Why are people thinking Obama can magically create jobs out of this air.

Not only that, but these countries pay less per-person to get comparable or better results as we do out of our system. And levels of satisfaction with their systems are inevitably very high.

All inconvenient facts to certain arguments that said systems cannot work.

Cycloptichorn

A slight digression: FIDO, would you go to this topic and see if you can give me a solution?

http://able2know.org/topic/162654-1#post-4380856

I have a question. The last man, one of the rescuers, must be able to lock the rescue tube's door correctly from the inside? I can understand how he could hook up the oxygen pack and other devises, but I can't figure out how he can lock the door so it doesn't come loose if no one is there to do it from the outside.

BBB

Well, isn't it odd that our current Administration is pushing us very hard to move towards a more "European" social welfare system and labor market just as they are beginning the slow, but necessary, process of dismantling theirs - as a result of the "discovery" that they cannot sustain it without destroying their economies.

I agree that I do overstate things a bit to emphasize the point. However, I believe the lesson before us is that the ill-advised bail outs of government bureaucracies; the distraction involved in the health care legislative drama and the massive growth in government bureaucracies (the IRS in particular) it entails, together with tons of new regulations, many not yet written; supplemented by a similar process for new financial regulation (which oddly doesn't apply to Fannie & Freddy the net cost of whose whose bailouts will dwarf those of AIG and the banks together) --- have worked together to significantly slow our economic recovery from a serious cyclic recession. I also believe there is widespread public recognition of this fact, and this is the reason for the political reversals the administration is facing now.

Let us say that they are 'adjusting' theirs, rather than dismantle it. I mean, France is in no way transitioning to our sort of Capitalistic economy. Austerity measures which are in place over there don't represent them coming around to your point of view, George, any more than our limited HC reform means that we are coming around to their way of doing things.

Part of the greatness of America is our supposed flexibility and willingness to examine other cultures and systems to see if their ideas will work for us. Reflexively damning outsiders' systems and claiming that they never would work here steals that greatness from us.



What? Why is this so? Specifically. I mean, that sounds nice, but what does this have to do with the recession?

I don't think businesses are sitting around not hiring, because they are pissed that Obama passed a HC bill. It doesn't make much sense.

You can call the bail-outs 'ill-advised,' but I think that means you bear the responsibility of showing us how letting them fail would have been a superior situation to what we currently face. Do you honestly believe that this is the case?

I think it's also worth pointing out that major parts of the bail-outs of Fannie and Freddie didn't take place under Obama, but Bush back in early 2008. Make sure you spread your blame around to cover the right people.

The Financial regulation bill (and creation of the new Consumer Protection agency) came about because of what amounts to massive levels of fraud and 'cheating' by our financial industry. They have begun to manipulate the game to the point where, instead of acting as a method for efficiently allocating investment capital while earning a modest profit, they began to see themselves as ENGINES of profit; as wealth-creators. But you know as well as I do that they are anything but, and when the balances are not kept in check by regulation and a watchful eye, we get market crashes like the one we experienced in 2008. What exactly would you have us do - just pretend that everything is great with our system, and that nothing needed to be changed at all?



This is just projection on your part; polling data doesn't support this.

Cycloptichorn

We will be making government payouts to Fannie and Freddy for a very long time. Somehow the Democrat Congress managed to reregulate all of our financial entities EXCEPT the ones that directly fuelled the economic bubble that was the main driver for our recession. Bush made a relatively feeble attempt to contain them (Fannie & Freddy) during his second term but the then Democrat controlled Congress flatly refused to do so. In the words of the ever-elegant Maxine Waters, "It ain't broke, so don't fix it."

Perhaps you could point to the polling data that does.

Cycloptichorn

Neither does the system Obama and the Democrats are trying to introduce in America. So what's your problem with it, if any?


Fortunately, we needn't argue out this point here, because it is irrelevant to the point of yours I responded to. Whether Germany has a demographic problem or not, there is plenty of medical innovation there.

Aww come on Cyclo, are we going to engage in duelling polls? I think even you will agree that the forthcoming elections are likely to yield a reversal at least as significant as that of 1993 when the Democrats lost a somewhat smaller majority in the House of representatives.

Thomas, perhaps you didn't read the exchange that prompted my post and to which my statement responded. Cyclo was referring specifically to a government managed single payer system, without all those pesky "for profit" insurers and providers.

In defense of georgeob, I concur with his last post; Cyclo said he wanted to see the health care insurance companies fail in this country. I said we needed competition, not government run single payer system.

In that case, the premise of your response was partly wrong. Germany's system may not be single-payer, but it is definitely government-managed. Insurers must accept everyone who wants to buy a policy; once the policy is in place, they cannot cancel it---only policyholders can. Moreover, insurers can demand no more than a fixed percentage of the policyholders income; and for that price, they must provide a minimal level of coverage determined by a government agency. If any American Democrat was socially enlightened enough and politically foolish enough to introduce such a system in the US, the Wall Street Journal would dismiss it as "socialized medicine" in a microsecond.

I notice that you haven't answered my question. Since the healthcare system proposed by Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress isn't single-payer, do you therefore approve of it in principle?

In order to engage in dueling polls, wouldn't you have to post, yaknow, a single one?

We both know that that isn't going to happen, so why even make comments like that?



Yes, this is true (though I do believe the Dems will still hold the House at the end of the day - incumbency is a powerful factor historically) but I don't think it is due to widespread disapproval with the specifc things Obama has passed. I say this, because polling clearly shows that people support those specific pieces of legislation, when asked about it.

What's against the Dems in this election?

- A shitty economy that hasn't gotten any better, partly due to the fact that the problem is immense and partly due to their own inability to weather the Republican intransigence on the issue.

- The Democrats expanded massively in 2006 and 2008 thanks to a wave of anti-Republican sentiment. That means that there are dozens of freshman Congressmen that have to be defended in arguably Conservative districts, which spreads money and resources to do so thin.

- Latent anger on the part of Republicans and especially Conservatives over Obama's election and the repudiation of their party in the '06 and '08 elections. I believe that this is in no small part due to some very unsavory opinions that some of these people hold, though I'm not looking to argue that with you right now. Suffice it to say that polling has been VERY bad for the Democrats in large part because the Republicans are indicating that they are going to vote in much higher numbers than normal for an off-cycle election.

- Gripes from the left-wing that Obama and the Congress have not been liberal enough! The amount of stuff I read on Dem websites, George - you would consider me a downright Conservative amongst this crowd. I know that both sides have very committed ideologues and single-issue supporters in roughly equal numbers, but the Dem ones are pretty much all pissed at Obama and the Dem leadership in Congress, because action on the top three issues has been slow to non-existent: Don't ask Don't tell, Guantanamo bay, and the Cap-and-trade or similar climate bill have all dried up in the face of resistance from Conservative Democrats.

---

I look at all the different factors for this race, including polling on specific issues and bills that Obama has passed, and see three factors:

1, anger from Conservatives leading to a highly motivated base - and this includes Conservative 'independents.'

2, anger from every quarter that the economy isn't better. The Dems that are pro-Dem and pro-Obama are pissed at the Republicans for their intransigence but equally pissed that Reid and Obama allow them to get away with it so often.

3, anger from Liberals that he's not liberal enough, leading to a lowly motivated Democratic base.

All three of these things, coupled with the structural factors of this election, point to a loss for the Democrats, which is of course clear to everyone. However, I think it's as erroneous to say that this election represents a clear repudiation on the part of the country of Obama's policies.

I think that this election will swing on whether the 'likely voter' screens that have been employed by the pollsters turn out to be accurate or not. Right now, polling of registered voters shows the Dems doing tremendously better than polling of Likely voters. But elections are a funny thing; people who tend not to vote may not actually do it, even though they told a pollster that they intend to, and people who vote religously may drag themselves out anyway despite telling a pollster that they weren't going to do it. I predict that many races end up being much closer than what the current 'likely voter' screens on these polls are telling us, because I trust that the dual comforts of laziness and ritual will continue to be primary motivating factors for most, no matter what they say.

Cycloptichorn

Thomas,

Are the German insurers profit-making entities? How is the requirement that everyone obtain insurance enforced? Is the enforcement effective? Are the hospitals and providers of medical care & services private economic entities that compete with one another for patients?

I believe you are interrogating me about the details of points and arguments I haven't made. However I'll try to answer your question.

In the first place I believe the German health care system is unusual in several respects, and not easily duplicated. Its origin goes back well over a century and its effective operation - in my opinion - depends on an number of unique political and cultural factors that don't exist here.

Americans are a far more heterogenious people than Germans: cultural variation is great; the set of things we agree on is a good deal smaller, and we have a long tradition of local government and individual entreprenurship. Significantly, we have a long tradition of relatively open immigration - one can choose to become and American far more readily than he/she can choose to become a German - and that isn't likely to change (nor should it). In contrast, despite the federal character of its government, top down management of society and the economy is far more a part of accepted norms in Germany (and nearly all of Europe) than it is here. Despite a long-term need for imported labor, Germany doesn't encourage immigration and frankly doesn't do well in assimilating long term guest workers.

I'll concede the German model works well in Germany, but I don't think it could work here. For example the current administration couldn't quite bring itself to provide real enforcement of the provision of the new law that calls for everyone to buy insurance, though it was quite willing to bash insurance companies for denying coverage based on preexisting conditions and to enact clear, enforcable provisions forbidding it. Thus we are left with a very destructive combination of features. Hermaphrodites like this generally don't work well at all.

In any event the short answer to your question is, no, I don't approve of our new health care law, and I would like to see it rescinded. For all its inequities and disorder, I prefer free markets, competition, and individual choice.

Cyclo, congratulations on a comprehensive and largely accurate analysis of the current political situation. Though I am tempted to quibble about a few details (but, unlike Parados, I will resist that temptation), I generally agree with your analysis. I note a slightly forelorn quality to your rote assertion that the Democrats will retasin control of the House, and the subsequent acknowledgement that most polling data says they will indeed lose it. (Then why the demand for duelling polls ???? I think what you really want to know is if I can link websites in these posts.)

Given all that it is hard not to term the coming election as a "significant political reversal" for the Administration. The game isn't over, but it is indeed a significant political reversal -- just as I said it was.

Well, it is going to be a significant political reversal for sure, even if they do manage to hold both houses. I blame fracturing in the Dem party that was brought about by a sense of complacency generated by Obama's large margin of victory in '08 and the demands of Liberal interest groups to all have their issues worked on immediately, while we held both houses of Congress. At the same time, the financial crisis tied Obama's hands around a trillion-dollar piece of debt right at the beginning of his term and limited his ability to accomplish much of the goals he campaigned on.

This all lead to a muddied and ineffective message this election cycle, while the Republicans have been very effective indeed in stoking anger and fear regarding Obama and Liberal policies.

You know, the idea really has started to occur to me lately that this Tea Party thing could be very, very dangerous in the long run - for the Republican party. The entire ethos of these candidates and people is to not compromise when they are in office... it will be interesting to see how these attitudes survive the reality of some of their candidates becoming actual lawmakers and the inevitable compromises that will follow.

Cycloptichorn

The real bottom line of this discontent is the lack of jobs. That's because most humans are irrational, and cannot "see" what created this Great Recession that started in the mid-2000's. They voted for Obama to be a miracle worker, and turn this economy around on a dime. At the same time, Americans do not want the increase in the national debt while the GOP creates a wall of No's to most legislation working its way through congress.

Americans are not only misinformed, but are stupid and irrational. No human on this planet can turn around our economy in two years when the whole world's economy has been impacted by the financial crisis.

It's probably true that the democrats will lose control of both houses of congress, and what the American people will find are an increase in our unemployment and foreclosures, because the GOP has no plan to revitalize our economy. All they talk about is "cut taxes." That will not work to improve any economy. Jobs is what is needed; not tax cuts.

Damn ! We agree on most of this.

A bit of overexuberence followed by complacency is pretty common in all quarters following a big success. A sense of "permanent mandate" in the face of changing conditions is common enough too. These things just happened to hit the Democrats this time around.

While it's true that the Republicans have indeed stoked anger and fear in the public mind with respect to the Democrat initiatives, it is simply a fact that their opposition was motivated by beliefs that were every bit as sincere and thoughtfully held as those that motivated the Democrat "reformers". In our democracy the Republican opposition was every bit as legitimate as the Democrat initiatives.

The Tea party phenomenon is indeed a reflection of serious dissatisfaction among a fairly wide segment of the voters, and it deserves to be taken seriously as I'm sure it will. It doesn't suprise me that some of the "fresh, new" voices it ends up putting forward end up looking pretty rough and flawed. (After all the cmoothing of appearances so effectively done by the political pros of both parties, which is the standard preventative & remedy here, is what gave us the polished, but often empty and cynical professional politicians who behavior has so infuriated the public. ) In many respects the Tea party will be self-limiting and, as time passes I believe it will become more like the establishment pros it claims to so abhor. Right now it's a problem for both Republicans and Democrats, though in different ways for each. The Republican party had become too monotone, and the raucous crowd of Tea party activists will force it to engage its internal differences directly. On the whole I see this as not very different from the disputes going on within the Democrat party between moderates and (rabid) progressives. In both cases the process, though messy, is basically healthy.

The short answer is "basically, no". The detailed answer is complicated.

Germans above a certain income level ---say, the top ten percent of the income distribution---can buy their health insurance from private, profit-making entities. But they don't have to, and many if not most don't.

The other 90% of Germans are insured by an Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse (AOK), which literally translates to "general local health fund". Basically, they're a single-payer system originally run by local governments. Now, after a lot of mergers, it's basically one state, one AOK. The rest among those 90% is insured through so-called Krankenersatzkassen ("substitute health funds"), which are run like cooperatives owned by their policyholders. Any profits they might make goes back to policyholders. There are no shareholders to pay dividends to, which is what "for-profit" usually means in America. Hence the short answer: "basically, no".


If you apply for insurance and the company turns you down, you sue, and the court decides in your favor. It's an open-and-shut case, and I couldn't think of a single insurance company who would bother pulling this stuff. So, yes, enforcement is perfectly effective.


Yes.


If you make it a matter of generalities and first principles, I'll stop arguing this question with you. Your first principles are your first principles, no matter how ineffective the outcome might be. Personally I prefer whatever works, and I'm perfectly comfortable letting empirical evidence decide which system works better. And on the empirical evidence available to me, America's health care system is pitiful compared to, uh, every other industrialized country's health care system.

I disagree; I don't see this political climate as healthy. It's poisoned to the extent nothing is getting done to really work on the problems facing our country. I do not believe we've had this much split in congress until GW Bush said "I'm a uniter, not a divider," and produced the opposite. The GOP votes in unison with a "No" too often, and makes every effort to defeat most legislations coming before congress.