Pangloss

I just visited a private, ultra-conservative forum (though leaning more libertarian and fiscal than social or neo-con), and ran across an argument along the lines that iNow describes. Their main tactic was a slippery slope argument, saying that this would turn into a socialistic system. Much of the thread involved dishonestly calling the proposed bill a single-payer system, which is clearly false, and prays open people's lack of understanding of health care issues (as discussed here). So I know it's out there, and it's more common than many moderate conservatives want to admit.

Interesting... In that case I guess they just underestimated how many people had clunkers they could trade in.

I wonder why they were thinking 3 months. At 4500 bucks a pop that's only something like 667k transactions. That's more like a monthly figure than a quarterly figure. Perhaps they were reflecting the recession slow-down. We really do sell a truly mind-boggling number of cars in this country. I was opposed to this program but the more I think about it over time the more I think it was a really great idea. It was fast, and it went right at a problem very directly. You just don't see that kind of efficiency in federal programs. Assuming you buy the premise of federal stimulus, it's hard to even consider a more successful program than this one has been. Which is not to say it's a perfect solution -- replacing people's cars doesn't decrease America's dependence on the automobile. But I saw one story that said that the average transaction under this program increased that driver's net MPG by nine miles per gallon. SHOW me another federal program that can increase one driver's net MPG by 9 instantly and I'll sell you a bridge in Manhattan for a dollar.

In my opinion, most Americans want health care reform, but are opposed to the two bills currently being pushed by the insurance lobbies through Congress as "health care reform". And from what I've been reading lately Obama's poll numbers have been sinking since he hitched his wagon to this expensive and ill-conceived train. He should have told Congress to shove it where the sun don't shine and spent that popularity on a bill people would support, but I don't think anybody could have predicted how quickly the public's support for these bills would fade once the price tag became apparent. People are upset about seeing trillion-dollar projects, especially now that the GAO is saying we're looking at a trillion-dollar-a-year deficit for the next ten years.

Simple question. If you're opposed to the current pair of bills (one in the House, one in the Senate) before the US congress on health care reform, are you opposed to health care reform in general? Or can you be in favor of reform but opposed to these bills? What is your opinion? I ask because some of the threads around here, and some of the discourse I see out in the media, seem to equate the two. In my opinion you can be opposed to these specific bills but still be in favor of reform.

That's a great find, D.H., thanks, I happily stand corrected! The bit about still having a lot of reflectivity from various surroundings even while in the LM's shadow was really interesting.

I don't think that's quite it, actually. I think it's a camera exposure problem, not a visibility problem. I've not researched this (astronaut statements might be useful here) but I would imagine that the stars are indeed visible on the moon during "daytime" because there is no atmospheric defraction taking place filling the sky with blue secondary light, like we get here on earth. Cameras don't have as wide an exposure gamut as human eyes do. They operate on a narrower band, so they can typically only be set up to expose one part of the spectrum or another. You see the same thing when you have a video camera set up for indoor light and then you take it outside through a door and suddenly everything appears washed-out to the viewer, but then the camera adjusts to the new environment and things become visible. Similarly when the camera is taken back through the door everything is dark and invisible to the viewer, until the camera adjusts. The equivalent situation on the moon would mean that you could set up your exposure to either show the stars (in which case the Earth would be a washed-out white ball), or the Earth (in which case the stars would be lost in the black background). But I could be wrong in applying this reasoning here -- there could be some secondary spreading effect caused by the surface or dust or even the moon's tiny atmosphere (it does have one) that causes stars to be invisible during daytime. Also the eyeball's gamut is not infinite -- it adjusts to bright and dim conditions too (by adjusting the iris around the pupil, I believe?). The astronauts who've been there would know one way or the other, and have probably recorded this information and it might come up with the right search parameters. Either way, as you say, it doesn't debunk the moon landings.

It's routine political hay-making, and I agree with your assessment.

You sly dog. In answer to your question, yes, perhaps so. Unfortunately finding that exact point where we transition from the normal (if uncomfortable) process of interrogation to something inappropriate and generated by emotion on the officer's part is tricky. It may ultimately not be definable as a simple set of steps in a procedure that an officer could follow.

Thanks for sharing that; I hadn't heard of Germany's system before.

This type of discussion is disallowed under our hazmat policy, and on the advice of our experts this thread is closed.

Pardon me, I misunderstood. But I think if you look back at the thread (or read below) you'll find a few folks who think it would. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I think you give him too much credit. In my opinion reporting bias and a rabid obsession for digging for the truth are mutually contradictory things. Opinion bias is another matter -- you can have that and still seek the truth, but not reporting bias. I believe that Stewart has the latter. But I like him too. I agree. But that's also why his "analysis" regarding the issues is suspect and ultimately of very little value. They don't give us any real insight into either the problems or the solutions. Good analysis. I'm only allowed to respond to points others raise? I can't bring up other related points in a thread? How is that fair? No, it's my opinion. There is a difference. I have no interest in convincing anybody that my opinion is correct and that they should chuck their own in favor of mine. Never have, never will. Absolutely. I actually welcome the fact that you and many others feel that the needs of some outweigh the rights of others. I'm not being sarcastic, either -- I value that opinion. It's not just a matter of opposing sides lighting my preferred central path, either. It's a matter of having a variety of values and moral choices that combine to make up the national will. But I'll leave that for another discussion. So people have said, but nothing has been put forth to back it up. I have no idea -- perhaps military health care is a good target. But I haven't seen anything substantive and objective that indicates that it is. In fact aside from two opinion videos no links have been placed in this thread at all. (Though we do have swansont's interesting 2nd-hand opinion, and I believe one other.) Great, I am glad we agree.

Which health care reform do you mean? The pie-in-the-sky socialized ideal which the example of "bullstink" posted in this thread addresses but which nobody in government is actually considering, or the insurance fraud posed as health care reform currently being considered by Congress? I'll try to answer both of your questions, though: - Nobody deserves something that is taken from another at the point of a gun. It's not a question of need, it's a question of benefit. - As to why all health care does not reach the level the military receives, nothing aside from a couple of individual experiences has been placed in this thread to indicate that it doesn't. - Not all arguments against all forms of health care reform are "bullstink". There are very real concerns.

Then they're making a mistake. Stewart is not an objective journalist digging for the truth. He's a comedic commentator in the progressive camp. This is an example of the subtle danger of posting John Stewart videos as if they are useful, critical, and/or productive socio-political commentary. The fact that Stewart isn't a partisan ideologue doesn't mean he doesn't have an opinion on the subject, or that it doesn't influence his choices in interviews. Just like all commentators.

Ah okay, so it's not actually being suggested that we do health care like the military does it. That's cool, but I don't think the government does, or would do, "just fine" at running health care. I don't think that case has been made at all, there are numerous reasons to be wary given the military example, nor is anybody in Washington in favor of such a plan.

I think part of the reason for the photo op in this case was to underscore the only real point the president could make in such a short period of time, which is that this is what happens when you screw up at this level.

I think you may have it backwards in terms of who is a mouthpiece for whom. What is the argument for putting all Americans on the "military plan"? Can you map it out for us? Why is it an argument for single-payer healthcare? Wouldn't that be more like socialized medicine?

I agree with that as well, and share your hope. I am also mindful of the old adage about sausage manufacturing and law-making. It's pretty ugly at the moment, but it's the only process we have, and in the end we might get lucky and squeeze some kind of progress out of this Iraq.

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that.

Actually, I think it was more on the order of $100 billion in reductions, wasn't it? But that doesn't refute either of my points, and I think it just goes to show how little $100 billion matters when you're talking about spending a trillion. I agree with you, bascule, but I think you're overlooking the fact that single payer isn't what the Blue Dogs are standing in the way of at the moment. Single payer isn't even on the table -- it isn't what these debates were about. What's on the table is an insurance industry-driven pay-us-whatever-we-want-to-charge-you-or-we-won't-contribute-to-your-campaigns-anymore plan.

Today "progress" was made in the House, when a compromise was reached with conservative Democrats. They did this by -- and this cracks me up -- watering down the one and only portion of the bill that actually attempts to impact the cost of health care in America: Government competition. They took away the government program's ability to set rates the way medicare does! So now the reforms *cannot* tackle the cost issue even if they do create competition with private industry, because the competing government company will have to pay the same rates as private insurers. Um, so why are we doing this again? Oh yeah, because 47 million people aren't covered. So we're going to cover them, right? Er, no, because as part of the compromise the two sides also agreed that that was no longer necessary! No. Really. The bill no longer requires people to have health insurance, join the government plan, or pay a fine. But lack of choice has never been a problem. The problem is that the available choices are too expensive or don't cover sufficient risks, but this plan addresses neither of those issues. Crazy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072902894.html?hpid=moreheadlines

I just don't think it's that black and white. If it were, life insurance wouldn't work either. As I said above, even Krugman admits that health insurance can work on a profit motive (HMOs). IMO the principle is fine -- it's the combination specific bad practices and poor application of regulation/oversight that are the culprits here. But I don't disagree that a change in that approach might be a good idea. (Hey, guess what the two bills before Congress don't do?)

Conceptually it's fine, it's just untenable. But it wouldn't fail because of "unbalanced market forces" or whatever PC phrase Krugman and his ilk are using while they peddle another dangerously untenable concept at you. It would fail because of society's intolerance for the evening news sob story.

That Bob Scheiffer video was awesome, thanks for posting it.