Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Beemnseven;568780]And again, the point remains that no matter what you do there will always be homeless people no matter what you do, no matter what economic system you're trying to change, no matter how much money you throw at them.[/quote]

You're right. There will always be poor people, always be rapists and always be murderers. So, it makes no sense to do anything about them, since you can never get rid of them. :doh:

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Beemnseven;568752]So let's see, in the 60's the poverty rate declined because the government pointed their guns at the heads of the producers, stole more money from them and gave it to the bums. Well, I guess that's one way to do something about poverty.

[B]As you pointed out, poverty has been around a very long time; but sorry to say, it will always be here. There will always be poor people. There won't be an economic system ever devised that will save absolutely everyone[/B].[/quote]

Absolutely correct, but is this necessarily an argument against government involvement in trying to find the most practical methods to deal with this reality? Look, I read the story you told about the homeless guy, with the concluding statement that sometimes you need "to reach for the helping hand." But the danger is in projecting that story out and seeing poverty as always being the fault of the individuals suffering from it (which I'm not saying you are saying). The fact is that government involvement in dealing with poverty is, first, quite literally centuries old, and second, is not, and has never been, exclusively driven by compassion and/or moral imperatives. Hardly. So, that we have in our history (e.g., the 60s programs) attempts to apply a level of sophistication to a routine government operation, ones greater than simply labeling poverty an individual disease and sticking all the infected in poorhouses, is, in my opinion to our credit. Yes, some programs have worked better than others, but system improvement is a better solution, I think, to no-end-game cessation of them.

My own opinion, and I know you and others fundamentally disagree, is that the programs that emerged from the Great Society have immeasurably improved the lives of millions, far more than they have affected harm. I admit to a bias, seeing as how my entire legal/policy career has been devoted to quite possiblly the most enduring product of it--the Medicaid program. The degree to which the program has provided critical support to persons with disabilities and low-income elderly (even those who have Medicare) is astounding, and I'm not aware of how, if we were to turn to the clock back to the 60s, things could have been constructed differently that would still have allowed these individuals to access the support Medicaid has provided, support that in many circumstances has been life-saving, and in others has allowed individuals to attain services that has prevented institutionalization and allowed them to be active members of the community.

And this program is a federal/state partnership, a voluntary program that every state has agreed to participate in. Developments leading up to the birth of the program didn't exactly tend toward the eventual availability of comprehensive medical insurance for these individuals that wasn't government supported. Far from it. So, to write off this program, being one example of a 60s product, as one forced-by-gunpoint down the throats of states for the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda unfairly downplays what inspired its creation and what value it has provided since.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568845]I showed you a concrete example of what the government can do with respect to poverty and all you seem to do is talk...blah blah blah. Compared to charities and individuals the government is certainly more effective.


Get that weak stuff out of here. Work on your game cause you really can't be in the ring with me let alone throw a punch.[/quote]
The only way goverment is more effective then charities and individuals they only have more money to throw at the problem. The organization that I belong to gives 100% of any money we raise back to children that are hearing impared and their parents cannot afford hearing aids. The other groups I belong to ran around 90% of all funds raised went back to the charity. Last time I read anything on goverment programs it was like $1 came back for every $3 taxed. Thats not effective my friend.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568845][B]I showed you a concrete example of what the government can do with respect to poverty and all you seem to do is talk...blah blah blah. Compared to charities and individuals the government is certainly more effective.
[/B]

Get that weak stuff out of here. Work on your game cause you really can't be in the ring with me let alone throw a punch.[/quote]

As long as the invisible wallet is bottomless, than the government has more resources, that does not make it more effective. But the invisible wallet is not bottomless, and we see that as our debt reaches into the trillions. If we could truly provide quality care at affordable rates for all, then I think everyone, or most people would be on board, but that is not the case. When this country is awakened by a giant default, or an adversary such as China saying we aren't going to pay for you to continue building your weapons and have universal healthcare, and we have to deal with debts that have spiraled beyond the heavens, no one will care if you think I was in the same ring. Our country's debt is 11.6trillion dollars and rising by more than I make in a year every few seconds. That is not solely Pres. Obama's fault, it is lain at the feet of our generation, everyone here. But it is now in Pres Obama's care, and that of the Democrat's in government. Saden, I am sure you think all of this is a game, based on your many responses. But what I fail to understand, you of the oh so scientific mind, that sits and judges all who have reliance on things other than themselves (the invisible hand of charity, the grace of a creator God), a man who trusts what he sees, what can be proven, what is established as scientific and thus true. How can you support an ongoing budget shortfall that represents more money than we can possibly support. It has nothing to do with the political back and forth or fun and games that we enjoy in these forums. For a truly rational person such as you purport to be, your support of these massive debts is incredibly dumbfounding.

As for your use of statistics, everyone knows the best lies are the ones that are statistically true.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568751] Try as you may you still can't land an effective punch Joe, you really need to work on your lower/upper body strength.[/quote]

Fine, then let’s break this down a bit - shall we? In the response to CRedskinsRule which I asserted was dismissive and self-righteous, you mockingly claimed as irrelevant the relationship of economic choices made by individuals and charities in the health care market and their effect on health care costs. Further, you asserted that CRedskinsRule’s response was foolish and that your approach was much more grounded in reality (“I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot”) followed by an assertion, without any limitations, that Adam Smith’s concept of the “invisible hand” of the market place was non-existent.

Tired of your dismissive demeanor towards legitimate theories of which you personally disapprove, I responded by challenging you to state why self-interested market reactions by private individuals are irrelevant in the health care market.

In answering my challenge as to why you believed as such, you first disabuse the thought that such choices will have any effect on lower income individuals (“How does the invisible hand help Aunt Jane avoid medical bankruptcy or help Uncle Joe get his two kids, himself and his wife covered whilst making $10 an hour”). It appears obvious to me, in accordance with the economic principles of the “invisible hand”, that finding a way to allow market forces to lower costs should be the first priority of any health care plan as this will greatly affect both the amount Aunt Jane will initially need pay for her care and the ability of the government to intervene and help both Aunt Jane and Uncle Joe.

To dismiss market forces as you do and their effect in the health care market, ultimately results in a health care system that provides goods and services but is divorced from the historical market forces. Such an attempt is doomed to failure because of the complex nature of the underlying economic transactions (i.e. – all the costs and risks associated with being able to provide health care goods or services, the general disadvantage held by the purchaser of health care goods and services, and the wide variety of knowledge of the health care field held by the purchasers of those goods and services). Attempting to resolve these complex economic transactions, with an eye towards providing the most and best health care services, while ignoring the theory that mass self interest by private parties acts to lower costs for all parties is both short sighted and ignorant.

Next you raise the one legitimate, responsive point in your answer by asserting that the government’s actions in the 60’s through direct wealth transfer actions (the Pilot Food Stamp Program 1961-1664, Food Stamp Act of 1964, Social Security Act of 1965) and indirect wealth transfer programs (Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965) had a significant effect on the poverty level. So we are clear, I concede this as responsive because it directly addresses Slinging Sammy33’s question “What do my taxes pay for?” In part, they pay for the alleviation of mass poverty. This effect, irrespective of the social justice aspect, has many laudatory market effects – it increases the number of consumers; it creates a more diverse field of consumers; it lessens the incentive for criminal behavior by those unable to achieve economic subsistence within the parameters of the market; and it infuses wealth into the system that otherwise may have sat outside the system as unused excess. Thus, while I am in sympathy with the limited government philosophy of both Slinging Sammy33 and CRedskinsRule, I do not ascribe to their overall bare bones application of the same.

In making the concession, I ask this question - is it unexpected that the direct and indirect wealth transfers of the 1960’s (taking from the rich and giving to the poor) would result in fewer poor? Surely you would concede that this is the expected result of even the most inefficient of wealth transfers. Barring corruption by the middleman (i.e. the government), transferring wealth, directly or indirectly, to those below the poverty line has the inevitable result increasing the wealth of poor and, thus, raising them above the poverty line.

Unfortunately, you follow this legitimate response to Slinging Sammy33’s question with a walk off the reservation.

CRedskinsRule original statement was not an assertion that not that “invisible hand” was a cure all for economic woes. Rather, as I indicated above, my quote of CRedskinsRule asserts that: 1) individuals and charities are better than government at solving society’s ills; and 2) in the health care market, the consideration of market forces generated by individual choices will yield a better result than an attempt to resolve the matter through comprehensive wealth transfers enacted by an interventionist government that is divorced from traditional market forces.

According to you “It was pretty obvious to me that [CRedskinsRule] shitted on the first part of the quote with the second part.” You preface this statement with a series of irrelevant questions. There is no assertion by me or, I believe, by CRedskinsRule, that government has no role in the health care market place or that the “invisible hand” is the cure for all society ills. Rather, as I believe one of his earlier posts indicated, and to differing degrees, he and I both agree that government has a role in the market place - this would include the health services market place. At the same time, both of us (and Slinging Sammy33) would suggest that government intervention, alone and without consideration of existing market forces, cannot resolve the complex economic problem of providing the maximum health care to the maximum number of people. In fact, the point of CRedskinsRule's statement (I believe), is that an attempt to do so would result in waste, inefficiency and, ultimately, a failed system.

And just so we are clear and you don’t accuse me of avoidance – irrelevant though they may be - I will answer your multiple questions as why the “invisible hand” has not wiped out poverty despite the increased wealth generated by the system. Simply – because it cannot. In any population of normal human beings, market forces based on private self interest alone will always create an unbalanced market as, inevitably, some (many) flawed humans will confuse irrational greed with legitimate self-interest. In part to check this inherent flaw, governments appropriately regulate market forces. Although in doing so, they cannot thoroughly eliminate the flaw without also eliminating the beneficial market force. The consideration and balancing of private market forces when crafting economic solutions to complex economic problems, however, is necessary and cannot be ignored simply because it is not a cure-all.

To demonstrate the foolishness of your questions concerning the “invisible hand’s" failure to cure all societal ills – Answer me this:

“Given that [government intervention] has been [greatly increased since LBJ’s original “War on Poverty”] why hasn't [government intervention] improved our poverty rate since the 70's even though [the government is spending] significantly [more in real terms on social services]? Do we have to give [government intervention] more time? How long do you expect us to wait? In the mean time how do you expect these people below the poverty line to afford health insurance?” [As to the last, I believe that, through Medicaid, those below the poverty line already receive basic health services including (as Schneed10 has pointed out) preventive care coverage].


Along those lines, during the campaign, you consistently asserted that the wealth transfers endorsed by Obama as they related to health care constituted your position on the matter. Obama has now endorsed radical legislation in the health care field involving significant direct and indirect wealth transfers. I ask you now - with faint hope that you will answer the direct questions asked:

1) Is the legislative health care package currently before Congress as endorsed by Obama, consistent with the health care solutions outlined in his campaign?

2) Do you endorse that legislative health care package?


Finally, Saden, does repeating my name, Saden, throughout your argument, Saden, somehow increase the intellectual acuity of your argument, Saden, while somehow, Saden, magically rendering mine less valid? Or was this, Saden, just an attempt by you to highlight the humor, Saden, in your already comical response? (Saden)

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568785]Taxes were reduced in the early 60's (top rate went from 91% to 70%) and [B]poverty was reduced by ~100%[/B] (from Information I provided...thanks for the heads-up :rolleyes:).[/quote]

No. Poverty was decreased by approximately 50% per your numbers. (A reduction from 20% to 10% is only reduces the amount by half its original amount not the full amount- Math not your strong suit?). Further, the number has fluctated between a 25% to 50% percent reduction over the last 40 years. A significant decrease but, given the expansion of governmental expenses on social services, why hasn't poverty furthered decreased to reflect these increased expenses?

Also, although the top tax bracket was indeed reduced, due to a failure to adjust for inflation, the actual number of individuals subject to the highest brackets increased. Regardless, the relationship between marginal tax brackets and actual income collected is whole other argument.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;568867]As long as the invisible wallet is bottomless, than the government has more resources that does not make it more effective. But the invisible wallet is not bottomless, and we see that as our debt reaches into the trillions. If we could truly provide quality care at affordable rates for all, then I think everyone, or most people would be on board, but that is not the case. When this country is awakened by a giant default, or an adversary such as China saying we aren't going to pay for you to continue building your weapons and have universal healthcare, and we have to deal with debts that have spiraled beyond the heavens, no one will care if you think I was in the same ring. Our country's debt is 11.6trillion dollars and rising by more than I make in a year every few seconds. That is not solely Pres. Obama's fault, it is lain at the feet of our generation, everyone here. But it is now in Pres Obama's care, and that of the Democrat's in government. Saden, I am sure you think all of this is a game, based on your many responses. But what I fail to understand, you of the oh so scientific mind, that sits and judges all who have reliance on things other than themselves (the invisible hand of charity, the grace of a creator God), a man who trusts what he sees, what can be proven, what is established as scientific and thus true. How can you support an ongoing budget shortfall that represents more money than we can possibly support. It has nothing to do with the political back and forth or fun and games that we enjoy in these forums. For a truly rational person such as you purport to be, your support of these massive debts is incredibly dumbfounding.

[B]As for your use of statistics, everyone knows the best lies are the ones that are statistically true.[/B][/quote]

LOL...long winded and unnecessary rant that really goes nowhere, talk about inefficient speech. I want universal healthcare and I'm willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get it...that includes raising taxes, negotiating better drug prices and health services costs through the power of sheer numbers of patients. There is no reason to believe the government can do this. I'm willing to cut the budget and dispense with wasteful spending, the problem is though you and I disagree on what constituents wasteful spending and where cuts can be made. The federal discretionary budget for 2009 was 1182 billion. 799 billion (67.6%) of that went towards military spending and 383 (32.4%) billion of it went towards non-military spending. Guess where I'd like to start saving money?

I know you hate numbers but you really aught to stop digging and move on.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568877]LOL...long winded and unnecessary rant that really goes nowhere, talk about inefficient speech. I want universal healthcare and[B] I'm willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get it[/B]...that includes raising taxes, negotiating better drug prices and health services costs through the power of sheer numbers of patients. There is no reason to believe the government can do this. I'm willing to cut the budget and dispense with wasteful spending, the problem is though you and I disagree on what constituents wasteful spending and where cuts can be made. The federal discretionary budget for 2009 was 1182 billion. 799 billion (67.6%) of that went towards military spending and 383 (32.4%) billion of it went towards non-military spending. Guess where I'd like to start saving money?

I know you hate numbers but you really aught to stop digging and move on.[/quote]

First, I would cut military spending also, so we could be in agreement on that, why don't you talk to your man Obama and get that started?

Second, I don't hate numbers, I hate over-reaching government.

Third, I am glad you are so willing to sacrifice by having the government raise taxes, but again, the government could take all of your money until you die, and we still would have a massive debt (unless you happen to be Bill Gates, in which case we would only have a major not massive debt). This is not a case of the rich paying for the poor, it is a foolish man running his credit cards to the max, and thinking that he doesn't have to worry about it.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568877]I want universal healthcare and I'm willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get it...that includes raising taxes, negotiating better drug prices and health services costs through the power of sheer numbers of patients. [B]There is no reason to believe the government can do this.[/B][/quote]

Although I believe you meant "can't", I would suggest you're actual statement is more accurate.

"Universal Health Care". Can we? Of course. Do we have reason to believe that federal government can? You suggest there is no reason not. For all the past 27 pages and in other threads as well, whether you agree with them or not, intelligent rational arguments have been made that demonstrate the difficulties in defining "Universal Health Care" as well as actually providing it. Holding out that government intervention is the cure all despite these problems you would impose a huge burden upon our children and assume that no reprecussions will fall to them or simply ignore the same.

And so here we have - as is always the underlying case in your oh so witty responses - the ultimate hypocrisy from he who would hold himself out as the "Voice of Reason": A leap of faith into the trust that, no matter the problem, government intervention can solve it if only enough money is poured into the well.

Re: Obama Care
 

Joe, I'm not sure Saden is suggesting that the only thing necessary for government intervention to work is "more money". Your arguments are solid, but that part weakens it.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;568875]No. Poverty was decreased by approximately 50% per your numbers. (A reduction from 20% to 10% is only reduces the amount by half its original amount not the full amount- Math not your strong suit?). Further, the number has [[I]fluctuated[/I]] between a 25% to 50% percent reduction over the last 40 years. A significant decrease but, given the expansion of governmental expenses on social services, why hasn't poverty furthered decreased to reflect these increased expenses?

Also, although the top tax bracket was indeed reduced, due to a failure to adjust for inflation, the actual number of individuals subject to the highest brackets increased. Regardless, the relationship between marginal tax brackets and actual income collected is whole other argument.[/quote]

I misspoke on 100% reduction and I take full responsibility. Score one for Joe.

Government expense on social services has indeed increased as a percentage of the GDP but so have expenses. If you're going to discuss inflation in your argument you should at least know what the impact of inflation is on the poor and the social services. It would be interesting to do a comparison between today and previous era as to the impact of inflation and the increase in population on government social service spending (I'd love to see you or anyone on this forum present this information).

Honestly though, the problem with you lot is that no number is good enough and you never present any evidence as to why your "invisible hand" is a better solution. It's bash the government 24/7.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568877]LOL...long winded and unnecessary rant that really goes nowhere, talk about inefficient speech. I want universal healthcare and I'm willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get it...that includes raising taxes, negotiating better drug prices and health services costs through the power of sheer numbers of patients. There is no reason to believe the government can do this. I'm willing to cut the budget and dispense with wasteful spending, the problem is though you and I disagree on what constituents wasteful spending and where cuts can be made. [B]The federal discretionary budget for 2009 was 1182 billion. 799 billion (67.6%) of that went towards military spending and 383 (32.4%) billion of it went towards non-military spending[/B]. Guess where I'd like to start saving money?

I know you hate numbers but you really aught to stop digging and move on.[/quote]

Ok, using your numbers as a base, not including any additional cost for the addition of universal healthcare -
The current debt = 11,600 billion dollars.
The current discretionary budge is 1,182billion dollars.
assuming we cut 25% from the military, and do not increase non-military spending (a VERY generous, highly improbable assumption) we could pay down the debt at a rate of 200billion/year

11,600/200 = 53 years.

now of course we don't need to get it to 0, but of course we aren't dealing with 0% loans either. Nor is the discretionary budget really a valid number, since it assumes borrowing in order to spend that. So if you add in the projected deficit of 400billion this year, even by cutting 25% of the military spending - which again you and i atleast could probably find an agreeable way to do that - we would not be subtracting 200billion, but adding 200billion to our national debt.

so, again, I will say, how does a person who scoffs at the reliance of others on mystical creations, find it in his ability to rely upon the mystical wallet of government.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568882]Joe, I'm not sure Saden is suggesting that the only thing necessary for government intervention to work is "more money". Your arguments are solid, but that part weakens it.[/quote]

Let me rephrase, if enough governmental resources can be applied - then a government can solve any societal ill.

[quote=saden1;568877]I want universal healthcare and I'm willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get it...[B]that includes raising taxes, negotiating better drug prices and health services costs through the power of sheer numbers of patients. There is no reason to believe the government can['t] do this.[/B] I'm willing to cut the budget and dispense with wasteful spending, the problem is though you and I disagree on what constituents wasteful spending and where cuts can be made. [/quote]

Howeever, and ultimately, whether it is employing individuals to "negotiate better drug prices" or to manipulate costs "through the power of sheer numbers of patients", governmental resources cost someone something. (Further, I would suggest, when he does actually define a position, saden requires the influx of governmental funds in some form or another).

Whether it is through the cutting off of other services or the raising of new revenue, governments rely on money to provide the public sector with goods and services. Without money government cannot act, without action governments can't solve anything. Thus, regardless of how he cuts it, Saden's position that governmental action can solve health care's ills -regardless of the existing market forces - boils done to a requirement that government spend money - lots of it. Further, it is a leap of faith that if we just spend enough money, marshall enough resources, government intervention can - not just solve the problem - but create a world better than our current situation regardless of private interests.

Ultimately, saden applies the age old cruelty of socialism - if we trust in the corporate whole, all will be well even if a few individuals are injured along the way. In this particular case, the individuals are likely to be our children.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568884]Honestly though, [B]the problem with you lot is that no number is good enough [/B]and you never present any evidence as to why your "invisible hand" is a better solution. It's bash the government 24/7.[/quote]

Tell me the number you believe is acceptable for creating universal health care and what said universal health care entails.

In a previous thread, I have indicated that, if you can lower costs and ensure that my quality of care does not decline, I will pay my current amount of premium plus an additional 10% (an increase of approximately $400 per year) in order to guarrantee basic (now there's a loaded term) medical services for every legal u.s. citizen.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;568887]Let me rephrase, if enough governmental resources can be applied - then a government can solve any societal ill.[/quote]

I don't want to get into this argument, because you and Saden are more educated on the topic than I. However, a government is made up of people, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest they can do anything they put their minds to. IMO, the root problem is self-interest (i.e.: pork barreling, job security, bribes, etc).

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568892]I don't want to get into this argument, because you and Saden are more educated on the topic than I. However, [B]a government is made up of people[/B], and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest they can do anything they put their minds to. IMO, the root problem is self-interest (i.e.: pork barreling, job security, bribes, etc).[/quote]

I understand you don't wish to get dragged in and it is not my desire to do so but - I want to make sure we keep it defined here.

Yes. A government is made up of people. People who don't work for free. Some work cheap, some work through a sense of dedication, but for government to act - money is required to compesate the individuals through whom it acts.

You say that the root problem (not sure if you mean in general with government or as it is specific to health care) is "self-interest". I would disagree - the root problem is greed whether individual, corporate or public. A healthy reliance on self interest (again, whether individual, corporate or public) insures that economic problems are viewed through the prism of many eyes and likewise tested. It is only when one or more of these groups goes beyond legitimate self interest (either intentionally or not) that the market gets skewed.

I would agree that the current health care situation is such that it is difficult to tell where self-interest has crossed into greed and which players have made the crossing. To me, that is the ultimate question in resolving this issue and until it is done all is wind and fury.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;568890]1) Is the legislative health care package currently before Congress as endorsed by Obama, consistent with the health care solutions outlined in his campaign?

2) Do you endorse that legislative health care package?[/quote]


[LIST=1][*]Of course the current legislation is not fully consistent with his pledge but it's not too far off from his goals. I'm not expecting it to perfectly align with his pledge to get the 47 million uninsured insured, reduce insurance costs, and increase the quality of care.[*]No, it's not good enough. I'm concerned with the start date and the possibility of weak or no public option. I'm not confidant they're doing a good job of soliciting advice from countries with successful universal health care systems either. I would like to see pay-roll option for employers who wish to provide their employees health care through universal healthcare. I'm willing to give the bill a chance because this is a complex problem that can only be solved through a progressive process and solution.[/LIST]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;568894]I understand you don't wish to get dragged in and it is not my desire to do so but - I want to make sure we keep it defined here.

Yes. A government is made up of people. People who don't work for free. Some work cheap, some work through a sense of dedication, but for government to act - money is required to compesate the individuals through whom it acts.

You say that the root problem (not sure if you mean in general with government or as it is specific to health care) is "self-interest". I would disagree - the root problem is greed whether individual, corporate or public. A healthy reliance on self interest (again, whether individual, corporate or public) insures that economic problems are viewed through the prism of many eyes and likewise tested. It is only when one or more of these groups goes beyond legitimate self interest (either intentionally or not) that the market gets skewed.

I would agree that the current health care situation is such that it is difficult to tell where self-interest has crossed into greed and which players have made the crossing. To me, that is the ultimate question in resolving this issue and until it is done all is wind and fury.[/quote]

Totally agree -- greed, not self-interest, is much more accurate.

I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking. Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government. If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568899]Totally agree -- greed, not self-interest, is much more accurate.

I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking. Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government. If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.[/quote]

Good, benign government and economic [I]can[/I] occur in any almost any form if "good" people are running it. I believe, however, that republican (small r) democracy (small d) with a properly regulated free enterpise economy is the most conducive to allowing such people to govern. Ultimately, government is based on the people that encompass it. It is merely our corporate tool to protect and serve, how we the people choose to govern and share/use our individual/corporate resources is ultimately a human choice.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;568880]Although I believe you meant "can't", I would suggest you're actual statement is more accurate.

"Universal Health Care". Can we? Of course. Do we have reason to believe that federal government can? You suggest there is no reason not. For all the past 27 pages and in other threads as well, whether you agree with them or not, intelligent rational arguments have been made that demonstrate the difficulties in defining "Universal Health Care" as well as actually providing it. Holding out that government intervention is the cure all despite these problems you would impose a huge burden upon our children and assume that no reprecussions will fall to them or simply ignore the same.

And so here we have - as is always the underlying case in your oh so witty responses - the ultimate hypocrisy from he who would hold himself out as the "Voice of Reason": [B]A leap of faith into the trust that, no matter the problem, government intervention can solve it if only enough money is poured into the well.[/B][/quote]

If we do nothing shit is going blow up Joe so lets not make the government the only dirty player that's going to or capable of blowing shit up. If you're going to accuse me of faith leaping perhaps it's time for you to pour us some tea. Shall we use the pot or the kettle?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568897][LIST=1][*]Of course the current legislation is not fully consistent with his pledge but it's not too far off from his goals. I'm not expecting it to perfectly align with his pledge to get the 47 million uninsured insured, reduce insurance costs, and increase the quality of care.[*]No, it's not good enough. I'm concerned with the start date and the possibility of weak or no public option.[B] I'm not confidant they're doing a good job of soliciting advice from countries with successful universal health care systems either[/B]. I would like to see pay-roll option for employers who wish to provide their employees health care through universal healthcare. I'm willing to give the bill a chance because this is a complex problem that can only be solved through a progressive process and solution.[/LIST][/quote]

can you define these countries, and please try to use countries that would face problems similar to ours, and not ones with homogeneous populations, or ones that have no major government outlays for things that our country obviously does.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;568890]Tell me the number you believe is acceptable for creating universal health care and what said universal health care entails.

In a previous thread, I have indicated that, if you can lower costs and ensure that my quality of care does not decline, I will pay my current amount of premium plus an additional 10% (an increase of approximately $400 per year) in order to guarrantee basic (now there's a loaded term) medical services for every legal u.s. citizen.[/quote]

If we can get 85% of the currently uninsured I'll be satisfied though not fully. Now tell me why you believe that your quality of care is going to decrease and what percentage of decrease in your qualify care if any is acceptable to you?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568904]If we do nothing shit is going blow up Joe so lets not make the government the only dirty player that's going to or capable of blowing shit up. [B]If you're going to accuse me of faith leaping perhaps it's time for you to pour us some tea. Shall we use the pot or the kettle[/B]?[/quote]

The government is not the only dirty player. I have never asserted that it was - Further, when considered in full, I don't think Schneed 10, CRedskinsRule or Slinging Sammy33 has either. Inherent in their arguments that private parties [I]can[/I] affect change is that [I]they have not[/I] and that any solution must find a way to affect this. Your determination that only government intervention through massive wealth transference can solve the problem has led you to ignore that point

As to kettles and pots - I have [I]never[/I] asserted that, at their base, my philosophic, economic or spiritual arguments spring from something less than a leap of faith. In fact, I embrace that gap and stare into the chasm often to better understand myself, the world around me and the limitations of my humanity. Can you admit the same and define the leap you take? Or is still your position that your belief system is fully contained and provable at is inception.

I have been at the table since my 30's. Since we first began engaging, however, you have pretended that the table did not exist.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568909]If we can get 85% of the currently uninsured I'll be satisfied though not fully. Now tell me why you believe that your quality of care is going to decrease and what percentage of decrease in your qualify care if any is acceptable to you?[/quote]

Quality of care will decrease because:

1) Wait times for appointments will get much longer, wait times for procedures (like knee replacement) will get much much longer. The supply of physicians and facilities is not increasing, but demand for these services will. That inevitably results in a logjam.

2) Reimbursement to hospitals and physicians from commercial insurers (people who currently have insurance) will get phased downward over time to a more homogenous rate. Right now, physicians practice where the money is, in other words they locate their offices where most patients have good insurance. With so many previously uninsured patients gaining coverage, and with reimbursement homogenizing across payers, doctors will migrate to areas where most people are located. If you make a decent living and your neighborhood reflects that, then some of your physicians will be leaving the area. This will happen over time, not suddenly.

3) Over time, changes to the reimbursement structure will incent hospitals to treat minor issues as opposed to major, equipment-intensive illnesses. They will not have the same incentive to invest in state of the art technology. You'll have fewer choices when it comes to destinations to receive the state of the art care for the most serious of problems.

And many others.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568909]If we can get 85% of the currently uninsured I'll be satisfied though not fully. Now tell me why you believe that your quality of care is going to decrease and what percentage of decrease in your qualify care if any is acceptable to you?[/quote]

I have fully explained why I believe the quality of my health care will diminish in the "New Health Care Thread". [url]http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/29779-the-new-health-care-7.html[/url]

Does your 85% include those who choose to be uninsured even if financially able but unwilling to pay (and, as "financially able" as those who are able because they chose to pay for insurance as opposed to the mortgage - I am referring to the significant portion of young healthy, productive adults who choose not to purchase health insurance)? Does it include only those currently not on medicaid? Must it increase benefits for those on medicaid or will it simply be enough to expand the benefits provided medicaid to cover those not currently covered?

I mean we can go around on this all day, there have been at least three threads and pages and pages of posts discussing all these issues and more without any general consensus being reached. It's a knotty problem and one that shouldn't be rammed through in a 1000 page bill on one month review.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568899]Totally agree -- greed, not self-interest, is much more accurate.

I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. [B]A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking.[/B] Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government. If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.[/quote]

I am loving all this back an forth on thsi thread now.

I did want to comment on the bolded remark above.

Not to put it too harshly but that is a load of crap. Humans, not just Americans, act based on self-interest. No one does anything that doesn't bring some type of satisfaction to their own self-interest. It's the way we work. Hell it is the way all living beings work. This notion of "conscious thinking" is silly because we are all driven by our own unconscious thinking that we can, by definition, not control. Can we do better? Maybe but there isn't going to be some magical shift in base human action. It isn't something we can change any more than you can change how tall you are or what color your eyes are.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568909]If we can get 85% of the currently uninsured I'll be satisfied though not fully. Now tell me why you believe that your quality of care is going to decrease and what percentage of decrease in your qualify care if any is acceptable to you?[/quote]
Hell we could get 50% of that done by forcing the people who can afford coverage to go out and buy it.

Re: Obama Care
 

•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, [url]http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-[/url]
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=FRPLG;568915]I am loving all this back an forth on thsi thread now.

I did want to comment on the bolded remark above.

Not to put it too harshly but that is a load of crap. Humans, not just Americans, act based on self-interest. No one does anything that doesn't bring some type of satisfaction to their own self-interest. It's the way we work. Hell it is the way all living beings work. This notion of "conscious thinking" is silly because we are all driven by our own unconscious thinking that we can, by definition, not control. Can we do better? Maybe but there isn't going to be some magical shift in base human action. It isn't something we can change any more than you can change how tall you are or what color your eyes are.[/quote]
Most people who volunteer their time do so because it brings them self satisfaction of helping others.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;568907]can you define these countries, and please try to use countries that would face problems similar to ours, and not ones with homogeneous populations, or ones that have no major government outlays for things that our country obviously does.[/quote]

LOL...why don't you just say we're unique so please don't use the Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc?

Hate to inform you but everyone has major government outlays and whether the population is homogeneous is irrelevant (unless of course you think being a diverse nation is a hindrance).

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Schneed10;568912]Quality of care will decrease because:

1) Wait times for appointments will get much longer, wait times for procedures (like knee replacement) will get much much longer. The supply of physicians and facilities is not increasing, but demand for these services will. That inevitably results in a logjam.

2) Reimbursement to hospitals and physicians from commercial insurers (people who currently have insurance) will get phased downward over time to a more homogenous rate. Right now, physicians practice where the money is, in other words they locate their offices where most patients have good insurance. With so many previously uninsured patients gaining coverage, and with reimbursement homogenizing across payers, doctors will migrate to areas where most people are located. If you make a decent living and your neighborhood reflects that, then some of your physicians will be leaving the area. This will happen over time, not suddenly.

3) Over time, changes to the reimbursement structure will incent hospitals to treat minor issues as opposed to major, equipment-intensive illnesses. They will not have the same incentive to invest in state of the art technology. You'll have fewer choices when it comes to destinations to receive the state of the art care for the most serious of problems.

And many others.[/quote]

Now we're getting somewhere. I get it, I really do get that the more people that use the system the more strain put on the system. But is the only solution to the problem not to bring more people into the system? There are many things we can do yet people here don't seem to want to bother.

I'd also point out that health service in general has been declining for years and that problem is only going to get worse unless he root cause of the problem, health service infrastructure at large, is address.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;568919]•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, [url]http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-[/url]
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now[/quote]

I know people love using the Canadian system as an example, and it may be one to model, but I still ask for an example where the country has similar demands and structures to the US. If you are going to include countries who fall under our defense shield, as Canada does, then please realize that their Government's obligations are substantially less. and if we are going to do this type thing, and significantly reduce defense spending, then lets start by doing the reductions and getting our budget in line.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568923]LOL...why don't you just say we're unique so please don't use the Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc?

Hate to inform you but everyone has major government outlays and whether the population is homogeneous is irrelevant (unless of course you think being a diverse nation is a hindrance).[/quote]

Nice, but irrelevant dodge. Unless you want to plead ignorance to the effects that the diversity of the US culture has on healthcare demands.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568923]LOL...why don't you just say we're unique so please don't use the Germans, Dutch, Japanese, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc?

[B]Hate to inform you but everyone has major government outlays and whether the population is homogeneous is irrelevant (unless of course you think being a diverse nation is a hindrance)[/B].[/quote]

Wait, in addressing how best to provide health care services to a diverse population with a vast range of economic, racial and religious variations - all of which can impact on the choice, needs and costs of health care provided, it is irrelevant that most social/universal health care systems don't need to address the diversity or size of our population? You believe that a comparison of signifcantly smaller, basically homogenous populations is of significant value to extrapolate to our society?

I would agree there is some value in such comparisons and information but would suggest that such would be minimal given the inherent and substantial differences between the US and the countries you name. Now, if France, Germany and England had a joint universal health care system that actually worked, then I would be very interested.

Re: Obama Care
 

Saden, I thought you liked numbers, and yet you seemed to ignore some basic math that I posted. Remember this is using your numbers as a base, not including any additional cost for the addition of universal healthcare -

The current debt = 11,600 billion dollars.

The current discretionary budge = 1,182billion dollars.

** assuming we cut 25% from the military, and do not increase non-military spending

11,600/200 = 53 years.

add in a projected deficit of 400billion this year,

then we would be adding 200billion to our national debt yearly. And that is BEFORE any new healthcare.

so, again, I will say, how do you Saden, who scoffs at the reliance of others on mystical creations, find it in his ability to rely upon the mystical wallet of government.[/QUOTE]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568924]Now we're getting somewhere. I get it, I really do get that the more people that use the system the more strain put on the system. But is the only solution to the problem not to bring more people into the system? There are many things we can do yet people here don't seem to want to bother.

I'd also point out that health service in general has been declining for years and that problem is only going to get worse unless he root cause of the problem, health service infrastructure at large, is address.[/quote]

My health services I feel have become better over the past few years and my biggest complant is the cost of my insurance which I'm switching to a plain that better fits my needs. While people brushed off the Massachusetts problems with their health plan Obama himself said his plan is alot like what they have done. If you look at what they wanted to accomplish in Massachusetts and compared to what Obama says he wants do to it like a mirror image of each other. It seems people ignore that it has done the complete opposite of what their health Ins reform was intended to do. But why look at ugly numbers from a great example if it gets in your way.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;568929]Wait, in addressing how best to provide health care services to a diverse population with a vast range of economic, racial and religious variations - all of which can impact on the choice, needs and costs of health care provided, it is irrelevant that most social/universal health care systems don't need to address the diversity or size of our population? You believe that a comparison of signifcantly smaller, basically homogenous populations is of significant value to extrapolate to our society?

I would agree there is some value in such comparisons and information but would suggest that such would be minimal given the inherent and substantial differences between the US and the countries you name. [B]Now, if France, Germany and England had a joint universal health care system that actually worked, then I would be very interested.[/B][/quote]

Throw Turkey, Serbia, and Croatia, and maybe we could see a reasonable comparison.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;568899]I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. [B]A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking. Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government.[/B] If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.[/quote]
Now your getting it! And understand there will NEVER be a thought process shift in humanity like you mention. Don't forget, Communism was tried and failed miserably and left millions dead in its wake (Soviet Union, Cambodia, China).

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism"]The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;568931]Saden, I thought you liked numbers, and yet you seemed to ignore some basic math that I posted. Remember this is using your numbers as a base, not including any additional cost for the addition of universal healthcare -

The current debt = 11,600 billion dollars.

The current discretionary budge = 1,182billion dollars.

** assuming we cut 25% from the military, and do not increase non-military spending

11,600/200 = 53 years.

add in a projected deficit of 400billion this year,

then we would be adding 200billion to our national debt yearly. And that is BEFORE any new healthcare.

so, again, I will say, how do you Saden, who scoffs at the reliance of others on mystical creations, find it in his ability to rely upon the mystical wallet of government.[/quote][/quote]

I'm only one guy vs so many of you lot and contrary to popular belief I do have a day job. Relax, your turn will come.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568924]Now we're getting somewhere. I get it, I really do get that the more people that use the system the more strain put on the system. But is the only solution to the problem not to bring more people into the system? There are many things we can do yet people here don't seem to want to bother.

[B]I'd also point out that health service in general has been declining for years and that problem is only going to get worse unless he root cause of the problem, health service infrastructure at large, is address[/B].[/quote]

And most everyone here has been debating just these issues and the role of government and private enterprise in resolving them for pages on end. Has anyone taken the consistent position that the current status of health is not an issue of public health to be addressed? Schneed10 has consistently said the current system is stressed to the breaking.

In response to these discussions and outside a handful of posts you have been dismissive those who assert a different point of view than yours or who believe the solution lies outside a simple transference of wealth (either direct or indirect) to "take more peope into the system". In response to attempts to define the issue and identify the root causes in competition you blantantly dismiss legitimate economic theory as magic. Further, throughout this thread and similar threads, you have brought the assertion of hypocrisy in american history, wishes for death of those who disagree with you, and a blatantly causal attitude to the concerns that it is our children who be bearing the costs of our current greed to the discussion.

NOW after 29 pages, innumberable discusssions of the points raised in the above post, you "get it". Perhaps if you had come off your high horse earlier, admitted that your belief system may just not be infallible and considered points of view that did not necessarily fall with your self-approved economic and philosophical theories, you could have brought your considerable talents to constructive solutions rather than an arrogant dismissal of real questions that need to be addressed.

It's not that "There are many things we can do yet people here don't seem to want to bother." It's that almost everything has a down side to it and, unless the discussion realizes and incorporates the underlying competing philosophies, it will not begin to cut the gordian knot that is the american health care system.

Come have some tea with me saden, I don't care if we use the kettle or the pot.