White House Denies NASA Muslim Outreach Remark: Throws Boldon Under The Bus.

[Liability]

No, I just want to try and understand why I hear consistently from the right that the government should stay out of our affairs and that government will never be as efficient as the private sector. And I'm not totally disagreeing with that. But NASA is something that often conservatives think we should be supporting and that confuses me. For the supposed budget hawks, how much return are we seeing on every dollar we spend with NASA? Again I'm not totally against the idea but to cry foul over government wanting to exercise some oversight over an out of control insurance system but to give it the pass on military and space exploration just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

I think the return on investment with NASA has been pretty good. In overcoming issues of space exploration, technology has been greatly advanced. Telecommunications is resting solely on the back of NASA. NASA is basically infrastructure much like interstate highways. I don't view healthcare in that light.

Yep. In the olden days, governments (the crown) would often be the sponsors of the arts. Nowadays, even though the arts have real value to a society and to culture, it seems improper for government to spend our tax dollars on such things.

On the other hand, I personally believe that there are many good, solid, legitimate reasons to endorse the concept of government sponsorship for and support of the sciences. It is actually complicated, however, since it is also true that the periodic withdrawal of such support can have major impacts on the ability of the scientists to continue such studies. To that extent, sadly, politics getting intertwined into the field of scientific study can be unseemly or worse.

When it comes to space exploration, NASA has done a terrific job. Has there been some waste along the way? No doubt. But the reaction to such waste should be to implement procedures and protocols that make such waste more difficult to produce. The reaction should NOT be to toss the baby out with the dirty bath water.

Putting the issue of waste aside, I fully agree that we have gotten a LOT of bang for our bucks. It might be a bit misleading to look at it as a matter of Return on Investment, but even so, that is one measure of the propriety of government involvement in the field:

We have DirecTV in our house. I have Sirius Radio in my cars. I use my cell phone a LOT. We have microwave ovens. We have Velcro. We have computer technologies of amazing complexity and sophistication. We have for the first time in human history the glimmer of the hope that we might be able to PREVENT an extinction event like a giant asteroid striking our planet. We have advanced our abilities to peer into the cosmos and even look back in time in that process.

Yes indeed. The huge impacts and benefits we have derived from our government-sponsored policy of space exploration more than justifies all we have spent on NASA since its inception. From a PURELY politically philosophical point of view, it might be that, despite all those benefits, conservatism should reject government involvement in the field. If that's the case, then I fall short of a 100% conservative standard because I embrace the government's involvement in the field of scientific advancement. But I suspect that a refinement of the definition of "conservative" is the better conclusion to be drawn.

In the meantime, I look forward to seeing greater private capital investment in this emerging sector. Capitalism and Space Exploration could very well be "perfect together."

 

[RDD_1210]

R(eal)D(umbshit)D(emcrat),

Are you familiar with HISTORY......and the effect of "honey" on swines like Stalin, Hitler........

Enlighten me.....this should be good.

OMG !!!!! Are you really a TERMINAL IDIOT ?!?!?

Maybe, but I love reading your posts. They make me smile. Please don't stop now. And you didn't refer to me in the last post as Really Dumbshit Demcrat(Don't think I didn't notice the solid spelling). I'm not gonna lie, I'm a tad disappointed. I thought we had something going.

 

[RDD_1210]

No, I just want to try and understand why I hear consistently from the right that the government should stay out of our affairs and that government will never be as efficient as the private sector. And I'm not totally disagreeing with that. But NASA is something that often conservatives think we should be supporting and that confuses me. For the supposed budget hawks, how much return are we seeing on every dollar we spend with NASA? Again I'm not totally against the idea but to cry foul over government wanting to exercise some oversight over an out of control insurance system but to give it the pass on military and space exploration just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

I think the return on investment with NASA has been pretty good. In overcoming issues of space exploration, technology has been greatly advanced. Telecommunications is resting solely on the back of NASA. NASA is basically infrastructure much like interstate highways. I don't view healthcare in that light.

Well I guess thats where we disagree. I have a hard time seeing the value in sending people in to space but NOT making sure our fellow americans on this planet have basic healthcare.

Agree to disagree I guess.

 

[gautama]

Enlighten me.....this should be good.

OMG !!!!! Are you really a TERMINAL IDIOT ?!?!?

Maybe, but I love reading your posts. They make me smile. Please don't stop now. And you didn't refer to me in the last post as Really Dumbshit Demcrat(Don't think I didn't notice the solid spelling). I'm not gonna lie, I'm a tad disappointed. I thought we had something going.

OK.....ya got me R(eally)D(umbshit) D(emrat).

 

[RDD_1210]

OMG !!!!! Are you really a TERMINAL IDIOT ?!?!?

Maybe, but I love reading your posts. They make me smile. Please don't stop now. And you didn't refer to me in the last post as Really Dumbshit Demcrat(Don't think I didn't notice the solid spelling). I'm not gonna lie, I'm a tad disappointed. I thought we had something going.

OK.....ya got me R(eally)D(umbshit) D(emrat).

That's better and thank you.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, I just want to try and understand why I hear consistently from the right that the government should stay out of our affairs and that government will never be as efficient as the private sector. And I'm not totally disagreeing with that. But NASA is something that often conservatives think we should be supporting and that confuses me. For the supposed budget hawks, how much return are we seeing on every dollar we spend with NASA? Again I'm not totally against the idea but to cry foul over government wanting to exercise some oversight over an out of control insurance system but to give it the pass on military and space exploration just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

I think the return on investment with NASA has been pretty good. In overcoming issues of space exploration, technology has been greatly advanced. Telecommunications is resting solely on the back of NASA. NASA is basically infrastructure much like interstate highways. I don't view healthcare in that light.

Well I guess thats where we disagree. I have a hard time seeing the value in sending people in to space but NOT making sure our fellow americans on this planet have basic healthcare.

Agree to disagree I guess.

The difference is where we see the role in government. The free market is capable of serving the public needs in healthcare with the proper restrictions and regulation and that makes government unnecessary. Hence the view that government does not belong in that field. In technology the government is the only entity that is capable or pushing the envelope into new territory. Expanding into space is fat to large an endeavor for the market as it has a tendency to stagnate in a comfortable spot. That makes it the charge of the government to expand technologies in order to make it possible for the free market to expand into that aria.

 

[RDD_1210]

I think the return on investment with NASA has been pretty good. In overcoming issues of space exploration, technology has been greatly advanced. Telecommunications is resting solely on the back of NASA. NASA is basically infrastructure much like interstate highways. I don't view healthcare in that light.

Well I guess thats where we disagree. I have a hard time seeing the value in sending people in to space but NOT making sure our fellow americans on this planet have basic healthcare.

Agree to disagree I guess.

The difference is where we see the role in government. The free market is capable of serving the public needs in healthcare with the proper restrictions and regulation and that makes government unnecessary. Hence the view that government does not belong in that field.

And there is where our difference lies. If you think the free market and insurance companies are doing a good job for the working class then well we will never agree on this issue. I believe that gov't HAD to step in and do something as costs were rising and quality of care was dropping. Now you can argue that Obamacare doesn't fix these problems, and I'd agree to an extent but I'd still think it's a step in the right direction at least.

 

[Jarhead]

Well I guess thats where we disagree. I have a hard time seeing the value in sending people in to space but NOT making sure our fellow americans on this planet have basic healthcare.

Agree to disagree I guess.

The difference is where we see the role in government. The free market is capable of serving the public needs in healthcare with the proper restrictions and regulation and that makes government unnecessary. Hence the view that government does not belong in that field.

And there is where our difference lies. If you think the free market and insurance companies are doing a good job for the working class then well we will never agree on this issue. I believe that gov't HAD to step in and do something as costs were rising and quality of care was dropping. Now you can argue that Obamacare doesn't fix these problems, and I'd agree to an extent but I'd still think it's a step in the right direction at least.

I did not see FA saying that. WITH PROPER RESTRICTIONS and REGULATIONS the free market can hande it. Government control is not necessary.

 

[FA_Q2]

The difference is where we see the role in government. The free market is capable of serving the public needs in healthcare with the proper restrictions and regulation and that makes government unnecessary. Hence the view that government does not belong in that field.

And there is where our difference lies. If you think the free market and insurance companies are doing a good job for the working class then well we will never agree on this issue. I believe that gov't HAD to step in and do something as costs were rising and quality of care was dropping. Now you can argue that Obamacare doesn't fix these problems, and I'd agree to an extent but I'd still think it's a step in the right direction at least.

I did not see FA saying that. WITH PROPER RESTRICTIONS and REGULATIONS the free market can hande it. Government control is not necessary.

That was and still is the problem with our HC today. The new bill did nothing to address the cost issue by the way RDD. They just changed the way we purchase and receive healthcare. That will actually cause a rise in HC. That is the problem with grater government control, costs ALWAYS rise. Only in situations where the cost is unmanageable (like space exploration) does the government need to take the reins. In other situations simple regulation to ensure that people are properly protected is the only job the government needs to fill. Unfortunately or government seems to only be able to regulate some aspect to little and others way too much. Where the hell did the happy medium go?

 

[Jarhead]

And there is where our difference lies. If you think the free market and insurance companies are doing a good job for the working class then well we will never agree on this issue. I believe that gov't HAD to step in and do something as costs were rising and quality of care was dropping. Now you can argue that Obamacare doesn't fix these problems, and I'd agree to an extent but I'd still think it's a step in the right direction at least.

I did not see FA saying that. WITH PROPER RESTRICTIONS and REGULATIONS the free market can hande it. Government control is not necessary.

That was and still is the problem with our HC today. The new bill did nothing to address the cost issue by the way RDD. They just changed the way we purchase and receive healthcare. That will actually cause a rise in HC. That is the problem with grater government control, costs ALWAYS rise. Only in situations where the cost is unmanageable (like space exploration) does the government need to take the reins. In other situations simple regulation to ensure that people are properly protected is the only job the government needs to fill. Unfortunately or government seems to only be able to regulate some aspect to little and others way too much. Where the hell did the happy medium go?

And it makes you say...."what is next"? Auto insurance costs are out of control as well.
Flood insurance?

Look at cap and trade. Another initiative where the "problem" they claim to be addressing is not what will be recitified. They say "oil dependency" is the reason we need cap and trade.

Well, cap and trade does absolutely nothing to decrease oil dependency but it will increase the cost of oil and therefore the cost of everything that depends on oil. ANd, OF COURSE, it will include governemtn control.

Why are so many people not seeing this?

 

[RDD_1210]

The difference is where we see the role in government. The free market is capable of serving the public needs in healthcare with the proper restrictions and regulation and that makes government unnecessary. Hence the view that government does not belong in that field.

And there is where our difference lies. If you think the free market and insurance companies are doing a good job for the working class then well we will never agree on this issue. I believe that gov't HAD to step in and do something as costs were rising and quality of care was dropping. Now you can argue that Obamacare doesn't fix these problems, and I'd agree to an extent but I'd still think it's a step in the right direction at least.

I did not see FA saying that. WITH PROPER RESTRICTIONS and REGULATIONS the free market can hande it. Government control is not necessary.

Contrary to what you might believe the government is hardly in control of Healthcare. FAR from it. I wish they went further with it and took more control, but unfortunately they did not. What was implemented was restrictions and regulations, (ie. no cap on coverage, removed preexisting conditions) and this is the part that I think they got right with the healthcare bill.

 

[RDD_1210]

And there is where our difference lies. If you think the free market and insurance companies are doing a good job for the working class then well we will never agree on this issue. I believe that gov't HAD to step in and do something as costs were rising and quality of care was dropping. Now you can argue that Obamacare doesn't fix these problems, and I'd agree to an extent but I'd still think it's a step in the right direction at least.

I did not see FA saying that. WITH PROPER RESTRICTIONS and REGULATIONS the free market can hande it. Government control is not necessary.

That was and still is the problem with our HC today. The new bill did nothing to address the cost issue by the way RDD. They just changed the way we purchase and receive healthcare. That will actually cause a rise in HC. That is the problem with grater government control, costs ALWAYS rise. Only in situations where the cost is unmanageable (like space exploration) does the government need to take the reins. In other situations simple regulation to ensure that people are properly protected is the only job the government needs to fill. Unfortunately or government seems to only be able to regulate some aspect to little and others way too much. Where the hell did the happy medium go?

And you're right I agree that this bill does not adequately address the cost portion of the problem. I feel that too much power is still in the hands of insurance companies and this prices for coverage can and will continue to rise. I wish the government would have went further with the public option to at least give that lower cost alternative to put a scare in to the insurance companies, but alas that portion of the bill was DOA.

 

[RDD_1210]

I did not see FA saying that. WITH PROPER RESTRICTIONS and REGULATIONS the free market can hande it. Government control is not necessary.

That was and still is the problem with our HC today. The new bill did nothing to address the cost issue by the way RDD. They just changed the way we purchase and receive healthcare. That will actually cause a rise in HC. That is the problem with grater government control, costs ALWAYS rise. Only in situations where the cost is unmanageable (like space exploration) does the government need to take the reins. In other situations simple regulation to ensure that people are properly protected is the only job the government needs to fill. Unfortunately or government seems to only be able to regulate some aspect to little and others way too much. Where the hell did the happy medium go?

And it makes you say...."what is next"? Auto insurance costs are out of control as well.
Flood insurance?

Look at cap and trade. Another initiative where the "problem" they claim to be addressing is not what will be recitified. They say "oil dependency" is the reason we need cap and trade.

Well, cap and trade does absolutely nothing to decrease oil dependency but it will increase the cost of oil and therefore the cost of everything that depends on oil. ANd, OF COURSE, it will include governemtn control.

Why are so many people not seeing this?

But none of those issues directly result in the literal life and death of people every day. Healthcare is so important because the other stuff (auto, flood insurance, etc..) can make someones life difficult, lack of healthcare can actually end your life. That's why I consider it a priority issue.

 

[Jarhead]

And there is where our difference lies. If you think the free market and insurance companies are doing a good job for the working class then well we will never agree on this issue. I believe that gov't HAD to step in and do something as costs were rising and quality of care was dropping. Now you can argue that Obamacare doesn't fix these problems, and I'd agree to an extent but I'd still think it's a step in the right direction at least.

I did not see FA saying that. WITH PROPER RESTRICTIONS and REGULATIONS the free market can hande it. Government control is not necessary.

Contrary to what you might believe the government is hardly in control of Healthcare. FAR from it. I wish they went further with it and took more control, but unfortunately they did not. What was implemented was restrictions and regulations, (ie. no cap on coverage, removed preexisting conditions) and this is the part that I think they got right with the healthcare bill.

WHereas the removal of pre-exisiting conditions is a must from a humane standpoint, it will put insurance conmpanies out of business if they have no control over their own pricing.

Sadly, the healthcare bill was passed and no one believed that we, the people, should know of what the outcome will be.

It will result in a single payer government run healthcare company....a monopoly run by the federal government.

Now lets be honest...how good can THAT be?

 

[Liability]

That was and still is the problem with our HC today. The new bill did nothing to address the cost issue by the way RDD. They just changed the way we purchase and receive healthcare. That will actually cause a rise in HC. That is the problem with grater government control, costs ALWAYS rise. Only in situations where the cost is unmanageable (like space exploration) does the government need to take the reins. In other situations simple regulation to ensure that people are properly protected is the only job the government needs to fill. Unfortunately or government seems to only be able to regulate some aspect to little and others way too much. Where the hell did the happy medium go?

And it makes you say...."what is next"? Auto insurance costs are out of control as well.
Flood insurance?

Look at cap and trade. Another initiative where the "problem" they claim to be addressing is not what will be recitified. They say "oil dependency" is the reason we need cap and trade.

Well, cap and trade does absolutely nothing to decrease oil dependency but it will increase the cost of oil and therefore the cost of everything that depends on oil. ANd, OF COURSE, it will include governemtn control.

Why are so many people not seeing this?

But none of those issues directly result in the literal life and death of people every day. Healthcare is so important because the other stuff (auto, flood insurance, etc..) can make someones life difficult, lack of healthcare can actually end your life. That's why I consider it a priority issue.

Health care is important to people. This does not, standing alone at least, translate into a valid proposition that the government has a proper role in systematizing it or having any of its tentacles meddling with it. In fact, considering how inept the government often is, it might be safer for our people to realize that we do not necessarily get better health by having the government sticking its nose into OUR health care concerns.

 

[RDD_1210]

I did not see FA saying that. WITH PROPER RESTRICTIONS and REGULATIONS the free market can hande it. Government control is not necessary.

Contrary to what you might believe the government is hardly in control of Healthcare. FAR from it. I wish they went further with it and took more control, but unfortunately they did not. What was implemented was restrictions and regulations, (ie. no cap on coverage, removed preexisting conditions) and this is the part that I think they got right with the healthcare bill.

WHereas the removal of pre-exisiting conditions is a must from a humane standpoint, it will put insurance conmpanies out of business if they have no control over their own pricing.

And that is the very reason why EVERY american will be required to get health insurance. The insurance companies demanded that if they have to cover all preexisting conditions that need to offset that cost by having healthy people insured as well....and that's where that mandate came from.

Sadly, the healthcare bill was passed and no one believed that we, the people, should know of what the outcome will be.

It will result in a single payer government run healthcare company....a monopoly run by the federal government.

Now lets be honest...how good can THAT be?

We don't know what the outcome of any of this will be, but the pace that we were going, if we did nothing at all we would have a total system collapse. Is this solution the right one? Only time will tell.

And compared to what we've seen of insurance companies to date so far, I would much rather have a single payer gov't system. I really don't think health and life/death decisions should be made based upon profit margins and financial earnings.

 

[Jarhead]

Contrary to what you might believe the government is hardly in control of Healthcare. FAR from it. I wish they went further with it and took more control, but unfortunately they did not. What was implemented was restrictions and regulations, (ie. no cap on coverage, removed preexisting conditions) and this is the part that I think they got right with the healthcare bill.

WHereas the removal of pre-exisiting conditions is a must from a humane standpoint, it will put insurance conmpanies out of business if they have no control over their own pricing.

And that is the very reason why EVERY american will be required to get health insurance. The insurance companies demanded that if they have to cover all preexisting conditions that need to offset that cost by having healthy people insured as well....and that's where that mandate came from.

Sadly, the healthcare bill was passed and no one believed that we, the people, should know of what the outcome will be.

It will result in a single payer government run healthcare company....a monopoly run by the federal government.

Now lets be honest...how good can THAT be?

We don't know what the outcome of any of this will be, but the pace that we were going, if we did nothing at all we would have a total system collapse. Is this solution the right one? Only time will tell.

And compared to what we've seen of insurance companies to date so far, I would much rather have a single payer gov't system. I really don't think health and life/death decisions should be made based upon profit margins and financial earnings.

Actually, the mandate came from the reason pre-exisitng condition clauses existed to begin with.
Insurers did not want to allow people to not buy inusuracne until they needed the insurance.
But undoubtedly, premiums are going to go up. IN MY OPINION.

 

[RDD_1210]

WHereas the removal of pre-exisiting conditions is a must from a humane standpoint, it will put insurance conmpanies out of business if they have no control over their own pricing.

And that is the very reason why EVERY american will be required to get health insurance. The insurance companies demanded that if they have to cover all preexisting conditions that need to offset that cost by having healthy people insured as well....and that's where that mandate came from.

Sadly, the healthcare bill was passed and no one believed that we, the people, should know of what the outcome will be.

It will result in a single payer government run healthcare company....a monopoly run by the federal government.

Now lets be honest...how good can THAT be?

We don't know what the outcome of any of this will be, but the pace that we were going, if we did nothing at all we would have a total system collapse. Is this solution the right one? Only time will tell.

And compared to what we've seen of insurance companies to date so far, I would much rather have a single payer gov't system. I really don't think health and life/death decisions should be made based upon profit margins and financial earnings.

Actually, the mandate came from the reason pre-exisitng condition clauses existed to begin with.
Insurers did not want to allow people to not buy inusuracne until they needed the insurance.
But undoubtedly, premiums are going to go up. IN MY OPINION.

Yeah, I think we just said the same thing. In order to cover pre-existing conditions, insurance companies want ALL people even young and healthy be required to get coverage. And yes, premiums will still probably go up. I won't argue that. The bill fell way short in that regard.

 

[FA_Q2]

I did not see FA saying that. WITH PROPER RESTRICTIONS and REGULATIONS the free market can hande it. Government control is not necessary.

That was and still is the problem with our HC today. The new bill did nothing to address the cost issue by the way RDD. They just changed the way we purchase and receive healthcare. That will actually cause a rise in HC. That is the problem with grater government control, costs ALWAYS rise. Only in situations where the cost is unmanageable (like space exploration) does the government need to take the reins. In other situations simple regulation to ensure that people are properly protected is the only job the government needs to fill. Unfortunately or government seems to only be able to regulate some aspect to little and others way too much. Where the hell did the happy medium go?

And you're right I agree that this bill does not adequately address the cost portion of the problem. I feel that too much power is still in the hands of insurance companies and this prices for coverage can and will continue to rise. I wish the government would have went further with the public option to at least give that lower cost alternative to put a scare in to the insurance companies, but alas that portion of the bill was DOA.

But you miss the entire point. Even single payer would not address the cost problem because INSURANCE DOES NOT SET THE PRICE OF HEALTHCARE. As a matter of fact, the EXACT opposite is true. HC sets the price of insurance. That is the problem, we went into this with the understanding that PRICE was the concern and ended up with access as the concern. All the doom and gloom that was presented as the driving force for this deal is STILL GOING TO HAPPEN as nothing was done to actually address the real concern and that was price. Most of that price is caused by unnecessary regulation. That is the problem, where regulation should be written to PROTECT the consumer it ends up written to increase revenue. That is the problem with government involvement, bureaucracy tends to grow and rarely will it check itself to undo what it has done wrong. There are many good things that we have regulated but there are many things that should not be on the books. Can you come up with ONE reason that we regulate the number of doctors that are licensed each year? That is asinine and only one example of how we lost our way. This is the reason that government does not need to control our HC, it fails to EVER do anything efficiently. Try working with the government for a while. Most contractors I have spoken to that work with the DOD in construction will take their initial estimate and QUADRUPLE it when taking a DOD job. This is not because they can either, it is because they have to. Even with that, many jump ship because they are STILL unprofitable when dealing with the DOD. That is how inefficient our government is when running things. If you only knew how expensive it is for us to maintain our aircraft in relation to the civilian world, not to mention that they are dealing with much of the same pointless red tape that we are.

 

[Jarhead]

And that is the very reason why EVERY american will be required to get health insurance. The insurance companies demanded that if they have to cover all preexisting conditions that need to offset that cost by having healthy people insured as well....and that's where that mandate came from.



We don't know what the outcome of any of this will be, but the pace that we were going, if we did nothing at all we would have a total system collapse. Is this solution the right one? Only time will tell.

And compared to what we've seen of insurance companies to date so far, I would much rather have a single payer gov't system. I really don't think health and life/death decisions should be made based upon profit margins and financial earnings.

Actually, the mandate came from the reason pre-exisitng condition clauses existed to begin with.
Insurers did not want to allow people to not buy inusuracne until they needed the insurance.
But undoubtedly, premiums are going to go up. IN MY OPINION.

Yeah, I think we just said the same thing. In order to cover pre-existing conditions, insurance companies want ALL people even young and healthy be required to get coverage. And yes, premiums will still probably go up. I won't argue that. The bill fell way short in that regard.

Yeah...I guess you did say the same thing.
The only thing the bill could have added to prevent premiums from going up is a tax to subsidize the insuracne companies. But after all of the demonizing of the insurance companies, how can they admit they added a tax to subsidize the insurance companies?

The President screwed up his approach to healthcare. He should have been straight foreward and honest. He should have expplained why "pre existing conditions" clauses existed as opposed to simply letting the people believe that it was the insurance companies that put them in to maximize profits.

No...they were put in to prevent the people from gaming the game.

He should have been honest about the cost to run an insurance company and not make it sound like the insurers were out to rake folks over the coals.

Yes, a priovate insurance company wants to make a profit. But profit or not INSURANCE IS GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE!

So anyway...if he were honest, we may have been able to create a bill that made sense for everyone.