Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Really? If I were a hosptial in the US, I'd be concerned about Stark and anti-kickback laws if I were to give anything to a physician for free.

Apparently you haven't read the laws, then. They allow de minimis gifts like a $5 hospital cafeteria lunch.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
For the same reason, I'm unimpressed by bilmore's proud claim on behalf of the President that he has prevented terrorist attacks since 9/11. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

The only possible justification for these two statements together would be a belief that nothing we've done has countered a very real but still-existing threat. Is that your point?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
Read the economics of healthcare literature (it is abundant) and you will see all the good ideas out there.

Just a small point, but I'm guessing she's read some of this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The only possible justification for these two statements together would be a belief that nothing we've done has countered a very real but still-existing threat. Is that your point?

No. My point was that you guys (I don't remember whether you've said this specifically, and I don't want to put words in your mouth) defend the President by saying there's really nothing he reasonably could have done before 9/11 to prevent the attacks, and then you turn around and boast about the fact that there haven't been any attacks since then. It's not your fault that the moon came down last night, but you take full responsibility for the rise of the sun. (eta: The metaphor isn't right, because polices will have some effects on terrorism.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Oh, and he got his meeting:

• Clarke finally got his meeting about al-Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second in command in each relevant department.
  
  For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.
  
  Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with [Osama] bin Laden; we have to deal with al-Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al-Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'"

(link to Yglesias article quoting CBS)

Are you and I dealing with AQ Ty? We're talking about it.

See that's the point. What should be done is different from something should be done. You say- An administration in its first few months should have done more. But just like your conspiracy theories lack a motive, the "should have done more" theory lacks a "what." Also, I don't get how the failure to act on the same guy's plan for several years by Clinton isn't at least some feedback on how the plan was perceived by another administration.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Oh, and he got his meeting:

• Clarke finally got his meeting about al-Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second in command in each relevant department.
  
  For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.
  
  Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with [Osama] bin Laden; we have to deal with al-Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al-Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'"

(link to Yglesias article quoting CBS)

And this is the same Wolfowitz who shows up to the immediate post 9/11 Camp David meetings with his business case on why the U.S. should attack Iraq in response?

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Are you and I dealing with AQ Ty? We're talking about it.

See that's the point. What should be done is different from something should be done. You say- An administration in its first few months should have done more. But just like your conspiracy theories lack a motive, the "should have done more" theory lacks a "what." Also, I don't get how the failure to act on the same guy's plan for several years by Clinton isn't at least some feedback on how the plan was perceived by another administration.

Are you just being a troll? Read the Time article. I'm not going to defend everything the Clinton Admininstration did on this stuff, but it's not like they were sitting on their asses and then flipped Condi Rice a bunch of PowerPoint slides on their way out the door. At bottom, you have a policy disagreement. Outgoing NSC head Sandy Berger told Condi Rice that her top priority should be Al Qaeda. As the Foreign Policy article that I linked to lays out, she had other ideas.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Just a small point, but I'm guessing she's read some of this.

Well you cannot tell from her posting. These problems have been studied and are continuing to be studied and there are many potential solutions. The problem is that no one is trying to implement them and Congress isn't helping by keeping the incentives to have employer based health plans. Employer based health plans are not a great idea because of the disconnect between the healthcare consumer and the financing of the healthcare.

When you get employer based healthcare, you are paying for it by getting a lower salary. Employers factor in the total cost of an employee (salary + benefits) when they hire. So the employer pays less in salary when the benefits cost more. But that is a cost to the employee that the employee doesn't feel in the short term.

Moreover, the employer has different incentives when negotiating with healthplans than an employee would have.

Ty is right. Our healthcare system is fraught with market failures. The thing I find so frustrating is that there are many things that could be done to help but no one is doing them. People just throw their arms up in the air and say it is too complex and difficult to fix the problems. No it is not.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No. My point was that you guys (I don't remember whether you've said this specifically, and I don't want to put words in your mouth) defend the President by saying there's really nothing he reasonably could have done before 9/11 to prevent the attacks, and then you turn around and boast about the fact that there haven't been any attacks since then. It's not your fault that the moon came down last night, but you take full responsibility for the rise of the sun. (eta: The metaphor isn't right, because polices will have some effects on terrorism.)

bilmore, I think attacks are inevitable here, and I'm superstitous. I think Bush has done more than Gore would have, and if we are faced with some tough choice 2 years from now (ie deal agressively with SA) I will feel a lot more comfortable with Bush making the decision then Kerry.

But we don't have anything in place that would prevent some zealot from getting on the DC subway with a backpack full of TNT, provided he can get the TNT.

edit: posted before Ty called me a troll

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Are you just being a troll?

Ty, you have this annoying habit of calling people trolls when they disagree with you. Hank is not a troll. He is a very tan Jesus-like figure.

Anyhow, you calling people trolls because they disagree with you is trollish behavior.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sorry SAM. To have said OM, instead of Falstaff or Buckhorn shows that you were raised in the lap of luxury.

Old Style?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
bilmore, I think attacks are inevitable here, and I'm superstitous. I think Bush has done more than Gore would have, and if we are faced with some tough choice 2 years from now (ie deal agressively with SA) I will feel a lot more comfortable with Bush making the decision then Kerry.

Bush/Cheney: We'll do more than the other guy!

You're not really a troll, Hank -- that was rhetorical.

Not Me, you were being a troll, but you stopped when I called you on it, and for that we are all glad.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
bilmore, I think attacks are inevitable here, and I'm superstitous. I think Bush has done more than Gore would have, and if we are faced with some tough choice 2 years from now (ie deal agressively with SA) I will feel a lot more comfortable with Bush making the decision then Kerry.

But we don't have anything in place that would prevent some zealot from getting on the DC subway with a backpack full of TNT, provided he can get the TNT.

Yeah, I know. Thankfully, our borders are so secure, huh?

(FWIW, I can drive 100 miles north and buy explosives. Big-time explosives. Legally.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Bush/Cheney: We'll do more than the other guy!

This is, implicitly at least, the heart of any campaign against Kerry.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Old Style?

Fringe, it pains me to have to say this, but I'm afraid your tastes would be too expensive for my household. Surely, you are the type of woman who has come to expect the quality things in life, and dare i say, deserve them.

But I can't afford to upgrade my household budget so that all my spouses can drink Old Style.