Fundamental Differences

[Harlowe]

Hey Eido, good to see you. =)

[Lurker]

Not going to debate the same idiocy on subprime again. Suffice it to say you are wrong and the poor did not drive the crisis. I posted plenty of proof, including a Republican Federal Reserve Governor summarizing a Fed Reserve study. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, even though the facts don't support it.

For Conservatives, showing whether you care or not is irrelevant. It's all about getting the largest benefit to society for the smallest personal cost.

For Liberals, it's all about showing that you care. Whether what you're doing has any kind of reasonable cost/benefit ratio, that's irrelevant.

When was the last time a modern conservative did a cost/benefit analysis on anything? Seems their main concern is that they themselves incur the smallest possible personal cost, societal benefit be damned. Bush's wars and tax cuts are prime examples of Conservatives not giving a shit about a "reasonable cost/benefit ratio" as long as someone else was paying the tab.

And as flaming liberal Ddrak said, society does benefit when everyone has basic health care.

Both parties have a set of dishonest argument tactics, whether it's "holding a gun to my head" or "look at the poor innocent child." In the case of Lurker's quote above, the parents in the hypothetical situation described are the problem, because they wait till the kid is critically ill then haul him into the ER, rather than taking him in to a primary-care physician four days earlier.

Kid suffers for four days then gets dragged into an overcrowded ER, because deadbeat parents are too cheap, then the treatment the kid gets costs 10x as much to the taxpayer as it would have if we'd caught it early, AND the poor kid has a worse clinical outcome.

We can agree the system is fucked up, all right. It's just that Liberals are seemingly incapable of examining the root causes of the problem. Does the kid suffer less if he knows we care about him REALLY hard? Or does he suffer less if we ensure he gets in to see a Family Medicine specialist four days BEFORE his appendix ruptures?

You must not have followed the flow of the discussion. The point of my example was that the parents didn't have health coverage and couldn't afford to see a primary-care physician. As a result they ended up at the emergency room and cost the taxpayer 10x as much. Now, it turns out Kulaf didn't care if it was an innocent kid or a gang banger, he only wants paying customers at the ER, but that's besides the point. As a society (not just liberals) we've decided that we do care.

Which leads us to your stirring case for reform and why health coverage should be extended to everyone. The puzzling thing for me is why you are attacking Liberals and saying we are incapable of examining the root cause of the problem. Liberals are the ones fighting for reform and universal coverage. Conservatives are the ones who have opposed reform and want to eliminate programs like SCHIP, guaranteeing more kids at the ER with a ruptured appendix.

Seems you are wagging your finger at the wrong crowd.

Welcome back! Hope you post more regularly!

[Partha]

Welcome back! Hope you post more regularly!

Well, as long as he posts not quite as BADLY as he used to. Heh.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Not going to debate the same idiocy on subprime again. Suffice it to say you are wrong and the poor did not drive the crisis. I posted plenty of proof, including a Republican Federal Reserve Governor summarizing a Fed Reserve study. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, even though the facts don't support it.

!

Seem like you just wanted to open up the debate to your comments...

Let me ask you this Lurker.. could anyopne recevie a mortgage without applying for one? Subprime or other? Where is the initial impetus? It begins when someone asks for a mortgage.

And Eido is right on the money about look where we are now.. the poor who shouldn't have been in those homes, are no longer in those homes. (And not just the poor either, anyone who over-extended themselves are in the same boat as the poor)

[Harlowe]

[Lurker]

I could explain again how and why the lenders were the impetus behind widespread use of subprime loans, and that they boasted in real time what they were doing and why... but good lord, Embar's post was so moronic maybe an eyeroll is the only fitting response.

So... QFE

[Harlowe]

Ddrak and I have both posted an excellent radio program on This American Life about it numerous times (Giant Pool of Money)....but it's like talking to Orly Taitz.

[Lurker]

[Harlowe]

I especially love Orly's recent Obama birth certificate from "Kenya" even though ....it was uhh Zanzibar back when he was born. Even Ann Coulter is saying birthers are cranks and she should know, previously she was one of the biggest cranks (though recently replaced by tea-baggers and birthers and people that listen to Glenn Beck long enough to become virtual domestic terrorists).

[Lurker]

Someone actually found the template used for the Orly Taitz forgery. That'll help her court case!

[Eidolon Faer]

Lurker...

Assigning blame is not a productive use of time. Yes, I realize that lenders were offering bad information to the po' folks. But it takes at least two to tango. Getting independent financial advice and reading the fine print are MINIMAL precautions for that kind of life decision.

Are you going to argue that the banks and/or the po' folks are better off after this mess, with trashed credit and no home on one side, and a trashed house and unrecoverable assets on the other?

Thought not.

My basic thesis is this:

If you really get down to brass tacks with a Conservative, you'll find that what really pisses most of them off is not being 'forced' to spend money. It's being 'forced' to spend money on an obviously bad deal.

Most conservatives recognize quality merchandise and are willing to pay to get it. And they hate buying cheap crap because that generally means they have to go buy another one tomorrow. It's money down the drain. And, unlike Government programs, you can tell a used Yugo salesman to take a hike.

