American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[Tiny12]

I just wish that people could address the problem directly in a data-based way

Agreed, for health care and other issues. But you can't twist the data to suit your prejudices and end up with usable results. You can't ignore that GDP must be adjusted for purchasing power to show how prosperous a country is. You can't lump developed countries where government is comparatively small, like Switzerland, Australia, and Canada, in with northern Europe. You can't ignore health care systems in countries like Singapore and Hong Kong, where outcomes are better and costs are lower than northern Europe. You can't say the USA won't become like Greece when federal government expenditures are 35% higher than revenues. And you can't blame Republican Congressmen and George Bush for every ill that has befallen the USA, when Democrats have controlled the Presidency and Senate the last 5 years, and the House for 2 years.

[Tatu Hei]

I appreciate the dialogue, and I certainly don't have all the answers. This is going to be my last post on this topic because I really need to do other things, like see a new chica every day and, oh yes, work. I trust this little post will not be the last word.

My main point was that the USA has a lot to learn about providing health care from the northern European countries as well as Canada and Australia. These countries have shown that government-sponsored health care is efficacious and popular. These countries have great experience with cutting unnecessary costs while achieving superior outcomes. Reasonable co-pays keep people from abusing the system. These countries have high standards of living and high degrees of personal freedom (although I am highly opposed to the Swedish laws concerning prostitution, which violate human rights IMHO). The private sector in the economies of these countries is vibrant and broadly appreciated; they are not socialist. The United States could adopt a tried-and-true health care system if we did not have to invent the wheel and if we looked at data in the real world as opposed to tired ideologies.

The ACA is a big step in the right direction. I do wish there had been a public option because the public option of Medicare has consistently outperformed the products put out by insurance companies. Compromise was necessary, and many compromises led to the complexity of the ACA. The technical and substantive errors that have occurred in early implementation are understandable both because of the law's complexity (including state control of many features) but also because of the roadblocks thrown up at every turn by the Republicans. The technical problems will get solved, and the unfairness to small but important groups of people could be solved rapidly if Republicans would solve problems rather than continue to make things worse for everyone. A great example was brought up below: a state authority won't let someone keep his current insurance because the authority pretends to enforce the supposed letter of the law that the same authority says is unconstitutional. It is a great example of making things worse for people through triple-speak. Other states don't see the same problem, for some reason, and their citizens don't suffer.

Here's the reference showing that Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, and Australia have higher GDP per capita than the USA My point was not to denigrate the USA The USA is and has been the essential country in the world, especially since WWII. All the countries that have surpassed us in some ways (not in all) owe the USA a great deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...%29_per_capita

Question: Why use Greece as an excuse not to learn from the countries that have been highly successful?

The U. S. problem with state control of health is that someone from a state with no care for the poor can simply move to a state with humane care. Or they can pretend to be a resident by supplying the address of a relative. Then the humane state is subsidizing the irresponsible state. The health care needs of people are basically the same regardless of where they live, so the rationale for local control falls apart.

The reference for the decline in the rate or growth of health care costs since 2010 when the ACA was passed is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid National Health Care Expenditure Data. Health care costs were zooming out of sight in the 2000's, but since the passage of the ACA the rate of growth has declined more than in any other 3-year span in recent history. I gave the ACA-related reasons for this deceleration in the prior post. However, no matter what health care payment system is implemented, Western societies will run into trouble from the aging of the baby boomers. The ACA softens the expected blow. A single-payer government system would soften it more. But there is no simple solution. I just wish that people could address the problem directly in a data-based way instead of making the country worse so that people will vote in Republicans next time. How can a patriotic American say that he wishes a President would fail, or that his entire legislative strategy is to prevent a President's re-election?

That's it. Not the final word but my final word. Best wishes to all. May your next chica experience be as good as mine was this morning.

[Rev BS]

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...perly-defined/

For the benefit of those who don't know left from right here is a proper definition.

BTW as probably the only Objectivist in the group I would like to point out that only a complete idiot could could consider me a fascist.

Speak up and remove any doubt.

Don B

Remove those nose hairs, trim those finger nails, make sure your breath don't stink. And stop the goose stepping.

[WorldTravel69]

Do you need an or a health care plan? FOR YOU OR YOUR family?

Try this, if it does get you though, use the old fashion way.

Call Then on your Land Line.

http://www.healthcare.com/

I'm sure you still know how to dial a Phone Number?

[Member #4112]

Tatu Hei, perhaps you have not noticed but one of your examples, Denmark, has the lowest growth rate of all the Scandinavian countries at 0.2% for 2013 and a widening budget deficient. Switzerland continues to do well based on its exports and financial sector as does Germany which is the economic engine of the EU. God forbid the German's get tired of funding other EU countries.

You also seem to ignore the rising cost of healthcare in your target countries of Denmark, Switzerland, and Germany due to an aging population and declining birth rate below replacement percentages, a malady shared by most industrialized countries including the United States.

For the record Switzerland's continued enforcement of their immigration quota system has been called a violation of the 1999 freedom of movement agreement by EU members, while Denmark's immigration policies have been called a possible human rights violation.

If what you say is true regarding the wisdom and benevolence of Europe, how do you explain the catastrophes in France, Spain, Portugal and Italy? We can leave Greece out for now, after all they are Greek.

Regarding your comments about the ACA aka ObamaCare reducing the rise in healthcare costs, please provide some documentation to support this statement, over here we are sure not seeing it.

You seem to dismiss the cancellation of personal healthcare policies in September, October and November as only 2% and a number not deserving consideration. You further assert those polices can now be reissued due to a wave of Obama's magic wand which is not the case as they violate the law as it is written, the several states insurance commissioners are not authorizing reissuance of those policies regardless of what Obama may say as it constitutes a direct violation of ACA as written.

The second shoe to drop will be in late August, September, October and November of 2014 when small business insurance policies are cancelled which affect more than 10 times the number people affected by the private policy cancellations. Would that be a significant number?

Tiny makes well founded arguments regarding taxation and percentages of GDP among the countries you listed. He also makes a very valid point regarding comparing Denmark, Switzerland and Germany to the United States either individually or collectively is comparing apples to oranges due to population size, composition of population, and political structure.

You do make a point which is well received by at least me, the closer to the people those that govern are the more responsive the government becomes, bolstering my point social welfare and healthcare should be taken out of the hands of the federal government and returned to the states, who can not print money and must live within real budgetary constraints, with the possible exception of California.

[Punter 127]

“Obama Hits Record Low In Real Clear Politics' Poll of Polls”

Real Clear Politics has been tracking the average of President Obama's job approval and disapproval numbers since the 44th president took office. Monday, Obama hit a record low in approval -- just 40.0% -- and stayed at his recent record low in disapproval of 55.6%.

The president's best single poll comes from Rasmussen, which is an outlier of 45% approving, 54% disapproving. Other than that, Obama's best showing is 41% approval, his worst is 37%.

The Real Clear average gap in Obama's approval/disapproval number is deep in the red at 15.6% -- which is another record low. The last poll to show Obama with a higher percentage approving of his job performance than disapproving was back in July.

The Real Clear average on Obama's handling of the economy is even more dismal. Only 37.1% approve, a full 59.3% disapprove.

At this exact same point in what many consider to be a disastrous second term, President George W. Bush was also at 40.0 approval. Bush's disapproval was at 58%,compared to Obama's 55.6%.

I seem to remember someone on this forum telling us over and over that the more people know about ObamaCare the more they will like it, who was that?

[Dccpa]

If you happen to see Obummer, tell him FU from me. My insurance has been cancelled and the person who sublets space from me had his insurance cancelled too. The best policy that I can get under Obummercare is one with higher copays (100-200%) and, higher deductibles (350-650% But that's okay, because my premiums are only going up several hundred percent.

My best option is to put most of my income into retirement accounts and live off of savings. That way, you liberals can subsidize my health insurance and whatever else I can legally scam out of the government.

[Tiny12]

Okay, I should have said the maximum income tax rate on businesses is much lower in those countries than the USA. If you go back to my original post, I was describing trends. I am not sure if you're correct with respect to the total of all taxes (income tax, VAT, sales tax, property tax, etc.) for which business writes the check but you probably are. However, the VAT effectively comes out of the pockets of individuals in the countries where the tax is levied (it's rebated for exports), just like a sales tax in the USA - the price is passed onto the consumer in the price of the product or service. But this is all trivia. For your most important point, you've got no argument from me that total taxes as % of GDP are higher in Western Europe. That, and the fact that government is larger as a % of the economy in Western Europe is the reason why their economies are less dynamic, grow slower, and have higher unemployment than the USA.

Republicans would be quite happy to get going with revenue-neutral tax reform. The fact that Obama wants to raise revenues is the hold up. I strongly agree the tax code should be modified to elminate loopholes and the armies of accountants and lawyers. (No offence DCCPA, you're one of the good guys.) Most Democrat and many Republican Congressmen don't want this to happen, as it would reduce their power.

You are dead wrong about GDP per capita adjusted for PPP - the CIA, IMF and World Bank all are in agreement with what I wrote, and contradict what you wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...P) _per_capita.

You're having to pick countries with populations with less than 3% of the USA to try to make your points. It's kind of like saying Manhattan and Washington D.C. are more prosperous than California so we should follow their model. That's probably not a good analogy, because those cities are more prosperous than California, while Denmark and Sweden are not as prosperous as the USA. Norway is an oil state and small. It doesn't count, unless you want me to count Dubai, Qatar, etc.

I don't get it. You provide Switzerland, Australia and Canada as examples, and they appear to contradict your case. Compared to the USA, government expenditures as % of GDP are lower for Switzerland and Australia, and Canada is a little higher. All are much lower than northern Europe. If you want to argue that their governments are much more efficient than the Obama administration in what they provide to the public, OK, I'll agree with that. Please note, btw, per capita GDP adjusted for PPP in Australia and Canada are lower than the USA, not higher as you suggest.

Among your examples, the only country of reasonable size and with large government is Germany, whose per capita GDP (adjusted for PPP) is 20% lower than the USA.

I agree government needs to do something different with health care. There's no competition, and costs are way out of hand. However the savings built into Obamacare are like putting a bandaid on a patient that's bleeding to death from a giant gash in his leg.

Economists agree that larger government is correlated with slower economic growth. Some of the suffering you're referring to (e.g. the sequester) may end up being the difference between the U.S. ending up like France versus Greece -- at least it's delaying the day of reckoning with our national debt.

[Tatu Hei]

"In general, the maximum tax rate on businesses in these countries is much lower than the USA,"
Companies in northern Europe pay not only a corporate rate but also pay a steep VAT on valued added. There are few loopholes in contrast with the American "system." The effective tax rates that are actually paid in northern Europe are much higher than those in the United States.

"and, as a result of the Obama tax increase, the maximum tax rate on individuals (state + federal) is comparable."
With the exception of Switzerland, people in northern Europe pay much higher income taxes than in the United States at every rung on the income ladder, even in tax-heavy states like New York. Payroll taxes for retirement, health care, etc. are also much higher. Unlike most of the world, much wealth is diverted in the U. S. to lawyers and accountants by playing the loophole game, so the actual tax rate that people pay is much less than the published rates. All those loopholes do not exist in the countries from which we have something to learn. In northern Europe, the hiding of income by small businesses is policed much more efficiently than in the U. S. In addition, Europeans pay a much higher VAT rate on consumption than most states' sales taxes.

"The biggest obstacles to coming up with a more efficient and fair system, by removing loopholes and lowering the corporate rate are President Obama and Harry Reid. Max Baucus (Democrat, chairman of Senate Committee on Finance) would like to get that done." I agree that Harry Reid has frustrated Max Baucus. However, so have multinational corporations who are deeply in the habit of shifting profits overseas and so have some truly entrepreneurial companies who don't like Baucus' new proposed taxes on future investments. Finally many Republicans don't like the Baucus plan because it is revenue-neutral; they want to lower taxes not re-distribute them. Obama is open to the Baucus plan as one of several possibilities. By the way, your Max Baucus was one of the main architects of the ACA. It could be called BaucusCare.

"Given the difference in cultures and given the size of the USA, it's amazing to me that our GDP per capita (adjusted for PPP) is considerably higher than the best examples you could come up with, Denmark, Sweden and Germany." Well, you are correct about Germany but wrong about Denmark and Sweden unless you disagree with the World Bank, the IMF, the CIA, and the UN. While we are at it, I should add Norway to the list as a northern European social democracy with high GDP and quality of life, and other countries with GDP greater than the U.S. but also with government-sponsored health care are Canada and Australia.

Your expectations about the ACA are a complete pipe-dream. We currently spend about 17% of GDP on healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office expects this to go to 20% in future years, with Obamacare. This is ridiculous, given that nobody else spends over 12% and outcomes are worse in the USA than in many other developed countries. Obamacare does very little to reduce costs and improve quality.
"I don't just have expectations; facts are already in. Since the passage of the ACA, the rate of growth for health care expenditures has declined more than any other time in recent history. The main reasons are: a) the ACA has decreased the gouging conducted by the so-called Medicare plus plans that were advocated by Republicans; and b) insurers have finally accepted the fact that pay-for-service is a thing of the past so they are rewarding providers who work efficiently while maintaining patient satisfaction. Yes, health care costs are expected to rise as a percentage of GDP as baby boomers age, but real health care economists (as opposed to talk radio experts and hired guns at the Heritage Institute) are in almost universal agreement that the ACA will decrease costs in relation to what they would have been. When the health care panels are finally set up, despite every Republican effort to block them, there will be other efficiencies based on evidence-based medicine, the standard for the rest of the civilized world. I think it is interesting that you say that health care outocmes are superior in countries with government-sponsored health systems. That is my point exactly.

"Btw, Hong Kong and Singapore have populations comparable to Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. They have relatively free market economies, and when you take into account where they were 40 years ago, they knock the socks off your examples (and the USA) in terms of economic growth."
Singapore and Hong Kong have had admirable economic growth. However. both suffer a lack of personal liberty: freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom from surveillance. I think they have more to learn from us than us from them. However, international ratings of these freedoms put the northern European countries at the top of the list (here I am not talking about rating systems focusing on narrow views of economic freedom which put Singapore and Hong Kong near the top of the list even though you can get arrested for criticizing the government in Singapore and you have to deal with China pulling the political strings in Hong Kong).

" And the USA has grown faster, with lower unemployment, than the more statist European countries.[/QUOTE]I don't know which countries you define as statist, but Germany, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, and Australia all have lower unemployment rates than the USA Sweden's rate is the same as the USA Furthermore, all these countries provide more supports to unemployed workers and their families than the USA It is true that the USA is beginning to grow again. But the vast majority of economists not paid directly by right-wing organizations will testify that this growth would be much greater if we would have had a jobs bill, infrastructure investment, quicker support for underwater homeowners, and a lack of stupid tricks like shutting down government and confounding business leaders with uncertainty about the debt limit. As I wrote before, the Republicans have done everything they can to make Americans suffer in the belief that Americans will want to give them a chance to show what they can do.

[WorldTravel69]

Here is a video for you.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20131122/HOT/131122002/

http://www.examiner.com/article/sex-...race-obamacare

[Tiny12]

Tatu Hei, I absolutely stand behind my 26 word sentence. I didn't say anything about tax rates, but admit there's a correlation between taxes and free markets / statism. And the trend is towards lower tax rates, particularly on businesses, in the countries you listed:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...igh-tax-gurus/
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/swed...orate-tax-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/swed...ncome-tax-rate

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denm...ncome-tax-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denm...orate-tax-rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ge..._1995-2009.png
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germ...t-wb-data.html
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germ...ncome-tax-rate

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/swit...orate-tax-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/swit...ncome-tax-rate

In general, the maximum tax rate on businesses in these countries is much lower than the USA, and, as a result of the Obama tax increase, the maximum tax rate on individuals (state + federal) is comparable. Your comment that many USA Corporations take advantage of loopholes is true. The biggest obstacles to coming up with a more efficient and fair system, by removing loopholes and lowering the corporate rate are President Obama and Harry Reid. Max Baucus (Democrat, chairman of Senate Committee on Finance) would like to get that done.

Given the difference in cultures and given the size of the USA, it's amazing to me that our GDP per capita (adjusted for PPP) is considerably higher than the best examples you could come up with, Denmark, Sweden and Germany. I'd attribute this to smaller government, in relation to the size of the economy, in the USA. Switzerland is marginally more prosperous per capita, but has lower taxes, and I suspect it's less statist.

I agree with what you wrote about immigration. I also agree the USA Is less statist than the majority of developed countries. However, the trend in the USA under Obama is towards more statism. The trend in Eastern Europe, Latin America (with the exception of Chavez, et al) and Africa has been towards less statism, because that works best, economically. I suspect your statement about monopolies is untrue, and in any event would blame Democrats just as much as traditional Republicans.

The problem with the "Obama agenda" is that it mindlessly throws money at problems, given how inefficient the federal government is. We already spend more per capita on education and health care in terms of PPP than any other country, and we don't get results. Obama wants to double down with what's not working. One of the reasons government works better in the countries you mentioned is because, with the exception of Germany, they're much smaller and government is closer to the people. That's why as much as possible should be left to states and localities, instead of Washington D.C.

Your expectations about the ACA are a complete pipe-dream. We currently spend about 17% of GDP on healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office expects this to go to 20% in future years, with Obamacare. This is ridiculous, given that nobody else spends over 12% and outcomes are worse in the USA than in many other developed countries. Obamacare does very little to reduce costs and improve quality. Libertarian posters here proposed universal health care, based on models in Argentina and Singapore. We recognize there's a problem, and that the ACA won't fix it.

Btw, Hong Kong and Singapore have populations comparable to Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. They have relatively free market economies, and when you take into account where they were 40 years ago, they knock the socks off your examples (and the USA) in terms of economic growth. And the USA has grown faster, with lower unemployment, than the more statist European countries.

[Tatu Hei]

The USA under Obama is out of sync with most of the rest of the world, which has moved towards free markets and away from statism.

The countries with the highest standards of living and the highest reported levels of happiness have universal government-sponsored health care, protections for unions and workers displaced by corporate movements, and high effective tax rates, both for individuals and corporations. I am talking about Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, and other northern European countries. While it is true that, on paper, the corporate tax rate is high in the United States, the actual rates that companies pay is low because there are so many loopholes that do not exist in the social democracies. Please note I did not say socialist democracies. In all the northern European countries, there is universal recognition that private companies are the engines of development. Entrepreneurship is appreciated, but companies are not allowed to play off one part of the country against another in order to get reverse tax breaks, that is, outright payments from states and localities. Governments (the "State" if you will) in the northern European countries are also effective in preventing monopolies that are well protected by traditional Republicans in the United States. The northern European countries have problems in terms of immigration just as the United States has, but parties work together so that there is some consistency between law and practice. People are not allowed to walk into restaurants and libraries with guns in any other civilized country. I don't call that statism, but it is certainly government control over individual behavior. In summary, the notion that the United States is more "statist" than other countries is patently false.

The answer to America's sluggish growth is the Obama agenda: education, health care, investment in infrastructure, tax reform to moderate the dangerously accelerating gap between the rich and everyone else, and collaboration with business as to the correct types of regulation. The sad fact is that Congress is literally trying to hurt the country as a strategy to defeat the Democrats.

Finally, with all due respect to Jackson, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has already decelerated the growth in health care spending in the United States. For everyone who really cares about the national debt, the tremendous success of the ACA in cutting costs already and the likelihood that it will cut costs much more in the future constitute the best news future generations could possibly hear. Obama erred when he said that everyone could keep their insurance. Two per cent could not, but even some of them are now able to keep their former (poor) policies. Certainly the roll-out of the ACA has been sloppy, but that will be totally forgotten, just as it was in Massachusetts when at first they had trouble implementing Romneycare. Romneycare is very popular, and the big fear among the Republicans is that ObamaCare will be equally popular. The ACA is moving the USA, ever so slowly, toward a rational health care system for all, just as enjoyed by the rest of the civilized world: better care, lower cost.

[Member #4112]

Fascism. A reasonable definition:

Fas·cism (fshzm).

noun

1. often Fascism.

A. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Be. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

I really wish you guys would research the words you are throwing around and calling folks.

As always the last bastion of the liberal / progressive is name calling when whey run out of reasoned argument.

The definition sounds a whole lot like Obama and his administration, not Jackson or the rest of us.

[Don B]

But to the ones that Rock Harders post pointed out.

"Essentially Jackson (and his fascist brethren on this thread) want to make all the money and all the decisions and have a massive underclass of serfs running around attending to them and earning only enough money to barely feed themselves on. Unfortunately for Jackson and his fascist fan boys the USA still functions on a one person one vote principle and as recent presidential elections clearly show, people of his thinking are clearly outnumbered."

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...perly-defined/

For the benefit of those who don't know left from right here is a proper definition.

BTW as probably the only Objectivist in the group I would like to point out that only a complete idiot could could consider me a fascist.

Speak up and remove any doubt.

Don B

[Tiny12]

No, we need for EVERYBODY to make more money, but some people are so fucking lazy that they'd prefer to sit on their asses and collect government checks.

You liberals just don't get it. Instead of fighting over who gets how much of the pie, let's just bake more pies.

Everybody needs to work. Everybody needs to contribute. The more of us who are working, the wealthier we will all be.

Or we can follow the liberal plan, which is an ever-srinking number of us working to support an increasingly greater number of lazy fuckoffs.

Why does that happen? Because the Democratics buy the votes of the lazy fuckoffs with government money, thus securing their power base with permanent government dependents.

WT69, The above, while true, does not apply to the average lefty, like you, posting here. You all fall into one or both of the following categories:

1. You've been brainwashed by MSNBC, parents, Marxist professors, your neighbors in San Francisco, etc. Either the brainwashing has been so intense that reason doesn't matter, or you don't possess the real-world-business experience, knowledge or analytical ability to realize you've been fed a line of B.S.

2. While you are not lazy and have done your fair share, the Democrat platform is better for you. This applies to trial lawyers, your Medicare, DH's medical insurance, etc.

But to the ones that Rock Harders post pointed out.

"Essentially Jackson (and his fascist brethren on this thread) want to make all the money and all the decisions and have a massive underclass of serfs running around attending to them and earning only enough money to barely feed themselves on. Unfortunately for Jackson and his fascist fan boys the USA still functions on a one person one vote principle and as recent presidential elections clearly show, people of his thinking are clearly outnumbered."

I've only met one gringo monger in Argentina, who was spending a ridiculous amount of money at Black. But that's for another topic. So I don't know you or RH or Esten, unless we've met somewhere else. I do however read. And remember that when the bottom fell out of the Argentine economy, Jackson was coordinating aid for soup kitchens and orphanages. RH on the other hand was living the life of the top .01% of Cubans on his junkets to Miramar in Havana. Esten was dropping megabucks at Hippo. And you were pursuing an expensive hobby, bagging poontang in something like 50 countries. Which, honestly and without any sarcasm intended, is very impressive.

I suspect you, Esten, RH and Black Shirt led more opulent lifestyles than I did until 3 or 4 years ago. Every spare, after-tax dime I got was put back into my business and investments. In part because a good part of my business is in 3rd world countries, I believe those investments benefited people more than the taxes I paid to the USA federal government. Much of the money spent by the federal government is squandered, used inefficiently, or does more harm than good.