Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 10:06 AM:
Hurry up folks and get you Obama seal action doll. Teach the children it was really he that took out Osama with his heroic assault on the compound. He's the man!
The real Seals only had their lives to lose. His political career was at stake. Keep your priorities folks!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 10:19 AM
Caddy, I believe that if it had been some republican president, say maybe Bush for example, you would be singing a different tune. Typical. Problem with a lot on the left is they can't take a joke.
Also there is nothing wrong with trying to make a dollar. No one is going to force you to buy. It's not a tax.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 11:15 AM
What a horrible doll...there is no way Obama's ears are that small.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 11:22 AM
Knoblickian,
Most Republican Presidents have at least served their country as members of the armed forces, but I don't think I'd have bought a Bush Seal doll, either.
As I recall, President Bush was generally portrayed as a Cowboy, but I think there may have been a 'Mission Accomplished' figurine with him in a flight suit. Keep in mind, however, that he wore such a flight suit when he was a pilot.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 11:27 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 11:29 AM
Shap-I wouldn't buy either one, just pointing out the possible hypocracy of Caddy and others. Our guy good-don't poke fun. Your guy bad so it's ok. Many on the right are the same way.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 11:39 AM
Mission Accomplished was never a statement of victory or end of hostilities until the press made it such. It was simply a statement of recognition to those he was addressing. Their particular mission was accomplished.
I think it was a very poor decision to use that phrase, but I saw the landing as a well intended moral booster that if done today by Obama would be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Only the words on the banner would be different.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 12:21 PM
Theorist,
I'm merely pointing out that military people tend to take offense when elected officials who have not been in service appear in uniform items, whereas they respect those who have served before.
I realize 'the Left' loves to take any opportunity to belittle President Bush over his National Guard service, even rolling out the 'fake but accurate' memo as if it were a long-form birth certificate. The issue, however, is that he was qualified to wear the uniform, he was a qualified pilot, and military people have a greater regard for him appearing in uniform than they would for Presidents Clinton or Obama.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 12:32 PM
Theorist-you are correct to a point, and it is wrong of me to generalize. However, if you just look at these threads, the posters who are least likely to see the humor in various comments are left leaning. But maybe my blinders are on. I think maybe you walk to the left side of that middle, also.:)
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 12:32 PM
Lucky for me that I ride/walk the middle of the road :)
Is that the road called Progressive Drive? :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 12:41 PM
Lucky for me that I ride/walk the middle of the road :)
Is that the road called Progressive Drive? :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 12:41 PM
Yes, those Killian Documents: the 'fake but accurate' documents CBS tried to pass off, right before the 2004 elections, only to have them debunked almost instantly as having been produced on a Word Processor that did not exist at the time they were supposedly written.
And 'the Left' laughs at the 'birthers'...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 12:43 PM
Old John,
I suspect you need to be on the lookout as you prowl around the area as I suspect she even drives in the left lanes.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 12:49 PM
Who me, prowl? I do more poking than prowling! :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 1:07 PM
Theorist-you are correct to a point, and it is wrong of me to generalize. However, if you just look at these threads, the posters who are least likely to see the humor in various comments are left leaning. But maybe my blinders are on. I think maybe you walk to the left side of that middle, also.:)
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 12:32 PM
I never had a problem with Bush's service record. But I did take issue with people complaining about Kerry's service record. I don't care what politics a person is, respect the uniform they wear/wore.
But it was frustrating to watch Limbaugh and company comment on his record, while saying they support the troops.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 1:58 PM
I am always amazed at the number of left leaning or progressives who proclaim to be moderates, some right leaning or conservatives do it also, but it seems more conservatives are more willing to label themselves as such.
-- Posted by Acronym on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 2:07 PM
"Well Shap, I find it odd that you would claim Lt. Col. Burkett lied."
Actually, I'm taking Lt. Col. Burkett at his word, at least as far accepting him as being honest when he said he lied.
"In interviews in recent days with USA TODAY, both in person and on the phone, Burkett said he had merely been a conduit for the records purported to be from the private files of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, one of Bush's former Guard commanders, who died in 1984. Burkett admitted lying to USA TODAY about the source of the documents but said he did not fabricate the papers.
In earlier conversations with USA TODAY, Burkett had identified the source of the documents as George Conn, a former Texas National Guard colleague who works for the U.S. Army in Europe. Burkett now says he made up the story about Conn's involvement to divert attention from himself and the woman he now says provided him with the documents. He told USA TODAY that he also lied to CBS.
Burkett now maintains that the source of the papers was Lucy Ramirez, who he says phoned him from Houston in March to offer the documents. USA TODAY has been unable to locate Ramirez."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 2:09 PM
Lumber,
My problem with Kerry was that his account of things did not match some of the records or facts as presented by some servicemen themselves. Somebody had to be lying....
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 2:17 PM
lumbrgfktr:
Sen. Kerry made his service record an issue when he proclaimed, in sworn testimony before the Congress that he had witnessed soldiers committing atrocities and that he, himself, had committed atrocities. Thus, by his own admission, he was a war criminal.
Sen. Kerry never identified the atrocities he, himself, committed and, during the 2004 campaign, stated that 'atrocities' was a poor choice of words to describe his actions. However, in his testimony to Congress, he described the atrocities of those soldiers he knew, describing how they "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
That certainly left his service open to scrutiny.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 2:17 PM
if you just look at these threads, the posters who are least likely to see the humor in various comments are left leaning. But maybe my blinders are on.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 12:32 PM
I don't think it is that the left doesn't have a sense of humor; I think it has more to do with the fact that most of the posters on this forum lean to the right and thus most of the jokes are at the lefts expense. If someone makes a joke at the rights expense it is followed up by 15 more making fun of liberals.
People make fun of Caddy because his opinions are always so one-dimensional. He always defends and praises Obama no mater what he screws up. However many of the conservative posters are just as myopic. After OBL was killed I half expected someone on here to defend OBL. Not because I truly believed anyone here thought he was worth defending, but because like Caddy, their opinions are so one-dimensional I knew they would have to find some way to criticize the President for it. And sure enough, they did criticize him for landing on that aircraft carrier and jumping out of a fighter jet and giving a speech still wearing his flight suit in front of that mission accomplished sign like he personally was the one who...wait. I keep getting my Presidents confused.
Anyway, to me it seems that both sides are so invested in their Rube Goldberg type logic trying to justify their praise/criticism of the President that I can't even tell who's joking and who's serious anymore.
-- Posted by DADES on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 2:52 PM
That certainly left his service open to scrutiny.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 2:17 PM
I disagree.
It left his actions open to scrutiny, not his service.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 2:53 PM
I think more than anything, it left his credibility open to scrutiny. We don't need to catch a potential president in a lie prior to the election. They've got 4 years after that to let us know what they lied about.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 3:11 PM
Dades wrote:
"After OBL was killed I half expected someone on here to defend OBL. Not because I truly believed anyone here thought he was worth defending, but because like Caddy, their opinions are so one-dimensional I knew they would have to find some way to criticize the President for it."
Perhaps you anticipated this because of your myopic view of the posters... ;)
I agree that there is a polarization issue: the Obama worships/Bush haters are every bit as dogmatic in their views as are the 'Obama bachers/Bush worshipers'. I like to think I am neither. I try to go out of my way to not bash Mr. Obama. I've faulted President Bush, as well. However, I strive to defend my Republican party from detractors. I have defended Mr. Obama from false accusations as well but I leave it to members of 'the Left' to try to defend the Democrat party because, well, frankly, I don't see how they can be defended.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 3:26 PM
I think more than anything, it left his credibility open to scrutiny. We don't need to catch a potential president in a lie prior to the election. They've got 4 years after that to let us know what they lied about.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 3:11 PM
And I agree with that.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 3:26 PM
"It left his actions open to scrutiny, not his service."
If he committed 'atrocities' while in the service, then it calls his service into question, because his actions reflected upon the entirity of the Navy.
If, on the other hand, he did not commit atrocities but merely lied about it under oath, after the fact, then his actions (and his integrity) are questionable. Either way, he was clearly unfit to service as President. He is either an admitted war criminal or a perjurer who has born false witness against his brothers-in-arms.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 3:30 PM
Lumber
Kenny made two bad Boo Boo's. When he saluted and said reporting for duty. The other was when they said to vote for them because they had good hair. They lost the vote of about half of the balding guys in the US. My uncle was one of them.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 3:37 PM
wait. I keep getting my Presidents confused.
