patrick.net

@ eightball--

From Obama's speech to Congress on Health Care:

Then there's the problem of rising cost. We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It's why so many employers -- especially small businesses -- are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally -- like our automakers -- are at a huge disadvantage. And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it -- about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else. (Applause.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/obama-health-care-speech_n_281265.html

HousingWatcher says

Can someone please tell me why anyone outside the top 2% votes Republican?

25% of this country is adamantly against the legality of abortion and another 30% don't believe a woman has total freedom of choice in this area.

50% of this country are against homosex marriage rights.

Those are the two biggies.

Republicans are also much more pro-Israel than Democrats, which is why Orthodox Jews support them at 80% rates.

Conservative Christians like Israel since they believe it's going to touch off Armageddon for them, and anything they can do to help that along is a-ok with them.

Also, the more stupid you are the more the conservative "job creator" / "get government out of my medicare" narrative makes sense to you.

tatupu70 says

Don't think so. Tort reform isn't the same as capping medical malpractice lawsuits. Not sure why'd you'd imply they are the same?

Gee I don't know why I would make them equivalent in the context of health care...but not sure you can exclude capping medical malpractice suits from tort reform...

Tort reform refers to proposed changes in common law civil justice systems that would reduce tort litigation or damages. Tort actions are civil common law claims first created in the English commonwealth system as a non-legislative means for compensating wrongs and harm done by one party to another's person, property or other protected interests (e.g. physical injury or reputation, under libel and slander laws). Tort reform advocates focus on personal injury common law rules in particular.

tatupu70 says

@ eightball--

From Obama's speech to Congress on Health Care:

Sorry, it was sold more on the quote and ideals from the letter he received from Kennedy...By the way, I agree with Kennedy. I just think it was a monumentally stupid time to do it and a huge waste of political capital on the dems part when they could have done something like - I don't know - try to jump start the economy? Did you watch the speech or even re-read it and come to the conclusion that we needed to implement Obamacare because we need to cut costs?

"What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

EightBall says

Did you watch the speech or even re-read it and come to the conclusion that we needed to implement Obamacare because we need to cut costs?

Geez. You're still going to disagree? I read the speech. I quoted the speech. Yes, I did come to that conclusion. I'm not sure how you COULDN'T come to that conclusion.

tatupu70 says

If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else. (Applause.)

EightBall says

Gee I don't know why I would make them equivalent in the context of health care...but not sure you can exclude capping medical malpractice suits from tort reform...

You aren't thinking very creatively then. There are all sorts of ways to implement tort reform without imposing a cap. How about discouraging nuisance lawsuits? How about allowing medically trained people to judge the lawsuits? Or loser pays legal fees? There are lots of ideas out there. Capping awards is only one of many.

tatupu70 says

Geez. You're still going to disagree? I read the speech. I quoted the speech. Yes, I did come to that conclusion. I'm not sure how you COULDN'T come to that conclusion.

Yes.

tatupu70 says

How about discouraging nuisance lawsuits? How about allowing medically trained people to judge the lawsuits? Or loser pays legal fees?

You must be a republican.

shrekgrinch says

Supply-side tax cuts worked for JFK. Then Reagan. Then Clinton (cap gains tax cuts of 1998).

No, they actually didn't.

Reagan raised taxes by eliminating loopholes and cut overall rates and raised the deficit massively (yes, we call that stimulus or spending). JFK lowered top marginal rates from 91% to 65% (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter) -- everyone agrees that 91% taxes stifle growth, so can we go back to 65% now? Clinton raised taxes first and then cut some capital gains taxes slightly. Trying to use that to take credit for the dotcom boom is silly -- people were going to invest a lot of that money regardless of tax cuts -- most of the "investment" was short-term, and that was the heyday of day-trading, so most people didn't even benefit from the tax cuts. It could be just as fair to say that capital gains tax cuts resulted in the dotcom bubble and housing bubble if you're going to make some sort of correlation-not-causation argument.

This is all common knowledge, and yet uninformed people always get it wrong. Again, are you willing to move the top marginal rate back up to 65%? If you agree we had such a booming economy then, and top marginal rates are now 35%, then your whole supply-side argument is flawed. In reality the relationship between taxes and economic booms is far more complex than some stupid Laffer curve, and you have to isolate the effects of macroeconomic events.

tatupu70 says

You aren't thinking very creatively then. There are all sorts of ways to implement tort reform without imposing a cap. How about discouraging nuisance lawsuits? How about allowing medically trained people to judge the lawsuits? Or loser pays legal fees? There are lots of ideas out there. Capping awards is only one of many.

Tort reform is just a red herring for an ideological agenda. Tort costs are at most 1-1.5% of healthcare costs.

In addition, it has been shown that medical payouts have not increased over time significantly when you adjust for inflation. If anything, they have DROPPED over time when you adjust for inflation.

Ideology, not real.

Supply-side tax cuts worked for JFK. Then Reagan

What really worked for Raygun was a pretty healthy credit surge/bubble:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1cb

Like Bush the Lesser, this was partially prompted by the Fed easing interest rates:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1cc