At what point

#101
#101
lawgator1 said:
I am in favor of big cuts to defense. Just like Gates.
Click to expand...

but you're a breathless supporter of the ACA, Quantitative Easing, Cash for Clunkers, green energy subsidies, and so on

a lot of leftists want to see defense cuts, but they don't want that spending to go away, they want it used for social programs, which means the money still gets appropriated and spent. That's not fiscal conservatism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#102
#102
MG1968 said:
but you're a breathless supporter of the ACA, Quantitative Easing, Cash for Clunkers, green energy subsidies, and so on

a lot of leftists want to see defense cuts, but they don't want that spending to go away, they want it used for social programs, which means the money still gets appropriated and spent. That's not fiscal conservatism.
Click to expand...


No, no, no.

I am in favor of a single payor system for health care. I think the ACA is a step in that direction. Frankly, I think its inevitable, regardless of who is in charge and when.

As to QE, and TARP, the jury is still out and it will always be tough to argue either side conclusively because we do not know what would have happened had it not been done. Cataclysmic collapse of the world economy? Or a 6 month shedding of inefficient banks, followed by a massive rebound?

The experts are mixed on that. Seems to me that if you are a Republican you conveniently forget that Bush started those programs and blame whatever failure you perceive on Obama. And Obama supporters disregard the long term effects of those actions because they haven't happened, yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#103
#103
lawgator1 said:
No, no, no.

I am in favor of a single payor system for health care. I think the ACA is a step in that direction. Frankly, I think its inevitable, regardless of who is in charge and when.

As to QE, and TARP, the jury is still out and it will always be tough to argue either side conclusively because we do not know what would have happened had it not been done. Cataclysmic collapse of the world economy? Or a 6 month shedding of inefficient banks, followed by a massive rebound?

The experts are mixed on that. Seems to me that if you are a Republican you conveniently forget that Bush started those programs and blame whatever failure you perceive on Obama. And Obama supporters disregard the long term effects of those actions because they haven't happened, yet.
Click to expand...

so tell us what is fiscally conservative about a single payor healthcare system.
 
#106
#106
lawgator1 said:
You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...

I must be, if I weren't I'd have decided that the deflection in your earlier post was enough and just kept walking.

I pointed out that you support massive tax and spend programs and you respond by saying the GOP supports massive tax and spend programs.

So what? The GOP is enamored with big government just as much as the democrats.

so again, tell us how you are a fiscal conservative. This time, don't invoke Bush or Reagan or "some experts". Tell us that you've read and understand what Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is all about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#107
#107
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
nope!! Got an answer just put it down.
Click to expand...

MG1968 said:
I must be, if I weren't I'd have decided that the deflection in your earlier post was enough and just kept walking.

I pointed out that you support massive tax and spend programs and you respond by saying the GOP supports massive tax and spend programs.

So what? The GOP is enamored with big government just as much as the democrats.

so again, tell us how you are a fiscal conservative. This time, don't invoke Bush or Reagan or "some experts". Tell us that you've read and understand what Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is all about.
Click to expand...


The current system of patchwork of insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay has built in inefficiencies that drive the cost of care up at a much faster rate than would a simple, single payor system. Additionally, private insurance exacts a profit that far exceeds the cost of administering reimbursement at one location. Third, private insurance is rife with fraud and abuse and provides an incentive for poorly managing care.

Like I said. Inevitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#108
#108
lawgator1 said:
The current system of patchwork of insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay has built in inefficiencies that drive the cost of care up at a much faster rate than would a simple, single payor system. Additionally, private insurance exacts a profit that far exceeds the cost of administering reimbursement at one location. Third, private insurance is rife with fraud and abuse and provides an incentive for poorly managing care.

Like I said. Inevitable.
Click to expand...

still doesn't make you a fiscal conservative

and please tell us how government delivery of health care (ie the VA) isn't rife with fraud and incompetence
 
#109
#109
lawgator1 said:
The current system of patchwork of insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay has built in inefficiencies that drive the cost of care up at a much faster rate than would a simple, single payor system. Additionally, private insurance exacts a profit that far exceeds the cost of administering reimbursement at one location. Third, private insurance is rife with fraud and abuse and provides an incentive for poorly managing care.

Like I said. Inevitable.
Click to expand...

And you believe a single payer government run system will be void of all of the bad mentioned above?
 
#110
#110
lawgator1 said:
The current system of patchwork of insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay has built in inefficiencies that drive the cost of care up at a much faster rate than would a simple, single payor system. Additionally, private insurance exacts a profit that far exceeds the cost of administering reimbursement at one location. Third, private insurance is rife with fraud and abuse and provides an incentive for poorly managing care.

Like I said. Inevitable.
Click to expand...

only you would argue that creating an entitlement (single payer) for all would be fiscally conservative compared to a semi-private system that is an entitlement only for a percentage of the population.

On a side point, the implication that single payer is free from fraud, abuse and inefficiencies is laughable.

Many "universal coverage" systems utilize insurance companies rather than single payer as Canada does - and yes those insurance companies earn evil, fraud-laced profits.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#112
#112
volinbham said:
only you would argue that creating an entitlement (single payer) for all would be fiscally conservative compared to a semi-private system that is an entitlement only for a percentage of the population.

On a side point, the implication that single payer is free from fraud, abuse and inefficiencies is laughable.

Many "universal coverage" systems utilize insurance companies rather than single payer as Canada does - and yes those insurance companies earn evil, fraud-laced profits.
Click to expand...

Well in that sense we have the worst of all possible worlds because we give government coverage to those paying in the least.

Makes more sense to spread that cost across the entire country, eliminate the inefficiencies of the current system, and incentivize reform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#113
#113
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#114
#114
lawgator1 said:
Interesting description.

I think part of the purpose of the ACA is to engage the UHC concept. Once that occurs, the incredible waste and mismanagement of the current system will become obvious to everyone, and people will start asking, why?
Click to expand...

Actually plenty of countries utilize a mixed system with many using all private insurance - they don't consider that to be waste and mismanagement.

Also given the catastrophic roll-out and administration of ACA who in their right mind would think it will not be full of waste and mismanagement?
 
#115
#115
lawgator1 said:
Well in that sense we have the worst of all possible worlds because we give government coverage to those paying in the least.

Makes more sense to spread that cost across the entire country, eliminate the inefficiencies of the current system, and incentivize reform.
Click to expand...

An entitlement for every citizen is not a fiscally conservative strategy
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#116
#116
volinbham said:
Also given the catastrophic roll-out and administration of ACA who in their right mind would think it will not be full of waste and mismanagement?
Click to expand...

Actually, there are some saying that was the intent of the ACA. It quickly became a farce which was hoped and would pave the way for "newer and better" changes that would implement a single payer system.

Not sure I agree with it, but with the way government runs, it might not be far off the mark.
 
#117
#117
Grand Vol said:
Actually, there are some saying that was the intent of the ACA. It quickly became a farce which was hoped and would pave the way for "newer and better" changes that would implement a single payer system.

Not sure I agree with it, but with the way government runs, it might not be far off the mark.
Click to expand...

Not sure it was baked in but certainly can see that some of the supporters saw it as a good possibility
 
#118
#118
Obama to raise minimum wage for government contract workers - The Washington Post

Obama will also renew his call for Congress to pass legislation to raise the federal minimum wage for all workers from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour by 2015. But the president is taking the executive action with no clear timeline for Congress acting on the broader legislation. Previously, the White House said it wanted to concentrate on the legislative route for boosting the minimum wage.
Click to expand...
 
#120
#120
rjd970 said:
I like paying more for everything.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's so stupid that people think this is going to fix anything. If minimum wage employees get a 40% raise, then it's only fair for every other worker in the nation to expect the same, even though they probably won't get one. Then, all companies just pass those added costs right back to the customer, everything costs 40% more, and we're right back where we started, with people *****ing that we need to raise the minimum wage again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#121
#121
I can't wait to start paying 20 dollars for a damn BigMac and fries...once again Owebama shows he hasn't a ****ing clue when it comes down to the economy !
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#123
#123
bleedorange0037 said:
Exactly. It's so stupid that people think this is going to fix anything. If minimum wage employees get a 40% raise, then it's only fair for every other worker in the nation to expect the same, even though they probably won't get one. Then, all companies just pass those added costs right back to the customer, everything costs 40% more, and we're right back where we started, with people *****ing that we need to raise the minimum wage again.
Click to expand...

Raising the minimum wage has zero to do with "minimum wage workers" it is 100% to do with raising union wages. Most every union contract has an automatic escalator tied to the minimum wage.
 
#124
#124
Raise the minimum wage = price of goods go up = poor still poor = poor and liberals confused why minimum wage didnt do anything to help the poor = idiots continue to vote democrat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#125
#125
hog88 said:
Raising the minimum wage has zero to do with "minimum wage workers" it is 100% to do with raising union wages. Most every union contract has an automatic escalator tied to the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

Didn't know that, but wouldn't surprise me one bit with this president.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top