apple0154
MEOW
No, this plan will enable people to get care which they can not currently afford. And those who can afford it will get care also. A win-win situation.
APP - Harkin says bribes are just "small stuff"
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
No, this plan will enable people to get care which they can not currently afford. And those who can afford it will get care also. A win-win situation.
cawacko
Well-known member
Apple, they're talking about Bernanke and the Feds possibly wanting to raise rates. You've said you think the President needs to get involved in this because it affects the country. What do you think Obama is going to tell Bernanke to do regarding rates?
apple0154
MEOW
I think rates should stay low, otherwise, the people with money will make money and the poor will get poorer.
cawacko
Well-known member
? I'm not following that logic.
Greenspan put rates at rock bottom after 9/11 and many feel that helped eventually lead to the financial meltdown. You essentially said Bush should have told him to raise them to fend off the crisis. So is there only a particular time rates should be low?
Good Luck
New member
That is a lie - and a tired, over used one at that. The European systems are constantly in crisis, and constantly being adjusted - usually in the direction of more involvement from private means. Recently France has gone to a multi-tiered system that allows (encourages?) use of private funds to subsidize the level of care available under the "universal" plan, which is effectively little different from "pay-or-suffer" as the quality of care available without private means is diminishing as costs continue to increase. The most recently discussed adjustment would instigate a review process that fines people if it is determined they used care facilities unnecessarily. What do you think that is going to do to people's decision to go to the doctor?
And for the umpteenth time, what "works" (with the definition of "works" being somewhat in question considering their systems are in constant crisis) for nations smaller in size than California and 1/4 our population cannot be simply applied to the entirety of the U.S. The kind of problems their systems are constantly dealing with would be greatly magnified here - and then a somewhat-workable but problematic system would become an unworkable mess.
Then there is the fact that the bill being considered is not even close to a universal system, and is, in fact, not even a step in that general direction. What the bill IS, is a huge government mandated payoff to high end insurance carriers, a threat to smaller carriers who will be denied government approval, leaves high and dry more than half the people currently without coverage, is being passed through corrupt means of bribes and threats, and invites additional corruption in government approval processes for insurance carriers and coverage decisions for new treatments. We already have enough corruption in the government involvement in health care. We do not need a bill that invites more.
If you like the Canadian system, that is fine. But your constant mindless repetition of liberal socialist talking points sounds to me like a lemming calling out to the others, "Go ahead and jump! The water's great!"
Last edited:
apple0154
MEOW
Check out this video. http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/
It explains the financial meltdown. Especially the clip between 38 minutes and 36 minutes. (The timer runs down.)
As for high interest rates the people who have money will increase their holdings due to a high return while the poor (borrowers) will pay more for less.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm aware of what casued the meltdown and I've read multiple books on it. You are aware that Greenspsan lowered rates to pump extra liquidity into the market after the recession and 9/11.
So why was it bad then to you that Greenspan kept rates low?
apple0154
MEOW
I don't recall saying low rates were bad. They're only bad if the lender intends to raise them after the borrower has borrowed money.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm talking about the Fed rate, not a bank's rate on an ARM.
apple0154
MEOW
Well, the bank rate is determined by the Fed rate. Usually. It appears now the banks have decided to raise the rates well past the Fed rate.
Good Luck
New member
But that is the exact problem with rates which are too low. To be sustainable they eventually have to be raised. No one can make a profit lending - even a "reasonable profit" as defined by socialists - when interests rates cannot even keep up with inflation.
Of course this only affects variable rate loans (which includes revolving credit), but then that is a huge part of the economy. When the law limiting ability to raise rates on current debt takes effect (can anyone explain why they gave such a large grace period?), then lenders will be far less willing to extend credit. Not that I dis agree with the new laws protecting borrows, nor with the idea of less credit floating around, but less available credit WILL have a negative effect on spending, which in turn will, at the least, extend if not worsen the effects of the recession.
apple0154
MEOW
People will always be looking for a way for their money to earn money. Either they will loan it out through banks or invest it in companies.
Interest rates can be set for a term even with revolving credit cards. Say, three years from the time a transaction is made. No different than a mortgage.
While less credit may worsen the recession borrowing money and not being able to repay it isn't going to help in the long run.
Good Luck
New member
On this we agree. In fact the current mess and most previous ones all the way back through the Great Depression can be laid at the door of the government encouraging credit spending in order to bolster the economy. We have been on a credit economy since before WWI, and each time it falters the government's answer has been to change banking laws to encourage (and force) ever wider available credit. It's the main reason our economy goes in cycles. (a stable economy would not have those cycles.) Each time the latest credit extending strategy falters because the debt load becomes unsustainable. Then the laws are changed to bring in more people on the credit lines and it starts all over again - a rise followed by a period of "prosperity" until the debt again reaches the upper limit of sustainability which leads to diminished spending as people attempt to pay off the debt along with a spate of high default rates and bankruptcies, followed by recession, followed by more credit extending laws, etc. etc. etc.
Worse yet, this phenomenon is not limited to the U.S.
It's simple - credit economies are false economies. they are less stable than a house of playing cards in a stiff wind. They WILL eventually run into the point where no more debt can be piled up no matter what we do with lending laws - and then we'll be in great depression (or worse) type trouble. That point is closer than many are aware of, or are willing to admit.
A better answer (though political suicide because of what it would do to the economy in the short term) would be to deliberately tighten available credit with tighter banking regulations and setting new-loan rates higher, and set up tax codes to encourage people to pay off their debt - or at least down; especially the debt carried by lower and low-middle income brackets who have the most difficulty carrying a debt load.
There would also need to be an information campaign (which, again would be highly unpopular politically) which would encourage people to stop buying on credit, to save for their desired purchases, and get entirely away from the current philosophy of entitlism and instant gratification.
Things would be rough for a number of years, possibly as much as a decade, because such a plan would require a long period with decreased spending, followed by an equally long period of SLOWLY increased spending. We'd need some solid HELP programs (as opposed to the current dependency traps) to assist many people through the economic trough.
And bring back some of our manufacturing instead of leaving it in the hands of others would help a lot, too. We can't leave the credit economy behind if we maintain a big trade deficit.
But if we want a good economy, one that will REMAIN good without constantly needing to be tweaked, adjusted, and reacting to crises, (which in turn yields the push and pull instabilities of partisan politics fucking things up) we MUST get off the idea of buy now, pay later. Most people agree the GOVERNMENT should aim towards a pay-go budget. The people need to get off the current buy now, pay later system also. Housing, and MAYBE automobiles could remain on such a basis and keep a stable economy - IF we no longer write laws and codes to encourage mortgages and auto loans to people who cannot afford them. But for TVs, a new bed, or dinner out, the better economy would be a cash economy - SAVE now, BUY when the savings is enough to cover it.
Last edited:
apple0154
MEOW
The tired, over used lie is that because no country has the same land area or the same population as the US then a universal plan can't work. There are dozens of "unique" countries where universal plans work just fine and I've previously listed them. Here are two examples.
Canada: 3,855,100 sq. miles with a population of 33,487,208
France: 244,339 sq. miles with a population of 64,057,792
How can Canada with half the population and 15 times the land size of France both have a universal plan?
Then there's Japan with 145,882 sq. miles with a population of 127,078,679. How can Japan have a health plan when it is 25 times smaller than Canada with almost 4 times the population?
The other over used lie is the "crisis" nonsense. Countries have had universal plans for 30 or 40 or 50 years. Of course the cost is going to increase as the baby boomers age. Gee, who would have thought??
What do older folks do? They put aside a few extra dollars for health care and spend less on rock concerts. Governments simply have to put aside more for health care and spend less elsewhere and there are many, many places to cut. Even with that said all the countries with health care are still paying about half of what the US population spends. What, exactly, is the crisis?
As for the current bill going in the wrong direction or forcing people to take insurance the point is to cross that line so the "mentality" is people are entitled to decent health care. Once that is established then any plan can be tweaked to fit the situation.
Every country has maintained their health plan for decades and decades. The constant repetition of "we can't do it", "we're different", "it won't work" gets to be nothing more than background noise after a while and people just ignore it and move on.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Now, see, that may no sense; because all you tried to do, is reverse an earlier comment of mine.
You fail.
Good Luck
New member
Do you deny there are problems with the various universal plans? If so, then you are truly and completely brain dead on this topic. Go enjoy your Canadian plan and leave us the fuck alone.
The plans you are so proud of have their problems. They are under constant adjustment. More and more, the adjustments end up bringing in more and more dependency on the open market system you keep denigrating, more and more resembling a "cover the poor, and let the rest pay themselves" type system you keep claiming is impossible.
What do you KNOW about the various universal plans you keep touting? What are the parameters of Japan's plan? What do they do to control costs? Do you know? Are you aware at all of the recent adjustments pushed through France's parliament? Are you aware of the ones in proposal? They have had a universal plan for dacades, yes. But most definitely not the SAME universal plan.
The changes made in the universal plans you keep referring to keep moving TOWARD the system we (almost) have in place: free market for the majority, government assistance for the rest. So, instead of jumping into a system that is slowly moving toward a different system why not avoid all the trouble and move toward the hybrid system that everyone seems to be slowly (if sometimes reluctantly) moving to?
"Because that kind cannot pass the congress". What a lame assed bullshit "I want it the way my political masters approve of and nothing else" excuse. The only reason it cannot pass is because people like YOU will not accept anything less than your precious (failed) socialism. You blame others for not being willing to pay for others without receiving some of the benefits. The $295 BILLION dollars in charitable contributions last year in the U.S. makes that claim of yours a dead assed lie - as is most of the shit you come up with in defense of your ideals. The FACT is the liberal democrats keep offering unacceptable alternatives, and USE the opposition of the anti-tax complaints to dismiss systems that would expand what they, themselves admit work (ask a liberal democrat about medicare/medicaid) but do not want to expand because it does not give them the political control a universal plan would give them.
One thing you can rest assured, the lemming approach is not a winning argument. "Gee, Dad, ALL the kids are doing it!" is not a reason for us to do it. (Why is it that when the rubber hits the road, most liberal "reasoning" - and I use the term loosely - ends up sounding like a whiny little kid?)
And then we come to the "pass ANYTHING, then tweak it once we get past the thresh hold" reasoning - again the term is used very loosely - is one of the main things wrong with this bill. If they cannot pass what they want without "passing a thresh hold" first, then maybe it should not be passed at all. Last I looked, the purpose of a constitutional republic is to have a government that reasonably reflects the will of the people (representive government? "government of the people, by the people, and for the people") while protecting basic liberties (so fucks like you cannot put fucks like me in jail for opposing you.). When the will of the people is against a socialized health care system, then it is the DUTY of the government to reflect that. It is NOT their job to do something against our will because they think it is better for us. The government is NOT in the role of a parent. Nor are the men and women running government somehow automatically wiser, nor are they somehow more informed than the general public. In fact, quite the opposite. "The qualities it takes to get elected are opposite the qualities one wants in an elected official." The attitude that government knows best, which you have shown in spades, is outright dangerous - it begs for eventual tyranny.
IF the government were to come up with a genuine REFORM plan, one that covers those in need (without trapping them into dependence on that coverage) one that addresses the reasons health care costs have spiked so far above inflation rates, and one that can be shown to be sustainable over the long term without the constant need for "adjustments", then the people can - and WILL - get behind such a plan - even if it means they pay for others without getting some of it for themselves (which anyone with a real brain knows is already happening. The more extreme anti-tax arm of the conservative movement just won't admit to it.)
The best, and most long term sustainable system, is one which lets the free market work on its own (with reasonable constraints to prevent abuse by big money interests) and helps out people who are in need of help. That is true for every day living expenses (ie: welfare and SS), AND health care.
Last edited:
apple0154
MEOW
Of course the plans need constant adjustment. The first reason is the population is aging so, naturally, the health bill will increase and it will continue to increase. Get over it.
The second point is some people want to pay for "special" service. Fine. Let them spend all they want. Just insure they contribute to those less fortunate and only way to insure fairness is through a universal plan.
Third, universal plans cost half of what the US spends. It's silly to look at other countries which are spending 50% less and say they have a crisis. The US spends approximately $6,000/person while other countries spend $3,000. As I asked before, "Where is the crisis?" Last time I checked they were talking about medical costs rising 6 or 7 percent when inflation is rising 3%. Again, fine. They can raise the medical contribution by 1/3! Throw in an additional $1,000/person.
The point is the money spent on universal plans is strictly arbitrary. Obviously, if they budget too low they will always have a crisis. If enough citizens complain the government will increase funding or be voted out but that's not happening because the citizens are happy with the cost/"crisis" ratio.
Of course it's not the same plan and that's exactly what I've been saying all along. They also don't have the same laws concerning drinking and driving or smoking or child care or income tax or most other laws they had 50 years ago.
A country adopts a universal plan and adjusts it accordingly. They'll require more old age care facilities soon. Am I psychic? No, the population is aging. A crisis or just common sense? Do we want 100 or 1000 or how ever many independent entrepreneurs all trying to make a buck building and maintaining those homes or does it make more sense for the government to co-ordinate it?
Let's not confuse shorter waiting times or more plush surroundings with dismantling a universal system. Again, we come back to whether or not health care is a right or a privilege. Moving from a universal plan to one where the government "helps" the less fortunate is moving from a right to a privilege and that's precisely what the majority of citizens in countries with universal plans do NOT want.
There are two ways to reach pretty much the same point. A "pay or suffer" system where the government helps and it's considered a privilege or a universal system combined with private enterprise where the government is obliged to provide adequate health care, regardless. That's the critical difference even if we end up at the same place. It's all about the "provenance".
Wrong, again. The reason it wouldn't pass is due to the ingrained idea of capitalism. Everyone has to pay. Money has to rule even if it means others suffer. The extreme fear....no, phobia....of government is disingenuous as you'll trust the government to decide when to enter wars and who will live and who will die but when it comes medical you say the government can't handle it. Nice try.
FINALLY!!!! That's exactly the reason why universal medical is so important. That's the reason why we have such a mixed up plan on the table. That's why we can't count on the people or government to merely "help". That's why the bill has to be pushed or dragged or shoved through. That's the "right" vs "privilege" argument in a nut shell.
As for the politicians not knowing about other health plans I have to repeat what I've been saying all along. NOT ONE COUNTRY WITH A UNIVERSAL PLAN EVER REVERTED TO THE "PAY OR SUFFER" SYSTEM AND NONE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SO".
Spin that any way you want. The fact remains EVERY COUNTRY, WITHOUT EXCEPTION prefers a universal plan. Do try and figure out why.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Excellent! You give concise, logical refutation.....especially this one: Wrong, again. The reason it wouldn't pass is due to the ingrained idea of capitalism. Everyone has to pay. Money has to rule even if it means others suffer. The extreme fear....no, phobia....of government is disingenuous as you'll trust the government to decide when to enter wars and who will live and who will die but when it comes medical you say the government can't handle it. Nice try.
Last edited:
Good Luck
New member
All you do is continue to repeat proven lies and misconceptions.
Common Liberal Lie #1: Universal plans are less expensive because those with universal plans spend half as much per capita than the U.S.
FACT: The U.S. has ALWAYS spent more per capita than other countries. Before other countries instigated their universal plans, the U.S. spent about twice as much per capita on health care. AFTER the plans were instigated, the U.S. spent about twice as much per capita on health care. AFTER the plans have been tweaked over several decades the U.S. STILL spends about twice as much per capita on health care.
Therefore: attributing the differential in per capita expenditures on health care to the universal systems of other countries is NOT supported. It is a LIE using bogus statistics.
Lie #2: "NOT ONE COUNTRY WITH A UNIVERSAL PLAN EVER REVERTED TO THE "PAY OR SUFFER" SYSTEM AND NONE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SO" (in all caps, yet!)
FACT: Every universal system has undergone changes in the last decade which are moving those plan away from a true universal plan, and more toward a plan which leaves those able to pay on their own and concentrating available assets on those who are not able to pay. ALL universal plans had, at one time, limitations on the right to self-subisidize the care available under the universal plan. ALL universal plans have since removed most if not all such limitations. MOST universal plans have instigated new sections that encourage self-subsidy of the care available under the universal plan. The end result is a tiered level of care based on who can and cannot afford to pay for higher levels of care.
Additionally, certain minimum levels of care are being scaled back as expenses outgrow available funding. New limitations are in place, or being considered, that are specifically aimed at "discouraging" unnecessary use of health care assets.
In short, those system which have never reverted to the pay or suffer system are, in fact, moving that direction. Technically, there are no universal plans left in except in China, Cuba and other full-blown socialist nations. All others have been hybridized with market systems.
Lie #3: A hybrid plan based on free market for the majority while providing assistance to the needy cannot pass.
FACT: not one bill of a hybrid type has ever even been attempted. The liberals ALWAYS take the "our way or no way" approach to the health care issue, then cry big crocodile tears when the people's answer is "fine, we'll choose 'no way'."
Personal lie, repeated at least twice now:
The second "nice try" is the typical brain dead attempt to demonize capitalism. Show me a SINGLE socialist system that does NOT have its fair share of poverty. In fact, show me a single socialist system that does not have WORSE poverty than our system.
As for what will or will not pass through Congress, show me ONE time a hybrid type system that simply expands medicaid or a medicaid-like system to cover those in need while leaving the rest of the system relatively as is that has even made it to committee. Show me ONE time such a system has even made it to the rough draft stage. You ASSUME (actually you LIE about a bogus assumption) that such a system has no chance of passing because you cling to the "my way or no way" absolutism of the extreme liberal philosophy. It is a bogus outright lie. The truth is your political masters will not TRY to pass a reasonable compromise system because they are AFRAID that it WOULD pass, WOULD work, and thereby fuck up their designs for socialist control.
Common Liberal Lie #1: Universal plans are less expensive because those with universal plans spend half as much per capita than the U.S.
FACT: The U.S. has ALWAYS spent more per capita than other countries. Before other countries instigated their universal plans, the U.S. spent about twice as much per capita on health care. AFTER the plans were instigated, the U.S. spent about twice as much per capita on health care. AFTER the plans have been tweaked over several decades the U.S. STILL spends about twice as much per capita on health care.
Therefore: attributing the differential in per capita expenditures on health care to the universal systems of other countries is NOT supported. It is a LIE using bogus statistics.
Lie #2: "NOT ONE COUNTRY WITH A UNIVERSAL PLAN EVER REVERTED TO THE "PAY OR SUFFER" SYSTEM AND NONE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SO" (in all caps, yet!)
FACT: Every universal system has undergone changes in the last decade which are moving those plan away from a true universal plan, and more toward a plan which leaves those able to pay on their own and concentrating available assets on those who are not able to pay. ALL universal plans had, at one time, limitations on the right to self-subisidize the care available under the universal plan. ALL universal plans have since removed most if not all such limitations. MOST universal plans have instigated new sections that encourage self-subsidy of the care available under the universal plan. The end result is a tiered level of care based on who can and cannot afford to pay for higher levels of care.
Additionally, certain minimum levels of care are being scaled back as expenses outgrow available funding. New limitations are in place, or being considered, that are specifically aimed at "discouraging" unnecessary use of health care assets.
In short, those system which have never reverted to the pay or suffer system are, in fact, moving that direction. Technically, there are no universal plans left in except in China, Cuba and other full-blown socialist nations. All others have been hybridized with market systems.
Lie #3: A hybrid plan based on free market for the majority while providing assistance to the needy cannot pass.
FACT: not one bill of a hybrid type has ever even been attempted. The liberals ALWAYS take the "our way or no way" approach to the health care issue, then cry big crocodile tears when the people's answer is "fine, we'll choose 'no way'."
Personal lie, repeated at least twice now:
The "nice try" is the attempt to cry hypocrisy. Where have I EVER indicated I have a green light acceptance for the government's decisions to go to war? I have a stainless steel and plastic hip because of a certain democratic president sending people to kill and die in the muds of Vietnam. Why do you have to lie about every damned thing, even bringing in other topics to lie about?
The second "nice try" is the typical brain dead attempt to demonize capitalism. Show me a SINGLE socialist system that does NOT have its fair share of poverty. In fact, show me a single socialist system that does not have WORSE poverty than our system.
As for what will or will not pass through Congress, show me ONE time a hybrid type system that simply expands medicaid or a medicaid-like system to cover those in need while leaving the rest of the system relatively as is that has even made it to committee. Show me ONE time such a system has even made it to the rough draft stage. You ASSUME (actually you LIE about a bogus assumption) that such a system has no chance of passing because you cling to the "my way or no way" absolutism of the extreme liberal philosophy. It is a bogus outright lie. The truth is your political masters will not TRY to pass a reasonable compromise system because they are AFRAID that it WOULD pass, WOULD work, and thereby fuck up their designs for socialist control.
Good Luck
New member
No, that is the attitude of tyranny in a nut shell. That is the "we must take over because we do not trust the people" in a nut shell. That is "fuck the will of the people, they don't know what is best for them" elitism in a nutshell. That is "end justifies the means" in a nutshell. That is lie, cheat, steal, and subvert the law to get our way in a nutshell.
Like I said, if you have to use corrupt means to pass your load of shit, then the most valid conclusion is your load of shit does not deserve to be passed.
And what is with the "we" statements? I though you were in Canada. "That's the reason why we have such a mixed up plan on the table." Who is the "we" you refer to in the first person? You have your system in Canada. If you like it, fine. But why pretend to be a participating party in the U.S.? Or is that another lie?