We already have a national health care system. It's called Medicare. It's horrifyingly expensive, and has twisted the nation's health care system around itself in a number of unintended ways. The only people who are happy with the system are the bureaucrats who get paid to run it. Demonstrate that the plan Obama is offering will be measurably more efficient and beneficial, and you'll win a lot of conservative votes. But until you offer up a specific, detailed plan that meets these criteria, expect extreme skepticism.

Or consider education. Costs go up at many times the rate of inflation, yet test scores decline steadily. Conservatives understand the value of living in a literate, educated society. If they don't, send them on a tour of Mozambique. If the schools were DELIVERING students who could read, write, speak, do arithmetic, and function as productive members of such a literate society, we'd be more than willing to bear the (legitimate) costs.

[Lurker]

Assigning blame is not a productive use of time.

That's nice, but you were the one who assigned part of the blame to "idiots on the Left" who demanded homes for poor folks. I was merely pointing out that you are wrong. Assigning blame might not be productive, but understanding the cause of problems certainly is. The subprime crisis was not caused in any significant way by idiots on the left or po' folks. The banks created the market for the risky loans because they wanted to bolster their profits when traditional mortgages and refinances were declining. They boasted about it in real time, and they thought the loans carried no risk for the banks even if the recipient defaulted.

Sure, you could make a case that everyone should have had a lawyer review their loan documents and they were all ignorant fools for getting swindled by predatory lending. That doesn't change the fact that the banks were the ones who created the market in the first place.

Also, it wasn't just, or even mostly, 'po folks that got screwed by the predatory lending. It's a bit insulting and condescending of you to pretend it was.

We already have a national health care system. It's called Medicare. It's horrifyingly expensive, and has twisted the nation's health care system around itself in a number of unintended ways. The only people who are happy with the system are the bureaucrats who get paid to run it.

Ok... now you're just being ignorant. Medicare is cheaper than private insurance, has much higher satisfaction ratings with the people who receive it, and the costs have grown much slower in Medicare and Medicaid than in the private insurance market. Nothing you said about Medicare was correct. You should be embarrased.

Edit: It's also pretty revealing that you said "Most conservatives recognize quality merchandise and are willing to pay to get it." followed by a string of lies about Medicare. Nice self ownage.

[Harlowe]

That's all really a lot of wishful thinking. Truly. True conservative spenders may "recognize quality merchandise and are willing to pay to get it", but those "conservatives" do not exist in the political arena in either party, certainly not the GOP, and I don't see it in the Dems either. "Conservatives" as a political animal only exist in the social sense. Republicans can only claim social conservatism at this point. Which is not to say Democrats are the new conservatives, but I'm saying Fiscal Conservatives is not a label any party can claim. They both know how to carelessly waste our money on their pet projects.

It's come down to would you rather the pet project be trumped up war, military spending, and corporate welfare or since we've spent 8 years already doing that is it time to change our "D" student standings in diplomacy, education and healthcare.

[Lurker]

I can't argue with most of that.

I would add that at least the Democrats are trying to fund this reform and are making good faith arguments for the need.

The Republicans aren't even trying to make their arguments credible because they know their base isn't concerned with facts. If they can kill reform by lying about Medicare or the public option, or by telling people Dems want to euthanize old people, or by running astro-turf campaigns to shout down debate, they are more than fine with that. And it has nothing to do with recognizing quality merchandise and everything to do with defending the profits of the insurance companies over the interests of everyone else.

So you'll have to forgive a little feeling of moral superiority in the face of the never-ending stream of bullshit from the Right.

[Partha]

It's come down to would you rather the pet project be trumped up war, military spending, and corporate welfare or since we've spent 8 years already doing that is it time to change our "D" student standings in diplomacy, education and healthcare.

Shorter every Eido post dealing with these subjects: Yes to the former.

[Klast Brell]

Eidolon. It's great to see you back. I missed you here buddy. I haven't been following this thread, but saw your name in there and had to drop in to greet you. I hope you're sticking around. This board could use a little fresh perspective (Even if it is from the opposing team)

Some of you may know that Eidolon and I are friends out here in Minnesota. Because of where we live and the hours we work we hardly ever get to see each other any more.

[Partha]

This board could use a little fresh perspective (Even if it is from the opposing team)

He may be your friend, Klast, but there's nothing 'fresh' about that perspective.

[Eidolon Faer]

That's nice, but you were the one who assigned part of the blame to "idiots on the Left" who demanded homes for poor folks. I was merely pointing out that you are wrong. Assigning blame might not be productive, but understanding the cause of problems certainly is.

If you re-read the post, I *also* assigned blame to idiots on the right, and specifically at the lending institutions. Something about "If we don't cut off our heads, other banks will get the business."

And, if you're TRULY interested in finding the causes of the problem instead of simply finding a scapegoat so you can move on with your agenda, it is important to note that if certain idiots on the left hadn't relaxed the rules under which Fannie May and Freddie Mac operate, the loans could not have been issued no matter what the po' folks OR the evil bankers wanted. No matter how many times the bankers twirled their moustaches and said "Bwahahahahaha!"

