Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Speech (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: The Speech
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Joe Wilson called him out on the illegal aliens lie, that was good. When the president is being blatantly dishonest he should be called out. For those that don't know or simply accept everything Obama says as true, let's break that one down. The legislation does say it will not fund illegal aliens *but* the legislation also prevents anyone from checking on the citizenship status of any person seeking healthcare. This is very artful deceit, Obama has it both ways here and you have to actually know what's going on in order to see that falsehood here.

FactCheck.org has repeatedly debunked this. Link and link.

quote:
False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.
Since the bill explicitly states that illegal aliens cannot be given Federal payments, section 152 does not apply (edit: or it does apply but doesn't prevent officials from checking citizenship status).

[ September 10, 2009, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: threads ]

Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the link, threads. Its funny; Obama was actually the one who called Wilson out on HIS lie; you can hear him say, after Wilson's outburst, simply "thats not true." Wilson apologized this morning, but stopped short of conceding the point.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Joe Wilson called him out on the illegal aliens lie, that was good. When the president is being blatantly dishonest he should be called out. For those that don't know or simply accept everything Obama says as true, let's break that one down. The legislation does say it will not fund illegal aliens *but* the legislation also prevents anyone from checking on the citizenship status of any person seeking healthcare. This is very artful deceit, Obama has it both ways here and you have to actually know what's going on in order to see that falsehood here.

We don't ask stores to check citizenship when people buy things off the shelf either. Should we start doing that now to preven illegal aliens from buying services?

Your accusation falshood here is only valid in the context of a bigger lie that federal funding would be involved in the first place. No one will be able to prevent them from buying a private insurance plan on the exchange, sure. That doesn't mean they'll suddenly be available for income based subsidies, because that- the part that does invovle federal funds- does, in fact require at least being a legal resident (and hopefully not more than that, because otherwise many perfectly people who are here and working perfectly legally will get shafted)

quote:
Obama once again said he would not force the government option on anyone *but* the current bill provides a rather strong incentive for private employers to dump their employees onto the government plan and if an employee switches jobs, they must get on a government approved plan and then can never get off it. So as long as you stay with one employer not willing to dump you onto the government plan, Obama is telling the truth but that ruth has the standard Obama expiration date. As H.R. 3200 is currently written, the sale of insurance by private companies is outlawed by 2013. Again, another very artful lie.
No, again, you're basing your argument on a bigger lie. If there is a government plan, no one can be dumped on it. At worst companies can choose to use the exchange instead of working our a narrow set of non-portable deals with insurers. They can give an employee contribution toward purchasing any plan from the exchange, just like they do toward those private deals, but now their employees can choose from _any_ private option or the government plan, if that makes it through.

And yes, it will be illegal for insurance companies to pick off individual coustmers with single person plans so that they can inflate the rates based on the current divide and conquer tactics. That's just common sense there.

quote:
Obama also claimed that this $900 billion plan will not add to the deficit and will be paid for it without tax increases. Here he's depending on you being too stupid and/or ideologically driven to understand.
$900 billion over 10 years. A significant chunk of which is the $245 billion Medicare patch that's going to be passed in any case, because it would be political suicide for most representatives to block it. So that's a frontloaded average of $90 billion a year, which is not nearly as difficult to deal with, plus triggers to force money to be pulled from other areas of the revenue streams and overall savings don't manifest.

quote:
He says he can make up the cost by reforming health care. Why not try that out first Barry?
Because the whole point is to not have to sit on out thumbs for another decade or two waiting for little feel-good patches to work. Especailly when we've got a pretty simple system that's the tried and tested for ages that can be put in place now.

quote:
quote:
That’s part of the President’s problem. He did not overcome his biggest obstacle last night, which is the common sense understanding of the American people. You cannot give better coverage to those who have insurance, put millions people more into the system, pay for it by ending waste and abuse, claim you will lower health care costs, create a government-run exchange, include government health care coverage and not spend a dime -- all at the same time. That’s a fairy tale.

That source is misleading. He didn't say that it wouldn't cost anything, and he explicitly spelled out some of the revenue sources. Also, since 20-30% of the money in the current system goes into overhead and dividends, you can absolutely expect to bring costs down once you actually force competition into the market. Putting millions of people into the system will inherently save money because risk pooling is the fundamental principle on which all insurance works. The more people you have, the lower everyones costs are because the few high costs are more broadly distributed.

quote:
On funding abortions:
quote:
He [Obama] said that the plan won’t fund abortions. But it will. In fact, the Democrats specifically cut out of the legislation clear language to prevent funding of abortions. Moreso, the Hyde Amendment, which Barack Obama hides behind, would not apply to this legislation because the Hyde Amendment only applies to Department of Health and Human Services appropriations and, get this, the Democrats have decided that healthcare expenditures will not be in the HHS budget. Therefore, abortions will be paid for.

This is definitely fast talk on his part. Federal funds will not go to abortions, sure. That's because it's easy to ensure that the insurance companies tweak their accounting so that any funding for abortions comes from private premium payments and not from public subsidies. It's absurd that even that much of a platitude needs to be offered for necessary care, but that's a different debate entirely.

quote:
Obama accused anyone opposed to the Democrat's plan of not offering any ideas of their own - simply untrue. Congressional Republicans have a comprehensive reform bill in committee and had copies of it in the chamber when Obama gave his speech. Several Republican members in the chamber held up the bills they’ve introduced while Obama said that. that was a downright stupid lie although he can count on it not being reported in the MSM so it's a calculated stupidity.
I'd love to see Wyden-Bennet get more attention- it fully shifts insurance to individuals from employers and has many other better implementations. But you'll notice that the Republicans only seem to actually try to talk about such legislation as a defense to this particular argument; no one hears a peep about it otherwise. It's a pretty transparent ploy overall.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2, in regards to your last post: good job. It was articulate, specific, used quotes and sources, and was well-reasoned.

I admit that I enjoy mocking you for (what I perceive as) your partisan bias and badly-reasoned posts, but there is nothing worth mocking in that post. To properly respond to it requires thought, reason and a bit of research. Just what I like to see on this board.

Good post!

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Obama accused anyone opposed to the Democrat's plan of not offering any ideas of their own - simply untrue

You are correct: it is simply untrue that Obama said this in the speech. Why not point out where you think he did say that? The exact words, if you could.

He did, however, mention that people on both sides of the aisle have valuable opinions on the subject:
quote:
We've seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform.

<snip>

And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen, from Democrats and Republicans -- and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election

<snip>

This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should all embrace it.

<snip>

for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring.


Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Joe Wilson called him out on the illegal aliens lie, that was good. When the president is being blatantly dishonest he should be called out. For those that don't know or simply accept everything Obama says as true, let's break that one down. The legislation does say it will not fund illegal aliens *but* the legislation also prevents anyone from checking on the citizenship status of any person seeking healthcare. This is very artful deceit, Obama has it both ways here and you have to actually know what's going on in order to see that falsehood here.
This falsehood appears to be a falsehood, however. As PoliFact says:

quote:
FAIR has a point that illegal immigrants would likely be able to buy insurance on the national health insurance exchange. We don't see anything in the bills that would hinder that. A Congressional Research Service report issued Aug. 25, 2009, confirmed our observation. The House bill "does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchange—whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently," the report said.

But it's worth pointing out that illegal immigrants participating in the exchange would be paying for their insurance like everyone else. That's similar to the current system -- we're not aware of any particular restrictions that stop illegal immigrants from buying private insurance now. Under health care reform, illegal immigrants would be able to buy private insurance or the public option.

When we look at all of this evidence, it seems that health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants.

In fact:

quote:
One place where the bill does mention immigration status is for "affordability credits." These are tax credits for people of modest means need to buy health insurance. The credits would help them buy insurance on a national health insurance exchange. The bill specifically says that people in the United States illegally are not eligible for tax credits, on page 132, section 242.
Which only leaves:

quote:
The best argument that we find that health reform would help illegal immigrants is that some might be able to purchase the public option -- if it passes, and it might not -- on the new health insurance exchange. They would purchase that at full cost.
So only if a public option occurs, and it is subsidized by the tax-payer, would any benefits be given to illegal immigrants under the current plan. Otherwise, illegal immigrants will be no more insured than they will be under our current system. Unless you consider requiring immigrants to have insurance (assuming they will have the same requirement as the rest of us), and paying for it themselves, as "insuring them." [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ornery said earlier in this thread, "More than a quarter of the uninsured are foreign-born. By Census Bureau estimates, about 10 million uninsured are not citizens and half of them are illegal immigrants." If the Census Bureau is claiming that correctly, either the number of illegal aliens is much smaller than I had thought, or a large proportion of them do have health insurance. Does anyone know which is the case?
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A large proportion have health insurance. From my first link:
quote:
So, where does King get his 5.6 million figure? His press release says that the CBO projected that the uninsured would include 14.1 million illegal immigrants in 2019. The CBO’s analysis of the House health care bill estimates that in 2019, 17 million would remain uninsured “nearly half of whom would be unauthorized immigrants.” This is where math comes in: Taking the 14.1 million illegal immigrants in 2019 and subtracting half of 17 million (8.5 million) gets you … 5.6 million illegal immigrants that have suddenly gained coverage, right? Actually, no. About half of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have health care coverage now.

Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tend to look at this from an engineering perspective. Software development is quite complicated. Changes must be considered carefully before they are made. It is wise to change one interface at a time, and to verify functionality before proceeding.

One major objection to the Obama plan is that it is a plan that should be implemented over a period of 10-20 years, in a slow methodical fashion. It should be evaluated after each small change to see the effect (and side effects) of these changes. Instead they seem intent on setting speed records to enact legislation - doubtless due to the impending 2010 election.

If they're going to try social engineering, they should at least approach it as an engineering discipline!

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The system has been tested by large employers for decades now. There's nothing dramatically new here, except that it's being mad available to people not lucky enough to have a large employer. And we can already observe the general success of such a system on a broader scale in Switzerland and the Netherlands.

What pieces exactly would you break out to test separately anyway? By and large it is one piece- the health care exchange which functions, as I noted above, exactly like a large employer health plan, except that it's portable and it includes all possible competitors.

If you were on a sinking ship, would dis down at a drafting desk and start designing a better ship, or would you go ahead and use one of the already existing lifeboats?

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FiredrakeRAGE:
I tend to look at this from an engineering perspective. Software development is quite complicated. Changes must be considered carefully before they are made. It is wise to change one interface at a time, and to verify functionality before proceeding.

One major objection to the Obama plan is that it is a plan that should be implemented over a period of 10-20 years, in a slow methodical fashion. It should be evaluated after each small change to see the effect (and side effects) of these changes. Instead they seem intent on setting speed records to enact legislation - doubtless due to the impending 2010 election.

If they're going to try social engineering, they should at least approach it as an engineering discipline!

Yes but if the new function you're adding only works with a second new function then both must be implemented at the same time.

If health insurance companies have to cover preexisting conditions for all individuals purchasing health insurance, not just for individuals switching health insurance companies, then there has to be a requirement for individuals to buy health insurance. The two can't really be separated, unless you want to just require us all to buy insurance and get nothing in exchange from the insurance companies. Likewise if you are going to require people to buy insurance then we need real competition in all markets. Hence a national health insurance exchange and a public health insurance option to try to increase competition among providers. A lot of the cost savings come from getting everyone (or most people) insured because we currently pay about $15 billion a year to hospitals for uninsured patients. Stopping those payments is about 15% of the cost of the bill.

There are other minor changes in the bill but I think I covered all the major points.

There is nothing radical about those changes. The changes proposed aren't my first choice but they do have to be implemented together to work.

If you could explain how those changes could effectively spread out over time please enlighten me.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FiredrakeRAGE:
Instead they seem intent on setting speed records to enact legislation - doubtless due to the impending 2010 election.

Right, it must be about the election. And not about the people being denied treatment by their insurance companies, some of whom are dying. It also couldn't be about the fact that 14,000 people lose their insurance on a daily basis (either permanently or temporarily). I wonder if it could be about employer paid premiums rising 119% over the past decade? Or perhaps it's about
the fact that about half of all foreclosures are due to medical problems in some way?

Where could this sense of urgency be coming from?

You're damn skippy its about the election. Any Congressperson blocking dramatic and immediate health reform ought to be handed their walking papers.


http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
http://works.bepress.com/christopher_robertson/2/

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And any congressman enacting legislation that would put us a trillion dollars in debt should be too...

Ed.

Edited to add, since I know I'm gonna hear the "Bush did it too!" war cry: without justifiable cause. The seize up of the financial institutions was far more a pressing problem than this Phantom Health Care Menace...

[ September 12, 2009, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: EDanaII ]

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And what was the pressing problem that leading to the trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bush's prescription drug legislation dwarfs Obama's proposal in cost. I don't recall much outcry from conservatives when that passed.

[ September 13, 2009, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
And any congressman enacting legislation that would put us a trillion dollars in debt should be too...

Ed.

Edited to add, since I know I'm gonna hear the "Bush did it too!" war cry: without justifiable cause. The seize up of the financial institutions was far more a pressing problem than this Phantom Health Care Menace...

Great, except the net 10 year cost of the plan is $239 billion, according to the CBO, @245 billion of which is the Medicare patch, which would easily pass independently. So no worry about trillions of debt here.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
According to Obama, himself: "Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration."


@ MattP:
quote:
Bush's prescription drug legislation dwarfs Obama's proposal in cost. I don't recall much outcry from conservatives when that passed.
If we were worried about the economy, a ballooning deficit and the devaluing of the dollar back in 2003, who says we wouldn't have raised a stink back then? In this economy, the President's actions should be to reduce the deficit, not increase it.


@ Greg Davidson:
quote:
And what was the pressing problem that leading to the trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy?
We need a pressing problem to allow people keep their own money???

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My question was in response to your statement
quote:
The seize up of the financial institutions was far more a pressing problem than this Phantom Health Care Menace...
You seemed to be developing an argument based on the need for a "pressing problem" to justify large financial changes, so I was wondering if that principal extended over a variety of $ trillion decisions that the government made.

[ September 13, 2009, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We need a pressing problem to allow people keep their own money???
At the time, there was multi-trillion dollars of debt. If we don't care about the debt (e.g. would rather have a tax cut than pay down the debt) what's the problem with enacting legislation that might have a trillion dollar cost over 10 years? All that would do is increase the debt.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, then... two wrongs therefore make a right?

(Not that I believe cutting taxes in order to stimulate cash flow is a "wrong.")


@ Greg Davidson

No, I'm not developing such an argument, I'm USING one. The Financial Crisis threatened to bring the economy down, possibly causing something worse than the Great Depression. Is it worth borrowing a trillion to pay for that? Only if its true. Is the notion that some people may lose their health care in the next year -- which Obama conveniantly forgets to mention that it's only for a month or a year -- worth a trillion dollars over the next 10 years? Hardly... it's a Phantom Health Care Menace.

Add to that, the financial institutions that we loaned money to are expected to pay us back with interests, so the net cost is, in theory, somewhere between zero and +1 trillion. What's the expected return on that 1 trillion for health care? I'd like to hear it?

Giving everyone universal coverage is a noble idea, and if it were a practical one, I'd be fully behind it. Unfortunately, it isn't and this Government is already TOO deeply in debt. This must stop and now is the time to start.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Giving everyone universal coverage is a noble idea, and if it were a practical one, I'd be fully behind it. Unfortunately, it isn't
That is the second statement you've made about health care that makes me suspect you are hopelessly out of touch with reality, or hopelessly biased. <-----Blunt.

Numerous nations around the world have managed to get their citizenry universal health coverage that provides health care equivalent to ours, or better, at lower cost to its citizens. You are, therefore, wrong about the practicality of providing universal health coverage.

quote:
What's the expected return on that 1 trillion for health care? I'd like to hear it?
Trillions. Of course, I place economic value on years of life expectancy with improved quality of life. If you don't, then your mileage may vary. Either way, though, more people with health care and more people with better health care means more economic productivity. And, because over time good health care reform would cost people less (taxes+premiums=total spending, which would be reduced if we had reasonable health care in this country) people wwould have more disposable income to spend on either not going bankrupt or goods and services.

[ September 13, 2009, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, I'm not developing such an argument, I'm USING one.
I did not intend to mean something different by "developing" vs. "using" an argument. Instead, I was attempting to test whether you applied your principles only to Obama initiatives or whether you would apply them equally to Bush initiatives. So I therefore selected another Bush era initiative, the tax break for the wealthy, that will increase the National debt by roughly $1 trillion over ten years. Do you agree that Bush had a "pressing problem" that justified the tax cut to the wealthy (and if so, what was it?), or are you selectively applying the argument that you are using (and if so, when is a "pressing problem" needed and when isn't it?).
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Giving everyone universal coverage is a noble idea, and if it were a practical one, I'd be fully behind it. Unfortunately, it isn't"

How can you even say that? What, reality doesn't exist? Freaking ISRAEL can do it, as can every 1st world nation (except South Africa, if you count them as such) but the USA can't?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
According to Obama, himself: "Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration."

That's the gross cost- before accounting for the proposed revenue sources. The absolute cost being that high does not imply that the costs will actually be transferred to the debt or deficit.

quote:
In this economy, the President's actions should be to reduce the deficit, not increase it.
On what logic do you base that? That sounds more like an asserted truism stretched to fit whatever situation is at hand.

Reducing the debt removes currency from the economy. There are only two ways to do it, at that- higher taxes or cutting support for programs that put money into peoples pockets. Either way you're exacerbating the problem, unless there's some greater good being served.

Paying down the debt helps to curb inflation when the market is hot. It builds up more economic latitude to act in hard times. Trying to pay it in hard times only serves to take money away from people and spur deflation on. We learned that lesson pretty solidly from Hoover's dedication to avoiding deficits during his administration, allowing the general economy to continue to decline, rather than allowing the government to us it's credit to help bridge the gap until economic productivity recovered enough to pay back the needed support.


quote:
We need a pressing problem to allow people keep their own money???
That's fully disingenuous there. If we are seeing enough surplus that tax cuts are reasonable, why not focus them on people who need the extra income to survive and/or prosper rather than those who are already so prosperous that the money has little unit value to them and will ultimately keep it pooled out of the active economy?

Why ask people to pay less than their fair share of the cost to support our society, especially when those who can least afford it are paying an amount that's extremely disproportionate to their wealth.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ PSRT:
quote:
That is the second statement you've made about health care that makes me suspect you are hopelessly out of touch with reality, or hopelessly biased. <-----Blunt.
While that is blunt, it's also an ad homynym and self-justifying.

Now, let me show you bluntness without rudeness: Since you've retreated to an ad homynym without addressing my facts, I'd say you just lost this argument.

quote:
Numerous nations around the world have managed to get their citizenry universal health coverage that provides health care equivalent to ours, or better, at lower cost to its citizens. You are, therefore, wrong about the practicality of providing universal health coverage.
Right... and that's why they come here to get their health care, 'cause there's is so GOOD! Not to mention the higher taxes and higher unemployment...

quote:
Trillions. Of course, I place economic value on years of life expectancy with improved quality of life. If you don't, then your mileage may vary. Either way, though, more people with health care and more people with better health care means more economic productivity. And, because over time good health care reform would cost people less (taxes+premiums=total spending, which would be reduced if we had reasonable health care in this country) people wwould have more disposable income to spend on either not going bankrupt or goods and services.
Prove that argument, or I'll label it for the pure baloney that it is...


@ Greg Davidson:
quote:
I did not intend to mean something different by "developing" vs. "using" an argument. Instead, I was attempting to test whether you applied your principles only to Obama initiatives or whether you would apply them equally to Bush initiatives. So I therefore selected another Bush era initiative, the tax break for the wealthy, that will increase the National debt by roughly $1 trillion over ten years. Do you agree that Bush had a "pressing problem" that justified the tax cut to the wealthy (and if so, what was it?), or are you selectively applying the argument that you are using (and if so, when is a "pressing problem" needed and when isn't it?).
Ah, so it IS OK to liberate people from their money for little reason...

I am applying my principles to a very simple paradigm: spend more when you have more, spend less when you have less. Now, in these current times, with high unemployment, what should the government be doing? Cutting the deficit? Or raise taxes to pay for a noble but expensive program?

BTW, reread my argument, your answer is already there, you just happen to be ignoring it.


@ Pyrtollin:
quote:
That's the gross cost- before accounting for the proposed revenue sources. The absolute cost being that high does not imply that the costs will actually be transferred to the debt or deficit.
Gross cost is still money out the door and the cuts the Obama promised will only reduce the gross by a very small amount.

quote:
On what logic do you base that? That sounds more like an asserted truism stretched to fit whatever situation is at hand.
It's called "Common Sense" (tm).

quote:
Reducing the debt removes currency from the economy. There are only two ways to do it, at that- higher taxes or cutting support for programs that put money into peoples pockets. Either way you're exacerbating the problem, unless there's some greater good being served.
Only _destroying money_ removes it from the economy. Reducing the debt removes our obligations to others, and gives you more money for your programs. Once again, this is simple common sense.

quote:
Paying down the debt helps to curb inflation when the market is hot. It builds up more economic latitude to act in hard times. Trying to pay it in hard times only serves to take money away from people and spur deflation on. We learned that lesson pretty solidly from Hoover's dedication to avoiding deficits during his administration, allowing the general economy to continue to decline, rather than allowing the government to us it's credit to help bridge the gap until economic productivity recovered enough to pay back the needed support.
Right, so... I buy a house... for payments of a 1000$ a month, then I pay that debt off... that's not 1000$ extra dollars a month that are now mine to spend as I please? Forget the fact that I no longer have to worry about my creditors breathing down my neck if I lose my job. Once again, you're argument is defying simple common sense.

quote:
That's fully disingenuous there. If we are seeing enough surplus that tax cuts are reasonable, why not focus them on people who need the extra income to survive and/or prosper rather than those who are already so prosperous that the money has little unit value to them and will ultimately keep it pooled out of the active economy?
Ah, so... like others in this thread, you do believe you have a right to other people's money?

quote:
Why ask people to pay less than their fair share of the cost to support our society, especially when those who can least afford it are paying an amount that's extremely disproportionate to their wealth.
Because this is a capitalist country where everyone is supposed to earn their own "fair share?"

You know what they say: give a man a 20 dollars and you feed him for a day, give him a job and you feed him for life.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Love to burst your bubble, ed, but PrST wasn't using ad hominem. He didn't make a judgment of your statement based on his perception of your character; he made a judgment of your character based on your statement.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Ed

quote:
The seize up of the financial institutions was far more a pressing problem than this Phantom Health Care Menace...
quote:
BTW, reread my argument, your answer is already there, you just happen to be ignoring it.
I am looking and I can't find where you address my question. Maybe I just need it explained to me better. But in the first quote seems like you are establishing a principle that "a pressing problem" is needed before a President implements a policy that costs $1T. One possible case that you could be making is that additional spending needs "a pressing problem", but tax cuts do not need a "pressing problem" because it is always better to leave people with more of their income. That is a valid and logical position, but it does imply that you would (a) not care about deficits or total debt as long as taxes were being cut, or (b) assume that the tax cuts at the time Bush made them were okay because the debt wasn't so bad then, or (c) some other answer I can't figure out because it's not clear in what you have written and/or you have stated it clearly and I just can't understand it.

Please enlighten me.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To expand on what kenmeer said, an ad hominem argument is one which attempts to discredit an argument based on the character of the viewer. My statement is that the quality of your information shows a flaw in your character... exactly the opposite of an ad hominem.

Anyone claiming, as you have claimed, that there is not a health care problem in the United States, and that it is not practical to have universal coverage, does not have enough information to be a useful contributor to a discussion on health care.

As to the second part of what you addressed to me: What exactly in there would you like me to demonstrate? That if people live longer healthier lives they will be more economically productive? Or that if people have health care they will live longer healthier lives? I would think neither claim is controversial.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, saying "you are hopelessly out of touch with reality, or hopelessly biased" doesn't sound like you're settingp positioning the argument to dismiss your opponent's position based on his character? Sure sound like it to me.

quote:
Anyone claiming, as you have claimed, that there is not a health care problem in the United States, and that it is not practical to have universal coverage, does not have enough information to be a useful contributor to a discussion on health care.
Re-read. No where do I say that health care is not a problem. What I'm claiming is that Obama is exagerating it into a Phantom Health Care Menace (tm). In terms of danger, it does not compare to the financial seizure we faced last year. If health care fails, you would never see the unemployment you would have if our financial system had failed. And if our financial system had failed, you could pretty much kiss your health care goodbye.

quote:
As to the second part of what you addressed to me: What exactly in there would you like me to demonstrate? That if people live longer healthier lives they will be more economically productive? Or that if people have health care they will live longer healthier lives? I would think neither claim is controversial.
It's a _fine_ theory. But that's all it is, a theory and not one worth the risk, my humble opinion, of course.


@ Greg Davidson:
quote:
Please enlighten me.
Once again, as I pointed out to PSRT, it's simple common sense. Tax cuts should come easily, so should deficit reduction. Tax hikes and increased deficits should only come in times of dire need.

It's really not that hard.

You, on the other hand, are arguing the point as if two wrongs do make a right. You'll forgive me if I don't go there.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"it's also an ad homynym"

What an uncannily apt pun (and candidate for an easy conundrum bonus score?)

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" a) The seize up of the financial institutions was far more a pressing problem than this Phantom Health Care Menace...

b) Anyone claiming, as you have claimed, that there is not a health care problem in the United States,

c) Re-read. No where do I say that health care is not a problem. What I'm claiming is that Obama is exagerating it into a Phantom Health Care Menace (tm)."

Perhaps you meant to imply that, ed, but you did not say it, but now that you actually *have* said it, I don't understand why you suggest that rereading where you *didn't* say it would add understanding above where you actually *did* say it.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" 1) It's a _fine_ theory. But that's all it is, a theory and not one worth the risk, my humble opinion, of course.

2) Once again, as I pointed out to PSRT, it's simple common sense. Tax cuts should come easily, so should deficit reduction. Tax hikes and increased deficits should only come in times of dire need.

It's really not that hard."

I think 1) applies as well to 2) as it does to 1)'s intended subject.

Sure, we the people prefer not to be taxed. That's almost universally true. But that doesn't mean that it should be harder to raise taxes than to lower them. Taxes are designed to fund things the people need or want. How well that funding answers those needs/wants is variable, of course, hence some taxes being good and others bad (to wax Manichean for a moment), but that assessment is another question than how we feel about being taxed in the first place.

There just *might* be situations where the ability to tax rapidly is vital. Like when Americans worked to pay off the costs of the American revolution.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tax cuts should come easily, so should deficit reduction. Tax hikes and increased deficits should only come in times of dire need.
Okay, here's where I find the logical contradiction. If tax cuts should come easily, and increased deficits should only come in times of dire need, what is the case for tax cuts that cause increased deficits (as every federal tax cut has done in my living memory)? Do they have a dire need to come easily? Please clarify your position.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I say cut ed some slack here: he *did* associate tax hikes with increased deficits, which nicely completes the circle of illogic, don't you think?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
@ Pyrtolin:
quote:
That's the gross cost- before accounting for the proposed revenue sources. The absolute cost being that high does not imply that the costs will actually be transferred to the debt or deficit.
Gross cost is still money out the door and the cuts the Obama promised will only reduce the gross by a very small amount.
Per the CBO, the net cost of the most notable house bill is 239 Billion, of which 245 Billion is the Medicare patch that would pass regardless of the rest of the legislation. And that's over ten years, not a single year, at that.

And the overall individual savings realized plus the additional economic potential created would more than make up for it.

quote:
quote:
On what logic do you base that? That sounds more like an asserted truism stretched to fit whatever situation is at hand.
It's called "Common Sense" (tm).
So no logic whatsoever, just, as I said, asserting something to be true, then using that assertion of proof that it's true.

If you have $10 on hand and $10 in debts, and require $20 to feed yourself, does it make more sense to pay off that $10 debt and starve or to borrow $10 more and wait till you're in a better position to pay down your debt?

Hard economic times require putting priority over the cost to survive and improve ones overall position, not pay down the debt acting as a cushion against them. Debt should be paid down in prosperous times when there is excess with low utility that can be directed to that end.

quote:
quote:
Reducing the debt removes currency from the economy. There are only two ways to do it, at that- higher taxes or cutting support for programs that put money into peoples pockets. Either way you're exacerbating the problem, unless there's some greater good being served.
Only _destroying money_ removes it from the economy. Reducing the debt removes our obligations to others, and gives you more money for your programs. Once again, this is simple common sense.
That assertion ignores the fundamental nature of most of out debt. Through the Federal Reserve, we owe about 50% of it to ourselves. The Fed returns the interest to the Treasury, and when that debt is paid back, it just zeros out the accounts. It doesn't go into anyone else's hands; it is as good as destroying money, because the money was only created in the first place to fund the debt.

And that's not eve getting into the ability to use regular debts as assets against future payment, essentially at least doubling countable wealth while such debts exist.

quote:
quote:
Paying down the debt helps to curb inflation when the market is hot. It builds up more economic latitude to act in hard times. Trying to pay it in hard times only serves to take money away from people and spur deflation on. We learned that lesson pretty solidly from Hoover's dedication to avoiding deficits during his administration, allowing the general economy to continue to decline, rather than allowing the government to us it's credit to help bridge the gap until economic productivity recovered enough to pay back the needed support.
Right, so... I buy a house... for payments of a 1000$ a month, then I pay that debt off... that's not 1000$ extra dollars a month that are now mine to spend as I please? Forget the fact that I no longer have to worry about my creditors breathing down my neck if I lose my job. Once again, you're argument is defying simple common sense.
The game changes when you are your own major creditor. And you're still getting the events out of order. You have the house debt, but also a large amount of equity in it and some cash on hand.

Then you lose your job.

You could make it a little while making the full payments, but it will quickly deplete the resources you need to survive long enough to find a new job. If, on the other hand, you borrow against the equity and arrange for interest only payments until you're employed again, you have a lot more room to not only afford those payments but time and resources to find a new job.

When you have that job, when times are good, it certainly does make absolute sense to pay down the obligations. But it's counterintuitive when you've lost the job and need to find a way to bridge the gap till you find another one.

quote:
quote:
That's fully disingenuous there. If we are seeing enough surplus that tax cuts are reasonable, why not focus them on people who need the extra income to survive and/or prosper rather than those who are already so prosperous that the money has little unit value to them and will ultimately keep it pooled out of the active economy?
Ah, so... like others in this thread, you do believe you have a right to other people's money?
No more than a landlord has a right to ask you for rent and to pay your utility bills (not to mention to make them proportional to the size of the rooms you occupy and your overall usage of said utilities).

quote:
quote:
Why ask people to pay less than their fair share of the cost to support our society, especially when those who can least afford it are paying an amount that's extremely disproportionate to their wealth.
Because this is a capitalist country where everyone is supposed to earn their own "fair share?"
"Let them eat cake", eh? As much as your reply even refers to what I was talking about at all. A capitalist society rewards those who have capital to apply to their endeavors; any segment of the population that is, in one way or another, systemically denied the capital necessary to participate (such as by poverty or otherwise being poor enough that survival costs eclipse their income to such a degree that they cannot establish a basic stake) is unable to earn their fair share to begin with.

Adam Smith even noted this essential flaw that needed to be compensated for.

quote:
You know what they say: give a man a 20 dollars and you feed him for a day, give him a job and you feed him for life.
Small comfort is he starves before payday. You can teach a man in the Sahara how to fish as well, but that's not going to do him as much good as giving him enough fish and water to reach a more hospitable environment.

But even taking what you said- giving people jobs is the entire point. Jobs are created to meet consumer demand; if you want more jobs, more money needs to be put in the hands of the people who will most drive such demand; the lower on the economic scale you go, the more likely that the money will be spent in such a way that it will change hands as many times as possible, necessitating new jobs at every step of the way, before it stagnates at the top again with the people who profit from every exchange on the way up, but have wealth in excess of their ability to maximally utilize it.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can you please demonstrate, Ed, how Obama has blown up the problems with health care substantially beyond the reality?
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ooh ooh ooh! Me first! Me first! Behold:

[Exploding]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Perhaps you meant to imply that, ed, but you did not say it, but now that you actually *have* said it, I don't understand why you suggest that rereading where you *didn't* say it would add understanding above where you actually *did* say it.
You really do need to get a life, Kenmeer...

quote:
There just *might* be situations where the ability to tax rapidly is vital. Like when Americans worked to pay off the costs of the American revolution.
Yes, and my position effectively defines when.


@ Gred Davidson:
quote:
Okay, here's where I find the logical contradiction. If tax cuts should come easily, and increased deficits should only come in times of dire need, what is the case for tax cuts that cause increased deficits (as every federal tax cut has done in my living memory)? Do they have a dire need to come easily? Please clarify your position.
From the very beginning, I compared this situation with _the financial crisis._ Your problem is that you can't reconcile this argument because you're stuck on your straw man about tax breaks and deficit.


@ Pyrtolin:
quote:
But it's counterintuitive when you've lost the job and need to find a way to bridge the gap till you find another one.
So, you spend more to see you through? You increase your budget spending? I don't know about you, but when I lose my job, I decrease my spending. Once again, you are defying common sense.

Sorry to say this, but in my opinion, the rest of your argument is verging on baloney. I'm not even gonna bother with it (like I had the time).


@ PSRT:
quote:
Can you please demonstrate, Ed, how Obama has blown up the problems with health care substantially beyond the reality?
Obama used exaggeration and and left a few facts out in order to make the health care situation seem more dire than it is. Using terms like "breaking point" when no breaking point has been identified yet. He uses terms like "hardship" when health care is not a "hardship." Illness is a hardship. Health care is something you do in response to that hardship.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
@ Pyrtolin:
quote:
But it's counterintuitive when you've lost the job and need to find a way to bridge the gap till you find another one.
So, you spend more to see you through? You increase your budget spending? I don't know about you, but when I lose my job, I decrease my spending. Once again, you are defying common sense.
So you stop buying food and starve? Shut your utilities off so that you freeze and can't be contacted by potential new employers? You show up to interviews in a dirty sweat suit rather than clean business attire? That's not common sense in the slightest. We're talking about essential survival expenses here, not luxury spending.

Surviving costs money, so when you've essentially got a choice between debt and death, living lets you pay the debt down later. Not much being debt free can for you if you die along the way.

So we can certainly do what Hoover did and keep trimming the budget so that it stays balanced while the country starves for lack of cash, or we can borrow enough to keep it fed until it gets back on its feet again and begins to provide enough revenue to pay back those debts.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
From the very beginning, I compared this situation with _the financial crisis._ Your problem is that you can't reconcile this argument because you're stuck on your straw man about tax breaks and deficit.
EDanall, I agreed that the specific you used was the financial crisis. I was asking you to reconcile the general premise you stated with other specific examples. You can make a caveat in your premise to say that tax cuts are more important than deficits, or you can say that tax cuts don't actually lead to deficits, or you could apply your criticism equally to President Bush for the tax cuts, but if you don't make any of these cases then you are contradicting (or ignoring) the premise that you yourself put forward. I don't think that's a strawman, that's just insisting that you use logic consistently (or show me where I am wrong in my reasoning).
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1