USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
- Status
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
...or Barry Goldwater.
“Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.”
— Barry Goldwater, speaking of 90's relatively moderate “Republicans”
...or Barry Goldwater.
“Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.”
— Barry Goldwater, speaking of 90's relatively moderate “Republicans”
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
So says the liberal Scooby who claims that liberal gains on social issues somehow happen in a center right nation.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Carter was actually the beginning of the conservative revolution. People forget because Reagan did such a great job of calling him a bleeding heart liberal (and because he was so feckless in addition to being so unbelievably unlucky), but the Carter Doctrine was right out of the Realist geopolitical school, and Carter's economic policies were very conservative, in the traditional "fiscal conservative" sense. The left wing of the Democratic Party was very unhappy with Carter as the nominee in 1976, enough so that they supported a major challenge from Kennedy in 1980.
Carter was actually the beginning of the conservative revolution. People forget because Reagan did such a great job of calling him a bleeding heart liberal (and because he was so feckless in addition to being so unbelievably unlucky), but the Carter Doctrine was right out of the Realist geopolitical school, and Carter's economic policies were very conservative, in the traditional "fiscal conservative" sense. The left wing of the Democratic Party was very unhappy with Carter as the nominee in 1976, enough so that they supported a major challenge from Kennedy in 1980.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
It also means that my 30 year number is wrong. It's more like 40. 40 years of Republican "Conservatism" has wrought us a 15 trillion dollar debt, a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, and a huge flock of whiny baby boomers who say nothing but give me my money, and get me away from the gays.
Nice Planet.
It also means that my 30 year number is wrong. It's more like 40. 40 years of Republican "Conservatism" has wrought us a 15 trillion dollar debt, a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, and a huge flock of whiny baby boomers who say nothing but give me my money, and get me away from the gays.
Nice Planet.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
I don't think there's even been a serious, honestly "liberal" candidate for president since Walter Mondale. On the other hand, the right seems (to me) to have swung father and farther wide of the middle, and Perry, Palin and Bachmann's rhetoric seems so toxic that they would actually constitute a genuine danger to the country if they were taken at their word.
That's true. Personally, I don't think there has been a "dangerous" candidate from the left in the US... ever. George Wallace was dangerous but he doesn't really map to contemporary political sides -- he was that strange mix that was the South before the 1980's.
I don't think there's even been a serious, honestly "liberal" candidate for president since Walter Mondale. On the other hand, the right seems (to me) to have swung father and farther wide of the middle, and Perry, Palin and Bachmann's rhetoric seems so toxic that they would actually constitute a genuine danger to the country if they were taken at their word.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Carter was made into the Poster Child for Liberalism because that's what Reagan needed to do to get elected, but that tag really belonged to the other wing of the Democratic Party. Carter was certainly no Supply Sider, but remember until the mid 1970's neither was anybody except a radical fringe of the GOP. Bush Senior and Carter would have been an interesting general election in 1980 because they would have been virtually identical, except Carter had the Camp David peace dove (that agreement's still holding up) while Bush had been head of the CIA, though in the days when it was gin and tonics after 3.
It's all relative to what came before. The Democratic Party was a very liberal institution in the 1970's, and after Watergate it looked like the country was going to continue in the direction it had been inexorably moving since the 1950's, both economically and socially. There were a slew of Liberal Establishment figures lined up to create The New Deal Part Three. Carter stepped into that as a sort of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington figure. He had southern Baptist born again roots and most liberals thought he was an alien among them the way conservatives think Ron Paul is now.
Carter was made into the Poster Child for Liberalism because that's what Reagan needed to do to get elected, but that tag really belonged to the other wing of the Democratic Party. Carter was certainly no Supply Sider, but remember until the mid 1970's neither was anybody except a radical fringe of the GOP. Bush Senior and Carter would have been an interesting general election in 1980 because they would have been virtually identical, except Carter had the Camp David peace dove (that agreement's still holding up) while Bush had been head of the CIA, though in the days when it was gin and tonics after 3.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
All those poor, powerless Democratic-controlled Congresses and Presidents. Good point that the Republicans are even to blame for the baby boomers. Why did the Republicans let that generation come into existence? Oh, wait, that's more of Democratic issue to not let life come into existence.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
The debt is perfectly 50/50. The Republicans have liked to spend and loved not to tax. The Dems have loved to spend and liked not to tax. Whenever either party gets up the nerve to cut back on the thing it likes it defends to the death the thing it loves, so both parties are seen as hypocritical, and the mood of hypocrisy probably contributed to the problem because nobody really thinks either party is serious.
There might have been some public will to do something about it now, but dramatic moves are off the table until the economy recovers -- huge spending cuts and huge increases to the higher tax brackets to counterbalance years of Supply Side, both of which are necessary, are just too hard a sell during a recession.
The debt is perfectly 50/50. The Republicans have liked to spend and loved not to tax. The Dems have loved to spend and liked not to tax. Whenever either party gets up the nerve to cut back on the thing it likes it defends to the death the thing it loves, so both parties are seen as hypocritical, and the mood of hypocrisy probably contributed to the problem because nobody really thinks either party is serious.
There might have been some public will to do something about it now, but dramatic moves are off the table until the economy recovers -- huge spending cuts and huge increases to the higher tax brackets to counterbalance years of Supply Side, both of which are necessary, are just too hard a sell during a recession.
Last edited:
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
It was the Dems who got them hooked on that money (SS, Medicare, Medicaid). The exception was GWB adding Medicare Part D.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
You guys are hilarious. The Baby Boomers also are the ones that owe the US Treasury 15 Trillion dollars. Do you borrow money, stop payment, and then beg for more? No, I bet you don't.
You guys are hilarious. The Baby Boomers also are the ones that owe the US Treasury 15 Trillion dollars. Do you borrow money, stop payment, and then beg for more? No, I bet you don't.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
He won't listen to anyone blaming his beloved Dems.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
I'm the only poster on record telling you conservatives to go right ahead and stop the Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security payments immediately and to go ahead and pay off the debt with the regressive payroll tax.
But, you get down with your bad self about putting me with Obama and the Democrats.
I'm the only poster on record telling you conservatives to go right ahead and stop the Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security payments immediately and to go ahead and pay off the debt with the regressive payroll tax.
But, you get down with your bad self about putting me with Obama and the Democrats.
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Very curious regarding the comment about being hooked on SS, medicare and medicaid- If there weren't any of those programs how many people would be able to afford the current cost of living or the current cost of healthcare?
I can't speak to the cost of living thing but the cost of medical care has increased as the technology and medications have proliferated. I think back to when my kid was born. To pay a 100K bill for college we would have had to save >1000$/month to be able to afford the thing without a loan. 100K can go in a week if you are in the ICU in extremis- that is if you had the extra 1000$ a month to squirrel away.
It seem disingenuous to look at the good ol days as a model. People died routinely before they hit their 70s and the medical care was to say sorry, make your plans. Cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke were a signal of impending death unless you were lucky. Now they signal a long and frequently costly treatment before it causes your death. Later in life people are reaching the end of their productive capability (if they get ill, chronic diseases start to affect them) how are they supposed to step it up to make the extra cash to pay for treatment? Families frequently stayed as nuclear units who supported each other and cared for the elderly/sick. Now the parents move down south, the kids move where the job is. The net is gone.
For those who wish to abolish these 'addictions' exactly what is the thought proccess for how these things would be handled? This is not a sarcastic question. I have heard so many times that this is socialism, shouldn't exsist but I have yet to hear how things would be handled if the programs were abolished or severely curtailed.
Very curious regarding the comment about being hooked on SS, medicare and medicaid- If there weren't any of those programs how many people would be able to afford the current cost of living or the current cost of healthcare?
I can't speak to the cost of living thing but the cost of medical care has increased as the technology and medications have proliferated. I think back to when my kid was born. To pay a 100K bill for college we would have had to save >1000$/month to be able to afford the thing without a loan. 100K can go in a week if you are in the ICU in extremis- that is if you had the extra 1000$ a month to squirrel away.
It seem disingenuous to look at the good ol days as a model. People died routinely before they hit their 70s and the medical care was to say sorry, make your plans. Cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke were a signal of impending death unless you were lucky. Now they signal a long and frequently costly treatment before it causes your death. Later in life people are reaching the end of their productive capability (if they get ill, chronic diseases start to affect them) how are they supposed to step it up to make the extra cash to pay for treatment? Families frequently stayed as nuclear units who supported each other and cared for the elderly/sick. Now the parents move down south, the kids move where the job is. The net is gone.
For those who wish to abolish these 'addictions' exactly what is the thought proccess for how these things would be handled? This is not a sarcastic question. I have heard so many times that this is socialism, shouldn't exsist but I have yet to hear how things would be handled if the programs were abolished or severely curtailed.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Subsidized-Free-Market.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/politics/26medicare.html
There was some interesting ideas: Best practices, (death) panel etc... in the health care debate (Obamacare) in reducing medical cost by getting rid of or prioritizing the most costly least effectivel treatments.
It seems like most new drugs (research) are funded by medicare and most of these new drugs only extend lives by 4-8months compared to placebo. And chronic disease treatment like dialysis for kidney failure (from diabetes etc..) needs to be looked at.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...cancer-drug-backed-for-medicare-coverage.html
Subsidized-Free-Market.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/politics/26medicare.html
There was some interesting ideas: Best practices, (death) panel etc... in the health care debate (Obamacare) in reducing medical cost by getting rid of or prioritizing the most costly least effectivel treatments.
It seems like most new drugs (research) are funded by medicare and most of these new drugs only extend lives by 4-8months compared to placebo. And chronic disease treatment like dialysis for kidney failure (from diabetes etc..) needs to be looked at.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...cancer-drug-backed-for-medicare-coverage.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-23-dialysis_N.htm
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Subsidized private insurance scares the crap out of me. We have that in my state for some of the people who can't qualify for the medicaid/care stuff. It is a nightmare compared to the straight up medicare/aid plan. The current insurances are arbitrary, inconsistent and the red tape they generate is 10 Xs the stuff we deal with for Medicare/aid. The thought that we will give them more power is inconcievable!
Mass had all these beautiful promises from lawmakers and insurances that they would have insurance plans that were subsidized and affordable. They passed the law and then poof all those beautiful promises disappeared like smoke. Of course the requirements were now law so the insurances did what they wanted with no punishment.
Even if they could keep the insurances on an even keel how is this subsidy doing anything different from the current plan. Even if they cut their own costs they aren't' going to have incentive to pass that on to us. The insurances are for profit. Until they are not for profit I am skeptical that it will make much difference and talk about massive increase in bureaucracy. Someone has to administer that.
Subsidized private insurance scares the crap out of me. We have that in my state for some of the people who can't qualify for the medicaid/care stuff. It is a nightmare compared to the straight up medicare/aid plan. The current insurances are arbitrary, inconsistent and the red tape they generate is 10 Xs the stuff we deal with for Medicare/aid. The thought that we will give them more power is inconcievable!
Mass had all these beautiful promises from lawmakers and insurances that they would have insurance plans that were subsidized and affordable. They passed the law and then poof all those beautiful promises disappeared like smoke. Of course the requirements were now law so the insurances did what they wanted with no punishment.
Even if they could keep the insurances on an even keel how is this subsidy doing anything different from the current plan. Even if they cut their own costs they aren't' going to have incentive to pass that on to us. The insurances are for profit. Until they are not for profit I am skeptical that it will make much difference and talk about massive increase in bureaucracy. Someone has to administer that.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Tun the question around: if those programs didn't exist, would health care costs be anywhere near what they are today? No, absolutely not. There would be very little demand for a $100K/week ICU (only from a very few very wealthy people) - certainly not enough to build a business case around, so companies wouldn't bother to design those products and they wouldn't exist.
Maybe I'm the hardest-hearted person in the world, but I just don't think we'd be that much worse off as a society without some of these ridiculously expensive treatments. It drives me nuts every time I see the someone touting that treatment X "saved 10,000 lives." Saving a life is like storing sunshine in your pocket - it can't be done. To be accurate, one would have to say that the treatment "delayed 10,000 deaths." Of course, when it's phrased that way, the next inevitable question is "by how much?" That's an awkward question that never gets asked as long as the discussion is about "saving lives," as if a life saved is something that is finished, completed - take it to the bank, that life is saved!
Imagine this scenario: you run a small proprietorship (you only take home $60K per year) and your aging father just had a heart attack and will be in the hospital for a few months at an outrageous cost. Unfortunately, the poor guy didn't have health insurance, and there's nobody to pay the bill. However, you have a brilliant idea, so you call in your employees and tell them, "look, sorry, I know this sucks for you and that none of you knew my father, but he needs this treatment, so from now until all the bills are paid, you all have to work a mandatory 5 hours of overtime to increase the profitability of the company so that I can pay for this treatment. Anybody who refuses to work the overtime will be fired." That's effectively what these public health programs are: the government telling people that part of their working hours must go to paying for the care of anonymous strangers (no matter how expensive the treatments are and no matter how little life extension they provide), and taking that money under threat of law.
I say bring on the rationing and the death panels.
SS, medicare, and medicaid have been subsidizing health care for 60+ years now, so it's surprising to me to find people who are surprised that the price has gone up. You know why all those fancy machines that extend lives by a few months exist? Because the private companies who design them (Siemens, GE, etc) know that there is infinite demand for the product and that the cost will always be covered. It's a pretty nice business model when you know that person A has infinite demand for your product and that the government will force B, C, and, D to pay for it at gunpoint. If the government started handing out $1000 checks that could only be used to buy TVs, would the price of TVs go up or down?
Tun the question around: if those programs didn't exist, would health care costs be anywhere near what they are today? No, absolutely not. There would be very little demand for a $100K/week ICU (only from a very few very wealthy people) - certainly not enough to build a business case around, so companies wouldn't bother to design those products and they wouldn't exist.
Maybe I'm the hardest-hearted person in the world, but I just don't think we'd be that much worse off as a society without some of these ridiculously expensive treatments. It drives me nuts every time I see the someone touting that treatment X "saved 10,000 lives." Saving a life is like storing sunshine in your pocket - it can't be done. To be accurate, one would have to say that the treatment "delayed 10,000 deaths." Of course, when it's phrased that way, the next inevitable question is "by how much?" That's an awkward question that never gets asked as long as the discussion is about "saving lives," as if a life saved is something that is finished, completed - take it to the bank, that life is saved!
Imagine this scenario: you run a small proprietorship (you only take home $60K per year) and your aging father just had a heart attack and will be in the hospital for a few months at an outrageous cost. Unfortunately, the poor guy didn't have health insurance, and there's nobody to pay the bill. However, you have a brilliant idea, so you call in your employees and tell them, "look, sorry, I know this sucks for you and that none of you knew my father, but he needs this treatment, so from now until all the bills are paid, you all have to work a mandatory 5 hours of overtime to increase the profitability of the company so that I can pay for this treatment. Anybody who refuses to work the overtime will be fired." That's effectively what these public health programs are: the government telling people that part of their working hours must go to paying for the care of anonymous strangers (no matter how expensive the treatments are and no matter how little life extension they provide), and taking that money under threat of law.
I say bring on the rationing and the death panels.
Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition
Lynah, what you said makes sense to me.
Another thing regarding the post to which you responded, if medicare etc didn't exist then people would actually have to plan for that stuff themselves. Now, not everyone could do it obviously. But, the current model requires nobody to do it.
How much money do SS recipients spend in casinos each year? The lottery?
We started a system that was designed to help the fraction of the people who needed additional help ( a safety net) and it has, collectively, become a hammock.
Ever listen to somebody complain about how they are supposed to live off SS? Well, I don't know that was the intention...it is supposed to supplement, not be everything.
Lynah, what you said makes sense to me.
Another thing regarding the post to which you responded, if medicare etc didn't exist then people would actually have to plan for that stuff themselves. Now, not everyone could do it obviously. But, the current model requires nobody to do it.
How much money do SS recipients spend in casinos each year? The lottery?
We started a system that was designed to help the fraction of the people who needed additional help ( a safety net) and it has, collectively, become a hammock.
Ever listen to somebody complain about how they are supposed to live off SS? Well, I don't know that was the intention...it is supposed to supplement, not be everything.
- Status