Finally, I put at least SOME portion of the blame for a person who gets swindled on the victim. If a deal seems too good to be true, it probably is. If you do not examine the offer carefully, you are a sucker. And if you're incompetent to evaluate the offer yourself, you find someone who is and get help. If you're going to make the case that the po' folks are innocent by reason of blithering idiocy, then the real root cause of the problem is our nations' High Schools, which allowed these people to graduate without the basic life skills necessary to operate in society.

...and they thought the loans carried no risk for the banks even if the recipient defaulted.

See "dishonest arguments from the Right" above.

Sure, you could make a case that everyone should have had a lawyer review their loan documents and they were all ignorant fools for getting swindled by predatory lending. That doesn't change the fact that the banks were the ones who created the market in the first place.

Thank you for acknowledging that I have a case. But one does not "create" a market. A market requires both Supply and Demand. (See, I took Econ 101 in High School) and there are (at least) two parties to every voluntary transaction. Three in this case. The lender, the borrower, and government regulators. ALL THREE of these parties share responsibility for the clusterfuck we've seen, and any effort to fix the situation without acknowledging the role EACH had to play in the problem is both fundamentally dishonest and certain to fail.

Ok... now you're just being ignorant. Medicare is cheaper than private insurance, has much higher satisfaction ratings with the people who receive it, and the costs have grown much slower in Medicare and Medicaid than in the private insurance market. Nothing you said about Medicare was correct. You should be embarrased.

Hmm, I must have hit a nerve.
If you want to hear something from someone who actually knows a little, instead of just spouting Party Line crap about Health Care Reform, take a look at this interview with the CEO of the Mayo Clinic.

Tell me, why are increasing numbers of doctors and hospitals turning Medicare patients away as a blanket policy? Why are so many seniors taking out supplemental insurance plans? Do you even understand how Diagnostic-Related Groups work? Do you understand why we have a glut of heart surgeons and a desperate shortage of Family Medicine practitioners?

Medicare has serious structural flaws. And because it is so huge a player in the market, every Health Care provider has to either adopt certain policies which make no sense unless you realize that they're a direct result of Medicare. If we're going to move forward and implement a new, even BIGGER program, we need to take an honest look at Medicare's virtues AND flaws, as well as how we can encourage responsible use of the system and discourage irresponsible use. Otherwise, again, the new program is going to fail.

And, unfortunately, if you're any indicator, I doubt we're going to see policymakers from the Left taking that honest look at the role of how the policies they create cause feedback effects. Or of how irresponsible patients exacerbate the cost problem; that would require educating voters instead of pandering to them. That would require policymakers deciding how they want the Health Care Provider system to operate and then painstakingly setting up the plan to encourage that.

"Don't worry, Mr. Democrat Voter. It's not YOUR fault that you didn't bother to actually READ the mortgage you signed. It's not your fault that your kid has a permanent condition that could have been avoided if only you'd gotten him to a doctor within a reasonable time-frame. Here's a nice cardboard DNC campaign sign you can live under while you wait for that supplemental insurance check."

[Eidolon Faer]

BTW.

In case you were wondering.

Health Care is an amazingly-complicated thing, and "reforming" it is going to be at least as complicated. And it's not something well-suited to soundbites and discussions on blogs or boards. At least, not this one. Simplistic rah-rah party-line rhetoric tends to piss me off.

When Dr. Cortese talks about "Quality" and "Paying for Quality" in health care, what he's talking about are a ton of weird little things that very few places currently do. As examples:

(1) Integrating care. This means a lot of things, but as one example: instead of each doctor keeping a file with the records HE has about you, the doctor has access to a record of all the treatments you're receiving from all the different specialists you're seeing. The reduction in bad drug interactions alone will be a huge benefit, but it will require an astonishing overhaul of the way EVERY hospital does business. And patient privacy still needs to be protected.

(2) One of the things Mayo does is, if you have a chronic condition like high blood pressure, or diabetes, or whatever, a nurse will call you every couple months to check in, follow up, answer any questions you have, and just maybe nag you a bit. They find it actually saves money in the long run.

Does this give you any inkling of just how complicated a process this is going to be if we want to do it right?

[Lurker]

You are the master of unintended irony, with your talk of "finding the causes of the problem instead of simply finding a scapegoat", "just spouting the Party Line", and "taking an honest look" at policies.

Here's your description of Medicare.

We already have a national health care system. It's called Medicare. It's horrifyingly expensive, and has twisted the nation's health care system around itself in a number of unintended ways. The only people who are happy with the system are the bureaucrats who get paid to run it.

Nothing you said there is true. You spouted dishonest Party line talking points in order to scapegoat Medicare.

Cost growth for Medicare is lower than private insurance. Customer satisfaction for Medicare, both for managed care and fee-for service, is much higher than private insurance. And yet you claimed the only people who are happy with Medicare are the bureaucrats.

Here's a challenge for you. Admit that the statement that "the only people who are happy with the system are the bureaucrats who get paid to run it" was either a lie or ignorance on your part.