Myth busting universal healthcare

[Bern80]

Everything in your post is wrong. Everything.

Clinton balanced the budget. Bush and Reagan created 90% of the National Debt with supply side economics, or as George Bush Sr. called it, "Voodoo economics."

Not really an answer to the question, but that doesn't surprise me. So Obams is planning to cut spending?

1. EVERY OTHER WESTERN DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD HAS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. Size has nothing to do with it. We are the richest country in the world, and we have more resources than any other country in the world. We can do it.

Size has nothing do with it? the fact that we 10 times as many people to pay for means nothing? ooookaaay

2. What good is healthcare if you can't afford it. 47 million people in the U.S. don't have any health insurance.

What good is cheap healthcare if I have to wait in line to get it and would most likely be of lesser quality?

3. Universal healthcare is not preventative? Boy, that's a head scratcher. A lot of people in America can't afford to go to the doctor, so they put it off until the condition becomes chronic and they end up in the emergency room, the most expensive care there is. So yes, if people have universal coverage it is preventative because they will go to the doctor sooner.

Apparently you didn't take basic econ anytime in your life. When cost decreases, demand increases. And now that cost is out of the equation and demand has increased we will now have to somehow prioritize who gets seen when in a different way. Last I checked the wait to get an appointment for most doctors wasnt exactley short here. Now that demand has increased that time will be even longer. And now that cost is a non-issue we will simply priortize people's pain.

You also didn't take civics i take it and thus lack an understanding of who is ultimately responsible for spending. Here's a hint. It is NOT the president.

Why is my health your responsibility. Guess what? If you have insurance, and I have the same insurance, my health is your responsibility. That's how it works. A single payer system is the same way. There is only one insurance company and that produces cost savings so everyone can be covered.

If it's the same thing why change? How BE SPECIFIC do you think government will cut costs in healthcare?

 

[jreeves]

Not really an answer to the question, but that doesn't surprise me. So Obams is planning to cut spending?



Size has nothing do with it? the fact that we 10 times as many people to pay for means nothing? ooookaaay



What good is cheap healthcare if I have to wait in line to get it and would most likely be of lesser quality?



Apparently you didn't take basic econ anytime in your life. When cost decreases, demand increases. And now that cost is out of the equation and demand has increased we will now have to somehow prioritize who gets seen when in a different way. Last I checked the wait to get an appointment for most doctors wasnt exactley short here. Now that demand has increased that time will be even longer. And now that cost is a non-issue we will simply priortize people's pain.

You also didn't take civics i take it and thus lack an understanding of who is ultimately responsible for spending. Here's a hint. It is NOT the president.



If it's the same thing why change? How BE SPECIFIC do you think government will cut costs in healthcare?

It's funny I wonder if Kirk can name one spending bill Bush has passed? Or one spending bill Reagan has passed?

Civics and economics are obviously not his strong suit.

 

[Chris]

It's funny I wonder if Kirk can name one spending bill Bush has passed? Or one spending bill Reagan has passed?

Civics and economics are obviously not his strong suit.

Reagan is responsible for the budget and you know it.


Downside of Reagan legacy
David Lazarus

Wednesday, June 9, 2004

Ronald Reagan may have been a good and decent man.

As president, though, Reagan pursued policies that were short-sighted, reckless and, for many, hurtful. His economic legacy is one of deplorable disregard for the consequences of his actions, and the ramifications of Reagan's decisions remain with us to this day.

I'll focus here on just three issues: soaring budget deficits, homelessness and AIDS.

On the matter of deficits, Reagan nearly tripled the gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent. He did this by cutting tax rates by an average 25 percent, while aggressively increasing defense spending.

In 1981, shortly after taking office, Reagan lamented "runaway deficits" that were then approaching $80 billion, or about 2.5 percent of gross domestic product. Within only two years, however, his policies had succeeded in enlarging the deficit to more than $200 billion, or 6 percent of GDP.

"It was an experiment," said Alan Auerbach, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley. "No one before Reagan had ever run such huge deficits during peacetime. He showed that you could smile and tell everyone not to worry and, politically, no one will call you to account."

This lesson clearly wasn't lost on the current occupant of the White House, who has followed the Reagan economic playbook virtually step by step in taking a budget surplus and turning it into a deficit this year of more than $520 billion, or 4.5 percent of GDP.

Runaway deficits

But runaway deficits do have consequences. They can lead to higher interest rates, exacerbate high debt-servicing costs and cause funding to dry up for important social programs, such as education and health care.

"It was up to the first President Bush, the loyal soldier, to clean up the mess by raising taxes, and he didn't get re-elected because of it," Auerbach observed. "Clinton also had to raise taxes because of Reagan."

Over time, the Reagan deficit became the Clinton surplus. We may not be as fortunate, though, in our efforts to sweep away the current Bush deficit. The looming retirement of millions of Baby Boomers, Auerbach noted, will soon place a huge burden on government coffers.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/09/BUGBI72U8Q1.DTL

 

[jreeves]

Reagan is responsible for the budget and you know it.


Downside of Reagan legacy
David Lazarus

Wednesday, June 9, 2004

Ronald Reagan may have been a good and decent man.

As president, though, Reagan pursued policies that were short-sighted, reckless and, for many, hurtful. His economic legacy is one of deplorable disregard for the consequences of his actions, and the ramifications of Reagan's decisions remain with us to this day.

I'll focus here on just three issues: soaring budget deficits, homelessness and AIDS.

On the matter of deficits, Reagan nearly tripled the gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent. He did this by cutting tax rates by an average 25 percent, while aggressively increasing defense spending.

In 1981, shortly after taking office, Reagan lamented "runaway deficits" that were then approaching $80 billion, or about 2.5 percent of gross domestic product. Within only two years, however, his policies had succeeded in enlarging the deficit to more than $200 billion, or 6 percent of GDP.

"It was an experiment," said Alan Auerbach, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley. "No one before Reagan had ever run such huge deficits during peacetime. He showed that you could smile and tell everyone not to worry and, politically, no one will call you to account."

This lesson clearly wasn't lost on the current occupant of the White House, who has followed the Reagan economic playbook virtually step by step in taking a budget surplus and turning it into a deficit this year of more than $520 billion, or 4.5 percent of GDP.

Runaway deficits

But runaway deficits do have consequences. They can lead to higher interest rates, exacerbate high debt-servicing costs and cause funding to dry up for important social programs, such as education and health care.

"It was up to the first President Bush, the loyal soldier, to clean up the mess by raising taxes, and he didn't get re-elected because of it," Auerbach observed. "Clinton also had to raise taxes because of Reagan."

Over time, the Reagan deficit became the Clinton surplus. We may not be as fortunate, though, in our efforts to sweep away the current Bush deficit. The looming retirement of millions of Baby Boomers, Auerbach noted, will soon place a huge burden on government coffers.

Downside of Reagan legacy

I know he didn't pass any budgets, Congress did. Now post me one budget that Reagan made law....waiting

 

[Care4all]

I know he didn't pass any budgets, Congress did. Now post me one budget that Reagan made law....waiting

reagan, or the president issues each years budget, and vetos the budget passed by congress if it does not meet the president's standards. If he signed the budget in to law, then reagan approved it....can't go in to law without his signature or a veto override.

reagan vetoed everything he did not agree with, for the most part.....that, he was strong at....imo.

care

 

[Chris]

reagan, or the president issues each years budget, and vetos the budget passed by congress if it does not meet the president's standards. If he signed the budget in to law, then reagan approved it....can't go in to law without his signature or a veto override.

reagan vetoed everything he did not agree with, for the most part.....that, he was strong at....imo.

care

Don't bother jreeves with the facts. He would rather live in a fantasy world.

 

[Bern80]

Don't bother jreeves with the facts. He would rather live in a fantasy world.

Again apparently you don't understand basic civics. The President can onlys sign off on what congress has ALREADY signed off on. Which in the Reagan administration was controlled by democrats. Are you trying to argue that congress, again controlled by the democrats in the House for all of Regean's administration and roughly half in the Senate, bears no responsibility for the budget?

 

[dilloduck]

reagan, or the president issues each years budget, and vetos the budget passed by congress if it does not meet the president's standards. If he signed the budget in to law, then reagan approved it....can't go in to law without his signature or a veto override.

reagan vetoed everything he did not agree with, for the most part.....that, he was strong at....imo.

care

You think a president should not veto things he disagrees with ?

 

[Chris]

Again apparently you don't understand basic civics. The President can onlys sign off on what congress has ALREADY signed off on. Which in the Reagan administration was controlled by democrats. Are you trying to argue that congress, again controlled by the democrats in the House for all of Regean's administration and roughly half in the Senate, bears no responsibility for the budget?

Apparently you don't understand basic history. It was Reagan's budget plan approved by all the Republicans in Congress and a few Southern Democrats.

Plus, Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, admitted that the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.

 

[dilloduck]

Apparently you don't understand basic history. It was Reagan's budget plan approved by all the Republicans in Congress and a few Southern Democrats.

Plus, Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, admitted that the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.

What did the rich do to deserve to pay higher taxes?

 

[Chris]

What did the rich do to deserve to pay higher taxes?

They helped to elect George Bush.

 

[dilloduck]

They helped to elect George Bush.

oh shit-- partisan hacks
Problem # 2

 

[jreeves]

reagan, or the president issues each years budget, and vetos the budget passed by congress if it does not meet the president's standards. If he signed the budget in to law, then reagan approved it....can't go in to law without his signature or a veto override.

reagan vetoed everything he did not agree with, for the most part.....that, he was strong at....imo.

care

He issues a budget which receives a hatchet job in Congress.

 

[jreeves]

Apparently you don't understand basic history. It was Reagan's budget plan approved by all the Republicans in Congress and a few Southern Democrats.

Plus, Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, admitted that the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to lower taxes for the rich.

Apparently you are a partisan hack, Democrats and Republicans in Congress approved a revised version of the budget each and every year. That doesn't even count earmarks, spending supplementals, emergency funding measures...etc....

 

[jreeves]

Don't bother jreeves with the facts. He would rather live in a fantasy world.

Kirk paraphrase....he has destroyed each and everyone of my lies with facts. So I feel the need to try and discredit him with even more lies.