 |
So do I. But those insurance companies employ people. They also insure people. Attacking them falsely for their profitability hurts the people they employ and the people they insure. It tends to create more unemployed people who become uninsured people. Attacking whole industries does the same thing on a much larger scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Attacks on corporations have consequences for PEOPLE, NK.
Elliot
Like when you say to let big companies fail?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Hello El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Like I said earlier, if health insurance is taken away from them, it's NOT like they don't have anything left to insure... There's your car, your house and your boat. There's your life and your income. Then there's your mortgage, and your business. Then there's your investments, and your bank accounts. Then there's those pesky derivatives.
Yeah, I think they'll be OK.
excon
Tickle kind of confirmed it when mentioning that it takes fundraisers to get MRI equipment for the hospital .Quote:
I don't know what evidence you're looking at, other than the Wolverines schtick,
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Kill the medical insurance industry and hundreds of thousands of people who work in the medical insurance divisions of companies lose their jobs. They become unemployed and uninsured as well.
It also kills the taxable income of the insurance companies, resulting in lower income to the government to cover Obama's spending spree. This results in higher taxes on EVERYONE to make up the difference.
Kill or take over an industry or an industry sector, and it has a massive effect on the whole economy. And we're already reeling from the government takeover of the auto industry, the banking industry and the largest insurance company in the world. We're not just talking about medical insurance, excon. We're talking about other sectors of the economy as well, and we're already getting screwed over by it, economically speaking.
Plus, the government already owns AIG. They are regulating the hell out of derivatives. So we're no longer talking about the elimination of JUST the medical insurance divisions of these companies. We're talking about a takeover of the entire insurance industry in all sectors, not just medical. Plus banks, car companies, the securities industry, and whatever else he can get his hands on. Medical just happens to be this week's big push for takeover by Obama. It is neither his first industry takeover, nor will it be his last.
Elliot
Does lower taxes paid by insurance companies means higher taxes for everyone? I don't thinks so. President Bush not only lowered taxes on everyone, he went on the biggest spending spree in the countries history. Americans have learned that as long as you can find some fool to give you credit, you don't need to collect any money, or work for that matter, to go on a spending spree.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
That's because you don't understand the Laffer curve. Lowering tax RATES actually increases income to the government because more people are employed, more money is spent and more income is generated.Quote:
Originally Posted by amdeist
We're not talking about that. We're talking about a decrease in income by individuals and businesses, which results in lower tax income to the government... the exact opposite effect of what happens when you lower taxes.
Until now. In six months, Obama has spent more money than Bush did in his entire 8 years, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Quote:
President Bush not only lowered taxes on everyone, he went on the biggest spending spree in the countries history.
Yep. And Obama has learned that lesson well... he has single-handedly, in only 6 months, increased the budget deficit by 400% (a larger deficit than all past presidents combined), and increased the national debt by 7% so far, with more coming in the next 3 years. And that's before spending anything on nationalized healthcare.Quote:
Americans have learned that as long as you can find some fool to give you credit, you don't need to collect any money, or work for that matter, to go on a spending spree.
The Republican spending between 2001 and 2006 was wrong. But Democrats have had the power of the purse since January 2007 and never cut a single penny of government spending... in fact they increased it massively with TARP, which they voted for against the votes of a majority of Republicans in Congress. Obama increased it even further with his stimulus bill, his TARP II, and his Omnibus Spending Bill, all of which received NO republican support. Not to mention his loans to and takeover of auto companies, insurance companies and banks.
Don't try to point at Bush, Amdeist, This is Obama's stuff, his crazy spending, and its only Dems who are backing it.
Elliot
AM what you describe and what ET was talking about are 2 different things . President Bush lowered tax rates which spured job growth and more taxable wages . ET is describing loss of jobs and thus taxable income.
( just a suggestion... you should put in a plug for your book in your signature .)
Hi, wolverine, yes our old hospital in Cobourg did have minimal facilities and small premises, to service the growing town and rural area, a state of the art hospital was necessarily to facilitate the new people arriving. The old hospital was built in the late l800s and added on to over the years. Was not suitable.
It did have catscan, but not dialysis, patients had to go to Kingston or Toronto for up dated services.
I don't understand why you say we are so far behind when people are sent from all over the world to access facilities in Toronto, especially Sick Kids hospital in Toronto, and Toronto General.
