Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 146 of 146

Thread: Health Bill

  1. #101  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    marcus quotes;

    they will pay advisor's, which will be political economists and doctors, to determine the most cost effective methods, and then pass them in legislation, and enforce them
    If your a politician, have an agenda be it, re-election or promoting you own agenda with the accepted mandate from winning the election, your going to get or accept the advisor's opinions, which fit your ideas. In business, your looking for objective comments in the first place. Your motive is making money. If the politician fails, in time he/she won't be re-elected, but to date every policy has continued, where the business person will be terminated along with the idea. (note; See Government efficiency in my comments to inow, as well)

    "reducing the economy" doesn't make symantical sense
    Every tax dollar taken from the wealth of the consumer/industry, reduces the amount they can spend, the US is said near 70% consumer driven which includes private sector industry. Government spending includes all Government, City/County/State and Federal, the employees and politicians, along with the military all are part of the economy, but produce NO income, where in the private sector every dollar received from the consumer, other industry or that government is invested directly into the economy. Savings accounts invested on commerce, wages paid and so on.

    Now here is the 'Catch 22'; I agree Federal money spent, say on Welfare has helped to a small degree in the economic boom from the late 60's, but those dollars (productivity) cost far more than the payroll dollars of business.

    if you mean that the federal government hurts the economy, you have to be kidding, because all of the government workers are benefited by the economy, if they hurt the economy, they would be hurting their own workers, including politicians. They are not hurting the economy, they are trying to control it. In all reality, a government cannot hurt an economy, only citizens can do that by not producing wealth.
    I know this and it's called 'Confidence', the lack of trust in Government, but the Government needs those consumers/industry for the money it spends. Last year, the 2009 fiscal year, ending October 2009, the Federal Government and all others collected less than what was budgeted, because that source was dried up. With out complicating your thread, the recent quarterly 3.5% increase in GDP (a current quarter about 3.55T$, 4 % being 142B$), was Government Spending, all in deficits.


    inow quotes;
    No, I'm not. Try again.
    Your comment, leading into the 6 points..

    Normal free market principles and assumptions simply don’t work in the field of healthcare, nor in the selection of coverage. Those assumptions which fail are these:
    If those principles do not work (assume then never had, which is incorrect) then how could government make the system work.

    Again, wrong. Healthcare costs have been rising at three to four times the rate of inflation for over a decade. Try again.
    That's correct and the point, since Medicare (1965) the first real intrusion into the public HC System, HC cost have increased. Each time Congress or an Administration (including Bush) has added to the intrusions those cost steepened to inflation, with legislation, regulation (mandates) or Executive Orders. My comment twisted by you reply....

    Second, Healthcare in the US, was rolling along just fine, cost increasing along with inflations for generations, without government assistance.
    Health Care Spending to the consumer, held steady about 5-7% of income, from the 30's until 1967, when the Medicaid/Medicare programs kicked in and has increased or quadrupled since Government take over of part and with each additional program continued to increase. to near 20% in 2006. Note in the article, near non exists public funding until 1968.

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article2922.html


    I agree, but healthcare is not a free market, nor does it meet the basic assumptions required for a free market to operate. Try again.
    My arguments are opposed to National Health Care or the public option, since there is no longer a way to anyone will touch Medicare or Medicaid, which are NOT pure free market. Adding to these already failing programs, will not solve that problem, rather add to it, IMO.

    I'm just going to go ahead and call that one bullshit. Feel free to supply some sources in support.
    Productivity; The Industry Productivity and Costs program publishes annual measures of output per hour and unit labor costs for detailed U.S. industries.
    http://www.bls.gov/lpc/

    US ranked one in 2008 in productivity.
    The U.S. was the top performer in 2008—the only country to receive an “A” grade. This may be puzzling given the headlines of economic crisis in the United States. The key to understanding how the U.S. can be simultaneously experiencing slower GDP growth and a rise in labour productivity is to understand how productivity is measured. Productivity is measured by dividing GDP by hours worked. Hours worked declined in the U.S. in 2008, undoubtedly because of large job losses.
    http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/De...ty-canada.aspx

    Unfortunately this rating includes the Federal Government, so an alternative rating would be efficiency, which is self proving. Aside from having the highest paid workers, compared to the private sector, the highest incidental cost and retirement packages they seem to have no understanding of cost/efficiency. Cash for Klunkers costing taxpayers $24k per to give away $4k for each trade in, seems a little high. I could go through the Katrina expenses, or any number of programs including the many stimulus programs where aid or assistance cost billions, with an outcome a small fraction of the expense.

    What you have dismissed as "my opinions" are facts about how satisfied the public is with their coverage. People are happy with their doctors, and feel they can generally get care when they need it, however they are not satisfied with costs, security, nor how it's trending. Try again.
    Something is wrong, since that's what I've been saying. Now the question is how can so many people satisfied with there overall coverage, be wanting the Federal Government to take over. If it's cost, then please explain how any number of people can be added and the cost be reduced, with out reducing quality or reducing coverage. The public I believe is getting behind tort reform, the Fed refuses to and a few States have adopted policy, including Texas. They also want their States to quit dictating demands based on Federal requirement for which of the 1300 all Insurance Companies can compete/participate, some States limited to 6 or so...

    Of course, Americans know that they pay a lot for health; the rising cost of health insurance for employers is the main reason why wages have been stagnant for years. But they also fear that any further expansion of government involvement in the health care system will only make it more expensive. This is a key objection to the health care reform bill now working its way through Congress.
    http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/hea...ts-reform.html

    This sounds like it's a choice they are willing to make. It impacts them, and they are opting to do it. You have no right to decide on our behalf. I know you THINK you're dong what is right, but the people making the decisions are the ones who will be impacted, hence they have every right to decide for themselves.
    Here is my problem, with the "people making the decision". Every analysis of a House Member or Senator and their intended vote, is based on the political conscience of their District/State, which would and should be the right thing to do, if that conscientious is being followed. I don't think it is...

    Haven't you grown tired of being corrected on your falsehoods yet?
    If you believe your correcting me, please keep it coming. Aside from the challenge, you do respond and are consistent. I'll just be grateful for the opportunity to place what I feel are the important arguments to oppose, what you feel are the norm...

    And yet the bill DECREASES the deficit by $81 billion over the next 10 years. Fancy that.
    This has nothing to do with what the GDP/Ratio, will be on 1/1/2013 (day the HB would kick in) but is another interesting point.

    W/O specific figures; The CBO predicted the HB 3200 would add around 800B$ to the deficit (over 10 years), however if certain actions were TAKEN and those action result in the savings, to compensate for the added cost and as presented by Obama, a result of no additional deficit could be achieved. The Baucus Bill (one of three in the Senate, at the time), was compared to the HB 3200, which if compared would cost less, with the same qualifiers for not reaching the projected 800B$ in deficits. Now that we know what the HB that may be voted on, looks like, whatever the Senate comes up with will look different, not to mention what the Joint Conference Committee (House/Senate) will do, the Baucus approach is all but dead. By the way the CBO has predicted the 2000 page 'Bill' now being considered will cost taxpayers 1T$ in deficits directly and another 200B$ which would go on another bill.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    The US private sector, has the highest productivity level on the planet, while the US Federal Government has the lowest.
    Quote Originally Posted by iNow
    I'm just going to go ahead and call that one bullshit. Feel free to supply some sources in support.
    Productivity; The Industry Productivity and Costs program publishes annual measures of output per hour and unit labor costs for detailed U.S. industries.
    http://www.bls.gov/lpc/

    US ranked one in 2008 in productivity.
    The U.S. was the top performer in 2008—the only country to receive an “A” grade. This may be puzzling given the headlines of economic crisis in the United States. The key to understanding how the U.S. can be simultaneously experiencing slower GDP growth and a rise in labour productivity is to understand how productivity is measured. Productivity is measured by dividing GDP by hours worked. Hours worked declined in the U.S. in 2008, undoubtedly because of large job losses.
    Okay. Two things here. First, you have not supported either claim really. For example, your link does NOT address your assertion that "the US Federal Government has the lowest productivity on the planet." Second, while I appreciate you bringing forth a reference regarding productivity, it would be wrong of me not to point out that your link does NOT support your contention that "the US private sector has the highest productivity on the planet." What it DOES show is that... according to the ranking system and measurements chosen in that particular review/study, and among the countries used in their population sample, the US ranked highest. That highest productivity on the planet.

    Please, feel free to try again, though.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by iNow
    And yet the bill DECREASES the deficit by $81 billion over the next 10 years. Fancy that.
    This has nothing to do with what the GDP/Ratio, will be on 1/1/2013 (day the HB would kick in) but is another interesting point.
    But it has everything to do with demonstrating the flaw of the assertion you made above. Removing the context of my response doesn't make my reply flawed. My response demonstrated your assertion that, "For the record the National Debt Clock will be at least 14T$ and the GDP likely holding at 15T$ and the US would have Junk Bond ratings." was rather irrelevant. Your comment about the debt clock implicitly suggests that the debt has a 1:1 correspondence with our changes to healthcare. That is hardly the case. Other factors (which I'm sure you know) feed the overall debt, but on top of that, I have shown how the current plans for healthcare reform actually reduce overall deficit, thus rendering your point about the debt and healthcare completely moot.




    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    By the way the CBO has predicted the 2000 page 'Bill' now being considered will cost taxpayers 1T$ in deficits directly and another 200B$ which would go on another bill.
    Please forgive me for my unwillingness to just take your word for it, and for my sense that you are very likely inaccurately describing what the CBO said, all without providing any context or time frames for those numbers... but please provide your source so I can read more about this claim myself and better understand what is actually happening. Thanks in advance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    kojax quotes;
    From what I can tell, it's mostly the older people on Medicare who want the government not to go granting free health care to the young people. That would be consistent with the republicans' constituency.
    I'll agree, the elderly are, or seem to be the most concerned, but believe it's in fear of eventual rationing. However those on MC today, will likely be long gone before the program become totally activated. As one of those people, I'd prefer to think it's out of concern for future cost, understanding their (my) burden on the already overstressed Federal System.
    In other words, you're worried that your own immediate children might not receive medicare when they reach retirement age, or that they'll receive less. Your attention is focused on that, instead of the possibility that one of your grandchildren might be out of a job when their kid ends up contracting MS, or suffers a spinal injury.

    Probably you know your family would be able to pull together and support them, but of course not everybody in the USA has such a caring family.



    For instance; Under some conditions, Medicare will pay for a mobile chair (you see advertised) and lets say that maximum is $2,000, with $200 incidental allowances. The manufacturer, has chairs that range from 1500.00 to 2500.00 in ready to market cost. They will of course sell the 1500.00 chairs for this purpose. Now if a person has a medical procedure done (say a double valve heart bypass), which goes off with no complication and a literal cost of 12 to 14,000 and the Federal limit is 20,000, that 20,000 will be the charged. If there are complication (not the rule today) that cost may be 22-25,000 or more. Insurance Company included and will or have raised there premiums to meets these cost.
    Medicare is one of the most often abused and falsely charged government institutions out there. People have made millions billing it for services never rendered, and then retired to the Caymans.

    The chairs case is a good example of Medicare paying too much for a service. The double valve heart bypass might be seen as a situation where the hospital is being compensated for its risk. Unless they get payed more when there are complications, the profit they make off of uncomplicated procedures probably gets spent making up for the money they lose on the complicated ones.

    In other words: Medicare causes the same effect as non-paying clients cause. The hospital has to make up its losses by gouging all the rest of us. It's possible that a nationwide health care plan might do the same thing in order to save taxpayer money, but it will end up costing all the private customers more, and eventually kill them off. (Their insurance companies, anyway.)
    I don't like the word gouging, but in general terms, business has to make up cost or if possible increase there back up funds for unexpected cost, so yes if your on private insurance, there is an added cost because of Medicare, but no reducing those limits will not help. On the double bypass, say they (Federal) drops the limit to 10,000 for all such procedures, the Hospital/Doctors just won't do them or the quality of work will need to be lowered, by less experienced staff and equipment.
    What would happen is they'd start charging private insurers $30,000 for the same procedure, or something like that.


    I really think the 'do gooders' believe they can prevent illness with preventative medicine. The problem is you can't prevent the inevitable (genetics), at best post phone it a few years. Many people are going to eventually end up with costly procedures.
    You can't stop everything, but you can still reduce costs by preventing the things that are preventable. It's not unlimited, but every bit you save is of benefit.

    A police officer wearing a bullet proof vest knows he/she still might get shot in the head. That doesn't mean its a bad idea to wear a vest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    In other words, you're worried that your own immediate children might not receive Medicare when they reach retirement age, or that they'll receive less. Your attention is focused on that, instead of the possibility that one of your grandchildren might be out of a job when their kid ends up contracting MS, or suffers a spinal injury.
    kojax; 2.6 Million people die, in the US each year (the total population of Montana, Wyoming and Alaska), six to seven thousand every day. Forty thousand die in Auto Accident (110 daily) with up to 2 million injured. It's said after the age of 65, one in three will fall each year (I ?), causing injury, on average 60 thousand will die from the Flu each year and there are countless other reasons people die other than natural death, not counting a million or so that are aborted, each year. 'If, and and buts' are just as important to all these statistics, as to *possibly* being unemployed, not insured (for any reason) or more likely under insured, when the *possibility* of contracting a decease or having an accident, may happen.

    My concerns are for the Country itself, the general trending of Government and this administration and out of control spending, which HC is a small portion of and I didn't start this with Obama, though he has certainly elevated the problem. I am one that still feels this is right of center conservative society, where people from around the world try to get into for opportunities that can't be realized elsewhere.

    Medicare is one of the most often abused and falsely charged government institutions out there. People have made millions billing it for services never rendered, and then retired to the Caymans.
    I really don't think so: Sure there have and are some that over bill for personal gain, but I doubt that many. But lets assume your correct, do you think adding 40, 50 or 100 million people to the system, would decrease fraudulent billing.

