114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:03 am
@maporsche,
maporsche, Why is it that most conservatives have the habit of expecting the worst from Obama? The health plan is now a work in progress, and no decisions have been made. It's in committees. If you bothered to visit the white house link that addresses health care, you would know what his goals are; it's a combination of private and public plan.

We can discuss any failings after congress and the president signs it into law. Until then, it's only fear mongering.

The following is from the White House website:
Quote:

Health Care


"I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year."

" President Barack Obama, February 24, 2009
Progress

* The President signed the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act on February 4, 2009, which provides quality health care to 11 million kids " 4 million who were previously uninsured.
* The President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act protects health coverage for 7 million Americans who lose their jobs through a 65 percent COBRA subsidy to make coverage affordable.
* The Recovery Act also invests $19 billion in computerized medical records that will help to reduce costs and improve quality while ensuring patients’ privacy.
* The Recovery Act also provides:
o $1 billion for prevention and wellness to improve America’s health and help to reduce health care costs;
o $1.1 billion for research to give doctors tools to make the best treatment decisions for their patients by providing objective information on the relative benefits of treatments; and
o $500 million for health workforce to help train the next generation of doctors and nurses.

Guiding Principles

President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform in his first year in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee choice of doctor, and assure high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

Comprehensive health care reform can no longer wait. Rapidly escalating health care costs are crushing family, business, and government budgets. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have doubled in the last 9 years, a rate 3 times faster than cumulative wage increases. This forces families to sit around the kitchen table to make impossible choices between paying rent or paying health premiums. Given all that we spend on health care, American families should not be presented with that choice. The United States spent approximately $2.2 trillion on health care in 2007, or $7,421 per person " nearly twice the average of other developed nations. Americans spend more on health care than on housing or food. If rapid health cost growth persists, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2025, one out of every four dollars in our national economy will be tied up in the health system. This growing burden will limit other investments and priorities that are needed to grow our economy. Rising health care costs also affect our economic competitiveness in the global economy, as American companies compete against companies in other countries that have dramatically lower health care costs.

The President has vowed that the health reform process will be different in his Administration " an open, inclusive, and transparent process where all ideas are encouraged and all parties work together to find a solution to the health care crisis. Working together with members of Congress, doctors and hospitals, businesses and unions, and other key health care stakeholders, the President is committed to making sure we finally enact comprehensive health care reform.

The Administration believes that comprehensive health reform should:

* Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
* Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
* Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
* Invest in prevention and wellness
* Improve patient safety and quality of care
* Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
* Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
* End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions

Please visit www.HealthReform.gov to learn more about the President’s commitment to enacting comprehensive health reform this year.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:07 am
@cicerone imposter,
I heard a lot of the 'expect the worst' during the Bush years too though CI.

Our country needs their opposition to keep the other side honest. Some call it obstructionism, but really it's a much needed balance.

I'm sure there will be aspects of his plan that I don't like too.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:10 am
@maporsche,
You can't get balance from a party that always says "no." They are obstructionists on most topics brought forward by the democratic administration. What is most telling is that they don't provide any alternative solutions to any of the current problems. None.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:12 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

maporsche, Why is it that most conservatives have the habit of expecting the worst from Obama?

You have gotten to a very important point, ci. For myself, I simply do not trust him or anything he says. We are left to try to read between the lines, because we have to guess at the end game. And the endgame is not a great scenario. It all boils down to this, that I am pretty convinced that Obama does not believe in the American people, he does not believe in free enterprise, he does not believe in profits, he does not believe in freedom. He instead believes the almighty government is the ultimate force for good, and that individuals must be sacrificed for the good of the whole. If you study the guy and study what he says, that is the only conclusion any person can draw from critical thinking. Therefore, I do not look at the Whitehouse website, I would not trust anything they put out or say, not anymore.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:13 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
What is most telling is that they don't provide any alternative solutions to any of the current problems. None.

Thats another lie, ci.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:15 am
@okie,
If that's a lie, please show me on what topic and when? I want to see specifics.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:18 am
@cicerone imposter,
I'm fine with them saying no. It requires Democrats to make changes to the bill so that at least 1 or 2 Republicans would feel fine saying yes to it (at least in the Senate, the house can pretty much ignore the Republicans). This is the balance that is needed. I hope that Republicans take over the Senate in 2010 so that we acheive even more balance.

Let's face it, the Democrats and Obama can pretty much do what they want right now, as long as they have all the Democrats supporting it. There are two Republicans from Maine I believe that will probably vote with the Democrats as often as they do the Republicans.

Democrats want Republicans to support their bills, so that they don't have to take the full blame if the policies fail, it's mostly not required.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:25 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I'm fine with them saying no. It requires Democrats to make changes to the bill so that at least 1 or 2 Republicans would feel fine saying yes to it (at least in the Senate, the house can pretty much ignore the Republicans). This is the balance that is needed. I hope that Republicans take over the Senate in 2010 so that we acheive even more balance.


This really isn't true at all. It doesn't require 60 votes to pass something in the Senate; it requires 50. If the Republicans want to Filibuster, then maybe they can push it to 60, but the Dems could always move it through under reconciliation rules, which disallows the filibuster.

Quote:
Let's face it, the Democrats and Obama can pretty much do what they want right now, as long as they have all the Democrats supporting it. There are two Republicans from Maine I believe that will probably vote with the Democrats as often as they do the Republicans.

Democrats want Republicans to support their bills, so that they don't have to take the full blame if the policies fail, it's mostly not required.


Yeah, that's about right.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:25 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Democrats want Republicans to support their bills, so that they don't have to take the full blame if the policies fail, it's mostly not required.


I think the Republicans learned their lesson from the Democrats voting for the Iraq war (and, interestingly enough, from Obama himself during the presidental campaign).

It became very difficult for Democrats to oppose the war with the Republicans constantly chanting "you voted for it". The Republicans are going to be able to say that they opposed mostly everything the current Congress had proposed, and if the policies fail, they will be in a perfect position to capitalize on it.

It will be like Obama being able to say to Clinton, "I opposed the war from day 1, YOU voted for it while in the Senate."
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:30 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Yes, I was assuming the Filibuster.

It's pretty much impossible for the Republicans to obstruct anything. Charges of obstructionism are simply FALSE.


I'm not saying that this strategy is a winning one for the Republicans. If these policies end up being huge wins for voters, then the Republicans have pretty much screwed themselves in 2010/2012.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:33 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Yes, I was assuming the Filibuster.

It's pretty much impossible for the Republicans to obstruct anything. Charges of obstructionism are simply FALSE.


I'm not saying that this strategy is a winning one for the Republicans. If these policies end up being huge wins for voters, then the Republicans have pretty much screwed themselves in 2010/2012.


This is pretty much what is going to happen. Republicans are already in big trouble in 2010 due to the fact that they have mostly alienated the Latino voting block; polling lately on Latino opinions of the Republican party has been terrible for them.

You can look at the history of Britain's health care system to see that, once universal care is adopted, the other side stops demonizing it immediately and gets on board, b/c the people support it so much. That will happen here as well. The insurance companies will bitch, and why not? We are killing their cash cow. But **** 'em, they certainly don't help Americans, they feed off of the blood of the sick, and we certainly don't need them to survive.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:40 am
@maporsche,
maporsche, it should not be about political positioning, it should be about honesty. Thats what burned me about the Dems stabbing Bush in the back. They supported the war based upon the issue itself, I think, but as soon as they thought it was politically expedient to oppose it, and when the sledding became hard and slow, they did not have the political fortitude of their own decisions, the spin began to blame the whole thing on Bush. They, with help from the press, pushed Bush out on a limb and sawed it off. It was I believe a prime example of political cowardice and of not taking responsibility for their own decisions. And actually, Obama deserved more credit for opposing the war from Day 1. But his day of reckoning on sticking to his convictions may be tested with Afghanistan, or elsewhere.

With medical care, I want Republicans to oppose it, based upon the facts and based upon the points of the legislation, not political expediency. I think most of them are doing it based upon the facts, based upon the cost, and based upon the fact it is a bad reform. Thats the difference.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:42 am
@okie,
You do realize that over half the Dems in Congress did not in fact support the war in 2003? And the rest bailed quick when it became apparent that the WMD used to scare them into supporting, didn't exist?

You are making history up if you don't admit the truth of the situation, and instead just call the Dems 'cowards.'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:43 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

With medical care, I want Republicans to oppose it, based upon the facts and based upon the points of the legislation, not political expediency. I think most of them are doing it based upon the facts, based upon the cost, and based upon the fact it is a bad reform. Thats the difference.


I want them to oppose it on those grounds as well (not that I agree with them), but I'm far to much a cynicist to believe that political positioning is not a very large factor of their decision (or that of any politician, including Obama as we've seen since his election).
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:46 am
@okie,
I want the government out of it as much as possible, because history teaches us that whatever the government involves itself with in the private sector will be more corrupt, less effective, less efficient, and will cost more.

I do want the government to promote the general welfare by initiating certain reforms in the healthcare system. Small businesses and other groups of people should be able to form themselves into larger groups to spread the risk and thereby lower the costs of insurance. A person's insurance should be portable so that you don't lose your insurance if you lose your job or change jobs. Malpractice reform would probably take 25% or more off the costs of insurance if doctors were not forced to order unnecessary tests and procedures to avoid malpractice suits. Go to a pay-as-you-go-yourself system for routine doctor visits and prescriptions, etc. that we used to have before the government got involved. That would bring insurance costs down another 25% or more. We do it for our cars and houses and save insurance for the big, costly expenses. We can dang sure do it for our kids.

There are any number of ways to reform the system without the government taking over 16% of the national economy and trashing it.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:58 am
@Foxfyre,
I agree with some of your reforms, Foxfyre. Medical insurance should not be part of an employers responisbility, it should be privately held, just like homeowners or auto insurance. We recently went to a Medical IRA, a higher decuctible, and so we pay for all routine visits. It is not prohibitive, and we have a savings account to pay for routine stuff, but we are protected for catastrophic medical costs. Even at our age, our insurance is less than $500 per month, which is less than what most people pay for housing, or even their cars, etc. For younger people, I am sure it would be alot less. By instituting tort reform and other important things, many were what McCain advocated, we could improve a pretty good medical industry into a better one, at absolutely no cost or minimal cost to the government.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:05 am
@okie,
There's the key right there Okie. Routine doctor visits aren't bankrupting anybody, but few among us could handle an expensive surgery or other catastrophic illness. So that's what we need insurance for. We should be paying out of pocket for our sneezes and sniffles and sore throats and minor owies. If we did that, coupled with tort reform, we could see insurance costs brought way down to something most people can afford.

People who don't want insurance should not have to have it, but then neither should medical facilities have to treat those who do not for free. The truly indigent can be accommodated without opening it up to everybody.

I don't have any problem with employer-generated plans for those employees who want or need that, but I agree that such should be optional on the part of the employer. The government should not be ordering any private business to provide that.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:19 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
There's the key right there Okie. Routine doctor visits aren't bankrupting anybody, but few among us could handle an expensive surgery or other catastrophic illness
becuase those who can't afford it (which can be people insured but with a high deductable) don't go.....ditto for drugs.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:25 am
@hawkeye10,
And therein is the difference between those of us who cherish, value, and believe freedom is worth defending, preserving, and protecting, and those who believe that the government should be our mother, father, nanny, and god.

Once you bring costs down so that they are affordable to all working Americans, it becomes a choice, not a matter of affording. How many who won't shell out $20 or $30 bucks to see the doctor for their sore throat because 'they can't afford it' don't even flinch when they shell out $100 to get their computer serviced or $300 to fix the transmission in their car?

The government should not be in the business of making choices for us or protecting us from stupid choices. Once it becomes our protector in such matters, we are no longer free.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:29 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
With medical care, I want Republicans to oppose it


now there's something for the sig line thread

"Oppose medical care!!!"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 06/20/2025 at 12:11:16