-- Posted by DADES on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 2:52 PM
Being a leftist Dades maybe you are on to something here... maybe you are just plain confused.☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 3:45 PM
(Sorry, that was supposed have been 'borne false witness')...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 3:46 PM
Kenny made two bad Boo Boo's. When he saluted and said reporting for duty. The other was when they said to vote for them because they had good hair. They lost the vote of about half of the balding guys in the US. My uncle was one of them.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 3:37 PM
Wrong. He made WAY more than 2 bad boo boo's.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 4:09 PM
Sorry I meant Kerry.
That was just two that got my uncles goat.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 4:15 PM
Is kerry a respected politition?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, May 13, 2011, at 11:39 PM
"...but I leave it to members of 'the Left' to try to defend the Democrat party because, well, frankly, I don't see how they can be defended."
There are numerous things from the most recent Republican administration that I find hard to defend...
A needless and unfunded war in Iraq that was unprovoked, and entered into without credible threat to the US.
A prescription drug program that may have been needed, but should have been funded.
Tax reductions that were unjustifiable based on existing and growing deficits and unfunded programs.
A de-emphasis on financial regulation that contributed to the Bush Administration Recession.
A reckless "with us or against us" attitude, and willingness to use non-productive and ineffective detention and interrogation methods, that combined to tarnish and taint the world-wide reputation and good name of America.
On the Democratic side I would find numerous issues easily defensible...
The drawdown and withdrawal from Iraq.
The TARP and Stimulus programs that injected funds into the economy which slowed and reversed the recession and unemployment.
The rescue and reinvigoration of the American automobile industry.
The reform of the health insurance programs available to Americans.
Implementation of financial reform.
Establishment of a realistic approach to the conflict in Afghanistan, to include putting their government on notice that the US commitment was not open ended and they would have to take responsibility for their own security at a given point in time.
The creation of a bi-partisan commission to address the deficit which involved spending cuts in all programs including defense and adjustments to social security and Medicare, and tax reform by reducing rates and eliminating loopholes and excessive deductions.
Implemented tax breaks for small business to stimulate job creation.
I agree that there is no need whatsoever for neither
"...Obama worships/Bush haters..." nor for "'Obama bachers/Bush worshipers"
and there is also no reason at all that viable compromise solutions cannot be found. The President has expressed willingness to do so, and in spite of his claims, even the Speaker of the House will bend eventually. For example, although Speaker Boehner has argued that he would not agree to tax increases, that does not rule out tax reform resulting in the increased tax revenue essential to debt reduction.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, May 14, 2011, at 8:58 PM
Common, It's hard to defend what you can't comprehend.
"A de-emphasis on financial regulation that contributed to the Bush Administration Recession." Come on! We have been all through this before. It was democrat regulations in response to community activists that steered all that. Bush warned and democrats ignored.
Shapley seems to be the only one left to acknowledge your posts as worhty of respectful debate and you toss back this kind of gibberish which is far below your intellect.
Peanut gallery or not, I read your posts and respect your opinions, just can't see anything but me right you wrong thinking lately.
Lighten up a little, think for yourself and give us some real debate other than democrat party propaganda. [meant with respect]
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, May 14, 2011, at 10:10 PM
commonsensematters
"and there is also no reason at all that viable compromise solutions cannot be found. The President has expressed willingness to do so"
The president said the Republicans can ride the bus but would set in the back.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, May 14, 2011, at 10:18 PM
Commonsense,
If the President truly desires compromise solutions he might cease the habit of publicly demonizing those who disagree with him. Latest example: at the border suggesting that republicans would like to see a moat with alligators.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, May 14, 2011, at 11:34 PM
stnmsn8, That speech sounded to me like a vote for me and you're in message.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, May 14, 2011, at 11:45 PM
They don't need a moat, they have the Rio Grande. I think the river and the Texas weather would support alligators.
I think Obamaa has finally come up with a viable solution to a vexing problem.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, May 14, 2011, at 11:57 PM
There are none so blind, as those who will not see.
--- Attributed to John Heywood, 1546
The primary reason for occasionally posting to this forum, is to provide a small additional measure of balance to the content. The majority of participants seem to "see" the world only as white or black, good or evil, Republican or Democratic, conservative or liberal, etc., etc. In actuality there are numerous shades of gray and boundless opportunities for compromise. That is, unless you assume the position of being 100% infallible, always totally correct, and that any opposition whatsoever is wrong, evil, un-American, and obviously foolish.
In looking at the population of posters here with the SE Missourian, there is a majority that espouse conservative positions and talking points, and spend much of their time denigrating any voice challenging their perception, congratulating each other on their superiority, and mocking those outside of their circle.
America is not 90% Republican nor 90% conservative. The percentages of Democrats and Republicans are fairly equal with a larger group of Independents in the middle. President Obama's approval ratings, for whatever they are worth, have hovered around 50%, having dipped into the 40's and gone as high as 60% recently. Therefore the opinion sample found in these pages is not representative of the American population, but highly skewed to the right, and I prefer to contribute infrequently to inject some middle American common sense into the conservative chatter.
I have no objection to discussing any issue rationally. For example, financial regulation de-emphasis was noticeably a policy during the President Bush administration, and led to a mess on Wall Street. For many years prior to this, Democratic leaders have supported an increased availability to housing ownership by all economic classes. A Republican interpretation of this goal is that this, and only this facet of low income housing assistance, was the cause of the housing crisis. What is conveniently omitted is that the bundling on mortgage securities is the root cause of the problem. Nowhere did anyone demand that banks "lend money to people that cannot or will not pay it back."
This could be continued with more pertinent but no more is necessary at this time.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 7:28 AM
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
"These aren't the 'droids you're looking for."
I'd categorize the action doll/figure (whatever) as a distraction. Stick to the vital stuff, and get educated about it, then become a citizen lobbyist. Demand your "representatives" answer with something other than a form letter (which is off-topic, even, to make it even more insulting, if that were possible) about why they might vote up the public debt ceiling and make you and your progeny cosign another big loan; why the Fed does not have to undergo a COMPLETE Congressional audit (Article I Section 8 delegates to Congress the power to "COIN money and regulate the VALUE thereof"--when did they farm that out to the cabal of banking wizards at the Fed/Treasury???); why they are considering re-authorizing the "Patriot" (named to squelch opposition, obviously) Act, with its Fourth Amendment violations; then get on the phone/computer/road to ask your State legislators why they can't nullify that galactic piece of tyranny, the unconstitutional Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Put the inane distractions behind you!
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 8:09 AM
Common, when you said this,
"In looking at the population of posters here with the SE Missourian, there is a majority that espouse conservative positions and talking points, and spend much of their time denigrating any voice challenging their perception, congratulating each other on their superiority, and mocking those outside of their circle."
- you said it all.
That's why many of us have given up even trying (As Wheels has noticed and commented on recently). Let the chest-thumping gang have the block - it has no value anyway.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 8:21 AM
Commonsensematters wrote:
"On the Democratic side I would find numerous issues easily defensible...
"The drawdown and withdrawal from Iraq.
The TARP and Stimulus programs that injected funds into the economy which slowed and reversed the recession and unemployment.
The rescue and reinvigoration of the American automobile industry."
Your myopia is showing again. Those were all started under the Republican administration...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 9:37 AM
"I'd categorize the action doll/figure (whatever) as a distraction"
I categorise it as someone is going to make a buck selling them. Isn't our free entrepreneurial system great? Embrace it and protect it because it one of the things that make this country great. The current administration thinks it is the enemy.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 9:55 AM
"The rescue and reinvigoration of the American automobile industry." Ha! All the millions of dollars they've raked in over the years, and we had to bail them out. And what did we get in return? Most decent used cars taken off the market by the trade in scheme.
-- Posted by phoenix on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 10:25 AM
"Your myopia is showing again. Those were all started under the Republican administration..."
And continued under a Democratic Administration. Why is it then, that there are constant complaints about TARP, the Stimulus, the GM bailout from conservatives? These are programs that were needed and therefore should continue to be supported, and not relentlessly criticized purely because their success could reflect credit on both administrations.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 10:46 AM
My opinions may not represent the American population nor are they intended to represent anyone. My opinions are mine.
No one forced the banks to make loans to people at risk of not being able to pay them back in the interest of getting more low income folks into home ownership. Banks took advantage of fact that government backed entities would assume the risk and in many cases buy the loans leaving the banks with their profit allowing that money to return to capitol.
Clearly when we go back to the 70s and follow through it was regulations infused in the process of vetting loan applicants and government sharing of risk that began the practices that ended in the so called housing bubble burst.
What were the deregulations that are always claimed to be culprit? The only regulations proposed to steer away from this lending implosion came from the Bush administration and a few lone independent thinkers and were totally ignored by the house and chided by Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi.
Both parties failed in allowing this.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 10:46 AM
Commonsense,
To make one point of disagreement: The GM/Chrysler bankruptcy was not properly administered and we all may suffer in the future as a result of that mishandling. This country is supposed to be based on the 'rule of law'. This is meant to see that decisions are based on law rather than the capricious whims of man. No one should be favored because of who he/she is or their relationship with a power broker.
A secured creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding is given first priority under law when settlements are made. This is usually an organization which has a recognized investment as a result of loans made (lienholder) Unsecured creditors receive distribution of settlement after secured creditors have received their settlement.
In the case of the GM/Chrysler bankruptcies President Obama used the influence of his office, his personal popularity, and the mainstream media to publicly berate and deride investors (the secured creditors) and convince them to put aside their preferred position. This amounts to 'crony capitalism'
Creditors were bullied into accepting thirty cents on the dollar for their investment while the United Auto Workers union, an unsecured creditor, received fifty cents on the dollar.
This may not seem important to you now, but it results in less confidence in the system by investors and results in a lack of investment capital available for our economy. Translation:
Businesses seeking capital to expand their businesses will be looked on less favorably by investors because there is less protection provided for them by bankruptcy laws. Fewer jobs will be created as a result of this lack of investment capital. Just another reason this is a 'jobless recover'. (an oxymoron if I have ever heard one)
TARP, the stimulus program, and the GM/Chrysler bankruptcies are all examples of a President using the power of his office to pay off his political cronies.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 11:50 AM
Another thing to keep in mind: The Justice Department has been gradually becoming a tool of the executive branch. Politicization of justice eats away at the integrety in rule of law and must be held in check by principled leadership.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 12:30 PM
all presidents have made errors . with today's technology and social media , any decision a president makes is instantly scrutinized by both the Left and the Right as they feel will promote their own agenda .
George Bush was president for 8 years . one of America's worst tragedies happened during his term , a person has got to believe he did what he thought best during these times . personally , i don't believe George Bush was a good leader , he was caught up in an historical nightmare and his decisions were not the best for all Americans .
Mr.Obama has been in office three years , to determine his influence on America is too soon to decide . personally , after three years , i don't see America any better off then it was in the year 2000 . i do not consider Mr.Obama to be a good leader either , i truly feel if Mr.Obama is re-elected , it will be the biggest change in the USA ideology since the 1860's.
having said all this , i think i'll stay in the middle with Theorist ...
-- Posted by Rick* on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 1:08 PM
i would not be upset in the least little bit if the Federal Reserve facility parished in a fire....
-- Posted by Rick* on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 1:36 PM
"Why is it then, that there are constant complaints about TARP, the Stimulus, the GM bailout from conservatives?"
Are you saying that, by virtue of being conservatives, we are obligated to support anything a president who calls himself conservative proposes/enacts? Conservatives voiced concerns about it when it was enacted under president Bush, and continued to do so when they were continued under Mr. Obama. Bailing out banks and businesses is not a conservative approach.
Now that I've answered your question, answer mine: Why did you credit it to the Democrats, and not the Republican administration under which it occurred?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 1:43 PM
"Now that I've answered your question, answer mine: Why did you credit it to the Democrats, and not the Republican administration under which it occurred?"
I listed these issues under a Democratic Administration because that is when and where they were consummated. I would gladly give credit to President Bush for initiating these programs, but I would characterize the underlying purpose, not to bail out banks and financial institutions, but to protect the overall economy from a depression.
"Bailing out banks and businesses is not a conservative approach." It is also not a liberal approach either, but was necessary to counter the recession.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 2:42 PM
having said all this , i think i'll stay in the middle with Theorist ...
-- Posted by Rick* on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 1:08 PM
Rick,
You will be out there all alone, because in spite of what she says Theorist tilts so far left she is at the tipping point. That is my opinion, based on observation.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 2:55 PM
"...i don't see America any better off then it was in the year 2000..."
What needs to be compared is the condition of the nation on day one of the President Bush administration with day one of the President Obama administration.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 2:57 PM
"Tax reductions that were unjustifiable based on existing and growing deficits and unfunded programs."
"Implemented tax breaks for small business to stimulate job creation."
Seems contradictory.
Tax reductions are always justifiable - letting people keep more of their money is just and fair. Overspending is a separate issue. Parkinson's Law says "Expenditures rise to meet income."
In speaking of government, that could be restated as "expenditures rise to exceed income". The arguement at the time of President Bush's tax reductions was that the Congress was clamouring for ways to spend the 'peace dividend', mostly through new entitlements such as the Prescrition Drug Plan which President Bush supported.
Deficits are caused by too much spending, not because of a lack of revenue.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 2:57 PM
"What needs to be compared is the condition of the nation on day one of the President Bush administration with day one of the President Obama administration."
That assumes the President has more power than he actually has. Why not compare day one of the Republican taking control of the House in 1993, with day one of the Democrats regaining control in 2007, and then with Day one of the Republicans regaining control in 2011?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 3:00 PM
"...i don't see America any better off then it was in the year 2000..."
What needs to be compared is the condition of the nation on day one of the President Bush administration with day one of the President Obama administration.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 2:57 PM
i disagree . Mr.Obama's campaign mantra was YES WE CAN , (i never understood what CAN meant) , with promises of sweeping changes to politics . No more PAC's and Lobbyist influence because they only supported the wealthy and rich . Please do a Google search on political PACs and Lobbyist to see for yourself they still exist .
I find it curious the HHS has given over 1,000 waivers to Companies and states to the mandated insurance commerce participation , National Care Act . how is this fair to all Americans ?
Mr.Obama changed the subject to the former Administration when his ideas fell short of public opinion when he first took office . in the end , history will show it was Mr.Obama's failed attempts to recover the economy , not what he was left to deal with . nope , i won't look up links , i'm too lazy .
there are more people living below the standards of their parents then ever before . more are jobless , Government controlled , lost souls..America's dream was to leave your children better off then you were ...it's stopped happening and is getting worse..
-- Posted by Rick* on Sun, May 15, 2011, at 10:05 PM
"There are more people living below the standards of their parents than ever before . More are jobless , Government controlled (?), lost souls. America's dream was to leave your children better off then you were ... It's stopped happening and is getting worse."
The assessment above seems to be your opinion of conditions today. What you avoided was any mention of how this situation compares with the state of the nation in January 2001 and January 2009.
You may recall that in 2001, when President Bush took office there was no housing crisis, no Wall Street financial debacle, no active conflicts in the Middle East, a healthy stock market and employment picture, and a recent annual budget surplus.
Compare this with January 2009, with 2 ongoing conflicts, high unemployment, a housing market catastrophe, a financial management disaster, widespread threats of terrorism, and a growing deficit.
You can blame whatever group or party you want, and it's not really relevant, but there is no denying that all was definitely not "peaches and cream" when president Obama took over. If you choose to believe that things have deteriorated further since 2009, that's obviously your prerogative, but would require some revision to the facts. In actuality, unemployment is trending downward, the stock market is healthier, conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, improvements in health care insurance have been initiated, financial regulation is being appropriately tightened, and so on.
Clearly the single most disastrous event in the President Bush administration was 9-11, and I feel that he did exactly the right thing in the response in Afghanistan. The destruction of the Al-Qaeda sanctuary was the timely and precisely the best reaction. The fallout of 9-11 did damage the nation, but the recovery from that event was not the sole cause of continuing problems throughout the past decade.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 8:55 AM
commonsensematters
i do not feel the USA has recovered from the 9/11 attacks , we are still feeling the pain today .
is it no wonder that a newly elected official will use the former official's "faults/failures" as a barometer of their success ? didn't Bush use this tactic against Clinton in 2000 ? it's a political staple..
of course things were not rosy in 2009 , they are not rosy today either . they will be a wilted plant by 2016 if Mr.Obama is re-elected .
i'll ask again , are todays children going to have a better life then their parents ? are we not spending our children's future right now ?
-- Posted by Rick* on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 9:20 AM
Commonsense,
As you say, unemployment is trending downward. This is true if you use statistics. The problem is the number of people working is not trending upward. This is so because, as people become discouraged and quit seeking work, they are no longer considered unemployed! The process of calculating unemployment and many other statistics has been changed by the administrations of both parties several times since the Great Depression, for political gain.
This makes it impossible to compare unemployment statistics with the Great Depression for example. If you want to see the real state of the economy, check out :
The Bureau of Labor Statistics changed its method of calculating the rate of inflation in 1980 and again in 1990. Using the method used during the Carter administration, the inflation rate today would be ten percent.
I am not blaming President Obama for the mess he inherited. This crisis has been brewing for some time and politicians from both parties have much blame to share. I WILL SAY that President Obama is exacerbating the problem with his policies rather than curing the problem.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 9:28 AM
"I'll ask again , are today's children going to have a better life than their parents? Are we not spending our children's future right now?"
They can clearly have a better life if Congress decides to place the good of the American people over their partisan power struggles and develop future budgets with decreased spending and increased revenue.
The President's commission laid it out very simply: cut spending on all aspects of government, including defense, reform social security and Medicare, and revise the tax code to reduce rates and eliminate loopholes and deductions.
President Obama is clearly poised to go that route, and is actively seeking Republican cooperation to rescue our children's fiture.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 9:37 AM
commonsensematters wrote:
"President Obama is clearly poised to go that route, and is actively seeking Republican cooperation to rescue our children's fiture."
No, he's not. He talks about it but, when proposals such as Ryan's 2012 budget propose to do just that, he balks and says they want to starve children and the elderly.
Republicans are on that page. It is Democrat support he needs to find.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 9:46 AM
BCStoned,
He can press for business-friendly measures that encourage entrepreneurship and business hiring. He can also present an air of confidence that gives the American people hope for the future, and markets confidence in the American system. He can be the cheerleader for the economy.
Other than that, his authority is limited.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 9:55 AM
BC
How about if he just got out of the way?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 10:03 AM
BC
At the very least, get rid of the Federal Reserve and take the Federal Government back to what it was conceived to be by the Founders of this Country;
We have a zero in the White House and more zeroes warming up for the 2012 run.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 10:51 AM
Disolving the Dept of Education and returning it's function to the states would be a start in my opinion.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 11:25 AM
Confidence is killing this country. There are large cash reserves at the banks, companies are holding back on hiring, people are cutting back and saving because of it. Obama is leading the way in two categories - chaos and uncertainty.
No one knows what the tax rates will be, the effects of banning C02, the oil drilling bans, the executive pay mandates or Obamacare. Add to that the falling dollar, record unemployment, massive debt and deficits and now a 3rd war in Lybia. He truly does not know what he is doing.
I post on here for one reason. I sat around and watched the 2008 debacle unfold and knew this guy had zero experience, was a marxist sympathizer, hated most of what his country stood for and lied through his teeth. I can't believe he got elected. I'm not sitting around anymore.
Before responding-- I'm NOT a John McCain fan, was a Bush fan but lost a lot of respect for him in the last couple of years (donut hole, refusing to fight back against the dem assaults on his reputation, bailout, etc.). Bush looked like he just wanted out after Pelosi and Reid got hold of him. I'm more likely to vote for Ron Paul than most of them running right now. I'd never vote for Obama and will do all I can to see he doesn't win. Including voting for McCain who I do not like. It's always the lesser of two evils it seems like.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 11:58 AM
"...proposals such as Ryan's 2012 budget propose to do just that, he balks and says they want to starve children and the elderly."
Looking at Ryan's budget proposal, it jumps out at you that the one technique employed to reduce expenditures, that is relatively clearly spelled out, is to dismantle Medicare. At the same time he wants to make the President Bush tax cuts permanent. Difficulties generated by the concept of taking from the poor and giving to the rich is obvious even to conservatives like Newt Gingrich, who has gone on record opposing the Ryan budget.
As you well know, Medicare is based on an insurance model, where everyone pays in and pay outs come when one is sick or requires medical treatment. This can continue to work extremely well indefinitely, and if the program were to face declining income, the most logical solution would be to increase the regular payments slightly, and/or add higher co-pays for each treatment visit.
Ryan's plan appears to scrap that entire concept. While he would continue to collect Medicare taxes, he would not pay directly for service, but rather provide everyone regular payments (of about $8000 annually I think) and force them to buy private insurance (which sounds familiar for some reason.)
So rather than providing an insurance program for the over 65's that covered virtually all of required services, his budget makes anyone with serious problems have to convince an insurance company that they need a given treatment . The Medicaid program would operate under a similar block grant program. The only factor in the Ryan plan that is of dubious value, is that it allows for more accurate budgeting for future needs. It would force many individuals to fend for themselves, even after having contributed their entire lives to an "insurance" plan, which may be where the President sees the plan being detrimental to children and the elderly.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 1:07 PM
commonsensematters , i agree .
however , the Ryan plan does not allow waivers , as the National Healthcare Act is actively doing .
more than 1,000 waivers to mandated insurance commerce have been granted by the Obama Administration . This has the appearance of favoritism , and in all honesty , is not fair .
either the National Healthcare Act is mandated 100% to all Americans or it isn't . which shall it be ?
-- Posted by Rick* on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 2:00 PM
In 2010, Social Security, Medicare, and other 'social insurance' taxes (Federal unemployment taxes, etc.) brought in $865 billion. In that same year, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, alone, paid out $1,494 billion, so they cannot work out extremely well indefinitely. To be sure, Medicare and Medicaid exist to cover the costs of medical care that Insurance, upon whose models you say they are based, do not cover because of the costs of doing so.
Ryan's proposal, which is just a proposal at this point, mind you - a starting place from which to negotiate - attempts to relieve the burden to the federal government of sustaining the unsustainable. You acknowledge that cuts need to be made, but scoff at the only current proposal to actually do so. Where is Mr. Obama's proposal? If he wants to negotiate, he has to bring something to the table. Currently, there are only two offers: Mr. Ryan's and the Democrats 'continuing resolution solution', which says leave things as they are and hope the problem goes away.
The Republicans have also suggested the constitutionally compatible plan of letting the states run Medicare, much the way Medicaid is handled - with block grants to fund it. The federal government is not supposed to be in the insurance business, yet that seems to be the biggest part of what they do. It's time to reconsider that.
Every penny we raise in taxes is spent on entitlement programmes. Our infrastructure, or security, and the other 'normal' functions of government suffer due to lack of funding. It's time to get the federal government out of the insurance business, which they obviously are not good at doing, and get them back to doing the business of government.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 2:12 PM
Being the collector I am, I can't wait for someone to pay $35 bucks for the Obama/Seal doll, and then I buy it 4 years later at a yard sale for a dollar or two. Now that's capitalism!
-- Posted by Hugh M Bean on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 2:34 PM
cadillacman
sometimes non-sense remarks are erased by the editor ...it is what it is..
-- Posted by Rick* on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 2:37 PM
"It's time to get the federal government out of the insurance business, which they obviously are not good at doing, and get them back to doing the business of government."
Short answer, I disagree, Medicare is the most cost effective insurance program going. It saves about 10% going in because there's no profit raked off the top. Also the admin costs of Medicare are well below those of commercial insurance.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 4:26 PM
Hunter
i'm proberly wrong...i thought Mr.Obama gave a counter proposal after Ryan gave his original proposal .
i've been wrong before and i'll be wrong again..
-- Posted by Rick* on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 4:33 PM
I read the transcript of his 'counter-proposal' and, to the best of my recollection, it amounted to a lengthy discourse on why the Republican plan was wrong, but did not offer much in the line of a detailed alternate.
Common:
The constitution does not empower the government to run an insurance programme. It doesn't matter whether it is efficient (and I do not agree that it is), it is not the job of the federal government to run it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 4:45 PM
Short answer, I disagree, Medicare is the most cost effective insurance program going.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 4:26 PM
It is the most mismanaged program going.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 5:45 PM
Hunter
i believe the Constitution has provisions on commerce . Insurance is a commerce .
where it get's murky , the National Healthcare Act mandates everyone participate in the insurance commerce , a mandate that has never been done to any form of commerce before . whether it is legal or illegal needs to be determined by the Supreme Court . it's a toss up...
the other sticking point , does the Federal Government have the right to control free trade of commerce , and the right to prosper , between states . me-thinks Mr.Obama will not win this one .
-- Posted by Rick* on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 10:22 PM
BC wrote:
"The Constitution gives the Federal Government all the power that it chooses to take without state nullification. The Federal Government interprets the Constitution"
I don't believe anyone can dispute that. I think I'll go back an read again the discussion we had on nullification with that in mind.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, May 16, 2011, at 11:31 PM
If I didn't give in to my inclination to buy the Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan squeeze dolls that were marketed after the maddening TARP swindle...and believe me, I was tempted...I guess I probably won't give in to the Obama doll.
Obama's just a figurehead, anyway, signing tyrannical unconstitutional legislation and signing statements with one Mont Blanc per letter in his name (watch the POTUSes generate souvenirs when they sign bills--what a disgrace, though on a minor scale). It just provides a veneer of propriety. Mega-tomes of legislation written by unseen people, probably in the executive branch, passed without being read by the elected who long ago stopped representing us, while the czars work away and the regulators add to the gazillions of regulations that criminalize all of us for everything--at least, when they decide you're too noisy and inconvenient, and need to be gotten rid of...this distant, unresponsive, unaccountable charade of a government (and that includes Mrs. Emerson) doesn't serve the people OR the states.
Why oh why can't they stick to the Constitution? State sovereignty, anyone? Yes! I'd like some more, please! :)
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 6:28 AM
Rick wrote:
"i believe the Constitution has provisions on commerce . Insurance is a commerce ."
Regulation. The Constitution empowers them to 'regulate' commerce, not to engage in it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 8:38 AM
"... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."
and
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."
Providing for the general welfare appears to adequately cover Medicare and Social Security. Article I, Section 8.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 9:54 AM
Commonsensematters wrote:
"Providing for the general welfare appears to adequately cover Medicare and Social Security. Article I, Section 8."
'General welfare' is not the same as 'individual welfare'. The courts have ruled, for instance, that the police have an obligation to provide a general presence, but cannot be sued if they fail to act on any single individual's complaint. Their 'general' duties do not compel them to provide protection to any single individual, and efforts to do so can actually be detrimental to the general welfare.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 10:02 AM
Hunter
exactly ! it needs to be determined what regulate and engage involves , it's a shady definition to politicians . personally , i don't see how it's legal to mandate people into a certain commerce with the threat of penalty if they refuse .
-- Posted by Rick* on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 10:06 AM
Shapley Hunter and Rick have pretty well handled the rebuttal, but I would just add this: why have Article I, Section 8 at all to enumerate a pretty darn finite list of powers, if General Welfare has some magical elasticity to cover everything?
Read what Madison said in Federalist 10: "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results...."
The protection of the rights of property is the first object of government. There is no need to mention, I don't suppose, that Social Security has been raided by those who promised some sort of "perpetual care," and everyone would likely have fared much better if the central government hadn't intruded into the old age pension business. Nor do we need to belabor any unpleasant facts about Medicare. Government is not some kindly caretaker who will look out for your property as well or better than you will yourself. As George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
The less government we have--just barely enough to enforce contracts, punish fraud, and provide for national defense (not nation building, BTW), the better I'd like it.
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 11:17 AM
Some think general welfare means giving food stamps to the general population.
I think it more meant maintaining governence of keeping kings and dictators and other impedence out of the way of individual freedom.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 11:38 AM
The smallest minority (in this country as well as the rest of the world) is the individual.
I am watching for someone to make an appearance on the political stage for one person who is willing to stand up for the individual. So far I am greatly disappointed!
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 1:07 PM
Frankly, I find the whole political scope of this country a complete joke and sickening! WTH, our country is made up on idiots?
-- Posted by Hot Dog on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 1:22 PM
Where does it all end? At the next election, I hardly think so. Do you idiots even realize that the other countries laugh at us? We are a complete JOKE!
-- Posted by Hot Dog on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 1:23 PM
Greece is still laughing.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 1:33 PM
I lie awake at night worrying about what other countries think of us; sure do.
-- Posted by Acronym on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 2:05 PM
"'General welfare' is not the same as 'individual welfare'. The courts have ruled, for instance, that the police have an obligation to provide a general presence, but cannot be sued if they fail to act on any single individual's complaint."
The general welfare is no more nor less that the collection and composite of all individual welfare.
While the government or police may not be "...sued if they fail to act on any single individual's complaint..." they are liable if they fail to respond to help an individual standing right next to the policeman.
You can express any opinion you want, but that is unlikely to alter the fact that Medicare and social Security will continue in basically the current form. The adjustments necessary to support them will be made to continue to provide for the general welfare.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 3:48 PM
Commonsensematters:
"You can express any opinion you want, but that is unlikely to alter the fact that Medicare and social Security will continue in basically the current form."
I disagree. They cannot continue in the current form. Eventually even the most stubborn supporters will come to realize that, and call for change.
Currently, entitlements eat up well over half of the budget. 'Mandatory' spending consumes every penny of tax dollars we will raise this year. We cannot fix our roads, bridges, waterways, and other duties of government properly because 'entitlements' grow to consume every dollar we raise. When times are good, we enact more entitlements. When times are bad, they grow due to the number of people depending upon them growing. This is unsustainable.
Nor is there enough tax base to be found in the remaining business base to sustain it - increase the tax burden on teh productive much higher, and they will relocate to friendlier climes. Some think we can block this, but not if we are to remain free citizens, rather than subjects. Alter that concept, and you may have a revolution on your hands.
_________________________
"The general welfare is no more nor less that the collection and composite of all individual welfare."
No. It is not. That is a common misconception. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. The government should not, and can not, ensure the welfare of each and every citizen. 'Promote the general welfare' means to provide, to the best of our ability, a climate in which citizens can thrive to the best of their ability. To rob from one in an attempt to elevate the other runs counter to the general welfare.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 4:11 PM
"They cannot continue in the current form. Eventually even the most stubborn supporters will come to realize that, and call for change."
I said "basically" in their current form. Changes in Medicare will include adding up-front co-pays as needed, increasing deductions from payrolls, modifying ages of eligibility, and looking for additional economies of scale, etc.
Social Security will require similar adjustment. Some increases in individual contributions as required, adjustments to ages of eligibility (i.e. say 50% at age 60, 75% at age 65, and 100% at age 70, or some similar combination with the condition that once you sign up you stay at that percentage), or an across the board reduction in amounts paid out.
These are the manner of changes that can and will preserve the intent and success of the programs.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"To rob from one in an attempt to elevate the other runs counter to the general welfare."
The insurance model that underlies both Medicare and Social Security, operates on the premise that all pay in set amounts, and the payout is conditional on the circumstances of the recipients. It is by no means "robbing from one" to pay another. This concept is exactly the same as that used by private insurance, except without the profit motive and higher administrative costs.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 5:12 PM
I will make a prediction, Spaniard/Ike will find something wrong with every candidate that surfaces to run against the cuurrent empty suit in the office of President. It will not matter if this candidate is a Republican, a Libertarian, or an Independant, or what his qualifications are.
Ike is what he is.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 7:23 PM
Oooops,
That last post was meant for "the" Donald thread.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 7:29 PM
"except without the profit motive and higher administrative costs."
...and the freedom to opt out. Hence 'robbing' from those who do not desire to pay into the system, but have to do so anyway.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 9:49 PM
Shapley you were so on the mark in all of your comments on this topic.
I think you said you once ran for public office. That's why you didn't "win."
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 10:28 PM
What insurance company wouldn't love to be able to mandate premium payments from everyone, including those who they know will never draw a penny in benefits. Only the government has that luxury.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 10:30 PM
Thought Criminal,
Grazie!
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 10:31 PM
Commonsense,
I could disagree with you concerning the high administrative costs of an insurance company versus our federal government. Perhaps you could provide some figures or is that just your opinion?
-- Posted by Robert* on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 11:02 PM
Interesting thread of blogs - I'll toss my hat into the ring. Politicians are great at creating problems through regulation, then once the regulation messes everything up they rush in like heroes with legislations, that usually doesn't work either. For example, the housing crisis was caused largely by the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to make sub-standard loans. And the automobile industry was handcuffed to CAFE standards which foreced them to lose money on cars that nobody wanted. But then the government rushes in to save. And in the process penalizes the industry that they'd already handicapped. Where is John Gault?
-- Posted by Stan Crader on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 6:27 AM
"Perhaps you could provide some figures or is that just your opinion?"
The generally accepted figures are that Medicare expends 4 to 6% on administrative costs, perhaps 6 to 8% by other sources. Private insurance costs are reported to run from 14 to 20%. Obviously, on the internet you can find a greater range of claims and opinions than appear in these columns. Also some of the comparisons mix in Medicare Advantage which is private. The Heritage Foundation claims that on a cost per person basis, it is somewhere around $500 for Medicare and $450 for commercial insurance. I am naturally somewhat skeptical of their numbers because they are paid to support conservative causes. But even their numbers make some sense because private insurers have the objective of covering healthy younger people while Medicare covers older, sicker people.
But simply comparing Medicare and private insurance companies logically, you realize that Medicare has no advertising costs, no profit motive or expense, a simple method of collecting premiums, a huge clientele over which to spread costs, and significant reserves with which to smooth out peaks and valleys in revenue.
Private insurers on the other hand, have all of the above costs, which may be why in some cases, they split territory in order to lessen competition. They also have a strong profit motive which drives them to deny coverage where they can, and dump individuals that are costing them too much. This turbulence in consumers is another factor that adds to their administrative costs.
My personal experience with Medicare over the past couple of years has been exceptionally good. Bills are taken care of, if co-pays are required, I pay them, premiums are deducted automatically. If the costs or co-pays were to increase, it would still be a highly satisfactory means of providing for medical care.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 8:02 AM
...and it still ignores the fact that rising costs of medical care are not being addressed. Financing overpriced products does not make them more affordable - as we've seen with the recent housing debacle.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 8:20 AM
How about considering the possibility that rising costs of medical care are driven by insurance companies willingly paying them, because they pass through all costs to the consumer. It's likely that a private imsurance company may make $50 on a $500 procedure, but make $500 on a $5000 procedure with zero extra effort on their part.
That is all the more reason to dump the entire insurance model for medical treatment and go to a single payer.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 8:35 AM
Where does it all end? At the next election, I hardly think so. Do you idiots even realize that the other countries laugh at us? We are a complete JOKE!
-- Posted by BTW on Tue, May 17, 2011, at 1:23 PM
well , this idiot couldn't care less what other countries think of the USA , they can bite me .
-- Posted by Rick* on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 9:11 AM
commonsensematters
i'm not sure how an Insurance agent or company can reduce the costs of rising medical care .
Band-Aids are still going to be $20 a piece in the hospitals , a ball of cotton $10 bucks ...$100 dollars for a nurse to give a patient a shot , this doesn't include the medications , just the act of labor . a ten minute C-SCAN goes around $800 bucks or so ...
until these expotential costs are brought under control , it won't matter if we have a one payer system of not .
-- Posted by Rick* on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 9:18 AM
Thanking Obama for killing Bin Laden is like going to McDonald's and thanking Ronald McDonald for the hamburger. It's the guy cooking the burger that should get the credit, not the clown
-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 11:39 AM
-- Posted by fightingindian on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 6:27 AM
I agree, well stated.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 11:49 AM
"How about considering the possibility that rising costs of medical care are driven by insurance companies willingly paying them, because they pass through all costs to the consumer. It's likely that a private imsurance company may make $50 on a $500 procedure, but make $500 on a $5000 procedure with zero extra effort on their part."
Insurance companies have been leading the charge to lower health care costs. They do not charge premiums per procedure, so your theory makes no sense. For example, I may get an MRI, the insurance company will prefer that I get my MRI from clinic 'A' instead of Hospital 'B', because clinic 'A' will charge $800, and hospital 'B' will charge $3,000. What incentive will they have to steer me to the more expensive treatment?
_______________
"That is all the more reason to dump the entire insurance model for medical treatment and go to a single payer."
You mean dump the model you are touting as being so successfully employed by Medicare?
_______________
Insurance exists because health care costs were rising. Originally, they offered a hedge against the catastrophic costs of hospitalization and/or emergency care. As the costs of routine care rose, the idea of insuring against those came into being, as well.
It really makes no sense to pay heavy premiums to cover the cost of routine care, but insurance regulations prevent the selling of catastrophic-only coverage in many markets. This is because the insurance companies cannot make a profit if only those who use the services insure against them.
This is not unlike the government's use of taxation to force premiums from people who otherwise might opt not to pay them. The insurance companies can't force people to buy their product, at least they could't before Obamacare, but they can use their leverage to get the government to restict the competitions' ability to offers sensible alternatives.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 12:06 PM
"What incentive will they have to steer me to the more expensive treatment?"
There is none, however what if they base their premiums on possibly of having to pay for the $3000 treatment. Do they then give you a rebate for having had the $800 clinic treatment? I would say not, that's another way that they make their money.
-------------------------------------
"You mean dump the model you are touting as being so successfully employed by Medicare?"
In the long term, exactly. Eventually the country will come around to realizing that this is the only logical way to go.
----------------------------------------
You claim "Insurance exists because health care costs were rising." I would maintain that health care costs are rising because insurance exists.
-----------------------------------------
"...but insurance regulations prevent the selling of catastrophic-only coverage in many markets."
That I have never heard of, whose regulations? Early insurance like Blue Cross-Blue Shield was all about catastrophic and hospitalization coverage. That is what we could go back to.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 12:46 PM
There is none, however what if they base their premiums on possibly of having to pay for the $3000 treatment. Do they then give you a rebate for having had the $800 clinic treatment? I would say not, that's another way that they make their money.
-------------------------------------
Wouldn't that be where the $3000 place would lower it's price to stay in the market, thus driving down costs?
A single provider system rather it be private or public gives no reason for suppiers not to charge more. The profit of the middle man saved goes directly to the supplier with no incentive to be competitive. IMO
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 1:06 PM
"You mean dump the model you are touting as being so successfully employed by Medicare?"
In the long term, exactly. Eventually the country will come around to realizing that this is the only logical way to go.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
if this were the best answer , there would be no 'Eventually realizing' ...people would know right off the get-go...
-- Posted by Rick* on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 1:17 PM
"In the long term, exactly. Eventually the country will come around to realizing that this is the only logical way to go."
At which point we will cease to be a free market, capitalism-based society.
"You claim "Insurance exists because health care costs were rising." I would maintain that health care costs are rising because insurance exists."
Why would insurance have come into existince if health costs were affordable? Who would have bought it, and why?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 1:58 PM
"...people would know right off the get-go..."
Most people do know that single payer is the most efficient and effective system. It is politicians and insurance companies that are obviously against it.
And as most of us realize, the best way for the American people is not always the best way for the American political system and the tremendous number of commercial and lobbying enterprises that are married to the status quo.
If we could simply go with the recognized "best way," we'd be done with the electoral college, gerrymandered districts, an out of whack tax code, bribery through campaign contributions, partisan political parties, etc., etc.
Sadly, identifying the best way does not necessarily make it so.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 2:08 PM
"Why would insurance have come into existince if health costs were affordable? Who would have bought it, and why?"
My guess is that it came into being as insurance companies sought new markets, offered new services, and sold it to the public.
A parallel example is becoming more evident as companies begin offering "car repair" policies. You've probably seem the ads, "Never pay for car repairs again!!!"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 2:13 PM
"...but insurance regulations prevent the selling of catastrophic-only coverage in many markets."
That I have never heard of, whose regulations? Early insurance like Blue Cross-Blue Shield was all about catastrophic and hospitalization coverage. That is what we could go back to.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 12:46 PM
I would happily go back to this model and pay for my regular doctor visits out of pocket. I think you'd see costs go way down if we could go back to this. I think the truth is somewhere in between "medical costs bad, insurance good" and vice versa. Extra people have had to be employed by doctors and hospitals to deal with all the paperwork of insurance, including medicare. This makes the cost go up. Insurance, in the past, was willing to pay whatever the charge was which will allow artificial inflation of the charges. Combine these things and "we the people" get screwed.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 2:21 PM
Most people do know that single payer is the most efficient and effective system. It is politicians and insurance companies that are obviously against it.
Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 2:08 PM
If that single payer is the end user, I would agree. Just let me have my premiums and I'll pay for my visits. Don't go into catastrophic illnesses, because this system worked for many years.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 2:27 PM
"A parallel example is becoming more evident as companies begin offering "car repair" policies. You've probably seem the ads, "Never pay for car repairs again!!!"
Which also came into being because of the rising costs of car repair.
"It is politicians and insurance companies that are obviously against it."
It is everyone who believes in the free market and limited government that should be against it.
People have begun to buy into the idea that they are owed access to other peoples' monies to pay the bills they incur. Naturally, if you promise people free health care, you're going to have takers. Once you've given them a taste of it, there's Hell to pay to get rid of it. People are 'dependent' upon it because they've taken the monies they would otherwise spend on health care and/or insurance premiums on other things, and think they can no longer afford to pay for them themselves.
They also think the monies they've paid to provide others with 'free' health care is some sort of guaranteed investment that future generations will, and should, pay for theirs.
Government is not opposed to the idea, they are trying to force a reluctant public into accepting it as "the only logical way to go", by wrecking the alternative - a free market health care delivery network. You can hardly call what we have 'free market', yet they point to its failures as a failure of the 'free market'. I can see you've fallen for it.
Then, there's that pesky Constitution, with the constant risk that some judge, somewhere, will actually read it and realize that the authority to run an insurance scam is not granted to the federal government. If the courts uphold that, then what? Change the Constitution? Turn it half-way over to the states to run, as they do Medicaid, with the government using its control of funding to pull the strings? Do as the Greeks sometimes do and toss out democracy in favour of tyranny so we can get things done without being hampered by process?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 2:28 PM
"A parallel example is becoming more evident as companies begin offering "car repair" policies. You've probably seem the ads, "Never pay for car repairs again!!!"
Which also came into being because of the rising costs of car repair.
"It is politicians and insurance companies that are obviously against it."
It is everyone who believes in the free market and limited government that should be against it.
People have begun to buy into the idea that they are owed access to other peoples' monies to pay the bills they incur. Naturally, if you promise people free health care, you're going to have takers. Once you've given them a taste of it, there's Hell to pay to get rid of it. People are 'dependent' upon it because they've taken the monies they would otherwise spend on health care and/or insurance premiums on other things, and think they can no longer afford to pay for them themselves.
They also think the monies they've paid to provide others with 'free' health care is some sort of guaranteed investment that future generations will, and should, pay for theirs.
Government is not opposed to the idea, they are trying to force a reluctant public into accepting it as "the only logical way to go", by wrecking the alternative - a free market health care delivery network. You can hardly call what we have 'free market', yet they point to its failures as a failure of the 'free market'. I can see you've fallen for it.
Then, there's that pesky Constitution, with the constant risk that some judge, somewhere, will actually read it and realize that the authority to run an insurance scam is not granted to the federal government. If the courts uphold that, then what? Change the Constitution? Turn it half-way over to the states to run, as they do Medicaid, with the government using its control of funding to pull the strings? Do as the Greeks sometimes do and toss out democracy in favour of tyranny so we can get things done without being hampered by process?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 2:29 PM
Sorry for the double post!
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 2:30 PM
Theorist wrote:
"...there is something morally suspect in people prospering over other peoples pain."
Doctors, florists, morticians, and tombstone makers all do so, sans indignation. Why the selective outrage?
Who are you saying is 'prospering' over people's pain. All I'm saying is that bills should be paid by those who incur them.
____________
"Your free market Utopian society is idealistic and impractical."
Yet Adams Smith's ideology survives, while the number of Marxist countries relegated to the ash-heap of history mounts...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 3:27 PM
Other's prospering over people's pain include businesses that sell items to rebuild after catastrophy, overnight accomodations when used in conjunction with a death in family or residence fire. Let's get outraged over this too. It's unfair that I should have to pay because of an act of God. Of course, I am being sarcastic. The entitlement mentality is childish and needs to be eradicated. This will take some time as there has been a generation or more that has seen it in action.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 3:43 PM
You guys are just begging for a "Need", "Greed" or "Pure Intentions" speech.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 3:53 PM
"People have begun to buy into the idea that they are owed access to other peoples' monies to pay the bills they incur."
This is no different than private insurance. All members pay premiums, some individuals get sick and have their treatment paid for by a combination his and other members money. That's how insurance works.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 4:12 PM
"This is no different than private insurance."
You haven't been paying attention. It is entirely different. Private insurance is, or was before Obamacare, a free choice.
It is the difference between giving your money tocharity and having it taken at gunpoint. It is a very big difference.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 4:19 PM
No one is 'owed' insurance. It is, or was, a financial service offered by insurance companies to qualified individuals. interested in purchasing it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 4:20 PM
Why thank you Ike. But really no genius ability required to figure that out.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 4:21 PM
"Then, there's that pesky Constitution, with the constant risk that some judge, somewhere, will actually read it and realize that the authority to run an insurance scam is not granted to the federal government."
Single payer is no different than Medicare. All medical services are provided by free enterprise. All that's gone are those pesky insurance companies the absorb hundreds of billions of dollars each year unnecessarily.
Providing for the general welfare per Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 4:29 PM
"It is, or was, a financial service offered by insurance companies to qualified individuals. interested in purchasing it."
That's all well and good, but it still does not alter the fact that insurance companies pool the monies from all of their members and pay for medical services for those members that require medical treatment. If that is not dipping into somebody else's pocket to pay your bills, I don't know what is. The fact that it's a private business, and done voluntarily is immaterial.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 4:43 PM
"The fact that it's a private business, and done voluntarily is immaterial."
No. It's not. It is the essence of the entire debate. They choose members based on qualifications, exclude members who are virtually guaranteed to cost more than they pay, and adjust their premiums based on the risk of the members. If members don't like the package, they can withdraw from the pool.
They enroll in the programme because they see an advantage to doing so and, if that advantage is lost, they can drop out. There is nothing 'immaterial' about that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 4:48 PM
Medicare, as a part of the Social Security Act, was upheld as constitutional only on the grounds of it being a legitimate use of the taxation powers of the government. The government, in fact, argued specifically that it was not insurance.
The court, in upholding the act, merely argued that it was 'too late' to debate the issue of whether it was justified. 'Too late', it seems, because if they debated it, FDR was going to stack the court to have it decided in his favour.
The idea has not been breached since, because the 'entitled' have become so entrenched in society that it is considered morally indefensible to question their entitlement. It is a worthy topic for debate boards such as this, but the Congress works dilligently to 'Bork' any potential judge who might actually take a constitutionalist view of the programme.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 4:58 PM
Going back to the basics, when government interference in free enterprize enticed business to offer fringe benefits of insurance products that paid for medical service, the employees had no concern of the fee charged since anything over a deductable came out of the insurance companies pocket.
That along with more services possible due to advancements in procedures and treatments started the snowball effect of rising health care costs.
The more and higher priced sevices the insurance companies pays for, the higher the premium needed to support the program.
Government answer is to meddle more in the free enterprize system with regulation that evolves into thinking that employers owe it to employees to provide insurance.
In my opinion, if everyone was responsible for there own medical care, the price of medical service would drop and insurance for those that chose to buy it would become more affordable.
Consider this question: Is the price of furniture too high because there are too many companies renting furniture by the week? That is as valid a comparision as medical cost to car repair costs.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 5:25 PM
"They choose members based on qualifications, exclude members who are virtually guaranteed to cost more than they pay, and adjust their premiums based on the risk of the members."
Again you're pointing out that they are members of a pool. Whether or not the company kicks people out or not they still all pay in and the company pays out when an individual has medical treatment. That person receives benefits in excess of what he paid in therefore his treatment is being paid for by the other members, just like in Medicare.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"The government, in fact, argued specifically that it was not insurance."
This is an extract from Social Security History
- - - - - - - - -
The 1965 Advisory Council on Social Security
Summary of Findings
II. HOSPITAL INSURANCE FOR OLDER PEOPLE AND THE DISABLED
The Council proposes hospital insurance protection for those 65 or over and for disabled social security beneficiaries as follows:
1. Inpatient Hospital Benefits.-The proposed hospital insurance for people age 65 or over and the disabled should cover a number of days sufficient to meet the cost of inpatient hospital services for the full stay of almost all beneficiaries.
2. Outpatient Hospital Diagnostic Services. Payment under the program should be made for the costs of outpatient hospital diagnostic services furnished beneficiaries.
3. Deductibles.-Hospitalized beneficiaries should pay a deductible equal to the cost of one-half day of care--$20 at the program's beginning. In the case of beneficiaries who are provided outpatient diagnostic services, this deductible amount should be applied for each 30-day period during which diagnostic services are provided.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I would say it would be rather hard for the Government to argue that Medicare is not insurance. In spite of whatever was said later, Medicare clearly fulfills the "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." test.
And we've probably dragged this out long enough.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 8:42 PM
"Again you're pointing out that they are members of a pool. Whether or not the company kicks people out or not they still all pay in and the company pays out when an individual has medical treatment. That person receives benefits in excess of what he paid in therefore his treatment is being paid for by the other members, just like in Medicare."
Again, you ignore the voluntary nature of it.
Let's make it simple. Let us say my neighbor's home is devastated by the flood. I run into him on the street and, moved by pity, I give him the money I have on my person. A voluntary effort on my part.
Now, let's say instead that my neighbor's home is devastated by the flood. He meets me on the street, pulls a gun, and demands all the money I have on my person. A non-voluntary effort on my part.
By your logic, there is no difference - the money in my pocket gets into the hands of someone worse off than myself. The petty matter of his using a gun, notwithstanding, it was an act of charity on my part. I disagree.
I have a hard time believing you don't recognize the difference. I am inclined to believe that, as was said of me in another thread, you hate to lose and thus, even though you have backed yourself into a corner defending the indefensible, you refuse to yield. As you wish. I'll accept that, even though you probably see the error of your argument, you cannot pull yourself to concede, and I'll declare a truce... :)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 8:58 PM
"...you probably see the error of your argument, you cannot pull yourself to concede, and I'll declare a truce... :)"
I don't see any error (rather that robbing someone to pay for flood damage, I'm paying for a service) but I also agree with your truce.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 9:14 PM
"If you can't see the difference it is not worth pointing it out, you would either not comprehend or choose to ignore."
In other words, you have no answer as to why insurance should be considered differently, but you won't admit that...
insurance provides a service. People buy it voluntarily (at least they did before Obamacare). They know the rules - they pay premiums for eventual payouts they may or may not need. In exchange for offering this service, the insurance company makes a profit. It's pretty simple. So, why the moral outrage over this particular service?
Doctors, hospitals, clinics, are the ones who set the fees, not the insurance. You know this, but the current Democrat line is to demonize insurance, and you follow that line. You cannot justify it, you just repeat it.
People say they want medical bills lowered. Insurance tried to do that, and was demonized for it as 'denying coverage' and as 'jacking up co-pays'. Insurance companies created HMO's, saying, in essence, we'll pay more of your health care if you'll take better care of yourself, and if you'll use services that agree to charge less. That wasn't popular, not at all.
The people don't know what they want - they just know they want somebody else to pay for it. That's what it's all about.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 9:24 PM
Single payer is no different than Medicare.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 4:29 PM
Medicare gives doctors so much to spend on a procedure and that is it. If they go over that amount it either is paid by the consumer or a supplement. If you need a heart echo (as I did) you won't get it. They will just rely on a fuzzy picture to guess by. Good luck. There is nobody to be held responsible but with insurance there is. Also as we know gov. is not any good at keeping costs down.
You will start seeing a sharp decline in care, services and innovations. The moochers will be going to the doc's for hangnails while the workers that pay their bills for them have to wait in a long line and get inferior care. This is all for the general welfare of the moocher class as common says.
Just look at the Canadian system.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 10:31 PM
If I pay for my own healthcare, I am in charge of all decisions concerning my healthcare. The only limit to what healthcare I may receive is how much I can afford.
If I purchase insurance, I transfer responsibility for my healthcare to that same insurance company. In return for paying for my healthcare that insurance company makes decisions concerning which procedures are covered and how much they are willing to pay for these procedures. If I desire more healthcare than the company provides, I have the option of purchasing a different policy or paying cash for the procedures I desire.
If I depend on the government to provide my healthcare, I transfer responsibility to that same government. Bureaucrats are empowered to make decisions concerning my health care. They decide which procedures I qualify for and have the power to deny 'unnecessary' or 'unwarranted' treatment.
Do I really want to rely on government bureaucrats to make my healthcare decisions for me? We complain when insurance companies deny coverage; who are we going to complain to when government bureaucrats deny treatment?
-- Posted by Robert* on Wed, May 18, 2011, at 10:51 PM
the Government can't balance a budget , they have no business trying to run hospitals ...
-- Posted by Rick* on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 4:58 AM
"Do I really want to rely on government bureaucrats to make my healthcare decisions for me?"
This appears to be a hypothetical question, and I would simply ask, "Who are these "government bureaucrats" and where are they?" My answer is they are not there!
Here is a straightforward, real world answer, put in simple sentences so no one has problems understanding.
In 1967 I entered the US Air Force and served for 24 years until 1991. During that period my family and I received all of our health care from the government. It was provided by government doctors and nurses in government owned and operated clinics and hospitals. There were no "government bureaucrats" involved in any fashion at any time. We received excellent care throughout that period by the government.
From 1992 to 2009 I received medical care through the government's CHAMPUS and Tricare. Both of these are government run programs that are basically single payer systems. My retired military ID card and my wife's worked as "insurance" cards to pay for services. There were deductibles and co-pays that I paid separately. I never saw or heard from any "government bureaucrat." The only people involved in our medical decisions were the various doctors and hospitals we chose to use. Tricare has set rates for a range of treatments.
Since 2009 we have had Medicare as the primary insurer, and Tricare as secondary. We have had no problems or issues with Medicare. We choose our own doctors and they make all medical recommendations and decisions. There are no "government bureaucrats" involved in any way.
In 42 years of having received government administered health care, and have yet to see or hear from any "government bureaucrat." So while some may have fantasy fears about "government bureaucrats" I can reassure some that their alarm is unjustified.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 8:12 AM
BC, "Glenn Beck is your man."
I don't get it.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 9:37 AM
I believe Glen Beck is a product that has evolved to fill a need for some folks.
He would have also been well suited for the ministry. Would not have paid nearly so well though.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 9:41 AM
Wheels, He must be doing something right to get the libs fired up and noisey enough for FOX to cancel his show.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 9:49 AM
True Old John,
And I can go along with some of his stuff, but I have a real problem believing he is genuine in sll that he preaches. Maybe he is... I don't know.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 9:59 AM
Now I get it. Theorist is either correct or wrong but never right! :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 10:04 AM
Theorist would not be caught dead being "right"!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 10:07 AM
Add Ike to "Would not be caught dead being "right".
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 11:33 AM
Obamacare if carried out to its ultimate end will result in government control of healthcare. Individuals are promised that 'if you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan'. This is about half true. No government entity is going to force those satisfied with their health care to change anything. However, they will regulate businesses, insurance companies, and health care providers until they change their procedures. Consumers will become dis-satisfied with these plans and change or their employers will find company plans too expensive and dump their employees on the government plan.
When government has put enough private health care providers/insurance companies out of business it will come in, pick up the pieces, and impose their solution. As commonsense posted, he has been satisfied with his healthcare provided through the military and then Medicare. I am glad of that. Our military should be well-provided for. However, when there is no private supplier of healthcare available to the general public the balance that private competition provides for the consumer will be gone.
Mr. Obama is in favor of one payer (government controlled) healthcare. He was not able to pass this. However, he was able to get passed a system which is designed to gradually impose government run healthcare on all of us. If/when that comes to pass, there will be no competition allowed, and the quality of care will decrease. This is already happening around us.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, May 19, 2011, at 11:56 AM
Menu
Hurry up folks and get you Obama seal action doll. Teach the children it was really he that took out Osama with his heroic assault on the compound. He's the man!
http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/120296/obama_seal_doll_is_a
Replies (147)