Our Obamacare Nightmare

[roughdraft274]

LOL!!

Okay. I'm expecting you'll be protesting about how you never said he should have enough money for all his needs, too. Right?

Saying "making X amount of money, you should be able to afford Z" is not the same as saying "making X means your rich"

As I said before, you are lying. Stop being dishonest. If I am incorrect then you shouldn't need to lie to make a point.

 

[Born Free]

Exactly. All that is common sense and confirmed by all the evidence. The best guess (from what I've seen of the studies) is the Laffer Curve turns over at marginal rates somewhere around 70-80%. We aren't at those rates, so tax rate cuts at relevant rates, even according to the "Laffer Curve," will as predicted reduce government revenues, and vice versa.

The funny thing is I've had this debate at least a dozen times with right wingers. It always ends the same way. Us ignorant liberals present data and evidence that convincingly debunk the talking points, right wingers (if they respond) ignore the evidence, reassert some talking points, then abandon the discussion.

Who is better at growing the economy, the government or the private sector?

 

[JasperL]

Who is better at growing the economy, the government or the private sector?

You've changing the topic, but that's fine. Obviously, the private sector IS the economy, and government does not exist without the private sector to fund it, although government is necessary for a properly functioning economy and so some level of it is necessary for economic growth. And as I said over and over above, there is a trade off between larger government and economic growth - tax rate increases, necessary to fund growing government, impede economic growth.

What I objected to was the silly notion that we can grow government by decreasing tax rates, which is what the Laffer Curve, as interpreted by conservative hacks, promises at the end of the day.

 

[MTAtech]

Yep.....They attacked Bush on medicare advantage. And they attacked him on the "no child left behind" bill even though it was all but written by Ted "Chappaquiddic" Kennedy.

Try to debate honestly. Liberals attacked Bush on the funding of Medicare Part D. Just about everyone looking at Medicare Advantage concluded it was a boondoggle. The only "they" who attacked No Child Left Behind were conservatives, who don't believe education is a federal function.

 

[MTAtech]

Who is better at growing the economy, the government or the private sector?

That depends. In a normal economy, economic growth happens through the private sector. However, when demand collapses, the government becoming demand of last resort and spending money is a more effective way towards recover than waiting for the economy to heal itself.

But indeed, you have clearly abandoned the previous debate as to whether tax-cuts pay for themselves and have changed the subject.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Try to debate honestly. Liberals attacked Bush on the funding of Medicare Part D. Just about everyone looking at Medicare Advantage concluded it was a boondoggle. The only "they" who attacked No Child Left Behind were conservatives, who don't believe education is a federal function.

Sorry to break it to you, sport, however after initially supporting No Child Left Behind, the democrats went on to bashing it over it's focus on educational testing. They did not care about the teaching...they just wanted the funding.

 

[Born Free]

You've changing the topic, but that's fine. Obviously, the private sector IS the economy, and government does not exist without the private sector to fund it, although government is necessary for a properly functioning economy and so some level of it is necessary for economic growth. And as I said over and over above, there is a trade off between larger government and economic growth - tax rate increases, necessary to fund growing government, impede economic growth.

What I objected to was the silly notion that we can grow government by decreasing tax rates, which is what the Laffer Curve, as interpreted by conservative hacks, promises at the end of the day.

Thank you.

 

[Born Free]

That depends. In a normal economy, economic growth happens through the private sector. However, when demand collapses, the government becoming demand of last resort and spending money is a more effective way towards recover than waiting for the economy to heal itself.

But indeed, you have clearly abandoned the previous debate as to whether tax-cuts pay for themselves and have changed the subject.

Sorry but Keynesian followers are naive

 

[US Conservative]

Sorry to break it to you, sport, however after initially supporting No Child Left Behind, the democrats went on to bashing it over it's focus on educational testing. They did not care about the teaching...they just wanted the funding.

Same thing with head start.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Same thing with head start.

Progressives only favor programs that they can continuously throw additional funding into.

 

[US Conservative]

Progressives only favor programs that they can continuously throw additional funding into.

Agreed with the addition that they also must increase dependence on govt as well.

 

[Mycroft]

Saying "making X amount of money, you should be able to afford Z" is not the same as saying "making X means your rich"

As I said before, you are lying. Stop being dishonest. If I am incorrect then you shouldn't need to lie to make a point.

I think it's pathetic when a liberal is reduced to thinking they have any right...or ability...to judge how another person manages their money. It sounds almost...Republican. You know...the flip side of telling the working poor they need to earn more or stop buying cable TV. But then, liberals are like that.

But don't you realize, roughdraft...Obamacare considers the OP as being one of the working poor, too?

 

[Born Free]

Agreed with the addition that they also must increase dependence on govt as well.

Thus the need for bigger government and more funding. It's a death spiral.

 

[US Conservative]

Thus the need for bigger government and more funding. It's a death spiral.

Indeed, a death spiral that left is sprinting for and diving in head first.

 

[Lakryte]

You can have your house, keep your kids in college while having health insurance. I don't know all of your details but its extremely possible. Dropping one of those things aren't the only options.

Try to put your kids through college when your awful health insurance refuses to pay out a monster medical bill.

Have you read anything I said? If we wanted to keep our original insurance we could not afford college education bills and our mortgage. Period! I gave all of the details you need to accept that reality. Why do you refuse to accept my problems as real and use such a condescending and completely unsympathetic tone?

Obamacare forced us to choose: Keep our insurance and our doctor and lose our house or stop paying for college, or keep our house and keep paying for college but sign up for a plan on healthcare.gov, lose our old insurance, and lose our doctor. The latter is what happened. So you can cut the nonsense about "you chose to lose your doctor" and the rest because if not for Obamacare such a choice would never have existed.

 

[MTAtech]

Sorry but Keynesian followers are naive

That must be on of the most stupid statements of all time, considering the number of brilliant economists and professionals who accept that Keynesian economics is a valid model. These are people on the right and the left.

 

[MTAtech]

Saying "making X amount of money, you should be able to afford Z" is not the same as saying "making X means your rich"

As I said before, you are lying. Stop being dishonest. If I am incorrect then you shouldn't need to lie to make a point.

I think it's pathetic when a liberal is reduced to thinking they have any right...or ability...to judge how another person manages their money. It sounds almost...Republican. You know...the flip side of telling the working poor they need to earn more or stop buying cable TV. But then, liberals are like that.

But don't you realize, roughdraft...Obamacare considers the OP as being one of the working poor, too?

Thanks for mis-characterizing the discussion, which isn't about liberals telling you how to manage your money. The OP claimed that he couldn't afford the insurance. roughdraft274 stated that he could, if he chose to.

 

[MTAtech]

OK, then please explain the Clinton tax rate increases and why we didn't see a drop in revenue, and instead revenues boomed, and those gains were sustained for the duration of the cycle? Furthermore, following the W. Bush tax rate cuts, it took near the end of his term, and the peak of a massive, worldwide speculative debt bubble for revenues to just reach pre-tax cut levels.
...

What is also interesting is the conservative predictions at the time, should tax-rates rise:

The Heritage Foundation
Heritage, argued that the tax increase would somehow lead to “higher deficits” and that it served as a “recipe for a recession.” The organization also predicted that the tax increase would “destroy jobs” and “undermine America’s international competitiveness.”

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): ”Mr. President, taxpayers will adjust to these new taxes by shifting investments into ones that generate fewer taxes by working less and by taking fewer risks. The consequences will punish far more than just the wealthy. Economic growth will slow and fewer jobs will be created.” (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): This package contains the largest tax increase in history, and promises deficit reduction. This package will not reduce the Federal debt, or even balance one annual budget for that matter. (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH: ”I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession.
It might take 1 and a half or 2 years, but it will happen.” (From the Congressional Record on February 2nd, 1993)

SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA):
"Mr. President, I really do not think it takes a rocket scientist to know this bill will cost jobs." (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

Not only were conservative prediction wrong, the were grossly wrong. Instead of recessions, as they predicted, we had an economic boom. Instead of deficits, we has surpluses. Instead of job losses, we had 22 million jobs created.

 

[Born Free]

That must be on of the most stupid statements of all time, considering the number of brilliant economists and professionals who accept that Keynesian economics is a valid model. These are people on the right and the left.

Really, I would say your response is the most stupid statement of all time, considering this report, all of which you wish to ignore.

Four Reasons Why Keynesian 'Stimulus' Does Not Work | Cato @ Liberty

 

[MTAtech]

Really

Four Reasons Why Keynesian 'Stimulus' Does Not Work | Cato @ Liberty

Of course, quote CATO, which is shill agenda driven think tank.

Robert Samuelson: The verdict on the economic stimulus - The Washington Post
Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject - The Washington Post
How well did the stimulus work? | Marketplace.org
Did the Stimulus Create Jobs?

But the question wasn't whether this stimulus worked, it was a statement denouncing anyone who believes in Keynesian economics as naive. Sorry, that is stupid. Milton Friedman believed in Keynes' theories - and lots of other economists, on the left and right, also do or did (because they're dead.)

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Geez. I am at the ripe old age of 60 and never experienced that ""no care" you are ranting on about.

But there's tens of millions of tax-paying American citizens who HAVE experienced NO-care. I have, in the years before I joined the Navy. It sucks. And it cost my brother his life, since he refused to sign up for O-care (thanks to right-wing fear-mongering) last December and so couldn't afford to go to the doctor. I buried him this past February.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I personally do not know any righties who claim that all government is bad all the time. I doubt that you do either. Perhaps its a comprehension issue. A conservative says "I support limited government"....and you stammer: "YOU HATE GOVERNMENT AT ANY LEVEL!!!!!" Relax. We merely support what Democrat presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson supported.

Okay, fine - you support 'limited government'.

And every democracy that does NOT have the "big government" you hate so much...is a third-world nation. And every first-world democracy has that very same socialized government (including America) that you are sure is the path to the economic dustbin of history. But who's on top? Who's been on top for over half a century? The ones you're sure can't succeed.

As I keep telling you, you're arguing against results. If your dogma can't explain the reality, then don'tcha think it's time to question the dogma?

Look, guy, what worked in the late 1700's and early 1800's does not mean that it would work today. The Founding Fathers cannot have envisioned the world we have today. We are in uncharted territory. And because of that, we need to use what WORKS...and what is working the best in the world (and has worked the best in the world for the past half century) is socialized democracy like ALL first-world democracies (including America) have.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Try to spin it anyway you like, sport. However an individuals habits are quite connected to one's longevity. And my problem with the WHO rankings is that they do not take the difference in how each nation tabulates it's health statistics into account. For instance, most of the nations in the rankings do not count infant births as live births if they do not make it out of the hospital. The US counts them if they simply manage a few breaths at delivery. That affects our infant mortality rate, yet WHO does not take that into account.

True - but there's a heck of a lot fewer babies who die at birth than there are people who die because of smoking.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Opinion poll numbers? Give me a break! I am in the VA healthcare system. While despite the scandal, I have been treated pretty well, to suggest that it's eaual to or better then the average private care is a ludricrous stretch.

Is it ludicrous? Even if you've had care at both the VA and in the civilian world - and chances are that you have - your personal experiences don't disprove the numbers, just like I cannot use the fact that I lost a child due to sloppy care at a civilian hospital to attack civilian care. What you didn't realize, though, is that the numbers I provided are NOT "opinion numbers" - they're lengths of stay, they're mortality rates, they're rates of medical complications. Those aren't opinions - they're hard-and-fast NUMBERS.

AGW numbers are hard and fast? AGW is a cultish hoax. As for evolution......I very much believe in evolution...though not likely quite in the same way that atheists do.

Yeah, 90% of the world's scientists are all in on the hoax - all those scientists who have been so right about everything else from quantum physics to plate tectonics to the holes in the ozone layer to acid rain to the polar vortex to solar flares (and the concomitant aurorae borealis) are wrong about THIS ONE THING: AGW.

Mm-hmm.... And they've all been able to keep it secret from you, too. And of course Big Oil is VERY patriotic - they wouldn't be financially supporting those who claim AGW's a hoax just because they want to continue to make untold billions of dollars...no, they wouldn't do THAT, now would they?

Here's the thing, guy. Sometimes scientists are wrong. What happens is that when one scientist makes a claim, the other scientists try to replicate that claim in the laboratory. If one or more scientist makes a grand claim - like Pons and Fleischmann did with "cold fusion" (which I'm sure you remember) - it set the global scientific community on its ear...

...until the other scientists tried replicating the claims...and none have been able to do so. And so Pons and Fleischmann were discredited - quite shamefully, I might add.

You see, scientists are a very, very competitive lot. As with any explorer, they LOVE to be the first to discover something, they LOVE to be the one who's right when everyone else is wrong...and they LOVE to prove other scientists wrong - just ask Pons and Fleischmann. Scientists are, as a whole, anything BUT the monolithic mass you seem to believe. The ONLY - repeat, the ONLY - time that 90% or more of modern scientists agree on something is that if it is painfully, glaringly obvious to all.

And that is why it's nothing short of ludicrous that 90% of all scientists, 97% of all climatologists, and every national science foundation on the planet would all agree on one thing...unless that one thing was painfully, glaringly obvious. And just like the holes in the ozone layer, AGW IS that painfully, glaringly obvious.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

When did I say that no healthcare was better than any of those options? I am talking about the system as a whole, not the individual level. Surely you should be able to comprehend that. According to this source, only 27% of people signing up for Obamacare were uninsured. Study: ObamaCare not reaching uninsured | TheHill

Of those 27%, I am sure medicaid was already available to most of them. If not, then simply expanding medicaid would have sufficed if the goal were to expand insurance, rather than an overhaul that seems to benefit the insurance companies more than anything else by allowing them to charge higher premiums.

Survey shows...YEP! The number of insured is dropping significantly!