Pages: 1 2 3

 

2009-09-13 10:46:19
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6940|Long Island, New York

Stingray24 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Yes he was a liberal. Fiscally, atleast. Which makes most of these people hypocrites because I bet a good lot of them supported him just because he's a Republican.
Would have been nice to have a true conservative, but I had to take what I was given.  Vote for the more liberal Dem guy because I don't think the Rep is conservative enough?  That doesn't make any sense.
Who said you had to vote for the Democrat?

There ARE more than 2 parties you know.

If there were two candidates which I absolutely could not stand, I would vote 3rd party. If Obama completely turns me off from voting for him in 2012 (which, as of right now, I'm wondering whether he will) and the Republican candidate is someone like Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich, I'll vote 3rd party.
2009-09-13 11:06:27
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7024|London, England

Mekstizzle wrote:

So how much would your taxes go up if Obama gets away with his plan then, and also say it all eventually happens and you no longer have to pay for insurance, how much money would you save (or lose?)
Last time I asked this nobody gave an actual answer. It seems most of you people have no clue how all of this would actually work, and how it would actually affect them individually...

Would the tax rise be bigger than the insurance premium you pay for right now? Or is it less of an actual money/fiscal reason and more of just not wanting Government healthcare because of the perceived crappyness of how it would be oh and the whole "socialist" aspect of it, and just plain hating on the idea because of party affiliations/partisanship.

The thing that confuses me the most is that right now already the US spends more as a % of its GDP on its already semi-socialist Healthcare (Medicare/aid/Military) than countries with full nationwide healthcare. How the hell does that work. Some dodgy shit going on there.
2009-09-13 13:44:07
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|7078|Belgium
Where were they when the previous govt. was building up the deficit in order to pay for all the military campaigns the Republicans liked so much?

Try cutting the military budget if you think you're overspending.
2009-09-13 15:21:59
Wreckognize
Member
+294|6888
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest- … id=8558055



Conservative activists, who organized a march on the U.S. Capitol today in protest of the Obama administration's health care agenda and government spending, erroneously attributed reports on the size of the crowds to ABC News.

Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the group that organized the event, said on stage at the rally that ABC News was reporting that 1 million to 1.5 million people were in attendance.

At no time did ABC News, or its affiliates, report a number anywhere near as large. ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, attributed to the Washington, D.C., fire department. In its reports, ABC News Radio described the crowd as "tens of thousands."
2009-09-13 15:38:12
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6871

Wreckognize wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protest-crowd-size-estimate-falsely-attributed-abc-news/story?id=8558055



Conservative activists, who organized a march on the U.S. Capitol today in protest of the Obama administration's health care agenda and government spending, erroneously attributed reports on the size of the crowds to ABC News.

Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the group that organized the event, said on stage at the rally that ABC News was reporting that 1 million to 1.5 million people were in attendance.

At no time did ABC News, or its affiliates, report a number anywhere near as large. ABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, attributed to the Washington, D.C., fire department. In its reports, ABC News Radio described the crowd as "tens of thousands."
I hate Freedom Works.
2009-09-13 15:38:15
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6808|North Carolina
Ah yes...

https://unrepentantoldhippie.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/moran1.jpg?w=306&h=333
2009-09-13 18:39:10
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7117|US

Mekstizzle wrote:

The thing that confuses me the most is that right now already the US spends more as a % of its GDP on its already semi-socialist Healthcare (Medicare/aid/Military) than countries with full nationwide healthcare. How the hell does that work. Some dodgy shit going on there.
Yeah.  The problem is our government is HORRIBLY inefficient!

