http://www.drudgereport.com/flashocs.htm

Quote :

"In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: "We are out of money." C-SPAN host Steve Scully broke from a meek Washington press corps with probing questions for the new president. SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money? OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades. "

5/24/2009 10:27:09 AM

haha, yeah nationalized healthcare will bring the GOVT out of debt. So adding the mother of all entitlements will help out that spending problem for sure.

I think if I was interviewing him I would have been like this reporter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_qffNdZZ-g&feature=PlayList&p=FE4DF5441A6B510A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=6

5/24/2009 10:31:41 AM

I do like that he said he wouldnt bailout the states. I just dont believe it. Esp california, too many voters.

He makes sense in long term vs short term problems, however he fails to realize he will only make them worse.

"So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off"

Well if more people are applying for unemployment and food stamps and the states are taking in less money... why increase the amount of money and time they get for both? Wont that deplete what we do have faster? Shit, in virginia he wanted virginia to allow unemployment benefits to parttime workers. Even high school students could have gotten onto it.

This is the kicker right here.

"So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it's too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can't afford it. We've got this big deficit. Let's just keep the health care system that we've got now.

Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything... "

So somehow if the govt takes over healthcare the overal share of federal spending will NOT increase? Giveme a break. Our govt provides around 50% currently, and the boomers are coming into medicare age. So that will be going up, but how is rapidly moving towards 100% govt controlled healthcare NOT increasing the share? We cannot afford medicare/medicaid and SS long term. I have NO confidence that providing healthcare for the majority of the people added to that will somehow improve our fiscal situation.

5/24/2009 11:10:12 AM

so, it only took 40 years for a President to actually come out and admit the obvious?

the rest of his answer, instead of just the Drudge headline, is a good, point-by-point response

Quote :

"OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades. So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off. So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit. So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it's too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can't afford it. We've got this big deficit. Let's just keep the health care system that we've got now. Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything... "

5/24/2009 12:11:43 PM

It actually is theoretically possible for a universal healthcare plan to reduce the deficit in the long run, just like it's theoretically possible for tax cuts to result in increased revenue (although this rarely happens).

If people know their health is taken care of, it makes it easier for them do do "risky" things like going back to school to get an education to get a job (increasing skilled jobs at the same time), or to change jobs more quickly so the job market is less stagnant. It also makes it easier for small businesses to grow to medium sized businesses because they don't have to worry about healthcare overhead as much.

However, whether government can actually institute such a system with the fingers of lobbyists from across the healthcare system in the pot is another question.

[Edited on May 24, 2009 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2009 12:58:36 PM

5/24/2009 1:04:44 PM

It's also theoretically possible in that we already pay more than most countries with universal healthcare. We are already the worst in our current state. The system that has evolved in the US has the worst of private and public features -- that's why there is so much incentive to try something else.

You know your shit is fucked when completely public programs are doing something more efficiently than you are. It's as if you were running organization that looked up to the DMV as a model of performance.

[Edited on May 24, 2009 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2009 1:15:18 PM

Yeah, i'm sure there are multiple ways to look at it...

Wasn't Elizabeth Edwards on The Daily Show last week saying that 1 in 700 dollars spent on ALL healthcare in the country went to this one particular CEO of an insurance company's salary? If true, that's pretty astonishing.

5/24/2009 1:17:41 PM

Quote :

"It actually is theoretically possible for a universal healthcare plan to reduce the deficit in the long run"

riiiiiiiiight

5/24/2009 1:46:59 PM

Sorry but it's true.

5/24/2009 3:23:05 PM

Quote :

"It actually is theoretically possible for a universal healthcare plan to reduce the deficit in the long run"

You're right. Of course, there's no chance in hell that we'll ever have a universal healthcare plan, and of course, we shouldn't. But if we did, the deficit would, in fact, be reduced in the long run. Why? Because after the inevitable Civil War II that would result, as well as the new US multi-party system, the new "libertarian principle" constitutional amendment including a return to the gold/silver standard, and the deaths of all the mooching welfare queens.... we'd be rather fiscally sound.

5/24/2009 3:35:35 PM

ha

we'll never switch to a gold/silver standard though.

5/24/2009 3:38:21 PM

Quote :

"You're right. Of course, there's no chance in hell that we'll ever have a universal healthcare plan, and of course, we shouldn't. But if we did, the deficit would, in fact, be reduced in the long run. Why? Because after the inevitable Civil War II that would result, as well as the new US multi-party system, the new "libertarian principle" constitutional amendment including a return to the gold/silver standard, and the deaths of all the mooching welfare queens.... we'd be rather fiscally sound."

ahahahahaahahahahaha

5/24/2009 3:54:36 PM

yeah moron it might be possible, but as the govt provided healthcare per population has increased, so has the costs. lets not forget it was basically govt that mandated HMOs in teh first place in an attempt to lower costs.

healthcare has to be rationed. it used to be rationed by dollars, which is the easiest and best way to ration anything. now we have the govt and private insurances rationing most of it. The only way to keep a high level of service while reducing costs is to get the govt out of healthcare as much as we can.

5/24/2009 8:45:36 PM

Quote :

"If people know their health is taken care of, it makes it easier for them do do "risky" things like going back to school to get an education to get a job (increasing skilled jobs at the same time), or to change jobs more quickly so the job market is less stagnant. It also makes it easier for small businesses to grow to medium sized businesses because they don't have to worry about healthcare overhead as much."

A lot of these are a result of tax policies that reward tying insurance to employment. These policies not only create the problems you mentioned above, but also lead employees to buy more generous insurance than they actually need. With more generous insurance plans (i.e. lower deductibles, more generous coverage, ect), consumers are further insulated from prices and thus over-utilize medical care. Many health economists from both sides of the isle (including Jason Furman, the Deputy Director of Obama’s National Economic Council: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/tpccontent/healthconference_furman.pdf) recommend replacing the employer exclusion with a tax credit.

(For a more detailed analysis of how our current tax policy affects insurance see: http://keithhennessey.com/2009/05/14/third-party-payment-in-health-care-part-2/)

[Edited on May 24, 2009 at 10:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2009 10:24:20 PM

Quote :

"If people know their health is taken care of, it makes it easier for them do do "risky" things like going back to school to get an education to get a job (increasing skilled jobs at the same time), or to change jobs more quickly so the job market is less stagnant."

It also makes it easier for them to do "risky" things like eating a delicious yet unhealthy diet, ignoring advice that they should exercise, deciding to smoke a pack-a-day, making their own fireworks, making their own drugs in their improvised home chemistry kit, attempting their own dangerous home or car repair, or practicing dangerous sports like auto-racing, skydiving, stunt skating, street acrobats, etc.

If people know their health is taken care of, THEY WILL BE LESS RESPONSIBLE, NOT MORE.
GET A FUCKING CLUE!!!!!!!!

Quote :

"It also makes it easier for small businesses to grow to medium sized businesses because they don't have to worry about healthcare overhead as much."

You can't justify one controversial government policy with another. Simply put, employers should have absolutely no responsibility to provide health care to their employees. For many reasons, including what Hunt said^, tying insurance to employment is completely unnecessary.

Quote :

"The only way to keep a high level of service while reducing costs is to get the govt out of healthcare as much as we can."

Quoted for truth.

Quote :

"The only way to keep a high level of service while reducing costs is to get the govt out of healthcare as much as we can."

Quoted for truth.

Quote :

"The only way to keep a high level of service while reducing costs is to get the govt out of healthcare as much as we can."

Quoted for truth.

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 7:29 AM. Reason : ]

5/25/2009 7:28:43 AM

Broke? Please!

5/25/2009 7:11:19 PM

just noticed that guy on the left has a stack of bills on his head..

o yea the thread title reads like a post-it on the refrigerator..

Don't forget to pick up milk at the store - BO

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 7:42 PM. Reason : ..]

5/25/2009 7:32:42 PM

well maybe BO did put that post-it on the fridge for his wife to read... so she could go out and make more money!

5/25/2009 7:47:37 PM

Quote :

"If people know their health is taken care of, THEY WILL BE LESS RESPONSIBLE, NOT MORE. GET A FUCKING CLUE!!!!!!!!"

Ergo, we should let people who can't afford health care die.

5/25/2009 8:25:37 PM

Are there even any studies that support that? I'm paying health care out of my pocket now and I haven't become any less risky than when the company was paying for it, and the company was paying for better health care. I still mountain bike, I still go for road rides.

5/25/2009 8:57:52 PM

Of course there aren't. That assertion is a logic exercise based on toy models of how people behave in the real world. No need for actual evidence about what works and what doesn't in the real world

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 10:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/25/2009 10:34:31 PM

Quote :

"The system that has evolved in the US has the worst of private and public features -- that's why there is so much incentive to try something else. "

yep, but let's try the LESS gov't approach first. First of all, I think it would be better. Second, it would actually be constitutional. Finally, if it turned out to be a shit sandwich, we'd be able to take a different approach, as opposed to the universal healthcare genie being let out, which we will be stuck with for the duration of our nation.

5/25/2009 10:38:16 PM

You have a point. Reduced regulation and lax enforcement of existing regulation certainly worked well for the banking industry lately, it should work even better for health care.

5/25/2009 10:44:17 PM

What are the countries with healthcare systems that are more private than ours? What are their costs per capita?

5/25/2009 10:44:25 PM

^^ the left wasn't blameless--trying to make every asshole in the world a homeowner

5/25/2009 10:56:02 PM

Quote :

"just noticed that guy on the left has a stack of bills on his head"

That's the money he could be saving if he switched to Geico.

5/25/2009 11:19:28 PM

Welp, looks like every other rich country has universal health care. Most are private-public mixes, some are totally public, a few are single-payer. Our public-private system is at least double the cost of everyone else's public-private system. Americans are more dissatisfied with their health care than countries with universal healthcare (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/are_patients_in_universal_heal.php).

Maybe this is too practical an idea, but how about we try out things that other countries have actually done to achieve better results in the real world? On the one hand, you have a collection of universal healthcare implementations that have better results than what we have now. On the other hand, you have assertions based on theoretical assertions about what might happen if your made the system more private (what percentages of privatizations/deregulations work out as the models predict?).

If you are a decision-make in the real world, not textbook or messageboard world, you go with the less risky option -- the one where there are plenty of examples of how to implement something better (and worse!) than what you are doing right now.

There are too many examples of bungled privatizations to assume that you will be able to feasibly implement a private system is not just better than what we have right now, but also better than other countries that are already paying half of what we do.

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 11:44 PM. Reason : .]

5/25/2009 11:43:12 PM

^^^ uhh, i think it's been pretty well established that was a distinctly bi-partisan goal, and both parties gone well out of their way to inflate the housing bubble

Quote :

"But I believe owning something is a part of the American Dream, as well. I believe when somebody owns their own home, they're realizing the American Dream. They can say it's my home, it's nobody else's home. (Applause.) And we saw that yesterday in Atlanta, when we went to the new homes of the new homeowners. And I saw with pride firsthand, the man say, welcome to my home. He didn't say, welcome to government's home; he didn't say, welcome to my neighbor's home; he said, welcome to my home. I own the home, and you're welcome to come in the home, and I appreciate it. (Applause.) He was a proud man. He was proud that he owns the property. And I was proud for him. And I want that pride to extend all throughout our country. One of the things that we've got to do is to address problems straight on and deal with them in a way that helps us meet goals. And so I want to talk about a couple of goals and -- one goal and a problem. The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it. We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well. And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere. I'm going to do my part by setting the goal, by reminding people of the goal, by heralding the goal, and by calling people into action, both the federal level, state level, local level, and in the private sector. (Applause.) And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that's too high, I'm not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don't have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I've asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy. (Applause.) We believe when this fund is fully funded and properly administered, which it will be under the Bush administration, that over 40,000 families a year -- 40,000 families a year -- will be able to realize the dream we want them to be able to realize, and that's owning their own home. (Applause.) The second barrier to ownership is the lack of affordable housing. There are neighborhoods in America where you just can't find a house that's affordable to purchase, and we need to deal with that problem. The best way to do so, I think, is to set up a single family affordable housing tax credit to the tune of $2.4 billion over the next five years to encourage affordable single family housing in inner-city America. (Applause.) The third problem is the fact that the rules are too complex. People get discouraged by the fine print on the contracts. They take a look and say, well, I'm not so sure I want to sign this. There's too many words. (Laughter.) There's too many pitfalls. So one of the things that the Secretary is going to do is he's going to simplify the closing documents and all the documents that have to deal with homeownership. It is essential that we make it easier for people to buy a home, not harder. And in order to do so, we've got to educate folks. Some of us take homeownership for granted, but there are people -- obviously, the home purchase is a significant, significant decision by our fellow Americans. We've got people who have newly arrived to our country, don't know the customs. We've got people in certain neighborhoods that just aren't really sure what it means to buy a home. And it seems like to us that it makes sense to have a outreach program, an education program that explains the whys and wherefores of buying a house, to make it easier for people to not only understand the legal implications and ramifications, but to make it easier to understand how to get a good loan. There's some people out there that can fall prey to unscrupulous lenders, and we have an obligation to educate and to use our resource base to help people understand how to purchase a home and what -- where the good opportunities might exist for home purchasing. Finally, we want to make sure the Section 8 homeownership program is fully implemented. This is a program that provides vouchers for first-time home buyers which they can use for down payments and/or mortgage payments. (Applause.) - REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON HOMEOWNERSHIP at the Department of Housing and Urban Development Washington, D.C. June 18, 2002, 10:30 A.M. EDT"

http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/presremarks.cfm


(actual picture from event)

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 11:46 PM. Reason : .]

5/25/2009 11:45:13 PM

The housing debacle is a perfect example of the disconnect between the textbook and the real world. We live in a two-party democracy where compromise is the norm and policies are subject political concerns.

If you are pushing a privatization policy that will not work if compromised, then you are pushing a failed policy. You judge a policy not by whether it is theoretically correct but by whether you can actually implement it in our system of government and still achieve good results.

Perfect policy that can't be correctly implemented <<< less-than-perfect policy that can function in our reality

The people who don't give a shit about actually getting work done just complain about how we implemented the perfect textbook policy, incorrectly.

5/25/2009 11:57:32 PM

Quote :

" both parties gone well out of their way to inflate the housing bubble "

No doubt. I was responding to a specific post, though.

5/26/2009 1:42:33 AM

Once the baby boomers die off we'll be fine. And since none of them will be able to afford health insurance anyway, it will happen sooner.

5/26/2009 1:56:24 AM

Quote :

"Welp, looks like every other rich country has universal health care."

Yep. And where do they go when they want specialized care? Oh, right, HERE. thanks for conceding

5/26/2009 7:22:53 AM

Quote :

"the left wasn't blameless--trying to make every asshole in the world a homeowner"

I'm just curious why you brought up partisan politics in regards to my comment? The point was, you conservatives keep clamoring for getting the government out of _________ <- (insert EVERYTHING here). This is a great ideal to achieve but until the government actually shrinks back down to a manageable size and states begin to take a bigger part in their own destiny you aren't getting government out of shit so long as big time lobbying interest continue to call the shots. The housing bubble, blowup, and subsequent bailing out of Wall Street was won on the backs of lobbying dollars. Nothing free market or government out of the way of the system about it.

5/26/2009 7:31:26 AM

Quote :

"Reduced regulation and lax enforcement of existing regulation certainly worked well for the banking industry lately, it should work even better for health care."

The banking industry is one of the most regulated industries in the US economy, arguably second only to health care. The government has a direct influence on the supply of loanable funds and the demand for housing via tax policies, GSE's, ect.

If our "lax" regulation were to blame, why was this a global financial crisis, which occurred coincidentally (as opposed to the misconception that it started in the US and spread elsewhere)? Why wasn't Italy, with state-owned banks, free-and-clear of the financial crisis due to their overbearing regulations? Surely they and other countries with much less "lax" regulatory oversight would have fared much better than the US if the US' regulatory framework were to blame.

Quote :

"On the one hand, you have a collection of universal healthcare implementations that have better results than what we have now"

What metrics are you using to gauge “better results?” I am willing to bet they are far more influenced by societal norms than they are by health systems.

Quote :

"you have assertions based on theoretical assertions about what might happen if your made the system more private"

Those “theories” are not based on models, but human behavior – how consumers respond to price changes. This is econ 101 and is being tested each day in all other markets whose prices are not affected by government involvement.

Quote :

"you go with the less risky option"

How is this less risky? It is irreversible once implemented. If it turns out to be suboptimal as has every other socialized system, it will be almost impossible to unwind it. Not to mention the personal freedoms destroyed in the process.

Quote :

"You judge a policy not by whether it is theoretically correct but by whether you can actually implement it in our system of government and still achieve good results."

Exactly. That is why the centuries of failed government-run enterprises suggest we use what has been tested to provide the greatest efficiency, lowest cost and highest quality – the voluntary exchange of goods and services by free individuals. Most people have a romantic view about what government can do to “solve” our problems; a view that is far removed from reality and empirical evidence.


[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 9:30 AM. Reason : ,]

5/26/2009 9:15:59 AM

Quote :

"The banking industry is one of the most regulated industries in the US economy"

Regulation without enforcement is effectively no regulation. Regulation that leads to failure is obviously not regulation either.

Quote :

"Why wasn't Italy, with state-owned banks, free-and-clear of the financial crisis due to their overbearing regulations? Surely they and other countries with much less "lax" regulatory oversight would have fared much better than the US if the US' regulatory framework were to blame."

See previous comment. I'd also point out that I don't really think of Italian banks at the top of the innovation or investment worthy pile when it comes to banks. They can be regulated to the gills and line their assets with safe AAA rated stuff per their heavy regulations and still got smoked thanks to the payola rating agencies in the US that is at the root of all this.

Quote :

"Not to mention the personal freedoms destroyed in the process."

Rofl.

Quote :

"Most people have a romantic view about what governmentthe free market can do to “solve”create our problems; a view that is far removed from reality and empirical evidence."

5/26/2009 10:50:46 AM

Quote :

"Regulation without enforcement is effectively no regulation. Regulation that leads to failure is obviously not regulation either."

Quote :

"See previous comment. I'd also point out that I don't really think of Italian banks at the top of the innovation or investment worthy pile when it comes to banks. They can be regulated to the gills and line their assets with safe AAA rated stuff per their heavy regulations and still got smoked thanks to the payola rating agencies in the US that is at the root of all this."

So your claim is what, precisely? That bureaucrats and regulators everywhere, including Europe, birthplace of the regulatory state, decided to simultaneously abandon their posts? That despite the severe and distinct regulations of different regions, plenty of countries wound up stuck in a banking crisis, with no forseeable cause other than the fact that, uh... what, exactly? The U.S. wasn't enforcing its regulations enough?

Didn't we just pass a tough new set of regulations in the wake of Enron? You know, Sabarnes-Oxley, the kind that was making life difficult for most companies simply due to the compliance requirements? But oh wait, we must not have any regulations. And those we have must not be getting enforced. And those that are getting enforced are being enforced badly. And those that are being enforced well are bad regulations. And those that are good regulations aren't enough, apparently.

There we go - now we can cut to the heart of the matter. Turtles all the way down.

5/26/2009 11:04:08 AM

Quote :

"That bureaucrats and regulators everywhere, including Europe, birthplace of the regulatory state, decided to simultaneously abandon their posts?"

Sure, why does that seem inconceivable? The same emotions that have driven humans to be greedy and power hungry since time immemorial are still at work. The assertion that Hunt has made and you echoed is our friends across the pond are more heavily regulated than we are. How can this be when their leverage rations were HIGHER than our own? Take that plus trusting US rating agencies who were greedy pigs themselves, and you have a recipe for an implosion...everywhere.

Quote :

"Didn't we just pass a tough new set of regulations in the wake of Enron? You know, Sabarnes-Oxley, the kind that was making life difficult for most companies simply due to the compliance requirements? But oh wait, we must not have any regulations. And those we have must not be getting enforced. And those that are getting enforced are being enforced badly. And those that are being enforced well are bad regulations. And those that are good regulations aren't enough, apparently."

I don't know why you seem so surprised, you are aware of the sad state of the financial companies in this country, aren't you?

5/26/2009 11:13:35 AM

Quote :

"The same emotions that have driven humans to be greedy and power hungry since time immemorial are still at work."

So if greed caused the crisis, why were bankers, investors and homeowners greedier in 2005 than 1995? If your answer is exponentially rising home prices caused “extra” greed, then greed cannot be the cause given it was preceded by something else that caused housing prices to exceed equilibrium.

Quote :

"The assertion that Hunt has made and you echoed is our friends across the pond are more heavily regulated than we are. How can this be when their leverage rations were HIGHER than our own?"

Capital requirements are but one aspect of regulation. Your assertion is that the US practiced lax regulation and doing so caused home prices to rise exponentially and financial institutions to subsequently fail. If this were the case, we would see a direct correlation between the degree of a country's regulations and the health of a country’s financial institutions. Given this is obviously not the case, I fail to see how regulation was a cause.

5/26/2009 11:40:26 AM

Quote :

"So if greed caused the crisis, why were bankers, investors and homeowners greedier in 2005 than 1995? "

Who says they were any greedier in 2005 than they were in 1995 or vice versa? Financial innovation and regulation avoidance takes time.

Quote :

"If this were the case, we would see a direct correlation between the degree of a country's regulations and the health of a country’s financial institutions. Given this is obviously not the case, I fail to see how regulation was a cause."

You're completely wrong. European banks that are more highly levered than our own banks are under more stress than our own banks.

5/26/2009 11:49:23 AM

nm

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 11:51 AM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 11:51:05 AM

Quote :

"WTF? The current deficit is because of health care decisions? What happened to TARP and that crazy-large trillion dollar “stimulus” package and Chrysler and AIG and GM and all those other bailouts? Sure, there is a looming Medicare bankruptcy, but that has little to do with the deficit numbers quoted. We libertarians have always warned that the modus operandi of government is the following: The government creates a problem. Then the government uses that problem as justification for more government action. Repeat. Is there any clearer evidence than this from Obama? He wastes a couple of trillion dollars in his first months in office propping up the constituent groups who got him elected, and then blames the spending on health care, which gives him an entree to … spend more money on health care."

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/05/bait-and-switch.html

5/26/2009 12:01:34 PM

Our current system is highly regulated and the government is highly involved in saying what insurance you can get what you cant get and where you can go for care.

If you dont realize this you're an idiot. Also, when you say you're paying out of pocket, are you paying out of pocket to the doctor for your care, or are you paying for your own insurance which pays your doc?

Also, your problem is that you dont realize how much your employer used to pay for your insurance. They're paying several thousand dollars on top of your salary(~12,000 for a family of 4) for your healthcare. So if you're working somewhere for the same ammount as your previous job, but without insurance, you took a paycut.

That extra $$ your employer used to pay, you now have to handle. In a purely out of pocket system, instead of your employer giving that money to the insurance provider, it would come directly to you or into a pre-rax HSA. You then pay the doctor directly with money from the HSA.

Since younger people spend less money on healthcare you'll end up putting more money than you use each year into your HSA which will make a small bit of interest. When you get older and you need the money more, its there.

Not only does this get rid of the beuracracy created by current insruance (lowering your costs), it also means you can shope around and pick your doc. Previously this was mandadted by your HMO.

Then you get accident insurance that is priced based on risk to help eliminate the costs related to socialized risk.

For most americans this would be a more affordable system that would result in better care. The gov can pay for those who still cant afford it, similar to wellfare or food stamps.

5/26/2009 12:31:12 PM

Quote :

"European banks that are more highly levered than our own banks are under more stress than our own banks."

Correct me if I am wrong, but your original assertion was that "reduced regulation and lax enforcement of existing regulation" was a cause of our current slowdown. So how does this apply to European countries?

What of Canada, Australia, China, Japan, ect? Are you saying all countries simultaneously reduced their regulations and oversight and this caused their financial stress as well? This is obviously not the case. Again, if regulation were the cause, "...we would see a direct correlation between the degree of a country's regulations and the health of a country’s financial institutions. Given this is obviously not the case, I fail to see how regulation was a cause."

5/26/2009 12:31:57 PM

Quote :

" practicing dangerous sports like auto-racing, skydiving, stunt skating, street acrobats, etc."

Sometime tells me that if you have an "accident" skydiving it'll increase the costs in the life insurance industry, not health insurance.

And statistically, its much safer than driving a car. So maybe if you're concerned about being irresponsible and wreckless b/c someone's paying for your insurance you should just walk everywhere

5/26/2009 1:04:49 PM

Quote :

" Sometime tells me that if you have an "accident" skydiving it'll increase the costs in the life insurance industry, not health insurance."

Yeah... no. There are tons of ankle, knee, and leg injuries, not to mention the occasional neck/spinal injury or wrist/arm injury.

5/26/2009 1:40:15 PM

I agree with shaggy.

As for medical care I dont think you will find many better than the US.

BTW, look at the leading cause of death, and really most in the top 10, they are mostly lifestyle related. The fact that people are as big as they are, exercise as little as we do, and still live as long as they do is a virtue of our medical care.

Nothing should be free to anyone. When something is given to you it is easily abused. Look no further than our current medicaid programs. THe majority of those on it, and not elderly, are obese and rarely show up for thier appointments. And ask anyone who works at a hospital ER and in an area with a high medicaid population, who the majority of people using the ER as a PCP are. Its simply handed to people with no expecations or requirements, other than they not go crazy and earn a living.

5/26/2009 1:48:31 PM

Quote :

"BTW, look at the leading cause of death, and really most in the top 10, they are mostly lifestyle related. The fact that people are as big as they are, exercise as little as we do, and still live as long as they do is a virtue of our medical care."

I've actually heard before, but haven't seen conclusive evidence, that medical mishaps (ie doctors almost like you) are the leading cause of death in the US.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed.htm
The American Medical System Is The Leading Cause Of Death And Injury In The United States

5/26/2009 1:56:05 PM

I dont doubt doctors make mistakes, they are human. But the leading cause? I dont believe it.

Any data since your link moron?

Well the leading cause of death is heart disease in the US. Heart disease. THe second leading cause is cancer. And the number 1 cancer? Lung.

"With an estimated 160,390 deaths in 2007, lung cancer is the leading cancer killer in men and women in the United States. It causes more deaths than the next three most common cancers combined (colon, breast and prostate). "



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121203332.html

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 2:07:39 PM

SET EM UP

5/26/2009 2:13:31 PM