home

Health Care: A Discussion

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:39:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Corrente hosted a representative of Health Care NOW to discuss, shockingly, health care reform. Not knowing anything about the subject, I merely point you to the discussion.

This is an Open Thread.

< It Was The Result, Not The GOP Politics that Did Them In | Obama May Not Repeal Bush Tax Cuts >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Health Care: A Discussion | 30 comments (30 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Not knowing anything about the subject... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Plutonium Page on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:41:31 PM EST
    ... my first comment in many months will be on an open thread.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:43:29 PM EST
    We can talk about life. As in how is yours going? We missed you around here. Frank would visit us form time to time but you dropped us like a hot potato.

    Parent
    Hey, I didn't drop you! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Plutonium Page on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:47:49 PM EST
    My brain shorted out.  And I had to write lots of stuff for a couple of environmental blogs, which didn't help my brain.  I got very stressed out about the election, and just flat-out tired.

    Not much of an excuse, I know :-(

    I'm still very, very tired.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:49:43 PM EST
    Who's good for EPA? Inquiring minds would like to know.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Plutonium Page on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:54:39 PM EST
    Jeebus help us if it's RFK Jr., like some of the rumors were saying a few months back.

    I honestly don't know. I loved mcjoan's essay on the Dept. of the Interior today, and agree with her on Grijvalva, but for EPA?  I just have no idea.

    According to this article, there are several possibilities under consideration:

    EPA ADMINISTRATOR

    Lisa P. Jackson, commissioner of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

    Mary Nichols, head of California Air Resources Board.

    Kathleen McGinty, former secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

    A friend who knows more than I do about these things says he likes McGinty.  I don't know any of the names, myself, so I should look them up.

    I'm currently very worried about who might be the next Secretary of Defense.

    God help the blogosphere if it's Gates, because I will go nuclear.

    Parent

    It's Gates (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:07:13 PM EST
    Bank it.

    Parent
    Yeah, I have a bad feeling that it will be. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Plutonium Page on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:23:59 PM EST
    He's way more hawkish than people realize.  WAY WAY more hawkish.

    I've already resigned myself to Obama going forward with missile defense shield research.  I don't know if he'll want full deployment or not, because he keeps saying "not until it works", for which he'll have to wait a very long time.

    Gates loves the missile defense shield.  He loves "new nukes" (a.k.a. the Reliable Replacement Warhead).  Obama has consistently said "no way" to the RRW.  But he also talks about "stockpile maintenance", which is a very general way of saying "keep 'em operational".  Gates' solution?

    New nukes.  He really, really wants them.

    Finally, we are up for some very big things next year.  START I is going to expire, so Obama has to deal with that (plus some p.o.'d Russians if he deploys the missile defense shield).  The next Nuclear Posture Review takes place, too.  There are a number of other things, but those are two really big ones.

    Gates... ugh.  Oh, how badly that will stink.

    ----- > RRW pdf, for the geeks out there. < ----

    Parent

    Stockpile maintenance sounds like (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:30:01 PM EST
    a good idea after that unattended missile silo fire caused by a battery or something.

    Parent
    Oh yeah, it's a good idea, for certain (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Plutonium Page on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:00:57 PM EST
    But what they mean by it is making sure the warheads will deliver what they're supposed to deliver.

    The claim that the warheads are "aging", and, say, a 10MT warhead might only deliver 5MT (for example) has been debated strenuously.

    The plutonium pits aren't aging the way Gates and friends may think they are.

    Anyway, I agree with you that something has to be done regarding warhead security. One of Obama's arguments - and McCain's, and many other lawmakers' - is that we don't need so many bombs, just a minimal number for deterrence.

    We don't need 9,000.  The Russians don't need 15,000.

    Parent

    What's wrong with RFK Jr? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:18:16 PM EST
    Too flaky?

    Parent
    Conspiracy theorist (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Plutonium Page on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:26:40 PM EST
    Anti-science.  Sadly.

    (Here's one science blog entry.  There are lots out there, some better than others...)

    Parent

    Ah, I didn't know that (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    He seemed like a committed environmentalist to me. But that's bad, particularly the tinfoil hat anti-vaccination stuff.

    Parent
    BTD, Are you going to comment on (none / 0) (#6)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 08:57:53 PM EST
    Steve Clemons post in which he claims that Obama and McCain were working together behind the scenes to come up with a roster of candidates for various appointments, all the way back in July?


    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:06:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Nice to see you, Plutonium. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:50:46 PM EST
    I remember you from the days when I frequented the Orange crowd.  How's it going?  

    Parent
    hey there! (none / 0) (#24)
    by Plutonium Page on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:02:03 PM EST
    I'm ok :-) Frustrated with lots of things (some of them blog-related), but more or less fine!

    How are you??

    Parent

    I'm about in the same place (none / 0) (#26)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 11:26:14 PM EST
    More or less fine.   Glad that we have a Dem in the White House and hoping for better days.

    You were one of my favorite posters at DK, but I had to get out of there when the air became so toxic.  One nice thing about TalkLeft is that it manages to be a pro-Obama site without being an anti-Hillary site.  

    Are you still in Holland?

    Parent

    Obama is thinking about doing the Bush Tax Cuts (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cpa1 on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:17:40 PM EST
    I was never a big Obama fan, as many of you know.  I thought he was delusional.  I came to despise McCain for the depths this one time decent politician stooped to and the threat of a right wing imbecilic nut like Sarah Palin having even the remotest possibility of becoming president made me as sick as I was in the fall of 2000 when I feared the Bush actually had a chance to be president.  Remember how people hated those discussions about Bush and tried to end them?  Too bad they weren't paying attention to what evil lurked in that boy's head.

    So, I had no choice but to side with Obama.  Then I heard on one of the TV shows this morning something about Obama forgoing the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts and I went ballistic.  The Bush tax cuts are why we are in a recession, leading to a deflationary period that could drastically lower prices so low that more people will lose jobs and we will be teetering near depression.  Bush created a Sodom and Gomorrah for the wealthiest Americans who decided to put their money in these stupid pyramid schemes that Wall Street created instead of being the entrepreneurs we were told they were.  They were nothing more than gamblers.  They never invested in inventory and plant and equipment because they knew that the people in the middle and upper middle class would not buy more goods and services because they are at wits end trying to make ends meet.  So what purpose did giving them all this money solve?  Nothing but shoving us into a deep recession that will take us years to come out of.  

    So hear is Barack Obama who is thinking about delaying the expiration of the Bush tax which happens to be one of the reasons most of us didn't vote for McCain.  What an idiotic thing to do.  We should be giving money to the middle upper middle classes by lowering their taxes (what a novel idea that would actually cause a lot more money to get circulated into the economy and multiplying with each event (that would only lead to logical success) or rebuilding infrastructure but there is no goddam reason to give it all to the wealthiest Americans again.  Here is an excerpt from a NY Times article today which can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/us/politics/24bipartisan.html?_r=1


    Mr. Obama has sent centrist and pragmatic signals by selecting Mr. Geithner as treasury secretary and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state, even while offering more traditionally liberal signs by delegating the health care overhaul to Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader in the Senate. But should he go forward with postponing the upper-income tax increase, as some advisers have recommended, it would be a powerful way of attracting Republican support on the economic package he outlined over the weekend.

    If Obama does this, redeploys the Bush tax cuts, I will start working for his replacement for 2012.  You cannot run an economy based on the Dow or the S&P 500.  You need to grow it, have people buy things, and then the demand will lead to American business providing those things that consumers want.  Right now interest rates are almost ZERO and yet American business doesn't want to expand.

    and this time they will be his (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpa1 on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:28:09 PM EST
    and now they would be called the Obama tax cuts if he is stupid enough to do them.

    Parent
    I don't know enough about fiscal policy (none / 0) (#22)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:55:28 PM EST
    to be certain about what Obama should do.    I hope and expect that he will rectify the tax inequity that was instituted by Bush.  I expect him to pay for the infrastructure and health care we need by finding some new sources of revenue.  If he fails at that,  well...I think his term will be limited to one.

    Parent
    I would have thunk the thorough (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:01:49 PM EST
    thrashing of BTD today re his admitting he doesn't know everything about everything would have barred thhis particular diary.  But, no . . . .

    I know nothing about most things (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:07:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Maybe so, but your disclaim isn't (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:10:25 PM EST
    nearly that broad, is it.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:12:38 PM EST
    I do not have it tattooed to my forehead if that is what you mean.

    But I limit my discussion to things I know a little about for the most part.

    Parent

    Can't think of a witty retort here, as (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 09:18:43 PM EST
    not one of the thrashers.

    Parent
    Just saw the new Bond (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 10:45:24 PM EST
    It wasn't bad. Better than the last one IMO.

    It was a little too fast and a little too violent for the series, but I guess that's where the competition is going, so. . .

    (Yes, your grandpa's 007 actually had a fair amount of exposition. Heck, the Brosnans had exposition).

    yeah (none / 0) (#28)
    by boredmpa on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:12:40 AM EST
    it wasn't really a bond movie imho; you had some of the formulaic girl stuff but no charm/charisma/humor.  

    And some of the character-related plot was horrifically written.  Not cheesy, just bad.

    I might as well have been watching bourne...with crappier writing.

    Parent

    I'm disappointed that Bond is going (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 01:53:56 AM EST
    in a different direction from what I remember. The Moore Bonds (my favorite, I know, I know. . .) had an irreverence that I liked. Now, not so much. And putting the gunbarrel sequence at the end. . .bleh.

    Parent
    I Have Heard (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 08:58:34 AM EST
    That in the latest bond, Craig is emotional. Very unBond like, but I really liked Casino Royale, so I am hopeful that this will be at least as good.

    Parent
    Open thread cultural alert: (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 12:12:47 AM EST
    Verdi's "Falstaff" is streaming on KUSC-FM.  Bryn Terfel as a terrific Falstaff.  

    Health Care: A Discussion | 30 comments (30 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment