Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

reds8n wrote:I wonder why he did this ?

..hmm.... it's almost like a certain group of people are trying to derail what's going on...

Is that out of the ordinary for political protesters?

Dude... protesters with rifles? Wait... seriously? I am getting convinced more and more daily that there is an awful lot of money being poured into this whole reaction on the left. I am pretty sure at this point that the 9/11 Truthers (or at least some of them... Alex Jones, ahem...) are being funded by political affiliations with the Republican party.

This whole situation is going to get better, most people are not actually scared of a second civil war, but some one seems to think that they are...

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm rather disillusioned that President Obama can turn water into Bud Lite.

There's a lot you can do with a bucket of water -- water the garden, wash in it or drink it. None of these is possible with Bud Lite.

I would have hoped he could turn the water into some useful.

I find that muffins are quite useful... they sound rather easy to make as well. Maybe we could ask Obama to have a bake sale for Health care eh? Wait... no there simply aren't enough angry mothers to hold a bake sale against health care reform.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
Now healthcare is just giving money for a plan, nothing tangible.

You mean like military spending is based on the plan to purchase bullets, or the plan research a new weapons system?

Or infrastructure spending is based on the plan to construct new roads, utilities, and bridges?

Except that you actually pay for real bullets, not just a plan to buy bullets or you pay for actual roads to be built.

With healthcare you pay for a magical title that makes people call the homeless insured. Also, look at the cash 4 clunkers thing, not much of the promised money is reaching it. I believe payment is like the law saying you can't burn draft cards but you can burn the flag. If its not necessary for government function then it doesn't matter.

I think you should just say that you hate Obama already Halanchos... I think it is really quite clear that is the case.

Cash For Clunkers has been one of the most successful stimulus' to ever reach your pocket. You complain about everything put in action by Obama and his administration but I fail to see how A.) Cash For CLunkers was ANY kind of failure... and B.) How it has anything to do with Health Care reform... besides your obvious intent to make it seem like it actually means anything relevant.

Honestly though... before you start whining about the second hand parts stores (OMFG the cheating bastards are going out of business? Sorry that was unfair.. SOME of the cheating bastards are going out of business?) losing business, WHO CARES! The economy needs changes like this so that people will actively engage in taking some action against carbon emissions.

Trust me, I hate Prius drivers as much as anyone, but the cars are cool, they may not be all that effective at achieving their actual goal of cutting emissions from being built to being scrapped, but the concept is entirely sound.

If I could find some serious and reputable information on this I would present it, but as it stands this is not verified, but neither are you in terms of the questions that I want answered.

First of all... I drive a toyota... I know quite a few people that drive toyotas and a whole lot more who drive honda. The civic and the classic toyotas have some of the most overabundance of spare parts that cars have ever seen. If you could provide evidence to me that it actually matters that some junk-yard is going to go out of business... I thought they went out of business for being greedy bastards?

You know that friend with that crappy old bucket? Yeah, this plan is for him... GO TED GO! GET RID OF THE BUCKET ALREADY!!! WOOT!

halonachos wrote:
Except that you actually pay for real bullets, not just a plan to buy bullets or you pay for actual roads to be built.

That isn't how government budgeting works. The Executive submits a budget to Congress which is itself derived from the budgetary requests made by the various agencies of the state (military, entitlements, et al). These are all based on planned expenditures, not actual expenditures. They are plans to buy bullets, or plans to build roads.

halonachos wrote:
With healthcare you pay for a magical title that makes people call the homeless insured.

Dear God, the number of things wrong with this statement.

First off, we're not talking about the homeless. We're talking about the uninsured, and the overall cost of healthcare; whether or not some of the uninsured are homeless is irrelevant (actually, the statistics for the uninsured probably don't include the homeless, as they are based on a door census). Second, it isn't a title, it is a plan that actually accounts for the purchase of MRI scans, medication, and medical tests. You know, physical goods and the labor that goes into the provision of service.

halonachos wrote:
Also, look at the cash 4 clunkers thing, not much of the promised money is reaching it. I believe payment is like the law saying you can't burn draft cards but you can burn the flag. If its not necessary for government function then it doesn't matter.

That isn't even a complete thought, let alone anything related to the rest of what you've said.

Is Halanchos responsible (BLAME!) for the current crisis over health care?

I say yes, and indeed, and proportionally overwhelming to the point of fact, and etc... etc... etc...

halonachos wrote:Economy is easy: the more gold you have the richer you are.

However, spending on military is much easier. Seeing as though each bullet can be used once, the brass can be recycled but the lead can't. Also, its hard to recycle bombs and things that get blowned up. Not to mention the fact that they have to try to compensate loss of dear ones.

Infrastructure is the same way, things need to get replaced.

Now healthcare is just giving money for a plan, nothing tangible.

What you're written above doesn't really relate to any economic theory in any conceivable sense. You've confused a lot of different things, and attached some economic theories of your own that don’t relate to any economic concepts.

Healthcare reform and stimulus spending are different things. Stimulus spending is a short term thing, designed to maintain aggregate demand and prevent a spiral into an increasingly severe recession.

Healthcare reform is not a stimulus plan (although there have been some dubious Democratic efforts to sell it as such). It is a long term plan, that will exist over many business cycles, and should not be assessed on its stimulus effect.

Either way, the stimulus effects of different kinds of spending do not operate as you suggest above. Stimulus works because a dollar spent on a service is now in the hands of a citizen, who then spends that dollar on a consumable, so that the dollar is then in the hands of another citizen, who then spends that dollar another consumable, and so on. The primary concern is how likely a dollar spent on a type of service is to end up in that first consumer’s hand. You basically need to be confident that what you’re buying is locally manufactured.


*There are also other concerns, such as how quickly you can get the money spent and out into the economy, and how easily you can turn the spending off once the need for stimulus is over. This is why stimulus spending tends to be on one-off capital items, and why healthcare is only somewhat useful for stimulus. Yes, buying new MRIs will work, but most necessary healthcare expenditure will be on new staff, who will be getting paid over multiple business cycles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm rather disillusioned that President Obama can turn water into Bud Lite.

There's a lot you can do with a bucket of water -- water the garden, wash in it or drink it. None of these is possible with Bud Lite.

I would have hoped he could turn the water into some useful.

It's also easier to get drunk off of water.

Sebster, you must have a chronic issue with making things up and saying that someone else said them, I didn't say anything about stimulus. All I said was that it's easier to spend on the military and infrastructure. When you start criticizing things that I actually say, then I will debate you because its kind of hard for me to defend a point I never made and easy for you to refute one that you made up or "interpreted" from my words.



@ wrex, personally I drive a ford that gets 23mpg so I'm happy.

However CNN just covered a simple fact: the money that was promised to the dealerships for the clunkers hasn't arrived like it was supposed to. Secondly, this thing is just going to be like the housing bubble. We have hundreds of people buying new cars because the government is helping them out, but what happens when the government stops? Business is going to continue booming? I highly doubt that.

@Dogma,
What I was referring to is that the military and infrastructure are more important than the C4C deal. The government has yet to send out the checks for the C4C deal, but sends them out for the military and infrastructure.

So the question is this; will healthcare be more important, or at least important enough, that the hospitals will actually receive payment.

Because if the hospitals don't receive payment, then why would they continue to accept those with the govt. healthcare plan?

halonachos wrote: All I said was that it's easier to spend on the military and infrastructure.

That's what stimulus is. Healthcare isn't stimulus. Not immediate stimulus anyway. Its a risk coverage plan that affords for potential medical expenses.

halonachos wrote:
What I was referring to is that the military and infrastructure are more important than the C4C deal. The government has yet to send out the checks for the C4C deal, but sends them out for the military and infrastructure.

First, nothing you said previously arrive anywhere near that point.

Second, there are pretty clear reasons for this. When spending is undertaken on the military, or in the construction of infrastructure, payments are made under the auspices of a contract. Cash 4 Clunkers is a rebate program. Try getting a rebate from a corporation. It takes time.

halonachos wrote:
So the question is this; will healthcare be more important, or at least important enough, that the hospitals will actually receive payment.

Because if the hospitals don't receive payment, then why would they continue to accept those with the govt. healthcare plan?

No, that's not what the question is. That doesn't follow from anything you have previously discussed.

However, to answer that question, I can't imagine that a single payer system (or a public option) would realize delays any more significant than those present in the current system. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy.

halonachos wrote:Sebster, you must have a chronic issue with making things up and saying that someone else said them, I didn't say anything about stimulus. All I said was that it's easier to spend on the military and infrastructure. When you start criticizing things that I actually say, then I will debate you because its kind of hard for me to defend a point I never made and easy for you to refute one that you made up or "interpreted" from my words.

My mistake. We were talking about stimulus spending, then you came in talking about how you spend money on different things and I assumed it was in reference to stimulus. That was an error on my part.

I've read your post again and now have no idea what you were talking about. I have no idea what relevance 'ease' of spending would have in setting policy, surely what matters is what needs money spent on it.

Look at it like this: What is everyone debating on currently and what is having a difficult time of getting passed? The healthcare plan right? While for the most part people agree that a military is necessary and that it should be well funded so armor, ammo, and people can get made or paid. Infrastructure is a necessity because it builds roads and thigns used by all persons, even homeless people use it and they don't pay for it.

While the healthcare plan is creating such a mess in just trying to get it passed that it would probably continue to do the same.

Now what does this have to do with ease of spending you ask?
Well, a congressman is more likely to pass bills increasing funding on things that their constituents like. Its easier to get someone to like military spending or infrastructure spending increases. If the healthcare issues keep up then it is less likely that increased funding or total funding will passed.

Its easier for a representative to pass bills for military spending.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm rather disillusioned that President Obama can turn water into Bud Lite.

There's a lot you can do with a bucket of water -- water the garden, wash in it or drink it. None of these is possible with Bud Lite.

I would have hoped he could turn the water into some useful.

Some people are never satisfied...

For those of us that are, drink bud light!

He should've turned it into Pabst or Yuengling that un american yahoo.

halonachos wrote:Thief, you have violated the law. Pay the court a fine or serve your sentence.

I like how in Oblivion that you can kill as many people as you want and if you have enough money you can just get off without jailtime. Just like in real life.

You do realise, carrying on doing that will make your guy a weedy arse

No, because just like in real life you can pray at some altars and all is forgiven. Well, I guess its real life for us catholics.

halonachos wrote:
Its easier for a representative to pass bills for military spending.

That's very debatable. It also isn't particularly relevant.

Actually it is, seeing as though I was saying that it was easier to pass.

halonachos wrote:Actually it is, seeing as though I was saying that it was easier to pass.

You're missing the point, as usual. You're entire notion that something might be easier to pass than something else is not relevant to any matter other than one of political tactics.

Dogma wrote:However, to answer that question, I can't imagine that a single payer system (or a public option) would realize delays any more significant than those present in the current system. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy.

Hmmm, I cannot agree with you here. Perhaps some carrots are like other carrots, but the carrot I want to run this whole operation seems to be equipped with a new way of approaching all of these issues. You could call it naive, but I call it progress. If the government well and truly cannot work out a way to provide single payer system through the states THAT WANT IT (seriously folks, why is this such a complicated issue? Why can't the states that don't want it deny it? No taxes and so one, on top of no subsidies for making such decisions... I feel like I am missing something here.) so that this issue can represent what it actually means to.

Bureaucracy is not a carrot BTW... it is a very complicated system that is used to make things harder to do, but in a good way... If the government cares (I wonder sometimes) it will be no problem to sit down and figure out the best way to organize such a large issue. For what other reason did we vote all of these supposed brains in? To stand there and cave under lobbyists requests?

Before you answer this Dogma... consider working with two dozen clones of yourself, all of which wear a different hat. You are now a super-person okay, and you can think two dozen times clearer due to the fact that you have two dozen heads. If you cannot organize clear communication between as few people as that you are in some seriously freaking messed up managerial issues.

This whole problem of managing seems to be something that Obama doesn't have the experience needed to pull off. I was actually worried that something like this would happen and in his attempts to get support his goal would be watered down. Quite frankly, a lot of the fiasco right now could be attributed to sources that many of us are not even aware of in our government. Intent to change through coercion on a very subtle level. Corporate interests via lobbyists are my final guess, because the buck always seems to stop with them.

It is very clear on the other hand that Obama expected more support from the public, and failed to organize his own plan beyond the rather vague platform that he campaigned on and the reason I did not vote at all. Hilary was my first pick, but she just had this kind of sinister vibe that I simply could not shake.

Except that those "political tactics" cause more money to be funneled towards different projects which will affect economy.

Obama does have support, the people are divided mostly 50-50 so its going to be rough for them to pass. Unless of course they ignore half of the nation and pass it.

The lies from both sides have affected this issue and I just hope that it won't devolve into violence, people are bringing in race and its getting dangerous.

No matter how you cut it, it is partly a racial issue mate. This is not that main talking point of either party of course, and for good reason, it is in no way the center of the real issue.

If people go ape-gak over some racist stuff, I would guess it was because someone was being racist? Whether or not it has anything to do with health care reform people are going to continue to have racial tension for many years. A lot of individuals are still angry that we even have a black president and I think that is where the problems start.

halonachos wrote:Look at it like this: What is everyone debating on currently and what is having a difficult time of getting passed? The healthcare plan right? While for the most part people agree that a military is necessary and that it should be well funded so armor, ammo, and people can get made or paid. Infrastructure is a necessity because it builds roads and thigns used by all persons, even homeless people use it and they don't pay for it.

While the healthcare plan is creating such a mess in just trying to get it passed that it would probably continue to do the same.

Now what does this have to do with ease of spending you ask?
Well, a congressman is more likely to pass bills increasing funding on things that their constituents like. Its easier to get someone to like military spending or infrastructure spending increases. If the healthcare issues keep up then it is less likely that increased funding or total funding will passed.

Its easier for a representative to pass bills for military spending.

You haven't addressed my question, just restated your original premise, so I'll just repeat my earlier question;

"I have no idea what relevance 'ease' of spending would have in setting policy, surely what matters is what needs money spent on it."

Sebster... why? Seriously though, you know this is not going anywhere.

And sebster I said that the military needs more funding because most of what we spend on the military is expendable(bullets, bombs, etc). While this new healthcare plan would benefit 1/6 of the country the military supports 6/6 of the country. Not by just defending it, but by spending the money they earn.

My point was that the military needs more spending so they are going to focus on it. The reps in my area are military friendly because most of the population is comprised of military members or civil service members.


@Wrex, yes I understand the whole race thing. I would guess that same amount of voters voted against him because he was black as the amount that voted for him because he was black.

However, the swastika has been involved and the powers of godwin have been invoked. The ultimate flame war is approaching.

halanchos wrote:@Wrex, yes I understand the whole race thing. I would guess that same amount of voters voted against him because he was black as the amount that voted for him because he was black.

Okay... seriously though, what are you talking about now? Did you not understand why those people voted against him for being black? My mind is boggled by you right now man .

Wrexasaur wrote:Sebster... why? Seriously though, you know this is not going anywhere.

I just can't stand people saying things that are obviously wrong and or crazy. I know it won't go anywhere (how do you reason someone out of a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place?) and yet I do it anyway.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure it's fair to explain much of the freakout over healthcare reform on racial issues. The reaction was just as strong and just as weird when Clinton tried his reforms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:And sebster I said that the military needs more funding because most of what we spend on the military is expendable(bullets, bombs, etc). While this new healthcare plan would benefit 1/6 of the country the military supports 6/6 of the country. Not by just defending it, but by spending the money they earn.

The money is spent, either way. Whether you emply a doctor or buy a case of 5.56, the money is spent. Where did you get this idea? I'm not sure if you're making this up or mangling military keynesian ideas, but what you're saying makes zero sense.

My point was that the military needs more spending so they are going to focus on it. The reps in my area are military friendly because most of the population is comprised of military members or civil service members.

You understand that's basically the definition of porkbarrelling, and porkbarrelling is thought of as a bad thing?

Sebster wrote:Meanwhile, I'm not sure it's fair to explain much of the freakout over healthcare reform on racial issues. The reaction was just as strong and just as weird when Clinton tried his reforms.

Very true, and I even edited to keep that clear. Racial issues could be seen as a general 1/3 of this debate when generalized greatly, when you actually look closely most of the racial issues have little to do with health care reform and a great deal to do with racism.

ANYWAY PPPHHHHBBBBTTTTT.... okay... I am okay.

And OMG something that has to do with the thread making and the making of the thread being in the forum with the stuff and the things about the person.




He is playing the cool guy with a button... oh, right, GO OBAMA! Hmm... speak louder next time dude .

There has a been a distinct loss of authority for the President and what he says for quite some time now. It is almost like people are talking to G.W. jr. puffingstock. I remember when the nation would still listen to the President without an enourmous amount of disdain on both sides and I hesitate to say it is anyone's fault but our own for being so easily misinformed. I have respect for the President, especially after what we just had to go through with the last administration, you know he is trying to pick up all the pieces left behind. If Obama does well with health reform and we get a better system in place by his next election, he has my vote, and I can guarantee that at the very least. For a guy who thinks a bit like Clinton he needs to step his game up though, it is like watching a nervous lion stalk a rabbit... it is a freaking rabbit mate, no need for theatrics .

Wrexasaur wrote:
Hmmm, I cannot agree with you here. Perhaps some carrots are like other carrots, but the carrot I want to run this whole operation seems to be equipped with a new way of approaching all of these issues. You could call it naive, but I call it progress. If the government well and truly cannot work out a way to provide single payer system through the states THAT WANT IT (seriously folks, why is this such a complicated issue? Why can't the states that don't want it deny it? No taxes and so one, on top of no subsidies for making such decisions... I feel like I am missing something here.) so that this issue can represent what it actually means to.

Bureaucracy is not a carrot BTW... it is a very complicated system that is used to make things harder to do, but in a good way... If the government cares (I wonder sometimes) it will be no problem to sit down and figure out the best way to organize such a large issue. For what other reason did we vote all of these supposed brains in? To stand there and cave under lobbyists requests?

I should clarify. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy, but any given bureaucracy can vary considerably in scale. When discussing a public option or a single-payer system you're talking about either creating a parallel option, or replacing one level (businesses) of bureaucracy with another (the payment agency). In the end delays should be comparable to the present reality. Now, that doesn't necessarily address important issues, like cost, but it is something to consider.

Wrexasaur wrote:
This whole problem of managing seems to be something that Obama doesn't have the experience needed to pull off. I was actually worried that something like this would happen and in his attempts to get support his goal would be watered down. Quite frankly, a lot of the fiasco right now could be attributed to sources that many of us are not even aware of in our government. Intent to change through coercion on a very subtle level. Corporate interests via lobbyists are my final guess, because the buck always seems to stop with them.

Many of the nation's business interest favor healthcare reform. Anything that reduces the price of care also reduces the amount of their gross income which must be used to pay for insurance.

That said, you're right. Obama isn't a particularly effective manager, and that's a critical characteristic in an environment of high controversy.

Wrexasaur wrote:
It is very clear on the other hand that Obama expected more support from the public, and failed to organize his own plan beyond the rather vague platform that he campaigned on and the reason I did not vote at all. Hilary was my first pick, but she just had this kind of sinister vibe that I simply could not shake.

I also preferred Hilary. Though I think her additional experience would have been offset by the legacy of the Clinton name when considering opposition to any attempt at passing legislation.

Domga-dude wrote:Many of the nation's business interest favor healthcare reform. Anything that reduces the price of care also reduces the amount of their gross income which must be used to pay for insurance.

I want to see coverage of this though. I fail to see the dollars behind the rhetoric on this one, and if we vote with our dollars these companies are sure as apple pie to do so as well. Is there a complete swamping of the media right now? Can the market not handle this much information, and if so why is it not being clearly distributed on the internet to compete with the utterly moronic interpretations of the current debate? Wait...

Okay, I have a theory... and it involves us not demanding jobs in the new market that is the internet. There are careers waiting to be made, heck if Dog-man is a health advisor he has a job saying fact as we speak. If I can make a joke, I have a job as we speak... for at least six months . If Frazzled can... wait.... oh snap, where is Frazzled, he has a job anyway so it dizzon't matter. If sebster moved to the U.S. he could get a career and a lifetime of substantial female... erm... wait... yeah, he would be happy, chicks dig the Aussie accent, it reminds them of turtles or something . So... focus and more clearly, demand a new market of information, mainly due to the utter incompetence of news agencies to make their voice somewhat less idiotic that the rest. And we step in like, half-a million diggaroos for a spock, ya know? Yah... this will work out just fine... hmmm.

From the perspective of a SMART corporate executive, why in the hell even get involved? What purpose does this pedaling of lies serve? How can any of these interests know what they are actually promoting through the media? Take a second to think about it from a conversion of reality to fact to realistic perspective stance. Like a horse and a donkey fighting... or one is an elephant or something... I don't know, okay whatever .

Anyway, the fact still remains that I see a clear push from one side of the insurance industry (if you really want to boil it down to such a primitive term of such circumstances that brought on this issue in the first place) while the rest of the medical industry is just staring... like with laser eyes... and waiting for the worst moron... wait Glenn Beck... right... he has been and gone. Perhaps the battle is already won, I simply could not tell you that, and as far as I can tell neither could Obama . Man, the funny pouring out of this is totally delicious, gotta love one of the most circus like public democracies in on the entire surface of the planet... and that even includes chimpanzees with their totalitarian perspective on this total fiasco. No... actual monkeys, not the you are stupid for thinking that kind .

Man... that is at least 5 funnies... but they annoy... hmmm... so I am randomly editing them to make them less annoying.... Okay, this one is angry, this one is sad (typo there anyway.), and this one is... hmmm, ummm, a dakka gun should work well. A flame for good measure... wait... okay then, maybe that was tangential, but a buckshot at a deer never dropped not but a dear.

The problem with all news media but especially with the Internet (blogs, etc.) is that most people seek out information that validates their existing views, and ignore information that challenges them.

Even the very best newspapers (e.g. The Guardian, The Times) show evidence of leaning, or an agenda, if not actual bias.

The slightest bit of lean can be taken by people of the opposite political views as a reason not to read the said newspaper, or to disbelieve the information presented.