The Obama Recession

[rayboyusmc]

our advances in procedures and care are second to none... our doctors and facilities are second to none...

Second to none? How about 37th to a bunch.

Don't delude yourself. We pay more and get less.

Single payer healthcare, not socialized commie pinko shit, will happen here in the USA. When people work two or more jobs and can't bet healthcare, the systme is broken. When over half the bankrupties in the US are due to the costs of catastrophic illnesses, the system is broken.

I was supposed to get free care for life as a military retiree. I now pay a fee, much smaller than most plans, to be covered by TriCare. It works.

 

[Jon]

A single payer system is not government control. The government acts as the insurance company.

Yes, what a profound idea. Our government does great handling all their other responsibilities. Let's put them in charge of our insurance, too!

 

[DiamondDave]

Second to none? How about 37th to a bunch.

Don't delude yourself. We pay more and get less.

Single payer healthcare, not socialized commie pinko shit, will happen here in the USA. When people work two or more jobs and can't bet healthcare, the systme is broken. When over half the bankrupties in the US are due to the costs of catastrophic illnesses, the system is broken.

I was supposed to get free care for life as a military retiree. I now pay a fee, much smaller than most plans, to be covered by TriCare. It works.

No... when people work fry cook during the day and stock person at night at age 30 with 2 kids... THEIR PERSONAL CHOICES ARE BROKEN

And our facilities and our advances and our doctors and our procedures and our hospitals are SECOND TO NONE.....

And again.. the SELECTIVE and DEBUNKED WHO rankings do not take these things into account... but nice try to use that crap with their #37 ranking again

You are the one responsible for your personal well being... not me... not Bob in Utah... not the fucking government....

 

[DiamondDave]

A single payer system is not government control. The government acts as the insurance company, but you still choose your doctor and your doctor still decides your care.

But I know you would prefer to be screwed royally by insurance companies, liability lawyers, and Big Pharma, so enjoy! The rest of the world is laughing at our stupidity.

And our government was set up to be a nanny, an insurance company, and your mommy to kiss your boo boos...


NOT

I prefer less government intervention... freedom... and taking care of your own personal responsibilities... unlike the nanny state you and your fellow uber-lefties promote

Oh... and the rest of the world is laughing all the way into our hospitals, cancer centers, reconstruction clinics, etc....

 

[Chris]

Yes, what a profound idea. Our government does great handling all their other responsibilities. Let's put them in charge of our insurance, too!

We already have universal healthcare, just a really, really bad version of it. Everyone can be treated in the emergency room. We don't let people bleed to death on the street here. Not yet, anyway. So the rich get great healthcare, and the poor get no healthcare until they are at death's door. Does that sound like a good way to run a society? No, it doesn't. The ironic thing is that every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and the pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!

With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company and that would be the government.

 

[DiamondDave]

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study

 

[Murf76]

The part where we stop wasting $120 billion dollars a year in Iraq.

It would sure help if Congress would stop larding up defense bills.

As a percentage of GDP, American defense spending is historically and relatively low. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. has spent about 3.8 percent of its GDP on defense. That's well below the 5.7 percent we averaged over the last 40 years. This includes the 1990s' "procurement holiday," from which today's military has not yet fully recovered.
Balancing strategy and budgets

Despite vowing to rein in spending, cut the budget deficit, and implement pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules, the Democratic Congress recently voted to cast these promises aside. Rather than making the success and safety of American troops a top legislative priority, both the House- and Senate-passed versions of the Iraq war spending bill (H.R. 2642, now in conference committee to reconcile the two versions) focus on adding tens of billions of dollars in new spending unrelated to the war on terrorism. This new spending, among other things, would:

Congress Again Lards Iraq War Spending Bill
Time to Move Iraq and Afghanistan Funding into the Regular Budget Process

 

[Murf76]

What we REALLY ought to be worried about is fixing the entitlement programs we have now, not starting more.

The coming challenge of paying Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits to 77 million retiring baby boomers will be one of the greatest economic chal*lenges of the 21st century. What Federal Reserve Chair*man Ben Bernanke called the "calm before the storm" ended on January 1, 2008, when the first baby boomers became eligible for early Social Security benefits.[1] In three years, they will also become eligible for Medicare.

In the coming decades, the cost of these programs will leap from 8.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 18.6 percent of GDP—an increase of 10.2 percent of GDP. Without reform, this increased cost would require raising taxes by the current equiva*lent of $12,072 per household or eliminating every other government program. Funding all of the prom*ised benefits with income taxes would require rais*ing the 35 percent income tax bracket to at least 77 percent and raising the 25 percent tax bracket to at least 55 percent.

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg2114.cfm

 

[Silence]

I still don't get it. I keep seeing all the liberals repeating Limbaugh's absurd remarks, but I never see conservatives mention anything about his show. Why is it only liberals watch his show, then bitch about it? Even conservatives don't listen to the guy anymore.

Get over it.

That's kind of like how only conservatives call Obama the messiah huh?

 

[jillian]

What we REALLY ought to be worried about is fixing the entitlement programs we have now, not starting more.

[/QUOTE]

I need to apologize to you. I went to respond to your post and accidentally hit edit instead of quote. I tried to get back to your post BEFORE I added my two cents but it was gone.

I'm sorry. I owe ya one.

 

[Murf76]

No worries, Jillian. I already fixed it back.

 

[jillian]

No worries, Jillian. I already fixed it back.

It doesn't happen very often, and I usually catch it before I click. Glad you were able to reconstruct it.

Thanks.

 

[Shogun]

It doesn't happen very often, and I usually catch it before I click. Glad you were able to reconstruct it.

Thanks.

I remember making that same mistake back in the day.. not fun.

 

[jillian]

I remember making that same mistake back in the day.. not fun.

yeah... not fun at all. could have been worse. if it were certain other posters, they would have accused me of doing it intentionally.

 

[Shogun]

yeah... not fun at all. could have been worse. if it were certain other posters, they would have accused me of doing it intentionally.

oh I know.. Given my tone in these threads you can imagine how much crow I was eating to have to admit that I fucked up and edited instead of replied.

 

[jillian]

oh I know.. Given my tone in these threads you can imagine how much crow I was eating to have to admit that I fucked up and edited instead of replied.

That thought actually made me laugh out loud.

Sorry, had a moment of schadenfreud.

 

[Chris]

What we REALLY ought to be worried about is fixing the entitlement programs we have now, not starting more.

Don't worry.......Americans are getting so fat, that most of them will never collect Social Security or Medicare.

The Twinkie will save America!

 

[Jon]

There would just be one insurance company and that would be the government.

Therein lies the problem. Now stop copying/pasting your old posts that I've read 921375912759175906935719856381568916523175987 times already.

 

[Vel]

You seem to be confused. This is about Rush's insanity in blaming Obama for a recession that started on GWB's watch... regardless of its causes.

In other words, they're talking about what a nutcase liar the oxycontin kid is.

And you either agree with Rushbo or you don't.

Actually, I wasn't a bit confused. I knew exactly what I was asking. I was asking in what way the OP thought that Obama's policies would help the economy. I understand the idea that business cycles occur. But unlike some here, I also understand that Presidential policies do have some influence on the business community. The fact that Obama has said that energy prices will necessarily skyrocket under his cap and trade plan seems it seems unlikely that the economy will improve substantially by 2010.

 

[Vel]

Propaganda.

Every other Western democracy in the world has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma.

In other words, patients lose the ability to seek redress for incompetent medical care. And what incentive will there be for "Big Pharma" to do research and develop new drugs?