That's the catch, there are some Republicans who are jamming up Obama just to play politics, but I think most, though, oppose the proposals because increasing Govt power & dependance isn't in the best interest of the Country. Authoritarian rule isn't best regardless.
ER waits to get longer
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
It's not just the spending.
I think it's just badly organized and it's simply too complicated. Because it's so complicated, massive waste is almost impossible to detect and programs that really should be in place are getting the flak because of it.
I think people who reference the weak economy as a main reason not to pursue additional government spending at this time do have a strong case but using the bailout as some kind of "evidence" of uncontrolled government spending is a very bad example. It simply had to be done.
Money into making Americans more educated and healthy = Good investment.
Handouts for housing, food, etc. = Mostly a waste of money.
I think it's just badly organized and it's simply too complicated. Because it's so complicated, massive waste is almost impossible to detect and programs that really should be in place are getting the flak because of it.
I think people who reference the weak economy as a main reason not to pursue additional government spending at this time do have a strong case but using the bailout as some kind of "evidence" of uncontrolled government spending is a very bad example. It simply had to be done.
Money into making Americans more educated and healthy = Good investment.
Handouts for housing, food, etc. = Mostly a waste of money.
HokieMSG
Active member
I agree that the government has gotten too large. However the bailouts are precisely why I feel that spending has gotten out of control. Government spending of this magnitude causes many long term effects that no one appears to be considering.
1. It raises the interest rate. Reagan was the only president who seemed to be able to spend and actually bring the interest rate down at the same time.
2. It increases the money supply. This puts upward pressure on prices.
There are others too.
While some government debt is necessary (thats how we can control the money supply), debt of this magnitude can only have long lasting effects that will prolong the recession.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
And not doing the bailout probably would have led to widespread poverty and chaos.
I was in a country in the late 90's where this actually happened and a bailout was NOT possible in a timely fashion. This country was Indonesia and their economy in relative terms was not as bad back before the crisis as compared to today.
But when the banks failed almost overnight people could not afford basic commodities because their money was now worthless. There were violent riots, ethnic cleansing and the only thing that held the country together until money arrived was the police and the military. But that was not even a sure thing. There were many rumors of Coup d'Etats and if it dragged on any longer, what could convince these folks to keep maintaining order? Their pay was now completely worthless.
It doesn't just happen because it's a far away place.
A version of that could have happened here as well. Every tension in America you can think of would have been blown up to the 10,000th degree, with each group blaming the other for the catastrophe.
I was in a country in the late 90's where this actually happened and a bailout was NOT possible in a timely fashion. This country was Indonesia and their economy in relative terms was not as bad back before the crisis as compared to today.
But when the banks failed almost overnight people could not afford basic commodities because their money was now worthless. There were violent riots, ethnic cleansing and the only thing that held the country together until money arrived was the police and the military. But that was not even a sure thing. There were many rumors of Coup d'Etats and if it dragged on any longer, what could convince these folks to keep maintaining order? Their pay was now completely worthless.
It doesn't just happen because it's a far away place.
A version of that could have happened here as well. Every tension in America you can think of would have been blown up to the 10,000th degree, with each group blaming the other for the catastrophe.
We have FDIC, did they? (as far as banks closing/depositors is concerned)
HokieMSG
Active member
The FDIC only insures regular savings. Not investments. The bailout was supposed to prevent another stock market collapse. Seems to have worked but at what cost.
Actually banks closing can't make money worthless, only inflation or Govt order, assuming that the money is issued by the Govt, not the banks themselves(banknotes).
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Yes it can.
As it did happen then.
Closing of the banks itself may not lead to it, but events that occur as a consequence certainly do.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-causes-inflation.htm
"Inflation can also be caused by international lending and national debts. As nations borrow money, they have to deal with interests, which in the end cause prices to rise as a way of keeping up with their debts."
First, the banks failed and very few people could actually access the money they were technically supposed to have.
Second, the money to rescue the economy came from overseas, which immediately put them in massive debt. As a result, the prices of commodities skyrocketed, especially with the IMF's demand that basic goods not be subsidized.
http://www.albionmonitor.com/9801a/jakartaunrest.html
"The IMF views subsidies for basic terms like fuel and food staples as inefficiencies that clash with free-market principles and sap government resources."
So yes, bank failure and a lack of faith in a certain currency can affect a money's value. If a certain currency is not reliable, it's value will no doubt fall.
As it did happen then.
Closing of the banks itself may not lead to it, but events that occur as a consequence certainly do.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-causes-inflation.htm
"Inflation can also be caused by international lending and national debts. As nations borrow money, they have to deal with interests, which in the end cause prices to rise as a way of keeping up with their debts."
First, the banks failed and very few people could actually access the money they were technically supposed to have.
Second, the money to rescue the economy came from overseas, which immediately put them in massive debt. As a result, the prices of commodities skyrocketed, especially with the IMF's demand that basic goods not be subsidized.
http://www.albionmonitor.com/9801a/jakartaunrest.html
"The IMF views subsidies for basic terms like fuel and food staples as inefficiencies that clash with free-market principles and sap government resources."
So yes, bank failure and a lack of faith in a certain currency can affect a money's value. If a certain currency is not reliable, it's value will no doubt fall.
HokieMSG
Active member
I would go even farther and say that even a percieved lack of faith or value can have significant adverse effects on a currencies valuation. Remember that you can only trade stocks on margin at 2:1, whereas currencies can trade on margin at 10:1. That adds a whole lot more volatility into the market.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
It's not simply government intervention that's the problem.
I think the issue at hand is much bigger than that.
Why is it that many other countries run rather successful government funded/subsidized programs? How come the United States cannot seem to do that?
I think it's a pretty serious question to ask.
Obviously it can be done and it has been done many times in many places.
So what is the problem?
I think the issue at hand is much bigger than that.
Why is it that many other countries run rather successful government funded/subsidized programs? How come the United States cannot seem to do that?
I think it's a pretty serious question to ask.
Obviously it can be done and it has been done many times in many places.
So what is the problem?
Rob Henderson
Banned
You answer that question, my friend, and I'll write your name on the ticket for President of the whole damned world.
HokieMSG
Active member
I hope you are not referring to Canada or Britain. :shock:. In many cases the doctors (dentists too) have an annual cap on the number of patients that they can see (and still get paid). Many doctors work their butts off at the beginning of the year and as soon as they hit their quota they go on vacation until the next year starts. Seems against the Hippocratic Oath that they would do that but I am not a physician.
I get very tired of everyone saying that we need universal healthcare. We ALREADY have it. Hospitals are required BY LAW to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. PERIOD. What we need is preventative care reform.
mmarsh
Active member
Not true. Private Hospitals are only required to STABILIZE you if you are in immediate threat of dying. They do not have to cure you, merely prevent you from immediately dying. They have no obligation to permentely fix you. If you cannot pay or have no insurance they ship you off to a public hospital where the care is generally inferior, especially in urban environments.
That is NOT UHC. UHC means you need any type of treatment, surgery, medication, etc you get it. No questioned asked. Some elective and cosmetic surgery+medication is not covered. All the vital stuff is. Hospitals should be a public service not a business.
The way it works is simple in France. Everyone has a "green card". You simply give the doctor you green card and either its prepaid by Social Security or if its a small amount you pay it and the SS reimburse you. SS is funded like in the US, it is simply deducted out of you pay slips.
The Canadian and UK models are not perfect but they are STILL vastly better than the US. There is nobody linging up to copy our healthcare system, absolutely nobody.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
I'm not saying that a government funded system will always work. Britain's one is pretty bad and I don't think there are many people who consider it a good system at all.
But I know I can vouch for the medical system in South Korea, Austria and Hong Kong. Government supported to various levels.
In a way, this IS preventive care. If a trip to the doctor doesn't set you back a hundred bucks, you will go at an early sign of illness and get it treated before it becomes serious. But because it costs so much, people (including myself) are reluctant to visit the doctor unless the problem is very serious.
The medical system I know outside of the US that is closest to the US system is Indonesia. It's more expensive to go to a half decent hospital in Indonesia compared to most developed countries (except perhaps the US) and the quality is also lower.
mmarsh
Active member
The NHS isnt a terrible system, thats largely a myth started in the US press to scuttled Obama's HCR, one of many lies and distortions. It isn't a perfect system but it keeps the population healthy. There are some Bureaucratic issues but most Britons are happy with it.
Its far better than what we got that's for sure. The WHO has it rated at #18
the USA is #37. Canada is number #30 which is still better than us.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/nhs-tracker.pdf
I thinks its hilarious that we Americans actually mock a system thats better than ours out of pure ignorance.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Well I'm not a huge fan of the British system because I have some friends there who had to deal with some pretty atrocious wait times and also suffered from poor quality of care.
HokieMSG
Active member
You are correct mmarsh. That is what I was referring to. The real debate revolves around terminal illnesses and long term care. If you have insurance, in most cases, you will get it. If not you are out of luck. Because American insurance is a business, they are trying to make money, that is completely wrong in my opinion. I agree that our system is not the best but when you make something free there will be abuse. Saw it first hand in the Army.
If canadian and british models are so good, why was the canadian MP in hot water for coming to America for care. Because in many (I won;t say all but it is close) cases the wait is too long.
Britian is experiencing a shortage of doctors.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/shortage-of-doctors-is-costing-lives-1097925.html
Same for canada.
http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2004/Mar/vol50-mar-letters-1.asp
They all seem to be moving here ?????? Why. BECAUSE WE PAY MORE.
BTW the french system you say is so good?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...vice-is-falling-apart-say-doctors-560704.html
Why then are french doctors saying that the french health system is falling apart.
Even here in America medical malpractice lawsuits are causing a shortage.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm
Not offering a solution here but I get tired of the government telling me that it knows better than I do what is best for me and my family.
Rob Henderson
Banned
I've said this so many times, I'm starting to believe that you all just ignore it, but I'll say it ONE MORE TIME. The United States' health care system is the best in the world. Make no bones about that fact. But the United States' health care system is only the best in the world if you can AFFORD it. If you can afford hundreds of thousands of dollars for a simple surgery or some medication, then GREAT! the US health care system will be happy to treat you and send you on your merry way. Don't have insurance or a duffel bag full of $100 bills? Tough luck mate, try Canada. THAT'S what needs to change. We all know that US medicine is far superior to any other country. It's the fact that one has to give up ones first born child in order to receive said medicine that is not right.
Hokie, it alllll ties back in to my point in what seems like every thread... Compassion for others. People in support of UHC have it, people who think UHC is bad do NOT. And it is blatantly obvious who supports it and who doesn't.
mmarsh
Active member
Hokie
You are confusing Quality and Cost. Nobody is arguing about the Quality of Care in America, the ENTIRE issue is about the cost. Whats the point of having a state of the art medical system if nobody can afford it?
Case in point the Canadian MP: That Canadian MP took a private jet to one of the fanciest Hospital in California for a very specific Cancer operation because the hospital was well renowned for it. She (the MP) DIDNT go because the care was free. The MP was previously a CEO of a automotive company and a multi-millionaire. Do you think most ordinary Canadians can afford that type of luxury?
Your example is a exception not the rule, most Canadians get treated in Canada.
Healthcare in America is elitist; its based on the ability to pay. If you can pay you'll get the greatest care in the world, if you cant you'll most likely die. Thats the issue.
America is experiencing a short of Doctors too. The problem isn't just European. In France its due to the fact that the schools dont graduate enough candidates as its a very selective field. But that has nothing to do with the quality of care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/health/policy/27care.html?_r=2&em
Doctors are not coming here from other countries, only some from Canada because there is a medical exchange. Do you have any idea how difficult it is? All other foreign doctors need to be Accredited and Board certified and spend a year in residency and pass 3 different certification steps in order to practice in the US...not to mention getting a US work visa. Its not like they can arrive and open a practice like a McDonalds franchise. There are doctor exchanges but those are temporary used for training.
About the French system "collapsing". You didnt read your article carefully enough. Read it again, it says:
The doctors accused the government of wanting to abandon the principle that excellent health care should be available to everyone in France "whatever their resources". They predicted that the reforms would introduce the principle of choix (priorities), favouring the private sector and "destroying" the "best public hospital system in the world".
In other words: They are accusing the government of trying to change the system into a US style healthcare. They want to keep the system AS IT IS BTW this article is out of date. There have been many reforms since 2004 to fix the deficit crunch, including recently increasing the retire age to 62.
Who said UHC is free? You definitely pay for it. If you are a resident you are paying for it. Like SS in the US its a deduction off your payslip. As for abuse, its relatively uncommon. Since doctors dont get the huge salaries like in the US, their isn't much incentive to cheat.
In terms of healthcare, Government really does know better than you and I do, they are in the best position to know. The problem is that the American government has been bought off by HMOs. The only other group who would how to manage a families healthcare would be the private sector, but unfortunately then tend to put their own interests first. Thats the advantage with a public system its non profit. There is no incentive to screw the consumer over. But is it any surprise that the best heathcare in the world is offered by those countries that have UHC and not a privatized system. Why is it no other country is lining up to copy the US system?
You are confusing Quality and Cost. Nobody is arguing about the Quality of Care in America, the ENTIRE issue is about the cost. Whats the point of having a state of the art medical system if nobody can afford it?
Case in point the Canadian MP: That Canadian MP took a private jet to one of the fanciest Hospital in California for a very specific Cancer operation because the hospital was well renowned for it. She (the MP) DIDNT go because the care was free. The MP was previously a CEO of a automotive company and a multi-millionaire. Do you think most ordinary Canadians can afford that type of luxury?
Your example is a exception not the rule, most Canadians get treated in Canada.
Healthcare in America is elitist; its based on the ability to pay. If you can pay you'll get the greatest care in the world, if you cant you'll most likely die. Thats the issue.
America is experiencing a short of Doctors too. The problem isn't just European. In France its due to the fact that the schools dont graduate enough candidates as its a very selective field. But that has nothing to do with the quality of care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/health/policy/27care.html?_r=2&em
Doctors are not coming here from other countries, only some from Canada because there is a medical exchange. Do you have any idea how difficult it is? All other foreign doctors need to be Accredited and Board certified and spend a year in residency and pass 3 different certification steps in order to practice in the US...not to mention getting a US work visa. Its not like they can arrive and open a practice like a McDonalds franchise. There are doctor exchanges but those are temporary used for training.
About the French system "collapsing". You didnt read your article carefully enough. Read it again, it says:
The doctors accused the government of wanting to abandon the principle that excellent health care should be available to everyone in France "whatever their resources". They predicted that the reforms would introduce the principle of choix (priorities), favouring the private sector and "destroying" the "best public hospital system in the world".
In other words: They are accusing the government of trying to change the system into a US style healthcare. They want to keep the system AS IT IS BTW this article is out of date. There have been many reforms since 2004 to fix the deficit crunch, including recently increasing the retire age to 62.
Who said UHC is free? You definitely pay for it. If you are a resident you are paying for it. Like SS in the US its a deduction off your payslip. As for abuse, its relatively uncommon. Since doctors dont get the huge salaries like in the US, their isn't much incentive to cheat.
In terms of healthcare, Government really does know better than you and I do, they are in the best position to know. The problem is that the American government has been bought off by HMOs. The only other group who would how to manage a families healthcare would be the private sector, but unfortunately then tend to put their own interests first. Thats the advantage with a public system its non profit. There is no incentive to screw the consumer over. But is it any surprise that the best heathcare in the world is offered by those countries that have UHC and not a privatized system. Why is it no other country is lining up to copy the US system?
Last edited: