Ouch! looks like the ride is over for Lord obama and his out of control spending - Page 5 - GoFuckYourself.com

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Jobs left with a Republican on watch.

And the economy is collapsing with a Democrat on watch

NetHorse · 11-05-2009, 01:20 PM

My dad sent me this email when I got in a debate with him about health care in this country.

For Public Health Care

1. *The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 45 million .*
Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the
rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not
offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to
employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often
choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance
doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many
clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals.
However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by
all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums. In all
fairness, the 45 million uninsured number has been called into
question
<http://risch.senate.gov/public/?p=BreakdownoftheUninsured> since
in includes illegal immigrants, people making over $75K who choose
not to buy coverage, and others who have options for coverage but
choose not to get it. The true number of people without options is
closer to 15 million.

2. *Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses
and individuals.* Businesses and individuals that choose to keep
their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember,
businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on
labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they
will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment,
and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less
money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words,
less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care
prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A
simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a
long way in helping that recovery.

3. *We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper
work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc.* Think back to
all the times in your life you've had to fill out a medical
history, answering the same questions over and over. Think about
all the insurance paperwork you've had to fill out and submit. Our
current health care system generates an enormous amount of
overhead. Every time we go to the doctor, a claim must be
submitted, an approval department has to go over the claim, checks
have to be mailed, patients are sent co-pay bills, and so on. The
thing that's especially wasteful is that each doctor's office
usually maintains their own record-keeping system. A universal
healthcare plan would allow us to build one centralized system.
There would be no need for maintaining insurance information or
wasting time submitting claims. The work savings in the banking
and postal areas alone would be worth billions every year.

4. *We can develop a centralized national database which makes
diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.* Most doctor's offices
maintain a separate record-keeping system. This is why you always
have to fill out a lengthy health history whenever you go to a new
physician. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all,
it's wasteful of both time and money. Second of all, patients may
lie, forget, or do a poor job of explaining past medical problems.
Doctors need accurate information to make a proper diagnosis. Last
of all, separate systems means we have a tougher time analyzing
data at a national level. For example, are incidents of a certain
disease dropping? How often is a certain illness associated with a
specific set of symptoms? A centralized national system would
allow us to do data analysis that we never dreamed possible,
leading to medical advances and increased diagnosis efficiency.
The main argument against a centralized database is that certain
insurance providers may deny coverage if they find certain past
medical problems. However, if the government is paying for
everything, that should never be a problem.

5. *Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient
rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc.*
Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the
insurance plans out there; they are often restricted by insurance
practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must
practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Some physicians
are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these
non-medical headaches. A simplified universal health system would
allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply
focus on doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex
enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to an
already mentally-draining profession.

6. *Free medical services would encourage patients to practice
preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when
treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals
and other preventive measures because of the costs.* Because many
people are uninsured and those that do have insurance face high
deductibles, Americans often forego doctor visits for minor health
problems or for preventive medicine. Thus, health problems that
could be caught at an early stage or prevented altogether become
major illnesses. Things like routine physicals, mammograms, and
HIV tests could prevent major problems. This not only affects the
health of the patient but the overall cost of the system, since
preventive medicine costs only a small fraction of a full blown
disease. A government-provided system would remove the
disincentive patients have for visiting a medical professional.

7. *Patients with pre-existing conditions can still get health
coverage.* One of the biggest weaknesses of our current health
care systems is that patients with a past or current medical
condition such as cancer or asthma often cannot obtain affordable
health coverage. Some insurance companies won't even give a policy
to such individuals, or if they do, they will cover everything BUT
their past diagnosed conditions. Anyone with an expensive illness
or disease must then often face one of two choices: use up all
their own money, or leave the condition untreated. In a universal
system, no one with a pre-existing condition would be denied
coverage. People could change jobs without fearing the loss of
health insurance.

NetHorse · 11-05-2009, 01:21 PM

Against

1. *There isn't a single government agency or division that runs
efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the
U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?*
Quick, try to think of one government office that runs
efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of
Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of
Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes
efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can.
We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar
cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 / billion/ dollar
Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which
when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man
inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally
implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income
citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government
published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was
over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess
with something that should be simple. Think about the Department
of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep
track of licenses and basic database information for state
residents. However, the costs to support the department are
enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and
didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this
simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex
nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year
after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it
would go out of business or be passed up by competitors.

2. *"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it
with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for
with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense,
education, etc.* There's an entitlement mentality in this country
that believes the government should give us a number of benefits
such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this
somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars
of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that
much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education
spending, is it worth it?

3. *Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always
led to greater cost control and effectiveness.* Government workers
have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule,
cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare
this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn
promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad
job security; private sector workers must always worry about
keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about
cutting costs enough to survive.

4. *Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in
patient flexibility.* At first glance, it would appear universal
health care would /increase/ flexibility. After all, if government
paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any
doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to
keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries
such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik
eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make
patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are
obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is
required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What
about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job
to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have
government control of something, you have one item added to the
equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics.
Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come
down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put
in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in
Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap
smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer
additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.

5. *Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits
if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times
what they are now.* Co-pays and deductibles were put in place
because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances
than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical
staff and resources to treat /every/ ache and pain experienced by
an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is
having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu,
or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a
doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is
free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time
on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate
help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if
no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is
designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes
stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the
symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the
societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of
certain infections.

6. *Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't
receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals
provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is
illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of
insurance.* While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to
total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available.
This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of
government and private medical practices designed to help the
uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if
the patient is an illegal immigrant.

7. *Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor
flexibility and lead to poor patient care.* When government
controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making.
Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules
will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain
expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies
are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government
influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor
flexibility and poor patient care.

8. *Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for
the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.* Universal health
care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless
of your health or your need for medical care, which is
fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your
lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't
drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch
potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health
insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish
those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?

9. *A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost
insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record
creation.* A universal health plan means the entire health
insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that
area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed
in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record
clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A
number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new
government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful
transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new
round of patient record creation and database construction, which
would cost huge amounts of both time and money.

10. *Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may
dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.*
Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil
service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of
flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers.
Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals.
Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would
likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive
patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of
specialties is one of things that attracts students to the
profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be
students from putting themselves through the torture of medical
school and residency.

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...t_debacle.html

The coming debt debacle: Top economist says President Obama must slash spending, now

New federal budget numbers released last week by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) ought to be a game-changer for Congress and the Obama administration. Even before the new estimates, opinion polls revealed serious concerns of most Americans about large deficits and exploding federal debt. Those concerns will only intensify now, because the new estimates show that the budget problem has worsened considerably: The federal deficit will be $2 trillion higher than earlier estimates over the next decade, bringing the debt increase under the administration's budget policy to $10 trillion.

Adding to the worry is that this large $2 trillion upward revision took place over the very short span of five months since the CBO's previous estimate in March. The revision is mainly due to higher estimated interest payments on the debt and new spending.

The President's proposed health care plan will pile on more debt, according to the CBO. And all this lies on top of the debt-increasing stimulus package passed in February.

These large deficits represent a systemic risk to the economy, worse, in my view, than the threat of a crisis in the commercial real estate mortgage market, which many think is the next shoe to drop. Under the new estimates, the ratio of debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure of our ability to service the debt, will rise from 40% at the end of last year to over 80% in 2019 with the administration's budget. It will then continue to rise at an accelerating rate. By way of comparison, the debt to GDP ratio was 40% at the end of the 1980s - a decade remembered for high deficits - less than half that projected at the end of the coming decade.

Without spending discipline, damaging tax increases are required to close such deficits, and that is why rumors of new value-added tax are circulating. The deficits would also bring a long painful period of high inflation like the late 1960s and 1970s, a period of frequent recessions and persistently high unemployment when people began to lose confidence in the dollar.

And the growing deficits will require that the administration beg China and other countries to buy our debt, adversely affecting our foreign policy.

How much might taxes have to rise? To close the deficit in 2019 when it is projected to be running at a pace of $1.5 trillion per year, a 70% tax increase would be needed, clearly damaging to the economy and both politically and economically foolish.

But the calculations show that the problem is way too big to solve by tax increases alone.

So what game-change is called for? We must start scaling back the growth of spending now. Lay out a plan to balance the budget in five years. We must also end the bailouts - another government action hated by most Americans - by making it clear that institutions that are too big to fail are too big.

We should postpone a new health care program that requires increased government spending, and in the meantime focus on good ones that don't. In the current emergency situation we should be reforming existing entitlement programs before adding new ones.

And, since the budget problem is too big to solve by increasing taxes, we should not increase taxes. We can hear the objections: Pulling off some of the stimulus too soon will cause another downturn. But a growing debt, permanent tax increases and threats of inflation are far more likely to cause another downturn.

In my view the government stimulus program is not working. Virtually all the improved performance in the second quarter came from private investment, and making one-time payments to people is not jump-starting consumption.

But even if you thought the stimulus was working, this is no excuse for trillion-dollar-plus deficits as far as the eye can see. New facts are telling Washington to change course now.

John B. Taylor is the Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University and the Bowen H. and Janice Arthur McCoy Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

What I and a lot of classical economists like Schiff and Sinclair have been saying all along. Obama needs to stop listening to Bernanke's stupid ass.

NetHorse · 11-05-2009, 01:22 PM

11. *Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could
further explode since universal care may expose the government to
legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep
pockets usually invites more lawsuits.* When you're dealing with
any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an
employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately
liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that
would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous
amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible
for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor
has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous
lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep
pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a
government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to
increase simply because attorneys know the government has the
money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine
potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the
ability to spend several /trillion/ dollars per year, how much
will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble,
disfigured, or dying?

12. *Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or
increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further
loss of personal freedoms.* With government-paid health care, any
risky or healthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society.
Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin"
taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They
could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn
syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good
thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the
option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or
alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it
just gives the government yet another method of controlling our
lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the
Free.

13. *Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since
centralized health information will likely be maintained by the
government.* While a centralized computer health information
system may reduce some costs of record keeping, protecting the
privacy of patients will likely become very difficult. The
government would have yet another way to access information about
citizens that should be private. Any doctor or other health
professional would be able to access your entire health history.
What if hackers get into the data?

14. *Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being
rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of
patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could
determine who gets what.* Any time you have politicians making
health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions,
you open a whole group of potential rationing issues. As costs
inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed, /some/
ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will have to be rationed.
How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much
of "experimental" treatments will have to be eliminated? If you're
over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people
under 30? Would you be able to get something as expensive as a
pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old? Would your
political party affiliation or group membership determine if you
received certain treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug
use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical
services? What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, or
diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will
the government still help you? You may or may not trust the
current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but
what about future presidents and congressional members?

15. *Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment.*
Stories constantly come out of universal health care programs in
Britain and Canada about patients forced to wait months or years
for treatments that we can currently receive immediately in
America. With limited financial and human resources, the
government will have to make tough choices about who can treatment
first, and who must wait. Patients will like be forced to suffer
longer or possibly die waiting for treatment.

16. *Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken
as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near
impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of
control.* Social security was originally put in place to help
seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the
retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were
dramatically shorter. Now that people are regular living into
their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making
the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians
know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no
one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to
re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare
campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social
security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact
that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort,
despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to
fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both
houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to
fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't
want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with
virtually all government spending programs. Do you think
politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or
unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death
wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care
spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency
and an aging population, politicians will never be able to
re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice
options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up
hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we
can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program,
especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social
security in cost.

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Can you name another president that pulled the Country up from the bottom in the first year or even the 2nd?

This guy will be LUCKY if he can move us 10 feet forward.. he is climbing straight up a damn wall after all.

To most of us, he is clearly moving forward, it's simple; you guys don't like the direction he is driving in, but his ass is still going forward.

Actually to the majority of Americans, he is doing more harm than good. That is if you believe in polls

Ah making up shit stopped working for you a long time ago

))))

dyna mo · 11-05-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

What I and a lot of classical economists like Schiff and Sinclair have been saying all along.

i wonder what shiff's and sinclair's gfy nicknames are.

RogerV · 11-05-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...t_debacle.html

The coming debt debacle: Top economist says President Obama must slash spending, now

New federal budget numbers released last week by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) ought to be a game-changer for Congress and the Obama administration. Even before the new estimates, opinion polls revealed serious concerns of most Americans about large deficits and exploding federal debt. Those concerns will only intensify now, because the new estimates show that the budget problem has worsened considerably: The federal deficit will be $2 trillion higher than earlier estimates over the next decade, bringing the debt increase under the administration's budget policy to $10 trillion.

Adding to the worry is that this large $2 trillion upward revision took place over the very short span of five months since the CBO's previous estimate in March. The revision is mainly due to higher estimated interest payments on the debt and new spending.

The President's proposed health care plan will pile on more debt, according to the CBO. And all this lies on top of the debt-increasing stimulus package passed in February.

These large deficits represent a systemic risk to the economy, worse, in my view, than the threat of a crisis in the commercial real estate mortgage market, which many think is the next shoe to drop. Under the new estimates, the ratio of debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure of our ability to service the debt, will rise from 40% at the end of last year to over 80% in 2019 with the administration's budget. It will then continue to rise at an accelerating rate. By way of comparison, the debt to GDP ratio was 40% at the end of the 1980s - a decade remembered for high deficits - less than half that projected at the end of the coming decade.

Without spending discipline, damaging tax increases are required to close such deficits, and that is why rumors of new value-added tax are circulating. The deficits would also bring a long painful period of high inflation like the late 1960s and 1970s, a period of frequent recessions and persistently high unemployment when people began to lose confidence in the dollar.

And the growing deficits will require that the administration beg China and other countries to buy our debt, adversely affecting our foreign policy.

How much might taxes have to rise? To close the deficit in 2019 when it is projected to be running at a pace of $1.5 trillion per year, a 70% tax increase would be needed, clearly damaging to the economy and both politically and economically foolish.

But the calculations show that the problem is way too big to solve by tax increases alone.

So what game-change is called for? We must start scaling back the growth of spending now. Lay out a plan to balance the budget in five years. We must also end the bailouts - another government action hated by most Americans - by making it clear that institutions that are too big to fail are too big.

We should postpone a new health care program that requires increased government spending, and in the meantime focus on good ones that don't. In the current emergency situation we should be reforming existing entitlement programs before adding new ones.

And, since the budget problem is too big to solve by increasing taxes, we should not increase taxes. We can hear the objections: Pulling off some of the stimulus too soon will cause another downturn. But a growing debt, permanent tax increases and threats of inflation are far more likely to cause another downturn.

In my view the government stimulus program is not working. Virtually all the improved performance in the second quarter came from private investment, and making one-time payments to people is not jump-starting consumption.

But even if you thought the stimulus was working, this is no excuse for trillion-dollar-plus deficits as far as the eye can see. New facts are telling Washington to change course now.

John B. Taylor is the Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University and the Bowen H. and Janice Arthur McCoy Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Where were the top economists before the shit hit the fan?? Now everyone wants to put there 2 cents in. Unless they did foresee the future and bush didn?t listen to the top economist.

There are way too many factors and variables for anyone to know what?s going to happen.

The top 1% money makers need to stop hoarding the money. Either they get taxed more or they need to create jobs

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerV

Where were the top economists before the shit hit the fan?? Now everyone wants to put there 2 cents in. Unless they did foresee the future and bush didn?t listen to the top economist.

There are way too many factors and variables for anyone to know what?s going to happen.

The top 1% money makers need to stop hoarding the money. Either they get taxed more or they need to create jobs

Uh they "Schiff and Sinclair" were trying to warn America of the impending collapse, and they were ridiculed keynesian economists and liberal douchebags, called "doom and gloom theorists", and then were proven right.

baddog · 11-05-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

How do you create new jobs when this country isn't producing anything and Obama is continuing his deficit spending? Oh, you mean stimulus jobs? Yea those exist until the stimulus is up and people aren't buying anymore. Obama's knowledge of economics is elementary at best.

How about fixing our infrastructure?

dyna mo · 11-05-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

How about fixing our infrastructure?

tragic to see how small a part the stimulus plan gives to this.

baddog · 11-05-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

tragic to see how small a part the stimulus plan gives to this.

They would rather give everyone a free ride until we go completely broke.

TheDoc · 11-05-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

And the economy is collapsing with a Democrat on watch

Other than it hasn't collapsed.. and has grown. But whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Actually to the majority of Americans, he is doing more harm than good. That is if you believe in polls

I will stop making up shit up now, my mom is calling me

))))

That's what happens when you listen to Fox news, you get bad information...

The exit polls from NJ and Va, yeah, your entire argument just got crushed - again.

RogerV · 11-05-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Uh they "Schiff and Sinclair" were trying to warn America of the impending collapse, and they were ridiculed keynesian economists and liberal douchebags, called "doom and gloom theorists", and then were proven right.

I think everyone knew we were headed towards doom and gloom after Bush's 1st term.

It's all very simple at the end of the day its about greed that put all of us in this situation. How do you fix that?

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

How about fixing our infrastructure?

What specifically are you referring to baddog? Our national debt is the highest it's ever been, our budget deficit is ridiculous, or trade surplus is in the shitter, and many jobs are gone for good, as in no longer existent.

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Other than it hasn't collapsed.. and has grown. But whatever.

Shows how ignorant you are of economics, seeing as how it hasn't grown, and the recession is either double dipped or a depression. Please, the grownups are talking.

Quote:

That's what happens when you listen to Fox news, you get bad information...

The exit polls from NJ and Va, yeah, your entire argument just got crushed - again.

This is what happens when you listen to CNN. And I think you're confused about what polls we're talking about. When I mentioned NJ and VA, it was specifically the Republicans winning, not polling the president. But if you want polls on that, I will be happy to provide you with all the polls you need and own you again. It seems like me humiliating you is an every day thing now. It's WAY too easy.

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerV

I think everyone knew we were headed towards doom and gloom after Bush's 1st term.

It's all very simple at the end of the day its about greed that put all of us in this situation. How do you fix that?

This is inaccurate especially since the "doom and gloom" economists have been ridiculed for years. And if you want to nitpick, blame Clinton because he inadvertedly started this financial crisis.

Quote:

Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove. Barack Obama was elected President one year ago yesterday and Rasmussen Reports has compiled a look at his numbers on that anniversary.

TheDoc · 11-05-2009, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Shows how ignorant you are of economics, seeing as how it hasn't grown, and the recession is either double dipped or a depression. Please, the grownups are talking.

Clearly, the Economists on Fox News have no idea what a depression is.

As I stated, our Economy has not collapsed... which is very clear. And it has grown, not in every aspect - naturally that wouldn't happen even if we were at a peak. But it has grown, in many many areas.

Growth is positive when your sitting damn near at the bottom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

This is what happens when you listen to CNN. And I think you're confused about what polls we're talking about. When I mentioned NJ and VA, it was specifically the Republicans winning, not polling the president. But if you want polls on that, I will be happy to provide you with all the polls you need and own you again. It seems like me humiliating you is an every day thing now. It's WAY too easy.

I don't get CNN... I know what fox polls you're talking about, I do get fox.

Now because you like to twist shit in stupid ways... I will quote what you wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Actually to the majority of Americans, he is doing more harm than good.

"Just under half the voters in Virginia, 48 percent, approved of the way Obama is handling his job, rising to 57 percent in New Jersey. Most in both states, in any case, said the president was not a factor in their vote."

Majority? Add those two together, you have a positive difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

But if you want polls on that, I will be happy to provide you with all the polls you need and own you again.

Ouch.... I'm shocked you keep posting at this point.

dyna mo · 11-05-2009, 03:22 PM

theDoc, is this your 1st exchange with this guy?

TheDoc · 11-05-2009, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

theDoc, is this your 1st exchange with this guy?

To this level or like it, no.. he shows up in most of 12clicks posts, so I have had exchanges with him.

But 12c doesn't give me the ammo this guy has.. and I haven't gone off in a long time, 12c hasn't been around much :/

dyna mo · 11-05-2009, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

To this level or like it, no.. he shows up in most of 12clicks posts, so I have had exchanges with him.

But 12c doesn't give me the ammo this guy has.. and I haven't gone off in a long time, 12c hasn't been around much :/

got it. i was wondering what you were up to eh.

Snake Doctor · 11-05-2009, 03:37 PM

Chris, arguing with 12dicks and The Demon is like trying to argue with Rainman.

"Yeah I'm an excellent businessman, up and down the driveway"

"Taxes bad, taxes bad, about a hundred dollars"

"R-E-A-G-A-N, R-E-A-G-A-N, main man!!"

"We have to cut spending, cut spending, but definitely not on Monday"

"Uh oh, 15 minutes to Sean Hannity"

theking · 11-05-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

tragic to see how small a part the stimulus plan gives to this.

It is my understanding that less than 15% of the stimulus package has been implemented. It is my understanding that spending on infrastructure is coming over the next year or two and that a major delay is that bids and contracts have to be negotiated and jobs prioritized. If my understanding is correct...there will be jobs in building up our infrastructure...forth coming over the next year or two. The wheels of government do turn slowly.

papill0n · 11-05-2009, 03:42 PM

just a reminder

12clicks is the biggest fucking wanker ever to hit gfy

dyna mo · 11-05-2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

It is my understanding that less than 15% of the stimulus package has been implemented. It is my understanding that spending on infrastructure is coming over the next year or two and that a major delay is that bids and contracts have to be negotiated and jobs prioritized. If my understanding is correct...there will be jobs in building up our infrastructure...forth coming over the next year or two. The wheels of government do turn slowly.

yes, only about 55 billion of the stimulus has been spent but the overall % of the moneys allocated for infrastructure verges on trivial. Especially in light of how poor the country's infrastructure is. overall grade is a D- on roads, bridges, tunnels, water, pipes, sewage disposale, etc. all of it.

hell, we get huge water main breaks throughout los angeles on a weekly basis.

dyna mo · 11-05-2009, 03:46 PM

the estimate to bring the electrical grid up to par by 2020 is 2 trillion dollars.

theking · 11-05-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

yes, only about 55 billion of the stimulus has been spent but the overall % of the moneys allocated for infrastructure verges on trivial. Especially in light of how poor the country's infrastructure is. overall grade is a D- on roads, bridges, tunnels, water, pipes, sewage disposale, etc. all of it.

hell, we get huge water main breaks throughout los angeles on a weekly basis.

Well if it is 55 billion implemented that is not even 10% of the package...and when you say the % allocated for infrastructure is trivial...I assume that you are referring to the 55 billion...as it was and is my understanding that a great deal of the stimulus package is to be spent on creating jobs in and building up our infrastructure. Unfortunately when it comes to what is said and what is actually done is very often quite different.

dyna mo · 11-05-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Well if it is 55 billion implemented that is not even 10% of the package...and when you say the % allocated for infrastructure is trivial...I assume that you are referring to the 55 billion...as it was and is my understanding that a great deal of the stimulus package is to be spent on creating jobs in and building up our infrastructure. Unfortunately when it comes to what is said and what is actually done is very often quite different.

Quote:

Core investments (roads, bridges, railways, sewers, other transportation)
Road and highway construction is the biggest single line infrastructure item in the final bill

Total: $51.2 billion

* $27.5 billion for highway and bridge construction projects
* $8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects and rail congestion grants, with priority for high-speed rail
* $6.9 billion for new equipment for public transportation projects (Federal Transit Administration)
* $6 billion for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure (Environmental Protection Agency)
* $1.3 billion for Amtrak
* $100 million to help public transit agencies
* $750 million for the construction of new public rail transportation systems and other fixed guideway systems.
* $750 million for the maintenance of existing public transportation systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nsportation.29

also, re: job creation via the stimulus package

Quote:

An analysis by Forbes publications of where most jobs will be created singles out engineering, accounting, nursing, and information technology, along with construction managers, computer-aided drafting specialists, and project managers. Unemployment rates among most of these specialists are not high.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/...-stimulus.html

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Clearly, the Economists on Fox News have no idea what a depression is.

As I stated, our Economy has not collapsed... which is very clear. And it has grown, not in every aspect - naturally that wouldn't happen even if we were at a peak. But it has grown, in many many areas.

Growth is positive when your sitting damn near at the bottom.

Translation: I don't know dick about economics but I don't want people knowing that so I'm going to throw around some "you watch fox news" bullshit and hope people take me seriously. Sorry child, the economy is in a deep recession and inevitable collapse, we're just waiting for the 4th quarter earnings.

Quote:

"Just under half the voters in Virginia, 48 percent, approved of the way Obama is handling his job, rising to 57 percent in New Jersey. Most in both states, in any case, said the president was not a factor in their vote."

Majority? Add those two together, you have a positive difference.

Wow are you stupid lol. Lets use your logic, add the rest of the US, and you...Still get under 50%. ROFL what an imbecile. You're definitely humorous.

dyna mo · 11-05-2009, 04:22 PM

a bit more on the stimulus moneys going to infrastructure, the electrical grid $ falls under energy.

Quote:

Energy
Loans and investments into green energy technology are a significant part of the final bill

Total: $61.3 billion[citation needed]

* $11 billion funding for an electric smart grid
* $6.3 billion for state and local governments to make investments in energy efficiency
* $6 billion for renewable energy and electric transmission technologies loan guarantees
* $6 billion for the cleanup of radioactive waste (mostly nuclear power plant sites)
* $5 billion for weatherizing modest-income homes
* $4.5 billion for the Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability to modernize the nation's electrical grid and smart grid.
* $4.5 billion for state and local governments to increase energy efficiency in federal buildings
* $3.4 billion for carbon capture experiments
* $3.25 billion for the Western Area Power Administration for power transmission system upgrades.
* $2.5 billion for energy efficiency research
* $2 billion for manufacturing of advanced car battery (traction) systems and components.
* $3.2 billion toward Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants. [42]
* $500 million for training of green-collar workers (by the Department of Labor)
* $400 million for electric vehicle technologies
* $300 million for federal vehicle fleets, to cover the cost of acquiring electric vehicles, including plug-in hybrid vehicles.
* $300 million to buy energy efficient appliances
* $300 million for reducing diesel fuel emissions
* $300 million for state and local governments to purchase energy efficient vehicles
* $250 million to increase energy efficiency in low-income housing
* $600 million to cleanup hazardous waste that threaten health and the environment
* $200 million to cleanup petroleum leaks from underground storage tanks
* $100 million to evaluate and cleanup brownfield land
* $400 million for the Geothermal Technologies Program

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Chris, arguing with 12dicks and The Demon is like trying to argue with Rainman.

"Yeah I'm an excellent businessman, up and down the driveway"

"Taxes bad, taxes bad, about a hundred dollars"

"R-E-A-G-A-N, R-E-A-G-A-N, main man!!"

"We have to cut spending, cut spending, but definitely not on Monday"

"Uh oh, 15 minutes to Sean Hannity"

And Snake Doctor proves to be the only guy dumber than The Doc. At least the Doc tries and fails.

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

a bit more on the stimulus moneys going to infrastructure, the electrical grid $ falls under energy.

I don't think you guys understand the concept of stimulus. Stimulus is to stimulate, as in create artificial growth, as in someone who planned on buying something a year from now buys it now. As in if he buys it now, he won't buy it next year. Stimulus jobs are temporary at best.

Fabien · 11-05-2009, 04:25 PM

Ok i didn't want to step on this one but...

DON'T FUCKING DO IT PERIOD !

Here, we are not getting health care in the "name of freedom". You have to wait 13 hours if not more before you can see a doctor. It doesn't get better after. 2 or 3 years before you get to see a specialist. Of course it's "free" Yeah RIGHT or i should say "NOT" ! Half of the money we give to the fucktards is spent on this expense alone and it's getting worst and worst. What's more pathetic is that you can't get health care even if you want to pay for it ! Why ? Our "good" government thinks it's a bad idea to have a pay option while having a free one. ASSHOLES ! Man, sometimes i think i'm living in a fucking communist place. Trust me, i won't stay here for long. arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

dyna mo · 11-05-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

I don't think you guys understand the concept of stimulus. Stimulus is to stimulate, as in create artificial growth, as in someone who planned on buying something a year from now buys it now. As in if he buys it now, he won't buy it next year. Stimulus jobs are temporary at best.

when i need to learn something about the stimulus package, economics, and job creation, i will ask. and i will ask someone with credentials in the aforementioned topics.

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

when i need to learn something about the stimulus package, economics, and job creation, i will ask. and i will ask someone with credentials in the aforementioned topics.

Lucky for you, I have those credentials so I responded whether you wanted me to or not. Your ignorance on the matter is irrelevant to me.

TheDoc · 11-05-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Wow are you stupid lol. Lets use your logic, add the rest of the US, and you...Still get under 50%. ROFL what an imbecile. You're definitely humorous.

Gallup Poll says 52% approve of the job he is doing. NJ and Va Polls show a positive for the job he is doing.

FOX NEWS says "Fifty-six percent of voters are satisfied with what Obama has accomplished so far,"

And a site note from Fox "If the 2008 presidential election were held again today, more people say they would vote for Obama "

Even Fox news proved you wrong, damn!

Yawn... I'm bored with you now.

theking · 11-05-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nsportation.29

also, re: job creation via the stimulus package

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/...-stimulus.html

Well...according to the article...the total for infrastructure is $80.9 billion...another 61.3 billion in energy...and another $12.7 billion in housing...with the later two being infrastructure related...which represents more than 30% of the stimulus package.

This amount is actually a smaller amount than I thought would be spent on infrastructure...and we will still have to wait and see if these amounts are actually spent on these three areas.

AlCapone · 11-05-2009, 04:40 PM

Why don't we just automate the Government?

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Gallup Poll says 52% of the job he is doing. NJ and Va Polls show a positive for the job he is doing.

FOX NEWS says "Fifty-six percent of voters are satisfied with what Obama has accomplished so far,"

And a site note from Fox "If the 2008 presidential election were held again today, more people say they would vote for Obama "

Even Fox news proved you wrong, damn!

Yawn... I'm bored with you now.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5608.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28537.html

This is too easy. And if we ARE looking at gallop polls, then Americans believe there IS an inevitable collapse. Thanks for making it so easy Doc. It's always fun to destroy those intellectually inferior.

dyna mo · 11-05-2009, 04:45 PM

does anyone reading this thread take The Demon seriously?

please reply, if so.

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

does anyone reading this thread take The Demon seriously?

please reply, if so.

Sorry troll, this is an economics conversation. The porn peddling threads are all around you, go back to those.

TheDoc · 11-05-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

does anyone reading this thread take The Demon seriously?

please reply, if so.

Oh no... most people have him on ignore, they don't even see his stupid posts.

The guy is a porn webmaster, I think on a dating sites he uses to pay for his law school, but is a lawyer, that is also an economist specialist.

Ha!

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Oh no... most people have him on ignore, they don't even see his stupid posts.

The guy is a porn webmaster, I think on a dating sites he uses to pay for his law school, but is a lawyer, that is also an economist specialist.

Ha!

By most people you mean...Nobody? I would think after getting embarrassed, you'd quit making shit up, especially being the subject of ridicule for most of this thread.

I'm a porn webmaster? Really? Look at this buffoon go lol. Doing my job for me hahahaha.

TheDoc · 11-05-2009, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

By most people you mean...Nobody? I would think after getting embarrassed, you'd quit making shit up, especially being the subject of ridicule for most of this thread.

I'm a porn webmaster? Really? Look at this buffoon go lol. Doing my job for me hahahaha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

1. I'm not really in this business. I promote dating sites as income to pay for law school.

Let's add to the list... Pathological lair.

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Let's add to the list... Pathological lair.

How does me promoting dating websites make me a poor webmaster ? I was wrong about your intelligence. Your stupidity is limitless. Btw what's a pathological lair? Fucking idiot ROFL.

The Demon · 11-05-2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

How does me promoting dating websites make me a poor webmaster ? I was wrong about your intelligence. Your stupidity is limitless. Btw what's a pathological lair? Fucking idiot ROFL.

Porn*. I believe my point is made

bbobby86 · 11-05-2009, 05:32 PM

soo looooong emails...

12clicks · 11-05-2009, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Chris, arguing with 12dicks and The Demon is like trying to argue with Rainman.

"Yeah I'm an excellent businessman, up and down the driveway"

"Taxes bad, taxes bad, about a hundred dollars"

"R-E-A-G-A-N, R-E-A-G-A-N, main man!!"

"We have to cut spending, cut spending, but definitely not on Monday"

"Uh oh, 15 minutes to Sean Hannity"

Welcome home from the day job, loser.
How's the walmart training going?

12clicks · 11-05-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papill0n

just a reminder

12clicks is the biggest fucking wanker ever to hit gfy

Hmmmm, is that how the rabble see me?

My mission is complete

Joshua G · 11-05-2009, 08:07 PM

its hard to fathom the republicans could come back, but voters have no memory except for the incumbant.

So if the only people who have jobs work at banks, government offices & hospitals, the repubs WILL BE BACK in the next 2 cycles.

I can easily see Wall Street keeping the credit squeeze on small business & consumers until the public votes their right wing cronies back into power. Then magically, credit & economic activity come back along with the repubs.

Its nothing but the most massive theft of american wealth in world history, all done with the help of the greased wheels in congress.

11-05-2009, 01:20 PM	#202
NetHorse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 3,526	My dad sent me this email when I got in a debate with him about health care in this country. For Public Health Care 1. The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 45 million . Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums. In all fairness, the 45 million uninsured number has been called into question <http://risch.senate.gov/public/?p=BreakdownoftheUninsured> since in includes illegal immigrants, people making over $75K who choose not to buy coverage, and others who have options for coverage but choose not to get it. The true number of people without options is closer to 15 million. 2. Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery. 3. We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. Think back to all the times in your life you've had to fill out a medical history, answering the same questions over and over. Think about all the insurance paperwork you've had to fill out and submit. Our current health care system generates an enormous amount of overhead. Every time we go to the doctor, a claim must be submitted, an approval department has to go over the claim, checks have to be mailed, patients are sent co-pay bills, and so on. The thing that's especially wasteful is that each doctor's office usually maintains their own record-keeping system. A universal healthcare plan would allow us to build one centralized system. There would be no need for maintaining insurance information or wasting time submitting claims. The work savings in the banking and postal areas alone would be worth billions every year. 4. We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. Most doctor's offices maintain a separate record-keeping system. This is why you always have to fill out a lengthy health history whenever you go to a new physician. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all, it's wasteful of both time and money. Second of all, patients may lie, forget, or do a poor job of explaining past medical problems. Doctors need accurate information to make a proper diagnosis. Last of all, separate systems means we have a tougher time analyzing data at a national level. For example, are incidents of a certain disease dropping? How often is a certain illness associated with a specific set of symptoms? A centralized national system would allow us to do data analysis that we never dreamed possible, leading to medical advances and increased diagnosis efficiency. The main argument against a centralized database is that certain insurance providers may deny coverage if they find certain past medical problems. However, if the government is paying for everything, that should never be a problem. 5. Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the insurance plans out there; they are often restricted by insurance practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Some physicians are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these non-medical headaches. A simplified universal health system would allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply focus on doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to an already mentally-draining profession. 6. Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. Because many people are uninsured and those that do have insurance face high deductibles, Americans often forego doctor visits for minor health problems or for preventive medicine. Thus, health problems that could be caught at an early stage or prevented altogether become major illnesses. Things like routine physicals, mammograms, and HIV tests could prevent major problems. This not only affects the health of the patient but the overall cost of the system, since preventive medicine costs only a small fraction of a full blown disease. A government-provided system would remove the disincentive patients have for visiting a medical professional. 7. Patients with pre-existing conditions can still get health coverage. One of the biggest weaknesses of our current health care systems is that patients with a past or current medical condition such as cancer or asthma often cannot obtain affordable health coverage. Some insurance companies won't even give a policy to such individuals, or if they do, they will cover everything BUT their past diagnosed conditions. Anyone with an expensive illness or disease must then often face one of two choices: use up all their own money, or leave the condition untreated. In a universal system, no one with a pre-existing condition would be denied coverage. People could change jobs without fearing the loss of health insurance. __________________ ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐ ICQ # 427013273

11-05-2009, 01:21 PM	#203
NetHorse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 3,526	Against 1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 / billion/ dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors. 2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it? 3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive. 4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would /increase/ flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of. 5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat /every/ ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections. 6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant. 7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care. 8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't? 9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money. 10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency. __________________ ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐ ICQ # 427013273

11-05-2009, 01:22 PM	#205
NetHorse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 3,526	11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several /trillion/ dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying? 12. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or healthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free. 13. Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government. While a centralized computer health information system may reduce some costs of record keeping, protecting the privacy of patients will likely become very difficult. The government would have yet another way to access information about citizens that should be private. Any doctor or other health professional would be able to access your entire health history. What if hackers get into the data? 14. Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues. As costs inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed, /some/ ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will have to be rationed. How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much of "experimental" treatments will have to be eliminated? If you're over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30? Would you be able to get something as expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old? Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services? What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will the government still help you? You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional members? 15. Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment. Stories constantly come out of universal health care programs in Britain and Canada about patients forced to wait months or years for treatments that we can currently receive immediately in America. With limited financial and human resources, the government will have to make tough choices about who can treatment first, and who must wait. Patients will like be forced to suffer longer or possibly die waiting for treatment. 16. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramatically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost. __________________ ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐ ICQ # 427013273

11-05-2009, 03:37 PM	#222
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Chris, arguing with 12dicks and The Demon is like trying to argue with Rainman. "Yeah I'm an excellent businessman, up and down the driveway" "Taxes bad, taxes bad, about a hundred dollars" "R-E-A-G-A-N, R-E-A-G-A-N, main man!!" "We have to cut spending, cut spending, but definitely not on Monday" "Uh oh, 15 minutes to Sean Hannity" __________________ sig too big

11-05-2009, 04:25 PM	#233
Fabien Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4,787	Ok i didn't want to step on this one but... DON'T FUCKING DO IT PERIOD ! Here, we are not getting health care in the "name of freedom". You have to wait 13 hours if not more before you can see a doctor. It doesn't get better after. 2 or 3 years before you get to see a specialist. Of course it's "free" Yeah RIGHT or i should say "NOT" ! Half of the money we give to the fucktards is spent on this expense alone and it's getting worst and worst. What's more pathetic is that you can't get health care even if you want to pay for it ! Why ? Our "good" government thinks it's a bad idea to have a pay option while having a free one. ASSHOLES ! Man, sometimes i think i'm living in a fucking communist place. Trust me, i won't stay here for long. arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Last edited by Fabien; 11-05-2009 at 04:28 PM..

11-05-2009, 03:22 PM	#219
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,711	theDoc, is this your 1st exchange with this guy?

11-05-2009, 03:42 PM	#224
papill0n Unregistered Abuser Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 15,547	just a reminder 12clicks is the biggest fucking wanker ever to hit gfy

11-05-2009, 03:46 PM	#226
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,711	the estimate to bring the electrical grid up to par by 2020 is 2 trillion dollars.

11-05-2009, 04:40 PM	#238
AlCapone Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 708	Why don't we just automate the Government? __________________ "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.”

11-05-2009, 04:45 PM	#240
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,711	does anyone reading this thread take The Demon seriously? please reply, if so.

11-05-2009, 05:32 PM	#247
bbobby86 partners.sexier.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 11,926	soo looooong emails... __________________

11-05-2009, 08:07 PM	#250
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	its hard to fathom the republicans could come back, but voters have no memory except for the incumbant. So if the only people who have jobs work at banks, government offices & hospitals, the repubs WILL BE BACK in the next 2 cycles. I can easily see Wall Street keeping the credit squeeze on small business & consumers until the public votes their right wing cronies back into power. Then magically, credit & economic activity come back along with the repubs. Its nothing but the most massive theft of american wealth in world history, all done with the help of the greased wheels in congress.