Mourning in America... a cute ad actually (IMHO)

[The Vorlon]

A take off on the legendary "Morning in America" ads which helped Ronald Reagan to a narrow victory in 1984.

A softer, kinder, gentler ad with a 1000 points of light.... (oooops sorry wrong GOP prez) negative ad as it were....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo0ICjI0iHI&feature=player_embedded#!

For those of you too young...  here is the original Reagan ad..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY&feature=related

[tmthforu94]

Wow, that was one of the best ads I've seen this cycle. Hopefully that gets out there a lot.

[Lunar]

how come everyone in America is white

[The Vorlon]

Wow, that was one of the best ads I've seen this cycle. Hopefully that gets out there a lot.

The Sestek ad obliterating Spector is still my top pick for 2010, but this one is pretty good.

Sestek ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x97DdZho11k

 By bringing back the image of Reagan as the face of the GOP it tries (unlikely to actually work but tries) to erase the face of George Bush a bit as well.

[The Vorlon]

how come everyone in America is white

Because the GOP base voters the GOP needs in 2010 are mostly white, married, and male.

But you knew that already

[Eraserhead]

Too depressing but I guess that's all Republicans can do: depress people. They, of course, helped to foster the creation of the mess we're in now.

[memphis]

Too depressing but I guess that's all Republicans can do: depress people. They, of course, helped to foster the creation of the mess we're in now.

The GOP is more effective with fear.

[tpfkaw]

Too depressing but I guess that's all Republicans can do: depress people. They, of course, helped to foster the creation of the mess we're in now.

The GOP is more effective with fear.

EXTREME REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR MEDICAREZ!!1!1!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Um, several of the most prominent Republican Senate candidates this year have advocated privatizing or abolishing Medicare, and Social Security for the matter. Joe Miller, Rand Paul, Ken Buck, Sharon Angle.. Buck even favors partial privatization of the VA hospitals.

This doesn't even factor in other Republicans I've overlooked or Republicans already in office.

In perhaps the most prominent Republican proposal last year, Paul Ryan drafted a budget that privatized Medicare and Social Security and put the former on a voucher system. When Democrats wanted to open up Medicare to those 55 and older on a premium basis, Republicans opposed the idea.

If "extreme Republicans" had control, that is precisely what they would do.

Continue prancing around the forum with your false equivalencies, though.

[??????????]

Um, several of the most prominent Republican Senate candidates this year have advocated privatizing or abolishing Medicare, and Social Security for the matter. Joe Miller, Rand Paul, Ken Buck, Sharon Angle.. Buck even favors partial privatization of the VA hospitals.

This doesn't even factor in other Republicans I've overlooked or Republicans already in office.

In perhaps the most prominent Republican proposal last year, Paul Ryan drafted a budget that privatized Medicare and Social Security and put the former on a voucher system. When Democrats wanted to open up Medicare to those 55 and older on a premium basis, Republicans opposed the idea.

If "extreme Republicans" had control, that is precisely what they would do.

Continue prancing around the forum with your false equivalencies, though.

You're depressing me because they'd never actually have the balls to do all that stuff.

[tpfkaw]

Believe me, I would be ecstatic if the GOP actually wanted to get rid of my $350000 share of debt plus unfunded entitlements (probably over a million dollars since I expect/hope to soon rank among the Americans who actually pay income tax), but they most certainly don't, so I continue to be quite unhappy.  Ryan has only managed to find like 10 cosponsors for his slightly-more-reasonable moderate plan, and even he voted for the prescription drug thing in '04.  In their "pledge to America" yesterday the GOP endorsed a plan that sounds exactly like Obamacare, just without the individual mandate.

[ag]

In their "pledge to America" yesterday the GOP endorsed a plan that sounds exactly like Obamacare, just without the individual mandate.

I haven't looked at what they proposed, but, if I am to believe what you are saying, it makes no sense. "Obamacare without the individual mandate" (i.e., all sorts of coverage mandates to the insurers without the corresponding demand to the public to insure) would have the effect of sharply increasing the number of those without the insurance. If the relatively healthy are not forced to subsidize the relatively sick, the cost of insurance contracts would skyrocket, making it only worthwhile to insure for those most sick - which, in turn, would further increase the cost of insurance contracts, as those in moderate health also drop out. The result would be a disaster.  

Whatever you think about it, "Obamacare w/ individual mandate" is somewhat logical: it is likely to achieve the objective of reducing the number of those without insurance. Now, you might still argue that this is not a worthwhile goal, or that the price is too high, or that the current law is not the best means of achieving its stated objective, or whaterver. However, it makes some sense.  "Obamacare without the mandate" is a monstrosity, unless your objective is to limit access to medical care to those who can pay out of pocket. It won't be a stable situation. True, it might result in the eventual abolition of the entire "Obamacare" thing, which would be the objective of those proposing it. However, I am afraid, it is likelier to result in such a massive disruption, that wholesale nationalization of the medical insurance (if not of the entire medical industry itself) would, eventually, follow. At the very least, it is likely to lead to humongous subsidies to insurance companies (or to private individuals) for purchasing insurance - the subsidies that will be paid from the general tax revenue. Not fun either way.

Deliberately making the law so bad that it is painful, as means of getting it revoked, is playing w/ fire: who knows, whether it is going to get revoked, but it sure is going to be painful.

[tpfkaw]

The thing about an individual mandate, though, beyond its obvious extraconstitutionality, is that it either has to be highly regressive and punish the poor, or it's completely ineffectual and might as well be scrapped completely.

[bgwah]

How dare they defile Seattle's image!

[Torie]

The thing about an individual mandate, though, beyond its obvious extraconstitutionality, is that it either has to be highly regressive and punish the poor, or it's completely ineffectual and might as well be scrapped completely.

Ah, the confidence of the young.

The poor by the way will be subsidized in order to meet their mandate, but that is just a detail. And I won't pound out something yet again on the moral hazard problem. At the end of the day, all must be insured somehow (they sort of are now through emergency rooms and medicaid).  That is not meant to be an ideological statement, but just a practical fact.

Neither party has the least interest in really seriously addressing the painful policy choices when it comes to subsidized medical services. Shocking!  But they will have to - and sooner rather than later. And no, HCR as passed does not do that.

[ag]

The thing about an individual mandate, though, beyond its obvious extraconstitutionality, is that it either has to be highly regressive and punish the poor, or it's completely ineffectual and might as well be scrapped completely.

I would leave it to the courts to debate the "extraconstitutionality". However, it is the lack of the mandate that would really, really, screw the poor - at least those, who are poor because they are sick. The mandate is resolving the adverse selection problem, inherent in the insurance markets, while also, effectively, forcing subsidization fo the sick by the healthy. Abolishing the individual mandate, while keeping the mandates for the insurance companies will sharply exacerbate the adverse selection problem. If you really try, you can even use this strategy to make medical insurance entirely unavailable to pretty much anyone.  

To prevent that sorry outcome, you'd have to subsidize the insurance companies, so that they may still provide the medical insurance at a cost acceptable to consumers, or you'd have to subsidize the consumers, so that they would still be willing to buy insurance. In both cases, you will, effectively, replace the mandate to buy the insurance w/ the mandate to pay for the insurance - and then not get it, if you so like ) You could, I guess, instead tax medical care provided to those without insurance - if you have to pay 1000 bucks for a Tylenol if caught withotu insurance, I guess that will have the effect similar to the mandate. But what you can't do is prohibit insurance companies to provide low-cost insurance policies and not force people to buy it. This is outright terrorism - it will kill more people (and scare still more to death).

[tpfkaw]

Well, I'm glad you're admitting that Obamacare increases costs.  That's progress.

[ag]

The poor by the way will be subsidized in order to meet their mandate, but that is just a detail. And I won't pound out something yet again on the moral hazard problem. At the end of the day, all must be insured somehow (they sort of are now through emergency rooms and medicaid).  That is not meant to be an ideological statement, but just a practical fact.

Neither party has the least interest in really seriously addressing the painful policy choices when it comes to subsidized medical services. Shocking!  But they will have to - and sooner rather than later. And no, HCR as passed does not do that.

There are kinds of moral hazard that the mandate resolves (e.g., that arising from the fact that people can rely on the society not letting them die in the streets). But it, actually, exacerbates the moral hazard problems in general. It is the adverse selection problem that the mandate resolves. But that's a technical issue. What's not technical is that you have to choose something: either you make it possible for the insurers to discriminate against the sick (fine, but then be upfront about it). Or you like an individual mandate of some sort (alternatively, you might prefer to operate via the tax system, effectively nationalizing the industry). But choose one thing and stick to it: this is not where you can get both.

