Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA
Damn the deficit: Full speed ahead on health care

via http://www.drudgereport.com/

https://img20.imageshack.us/img20/9968/1125polbarone.jpg

Washington Examiner wrote:

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
November 25, 2009

Double-digit. That hyphenated adjective has been used most often recently to describe October's 10.2 percent unemployment rate. But it can also be used to describe the federal budget deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product. That precise number is not yet known, but it may turn out to have a more dire effect on our national life than October's unemployment rate.

In the fiscal year just ended, federal spending was nearly 25 percent of GDP while federal revenues slipped below 15 percent because of the financial crisis and recession. We have not seen a budget deficit of this magnitude since World War II, which surely was a greater challenge than recent economic troubles.

Apologists for the Obama administration argue that some 2009 spending, like that on financial bailouts, is nonrecurring. True, but as the Congressional Budget Office has reported, the trajectory of administration spending and revenue is pushing the annual deficit toward $1,000,000,000,000 -- that's $1 trillion -- for the next decade.

Congressional Democrats' health care bills threaten to add to that. The bill currently before the Senate is advertised as costing less than $1 trillion. But significant spending doesn't kick in till 2014 and over the ensuing 10 years adds up to $1.8 trillion, nearly double that.

Thanks to current low interest rates, servicing the debt costs the government only $200 billion this year. But the White House estimates that debt service will exceed $700 billion in 2019. "In a few years," the Economist editorializes, "the AAA rating of Treasury bonds, the world's most important security, could be in jeopardy."

It's not only Republicans who decry this prospect. Examining the Democrats' health care proposals, William Galston, domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House, writes, "We're already facing an unsustainable fiscal future."

Looking further ahead, Scott Winship notes in the Progressive Policy Institute's progressivefix.com blog that federal spending is on course to exceed 40 percent of GDP because of scheduled spending on entitlements -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid -- within the lifetime of today's children.

Yet the congressional Democrats who are pressing to expand federal health care spending do not seem much fazed by the prospect that, as Winship writes, "the level of taxation it would require to meet projected spending needs is far higher than anything the country has ever seen-slash-tolerated."
Its going to get worst before it gets better.

Last edited by Harmor (2009-11-27 12:54:55)

PureFodder
Member
+225|6284
Yes, resisting the change to a public healthcare system is going to cripple the US economy. It'a a pity that the short term profits of insurance companies/doctors/drug companies etc. were seen as being more important than the long term financial security of the US.

Healthcare was predicted to cripple the economy before the Obama reforms, it still is. Social security has little if anything to do with the issue (healthcare will cripple the economy on it's own, social security certainly will not), it just gets lumped in there because it predominantly benefits the majority as opposed to the top few percent, therefore it's bad and has to be destroyed.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6714
I really doubt that... People's money would free up more as they won't be paying souless insurance companies anymore.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

I really doubt that... People's money would free up more as they won't be paying souless insurance companies anymore.
Yep, it's better to pay the soulless government instead.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6714

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

I really doubt that... People's money would free up more as they won't be paying souless insurance companies anymore.
Yep, it's better to pay the soulless government instead.
I think it really sucks to be in America, can't trust no one =/ Pay the government, they'll fuck you over. Pay private corporations, they'll fuck you up too.

Either way, your taxes is still going to the government. From a personal experience in a nationalized health care system, it is so much more efficient and cheaper.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

I really doubt that... People's money would free up more as they won't be paying souless insurance companies anymore.
Yep, it's better to pay the soulless government instead.
I think it really sucks to be in America, can't trust no one =/ Pay the government, they'll fuck you over. Pay private corporations, they'll fuck you up too.

Either way, your taxes is still going to the government. From a personal experience in a nationalized health care system, it is so much more efficient and cheaper.
You live in a tiny homogenous island. If I wanted to create a socialized health care system for the city of new york I could. But to try to create a one sized fits all solution for a population as diverse as the one we have in such a large area of the world? It's just screaming for inefficiency in corruption all up and down the line.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6714

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Yep, it's better to pay the soulless government instead.
I think it really sucks to be in America, can't trust no one =/ Pay the government, they'll fuck you over. Pay private corporations, they'll fuck you up too.

Either way, your taxes is still going to the government. From a personal experience in a nationalized health care system, it is so much more efficient and cheaper.
You live in a tiny homogenous island. If I wanted to create a socialized health care system for the city of new york I could. But to try to create a one sized fits all solution for a population as diverse as the one we have in such a large area of the world? It's just screaming for inefficiency in corruption all up and down the line.
True, thats why I think a state sponsored, not federal sponsored solution will fit America a lot better. First step is to create a standardized, electronic health records.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

True, thats why I think a state sponsored, not federal sponsored solution will fit America a lot better. First step is to create a standardized, electronic health records.
It should've started at the state level, yeah. Problem with that is those states that implemented a system like that would see all their wealthy flee to states with lower taxes. By doing it at the federal level they're making sure no one has anywhere to flee
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6714

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

True, thats why I think a state sponsored, not federal sponsored solution will fit America a lot better. First step is to create a standardized, electronic health records.
It should've started at the state level, yeah. Problem with that is those states that implemented a system like that would see all their wealthy flee to states with lower taxes. By doing it at the federal level they're making sure no one has anywhere to flee
I doubt most people would "flee" as you would say, remember most people still live in their states because of the jobs they have. They can't just go "FUCK THIS SHIT IMAH LEAVE PEACE." It seems plausible in theory, but 99% of the time people won't just pack and leave
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

I doubt most people would "flee" as you would say, remember most people still live in their states because of the jobs they have. They can't just go "FUCK THIS SHIT IMAH LEAVE PEACE." It seems plausible in theory, but 99% of the time people won't just pack and leave
You'd be surprised. Most of the wealthy have multiple homes in various states so all they need is a push and they'll change their residence. NY State just implemented a progressive tax system for the first time this past year and they're saying that about 10,000 of the wealthiest people in new york have moved down to florida. With the portability that most jobs have now because of the internet it's entirely possible to get a job in new york, move to another state, and keep the new york paycheck (which is far larger than in most other states) due to telecommuting.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA
If we could convert healthcare from an employer-centric back to a consumer-centric then I think the costs for healthcare would decrease significantly. 

If we had Health Savings Accounts (we do now, but its optional), that we pay into with pre-tax money.  Then withdraw from it when we need healthcare and THEN have insurance on whatever we don't spend.  Think of an HSA you own health insurance for the little things, but having private insurance for the big things.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6599|132 and Bush

The Senate bill requires most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty, which starts at 95 dollars in 2014 and reaches 750 dollars two years later. It extends coverage to 94 percent of Americans.

The House bill requires most people to get health insurance or pay a penalty of up to 2.5 percent of their income. It extends coverage to 96 percent of Americans.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5257|foggy bottom
what does the senate bill do about cost and premiums?
Tu Stultus Es
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:

what does the senate bill do about cost and premiums?
Raises them both on all but the extremely poor.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

what does the senate bill do about cost and premiums?
Raises them both on all but the extremely poor.
Sounds like a tax.  So much for Obama's campaign promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $250k.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Harmor wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

what does the senate bill do about cost and premiums?
Raises them both on all but the extremely poor.
Sounds like a tax.  So much for Obama's campaign promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $250k.
I'll see if I can find the link but I read in the WSJ that it will make premiums go up by 178% for those that are around 25. They will go up by 106% for those around age 45.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA
And when that happens, how the hell will Democrats still be able to be re-elected?  How will Obama get re-elected? 

I think the Republican want this to go through because they know it will sweep them into power just like the Iraq war swept Democrats into power in 2006.
13rin
Member
+977|6477

Harmor wrote:

And when that happens, how the hell will Democrats still be able to be re-elected?  How will Obama get re-elected? 

I think the Republican want this to go through because they know it will sweep them into power just like the Iraq war swept Democrats into power in 2006.
I dunno, difference is that most D's voted for the Iraq war.  The R's all opposed this healthcare debacle.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5257|foggy bottom
good thing my income doesnt get taxed
Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5257|foggy bottom

Harmor wrote:

And when that happens, how the hell will Democrats still be able to be re-elected?  How will Obama get re-elected? 

I think the Republican want this to go through because they know it will sweep them into power just like the Iraq war swept Democrats into power in 2006.
Id rather vote for a pile of horse manure than sarah palin or anyone like her, thats how the dems will get elected.  find me a republican that doesnt pander to the religious right and Ill consider him or her.

Last edited by eleven bravo (2009-12-24 20:39:05)

Tu Stultus Es
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6403|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

I really doubt that... People's money would free up more as they won't be paying souless insurance companies anymore.
Yep, it's better to pay the soulless government instead.
I think it really sucks to be in America, can't trust no one =/ Pay the government, they'll fuck you over. Pay private corporations, they'll fuck you up too.

Either way, your taxes is still going to the government. From a personal experience in a nationalized health care system, it is so much more efficient and cheaper.
Sadly, your assumptions are mostly true when it comes to America.  We seem to have one of the most corrupt systems in the First World when it comes to lobbyism.  This is part of why I'll be in Canada within the next decade.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6714

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Yep, it's better to pay the soulless government instead.
I think it really sucks to be in America, can't trust no one =/ Pay the government, they'll fuck you over. Pay private corporations, they'll fuck you up too.

Either way, your taxes is still going to the government. From a personal experience in a nationalized health care system, it is so much more efficient and cheaper.
Sadly, your assumptions are mostly true when it comes to America.  We seem to have one of the most corrupt systems in the First World when it comes to lobbyism.  This is part of why I'll be in Canada within the next decade.
Next decade? Fuck it go the next year.

To me, America has created such a system where corporations and the government are a single entity, where most of your politicians are involved in large corporate activities (Cheney and halliburton etc).

As someone has said in another thread, America is so diverse there is no one size fit all solutions.

Might as well have state sponsored health care system imo. Universal healthcare also cuts down a lot of bureaucracy with insurance companies as well.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6403|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:

Next decade? Fuck it go the next year.
It's going to take a few years to work my way into the Canadian branch of my employer.

Cybargs wrote:

To me, America has created such a system where corporations and the government are a single entity, where most of your politicians are involved in large corporate activities (Cheney and halliburton etc).

As someone has said in another thread, America is so diverse there is no one size fit all solutions.

Might as well have state sponsored health care system imo. Universal healthcare also cuts down a lot of bureaucracy with insurance companies as well.
Massachusetts has already created its own system of socialized healthcare.  A large part of why they could do that was because it's one of the wealthier states.  The income disparity of our states is a large part of why this particular policy hasn't happened more often on a statewide basis.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Next decade? Fuck it go the next year.
It's going to take a few years to work my way into the Canadian branch of my employer.

Cybargs wrote:

To me, America has created such a system where corporations and the government are a single entity, where most of your politicians are involved in large corporate activities (Cheney and halliburton etc).

As someone has said in another thread, America is so diverse there is no one size fit all solutions.

Might as well have state sponsored health care system imo. Universal healthcare also cuts down a lot of bureaucracy with insurance companies as well.
Massachusetts has already created its own system of socialized healthcare.  A large part of why they could do that was because it's one of the wealthier states.  The income disparity of our states is a large part of why this particular policy hasn't happened more often on a statewide basis.
Taxachusetts is bleeding jobs. The party is going to end shortly.

MARLBOROUGH, Mass. (AP) -- A solar panel company is moving some jobs overseas after receiving $58 million in state aid and being touted by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick as a symbol of the state's economic future.

Evergreen Solar Inc. said Wednesday it is moving panel assembly jobs currently done at a plant in Devens to China next year. The announcement came as the company announced that it lost $167 million in the first nine months of this year.

About half of the 577 full-time and 230 contract employees at the Devens factory are involved in putting the panels together, but the company did not say how many jobs the state would lose.

Ian Bowles, secretary of the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, called Evergreen's decision disappointing.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Once-laud … 0&.v=2

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-24 21:04:53)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA

eleven bravo wrote:

Harmor wrote:

And when that happens, how the hell will Democrats still be able to be re-elected?  How will Obama get re-elected? 

I think the Republican want this to go through because they know it will sweep them into power just like the Iraq war swept Democrats into power in 2006.
Id rather vote for a pile of horse manure than sarah palin or anyone like her, thats how the dems will get elected.  find me a republican that doesnt pander to the religious right and Ill consider him or her.
Eleven Bravo, I hope one day you make a lot of money and are successful.  Hopefully then you'll realize that the Democrats are not the party for you.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard