Obama Care

And again, the point remains that no matter what you do there will always be homeless people no matter what you do, no matter what economic system you're trying to change, no matter how much money you throw at them.

You're right. There will always be poor people, always be rapists and always be murderers. So, it makes no sense to do anything about them, since you can never get rid of them. :doh:

So let's see, in the 60's the poverty rate declined because the government pointed their guns at the heads of the producers, stole more money from them and gave it to the bums. Well, I guess that's one way to do something about poverty.

As you pointed out, poverty has been around a very long time; but sorry to say, it will always be here. There will always be poor people. There won't be an economic system ever devised that will save absolutely everyone.

Absolutely correct, but is this necessarily an argument against government involvement in trying to find the most practical methods to deal with this reality? Look, I read the story you told about the homeless guy, with the concluding statement that sometimes you need "to reach for the helping hand." But the danger is in projecting that story out and seeing poverty as always being the fault of the individuals suffering from it (which I'm not saying you are saying). The fact is that government involvement in dealing with poverty is, first, quite literally centuries old, and second, is not, and has never been, exclusively driven by compassion and/or moral imperatives. Hardly. So, that we have in our history (e.g., the 60s programs) attempts to apply a level of sophistication to a routine government operation, ones greater than simply labeling poverty an individual disease and sticking all the infected in poorhouses, is, in my opinion to our credit. Yes, some programs have worked better than others, but system improvement is a better solution, I think, to no-end-game cessation of them.

My own opinion, and I know you and others fundamentally disagree, is that the programs that emerged from the Great Society have immeasurably improved the lives of millions, far more than they have affected harm. I admit to a bias, seeing as how my entire legal/policy career has been devoted to quite possiblly the most enduring product of it--the Medicaid program. The degree to which the program has provided critical support to persons with disabilities and low-income elderly (even those who have Medicare) is astounding, and I'm not aware of how, if we were to turn to the clock back to the 60s, things could have been constructed differently that would still have allowed these individuals to access the support Medicaid has provided, support that in many circumstances has been life-saving, and in others has allowed individuals to attain services that has prevented institutionalization and allowed them to be active members of the community.

And this program is a federal/state partnership, a voluntary program that every state has agreed to participate in. Developments leading up to the birth of the program didn't exactly tend toward the eventual availability of comprehensive medical insurance for these individuals that wasn't government supported. Far from it. So, to write off this program, being one example of a 60s product, as one forced-by-gunpoint down the throats of states for the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda unfairly downplays what inspired its creation and what value it has provided since.

I showed you a concrete example of what the government can do with respect to poverty and all you seem to do is talk...blah blah blah. Compared to charities and individuals the government is certainly more effective.


Get that weak stuff out of here. Work on your game cause you really can't be in the ring with me let alone throw a punch.
The only way goverment is more effective then charities and individuals they only have more money to throw at the problem. The organization that I belong to gives 100% of any money we raise back to children that are hearing impared and their parents cannot afford hearing aids. The other groups I belong to ran around 90% of all funds raised went back to the charity. Last time I read anything on goverment programs it was like $1 came back for every $3 taxed. Thats not effective my friend.

I showed you a concrete example of what the government can do with respect to poverty and all you seem to do is talk...blah blah blah. Compared to charities and individuals the government is certainly more effective.


Get that weak stuff out of here. Work on your game cause you really can't be in the ring with me let alone throw a punch.

As long as the invisible wallet is bottomless, than the government has more resources, that does not make it more effective. But the invisible wallet is not bottomless, and we see that as our debt reaches into the trillions. If we could truly provide quality care at affordable rates for all, then I think everyone, or most people would be on board, but that is not the case. When this country is awakened by a giant default, or an adversary such as China saying we aren't going to pay for you to continue building your weapons and have universal healthcare, and we have to deal with debts that have spiraled beyond the heavens, no one will care if you think I was in the same ring. Our country's debt is 11.6trillion dollars and rising by more than I make in a year every few seconds. That is not solely Pres. Obama's fault, it is lain at the feet of our generation, everyone here. But it is now in Pres Obama's care, and that of the Democrat's in government. Saden, I am sure you think all of this is a game, based on your many responses. But what I fail to understand, you of the oh so scientific mind, that sits and judges all who have reliance on things other than themselves (the invisible hand of charity, the grace of a creator God), a man who trusts what he sees, what can be proven, what is established as scientific and thus true. How can you support an ongoing budget shortfall that represents more money than we can possibly support. It has nothing to do with the political back and forth or fun and games that we enjoy in these forums. For a truly rational person such as you purport to be, your support of these massive debts is incredibly dumbfounding.

As for your use of statistics, everyone knows the best lies are the ones that are statistically true.

Try as you may you still can't land an effective punch Joe, you really need to work on your lower/upper body strength.

Fine, then let’s break this down a bit - shall we? In the response to CRedskinsRule which I asserted was dismissive and self-righteous, you mockingly claimed as irrelevant the relationship of economic choices made by individuals and charities in the health care market and their effect on health care costs. Further, you asserted that CRedskinsRule’s response was foolish and that your approach was much more grounded in reality (“I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot”) followed by an assertion, without any limitations, that Adam Smith’s concept of the “invisible hand” of the market place was non-existent.

Tired of your dismissive demeanor towards legitimate theories of which you personally disapprove, I responded by challenging you to state why self-interested market reactions by private individuals are irrelevant in the health care market.

In answering my challenge as to why you believed as such, you first disabuse the thought that such choices will have any effect on lower income individuals (“How does the invisible hand help Aunt Jane avoid medical bankruptcy or help Uncle Joe get his two kids, himself and his wife covered whilst making $10 an hour”). It appears obvious to me, in accordance with the economic principles of the “invisible hand”, that finding a way to allow market forces to lower costs should be the first priority of any health care plan as this will greatly affect both the amount Aunt Jane will initially need pay for her care and the ability of the government to intervene and help both Aunt Jane and Uncle Joe.

To dismiss market forces as you do and their effect in the health care market, ultimately results in a health care system that provides goods and services but is divorced from the historical market forces. Such an attempt is doomed to failure because of the complex nature of the underlying economic transactions (i.e. – all the costs and risks associated with being able to provide health care goods or services, the general disadvantage held by the purchaser of health care goods and services, and the wide variety of knowledge of the health care field held by the purchasers of those goods and services). Attempting to resolve these complex economic transactions, with an eye towards providing the most and best health care services, while ignoring the theory that mass self interest by private parties acts to lower costs for all parties is both short sighted and ignorant.

Next you raise the one legitimate, responsive point in your answer by asserting that the government’s actions in the 60’s through direct wealth transfer actions (the Pilot Food Stamp Program 1961-1664, Food Stamp Act of 1964, Social Security Act of 1965) and indirect wealth transfer programs (Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965) had a significant effect on the poverty level. So we are clear, I concede this as responsive because it directly addresses Slinging Sammy33’s question “What do my taxes pay for?” In part, they pay for the alleviation of mass poverty. This effect, irrespective of the social justice aspect, has many laudatory market effects – it increases the number of consumers; it creates a more diverse field of consumers; it lessens the incentive for criminal behavior by those unable to achieve economic subsistence within the parameters of the market; and it infuses wealth into the system that otherwise may have sat outside the system as unused excess. Thus, while I am in sympathy with the limited government philosophy of both Slinging Sammy33 and CRedskinsRule, I do not ascribe to their overall bare bones application of the same.

In making the concession, I ask this question - is it unexpected that the direct and indirect wealth transfers of the 1960’s (taking from the rich and giving to the poor) would result in fewer poor? Surely you would concede that this is the expected result of even the most inefficient of wealth transfers. Barring corruption by the middleman (i.e. the government), transferring wealth, directly or indirectly, to those below the poverty line has the inevitable result increasing the wealth of poor and, thus, raising them above the poverty line.

Unfortunately, you follow this legitimate response to Slinging Sammy33’s question with a walk off the reservation.

CRedskinsRule original statement was not an assertion that not that “invisible hand” was a cure all for economic woes. Rather, as I indicated above, my quote of CRedskinsRule asserts that: 1) individuals and charities are better than government at solving society’s ills; and 2) in the health care market, the consideration of market forces generated by individual choices will yield a better result than an attempt to resolve the matter through comprehensive wealth transfers enacted by an interventionist government that is divorced from traditional market forces.

According to you “It was pretty obvious to me that [CRedskinsRule] shitted on the first part of the quote with the second part.” You preface this statement with a series of irrelevant questions. There is no assertion by me or, I believe, by CRedskinsRule, that government has no role in the health care market place or that the “invisible hand” is the cure for all society ills. Rather, as I believe one of his earlier posts indicated, and to differing degrees, he and I both agree that government has a role in the market place - this would include the health services market place. At the same time, both of us (and Slinging Sammy33) would suggest that government intervention, alone and without consideration of existing market forces, cannot resolve the complex economic problem of providing the maximum health care to the maximum number of people. In fact, the point of CRedskinsRule's statement (I believe), is that an attempt to do so would result in waste, inefficiency and, ultimately, a failed system.

And just so we are clear and you don’t accuse me of avoidance – irrelevant though they may be - I will answer your multiple questions as why the “invisible hand” has not wiped out poverty despite the increased wealth generated by the system. Simply – because it cannot. In any population of normal human beings, market forces based on private self interest alone will always create an unbalanced market as, inevitably, some (many) flawed humans will confuse irrational greed with legitimate self-interest. In part to check this inherent flaw, governments appropriately regulate market forces. Although in doing so, they cannot thoroughly eliminate the flaw without also eliminating the beneficial market force. The consideration and balancing of private market forces when crafting economic solutions to complex economic problems, however, is necessary and cannot be ignored simply because it is not a cure-all.

To demonstrate the foolishness of your questions concerning the “invisible hand’s" failure to cure all societal ills – Answer me this:

“Given that [government intervention] has been [greatly increased since LBJ’s original “War on Poverty”] why hasn't [government intervention] improved our poverty rate since the 70's even though [the government is spending] significantly [more in real terms on social services]? Do we have to give [government intervention] more time? How long do you expect us to wait? In the mean time how do you expect these people below the poverty line to afford health insurance?” [As to the last, I believe that, through Medicaid, those below the poverty line already receive basic health services including (as Schneed10 has pointed out) preventive care coverage].


Along those lines, during the campaign, you consistently asserted that the wealth transfers endorsed by Obama as they related to health care constituted your position on the matter. Obama has now endorsed radical legislation in the health care field involving significant direct and indirect wealth transfers. I ask you now - with faint hope that you will answer the direct questions asked:

1) Is the legislative health care package currently before Congress as endorsed by Obama, consistent with the health care solutions outlined in his campaign?

2) Do you endorse that legislative health care package?


Finally, Saden, does repeating my name, Saden, throughout your argument, Saden, somehow increase the intellectual acuity of your argument, Saden, while somehow, Saden, magically rendering mine less valid? Or was this, Saden, just an attempt by you to highlight the humor, Saden, in your already comical response? (Saden)

Taxes were reduced in the early 60's (top rate went from 91% to 70%) and poverty was reduced by ~100% (from Information I provided...thanks for the heads-up :rolleyes:).

No. Poverty was decreased by approximately 50% per your numbers. (A reduction from 20% to 10% is only reduces the amount by half its original amount not the full amount- Math not your strong suit?). Further, the number has fluctated between a 25% to 50% percent reduction over the last 40 years. A significant decrease but, given the expansion of governmental expenses on social services, why hasn't poverty furthered decreased to reflect these increased expenses?

Also, although the top tax bracket was indeed reduced, due to a failure to adjust for inflation, the actual number of individuals subject to the highest brackets increased. Regardless, the relationship between marginal tax brackets and actual income collected is whole other argument.

As long as the invisible wallet is bottomless, than the government has more resources that does not make it more effective. But the invisible wallet is not bottomless, and we see that as our debt reaches into the trillions. If we could truly provide quality care at affordable rates for all, then I think everyone, or most people would be on board, but that is not the case. When this country is awakened by a giant default, or an adversary such as China saying we aren't going to pay for you to continue building your weapons and have universal healthcare, and we have to deal with debts that have spiraled beyond the heavens, no one will care if you think I was in the same ring. Our country's debt is 11.6trillion dollars and rising by more than I make in a year every few seconds. That is not solely Pres. Obama's fault, it is lain at the feet of our generation, everyone here. But it is now in Pres Obama's care, and that of the Democrat's in government. Saden, I am sure you think all of this is a game, based on your many responses. But what I fail to understand, you of the oh so scientific mind, that sits and judges all who have reliance on things other than themselves (the invisible hand of charity, the grace of a creator God), a man who trusts what he sees, what can be proven, what is established as scientific and thus true. How can you support an ongoing budget shortfall that represents more money than we can possibly support. It has nothing to do with the political back and forth or fun and games that we enjoy in these forums. For a truly rational person such as you purport to be, your support of these massive debts is incredibly dumbfounding.

As for your use of statistics, everyone knows the best lies are the ones that are statistically true.

LOL...long winded and unnecessary rant that really goes nowhere, talk about inefficient speech. I want universal healthcare and I'm willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get it...that includes raising taxes, negotiating better drug prices and health services costs through the power of sheer numbers of patients. There is no reason to believe the government can do this. I'm willing to cut the budget and dispense with wasteful spending, the problem is though you and I disagree on what constituents wasteful spending and where cuts can be made. The federal discretionary budget for 2009 was 1182 billion. 799 billion (67.6%) of that went towards military spending and 383 (32.4%) billion of it went towards non-military spending. Guess where I'd like to start saving money?

I know you hate numbers but you really aught to stop digging and move on.

LOL...long winded and unnecessary rant that really goes nowhere, talk about inefficient speech. I want universal healthcare and I'm willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get it...that includes raising taxes, negotiating better drug prices and health services costs through the power of sheer numbers of patients. There is no reason to believe the government can do this. I'm willing to cut the budget and dispense with wasteful spending, the problem is though you and I disagree on what constituents wasteful spending and where cuts can be made. The federal discretionary budget for 2009 was 1182 billion. 799 billion (67.6%) of that went towards military spending and 383 (32.4%) billion of it went towards non-military spending. Guess where I'd like to start saving money?

I know you hate numbers but you really aught to stop digging and move on.

First, I would cut military spending also, so we could be in agreement on that, why don't you talk to your man Obama and get that started?

Second, I don't hate numbers, I hate over-reaching government.

Third, I am glad you are so willing to sacrifice by having the government raise taxes, but again, the government could take all of your money until you die, and we still would have a massive debt (unless you happen to be Bill Gates, in which case we would only have a major not massive debt). This is not a case of the rich paying for the poor, it is a foolish man running his credit cards to the max, and thinking that he doesn't have to worry about it.

I want universal healthcare and I'm willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get it...that includes raising taxes, negotiating better drug prices and health services costs through the power of sheer numbers of patients. There is no reason to believe the government can do this.

Although I believe you meant "can't", I would suggest you're actual statement is more accurate.

"Universal Health Care". Can we? Of course. Do we have reason to believe that federal government can? You suggest there is no reason not. For all the past 27 pages and in other threads as well, whether you agree with them or not, intelligent rational arguments have been made that demonstrate the difficulties in defining "Universal Health Care" as well as actually providing it. Holding out that government intervention is the cure all despite these problems you would impose a huge burden upon our children and assume that no reprecussions will fall to them or simply ignore the same.

And so here we have - as is always the underlying case in your oh so witty responses - the ultimate hypocrisy from he who would hold himself out as the "Voice of Reason": A leap of faith into the trust that, no matter the problem, government intervention can solve it if only enough money is poured into the well.

Joe, I'm not sure Saden is suggesting that the only thing necessary for government intervention to work is "more money". Your arguments are solid, but that part weakens it.