So we have Obamacare!

[roflmao]

Now, you're probably living under a rock if you didn't already know this by now. But here is link.

Are the Democrats crazy socialists? Did the Republicans maim the bill so severely to try to wreck healthcare so Obama would lose in the upcoming elections? Are these people feeling for their lives from the incoming tyranny, or are they overreacting? Are the judges impartial or did they just respond to peer pressure?

Setting aside the silliness, I just can't bring myself to feel much of anything over this bill. I have this vague sense of awareness that both left and right dislike the bill for completely opposite reasons. My seat-of-the-pants predictions is that this will cause a moderate rise premiums and add to the deficit (despite what the CBO says), but other than that I don't think anything is going to really happen. Certainly not the end of the world.

Also, glad it passed as a tax.

Discuss!

Sidenote:
I wonder how the individual mandate affects us expats, hmm.

[Starblade]

Are the Democrats crazy socialists?

It's a 90s Republican bill, more or less, so if so I am a crazy person who has been completely detached from reality and the US is really a Leftist Paradise. Incidentally, it's pretty revealing about US politics when Republican policies from yesteryear are getting shouted down by the Republicans of today as "socialist". Reminds me of how Reagan would have failed the purity test Republicans handed out a year or so back.

I'm still not sure how to feel about the bill, either. It's no cure for our relatively shitty healthcare system, and has effectively destroyed any chance of the US getting UHC within the next couple decades, minimum, but on the other it's something a step up, I guess.

[OhJohnNo]

What's this? You mean people will no longer die due to not having the money to pay for the treatments they need? FUCK THIS MOVING TO CANADA

[Malachi]

Well, it is kind of sad that it had to come to this. Personally, I don't like the idea that people are too stupid to take care of themselves and thus have to be forced to buy health insurance.

At least you guys still can own guns.

[Moe]

Personally, I don't like the idea that people are too stupid to take care of themselves and thus have to be forced to buy health insurance.

Replace "stupid" with short-sighted and it won't be all that hard to believe. Think about some of the laws on the books. Some states have seatbelt laws, meaning you have to wear a seatbelt while driving or risk a fine. Now let's think about that for a second - the law was necessary because people weren't wearing their belts. Objectively, what this says is that people are going to do wear a seatbelt not because it vastly improves their chances of not dying messily in a car crash, but because they're scared of paying a fine. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that people are equally callous about their health insurance.

Regarding the bill, I'm somewhat surprised by who is opposed to it. It is my understanding that for those people who actually have little money, premiums will be very low. Beyond the freedom to be a burden to everyone else when they end up in the ER due to a lack of timely medical intervention or preventative care I'm not really sure what or how they're losing out here.

[Malachi]

It didn't come as a surprise to me, Moe, even if you keep "stupid". I'm just kinda disappointed with mankind, heh.

[Vintage]

I understand where you are coming from Malachi. To borrow Moe's analogy, we shouldn't have to make it a law that people wear seatbelts. They should be rational enough that they should just automatically do it. It's disappointing that they are not rational enough to do so. If Moe's understanding is correct that for the poor the premiums will be very low, I think this is a good move.

[Aron_DeTomado]

I don't understand how this even went to the supreme court in the first place. I can see and understand the ideological standpoints of people who oppose the bill, but unconstitutional? In a country which exacts taxes and which only 40 years ago practised conscription I have a heard time seeing why the case wasn't thrown out of court at first glance. The German term Rechtshaberei springs to mind.

[Carl]

I don't understand how this even went to the supreme court in the first place. I can see and understand the ideological standpoints of people who oppose the bill, but unconstitutional? In a country which exacts taxes and which only 40 years ago practised conscription I have a heard time seeing why the case wasn't thrown out of court at first glance. The German term Rechtshaberei springs to mind.

This is America where talking about. Land of the crazies, (meant in the nicest possible way. Individually your all nice sorts, weather I get on well with you or not. As a collective group though you come across as very crazy indeed).

[Paladin]

It went to SCOTUS because the specific implementation and rationale the law used is unconstitutional (Relying on the power to regulate interstate commerce in order to force consumers to engage in what may in fact be intra-state commerce is clearly not within the scope of congress' constitutional powers). Justice Roberts' opinion was the correct one, IMO... Congress didn't have that power... However, striking the law down would simply see it before the courts again in a year or five as an explicit tax, which would accomplish exactly the same goal, have no affect on the practical outcome, and cost the people a substantial chunk of money to pay for the new hearings.

So it's the more rational decision to simply let it go with the opinion statement that it's justified under their taxation powers, rather than the commerce clause.

[Mac_Bug]

but the seatbelt law isnt there to protect you, it is to prevent outrageous insurance payouts due to your own stupidity. similarly preventative care is designed to ward off the worst diseases before they happen and save money too. the entire premiss of the healthcare bill is that premiums are skyrocketing and the proposed solutions will keep them in check, or at the very least shift costs off of the government and onto individuals.

a majority of the people that dont have health insurance cannot afford it, not because they dont want it or need it - the same people also dont have enough savings to pay for a night in the emergency room. a ride in an ambulance costs 500 or more, your attending doctor will charge you the same, and then the hospital will bill you for 10k. this is what your insurance pays, but if you dont have insurance then you get billed for 20% of that plus option to do it on payment plan because that is the most the hospital expects to recover - and this doesnt even involve any actual surgery cost.

but of course we know people who are young and healthy generally dont participate in any sort of dangerous activity, is not likely to get into car accidents, tend not to have babies and carry zero debt.

anyway this fight isnt over, expect romney to hammer the whole Obamacare tax thing till the end of time. its still better than being ruled unconstitutional, but it doesnt help his reelection much

[Aron_DeTomado]

Don't you mean until the end of the election, Mac? I can't see him getting much out of bringing up the subject once (if) he is in charge of cleaning up the mess.

Paladin: So its a State vs Federal government dispute? That actually makes sense. I've always been under the impression that the Republican legal beef was the gov't "taking away their freedoms" or something, by forcing them to pay for a service they may not necessarily want.

[Mac_Bug]

There's a lot at stake still really, just because it's been held up as constitutional does not mean Congress will sit around and allow it to succeed. A lot of the provisions won't come into effect until 2014, and the penalties won't have any teeth for couple years after that - even then there is no penalty for not paying it - you can't go to jail and there's no interest. A lot of the states haven't gotten around to doing anything about the bill's numerous requirements such as setting up healthcare exchange, and most of the guidelines for this whole thing is still a work in progress. The Republicans will now call it a tax and rally to overturn it, and the democrats are so bad at selling the act that there's no hope they can win public opinion. Even if Obama retains office the only possible advantage he can gain from it is the potential to appoint more liberal supreme court judges, because he sure as hell isn't going to be able to pass anything remotely radical like the healthcare act ever again.

[Buguba]

anyway this fight isnt over, expect romney to hammer the whole Obamacare tax thing till the end of time. its still better than being ruled unconstitutional, but it doesnt help his reelection much

Romney has about a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. At the core, he's an Obama clone. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but considering that his party line is primarily defined by supporters of the screaming, psychotic tea-party zealots, he's going to have a difficult time winning over what should be a guaranteed constituency.

This is also not to mention the fact that he's LDS and a tad spineless. I have nothing against him being LDS (I am too), but it certainly won't do him any favors.

[Guilliman]

Welcome to the 21 first century.

What others have said; people are too short-sighted thus there is a need for laws to protect people from themselves.

[Nurizeko]

What's this? You mean people will no longer die due to not having the money to pay for the treatments they need? FUCK THIS MOVING TO CANADA

There's no escape I'm afraid, the entire developed world has some sort of pinko fucktard socialist tyranny in place innocently called Universal Health Care.

My best bet is try a third world nation somewhere.


Also America seriously needs to sort out the state vs federal power struggle, Either America is a unified centralised country or it should just say GG and break up, as it is, it is piss poor at effective domestic governance, oh sure can fight a war well enough, but if I was a president and as powerless as that I'd probably concentrate on foreign wars to, seems to be the only place US presidents have any clout.

[Paladin]

Paladin: So its a State vs Federal government dispute? That actually makes sense. I've always been under the impression that the Republican legal beef was the gov't "taking away their freedoms" or something, by forcing them to pay for a service they may not necessarily want.

The limitation on personal liberty is the actual philosophical objection the opposition has to the passage of the law. The (Very clear and unambiguous) fact that the federal government is not granted the authority to accomplish the action is the basis for the judicial challenge to the law.

Welcome to the 21 first century.

What others have said; people are too short-sighted thus there is a need for laws to protect people from themselves.

The thing is, it would be OK to just allow people to be shortsighted, if we also had the resolve to let them suffer the consequences thereof. To wit, if you don't have insurance and can't pay, you'd be left to bleed out instead of receiving trauma treatment.

We don't have that resolve, thus there is no option but to mandate insurance.

There's no acceptable or practical middle ground, it's one or the other.

Also America seriously needs to sort out the state vs federal power struggle, Either America is a unified centralised country or it should just say GG and break up, as it is, it is piss poor at effective domestic governance, oh sure can fight a war well enough, but if I was a president and as powerless as that I'd probably concentrate on foreign wars to, seems to be the only place US presidents have any clout.

There's no problem with a federation of independent states governed by a central organizing body with tightly constrained powers. It works fine. Our problems come more from ad hoc organizational decisions made to create departments and bureaus for purposes that were never adequately provided for in the constitution.

Like our police force(s) for instance.

I'm not sure what your issue with the President having little "real power" is. He was never intended to. He's meant to be the head of the organizational side of the government, the executor of the law, who carries out the will of congress. He's the CEO, congress are the board of directors. They decide what needs to be done, the President carries it out. He's not meant to have any legislative powers, that was explicitly not meant to be his role.

[CommissarRezail]

Well i'm glade it passed, I rather pay taxes for better school and health care then to pay taxes to crap that doesn't actually benefit the majority of the people. I mean it may raises taxes but little Timmy gets his legs fixed finally then he can go to work and pay on it too. I mean that's worth paying for people health is worth it. Its not a lord jesus miracle bill but damn its better then the insurance company saying " oh we won't pay for this surgery because its not in your contract etc etc." Now thats a death panel.

[Paladin]

Honestly, it's unlikely to affect much of anything. But just passing it proves that it's even possible to get a UHC type bill passed here. Sadly that's all the progress it really represents.

[Moe]

Pala, some provisions are already in place and seem to be working pretty well. They're by no means sweeping reforms, but I would count them as improvements, such as the ban on lifetime limits or insurance companies no longer being able to refuse people due to pre-existing conditions. There's a timeline here (pdf). Again, I'll grant you that this is in no way the same thing as universal health care, but I'd say it's not exactly affecting nothing.

Gulliman and others: Characterizing those on the other side of this debate as stupid, idiots and whatnot is just as bad as people equating healthcare reform with nazi Germany. There are several reasons why someone wouldn't want to be forced to pay for insurance, such as the whole restricting freedoms argument, or the fact that they will end up losing money. At worst I would characterize those people as either misguided or, in the case of those who are wealthy enough to afford any healthcare they need and who are railing against the tax increase, selfish.

[Kushan_Pilot]

It is a little encouraging, even with its faults, especially after reading the highlights of the 2012 Texas Republican Platform. That sh*t might deserve its own thread to be honest. I'll tuck my remarks on it into spoiler tags.

My understanding was this health legislation was a compromise. In a sense it has more to do with what the Republicans wanted than the Democrats (who would prefer going further as far as I can tell). Now what, the Republicans use it as a Trojan Horse?

Examples from the report:

"Protection from Extreme Environmentalists – We strongly oppose all efforts of the extreme environmental groups that stymie legitimate business interests. We strongly oppose those efforts that attempt to use the environmental causes to purposefully disrupt and stop those interests within the oil and gas industry. We strongly support the immediate repeal of the Endangered Species Act. We strongly oppose the listing of the dune sage brush lizard either as a threatened or an endangered species. We believe the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished." [Oh...there's no way this could possibly be a bad thing!]

"Free Speech for the Clergy – We urge amendment of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a religious organization to address issues without fear of losing its tax-exempt status. We call for repeal of requirements that religious organizations send the government any personal information about their contributors." [Right...because we need delusional conmen to have free reign in our republic.]

"Homosexuality ? We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values."

"Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind." [Such as? Lemme guess. Flat Earth Theory? No...no...you must mean them darn Evolutionists!]

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning)" [Holy sh*t].

"Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage." [Even though Texas has the worst f*cking rating in this department...]

"U.S. Department of Education – Since education is not an enumerated power of the federal government, we believe the Department of Education (DOE) should be abolished." [*Whimper*...]

"Judeo-Christian Nation – As America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship in the religion of their choice." [You sh*tstains. Is that why 6 of the 7 most historically recognized Founding Fathers specifically called bullsh*t to this statement? Incidentally, the 7th most recognizable Founding Father (John Jay) wanted a religious test for government that would have made our first 4 presidents and the six other founding fathers ineligible for government service.]

"The repeal of the Voting Rights Act." [*Cough, gag*]

[Buguba]

@Kushan: I definitely agree with many of your thoughts on the Texas Republican platform, but I would like to just echo Moe's statement here a little bit. I'll be the first to agree that the tea-party devouts are LOLtacular, but I wouldn't jump to neglecting everything they say on principle. I feel like the biggest problem in our world today is people jumping to black and white scenarios. While it's definitely true that some ideas are worse than others, it doesn't make it 100% bad. For example,

"U.S. Department of Education – Since education is not an enumerated power of the federal government, we believe the Department of Education (DOE) should be abolished"

This has less to do with the desire to outright abolish education and more to do with moving more power into the hands of state governments. Of course, a part of this could be channeled by the whole "we want to teach creationism in schools!", but the point is that there is validity to the idea of shifting power from the federal government into the hands of state governments. Both sides have strengths and weaknesses.

"Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

This is a perfectly legitimate line of thought. Don't get me wrong, I'd put my money on that they're probably thinking along the "STOP EVOLUTION FROM EVER BEING TAUGHT" line, but everyone needs to recognize that the majority of theories are steps within a larger scheme rather than an all-encompassing truth. In terms of evolution, there is tons of evidence that evolution is a fundamental mechanism that drives life on earth. However, to say that it's the ONLY mechanism or that it doesn't have weaknesses is just as fallacious as ignoring it completely.

[roflmao]

Regarding the bill, I'm somewhat surprised by who is opposed to it. It is my understanding that for those people who actually have little money, premiums will be very low. Beyond the freedom to be a burden to everyone else when they end up in the ER due to a lack of timely medical intervention or preventative care I'm not really sure what or how they're losing out here.

A system similar to Obamacare are the ones Singapore and Switzerland employ. Switzerland has an individual mandate, minimum benefit package as well as required coverage for pre-existing conditions, all of which are pillars of the Obama plan. I'd be very happy if the U.S. adopted a system similar to those two countries.

But the problem is that as long as healthcare is tied to employers and medicare/medicaid are kept in their current form, there is no incentive to be frugal or real choice for consumers. The way the Swiss system works is that it's able to balance its costs by imposing a generous welfare voucher system (medishield) onto a free market healthcare system with low levels of regulation. The costs of forcing coverage for pre existing conditions are offset by the gains in the general efficiency of a market based system in which consumers are responsible for their expenditures.

In the United States, the majority of healthcare costs are insulated, majority of spending is through the government, the regulatory body is massive, and we already spend more in healthcare than other nations. Doing all of that + mandating pre-existing coverage does not make a cost effective system.

tl;dr: It's not that all of Obama's ideas are wrong. I, unlike many other like-minded people, am okay with an individual mandate. It's just the specific implementation of his ideas is that I find inadequate. It could become something awesome, but I seriously doubt Obama would take his plan in the direction of the Swiss.

note: Swiss system is not perfect. Like all other healthcare systems, it has its fair share of issues. But I do admire it.

[Paladin]

Buguba: I see no problem with allowing all theories taught as being open to change, and presenting competing scientific theories. However, I'd also point out that creationism/intelligent design is not, in fact, a scientific theory.

rofl: The Swiss tend to be at least close to the mark on most things, tbh. Arguably the oldest surviving European democracy, they manage to prioritize both individual civil liberties (A relatively liberal criminal code, protected right to bear arms, etc) and social wellfare. They have a strong focus on personal responsibility with a long cultural tradition backing it up, not to mention mandatory militia membership to drive the point home. Basically I think they do a very good job of balancing individual liberty and social responsibility.

[Buguba]

I see no problem with allowing all theories taught as being open to change, and presenting competing scientific theories. However, I'd also point out that creationism/intelligent design is not, in fact, a scientific theory.

No no, I totally agree. The day creationism is taught in science class is the day that I drink a gallon of liquid bleach.

I was thinking more along the lines of people that seem to believe we know everything about how the universe operates. That's no excuse for saying "magic is real!", but I definitely believe there's a lot more for us to discover.

[CommissarRezail]

O_o wait since when do we know everything about the universe? I thought we only knew .0001 percent to know about the univerese.

[Moe]

In terms of evolution, there is tons of evidence that evolution is a fundamental mechanism that drives life on earth. However, to say that it's the ONLY mechanism or that it doesn't have weaknesses is just as fallacious as ignoring it completely.

Which isn't what they're arguing. This "teach the controversy" thing is nonsense because there is no controversy. Some researchers may disagree over minor details, and some details may not have been figured out completely, but that hardly makes it a "controversial" theory. There's still research ongoing in chemistry, meaning that we still don't know everything there is to know (duh), but that doesn't make alchemy a viable theory. So no, it's not a perfectly legitimate line of thought, because the intent behind it is anything but legitimate.

I was thinking more along the lines of people that seem to believe we know everything about how the universe operates.

I'm sorry, but who are these people? The only people who I've seen make that claim are the ones arguing that the bible / their holy text(s) is/are to be taken literally.

In the United States, the majority of healthcare costs are insulated, majority of spending is through the government, the regulatory body is massive, and we already spend more in healthcare than other nations

Hold on. Yes, you spend a lot more than most other countries. The regulatory body is massive... what's that body? Medicare overhead is tiny compared to private insurance companies. I don't think you can pin the excess spending on that. If by regulatory body you mean the FDA then I'm inclined to agree with you, but they're not really the regulatory body of the insurance industry.

You brought up the lack of incentive for customers to be frugal. Let's turn that around - as a private insurance company my primary purpose is to make money, and my responsibility is to the shareholders. Where's my incentive to make things easy on you, the consumer? Add to that the fact that insurance only works in large numbers, i.e. the market will be absolutely dominated by a handful of giant insurance companies, and the whole free market people will choose the cheapest and bestest company therefore bringing prices down spiel goes out the window. Public insurance doesn't have to make a profit, so if they start making money they should - in theory - be able to bring premiums down, decrease copay and all that.

Which by the way is not to say that this current version is the best, or even all that great. I'm just not sure how much better it could have been under the circumstances. Unless a number of people in congress and the guy in the White House are willing to commit political suicide I'm not sure if we'll ever see a great health care system, just because it would probably be made very unpopular.

[Ewokz]

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning)"

Wow so they want to remove classes that teach people to reason correctly and question things? Why exactly?

[Busby]

Its easier to create god fearing christians when people don't ask awkward questions or can think for themselves. Its much easier to stone muslims, socialists, gays, environmentalists, communists, feminists, and pro abortion persons when the population doesn't question the "BECAUSE GOD SAID SO" line.

Not to accuse all Republicans of being crazy fascists that want to establish the United States of Jesusstan, just most of them. It hurts my European sensibilities every time I see American politics.

[Starblade]

Why exactly?

Someone who can think critically is a lot less likely to blindly obey you.

[Kushan_Pilot]

Hang on, I went back to the article and here's the full quote:

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based
Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority

Apparently, they don't like the fact there is an inverse correlation between education and theism.

[DrRansom]

I enjoy the comments here from those who haven't understood the core feature of the healthcare law. It is structured on yet another fiscal transfer from the young to the old. The mandate, which is for a fairly comprehensive medical program if I remember correctly, is far beyond the healthcare that is most appropriate for young workers. The young, being relatively healthy, would probably find the optimum coverage in a high-deductable catastrophic insurance program. That's not what Obamacare is about.

Hence, the high premiums will serve merely as another monetary transfer to the old and sick, adding on to the transfers included in Medicare (doomed) and Social Security (not doomed, but going to pay out much less).

Given that the whole westernized world is suffering from high youth unemployment and underdevelopment, seeing people cheer on this process is odd, at best. And, before people say that the young are just paying into the system, let me remind you that falling birthrates, in the US as well as Europe, make that idea questionable. Persons entering into the social welfare programs today know the 'trust funds' won't be around for them, and they also know that the workforce probably won't be around to support them in their old age as well. Those young, furthermore, know that their taxes will rise to subsidize the retirements of the baby boomer population going before them.

Needless to say, I find the happiness by young people for this bills passage to be highly misguided. And I haven't even started on some of the odder parts of the bill. For example, it STILL doesn't solve the problem of health insurance tied to employers.

[Langy]

DrRansom: All insurance is a transfer from one group to the sick (and typically old). That's how insurance works; if you don't have that transfer, you can't have affordable insurance coverage.

[Buguba]

Which isn't what they're arguing. This "teach the controversy" thing is nonsense because there is no controversy. Some researchers may disagree over minor details, and some details may not have been figured out completely, but that hardly makes it a "controversial" theory. There's still research ongoing in chemistry, meaning that we still don't know everything there is to know (duh), but that doesn't make alchemy a viable theory. So no, it's not a perfectly legitimate line of thought, because the intent behind it is anything but legitimate.

I completely agree that the intent behind their reasoning is most likely flawed. The entire premise of what I was saying was that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a modicum of truth to some of the positions they stand for, even if their intent is to turn everyone into creationists. The only "controversy" I'm getting at is when people remove science from the scope of its context. Evolution, though it is a well established mechanism with a plethora of supporting evidence, is not a singular explanation for why we exist today. This is not an argument for creationism. This is an argument for establishing that our scope of knowledge is fairly insignificant. What's important here is that people learn to think critically, not just accept what's on the table. That goes for everything we encounter.

I'm sorry, but who are these people? The only people who I've seen make that claim are the ones arguing that the bible / their holy text(s) is/are to be taken literally.

Lol? I'm not sure if you're really being serious right now. People who take things on blind faith don't just come in religious boxes. They're everywhere. People who know they "can't trust the system" or "won't get indoctrinated by the media!"are a couple examples. A lot of self-proclaimed atheists are the same way. What's important is, again, critical thinking. Just because you were taught evolution doesn't mean you're a critical thinker. I'm not saying that people who "don't trust the system" or are atheist are bad people. That was just an example. The point is that the biggest danger to our world has always been people who refuse to expand their minds.

Apparently, they don't like the fact there is an inverse correlation between education and theism.

Alright, I stand corrected. It's those sort of things that make you wonder if any of this is worth it. :\

[Starblade]

Evolution, though it is a well established mechanism with a plethora of supporting evidence, is not a singular explanation for why we exist today.

I agree. This is why we should be teaching the stories of Tiamat and Marduk in the classroom.

[Moe]

Buguba, I'm not sure what you're getting at. First the critical thinking part - given that science is a process and a perpetual search for knowledge, I'm not sure why they feel the need to reiterate that we need to support objective teaching. I'm not sure what "all sides of a scientific theory" means, but for most of the stuff you learn in school, the science is pretty much cut and dry. It's mostly introductory and hopefully will equip people with an understanding of how science works and how to access resources to learn more if they so desire. A lot of the stuff that's being debated at conferences is incredibly specific and detailed and way beyond the scope of high school science. Every now and then new stuff comes along that replaces previous knowledge, but more frequently I believe it's that we expand rather than completely revise what we know.

Next, your "lol wut" comment. I'm not sure why you bring up conspiracy theorists. Yeah they're crackpots, and a lot of them aren't religious. But that wasn't the point. Conspiracy theorists generally don't claim to know everything, they claim that "the media" or "the government" or "the man" is misinforming others. I'm not sure how you get to that from "we know how the universe works". Hardcore fundies on the other hand do - "God did it". Origin of the universe? God. Origin of earth? God. Origin of life? God. Anytime we can't figure something out, God did it. Anytime we figure something out and it contradicts their interpretation of their holy texts, well either we're being misled or God is testing our faith. Which is not to say that this holds true for all religious people, in fact the vast majority is not like that. But since you brought up groups who think they know everything, I think it's fair to point out that hardcore fundies are a very prominent example of such groups.

Comments such as the ones Busby made are insulting, but there's a kernel of truth to his cynicism. This isn't exclusive to Christians or Mormons or <insert other religion here>, either - but reading that statement, do you really believe that this is anything other than people bitching about their children questioning dogma after being taught things their parents would prefer to hide from them? If you want to teach your children that the earth is flat, I don't think it's reasonable to ask the school to change its curriculum because if your children are exposed to satellite imagery and, you know, basic physics, they may start to question your assertions.

Here's the problem - these groups claim to want their children to learn "the truth". Problem is, if the science teachers do their job and present children not just with facts, but also with reasons why these facts are true, and ways to test them, they will learn what we know about the world today. If reality conflicts with your religious teachings, then you're kind of in a pickle here. But to demand that children are not taught the truth as we know it (and it's not like we're doing age-inappropriate stuff here, we're talking about the origin of man and carbon dating, not the finer points of hardcore bondage sex)? That's pretty horrible.

Which by the way ties into healthcare, to get this whole thing back on track. I would hope that a scientifically literate populace is less likely to get ripped off by snake oil salesmen. Hey, that'd be 34 billion dollars saved. Holy crap.

It is structured on yet another fiscal transfer from the young to the old.

Well, yes. That's kind of how our society works, no? You are born, society helps pay for you to survive, be healthy, get educated, and enter the workforce. Then you're productive and become part of the people who are supporting the young and the old. Then you're old, and society helps pay to keep you alive. Maybe I'm misreading your post, but you seem to be making a big deal out of that.

[Mac_Bug]

The mandate, which is for a fairly comprehensive medical program if I remember correctly, is far beyond the healthcare that is most appropriate for young workers. The young, being relatively healthy, would probably find the optimum coverage in a high-deductable catastrophic insurance program. That's not what Obamacare is about.

Please cite your sources and quantify 'fairly comprehensive medical program' as opposed to 'high-deductable catastrophic insurance program'.

Hence, the high premiums will serve merely as another monetary transfer to the old and sick, adding on to the transfers included in Medicare (doomed) and Social Security (not doomed, but going to pay out much less).

High premiums? But there is no public option, all premiums are set by private insurance corporations. The entire point of Obamacare is that premiums would be lower under the plan than they otherwise would be, I'm not sure what I could show you beyond CBO projections - which of course won't convince anyone because everyone remotely right wing opens with 'but I don't trust CBO numbers'.

Given that the whole westernized world is suffering from high youth unemployment and underdevelopment, seeing people cheer on this process is odd, at best.

There's also ample subsidy for the poor to get health care, as well exemptions for those who are unemployed etc. In fact because you can carry your insurance with you when [edit:while] you move between jobs you are able to keep your health insurance plan when you get into one of those situations where you become unemployed and struggle to become less underdeveloped.

Young people also get old, and as they get older they'll start developing medical problems. Unless you yourself is willing to forgo medical insurance for the rest of your life, I can't help but want to flip your argument around and wonder why you want to free load while you're healthy and only pay into the system when you are sure you'll get more than you pay for.

[CommissarRezail]

My opinion if we continue with the current health care ways we will end up with use a air plane metaphor here, 1st class service or coach service. Where first class is people who can pay x amount of dollars per a month to get good service while coach gets ok service not have access to the many options first class has... So lets say your in the waiting room with a knife in your heart and you have coach service, and is about to be seen. Well guess what a first class service guy walks in with a head ache and due to his service he gets seen first while you die. That's how i feel with these private insurance companies, if i don't get their most expensive poilcy i usually don't get much in terms of anything. Hell can't even get them to pay 20 percent of the co pay heh.

[Buguba]

Buguba, I'm not sure what you're getting at. First the critical thinking part - given that science is a process and a perpetual search for knowledge, I'm not sure why they feel the need to reiterate that we need to support objective teaching. I'm not sure what "all sides of a scientific theory" means, but for most of the stuff you learn in school, the science is pretty much cut and dry. It's mostly introductory and hopefully will equip people with an understanding of how science works and how to access resources to learn more if they so desire. A lot of the stuff that's being debated at conferences is incredibly specific and detailed and way beyond the scope of high school science. Every now and then new stuff comes along that replaces previous knowledge, but more frequently I believe it's that we expand rather than completely revise what we know.

I only felt the need to reiterate it because my initial post was referencing kernels of truth we could take away from the Texas Republican platform. Many of the principles are misguided, but that doesn't make it 100% bad. The only reason I felt the need to say this wasn't because I thought Kushan didn't know that (he's probably smarter than I am), but because I think there are a lot of people who automatically reject ideas simply because of their origin rather than the idea itself.

Next, your "lol wut" comment. I'm not sure why you bring up conspiracy theorists. Yeah they're crackpots, and a lot of them aren't religious. But that wasn't the point. Conspiracy theorists generally don't claim to know everything, they claim that "the media" or "the government" or "the man" is misinforming others. I'm not sure how you get to that from "we know how the universe works". Hardcore fundies on the other hand do - "God did it". Origin of the universe? God. Origin of earth? God. Origin of life? God. Anytime we can't figure something out, God did it. Anytime we figure something out and it contradicts their interpretation of their holy texts, well either we're being misled or God is testing our faith. Which is not to say that this holds true for all religious people, in fact the vast majority is not like that. But since you brought up groups who think they know everything, I think it's fair to point out that hardcore fundies are a very prominent example of such groups.

I feel like you're applying an extension of logic to one party but not the other. My point was that conspiracy theorists think they know "everything" because they claim to have knowledge of a system that nobody else has. Nobody claims to know everything about everything. Plenty of people claim to know everything about a particular system though. A religious fundy claims to have expert knowledge of a system involving our relationship with a divine being. Do religious fundies claim to be expert accountants? No, because being an accountant isn't included within that system of knowledge. By the same token, a conspiracy theorist claims to have knowledge of a system involving the relationship between us and a temporal, governing power. A conspiracy theorist wouldn't claim to have knowledge about wave-particle duality because that doesn't belong within his "scope of expertise".

All of this said, I do recognize that the system religious fundies use is large enough to bleed over into many, many different topics. I also agree that religious fundies are a particularly prominent example of people who claim to know everything. Even if there are other groups, religious fundies are certainly the loudest and most obnoxious.

[roflmao]

@Moe:
Well, right now the U.S. is a combination of government and privately provided health insurance. So if your theory about insurance naturally leading to monopolies is correct, then right now it should be the case that insurance is governed by a handful of companies. And sure enough there are some insurance heavyweights in the industry, but as far as I know there are thousands of insurance providers. Thousands is pretty small when you're providing insurance for 350 million people, but it's far from just a handful as you put it.

It's the way the Swiss do it and it works for them. Their health care expenditures are marginally higher to that of other countries but they have a higher life expectancy rate than all the UHC OECD countries except Japan, so arguably the higher costs pay off. I'm not seeing the monopoly exploitation at work.

Hold on. Yes, you spend a lot more than most other countries. The regulatory body is massive... what's that body? Medicare overhead is tiny compared to private insurance companies. I don't think you can pin the excess spending on that. If by regulatory body you mean the FDA then I'm inclined to agree with you, but they're not really the regulatory body of the insurance industry.

I'm not sure Medicare overhead is tiny compared to that of private insurance companies. Could you back this up? Unfortunately, a simple comparison of per capita spending won't do since the age distribution between the two systems is not the same. Medicare is lopsided towards old people, whom obviously spend vastly more on healthcare, so a simplistic comparison would actually make Medicare look worse than it probably is.

The reference to regulation was the weakest point of my post. Yes, I meant the FDA, but I wouldn't be able to provide concrete empirical evidence of the FDA's role in rising premiums if you asked me, so I won't actively defend it.

[Starblade]

So if your theory about insurance naturally leading to monopolies is correct, then right now it should be the case that insurance is governed by a handful of companies.

I'm willing to bet anti-monopoly laws, among other things, have something to do with that. To be fair to you though, even the justices considered the idea that maybe healthcare is a unique case when it comes to capitalism and what arises from it.

Exactly how similar to the Swiss' healthcare system is PPCA, out of curiosity?

I just saw these two bits in that Texas education platform, holy shit:

Child Abuse – We recognize the family as a sovereign authority over which the state has no right to intervene, unless a parent or legal guardian has committed criminal abuse. Child abusers should be severely prosecuted. We oppose actions of social agencies to classify traditional methods of discipline, including corporal punishment, as child abuse. As a condition of funding, publicly funded agencies are to report all instances of abuse.

UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Here are some of those rights that they oppose:

In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws. The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping, and to have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.

The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, and to have their privacy protected, and it requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.

The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children.

In its General Comment 8 (2006) the Committee on the Rights of the Child stated that there was an "obligation of all States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children".[11] Article 19 of the Convention states that State Parties must "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence",[12] but it makes no reference to corporal punishment, and the Committee's interpretation on this point has been explicitly rejected by several States Party to the Convention, including Australia,[13] Canada and the United Kingdom.

"The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it. Along with Somalia and South Sudan, the United States is one of only three countries in the world which have not ratified the Convention. It has been claimed that opposition to the Convention stems primarily from political and religious conservatives. For example, the Heritage Foundation sees it as threatening national control over domestic policy and the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) argues that the CRC threatens homeschooling."

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Starblade: In their defense, you only really have to disagree with one bit of a convention to not want it ratified. I doubt they're seriously opposing a ban on executing babies specifically.

[Inq]

Every time I listen to the US debates on politics and policy, I feel just that little bit better about our own politicians. They are so detached from reality it is not funny.

[Starfisher]

Well, yes. That's kind of how our society works, no? You are born, society helps pay for you to survive, be healthy, get educated, and enter the workforce. Then you're productive and become part of the people who are supporting the young and the old. Then you're old, and society helps pay to keep you alive. Maybe I'm misreading your post, but you seem to be making a big deal out of that.

So what do you do as a young person who knows the math doesn't work out, and for whom society isn't delivering anything on the front end?

US student debt is ballooning rapidly, youth unemployment is creeping up as the old folks transfer our opportunities overseas in the name of profits, we can't afford to buy houses because our parents want to charge us too much money... so "youth" in the US doesn't exactly feel like society is falling over itself to offer aid. Meanwhile, it doesn't take more than a few brain cells to see that a pyramid scheme relying on one or two workers per retired person means that those one or two workers are going to have to pay in a whole lot more than the retired people did in order to keep it all solvent.

Basically, the US youth vote is getting told this by the elder generations: you have to go into massive debt to get an education to get a job that we're probably outsourcing, so that you can pay much more in taxes to support us in our retirement and buy our massively overinflated houses from us with yet more debt. Oh and all of this is probably going to collapse under its own weight by the time you're old enough to participate in it as a recipient of benefits instead of a tax payer.

... thanks?

There's some fun charts showing US debt growth compared to GDP growth. Can't find it now, but the basic gist was that to maintain GDP growth in the US has taken more and more year over year debt (total debt, not just government) growth - in the 50s we were growing debt 8% a year to get 8% GDP growth, and things were pretty good. In the 80s and 90s we were growing debt at 10-20% per year, then in the 2000s at 30% a year just to keep our "healthy" 5% GDP growth going. You can't grow debt faster than your GDP forever, and we've been doing it for decades. We can make all the promises in the world to ourselves, but eventually we actually have to produce the prosperity to pay for it all instead of borrowing it from the future.

It'd be nice to be in a position to receive the benefits from my future getting forcibly mortgaged, but right now I honestly don't think any of this is going to survive. When I hit "old" status, I suspect I will not be getting anything like the current level of benefits, and will probably still be paying off the benefits I gave to old people now. And that sucks.

[Carl]

There's a great big stonking flaw in your argument starfisher, (at least vis a vis the UK).

The UK public pension system is designed to cover the bare needs. Anything beyond that is generally expected to come out of a private pension they paid into directly. They're also not expected to have any other debts e.t.c.

The amount you as a young person need to pay out to cover all your debts, raise a family in more than breadline conditions, (the assumed norm), and generally live a young persons life is a lot higher after tax's than what the retiree’s are being paid. Your average person IS therefore going to be paying vastly more than the value of that one person into the system.

The bigger issues that’s skewing things is:

A) How long people are living beyond retirement on average. If you work more years than you spend retired you've paid off your own value ahead of time, plus a good chunk of several other people.

B) High unemployment amongst younger people. This is preventing them contributing and actually adding to the drain.

C) In my area of the UK at least the majority of jobs going are breadline jobs. They're not far enough above the minimum level to live on to be able to put much back into the system.

Fix the problems and the system actually works. Of course here in the UK our totally screwed up Education, Tax, and Benefits systems really don't help matters. Public Transport could really do with an overhaul too IMHO. But that’s a bit outside the scope of this discussion.

[Kirjava]

Fix the problems and the system actually works.

I'm pretty sure you could say this about any system anywhere at any point in history.

[Carl]

I think you missed my point Kirjava. Starfishers acting like the system is inherently flawed and doomed to failure no matter what you do. In practise it's very far from it, the trouible, (as ushual), is short sighted goverments dominated by people who, at best are mostly concerned with the next election. It breeds policy making that has littile to do with what actually works, and instead on what looks good, it's all style and very littile substance, and virtually no long term planning.

[Moe]

roflmao: Re: Medicare overhead: Here's a source. Medicare does have a significantly smaller overhead. In all fairness that is partially due to the fact that they insure a less diverse spectrum of people (mostly old ones), but if you're going to jump on the wasteful government programs yay private companies bandwagon, then I wouldn't use medicare as an example.

Regarding the FDA, I actually agree with you. And in a way they are responsible for higher premiums, but it's mostly an indirect process. Due to FDA policies drug development has become risky and extremely expensive, and those expenses have to be recouped once the drugs enter the market - which means higher prices. But again, it's not really an argument against public healthcare.

So what do you do as a young person who knows the math doesn't work out, and for whom society isn't delivering anything on the front end?

Well, it is my very personal opinion that the US education system is horrible, in no small part because it places a massive financial burden on people who will not be making a lot of money for the foreseeable future. Tuitions at UC schools have risen 85% over the course of just four years. I haven't checked the numbers but I'm pretty sure that mean income after collage has not risen by the same amount. I fully agree with you that this is a horrible situation, and that it needs fixing (and while we're at it, I'd like to see the lot behind ITT Tech and DeVry Institute prosecuted), but how is that a counter-argument to the healthcare debate? Or am I misunderstanding your post.

When I hit "old" status, I suspect I will not be getting anything like the current level of benefits, and will probably still be paying off the benefits I gave to old people now. And that sucks.

That is probably the sad reality. As an individual about the only thing you can do is to begin investing as early as possible, to create your own little pool to draw from once you're old.

[Starfisher]

Moe, I was responding to your response to DrRansom. Ransom's point is that the situation you outline (a more or less "balanced" life cycle) is not in effect here - it's a massive, unsustainable suck upwards towards old people. I was trying to outline a US centric view of the problem, which is that the first two people in your outline (the young person and the middle aged person) are all getting the shaft so the old person, who just spent their lives running up a massive debt in order to fund an unsustainable lifestyle, can get more benefits. Benefits that the young and middle aged person probably won't experience. So, sure, maybe society should work they way you say, but right now it isn't. Obamacare (really this should be "Pelosicare" or something), while it does some nice stuff, also locks in yet more promises we probably won't be able to keep.

Carl, perhaps you could outline exactly how you can grow debt faster than GDP forever. From where I'm sitting, that's not possible, and without it, you are forced to "live within your means" as a society. Your response seems to imply that as long as we take every penny past the bare minimum necessary for a young worker to survive, everything's fine. That seems obviously unworkable, since no generation is going to allow themselves to be used like chattel to pay off debts incurred by their parents (see Greece). Demographics would imply that in relatively short order every retiree will be supported by very few workers, which means those still working are getting a worse deal than those now retired, with no hope of seeing the same benefit later. It's not sustainable fiscally or politically.

Your three point list makes it seem like you're supporting my point, not countering it. Also, don't you see the contradiction between point A and B? If you have high youth unemployment and all the unrest that goes with it, making old people stay in their jobs longer is not going to solve anything, since it just prolongs the period of high unemployment. And if those old people mostly spent their time making sure that there won't be better jobs for those doing breadline labor, it guarantees that there won't be enough productivity to meet the promises being made.

[Paladin]

Honestly, the boomer generation kind of fucks everything over in the US... They're such a massive, massive bulge in the population age-gradient that they end up skewing everything. Having them all as retirees will be a huge huge drain on the system, and they've always had way too much political power because they represent a single demographic that can almost outvote every other by themselves.