OT: Liberal or Conservative

kempo wrote:

Cutting taxes does increase revenue but if you bring in twice as much revenue and spend three times as much, it ain't going to work.

. . . Ronald Reagan knew this. Both cut taxes to stimulate the economy.

Not sure where this comes from. Yes Reagan talked about less government. He got into office and then spent like a drunken sailor.

No amount of cutting the budget, raising or lowering taxes is going to help the economy. What must happen is to put the country back to work. To recirculate money inside the economy rather than smart investments overseas to create more products to sell in US and sending more money out side the US.

Whether we want to say it, Social Security has some stimulating effect on the economy. States, who do not have the option which the Federal government has of borrowing or printing more money, are creating a deeper hole by laying off state workers and reducing state spending.

What I think was meant by the Tax cuts for the rich was to reward investment, and to cut out all the rules promulgated by the IRS on the rich, which reduced it to a game. Notice it is the investors, the rich, banks and financial institutions which took the big brunt of the losses of credit card companies.

What is scary about the Democrats and Republicans using old arguments of reducing the budget and who gets how much of the tax bill, is that both must be very certain that jobs, real jobs, not mcjobs, are not in the immediate future.

purple wrote:
What say you doc, is the US, without Obamacare, the best health care system in the world?

Actually, what I say is that the health care system in the US is beyond question the best in, and the envy of, the world. I wish Obamacare had been less ambitious. There was no reason to solve the access to care problem for a small percentage of the population by messing with the care that the majority enjoy.
I also like the point you make that the stimulus from the Bush tax cuts mostly helped foreign economies.

Idamtnboy, the economy was in such terrific shape during the Clinton years because of Reagan's policies. The fifties economy was sparked by the pent up ambitions of the post-war generation, and the spark was almost extinguished by the the high marginal tax rates which were thankfully cut by Kennedy.

Stephen

purple wrote:

kempo wrote:

Cutting taxes does increase revenue but if you bring in twice as much revenue and spend three times as much, it ain't going to work.

. . . Ronald Reagan knew this. Both cut taxes to stimulate the economy.

Not sure where this comes from. Yes Reagan talked about less government. He got into office and then spent like a drunken sailor.

Yes, the tax cuts did stimulate the economy and brought in record revenues but Congress added on this and that and well they just love spending your money. They are now borrowing money from your grandchildren, some of them have not even been born.

If you count Federal income taxes, State income taxes, sales tax, property taxes, city and county taxes, taxes on gas, etc. we already pay well over 50% in taxes now.

STOP THE SPENDING!

SRSDDS wrote:Actually, what I say is that the health care system in the US is beyond question the best in, and the envy of, the world.

Technologically, yes we have some of the best in the world. I'm not sure every aspect of our medical system is technically the best, but on the whole it probably is. Our delivery of health care is abysmal, some of the worst in the developed world.

I wish Obamacare had been less ambitious. There was no reason to solve the access to care problem for a small percentage of the population by messing with the care that the majority enjoy.

Would be nice if it was a small percentage. Numbers I find range from about 40% to 50% of Americans are uninsured, or underinsured. Most of them are employed. We have a serious health care delivery problem.

One example of the benefit of the PPACA close to me. Our church secretary has a son who is 19 or 20. Under the previous health care rules he would have been dropped from his father's health insurance policy, but under the PPACA he is now covered until 26. About 6 months ago he was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Now, after three surgeries and 35 radiation treatments it appears to be knocked down. But in the process his hypothalamus, pineal, and pituitary glands have been destroyed. He is on all kinds of hormones, antibiotics, and I don't know what all. It could easily be 2 years before he is well enough to go to college, if ever. His dad works for UP Railroad and so has good insurance, but they are still looking at tens of thousands of dollars in copays and deductibles. The charges are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it's not over yet. Tell me, under the old rules who would have paid for his care? Would he have even gotten it? Would it have been fair to expect his parents to go bankrupt paying for all of it, even when they would not have been legally liable for the costs? And what about in the future? Is it really fair that even under today's rules they will be saddled with thousands of dollars in costs, even with good health insurance? There is no way under the old rules that the boy would ever be covered by any health insurance. What will he do when he turns 26?

This is an extreme example only in terms of the extent of the health problems the boy was suddenly hit with. The fact of being without coverage under the old rules is common.

kempo wrote:STOP THE SPENDING!

I think we all agree that spending has got to be reduced. And I believe most of us believe that what spending is continued, must be paid for on an ongoing basis. In other words, quit spending borrowed money.

Only one problem with that, and it's a big problem. For about every $50,000/yr reduction in deficit financed spending, someone, somewhere, loses a job. We are already upset at the high unemployment rate in this country. It will get worse when the deficit financed spending is reduced. The only way to avoid losing jobs is for the investors who are loaning the money to Uncle to move that money into other job creating investments. But, much of the loaned money is coming from foreign countries who have gotten it from us because of our trade deficits. Those lenders will be nowhere near as eager to send money to this country if it's going to go into the hands of entrepreneurs and American businesses because those borrowers aren't as guaranteed as is the US Treasury.

The borrowing/spending problem has no easy answers, contrary to what the Tea Party crowd thinks.

SRSDDS wrote:Idamtnboy, the economy was in such terrific shape during the Clinton years because of Reagan's policies.

In other words, Reagan's deficit spending spree was the basis for our prosperity during the Clinton years, right? Which means then, Obama's deficit spending should also bring us prosperity, right? During W's administration the deficit stayed somewhat stable, after which the economy tanked. Hmmm, interesting contrast!

idamtnboy wrote:

SRSDDS wrote:Idamtnboy, the economy was in such terrific shape during the Clinton years because of Reagan's policies.

In other words, Reagan's deficit spending spree was the basis for our prosperity during the Clinton years, right? Which means then, Obama's deficit spending should also bring us prosperity, right? During W's administration the deficit stayed somewhat stable, after which the economy tanked. Hmmm, interesting contrast!

Clinton was handed a big peace dividend. Remember the most expensive war ever? The cold war? It ended when Clinton took office. I give Reagan credit for putting the assets in place to end it.

kempo wrote:Clinton was handed a big peace dividend. Remember the most expensive war ever? The cold war? It ended when Clinton took office. I give Reagan credit for putting the assets in place to end it.

No question Reagan deserves the lion's share of the credit for ending the cold war, but not because of putting assets into place, I don't think. I think what clinched the deal was the quality of our military technology, specifically rockets. As part of SALT, or START, whichever it was, nuclear warhead transport missiles were destroyed by both sides. We brought thousands of Pershing rockets back from Europe to the Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant in Marshall, TX to be destroyed. That's where they had been filled with propulsion solid fuel and test firing beds still existed. Russian observation teams witnessed every rocket destruction, which we did by mounting the rocket in the test supports and firing it. Russians destroyed their rockets in a ditch with line explosive charges. Of the hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of firings of our rockets only one had a misfire, and that was only a burn through of a port on the side about 2/3 of the way up the rocket body. Because the Russians exploded their rockets we have no idea how reliable theirs would have been in actual war use. Ours would have been 100% reliable.

I'm sure the Russian observers sent messages to Moscow saying, "We better rethink this whole nuclear warfare idea because when these US guys hit the button, their rockets fire, every time!" I truly believe the reliability of our rockets, witnessed in every case by the Russian observers, is what led to the ultimate demise of the nuclear arsenal by both sides.

I understand the Russian team lived high on the hog at US taxpayer expense when they stayed in Marshall. Of course in Marshall, TX high on the hog isn't like it would be in Houston!

idamtnboy wrote: Technologically, yes we have some of the best in the world. I'm not sure every aspect of our medical system is technically the best, but on the whole it probably is. Our delivery of health care is abysmal, some of the worst in the developed world.

Our health care delivery system is actually pretty good, and is probably the reason for our technological superiority in almost every single aspect of medical care. Could it be improved? Sure, but that would not take the massive restructuring that Obamacare provides. Obamacare takes way too much of the free market incentives out of the health care industry--for that matter a lot of these incentives have disappeared already due to government tinkering. Doctors, just like lawyers, insurance agency owners, cpap.com, etc., are also businessmen. If you strip the financial incentives away, how long do you think doctors are going to innovate to provide better and better care? Just look at examples like the old Soviet Union, or even England now--health care providers in many instances do not care any more about your well being than a DMV clerk cares about your driver's license. How long would it take in the US under the restrictions imposed by Obamacare for our healthcare system to devolve into "the DMV"? It's so easy for you patients to demand cutting edge healthcare for free, but it's very difficult for a provider to agree to that bargain and remain cutting edge.

idamtnboy wrote:Would be nice if it was a small percentage. Numbers I find range from about 40% to 50% of Americans are uninsured, or underinsured. Most of them are employed. We have a serious health care delivery problem.

Where do you get your numbers? Seems that they differ quite significantly from reality. There are about 20% of the population that wants health insurance but cannot get it. And most "underinsurance" is a policy holder making a decision to take less benefits for less money. Again, this does not take a major restructuring of our healthcare industry to solve this problem. How about allowing health insurance companies the ability to sell national plans with specific benefits? Why should I have to cover someone's sex change operation because my state says that insurance companies have to include this in their policies? How about tort reform? Why does Obamacare dump on doctors, and take aim on PI lawyers who cost the system billions each year? Also, it would cost a lot less for the government to develop a high risk pool for those people who can't get insurance, than to institute the "reforms" that are contained in Obamacare.

idamtnboy wrote:One example of the benefit of the PPACA close to me. Our church secretary has a son who is 19 or 20. Under the previous health care rules he would have been dropped from his father's health insurance policy, but under the PPACA he is now covered until 26. About 6 months ago he was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Now, after three surgeries and 35 radiation treatments it appears to be knocked down. But in the process his hypothalamus, pineal, and pituitary glands have been destroyed. He is on all kinds of hormones, antibiotics, and I don't know what all. It could easily be 2 years before he is well enough to go to college, if ever. His dad works for UP Railroad and so has good insurance, but they are still looking at tens of thousands of dollars in copays and deductibles. The charges are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it's not over yet. Tell me, under the old rules who would have paid for his care? Would he have even gotten it? Would it have been fair to expect his parents to go bankrupt paying for all of it, even when they would not have been legally liable for the costs? And what about in the future? Is it really fair that even under today's rules they will be saddled with thousands of dollars in costs, even with good health insurance? There is no way under the old rules that the boy would ever be covered by any health insurance. What will he do when he turns 26?

This is an extreme example only in terms of the extent of the health problems the boy was suddenly hit with. The fact of being without coverage under the old rules is common.

Anecdotal stories seem to be the best way for Obamacare supporters to gain sympathy for their cause. However, it is false logic. Any reform should easily be able to handle the relatively few situations that are constantly being highlighted and presented as "usual".

Again, I am not saying that our healthcare system is perfect and protects everyone equally. I am saying that it is a pretty good system, and with just a few tweaks could resolve most of the problems. Obamacare is a nuclear explosion to clean a few weeds out of the lawn.

Stephen

idamtnboy wrote:

kempo wrote:STOP THE SPENDING!

I think we all agree that spending has got to be reduced. And I believe most of us believe that what spending is continued, must be paid for on an ongoing basis. In other words, quit spending borrowed money.

Only one problem with that, and it's a big problem. For about every $50,000/yr reduction in deficit financed spending, someone, somewhere, loses a job. We are already upset at the high unemployment rate in this country. It will get worse when the deficit financed spending is reduced. The only way to avoid losing jobs is for the investors who are loaning the money to Uncle to move that money into other job creating investments. But, much of the loaned money is coming from foreign countries who have gotten it from us because of our trade deficits. Those lenders will be nowhere near as eager to send money to this country if it's going to go into the hands of entrepreneurs and American businesses because those borrowers aren't as guaranteed as is the US Treasury.

The borrowing/spending problem has no easy answers, contrary to what the Tea Party crowd thinks.

So, what you are saying is if the government doesn't incur more debt, then some government employees will lose their jobs and the government will be forced to shrink? That's a problem? And your worry about investors spending money in the private sector because it's riskier than lending it to the government? Boy, you do not have the slightest understanding of investment. Would you have rather put $1000 into a Tbill in 1990, or $1000 into Microsoft? Investors understand that low risk=low return, high risk=high return. "The Government can't solve the problem, because it is the problem"

Stephen

SRSDDS wrote: Our health care delivery system is actually pretty good, and is probably the reason for our technological superiority in almost every single aspect of medical care. Could it be improved? Sure, but that would not take the massive restructuring that Obamacare provides. Obamacare takes way too much of the free market incentives out of the health care industry--for that matter a lot of these incentives have disappeared already due to government tinkering. Doctors, just like lawyers, insurance agency owners, cpap.com, etc., are also businessmen. If you strip the financial incentives away, how long do you think doctors are going to innovate to provide better and better care? Just look at examples like the old Soviet Union, or even England now--health care providers in many instances do not care any more about your well being than a DMV clerk cares about your driver's license. How long would it take in the US under the restrictions imposed by Obamacare for our healthcare system to devolve into "the DMV"? It's so easy for you patients to demand cutting edge healthcare for free, but it's very difficult for a provider to agree to that bargain and remain cutting edge.

Stephen, you do not seem to be familiar with the actual provisions of the PPACA. There is no "massive restructuring." The federal government does not take over hospitals. Doctors do not become government employees. Private employer-sponsored insurance programs remain largely as they are today. The main change is to make coverage available to about 32 million currently uninsured people, in part, by setting a uniform national income test for Medicaid, but mostly through private insurance. I can't understand how this strips any healthcare providers of incentives. Give more people the ability to pay for care, and providers will compete for their business, not shun it. As you may know, hospitals are currently required to provide emergency care to everyone who shows up regardless of ability to pay, so emergency departments end up treating patients with chronic conditions only when they reach a crisis, or filling with non-emergency patients waiting in long queues for care that generally does not address their underlying medical problems. Either way, the patients just keep coming back. Healthcare systems will be highly motivated to get these patients into normal primary care clinics on a paying basis.

If you want to talk about a massive restructuring, consider the Ryan budget as passed last month by the House of Representatives. It gets rid of the PPACA, of course, but also Medicaid and, over the long run, Medicare as we know it. Instead of Medicaid, the states will receive block grants from which to provide medical services to the poor as they see fit. Medicare will continue for those 55 or more now, but in the long run it will be replaced by government payment of a private insurance premium. Cost will be controlled by limiting this premium. There is no provision, like there is in the PPACA, to require insurers to accept all applicants or cover pre-existing conditions, so the inevitable result will be to leave millions of people without coverage. This will vastly increase the burden falling on hospitals to care for the indigent, transferring the cost from government. For many, retirement will mean the end of health insurance coverage. Perhaps that will save the government some money, but I can hardly imaging a better way to erase incentives in invest in medical facilities. Under this plan hospitals become sullen charity wards, dispensing such care as they can still provide when tens of million of non-paying patients show up at their doors.

There are reasonable arguments to be made against the PPACA, but turning hospitals into the DMV is not one of them, because the plan does nothing to change hospitals into bureaucracies. Consider instead the consequence of scrapping programs that current cover about 110 million people, along with the new one expected to enroll more than 30 million in 2014. That's the radical road to turning hospitals into the DMV.

SRSDDS wrote:So, what you are saying is if the government doesn't incur more debt, then some government employees will lose their jobs and the government will be forced to shrink? That's a problem?

I was referring to all employees in the nation. Most of the money Uncle spends goes to the private sector directly. Only about 5 to 10% goes to federal payroll. If we whack deficit spending roughly 8 to 9 people in the private sector will lose a job for every 1 fed who loses a job.

And your worry about investors spending money in the private sector because it's riskier than lending it to the government? Boy, you do not have the slightest understanding of investment. Would you have rather put $1000 into a Tbill in 1990, or $1000 into Microsoft? Investors understand that low risk=low return, high risk=high return. "The Government can't solve the problem, because it is the problem"

Go back and read what I wrote. A big share of the deficit is being financed by money lent to us by foreign holders of US currency, holders who obtained that money from our massive trade deficits. Those lenders aren't interested in helping us grow our industrial and commercial economic base. They are interested in the safety of their investments.

Let me tell you why Republicans love deficit spending. Uncle Sam has two basic sources of money, taxes and borrowing. Let's say you are Mr. Quad Zillionaire. Uncle comes up to you and says, "Quad, I need a million dollars to fight the war on terrorism so I'm going to need for you to pay that to me as a tax." You say to Uncle, "How about I loan you that money instead?" Uncle has to have the money so he takes the offer of a loan and gives you an IOU for $1,000,000. Now you know that if you turn over that million dollars as a tax it is gone, totally gone forever for good, never to be seen again. But, if you loan it to Uncle you might just one day actually get it back. In any case you know you can do one of two things with that IOU. You can take it to the bank and borrow against it at a low interest rate. After all, it's guaranteed safe. And the interest you pay the bank is a whole lot less than losing the whole million as a tax. Or, you can sell the IOU on the market for say, 90% of face value. You lose $100,000, but isn't that a lot less than losing $1,000,000? That's why Republicans love deficit spending because as they see it they really can have their cake, and eat it too!

SRSDDS wrote:

idamtnboy wrote:Would be nice if it was a small percentage. Numbers I find range from about 40% to 50% of Americans are uninsured, or underinsured. Most of them are employed. We have a serious health care delivery problem.

Where do you get your numbers? Seems that they differ quite significantly from reality.

Here is one place. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content ... -2007.aspx

Middle-Income Uninsured Rate Rising

The authors analyzed data from the Commonwealth Fund 2007 Biennial Health Insurance Survey, which interviewed adults ages 19 and older from June through October 2007. Respondents were identified as underinsured if they spent 10 percent of more of their income (or 5 percent if they were low-income) on out-of-pocket medical expenses, or if they had deductibles that equaled 5 percent or more of their income. An estimated 14 percent of all nonelderly adults were underinsured in 2007, and more than one of four were uninsured for all or part of the year. Adding these two groups together, 75 million adults—42 percent of the under-65 population—had either no insurance or inadequate insurance in 2007, up from 35 percent in 2003.

Lack of adequate insurance coverage, the study finds, is not a problem limited to low-income people. Adults with incomes below the poverty level were at the highest risk of being uninsured or underinsured, but "insurance erosion has spread up the income distribution well in to the middle-income range," the authors say. For those with annual incomes of $40,000 to $59,000, the underinsured percentage rate reached double digits in 2007. Barely half of those with incomes of 200 percent to 299 percent of the poverty level were insured all year with adequate coverage.

idamtnboy,
I don't think this is really the place to get into a heated political discussion, but I feel compelled to respond. Just let me point out that the study you pointed me to is a huge part of the problem. They identify "underinsured" as someone has to spend 10% of total income out of pocket for health care. This kinda says it all. Are you saying that if you have to spend 10% of your income on out of pocket expense if your house burns down and you have an inadequate max on your home insurance, or you accidently hit a pedestrian while driving and your liability insurance doesn't cover all of the pedestrian's damages, that the government has to step in to take care of you because of your failure to protect yourself?

There seems to be a perception among liberals that the government should take the responsibility for you when you choose not to take it yourself. When it comes to picking and choosing the things that the government subsidizes, those things start to lose perceived value because they they become all but "free". I'll give you anecdotal evidence. I have no coverage for my cpap. I made a consumer choice to get the intellipap at almost half the cost of a resmed. I researched functionality and cost and made an informed decision. I take assiduously good care of this machine because I do not want to bear the cost of buying another. If insurance had paid, I probably would have gotten the resmed, and kept an eye on when I could get another. When the prescribed time past, I would have allowed the insurance to buy me another.

It's a matter of attitude, and I see it every day in my practice. A patient will tell me that they don't want to spend $25 out of pocket on a cancer screening because they're going to the baseball game tonight and need the money for parking and beer. If insurance doesn't cover the treatment, they don't want it--not because they can't afford it but because they are making a consumer choice that favors their playtime.

I will never agree with your concept of the role of government. So I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

Stephen

I work w/a young single man, late twenties, who is healthy, and who is eligible for health insurance thru his employer w/him picking up a small portion of his group premium each month. I was eligible for the same group plan but didn't take advantage of it since I was covered under my husband's health insurance plan thru his employer. But this young man elected NOT to buy/pay for insurance, as reasonable as his share of the premium would be, because he was young and healthy and felt he didn't need it. If he was injured in a car accident his car insurance would cover him. There are a LOT of young Americans who DO make enough money to pay their share of employer provided health insurance who gamble NOT to do so who are included in the numbers of uninsured and underinsured.

And this comment si NOT to take away from those who are uninsured or underinsured for legitimate financial reasons. When I hear how much some of these monthly premiums are it takes my breath away and reminds me again how blessed we have been to have such good insurance coverage at such reasonable cost.

My neighbor's husband just retired as he was just having to tough a time keeping up w/his very physical job. Their COBRA will be $1200 a month until he qualifies for Medicare. That $1200 a month would "sink" my husband and I.