Obama Care

[saden1]

The "invisible hand" card being played again? LOL...I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot.

Children, children...invisible things don't exist neither does magic.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

The "invisible hand" card being played again? LOL...I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot.

Children, children...invisible things don't exist neither does magic.

So what is your point? That an economic metaphor used to analyze the correlation between self interest and effect on large scale economics is pointless? Or is it that self-interest on large scale has effect has no effect on economics of scale? That the question raised by SS33

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Please enlighten me, how does the federal government/infrastructure allow/facilitate private individuals & companies to make money? And do you believe the cost of that is worth about 33% of a mid-high end workers income?

And arguments raised by CRedskin:

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without. As Schneed said, if a person needs urgent medical attention, all hospitals are required to provide it. However, if a person chooses, or has thrust on them, the option of not securing health insurance, that is where the debate lies. I say each individual/family must come to terms themselves. Others would disagree.

Are without value?

Enlighten me, oh brilliant self righteous one, on why the concept of statistical probability as it relates to the correlation of maximizing public good through self interest is irrelevant, invalid or otherwise meaningless in the health care setting. Apparently, it is your belief that your understanding of economic theory is clearly far superior to any and all comers and is equally applicable in all markets regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. I wish to understand the facts, assumptions and reasoning of this flawless theory.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...
Apparently, it is your belief that your understanding of economic theory is clearly far superior to any and all comers and is equally applicable in all markets regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. I wish to understand the facts, assumptions and reasoning of this flawless theory.

It's not a mere claim to understanding of such simplistic things as an economic theory that drives the one you speak of. It is the claim of understanding all that encompasses the gravitas of life. It is the claim of a knowledge of good and evil, and the knowledge that all which the government can do is achieve the greatness of human evolution to the final and great wondrous utopia of all through a simple sharing of all that is, that which may be, and that which never was but should have been. Ask the mice they understand.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So what is your point? That an economic metaphor used to analyze the correlation between self interest and effect on large scale economics is pointless? Or is it that self-interest on large scale has effect has no effect on economics of scale? That the question raised by SS33



And arguments raised by CRedskin:



Are without value?

Enlighten me, oh brilliant self righteous one, on why the concept of statistical probability as it relates to the correlation of maximizing public good through self interest is irrelevant, invalid or otherwise meaningless in the health care setting. Apparently, it is your belief that your understanding of economic theory is clearly far superior to any and all comers and is equally applicable in all markets regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. I wish to understand the facts, assumptions and reasoning of this flawless theory.

Finally Joe, you're using something other than a jab. Now that the jabs are out of the way let me get right to the heart of the matter, the invisible hand with respect to universal healthcare. I am bewildered by the notion that the invisible hand can and does play a role in the healthcare setting. 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? Sure, nothing precludes them from making more money thanks to the invisible hand but do you realize that poor people have been with us since the dawn of time? I know, it's hard to believe right?

Now here come the numbers that aught to interest you Joe. Are you ready for the next round Joe? First lets define what it means to be poor in this country. Per federal guidelines an individual making less $10,830 is considered below poverty line and so is a family of four making $22,050. I hear you whisper so? So here's the thing Joe...in 1959 (the date the feds started tracking poverty stats) the the percentage of American below the poverty line was 22.4% of individuals and 20.8% of families. Disgusting numbers right? By 1969 that number dropped down to 12.1% of individuals and 10.4% of families. That's a precipitous drop isn't it?

You being the second smartest Republican on this forum I'm sure you can look at the the actual historical numbers and figure out what precipitated the decline in poverty but just in case though here's a hint...the government was involved with Civil Rights Act of 1960/1964, Pilot Food Stamp Program 1961-1664, Food Stamp Act of 1964, Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965, and Social Security Act of 1965. After the 60s the national poverty percentages stabilized with minor fluctuation due to the the economy. Note the Ronald Reagan era when the invisible hand was the most active (we can lay all the blame for the high numbers on Carter if you want). The poverty rate for 2006 was 12.3% of individuals and 10.6% of families (the numbers are probably much worse for 2008). Peeewwww, nothing seems to have changed since the 70's.

Now I figure you know the tremendous strides we have made in the last 50 years with respect to our GDP and per capita income. Given that the market has been functioning why hasn't the invisible hand improved our poverty rate since the 70's even though we're significantly economically stronger? Do we have to give the invisible hand 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? What role does the invisible hand play in income inequality? What about the people hovering just above the poverty line?

As for SS33's post, if your tax rate is 33% you're not a mid-high end worker...if single and you make $171,550-$372,950 annual you're a high end worker and so is a married couple making 208,850-$372,950 annually (we're talking top 5% income earners here not top 25%-50)%. We've really addressed the issue of tax fairness before on many occasions and if you wish to revisit subject this exchange with FRPLG is one of my favorite on the matter.

With respect to CRR's post it is clear to me that neither individuals nor charities (invisible hands) have been able to solve the problem. And if I'm not mistaken S10's original gripe was with the pending proposal to cut DSH funding by the government. It was pretty obvious to me that he shitted on the first part of the quote with the second part.

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by self-righteous Joe. This label is quite perplexing seeing how it's being placed by you. Try as you may you still can't land an effective punch Joe, you really need to work on your lower/upper body strength.

[Beemnseven]

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.

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.

[Beemnseven]

Case in point on the poor -- anecdotal, I know, but it's worth mentioning.

There's a homeless person that hangs around the area in which I live. He has a dog and a bicycle and has the familiar sign which reads: "Homeless. Need work. God Bless." So he stands around at red lights, and inevitably someone will roll down their window and give him a few bucks.

I've seen this guy for at least three years -- the amount of time I've lived in this area. Every now and then, someone will approach this person, talk to him for a few minutes and hand him a business card, or maybe it's just some way to contact them.

So the other day I'm in the grocery store getting some things for lunch and the homeless guy walks in. He walks in, and comes back to the clerk in less than a minute (I'm still in the 20 items or more lane). So what is he purchasing?

A twelve-pack of Natural Light.

I guess he has to buy food at some point, so the money that people are giving him do help out. But I can't help wondering, in all the time he's been carrying that sign, no one has ever offered him work? I know of churches that will take these people in, clean them up, give them food, and provide odd jobs to give them some money to get on their feet. There are numerous charities that do this.

But what's the one thing that has to happen for that to work? Initiative. That's right -- the homeless person has to want to do it. They have to want a better life for themselves. Many times they don't want the help. I think they actually prefer the life they have. No place they have to be, and an endless supply of people who have some pity who can provide just enough money for beer. Now, the government could throw gobs of cash at these people if it wanted to -- but the question is what would they do with it?

Sometimes you actually have to reach for the helping hand.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Case in point on the poor -- anecdotal, I know, but it's worth mentioning.

There's a homeless person that hangs around the area in which I live. He has a dog and a bicycle and has the familiar sign which reads: "Homeless. Need work. God Bless." So he stands around at red lights, and inevitably someone will roll down their window and give him a few bucks.

I've seen this guy for at least three years -- the amount of time I've lived in this area. Every now and then, someone will approach this person, talk to him for a few minutes and hand him a business card, or maybe it's just some way to contact them.

So the other day I'm in the grocery store getting some things for lunch and the homeless guy walks in. He walks in, and comes back to the clerk in less than a minute (I'm still in the 20 items or more lane). So what is he purchasing?

A twelve-pack of Natural Light.

I guess he has to buy food at some point, so the money that people are giving him do help out. But I can't help wondering, in all the time he's been carrying that sign, no one has ever offered him work? I know of churches that will take these people in, clean them up, give them food, and provide odd jobs to give them some money to get on their feet. There are numerous charities that do this.

But what's the one thing that has to happen for that to work? Initiative. That's right -- the homeless person has to want to do it. They have to want a better life for themselves. Many times they don't want the help. I think they actually prefer the life they have. No place they have to be, and an endless supply of people who have some pity who can provide just enough money for beer. Now, the government could throw gobs of cash at these people if it wanted to -- but the question is what would they do with it?

Sometimes you actually have to reach for the helping hand.

There are an estimated 744K homeless people in this country. If you do the math that's 0.0025% of the population (744000 /296410404 = 0.0025%). Furthermore, it is estimated that nearly 40% of homeless people suffer from mental illness. Given all of this what about those that aren't homeless? The remaining ~12%+ of the population? Why play the f'ing homeless card when it clearly doesn't help your cause?

It's really getting harder and hard to think much of you or take you seriously dude.

[GMScud]

I realize that last post has zero to do with health care. Random rant.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

There are an estimated 744K homeless people in this country. If you do the math that's 0.0025% of the population (744000 /296410404 = 0.0025%). Furthermore, it is estimated that nearly 40% of homeless people suffer from mental illness. Given all of this what about those that aren't homeless? The remaining ~12%+ of the population? Why play the f'ing homeless card when it clearly doesn't help your cause?

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.

Originally Posted by Saden

It's really getting harder and hard to think much of you or take you seriously dude.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you, dude.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

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.

I expect nothing less from a know-nothing-conservative. You look good with a red nose.

See Joe, you got people like this clown on forum. If this joker actually knew anything he would know that taxes were reduced during the early 60's and the rich got richer.

[GMScud]

I was at the grocery store today, and some idiot in front of me was trying to pay for his food with his food stamps card. It kept getting declined, and I sat there waiting for a good 10 minutes while he tried to get it figured out. In the meantime, while he was berating the cashier, I was checking out his nice new looking cell phone and shiny new sneakers. Good thing we give him food stamps so he can use his extra cash for the best kicks and hottest cell phone. I'm so happy my taxes are paying for his meals.

But yeah, government needs to keep getting bigger (while our deficit becomes more and more comical). Politics are so broken.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I was at the grocery store today, and some idiot in front of me was trying to pay for his food with his food stamps card. It kept getting declined, and I sat there waiting for a good 10 minutes while he tried to get it figured out. In the meantime, while he was berating the cashier, I was checking out his nice new looking cell phone and shiny new sneakers. Good thing we give him food stamps so he can use his extra cash for the best kicks and hottest cell phone. I'm so happy my taxes are paying for his meals.

But yeah, government needs to keep getting bigger (while our deficit becomes more and more comical). Politics are so broken.

Maybe he was buying food for his disabled mother? Maybe it was for his sister with a few kids, who's husband ran off? Don't be so quick to judge.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

I expect nothing less from a know-nothing-conservative. You look good with a red nose.

See Joe, you got people like this clown on forum. If this joker actually knew anything he would know that taxes were reduced during the early 60's and the rich got richer.

Originally Posted by Saden

You being the second smartest Republican on this forum I'm sure you can look at the the actual historical numbers and figure out what precipitated the decline in poverty but just in case though here's a hint...the government was involved with Civil Rights Act of 1960/1964, Pilot Food Stamp Program 1961-1664, Food Stamp Act of 1964, Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965, and Social Security Act of 1965. After the 60s the national poverty percentages stabilized with minor fluctuation due to the the economy. Note the Ronald Reagan era when the invisible hand was the most active (we can lay all the blame for the high numbers on Carter if you want). The poverty rate for 2006 was 12.3% of individuals and 10.6% of families (the numbers are probably much worse for 2008). Peeewwww, nothing seems to have changed since the 70's.

I took the information you provided here as the reason for "the decline in poverty" in the sixties Saden. Good Christ, read your own posts.

You get mighty belligerent around bedtime. Get some sleep and stop embarassing yourself.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I took the information you provided here as the reason for "the decline in poverty" in the sixties Saden. Good Christ, read your own posts.

You get mighty belligerent around bedtime. Get some sleep and stop embarassing yourself.

I originally intended to include "and poverty was reduced by ~100%" in my response but I figured that was something obvious that I shouldn't have to restate. On a real tip though you know what's really embarrassing? Your utter failure to comprehend my response to you. Let me further simplify for you:

You: The poverty rate declined because the government stole more money from the rich (producers) and gave it to the poor (bums).

Me: Taxes were reduced in the early 60's (top rate went from 91% to 70%) and poverty was reduced by ~100% (from Information I provided...thanks for the heads-up ).


Your engine light is blinking, time to take it to the shop before you go Buster.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

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.

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.