"The Life of Julia" under Obama vs. under Romney.

[retromike22]

And this more than anything explains why I am a liberal and not a conservative.

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia

[pbrower2a]

I am man enough... to like this.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

lol

[memphis]

It's nice that they thought to personalize the issues. It would have been much more effective if they used actual people.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Most of this is possibly crap, but the health care thing is a real issue for me. If Romney's plan is just to repeal it with nothing to replace it with there's no way I'm voting for him.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

Most of this is possibly crap, but the health care thing is a real issue for me. If Romney's plan is just to repeal it with nothing to replace it with there's no way I'm voting for him.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Most of this is possibly crap, but the health care thing is a real issue for me. If Romney's plan is just to repeal it with nothing to replace it with there's no way I'm voting for him.

I'm talking about Obamacare. Where is the alternative plan?

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

http://www.gop.gov/indepth/pledge/healthcare

[Senator Snowstalker]

HURR DURR FREE MAWRKET!!!!111

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

HURR DURR FREE MAWRKET!!!!111

[greenforest32]

lol @ "Purchase Health Insurance across State Lines"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/selling_insurance_across_state.html

The big Republican idea to bring down health-care costs is to "let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines." Jon Chait has some commentary here, but I want to simplify a little bit.

Insurance is currently regulated by states. California, for instance, says all insurers have to cover treatments for lead poisoning, while other states let insurers decide whether to cover lead poisoning, and leaves lead poisoning coverage -- or its absence -- as a surprise for customers who find that they have lead poisoning. Here's a list (pdf) of which states mandate which treatments.

The result of this is that an Alabama plan can't be sold in, say, Oregon, because the Alabama plan doesn't conform to Oregon's regulations. A lot of liberals want that to change: It makes more sense, they say, for insurance to be regulated by the federal government. That way the product is standard across all the states.

Conservatives want the opposite: They want insurers to be able to cluster in one state, follow that state's regulations and sell the product to everyone in the country. In practice, that means we will have a single national insurance standard. But that standard will be decided by South Dakota. Or, if South Dakota doesn't give the insurers the freedom they want, it'll be decided by Wyoming. Or whoever.

This is exactly what happened in the credit card industry, which is regulated in accordance with conservative wishes. In 1980, Bill Janklow, the governor of South Dakota, made a deal with Citibank: If Citibank would move its credit card business to South Dakota, the governor would literally let Citibank write South Dakota's credit card regulations. You can read Janklow's recollections of the pact here[1].

Citibank wrote an absurdly pro-credit card law, the legislature passed it, and soon all the credit card companies were heading to South Dakota. And that's exactly what would happen with health-care insurance. The industry would put its money into buying the legislature of a small, conservative, economically depressed state. The deal would be simple: Let us write the regulations and we'll bring thousands of jobs and lots of tax dollars to you. Someone will take it. The result will be an uncommonly tiny legislature in an uncommonly small state that answers to an uncommonly conservative electorate that will decide what insurance will look like for the rest of the nation.

As it happens, the Congressional Budget Office looked at a bill along these lines back in 2005. They found that the legislation wouldn't change the number of the uninsured and would save the federal government about $12 billion between 2007 and 2015. That is to say, it would do very little in the aggregate.

[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/more/rise.html

[Senator Sbane]

http://www.gop.gov/indepth/pledge/healthcare

Nothing in there to ensure coverage for everybody. Don't get me wrong, there are some very good ideas in there but it's not comprehensive. We need to agree that every American should have health coverage if they desire it, and I don't see the Republicans propose that. The means are not that important to me and I am open to listening to both sides, but we must agree on the end.

[Purch]

If I was a republican I'd be asking "who the hell is Julia...And why am I paying for her".

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

If I was a republican I'd be asking "who the hell is Julia...And why am I paying for her".

And if I were responding to you I'd be saying "Julia pays her taxes just like you, so that you too can get Social Security and Medicare and all that good stuff. Everyone pays for everyone else."

[Purch]

If I was a republican I'd be asking "who the hell is Julia...And why am I paying for her".

And if I were responding to you I'd be saying "Julia pays her taxes just like you, so that you too can get Social Security and Medicare and all that good stuff. Everyone pays for everyone else."

And then I'd ask you if you actually think that Social Security and Medicare are sustainable in the long run as they are now.

[pbrower2a]

Most of this is possibly crap, but the health care thing is a real issue for me. If Romney's plan is just to repeal it with nothing to replace it with there's no way I'm voting for him.

I'm talking about Obamacare. Where is the alternative plan?

Profits above all else, and when you run out of money or government aid you die.

[Vosem]

Most of this is possibly crap, but the health care thing is a real issue for me. If Romney's plan is just to repeal it with nothing to replace it with there's no way I'm voting for him.

I'm talking about Obamacare. Where is the alternative plan?

Profits first, profits only, and when you run out of money or government aid you die.

No, of course not. You'll still be treated, after you're treated you'll just actually have to pay for treatment. A hospital is obliged to treat everybody; but in a fair world, like the pre-Obamacare world (which was not perfect but still good) everybody would afterwards have to pay for said treatment.

If I was a republican I'd be asking "who the hell is Julia...And why am I paying for her".

And if I were responding to you I'd be saying "Julia pays her taxes just like you, so that you too can get Social Security and Medicare and all that good stuff. Everyone pays for everyone else."

But, see, I don't want to pay for Julia. I want to pay for myself, for my family, and for no one else. I don't want to be dependent on the government, particularly on a system like this that is bound to become inefficient and corrupt, and will only increase our debt and make the deficit worse. I don't want that, and I don't think most Americans do. It reeks of 'welfare state'.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

Krazen hasn't been banned yet for this trollrific bs?

[memphis]

No, of course not. You'll still be treated, after you're treated you'll just actually have to pay for treatment. A hospital is obliged to treat everybody; but in a fair world, like the pre-Obamacare world (which was not perfect but still good) everybody would afterwards have to pay for said treatment.

Except they don't. Millions of people receive (extremely costly) treatment at hospitals and never pay their bills. So, we're already paying for them. Which is why the individual mandate was originally a conservative idea.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

No, of course not. You'll still be treated, after you're treated you'll just actually have to pay for treatment. A hospital is obliged to treat everybody; but in a fair world, like the pre-Obamacare world (which was not perfect but still good) everybody would afterwards have to pay for said treatment.

Except they don't. Millions of people receive (extremely costly) treatment at hospitals and never pay their bills. So, we're already paying for them. Which is why the individual mandate was originally a conservative idea.

Then don't force everyone to pay into a program because a select few refuse to pay their bills. We all don't face tax evasion charges just because John Q. Smith doesn't pay his taxes.

[krazen1211]

If I was a republican I'd be asking "who the hell is Julia...And why am I paying for her".

And if I were responding to you I'd be saying "Julia pays her taxes just like you, so that you too can get Social Security and Medicare and all that good stuff. Everyone pays for everyone else."

The life of Julia bears no mention of Julia paying tax at any age.

[bore]

If I was a republican I'd be asking "who the hell is Julia...And why am I paying for her".

And if I were responding to you I'd be saying "Julia pays her taxes just like you, so that you too can get Social Security and Medicare and all that good stuff. Everyone pays for everyone else."

The life of Julia bears no mention of Julia paying tax at any age.

Under President Obama: Julia retires. After years of contributing to Social Security, she receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably, without worrying that she'll run out of savings. This allows her to volunteer at a community garden.

[memphis]

No, of course not. You'll still be treated, after you're treated you'll just actually have to pay for treatment. A hospital is obliged to treat everybody; but in a fair world, like the pre-Obamacare world (which was not perfect but still good) everybody would afterwards have to pay for said treatment.

Except they don't. Millions of people receive (extremely costly) treatment at hospitals and never pay their bills. So, we're already paying for them. Which is why the individual mandate was originally a conservative idea.

Then don't force everyone to pay into a program because a select few refuse to pay their bills. We all don't face tax evasion charges just because John Q. Smith doesn't pay his taxes.

I don't think you're following me. Hospitals already have to compensate for people who don't pay. Medical bills are higher because of the indigent.

[wormyguy]

lol @ "Purchase Health Insurance across State Lines"

This is extremely amusing in that it's essentially an implicit admission that absolutely nobody, when push comes to shove, is willing to pay more for more regulated insurance (or credit cards).  Nobody finds the value of increased regulations higher than the value of whatever money they save on their health insurance or their credit cards.  It's therefore an admission that liberal policies on health insurance, credit cards etc. are inferior.

Similar, actually, to how confidently asserting that homosexuality is a choice is an implicit admission of one's own homosexual desires.

[pbrower2a]

If I was a republican I'd be asking "who the hell is Julia...And why am I paying for her".

And if I were responding to you I'd be saying "Julia pays her taxes just like you, so that you too can get Social Security and Medicare and all that good stuff. Everyone pays for everyone else."

The life of Julia bears no mention of Julia paying tax at any age.

She is making a solid income, so you can assume that she is paying federal income taxes and state sales or income taxes.