Obama Care

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 [fluctuated] 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.

I misspoke on 100% reduction and I take full responsibility. Score one for Joe.

Government expense on social services has indeed increased as a percentage of the GDP but so have expenses. If you're going to discuss inflation in your argument you should at least know what the impact of inflation is on the poor and the social services. It would be interesting to do a comparison between today and previous era as to the impact of inflation and the increase in population on government social service spending (I'd love to see you or anyone on this forum present this information).

Honestly though, the problem with you lot is that no number is good enough and you never present any evidence as to why your "invisible hand" is a better solution. It's bash the government 24/7.

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.

Ok, using your numbers as a base, not including any additional cost for the addition of universal healthcare -
The current debt = 11,600 billion dollars.
The current discretionary budge is 1,182billion dollars.
assuming we cut 25% from the military, and do not increase non-military spending (a VERY generous, highly improbable assumption) we could pay down the debt at a rate of 200billion/year

11,600/200 = 53 years.

now of course we don't need to get it to 0, but of course we aren't dealing with 0% loans either. Nor is the discretionary budget really a valid number, since it assumes borrowing in order to spend that. So if you add in the projected deficit of 400billion this year, even by cutting 25% of the military spending - which again you and i atleast could probably find an agreeable way to do that - we would not be subtracting 200billion, but adding 200billion to our national debt.

so, again, I will say, how does a person who scoffs at the reliance of others on mystical creations, find it in his ability to rely upon the mystical wallet of government.

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.

Let me rephrase, if enough governmental resources can be applied - then a government can solve any societal ill.

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['t] 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.

Howeever, and ultimately, whether it is employing individuals to "negotiate better drug prices" or to manipulate costs "through the power of sheer numbers of patients", governmental resources cost someone something. (Further, I would suggest, when he does actually define a position, saden requires the influx of governmental funds in some form or another).

Whether it is through the cutting off of other services or the raising of new revenue, governments rely on money to provide the public sector with goods and services. Without money government cannot act, without action governments can't solve anything. Thus, regardless of how he cuts it, Saden's position that governmental action can solve health care's ills -regardless of the existing market forces - boils done to a requirement that government spend money - lots of it. Further, it is a leap of faith that if we just spend enough money, marshall enough resources, government intervention can - not just solve the problem - but create a world better than our current situation regardless of private interests.

Ultimately, saden applies the age old cruelty of socialism - if we trust in the corporate whole, all will be well even if a few individuals are injured along the way. In this particular case, the individuals are likely to be our children.

Honestly though, the problem with you lot is that no number is good enough and you never present any evidence as to why your "invisible hand" is a better solution. It's bash the government 24/7.

Tell me the number you believe is acceptable for creating universal health care and what said universal health care entails.

In a previous thread, I have indicated that, if you can lower costs and ensure that my quality of care does not decline, I will pay my current amount of premium plus an additional 10% (an increase of approximately $400 per year) in order to guarrantee basic (now there's a loaded term) medical services for every legal u.s. citizen.

Let me rephrase, if enough governmental resources can be applied - then a government can solve any societal ill.

I don't want to get into this argument, because you and Saden are more educated on the topic than I. However, a government is made up of people, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest they can do anything they put their minds to. IMO, the root problem is self-interest (i.e.: pork barreling, job security, bribes, etc).

I don't want to get into this argument, because you and Saden are more educated on the topic than I. However, a government is made up of people, and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest they can do anything they put their minds to. IMO, the root problem is self-interest (i.e.: pork barreling, job security, bribes, etc).

I understand you don't wish to get dragged in and it is not my desire to do so but - I want to make sure we keep it defined here.

Yes. A government is made up of people. People who don't work for free. Some work cheap, some work through a sense of dedication, but for government to act - money is required to compesate the individuals through whom it acts.

You say that the root problem (not sure if you mean in general with government or as it is specific to health care) is "self-interest". I would disagree - the root problem is greed whether individual, corporate or public. A healthy reliance on self interest (again, whether individual, corporate or public) insures that economic problems are viewed through the prism of many eyes and likewise tested. It is only when one or more of these groups goes beyond legitimate self interest (either intentionally or not) that the market gets skewed.

I would agree that the current health care situation is such that it is difficult to tell where self-interest has crossed into greed and which players have made the crossing. To me, that is the ultimate question in resolving this issue and until it is done all is wind and fury.

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?




Of course the current legislation is not fully consistent with his pledge but it's not too far off from his goals. I'm not expecting it to perfectly align with his pledge to get the 47 million uninsured insured, reduce insurance costs, and increase the quality of care.
No, it's not good enough. I'm concerned with the start date and the possibility of weak or no public option. I'm not confidant they're doing a good job of soliciting advice from countries with successful universal health care systems either. I would like to see pay-roll option for employers who wish to provide their employees health care through universal healthcare. I'm willing to give the bill a chance because this is a complex problem that can only be solved through a progressive process and solution.

I understand you don't wish to get dragged in and it is not my desire to do so but - I want to make sure we keep it defined here.

Yes. A government is made up of people. People who don't work for free. Some work cheap, some work through a sense of dedication, but for government to act - money is required to compesate the individuals through whom it acts.

You say that the root problem (not sure if you mean in general with government or as it is specific to health care) is "self-interest". I would disagree - the root problem is greed whether individual, corporate or public. A healthy reliance on self interest (again, whether individual, corporate or public) insures that economic problems are viewed through the prism of many eyes and likewise tested. It is only when one or more of these groups goes beyond legitimate self interest (either intentionally or not) that the market gets skewed.

I would agree that the current health care situation is such that it is difficult to tell where self-interest has crossed into greed and which players have made the crossing. To me, that is the ultimate question in resolving this issue and until it is done all is wind and fury.

Totally agree -- greed, not self-interest, is much more accurate.

I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking. Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government. If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.

Totally agree -- greed, not self-interest, is much more accurate.

I ultimately think for any government to work, people must undergo a shift in thinking. A shift from egoic thinking to one of conscious thinking. Until that happens, I guess our best bet is to minimize the power of government. If/when that happens, Communism will be the government of choice (let the flames begin). Fortunately, I think I can feel the tide turning.

Good, benign government and economic can occur in any almost any form if "good" people are running it. I believe, however, that republican (small r) democracy (small d) with a properly regulated free enterpise economy is the most conducive to allowing such people to govern. Ultimately, government is based on the people that encompass it. It is merely our corporate tool to protect and serve, how we the people choose to govern and share/use our individual/corporate resources is ultimately a human choice.

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.

If we do nothing shit is going blow up Joe so lets not make the government the only dirty player that's going to or capable of blowing shit up. If you're going to accuse me of faith leaping perhaps it's time for you to pour us some tea. Shall we use the pot or the kettle?