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.

I want Glenn Beck to lose his hands... so that I don't have to see any more of his lying, slanted, bullcrap books in my workplace. I can turn off the radio, I can turn off the TV, but I can't avoid looking at the covers of books when I work at a bookstore.

One of the things that I think is keeping many Americans from supporting more government involvement in sectors like health care is its own wasteful spending and lack of accountability. For example, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) announced last week that it could not account for $24 billion from the Federal Budget last year. Now, I know some people will make the argument that that amount is really insignificant compared to the overall budget, but I think that is an excuse and a cop out. That is a massive amount of money, bigger than many nations' entire GDP, and there is no excuse for that much to just be "missing." The Federal government should be required to audit itself every year, and that should include the Federal Reserve. Yes that would be an enormous undertaking every year, but not only will it help to keep the government accountable, it will also help to create more jobs.

Accountability and wastefulness are just some of the many problems though that hinder any real developments on reform and the like. If President Obama had been thinking intelligently, he would not have trusted the Democrats on Capitol Hill to write the current health care bills, nor would he try and push it through in such a short amount of time. The Democrats are creating another bill, similar to the pork-ridden "stimulus" package that was passed earlier this year, that is both impossible and ridiculous. Combine this Christmas tree bill with the haste the President and the Democrats have employed to try and get this through Congress and you will get fear and paranoia among the American populace. Many Americans, including myself, do not see how there could be any sustainable, trustworthy program of reforms written and passed so quickly. This paranoia has fueled a movement of anger and hatred toward the bills (my last count put them at 5) that are being considered in Congress. All of these bills comprise over 1,000 pages of law and not one member of the House or Senate knows the bill thoroughly, not even the leadership of both parties.

Do I have an answer to the health care situation? No, and I don't presume to be wise or intelligent enough to find one soon. I can only think of several ideas that could be dealt with one at a time, and may help to bring down costs. The biggest one that I can think of is the frivolous lawsuits that plague the entire industry. Because the lawsuits occur frequently, and I don't think that they are always justified, they force the members of the health care industry to allocate more and more money to either fight them in court or to just pay plaintiffs in a settlement. Don't tell me that the trial lawyer lobby hasn't had a hand in blocking reform of this issue, especially since they are by and large some of the largest supporters of the Democratic party. If these costs were limited, the various companies would not have to charge so much in order to stay afloat. This would also help to alleviate doctors of the ridiculous costs they must endure in order to pay for malpractice insurance. (Here in California, Malpractice insurance can set a doctor back $150,000 a year easy, that is if they have a clean record and no lawsuits.)

Lastly, Glen Beck. I used to like Glen Beck quite a bit, but ever since his transfer to Fox News, the quality of his show has plummeted. He now is in the same arena as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Madcow and other partisan hacks. Its to bad, he used to be much better and much more intelligent...now the only one I like is pretty much Larry Elder.

Wrexasaur wrote:

the only Republican talking point left aside the whole Obama is Hitler thing... and you don't need to go there...

Off topic

I find this ironic seeing as how Pelosi is the one who began the labeling of protesters as Nazi's.

JEB_Stuart wrote:For example, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) announced last week that it could not account for $24 billion from the Federal Budget last year. Now, I know some people will make the argument that that amount is really insignificant compared to the overall budget, but I think that is an excuse and a cop out.

I'm actually amazed that the budget is kept as closely as it is. All those cost-plus contracts are difficult to track.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
If President Obama had been thinking intelligently, he would not have trusted the Democrats on Capitol Hill to write the current health care bills, nor would he try and push it through in such a short amount of time.

The alternative would have been to present a bill of his own. Personally, I wish he would have done this. It would have made it harder for the opposition to lie about its content. However, it also would have tied the President to a single piece of legislation, which has it own issues. Though I suppose that has happened anyway.

Its amusing really, the controversy surrounding this bill has really elucidated just how simplistic American politics are. You have this big issue, healthcare reform, which can be approached in multiple ways. Everyone and their mother is clamoring for a longer debate; forgetting that the process of passing a bill into law is debate. One which actually forces officials to pay attention and think, rather than stall. This bill will likely be defeated, but hopefully another one will take its place soon after. That's how the process is supposed to work anyway. The rejection of a single bill isn't a defeat for those who championed it; simply a call to go back to the drawing board. Especially on something like healthcare which is so often called into question.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
The Democrats are creating another bill, similar to the pork-ridden "stimulus" package that was passed earlier this year, that is both impossible and ridiculous.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by 'pork' here. The stimulus package was designed to fund various projects around the nation with the overall intent of softening the recession. This pretty much necessitates spending of a more localized form, which is the normal definition of pork; a definition which is meaningless here.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Combine this Christmas tree bill with the haste the President and the Democrats have employed to try and get this through Congress and you will get fear and paranoia among the American populace. Many Americans, including myself, do not see how there could be any sustainable, trustworthy program of reforms written and passed so quickly.

You're correct. Writing a quality bill of that length in such a short time is impossible, but pushing the bill makes people pay attention to the issue.

dogma wrote:
I'm actually amazed that the budget is kept as closely as it is. All those cost-plus contracts are difficult to track.

While I appreciate the optimism I still find it inexcusable to lose that much money. I agree that the Federal budget is massive, too big in my opinion, but that doesn't mean a lack of accountability is in order.

dogma wrote:
The alternative would have been to present a bill of his own. Personally, I wish he would have done this. It would have made it harder for the opposition to lie about its content. However, it also would have tied the President to a single piece of legislation, which has it own issues. Though I suppose that has happened anyway.

QFT, I completely agree with you on this Dogma. While I have never been a big fan of the government being involved in health care, the President should have taken responsibility on this issue and had his administration craft the first bill for Congress. It is his responsibility to convince fiscal conservatives, such as myself, why we can and should have this, and how we can afford it without mortgaging our future to foreign countries. Sadly, I think that he has failed at this and the idiots in Congress, namely Pelosi and Reid, have strengthened the resolve of my resistance on this matter. For any of you who read her column, Camille Paglia (whom I consider to be one of the best women writers in the world), suggested the President come up with a system of small, realistic benchmarks in order to slowly gain the public's trust on the matter and educate them on the possibilities and realities of health care reform. Here is her blog, which can be found as listed on the Drudge Report: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/ .

dogma wrote:
You'll have to clarify what you mean by 'pork' here. The stimulus package was designed to fund various projects around the nation with the overall intent of softening the recession. This pretty much necessitates spending of a more localized form, which is the normal definition of pork; a definition which is meaningless here.

Well, what I mean by pork is the unaccounted or uncontrolled spending percentages in the stimulus package. Here is a story from U.S. News & World Report.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2009/02/19/finding-the-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill.html
and another from the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

dogma wrote:
You're correct. Writing a quality bill of that length in such a short time is impossible, but pushing the bill makes people pay attention to the issue.

While attention on the issue is needed, and definitely more debate and research is merited, this still begs the question: what if we get saddled with this monstrosity of a bill? With the recent declaration of Democratic leadership that this bill will pass, whether the American people like it or not, and of course this also mean without the support of a single Republican in Congress. Now I am no fan of either party, I am definitely not a liberal, but even more definitely not a member of the neoconservative movement, but the thing that bugs me is the blame the Democratic Party is laying on Republicans. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26250.html) There is no way to blame the GOP as they are so out of power it isn't even funny. With a filibuster proof Senate and a large majority in the House, lets be honest, there is no excuse for any bill to be a problem. Back to my original point though. This current bill is a major mistake, and is just one huge bubbling pile of that makes Rosie O'Donnell look attractive. Let us not support this bill but work for a more sustainable, realistic approach that deals with the issues one at a time, and sets a series of benchmarks that require progress.

Oh, sorry to burst your bubble Obama supporters, but this seems to be a bit contradictory to the President's claims to get rid of special interest from the government process:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_consultants

VermGho5t wrote:Off topic

I find this ironic seeing as how Pelosi is the one who began the labeling of protesters as Nazi's.

Except that isn't true. She didn't call them nazis, she said they were wearing swastikas. The difference is important, because they were;



The difference is also important because she was talking about the extremism of the protestors, that they were just the nutty fringe, and didn't represent the majority opinion on healthcare. When someone is calling you a nazi for trying to expand healthcare, it's reasonable to call them nutty.

Whoever is telling you Pelosi started it was lying to you, or was themselves lied to and didn't properly check their source. You should stop listening to that person.

sebster wrote:Yeah, and the more money you spend the better you should able to relieve suffering... if the system is a decent one. And yet for all the money you spend, you don't extend lives as long as countries spending half as much. This is not a complex thing, you spend 50% more of GDP than the next country, and around double the average. For that amount of money you get the 37th best healthcare system. Behind Slovenia.

sebster, can you provide sources for the above info? I'm genuinely curious...

thanx,

GG

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

..I'm assuming anyway.

That link isn't working for me..

GG

any better ?

sebster wrote:

VermGho5t wrote:Off topic

I find this ironic seeing as how Pelosi is the one who began the labeling of protesters as Nazi's.

Except that isn't true. She didn't call them nazis, she said they were wearing swastikas. The difference is important, because they were;



The difference is also important because she was talking about the extremism of the protestors, that they were just the nutty fringe, and didn't represent the majority opinion on healthcare. When someone is calling you a nazi for trying to expand healthcare, it's reasonable to call them nutty.

Whoever is telling you Pelosi started it was lying to you, or was themselves lied to and didn't properly check their source. You should stop listening to that person.

That lady is not wearing a swastika in the pic.

Speaking of a government unable to account for lost money and corruption with a fixation on the past.

reds8n wrote:any better ?

nope....It may be my workplace blocking it.

I'll see when I get home.


GG

sorry matey, works alright at my end.


..... and we thought Kid Kyoto had it bad eh ?

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Speaking of a government unable to account for lost money and corruption with a fixation on the past.

Urg...my stomach just lurched. The more I read about the government's wastefulness the more I despise it...

JEB_Stuart wrote:
QFT, I completely agree with you on this Dogma. While I have never been a big fan of the government being involved in health care, the President should have taken responsibility on this issue and had his administration craft the first bill for Congress. It is his responsibility to convince fiscal conservatives, such as myself, why we can and should have this,

Well, it isn't only his job. Its the job of anyone who believes a public option/single payer is the way to go (as distinct from general healthcare reform, which doesn't necessarily cost anything).

JEB_Stuart wrote:
and how we can afford it without mortgaging our future to foreign countries.

Our future is already mortgaged to foreign nations; its always been mortgaged to foreign nations. Especially if you go beyond fiscal debt, and into matters of relative power.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Sadly, I think that he has failed at this and the idiots in Congress, namely Pelosi and Reid, have strengthened the resolve of my resistance on this matter. For any of you who read her column, Camille Paglia (whom I consider to be one of the best women writers in the world), suggested the President come up with a system of small, realistic benchmarks in order to slowly gain the public's trust on the matter and educate them on the possibilities and realities of health care reform. Here is her blog, which can be found as listed on the Drudge Report: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/ .

Benchmarks mean nothing. They're essentially legislative excuses designed to ameliorate calls for action.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Well, what I mean by pork is the unaccounted or uncontrolled spending percentages in the stimulus package. Here is a story from U.S. News & World Report.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2009/02/19/finding-the-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill.html
and another from the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

So its porky be dearth of granting flexibility to state governmental authorities? That's kinda wonky man. I'm not a huge fan of the stimulus bill as there are numerous projects which I think went untouched (why not work on getting closer to 100% wifi coverage?), but I wouldn't call it pork ridden. Like I said before, stimulus is pretty much just conventional pork (ancillary expenditures) that's been concentrated for effect; meaning that it isn't actually pork at all.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
While attention on the issue is needed, and definitely more debate and research is merited, this still begs the question: what if we get saddled with this monstrosity of a bill?

That's the risk you take in representative systems. Had there actually been honest consideration of the issue throughout both parties there might actually bills in circulation which were more than partisan talking points written into the legislative system.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
With the recent declaration of Democratic leadership that this bill will pass, whether the American people like it or not, and of course this also mean without the support of a single Republican in Congress. Now I am no fan of either party, I am definitely not a liberal, but even more definitely not a member of the neoconservative movement, but the thing that bugs me is the blame the Democratic Party is laying on Republicans. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26250.html) There is no way to blame the GOP as they are so out of power it isn't even funny. With a filibuster proof Senate and a large majority in the House, lets be honest, there is no excuse for any bill to be a problem. Back to my original point though. This current bill is a major mistake, and is just one huge bubbling pile of that makes Rosie O'Donnell look attractive. Let us not support this bill but work for a more sustainable, realistic approach that deals with the issues one at a time, and sets a series of benchmarks that require progress.

The bills floating around now are crap because they're little more than variations on the single payer system, or "let the magic hand sort it out".

Incremental reform is one way to go. The obvious point of departure being an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid (also know as a public option) in concert with a removal of the income ceiling on FICA (What do you mean conservatives won't support it? Its a flat tax!). However, its important to distinguish between setting benchmarks, and the deconstruction of a massive issue. Benchmarks are useless, repackaging issues is actually quite effective.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Oh, sorry to burst your bubble Obama supporters, but this seems to be a bit contradictory to the President's claims to get rid of special interest from the government process:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_consultants

Yeah, that was a stupid promise. Any interest can be cast as a special interest. Its really gotten to the point where there aren't any other kinds of interests.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Urg...my stomach just lurched. The more I read about the government's wastefulness the more I despise it...

Then its probably a good idea not to spend to much time looking at the books of major multinationals. Not pretty.

Dogma wrote:Incremental reform is one way to go. The obvious point of departure being an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid (also know as a public option) in concert with a removal of the income ceiling on FICA (What do you mean conservatives won't support it? Its a flat tax!). However, its important to distinguish between setting benchmarks, and the deconstruction of a massive issue. Benchmarks are useless, repackaging issues is actually quite effective.

Hmmm... I fail to see how that truly makes any sense. Quite honestly I think Ron Paul had a much better idea that that one, and I was not a fan of his ideological push to get more non-profits to fill the gap; basically volunteers as I took what he said. Recently Medicare was cut twice... on top of which it is entirely overburdened and in need of a total re-work. This in itself I find to be a bit stupid, but it could be a politically affiliated decision based on distribution of pills. Not a paranoid theory, but I do wonder how all of these changes are going to work when all we have is super cheap pills for everything. No preventative care because Medicare has never really done that, and I highly doubt it will ever change in that respect.

I really wonder where this is going to end up, I cannot tell at this point if the U.S. is just totally screwed and this is the only way to distract everyone, or if real action is being taken to overwhelm the lobbyists and get a real bill passed. Perhaps it is some of the stuff I have been watching, or seeing everyone continue that ludicrous conversation with Halanchos, but the whole debate seems to be hinged on preconceptions about socialism and how to make this look like something other than another socialist reform. Sure it won't make the U.S. a socialist country entirely, but how in the hell can short term incremental fixes really fix anything? I fail to see how this new direction won't result in pay-offs and utter and total epic failure on the Democratic majority side. Don't they make the decisions now?

Wrexasaur wrote:
Hmmm... I fail to see how that truly makes any sense. Quite honestly I think Ron Paul had a much better idea that that one, and I was not a fan of his ideological push to get more non-profits to fill the gap; basically volunteers as I took what he said. Recently Medicare was cut twice... on top of which it is entirely overburdened and in need of a total re-work.

The basic idea is to gain trust from the people by fixing the public medical plans which we currently have. Any expansion of Medicare/Medicaid carries, in my mind, an implicit reform of those institutions. The removal of the FICA ceiling simply addresses the problems in inherent with funding (I believe its currently capped at 67k).

Wrexasaur wrote:
Perhaps it is some of the stuff I have been watching, or seeing everyone continue that ludicrous conversation with Halanchos, but the whole debate seems to be hinged on preconceptions about socialism and how to make this look like something other than another socialist reform.

That is a big part of it. I was talking to a former professor the other day, and the conversation eventually turned to the linguistic limitations of debate. The gist of it was that all the terminology which we use to discuss political reform (even the word government) has been so thoroughly tarnished by a combination of Democratic ineptitude, and Republican smear campaigns, that honest discussion is all but impossible.

A good example is the recent comparison of the state to Fascist Europe. A lot of people are looking at that nonsense and concluding that the people drawing the comparisons don't really understand the evil of Hitler and his ilk; something I agree with if understanding is cast in terms of intellect. They don't really know anything about how the Nazis came to power, or the overt nature of the violence perpetrated in his name. What they do understand is that Hitler, and Fascism, are evil. They have an emotional response to the term, an incredibly strong one, which can be used to gauge the level of apprehension surrounding the discussion of any concepts to which are portrayed analogically.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Sure it won't make the U.S. a socialist country entirely, but how in the hell can short term incremental fixes really fix anything? I fail to see how this new direction won't result in pay-offs and utter and total epic failure on the Democratic majority side. Don't they make the decisions now?

Kind of. In the end you have to stay in power to ensure your work isn't simply undone when you leave office.

However, that is the danger of incremental progress. The electorate may lose interest in the issue once a few bills are passed, and the problem is 'fixed', long before anything significant is really accomplished. Though even that isn't necessarily bad, as an electorate desensitized to the rhetoric surrounding a given issue is more likely to blithely accept any measure taken to address it.

dogma wrote:

The Green Git wrote:Glenn Beck asks a fundamental question that I've yet to hear anyone answer:

"Given how the US Government has mishandled Social Security, Medicare, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Banking, and every other financial task they embark on... what makes you think they are not going to mishandle Health Care Reform and the 1/6th of the US economy that comprises it?"

What does 'mishandled' mean in the context of this question? All programs, over their lifetime, run into financial issues which require adjustment. Just like planning in the private sector; planning in the government requires adaptability. Unfortunately, given the nature of our government/electorate, adaptation is always a slow process.

Also, why the hell is banking in that list of things which the government has 'mishandled'?

What "mishandled" means in the context of the question is this: pure and utter bungling at best and outright theft at worst. None of the projections for the cost of Social Security or Medicare were even close to what it has ended up costing to fund those programs. The Social Security trust fund has been raided and worthless IOUs left where it was and now those nice letters I get telling me how much I'll get when I retire have little asterisks leading to footnotes reminding me the system will be Bankrupt before I retire. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac insisted that banks loan to people that probably should not have been homeowners in the name of fairness, bought up the bad loans and the Taxpayer is left holding the bag. I've included Banking in the mix because the Federal Government has a hand in banking... you have heard of the Federal Reserve system have you not? And the recent unpleasantness with banks requiring Federal bailouts... did you sleep through that? Who is left holding the bag (again)? The Taxpayer.

We are not talking about "financial issues" or "adjustments". What I see is a repeated pattern of politicians lying to get programs passed that will endear them to a sector of the populace in order to secure their votes and establish themselves in power. I don't trust either side of the Political aisle... they are all nothing but professional vote whores looking to keep themselves entrenched in the DC power brokers circle. This "Health Care Reform" ... excuse me "Health Insurance Reform" is nothing but a big vote buying excursion at the Taxpayer's expense.

There is no Socialist policy the US will EVER (in our lifetimes, at least, but sadly I imagine until it crumbles) implement that can adequately be described as such. You're so scared of anything that's even middle of the road, deriding it as the work of the Devil, Nazis, and Commies.

It's a funny as it is tragic.

The US healthcare system makes me cry - keeping only the rich alive is surely the antithesis of the American Dream. The point of all Men being equal (which, I thought, was self-evident) was that they could all get to healthcare when they need it? that they could continue to support their families while doing so, not being forced to choose between working and risking death or taking time off and risking their job.

It's far from a perfect system, but it's a lot better than your current one.

As for Obama being rushed? That would be because of your scaremonger Media moaning that he hasn't brought about as much change as he promised. I sincerely hope he gets the 8 years he'll need just to try and turn the country around, but sadly the electorates of the West are much more fickle than that.

VermGho5t wrote:That lady is not wearing a swastika in the pic.

So your attention to detail is vague enough that you don't mind the difference between 'they're wearing swastikas' and 'they're nazis'... when the difference is whether you're saying protestors are producing extreme, nonsensical rhetoric or they're white supremacists. It's a big difference.

But your attention to detail is strong enough that you have a problem with whether the swastikas are on armbands or posters. Because the difference is, umm....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:sebster, can you provide sources for the above info? I'm genuinely curious...

thanx,

GG

The 37th ranking is given by WHO, and is shown in the link from reds8n.

This link shows the portion of GDP spent by different countries;
http://apurvadesai.com/2009/07/23/national-health-care-spending-levels-a-global-comparison/

It's a pretty damning couple of figures.

reds8n wrote: You guys do realise that socialism doesn't actually exist right ? It's all been a huge "Candid camera" style prank that has, I'll admit, gotten a bit out of hand. It started when you were a young, new, fresh faced country, we did similar to all the new countries. It's the equivalent of sending the new guy to get the bulb wrench or the tartan paint.

Wait until 2014 when we move the screens away and reveal to their astonishment that Australia is in fact just south of Brighton. How we'll laugh.

QFT...even the Australia bit. Most news you see on TV is there to divide the public so the powers-that-be conquer the populace.

Elessar wrote:
As for Obama being rushed? That would be because of your scaremonger Media moaning that he hasn't brought about as much change as he promised.

Just a note, as a professional journalist, I would like to point out that with the exception of Fox News, and a couple newspapers, the media by and large adores Barack Obama. To point to the media as the scaremonger is a gross misplacement of blame....

The Green Git wrote:
What "mishandled" means in the context of the question is this: pure and utter bungling at best and outright theft at worst.

So you explain the term 'mishandled' by using a synonym (bungling), and an epithet? You don't know what explain means, do you?

The Green Git wrote:
None of the projections for the cost of Social Security or Medicare were even close to what it has ended up costing to fund those programs.The Social Security trust fund has been raided and worthless IOUs left where it was and now those nice letters I get telling me how much I'll get when I retire have little asterisks leading to footnotes reminding me the system will be Bankrupt before I retire.

So none of the cost projections for Social Security or Medicare have been even close to accurate, except the ones that inform you that it will be bankrupt? Why would you trust the latest cost projection when you clearly believe prior ones were intrinsically flawed.

The Green Git wrote:
Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac insisted that banks loan to people that probably should not have been homeowners in the name of fairness, bought up the bad loans and the Taxpayer is left holding the bag.

I've had to rebut this nonsense far too many time for me to bother doing so again. Suffice it to say the issue if significantly more complicated than you want it to be.

The Green Git wrote:
I've included Banking in the mix because the Federal Government has a hand in banking... you have heard of the Federal Reserve system have you not? And the recent unpleasantness with banks requiring Federal bailouts... did you sleep through that? Who is left holding the bag (again)? The Taxpayer.

A hand is distinct from the kind of control which would be necessary to assign absolute blame, which is what you are clearly doing.

The Green Git wrote:
We are not talking about "financial issues" or "adjustments". What I see is a repeated pattern of politicians lying to get programs passed that will endear them to a sector of the populace in order to secure their votes and establish themselves in power.

Wow, representatives, working inside a representative system, attempting to benefit the people they represent. Shocking, truly shocking.

Either way, initial cost projections are often incorrect, regardless of the person making them. Making the inference of willful ignorance, or outright duplicity, attributes whole lot of excess agency to the people in power.

The Green Git wrote:
I don't trust either side of the Political aisle... they are all nothing but professional vote whores looking to keep themselves entrenched in the DC power brokers circle. This "Health Care Reform" ... excuse me "Health Insurance Reform" is nothing but a big vote buying excursion at the Taxpayer's expense.

I'd try reasoning with you, but I doubt it would have any impact.

Dogma wrote:I'd try reasoning with you, but I doubt it would have any impact.

Wait... wait wait... wait.... yeah, wait a bit more, and a... yeah, a bit more, yeah that is it...

You don't know what explain means, do you?

Dude... this part says to me that you stopped before you even started... like a... hmmm, this is a tough one... like a... like a, ummm.... a tofu platter. Yeah, that makes sense... Not a joke about the joke but a back-up to the joke that was delivered with the first-class... okay I will stop meow.

Yeah... and then this part...



"Note"
And clearly Dogma takes the sense with him towards that place known as... erm... what was that again? Wait, I know it was a ice cream store... no, it IS yogurt, and it IS frozen... crizzap the space-time continuum has glitched.

Dude... it is a plan to fry all of our brains... like potatoes' and... tomatoes... and grandma too . Wait, okay that isn't okay anymore, so he is like a yam now, or... a water... no... a pancreas... no... a... meh, never mind.

WAIT... STOP!!! Okay, now this... which is the point of the pudding having... with the place and blablabla...

The majority of the media did still love Obama (does, I suppose) but there is nothing more fickle in the world than a newspaper. He knows that they can destroy his presidency with libellous claims and outright lies, no matter what he achieves. THAT's pressure.

Like Huffington Post and Moveon.org right?

For every supposed "kook" like Glenn Beck on the right I could point to another "kook" on the left like the MoveOn.orgs or Huffington Posts or the New York Times.

I feel we've gotten off topic oddly enough here. If you've listened to his show on a regular basis, you'll find that he holds both parties in contempt for massively wasteful spending, unchecked expansion of governement power, willfully eroding the constitutional rights of everyday Americans. I don't agree with everything he says, but if you've read his book Common Sense, you'll find that it has, well, lots of common sense.

A few things that are his favorite topics that I'll spout off on here.

Bailouts (Financial and Auto Industries)- The government subsidized large banks, insurance firms, GM, and Chrysler to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. In return, they now have increased regulatory control of banking as a whole and partly own two large american automakers. The reason why Beck and others are against this is that it goes against EVERYTHING (Capitals, oh my) that America stands for, supposedly. Since they used taxpayer dollars to fund the bailout, it becomes a redistribution of wealth from everyday citizens to banks, auto industries, and oddly enough, the unions (who now have a larger stake in the GM and Chrysler). The creditors of GM were basically told to shove off as GM went into bankruptcy.

If I were a bank or auto maker who had kept his nose clean in the economic downturn and way before that (these problems didn't manifest overnight), I'd be furious. Instead of rewarding success with tax incentives, or simply showing that failur IS an option; they've gone ahead and given a safety net for companies. Where is the motivation now to be fiscally responsible?

Healthcare is a huge hot button topic in America right now. No one is saying the healthcare system is perfect. However, 85% of Americans are satisfied with their health insurance and a majority (I believe it's 51-54%) do not support the healthcare reform bill(s) in the congress right now. Alot of people seem to say that the Repulicans and the various talk show hosts are obstructionist and have a "do nothing" attitude. I believe that couldn't be farther from the truth. The simple fact of the matter is that the president and the controlling parties set the legislative agenda. With massive majorities in both houses, the Dems could push this through if they were willing to pay the political price. However, their own "blue dogs" are wavering on this because they know they'll get kicked out of office in 2010.

Arlen Specter, Barney Frank, Pelosi, and Reid are discounting the protestors as nazis, kooks, paid protestors, and wackos - simply because they disagree. For every protestor taking a gun to a meeting or holding up a swastika; there are a thousand more who are respectfully asking questions and raising concerns that the Dems will simply not answer. The fact that the majority of the media focuses on the few crazies as representative of the group seem to implicate them as being at least left-leaning if not openly leftist (ABC news comes to mind).

My biggest beef with healthcare is the fact that I don't believe the government could manage itself out of a wet paper bag. I work for the military so I know exactly the kind of massive costs incurred with everything the goverment does. My own state (Maine) recently figured out it had a 29 million dollar deficit which is illegal according to the state constitution (Maine law requires the budget to be balanced). The reason why? They projected 29 million dollars in "savings" from the Dirigo state health insurance plan which didn't materialize. With massive social security overruns, a current medicare/medicaid system headed toward bankruptcy, and skyrocketing debt, most Americans don't belive their government when they say they'll craft a comprehensive reform bill that will not only increase coverage, but lower costs and improve standard of care.


A few things from Beck that I whole-heartedly agree with.
1. Two party system is no longer good for the country especially since they're basically just different types of used car salesmen. We need a strong third party.
2. More government equals bad - whichever party is proposing it.
3. Government for a long time has not listened to the people it actually is supposed to represent. Frustration is finally boiling over and that is why you are seeing this massive outpouring of anger.

I find it odd that there are so many non Americans posting in these topics. Are your own national politics so boring that you feel you must "contribute" to ours? I'm not trying to flame-bait here, but I do wonder why you insist of telling us how superior your system is. I can't recall ever telling a Brit or Aussie how I think they should run their country. I can certainly understand on matter of international politics and foreign affairs - have at it. But is US healthcare really that important to you? just curious


There's a few things I feel I should say in regards to what I don't like about Beck. Some of the hates white people stuff about Obama is over the top but it makes for good ratings. It's no worse than claims that Bush/Cheney wanted blacks to die in New Orleans. The antics and hysterics are really just a ratings thing. You get riled up and it keeps people interested. That's why no one watches PBS - too dull.

In the end, I'll say that Beck doesn't really change anyone's mind just like MoveOn only preaches to the choir. The real problem is that there aren't enough Bob Novaks (RIP) left in this world who are just interested in the story - not advancing an ideology.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:For every supposed "kook" like Glenn Beck on the right I could point to another "kook" on the left like the MoveOn.orgs or Huffington Posts or the New York Times.

I feel we've gotten off topic oddly enough here. If you've listened to his show on a regular basis, you'll find that he holds both parties in contempt for massively wasteful spending, unchecked expansion of government power, willfully eroding the constitutional rights of everyday Americans. I don't agree with everything he says, but if you've read his book Common Sense, you'll find that it has, well, lots of common sense.

QFT.

I don't expect dogma or any of the other hard leftists to stop defending The Messiah™ or any of the Dems long enough to hear what I'm actually saying. They will just blather on about how I'm another Right Wing nutjob and not shut up long enough to bother to make the distinction between my cynicism and criticism of government in general and Republican rhetoric.

Let him with ears hear: The government is not looking out for you. They are securing positions of power for themselves at your expense.

Wolfstan wrote:The impression you get from these people is that the federal government should just fund the armed services & law enforcement, everything else should be paid for by the individual (so taxes are kept to the minimum) and the bible should be your life map.

This is kind of what the Republican party wants. Not actually the Republican leaders, but the 'base', the voters. It's not really anyone's fault. Every election the Republicans try to make some kind of 'grass roots' movement to electrify the 'base' of the party. To do this, they scare the gak out of them. And the things they've been using to scare the gak out of them has made the Republican 'base' very crazy in the eyes of a none zealot (I say zealot in terms of the words true definition. In this case someone who lets a political ideology rule their lives).

Americans pay about 300$ a month for decent health insurance. More if you want dental. The cost is actually astronomically more if you or someone you want on your insurance actually has a condition that is being treated or will need to be treated. Sometimes the insurance is unfeasible to attain if you possess a serious pre-existing condition. And if you do not divulge these conditions, the insurance company will drop you as soon as they find out you have such a condition, like when you go to the doctor/hospital with a serious condition. They can also arbitrarily drop you for a myriad of reasons.