Obama's FY 2012 Budget

whysoserious · Feb 16, 2011

Conservative said:
Right, so let's just assume that tax cuts cut govt. revenue which the Treasury shows didn't happen but if it did and you had less revenue coming in than you expected what would you do to spending? Why is it that liberals never question how the money is spent but instead worry about how much more money the govt. can get?

Because I feel like the rich don't pay enough. They make money off of the backs of hard-working Americans and then don't put the money back into the pot to sustain the country they live off of.

I am not entirely opposed to cuts and streamlining government programs, however. Which programs do you think you would cut the most? Defense? Where? Medicare/Medicaid? Where? As has been discussed, non defense discretionary spending gets hacked at all the time so it is pretty efficient and tight around the waist already. It can be cut more, but not much without crippling the programs and ruining their purpose.

So what would you cut? Paul Ryan hasn't answered this yet.

Conservative · Feb 16, 2011

whysoserious;1059289678]Because I feel like the rich don't pay enough. They make money off of the backs of hard-working Americans and then don't put the money back into the pot to sustain the country they live off of.

Listen to yourself, what makes you an expert on the rich people and what they need or don't need? How did the rich make anything off you? You don't seem to have a clue who carries the tax burden now. Maybe this will help but I doubt it.

The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all taxes.
The top 10% of wage earners make 45.8% of all income and pay 69.9% of all taxes.

The bottom 50% make 12.8% of all income and pay 2.7% of all taxes.

Currently approximately 47% of all Americans pay nothing and actually get money back making their tax rate negative.

I am not entirely opposed to cuts and streamlining government programs, however. Which programs do you think you would cut the most? Defense? Where? Medicare/Medicaid? Where? As has been discussed, non defense discretionary spending gets hacked at all the time so it is pretty efficient and tight around the waist already. It can be cut more, but not much without crippling the programs and ruining their purpose.

Pretty simply you cut anything that is currently being funded at the state level i.e. Education, Energy, Commerce, EPA. Medicare and Medicaid aren't paid out of Federal Income taxes and have their own taxes. take them and SS off budget and put them back where they belong, a lock box.

So what would you cut? Paul Ryan hasn't answered this yet

You will see what the GOP is going to cut soon. Why doesn't the President do what he is supposed to do, lead?

Ockham · Feb 16, 2011

whysoserious said:
Because I feel like the rich don't pay enough. They make money off of the backs of hard-working Americans and then don't put the money back into the pot to sustain the country they live off of.

Ok, so I'm going to provide the names of 5 very very rich people. You tell me how they are making money off the backs of hard-working Americans and don't put money back into the pot:

Paul S. Otellini
Michael Bloomberg
Quentin Tarantino
Sean John Combs
Ralph Lauren

Boo Radley · Feb 17, 2011

Ockham said:
No thread - no link, and you mentioned the Weekly Standard which is not AT. So again, irrelevant.

Have you read American non-Thinker? Seriously?

Wrong. You're singing the praises of a Single Payer health system, so it's incumbent on YOU to show it makes things better. I'm simply stating the obvious falsehoods of a Single Payer health system and have provided the reasons why a bureaucratic system will fail and have failed. You brought up free markets not me. You've not bothered to defend the obvious failure of a single payer system so I can only assume there is no defense, therefore your red herring about competition and accessibility is a complete failure. I'm not biting on the obvious distraction.

Yes, and I have mentioned how in two ways. 1) Better access 2) costs less. We pay more than any other country and have less access than many.

However, you sung the praises of competition and the market place. I addressed that directly. You made the claim, but don't want to defend it.

All people have access today. There is no law, no force preventing access.

No, they don't. Many working people are not covered by insurance and can't afford proper care. So, factually, you're simply wrong. And throwing int he law thing is a red herring in that no one argued or stated there was a law preventing anything. Cost prevents, lack of coverage prevents, not law.

See prior post.

Why? It was inaccurate. :shrug:

Competition provides quality, as those private businesses who do not perform are not used, and go out of business. As well, the more competition there is, the higher the quality of said products, and the less likely for mediocre products. But this is old news... from 2006:

First, I repeat, if you can't afford it, quality is of no concern. No access, quality is irrelevent.

However, for your reading:

There is little evidence or any relationship, either positive or negative, between competition and medical care . . .

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Some studies show increased competition leading to increased quality, and some show the opposite. While this may appear surprising, it is not. Economic theory predicts that quality may either increase or decrease with increased competition when firms are setting both the quality and price.
http://www.ftc.gov/be/healthcare/wp/05_Gaynor_WhatDoWeKnowAboutCompetitionandQuality.pdf

Look back at post #207, middle of the page, it's right there.

I read your statement as saying the a larger force was less effective, and I said, yes. Less effective. I was calling for a smaller more mobile and more tactically designed for modern concerns. You were taking acception, meaning you wanted a larger force. So, no, I did not say I wanted a less effective military.

So going back to your previous statement, you then believe a less effective military is the right tool? Yet, I still have to go back to your single payer statement --- you want healthcare to be more efficient, but the military to be less effective, and you don't deny saying that....

Again no. And you should understand that by now.

My error was assuming you could carry on a conversation. You apparently didn't know Vietnam was not a World War, yet you ignore WWI and WWII and you do not address the risk as I've pointed it out. Therefore not only are incorrect but you've been misled - and tragically so. I hope you've learned your lesson.

Now you're just being silly.

And you finished off silly. The point is, I accept a progressive tax, have no problem paying more than others. You have not presented any facts that address that at all.

Boo Radley · Feb 17, 2011

j-mac said:
:lol: Oh come on...There are opinion sites on both sides of the isle, and it could easily be pointed out that many on the liberal side of many issues rely much more on sites like DailyKOS, MediaMatters, and MoveOn.org for their information, not to mention getting their news from Jon Stewart than that of the right. It shows that something must be correct with AT when thou doth protest too much.

Difference is I'm not putting up Move.org opinions and treating them like they're serious argument. I don't throw out the conservatives are fascist arguments. And Jon Stewart is a comedian, and not anything more. Humor can show insight. But even he, a mere comedian, doesn't mimic the AT and call all conservatives fascists.

Medicare has an unfunded liability somewhere in the hundreds of Trillions of dollars now, how would essentially expanding that model to cover everyone result in anything but failure of the system in true Cloward and Piven fashion, and bankruptcy?

Because it's flaw is that it doesn't cover everyone. It only covers those most likely to be ill. Having a single payer, with everyone paying premiums to one source, this would create the revenue to cover the costs, thus funding it.

Stop Nation Building, I agree, although in the past I defended strongly what we did in Iraq, it is clearly now a losing situation, and a money pit.

Better late than never I suppose.

You can't turn back the clock, so can we talk about the here and now please?

I guess I will leave the apst when we've learned from it. However, the point is that leaving is much more difficult than not going in. So, expecting an hasty exit is not realistic.

Ok, and as we do that, who fills the vacuum? And with downsizing the military, are you suggesting only an isolationist stance toward our security?

Isolation? No. But not imperialist either. Countries are allowed to follow their own destiney, even if we don't like it. We don't rule the world. We participate, argue, and when necessary, based on an act, defense, we use force. But we don't pre-emptively invade for any reason other than an eminent threat, stopping ongoing genocide (not 12 years after it happened), or stop an active aggressive act.

I've been there too friend, so let's not think for a minute that I don't understand what it is to worry how to keep a roof over my head, or food on the table. With that said all I can see that the "progressive tax" has done is create the zero liability voter, and caused one side to ruin this country for that voter.

I disagree. What has ruined this country, if it is ruin (something I dispute) would ahve more to do with an uninformed, too easily manipulated electorate. As the head of our local republican party office said to me, he doesn't want everyone to vote, he wants informed and critical thinkers to vote. He has a point.

I have worked 70 to 90 per week for the past 30 years, and taken three actual vacations. Shall we compare balance sheets?

I think you're missing the point. That's what a lot of us do, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Well, then rather than outlets like MSNBC devoting much of their time looking for the next way to bash Sarah Palin, they should start getting the facts out there so people can make an educated opinion.

Sarah sets herself up. She's news because she steps out there and says wild ****. Don't blame anyone in a profit based news system for takng advantage of her gifts. You might ask her to stop.

And the polls would include conservative polls. Just saying . . .

I'd like that if it could ever happen. In fact should you find yourself ever near the Greenville SC area, let me know, and my home is open.j-mac

I'll keep that in mind. And if you make it to mid north Iowa, let me know.

Ockham · Feb 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Have you read American non-Thinker? Seriously?

Also irrelevant, no evidence no links, no reference. Your failure to back up your point makes you credible how again?

Boo Radley said:
Yes, and I have mentioned how in two ways.

And I've mentioned 4 ways it's detrimental, irresponsible and will ultimately cost more, errode quality and impinge liberty and freedom. I've addressed your two ways, and you cannot address mine.

Boo Radley said:
However, you sung the praises of competition and the market place. I addressed that directly.

As did I and I provided you a scientific and Emipircal research paper which shows compeitition in the market place improves quality. Not only did I defend it, I settled it. You're argument is ignorant in the face of the facts and therefore irrelevant.

Boo Radley said:
No, they don't. Many working people are not covered by insurance and can't afford proper care.

That people cannot pay doesn't mean they do not have access. Every single person, man, woman, child has access.

Boo Radley said:
Why? It was inaccurate.

It was factual as well as accurate.

Boo Radley said:
First, I repeat, if you can't afford it, quality is of no concern. No access, quality is irrelevent.

All people in the U.S. have access. You seem to be conffusing "access" with "ability to pay".

Boo Radley said:
However, for your reading:

There is little evidence or any relationship, either positive or negative, between competition and medical care . . .

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I've provided evidence. You're little parrot author should read more. See the prior link for reference.

Boo Radley said:
Some studies show increased competition leading to increased quality, and some show the opposite. While this may appear surprising, it is not. Economic theory predicts that quality may either increase or decrease with increased competition when firms are setting both the quality and price.

What "some studies" -- link please?
What "economic theory" -- link please?

Refer to the prior Empirical study pdf link from 2006.

Boo Radley said:
http://www.ftc.gov/be/healthcare/wp/05_Gaynor_WhatDoWeKnowAboutCompetitionandQuality.pdf

"I do not survey
the health services research literature on quality, in
particular the literature on outcomes research. That
literature is primarily concerned with measurement,
as opposed to assessing the impact of competition.
Romano (2003) provides an excellent review of this
literature."

From your own link (above); therefore, your link is irrelevant - as is most of your arugment thus far.

Boo Radley said:
I read your statement as saying the a larger force was less effective, and I said, yes. Less effective. I was calling for a smaller more mobile and more tactically designed for modern concerns. You were taking acception, meaning you wanted a larger force. So, no, I did not say I wanted a less effective military.

Actually I said nothing of a larger force, actually the opposite. Youre claim is you want smaller and less effective, I want smaller and more effective. You should now admit your mistake and move on. I can pound on your own words all day long.

Boo Radley said:
Again no. And you should understand that by now.

What's hard to understand is your inconsistency. First you want less effective, then you claim you never said that. When I quote your own words, you backpeddle. When I point out now the third time, you want less effectiveness in the military and more effectiveness in healthcare and the obvious risk that poses to anyone who understands the World Wars of the 20th century. Perhaps that's my error in assuming your familiar with either of the World Wars.

Boo Radley said:
Now you're just being silly.

I'd like to see it as "realistic" given the lack of spirited or competent discussion from you.

Boo Radley said:
The point is, I accept a progressive tax, have no problem paying more than others. You have not presented any facts that address that at all.

So no evidence then that you're paying more by choice?

Boo Radley · Feb 17, 2011

Ockham said:
Also irrelevant, no evidence no links, no reference. Your failure to back up your point makes you credible how again?

Link what? This requires the ability to think.

And I've mentioned 4 ways it's detrimental, irresponsible and will ultimately cost more, errode quality and impinge liberty and freedom. I've addressed your two ways, and you cannot address mine.

Mine were more specific. I don't doubt there are some benefits to competition. Have never argued other wise. But we have seen rent-to-own with comeptition, we're seen inferior products created with compeitition as well. It is not magic, and it does not matter at all to someone who can't afford it.

That people cannot pay doesn't mean they do not have access. Every single person, man, woman, child has access.

Yes, it does. If I cannot aford to pay for food, to get food, I do not have a full stomach.

It was factual as well as accurate.

It was neither. Sorry.

All people in the U.S. have access. You seem to be conffusing "access" with "ability to pay".

No, I'm not the least bit confusing anything. If I cannot pay, I don't get the service, so I don't have access.

I've provided evidence. You're little parrot author should read more. See the prior link for reference.

No, on the specific issue you have not. Sorry.

Actually I said nothing of a larger force, actually the opposite. Youre claim is you want smaller and less effective, I want smaller and more effective. You should now admit your mistake and move on. I can pound on your own words all day long.

If you did not, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.

What's hard to understand is your inconsistency. First you want less effective, then you claim you never said that. When I quote your own words, you backpeddle. When I point out now the third time, you want less effectiveness in the military and more effectiveness in healthcare and the obvious risk that poses to anyone who understands the World Wars of the 20th century. Perhaps that's my error in assuming your familiar with either of the World Wars.

Look, you're being dishonest. Either I misread you, or you haven't read all the comments. Either way, this should be put to rest by now. Stop being silly.

I'd like to see it as "realistic" given the lack of spirited or competent discussion from you.

Tell yourself what you must. :roll:

Ockham · Feb 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Link what? This requires the ability to think.

It requires you to back up your accusation. You failed to do that and continue to fail.

Boo Radley said:
Mine were more specific. I don't doubt there are some benefits to competition. Have never argued other wise.

Ahh... yeah ya did.

Boo Radley said:
But we have seen rent-to-own with comeptition, we're seen inferior products created with compeitition as well. It is not magic, and it does not matter at all to someone who can't afford it.

You continue to confuse accessibility with the the economics of "affording" something. Inferior products, as my study summary and methodology shows drives down instances of inferior products and increases good to very good products / services. The person's ability to afford something has no connection to accessibility.

Boo Radley said:
Yes, it does. If you cannot aford to pay for food, to get food, I do not have a full stomach.

You still have access to the food. Causational fallacy aside, access and ability to pay are not the same thing. Get it yet?

Boo Radley said:
It was neither. Sorry.

It was both. What's sorry is your inability to comprehend it. :sigh:

Boo Radley said:
No, I'm not the least bit confusing anything. If I cannot pay, I don't get the service, so I don't have access.

You don't get it yet.

The ability to pay has no effect on access. You can access a store by walking through the front door. You have access to inspect, look at, even take those items via that access - even if you have no money to pay for them. No one is stopping access. The ability to pay is the responsibility of the individual.

Boo Radley said:
No, on the specific issue you have not. Sorry.

Not only have I provided it, it's settled. You lost the point. Sorry.

Boo Radley said:
If you did not, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.

So by your double negative I did and it made sense. Thanks!

Boo Radley said:
Look, you're being dishonest.

Not only am I being honest, I've proven it to you in post after post. Your obstinate dis- ingenuousness at avoiding and otherwise changing the topic, denying statements you clearly already made is entertainment beyond my wildest dreams. I can watch this tap dance all day.

Boo Radley said:
Either I misread you, or you haven't read all the comments. Either way, this should be put to rest by now.

I put your argument to rest 3 posts ago, you're still hanging on trying to save face. :shrug:

Please continue... can't wait for the next episode.

opcorn2:

The Prof · Feb 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
If I cannot pay, I don't get the service, so I don't have access.

university of virginia study cited by asa---americans with NO INSURANCE receive BETTER medical treatment than folks on medicaid, the ghetto of health care

links already provided

maybe your obsession with fantasies is getting in the way of your actually knowing what's going on around you?

either way, cheers

Boo Radley · Feb 17, 2011

Ockham said:
It requires you to back up your accusation. You failed to do that and continue to fail.

As has been done everytime such an article has come up.

Ahh... yeah ya did.

No I didn't. I said it doesn't assure quality in all cases, and gave examples. Not that competition was overall a bad thing for everything. Learn to make proper distinctions.

You continue to confuse accessibility with the the economics of "affording" something. Inferior products, as my study summary and methodology shows drives down instances of inferior products and increases good to very good products / services. The person's ability to afford something has no connection to accessibility.

No, I don't. You make a distinction without a difference. There is no access if you can't afford it. A person who can't afford to eat, starves. A person who can't afford to ride walks. A person without the ability to pay for health care goes without. Access means being able to recieve the care. If you can't pay for it, you can't recieve it.

You still have access to the food. Causational fallacy aside, access and ability to pay are not the same thing. Get it yet?

No, you don't get it. Not sure if you're making this mistake on purpose, trying to avoid the point, or if you really jjust don't understand.

The ability to pay has no effect on access. You can access a store by walking through the front door. You have access to inspect, look at, even take those items via that access - even if you have no money to pay for them. No one is stopping access. The ability to pay is the responsibility of the individual.

Yes, it does. What you can't for you can't access, no matter the cause.

Not only have I provided it, it's settled. You lost the point. Sorry.

Tell yourself what you must. :roll:

Not only am I being honest, I've proven it to you in post after post. Your obstinate dis- ingenuousness at avoiding and otherwise changing the topic, denying statements you clearly already made is entertainment beyond my wildest dreams. I can watch this tap dance all day.

Agan, you didn't. I explain my comment and asked you read all comments.

I put your argument to rest 3 posts ago, you're still hanging on trying to save face. :shrug:

Please continue... can't wait for the next episode.

:lamo :lamo :lamo You're funny.

whysoserious · Feb 17, 2011

The Prof said:
university of virginia study cited by asa---americans with NO INSURANCE receive BETTER medical treatment than folks on medicaid, the ghetto of health care

links already provided

maybe your obsession with fantasies is getting in the way of your actually knowing what's going on around you?

either way, cheers

You serious with those lies? If you have no insurance, you do not receive care... unless it is a medical emergency. What are you smoking? If you have cancer and you don't have insurance, oh well. They will stabalize you, but that's it.

Here, read about your options if you don't have insurance and get diagnosed with cancer:

Cancer Support Community - If You Do Not Have Health Insurance

If you or a loved one has already been diagnosed with cancer and is uninsured, ask to speak with an oncology social worker or financial counselor at the facility that provided the diagnosis. These individuals should be able to guide you through the process of obtaining treatment. Some who are uninsured are able to set up payment plans, or negotiate a discounted payment with the treating facility. Others may qualify for Medicaid, county medical care or hospital charity care. Depending on the state in which you live, you may also have access to a high-risk insurance pool.

Aka nothing. "You can set up payment plans"? Yeah right. If you are able to put down a major down payment.

Ockham · Feb 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
As has been done everytime such an article has come up.

Where's the link to AT Boo... still waiting.

Boo Radley said:
No I didn't.

Sure you did.

Boo Radley said:
No, I don't. You make a distinction without a difference. There is no access if you can't afford it.

See my last post, the part about access to the store analogy.

Boo Radley said:
No, you don't get it. Not sure if you're making this mistake on purpose, trying to avoid the point, or if you really jjust don't understand.

The funny part is, it's you who don't understand. Sorry.

Boo Radley said:
Yes, it does. What you can't for you can't access, no matter the cause.

Apparently you don't know what the word "access" means. :shrug:

Boo Radley said:
Tell yourself what you must. :roll:

I don't have to tell myself anything... myself already knows. It's only you who know but cannot accept.

Boo Radley said:
Agan, you didn't. I explain my comment and asked you read all comments.

Sorry, I did. I avidly read your posts - but sorry.

Boo Radley said:
You're funny.

Even funnier since I'm right.

Ok bored now... let me know if you want more... I've got plenty left and like I said, watching you tap dance is hella entertaining.

The Prof · Feb 17, 2011

uva studied 40259 medicaid patients and 24035 with no insurance, looking at those who underwent lung resections, escophagectomies, colectomies, pancreatectomies, gastrectomies, abdominal aortic aneurism repairs, hip replacements and coronary artery bypasses

after controlling for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 comorbid conditions, uva found that americans with NO INSURANCE experience shorter stays, lower costs and lower mortality rates than those whose primary payer status is medicaid

ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations

whysoserious · Feb 17, 2011

The Prof said:
uva studied 40259 medicaid patients and 24035 with no insurance, looking at those who underwent lung resections, escophagectomies, colectomies, pancreatectomies, gastrectomies, abdominal aortic aneurism repairs, hip replacements and coronary artery bypasses

after controlling for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 comorbid conditions, uva found that americans with NO INSURANCE experience shorter stays, lower costs and lower mortality rates than those whose primary payer status is medicaid

ASA: ASA 130th Annual Meeting Abstracts - Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality For Major Surgical Operations

This study looked at one slice of health care. These are specific surgery's, and while it does show some issues with Medicaid, it does not give a full scope picture of what uninsured people face. I don't see anything on there about procedures that are not emergencies and necessary medications.

I agree though, Medicaid is a mess.

whysoserious · Feb 17, 2011

Conservative said:
Listen to yourself, what makes you an expert on the rich people and what they need or don't need? How did the rich make anything off you? You don't seem to have a clue who carries the tax burden now. Maybe this will help but I doubt it.

How did the rich make their money? They make it off of the backs of everyone else. Also, currently money flows uphill. The more money you have, the easier it is to make money and the more money you should have in the future. Where as, the less money you have, the harder it is to make money and the more likely of future hardships.

The top 1% of wage earners make 20% of all income and pay 38% of all taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners make 34.7% of all income and pay 58.7% of all taxes.
The top 10% of wage earners make 45.8% of all income and pay 69.9% of all taxes.

The bottom 50% make 12.8% of all income and pay 2.7% of all taxes.

I don't know about those numbers. I am pretty sure the top earners make a larger percentage of the nations total income. Also, as I showed recently, they generally pay a marginal tax rate of around 17% in an aggregate study performed by the IRS.

Pretty simply you cut anything that is currently being funded at the state level i.e. Education, Energy, Commerce, EPA. Medicare and Medicaid aren't paid out of Federal Income taxes and have their own taxes. take them and SS off budget and put them back where they belong, a lock box.

So we are in agreement that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security need to remain untouched and should be off the block since they have their own system of funding and are not causing the deficit to rise. There's a start.

As far as cutting all of those agencies... you could. In fact, you'd have to if you want to keep taxes lowered. However, most of those programs run fairly efficiently already so cutting them more is basically debilitating them. Non defense discretionary spending is the most cut and most trend category of all expenditures. There is not much belt room there.

So you can end all of those services, I suppose. I think you'd find that to be more harmful than good, but that's my opinion (they were started for a reason). Personally, I'd just let the Bush tax cuts expire and possibly raise them a bit more for the top earners. Something tells me the top income bracket will make it out ok.

You will see what the GOP is going to cut soon. Why doesn't the President do what he is supposed to do, lead?

The president has. He proposed a budget cut that GOP mocked. Unfortunately, the GOP forgot that it is almost the exact same budget proposal that they themselves put forwards.

It's a crazy world we live in.

Boo Radley · Feb 17, 2011

Ockham said:
Sorry, I did. I avidly read your posts - but sorry.

Even funnier since I'm right.

There's a difference between reading and comprehening. You should also note that self proclamations don't mean much. health care is not like a store. Nor is like most products. Call it what you will, but if can't afford it, can't get adequate treatment, you don't have adequate access. Once you grasp that, call it what you want to, we can't move on to any other issue.

The Prof · Feb 17, 2011

whysoserious said:
I agree though, Medicaid is a mess.

and obama just lumped millions more miserable americans into this ghetto of health care WITH NO FUNDING

his conception of payfor---let the bankrupt states just pick it up

Governors balk over what healthcare bill will cost states - The Boston Globe

listen to the gubs, dems phil bredesen of tennessee, bill richardson of new mexico, bill ritter of colorado, christine gregoire of washington, brian schweitzer of montana...

obamacare is a disaster, the american electorate is correctly on to it

stay up

Ockham · Feb 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
There's a difference between reading and comprhening.

And when will you be learning the difference?

Boo Radley said:
You should also not that self proclamations don't mean much.

I understand. It was my last ditch effort to try and get through to the haze that permeates your comprehension. I know it's usually ineffective but facts, figures, rational logical discussion... nothing else worked.

Boo Radley said:
health care is not like a store. Nor is like most products.

It's a service, sold out of brick and mortar locations. You may have heard the terms "products and services" put together like that at some point. That's no mistake.

Boo Radley said:
Call it what you will, but if can't afford it, can't get adequate treatment, you don't have adequate access.

You have to nudge that cd player because it's stuck. Let me lay it out like I would to someone who's very naive.

Access means to have the ability to talk, communicate and enter in and exit. Like your house. You have access to your house if you can go into the house through the door, and exit the house again, to leave the house. All citizens have access to health care. You can go into an insurance company and request information on what they offer. Health care is a service provided by a company. When you request information, you can communicate to a person who can tell you more about their services. They may ask you questions so they can help guide you to the best health care insurance for you. You can walk into the insurance company, and you can walk out of the insurance company. No one stops you from going to any offered insurance company.

The ability to PAY FOR a product or service is not accessibility, it's called affordability. Depending on how much money you make, and how much money the health care option costs, will determine if you can AFFORD to purchase the insurance. The inability to pay for health care insurance does not affect your ability to gain access, investigate, and otherwise communicate and get information. Those who cannot AFFORD to pay for the insurance still have access, but cannot PURCHASE the insurance, and that insurance will not cover sickness or injuries unless the person can AFFORD to PURCHASE the insurance.

Once you can learn to separate ACCESSIBILITY and AFORDABILITY instead of calling both ACCESS, we can move on to other issues.

DontDoIt · Feb 17, 2011

liblady said:
what i see is an attempt to change our society for the better, imo. i WANT access to decent, affordable healthcare for all. i WANT access to a good education for all. i WANT our corporations to stop polluting our earth while raping consumers. i WANT equal opportunity for all. i WANT our country to continue to be a beacon of hope.

which of these do you disagree with?

Everyone is born equal, it's their path to a destination that is different.
Polluting our earth...forgot that was only corporations, of course unions and other businesses don't at all do they?
If you want healthcare for "all" you can wake up from your dream world now...even you're so beloved Obamacare won't do that.

The Prof · Feb 17, 2011

whysoserious said:
So we are in agreement that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security need to remain untouched and should be off the block since they have their own system of funding and are not causing the deficit to rise.

bowles and simpson strongly disagree

Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations | TPMDC

Personally, I'd just let the Bush tax cuts expire and possibly raise them a bit more for the top earners.

your druthers are off the table

First Read - Obama signs tax cut bill into law

The president has. He proposed a budget cut that GOP mocked.

obama's budget grows the deficit 30% over last year's record rate

its outyear projections rely on growth rates unrealistic and interest rates unsustainable, the outyears are onerous

the ny times projected a year ago that service on the debt, MERE INTEREST ALONE, would soon approach ONE TRILLION DOLLARS per year

Wave of Debt Payments Faces US

things have only become more dire since

and of course the gutless wonder in the white house who's been defaulting to his dumb debt commission for the better part of two years won't touch the rails

now there's leadership pollyanna pipedream can believe in

embarrassed yet?

whysoserious · Feb 17, 2011

Ockham said:
Once you can learn to separate ACCESSIBILITY and AFORDABILITY instead of calling both ACCESS, we can move on to other issues.

Accessibility and affordability are inherently related. If something is not affordable, then it is not accessible. I'd say you are nitpicking.

Conservative · Feb 17, 2011

whysoserious;1059291084]How did the rich make their money? They make it off of the backs of everyone else. Also, currently money flows uphill. The more money you have, the easier it is to make money and the more money you should have in the future. Where as, the less money you have, the harder it is to make money and the more likely of future hardships.

How do the rich make their money off the BACKs of everyone else? You have a choice where to spend your money in the private sector or not to spend it at all. By the way what do those evil rich people do with their money.

I don't know about those numbers. I am pretty sure the top earners make a larger percentage of the nations total income. Also, as I showed recently, they generally pay a marginal tax rate of around 17% in an aggregate study performed by the IRS.

Those numbers come from the IRS and are accurate just like 47% of the income earners paying NO FEDERAL INCOME taxes. The Bush tax cuts are in effect and the rich pay a greater share of the taxes now than they did before and those 47% don't pay any federal income taxes.

So we are in agreement that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security need to remain untouched and should be off the block since they have their own system of funding and are not causing the deficit to rise. There's a start.

Unfortunately Medicare and Social Security were put on budget and thus are part of the general revenue and being spent by Congress and the President ever since LBJ put SS on Budget. Medicare is part of SS.

As far as cutting all of those agencies... you could. In fact, you'd have to if you want to keep taxes lowered. However, most of those programs run fairly efficiently already so cutting them more is basically debilitating them. Non defense discretionary spending is the most cut and most trend category of all expenditures. There is not much belt room there.

The point is what is the role of the Federal Govt? Federal Govt. today is 3.7 trillion dollars and has duplicate departments to the states and the question is why?

So you can end all of those services, I suppose. I think you'd find that to be more harmful than good, but that's my opinion (they were started for a reason). Personally, I'd just let the Bush tax cuts expire and possibly raise them a bit more for the top earners. Something tells me the top income bracket will make it out ok.

Give me a reason why? Give me any example of where govt. spending has solved a social problem, cost what it was supposed to cost? Why do you care what someone else pays in taxes?

The president has. He proposed a budget cut that GOP mocked. Unfortunately, the GOP forgot that it is almost the exact same budget proposal that they themselves put forwards.

It's a crazy world we live in.

Stop buying what this President tells you because he hasn't told the truth yet on any economic prediction. The GOP didn't have control of the House until January of this year and don't have to submit a budget until April. We are under the Democrat and Obama budgets in 2011 so where are you getting your information?

The Prof · Feb 17, 2011

Boo Radley said:
we can't move on to any other issue.

yup, here in reality where adults are in charge, there will be no movement towards single payer or public option or any other pie-in-the-sky conceptions

indeed, all animus these days points in precisely opposite directions, obamacare is doing its damnedest just to dig in

and obamacare, in dire disagreement with all dreamboats, is a dog

deal with it

Ockham · Feb 17, 2011

whysoserious said:
Accessibility and affordability are inherently related. If something is not affordable, then it is not accessible. I'd say you are nitpicking.

It certainly is accessible. What you mean is if it's not affordable, it's not OBTAINABLE. It's still accessible and I am not nitpicking.

The Prof · Feb 17, 2011

in direct contradiction to obama's budget and the promises he made in his hour long press conference tuesday, tax cheat in chief geithner testified in senate budget this morning that the debt projections contained in the white house blueprint are UNSUSTAINABLE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdcQGJF_jmY

there ya go

there is not a solitary individual within the inner circle of this white house who owns the slightest clue about what he or she is doing

still not embarrassed?

party on

Obama's FY 2012 Budget

whysoserious

Conservative

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Boo Radley

Boo Radley

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Boo Radley

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

The Prof

Boo Radley

whysoserious

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

The Prof

whysoserious

whysoserious

Boo Radley

The Prof

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

DontDoIt

Active member

The Prof

whysoserious

Conservative

The Prof

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

The Prof