What the? 189 replies

Please wait...

EO Violation

If you ain't Cav, you ain't...

50 XP

6th October 2007

0 Uploads

2,108 Posts

0 Threads

#181 10 years ago

Wait ntil you pay taxes, then tell me it's dumb.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#182 10 years ago
Vasili;4977373The world is far too stuck together now to have a world war, US is in massive debts to a load of countries, just like all other countries being in debt to the US, etc etc.

'National Debt' doesnt quite work the way you seem to think it does.




Buddy Jesus

Who's your buddy

50 XP

6th September 2004

0 Uploads

757 Posts

0 Threads

#183 10 years ago
Junk angel;4976273^Most national debts are kinda high. But the US is still nowhere near bankruptcy yet. A few nations went trough it, but most western nations are very far from it as of yet. So b.jesus, trust me, merely printing money is not what the government does. They cannot. Firstly, the money is not controlled directly by the government but by the national bank. Secondly the government runs on long term plans and does have to take care to not go too much over the border. That's why this bill is important. It actually works three-fold. a) It reduces the future debt b) It tends to support those that currently can't do that for themselves c) It actually shows that the government is trying out various approaches to the various problems that are poised at them. .

It is not the fact that we have a high national debt, that's not what i'm getting at here. It's a problem yes, but what's more of a problem is the failing of politicians to address it. But more over I believe you missed the point of my last post. In 1971 Richard Nixon got rid of the gold standard here in the U.S. What this did was allow the U.S. to print money at will but in a responsible manner. Ever since that time more and more money has found its way into the system, billions and billions of dollars worth of money. Now before the bailouts of january the federal reserve began to print more money to help pay for them. Why do you think it was so important for China to buy more of our debt? We couldn't pay for those bailouts, not at all, but we did, we printed the money. It effectivly bought over 300 billions in government bonds and hundreds of billions in mortgage backed securities. Now I will concede that with a well thought out monitary plan and budget something like that could be excuseable to jump start the econemy, but the fact of the matter was it wasn't the whole thing took place over the course of a couple weeks and for one of the bailouts 2 days. WTF?? That's the epitomy of irresponsible spending practices. There was no debate, no analysis except by the Obama administration, which to anyone not in a trance at his press confrences should have set off red flags immediatly because we're left with now over a trillion more dollars in debt, potentially half a trillion in new assets and money, and still the economy is lagging, with no foreseeable end in sight. In addition to this the governemt does not always run on long term plans. Case and point, the administration of Jimmy Carter. One of the main reasons his economic plans were such failures and things were so bad, were his several failed and rushed economic policies. He couldn't make up his mind on a direction to go and would change policy direction right in the middle of things. I have the same fear about Obama. Next The health care bill cannot reduce the national debt as it stands. Again the press being the bunch of blithering idiots they are eat up everything Gibbs has to say and every rosey statistic and number the white house puts out. they did it with the Bailouts. First Obama said it would create almost 1 million jobs, then it was it'll save or create one million jobs. Thenhe chaged his tune again to save or create 500 thousand jobs, then once agian to save or create 350 thousand jobs. So we can already see this administration will put out the most rosey numbers they can to the pubilc just to get shit pushed through. So now we have a healthcare bill wich will cost at least 1 trillion, most likely more that will bring the national debt down and will support the 48 million people* in the U.S. right now who don't have health care. Well hold the fuck up, did the Obama administration say it would reduce the national debet, or at least help to? So wait this is Biden's logic sin't it we're so far in debt that we need to spend more to get out? Yep that make a boat load of sense. So go ahead tac an additional 1 trillion dollars on to the debt, why not be in debt nearly 5% of our GDP. But wait, because of the government works in the long term that obviously means the debt may be high right now but it will come down. Unfortuantly that part of Obama's plan for health care is again not true. The CBO ran their numbers on this health care bill and you want to know what their number said? It said his plan woudl be bankrupt by 2020. And I have to say I trust trust the Congressional Budget Office much more than I trust the number the White house puts out as seen by the kind of horse dump they fed the press and american public about the bailouts. Just a little after 10 years an Obamacare would grind to a hault simply because we can't afford it. I mean if you think Medicare is a mess now Imagine what would happen when Obamacare would fail. So all you fools out there who are so eager to buy a one trillion dollar band aid for our current health care issue better sit down, take a deep breath, and really think whether it's a good idea or not. Finally I don't see the government doing anything different with this problem than with others. Their putting a bandaid on the situation like they've done so many times before. They're doing the same thing they've always done, push it off on the next guy. They did it with our border problem and immigration and now they're doing it with healthcare. * does not represent actual number of individuals who are cronicly uninsured, again more fuzzy numbers.




Junk angel

Huh, sound?

166,880 XP

29th January 2007

0 Uploads

15,678 Posts

0 Threads

#184 10 years ago
he CBO ran their numbers on this health care bill and you want to know what their number said? It said his plan woudl be bankrupt by 2020. And I have to say I trust trust the Congressional Budget Office much more than I trust the number the White house puts out as seen by the kind of horse dump they fed the press and american public about the bailouts. Just a little after 10 years an Obamacare would grind to a hault simply because we can't afford it. I mean if you think Medicare is a mess now Imagine what would happen when Obamacare would fail. So all you fools out there who are so eager to buy a one trillion dollar band aid for our current health care issue better sit down, take a deep breath, and really think whether it's a good idea or not.

So why are you already spending more GDP on healthcare than any other nation? Not to mention a nation as rich as yours. You have one of the average worst and yet most expensive medical systems available to the general public. The fact that there's a number of experimental procedures that happen in the US first and move out to the world later isn't a sign of a good medical system, merely a bit more lax legislature.

So where does all the money go into now? Considering americans aren't that much more unhealthy than most euros. I really am curious? Where is the money?

Your system needs an important change in order to finally stop spending such giant sums of money. Sure I'm not saying that no other medical system is fully hale and hearty. But they still work more or less solidly.

And for all you know, the central bank might have actually released more money into the system, in order to slightly increase inflation and as such combat the impeding deflation resulting from the depression. Or perhaps that was money that already existed in the system, was merely held in reserve. (most central banks have quite large ones)

Fiat money is not a chimeara that anyone change at will. I agree that fiat money has a number of problems. During extremely deep depressions some nations tend to loose control of their currency - an example would be the Weimar republic who utterly lost control of the Mark. And then currencies that tend to be tied towards physical objects tend to prove themselves far more stable and tend to emerge as well. For instance the coal currency which sprang up in one area of the republic and later the I'm not sure of the name Field Mark? Rye Mark? I really don't know right now.

Still as long as you have a more or less stable economy, Fiat money is completely viable. Not to mention the Dollar has one of the best buffers from these currencies, as it's very close to oil.

And what is Chronically uninsured? People who refuse insurance? Or people who cannot afford it under any means? Or what?




Buddy Jesus

Who's your buddy

50 XP

6th September 2004

0 Uploads

757 Posts

0 Threads

#185 10 years ago
Junk angel;4977843So why are you already spending more GDP on healthcare than any other nation? Not to mention a nation as rich as yours. You have one of the average worst and yet most expensive medical systems available to the general public. The fact that there's a number of experimental procedures that happen in the US first and move out to the world later isn't a sign of a good medical system, merely a bit more lax legislature. So where does all the money go into now? Considering americans aren't that much more unhealthy than most euros. I really am curious? Where is the money? Your system needs an important change in order to finally stop spending such giant sums of money. Sure I'm not saying that no other medical system is fully hale and hearty. But they still work more or less solidly.

I understand that the method with which we pay for healthcare is messed up, however ultimantly spending more money now for a less than permanent fix to the system is not the way to go, because again it's just pushing the problem off and not solving it. The healthcare that can be recieved in the U.S. is good. While I haven't look at statistics as far as primary care ranking, I can't comment. That being said, I do know know that we have the best specialist care that can be had in the U.S. There's a reason why people flock from all over the world, including Europe, to the U.S. to undergo surgeries or various types. So while it's possible that it would be better to get sick with a cold or flu in Europe, if something was really wrong with me and i needed surgery or other complicated procedures I would much rather be here in the good ol' USA.

And what is Chronically uninsured? People who refuse insurance? Or people who cannot afford it under any means? Or what?

No Chronically Uninsured are those who try to obtain healthcare and can't. Of the 48 million people that the Obama administration has cited as being uninsured roughly half of that, between 20 and 24 million people, want insurance but can't get it. The White House was able to generate that number by including, illegal aliens, people between jobs, young 20 to 33 year olds who opted to not pick up the expense of healthcare as they were perfectly healthy. Essentially this goes to show that a super majority of Americans have some type of health insurance and only a true minority of people can't get it even though they want it, but yet if the bill is passed it potentially do a dissservice to many more people than it actually helps.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#186 10 years ago
eo violation;4977673wait ntil you pay taxes, then tell me it's dumb.

qft.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#187 10 years ago
Buddy Jesus;4978010I understand that the method with which we pay for healthcare is messed up, however ultimantly spending more money now for a less than permanent fix to the system is not the way to go, because again it's just pushing the problem off and not solving it.

It probably is, but doing nothing isn't really a good option either. Spending's just going to continue increasing, particularly for medicare. Considering that it'll get to the point that there is more elderly people than the taxable base can handle, combined with increasing costs, it's just going to continue spiraling out of control.

The healthcare that can be recieved in the U.S. is good. While I haven't look at statistics as far as primary care ranking, I can't comment. That being said, I do know know that we have the best specialist care that can be had in the U.S. There's a reason why people flock from all over the world, including Europe, to the U.S. to undergo surgeries or various types. So while it's possible that it would be better to get sick with a cold or flu in Europe, if something was really wrong with me and i needed surgery or other complicated procedures I would much rather be here in the good ol' USA.

I don't know, my relative in Sweden was born with a hole in his heart and they got it fixed up quite well.

The reason why people "flock" here, is the US, being the most advanced country in the world, has access to the most developed technology.

That does not mean, however, the method the care is delivered, funded, or paid for is very good. One can find Americans attempting to go over the border on either end to try and save on drug costs.

US ranks first when speaking of responsiveness, but in other fields it ranks quite lower and overall, compared to other nations, ranks in a place much lower than what would be expected of a superpower. The last time the WHO took in-depth rankings was back in 2000, and the US ranked 37th overall then. I can't imagine it has gotten better since.

No Chronically Uninsured are those who try to obtain healthcare and can't. Of the 48 million people that the Obama administration has cited as being uninsured roughly half of that, between 20 and 24 million people, want insurance but can't get it. The White House was able to generate that number by including, illegal aliens, people between jobs, young 20 to 33 year olds who opted to not pick up the expense of healthcare as they were perfectly healthy. Essentially this goes to show that a super majority of Americans have some type of health insurance and only a true minority of people can't get it even though they want it, but yet if the bill is passed it potentially do a dissservice to many more people than it actually helps.

20 - 24 million uninsured isn't really an excusable figure for a nation that claims to be the greatest on earth.

On top of that there's the mess of considering which people even have reliable insurance. If one is working a job that provides good healthcare, that's fine. But then other problems will come up with coverage being cut once they are unemployed, or working in a job where the employers provide flimsy insurance to meet bare minimum labor standards. There are people who get substandard plans or none at all in order to save money, and when they actually need it they'll run into a problem.

And when they actually need the care, guess who will end up paying for it in the long run?

And somehow this is a good situation and everything is peachy. Healthcare is only as good as it is because we've been able to avoid giving it to everyone (as the US population is large), and in a way it is already a form of rationed healthcare based on where you live and what job you hold down.

And what's worse about this is somehow the US spends the most, both per capita and by GDP on their healthcare expenditures, and it is rising much more faster than what is seen in other nations.

It seems at the present most opposition to reform is either from exaggerated social fears or distrust of government, which is worsened by the fact that a democratic administration is in power at the moment.

However, what should be going on right now is that the Americans as a whole should try to fix this problem, but this will be hard to do considering one side is being influenced by groups which will benefit from this, and another side being influenced by groups who will be severely harmed from it.

While the current congressional bill at the present has numerous issues, being in length and funding primarily, there hasn't been any good alternate bills brought up aside from the PATIENT Act which tries to make itself look better by being significantly shorter, but is simply a method to deny coverage and allow more room for the current abusive practices.

The healthcare system in the US already receives funding from government spending (to fund hospitals, research, and subsidize insurance companies to provide policies through employers), and yet I would expect that the people who spend on it can reign in the costs.

The Obama plan isn't perfect and that's why there is a way for compromises in the plan. It won't be a perfect solution, but it will at least bring attention to the funding model and structure of the healthcare regulation. In the end though, there has been less attention on that and more on simply destroying the matter all together.

The entire system at the present runs on a standard of public funding with private profit, and those two can't coexist for too long considering their differing goals.




Junk angel

Huh, sound?

166,880 XP

29th January 2007

0 Uploads

15,678 Posts

0 Threads

#188 10 years ago
illegal aliens

Also unless I'm mistaken, illegal aliens are not mentioned in those numbers nor are they going to be covered. I think it was discussed a few pages back. Sorry to nitpick, it's just that it's mentioned again. As to people flocking to the US for procedures. Unless I'm mistaken, these are usually only experimental procedures which haven't even got into certification in europe, have gotten certification in the US due to more lax laws, or have started testing in the US, due to many pharmeceutical companies having their home-base there.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#189 10 years ago

Its gonna hurt political relations with mexico to not have illegals covered.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#190 10 years ago

It won't cover illegals. The thing that the other user was pointing out was whether or not the numbers may've been skewed by including them.

Sheesh, if people keep focusing on these irrelevant matters and ignore other parts of the bill, particularly funding and the industry as a whole, it's just going to cause more problems.