No tea and roses
Phil Dillon
Friday, August 28, 2009
ON AUG. 20, David Ignatius, writing in the Washington Post, outlined the President’s dilemma in the healthcare debate: “The harder he tries to sell his program, the louder and angrier the debate gets — and the more the general public tunes out the politicians.”
How has it come to this?
There are, I believe, three issues at the heart of the problem — loss of trust, fear, and a sense of powerlessness.
Should we trust our leaders? Can we?
Many of the people being asked to sign on the dotted line of a national health care bill have excellent memories. A few years ago some signed real estate contracts without reading the fine print. Others trusted when the government pleaded for $700 billion to stave of economic collapse. I was one of millions who trusted and supported the legislation. General Motors, Chrysler, and big banks were subsequently bailed out to the tune of billions more. Then there was the President’s “fishy” list, which sounded eerily reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s “enemies list.” Now, upon hearing that another government stimulus might be coming after we appropriate a trillion or more to fix health care, millions of trust meters have gone into the red. Writer Nat Hentoff recently observed, “I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration.”
The administration may not like it, but millions of Americans are expressing the same fear at town hall meetings all around the country. This fear has been expressed most acutely by senior citizens. They want to know, rightly, where they fit in this nation’s plans. They’ve served their country ably. Some struggled through the Great Depression. Some stormed the beaches of Normandy in 1944. If death panels aren’t in the offing for them, what is?
There are some tantalizing, and frightening, clues, coming from some of this country’s most respected bio-ethicists.
In 1969 Paul Erlich from Stanford penned “The Population Bomb.” Its central thesis was that world population was growing out of control. His policy recommendation: “We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.”
Following on his work, Princeton University professor Peter Singer, considered the most respected ethicist in the country, has outlined the societal right of infanticide. His line of reasoning is complex and concludes “So the issue of ending life for disabled newborn infants is not without complications, which we do not have the space to discuss adequately. Nevertheless the main point is clear: killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.” (Practical Ethics, 1993)
Singer has also added his voice to the current debate.
In a recent N.Y. Tines op-ed he argued, “The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable.”
How would we go about rationing?
Singer recommends the use of quality adjusted life years (acronym QALY). For example, when one compares the societal value of an 80 year old to the value of a 30 year old (a nuclear physicist, respected bio-ethicist or star quarterback, perhaps?) with the potential for 50 more productive years of life, the choice seems obvious.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, special adviser to the president, has argued that patients suffering from dementia or disorders that would preclude them from being active participants in the democratic process have no right to medical care, particularly when the money used to care for such a patient would drain resources that could be better spent on a young person with a learning disability.
What power does the “average” American have compared to the power of esteemed ethicists or corporate lobbyists?
Will any of us get an $85 billion dollar break in return for advertising supporting the president’s plan?
My family lobby of four is small. We have no money to offer in return for favorable legislation. We don’t have our foot in the policy door. When arrayed against such power, what else can we feel but powerless and frustrated?
This is what millions of American families are feeling right now.
The thing that amazes me most about this is that the president and his allies seem dumbfounded by the public response. Just what did they expect, tea and roses?
Observer (anonymous) says...
Excellent!!!!!!!
Hitting the nail right on the head!!!!!
August 28, 2009 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
1. This is a terrible slur on a respected oncologist, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. He never said that he believed that
"patients suffering from dementia or disorders that would preclude them from being active participants in the democratic process have no right to medical care." Your allegation is simply false.
2. Peter Singer has absolutely no connection of any kind to the legislation currently being considered. No connection at all. Why would you practice guilt by association?
3. You conveniently neglect to mention that we have severe rationing right now, today, in the United States. We ration by cost. if you lose your job, you lose your insurance and your access to quality healh care. If you have a pre-existing condition, you lose your health care. What could possible justify such heartless rationing?
August 28, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
nyp
This is what Ezekiel Emanuel said, in his words (The Hastings Report - 1996):
"Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."
Peter Singer injected himself into the healthcare debate. Are you saying that policy makers aren't listening to the country's most respected ethicist.
For better or worse, this is part of what the national health care debate should be about. Who should we insure? And why?
Marketplace (cost) rationing is not a good option. But rationing by age group, mental/social acuity is far worse. Any health care administrator, liberal or conservative, could do a lot of damage guiding such policy. What about smokers? What about America's obese? What happens when costs can't be controlled? Who becomes the next target?
August 28, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Went to your Senator Barnetts campaign stop in Hutchinson. He says that second hand smoke causes cancer. Funny. NO other doctor or scientist on this planet will tell you they KNOW what causes cancer. Gee, I was impressed! My doctor doesn't know what causes cancer. He says genetics has something to do with it. Billions of dollars are being spent trying to find what causes genes to mutate. We need to let them know that Dr. Barnett of Emporia has solved this riddle! Keep this genius in Emporia, we don't need him in Washington!!!!
August 28, 2009 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
1. Mr. "Observation": I am interested in why you believe an American citizen who lives in New York and/or is liberal is less entitled to post comments/criticism than anyone else.
2. Mr. Driveonby: I appreciate the post, but with all due respect, your error lies in attributing to Dr. Emanuel a philosophical view that he describes in that essay but does not adopt for himself. (Hence the passive voice, By the way, the view that Dr. Emanuel was describing does not call for withholding medical care from some people - it suggests that government-paid for care should not be guaranteed. (I and Dr. Emanuel disagree with both positions.) As far as Peter Singer is concerned, it is frankly McCarthyite to tie proponents of health care to someone with no connection to the legislation. After all, the LaRouche lunitics who have been carring signs showing the President of the United States with a Hitler moustache have also "injected [themselves] into the health care debate." Should elite say-anything New York liberals like myself try to blur the line between them and mainstream conservative opponents of health reform?
3. all this silly business aside, the fact is that we have severe medical rationing right now in America. We base it not on age or mental activity. but on income. Lose you job, you risk losing your health care. Have a pre-existing condition, you risk losing your health care. Millions of our fellow American's have inadequate if any coverage. And the cost curve will literally bankrupt our government. (that's no hyperbole.) What could possibly be more unfair, more unjust?
3.
August 28, 2009 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Observer (anonymous) says...
"Kennedycare" programs and government over-site seems to share a great deal in common with what we used to muck out of the horse-barn. Never thought to call it liberal socialism in the old days.
August 28, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
I would prefer that the bills that provide a government option were NON partisan. In that the lawmakers stayed out of it and concentrated on tort reform and reasonably regulating the healthcare insurance industry.
"Hell, back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country, our banking system, our auto industry and possibly our health plans to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a brothel and selling whiskey!" - Maxine (Comic strip backed up by info on Snopes)
Less government, more individual rights and responsibilities!
August 28, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Local_Hispanic (Vic Rodriguez) says...
I just hope that somebody comes up with the idea to better regulate the insurane companies themselves. They have caused a lot of these problems. The high cost for coverage plus their description of pre existing conditions which can eliminate your coverage plus the cost they charge the doctors and hospitals are just outrageous. I don't want any of our money going to them as a bailout. I have a feeling they will come up with something to say that they are hurting and will need a bailout to continue. Just like the car companies right?
August 28, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
1. Local Hispanic: "I just hope that somebody comes up with the idea to better regulate the insurane companies themselves." That is precisely what the reform legislation does. A lot of it is devoted to making sure that you can't lose your insurance because of pre-existing conditions, etc.
2. "allintogether": With the exception of the "public option," the government would not run anything. If you like what you have, you keep it. But the reforms would set rules of the road for insurance companies and would make it possible for families that had lost their health insurance to get new insurance. Right now many families face bankruptcy if they have a major medical crisis. The idea of the bill is to remove that shadow from everyone's lives.
August 28, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
by the way, although no one likes the fact that the government had to bail out the banks and auto companies, it seems to have been both necessary and effective. Without it our entire economy would likely have collapsed. Instead, we seem to be slowing struggling out of recession. Sometimes you have to make the best of bad choices.
August 28, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
nyp - I don't agree that it was necessary, and I don't necessarily believe that we are slowly struggling out of recession. If we are, I believe it is short-term. I think we've set ourselves up for a much bigger fall down the road, and staying down for longer, than we would have otherwise.
Sometimes the best of bad choices for now isn't the best in the long run.
Time will tell.
August 28, 2009 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
Openeyes: I guess I agree with you that "time will tell" as far as the auto and bankbailouts are concerned. Well, actually, I don't! If the American banking system had entirely collapsed last autumn, if the auto industry had liquidated, we would be in Great Depression territory right now. The crisis was that bad.
Getting back to the point, however, the real threat to our public finances is the explosive growth in health care costs. The current proposals are intended to "bend the curve" of cost growh and thus to get us out of the fiscal hole that we have been digging recents -- most recently during the past eight years of irresponsible spending.
August 28, 2009 at 5:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
nyp,
The government option is potentially quite a large exception and I don't welcome government influence into things they aren't specifically mandated to by the constitution. When is CMS going to be broke? Social security fiscal health looking any better? Healthcare is not a right in this country. It is a critical commodity.
Now, if the government reformed health insurance companies in a meaningful way by making it unlawful to deny coverage based on pre existing conditions, no disproportionate risk pools for chronic conditions, no penalties for utilization, etc. we wouldn't need a government option.
Regulating industry is well within the government's power and would be welcomed by most folks I would imagine as long as they didn't swing the pendulum so far that they require cheap coverage for train wreck patients that would certainly bankrupt the insurance company. Perhaps a government extension of Medicare for catastrophic care for patients with a certain diagnosis that is not necessarily a result of their behavior? It would cover them until Medicare collapsed. I don't want to subsidize someone who's habits (that they are fully aware of) dictate an inevitable end of sickness and slow expiration.
Obama has already said he won't entertain tort reform because if someone gets injured or killed they deserve compensation. I agree with this to an extent. Egregious malpractice needs to be punished criminally and civilly. If it was a high risk for failure patient whose family sues when the patient dies on the table is nonsense. That's why they weigh the risk in the first place.
I can't ignore the funding both political parties get from the trial lawyers association (a special interest group Obama said would not influence his administration). It seems less like real reform and more like an ideology satisfying expansion of government control.
By the way, I am in no way an ideologue, political operative, well funded special interest group shill or any of the other tags people in favor of Obama's plans like to saddle those that oppose a government option with. I am a free thinking, well educated Kansan that puts the needs of contributors to our society before those of life long or long time recipients that reap the benefits of our labor.
August 28, 2009 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And if our current irresponsible spending & deficits eventually drive us into a deeper and longer "Great Depression"...... then which would have been the right choice? A tough, but short-term dip, or extend it for nearly a decade as we did in the 30's?
As for the current proposals........ correcting the last 8 years of "irresponsible spending".......... take a good look around us right now if you want to see irresponsible spending. You have GOT to be kidding me......... maybe you could clue me in on exactly what your definition of what "irresponsible spending" is...... I agree that especially towards the end of Bush (once we got a Dem congress also) irresponsible spending went up. Let me guess....... I bet you thought it was atrocious that Alaska almost spent all that money for a "Bridge to Nowhere" (irresponsible spending) but now you're all for building a zillion of them everywhere else with our current stimulus package (bending the curve). Right?
You're right on one point: We're "bending" something with our current spending........ I'm grabbing my ankles right now......
August 28, 2009 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
No disrespect towards the late Mr. Kennedy, but he had an operation last year. Shouldn't he have been given the same pamphlet given to vets about end-of-life counseling? Should he have considered his age and so forth? Or is that kind of rationing only for non-politicians? Will Congress sign onto the same health care plan they are trying to set up for us?
August 28, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
"altogether": those are interesting observations. I can't say that I think the gov't should simply order insurance companies to lower their rates so that everyone can afford coverage. You can't order companies to bankrupt themselves. That is why you need some government assistance like that set forth in the plan.
The problem is that the free market does not work perfectly when it comes to healthcare.
August 28, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Go to utube ralph nader; obama cut's deal on health care
August 28, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
That is an interesting take nyp. I was starting to perceive you as a liberal kool aid drinking disciple of Obama from your other posts. I am glad you are open to different viewpoints. Perception suspended.
August 28, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Go to utube ralph nader; obama cut's deal with health care industry. DON'T MISS IT.
August 28, 2009 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Are Republicans leaders obstructing health care reform in order to make political gains? Go to utube ron paul; the people don't believe the government's health care promises.
August 28, 2009 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Obama Health Bill allowa Government Real Time Access to your Bank Accounts. Please go to the following website for vital information. Alex JonesTV' obama's socialized Health Care="no change!!" Warning, you might want to filter some of this out but, it is interesting and frightful.
August 28, 2009 at 7:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
nyp
Ezekiel Emmanuel said exactly what he said. It was not a quote lifted out of context.
In addition, in January, 2009 (This year) he authored a thesis based on a principle called "the complete lives system."
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS01406736...
This is what he had to say as that principle relates to the current health care debate:
"the complete lives system justifies preference to younger
people because of priority to the worst-off rather than
instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system
assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all,
justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely,
DALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled
people as objectively less valuable.
Finally, the complete lives system is least vulnerable to
corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately
from identity documents."
For those who objected he had this to say," Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation
by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious
discrimination; every person lives through diff erent life
stages rather than being a single age.Even if 25-year-olds
receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is
65 years now was previously 25 years.Treating 65-yearolds
differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would
be ageist; treating them differently because they have
already had more life-years is not."
One of the points of the Gazette op ed was that there are people who have influence on the debate. Peter Singer teaches at Princeton University, one of our most hallowed institutions of higher education. You can call it McCarthyism if you like, but the truth is that Professor Singer has a powerful influence on the national debate and policy makers. I am certain that Professor Singer has far more influence on this national debate than you or I or anyone else on these forums.
August 28, 2009 at 8:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
To "allintogether" - I'm afraid you are wrong. I am indeed a liberal kool aid drinking disciple of Obama. However, I try to tread carefully and pick out what is valuable and true from the other side of the aisle. What I see on this site and on the other right-leaning sites I have visited over the past week are some legitimate observations that I try to take to heart. I also see an enormous amount of classic internet/cable TV craziness. Talking about "death panels" or slandering respected oncologists is crazy. Alleging that our elected officials are going to reach into your internet accounts is crazy. The health care crisis is extremely serious. It doesn't deserve to be dragged down into the usual mud pits. I respect concerns about the deficit, about crowding out of private insurance, etc. are completely legitimate. But we really need to take a deep breath and get rid of the tin foil hat stuff.
As for my allegatoins about irresponsible spending, keep in mind that President Clinton left his successor with an honest to God surplus. But the 2001 tax cuts were "unfunded" - there was no mechanism to pay for them. The Medicare drug benefit was "unfunded" - it went straight to the federal deficit. Some of us thought that anyone proposing a trillion-dollar war in Iraq should come up with a funding mechanism to pay for it. Instead, it went to the deficit. The current President took over an economy in serious crisis with record-high deficits. He has had little choice but to follow the overwhelming consensus of mainstream economists and engage in counter-cyclical stimulative spending. But he and the Democratic leadershp have carefully proposed a health reform bill - designed to break the spiral of healt cost inflation - that is "fully funded."
August 28, 2009 at 8:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
Sorry guys - I have to finish my rant.
Unlike the GOP spending measures of the past 8 years, the health care reform bill is designed not to add to the deficit. You may belittle its funding mechanisms. But you have to give your adversaries the Democrats credit for doing what the GOP would not do: provide a way to finance an expenditure that does not add to the deficit.
August 28, 2009 at 8:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
nyp
A couple of additional points. Peter Singer is considered our most respected ethicist. He's not a nazi, nor is a Lyndon Larouche. He is not on the fringes of this debate. He and others like him are at the heart of it. If you can't detect the difference between a Lyndon Larouche and Peter Singer I honestly pity you. Singer has credentials, credibility, and the ear of many policy makers. It was, after all, the NY Times that gave him the platform to make his arguments based on quality of life years. The President himself, in an interview with the NY Times, spoke about his grandmother and his consideration that getting her hip replaced when she also had cancer may not have been the best allocation of financial resources. Barack Obama is a very intelligent man. I don't think he made those observations in a vacuum.
Regarding the cost issue. The Democratic leadership can trumpet the notion that fixing healthcare wouldn't add to the deficit. Well, the CBO says it will cost a trillion.
The issue this all revolves around is trust. Our political leaders are giving us little reason to trust them. A lot of us (and the number is growing) used to believe, as Pete Seeger observed, "I learned that our government must be strong, always right and never wrong." I think we're way past that stage right now.
August 28, 2009 at 8:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
OK, I see I have to return to defending Dr. Emanuel against the slanders. "Netloaer," the quotes you provided are completely, totally, irredeemably taken out of proper context. The 2009 Lancet article you cite was expressly limited to the special case of scarce medical interventions - such as a limited supply of transplant organs or new vaccines where there there are more qualified recipients than there are donors. It says so in the very first sentence of the article. If you have a better set of ethical principles to apply to such unique tragic circumstances I would love to hear them. But don't pretend that a research paper expressly concerned with transplant organs and vaccines has anything to do with the allocation of resources across the length and breadth of the entire American health care system.
Similarly, the quote from the Hastings Center report was, as I noted above, a characterization, not a statement of Dr. Emanuel's own views.
Now that I have taken the time to respond to your post, perhaps you can answer this question: How do all these characterizations of Dr. Emanuel, as some kind of horrible Nazi reconcile with the fact that he is one of the country's most prominent opponents of assisted suicide?
August 28, 2009 at 8:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
netloafer:
1. You are correct that the health care bill may cost as much as a trillion dollars (over a ten year period.) As conservatives rightly point out, there is no free lunch. But unlike the major spending measures of the past administration, the legislation is funded - it isn't simply an addition to the deficit. So the intende effect on the actual deficit is minimal.
2. i agree that Peter Singer is a respected philosopher. But he is also incredibly controversial and notorious in some circles. People somehow tie him to health reform -something he has absolutely nothing to do with - in order to create a sense of guilt by association. It is pretty obvious stuff. By the way, I don't think there is anything remarkable about considering whether a terminally ill 87-year old cancer patient who is close to death should undergo hip replacement surgery. Anyone caring for a patient in such a position who did not ask that question would be incredibly irresponsible.
Almost as irresponsible as the slur on Dr. Emanuel or the allegations about "death panels."
August 28, 2009 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
So does anyone think that had Clinton been in power a 3rd term, or Obama been elected in 2000, the kick in the gut that 9/11 gave us wouldn't have put us into a deficit? Besides, the economy actually grew after the 2001 tax cuts. Here's some of the data:
http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/a...
You like to say "what if" had the bailouts not happened. Well then "what if" taxes hadn't been cut in 2001 to spur the economy? Would we have had the same growth, more, or less?
There's always 2 sets of numbers thrownout - the current administrations (I'm talking all, not just Obama's) - and everyone elses. Nobody had as rosy predictions (such as keeping unemployment under 8%, etc) for the stimulus as the White House did. I saw plenty of predictions for worse unemployment and for the deficit much, much higher than the White House predicted - estimates more in line with what they have recently come out with and acknowledged. And now, the Congressional Budget Office itself says that the health care bill will add to the deficit:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12479...
And there is no "overwhelming concensus among mainstream economists". Quite the opposite.
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/01/25/...
http://www.adsavvy.org/consensus-war-...
In other words, if you believe every single word the government tells you, just because it came from them..... then you do need to lay off the koolaide once in awhile. If you are one of those who like to rant and rave about the lack of WMD's in Iraq, then you need to realize...... being wrong and making mistakes is not the sole property of the Republican party. Nor is deliberately misleading the public.
August 28, 2009 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
A rather ironic thing about the health care debate is that during the campaign Obama criticized McCain's plan to tax employer-provided health benefits. But now, he is considering doing it. As he puts it.... "the argument has evolved"........
Reminds me of going thru the budget line-by-line...... LOL
August 28, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
open eyes - before I respond to your other comments I will openly acknowledge that, as you say, "being wrong and making mistakes is not the sole property of the Republican party. Nor is deliberately misleading the public."
August 28, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
After the Obama administration claimed that there was no disagreement among leading economists about the stimulus plan, the Cato institute printed this full-page ad, signed by over 200 (and another 100 since) leading economists including Nobel laureates and prominent scholars from major universities.
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus0...
A case of deliberately misleading the public....... which we see all too often..... from both sides fo the aisle. But in this particular instance, from the Obama administration.
August 28, 2009 at 9:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
On second thought, I am not going to argue over the 2001 Bush tax cuts, since that's not why I trolled into this site. My concern is heath care - with the tens of millions of our neighbors who have no insurance or inadequate insurance and who face financial ruin with every health crisis.
I understand that the CBO has "scored" one of the competing bills as costing a total of $230 billion over the course of a decade. Not to be flip, but amortized over ten years, that is, as we say in New York, "bupkis."
August 28, 2009 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sorry, I tend to stray. Pertaining to health care, it's hard to put alot of faith in a President who says one thing today when there are multiple instances of him saying exactly the opposite in the past (such as "I never said I support single-payer health care" - yeah right - sorry, got ya on video multiple times saying the opposite). So when he throws out his statements like all the economists agree, etc....... I tend to err on the side of mistrust, and check it out for myself.
How long did it take him to break his promise to McCain on public campaign financing? Pretty slick timing on that one...... gotta hand it to the Chicago machine.......
August 28, 2009 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Check out the actual numbers, nyp, which I've posted multiple times about the 47 million that Obama likes to claim.
10 million non-citizens - 1/2 illegal. Isn't it strange that there is wording in the bill to specifically exclude non-citizens, but the Dems shoot down every attempt to add verification:? What good is that when you can't verify? They claim current verification is good enough...... yeah right.... I've got a bridge in Arizona for sale.....
9 million that make over $75,000/year and choose not to carry insurance. Can someone explain to me why we're trying to fix that?
Half of the number uninsured are available for multiple existing government programs but do not enroll. Maybe we need to work on educating the public about available benefits better.
And the 46 million (not 47 as claimed) include people who are uninsured at any time throughout the year - as the study shows, the average is 4 months. Presumable between jobs.
So lets work on the parts that aren't working - work on covering people better between jobs, educating the public, and taking better care of those who truly cannot afford it - like those making less than $75,000/year. Not that that is a huge income these days, but certainly I would think a person could get insurance if they so chose.
In other words, Obama, once again, quit misleading the public. When you're throwing out your 47 million number, state the truth about it. Either that or start throwing out a different number.
August 28, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
nyp
I guess my wife and I should feel terrible for having no qualms over getting her 88 year old mother with a heart condition a hip replaced rather than putting her on pain medication. How irresponsible of us for actually believing she was worth the "expense." I guess the only thing that assuages the guilt is seeing her work in her garden for the two years since the surgery.
You can try to distance Professor Singer from the current debate till the cows come home, but the truth remains - he is considered to be our most respected/influenitial ethicist. And, he is not alone in his views. He is a very powerful influence on this debate. I assure you that he injected himself into this debate and I also assure you policy makers are listening to him.
There's a difference between discussing assisted suicide and allocation of resources, scarce or otherwise.
August 28, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I'll be your huckleberry and argue the Bush tax cuts, and stimulus and war, where would you like to start?
"So does anyone think that had Clinton been in power a 3rd term, or Obama been elected in 2000, the kick in the gut that 9/11 gave us wouldn't have put us into a deficit?"
I think that we would not be in a trillion plus dollar(or whatever nightmare in Iraq, the thing is, and no one wants to admit it but... we will get kicked in the gut again. Had we spent the money from the war on securing our ports and borders we could have licked homeland security and illegal immigration all in one swoop, its the old castle analogy, our castle is in need of reinforcing, we fortify our stronghold then go looking for blood. We did exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do. American's that cannot control their fear that a few radicals will end us all is to blame for the economy at that time, what a silly herd we were, how many look back on their actions that day with disgust? But back to you question, do I think Obama or Clinton would have done a better job than Bush? I love to see a Rasmussen poll on that one=)
But back to health care"
"Sorry, I tend to stray. Pertaining to health care, it's hard to put alot of faith in a President who says one thing today when there are multiple instances of him saying exactly the opposite in the past"
Seriously? I think it would be almost impossible to find any PERSON that has not reversed themselves at one point or another, we are allowed to change our minds last I looked. You know, learning from our mistakes and all that nonsense.
August 28, 2009 at 10:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Check out the actual numbers, nyp, which I've posted multiple times about the 47 million that Obama likes to claim."
So if costs continue to double every 10 years as they have you think that number might not rise to those proportions? Not doubting some of your sources, some could be very valid, but as costs are going now those numbers could become conservative estimates in the coming years. Something to think about.
August 28, 2009 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oh I will totally agree with you on securing out ports and illegal immigration - one of several areas the Bush admin seriously disappointed me. However, given Clinton/Obamas stance on amnesty for illegals, and Obama slyly trying to give health care to all non-citizens, yes, I don't believe they would have done any better job in the 2 areas you mentioned, and probably worse. I know who I feel safer under.
Actually, there have been polls....
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArtic...
But this was back in July, when Obama's approval was still.....higher than Palin's :)
And I completely disagree that we did exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do. In some ways, probably - but I doubt he wanted us to invade and drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan, nor is he too happy that approx 2/3 of major Al Qaeda leadership has been imprisoned or killed. He probably thought Bush would do what Clinton did - lob a few cruise missiles at him and be done with it. Besides, it doesn't matter what we do - Bin Laden will always claim we played right into his hands. And there are 72 virgins in heaven for all the suicide bombers.
So is that what it is when a politician says one thing and then does the exact opposite? Learning from their mistakes? Especially when they deny the former? I never knew you were such a comedian! Standing applause from me! LOL
Learning from your mistakes usually involves admitting your previous belief - not lying about it.
But back to health care - I have never, ever , ever said that we don't need to fix health care. I have said quite the opposite. However, I am opposed to enough parts of the current bill to not be in favor of it overall. The numbers listed above are from last year - newer numbers are due out soon. So I am sure the numbers will change. However, at this point, until the new ones come out, those are the numbers everyone has to work with, and to point to those numbers and lie about it is dishonest. Or else why do we point to any numbers/studies at all? Let's just all make guesses that sound good for our own view and put it forward as fact.....
Anyway, lets look at WHY costs are doubling every 10 years and try to fix those. One reason is the cost of illegal immigrants to our system, and the current party in power is making sure they shoot down every single amendment trying to add verification for the above. Why?
August 28, 2009 at 10:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oh, and by the way, my "sources, some of which could be very valid" on the above numbers were simply the US census bureau. Not muliple sources - one - the Census, which is currently the most up-to-date government statistics available on the uninsured..
There are multiple articles breaking it down, but they all simply repeat what the Census itself shows, and they all show the same thing. Here are a couple:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/print...
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content...
Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.
As I have repeated often....... let's concentrate on things like that, for starters, so that people don't have 4 month gaps in insurance that could ruin them.
August 28, 2009 at 11:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
It is hard for me to comprehend how our nation will be able to afford the health care program. Listen to this; national new home sales, on a monthly basis. don't even add up to HALF the forclosure activity in California alone in a single month. There are over 400 banks on the questional list. The farming industry is down 38%. Foreclosures are up 72% over last year in the USA. In December congress will probably pass a 15,000 tax credit for everybody that buys a home. 90 day pass due credit cards are at the highest level in 26 years. In spite of all this government at all levels are spending money like there is no tomorrow. The best cure for the national economy is economy. Everyone wants to live at the expense of Uncle Sam. They forget that Uncle Sam wants to live at the expense of everyone.
August 29, 2009 at 2:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
well, this is one of hte better back & forths on healthcare:
1. " I guess my wife and I should feel terrible for having no qualms over getting her 88 year old mother with a heart condition a hip replaced rather than putting her on pain medication." I would never say that. But I trust you carefully considered whether it was the correct thing to do at her age. Had she been completely immobalized and close to dying from other ailments, as the President's grandmother was, you would have had even more difficult choices to make. By the way, I assume she was on Medicare.
2. Back to the point: the cost curve in health care will bankrupt the federal and state governments. The bulk of that projected increase comes form Medicare. Illegals don't get Medicare. No responsible person really alleges that the Medicare problem comes from illegal grannies sneaking onto ventilators.
3. You try to minimize the number of Americans without adequate health insurance by slicing the salami. Remember that that 47 million number comes from before the worst recession since the Depression. And your "salami tactics", if you will excuse the pun, don't rally cut it:
a) "People making $75,000": According to HHS, many of this group are in census in “households” that are groups of low-wage roommates or extended families living together. Their combined incomes may reach $75,000, but they cannot pool their resources to buy an insurance policy to cover the whole group. In any case, try affording health insurance for your family on that salary!
b) "Half are eligible for other programs" Actually, it is 11 million, mostly the poorest of the poor, and their children. They haven't enrolled either because they do not know they are eligible or the feel intimidated by the application process. We currently try to sign them up when they or their kids have a crisis and land in the emergency room. How incredibly wasteful.
c) Temporarily unemployed: It is a very bad thing not to have coverage for your familiy, even it it is only for four months. Very bad. In any event, the HHS estimate is that 28 million people were uninsured for all of 2005 and 2006 and that 18.5 million of them were uninsured for at least four straight years. To me, those numbers are pretty scary.
August 29, 2009 at 6:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
Excellent article..... Local_Hispanic, There are many contributing factors that have caused rising costs of health care. One contributing factor is our national health care is having to fund 10% of the health care costs of Mexico. Immigration can be a good thing. Uncontrolled immigration leads to many problems. Of course I should also point out that uncontrolled government leads to many problems. .....nyp, it is sad when a person thinks that socialism is the answer to our ills. That is the answer proposed by our out of control government.
August 29, 2009 at 7:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
dalelinn: I am sorry that you wish to abolish Medicare, Social Security and the student loan programs. I happen to disagree.
August 29, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
2) Actually, illegal immigrants can and do get Medicare
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/a...
or
http://www.examiner.com/x-20909-Colum...
It all goes back to fraud. Nobody has answered my question as to why the Dems repeatedly shoot down every attempt to add verification.
3) You can call it "salami tactics" all you want, it is what it is. You don't like the numbers, then fine. Make up your own. Heck. lets say it's 150 million and put a good scare into everyone. Or..... lets stick with the data. Besides, you did a pretty good job at trying "salami tactics" yourself in your next few points, didn't you? :) Anyway, as I've said, latest data should be due out soon, and then lets work with that. I am sure, with the recession, the numbers will be worse. But I'll stick with those numbers when they come out. And when I refer to "X number of uninsured CITIZENS", as the President routinely does........ I won't lie and include non-citizens in the number. Or is that "adding some false salami"? (By the way, the numbers were actually down slightly from the year before - so its not a guarantee that the number of uninsured rises steadily each year - but I'm sure with the recession it has - just FYI)
a) Yes, "many" (no definite number given) of the group > $75,000 are groups/extended families. I know people with large families that make quite a bit less than that that pay for health insurance, and it is very tough for them to do. I'm saying lets concentrate more on those who make less.
b) When I said half are eligible, I meant half of those who are citizents - but you are correct, it looks to be closer to a third. And I agree. Let's work better on education.
c) And I totally agreed on this point.
FYI - since you didn't post anything to back up your own "sliced salami", I did it for you :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opi...
August 29, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
nyp and others, it simply amazes me why any body would want to have the government run anything. The post office is broke,medicare will be, ss is or will be, fannie may and freddie mac, they close down hundreds of local car dealerships and say that that will save Chrysler, and as one person pointed out they couldn't even sell whiskey or run a whorehouse at a profit in a state where it is legal.
August 29, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
nyp, just curious - are you formerly from Emporia or the area? Is that why you've come to our little home-town board? You say you "trolled" into this site........ I think we know who is paying you - just curious - how much? Did you answer the craigslist ad?
August 29, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
In the old testament after God delivered the Israelites out of Egypt Aaron gathered everyone's gold and made an idol for them to worship because they grew discontent and feared for their health. This sound very familiar to me. Gathering up everyone's gold and making an idol we can all believe in.
August 29, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
Open eyes:
1. Thanks for linking to that NYTimes essay on the precise number of uninsured. I took some of my information from it.
2. I trolled into this site by googling articles that mentioned Ezekiel Emanuel. Hell, I don't even know what state Emporia is in!
3. Re illegals: the links you posted confirm for me that illegals are not eligible for Medicare. Or Medicaid. They also confirm that there is fraud and that some illegals get benefits they don't deserve. But no responsible person attributes Medicare cost inflation to illegal aliens. However, I will make you a grand bargain: support health care reform, and in exchange elite liberal snobs like me will agree to all the rigorous citizenship verification procedures you request. Sound good?
4. By the way, what is this reference to someone paying me? To a craigslist ad? Do you mean I can get money just for trolling?
to "tbluma": I disagree with you that the government can't run anything. What is your complaint about the Postal Service. To me, it seems to work pretty well. VA Health and Medicare are mor cost-effective and more popular with their clients than the rest of the health care system. As for the auto bailout, it seem like we liberals just can't get a break: when surplus car dealerships are closed because they don't make business sense, we get criticized for being heartless. If we had kept them open, we would have been told that we don't have the cojones to run an efficient business. As for the whorehouse in Nevada, what can I say - that's a red state.
August 29, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
nyp, my complaint is that the PO isn't run at a profit. It works fine.
Oh excuse me for using that nasty word profit, the gov. is only suposed to break even. Hell they can't even do that.
The last time I checked the VA is under more fire than they can stand for not taking care of vets.
And who says that a car dealership in any town is surplus? Who deciced that? How many people did it put out of work? And could you tell me how in the hell it was going to keep Chrysler from going broke by closing stores they didn't own, that were buying cars from them and trying to sell their product.
As for having the balls to run a efficient business, Chrysler was still ordered to take bankrupcy, so closing privately owned businesses didn't do a whole hell of a lot of good.
As for the brothel I can think of 2 reasons the gov. failed.
1 they don't know how to run a bussiness.
2 they don't like anyone to have fun getting screwed and having to pay for it.They like it better when they can screw us by conviscating our hard earned money and calling it taxes and we don't have fun.
August 29, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
1. YY4U: & tbluma: you are correct that the Postal Service does not turn a profit It is not supposed to do so. Like Amtrak, it essentially represents a subsidy paid for by effete urban snobs like me to rural folks in places like, well, Emporia. Were it to be run on the same model as a profit-making enterprise (like Fedex) it would either close its post offices in thousands of places like Emporia so that it could focus on profitable urban markets, or else it would charge Fedex-like rates for each letter. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge the "Emporia tax" that I am forced to pay for the Postal Service and Amtrak. But, perhaps instead of charging more for mailing letters to Mexico, the USPS could perhaps balance its books by making the price of sending mail to and from Emporia a bit closer to break-even.
2. As far as VA Health is concerned, tbluma is simply wrongm and is perhaps confusing VA Health with Walter Reed Army Hospital, which is not part of the VA Health system. VA Health is consistently ranked better in quality and better in cost than the civilian system. That started under President Clinton, who pretty much completely reorganized the system. I acknowledge that, to his great credit, President G.W. Bush continued that process.
August 29, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
To YY4U: I don't begrudge the contributions I am asked to make that subsidize life in places like Emporia. Maintaining rural communities is important to maintaining the character of our country. (Although Ag subsidies may be a completely different story.) And I acknowledge that a portion of what you pay goes towards making New York City the kind of place it is. As citizens, we are all asked to do things that benefit the larger American community. But do think about the fact that the two most well-regarded parts of our patchwork healthcare syswtem - Medicare and VA Health -- are essentially run along Canadian and U.K. lines, respectively.
P.S.: I envy you your low, low crime rate. But I do feel pretty safe in NYC these days. I must reluctantly give two Republican mayors some credit to making our major crime rate the lowest of all major American cities. You can bet a bagel on it.
August 29, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
We are pretty particular about our bagels the way you all are about your ... corn, or something. If you ever get over here, I highly recommend H&H Bagels on 79th Street & Broadway. Best to eat 'em warm, right out of the bag.
August 29, 2009 at 7:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
nyp what in thed hell would someone from ny, much less a liberal from ny, know about Ag subsidies? I suggest you go to the federal register or someplace that gives info that you would beleive and see just how much of the farm bill acually goes to farmers vs what goes to food stamps, school lunches etc.You might be surprised. In fact if you are one of the bleeding heart gov. do everything for me and the rest of the world you'd probably what to up ag sub.NEVER EVER BITCH ABOUT A FARMER OR THOSE IN AG WITH YOUR MOUTH FULL.
But then as I've said in this forum before
It's hard to have a battle of wits with unarmed people.
August 29, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
tbrume - actually, I know pretty much nothing about Ag subsidies. It is pretty hard to anythng in the middle of all this concrete. How much do we actually spend on farm programs? And how much of that goes to food stamps/school lunches. I understand that half the reason for school lunches/food stamps is to prop up farmers. Is that really true? In any event, if you guys chip in for the millions of Americans who don't have adequate health insurance I'll be very happy to give you all the ag subsidies you want.
August 29, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Free lunches and food stamps don't prop up a farmer.
That's like saying welfare and free housing props up the hotel business.
August 30, 2009 at 12:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
". However, given Clinton/Obamas stance on amnesty for illegals"
Whoa wait a minute, who was that untouchable guy in the 80's that gave amnesty out, thus giving medicare, welfare and everything else under the sun to illegals? I think it was an actor, but in effect he actually DID what your accusing Obama of trying to do, and that is giving illegals rights and access to social services legally... so your point is? Nixon was even for universal health care at one point and could not get the votes, oh how the worm turns...
"And I completely disagree that we did exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do. In some ways, probably - but I doubt he wanted us to invade and drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan, nor is he too happy that approx 2/3 of major Al Qaeda leadership has been imprisoned or killed."
Wrong, that is PRECISELY what he wanted, they want to be martyrs, they wanted to disrupt our way of life and destroy our markets(targeting the trade centers?) and instill fear in our populace.They have 100 virgins waiting for them bud=) All we are doing is playing into his game and creating more hatred for us occupying places in the middle east that we should not be. To be honest, Bin Laden already won the mind game, all our greatness and tech, and we can't even reach out and kill one mountain man... it's like the secret service say, "when a person is willing to give their life for a cause it is impossible to stop them".
"So is that what it is when a politician says one thing and then does the exact opposite? Learning from their mistakes? Especially when they deny the former? I never knew you were such a comedian! Standing applause from me! LOL
Learning from your mistakes usually involves admitting your previous belief - not lying about it."
Again lets talk politicians right, left and center that are not guilty of this, give me names, I'm waiting. They are all guilty, not just Obama.
And please stop linking me cnsnews articles, if those count so does msnbc.
August 30, 2009 at 2:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
tbluma,
You would be amazed at the corruption going on with farm subsidies, I know quite a bit about them having lived on one. The waste is enough to sicken even the bleeding hearts.
PS. I would wager if the Post Office followed the private business model and went to a Mon-Fri delivery that it would work as intended, with the advent of the internet I think we can all agree 6 days a week is excessive.
August 30, 2009 at 2:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
I don't want to divert this into a discussion about the post office (of all things,) or offend my KA friends on the subject of ad subsidies. I trolled over here because I care very much about the fact that we spend twice as much per person on health care as any of our competitors, yet millions of our neighbors don't have adequate health insurance, and because the discussion of this vital issue had lately taken a turn into the absolute nuttiness of "death panels" and "deadly doctors".
August 30, 2009 at 6:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
nyp
We can agree that the issue is vital.
We can agree that health care reform is needed. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that close to 100% of Americans agree on this.
I think we can agree that men like Ezekiel Emanuel and Peter Singer have done a service by bringing up the questions we as a nation must answer. The philosophical/moral arguments about where we go together are important, primary in my view. In a world where resources (funding, providers, etc) will inevitably be limited the question of what services will be included and where the human priorities (QALY, for example) are paramount.
We disagree on elements of the current plans.
It does your argument no dignity to call those with whom you disagree "nutty." That only fuels the fires.
In one of your recent posts you mentioned that Ezekiel Emanuel is against assisted suicide. The truth is, his position is a bit more nuanced and allows for exceptions. This is what he said when he was a member of the NIH:
"By establishing a social policy that keeps physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia illegal but recognizes exceptions, we would adopt the correct moral view: the onus of proving that everything had been tried and that the motivation and rationale were convincing would rest on those who wanted to end a life."
He didn't outline what the exceptions would be. They seem to rest on "those who wanted to end a life." That isn't defined either. I guess it could be the patient. It could also be someone else.
We could go on ad infinitum pro-con on Ezekiel Emanuel. I re-read the Hastings piece three times yesterday and still draw the same conclusions. You can say that I'm an unreasoning brute for doing so, but that ad hominem can only go so far.
An interesting link from the NY Times magazine follows:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/mag...
August 30, 2009 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
nyp
One of the assumptions I operate under is that there is a fault line of good and evil resident in all of us. Another is Lord Acton's dictum that "power corupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I've lived long enough to see that even when our intentions are the noblest, we tend to abuse power and set off in dangerous directions. And, I've seen that there is no political administration that is immune.
If you've read the NY Times piece I hope you'll see that there is ample anecdotal evidence that even the noblest among us, in times of testing, succomb to base instincts.
If you are really interested in one Midwesterner's frame of reference I recommend you read the Sermon on the Mount, N.T. Wright's (former Anglican Church canon theologian) "Evil and the Justice of God." For a secular frame of reference I recommend Lance Morrow's "Evil: An Investigation."
August 30, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
netloafer: i will respond to your thoughtful post later tonight.
August 30, 2009 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
netloafer: could you send me a link or something to that NIH piece by Dr. Emanuel that you quote?
August 30, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
YY4U
The Social Security "trust" fund is going broke. The estimates on when incoming revenues are outstipped by outlays has been pushed back to the point where some now say the fund will be broke by the year 2020, much earlier than previous predictions (I think 2040 or 2050 when Al Gore suggested a lock box in the 2000 election).
Medicare has the same problem, with available funds dwindling and government revenues for the program shrinking.
Something needs to be done, for sure.
But the dismantling of Social Security has been far from a one party effort.
The plan was established by FDR as a "trust" fund, not a government operating fund. The plan, as established, would not tax annuities, because they weren't to be considered a government program, but a savings/trust fund. In 1958, a Democratic congress, with the approval of a Republican president (Eisenhower) approved a plan to remove funds from the trust and put them into the general operating budget. The plan was refined under Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat) in 1968 to ensure funding for the Vietnam War and to balance the 1969 budget.Since that time the government has taken "surplus" funds from the program and issued IOU's. The reason for doing this was to hide actual operating budget deficits. The amount of IOU's is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Under Ronald Reagan ( a Republican with a Republican Senate and a Democratic House) benefits were taxed for the first time (50% of benefits became taxable). Under Bill Clinton,with Al Gore's tie breaking vote in the Senate, legislation was approved to tax 85% of benefits.
Our government argues that the persistent raids on Social Security are loans backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Some citizens view it as legalized theft. The truth is probably somewhere between the two. As I see it, the problem is far more bi-partisan.
August 30, 2009 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
nyp
The link follows. It also contains an extensive bibliography. I have ordered one of his books, "The Ends of Life and Liberal Polity." (1991). I have read some significant portions of it (about 60-70 pages)
http://euthanasia.procon.org/viewsour...
I also read an interesting letter in the KC Star this morning about Orregon's state health care plan - http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/healthplan/...
The letter referred to Barbara Wagner , who was diagnosised with terminal cancer. Her physician prescribed a very expensive drug that had the possibility of extending her life ($4K per month). The physician did not know how much time it would give her.
The state sent a form letter denying her physician's request because it did not meet their criteria for the five year or five percent rulr (a five percent survival rate after five years) and also telling her that it would pay for death inducing drugs at a cost of approximately $50.
The state of Oregon did not deny that the letter had been sent, only that it had handled the issue insensitively.
Ms. Wagner did not have the financial wherewithal to buy the physician recommended drugs.
The pharmaceutical firm that produced the drug independently contacted Ms. Wagner and agreed to provide the drugs at no cost. She died within four or five months.
I'm sure there are many who would argue that an additional four or five months (Quality Adjusted Life Years?) wasn't worth the expense and that the state of Oregon had a fiduciary responsibility to its citizens.
I oppose that line of reasoning.
I recall an undergraduate philosophy class exercise I did back in the seventies. The premise was that I (or other students taking the test) were in command of a lifeboat with ten people. Among the ten were a convicted thief, a pregnant mother, a nun, an elderly couple, a college football player, a boilerman from the abandoned ship, etc. There are only enough provisions to sustain eight and get to safety. The question - who gets dumped overboard (the question was framed more delicately). Most students decided the two elderly should go because they had already lived a full life. Some chose the pregnant woman and the nun. Very few chose the linebacker or the boilerman or the thief. I thought the question over and said that all would stay and we would go as far as we could. The graduate assistant give me a D, saying I hadn't complied with instructions. I argued that I had and that as commander I had the right and duty to do what I believed best in the light of the circumstance and morality. I also argued that what would almost certainly happen if we began dumping people overboard was that the thinking would evolve. Available provisions for eight would sooner or later become only enough for six, then for four, etc. I didn't expect the grad assistant who administered the test to change his grade, and he didn't. But I was never prouder of a D in my life.
August 30, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
nyp - " support health care reform, and in exchange elite liberal snobs like me will agree to all the rigorous citizenship verification procedures you request. Sound good?"
Well, we'rve trying..... can't get the Dems to agree to any legislation that adds verification. Maybe you need to get a little louder at the next townhall meeting - they don't seem to be paying any attention to you otherwise.......
goodoleboy, I have never, ever, ever given one single politician in the past a free ride. We can all go back to the beginning of the USA and point out flaws in every single one. However, you did not mention Reagan in your initial post, you mentioned specifically Clinton and Obama. So I specifically mentioned their stance.
And I did say, in some ways, Bin Laden has gotten what he wanted. But he would have gotten that anyway - fear, disruption of markets, etc..... unless you think the correct response was to just completely ignore it like it never happened? Or maybe if Obama had been at the helm, the markets would have shot UP the next day, and everyone would have felt perfectly safe? But I'll bet he never thought we would invade Afghanistan - as he said himself, "it was the safest place in the world for him". Not so safe anymore, he had to escape into Pakistan. And the drones are picking off his top lieutenants there as well. Probably not quite what his grand vision foresaw. I mean, heck, they bombed the trade centers once - not much of a response there. And, as Saddam said..... he never the US would ever actually do anything about his UN violations...... I'm sure Bin Laden thought the same.....
And again, I never ever said in one single place that politicians on both sides of the aisle aren't guilty. (Must be the first post of mine you've ever read, I guess). BUT, we ARE talking about the current one here, and we are talking about what HE has said, denied, and lied about.
Here's a thought........ we don't give any of them a free pass. When they lie - we call them on it. Something the press as a general whole USED to do. Now it depends on who's in power, and thus which network calls them on it, apparently.
August 30, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Continued: - I bring up others in the past in reference to curernt complaints often because people's reactions were often totally different to 2 politicians doing the exact same thing - the usual hypocrisy of agreeing or disagreeing purely because it was either a Dem or Repud that did it. Now overall I was definitely a fan of the Reagan presidency, but that doesn't mean I agreed with everything he did (just as I do with exactly ZERO politicians) - and I guarantee you, I was totally against his amnesty actions. Had this forum existed then and I been blogging you would have heard an earful from me on the subject!
nyp - even the exact numbers from your article don't come close to the 47 million the pres is throwing around. Maybe you should work harder on trying to install a little more accuracy to his claims. It might make his case more believeable and easier to push through if more people get the sense that he is someone they can trust.
August 30, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
Openeyes: according to the essay I cited, "The most frequently cited estimate, 45.7 million in 2007, comes from an annual census survey. That number was down slightly from the year before, but given the financial crisis, it is almost certainly rising again."
I believe the marginally higher number I quoted for the number of uninsured Americans comes from the previous census survey. We still don't know the effect of all the factory/office closings since the recession began.
August 30, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
So....... we all just get to guess at numbers? Man, I've got some stats I can make up out of thin air we can run with........ LOL :)
August 30, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
nyp - you just said it again, yourself: "uninsured AMERICANS"......
INCORRECT, given that over 20% of the number are NOT American citizens. Simply residents, including illegal residents.
To state often and publicly (as the President often does) - that illegal immigrants will NOT be covered, but turn around and include them when quoting statistics is misleading at best, and flat-out lying at worst.
I'm simply asking for people to get their facts straight when they are going to quote statistics.
August 30, 2009 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
To open eyes: the reason for the inexactitude in numbers is because measuring the number of uninsured Americans is not an exact process. People don't fill in forms that identify themselves as uninsured. The agreed-upon best available data come from census bureau surveys. Those surveys vary from year to year
You are correct, as I have said, that some millions of the uninsured are aliens although quantifying that number is even more difficult. You are incorrect that all of those immigrants are here illegally. Many are legal immigrants. The best attempt to determine the number of "undocumented non-citizens" (bureaucratic-speak for illegal aliens) comes from a Kaiser Foundation study. they found that approximately five million of the uninsured are be "undocumented non citizens." On the other hand, given the severity of the recession and the number of plant and office closings, it is reasonable to estimate that at least another five million Americans have lost their insurance since 2007. So I see the numbers as pretty much as wash. And, however you look at it, tens of millions of our fellow citizens have not health insurance for their families. that a national scandal.
August 30, 2009 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
YY4U, your link was to 2005 data. I've posted plenty of links to the latest available.
nyp, NOWHERE did I say that ALL of those immigrants are here illegally, in fact I said exactly the opposite. I have even stated (more than once) that approx 1/2 of the 10 million non-citizens were illegal, exactly as stated in the studies. If you had read earlier posts closer you would have seen exactly those stats already stated. Please refrain from ascribing things to me I did not say.
It is interesting you compare our health care costs & coverage to others, but you fail to mention many of those you compare us to have much longer waits and rationing, and many of them come to our country to seek assistance. Should that be factored in for overall health care quality?
If it is reasonable to estimate that at least another 5 million Americans have lost insurance in the last year, that is not a wash for 10 million non-Americans. 10 million - 5 million = 5 million, not 0. Obama regularly and clearly uses the word CITIZENS, just as you have use the word Americans. I am at a loss for a clearer way to explain it.
And I agree - its an inexact estimate, but we do the best we can. How many of those incomes above $75,000 that were multiple-income households combined are non citizens? Same question for your 28 million without insurance for the entire year - how many of them were citizens? Is the entire 10 million non-citizen count among that group, which would make it 18 million? We don't know, the studies don't say. Once the newest numbers come out I will work with those - I won't overblow them if they don't measure up to my liking, nor will I downplay them if they go the other direction. I'll stick to what facts we have at hand, thank you.
AGAIN.......... I am NOT arguing we don't need health care reform. We DO need to do something to get costs under control. And there are way too many CITIZENS in this country who lack needed continuous/adequate coverage.
WHAT I am saying IS....... quit fudging the numbers.
Or else I'll start bringing up some more WMD evidence in Iraq, based on my OWN "bad intelligence"....... LOL :)
Kansas = KS, not KA - FYI
August 30, 2009 at 9:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
As a result of greed, irresponsibility and illegal behavior of Wall Street, our country has experienced the worst economic decline sinse the great depression. It was announced this week that the National Debt will exceed 23 trillion dollars. Dr Ron Paul said,"our current monetary system is unmanageable. Although he may not always recognize his bondage,modern man lives undera tyranny of numbers--Nicholas Eberstadt.
August 30, 2009 at 10:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
YY4U, I think your thinking of what I am thinking is wrong (ok, now everyone's confused - LOL). Again, let me take it from the top:
Obama consistently claims this health-care plan is NOT for non-citizens, but he continually includes their numbers in his statements and refers to the total number as AMERICAN CITIZENS WITHOUT INSURANCE. Can we at LEAST get the numbers straight on that point????? You said in any given year, 40-50 million "Americans", and that number includes 10 million who ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS. So lets either quote the correct statistic or else lets just drop the whole charade about citizens and admit we want take money from you and I and insure every single person within our borders, whether they are an American citizen, whether they are here legally, or not.
As for the rest......... I guess I must speak a different language than everyone else here, because it seems even when I agree with people their next post tells me I'm incorrect (which would make them incorrect since I agreed with them, etc, etc....)... anyway, my language is English, so that is what I will be continuing to use here as I hope to put this as plainly as I can. I SAID (I'll copy my own posts) "So lets work on the parts that aren't working - work on covering people better between jobs," and later, "As I have repeated often....... let's concentrate on things like that, for starters, so that people don't have 4 month gaps in insurance that could ruin them.", and later on, when nyp talked about being temporarily unemployed/without insurance on point c), my reply was "I totally agree".
I've been told I have a midwestern accent but I never realized it made my printed word that hard to understand........... sorry, this is I think as simple and plain as I can make it. And I only speak English so this will have to do.
Sorry to "yell" so much with all the CAPS, but right now I'm really starting to sympathize more and more with the townhall protestors who yell to be heard. Because it sure seems like nobody listens if you don't.
August 30, 2009 at 11:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Some people believe that if the proposed Health Plan is adopted, it will debauch the currency which will lead to a New World Order. Go to Obama and Rockefeller 1 and 2 on utube.
August 30, 2009 at 11:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
I'll ignore the genuine nuttiness about currency "debauchment". "Open eyes": the study I cited found that there were 5 million "illegals" in the total list of uninsured, not 10 million. We both agree that no one has a precise number. We also agree that tens of millions of American families lack health insurance. Tens of millions more are "underinsured" - their policies stink because they exclude pre-existing condtions, have caps, etc. It is a grave national problem. And it is gettig worse. So far only the President and his allies in Congress have proposed comprehensive, detailed solutions. They deserve praise for their efforts and reasonable constructive criticism, not all this sutff about "death panels."
August 31, 2009 at 7:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
ONE............ LAST............... TIME............... nyp.
The studies show that included in the 46.5 million are 10 million NON-CITIZENS, approx 1/2 of which are illegal immigrants.
10 million x 1/2 = 5 million.
So, for the VERY LAST time......... our studies AGREE. Geesh. I must be the only person here who passed math class.
You ARE aware that people can legally be in this country but still not be citizens, right? I've traveled abroad quit a bit, sometimes on business, and that did not make me a citizen of the country was in.
As for your false claim that so far only the President and his allies in Congress have proposed comprehensive, detailed solutions, this is where you need to open your eyes and quit believeing everything you are told and see for yourself. I have posted links often in other threads detailing many counter proposals, but they are all pretty much shot down. In case you are new to American politics (apparently) - its pretty easy for the party in power to shoot down anything that they don't agree with and then claim only they have proposals. Especially when the majority of the media is siding with them.
Apparently you believe shooting down efforts to add verification for citizenship status to be another "comprehensive, detailed solution".
August 31, 2009 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
It depends on what your definition of "comprehensive, detailed solutions" is. ;)
August 31, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
"Open eyes" - apart from the snark and sarcasm, I appreciate your post, as well as our apparent agreement that of the tens of millions of uninsured and underinsured people in this country, illegal aliens represent only a small fraction.
As for the so-called Republican alternative proposals, I am afraid that none of them are really serious. They simply represent placeholders so that Republican legislators (and others) can defend themselves against the charge that they have no alternatives. I am not aware of any reputable study that concludes that either of the two primary ideas being mentioned (malpractice awards limitis and elimination of state consumer insurance protection regulations) would have any appreciable impact on the number of insured or underinsured Americans. But if someone can point me to such a study, I would be happy to look.
By the way, I am 100% certain that if the President was told that the price of passage of health insurance reform was the "verification for citizenship status" that you mention, he would accept the deal in a heartbeat. But I am afraid that the Party of No will not agree to any compromise with President Obama.
August 31, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
It depends on what your definition of "really serious" and "reputable study" are.
August 31, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
to "seriouslyfolk": maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But I would be happy to look at whatever you consider to be serioius and reputable studies of those two ideas.
In the meantime, here is a link to an essay on the subject by Professoe Uwe Reinhardt, one of the leading experts on health economics.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/200...
August 31, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I don't think he's really serious.
August 31, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm sorry that I had to resort to snark and sarcasm, but apparently plain English just wasn't cutting it. But it is apparent you are firmly entrenched in your beliefs. As evidenced in your earlier remark regarding the "consensus" among leading economists, while ignoring over 300 leading ones who disagree. I can see, that you will, as you are told, believe that anything contrary to Obama's plan is not really serious, disreputable, and that only your view is the comprehensive, detailed one. I've stated more than once there are some good things in this plan - but enough I disagree with that I cannot endorse it in its present form.
seriouslyfolks, you've hit the nail on the head. Twice.
What is truly "not serious" is the Dem claim to want to work out a bi-partisan deal.
You don't have to agree with any of the below (I know you won't) - but from where I sit, the current Dem health care proposals are not the comprehensive/detailed solutions I am looking for, or that I think would be best for this country. We can agree to disagree on points.
http://themoderatevoice.com/43992/the...
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/5...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.ph...
August 31, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
It seems there are about as many studies out there showing tort reform reduces costs as those that say it doesn't. I guess we can each pick the ones we want to agree with and label all the others as "not serious, comprehensive, or detailed". The accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers says about 10 percent of the cost of medical service is attributable to medical malpractice lawsuits.
This may be why we don't see that type of reform in Obama's plan:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/tort-ref...
http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/tort/to...
August 31, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I am 100% certain that we have TWO "Parties of No" in this country. It all depends on which side you agree with. You still haven't explained one good reason why the proposals (which stand by themselves) to add verification are shot down along straight party lines in committee. Looks to me like in this case you got your "Party of No" switched around 180 degrees.
August 31, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Observation - 36 million AMERICANS
August 31, 2009 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
"Open eyes" : I appreciate the links you posted, but they only confirm what I said: the so-called "alternatives" (malpractice caps, eliminating consumer protections and some vouchers) do no really address the crisis. The only statement I could find that even refers to an estimate of how many Americans would get adequate insurance is a reference to the Heritage Foundation, which claims that in half a decade one of the proposals would lead to 22 million Americans gaining some form of insurance protection. Whatever you think of Heritage Foundation, it is hardly an unbiased, neutral source. But even if we accepted this throw-away reference at face value, it represents an admission that, at best, the "alternatives" would lead tens of millions of American families without adequate insurance. That's why I call these proposals "placeholders." They do not seriously address the problem.
To switch gears onto the stimulus: I stand by my statement. There are many, many economists in the United States. Some percentage of them are die-hard libertarians, Hyakiens, suppy-side Lafferites, would-be republican appointees, eccentrics, etc. The economists who signed the petition you mention largely fall within those categories. The consensus of mainstream, reputable economists (that is, from Martin Feldstein on leftwards,) is that a classic Keynsian stimulus (like those adopted by most of our competitor nations) was absolutely necessary in light of the unprecedented GDP drop. (That is not to say that all such economists agreed with the components of the stimulus.) By the way, you should look at Christina Romer's recent remarks about the stimulus plan.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administrat...
August 31, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
to "observation": thank you for stating what appears to me to be the core, unvarnished conservative view of health care reform. Although I disagree with your belief that we should eliminate Medicare, at least you have given us the gift of clarity.
"open eyes": I can't find the actually PriceWaterhouse study mentioned in your links, but it seems clear that the 10% figure applies to all medical liability insurance of any kind. I really do not think you want to have a system in which doctors do not have any liability insurance. In any event, the CBO believes that malpractice costs are a much lower overall number.
http://washingtonindependent.com/5553...
However you feel about this issue, I recommend the following absolutely terrific article from the New Yorker about health care costs in Texas, which has adopted strong malpractice caps for several years. it is well worth reading:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/20...
August 31, 2009 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
You're right, YY4U, every time politicians talk about reforming ANYTHING, SOMEBODY spreads alot of money around to keep things the way they are. Take Tort reform, for instance - check out the chart showing Obama's campaign contributions from the legal industry from the link above.
There is no one single thing that is causing the health care spiral, but a combination of factors. You can pick and choose which ones you like and dislike. You can also label everyone who disagrees with you as biased and everyone who agrees with you as unbiased all you like, even Nobel laureates. You're beginning to sound alot like a "Party of No" yourself, nyp.
So everyone who is worth their salt is a Keynsian, and those who are not are the eccentrics. You even admit it yourself from so-and-so on LEFTwards. As if those are the only ones that matter. Check out what FDR's own Treasury Secretary said in 1939 after 6 years of spending when he told Congress "It is not working", and all they had done was run up a mountain of debt". Check out what is referred to as Japan's "Lost Decade" of overspending.
Most of all, take a good listen to yourself sometime. Everyone and every idea you disagree with gets a label as disreputable.
http://globalparadigms.blogspot.com/2...
As was stated by Hazlitt (someone I'm sure you will label as not worthy) "“But whatever the full explanation of the Keynesian cult,” Hazlitt concluded, “its existence is one of the great intellectual scandals of our age.”
http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/eb...
Hey, we disagree. I don't think everyone on your side of thinking is disreputable, has an agenda, or is intellectually inferior. Just have a different view. But I still think FDR's treasury secretary put it best. Check out how other countries that did NOT apply Keynsian economics recovered from the Great Depression much faster than the US did:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/...
August 31, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
Open_eyes - we have some fundamental disagreement, but I appreciate the opportunity to air them. I will look at the Haslett cites and the others you provide. However, there are a whole bunch of conservatives, including economists like Martin Feldstein and John Taylor whom I consider reputable and not "out there." You are correct that I don't believe Hazlett falls into their category, but perhaps that is just my intolerance. In any event. I will read the link. But do look at the Christine Romer speech and the New Yorker essay.
August 31, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I never said I want a system where doctors have no liability insurance of any kind. Geesh, what thread are people here reading? Nor have I said it is the major player in costs. What I DO say (why do I even bother, it apparently is in an undecipherable language to most) is that there are many causes, of which this is simply one. Most studies DO show that even where tort reform has been enacted, costs continue to increase. You can't fix just one thing and expect it to take care of everything in this case, the costs of rising health care are more complex than that. In other words, if a dam has 10 leaks, plugging 1 or 2 isn't going to keep the water level from dropping.
There was a link to the pdf on the above link for the report.
August 31, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
"Open eyes" - if you agree to the President's healh reform proposals I'll give you malpractice caps and even throw in super strict verification checks to keep out the illegals. Deal?
August 31, 2009 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
LOL nyp - I didn't say those were the only things I agreed and/or disagreed with, but just the points that have been brought up. How about this - Lets throw in strict verification checks. Period. And THEN we can do some give-and-take on ALL the rest and meet somewhere in the middle. Deal? :)
But....... we're wasting our time (at least until the next election), because the Dems are dead-set against added verification.
When you are the majority, (especially a super-majority), its easy to sit back and label everything from the other party as not worthy and throw around labels like "Party of No". It happens all the time, and from both sides.
You DO remember back awhile, when anyone against the Iraq war was the "Party of No", right?
August 31, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gabby (anonymous) says...
nyp.
I think you're not just an "interested" participant on here.
So, who do you really represent?
August 31, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
nyp
I hope you're not saying that someone like F.A, Hayek is on the fringe of economic thought. Have you read either "The Road to Serfdom" or "The Fatal Conceit?"
Have you read Daniel Pipes' "Property and Freedom?"
This is what Milton Friedman (far from being on the fringe) had to say about Hayek's work on collectivism (the thought of Keynes) vs individualism, and on the idea/concept that collectivism/collective thought/socialism inevitably lead to socialsm and the loss of individual freedom:
"As Hayek so persuasively demonstrates, these values (individual liberty) require an individualistic society. They can only be achieved in a liberal order in which government activity is limited primarily to establishing the framework within which individuals are free to pursue their own objectives. The free market is the only mechanism that has ever been discovered for achieving participatory democracy."
This is one of the things Hayek himself had to say about the matter:
"Unfortunately, the relation bewtween the ends and the means remains widely misunderstood. Many of those who profess the most individualistic objectives support collectivist means without recognizing the contradiction."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that anyone who disagrees with your point of view or points along the way to your point of view is of ill repute as opposed to reputable/respected because they agree with your views? If so, this is a very common theme of collectivists. Anyone who disagrees with them is viewed as an enemy, subject to state or social sanction.
While Hayek never addressed the issue of health insurance in either of the works I cited, he did address on familiar conservative theme that I think was best expressed by G.K. Chesteron who once said something like, "Before you tear down the fence (i.e. traditional morality, free market economics), you'd better figure out why the fence had been erected in the first place."
This was a concept Keynes objected to. He hated traditional morals and morality and considered himself an "immoralist." In his thinking it was better to manage the market order on the ground that in the long run we are all dead (it doesn't matter what long range damage we do; it is the present moment alone, the short run - consisting of public opinion, demands, votes, etc that counts (from the Fatal Conceit),
If that is considered mainstream thought I have to say I'll stick with the lunatic fringe.
August 31, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
nyp
One of the classic arguments of collectivists is that the capitalist oppresses the worker. From that point the rallying cry became "workers of the world unite." The Kulaks in the Ukraine believed that and united. The end result was that they were shipped to the gulags and given lobotomies when they failed to meet state quotas.
When many greedy capitalist economists observed that workers in capitalist systems, while capitalism had its gaps and problems, workers in capitalist, free market economies fared far better than those in the worker's paradise. The collectivists, unable to think with originality, said that the only reason that was true was because the greedy capitalists were now bribing the workers.
Circular reasoning was another amusing feature of collectivism.
August 31, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
The health care program will lead to excessive inflation and will do it in a way that not one in a million will be able to diagnose. Google Bernanke love's Keynes Keynes love's Lenin. Most folks want economy and guess what, they will pay any price to get it.
August 31, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
to "gabby": I am interested in why you believe I have some hidden agenda and represent some nefarious unseen interest. Could it instead simply be that I've engaged with some serious critics in a useful conversation? Isn't that what the intenet is supposed to be about?
To "openeyes": F.A, Hayek is very important in the history of economic thought, but, as Keynes predicted, he essentially lies on the fringe since he has been more demonstrably incorrect than almost any other major economist. Austrian business cycle theory has been largely set aside by modern economics. The thesis of "Road to Serfdom" is that the European or Canadian style social democracy that was being established at the time that book was written would inevitably lead to totalitarianism. History has disproved that. Most people would disagree with his view that the sole role of the state is to maintain a legal system for crime control and dispute resolution. And God knows what he would think of the Ag subsidies you guys have out in Kansas.
As for Hazeltt, the subject of your previous post, I consider him outside the mainstream because he believed unions should be made illegal, the minimum wage abolished, and anti-trust laws eliminated.
August 31, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that's all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
~ The Who
August 31, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
BTW, you were referring to netloafer, not me in most of your post.
And, as I have previously posted, Keynsian theories also have been disproven by history time and time again.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/...
I'll repost FDR's treasury secretaries statement to Congress in 1939, after years of spending:
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"*
Meanwhile, other countries who turned their back on Keynsian policies and adopted reduced spending and cutting deficits, such as Australia and Britain, recovered from the Depression faster than the US. Japan went the Keynsian route during the 90's and now refer to it as "The Lost Decade".
But here we are again. We ignore history, anyone who doesn't agree with huge deficit spending is labeled "fringe" and "demonstrable incorrect", all the while ignoring what each case of what the opposite has wrought.
What else has history disproved? Doesn't matter. We seem to never learn from our mistakes, nor those of others.
August 31, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
to "open eyes" -- good to see we agree on rock music.
If you have a link to that quote from FDR's Treasury Secretary (Morganthau, I believe) I would like to see it.
August 31, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
From the link above, for those who choose not to read:
In Britain, economic policy during the Great Depression saw the application of a full-scale classical approach. A policy of balancing the budget and the containment of expenditure was adopted. By 1933, the budget had been balanced and it was from 1933 onwards that Britain emerged from the downturn of the previous four years........It is worth noting that it was balancing the budget that was seen to have made the all-important difference. In rejecting deficit financing during his budget speech of 1933, the British Chancellor Neville Chamberlain made this explicit statement:
"We owe our freedom from that fear largely to the fact that we have balanced our budget."
The same story could be told about Australia, where the Scullin Labor government made the decision in adopting the “Premiers’ Plan” which sought a cut in public spending, a return to budget surplus and cuts to wages. In the light of later Keynesian theory, nothing would have been seen as less likely to have achieved a return to prosperity, but a return to prosperity was most assuredly the result.......
Australia was amongst the first countries to recover from the Great Depression. The trough was reached in 1932 and from then on there was continuous improvement year by year.
Contrast the English and Australian experience with the United States. Roosevelt’s New Deal applied a “Keynesian” prescription before Keynes had so much as published a word. From 1933 onwards, public works, increased public spending and deficit financing were the essence of economic policy. And with what results?
Continued....
August 31, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The Postwar Recovery
By the time the war came to an end, much of the economics profession had been converted to Keynesian theory. Although there was no evidence that the theory would actually work in a peacetime economy, a high proportion of economists advocated a continuation of the deficits and high levels of public spending that had prevailed during the war.
The major debate took place in the United States. Only four years before, it was pointed out, the American economy had been in deep recession. Millions of its men and women, who had served overseas or in war-related industries, were returning to the civilian economy in which the resumption of recession seemed a genuine possibility.
Yet Harry Truman resisted the pressure to provide a fiscal stimulus to the American economy. In his State of the Union address in January 1946, the American President made his policy direction clear:
"It is good to move toward a balanced budget and a start on the retirement of the debt at a time when demand for goods is strong and the business outlook is good. These conditions prevail today."
Truman, in refusing to apply a Keynesian stimulus, touched off the most sustained period of economic growth in American and world history.
The first serious attempt to use Keynesian theory to deal with a major downturn did not occur until the late 1960s and early 1970s. Some have argued that President Kennedy had applied a Keynesian approach to end the mild recession of the early 1960s, but he had used tax cuts to stimulate growth. As with the Reagan tax cuts two decades later, this too was not a Keynesian approach. Keynesian economics is about increased levels of public spending.
The result was what has gone down in history as the “stagflation” of the 1970s. It was a period that pulled economies into a downward spiral, combining high inflation with low growth, the very outcome any classical economist would have foretold. It took well over a decade to return the world’s economies to high and sustained rates of non-inflationary growth.
Continued....
August 31, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The Japanese Recovery Program
The most recent large-scale example of an attempt to use a Keynesian deficit-financed spending program to restore growth to a depressed economy occurred in Japan during the 1990s. The end of the 1980s had seen brief recessions across the world from which most economies rapidly recovered.
Only Japan attempted to hasten recovery with a series of very large spending packages. Far from achieving recovery, this expenditure drove the Japanese economy into such deep recession that even today its economy, at one time the envy of the world, remains subdued. Yet, oddly, because economic theory continues to insist that the spending could only have been a positive, the example of the Japanese disaster is a lesson no one has been prepared to absorb.
......Whatever may have been the case then, it ought to be the textbook case now for why all such forms of economic stimulus should be avoided at all costs. Because, say what you will about the causes of the Japanese downturn and the failure to recover, all major economies experienced the same deep recession at the start of the 1990s, but only the Japanese economy has never fully recovered its previous strength.....
August 31, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
http://www.businessandmedia.org/artic...
But, lest you think I only pulled it from some far-right websites, just google "Morganthau" and "We have tried spending money" together to verify that he actually said it in a speech to Congress in 1939. Plenty of sources, take your pick.
August 31, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
"open eyes" - thanks for the cites.
Morganthau, a non-Keynsian, was wrong. Good thing FDR disregarded his advice and took that of Marriner Eccles.
August 31, 2009 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
LOLOLOLOL, nyp.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding :)
It doesn't matter if it was Donald Duck who stood before Congress - after that many years, while other economies were well on their way to mending, history is what it is, no matter who tries to rewrite it or how many times.
Or, all the people were wrong. The emperor really DID strut around in a fine new suit :)
August 31, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
open eyes: In reality, I think Morganthau's statement was made in his diary, not in Congressional testimony.
August 31, 2009 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I am saying, look at the evidence throughout history every time an economy has tried to spend its way out of a recession/depression by piling up massive deficits. And look at other economies in the same periods who tried different approaches. Nobody can ever be 100% certain when playing "what if", but we look at history (some of us, anyway) and try to use that knowledge as a guide going forward.
BTW, I didn't say "Europe" (Australia and Japan aren't part of Europe) - I merely listed those 3 examples, as given in the article. Anyone remember the economic growth of the 90's? I've seen quite a few people on here bragging about how Clinton (and the GOP congress) got us to a budget surplus. Japan took the opposite track and look what happened. Is it not prudent to look at the two and try to draw some conclusions? Or are you trying to tell me we should taken Japan's approach to ending the recession of the early 90's? Is that what you are saying?
nyp - There are claims on both sides - was it diary only, or not? I simply go on the majority of the available data, which states that he appeared before the House Ways and Means Committee on May 9, 1939 and uttered those words. Perhaps he did both? Whether people have or are trying to rewrite history is out of my hands. I'm sure in a few years you won't be able to find anywhere that Obama once said he believed in a single-payer health care system. Those of us who save the evidence/copies where he did (since he denies it now) will one day be branded as "fringe lunatics", I'm sure, just for an example.
August 31, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
nyp
You clearly have not read Hayek.
This is what he said in the preface to the 1956 edition:
"But those who argue that this has disproved the thesis of "The Road to Serfdom" have really missed one of its main points: that the most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration of the character of the people."
This is what he said in his preface to the 1976 edition:
"It has frequently alleged that I have contended that any movement in the direction of socialism is bound to lead to totalitarianism. Even though this danger exists, this is not what the book says. What it contains is a warning that unless we mend the principles of our policy, some very unpleasant consequences will follow which most of those who advocate these policies do not want."
The work of Hayek has hardly been "discredited."
There are credible economists who now worry about the danger posed by the large scale government intervention in the U.S., including policies such as compensation czars, government ownership of private industry, huge capital injections into banks, etc. One of the reasons a large body of economists have raised the alarm is because current monetary, economic policy hasn't adequately considered the possible downstream effects (i.e - less individual liberty, more and more state intervention/power, massive debt loads passed to future generations).
Hayek closed "The Road to Serfdom" with these words:
"It is more important to clear away the obstacles with which human folly has ecumbered our path and to release the creative energy of individuals than to devise further machinery for "guiding" and "directing" them - to create conditions favorable to progress rather than to "plan progress."
"The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century."
My view is that we would be wise to consider Hayek's words. If you can argue that a policy of "freedom for the individual" is not good or "progressive," be my guest.
August 31, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm not talking about the CAUSES of the depression. Greed is usually at the root of every evil, sooner or later :(. Also, if you will read closer, the text refers to PEACE-time recessions/depressions. Everyone knows that war usually boosts economies - as you say, it ends large numbers of human lives, takes many unemployed out of the market and puts them to work, large factory orders, etc, which need constant replenishment......... quite a difference from taking taxpayer money to pay a bunch of people to dig a whole one day and pay them to fill it back up the next.
The only instances I'm aware of people in Britain being banned from complaining in public was Churchill being banned from the BBC for speaking out against appeasement of Germany. Can you provide some links to your Britain assessment?
August 31, 2009 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
you guys lost me when you started to blame the current crash on my fellow New Yorkers! Actually, it was the private equity guys in Greenwich. Blame Connecticut!
Anyway, I trolled over herre not to have a discussion about Hayeck, Morganthau, the Great Depression, the Stimulus, etc., but because I care deeply about the millions of our fellow citizens who lack adequate health insurance and because I was deeply offended by the horrible and untrue things being said about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. This has been an enlightening discussion, but I am parachuting out.
August 31, 2009 at 7:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Hayek did not take a position against social welfare and state intervention - "Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamaties nor the effects to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance - where, in short we deal with genuinely insurable risks - the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is strong "
He did warn against the growth of government and its resultant effect on individual liberty and creativity.
August 31, 2009 at 8:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
YY4U, I didn't see anywhere in your post where British citizens were banned from complaining in public in the 30's, other than I was already aware of Churchill & the BBC.
I guess I had better explain myself further - I never implied in the least, or meant to imply in any way, that the recoveries I spoke about earlier in the article had anything whatsoever to do with the countries mentioned in your link. Nor that we should have followed any of those paths. I was merely pointing out (as displayed in the chart in the article) - the comparisons throughout the 30's of unemployment in the US, Austrailia, and Britain, and their differing economic policies at the time. And Japan's differing policy in the '90's. NEVER meant to imply that war was in any way or ever the preferred route out of a recession (although it often turns out to be, sadly).
August 31, 2009 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well nyp, that is your choice, and to echo YY4U, no meanness was intended, only spirited debate. However, as often, we tend to stray, but in a way, they are all related. We've been given rosy (or, by comparison, not-nearly-so-dire) predictions of the results of the Obama spending spree that were much more optimistic than those "right-wing fringe economists". Now that where we currently are is much more in line with what those nutjobs predicted, (remember this was to PREVENT unemployment from going above 8%) and the admin is lowering their deficit & recovery projections to also be more in line with what the "fringe economists outside the mainstream" have predicted, I think those who aren't yet hypnotized will tend to look at the rosy predictions of the admin's health care proposals vs those of those "discredited economists" and take pause. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
August 31, 2009 at 10:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
i didin't take offense as a New Yorker. We dish it out pretty thick outselves. But my concern is with health care financing, which I view as (without exageration) a moral scandal and a slow-motion economic catastrophe. The general economic stuff I will leave to you devotees of what is often called the "freshwater school" of economics. I do suggest, since you guys have pretty open minds and have been willing to bear my liberal abuse, that you take a look at Christine Romer's speech last month analyzing the progress of the stimulus package. She is necessarily biased, but it is an analysis worth having.
September 1, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Another take on Romer:
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com...
Australia had none of Britains "luxuries":
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03...
But, yes, getting off the gold standard seems to have been instrumental in the recovery of economies around the world. Perhaps, (as is often the case), the correct answer lies somewhere in between the two extremes?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
September 1, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, no 2 economies are exactly alike, and economics is at best fuzzy math over the broad picture. Either way you look at it, there are economies that recovered by spending their way out of it, and economies that recovered by tightening the belt, and economies that recovered by various combinations of the two. All economies eventually recover. It seems however that history teaches us that spending like there is no tomorrow generally lengthens the recovery period.
The American economy actually shrank by a greater percentage during the recession after WWI then it did in the great depression, but we recovered much faster by basically doing nothing. Europe, on the other hand, was hit much harder (of course it was also in much worse shape due to the war).
I'm not arguing that building infrastructure is a waste of money. However, many of our current pork projects are. It's funny how building "Bridges to Nowhere" were such a waste only a year ago, now they're all the rage. :) Again, maybe we need to do something like "go thru the budget line-by-line and cut out wasteful spending where prudent" (now where in the world did I hear that????) - and spend where it makes sense, not just take every piece of pork anyone feels like throwing in and call it "stimulus".
September 1, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sometime this year, we taxpayers may again receive an Economic Stimulus payment. This is a very exciting new program. I will explain it using the Q and A format:
Q. What is an Economic Stimulus payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the
US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:
* If you spend the stimulus money at Wal-Mart, the money will go to China
* If you spend it on gasoline, your money will go to the Arabs.
* If you purchase a computer, it will go to India .
* If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala .
* If you buy a car, it will go to Japan.
* If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan.
* If you pay your credit cards off, or buy stock, it will go to management bonuses and they will hide it offshore.
Instead, keep the money in America by:
1 spending it at yard sales, or
2 going to ball games, or
3 spending it on prostitutes, or
4 beer or
5 tattoos.
(These are the only American businesses still operating in the US .)
I'm going to go to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute that I met at a yard sale and we're going to drink beer all day!
:-)
September 1, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
What kind of ball game?
September 1, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, it would have to be basketball, since that's an American game..... and a micro-brew, I guess. Aren't all the major beer companies foreign-owned?
September 1, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Isn't the U.S. foreign-owned?
September 1, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"It's funny how building "Bridges to Nowhere" were such a waste only a year ago, now they're all the rage. :) "
I have seen you mention this more than a few times in other articles, there is a big difference between repairing bridges that actually made sense in the first place, and building one to service a select few people. And if I remember right, did you not chide Obama earlier for being for something earlier where he said one thing at an earlier time, then changed his mind? Something about the circumstances surrounding that "Bridges to Nowhere" seem familiar to that very rhetoric....
"Well, no 2 economies are exactly alike, and economics is at best fuzzy math over the broad picture. Either way you look at it, there are economies that recovered by spending their way out of it, and economies that recovered by tightening the belt, and economies that recovered by various combinations of the two. All economies eventually recover. It seems however that history teaches us that spending like there is no tomorrow generally lengthens the recovery period."
I can agree with this, but the problem is that until history has run its course, no one knows and it's all opinion and guesswork. So who is to say that what was done is wrong until it has ran its course? I read a lot of critics about the stimulus bill that was passed that say it failed, even though most of the stimulus has not even been released. I do however agree with YY4U, the infrastructure portion of this bill is warranted and justified in general, I am sure there will be some stupid project that gets ridiculed, but on the whole our infrastructure in America is in need of repair and investing in it is not a bad venture.
September 1, 2009 at 2:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
http://www.24thstate.com/2009/03/miss...
Oh, there's lots more than just a stupid project here and there to get ridiculed :).
September 1, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nyp (anonymous) says...
ah, I popped back into this just long enought to see "open eyes" link to an essay by Richard Posner criticizing Christina Romer's analysis of the effect of the Stimulus Package. Unfortunately, Judge Posner has bollixed up his analysis, and Professor Menses Chinn has explained:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2...
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2...
September 1, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey's comments to NPR:
Ms. BINDER: It raises a whole host of questions about how efficiently money will be spent, how effectively money will be spent, how quickly money can be spent, just because there's no set process here for determining how the money will get out the door to create jobs or, as the president said, to save jobs.
Representative DAVID OBEY (Democrat, Wisconsin): We simply made a decision, which took about three seconds, not to have earmarks in the bill.
SEABROOK: This is David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He helped write this bill, and he does not like being asked about earmarks.
Rep. OBEY: And with all due respect, that's the least important question facing us on putting together this package.
SEABROOK: Does that mean, though, that Congress will have less control and less, in fact, ability to say you spent it the way we wanted you to spend it and…
Rep. OBEY: Of course it does, of course it does. So what? This is an emergency, and so with all due respect, we've got to simply find a way to get this done as fast as possible and as well as possible, and that's what we're doing.
SEABROOK: Aren't there a thousand ways that this money could be spent badly, though?
Rep. OBEY: There are a thousand ways it can be spent badly. There are a thousand ways it can be spent well. So what's new?
SEABROOK: What's new is that you're not telling them how to spend it as much as you usually do.
Rep. OBEY: So what?
SEABROOK: Won't you be responsible when it's spent badly, then?
Rep. OBEY: No, the person who spends the money badly will be responsible
===========================
Now, I seem to remember a TARP bill being rushed out the door, without enough oversight, and how up in arms everyone got over that once it was found out how the money was being spent. I seem to remember quite a scathing post from you, goodoleboy, to exactly that effect. Your exact words were:
"In Bush's first address I was simply amazed his solution was to pour money on the fire as fast as possible. The mere idiocy of such an idea was simply unfathomable , and a tribute to just how inept he is. Thank god for the Democrats AND Republicans alike that thought it wise to sit down and take some time to work on the solution instead of just rushing it through."
I guess I'm justified to say something, like, Now, I am sure there will be some TARP money spent stupidly that gets ridiculed, but on the whole our banking system in America was in need of repair and investing in it was not a bad venture.
nyp - And, I'm sure, any time now, we'll have an article from another side showing where Chinn "bollixed" up his analysis, then someone claiming that is incorrect, then someone claiming that is incorrect, etc. and so on to infinity. (sigh). "Bollixed" seems to be in the eye of the beholder........
September 1, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yeah, but if we have Tort reform, you might only get $1 million instead of $3 million for spilling it on yourself :)
I just wish the Party of No (Dem) would quit saying NO to every proposal the other Party of No (Repubs) come up with and the Party of No (Repubs) would quit saying NO to everything the other Party Of No (Dems) come up with, and we could get something done. Maybe we need to waterboard 1/2 of them with 150 degree coffee and the other half with piping hot coffee until they agree to play nice :)
September 1, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Just be careful with your questioning. If Holder has his way you won't even be able to threaten to spill hot coffee on them (even if there was never any intent to actually do it). Once the word gets out, every terrorist in the world will be turning themselves in to the CIA for the free coffee :)
September 1, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Did I say I was %100 behind the Recovery Act? Nope! I just claim that the infastructure portion of it is a good thing, and that anyone that claims it has already failed needs to head out to Vegas with me=) It's just impossible to make that call until it has run it's course.
September 2, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And I agree, goodoleboy - I said myself we need to "spend where it makes sense".
I'm just pointing out that I'm against wasteful spending. Period. Especially when our deficit is already heading for the sky. And rushing things thru. Regardless of whether it was done by a Dem or a Republican.
Maybe in light of your views you should have taken it a little easier on ol' Georgie boy. After all, there were "portions" of TARP that did good things, right? ;-)
Just needlin' ya. And unlike crack, I really do mean it all in good fun :) After all, for me, at my level, looking down on everyone from an ivory tower means standing on a bar of Ivory Soap - LOL
September 2, 2009 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
History will judge Georgie, my rants are what they are, my opinion. Read them, ignore them, hate me, like me, up to you=) I can admit when I am wrong, and I could be wrong about the TARP bill from what some economists are saying now, either way, Bush and Obama share the credit or the blame in that one in my eyes. You could be wrong about the stimulus, time will tell.
September 3, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )