Democrats will go it alone on healthcare

[Emma]

I didn't read the stimulus bill. Are you saying that the states were NOT directed how they were to spend the money? Not even in a general sense? Nothing?

 

[DiveCon]

I didn't read the stimulus bill. Are you saying that the states were NOT directed how they were to spend the money? Not even in a general sense? Nothing?

then how do you know money was "set aside" for projects?


my point is the congress members should have read the thing before they voted on it so at least they would know whats happening
but more and more these things are being made to complicated for even those voting on them to understand
let alone anyone else
then to be told that it MUST be voted on without reading them because its such a "crisis" is ridiculous

 

[veritas]

I didn't read it either but if Jindal is handing out checks to whomever, then I would assume that is the case. I also thought the delay could be brought on by passing it through the state legislatures first to see if they had any projects in the pipeline that were underfunded......

Allegedly, there is no list, yet. Not even to how much money has been released......but it's hard to prove a negative so I don't know.

 

[veritas]

Here's a link, I'll look at it tomorrow.......


ReadTheStimulus.org

 

[KittenKoder]

Why are we discussing the huge failure known as the "Stimulus Bill" now?

 

[DiveCon]

Why are we discussing the huge failure known as the "Stimulus Bill" now?

its related to "voting for bills that havent been read"

 

[KittenKoder]

Why are we discussing the huge failure known as the "Stimulus Bill" now?

its related to "voting for bills that havent been read"

Aah ... that makes sense then.

 

[Emma]

I didn't read the stimulus bill. Are you saying that the states were NOT directed how they were to spend the money? Not even in a general sense? Nothing?

then how do you know money was "set aside" for projects?

Going by what has been said by the pundits (and right-wing politicians) talking about (what they consider) silly earmarks.

my point is the congress members should have read the thing before they voted on it so at least they would know whats happening
but more and more these things are being made to complicated for even those voting on them to understand
let alone anyone else
then to be told that it MUST be voted on without reading them because its such a "crisis" is ridiculous

Who didn't read it?

 

[Vast LWC]

Attack the source, big surprise...
About 1,000 jobs in Colorado are linked to federal stimulus - The Denver Post
"I have no idea where that number came from," he said. "I think it was pin the tail on the donkey."

Denver post good enough for you?

The white house predictions of unemployment, pre-stimulus....
View attachment 7962
The shedding of jobs....
View attachment 7963

But I am sure these sources will somehow be partisian as well........

If you post a source, and it turns out to be a ridiculous one, OF COURSE I'm going to attack it.

Why would any rational person NOT question a source when the "facts" they produce work in their best interests?

As far as this post goes, nope, I do not question it. Good source.

Of course it doesn't really prove the previous points, now does it?

It does present a separate but related interesting point though.

As Emma pointed out, the stimulus money is not reaching it's intended targets. I think that needs some serious looking into.

Why has the stimulus money not been distributed, as promised?

Is someone intentionally creating roadblocks for political or financial gain? Or is there some serious red tape holding up the works?

This is from your previous post...
"As long as the right-wing keeps blatantly lying about the health care bill, I will not accept anything they say at face value. So post the figures."

What isn't included in this....

ARRA News Service: Today in Washington D. C. - Aug 3, 2009 - Stimulus Fall Short; Do You Believe Them On Health Care?
Meanwhile, Americans are anxiously looking to Friday’s unemployment report to see how the economy is doing. It will also provide another opportunity to evaluate the Obama administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill. Already, though, it’s become clear that it has not lived up to the predictions the administration made at the time it was passed. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on “Meet the Press” recently, “The president said rush and spend it; pass it, we’ll hold unemployment to 8%, which now [it’s] pretty clear we’re going to 10, in my state it’s almost 11. By any measurable index, the stimulus package has been a failure.”

In June, Obama’s economic advisers predicted unemployment would remain at 8% or below through this year if the economic stimulus plan was approved. But, unemployment rose to a 26-year high of 9.5% in June. In January, Larry Summers, a key economic advisor to President Obama predicted the stimulus would create up to 4 million jobs. But over 3.3 million jobs have been lost this year. Even at the state level, there is little in the way of job creation. The Denver Post reported yesterday that, according to the White House, the stimulus was supposed to create 59,000 jobs in Colorado. But “state officials can link fewer than 1,000 new full-time-equivalent positions to stimulus spending.” Mark Cavanaugh, the director of Democrat Governor Bill Ritter’s economy recovery team, said of the estimated jobs number, ‘I have no idea where that number came from. . . . I think it was pin the tail on the donkey.”

that isn't included in either the graphs or the Denver Post article?

About 1,000 jobs in Colorado are linked to federal stimulus - The Denver Post
"I have no idea where that number came from," he said. "I think it was pin the tail on the donkey."

the graphs which back up the unemployment predictions and actual unemployment numbers.....

View attachment 7967

View attachment 7968

Except for one thing. The term was "Created or Saved".

Here, from the same article:

Notice where the caption reads "Created or Saved", not just "Created".

and:

"the stimulus funding appears so far to be preserving jobs more than creating them. Roberto Mendoza, a 48-year-old carpenter with a wife and two children in Colorado Springs, is working on a stimulus-funded project to replace two aging overpasses along Interstate 76 near Commerce City."

In addition, I did find reference to the 8% unemployment number, and yes whoever made that prediction in the Obama team was being overly optimistic.

However, given the fact that the Bush Administration fudged economic data hundreds of times, both in predictions and in after-the-fact data, one would think a little forecast optimism wouldn't be thought of as that bad of a thing, relatively.

What we do know is this:

1. The Obama administration was handed a pile of economic shit from the Bush Administration.

and

2. The majority of the stimulus money has not been spent, causing the majority of the stimulus effect to not have appeared.

Again, we need to find out why the money is not reaching its intended targets. I'm quite sure the problems don't lie at the receiving end.

So, who's blocking the distribution?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Created or saved! LOL! The new metric that measures NOTHING!

 

[Vast LWC]

Go tell that you to the people who live longer, pay less for health care, and have better access -- the French, the English, the Australians, the Dutch, the Canadians, and another dozen countries whose populations are in better health than ours for less expense.

The government control is far less dangerous to our collective health as a country than the health insurance industry. Guys, the corporatists not only despise you, they hate you for every dollar they unwilling spend on you.

Health care reform is coming, and the health insurance industry can "wah" all it wants.

prove they live longer because of their healthcare and not more because of lifestyle differences

The two are interconnected. The fact that we are by far the most obese country in the world is a major factor and is related to both. I'm not sure how you can separate the two in such a way as to prove which has the most impact, although common sense would tell you that less access to health care leads to a higher death rate due to lack of (or inadequate/delayed) treatment of manageable conditions and illnesses. Diet, exercise, habits, socioeconomic status, stresses... all 'lifestyle', but all part of a preventative/maintenance approach to healthcare.

I found a terrific resource; I don't have time today to read through it all (there's a lot of data, probably take some time to slog through it all anyway).

Here's a brief overview, with links to their other studies and programs:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/18/43305158.pdf

Here we go again.

One of the five most popular rationalizations for the fact that "the French, the English, the Australians, the Dutch, the Canadians" have a better general health care system than the US.

Obesity.

Sorry, not good enough. You people see the figures and you keep making excuses.

Canada, the UK, France, etc, beat America on survivability rates on almost all diseases, with a few exceptions, like cancer.

All of those countries have longer average life-spans.

Canada spends a little over $3000.00, on average, per patient, the UK spends less than $3000.00.

The US spends over $6000.00 per patient.

That's why the World Health Organization ranks the US lower in their ranking systems than all of those other countries.

They do it cheaper, and better, than the US.

 

[Vast LWC]

Created or saved! LOL! The new metric that measures NOTHING!

And considering Unemployment is one of the LAST things to rise during any recession, the current unemployment rate stems from the PREVIOUS administration.

Plus it's impossible to measure how many jobs would have been lost due to the recession of the last administration.

Which means that this entire conversation means "nothing". Whether the stimulus works or not is not going to be showing itself in unemployment numbers yet, except in relation to how many jobs were saved and that number is incalculable.

 

[Vast LWC]

In fact, I really don't remember Mr Obama saying he was going to wave a magic wand and fix the economy in 6 months.

I do remember him saying that we were in big trouble and could very well be facing a Depression if we didn't act immediately.

Of course the talking heads, with their 24-hour news cycle, like to conveniently forget that.

It took 2 years for Reagan to recover from his recession, and you all seem to love him...

...So give everyone a break already, k?

 

[WillowTree]

so? they acted immediately and voted for something they had not read,, just a bunch of pork that had been lying around for years,, the money sucking corrupt machine called democwats did their routine cram down and then the fool in charge gaggled around for 5 or 6 days before he got around to signing it. then all the DUmmies found out they had voted for and signed a bill that awarded AIG billions in bonus and incentives so they loaded up their bussess full of acorns and seiu intimidators and sent them off in persual of the return of the money,, and we all just laughed our asses off and the whole world is watching and laughing tool

 

[DiveCon]

Created or saved! LOL! The new metric that measures NOTHING!

And considering Unemployment is one of the LAST things to rise during any recession, the current unemployment rate stems from the PREVIOUS administration.

Plus it's impossible to measure how many jobs would have been lost due to the recession of the last administration.

Which means that this entire conversation means "nothing". Whether the stimulus works or not is not going to be showing itself in unemployment numbers yet, except in relation to how many jobs were saved and that number is incalculable.

how do you qualify a job as "saved"

 

[DiveCon]

In fact, I really don't remember Mr Obama saying he was going to wave a magic wand and fix the economy in 6 months.

I do remember him saying that we were in big trouble and could very well be facing a Depression if we didn't act immediately.

Of course the talking heads, with their 24-hour news cycle, like to conveniently forget that.

It took 2 years for Reagan to recover from his recession, and you all seem to love him...

...So give everyone a break already, k?

you mean Carters recession

 

[Emma]

prove they live longer because of their healthcare and not more because of lifestyle differences

The two are interconnected. The fact that we are by far the most obese country in the world is a major factor and is related to both. I'm not sure how you can separate the two in such a way as to prove which has the most impact, although common sense would tell you that less access to health care leads to a higher death rate due to lack of (or inadequate/delayed) treatment of manageable conditions and illnesses. Diet, exercise, habits, socioeconomic status, stresses... all 'lifestyle', but all part of a preventative/maintenance approach to healthcare.

I found a terrific resource; I don't have time today to read through it all (there's a lot of data, probably take some time to slog through it all anyway).

Here's a brief overview, with links to their other studies and programs:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/18/43305158.pdf

Here we go again.

One of the five most popular rationalizations for the fact that "the French, the English, the Australians, the Dutch, the Canadians" have a better general health care system than the US.

Obesity.

Sorry, not good enough. You people see the figures and you keep making excuses.

Canada, the UK, France, etc, beat America on survivability rates on almost all diseases, with a few exceptions, like cancer.

All of those countries have longer average life-spans.

Canada spends a little over $3000.00, on average, per patient, the UK spends less than $3000.00.

The US spends over $6000.00 per patient.

That's why the World Health Organization ranks the US lower in their ranking systems than all of those other countries.

They do it cheaper, and better, than the US.

I agree; I'm not sure if your post is directed toward me, but I was answering his specific question regarding lifestyle vs healthcare.

 

[veritas]

Created or saved! LOL! The new metric that measures NOTHING!

And considering Unemployment is one of the LAST things to rise during any recession, the current unemployment rate stems from the PREVIOUS administration.

Plus it's impossible to measure how many jobs would have been lost due to the recession of the last administration.

Which means that this entire conversation means "nothing". Whether the stimulus works or not is not going to be showing itself in unemployment numbers yet, except in relation to how many jobs were saved and that number is incalculable.

how do you qualify a job as "saved"

The "saved" factor comes into play with smaller local and state governments. I don't think it applies to jobs in the private sector, although if a government job is "saved" then the private sector has one less job to create, so it keeps a potential slot open for someone else who is unemployed. The problem with the economic downturn is most notable in state and municipal governments as the incomes went down, jobs were lost and the tax base unraveled. Technically in a foreclosure the taxes still get payed by the lender but in practice, a lot of taxes weren't getting paid because it took over a year sometimes to figure out who actually owned the loans because of the secondary and other derivative markets and then so many investment vehicles had been shaved off at that point, the lenders might have been insolvent. So fast forward, at the local level, the tax revenue was decreasing and cuts were made in services and personnel. So the Federal Gov't put forth the stimulus and it could be spent to retain the jobs that were potentially going to be cut, or rehire the fired people. So that is "saved".

 

[DiveCon]

And considering Unemployment is one of the LAST things to rise during any recession, the current unemployment rate stems from the PREVIOUS administration.

Plus it's impossible to measure how many jobs would have been lost due to the recession of the last administration.

Which means that this entire conversation means "nothing". Whether the stimulus works or not is not going to be showing itself in unemployment numbers yet, except in relation to how many jobs were saved and that number is incalculable.

how do you qualify a job as "saved"

The "saved" factor comes into play with smaller local and state governments. I don't think it applies to jobs in the private sector, although if a government job is "saved" then the private sector has one less job to create, so it keeps a potential slot open for someone else who is unemployed. The problem with the economic downturn is most notable in state and municipal governments as the incomes went down, jobs were lost and the tax base unraveled. Technically in a foreclosure the taxes still get payed by the lender but in practice, a lot of taxes weren't getting paid because it took over a year sometimes to figure out who actually owned the loans because of the secondary and other derivative markets and then so many investment vehicles had been shaved off at that point, the lenders might have been insolvent. So fast forward, at the local level, the tax revenue was decreasing and cuts were made in services and personnel. So the Federal Gov't put forth the stimulus and it could be spent to retain the jobs that were potentially going to be cut, or rehire the fired people. So that is "saved".

wow, ok


/1984

 

[veritas]

Just to let you know, divecon, that was a gross oversimplification for illustrative purposes and tries to explain "saved" but there is much more to it, and there is a fulcrum effect in play that is hard to explain......like in the saved, versus slot being opened thing.........