Obama Care

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

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?

...

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.

Saden, First, as you said the invisible hand of charities did not solve the problem, of course like you also pointed out, this is a problem that has always been with us, and the fact is that the invisible wallet of government is a far more inefficient method to take care of the problem.

Second, as to Joe's landing punches, sadly you are like a boxer who is badly beaten, yet once out of the ring stands and proclaims the other guy never landed a punch. It is either an amazing amount of arrogance, or pure lunacy, that allows that boxer to make that claim. In your case though it is probably a mix of both.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Saden, First, as you said the invisible hand of charities did not solve the problem, of course like you also pointed out, this is a problem that has always been with us, and the fact is that the invisible wallet of government is a far more inefficient method to take care of the problem.

Second, as to Joe's landing punches, sadly you are like a boxer who is badly beaten, yet once out of the ring stands and proclaims the other guy never landed a punch. It is either an amazing amount of arrogance, or pure lunacy, that allows that boxer to make that claim. In your case though it is probably a mix of both.

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.

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.

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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?

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 can affect change is that they have not 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 never 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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

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]

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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]

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.