"Never before in history has a candidate run for President with the idea that too many people have insurance coverage.”

wang-banger · 2012-05-24T22:31:36.367937+00:00

Are you being serious? How can his spending record be lower if he is spending more than recent presidents?

wang-banger · 2012-05-24T22:06:09.822137+00:00

So are you still claiming that under Obama spending is lower than under Bush?

wang-banger · 2012-05-24T21:05:59.349561+00:00

Lowest spending record implies that he spent the least money. This is simply not true.

Second, I didn't quote you, I paraphrased.

Anomaly100 · 2012-05-24T20:19:14.046537+00:00

The law has been publicly available for a few years now. No one has come out and said "see, here is where a layer has been added between you and your doc." Yes, there will be bureaucracy, but it will be outside of the doctor-patient relationship - the insurance company is the only one in the middle of that for now.

Fair points. Your earlier post said that one person not buying insurance doesn't harm anyone but themselves. That is not quite true. I pay higher insurance rates because hospitals need to provide care, even when it is uncompensated. Someone flat broke gets hit by a car? They go to the hospital, don't pay, and that cost is absorbed by everyone else who pays for insurance or medical care in higher prices.

wang-banger · 2012-05-24T20:13:50.289972+00:00

OK, I was wrong about growth being positive when adjusted for inflation. You were wrong about his overall spending being lower. We done now?

wang-banger · 2012-05-24T19:33:13.721775+00:00

That's what I said. Growth is lower. Total spending, higher.

aGrandLawCase · 2012-05-24T19:01:23.980967+00:00

Numbers. Lie all the time.

Ex. 97% of all jobs lost under Obama were lost by women.

Twistedtek · 2012-05-24T11:37:25.711655-07:00

I guess not sorry enough to search.

wang-banger · 2012-05-24T18:30:13.547463+00:00

Still doesn't mean it is lower than other presidents. Across Bush's terms, spending increased each year. Significantly. So to get lower, spending would have to drop significantly. The growth is what is lower, not the overall level of spending.

Look at the second chart to see what I mean. The blue bars are still taller than recent red bars.

wang-banger · 2012-05-24T18:17:40.272267+00:00

NO, read that again. Lowest rate of growth of spending. Please keep your facts straight.

Since his growth rate is still positive, he is still spending more than previous presidents, just the amount isn't growing as quickly as it did under the others.

Anomaly100 · 2012-05-24T18:13:47.519572+00:00

OK, the insinuating part was in response to your original comment that there were added layers of government bureaucracy between you and your doctor. There aren't. If you think there are please explain why.

The 80% is part of the problem, but not the whole problem, so while that would have been a good start, it wouldn't have addressed the many other issues. Pre-existing conditions are such a big concern - once you're sick or have a family member with a chronic condition (kids with asthma for example), you can't change jobs or try anything entrepreneurial because the insurance companies not tied to a large group (like a big employer) won't take you on, or if they do, won't cover the existing condition. That is a rational business decision. To get around that, you need a multi-part approach: make that discrimination against pre-existing conditions illegal and mandate that everyone buy insurance all the time - it would kill the insurance companies to allow sick people to join right when they need treatment (or would be just as expensive as paying for treatment out of pocket for the patient).

The founding fathers required that sailors buy health insurance, and at one point, that every man buy a gun, so there is precedent for a purchase mandate.

I agree with you that there is a much better answer than what we got from Obama. I would so much prefer that they just created a single payer system, as I think that would be much more efficient (non-profit, much larger risk pool, lower administrative overhead) but that wouldn't fly in the current political climate. With the amount that we currently pay nationally for health care, we could cover everyone in the country using a conservative estimate of how much single payer would save.

The best part is, no constitutional contortions required: the government is clearly empowered to collect taxes and spend them on health care.

Dizzy_Slip · 2012-05-24T18:01:05.365593+00:00

Why?

Anomaly100 · 2012-05-24T17:59:08.956718+00:00

Bush tax cut and wars as main government controlled drivers of current deficits

Growth in spending basically flat under Obama

Anomaly100 · 2012-05-24T17:42:07.821455+00:00

No, I think the constant yelling of "death panels" and "killing grandma" are classic examples of distortion.

Where is there a layer of government bureaucracy between you and a doctor? Seriously, what you have now is insurance companies deciding who they'll pay for you to see. The only layers are those put up by private companies whose profits are based on making sure you pay your premiums that they spend as little on care as possible.

What you'll have once Obamacare is fully implemented is that same private company and their same levels of bureaucracy, but they will be mandated to spend 80% of your premiums on medical care.

So, I'll ask again, where's the government insinuating itself?

Anomaly100 · 2012-05-24T17:41:55.519454+00:00

Because if people are against something Obama favors it's because of "distortion" or them being "uneducated."

If their main arguments include "death panels" yeah, I think it is safe to call that a distortion.

Also, I don't know if you noticed, but aside from the Stimulus, spending hasn't really gone up much under Obama. The real reason we're in debt is because Bush decided to have a giant tax cut along with two unfunded wars. The Republicans won't allow decreases in Defense spending and the Dems won't allow a decrease in social services spending, so the only thing they've been able to agree on is continuing to tax and spend at Bush levels.

I know you'd like to hold Obama responsible for that, but he's just the guy signing the continuing resolutions - Congress is where the real dysfunction is.

Anomaly100 · 2012-05-24T16:47:34.311394+00:00

Mostly a lot of yelling and distortion about Obamacare is what led voters to overturn control of the house. Do you remember the summer of absurd tea party town halls?

Of course the pendulum was going to swing back a bit, since Obama's effectiveness at getting out the Dem vote won them some house seats that would in most elections have stayed red.

ioillusion · 1 day

How do you figure?

Oh wait. It's you, ZumaHelper. Forgot that you don't know how to hold a conversation.

Wormwood03 · 1 day

I didn't throw them on the spike. I was saying that they defend gun rights. I happen to agree with them on that one.

daver555 · 1 day

Yeah, because you shouldn't take a Nobel Laureate who has the best recent prediction record seriously.

Soupertramp · 1 day

Frum.

I disagree with him more often than not, but his writing is well reasoned and he stands by his principles.

Noedel · 1 day

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/774062--bone-up-on-beef-marrow

Edit: Use a nice hearty bread. The marrow is flavorful, you need a serious bread to keep up. Rye or pumpernickel work OK, but a real good multigrain or wheat bread is where it's at in this case.

BobFedex · 1 day

Did I tell you the joke about the fly ball?

Nevermind, it's over your head.

BobFedex · 1 day

What do you call a broken boomerang? A stick.

BobFedex · 1 day

I always tell it as "what did the fish say when it swam into a wall"

daver555 · 1 day

This is his "news blog" where he posts musings. Look to his articles and columns for more serious work.

SquirrelOnFire

TROPHY CASE

Secret Santa 2011	Four-Year Club
Verified Email

SquirrelOnFire

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login