Tick
I won't argue with you, since you are clearly a Bushy conservative that still doesn't get it. Lowering taxes doesn't always generate jobs, nor more revenue for the government. Do your research. The Bush tax cuts contributed, along with underlying economic conditions, to a historic decline in federal tax revenue. In 2000 total federal tax revenue was as high in proportion to the U.S. economy as it had ever been. By 2004 federal tax revenue in proportion to the economy had fallen to its lowest level in almost fifty years. In recent decades the federal tax take has generally fluctuated between 17 and 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2000, however, total federal tax receipts had reached 20.9 percent of GDP, their highest level since 1970 and matched only in 1944, when the federal government collected 20.9 percent of GDP in taxes at the height of fighting World War II. By 2004, however, federal tax receipts had fallen to 16.3 percent of GDP, which is not only the lowest level since 1970, but the lowest since 1959.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Yes. There are consequences to letting the company fail. But they are less than the consequences supporting it if it SHOULD fail, especially in the long run.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Giving GM billions of dollars and THEN letting it go to bankruptcy has much worse consequences than just letting them fail, because even MORE people are effected. (Especially when you screw around with who gets paid out first, the creditors or or the unions. But that's a discussion for another time.)
What should have happened is to allow GM and Chrysler to fail back in 2008, let them go through bankruptcy WITHOUT the government messing with them, and let them come out on the other side of bankruptcy with a better, stronger company, with no strings attached, and with the creditors made whole or almost whole in the end.
Now what's happening is that the companies took our money, are going through bankruptcy anyway (which all of us conservatives predicted would happen a year ago), the creditors are not being paid out and are going bankrupt themselves, the government has taken control of the companies, dealers are being put out of business, the unions have partial ownership of the companies, and the government is dictating what kinds of cars the companies can build.
The PEOPLE have been screwed worse by the government TRYING to "save" GM and Chrysler than if they had just let it happen a year ago. And it's because the government under Obama isn't concerned with what happens to the people. They're only concerned with taking control of the industry. Screw the people.
A risk/reward cost analysis is what should be driving these policies (bailouts and health care reform) in order to determine what's best for everyone. Instead we have political ideology driving the policies, with no regard for what is best for anyone.
That is why, when looked at from an analytical point of view, it just doesn't hold water.
Elliot
In essence it is the same calculation that has to go into whether to cut off the limb of a person. Yes, the person will be without a limb, and that is a BAD consequence. But if the alternative of keeping the limb is going to lead to massive sepsis and gross systemic failure, you choose the lesser of two evils and remove the limb.
Similarly, letting GM and Chrysler go bankrupt is a bad outcome. But if the alternative is massive debt for the entire nation, bankruptcies for investors, massive inflation, and an auto industry that isn't producing what the people want to buy, you let the companies go bankrupt.
When there is no good choice, choose the lesser of two evils.
Elliot
I don't totally disagree with your thinking, but am a firm believer that were the government not to help GM and Chrysler, Goldman Sacs, AIG, and others, this country wouldn't be recognizable anymore. As it is, I believe that not only are the economists totally wrong about a recovery this year, but it is still very possible that in the next two years, it will be much worse than the Depression of 1929. The media would have you believe that our children are going to have to pay for all these expenditures. The only way they will have to pay is with a return to a society where credit isn't available, and standard of living is based on family values and helping each other. If we return to that period, the country will be much better off. Life isn't about the American dollar, and enriching oneself at everyone else's expense.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The facts need a further looking into. Take infant mortality.
CNN.com - U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says - May 10, 2006
BigGovHealth | Infant Mortality and Premature BirthQuote:
Causes of death in the developing world were dramatically different from those in the developed world, the report said. In industrialized nations deaths were most likely to result from babies being born too small or too early, while in the developing world about half of newborn deaths were from infection, tetanus and diarrhea.
Note the references
Quote:
The U.S.’ infant mortality rate is not higher; the rates of Canada and many European countries are artificially low, due to more restrictive definitions of live birth. There also are variations in the willingness of nations to save very low birth weight and gestation babies.
America's real infant-mortality problem. - By Darshak Sanghavi - Slate Magazine
Quote:
. By contrast, the majority of deaths in developed countries result from extreme prematurity or birth defects that kill a newborn in the first few days or weeks of life. According to a 2002 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least a third of all infant mortality in the United States arises from complications of prematurity; other studies assert the figure is closer to half. Thus—at the risk of oversimplifying—infant mortality in the United States principally is a problem of premature birth, which today complicates just over one in 10 pregnancies.. .
