We do NOT have an income problem in this country, we have a spending problem.

I dont like a progressive income tax. I can see the appeal, but it isnt fair as you claim. Taking from the few, against thier will, to give to the many will be the end of our republic. And the progressive tax, is the second rule in Marx The Communist Manifesto, right after taking away private property.

Ive read some books that refer to liberals and a sense of delayed adulthood. I think that is pretty accurate. They are more than willing to defer some of thier decisions to the govt, while they enjoy thier wants. There is a book called America Alone it addresses both your soft culture and the delayed adulthood in it. Im about to read a book Hard America, Soft America:competition vs coddling should be a good read.

Again, how exactly have I shown I dont know what im talking about? You do realize that those who earn under 30k have a net benefit from our govt as is. Couple with that that in a nation over 300Million, we have 140M filling income taxes. So forcing an even smaller majority to pay more, while buying more votes..errr.. proposing new programs is fair to you? yes, on paper you might have more money from your income taxes, which cannot last. Its fantasy, just as it was in Reagans day.

Thanks for your well wishes. It will be fine, its just a stressful time.

7/16/2008 5:25:09 PM

Quote :

" I dont like a progressive income tax."

Too bad, it's generally accepted as a better thing for our country, even conservatives acknowledge it for the most part.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

Quote :

"soft culture"

Do you have a problem reading? Seriously? I never said soft culture, NEVER, soft power. Google it, it's very real and very important. Here's an easy to click link: http://www.google.com/search?q=soft+power&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

7/16/2008 5:36:31 PM

^^^Thanks for posting that. You think that allll that spending is going to be funded by (as obama claims) raising taxes on the wealthiest quintile while cutting the bottom 4 quintiles taxes? There is no way.

Gregory Mankiw (Harvard economist, basically writes all the macro texts in the US) said that for all Obama spending to be covered by income taxes they would be something like 40% for the average american and 70% for the very rich (>250k). Uhh, no thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the government paid for healthcare, it would be such a mess. The --last-- thing we need is more middlemen in our system. Thats a large reason why it is so expensive in the first place. Red tape, going through 8 outlets to process a single action. The costs build and adding the government is not going to help. Theyre not exactly known for their efficiency. The private market tends to dominate the efficiency standpoint while the government jobs is to step in where the market proves insufficient or is deemed 'unfair'.

I already posted something about those uninsured americans. What we need to do is figure out who cant afford insurance and work to get them insured. Not insure everyone under the sun and completely skew the system. Longer waits, poor incentives for doctors, socialized system, etc. England has a HUGE problem with the rich wanting better care but not being able to have it. If theyre allowed to afford it, doesnt it just make the problem like it was in the beginning -- and if it does, we have the same situation but were spending an enormous amount of money providing care for everyone.

The primary concerns for healthcare should be (in my opinion)
1) lowering costs (something like 10% of the cost of an american car goes to paying healthcare for the workers, thats insane)
2) helping only those who really cant afford to pay for it, not those who choose not to or are in job transition

This will not only lead us with near universal coverage, but it will be substantially more efficient and less expensive than a universal system.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What exactly does Obama plan on changing? His platform was extremely similar to Hilarys. However she was viewed as old washington and he is made out to be washingtons savior. Healthcare was somewhat similar, tax structures were somewhat similar, etc. I just dont see a significant difference.

Dont get me wrong, if Im going to have a similar policy, I want Obama in office. He speaks very well, comes off very educated and people get excited about him. Something that the country needs and the republicans cant offer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current US:

Slight recession:
--we dont need huge govt spending, do you have any idea how long it takes to build infrastructure like obama has suggested? it takes years to plan and enact. well beyond our current situation. we dont need to tax business more (obama would raise the capital gains tax 8-12%). this will translate to lower investment returns for us and less investment in the future. as well as higher prices and lower wages. it can be some combination of the three or one primarily.

--rising food costs. obama supports ethanol which is responsible for 40% (ive seen numbers from 20 to 70) of the price increase. we subsidize corn. so we take away farm land that used to be used for wheat, etc. so now theyre more expensive as there is a negative supply shock. more of our corn goes to fuel, less for food. the fuel is more expensive to make. while it is barely better for the environment when it burns, it is terrible to make and gives off lots of greenhouse gases. its bad. its purely for votes in farm states and to 'sound green'. neither of which should be our concerns.

my general economic gripe with democrats: you want to tax people more, pay the poor more, while still somehow lowering employment and raising incomes. you cant have them all. this is extremely vague so dont pick on it because i dont feel like typing a ton more.

basically, theyre more concerned with divvying up the economic pie than they are concerned with expanding it. the poor will have more as we grow as a country. thats the way to do it. not just take and give within our current system

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ill end this with a wonderful quote from Obamas book
"over the years, the owners are taking more and more of the profits from the employees"
---uh obama, its been pretty constant at 0. theyre profits you goon. they go to the shareholders. which may or may not be employees.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:46 PM. Reason : i cant type and watch tv at the same time]

7/16/2008 5:41:33 PM

Quote :

"To your other point. Europe has become a soft power, just look at france. They have become a PC ruled country and look what that has gotten them. The ultimate liberal country. Where they debate how many weeks a year they need for vacation, how few hours to work a week, while they continue to bankrupt thier country and produce nothing."

Except for transportation and electricity. France has the most stable, environmentally friendly, and cheapest electricity networks in Europe.

7/16/2008 5:52:32 PM

France is a total shithole (imho). Theyre incredibly weak economically. Im not trying to give all my income so that we can have some huge government decide whats best.

Here is the concept of huge government:
They collect our money, decide the best way to spend it --all while incurring huge middleman costs

orrrrrrrrrrrr

We could just all act in our own best interest, that way we all get what we want and more of it (because the government isnt wasting billions on processing).

This is an oversimplification, Im aware. I just believe in growing the economic pie, not splitting it up so its fair. Because when it grows, we all get more. But when we split, we penalize those who bring in income and give it to those who dont.

Part of this is purely opinion. Im just a very 'dont expect things you dont earn' person. Though the inefficiency part is pure fact. We all know what we want, so let us keep our money, we know what we want more than you know what we want.

There needs to be some social safety net but I believe its purpose should be bring up those at the bottom with help and incentives -- not taking from the top and giving to those on the bottom. There should never be people on the bottom who are comfortable on welfare while not being able to access any help to better themselves. It should be the other way around. Give them help, give them incentives, if theyre truly incapable then look into giving them more. The system will never be perfect as some people just suck and want to sit around and take advantage of the system but you need to do the best with what you have. Help those out who want help.

7/16/2008 6:01:07 PM

This thread is example #1 of why the US is in decline. If the majority of posters in this thread (who all presumably went to college) can't make rational, educated decisions on the major issues facing our nation, how do we expect good electoral outcomes from polling the populace at large (who are generally less educated)? That is the real issue threatening the US, the inability to make good decisions at all levels of our society.

With that in mind I will probably vote for the person who has the strongest policies on strengthening the educational system, because god knows what we have now isn't working.

7/16/2008 6:28:35 PM

I don't like either mainstream candidate.

And refuse to vote for either.

Not sure I trust the Libertarian or Green candidates.

What's a fella to do?

7/16/2008 6:38:37 PM

Quote :

"France is a total shithole (imho). Theyre incredibly weak economically. Im not trying to give all my income so that we can have some huge government decide whats best."

And I gave you a perfect counter-example to this. That doesn't mean I disagree (strongly), but simply put, the world doesn't fit so nicely into your classifications. France does many things better than what we do, we also do many things better than them. Weak economically is contestable, in case you didn't notice, we're both in the developed world living incredibly privileged and wealthy lives. For some counter examples, try Spain or Italy for countries quite similar but still not as well preforming as France by most all metrics. Germany is doing about the best, but what does this tell us? They're probably all liberal hotbeds according to you. Maybe France more so, maybe not, either way, they are our favorite to antagonize.

We'll see how these countries survive the coming demographic traps and the end of oil and then perhaps one system over another will be vindicated. And that could very well be... Communism. And at the same time, those economically victorious communist nations could have less taxes than us.

There's only one system that truly works: rationalism.

7/16/2008 6:40:16 PM

Liberal hotbeds? Ha, Im not sure Ive ever heard that before but I laughed. Heres some rational logic for you then:

France sucks in terms of race. I forget the guys lame (starts with an L) is an open racist and finished with 20% of the popular vote about a 1.5 years ago. Seriously?

Their workforce to total population is very low.

Their unemployment rate is about 8.5-9%. So even the few who want jobs have a hard time finding them. Part of this is also because it is harder to get fired from a job over there. So companies are more reluctant to hire.

While France is top 7-8 in GDP, theyre about 25 in GDP per capita. Inefficient.

US citizens are 5x as likely to start a business.

Some random facts but I think these all fit into the category of a government that is too large and generous. Sure, theyre ahead of the likes of Turkey and Slovakia. Though theyre clearly lagging behind a country like Germany because of their reliance of manufacturing and agricultural. Also, their dependence on a large government for less hours, less work weeks, more support, and more social services really prohibit them from moving into that upper tier of countries. In my opinion

7/16/2008 8:18:13 PM

If you'll laugh at the idea of calling France a liberal hotbed, then I'll laugh at your hypocrisy.

So they're racist.

And they're all for big government.

Economy suffers for it, quality of life... is eh, debatable. But you'd rather not focus on that point.


Lists of countries by GDP is very definable, and as someone with a technical background, by all means I appreciate values of this. But it doesn't mean that much on a voting ballot. The decision on the voting ballot should strive for a better life for everyone, but... this depends on your values. If those differ by country and person, then the entire thing is subjective.

I think there is possibility for efficient diversion of work productivity to leisure time. Ideally, we would like to apply some free market principles to this, you want to work a 30 hour work week? Sure, you'll just take some perfectly appropriate economic penalty for it. This is difficult, if not impossible to correctly do. If someone wants to work 80 hours a week, then great. Absolutely great.

But we have people in this country who work two (sometimes more) jobs that pay hourly for 40 hours a week each. Why? Because if they worked more the employer will have to pay overtime, thus they will not be working a second more than that. But yet, it would be more efficient, convenient, and pleasant for that same person to work 80 hours at one of those jobs.

If this is a question of the free market, then it comes to the same conclusion that all of these threads do; if we could do the full free market then it'd be great and everyone would probably be better off, but at this point we're so fuckered up that it can't be done. France is different. But not better.

The Libertarian party also different. But yet, if they were to share power with only one other party for 50 years I have no doubts that they'd turn into a corrupt deficit-spending sack of shit. To allude to basic economics again, a monopoly sets one price determined entirely the most net amount of money people are willing to pay for something. But only two competitors only set a different artificially high price somewhere between monopoly pricing and the fair price. Until, of course, the two competitors form a cartel and go back to monopoly pricing.

The end.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 10:54 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 10:56 PM. Reason : ]

7/16/2008 10:54:03 PM

Quote :

"France sucks in terms of race. I forget the guys lame (starts with an L) is an open racist and finished with 20% of the popular vote about a 1.5 years ago. Seriously?"

You're thinking of LePin - who is also a fascist. And France's race problems largely trace to its legacy of colonialism and immigrants from Algeria who have failed to assimilate. Not saying that France is hunky-dory - they have some real problems. But it's not like the Nazi party or the Vichy French are waiting in the wings to spring up the Fourth Reich and storm Paris, either.

7/16/2008 10:55:28 PM

Quote :

"Nazi party or the Vichy French are waiting in the wings to spring up the Fourth Reich and storm Paris, either"

This is France we're talking about.

<- would not be entirely surprised.

7/16/2008 10:57:56 PM

I laughed at the liberal hotbed comment because of the term you used. I wasnt laughing at the meaning. I had just never heard that before. I wasnt agreeing or disagreeing.

I wasnt saying this LePin character is the anti-God. Im just saying that it speaks volumes about the country when a racist/fascist gets 20% of the popular vote. Regardless of the reason. It speaks of the people who vote for him and the system that allows him to get where he is.

With regards to your criticism of my free market boner, I think youre misunderstanding me a little. I do think that big government can be looked at as a negative. But I also said (several times in this thread) that all of this is just my opinion. Politics is, for the most, pure opinion. There are several things that are fact, such as the results of a policy, but everyone is entitled to their opinion and I cant tell them theyre wrong.

If you were to line up all the issues, I might be split 55/45 republican. I believe in gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion. I just feel stronger over my republican issues and I feel my republican issues are the ones that should be given the most weight when deciding. I think the economy takes more precedent than my moral issues. Probably from the fact I do economics. Just opinion but its the way I operate.

In terms of work hours -- work as much as you want. My only issue is that when the firms/govt look to limit and fight for ridiculous numbers of sick days and weeks of vacation. If you want to work 80 hours a week. Go for it. If you can afford to work 20 hours a week. Go for it. I just think the decision should be up the the individual 100%. If they want more money, cool. If theyre fine with less, cool too. Its your life, its your time, its your wallet. Frances work environment/attitude just seems a little lazy to me. The culture there seems content with less than everyone else. Its their opinion. Im not telling them to work more. But, its just not something Im crazy about.

-hater

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 1:08 AM. Reason : ]

7/17/2008 1:02:15 AM

Quote :

"In terms of work hours -- work as much as you want. My only issue is that when the firms/govt look to limit and fight for ridiculous numbers of sick days and weeks of vacation. If you want to work 80 hours a week. Go for it. If you can afford to work 20 hours a week. Go for it. I just think the decision should be up the the individual 100%. If they want more money, cool. If theyre fine with less, cool too. Its your life, its your time, its your wallet. Frances work environment/attitude just seems a little lazy to me. The culture there seems content with less than everyone else. Its their opinion. Im not telling them to work more. But, its just not something Im crazy about."

But the thing is, this doesn't work here either. You don't just decide "this week I'll work 80 hours" in most jobs. Oh, there are certainly those where you can, and there are certainly those that'll expect you to, even require it, and maybe even some will give you the fair overtime pay for it.

Most places set your workweek at 40 hours because of external government factors. And then try to squeeze as much as they can after that. Companies, at least at the high level, will always try to get the most out of their employees for the least, that's just a fact of life. But big government responding to that with completely arbitrary regulations that are not followed or just stack on to the pile of shit that employees get from the company is not good. All countries have this, epically ours. France more so, but it's not like the USA and the free economy are joined at the hip.

7/17/2008 8:09:42 AM

if voting could change anything, it would be illegal

7/17/2008 10:16:53 AM

Im just saying France is worse than the US in terms of work hour culture and flexibility. Youre taking everything I say as black and white. Thats all

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 5:18 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2008 5:17:46 PM

well instead of setting a 40-hour work week that forces many people to work 2 full time jobs, maybe capping the work week at 40 hours and offering more social programs would be better.

Both are inefficient, but at least the latter isn't hypocritical.

7/17/2008 7:16:22 PM

No one has 'set' anything. There are such things as overtime pay. Or even jobs where you work more than 40 hours. Like my last job where 45 was basically the minimum. Capping is total shit. Youre not letting people work more, produce more and make a better life for themselves. Youre not letting people get ahead. Youre providing people incentive to say 'thats enough'. So everyone has to work 40 hours and those who take the worst jobs get compensation for being so unfortunate. But those who want more can do nothing about it because the 40 hours is capped. Sorry.

Im sorry but your latest argument is awful

7/17/2008 9:44:26 PM

^^ There is also something morally reprehensible and constitutionally suspect about dictating how long one is allowed to work.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 9:57 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2008 9:55:48 PM

^ I'd like to know what that something is.

On both counts.

7/18/2008 2:07:57 AM

To the first point, dictating how long one is allowed to work is a disgusting shade of socialism. Are you prepared to tell a painter that, because you know better than he what's best for him, he has to put down his brush and go home given it's past his allotted time? What moral grounds do we have to restrict one's freedom to such an egregious level?

To the second point, while my forte is not in constitutional studies, I find it suspect that this would not contradict the premise of the constitution itself. For one, I can see the courts siding favorably with a writer who claims such restrictions inhibit his freedom of speech.

7/18/2008 8:04:41 AM

No, the United States puts horrendous limitations on how people work. Your fantasy world may work as described, but you are showing no awareness of the framework in which employers in the US work. The sheer fact that we have a minimum wage high enough that LOTS of people get paid it puts us in a situation more regulated than a huge number of world economies. Western Europe is probably the most extreme regulation messes in the world, and is a selective example to make us look good.

The USA is not some beautiful picture perfect free market land of opportunity.

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 5:30 PM. Reason : ]

7/18/2008 5:30:09 PM

Quote :

" * Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features: 1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions. 2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care. 3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles. 4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan. 5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs. 6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage. 7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage. 8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met. * National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public. * Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement, and will receive a new Small Business Health Tax Credit that helps reduce health care costs for small businesses. * Support for Small Businesses: Barack Obama will create a Small Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees. This new credit will provide a strong incentive to small businesses to offer high quality health care to their workers and help improve the competitiveness of America’s small businesses. * Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans. * Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function. * Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan. Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System * Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Someone mind piecing through this and seeing how exactly this will prevent medical research and reduce the quality of care for anyone? The only way your plan will change is if you don't already have one.

And I really don't care what the libertarian opinion of this is. "hurf durf, it's tax funded stuff for people using MY MONEY". Yeah, that's the price you pay for the social contract. Don't like it, move to Sealand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

Quote :

"And the progressive tax, is the second rule in Marx The Communist Manifesto, right after taking away private property."

It's also something proposed by many Greek philosophers as well and used extensively in history before Marx even lived.

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 6:25 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2008 6:24:02 PM

Quote :

"Your fantasy world may work as described, but you are showing no awareness of the framework in which employers in the US work."

Dictating how many hours a day one may work is a far cry from the likes of minimum wage, OSHA, ect. Your argument is like saying it is acceptable to imprison people for running red lights because we already imprison people for drug offenses.

Quote :

"The USA is not some beautiful picture perfect free market land of opportunity."

Sadly, this is true. However, it does not discount efforts to prevent what our country's architects were desperately trying to avoid.


[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 7:32 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2008 7:30:43 PM

^^ How does the above address the rising cost of health care? It is the rising price of health care goods and services that have led insurance premiums to be as high as they are. (as well as a government-induced lack of competitiion amongst insurance providers) Is providing insurance coverage not just treating the symtoms rather than the disease?

7/18/2008 7:38:06 PM

Dear Hunt--

Your criticize others arguments with stats/points that have nothing to do with the original point. Minimum wage? I hadnt even talked about wages. Also, more than half of the minimum wage earners are under 25. About 25% of the left over people dont support a family. And 90% of everyone will be off the wage within a year. Its primarily used for part time, young people. If the wage were to increase 20% then less than 1% of people in poverty would be lifted out. (econ grad student, im a wage/tax nut).

7/18/2008 11:01:57 PM

Quote :

"Prawn Star: Focusing on class divisions ignores the larger point, that the last thing we need during an economic downturn is higher taxes on investors and businesses."

I know this is what everybody says, and I've had it explained to me.

But when I look at our most recent economic downturn, I see we've been fucked by uppity, greedy, and inadequately regulated businesses.

I mean, people are losing their jobs because of inept management. While everybody else loses, the management that fucked everything up to begin with is floating around in golden parachutes. And for some reason we're not supposed to tax these idiots?

7/19/2008 1:00:06 AM

^ to be fair, regulation and taxes are different issues.

[Edited on July 19, 2008 at 1:17 AM. Reason : i wish someone would stomp on the balls of those corrupt assholes though]

7/19/2008 1:16:45 AM

Quote :

"Your criticize others arguments with stats/points that have nothing to do with the original point. Minimum wage?"

Colemania,

I wasn't responding to your post, but rather to mrfrog's with the intention of differentiating the level of regulation that minimum wage laws impose versus the far more extreme regulation work-duration laws would impose. For what its worth, I agree with your post. BTW, I was an econ major, so we probably share more common ground than is being let on)



[Edited on July 19, 2008 at 9:59 AM. Reason : .]

7/19/2008 9:51:10 AM

Quote :

"1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions. "

So increases the cost to insure. No benefit to buy insurance while young and healthy. Just buy it when you are sick and if you cant afford it... well.....

Quote :

"Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan "

Yep. That solves that. Increasing more costs here. Soley taxpayer money here.

Quote :

"Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care. "

Sounds great. More increases in cost. Can we throw in transportation? I know the current free medicaid taxis are really slow.

Quote :

"3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles"

LOL. Not sure what the great one considers affordable. But this contradicts all what he said prior. So we will provide MORE services to EVERYONE, no incentives for buying ins while healthy, not incentives to work(actually it sounds like you will be penalized more), and it will cost LESS? haha.

Quote :

"Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs. "

Yes, from the group that brought us the simple income tax and the HIPAA. MOre govt always equals more BS and esp paperwork.

Quote :

"Easy enrollment"

I might believe this one, until you speak to anyone having trouble with thier SS or medicare.

Quote :

"Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage."

Ok, so more people wont have to work to get thier healthcare. Another disincentive for work.

Quote :

"Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met. "

To who? The same morons that decline claims for no reason? Or he is talking about the new dept full of govt morons without any medical training who will be deciding standards and practices? Geez.

Quote :

"* National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public. "

Ok, so another govt dept. (pss which costs money) And these guys are going to force the private ins. companies to charge a "fair" rate that doesnt depend on health status and has to be the same as the govt plan. Well, why buy private ins. then? This seems to just be the first step of eliminating private ins. Again, you will not be charged more if you wait until you are sick. So its like the govt telling you that you can buy your car insurance AFTER you wrecked your fucking car. Oh, and if you cant pay for it still.. taxpayer money will.

Quote :

"* Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement, and will receive a new Small Business Health Tax Credit that helps reduce health care costs for small businesses. "

ALOT of political wiggle room in there. First they will take a percentage of your business if you are deemed to not be making a meaningful contribution. LOL. Can you hear the rest of the businesses learning spanish while they pack. And there is a disincentive to grow your business isnt there. If you keep it "small" (I wonder where they will set that moving bar) you get breaks and dont have to pay a percentage if some asshole from Illinois thinks you arent making a meaningful contribution. He really said MEANINGFUL. my god.

Quote :

"* Support for Small Businesses: Barack Obama will create a Small Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees. This new credit will provide a strong incentive to small businesses to offer high quality health care to their workers and help improve the competitiveness of America’s small businesses."

So who makes up the other 50%? haha, and again it only benefits small businesses.

Quote :

"* Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans. "

This is some feel good shit right here. So all children will have health ins up until age 25. My question is if you dont need health ins. until you actually need it and there are no incentives to get it while you are young and healthy, why would you get yourself a plan that would cover your kdis... oh thats right, obama will force you to. So this will cut costs how? By seeing a doctor everytime a kid gets a fever, rather than just taking some bedrest and tylenol. ok

Quote :

"Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function."

awesome. Maybe we can expand that SCHIP back to families making up to 85k a year again. Is he going to expand the coverage or criteria? Im asking bc medicaid covers almost everything, including shampoo, hair pills, and toothpaste. Or is he saying that he will classify more of our population "poor". That might be alot of us once this shit starts and prices sky rocket.

Quote :

"Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan. "

Plans on building on these efforts. What? He just talked about this massive FEDERAL program that covers all, expansive benefits, no cost if you choose to not work.. why would you take a state plan? And what does he "plans on building" fucking mean? More BS

Quote :

"Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System * Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.""

Do what? Where does all this fucking money come from?

To "save" our healthcare we need less govt and more market. If the govt wants to require people carry catastrophic policies and have HSA that is a massive step in the right direction. Obama plan is full of govt first, no incentives to be responsible or take care of yourself(just like todays medicaid), and will do nothing but decrease the availablity of healthcare and increase the costs. These will be paid by taxpayers and by increasing the cost of goods from the increases in taxes from the businesses who cant relocate out of the country.

It sounds nice, but its not a long term solution. Just a short term plan by a group to get elected and dupe the declining intellect of the american people. IMO

7/19/2008 10:39:35 AM

Hunt,
touche.


Eye,
one of my biggest gripes with obama. he has a lot of 'well make it better', 'well spend more to help', and 'things need to change'. to my haters, yes, i know he has some good ideas. im not saying hes a moron or that mccain doesnt have bs answers that have no supporting evidence. but its just that people go wild over the 'he will make it better, hes something different' thing. like, he really understands me.

7/19/2008 8:29:40 PM