Pierre wrote:

Try cutting the military budget if you think you're overspending.
That will actually hurt us, without improving efficiency.  We need reforms in budgeting/spending, not just percentage cuts.  For example, the current system punishes organizations for coming in under budget, so they wind up wasting money to guarantee they won't get screwed next year.
2009-09-13 18:41:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6808|North Carolina
Cutting the military would actually help us.  Unfortunately, it's very difficult to do, because bases are scattered across so many states, and there's always a patriotism angle used to discourage military spending cuts as "unAmerican."
2009-09-13 19:46:28
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6813|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

Cutting the military would actually help us.  Unfortunately, it's very difficult to do, because bases are scattered across so many states, and there's always a patriotism angle used to discourage military spending cuts as "unAmerican."
Depends on what you mean by "help us". What is your metric? It may make budgeting easier, but would it cause us to stop protecting key interests elsewhere that would have a far more negative impact than the spending differential?

We could use that logic and just do away with Medicare and Social Security entitlements (a far larger portion of our "must pay" budget than defense). Then, we'd be solvent in less time, the sick people who are taking all the benefits would die off, thus reducing future payouts, and also social security payments.

We win.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-09-13 19:47:51)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-09-13 19:57:03
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6508|eXtreme to the maX
Its possible to argue that it doesn't matter where a government spends its tax revenue, just need to satisfy a few conditions.
- Money is returned to the economy at the right rate, too fast -> Inflation, too slow -> recession
- Money doesn't leak abroad
- The money then returns as tax revenue at a reasonable rate, if people stick it all in savings -> recession, spend it all on plasma tvs -> inflation

Whether the govt taxes and spends on health, military or tobacco subsidies doesn't really matter.
Fuck Israel
2009-09-13 22:19:53
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6808|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Cutting the military would actually help us.  Unfortunately, it's very difficult to do, because bases are scattered across so many states, and there's always a patriotism angle used to discourage military spending cuts as "unAmerican."
Depends on what you mean by "help us". What is your metric? It may make budgeting easier, but would it cause us to stop protecting key interests elsewhere that would have a far more negative impact than the spending differential?
Very little of our overseas presence is needed.  For example, there really is no need for us to remain in Japan or most of Europe.

FEOS wrote:

We could use that logic and just do away with Medicare and Social Security entitlements (a far larger portion of our "must pay" budget than defense). Then, we'd be solvent in less time, the sick people who are taking all the benefits would die off, thus reducing future payouts, and also social security payments.

We win.
True.  We could also revert to a plutocratic dictatorship where decisions could be made much quicker and more efficiently.  China is actually quite efficient in many respects, for example.
2009-09-14 03:44:46
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6813|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Cutting the military would actually help us.  Unfortunately, it's very difficult to do, because bases are scattered across so many states, and there's always a patriotism angle used to discourage military spending cuts as "unAmerican."
Depends on what you mean by "help us". What is your metric? It may make budgeting easier, but would it cause us to stop protecting key interests elsewhere that would have a far more negative impact than the spending differential?
Very little of our overseas presence is needed.  For example, there really is no need for us to remain in Japan or most of Europe.
OK. That's different. That's targeted cuts to the military OCONUS. But you mentioned "scattered across so many states", implying a CONUS-based cut.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

We could use that logic and just do away with Medicare and Social Security entitlements (a far larger portion of our "must pay" budget than defense). Then, we'd be solvent in less time, the sick people who are taking all the benefits would die off, thus reducing future payouts, and also social security payments.

We win.
True.  We could also revert to a plutocratic dictatorship where decisions could be made much quicker and more efficiently.  China is actually quite efficient in many respects, for example.
But then we would lose the basic fabric of what it is to be America. It would change/eliminate the Constitution. Cutting Medicare and SS wouldn't change the Constitution at all.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-09-14 06:50:50
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7024|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Cutting the military would actually help us.  Unfortunately, it's very difficult to do, because bases are scattered across so many states, and there's always a patriotism angle used to discourage military spending cuts as "unAmerican."
Depends on what you mean by "help us". What is your metric? It may make budgeting easier, but would it cause us to stop protecting key interests elsewhere that would have a far more negative impact than the spending differential?

We could use that logic and just do away with Medicare and Social Security entitlements (a far larger portion of our "must pay" budget than defense). Then, we'd be solvent in less time, the sick people who are taking all the benefits would die off, thus reducing future payouts, and also social security payments.

