obamacare

[OCinBuffalo]

What, two right wing idiots hating on a liberal. Ya, big surprise there!

Yeah. The difference is, both you and Buftex(apologies, Buftex) are liberals, but she'd never post the idiocy we see from you, because she's not an idiot.

 

Or, are you arguing that idiocy is pervasive in liberals?

Do you think Tom and 3rd both read those long moronic posts you sit and right? I wonder

Still waiting for anything, anything at all, that even attempts to address the content above. Actually, I've been waiting for that for at least the last 50 threads you have chose, poorly, to engage me in...

 

When can we expect you to have your Idiot Insurance policy executed? After all, your logic in this thread demands it, in multiple ways.

[OCinBuffalo]

You're right about economists in that they care nothing about constitutional or legal arguments, only about what is / should be happening with the economy.

Should have ended this post here.

To the italicized you are not right. Economists almost universally want the individual to be the input (if I understand what you are saying), not the government. Individuals make choices based on what is best for them, which leads individuals to choose the best product, which leads to market competition to deliver to the individual the best product. When the government creates a product, they can undercut the private sector, destroy competition, and end up delivering an inferior product.

No they don't, and/or, it depends on the economist. If you think Paul Krugman is an "invisible hand" guy, per your description of "economist" above, you have another thing coming. What exactly do you collaborate on with economists?

To the bolded, you have it backwards. The politicians are the ones who should be getting out of the way with respect to fixing the economy, and listening to the economists' solutions. Politicians keep screwing things up. Let the experts fix the problem.

Solutions people are....who we are. The only solutions person I know, who is also a politician, is Mitt Romney. That's merely a statement of fact, not an endorsement.

 

When lawyers, economists, wall street people, and definitely, college professors, basically anybody who either doesn't do solutions for a living, is put in charge, mess ensues more often than not. Not all the time, and not for everyone. There's no problem having these people contribute, but in letting them run things you risk:

The lawyer assuming he knows things because he's a lawyer, and claiming the things he doesn't know are irrelevant

The economist ignoring critical things because they don't fit into his model

The wall street person limiting things because they don't fit into her statement, or because she struggles with some of the concepts

The college professor missing things because they don't worry about details

Edited April 4, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Rob's House]

What you wrote is certainly true for reasons you gave. But I've heard a different argument made which I don't quite know how to resolve. If the government is allowed to tax the population and then buy a product for that population, eg medicare, social security, etc, why is the government not allowed to tell the population to directly buy that product? I'm not an economist, but I collaborate with economists quite a bit, and they tell me that they don't quite understand the distinction.

It's not a question of economics, but one of constitutionality. Social Security, Medicare, etc. derive their authority from the power of congress to tax and spend. It's a provision that's been raped by the legislature and the courts, but for all practical purposes is considered constitutional. The mandate derives its authority from the commerce clause, and forcing people to buy insurance is not regulating commerce, but rather, it is creating commerce.

 

That's not a huge difference at all. The government is forcing you to buy something. Who cares what level of government is doing it. Saying its a different level of government is only pointing out the backruptcy of your argument.

I'm almost certain this is a trolling post, but I'll respond for anyone who doesn't already know the distinction here.

 

The constitution is one of enumerated powers. The congress is empowered only to make laws necessary and proper to effectuate the powers enumerated in article 1 sec 8 and in the amendments. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

To make it easy for you, when the Federal government tries to pass a law you ask where in the constitution is that power granted to the government. When a state passes a law you ask where in the constitution is it prohibited.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Rob's House

[janicks]

No they don't, and/or, it depends on the economist. If you think Paul Krugman is an "invisible hand" guy, per your description of "economist" above, you have another thing coming. What exactly do you collaborate on with economists?

 

Well, yes, but thats why I said, near universal agreement. And I don't know what Krugman is, but I certainly don't consider him an economist, at least not anymore. Maybe he did some real work to get his Nobel, I don't know. I was recently having a discussion with a bunch of economists, and Krugman's name came up. You can't believe the tirade these people went on; not only do they consider Krugman a nut, but a truly dangerous nut since he has such a captive audience through the times. I don't think its just the people in my circle that feel this way either.

 

Solutions people are....who we are. The only solutions person I know, who is also a politician, is Mitt Romney. That's merely a statement of fact, not an endorsement.

 

When lawyers, economists, wall street people, and definitely, college professors, basically anybody who either doesn't do solutions for a living, is put in charge, mess ensues more often than not. Not all the time, and not for everyone. There's no problem having these people contribute, but in letting them run things you risk:

The lawyer assuming he knows things because he's a lawyer, and claiming the things he doesn't know are irrelevant

The economist ignoring critical things because they don't fit into his model

The wall street person limiting things because they don't fit into her statement, or because she struggles with some of the concepts

The college professor missing things because they don't worry about details

 

Just because Romney was successfull as a business person doesn't mean he is qualified to decide macro economic policy. It will all depend on who he puts around him. But I agree with you that since he does have some business sense, there is higher probability that he will listen to qualified people.

 

As to the question of politicians vs. non politicians as 'solutions people,' sure, you are right that there can be academic dishonesty amongst the scholarly types. But the peer review process is truly brutal, and your peers end up eviscerating you if you get caught being stupid or dishonest, so that more often than not, the cream does rise to the top. Politicians on the other hand only have to convince some sizable subset of the general population of the value of their ideology in order to gain influence. And since at least a quarter of America is clinically retarded, it is much easier to gain influence as a politician than an academic.

Edited April 4, 2012 by janicks

[OCinBuffalo]

Well, yes, but thats why I said, near universal agreement. And I don't know what Krugman is, but I certainly don't consider him an economist, at least not anymore. Maybe he did some real work to get his Nobel, I don't know. I was recently having a discussion with a bunch of economists, and Krugman's name came up. You can't believe the tirade these people went on; not only do they consider Krugman a nut, but a truly dangerous nut since he has such a captive audience through the times. I don't think its just the people in my circle that feel this way either.

Krugman is not alone, and acting like he is pretends that 30-40% of economists don't exist. The entire Keynesian school of thought would patently disagree with the your definition of economist above. You may be hanging out with supply-siders, or Adam Smith fans, but that doesn't mean they are the only brand of economist out there.

 

The notion that there is universal agreement, in of all things, economics, is absurd. You might as well say there is a consensus on Global Warming.

Just because Romney was successfull as a business person doesn't mean he is qualified to decide macro economic policy. It will all depend on who he puts around him. But I agree with you that since he does have some business sense, there is higher probability that he will listen to qualified people.

Well, we could say that about anybody. You take almost every CEO out there, and ask them how important the people they have around them are. 9/10 they are very important. Listening to qualified people is important. But, if the qualified people know that you can't understand what they are saying, because you aren't qualified yourself, or are only familiar with a single approach, what is the point of that conversation? You're better off just letting them do whatever, and staying out of the way. In Obama's case, WRT, to economics/business, we had the worst of both worlds: an unqualified leader listening to unqualified college professors, with none of them ever knowing what it feels like to have to make a payroll every 2 weeks.

 

Romney knows what it's like to have to make multiple, very large payrolls, and a whole lot more about how to get an organization off its ass and moving. So, yeah, by default, he's more qualified. Anything is better than 0.

As to the question of politicians vs. non politicians as 'solutions people,' sure, you are right that there can be academic dishonesty amongst the scholarly types. But the peer review process is truly brutal, and your peers end up eviscerating you if you get caught being stupid or dishonest, so that more often than not, the cream does rise to the top. Politicians on the other hand only have to convince some sizable subset of the general population of the value of their ideology in order to gain influence. And since at least a quarter of America is clinically retarded, it is much easier to gain influence as a politician than an academic.

I would gladly take the evisceration of a bunch of college people, over the client meetings I took when I was put in charge of a project that was 6 months behind, or client meetings any time. I sincerely doubt many scholarly types have thick enough skin to handle that, or to be put in a position where intellectual results are required daily, not yearly.

 

Some of the people I used to work with are professors now, because they wanted an easier life, white picket fence, kids, 6 hour work days, summers mostly off, nobody coming after them on a daily basis, etc. They like that they can communicate the ideas and ideals, without having to worry about the details.

 

I will give you a real world example of college professor FAIL, WRT the details: College Professor-driven Workflow tool and Consultant-driven Workflow tool

 

Guess which one is poorly documented and isn't up to standard(BPMN 2.0), which means it gets rejected at the tool selection committee meeting.

Guess which one is more of a vehicle to sell books, and less of a vehicle to solve problems.

Guess which one has clients you've never heard of. Guess which one has clients you have heard of.

Guess which one is designed for the real world, fitting into existing systems, and more importantly, fitting into client perceptions.

Guess which one is was primarily created as an ivory tower standalone, and a way to publish more white papers, without the entanglements of potentially letting existing systems continue to perform some of its functionality, and therefore diluting the credit.

Guess which one knows it's foolhardy to claim "Leading the World in Process Innovation", when you aren't even leading a single sector in it.

Guess what the first thing a CIO, who wants nothing to do with you or your stack, but is taking the meeting because one of the line people cajoled him into it, will ask about, with the purpose of attacking your credibility, now that you have claimed "world leadership".

Guess who knows better than to leave themselves open to be so easily crushed, because they have actually been to a meeting like that more than once?

 

Need I go on? Hey, I have no horse in this race, but, because I know racing, I already know how well each is going to run. These college professors are going to fail, because either they haven't bothered to see to the details, or, given the "world leader" thing, don't have enough experience in the real world, so they aren't even aware of them.

[B-Man]

Obamacare’s Partisan History

By Avik Roy

 

 

A blizzard of post-SCOTUS commentary, from the Left, expresses the view that Obamacare was an attempt at bipartisan compromise from Democrats, and that, if Obamacare goes down, it’s No More Mr. Nice Guy time from the Dems, who will start an all-out push for single-payer health care.

 

But a review of the history shows that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who scotched efforts to forge a bipartisan health-reform compromise. The reason that Democrats liked Romneycare as a template for national reform is because Romneycare, as a state-based plan, contained no changes to the big federal entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance.

 

{SNIP}

 

Max Baucus’ original November 2008 blueprint for health reform “had made known [baucus’] intention to use changes in the tax treatment of health insurance as his major financing source to pay for reform.”

 

But the President, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) were having none of that. As Roll Call reported at the time, “According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus it wasn’t worth securing [Republican] support.”

 

McDonough, who was on the inside during these discussions, notes that Democratic leaders felt that it was unnecessary to solicit Republican support because Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate. “Reid’s directive, backed by the White House and supported by the House, was motivated in part by the seating of Minnesota’s Al Franken, the Democrats’ elusive sixtieth vote, meaning that Republicans were no longer needed to pass a bill. This directive, though, left Baucus’s plan with a gaping financial hole.”

 

Democrats, unwilling to budge on broader reform, then tried to ram through a partisan expansion of coverage, with substantial tax increases and an individual mandate, and zero structural reform to Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer tax exclusion. They got what they wanted. But blaming Republican intransigence for this outcome is myth-making, pure and simple. The blame goes to left-wing Democrats, who refused to entertain a more balanced approach to health reform.

 

Put simply, liberals’ principal goal was and is universal coverage, and conservatives’ principal goal was and is entitlement reform. These two goals could have been simultaneously accomplished in a bipartisan bill, but liberals had no desire to reform entitlements.

 

 

 

National Review

[Doc]

Obamacare’s Partisan History

By Avik Roy

 

 

A blizzard of post-SCOTUS commentary, from the Left, expresses the view that Obamacare was an attempt at bipartisan compromise from Democrats, and that, if Obamacare goes down, it’s No More Mr. Nice Guy time from the Dems, who will start an all-out push for single-payer health care.

 

But a review of the history shows that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who scotched efforts to forge a bipartisan health-reform compromise. The reason that Democrats liked Romneycare as a template for national reform is because Romneycare, as a state-based plan, contained no changes to the big federal entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance.

 

{SNIP}

 

Max Baucus’ original November 2008 blueprint for health reform “had made known [baucus’] intention to use changes in the tax treatment of health insurance as his major financing source to pay for reform.”

 

But the President, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) were having none of that. As Roll Call reported at the time, “According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus it wasn’t worth securing [Republican] support.”

 

McDonough, who was on the inside during these discussions, notes that Democratic leaders felt that it was unnecessary to solicit Republican support because Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate. “Reid’s directive, backed by the White House and supported by the House, was motivated in part by the seating of Minnesota’s Al Franken, the Democrats’ elusive sixtieth vote, meaning that Republicans were no longer needed to pass a bill. This directive, though, left Baucus’s plan with a gaping financial hole.”

 

Democrats, unwilling to budge on broader reform, then tried to ram through a partisan expansion of coverage, with substantial tax increases and an individual mandate, and zero structural reform to Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer tax exclusion. They got what they wanted. But blaming Republican intransigence for this outcome is myth-making, pure and simple. The blame goes to left-wing Democrats, who refused to entertain a more balanced approach to health reform.

 

Put simply, liberals’ principal goal was and is universal coverage, and conservatives’ principal goal was and is entitlement reform. These two goals could have been simultaneously accomplished in a bipartisan bill, but liberals had no desire to reform entitlements.

 

 

 

National Review

Everyone but the libs already know this. But you'll never get them to admit it.

[erynthered]

Mitch McConnell B word slaps obama.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/04/mcconnell-to-obama-back-off-scotus-119717.html

 

 

[/dev/null]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/05/carney_obama_not_understood_because_he_spoke_in_shorthand_since_he_is_a_law_professor.html

 

Apologies Mr President. Us simple folks done forgot how much smurter yins are then the rest of us

[3rdnlng]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/05/carney_obama_not_understood_because_he_spoke_in_shorthand_since_he_is_a_law_professor.html

 

Apologies Mr President. Us simple folks done forgot how much smurter yins are then the rest of us

 

Since Obama was speaking in "shorthand" does that mean he doesn't have to dot his i's and cross his t's?

[Wacka]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/05/carney_obama_not_understood_because_he_spoke_in_shorthand_since_he_is_a_law_professor.html

 

Apologies Mr President. Us simple folks done forgot how much smurter yins are then the rest of us

 

 

Carney looks like he is trying to pass a turd sideways.

[DC Tom]

Carney looks like he is trying to pass a turd sideways.

 

I believe that's part of the job description.

[Chef Jim]

http://www.realclear..._professor.html

 

Apologies Mr President. Us simple folks done forgot how much smurter yins are then the rest of us

 

Holy !@#$ing hell. There was a time not too long ago that I'd have loved to have a beer with my President. Now I just want to pour the whole !@#$ing glass over his head.