American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Do you really want the government running healthcare in the US? [/QUOTE]Find the argument of how Medicare costs have exploded over its lifetime as an example of Government's inability to manage health care is flawed. The whole point of the national debate on health care is its high cost as a whole: Medicare / private. Every sector is out of control. There are many reason for the increased costs, the primary ones are technology and the other is the physchy of the American people. I particularly wish to pick on the American women. They seem to have a penchant for visiting doctors and beg to have the doctor find something wrong with them. They visit doctors for everything and anything. Like weighing three hundred pounds has nothing to do with eating too much.

[QUOTE]Many physicians believe that demanding patients are the reason they are delivering so much unnecessary care.

Perhaps the most significant reason Americans are drowning in health care debt may shock you: Americans are getting far too much unnecessary care. Of our total $2.3 trillion health care bill last year, a whopping $500 billion to $700 billion was spent on treatments, tests, and hospitalizations that did nothing to improve our health.[/QUOTE][url]http://www.aarpmagazine.org/health/health_care_costs.html[/url]

Another area where Medicare takes it in the shorts is when it becomes the primary carrier. I do not know all the terms, but when a person turns 65, Medicare becomes the primary insurer and the citizen's private insurance becomes the secondary provider. Basically, Medicare is on the hook for the majority of the tab and the private insurer is suppose to pick up the remainder. In the beginning, Medicare was never designed to be the primary carrier for the insured. However, through lobbying and Ronny boy, the private insurers got their way, unload the higher risk clients on the Government: 65+. Good deal if you are an insurer. BTW, the clients private insurance premiums do not change. It makes no sense to me.

Like to consider myself a free market guy, but there are areas when Government control / regulation has its place: utilities. Think health-care's time has come.

I never thought I would say this, but the United States might benefit by taking a page out of the Argentine playbook.

This may have been mentionned on this thread before. I am not sure.

However, most prescription medications, except scheduled or controlled substances, should not require a doctors signature. If you want to treat your cold with an antibiotic, which is a completely useless therapy for colds, go ahead. Skip the $100 to $5000 office/emergency room visit you would otherwise drop on society.

When you want your allergy medicine or viagra prescription refilled, skip the expensive trip through the doctors office.

In fact, we are going in this direction with medicines such as Prilosec, Tagamet etc. which are now over the counter.

Who opposes this. You guessed it. Doctors, physician assistants and nurse practionners who would have to trade in their BMW's for clunkers.

Thanks for making my case for me. Medicare and Medicaid as well as Social Security have morphed from the helpful programs they were designed to be into cash guzzling monsters by the very political machine poised to take over all healthcare.

Just who do you think is going to "take in the shorts" when there are no more private health insurers and only the government plan. (A plan I might add Congress is not on - sort of like social security Congress is not on it either - they the priviliged few have a private health care and retirement system)

Perhaps you don't realize it but most Americans consume over 80% of their lifetime healthcare spending in the last years of their lifes. Under this plan you better die young or when you hit your 60's your wonderful government healthcare plan is going to tell you to go home and die - got no money for you. Don't belive it? If not why does this new healthcare need a government board to determine what services are needed, what services are not and who gets those services.

I'm not saying our current plan is all roses but it is a hell of a lot better than most. The truth is brutal - you want the most expensive healthcare with the least results - go with goverment.

Even the Obama Times (formerly known as the New York Times who's tag line is "All the Disinformation Fit to Print") savaged him over the colossal failure of the press conference last night. Fortunately, a guilty conscience is emerging, at least with one reporter, on the willing participation to the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

His ineptitude last night highlighted that he is out of his depth. It was similar to Toto peeling back the curtain on 'the man behind the curtain' to expose a hapless fraud. Hopefully, it isn't too little too late.

It isn't about talking points or playing to polls. At some point, a man has to say, this is what I believe in, and this is what I am going to do (of course this doesn't just apply to internal conversations in one's head whilst standing at the bar in Newport)

I get loads of shit from friends and family about my hard-line stance on certain subjects. They ask me "why can't you just compromise?" To which I respond, "if I know that I am right, how can I agree to accept something that I know to be wrong?" (again, please see prior caveat)

I've witnessed you show compassion. I know that there are items that you place value on that exist in a sphere outside of of analysis of cash flow: family, truth, human kindness and compassion. There are times when one makes a decision: this is just wrong and we may have the capacity to make it right. You consider the wars in the middle east in that framework irregardless of cost and other choices that could have been made.

Western europe and scandinavia have socialized medicine, longer life expectancies and higher rates of satisfaction with health care than we have in the usa. Their higher tax structures has had consequences of the types you suggest. I now accept that trade off because there is no moral way[based upon my view of what is right and wrong that has almost zero to do with economics] to allocate basic healthcare to the private sector's control unless they can be so cost effective to compete with the public option.

Our views on these subjects may be so different that dialog is not possible because we are looking at the issues from completely different places--we are talking about different things--our basic values on these issues may differ even if we may have overlaps on other subjects. Eg I refuse to discuss politics with my friend Jackson--whose company and friendship I enjoy and value.

I dout that you consider western europe and scandinavia is be at root completely amoral based on policies decisions and generally accepted social values which might differ from your basic point oif view. FDR's move of the usa into might might be labled "socialist type policy decisions" to help the usa through the great depression. Nixon's decision to support medicare--socialized medicine-- Eveything in life of value cannot only be seen as a be-school case study.

YES, I aggree that many policy decisions need more care, scrutiny and analysis. All of economics makes basic assumptions which might may be useful to assistance us with analysis and planning. But those assumptions are still assumptions, not facts nor universal truths. There are times and places when you might say it is just wrong despite the analysis of cash flows. Not in making an investment decision generally--but maybe making decions about the basic value of a human being--life, death, suffering, pain, family and whatever spiritual beliefs that you might have nor not have.

WE are talking about different things. My remarks directly to ROCK--were not intended to be insults directed to you. I respect and like you and hopefully eventually I will call you a friend, but we will disagree about politics and values related to health care.

Barack Obama was out jogging one morning when he tripped, fell over a bridge railing and landed in the creek below.

Before the Secret Service guys could get to him, 3 kids who were fishing pulled him out of the water. He was so grateful he offered the kids whatever they wanted.

The first kid said, 'I want to go to Disneyland.'

Barack said, 'No problem, I'll take you there on my special airplane.

The second kid said, 'I want a new pair of Nike Air Jordan shoes.'

Barack said, 'I'll get them for you and even have Michael Jordan sign them!'

The third kid said, ' I want a motorized wheelchair with a built in TV and stereo headset!'

Barack was a little perplexed by this and said, 'But you don't look like you're handicapped.'

The kid said, 'I will be after my dad finds out I saved your ass from drowning.'

Sidney,

Ford borrowed money from PRIVATE equity lenders because they were deemed to have the credit-worthiness back in 2006 to obtain such loans. This loan was taken before the current meltdown because Ford knew back in 2006 that its then business plan was unsustainable and it needed to obtain financing to pay for a huge corporate reorganization. THAT is the hallmark of competent management. GM and Chrysler drove themselves into the ground in the face of bankruptcy and are / were such basket cases that no private equity firms would lend them any money (in Chrysler's case, the private equity firm that owned them had access to billions of dollars and refused to invest even one dollar more in one of its own holdings) so the lender of last resort was the GOVERNMENT (which IMO should have just let them both die) The bottom line is that FORD makes excellent cars that will sell well in the years to come in the US market and will be profitable by 2011. Ford's stock will be worth $30 USD / share again within the next 48 months.

Economies move in cycles and the big boys with competent management can make it through the lean times. ALL the major automakers faced a huge decline in sales (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen, Ford, GM, Chrysler) but only GM and Chrysler went under. GM and Chrysler died because of GROSS MISMANAGEMENT and for no other reason.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Jackson-

Please start a new thread titled "US Economy" so I do not have to post in the "American politics during the Obama Administration" thread.

Thanks,

Rock Harders

Rock Harders,

I must be in the twilight zone, because I agree with 95% of what you've been posting in this thread recently. I'd argue though that GM and Chrysler didn't die because of gross mismanagement and for no other reason. The unions had a lot to do with it, although I guess you can blame management too for compensation, pension and medical costs around $80 per hour worked. And for a system where management and workers are at each others throats instead of working as a team.

Sidney is right, the immediate downfall was the downturn in sales. As you noted, all the auto manufacturers were hit. Even Toyota took almost a 50% hit to sales. If you've got leverage and high fixed costs, that's a potential recipe for disaster. I guess you and he agree that's where Ford did well, by building up a big cash cushion before the downturn.

But GM had $25 billion in cash and $44 billion in borrowings at year end 2007, going into the downturn. That's a lot of cash. Looking back at historical interest rates, at year end 2007, the Fed Funds rate was 4.25% and GM's bonds were yielding about 11%. So by maintaining a $25 billion cash cushion insted of paying off debt, GM might have been spending about (11%-4.25%) x 25 billion, or $1.7 billion per year extra in net interest expense. Yields on Ford debt and GM debt at 12/31/07 were pretty similar, around 11% or 12%. So, in other words, I don't think it's fair to say that GM management was incompetent because they didn't hold enough cash. Or that GM couldn't refinance at affordable interest rates while Ford could. But to be honest, unlike you, I have no idea what private equity firms were willing to do for Ford vs. GM and Chrysler in 2006 or 2007.

I took a look at Ford about 6 months ago, and do not believe they're in as good of shape as you do. I'd be very reluctant to buy the shares.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Jackson-

Please start a new thread titled "US Economy" so I do not have to post in the "American politics during the Obama Administration" thread.

Thanks,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE][blue]Hey Rock,

I don't blame you for wanting to distance the Messiah from the economy that he is "managing".

Anyway, as you requested...

[url]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5644[/url]

Thanks,

Jackson[/blue]

RH:

Change the name, put lipstick on the pig, whatever you want, this mess is BHO's not matter how you slice it.

He inherited a ~$400B deficit, which he immediately more than quadrupled to what CBO expects to be $1.85T (that's 1.85 trillion (I. E. 1,850 billion dollars or AR$7,030,000,000,000 or 28 billion hours of completo with BBBJ at Junin 1633) within his first six months. At two loads per hour, that's 18 million gallons of cum. That's one hell of a bukake film.

The spending has all been political paybacks and payoffs. So don't bother getting into specifics, which are apparently a weak spot for lefties (I've known this for a while)

Bob, you had me at hello. At least I knew I loved you when I discovered the gem at the other end of the telephone number you gave me. Some of my best friends are extreme liberals. We can debate and at the end of the day, we can agree to disagree and part friends. I am passionate about my beliefs and I know when I am right. I do not hold against my friends who do not agree (I write it off as due to some form of mental defect--I'm joking)

You know that I am: 1) a smart ass prick (one of my more endearing qualities--perhaps my only one) 2) in possession of an IQ barely north of room temperature, 3) an individual that practices compassion in my daily life, and 4) a conservative that believes in smaller government and more personal responsibility (err. Excluding certain endeavors) I will also gladly buy you one drink for each time I offended your liberal sensitivities (provided you return the favor with translation services) By the way, I also have great respect for Dodger Bulldog, who I believe is left of my middle of the road position, with whom I hope to share a few more beers in our favorite drinking hole.

I respect extreme liberals who are willing to argue for what they believe and are willing to debate far more than 'moderates' from either party who are swayed by flimsy news stories or bumper sticker slogans and have no beliefs.

I love to debate ideas and ideals. I love being right (as in correct, not Right) and am willing to acknowledge when I am wrong (at least I anticipate that I will be able to do that, if it ever occurs) I appreciate the input of others no matter how poorly formulated, stated or founded. From the smartest to the dumbest contributors and lurkers, there should be no hesitancy to weigh in or at least get involved. These issues affect many of us and if you haven't taken an interest in it you should.

I like the fact that there is very little flaming in this forum. There is a certain amount of respect amongst intelligent scoundrels.

I like this thread. However, I rank it a distant number 2 behind all those related to finding great pussy in Bs As.

I will respectfully refuse to post in RH's sanitized thread.