patrick.net

I want the same insurance coverage that state senators enjoy.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

Obama rocks !! ...When was the last time when an American President actually thought of poor, sick and downtrodden.

interpretame says

Looks like my (extensive) response (with multiple links) will be “awaiting moderation” FOREVER.

Wordpress has very weird (and dumb) sense of logic what constitutes spam/bad post. For example, if certain posts contains more than certain number of links, it tags for "moderation". Does not make too much sense to me.

How can the Gov't afford "affordable" or "free" health ins for the XX million uninsured and underinsured with a multi trillion annual deficit? This is the heart of the issue. It can't be sustainable long term w/o serious consequences. Like rationing, doctor shortages, hospital shortages, delays, higher taxes, more debt, threat of hyperinflation, etc. Some solutions I see are: 1) eliminate licensing requirements for med schools, hospitals, pharmacies, doctors, etc. 2) eliminate gov't restrictions on production and sale of drugs and med devices - no FDA 3) deregulate health ins industry 4) eliminate subsidies to the sick and unhealthy These will go a long ways to improving the health care mess.

My mother applied for mine & my sister's Social Security cards at the same time; we were issued cards 30 numbers apart. My theory is that my mother has hidden my 29 brothers & sisters from me in an attempt to cast doubt on my inheritance.

And President Obama's grandmother & mother colluded to make it appear that he was born in the United States because they were aware that he would be President some day. It all make sense to me now!

I'm off to the garage now, thanks for listening and please pass the skull on the way out.

wcalleallegre says

How can the Gov’t afford “affordable” or “free” health ins for the XX million uninsured and underinsured with a multi trillion annual deficit? This is the heart of the issue. It can’t be sustainable long term w/o serious consequences. Like rationing, doctor shortages, hospital shortages, delays, higher taxes, more debt, threat of hyperinflation, etc.

How can every other wealthy country on the planet provide universal coverage? What a stupid argument. And, yes, I know that there are funding problems in some countries medical systems. There are many more that are perfectly sound. We *ALREADY* pay for the uninsured, buddy, we just do so in a horribly inefficient manner. If you don't believe that we foot the bill for the uninsured, spend some time in an emergency room one Friday night and then try to say with a straight face that all the people being treated are insured.

elliemae says

My mother applied for mine & my sister’s Social Security cards at the same time; we were issued cards 30 numbers apart. My theory is that my mother has hidden my 29 brothers & sisters from me in an attempt to cast doubt on my inheritance.
And President Obama’s grandmother & mother colluded to make it appear that he was born in the United States because they were aware that he would be President some day. It all make sense to me now!
I’m off to the garage now, thanks for listening and please pass the skull on the way out.

1. Do you have a twin sister? If this is the case, could you share with us whether the birth certificate registration numbers are consecutive or not? These numbers are not reused, so I would expect that those numbers would be consecutive.

It is my understanding that social security numbers are reused. Could it be that the first two available social security numbers for you and your sister were not consecutive but apart?

2. I never claimed that Obama's grandmother and mother knew that he would run for presidency. This is a product of your imagination with the intent to ridicule my questioning of Obama's eligibility.
If I had a grandchild born in a third-world country, I would have tried to register his birth in the USA because it would be easier for him to go through life as a US citizen. As simple as that.

There would be no need for us to speculate about any of these things if Obama would do the same as McCain did last year when people challenged his eligibility to run. He produced the birth certificate with the name of the hospital and the attending physician. There was even debate in Congress about it.

Why is Obama so reluctant to do the same? If he was indeed born in the USA it would be trivial to produce the long form birth certificate.

He thought that it was important for him to answer the eligibility question, that is why the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) document was posted on a friendly web site. However, that document is not a birth certificate and says nothing about the hospital where he was born.

My sister & I are not twins. The application was sent at the same time. Our numbers are exactly 30 apart; Social Security numbers are not reused because they are designed to be specific to a person as an identifier.

I work with people every day who have no original birth certificate; they apply for a copy and receive anything from a certificate to a certification of live birth to a letter stating that the courthouse burned down, records were destroyed in a flood or something else catasrophic, and they no longer exist. Yet the person sits in front of me and therefore exists and I accept the info provided to me at face value.

I didn't say that you knew they'd run for presidency. You're reading WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much into my post. As you are reading wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much into the whole birth certificate thing. Besides, if McCain had won, I don't believe they had yet invented the pencil or ink so he would have to provide the stone tablet of his birth. Hope it didn't rain & wash the record away...

This entire issue is the reason for god fearing productions, blacklisted news, and fox news...

elliemae says

My sister & I are not twins. The application was sent at the same time. Our numbers are exactly 30 apart; Social Security numbers are not reused because they are designed to be specific to a person as an identifier.
I work with people every day who have no original birth certificate; they apply for a copy and receive anything from a certificate to a certification of live birth to a letter stating that the courthouse burned down, records were destroyed in a flood or something else catasrophic, and they no longer exist. Yet the person sits in front of me and therefore exists and I accept the info provided to me at face value.
I didn’t say that you knew they’d run for presidency. You’re reading WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much into my post. As you are reading wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much into the whole birth certificate thing. Besides, if McCain had won, I don’t believe they had yet invented the pencil or ink so he would have to provide the stone tablet of his birth. Hope it didn’t rain & wash the record away…
This entire issue is the reason for god fearing productions, blacklisted news, and fox news…

I thought that government reuses the numbers of deceised people. It is a side point in this discussion. I am not familiar with the process used to generate social security numbers.

Obama's birth ceritifacte did not burn down nor it was destroyed. In his book "Dreams of..." he claimed to have the birth certificate in his possesion. Yet this is not the document that was posted on his web site.
Neither you nor any of the Obama suporters have provided a logical explanation on why is it such a problem for Obama to prove his birthplace. It is a Constitutional requirement that president must be a natural-born citizien.
We know that his father was a foreigner.
In addition, Obama lived in Indonesia and school records there indicated that he was an Indonesian citizen.

The following link contains a snapshot of Obama's (Barry Soetoro) school registration document from Fransiscus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia:
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaEducation.htm

nosf41,

You are asking the wrong way. You are supposed to say "Do you have a seeeeeester?"

(no mind if it makes no sense, it's an old joke, possibly usenet origin).

Why is it that birthers all seem to believe that documents verified by the state of Hawaii are fradulent but unconfirmed documents from a school registration in Jakarta are 100% legitimate?

I'd expect at least a little consistency in their idiotic argument.

I don't even know what these people expect to happen. Lets say that, for the sake of argument, that Obama was not born in Hawaii. The question of his eligibility to be President would then be contingent on the supreme court ruling officially on the natural born issue (I'm assuming here that previous precedent on citizenship issues would be deemed insufficient).

The most likely outcome is that the SCOTUS would just rule that since his mother was a U.S. citizen, so is he.

Then what? Absolutely nothing. Life would go on, and he'll probably get re-elected in 2012 because the GOP can't produce a competent candidate to stand against him even if they wanted to.

Don't you have anything better to do with your time? If you're really this interested in arcane interpretations of the constitution, perhaps you should become a constitutional lawyer. There's way more money in that then there is in trolling on internet forums.

Kevin - "How can every other wealthy country on the planet provide universal coverage?" Clearly you haven't heard, they employ death camps and kill off everyone who costs too much. It's the pussy liberal way. Oh, and they also massively redistribute wealth. I guess in order to pay for all those death camps. I'm unclear on the precise details. ;)

By the way, while Canda does have a longer life expactancy the we do and while they have improved wait times since the '90s, the cancer treatment wait times there ARE too long (20-40 days on average for many surgeries and 7 weeks for radiation). They post all the wait times online and are very open about it. But there are other countries with better models. I just believe it is telling that we spend twice as much of our GDP per person on healthcare as Canada does and we STILL have a shorter life expectancy. If we diverted just the money we spent already to an equally efficient if better designed system than theirs, just imagine the quality of care we would have for every single citizen. Too bad we can't have an open dialogue on all the options rather than a screaming match whose tenor is set by a slew of misinformation rather than sober facts.

In 1945 if you got sick you died, period. Medical care was inexpensive because it was primitive. Cancer? You die. Organ failure? Die. Diabetes? Die. I'm absolutely certain that we could provide 1945-quality medical care for about the same price (adjusted for inflation) today. Now, I do tend to agree that for non-emergency services, direct payer is best. But what about all those poor people would would have to choose between preventative care ("doctor's visits") and food/shelter/utilities? They're going to choose the more pressing need, which creates a problem further down the road. The system has to be optimized for what is best for the society as a whole. Letting the underclass go without any care at all (because they can't afford to pay anything at all) doesn't work. All it does is breed anger in those poor people, and that anger contributes to crime and violence. This is the basic reason for all social safety nets. You can spend some money now providing health care, food stamps, education, and housing assistance, or you can spend a lot of money later on prisons, arson damage, riot control, and treating the gunshot wounds inflicted by angry poor people. I won't claim that a single payer system is the best option there is, but I think it's far better than any pipe dream of all people being able to pay for medical bills out of pocket as well. And, yes, the wealthier members of society do have a duty to take care of the poor members. If they do not do this out of a moral obligation, they should do it out of self preservation. Just ask various European monarchies how ignoring the poor worked out for them.

Kevin says

Why is it that birthers all seem to believe that documents verified by the state of Hawaii are fradulent but unconfirmed documents from a school registration in Jakarta are 100% legitimate?
I’d expect at least a little consistency in their idiotic argument.
I don’t even know what these people expect to happen. Lets say that, for the sake of argument, that Obama was not born in Hawaii. The question of his eligibility to be President would then be contingent on the supreme court ruling officially on the natural born issue (I’m assuming here that previous precedent on citizenship issues would be deemed insufficient).
The most likely outcome is that the SCOTUS would just rule that since his mother was a U.S. citizen, so is he.
Then what? Absolutely nothing. Life would go on, and he’ll probably get re-elected in 2012 because the GOP can’t produce a competent candidate to stand against him even if they wanted to.
Don’t you have anything better to do with your time? If you’re really this interested in arcane interpretations of the constitution, perhaps you should become a constitutional lawyer. There’s way more money in that then there is in trolling on internet forums.

As expected, you did not provide an explanation on what could be Obama's motivation for hiding his past.

State of Hawaii did not show any document publicly. Initially, several very ambigous statements were released (In October 2008). Only very recently one official mentioned that Obama is a natural-born citizen. However, I do not trust her word. I have seen to many political operatives lying to the public, to just blindly accept this statement without any proof. There is so much circumstential evidence pointing to the contrary to her claim.

According to the US law in effect in 1961, children born abroad in relationships where one parent was a US citizen were not automatically US citizens. Obama’s American citizen parent, Ann Dunham, had to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14. She did not meet that requirement (Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born.

If Obama was born abroad - he is not eligible to be US president.

The elibility issue is not a trivial one. If we had an illegitimate president, he would be susceptible to blackmail from those who knew his secret. Obama promised transparency - what did we get in return - an unprecedented secrecy.
This is similar to Clinton's election campaign promise to have the most ethical government and Bush's election promise to be a fiscal conservative and not to engage in foreign nation building.

What parts of US constitution or existing laws do you want to ignore? Can all of us start behaving according to our own whims? If we let Obama get away with violating the Constitution on eligibility issue, he will be emboldened to change the society according to his own ideas regardless of our Constitutional rights.

Could dictatorship be coming our way, with dear leader in charge for life? Obama has already proposed the establishment of "civilian national security force" that should be as powerful, strong and funded as US military: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&feature=related

What I do with my spare time is my problem. If you think that I am trolling on this forum, just ignore my posts.

And, yes, the wealthier members of society do have a duty to take care of the poor members. If they do not do this out of a moral obligation, they should do it out of self preservation. Just ask various European monarchies how ignoring the poor worked out for them.

They might also take an interest since it's the lowly proles who are the biggest contributors to the GDP anymore with consumer spending.

Patrick and I have communicated by email for a few years. He just told me about this forum and thought I could contribute. I’m in Vermont and the following is geared to Vermonters but just substitute your State. The author is a former State Senator and runs a think tank. He is also a commentator on VT Public Radio (token consevative) 12 Health Care Questions for Your Member of Congress John McClaughry Vermont’s three Members of Congress will be home next week for a month-long recess. This will provide an excellent opportunity for citizens to query them on the subject of the Obama-Kennedy-House Democrat health care bill. There are actually three huge bills under intense development. The Democrats’ game is to cobble together some collection of provisions that will attract enough votes to pass their respective chambers. Then in the House-Senate conference, their leadership and the Obama Administration will reshape the package into what they want, and twist arms until enough Democrats agree to vote to enact it Here are twelve questions that concerned citizens should pose to their Congresspersons: The bills impose an individual mandate on me to buy health insurance approved by the Federal government. What will happen to me if I don’t go along? Fines? Wage garnishment? Jail? Will these penalties also apply to millions of illegal aliens, or will they apply only to American citizens and legal aliens? The bills impose a mandate on most businesses to pay for employee health insurance containing “essential benefits” approved by the federal government. If the businesses don’t do so, they’ll be required to pay a fine. How many small businesses in Vermont will shrink their operations, or go under, rather than pay this new penalty? President Obama said that if I am happy with my coverage, I can keep it “no matter what”. Now we learn that I can keep it until my employer changes or drops it, or until I change employers, or until I try to buy individual insurance. Will you stand behind the President’s initial promise, or will you support Congress’s action to break it? The bills contain a provision allowing health insurance plans bargained by labor unions to continue unchanged – while nonunion workers are threatened with loss of coverage. Is this preference for unionized workers a result of Labor’s strong support of Obama and the Democrats in the last election? Do you support the exemption? President Obama has said he won’t support a health care reform bill that will add to our exploding deficit. The Congressional Budget Office says this bill will bend the Federal health care expenditure curve up, not down. Will you vote against any bill that fails President Obama’s requirement that it will not add to our deficit? Governors of both parties have strongly objected that the bill’s mandated expansion of Medicaid will put an intolerable fiscal burden on struggling state treasuries and state taxpayers. Will you vote against any bill containing this very costly unfunded mandate? The bill includes provisions for Federally-designed “comparative effectiveness research”. This is intended to require health care providers to deny health care to elderly citizens, people with disabilities, and others the health of whom certain appointed experts think is not worth improving. Will you oppose any bill that contains such a provision? The bill requires that “qualified” health insurance plans include all “essential benefits” determined by federal bureaucrats. Democratic majorities have already voted down amendments to exclude elective abortions from the list of “essential benefits”. That means that for the first time taxpayers will be required to subsidize elective abortions. Will you vote for a bill requiring taxpayer financing of elective abortions? Exploding medical malpractice claims, fueled by the plaintiff’s bar, are driving doctor and hospital malpractice insurance premiums ever upward. Why are there no provisions in any of the bills to ameliorate this problem, which is driving doctors out of practice? Is it because the plaintiff’s bar contributes millions of dollars to the leading sponsors of this legislation? The bill contains a “public option”, a government-run insurance company “to keep the private insurers honest.” Will this government-run company pay taxes, pay for its own revenue collection and marketing costs, and pay market interest rates on its debt? Or will it enjoy government backing that will enable it to undersell its private competitors, swallow up their customers, and become a new “Medicare for Everybody”? Speaking of Medicare, the system is $36 trillion out of actuarial balance and will run out of hospitalization benefit funds by 2017. How will the government-run “public option” insurance company avoid turning into another Medicare basket case? And how will our senior citizens on Medicare continue to get medical services? Finally, as a supporter of this “public option” plan, are you willing to transfer your family and your staff’s families out of the existing Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, with its choices of many private insurers, into the new government plan? If not, why won’t it be good enough for you? Your Congressperson will probably shake his head, smile, and say the issue is very complex, but rest assured, he’ll be down there fighting for the interests of Vermonters. At that point, engage him in small talk, while somebody goes for a rope.

Patrick suggested I share this with you Patrick wrote me: Currently, insurance companies are a bloated inefficient oligopoly which is quite a bit like government itself, except with a profit motive to deny you care. I replied: Actually a lot of the cost is because of a lack of competition Plus govt. mandates A) watch the video http://bytestyle.tv/content/state-mandates-health-insurance-find-out-what-youre-paying-and-dont-need B) see the list of insurance mandates by state- http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2009.pdf C) see linked site http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/113 some good plans of action Jack

Nosf41 say:
"As expected, you did not provide an explanation on what could be Obama’s motivation for hiding his past. "

Here's an explanation:
We don't owe you an explanation, we don't work for you, and you have too much time on your hands.

When I grow up, I want to be a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist too.

BobK says

It was also inexpensive because third party payers didn’t exist as they do now. You didn’t bother even addressing that in your statement.

No, I did. I said it was expensive because the care was primitive. The overhead of insurers is very real -- but it's also measureable, and while it is outrageous, it isn't 95% of the bill, either. BobK says

And let me address yours. If technology makes medical care expensive, explain TODAYS veterinary care. They use high tech stuff to save animals lives. Surgery for a dog: $900. Equivalent surgery for a human being: Prohibitive cost which will put you into Bankruptcy unless you have insurance. Vets don’t have third party paying hyperinflating costs. Human medicine does.

"high tech stuff", eh? It's good to know that you think the equipment that vets are using and the procedures, precautions, and techniques are the same, or that vets have the same level of training and responsibility as physicians. BobK says

So to address your predictable “oranges-apples” objection before you have a chance to say it:

It is an apples to oranges comparison.

Oral Surgery costs $500-900 to surgically remove a wisdom tooth from your mouth. Compare that to having a stone removed from your gall-bladder or how about a bullet from your arm?

...and so is this. Removing a wisdom tooth isn't even close to the same league as removing a gall bladder or a bullet, and, again, the level of training and expertise required to remove a wisdom tooth does not come close to comparing with that required for removing a bullet. And why do you think there is no "third party payer" hyperinflating prices? Dental insurance is just as common as medical insurance. BobK says

And poor people having problems paying? Hospitals were originally founded by Catholic religious orders who provided free health care for the poor - that worked for centuries without anyone complaining.

Oh for the days of serfs and monarchy, when the poor had such better health care than they do today! Are you even reading this shit after you write it? As far as the "moral" issue goes -- clearly you stopped reading halfway through that paragraph. If you don't care about moral arguments (I certainly don't), you have to look at it as a matter of self-preservation. History is full of examples of what happens when poor people are oppressed for long periods of time. The wealthy only stay wealthy by ensuring that the poor maintain some level of happiness. When the poor see that they can't get access to medical care that the rich man has, they will resent that rich man. Guess what? Like it or not, those poor people greatly outnumber the rich man. Right or wrong, if they're angry, they'll take what they want. Want a country where the poor have no safety nets whatsoever and the wealthy control everything? Go visit sub-saharan Africa. I hear it's lovely this time of year.

As far as the “moral” issue goes — clearly you stopped reading halfway through that paragraph. If you don’t care about moral arguments (I certainly don’t), you have to look at it as a matter of self-preservation.

A nice, tidy utilitarian viewpoint.

History is full of examples of what happens when poor people are oppressed for long periods of time. The wealthy only stay wealthy by ensuring that the poor maintain some level of happiness.

I'd say distraction more than happiness, at least these days.

When the poor see that they can’t get access to medical care that the rich man has, they will resent that rich man.

I don't know. That's what we have now, and I don't see anything resembling resentment. Actually, I see a kind of genuflection more than anything. People in the West have really come to worship wealth, and the wealthy. I'd even hazard the notion that they feel the wealthy deserve better care simply because they're wealthy.

Guess what? Like it or not, those poor people greatly outnumber the rich man. Right or wrong, if they’re angry, they’ll take what they want

. I suspect you're probably wrong, if you're hinting at constructed dissent or mass uprisings. Maybe, if we're talking an increase in violent crime, but it seems to me like a lot of people find subordination to be a comfort zone. It's like muscle memory for the prone position. Orwell's analogy of the ox and the ox cart man describes this phenomena better than I ever could.

Kevin, beautifully spoken.

Bap33 says

in 1945 they would have done something like “Operation Wetback” to keep out invaders and secure the border. Doing so today would ease some cash flow issues we are all going to pay for forever, for each generation of hyperbreeders now here — all thanks to a sea of unchecked invaders that flooded this land after the voters passed Prop 187 and our votes were then illegally blocked by activist liberal judges. Bring back Prop 187 … and turn the clock back to 1999.

Yeah, just like all those fucking god damned Micks that invaded the country in the 19th century! Just look at how they ruined this country with their huge numbers of children and willingness to work for less than the upstanding Americans that Built this Country(tm). Grow up.

Let's run a few numbers. Canada pays about 9.5% GDP for their single payer system (as opposed to our 17% figure). Our GDP is about 20% higher per person than Canada's. That means we could pay for a significantly better single payer system than Canada has, at least in theory, just with just half the differential between their per person GDP and ours (about $5,000 per capita vs. our current $7,000+). For the sake of argument, let's say that by paying this much - about a third more per capita than Canada - we would be able to cut wait times down from Canadian levels (3-6 weeks for cancer surgery, etc) down to something more reasonable, say 2 weeks. That would mean we'd have a system covering everyone, likely with perfectly reasonable wait times, for less than we pay now. And for everyone who would want "faster" or "better" care, they could buy supplemental insurance for their "concierge" medical centers and platinum enemas (or whatever it is the wealthy want to spend their healthcare bucks on). But it is simply pathetic that we make about $10,000 per capita more than Canada and $11,000 more than Britain, and many people can't even envision spending half that amount to provide decent healthcare for all our citizens.

elliemae says

Nosf41 say:
“As expected, you did not provide an explanation on what could be Obama’s motivation for hiding his past. ”
Here’s an explanation:
We don’t owe you an explanation, we don’t work for you, and you have too much time on your hands.

Of course you do not owe me anything. Are you participating on this forum just to preach to the choir?
You were quick to judge and ridicule people whose opinion was different from yours. When challenged, you should be able to voice your opinion and not surrender so easily.

Is that intended to be a rhetorical question or could you not find the info? Anyhow, the U.S. spends 1750 per capita on military expenditures currently. Russia spends $420. Canada around $310. And let's assume we have an illegal population of 20 million (the high end of anyone's estimations). With a legal population of 330 million, that hardly changes the numbers in a meaningful way in relation to Canada or the UK (or anywhere else). If we included those 20 million in the same GDP calculations, we would still have a per capita GDP of around 45,000. Now subtract the differential in military spending between the U.S. and Canada, and we would have around 43,700 per capita GDP or about 15% higher than Canada's. Any other questions?

Kevin says

When I grow up, I want to be a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist too.

Few years ago Patrick was ridiculed for his position on housing bubble. Peter Schiff was called crazy by many "expert" economists for his predictions of coming housing crash.
Think for yourself before you join the screaming mob.
Also be careful what you wish for - words are very powerful, your wish could come true.

"and turn the clock back to 1999" .....how dumb.

">the wealthier members of society do have a duty to take care of the poor members. This is a moral argument which does not work in a secular setting. " what nonsense. Yes it's a moral argument, but it does not matter if it's secular or not. It still holds VERY true. Excuses, excuses, excuses...

Sure, there's a compelling moral argument to be made for covering everyone. But what I really don't get is how people could look at stats that show we pay twice as much per person as almost anyone else. Most of those other countries even live longer than us, despite whatever long waits and other problems they might have. It's so blatantly obvious we are being ripped off, you'd think everyone who wasn't DOING the ripping off would be pissed at being screwed over so blatantly instead of shrieking at anyone who dares to tackle the problem. If anyone really think the status quo is OK and they AREN'T making a lot of money in healthcare, they are either stupid or they don't know the numbers. Unfortunately, we have many of both these types mouthing off and calling names instead of coming up with better proposals of their own.

Obama wants to cram a plan he knows is subpar down our throats because he also know that nothing will get done next year, in a re-election year for Congress, or in the next two years, when he is up for re-election himself. He saw how the Clintons blew their chance at reform, and he doesn't want to do the same. He also knows that healthcare lobbyists are spending 1.5 million a day to try every tactic they can to muddle the debate and shape reform in such a way that does NOT lower costs. So on one hand, they say they support his plan. On the other, they sponsor 5 competing versions. And on the other, they issue talking points that Republicans and "moderate" Democrats have repeated verbatim, despite the fact that many of them have been simply made up and bear no basis in reality. And lastly, Obama also knows that he and his party took and will take much money from healthcare interests. As all politicians are, he is in bed with the very same devil he is attempting to tame.

chrisborden says

It is obvious that our society doesn’t like people such as myself who choose financial freedom over debt slavery

Correct, since if you choose debt and spending over savings: Banks make interest Merchants make sales Govs collect sales taxes and higher asset based taxes Also, a population without savings is more dependent on Gov, giving the politicians more power Still, one does not have to follow the debt crowd. You can choose to live within your means and save, as many others have. Didn't someone post that half the houses in the country do not have a mortgage? Anyway, the savings rate nationally is inreasing despite the efforts of gov/banks. Enough of an increase for some to say it will curtail spending and keep prices low.

Tenpoundbass, you, and so many others, worry too much. Ask yourself this: if you were President, what would you do? Let the Insurnance companies decide? We've done that for the last 40+ years, and it's not working. As for the Middle Class, that is a dying species. Bush II did pretty much next to nothing about this subject. Now that we have a President willing to at least try and make a positive difference, all you seem to do is complain, like so many others, about the evil of government. Grow up.

kthomas says

Tenpoundbass, you, and so many others, worry too much. Ask yourself this: if you were President, what would you do? Let the Insurnance companies decide? We’ve done that for the last 40+ years, and it’s not working. As for the Middle Class, that is a dying species. Bush II did pretty much next to nothing about this subject. Now that we have a President willing to at least try and make a positive difference, all you seem to do is complain, like so many others, about the evil of government. Grow up.

The situation with healthcare spending is so out of control right now, almost any plan that could cut costs would be better than doing nothing. We have the largest military in the world, with bases all over the globe and an ever-developing arsenal of high tech weapons that everyone else can only dream of possessing. In fact we spend more money on our military than the next twenty countries on the list COMBINED. That's a function of just how wealthy we still are. And yet we pay around FIVE times more on healthcare than we do on our military and twice as much per capita as England, Germany, France, and Canda to insure only 5 out of 6 Americans. Any way you look at it, we are getting ripped off in every way possible. You would think this would drive true fiscal conservatives nuts.

Anyway, the savings rate nationally is inreasing despite the efforts of gov/banks. Enough of an increase for some to say it will curtail spending and keep prices low.

I've been wondering about this. What does the typical increase in savings rates look like on paper for the average individual? 100 bucks a month chucked into a savings account? 50 bucks in a cookie jar? I also wonder if the increase in savings rates isn't largely form one of two things - one being, people who have stopped payment on their mortgages and are socking those monthly payments away while awaiting forclosure - in which case, this will ultimately be a taxpayer subsidized savings, and therefore moot. The second reason may be the folks who are having their credit card balances halved, or are simply refusing to make any payments, and are instead, socking that money away. I'm skeptical. I went to Home Cheapo today to buy a can of Rustoleum, and saw tons of people in the adjacent strip mall center shopping shopping shopping, including two gigantic Hummers sharking for a space.

This is a pretty good debate. I hope we do create socialized medicine in the USA. As soon as we do I am going to maximize my investment and impregnate lots and lots of women. Then my children will finally be protected. Thank You.

I hope we do create socialized medicine in the USA.

We already have it.

Austinhousingbubble says

I hope we do create socialized medicine in the USA.

We already have it.

And we have a heavily socialized tax code too, so if you do have lots of babies, you can possibly be in the top ten percent of earners and still pay no taxes. It all depends on how many resentful teenagers you are willing to contend with down the line I guess. First the Democrats want to socialize Medicare. What next, Social Security? It's a slippery slope my friend. Soon the government could be in full control of ALL government agencies.