Why is ther such a rush to pass Gov't Healthcare?

[NTHER91]

You're not your

 

 

And that's all I care to fix

[Guest Hal]

Wait... You seriously believe that the economy would have avoided a catastrophic event without the capital infusion? Sure, it could have been written in a way that paid greater dividends to the tax payers who assumed the risk, but seriously? What alternative does your retrospective insight tell you should have been done instead?

 

As for Cash for clunkers defining it as fact was overstepping. I concede that one.

 

So, is that a no? You will not post any studies? Your argument seems to be losing water.

[NTHER91]

In any debate, your only object is to prove them wrong not prove u right

[kirks5oh]

Your a fucking doctor u are here to heal and your bitching about making 1200 bucks for maybe 5 hr ( that includes all the visits) hey pal why do t you come back to real life and see why u can buy for the misses with a job that's pay 13 an hr.

 

Now I understand u wen to school and lots of bills from that but until u are out of a job u can now stop your bitching about how rich u are gonna be, just cuz u want to be.

 

"what in god's holy name are you blathering about"

jeff lebowsky

 

its much, much less than $1200 for 5 hours when you subtract malpractice insurance, paying the office staff, etc. the average physician is also anywhere from 7-10 years behind a typical college graduate when it comes to years of earning power. add to that nearly $200k in school loans.

 

physicians don't get rich by any means.

[Guest Hal]

In any debate, your only object is to prove them wrong not prove u right

 

Not necessarily, it really depends on the situation. The majority of the time, simply proving them wrong will suffice. That isn't true always.

[NTHER91]

Not necessarily, it really depends on the situation. The majority of the time, simply proving them wrong will suffice. That isn't true always.

 

U just said u are right an I agree but not always???? WTF

 

 

You are horrible at that

[Guest Hal]

U just said u are right an I agree but not always???? WTF

 

 

You are horrible at that

 

WTF are you even talking about?

 

You were partially right. How the fuck you even got that much right, is beyond me. How the fuck do you come up with your retarded comments? I mean seriously, where does logic come into play?

 

Let me break it down so maybe you can understand. You were partially correct. Sometimes proving someone wrong will suffice. That isn't always the case. If you actually debate in anything beyond an internet forum or a high school class (I know, you have to go to college for that) you often have to prove that you are correct. You're not just trying to discredit them, because you could be wrong too.

 

You are horrible with introducing any little hint of knowledge into a conversation. Try again, maybe you will come up with something that makes sense. I'm sure your response will so witty, I can hardly stand the wait.

[iwishiwascool]

So, is that a no? You will not post any studies? Your argument seems to be losing water.

 

Arguing with a 22 y/o is great. Winning an argument has nothing to do with presenting a valid counter point and everything to do with being the last post in the thread.

 

Before I chose to post arguments by real life economists, not partisan pundits, let us define your metric of "success". Mine was simply: avoiding a catastrophic lending crisis that pitched the economy into a depressionary spiral.

[Guest Hal]

Arguing with a 22 y/o is great. Winning an argument has nothing to do with presenting a valid counter point and everything to do with being the last post in the thread.

 

Before I chose to post arguments by real life economists, not partisan pundits, let us define your metric of "success". Mine was simply: avoiding a catastrophic lending crisis that pitched the economy into a depressionary spiral.

 

Your metric is fine - post an actual study on the success of the stimulus.

 

Arguing with an idiot is fun - especially because I never argued against your point. I asked you to post a study since I haven't seen one. Apparently that is an argument now. You want to talk about age, how about we talk about your comprehension level.

 

Edit: Here's the quote for you to read again. I even specified my intent at the bottom. Now, enjoy eating your moronic words.

Please post studies that confirm that fact. Also, please post studies that illustrate the success of cash for clunkers.

 

Edit: Not trying to be a dick, I just haven't seen anything that said that.

[Main3s]

You really do get pissy when someone doesn't agree with your opinion, don't you?

 

I didn't have healthcare for two years and I didn't care. If the .gov offered it, I would not have taken it.

 

Fair enough & that's from your current stand point in life (or should I say the 2 years you were without). I have health care and it's great. I don't take the vision option (to save money) and I take the lowest option for other medical, again to save money. At 25 years old and in good health I don't see a need for vision or to take the entire medical option, I visit the Dr maybe 1 or 2 times a year for illness/ injury. Now, if I was in my 50-60's where I may need reading glasses and regular check ups then I would defiantly go for the other options. I can only assume that if you had regular medical needs at that time you would have found some sort of heath care.

 

We have to remember that not everyone is in the same situation as ourselves. So some sort of gov. healthcare is needed IMO.

[Guest Hal]

Fair enough & that's from your current stand point in life (or should I say the 2 years you were without). I have health care and it's great. I don't take the vision option (to save money) and I take the lowest option for other medical, again to save money. At 25 years old and in good health I don't see a need for vision or to take the entire medical option, I visit the Dr maybe 1 or 2 times a year for illness/ injury. Now, if I was in my 50-60's where I may need reading glasses and regular check ups then I would defiantly go for the other options. I can only assume that if you had regular medical needs at that time you would have found some sort of heath care.

 

We have to remember that not everyone is in the same situation as ourselves. So some sort of gov. healthcare is needed IMO.

 

Ok, why should I have to pay for other people's healthcare when I already pay for my own? We're all entitled to want healthcare, but I fail to see why other people are my responsibility. Maybe you are fine with that, but I'm not.

 

Just for the record, this isn't an argument anyone can win. Apparently some of you don't understand how arguments work, so this section is necessary.

[Main3s]

Ok, why should I have to pay for other people's healthcare when I already pay for my own? We're all entitled to want healthcare, but I fail to see why other people are my responsibility. Maybe you are fine with that, but I'm not.

 

Just for the record, this isn't an argument anyone can win. Apparently some of you don't understand how arguments work, so this section is necessary.

 

I agree with you 100%, I shouldn't be paying for someone else and neither should you. If the Gov. wants to take up donations from people to support others then I'm cool with that. The point I was trying to make with my opting for less coverage and you not having for 2 years is that everyone has different situations. Some people, although it may not be ideal, can get by without for a while. Others who have disabilities or who have children who are disabled don’t have that option. They need regular medical attention. For that reason alone there needs to be some sort of change, either from the insurance companies or from the overall medical community. IMO that’s where the government needs to step in, not by taking over and mandating that everyone is on one big plan. But by making the changes that gives everyone an equal opportunity to succeed.

[Guest Hal]

I agree with you 100%, I shouldn't be paying for someone else and neither should you. If the Gov. wants to take up donations from people to support others then I'm cool with that. The point I was trying to make with my opting for less coverage and you not having for 2 years is that everyone has different situations. Some people, although it may not be ideal, can get by without for a while. Others who have disabilities or who have children who are disabled don’t have that option. They need regular medical attention. For that reason alone there needs to be some sort of change, either from the insurance companies or from the overall medical community. IMO that’s where the government needs to step in, not by taking over and mandating that everyone is on one big plan. But by making the changes that gives everyone an equal opportunity to succeed.

 

You're arguing with me. We're enemies now. How dare you post that.

 

Something needs to be done about something, I can agree with that 100%. The problem is that the powers that be, don't really care what people think. They know what's best for us, no matter what.

[Main3s]

You're arguing with me. We're enemies now. How dare you post that.

 

Something needs to be done about something, I can agree with that 100%. The problem is that the powers that be, don't really care what people think. They know what's best for us, no matter what.

 

They know whats best for them and have lost sight of why they're in the position they're in. But that's another topic.

[iwishiwascool]

From the COP:Taking Stock:What Has the Troubled Asset Relief Program Achieved? Report- A congressional oversight committee hearing consisting of numerous independent economists. Economists who, by the way, are even smarter than I thought I was when I was 22.

 

First an overview:

The centerpiece of the federal government’s response to the financial crisis was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), which authorized the Treasury Secretary to establish the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and created the Congressional Oversight Panel to oversee the TARP. Now, at the end of the first full year of TARP’s existence, the Panel is taking stock of the TARP’s progress: reviewing what the TARP has accomplished to date, and exploring where it has fallen short.[/url]

 

The plot summary:

Even so, there is broad consensus that the TARP was an important part of a broader government strategy that stabilized the U.S. financial system by renewing the flow of credit and averting a more acute crisis. Although the government’s response to the crisis was at first haphazard and uncertain, it eventually proved decisive enough to stop the panic and restore market confidence. Despite significant improvement in the financial markets, however, the broader economy is only beginning to recover from a deep recession, and the TARP’s impact on the underlying weaknesses in the financial system that led to last fall’s crisis is less clear.

 

Redefining our metric:

avoiding a catastrophic lending crisis that pitched the economy into a depressionary spiral.

 

Summary of our metric:

There is little doubt that – as virtually all of the experts the Panel consulted agree – the TARP played an important role, along with other emergency programs from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, in stabilizing the financial system. Following the failure of Lehman Brothers and the government’s rescue of AIG in September 2008, government officials decided that a crisis of such magnitude could not be contained through the use of monetary policy alone, and that a fiscal response was therefore imperative.[399]

 

 

The point is, my statement was not to say that the TARP was a magical panacea for all of the economic challenges. The primary purpose, as decided by a bipartisan contingency of lawmakers, was to stave off the impending economic meltdown that loomed. For that and that alone it was successful. It remains to be seen how it will impact the broader scope of the economic recovery.

 

If that isn't enough I suppose I could compile individual testimonies. I'm tired.

[Guest Hal]

From the COP:Taking Stock:What Has the Troubled Asset Relief Program Achieved? Report- A congressional oversight committee hearing consisting of numerous independent economists. Economists who, by the way, are even smarter than I thought I was when I was 22.

 

First an overview:

 

 

The plot summary:

 

 

Redefining our metric:

 

 

Summary of our metric:

 

 

 

The point is, my statement was not to say that the TARP was a magical panacea for all of the economic challenges. The primary purpose, as decided by a bipartisan contingency of lawmakers, was to stave off the impending economic meltdown that loomed. For that and that alone it was successful. It remains to be seen how it will impact the broader scope of the economic recovery.

 

If that isn't enough I suppose I could compile individual testimonies. I'm tired.

 

Well holy shit, you did what was asked with only one condescending statement. I sure hope they're smarter than you thought you were. Judging by your comprehension skills, you probably thought you were one step above an assistant manager at McDonalds.

[greg1647545532]

Ok, why should I have to pay for other people's healthcare when I already pay for my own? We're all entitled to want healthcare, but I fail to see why other people are my responsibility. Maybe you are fine with that, but I'm not.

 

Just for the record, this isn't an argument anyone can win. Apparently some of you don't understand how arguments work, so this section is necessary.

 

First of all, if you have insurance, you're not paying for your own health care. You're paying into a risk pool, and if you happen to hit the jackpot of shit, the risk pool steps in and pays for your health care.

 

The first problem is that the risk pools are somewhat broken. I'm a fan of the free market as much as the next guy, but it's failed at this point. And it's failed, sad to say, because health care is really fucking expensive. But expensive is the problem, the symptom is that the risk pools are free to bar people with pre-existing conditions. Which is smart business, because there's a 100% chance that the person is just going to suck money out of the pool.

 

Risk pools can also put caps on how much money people can suck out of them, meaning you pay into a system in case you need it, and then when you need it you end up having to declare bankruptcy anyway.

 

Now, there are people who throw their hands up at this point and say, "Life's not fair, sucks to be them, we can't cure all the world's problems." Which I suppose is one way to look at it. But the rest of the world has at least tried to solve these problems and they don't seem to be on fire at the moment, so maybe it's worth a shot.

 

If you admit that there are problems, then the first obvious solution is to pass legislation that requires insurance companies to accept people regardless of pre-existing conditions, and prevent them from kicking out people who pass a certain dollar amount of care.

 

Except that doesn't solve anything, because then nobody will get insurance until they're actually sick, and then insurance companies will have to take them. Nobody pays in, everybody pays out.

 

Solving that problem is simple -- require everyone to have insurance. If you force people to pay into the risk pool, then you're free to make insurance companies bend to you will.

 

But there's a new problem. Some people just genuinely can't afford insurance. So now you have to provide either a public option, or subsidize private insurance for people below a certain income level.

 

 

That, in a nutshell, is the thought process that has led to the current bills being debated in congress. The logic is nothing new, it's been debated for decades. The upside is that certain people who got fucked under the old system (and had to declare bankruptcy and/or die) won't get fucked, or as fucked, under the new system. The downside is that people with money will probably have to pay more, and there's a solid chance that certain types of care will get worse.

 

I'm not even going to argue against those last two points. I argued against UHC for years, and even now that I tentatively support it, I can't deny that it will both cost me more money and runs a good chance of making my overall care worse. But the upside is that I won't feel like an asshole whenever I read stories of people whose lives were ruined because of an unexpected illness. Or people who made one bad decision and lost their insurance right before getting diagnosed with a long-term expensive illness. Or any number of people who aren't as fortunate as me. As with any large government initiative, forcing people to spend money so that I don't feel like an asshole comes with a different feeling of assholeness, but I'd rather be an asshole to middle-class and rich people than poor bastards who are down on their luck and swamped with medical bills.