Tucson Citizen.com
The Data Port - Politics, Literature, And The Little Disturbances of Man

Nothing Wrong With “Obamacare”

by on Jan. 27, 2011, under Boehnercare, Class War, Health, Politics

Progressives should embrace the term “Obamacare.” Rather than being a term of derision it is an excellent reminder that the only attempt to reform and improve American healthcare was successfully  undertaken by the Obama administration.

Was it all good? No, it didn’t go nearly far enough; but it was clearly a giant step in the right direction. All we hear from the advocates of “Boehnercare” is intransigent opposition to reform and the promise to fight it in every way possible.

How helpful is that? Meanwhile the rest of us wait to hear what the Republicans have to offer besides a return to the good old days when 30 million Americans had no health insurance.

So far we’ve heard nothing. Understandably, since it’s always easier to say “no” than to offer substantive proposals.

(Follow The Data Port  on Twitter: @thedataport)

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 27th, 2011 at 9:07 am and is filed under Boehnercare, Class War, Health, Politics. Tags for this post: , , , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • Wyatt K

    The fatal flaw of Obama-care is that it is premised on a lie which is designed to use accounting gimmicks and tricks to evade a law called PAYGO.  Under PAYGO, any new entitlements are supposed to be offset by cuts.   PAYGO looks at a law’s impact for ten years because it was thought that such a time period would be a sufficient judge on the fiscal impact of a new entitlement.  The accounting tricks were designed to make this law appear to comply with PAYGO.  So, it is based on a lie because it was designed to deceive the fiscal protections of PAYGO.  Now, you may ask, how did the supporters of this bill achieve that deception?  How is it that the CBO concludes it saves 230 billion.  First, they did not include the Doctor Fix in the legislation which will cost $208 billion.  The Doctor Fix is necessary because the bill cuts doctor reimbursement 25%.  Without the fix, it would stay that way because of a law called SGR.  The bill collected taxes immediately for the first four years and provides no services until after that.  So, when the CBO looks at the law, to ensure compliance with PAYGO, it appears to operate in the black because the numbers are calculated with a four year jump on paying for it.  Over the long term, the numbers will end up in the red if you look at it over a 20 year period.  Another deception is it creates a long term program called the CLASS Act which provides long term care.  The CLASS Act will take in 70 billion in revenue in the first year which under the law is counted as revenue to pay for the entitlement, but it cannot be used both to pay for the entitlement immediately and also pay the benefits thirty and forty years from now.  Even democrat Kent Conrad said the CLASS ACT is a dangerous Ponzi Scheme.  Since the money will not be banked, the only way to pay for it will be to raise premiums which will take people out of the program and reduce the amount of money which will require new taxes to pay for.  These reasons only scratch the surface as to why this law is based on fraud.  If you believe this is going to save money, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.  We already have $112 trillion in unfunded social security, medicare and drug advantage money.  The money collected for those programs was supposed to be banked.  Congress spent that money and is incurring annual debts to pay it….

  • Wyatt K

    The true danger of this law can be seen in Greece which is a preview of what happens when governments overreach and cannot pay for their promises.  When a government essentially goes bankrupt, it is hard for them to sell debt via bonds.  So the choice is to print more money which makes the currency worthless or to cut spending in such a draconian way that no one gets anything.  That is what occurs when the market breaks a government.  It is a laudable goal to provide everyone with insurance, but it is not laudable when it is based on phony math and accounting that would make Bernie Madoff proud.  Greece has experiences severe riots because the market forced it to make severe cuts.  We will see the same thing down the road.  This is simply an unsustainable program which when the smoke and mirrors of the fraudulent accounting clears and the people see what was done, the impact will be crushing.  It will result in a decline in service for everyone.  And, people who pay into the CLASS Act will either not see the services they paid for or taxes will have to increase to such an extent that businesses will indeed leave for greener pastures….  In reality, the cost of plastic surgery is in decline while the cost for regular healthcare is increasing.  Why is that?  One is competitive and the other is not.  the best way to ensure an affordable and sustainable healthcare system is to make it competitive.  This bill does nothing to address costs which makes it even less sustainable.  There is no tort reform because the trial lawyers are big donors to the bill’s supporters….

  • Wyatt K

    In your earlier posts, you talk about the positives of closing the donut hole and providing insurance for people with pre-existing conditions.  All of these things are good, but I would question whether Obama care is THE ONLY way to achieve these goals.  The bottom line question is what price are we willing to pay for it?  The fiscal health of the country has a huge impact on freedom.  Hilary Clinton even characterized our debt as a threat to national security.  So, even if you laud the goals behind this legislation, the fact that debt is a threat to national security should cause a pause given the accounting tricks used to craft this law for compliance with PAYGO.  Since the law is premised on a lie, which is to deceive the protections of PAYGO, it is not out of bounds to have concern that it is likely not going to be deficit neutral.  The non-partisan Medicare actuary, Rick Foster, testified to this yesterday.  He also noted that promises that we can keep our insurance are not necessarily true.  I am not sure that what this bill promises is worth the risk to our security and freedom.  It is for that reason that the Founders limited the role of government to the essential roles of providing security and defense, minting money and taking up foreign diplomacy and prosecuting war.  I would question whether this law is constitutional.  It takes the Commerce Clause and makes it basically useless as it will basically mean no limitation on government intervention.

  • jimi

    Look the question is simple, should health care be a right for all Americans or should it be a privilege for only those fortunate enough to afford it. If you believe we should all have health care then lets figure out the best way to pay for it. If you don’t don’t hide behind arguments just come out and say so.

  • Wyatt K

    It is not contrary to logic to say that this law overreaches financially because of the deception used to craft it to evade PAYGO.  Every entitlement gets expanded and how much it gets expanded is not something that can exactly be stated.  For example, how many taxpayers in Berkeley or San Francisco thought that they would eventually be paying for sex reassignment surgery?  And, will abortion be covered eventually?  It is similar to social security which was crafted as a retirement program.  Do you realize that drug addicts now get social security?  And, a whole host of people get social security for reasons other than retirement.  So, I would question this law’s fiscal health on the grounds that almost every entitlement gets expanded.  I heard Sen. Lieberman on the radio today saying that our debt poses a threat to freedom and security.  That causes Obama care rightly to be suspect especially given the gimmicks used to evade PAYGO and the realities of government legislation and our already existing $112 trillion in unfunded liabilities and our $14 trillion in debt.  When the govt. collapses under the weight of its debt, no one will get anything.  Don’t believe me, look at Ireland and Greece.  Of course they have Germany to bail them out.  Who do we have to bail us out?  China?  It is apparent that China is attempting to expand its military by building anti-aircraft carrier weapons and stealth planes.  If we have a confrontation with China over something like Taiwan, what would happen if Chinese creditors stopped buying our bonds?  Even if it is not a military incident that prompts it and it is just that they decide we cannot pay it back so they stop buying the bonds, what will happen then?  I think eventually the government will be so weighted by debt it will have to pay it by printing more money which will wipe out everyone’s savings and make the money worthless. What type of benefits will people get then?  I am not saying health-care is not an issue, but there are serious realities that you are ignoring in your pieces on the subject.

  • leftfield

    Maybe we’ll just have to make those painful cuts and no longer spend more than the rest of the world combined on “Offense” (can’t call it Defense any more).  Or, we could establish the National Health Care Plan that would provide health care to everyone for a fraction of what it costs to run health care as a profit-making enterprise. 

    I want guns; more guns, but no health care.  I want the world’s largest military, but the world’s worst educational system. 

    • http://none Jim Bodkins

      Surely you would rather have hair. :)

  • http://none Jim Bodkins

    Those are just talking points.
     
    What is out of control is the cost of healthcare. The government is a victim in this even though they reimburse at lower rates than private insurers with lower overheads. Private insurance has between 15 and 40 percent overheads while medicare runs about 3 percent. The government isnt causing the high costs – it is victimized by them. For profit enterprise is responsible for the high costs. (I dont think profit should be allowed in any healthcare transaction unless it involves your family).
     
    PAYGO expired in 2002 – just before the conservative looting of the treasury. It is not a law. (In the first 6 years of the Bush admin the debt was increased by 3 trillion dollars with stagnant job growth) It now exists as a congressional ‘rule’ which was reinstated by democrats.
     
    Social security was and is not a retirement program. Social security is a social safety net. The retirement aspect’s purpose is to keep the elderly out of poverty – that is unless you consider 12 grand a year to be ‘retirement’.
     
    Medicare was meant to have the eligibility age lowered periodically so that eventually all citizens would be covered. That would create the largest pool of insured possible – a good thing. When you join an insurance pool you are in fact paying for others. Does that bother you? Does it bother you that others are paying for you as well? As a note, in the past profit was not allowed in hospitals or health insurance. Costs were under control then.
     
    Unfunded liabilities exist because of the increases in healthcare pricing – not government. A fellow I know recently had surgery and spent one day in the hospital and was billed 20,000 dollars. Healthcare pricing consumes about 17 percent of GDP and it is headed for 20+ percent shortly. That is the issue NOT medicare. Medicare underpays. It sounds as if what you want is no medicare. That might lower your taxes but any money you saved would go directly instead to the healthcare industry plus much more as a result of their higher operating costs and higher reimbursement rates. All industrial nations have placed their healthcare industries on budgets and outlawed profits in health insurance – for those nations like the swiss that still use health insurance. The key is controlling the uncontrolled growth in costs in the for profit healthcare industry.
     
    By the way, the US households currently have on the order of 65 trillion in assets. Debt of 14 trillion is an issue but far from a crisis, and the unfunded mandate isnt real yet and wont become real unless we fail to reign in the escalating costs of our for profit healthcare system.
     
     

  • http://none Jim Bodkins

    President Obama and the democrats are just trying to get that monster under control – apparently to your reluctant benefit.

  • Wyatt K

    The problem with the argument that we should simply stop spending on other things such as defense is that providing defense is a mandated duty under the CONSTITUTION.  So is protecting the country’s borders.    To suggest that we should abrogate express Constitutionally mandated responsibilities for something that is not even mentioned in the constitution and has to be imputed from vague should cause some pause in buying such an argument.  You could very well argue that we could have spent our money on other things besides World War II, but the nation’s premier duty is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  This is a duty in the Constitution and in the oaths of public officials.  So, leftfield’s comment is interesting, but it is not grounded in law or reality….

    • leftfield

      providing defense is a mandated duty under the CONSTITUTION

      You mean there is a mandate in the “CONSTITUTION” requiring we outspend the rest of the world combined and invade third world countries halfway around the world on a regular basis?  We are not providing defense, we are maintaining and expanding the empire. 

      You are very verbose and your comments are dressed up nicely with lots of information, but when one reads all your messages, it all comes down to the same old neoconservative platform:  socialize support for business, raise business interests to a level of power above that of national government while maintaining and expanding the unaccountability of business to the common welfare, appeal to the fear of the loss of white privilege, promote the notion of liberalism as the central threat to the traditional family and American individualism, promote protestant fundamentalism, sell the idea that the welfare of the people is intimately and only tied to the welfare of business interests, persecute those that fall outside of the self-defined “norm”, select a largely defenseless minority group to scapegoat, etc, etc.

      So, it’s the GOP “Southern Strategy” all over again.  Taken to its logical conclusion, we can look forward to an even greater level of upward migration of capital, a greater level of oppression of non-white, non-christian, non-heterosexual, non-male members of society; a greater level of militarism and expansion of the empire, more war, even greater control of our lives by forces unaccountable to the public,  a society whose only real function is to increase the wealth of business interests, more people toiling away in involuntary servitude, etc, etc.    

