Interesting read

[Cancel 2016.2]

First of all, ObamaCare is a step in the right direction. As for not being sustainable there are countries geographically large and small, densely and sparsely populated, rich and poor, socialist and capitalist and they all have government medical and the costs are approximately 1/3 less than the US/pp. To say the richest country in the world can not look after it's ill is not only absurd but the deaths of 45,000/yr due to a lack of proper medical care makes a mockery of a nation that supposedly prides itself on the value it puts on human life.

LMAO.... yes and we also spend more on education as well. you pretend that the spending will go down due to shifting to a government plan. The fact of the matter is, we have an overly litigious society relative to other countries that leads to more defensive procedures. We have more tech per hospital bed, you do not have ANYONE anywhere near the populations AND geographical make up as the US. NO ONE. We are far more spread out per capita.

No one is saying we can't look after the poor. That is just foolish nonsense spouted off by those on the left who think the government is the solution. It is not.

Tell us... how are all the unfunded liabilities that so many government run programs are massing going to be paid for? You pretend it is free, yet we continue to see unfunded liabilities increasing. Putting the costs onto future generations is not only irresponsible, it is highly unethical.

Going universal is the opposite of the correct path. Our health care costs were much lower when everyone went out and got their own plan and typically these were high deductible. Meaning we paid the day to day out of pocket and were covered for the bulk of the catastrophic care. It wasn't until the government started pushing HMO's/PPOs that things got out of hand.

You also don't account for the FACT that Americans are among the most obese nation on earth and the subsequent increase in health care costs THAT causes.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Oh geez I forgot about the pardon. And I did not know there was this kind of widespread outrage at the time. That's interesting.

I have to say Mott, I have an entirely different opinion about that. I think that if Nixon had been impeached we wouldn't have had Iran/Contra and we wouldn't have had torture either. We wouldn't have been saddled with the criminals of the Nixon administration in the Bush II administration. Cheney would not have dared to flout the rule of law by torturing and if Cheney had not dared to, there are many things Obama would not dare to do. There's been a real chain reaction from not prosecuting Nixon. Would even the bankers have dared to do what they did?

Interesting that you brought that up and I can't believe I forgot about it. I have to plead shock that SF posted something interesting. He really threw me off my game with that surprise move.

Well at that point it was to late to Impeach Nixon. He has all ready resigned. What it was not to late to do was prosecute him. You do have a point about that having established a bad precedent but prosecuting a president after his term of office may have been an even worse precedent. I think that was Ford did was not only the pragmatic thing to do it was the right thing to do.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO.... yes and we also spend more on education as well. you pretend that the spending will go down due to shifting to a government plan. The fact of the matter is, we have an overly litigious society relative to other countries that leads to more defensive procedures. We have more tech per hospital bed, you do not have ANYONE anywhere near the populations AND geographical make up as the US. NO ONE. We are far more spread out per capita.

No one is saying we can't look after the poor. That is just foolish nonsense spouted off by those on the left who think the government is the solution. It is not.

Tell us... how are all the unfunded liabilities that so many government run programs are massing going to be paid for? You pretend it is free, yet we continue to see unfunded liabilities increasing. Putting the costs onto future generations is not only irresponsible, it is highly unethical.

Going universal is the opposite of the correct path. Our health care costs were much lower when everyone went out and got their own plan and typically these were high deductible. Meaning we paid the day to day out of pocket and were covered for the bulk of the catastrophic care. It wasn't until the government started pushing HMO's/PPOs that things got out of hand.

You also don't account for the FACT that Americans are among the most obese nation on earth and the subsequent increase in health care costs THAT causes.

Has anyone ever met a real person that is as big a smug, condescending asshole as SF's online persona? Such a ray of sunshine.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Thanks Mott, I'm going to watch those debates. I have to say I'm woefully ignorant of this period, and there's no excuse for that. I guess I never found Carter or Nixon compelling. I do know more about Reagan since I have read several books about him. But watching the Carter Reagan debates is a great idea. I should definitely know this stuff. It's not like I was too young to remember Carter, and yet, I don't remember Carter. I have no memory of Carter being President. It's really weird. I think my earliest political memory is of Reagan being inaugurated and all of the hoopla over the hostages. But even that is vague. I think I lived much of my life in a fugue state...and then came the internet. Now I can only wish I was in a fugue state.

It's definately interesting to watch. Like I said, the impression I had from when I originally watched the debates was that Reagan kicked Carter's ass but now that 30's years have gone by and I'm far more informed on public policy and I have the advangate of 20:20 hind sight that on most of the policy issues Carter was right and his criticisms of Reagan's policy's were spot on.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

On that issue, you are correct. That did piss a lot of people off. Other than that though, he really didn't have the personality or policies that did. He took the hit for the good of the country. Whether they knew it or like it or not. Like Reagan, he did the right thing, despite the political cost.

Hmmmm well after the pardon Ford got beat up a lot. The public image that the media portrayed was of a bumbling bafoon and he was far from that. Reagan? Did the right thing despite the political cost? You must not not remember that era as clearly as I did cause he sure as hell did abrogate his moral authority on the Iran Contra debacle or maybe you never read about that?

I like Dutch. Liked him a lot. I don't regret voting for him either but in all sense of fairness and objectivity he made some real big fuck ups and did his ever loving best to evade the political cost for those fuck ups. I get very frustrated with the right wing medials mythologizing Reagan as he was a far more interesting person when viewed from a factual, warts and all, perspective. One harsh fact they many on the right don't like to hear was that he would have never, ever even remotely come close to occuppying the white house had it not been for his wife. Reagan had the attention span of a gnat and in some respects Nancy had far more political acumen then Dutch did. She was certainly a far better judge of character then he was and he knew that too.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

LMAO.... you proclaim my knowledge of Carter is of myth, when in fact you display nothing but nonsense regarding Carter.

1) Carter did not inherit an economic mess. He MADE one. We have had this argument before and everytime I post all the data PROVING he did not inherit a mess, you RUN AWAY like the fucking coward you are.

2) As I have shown you in the past.... Carter did implement Volckers plan and then a few months later REVERSED course because of the political hit he was taking. HE, like you, was a coward. He put his reelection ahead of the good of the country.... JUST AS OBAMA IS NOW DOING.

3) GDP Growth was 5.4% in 1976, 4.6% in 1977, 5.6% in 1978, 3.1% in 1979, -0.3% in 1980. So tell us moron.... how can you proclaim he inherited stagflation? Let me guess... time for you to run away again?

4) Unemployment to start 1975 was at 8.1%, by the time Carter took over in 1977 it was at 7.6% and falling. It fell to a low of 5.7% in 1979. It then finished at 7.2% and rising as Reagan took office.

5) Unemployment spiked hard when REAGAN actually implemented AND STUCK WITH Volckers plan. Reagan took the pain and the Reps got their ass kicked in 1982 mid terms as a result.

Try learning the FACTS instead of the MYTHS YOU WERE SPOON FED.




1) I lived through Carter, though this is a pathetic reason to discount the FACTS of the matter. Never let the FACTS get in the way of your nonsense, right Mott? Because everytime I list the FACTS.... you run away. As you will again this time. Never debate the FACTS will you Mott. Just spout nonsense and then run away.

2) Carter was seen as a weak leader by foreign governments and the people here as well. He lacked a backbone. He refused, much like Obama, to ever make the tough call. He was a one-termer for that reason.



The problem for Obama is that too many people don't see his 'accomplishments' as you do. You who drink massive amounts of kool-aid, still think Obama care is a great idea. Despite the FACT that his own admin people just proclaimed one of the largest 'savings' portions of it was not economically viable. How do you justify that Mott? One of the major 'reducers of the deficit' wasn't itself economically viable??? Hmmm.... not such an accomplishment.

What else has he done Mott? Unemployment still at 9%? Yeah, great! But he did manage to give out billions to his top donors for the supposed green jobs they would create. Yeah for cronyism!!!

I do agree that none of the Reps are anywhere close to the charisma of Reagan (or Clinton for that matter).

Dude you can prattle on all you want to with what you read from some right wing talking head. I was there. I lived through it and I saw it. You didn't.

 

[Phantasmal]

You went door-to-door for Nixon? If we were married and you hadn't disclosed this I would divorce you right now. All these years I never knew. Well, well, well...LOL

Yes you can blame that if you wish. I consider cancer to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for anything short of violence.

Yeah, I know huh, I started out stupid and ended up a lot smarter, politically.

 

[Phantasmal]

Oh geez I forgot about the pardon. And I did not know there was this kind of widespread outrage at the time. That's interesting.

I have to say Mott, I have an entirely different opinion about that. I think that if Nixon had been impeached we wouldn't have had Iran/Contra and we wouldn't have had torture either. We wouldn't have been saddled with the criminals of the Nixon administration in the Bush II administration. Cheney would not have dared to flout the rule of law by torturing and if Cheney had not dared to, there are many things Obama would not dare to do. There's been a real chain reaction from not prosecuting Nixon. Would even the bankers have dared to do what they did?

Interesting that you brought that up and I can't believe I forgot about it. I have to plead shock that SF posted something interesting. He really threw me off my game with that surprise move.

Looking back, I can see both sides, but at the same time, if he had been tried and impeached, well, like you said, we may not have some of the other political crimes committed that we did by Presidents that succeeded him.

 

[Phantasmal]

On that issue, you are correct. That did piss a lot of people off. Other than that though, he really didn't have the personality or policies that did. He took the hit for the good of the country. Whether they knew it or like it or not. Like Reagan, he did the right thing, despite the political cost.

Arrrrggghhhh, if Reagan's administration had been tried and they should have been, we would not be in Iraq at this time, we would not have had Bush for a president! Oh, what could have been!

 

[Phantasmal]

It's definately interesting to watch. Like I said, the impression I had from when I originally watched the debates was that Reagan kicked Carter's ass but now that 30's years have gone by and I'm far more informed on public policy and I have the advangate of 20:20 hind sight that on most of the policy issues Carter was right and his criticisms of Reagan's policy's were spot on.

I am very proud of the fact I thought Reagan was well rehearsed actor. I did not vote or him and I would not voter him, now.

 

[apple0154]

LMAO.... yes and we also spend more on education as well. you pretend that the spending will go down due to shifting to a government plan.

Medical care is lower, per capita, in EVERY country that has a government plan. No exception.

The fact of the matter is, we have an overly litigious society relative to other countries that leads to more defensive procedures.

A government plan would enable the government to put a lid on excessive jury awards.

We have more tech per hospital bed, you do not have ANYONE anywhere near the populations AND geographical make up as the US. NO ONE. We are far more spread out per capita.

And there's no country like England or France or Canada or Australia or Italy or Norway or.... That excuse doesn't hold water.

No one is saying we can't look after the poor. That is just foolish nonsense spouted off by those on the left who think the government is the solution. It is not.

45,000 people die every year due to a lack of medical care. You can try to dress that fact up any way you want. It doesn't change the statistics.

Tell us... how are all the unfunded liabilities that so many government run programs are massing going to be paid for? You pretend it is free, yet we continue to see unfunded liabilities increasing. Putting the costs onto future generations is not only irresponsible, it is highly unethical.

They are paid for by taxes. The amount of tax one would pay, on average, would be less than one is now currently paying for insurance and deductible payments. That's why medical costs 1/3 less in countries with government medical care.

Going universal is the opposite of the correct path. Our health care costs were much lower when everyone went out and got their own plan and typically these were high deductible. Meaning we paid the day to day out of pocket and were covered for the bulk of the catastrophic care. It wasn't until the government started pushing HMO's/PPOs that things got out of hand.

You also don't account for the FACT that Americans are among the most obese nation on earth and the subsequent increase in health care costs THAT causes.

I agree that obesity is a major factor. I also believe people are not fully aware of proper dietary habits. How many people realize one fast-food hamburger contains almost half the daily calories necessary for an adult? One lousy hamburger. Add in fries and a drink and the calories are outrageous.

People are not going to spend $150 or $200 to see a doctor and get a blood work-up if they feel healthy. Just the idea of free yearly check-ups would cut down medical costs as illnesses would be detected early. Maybe cover the cost of seeing a nutritionist. At the very least there are relatively inexpensive steps the government could take. If a doctor's warning results in just one person changing their habits and preventing a stroke or heart attack just imagine the savings.

Health care in the US is a money-making business and that money is made off ill people. What possible incentive would the health care folks have in preventing illness? Illness is their bread and butter and that has to change.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Looking back, I can see both sides, but at the same time, if he had been tried and impeached, well, like you said, we may not have some of the other political crimes committed that we did by Presidents that succeeded him.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe that precedence would have been even worse because then you would have seen other Presidents prosecuted for purely partisan reasons. That would hardly be in our nations interest. You also have to look at it from Ford's point of view. Even though he knew he was committing political suicide he still had a job to do as chief executive and this nation has some real serious problems to be dealt with in 1974. By Ford's own estimate he was spending about a third of his working time in dealing with Nixon's legal issues. That not only was interfering with the well run wheels of government but it was destabilizing our nations political process. A pardon eliminated that entire problem in one fell swoop and it was entirely constitutional. Nixon certainly deserved a healthy dose of justice but be careful what you ask for cause you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm convinced that the Ford pardon was the right thing to do.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Has anyone ever met a real person that is as big a smug, condescending asshole as SF's online persona? Such a ray of sunshine.

Aw, is Princess's panties in a bunch?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe that precedence would have been even worse because then you would have seen other Presidents prosecuted for purely partisan reasons. That would hardly be in our nations interest. You also have to look at it from Ford's point of view. Even though he knew he was committing political suicide he still had a job to do as chief executive and this nation has some real serious problems to be dealt with in 1974. By Ford's own estimate he was spending about a third of his working time in dealing with Nixon's legal issues. That not only was interfering with the well run wheels of government but it was destabilizing our nations political process. A pardon eliminated that entire problem in one fell swoop and it was entirely constitutional. Nixon certainly deserved a healthy dose of justice but be careful what you ask for cause you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm convinced that the Ford pardon was the right thing to do.

I don't believe that the precedent that some are too big to prosecute has served this country well. While I agree that we cannot know the road not taken, and there are always unintended consequences, I'd like to see what it would be like if all men truly were created equal and lady justice really was blind. That's a world I think I might like living in.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Medical care is lower, per capita, in EVERY country that has a government plan. No exception.

Yes, I know that. My point is that we ALSO spend more per capita on many other areas. Given that we are the largest economy in the world, that is going to happen.

A government plan would enable the government to put a lid on excessive jury awards.

The government can put a lid on excessive jury awards WITHOUT having to take control of the health care system.

And there's no country like England or France or Canada or Australia or Italy or Norway or.... That excuse doesn't hold water.

You are the one that brought up geographical conditions. The point is, we have far greater land mass than the European countries and far greater population. We also again have more tech per hospital bed.... ie.... we spend more on high tech than most countries and couple that with the litigious element and you have escalated costs.

45,000 people die every year due to a lack of medical care. You can try to dress that fact up any way you want. It doesn't change the statistics.

Assuming that number is correct, again, we DO NOT NEED to put the entire country on a government plan in order to take care of those that cannot afford health care.

They are paid for by taxes. The amount of tax one would pay, on average, would be less than one is now currently paying for insurance and deductible payments. That's why medical costs 1/3 less in countries with government medical care.

Apparently you don't comprehend what UNFUNDED means. It means we are NOT paying the taxes to support our current systems. We would have to dramatically raise taxes just to cover the existing Medicare unfunded liabilities.

I agree that obesity is a major factor. I also believe people are not fully aware of proper dietary habits. How many people realize one fast-food hamburger contains almost half the daily calories necessary for an adult? One lousy hamburger. Add in fries and a drink and the calories are outrageous.

People are not going to spend $150 or $200 to see a doctor and get a blood work-up if they feel healthy. Just the idea of free yearly check-ups would cut down medical costs as illnesses would be detected early. Maybe cover the cost of seeing a nutritionist. At the very least there are relatively inexpensive steps the government could take. If a doctor's warning results in just one person changing their habits and preventing a stroke or heart attack just imagine the savings.

I agree with the above. Preventative care, education on dietary and exercise habits etc... would drastically reduce the health care costs by reducing the obesity levels. The only part I disagree with is the lack of knowledge on what is bad. You would have to be a moron on the scale of Mott to not know that McDonalds/Burger King/KFC/Taco Hell etc... are horrid for your diet.

Side note....Everyone has a different metabolism that will be affected by the extra curricular activities they partake in. I consume about 4500-5000 calories a day just to maintain my weight. One of the common problems for women that causes them to gain weight is that they don't consume enough calories. You can consume as many calories as you want, provided you burn more. The best way to lose weight is to find out how many calories you burn in a day on average, then start consuming about 500 or so under that number (though a bare minimum should be 1200 for a small female... otherwise your body goes into starvation mode)

Health care in the US is a money-making business and that money is made off ill people. What possible incentive would the health care folks have in preventing illness? Illness is their bread and butter and that has to change.

Wow.... tell me, do people stop getting ill in Canada? No, they keep getting sick, needing surgeries, getting injured playing sports etc... While I agree that preventative care can help alleviate many problems (if the people stick to the dietary and exercise regimens), the health care industry can benefit from that side as well. Personal trainers, dieticians, physical therapists etc...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Arrrrggghhhh, if Reagan's administration had been tried and they should have been, we would not be in Iraq at this time, we would not have had Bush for a president! Oh, what could have been!

Then we also should have tried the administrations of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush and who knows where we would be today. But I know, we only look at what Reagan did because he is the big boogey man of the left. His successes far outweigh his negatives... as I stated, Reagan made the hard choice that Carter ran away from. Just as Mott runs away from addressing any of the actual FACTS of the state of the economy when Carter took office.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Dude you can prattle on all you want to with what you read from some right wing talking head. I was there. I lived through it and I saw it. You didn't.

Dumbass... I am old enough to remember Carter you moron. But once again, thanks for proving what a coward you are. Once again you run away from the ACTUAL FACTS. The ACTUAL DATA. It isn't hard to find Mott. The BEA puts it out for all to see. But you keep 'prattling' on all you want about how Carter inherited stagflation that didn't exist. You pathetic cowardly twit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hmmmm well after the pardon Ford got beat up a lot. The public image that the media portrayed was of a bumbling bafoon and he was far from that. Reagan? Did the right thing despite the political cost? You must not not remember that era as clearly as I did cause he sure as hell did abrogate his moral authority on the Iran Contra debacle or maybe you never read about that?

LMAO.... try reading moron. I did not state that Reagan was without mistakes. I said he made the hard call on the economy and STUCK WITH VOLCKERS PLAN. Something you proclaim Carter did, but that is 100% false. Carter ran away, just like you, when things got tough.

The rest of your nonsense needs no reply other than to laugh at your spoon fed left wing nut portrayal of Reagan.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Dumbass... I am old enough to remember Carter you moron. But once again, thanks for proving what a coward you are. Once again you run away from the ACTUAL FACTS. The ACTUAL DATA. It isn't hard to find Mott. The BEA puts it out for all to see. But you keep 'prattling' on all you want about how Carter inherited stagflation that didn't exist. You pathetic cowardly twit.

Whoa, someone's cranky this morning. Um, weren't you like four when Carter took office? And eight when he left?

Not that living through something is evidence that you know anything about it, don't get me wrong. Republicans prove that every day here. I just think it's funny. So you must have been a prodigy huh?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Whoa, someone's cranky this morning. Um, weren't you like four when Carter took office? And eight when he left?

Not that living through something is evidence that you know anything about it, don't get me wrong. Republicans prove that every day here. I just think it's funny. So you must have been a prodigy huh?

I was 11 when Reagan took office thank you very much. While I may not have been paying attention to politics, I most certainly remember what things were like back then. Notice he runs away from the BEA data every single time. This time he calls the BEA a 'right wing' site. They post the ACTUAL data. They are neither right nor left. The data is there for anyone to see. Yet Mott 'lived it man, was there man' so that trumps the actual data???