John Fund on recent Democratic rhetoric

Apr 21, 2014 3:25:12 GMT pjohns1873 said:

From a National Review article by John Fund............

Of course the National Review is an ultra right-wing publication and we'd expect an opinion piece to reflect that.

The problem is that what Democrats are addressing is based in truth.

The GOP doesn't want Hispanic immigration and sure as hell doesn't want a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million "illegal" Hispanic immigrants already in the United States because 75% of Hispanics vote against Republicans.

Yes, many of the attacks by the far right against President Obama have been racially motivated and we've seen anti-black racial prejudice by Republicans rising from 71% in 2008 to 79% in 2012.

"Obamacare" is actually working as the percentage of uninsured dropped from about 20% to 15% across the board. The number of uninsured dropped down to the 13% level in the states that embraced it but only to about 17% in Republican states that opposed it. While I oppose many aspects of Obamacare the fact remains that it is actually working and if Republicans try to make it an issue in the fall they're going to lose on it. The Democrats were running away from Obamacare before the deadline on March 31st arrived but the late surge in enrollment plus the future projections has given them reason to "stand on their record" related to prior support for it.

Much of what the Republicans wanted to use as ammunition against the Democrats in the elections has gone South for them. They can't use Obamacare because it's working and they've offered nothing to replace it. They can't use Benghazi or the IRS because their attemtps to create a "scandal" out of these basically backfired. Even the projected deficits are down substantially from what was anticipated.

It will be interesting is all that I have to say. 

Apr 28, 2014 19:34:23 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Whereas National Review certainly leans to the right, the adjective, "ultra," appears designed to smeer it gratuitously. 

I believe that immigration reform will be addressed next year; but why should the GOP wish to divide its base by addressing it in 2014?  (Moreover, I firmly believe that illegals should have to go to the back of the line when applying for citizenship--and not be allowed to simply "jump the turnstile.")

To declare that almost four-fifths of Republicans are guilty of "anti-black racial prejudice" is nothing short of a calumny.

And to declare that a healthcare program is "working," while ignoring the facts--(1) a typical plan may have a deductible of $5,000, or even $10,000, before the carrier pays the first cent; (2) many people were kicked off their old plans (with which they were perfectly happy) and forced to purchase more expensive plans; and (3) because of the narrow networks, many people are desined to lose their doctors, their hospitals, or both under ObamaCare--is simply mind-boggling.

Yes, there will be some net winners among the net losers; those who never had any healthcare coverage previously, and who now enjoy subsidized coverage, are certainly among the net winners.

But most of these were probably going to vote Democratic (if at all), anyway... 

Correction: The National Review is a "right-wing" leaning publication and the "right-wing" fueled by the Tea Party Movement has become a political ideology of extremists.

Immigration reform was on the table in 2013, a non-election year, and Republicans refused to address it. All of the "chips" were on the table in 2013 and ignoring it simply made matters worse. Republicans didn't address immigration reform responsibly in 2013 so what on Earth would make people believe they'll address it responsibly in 2015?

There have been two studies on anti-black racial prejudice. In 2008 the study revealed that 71% of self-professed Republicans expressed explicit (not implicit) anti-black racial prejudice. A follow-up study in 2012 revealed that the explicit anti-black racial prejudice by Republicans had increased to 79%.  Both studies had a margin of error of 4%. Two independent studies where the secone reafffirms the findings from the first where even with the maximum margin of error is accounted for it would still represent that three out of four "Republicans" express explicit anti-black racial prejudice.

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/27/poll-black-prejudice-america/1662067/

If you disagree with these two studies then what percentage of Republicans do express explicit anti-black racial prejudice and upon what do you base your percentage?  

The "Obamacare" argument is false. Many routine medical services are provided with some costing nothing to the person. Most of the "millions" of people that lost their private insurance and then enrolled through the exhanges are actually paying less out of pocket and/or are receiving superior medical insurance coverage under Obamacare. There are only anecodtal cases of those that lost private insurance that are worse off than they were before if they signed up under Obamacare. The number of uninsured Americans has dropped from 20% to 15% in 2014 alone and it projected to go even lower in 2015 as opposed to rising which was projected without Obamacare......

....... and Republicans are still refusing to address an alternative to Obamacare so they really don't have anything to offer to the American People that would be better than Obamacare.

Yes, there are about 12 million "winners" under Obamacare in 2014 and there would have been millions more if "Republican States" had accepted the expansion of Medicaid that was fully funded by the Federal government for 2014.

Apr 29, 2014 16:40:47 GMT pjohns1873 said:

How might expanded "coverage" help if the deductibles are typically $5,000 to $10,000 now, under ObamaCare? And do you really believe that the sacrifice ofo many Americans' personal doctors, in favor of some generic physicians, is a reasonable sacrifice to make, in order to ensure that more people have healthcare insurance than previously had it?   

Your characterization of both National Review and the Tea Party sounds much more like Harry Reid's rhetoric than the analysis of a self-described "libertarian." 

And I do not know what percentage of Republicans (or Americans in general) is racist.  But I would suspect that it is very low.  (Just speaking from my own experience--and I would not wish to extrapolate too broadly--I know of not one single racist among my friends and acquaintances.  No, not even one.) 

Note:  At the risk of my being guilty of setting forth a mere rant, I wish to say that I find racism extremely repellent!  And two of the best examples of it, recently, were Cliven Bundy's rant (why, black people would be better off picking cotton, as slaves) and the Los Angeles Clippers' owner's remarks (his girlfriend really ought not bring black people to NBA games).   Aaaaaaaargh!!!

Deductables have always been a component of health insurance but they typically applie to hospitalization and major medical services. For example my "private" health insurance had an annual deductable of $2,000/person ($4,000 total for my wife and I combined) but it was a very expensive and comprehensive private insurance plan. Higher annual deductables for major health insurance needs allows the cost to be significantly lower and a person, from what I understand, could pick any of the many different plans on the exchanges. If they selected a "high deductable" plan with a lower cost that was their choice. Are you opposed to "choice" by the person? At the same time a visit to the doctor was an 80/20 payment with a minor $15 copay. I'm not an expert on Obamacare but I understand that the lower benefit policies have higher co-pays (as much as 60/40 if I recall correctly) but also include 100% coverage of some services such as annual check-ups. We can also note that about 1/3rd of those signing up are covered by Medicaid and there are no deductables or copays typically.

Few people have lost their "personal physicians" under "Obamacare" and when that has been the case it typically was because the person, when they selected their insurance policy under the exchanges, picked one that the medical service provider (e.g. hospital or clinic) had decided not to accept. In short the person had the choice of insurance provider "A", "B", or "C" and picked "A" but their health care provider only accepted insurance payments from "C" and not "A" or "B". I have read of one case where the person was whining because she had to specialists at two different hospitals and none of the insurance plans were being accepted by both hospitals but this doesn't relate to the primary care physcian but instead to specialists. Of course she would receive the same quality care from a new specialist that she had from the old. It is also a false statement that a person will not be able to find a new primary care physician in the rare cases where they picked the wrong plan from the choices offered by the exchanges. They are not going to be relegated to random primary physician care by any hospital or clinic I'm aware of. They will be assigned a primary physician

The Libertarian Party as well as myself view the Tea Party Movement as "extremists" and we don't support it. Anyone that supports the Tea Party Movement or that embraces what it advocates is not a Libertarian.   

I provided the link to the studies that addressed racial prejudice in the United States and what you might "suspect" is contrary to the actual evidence. I would suggest you read the link I provided where actual studies establish the extent of racial prejudice in the United States as opposed to sticking to an opinion that is not founded in fact. We both find racism "extremely repellent" which is why I highly recommend becoming informed about it. Our gut feeling is to "Say it isn't so" but the actual studies establish "it is so" and that is what is very troubling. It is not something either of us want to read but we need to accept the facts whether we like them or not.

Yes, Cliven Bundy and the Clippers owners statements were repulsive but they are merely anecotal. The problem is that, in fact, it's the norm and not an exception really. Most "white Americans" wouldn't expressly say what either of these individuals stated because it would be political incorrect but the studies on explicit anti-black racial prejudice indicates that most Americans believe it.

Apr 30, 2014 21:01:15 GMT pjohns1873 said:

 Do you believe that it is a reasonable tradeoff to take away some Americans' preferred doctors and/or hospitals, if that may result in an increase in the number of Americans with healthcare insurance--even an increase of many millions?

I don't find the "personal choice" in primary physcian to be even an interesting much less important consideration related to the health care services the person might require. I've often relocated in my career and I've gone through at least a dozen different primary care physcians and they're all basically the same. Just because a person "Likes Dr. Joe" doesn't mean that "Dr Joe" is any more or less competent in taking care of their medical needs than "Dr John" (except Dr John is a better musician LOL - sorry, I just couldn't resist that one).

The only matter of real importance is whether a person can see a doctor and not.

Remember that the person's "choice" originally was probably random to begin with and now they prefer their current doctor based upon personality and not based upon competency. The vast majority of people are incapable of actually judging the competency of a medical doctor. 

Let's address this from another direction. The odds are about 50:50 that a person that has to choose a new personal doctor is going to get a better doctor than the one they previously had but in any case the odds are virtually 100% that their new doctor will be just as competent as the one they had before. After their first few visits with their new primary care physician they'll like them just as much as their old physician.