Republicans to vote to repeal Obama's Health Care Reform in Jan 11 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Wing_nut;27206740]You took that the wrong way taking my point completely out of context. I'm trying to say that Reagan did not put much as much of a big dent in the deficit as FDR did.[/QUOTE] cool so?

[QUOTE=Wing_nut;27206317]OH it's ashame those graphs don't show FDR or Hoover. FDR came into office and inherited 22.5 billion (much of it from Hoover's "fixing" of the economy) in 1933. In nearly seven years he doubled that. Might I add that 22.5 billion is 374 billion in today's dollars (that's your graphs 2000s dollars). Also since FDR nearly doubled it, it would come out to $659 billion. That's not including the the debt added from 1940-1946. To put it into terms of 2000s dollars as your graph states the debt went from $659 billion to $3 trillion.* No, Reagan didn't.[/QUOTE] * Yes, FDR skyrocketed the debt (have you heard of ww2?) but that is not the point. After the war, the debt began to fall against GDP, and stayed the same nominally. Whichever you choose to focus on, it continued to do that until Reagan got into office. Then it went up fucking massively, to levels never seen before nominally, and not seen since the 50s against GDP. The fact is that the debt was NOT RISING before Reagan, it rose massively during Reagan, Clinton began to cut it again, and then under Bush and so far Obama it rose massively once more. FDR and pre-ww2 debt is irrelevant. [QUOTE=Wing_nut;27206476]When you say 'unmarked' your saying these current graphs on the above post, I'm assuming, are not accurate, have been altered, and are false?[/QUOTE] * Are you joking

[QUOTE=Glaber;27206102]Can you get your charts updated?[/QUOTE] How the fuck is 2010 relevant to the point he was trying to make about Reagan raising the deficit? Holy fucking balltits, if you stopped posting your fucking strawmen all over this board and actually fucking responded to a post instead of pointing out pointless shit, I might have more than a cumdrop of respect for you. The public school system failed, people.

you said "Reagan did not create the skyrocketing debt." even though he almost tripled it and left with a large deficit

[QUOTE=Glaber;27206102]Can you get your charts updated?[/QUOTE] The charts are not intended to say that republicans cause more debt, the point of the charts is to examine the effect of past administrations 2010 has nothing to do with this and the exclusion of it does not invalidate the information contained within them but thank you glaber for shitting up another thread

[QUOTE=Glaber;27206102]Can you get your charts updated?[/QUOTE] I think you'll have to wait longer than 4 days after the year ended for an updated chart. 2009 is good enough.

The healthcare bill passed last year was an awful program, which gave it powers way beyond what is needed to do the job. A proper bill would be one based on limiting frivolous lawsuits, which would drive down malpractice insurance, and fraud, both of which would drive down the cost of healthcare dramatically, without infringing on people's freedoms. [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;27204014]The Clinton administration was the only time since World War II that there has been a budget surplus, and the first time since the Carter administration that debt as a percentage of GDP fell (it leveled off and would have fallen nominally as well). I don't know exactly who you're talking about, but if they were appointed by [i]that[/i] administration, and your post implies that Bush kept them too, so he clearly didn't think they were shit, why is it a problem that they continue to run the Treasury? [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] [img_thumb]http://imgkk.com/i/wifo.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Don't forget that it was the laws passed under Clinton's terms that required banks give home loans to people with bad/no credit that caused the meltdown that destroyed the economy in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

[QUOTE=Ridge;27209317]A proper bill would be one based on limiting frivolous lawsuits, which would drive down malpractice insurance, and fraud, both of which would drive down the cost of healthcare dramatically, without infringing on people's freedoms.[/QUOTE] You mean tort reform. [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] That will help very little.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;27209386]You mean tort reform. [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] That will help very little.[/QUOTE] How do you figure directly lowering costs would not help getting poor people health care they can afford? What is going to happen with this program is that poor people will get in on the health care paid for by everyone. Also, the new laws are making it harder for private health care to survive. They will have to raise costs to remain in the red. People will be paying more in taxes, and will not be able to afford the expensive private healthcare, and will go on the tax-paid government healthcare. This cycle repeats itself until all private healthcare collapses under debt and the government runs all healthcare. Being a government run program, it will bleed money like a car accident victim bleeding out. They will have to cut spending in order to keep from bringing down the value of the dollar under immense debt (kind of like now) and will have to ration healthcare. That means that if them spending money on you to get you well will cost more than the income you pay in in taxes, you are less likely to get the service you desperately need.

[QUOTE=Ridge;27209509]What is going to happen with this program is that poor people will get in on the health care paid for by everyone. Also, the new laws are making it harder for private health care to survive. They will have to raise costs to remain in the red. People will be paying more in taxes, and will not be able to afford the expensive private healthcare, and will go on the tax-paid government healthcare. This cycle repeats itself until all private healthcare collapses under debt and the government runs all healthcare.[/QUOTE] whoa why are you so certain of this? It's certainly not what's happened in canada or any other country with universal healthcare.

[QUOTE=Ridge;27209509]How do you figure directly lowering costs would not help getting poor people health care they can afford? What is going to happen with this program is that poor people will get in on the health care paid for by everyone. Also, the new laws are making it harder for private health care to survive. They will have to raise costs to remain in the red. People will be paying more in taxes, and will not be able to afford the expensive private healthcare, and will go on the tax-paid government healthcare. This cycle repeats itself until all private healthcare collapses under debt and the government runs all healthcare. Being a government run program, it will bleed money like a car accident victim bleeding out. They will have to cut spending in order to keep from bringing down the value of the dollar under immense debt (kind of like now) and will have to ration healthcare. That means that if them spending money on you to get you well will cost more than the income you pay in in taxes, you are less likely to get the service you desperately need.[/QUOTE] I dont think paying a little extra to help poor people will cause all people to go poor. I mean we have a huge war going on but yet not everyone is eating table scraps.

[QUOTE=Ridge;27209509]Being a government run program, it will bleed money like a car accident victim bleeding out. They will have to cut spending in order to keep from bringing down the value of the dollar under immense debt (kind of like now) and will have to ration healthcare. That means that if them spending money on you to get you well will cost more than the income you pay in in taxes, you are less likely to get the service you desperately need.[/QUOTE] this is complete nonsense.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;27209535]whoa why are you so certain of this? It's certainly not what's happened in canada or any other country with universal healthcare.[/QUOTE] What happened to private healthcare when government-run began? Hmm? [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Habsburg;27209554]this is complete nonsense.[/QUOTE] When has the US government run a program that kept a balanced budget? The Census Bureau spent [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census#Cost]More than [b]11 billion dollars[/b][/url] On what could have been as simple as sending out a stamped envelope containing the census, another one to return it in, and perhaps an advance notice and reminder card. At 42 cents a stamp, that ends up being $1.68 per household plus the cost of printing out the survey. The US population after the census was reported as 308,745,538 people. Average 4.5 people per household, and you get 68,610,120 households. That adds up to $115,265,001 and 60 cents. Instead we spent $160 and change per home. In case you have trouble with math after that sentence, that is almost [b]1000 times[/b] as expensive as what was needed. Fantastic. [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27209544]I dont think paying a little extra to help poor people will cause all people to go poor. I mean we have a huge war going on but yet not everyone is eating table scraps.[/QUOTE] Except people ARE buying less now. When was the last time you just drove around your town? Notice empty lots or buildings? Those used to be businesses that people no longer went to, so they had to shut down.

[QUOTE=Ridge;27209509]How do you figure directly lowering costs would not help getting poor people health care they can afford?[/QUOTE] at the expense of giving more protection to the pharmaceutical companies and the like.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;27209605]at the expense of giving more protection to the pharmaceutical companies and the like.[/QUOTE] What kind of protection. Give me an example.

[QUOTE=Ridge;27209561]What happened to private healthcare when government-run began? Hmm?[/QUOTE] It hasn't gone anywhere if that's what you're asking. The majority of people have some sort of additional private healthcare over the public option. [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] Although government spending on healthcare has admittedly gone up over time.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;27209710]It hasn't gone anywhere if that's what you're asking. The majority of people have some sort of additional private healthcare over the public option.[/QUOTE] Who are the national providers? Here in the US we have Kaiser Permanente, Cigna, Aetna, United Healthcare and others jump to my mind immediately.

[QUOTE=Ridge;27209561]When has the US government run a program that kept a balanced budget? The Census Bureau spent [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census#Cost]More than [b]11 billion dollars[/b][/url] On what could have been as simple as sending out a stamped envelope containing the census, another one to return it in, and perhaps an advance notice and reminder card. At 42 cents a stamp, that ends up being $1.68 per household plus the cost of printing out the survey. The US population after the census was reported as 308,745,538 people. Average 4.5 people per household, and you get 68,610,120 households. That adds up to $115,265,001 and 60 cents. Instead we spent $160 and change per home. In case you have trouble with math after that sentence, that is almost [b]1000 times[/b] as expensive as what was needed. Fantastic.[/QUOTE] It did however create jobs. [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;27209737]Who are the national providers? Here in the US we have Kaiser Permanente, Cigna, Aetna, United Healthcare and others jump to my mind immediately.[/QUOTE] WCB is pretty common.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;27209758]It did however create jobs.[/QUOTE] It created a bunch of temp jobs and openly promoted [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zJ04AWn-5w]the employees to commit fraud[/url] and go as slow as possible, a lot like the dept of sanitation guys in New York are under investigation for after [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-03/snowplow-slowdowns-might-become-american-way-commentary-by-kevin-hassett.html]leaving people to die[/url] last week after the blizzard....

[QUOTE=Ridge;27209830]It created a bunch of temp jobs and openly promoted [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zJ04AWn-5w]the employees to commit fraud[/url] and go as slow as possible, a lot like the dept of sanitation guys in New York are under investigation for after leaving people to die last week after the blizzard....[/QUOTE] that's the same dude who faked that acorn story right?

[QUOTE=Habsburg;27209860]that's the same dude who faked that acorn story right?[/QUOTE] yep

[QUOTE=Habsburg;27209860]that's the same dude who faked that acorn story right?[/QUOTE] The same guy who recorded ACORN telling people how to cheat on taxes, yes. He may have enabled those people to say those things, but they certainly didn't have to.

[QUOTE=Ridge;27209891]The same guy who recorded ACORN telling people how to cheat on taxes, yes. He may have enabled those people to say those things, but they certainly didn't have to.[/QUOTE] except he edited those videos to make acorn look bad and they were later found innocent of all wrongdoing

[QUOTE=Canesfan;27200568]It's true the government does regulate services and does not allow denial for some reasons, but those reasons are largely civil rights issues- such as not allowing companies to refuse coverage to blacks because they have some miniscule increased chance of developing a certain condition, or just to fight discrimination in general. And again, the government does require you to get car insurance, but there's a difference- you don't have to own a car. Therefore you don't, legally, HAVE to buy car insurance. It's impractical to not have a car in many places, but it's certainly possible. And constitutionally, the difference is huge- you have a choice with car insurance. You do not have a choice with health insurance. Also, it's definitely not the only thing bothering me/others about limited government. I could go on for a long time about huge government overspending, but the issue here is healthcare, and that's what i'm discussing.[/QUOTE] I think it's worth pointing out that this "mandate" isn't a "law" in the sense that most of us think of laws. If you don't have insurance, you will receive a tax penalty. The federal, state, and local government governments already impose extra taxes on people and/or businesses for doing things we don't like, as well. My point isn't that you have to agree with it, my point is that there's a legal basis for it. So you don't HAVE to buy health insurance the same way you don't HAVE to buy cigarettes or hard liquor, but if you do, you will receive extra taxes. Governments all over the world and have always and will always impose taxes for the purposes of limiting negative externalities. If you buy gasoline, you're indirectly paying federal taxes. If you buy spirit alcohols, you're indirectly paying federal taxes. The only difference between health insurance tax credits (which currently exist) and lack-of-health-insurance penalties is the difference between the carrot and the stick. This ABSOLUTELY has precedent. Also I'd like to remind everyone that the government can just raise taxes and solve the fucking problem but that wasn't disco with the republicans. Also, the law is supposed to be deficit neutral by 2022 so even if it hasn't paid for itself by then, it would have been rendered quite inexpensive. So lets review: It's legal and It's cheap. No can we please start questioning whether it actually solves the fucking problem? Because despite all my defense of the democratic agenda, I don't think this will do jack or shit. So lets review

kewl even though the pres can veto it they're gonna waste everyone's time

Sad but i guess America will continue be America.

[QUOTE=Wayword;27210332]kewl even though the pres can veto it they're gonna waste everyone's time[/QUOTE] Oh, it won't be a total waste. If Obama Vetoes it, it will come back to bite him in the presidential election.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27210973]Oh, it won't be a total waste. If Obama Vetoes it, it will come back to bite him in the presidential election.[/QUOTE] name 3 republicans who could beat obama in the 2012 election they're all wingnuts

Good. Because the health care "reform" that got passed requires you to buy healthcare. The 2 things Im looking for in healthcare reform either: 1. Free healthcare or 2. Making healthcare affordable, and removing the different clauses like "Pre-existing medical condition" If they can atleast clean up the health insurance industry, I'd say we're getting there, and the ultimate goal should be free healthcare

I can't yet. I need to know who's available first, but that's not the point. Point is a Democrat Could beat him because of it too