      • Wyatt K

        Left, whether military resources are allocated correctly is debatable, but there is no question that it is a mandated duty expressly outlined in the Constitution.  I am not sure why you have such a negative view of business.  For example, every city that has tried rent controls has always experienced a shortage of housing.  Again, look at the impact of Hugo Chavez nationalizing oil refinery’s in his country which resulted in a serious decline in production.  The motive for profit creates more and provides more.  It is nice to criticize business, but our standard of living is directly owed to business and it is no coincidence that we are the envy of the world in terms of standard of living.  You seem not to like conservatives, but you talk of white privilege.  Do you not realize that it was the Republican Party that was founded to free people of color and successfully did so?  Of course, you may not realize that the Democratic Party had their support for slavery in their platform at one time.  The Republicans passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.  A greater percentage of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did democrats.  The 1064 Act would not even have been necessary had the Democrats not repealed the one that was passed in the late 1800′s.
        You talk of rights and that is all fine, but your photo is of Lenin?  Do you support Lenin and communism which has resulted in the greatest genocides in history?  That seems quite contrary to rights to me….

  • Wyatt K

    if leftfield wants better education, spending money is not the way to get there.  There is a very good reason why we are lagging behind in education and that is due to teacher’s unions.  They have no teacher’s union’s in China and India….  Throwing money at the problem does not help.  Competition is what helps.  Unions tend to stifle innovation and competition.

    • leftfield

      There is a very good reason why we are lagging behind in education and that is due to teacher’s unions.

      So, if spending money is not necessary for a decent educational system, then if we cut spending for education, things will get better?

        Competition is what helps.  Unions tend to stifle innovation and competition.

      Is there a single reactionary catch-phrase you’ve forgotten to include?  “Unions stifle innovation” What a load.  What they stifle are inhuman working conditions and exploitation in search of ever-increasing profits extracted from labor, the real source of wealth. 

      Let’s see – business good, unions bad; social services bad, military spending good; taxes bad, tax breaks for the wealthy good; access to the legal system for the people bad, access only for the wealthy good; democrats bad, republicans good.  Have I forgotten anything?  It’s the straight Reagan party line.

      • Wyatt K

        Unions had their place, but laws are in place whereby unions are unnecessary.  Unions are against the overall public interest especially when they are organized for public sector workers.  For example, if a public sector union strikes, is that not against the overall public interest?  If a factory union strikes, it is only against that factory.  Unions do stifle innovation and it is for that reason why teacher unions lobby against school choice and competition.  Profits and wealth are extracted from labor, but absent that, how would you create wealth?  What currency would you trade in that would be more efficient?

        • leftfield

          but laws are in place whereby unions are unnecessary

          Massey Energy.  Go tell it to the survivors of the dead killed by Massey Energy’s policies of subordinating worker safety to profit.  Or, go stand on a soapbox in front of the people of the Gulf Coast and tell them it was too much government and union interference that led to the deaths of the oil platform workers and the despoiling of The Gulf.  Tell them that the laws in place are sufficient to protect them from the depredations of business in pursuit of ever-higher profits. 

          • Wyatt K

            Left, I do not deny that such tragedies occur.  As long as you have people running anything, it will be flawed.  So what is the point?  You appear to claim communism is so much better, but as I recall former communist countries have some of the worst environmental problems in the world.  wasn’t there a big nuclear plant accident in the Soviet Union?  No law in the world can stop simple negligence….

  • Wyatt K

    Jim, Paygo did indeed lapse in 2002, but the democrats brought it back and they campaigned on bringing it back and did while Pelosi was Speaker of the House.  They modified it and used it.  Obama-care was crafted specifically to evade PAYGO.  That is why it uses a ten year window of hiding the true cost.  So, they were able to say, we complied with PAYGO, which we ran on.  But, the truth is it was crafted to evade PAYGO so they could claim that it was deficit neutral.  The result is that Obama-care is premised on a fraud of being deficit neutral.  The CBO scored Obama-care based on PAYGO.
    Social Security was designed for retirement, not for a safety net.  When the cards were initially issued, they said something to the effect of an account in this number is created for you where your social money will be deposited.  It slowly evolved to encompass being a safety net.  This supports my argument nicely  because all federal programs get expanded.  When social security was founded, drug addicts were not entitled to use it and neither would it pay benefits to children who lost a parent.   It was designed for retirement when it was introduced in 1937.   And, you notice Social Security has a $45 billion deficit and in the news today it says it will be in a constant state of deficit.  The federal govt. has spent your social security money and mine and is using debt to pay out its benefits.  And, they did not spend all the money just on social security.
    Costs can be controlled by govt. but it is competition that reduces costs and keeps service high.  Take for example Hugo Chavez who nationalized oil.  Now, production is down from what it was.
    The cost of plastic surgery has been going down because that market is competitive.  The cost of regular health care is up because of the lack of competition.
    To argue for health care for everyone is nice.  I agree, but it does not mean it is realistic.  Over the years, it will be a bankrupt system as is social security.   If government were so efficient why do we have $112 trillion in unfunded entitlements?  Even on a state level, state’s such as Calif. have $500 billion in unfunded pensions.  Eventually, the markets will break us and when they do, no one will get anything but pain and, at the same time, have poor health care.  It is not sustainable.  If you think it is, show me the math….
     
     

    • http://none Jim Bodkins

      If you have a point it is the democrats violated PAYGO – a congressional rule not a law. But you correctly do not make that point as it would be a lie. You instead contrive verbiage that implies something wrong was done. Nothing wrong was done – even if you consider doing anything you disagree with to be wrong. This is also the case when the republicans allowed PAYGO to expire and THEN ran up the debt by 3 trillion dollars in a manner that would have been an actual violation of the law PAYGO had it not lapsed. What they did was legal, just as what the democrats did is legal. They however are not the same. What the democrats did actually makes the attempt to – over time – reduce costs … or at least slow their rate of increase. What the republicans did was entirely absent even the concern for the national debt.
       
      Let the punishment fit the crime – this may be over your head – if money is stolen then lets recover the stolen money and punish the thieves. Lets not punish the victim of the theft. Or would you close a bank that was robbed due to lack of funds as opposed to recovering the stolen money? What is the truth here … my opinion … you are looking for any trivial excuse to enact your vision of the world which clearly doesnt include civil community. Your comments are rhetorical nonsense and your grasp of history is weak. (The history of interest isnt 230 years old it is 500 years old … but that is another story).
       

      • Wyatt K

        Jim, the issue is that Obama care is a long term entitlement grounded on shaky mathematics.  Look at social security which was just announced many billions in the red.  If a program is created, it does no one any good if it cannot meet its promises because it is premised on false accounting.  The nation already has massive entitlements and massive debts.  Is it not okay to question the wisdom and the savings of a new entitlement.  I would question whether it will save.  On the contrary, it appears it will add substantially to existing burdens.  If you have information otherwise, I am all ears.  But, if you believe this indeed is deficit neutral and will save money you must be from another planet because the books were cooked to make it look that way….

      • Wyatt K

        The CBO scored Obama care based on PAYGO.  Do you disagree with that?  If you have information that was not the case I would be interested….

        • Wyatt K

          Once you accept the fact and realize that the CBO scored Obamacare based on PAYGO, then you can see how the books were cooked to evade PAYGO.   That is why it is premised on a fraud.  It simply is disingenuous to score it as deficit neutral under PAYGO when it simply uses gimmicks and accounting games not to reveal the true cost until after 10 years…

  • Wyatt K

    It is nice to talk of the lofty goals of government to take care of people in need, but government has a well documented history of doing mostly damage as a result.  For example, federal programs helped push people into ghettos.  They have helped perpetuate cycles of poverty for generations.  For example, the Great Society programs did more damage to the black community than anything by helping to promote having kids with absentee fathers and on and on….

    • leftfield

      It is nice to talk of the lofty goals of government to take care of people in need, but government has a well documented history of doing mostly damage as a result.

      I believe the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Grenada, etc, etc, would heartily agree with this statement and wish that we would stick to “taking care” of our own.

      • Wyatt K

        I believe the people in Iraq are far better off now than they were under a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein.  Afghanistan was ruined by the Soviet Union, not the United States.  We were victimized by that damage but we also share some blame in not paying much attention to it after the Soviet’s left it unstable.  After we left Vietnam, the communists there killed millions by sending many to barren areas of the country to starve.  So, I would question whether Vietnam was better off.  Yet, it is wise to take care of ones own, but you must know that other country’s such as the Soviet Union tried to fund and ferment revolutions in our own hemisphere.  Communist doctrine favored a bloody revolution.  Why should we not equally provide resources to discourage it?

        • leftfield

          I believe the people in Iraq are far better off now than they were under a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein

          You’ll have to peddle the notion that America invaded Iraq to bring “peace and freedom” elsewhere.  I’m not buying today.  Next time you start a war, let’s eliminate from the picture the massive profit for private industry , put the cost on them, and see just how eager they are to fight. 

          • Wyatt K

            Left, again you are off.  We went there on a justification of weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be based on flawed intelligence and I trust you think that everyone intentionally lied about it which is fine, but in reality we had a right to go there under the Treaty that ended the First Gulf War when they kicked the weapons inspectors out which violated the treaty that ended the first Gulf War….  Why not blame the Iraqi leadership for kicking out the weapons inspectors.  They signed the treaty and they decided to kick the inspectors out which led the world to have to speculate on what it had and did not have….  Place the blame where it belongs….

    • leftfield

      For example, the Great Society programs did more damage to the black community than anything by helping to promote having kids with absentee fathers and on and on….

      Ah yes, they are poor because they lack personal responsibility.  Or, is it “the poor will always be with us”?

      • Wyatt K

        It is a basic fact of well intended programs having ill intended consequences….

        • leftfield

          It is a basic fact of well intended programs having ill intended consequences….

          The right should keep this in mind then, as they go about crafting their own little “Great Society”. 

          • Wyatt K

            Left, again you have nothing to offer in terms of solutions.  It is fine to offer everyone everything in the world, but someone has to make it, produce it, mine the metals in it.  Someone has to create the wealth you want to give away.  And then, when you take it from them, you reduce the ability of the economy to expand further because now you are taking it from people who create it to give it to people who do not.  I am not advocating for no programs, but the best program is to maximize the individual to create to provide the highest incentives to produce.  That is not a program it is maximizing what is already naturally there….

      • Wyatt K

        No, they ended up getting nailed by policies that paid out more money to people who kept having kids without fathers.  They encourages complacency…

  • Wyatt K

    Jim:
    You are so concerned about costs of health care, but please point to one provision in the 2,000 page bill that is directed at controlling costs?  There is none.  Hell, they did not even put tort reform in the bill because the tort lawyers donate a lot of money to the people who drafted it….  Why not allow competition in purchasing insurance across state lines?  Competition is a proven method of reducing costs, but it is absent.

    • leftfield

       Competition is a proven method of reducing costs, but it is absent.

      We have long passed the point in the history of American capitalism wherein there was a negotiated deal struck between equals, whether in the matter of employer and employee or buyer and seller.  Competitive capitalism has long since given way to Monopoly capitalism and Imperialism.  The notion that competition is a force that drives down prices and improves quality is just another throwback to Adam Smith’s time.   

      • Wyatt K

        Left, the world has left you.  Even China has tried to imitate our model because they recognized that communism is not a recipe for success…  If you support communism that is fine, but the fact is communism resulted in the deaths of tens of millions to collectivize in Russia.  It resulted in a lower standard of living everywhere it was practiced.  And, it resulted in a severe decline of freedom….

        • Wyatt K

          Governments do not create wealth.  They eat wealth.  See the impact of government spending in Greece.  Why do you think what has occurred in Greece could not happen here?

          • leftfield

            Governments do not create wealth.

            True enough.  There is only one source of wealth, and that is labor. 
            Aside from that, I dispute the notion that wealth at any cost should be the end-all and the measure of a society. 

        • leftfield

           communism resulted in the deaths of tens of millions to collectivize in Russia.

          It was not communism, but rather Stalinism, that killed millions in the former USSR.  If all these deaths are directly attributable to communism, is it then fair to attribute all the deaths in WWII, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Chile, Guatemala, Grenada, The Phillipines, Bosnia, etc, to capitalism?  Are we going to tally the dead in effort to keep score and determine a winner?  

          • fraser007

            Be careful you dont get accussed of “overposting” and get denied the right to post on this blogsite.

          • Wyatt K

            Communism advocates the idea of collecting private property.  Do you think people are just going to sit idly by while someone confiscates their cows and land?  And, what was the result, constant food shortages and rationed food.  Why?  Because there was little incentive to produce to satisfy the supply.  And, no it was not Stalinism, it was communism that resulted in all those deaths because Stalin was confiscating property for the state.  In any event, communism has not been a huge positive for humsn rights.  To blame World War II on capitalism is not wise.  The war rather could be blamed on Hitler and Japanese militarism.  Both Germany and Japan had little history of democracy and were ruled by strong leaders who had global aims.  Other battles were not just fought by the US.  The Soviet Union poured money and resources into Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, Chile, Guatemala and Grenada to ferment a communist revolution.  I do not think it wise to be complacent to such funding.  I could go on about Bosnia and Chile, but for what purpose?  If you advocate communism you are advocating a system that has failed the world over.  Go to Cuba and wait for your food ration and as you get laid off from you public sector job.  I notice people try to get into the US, but few people tried to get into East Germany.  Yes, some like Lee Harvey Oswald defected, but those were far and few between for a reason.  Same thing with North Korea.  A few soldiers went, but that pales into comparison with the numbers who fled North Korea and Vietnam….

          • Wyatt K

            Besides, war is part of the human experience.  It will not go away and there will never be peace.  War has been part of human history since the dawn of mankind.  It is nice to cite books like “Imperials, the Highest stage of Capitalism,”, but in reality people are flawed and they will go to war for many reasons.  I like the song, “Imagine,” but I recognize it is not realistic.  The reason why capitalism has succeeded is because it maximizes the individual rather than the collective.  The collective is fine when it comes to efficiency, but they fail at production.  And, capitalism is better at both and that is why it succeeds.  Is it flawed?  Sure it is, but that is why it works.  People are not perfect and they are flawed and they will do what you don’t expect and what you don’t want and what is unexpected.  Capitalism generally forces them to make the right choices.  For example, Ford could not have made it in the Soviet Union.  The Soviets had the Travant which was not a very terrific car, but look at the cars made here.  They were so much better because the incentive was their to produce and innovate.  You just don’t get that under communism.  That is why all the communist countries have to ration just about everything because they never have enough to meet the demand.  China is different only because they recognized they could not provide a decent standard of living using a communist model.  So, politically they are communist, but in fact are capitalist.

    • leftfield

      they did not even put tort reform

      The neoconservative goal in pursuing what they call “tort reform” is to further the already dismal accessability of the non-privileged to the legal system.  The contingency fee, flawed as it may be, currently provides the only real voice the common man has when wronged by the wealthy and powerful.  Let them first propose, enact and commit to an alternative that guarantees equal justice under the law and equal representation before you allow them to allow them to sell you the myth that pursuing damages when you or we have been wronged is harming you.  They are really only interested in rendering the people powerless in the face of big business.   

      • Wyatt K

        I know of no one who does not have access to the courts.  Many states have constitutional provisions requiring access.  For example see Connecticut’s Constitution which has had that provision since 1818.

        • leftfield

          So, the poor person who is represented by an over-worked court appointed lawyer who spends 15 minutes preparing for a death penalty case has the same opportunity for “equal justice” under the law as, say, The Monsanto Corporation?

          • Wyatt K

            Left, it is a beautiful sentiment, but the fact is everyone who qualifies for representation gets it.  If you can think of a better way, propose it.  In the real world, people work and produce for money.    As to Monsanto, talk to the FDA….

    • http://none Jim Bodkins

      Cost savings are achieved and spent by increasing the number of insured by 30 million and protecting those who are currently paying for coverage.
       
      The current system results in 50 million uninsured, millions of early deaths, healthcare costs being the most common cause of bankruptcy and foreclosure, inadequate coverage to denial of coverage  and more. That is a description of a system in freefall. If you are human … the problem isnt just money … it is also medical care – which has a cost. Any solution must contain costs while extending coverage – to those with none as well as to those that would either be denied or limited.
       
      It was hoped that punitive lawsuits against incompetent physicians (or companies) who caused harm would result in the elimination of said physicians  or companies). Sadly they are still with us – but insured. It isnt the harmed patient that is responsible for costs it is the incompetent physician or company that just wont go away that is responsible. Fix that and leave the courts alone. (The courts actually dont suffer trivial lawsuits well)

  • Wyatt K

    My hope is that Jim is right, but he should look at Greece because I think that is a good preview for where we are headed….

  • Wyatt K

    You claim the value of every household in the US is $65 trillion.  What is the point of that claim.  Do you propose confiscating it from them to pay our debt?  $14 trillion in debt is a lot of money.  And, $112 trillion in unfunded liabilities is a lot of money.  Do you really believe we can rack up these debts forever?  Eventually, the market will break us by ensuring there are no buyers for our bonds or by ensuring that we have to print more money which will make the money worthless.  Do you think by then everyone will just part with all their assets to pay their $100,000 plus share of the $14 trillion debt and their $1 million plus share of the unfunded liabilities.  I don’t think so….

  • Wyatt K

    I agree with Jim that Bush overspent, but Obama makes Bush look like an armature player.  I do, however, dispute your numbers but will not argue that here as this argument is on health-care.

  • Wyatt K

    The point is simply that there is a lot of genuine cause for concern over Obama care.  It is that simple…

  • leftfield

    Be careful you dont get accussed of “overposting” and get denied the right to post on this blogsite.

    That’s what I like about you, fraser, you’re always looking out for my interests.  Indeed, you have a valid point.  That point being, “give it a rest, man”.

  • http://none Jim Bodkins

    In the real world money is nothing more than symbolic labor. Money is simply a means to account for it – and sadly in the modern era – to own it.
     
    Equal protection needs to transcend financial access – which it does not. Dont believe me? Poverty is the most common characteristic of those in prison in the US.
     
    In ancient Athens a small percentage of people were citizens. Athens would raid small kingdoms nearby, crush them and loot them. They would send the loot back to Athens to be distributed to the ‘citizens’. So a clear test of citizenship would have been – if you get loot, then you are a citizen. The poor dont get loot in the US – the rich and corporations get the loot. The rich and corporations are therefore ‘athenian citizens’.
     

  • Art Jacobson

    Gentlemen…
    I enjoy long comment threads, but it’s just possible you are drawing out the thread of your verbosity finer than the staple of your argument.
    My regards to you all

    • Wyatt K

      Indeed, that is true, but what the hell, this is a nice forum for it….  I could have left Left’s arguments which definitely encompassed quite a bit, but I thought it better to answer them because I like people who challenge my views.  That tends to be how I learn….

  • Wyatt K

    By the way Art, I cannot say I agree with all your sentiments, but one thing I will say is that your pieces are finely written….

  • Art Jacobson

    No More Posts, Gentlemen…this is not an open thread. You’ve had your say and it’s time to give it a rest.
     
    ‘gards

    • http://none Jim Bodkins

      goodbye art
       

      • JoeS

        Where is Art going?

    • Wyatt K

      Art, I will respect your wish, but why invite people to leave comments and then come on and say no more posts?  What does it really hurt?

  • Wyatt K

    Nothing wrong with Obamacare, except maybe a little thing called the Constitution….

«
»