Just a couple of days away

Runs with Bison · Jan 7, 2010

Rehabber said:
What you forgotto mention is that the 'government option' would be supported by taxes from other sources. Of course private enterprise can't compete, but the overall cost per person would be much more costly. Please let me know what the government does well (other than collect taxes and waste money)

Actually it would be much cheaper. It would cut out a tremendous amount of administrative cost and profit taking. It would also provide pricing power to the consumer. Essentially unregulated for profit monopolies and/or things like healthcare/pharma where the consumer has no pricing power only result in ever escalating costs...without a corresponding improvement in quality or breadth of coverage. The U.S. system comes in at the bottom of the developed world by such metrics.

As far as what the govt. does better, just about everything that it is suited to doing--e.g. things that private enterprise can't or won't do for all for a reasonable price. The difference is govt. has to provide services for all, vs. cherry picking of the profit motivated enterprises.

But let's turn the question around: how about you defend the lost decade of business in America and explain how they did so much better than govt? Pro-business govt. policies, secrecy (as in not accurately revealing financial status to shareholders), lack of regulation, and easing of regulations have resulted in a decade of NEGATIVE growth. These same pro-business policies turned govt. surpluses into MASSIVE deficits, wiped out our manufacturing base, and took investors to the cleaners.

Supply siding tax policy didn't reduce deficits or sustainably stimulate the economy, it created tremendously destructive financial bubbles. In economic terms it has resulted in tens of trillions of misallocation of capital. And much of that wasted capital wasn't just lost, it has pushed us in the exact wrong direction: toward reduced energy efficiency, reduced healthcare efficiency, and sending our industries chasing dead end roads rather than anticipating future needs. If one were trying to wreck the U.S. economy, one need only follow the Bush/GOP gameplan.

Cass · Jan 8, 2010

You are nuts...

the government has and is now regulating health care, and the banking industry...

and it was through those regulations that the problems we now have with them, were created...

the new regulations that will be in this bill, if it passes, will cause the health care industry even more problems...and higher costs to us...government never regulates for the consumer...it is always for private industry and so they can obtain more power, control, and personal wealth....

just like the stimulus package...a big joke on an unknowledgeable public...

You cant take government money (tax dollars out of peoples pockets which equals money removed from the economy) and put it back in the economy with a higher cost (interest) and expect the economy to grow...this is truly smoke and mirrors... kind of like taking money out of 1 pocket and placing it in your other pocket and thinking you have done something wonderfull and are better off...when in reality you have only deceived your self...

You need to get a new brain...

Sponsor · 2022-01-29T12:20:58-0800

MaintenanceMan · Jan 8, 2010

The problem is over-regulation, not too little.

Higher taxes are not the answer.
More regulation is not the answer.
More big government is NOT the answer.

They've talked about creating competition in the market. Presumably by having insurance companies compete with a government plan. More competition is good, but the only reason we need more competition is because of the CURRENT REGULATIONS!!! Open up the state lines and let them compete. It's simple.

This and TORT reform are the first steps in health care reform. That is if you want reform that will actually reduce health care and insurance costs.

Ian Gills · Jan 8, 2010

You cant take government money (tax dollars out of peoples pockets which equals money removed from the economy) and put it back in the economy with a higher cost (interest) and expect the economy to grow...this is truly smoke and mirrors... kind of like taking money out of 1 pocket and placing it in your other pocket and thinking you have done something wonderfull and are better off...when in reality you have only deceived your self...

You need to get a new brain...

False economics. Tax and spend does work because people like you often get scared and save (rather than spend). So if you're not going to spend, the Government needs to tax it from you and spend it for you. Or growth really gets hammered and America's manufacturing sector finally dies (long over due). This means that if consumers are not spending, like last year, then Government stiumli are needed and do work.

The problem is over-regulation, not too little.

More Reagan rubbish. The guy was an actor for God's sake. The problem is weak regulation. We need better regulation, and that does not mean more or less.

And if you really want to deregulate, then let's start by removing pesky building permits that just line the pockets of licensed contractors? Or is that regulation somehow OK?

Runs with Bison · Jan 8, 2010

Cass and MM, I'm laughing at you, not with you.

You've got no idea what you are talking about.

Tort reform? Hell, it's too damned easy for medical providers to avoid any responsibility already! There is a simple test to determining any potential benefits of tort reform. Add up all of the malpractice premiums for a year. They don't come anywhere close to equalling the annual growth in health care costs. (Takes a while to hunt this sort of info down from reliable/independent sources, but I've done it before.) This is one of the famous conservative red herrings. When someone repeats it I know they are just mouthing talking points from hacks rather than using their brains.

Here is an idea: provide better care and you are less likely to be sued for malpractice. Think about that one for a minute.

As for regulation, it was the utter lack of enforcement and RELAXING of the rules that allowed banks to overleverage. (Greenspan, McCain, Gramm, etc. were all for that.) It was repeal of Depression era Glass Steagall Act that allowed banks to sell all these unregulated CDS swaps. There has been roughly 500 trillion dollars in unregulated derivatives trading around. The risks are not understood even by those creating or trading them, and they should be OUTLAWED if we want to remove a major component of the systemic risk. AIG wouldn't have failed, nor would the major banks, or PMI agencies if these NEW unregulated devices were banned just like they were following the Great Depression.

A lack of transparency and accountability in reporting are other major factors in blowing bubbles. This went hand in hand with bogus risk assessment (such as the assumption that real estate markets always inflate.)

Thank God the country wasn't stupid enough to re-elect the conservatives who created the mess. Those clowns would have bankrupted the states and the federal govt. by now. The notion that they were going to cut federal spending in a Great Recession was so preposterous that I'm still laughing at the idiots for their economic ignorance. Doing what they (and you guys) want would have sent us into a Great Depression. FDR discovered that lesson in 1937 when conservatives tried doing some of that during the Great Depression.

If you want to improve the country's economic competetiveness, you have to stop runaway health care costs. That was obvious to me in the early 90's. Failure to act then has been a disaster so far, but you guys never seem learn from your mistakes. That's a defining characteristic of being conservative I suppose.

Runs with Bison · Jan 8, 2010

Ian Gills said:
More Reagan rubbish. The guy was an actor for God's sake. The problem is weak regulation. We need better regulation, and that does not mean more or less.

I agree with both sentiments. There were things that Reagan did right (including the defense build up), but folks forget Volcker. Carter (of all people) appointed him and he was in place for the Reagan revolution. What Volcker did was slay the heart of the economic problem: stagflation. He's a major critic of what what Greenspan's supply siding. He also doesn't think much of the lack of banking regulation and the bankers that are serving as the regulators.

Time to get back to the basics of making sure people can actually afford the mortgage they apply for. Unlike the conservative spin, the reality is that it wasn't the lowest earners that were the problem, it was top to bottom. Folks with six figure or seven figure incomes seemed to be as inclined to take out too large of loans as those with four or low five figure incomes.

And if you really want to deregulate, then let's start by removing pesky building permits that just line the pockets of licensed contractors? Or is that regulation somehow OK?

Why stop there?

We can get rid of those pesky FDA food inspectors as well. That which doesn't kill us will make us stronger! And we don't need clean water or air. Let's have air and water with some color so that we can see it! Let's eliminate the whole drug safety process. That way companies won't have to do expensive testing then ignore it when putting unsafe drugs on the market--saves a step and money too!

Health care wise let's eliminate the VA and all active military health coverage as well as every other govt. worker. Goodluck finding health care coverage while in a war zone. No more medicare, no more social security. Grandma and Grandpa won't be happy when they find out they can't afford ANY coverage.

But let's get rid of all govt. spending:

We don't need no stinking highways or bridges. (We haven't been paying the taxes needed to support them anyway.) And who needs air traffic control? Security screening? We don't need it either, if I'm not mistaken private screeners let through 100% of the 9/11 terrorists on the day of the attack. So let's give the job back to them or eliminate it altogether.

Police? Folks should take care of themselves! Courts? We don't need those either.

Public libraries and universties? Those are for "elitists" that don't watch enough Fauxnews and might vote against Palin in 2012.

We can go to a mercenary army run by Blackwater and Halliburton. Nothing quite like a "for profit military."

All of the above should make John Stossel very happy. It would be a Libertarian Utopia!

Cass · Jan 8, 2010

Ian Gills said:
False economics. Tax and spend does work because people like you often get scared and save (rather than spend). So if you're not going to spend, the Government needs to tax it from you and spend it for you. Or growth really gets hammered and America's manufacturing sector finally dies (long over due). This means that if consumers are not spending, like last year, then Government stiumli are needed and do work..

Ahhhhh...the leopards spots are showing...Just take what ever you want from from the governed little people because you are better than them and know best...and do what you think should be done...typical liberal...I am SOOOO glad you can't vote.....

Tell me...what is the average cost of a Gvmt. created job...

Ian Gills said:
We need better regulation, and that does not mean more or less.

I argee...better regulation...not the bad regulation that caused all the problems...

Cass · Jan 8, 2010

.

Runs with bison said:
Time to get back to the basics of making sure people can actually afford the mortgage they apply for. Unlike the conservative spin, the reality is that it wasn't the lowest earners that were the problem, it was top to bottom. Folks with six figure or seven figure incomes seemed to be as inclined to take out too large of loans as those with four or low five figure incomes.

I agree...the Gvmt. set the regulations that allowed it to happen...
personally know people who got loans for homes they couldn't possibly afford and they got $$$ back at closing also...it was sickning...

Ian Gills · Jan 8, 2010

Tell me...what is the average cost of a Gvmt. created job...

An American soldier costs about $200,000 to train and then about $90,000 per year after that.

I agree with you Cass, that this is a massive waste, far better spent on domestic needs such as healthcare and perhaps bridges (I try to avoid driving on them in America).

Contractor soldiers cost up to four times that.

Cass · Jan 9, 2010

Ian Gills said:
An American soldier costs about $200,000 to train and then about $90,000 per year after that.

I agree with you Cass, that this is a massive waste, far better spent on domestic needs such as healthcare and perhaps bridges (I try to avoid driving on them in America).

Contractor soldiers cost up to four times that.

Then you must...by your own words...be against the stimulus package that is supposed to be creating government jobs...which by default means you are against the taxes that they need for them...

Just a couple of days away

Users who are viewing this thread

Runs with Bison

Member

Cass

Plumber

Sponsor

Paid Advertisement

MaintenanceMan

In the Trades

Ian Gills

Senior Robin Hood Guy

Runs with Bison

Member

Runs with Bison

Member

Cass

Plumber

Cass

Plumber

Ian Gills

Senior Robin Hood Guy

Cass

Plumber

Similar threads