When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
145 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cary
14 years ago
Senator Harkin is spot on.
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: We don’t entirely disagree. I kinda wish you were there. Too much of this is political posturing.
@Cary: The President specifically asked to start the discussion with the things they agreed on, and the only Republican to do so thus far was Senator Coburn, who had some great things to say. The rest simply don’t seem interested in working the issue out at all.
I may have missed earlier comments, but the first two comments I saw were Alexander (following Obama), followed by Pelosi.
Alexander went thru a terrific start list of viable incremental options that did not put demands on the taxpayers and would reduce the costs to the medical provider… thereby making the product of healthcare cheaper to the end user, the patient. He ended by plainly stating that the day was a waste of time unless Pelosi/Reid/Obama ceased their attempts to use reconciliation as a desperate measure to pass. This is not an appropriate legislative construct to use budget reconciliation… especially when you consider the serious fiscal damage it will DO to the budget.
Pelosi started with the usual eat-your-heart-out private story or so, then immediately stated that the American people “don’t have time” to start over. Really? We “don’t have time” to consider the smartest way not to tank the US economy and health system?
Pelosi drew the line in the sand from the onset, and the GOP is doing very well in letting the Dems prove themselves to be unrelenting, arrogant partisans.
This is a PR campaign… actually, you might want to call it a long group debate, not unlike campaign debates. Clearly Obama and the Dems thought they could appeal to emotions with parroted rhetoric vs fiscal realities.
And clearly, that is not working….
Go GOP. You’re doing far better than I anticipated. And I am pleasantly surprised.
Cary
14 years ago
As Senator Rockefeller just pointed out, healthy people get health insurance today because they may need it tomorrow. The same reason you legally must have car insurance.
…healthy people get health insurance today because they may need it tomorrow. The same reason you legally must have car insurance.
Ummm….No. That is not why you must legally have car insurance.
You must legally have car insurance for one reason, possibly two:
1) Car insurance is to protect the person/property that you may collide with or otherwise damage.
2) Car insurance is to protect the financial interest of a lien holder on the vehicle in question, just as homeowners’ insurance is required to protect the person who holds the mortgage papers. (A property [home/real estate] that is paid off is not required to be insured against loss/theft because their is no third party financial interest which much be protected.)
Beat me to the auto insurance v health insurance mandates difference, Aye. I will only add that auto insurance is a choice… don’t drive or no car, and no insurance needed.
As far as purchasing today for tomorrow’s use, I have two things to say:
1: Been there, done that. And so are you, Cary. You are paying… supposedly for tomorrow… with every paycheck and your Medicare/SS taxes. I’ve been paying in for over four decades for insurance I cannot have. No one in Congress is keeping that money absconded from me – either Medicare or SS – tucked away in a trust box with my name on it. They’ve been robbing it to pay “Paul”.
2: One’s choice of insurance coverage should cater to one’s overall health and lifestyle. When you’re young, and an avid sports enthusiast, you’re most apt to have broken bones, etc. The usual culprits of flu, colds, etc are also somewhat predictable and certainly don’t warrant ER premium costs for care. This is where 24/7/365 inexpensive clinics should come into play. Catastropic insurance or ailments that traditionally happen with age is another tier.
The government shouldn’t be forcing unneeded coverage from the onset. But they want to for the reasons I outlined above… they want revenue to cover rising costs while ignoring everything that contributes to those costs rising. I believe their should be a private tier choice.
A tax credit/exempt medical account for preventive care and check up visits to doctors. Also, doctors should be able to negotate a flat fee for this, outside of any added paperwork/insurance costs burdening his overhead.
A low tier for the lesser traumatic needs – accidents, broken bones, etc
Another add on for medication heavy ailments, like diabetes
A catastrophic tier for the long term expensive care such as heart procedures, cancers.
The Insurance Exchange needs to be restructed. Rather like a lending tree portal for competitive private plans that work from state to state. The States can offer another portal for the private companies that want to compete for state riders, covering the extras each state mandates. This makes the base cost for the common highly cost effective because of competition, and only leaves the problems of state riders making costs different interstate.
And most definitely, wealthier seniors should be able to opt completely out of Medicare for full private coverage, without being penalized for their social security retirement benefits. This lessens the demand on the system.
As a person who formerly lived in LA, I’m a bit surprised that you argue that you have a choice whether to drive or not. My buddy there, who works a full time job and auditions daily, as well as travels to class, simply doesn’t have the time to rely on LA’s public transportation, where it can take a half a day to get from point a to point b. Not really a choice there. Same with Houston, Richmond, and most of the US. My situation in NYC is actually quite unique.
Furthermore, a person’s health does affect the people around them. The employers who have to hire a temp, AND still pay sick days to their regular employee.. the person who gets sick because someone who can’t afford to miss work or see a doctor came to work sick … and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Cary, I realize that some cities with urban sprawl are not as public transportation friendly as others. However LA does, indeed, offer public transportation. If you friend didn’t want to take the time to use it for time constraints, that is a choice. He/she was not mandated to purchase a car and insurance. Did so by choice. And BTW, living in LA for 17 years, I can say there are few instances where public transportation takes half the day. Or else they haven’t a clue on how to use a bus schedule…
There are also lesser expensive transportation options, i.e. m’cycle. Considerably cheaper in insurance. But one has to be willing to ride year round. I did that in Florida for a couple of years… all weather, all times of day. Takes a hearty soul. But again… choice.
And how about carpooling?
Furthermore, a person’s health does affect the people around them. The employers who have to hire a temp, AND still pay sick days to their regular employee.. the person who gets sick because someone who can’t afford to miss work or see a doctor came to work sick … and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Walnuts at an apple festival, Cary. Car insurance is liability for those you injure, with a minimal of medical for the insured. Mandated health insurance covers you only.. it does not have other beneficiaries, such as the employers against costs of temps, etc. I’m sorry to say there is not a lick of logic in that argument. The only “public burden” are these…
* The uninsured, racking up bills using expensive ER because there are few 24/7/365 clinics for the same care at a less expensive rate (minus trauma equipment and wider scope of services). Even this is only about $60-70 bil annually.
* Medicare, because a ponzi scheme… illegal in the private sector… is not a business model that has ever worked.
* Illegals, getting state benefits without contributing to the tax revenue system
Again, remember the hornets nest is primarily the cost for medical facilities and doctors to operate and still meet their bottom line. Combined with the cost shifting of underpayment for government single payer systems to overcharging the privately insured. Keep your eyes focused on the goal posts.
But it’s nice you recognize that the burden of anyone’s health insurance is carried mightily by the employer, and that this O’healthcare wishes to increase that burden.
Cary
14 years ago
Durbin just said that if any senator actually thinks that what they already receive as Federal employees is too socialist for the rest of America, they should opt out of it. Bullseye.
My buddy there, who works a full time job and auditions daily, as well as travels to class, simply doesn’t have the time to rely on LA’s public transportation, where it can take a half a day to get from point a to point b. Not really a choice there. Same with Houston, Richmond, and most of the US.
Is your buddy mandated by the gov’t to do any of those things?
Is he being forced or compelled by forces that he has very little or no control over to do any of those things?
I would venture to say that the answer to both of those questions is “NO” thus your buddy has the freedom of choice to own a vehicle or not.
Yes, a vehicle may be a necessity or even a convenience to support the lifestyle choices[there’s that word again] that he has made but the fact remains that those choices are the concrete exercise of his liberty and freedom.
Furthermore, a person’s health does affect the people around them. The employers who have to hire a temp, AND still pay sick days to their regular employee.
In the vast majority of cases an employee who enjoys sick pay will also receive coverage under a health care plan as well because sick pay is generally a benefit that comes in a benefit package.
Even when they are not covered under a health plan a sick employee getting sick pay and being covered for by a temp will not change under any sort of insurance plan, whether private or public.
People get sick. People are out of work for illness. Some people, even those with the very best insurance, insist on coming to work, even when sick.
None of that will ever change regardless of insurance so I’m not sure what your point was there.
Cary
14 years ago
@Aye Chihuahua: And people with auto insurance still get into accidents and drive away… so I’m not sure what your point is there. Legalities? Law is what we’re discussing.
Durbin just said that if any senator actually thinks that what they already receive as Federal employees is too socialist for the rest of America, they should opt out of it. Bullseye.
My response to that would be that any CongressCritter who wants to foist this plan onto the American People should be mandated to be covered by it themselves (their families as well).
If ObamaCare is this fantastic, best thing to ever come around the bend, better than sliced bread and iced cream even….then why, oh why, oh why is Congress specifically excluding themselves from being covered?
If Congress really believes that a larger pool is a good thing….then they should add their 535 bodies, as well as the bodies of other Federal employees, to the pool to offset the costs.
If what they want to force upon us peasants is not good enough for them, then why in the hell should I accept it?
Cary
14 years ago
@Aye Chihuahua: #61 – now that I can’t argue with. So, which Republican Congressperson will file a bill that will ONLY offer catastrophic health coverage for members of senate and house?
And people with auto insurance still get into accidents and drive away…
Which is illegal in and of itself….
And the driver that they collide with carries a policy which covers for the hit and run / un-insured / under-insured driver. Those policies are generally standard, bulk type coverage where you get XYZ coverage when you get your insurance policy.
(If you want to talk specifics of what hit/run issues are all about, then I’m your guy. I can regale you with a tale of how a fella who had borrowed someone’s car pulled out in front of me…totaled my truck in the process…and then fled the scene. I’m an expert on how that works. Just ask me.)
Legalities? Law is what we’re discussing.
That’s right.
That’s exactly what we’re discussing and if you wish to restrict our conversation to those issues, then let’s do that.
In number 50 above, I queried you as to which specific portion of the US Constitution includes the Enumerated Powers necessary for the Congress to do what they are attempting to do here.
You want to speak specifically of legalities and law?
I’m curious as to your answer to the question.
Cary
14 years ago
And as Dodd is saying right now, if I am charged with a crime, and cannot afford a lawyer, the law will provide me with one. Why not the same with a doctor if I get sick? Another bullseye.
And as Dodd is saying right now, if I am charged with a crime, and cannot afford a lawyer, the law will provide me with one. Why not the same with a doctor if I get sick?
And if I get sick, I can go to any ER or hospital in the nation and get legally mandated health care whether I can afford it or not.
Bullseye indeed.
What was your point again?
Cary
14 years ago
@Aye Chihuahua: (If you want to talk specifics of what hit/run issues are all about, then I’m your guy. I can regale you with a tale of how a fella who had borrowed someone’s car pulled out in front of me…totaled my truck in the process…and then fled the scene. I’m an expert on how that works. Just ask me.)
Yes, I have personal experience as well. When a close relative was killed at 17 years old by a drunk driver who struck her from behind on her bike and tried to flee the scene. Even with an already suspended license for previous drunk driving, served no jail time, and got a slap on the wrist. I’m sure we could discuss our stories all day.
There are laws that should be enforced and there laws that should be passed. That’s my point.
You’re starting to get there, Cary. No, it is not cost effective to utilize an ER as a clinic. But then, what you fail to absorb is the cost of those using the ER as their free healthcare isn’t the huge bulk of the drain either.
Try to remember that reimbursment by govt/taxpayers vs the “cost” of treatment are two separate issues. And O’healthcare never addresses “cost”. They only continue to try and seize new revenue to more easily pay the rising costs.
Where am I missing communicating this fact to you? Truly baffled….
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: Actually my buddy does ride a motorcycle. He likes it because the insurance (which he still has to have) is cheaper, it gets him through traffic more easily, and the camaraderie with other bikers, which I’m sure you can attest to.
None of this negates my point that what you do affects other people, thus you should be able to be covered if something happens. The more people in the system, the less it costs. That’s why Barnes and Noble can sell books at a cheaper price than a small bookstore – they buy in volume.
Cary, I assure you that, after years of battling NHTSA and the feds on the “public burden” of helmet laws, you do not want to go there with me.
I will restate the base logistics for you. Health insurance does not reimburse employers for their burden for uninsured/illegals/ER use. Mandated health insurance STILL does not reimburse employers for any taxpayer costs.
You point still remains totally irrelevant and unclear. Anything I do… from playing TV or music too loud (in someone’s opinion) affects someone in my proximity. Where woud you like to draw the line?
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: I’m not sure that either of us has any misunderstanding about what the other is saying, we just simply philosophically disagree on certain points.
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: A big bulk of the drain = as copy/pasted from the legalreform twitter page:
AMA: Over 60% of liability claims against docs dropped, withdrawn or dismissed w/o payment but cost $22k to defend
AMA: Physicians found not negligent in over 90% of cases that go to trial but more than $110k/case spent defending
This is where both sides of isle are on the same page, and could probably get a good start at.
Cary, Now you are moving the goal posts to tort reform… something that O’healthcare doesn’t touch with a ten foot pole. Do you, as a quasi/moderate liberal, really want to move the discussion in that direction?
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: I don’t know about where you live, but where I live there are noise laws for after 11pm.
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: Not moving the posts, just bringing up another point that was indeed addressed and agreed upon in today’s summit.
Well, Cary, I suggest that… while I am no lawyer… I do have a better than the average bear knowledge of decible levels and their legitimate measurement. So they hire me for consultation on their legal battles.
And no… I’m in small town, rural areas, where noise levels are but a “drag pipe” dream. LOL Probably because chain saws and gun fire put m’cycle noise into perspective… and far away from personal bias.
And if I get sick, I can go to any ER or hospital in the nation and get legally mandated health care whether I can afford it or not.
Yeah, that’s real cost effective.
Ummm…have we moved to talking about cost effectiveness now?
Or are we still speaking of the legally mandated “safety net” concept in which offenders are granted attorneys at no cost with no likely hope of ever getting a dime of reimbursement?
That same legally mandated “safety net” concept has already been applied to the availability of ER services so I am not sure what your point is.
Cary, if you can’t be more clear on your support, I have to wonder if you have full comprehension of the base problem and fiscal repercussions of what is on the table now.
It’s not that I don’t understand the desperation of a “DO SOMETHING!” mentality. That is common amongst many. However there is sage “do something”, and very damaging “do something”.
If you don’t fully understand the repercussions of what you want as the end result, you should question, not blindly express support.
There are laws that should be enforced and there laws that should be passed. That’s my point.
Laws that are in direct conflict with the US Constitution and work to deprive the American People of their liberties and freedoms should not be passed.
I apologize that I am unable to be more clear as to all of the reasons I support health care reform.
It’s not a matter of you not being able to clearly express the reasons that you support health care reform. I understand that you want everyone to be mandated to have insurance coverage.
I understand that perfectly so it’s not a matter of clarity at all. It’s a matter of every argument that you put forth being weak or full of holes.
You presented the faulty comparison of auto insurance and health insurance…that argument ran out of gas.
You presented Durbin’s remarks as a bullseye…it was promptly shot down.
You presented Dodd’s remarks as another bullseye…it was promptly shot full of holes as well.
Freedom and liberty and the US Constitution will trump pretty much any argument in favor of the proposals currently in consideration by Congress.
I’m not going to sit here and tell you that there aren’t things that can be done to improve the US health insurance market, and on the pages here at FA there have been hundreds of posts in which stellar proposals have been laid out.
I will tell you, however, that the overwhelming bulk of those proposals (perhaps all), including those that I would like to see happen, include the complete removal or a greatly diminished presence of the gov’t at both the state and federal level.
The great majority of factors that have led us to where we are today are directly related to gov’t tinkering and manipulation of what should be a free market system.
Let the free markets work and function as they should and the health insurance market will rebound and resolve itself.
Cary
14 years ago
I was actually throwing in the towel and letting you guys have the last word – it is your blog. But I will end with this point: Freedom and Liberty does not mean that individuals or industries can run out and do whatever they want. That’s why we have laws. When industries get out of hand, as the insurance industry is, we need laws to prevent them from taking advantage of individuals, as it is quite clear that they are doing now. Right now, the health insurance industry is more about industry profit than it is about health. I can’t see anything other than law changing that. Certainly not ethics.
Cary, that’s one cowardly way out, guy. You disappoint me. That’s a “whatever…” response because you are factually tongue tied. Demerits to you, guy. You suggest we were radical in our debate, and unanswerable because of that extremism.
I repeat… chintzy way out, and very disappointing.
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: No, Mata … I’ve long held the belief that the conservatives should have the last word on a conservative blog, and have said so outright, even to members on my own side. I don’t think at all that you’re being radical in your debate – both our positions are quite common. I just don’t see this going productively any further. We know where each is coming from, and simply disagree. I’m okay with that, are you? Hopefully, we do see some progress come forth from today, but only time will tell. Thanks for a good discussion.
@Cary: If you don’t see it “productively” going further, it’s because you’re not adding anything “productively” to the debate.
I will again reinterate.. we are all on the same page when it comes to no one wants to see those genuinely in trouble without options. But we are not willing to jeopardize those that bail out the “genuinely in trouble” by fiscally stupid legislation.
You are defending your point emotionally, but you are not defending your point intellectually. And therein lies the value of a smart “vote”, guy. No one questions your end intent. We merely question your analyses abilities.
And to say, paraphrased, “it’s a conservative blog, so I’ll give you the last word” BS/crap is the ultimate cop out. And very unworthy of the Cary we know and actually respect.
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: Okay, Mata – you’re right, I am emotional about this topic. For me, there is no other domestic issue more important than this one that we are facing today.
I’m glad that we are on the same page in the areas we are, and that we respect each other in spite of our disagreements. However, you have already stated that you’d like to see this bill killed altogether. I want to see a way to make it work. That is a very fundamental difference we have that I’m not sure we can overcome in a single discussion.
You have stated before, regarding the economy, that we should let it fix itself. I lean more towards in agreement with you on that issue (I think it’s the most poorly handled issue of all by this administration) than I do in this one. Do you really think that the insurance industry is simply going to fix itself without regulation laws being passed? How about the pharmaceutical industry? We deregulated Wall Street, and look what happened. These industries do what they want for their own best interest, and nothing less than a change in law is going to stop them. No solution is going to be perfect, but the system isn’t working as it is, and it’s not going to fix itself. It’s just not.
Obama asked the Republicans to present any ideas they had, if they had better ones. They did so, and their ideas were incorporated. But it seems to me, and just about everyone on my side of the political isle, that the leaders on your side just want to see this fail altogether, not for practical purposes but for political ones. I’m not saying that Conservatives such as you, Mata, or Aye, aren’t sincere or don’t want to find a solution, I’m saying that the leaders on your side seem unwilling to budge no matter what is presented. Emotions? Heck yeah, that makes me angry. Meanwhile, people are dying. Up to 1000 per week because they don’t have health insurance.
@Cary: I’m glad that we are on the same page in the areas we are, and that we respect each other in spite of our disagreements. However, you have already stated that you’d like to see this bill killed altogether. I want to see a way to make it work. That is a very fundamental difference we have that I’m not sure we can overcome in a single discussion.
That is because of the all or nothing bill construction, Cary. Would you accept a bill as written that benetiffted you, but destroyed your sister and brother… or the nation… in the process? This is what you are asking the GOP to blindly accept. ala You like 10% of it,. why not pass it?
Now that we have, assumed, consensus in killing the existing, overreaching bill, let’s advance.
Do you really think that the insurance industry is simply going to fix itself without regulation laws being passed? How about the pharmaceutical industry? We deregulated Wall Street, and look what happened. These industries do what they want for their own best interest, and nothing less than a change in law is going to stop them.
Let’s go back to the original argument, Cary. The insurance industry makes 2-3% profit. You do a broadway play where you make $300 nightly. With a 2-3% margin, it costs you $291 to appear in that play.
How long can you survive?
This is what you are demanding of the insurance industry.
As far as Pharma.. why not talk to Obama, who made a back room deal for support? All I can say is, drugs that have been around as long as they have shouldn’t cost the price they do. I had a tetenus shot recently. Cost $100, without the office visit. $50 for the tiny vial. $50 for the lady who administered it in 2-3 seconds. Is that accurate?
You think this is about “regulation” or “deregulation”? Straw man words. Wall St. has always been regulated. It also have oversight, which has been enforced whenever Congress feels like using it, based on campaign donations (oh, BTW… weighted quite heavily in the favor of Dems there…)
Simple worlds. Massive misunderstanding as to their real enforcement and repercussions. Skip the soundbytes, and get into specifics, Cary. What is it you want to know… without assiging blanket, fantasy blame via talking points?
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: Okay, tell me what YOU, Mata, think the answers are to the problems we agree are present are?
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: I’m also getting the impression, Mata, that somehow you think I’m more informed about issues which I agree with on, than those on which I don’t. I hope my impression here isn’t accurate, for I’d hope that we could simply disagree based on different points of view.
@Cary: I’m glad that we are on the same page in the areas we are, and that we respect each other in spite of our disagreements. However, you have already stated that you’d like to see this bill killed altogether. I want to see a way to make it work. That is a very fundamental difference we have that I’m not sure we can overcome in a single discussion.
Cary, you and I can agree we want to build a home, but differ in the construction materials… ala you want to use cardboard for exterior walls, and I want to use 3/4″ sheet pressure treated plywood with sheeting and appropriate siding for the environment.
Do we both want see the home built? Of course. Will the home I want to built be reasonably sustainable over time time compared to yours? Again, of course. This is where our differences lie.
Now we come to why I want to see the bill killed. No compromise from me here. Because if you ask me, will I accept a house with granite counters if it’s built with cardboard walls? The answer is no. This is the Dem bill with the minor “compromises” in it’s entirety. It is useless because the basic construction destroys any miniscule bit of “compromise” that is present.
Start over. Start over addressing the “hornets nest” problem, and not restructuring the health care system. And don’t do it all at once..
If your car had problems, and it could be one of three ID’d problems – each at great expense – would you authorize everything being done and see if it worked? Or would you spend address first the most likely problem at lesser expense, and see the result?
There’s a rule when you are troubleshooting problems. Do one at a time, so you know if that was the problem, and the expense was more reasonable and frugal. Embark at all at one time and you never know what the problem was, or if you created more problems with the interaction of the cures.
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: Ah, but Mata…. if I need shelter, and couldn’t afford to build a home, I’d could pitch a tent and still have a roof over my head. Sure, it’s not the greatest condition to live under, but it’s better than going totally homeless. Under your analogy, that’s your proposal. Go homeless until we can afford a house. We’ll get rained on before we get there.
Mata Musing: Corrected, Aye… it’s grabbing the URL of the “arrow” as opposed to the “number” of the post. A mouse over error in the copy/paste command. Thanks for the heads up. Mata
@Cary: Ah, but Mata…. if I need shelter, and couldn’t afford to build a home, I’d could pitch a tent and still have a roof over my head. Sure, it’s not the greatest condition to live under, but it’s better than going totally homeless.
Only a pure city boy could utter such nonsense, Cary… LOL. Truly, I don’t want to be snippy, but if you think you can sustain your act with a pitched tent, you have a long way to go in learning about sustaining life without cell phones, grocery stores, clothing stores and/or “wardrobe”, and water sources.
Frankly, I like you too much to see you learn your lesson the hard way. But I assure you, a tent is not all you need to live.
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: LOL – believe it or not, this city boy does indeed get out of the city quite often. I’ve been camping on several regular occasions, and I’m certainly not naive as to how to survive without modern commodities. Heck, I can even ride a horse! Go figure.
And who said you can’t go to a grocery store or any other store if you don’t live in a house? I was simply answering your analogy.
And grin right back at you at your response, Cary. So you assume you can “survive” as long as your tent is within a horseback ride to the nearest grocery store???
I’m speaking of self sustainable property.. where what you do for a living is simply waking up each day to make sure you have food on the table and clothes on your back. This means having fresh water (adept at drilling a well with potable water?), making sure human waste for a toilet/outhouse is sufficient distance away from your drinking water source, growing/raising/slaughtering your own food source, and raising/cultivating materials for the clothing on your back.
This is different than “squatting” somewhere within a grocery store’s ride, guy. We’re not talking “urban camper”, ya know…
Cary
14 years ago
@MataHarley: Point taken, Mata. But my rebuttal to your analogy wasn’t about WHERE one could pitch a tent, it was about providing oneself shelter in lieu of a house.
But frankly, your way of life sounds quite refreshing and far more healthy than what I deal with everyday. I’d welcome it, at least for a while.
But Cary, I didn’t make an analogy to surviving based on whether one could pitch a tent. It was about whether building a house with flimsy walls and granite counter finishing quality being wise “construction” legislatively… ala “pass the health care bill” in it’s current form.
To make it more abundantly clear, I wouldn’t care the current O’healthcare had everything in it I wanted,if it included a public option/single payer clause that lead to the demise of a private coverage system. That is still a “cardboard wall” home that needs to be rejected, despite the “granite counter” interior finishing work. Thus my analogy. Perhaps I was not clear enough.
But when you’re ready, and hard core (or would that be hard “corpse”???) enough for off the grid living, let me know and I’ll help you find a place and resources to educate you. And when you’re ready to embark on that lifestlye, I’d recommend Skookum or Old Trooper as serious instructors in that lifestyle. A couple of guys I’d hang with any day of the week.
But I assure you, a “tent” as alternative shelter solves zip, nada nothing in the world of survival. Man does not live or die based on a canvas roof over his head daily. Nor does that quality of housing stand up to Mother Nature’s least vicious temper tantrum.
Cary
14 years ago
On a different topic for a sec, but relating to the open thread photo, have you guys seen this, it’s pretty awesome!
@MataHarley: Okay Mata, but the President asked the other party to bring more construction materials, and offers to construct with what they bring, but they still don’t want to build that house. So, in lieu of a tent, where should this city boy live?!
And if I ever decide to throw in the towel on my career, I would certainly be up for taking your offer. =) I’d probably actually live longer.
Let’s try again, Cary… The POTUS and Dems want to build a cardboard house, and tell you they’ll finish the interior with granite and hardwoods. We’ve all figured out that’s a losing propositon.
So now they are saying… let’s STILL build the cardboard walls and granite counter/hardwoods interior, but you bring some cedar lap board to cover the cardboard.
Yeah… that’s a structural inprovement…. NOT! LOL
If Obama and Pelosi/Reid stay in power much longer, the only ones of us that will live longer and happier will be those that have individual self sustainable farms in bargain/barter friendly neighborhoods doing the same. Urbanville? Will be the pits…..
Cary
14 years ago
I just now came across this editorial in the big bad liberal Washington Post. It’s pretty clear here that I don’t stand alone in my views. He even gives credit to the ideas of some Republicans, such as McCain and Coburn’s (I particularly like the good Dr’s ideas), but sums my point of view up pretty exactly in the last paragraph here. Perhaps he is more eloquent than I have been:
The President specifically asked to start the discussion with the things they agreed on, and the only Republican to do so thus far was Senator Coburn, who had some great things to say. The rest simply don’t seem interested in working the issue out at all.
Republicans divided up the points they wanted to present to avoid wasting what precious little time they expected to get with repetition. If …….the republicans entered Blair House with full knowledge that Obama was going to begin the discussion with “things we can agree on” that defense just might be reasonable. But, having viewed their prepared opening remarks, and the following Politico article, I sincerely doubt they were informed of Obama’s decision to begin that way.
An e-mail from a House Democratic leadership aide gives a sense of the party’s post-summit message.
“The president walked into a room filled with the entire House Republican Conference. There were no preconditions, his only request was that it be open to the press so that the American people could see the exchange,” the aide e-mailed. “He answered every question with a thoughtful, comprehensive response. He spoke for over an hour and discussed substantive policy issues.
IMHO, even if they had been informed, they did the right thing by trying to present their points, as we later saw their time was shaved off by constant interruption, chastising and bloviating by the President/moderator.
Because, what….have we here….more from the Politico:
After a brief period of consultation following the White House health reform summit, congressional Democrats plan to begin making the case next week for a massive, Democrats-only health care plan, party strategists told POLITICO.
A Democratic official said the six-hour summit was expected to “give a face to gridlock, in the form of House and Senate Republicans.”
Democrats plan to begin rhetorical, and perhaps legislative, steps toward the Democrats-only, or reconciliation, process early next week, the strategists said.
After the summit, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid planned to take the temperature of their caucuses.
“The point [of the summit] is to alter the political atmospherics, and it will take a day or two to sense if it succeeded,” the official said.
Senator Harkin is spot on.
@MataHarley: We don’t entirely disagree. I kinda wish you were there. Too much of this is political posturing.
I may have missed earlier comments, but the first two comments I saw were Alexander (following Obama), followed by Pelosi.
Alexander went thru a terrific start list of viable incremental options that did not put demands on the taxpayers and would reduce the costs to the medical provider… thereby making the product of healthcare cheaper to the end user, the patient. He ended by plainly stating that the day was a waste of time unless Pelosi/Reid/Obama ceased their attempts to use reconciliation as a desperate measure to pass. This is not an appropriate legislative construct to use budget reconciliation… especially when you consider the serious fiscal damage it will DO to the budget.
Pelosi started with the usual eat-your-heart-out private story or so, then immediately stated that the American people “don’t have time” to start over. Really? We “don’t have time” to consider the smartest way not to tank the US economy and health system?
Pelosi drew the line in the sand from the onset, and the GOP is doing very well in letting the Dems prove themselves to be unrelenting, arrogant partisans.
This is a PR campaign… actually, you might want to call it a long group debate, not unlike campaign debates. Clearly Obama and the Dems thought they could appeal to emotions with parroted rhetoric vs fiscal realities.
And clearly, that is not working….
Go GOP. You’re doing far better than I anticipated. And I am pleasantly surprised.
As Senator Rockefeller just pointed out, healthy people get health insurance today because they may need it tomorrow. The same reason you legally must have car insurance.
@Cary:
Ummm….No. That is not why you must legally have car insurance.
You must legally have car insurance for one reason, possibly two:
1) Car insurance is to protect the person/property that you may collide with or otherwise damage.
2) Car insurance is to protect the financial interest of a lien holder on the vehicle in question, just as homeowners’ insurance is required to protect the person who holds the mortgage papers. (A property [home/real estate] that is paid off is not required to be insured against loss/theft because their is no third party financial interest which much be protected.)
Beat me to the auto insurance v health insurance mandates difference, Aye. I will only add that auto insurance is a choice… don’t drive or no car, and no insurance needed.
As far as purchasing today for tomorrow’s use, I have two things to say:
1: Been there, done that. And so are you, Cary. You are paying… supposedly for tomorrow… with every paycheck and your Medicare/SS taxes. I’ve been paying in for over four decades for insurance I cannot have. No one in Congress is keeping that money absconded from me – either Medicare or SS – tucked away in a trust box with my name on it. They’ve been robbing it to pay “Paul”.
2: One’s choice of insurance coverage should cater to one’s overall health and lifestyle. When you’re young, and an avid sports enthusiast, you’re most apt to have broken bones, etc. The usual culprits of flu, colds, etc are also somewhat predictable and certainly don’t warrant ER premium costs for care. This is where 24/7/365 inexpensive clinics should come into play. Catastropic insurance or ailments that traditionally happen with age is another tier.
The government shouldn’t be forcing unneeded coverage from the onset. But they want to for the reasons I outlined above… they want revenue to cover rising costs while ignoring everything that contributes to those costs rising. I believe their should be a private tier choice.
A tax credit/exempt medical account for preventive care and check up visits to doctors. Also, doctors should be able to negotate a flat fee for this, outside of any added paperwork/insurance costs burdening his overhead.
A low tier for the lesser traumatic needs – accidents, broken bones, etc
Another add on for medication heavy ailments, like diabetes
A catastrophic tier for the long term expensive care such as heart procedures, cancers.
The Insurance Exchange needs to be restructed. Rather like a lending tree portal for competitive private plans that work from state to state. The States can offer another portal for the private companies that want to compete for state riders, covering the extras each state mandates. This makes the base cost for the common highly cost effective because of competition, and only leaves the problems of state riders making costs different interstate.
And most definitely, wealthier seniors should be able to opt completely out of Medicare for full private coverage, without being penalized for their social security retirement benefits. This lessens the demand on the system.
@MataHarley:
As a person who formerly lived in LA, I’m a bit surprised that you argue that you have a choice whether to drive or not. My buddy there, who works a full time job and auditions daily, as well as travels to class, simply doesn’t have the time to rely on LA’s public transportation, where it can take a half a day to get from point a to point b. Not really a choice there. Same with Houston, Richmond, and most of the US. My situation in NYC is actually quite unique.
Furthermore, a person’s health does affect the people around them. The employers who have to hire a temp, AND still pay sick days to their regular employee.. the person who gets sick because someone who can’t afford to miss work or see a doctor came to work sick … and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Cary, I realize that some cities with urban sprawl are not as public transportation friendly as others. However LA does, indeed, offer public transportation. If you friend didn’t want to take the time to use it for time constraints, that is a choice. He/she was not mandated to purchase a car and insurance. Did so by choice. And BTW, living in LA for 17 years, I can say there are few instances where public transportation takes half the day. Or else they haven’t a clue on how to use a bus schedule…
There are also lesser expensive transportation options, i.e. m’cycle. Considerably cheaper in insurance. But one has to be willing to ride year round. I did that in Florida for a couple of years… all weather, all times of day. Takes a hearty soul. But again… choice.
And how about carpooling?
Walnuts at an apple festival, Cary. Car insurance is liability for those you injure, with a minimal of medical for the insured. Mandated health insurance covers you only.. it does not have other beneficiaries, such as the employers against costs of temps, etc. I’m sorry to say there is not a lick of logic in that argument. The only “public burden” are these…
* The uninsured, racking up bills using expensive ER because there are few 24/7/365 clinics for the same care at a less expensive rate (minus trauma equipment and wider scope of services). Even this is only about $60-70 bil annually.
* Medicare, because a ponzi scheme… illegal in the private sector… is not a business model that has ever worked.
* Illegals, getting state benefits without contributing to the tax revenue system
Again, remember the hornets nest is primarily the cost for medical facilities and doctors to operate and still meet their bottom line. Combined with the cost shifting of underpayment for government single payer systems to overcharging the privately insured. Keep your eyes focused on the goal posts.
But it’s nice you recognize that the burden of anyone’s health insurance is carried mightily by the employer, and that this O’healthcare wishes to increase that burden.
Durbin just said that if any senator actually thinks that what they already receive as Federal employees is too socialist for the rest of America, they should opt out of it. Bullseye.
@Cary:
Is your buddy mandated by the gov’t to do any of those things?
Is he being forced or compelled by forces that he has very little or no control over to do any of those things?
I would venture to say that the answer to both of those questions is “NO” thus your buddy has the freedom of choice to own a vehicle or not.
Yes, a vehicle may be a necessity or even a convenience to support the lifestyle choices [there’s that word again] that he has made but the fact remains that those choices are the concrete exercise of his liberty and freedom.
In the vast majority of cases an employee who enjoys sick pay will also receive coverage under a health care plan as well because sick pay is generally a benefit that comes in a benefit package.
Even when they are not covered under a health plan a sick employee getting sick pay and being covered for by a temp will not change under any sort of insurance plan, whether private or public.
People get sick. People are out of work for illness. Some people, even those with the very best insurance, insist on coming to work, even when sick.
None of that will ever change regardless of insurance so I’m not sure what your point was there.
@Aye Chihuahua: And people with auto insurance still get into accidents and drive away… so I’m not sure what your point is there. Legalities? Law is what we’re discussing.
@Cary:
My response to that would be that any CongressCritter who wants to foist this plan onto the American People should be mandated to be covered by it themselves (their families as well).
If ObamaCare is this fantastic, best thing to ever come around the bend, better than sliced bread and iced cream even….then why, oh why, oh why is Congress specifically excluding themselves from being covered?
If Congress really believes that a larger pool is a good thing….then they should add their 535 bodies, as well as the bodies of other Federal employees, to the pool to offset the costs.
If what they want to force upon us peasants is not good enough for them, then why in the hell should I accept it?
@Aye Chihuahua: #61 – now that I can’t argue with. So, which Republican Congressperson will file a bill that will ONLY offer catastrophic health coverage for members of senate and house?
@Cary:
Which is illegal in and of itself….
And the driver that they collide with carries a policy which covers for the hit and run / un-insured / under-insured driver. Those policies are generally standard, bulk type coverage where you get XYZ coverage when you get your insurance policy.
(If you want to talk specifics of what hit/run issues are all about, then I’m your guy. I can regale you with a tale of how a fella who had borrowed someone’s car pulled out in front of me…totaled my truck in the process…and then fled the scene. I’m an expert on how that works. Just ask me.)
That’s right.
That’s exactly what we’re discussing and if you wish to restrict our conversation to those issues, then let’s do that.
In number 50 above, I queried you as to which specific portion of the US Constitution includes the Enumerated Powers necessary for the Congress to do what they are attempting to do here.
You want to speak specifically of legalities and law?
I’m curious as to your answer to the question.
And as Dodd is saying right now, if I am charged with a crime, and cannot afford a lawyer, the law will provide me with one. Why not the same with a doctor if I get sick? Another bullseye.
@Cary:
And if I get sick, I can go to any ER or hospital in the nation and get legally mandated health care whether I can afford it or not.
Bullseye indeed.
What was your point again?
@Aye Chihuahua: (If you want to talk specifics of what hit/run issues are all about, then I’m your guy. I can regale you with a tale of how a fella who had borrowed someone’s car pulled out in front of me…totaled my truck in the process…and then fled the scene. I’m an expert on how that works. Just ask me.)
Yes, I have personal experience as well. When a close relative was killed at 17 years old by a drunk driver who struck her from behind on her bike and tried to flee the scene. Even with an already suspended license for previous drunk driving, served no jail time, and got a slap on the wrist. I’m sure we could discuss our stories all day.
There are laws that should be enforced and there laws that should be passed. That’s my point.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Yeah, that’s real cost effective.
You’re starting to get there, Cary. No, it is not cost effective to utilize an ER as a clinic. But then, what you fail to absorb is the cost of those using the ER as their free healthcare isn’t the huge bulk of the drain either.
Try to remember that reimbursment by govt/taxpayers vs the “cost” of treatment are two separate issues. And O’healthcare never addresses “cost”. They only continue to try and seize new revenue to more easily pay the rising costs.
Where am I missing communicating this fact to you? Truly baffled….
@MataHarley: Actually my buddy does ride a motorcycle. He likes it because the insurance (which he still has to have) is cheaper, it gets him through traffic more easily, and the camaraderie with other bikers, which I’m sure you can attest to.
None of this negates my point that what you do affects other people, thus you should be able to be covered if something happens. The more people in the system, the less it costs. That’s why Barnes and Noble can sell books at a cheaper price than a small bookstore – they buy in volume.
Cary, I assure you that, after years of battling NHTSA and the feds on the “public burden” of helmet laws, you do not want to go there with me.
I will restate the base logistics for you. Health insurance does not reimburse employers for their burden for uninsured/illegals/ER use. Mandated health insurance STILL does not reimburse employers for any taxpayer costs.
You point still remains totally irrelevant and unclear. Anything I do… from playing TV or music too loud (in someone’s opinion) affects someone in my proximity. Where woud you like to draw the line?
@MataHarley: I’m not sure that either of us has any misunderstanding about what the other is saying, we just simply philosophically disagree on certain points.
@MataHarley: A big bulk of the drain = as copy/pasted from the legalreform twitter page:
AMA: Over 60% of liability claims against docs dropped, withdrawn or dismissed w/o payment but cost $22k to defend
AMA: Physicians found not negligent in over 90% of cases that go to trial but more than $110k/case spent defending
This is where both sides of isle are on the same page, and could probably get a good start at.
Cary, Now you are moving the goal posts to tort reform… something that O’healthcare doesn’t touch with a ten foot pole. Do you, as a quasi/moderate liberal, really want to move the discussion in that direction?
@MataHarley: I don’t know about where you live, but where I live there are noise laws for after 11pm.
@MataHarley: Not moving the posts, just bringing up another point that was indeed addressed and agreed upon in today’s summit.
Well, Cary, I suggest that… while I am no lawyer… I do have a better than the average bear knowledge of decible levels and their legitimate measurement. So they hire me for consultation on their legal battles.
And no… I’m in small town, rural areas, where noise levels are but a “drag pipe” dream. LOL Probably because chain saws and gun fire put m’cycle noise into perspective… and far away from personal bias.
@Cary:
Ummm…have we moved to talking about cost effectiveness now?
Or are we still speaking of the legally mandated “safety net” concept in which offenders are granted attorneys at no cost with no likely hope of ever getting a dime of reimbursement?
That same legally mandated “safety net” concept has already been applied to the availability of ER services so I am not sure what your point is.
@Aye Chihuahua:
I apologize that I am unable to be more clear as to all of the reasons I support health care reform.
Cary, if you can’t be more clear on your support, I have to wonder if you have full comprehension of the base problem and fiscal repercussions of what is on the table now.
It’s not that I don’t understand the desperation of a “DO SOMETHING!” mentality. That is common amongst many. However there is sage “do something”, and very damaging “do something”.
If you don’t fully understand the repercussions of what you want as the end result, you should question, not blindly express support.
@Cary:
Laws that are in direct conflict with the US Constitution and work to deprive the American People of their liberties and freedoms should not be passed.
That is my point.
@Cary:
It’s not a matter of you not being able to clearly express the reasons that you support health care reform. I understand that you want everyone to be mandated to have insurance coverage.
I understand that perfectly so it’s not a matter of clarity at all. It’s a matter of every argument that you put forth being weak or full of holes.
You presented the faulty comparison of auto insurance and health insurance…that argument ran out of gas.
You presented Durbin’s remarks as a bullseye…it was promptly shot down.
You presented Dodd’s remarks as another bullseye…it was promptly shot full of holes as well.
Freedom and liberty and the US Constitution will trump pretty much any argument in favor of the proposals currently in consideration by Congress.
I’m not going to sit here and tell you that there aren’t things that can be done to improve the US health insurance market, and on the pages here at FA there have been hundreds of posts in which stellar proposals have been laid out.
I will tell you, however, that the overwhelming bulk of those proposals (perhaps all), including those that I would like to see happen, include the complete removal or a greatly diminished presence of the gov’t at both the state and federal level.
The great majority of factors that have led us to where we are today are directly related to gov’t tinkering and manipulation of what should be a free market system.
Let the free markets work and function as they should and the health insurance market will rebound and resolve itself.
I was actually throwing in the towel and letting you guys have the last word – it is your blog. But I will end with this point: Freedom and Liberty does not mean that individuals or industries can run out and do whatever they want. That’s why we have laws. When industries get out of hand, as the insurance industry is, we need laws to prevent them from taking advantage of individuals, as it is quite clear that they are doing now. Right now, the health insurance industry is more about industry profit than it is about health. I can’t see anything other than law changing that. Certainly not ethics.
Cary, that’s one cowardly way out, guy. You disappoint me. That’s a “whatever…” response because you are factually tongue tied. Demerits to you, guy. You suggest we were radical in our debate, and unanswerable because of that extremism.
I repeat… chintzy way out, and very disappointing.
@MataHarley: No, Mata … I’ve long held the belief that the conservatives should have the last word on a conservative blog, and have said so outright, even to members on my own side. I don’t think at all that you’re being radical in your debate – both our positions are quite common. I just don’t see this going productively any further. We know where each is coming from, and simply disagree. I’m okay with that, are you? Hopefully, we do see some progress come forth from today, but only time will tell. Thanks for a good discussion.
@Cary:
I, too, am disappointed that you would just toss in the towel and walk away.
I thought that we had a rather civil, informative, enjoyable discussion going here.
Senator Paul Ryan brings the rich, buttery, goodness.
Roll the tape:
h/t – The Right Scoop via Ace
@Aye Chihuahua:
I agree, and I thank you. I simply have nothing further to offer at this time. I look forward to continuing this sometime in the near future.
@Cary: If you don’t see it “productively” going further, it’s because you’re not adding anything “productively” to the debate.
I will again reinterate.. we are all on the same page when it comes to no one wants to see those genuinely in trouble without options. But we are not willing to jeopardize those that bail out the “genuinely in trouble” by fiscally stupid legislation.
You are defending your point emotionally, but you are not defending your point intellectually. And therein lies the value of a smart “vote”, guy. No one questions your end intent. We merely question your analyses abilities.
And to say, paraphrased, “it’s a conservative blog, so I’ll give you the last word” BS/crap is the ultimate cop out. And very unworthy of the Cary we know and actually respect.
@MataHarley: Okay, Mata – you’re right, I am emotional about this topic. For me, there is no other domestic issue more important than this one that we are facing today.
I’m glad that we are on the same page in the areas we are, and that we respect each other in spite of our disagreements. However, you have already stated that you’d like to see this bill killed altogether. I want to see a way to make it work. That is a very fundamental difference we have that I’m not sure we can overcome in a single discussion.
You have stated before, regarding the economy, that we should let it fix itself. I lean more towards in agreement with you on that issue (I think it’s the most poorly handled issue of all by this administration) than I do in this one. Do you really think that the insurance industry is simply going to fix itself without regulation laws being passed? How about the pharmaceutical industry? We deregulated Wall Street, and look what happened. These industries do what they want for their own best interest, and nothing less than a change in law is going to stop them. No solution is going to be perfect, but the system isn’t working as it is, and it’s not going to fix itself. It’s just not.
Obama asked the Republicans to present any ideas they had, if they had better ones. They did so, and their ideas were incorporated. But it seems to me, and just about everyone on my side of the political isle, that the leaders on your side just want to see this fail altogether, not for practical purposes but for political ones. I’m not saying that Conservatives such as you, Mata, or Aye, aren’t sincere or don’t want to find a solution, I’m saying that the leaders on your side seem unwilling to budge no matter what is presented. Emotions? Heck yeah, that makes me angry. Meanwhile, people are dying. Up to 1000 per week because they don’t have health insurance.
That is because of the all or nothing bill construction, Cary. Would you accept a bill as written that benetiffted you, but destroyed your sister and brother… or the nation… in the process? This is what you are asking the GOP to blindly accept. ala You like 10% of it,. why not pass it?
Now that we have, assumed, consensus in killing the existing, overreaching bill, let’s advance.
Let’s go back to the original argument, Cary. The insurance industry makes 2-3% profit. You do a broadway play where you make $300 nightly. With a 2-3% margin, it costs you $291 to appear in that play.
How long can you survive?
This is what you are demanding of the insurance industry.
As far as Pharma.. why not talk to Obama, who made a back room deal for support? All I can say is, drugs that have been around as long as they have shouldn’t cost the price they do. I had a tetenus shot recently. Cost $100, without the office visit. $50 for the tiny vial. $50 for the lady who administered it in 2-3 seconds. Is that accurate?
You think this is about “regulation” or “deregulation”? Straw man words. Wall St. has always been regulated. It also have oversight, which has been enforced whenever Congress feels like using it, based on campaign donations (oh, BTW… weighted quite heavily in the favor of Dems there…)
Simple worlds. Massive misunderstanding as to their real enforcement and repercussions. Skip the soundbytes, and get into specifics, Cary. What is it you want to know… without assiging blanket, fantasy blame via talking points?
@MataHarley: Okay, tell me what YOU, Mata, think the answers are to the problems we agree are present are?
@MataHarley: I’m also getting the impression, Mata, that somehow you think I’m more informed about issues which I agree with on, than those on which I don’t. I hope my impression here isn’t accurate, for I’d hope that we could simply disagree based on different points of view.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Do you really think it wouldn’t happen less if people had access to health care?
Cary, you and I can agree we want to build a home, but differ in the construction materials… ala you want to use cardboard for exterior walls, and I want to use 3/4″ sheet pressure treated plywood with sheeting and appropriate siding for the environment.
Do we both want see the home built? Of course. Will the home I want to built be reasonably sustainable over time time compared to yours? Again, of course. This is where our differences lie.
Now we come to why I want to see the bill killed. No compromise from me here. Because if you ask me, will I accept a house with granite counters if it’s built with cardboard walls? The answer is no. This is the Dem bill with the minor “compromises” in it’s entirety. It is useless because the basic construction destroys any miniscule bit of “compromise” that is present.
Start over. Start over addressing the “hornets nest” problem, and not restructuring the health care system. And don’t do it all at once..
If your car had problems, and it could be one of three ID’d problems – each at great expense – would you authorize everything being done and see if it worked? Or would you spend address first the most likely problem at lesser expense, and see the result?
There’s a rule when you are troubleshooting problems. Do one at a time, so you know if that was the problem, and the expense was more reasonable and frugal. Embark at all at one time and you never know what the problem was, or if you created more problems with the interaction of the cures.
@MataHarley: Ah, but Mata…. if I need shelter, and couldn’t afford to build a home, I’d could pitch a tent and still have a roof over my head. Sure, it’s not the greatest condition to live under, but it’s better than going totally homeless. Under your analogy, that’s your proposal. Go homeless until we can afford a house. We’ll get rained on before we get there.
@Cary, I’ve already been there, done that on this thread. Please revisit my basic, but not entire fiscal reform theory, in my previous comment.
@MataHarley:
Something is wrong with your linkage there.
Mata Musing: Corrected, Aye… it’s grabbing the URL of the “arrow” as opposed to the “number” of the post. A mouse over error in the copy/paste command. Thanks for the heads up. Mata
@MataHarley:
Same problem here.
all cured at the same URL correction, Aye… thanks. MH
Only a pure city boy could utter such nonsense, Cary… LOL. Truly, I don’t want to be snippy, but if you think you can sustain your act with a pitched tent, you have a long way to go in learning about sustaining life without cell phones, grocery stores, clothing stores and/or “wardrobe”, and water sources.
Frankly, I like you too much to see you learn your lesson the hard way. But I assure you, a tent is not all you need to live.
@MataHarley: LOL – believe it or not, this city boy does indeed get out of the city quite often. I’ve been camping on several regular occasions, and I’m certainly not naive as to how to survive without modern commodities. Heck, I can even ride a horse! Go figure.
And who said you can’t go to a grocery store or any other store if you don’t live in a house? I was simply answering your analogy.
And grin right back at you at your response, Cary. So you assume you can “survive” as long as your tent is within a horseback ride to the nearest grocery store???
I’m speaking of self sustainable property.. where what you do for a living is simply waking up each day to make sure you have food on the table and clothes on your back. This means having fresh water (adept at drilling a well with potable water?), making sure human waste for a toilet/outhouse is sufficient distance away from your drinking water source, growing/raising/slaughtering your own food source, and raising/cultivating materials for the clothing on your back.
This is different than “squatting” somewhere within a grocery store’s ride, guy. We’re not talking “urban camper”, ya know…
@MataHarley: Point taken, Mata. But my rebuttal to your analogy wasn’t about WHERE one could pitch a tent, it was about providing oneself shelter in lieu of a house.
But frankly, your way of life sounds quite refreshing and far more healthy than what I deal with everyday. I’d welcome it, at least for a while.
But Cary, I didn’t make an analogy to surviving based on whether one could pitch a tent. It was about whether building a house with flimsy walls and granite counter finishing quality being wise “construction” legislatively… ala “pass the health care bill” in it’s current form.
To make it more abundantly clear, I wouldn’t care the current O’healthcare had everything in it I wanted,if it included a public option/single payer clause that lead to the demise of a private coverage system. That is still a “cardboard wall” home that needs to be rejected, despite the “granite counter” interior finishing work. Thus my analogy. Perhaps I was not clear enough.
But when you’re ready, and hard core (or would that be hard “corpse”???) enough for off the grid living, let me know and I’ll help you find a place and resources to educate you. And when you’re ready to embark on that lifestlye, I’d recommend Skookum or Old Trooper as serious instructors in that lifestyle. A couple of guys I’d hang with any day of the week.
But I assure you, a “tent” as alternative shelter solves zip, nada nothing in the world of survival. Man does not live or die based on a canvas roof over his head daily. Nor does that quality of housing stand up to Mother Nature’s least vicious temper tantrum.
On a different topic for a sec, but relating to the open thread photo, have you guys seen this, it’s pretty awesome!
http://gizmodo.com/5478787/the-most-accurate-highest-resolution-earth-view-to-date
@MataHarley: Okay Mata, but the President asked the other party to bring more construction materials, and offers to construct with what they bring, but they still don’t want to build that house. So, in lieu of a tent, where should this city boy live?!
And if I ever decide to throw in the towel on my career, I would certainly be up for taking your offer. =) I’d probably actually live longer.
Let’s try again, Cary… The POTUS and Dems want to build a cardboard house, and tell you they’ll finish the interior with granite and hardwoods. We’ve all figured out that’s a losing propositon.
So now they are saying… let’s STILL build the cardboard walls and granite counter/hardwoods interior, but you bring some cedar lap board to cover the cardboard.
Yeah… that’s a structural inprovement…. NOT! LOL
If Obama and Pelosi/Reid stay in power much longer, the only ones of us that will live longer and happier will be those that have individual self sustainable farms in bargain/barter friendly neighborhoods doing the same. Urbanville? Will be the pits…..
I just now came across this editorial in the big bad liberal Washington Post. It’s pretty clear here that I don’t stand alone in my views. He even gives credit to the ideas of some Republicans, such as McCain and Coburn’s (I particularly like the good Dr’s ideas), but sums my point of view up pretty exactly in the last paragraph here. Perhaps he is more eloquent than I have been:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022505948.html?hpid=topnews
@Cary:
Republicans divided up the points they wanted to present to avoid wasting what precious little time they expected to get with repetition. If …….the republicans entered Blair House with full knowledge that Obama was going to begin the discussion with “things we can agree on” that defense just might be reasonable. But, having viewed their prepared opening remarks, and the following Politico article, I sincerely doubt they were informed of Obama’s decision to begin that way.
IMHO, even if they had been informed, they did the right thing by trying to present their points, as we later saw their time was shaved off by constant interruption, chastising and bloviating by the President/moderator.
Because, what….have we here….more from the Politico:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33510.html#ixzz0geYvQRcH