Obama Care

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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 ).

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.

[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.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 [fluctuated] 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.

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.

[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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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.

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

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['t] 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.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

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).

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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).

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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?

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.
2. 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.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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.

Good, benign government and economic can 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.

[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?