Politics Who's Gonna Win?

There were many areas of agreement regarding health-care reform. A good negotiator or someone interested in a good solution would have used those areas as a basis for agreement.
--- merged: Feb 16, 2012 8:49 PM ---

Liberals seem to buy into the b.s. An assumption that a license has meaning that it does not have. It is difficult to solve real problems when some many buy into b.s., and try to rationalize it.
--- merged: Feb 16, 2012 8:51 PM ---

Explain how it is possible to start over? You asked for something that is not clear. Something I think is impossible. You can easily re-read this thread. What do you really want? Do you really want to re-hash this? If not, why did you ask? This is a core problem, that I don't get!

 

And what exactly where those areas of agreement?

So the answer is to reject all licensing out of hand as inherently flawed? Sorry, but that's just not a wise thing to do. You can go to all the unlicensed doctors, cab drivers or architects you want. I'll stick with the ones that have proven that they know what they're doing. Are there problems? Of course. But your rejection of the concept in totality - which is what you've argued - is inherently dangerous to individuals and society.

Not to mention that you're using evidence that's proven false.

It would be easier if you made it obvious which question you were answering since there were two.

 

I have read data to the contrary.

You failed to look at the context leading to the post. I know and I agree that some licensing processes are more rigorous and meaningful than others, some are simply a joke. If we applied a reasonable consistent standard for licensing, with a real focus on public safety, I would not have a problem with that. It is a fair debate regarding the requirements of transporting people compared to hazardous waste. I want a high level of competence in both areas. I think a free market approach can effectively get that done.

I am bitching regarding the end work process being deemed meaningless by a corrupt crony based system. The union guys got pissed that work was done by non-union people (ironically the guy who owned the building and paying the bills) - had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with protecting union jobs. Inspectors were probably complicit in this. Again, the context was regarding the end result and the value of the inspection process.

 

That's fine and dandy. I have data that proves my point that fatalities are declining. Medical expenses may be up, but beyond an arbitrary spike based on two large-scale accidents within a week of each other, mass livery transportation (in other words, long-haul buses) have not seen an increase in fatalities. Those two are outliers and are considered outside the overall trend.

Would you like to drag SAFER into this? It's easy, you know, and anyone here can review the data themselves and decide for themselves.

I'm all for deregulation of licensing. The short-term result would necessarily be a huge spike in incidents by the lower-end players. They'll cause grievous bodily harm and property damage in that spike and raise their industry insurance rates through the roof for a while. It's good for me so long as I don't get hit by a bus.

Oh, I see. It actually has nothing to do with licensing at all. Except that it does since code requires that a licensed electrican run low-voltage cabling. Context or not, the building code wasn't followed.

 

First, that there is a problem. Do you really need me for this??? Do you not know that many Republicans wanted health care insurance reform? In the past major health care legislation got passed. Bush got his prescription drug plan passed. Why does this President have a problem, more so than past Presidents?

No. Some licenses are meaningless. Some are not primarily based on what is in the best interest of the public. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Be specific.
--- merged: Feb 16, 2012 9:23 PM ---

http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/05/10/article/panel_to_focus_on_deadly_truck_bus_accidents

We can argue if the issue is a concern or not, and given the relative small number we can argue what may or may not constitute a trend. One thing is clear, some people have no choice but to use buses for transportation. These people have come to depend on government, government has let them down. The process for other forms of transportation is more rigorous. Why is there a difference? Is it because poor people depend on buses??? why is the life of a poor person less important? We can quibble about some minor points regarding the data, but in my mind we are talking about real people. Perhaps it just hits closer to home for me for some reason. why do I care about people who ride buses? I have not taken a bus on a long trip in decades, but my grandmother traveled by bus all the time.
--- merged: Feb 16, 2012 9:29 PM ---

In my post, I stated that the law was violated.

 

Aceventura, your "evidence" doesn't support your claim that bus accidents are getting worse. It simply states the number of fatalities over a specific timeframe with no comparison to any other timeframe. Your contention that fatalities are rising - in either gross terms or in terms of mileage - isn't even addressed. So you're trying to twist numbers that have no relavence to your argument into something that will, and I'm calling you on it. And there's your false evidence.

Now, what licenses are meaningless and/or not in the public interest? Specific ones, please.
--- merged: Feb 16, 2012 9:34 PM ---

Oh, I see. You think the law is flawed because you don't understand how low-voltage lines could cause a problem. Got it.

 

I sourced an article in the March 2012 edition of Popular Mechanics. On page 76, they sate that data showed that in the 80's and 90's fatalities ranged from 6 to 10 annually. Then it rose to 25+ according to Norm Littler, executive director of the bus industry safety council. The article was based on trying to understand the source of this increase, mechanical, it was not. I get a hard copy of the magazine, read the article if you are interested. I did not just make this up, if that is your implication.

 

When you do, make sure that it includes mileage. If it doesn't it's worthless.

Instead of Popular Mechanics, maybe you want to try SAFER. It has real-time data and goes back to 1981, if I'm not mistaken.

 

Funny, you don't know the guy I am referring to, he may have Ph.d. in electrical engineering, but you draw conclusions about what he may or may not know. Again, process focus.
--- merged: Feb 16, 2012 9:49 PM ---

I have the magazine, no intent on trying to scan the article. go to a local book store and read it, or look it up on-line. If you have data from Safer, can you be more specific, if so I will look.

{added} also look at this issue from a broader perspective. One of my points is that on an issue like this, we can not even agree that there is a problem - if we can not agree there is a problem a discussion about solutions is impossible. This illustrates a big issue with liberal v conservative communication. Trend or not is 30 or so deaths per year o.k. when the number of deaths can easily be reduced?

 

Then give me the relevant facts up front instead of constantly changing your story. Seems like a pretty obvious and easy request, but since you're in this to score points, I'll play the game too.

Someone who has an advanced degree in theory is not necessarily qualified in application. That's why architects and engineers have different degrees and licensing.

No, I'll agree that there's a problem, but that's not the argument you've been making. You've been using false statistics to say that it's getting more dangerous when everything I've seen says that it's not getting more dangerous. If you want to solve the problem, which I think most folks would agree exists, then you need to state that up front, not spout off in a way that's only going to draw contrary fire.

 

We go in circles. The context was that some focus on process rather than results.

Stop saying the statistics are false without showing they actually are false. I cited my sources. I provided multiple sources quoting similar numbers. What more do you want, given this forum? I am not doing a scientific presentation, here - it is a discussion board. If you want to go ape-shit over the data, go for it, but I can not argue against - because I say so - type responses.

 

And maybe now you start to understand the frustration many posters here feel with you.

 

Some things I understand and some I don't. The context of the example regarding my experience with running cable in a building under construction was specifically about a focus on process rather than results. I understand differing views on issues outside of the context initially involved. At one point I stated "who cares who does the work" as long as it was done properly - I stand on my view on that. I realize the "who" is very important to some.

 

I agree with you about having a "feel". I most certainly agree....Romney does not have it! (Sorry it took so long to respond)
--- merged: Feb 20, 2012 9:54 PM ---

I believe just the opposite of you. I think history will show it was a monumental first step in health care reform for the U.S.

 

Did you know there is a 3.8% sales tax on real estate sales transactions in Obamacare that kicks in next year -2013. {edit - example not correct, deleted} Thanks, Mr. President!

I am betting there is a lot of stuff, people don't know. I am betting the plan was for all this to hit after November 2012, I wonder why??? It is a rhetorical question, I think we all know the answer.

 

Ace likes to mimic the right wing talking points. I'm surprised he hasn't screamed death panels and socialized medicine.

The legislation was rushed? After nearly one year of hearings by more than 5 separate House and Senate Committees.
Real compromised was not achieved. More than 30 meetings of the 6 member (3 D, 3R) bi-partisan panel on the Senate side that produced the framework for the final legislation. More than 150 Republican amendments were included in the final bill, including such major provisions as allowing purchasing of insurance across state lines..and still, with the bi-partisan panel and numerous Republican amendments, that was not enough compromise for the right wing.

So, to date, more than 10 million are already seeing the benefits, including young adults (19-25) w/o insurance, children with per-existing conditions that now cannot be excluded, millions benefiting this year with access to preventive care w/o co-pay, millions of seniors paying less for prescriptions due to starting to close the donut hole in coverage, etc.

And most recently, the auditing of insurance plans to determine compliance with the new regulation that requires that insurers spend at least 80 percent of premium costs on medical care (no more than 20 percent on admin cost, salaries, etc), along with the requirement of insurers to notify customers regarding company compliance. Customers will be receiving over $300 million in rebates this year as result of company not meeting the 80-20 standard.
http://www.healthcarefinancenews.co...et-better-value-their-health-insurance-dollar

I agree. A damn good first step. I suspect that those millions already benefiting might also agree.
--- merged: Feb 21, 2012 5:14 PM ---

That real estate transaction is limited to those with income over $250,000/$500,00 and tax is not on primary residence, so it might affect less than 1 percent of taxpayers..those selling their beach homes and ski chalets. Those poor folks may suffer anxiety attacks, but that would be covered.

 

So, Ace....why are you attempting to scare folks with this misleading post about the real estate tax in the ACA?

I am betting that it is in the right wing play book and you bought into it w/o bothering to check the facts.

 

You did not understand the point. In the context of "compromise" there is no real lasting solution until you have key participants on both sides of an issue willing to actively support and work for the solution or "compromise". In this case we did not. It would have been better to put more effort into a solution that would last.

True. But the issue is not "compromise" in my view, the issue is finding common ground and using the art of persuasion to convince enough people on a particular solution gaining their willingness to make it work. In my case, I could have been persuaded to support a single payer solution.

The problem is going to be in the details.

 

So, the fact that the Republicans refuse to compromise despite having an equal place at the table on the Senate Panel (gang of six) that drafted the framework and despite the numerous concessions by the Democrats to Republican amendments (over 100), the ACA is doomed to fail? Only as another talking point of the ideologues on the far right, given that they had no interest in compromising on any issue.

And, so much for those 10+ million already benefiting?

The problem with the real estate tax is that you grossly misrepresented it because you were too lazy to bother to learn the details and simply bought into the lie.