What is a lie?

[BackInTex]

You screwed up your quote tags. I'm not Beedums, nor do I play him on TV. --Bob

I sure did. Sorry 'bout that.

That's what I get for quoting out of Beeb's post and trying to gleen it out of there.

[Bob78164]

However, as you also realize, under the forthcoming health regime-the Government option will be setting rates and mandating coverages (etc, etc) for the "Private Competitors."

I also got a kick out of the other part of the Obama USPS analogy where he said UPS and Fed Ex are doing great and the USPS is the one in trouble. So tell me again, why are following the USPS model for our healthcare?

I realize no such thing. Government won't need to set rates (other than its own).

However, it's also the case that most, if not all, of the proposals on the table will require coverage in exchange for barring denials based on pre-existing conditions. No one has to use the mail. The law will require that people carry health coverage. Even if the government has to pay for some of that coverage, that will be cheaper than consigning the uninsured to emergency rooms, which is what is happening now. Those savings don't show up in the federal budget, but they will sure as hell show up in state and local budgets.

A few years ago, the USPS had a multi-billion dollar surplus. This year, it's about a billion dollars in the red. But we are following the USPS model because it is essential that everyone have affordable access to health insurance. We can subsidize it via the emergency room or through a public option. But subsidize it we will. The issue is which way is cheaper, and I doubt it's a close call.

The problem most people seem to have with the public option is the fear that it will drive private insurance companies out of business. But we live now in an evidence-based world, and the available evidence strongly indicates that will not happen. --Bob

[Jeemie]

Government won't need to set rates (other than its own).

If they "won't need to", then why is there language in the bills that suggests they will?

And not just for "their own option".

[Ritterskoop]

I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.

It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?

I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.

[wintergreen48]

Are you being serious here?

Kiki might be able to enlighten you....

Yes. --Bob

I'll spoil for the delicate of constitution.

Spoiler

Teabagging refers to the act (generally used in a homosexual sense) of a male squatting over another person and putting their testicles in and out of the other person's mouth. It's called teabagging because the up and down motion is like when you're steeping a cup of tea.

I will also agree with Estonut and Calvinator (!) that I am disappointed to see Sprots using that term. I expect that sort of thing from Nelly, but not from her.

Oh. My. God. I had no idea. Shows how innocent and naive I really am. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But ewww.

[Jeemie]

I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.

It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?

I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.

Public education is also mostly handled at the state and local level.

No Child Left Behind was a disaster.

[Ritterskoop]

I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.

It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?

I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.

Public education is also mostly handled at the state and local level.

No Child Left Behind was a disaster.

So if public healthcare was handled at the state and local level, it would be more palatable?

I agree that teaching to a test is counterproductive.

[Jeemie]

I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.

It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?

I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.

Public education is also mostly handled at the state and local level.

No Child Left Behind was a disaster.

So if public healthcare was handled at the state and local level, it would be more palatable?

I agree that teaching to a test is counterproductive.

Perhaps.

Depends on whether you think health care functions better as a public good or not.

For the most part, education does (or, did).

Although the private schools still do better, for the most part.

[BackInTex]

I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.

It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?

I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.

Do you think our education system attracts the best and the brightest? The best at math are teaching our young kids? The best at science are in our Jr. High's?

[Ritterskoop]

Perhaps.

Depends on whether you think health care functions better as a public good or not.

For the most part, education does (or, did).

Although the private schools still do better, for the most part.

I attended church schools early on, and they were not set up to handle kids outside the middle ability group. One teacher handled three grades, and having one that needed extra work was not good for the group.

I was much better off in public schools, where there were far more options for advanced classes, and far more advanced kids. There was also lots more exposure to slower-learning kids, which was good for me also.

I presume the same is true of kids in the lower end of the achievement spectrum. The private school Mom teaches at has grant money to pay for aides just for the two autistic kids per grade; otherwise, they could not afford the special attention they need to be mainstreamed.

So the question may be about how we handle education for folks not in the mainstream. My understanding is that other nations (Japan, specifically) do not provide public education for lower-end kids, so their test scores in math etc. are much better than ours. But the question is whether this is good for society, not to provide some kids with minimal skills. I presume that educating bright kids is also costly, but most nations find ways to do that.

edited to fix quote tagging

[Bob78164]

Do you think our education system attracts the best and the brightest? The best at math are teaching our young kids? The best at science are in our Jr. High's?

Neither the public nor the private schools attract the best and brightest. The pay is insufficient.

But I don't want the best at math and science to be teaching my son (or other kids). I want the best at teaching to be teaching them. The two are emphatically not the same. Some of the best mathematicians in the world are well nigh unto incomprehensible, even to their peers. --Bob

[kayrharris]

Yes. --Bob

I'll spoil for the delicate of constitution.

Spoiler

Teabagging refers to the act (generally used in a homosexual sense) of a male squatting over another person and putting their testicles in and out of the other person's mouth. It's called teabagging because the up and down motion is like when you're steeping a cup of tea.

I will also agree with Estonut and Calvinator (!) that I am disappointed to see Sprots using that term. I expect that sort of thing from Nelly, but not from her.

Oh. My. God. I had no idea. Shows how innocent and naive I really am. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But ewww.

My sentiments exactly!!! Thank goodness I'm not the only one around here who's lived a sheltered life!! I think I'm gonna steal WG's signature and use it as mine too!

kay

[Lackadaisical Stumblebum]

Oh. My. God. I had no idea. Shows how innocent and naive I really am. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But ewww.

Always a pleasure to assist in expanding your knowledge base.

[TheCalvinator24]

I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.

It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?

I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.

I don't want the federal government to be involved in education at all. I am not alone in that desire.

[Jeemie]

I apologize if this question has already been addressed. I've seen a few times where it's been brought up, but not that it's been answered. If it has, that's my mistake, and I would appreciate a link.

It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?

I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.

I don't want the federal government to be involved in education at all. I am not alone in that desire.

That would have sucked for me, as I went to a land grant university.

Would've also sucked for millions of GIs.

[flockofseagulls104]

It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?

I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.

I don't generally want the government to educate most everyone. They are and have been doing a terrible job at it. But they have control over it and are very resistant to new ideas and innovation, and are totally opposed to giving the public another option, like school vouchers, which would give parents the choice of where to get their children educated. Too many jobs and empires and union territory involved to give up any power or control.
So why not turn over our health care to a system like public government run schools?

BTW I have no idea how Sprots (I think) interpreted my previous post, but what I meant is that legal citizens of this country should not have to pay the health care costs of people who are here in this country illegally.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

A few years ago, the USPS had a multi-billion dollar surplus. This year, it's about a billion dollars in the red. But we are following the USPS model because it is essential that everyone have affordable access to health insurance. We can subsidize it via the emergency room or through a public option. But subsidize it we will. The issue is which way is cheaper, and I doubt it's a close call.

The problem most people seem to have with the public option is the fear that it will drive private insurance companies out of business. But we live now in an evidence-based world, and the available evidence strongly indicates that will not happen. --Bob

In 2004, the USPS ran a surplus of $3 billion. Since then, they've done worse every year. Revenues between 2004 and 2008 rose about $6 billion while expenses increased $12 billion. That led to deficits in 2007 ($5.1 billion) and 2008 ($2.8 billion) and a current deficit of almost $5 billion that's on a rocket sled to $7 billion.

Bob have you tried to buy private crop insurance or flood insurance lately?

[silverscreenselect]

I also got a kick out of the other part of the Obama USPS analogy where he said UPS and Fed Ex are doing great and the USPS is the one in trouble. So tell me again, why are following the USPS model for our healthcare?

The postal service is "in trouble" in large part because the government mandates that they "cover everybody" while UPS and Fedex don't have to. I'm sure UPS and Fedex would come up with an equivalent of first class mail service if they were allowed to do so, but they wouldn't cover everyone in every podunk town in the country six days a week and they wouldn't do it for 44 cents.

We as a country have decided that universal postal coverage is important and the result is a postal service that can't function as a private entity because it can't choose its own business model as its competitors can and do. However, the alternative of abolishing the postal service or letting it set its own prices on an economically valid model would result in a lot of people losing the only means of delivery service they can afford.

Unfortunately for all the left wingers on the Bored, however:

1) Obama does not want single payer.
2) Obama does not want a viable public option.
3) Obama only wants something that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies don't have a problem with, which is some form of watered down public option that will never fly with anyone who is in the least bit fiscally responsible.

Wake up. If Obama was really in favor of either 1 or 2 above, he would have pressed hard for it, getting the Democrats in line behind him, and outlining in for the public in clear explainable terms. However, even with one public forum after another to express his point all he does is flail around with an ill defined program and a set of platitudes while his opponents in effect define for the public what his program is.

Obama is displaying what he always does, inept leadership, an inability to manage, and, above all, a narcissistic streak that determines what he says and does.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The postal service is "in trouble" in large part because the government mandates that they "cover everybody" while UPS and Fedex don't have to. I'm sure UPS and Fedex would come up with an equivalent of first class mail service if they were allowed to do so, but they wouldn't cover everyone in every podunk town in the country six days a week and they wouldn't do it for 44 cents.

SSS perhaps you can find something for me. I was looking for a list of addresses that the USPS delivers to that UPS doesn't.

[SportsFan68]

It seems as though generally we want the government to handle education for most everyone. What is so scary about public healthcare that isn't scary about public education?

I would ask about roads and police and fire, but some of those are handled differently on the local level.

I don't generally want the government to educate most everyone. They are and have been doing a terrible job at it. But they have control over it and are very resistant to new ideas and innovation, and are totally opposed to giving the public another option, like school vouchers, which would give parents the choice of where to get their children educated. Too many jobs and empires and union territory involved to give up any power or control.
So why not turn over our health care to a system like public government run schools?

BTW I have no idea how Sprots (I think) interpreted my previous post, but what I meant is that legal citizens of this country should not have to pay the health care costs of people who are here in this country illegally.

Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't comprehend what the "I'm sorry" meant. I still can't, but that's not important. It's not what you meant.

Cal and I agree on school vouchers, not that Cal and I agreeing on something is the way to make it infallible, I hasten to add. He believes there would be unacceptable strings attached, and I believe much the same as Skoop. The end result is that the quality of education for most of the population would be diluted, in contradiction to PL 94-142.

[Lackadaisical Stumblebum]

The postal service is "in trouble" in large part because the government mandates that they "cover everybody" while UPS and Fedex don't have to. I'm sure UPS and Fedex would come up with an equivalent of first class mail service if they were allowed to do so, but they wouldn't cover everyone in every podunk town in the country six days a week and they wouldn't do it for 44 cents.

SSS perhaps you can find something for me. I was looking for a list of addresses that the USPS delivers to that UPS doesn't.

I don't think that UPS delivers to PO Boxes.

Or to anybody on Saturday or Sunday. I am all in favour of the mandate being lifted on Saturday delivery in order to bring down costs, btw. I still think 44 cents is a darned good deal on a letter but, as other ebayers would probably agree, the other rates have skyrocketed the past couple years and will probably continue to do so to keep down the costs of the first class postage stamp, since that's the only cost that the general public seems to get outraged about when rates go up.

And, while UPS would theoretically deliver to anywhere, they can charge any damned thing they want to get it there. So, if you don't want to deliver a piano to the top of Gobbler's Knob, but want to say you'll go anywhere, just make the cost so outrageous that nobody will take you up on it.

[silverscreenselect]

For the most part, education does (or, did).

Although the private schools still do better, for the most part.

There's no question that private enterprise can run things better than the government. However, they can also fail spectacularly. In the private sector, when Circuit City goes under, there's a Best Buy to step in. If GM and Chrysler go under, Ford and the foreigners are ready to step in. That's how capitalism works.

However, we feel that some things are too important to fail. Would you want the army run by Enron? So we trade off, accepting a less than optimum level of service in exchange for an overall acceptable level of reliability.

There's no question that the best (and most expensive) private health care available is better, in most cases, that what would be available under government health care. However, that care isn't always available except for the very rich anyway, and, in many cases, the only time it makes an appreciable difference is in certain rare situations. So to avoid the boogeyman of government health care, we put up with millions uninsured, millions more knowingly underinsured, and still millions more unknowingly underinsured (you don't know you're underinsured until you're really sick and you find our your "good" insurance won't cover it).

[silverscreenselect]

The postal service is "in trouble" in large part because the government mandates that they "cover everybody" while UPS and Fedex don't have to. I'm sure UPS and Fedex would come up with an equivalent of first class mail service if they were allowed to do so, but they wouldn't cover everyone in every podunk town in the country six days a week and they wouldn't do it for 44 cents.

SSS perhaps you can find something for me. I was looking for a list of addresses that the USPS delivers to that UPS doesn't.

UPS and Fedex don't go anywhere six days a week on the offchance that someone might have something for them to deliver. Usually, if I want UPS or Fedex to pick up a package, I have to call or email them and let them know and then they come by and pick it up and they charge me a lot more that 44 cents to do that.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I don't think that UPS delivers to PO Boxes.

Or to anybody on Saturday or Sunday. I am all in favour of the mandate being lifted on Saturday delivery in order to bring down costs, btw. I still think 44 cents is a darned good deal on a letter but, as other ebayers would probably agree, the other rates have skyrocketed the past couple years and will probably continue to do so to keep down the costs of the first class postage stamp, since that's the only cost that the general public seems to get outraged about when rates go up.

And, while UPS would theoretically deliver to anywhere, they can charge any damned thing they want to get it there. So, if you don't want to deliver a piano to the top of Gobbler's Knob, but want to say you'll go anywhere, just make the cost so outrageous that nobody will take you up on it.

So there are addresses that UPS surcharges for? PO Boxes and Saturday delivery?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The postal service is "in trouble" in large part because the government mandates that they "cover everybody" while UPS and Fedex don't have to. I'm sure UPS and Fedex would come up with an equivalent of first class mail service if they were allowed to do so, but they wouldn't cover everyone in every podunk town in the country six days a week and they wouldn't do it for 44 cents.

SSS perhaps you can find something for me. I was looking for a list of addresses that the USPS delivers to that UPS doesn't.

UPS and Fedex don't go anywhere six days a week on the offchance that someone might have something for them to deliver. Usually, if I want UPS or Fedex to pick up a package, I have to call or email them and let them know and then they come by and pick it up and they charge me a lot more that 44 cents to do that.

Maybe its just me but that seems a bit non-responsive.