We win.
Typical attitude eh. Rather have people die in your own country than have less of an ability to efficiently kill foreign people in their countries. Such a fucked up attitude.

And the thought that a lower military budget means you can't "protect key interests" - maybe if you weren't such douchebags, you wouldn't have to protect anything in the first place.

Obviously a Officer (in the USAF of all services) like you would never want the Military budget to go down, something like that would be almost unimaginable. If anything it's probably extremely low for you right now right, those phantom F-22 adversaries are bombing your house right now.
2009-09-14 07:02:26
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6813|'Murka

Mekstizzle wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Cutting the military would actually help us.  Unfortunately, it's very difficult to do, because bases are scattered across so many states, and there's always a patriotism angle used to discourage military spending cuts as "unAmerican."
Depends on what you mean by "help us". What is your metric? It may make budgeting easier, but would it cause us to stop protecting key interests elsewhere that would have a far more negative impact than the spending differential?

We could use that logic and just do away with Medicare and Social Security entitlements (a far larger portion of our "must pay" budget than defense). Then, we'd be solvent in less time, the sick people who are taking all the benefits would die off, thus reducing future payouts, and also social security payments.

We win.
Typical attitude eh. Rather have people die in your own country than have less of an ability to efficiently kill foreign people in their countries. Such a fucked up attitude.

And the thought that a lower military budget means you can't "protect key interests" - maybe if you weren't such douchebags, you wouldn't have to protect anything in the first place.

Obviously a Officer (in the USAF of all services) like you would never want the Military budget to go down, something like that would be almost unimaginable. If anything it's probably extremely low for you right now right, those phantom F-22 adversaries are bombing your house right now.
Wow. Feeling a bit snippy, aren't we?

Perhaps you should think a bit more about what was actually posted and the context of the discussion before you twist off with nonsense.

Either that, or have your sarcasm detector checked.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-09-15 11:01:58
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6984|SE London

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

This isn't an endorsement of Obama's plan, because I don't know the entire ins and outs of it, but what is the Conservatives solution to the healthcare problem?
1) Tort reform - putting caps on jury awarded settlements except for the most egregious cases (this would reduce all doctors' premiums for Malpractice insurance, like how they are doing in Texas, and reduce costs for everyone).  [Democrats are against this because they are in lobby with Trial Lawyers]

2) Health care insurance portability - right now insurance policies are stated based and what happens is you have mini-monopolies like the President mentioned (90% of people in Atlanta Georgia use the same insurance company).  If you could get an insurance that, like your auto insurance, that works anywhere then all of a sudden you have ALOT of companies competing for your insurance dollars which would reduce costs. [There is a question of State Rights here, 10 Amendment because each state has their own mandates forcing companies to be state based]

3) Move away from Employer Health care - using pre-tax dollars allow people to buy insurance themselves instead of going though their employer forcing them to be stuck in jobs.  This way you own your policy and when you move jobs you keep your insurance just like your auto insurance.

4) Tax credits for the poor to buy insurance - instead of socializing the entire system (loosing our freedoms), we could give tax credits to the poor to buy insurance.  This would allow them to use preventive care services instead of having their health diminish to the point then they need to go to the emergency room.  This solution would be much cheaper than the current Democrat plans to help the 11 million people who can't afford insurance.

5) Help doctors with their school loans - allow doctors longer term and lower interest rates on their school loans (some come out of school with $150,000 in loans).


The above is the Conservative solution without having to raise taxes or socialize the system.

====================

I have one other point personally that is controversial though:

Illegal immigration - after care is given deport them.

The problem with this is that many illegals won't then go to hospital to get care.  Organization like Doctors without Borders, would have health fairs to give free health care to them.  The Democrats, obviously, would not be for this solution.
You've missed the most important point.

Addressing the corruption within the system whereby American healthcare providers are paying US based suppliers as much as 7-8x what European healthcare providers pay the same US based suppliers for medical equipment and drugs.

In the US the wholesale price (to US based healthcare providers) of a particular pacemaker is $35000, European providers pay $5000 for the same product from the same supplier.

This is clearly the biggest problem with the system. Endemic and systemic corruption leading to inflated prices whilst a lot of the middle men become extremely rich off inflating the prices of essential services.
2009-09-15 11:09:31
GATOR591957
Member
+84|7029

CameronPoe wrote:

This isn't an endorsement of Obama's plan, because I don't know the entire ins and outs of it, but what is the Conservatives solution to the healthcare problem?

Also, with respect to bailouts, many economists believe that allowing Lehmann's to fail accelerated and exacerbated the plunge we experienced by acting as panic-inducing domino number one, increased the overall cost of the debacle and that subsequent bailouts basically averted the 1930s mark II. Just throwing that out there. If the free market was allowed to operated unhindered in this instance - allowing the necessary market correction to occur sharply and suddenly and absolutely and irretrievably destroying the international financial system - you would have ended up with a violent revolution through prolonged unemployment with the labour market ballooning so much that you would have had skilled tradespersons drawing minimum wage just to keep themselves alive (if lucky enough to find an employer that didn't resort to finding labour on the inevitable black market).

It's time for everyone to take their medicine. Some of us may not have contributed towards the mess in any way shape or form but as citizens of a nation we prosper and suffer together. I should be angry because my salary has been levied twice since last year to support an outrageous government budget deficit. The fact is I'm not because I realise that it will take a lot to pay for this mess and in the long term we will pull through. To get bogged down in short term pettiness and greediness will only draw out the process of getting the economy back to health. My calmness however will evaporate if measures to prevent recurrence of this worst side of capitalism are not put in place.

Also it appears the US are seeing the results of their entrenched binary political system. An unrepentant Republican party lurched more rightward than ever and reaped what they sowed in the unfettered free market financial crisis. This in turn spawned a yawning lurch to the left (in American terms) with a Democratic supermajority (?) in the Senate, a Democratic house and a Democratic president. You can pretty much guarantee that the next setup will be a Republican Senate, House and presidency with millions of disaffected liberals marching on Washington with similar but opposite extremo plans.
You are 100% correct.  Lehman Brothers were one of the few companies doing it the right way.  To bail out AIG and not Lehman was a travesty.
2009-09-15 11:30:43
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6945|Texas - Bigger than France

Bertster7 wrote:

You've missed the most important point.

Addressing the corruption within the system whereby American healthcare providers are paying US based suppliers as much as 7-8x what European healthcare providers pay the same US based suppliers for medical equipment and drugs.

In the US the wholesale price (to US based healthcare providers) of a particular pacemaker is $35000, European providers pay $5000 for the same product from the same supplier.

This is clearly the biggest problem with the system. Endemic and systemic corruption leading to inflated prices whilst a lot of the middle men become extremely rich off inflating the prices of essential services.
The price difference might be due to demand (yeah, cheap shot).  Since this healthcare issue has come up I've heard about stories about having to come to the States for an operation or second opinion because of doctor's reluctance to commit to surgery.

Not altogether common situation, but I've heard at least a dozen stories - and it's Canada and Europe they are talking about.

So yeah, we're not ready to embrace it...but the elephant turns slowly, no?
2009-09-15 11:34:07
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5803

ATG wrote:

Did you drink stupid juice before you posted/
personal attack.  reported.
2009-09-15 11:38:08
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6871

Red Forman wrote:

ATG wrote:

Did you drink stupid juice before you posted/
personal attack.  reported.
If I said that to ATG I would have gotten a 3 day ban.
2009-09-15 11:39:03
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5803

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

ATG wrote:

Did you drink stupid juice before you posted/
personal attack.  reported.
If I said that to ATG I would have gotten a 3 day ban.
I prolly will.  It depends how his chemical imbalance is doing today.
2009-09-15 11:40:23
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6871

Red Forman wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Red Forman wrote:


personal attack.  reported.
If I said that to ATG I would have gotten a 3 day ban.
I prolly will.  It depends how his chemical imbalance is doing today.
No, like if I asked ATG if he drank stupid juice he would ban me for 3 days.

