The Great Divide

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,424
128
63
Bowling Green Ky
Krauthammer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-great-divide/2011/07/28/gIQAeOtifI_story.html

The great divide

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: July 28<!-- /byline -->
<ARTICLE>We?re in the midst of a great four-year national debate on the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two parties ? social-democratic vs. limited-government ? have underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama?s inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything. The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental divide---

Obama faces two massive problems ? jobs and debt. They?re both the result of his spectacularly failed Keynesian gamble: massive spending that left us a stagnant economy with high and chronic unemployment ? and a staggering debt burden. Obama is desperate to share ownership of this failure. Economic dislocation from a debt-ceiling crisis nicely serves that purpose ? if the Republicans play along



--another good article from Investors Dailey

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...01107261841/Govt-Racks-Up-Another-Failure.htm

Gov't Welfare Widens The Wealth Gap
Posted 07/26/2011 06:41 PM ET

Starting in 1964, when President Johnson launched the War on Poverty, a well-intentioned crusade to end poverty, the U.S. has spent an estimated $16 trillion trying to help the less well-off.
LBJ and other well-meaning Democratic politicians at the time also hoped that the burgeoning welfare state would make people more self-sufficient, a noble goal. It didn't work.

Today, some 44 million Americans are on food stamps. In 2007, it was 26 million. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner recently boasted that U.S. issues more than 80 million checks a month. But while the U.S. has more than 70 means-tested welfare programs, the poverty rate today is higher than it was in the late 1960s.
 
Last edited:

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Krauthammer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-great-divide/2011/07/28/gIQAeOtifI_story.html

The great divide

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: July 28<!-- /byline -->
<ARTICLE>We?re in the midst of a great four-year national debate on the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two parties ? social-democratic vs. limited-government ? have underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama?s inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything. The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental divide---

Obama faces two massive problems ? jobs and debt. They?re both the result of his spectacularly failed Keynesian gamble: massive spending that left us a stagnant economy with high and chronic unemployment ? and a staggering debt burden. Obama is desperate to share ownership of this failure. Economic dislocation from a debt-ceiling crisis nicely serves that purpose ? if the Republicans play along



--another good article from Investors Dailey

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...01107261841/Govt-Racks-Up-Another-Failure.htm

Gov't Welfare Widens The Wealth Gap
Posted 07/26/2011 06:41 PM ET

Starting in 1964, when President Johnson launched the War on Poverty, a well-intentioned crusade to end poverty, the U.S. has spent an estimated $16 trillion trying to help the less well-off.
LBJ and other well-meaning Democratic politicians at the time also hoped that the burgeoning welfare state would make people more self-sufficient, a noble goal. It didn't work.

Today, some 44 million Americans are on food stamps. In 2007, it was 26 million. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner recently boasted that U.S. issues more than 80 million checks a month. But while the U.S. has more than 70 means-tested welfare programs, the poverty rate today is higher than it was in the late 1960s.

How come hypocrites like u always call the stimulus a failure but a lot of that stimulus money was to keep those tax cuts going? Something u and the rest of ur party keep fighting for today. So what is it? Did that part of the stimulus work but the rest didn't? I find it hilarious that u keep slamming the deficit (of course u said nothing for Bushs eight years) but u fail to mention the biggest part of the deficit is the Republican plan to keep the tax cuts. :shrug: What is it? You can't have it both ways. You will put ur life on the line to keep those tax cuts which as a middle class citizen u get peanuts, but then u want to talk about the stimulus as being a failure.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
--

Today, some 44 million Americans are on food stamps. In 2007, it was 26 million. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner recently boasted that U.S. issues more than 80 million checks a month. But while the U.S. has more than 70 means-tested welfare programs, the poverty rate today is higher than it was in the late 1960s.

Of course poverty rate is higher. What do u expect when one side pulls out their cock and strokes it every time another American company shifts overseas and leaves our workers without jobs. Of course it is higher when one side demands trickle down economics which have showed over and over, time after time, they don't work. Of course it widens when one party starts a war of choice and it has turned into a huge money maker for a select few while breaking the back of the countries wealth. Of course it widens when one party keeps fighting for tax breaks (holding the country hostage to get them) that basically only benefit the top 1 percent (during war time i might add). Did u expect welfare to go down? why not go after Obama for continuing these lousy policies of the right because he really doesn't have much choice or the country gets held hostage.
 
Last edited:

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
No shit. Fuck I can't deal with some of you morons anymore. No shit there are more people on welfare. Do you think people are working less now than in previous times? Do you think some of those people actually don't want jobs? Give me a break. :facepalm:
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
20,922
125
0
Jefferson City, Missouri
No shit. Fuck I can't deal with some of you morons anymore. No shit there are more people on welfare. Do you think people are working less now than in previous times? Do you think some of those people actually don't want jobs? Give me a break. :facepalm:

Good thing Obama pushed through ObamaCare, that was JOB 1.

Obama is a FUCKING IDIOT.

JMHO

:facepalm:
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,833
47
48
Ohio
Don't worry, StevieD. Pelosi doesn't know much about it, either yet she still voted for it.


Seriously - you can't make this stuff up.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/pelosi-on-obamacare-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-that-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it


I mean, I signed my mortgage docs without reading them......


I'm pretty sure that the Healthcare act guaranteed the creation of 400k jobs instantly and over 3 million within a few years. Wonder how that estimate is working out for us......


As for poverty - from a 2004 estimate, the US has spent $9 trillion in 40 years fighting a war on poverty and now we have more people below the poverty line than in the 1980's? Wow - almost as successful as Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya combined!
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
Don't worry, StevieD. Pelosi doesn't know much about it, either yet she still voted for it.


Seriously - you can't make this stuff up.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/pelosi-on-obamacare-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-that-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it


I mean, I signed my mortgage docs without reading them......


I'm pretty sure that the Healthcare act guaranteed the creation of 400k jobs instantly and over 3 million within a few years. Wonder how that estimate is working out for us......


As for poverty - from a 2004 estimate, the US has spent $9 trillion in 40 years fighting a war on poverty and now we have more people below the poverty line than in the 1980's? Wow - almost as successful as Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya combined!

Sorry but what is it about Obama Care that you don't like and what is the cost of the alternative?

It seems to me that the same guys who were in favor of the Iraq and Afghan Wars are the same people who are against Obama Care. :shrug:

What is it that you don't like?
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
Sorry but what is it about Obama Care that you don't like and what is the cost of the alternative?

It seems to me that the same guys who were in favor of the Iraq and Afghan Wars are the same people who are against Obama Care. :shrug:

What is it that you don't like?

One of the biggest issues of Obamacare is that is drives up costs - AND it is a big wealth transfer via the subsidy mechanism. AND "if you like your health coverage you can keep it" - which is a blatant lie.

A new report indicates that spending under the Democrats' health care bill is going to be even worse than we feared-and we didn't think that was possible. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Actuary shows that health care spending growth averages 5.8% annually from 2010-2020. That's even higher than predicted before ObamaCare was put in place. Of course, some supporters of the health care bill are trying to twist that statistic by misleadingly claiming that with millions more Americans becoming insured, that's hardly a change in the growth of health care costs (as without ObamaCare growth would be at slightly below 5.7%). They hope we don't notice, though, that the real changes from ObamaCare won't begin until 2014. That drives the average annual increase to a whopping 6.5% between 2014-2020. Costs for Medicare and Medicaid will soar even higher
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
One of the biggest issues of Obamacare is that is drives up costs - AND it is a big wealth transfer via the subsidy mechanism. AND "if you like your health coverage you can keep it" - which is a blatant lie.

A new report indicates that spending under the Democrats' health care bill is going to be even worse than we feared-and we didn't think that was possible. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Actuary shows that health care spending growth averages 5.8% annually from 2010-2020. That's even higher than predicted before ObamaCare was put in place. Of course, some supporters of the health care bill are trying to twist that statistic by misleadingly claiming that with millions more Americans becoming insured, that's hardly a change in the growth of health care costs (as without ObamaCare growth would be at slightly below 5.7%). They hope we don't notice, though, that the real changes from ObamaCare won't begin until 2014. That drives the average annual increase to a whopping 6.5% between 2014-2020. Costs for Medicare and Medicaid will soar even higher

So what would it be withouit Obama Care? And where do the costs of the uninsured, the we all pay for, get placed in this study? And what would it be with a single payer?
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
So what would it be withouit Obama Care? And where do the costs of the uninsured, the we all pay for, get placed in this study? And what would it be with a single payer?

Uninsureds get included in both studies. But the uninsured will cost a lot more under Obamacare than before. And it will cost us more. See, now they will be able to get additional care they could not before - and there is huge pent up demand. Since many of them will be under Medicaid (due to income and the expansion of Medicaid), and since MC underpays Docs and Hospitals, this means there will be a lot more cost shifting to private insurance. I'm estimating that health insurance costs will jump between 30-50% in 2014 due to the cost shift AND due to guaranteed issue. But Obama doesn't care about that - he'll already be in his 2nd term by then.

Single payer - I know some love it, and some hate it. All depends on your income scale and the insurance you have now. 85% liked their coverage before Obamacare. One thing is for certain - it will take a very long time to get doctor visits scheduled.

Recently I was in Boston (for an actuaries meeting and to see the Brewers play in Fenway). I talked to a cabbie about healthcare in MA to get his prespective. His comments: liked having coverage even though it was very expensive. Hated how long it took to see a doctor. Told me it was typically a 5-6 month wait to get an appt (for him at least).

Americans will revolt if that happens. Heck, now I have to wait 2 weeks to get in to see my doc. And I'm not happy about that. If that wait stretches to 3 months, I'm sure most Americans won't be happy.

Only way you'll be able to hold down health care costs going forward to is make all Docs and hospitals owned by the government (like other countries). And by doing so, not allowing any of them to make more than say, $150K.

It's gonna get ugly. And it's unamerican. I would think sooner or later, this whole thing will get repealed and reversed. It will take until we can get rid of Obama however - either in 2012 or 2016. Even if he gets relected (which I think he will), so much damage and bad will come out of the law from 2014-16 that it will be an easy election issue for Republicans then, due to the skyrocketing prices due to guaranteed issue. It will assure a Republican in the WH in 2016, along with a super majority in the Senate and House by then. It will be a huge issue in my estimation.

The CBO, as good as they are, really doesn't understand the private insurance market.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
But don't you think something has to be done? My daughter has her husbands insurance. She is pregnant. They charged her $600 for her portion of a blood test!
People have insurance that covers nothing. Premiums are killing us. Docs and Insurance companies getting rich though.
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
But don't you think something has to be done? My daughter has her husbands insurance. She is pregnant. They charged her $600 for her portion of a blood test!
People have insurance that covers nothing. Premiums are killing us. Docs and Insurance companies getting rich though.

Problem is, things do cost a lot - and Docs and hospitals (and Pharma) are doing very well.

A lot of stuff a person takes for granted - how many folks do you know are on Lipitor or some other cholesteral drug? Many people are on long term medications. Add up the cost of those each month (what the insurance company pays), then take into account the folks that do get sick.

Insurance is a bad deal for those who are relatively healthy. But show me someone 40+, and I'll show you someone that is on some type of medication.

People SHOULD pay out of pocket for routine expenses (and insurance should not cover at all) - like physicals, birth control, mammo's, allergy meds, blood pressure/cholesteral meds, etc).

Think of your car - your auto insurance does not pay for routine maintenance - like oil changes. Insurance should not pay for routine stuff either - stuff that every person knows they will incur each and every year.

Insurance is designed for "unexpected" occurences - and normally for catastrophic cost unexpected occurrences. If insurance went back to what it really should be, then the cost would come down greatly.

But it has morphed into this "pay all my routine costs too". Obama isn't helping, as the health plans that he will only allow in the 2014 exchanges will be very benefit rich. That means, very expensive.

For many people, they will see huge spikes in costs of insurance - albeit, better benefits. This is especially true for those in the individual marketplace. I think they should have the choice of choosing a high deductible plan that does not pay for the routine maintenance and pay for it themselves out of pocket (and cash prices are almost always cheaper than what the insurance company gets charged).

I don't claim to have all the answers on the whole healthcare mess, but I'm sure I could come up with a better plan that Obama did. But, and this is a big but, one of Obama's main goals in the healthcare bill was income transfer - basically anyone that makes over $80K would be subsidizing the cost of coverage for anyone under $80K family income. Obviously, that is part of what is messed up wiht the plan.

Anyway.. have a great weekend!
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
To be fair to Obama his plan was bastardized by the Republicans, why he allowed it I will never understand, but it was not the plan we wanted. By the way In Mass not that long to see a doctor but very expensive.
 

pd1

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 24, 2001
1,254
33
48
67
missouri
To be fair to Obama his plan was bastardized by the Republicans, why he allowed it I will never understand, but it was not the plan we wanted. By the way In Mass not that long to see a doctor but very expensive.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. I have a $1000. deductable, as I'm guessing most do. So those physicals and all the little stuff you are talking about is all on me. My costs have increased drastically. When you make $15 bucks an hour, and have to pay the first $1000 it gets expensive.
I will add more to this later.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
I agree with a lot of what you say here. I have a $1000. deductable, as I'm guessing most do. So those physicals and all the little stuff you are talking about is all on me. My costs have increased drastically. When you make $15 bucks an hour, and have to pay the first $1000 it gets expensive.
I will add more to this later.

Exactly what I am talking about. What's the sense of having insurance?
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
Exactly what I am talking about. What's the sense of having insurance?

Really? Wow.

To protect you from a life changing illness or event. Say a bad car accident. Say breaking your leg skiing. In either case, bills could run $25-$30K.

It is a relief only paying $1,000 out of pocket in that case.

The small stuff - that should be on us. If you want all the maintenance stuff covered, then you'll just pay a much higher premium.

Pretty simple stuff. Imagine how much your car insurance would be if they had to pay for car washes, oil and filter changes, brakes, etc......

Insurance, by definition, is to cover UNEXPECTED events, not routine day to day expenses that one can reasonably budget for.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Really? Wow.

To protect you from a life changing illness or event. Say a bad car accident. Say breaking your leg skiing. In either case, bills could run $25-$30K.

It is a relief only paying $1,000 out of pocket in that case.

The small stuff - that should be on us. If you want all the maintenance stuff covered, then you'll just pay a much higher premium.

Pretty simple stuff. Imagine how much your car insurance would be if they had to pay for car washes, oil and filter changes, brakes, etc......

Insurance, by definition, is to cover UNEXPECTED events, not routine day to day expenses that one can reasonably budget for.

It was a rhetorical question. :facepalm:
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top