstitutional… hmm.

All in favor of a new law requiring anybody who wants to deny their social responsibility to carry health care insurance because they don’t think they need it be denied any medical care if they can’t pay the bill up front please raise your hand…

It’s only seems fair if the cost of my medical coverage is increased because some people think they’re bulletproof and will never have any catastrophic medical costs they can’t afford to pay right?

What I find interesting is that a law that so many have deemed as "fair" required 2000+ pages to codify. I smell BS, and there is plenty in your rhetoric that simply does not add up. And before you attempt this tactic (again): you cannot blame the Repubs for the size/complexity of the final bill that was passed. Those 2000 pages were trotted out by Nancy and Co on the first day of this legislative agenda for this crappy health care reform law. And not only that, but MANY Democrat lawmakers even fully admitted not having read it all... and tried to make light of the fact they did not.

So again, just so you do not get distracted, explain to me again how and why it requires 2000 pages (of mostly stealth GOV spending and ways for the GOV to shirk their OWN responsibilities to the people by mandating bureaucrats for making decisions on coverage) to codify a "fair" law.

Here in California we have laws that require everybody who operates a motor vehicle to provide proof of financial responsibility. That proof can be in the form of an insurance policy or if one objects under the “commerce clause” they can deposit $35,000 cash with the DMV or post a bond for the same amount.

I don’t see why those who object to the government requiring everybody to purchase health care insurance shouldn’t be able to deposit say $15,000 with the state to cover an emergency and after that pay as they go? After all, health care's not a right, it's a privilege, correct?

Tired, stale, and many-times-debunked attempt at apples-to-oranges comparison. You cannot compare health care to financial responsibility for driving an auto for a simple, well-known reason that people like you never seem to address. Namely, beyond posting a bond, one can also completely opt-out of their right to hold a driver's license at all. In the case of health care, there is no way to completely opt out, unless you are going to claim that your ability to opt out of life is equivalent? :roll:

And your last line is your own straw man, now isn't it? Driving is a privilege that is assigned by the state. Health care is only a personal privilege that is determined by your ability to pay. No state needs to get involved and "bestow" the right for you to purchase health care...so given that correction, how vapid is your straw man argument?

So please: Identify exactly what you believe was my straw man, and also take ownership of the sloppy straw man that you just laid out above. Please and thanks.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Those EVIL Tax Cuts?

Postby Access Denied » Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am

Your straw man as requested...

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:...if the Bush tax cuts for the last 10 years have been the singular most destructive policy for USA since they were implemented...

Please provide a quote where either Obama or Clinton said this.

Here's the definition of a straw man argument since you seem to throw it around in the rest of your post without knowing what it means...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Thanks for reminding me why I don’t debate politics with you anymore.

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:In the case of health care, there is no way to completely opt out, unless you are going to claim that your ability to opt out of life is equivalent? :roll:

Sure there is… no cash up front or insurance, no medical care for you.

According to you only people (and their dependant children) who can afford health care have a right to live if they're in an accident or get sick right?
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Those EVIL Tax Cuts?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:15 pm

Access Denied wrote:Your straw man as requested...

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:...if the Bush tax cuts for the last 10 years have been the singular most destructive policy for USA since they were implemented...

Please provide a quote where either Obama or Clinton said this.


1) I did not use quotation marks, did I? For you, the uninformed, that means I am NOT making a claim that they used those exact words.
2) It is sometimes called "spin". I know you know a lot about it from your own abuse of it.
3) I was referring to the general opinions of most Democrats about the Bush tax cuts, and Obama and Clinton have just been the torch bearers. But OK, you want some quotes that show this general opinion? Fine:

From: New progressive ad quotes Obama...

The newest ad by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee reminds Obama that at one time in his not-distant past, the Bush tax cuts offended his conscience.


But the video itself gives the best impact:


Not enough for your skeptic heart? OK, here is one with both Obama and Clinton (admittedly, not the former POTUS version of Clinton, but the one without the penis, but still plenty of balls...but is there really any difference between Bill and Hill politically anyway?):

From: Barack Obama on tax reform
Obama & Clinton wrote:Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.
OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That’s right.
OBAMA: I’m not bashful about it.
CLINTON: Absolutely
OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more. But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.
CLINTON: It’s just really important to underscore here that we will go back to the tax rates we had before George Bush became president. And my memory is, people did really well during that time period. And they will keep doing really well.


So I guess he cherry picks data based only on the crowd he hangs out with, eh? And ah yes, Clinton pining for the Clinton years. In any event, I think I have clearly shown that the Dems (specifically Obama and Clinton) thought those tax cuts were damaging. And then there is also Nancy Pelosi's thoughts on them too:
Pelosi on Bush tax cuts
"My stance is that the Bush-era tax cuts contributed to the deficit, did not create any jobs and that they should be repealed," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said at her weekly briefing.


Here's the definition of a straw man argument since you seem to throw it around in the rest of your post without knowing what it means...


I know full well what a straw man is. What I find eternally amusing is that you refuse to admit when you do it to me and what I am saying. Here, you did it again:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.


Access Denied wrote:According to you only people (and their dependant children) who can afford health care have a right to live if they're in an accident or get sick right?


Are you going to take responsibility for that clear misrepresentation of what I said, or are you going to insult me again and claim I don't know what a straw man is?

BTW: You changed that line from the first time you posted it...and I noted you chose not to include an "ETA" note to let people know you changed it. Why is that? In any event, this version is much juicier as it is hard to deny it is a straw man. But oh, I know you will!

Access Denied wrote:
You Can Call Me Ray wrote:In the case of health care, there is no way to completely opt out, unless you are going to claim that your ability to opt out of life is equivalent? :roll:

Sure there is… no cash up front or insurance, no medical care for you.


Please show me where, in the existing health care reform law, I can opt out in this fashion that you describe.

And finally, let me clarify exactly what I am pointing out, before you decide to try and pin crucifying Jesus Christ on me too. This paper is from back in the days of the Clinton health care reform debate. However, its analysis still holds true today because it is addressing the primary reasons WHY health care costs have increased:

Why Health Care Costs Too Much

The major culprit in the seemingly endless rise in health care costs is found to be the removal of the patient as a major participant in the financial and medical choices that are currently being made by others in the name of the patient.

The increasing share of medical bills paid by third-party payers (insurance companies and governments) and the disastrous consequences are documented. Patients overuse medical resources since those resources appear to be free or almost free. Producers of medical equipment create new and more expensive devices, even if they are of only marginal benefit, since third-party payers create a guaranteed market. Attempts to rein in those costs have led to a blizzard of paperwork but proven ineffective in controlling costs.


and
The excessive costs of our current medical system can be classified into three major categories:

• The first, and by far the largest excess cost, is due to the current overuse of medical resources by patients. Overuse is the rational response of consumers who do not have to pay the entire cost of the medical services they use. The causes of those excess costs are Medicaid, Medicare, and tax laws that provide incentives for individuals to have their employers purchase their medical care in the form of private health insurance.

• The second category of excess cost consists of administrative and paperwork costs that are unnecessary for the provision of health care, but that have come into existence because of the current patchwork of third-party payers and their attempts to control their increasing costs by closely monitoring the behavior of doctors and patients. Even worse is the fact that those cost-containment activities do not seem to have contained costs very well.

• The third excess cost is associated with the fear of malpractice suits. Administering medically unnecessary tests and procedures helps to insulate doctors and hospitals from the potential wrath of patients or their families when inevitable accidents occur in medical treatment or when treatments just do not work.


I have spoken plenty of times about tort reform, which the Left simply refused to do anything about except give lip service to the Right in the hopes people would think this is "compromise". So the major point I am making here is that when people feel the direct impact of having to make health care choices for what medical services they wish to have coverage for (instead of a GOV bureaucrat making those decisions), then market forces will kick in and people will be more responsible in NOT abusing "free health care".

The Cost from Overusing Medical Resources

Largely ignored in much of the current debate over health care is the excessive use of medical resources by ordinary Americans. No politicians are giving speeches blaming the average citizens of the country for overusing medical care. There are no fireside chats with the president asking citizens to stop seeing doctors so often, asking parents to have their children "tough it out" and not see the doctor for every little scratch, asking the elderly to give up that extra year or two of life. Politicians are not so foolish.

But turning a blind eye to the consumption of medical resources by patients is a mistake. If the country is overusing medical resources, patients must bear responsibility for much of that overuse. We cannot cut our medical expenditures without reducing our consumption of medical resources. Fortunately, we know why patients overuse medical resources, and we know how to solve the problem. Unfortunately, the political will to enact correctives to the problem is not as easily come by, and the current administration in Washington seems to prefer to make empty promises to reduce costs while at the same time increasing medical services.


Now that is an interesting passage right there. Because even though it was written back in 1994, that last sentence still holds true today: Obama made all sorts of promises about reducing costs, all analysis of the health care bill are now showing that it will NOT reduce cost, but to Obama that does not matter because his REAL goal was just giving away more medical services (i.e. assigning another entitlement). The more things change, the more they stay the same! Hello Barack Clinton!

And finally, because I believe this paper cuts to the real problem, which politicians from neither side have really even attempted to address, I cannot end this post without pointing out the chart that shows the evidence most clearly for how increased costs come from the 3rd-party paid services:
Image

Yes, the paper has the appropriate caveats about this chart.... but it clearly shows that what the paper is talking about is real.

And now, I am sure you will try to take a pot shot at me and point out that I have an insurance plan from my employer that pays for a lot of those services that have gone up in cost. Yes, I do. But I, unlike so many people who are irresponsible, treat my usage of health care services like any other resource...I minimize its use. I do not abuse resources like what seems to be a vast majority of people in this country (of both political persuasions).

It is about personal responsibility. Always has been.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Those EVIL Tax Cuts?

Postby Access Denied » Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:16 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:So I guess he cherry picks data based only on the crowd he hangs out with, eh?

That’s a cheap shot and you know it. The Republicans threatened to block all legislation and let the tax cuts expire thus raising taxes on the middle class if he didn’t cooperate.

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:I think I have clearly shown that the Dems (specifically Obama and Clinton) thought those tax cuts were damaging.

However you have not shown that they thought is was the “singular most destructive policy for USA since they were implemented” as claimed.

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:I know full well what a straw man is.

Your redefinition of a “straw man” as “spin” has been duly noted.

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:BTW: You changed that line from the first time you posted it...and I noted you chose not to include an "ETA" note to let people know you changed it. Why is that?

Because I didn’t think it mattered that much. Do you have any specific objection to the changes I made to it? Are you going to answer it now or are you just going to keep trying to change the subject?

[there’s that straw man again, oh I’m sorry “spin”]

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Please show me where, in the existing health care reform law, I can opt out in this fashion that you describe.

Please show me where I said this was in the existing health care reform law.

[there’s that straw man again, oh I’m sorry “spin”]

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:I have spoken plenty of times about tort reform, which the Left simply refused to do anything about except give lip service to the Right in the hopes people would think this is "compromise".

That’s the least of our problems…

The Medical Malpractice Myth
http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending.

[there’s that straw man again, oh I’m sorry “spin”]

And so sorry the Right didn’t get everything they wanted, the Left didn’t either. Boo hoo… let’s see the Right put their money where there mouth is and introduce a tort reform bill in the next session of Congress now that they have control of the House.

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Obama made all sorts of promises about reducing costs, all analysis of the health care bill are now showing that it will NOT reduce cost…

That’s not necessarily true according to your own source and costs may go up more than expected and again, the health care bill that passed was not the health care bill it’s proponents wanted. It’s the Republican’s watered down version, and most importantly, without the public option…

[there’s that straw man again, oh I’m sorry “spin”]

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:I do not abuse resources like what seems to be a vast majority of people in this country (of both political persuasions).

And yet you raised a big stink about funding for CER (Comparative Effectiveness Research) designed to curtail that very thing…

[doctors ordering tests patients don’t necessarily need or treatments that aren't necessarily effective at no immediate cost to the consumer]

What Is Comparative Effectiveness Research
http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov ... research1/

Comparative effectiveness research is designed to inform health-care decisions by providing evidence on the effectiveness, benefits, and harms of different treatment options. The evidence is generated from research studies that compare drugs, medical devices, tests, surgeries, or ways to deliver health care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_Effectiveness

Comparative Effectiveness Research in the 2010 Health Care Reform

Statistical findings show that "patients in the highest-spending regions of the country receive 60 percent more health services than those in the lowest-spending regions, yet this additional care is not associated with improved outcomes."

[…]

In 2009, $1.1 Billion of President Obama's stimulus package was earmarked for CER. There was initial disagreement regarding whether CER will be used to limit patient health care options, or help lower health care costs. Ultimately the bill approved by Senate contains measures to utilize CER as a means for increasing quality while reducing rising costs.

You were saying?

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:It is about personal responsibility. Always has been.

And yet you raised a big stink about the so-called “death panels” (aka “pulling the plug on Grandma”) designed to educate consumers…

Oh, the irony.

AD
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby m0r1arty » Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:43 pm

I don't really follow that game of red vs blue that the US calls politics but for anyone who's interested here's a video about the new Hawaiian governor who said he'd find his friend Obama's birth certificate when he got into power and clear the whole matter up - seems he can't do that though (through hearsay).



This comes on the back of the newly presented allegation that Barack Obama's actual name is Barry Soetoro. It's a mess of a story and is probably nothing more than an attempt to bring up old smears prior to his running for re-election but it's out there and should be on Fox or some other anti-Obama news short soon.

-m0r
Thanks to BIAD for the avatar!
User avatar
m0r1arty
Reality Is In Sight
Reality Is In Sight
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Access Denied » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:30 am

Was that disclaimer that Faux News now claims Evans “misspoke” on the video when you posted it m0r?

From the “it was never about the evidence” file…

HI Bill Would Give Anyone Obama Birth Info for Fee
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01 ... icate.html

HONOLULU (AP) — Moving to dispel claims that President Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, his supporters in the state's legislature have introduced a bill that would allow anyone to get a copy of his birth records for a $100 fee.

How bad do you want one? :lol:

The Obama campaign issued a certification of live birth in 2008, an official document from the state showing the president's Aug. 4, 1961, birth date, his birth city and name, and his parents' names and races.

Hawaii's former health director also has said she verified Obama's original records. And notices were published in two local newspapers within days of his birth at a Honolulu hospital.

[…]

Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who was a friend of Obama's parents and knew him as a child, said last month he wanted to release more of the state's birth information about Obama. But he ended the effort last week when the state attorney general told him that privacy laws bar disclosure of an individual's birth documentation without the person's consent.

Duh… :roll:
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

Postby Luck » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:00 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:What I find interesting is that a law that so many have deemed as "fair" required 2000+ pages to codify. I smell BS, and there is plenty in your rhetoric that simply does not add up. And before you attempt this tactic (again): you cannot blame the Repubs for the size/complexity of the final bill that was passed. Those 2000 pages were trotted out by Nancy and Co on the first day of this legislative agenda for this crappy health care reform law. And not only that, but MANY Democrat lawmakers even fully admitted not having read it all... and tried to make light of the fact they did not.

So again, just so you do not get distracted, explain to me again how and why it requires 2000 pages (of mostly stealth GOV spending and ways for the GOV to shirk their OWN responsibilities to the people by mandating bureaucrats for making decisions on coverage) to codify a "fair" law.


The reason the dang thing is 2,000 pages is because Congress enlarged the font size and increased the amount of white space on every page. And I would know because I had to actually read bank regulations in my prior job with denser and smaller text.
And just to be sure I took a rough average from pages in the middle of "No Child Left Behind" and the health care reform bill.

The page I took from "No Child Left Behind" had 531 words, but just to be safe, I'll make it 475. The page I took from the health bill had 96 words, and let's say maybe the average per page for that bill is really 125.
At 670 pages, "No Child Left Behind" has a rough count of 318,250 words. At 125 words per page on 1990 pages, the health bill has 248,750. I am including the links to both pieces of legislation below in case you don't believe me and want to go see for yourself.

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ110/pdf/PLAW-107publ110.pdf
I think the surest sign that there is intelligent life out there in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." (Calvin and Hobbes/Bill Waterson)
User avatar
Luck
Reality Is In Sight
Reality Is In Sight
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:19 am
Location: Midwest

Previous

Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron