# Great quote about the healthcare shriekers



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 13, 2009)

"What confuses me is that if ignorance is bliss, why are these people so angry?"

— Len Kaminsky


(From Paul Krugman's blog on NYTimes.com)


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Aug 14, 2009)

Oh man, that's priceless! :lol:


----------



## Thonex (Aug 14, 2009)

These people that show up at these town-hall meetings and spew out moronic dribble are scary. And what's scarier is the organization driving them.... the insurance industry special interest groups. And why are they all white and seem to live south of the Mason-Dixon line?

Just sayin'

AK


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 14, 2009)

Isn't it obvious this is a bought and paid for performance by both sides...?
IMHO this is extremely, and dangerously divisive.
I think our ratings driven media is shameful.
To gamble with the gains that we have achieved over the last 40 years just to boost your ratings disgusts me.
What I personally am offended by is the way our children see this sickening view that only lives in the Media.
My sons friends are Laotian, Black, Mexican, Causcasian and American Indian. The looks on their confused faces makes me change the channel and I swear I am an inch away from cancelling our service and building an HTPC with these nifty ITX boards.
What's scarry is millions actually see this and believe it to be true. This is staged and shameful.
I hold all politicians and the media responsible for damaging our nation's trust.
They are responsible for allowing these big money groups to thrive.
Why, because they take money from them to get re-elected. After all is said and done that is their main goal. So naturually lobbyists and lawyers will continue to get FAT at our expense.
Don't be fooled by this left/right nonsense that is banged into our heads day after day.
It is the Haves and the Have nots, that's it. To believe you count or matter to these elitists in DC is laughable.


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 14, 2009)

i think kdms response is the best and most informed "other" point of view i have every heard or seen. 

most of the time is old white people just screaming death panels and socialists and the like. 


i think healthcare reform should be done but listening to both sides. 
but i think there has only been no more than 1000 people that have read this bill cause
its so big. even the politicians, they hire aides (which like any politicians is doubled faced) and will "summarize" it (just like with the iraki war" and hillary, 

so it should take some time, iron things out and listen to both parties.


----------



## Thonex (Aug 14, 2009)

The health insurance industry pretty much runs a monopoly. I've seen my health insurance costs sky rocket over the last 5 years... to the point that it feels like extortion.

The fact that the fed is trying to put forth an *alternate* insurance plan for those that can't afford the "Blue Crosses" of the world scares that crap out of the insurance agencies because they are the only "losers" in this scenario. They'll have to lower their rates to compete.. because they won't have the monopoly anymore.

This is LONG overdue... from the early 90's even... this didn't just occur on Obama's watch.

My opinion.

AK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 14, 2009)

Not surprisingly, kdm, I disagree with everything you're saying on multiple fronts.

But the first thing to remember is that the bill that's being proposed only went through House committee. The final one will be quite different.

Second, this is a mockery of democracy. Most of these poor fools have been stirred up by a carefully orchestrated campaign of lies and buzzwords like "socialism," and then the slime behind it pretend to be listening to their concerns. And as Bernie Sanders said on Rachel Maddow last night, the real victory for these scum-sucking pigs is that they have everyone talking about this instead of the real problem: that our healthcare is on an unsustainable path and that 15% (and growing) of our country doesn't have any insurance.

Meanwhile, Arianna Huffington raised another point that was in the back of my mind: what's really going on with most of these shriekers is that they're freaking out about the economy. That's what makes the ground so fertile.

But it's a disgusting abuse of democracy no matter how you look at it.


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 14, 2009)

Thonex @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> The health insurance industry pretty much runs a monopoly. I've seen my health insurance costs sky rocket over the last 5 years... to the point that it feels like extortion.
> 
> The fact that the fed is trying to put forth an *alternate* insurance plan for those that can't afford the "Blue Crosses" of the world scares that crap out of the insurance agencies because they are the only "losers" in this scenario. They'll have to lower their rates to compete.. because they won't have the monopoly anymore.
> 
> ...




i actually agree with this the most. the idea is the best one but between the idea and the way of achieving it seems to be the problem.
thus, listening to different sides , even insurance companies, is important to get
a more "real" solution as supposed to throwing out all this rules and regulations and expenses and risking for the solution to be worst than the problem. 

also i agree with things covering everyone in whatever circunstance. 

and in general the goverment, same as all developed nations gov'ts, needs to be 
involved in healthcare (not like here which is some rules and many lawsuits) 

and not mentioning BS things like charging double for my wife because she is in that pregnet age.. and i have not gone to a hispital in more than 12 years. cant hey just 
balance that out?! basically given them thousands of basically free money in all those years.


----------



## kdm (Aug 14, 2009)

Nick - no problem if you disagree, but the question is, did you actually read the bill and these issues I pointed out? "Disagreeing" with the fact that there will be an increase in tax doesn't really make sense as that's in the bill, and higher numbers have been discussed before (and may be amended before passage, or after). The amount of government involvement in health care is in the bill, it's isn't really a subjective opinion. 

My advice is to look objectively at both sides, as well as the middle, true economic, fiscal and real-world aspects of what has really transpired in the past 6-7 months. I assume you've read Arianna's editorial on the Healthcare bill here. She was less than kind in her response to the admin's handling of this bill.

Losing negotiating power on drug prices and potentially (or likely the public option, which imo, could be better structured) removes competition and the best method for controlling price.

Thonex - I completely agree that we need to lower costs and revamp the system, but this bill isn't using the power of the free market/competitive economic system to do it effectively. Just taking *any alternative* isn't the right approach - we aren't at a point where we can afford to experiment and hope it all pays for itself someday. 

The insurance industry isn't the monopoly. The insurance industry doesn't work the way most people think - it's a risk based system that shows profit simply because it *must* have cash on hand to fill claims - otherwise it goes bankrupt - the same will be true of the US government if a public option is realized. 

The real margin between costs plus projected claim payouts, vs. income for most insurance companies is smaller than people think - that doesn't dismiss the problems they create, just stating the reality from a business and economic perspective. The monopoly is the cyclic system that's both self-deprecating and self-feeding between insurance, providers, and pharmaceutical companies, with the general public's lack of knowledge in what choices to make and which to refuse, also being a factor. 

Blaming or penalizing the insurance industry without also reigning in drug company's ability to manipulate prices and sales through lobbying and deals with providers and insurers is missing the problem by a rather wide margin. Then we will at some point have to limit doctor's and hospital staff salaries, which will discourage people from pursuing expensive medical educations, or pursue research/education fields instead, lowering the available qualified pool in the healthcare industry. 

Insurance carriers now are in some cases charging elderly patients more than younger patients (this from my parents who are dealing with this very issue with my grandmother - that's not a Fox News story, it's the real world as gsiblers pointed out). 

This cycle is simply being made more lopsided with this bill putting restrictions on insurance (and even doctors/providers), but not on costs elsewhere. Carriers can also limit what medication brands/types are covered (and they are in my example's case, more expensive than alternatives/generics) - no surprise who negotiates this - drug companies.

Given that this is happening now, does anyone really think the government's "deal" with the drug companies, giving away their negotiating power, is going to improve that? It may well become even worse now that drug companies will also have politicians needing votes to "sell" instead of just insurance companies. We may be making the current problem worse, not better.

That's an unbalanced system that puts the burden on us, not the industry. It also puts more burden on people who hire employees and set wages and salaries - if our incomes go down by the same percentage as the business tax increases, we've lost more than we gain. 

We need a reformed system, but not more government control on a daily/case by case basis. Then if we lose carriers and options in the private insurance industry, which needs reform not decimation, we end up with fewer choices for private options, and the public option may be dead, so what then? 

What happens in 5 or 10 years when we don't agree with an administration's views of what is "acceptable" coverage, or what is a reasonable expense? You simply go without - back to square one. 

We are simply shifting too much of the change into one court (government/health secretary agency) instead of several (insurance companies). Like them or not, at least we have options now - we just need a better way to keep costs competitive instead of inter-dependant. Imo, that is the necessary balance to sustain the plan is dangerously lacking.

***

What I also want to point out is that simply dismissing opposition is abusing democracy just as much as the media is, and the media is slanted on *both* sides. The opposition is actually getting less factual press than hyped "crazies are talking!" coverage. If you read the White House emails, it's obvious they are in high spin mode as well, and aren't disclosing all of the facts, but the ones that make the bill appear better than it really is.

I really have no idea where the insurance company backing is developing.
My perception from many discussions with people around the country is that the "organization" of opposition is more media hype and political tactics than reality. 

But the question is, what do you expect people to do when they are up against the US government that isn't listening, and the pharm industry that put more money into the "health bill campaign" than anyone else?

Is it really only okay to oppose something in the US if you just speak quietly as an individual hiding behind a tree in your back yard, but as soon as you attend a town hall meeting and oppose "popular opinion" (not necessarily popular expertise), you are somehow un-Democratic, un-American, or a "shrieker"? People are scared because they realize they have no real voice once a politician is elected to office. They aren't scared because of the economy that was sold as a "disaster" by our President (the real economic disaster is yet to come); not because of the idea of fixing what is broking in our system, but because it's being presented with the attitude and approach of "we know what's best for you - go home and just trust us" as we spend more money. 

I'm sorry, but a "trust us" attitude is the best warning sign to *not* trust a politician, and most people know it from experience.  If Obama had presented this in stages, and held town hall meetings along the way for input instead of marketing, it might be much better received, in a more well-designed form.

Just read the bill, and decide for yourself where this is going. Look at the actual cycle of costs vs. expenses within a health care system. The results aren't going to be as epic as either side claims, but over the long run, it will be costly for us as tax payers, both financially, and in choices, at least until some natural balance is reached (good or bad). The current bill just falls far short of addressing the larger system and instead attempts to address problems from the ground up - starting with you and me, hoping the system itself will follow. Quite a bit too much wishful thinking for my tastes.


----------



## Thonex (Aug 14, 2009)

kdm @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> The insurance industry isn't the monopoly. The insurance industry doesn't work the way most people think - it's a risk based system that shows profit simply because it *must* have cash on hand to fill claims - otherwise it goes bankrupt - the same will be true of the US government if a public option is realized.
> 
> The real margin between costs plus projected claim payouts, vs. income for most insurance companies is smaller than people think - that doesn't dismiss the problems they create, just stating the reality from a business and economic perspective. The monopoly is the cyclic system that's both self-deprecating and self-feeding between insurance, providers, and pharmaceutical companies, with the general public's lack of knowledge in what choices to make and which to refuse, also being a factor.



Don't kid yourself KDM, the health care insurance companies exist for 1 reason... and one reason only... and that's to make as big a profit as humanly (pun intended) possible. Their motivation is to have the least payout possible while charging the highest premiums the market can bare.... in my opinion, there has rarely been as great a conflict of interest than health insurance companies have with their patients/policy holders.

Their blatant abuse of the system needs to end. I believe insurance companies should stay, but they are completely out of control.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,

AK

[EDIT] -- I do agree that the pharmaceuticals and the AMA are also partly to blame. But the insurance companies are the primary conduit of $$. Everything must go through them... so to speak.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Aug 14, 2009)

Thonex @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> kdm @ Fri Aug 14 said:
> 
> 
> > The insurance industry isn't the monopoly. The insurance industry doesn't work the way most people think - it's a risk based system that shows profit simply because it *must* have cash on hand to fill claims - otherwise it goes bankrupt - the same will be true of the US government if a public option is realized.
> ...



+1 Andrew


----------



## kdm (Aug 14, 2009)

Thonex @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> Don't kid yourself KDM, the health care insurance companies exist for 1 reason... and one reason only... and that's to make as big a profit as humanly (pun intended) possible. Their motivation is to have the least payout possible while charging the highest premiums the market can bare.... in my opinion, there has rarely been as great a conflict of interest than health insurance companies have with their patients/policy holders.
> .



No, I don't kid myself in any way as this is a serious issue and there is quite a bit of imbalanced and only partly informed blaming going on - that will only make matters worse. Don't kid yourself either - the government is trying to maintain voter approval with the real campaign financiers. We are not it.

My view comes from my own knowledge of the economics involved, and talking to people in the industry who have nothing to gain from backing it. 

Do you have specific information from reliable industry sources that support the assertion that insurance is the main cause of the problem? 

I think most studies show that it's a bit more complex than that since insurance is by nature an interdependent concept - that concept won't change just because the government gets involved.

Yes, of course they do exist to make a profit, as does every business not functioning as an completely altruistic organization. But most of the profit shown on paper is risk backing cash, not yachts and golden parachute plans (though that exists as well as we've seen in the past with Blue Cross, etc). 

Any publicly traded company becomes a profit-minded company rather than a service-minded company, so imho, maybe we should also start looking at investments and speculation as a source of many if not most of our economic and health system problems (it certainly caused the oil spike last year, and is the main reason for gas price swings on a daily basis). We really can't continue to survive on the notion of making profit off of increases - growth can't last forever - we need sustainable solutions, not solutions based on next year's income. Yet, this is exactly what the drug companies are banking on with this health plan - more customers - but who pays for it? Our taxes, and our payments into the plan - but we have to count the fact that additional insured means additional claims to be paid out, which means, additional costs up front. We are only going to expand what is taxing the Medicare/Medicaid system now. That's why the bill has sections on incentives to encourage limited services - it's the only way to limit the remaining controllable costs.

Drug companies are at least in an even less reliable position though. Their only risk is in research costs, not maintaining cash on hand, and they have a very strong lobbying power not only in Washington, but internationally as well. Insurers are at least isolated nationally, and broken down on a state by state basis due to insurance regulations. Not so for the pharm industry.

The pharm industry has deals with insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and now Congress and the President. To date, that puts them in the lead running for "least likely to benefit the consumer and most likely to benefit from national healthcare". 

But, regardless of what percentage of the problem can be attributed to whom, the real problem remains - *we* should be the benefactors *and* in control of our own decisions, not corporations, and not the government. The government is there to facilitate and serve the people, not instruct and decide for us.

My proposal has and will remain that we don't need a government funded public system, but rather a publicly funded, publicly run, pre-tax insurance option to compete with private carriers - a mix between a tax-subsidized and individual contribution Flex spending account system.

If large enough, the risk decreases and individual fees decrease. Some like this already exist and do in fact cost less than conventional insurers. The solutions are out there, but we don't seem to be looking in the right places.


----------



## kdm (Aug 14, 2009)

Thonex @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> hmmmm... why then are drug costs in the US exponentially more expensive than the rest of the civilized world? Because the US health care system is being run buy the insurance companies. Sure there are other players in bed with them... but... in my opinion... the insurance companies are the "enablers"



No, not entirely true. We pay on average twice what Canadians do based on a stats survey from 2007/8 or so I believe. Their doctors are actually paid the same or more, but taxes are higher for them in that bracket, as is the cost of living, and incentives for research are lower (based on what I've read from specialists and educational medical professionals in Canada. I think they also have a cap, or at least an artificial limit on what specialists can make, which is something the healthcare bill is proposing to limit here as well - the problem - we'll simply see fewer doctors motivated to pursue higher end careers. Well, before we start forcing lower incomes for people responsible for keeping us living, maybe we should address the massive salaries for people that simply entertain us by whacking a ball, etc. As much as I love the entertainment industry, we have to be realistic. We pay teachers low salaries, and want to limit what doctors make as well (some for good reason, some not so much), but won't give up the extreme excesses within our culture. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black and kicking it out of the cupboard too.

You have a valid point on addressing the insurance industry's control over our system, but I think it's missing the bigger picture that got us where we are with insurance in general, as a concept, not just an industry. The same pharm companies sell the same drugs in other countries at lower rates of course. But here, this is about an economic system that's based on charging as much as the demand will pay, and unfortunately, we've had enough demand and payout from Medicare/Medicaid along with insurance companies to maintain and increase those high costs. But also take into account how little taxes we pay vs. those other countries. 50% of all Americans pay no tax at all due to deductions. 

We pay more for medicine for the same reason we pay more for lower bandwidth internet access than other countries - our wealth basis can support higher costs, at least to a point - the point we have reached. The economic system itself (which insurance companies are part of) enables higher costs to be forced on the consumer, but we've reached a saturation point in not just healthcare but other areas as well. To ignore those and simply base our economic recovery hopes on a new healthcare system is extremely unwise. If we simply start putting caps on industries to limit prices, we'll see falling incomes as well, which also means a falling tax base. That means we run out of money faster for a new system if we take a slash and burn approach to capping what we have now. 

Sidebar example: Currently credit card companies are jacking up rates, no doubt anticipating Congress passing limits on rate changes. The problem is, while the Administration announces these plans to the credit industry, giving it time to pre-empt those laws, it is rushing a massive health care system overhaul through. A rather backwards approach if you ask me - don't telegraph limits on credit rate jacking, etc, just do it. The plan to telegraph, discuss and debate, is healthcare. It isn't going to implode overnight, but the economy might if too many people see (as we just did on one card) credit rates jump from 10% to 22% overnight. 

