What do you think of Obama's health care an/or economy package(s)

Besides, democracy should be everyone being able to have a say, regardless of how stupid their say might be.

Anything other than that isn't really democracy, it's oligarchy, because if people can't vote because they're black/female/insane/poor/ugly then that isn't rule by the people, it's rule by the few people who have the power, which is oligarchy.

 

Following your logic we should let children vote.

 

children can vote once they become an adult

 

Children are judged not to have the intellectual maturity to vote, it is believed that by the time you reach the age of maturity you should have the maturity to vote.

 

A person without income is as immature as a child.

 

Wtf since when can blacks and women vote?

 

That's a very ignorant point of view.

Let's say you work for an otherwise successful company full-time and are the main breadwinner for your family - but, all of a sudden, due to some unforeseen event (such as a sudden economic downturn or a natural disaster, or perhaps a scandal in top management) you are laid off... and therefore have no income (despite you'd been raking in a very exceptional income before), no benefits, etc.

You are then a person with no income, and must begin job hunting. Are you then as immature as a child?

Right now the problem is that anyone can fall into a hole, that perpetually deepens, whereby they can't even get themselves out of that hole, no matter how hard they work, and the system defeats them and they are trapped in a down-spiraling situation with no means of self-relief.

At least with the availability of a universal healthcare system, they can climb out of the holes they fall into. Someone who loses their job can at least not have to worry about being treated if they become injured or ill during their job hunt, so much so that they would otherwise not be able to take a new job straight away.

There are plenty of hard working, non-lazy people who would buy healthcare if they could afford it, or if their employer would subsidize it (and some of them already have healthcare, but insurance companies screw them out of their coverage). They simply cannot get treatment, and despite the fact that they might be holding down a full-time day job and then moonlighting at a part-time job throughout the night, and getting perhaps only 4 to 6 hrs of sleep Mon-Fri, they will be called "lazy" and "immature" by people who outright oppose a system that would let them get treatment so that they could continue to function, provide for their family, and participate in the economy.

 

Do you know what word "ignorant" means?

Person without income is financially immature as a child. He is dependent on others. So probability that he'll vote on someone that will take from others and give to him is higher.

About healthcare: savings are for situations like losing a job. And if they can't afford it it won't change magically after a politician decides that everyone should get access to public healthcare.

 

I don't think you understand what "ignorant" and "immature" mean at all - you've used both of them incorrectly (you're Polish though, so I understand English is probably not your first language).

A person without income is probably more financially troubled than a child, having financial obligations and the like, whereas though a child depends on another, the child likely doesn't have a great deal of outstanding obligations.

Most people's savings aren't enough to sustain payments towards a private health insurance plan. You are severely underestimating the cost of private health insurance in the US, as well as medical and pharmaceutical costs here in the US.

Of course things won't change magically, they'll require some work and a lot of effort - nobody who wants universal healthcare expects politicians to work miracles. I don't expect them to be waving wands and saving the world. Things can and should be better than they currently are.

It's not always about the cost either... you keep conveniently forgetting about "rescission," which at least ScardyBob and myself have brought up multiple times in this thread. Putting all of your faith into paying for (or receiving from your employer, in part or in full) a private health insurance firm for coverage, whose prime directive is to get out of paying for your treatment (after they've told you which facilities you may go to and which doctors you may visit), is not a very promising way of protecting your health. It's like trying to drain water from a sinking boat by drilling holes in the floor of the boat to let the water out.

 

If socialized medicine is so bad and private health insurance is so good, let's get all other socialized services into private hands! Like firefighters and police, for example.

You can have Fire Maintenance Organizations (FMOs) that you can call for a referral whenever your house is on fire. And if you have a break-in you will need to call your police station to find out if they handle robberies.

Yeah, that'd be great!

 

haha I wonder if this guy watches fox news. Lets all go to town hall meetings and complain about Obama's birth certificate!

IF THIS GOVERNMENT CAN'T RUN A CASH FOR CLUNKERS PROGRAM HOW CAN YOU EXPECT THEM TO HANDLE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!?!

 

Because they are trying to process the following logic
1. The government can't do anything right or successful
2. The 'cash for clunkers' program was successful

ERROR ERROR DOES NOT COMPUTE!!1111

 

Well it does show that the government is grossly incapable of determining a budget. If there 3 month estimate was gone in 4 days then I doubt they could handle more expansive projects responsibly.

Besides I dont belive that cash for clunkers has boosted the economy well enough to justify more spending.

There is a ballence with taxes that our government dosent understand. Essentially managing taxes is like raising and eating livestock. If you eat nothing the population of your Food Supply will grow immensely but you starve. If you eat everything you're fed for a day then you starve latter. If our government took the time to find the right tax rate that will allow for economic growth and a steady income to the government it will reach far more revenue than they would with a higher tax rate. Right now our current government has disregarded all income from the economy, and is printing its own money making a debate about taxes absolutely useless. Lowering the value of our dollar. And the trust that other countries put into us.
Not sustainable, not responsible, not intelligent.

Not the time for medical reform.

 

1. You're over $10T in debt.
2. This cash could be spent better. Government had to organize the whole thing so output cash amount is lower than input cash amount.
3. You shouldn't even spend this money. See 1.

So your reductio ad absurdum fails.

 

So by your argument, the government should stop spending on anything until the debt is fully repaid?

Also, what would be something better to spend the money on? We finally have a good example of an appropriate stimulus program (i.e. it increases demand in the U.S. auto sector in a timely fashion) that also reduces environmental emissions. I'd say rather than end it, we should expand it.

You seem to assume that we are on the right-hand side of the Laffer curve. But what if we are on the left-hand side? Then reductions in the tax rate will lead to reductions in revenue rather than increases. We might have been on the right-hand side during the 1940's when the tax rates peaked around 90%, but I doubt we are now. Although I can't find the source now, I've read that economists think the peak of the curve falls somewhere between 60 - 70%.

 

One big problem I have with many Americans is that when it comes to their country and people, they are so selfish. So what if you're living very comfortably with a nice job and good health care. There's lots of people who aren't so lucky. Many times (especially in this economic recession) people who lose their jobs are just unlucky. Finding new jobs is getting harder and harder, and even if you have a fancy college degree sometimes it isn't enough. What are those people supposed to do? Not everyone who is poor is that way because they are stupid and bad with money. There's a lot of people like this out there, whether you know it or not.

Why shouldn't everyone get health care? Is it morally right to let the poor suffer and die while the rich get top class medical services? At least give the poor something, some kind of basic health plan. If the richest people have to pay for it in taxes, so what? Its perfectly possible to live a happy life without obnoxious amounts of money.

While I know that pure socialism isn't a good idea, America is much farther from that than most people understand. Obama is not a socialist, the government does not want to control your life, and taxes will never be as high as Europe. So many Americans point to problems in the foreign health care systems, but actual foreigners from those countries (with the exception of the Polish guy here, from what he says the system sounds broken there) are saying that the systems are very convenient and work fine. If they're happy with their systems, why can't we be too?

On the subject of freedom and choice, I think that those things are very important too. Privately owned health care should be allowed, the same way that private education is. You can choose to use it, but you'll still be paying the taxes for the public system. Also, why hasn't anyone mentioned anything about how this would affect businesses? Not having to pay for health care for their employees would mean greater profit margins.

 

Actually, how many successfull national healthcares did you see?

British and Canadian so far.

Oh plenty!

USA got so insanely retardely huge debt that no one cares about it anymore...

YOU ARE OUT OF ZEROES, MR USA!

 

It's called unfair competition.

In general it is. I don't know the details of situation in USA so I can't really tell if basic services are too expensive.

BTW public health care speeds up "socialization". Government starts to care whether you smoke or not. They want you not to eat too much because healthcare costs will rise. They slowly start to control your life because all healthcare expenses are SHARED.

Amount of money in public healthcare system is always a problem. To get ahead in the queue you have to pay a bribe. To get costly services you have to pay a bribe. Or you can just legalize paying the bribe and switch back to private healthcare. However, very rich countries can afford public (IMO ineffective) system and offer decent services. It's just a waste of money.

 

Wait why don't we just shoot the poor people and use them as fuel?

2 birds one stone?