Recentle, our president, decided to try and pass a Healthcare Plan. In this plan, everyone in the United would get free Healthcare. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well first of all, guess who still gets to have private insurance? That's right- everyone who works in the government (including Obama himself). Shouldn't the government have to comply with the rules they make? Also, in England they have socialized medicine. From what I know about socialized medicine, it's not a good thing. Will America become like that?
Also, in this healthcare plan, President Obama plans on giving healthcare to illegal immigrants, too. Shouldn't he be helping his country before paying for illegal immigrants to have healthcare? And lastly, who is going to pay for all of this? If the government is paying for healthcare, that means all our taxes go up! It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession? And, they will also decrease the money of the pharmacys. If pharmacies aren't getting enough money, then why are they going to want to continue in medical research.

Like P.J. O'Rourke famously said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

Any responses? If you disagree make sure you can back up what you say

Recentle, our president, decided to try and pass a Healthcare Plan. In this plan, everyone in the United would get free Healthcare. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well first of all, guess who still gets to have private insurance? Thats right- everyone who works in the government (including Obama himself). Shouldn't the government have to comply with the rules they make? Also, in England they have socialized medicine. From waht I know about socialized medicine, it's not a good thing. Will America become like that?
Also, in this healthcare plan, President Obama plans on giving healthcare to illegal immigrants, too. Shouldn't he be helping his country before paying for illegal immigrants to have healthcare? And lastly, who is going to pay for all of this? If the government is paying for healthcare, taht means all our taxes go up! It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession? And, they will also decrease the money of the pharmacys. If pharmacies aren't getting enough money, then why are they going to want to continue in medical research.

Like P.J. O'Rourke famously said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

Any responces? if you disagree make sure you can back up what you say

There has been a great deal of debate and fear mongering in various threads on this subject on this board.

To Help you out.

There are apparently millions of people in the US with out health coverage for various reasons. Part of this may be that the US has the most expensive health care costs in the world

There are a number of successful health care schemes in the world. No one says they are perfect but they deliver health care at a much lower cost than the US system imposes and they generally embrace the principle of universal health care.

Ultimately the taxpayer pays the cost, whether they pay it in lower wages and thus lower tax collections because health care coverage is provided as part of an employment package, or they pay it through the tax system. It is better that the system is open and transparent than that the true costs be hidden. You should also ask why some are allowed to not contribute and risk placing their costs on others

Don't shed any tears for the drug companies, they charge what the market will bear and ultimately their developments become generic or are superceded. Have you seen any drug companies fail even in the GFC?
Where I come from they are closely regulated and price controlled and yet it is profitable to do business in our market

The world will not end because the US government makes health coverage available to more people and some suffering may be averted

Recentle, our president, decided to try and pass a Healthcare Plan. In this plan, everyone in the United would get free Healthcare. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Any responces? if you disagree make sure you can back up what you say

I don't believe the president's healthcare plan is free; actually, the president doesn't have a plan; he's letting the worms in congress work that out. The plan is loaded with new taxes and so-called savings from fraud and revamping the current Medicare program to show that it is financially palatable. "(t)he bill's total cost, including Medicare changes, is expected to be higher and could push the price tag over $1 trillion, according to an initial CNN analysis." House Democrats unveil $894 billion health care bill - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/29/health.care/index.html) This is just a ten year projection by the gov't, which has never figured out anything except how to look stupid.

Redhead To Help you out.

there has been a great deal of debate and fear mongering in various threads on this subject on this board.


Let me translate this statement . Those who favor the reforms being proposed are "debating " and those of us who oppose the plans proposed are "fear mongering" .


There are apparently millions of people in the US with out health coverage for various reasons.

The numbers vary greatly of course as to how many people are without coverage by choice or because of circumstances or just falling through the social safetynet . But this isn't about that really . If it were the remedy would be simple... add them to Medicare/Medicaid . What is really being proposed is the gutting and dismantling of our entire system so the government can run an industry that represents almost 20% of the US GDP.


There are a number of successful health care schemes in the world. No one says they are perfect but they deliver health care at a much lower cost than the US system imposes and they generally embrace the principle of universal health care.

What is being said here is that what they really desire is a government run and controlled health care industry . When we "fear monger " it means that we have provided numerous examples where these systems do not provide quality services to the patient .

Ultimately the taxpayer pays the cost, BINGO!!

Don't shed any tears for the drug companies
The proponents of this plan demogogue the issue by demonizing the Pharmaceutical and Health Insurance industries because they "profit " from providing quality health care products and services. They would demonize doctors too if they thought they could get away with it.

Also, in England they have socialized medicine.

I don't think any country has a perfect health care system, but here everybody has an option of having the standard care offered by the NHS, and they can supliment this by having private medical insurance

By having both systems available it providea healthcare to all of our sujects, while those that can afford it can have the private, but to say it is a socialised system, is a little too far for me

Just because a system allows something for all does not mean it is socialised! You can be conservative and still have empathy for your fellow man

Recentle, our president, decided to try and pass a Healthcare Plan. In this plan, everyone in the United would get free Healthcare. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?Hello Red:

It's a GOOD thing. What?? You don't like FREE fire protection, or FREE police protection? You don't like driving on our FREE roads? What's not to like about FREE? If you disappear in the forest, they'll come looking for you, for FREE. They clean the snow off your street, for FREE. Who doesn't like FREE?

excon

Free food ,free houses are good things too. Why doesn't the government give everyone free food and houses ? Maybe when I dump they can wipe my butt too !

Salvo

I rather like the way that parts of china operate

When you are well and fit, you pay the local doctor, when you are sick you don't have to pay him anything till you get better

Imagine a system where this is universal and you can stop paying insurance companies when you are sick - how quick do you think healthcare will be speeded up?

And tom, if you want all that you ask, just get committed to a mental house - free food, free roof, and they will wipe your botty for you as well

I don't ;but that's the way we're heading
http://www.kyvideoservices.com/Super%20Nanny/files/page4_2.jpg

Free food ,free houses are good things too. Why doesn't the government give everyone free food and houses ? Maybe when I dump they can wipe my butt too !Hello again, tom:

Let's talk about some of those FREE things you don't like. Here's a story about Joe Middle-Class Republican. He's probably a lot like you.

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark) He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

excon

Hello Red:

It's a GOOD thing. What??? You don't like FREE fire protection, or FREE police protection? You don't like driving on our FREE roads? What's not to like about FREE? If you disappear in the forest, they'll come looking for you, for FREE. They clean the snow off your street, for FREE. Who doesn't like FREE?

excon

How much did you pay in taxes in 2008? What percentage of your total income was that?

How satisfied are you with the maintenance of the roads where you live? How bad are the potholes?

How much do you like your local cops? Aren't you the guy who complains that all the cops are corrupt?

How good is the snow removal where you live?

How satisfied are you with your local DMV, post office, etc.

And how about all those wonderful government programs like the USA PATRIOT ACT, special rendition, government evesdropping on foreign communications, etc? You complain bloody hell about those... but they are free too. Who doesn't like free?

Elliot

Recentle, our president, decided to try and pass a Healthcare Plan. In this plan, everyone in the United would get free Healthcare. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well first of all, guess who still gets to have private insurance? Thats right- everyone who works in the government (including Obama himself). Shouldn't the government have to comply with the rules they make? Also, in England they have socialized medicine. From waht I know about socialized medicine, it's not a good thing. Will America become like that?
Also, in this healthcare plan, President Obama plans on giving healthcare to illegal immigrants, too. Shouldn't he be helping his country before paying for illegal immigrants to have healthcare? And lastly, who is going to pay for all of this? If the government is paying for healthcare, taht means all our taxes go up! It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession? And, they will also decrease the money of the pharmacys. If pharmacies aren't getting enough money, then why are they going to want to continue in medical research.

Like P.J. O'Rourke famously said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

Any responces? if you disagree make sure you can back up what you say

Hello Red,

You are absolutely 100% correct in your assessment.

First of all, "free health care" isn't free... in fact, according to the CBO, nationalized health care will cost roughly 300-500% of what private health care does. Between administrative waste, payments of government pensions to retired employees of the government health care system, and the fact that the government pays an average of 35% more than private insurancve does for drugs, therapies, procedures and tests.

Second, for all the talk of health care being cheaper if the system is nationalized, you cannot expect to add 15-47 million more people to the system and have it cost less.

Third, as much as those on the left would like to dismiss the talk of "death panels", the fact is that all of the plans coming out of Congress have provisions for the government to decide what medical care you get based on your age, a determination of your remaining utility to society, and the cost of the care. Also, these plans have provisions for doctors or counselors to sit with older patients and try to convince them to sign DNRs, DNIs, living wills, and end-of-life instructions that would order doctors to withhold treatment from them. While the libs dismiss this as just "end-of-life planning", the fact is that we have seen in other countries what that ends up looking like, and we have heard the comments of our President about withholding care for seniors, and seen and heard the words of Ezekiel Emanual and others who have told us that they would withhold such care for seniors because it is too expensive. These are, in effect, "death panels" whether the libs want to own up to that fact or not.

Fourth, for all the talk about "choice and competition" through the creation of a "public option", the stated goal of Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Emmanuel, Schankowski, etc. is a single-payer system, and they have stated that they intend to use the "public option" to FORCE a single payer system over a period of several years. In fact, all the of the plans have provisions that state that if anything changes in your current plan (including a change in premium amounts), or if you are forced to leave your current plan for any reason, you cannot transfer to another private plan, and you MUST take the public option. Also, your small-business employer is going to be charged a tax that will force them to drop private insurance or go out of business, thus forcing you into the public option. Over a period of a few years, there will no longer be any private insurance, and we will have been forced into a single-payer system.

If the government really wanted to creat choice and competition in the medical insurance industry, they could do so by allowing interstate purchase of medical insurance and insurance portability. This one step would increase your choices from maybe 5 or 6 companies in your state to 1300 nationwide.

Simply put, Obamacare is a bill of goods. It's bad law, it's not designed to solve any of the problems it claims to solve, and it has a hidden agenda.

Elliot

Ex
I got a version of Joe middle class too.

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with bottled water because he knows that the municipal water system supplies water that occasionally has e coli and other natural organisms that will make him ill--after all his mother died from drinking water that was polluted by sewage after a heavy rain. Joe tried to sue, but was told that the city had sovereign immunity from such suits as a result of state law. If the water he pours from the bottle he bought at Safeway is polluted, he knows he can sue the manufacturer and collect big, so he feels pretty sure that it's clean.

Joe grinds his coffee beans carefully because they're very expensive as a result of the U.S. government-enforced international coffee cartel that exists to protect the jobs of coffee importers--heavy campaign contributers to Congress. He's also careful about how much sugar he puts in his coffee because it costs seven times the world price of sugar as a result of the U.S. government imposed import restrictions on sugar to protect the domestic sugar beet and sugar cane industry.

Some mornings he drinks a coke instead, although it hasn't tasted as good since the manufacturer substituted corn syrup for sugar as a sweetener, since sugar is so expensive.

With his first swallow of coffee Joe takes his daily medication for his liver cancer. His doctor assures him that it is the best medication available in the U.S., although more effective medicines are used in Europe. Joe has a life expectancy of only two more years, but it will be a decade or so until the FDA tests on those other medicines are complete and they are allowed to be sold in the U.S. Joe feels protected anyway; after all, he might lose his hair or suffer some dizziness from the new medicines.. The FDA will protect him from that eventuality. Besides, the medicines he takes are paid for by money that his employer would have otherwise paid him in his regular salary. Since he never sees that money, he doesn't realize that his medicine isn't really subsidized by his employer after all.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; it is fragranced with some sort of exotic flower and there are strange chemicals in it ; and he bought it, well, because he liked the picture of the kangaroo on the bottle. He luxuriates in his bourgeois moment in the shower, a luxury unavailable to even the most wealthy of only 200 years ago. He is able to have many of such seemingly simple luxuries because some greedy businessmen sought enormous profits in the only way they could: satisfying consumer demand.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because the accumulation of capital over centuries has now brought the discounted marginal value product of a schmuck like Joe to unimaginable heights. Joe doesn't know anything about economics because he doesn't have to. He is no smarter than his forbears, and he works less. Nonetheless, because he participates in a world-embracing division of labor where his specialized work on a growing capital base is greatly valued, he is richer.

Joe's employer pays these standards because if they don't, his employer's competitors will.

It's noon time, Joe doesn't need to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills - he uses online banking and direct deposit. He has no idea how these systems work, or what a banking clearinghouse is, but he is able to use these services at the lowest cost practicable because banks compete for his business. Notwithstanding the massive interventions to the business of banking, he is able to weather the government-induced business cycles and inflation by investing in mutual funds, annuities, stocks, bonds, REITs, real estate, and other investment vehicles.
Joe plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He arrives at his rural boyhood home. The house didn't have any good programming choices until DirecTV offered an array of programming and high-speed internet, too. His dad uses a VCR, which only became affordable to him after lots of rich people bought the early, expensive versions and the manufacturers improved the designs and cut costs. In fact, his dad has a cell phone, TiVo, refrigerator, microwave oven, and a CD player - all of which became affordable to him because they were first the toys of the super-rich, and the crackpot schemes financed by the wealthy entrepreneurs willing and able to risk their money in such endeavors.

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on a reverse mortgage - a recent market innovation.
and so on......

Hello again, tom:

Let's talk about some of those FREE things you don't like. Here's a story about Joe Middle-Class Republican. He's probably a lot like you.

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for ...

excon

You living in Fairyland or Oz?

Redhead, this is 'my' America:
"Grow Your Own Tobacco At Home

Hi --

My name is Bob and I grow tobacco at home and refuse to pay the punishment taxes that make the price of tobacco so outrageous."
http://www.stonerforums.com/lounge/general-gardening/17161-grow-your-own-tobacco-home.html
Now, what are those liberals fighting for? Don't worry about excon cause he blows lots of smoke.

I wonder where and what everybody would be doing if there was no such thing as Government - probably fighting the next cave for nothing more than their food supply!

A government should dictate or provide the basic standard of everything, if people want to have a better system then they have the right to provide it

People can then work towards getting a better life, while the basic system provides him access to the market

Or is this just lost on people?

I wonder where and what everybody would be doing if there was no such thing as Government ...


There is no one advocating this.

So if everybody agrees that there should be a government, what in the giblets should it do?

I ask I am very confused by peoples comments on what a government is there for?

If people say to provide representation - for what? according to some they don't need any representation - as they choose 100% market over any political system

So if everybody agrees that there should be a government, what in the giblets should it do?

I ask I am very confused by peoples comments on what a government is there for?Hello again, p:

It can be summed up very nicely this way. If you're a rightwinger, you think the government is there to make war. If you're a lefty, you think the government is there to look out for the people.

excon

PS> The lefty's, of course, look to the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution for their inspiration. They're ALL about protecting the PEOPLE.

Salvo Ex,

So what you state with your very appreciated simple answer is this

Whether left or right it is the governments responsibility to raise revenue to assist in the building of an organisation

If that is true then so is this

It is the governments duty to tax its people

It is the governments duty to provide its people with protection

Now if as you say your are a righty, then that is it - nomore intervention, asistance, or influence of any kind

Then tell me my american friend, if the amount of money raised my taxes is dependent on the market, which is ultimatly dependent on what the dollar is worth

Who influences the worth of the dollar?

The Founders were clear about the role of government .

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” –James Madison, Federalist No. 51

That is why the founders made the powers of the national government few and enumerated in the constitution. The rest of the governing authority rests in state and local authority through the will of the people.

It was alos the founders who decided that the old way of doing things was not working about for them

So the decided to change things

Of course things can always be changed in the future, I just hope that when change does occur it is done by peaceful means and not war

So if everybody agrees that there should be a government, what in the giblets should it do?


Haven't I answered this enough times already.

Government is there to
1) maintain a physical infrastructure for the country... roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, and a mail service,
2) maintain a military and police force to protect the nation from enemies both foreign and domestic, and
3) create and maintain an economic environement that is conducive to the production of goods and services, the selling of those goods and services, and the accumulation of wealth.



I ask I am very confused by peoples comments on what a government is there for?

Why? It's actually very simple.


If people say to provide representation - for what? according to some they don't need any representation - as they choose 100% market over any political system

Exactly 100% true. We really don't need representation if the government is simply sticking to those three requirements only. However, they don't stick to those three mandates, and if the government is going to tax us... and they do... then we require representation with regard to how those taxes are spent.

Elliot

Of course things can always be changed in the future,
They also made provisions for change.It is through the amendment process. It has happened 27 times in our brief history .

My biggest beef is that too often the process is bypassed. That is the most quick way to erode the firewalls built into our system.

Salvo Ex,

So what you state with your very appreciated simple answer is this

Whether left or right it is the governments responsibility to raise revenue to assist in the building of an organisation

If that is true then so is this

It is the governments duty to tax its people

It is the governments duty to provide its people with protection

Now if as you say your are a righty, then that is it - nomore intervention, asistance, or influence of any kind

Then tell me my american freind, if the amount of money raised my taxes is dependant on the market, which is ultimatly dependant on what the dollar is worth

Who influences the worth of the dollar?

Actually, that's NOT what excon said. Excon was trying to give a pithy response that he knows is inaccurate. He said nothing about raising money. He talked about making war vs. looking out for people, and assumed that one was the purview of the right, and the other was the purview of the left.

In actuality, however, the right both PREVENTS wars when they can and FIGHTS them when needed. It also protects the rights of individuals. The left neither prevents wars nor fights them and their domestic policies eliminate the right of free choice of individuals and create an under-class of slaves that are beholden to the government for all their needs while growing the power of the government over-class.

See, I can do pithy responses too. ANd mine are more accurate.

Elliot

They also made provisions for change.It is through the amendment process. It has happened 27 times in our brief history .

My biggest beef is that too often the process is bypassed. That is the quickest way to erode the firewalls built into our system.

I think that your founders had the right idea for its time, the same as when rebels forced the King to sign the magna Carter, and Oliver Cromwell with his rebellion

Democracy in any form has taken along time to devolop in any country

I just find it interesting that people constantly refer backwards, as if to say, well if they didn't want it then we shouldn't have it now

In the magna carter is describes fairness and equality - this was a major step. After a few more steps, we arrive at your doorstep with equality for men

Again at this stage equality is a descriptive word

Moving forward, we still seem to have difficulty in providing equality for all men, especially in the US where it is the inequality that makes america what it is

I do not argue against captilism - I am all for it, but it is the hypocrisy that is pursued so vigoursly that I find so amusing

Nobody states that not all should go to school, as people agree all children should have a fair crack of the whip and it was that do with that that matters

However, in a system that by its very nature requires people to work low paid jobs, without which the economy would collapse, and yet they will not provide a basic health care system that will show that they are rewarded for doing the jobs that most of us do not want to do

The argument against this is simple though, Why Should I Pay for someone else's mistakes - well why should I pay for someone to not listen in school?

If the US doesn't want a healthcare system for all, because it would be unfair against those that have worked for their cover, then why not expel those children that are wasting everybodies time at school - you are paying for them to do that

Actually, that's NOT what excon said. Excon was trying to give a pithy response that he knows is inaccurate. He said nothing about raising money. He talked about making war vs. looking out for people, and assumed that one was the purview of the right, and the other was the purview of the left.

In actuality, however, the right both PREVENTS wars when they can and FIGHTS them when needed. It also protects the rights of individuals. The left neither prevents wars nor fights them and their domestic policies eliminate the right of free choice of individuals and create an under-class of slaves that are beholden to the government for all their needs while growing the power of the government over-class.

See, I can do pithy responses too. ANd mine are more accurate.

Elliot

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Sir Winston Churchill

Moving forward, we still seem to have difficulty in providing equality for all men, especially in the US where it is the inequality that makes america what it is

That's because you are defining "equality" as equal result. That is a false definition. The correct definition of "equality" is equal;ity of opportunity. And that EVERYONE in the USA has equally.


Nobody states that not all should go to school, as people agree all children should have a fair crack of the whip and it was that do with that that matters

Actually, that is an ongoing debate. Should everyone go to school? Should the state pay for it? It's not as simple as you think it is... especially when the discussion includes higher education... post high school. Is education actually a "right"? Or is it a service that we have the right to purchase if we so desire? The difference is important.


However, in a system that by its very nature requires people to work low paid jobs, without which the economy would collapse, and yet they will not provide a basic health care system that will show that they are rewarded for doing the jobs that most of us do not want to do

Can you name such a job? Fact of the matter is that if people work for the government in low-paid jobs, they have some of the best health care available in the USA. Not to mention having union protection. And if they work for PRIVATE COMPANIES in such jobs, chances are better than 80% that they have health care as well. There are actually very few people who AREN'T covered by some form of health care... less than 3% of Americans, actually (roughly 12 million). So your assumption that there are huge tracts of people in low-paying jobs, forced to work as virtual slaves without health care in this country is just plain wrong.


The argument against this is simple though, Why Should I Pay for someone else's mistakes - well why should I pay for someone to not listen in school?

Exactly. Again, this is an ongoing debate. Don't assume that it is a done deal and that education is universally considered to be a "right".


If the US doesn't want a healthcare system for all, because it would be unfair against those that have worked for their cover, then why not expel those children that are wasting everybodies time at school - you are paying for them to do that

Yep. I'm fine with that. Your point?

Elliot

I think that your founders had the right idea for its time,
I think it's timeless.

Nobody states that not all should go to school, as people agree all children should have a fair crack of the whip and it was that do with that that matters
Not a good example. Our public school system is a monumental failure precisely because of the centralization of it. Like I said (and what I believe the founders meant by leaving power as much as possible to local authority ) ,such things are better left to the level of government closest to the people . The more madates on education come from the central government the more children fall through the cracks.



However, in a system that by its very nature requires people to work low paid jobs, without which the economy would collapse, and yet they will not provide a basic health care system that will show that they are rewarded for doing the jobs that most of us do not want to do


If the people become so slothful the society is lost anyway. But you got that wrong. You know why I pay electricians ,plumbers ,auto mechanics big bucks ? Because they provide a service I can't do. My lawncare and gardening I'm capable of doing myself.

Tom

Lowest paid jobs are those that work in fast food restaurants - Forbes 2007 and covers approx 15m americans

These jobs are always going to be needed, as I assume you like to take yourself, family, partner whatever out for at least a cup of coffee every now and again

These jobs are needed, nay, demanded by a capitalist economy, so who are you kidding when you state, Slothful Scoiety?

Even if you had every single child graduating from college with a recognised degree, somebody from this list would still have to be paid crap wages to bring you a cup of coffee

So why shouldn't these people, who lets face it work in some terrible conditions at time - imagine working for maccyds! get a fair crack at having a good healthcare system?

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Sir Winston Churchill

Yes we should. The strategy PRE-9/11 was to hide our heads in the sand and ignore terrorism.

The result?

Aside from 9/11:

September 8 1974 - Abu Nidal organization sets off a bomb that destroys TWA flight 841, killing 88 passengers.

September 10 & 11, 1976 - highjack of TWA flight by Croatian "freedom fighters".

March 9, 1977 - capture of 3 buildings in Washington DC by African-Muslin Hanafi sect operatives, 100 hostages taken, Mayor Marion Barry shot in the chest and one bystander killed.

August 3, 1977 - FALN terrorists bomb the offices of Exxon-Mobile, killing one and injuring 8. The terrorists also falsely warn of bombs in the Empire State Building. Real bombs are found several days later in the AMEX building.

July 1979 - attempts to attack the US and Israeli embasies in Norway stopped by Norweigan police.

June 9 1979: FALN explodes a bomb outside of the Shubert Theatre in Chicago, injuring five people.

November 4, 1977 - start of Iran Hostage Crisis, which lasts 444 days.

March 15, 1980 - FALN terrorists raid the HQ of Jimmy Carter's campaign in Chicago and the HQ of George H. W. Bush 's campaign in NY. Total of 17 hostages taken in these two incidents.

June 3, 1980 - bomb destroys the Story Room of the Statue of Liberty, Croatian sepparatists suspected.

May 16 1981 - bombing of bathrooms in JFK Airport kills 1. Responsibility is claimed by Puerto Rican Resistance Army.

August 11, 1982 - bomb explodes of Pan Am Flight 830 from Tokyo to Honolulu killing 1, injuring 15.

December 31, 1982 - FALN explodes bombs outside 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, the FBI headquarters in DC and a courthouse in Brooklyn. 3 police officers injured.

April 18, 1983 - US Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 63, including 18 Americans.

October 23, 1983 - Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 241 Marines and wounds 81. 58 French troops are killed in a separate attack.

November 9, 1983 - Bomb explodes in US Senate. Armed Resistance Unit claims responsibility.

August 29-October 10, 1984 - The Rajneeshee cult spreads salmonella in salad bars at ten restaurants in The Dalles, Oregon to influence a local election. Health officials say that 751 people were sickened and more than 40 hospitalized

September 20, 1984 - US Embassy in Beirut is bombed. 20 killed.

October 7-10, 1985 - Hijacking of cruiseship Achille Lauro by PLF. Disabled passenger Leon Klinghoffer shot and thrown overboard.

April 5, 1986 - Libyan operatives bomb a German discothèque frequented by US Servicemen, 3 killed.

February 28, 1989 - firebombing of Riverdale Press newspaper offices in New York City.

November 5, 1990 - assassination of Israeli Knesset Member Meir Kahana in New York City by early elements of Al Qaeda.

January 25, 1993 - Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others.

February 26, 1993 - WTC Bombing kills 6 and injures over 1,000. Coalition of 5 different muslim terrorist groups responsible. Again, this is an early operation of the terrorist umbrella organization known as Al Qaeda.

March 1, 1994 - Brooklyn Bridge shooting by Muslim terrorist kills 1.

February 24, 1997 - Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

August 7 1998 - U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda.

October 19, 1998 - Earth Liberation Front causes $12 million worth of damage with firebombing of a ski resort in Vail, Colorado.

December 31 1999 - Earth Liberation Front causes over $1 million of damage in firebombing of Michigan State University's Agriculture Hall.

April 30, 2000 - The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) claimed responsibility for causing over $500,000 in damages to construction equipment in Elettsville, Indiana. Fourteen pieces of logging and construction equipment were destroyed by the perpetrators, who filled gas tanks with sand, cut fuel and hydraulic lines and set a tractor-trailer filled with wood chips on fire.

That's 29 attacks in 27 years... and I missed a few that weren't successful attacks. I also left off the domestic terrorist attacks.

After our response to 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Nothing.

So, I look at our strategy and I look at the result, and I see success.

Elliot

You living in Fairyland or Oz?

Now that's hitting below the belt but I have you know that in oz we don't have to boil the water to make it safe. Look Ex would love it here, he could have the choice between two political parties who have leftist tendencies, one that claims to represent the workers and the other that claims to represent the battlers. Before our last election the party that claimed to represent the workers had a "me too" attitude to policy excepting to changes in Labor laws. What do both these groups do about health care, interestingly they maintain a system where basic health care is "paid for", and I emphasise 'paid for' by the government. The system allows you to pay any amount you want to to a doctor to look after you but the government will rebate a set fee, so choice is absolute. In this fairyland there is no reason for any person not to consult a doctor or receive treatment in a hospital because they cannot afford care.

I think that is what Obama is trying to achieve. The vested interests oppose such an objective and the politicians can't quite get their minds around how to achieve it

The Founders were clear about the role of government .

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” –James Madison, Federalist No. 51

That is why the founders made the powers of the national government few and enumerated in the constitution. The rest of the governing authority rests in state and local authority through the will of the people.

Concepts that worked well when travel was difficult and communications almost non existent. What you have is a present fettered by the thinking of men who lived in a different age, an age of kings, colonialism and war between states

Lowest paid jobs are those that work in fast food restaurants
If I count the times I was employed in high school ;college and post college starting ,I was that employee for a good 15-20 years. Name the job and I did it . There was almost nothing I wouldn't do. Hey ;if the government had paid for all my necessities then perhaps I'd've lost a good deal of the incentive to improve my condition... no ?

I am all in favor of a hard case safety net. I draw the line when my years of hard work means that someone else is ENTITLED to live off my labor.

Concepts that worked well when travel was difficult and communications almost non existent. What you have is a present fettered by the thinking of men who lived in a different age, an age of kings, colonialism and war between states

I fail to see how technological improvement changes the principals behind our Founding.

I fail to see how the advent of cars, cell phones and computers makes what the Founders said about the dangers of government power and the methods of preventing its abuse. If anything, technology has allowed for GREATER government control over our everyday lives, our businesses and our liberties. If anything the warnings of the Founders are more relevant today than they ever were before, not less.

You are willing to give your government that control. We are not. Technological changes don't enter into it. I daresay that you would be just as permissive of your government managing your life if you were living in the early 1800s as you are today. And we conservatives would be just as strongly against it as we are today.

Elliot

Yes we should. The strategy PRE-9/11 was to hide our heads in the sand and ignore terrorism.

The result?

Aside from 9/11:

September 8 1974 - Abu Nidal organization sets off a bomb that destroys TWA flight 841, killing 88 passengers.

September 10 & 11, 1976 - highjack of TWA flight by Croatian "freedom fighters".

March 9, 1977 - capture of 3 buildings in Washington DC by African-Muslin Hanafi sect operatives, 100 hostages taken, Mayor Marion Barry shot in the chest and one bystander killed.

August 3, 1977 - FALN terrorists bomb the offices of Exxon-Mobile, killing one and injuring 8. The terrorists also falsely warn of bombs in the Empire State Building. Real bombs are found several days later in the AMEX building.

July 1979 - attempts to attack the US and Israeli embasies in Norway stopped by Norweigan police.

June 9 1979: FALN explodes a bomb outside of the Shubert Theatre in Chicago, injuring five people.

November 4, 1977 - start of Iran Hostage Crisis, which lasts 444 days.

March 15, 1980 - FALN terrorists raid the HQ of Jimmy Carter's campaign in Chicago and the HQ of George H. W. Bush 's campaign in NY. Total of 17 hostages taken in these two incidents.

June 3, 1980 - bomb destroys the Story Room of the Statue of Liberty, Croatian sepparatists suspected.

May 16 1981 - bombing of bathrooms in JFK Airport kills 1. Responsibility is claimed by Puerto Rican Resistance Army.

August 11, 1982 - bomb explodes of Pan Am Flight 830 from Tokyo to Honolulu killing 1, injuring 15.

December 31, 1982 - FALN explodes bombs outside 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, the FBI headquarters in DC and a courthouse in Brooklyn. 3 police officers injured.

April 18, 1983 - US Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 63, including 18 Americans.

October 23, 1983 - Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 241 Marines and wounds 81. 58 French troops are killed in a separate attack.

November 9, 1983 - Bomb explodes in US Senate. Armed Resistance Unit claims responsibility.

August 29-October 10, 1984 - The Rajneeshee cult spreads salmonella in salad bars at ten restaurants in The Dalles, Oregon to influence a local election. Health officials say that 751 people were sickened and more than 40 hospitalized

September 20, 1984 - US Embassy in Beirut is bombed. 20 killed.

October 7-10, 1985 - Hijacking of cruiseship Achille Lauro by PLF. Disabled passenger Leon Klinghoffer shot and thrown overboard.

April 5, 1986 - Libyan operatives bomb a German discotheque frequented by US Servicemen, 3 killed.

February 28, 1989 - firebombing of Riverdale Press newspaper offices in New York City.

November 5, 1990 - assasination of Israeli Knesset Member Meir Kahana in New York City by early elements of Al Qaeda.

January 25, 1993 - Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others.

February 26, 1993 - WTC Bombing kills 6 and injures over 1,000. Coalition of 5 different muslim terrorist groups responsible. Again, this is an early operation of the terrorist umbrella organization known as Al Qaeda.

March 1, 1994 - Brooklyn Bridge shooting by Muslim terrorist kills 1.

February 24, 1997 - Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

August 7 1998 - U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda.

October 19, 1998 - Earth Liberation Front causes $12 million worth of damage with firebombing of a ski resort in Vail, Colorado.

December 31 1999 - Earth Liberation Front causes over $1 million of damage in firebombing of Michigan State University's Agriculture Hall.

April 30, 2000 - The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) claimed responsibility for causing over $500,000 in damages to construction equipment in Elettsville, Indiana. Fourteen pieces of logging and construction equipment were destroyed by the perpetrators, who filled gas tanks with sand, cut fuel and hydraulic lines and set a tractor-trailer filled with wood chips on fire.

That's 29 attacks in 27 years... and I missed a few that weren't successful attacks. I also left off the domestic terrorist attacks.

After our response to 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Nothing.

So, I look at our strategy and I look at the result, and I see success.

Elliot

To all who lost their lives from terrorism, rest and respect

Elliot

As I witnessed the IRA bombing of Hyde Park in 1982, I am somewhat familiar with the effects that terrorism has. I was on the other side of the park with my Dad, horror films have never been the same since

I think here though you are trying to persuade an argument that was based on the number of people who died in a single attack

If it wasn't for 9-11 there would be no war in Iraq etc

However, having lived with terrorism what seems all my life, do not think that the chances of you being bombed again have gone

The reason why it is particular effective is any idiot can do it, with very little assistance, but then you know that from your israeli experience

What you have to do is learn from each other of why there is so much hatred between the two sides

This involves talking, and I guarantee at some point talking will happen in Afgahanistan, and all its regions, because we cannot let this go and needs to be finished and not left to stir up again in 5 years

But this moves the subject away from the question

And we both know where we stand on this issue, I'm right your wrong :D

If I count the times I was employed in high school ;college and post college starting out ,I was that employee for a good 15-20 years. Name the job and I did it . There was almost nothing I wouldn't do. Hey ;if the government had paid for all my necessities then perhaps I'd've lost a good deal of the incentive to improve my condition ...no ?

I am all in favor of a hard case safety net. I draw the line when my years of hard work means that someone else is ENTITLED to live off my labor.

I don't disagree that these jobs are there for students and the like, but at the same time, not every one of the 15m people employed in these jobs are students

I fail to see how technological improvement changes the principals behind our Founding.

I fail to see how the advent of cars, cell phones and computers makes what the Founders said about the dangers of government power and the methods of preventing its abuse. If anything, technology has allowed for GREATER government control over our everyday lives, our businesses and our liberties. If anything the warnings of the Founders are more relevant today than they ever were before, not less.

You are willing to give your government that control. We are not. Technological changes don't enter into it. I daresay that you would be just as permissive of your government managing your life if you were living in the early 1800s as you are today. And we conservatives would be just as strongly against it as we are today.

Elliot

I am not sure if the princicples have changed but I do believe that one or two technologies have meant greater cultural influence over each other

He we have several people from different countries arguing the difference of yesturdays news, and yet this happening all over the world

Cultural influence has been accelerated at a phenomonal pace, no longer do governments control foreign policy in its entirity, it is now in the hands of the people and growing

Just as I have found out that not all americans live up to their stereotypes, but I hope I have represented England in a timely tradition G'vnor

The point is this, no person can look to the future with certainty, but we can try to plan for it, and the one goal we are all after, I want to make sure I am cared for if something's happen

Whether it is through work of your own, or given to you, I just can't see what is wrong with giving every human being the chance to be given medical assistance, and seen as this is something that every human being will need, it is a goal we all share in our lives

It is a shame that for a simple reformation of the healthcare system you object to helping your fellow man in a very easy gesture of goodwill

I think that is what Obama is trying to achieve. The vested interests oppose such an objective and the politicians can't quite get their minds around how to achieve it

Obama is a fascist or socialist, whichever you want to call him; he is, 'all government, all the time'.

Beginning around 1965, persons aged 65 and up, almost universally, have Medicare. It is going bust. Is that difficult to understand? Too many 'customers' chasing too few 'providers'; the result of which is higher prices.

Because hospitals and doctors are taking an economic loss vis a vis Medicare, they charge younger 'customers' more. This is an unintended economic consequence, which leads to higher prices from providers and insurers.

I don't care how large your heart is; how do you propose to pay for it? If you want taxpayers to pay for healthcare, what about shelter and food? Transportation? Daycare? Clothes? Pet care? Burial? Utilities?

I don't care how large your heart is; how do you propose to pay for it? Hello again, George:

I wonder why you don't ask the same question when it comes to your wars.

excon

To all who lost their lives from terrorism, rest and respect

Elliot

As I witnessed the IRA bombing of Hyde Park in 1982, I am somewhat familar with the effects that terrorism has. I was on the other side of the park with my Dad, horror films have never been the same since

I think here though you are trying to persuade an argument that was based on the number of people who died in a single attack

If it wasnt for 9-11 there would be no war in Iraq etc

However, having lived with terrorism what seems all my life, do not think that the chances of you being bombed again have gone

The reason why it is particular effective is any idiot can do it, with very little assistance, but then you know that from your israeli experience

What you have to do is learn from each other of why there is so much hatred between the two sides

This involves talking, and I guarantee at some point talking will happen in Afgahanistan, and all its regions, because we cannot let this go and needs to be finished and not left to stir up again in 5 years

But this moves the subject away from the question

And we both know where we stand on this issue, im right your wrong :D

Phlanx,

Your prior post quoted Churchill and stated that we should look at the RESULT of our strategy, not just the strategy itself. I was taking your advice.

BEFORE 9/11 our "strategy" was to hide our heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The RESULT of that strategy was more attacks... roughly 1 per year over a multiple-decade period.

SINCE 9/11, however, our strategy changed. We began fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The RESULT of that strategy has been no attacks against us in the subsequent 8 years.

Given the change in strategy since 9/11 and the result of that change, I would argue that the strategy and the result are both favorable. Thus Churchill's advice is satisfied.

That was my only point.

Elliot

Hello again, George:

I wonder why you don't ask the same question when it comes to your wars.

excon

I, in turn, wonder why you ONLY ask it about wars (which falls under government's responsibility under the Constitution) and not about any of the other programs the government (which the Constitution does not provide for).

Elliot

SINCE 9/11, however, our strategy changed. We began fighting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The RESULT of that strategy has been no attacks against us in the subsequent 8 years.Hello again, p:

I got bit by a mosquito 8 years ago, but haven't been bitten since... I must be doing something right.. Sounds kind of stupid, huh??

The strategy the Wolverine speaks of has been an unmitigated DISASTER for us. He doesn't mention THAT, however... He just says we haven't been attacked again, so we must be doing something right...

It's kind of the way Alice would look at it after she went through the looking glass. Silly Republicans.

excon

I, in turn, wonder why you ONLY ask it about wars (which falls under government's responsibility under the Constitution) and not about any of the other programs the government (which the Constitution does not provide for).Hello Elliot:

Well then, whatrya worried about? If health care reform is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then your right wing supreme court led by the winger Roberts and his cohorts Scalito and Thomas'll throw it out... That should work GOOD for you, if what you say is true...

But, of course, it AIN'T true. You KNOW that's not going to happen, NOT because the Supreme Court is liberal, but because health care reform IS CONSTITUTIONAL.. Silly Republicans.

excon

PS> So, since our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ARE Constitutional, that means we shouldn't be concerned about their cost?? Really?? Silly Republicans...

PPS> By the way, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, neither of those wars ARE Constitutional... You DO know that only congress can declare war, don't you?? You DON'T, yet you speak as though you're a Constitutional authority... Silly Republican.

By the way, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, neither of those wars ARE Constitutional... You DO know that only congress can declare war, don't you?

And so they did .Perhaps you did not read the resolutions passed by large bipartisan majorities for BOTH wars ?

Tell me... where in the Constitution does it say that the wording of a war resolution that Congress passes needs the wording "we declare war " ? Don't waste your time looking for it. You won't find it.

Free healthcare would be a dream come true for some people like myself who can't afford health insurance and need the help. Humans are humans and deserve to be taken care of.

Not knowing your circumstances I can't comment . If you truly can't afford it then there are already many government safety net programs to fall back on.
But if you have the means then why should I pay for your health care ?

Why let people who are homeless die in the streets? Nobody's "worthless" and deserve help if needed..

Again... there are already provisions for the truly needy .

again ..... there are already provisions for the truly needy .Hello itsamor:

Of course, this is the right wing mantra. It's just not so, as I'm sure you can attest.

excon

Idk if it's sleep deprivation but I don't know what you just said.. "right wing mantra" what is just not so? 0_o
Somebody come be an elitist prick and tell me how stupid I am!

Hello again, itsamor:

Slooooow down. You're just fine, and I ain't an elitist prick because I happen to know stuff...

A mantra is something that people repeat over and over again until it becomes believable. Right wing, is a political persuasion that MOST of the people have, who repeat the mantra.

Those people are the ones who believe that you HAVE health care now, but for some reason CHOOSE not to use it. You and I know that that's just nuts.

Nonetheless, for THAT reason, they're against passing a bill that would help you.

excon

Ohhh okay, I know what a mantra is but didn't know what the whole 'right wing" thing was about..i don't know much about politics anymore only cause i stopped caring and am sick of hearing these ridiculous arguments just for arguments sake.

Anyways i think that it's bizarre to say that "It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession?"
Shouldn't people get into that profession to HELP people and make a difference as to just for the money?

I'm going to school to be in the medical field only for the fact that I want to help as much as I can.

Salvo all,

I find with interest that the ones who argue against Healthcare state that there are charitable and governments programs to help, so why should I pay

They then state that all governments programs are crap and need scrapping

So how can you have one without the other - this is just hypocrisy

Does anyone know what the final bill to be voted on will be yet?

Does anyone know what the final bill to be voted on will be yet?Hello again, p:

Last I heard, they're putting it off till next year.. That means never.

Say hello to President Palin.

excon

Does anyone know what the final bill to be voted on will be yet?

No ;the Senate is delaying voting because they can't convince the General Accounting Office to massage the numbers so it doesn't appear to be a budget buster.

I find with interest that the ones who argue against Healthcare state that there are charitable and governments programs to help, so why should I pay

They then state that all governments programs are crap and need scrapping

I have been consistent that I favor basic safety net provisions for the truely needy.
I don't think it is inconsistent at all to say that massive government bureaucracy is inherently inefficient . The bigger it gets the more inefficient it is . Yes I think the vast majority are better off on their own without the "helping hand " of Super Nanny.

Hello Elliot:

Well then, whatrya worried about? If health care reform is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, then your right wing supreme court led by the winger Roberts and his cohorts Scalito and Thomas'll throw it out... That should work GOOD for you, if what you say is true...

I'm sure that Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts WILL vote against it. Just as I'm sure that the 5 radical libs on the court with vote in favor of it.

Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't mean that the liberal courts are going to vote against it. We all know that to be true... well, everyone except you, of course. You still think the court is conservative.


PS> So, since our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ARE Constitutional, that means we shouldn't be concerned about their cost?? Really?? Silly Republicans...

Sure we should. But based on the EFFECTIVENESS of the war efforts, I'd say that we're getting our money's worth. So... it's both cost effective AND constitutional. That's why I'm not worried about it.


PPS> By the way, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, neither of those wars ARE Constitutional... You DO know that only congress can declare war, don't you?? You DON'T, yet you speak as though you're a Constitutional authority... Silly Republican.

We've been through this before. Congress not only declared war, they did so TWICE. You can claim that they didn't all you want, but they did. Facts are stubborn things.

Elliot

Hello again, p:

I got bit by a mosquito 8 years ago, but haven't been bitten since... I must be doing something right.. Sounds kind of stupid, huh??

So you think that our not being attacked in 8 years after having been attacked roughly every year of the prior 30 was an accident?

Let's put it this way... if for 30 years you were getting attacked by mosquitoes, and then suddenly in the past 8 years you didn't, I'd wonder what you were doing differently, because it would seem to have been effective.

You, of course, would chalk it up to accident.


The strategy the Wolverine speaks of has been an unmitigated DISASTER for us. He doesn't mention THAT, however... He just says we haven't been attacked again, so we must be doing something right...

Yeah... about that unmitigated disaster...

War in Iraq has accomplished:

1) Freedom for 25 million Iraqis from a dictatorial regime,
2) The creation of a parlimentary democracy,
3) The formation of a national police force and military that is increasingly taking charge of its own national security,
4) Increased employment,
5) Increased wages,
6) Increased productivity,
7) Increased oil production,
8) New schools, hospitals and other infrastructure necessary to grow society,
9) reflooding of the marshlands of southern Iraq which were intentionally drained by Saddam Hussein and which destroyed the culture of Marsh Arabs living there. We have rebuilt the marshlands and given the Marsh Arabs a place to live again.
10) reinstituted a non-corrupt, fair Iraqi judicial system.
11) Reinsitituted free press in Iraq.
12) Ended the factional wars within Iraq.
13) the destruction of 38,000 chemical munitions, 480,000 litres of chemical agents and 1.8 million litres of precursors of chemical agents. (You didn't know about that one, did you?)

And, of course, there's # 14) We have not had a terrorist attack against us in 8 years.

Yeah... I can see where you'd call all of that an "unmitigated disaster"...

NOT!!

Elliot

Ohhh okay, i know what a mantra is but didnt know what the whole 'right wing" thing was about..i don't know much about politics anymore only cause i stopped caring and am sick of hearing these ridiculous arguments just for arguments sake.

Anyways i think that it's bizarre to say that "It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession?"
Shouldn't people get into that profession to HELP people and make a difference as to just for the money?

I'm going to school to be in the medical field only for the fact that i want to help as much as i can.

So... when you are a doctor or nurse or whatever, and you are working 60 hours a week (as many health care professionals do), are you going to expect to be paid for your services? Or will you be working for free just because you want to help people.

Keep in mind that you are going to have either a mortgage or rent to pay, as well as taxes, the costs of food, clothing, perhaps the occasional movie or concert. Presumably you will eventually have children, and you will need to pay for their food, clothing and toys as well. How are you going to pay for all of that if you are going to be working for free?

Or are you expecting someone to just give you all those things for free?

And do you expect the doctor who went through 4 years of medical school, 2 years of internship, 2 of residency, and 2 of fellowship (for relatively low pay with very long hours) and who had to take loans to live on during those 10 years of professional training (because he was getting paid very little) to work for free and not pay off his loans? Or his food costs? Or rent?

Why would he or she choose to work their tail off for 10 years or more if they aren't going to make money out of the deal? Just because they love to help their fellow man?

Love doesn't pay the bills, young lady. Your landlord isn't going to accept your love as compensation for your use of his apartment. The grocer isn't going to except good intentions as payment for his fruits, vegetables and other foodstuffs. The clothing store isn't going to accept nice feelings as payment for the clothing you wear.

Elliot

Now... How much should you be paid for your work?

How much are you being paid for your work? You go first.
Edit to add: please add where you went to school and how much you spent for your education.

All right.

I make in the high-five figure range... bordering on 6 figures.

I went through 12 years of private school education at roughly $10,000 a year for tuition before going to Brooklyn College for roughly $1500 per semester. Because I only went to college part-time, I went for 6 years.

Total education cost: approx $138,000.

And even with all that information, you don't understand the point I'm making with itsamor.

So watch and learn.

Elliot

Salvo

What ever you achieve in life you should be proud of it, if you realise your dreams then you should be happy, money doesn't always do this for people

For me, I had both private and public eductaion, but I have learnt more in life after I left school than I did during

Personally I earn enough to keep me and my family happy, and can earn more if needed

So you think that our not being attacked in 8 years after having been attacked roughly every year of the prior 30 was an accident?Hello again, Elliot:

Actually we HAVE been attacked. Otherwise 4,000 American soldiers wouldn't be dead, and they are. Why should they come here to attack us, when we put our soldiers in their back yard? All they have to do is put a bomb on their street and there's a few dead Americans... We make it EASY for them to attack us.

You sure do count funny.

excon

Exactly, all they have to do is bomb - ask Madrid, London, Bali, Pakistan etc. post 9-11.

The lives of 4000 lost are to be thanked and respected for the work they have done protecting us and ensuring our liberty.



G&P

So you think that our not being attacked in 8 years after having been attacked roughly every year of the prior 30 was an accident?

Let's put it this way... if for 30 years you were getting attacked by mosquitoes, and then suddenly in the past 8 years you didn't, I'd wonder what you were doing differently, because it would seem to have been effective.

You, of course, would chalk it up to accident.



Yeah... about that unmitigated disaster...

War in Iraq has accomplished:

1) Freedom for 25 million Iraqis from a dictatorial regime,
2) The creation of a parlimentary democracy,
3) The formation of a national police force and military that is increasingly taking charge of its own national security,
4) Increased employment,
5) Increased wages,
6) Increased productivity,
7) Increased oil production,
8) New schools, hospitals and other infrastructure necessary to grow society,
9) reflooding of the marshlands of southern Iraq which were intentionally drained by Saddam Hussein and which destroyed the culture of Marsh Arabs living there. We have rebuilt the marshlands and given the Marsh Arabs a place to live again.
10) reinstituted a non-corrupt, fair Iraqi judicial system.
11) Reinsitituted free press in Iraq.
12) Ended the factional wars within Iraq.
13) the destruction of 38,000 chemical munitions, 480,000 litres of chemical agents and 1.8 million litres of precursors of chemical agents. (You didn't know about that one, did you?)

And, of course, there's # 14) We have not had a terrorist attack against us in 8 years.

Yeah... I can see where you'd call all of that an "unmitigated disaster"....

NOT!!!!

Elliot

Firstly I am not saying that what both our nations have achieved in Iraq was not worthwhile because I agree with elliot in this

However Elliot, you are saying when your attacked then it is okay to press your values on another country?

Hello again, Elliot:

Actually we HAVE been attacked. Otherwise 4,000 American soldiers wouldn't be dead, and they are. Why should they come here to attack us, when we put our soldiers in their back yard? All they have to do is put a bomb on their street and there's a few dead Americans... We make it EASY for them to attack us.

You sure do count funny.

excon

Excon,

Do you really see no difference between the two? You think there is no difference between the soldier who dies on the battlefield to defend his country and the civilian who dies in an office building blown up by a terrorist?

Both have died tragicaly. But only one of them chose their destiny and their duty. One is the death of some guy at work. The other is the death of a man or woman who chose to stand between the enemy and civillians to protect them.

You really see no difference?

Has your mind become that addled with age?

Or has the addled effect been caused by liberalism?

Elliot

As ET mentioned:


Physician in the US:

AFTER college, [ 22yo ]
4 years mendical school [ 26 yo ]
at least 3 if not more, 7 for a lot of surgical subspecialties, [ 29 yo 35 yo ]

in the majority of cases 6 figure debt

onto a career - 60 - 80 hour weeks are not unusual

now that one makes top 25 % of incomes or more, MORE TAXES

At anytime, by anyone, for whatever reason you can loose your livelihood, your reputation, your assets by a malparactice suit: the majority of which have no merit, or are dismissed, but the legal, emotional and time costs can never be recovered.


So, if you have finished college, your looking at least 7years, 6 figure debt, long hours, more taxes, the threat of malpractice, and you have to run a business. Then you have an administration that is seeking to limit you income and raise your taxes. Still want to be a doctor?




G&P

Yes but you have left out the compensations, the Merc, the Boat, the house, Your surely don't expect it to be an easy ride but what business doesn't need a business loan to get started and a certain amount of effort to get established. Once you are established you can opt for less hours and use your expertise to manage your investments. Don't expect us to feel sorry for you, most doctor live a life the rest of us can only dream of

Firstly I am not saying that what both our nations have achieved in Iraq was not worthwhile because i agree with elliot in this

However Elliot, you are saying when your attacked then it is okay to press your values on another country?

Which values would those be?

I seem to remember a vote by 80% of the Iraqi people to accept their own system of parlimentary democracy and their own constitution. I seem to remember at least two other votes by 80% of the Iraqi people to elect their leadership.

Nobody forced them to accept democracy. They could just as easily have created a monarchy or a dictatorship, or a centralized communist/socialist government, or any other form of government. Nobody forced them to accept a PARLIMENTARY democracy like you have instead of a REPUBLICAN democracy like the one we have. Nobody forced them to vote for their current leadership. They chose these things themselves, and they did it with the vast majority of their people voting for it.

Exactly which values do you think we forced on them? Which values did they not choose for themselves and had foisted on them by us? This is a common argument and assumption, especially from anti-war groups and individuals, but I have yet to see it substantiated.

Elliot

Nobody forced them to accept democracy. They could just as easily have created a monarchy or a dictatorship, or a centralized communist/socialist government, or any other form of government. Nobody forced them to accept a PARLIMENTARY democracy like you have instead of a REPUBLICAN democracy like the one we have. Nobody forced them to vote for their current leadership. They chose these things themselves, and they did it with the vast majority of their people voting for it.


Elliot

Don't be niave Elliot you know Iraq could not have accepted any form of government other than they did. Imposing democracy instead of dictatorship was Bush's policy. People vote for candidates, they don't vote for people who are not candidates. Democracy was the price of getting the US to leave, they paid the price but haven't got the goods and who knows what will develop in the future. Iraq has taken a predictable path, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Democracy

Which values would those be?

I seem to remember a vote by 80% of the Iraqi people to accept their own system of parlimentary democracy and their own constitution. I seem to remember at least two other votes by 80% of the Iraqi people to elect their leadership.

Nobody forced them to accept democracy. They could just as easily have created a monarchy or a dictatorship, or a centralized communist/socialist government, or any other form of government. Nobody forced them to accept a PARLIMENTARY democracy like you have instead of a REPUBLICAN democracy like the one we have. Nobody forced them to vote for their current leadership. They chose these things themselves, and they did it with the vast majority of their people voting for it.

Exactly which values do you think we forced on them? Which values did they not choose for themselves and had foisted on them by us? This is a common argument and assumption, especially from anti-war groups and individuals, but I have yet to see it substantiated.

Elliot

As usual missing the point, the institutions we have set up in Iraq are based on the ideals of our police force, water board, electricity grids, etc etc etc - Because we were the ones who trained them it is therefore our values and influence on them

Or has this one past you by as well?

As for democratic - well that was a new idea to them as Iraq has never been democratic, so where did they get the idea of democracy - hmm I wonder!

And pal, I am in no way anti war - I see the point of war, particular when you stay behind to clean up and sort out , so please don't fool yourself that I fit into a neat little box that america loves to have people in

And by the way, when referring to Iraq, when I say we, I mean the US and the UK as we both worked together for a common goal, but of course there was no influence from either side to each other that would ultimatly lead both of our sides to change policy for a better way of doing things - oh that couldn't happen could it!

Don't be niave Elliot you know Iraq could not have accepted any form of government other than they did. Imposing democracy instead of dictatorship was Bush's policy. People vote for candidates, they don't vote for people who are not candidates. Democracy was the price of getting the US to leave, they paid the price but haven't got the goods and who knows what will develop in the future. Iraq has taken a predictable path, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Democracy

I will add this Clete, BP have just signed a contract to pump oil in parts of Iraq, so now you have foreign investment which means the workers will be trained to a western standard, the structure of the company withhin Iraq will be of western design, and the government their will start to receive oil to sell on the open market, I think BP are being paid $2 per barrel to start with, so not a bad deal, and with money coming in they will hopefully stay with an elected democracy and invest the money in services for the rest of the nation

The path is their for them to take, but I can't see them doing it without stabilisers for awhile

Cheers to the coalition . My favorite moment of the war was the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders bayonet charge.

Just in case nobody knows about it tom

Bayonet Brits kill 35 rebels | The Sun |News (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article88661.ece)

And another

BBC NEWS | UK | Military cross for bayonet charge (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8252974.stm) ( let me know if you can't see this - don't know if it is country protected)

Makes me proud to be british!

As usual missing the point, the institutions we have set up in Iraq are based on the ideals of our police force, water board, electricity grids, etc etc etc - Because we were the ones who trained them it is therefore our values and influence on them

Or has this one past you by as well?

So, let me get this straight... you consider waterworks, electric grids, police forces, etc. to be "values"?

We taught them methods to build an infrastructure that they were lacking. And you consider that to be "pressing our values on them"? I'm not reading anything into this or putting words in your mouth. This is what YOU are saying.

Do you really consider these things to be "values" the way democracy, liberty, justice, etc. are "values?

In direct answer to your question, I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH USING OUR KNOWLEDGE OF ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTUR, BUILDING AND ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS TO HELP THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

Do you?

There is a whole world of difrference between that and "values?

In direct answer to your question, I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH USING OUR KNOWLEDGE OF ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTUR, BUILDING AND ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS TO HELP THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

Do you?

There is a whole world of difrference between that and ".

So, no, I wasn't missing the point, but I think YOU are.


As for democratic - well that was a new idea to them as Iraq has never been democratic, so where did they get the idea of democracy - hmm I wonder!

How about from their next door neighbors in Iran... who until the Shah was ousted operated as a democratic society. Or how about from watching us and DECIDING FOR THEMSELVES that this is what they wanted. Remember that 80% of them voted for this... it wasn't FORCED on them. Teaching is a whole different animal from FORCING.


And pal, I am in no way anti war - I see the point of war, particular when you stay behind to clean up and sort out , so please don't fool yourself that i fit into a neat little box that america loves to have people in

I didn't say you were. I said that your argument comes most often from those who are. Please read the post again... and then come back and tell me about "reading between the lines" and putting words in people's mouths.


And by the way, when referring to Iraq, when I say we, I mean the US and the UK as we both worked together for a common goal, but of course there was no influence from either side to each other that would ultimatly lead both of our sides to change policy for a better way of doing things - oh that couldn't happen could it!

No disagreement there. You guys did your part. You played it straight up with us. Never said you didn't. I was just answering excon's argument that there were no gains from Iraq and that the whole thing was an "unmitigated disaster". Clearly you disagree with that point as well.

And since when does "influencing Iraq" become the same as "pressing our values on them"? Of course we influenced them. Where's the problem with that. As long as we don't FORCE them, where's the issue?

Elliot

How about from their next door neighbors in Iran... who until the Shah was ousted operated as a democratic society. Hello again, p:

Interestingly, the Wolverine fails to mention that the USA IMPOSED the Shah upon the Iranian people, as the USA is want to do. He came to power during World War II after a CIA organized coup of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq.

I wonder why he doesn't mention stuff like that?? Believe his posts at your own peril.

excon

I will add this Clete, BP have just signed a contract to pump oil in parts of Iraq, so now you have foreign investment which means the workers wil be trained to a western standard, the structure of the company withhin Iraq will be of western design, and the government their will start to recieve oil to sell on the open market, I think BP are being paid $2 per barrel to start with, so not a bad deal, and with money coming in they will hopefully stay with an elected democracy and invest the money in services for the rest of the nation

The path is their for them to take, but I can't see them doing it without stabilisers for awhile

So BP, a multinational gets a contract, whoopido! This is "democracy" in action!

I seem to remember that long ago Iraq had a viable oil industry even under a dictatorship. I expect you are about to tell me that this is better because more than one person might benefit. Without getting involved in historic detail, we have the richest nation in the middle east reduced to paupership and then we have multinationals being awarded contracts to exploit resources and this is democracy in action. We will see where they invest the money, perhaps not in palaces, not in skud missiles, perhaps in shopping malls, perhaps in numbered accounts and I expect they don't really need the "stabilizers" in the form of US troops in bases to help them do it. I expect they see themselves being able to do it alone

No where does it say it will be free. We will have to pay for it according to our income.
Somebody has to pay for it whether the government says the employer or you have to pay or it comes out of our taxes it IS going to cost US.

Ever heard of Medicare/ Medicaid? Both are government healthcares. Look how well those worked out. President Obama should fix up those health care plans before he makes a knew one, which will cost billions of dollars, and need I remind you of the current recession that we are in? Who does he think is going to pay for this?

Exactly. What has the government EVER fixed?They made a mess of every financial thing they ever got involved in.

This says it all

YouTube - The Government Can - Tim Hawkins (cc) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H18kahWXaY)

No where does it say it will be free. We will have to pay for it according to our income.
Somebody has to pay for it whether the government says the employer or you have to pay or it comes out of our taxes it IS going to cost US.

The gov't can't run the railroads, post office, VA, Fannie, Freddie, Farty or Darty; why on earth would anyone give the Feds 'health care'? Because it makes someone feel good and gives someone else a lot of power. All power to the gov't; screw the people.

Hello again, p:

Interestingly, the Wolverine fails to mention that the USA IMPOSED the Shah upon the Iranian people, as the USA is want to do. He came to power during World War II after a CIA organized coup of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq.

I wonder why he doesn't mention stuff like that??? Believe his posts at your own peril.

excon

What does that have to do with the government of Iraq? What does the events of 60 years ago in Iran have to do with the events of today in Iraq?

Nothing, that's what.

You know I'm right, you have no argument to counter it, and so AGAIN you try to change the subject in order to muddy the waters.

The bottom line is we didn't IMPOSE anything on the Iraqis. They chose for themselves after being freed from Saddam Hussein's regime in what you refer to as an "unmitigated disaster".

Wrong again, excon. You really should stop while you're behind.

Elliot

The bottom line is we didn't IMPOSE anything on the Iraqis.

Elliot

Just War!

Yes but you have left out the compensations, the Merc, the Boat, the house, Your surely don't expect it to be an easy ride but what business doesn't need a business loan to get started and a certain amount of effort to get established. Once you are established you can opt for less hours and use your expertise to manage your investments. Don't expect us to feel sorry for you, most doctor live a life the rest of us can only dream of

Before you get to the compensation, did you see the sacrifices. That compensation is EARNED. The same people who have the will, the work ethic, the intelligence can take their talent elswhere and make a living in other ways.

22yo - bachelors degree from college,
24 yo MBA - go into finance
You see the potential compensation, 6 years in at the age of 30, a high 5 figure if not more is possible. A physician is maybe 1-2 years out of residency, working > 40 hours a week, and on average close to if not more than 6 figure debt.

Do you know any physicians personally? I do. They all don't drive luxury imports, heck some don't even know how to play golf. A lot get multiple middle of the night telephone calls, and if you are a surgeon or OB-GYN that can mean hours doing an emergency procedure in the middle of the night, then working a full day. Could you do that? Do you have what it takes?

Granted there are jobs like, teacher, underground coal miner, police, farmer, combat soldier etc. that are just as stressful, but why is it there is no outcry over the salaries in the entertainment industry?

Who are you to determine what anyone makes? Unless you are an employer. What makes a doctor's salary the subject of your envy? Yet you don't comment on the salary of an Alex Rodriguez, or Kobe Bryant, or Oprah, or Bill Gates or Tiger Woods?

You see, I have read about their backgrounds, I know that they are among the best at what they do, they have worked very hard to earn what they do, and have the talent and the smarts to parlay that into fortunes. That is the wonder of a capitalistic, free market economy. You can elevate yourself by working hard. I celebrate the achievements of others. This country was founded on hard work not handouts and entitlements. YOU DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON GOVERNMENT REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH to live life . That is the socialist / communist/ statist mentality. Class envy and dependency on government.
To meet every need, and a disregard for individual merit and liberty.


G&P

Just War!

Actually, Saddam Hussein imposed the war. If he had met his obligations under the cease-fire agreement he signed in 1991, the war would have been avoided. His actions imposed war on Iraq.

Actually, we did impose something on Iraq... freedom from a dead tyrant, the freedom to choose their own government. But I'm not going to apologize for that imposition.

Elliot

Actually, we did impose something on Iraq... freedom from a dead tyrant, the freedom to choose their own government. But I'm not gonna apologize for that imposition.

Elliot

Great point: let Obama prance around the world apologizing for the freedom and liberty provided by the blood and sacrifices of so many Americans.

Elliot

I was being sarcastic - Of course we have imposed conditions on them, cultural infleunce, new markets etc, shame you don't relaise that, and besides, if you want to get picky, then it could have been Gulf1 I was talking about

Actually, Saddam Hussein imposed the war. If he had met his obligations under the cease-fire agreement he signed in 1991, the war would have been avoided. His actions imposed war on Iraq.

Actually, we did impose something on Iraq... freedom from a dead tyrant, the freedom to choose their own government. But I'm not gonna apologize for that imposition.

Elliot

His agreement wasn't with the US, the US had no right to enforce anything. There is so much misinformation about all of this including Iraq's choice of the form of government. Democracy doesn't fit the Muslim culture.

You should apologise to the thousands of Iraqi who have died unnecessarily. If they wanted a war of liberation it was up to them. They have demonstrated a capability.

When are you going to liberate Iran?

Perhaps you would like to liberate Venezeula?

Should the US liberate Gaza and Lebanon?

North Korea?

How's the liberation of Afghanistan going?

Your argument is spirious

Great point: let Obama prance around the world apologizing for the freedom and liberty provided by the blood and sacrifices of so many Americans.

Oh please let's not get into a round of "rally round the flag boys". What about the blood and sacrifice of the Iraqi. Has that been any less than the americans, no 50 times more, no it's just that americans count the lives of every one else at a much lesser value

Oh please let's not get into a round of "rally round the flag boys". What about the blood and sacrifice of the Iraqi. Has that been any less than the americans, no 50 times more, no it's just that americans count the lives of every one else at a much lesser value

You know how to read? Do you comprehend? I said nothing about a flag and leave that rubbish to fascists/liberals/progressives etc.

The bottom line is we didn't IMPOSE anything on the Iraqis. Hello again, El:

Sounds kind of like ohsohappy's signature, doesn't it?


"I did not hit you. . . I simply high-fived your face." Silly Republicans.

excon

Great point: let Obama prance around the world apologizing for the freedom and liberty provided by the blood and sacrifices of so many Americans.

I find that statement disrespectful to all nationonalities and all people who have died in the name of freedom of choice!

Yeah you are right Phlanx he has the freedom to choose to prance all around the world apologizing and he has the right to take off to Broadway for a date with his wife and he has the right to have rock concerts at the Whitehouse to broaden his kids horizens in music and he has the right to bankrupt America with the programs he is pushing through and he has the right to sit over a $250. Lunch plate discussing how poor Americans can live on $250. A week. He has the right to a lot of things.

What does that have to do with the government of Iraq? What does the events of 60 years ago in Iran have to do with the events of today in Iraq?

Nothing, that's what.
Great point: let Obama prance around the world apologizing for the freedom and liberty provided by the blood and sacrifices of so many Americans.Hello George:

Here's what you righty's miss. We DID mess around with the politics of Iran and we DID put a guy WE liked in charge... Yes, we DID that. No, it didn't matter to us what the Iranians wanted. Elliot doesn't even deny it, which is pretty strange right there...

But he, like you, doesn't think the Iranians have a memory, or if they do, they shouldn't, or something pretty stupid like that. I really don't know what he's saying... Same with you...

So, here's the deal... As long as you think the Arabs are mad at us because they don't like freedom, or our way, and NOT because of what WE DID to them, we're doomed to never ending attacks...

PLUS, as long as you call correctly identifying what WE DID, as an apology, then you're dooming us to even MORE and MORE attacks...

WHY would you want to do that to us?? Do you hate America soooo badly??

excon

Hello George:
...
So, here's the deal.... As long as you think the Arabs are mad at us because they don't like freedom, or our way, and NOT because of what WE DID to them, we're doomed to never ending attacks....

PLUS, as long as you call correctly identifying what WE DID, as an apology, then you're dooming us to even MORE and MORE attacks....
...

excon

You keep pulling for the Islamo-fascists; that's your choice. I'm with those who desire personal liberty and freedom, with no apologies.

You keep pulling for the Islamo-fascists; that's your choice. I'm with those who desire personal liberty and freedom, with no apologies.Hello again, George:

And you'll keep imposing it on them whether they like it or not. If they b1tch about it, don't apologize - bomb 'em instead.. They'll get to liking this freedom thing, or you'll keep bombing 'em till they do.

I understand. Really, I do.

excon

Now that we're done talking about Islamo-fascism, back to the Obamacare debate. The GOP alternative (http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=414) would cost $61 billion, reduce the deficit by $68 billion and cut insurance premiums, as opposed to the Democrat plan which will cost as much $1.8 trillion, cut Medicare benefits and increase the already mammoth deficit.


A Preliminary Analysis of a Substitute Amendment to H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act

This evening, CBO released a preliminary analysis of a substitute amendment to H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, proposed by Representative John Boehner, the Republican Leader in the House of Representatives. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period; it would also slightly reduce federal budget deficits in the following decade, relative to those projected under current law, with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of gross domestic product.

That amendment contains several provisions that are intended to increase rates of insurance coverage by reducing its costs or subsidizing its purchase, including:

· Regulatory reforms in the small group and non-group markets, including establishing association health plans (insurance coverage that is offered to members of an association) and individual membership associations, and allowing states to establish interstate compacts with a unified regulatory structure;

· A State Innovations grant program to provide federal payments to states that achieve specified reductions in the number of uninsured individuals or in the premiums for small group or individually purchased policies;

· Federal funding for states to use for high-risk pools in the individual insurance market and reinsurance programs in the small group market; and

· Changes to health savings accounts (HSAs) to allow funds in such accounts to be used to pay premiums under certain circumstances, to make net contributions to HSAs eligible for the saver’s tax credit, and to provide a 60-day grace period for medical expenses incurred prior to the establishment of an HSA.

CBO and JCT estimate that those provisions would increase federal budget deficits by about $8 billion over the 2010-2019 period, reducing the number of nonelderly people without health insurance by about 3 million in 2019 and leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019—83 percent—would be roughly in line with the current share.

Other provisions of the amendment would alter federal spending and revenues in significant ways. The key provisions include:

· Limits on costs related to medical malpractice (“tort reform”), including capping noneconomic and punitive damages and making changes in the allocation of liability;

· Requirements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services adopt and regularly update standards for electronic administrative transactions that enable electronic funds transfers, claims management processes, and verification of eligibility, among other administrative tasks;

· Establishment of an abbreviated approval pathway for follow-on biologics (biological products that are highly similar to or interchangeable with their brand-name counterparts); and

· An increase in funding for HHS investigations into fraud and abuses.

CBO anticipates that the combination of provisions in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States, relative to what they would be under current law-by 7 percent to 10 percent in the small group market, by 5 percent to 8 percent for individually purchased insurance, and by zero to 3 percent in the large group market. Those are averages, however, and they are subject to a great deal of uncertainty; some individuals and families in each market would see different results.

And by the way, unemployment just hit 10 percent and the economy is what won NJ and VA for Republicans. Go ahead, support your fiscal and health care nightmare and ignore common sense solutions.

Hello George:

Here's what you righty's miss. We DID mess around with the politics of Iran and we DID put a guy WE liked in charge... Yes, we DID that. No, it didn't matter to us what the Iranians wanted. Elliot doesn't even deny it, which is pretty strange right there...

But he, like you, doesn't think the Iranians have a memory, or if they do, they shouldn't, or something pretty stupid like that. I really don't know what he's saying.... Same with you....

So, here's the deal.... As long as you think the Arabs are mad at us because they don't like freedom, or our way, and NOT because of what WE DID to them, we're doomed to never ending attacks....

PLUS, as long as you call correctly identifying what WE DID, as an apology, then you're dooming us to even MORE and MORE attacks....

WHY would you wanna do that to us????? Do you hate America soooo badly???

excon


Still can't respond to the issue of Iraq, can you.

You are stuck on something that happened 60 years ago in Iran, mistake or not, because you know I'm right about IRAQ and just can't deal with it.

You can't stick to the point at hand because you can't admit to being wrong. We correctly point out that we didn't force Iraq to choose anything, and that they chose their own method of government... and you can't handle that, so you point to Iran in the 1940s.

You want to condemn the USA so badly that you have to talk about things that happened 60 years ago to prove it, and ignore what happened just 5 years ago. How desperate is that?

Elliot

Still can't respond to the issue of Iraq, can you.

You are stuck on something that happened 60 years ago in Iran, mistake or not, because you know I'm right about IRAQ and just can't deal with it.

You can't stick to the point at hand because you can't admit to being wrong. We correctly point out that we didn't force Iraq to choose anything, and that they chose their own method of government... and you can't handle that, so you point to Iran in the 1940s.

You want to condemn the USA so badly that you have to talk about things that happened 60 years ago to prove it, and ignore what happened just 5 years ago. How desperate is that?

Elliot

No Elliot, democracy wasn't pushed onto them was it?

U.S. Determined to See Iraq Become a Democracy, Powell Says (http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2004/May/20040514144857btruevecer0.5313532.html)

DefenseLink News Article: Bush: People of Islamic World Must Choose Democracy (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26179)

no elliot, democracy wasnt pushed onto them was it?

u.s. Determined to see iraq become a democracy, powell says (http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2004/may/20040514144857btruevecer0.5313532.html)

defenselink news article: Bush: People of islamic world must choose democracy (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26179)
Game, set and match!

Really?

Because we wanted it to happen is proof that we FORCED them to accept it?

Tell me, which American soldiers forced 20 million Iraqis to vote for their Constitution and then three months later for their government? Because we have very good records showing how the elections turned out, and 80% of them voted for a Constitutional Parlimentary Democratic system.

Did American soldiers force them to vote that way? Did they rig the elections? No, they didn't. The Iraqis came out to vote for themselves... they chose for themselves.

Unless you can show some evidence that we FORCED 80% of the Iraqi people to vote for something they didn't want or rigged the election, you got nothing.

NOW it's game, set and match.

Elliot

Exactly ETW
I remember the smiling faces in that voting line on the news.

game, set and match!

Glad you are handling ideas and not hand grenades: you'd blowup.

Unless you can show some evidence that we FORCED 80% of the Iraqi people to vote for something they didn't want or rigged the election, you got nothin'.

NOW it's game, set and match.Hello again, Elliot:

I don't know. You somehow fail to mention that we had 130,000 soldiers in that country helping the Iraqi's fight a civil war during this election... It sure puts a different slant on things than simply 80% of the people voted for thus and so...

Of course, NOT to you. You make it sound as though the good citizens of St. Paul voted 80% for street repairs, blah, blah, blah...

You don't focus on the bigger picture. Probably too painful, huh?

excon

and 80% of them voted for a Constitutional Parlimentary Democratic system.
What options of political direction did they have? Did they weight differ models or was that their only choice? You know it's kind tough to evaluate other options when there is a huge military from an occuping force is breathing down their neck. So unless you can show me that they had a choice is deciding what form of government they wanted we can only concluded it's what the US wanted.

Glad you are handling ideas and not hand grenades: you'd blowup.What does that even mean?

If they were being forced why where they so happy?
Do all the Iraqi's that posed this similar picture look forced to you?

What options of political direction did they have? Did they weight differ models or was that their only choice? You know it's kind tough to evaluate other options when there is a huge military from an occuping force is breathing down their neck. So unless you can show me that they had a choice is deciding what form of government they wanted we can only concluded it's what the US wanted.

What options?

Very simple:

Option #1: we like what has been proposed, and we're going to vote for it.

Option #2: we don't like what has been proposed, and we're going to vote against it and make the interim leadership come up with a better plan.

They chose option #1 overwhelmingly.

That's what votes are all about, NK.

Elliot

Hello again, Elliot:

I dunno. You somehow fail to mention that we had 130,000 soldiers in that country helping the Iraqi's fight a civil war during this election.... It sure puts a different slant on things than simply 80% of the people voted for thus and so...

Of course, NOT to you. You make it sound as though the good citizens of St. Paul voted 80% for street repairs, blah, blah, blah....

You don't focus on the bigger picture. Probably too painful, huh?

excon

Uh huh...

I'll say it again.

Can you show me any evidence that the US soldiers or any US official forced anyone to vote, forced anyone to vote a specific way, or somehow rigged the vote?

If yes, put up or shut up.

If not, just shut up.

Show some respect for our military. You used to be one of them.

Elliot

I really have a hard time talking about ordinary people when it comes to politics

Whoever rose to be in a seat of power in Iraq when saddam was chucked out HAD NO CHOICE but to speak to us, and if they wanted to get their sovereignty back, and trade with the rest of the world without sanctions they HAD NO CHOICE but accept democracy in their own words

I am going to contradict myself here, of course they had a choice - they could have said no to the allies and were going to do it their own way

What do you think would have happened then - we would have just left and left a country to become a melting pot?

We did that once, and Hitler came out of the pot and annoyed a lot of people - or has the history you profess to know been lost again!

One more point... if we were forcing the Iraqis to accept democracy, why would we choose to force them into a parlimentary system similar to those in European countries, instead of the Republican style democracy that we use in the USA? If we were trying to make them over in our image, why did we instead make them over in Europe's image?

Elliot

Great point ETW

I really have a hard time talking about ordinary people when it comes to politics

Whoever rose to be in a seat of power in Iraq when saddam was chucked out HAD NO CHOICE but to speak to us, and if they wanted to get their soverignty back, and trade with the rest of the world without sanctions they HAD NO CHOICE but accept democracy in their own words

I am going to contradict myself here, of course they had a choice - they could have said no to the allies and were going to do it their own way

What do you think would have happened then - we would have just left and left a country to become a melting pot?

We did that once, and Hitler came out of the pot and annoyed alot of people - or has the history you profess to know been lost again!

Actually, yes, I think if they had decided to create a different form of government we would have left. We might have left some soldiers there for basic security until they got their own security forces in order, but we wouldn't have intervened in the sectarian violence once it started. We would have told them "you wanted to govern your own way, go ahead and govern" and walked away from them when the sectarian violence picked up instead of trying to work with all the factions.

They had that option. They instead CHOSE democracy, because they looked at the rest of the world and noticed a pattern... countries with democratic leadership are generally richer and more engaged in world-wide economics, while those with tayrannies and dictatorships are generally poorer and have little connection with the rest of the world in any meaningful economic sense. They want that economic stability and growth.

Elliot

One more point... if we were forcing the Iraqis to accept democracy, why would we choose to force them into a parlimentary system similar to those in European countries, instead of the Republican style democracy that we use in the USA? If we were trying to make them over in our image, why did we instead make them over in Europe's image?

Elliot

Now let me think, was it just americans over there in Iraq, mmm!

The movies that will come out will probably show that it was just the US in Iraq, thank goodness history is not written by phoneywood

As far as your Hitler argument is concerned... Iraq already had their Hitler. His name was Saddam Hussein. The one thing they were going to be sure to do was prevent another Hitler from cropping up. I don't believe that this was ever a credible danger from a country that had just thrown off Saddam.

Elliot

Now let me think, was it just americans over there in Iraq, mmm!

The movies that will come out will probably show that it was just the US in Iraq, thank goodness history is not written by phoneywood

But the charge put forth is that WE, the AMERICANS were the ones forcing them to accept our values... not you Europeans. That's what the articles you put forward seem to be saying anyway.

So unless we are now changing the accusation from it being Americans who forced their policies on Iraq to it being the USA and EUROPE TOGETHER that forced their values on the Iraqis, the point stands.

Are you changing your accusation? If so, can you show me any evidence that European soldiers rigged the Iraqi elections?

Elliot

Actually, yes, I think if they had decided to create a different form of government we would have left. We might have left some soldiers there for basic security until they got their own security forces in order, but we wouldn't have intervened in the sectarian violence once it started. We would have told them "you wanted to govern your own way, go ahead and govern" and walked away from them when the sectarian violence picked up instead of trying to work with all the factions.

They had that option. They instead CHOSE democracy, because they looked at the rest of the world and noticed a pattern... countries with democratic leadership are generally richer and more engaged in world-wide economics, while those with tayrannies and dictatorships are generally poorer and have little connection with the rest of the world in any meaningful economic sense. They want that economic stability and growth.

Elliot

Hahahahahahahaha

So we didn't train and provide support to the iraqies so they could fight for themselves - we were there and are still available for training and support - all they have to do is call tollfree 555-help :D (But No Influence there)

And pal, if you think that our politicians didn't sit down and offer something to the new council for choosing and pushing democracy onto the people, then you really need to understand what politics is all about!(But No Influence there)

Mmmm (AGAIN!) World Econmics would also include the WTO which have stringent rules for allowing countries to trade on the open market, china had to go through the process and all countries that support WTO are mostly democratic in nature and as such has an influence over any other ocunrty wishing to be part of it (But No Influence there)

And secondly, so our combined cultural influence had nothing to do with their decision, especially after what you have stated (But No Influence there)

Elliot, politics is a lot more intangled than simply the 2+2 version you insist on

Great point phlanx!

As far as your Hitler argument is concerned... Iraq already had their Hitler. His name was Saddam Hussein. The one thing they were going to be sure to do was prevent another Hitler from cropping up. I don't believe that this was ever a credible danger from a country that had just thrown off Saddam.

Elliot

Your missing the vital point, if a country is left to fend for itself after being destroyed by war, YOU MUST provide an infrastructure of stability to help the country trade and go to work

And as for just one Hussein - there was awhole list of people waiting in the wings to take the seat

hahahahahahahaha

So we didnt train and provide support to the iraqies so they could fight for themselves - we were there and are still available for training and support - all they have to do is call tollfree 555-help :D (But No Influence there)

And pal, if you think that our politicans didnt sit down and offer something to the new council for choosing and pushing democracy onto the people, then you really need to understand what politics is all about!(But No Influence there)

mmmm (AGAIN!) World Econmics would also include the WTO which have stringent rules for allowing countries to trade on the open market, china had to go through the process and all countries that support WTO are mostly democratic in nature and as such has an influence over any other ocunrty wishing to be part of it (But No Influence there)

And secondly, so our combined cultural influence had nothing to do with their decision, especially after what you have stated (But No Influence there)

Elliot, politics is alot more intangled than simply the 2+2 version you insist on

So... It wasn't the USA that forced it's policies on the Iraqis... it was the WTO.

Got it.

What you are actually saying is that the USA is innocent of all charges... the WTO is the guilty party.

Thanks. Got it now.

And remember, as I said before, influence is very different from FORCING or "pressing" as you called it. Did we influence them? I certainly hope so. Did we PRESS them? Nope.

But the charge put forth is that WE, the AMERICANS were the ones forcing them to accept our values... not you Europeans. That's what the articles you put forward seem to be saying anyway.

So unless we are now changing the accusation from it being Americans who forced their policies on Iraq to it being the USA and EUROPE TOGETHER that forced their values on the Iraqis, the point stands.

Are you changing your accusation? If so, can you show me any evidence that European soldiers rigged the Iraqi elections?

Elliot

YOU ME WE

Our two nations along with others were fighting in Iraq, I can appreciate that the inclosed almost incestual news that america seems to have can persuade you that it was just the US over there

AND YES, YET AGAIN AND AGAIN I HAVE TO STATE TO YOU, THAT WE US, ARE THE ALLIED FORCE, NOT JUST ONE COUNTRY!!

This is not a change, I have constantly stated that our countries, the US, UK and Europe Australia have ALL INFLUENCED IRAQ!

WHO Do you think made the borders of Iraq in the first place!

So... It wasn't the USA that forced it's policies on the Iraqis... it was the WTO.

Got it.

What you are actually saying is that the USA is innocent of all charges... the WTO is the guilty party.

Thanks. Got it now.

Now you are just be a single pointed argumentative human being

IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE WORLD WORKS ELLIOT, try finding out for yourself, you will find that things are just not as simple as you make your arguments!

WHO Do you think made the borders of Iraq in the first place!
For a while there Joe Biden thought he was Thomas Edward Lawrence with a blank map of Messopotamia .

YOU ME WE

Our two nations along with others were fighting in Iraq, I can appreciate that the inclosed almost incestual news that america seems to have can persuade you that it was just the US over there

AND YES, YET AGAIN AND AGAIN I HAVE TO STATE TO YOU, THAT WE US, ARE THE ALLIED FORCE, NOT JUST ONE COUNTRY!!!!

This is not a change, I have constantly stated that our countries, the US, UK and Europe Australia have ALL INFLUENCED IRAQ!

WHO Do you think made the borders of Iraq in the first place!

In the current era? That would be Churchill.

In ancient times? The Babylonians made their own borders. So did the Persians right next door.

And again, INFLUENCE is very different from FORCING or PRESSING. I should hope that we influenced them toward democracy. But we didn't FORCE them into anything.

You seem to think that "influencing" is a bad thing. Why is that?

Nations have been influencing each other for millennia. India influenced China with Budhism in the 2nd Century CE when Bhodi Dharma travelled through China teaching his philosophy. He never forced ANYONE to accept his philosophy, he merely influenced them... and China became an overwhelmingly Budhist society. Was that "influence" a bad thing?

Christianity influenced the Roman Empire. It didn't force Rome to accept Christianity as the main religion of the empire, but it certainly influenced them. (The Christians didn't actually have the power to FORCE anyone to do anything until centuries later, with the advent of the Byzantine Empire.) Was such influence "bad"?

If force had been used in Iraq, I would probably agree with you that it was a bad thing. But it wasn't. The Iraqis were influenced, yes. I freely admit that. But influence is NOT the same as force. And influence is not a bad thing, as long as the one being influenced still can choose his own path. I think that Iraq fits the bill.

Again, if you can show me evidence of force being used... your exact word was "pressed" or "pressing", I believe... then I will be happy to review that evidence.

Elliot

Hahaha, I just had to look up who Joe Biden was?

Has been a criteria to have certain names to gain office this year? :)

I think TE Lawrence would be very sad to see what has happened to the area, especially as the arabs should have had it anyway

In the current era? That would be Churchill.

There was no country of Iraq until it was created by the British in 1920. In 1534 the Ottoman Turks conquered the area of what is now Iraq. Here the Ottoman empire ruled until its defeat in World War I because Turkey sided with the Central powers. After World War I, the French and British divided up the formerly Ottoman-controlled lands in the Middle East. France was given a League of Nations mandate over Syria and Lebanon; Great Britain was given the same over Palestine, Transjordan, and Iraq. The modern state of Iraq was created out of the three Ottoman provinces of Basra, Mosul, and Baghdad. The defeat of the Turks may have brought to an end the Ottoman empire, but it began a century of Western imperialism.

So the ansser to the question which was not really a question, was David Lloyd George, as he was PM to King George V


And again, INFLUENCE is very different from FORCING or PRESSING. I should hope that we influenced them toward democracy. But we didn't FORCE them into anything.

Influence is [noun] a power to affect persons or events especially power based on prestige

So YEP I do think we Influenced them


You seem to think that "influencing" is a bad thing. Why is that?

Here we go again, trying to put words in my mouth to twist an argument around, so you know you have no answers to what I have said - I am the one that has constantly stated to YOU matey, that influence is greater than political say. I have been a pro influence understanding all along, I am sorry that it has missed you, you might have learnt something


If force had been used in Iraq, I would probably agree with you that it was a bad thing.

Putting words in my mouth again elliot!

For goodness sake man, you are speaking english, how much more of an example do you want of how influence works!


But it wasn't. The Iraqis were influenced, yes. I freely admit that. But influence is NOT the same as force. And influence is not a bad thing, as long as the one being influenced still can choose his own path. I think that Iraq fits the bill.

So by trying to twist my argument, you then slip it in and state you agree that influence played a major part in how Iraq is won, thank you for a very backward way of accepting this point


Again, if you can show me evidence of force being used... your exact word was "pressed" or "pressing", I believe... then I will be happy to review that evidence.

Elliot

You will have to show me where I stated pressed first, as I cannot find it to see in what context it was said if ever at all, or just another attempt at twisting the argument

Why don't you just simply say, I see and agree with your point of view - it would be a lot easier and for me I would gain more respect for you

You will have to show me where I stated pressed first, as I cannot find it to see in what context it was said if ever at all, or just another attempt at twisting the argument



Here it is.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obamas-healthcare-plan-412092-7.html#post2068200


However Elliot, you are saying when your attacked then it is okay to press your values on another country?

That sounds like an accusation of "pressing our values" on the Iraqis to me. And it was an accusation against the USA, not ALL countries... since you specify in that post that you are talking about the country that was attacked.

Or am I putting words in your mouth again?

Perhaps I am putting words in your mouth... but they were YOUR WORDS TO BEGIN WITH.

Elliot

Have you read that statement - that's where the sentence starts, and ends, this then gives you the context of the sentence - I suggest you read it all!!

Are you on drugs?

This is not a change, I have constantly stated that our countries, the US, UK and Europe Australia have ALL INFLUENCED IRAQ!

WHO Do you think made the borders of Iraq in the first place!

Elliot I think it can be said that Australia made precious little difference to the outcome in Iraq either militarily or politically. It certainly wasn't our system of government that was imposed on Iraq. As I recall the UK and France may have had some influence in settling the borders and political structure in the middle east after WWI, but all that has gone and what you now have is a uniquely American not Muslim idea with a little tinkering at the edges by the Iraqi. It is good that they abandoned the idea of a President as an all powerful executive. Must have had the opportunity of observing the American system in action. Why you keep ducking the reality of this eludes me

Now that we're done talking about Islamo-fascism, back to the Obamacare debate. The GOP alternative (http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=414) would cost $61 billion, reduce the deficit by $68 billion and cut insurance premiums, as opposed to the Democrat plan which will cost as much $1.8 trillion, cut Medicare benefits and increase the already mammoth deficit.



And by the way, unemployment just hit 10 percent and the economy is what won NJ and VA for Republicans. Go ahead, support your fiscal and health care nightmare and ignore common sense solutions.

Betsy McCaughey: What the Pelosi Health Care Bill Really Says - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)




What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.



See the article for more wonderful details of the Pelosi plan.


G&P

The bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.(can you say deth panels ?)Don't forget ;Dr Zeke Emanuel has written extensively about applying "cost/benefit analysis" to determine who should get care and to what extent.

No wonder Madame Mimi broke her pledge to publish this on line for 72 hrs before the vote. They are still doing back room changes in the bill hours before the vote.

The bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.Link us up to text of the bill that shows this please.

Link us up to text of the bill that shows this please.

What bill? The most ethical and transparent Congress ever won't post it.

What bill? The most ethical and transparent Congress ever won't post it.So how did tom get his info then?

What you are admitting then is that you did not read In's posting preceding mine.
Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."

The Pelosi unconstitutional socialized medicine monstrosity passed late last night in the House of Representatives . The vote was 220-215 . Only one Republican voted for it while 39 Democrats voted for it. The bipartisan effort was in the opposition to the bill.

I question the constitutional mandate for passing entitlements in the 1st place . This congress has taken it to new depths of depravity.They have passed a law that criminally penalizes people who refuse to exercise the entitlement.

What you are admitting then is that you did not read In's posting preceding mine.
Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
a) where did he get it then if it's not available as you say?
b) your quote simply says that, for example, in situation "a" procedure "b" is the best course. What's wrong with that?

a.There were many revisions right up until the vote . The Speaker promised to post the final bill on line for 72 hrs before a vote. It was a LIE !
That section of the bill was available .

b. I can read between the lines and the legalese . The administration plans on placing people like Zeke Emanual at the head of any agency related to this gvt, plan ;and Emanuel has made his position clear. It will not advise a physicican ;it will dictate tp physicians.

If this bill ,or any version of it ,makes it through the Senate ;seniors on Medicare are going to get screwed . Of that there is no debate .Whatever imaginary savings the Democrats think are in the bill are directly taken from the benefits seniors already have.

That section of the bill was available . But you can't point us the actual text. :rolleyes:


b. I can read between the lines and the legalese . No what you do is make up scare tactics instead of posting the actual parts of the bill.

Similarly, "When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'"

CNSNews.com - When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?' (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971)

What a paradox: a government that refuses to protect its citizens from illegal immigration, now proposes to lock-up those same citizens who do not choose to purchase health insurance. Makes you appreciate why Barack wants that civilian police force, as well trained and funded as the US military; wonder why he needs that?

What a paradox: Makes you appreciate why Barack wants that civilian police force, as well trained and funded as the US military; wonder why he needs that?Hello again, George:

Sooo, you only appreciate a well trained police force as long as it's doing the social engineering YOU approve of, huh? Yes, I'm speaking about the DEA.

THAT'S the paradox, my friend.

excon

PS> At THIS point in time, we have a REAL bill that passed the House. Therefore, REAL words count this time. Although, you're going to have to show me the words in the bill where they LOCK people up who don't do their bidding, I don't see a whole lot of difference in locking people up because you don't like what they smoke, and locking 'em up because they don't buy what you want 'em to buy...

Frankly, the precedent for HUGE government intervention into the personal lives of Americans was started, and is STILL supported by the likes of you. Poor Righty's. You reap what you sew.

excon

Frankly, the precedent for HUGE government intervention into the personal lives of Americans was started, and is STILL supported by the likes of you.
excon

The Federalists?

But you can't point us the actual text. :rolleyes:

No what you do is make up scare tactics instead of posting the actual parts of the bill.

It already happens. Insurance companies as well as the gov [ medicare and medicaid ] don't pay for things they deem not necessary. This is after the fact - the treatment rendered. So the doctors and the hospital eat the costs. You say big deal - well then doctors and hospitals start to limit services and it is the public that suffers - the poor, the uninsured, and the insured as costs are passed on as higher private insurance premiums, or higher taxes, or doctors just leaving the area.

Here is a current example

Today's Hospitalist :: UTIs: no longer another cost of doing business (http://www.todayshospitalist.com/index.php?b=articles_read&cnt=679)

Now on the face of it preventing urinary tract infections is a good goal, but the reality is that there are reasons that a foley catheter is needed; urinary retention, incontinence and immobility - to prevent infections like bed sores which are much harder to treat. This is stuff in the trenches, but gov lawmakers have to interfere.

It is also in the news about reducing readmissions; another good and ideal thing. The reality is that people get readmitted to the hospital for reasons beyond the doctor's or the hospital's control. Heart falure, emphysema, coronary artery disease are chronic conditions. They are not cured, thy can be managed. For example, a person who has asthma or emphysema that smokes - they are likely to be hospitalized more than a person with the same condition who does not smoke. What is an emergency room to do with the smoker who comes back in a week after just being hospitalized and needs to be admitted again. Currently we treat the person and their illness. Under gov mandates there is and will be mandates, penalties, financial pressure NOT TO TREAT this person.

Ask any veteran in the VA system how much choice, how convenient the VA system is.
Ask Ex why he does not get his care exclusively through the VA system .


G&P

It already happens. Insurance companies as well as the gov [ medicare and medicaid ] don't pay for things they deem not necessary. This is after the fact - the treatment rendered. so the doctors and the hospital eat the costs. You say big deal - well then doctors and hospitals start to limit services and it is the public that suffers - the poor, the uninsured, and the insured as costs are passed on as higher private insurance premiums, or higher taxes, or doctors just leaving the area.




You certainly have some weird sort of beauracracy over there, so bent on cost reduction and micro-management. It must be a risk management approach to health care, a sort of everyone has one chance to get well, without managing the patient's condition. In such circumstances it is easier to have a co-payment system where the patient is rebated a set and known proportion of the cost.

Rebates:

Os a good idea, that way people will know the real costs and therefore make their own choices as to whether running to the ER for a cold is really worth the cost. The initial upfront cost should come from pre-tax dollars or tax free HSAs [health saving acconts ].

Interqual criteria judges intensity of service and severity of illness to determine if a hospital admission/"medical loss" is justified.


G&P

Rebates:

Os a good idea, that way people will know the real costs and therefore make their own choices as to whether running to the ER for a cold is really worth the cost. The initial upfront cost should come from pre-tax dollars or tax free HSAs [health saving acconts ].

Interqual criteria judges intensity of service and severity of illness to determine if a hospital admission/"medical loss" is justified.


G&P

Yeh, we do it here as part of a government paid scheme but the ER isn't included, that's free whatever, so people go the doctor and use the ER after hours

Here's a funny cartoon...

And here's the organizational chart for Pelosicare:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/JEC_Health_Chart_11-7-09.jpg

Isn't great, you finally got more than half of you to agree on something. I saw the stack of paperwork, it certainly isn't simple. No doubt your lawyers will have field day making money out of this. But it looks like a camel, you know, a horse designed by a committee.

If you wanted a camel, why didn't you say so? We have a million going cheap and in full working order, you didn't have to design your own :)

Looks like it's a picture designed to scare someone!

Any national company with thousands of offices have a similar complicated link chart!

I am just amazed that one republican voted for the bill - there is hope that the most powerful nation on the planet will start to look after his fellow human, and then just maybe, the reputation of the US will change

I am just amazed that one republican voted for the bill

Here's the inside scoop on that. The Congressman just won in a solid Democrat district because the Dem who had the seat got caught taking bribe money and shoved it in his freezer.

The Republicans waited until the vote was decided and then released the Congressman to vote in favor of the legislation to give him political cover next year. Had the decision still had been in doubt he would've voted with the Republicans.

Truth is that the only real bipartisanship in this was in oppposition to this hostile takeover of 20 % of the US economy.

Truth is that the only real bipartisanship in this was in oppposition to this hostile takeover of 20 % of the US economy.

Well they may as well go for 100%, they already have Banking, Insurance, Auto, Military, why not get the last 20%

Bill Clinton told Dems yesterday (http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1109/clinton_we_are_winning_c3243bd1-33d6-42a7-ab70-5bae329fdc6e.html) (besides digging at "tea-baggers), "The point I want to make is: Just pass the bill, even if it's not exactly what you want."

Yeah that's it, we elected these people to "just pass the bill." I mean who cares if it's a "rigid, intrusive and grotesquely expensive bill" that's a "nightmare," as Camille Paglia put it (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/camille_paglia/2009/11/10/pelosi/print.html). We can always trust them to fix it later, right?

Besides digging at "tea-baggers"


Bubba is walking on thin ice with those sentiments.


The definitive " cat out of the bag" confession of the true statists motives for this is found in an essay by The New Yorker's John Cassidy
Some Vaguely Heretical Thoughts on Health-Care Reform: Rational Irrationality : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2009/11/some-vaguely-heretical-thoughts-on-health-care-reform.html)



So what does it all add up to? The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government's spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it (and many other Administrations before that) is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind. At some point in the future, the fiscal consequences of the reform will have to be dealt with in a more meaningful way, but by then the principle of (near) universal coverage will be well established. Even a twenty-first-century Ronald Reagan will have great difficult overturning it.
That takes me back to where I began. Both in terms of the political calculus of the Democratic Party, and in terms of making the United States a more equitable society, expanding health-care coverage now and worrying later about its long-term consequences is an eminently defensible strategy. Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted. But as an economics reporter and commentator, I feel obliged to put on my green eyeshade and count the dollars.

Pelosi says Obamacare will be our "Christmas present."

MiBaMPdQvLw

Has anyone told these people it's not their damn money, that our tax dollars are not their personal Christmas fund? As Allahpundit put it, this is like “borrowing” a friend’s credit card, buying a car with it, then presenting them with the car on Christmas morning as their “gift.”

Where's the window to return this Congress and administration?

Has anyone told these people it's not their damn money, that our tax dollars are not their personal Christmas fund? Hello again, Steve:

Of course, you believe the right wing schtick about it COSTING money..

Whereas, the truth of the matter is, the program SAVES us money as opposed to the Republicans plan. But, more importantly, NOT doing anything to reform health care WILL bankrupt us, absolutely, positively and without a doubt. As folks who tend to be numbers oriented, I don't know why you don't look at that.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Of course, you believe the right wing schtick about it COSTING money..

Whereas, the truth of the matter is, the program SAVES us money as opposed to the Republicans plan. But, more importantly, NOT doing anything to reform health care WILL bankrupt us, absolutely, positively and without a doubt. As folks who tend to be numbers oriented, I don't know why you don't look at that.

I bet you're a sucker for sales ads, too. You know, the more you spend the more you save. Do tell, how is Obamacare going to save money? Death panels and such (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/12/business/AP-US-Health-Overhaul-Hospice-Care.html)?


The health overhaul bill that narrowly passed the House on Saturday includes a provision to nudge more people to confront such choices: It would pay for end-of-life counseling for Medicare patients.

Supporters say counseling would give patients more control and free families from tortuous decisions. Critics have warned it could lead to government ''death panels.'' What few on either side note is that counseling could lead more people to choose less intensive care when they're dying, and ultimately trim government-funded health bills.

By the way . I found out why AARP was so willing to throw seniors under the bus.

AARP claims to be all about representing the interests of seniors, but when it comes to health care reform, they are selling seniors down the river to line their own pockets.

The AARP has endorsed the gargantuan PelosiCare bill that just passed the House, despite the fact the bill proposes more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare, which is certain to lead to rationing, inferior care and "death panels" for vulnerable senior citizens.

Why? As they say, follow the money. PelosiCare will also cut Medicare Advantage by $170 billion. Medicare Advantage allows seniors to purchase private insurance with their Medicare payments, but these cuts will drive many of these seniors into inferior Medigap plans.

AARP has a vested interest in seniors being driven out of Medicare Advantage into Medigap plans because AARP makes a fortune in royalty fees from Medigap plans.

More than one-half of its $1.1 billion budget comes from such royalty fees, and Medigap plans make up the biggest share of this royalty revenue by far. The more seniors are forced out of Medicare Advantage into Medigap plans, the more money AARP makes. In other words, under PelosiCare, seniors lose but AARP wins - big time.

Even the Washington Post noted the conflict of interest on Oct. 27, when it said, "Democratic proposals to slash reimbursements for...Medicare Advantage are widely expected to drive up demand for private Medigap policies like the ones offered by AARP."
AARP's tacit endorsement of Medicare cuts line its pockets, but shortchanges seniors -- chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-200911050804mctnewsservbc-aarp-con-mct1084nov0,0,7468640.story)

AARP sucks. I hope they crash and burn and take Pelosi with them. Pelosi now tells us it's "very fair" to jail people for not buying her "Christmas present." (http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/11/12/pelosi-jailing-people-who-dont-buy-health-insurance-is-fair/) Man, Christmas just keeps getting better and better. Rep. Peter Roskam asks the right question in Saturday's floor discussion:

5FWQNhsmLTU


We’ve heard from the best and the brightest all afternoon, and not a one of them have answered why it is that you have to criminalize people to coax them into a plan that’s so fabulous. It makes no sense. … The other side, with all due respect, with all the adjectives and all the flourishing speech, have failed to answer that question.

Ed Morrisey provides the answer the Dems can't or won't give, "Statism always requires force, and it always strips people of liberty. It always comes with handcuffs. That’s how we know it’s coming."

This is what the CBO wrote in 1994 when Hillarycare would've done the same thing as Pelosi-care's mandatory purchase does.
“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”


The people at CNS News has been asking the people in Congress where is the Constitutional mandate for forcing people to buy health insurance.

The answers have varied from admissions they they have never read the Constitution ;to dismissals like Madame Mimi did (Are you serious? );to silly comments about setting speed limits... and vague comparisons to Congress' authority to raise an Army by using the draft.

The truth is that never before has Congress ever mandated the purchase of a service for the purpose of lawfull residency in the country .

They can claim broad authority all they want under Article 1 Sec 8 necessary and proper clause ;the abuse of the commerce clause;or even under a vaguer claim of providing for the general welfare .But that doesn't make it so.

If there is no limits to what power they can claim under that Section then their powers are unlimitted instead of few and enumerated and NOTHING would be outside Congressional authority.

.

This is actually an interesting development, could Obama's healthcare plan be "the mark of the beast" and is Obama the beast?

And that's what amazes me about a guy like ex being so intent on passing this disaster. I guess all those years of whining about Bush destroying our liberties were just for show.

By the way Ex, is this what you mean by saving money? Americans for Tax Reform listed the new taxes (http://www.atr.org/breaking-comprehensive-list-taxesbr-house-democrat-a4113) attached to Pelosi's Christmas present that will send us free people to jail if we refuse to buy her 'gift' (can we possibly get any more Orwellian than what the Dems are pawing on us this year?). They missed one new tax though:


House Democrats are funding their new entitlement with a 5.4% surtax on incomes above $500,000 for individuals and above $1 million for joint filers. The surcharge is intended to snag the greatest number of taxpayers to raise some $460.5 billion, and so the House has written it to apply to modified adjusted gross income. That means it includes both capital gains and dividends.

That surtax takes effect on January 1, 2011, or the day the Bush tax rates of 2001 and 2003 expire. Today's capital gains tax rate of 15% would bounce back to 20% because of the Bush repeal and then to 25.4% with the surtax. That's a 69% increase, overnight (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527781844595304.html).

Tell us again how this is going to save money? That light at the end of the tunnel you see is a train.

http://www.spoiltvictorianchild.co.uk/esh/blog/Tunnel.jpg

That light at the end of the tunnel you see is a train.

http://www.spoiltvictorianchild.co.uk/esh/blog/Tunnel.jpg

But what is the government to do? No Money, spending programs, where else do you get it but to tax the rich and anyone who can make a capital gain in this environment should be taxed for exploitation. The time has come for those who benefit to pay the bill, no more robbing from the poor to pay the rich, perhaps someone has truly seen the light:)

But what is the government to do? No Money, spending programs, where else do you get it but to tax the rich and anyone who can make a capital gain in this environment should be taxed for exploitation. The time has come for those who benefit to pay the bill, no more robbing from the poor to pay the rich, perhaps someone has truly seen the light:)

Tax the rich to feed the poor, till there are no rich no more...

Brilliant.

Tax the rich to feed the poor,

Brilliant.

Yes it is absolutely brilliant and look what it did for the Soviet Union. How does it go?

"sic semper tyrannus" and that includes the rich.

You can always tax the rich without killing them. The object is to fleece the sheep with the minimum of bleeting. If you guys kept sheep over there you would understand the principle

I believe taxing the rich for the poor is and always has been a terrible idea, rather provide them tax breaks for employing more people

This will provide the rich with an oppurtunity to choose from while at the same time increase the number of jobs available and therefore reduce the social fund

But then this would require government intervention and we all know where Elliot lies with this

I believe taxing the rich for the poor is and always has been a terrible idea, rather provide them tax breaks for employing more poeple

This will provide teh rich with an oppurtunity to choose from while at the same time increase the number of jobs available and therefore reduce the social fund

But then this would require government intervention and we all know where Elliot lies with this

What a stupid idea, the rich will always act in their own interest so you suggest subsidising employment, you may as well have the government nationalise industries and run them. Would you like to tell me why governments flee the idea of nationalised industries so popular in the UK of the past.

The burden of taxation should fall on those who derive the greatest benefit, who is this if not the rich. People are not cannon fodder for industry, so how do we tax the rich and provide more jobs, we don't give them tax breaks we impose tarriffs on cheap imports until there is no price advantage to importing and not making locally. This is called by some protectionism but it solves the problem of outsourcing to low cost countries and stops the migration of industries.

The burden of taxation should fall on those who derive the greatest benefit, who is this if not the rich.

See my post about NY State . There is a wealth flight out of the state that is making the overall fiscal problems in the state much worse.
Maybe you have read 'Atlas Shrugged' .Eventually the rich and the productive people flocked to Galt's Gulch away from the Sheriff of Nottinghams who run the government .

But what is the government to do? No Money, spending programs, where else do you get it but to tax the rich and anyone who can make a capital gain in this environment should be taxed for exploitation. The time has come for those who benefit to pay the bill, no more robbing from the poor to pay the rich, perhaps someone has truly seen the light:)

The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Tax (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/BudgetChartbook/-Progressive-Taxes-Interactive-Chart.aspx)

Clete, your ignorance of the American tax system is truly astounding:





The top 1 percent of income earners paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes in 2006, while the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Further, 32 percent of all tax returns with positive adjusted gross incomeTotal income (before subtracting deductions or taxes) minus deductions. 43 million total, filed in 2006 were from people who paid no federal income tax at all.






Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)

Bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes, the top 50% pay 97%





G&P

Yes it is absolutely brilliant and look what it did for the Soviet Union. How does it go?

"sic semper tyrannus" and that includes the rich.

You can always tax the rich without killing them. The object is to fleece the sheep with the minimum of bleeting. If you guys kept sheep over there you would understand the principle

Yeah... cause fleecing the sheep is a great way of creating new jobs and getting the economy back on its feet.

I have never seen a poor person who created a job. Rich people create jobs. But if you tax them MORE (aka "fleece them"), they create FEWER jobs. And since the priority for the economy should be job creation, taxing the rich more is what is known in economic circles as a Bad Idea.

Elliot

I believe taxing the rich for the poor is and always has been a terrible idea, rather provide them tax breaks for employing more poeple

This will provide teh rich with an oppurtunity to choose from while at the same time increase the number of jobs available and therefore reduce the social fund

But then this would require government intervention and we all know where Elliot lies with this

They don't need to provide tax breaks for employing more people. They just need to lower taxes across the board... in other words, they need to DECREASE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION VIA TAXATION.

Government intervention in either direction (either pro business or against business) is equally wrong.

You almost had it right...

Elliot

Trade Issues Key To Obama's Asia Trip Agenda - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2009 (http://www.rferl.org/content/Trade_Issues_Key_To_Obamas_Asia_Trip_Agenda/1877242.html)

So the government shouldn't intervene or encourage - then why is the president going to asia?

Trade Issues Key To Obama's Asia Trip Agenda - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2009 (http://www.rferl.org/content/Trade_Issues_Key_To_Obamas_Asia_Trip_Agenda/1877242.html)

So the government shouldnt intervene or encourage - then why is the president going to asia?

My understanding is that he's there to "shore up our alliances with foreign governments". At least that's what he's saying officially.

Unofficially? He's going there to make sure that Japan and China continue to lend us money so that he can continue to spend it on his assinine ideas about domestic wealth redistribution.

Government intervention strikes again.

Elliot

So why would the president do that if government intervention is bad in your eyes?

Is it a case that your opinons not suit the modern world of market and trade?

"More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124253/Say-Health-Coverage-Not-Gov-Responsibility.aspx) to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%)."

And yet, the push continues...

The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Tax (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/BudgetChartbook/-Progressive-Taxes-Interactive-Chart.aspx)

Clete, your ignorance of the American tax system is truly astounding:


Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)

Bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes, the top 50% pay 97%


G&P

Maybe you haven't heard of the 80-20 rule but it holds generally true of any population but you cannot increase the taxation on the low end because those with the ability to pay don't like paying

No healthcare plan that involves trial lawyers, fraud, waste, capitalist insurance companies, capitalist pharmaceutical companies, healthcare lobbyists, uncontrollable costs, etc. can ever be implemented without bankrupting America. It would be wonderful if every American could have access to primary health care, but that is not a viable alternative, if for no other reason, that there aren't enough primary health care providers to meet the needs of our population. Although many Americans, including beneficiaries of the government health care system, believe that it is a bad system, there is almost no fraud, few trial lawyers, very controllable costs, and none of the capitalism that exists in our civilian system. Implementing a system where pre-existing conditions are covered will cause insurance companies to be selective about who they insure, just as we do in the auto and home insurance industries. Until we are ready to bite the bullet and get insurance companies out of our health care system, there is nothing our leaders can do to fix our current problems, they can only put band aids on what has become a gaping chest wound.

Yeah... cause fleecing the sheep is a great way of creating new jobs and getting the economy back on its feet.

I have never seen a poor person who created a job. Rich people create jobs. But if you tax them MORE (aka "fleece them"), they create FEWER jobs. And since the priority for the economy should be job creation, taxing the rich more is what is known in economic circles as a Bad Idea.

Elliot

You don't get it Elliot, tax doesn't drive the business, that's the second rule of business, the first rule is get as much as you can. So long as tax isn't 100% you are ahead. Look at the stupid ideas you have where employers pay for health care, that can't be good for business, just government abdicating their responsibility. Employers will only add to the payroll if it produces more profit and to do that you have to produce more sales which is determined by the market not the government. For heaven sake put you head in an economics text book for a change. What is needed is to remove all the barriers to employment not just lower taxes

So why would the president do that if government intervention is bad in your eyes?



Because he's a socialist. A statist. A Marxist. He is NOT a supporter of the Constitution and never has been. He has been in favor of wealth redistribution from the start, despit the fact that the Constitution prohibits the seizure of private assets for the purpose of giving those assets to other private individuals (which is the form of wealth redistribution that he favors). That is what we on the right have been saying for close to a year now. Why are you having trouble understanding this fact?

Just because Obama is doing it doesn't make him right.

Elliot

You don't get it Elliot, tax doesn't drive the business, that's the second rule of business, the first rule is get as much as you can. so long as tax isn't 100% you are ahead. Look at the stupid ideas you have where employers pay for health care, that can't be good for business, just government abdicating their responsibility. Employers will only add to the payroll if it produces more profit and to do that you have to produce more sales which is determined by the market not the government. For heaven sake put you head in an economics text book for a change. What is needed is to remove all the barriers to employment not just lower taxes

Really?

Can you name a single business in the United States that isn't affected by tax policy?

Can you name a single business that hires MORE people when taxes go up?

Of course businesses are out to make as much as they can for themselves. But they do so by PRODUCING AND SELLING PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. The more product they can sell, the more that they need to produce. The lower the taxes, the more that they can sell, and the more people they hire to produce.

This is simple supply-and-demand economics. The more money people have in their pockets, the more stuff they buy, thus increasing demand. The more the demand, the more that suppliers have the produce to meet the demand. The more they have to produce, the more people they need to hire to meet production demands. The more people they hire, the more people that can afford to buy more stuff... which increases demand all the more. The more that people and businesses earn, the more the government takes in taxes... even when rates are lower, the government ends up making more.

To say that tax policy doesn't drive businesses is foolish. You are quite correct that it won't drive a single business... but tax policy drives the ECONOMY AS A WHOLE, and that economic movement drives individual businesses.

Elliot

Extract from bbc blog - today Monday

Do we need a new name for the kind of economy we live in today? I ask because it's becoming a bit of an issue.

20th anniversary celebrations of the fall of the Berlin WallWe started the week celebrating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was, everyone agreed, ironic to be marking the fall of communism, when less than a year ago capitalism itself had seemed to be on its knees.

Capitalism has survived. But it's not the capitalism we thought we had. When you consider the scale and scope of government involvement in most of the advanced economies right now, "free market capitalism" seems a bit of a stretch.

Today we had confirmation that the eurozone economy had moved out of recession in the third quarter. But the public sector was almost entirely responsible for the modest growth that the major European countries have achieved since the spring.

The last 20 years were supposed to be about the end of the era of big government. And yet, public borrowing in the leading "free market" economies - Britain and the US - has never been as high as it is today, outside times of war.

You might see that as the statistical counterpart to the intellectual journey that economists have been forced to make as a result of the crisis, which I discussed on my radio programme last week (Analysis: The Economist's New Clothes).

Mainstream economists didn't assume that markets - or their participants - were perfect. But for decades they did assume, in effect, that they were good enough: that markets were competitive enough, and people were rational and well-informed enough, for market-led outcome usually to turn out best. Especially in matters of finance.

Now, it turns out that real-life financial markets were much, much, messier than they thought - and much much worse at self-regulation. The biggest short-term consequence of that mistake is that the government has suddenly become responsible for most of our economic growth.

In the US, economists agree that without the federal stimulus package, the US would still technically be in recession.

We're getting used to this post-crisis landscape. But don't forget to be surprised that decades of the "free market" have ended up here.

John Cassidy tells the story in How Markets Fail: the Logic of Economics Calamities. There have been plenty of books about the crisis landing on my desk in recent weeks, but Cassidy's is the only one I've seen that pulls together the what and the why quite so clearly. He covers some of the same ground as my programme, but in much more depth.

Adam SmithHe reminds us that Adam Smith himself was very sceptical about leaving the financial system to its own devices. So was another fan of free markets, John Stuart Mill.

As Cassidy comments:

"[T]he combination of a Fed that can print money, deposit insurance, and a Congress that can authorize bailouts provides an extensive safety net for big financial firms. In such an environment, pursuing a policy of easy money plus deregulation doesn't amount to free market economics: it's a form of crony capitalism."

The outcome, he says, it's not just unfair - it doesn't work.

John Lanchester, the London Review of Books' chronicler of the crisis, said recently that "bankocracy" might be a better name for the current system.

If you think that sounds inflammatory, remember that Mervyn King, Lord Turner and Martin Wolf of the FT have all made essentially the same point. Unless the rules of the game change fundamentally, it's not really capitalism that we have today. Especially not for banks.

Any other ideas for a new name?

Really?

Can you name a single business in the United States that isn't affected by tax policy?

Can you name a single business that hires MORE people when taxes go up?


Elliot do you work at being obtruse? It is not a question of whether a business is subject to taxes, but whether they devote themselves to minimising taxes or growing the business. Tax affects the flow of cash to investors but unless you are in a down turn shouldn't affect the business persee, and the business should not devote itsself to managing the tax position to the exclusion of more important considerations


Of course businesses are out to make as much as they can for themselves. But they do so by PRODUCING AND SELLING PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. The more product they can sell, the more that they need to produce. The lower the taxes, the more that they can sell, and the more people they hire to produce.

Do you really believe that if there were no taxes there would be higher sales? I expect that is what comes of living in a consumption mad economy. The reality is that people buy stuff for a reason, not just because it is there, so if tax rates are adjusted you might get a small flush of demand but once demand is satisfied...



To say that tax policy doesn't drive businesses is foolish. You are quite correct that it won't drive a single business... but tax policy drives the ECONOMY AS A WHOLE, and that economic movement drives individual businesses.

Elliot

Yes tax policy drives the economy, it is one of the fiscal measures a government uses to modify demand. Sadly politicians have taken this tool away by capriciously lowering tax rates and limiting the way this tool can be used. Tax policy shouldn't drive business investment decisions but some governments have given incentives for business to invest in assets as part of their stimulus. This is what I mean by tax shouldn't drive the business. The decision to invest should be made for reasons other than there is a tax advantage. It should be made because there is a real need to help the company meet demand and compete.

You have mixed up the considerations of what will drive consumer demand with what impact tax policy will have on an individual business. Tax doesn't create business and neither does lack of tax. In my own economy I have seen politicians claim that implementation of the Goods and Service Tax created more than a million jobs when all it did was replace an inefficient tax system with a simpler and more efficient one. The only jobs it created were for accountants, it didn't create demand.

Do you really believe that if there were no taxes there would be higher sales? I expect that is what comes of living in a consumption mad economy. The reality is that people buy stuff for a reason, not just because it is there, so if tax rates are adjusted you might get a small flush of demand but once demand is satisfied...



And most people buy something based on price and perceived value. Ideally, producers of goods and services would never have to worry about tax issues, but we do. First, I'm not going to produce something or give a service if there is no demand. Demand is in part created by price, the more expensive the less demand, the less expensive the more the demand. Price is affected by the cost to produce or give a service. If taxes increase the cost to produce or give a service, it will increase the price of that good and service and decrease demand.

I'm no ceo, but what business does not take tax into consideration, or only looks at the tax angle? What of management, production, marketing, financing? Tax is just one part of a whole host of factors to consider. If you ignore it though, you will not be in business, but you can bet your last dollar that your competitors are considering tax issues.

On the consumption side of the equation:
if there were no income tax, no sales tax, I would have 50% more money, and so would a lot of people. Hmmmmm what am I going to do with all that extra money? Consume, save, invest. And so would many others. This alone would increase sales.



G&P

Yes tax policy drives the economy, it is one of the fiscal measures a government uses to modify demand. Sadly politicians have taken this tool away by capriciously lowering tax rates and limiting the way this tool can be used.

The unintended (or perhaps it is intended) consequence of government intervention is generally higher taxes AND higher prices. Drug companies are already raising prices on drugs ahead of Obamacare (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/business/16drugprices.html). Businesses will pass on any tax increase to the consumer, and when the cost of goods increases while our income decreases that leaves us in a huge mess... but it certainly "modifies demand."

As of July 1, 2009, Medi Cal (Denti Cal) does not cover dental work to be done on anyone over the age of 21... unless you want a tooth pulled or are pregnant. Have you seen how expensive dental work is? How will a lower paid citizen afford these bills now?

Hmm, oral hygiene is not even an issue for the current governor of CA... they don't have the $$$... and if the federal government doesn't have the $$$ to give CA right now, how will they get it later?

There is only one place for them to get the $$$ for healthcare. Our pockets.

It begins - federal panel recommends reducing mammograms (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111602822.html).


Women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year, an influential federal task force has concluded, challenging the use of one of the most common medical tests.

In its first reevaluation of breast cancer screening since 2002, the independent government-appointed panel recommended the changes, citing evidence that the potential harm to women having annual exams beginning at age 40 outweighs the benefit.

Coming amid a highly charged national debate over health-care reform and simmering suspicions about the possibility of rationing medical services, the recommendations immediately became enveloped in controversy.

"We're not saying women shouldn't get screened. Screening does saves lives," said Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in Tuesday's Annals of Internal Medicine. "But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully."

Several patient advocacy groups and many breast cancer experts welcomed the new guidelines, saying they represent a growing recognition that more testing, exams and treatment are not always beneficial and, in fact, can harm patients. Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, causing anxiety and often prompting women to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests, sometimes-disfiguring biopsies and unneeded treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

But the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology and other experts condemned the change, saying the benefits of routine mammography have been clearly demonstrated and play a key role in reducing the number of mastectomies and the death toll from one of the most common cancers.

"Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and these idiots want to do away with it," said Daniel B. Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School. "It's crazy -- unethical, really."

The new guidelines also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend that doctors do the exams or to continue routine mammograms beyond age 74...

While annual mammography for all women beginning at age 40 reduced the death rate from breast cancer by at least 15 percent, the modeling studies indicated that the added benefit of starting before age 50 was modest, the researchers concluded.

For every 1,000 women screened beginning at age 40, the modeling suggested that just about 0.7 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented, while about 470 additional women would receive a false-positive result and about 33 more would undergo unnecessary biopsies.

What? I thought we were going to save billions of dollars with preventive medicine under Obamacare, now they don't even want women to bother with self-exams? When a woman reaches 74 does her risk of breast cancer just disappear? Is your grandma or that one in a thousand woman under 50 not worth saving? How does health care 'modeling' work, is it anywhere near as accurate as climate change 'modeling?'

It begins - federal panel recommends reducing mammograms (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111602822.html)....

now they don't even want women to bother with self-exams? Hello again, Steve:

Hmmm.. I see now how you turned end of life counseling into death panels...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Hmmm.. I see now how you turned end of life counseling into death panels...

excon

No, what you are seeing is how the GOVERNMENT is going to turn life counseling into death panels. Speech just happens to be one of the guys pointing it out.

Keep in mind that these changes in mamograms were determined via computer modeling... brought to you by the same people who brought us computer modeling on global warming. With about the same level of accuracy. Which is to say NONE AT ALL.

So... we now have a health bill that talks about the government determining what procedures, therapies and medicines it will cover based on age, cost, and anything OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL NEEDS OF THE PATIENT.

We have evidence from foreign governments that THEY determine what they will cover based on age, cost and anything other than the actual needs of the patients, ei: NICE in the UK.

We have the words of the architects of the health care bill talking about limiting what the government will cover based on age, cost and anything other than the acutal needs of the patients.

And NOW we have the government actually putting out a study limiting mamograms based on age, cost and anything other than the actual needs of the patients.

In the face of this overwhelming evidence of what the government is doing and what it plans to do, how can anyone argue that these AREN'T DEATH PANELS?

Elliot

Hello again, Steve:

Hmmm.. I see now how you turned end of life counseling into death panels...

I can't help if it you can't see the logical result of Obamacare (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.html?m od=rss_opinion_main).

"The core problem with government-run health care is that it doesn't make decisions in the best interests of patients, but in the best interests of government."

Hello again, Righty's:

The point I was trying to make is that words DO count. They actually convey a particular meaning. If I say black, and you say I said white, it wouldn't be correct.

When the report said that mammograms should be conducted every two years instead of one, it DIDN'T say that a woman shouldn't do self exams...

If somebody said that the report says that, they wouldn't be correct.

Now, if you want to MAKE UP what it says, that's cool. I'm used to that. But, you're going to get called on it.

excon

PS> Wouldn't you rather talk about politics instead of 9th grade English?

The point I was trying to make is that words DO count. They actually convey a particular meaning. If I say black, and you say I said white, it wouldn't be correct.

You mean words like "comparative effectiveness," "overseas contingency operations," and the new euphemism for terrorism, “man-caused disasters?” When was the last time Congress passed an unambiguous bill? Thankfully you have us to read between the lines for you.


When the report said that mammograms should be conducted every two years instead of one, it DIDN'T say that a woman shouldn't do self exams...

If somebody said that the report says that, they wouldn't be correct.

"The new guidelines also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams "

You now stand corrected.

And that, excon, is why you should try reading what we post. Yes, yes, I know it's so monotonous to have to read this stuff. But when the alternative is being wrong as often as you are...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/712473

This is a physician site so I'm not sure if you will see it but I will quote it





The new USPSTF recommendations are in opposition to other existing breast cancer screening guidelines from organizations such as the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology, which have both criticized the new document. Several agencies and organizations, such as the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, have said they will continue to follow the American Cancer Society guidelines



The USPTF's primary criteria is cost effectiveness. ACS is an organization that specifically deals with cancer and the people with cancer. You can see why their recommendations vary.






Current evidence is now insufficient to evaluate additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination (CBE) for women aged at least 40 years. This recommendation is a change from the 2002 statement, which endorsed mammography screening, with or without CBE, annually or biennially for women 40 years or older.





Based on "insufficient evidence" they counter prior recommendations? When you think of it a breast self exam is 1] does not cost the patient or the taxpayor anything, so why rrecommend against it? 2] BSE may not be the most sensitive test for breast cancer but the fact that it empowers people to take an active role in their healthcare is a positive. Why discourage this?







Specific Recommendations

Specific recommendations of the USPSTF, and the accompanying strength of recommendations, were as follows:

The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. Based on patient context, including patient values concerning specific benefits and harms, individual decisions should be made regarding starting regular, biennial screening mammography before age 50 years (grade C recommendation).
Women aged 50 to 74 years should undergo biennial screening mammography (grade B recommendation).
Current evidence is insufficient to determine additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older (I statement).
In women 40 years or older, current evidence is insufficient to determine the additional benefits and harms of CBE beyond screening mammography (I statement).
The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women the technique of BSE (grade D recommendation).
Current evidence is insufficient to determine additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or MRI vs film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer (I statement).




. The reviewers found that for women aged 39 to 49 years, mammography screening was associated with a 15% decrease in breast cancer mortality rates(relative risk, 0.85; 95% credible interval, 0.75 - 0.96; 8 trials). However, data are lacking for women 70 years or older.

Radiation exposure from mammography is low, and adverse experiences are common but transient and do not alter screening practices. The estimated rate of overdiagnosis from screening ranges from 1% to 10%. Compared with older women, younger women have more false-positive mammography results and additional imaging but fewer biopsies

{continued}

So despite acknowledging a 15% decrease in MORTALITY [ less death ] they recommend against it?

CDC - Breast Cancer Rates by Age (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/age.htm)

1.4% of women that are 40 will have breast cancer in the next 10 years


To put the numbers more succinctly :

Interpreting the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations for the General Population (http://www.acog.org/from_home/Misc/uspstfInterpretation.cfm)




U.S. Census data demonstrate that there were 22,327,592 women aged 40-49 years in the United States as of July 1, 2008. Based on Surveillance Epidemiology and Results Program (SEER) data, breast cancer deaths expected over 10 years were estimated at 204 deaths per 100,000 women aged 40-49 years (including both screen-detected and nonscreen-detected breast cancer). This 10-year death rate leads to an estimate of 45,492 deaths of U.S. women aged 40-49 years from breast cancer over 10 years. With a relative risk of 0.85 for breast cancer mortality for women in their 40s screened by mammography, an estimated 38,668 deaths would occur in a screened population over 10 years, approximately 6,800 fewer deaths than expected with the 10-year death rate. The fewer deaths expected with screening compared to the predicted deaths demonstrates the significant benefit of screening on mortality in this age group.




USPSTF is stating the "harm" caused by false positive [ positive test, no disease ] mamograms in this age group [ anxiety, repeat mamograms, biopsies ] is more than the DEATHS OF 6800 people? Remember men can get breast cancer also.


So there you have it a "death panel"


Notice how these recommendations are made, for or against, based on percentages and risks and odds. This applies to a population, statistically measured in the tens of thousands or more, but TO THE INDIVIDUAL the percentage is zero [ healthy ] or 100 % [ cancer ].





G&P

Here is the list of task force members (http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm). Not one of them is listed as an oncologist.

Check out the winning video for the Obama permanent campaign's ad for Obamacare.

0F3SiT56S4o

By all means let's not try to get support on the merits, let's exploit children to dramatize fictional scenarios and win on emotion. Pathetic.

As has become the norm (except for when it comes to actual public support for Obamacare itself), the Obama administration has backtracked (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/11/sebelius-ignore-mammogram-recs.html) and distanced itself from their panel's mammogram recommendations... but not before a gratuitous - and misdirected - attack on Fox News (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/17/reality-check-beware-what-2). Their "reality check" should have begun at the Washington Post, whose story is the one that generated the heat and the story I cited in this thread.

HHS Sec Sebelius stated that the panel does not "set federal policy and they don’t determine what services are covered by the federal government.“

WaPo disagreed, "under health-care reform legislation pending in Congress, the conclusions of the 16-member task force would set standards for what preventive services insurance plans would be required to cover at little or no cost.”

I agree with WaPo and believe it shows that this administration continues to waffle, obfuscate and otherwise betray the American public just to get their 'signature' policy agendas passed. In other words, they don't care about you. ANY health care reform should have the patient's best interest at heart first, no? What, beyond providing insurance coverage to a few million people is in Obamcare that demonstrates the patient is most important?

The argument for Obamacare seems to me to be it has to be done "just because." Nothing illustrates this better than the Rev. Jesse Jackson who criticized (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/jesse-jackson-you-cant-vote-against-health-care-and-call-yourself-a-black-man.php) Rep. Artur Davis with, "you can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man."