Your comment on the nanny state misses the point. You aren't moving the decision from one group of stupid people to another group of stupid people. Most people are IGNORANT of the negative impact of excess sugar-sweetened beverages. It is a reasonable libertarian argument to say people have a right to make bad decisions. It's another issue altogether to claim people have a right to make bad decisions without knowledge of it being a bad decision.
No it isn't -- because that's the argument that is ALWAYS used when people make stupid decisions and the government tries to nanny-state us. It's the exact same argument that was made with the big bad banks forcing home loans on the ignorant public. It's the exact same argument that was made with lottery/gambling/casinos robbing ignorant people of their wealth. It will continue to be the same argument used to strip away every single freedom we have. You want to make people less ignorant? Fund Education! Punishing _everyone_ for the ignorance of _anyone_ is an assinine way to run a country.
I find it funny that your solution to a corrupt and tyrannical government is "more government". No, private industry isn't perfect -- but believe it or not, the reason rich people only pay about 10% of their income in taxes is because the GOVERNMENT passed laws to let them get away with it.
There aren't many socialists, while the libertarian whiners are all over the Web.
Where were you in the lead-up to the election 4 years ago? Just because they all went back to their holes once they realized their messiah wasn't wearing any clothes doesn't mean they're not there.
People ask about the real Mitt Romney... watch those speeches, and you'll see him, you'll see the real Mitt Romney slip out from behind the carefully constructed mask.
This isn't news to me. I fully believe Romney believes there's a large chunk of people in this country sucking from the government's teat. Just as I fully believe Obama would take every single dime from business/rich people and redistribute it if he could get away with it. Obama is better with keeping his mask up, but they're both assholes. Hell, you think Obama didn't insult an equal number of Americans when he was caught privately talking about voters "clinging to their guns and religion" or when he told business owners they didn't build their business? Yeah yeah everyone talks about "out of context", but it was dead obvious from tone and temperament that he believes business creation is primarily a matter of "luck and assistance" rather than effort, and he believes it's "all reward" and "no risk". He believes that the vast majority of the populace, given enough money, will take initiative and just spring up and start churning out fantastic ideas and successful business ventures.
Sorry, but that's incredibly stupid. The unemployment rate is lower than it's been since before he took office
Umm, he was elected during a recession. And the historical average duration of a recession in the US is about 1 year. This particular one lasted 1.5 years. He literally could have SAT ON HIS HANDS for 4 years and the unemployment rate would be lower than when he took office. Why don't we take a real metric, like promises or bang for buck? You know like when he said spending nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus would get the unemployment rate under 6% by now -- and we're nowhere near that? Or the deficit he claimed he would cut in half -- which is once again nowhere near that. Or how he said Obamacare was going to lower medical premiums, yet they're higher than they've ever been. With your rock bottom expectations, of course the man is going to look like he's walking on water. And claiming Romney is a clone of Bush is a troll comment and probably why you were moderated as such. Those candidates are black and white, and claiming anything otherwise is just like saying "all Republicans are the same".
Did he give the population massive tax cuts causing the debt to rise drastically as spending now outstrips tax revenues? No
Hold on there. If I'm not mistaken, he did extend the Bush tax cuts. AND he gave out a ton of rebate checks in the stimulus program which amounted to a tax cut. AND he cut payroll taxes. So Yes he in fact did "give the population massive tax cuts causing the debt to rise drastically as spending now outstrips tax revenues"
As I said, you could construct a matrix of all of the different things you're for or against, and end up with hundreds of parties, but honestly, most of them don't matter, nor would it be sensible for the public, who can't figure out when *one* party is completely disregarding facts, to present them dozens of viewpoints they can't understand.
Except it's relevant because very few people accept 100% of a given party's ideals, leaving us to vote for the same "basic package" every single year. Whereas individuals might be different, parties almost never change. And frankly, I'm tired of voting for racist gay-hating republicans simply because the other party has no financial sense or fiscal awareness.
Also, it wasn't an assumption, it was an assertion. There's a difference. In the relatively narrow scope of what governments can do you don't actually have a lot of choices.
Narrow? Sheesh, have you been following all the ridiculous number of things the federal government has claimed they're allowed to do? They're so far beyond the scope of the Constitution at this point that it's not even funny.
Whether or not the US has healthcare matters, a lot, but which, on the spectrum of the british - french health systems (cheap, accessible, and good enough, vs expensive and excellent) you end up with doesn't matter all that much, they're still both way better than what you have now.
There is no proof that implementing a European system in the US would lower costs. We have different cultures, different health issues, and different diets/habits, just to name a few. This fallacy that we can just adopt a foreign healthcare system and make all our problems go away is just silly.
Unfortunately you can't have a system where people only consider one issue at a time in isolation, because they all do come down to either spending money, or not, and if so, how much.
Why not? It seems far more sensible to argue about issues on their merits rather than party line
That, and I mean this seriously, literally makes no sense. I'm sorry, but 'representation' clearly does not mean what you think it means.
How do you figure? I mostly agree with the OP. If you live in a state that's 55% Democrat and 45% Republican that always ends up with a "representative" that shares 100% of Democrat views and 0% of Republican, how is that a representative sample of the constituency? Or hell, on the federal level...when one party beats another party to the presidency by the slimmest of margins, but goes on to impose their extreme political ideological view on the other 49% of the nation, how is that representative of the populace? At best, our political system, as written, tends to represent 40-60% of the people at any given time -- and then it seesaws back and forth as people grow agitated at the partisan behavior. The rare moments when we see a good chunk of the populace represented are typically when we have a mixed government (no one party has a majority in all 3 branches). And 3rd parties pretty much have no representation since they're not big enough of a majority to be part of the "seesaw" game -- their reps never get into office to impose their will on the 45% minority.
What, Mr. "Whichever Way The Wind Blows" Romney isn't dangerous? Not through innate evilness, but through sheer amoral used car salesman "I'll say whatever it takes to become prez, and I'll do whatever benefits me and my friends if I do become prez"?
Some people call that compromising and reaching across the aisle. His governance of NH with an 80% democratic majority shows that not only can he be a moderate (rather than an extreme neocon), but he can work with the other side. That alone makes him a zillion times better than Obama, of whom we can only guarantee 4 more years of "i won, fuck you" ideological obstructionism.
A simple majority should rule (just like the Constitution says it does in the Senate).
Ah yes, because having 51% of the country exert their will on 49% of the country is surely sane. With that kind of governing, you get exactly what we have now:
1) one asshole party passing 4 years of their extreme ideology
2) citizens getting pissed off at the partisanship and voting in the other party en-masse
3) goto 1
No thank you, I'd rather every law require a super majority so that only shit that needs to get passed actually get passed. Force those fuckers to compromise.
As he noted it happened precisely because guy's like Ryan voted to put two major wars, the largest tax cut in history and the largest increase to Medicare in history on the public credit card
You mean like the wars we're still engaged in, the largest tax cut in history that Obama extended, and an even _larger_ healthcare expenditure in the form of Obamacare? That didn't go on the credit card? How about the stimulus? Or the "no strings attached" bank bailouts?
Obama was bipartisan throughout the process. He encouraged congressional democrats to work with republicans on the matter. Committees were formed and drafts were written by bipartisan committees.
His language, demeanor, AND the process disagree with you. When even moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe say they are shut out of the process (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052748704007804574573841915542278.html), you can be certain nothing "bipartisan" is occurring. What proof do you have that it was? Were you there? Or did Obama just TELL you he was working with Republicans, so naturally that must be true? Hell, Snowe voted FOR the initial healthcare bill out of committee (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/29/snowe-explains-decision-to-leave-defends-tough-criticism-of-senate/). She wanted healthcare reform. She did not get the kind of cooperation she expected. Even moderates in your own party were of the same opinion: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/08/blue-dog-will-vote-against-bill-with-public-option/
"In July, Ross urged congressional leaders to slow down the pace of health care negotiations and said reform "needs to be done in a deliberate, bipartisan and common sense way." "
If Obama is the socialist monster that the conservatives paint him as, why would he have had "his goons" write a bill that changes so little? A true socialist would have insisted on socialised medicine - or at least a single payer option.
He could have vetoed it, but that would have been a huge victory for the republicans.
Then he chose career advancement over healthcare reform. Good for him, he's no different than any other career-minded stubborn Republican who refuses to raise taxes because they're worried about their job because of some asinine "agreement" they made with the populace.
He would have never seen another bill in any way related to health care had he vetoed this one.
Proof of this? Lots of people and politicians were clamoring for health care reform. I honestly doubt taking this back to square one would have simply ended the discussion of healthcare reform.
You appear as if you'll believe whatever you want to believe -- this is why none of your dialogue comes with cites, facts, or proof.
OK, first of all, he could have been bipartisan from the start and not landed himself in the predicament of having a 1000 page document written only by his goons that he had no chance in hell of getting a bipartisan vote accomplished with.
Secondly, even IN the situation he landed himself in, he could have done a number of things:
1) Slim down the bill to only the parts everyone agrees on
2) Nix it and start from square one
And finally, the process wasn't "hijacked" -- it went down exactly as he planned, completely unilaterally and partisan. Hell, he had to fight with his own damn party to get them on board. Blue Dogs couldn't stand the public option. See my other post here (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3088499&cid=41266929) about Obama's idea of "reaching across the aisle"
Passing a bill you KNOW to be a bad bill simply because of political pressure at best makes you a "career politician" who cares more about re-election than about the country.
Have you been conscious the last 4 years? Bi-partisanship to Obama means "my way or the highway". Obama has ignored everything congressional republicans have tried to do, and is even trying to squirm out of agreements he made (i.e. sequester and cutting domestic programs).
There is no bipartisanship involving Obama. He just wants any and all legislation to pass, no matter how poorly designed, since it enhances his election prospects.
Obama wanted to reform health care, and that is what he should have done. Instead he allowed the conservatives to hijack the process and then was forced to sign this lousy bill as his only alternative was to do nothing at all.
Bullshit. All cars sold in Europe follow safety standards equivalent to those in North America
That's not entirely true. Side air bags for instance are required in the US but not in Europe.
The main difference is cultural expectations about car size.
Well seeing as how Americans tend to be a bit bigger (or should I say wider?) than Europeans, car size matters a bit more. Hell, I'm 6'2" -- I _wish_ I could fit into a tiny little sportster like a Miata or an S2000, but there's no way in hell I could do it comfortably.
I started using CFLs in 2000 when I bought a house with 12 foot ceilings and got tired of dragging the ladder out every six months. Before long even the table lamps had CFLs.
I must be cursed then -- the CFLs I gave a shot for my lamps barely lasted a few months before they blew. And they did so in weird ways too. Like there was a rapid flickering strobe light effect before it died and then there was a troublesome odor emanating from the bulb. I recently grabbed a couple of the CFL halogen replacements to see if they're any good. But my hopes aren't high...
No. People continue to buy wasteful incandescent bulbs. They consume too much energy, emit too much heat, and take up landfill space since they have to be replaced all the time. They are cheap to produce so people buy them even though in the long run they cost more. We regulate lots of things because people have proven they are unwilling or unable to act in their own or collective self interest. This is a perfect example. It's example like people not choosing fuel efficient cars.
Have you ever thought that maybe they're buying them because they want them? The same goes for cars. I don't buy fuel-efficient cars because I want to accelerate quickly. And the vast majority of fuel efficient cars go from 0 to 60 is about 3 minutes. A good chunk of them are ugly as sin. And a good chunk of them don't even pay for themselves in the long run (even when taking fuel savings into account). As usual in this country, it's YET ANOTHER example of attempting to _force_ a technology into existence before it's ready for primetime, just like Solar power. It's stupid. It's a false equivalency, where you might think the product is the same and simply assume consumers don't know better, when in fact there's a reason these products are not being purchased.
Why is there plenty of other new "similar, more expensive, yet better" tech that has no problem being adopted by consumers without incentive or penalty? Like say LCDs over CRT TVs? Or Blu-rays over DVDs? Or hell, the obsolescence of the steam engine? Or gas appliances over electric? None of these things needed government "nudging" to force adoption, despite being more expensive.
I have my stockpile of incandescents in my garage and I intend to use them until someone invents something that is 100% transparent or superior to my current bulbs. Since they have not done that, I have no intention of adopting.
You might want to explain why. I've been using CFLs for over a decade. Incandescants have no advantage whatever and lots of downsides, both for the environment and your wallet. I'm happy to see incandescants go the way of the steam locomotive.
How about sketchy results dependent on manufacturer (YMMV), typical bad color reproduction, instant-on that isn't quite "instant" (no thanks, I don't want to wait 30 seconds for my full brightness)? You people can have your ban -- I already have my stockpile of ~300 incandescents in my garage. I'm good for at least a decade until someone releases a lightbulb that actually meets my needs -- perhaps LED, when the tech comes to maturity.
The individual mandate idea originated with Republicans and conservative think tanks. Hilary Clinton took up the idea, but Candidate Obama did not favor it, and had some sensible and insightful things to say about it (see link). Somehow the idea found its way into the healthcare bill, which then went on to be adopted without a single Republican vote. Yet Republicans who favored their own mandate-including bills earlier criticized the mandate when it was part of a Democrat bill (same link again). Anyone could be forgiven for being completely bewildered and whipsawed on this issue.
Anybody who thinks the facts given on the page linked are mistaken, please make your case. At this point, I don't have any axe to grind on this issue. Some of the people I respected on this issue have revealed themselves over time to be hypocrites, and I am wide open on this subject.
Challenge accepted!
I've seen this widely stated, including by Politfiact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/01/barack-obama/obama-says-heritage-foundation-source-health-excha/), but never understood why people are claiming equivalency. Like Robert Moffit stated, ""the Obama health-care law 'builds' on the Heritage health reform model only in the sense that, say, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese 'builds' on the idea of a garden salad. Both have lettuce and tomato and may be called food, but the similarities end there."
Keep in mind that PPACA was a thousand page bill and not all thousand pages discussed exchanges. Keep in mind also that the Heritage implementation called for statewide exchanges, not nationwide as PPACA implements. It's another massive difference between the two. And frankly, that alone is more than enough for me to label them "not remotely similar" (it'd be like comparing the local transportation department to the Department of Transportation).
If I had to liken a comparison to this misunderstanding, it would be like taking a generic Democrat-favored idea, like "universal healthcare", and spinning it ideologically in your favor, like "universal healthcare for rich people and oil tycoons", and then claiming it's originally a Democrat idea and wondering why they won't vote for it.
Hence my recommendation; if you *are* going to provide a social service, don't do a half-arsed job of it. Just do the damn thing already, and and do it good. Once you get over the phobia of socialism, then you can get to providing a service that's both competitive *and* cost-effective.
I think you're missing the point. A large reason healthcare costs are so damn high in America are because we have a very unhealthy culture prone to super-sizing Big Macs without worrying about the massive heart disease bills to come 20 years down the road (heart disease, btw, is one of the largest drivers of healthcare expenses in this country). That of course leads to one of two things:
1) Nanny state, ala this:http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/health/new-york-soda-ban/index.html
or
2) Let people do whatever they want and then eat the cost
Both Republicans and _some_ Democrats are opposed to #1. Republicans are opposed to #2, whereas Democrats seem to not care about picking up the bill of a bunch of irresponsible people. Though funny enough, they rage holy hell about picking up the tab of the irresponsible banks during the bailout -- go figure.
but the idea that healthcare should be an actual free market place, is fucking insane. you do understand that, right?
I certainly don't see why the bulk of it can't be free market. Hell, even in most European countries where public option is common, the private industry does most of the actual legwork. Outside of truly emergency cases, which are already covered by EMTALA + insurance, explain to me why a free market fails when it comes to healthcare (assuming the US system really was free)
Slashdot Mirror
No it isn't -- because that's the argument that is ALWAYS used when people make stupid decisions and the government tries to nanny-state us. It's the exact same argument that was made with the big bad banks forcing home loans on the ignorant public. It's the exact same argument that was made with lottery/gambling/casinos robbing ignorant people of their wealth. It will continue to be the same argument used to strip away every single freedom we have. You want to make people less ignorant? Fund Education! Punishing _everyone_ for the ignorance of _anyone_ is an assinine way to run a country.
I find it funny that your solution to a corrupt and tyrannical government is "more government". No, private industry isn't perfect -- but believe it or not, the reason rich people only pay about 10% of their income in taxes is because the GOVERNMENT passed laws to let them get away with it.
Nope, the OP was correct. The Tea Party had no leadership. By the time of Palin, it was already co-opted.
Where were you in the lead-up to the election 4 years ago? Just because they all went back to their holes once they realized their messiah wasn't wearing any clothes doesn't mean they're not there.
Sure, let's instead give it to the party of people who think Guam will tip over if we load it up with too many people: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/guamtip.asp
Wait a minute, you're telling me it's not fair to demonize your entire platform by the ridiculous comments of your most retarded? The hell you say.
This isn't news to me. I fully believe Romney believes there's a large chunk of people in this country sucking from the government's teat. Just as I fully believe Obama would take every single dime from business/rich people and redistribute it if he could get away with it. Obama is better with keeping his mask up, but they're both assholes. Hell, you think Obama didn't insult an equal number of Americans when he was caught privately talking about voters "clinging to their guns and religion" or when he told business owners they didn't build their business? Yeah yeah everyone talks about "out of context", but it was dead obvious from tone and temperament that he believes business creation is primarily a matter of "luck and assistance" rather than effort, and he believes it's "all reward" and "no risk". He believes that the vast majority of the populace, given enough money, will take initiative and just spring up and start churning out fantastic ideas and successful business ventures.
Umm, he was elected during a recession. And the historical average duration of a recession in the US is about 1 year. This particular one lasted 1.5 years. He literally could have SAT ON HIS HANDS for 4 years and the unemployment rate would be lower than when he took office. Why don't we take a real metric, like promises or bang for buck? You know like when he said spending nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus would get the unemployment rate under 6% by now -- and we're nowhere near that? Or the deficit he claimed he would cut in half -- which is once again nowhere near that. Or how he said Obamacare was going to lower medical premiums, yet they're higher than they've ever been. With your rock bottom expectations, of course the man is going to look like he's walking on water. And claiming Romney is a clone of Bush is a troll comment and probably why you were moderated as such. Those candidates are black and white, and claiming anything otherwise is just like saying "all Republicans are the same".
Hold on there. If I'm not mistaken, he did extend the Bush tax cuts. AND he gave out a ton of rebate checks in the stimulus program which amounted to a tax cut. AND he cut payroll taxes. So Yes he in fact did "give the population massive tax cuts causing the debt to rise drastically as spending now outstrips tax revenues"
Except it's relevant because very few people accept 100% of a given party's ideals, leaving us to vote for the same "basic package" every single year. Whereas individuals might be different, parties almost never change. And frankly, I'm tired of voting for racist gay-hating republicans simply because the other party has no financial sense or fiscal awareness.
Narrow? Sheesh, have you been following all the ridiculous number of things the federal government has claimed they're allowed to do? They're so far beyond the scope of the Constitution at this point that it's not even funny.
There is no proof that implementing a European system in the US would lower costs. We have different cultures, different health issues, and different diets/habits, just to name a few. This fallacy that we can just adopt a foreign healthcare system and make all our problems go away is just silly.
Why not? It seems far more sensible to argue about issues on their merits rather than party line
How do you figure? I mostly agree with the OP. If you live in a state that's 55% Democrat and 45% Republican that always ends up with a "representative" that shares 100% of Democrat views and 0% of Republican, how is that a representative sample of the constituency? Or hell, on the federal level...when one party beats another party to the presidency by the slimmest of margins, but goes on to impose their extreme political ideological view on the other 49% of the nation, how is that representative of the populace? At best, our political system, as written, tends to represent 40-60% of the people at any given time -- and then it seesaws back and forth as people grow agitated at the partisan behavior. The rare moments when we see a good chunk of the populace represented are typically when we have a mixed government (no one party has a majority in all 3 branches). And 3rd parties pretty much have no representation since they're not big enough of a majority to be part of the "seesaw" game -- their reps never get into office to impose their will on the 45% minority.
Some people call that compromising and reaching across the aisle. His governance of NH with an 80% democratic majority shows that not only can he be a moderate (rather than an extreme neocon), but he can work with the other side. That alone makes him a zillion times better than Obama, of whom we can only guarantee 4 more years of "i won, fuck you" ideological obstructionism.
Ah yes, because having 51% of the country exert their will on 49% of the country is surely sane. With that kind of governing, you get exactly what we have now:
1) one asshole party passing 4 years of their extreme ideology
2) citizens getting pissed off at the partisanship and voting in the other party en-masse
3) goto 1
No thank you, I'd rather every law require a super majority so that only shit that needs to get passed actually get passed. Force those fuckers to compromise.
You mean like the wars we're still engaged in, the largest tax cut in history that Obama extended, and an even _larger_ healthcare expenditure in the form of Obamacare? That didn't go on the credit card? How about the stimulus? Or the "no strings attached" bank bailouts?
His language, demeanor, AND the process disagree with you. When even moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe say they are shut out of the process (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052748704007804574573841915542278.html), you can be certain nothing "bipartisan" is occurring. What proof do you have that it was? Were you there? Or did Obama just TELL you he was working with Republicans, so naturally that must be true? Hell, Snowe voted FOR the initial healthcare bill out of committee (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/29/snowe-explains-decision-to-leave-defends-tough-criticism-of-senate/). She wanted healthcare reform. She did not get the kind of cooperation she expected. Even moderates in your own party were of the same opinion: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/08/blue-dog-will-vote-against-bill-with-public-option/
"In July, Ross urged congressional leaders to slow down the pace of health care negotiations and said reform "needs to be done in a deliberate, bipartisan and common sense way." "
I just TOLD you why -- he couldn't get his own party behind it. Proof: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1092-Blue-Dogs-Don-t-Want-a-Public-Option-That-Works
http://www.progressiveblue.com/diary/3962/will-corporate-democrats-sink-the-public-option
Where's your proof? STOP REWRITING HISTORY: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/01/26/171901/blue-po-ahip/
And YES the final product was written solely partisan, behinds closed doors -- the final draft did not go through bipartisan committee: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/healthcare-senate-house-democrats-obama.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/democrats-reid-pelosi-healthcare-cspan.html
Then he chose career advancement over healthcare reform. Good for him, he's no different than any other career-minded stubborn Republican who refuses to raise taxes because they're worried about their job because of some asinine "agreement" they made with the populace.
Proof of this? Lots of people and politicians were clamoring for health care reform. I honestly doubt taking this back to square one would have simply ended the discussion of healthcare reform.
You appear as if you'll believe whatever you want to believe -- this is why none of your dialogue comes with cites, facts, or proof.
1) Slim down the bill to only the parts everyone agrees on
2) Nix it and start from square one
And finally, the process wasn't "hijacked" -- it went down exactly as he planned, completely unilaterally and partisan. Hell, he had to fight with his own damn party to get them on board. Blue Dogs couldn't stand the public option. See my other post here (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3088499&cid=41266929) about Obama's idea of "reaching across the aisle" Passing a bill you KNOW to be a bad bill simply because of political pressure at best makes you a "career politician" who cares more about re-election than about the country.
FTFY
Only alternative? Wow...just wow...
That's not entirely true. Side air bags for instance are required in the US but not in Europe.
Well seeing as how Americans tend to be a bit bigger (or should I say wider?) than Europeans, car size matters a bit more. Hell, I'm 6'2" -- I _wish_ I could fit into a tiny little sportster like a Miata or an S2000, but there's no way in hell I could do it comfortably.
I'd be willing to bet the bulk of those 4 cylinders are turbo'ed
I must be cursed then -- the CFLs I gave a shot for my lamps barely lasted a few months before they blew. And they did so in weird ways too. Like there was a rapid flickering strobe light effect before it died and then there was a troublesome odor emanating from the bulb. I recently grabbed a couple of the CFL halogen replacements to see if they're any good. But my hopes aren't high...
Have you ever thought that maybe they're buying them because they want them? The same goes for cars. I don't buy fuel-efficient cars because I want to accelerate quickly. And the vast majority of fuel efficient cars go from 0 to 60 is about 3 minutes. A good chunk of them are ugly as sin. And a good chunk of them don't even pay for themselves in the long run (even when taking fuel savings into account). As usual in this country, it's YET ANOTHER example of attempting to _force_ a technology into existence before it's ready for primetime, just like Solar power. It's stupid. It's a false equivalency, where you might think the product is the same and simply assume consumers don't know better, when in fact there's a reason these products are not being purchased.
Why is there plenty of other new "similar, more expensive, yet better" tech that has no problem being adopted by consumers without incentive or penalty? Like say LCDs over CRT TVs? Or Blu-rays over DVDs? Or hell, the obsolescence of the steam engine? Or gas appliances over electric? None of these things needed government "nudging" to force adoption, despite being more expensive.
I have my stockpile of incandescents in my garage and I intend to use them until someone invents something that is 100% transparent or superior to my current bulbs. Since they have not done that, I have no intention of adopting.
How about sketchy results dependent on manufacturer (YMMV), typical bad color reproduction, instant-on that isn't quite "instant" (no thanks, I don't want to wait 30 seconds for my full brightness)? You people can have your ban -- I already have my stockpile of ~300 incandescents in my garage. I'm good for at least a decade until someone releases a lightbulb that actually meets my needs -- perhaps LED, when the tech comes to maturity.
Challenge accepted!
I've seen this widely stated, including by Politfiact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/01/barack-obama/obama-says-heritage-foundation-source-health-excha/), but never understood why people are claiming equivalency. Like Robert Moffit stated, ""the Obama health-care law 'builds' on the Heritage health reform model only in the sense that, say, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese 'builds' on the idea of a garden salad. Both have lettuce and tomato and may be called food, but the similarities end there."
Keep in mind that PPACA was a thousand page bill and not all thousand pages discussed exchanges. Keep in mind also that the Heritage implementation called for statewide exchanges, not nationwide as PPACA implements. It's another massive difference between the two. And frankly, that alone is more than enough for me to label them "not remotely similar" (it'd be like comparing the local transportation department to the Department of Transportation).
If I had to liken a comparison to this misunderstanding, it would be like taking a generic Democrat-favored idea, like "universal healthcare", and spinning it ideologically in your favor, like "universal healthcare for rich people and oil tycoons", and then claiming it's originally a Democrat idea and wondering why they won't vote for it.
I think you're missing the point. A large reason healthcare costs are so damn high in America are because we have a very unhealthy culture prone to super-sizing Big Macs without worrying about the massive heart disease bills to come 20 years down the road (heart disease, btw, is one of the largest drivers of healthcare expenses in this country). That of course leads to one of two things:
1) Nanny state, ala this:http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/health/new-york-soda-ban/index.html
or
2) Let people do whatever they want and then eat the cost
Both Republicans and _some_ Democrats are opposed to #1. Republicans are opposed to #2, whereas Democrats seem to not care about picking up the bill of a bunch of irresponsible people. Though funny enough, they rage holy hell about picking up the tab of the irresponsible banks during the bailout -- go figure.
I certainly don't see why the bulk of it can't be free market. Hell, even in most European countries where public option is common, the private industry does most of the actual legwork. Outside of truly emergency cases, which are already covered by EMTALA + insurance, explain to me why a free market fails when it comes to healthcare (assuming the US system really was free)