Sen. Ted Kennedy is dead.

[War on Want]

It is so sad to say farewell to a truly great human being.

[War on Want]

I expected some asshats to come in here and make a Chappaquidick joke. Really fucking funny guys.

[War on Want]

I judge men on actions and Ted Kennedy acted like a coward (at least) in the "Chappaquiddic incident". 40 years ago is not an excuse. I don't believe in redemption.

And after this guy and his supporters gave moral lessons to conservatives... If Ted Kennedy is a moral authority, Ronald Reagan is a communist...

Republicans: they bash true American heros and defend bigoted assholes.

[War on Want]

Republicans: they bash true American heros and defend bigoted assholes.

This is easily one of the most naive and moronic statements ever uttered on this forum

Do you know what hyperbole is?

[War on Want]

Republicans: they bash true American heros and defend bigoted assholes.

This is easily one of the most naive and moronic statements ever uttered on this forum

Do you know what hyperbole is?

Nothing appeared hyperbolic about that statement.  It certainly seems like you were implying Ted Kennedy was a freedom fighter and Jesse Helms was a bigoted idiot is a fact

Well I do think that ol' Teddy is a big FF and that Jesse Helms is a bigoted idiot but those aren't facts. Anyways you have implied countless times that Kennedy is a huge HP and that Jesse Helms is awesome. How is that any different from what I am doing?

Besides there is more evidence on my side? Do you think that someone who went up against the civil rights movement, supported the tobacco industry and race baited people is a great guy?

[War on Want]

And people wonder why I'm ashamed of my party...  

No one's making you stay. Feel free to leave.

^^^^^^

[War on Want]

Besides there is more evidence on my side? Do you think that someone who went up against the civil rights movement, supported the tobacco industry and race baited people is a great guy?

I never implied that Helms was the greatest senator in history or anything close, I did imply, however, that he was better than Ted Kennedy. Although with the bills Kennedy proposed, perhaps none worse than No Child Left Behind and the health care debacles he's tried for, Helms was a better senator and human being.

Well if you think racist and homophobic behavoir is a good thing, then sure he's awesome.

[War on Want]

Jesse Helms wasn't a racist, and calling him one is very dishonest. However, Falwell was at the very least an incredibly stupid person, probably too dumb to be as evil as some claim.

Going against civil rights isn't racist?

[War on Want]

And people wonder why I'm ashamed of my party...  

This is odd. You're not possibly a Democrat.

Yup, that's it.  You nailed it.  "If you're not a looney left-winger, you're not a Democrat." 

Big tent my ass. 

I fail to see how any of the Democrats here are looney left-wingers. Unless you think that support for gay marriage and single payer health care is "looney".

[War on Want]

My mother loathed Ted Kennedy. While I disagreed with him on every issue I actually deep down really liked Kennedy for some reason. I pray for his family and pray that he may rest in peace.

Some politicians are just like that.  I have the same feeling for John McCain.. deep down I really like the man and admire him.  I really think he was a great choice for the Republicans... and I wish he would've been nominated in 2000.

Yeah same here, I don't really know why I like him either.

[War on Want]

John D Ford:  So now we can start just assuming guilt of a crime and judge that person based on our assumptions?

Guilty until proven otherwise:  The Republican idea on justice.

Society can't put him in jail without convicting him, but any person can make their own private judgements about his culpability without waiting for a court verdict to tell them what to think.

True.

And likewise I feel the policies advocated by many conservatives have led to many deaths (far more than Sen. Kennedy was responsible for), and can thus dislike them for that even though they haven't been convicted in a court of law of murder.

I’m sorry, which canard are you introducing into the conversation?  The canard that Republicans kill people by being warmongers or the canard that Republicans kill people by The canard that Republicans kill people by being warmongers or the canard that Republicans kill people by refusing to nationalize the health care system?

lol this is your argument? There are heaps of evidence against the idea of a private health insurance system saving lives.

[War on Want]

John D Ford:  So now we can start just assuming guilt of a crime and judge that person based on our assumptions?

Guilty until proven otherwise:  The Republican idea on justice.

Society can't put him in jail without convicting him, but any person can make their own private judgements about his culpability without waiting for a court verdict to tell them what to think.

True.

And likewise I feel the policies advocated by many conservatives have led to many deaths (far more than Sen. Kennedy was responsible for), and can thus dislike them for that even though they haven't been convicted in a court of law of murder.

I’m sorry, which canard are you introducing into the conversation?  The canard that Republicans kill people by being warmongers or the canard that Republicans kill people by The canard that Republicans kill people by being warmongers or the canard that Republicans kill people by refusing to nationalize the health care system?

lol this is your argument? There are heaps of evidence against the idea of a private health insurance system saving lives.

I would appreciate an expansion by you EMD of the notion suggested in your last sentence that a single payer government system saves lives net. I tend to doubt that if only because the US spends so much more on health care than anyone else.  And one must bear in mind, that one must correct for the percentage of fats in a society, etc.  For example, even though Japanese tend to smoke like chimneys, they also have relatively few fats, and tend not to eat a lot of red meat.

And some preventable deaths might be due more to ignorance than lack of access. In any event, there are ways to afford access without a nationalized system actually, so it is not as if we have a Hobson's choice here.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that singly payer health care saves lives net, just suggesting that our current system sucks. Oh and on fats lowering our life expectancy, gastric bypass surgery on the morbidly obese on the whole saves a net amount of money and would increase that. Seeing as huge amounts of the morbidly obese don't have insurance that would cover for this, we have a problem there. There is also almost no way to get rid of these health problems without severly restricting our populace, which would be much more politically unpopular than universal health care.

Oh sure, I agree with you but there are whole variety of reasons why preventable deaths happen largely because of lack of access.

[War on Want]

Hopefully, Ted will take this opportunity to apologize in person to Mary Jo Kopechne.

Jackass.

Ideologue.

and you aren't an ideologue?

[War on Want]

John D Ford:  So now we can start just assuming guilt of a crime and judge that person based on our assumptions?

Guilty until proven otherwise:  The Republican idea on justice.

Society can't put him in jail without convicting him, but any person can make their own private judgements about his culpability without waiting for a court verdict to tell them what to think.

True.

And likewise I feel the policies advocated by many conservatives have led to many deaths (far more than Sen. Kennedy was responsible for), and can thus dislike them for that even though they haven't been convicted in a court of law of murder.

I’m sorry, which canard are you introducing into the conversation?  The canard that Republicans kill people by being warmongers or the canard that Republicans kill people by The canard that Republicans kill people by being warmongers or the canard that Republicans kill people by refusing to nationalize the health care system?

lol this is your argument? There are heaps of evidence against the idea of a private health insurance system saving lives.

I would appreciate an expansion by you EMD of the notion suggested in your last sentence that a single payer government system saves lives net. I tend to doubt that if only because the US spends so much more on health care than anyone else.  And one must bear in mind, that one must correct for the percentage of fats in a society, etc.  For example, even though Japanese tend to smoke like chimneys, they also have relatively few fats, and tend not to eat a lot of red meat.

And some preventable deaths might be due more to ignorance than lack of access. In any event, there are ways to afford access without a nationalized system actually, so it is not as if we have a Hobson's choice here.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that singly payer health care saves lives net, just suggesting that our current system sucks. Oh and on fats lowering our life expectancy, gastric bypass surgery on the morbidly obese on the whole saves a net amount of money and would increase that. Seeing as huge amounts of the morbidly obese don't have insurance that would cover for this, we have a problem there. There is also almost no way to get rid of these health problems without severly restricting our populace, which would be much more politically unpopular than universal health care.

Oh sure, I agree with you but there are whole variety of reasons why preventable deaths happen largely because of lack of access.

I understand the need for access EMD, but don't see the necessity for a single payer system to effect that in lieu of subsidized private insurance. Am I missing something here?

Overall subsidized private insurance would probably reduce costs and deaths but it would not do near as much as a single payer insurance system would. A single payer system would get rid of the billions of dollars in administrative costs used to deny patients care and would also offer optimal coverage for all Americans. Besides, even if subsidized, private insurance would still be unreliable for preventive care unless the government regulated them.

[War on Want]

EMD, there will be administrative costs, and huge ones, administering rationing under a single payer system, with appeals and all the rest. There are costs involved in gathering the facts as to whether a procedure is covered under any system. I consider that argument near make weight personally, absent some empirical evidence to the contrary of which I am unaware, and would be surprised if any such evidence exists.

The notion that the government would be more efficient at all of this strikes me as curious. What will save costs if there are any savings, is slashing drug prices thereby truncating future drug research, and more Draconian rationing - period. The rest is mostly smoke and mirrors I strongly suspect.

Well considering that right now 1/5th of costs is administrative for private insurance companies and only 3% for Medicare, I think that administrative costs on the whole will go down in a single payer system. Obviously there are huge differences between Medicare and a single payer system but with a public option, things would be very similar to Medicare. I could see administrative costs going up somewhat under a bill with a public option but not up to the 15% or higher that exists in the private insurance industry.

edit: okay you got me, VA health care does spend 15.6% of its money on administration but I also found new facts suggesting that administrative costs for private insurance companies is between 25-31%. I have not seen any info to suggest that a public option would spend more on administrative costs, just insurance propaganda that brings up the idea that somehow private insurance spends more money on administration because they are trying to do more for the welfare of society than the government.

[War on Want]

EMD, there will be administrative costs, and huge ones, administering rationing under a single payer system, with appeals and all the rest. There are costs involved in gathering the facts as to whether a procedure is covered under any system. I consider that argument near make weight personally, absent some empirical evidence to the contrary of which I am unaware, and would be surprised if any such evidence exists.

The notion that the government would be more efficient at all of this strikes me as curious. What will save costs if there are any savings, is slashing drug prices thereby truncating future drug research, and more Draconian rationing - period. The rest is mostly smoke and mirrors I strongly suspect.

Well considering that right now 1/5th of costs is administrative for private insurance companies and only 3% for Medicare, I think that administrative costs on the whole will go down in a single payer system. Obviously there are huge differences between Medicare and a single payer system but with a public option, things would be very similar to Medicare. I could see administrative costs going up somewhat under a bill with a public option but not up to the 15% or higher that exists in the private insurance industry.

Medicare does not have Draconian rationing, but it soon will, along with the rest. Medicare is collapsing along with the rest of the system, and will be revamped, hook, line and sinker. And in our litigious society, this regime of rationing will involve administrative costs. As it is, medicare does not ration really at all, and that is part of the problem that simply cannot be sustained financially.

Some rationing would not be a bad thing but I doubt it would be Draconian rationing. The idea of Medicare being unsustainable has been overblown as of late as well. For instance the estimated worth of Medicare Part D for the 10 year period after it was passed was supposed to be 634 billion dollars but in late 2008 it was estimated to be worth 395 billion dollars over the next 10 years. Of course I am not really a supporter of Medicare Part D and it is only one small part of Medicare but it is something. Some of this is inevitable as well but I fail to see how private insurance would handle the aging of our population any better.