The Tea Party - Page 44 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-20-2010, 05:29 PM   #646
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
I was 8 goddamn years old at the time and I know that McVeigh was motivated by the anti government ideology of any number of militias who espouse the same and praised and supported him.

Stop with the b.s. It is getting old.


That is a response to my pointing out record investigations of death threats by the independent, nonpartisan secret service? I am confused.

Obama is not instructing them to investigate this shit to take advantage of the fact that some whackos are trying to kill him to gain sympathy with voters.

The guys with the training, the guns and The Escalades are a serious bunch and they don't roll with the political climate by any means.

Again, use your common sense. There has been an extreme surge in anti government, white supremacist violence, the same kind that influenced Oklahoma City. Only now it is directed in many ways at the President.

Other people here post non sense, and I have seen enough of it over time!

You have the record that I have seen for the most amount of non sense in the shortest period of time right now.
Maybe the caustic response to a fair question I've ever seen on this forum.

I for one will no longer waste my right-wing-white-supremacist hate engaging this poster.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 05:36 PM   #647
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:48 AM
People get riled up and post things

and some take the time to re-evaluate what they post

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
That was over the line a bit, my apologies!
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 08:16 PM   #648
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post

and some take the time to re-evaluate what they post

And some people actually respond to questions rather than run and hide for a while till things calm down again.



(Not you, deep.)
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 08:30 PM   #649
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:48 AM
(sometimes it is me)

one might think the best answer to someone, is to ignore them
(this is not directed at anyone specific)

none of us are compelled to answer any question,
I do agree this place works best when we can get an exchange of opinions

some people seem to be driven by a desire for a certain response that may not be forth coming,

often times I consider my unanswered questions, to be:

a. a surrender to my argument
b. the person was too busy to respond
c. my question was so profound, the person is stupefied to silence
d. the person did not see it

or who knows?

any of those could be correct, none of them probably are.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 10:29 PM   #650
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Yes, and Richardson was the only border state guy in the primary, so he knew what he was talking about on the issue. Same with McCain on the Republican side, he, very admirably, has never given up on his sane stance on immigration.
Indeed (yes, helps to have some expertise in your field, doesn't it?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Kucinich is a smart guy, I admire him personally, though he is well to the left of my views. Given the fact that the public had long since realized that Bush was bullshitting on the Iraq war by 2008, Kucinich was a victim, not of his message, which was almost single handedly outrage over the fact that Romney, McCain and Rudy wanted to continue it, but of the sad way we choose candidates to hold the highest office in the world.
Sad, but true. It really made me mad when he wasn't allowed to join in the primary debates. I'm sorry, is he running? Yes? Then let him be part of the discussion, let him have his platform just like everyone else.

He likely still would've been too far left for some people in the end, though, anyway *Sigh*.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
You are 100% right, Obama should keep reaching out and his doing so is certainly part of an organized chaos type method. He can say "hey, look at all my good faith efforts, and look at the Republicans stamping their feet, taking their ball and going home after saying NO to all of them."
Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. If he can get as many voters from (almost) all areas of the political spectrum on his side, he can use that to his advantage the next time a politician tries to shut him down ("I've got the public on my side. We work for the public. We should listen to them; if you don't want to, then you won't be working here next year").

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
As for going Bush-like as some suggest, I think they are suggesting TACTICS, not ideological extremes. Bush used reconciliation plenty, passed things with nowhere near 60 as he never came close to having 60 Republicans. I mean, Obama gets tagged as a dictator for passing something with, God forbid, a majority of Congress much bigger than Bush ever had and just short of 60 votes in the Senate. The 'liberal" media has gone along with this- remember them asking Obama and his advisers if they were concerned about going forward without 60 votes, or without any Republican support? Sickening. They never called Bush out for trying to eliminate the entire filibuster over a couple of neanderthal judges that Scott Brown type Republicans were repulsed by.
The media's dropped the ball on a lot of things over the years. This is why comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert became more trusted in recent years, 'cause they were the only ones telling us what was actually going on! Ah, what an insane world we live in... If Walter Cronkite were around today, he wouldn't have let half this crap go unnoticed.

I know they're suggesting tactics, not ideology. But again, while I agree in some respects, at the same time I'd argue that it would come off a bit hypocritical of the left to ask Obama to do the very thing they couldn't stand seeing Bush do. I just personally want Obama to put legislation through because he genuinely thinks it's what's best for the country, not because he's trying to please one group of people or another. Like I said before, if a president makes a law and there's a logical, good reason behind it, whether I personally agree with the law or not, I'll respect the decision because of the intelligence involved in making it.

I realize my line of thinking is hopelessly idealistic, though. Ah, well. I'm gonna cling to it anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Speaking of Scott Brown, listening to the media and the cowardly lion Democrats, you would think that his victory had ushered in a Republican majority of 41 votes.
Oh, yeah, I know. Me thinks some people need to look up the definition of the word "majority".

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Obama has already gone Bush, and rightfully so, to pass the stimulus and health care. I support that wholeheartedly, and could care less that not a single Republican supported it. Because Republicans don't support it does not make it an extreme leftist bill. In fact, health care reform was loaded with Republican ideas.
Exactly! And a few sound ones at that, ones that people in the middle and on the left could look at and go, "Yeah, that makes sense, I can support that".

I really don't understand what constitutes "far left" anymore. According to some people, I'd be considered "far left" because I support gay rights or health care reform or whatever...and I don't consider myself far left at all. I definitely lean to the left on social issues especially, but I still see myself as fairly middle-of-the-road. And besides that, I don't pick my political views based on left vs. right, I pick my views based on what makes sense/is fair versus what doesn't make sense/isn't fair to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
What I commended Obama for doing was not moving left on trade and health care to match Hillary in the primaries, and I continue to commend him for passing moderate health and student loan reforms while proposing a modest climate change bill(not a carbon tax). Contrast that to Bush who never won anywhere near as many popular or electoral votes as Obama coming in in 2005 after squeaking to re election and proposing to get rid of Social Security. That was after he boasted of having a ton of "political capital" on election night. The media nodded. When Obama told Eric Cantor that he was getting his way on the Making Work Pay tax cut because he won the election, Cantor cried "dictator" and the media went and ran with it.
Yeah. I think if there's one thing the country can definitely agree on, irregardless of which party you support, it's that the media, for the most part, sucks in terms of covering politics .

Bush won in 2004 because of a few determined "values voters" and the fact that we were in the midst of a war and generally we don't change presidents during a war situation. That's all (that and the fact that a lot of people weren't that enthused about Kerry. I voted for Kerry, but I know others weren't all that impressed by him).

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Either way, Katrina and Iraq did not take down the Bush Presidency, they just put the final nail in a Presidency that had already been BADLY wounded by over reaching on Social Security!
Yes. I think it's sad it had to take some people until his second term, until Katrina, to wake up and realize, "Whoa, this guy really sucks at his job!", but eh, that be the playing hand we got, I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Yes, great discussion on (almost) everyone's account!

Angela, see you around, look forward to your posts!
Thanks . Same to you!

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 04-21-2010, 01:20 AM   #651
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post

I just personally want Obama to put legislation through because he genuinely thinks it's what's best for the country, not because he's trying to please one group of people or another. Like I said before, if a president makes a law and there's a logical, good reason behind it, whether I personally agree with the law or not, I'll respect the decision because of the intelligence involved in making it.
Absolutely, and I think Obama has done that.

Health care, he has bent over backwards to get advice from all sides as to what works best, and it shows in the bill. With the majority the Dems had, they could have easily said "we're just going to do it our way, no outside, expert input needed, thank you." Instead, Obama selected Peter Orszag, the foremost health economist in the country, as his OMB director.

Obama stuck to his guns, even though it was not resonating with the people(overall perception, I realize health care reform provisions have majority support).

In this way, he went with the "sound public policy/do what's best for the country" view while others questioned the very premise of sound public policy being a legitimate justification for acting given the popular masses screaming for Scott Brown.


Quote:
That's all (that and the fact that a lot of people weren't that enthused about Kerry. I voted for Kerry, but I know others weren't all that impressed by him).
Believe me, I understand.

My Dad did a good amount of work for Kerry's last competitive Senate campaign, against a popular rising Republican star of the time, Bill Weld who was Governor of MA at the time.

Kerry is most certainly, without a doubt:

1.)An ACQUIRED TASTE- the first few times I met him, even though I was in elementary school, he came across as someone completely different than anyone I had ever met. Cold, dispassionate, academic, patrician, etc.

Then after he came to trust my Dad a bit more(I think my Dad opening his Real Estate office to phone banks for free had something to do with it!), he would come in and start talking about his motorcycles, the Red Sox, classes I was taking in school, etc.

I have met him a few times since, and when he is with a specific group of people and not in a debate or on TV, he comes across entirely different. I have never met anyone whose public and private personas differ so much. In fact, I have often wondered why someone with Kerry's money has not found an image coach to bridge this gap.

The most notable John Kerry experience I ever had was in 2007, when my friend and his Army unit were having a pre deployment ceremony at a Hotel in Boston. They were going to Afghanistan.

Every soldier, and there must have been 40-50 of them, had a name tag on at the formal ceremony where they met Kerry, Ted Kennedy, The Mayor of Boston, The Governor, Police and Fire Chiefs and various and assorted veterans groups, etc, you get the idea. Kerry spoke briefly to each then.

Later on, at the reception, as politicians and other notables were making their way around the room and the name tags were gone, John Kerry was the only one still calling people by their names. He had remembered every single one of them, and talked to them and was generally interested in hearing their stories. Politicians who routinely do better at the backslapping, machine type game of "know people, know names, know faces" were flunking a test Kerry was passing with flying colors!!

So I feel this is a good example of my general thoughts on Kerry:

Other politicians who are media darlings and very popular and known as the life of the party remember b.s. political people and connect best with glad handing, phony politicians.

Kerry reserves his genuine individual recognition, attention and gratitude for the people and things that actually matter, like our Armed Forces and small businesses.(Ask any Republican on the committee, Kerry is a highly effective advocate for small businesses in his committee work)

2.)Easy for REASONABLE people to misinterpret entirely- You don't have to be a right wing nut to believe the "liberal elitist, so far left he is in China, out of touch jerk" line about Kerry, because, in his public appearances, he far too often plays into this perception.

The reality is of course Kerry started out notable for how moderate he was in comparison to many other Democrats. He ran his 1st Senate campaign on free trade and has always supported it, he immediately started investigating members of Congress and broke the BCCI scandal, which sent many fellow Democrats packing! Kerry's response was so what, I don't care if they're Democrats, they broke the law. Kerry, much like Obama in 2008, took a more moderate economic viewpoint than that of his primary rivals. He has questioned affirmative action as we know it and was ruthless in attacking Dean/Gephardt's proposed tax increases in 2004.

Additionally, he was the first Democrat to warn against demonizing the entire Patriot Act, and was constantly reminding people that he wrote many of the money laundering provisions in it. He advocated, and the Dems adopted(as has been seen in reauthorization debates under Democrats) a view of the Patriot Act that simply stated the obvious: "the 1% of it that was John Ashcroft's long time wet dream and was clearly over the line should be fixed, and the rest is pretty damn non controversial." In 2006, the egregious provisions that led to the most abuse were fixed and the rest was kept. 2009/10 has furthered this model of the Patriot Act.

Kerry has never been an ideologue.

Well, surprise, surprise, FYM, U2387 is rambling again!

Long story short, Kerry VERY understandably does not generate excitement in people who do not know him or his work extremely well.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 02:11 AM   #652
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Maybe the caustic response to a fair question I've ever seen on this forum.
Indy.

I admit it. I am guilty of not waiting that extra 30 seconds of breathing before phrasing my response to that post that you mention!

I was trying to make something similar to the following point that I will paraphrase, and I think it is valid:

Quote:
Though the legal and moral culpability is entirely on these 2 individuals, the Oklahoma City bombers, McVeigh and Nichols, did not exist in isolation, there was a context to and some motivating ideologies behind them. We can't ignore the context in which this violent, militant hatred of government came about. McVeigh cited this type of hatred as part of his motivations, and so have many people with no political ax to grind, like the Secret Service and media figures. It is no coincidence that the 15th anniversary of Oklahoma City has spurred a discussion of the rise in militia type violent ideologies of late. It is widely known they were behind the Oklahoma City bombings.
I find it difficult to ignore this.

Instead of typing that line("I find it difficult to ignore this") to AEON, I lashed out with the 8 yrs old comment. Not something I am proud of, nor is it something I will be putting on a resume or brag sheet.

So I should not have responded the way I did. I said as much to AEON.

Also, regardless of my past, which I am about to address, this is quite unnecessary and quite unfair.

Quote:
I for one will no longer waste my right-wing-white supremacist hate engaging this poster
I was clearly referring to white supremacist hate present in violent militia organizations. Not implying that you or AEON or any other person, Democrat or Republican, FYM poster or non blue crack addict, is a white supremacist hate monger

Though they are no excuse for my responses, where again, I should have waited just 30 seconds before hitting "submit reply," can you see how a line like the one I quoted(claiming someone made a generalization they far from made) from you could reasonably leave another poster frustrated and at a loss for words?

_______________________________________________________________

Now, INDY, I really want you to listen to me here like Diamond did to me in 2008 and like AEON did to me yesterday!

I get along great with both posters now.

I really only see myself as having a strained for good lost cause forum relationship with one poster, and that is as much my own fault as it is his.

Many of my responses to what I feel are your unfair characterizing of people and things are knee jerk, done in the heat of the moment things. Again, that is not smart, and I am working on it.

I have been trying for a while now, and I hope you have noticed, Indy to let you know that I am far from argumentative and angry and unfair in person.

I have no interest in getting personal with you or anyone.

I have tried to tell you, with no responses so far whenever I do this, that I have no interest in personally attacking or offending or insulting you in my posts.

Diamond and AEON realized 2 things when I took a deep breath, stepped back and told them "hey, I crossed the line, its not personal, I wish it did not come off like that, I am actually a reasonable person, and my name is Greg."

1.)That I am conscious of the fact that my posting style and attitude is not perfect and it truly affects me when people feel personally attacked or belittled or yelled at. Safe to say they realized that this was not my overall intent, or my intent at all to attack them personally.

My posting style is something I have to watch. Before 2008, I never discussed politics on forums, and since, I have only really come over here to FYM in spurts. I am still on a serious learning curve in terms of making the things I would never say in real life, face to face interaction compatible with the things I would never post on forums.

2.)That the admittedly poor taste, poor self control, poor etiquette lash outs that I occasionally have are much less common than the times when I engage in intelligent, reasonable discussion.

Though it matters not whether you agree with a single word I say or argument I make or have made (and you don't have to and there is nothing wrong with that) you can't deny that the majority of what I post here is substance.

It just seems, and I hope you can prove me wrong, that you are now out to show that I am some kind of loser, angry troll not worth anyone's time and citing what amounts to the stupid, angry 1% of the stuff I have posted here.

I have been in thread warned a few times by the mods, no official warnings. I catch myself and make amends with the individual poster in public a good amount of the time, how many here do that? I'd say this is pretty good, given the FYM frequent posters of today who have in the past turned up on the very public banned/suspended members list!

Again, less than cool headed posts in the past, U2387 pleads guilty.

Blatantly crossing the line in the past, U2387 pleads guilty.

I am genuinely sorry for anything you have seen as over the line from me.

Know that, just like with Diamond and AEON, you, Indy500, will never see this tone from me again!

That is not a sarcastic post begging for a sarcastic response, that is my promise to you!

I will see you around here, no doubt, Indy, and things will be toned down in the future.

We both care about the country we live in enough to be informed, and isn't that more than the vast majority can say? Isn't that common ground right there?

I will probably be hanging out in Everything You Know... and U2 360 Tour Central over FYM as we get closer to the tour resumption and possible new material from our favorite band!

Contrary to what some(not necessarily you) may think, I do not have endless time to spend at this blue place and I am really no FYM fan at all.

Back to real life, take care, Indy!

-Greg Ander
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 01:13 PM   #653
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387
I have no interest in getting personal with you or anyone.
Do you think it is possible that rational people can be skeptical that government run health care will reduce costs while simultaneously improving care and expanding coverage?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 02:47 PM   #654
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Aeon,

Based on your question, I presume you are against the Health Reform.

I have posted about the costs of my Health Ins., what I pay and what I get.

Can you tell us what costs and program your family uses for Health Care?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 03:16 PM   #655
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Based on your question, I presume you are against the Health Reform.
I am certainly for Health Care reform, just not in a manner that increases government involvement. I think the great sage Ringo Starr said it best, “Everything the government touches turns to crap.”

One of the editors from reason.com made this statement that I think summarizes my current view:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Michael
Of course, we already have both free-market and government-run health care, which is the other great obstacle to reform. We have the worst of both worlds, with government Medicare and Medicaid providing a big pile of increasingly deficit-financed dollars sitting aside another mountain of cash generated by mostly tax exempt, employer-provided insurance coverage. Both of these mounds of free moolah discourage any consideration of price while they encourage demand. Doctors, hospitals, and Big Pharma do their best to Hoover suck billions from both piles.
I hold the view that only a free market approach to health care is the best possible solution. Please do not confuse today’s state-sponsored insurance cartel with the free market – for I assure you, it is far from that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Can you tell us what costs and program your family uses for Health Care?
Ackbar smells a trap…
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 03:44 PM   #656
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 08:48 AM
Terry Michael, a self-proclaimed libertarian Democrat stated:

Quote:
It doesn’t take much imagination to see the pitfalls that will occur when bureaucrats attempt to enter the implementation stage of an undesigned, unpopular public policy creation. The results are likely to be even worse than the 1000 percent error made in projecting eventual Medicare costs when that program was adopted in the 1960s. Today, Medicare is eating tax dollars like some hungry Godzilla. In a few years, ObamaPelosiCare will make that monster look like a little lizard
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 05:12 PM   #657
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Just one stupid employee could cost Geico 15% or more in car insurance business. The voice-over guy called Tea Partiers mentally retarded and potential killers, and was subsequently fired.

Geico Cancels a Hater - Big Government
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 05:38 PM   #658
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 10:48 AM
They should have fired the Geico caveman-even though he didn't leave the voicemails

He seriously creeps me out
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 05:48 PM   #659
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Do you think it is possible that rational people can be skeptical that government run health care will reduce costs while simultaneously improving care and expanding coverage?
Sure, that is possible.

I would not want to live in Sweden or another single payer country where all healthcare is provided by the government.

Why should AEON or U2387 pay a tax for Bill Gates' kids health care?

The bill that was just passed was not a government takeover of our health care system, and it is not government run.

It basically tinkers around the edges of our current system. Its almost the status quo on steroids, with a few important regulatory reforms(pre existing conditions) mixed in.

It is largely based on ideas that Republicans and Democrats have come up with and supported.

While you are right that the level of government involvement is increased, it is really in 2 areas-

1.)Regulations-Pre existing conditions now covered, limits on companies arbitrarily dropping coverage, allowing 26yr olds and younger to remain on their parents' plan, etc. These are widely supported and not my knowledge, were not among the controversial aspects of the bill when it was debated in Congress.

2.)The sliding scale affordability subsidies for those buying in the exchanges. This is in large part the government shifting money and all of us getting a better bang for the buck. When the uninsured go to emergency rooms, the government picks up the tab that the patient cannot pay. We, the taxpaying citizens get no benefit from this. With the subsidies, they are covered by an insurance plan, thereby increasing the pool of the privately insured, which spreads risks and cuts costs.

This is a modest increase, if any, in the level of government involvement. Our health care system-insurers Medicaid, Medicare, individual market and employer provided health insurance plus providers doctors, hospitals and clinics has always been regulated and subsidized to a great extent by the government.

Back to your original question, all independent agencies looking at this bill have said it will reduce costs and expand coverage.

I am no expert on health care, but I think the premise was this:

1.)Cost reductions through incentives to modernize, liability reforms, pay for outcomes and not volume of procedures and increased competition(exchanges). Small businesses can band together to bargain in the exchanges.

2.)Shifting of money we already spend from dead ends(the uncompensated care pool for emergency room visits) to vehicles that help provide coverage that will increase the pool and spread risk(subsidies).

3.) 1 and 2 plus modest incentive changing tax increases(cadillac tax, medical device tax) will save us enough money to be able to pay for expanded coverage.

4.)I have the same skepticism you have when someone says it in a speech or in a campaign proposal, but when there is an actual bill introduced that makes sense to the CBO, economists, etc and they feel it will cover more people and reduce the deficit, then I'll accept that.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 06:14 PM   #660
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
It doesn’t take much imagination to see the pitfalls that will occur when bureaucrats attempt to enter the implementation stage of an undesigned, unpopular public policy creation. The results are likely to be even worse than the 1000 percent error made in projecting eventual Medicare costs when that program was adopted in the 1960s. Today, Medicare is eating tax dollars like some hungry Godzilla. In a few years, ObamaPelosiCare will make that monster look like a little lizard
Terry Michael is expressing a perfectly legitimate, justified fear that Medicare, and lets just throw in Medicaid with it and call it entitlements, entitlements are blowing up our budget.

Very true. Entitlements are the biggest driver of our long run fiscal imbalance.

But why?

This is where Terry Michael and I diverge.

There is nothing inherent in the design or as he claims, lack thereof, behind Medicare that makes it an explosively expensive program going forward.

Medicare and Medicaid have not become so mind numbingly expensive because the 1960s Great Society do gooders couldn't add or subtract or couldn't anticipate anything beyond 1970.

They in fact have no costs in and of themselves, absent 2-4% overhead, which is much lower than private plans!

The reason they have become so expensive and so straining on our budget is because they are simply vehicles through which we pay for the most expensive and rapidly inflating service in the country, health care.

Since these programs pay for health care, they will naturally expend more when health care costs in general rise. A graph of the 2 trends, superimposed over each other, would be indistinguishable. Medicare did not start exploding due to poor design before health care costs started exploding for whatever reason.

So Terry Michael is correctly identifying the causes of the structural deficit, but not going a step further and addressing the cause of the causes, which is health care costs.

In this context, I don't understand what he is worried about.

"Obama-Pelosi care" actually has mechanisms to reduce costs, and if you listen to Obama, one of the biggest reasons he has for wanting to get this done so badly is to control the out of control growth in entitlement budgets. Health care reform is actually the biggest deficit reduction bill we have passed in many years.

Peter Orszag has many writings on the topic of health care costs strangling entitlements which in turn are strangling our federal budget.

Obama used his writings as the basis for a lot of the legislation, and made him his OMB director.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama General Discussion diamond Free Your Mind Archive 1009 06-28-2010 01:03 AM
Sarah Palin resigns as Governor VintagePunk Free Your Mind Archive 1005 04-05-2010 05:30 PM
Elevation Canada 8th Anniversary Party February 19th bradyvox Interference Gatherings 22 02-20-2010 05:30 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com