Official 2004 State of the Union Address Thread

[Durandal]

Are those official conditions? As far as I know, faith-based organizations that accept government contracts or funds can never turn anybody away, although they are permitted to discriminate in hiring practices.

I dunno ... those are the conditions I'd like to see. Not being able to discriminate in hiring isn't a huge deal, though keeping religion out of their charity work would be. This money should be meant for helping people, not favoring religions.

[Joe]

I don't know what to make of the whole "separate but equal" business.

On one hand there's no reason I can conceive of that gays shouldn't be allowed to call their civil union a marriage.

On the other hand it's a form over substance nitpick, assuming partners in civil unions have the same legal relationship as partnerships in a marriage. It just doesn't compare to the horror and degradation of forced racial segregation. I think it would be a perfectly reasonable compromise to make until civil unions are widely accepted enough to be acknowledged as marriage.

[Howedar]

IIRC, he supports "civil unions" but not gay marriage. This has become the "reasonable middle ground" in the minds of most American voters: separate but equal.

I think a period of separate but equal is the only way to arrive at combined and equal. I don't know if people would be able to make the jump all at once. I think it's a necessary evil, albeit a temporary one.

[Iceberg]

Why, Mr. Bush, we never knew!

[Darth Wong]

According to Bush, "a government-run health care system is the wrong prescription". Fucking idiot. They already have a government-run health care system; the problem is that it only applies to welfare recipients and the elderly. They can't make it run efficiently because their system is run by trial lawyers and pharmaceutical companies.

[Darth Wong]

I don't know what to make of the whole "separate but equal" business.

On one hand there's no reason I can conceive of that gays shouldn't be allowed to call their civil union a marriage.

On the other hand it's a form over substance nitpick, assuming partners in civil unions have the same legal relationship as partnerships in a marriage.

And the water in black drinking fountains tasted the same as the water in white drinking fountains in 1955, didn't it?

It just doesn't compare to the horror and degradation of forced racial segregation. I think it would be a perfectly reasonable compromise to make until civil unions are widely accepted enough to be acknowledged as marriage.

This would depend on how it is made to be "equal". Since the vast majority of insurance forms and similar paperwork asks for your "marital status" and is unlikely to change overnight, one often needs to be able to declare oneself as married in order to receive certain benefits. If the law states that the people in these "civil unions" are permitted to declare themselves as married for such purposes, it would give theoretically equal benefits, although (and this is no small caveat) it would still enshrine an overtly discriminatory institution in law (ie- hetero-only marriage). However, if a person in a gay "civil union" is permitted to declare his equivalent-to-married status as "married" in such forms, then why can't he just call himself "married"?

[RedImperator]

If you wanted to avoid "separate-but-equal", you could simply reclassify all marriage as "civil unions" and allow any two people to enter into one. And oh, how the fundies would howl.

[Darth Wong]

If you wanted to avoid "separate-but-equal", you could simply reclassify all marriage as "civil unions" and allow any two people to enter into one. And oh, how the fundies would howl.

That would actually be a good solution; eliminate the word "marriage" from law, and stop recognizing religious marriage in any legal sense whatsoever. Will that make the fundies happy?

[Gil Hamilton]

If you wanted to avoid "separate-but-equal", you could simply reclassify all marriage as "civil unions" and allow any two people to enter into one. And oh, how the fundies would howl.

Let them howl, it's a good idea.

[revprez]

According to Bush, "a government-run health care system is the wrong prescription". Fucking idiot. They already have a government-run health care system; the problem is that it only applies to welfare recipients and the elderly.

With Medicare and Medicaid, the government tells doctors and hospitals how much they're going to pay and there is no negotiation whatsoever. There is also a real problem with fraud in self referrals schemes--where doctors start up their own clinics while employeed at others and send Medicare patients, along with their government money, over there so they can collect. These entitlements have driven up health care costs for the properly insured and have left many hospitals struggling to stay open.

They can't make it run efficiently because their system is run by trial lawyers and pharmaceutical companies.

Well your system works because all the pharmaceutical research is done in this country. Because of Canada's price controls and those of most of the industrialized world, Americans foot the bill. Imagine what will happen in Canada once prescription drug reimportation is passed in this country.

Rev Prez

[Rogue 9]

Letter from a little girl?

Ugh *vomits*

Hahaha. Her big moment and she's sleeping.

She wasn't asleep. She was on the news this morning with her family, and they watched the speech.

But it doesn't matter if you regulate how the churches use that money. If you give money to a church and they use it for charity, they have more left for their evangelism. The rules don't matter, because every dollar that goes to a church ends up funding their religious agenda anyway.

How do you figure that? If they're using it for charity, how are they also using it for evangelism? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Oh, and Mike? Saying that the majority of U.S. citizens feel more comfortable giving to and receiving aid from religious charities and that therefore we should support religious charities is an appeal to popularity, but it is also an objective fact. What takes precedence? An abstract logical fallacy or objective reality? Saying that religious charities shouldn't receive support because they're religious is all well and good for your ideology, but what about the people who aren't getting fed because the charities that help them aren't getting money? Its very real to them.

[Knife]

She wasn't asleep. She was on the news this morning with her family, and they watched the speech.

That wasn't her, sleeping on her daddy's chest when Bush was reading her deal?

[Rogue 9]

Don't think so. I don't think they were present at the address. I might be confused though, it was on really early and I had just gotten up.

[Darth Wong]

With Medicare and Medicaid, the government tells doctors and hospitals how much they're going to pay and there is no negotiation whatsoever.

Strangely enough, this works fine in Canada.

There is also a real problem with fraud in self referrals schemes--where doctors start up their own clinics while employeed at others and send Medicare patients, along with their government money, over there so they can collect. These entitlements have driven up health care costs for the properly insured and have left many hospitals struggling to stay open.

Wouldn't happen with a government-run system instead of your two-tier system.

They can't make it run efficiently because their system is run by trial lawyers and pharmaceutical companies.

Well your system works because all the pharmaceutical research is done in this country. Because of Canada's price controls and those of most of the industrialized world, Americans foot the bill. Imagine what will happen in Canada once prescription drug reimportation is passed in this country.

Rev Prez

Bullshit. If the American drug companies were actually losing money on their sales to Canada, guess what: they wouldn't sell here anymore. The problem is that they are allowed to gouge in the US.

A pharmaceutical company effectively has a monopoly on a particular type of drug, and this drug, unlike, say, a stereo system, is something that is necessary for the recipient. So they can gouge to their heart's content, and that is the problem; there needs to be some kind of control because the situation is similar to a monopolistic situation; do you see price competition for these specialized drugs? No, because only one company can make them.

But by all means, if you can find any pharmaceutical companies which are teetering on insolvency because of price pressures rather than growing fat on price gouging, let me know.

[Darth Wong]

Oh, and Mike? Saying that the majority of U.S. citizens feel more comfortable giving to and receiving aid from religious charities and that therefore we should support religious charities is an appeal to popularity, but it is also an objective fact.

An objective fact which is used to support a conclusion that does not follow logically.

What takes precedence? An abstract logical fallacy or objective reality?

Don't be an idiot; you do not need to deny the fact in order to show that the conclusion does not follow from it.

Saying that religious charities shouldn't receive support because they're religious is all well and good for your ideology, but what about the people who aren't getting fed because the charities that help them aren't getting money? Its very real to them.

The money would go to ... oh, I dunno ... other charities? Ones that don't discriminate? Try to put your brain in gear.

[Faram]

Well your system works because all the pharmaceutical research is done in this country. Because of Canada's price controls and those of most of the industrialized world, Americans foot the bill. Imagine what will happen in Canada once prescription drug reimportation is passed in this country.

Rev Prez

All the medical research is done in the USA? Well that's news! Don't forget to tell Karolinska Institutet about that!

[Col. Crackpot]

Don't think so. I don't think they were present at the address. I might be confused though, it was on really early and I had just gotten up.

unless she mysterious transformed from a 3 foot tall black girl to a 5 foot tall white girl overnight, it isn't the same girl. But then again Michael Jackson did it so anything is possible.

[Durandal]

Sure, and being a lawyer does not grant me special powers of interperation, I have never had to deal with Consitutional law issues since law school.

Ah, but being a guy on a web board does grant you such powers, does it not?

There are a few folks here more up to date on it than I am. But anyway, yes it does, the Judicial exists to make sure that the legislature does not enact laws that are unconsitutional or that the Executive does not establish powers beyond its scope or policies that are also unconsitutional.

Which is where the Judicial branch's powers lie. They interpret the Constitution, and can wield quite a bit of power through such interpretations.

If the Adminstration said tomorrow that no Arabs could serve in the CIA or NSC the judicial branch is there to say no. And even then it is a delicate power because as Andrew Jackson showed us when the SCOTUS ruled for the Cherokee tribes he told the court to go fuck itself. If Congress enacts a law saying the same thing, the court is there to deal with it.

I don't think current presidents would be able to get away with telling the Supreme Court to go fuck itself.

Now in this instance, Bush is using his own check on the Judicial, enacting legislation that is Consitutional thus beyond the Court's power to interpret.

Ah, but if the Supreme Court interprets the idea of marriage in such a way that it is a) part of every citizen's right to the pursuit of happiness and b) defined in such a way as to be discriminating based on gender, then they could very well overturn Bush's proposed legislation, if passed and then challenged. Part a should be obvious; in fact, I seem to recall a case where the Supreme Court defined marriage as a part of the right to pursuit of happiness. Part b should also be obvious. The government is telling people that they can only marry members of the opposite sex; this is blatant gender discrimination. If the government was telling people that they could only marry within their race, it would certainly be racial discrimination.

As well as the implied power that he gets to place judges on the bench, the check there that they need congressional 'advise and consent' which has been interpretted to mean that the Coingress must approve any federal judicial nominee.

The Supreme Court's check on that is that their tenures are for life. Bush can't just yank a judge at his whim. If you're talking about federal courts, I'm unfamiliar with how long they sit for. I think it's 7 years.

Please keep in mind that I am not arguing that gay marriage is wrong, but I do happen to agree that the courts tend to do too much legisalation and not enough interpretation. There are many lawyers who would disagree with me.

I would argue that their interpretation is effectively the same thing as legislation, which is the idea that my poly sci professor espoused. The Supreme Court can effectively amend the Constitution by interpreting it.

[revprez]

Strangely enough, this works fine in Canada.

For precisely the reason I outlined below. The major cost increases in health care have been in preventive care, and that's because more people are using prescription drugs than ever. Canadians can bask in price controls because Americans are footing the rest of the bill.

Wouldn't happen with a government-run system instead of your two-tier system.

Really, how's that?

Bullshit. If the American drug companies were actually losing money on their sales to Canada, guess what: they wouldn't sell here anymore. The problem is that they are allowed to gouge in the US.

Nonsense. You still make money in Canada and the rest of the world, but to get the profits necessary to sustain investment you have to sell at higher prices in the States.

A pharmaceutical company effectively has a monopoly on a particular type of drug, and this drug, unlike, say, a stereo system, is something that is necessary for the recipient. So they can gouge to their heart's content, and that is the problem; there needs to be some kind of control because the situation is similar to a monopolistic situation; do you see price competition for these specialized drugs? No, because only one company can make them.

And where are is the Canadian innovation in pharmaceuticals? Seriously, if this health care system is so great why does it rely on American drugs to sustain itself? Why is the United States leading the world in R&D spending and marketing expenses? Why do we control almost two thirds of the market share? Before people throw around accusations of price gouging, they should ask themselves why are most of sales from the top 50 drugs supplied by a few American pharms?

But by all means, if you can find any pharmaceutical companies which are teetering on insolvency because of price pressures rather than growing fat on price gouging, let me know.

Why should I have to? Insolvency isn't the only measure of risk a company assumes when they get into this business. The rate at which their R&D spending is a far better indicator, and when price controls are imposed in this country--as was proposed ten years ago--that spending drops sharply. You might call it profiteering. I call it people having good sense not to throw their money away on a loser.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

All the medical research is done in the USA? Well that's news! Don't forget to tell Karolinska Institutet about that!

Where did I say "all?"

Rev Prez

[Faram]

Where did I say "all?"

Rev Prez

No where misread it.

[Darth Wong]

Strangely enough, this works fine in Canada.

For precisely the reason I outlined below. The major cost increases in health care have been in preventive care, and that's because more people are using prescription drugs than ever. Canadians can bask in price controls because Americans are footing the rest of the bill.

When I asked you to provide evidence of your assertion in the "Is Health Care a Right" thread in SLAM, you provided 4 links which proved my point, not yours.

Wouldn't happen with a government-run system instead of your two-tier system.

Really, how's that?

You don't understand how it's impossible to play a shell game between Medicare and the private insurance system when one of them is removed? Are you on drugs?

Nonsense. You still make money in Canada and the rest of the world, but to get the profits necessary to sustain investment you have to sell at higher prices in the States.

Right, that's why they are by far the most profitable companies in the US, with profit margins 4 times higher than the median for the Fortune 500. That's why their R&D costs are just 16% of sales revenue. That's why they need to get patent extensions. Right?

And where are is the Canadian innovation in pharmaceuticals? Seriously, if this health care system is so great why does it rely on American drugs to sustain itself?

Companies naturally go to the place where the regulatory environment allows them to be most profitable, dumb-ass. That place happens to be the US, since its laws are ridiculous. They allow patent extensions, they refuse to admit that sky-high profit margins and marketing/admin costs which utterly dwarf R&D costs refute the industry claim that the prices are held high by R&D costs, and the lack of a single-payer system means that it's much easier to swindle end-consumers by dealing with them and their family doctors directly.

Why is the United States leading the world in R&D spending and marketing expenses? Why do we control almost two thirds of the market share? Before people throw around accusations of price gouging, they should ask themselves why are most of sales from the top 50 drugs supplied by a few American pharms?

Because companies will go where the regulatory environment is most conducive to excessive profits, dumb-ass. This does not in any way refute accusations of price gouging.

But by all means, if you can find any pharmaceutical companies which are teetering on insolvency because of price pressures rather than growing fat on price gouging, let me know.

Why should I have to? Insolvency isn't the only measure of risk a company assumes when they get into this business. The rate at which their R&D spending is a far better indicator, and when price controls are imposed in this country--as was proposed ten years ago--that spending drops sharply.

Political threat, much like OPEC's moves in the 70s. And quite frankly, the pharmaceuticals should be treated the same way.

You might call it profiteering. I call it people having good sense not to throw their money away on a loser.

Call it whatever you want, but the numbers don't back you up.

[Darth Wong]

BTW Prez, since corporations go wherever the profit is, your argument boils down to:

"the drug companies can make more money in the US than anywhere else, therefore they're not price-gouging in the US".

"Non-sequitur" is an understatement.

[revprez]

"the drug companies can make more money in the US than anywhere else, therefore they're not price-gouging in the US".

Your entire argument boils down to "the drug companies can make more money in the US than anywhere else, therefore they're price-gouging in the US." The problem is, you have no evidence whatsoever.

But like I said, it's your board. I concede.

Rev Prez

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

How can you get a transcript of the SOTU?


EDIT: Found one.