dyslexia
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 01:54 pm
@georgeob1,
perhaps not the same people but indeed the same ideologies and yes i do recognize that all government programs end up developing their own cadres of committed cadres, but that has not consistently been evil (the pentagon for example)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 02:00 pm
@Advocate,
Thanks. That's the first time I've seen those numbers. That still doesn't answer how much of that will pay for health care vs paying for other government costs that keeps going up.
roger
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 03:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Those numbers also don't tell us whether the surtax and curtailed deductions will pay all, or even a significant percentage of increased health care costs.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 03:21 pm
@roger,
That's right! That's what I've been harping on about ObamaCare. How much will it cost, and how are we going to pay for it? That's in addition to all the other deficit spending and increased costs.
maporsche
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 03:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

How much will it cost(?)


A lot more than you can hope to comprehend, so we'll duck the question.

Quote:
and how are we going to pay for it?


We'll institute some percentage of new tax, some increased percentage of existing tax, on some of the people some of the time.



How many times do you want Obama and the Democrats to explain it to you?!?!?!?


[/sarcasm]


I'd like to point out that you've accused me of being a Bush supporter for asking the same questions you're asking now.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 03:43 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:

A lot more than you can hope to comprehend, so we'll duck the question.


The CBO came out with projections, so it isn't as if there is no data available.

I think we can also take into account the fact that other countries, who have the sorts of system we are talking about instituting, manage to pay far less per person in health-care while achieving the same or better results. Isn't that data point important, when judging whether or not this plan would be successful and affordable?

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It is important. And I have no doubt that the total cost for the country would be at worst equal to what we pay now, and hopefully much cheaper (assuming we have single payer, or a public option).

I'm not disputing that point (nor could I if I wanted to).

The problem is converting this private spending into public spending. If we don't bring in enough money via taxes to at minimum not increase our deficit spending then we run the risk of destroying the value of our currency (which, let's be honest, we'll probably do anyway, regardless of healthcare).

Foxfyre
 
  0  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:09 pm
It's hard to say whether Obama would erode his popularity further or enhance it by scrapping the healthcare initiative and starting over at this time. But it is darn sure he better start showing some real leadership instead of expecting his slick oratory to continue to hook a population that is rapidly developing a lot of savvy in the last few weeks.

Gallup and Rasmussen both have his approval rating at 50% today and dropping. The RCP average which has consistently been several points over that for the last several weeks is showing 51.8% approval and that includes numbers from the most zealous pro-Obama polling. Even NBC has him at 51%.

So is the "one we we have been waiting for" simply out of character as he reacts to being seriously challenged and confronted for the first time in his life?

Or are we seeing the real Obama emerge?

Analysis of all this from Forbes:

Quote:
Obama's Ailing Popularity
Todd J. Zywicki
8.21.09

The health care debate is tarnishing the president's reputation.

President Obama took to the stump this week to respond to criticisms of his health care plan. But he now confronts an even deeper problem, one that threatens not only the success of Obamacare, but his presidency itself. Since the beginning of his term, Obama's personal popularity has exceeded that of his policies--a gap that was obviously unsustainable. Yet the final resolution remained unclear: Would his personality make his policies more popular, or would his policies drag down his personal likeability?

As the health care debate unfolds, we are seeing something we could not have predicted just weeks ago. President Obama's popularity is eroding--fast.

This week the Rasmussen poll of likely voters found the president's approval rating dipping below 50% for the first time. This is not only due to Obama's unpopular health reform program (although that may explain some of it). It is also because of the process he has used to push his signature initiative--a process that reeks of arrogance, deception and bullying.

This was unexpected: Even those who weren't crazy about the president's policies generally liked and respected the man. He seemed to be even-tempered, honest and somewhat earnest. He came across as reflective and open to debate, listening and persuasion.

This Obama has disappeared in the past few weeks while the health care debate has unfolded. Rather than open, he comes across as a sarcastic and lecturing professor. Rather than honest, he has seemed duplicitous and slick. Rather than careful and measured, his plan appeared rushed and extreme.

Voters were willing to forgive haste and sloppiness in ramming through a pork-laden economic stimulus bill that only loosely splattered on the target. To many, the financial crisis and rising unemployment justified a kitchen-sink approach. Sure, there would be waste, many voters acknowledged, but better to do too much than too little. After all, what was a few billion dollars when the economy itself seemed near collapse? Washington's urgency and inattention to the details of the legislation seemed appropriate leadership in a time of crisis. And most recognized that the Congress, not Obama, was to blame for the less appetizing ingredients in the stimulus crock pot.

These traits are less acceptable in the context of health care reform; this is a systemic, generational change, and it affects our health and medical care. Haste is irresponsible and reckless when the stakes are so high, and the need for urgency comparatively weak. The Rasmussen poll finds that a clear majority of Americans are more concerned that health reform be done right rather than enacting the hastily constructed proposal currently on the table.

The refrain of a health care system in "crisis" is not just overwrought, but obviously untrue for most Americans whose personal experience is of a health insurance system that works pretty well, albeit with some inconvenience, most of the time and provides state-of-the-art care, albeit inefficiently, almost all of the time. We are not creating a one-time obligation, but a fundamental entitlement that will be with us indefinitely.

Finally, the town hall confrontations across America have shown a political class that brazenly refuses to read--much less master--the details of the legislation, an irresponsible arrogance that was tolerated when it came to the stimulus legislation but which voters are much less willing to accept when there is no need for panic.

There is a growing perception of condescension surrounding the selling of the White House's health care plan. Common sense tells us the government cannot simultaneously expand coverage and reduce costs. The government cannot dramatically inflate demand for health care services and eliminate market mechanisms for allocating them without devising some way of rationing supply and demand through political means. To suggest otherwise, as the White House has, is not just misleading but insulting. And the American people don't like to have their intelligence insulted.

The phony sense of crisis, the inattention to the details and the transparent dishonesty of many of the claims have made voters question not only the program but the president. What does Obama have to hide? Why won't he level with us? The discovery that there are hidden, controversial provisions in the plan has sparked rumors about imaginary provisions. Denouncing the false concerns as "lies," as the White House has done, doesn't redeem the apparent effort to obfuscate certain details of the plan. And the now-abandoned request of loyalists to report "suspicious communications" to the White House did nothing to assuage voters' distrust.

It is this distrust, more than anything, that is eroding Obama's popularity. Voters no longer see him as a grown-up, straight-shooter and basically good guy who is trying to do his best, but as a political opportunist taking advantage of their charity and trust.

George W. Bush had a long way to fall after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when the American people trusted him to use his power responsibly to do what needed to be done to wage the war on terror. But he abused this mandate to justify policies that had little to do with keeping us safe. The American people eventually came to feel like they had been suckered by a president who took advantage of their goodwill, and they turned on him with a vengeance. Is Barack Obama in the same position, post-financial crisis?

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel famously announced his desire not to squander a good crisis. But Americans recognize that the health care system, while troubled, is not in crisis. Nor, as President Obama might soon discover the hard way, is global climate change a crisis for which voters will tolerate job-killing legislation enacted through slap-dash decision-making and irresponsible haste. Unless Obama quickly recognizes that voters know the difference between an authentic and inauthentic crisis, the success of his health care overhaul--and perhaps his presidency itself--is in jeopardy.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/20/obama-health-care-popularity-opinions-contributors-obamacare.html
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:13 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

It is important. And I have no doubt that the total cost for the country would be at worst equal to what we pay now, and hopefully much cheaper (assuming we have single payer, or a public option).

I'm not disputing that point (nor could I if I wanted to).

The problem is converting this private spending into public spending. If we don't bring in enough money via taxes to at minimum not increase our deficit spending then we run the risk of destroying the value of our currency (which, let's be honest, we'll probably do anyway, regardless of healthcare).


That being the case, let's enjoy some health-care while going down that road!

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:16 pm
@Foxfyre,
The only reason that Obama's rating is dropping is based on all the misinformation that's being spread by the conservatives. That's not the conservative's fault; Americans are too stupid to understand what's real and not real. That so many believe in the "death panel" just proves how stupid most Americans are. Many still question Obama's birth place.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

That being the case, let's enjoy some health-care while going down that road!


An option of course; but I would think our main focus should/would be on getting our elected officials working on fixing the problem with the road (or at minimum, not stepping on the gas).
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:19 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That being the case, let's enjoy some health-care while going down that road!


An option of course; but I would think our main focus should/would be on getting our elected officials working on fixing the problem with the road (or at minimum, not stepping on the gas).


But, there's plenty of evidence showing that switching to the new system will save a lot of money in the long run, over what Americans are currently paying for health care. It's like buying a new, more efficient car.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Agreed.

But if, during the long run, we have to borrow hundreds of billions from the Chinese, or start printing more and more greenbacks to finance this endeavor (as opposed to raising taxes, etc); well if you were afraid of our country collapsing in late 2008 when the banks "threatened to shut down", I have to think rampant inflation will be even worse.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:40 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Agreed.

But if, during the long run, we have to borrow hundreds of billions from the Chinese, or start printing more and more greenbacks to finance this endeavor (as opposed to raising taxes, etc); well if you were afraid of our country collapsing in late 2008 when the banks "threatened to shut down", I have to think rampant inflation will be even worse.


Yup. A combination of cuts in spending and rises in taxes will be necessary to get this thing on the right course, once we have the framework in place to move forward.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:42 pm
@maporsche,
It'll be Bernanke's job to control inflation. That's going to take a genius with monetary policy, and the ability to play with interest rates to control runaway inflation. It's only a matter of time when that happens, and it's gonna be a doozy when it comes!
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It will be quite cheap. If congress were to just cancel the Bush tax cuts for the super-wealthy, that would bring in $1.8 trillion over 10 years. We would have money left over to lower the debt.
Advocate
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I always thought you were a closet Rep. Your questions denote Rep ignorance in the extreme.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:55 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

It will be quite cheap. If congress were to just cancel the Bush tax cuts for the super-wealthy, that would bring in $1.8 trillion over 10 years. We would have money left over to lower the debt.


Those tax cuts cancel themselves; they are set to sunset next year. Current projections are already taking that into account; we will have to levy additional taxes on top of that, most likely.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:56 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

It is important. And I have no doubt that the total cost for the country would be at worst equal to what we pay now, and hopefully much cheaper (assuming we have single payer, or a public option).


I share your hope. I do not share your assumption, especially if you are assuming total cost equal to what we pay now, with no cut in service.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 27 Aug, 2009 05:00 pm
@roger,
I don't share that assumption either since I can't remember any large project or program taken on by the government that came in at or under budget, or any that the cost didn't far exceed the numbers used to promote it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1396
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 03/04/2025 at 07:17:55