Obama Care

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I took the information you provided here as the reason for "the decline in poverty" in the sixties Saden. Good Christ, read your own posts.

You get mighty belligerent around bedtime. Get some sleep and stop embarassing yourself.

I originally intended to include "and poverty was reduced by ~100%" in my response but I figured that was something obvious that I shouldn't have to restate. On a real tip though you know what's really embarrassing? Your utter failure to comprehend my response to you. Let me further simplify for you:

You: The poverty rate declined because the government stole more money from the rich (producers) and gave it to the poor (bums).

Me: Taxes were reduced in the early 60's (top rate went from 91% to 70%) and poverty was reduced by ~100% (from Information I provided...thanks for the heads-up ).


Your engine light is blinking, time to take it to the shop before you go Buster.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GMScud

A touchscreen blackberry in a leather belt-clip and fresh all-white nikes don't exactly scream unemployed, but maybe he was. And maybe he was shopping for someone else. Again, that's why called it a random rant. My perception of him was assumptive. It's certainly possible I assumed wrongly. In this case I kind of doubt it though.

My first job I had was working at a grocery store which was surrounded by goverment subsidize housing. Thats when I learned first hand how bad the system is abused. They would buy very expensive food products then pay for it with their food stamps and then I would then load them up in their new cars. This was an everyday thing and at that age I just could not figure out how these people could get food stamps in the first place. Then came the next summer (I only worked while on summer break) and the same people using food stamps getting in their even newer car while my family was working for everything we had. I know some people really need food stamps but the abuse from what I saw out weighed the people who actually needed food stamps.

[dmek25]

it is stupid. why give anyone anything, for the fear of the system being manipulated far outweighs the real need for help? does anyone realize how foolish this sounds?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Finally Joe, you're using something other than a jab. Now that the jabs are out of the way let me get right to the heart of the matter, the invisible hand with respect to universal healthcare. I am bewildered by the notion that the invisible hand can and does play a role in the healthcare setting. How does the invisible hand help Aunt Jane avoid medical bankruptcy or help Uncle Joe get his two kids, himself and his wife covered whilst making $10 an hour? Sure, nothing precludes them from making more money thanks to the invisible hand but do you realize that poor people have been with us since the dawn of time? I know, it's hard to believe right?

...

With respect to CRR's post it is clear to me that neither individuals nor charities (invisible hands) have been able to solve the problem. And if I'm not mistaken S10's original gripe was with the pending proposal to cut DSH funding by the government. It was pretty obvious to me that he shitted on the first part of the quote with the second part.

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by self-righteous Joe. This label is quite perplexing seeing how it's being placed by you. Try as you may you still can't land an effective punch Joe, you really need to work on your lower/upper body strength.

Saden, First, as you said the invisible hand of charities did not solve the problem, of course like you also pointed out, this is a problem that has always been with us, and the fact is that the invisible wallet of government is a far more inefficient method to take care of the problem.

Second, as to Joe's landing punches, sadly you are like a boxer who is badly beaten, yet once out of the ring stands and proclaims the other guy never landed a punch. It is either an amazing amount of arrogance, or pure lunacy, that allows that boxer to make that claim. In your case though it is probably a mix of both.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

it is stupid. why give anyone anything, for the fear of the system being manipulated far outweighs the real need for help? does anyone realize how foolish this sounds?

If thats in response to what I posted thats not what I said. I just stated that the system is abused. The problem is that there is no real checks and balance in the system.

[dmek25]

first, its like anything else. any program/ system that is set up by anyone, will eventually be hi-jacked by someone.that someone is always looking for the easy way out. but you cant penalize the people that need it. im not in agreement with the new proposal. but something definitely needs done

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

first, its like anything else. any program/ system that is set up by anyone, will eventually be hi-jacked by someone.that someone is always looking for the easy way out. but you cant penalize the people that need it. im not in agreement with the new proposal. but something definitely needs done

We agree that people will take advantage of the system but if you have low standars then it allows alot of people to take advantage of the system. Their are family trees that have generations of family members that rely on goverment assistance. At some point we have to make them accountable for themself and their family and tell them they need to get a job.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Saden, First, as you said the invisible hand of charities did not solve the problem, of course like you also pointed out, this is a problem that has always been with us, and the fact is that the invisible wallet of government is a far more inefficient method to take care of the problem.

Second, as to Joe's landing punches, sadly you are like a boxer who is badly beaten, yet once out of the ring stands and proclaims the other guy never landed a punch. It is either an amazing amount of arrogance, or pure lunacy, that allows that boxer to make that claim. In your case though it is probably a mix of both.

I showed you a concrete example of what the government can do with respect to poverty and all you seem to do is talk...blah blah blah. Compared to charities and individuals the government is certainly more effective.

It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without.

Get that weak stuff out of here. Work on your game cause you really can't be in the ring with me let alone throw a punch.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Please explain how the federal government/infrastructure allows private individuals & companies to make money? As far as the government infrastructure goes we already pay for that, far more than we should. The government provides military to make sure we don't get taken over, OK. Interstate roads receive federal funding, I get it. Possibly some oversight into banking and finance, OK I get that too. What else could the fed possibly do to make sure I have "hard earned money"? I'd gladly keep my 7.8 or so percent of my paycheck for SS and Medicare and handle my own retirement. States/localities provide over 94% of education funding. Police and Fire are provided through state and local taxes.

You will recall, I'm sure, from your history lessons that there was no income tax in the U.S. until the early part of the 20th century. The country was doing just fine economically without it.

SS and Medicare are not everything there is to government/infrastructure. How much money do you think you'd make if there was no government? None, because there would be no money. Would you prefer a barter system?

Keep in mind, the Federal government is not the only type.

It also seems you're suggesting that before the income tax, there was no government? Not sure how the income tax has anything to do with the government enabling you to make money.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I was at the grocery store today, and some idiot in front of me was trying to pay for his food with his food stamps card. It kept getting declined, and I sat there waiting for a good 10 minutes while he tried to get it figured out. In the meantime, while he was berating the cashier, I was checking out his nice new looking cell phone and shiny new sneakers. Good thing we give him food stamps so he can use his extra cash for the best kicks and hottest cell phone. I'm so happy my taxes are paying for his meals.

But yeah, government needs to keep getting bigger (while our deficit becomes more and more comical). Politics are so broken.

Maybe he was buying food for his disabled mother? Maybe it was for his sister with a few kids, who's husband ran off? Don't be so quick to judge.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

And again, the point remains that no matter what you do there will always be homeless people no matter what you do, no matter what economic system you're trying to change, no matter how much money you throw at them.

You're right. There will always be poor people, always be rapists and always be murderers. So, it makes no sense to do anything about them, since you can never get rid of them.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

So let's see, in the 60's the poverty rate declined because the government pointed their guns at the heads of the producers, stole more money from them and gave it to the bums. Well, I guess that's one way to do something about poverty.

As you pointed out, poverty has been around a very long time; but sorry to say, it will always be here. There will always be poor people. There won't be an economic system ever devised that will save absolutely everyone.

Absolutely correct, but is this necessarily an argument against government involvement in trying to find the most practical methods to deal with this reality? Look, I read the story you told about the homeless guy, with the concluding statement that sometimes you need "to reach for the helping hand." But the danger is in projecting that story out and seeing poverty as always being the fault of the individuals suffering from it (which I'm not saying you are saying). The fact is that government involvement in dealing with poverty is, first, quite literally centuries old, and second, is not, and has never been, exclusively driven by compassion and/or moral imperatives. Hardly. So, that we have in our history (e.g., the 60s programs) attempts to apply a level of sophistication to a routine government operation, ones greater than simply labeling poverty an individual disease and sticking all the infected in poorhouses, is, in my opinion to our credit. Yes, some programs have worked better than others, but system improvement is a better solution, I think, to no-end-game cessation of them.

My own opinion, and I know you and others fundamentally disagree, is that the programs that emerged from the Great Society have immeasurably improved the lives of millions, far more than they have affected harm. I admit to a bias, seeing as how my entire legal/policy career has been devoted to quite possiblly the most enduring product of it--the Medicaid program. The degree to which the program has provided critical support to persons with disabilities and low-income elderly (even those who have Medicare) is astounding, and I'm not aware of how, if we were to turn to the clock back to the 60s, things could have been constructed differently that would still have allowed these individuals to access the support Medicaid has provided, support that in many circumstances has been life-saving, and in others has allowed individuals to attain services that has prevented institutionalization and allowed them to be active members of the community.

And this program is a federal/state partnership, a voluntary program that every state has agreed to participate in. Developments leading up to the birth of the program didn't exactly tend toward the eventual availability of comprehensive medical insurance for these individuals that wasn't government supported. Far from it. So, to write off this program, being one example of a 60s product, as one forced-by-gunpoint down the throats of states for the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda unfairly downplays what inspired its creation and what value it has provided since.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

I showed you a concrete example of what the government can do with respect to poverty and all you seem to do is talk...blah blah blah. Compared to charities and individuals the government is certainly more effective.


Get that weak stuff out of here. Work on your game cause you really can't be in the ring with me let alone throw a punch.

The only way goverment is more effective then charities and individuals they only have more money to throw at the problem. The organization that I belong to gives 100% of any money we raise back to children that are hearing impared and their parents cannot afford hearing aids. The other groups I belong to ran around 90% of all funds raised went back to the charity. Last time I read anything on goverment programs it was like $1 came back for every $3 taxed. Thats not effective my friend.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

I showed you a concrete example of what the government can do with respect to poverty and all you seem to do is talk...blah blah blah. Compared to charities and individuals the government is certainly more effective.


Get that weak stuff out of here. Work on your game cause you really can't be in the ring with me let alone throw a punch.

As long as the invisible wallet is bottomless, than the government has more resources, that does not make it more effective. But the invisible wallet is not bottomless, and we see that as our debt reaches into the trillions. If we could truly provide quality care at affordable rates for all, then I think everyone, or most people would be on board, but that is not the case. When this country is awakened by a giant default, or an adversary such as China saying we aren't going to pay for you to continue building your weapons and have universal healthcare, and we have to deal with debts that have spiraled beyond the heavens, no one will care if you think I was in the same ring. Our country's debt is 11.6trillion dollars and rising by more than I make in a year every few seconds. That is not solely Pres. Obama's fault, it is lain at the feet of our generation, everyone here. But it is now in Pres Obama's care, and that of the Democrat's in government. Saden, I am sure you think all of this is a game, based on your many responses. But what I fail to understand, you of the oh so scientific mind, that sits and judges all who have reliance on things other than themselves (the invisible hand of charity, the grace of a creator God), a man who trusts what he sees, what can be proven, what is established as scientific and thus true. How can you support an ongoing budget shortfall that represents more money than we can possibly support. It has nothing to do with the political back and forth or fun and games that we enjoy in these forums. For a truly rational person such as you purport to be, your support of these massive debts is incredibly dumbfounding.

As for your use of statistics, everyone knows the best lies are the ones that are statistically true.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Try as you may you still can't land an effective punch Joe, you really need to work on your lower/upper body strength.

Fine, then let’s break this down a bit - shall we? In the response to CRedskinsRule which I asserted was dismissive and self-righteous, you mockingly claimed as irrelevant the relationship of economic choices made by individuals and charities in the health care market and their effect on health care costs. Further, you asserted that CRedskinsRule’s response was foolish and that your approach was much more grounded in reality (“I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot”) followed by an assertion, without any limitations, that Adam Smith’s concept of the “invisible hand” of the market place was non-existent.

Tired of your dismissive demeanor towards legitimate theories of which you personally disapprove, I responded by challenging you to state why self-interested market reactions by private individuals are irrelevant in the health care market.

In answering my challenge as to why you believed as such, you first disabuse the thought that such choices will have any effect on lower income individuals (“How does the invisible hand help Aunt Jane avoid medical bankruptcy or help Uncle Joe get his two kids, himself and his wife covered whilst making $10 an hour”). It appears obvious to me, in accordance with the economic principles of the “invisible hand”, that finding a way to allow market forces to lower costs should be the first priority of any health care plan as this will greatly affect both the amount Aunt Jane will initially need pay for her care and the ability of the government to intervene and help both Aunt Jane and Uncle Joe.

To dismiss market forces as you do and their effect in the health care market, ultimately results in a health care system that provides goods and services but is divorced from the historical market forces. Such an attempt is doomed to failure because of the complex nature of the underlying economic transactions (i.e. – all the costs and risks associated with being able to provide health care goods or services, the general disadvantage held by the purchaser of health care goods and services, and the wide variety of knowledge of the health care field held by the purchasers of those goods and services). Attempting to resolve these complex economic transactions, with an eye towards providing the most and best health care services, while ignoring the theory that mass self interest by private parties acts to lower costs for all parties is both short sighted and ignorant.

Next you raise the one legitimate, responsive point in your answer by asserting that the government’s actions in the 60’s through direct wealth transfer actions (the Pilot Food Stamp Program 1961-1664, Food Stamp Act of 1964, Social Security Act of 1965) and indirect wealth transfer programs (Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965) had a significant effect on the poverty level. So we are clear, I concede this as responsive because it directly addresses Slinging Sammy33’s question “What do my taxes pay for?” In part, they pay for the alleviation of mass poverty. This effect, irrespective of the social justice aspect, has many laudatory market effects – it increases the number of consumers; it creates a more diverse field of consumers; it lessens the incentive for criminal behavior by those unable to achieve economic subsistence within the parameters of the market; and it infuses wealth into the system that otherwise may have sat outside the system as unused excess. Thus, while I am in sympathy with the limited government philosophy of both Slinging Sammy33 and CRedskinsRule, I do not ascribe to their overall bare bones application of the same.

In making the concession, I ask this question - is it unexpected that the direct and indirect wealth transfers of the 1960’s (taking from the rich and giving to the poor) would result in fewer poor? Surely you would concede that this is the expected result of even the most inefficient of wealth transfers. Barring corruption by the middleman (i.e. the government), transferring wealth, directly or indirectly, to those below the poverty line has the inevitable result increasing the wealth of poor and, thus, raising them above the poverty line.

Unfortunately, you follow this legitimate response to Slinging Sammy33’s question with a walk off the reservation.

CRedskinsRule original statement was not an assertion that not that “invisible hand” was a cure all for economic woes. Rather, as I indicated above, my quote of CRedskinsRule asserts that: 1) individuals and charities are better than government at solving society’s ills; and 2) in the health care market, the consideration of market forces generated by individual choices will yield a better result than an attempt to resolve the matter through comprehensive wealth transfers enacted by an interventionist government that is divorced from traditional market forces.

According to you “It was pretty obvious to me that [CRedskinsRule] shitted on the first part of the quote with the second part.” You preface this statement with a series of irrelevant questions. There is no assertion by me or, I believe, by CRedskinsRule, that government has no role in the health care market place or that the “invisible hand” is the cure for all society ills. Rather, as I believe one of his earlier posts indicated, and to differing degrees, he and I both agree that government has a role in the market place - this would include the health services market place. At the same time, both of us (and Slinging Sammy33) would suggest that government intervention, alone and without consideration of existing market forces, cannot resolve the complex economic problem of providing the maximum health care to the maximum number of people. In fact, the point of CRedskinsRule's statement (I believe), is that an attempt to do so would result in waste, inefficiency and, ultimately, a failed system.

And just so we are clear and you don’t accuse me of avoidance – irrelevant though they may be - I will answer your multiple questions as why the “invisible hand” has not wiped out poverty despite the increased wealth generated by the system. Simply – because it cannot. In any population of normal human beings, market forces based on private self interest alone will always create an unbalanced market as, inevitably, some (many) flawed humans will confuse irrational greed with legitimate self-interest. In part to check this inherent flaw, governments appropriately regulate market forces. Although in doing so, they cannot thoroughly eliminate the flaw without also eliminating the beneficial market force. The consideration and balancing of private market forces when crafting economic solutions to complex economic problems, however, is necessary and cannot be ignored simply because it is not a cure-all.

To demonstrate the foolishness of your questions concerning the “invisible hand’s" failure to cure all societal ills – Answer me this:

“Given that [government intervention] has been [greatly increased since LBJ’s original “War on Poverty”] why hasn't [government intervention] improved our poverty rate since the 70's even though [the government is spending] significantly [more in real terms on social services]? Do we have to give [government intervention] more time? How long do you expect us to wait? In the mean time how do you expect these people below the poverty line to afford health insurance?” [As to the last, I believe that, through Medicaid, those below the poverty line already receive basic health services including (as Schneed10 has pointed out) preventive care coverage].


Along those lines, during the campaign, you consistently asserted that the wealth transfers endorsed by Obama as they related to health care constituted your position on the matter. Obama has now endorsed radical legislation in the health care field involving significant direct and indirect wealth transfers. I ask you now - with faint hope that you will answer the direct questions asked:

1) Is the legislative health care package currently before Congress as endorsed by Obama, consistent with the health care solutions outlined in his campaign?

2) Do you endorse that legislative health care package?


Finally, Saden, does repeating my name, Saden, throughout your argument, Saden, somehow increase the intellectual acuity of your argument, Saden, while somehow, Saden, magically rendering mine less valid? Or was this, Saden, just an attempt by you to highlight the humor, Saden, in your already comical response? (Saden)