The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[Steve Wilkins]

Let's all stop looking for smoking guns where there aren't any to find.

Why'd you have to bring up the issue of WMD's in Iraq?

 

[OnTopTime]

First sentence: Bill passed in both houses.



House/Senate Conferences are called when there are major differences in language (ie Defense Appropriations/Authorization Bills ALWAYS go to Conference like they just did). Thomas.gov tracks all Bills and it shows a veritable lovefest:

Different versions passed in both houses; they will now go to conference to be reconciled. Given the differing provisions for abortion funding in each version (among other things), I think that it's still problematic at this point that a reconciled bill will pass both the House and the Senate.

I hope that everyone had a Merry Christmas!

 

[HeyJoe]

what about the firefighters, the police, government workers, the intelligence community.

The vast majority of those individuals don't come under POTUS in his Commander in Chief role (the first two are principally employed on the local level) and the Christmas greeting to the troops (as he did say when he returned to the podium) are to ones deployed away from their families, which hardly applies to your suggestions (except some in Intel Community, but they aren't typically talked about).

Regardless, it's simply a case of the media and their never-ending attempt to put a public figure on the spot to generate "news" or force their viewpoint into the limelight.

 

[Random8145]

I think we have the biggest government, so that is out the water.

No we do not. I'm not referring to overall government size, I'm talking about size of the government in proportion to the economy. In this sense, we have one of the smaller governments.

We don't have as much taxes but we will get there pretty soon as we need to do something to the national debt.

Those countries with the higher taxes also have higher levels of debt to GDP in comparison to the United States. We need to cut the spending. For two reasons:

1) The government has no right to hike up taxes because it decided to spend its way into oblivion

2) Raising taxes does not close the deficit. This is a myth. That is why California, New York, and New Jersey, while having the highest taxes, also have the biggest budget deficits. Or the United Kingdom, where Labour party has proceeded to do what it typically does, raise taxes and spend the country into financial oblivion. None of these are lacking in tax revenue, it's that their governments spend too much.

Same thing with most of the European nations, high taxes and high national debts.

We need to cut taxes, and then FORCE the government to spend less and to get used to it, to keep government spending limited. Raising taxes will only lead to more spending and larger debts and deficit.

As Ronald Reagan said to George H. W. Bush in the 1980 debate, "If you want your kid to stop spending so much, you do not increase his allowance."

We have regulations and lots of them because we have to make sure that people and businesses are not just taking matters into their own hands.

Why shouldn't people and businesses take matters into their own hands? The economy is not managed by the government. Regulations are only required in a limited capacity, where necessary. You want us to be like France, where you cannot fire a young employee even if they are a lousy employee, or where you must provide mandatory maternity leave for a year or more to women who get pregnant? These kinds of things are why Europe has chronically high unemployment.

Most developed countries have a lot of regulations. So, how are we different?

We are different in that we do not apply heavy-handed regulation, we have a lightly-regulated economy with the means of production overwhelmingly organized by the private sector. Over-regulating the economy leads to stagnant economic growth and it leads to big corporations dominating the economy (because consolidation occurs in industries once they come under heavy regulation).

 

[Clux4]

No we do not. I'm not referring to overall government size, I'm talking about size of the government in proportion to the economy. In this sense, we have one of the smaller governments.

True.

The government has no right to hike up taxes because it decided to spend its way into oblivion

I wonder what new toy the government is getting. Waste is inherent in government and there is obviously waste within our government. But, it is not as if all of government revenue is squandered on things we have no need of.

Raising taxes does not close the deficit. This is a myth. That is why California, New York, and New Jersey, while having the highest taxes, also have the biggest budget deficits. Or the United Kingdom, where Labour party has proceeded to do what it typically does, raise taxes and spend the country into financial oblivion. None of these are lacking in tax revenue, it's that their governments spend too much.

Only when spending is not curtailed. It is bad reasoning to assume that both are tied together.

Why shouldn't people and businesses take matters into their own hands? The economy is not managed by the government. Regulations are only required in a limited capacity, where necessary. You want us to be like France, where you cannot fire a young employee even if they are a lousy employee, or where you must provide mandatory maternity leave for a year or more to women who get pregnant? These kinds of things are why Europe has chronically high unemployment.

People taking matters into their own hands never end well no matter how you dice it. The man with the biggest gun wins.
It is either you want it or not. That limited thing never works. Remember, you give the devil an inch, he will take a mile.

We are different in that we do not apply heavy-handed regulation, we have a lightly-regulated economy with the means of production overwhelmingly organized by the private sector. Over-regulating the economy leads to stagnant economic growth and it leads to big corporations dominating the economy (because consolidation occurs in industries once they come under heavy regulation).

Obviously, too much everything is bad. But not regulating at all is dangerous and wishful thinking.

 

[Random8145]

I wonder what new toy the government is getting. Waste is inherent in government and there is obviously waste within our government. But, it is not as if all of government revenue is squandered on things we have no need of.

Government is spending far too much though. It needs to get things back under control.

Only when spending is not curtailed. It is bad reasoning to assume that both are tied together.

Government rarely cuts spending while seeing revenue increases. Usually revenue increases mean the government will spend even more, feeling it can always just raise taxes further or implement new taxes if necessary. By cutting taxes, you free up the economy more, let people keep more of their money, and usually cut revenues which thus forces the government to have to get its act together.

Government has no limit in its appetite for money. You give it more and it only grows larger.

People taking matters into their own hands never end well no matter how you dice it. The man with the biggest gun wins.
It is either you want it or not. That limited thing never works.

I am not saying operate with lawlessness. Within a framework of laws, the people cna take matters into their own hands fine. And yes, the limited government and limited regulation thing works very well, it is what has allowed our country to dominate economically. We have an economy that is more lightly regulated than most of Europe.

Remember, you give the devil an inch, he will take a mile.

Well now you understand the workings of government, in particular regarding taxes and regulations. Welcome to the Republican party

Obviously, too much everything is bad. But not regulating at all is dangerous and wishful thinking.

I'm not saying don't regulate at all, I'm saying limited government and light and efficient regulation.

 

[HeyJoe]

Stupid. What's the issue here? That CinC wished the troops a merry Christmas? Standard, BFD, is anyone surprised?

Brett

091225-N-XXXXX-001 ARABIAN SEA (Dec. 25, 2009) Independent duty, Hospital Corpsman 1st Class Francis Nicola, shown standing watch on the bridge of the guided-missile frigate USS Rentz (FFG 46), had the honor to receive a personal phone call and holiday greeting from President Barack Obama Dec. 24. USS Rentz is conducting maritime security operations in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility. (U.S. Navy photo/Released)


With that kind of luck, he might want to invest in some Lottery tickets.

 

[HeyJoe]

Another sailor gets an unexpected phonecall

091224-F-7418E-007 AFGHANISTAN (Dec. 24, 2009) Petty Officer 3rd Class Luis Tun-Ake receives a surprise telephone call from President Barack Obama at Forward Operating Base Sharana, Afghanistan. Tunake is from Denver, Colorado and is serving with a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Paktika Province. (U.S. Air Force Photo by Staff Sgt. Dallas Edwards/Released)

 

[phrogdriver]

091224-F-7418E-007 AFGHANISTAN (Dec. 24, 2009) Petty Officer 3rd Class Luis Tun-Ake receives a surprise telephone call from President Barack Obama at Forward Operating Base Sharana, Afghanistan. Tunake is from Denver, Colorado and is serving with a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Paktika Province. (U.S. Air Force Photo by Staff Sgt. Dallas Edwards/Released)

"FOB Sharana, Petty Officer Tun-Ake, may I help you?....say who?....yeah, 'President Obama,' right....yeah, and I'm the Queen of Fucking Sheba....let it go Steve, enough fucking around, I've got work to do....I told you, you do good impressions, but I've got to go...no, really, fuck off man....NO, FUCK YOU!" Click.

"Asshole."

 

[AlexSmart]

In his defense, there are a lot of people who would like to see a single payer system of socialized medicine in this country. I'm not one of them, but it's not such a ridiculous concept. It's pretty mainstream in the developed world, so while we may not agree that it should be instituted here in the US, it's not as though it's a completely ridiculous or outrageous concept.

Brett

I tell you what, AW is so far the most intelligent and open minded discussion of this public policy question I have ever seen. Brett, may I ask your personal reasons against the implementation of single payer in the United States? While I am a proponent of a single payer system, my one big question mark is if the system can be replicated in a country with the population of the United States (300+ Million and an obesity epidemic).

 

[zpatman]

"FOB Sharana, Petty Officer Tun-Ake, may I help you?....say who?....yeah, 'President Obama,' right....yeah, and I'm the Queen of Fucking Sheba....let it go Steve, enough fucking around, I've got work to do....I told you, you do good impressions, but I've got to go...no, really, fuck off man....NO, FUCK YOU!" Click.

"Asshole."

hahaha....i'm rollin here

 

[Brett327]

I tell you what, AW is so far the most intelligent and open minded discussion of this public policy question I have ever seen. Brett, may I ask your personal reasons against the implementation of single payer in the United States? While I am a proponent of a single payer system, my one big question mark is if the system can be replicated in a country with the population of the United States (300+ Million and an obesity epidemic).

I'm fundamentally against a system of government that promotes general public reliance on that government. It becomes a self-licking ice cream cone, and our government's predilection for handing out entitlements is rapidly out pacing its ability to pay for them. The more you give people, the more they expect and the less they care about the means to that end. Now, I temper that philosophy with the understanding that no matter how hard we try, no country is ever going to have 100 percent of its citizens be like the rugged individualists that our founding fathers imagined when they created our framework of government. I believe in a safety net for those who can't help themselves. For those who simply wont help themselves, I believe in tough love and survival of the fittest - that can be a powerful motivator.

No doubt there are lots of things in our health care system that can be reformed, but giving things away tends to promote mediocrity, and I'd hate to have our world-class health care system devolve into that because someone thinks it should be doled out like government cheese.

Brett

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Well, I'm content that coverage will be expanded so that those pesky youngsters will be under their parents' insurance a bit longer. Other than, I ain't got no damn clue as to what just happened.

 

[jtmedli]

I'm fundamentally against a system of government that promotes general public reliance on that government. It becomes a self-licking ice cream cone, and our government's predilection for handing out entitlements is rapidly out pacing its ability to pay for them. The more you give people, the more they expect and the less they care about the means to that end. Now, I temper that philosophy with the understanding that no matter how hard we try, no country is ever going to have 100 percent of its citizens be like the rugged individualists that our founding fathers imagined when they created our framework of government. I believe in a safety net for those who can't help themselves. For those who simply wont help themselves, I believe in tough love and survival of the fittest - that can be a powerful motivator.

Brett

No, not people expecting something for nothing??? :icon_long
The arrogance behind thinking that you can write a 2000 page bill that treats me better than I'll treat myself is astonishing. I underlined my favorite part!!!

 

[PropStop]

I'm fundamentally against a system of government that promotes general public reliance on that government. It becomes a self-licking ice cream cone, and our government's predilection for handing out entitlements is rapidly out pacing its ability to pay for them. The more you give people, the more they expect and the less they care about the means to that end.

I might argue that it already has outpaced the abiliy to pay.

No doubt there are lots of things in our health care system that can be reformed, but giving things away tends to promote mediocrity, and I'd hate to have our world-class health care system devolve into that because someone thinks it should be doled out like government cheese.

Universal health care coverage is a fantastic idea. A healthy population is more productive and less costly than an unhealthy population. But as you point out, we have a world-class health care system in the US. Yes, it costs a crap ton of money, but it is GOOD (if you have the money). I don't buy that other countries, such as Canada, have nearly so good a system. While everybody does get some basic level of care, and you'll be well looked after if you are in a car wreck, you are screwed if you have a relatively minor problem that doesn't require immediate help - such as ACL surgery. Also, even if you have the money to pay out of your pocket there, you don't get accelerated health care, that's why well off Canadians come to the US.

It really sucks when people are forced into bankruptcy because of medical costs they cannot afford – especially because those people are generally middle class and productive (the indigent would be covered by the gov’t anyhow). And I certainly hope it never happens to me. But if it does, that’s life and life is not fair. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth (maybe a nice stainless steel one, but not sliver) and that’s not fair. It’s not fair that I am much better off than a single parent who works 60 hours a week at a crap job to keep his/her family fed – but that’s life. The government should guarantee certain rights – among those the ability to improve your status in life. If you want work hard, prioritize, and pay for it, you can have good health care and live in a crappy house and drive a crappy car. That’s the way it should be.