It's called "rationing", and letting the seniors deal with their problems without medical help, or better yet in the Obamanation's scheme of things, to just go ahead and die, thereby helping out on social security problems, too.
We know the type of sweeping overhaul we'll end up with.
I love this passage:
"Obama's effort to cast the health care proposal as a money-saving initiative comes as critics label his hefty domestic agenda fiscally irresponsible. But Obama counters that high budget deficits are a legacy of President George W. Bush, a Republican."
Really?
What does THIS tell us?
Hat tip: Gateway Pundit.
#
Clearly, Obama's campaign slogans of "Hope" and "Change" meant that you're going to HOPE you have some CHANGE left after he's done with us.
ReplyDeleteHealthcare is inherently going to continue to be more expensive relative to the costs of other goods in our economy because health services do not become cheaper with gains in technology nor through economies of scale. Does anybody else remember that a simple digital watch once sold for $200, a 4-function calculator sold for $300, and a p.c. with 8 megs of RAM could not be had for less than $1500? Besides this, there is considerable leakage through fraud and corruption which are rampant through the healthcare industry. In all my EOB's from Moses Cone, for example, I was billed for services not performed and medications not received.
ReplyDeleteThe government has had roles in various segments of the economy, which have been classified as a 'public good'. Rail transportation, telephone companies, utility companies, etc have all been heavily regulated by the government, because it is in the Nation's best interest that it do so. I submit that our Nation's health care system meets the criteria of being a public good as well, thus giving the government a legitimate role in its regulation/ reformation. I would also argue that it is in nobody's interest to have one out of 6 people in our nation to be without health insurance, nor do I feel it is in the best interest of our manufacturing segment of our economy to be in the business of providing health care to its employees. They should be concerned with manufacturing.
Your post is short on facts, but long on emotional canards like 'rationing'. Unless of course, you can point to specific expamples of rationing in the Obama plan. Which, of course, you cannot.
As far as the budget deficits are concerned, Obama's proposed plan is necessary due to GWB's poor stewardship over the economy. Government spending is part of aggregate demand. Since the private sector is not spending, the government has the Responsibility through its fiscal policy to step in and stimulate demand with increased spending. There is not one economist, or, indeed, one person who stayed awake during Macro Economics 101, that I am aware of who honestly disagrees with this premise. In fact, the only consistent criticism I hear from economists is that Obama's stimulus plan is not big enough.
Don't forget, it was a Democratic president who last balanced the budget.
"Your post is short on facts, but long on emotional canards like 'rationing'. Unless of course, you can point to specific expamples of rationing in the Obama plan. Which, of course, you cannot."
ReplyDeleteBlah blah, woof woof.
"Specifics", indeed!
As if you or the Obamanation has provided any real world realistic rationale for the "trillions and trillions" of savings under Obamacare.
It's also pretty clear that you just can't seem to understand what the deficit charts say.
That's you're problem, not mine.
"Since the private sector is not spending, the government has the Responsibility through its fiscal policy to step in and stimulate demand with increased spending. There is not one economist, or, indeed, one person who stayed awake during Macro Economics 101, that I am aware of who honestly disagrees with this premise. In fact, the only consistent criticism I hear from economists is that Obama's stimulus plan is not big enough."
You don't read any economist outside of close-minded partisan hacks like Krugman, do you?
It shows.
Try again, pal.
Come back when you're a little more capable of making a cogent argument.
One more thing: When was the last social re-engineering project the Federal government got involved in that didn't result in MASSIVEincreases in costs and inefficiencies?
Hey Bubba-
ReplyDeleteI don't consider "Blah blah, woof woof" a 'cogent argument', and I did not fail to notice you could not name one single economist who disagrees with the necessity of the stimulus package.
Do you agree that Government Spending is a component of Aggregate Demand? Do you agree that we are in a severe recession? What part of my response that deals with budget deficits indicate my lack of understanding of that simple chart? Speaking of charts, here's one for you:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
I hold the opinion that taking budget deficits as a percentage of GDP is a better point of contention. What do you think?
Do you agree with my opinion that Health Care by nature is becoming more expensive relative to other goods? Why or why not?
Do you agree or disagree with my assertion that health care is a public good? Do you even agree with the 'public good' concept?
I have to concede your final point regarding massive costs and inefficiencies in government social engineering projects, such as Bush's war in Iraq. One would probably have to go back to the Social Security Act passed during the Roosevelt adminstration back in 1935.
Instead of acting like a bully, why don't you present some logical arguments that support your position. I really want to know valid counterpoints, as that would force me to either refine my arguments or abandon them altogether. I have been searching for a while for someone with your obvious intelligence to debate these and other issues, but unfortunately, I haven't had much luck. Are you the One?
"I don't consider "Blah blah, woof woof" a 'cogent argument', and I did not fail to notice you could not name one single economist who disagrees with the necessity of the stimulus package."
ReplyDelete"Blah blah woof woof" is an appropriate and accurate response to what you said.
Naming an economist makes no difference to the validity of the material presented.
You're probably one of the learning disabled who think that the "scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming" is validated simply because it's "consensus", and that sort of thing always settles the question.
What are you, some sort of high school dweeb who thinks that logic, reason, and policy ought to be decided by some sort of popularity poll, or a beauty contest?
Bubba-
ReplyDelete'Naming an economist makes no difference to the validity of the material presented.' O.K., since you could not present one, who sold you that line of crap? Was it Elmer Fudd or Sean Hannity?
I asked you 8 honest questions in hopes of starting intelligent dialogue between us on issues on which we obviously disagree, And you chose to ignore 9 of them, resorting instead to typical right-wing name-calling such as 'learning disabled' and 'high school dweeb'. I hope your reader(s) can recognize a close-minded idealogue when they see one, yet, somehow, I doubt it.
It's too bad. I thought since you were the first righty I came across that actually knows a few rules of grammar, in addition to knowing how to spell it, we might have an intelligent discussion. I guess I will have to continue looking elsewhere.
Don't worry, I won't post on your blog again. It simply isn't worth my time.
"And you chose to ignore 9 of them, resorting instead to typical right-wing name-calling such as 'learning disabled' and 'high school dweeb'."
ReplyDeleteNo, einstein.
You chose to ignore the salient points I presented in the original post, and instead went of on some tangent about "naming economists". That's standard operating procedures for people like you.
You have nothing of value with which to answer the material presented, so you resort to making it about someone else, and you cop an attitude to boot.
You obvious didn't read the the warning label underneath the "Noteworthy" flag, did you?
Let me repeat it for your edification:
"This is a personal journal which contains subjects that interest me and my subsequent opinions of those subjects.
If you're easily offended by strongly expressed opinion, you won't like this blog.
If you want to cop an attitude, be my guest, but also be advised that I will return said attitude.
Understood?"
Take it elsewhere, pal.
And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Oh, by the way: I am well aware that you're a sock puppet.