You know, there is an old somewhat off-color Russian/Jewish joke.  The scene is the public bath house. A guy says to his neighbor: "Mr. Rabinovitch, choose one: either you take off your cross, or you put on your underpants". This is exactly that case )

[ag]

Well, I'm glad you're admitting that Obamacare increases costs.  That's progress.

Wait, till you see by how much "Obamacare w/out the mandate" will increase costs. I am saying, that's real terrorism.

[Beet]

A policy discussion like the ones being had on this board, cannot be held nationally until and unless politics stops driving the debate. People must stop being motivated by political interest first, and be motivated solely-- not just primarily but solely-- on the desire to make good policy, and where it requires society to make a value judgement, either be in substantive agreement on which trade-offs will be made (which means the losers see past their own self interest) or be willing to self consciously sacrifice (which I guess is the same thing as above). If one party may lose proportionately, the members of that party must not be so terrified of political loss that they stoop to anything to prevent progress. And if one party has greater power, that party must drive the debate so as to be generous to interests that are not inside the party. In short, there must be trust: trust between two opposing political parties, trust between diverse groups of people, and trust between the people and their government. When if ever, can such a political environment emerge? It is hard to see today, but perhaps after some great national trauma, when the current French Third Republic levels of polarization are washed away.

[Torie]

Yes, dealing with the current uninsured sick is a problem. I initially wanted to means test those subsidies, so that you had to pay the piper if you were so feckless as to not have insurance, but yet could afford it (if I were an uninsured sick, should I be subsidized?), but in the end, I decided it was just not practicable to do that.

Anyway, that is just transitional noise, albeit an expensive source of cacophony, I admit. After one cuts through the noise, it all gets back to triage and rationing. That is where all roads lead - they have to.

[ag]

Yes, dealing with the current uninsured sick is a problem. I initially wanted to means test those subsidies, so that you had to pay the piper if you were so feckless as to not have insurance, but yet could afford it (if I were an uninsured sick, should I be subsidized?), but in the end, I decided it was just not practicable to do that.

Anyway, that is just transitional noise, albeit an expensive source of cacophony, I admit. After one cuts through the noise, it all gets back to triage and rationing. That is where all roads lead - they have to.

The trick is, in my view: you ration only the essential medical care. Which is not the same thing as, say, the comfortable care. Let the markets do their work providing choice and comforts - just make the no-frills and no-choice option available publicly. The rich, who can afford the comforts, will voluntarily opt out of the use of the public option - that's a lot better than means testing.

[Torie]

Yes, dealing with the current uninsured sick is a problem. I initially wanted to means test those subsidies, so that you had to pay the piper if you were so feckless as to not have insurance, but yet could afford it (if I were an uninsured sick, should I be subsidized?), but in the end, I decided it was just not practicable to do that.

Anyway, that is just transitional noise, albeit an expensive source of cacophony, I admit. After one cuts through the noise, it all gets back to triage and rationing. That is where all roads lead - they have to.

The trick is, in my view: you ration only the essential medical care. Which is not the same thing as, say, the comfortable care. Let the markets do their work providing choice and comforts - just make the no-frills and no-choice option available publicly. The rich, who can afford the comforts, will voluntarily opt out of the use of the public option - that's a lot better than means testing.

What you do is only subsidize premium amounts that pay for a plan that covers procedures that are covered under the triage protocols (based on a mix of cost, efficacy, age, etc.). After that, you are on your own. If you want more care covered, you pay for the higher premium out of your own pocket. Or go uninsured for procedures outside the triage.

[King]

Yes, they are taking away choices.  Like the right for me to be denied three different prescription inhalers prescribed by my doctor by Presbyterian and the right for Blue Cross/Blue Shield to overrule LASIK instead of contacts due to my history of contact eye infections because it was too expensive for them--even though those are my only two claims made in the first quarter century of my life and they've collected thousands in premiums from me and my family.

All while the evil government approves of taking my grandpa off the cheap arthritis prescription that was giving him high blood pressure (and thus, another prescription) and putting him on an experimental therapy.  Now, he's so healthy, he's probably going to live long enough to see the Obama Socialist Nightmare.   

He already is forced to get his veterans benefits, social security, and postal service pension.  Hasn't the government made him suffer enough?

[J. J.]

A great ad.  Maybe the GOP can do one with a heart monitor.