But modern medicine isn't good at preventing prematurity—just the opposite. Better and more affordable medical care actually has worsened the rate of prematurity, and likely the rate of infant mortality, by making fertility treatment widespread. According to a 2006 Institute of Medicine report,.
Meanwhile, no amount of money or resources seems to reduce the rate of preterm births.. .
Throwing money at unproven programs for preventing prematurity, or at cash-cow NICUs, won't improve America's infant-morality rate. Instead, it's critical to follow the data—
That is a snap shot of why per capita costs are so high. Technology and critical care cost so much more than prevention. Advances in equipment, surgical techniques, pharmaceuticals,. basically keeping people alive; whereas 10 even 5 years ago these people would have died from their illness.
And most Americans expect the best, the most advanced, etc... right now. That is okay, but realize it costs money- that is to society as a whole.
Wondergirl mentioned her homeless person getting "free care" at the hospital because of medicaid, well IT IS NOT FREE TO SOCIETY. The hospital passes the costs of his care by getting government grants and or charging patients with insurance higher rates, the same rates that working people without insurance have to pay. The insurance companies pass the cost by raising premiums. The state and federal gov tax citizens for medicare and medicaid. So no money actually comes out of that homeless guys pockets, IT COMES FROM OUR POCKETS in the form of higher cost for service, higher taxes, higher premiums.
I think "universal healthcare" is a good ideal, but after you are done drinking the Koolaid be prepared for less advanced care, rationing, longer wait times, and less doctors. :o
G&P
As someone who works in finance, I can tell you that right now WITH the "help" of the government, this country isn't recognizable.Quote:
Originally Posted by amdeist
I agree. If the government doesn't stop trying to "help" us, it will be exactly as bad as the Great Depression, and for exactly the same reasons... government intervention.Quote:
As it is, I believe that not only are the economists totally wrong about a recovery this year, but it is still very possible that in the next two years, it will be much worse than the Depression of 1929.
Simply put, it was FDR's New Deal that drew out and deepened the Depression from what would have been a rather typical recession and bear market into a decade-long disaster. FDR raised taxes at the worst possible time, which is exactly what Obama is doing. FDR created massive welfare programs, Obama is creating a welfare state the likes of which even FDR would never have dreamed. FDR nationalized industries, Obama is nationalizing industries. FDR's Treasury Department printed money to pay for his welfare programs and drove up inflation, Obama is printing money and driving up inflation. FDR borrowed massive amounts driving up the national debt, Obama is borrowing massive amounts and driving up national debt. FDR created massive budget deficits to pay for his programs, Obama has quadrupled the budget deficit in under 6 months to pay for his programs. FDR created entitlements designed to help people but which killed the entire economy, Obama is creating massive new entitlement programs to "help" people that are bankrupting the country. Item by item, Obama is copying and surpassing FDR, with the same result as FDR had... the Great Depression.
I agree with that philosophy in general. We would be better off without such easy credit.Quote:
The media would have you believe that our children are going to have to pay for all these expenditures. The only way they will have to pay is with a return to a society where credit isn't available, and standard of living is based on family values and helping each other. If we return to that period, the country will be much better off. Life isn't about the American dollar, and enriching oneself at everyone else's expense.
But the money is already out the door. The lenders want to be repaid and will call for repayment when it is due. What are we supposed to do when CHINA calls in its notes? We cannot just simply declare bankruptcy without destroying the WORLD ECONOMY. We are not just an individual where if we don't pay, the market just goes on as it has been. We are not that insignificant. THe USA is the largest BORROWER, the largest LENDER, the largest PRODUCER, largest CONSUMER in the entire world. If we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us.
It would be nice for some to believe that the USA just ain't all that... that we're not that important to the rest of the world. But that just isn't the reality. We are so much a central part of the WORLD economy that what effects us effects everyone else too. Trying to deny that fact is a recipe for disaster. And the rest of the world knows it too... that's why the comments of various world leaders (Sarkozy, Brown, Merkel, Putin, and others) have been warnings to Obama NOT to go the way of socialism and drag them down too.
