Obama and Democrats, Not Republicans, Need to Answer for Debt Ceiling

[Cancel 2016.2]

You ever heard of a "Catch-22" Yurt? This is one of them and I'll define a "Catch-22" as "A situation in which the alternatives are impossible".

I do not want to see the debt limit raised. Am I listening? Hell yes but do we really have a choice? What is the alternative to not raising the debt limit? That would be defaulting on our national debt. Would the ramifications of defaulting be worse then raising the debt limit. Yea....it probably would be.

You forget the OTHER alternative..... which is to STOP SPENDING MORE THAN YOU MAKE

 

[Damocles]

True but we do need to have an adult conversation on the subject and here's the problem in Washington politics and why we are not having an adult conversation. Democrats do not want to address the spending end of the issue and Republicans do not want to address the revenue end of the issue. Until both parties are willing address both aspects of this problem, both spending and revenue, then they will continue to place the public in the ridiculous Catch-22 in regards to the debt limit. It's just maddening. A pox on both houses I say!

True that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Gallup Poll: 70 Percent of Republicans Oppose Raising Debt Ceiling


Many Republican congressmen have expressed opposition to an increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. And a new Gallup poll shows Republican voters feel the same way. Indeed, 70 percent of them oppose lifting the debt-limit ceiling, while only 8 percent favor it, and 21 percent say they know too little to decide, The Hill reports.

Among Americans as a whole, 47 percent oppose a hike, 19 percent favor one, and 34 percent say they don’t know enough to form an opinion.

As for Democrats, 26 percent oppose an increase, 33 percent favor it, and 40 percent are unsure. Among independents, 46 percent are against a hike, 15 percent approve of it, and 40 percent are unsure.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Gallup-debt-ceiling-Republicans/2011/05/13/id/396272

Thank you for the link. I appreciate it.

That said, there is a HUGE difference between "70% want the US to default" and "70% don't want to raise the debt limit"

I know the left has been harping on the mantra of 'if we don't raise the debt ceiling it means default'.... but they conveniently leave out the OTHER alternative.... which is to cut spending and quit spending more than you make. While this is certainly much harder, this is the option the Reps want to push forward. In the end, they will raise the debt ceiling at least one more time, but not before they hammer home the need to stop the insanity of spending that we have seen for the past 30 years. Which both parties are responsible for.

 

[Bonestorm]

Thank you for the link. I appreciate it.

That said, there is a HUGE difference between "70% want the US to default" and "70% don't want to raise the debt limit"

I know the left has been harping on the mantra of 'if we don't raise the debt ceiling it means default'.... but they conveniently leave out the OTHER alternative.... which is to cut spending and quit spending more than you make. While this is certainly much harder, this is the option the Reps want to push forward. In the end, they will raise the debt ceiling at least one more time, but not before they hammer home the need to stop the insanity of spending that we have seen for the past 30 years. Which both parties are responsible for.

As I said previously, the only way to avoid default without raising the debt ceiling would require us to scrap all discretionary spending and to not pay mandatory spending, including Medicare and Social Security benefits, in full. We just don't have the revenues.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Let's start with the obvious. The less money put into the government plan, SS, the less money the government will have available to pay out.

Lets start with the obvious..... the government owes people what they promised, no one is suggesting they not make payments. The money is simply shifting in terms of WHO has control over it, it is not disappearing.

Some people did invest privately and ended up with nothing. Folks like the Enron employees. Many others took a hit with their stocks when the bubble burst.

Again, you use the typical fear mongering of the left. NO ONE is suggesting that people be allowed to invest in any security they wish. NO ONE is suggesting that ALL of the money go into the stock market. What has been suggested is that people be allowed to invest a PORTION of their money into something like the S&P 500 or Wilshire 5000 and the remainder would be invested in US Treasuries.

It's fine to say a few years later things improved but what would have happened to those who retired at that time? For example, let's say someone had $100,000 in stock and it dropped 25%. They're left with $75,000. Now they need $25,000 a year to live on so over the next two years they take a total of $50,000 leaving $25,000 invested. Then the market picks up.

That is a fair question. The answer is that as they get closer to retirement, the percent they are allowed to invest in the market diminishes. Again, you are assuming that everyone would drop their entire accounts into the market. The point is, the system as a whole would be in far better financial position today if they had been invested long term in the market vs. having the government in control.

We can both 'what if' worst case scenarios. What if the government continues to spend at an insane pace and DOES default in ten years or twenty? What happens to the value of the SS funds then? You already have some idiots suggesting cuts to promised benefits. How does that effect a retiree?

As you mentioned from 2005 till now the money would be up 5.5%. That's great for the person who didn't need to touch their $100,000. (First it dropped to $75,000 , then increased to $105,500.) What about the person who withdrew $50,000, over two years, to live on? How much do they have left? The stocks that were supposed to regain their value have been cashed out.

Now you are just repeating yourself. For one, they would not have had 100% in the market. Second, anyone taking 25% of their account out in a given year to retire off of is an idiot as they will be broke within 6 years at most.

Dozens of countries have produced health care plans that save money, savings on average of 30% + compared to the US. Are Republicans prepared to implement a full government health care plan?

We had a health care system that people could afford prior to the government getting more and more involved. It was the government involvement that drove the HMO's and PPO's. I have no problem with a government plan to help those who cannot get individual coverage, but there is no need for them to be involved with everyone's plan.

What don't people understand? Dozens of countries have taken a medicare plan and a medicaid plan and general health insurance plan and rolled it all in one and are saving over 30%. It's been done. There are dozens of examples and not one plan has been scrapped. Not one country has reverted to a "pay or suffer" system.

There is no shortage of examples but until the decision is made to have one government plan it's going to be constant bickering. On the up-side as different initiatives of the ObamaCare plan come on line people will realize the benefits. One more Obama Presidency and a lot of this nonsense will be history. One medical plan for everyone.

I know this is the mantra of the left, but to suggest that the government need to be involved just shows that you want a nanny state where the government "pays" for the plan.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is like reading what SF wrote when debating climactic change with Cypress. Virtually everyone with a professional science background was laughing their ass off at him for making a fool of himself. Same with health care reform and the privatization of SS. He completely ignores the historical precedents and facts on which the programs were originally created and the proposes alternatives which are naive as hell. He seems to have this irrational exuberance that the market is the solution to everything. The problem is, it's not. The market does some things very well but it's not a panacea but try to explain that to people like SF who just bury their head in the sand and ignore the facts.

Funny, because all I see from morons like you are the same talking points over and over again. Cypress just stamped his feet on climate change and shouted 'denier' over and over again. Consistently refusing to address any questions posed as his standard response was "CONSENSUS". Then idiots like you ignore the FACT that my position on solutions was actually one in which the 'problem' would be solved.

As for health care, idiots like you continue to pretend that the US is like every country that has a national health plan and that the national health plan is the ONLY option. Our health care system was affordable BEFORE the idiots in DC started pushing HMO's and PPO's etc... before the corporations started the 'guaranteed coverage for all plans' that just drove up prices at an insane pace. You also ignore the PRECEDENT with regards to litigation in the US vs. the rest of the world. You also ignore the PROBLEMS they are having with their 'national' plans.

As for SS, you are simply parroting the talking points of your masters. You have no actual basis for your position which is why you resort to such nonsense in your post.

The banking fiasco that happened due to credit default swaps that caused the great recession is a perfect example. Who in their right mind could advocate privitization of SS after that except for a complete idiot or someone who cynically plans to scam the market on SS investment at the publics expense. I imagine the gods of Wallstreet would love nothing better then to get their hands on our SS money but what happens when they lose that money like they did on credit default swaps? Who takes care of the losers? Does he have an answer for that or is his answer just "Fuck them, it's a cold hard cruel world out there."?

This is the biggest bunch of horseshit I have seen regarding privatization. It was not the credit default swaps that led to this (though they certainly played a part), it was once again the GOVERNMENT trying to manipulate an outcome. The idiots in DC accepted bribes (aka lobbying) to repeal Glass Steagall and both parties went along with it. Had they left it in place, the economic meltdown would not have been possible.

To pretend that the downturn is justification for no privatization is simply absurd. Because AGAIN... NO ONE is suggesting that people be allowed to invest in ANY security or that they be allowed to invest EVERYTHING in the market.

Here is a hint for you as well MORON: THE SS FUNDS ARE ALREADY IN THE HANDS OF ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT FIRMS ON WALL STREET..... JP MORGAN. Which is why JP was conveniently saved, while its competitors (Bear and Lehman) were allowed to fail. It is also why Washington Mutual, who JP wanted to buy was forced into bankruptcy and sold at a fraction of its price to.... JP.... all within a couple weeks of the government providing bailout funds. WaMu was in no danger of going bankrupt within a month, yet the GOVERNMENT made those 'too big to fail' banks...... BIGGER.

Yes moron.... I have an answer to your stupidity.... Again, you don't let people invest in ANY security. You let them invest a PORTION in the market IF THEY CHOOSE. You let them do this via an index like the S&P 500 or Wilshire 5000.

PRIVATIZATION does NOT mean invest everything in the market. It means the money is OUT of the hands of the corrupt politicians and wall street firms that led us into the economic mess. You are shouting about credit default swaps as if individual investors would be investing there.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

" He completely ignores the historical precedents and facts on which the programs were originally created..."

This is truly comical. I am not ignoring precedent. I am looking at what OUR problems are and ways to fix them.

That's exactly what happens. He and others look at government programs and their suggestion is privatization. What they don't seem to understand is everything was private before the government took it over. There was a reason the government took it over.

Yes, there is and that reason is more control over our lives. Which means MORE companies bribing the idiots in DC to do what is in their best interest rather than in the interest of the citizens of this country. Take a look at what the government has taken over and then tell us which have been successful and which are severely underfunded at this point due to excessive promises. It is all nice to say 'the government will provide everything for you' but when it comes time to pay for it.... oops

What can you do? Like Obama said, "Don't show up with old, tired, worn-out ideas." People like SF don't seem to realize privatization has been tired. It was tried for, literally, thousands of years before governments took it over. If the solution was privatization the solution would have been found before governments stepped in.

What 'I lub my guvment' people like you fail to understand is that we HAD a health care system that worked PRIOR to all the government intervention. What you fail to comprehend is that for thousands of years people took care of themselves and it worked. The governments 'stepped in' because they saw the power it would give them over the people.

It's the same with medical care. Since the beginning of time it was "privatized" and because a full government policy is still lacking we see 45,000/yr dying.

The facts mean nothing to folks like SF.

Funny, because I haven't seen you provide any FACTS.... just rhetoric.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You really are a fucking DOLT. The economy Obama inherited was retracting precipitously. The money government spent was NECESSARY and crucial to any hope of a recovery. Your beloved private sector was MIA, they still are...a fucking decade of Bush tax cuts and ZERO job growth during Bush's regime...ZERO

a decade of bush tax cuts? i didn't realize bush was in office for 10 years....funny how the left always blames bush and then gives obama all the credit. it wasn't necessary, that is pure speculation.

and it is absolutely not true there was zero job growth under bush...you can repeat it all you want, but it isn't true, then again, facts aren't important to you, party propaganda is

 

[Bfgrn]

Also, the Repub's plan is to destroy social safety nets. I think that was made obvious when Rumsfeld was asked about the Iraq war. He replied, "It was an option we could afford."

Research shows the number of conversations about how much the war would cost and how quick it would end. Whether or not they intentionally knew things wouldn't work out the way they stated one of their objectives was to insure the Federal Government didn't have extra money for social programs.

The Federal Government knew there were people living far below the poverty line. Hungry, homeless...if there was enough money to claim war was an affordable option then helping the less fortunate was also an affordable option but the Repubs are against that whole philosophy.

What better way to put a halt to safety net programs than to run a deficit? If there's no money the conversation ends there. However, Obama decided the citizens needed a medical plan/solution and went ahead with it anyway. It's no longer a matter of "can the US afford it".

The last point is a country's wealth is determined by the wealth of it's citizens unless the country is run by a dictatorship. When the majority have homes and cars and luxuries then the country can afford to look after it's less fortunate citizens. The money is there, in the country.

Whether one cuts spending or increases taxes or does a combination of both the country can afford social programs. It's absurd for anyone to say differently. The problem is social programs haven't been given the importance they deserve. As long as some people believe others should suffer because they can't afford medical care there will never be a decent medical plan. The same applies to food and shelter.

The welfare of fellow citizens needs to be right beside national security in importance. Then other things follow on the list. I see that as what Obama is doing regarding the medical plan. Just as a basic national security policy has to be paid for, regardless of anything else, the same follows for the welfare of the citizens.

As for our children being burdened by debt does anyone believe their children will respect them more when they find out their mom and dad allowed 45,000/yr to die due to a lack of proper medical care?

White House 2002

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill - 60 Minutes - CBS News

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress. But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts:

Vice President Dick Cheney: ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’

President George W. Bush: ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again’

President's advisers: ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs.’

President George W. Bush: ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’

Karl Rove: ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again, 'Don’t waver.'

In the end, the president didn't waver. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked O'Neill to resign.

 

[Bfgrn]

a decade of bush tax cuts? i didn't realize bush was in office for 10 years....funny how the left always blames bush and then gives obama all the credit. it wasn't necessary, that is pure speculation.

and it is absolutely not true there was zero job growth under bush...you can repeat it all you want, but it isn't true, then again, facts aren't important to you, party propaganda is

Yes, a decade Yurt...the Bush tax cuts never expired and they were extended under Obama. And contrary to teabagger ignorance, NO ONE'S taxes have been increased under Obama.

For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s.

Washington Post

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[apple0154]

Lets start with the obvious..... the government owes people what they promised, no one is suggesting they not make payments. The money is simply shifting in terms of WHO has control over it, it is not disappearing.

If the government is obliged to pay benefits then it has to have control over it. How can it work any other way?

Again, you use the typical fear mongering of the left. NO ONE is suggesting that people be allowed to invest in any security they wish. NO ONE is suggesting that ALL of the money go into the stock market. What has been suggested is that people be allowed to invest a PORTION of their money into something like the S&P 500 or Wilshire 5000 and the remainder would be invested in US Treasuries.

Government pensions barely cover the cost of living. For example, if a person contributes and expects to receive $1,000/mth at retirement but invested 20% of their contributions in stock and that stock collapsed they would receive 20% less at retirement. Obviously, the $1,000 example is low but the same principal applies. Government pensions are not $10,000/mth where people could afford to lose 20% and still live comfortably. Simply stated, there isn't enough leeway to play around with.

That is a fair question. The answer is that as they get closer to retirement, the percent they are allowed to invest in the market diminishes. Again, you are assuming that everyone would drop their entire accounts into the market. The point is, the system as a whole would be in far better financial position today if they had been invested long term in the market vs. having the government in control.

The simple solution is to prohibit government from using that money. If they hadn't used the contributions over the years there would be plenty.

We can both 'what if' worst case scenarios. What if the government continues to spend at an insane pace and DOES default in ten years or twenty? What happens to the value of the SS funds then? You already have some idiots suggesting cuts to promised benefits. How does that effect a retiree?

Prevent the government from spending those contributions. Why write up a convoluted law allowing investments "here" and "there" and diminished investments at a certain age and whatever else when a simple "Do not touch retirement contributions" is all that's needed?

Also, don't forget, who decides which companies qualify for retirement investments? Talk about lobbyists! Imagine the scramble to be included on a "Retirement Investment" list.

We had a health care system that people could afford prior to the government getting more and more involved. It was the government involvement that drove the HMO's and PPO's. I have no problem with a government plan to help those who cannot get individual coverage, but there is no need for them to be involved with everyone's plan.

Unfortunately, that discussion has been going on for 45 years, since 1966. Well, actually, it's been going on a lot longer than that. They talk. No one agrees. Conversation ends. Repeat.

I know this is the mantra of the left, but to suggest that the government need to be involved just shows that you want a nanny state where the government "pays" for the plan.

"We" pay for the plan. Every citizen in every country with a government plan pays for their plan.

Whether it's medical or social security the only guarantee is a government plan because the government can not go bankrupt because that would mean every citizen in the country would go bankrupt. "We, the people" is exactly what it says. The government is the people.

The people, all the citizens of the country, can afford, as a group, to look after the less fortunate. That's the bottom line. The people are the country.

Privatization has been tried. Every "plan" started out as a private plan. None ever worked. That's why the government stepped in. The solution is to ensure the contributions to each plan is kept separate. That way everyone is covered, be it medical or pension.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, there is and that reason is more control over our lives. Which means MORE companies bribing the idiots in DC to do what is in their best interest rather than in the interest of the citizens of this country. Take a look at what the government has taken over and then tell us which have been successful and which are severely underfunded at this point due to excessive promises. It is all nice to say 'the government will provide everything for you' but when it comes time to pay for it.... oops

Social Security, for one. Check out the conditions people lived under during the 30s, before SS. Read about the "Poor Houses". From the mid-30s to today people receive SS. Seventy-five years is a pretty good track record for a failing system.

What 'I lub my guvment' people like you fail to understand is that we HAD a health care system that worked PRIOR to all the government intervention. What you fail to comprehend is that for thousands of years people took care of themselves and it worked. The governments 'stepped in' because they saw the power it would give them over the people.

Yes, power to save people's lives. If the prior systems had worked nothing would have changed. You wrote, "..for thousands of years people took care of themselves and it worked."

It didn't work. Some people can't look after themselves for various reasons.

Funny, because I haven't seen you provide any FACTS.... just rhetoric.

You want facts?
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...lack-of-insurance-to-45000-u-s-deaths-a-year/

May I recommend you bookmark the link.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

lol....so bush tax cuts, extended by obama are still bush tax cuts and not obama's.....



and there was job growth under bush....

http://www.google.com/search?q=job ...fficial&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

5 seconds, so easy even you might be capable of doing it

here is a left winger site for you

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...d-brown-touts-job-grown-during-clinton-presi/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If the government is obliged to pay benefits then it has to have control over it. How can it work any other way?

The government continues to fund just as they currently do those who are at or near retirement. This is a part of every plan I have seen. The ability to invest in the market was to be restricted to those who had TIME to invest.

Government pensions barely cover the cost of living. For example, if a person contributes and expects to receive $1,000/mth at retirement but invested 20% of their contributions in stock and that stock collapsed they would receive 20% less at retirement. Obviously, the $1,000 example is low but the same principal applies. Government pensions are not $10,000/mth where people could afford to lose 20% and still live comfortably. Simply stated, there isn't enough leeway to play around with.

Again, you are ignoring what I am writing. Again.... NO ONE WHO IS AT OR NEAR RETIREMENT WOULD BE INVESTING IN THE MARKET.

The simple solution is to prohibit government from using that money. If they hadn't used the contributions over the years there would be plenty.

Good, you finally get the rationale behind privatization. Privatization means the GOVERNMENT loses control of the money. That way they don't have the ability to tap into it like it was a part of the general fund.... which is what every single President has done since Reagan.

Prevent the government from spending those contributions. Why write up a convoluted law allowing investments "here" and "there" and diminished investments at a certain age and whatever else when a simple "Do not touch retirement contributions" is all that's needed?

Fine.... do the same in private accounts, that way the government cannot change their mind in the future. You continue to associate privatization with 'has to go into the market'... Privatization simply means control over the money goes from the government to the individual. Make it a requirement that everyone invest in Treasuries and that is their only option. I am fine with that as well.

Also, don't forget, who decides which companies qualify for retirement investments? Talk about lobbyists! Imagine the scramble to be included on a "Retirement Investment" list.

Currently, as I already mentioned, JP Morgan is the one deeply in bed with DC. The easy way to resolve your issue is to have a Vanguard like expense structure mandated. Max expense that can be charged on an S&P or Wilshire index is 0.06% (which is the current expense ratio of the Vanguard S&P 500 etf) Given the total dollars we are talking about, you can likely knock that down even further.

Unfortunately, that discussion has been going on for 45 years, since 1966. Well, actually, it's been going on a lot longer than that. They talk. No one agrees. Conversation ends. Repeat.

Yes it has and we have progressively moved away from individual coverage into 'guaranteed' coverage plans. Over that same time health care costs have skyrocketed.

"We" pay for the plan. Every citizen in every country with a government plan pays for their plan.

Wrong. Not every citizen pays for the plan.... which should be the case, we have to protect the poor in that regard (which I assume you realize and that you meant everyone else pays into it... just wanted to clarify)

Whether it's medical or social security the only guarantee is a government plan because the government can not go bankrupt because that would mean every citizen in the country would go bankrupt. "We, the people" is exactly what it says. The government is the people.

This is a complete fallacy. The Government most certainly CAN go bankrupt. Will it likely happen in the next decade? No. But if you remove the reserve currency status from the US... we would be bankrupt and experiencing hyper inflation if we had a 50 year deficit spending streak in place.

The people, all the citizens of the country, can afford, as a group, to look after the less fortunate. That's the bottom line. The people are the country.

I do not disagree with you. I think THOSE are the people we protect with a government plan like Medicare/Medicaid.

Privatization has been tried. Every "plan" started out as a private plan. None ever worked. That's why the government stepped in. The solution is to ensure the contributions to each plan is kept separate. That way everyone is covered, be it medical or pension.

This is a complete fabrication. Our health care system worked fine prior to the advent of the HMO/PPO plan. The government stepped in because they saw the power it would give them. You are correct on SS, but wrong on Medical... Medicare and medicaid are severely underfunded when you look at historical revenues they generate vs. promises made.

In the past it used to be everyone would qualify for insurance on their own. They would be covered for catastrophic/high cost(maternity etc) care and would pay out of pocket for the annual checkups etc. As HMO's and PPO's started covering everything with low deductibles, prices took off as demand increased. Add in the fact that when you have guaranteed coverage it means everyone pays a higher amount for insurance. Then add in skyrocketing malpractice premiums which get tacked on to each bill etc.... Then add in all the defensive medicine practices....

Bottom line... could a government plan work? sure... as could going back to the truly PRIVATE accounts.... but BOTH will fail unless we address the rising costs. Simply transferring payment from individual to government doesn't correct the cost issue. Obamacare is a monstrosity that will ADD to health care costs rather than reduce them.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Social Security, for one. Check out the conditions people lived under during the 30s, before SS. Read about the "Poor Houses". From the mid-30s to today people receive SS. Seventy-five years is a pretty good track record for a failing system.

It would have been a great system if it had been adjusted annually for life expectancy and had remained out of the hands of politicians via the general fund.

Yes, power to save people's lives. If the prior systems had worked nothing would have changed. You wrote, "..for thousands of years people took care of themselves and it worked."

This is just nonsense. They took it over because it provided them yet another industry beholden to their whims. another industry all too willing to bribe their way to deals for the betterment of the industry rather than the individual.

It didn't work. Some people can't look after themselves for various reasons.

Bullshit. It did work and it does work. No matter what system you have, you can always go out and find people who will die within that system or because of it.

You want facts?
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...lack-of-insurance-to-45000-u-s-deaths-a-year/

May I recommend you bookmark the link.

Thanks for that, I was actually typing requesting this and then got to the final comment.

The increase in risk, according to the study, is likely to be a result of at least two factors. One is the greater difficulty the uninsured have today in finding care, as public hospitals have closed or cut back on services. The other is improvements in medical care for insured people with treatable chronic conditions like high blood pressure.

“As health care for the insured gets better, the gap between the insured and uninsured widens,” Dr. Woolhandler said.

The researchers also concluded that other ways of delivering care to the uninsured, like providing them with community health centers, are not adequate substitutes for health insurance. Individuals need the access to hospitals and specialists that comes only with adequate insurance coverage, Dr. Woolhander said.

This is the problem I have with those who want a national health plan. They assume that every new technology and every new drug should be available to everyone regardless of cost.

 

[apple0154]

The government continues to fund just as they currently do those who are at or near retirement. This is a part of every plan I have seen. The ability to invest in the market was to be restricted to those who had TIME to invest.

Again, you are ignoring what I am writing. Again.... NO ONE WHO IS AT OR NEAR RETIREMENT WOULD BE INVESTING IN THE MARKET.

I’d like to see the plan after discussing what “at or near retirement” means in years and negotiating which investment vehicles qualify. That should take a decade or two to conclude.

Good, you finally get the rationale behind privatization. Privatization means the GOVERNMENT loses control of the money. That way they don't have the ability to tap into it like it was a part of the general fund.... which is what every single President has done since Reagan.

That’s great, however, the guarantee that goes with a government plan is lost. If something happens and Murphy’s Law raises it’s head what happens to the payout of benefits? Whether the government has the money or doesn’t have the money the government has the power to tax and get the money. It is guaranteed.

It seems much easier to pass a law prohibiting the government from spending the contributions.

Fine.... do the same in private accounts, that way the government cannot change their mind in the future. You continue to associate privatization with 'has to go into the market'... Privatization simply means control over the money goes from the government to the individual. Make it a requirement that everyone invest in Treasuries and that is their only option. I am fine with that as well.

Again, wouldn’t it be simpler if the government was prevented from touching the contributions?

Currently, as I already mentioned, JP Morgan is the one deeply in bed with DC. The easy way to resolve your issue is to have a Vanguard like expense structure mandated. Max expense that can be charged on an S&P or Wilshire index is 0.06% (which is the current expense ratio of the Vanguard S&P 500 etf) Given the total dollars we are talking about, you can likely knock that down even further.

Why complicate things with rules and restrictions when a simple “Do Not Touch” would do the trick?

Yes it has and we have progressively moved away from individual coverage into 'guaranteed' coverage plans. Over that same time health care costs have skyrocketed.

That problem would be solved by implementing one government medical plan just like dozens of other countries have done. It’s been proven, over and over.

This is a complete fallacy. The Government most certainly CAN go bankrupt. Will it likely happen in the next decade? No. But if you remove the reserve currency status from the US... we would be bankrupt and experiencing hyper inflation if we had a 50 year deficit spending streak in place.

That’s a big “IF”.

This is a complete fabrication. Our health care system worked fine prior to the advent of the HMO/PPO plan. The government stepped in because they saw the power it would give them. You are correct on SS, but wrong on Medical... Medicare and medicaid are severely underfunded when you look at historical revenues they generate vs. promises made.

In the past it used to be everyone would qualify for insurance on their own. They would be covered for catastrophic/high cost(maternity etc) care and would pay out of pocket for the annual checkups etc. As HMO's and PPO's started covering everything with low deductibles, prices took off as demand increased. Add in the fact that when you have guaranteed coverage it means everyone pays a higher amount for insurance. Then add in skyrocketing malpractice premiums which get tacked on to each bill etc.... Then add in all the defensive medicine practices....

Bottom line... could a government plan work? sure... as could going back to the truly PRIVATE accounts.... but BOTH will fail unless we address the rising costs. Simply transferring payment from individual to government doesn't correct the cost issue. Obamacare is a monstrosity that will ADD to health care costs rather than reduce them.

Again, dozens of other countries have dealt with free check-ups and malpractice suits and practicing defensive medicine. There are over a dozen ways to deal with those things, all tried and proven.

Why are people looking for solutions to problems that have already been solved? And as for free check-ups it’s just common sense that, alone, would save money. Preventive maintenance.

As I have mentioned in other threads one medication for hypertension (high blood pressure) costs 50 cents a day. If one person is prevented from having a stroke and avoids losing their job and requiring full time care how many free check-ups and prescriptions at 50 cents a day would their potential medical savings cover?

How many people contract cancer but wait to visit a doctor because they aren’t feeling that bad and don’t want to spend $150 for something they think will clear up on it’s own? How many people experience a mild heart attack but avoid a check-up for the same reason and end up incapacitated or dead while the government has to provide for their spouse and children?

(Excerpt) According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2008 there were 46.3 million people in the US (15.4% of the population) who were without health insurance. (End)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_coverage_in_the_United_States

(Excerpt) According to Google, as of 2007 there are 138 million US citizens that pay taxes. (End)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_citizens_pay_taxes_in_the_US

If a check-up costs $150 and every taxpayer contributed $50/yr every non-insured individual could have a free check-up. A contribution of less than $1.00/week would ensure those unable to afford insurance could get a check-up.

Just saying.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

by David Limbaugh
05/22/2011

What kind of surreal world are we inhabiting where the political party that is trying to address our debt problem is on the defensive at the hands of the reckless party that chooses to mock, demagogue and delay?

The national dialogue, at least the one being choreographed by Democrats and their amen chorus in the liberal Beltway media, has been distorted beyond measure. We are asking the wrong questions and getting the wrong answers.

Let's focus on the real problem. We are in a national debt crisis -- present tense; this is not something that might occur in the future. Medicare and Social Security trustees just issued the grim report that Medicare's fiscal hole has deepened by an additional $2 trillion and its projected date of insolvency has been moved up five more years to 2024. Social Security was already $49 billion in the red last year, and its projected insolvency date has been advanced to 2036.

Meanwhile, S&P lowered America's long-term credit rating from "stable" to "negative," and CNN Money warned that this means there's a one in three chance that S&P will downgrade our AAA credit rating within two years. Also, Pimco, the world's largest bond fund with $1.2 trillion in assets, has already sold off all of its U.S. government holdings.

So, the media shouldn't be asking the Republicans whether they intend to play brinksmanship with the debt ceiling, suggesting that if they refuse to raise the limit again they'll cause the United States to default on its obligations and plunge into a financial catastrophe.

Instead, they should be cornering their most favored president and his Democrats and asking them why they are AWOL on our debt crisis. They should demand an answer on why they didn't produce a budget in 2010 despite having control of both houses of Congress, an egregious act of neglect that hasn't occurred in a couple of generations.

Obama and the Democrats should be asked why they continue to perpetuate the myth that Republicans are going to force a default on our national obligations if they don't agree to raise the debt ceiling. Democrats know the government won't default on its obligations because the interest on the debt represents but a small fraction of the budget. It is other expenditures that will have to be delayed -- something that's unthinkable to these rapacious spenders.

But since the liberal press is not going to do its job, the Republicans and the alternative media need to do it, with considerable frequency and volume. Obama and his Democrats need to be placed on the defensive. They are the primary drivers of this spending; they are the obstructers of entitlement reform, and the national debt continues to burn while they fiddle.

We need to dispense a little of their own medicine to them and turn the PR tide against them. Behind their aggressive accusations against Republicans, beneath the veneer of their fear mongering, lurks a sordid absence of engagement on the major issue facing us today.

We need to ask them, "Why do you refuse to join Republicans in serious and concrete spending cuts and entitlement reform (as distinguished from your insincere promises to curtail spending at some indefinite time in the future) prior to raising the debt ceiling? Why do you continue to excoriate Republicans for insisting on such urgent legislation? Do you deny Paul Ryan's report that bondholders and the financial markets are far more concerned about the United States not bringing its fiscal house in order than about not raising the debt ceiling? Do you deny that the United States will honor its interest and principal payments irrespective of its having reached its debt ceiling?"

"Do you plan to come to the table anytime soon and present concrete proposals of your own, or do you intend to stonewall through the 2012 election, calculating that you can win re-election simply by slinging arrows at Ryan for attacking the third rail of politics and its cousins?"

"Or are you too busy directing the National Labor Relations Board in its lawless war on Boeing, our largest exporter, in favor of your union bosses; directing Eric Holder's unconscionable decision to prosecute CIA interrogators whose work product made possible the bin Laden raid; directing Kathleen Sebelius as to which of your political friends will receive Obamacare favoritism waivers; directing your EPA's overt war against offshore drilling; directing your administration's refusal to protect America's borders; and devising ways to mistreat our ally Israel?" Oh, that's right. You never interfere with the prerogative of your "independent" agencies. My bad.

Obama and the Democrats have no excuse under the sun for their wanton failure to address our debt crisis. It's time they answered for it.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43634

Refusing to raise the debt ceiling causes default, default causers the dollar to become worthless, the economy to collapse and you to lose everything. This isn't a bargaining chip.

 

[apple0154]

It would have been a great system if it had been adjusted annually for life expectancy and had remained out of the hands of politicians via the general fund.

Then that's what has to be changed.

This is just nonsense. They took it over because it provided them yet another industry beholden to their whims. another industry all too willing to bribe their way to deals for the betterment of the industry rather than the individual.

Bullshit. It did work and it does work. No matter what system you have, you can always go out and find people who will die within that system or because of it.

Then why did dozens of countries implement a government plan? All those countries had private medical. Why do the majority of citizens in those countries demand their government maintain their plans if private is so much better?

Government medical has been proven a success everywhere it has been established. Not one exception. What does the opposition look at to make their case? Maybe if there was an exception, maybe if a country did revert to a private system, maybe if the majority of citizens in just one country were protesting for change the opposition could be taken seriously but they have not one example. Dozens of countries, not ONE example.

If we were discussing anything else and there was not ONE example to prove the opposition's view what would be the logical thing to do?

This is the problem I have with those who want a national health plan. They assume that every new technology and every new drug should be available to everyone regardless of cost.

Only the self-centered folks or those who think they're special. Even private plans wait until a drug or procedure is established before covering it. The difference being the government has a stake in seeing people get well.

If a person or persons are denied a drug or procedure that works the government will lose revenue as not only will the person stop work but may very well depend on government assistance or their family may end up depending on government help.

The odds are better with the government.

 

[Liberty]

And adults know that defaulting has dire consequences.

Default.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I’d like to see the plan after discussing what “at or near retirement” means in years and negotiating which investment vehicles qualify. That should take a decade or two to conclude.

Most of the plans put the age at 50 or 55. Again, the vehicles would be restricted to TREASURIES and an INDEX for the equity markets. That is IT.

That’s great, however, the guarantee that goes with a government plan is lost. If something happens and Murphy’s Law raises it’s head what happens to the payout of benefits? Whether the government has the money or doesn’t have the money the government has the power to tax and get the money. It is guaranteed.

Which again is a FALLACY. The government is ALREADY talking about reducing benefits. The government HAS ALREADY changed the full retirement age and has proposed changing it again. Again, Murphy's law can hit the government too. The payments are backed by the government.... they are NOT guaranteed. That too is a FALLACY. The government CAN change the benefit amounts, CAN change the FRA, CAN go bankrupt. Which means there are NO guarantees. You are simply trusting the government to do what they said they will do. THAT is a risk many are not willing to take.

It seems much easier to pass a law prohibiting the government from spending the contributions.

Yes, that IS easier.... unfortunately what it is not is PERMANENT. You see, it was already tried (you are the one who keeps suggesting we look at precedent are you not?).... and it failed to stop FUTURE governments from changing the rules.

Why complicate things with rules and restrictions when a simple “Do Not Touch” would do the trick?

again.... see previous response.

That problem would be solved by implementing one government medical plan just like dozens of other countries have done. It’s been proven, over and over.

Right. Moving along the same path that has caused skyrocketing prices is going to solve the problem. Definition of insanity: Doing the SAME thing over and over and expecting different results. It has NOT been proven by any means in a system like ours.

That’s a big “IF”.

That is what England thought too.... right up until we replaced them. The ONLY thing stopping it from happening this year is the fact that there isn't another currency to switch to due to the problems with the Euro. Other countries are quite sick of our behavior with our currency and printing of money. The majority would vote to change today if there was an alternative. Hence, it will not be likely in the next five or ten years.... but don't get cocky, all it takes if for an alternate to rise and we are gone.

Again, dozens of other countries have dealt with free check-ups and malpractice suits and practicing defensive medicine. There are over a dozen ways to deal with those things, all tried and proven.

Good. START there. GET THOSE resolved PRIOR to implementing a government plan. Because THAT would help to get the COSTS in line. You get that done and I will jump on board with a government plan quite quickly. The problem is, our idiots in DC want the government plan but they don't have the backbone to implement the COST measures you mention above.

Why are people looking for solutions to problems that have already been solved? And as for free check-ups it’s just common sense that, alone, would save money. Preventive maintenance.

I am all for preventative medicine and agree completely it will help reduce costs by catching problems early. I don't recall ever saying otherwise.