Saying his post is a personal attack would get me banned for 5 hours probably.
2009-09-15 11:41:36
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5803

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:


If I said that to ATG I would have gotten a 3 day ban.
I prolly will.  It depends how his chemical imbalance is doing today.
No, like if I asked ATG if he drank stupid juice he would ban me for 3 days.

Saying his post is a personal attack would get me banned for 5 hours probably.
Ahhh...right.  Well, yes, I agree.  Just don't say that in a AU thread, that would be 7 days.
2009-09-15 11:46:49
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6984|SE London

Pug wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You've missed the most important point.

Addressing the corruption within the system whereby American healthcare providers are paying US based suppliers as much as 7-8x what European healthcare providers pay the same US based suppliers for medical equipment and drugs.

In the US the wholesale price (to US based healthcare providers) of a particular pacemaker is $35000, European providers pay $5000 for the same product from the same supplier.

This is clearly the biggest problem with the system. Endemic and systemic corruption leading to inflated prices whilst a lot of the middle men become extremely rich off inflating the prices of essential services.
The price difference might be due to demand (yeah, cheap shot).  Since this healthcare issue has come up I've heard about stories about having to come to the States for an operation or second opinion because of doctor's reluctance to commit to surgery.
Price difference due to demand?

We have these things, they're called global markets.....

The value due to demand will be the same (or at least similar) across the whole (1st) world.

If the savings are due to bulk purchasing discounts, then it just shows the huge fiscal advantages of having huge public systems which can make such immense savings on some of the biggest healthcare costs. Either way, the inflated cost of medical equipment and drugs in the US is a huge factor which is rarely mentioned.

Pug wrote:

Not altogether common situation, but I've heard at least a dozen stories - and it's Canada and Europe they are talking about.

So yeah, we're not ready to embrace it...but the elephant turns slowly, no?
Have you not realised yet that many of these stories are completely baseless nonsense? A bit like the much ridiculed article about how Stephen Hawking would've been denied treatment under the NHS

Some are true though (like the fact that women giving birth don't get driven to hospital in ambulances), but not the radical sounding ones (at least none that I've seen).
2009-09-15 17:34:48
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6813|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

You've missed the most important point.

Addressing the corruption within the system whereby American healthcare providers are paying US based suppliers as much as 7-8x what European healthcare providers pay the same US based suppliers for medical equipment and drugs.

In the US the wholesale price (to US based healthcare providers) of a particular pacemaker is $35000, European providers pay $5000 for the same product from the same supplier.

This is clearly the biggest problem with the system. Endemic and systemic corruption leading to inflated prices whilst a lot of the middle men become extremely rich off inflating the prices of essential services.
It's clear you don't understand how the system here works.

The US healthcare providers pay the same $5000 for the pacemaker. The supplier just has to charge $35000 for it in order to get the $5000 due to the ridiculously low "reasonable" payment rates from insurers.

There is a HUGE difference between what is billed and what is actually paid.

Would be interesting to see which of those figures (billed or paid) is used in the healthcare debates.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-09-15 21:29:37
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6808|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Depends on what you mean by "help us". What is your metric? It may make budgeting easier, but would it cause us to stop protecting key interests elsewhere that would have a far more negative impact than the spending differential?
Very little of our overseas presence is needed.  For example, there really is no need for us to remain in Japan or most of Europe.
OK. That's different. That's targeted cuts to the military OCONUS. But you mentioned "scattered across so many states", implying a CONUS-based cut.
Well, most major military cuts involve the closing of bases in the U.S. in addition to ones abroad.

FEOS wrote:

But then we would lose the basic fabric of what it is to be America. It would change/eliminate the Constitution. Cutting Medicare and SS wouldn't change the Constitution at all.
It wouldn't change the Constitution, but ending our most of our social programs would dramatically worsen our overall standard of living, which, in all honesty, is worse than changing the Constitution.

Granted, I have nothing against getting rid of SS.  That's one of the few programs where we're better off without it.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-09-15 21:30:53)

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard