Obamacare

[katzenjammer]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pwilliams wrote:
If we are to succeed in fixing health care in America, we have to focus on preventive care.

This is 100% wrong. Quit stopping at the obvious. Use you unique ability to reason and dig a little deeper. If you think health care is too expensive, shouldn’t you atleast figure out why? Wouldn’t you fix that instead of forcing unconsitutional mandates down people’s throats. Gov’t created this mess. More Gov’t isn’t going to fix it.

That means changing behavior.

Who has the right to change my fucking behavior. If I am not hurting anyone else but myself, that’s my business. gov’t control of my body and health is about as far left as you can get my friend.

Unfortunately, we have had the dumbing-down and pussification of America so most Americans lack both the cognitive capacity and/or the discipline to become informed and make tough changes in their behavior.

Dude, you are completely missing the point, which kind of proves your point.

Unfortunately, America also lacks the capacity to tell lazy dumbasses “tough shit” when their kidneys fail due to diabetes or whatever ails them and they can’t pay for it. So, either the governments or the medical industry ends up paying the bill, which really means the rest of us pay.

The problem is not bad personal decisions. The problem is forcing others to pick up the bill.

However, IMO, most people will change their behavior for money.

So we should make it more expensive to choose unhealthy things in their life. I don’t agree with cap and trade because I don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change, but I do believe in taxing the crap out of unhealthy food and using the revenues to pay for health care. Examples include moderately taxing food, drinks and ingredients with glycemic index of 50-65 and highly taxing foods with GI of 66 and higher. I’m not that worried about sodium, but I see so much diabetes in the urgent care, primary care an ERs I work in, it is clear to me that’s where this should start.

This is worste fucking thing anyone has ever posted on this board. Go read the fucking constitution for christ’s sake.

Big brother/gubamint sucks, but I challenge any one else to come up with a better idea.

Where to start… First understand the problem. Then identify the cause. Then attack the cause.

The problem is not unhealthy americans. The problem is trying to figure out how to charge them more. That answer has existed since the beginning of medicine. You really need to think about this a bit more.

Here is another idea (sounds good, would never be accepted). Guns are “dangerous”. “People can be hurt and killed by guns.” So we make people go through background checks to get them legally and register them in some locales.

Unhealthy food also hurts and kills people. We should make everyone past certain requirements to get high GI carbs, etc. If you’re fat, you don’t get a dessert menu at restaraunts. You have to show an acceptable lipid panel to get eggs or red meat at the grocery store. You get your blood pressure checked before you walk out with a ham (due to sodium). Maybe you could register your ham with the Beareau of Anti Total-health Food Enforcement (BATFE). It may be easier to do this than I thought. There is no Right to Keep and Bear Donuts in the Constitution.
Holy shit. You really need to quit posting an just read for awhile.
[/quote]

Do people like this really vote in this country? Sheesh…

[PB_Crawl]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Notice how preventative care is often associated with taxing the hell out of cigarettes (even more so), booze, and fast food? In other words, taxing the poor.[/quote]

never heard a single proponent of preventative care make that association, in terms of calling such a “preventative care method”

smoking and preventative care are not exclusive.

[tGunslinger]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
I think the Chinese never had intention of getting their money back.

That sounds like a winning investment strategy!

1. Utilized domestic resources to produce consumable goods

2. delay domestic consumption by keeping currency undervalued so that only foreigners can afford produced goods

3. accept foreign government fiat as payment in lieu of real goods and services

4. profit…

er, um…?

When do the Chinese realize they are nothing more than our slaves and revolt against the system?[/quote]

I don’t think it was ever about money, from the Chinese perspective.

Here the Reader’s Digest version of my thoughts:

Goal: China wants to be the ultimate authority on the planet, much like the U.S. is right now. At a minimum, they want to rule all of East Asia without American interference.

Problem: The U.S. is the ultimate authority on the planet right now.

Problem: China cannot compete with, let alone defeat, the U.S. militarily or economically.

Solution: China recognized that the U.S. would spend itself into oblivion if given enough funding. So China gave the U.S. plenty of funding, with the intention of pulling the rug out of from under us at the most inopportune time. If they timed it properly, they could send the U.S. into turmoil, thus removing us as the dominant force on the planet.

Problem solved.

That’s why I think they never viewed their debt purchases as “investments”, from a financial standpoint. To them, it was alternate form of war that they knew they could win.

Perhaps I’m completely wrong, and China did think that they would eventually get their money back. However, even a moron could see that we would never, could never, pay back the mountainous sums of money they’ve lent us, and I don’t think China is that stupid.

Another argument against my hypothesis is that I think China pulled the trigger too soon. If they waited just a few more years before halting their funding, I think they could’ve done a lot more damage. But perhaps even they were not able to fund our entitlement spending any longer, and had no choice but to act now. And perhaps even I underestimate the financial trouble the U.S. is in.

The alarming implication, if my theory is correct, is that China either thinks we’re already past the point of no return, or we got there even faster than they anticipated.

[dhickey]

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
I think the Chinese never had intention of getting their money back.

That sounds like a winning investment strategy!

1. Utilized domestic resources to produce consumable goods

2. delay domestic consumption by keeping currency undervalued so that only foreigners can afford produced goods

3. accept foreign government fiat as payment in lieu of real goods and services

4. profit…

er, um…?

When do the Chinese realize they are nothing more than our slaves and revolt against the system?

I don’t think it was ever about money, from the Chinese perspective.

Here the Reader’s Digest version of my thoughts:

Goal: China wants to be the ultimate authority on the planet, much like the U.S. is right now. At a minimum, they want to rule all of East Asia without American interference.

Problem: The U.S. is the ultimate authority on the planet right now.

Problem: China cannot compete with, let alone defeat, the U.S. militarily or economically.

Solution: China recognized that the U.S. would spend itself into oblivion if given enough funding. So China gave the U.S. plenty of funding, with the intention of pulling the rug out of from under us at the most inopportune time. If they timed it properly, they could send the U.S. into turmoil, thus removing us as the dominant force on the planet.

Problem solved.

That’s why I think they never viewed their debt purchases as “investments”, from a financial standpoint. To them, it was alternate form of war that they knew they could win.

Perhaps I’m completely wrong, and China did think that they would eventually get their money back. However, even a moron could see that we would never, could never, pay back the mountainous sums of money they’ve lent us, and I don’t think China is that stupid.

Another argument against my hypothesis is that I think China pulled the trigger too soon. If they waited just a few more years before halting their funding, I think they could’ve done a lot more damage. But perhaps even they were not able to fund our entitlement spending any longer, and had no choice but to act now. And perhaps even I underestimate the financial trouble the U.S. is in.

The alarming implication, if my theory is correct, is that China either thinks we’re already past the point of no return, or we got there even faster than they anticipated.[/quote]

You know. I often wonder if we create domestic policy that hurts us but may be beneficial to them to keep the spigot open. Like not drilling offshore a few miles from where they are drilling. Maybe even labor laws that strengthen Labor Unions and weaked our economy? Make you think who is playing who. I honestly can’t figure it out.

[jawara]

As “da Gubbamint” has gotten more and more involved in healthcare the more screwed up its gotten. I don’t understand why people want the same group that broke the system to fix it. Its like asking a drug dealer to help you get off crack.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]jawara wrote:
Its like asking a drug dealer to help you get off crack.[/quote]

Sure, make fun of a career that actually requires real, productive enterprise…

Frankly, I would trust an individualist crack dealer to help me more than I would the “gubbAmint”.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
That’s why I think they never viewed their debt purchases as “investments”, from a financial standpoint. To them, it was alternate form of war that they knew they could win.
[/quote]

Your theory all hinges on the idea that individual Chinese people will allow their quality of life that they have worked hard to save for to be diminished…and for what?

All the US has to do is cancel debt repayment and then what?

…do you remember when Nixon canceled foreign payments of gold to our creditor nations?

If China is willingly going along with this then it isn’t smart of them because they have worked hard to get where they are and we just consume and take on debt. Who is better off in this exchange? China ultimately gets nothing out of it – not even politically.

Of course if the US government cancels foreign debt repayment then we’re screwed anyway. No one will trade with us then.

[orion]

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
I think the Chinese never had intention of getting their money back.

That sounds like a winning investment strategy!

1. Utilized domestic resources to produce consumable goods

2. delay domestic consumption by keeping currency undervalued so that only foreigners can afford produced goods

3. accept foreign government fiat as payment in lieu of real goods and services

4. profit…

er, um…?

When do the Chinese realize they are nothing more than our slaves and revolt against the system?

I don’t think it was ever about money, from the Chinese perspective.

Here the Reader’s Digest version of my thoughts:

Goal: China wants to be the ultimate authority on the planet, much like the U.S. is right now. At a minimum, they want to rule all of East Asia without American interference.

Problem: The U.S. is the ultimate authority on the planet right now.

Problem: China cannot compete with, let alone defeat, the U.S. militarily or economically.

Solution: China recognized that the U.S. would spend itself into oblivion if given enough funding. So China gave the U.S. plenty of funding, with the intention of pulling the rug out of from under us at the most inopportune time. If they timed it properly, they could send the U.S. into turmoil, thus removing us as the dominant force on the planet.

Problem solved.

That’s why I think they never viewed their debt purchases as “investments”, from a financial standpoint. To them, it was alternate form of war that they knew they could win.

Perhaps I’m completely wrong, and China did think that they would eventually get their money back. However, even a moron could see that we would never, could never, pay back the mountainous sums of money they’ve lent us, and I don’t think China is that stupid.

Another argument against my hypothesis is that I think China pulled the trigger too soon. If they waited just a few more years before halting their funding, I think they could’ve done a lot more damage. But perhaps even they were not able to fund our entitlement spending any longer, and had no choice but to act now. And perhaps even I underestimate the financial trouble the U.S. is in.

The alarming implication, if my theory is correct, is that China either thinks we’re already past the point of no return, or we got there even faster than they anticipated.[/quote]

They were predatory lenders!

They made you take the money!

They knew they would not get it back!

Welshing on your debt is a matter of,of…national security!

Yeah, national security!

If however someone forgets to pay the taxes he “owes” the government…

[dhickey]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
…do you remember when Nixon canceled foreign payments of gold to our creditor nations?
[/quote]
I call him doing that, but don’t recall the fallout. what happened.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
…do you remember when Nixon canceled foreign payments of gold to our creditor nations?

I call him doing that, but don’t recall the fallout. what happened.
[/quote]

They just papered over debt with inflation (hey guys, forget that heavey gold stuff, have some of this here paper). Also, you have to realize how fast prices rose after that.

What would we paper over with if this paper should fail – a different kind of paper?

[tGunslinger]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
That’s why I think they never viewed their debt purchases as “investments”, from a financial standpoint. To them, it was alternate form of war that they knew they could win.

Your theory all hinges on the idea that individual Chinese people will allow their quality of life that they have worked hard to save for to be diminished…and for what?

All the US has to do is cancel debt repayment and then what?

…do you remember when Nixon canceled foreign payments of gold to our creditor nations?

If China is willingly going along with this then it isn’t smart of them because they have worked hard to get where they are and we just consume and take on debt. Who is better off in this exchange? China ultimately gets nothing out of it – not even politically.

Of course if the US government cancels foreign debt repayment then we’re screwed anyway. No one will trade with us then.[/quote]

Then come up with an alternate explanation for why China bought so much of our debt even after it became clear that we had neither the intention nor the ability to ever pay it back.

Something other than “Damn, China’s dumb!” would be preferable.

[tGunslinger]

[quote]orion wrote:
They were predatory lenders!

They made you take the money!

They knew they would not get it back!

Welshing on your debt is a matter of,of…national security!

Yeah, national security!

If however someone forgets to pay the taxes he “owes” the government…[/quote]

I saw that Peter Schiff video yesterday, and thought it would’ve been hilarious were it not so tragic.

But you’ve touched on it: our government did this voluntarily, and they did it because voters not only failed to vote them out, but they demanded that the gov’t do this! Entitlements, and spending, and safety-nets for all, but hell-fucking-no on the taxes to pay for it!

We voluntarily gave China the keys to our long-term prosperity, and we did it in exchange for some riff-raff government entitlements. Absolutely sickening.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
That’s why I think they never viewed their debt purchases as “investments”, from a financial standpoint. To them, it was alternate form of war that they knew they could win.

Your theory all hinges on the idea that individual Chinese people will allow their quality of life that they have worked hard to save for to be diminished…and for what?

All the US has to do is cancel debt repayment and then what?

…do you remember when Nixon canceled foreign payments of gold to our creditor nations?

If China is willingly going along with this then it isn’t smart of them because they have worked hard to get where they are and we just consume and take on debt. Who is better off in this exchange? China ultimately gets nothing out of it – not even politically.

Of course if the US government cancels foreign debt repayment then we’re screwed anyway. No one will trade with us then.

Then come up with an alternate explanation for why China bought so much of our debt even after it became clear that we had neither the intention nor the ability to ever pay it back.

Something other than “Damn, China’s dumb!” would be preferable.[/quote]

Clarification: China didn’t collectively buy America’s debt. We need to first understand that some individual creditors and the government did. Mostly the debt is between our government and their government.

What we are talking about here is our government selling them treasury bills in exchange for their goods to make up for the trade deficit between consumers here and producers there – whether it is the individual consumers or the government. 100 years ago we would have exchanged gold; but more likely there would have been no deficit. Hard commodity exchange makes it much more difficult to go into debt because there aren’t too many creditors that would allow debt to pile up for fear that one could not repay it.

Paper money changes all that because in theory no one will ever run out. However, without a proper exchange of goods there is no incentive for the individual Chinese person to keep working since they will never get to enjoy the fruits of their own labor.

Honestly, I don’t believe the Chinese are any more stupid than the typical American when it comes to understanding economic principles. All of their planning activities are based on the false notion that paper has value. They will soon learn better than that.

[dhickey]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What we are talking about here is our government selling them treasury bills in exchange for their goods to make up for the trade deficit between consumers here and producers there – whether it is the individual consumers or the government.
[/quote]
You lost me here. How did we sell them t-bills in exchange for their goods? I am assuming you mean indirectly using t-bills to put more money in the market to buy more goods, but could be missing something here.

100 years ago we would have exchanged gold; but more likely there would have been no deficit. Hard commodity exchange makes it much more difficult to go into debt because there aren’t too many creditors that would allow debt to pile up for fear that one could not repay it.

I am not sure I agree with you here. a promis to pay back is a promis to pay back. we could have made promises to pay back in gold that couldn’t have been met.

Paper money changes all that because in theory no one will ever run out. However, without a proper exchange of goods there is no incentive for the individual Chinese person to keep working since they will never get to enjoy the fruits of their own labor.

I am not sure I understand this part either. I am assuming the individual Chinese person is getting paid for goods he produces. The same could be said of an American worker that is subject to direct and hidden taxes that makes the product of his labor worth much less in real values. Is this incorrect?

Honestly, I don’t believe the Chinese are any more stupid than the typical American when it comes to understanding economic principles. All of their planning activities are based on the false notion that paper has value. They will soon learn better than that.

The other part I have not thought about is what the Chinese are doing with the Yen. They could just as easily print currency.

[pwilliams]

[quote]dhickey wrote:

A principled rebuttal based on I agree with on principles, but completely removed from reality.

[/quote]

Don’t make it personal. I agree with your principles more than you think. The last bit I posted with gun control parody was, well, parody.

Based on ideal principles, America would allow persons the freedom to be responsible for their actions across the board (from executing and imprisoning criminals in accordance with sentences, taking everything from people if they file bankruptcy, eliminating governmental bailouts, and suffering the self-imposed ill effects of personal health choices). We would enforce the borders, deport all illegal aliens, and let the free-market truly be free without government interference. I’d even consider eliminating public education for total private education as long as there were minimum standards. I believe in all that on primciple.

Unfortunately, reality won’t allow this anytime soon.

You mentioned identifying the problem. Here is the problem as far as I’m concerned. America has become a nanny-state and too many Americans rely on it to cover their asses. How did we get here? We got here suffering the 80-ish year death of a thousand paper cuts of liberal societal engineering. Now to get to where you and I think we need to be as a country (individual responsibility), we need to overcome this massive nanny-state mentality.

America simply won’t make huge leaps away from a nanny state to undo this damage. The liberals won’t allow it. The mob won’t allow it.

This can only be undone with baby-steps. If you don’t agree with me, make an informed counter-arguement, not just a personal attack.

The mob will not tolerate the current status quo much longer, and baby steps won’t generate enouch personal accountability fast enough to prevent the problem from getting to a point where the mob demands drastic, ultimate nanny-statism.

The only logical option is a lateral move to nanny-statism that sets the stage for personal accountability. Making unhealthy choices monetarily painful to those that would choose them will be a step maybe not in the right direction, but at least it’s a step off the crazy train to a failed single party payer here in the US.

Follow on actions would have to be gradual implementation of effective criminal reform by executing and imprisoning according to the crimes and sentences, 100% border enforcement, education to free market, and economic reform to free market.

Like it or not, liberalism has engineered our current nanny-state society through hijacking of the public and university education system, the media, Hollywood, and massive welfare programs. Conservatives have been outclassed in this liberal creep and before it can be reversed it must be slowed then stopped. They must regain and maintain a foothold, then work towards re-establishing a long-term conservative shift without selling out to personal interests.

If the best you can respond with is another ad hominum without articulating realistic means to an end you’d like to see, then bless your heart.

[orion]

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
That’s why I think they never viewed their debt purchases as “investments”, from a financial standpoint. To them, it was alternate form of war that they knew they could win.

Your theory all hinges on the idea that individual Chinese people will allow their quality of life that they have worked hard to save for to be diminished…and for what?

All the US has to do is cancel debt repayment and then what?

…do you remember when Nixon canceled foreign payments of gold to our creditor nations?

If China is willingly going along with this then it isn’t smart of them because they have worked hard to get where they are and we just consume and take on debt. Who is better off in this exchange? China ultimately gets nothing out of it – not even politically.

Of course if the US government cancels foreign debt repayment then we’re screwed anyway. No one will trade with us then.

Then come up with an alternate explanation for why China bought so much of our debt even after it became clear that we had neither the intention nor the ability to ever pay it back.

Something other than “Damn, China’s dumb!” would be preferable.[/quote]

Ã??t was the Chinese government and that is not the “Chinese”

I honestly do not think that they care about you at all.

What they do care about is a production base that is geared towards producing goods for Americans and that keeps millions of Chinese occupied.

Of course they coudsl cut out the middleman and just consume that stuff themselves but that would require a major shift in their production capacity and would probably take 3-5 years?

That is a long time for a government to survive if the population of 1 billion starts to blame them.

[Sloth]

Really though, who the heck do they think they are? They want to require…REQUIRE, me to have healthcare?! They go too far.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090514/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

[Aragorn]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Really though, who the heck do they think they are? They want to require…REQUIRE, me to have healthcare?! They go too far.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090514/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul
[/quote]

You’re shitting me. Really? God the economies going to crash and burn further if this passes. Not only are we raising taxes (allowing them to sunset, whatever, that’s semantics), we are planning on increasing costs to small businesses in the form of increase health insurance costs, and we’re making major companies less competitive overseas by double taxing them (ok “closing loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas”. Semantics again). Why not just get the fuck out of my business.

And I thought GWB was pushing my buttons on big gov’t before…

[borrek]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Really though, who the heck do they think they are? They want to require…REQUIRE, me to have healthcare?! They go too far.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090514/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul[/quote]

You’re required to have car insurance to drive. How about you can opt out of health coverage if you promise to never step foot out of your house.

It’s funny how people will torture another human to save American lives, but a bill requiring everyone to have insurance is unconscionable. If you want people to pay for what they use, then you need to force everyone to pay into some sort of coverage, otherwise a population will choose zero coverage. In life threatening emergencies, those with zero coverage cannot be refused care, and we’ll still end up footing the bill.

As a side note, I think it is interesting that in a recent town-hall meeting, Obama said that single-payer health care is off the table because it is so antithetical to conservatives. Proves the man is a little more pragmatist than ideologue, which is more than I can say for most here.

[malonetd]

[quote]borrek wrote:
You’re required to have car insurance to drive.
[/quote]

Uhhh, no you’re not. It depends on the state. It’s not a requirement in Wisconsin and I haven’t had auto insurance since I moved here in 2004. And I don’t plan on getting it any time soon.