American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Jackson;442482]The "[I]people[/I]" had health care before Obamacare.

The USA offered "[I]affordable healthcare to all of its citizens[/I]" before Obamacare, all they had to do was buy it with [U]their[/U] [U]money[/U].

The only difference is now they can buy it with [U]my[/U] [U]money[/U].

Let's stop pretending that there was no health care in the USA before Obamacare.

Thanks,

Jax[/QUOTE]I know FIRST HAND that a HUGE number (in the millions-perhaps tens of millions) of the population did not and COULD not get medical insurance even if they were willing to pay a million dollars a year. What stupid ignorance to reality!!

However, even if you finally had to admit (which you would never do regardless of the evidence) that millions did not and COULD not get insurance it wouldn't matter one ounce to you-callousness is a Republican prerequisite.

Try living in reality (and the US) for a while and perhaps you will see reality-on second thought that will be an impossibility.

Stowe.

[QUOTE=Stowe;442512]I know FIRST HAND that a HUGE number (in the millions-perhaps tens of millions) of the population did not and COULD not get medical insurance even if they were willing to pay a million dollars a year. What stupid ignorance to reality!!

However, even if you finally had to admit (which you would never do regardless of the evidence) that millions did not and COULD not get insurance it wouldn't matter one ounce to you-callousness is a Republican prerequisite.

Try living in reality (and the US) for a while and perhaps you will see reality-on second thought that will be an impossibility.

Stowe.[/QUOTE]Obamacare will leave 30 million people uninsured and thus out of the health care system. Jackson has proposed a system that would provide health care for all, as an alternative to what we have now. See [URL]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=435065&highlight=argentina[/URL]#post435065. (Stowe, you'll have to scroll down the page to read what he wrote -- I can't get the link to work correctly.) When the bottom fell out of the Argentine economy, he contributed money and time to help people who were truly poverty stricken.

I could say that the problem with Democrats is that they all want to sit at home watching television collecting their government checks while the rest of us bust our asses to support them. And not only that, but if someone were to propose something related to healthcare or education that would lower costs and improve quality, it would be over their dead bodies. That's because Democrats are never happy unless they're flushing somebody else's money down the toilet. I don't really believe that, but it makes more sense that what some of what you guys have been spouting here about the "callous" types that disagree with you.

Hmm. I followed that link and I saw where Jackson briefly discussed a system and then stated it wouldn't work because the liberals would bankrupt it. Maybe you could extract the relevant part of the post to which you refer.

Jackson also said this: "Regarding pre-existing conditions, I'm all for eliminating pre-existing conditions as a barrier to buying health insurance if anyone can figure out a way to deal with the inevitable issue of people waiting until they have a health issue before they decide to buy health insurance."

The penalties for not having insurance address this, and increase fairly dramatically. So it's at least a partial solution. Now, the mentality of not buying health insurance until you are sick is one of those things I was saying may take a long time to change. But I think it will, over time, because the subsidized insurance is a good deal and most people will figure that out and will have it. Gradually the mindset will change to where health insurance is taken for granted (pluses and minuses to that as well), and playing the waiting game will no longer be necessary or desirable. Lots of people didn't buy car insurance when they didn't have to, remember? I was one of them. But, now it's well ingrained in almost every state (I think NH still does not require auto insurance), and it's gotten more ingrained. When they first made it mandatory in this state, you could still register your car without it (like you were promising not to actually drive it) and now you can't. The ACA will turn out much the same way, gradual acceptance until it becomes socially institutionalized.

But then again, maybe the Republicans will dismantle the whole thing in 2017. I guess I'd better manipulate the piss out of it for the next few years. Oh, wait minute; I was already doing that. Never mind.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442516] Maybe you could extract the relevant part of the post to which you refer.[/QUOTE]Here it is:

[QUOTE=Jackson;435065]As a compromise to those who wish to buy votes, I stated that I would support a tax funded system of free public hospitals in the USA. Of course, I'm envisioning concrete block facilities staffed with doctors and nurses trained at tuition-free government medical schools and working for military payscales.[/QUOTE]

A somewhat similar system in Hong Kong, which operates aside private healthcare, provides good quality care at much, much lower cost than the system in the USA.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;442517]Here it is: A somewhat similar system in Hong Kong, which operates aside private healthcare, provides good quality care at much, much lower cost than the system in the USA.[/QUOTE]Right, and then he says, "such a system would never work in the USA." So that's pretty typical conservative rhetoric: complaining about something but not offering any solutions. And, if the system he alludes to is so great, why have no Republican presidents made any moves towards implementing such a system? You guys can complain about the ACA all you want, and it's sure not perfect. But it's a case of a [B]politician actually getting something done[/B], and for that by itself should be applauded.

But fair is fair and now that the ACA is paying for my hearing aids, I'll pay for your crying towels. Do you want the money sent to Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or one of the other groups that does your thinking for you? What do you think, a gross of crying towels? Will that be enough? Or should I make it a great gross?

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442518]Right, and then he says, "such a system would never work in the USA." So that's pretty typical conservative rhetoric: complaining about something but not offering any solutions. And, if the system he alludes to is so great, why have no Republican presidents made any moves towards implementing such a system? You guys can complain about the ACA all you want, and it's sure not perfect. But it's a case of a [B]politician actually getting something done[/B], and for that by itself should be applauded.

But fair is fair and now that the ACA is paying for my hearing aids, I'll pay for your crying towels. Do you want the money sent to Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or one of the other groups that does your thinking for you? What do you think, a gross of crying towels? Will that be enough? Or should I make it a great gross?[/QUOTE]I'm not a Republican. I do on the whole dislike Democrat politicians more than Republican politicians though.

I would actually favor a system like Singapore's that keeps health care private but encourages competition, eliminates crony capitalism, and makes sure all individuals are covered. And all at lower cost to the consumer and the taxpayer than what the USA has now. My second choice would be a system like Hong Kong's, which involves public health care. No mainstream Republican or Democrat would support either of these solutions. I may be to the left of you on this issue, although you do appear to have no appreciation for the fact that the health care system without changes will probably bankrupt America, which is typical of the left. I have to admit that spending lots of money so a country or state or locality eventually goes bankrupt is indeed getting something done.

It isn't that I have no appreciation for the effect of the changes, it's that I don't agree with you on the ultimate outcome. It's not that easy to bankrupt an entity that has the right of seigniorage. And in my state, we're ending the first year of the ACA with large surpluses and an unemployment rate below 4%. Inflation was negative last month. None of the economic woes the gloom and doomers predicted are surfacing (yet). Enrollment is increasing nicely in the first year of renewal, by the early numbers. That means more economies of scale and more efficiencies, oops I mean relatively less [B]in[/B]efficiency, for the new and growing system. Despite my own considerable trials and travails with the bureaucratic aspects of the system, I'm moderately sanguine about it going forward.

I think the Hong Kong system, which Tiny's posts have led me to study, would be a fine theoretical model for us to draw on. If you look at health care costs in the US, I think you need to look first at the excessive compensation structure. If you look at the industrialized countries who spend far lower percentages of GDP per capita compared to the US, in none of those places are doctors making the type of money they do in the US. Work on that and work on getting the pharmaceuticals out the drug [B]pushing[/B] business and back into the drug [B]providing[/B] business, and then maybe a dual public-private system a la Hong Kong could function in the US. Singapore I did not study because Islam makes me puke. I've been to Hong Kong, and clearly there is still an economic stratum that is excluded from affordable health care. It's probably not nearly as large as the percentage here, though. I base that on the large number of amputees, harelips, and so forth that I saw there, stuff that was probably correctable at some point.

Hong Kong is a model of efficiency and other countries would do well to study not just its health care system but its transportation system and probably a few other systems as well. Their system of prostitution is not bad either, and is for the most part a tribute to the effectiveness of free and unfettered markets. HK has the best looking independent streetwalkers of anywhere I've ever been, and that's saying something.

Here is one inherent problem with free markets and unfettered capitalism that nobody really likes to talk about: It's based on the premise that all people are created equal. But, they're not. So the ones who are born with and into "more equal" circumstances crush those who are born with lesser abilities and economic advantages. The intergenerational effect from this is exponential and not linear, and an overly stratified society results. A way to address that is (conservatives cover your eyes and ears and go hide in a closet) [B]wealth redistribution[/B]. A reasonably efficient way of achieving wealth distribution is progressive taxation. Stripped to its fiscal core, the ACA is nothing more than an example of graduated income tax rates. So, even if I were to ignore the huge and largely unjustified benefits I'm personally receiving from it, it has a lot of conceptual appeal. I believe the true measure of any society is how it treats its weakest members. The US leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, in my opinion, and the ACA is a large step in the right direction.

Wouldn't my side of things have gotten more votes this past election if the mulatto Muslim messiah had announced his illegal, subversive, and unconstitutional immigration plan [B]before[/B] the mid-terms? What am I missing here?

We need merit-based immigration and not this whatever jackass evaded capture the longest gets to stay bullshit.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442520] It's not that easy to bankrupt an entity that has the right of seigniorage.[/QUOTE]If we just print more money, won't we end up like Argentina and Brazil in the 1980's, or Zimbabwe more recently?

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442520]And in my state, we're ending the first year of the ACA with large surpluses and an unemployment rate below 4%. Inflation was negative last month. None of the economic woes the gloom and doomers predicted are surfacing (yet). Enrollment is increasing nicely in the first year of renewal, by the early numbers. That means more economies of scale and more efficiencies, oops I mean relatively less [B]in[/B]efficiency, for the new and growing system. Despite my own considerable trials and travails with the bureaucratic aspects of the system, I'm moderately sanguine about it going forward.[/QUOTE]If you're addressing my point about health care costs bankrupting the USA, this is irrelevant. The gloom and doomers are mainstream. Unfunded liabilities of the federal government are huge, over 200 trillion dollars by some estimates, and I believe Medicare and Medicaid account for the majority of that. Obamacare will soon be adding another $150 billion a year on top of Medicare and Medicaid. The irony is that some countries spend less as a % of GDP for healthcare for their entire populations than what we spend on Medicare and Medicaid alone. And they have better outcomes for things like life expectancy and infant mortality. The system is royally fucked and if nothing changes we will go bankrupt. Yes, that will occur after you die, so you can afford to be moderately sanguine.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442520]Here is one inherent problem with free markets and unfettered capitalism that nobody really likes to talk about: It's based on the premise that all people are created equal. But, they're not. So the ones who are born with and into "more equal" circumstances crush those who are born with lesser abilities and economic advantages. The intergenerational effect from this is exponential and not linear, and an overly stratified society results. A way to address that is (conservatives cover your eyes and ears and go hide in a closet) [B]wealth redistribution[/B]. A reasonably efficient way of achieving wealth distribution is progressive taxation. Stripped to its fiscal core, the ACA is nothing more than an example of graduated income tax rates. So, even if I were to ignore the huge and largely unjustified benefits I'm personally receiving from it, it has a lot of conceptual appeal. I believe the true measure of any society is how it treats its weakest members. The US leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, in my opinion, and the ACA is a large step in the right direction.[/QUOTE]First, everything you've read about inequality probably looked at before tax income. If you adjust for taxes, transfer payments, household size, retirement benefits and the like, the relative changes that have occurred in recent decades aren't that drastic. See Table 1 in [URL]http://journal.southerneconomic.org/doi/pdf/10.4284/0038-4038-2013.175.[/URL] I looked at progressivity some time ago, and if memory serves me correctly, the USA had the most progressive tax system in the developed world. I'm sure that's right for OECD countries. And that was BEFORE OBAMACARE AND BEFORE THE BUSH TAX CUTS WERE RESCINDED. You tax people at up to a 43.4% federal tax rate (39.6% before Obamacare), and add up to a 13.3% state rate, then add on property taxes and take away 40% of what they've got after they die and you end up with a pretty progressive system. Some might argue if that's conceptually appealing, then confiscation and theft should be conceptually appealing too. I might not go that far.

I would argue that the best cure for inequality is a better educational system. And spending isn't the problem. Our expenditures on education are comparable or higher than most other developed countries. The problem is with the system. I see some Republicans trying to fix it, with things like vouchers and accountablilty from educators. And some Democrats fighting them every step of the way. Also, more needs to be done about helping children in poverty, instead of heavily subsidizing Medicare and Social Security for older Americans, who are relatively well off compared to younger Americans.

Maybe you should watch this program.

Jackson one of the most.

[URL]http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-roosevelts/[/URL]

All the republicans hated the Democrats then, because he and his wife want freedom and health care fore ALL.

Same as Now.

He had to deal with the same racial problems that the Good Old White Boys did then and still do not want!

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442520] Singapore I did not study because Islam makes me puke.[/QUOTE]You might be thinking of Brunei? The rich oil mini state?

I said Singapore and I meant Singapore. I know that Buddhism is a bit more prevalent than Islam in Singapore but it's a good 1/4 or 1/3 Muslim and I choose to avoid it, similar to the south of Thailand. One thing nobody wants to talk about is the birth rate among Muslims. It's so much higher than Buddhists' rate that Islam will probably be the majority religion there in one or two more generations. Could happen in Thailand too.

"If we just print more money, won't we end up like Argentina and Brazil in the 1980's, or Zimbabwe more recently?".

The key difference is that in those other countries, the printing press is in the hands of the legislative branch. Not the case in the Yew Ess. The other difference is that the Yew Ess has a lot more success in collecting the taxes it imposes.

If you want better schools, for my money the way to achieve it is to make everyone attend the same school. Rich, poor, black, white, etc. No private schools. No parochial schools. No home schooling. I definitely agree it's not about money. I spent fifteen years in higher education watching the quality of incoming freshmen get worse and worse as more and more of this No Child Left Behind and outcomes based learning and crap proliferated. Eliminate athletic scholarships; that would be a start.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442541]"If we just print more money, won't we end up like Argentina and Brazil in the 1980's, or Zimbabwe more recently?".
The key difference is that in those other countries, the printing press is in the hands of the legislative branch. Not the case in the Yew Ess. The other difference is that the Yew Ess has a lot more success in collecting the taxes it imposes.[/QUOTE]Thanks for that, honestly, I didn't think about the taxes part. So a highly indebted USA will be more like Japan, a poor economy for decades? I'm not sure that's any better. And I'm not sure that's a good analogy, as while the Japanese hold most Japanese government debt, much of ours is owned by Chinese, Saudi Arabia, etc.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442541]f you want better schools, for my money the way to achieve it is to make everyone attend the same school. Rich, poor, black, white, etc. No private schools. No parochial schools. No home schooling. [/QUOTE]
You read about schools that far outperform others, and also health care systems like Mayo's that produce great results at far lower cost than the average. If you could get rid of the crony capitalism, teacher's unions, etc. and encourage something like a free market in education and health care, I wonder if these could predominate. You would need to insure that underprivileged kids could attend the best schools, chosen by their parents. I doubt we'd see eye-to-eye on that, as you seem to prefer statist solutions controlled by elites in the federal government, while I think that's a recipe for disaster. I could however see implementing Jackson's alternative to the present system, because health care is so truly screwed up.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442540]I said Singapore and I meant Singapore. I know that Buddhism is a bit more prevalent than Islam in Singapore but it's a good 1/4 or 1/3 Muslim and I choose to avoid it, similar to the south of Thailand. One thing nobody wants to talk about is the birth rate among Muslims. It's so much higher than Buddhists' rate that Islam will probably be the majority religion there in one or two more generations. Could happen in Thailand too.[/QUOTE]I just looked it up and 13% of the population is Malay (Islamic) and 9% is Indian. Most of the Indians are probably Hindi. That said, the only place I've ever felt threatened by a Muslim was in Singapore, so much so that when asked my nationality I pretended like I was from Argentina. I've spent months in Indonesia and never felt threatened or unwelcome. That's compared to about 10 days total in Singapore.