    I'll insert this question here; Obama has said he will cut fraud, which if could be done, he should have already done, but went on saying; He could cut 500B from Medicare. Do you think it's even possible to cut 500B$ from the current Medicare System, which is about a fifth of all Medical Expenses in the US and then the imaginary fraud, to begin paying for his program in total???

    The chairs case is a good example of Medicare paying too much for a service. The double valve heart bypass might be seen as a situation where the hospital is being compensated for its risk. Unless they get payed more when there are complications, the profit they make off of uncomplicated procedures probably gets spent making up for the money they lose on the complicated ones.
    How you digested my examples was interesting; The 'chair' (pre-established price structure) angle, was a lead into what cannot be pre-established and how any 'third party' must address and judge results. A double by pass, may require one or two diagnostic test or five or more, the operation itself require three assistants or many more to cover potential complications, two days to two weeks of recovery in the hospital and an indeterminable time for follow up and rehabilitation, or it could end in 30 minutes in death. Practically speaking this is true for any Medical Problem, for getting a tooth pulled to some life long condition. The limitations for compensations, include many things other than the actual operation or procedure, but it leaves the door open for adjusting the prices charged from one aspect to another, which you did understand on same price paid for each actual operation (which legitimizes fraudulent billing). The point then IMO, there can be no price limit set on any one problem that could possible fit each of the 307 Million potential patience for any one. Ask your Dad or maybe you have seen a Hospital Bill, but the patient was probably charged for bed pans, garments, thermometers or anything in the room for that persons benefit and left there when discharged. I don't know if this still happens, or everyplace, but medication (pills) were limited. An expensive pain reliever and an aspirin, were billed the same.

    What would happen is they'd start charging private insurers $30,000 for the same procedure, or something like that.
    Well, if the Government limit remained 20k and they tried to make up cost through the private insurance patients, of course most would take the public option if offered or could no longer afford the insurance.

    kojax, Doctors and patients (or families) still work together in the interest of patient. There is going to be collusion and medical folks to get whatever is needed done, billed and collected. The medical profession, IMO takes their 'Oath' very seriously and I hope that attitude continues...

    You can't stop everything, but you can still reduce costs by preventing the things that are preventable. It's not unlimited, but every bit you save is of benefit.
    Back to Physicals; If a person has a family History, of some medical problem, it should NOT take Medical Insurance Company or a Federal Program to keep tabs on what's going on. There are just to many ways, this can be done and should neither be the responsibility of the Taxpayer or an Insurance Company. I'll go back to my original argument on this and the number of people, that will take advantage of ANYTHING free. I think it's higher but lets say it's 2% or 6 million people...


    A police officer wearing a bullet proof vest knows he/she still might get shot in the head. That doesn't mean its a bad idea to wear a vest.
    He/she also knows the statistical odds and can choose not to be a police person. The responsibility belongs to the participant and preventative measures are rarely followed, even when known, nor could they ever be enforced.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    By the way the CBO has predicted the 2000 page 'Bill' now being considered will cost taxpayers 1T$ in deficits directly and another 200B$ which would go on another bill.
    I hope you are not referring to this CBO report:

    A new congressional report has boosted President Barack Obama's prospects for overhauling the U.S. health care system, finding a Democratic plan would actually save the U.S. government money in the long run.
    ...
    The Congressional Budget Office report estimates that the 10-year cost of the Senate Finance Committee's plan would be $829 billion rather than more than $1 trillion that some had feared.

    The legislation would reduce federal deficits by $81 billion over a decade and could lead to continued reductions in the years beyond, according to the report, released Wednesday. Those reductions would be the result of new taxes on some health insurance plans and cuts and savings in existing federal health programs.
    Link
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    gc; No, I was referring to one Polosi offered last week. Do you have any thoughts on this issue?



    WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday a U.S. House health-care system re-write would extend health insurance to 96% of the nonelderly U.S. population by 2019, and spend $1.055 trillion to do so.

    The $1.055 trillion estimate also does not include $245 billion needed to stop Medicare payments to doctors from decreasing, which the House plans to address through separate legislation introduced Thursday.
    http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-mar...-1055-trillion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    gc; No, I was referring to one Polosi offered last week. Do you have any thoughts on this issue? http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-mar...-1055-trillion
    From that exact same link:
    The costs of the bill are fully offset by cuts to existing spending programs-- including the Medicare Advantage and other programs--saving $426 billion through 2019, and by tax increases raising $572 billion over that time, CBO said. In fact, the combined impact of provisions in the bill would be a net deficit reduction of $104 billion in the next decade, according to CBO.
    Comments?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Sorry gc, from a quick glance, I thought it was the Baucuss Bill and I rarely look at the spin, which all of that was old news.

    Whether reduced cost are alledged to be from future taxes, future reduction or both, they are hypothetical. Obama had said Medicare Cuts, and the elimination of fraud would make up the original HB 3200 Bill, of course is pure spin. The Baucuss Bill simply saved dollars with additional hypothetical saving and the spin from your site, indicates taxes, which will never fly, taxing the rich or otherwise, and Obama's savings. Keep in mind the cost of HC in total in the US, was 2.4T$ in 2007. Where does a trillion dollars, taxes and/or reductions fit in reallity.

    I'm always good for a comment, so please feel free....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I rarely look at the spin, which all of that was old news.

    <...>

    Obama had said Medicare Cuts, and the elimination of fraud would make up the original HB 3200 Bill, of course is pure spin. The Baucuss Bill simply saved dollars with additional hypothetical saving and the spin from your site, indicates taxes, which will never fly, taxing the rich or otherwise, and Obama's savings.
    What you have blankly dismissed as "spin" from the site gc linked was actually taken from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (whose mandate it is to provide Congress with objective and nonpartisan analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget and the information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process)...


    In fact, I happened to share the link to that data from the CBO previously in this thread as a direct rebuttal for your particular arguments on cost.


    Here it is again since it seems you missed it the first time.
    http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10642


    I'm sorry to say, but the only "spin" I see is coming from you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Briefly; The CBO takes a bill, determines the cost, then analyzes the means to pay for or the savings that can be gained from the bills proposed actions. The current 1990 page Bill CR 3962) is estimated to cost 1.05T by the CBO, over a ten year period and a supplemental Bill, not presented will cost an additional 200B$, also over ten years. Polosi in introducing CR 3962, SAID the Bill will cost 894B$, to fit with in Mr. Obama's target for saving of 900B$ over a ten year period. I assume all this convoluted double talk, is to keep the Presidents Pledge "not to sign any HC Bill, that will increase the deficit". That is the base for end cost is based on a HYPOTHETICAL savings, that presumably cannot be made with out additional Federal Control. It's all spin, after the CBO establishes a cost.

    The spin then is how these savings or taxes, can actually be implemented. The 'Executive Branch' has no power, to raise, lower or appropriate money, only Congress can. While it's possible (currently) for Congress to be manipulated by the Executive, this for a number of reasons is temporary. Congress (especially the Senate) will not fall in line, pass bills, that are contrary to their political survival, whether it's a perceived implication on tonights Election results, or for the ENTIRE House membership concern over the 2010 elections, now one year away.