If we don't pay our debts, the rest of the world suffers. We don't have the option of not paying our debts. We can't just brush off that responsibility without MASSIVE consequences... up to and including war (more wars have been fought over economics than any other reason EXCEPT religion.)
Ergo we or our children will HAVE to bear the burden of the debt that Obama is creating. We have no choice. And THAT will bankrupt us as individuals (or our children).
Elliot
JPMorgan and 9 Other Banks Repay TARP Money - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.comQuote:
Originally Posted by amdeist
The MSM has cosistently portrayed the banks as the villlians they did not need a bail out, well they probably did not if they are able to be paying tarp back.
GM and Chrysler, same outcome now as it would have been 6 months ago, only difference is GOVERNMENT WASTED BILLIONS IN TAXPAYOR MONEY. :(
This country never stays the same, should we have bailed out 8 track makers, VHS manufacturers, Woolworth's, horse and carriage makers just to keep the country recognizably the same?
G&P
Here's who's going to benefit from Obamacare, Soros and co. Turns out he's behind the "grass-roots" march on Washington today.
Wasn't Obama supposed to do something about lobbyist influence?
But the money is already out the door. The lenders want to be repaid and will call for repayment when it is due. What are we supposed to do when CHINA calls in its notes? We cannot just simply declare bankruptcy without destroying the WORLD ECONOMY. We are not just an individual where if we don't pay, the market just goes on as it has been. We are not that insignificant. THe USA is the largest BORROWER, the largest LENDER, the largest PRODUCER, largest CONSUMER in the entire world. If we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Apparently, we have major agreements on philosophy, but where we disagree is what we will do if China or anyone else for that matter calls in its notes? Not only can we declare bankruptcy, we are bankrupt. I can't imagine China or any other country accepting our worthless printed dollars in payment. There is no alternative, short of inflating the value of precious metals, and giving them what our government has in storage of those resources in payment of our debt. Short of that, we go to war. By your saying if we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us assumes that everything revovles around the United States. I totally disagree with that comment. We could disappear tomorrow, and I assure you that life on earth would continue, and undoubtedly improve over the next five years. All our country has been is a leach on the rest of the world. If you had a stepchild that was taking all your resources to live, you would feel a sigh of relief if that stepchild disappeared. We are the world's stepchild!
We consume about 45% of the world's resources, but we PRODUCE about 70% of the world's products. If this "stepchild" leaves, the rest of the world starves to death, because this "stepchild" is the only one that has the means of production capable of handling the needs of the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by amdeist
Yeah, they may breath a sigh of relief for a few days... right until Africa runs out of American grown corn and wheat to feed it's people, and the rest of the world runs out of refined oil to heat their homes and run their industry.
Case in point: The USA is the world's largest consumer of raw oil using about 70% of what is drilled worldwide, but we produce about 68% of the world's REFINED FUEL. If we shut down, the rest of the world freezes to death and has no fuel to run their manufactories. Iran is swimming in oil, but they have no refinery capacity. They get their refined oil from us. Russia is the second largest producer of refined oil in the world with about 15% of what is produced. They don't produce enough to support their own industry. They get it from us. And even WITH our full capacity, we still don't produce enough for the full consuption of the entire world. If we fail to produce refined oil because we are bankrupt, the entire world economy grinds to a halt due to lack of fuel. Or do you believe that the world can run on only 32% of the oil it currently consumes?
So in fact, we ARE the center of the world's economy, just based on refined oil production alone. I won't get into technology, pharmaceutical production, electronics, agriculture, and military power as they apply to the world economy.
Face it, Amdeist, where the US economy fails, so fails the rest of the world's economies. Forget linking to the dollar. Forget debt structure. This is just simple supply and demand. We supply what the rest of the world demands, and if we fail to provide that supply, the rest of the world grinds to a halt.
We cannot afford to go bankrupt, and the rest of the world cannot afford it either. WE ARE THE CENTER OF THE ECONOMIC WORLD, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
Elliot
I don't agree, but the beauty is that we will see if we live long enough. Capitalism is going down, just as did the Roman Empire. J.B Haldane was correct when he wrote: Capitalism did not arise because capitalists stole the land or the workmen’s tools, but because it was more efficient than feudalism. It will perish because it is not merely less efficient than socialism, but actually self-destructive. (J.B.S. Haldane, I Believe)Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You truly believe that?Quote:
Originally Posted by amdeist
I suppose that the socialist system in the Soviet Union is still alive and working well.
I suppose that China's socialist system is efficiently feeding its people.
I suppose that the socialist system in North Korea is efficiently helping their economy move along.
I suppose the fact that the UK and Canada are both looking at injecting their single-payer government-run health care system with private supplemental health care is not a sign that their system is failing.
Socialism doesn't work on a large scale. In fact, even on the small scale it has failed miserably. There is a reason that most of the kibbutzim (communes) in Israel have failed and become PRIVATE CORPORATE ENTITIES instead. The kibbutz was supposed to be the model of socialism on a small scale, the one the whole world has been watching to see how it worked out. But after 60 years it has failed in almost all kibbutzim.
There is NOTHING efficient about socialism. Socialism neither distributes it's products efficiently, nor does it produce those products efficiently. That is why it fails every time.
Socialism is a failed experiment. It is an offshoot of the very feudalism that Capitalism replaced. What is the difference between the Lord of the Land that makes centralized decisions about how the people live their lives, produce their products, distribute their services, and run the methods of production, and a Centralized Government that makes centralized decisions about how the people live their lives, produce their products, distribute their services, and run the methods of production. Feudalism IS socialism IS fascism. At their essence they are all the same... centralized control over the lives of individuals and the methods of production and consumption. Every attempt at centralized control throughout history has failed, most often resulting in the deaths and suffering of millions. What makes you think that THIS TIME it will work better?
Capitalism is the only system that allows individuals the ability to control their own production methods, consumption methods, distribution methods, and use of the proceeds. It allows people to choose for themselves based on what works best for them. If one method fails, people are able to try other methods until they get it right, on a scale where the failure of one person does not cause the failure of everyone else. That makes the system as a whole more flexible to begin with. It also rewards hard work, skill and talent, so that those with a particular talent or skill have an incentive to work harder to develop that skill and talent... as opposed to everyone being paid the same for the same job, whether they are good at it or not and whether they actually do the work or not. That is a more efficient compensation system. It allows people to CHANGE what they do for a living, which is something that is not encouraged in a centralized-decision-making system. People can purchase whatever they wish without having to get government permission, because production meets demand in a capitalist system, whereas there are quotas and limits on production in a government-run system.
I do agree with you on one point: the American system is indeed failing. But it is not failing because the system is a capitalist system. It is failing because it is NO LONGER a capitalist system.
The sub-prime mortgage mess that started this whole recession is the fault of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION in the lending practices of banks via FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC and the COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT which FORCED banks to make loans that they otherwise would not have made because they were BAD LOANS. If not for government intervention (aka Central Planning) there never would have been a sub-prime loan program, much less a derivatives market for them.
If not for the unions (centralized planning again) and their demands for uninterrupted benefits for their RETIRED MEMBERS (who are no longer productive members of the union or the businesses) for decades after their retirement, the auto companies would not have found themselves involved in bad union contracts that drove up the costs of cars unnecessarily. If not for government-mandated regulation (central planning again) of gas mileage efficiencies, the costs of development of new automobiles would be about 20% lower than they are. If not for this government and union intervention, GM would not have gone bankrupt in the first place. They would be selling their cars like hotcakes, because they would have been CHEAPER and could have competed with the foreign companies that sell cars in the USA. The centralized-planning model is what killed the auto industry.
Socialism is what is killing the US economy, not capitalism. We haven't been a true capitalist society since FDR centralized planning for "recovery" from the Great Depression... especially when his Supreme Court ruled in favor of government control of private production for personal use in Wikard v. Fillburn (1942). The Wikard case eliminated free markets and private consumption and opened the door to the government controlling all means of production under the "interstate commerce clause" whether production was meant to be placed in the market or just for personal use. From that day forward, government was in control of everything we produce and consume. That is the day we were no longer a free-market capitalist economy and became a "central-planning" economy.
So yes, the US economy is failing. But it is the socialist ethos that is killing it, not capitalism. Capitalism is what will SAVE it.
Elliot
Your points are irrelevant. Capitalism is a dying concept in the United States. You can whine all you want about the reasons. Blame it on Madoff, AIG, Lehman Bros, or the thousands of other firms that are illiquid and have borrowed themselved into oblivian. Blame it on Americans who wised up and removed the Republican Leadership. Facts are facts, and the neo-conservative ideology has proven itself to be a huge mistake. I still blame our demise on the last eight years of irresponsible administration.
In the GDP growth department, last year India came in at 6.7%, Russia at 8.1%, Brazil at 5.08% and China a staggering 9%. Compare that to the United States' -6.3%, and you start to get an idea about why they consider themselves superior to America and her economy.
No matter how much you may think those numbers are manipulated, the bottom line is that they are all ahead of the West by light years. They are in regions that were once shackled by the constraints of socialism and outright communism, and are just now breaking free into the light. (Meanwhile the United States is steadily advancing its war on capitalism by increasing debilitating taxation and regulation by the day!)
To put this even more into perspective, the United States has a GDP of about $14 trillion annually. Comparatively, Brazil is at $1.9 trillion, Russia at $2 trillion, India at $1.2 trillion, and China at $4.3 trillion. That means that the combined output of these four nations barely equals two-thirds of the United States.
You keep repeating the word socialism but I don't think you know what it means.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
To wit: http://correspondents.theatlantic.co...looks_like.php
Read the whole linked article, it's quite interesting.Quote:
Have you heard that the United States is headed toward socialism? Jonah Goldberg says it is. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby says it is. Phyllis Schlafly says it is. Richard Viguerie says it is. The Republican National Committee says it is. We must be getting pretty close.
How close? This is what socialism looks like:
http://correspondents.theatlantic.co...37;20chart.png
You are right on. Most Americans don't have a clue about what socialism is all about. They have heard that the other western countries that have national health care are suffering, yet the American capitalist health care system costs more per capita than any in the world, yet more than 40 million of that capita don't have health care benefits. Last evening, ABC news reported from a poll that 87% of Americans are satisifed with our health care system. That is a strange number because more than 15 percent don't have any health care insurance, and the number is growing daily. I would be hard pressed to believe that 87 percent of military members that have free health care are satisfied with their system. The people polled must have been those who have good health care insurance policies. Another strange anomaly is that most of the people in the military are for capitalism, when their very survival has been made possible by a socialist system. Yes, getting paid for your uniforms, your health care, your housing, and your retirement is not captialism, but socialism, and a significant number of military members retire and go to work for companies that are government contractors. Capitalism, I don't think so!Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Let's talk about that expensive health care we pay for . Would cost be reduced in a public plan ? Not if you look at the figures for the biggest public provided plan we currently operate.
Medicare was created in 1965 to provide health care for Americans 65 and over. When introduced ,estimates of the hospital insurance portion ,Part A, would cost $9 billion by 1990. The real cost was $66 billion.
Parts A through C, was estimated $12 billion by 1990, but Medicare spent $107 billion in its first 25 years.
When Congress added Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits in 2003, the cost was estimated at $534 billion over 10 years.
Less than two years later, the government revised the figure to an estimate of $1.2 trillion over its first decade.
Another example is Medicaid's special hospital subsidy . That was estimated to cost $100 million in 1987 . But the real costs are $11 billion.
Sen Baucus estimates with a very rosy projection that the Dem plan will cost $1 trillion .He claims to have stripped $600 billion from the bill .
But Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, ranking minority member of the House Ways and Means Committee says that the public option plan going around Congress now according to
"independent, nonpartisan analysis cost $3.5 trillion (and again history shows that gvt. Rarely comes in below estimated costs )
I look at all these rosy estimates of savings as I do when comparing Boston's Big Dig ( a simple stretch of highway) . That was estimated at $2.6 Billion in 1985 . Real costs are more than $14.6 billion .
Now here's the real kicker. This is supposed to help provide care for the uninsured ? Well the study Camp cited also says that the public-option program will "likely crowd out 64 million individual contracts with existing private insurers."
Either they will be forced to sign onto the public plan ;or they will join the ranks of the uninsured . And if they join the public plan expect the costs to further sky rocket.
I'm quite certain he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
And let's see what Goldberg said, it's also quite interesting.Quote:
Read the whole linked article, it's quite interesting.
Conor Clarke either didn't read the article, is not intelligent enough to understand what Goldberg said, is in denial - or just plain dishonest.Quote:
Don't Call It 'Socialism'!
The government effectively owns General Motors and controls Chrysler, and the president is deciding what kind of cars they can make. Uncle Sam owns majority stakes in American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and controls large chunks of the banking industry. Also, President Obama wants government to take over the business of student loans. And he's pushing for nationalized health care. Meanwhile, his Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that it reserves the right to regulate any economic activity that has a "carbon footprint." Just last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said climate change requires that "every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory." Rep. Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has his eye on regulating executive pay.
Of course, nationalization of industry is only one kind of socialism; another approach is to simply redistribute the nation's income as economic planners see fit. But wait, Obama believes in that, too. That's why he said during the campaign that he wants to "spread the wealth" and that's why he did exactly that when he got elected. (He spread the debt, too.)
And yet, for conservatives to suggest in any way, shape or form that there's something "socialistic" about any of this is the cause of knee-slapping hilarity for liberal pundits and bloggers everywhere.
For instance, last month the Republican National Committee considered a resolution calling on the Democratic Party to rename itself the "Democrat Socialist Party." The resolution was killed by RNC Chairman Michael Steele in favor of the supposedly milder condemnation of the Democrats' "march toward socialism."
THE HOPE FOR SOCIALISM
The whole spectacle was just too funny for liberal observers. Robert Schlesinger, U.S. News & World Report's opinion editor, was a typical giggler. He chortled, "What's really both funny and scary about all of this is how seriously the fringe-nuts in the GOP take it."
Putting aside the funny and scary notion that it's "funny and scary" for political professionals to take weighty political issues seriously, there are some fundamental problems with all of this disdain. For starters, why do liberals routinely suggest, even hope, that Obama and the Democrats are leading us into an age of socialism, or social democracy or democratic socialism? (One source of confusion is that these terms are routinely used interchangeably.)
For instance, in a fawning interview with President Obama, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham mocks Obama's critics for considering Obama to be a "crypto-socialist." This, of course, would be the same Jon Meacham who last February co-authored a cover story with Newsweek's editor at large (and grandson of the six-time presidential candidate for the American Socialist Party) Evan Thomas titled -- wait for it -- "We Are All Socialists Now," in which they argued that the growth of government was making us like a "European," i.e. socialist, country.
Washington Post columnists Jim Hoagland (a centrist), E.J. Dionne (a liberal) and Harold Meyerson (very, very liberal) have all suggested that Obama intentionally or otherwise is putting us on the path to "social democracy." Left-wing blogger and Democratic activist Matthew Yglesias last fall hoped that the financial crisis offered a "real opportunity" for "massive socialism." Polling done by Rasmussen -- and touted by Meyerson -- shows that while Republicans favor "capitalism" over "socialism" by 11 to 1, Democrats favor capitalism by a mere 39 percent to 30 percent. So, again: Is it really crazy to think that there is a constituency for some flavor of socialism in the Democratic Party?
When the question is aimed at them like an accusation, liberals roll their eyes at such "paranoia." They say Obama is merely reviving "New Deal economics" to "save" or "reform" capitalism. But liberals themselves have long seen this approach as the best way to incrementally bring about a European-style, social democratic welfare state. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (Robert's father) wrote in 1947, "There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals."
WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE
Part of the problem here is definitional. No mainstream liberal actually wants government to completely seize the means of production, and no mainstream conservative believes that there's no room for any government regulation or social insurance. Both sides believe in a "mixed economy" but disagree profoundly about where to draw the line. One definition of social democracy is the peaceful, democratic transition to socialism. A second is simply a large European welfare state where the state owns some, and guides the rest, of the economy. Many liberals yearn for the latter and say so often -- but fume when conservatives take them at their word.
Personally, I think socialism is the wrong word for all of this. "Corporatism" -- the economic doctrine of fascism -- fits better. Under corporatism, all the big players in the economy -- big business, unions, interest groups -- sit around the table with government at the head, hashing out what they think is best for everyone to the detriment of consumers, markets and entrepreneurs. But, take it from me, liberals are far more open to the argument that they're "crypto-socialists."
Mark Levin nails it in 'Liberty and Tyranny 'Quote:
I do agree with you on one point: the American system is indeed failing. But it is not failing because the system is a capitalist system. It is failing because it is NO LONGER a capitalist system.
Quote:
"So distant is America today from its founding principles that it is difficult to precisely describe the nature of American government. It is not strictly a constitutional republic, because the Constitution has been and continues to be easily altered by a judicial oligarchy that mostly enforces, if not expands, the Statist's agenda. It is not strictly a representative republic, because so many edicts are produced by a maze of administrative departments that are unknown to the public and detached from its sentiment. It is not strictly a federal republic, because the states that gave the central government life now live at its behest. What, then, is it? It is a society steadily transitioning toward statism."
I wouldn't know since I haven't seen it practiced in my lifetime . However I'd like to give it a try. I've seen this drift towards nanny state since before my parents were born and I think it's destructive.Quote:
Capitalism is a dying concept in the United States....
Hello Righty's
An editorial note. If I wanted to read what righty's write, I would. That's why I don't post what lefty's write, because you're not interested, and you're not going to read it.
I'm interested in what YOU have to say. So, you don't bolster your arguments with me when you do that.
excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well, that's Obama's fault for sure.
excon
. I don't know how anyone on this thread can find anything new to say about the situation with medical coverage socialized or not in either Canada or the US. It has all been re-hashed, chopped up and spit out so many times it is nauseating.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Ms tickle
cert. Personal Support Worker and Registered Nurses Aid in Ontario:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amdeist
Having personal worked in the VA system and in now in the private healthcare system, I can tell you for a fact that most veterans use the system to get their medications. That is one of the few advantages. The other is that the VA completely uses electronic records and can therefore get and use the data to promote best practices based on the evidence.
However; most veterans also understand the compromises with the system: distant referral centers, waits for specialty care, perhaps a higher percentage of foreign medical grads and practice extenders [PAs, NPs instead of doctors ].
Most realize that better care is available privately and locally. It may cost more but is worth it. It really is a shame because veterans deserve better. As a whole these men and women are more grateful and appreciative than the average civilian.
G&P
An editorial note
I have included in my postings both contemporary and historical quotes before ;and will continue to do so.
Oh goodie!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
One question: why?
Because sometimes they say it better than I can and the reference is important to the content of the debate... and I like doing it.
I don't tell anyone else how to conduct themselves here and will only comply with the rules set by the administrators of the site...
Alrighty then, keep spamming away.
Sounds like your MO
Spam posts may contain anything from a single link, to dozens of links. Text content is minimal, usually innocuous and unrelated to the forum's topic
Forum spam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yep, I'm sure all those green reputation boxes are because I spam. http://moransinc.com/forum/img/smilies/mccain3.gif
It almost seems like you are posting to convince yourself of something.
Nope
Replying to Excon's "editorial note "
This is the second article on this subject I've read in the last few weeks...
Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care Business
If Canadian health care is so great then why is private practice booming?Quote:
Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system.
Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.
"Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.
As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model.
But the Canadian system is not without its problems. Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment.
"No question, it was worth the money," said Crossman, who paid several hundred dollars and waited just a few days.
Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters.
Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.
But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment.
"I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that's beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice," says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.
Yet advocates looking to preserve fairness claim that private clinics undermine the very foundation of the country's healthcare system.
"Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services," said Natalie Mehra, member of the Ontario Health Coalition.
Canada spends $3,600 per capita on health care -- almost half of what is spent in the U.S. And while some in Washington look to its northern neighbor for ideas, the Canadian system is still changing.
"One can understand that this is evolving and a mix of private and public seems to be favorable in some context. On the other hand, we need to be really careful that we're not treating health care the way we treat a value meal at McDonalds," Dr. Michael Orsini from the University of Ottawa told FOX News.
Provincial governments now face the difficult job of finding a balance in meeting the country's health care needs -- reducing wait times and maintaining fair access without redefining the universal ideals at the core of Canada's health care system.
Private practice will boom in United States as well if we institute National Health Insurance. What is amazing, though, is that Americans look at Canada or England to justify why Universal Health Care doesn't work. What about Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and other Western Nations that have national health care? I just wrote Senator Bill Nelson about National Health Insurance. Americans don't need health insurance. They need health care. A health insurance based system will breed the same capitalist problems as did our financial system. Fraud, greed, lawsuits, overspending on technolgoy, etc. A system like the military and VA eliminates almost all of the excess costs. The government controls labor costs, material costs, licensure of providers, claims, lawsuits, etc. I spent 20years as a recipient of military health care and 12 years working in the system, and yes, there are complaints, but look at the $1.5 Billion in lawsuits in the civilian sector. Any system that motivates greed will not only increase costs, but lower quality!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:56 PM. |