If America adopts Canada's health care system

[cupper]

Well, we'll find out in about 8 months if "ObamaRomneyGingrichcare" is constitutional or not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-to-obamas-health-care-overhaul/2011/11/11/gIQALTvrKN_story.html

The Supreme Court decided on Monday to review President Obama’s 2010 health-care overhaul, promising a high-profile hearing on the question dominating American politics: the constitutional limits of the federal government’s power.

...

Next March, around the second anniversary of the act’s passage, the nine justices will hear arguments in the case, taking on the role of constitutional referee between those who see the law as a trespass on individual and states’ rights and those who consider it an extension of a safety net to Americans regardless of where they live or work.

...

As a mark of the case’s importance, the justices said they will hear 5 1/2 hours of oral arguments on the constitutional question and related issues. That appears to be a modern record: In 2003, the court devoted four hours of oral arguments to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, a sweeping law aimed at controlling the influence of money in elections.



One point to note about how important the court is viewing this, typically only an hour is given for oral arguements, split between the two sides.

They will consider the following issues:

●Whether Congress was acting within its constitutional powers by requiring all Americans to have at least a basic form of health insurance by 2014. Those who do not will be required to pay a penalty on their 2015 income tax returns.

●Whether other parts of the law can go forward if the “individual mandate” is found unconstitutional. Lower courts have differed on the question. The administration says the law’s more popular features cannot work financially without the mandate that all Americans join the system.

●Whether Congress is improperly coercing states to expand Medicaid, the subsidized health-care program for the poor and disabled.

●Whether the issue is even ripe for deciding. Some lower-court judges have said that the penalty paid for not having insurance is the same as a tax and, under the federal Anti-Injunction Act, cannot be challenged until someone has to pay it in 2015.

 

[a_majoor]

The lineup in the coming Supreme Court battle:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/supreme-ironies-obamacare-and-the-court/?singlepage=true

Supreme Ironies: Obamacare and the Court
Recall then-Senator Obama's "no" vote for Justice Roberts' confirmation?

by
Rick Richman

When Chief Justice John Roberts and his fellow Supreme Court justices review Obamacare next year, it will be a moment of supreme irony.

The Roberts Court will decide the constitutionality of President Obama’s signature legislation under the Commerce Clause, since the law was cast as a regulation of interstate commerce, although it was actually a massive new government entitlement, using an unprecedented individual mandate to provide insurance companies the funds to administer it. Appellate courts across the nation have struggled with the issue, producing opinions in six different circuits covering a total of 654 pages, using diverse analyses to reach conflicting decisions (and usually split ones), necessitating Supreme Court review.

How should the Justices approach the issue Obamacare presents? What judicial philosophy should they bring to the question? The answer to that question may require the resolution of an issue raised six years ago — in a confirmation proceeding involving a new senator seeking to justify his vote against an indisputably qualified nominee.

The nominee was John Roberts, and the senator was Barack Obama.

Roberts’ qualifications for the Supreme Court were remarkable. He had graduated from Harvard College, summa cum laude, in three years. He graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, serving as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. He clerked on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and then for Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist. He served as associate counsel to President Reagan and then as the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, arguing 29 cases before the Supreme Court. After leaving government, he joined a prestigious Washington law firm, focusing his practice on federal appellate litigation.

In 2003, he was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (subsequently writing 49 opinions that produced two dissents). During his 2003 confirmation proceeding, 156 prominent members of the D.C. bar — including prominent Democrats such as Lloyd Cutler (White House counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton), Seth Waxman (Clinton’s Solicitor General), and Walter Dellinger (another Clinton Solicitor General) — submitted a letter stating:

    [We are] united in our belief that John Roberts … is one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the Nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate … [with] unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness — [representing] the best of the bar.

In 2005, Barack Obama voted against Roberts, while acknowledging he was qualified to sit on the Court. In his speech announcing his vote, Obama said Roberts had “the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge.” He was “humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.” He “truly loves the law” and had an “excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court.” Obama had been impressed in a personal meeting with him:

    t became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court — adherence to precedence [sic], a certain modesty in reading statues and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system.

But in Obama’s view “the problem” was the remaining five percent of the cases — which Obama thought should ultimately be decided not by the law, but by the heart, because in Obama’s view the law and legal process would only get you so far:

    In those [remaining] cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy. In those five percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. … Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. [Emphasis added].

Obama made it clear he felt the Commerce Clause was one of the constitutional provisions that lent themselves to decisions based on deepest values, core concerns, broader perspectives, and empathy:

    In those circumstances, your decisions about [such issues as] whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce … the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart. [Emphasis added].

Obama concluded that the deciding factors in voting on the nomination were not Roberts’ qualifications, comportment, temperament, personal decency, love of the law, respect for different points of view, record as an advocate before the Court, and deep respect for the basic precepts that go into deciding the cases. Rather the key was what Obama thought was in Roberts’ heart – his “overarching political philosophy.” Obama said he would thus vote against Roberts, albeit with “considerable reticence” (since his remarks ran 1471 words, “reticence” was probably not the word he was looking for).

Obama’s list of controlling considerations was actually a list of the things a judge should not use in deciding a case. A judge’s deepest values, core concerns, broader perspectives, empathy, and overarching political philosophy have nothing to do with the legal issue presented by a case. A judge owes the litigants and the legal system a duty of excluding those considerations from his decision.

Whichever way he votes, it is unlikely Chief Justice Roberts will be using those standards. The irony is thus that while a majority on the Court probably does not share Obama’s political views (dressed up as deepest values, core concerns, etc.), Obamacare may nevertheless prevail. As the Eleventh Circuit opinion (holding it unconstitutional in an opinion written jointly by Republican and Democratic appointees), the Sixth Circuit decision (holding it constitutional by a 2-1 vote, with the deciding vote provided by a Bush 43 appointee), and the D.C. Circuit decision (holding it constitutional in an opinion written by a Reagan appointee) show, the issue is a constitutional one, not a political one, despite the standards Obama has sought to apply to the Court. And as this debate demonstrates, the issue is a close one.

There is also a political irony whatever way the Court ultimately decides. If it holds Obamacare unconstitutional, Obama’s attempt to “transform” the country will have been repudiated as a matter of constitutional law. But if it holds Obamacare constitutional, Obama’s political peril may be greater: the only recourse for voters — who currently support repeal of Obamacare by a 57-35 percent margin (with 42 percent “strongly” favoring repeal) — will be to change the President (and the majority in the Senate) so they can do so.

Rick Richman’s articles have appeared in American Thinker, Commentary, The Jewish Journal, The Jewish Press, The New York Sun, and PJ Media. His blog is Jewish Current Issues.

and one of the Justices is also a player in the game:

http://news.investors.com/Article/591798/201111151910/Justice-Kagan-Recuse-Thyself.htm

Elena Kagan Must Be Recused In ObamaCare Case

Posted 11/15/2011 07:10 PM ET

Supreme Court: Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare's creation recuse herself from the court's review of that law? Of course. But then a nominee who lies in confirmation hearings shouldn't be on the court anyway.

If Justice Elena Kagan were a person of character, she would sit out the Supreme Court's hearing of the challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

But during her confirmation hearings in June of last year, she indicated she would not. And since this Monday, when the court announced it would take the case, she has done nothing to suggest she will recuse herself after all. Nor has the court made any statement about her recusal, a convention it usually follows when a justice takes himself or herself off a case.

Here are the facts on Kagan: She was the administration's solicitor general when ObamaCare became law last year. She has acknowledged that she was at a meeting in which state litigation against ObamaCare was discussed, though she said she was not involved in any legal responses concerning the states' litigation.

We also know that Kagan enthusiastically supported ObamaCare. This is made clear in emails released last week by the Justice Department.

"I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing," Kagan wrote on the day ObamaCare passed the House in an email to Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor who was working at that time in the Obama Justice Department.

On the same day that note was sent, an associate attorney general emailed Justice Department lawyers to organize a health care litigation meeting. A Kagan deputy later emailed her suggesting that she attend.

While nothing in the chain of emails indicates Kagan was at the meeting, neither is there any evidence that she said she was not going to attend.

Nearly lost in this is the possibility that Kagan lied during her confirmation. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had not been asked about the legal issues of ObamaCare nor had she offered any views on them. The emails, however, seem to tell a different story. Two exclamation points plainly show that in her legal opinion, ObamaCare was constitutional.

A Kagan recusal would not secure a finding against ObamaCare. Even if she were recused, it's plausible the case could end in a 4-4 vote, which isn't enough to overturn it. But her recusal would be necessary if Justice Clarence Thomas were to recuse himself. If he's out and she's not, ObamaCare is upheld at 4-4 if not 5-3.

The case against Thomas, however, is weak. He didn't work for a White House that pressed for the law. Nor is there a record of his disclosing an opinion on it. His only link is his wife, who's been involved with groups opposed to ObamaCare.

Thomas should stay. There's no conflict of interest. Kagan, though, has to recuse herself if for no other reason than to protect the integrity of the court.

 

[a_majoor]

The real costs of Obamacare coming into view:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/what-else-is-wrong-with-obamacare/?print=1

What Else Is Wrong with Obamacare?

Posted By Jeffrey H. Anderson On November 22, 2011 @ 12:27 am In Uncategorized | 2 Comments

With the Supreme Court’s decision to review [1] the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate, that feature of Obamacare has been getting a lot of attention. The individual mandate is the requirement that essentially every American buy government-approved health insurance under penalty of law. The Obama administration claims that because Congress is empowered to regulate interstate commerce, it is also empowered to compel interstate (or, more often, intrastate) commerce — which is a rather novel interpretation of the Constitution.

Moreover, the news from the Court comes hot on the heels of the passage of an anti-individual-mandate measure in Ohio. The measure was approved by voters in all 88 counties [2] of that crucial swing state — and by at least 20-point margins in 81 of those counties.

In light of these developments, it’s not surprising that the individual mandate has been getting plenty of attention of late. But is the mandate really the only thing that’s wrong with this 2,700-page de facto legal code that’s masquerading as a “law”? Hardly.

Here’s a partial list of the myriad other objectionable features of Obamacare:

It’s 2,700 pages long. Legislation of such unconscionable length is not only complicated to a degree that’s hard to fathom — this chart from Sen. Jim DeMint helps to some extent [3] (you have to enlarge it to see it) — but it also severs the link between the law and the average citizen. It makes it essentially impossible for the law to be something that the citizenry can know and understand, even to a reasonable degree. A complicated monstrosity like Obamacare is a vehicle for government by bureaucratic and lawyerly “elites,” not for government by the people.

It would cause millions of Americans to lose their employer-sponsored health insurance and be dumped into Obamacare “exchanges.” These exchanges would be heavily subsidized, which means that much of the burden of health coverage would be shifted from employers to taxpayers. Already, 4.5 million Americans have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance [4] since Obamacare was passed, as the overhaul offers plentiful financial incentives for employers to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had estimated that from 2010 to 2011 six million people would gain employer-sponsored insurance — so the CBO’s estimates are already off by more than 10 million people. If Obamacare goes fully into effect (in 2014), far more Americans will lose their employer-sponsored health insurance.

It would loot Medicare. The CBO projects that during the overhaul’s real first decade (2014 to 2023), nearly $1 trillion would be siphoned out of Medicare and spent on Obamacare. The decision by President Obama and the then-Democratic Congress to fund much of Obamacare by pilfering from Medicare was an act of unusual political brazenness — one that voters in Florida aren’t likely to forget. (Most of the rest of Obamacare would be funded through tax increases.) The resulting lower reimbursement rates for Medicare providers — which the Medicare chief actuary says would soon fall below even the reimbursement rates for Medicaid providers — would mean that Medicare patients would either find themselves getting rushed through their medical visits, or else having fewer health-care providers be willing to see them at all.

It would cost twice as much as the deficit commission is trying to “save.” The CBO says that Obamacare would cost an estimated $2.5 trillion [5] during its real first ten years, at a time when the deficit commission is trying to come up with $1.2 trillion in “savings” over ten years.

It would raise, rather than lower, health costs. The Medicare chief actuary says [6] that Obamacare would increase health costs by hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of this decade.

It would massively expand Medicaid. At a time when our national debt [7] is $15,000,000,000,000.00 and is about the size of our entire gross domestic product, Obamacare would provide a colossal expansion of Medicaid — expanding it to cover portions of the middle class. In fact, the CBO projects that fully half of the newly insured under Obamacare would be people dumped into Medicaid at taxpayer expense (see Table 4 [8]).

It would establish the grisly IPAB. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) [9] is a sort of poor man’s (because less powerful) British National Institute for Clinical Health and Excellence (NICE) [10], the British rationing agency that so many of Obama’s nominees are rather enamored with [11]. The IPAB would be charged with keeping future Medicare spending below a specified level. The dictates of its 15 unelected members would have the force of law and couldn’t be overruled even by a majority vote in both houses of Congress and the president’s signature.

It would politicize medicine and amass unprecedented power and money in Washington at the expense of Americans’ liberty. Alexis de Tocqueville warned democracies [12] of the extraordinary dangers of the consolidation and centralization of power. He warned:

    A democratic republic … in which … administrative centralization [was] accepted by custom and by law … would become more intolerable than in any of the absolute monarchies of Europe.

He presciently added [13]:

    It may easily be foreseen that almost all the able and ambitious members of a democratic community will labor unceasingly to extend the powers of government, because they all hope at some time or other to wield those powers themselves. It would be a waste of time to attempt to prove to them that extreme centralization may be injurious to the state, since they are centralizing it for their own benefit.

The individual mandate is only the tip of the iceberg. It’s time to repeal Obamacare.

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/what-else-is-wrong-with-obamacare/

URLs in this post:

[1] decision to review: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/supreme-court-hear-obamacare-challenge-involving-26-states_608999.html

[2] The measure was approved by voters in all 88 counties: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/anti-obamacare-measure-sweeps-all-88-counties-ohio_607894.html

[3] this chart from Sen. Jim DeMint helps to some extent: http://www.house.gov/jec/news/2010/obamacare_chart.pdf

[4] 4.5 million Americans have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-s-passage-millions-have-lost-employer-sponsored-health-insurance_607994.html

[5] an estimated $2.5 trillion: http://www.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20091123_Senate_Bill_Cost_Chart.pdf

[6] The Medicare chief actuary says: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_oact_memorandum_on_financial_impact_of_ppaca_as_enacted.html

[7] our national debt: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[8] see Table 4: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf

[9] The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB): http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/266717/ipab-v-constitution-photo-stanley-kurtz

[10] National Institute for Clinical Health and Excellence (NICE): http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/not-nice?nopager=1

[11] Obama’s nominees are rather enamored with: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-nominee-social-security-board-favors-rationing-health-care_609011.html

[12] Alexis de Tocqueville warned democracies: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/real-issue-upcoming-election_604102.html

[13] He presciently added: http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7EHYPER/DETOC/ap_z.htm

 

[a_majoor]

A bipartisan initiative to introduce elements of competition and market initiatives into Medicare. A similar plan in the "Part D" drug plan has worked well to date, keeping costs below estimates:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/democrat-reaches-across-aisle-medicare/263321

A Democrat reaches across the aisle on Medicare

It's highly unusual in a presidential debate for two Republican candidates -- the two leading in current national polls -- to heap praise on a liberal Democratic senator.

But in the Fox News debate in Sioux City Thursday night both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney had very good words to say for Oregon's Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.

The subject was the Medicare reform plan put forward in a Wall Street Journal opinion article that morning by Wyden and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

"Today is a big day for the country," Romney said. It was "an enormous achievement" for Ryan and Wyden, people on opposite sides of the aisle, to come together.

Gingrich, harshly criticized last May for calling Ryan's earlier Medicare plan "right-wing social engineering," went out of his way to say that Romney had produced "a very good plan" for Medicare and that it was "brave" for Wyden to join Ryan in their bipartisan plan.

Politicians' praise is sometimes bestowed overlavishly, but in this case it was well merited. Ryan-Wyden represents a major step forward in public policy and gives hope that the Medicare entitlement can be rendered sustainable.

The Ryan-Wyden proposal provides for continuation of the current Medicare program for those now over age 55. For those younger, it would introduce in 2022 a "premium-support" system that would allow Medicare recipients to choose between the current program and a Medicare-approved private plan.

Those plans would be presented in competitive bidding and would have to be as comprehensive as traditional Medicare and would have to accept anyone who applied. There would be subsidies for low-income seniors.

Private insurers would thus have an incentive to design plans that would offer more generous benefits and lower costs than current Medicare. This kind of market competition has proved effective in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program enacted in 2003. Costs have been lower than government projections and beneficiary satisfaction has been high.

Ryan-Wyden differs from the Medicare plan Ryan presented last spring by offering the option of keeping the current Medicare system. That is also a feature of the Medicare proposals of candidates Romney and Gingrich.

Wyden, with a solidly liberal voting record, may seem to be an unlikely partner in this enterprise. But he has consistently favored adding elements of market competition to our health care system.

He was one of the relatively few Democrats who provided necessary support for Part D in 2003. And in 2008 he and Republican Sen. Bob Bennett put forward a health care proposal based on eliminating the current tax preference for employer-provided health insurance.

That preference creates incentives to increase costs, and health policy experts of both left and right have argued for its elimination. But Barack Obama gave Wyden-Bennett the back of his hand and supported a plan that would centralize control in the federal government.

The Obama White House was quick to reject Ryan-Wyden as well. While Obama has said on occasion that the current Medicare program is not sustainable in the long term, he is now firmly in campaign mode and uninterested in anything other than bashing Republicans for hurting seniors.

Ryan-Wyden makes this kind of cheap shot politics more difficult. And it comes when a recent poll showed that only 29 percent of voters -- less than one in three -- support the Obamacare legislation. So it's no surprise that Obama prefers Mediscare tactics to defending his administration's largest legislative accomplishment.

The Republican candidates are united in their determination to repeal Obamacare, and repeal is a realistic possibility if Republicans should sweep the 2012 elections as they did in 2010. Ryan-Wyden also renders long-term Medicare reform a realistic possibility.

Ryan-Wyden helps to frame the health care issue in the presidential election as a choice between big government control and market competition. That does not help Obama.

Gallup reports that 64 percent of Americans regard big government, as opposed to big business or big labor, as "the biggest threat to the country in the future." That's just one point under the all-time high since Gallup began asking the question in 1965.

So it's not surprising that Romney and Gingrich saw fit to praise Wyden and that other Democrats are angry with him. But Wyden shows that at least one Democrat, even in campaign season, is more interested in good public policy than in politics.

Michael Barone,The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

 

[a_majoor]

Markets unweave the tangle by simplifying the transactin to "buyer" and "seller". The more people who are interposed the worse everything becomes:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/hayek-vindicated-again.php

HAYEK VINDICATED AGAIN

Way back on the Federal Page of today’s Washington Post is an article that ought to be on the front page above the fold, and its deep placement on the boutique page of the bureaucracy shows how the Post, like most everyone else, doesn’t understand what a big story it is.  And it is a clinical study of Hayek’s “knowledge problem”—the impossibility of centralizing fundamentally dispersed knowledge in a timely and accurate way—that we’ve discussed at various times here over the past few months.

The headline is “Concern growing over deadlines for health care exchanges,” and it discusses the difficulties of one of the main pillars of Obamacare—the mandate that the states set up insurance “exchanges” where people and businesses can do one-stop shopping for their mandated health insurance policies.  But this is no simple exchange; because of the mix of federal programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, and the various regulations pertaining to eligibility, guaranteed issue, and other features of Obamacare, the states are having a hard time figuring out how they are going to do it.  And time is running out.  As the Post explains, “the exchanges will need to incorporate state and federal data on income, employment and residency. Enrollment through the state and federal exchanges is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2013.”

Obamacare has a fallback position: if states can’t (or won’t) make the deadline, the federal government will step in and run the exchange out of Washington.  I’ve heard rumors for months now that the Dept. of Health and Human Services is terrified of having to do this, and doubts it can be done by the deadline.  The Post story would seem to lend some credence to these rumors:

It’s hard to know how far along the federal government is because the Obama administration has “been very reluctant to provide any updates on progress,” said Dan Schuyler, a director at the consulting firm Leavitt Partners in Salt Lake City, which is advising states on the exchanges.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to requests for comment.  Those designing a federal exchange face enormous technical, political and financial challenges.

Technically, data from a host of federal agencies need to be collected into one system, which then must be linked with computer systems in 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of State Medicaid Directors, said computer systems in some states are old and may need substantial upgrading. There is some doubt, he said, about whether there is enough “physical capacity in the IT systems world” to get it all done in time.

Another Obama high-speed train wreck to nowhere.

 

[cupper]

I don't see a problem here. When they elect a GOP president in 2012, and they finally gain full control in the Senate and House, they will repeal Obamacare, and eliminate HHS. So what's the problem? :sarcasm:

It would be nice if you also provided the link to the Post article, which has the following closing quotes:

http://www.wpost.com/politics/concern-growing-over-deadlines-for-health--care-exchanges/2011/12/16/gIQA51cX3O_story.html

It is possible to set up exchanges fairly fast, said John McDonough, one of the principal authors of the Massachusetts law that created a similar site. In that state, the exchange was running within about six months of the law’s enactment, he said.

“Massachusetts had a head start because it had already done a modernization of its data system, so it’s not completely analogous,” said McDonough, director of the Center for Public Health Leadership at the Harvard School of Public Health, “but it doesn’t take as much time to get an exchange up as a lot imagine.”

 

[a_majoor]

While the repeal of Obamacare is a given (either by legislation or because the incredible cost cannot be absorbed), the primary argument of the posted article was that central bureaucratic structures cannot process information or price signals in an accurate or timely manner.

Even if the exchange can be set up "fairly fast" (which does not seem to be the case), it will be slow, cumbersome and inaccurate. Users will be subject to constant revisions and adjustments as the exchange tries to react to information, and there should be no surprise to see a "black market" developing to bypass these exchanges (think medical tourism. Now imagine being or finding a broker who can get you medical attention and treatment in a hospital in (say) Mumbai).

I suggest you read The Use of Knowledge in Society, since it covers the topic in greater detail, and also shows how it applies to any bureaucratic structure (both government and private or industrial)

 

[Redeye]

While the repeal of Obamacare is a given

On what basis do you make this bold assertion? In what timeline? By what mechanism?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

On what basis do you make this bold assertion? In what timeline? By what mechanism?

You know.

The same ones you use.

Informed minority\ majority.

Great swaths of the informed\ unwashed.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Just from the other side.

Goose, gander, all that other bird shit.

 

[Redeye]

I don't think I've ever made a statement about something being given as a basis to launch an argument. This particular "line of reasoning" crops up commonly on the right, and I find it rather amusing. Especially when you look at what's going on politically in the USA. Barring some major changes, President Obama will cruise to a second term without much trouble, and the public's disgust with the performance of the GOP majority, Tea Party-deadlocked House in particular is sure to have an impact on the 2012 elections, and probably not a good one. Many Tea Partiers, and GOP supporters in general seem to think they'll have no trouble doubling down on their 2010 success, but when I ask how they plan to do that given what polls say, what the mood of the country says... crickets.

 

[PuckChaser]

Barring some major changes, President Obama will cruise to a second term without much trouble

He's down to below 50% in approval rating... I see that as a dice roll whether he gets a second term or not.

 

[aesop081]

He's down to below 50% in approval rating... I see that as a dice roll whether he gets a second term or not.

He will get a second term......due to lack of a palatable opponent. If the Republicans had someone more personable, Obama would be gone next November.

 

[Redeye]

He's down to below 50% in approval rating... I see that as a dice roll whether he gets a second term or not.

It fluctuates. His major advantage is that the GOP doesn't have a single credible candidate to oppose him.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It fluctuates. His major advantage is that the GOP doesn't have a single credible candidate to oppose him.

Does he need a credible opponent when he's not credible himself?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Redeye]

Does he need a credible opponent when he's not credible himself?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Given that there isn't a single electable Republican in the field at the moment, and that polls show that he'd beat any of them handily, well, I don't see much reason for concern. And if the GOP keeps making gaffes like blocking the payroll tax cut extension, well, that bodes well for him indeed.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think the polls last April said Harper was going to get his ass handed to him. The next one called for another slam dunk McGuinty majority.

I don't think polls are where you want to put your money. We all know they're the same and pander to the person that paid for it. They're straw dog, smoke and mirrors, statistics. The country doesn't matter.

They haven't been right or even very good for the last few years.

And you, you of all people, should know better than to quote a poll as substantiation.

Between them, your outraged masses, your (un)intelligent minority, the swaths of the degraded and trod on, I'm starting to think you have nothing but extremist left wing blogs to fall back on. The MSM (at least the majority of them) are way to left partisan to includes I'm wondering where that leaves you.

Just so you know, I couldn't give a fiddler's fornication about Obama. History will write him for the socialist that he is and he'll be paid due with his failed legacy.

 

[Redeye]

I think the polls last April said Harper was going to get his *** handed to him. The next one called for another slam dunk McGuinty majority.

I don't think polls are where you want to put your money. We all know they're the same and pander to the person that paid for it. They're straw dog, smoke and mirrors, statistics. The country doesn't matter.

They haven't been right or even very good for the last few years.

And you, you of all people, should know better than to quote a poll as substantiation.

Between them, your outraged masses, your (un)intelligent minority, the swaths of the degraded and trod on, I'm starting to think you have nothing but extremist left wing blogs to fall back on. The MSM (at least the majority of them) are way to left partisan to includes I'm wondering where that leaves you.

Just so you know, I couldn't give a fiddler's fornication about Obama. History will write him for the socialist that he is and he'll be paid due with his failed legacy.

I don't put that much stock in polls. The fact is that the GOP primary process is giving the Democratic Party plenty to work with against any contender. As for how how history records President Obama, well, we'll only see in days to come.

As for "far left blogs" - nope. The far left "emo prog" set repulse me just about as much as the right - they're as hysterical, as ridiculous, as dogmatic, etc etc. I form opinions from reading as many points of view as I can find and trying to discern what the real story is . It doesn't always come through clearly though.

I tend to disregard the slurs against the mainstream media, because they're ridiculous. The right is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts, which they have a tremendously effective machine to manufacture. Corporate media, in general, tends to learn to the right - if perhaps only right of the centre. The left doesn't have the sort of corporate sponsorship they'd like, but they do a decent job of trying to harness things like social media, and so on. Media is what it is - and the news is yet another vehicle to sell advertising after all. I have no expectation that any will report anything particularly objective. But taken together you might get the right idea.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't put that much stock in polls. The fact is that the GOP primary process is giving the Democratic Party plenty to work with against any contender. As for how how history records President Obama, well, we'll only see in days to come.

As for "far left blogs" - nope. The far left "emo prog" set repulse me just about as much as the right - they're as hysterical, as ridiculous, as dogmatic, etc etc. I form opinions from reading as many points of view as I can find and trying to discern what the real story is . It doesn't always come through clearly though.

I tend to disregard the slurs against the mainstream media, because they're ridiculous. The right is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts, which they have a tremendously effective machine to manufacture. Corporate media, in general, tends to learn to the right - if perhaps only right of the centre. The left doesn't have the sort of corporate sponsorship they'd like, but they do a decent job of trying to harness things like social media, and so on. Media is what it is - and the news is yet another vehicle to sell advertising after all. I have no expectation that any will report anything particularly objective. But taken together you might get the right idea.

I've always espoused that 'blood sells' and the media's sole goal is advertising revenues, and to get as much thereof as they can, no matter the cost to the truth. You'll get no arguement there.

Centrist right and left, again no arguement.

Quit advocating for useless fringes and I think some here can find some common ground.

Just a guess, mind.

 

[a_majoor]

On what basis do you make this bold assertion? In what timeline? By what mechanism?

http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/67371/post-1099703.html#msg1099703

While the repeal of Obamacare is a given (either by legislation or because the incredible cost cannot be absorbed), the primary argument of the posted article was that central bureaucratic structures cannot process information or price signals in an accurate or timely manner.

 

[Redeye]

http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/67371/post-1099703.html#msg1099703

By legislation? When? Not before the 2012 elections, and there's a good chance not after that for another four years. The cost? Well, given CBO projections that's not really going to be an issue. This is a country that blew over a trillion on a war to stroke some egos, after all - not exactly penny pinchers.