    Since my arguments on 3200/3962 or any other proposed amendments all follow the theory, that anything can be determined intent/unintended in the final bill (still not determined), any action pro/con savings, pro/con taxing or any related HC element in the program, will in the future go according to a perceived public sentiment.

    Now the 900B$ in taxes or saving is simply unrealistic. That taxing or savings amounts to 90B$ per year and the assumption HC cost can be contained (forget reductions) while increasing Federal Obligation to 10-20-30 or 100 million persons, for the most part the uninsured, the working uninsured, those with pre-existing conditions and others by a single Federal Entity, now spread out through most the private sector, just cannot be accomplished. Ideally for the Insurance Sector and the Insured Folks today, would be to promote and allow this to happen, if they thought that was the intended purpose. They don't, and know the purpose is to spread cost for all people and all their particular problems, from all areas of the social structure (redistribution) and to grow government further (several new agencies and hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs). They know it's politically driven, the quest for voters to one party or the other and most importantly, they know regulations stemming for the one issue will allow the Federal into every single issue of everyday life.

    With all the arguments, factually whatever passes (if anything), FROM CONGRESS, will not look like any House Bill, not in the least. Pundits from both sides are insisting Congress will pass something, believing for some reason Obama's Presidency is based on that passing. I'll disagree on both counts, the President will be judged in the 2012 elections on the Economy or a composite of actions taken over his four years. On HC itself, I do believe there is a certain amount of public apathy for the pending problems in cost. I'm not sure it requires a Federal Bill, or that the States can't actually handle the problems, if just somehow politics can be removed from the discussion. Tort Reform, Medical Practice Insurance Cost, LACK of Competition in most States, Administrative Cost and rising and the aging US population are IMO, the major problems AND are not being addressed.


    Over 80 million US people will turn 65, in the next 15 years, while those over 65 are living longer are increasing. Short of euthanasia, there is nothing being addressed to prevent an eventual collapse of what is currently the Government supported HC System, adding to it, simply will reduce the years to a total collapse...


    http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...S_2008_3YR_G00
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Thank you, Jackson, it is nice to hear such a succinct summary of Obama's political shenanigans. What you said here two months ago is playing out today. But incompletely you didn't predict the audacious showmanship of the buffoon Obama.

    Congress has been summoned to pass this 3,000 page monstrosity on Christmas Eve at midnight.

    And as I write, some foul beast, its time come, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born. May God help us all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    There is a lot of ignorance and pure hatred informing people today. It's sad, really.

    Either way, for those who care about something more than the spin and character attacks...

    The bill will provide coverage to 30 million more Americans (including providing significant help to those small businesses who simply cannot afford to provide coverage for their employees right now), and according to the CBO it will decrease the federal deficit by $132 billion over ten years, and in the 10 years following that deficit reduction could reach $1.3 trillion.

    http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=446


    Amazing how many self-proclaimed conservatives are against such savings and would rather spew hateful rhetoric about the president and his administration than support such serious cost savings... making clear that many (if not most) of them truly don't care about conservative values and decreasing the deficit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    It is aggravating to be required to buy insurance from the insurance companies that have spent the past decades behaving like, well, corporations. But by corporate law they have to put the interests of shareholders above any suggestion of social responsibility – unless of course shareholders vote for social responsibility. So it takes a law to force these corporations to do the right thing and this bill, while far from perfect, seems to be the best we can get.

    I don’t think its passage is yet assured because some Democratic senators are still wavering in hopes of getting something better next year. This would be a mistake. Despite its warts, this bill is a case where a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and I grudgingly support it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    +1

    I find myself in the exact same position, Bunbury. This is a flawed and problematic bill, and I don't like that private insurers are benefiting so much. However, I must objectively concede that it will do significant good, and is far better than what we have now. I hope for continued progress and improvement, but despite it's flaws and limitations, it's still a significant step forward in US healthcare from where we are now. The deficit reductions alone are enough to sway my support, but the fact that more than 30 million will receive coverage, small businesses will be less burdened and will be better able to prosper, and people with pre-existing conditions and chronic illness are now so significantly protected... all reinforce my decision to accept this as a good thing... Scratch that... as a good start.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    I don’t think its passage is yet assured because some Democratic senators are still wavering in hopes of getting something better next year. This would be a mistake. Despite its warts, this bill is a case where a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and I grudgingly support it.
    Bunbury; Something tells me, everything is in place for this bill to be signed by the 'State of the Union Speech', based on the long Senate delay to reconvene scheduled for January 19th 2010. I don't believe public reaction or opposition will be strong enough to change many minds, this time of year and the rather bad weather being experienced.

    Polosi, controls at least 220 House Seats and expect the Bill will be 'Ping Ponged' to conference, without debate in the House. If so, it will be Polosi/Reid alone to argue the differences, which I believe were worked out before the Senate Vote, this morning.

    It's further my opinion, someplace within the 3000 page bill, there are provisions for change to accommodate a single payer plan, if other circumstances come up, failure of compliance by Insurance Companies, just one, other issues being found illegal the other. Since Congress, is charged with making law, the entire bill cannot be claimed or found unconstitutional IMO.

    If I am correct, we won't know the results before 2013 (or after the Nov. 2012 elections)anyway. All the required set up in the various current Agencies (primarily Health and Human services) or suggested new Agencies or departments, will be happening. Any Court Actions, for Constitutionality of parts in the bill, will be delayed to points beyond turning back.

    The only scenario/obstacle I can see, for a full blown National Health Care System in 6-8 years, would be the near impossible. Both Congressional Chambers going Republican in 2010 and the Executive in 2012, OR that the Supreme Court ruled that such change in historical policy would required an Amendment to the Constitution. Other possibilities do exist, US credit ratings being reduced, which will happen if the recession continues through 2010, or the failure in the Medicare/Medicaid Systems, prior to probably 2014. In these cases, nobody wins....

    One more thing Bunbury; You do understand, that all profits EARNED by those Corporations, acting like Corporations, actually helped keep insurance cost down or at least kept the taxpayer from subsidizing ALL health care cost. (about 2/3rds the total cost in 2009 or 1.4T$).

    inow quotes;
    The deficit reductions alone are enough to sway my support, but the fact that more than 30 million will receive coverage, small businesses will be less burdened and will be better able to prosper, and people with pre-existing conditions and chronic illness are now so significantly protected...
    You have probably already heard, the CBO has retracted those deficit reductions, now increasing that deficit. For there explanation, I listed the following site, which goes into further questions...

    http://cboblog.cbo.gov/

    The 30 Million you feel will be covered are in fact going to be eligible for Medicaid (Welfare) or have the same option they always have had, buy insurance, some with Federal assistance. If going on Medicaid, the States are responsible for near half the cost, this part I believe going into effect when signed and those States do NOT have the money to support such mandates or is there enough taxing sources to obtain the money.

    Small business, more likely those that own them, are the people New Taxes will hit the worst. They will be burdened more than you think.

    Again, on pre-existing; Elsewhere, you have mentioned paying Cobra prices while unemployed to maintain you eligibility status, which is admirable. However there are currently millions today that have not, many of which from stress or natural cause become sick, now having those pre-existing conditions. There are millions more, working or unemployed that will pay the relatively low fines (if found Constitutional, in the first place) rather than NOW buy Insurance Company Policies, knowing that if something comes up, they cannot be refused. A little added fact, their are many people floating around with high blood pressure (including me) or low grade diabetes or some other illness, that have never been (officially/recorded) diagnosed. When and if the flood gates open, all those estimates of people with an illness and not known, will become know, not to mention the potential for treating suspected cases, for the added dollars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I don't have much faith in the current plan.

    If you want universal healthcare to work cost effectively, you have to nationalize the hospitals, eliminate the private insurance companies, and create a mandatory single payer system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    It's further my opinion, someplace within the 3000 page bill, there are provisions for change to accommodate a single payer plan,
    No, this, unfortunately, is compeltely impossible IMHO.

    One more thing Bunbury; You do understand, that all profits EARNED by those Corporations, acting like Corporations, actually helped keep insurance cost down or at least kept the taxpayer from subsidizing ALL health care cost. (about 2/3rds the total cost in 2009 or 1.4T$).
    I understand quite clearly that the gross inefficiencies of the corporations that run the health industry results in costs to insured individuals far higher than in other countries, and in rationing of health care to those lucky enough to have a job that provides it, or a government run system (Medicare, medicaid, VA), and in the deaths of around 35,000 Americans every year.

    And by the way Merry Christmas, I'm signing off for a few days.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    You have probably already heard, the CBO has retracted those deficit reductions, now increasing that deficit. For there explanation, I listed the following site, which goes into further questions...

    http://cboblog.cbo.gov/
    Not quite. The deficit reduction of $132 billion in the next ten years remains the same. Additionally, in the ten years following 2019, the deficit reduction is still in place. This is in direct opposition to your claim I've quoted above for reference.

    Further, from the link you shared:

    In its original estimate, CBO wrote that: “Such recommendations would be required if the Chief Actuary for the Medicare program projected that the program’s spending per beneficiary would grow more rapidly than a measure of inflation (the average of the growth rates of the consumer price index for medical services and the overall index for all urban consumers).” That statement is correct for fiscal years 2015 through 2019. After 2019, however, the threshold for Medicare spending growth that would trigger recommendations for spending reductions would be higher—specifically, the rate of increase in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita plus 1 percentage point.

    With this corrected reading, savings from changes to the Medicare program (along with other changes to direct spending that are not associated directly with expanded insurance coverage) would increase at a rate that is between 10 percent and 15 percent per year during the 2020–2029 period, compared with a growth rate of nearly 15 percent reported in the initial estimate. The long-run budgetary effects of the other broad categories of the legislation are unchanged from the initial estimate. All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. In comparison, the extrapolations in the initial estimate implied a reduction in deficits in the 2020–2029 period that would be in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP.
    The statements in CBO’s December 19th letter about the federal budgetary commitment to health care remain correct. After 2019, the effects of the proposal that would tend to decrease that commitment would grow faster than those that would increase it. As a result, CBO expects that the proposal would generate a reduction in the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade following the 10-year budget window. By comparison, CBO expected that the legislation as originally proposed would have no significant effect on that commitment during the 2020-2029 period; most of the difference in CBO’s assessment arises because the manager’s amendment would lower the threshold for Medicare spending growth that would trigger recommendations for spending reductions by the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

    So yeah, read more closely before offering misrepresentations, okay?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Not quite. The deficit reduction of $132 billion in the next ten years remains the same. Additionally, in the ten years following 2019, the deficit reduction is still in place. This is in direct opposition to your claim I've quoted above for reference.
    inow;
    As I understand it, the deficit we're talking about over a ten year period or in fact a 20 year period are projected estimates in deficit spending, or the National Debt, not including the 900B$ Obama Health Care Program. That is, instead of the projected 20T$ - 2019 Deficit, were now talking -X- $'s, more or less at that point. We are also talking literally, hundreds and 'if's' for which way these figures will actually move, totally ignoring INFLATION, much less what else might happen in the World or our Country over this period.

    Also, if I am understanding this scheme correctly, the HCB, will increase spending, but is being paid for through taxes and cuts in service. Your approval of this program, though limited is because it will reduce the deficit and this IMO is based on a false premise. First the Tax Hikes are 494B$, are based on assumptions, the tax base is there and for a certain amount, it is not. The other half is based on Medicare Cuts, in service which I GUARANTEE you will not happen, if anything they will increase. To shorten then, based on those faulty assumption of revenue increases (900B$), the hypothetical Federal Expense is off set. Since the 10-20 years estimates are ALL deficits, well above the estimated savings (that won't happen), you are simply admitting the deficit increases will be less, not a reduction. I really hope you understand this, because I'm running out of ways to explain it...

    A short PDF, but another partial explanation if needed...

    http://budget.senate.gov/republican/...eFactSheet.pdf

    For instance the GAO, has projected this deficit figure based on GDP and current obligations, NOT including the HC program or most the Congressional Spending, this year without regards to what the GDP actually may be.

    While there is significant debate about solutions,[47] the significant long-term risk posed by the increase in entitlement spending is widely recognized[48], with health care costs (Medicare and Medicaid) the primary risk category.[49][50] If significant reforms are not undertaken, benefits under entitlement programs will exceed government income by over $40 trillion over the next 75 years.[51] According to the GAO, this will cause debt ratios relative to GDP to double by 2040 and double again by 2060, reaching 600 percent by 2080.[52]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

    I'll be glad to continue these hypothetical arguments based purely on the opinions and emotions of individuals, but at some point a little rational thought must be given or at least recognition of what has historically/already happened. The last time I was involved in such nonsense was in the mid sixties, when Lyndon Johnson was pushing his War on Poverty and Medicare/Medicaid programs, technically leading to todays problems, which were identical actions that are being proposed to FIX the problem. We where then talking Millions, which quickly turned into billions (1000 Million) and now hitting the Trillions (1000 Billion), and we were told all along how each policy would in the end save us, that those cost would eventually be net gains. Somebody better start thinking straight...In my opinion.

    In reality we're no longer talking how many people will be helped, assisted, covered on any issue, but when it will ALL come to an end. We have 307 Million people in the US, many of which could not survive today, with out some Government assistance, this increasing daily, along with increased people working for one government or another. We have business moving out of Country, importing more and more, with no end in sight and no desire to address. For a little frosting, the Fed, this week took the cap off Fannie/Freddy borrowing power, who are again downgrading the qualification for loans they will buy. I have been trying my best, not to seem like a doom and gloomer or the Worlds coming to an end type person, while asking people to start thinking straight. Already there talking about a debt limit over 14+T$, in 2010....

    At the end of 2007, public debt equaled 65.6 percent of our gross domestic product, or GDP. By the end of 2009, the figure will exceed 83 percent and, according to President Obama’s own budget projections, it will exceed 100 percent of GDP by 2011. Think about it: at the rate the majority is spending, the federal debt in 2011 will exceed the value of all goods and services produced by the economy that year.
    http://www.bignews.biz/?id=830059&ke...Camp-DebtLimit


    Please at least look at the projected deficits...

    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    None of that speculation and hypothetical rambling you've presented changes the numbers I shared... numbers which were based on a non-partisan estimate from the CBO, calculated based on the actual bill put forth now... not something back in November. Enjoy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    None of that speculation and hypothetical rambling you've presented changes the numbers I shared... numbers which were based on a non-partisan estimate from the CBO, calculated based on the actual bill put forth now... not something back in November. Enjoy.
    Inow: It diminishes me, that I give up on you.

    Consider yourself diminshed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Okay. Will do. What next?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    numbers which were based on a non-partisan estimate from the CBO, calculated based on the actual bill put forth now...
    inow;
    The Director of the CBO, is an appointment decided by the leaders of the Senate and the House, of Congress. This is Polosi and Reid, both democrats, some say extremely liberal. In Jan. 2009, they chose Douglas Elmendorf, who took office Jan. 22, 2009, as the director.


    The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate jointly appoint the CBO Director, after considering recommendations from the two budget committees. The term of office is four years, with no limit on the number of terms a Director may serve. Either House of Congress, however, may remove the Director by resolution. At the expiration of a term of office, the person serving as Director may continue in the position until his or her successor is appointed.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congres..._Budget_Office

    Appointments: Congressional Budget Office: The Chair, on behalf of the Vice President, pursuant to the provisions of Section 201(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, appointed Dr. Douglas W. Elmendorf as Director of the Congressional Budget Office effective immediately for the remainder of the term expiring January 3, 2011.
    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/dig.../d22ja091.html

    I have no reason, to question this director, who needs to protect his own creditability, but I most certainly question this continuous line, that the CBO is by partisan. I'll also restate, in his recent comments on the HCB, he has stated any final figure is based on numerous items, Congress would need to follow up on, and made request for additional information, which all happened in Dec. 2009, NOT last Novemeber...2008 or 9.

    None of that speculation and hypothetical rambling you've presented changes the numbers I shared...
    To me, the 3000 page House Bill and the Senate Bill are several books of rambling speculation, carrying the weight of the Federal Government. The numbers you shared were taken from those book, 100% based on Hypothetical Actions and total speculations. Neither Congress, the CBO, you or I, know what may happen over a two year period, much less 10 or 20 years.

    I asked you to check out a deficit chart that projected annual deficits up to 2019, one by what you feel is a by partisan CBO and another by the White House, adding by 2019 they have predicted a near 20T$ annual GDP, yet still, a 1.1T$ deficit. You have said, your supporting this program because of a hypothetical 13.2B$/year savings, .02 of 1% of a guessed deficit, 1.1T$, in 2019.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    And the deficit reductions I cited which will come from the current healthcare legislation remain valid and accurate. We will see a reduction in our deficit of $132 Billion over the next 10 years, and up to $1.3 Trillion in the 10 years following that.

    Btw - Your number above of $13.2 billion is off by a factor of ten from what the number really is. Perhaps that's prat of the reason you are coming to a different conclusion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Btw - Your number above of $13.2 billion is off by a factor of ten from what the number really is. Perhaps that's prat of the reason you are coming to a different conclusion?
    Once again the Congressional Budget Office is out with a new score for ObamaCare that supposedly shows a cost of $871 and a reduction in deficits of $132 billion dollars over the first ten years of the legislation.
    Is it possible your thinking the deficit, will be reduced 132B$ EACH of the next ten years, 1.4.2T$ over the next ten years, then 10.3 TRILLION the next ten years at 1.3T$ each year?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    No.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Btw - Your number above of $13.2 billion is off by a factor of ten from what the number really is. Perhaps that's prat of the reason you are coming to a different conclusion?
    OK, then if over a ten year period you reduce something by 132B$, the average per year would be 13.2B$, at least the end result of the total of those ten years. Regardless how figured at the end of the tenth year, the result, would amount to the percentages mentioned, .02 or 1% of the estimated 1.1 T$ deficit.

    To give you an analogy of my entire argument on this administration and Congress for misrepresenting figures;

    The average cost per Federal Employee is around $114,000 (72K salary) per year including perks. Over a 10 year period this cost the tax payer 13.7M$, for ONE employee. There are about 2 MILLION current Federal CIVILIAN Employees, with expectation of adding thousands.

    The government could say, over the next ten years, we are going to save or reduce the deficit, by 137B$, by reducing our projected hiring of employees, by 1000 people per year. Instead of hiring 100,000, needed to service the additional programs, we will hold it to 90,000, over these ten years. In the meantime the added cost of those 90k if figured into a projected deficit, and the deficit remains tied to expectations of GDP growth and possible revenues from that growth. By the way to administer, oversee and enforce, just the regular flow of Medicare Recipients, much less the added eligible Medicare and SCHIPS, and the Insurance Companies for compliance alone, will add around 90k people over ten years, IMO.

    Does this help you understand, why I feel predicting a deficit reduction, into the future, while the deficit is ALSO being predicted to increase (increasing deficit), is simply nonsense.

    US Civilian Emloyees...
    http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm

    Federal Pay/Perks...
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...e_troug_1.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Jackson - It turns out I was mistaken above. I apologize, as I most certainly missed your "per year" qualifier when you put forth the 13.2 billion number (please note, though, that you are mistakenly assuming a monotonic reduction... that's what happens when looking at the annual average in the way you have... and... contrary to the suggestion you're making... the 132 billion reduction over the next ten years resulting form this bill will not likely be linear). As for the rest of your post, the costs of federal employees and programs is already factored into budgetary projections, so your argument fails there. Further, those issues really have nothing whatsoever to do with our discussion here about the health bill. In short, it's an off-topic rant and little more than a red herring.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    little more than a red herring.
    a kipper?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    They're not red though, are they? :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    the herring the kipper was made of, I don't think is red

    but if you cure it a curtain way, it will make a red kipper which is called a red herring

    upon further investigation it has come to my attention that a kipper is not little more than a red hearing, it IS a red herring



    it seems i must reassess my comedic talents...
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    FYI while powerful lobbies are fighting to prevent any public option in the US, their canadian counter-part powerful lobbies have been working overtime to sabotage the UHC in Canada.

    One of the most influencial person behind the scene in Canada is Paul Desmarais a Builderberger member, Prime ministers in BOTH major parties were associated or worked FOR him (his butler would have more chances of becoming prime minister than most people), and of course you wont hear much about him in the media, hes one of the few magnates that owns the majority of media (and has secret agreements with CBC). One of his major holdings of his 'Power Corporation' is an issurance conglomerate that stands to make a fortune with each crack that can be chipped in the canadian UHC, and several years ago his sith apprentice Darth Paul Martin was appointed as Finance Minister(even though he was evading taxes with a shipping company) who light sabered off fiscal transfers going to health care. Desmarais is supporting economic think tanks that parade lackeys on tv saying we need to privatize HC etc. Yes, the people want their UHC, but there's big money thrown and manouvering behind closed doors to make it faulter, which does in part explain wainting, 30 years ago there was no waiting issue I can think of and there was much much less privatized services.

    By the way, Canada through a public agency used to produce a large portion of the worlds medical isotopes, the Harper(conservative neocons) government decided unilateraly, without consultation, transparency, debate or anything to shut down Canada's production of medical isotopes, thats like shooting yourself in the foot. Private companies (which probably greased the process) are probably salivating because they'll take the production for what will likely be extortionist prices. We will be paying through the nose to get medial isotopes (as will the rest of the world), that sounds a bit like the profiteering H1N1 vaccination scam.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9
    IceWendigo:

    First a quick aside:
    I hope your enjoying writing your 5,000 page manifesto about the NWO and crafting plans to blow up a financial center in some obscure city.

    Why is it necessary to use such excessive and extreme diction and vocabulary?
    Your're not a preacher on a pulpit (no matter how much you wish you are) your on a political forum. When you constantly overuse words and phrases like bread and circuses, conservative neocons[ervatives], aristocrats, secret agreements, behind closed doors, MI6/CIA henchmen, constant allusions to wolves in sheep's clothing and golden cages it detracts from your credibility as a writer framing you as an extremist. I understand your arguments no need to dilute it with such ridiculous and frivolous vocabulary.

    I cant help but equate you to people like Ted Kaczynski (the unabomber) - http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

    or

    Jospeh Stack - http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2...9390024383.txt

    Now...
    Interest groups are not the problem:

    From the Economist (February 18th):

    http://www.economist.com/world/unite...ry_id=15544118
    And yet it is not primarily the special-interest groups that have blocked his plans for health reform. For all his high-toned talk about changing Washington’s ways, Mr Obama was careful to co-opt the most powerful interest groups in advance. The health-insurance industry was broadly supportive, given that reform promised tens of millions of new customers
    Why would insurance companies be against reform that would give millions of Americans the capability to buy healthcare? It's easy to place blame for the stalemate on Capitol Hill on lobbyists, but you don't understand that lobbies are critical and integral aspects in the American government and there are powerful lobbies on both sides of the argument and yes, many of the most powerful lobbying organizations are representing some of your interests in Washington right now. (If you are living in America)

    Any opinions on the recent bipartisan summit? Was it just a televised theatrical battle as many pundits will claim it was or was there positive benefit that came out of it?

    I would argue the latter but i will wait to provide a defense.[/url]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Healthcare legislation just passed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Yes, it wasn't pretty but the end result is good. Could've been better, but I'll take what we got.

    I came across a quote from Richard Feynman that seems appropriate regarding not so much the result as the process:

    Senators sell their votes for a dam in their state and discussions get all excited and lobbying replaces the minority's chance to represent itself, and so forth. The government of the United Sates is not very good, but it, with the possible exception of the government of England, is the greatest government on the earth today, is the most satisfactory, the most modern, but not very good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    I am against the health care bill not for partisan things nor for any thing that has to do with health care but for the "big picture" 8)


    Truly i hate the idea of taxes i think that government redistribution is as messy and fumbled as big bureaucracy's..

    I mean think about it (we really don't have a over whelming health care problem in the first place) lol its just about average

    America does currently have the highest service health care in the world.

    Why not drop taxes almost completely more so to a local level i ean if you think about it.. poor neighborhoods have there own hospitals and if they are the ones having problems then just make taxes a local issue! One where we do not have representatives fooling around with our money but there is a small enough and clear enough view to et things done! If every community worked as an individual taxing corps the people would have there way and if you were a political minority you could move to a place where you might benefit! People always say we can't live the classic American dream life any more (well maybe not with no attachments) but if we rebuild but keep the basic concept and entrepreneurial hard working American spirit we can rebuild and support our selves!

    I mean im not saying death to taxes anarchy but its quite simple actually! Have a 5% income tax from the nation to support the defenses etc.. Then have communities decide there own tax rates and work together to make there part of the woods a better place! and if needed the FED's could send a little push to help them along the way. Naturally if we rebuilt our suburban communities from with in into consuming industrious people we would have a flourishing economy! Later on we could set up a debt repayment program adding an additional 4% national income tax and pay back our loan's.

    It would drop oil prices and lead to clean alternative energy's. Increase the living standard world wide especially in third world country's that rely on American donation (which Americans can not do during depression's) Thats the big picture we need to turn this whole thing around and stop being divided! The whole right VS left thing would not interfere with our pocket books if we just slowly got rid of the party's and siezed power as our own representatives keeping the great greek democracys in mind when we are reminded that Greek culture started with a great majority plebians in the city but in time through great process wealth arose and there became a great deal of gentry capable of wise decisions in a popular and local democracy! Better yet this type of democracy would of course have the added concept of checks and balances of federal over ride.
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    I am against the health care bill not for partisan things nor for any thing that has to do with health care but for the "big picture"
    A i l; What's that "Big Picture" look like to you? 2800 pages of gobbledee goup, can be reconfigured into just about any meaning, worse yet setting precedence for any number of any other Federal intrusions into State Rights or individual rights (Central Government control). That big picture, may be pure socialism and the end of the US Constitution. Certainly the 'so called' American way of life, has to a large degree, has come to an end....

    Why not drop taxes almost completely more so to a local level i ean if you think about it..
    Well here is the Libertarian coming out; You do realize both major parties are dependent on that power of taxation (Congress), to maintain their relevance, along with the 2,200,000 Federal employees and growing rapidly, not to mention whatever number of Departments under the Executive Control, which includes another 2 million or so Military personnel. Even if we could fire them all today, 5% of American Income, would not cover CURRENT obligations (mandatory spending) for another 100 years.

    Are you in favor of a 'Fair Tax', 'Consumption Tax' or some other form for generating Government Revenues...?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    Truly i hate the idea of taxes i think that government redistribution is as messy and fumbled as big bureaucracy's..
    So focus on the problem and improve operations and logistics of how programs are handled, coordinated, and metricized.


    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    I mean think about it (we really don't have a over whelming health care problem in the first place) lol its just about average

    America does currently have the highest service health care in the world.
    While an oft repeated talking point, this is not really true. Even removing the fact of 40 million people uncovered, those who are covered often still go bankrupt. One out of every two backruptcies in the US are the result of medical issues. Worse, out of that 50%, 7 out of 10 had existing insurance coverage. 70% of all people going bankrupt due to medical costs HAD existing coverage.

    When you couple that with the fact that we are ranked 37th around the globe in terms of overall care by the WHO, we rank 49th in life expectancy (worse than Gibralter, Puerto Rico, and Bosnia / Herzegovina), and we rank 180th in infant mortality rate (worse than Croatia, Belarus, and Lithuania) according to the CIA world fact book.

    If that's your idea of "no problem" and "about average," I simply must disagree.



    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    Why not drop taxes almost completely more so to a local level i ean if you think about it.. poor neighborhoods have there own hospitals and if they are the ones having problems then just make taxes a local issue! One where we do not have representatives fooling around with our money but there is a small enough and clear enough view to et things done! If every community worked as an individual taxing corps the people would have there way and if you were a political minority you could move to a place where you might benefit!
    Do you realize that you've just proposed eliminating public schooling, public water and treatment plants, public roads, public libraries, and most police and fire departments? That seems a bit short-sighted to me. You also just killed a lot of old people who simple cannot survive without social security and medicare. Sorry gramps... It seems death panels really are a problem... at least, that is, if you follow the thinking above.


    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    It would drop oil prices and lead to clean alternative energy's. Increase the living standard world wide especially in third world country's that rely on American donation (which Americans can not do during depression's)
    Nice non-sequitur. You have not even begun to demonstrate that your proposal would result in these things. I can also show you some of the faults with your thinking if needed. The idealism is applaudable, but the practical and real-world components simply can't be ignored like you are doing here.


    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    Thats the big picture we need to turn this whole thing around and stop being divided!
    I do agree with the idea that we need to move forward and be less divided.


    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    The whole right VS left thing would not interfere with our pocket books if we just slowly got rid of the party's and siezed power as our own representatives keeping the great greek democracys in mind when we are reminded that Greek culture started with a great majority plebians in the city but in time through great process wealth arose and there became a great deal of gentry capable of wise decisions in a popular and local democracy!
    I really don't think you understand basic human nature. Elimination of taxes would hardly achieve what you suggest. We can't even agree on what to have for dinner at my house, and you think removing taxes will make all left and right ideological divides vanish? I want some of what you've been smoking. Apparently, it's pretty strong.


    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    Better yet this type of democracy would of course have the added concept of checks and balances of federal over ride.
    How do you figure?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    lol im not calling a cry to end goverment but merely to have a local taxing effort and a local decision that might be set to a certain par by national regulations in case of health and schooling etc.. One of George Bush's policy's on turning public schools into school's controlled by the parents and local public was one of the few things i ever agreed with him on.
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    what exactly are your veiws that should be done..

    I would love any input and really im still shaping my political philosiphy lol

    my big deal is showing that the american dream will always be obtainable if we work at it
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Do you realize that you've just proposed eliminating public schooling, public water and treatment plants, public roads, public libraries, and most police and fire departments? That seems a bit short-sighted to me. You also just killed a lot of old people who simple cannot survive without social security and medicare. Sorry gramps... It seems death panels really are a problem... at least, that is, if you follow the thinking above.
    No inow, the Federal Government does not provide any of these services and in many cases where you may think they do (Federal Park/Recreation), those are today being operated by 'private industry'. In fact, where there is some coop spending (Federal Highways), it's almost a chaotic joke, where the Federal Collects Excise (user fees on Gasoline/diesel) Taxes from State business and redistributes back to the States, pretty much as they please. All States/County/Towns pay for ALL roads, other than a portion of US Highway and the Interstate System. Any Grants given the States for education are, to ASSIST in paying for other Federal mandates on Public Schools, such as testing (No Student Left Behind), bi-lingual education, access for handicapped and so forth.

    Just to educate k-12 Texas 2.5M students at the National average per student of 10k/, your talking about 25B$, where the entire US Education Department, budget for 2009FY was 53B$ for the entire Country, then about 20B$ was required to be distributed, not used as administrative cost.

    Compare that to NASA at $19 Billion, Education at $53 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $73 Billion.
    http://www.federalbudget.com/

    For the complete story;

    http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/bu...t09/index.html

    Another breakdown;

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrit...education.html



    A i l; Okay, assume your 15YO, from you profile, interested in Political Science and have a basic interest in the 'Ron Paul' style of Libertarian for governance. Is this about right and who will you be 'interning' with? What's being discussed here, is of more importance to your future, than most here today...

    President Bush, felt what was then current and fortunately still is, the control over Public Schools by the State and/or district school boards. He wanted to assist in showing success or failure, by district performance, under testing, which is not intrusion in my mind.

    Pretend you are a member of the US House, and want to legislate a five point policy, that will in the end promote the Country, you wish to live and participate in...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Jackson - Sorry, but yes... The federal government provides for Medicare, Social Security, and also federal highways. Calling them "a joke" does not negate that fact. Same for public schools.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Do you realize that you've just proposed eliminating public schooling, public water and treatment plants, public roads, public libraries, and most police and fire departments? That seems a bit short-sighted to me. You also just killed a lot of old people who simple cannot survive without social security and medicare. Sorry gramps... It seems death panels really are a problem... at least, that is, if you follow the thinking above.
    No inow, the Federal Government does not provide any of these services and in many cases where you may think they do (Federal Park/Recreation), those are today being operated by 'private industry'. In fact, where there is some coop spending (Federal Highways), it's almost a chaotic joke, where the Federal Collects Excise (user fees on Gasoline/diesel) Taxes from State business and redistributes back to the States, pretty much as they please. All States/County/Towns pay for ALL roads, other than a portion of US Highway and the Interstate System. Any Grants given the States for education are, to ASSIST in paying for other Federal mandates on Public Schools, such as testing (No Student Left Behind), bi-lingual education, access for handicapped and so forth.

    Just to educate k-12 Texas 2.5M students at the National average per student of 10k/, your talking about 25B$, where the entire US Education Department, budget for 2009FY was 53B$ for the entire Country, then about 20B$ was required to be distributed, not used as administrative cost.

    Compare that to NASA at $19 Billion, Education at $53 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $73 Billion.
    http://www.federalbudget.com/

    For the complete story;

    http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/bu...t09/index.html

    Another breakdown;

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrit...education.html



    A i l; Okay, assume your 15YO, from you profile, interested in Political Science and have a basic interest in the 'Ron Paul' style of Libertarian for governance. Is this about right and who will you be 'interning' with? What's being discussed here, is of more importance to your future, than most here today...

    President Bush, felt what was then current and fortunately still is, the control over Public Schools by the State and/or district school boards. He wanted to assist in showing success or failure, by district performance, under testing, which is not intrusion in my mind.

    Pretend you are a member of the US House, and want to legislate a five point policy, that will in the end promote the Country, you wish to live and participate in...
    wow i never knew a lot of that!
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    I am against the health care bill not for partisan things nor for any thing that has to do with health care but for the "big picture" 8)
    OK here's a big picture: the world's happiest country is Denmark. Denmark is also one of the world's most highly taxed countries. (This is from a 2006 study. More recently Denmark may have been passed by Costa Rica in terms of happiness, but who can really tell.)

    So what are your big picture criteria? Here in the states we talk about liberty and the pusuit of happiness in the same breath, and people get all exercised about liberty and how it's the key to happiness. Then they define liberty as not being taxed by the federal government for things other than defense. But we ain't happy. We come in 23rd, behind all those highly taxed Scandinavian countries, not to mention Canada, with its single payer socialist health care system.

    Denmark has a healthy capitalist economy. Capitalism is perfectly compatible with strong social systems that ensure health and security paid for by taxes. As you struggle to develop that political philosophy of yours think about what criteria you will use to evaluate competing ideas. Don't be misled by ideology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    31
    The more complicated it is, the more money is wasted. We need a simple system that encourages prevention and prompt treatment, but discourages emergency room visits, complaining about minor problems (I broke a nail- time to go to the doctors), and over-expensive treatment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    Oh i can not stand pricks like that io can not stand my mother she has no moral compass when she wanted breast implants she went around and had her attorney find a way to get them by tax payer dollars!
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •