Health Care Ruling
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2012, 08:34 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2012 08:40 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: Health Care Ruling
(30-06-2012 11:53 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote: Also, we don't need to worry about the debt, until we worry about the
economy, because if the economy is crappy, it wouldn't matter what we
do, the debt will still be horrible.
Ahh, the ol' "but we're in a recession" argument.
"It's not my fault we're in debt, we're in a recession!"

Never gets old.

That's wasn't an argument, I was stating an obvious fact.

We're not in a recession; you can call it a depression or a extremely, horrifically slow recovery, but it's not an official double dip.

If you want to see that, see the guys who thought it was a good idea to take on austerity measures in a rough economical state i.e. parts of Europe. They are in a double dip, officially, because they thought austerity was a good idea.

You can say that certain European countries had to do that, and that could potentially be a good argument, but America is not a European country. We have the means to take on debt in order to do the only things that have actually been proven, and damn near every economist in the world agrees needs to be done to get us out of this mess.

Even if we did cut, if it doesn't work and the economy doesn't grow, especially if it gets worse, there goes your tax base getting even more slim. If you have high levels of unemployment, then you are only going to have half of what is needed to actually cut the debt/deficit. You can keep cutting spending, but it has been proven that it hurts the economy and doesn't help. If you don't expand the tax base and start getting enough revenues coming in, you can cut to the bone, but unless you are willing to basically destroy your society on spending cuts, probably even start an uprising or two, you have to do what is necessary to address the economy, lower unemployment, then take a balanced approach to gaining more revenue and reforming parts of government to be more efficient, spend less, and cut where needed.

Quote:There will be a time when countries running huge deficits and getting into debt wont be the norm but frowned upon. Just you watch.

Well, I'd hope. LOL. But, it would be quite idiotic to try to change that norm during these economical times. The US had record surpluses and a pretty strong economy after Clinton was president, that would have been the time for us to maintain paying down debt, but you know what happened.

Quote:
Quote: restoring our public sector job losses, and maybe adding more
Why???? Costing the country even more money.
Large bureaucracies are horrible. Not only are they a waste of money but they are inefficient.
Why have three people to do a job when you can have one. Why have a department of welfare and a department of state owned housing when you can merge them into one and have a department of social development or whatever.
Why have four departments for each level of schooling (primary, secondary, high school, university) when you can merge them together and just have a department of education.
Bureaucracies need to become more efficient, not bigger.
"But it's better to have people working then on the unemployment blah blah", yeah but paying them to work for you or paying them unemployment doesn't matter the money comes from the same place. You need those people out in the private sector, that way the money they bring in (taxes) is effectively "free".

The fact their job got cut in the first place shows you that they were the fat that needed trimming.
It's the same with big corporations sacking heaps of people. The fact they sack these people to make a profit shows you how ill-efficient they were running that business in the first place.

I'm pretty sure the people who were teachers, police officers, firefighters, contracted construction workers, and other public employees would tell you that having that job was a lot better better than being unemployed.

I'm also pretty sure that barely anyone would view those types of jobs as worthless, and would view the types of benefits to society e.g. new roads, bridges, schools, having adequate teaching staffs, having a fair number of law enforcement officers, etc. are a lot more beneficial to society than having people on their asses collecting unemployment (government money), while giving no real benefit to society.

And the people who have to take on the work load in areas where jobs were cut, I highly doubt are cheering about "fat" being cut. Especially while the people who cut the fat, aren't seeing any of those effects at all. They are still happy with their high salaries, and the same work, while other are seeing their salaries drop and are taking on more and more of a harder, more tedious workload, a lot of the times making them less efficient. In the public, more than in the private. The private might be less efficient slightly, but they just pull out the whip.

It's is a lower unemployment rate, which would probably be closer 6.5 or 7% in the US right now just keeping the public jobs that we lost, not even counting additional public jobs, but you also have to look at private sector job creation that could be achieved through a stronger economy, revolving around more demand and more certainty. Unemployment checks aren't going to be spent like checks from real work. When others see the unemployment rate falling fast, they are going to be more confident and start spending more. If demand rises and business see that the economic numbers are looking better, they are going to start expanding, taking risks, taking on debt, and hiring more employees, which is going to bring down the unemployment rate even lower.

Eventually the private sector will be able to take up the slack for the public sector and you can then think about cutting some employment. But you have to wait until the economy is good. If, on one side, there isn't any consumer confidence and there are tons of people without jobs and consistent, reliable earnings, and on the other side you have business sitting on boat loads of cash and keep saying they can't hire because they don't know whether things are going to get better or whether or not demand will be there, you have to take action or you'll get yourself in an endless catch 22.

Sooner or later, someone is going to have to take on debt and/or risk to strengthen the economy. I think we can agree that business are not going to do that; their job is to make money, not fix economical problems. A lot of them don't care, as long as they have enough of an economy to keep making profits, they will just keep on. That leaves the government as the ones we have to take on the debt.

We also have to sure things up with future debt as far as reforms and future spending goes. I'm not saying we should just totally ignore the problems with the debt/deficit forever, hell I'm not even saying we should totally ignore it right now. I'm just saying, there are things that are in the government's hands, that we know we can do to improve things. It's only smart to do those things, and not try to bank on things that are a faith-based prayer, at best, and might even be reasonable to assume will not work, or hurt us.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2012, 05:30 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2012 05:36 PM by Thomas.)
RE: Health Care Ruling
(30-06-2012 04:51 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(29-06-2012 03:39 PM)Thomas Wrote:  We have several problems converging all at once.
1 - We will have a 15,000 doctor shortage in the next ten years. The average age of doctors now is 55.
2 - We just significantly shifted the cost of healthcare for 30,000,000 people to someone else. Their cost to access healthcare is practically zero. Demand will skyrocket.
3 - We will pay for this by chasing down 20 somethings for penalties. Good luck with that. Do you know how many people don't bother buying car insurance? Catch them if you can.
4 - The Baby Boomer wave is hitting Medicare over the next 20 years.
This is the perfect storm in a row boat.
Reality doesn't have a political ideology and doesn't care about yours.
The ONLY solution is to stop treating people after a certain age. Get used to that idea. It will be here in less than a decade, just about the time I turn 60. Just my luck. Thumbsup
stop treating people over a certain age?
Comon that would never happen. Not only is it political suicide, but it's just not human.

It is beneficial to have a healthy country. You have less deaths, less people taking time off work etc..

While I'm all for government paid healthcare, I have been thinking lately how it is going to work in reality for the US.
Like how are you going to pay for it?
Here healthcare is the second largest part of our countries budget (after education) by a county mile. Like 30% of our budget goes into ACC and healthcare. I suppose you guys don't have ACC to worry about but still. In a time when your country should be tackling debt you're now going to be spending a shit load of money.
Makes you wonder what is getting cut in the budget to squeeze this in.

I dunno, I haven't read into this at all.
It's beneficial to have a healthy country. No shit man, but you have to pay for it. It's called "Marginal Benefit versus Marginal Cost". We can have the healthiest population on the planet just before we starve to death.

There is no such thing as government "paid" healthcare. There is government "provided" healthcare which is paid for through tax collection. There is "No Free Lunch".
In Illinois the budget that is getting cut is Medicaid. We're going to fuck the poor to keep paying those massive state employee pensions loaded with 100% free healthcare for life.

The one thing everyone always misses is that when we do something stupid it always ends up on the poor. The rich are ok, the middle class can move, but the poor sit out the decay of the inner cities. It's like the life boats on the Titanic. 3rd class passengers need to just stay below deck while the rest get the hell off the sinking boat.

Bad healthcare policy is like the Titanic. When a hospital closes it will be the one in the poor section of town, not the for-profit hospital in the richer suburbs. They will be building one there. When the entire system collapses, the rich have their personal doctors and can get on a plane to Costa Rica for that operation in a new hospital that caters to them.
If you think you're going to get the wealthy to pay for the 30,000,000 uninsurables, it's just not going to happen.

If you think that companies are not going to drop their HC coverage in mass your mistaken. Some estimates are as high as 70%. A company controller (accountant) this week told me that the insurance for his company is going up 50%. The owner will ask the employees (235 of them) if they will pay for all the increase or he will just give them a check for the amount he pays now and they are on their own. They will all hit the government for HC directly.

Markets don't go broke, they simply exclude those who cannot or will not pay, or those who cannot supply at the market price. The new HC plain is a mandate to play. "Non-exclusion" is a "public good" characteristic that does not work for a private market, therefore there is no private market. "Rivalry in Consumption" is a private good characteristic that is mandated out by law by making it illegal. HC is now a "public good" by any definition, without the incentives to pay for it, the infrastructure to deliver it, or the organization to maintain it.
You cannot mandate a change like this and not expect massive repercussions.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thomas's post
02-07-2012, 10:00 AM
RE: Health Care Ruling
I love how all the caring people that want to fight the hunger in Africa and similar shit, all get crazy when they actually need to give some money for some tax that will save millions of poor people through health care. What the fuck are you people, Christians?

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Filox's post
02-07-2012, 07:08 PM
RE: Health Care Ruling
Good points.

I'm actually semi-agnostic (no pun intended) regarding this particular legislation. I see the arguments from both sides.

I wrote up an article on it that probably takes the more liberal view, but tried to be even handed.
http://seanasbury.wordpress.com/2012/07/...re-ruling/

I've a buddy that wants to respond with an article that takes the conservative view, but it will probably be in line with Thomas' post.

My wife wants to speak for the left...looking forward to these future posts...

Appreciate all the constructive viewpoints! Sean

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2012, 07:38 AM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2012 07:57 AM by Logisch.)
RE: Health Care Ruling
Been hearing nutso crazy stories from my parents. My dad hates obama and thinks he's out to get us. He said that his plan is to make everyone poor, so he put this in place, and that everyone gets to claim their insurance as income on their income tax so that everyone will owe all their money and be poor. I asked him where he heard this. FOX. I told my dad "Yes, you have to report it on your W2. But it's NOT TAXABLE INCOME." and he didn't believe me.

WHAT? HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE? I'M MOVING TO CANADA! Where there's.... oh wait...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
03-07-2012, 05:25 PM
RE: Health Care Ruling
The people who wrote the HC act are not trying to screw anyone. BTW-Obama didn't write any of it. They actually have the best intentions, and it's not a matter of not wanting to pay higher taxes and not giving a shit about the poor. The Fed spends $80 billion on food purchases for the poor, plus all of the private stuff. America is an extremely generous country.
The problem is the authors of the HC act suffer from an affliction called the "god complex". This is defined as having the absolute certainty that no matter how complex a problem is you understand it and have a solution. Unintended consequences are inevitable.
The end result of this legislation (2,700 pages) is that we will screw up our HC system so bad that everyone will suffer, except for the people who voted for it and signed it into law. They're still covered by their own separate system.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2012, 04:14 AM
RE: Health Care Ruling
Hmmmm, so you are saying that people are afraid that the state is going to make them all poor and that they do not care about poor people. But, isn't this HC meant for EVERYONE to have, and poor people now have no HC at all? So how is that not HELPING the poor people to live a better and healthier life? Now, for the first time, even poor people will have the opportunity to visit the hospital, without anyone throwing them out of there. How is that not HELPING the POOR?

Can anyone please explain this to me, I seem to be pretty stupid and I just can not see past this. Sorry for being stupid.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Filox's post
08-07-2012, 12:20 AM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2012 06:03 PM by StAlesiterCrowley.)
RE: Health Care Ruling
Not really a fan of the whole health care takeover.

"'Tis the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it." - Aristotle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBPqksG9nbA
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2012, 03:29 PM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2012 03:54 PM by MikeChase27.)
RE: Health Care Ruling
Isn't this the same Health Care law that was written up in the 90's by the republicans? Basically Bob Dole care.


Oh and to anyone calling this "THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE UNIVERSE"

[Image: obamacare.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes MikeChase27's post
08-07-2012, 06:10 PM
RE: Health Care Ruling
[Image: 11433%20-%20america%20conspiracy%20consp...states.jpg]
(08-07-2012 03:29 PM)MikeChase27 Wrote:  Isn't this the same Health Care law that was written up in the 90's by the republicans? Basically Bob Dole care.


Oh and to anyone calling this "THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE UNIVERSE"

[Image: obamacare.png]

"'Tis the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it." - Aristotle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBPqksG9nbA
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: