-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
- Thread starter Random8145
- Start date
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
To state the obvious, it seems like Obama has lost a lot of credibility by accepting this award. Jokes like the above are non-stop. His advisors had to see this coming, so my question is why accept the award? Obama could've humbly turned it down...Americans would respect him for rejecting an award he does not deserve, and the Nobel Peace Prize will have not lost any credibility one way or another (this is the same prize that was awarded to Yassir Arafat in '07, terrorist tendencies notwithstanding, and to Kellog and Briand for outlawing war in the 1920s).
In other words, Obama wants to give 50 million more people healthcare benefits, while the supply of hospitals and doctors remains stagnant. So everybody gets healthcare but nobody can get in to see the doctor. And in the end we've paid $1 trillion, supposedly whittled down to $239 billion. Change we can believe in?
Fixed that for you.
Credibility with whom? Folks on internet boards?? You have people saying that the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless, then in the next breath saying he shouldn't accept it. Well, which is it? Does it really matter to you (or most people, except perhaps the chattering class or the Right Wing Echo Chamber), whether he accepts it or not? Seriously, does it?
All of the talk about him not accepting it and the jokes are to turn the focus from Peace Prize Committee on to Obama...as if it his fault he was chosen.
You mean the insurance industry is raising people's rates making health care unaffordable for many, because of not having enough doctors? A person with insurance can have their whole savings wiped out after an accident because of not enough hospitals? People spend hours going over insurance forms for their kids medical billing, and re-submit numerous times to ensure it is correctly coded, not because of inefficiencies in the system, but because we need more nurses? Doctors spend a ton on malpractice insurance because, um...I'm not sure how to spin that one.Originally Posted by SkywardET
Yay, healthcare debate!!!
It's actually a lot simpler than some people make it out to be, I think. Once you clear out all the mud, it's basic economics. There is a smaller supply of "health care" than there is a demand for it. If you want to reduce the "health care crisis" which is actually a cost crisis (well technically a price crisis), then you need to enact measures which will either increase the supply of "health care" assets or reduce the demand for it. Almost none of the options being discussed do either of those things.
The debate is complex, but if you are gonna simplify it, it comes down to there are folks who can't afford insurance and the cost of medical care keeps increasing FOR ALL OF US.
Although I disagree w/ many of Pres. Obama's policies, he is my President and I feel he had to accept the Nobel - even if he & the whole worlld know he's done nothing to merit it (yet). Obviously the Nobel committee is trying to push him in a certain direction. He is donating the $$ to a charity (forget which), so I, for one, don't begrudge his accepting the prize. I just don't want to be called a racist when I do disagree w/ some of his initiatives.
Is all or part of this going to be fixed with Obama's version of socialized healthcare? Please reference for me the sections in the healthcare proposal that address these issues.
ryan1234
Well-Known Member
Do you remember when the government tried to make housing more affordable to lower income folks? GSEs like Fannie and Freddie couldn't have been worse for those type of people. The comparison is broad, but it basically targeted the same type of people. Uninsured = low-income, non homeowners.
The price for insurance may be high, but the price for FannieMed will be higher.
You are right though, the debate is complex... but the heart is still supply and demand.
I want to know why we are so involved in trying to give healthcare to those who can't
afford it instead of seeking to find a way to allow them to make more. People that can't afford insurance tend to be uneducated jobless folks. Educate the poor so they can provide for themselves instead of the people that have it togeher carry the extra weight.
afford it instead of seeking to find a way to allow them to make more. People that can't afford insurance tend to be uneducated jobless folks. Educate the poor so they can provide for themselves instead of the people that have it togeher carry the extra weight.
A wise man once said, "Teach a man to fish, then cut him off the tit"...or something like that.
Because in the end it is about extending the government hand into yet another industry in the hopes that the benign bureaucrats can run it better than evil corporations. You know, the corporations come in, and they act all...corporation-y?
If we really just wanted everyone to have health insurance, just hand out debit cards. For less than the cost of the trillion dollar bill, we could give all 40 million uninsured (including illegals, and those young healthy individuals who can afford it but don't want it) a $2000 pre-loaded debit card every year to buy the insurance of their choosing. Of course, this is an insanely stupid idea, but then again, so is forcing every American to buy a commodity that will be increasingly sold by the government.
The problem is, we're confusing health insurance with health care and expecting insurance to cover or discount regular or affordable care. Insurance is for catastrophic costs. It'd be like using your auto insurance to pay for oil changes or your property insurance to pay for exterminators.
A good read on the (mis)incentives in our healthcare system:
www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
A good read on the (mis)incentives in our healthcare system:
www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
I think one big problem with healthcare and health insurance also is that it is so huge, we have to work at changing it one component at a time. You can't just try to fix the whole thing at once, it's too big.
Another thing to remember is if we want European-style social service systems, we will need European-style taxes to pay for it, for example possibly the VAT tax as Nancy Pelosi has suggested. This stuff then hampers the economy and so forth, unfortunately.
Another thing to remember is if we want European-style social service systems, we will need European-style taxes to pay for it, for example possibly the VAT tax as Nancy Pelosi has suggested. This stuff then hampers the economy and so forth, unfortunately.
Clux4
Banned
Say what you will about VAT, it is the way to go. Hopefully it simplifies the tax code and eliminates the loopholes.
I agree that a VAT would be the way to go, if we put it in place of income taxes. A tax system based on consumption makes sense and avoids the unfortunate situation of penalizing the most successful via the progressive tax rates. But when you just add it on top of the existing tax codes, then nothing gets simplified and we all just pay more. But replacing income tax with a VAT is of course not on the table.