Obama '08?

Quote:

Heads they win the bet. Tails the public loses because they join the system later and reap the benefits paid by those who got insured in the first place.

Make them pay back at least some of the income they didn't provide.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's correct to attack the plan for the mandates. I support him doing so. And I think the flyer was an effective message. That's why they used it. There's nothing dishonest about it; tell me, what part of the ad isn't true?

The factual claim in the flyer is: "Hillary's plan forces everyone to buy health insurance, even if you can't afford it." The false, dishonest, deliberately slanderous part of the claim is "even if you can't afford it." Hillary Clinton's health care plan, just like every other Democrat's, contains several measures ensuring that everyone can afford health insurance. In particular, it includes two provisions ensuring that working people and their dependents can afford healthcare: (1) it limits premium payments to a percentage of income, (2) it provides tax deductions for healthcare. Moreover, (3) the plan covers people who cannot work through Medicaid and SCHIP. It will expand both programs to close the holes through which vulnerable people are currently falling. (See Clinton's American Health Choices plan (PDF), executive summary, item 4, on page 2. For more details, see "Ensuring Affordable Health Coverage for all", item 5, on page 8.

This ad is a hit job worthy of Karl Rove, coming from yet another man who wants to "change the tone in Washington" and "bring the country together". I don't see why the Obama supporters in this thread defend this kind of smear. Apparently your zeal to see no evil in your darling candidate is seriously clouding your better judgment.

Why don't we have a program first and add in the mandates when the efficiency gains present themselves? I haven't seen anyone say why this wouldn't work.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why don't we have a program first and add in the mandates when the efficiency gains present themselves? I haven't seen anyone say why this wouldn't work.

For two reasons:

1) Because efficiency gains cut both ways: They can be interpreted as supporting mandates, because they are now safe to add. But they can also be interpreted as evidence against mandates -- after all, the system improved even without them.

2) Because efficiency losses also can cut both ways: They can be interpreted as evidence that universal healthcare is failing; they can also be interpreted as evidence that the incentives Obama's plan sets create so much free-riding it undercuts the whole system.

Waiting for evidence about efficiency gains, then, is a pure delay tactic. It adds no useful information for deciding if mandates are a good idea or not.

So if the gov't subsidizes the health insurance, and those bills come out of the general fund - and we all know that for the first several years, at least, it's going to run in the red - then adding to the Federal gov't debt is exactly the same as charging you higher fees. It just passes that debt on to your kids.

... A switch to universal healthcare raises people's taxes, which is a cost to them. It also lowers their health insurance premiums, which is a benefit. Because the switch increases the efficiency of the system at producing health, the benefits exceed the cost, so citizens effectively end up with more disposable income even if they pay higher taxes. The same is true for every other reform that gives taxpayers their money's worth. It's about the cost/benefit ratio, not just about the cost.

what does continue to stick in my craw is when OBama stated that he would consider invading Pakistan if he had evidence of Osama's location in Pakistan. Another freakin' invasion justification? If we had intelligence of Osama hiding in Lebanon or German would he also consider invading? Shock and awe?

I emailed our resident expert, Anthony Cordesman, who told me that Obama is correct, what he's talking about militarily would not be considered an "invasion."

"Technically," Cordesman writes, "an invasion is an incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Moreover, since Pakistan has both admitted that hostile forces come from its territory to Afghanistan and said it cannot stop all of them, an incursion to defeat the insurgents is probably legal under international law.

Thomas wrote:

... A switch to universal healthcare raises people's taxes, which is a cost to them. It also lowers their health insurance premiums, which is a benefit. Because the switch increases the efficiency of the system at producing health, the benefits exceed the cost, so citizens effectively end up with more disposable income even if they pay higher taxes. The same is true for every other reform that gives taxpayers their money's worth. It's about the cost/benefit ratio, not just about the cost.

If I could only believe this would be true...

Thomas wrote:

... A switch to universal healthcare raises people's taxes, which is a cost to them. It also lowers their health insurance premiums, which is a benefit. Because the switch increases the efficiency of the system at producing health, the benefits exceed the cost, so citizens effectively end up with more disposable income even if they pay higher taxes. The same is true for every other reform that gives taxpayers their money's worth. It's about the cost/benefit ratio, not just about the cost.

If I could only believe this would be true...

dyslexia wrote:

what does continue to stick in my craw is when OBama stated that he would consider invading Pakistan if he had evidence of Osama's location in Pakistan. Another freakin' invasion justification? If we had intelligence of Osama hiding in Lebanon or German would he also consider invading? Shock and awe?

FWIW:

Quote:

I emailed our resident expert, Anthony Cordesman, who told me that Obama is correct, what he's talking about militarily would not be

Code:considered

an "invasion."

"Technically," Cordesman writes, "an invasion is an incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Moreover, since Pakistan has both admitted that hostile forces come from its territory to Afghanistan and said it cannot stop all of them, an incursion to defeat the insurgents is probably legal under international law.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/08/was-obama-propo.html

2) Subsidies don't necessarily raise deficits. They can also be paid out of taxes. Maybe you are too young to remember (that sounds arrogant, sorry), but there once were US governments that paid their entire expenses as they went -- out of federal revenue. The disagreement between the Clinton plan and the Obama plan is about the optimal market structure of the health care sector. Fiscal responsibility is an entirely separate question.

Thomas wrote:

... A switch to universal healthcare raises people's taxes, which is a cost to them. It also lowers their health insurance premiums, which is a benefit. Because the switch increases the efficiency of the system at producing health, the benefits exceed the cost, so citizens effectively end up with more disposable income even if they pay higher taxes. The same is true for every other reform that gives taxpayers their money's worth. It's about the cost/benefit ratio, not just about the cost.

If I could only believe this would be true...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's correct to attack the plan for the mandates. I support him doing so. And I think the flyer was an effective message. That's why they used it. There's nothing dishonest about it; tell me, what part of the ad isn't true?

The factual claim in the flyer is: "Hillary's plan forces everyone to buy health insurance, even if you can't afford it." The false, dishonest, deliberately slanderous part of the claim is "even if you can't afford it." Hillary Clinton's health care plan, just like every other Democrat's, contains several measures ensuring that everyone can afford health insurance. In particular, it includes two provisions ensuring that working people and their dependents can afford healthcare: (1) it limits premium payments to a percentage of income, (2) it provides tax deductions for healthcare. Moreover, (3) the plan covers people who cannot work through Medicaid and SCHIP. It will expand both programs to close the holes through which vulnerable people are currently falling. (See Clinton's American Health Choices plan (PDF), executive summary, item 4, on page 2. For more details, see "Ensuring Affordable Health Coverage for all", item 5, on page 8.)

Not really. A big part of his point is that the war in Iraq is using up resources that need to be used for national security reasons. As in, get bin Laden -- that specific guy. Don't invade a whole country.

sozobe wrote:

Not really. A big part of his point is that the war in Iraq is using up resources that need to be used for national security reasons. As in, get bin Laden -- that specific guy. Don't invade a whole country.

Strickle from my pov the big part is that the invasion of Iraq was and continues to be an illegal and ill-justified. bin Laden is a person linked to his organization NOT a nation a criminal. Iraq was quite simply a despotic nation that was unpopular regardless of whether or not WoMD existed. There was zero justification for an invasion of Iraq just as there would be zero justification for an invasion of Pakistan.