magic

10/21/2009 12:11:02 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure that the Public Option is an inevitability, as you would suggest. "

Well, if you're paying attention to the fact that the house has already said its bill will have one (which the CBO says will REDUCE the deficit and cost less than 900 billion), 52 dem senators are said to support it, several high-level dem senators have said the final bill will have one, no democrat would join a filibuster (so it could easily make it to the floor), and Obama would sign it, it starts to seem more inevitable. Clearly something could go wrong, but as it stands now, it's looking good.

Quote :

"And really, if there is a "Public Option," it won't just be Republicans that are screwed, it'll be all Americans for years to come. It'll be another failure of a government program that can't pay for itself and contributes to our decline. "

Well, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but I'd say it's better to try than to let so many people go uninsured.

Quote :

"Even if it were implemented, I don't see it lasting for long. I don't see Medicare and Social Security lasting for too terribly long, either. There's no way these programs can continue to be funded. Where's the money coming from?"

Well, the new bill will *reduce* the deficit, and plenty of other programs are being streamlined to pay for other programs, and I'm sure the same will happen with SS and Medicare. I highly doubt anyone will let them go bankrupt, unless the country does so, but yes I do see taxes going up for someone to continue to pay for them later on. Maybe it's us, but hopefully it'll more be the wealthy paying for it.

10/21/2009 3:24:16 PM

Quote :

"Well, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but I'd say it's better to try than to let so many people go uninsured. "

See this is the terrible appeal to emotion that results in garbage legislation. The idea that doing anything is better than doing nothing. Thats almost never the case. Doing anything now may improve conditions now, but this plan will just create more debt long term.

The idea of insurance as the primary payer for all care is absolutely retarded. It obscures the real costs of healthcare and forces people into plans dictated by the insuance company. If you want real, actual reform we need to fix the cost of healthcare, not the cost of insuance. Nothing in this plan will do that. All its going to do is increase costs for specific healthcare companies which will then be passed on to the insurance company, which will be passed on to you an me.

Quote :

"Well, the new bill will *reduce* the deficit, and plenty of other programs are being streamlined to pay for other programs, and I'm sure the same will happen with SS and Medicare. I highly doubt anyone will let them go bankrupt, unless the country does so, but yes I do see taxes going up for someone to continue to pay for them later on. Maybe it's us, but hopefully it'll more be the wealthy paying for it."

Its only going to reduce the deficit by cutting funding for other bloated parts (which probably wont ever materialize) and increasing taxes. Increasing taxes only ever increases costs.

Medicare will be bankrupt the same as this public option unless the costs of healthcare are fixed. This plan does nothing to fix that. If you're so sure that we're going to fix these costs in the future, then why not fix them now?

SS is already bankrupt. The only way to fix it is to destroy it entirely and put an age based cutoff point for collecting benefits. I would absolutely love to give up the money i've put into SS if it means i never have to pay into it again. That money can go into my 401k and get a positive rate of return.

10/21/2009 3:37:23 PM

It's not even "appeal to emotion," though I am emotional about it and don't understand why everyone isn't. It's appeal to sanity and appeal to realism. Think about it economically - if people die because they have no insurance, think of all the workers and other important people you're losing.

10/21/2009 4:06:51 PM

Quote :

"which the CBO says will REDUCE the deficit and cost less than 900 billion"

You can say that till you are blue in the face, but every one knows it is bullshit. In 1965, the CBO originally projected that in 1990, Medicare would cost 12 billion. The actual cost? over 100billion. That's an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.

Furthermore, the CBO number is all smoke an mirrors, because the only way they generate "revenue neutral" is to tax for ten, pay out for five. THAT'S NOT SOLID ACCOUNTING. That's blowing smoke up people's asses. Now, is it "neutral" over 10 years? Sure. Is it "neutral" over 15? HELL NO.

Finally, some of the cuts that were made to Medicare in order to make the bill "neutral" are being re-introduced IN ANOTHER BILL. How much? 250billion. So, just to start out, we are 250billion in the hole, and that's AFTER taxing for 10 years and spending for 5. And all of that assumes that the price tag isn't an order of magnitude off again.

I don't care if Republicans have hidden behind the CBO in the past, it doesn't change the fact that they do a TERRIBLE job of estimating costs.

Quote :

"It's not even "appeal to emotion," though I am emotional about it and don't understand why everyone isn't. It's appeal to sanity and appeal to realism."

Saying you are "appealing to sanity" is an appeal to emotion.

10/21/2009 4:08:02 PM

If they were important workers, they'd have insurance already. I mean thats just a reality. The people without insurance are the unemployed and those who have low economic value. Ironically, if they died off the demand for workers doing the same work would increase and so would their benefits.

So yes, it is an appeal to emotion.

Personally I would rather improve their economic value through education. That, combined with lower energy costs (and lower taxes in other places) would increase their purchase power and lower healthcare costs. This is before doing anything to the healthcare industry at all. At this point they'd be contributing more to society than they take out.

The idea that these people are essentially doomed to be poor their entire lives and that the only way for them to survive is through handouts is bullshit. Most of these people aren't poor because their stupid or poor because they dont want to better themselves, they're poor because they dont have access to quality education. They're poor because they're getting fucked by retarded shit like cap and trade or the lack of new nuclear power. They're poor because their politicians have convinced them they cant do any better for themselves. We need to give them the tools to better themselves. We'll certainly have to give them assitance in the meantime, but that assistance should be part of the whole package, not the entire thing.

10/21/2009 4:17:20 PM

Hardly any point in debating this now. If it passes and you guys are right, and it makes things worse, you can say you told me so.

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2009 4:23:28 PM

I would rather you be right, and I would glean no satisfaction from you being wrong. If you're wrong, then like I said, everyone gets screwed. The same goes for anything relating to economics. I really do hope that I'm wrong, and we're not headed for incredibly hard times...it's my life at stake. My evaluation of the situation is that we are, though.

10/21/2009 4:26:50 PM

^^Thats not entirely my point. yes its a horrible fucking idea, but it also means this legislation will be considered a "fix" until it completely fails in 20 years or so. My biggest problem is that the underlying problems of healthcare costs are not being fixed and the passage of this legislation will effectively prevent them from being fixed for a long time.

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 4:27 PM. Reason : a]

10/21/2009 4:27:08 PM

Shaggy, why do you hate poor people

10/21/2009 4:27:43 PM

Just curious, what do you think are the problems that need to be fixed but aren't being fixed?

tort reform, etc?

10/21/2009 4:31:45 PM

In terms of healthcare reform, its things like the idea of using insurance for more than just unexpected problems. The market is distorted by insurance companies being the payer for every procedure someone might need. The effect is that people who cant afford insurance cant afford what insurance companies pay doctors and hospitals. If everyone payed for their own care out of pocket hospitals and doctors would have to lower prices to be able to survive. This would mean profit motivated hospitals would probably go away and doctor salaries would drop, but affording care would no longer be based on you being insured. It would also mean you get to pick your own provider instead of the ones your insurance company is willing to deal with.

You can get the same effect with price controls as in the French system. Price controls mean government control which is not ideal.

In terms of overall reform, energy prices can be dropped by incentivizing individual power generation with wind and solar, building more nukes, and repealing backwards ass shit like cap and trade. 100% Tax credits for companies and individuals who generate their own power with small scale wind and solar would put a huge dent in energy prices, not to mention expanding the industry and making wind and solar more efficient. This wont ever happen because even though it would be great for the environment, "green" special interests would hate it because its pro business, politicians would hate it because it would decrease tax revenue, and the oil/coal companies would hate it because it would lower their profits.

Lower energy prices lower the costs of everything not just healthcare. Energy costs should be tackled ahead of everything else.

Second on the agenda, is education. If you increase someones education, you increase their economic value and you increase their purchasing power.

After those two are tackled, we can look at healthcare and do some tweaking. First off, insurance should only cover unexpected stuff. Health insurance should pretty much work the same as car insurance. Coverage is limited to the most extreme expenses, and general maintenance and care is up to the individual. Plus, insurance companies should be able to operate over state lines. Competition = lower prices.

In addition to lowering costs, if someone is paying out of pocket (free market or price controls) they're more likely to take better care of themselves. And if they dont, they pay that extra costs themselves. Bad habits wont be an expense for those who take care of themselves.

The goal should be to lower costs accross the board while at the same time rasing the economic worth of poor people. You'll still end up with some people who cant afford it and for those remaining folks you can have your subsidized public option.

Reform is not about just one thing here or there, its pretty much a collection of system wide reforms that effect each other.