Insurance companies are no doubt part of the problem. I also have first hand experience (via my parents caring for my grandmother) with this very thing - more expensive medication is the only one "covered" by insurance. There are alternative brands that are exactly the same, so why is only a more expensive brand covered? A deal with the pharmeceutical company to do so - of course it benefits insurance companies and drug manufacturers. The problem is we don't have restrictions on either, and restricting just one doesn't solve the problem.

My point isn't to exclude the insurance industry from culpability in costs, but prevent the debates from focusing on the insurance industry almost to the exclusion of any other factor, and miss the realities of how a health care "insuring" system must work to survive. That's why I posted the risk/cash flow explanation. That can not be avoided - it's simple economics of income vs. expenditures - it doesn't matter if it's Blue Cross or the White House in charge - one has a simple profit motive behind it's decisions (bad for us), and the other has political power and campaign financing motives behind it (bad for us). 

That's why health care NEEDS to have a public component and competitive fairness as it's primary basis - to balance off the corporate and political influences. We simply can't have a system that will only barely change every 4 to 8 years based simply on political elections, popularity polls and constituent voting tendencies.

No matter what path we take, we'll have to balance the amount of income the system generates with the costs it can incur. To do this without trading one ill for another, I think it is extremely wise to take a phased approach and not simply rush into a "solve it now" bill that was originally scheduled to be voted on into the Senate before anyone had a real chance to review it. At least this debate gives more than a handful of people a chance to look closer.

The missing link in the whole debate seems to be "we the people". "We" want a solution, but too many of us don't seem to be willing to evaluate the tradeoffs rationally. 

Change what is broken, absolutely. But first address *ALL* of the broken corners of the system, not just the most popular punching bags. If "we the people" want a system that works for us, we need to be skeptical of *ALL* of the players, the administration and Congress included.


----------



## Thonex (Aug 14, 2009)

kdm @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> Thonex @ Fri Aug 14 said:
> 
> 
> > My point isn't to exclude the insurance industry from culpability in costs, but prevent the debates from focusing on the insurance industry almost to the exclusion of any other factor



Ever gone fishing?

You catch 'em one at a time :wink: 

I say.. start with the biggest culrpit... and the others will fall into place. If they don't... then go fishing again... :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 14, 2009)

kdm, I also don't like the deal with Big Pharma. Like many liberals I don't agree with the whole concept of compromising with Republicans in general, let alone giving the health insurance companies "a place at the table." Instead of having the desired effect, it makes everything Obama was elected to do...well, limp.

But we're not going to get a perfect healthcare bill, and right now the fight is between something pretty good and absolutely nothing. What's most important is that - since we can't have a "single payer" system in this political world - we have a "public option." There's absolutely no public good served by health insurance companies making a profit. I've heard higher estimates, but let's say that only $350 billion a year is wasted on "risk evaluation" (i.e. not paying for healthcare). That's about 2% of GDP right there.

The main point is, again, that we're on an unsustainable course. And Obama is right to set a schedule for healthcare reform. Nothing would get done without the last minute.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 14, 2009)

But let's really look at why the insurance companies make money.
That's thier business. 
They will make a targeted revenue stream regardless of their overall costs, due to Doctors conducting tests that are unnecessary, but rather as a safety precaution, or excessive, frivolous lawsuits.
But who passes this secretive legislation we never get a chance to vote on.....? 
The politicians. And both sides take money from every possible source and pass laws that actually hurt it's citizens.
Pharmacutical lobbyists stopped seniors from buying drugs from Canada.......why?
Well because they bought the law......
This endless game of politicians blaming the insurance companies, then the racially charged distractions that every blogger is regurgitating is only temporary cover for the real culprits here.
I can't believe how this hatred of the right and the left and the black and the white has clouded peoples judgements.
It is the politicians who have screwed us over and over. 
These leftist haters are as disgusting as the right wing radio talk shows.
The extreme left and right make me sick with thier hatred.
They are actually scarry, but thankfully most of them are just blowing off steam, but trust me. The extreme right wingers are quite finatical and are capable of extreme violence and have a rather large silent base. I do pray this racially charged nonsense stops before someone we know or care about gets hurt.
My father is 87 years old and slowly losing more of everything every month. It is sad as he served his country proudly in WWII and raised 4 sons and provided college funds and is the most honorable person I ever heard of or met. Yet his insurance won't cover his monthly bills, and Medicare has a 4500 per month cap or Doughnut hole. 
Should we demonize somebody for this shortcoming...........Well before I go off on a rant about insurance companies or medicare, all I can say is that they both are providing proper care and out of pocket expenses, so I have no anger at either program. My father covers the rest of the bills out of his own money.
But who has raised the costs for everyone...? Lawyers.....who allows this to continue....the politicians.
So while many will follow the party line and point their fingers and continue their blind hatred, just ask yourself if anyone ever asked you for a vote on these self serving laws that politicians keep passing all for the sake of what,>>> A re-election.
That's the real issue here, so the blame can go around to everyone, but what the insurance companies do is legal thanks to the politicians who could care less about the have nots.
This left and right game seems to fool millions who are glued to the tube and the blogs. This distraction is great fodder no doubt.
But when the trucks stop rolling, and people take to the streets it all boils down to the Have and the Have nots.......nothing ever changes. Rome, British Empire.....people should study their history more than some hateful self serving entertainment program designed to achieve higher ratings.

Pardon me if I have inadvertantly angered anyone. But it bothers me to see how successful our big money controlled media has succeeded.


----------



## midphase (Aug 14, 2009)

Chimuelo,

You're pointing the finger at everybody, but the system has to change somewhere. Yes, I hate lobbying groups (I think they should be made illegal), I hate big pharma, I hate big insurance companies, I hate the media, and above all, I hate how they all influence our lawmakers.

We have a chicken/egg situation here, as long as we keep blaming everyone, nothing gets done...nothing!

I say let's beging somewhere, what Obama is doing is a good start. Next year we can hopefully begin to address the rest...but for now, let's support this initiative otherwise we're stuck with the same crap!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 14, 2009)

What Kays says. It does no good just to throw in the towel.

But I've said it again and I'll say it before: the most important step toward changing our government of/by/for the lobbyists is to take the money out of political campaigns. There should be no political advertising on the public airwaves. Freeing politicians from having to raise so much money to get re-elected would remove the biggest corrupting influence in one swell foop.


----------



## nomogo (Aug 14, 2009)

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8140/leftvsconservatards.png (http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8140/lef ... atards.png)


J


----------



## kdm (Aug 14, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> What Kays says. It does no good just to throw in the towel.
> 
> But I've said it again and I'll say it before: the most important step toward changing our government of/by/for the lobbyists is to take the money out of political campaigns. There should be no political advertising on the public airwaves. Freeing politicians from having to raise so much money to get re-elected would remove the biggest corrupting influence in one swell foop.



Agreed. 

And I would go a step further and suggest completely publicly funding elections with a set amount of something like $20M from tax budget for each candidate from 3 parties that are vetted in inter-party primaries - take the party support out of the equation and give the actual vote more weight. My thinking is that if they can manage $20M and get elected, we can more safely give them a chance to manage the trillions at stake. 

And I agree on banning political advertising. Advertising simply creates the illusion of popularity and/or capability, but says nothing about a leader's actual ability to lead. And debates should be mandatory well before primaries, well before "handlers" create a message for the candidate. Let's hear the real person behind the scripts and speech writers.

And one term for Congress and the President. Force them to actually get something done in a short period of time with no re-election distraction, and no chance to build backroom ties and "seniority" that gives some Senate/Congressional members more power than others - this opposes the concept of "equal representation". 

***
While I agree that we need to take some first steps in revamping health care (and other areas), it troubles me that the country has allowed itself to be so quick to accept whatever that solution might be based on "different", "change" or "anything is better than nothing". 

The time to ask questions isn't after we start down an irreversible path. It is never too late to act wisely, but acting rashly is always foolish, even if you do get lucky. This isn't an 11th hour crisis needing a hail Mary play, though it has been pitched that way. 

We have more power as voters and consumers than we exercise, but the increasing tendency in our instant-gratification, ADD society is to grab at whatever looks or sounds appealing, hang on, and hope for the best. 

The immediate issue we face now though, is that we are in a precarious position economically (more than I think most realize). The prior credit and mortgage crisis is nothing compared to what is looming on the horizon. 

I guess we'll see what the impact is in time. Support for the bill really means nothing at our level. We were out of the picture after last November. 

If everyone suddenly gets better and cheaper health care, great. But I just wouldn't count on it. No doubt the old adage will again ring true: "you get what you pay for".


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 14, 2009)

"The prior credit and mortgage crisis is nothing compared to what is looming on the horizon"

How so?


----------



## Thonex (Aug 14, 2009)

kdm @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> This isn't an 11th hour crisis needing a hail Mary play, though it has been pitched that way.



Actually, yes... I think in a way it is. 

Consider Obama's timing in history to be elected President. Four years ago it wouldn't of happened. If he wasn't elected this time around, I fear the opportunity would be lost for decades. Just look at Sotomayor... all the resistance she was getting publicly.

I think we have a small window of opportunity to make a difference here... before special interests sway the sheep.

My opinion.

AK


----------



## kdm (Aug 14, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> "The prior credit and mortgage crisis is nothing compared to what is looming on the horizon"
> 
> How so?



A combination of factors I've watched building over the past decade or so. Extended economic basis built on foreign credit, growing deficit that is projected (by government auditors) to exceed the GDP's margin for payback potential, lack of physical product and assets to support the economic debt basis, and the credit crisis hasn't really hit the consumer yet. Hopefully it won't, but recent rate hikes have me concerned that it is coming - see commentary by Peter Schiff from 2007 or so on this; Ron Paul also warned a while back - hopefully they were seeing a worst case scenario, or "perfect storm" that won't materialize.

My broader concern started back during the dot com boom (or caught my attention more then) - increasingly over the decades we've built a lot of economic success indicators on the concept of infinite growth - always rising housing prices, always rising investment vehicles, 10% more sales every year, add more businesses and jobs to increase the economy rather than increasing the effectiveness of the businesses and jobs we have, etc. 

But there is a saturation point for every market and society - constant growth is not sustainable, or reality. To avoid hitting the saturation "wall", and the resulting crash that follows, we need to develop plateau models for "sustain and improve" in business, communities, and on a national and international level. "Growth" is a fleeting myth as a barometer for success and basis for stability and lasting sustainability of any resource, social or economic system.

OT for the thread, but that's my perspective at least.


----------



## kdm (Aug 14, 2009)

Thonex @ Fri Aug 14 said:


> kdm @ Fri Aug 14 said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't an 11th hour crisis needing a hail Mary play, though it has been pitched that way.
> ...



Economically I agree, but not for healthcare.



> Consider Obama's timing in history to be elected President. Four years ago it wouldn't of happened. If he wasn't elected this time around, I fear the opportunity would be lost for decades. Just look at Sotomayor... all the resistance she was getting publicly.
> 
> I think we have a small window of opportunity to make a difference here... before special interests sway the sheep.



I understand your perspective and your concern is valid for sure, but we've had a small window of opportunity for years and never taken it. We haven't changed the larger elephant and donkey in the room, and in fact we've given even greater weight to it's power (the power of one party to control government is significant now, but with one of the least effective, trustworthy Congressional rosters we've had in years). 

I have a similar concern, but my perspective varies a bit in that I see the danger in looking at events like Obama and Sotomayor as "signs and wonders" that we've turned a corner of sorts or finally found our path of "hope", when they aren't related to the economic and social issues we really face, though it is easy to view them as such (pardon the exaggerated "signs..." reference - best I could think of atm). 

It goes a bit deeper than that and there is plenty of reason to doubt the "timing" of Obama's rise to popularity as anything but planned (for other purposes than better health care - i.e. same old, same old political manipulation), but I need to move on here. (I wanted to like him, fwiw, so this isn't my subjective political opinion).

Operating with pragmatic, color/culture-blind, honest, and objective wisdom on a broader scale is the only way to really address issues of racism, corruption, greed, social apathy, lack of compassion, etc. Politics and elections won't do it for us. Applauding racial firsts, however noble, only shows we have yet to truly become a nation that sees the person and the qualifications, rather than the culture, skin or ethnicity in front of us. Sodermayor is qualified, as were other potential candidates. She's made some questionable decisions in regards to racial fairness in the past, but as long as they were anomalies and not general thinking, she will work for everyone's benefit, rather than a few. Obama wasn't necessarily qualified for the real issues many predicted were about to break, but the real questions were never asked, and never answered. Interestingly, in 2007/early 2008 Peter Schiff predicted a credit crisis would hit in November of 2008. Makes one wonder if it was a simple matter of mapping out trends and likely culmination of those trends... or.....

The problem we risk in general is solving past problems by swinging too far in the opposite direction rather than finding the true middle ground, and deciding as a people to work towards that ground. We can't expel the problem of special interests by giving attention to other special interests. There has been quite a lot of reactionary decision making at all levels in the past 8-12 months, and that isn't good for the kind of changes we need to be making. There has also been too much partisan, special interest thinking and decision making for us to *truly* start minimizing the special interest impact on our country.

I fear we are replacing one special interest with another. That isn't progress, it's a playground see-saw ride. 

Just want to say thanks for the level-headed discussion guys. It's good to see diverse opinions and debates happen without name calling, anger, frustration, etc. Conversations like this are how we really solve problems, whether we agree on the actual problems and solutions or not.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 14, 2009)

Totally agree about the debate.
Too bad our leaders can't be better role models.
Trust me nobody wants stable fair prices more than me.
My sons clear Braces are 7800 USD, I only have 5000 coverage.
Add my enormous personal property taxes I have to pay every year now on a house that was 938,000 and is only worth 400,000 grand now and it's not hard to see how I despise these elitists who damn near ruined our country as they take sweetheart deals or retire to their 4000 acre ranches down in Texas.
Instead of building my 1U streamers and buying LASS I am paying for braces that should be covered, and saving every dime until October just to keep the house I already paid for.............$%$%^&.
Gold Bless America though, right or wrong.

Now get rid of the lawyers and lobbyists......... /\~O


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 14, 2009)

> growing deficit that is projected (by government auditors) to exceed the GDP's margin for payback potential, lack of physical product and assets to support the economic debt basis, and the credit crisis hasn't really hit the consumer yet. Hopefully it won't, but recent rate hikes have me concerned that it is coming - see commentary by Peter Schiff from 2007 or so on this; Ron Paul also warned a while back - hopefully they were seeing a worst case scenario, or "perfect storm" that won't materialize.



And other economists point to how we had a debt that was way higher - 125% of GDP - in the 1940s, yet we had several decades of rising living standards and the debt went down. I tend to believe them; when the economy tanks, it makes sense for the government to spend. Keynes was a smart fellow.

Now, it's true that we don't have an industrial economy anymore (that ended with Volker/Reagan), and we do have a dance with the Chinese 9 ||: borrow to buy and fuel their growth :|| . That can probably continue for a good long time, though.

And I'm not sure that we need physical goods. We do produce plenty of food - at least for now until we run out of cheap oil - and as long as people buy stuff like music and "information," we're producing things.

So it's not a slam dunk that the world is coming to an end. And Ron Paul is amusing but not to be taken seriously.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 14, 2009)

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/ashevil ... 51DDDOSCQK

Those town hall meetings will end now............ =o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 15, 2009)

> The problem with Keynes theory is that it assumes debt is the catalyst by way of an infusion of cash into the system, but I firmly believe that depends on a growing GDP to repay that debt. This works, or appears to work (by creating other greater true catalysts), in a smaller or contained economy with significant growth potential outside of it's borders, as happened in the 50s here. But the world economy is very different now - we are reaching a saturation point to some degree where borrowed cash infusion isn't going to create enough return to balance the debt created, and maybe not even the interest on that debt




The world can't support first world living standards for everyone, in other words there are too many people for the natural resources that are available. So we are facing down ecological collapse, and my intuitive guess is that we're going to start feeling that in maybe ten years. And of course every country's economy is diluted by every other country's economy in today's world.

But I don't see why it requires only "tangible" goods for economies to keep growing; as long as money gets circulated and people get paid for doing things, the domestic product is growing. I also don't know how anyone can predict where the saturation point is. Where did the digital revolution come from, for example? Thin air. The next thing appears to be renewable energy, but there's always been something people want to buy. Ancient people bought shells, we buy sample libraries.

As to as expansion depending on growth outside our borders, that's definitely an issue with many facets. The thing is, as long as the dollar remains the gold standard - which may or may not happen - we're always going to have a trade deficit; the question is whether that itself is a problem.

It's definitely a problem that if we want to export "intangible" things like music, films, etc., we're going to have to figure out a way for our work not to get pirated. And of course we're going to have to restore our prestige in the world, something that's really suffered the past eight years. Obama is making the right noises there, I think.

It's also a problem for us that China and India are turning out several times as many college graduates as we are every year, and they're willing to work for a lot less. Obama understands that very clearly and is making all the right noises about it too. Maybe that's next after healthcare?

Okay, I'm way off topic now...


----------

