U.S. Debt discussion

[Thor]

The thing for me is I see health care as a universal human right, and I do not see any system that does not cover all its citizens as a worthwhile system.

For every uninsured person in the US is a very costly emergency room visit for when they inevitably become ill or get injured. These costs are huge and reflect a large cost within the US healthcare system.

I see this is a moral issue as much as a financial issue, and I think its inexcusable for a nation so into the teachings of Christ to be so completely willing to take care of themselves and let others suffer needlessly.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

No, he simply doesn't lead. Typically, a president has a "vision" which he seeks to impose/finesse through the Senate and House. Obama essentially says - "see what you guys can come up with, and I'll sign off on it". That's not leadership. He had a perfect opportunity to impose his vision before 2010, and he abysmally failed to lead. Letting the two donkeys (Reid and Pelosi) take the point was stupid and an absolute abrogation of his position. As a result a golden chance was missed - he had the electoral mandate and control of both houses and came up with a bunch of half-measures that will make the system even more expensive.
Obama is a nice man, and he would make an excellent school board chairman, but a President is supposed to be out front a bit more.

This is how urban legends begin, I suppose. He didn't make the mistake of every Progressive since Teddy Roosevelt in bringing a national healthcare by over promising and under delivering.

Clinton "led" on healthcare in the 90's with a Democratic Congress. We know how that ended.

Obama learned from that mistake that you need Congress to legislate and "socialist" ideas like nationalizing healthcare just isn't a middle of the road idea in America. The healthcare law passed in a very polarized, center right political climate. The law keeps the current for profit insurance company structure that removes some of the more eggregious aspects like denial of coverage, denial based on pre-existing conditions, rescission of coverage and lifetime limits of coverage. Ideologically, it starts to change the dynamic towards single payer. Mikey likes it, he actually likes it should be slogan if the individual mandate isn't overturned by the Supreme Court.

Though not every "liberal's" dream of single payer, it is a very good start to changing the framework. Obama is not an ideologue and even during the campaign, his plan was criticized by the left such as Paul Krugman as not going far enough. He has kept his promise of implementing a healthcare system that will effectively cover more people and help bend healthcare spending downward in comparison to the current system which I think everyone can agree isn't working.

As far as leading by committee, you can ask OBL if the Prez can't make a decision unless you believe he delegated that decision to Pelosi and Reid too.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

As far as leading by committee, you can ask OBL if the Prez can't make a decision unless you believe he delegated that decision to Pelosi and Reid too.

Killing OBL is not a policy decision requiring a vote in Congress.
Like it or not, the American system is designed for the President to drive policy, subject to the approval of the other branches. I find it disappointing that he has failed to do so. It would be nice if he stood for something, for good or ill.

[MarchHare]

Like it or not, the American system is designed for the President to drive policy, subject to the approval of the other branches.

Are you sure about that? My (admittedly basic) understanding of US civics is that the legislative branch (House and Senate) drive policy and create bills while the executive branch oversees the administration of the government and ensures that the laws passed by Congress are carried out.

IIRC, the US Constitution limits the president's legislative power to only the act of signing or vetoing bills passed by Congress (the president's veto power can, in turn, be overturned by a super-majority vote by legislators). The executive branch doesn't have the ability to create legislation.

[Edit]
From the wikipedia article on Presidential Systems (although not the US in particular):

The president does not propose bills. However, the president has the power to veto acts of the legislature and, in turn, a supermajority of legislators may act to override the veto.

[...]

In a presidential system, the president usually has special privileges in the enactment of legislation, namely the possession of a power of veto over legislation of bills, in some cases subject to the power of the legislature by weighed majority to override the veto. However, it is extremely rare for the president to have the power to directly propose laws, or cast a vote on legislation. The legislature and the president are thus expected to serve as checks and balances on each other's powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Are you sure about that? My (admittedly basic) understanding of US civics is that the legislative branch (House and Senate) drive policy and create bills while the executive branch oversees the administration of the government and ensures that the laws passed by Congress are carried out.

You are greatly underestimating the power of the US President...

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Sure I'll take you up on that. I'll even compare my results in Canada to the US.

Married couple 34 & 33 years of age with 2 year old child

Total medical surgeries in the US (not urgent surgery) - 1 Canada - 0
Total wait times - 1 week
Total MRI's - US - 1, Canada - 3
Total wait times - US - 2 weeks, Canada - 6 months per MRI total 1.5 years
Total emergency room visits-US - 0, Canada - 3
Family doctor wait times to see him - US - 1 hour - US - 3 to 7 days
How many times I have been denied healthcare-US - 0, Canada - 0
How many homes I have lost-0
How many times I have had to deal with another person besides my doctor to get an ok to get care-0
Total amount of paperwork I have had to fill out minus the check in form-0

Total amount that I have recieved in bills -US $0, Canada $0

I guess I did have health insurance coverage I had to pay of about $2,400 over that time, which I don't pay anymore because my wifes work offers a great plan so we don't have any premiums. Savings in taxes over the 2 years in the US approx. $3,200. I've waited less time and and am up about $800 in straight taxes alone.

Will you be covered if you are not employed?

We should talk again when you turn 80, oh wait you aren't expected to live that long under the US system
I wonder how much your insurance will be when you are 40, 50 or 60?

[Flash Walken]

Biggest problem I have with anecdotal evidence about how good the american healthcare system is the complete and utter disregard for the quality of life and healthcare of what is the vast majority of the American population.

"Well, my wife has a good plan, so the 100 million americans who aren't insured or under insured can go feck themselves."

What kind of backward social policy is that? It's so myopic.

I posted a link earlier in this thread, but the easiest way to cut healthcare costs is by offering preventative/pre-emptive healthcare to those that consume the most resources: the uninsured.

Pay less initially or pay much much more after the fact. Those are the options.

Choosing to pay more because of moral indifference towards paying less is utterly ridiculous financial policy.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Killing OBL is not a policy decision requiring a vote in Congress.
Like it or not, the American system is designed for the President to drive policy, subject to the approval of the other branches. I find it disappointing that he has failed to do so. It would be nice if he stood for something, for good or ill.

Killing OBL is an example of leadership which you questioned.

So if I understand you, "for good or ill", he should pidgeon hole himself as a liberal--hell or highwater. He shouldn't be pragmatic and work with a center right polity but should instead be a liberal because he will stand for something.

He should have closed Guantanmo b/c that was an election promise to his liberal base when the facts on the ground were neither feasible nor practical after consulting with his generals and lawyers.

With the nation in a deep recession, he should have "visioned" a $2 or $3 trillion stimulus because that would have pleased his base even though a Democratic Congress swallowed hard to pass HIS <$1 trillion dollar stimulus.

He should stand for something by pulling a Clinton and advocate single payer even though it had no chance of passing in Congress and is treated skeptically by middle America.

RE the debt discussion, it would SEEM he vacillates but if the other party doesn't want to play and controls one of the tools to pass legislation then you get what you get which is gridlock. That is American democracy at its worse.

He is a breath of fresh air from the products of the 60s culture wars of Clinton and Bush. He actually gets things done around here within framework of divided gov't.

I don't think people understand how seminal a moment, the healthcare law is for this country and it really is a Tommy Douglas moment...USA style. And just how medicare started in Sask, people will attach the same to '10 law.

Slow progress and changing the trajectory of where this country is going.

I guess we have very different ways to measure leadership. It certainly isn't a zero sum game...at least to me.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Generally I understand what you're saying, but I need to make note that you are certainly paying those premiums. Your wife just chose to pay those premiums upfront by accepting a lower salary. The benefit is taken into account by companies when they're offering salaries.

No offense but you don't know our personal circumstances so you can't say for a fact that she is paying those premiums upfront by accepting a lower salary. She chose no such thing. I'm sure that some companies do this but not all of them so you really can't use that big paintbrush for everything. The salary she is receiving is what she would expect to receive plus her employer paid for her visa & green card (which is in process).

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Will you be covered if you are not employed?

We should talk again when you turn 80, oh wait you aren't expected to live that long under the US system
I wonder how much your insurance will be when you are 40, 50 or 60?

If I'm not employed I need to move back to Canada because I'm on a work visa. Even if I wasn't required to I can't say I'm worried about the insurance costs, I've more than made up for it by the lower cost of living already. Instead of being in debt (including mortgage) of over $150,000 I'm now debt free. I guess we'll have to wait to see how much my insurance will be when I'm 40, 50, or 60 since right now it's zero.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

Killing OBL is an example of leadership which you questioned.

So if I understand you, "for good or ill", he should pidgeon hole himself as a liberal--hell or highwater. He shouldn't be pragmatic and work with a center right polity but should instead be a liberal because he will stand for something.

He should have closed Guantanmo b/c that was an election promise to his liberal base when the facts on the ground were neither feasible nor practical after consulting with his generals and lawyers.

He shouldn't pigeonhole himself as a "liberal" but he should have some defining "views" - be it foreign policy, health care, immigration, economy, etc. Mind you, I am not an American; just an outside observer, who had a reasonably positive view of Obama in 2008. I still haven't figured out what he stands for, or if he stands for anything at all. He seems to be "reacting" instead of "leading". Certainly, he has been dealt a very tough hand - 2 wars and an economic meltdown. However, he had an opportunity to take control of events and drive policy. He is one of the more eloquent politicians I have seen, a master campaigner, tremendous fundraiser, had control of both houses to start with - he had the tools had he been willing to use them. He could have listened to his own economic commission, but chose to ignore it to make a shameful budget deal with the Republicans. He has allowed them to seize the pulpit, as it were. Clinton, whatever you think of him, broke Gingrich under similar circumstances.
As to the health care package, you think it's a tremendous advance. I think it's a mess, and much less than it could have been.
With respect to Guantanamo, if you think it's a moral wrong, you close it - notwithstanding what lawyers and generals say.

I think Obama had a chance to do "something". Instead, I fear his legacy will be that he was black. I say this as a "right-winger". He coulda been a contendah.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

No offense but you don't know our personal circumstances so you can't say for a fact that she is paying those premiums upfront by accepting a lower salary. She chose no such thing. I'm sure that some companies do this but not all of them so you really can't use that big paintbrush for everything. The salary she is receiving is what she would expect to receive plus her employer paid for her visa & green card (which is in process).

Would you agree that the 6.5% of payroll tax your employer pays for Social Security would have gone to your wage if the gov't didn't mandate that premium to cover SS?

To do otherwise, would be bad business. Do you really believe for profit companies (or any organization) operate by paying a 100K salary then factor in another ~$6K for SS after the fact? Or more likely, pay you $94K knowing there will be an added cost for the payroll tax.

Of course, everything is negotiable but healthcare is part of overall compensation for every company in the US. So I doubt she negotiated for specific health care benefits. She was given the same a la carte menu as everyone else in the organization and picked one that worked for her situation.

I could see how the green card is added compensation and not offered to everyone a la carte but healthcare is employee based in the US and companies do factor that into the cost of doing business just like factoring salaries and the rest of the benes.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

No offense but you don't know our personal circumstances so you can't say for a fact that she is paying those premiums upfront by accepting a lower salary. She chose no such thing. I'm sure that some companies do this but not all of them so you really can't use that big paintbrush for everything. The salary she is receiving is what she would expect to receive plus her employer paid for her visa & green card (which is in process).

Money for nothing, chicks for free.

Let's put it this way: if you believe that the health coverage is not a part of your spouse's total compensation, then you're saying that you could give it up and you would not expect her salary from the company to increase.

Surely that's not the case. There is no free lunch for you or the company.

For employment where the company offers health insurance, they certainly factor it into the total compensation. It just doesn't look that way because at no point are applicants told "Well, you can make 100K with health benefits, or we can take those out and you can make 110K." It's just assumed that, in the US, people want private coverage.

This is the root of the issue that came up during the 2008 presidential run in regards to "cadillac" health plans and McCain advocating that we accept the health benefits as part of taxable income rather than treat it as invisible income. If that plan had gone through, many with health coverage would have immediately seen a higher gross monthly income on their pay slips.

You're certainly right that I do not know the particulars of your situation. However, I know for a fact that healthcare coverage is not free; so if you guys are receiving coverage, then it is simply a part of the compensation package that the company decides upon prior to making their base salary offer.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Let me say this as neutrally as possible:

Regarding the first point: No, you do not have the knowledge or training to know how to shop for healthcare coverage in an unregulated market. There are too many variables in health and disease. Doctors spend years studying individual diseases; to pretend that we, the public at large, could simply read a few brochures and decide what medical coverage we'll need across dozens of diseases is the realm of fantasy. I'm sorry, but those are just the facts. It has nothing to do with limiting your freedom.

Regarding second general point: If you want the state to set coverage guidelines (in other words, set a minimum coverage level), then you're advocating that the state limit your choice! Which is the opposite of what you say you're for. Surprise.

There go your freedoms once again, victims of a poor logical framework.

q.e.d.

No your wrong. All the State would be limiting is the minimal coverage package that is allowed to be sold. Like right now there would be many optional packages within the market place. If it doesn't already exist the State or a non profit could set up a web site that provided information on the different insurance plans avaliable, to help citizens make healthy choices.

What the State wouldn't do is force its citizens to buy something they don't want. I find it strange that so many people who support assisted suicide reject folks making their own health insurance choices.

[J pold]

The second Great Contraction--The global economy is misdiagnosed as being in a "Great Recession", but the real problem is an overleveraged system

The phrase "Great Recession" creates the impression that the economy is following the contours of a typical recession, only more severe - something like a really bad cold. That is why, throughout this downturn, forecasters and analysts who have tried to make analogies to past post-war US recessions have gotten it so wrong. Moreover, too many policymakers have relied on the belief that, at the end of the day, this is just a deep recession that can be subdued by a generous helping of conventional policy tools, whether fiscal policy or massive bailouts.

But the real problem is that the global economy is badly overleveraged, and there is no quick escape without a scheme to transfer wealth from creditors to debtors, either through defaults, financial repression, or inflation.

[Coach]

Sounds like Tyler Durden had the right idea after all.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No your wrong. All the State would be limiting is the minimal coverage package that is allowed to be sold. Like right now there would be many optional packages within the market place. If it doesn't already exist the State or a non profit could set up a web site that provided information on the different insurance plans avaliable, to help citizens make healthy choices.

What the State wouldn't do is force its citizens to buy something they don't want. I find it strange that so many people who support assisted suicide reject folks making their own health insurance choices.

If the state describes what needs to be in a minimal coverage package, then the state is de facto establishing a mandate.

Unless you're arguing that people need not buy any insurance at all, but that if they do, the state dictates the minimum that can be sold. But that's just incoherent. What use is it to set minimum coverage rules if people don't need to be covered?


As for citizens shopping for all their healthcare needs online in an a la carte manner, as if they were building a Macbook on Apple's website... well, I don't have the strength to go through this again.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Thor

Warren Buffett tells Congress to stop coddling the super rich in America.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...ness&seid=auto

John Gibbson played a clip of Obama quoting Warren's Buffett's statement to Congress. He then pointed out that if you tax all the Billionaires and Millionaires at a 100% last year you would just gain about 400 billion in taxes. That is less than 1/3rd of the projected deficit this year.

What Obama wants is taxes from everyone making over 2 hundred thousand dollars. That would include most small and medium businesses. These are the creators of most new jobs and unlike a select few corporate giants are not holding huge cash reserves.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

If the state describes what needs to be in a minimal coverage package, then the state is de facto establishing a mandate.

Unless you're arguing that people need not buy any insurance at all, but that if they do, the state dictates the minimum that can be sold. But that's just incoherent. What use is it to set minimum coverage rules if people don't need to be covered?


As for citizens shopping for all their healthcare needs online in an a la carte manner, as if they were building a Macbook on Apple's website... well, I don't have the strength to go through this again.

The purpose of setting minimal coverage rules is to protect citizens from inadequate products and be sure that common conditions like diabetes or age is both sufficiently covered and not discriminated against

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The purpose of setting minimal coverage rules is to protect citizens from inadequate products and be sure that common conditions like diabetes or age is both sufficiently covered and not discriminated against

... all for the low low price of personal freedom and choice?

Allowing denial of coverage means that not only would Americans not have the right to health insurance, they wouldn't have the right to buy health insurance, assuming they had the means to.

That is not something that needs to be left in the hands of the states.