Obama's Health Plan

[titushome]

Here's an interesting NY Times article about the feasibility of Obama's health plan:

LINK

[yosemite]

he is a wind of change!! and the only wind i know of is coming from my mouth as i laugh!! he is dumb as a box of rocks and the only reason he's there is because he is the rock star and charismatic! Not smart!

[Tricia Lea]

Here's an interesting NY Times article about the feasibility of Obama's health plan:

LINK

interesting for sure

[Tsalagi]

"What we're trying to do," said one of the advisers, David M. Cutler, in explaining the gap between Mr. Obama's words and his intent, "is find a way to talk to people in a way they understand."

Here, my friends, is the basic premise of what leftists are all about - their mode d'emploi, so to speak.

How 'bout just saying it, Mr. Cutler?

Most of us are perfectly capable of understanding something when someone says it.

Unless, of course, it doesn't make sense in the first place, THEN what you're really saying is "we know our plan is stupid and unfeasible, therefore we need to figure out a way to say it that sounds logical and reasonable".

[Sis]

They DO think the masses are pretty dumb, don't they?

he is a wind of change!!

Hot air?

[Tsalagi]

They DO think the masses are pretty dumb, don't they?

They think everybody but THEM is stupid, to their way of thinking, if we weren't stupid we would be just like them.  Typical leftist contemptuous arrogance.

Let's hope they don't ever get to run a war, they would try to run it from Washington while ignoring the military:

#1.) Contempt: "Those *insert enemy name here* are pretty backward and stupid aren't they?"

#2.) Frustration: "Those stupid jokers sure are lucky, they're kicking our tail with sticks and rocks!  Who'd have ever thought stupid unworthy ignorant primitives could be so much trouble??  Aarrrrgh!!"

#3.) Insanity: "If you can't beat 'em, nuke 'em!  Or run away..."

[bishopnl]

This has nothing to do with Obama's health care system....but I just noticed the Monty Python sig line....

"Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.  Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."  - Dennis

Help, help, I'm being oppressed!   

[Sis]

From what has been said lately, running away is their answer. Cutting the military until they have to go on food stamps to live. Making us totally vulnurable to anyone who wants to attack us. If they cut the military anymore, we'll be under attack again, and it will be much worse.

In the meantime they only care about controling what everyone is doing, eating, buying, and where they are traveling.

They hate capitalism but it brought about the industrial revolution, it got us where we are now. Computers, etc. The enemies around the world hate our country, but they don't mind using our technology and the technology from other free countries.

[yosemite]

From what has been said lately, running away is their answer. Cutting the military until they have to go on food stamps to live. Making us totally vulnurable to anyone who wants to attack us. If they cut the military anymore, we'll be under attack again, and it will be much worse.

In the meantime they only care about controling what everyone is doing, eating, buying, and where they are traveling.

They hate capitalism but it brought about the industrial revolution, it got us where we are now. Computers, etc. The enemies around the world hate our country, but they don't mind using our technology and the technology from other free countries.

[Tsalagi]

This has nothing to do with Obama's health care system....but I just noticed the Monty Python sig line....

"Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.  Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."  - Dennis

Help, help, I'm being oppressed!   

Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

[M‡¢ĦÆŁ Ҝ]

Cutting the military until they have to go on food stamps to live.

We had to live on food stamps while in the military, and that was during daddy Bush's reign.  I know several airmen now that have to use food stamps to survive, this is during little Bush's reign.  Military members living on food stamps is nothing new and it's not a Democrat thing.

[yosemite]

Cutting the military until they have to go on food stamps to live.

We had to live on food stamps while in the military, and that was during daddy Bush's reign.  I know several airmen now that have to use food stamps to survive, this is during little Bush's reign.  Military members living on food stamps is nothing new and it's not a Democrat thing.

well, who's holding up the money? the democrats!! bush has been trying to get money to them without success due to democrats. so, (IMO) it is a democratic thingy!!

[M‡¢ĦÆŁ Ҝ]

well, who's holding up the money?

Both parties share the blame equally.   Remember we had a period of time when a republican president and a republican controlled congress.  The military members living on food stamps didn't find any relief during that period of time.  It's not  Democrat thing.

[yosemite]

well, who's holding up the money?

Both parties share the blame equally.   Remember we had a period of time when a republican president and a republican controlled congress.  The military members living on food stamps didn't find any relief during that period of time.  It's not  Democrat thing.

ohhhh brother, another one asleep at the wheel.(IMO)

[BroTrey]

They DO think the masses are pretty dumb, don't they?

he is a wind of change!!

Hot air?

I was thinking something else along those lines..... *cough*

[yosemite]

Quote from: bishopnl on April 15, 2008, 09:07:25 AM
This guy is a pious, elitist, liberal windbag. 

[Richard]

They DO think the masses are pretty dumb, don't they?

They think everybody but THEM is stupid, to their way of thinking, if we weren't stupid we would be just like them.  Typical leftist contemptuous arrogance.

Let's hope they don't ever get to run a war, they would try to run it from Washington while ignoring the military:

#1.) Contempt: "Those *insert enemy name here* are pretty backward and stupid aren't they?"

#2.) Frustration: "Those stupid jokers sure are lucky, they're kicking our tail with sticks and rocks!  Who'd have ever thought stupid unworthy ignorant primitives could be so much trouble??  Aarrrrgh!!"

#3.) Insanity: "If you can't beat 'em, nuke 'em!  Or run away..."

If John F. Kennedy had listened to the military during his Presidency, the US would have nuked Russia in a pre-emptive strike.  I for one am glad that he didn't.

As for which party thinks the people are dumb...it's not just us ivory-tower elitists who think that the general public is incapable of making sound decisions.  The right has made a cottage industry out of manipulating people of genuine faith and patriotism without shame or even much art.  How have they (or anybody) gotten away with it?  Because it's what people want.  "Tell me what I want to hear!...and maybe this itching in my ears will go away"

The fact that the majority of people in this country believe that they have even a tentative grasp on how things "really work" is laughable. 

[Tsalagi]

As for which party thinks the people are dumb...it's not just us ivory-tower elitists who think that the general public is incapable of making sound decisions.

So basically you've just said that both the utopian dreamers and the uber-capitalists disdain the populace as stupid...

First, I am neither a communist nor a fascist, so I am neither to the left nor to the right.  Nor do I believe that the general public is attempting to make "sound decisions" regarding anything other than how to live their OWN LIVES.  They're generally too busy working to make policy.  Further, it's not that the majority of the people CAN'T think about how to effectively weasel others, it's that we've been taught that to do so is WRONG. 

That's called "morals".

Forgive me if I still bear an anachronistic ideal that says all people should be free to determine their own individual destinies.  Regardless of their IQ (or annual income).

Someone making $20K a year has to stretch that mighty thin to make things work.  Remind me again what the median annual income is for politicians?

The general rule appears to be that those who have take even more from those who don't have simply because they believe they are "incapable of making sound decisions"?  Sounds apropos to me...

Secondly, it is bad form to deliberately set about to downgrade the moral conduct and IQ of the populace via social programs and chemicals and then castigate them on their lack of responsible behavior.

That's called "hypocrisy".

PS  I doubt if most farmers give a flying fling about politics - and the politician likes to rail about people who are unaware of the political situation, yet the politicians still rely on the "stupid" farmers for something to eat.  Tell me then, of the two - the plodding farmer or the elite politician - who's the "useless eater"?  Eh?  The idealistic dreamer in the ivory tower still has to eat, and the money grubber greedily guarding his stacks of loot does too.  What's more, without all those "peons" slaving away for him, he would be penniless - God forbid a rich man should dirty his hands with honest labor.

The right has made a cottage industry out of manipulating people of genuine faith and patriotism without shame or even much art.

Whereas the left has made one out of manipulating people of genuine faith and patriotism with both.

Because it's what people want.

Actually, it's because the people who actually make this thing go still (stupidly) trust and believe in something called "division of labor", i.e. if you are a mechanic, you don't try to remove your own appendix.  You call a doctor. 

Likewise, if you're a dirty rat who likes to line his pockets with other people's money for very little in the way of real work, you don't try to repair your own car.  You become a politician.

[yosemite]

As for which party thinks the people are dumb...it's not just us ivory-tower elitists who think that the general public is incapable of making sound decisions.

So basically you've just said that both the utopian dreamers and the uber-capitalists disdain the populace as stupid...

First, I am neither a communist nor a fascist, so I am neither to the left nor to the right.  Nor do I believe that the general public is attempting to make "sound decisions" regarding anything other than how to live their OWN LIVES.  They're generally too busy working to make policy.  Further, it's not that the majority of the people CAN'T think about how to effectively weasel others, it's that we've been taught that to do so is WRONG. 

That's called "morals".

Forgive me if I still bear an anachronistic ideal that says all people should be free to determine their own individual destinies.  Regardless of their IQ (or annual income).

Someone making $20K a year has to stretch that mighty thin to make things work.  Remind me again what the median annual income is for politicians?

The general rule appears to be that those who have take even more from those who don't have simply because they believe they are "incapable of making sound decisions"?  Sounds apropos to me...

Secondly, it is bad form to deliberately set about to downgrade the moral conduct and IQ of the populace via social programs and chemicals and then castigate them on their lack of responsible behavior.

That's called "hypocrisy".

PS  I doubt if most farmers give a flying fling about politics - and the politician likes to rail about people who are unaware of the political situation, yet the politicians still rely on the "stupid" farmers for something to eat.  Tell me then, of the two - the plodding farmer or the elite politician - who's the "useless eater"?  Eh?  The idealistic dreamer in the ivory tower still has to eat, and the money grubber greedily guarding his stacks of loot does too.  What's more, without all those "peons" slaving away for him, he would be penniless - God forbid a rich man should dirty his hands with honest labor.

The right has made a cottage industry out of manipulating people of genuine faith and patriotism without shame or even much art.

Whereas the left has made one out of manipulating people of genuine faith and patriotism with both.

Because it's what people want.

Actually, it's because the people who actually make this thing go still (stupidly) trust and believe in something called "division of labor", i.e. if you are a mechanic, you don't try to remove your own appendix.  You call a doctor. 

Likewise, if you're a dirty rat who likes to line his pockets with other people's money for very little in the way of real work, you don't try to repair your own car.  You become a politician.

stupid (democratic) rabbits, dont they know tricks are for kids!! <a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253Fpartner%253DZSzeb008%255FZSman000%2526i%253D16%252F16%255F10%255F170%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank">

[kkay]

he is a wind of change!! and the only wind i know of is coming from my mouth as i laugh!! he is dumb as a box of rocks and the only reason he's there is because he is the rock star and charismatic! Not smart!

I don't even know who I'm voting for yet, but this certainly does NOT make me want to vote for your candidate. Direct rudeness is acceptable now? (Even though it's not directed toward someone in this forum)

I believe that you can't say one candidate believes the American people are ignorant and the other doesn't. The founders of this country must have thought the same thing since they created the hierarchy of government and set individuals over the country instead of just letting everyone vote on every subject.

[BenJammin]

Here's the problem I have with socialized medicine, which is exactly what Obama is promising - just not calling it by that name.

It has been shown historically that the government (state or federal) hasn't a clue when it comes to managing health care.  Two perfect examples are Medicare and Medicaid.

According to AARP, Medicare was estimated to have spent about $208 billion just in 1997, with an estimated increase in costs of approx 7.2%/yr.  Source - http://www.aarp.org/research/medicare/coverage/aresearch-import-673-FS45r.html.

As far as Medicaid goes, here is a direct quote from Stateline.org (http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=16625)

Together, state and federal governments are expected to spend nearly $330 billion on Medicaid in 2005. Medicaid accounts for 22 percent of state budgets, when factoring in federal funds. That's up from just 8 percent in 1985. That means the growth of Medicaid spending is crowding out funding for other programs that states deliver, including education, corrections and transportation.

The federal government each year tinkers with its formula for calculating how much money it gives each state. Generally, the richer the state, the less it gets. The federal matching rate is based on states' average per-capita income and is always at least 50 percent, but could be as high as nearly 80 percent. In 2005, 12 states got the minimum 50 percent rate (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and Washington) while 10 states got matching rates higher than 70 percent (Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia).

Because Medicaid is the biggest source of federal revenue to the states, even the slightest variation of the federal match can have a big impact on a state's budget.

The changes for fiscal 2006, for example, will require that states pony up an additional $527 million, according to the Federal Funds Information for States (FFIS), a joint subscription service for NCSL and the National Governors Association that tracks budget issues affecting states.

States hardest hit by this change in matching formulas include New Mexico, which could lose some $82 million, Alaska (potentially losing $76 million) and Louisiana (potentially losing $70 million), according to FFIS.

When you figure that only 37.9 million people are covered under Medicare (again, from the AARP website), or approx 12% of the population, and Medicaid served about 53 million in 2005 (from the Stateline.org website), this comes to 91.9 million - or approx 30% of the population.  Between these 2 programs alone the annual costs are approx $538 BILLION for just 30% of the people!!!

By Obama's advisers own admission, the program will cost $214 billion/yr - total.  And cover the entire population?  No way.  The cost is being drastically under-estimated in order to sell it to a populace plagued by a welfare mentality.  This is something that was instilled in people by the Democrats in the 1960's with LBJ's Great Society.

Obama's plan for socialized healthcare with end in financial disaster when there simply isn't enough money for all the pressing medical needs of our population.

BenJammin

[Richard]

Not having enough money hasn't stopped us from doing other things that I view as less crucial than health care...waging war in Iraq and bailing out the private sector to name two.

[titushome]

Not having enough money hasn't stopped us from doing other things that I view as less crucial than health care...waging war in Iraq and bailing out the private sector to name two.

The federal government is just as wrong with its excursions in these realms as it is with its excursions into health care.

[Richard]

Well...at least you're consistent.  I can respect that.

[BenJammin]

Actually, I agree with that.

My point is that, in almost every instance, the private sector has more experience and is more efficient and cost-effective in the health care arena.  For Obama to assert that it will cost only $214 Billion to cover ALL Americans, when the cost to cover just 30% of them is $538 Billion, is ludicrous at best.

For the cost to remain at $214 billion, many will go without necessary and lifesaving treatment - primarily the very old simply because they no longer have any intrinsic value and the cost of their care is much greater.