10/21/2009 5:03:01 PM

this may have been mentioned somewhere else in this thread, but the past two this american life episodes have focused on the health care system and were really well done.

you can find them here:


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1320
http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/392.mp3

10/21/2009 6:38:47 PM

Liberal Media Claptrap!

Really though, that show is awesome.

10/22/2009 12:23:44 PM

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/nelson-conrad-say-dems-white-house-leaning-toward-including-public-option-in-senate-health-care-bill.php

*cough*

I'm still predicting it will happen, especially now.

Quote :

"Nelson, Conrad Say Dems, White House Leaning Toward Including Public Option In Senate Health Care Bill"

and after seeing this

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/10/22/daily_pulse_house_democrats_line_up_votes.html

Quote :

"House Democratic leaders "sounded bullish" after launching "an all-hands-on-deck effort to win support for a 'robust' public insurance option in their health care bill," Roll Call reports. Said Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-CT): "We think we have the votes now. We have the votes to pass a robust public option.""

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 3:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2009 3:13:25 PM

Olivia Snowe's threatening to filibuster a public option bill.

Hopefully, the Dems will remember that her title is NOT President Snowe this time and won't gut whatever they've got planned just to satisfy her.

10/22/2009 3:18:23 PM

Quote :

"http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/392.mp3 "

i skipped around and heard 4 things
1. insurance codes are complicated
2. blah blah generic drugs
3. something stupid about dog healthcare
4. more competition = higher prices

Insruance codes are complicated and adding a public option will only add a new set of codes. There is nothing in this plan to fix this

Their point about generic drugs was that there are some generics with the same function as name brands, but different formulas. Thats all fine and great and if they have the same effect you should use them, but if a name brand is in the same category and significantly better than the generic you should use that too.

More competiton = lower prices. The retard tried to max some stupid fucking argument that larger companies have more power to dictate prices to suppliers (aka the walmart effect) which is true, but theres 0 guarantee that they'll pass those savings on to insurance consumers. Better to take insurance completely out of the equation and force doctors and hospitals to deal with individuals if they want to get their money. The result is that docs who price themselves out of the market will go out of business. Or you could just enforce price controls. I didn't listen to much of it, but it seemed like they were targeting a few potential areas for fixing (none of which are covered by the current legislation) and were coming to incorrect conclusions. A+ for identifying actual cost problems, F for solutions.

10/22/2009 3:56:55 PM

Quote :

"Olivia Snowe's threatening to filibuster a public option bill. "

Olympia Snowe, yo. Shes reppin my state. I dont really agree with her on alot of stuff, and I dont even agree that a public option (along side actual reform) is a bad idea, but im down with her fighting this.

10/22/2009 3:59:07 PM

You realize it's completely pointless though, right? No filibuster will even come close to happening.

10/23/2009 3:35:02 PM

unfortunately

10/23/2009 3:38:17 PM

the GOP has already lost this fight and they know it. they are moving onto to trying to bash Obama over Afghanistan.

10/23/2009 3:39:31 PM

Um. . .you do realize that the Democrats control both the White House and Congress, right? And yet it's still the Republicans fault that the majority party can't pass legislation that it claim everyone wants?

10/23/2009 8:39:34 PM

thats what msnbc tells them.

10/23/2009 10:13:25 PM

Quote :

"CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.” Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question." “You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”"

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971

10/23/2009 10:59:38 PM

also, a rather interesting article from the Economist:

Quote :

"EZRA KLEIN noted a few days ago that one thing the health-care reform process highlights about the American political system is that because legislators originate bills independently, major changes in law and government with far-reaching consequences often result from powerful senators basically winging it."

http://ow.ly/15WSM1

Quote :

"It's very hard to imagine the American political system sustaining this kind of coherent, decades-long conversation. Our political discussions seem to function more like the threads on a high-octane, high-turnover, mainly-anonymous political blog; topic drift is intense, trolling ubiquitous, and consensus rare."

10/23/2009 11:09:19 PM

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/reid-to-hold-presser-today-to-announce-health-care-decision/

Quote :

"Senator Harry Reid, who’s huddling with senior aides as we speak, has decided to hold a presser today at 3:15 in the Capitol to announce his decision on what to include in the final health care bill, a senior Senate aide confirms. According to multiple, anonymously sourced reports — see this from TPM and this from NBC, for instance — Reid is poised to include a public option with an opt out in the bill."

10/26/2009 12:45:29 PM

Interesting article about misperceptions regarding foreign healthcare

Quote :

"5 Myths About Health Care Around the World 1. It's all socialized medicine out there. 2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines. 3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies. 4. Cost controls stifle innovation. 5. Health insurance has to be cruel."

Rationale is in the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html


Interesting point:

Quote :

"In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance (Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seniors stick with private insurance plans for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care."

10/26/2009 3:52:18 PM

Who's got my cookie?

Quote :

"Well, if you're paying attention to the fact that the house has already said its bill will have one (which the CBO says will REDUCE the deficit and cost less than 900 billion), 52 dem senators are said to support it, several high-level dem senators have said the final bill will have one, no democrat would join a filibuster (so it could easily make it to the floor), and Obama would sign it, it starts to seem more inevitable. Clearly something could go wrong, but as it stands now, it's looking good."

10/26/2009 4:04:58 PM

all requests for cookies must now be submitted directly to whitehouse.gov for approval.

10/26/2009 4:24:15 PM

1. It's all socialized medicine out there. Definitely a mis-perception, but I don't get the impression Congress has actually weighed all the available options

2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines.Government only options, which this current legislation appears designed to drive consumers to, pretty much does.

3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies. Most of the government run programs are. The most efficient are the German / Swiss models where, despite government involvement, competition is rampant.

4. Cost controls stifle innovation. The US market is still one of the biggest consumers of health care products in the world. Just because a product is created in France doesn't mean it'll only be marketed to France. The knowledge of the US market drives a great deal of innovation.

5. Health insurance has to be cruel. Wait, isn't that the boogey man the Obama administration has been pushing?

10/26/2009 10:05:33 PM

Quote :

"Somebody Buy Joe Lieberman a Puppy by Nate Silver @ 4:01 PM The reason this is a little scary for Democrats is because the usual things that serve to motivate a Congressman don't seem to motivate Joe Lieberman. Would voting to filibuster the Democrats' health care bill (if it contains a decent public option) endear Lieberman to his constituents? No; Connecticutians favor the public option 64-31. Would it make his path to re-election easier? No, because it would virtually assure that Lieberman faces a vigorous and well-funded challenge from a credible, capital-D Democrat, and polls show him losing such a match-up badly. Would it buy him more power in the Senate? No, because Democrats would have every reason to strip him of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Is Lieberman's stance intended to placate the special interests in his state? Perhaps this is part of it -- there are a lot of insurance companies in Connecticut -- but Lieberman is generally not one of the more sold-out Senators, ranking 75th out of the 100-member chamber in the percentage of his fundraising that comes from corporate PACs. Are there any particular compromises or concessions he wants in the bill? He hasn't stipulated any, at least not publicly. Might he have a legitimate policy objection to the public option? Certainly there are some legitimate objections -- whether or not you agree with them. But Lieberman's objections don't make any sense. He says he's worried about blunting "the economic recovery we’re in" even though the public option provisions wouldn't kick in until 2013. He says he's worried about debt-reduction when the public option would make the bill more deficit-neutral. And he campaigned on a public-option type alternative called "MediChoice" in 2006. What Joe Lieberman wants, in all probability, is attention. [...]"

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/somebody-buy-joe-lieberman-puppy.html

10/28/2009 12:05:21 PM

I thought democrats thought for themselves though... and that was a good thing. I guess its not unless your "thinking for yourself" is whatever the president tells you to think.


good going joe. So he is worried that the added taxes would slow an economic recovery? Holly shit, someone took basic economics. Looks like Nate Silver needs a course or two.

10/28/2009 1:02:35 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002298/

Yeah, I'm sure he has legitimate concerns

10/28/2009 3:53:23 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

I can play that game too.

Liebermans reasoning from that article is sound.

10/28/2009 4:24:30 PM

^^ There isn't much universal about these bills. The Bacus bill would reduce the uninsured by only around 60%.

10/28/2009 5:50:53 PM

Uh, the Senate bill doesn't introduce new taxes and it LESSENS the deficit. Granted, you can't trust that completely, but there's hardly any proof that it will lead to new taxes. The PO is funded by the people who buy into it - it'll just be nonprofit instead of for profit.

The house bill introduces one new tax - on families who make over a MILLION dollars per year. I think they can handle it. It also reduces the deficit and possibly saves even more than the senate bill.

You can't just say something and make it true - you must show evidence. Right now, the evidence is on the side of the Dems.

10/29/2009 2:46:44 PM

I'm pretty sure that both versions of the bill call for taxing health care benefits over a certain amount, something that Obama referred to as "the biggest middle-class tax increase in US history" on the campaign trail.

But getting past that, what do you thing will happen when insurers are required to pay billions of dollars in fees? When drugmakers, hospitals and device-makers are required to pay billions as well, in order to subsidize health care for the poor? How about when insurers are required to offer coverage for people who don't buy healthcare until they get really sick? These health-care companies are gonna raise their rates, and coverage is gonna get a lot more expensive for those of us who currently have coverage. And the doctors and hospitals are gonna raise their rates to counter escalating costs and cuts to Medicare from this bill.

There may be no new taxes beyond the marginal taxes proposed in the House plan, but all these fees and cuts to insurers and practitioners will be passed on to the consumers, in this case you and I.

10/29/2009 7:10:18 PM

^ which is going to push people towards a public option. or perhaps the companies might just eat in to their massive profits to compete with each other.

I don’t think it’s a given prices will sky rocket.

10/29/2009 7:37:56 PM

Massive profits? I don't see how a 6% profit margin is "massive".

And yes, you're absolutely right that the end-game for the Dems is to drive so many people into the public option that the employer-based system buckles.

10/29/2009 7:56:30 PM

Quote :

"I don’t think it’s a given prices will sky rocket."

Pretty much everywhere that the government enters the market one of two things occur; shortages or massive price increases.

10/29/2009 8:03:43 PM

^ like what? Our education system doesn’t suffer from those problems, medicare doesn’t seem to have those problems on a national scale, roads are still pretty cheap to use, municipal water is still pretty cheap, electricity is also fairly inexpensive. In some cases, it’s cheaper to the “customer” for the local gov. to fly a helicopter ambulance, than what you typically pay for a regular ambulance elsewhere.

10/29/2009 8:08:56 PM

^ I don't even know where to begin with that retardation. You can't prove any of it.

10/29/2009 8:11:12 PM

Quote :

"Uh, the Senate bill doesn't introduce new taxes and it LESSENS the deficit."

I am so fucking tired of you parroting this bullshit line, DG. Every time you bring it up, I point out that a 5 years paying vs 10 years taxing is NOT revenue neutral. And every time I say that, you ignore it. How about you actually RESPOND TO THAT FACT for once. You must be the dumbest fucking person on the planet if you think a 2:1 cost ratio is actually "neutral". RESPOND TO THIS OR STOP FUCKING PARROTING THAT LINE, DIPSHIT.

Quote :

"You can't just say something and make it true - you must show evidence."

It's funny that YOU would say that, when the evidence is a billion times against what you are saying.

Quote :

"which is going to push people towards a public option"

How is a public option, which will suffer from the very same fucking problems, going to somehow escape those problems? Pure genius here, people.

Quote :

"Our education system doesn’t suffer from those problems"

Really? Show me a school that is "over funded" and I'll show you a school that has a friend in high places.

Quote :

"medicare doesn’t seem to have those problems on a national scale"

Because the cost of medicare is pushed off to private insurers and people without insurance. duh.

Quote :

"municipal water is still pretty cheap"

You clearly haven't been to Graniteville, SC, have you?

Quote :

"In some cases, it’s cheaper to the “customer” for the local gov. to fly a helicopter ambulance, than what you typically pay for a regular ambulance elsewhere."

You really said that? Is the "customer" actually paying the full cost of this helicopter ambulance, or is he just passing the buck along to the taxpayers?

10/29/2009 8:21:08 PM

Quote :

"You really said that? Is the "customer" actually paying the full cost of this helicopter ambulance, or is he just passing the buck along to the taxpayers? "

Are you serious? The cost is deferred by tax payers, just like how costs are deferred in regular insurance. The point is that gov. didn’t screw it up, and it’s not something private companies would or could really do.

Quote :

""municipal water is still pretty cheap" You clearly haven't been to Graniteville, SC, have you? "

Are you really trying to argue that there is some systemic problem with the cost of providing clean water that the gov. is responsible for? Because if not, a simple anecdote is meaningless. Unless of course you want me to start posting anecdotes of where/when/how a private corporation screwed up.

Quote :

"Really? Show me a school that is "over funded" and I'll show you a school that has a friend in high places. "

lol, there are a lot of schools that many would consider “over funded” but there is no system problem with costs of running schools. The problem with schools is largely trying to get intelligent people to be grade-school teachers, but a lot of this is societal. Money can’t fix these problems.

[Edited on October 29, 2009 at 8:25 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2009 8:23:18 PM

Quote :

"Are you serious? The cost is deferred by tax payers, just like how costs are deferred in regular insurance. The point is that gov. didn’t screw it up, and it’s not something private companies would or could really do."

bullshit. the claim was the "customer" was paying less. I simply pointed out that that is NOT the case.

Quote :

"The problem with schools is largely trying to get intelligent people to be grade-school teachers, but a lot of this is societal. Money can’t fix these problems."

and the problems would be something that gov't isn't fixing, right?

10/29/2009 8:27:26 PM

Quote :

"bullshit. the claim was the "customer" was paying less. I simply pointed out that that is NOT the case. "

If that’s what you were trying to point out, then you are even MORE wrong than I thought. The customer most definitely is paying less in that case. The cost of the service is still there, but the person benefitting doesn’t shoulder most of it.

Quote :

"and the problems would be something that gov't isn't fixing, right?"

I hate to derail this thread, but things are obviously getting better:


Just not fast enough:


I wonder how much the gov. is involved in the education systems of all the countries above us…?

10/29/2009 8:32:29 PM

Quote :

"If that’s what you were trying to point out, then you are even MORE wrong than I thought. The customer most definitely is paying less in that case. The cost of the service is still there, but the person benefitting doesn’t shoulder most of it."

no. There's a reason "customer" is in quotes. If you go simply based on "cost to me," then you can get a lot of fucked up scenarios where the cost is truly higher because of the gov't, but the "cost to me" is lower. No one would consider that a good thing. Medicare is a perfect example of this

As for the education numbers "getting better" in only one category, is that a result of the gov't, or might there be something else happening? A number can go up without something good happening, you know

10/29/2009 8:42:34 PM

Quote :

"As for the education numbers "getting better" in only one category, is that a result of the gov't, or might there be something else happening? A number can go up without something good happening, you know "

You’re missing the point… gov. doesn’t always make things worse, like JCASHFAN tried to imply. There’s no evidence of this, and there’ll never be evidence of this regarding the US, because our gov. is not that bad, and is one of the reasons we are such a good country to live in.

10/29/2009 8:51:48 PM

Look, the increase in the cost of education has largely gone hand in hand with the increasing number of grants and loans being given out by the Federal government and a concurrent rise in demand without a rise in capacity. Now, I'm not arguing that more people going to higher education is inherently a bad thing, but there is a reason the cost of higher education has gone up.


On the local level, the US spends more per capita on students than any other developed nation and still produces some of the worst results. While primary education is locally controlled, the Federal government still provides a substantial amount of funding which has done nothing to improve the overall quality of schools. For what it's worth, part of the reason that many of the above countries have high scores have generally homogeneous societies which demands high standards of their students for admission into higher education. There is incentive for performance, something Federal government involvement has yet to produce. They're also substantially smaller in population than the United States and, as can be expected, their governments are significantly more responsive.


Social Secuity is a ponzi scheme. Medicare is only a few years from becoming insolvent. The entire warfare / welfare state is currently funded by debt and has no real value to back it up.


It is simply impossible for the Federal Government to make the decisions necessary on a daily basis necessary to the efficient operation of health care, education, car production, etc. Furthermore, with no capital investment, and therefore no assumed risk, congressmen and bureaucrats are free to manipulate the sectors it controls without fear of personal loss save for the most egregious examples of corruption.

10/29/2009 10:03:40 PM

^ social security was doomed from the beginning.

Medicare’s problems can be fixed with proper healthcare reform.

Congress doesn’t sit around micromanaging the entities it creates, they hire (generally) qualified people to run things once they lay out the groundwork. How those things run is entirely a product of who they hire, and how well the groundwork is laid out. You can sit around and nay-say and try to create the Republican’s self-fulfilling prophecy that gov. can’t work, or you can try and figure out how to make gov. work. Gov. is not inherently incompetent or dumb, it’s people that are dumb, and dumb people are everywhere, including the private sector.

10/29/2009 10:19:12 PM