The Glade 4.0

Those cost savings if they existed - could have been made or proposed by the administration and those who support it at any time in the past. Given the administrations track record with numbers it is unlikely those savings even exist. Given the adminsitration's fiscal ability in regard to spending cuts (100 million of a multitrillion dollar budget) - there does not exist enough money in global trade for the President to cut to make that savings if he cuts at the same rate he has done in the past to pay for the CBO's estimated cost of the program.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I think everybody is overlooking the 900lbs elephant: Medicare is going bankrupt.

In the next 8 years, you either have to increase taxes across the board by about 130% or eliminate all other government spending.

Since the government hasn't been able to control spending in Medicare, there exists no logical reason to believe any politician who says "we will control spending" for any other healthcare plan. This is especially true because none of the current proposals that I'm aware of even deals with Medicare's deficit, much less how that deficit will correlate with the cost of the new program.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

They'll pick option c which is really option a: increase taxes. They'll do it in a way which seems to place the blame with health care providers.

I'll let you guys guess what C really is.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Ok, perhaps a bad example.

How about things like this then?

Your children must be educated
You must register for the draft (if you're male)
You must get a drivers license to drive a car
You must mow your lawn
You must shovel your sidewalk (snow)

Generally those things are all taken for granted as being good, yet at the core it's the majority of society forcing it's values on the rest of the population. It is the essense of society and compromise. The good of the many, outweigh the good of the few or the one. (it should be noted that I don't always agree with the last sentence)

Isn't a large part of the issue with Medicare the fact that all the baby boomers are reaching their later years and requiring much more medical attention? Or to put it coldly and bluntly, it's a temporary problem that we need to manage through for 10-15 years.

That is certainly a large part of the issue, but not the entirety of it. The Medicare Trustee's report goes into far more depth than I ever could, but yes, the shape of the pop. curve is a big deal.

There's also the fact that average life expectancy is up around 10-12 years from when the program was created, and the enrollment age hasn't changed to reflect that.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Yup. Definately some things that need to be reformed there. You'd think that we'd be able to set a law that just put enrollment age at a % of average life expectancy.

If I ever get around to writing up my "suggestions" for healthcare reform, that's top on the list.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Why do you think Obama vilified young, uninsured people? It wasn't because they "cost more money", as he claimed, but because they aren't contributing to the system, and is in my opinion a close parallel to the voluntary/mandatory nature of SS at its inception.


1) Close, but it isn't your children must be educated, but that you must provide an education opportunity to a certain age. It would be a better example to point out the nature of public educational funding.
2) Only if you operate the car on public roads, and only if the vehicle is of a certain power level (which by the way brings up an interesting problem... the maker of a 3 wheel electric vehicle with reported 300 MPH equivalent, has been denied government backing for research because their definition of car requires 4 wheels... does this mean a license is not required to operate this vehicle?).
3) I don't get this one... The federal government forced people to mow their lawns? HoA might, as might local governments in certain districts, but it doesn't go beyond that level.
4) I also don't get this one. I think I have heard it is a requirement for mail delivery if your mailbox is not at the road, but I'm not familiar with any state or federal laws that require shoveling your sidewalk.

Ladas, each of those are examples of where some people are enforcing their will on others. I was trying to point out to Nitefox that everyone does that, all the time. It's only when you're of the desenting viewpoint that most folks notice it. It's also why having a governmental process like ours is so important where there are ways to express your opinion on the matter and influence the change (or lack of change) you'd like to see.

As for 3 & 4, yes most all of them are laws at the local level, but the principle is still the same. The community enforcing it's will on those who live there. And yes, here in MN it's typical that you are required to shovel your walk within so many days (usually 2) of a snowfall. If you let it go long enough (just like with your lawn) the city will come and shovel it for you and bill you for it.

Yeah, my fault Aizle. I forgot the intent of your post started thinking you were trying to equate something to existing federal laws.

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim, Khross? Any documents from his campaign, emails talking about that, etc?

His call to congress was very clear - he wants a public option that is funded not through tax increases, but by premiums paid into the system. Furthermore, if savings do not materialize, he wants to pay for it through spending cuts, and not tax increases.

He also campaigned on not increasing taxes for anyone but the top earners. So if he sticks to that principle, he is still keeping his promises.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

[emphasis mine]

April 1, 2009 - The largest federal tobacco tax increase in history takes effect.

This tax increase affects many people who make less than $250k.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I don't think tobacco tax falls under income, payroll, or capital gains taxes.

I do think however, that it falls under "any of your taxes" (hence the reason I bolded it).

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Yes, but the "any of your taxes" part was referring to the ones that he specifically stated. You can make an argument against that, but we both know that's what he meant. We also pay a tax on gas, but you know he wasn't referring to that.

If someone were to say, "I won't steal any of your possessions. Not your car, not your paintings, not your computer, not any of your possessions."
I'd assume they meant they weren't going to steal any of my possessions, that they were using the car etc. as examples, not as the sum total of what they wouldn't steal. You may think differently; I guess we'd have to disagree.

As for gas tax, I'd surely count that as well. When someone says that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase", I think they mean that those people will not see any form of tax increase. Shrug.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I'm with Lenas on this one. I think you're reaching. He was clearly talking about income taxes, and not consumption taxes.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

What I think Vindicarre is missing is the modifier of "your". Consumption taxes aren't normally considered personal taxes, which is the implication behind the modifier.

Its an example of slipperly language used by politicians. It wins him votes from people who interpret it the way Vind has during voting, and gives him an out when called on it.

Yay transparency of language?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

That may be what he meant, but since he added "not any of your taxes" after listing the taxes he meant, he clearly intended to give the impression he meant no taxes without actually saying so. It was pretty typical political doublespeak.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This. I'm torn on if I think it's slippery language or a tax on people who are bad at english. (pun intended)

Other than the quote Vindicarre listed, I don't need any more evidence that he promised not to raise taxes.Premiums paid into the system are taxes--see FICA and Social Security withholding. They're called payroll taxes, which incidentally violates his campaign pledge.Payroll taxes affect all income earners, even those who have no Federal Income Tax burden. So, no, he's not sticking to that principle.

_________________

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53997

WashPost Ignores Own Poll Finding: 54 Percent Say the More They Learn About ObamaCare, the Less They Like It

(CNSNews.com) - A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted in the three days following President Barack Obama’s speech to Congress about his health care plan found that 54% say the more they hear about the plan, the less they like it.

This particular poll result was not mentioned anywhere in the story about the poll that was posted by the Washington Post on its Web site on Monday. The result did appear in the data sheet from the poll that was linked to the story.

The 54% who now say that the more they hear about Obama’s health-care plan, the less they like it is larger than the percentage who answered a similar question about then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s health-care plan back in 1993 and 1994.

In a Washington Post poll completed on November 14, 1993, 53% said that the more they heard about Hillarycare, the less they liked it. In a Washington Post poll completed on February 27, 1994, 51% said the more they head about Hillarycare, the less they liked it.

The new Washington Post/ABC News poll also indicates that, overall, 48% of Americans oppose Obama’s health-care plan and 46% support it. In a previous poll completed on August 17, 50% said they opposed President Obama’s health-care plan and 45% said they supported it.

Question 18 of the Washington Post-ABC News poll released today says: “Which of these comes closest to your own view: (The more I hear about the health care plan, the more I like it) or (The more I hear about the health care plan, the less I like it).”

Fifty-four percent said that the more they hear about it, the less they like it. Forty-one percent said the more the hear about it, the more they like it.

When the same question was asked in a poll that was completed on August 17 of this year, 50% said the more they hear about it, the less they like it; and 45% said the more they hear about it, the more they support it.

The new finding that 54% say the more they hear about President Obama’s health care plan, the less they like it, comes on the heels of an extraordinary effort by the president to sell his plan. On Wednesday evening, the president gave a nationally televised primetime speech to a joint session of Congress that was solely focused on pitching the health care plan.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,007 adults was conducted from Thursday through Saturday, starting the day after Obama’s speech to Congress.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09 ... nce-think/


A Health Insurance Mandate That Works Like Auto Insurance? Think Again

In building the case for mandatory health insurance, President Obama and congressional Democrats are comparing a proposed requirement to buy health coverage to the need for all car owners to buy auto insurance.

"Unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved," Obama said in his address last week to Congress. "That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."

But this analogy is becoming a liability, so to speak.

It's true that most states require drivers to carry auto insurance. And it's equally true that the administration wants a federal law that will require individuals and employers to buy health insurance.

But the similarities end there.

Now critics are starting to urge the administration to use a different, more representative comparison to justify a virtually unprecedented federal mandate.

"It doesn't make sense," Robert Gordon, senior vice president for policy development and research at The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said of the analogy, noting several inconsistencies in the comparison.

First, the auto insurance mandate is easily avoidable. If you don't want to pay, don't drive a car.

Don't want to pay for health insurance? Drop dead.

"You can avoid the auto insurance mandate by divesting yourself of a car. The only way to avoid a health insurance mandate is by divesting yourself of a body," said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Second, auto insurance is mandated in large part so that drivers carry liability insurance to cover other people and other cars they may damage. Covering damage to their own cars is of secondary importance.

Many drivers can go without collision insurance if they like. If a hood is dented on the car of someone without the coverage, that person can drive around with a dented hood. But the only kind of health insurance Obama is talking about is collision insurance. If someone's body is a jalopy, he or she still has to get covered.

Former Department of Health and Human Services officials Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith noted this difference in a paper examining the constitutional implications of an individual mandate for The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.

"The primary purpose of the auto insurance mandate was to provide financial protection for people that a driver may harm, and not necessarily for the driver himself," they wrote. They also noted that the auto insurance mandate acts as a "quid pro quo" for the states to issue a driver's license.

Nevermind that Obama explicitly opposed such a provision during the Democratic presidential primaries. It was one of the few policy differences between him and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton.

"My belief is, the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it but because they can't afford it. And so I emphasize reducing costs," Obama explained at a February 2008 debate in Austin, Texas.

Fast forward to last week, before a joint session of Congress, when the president wholeheartedly embraced the concept.

Obama does want to ease the burden by offering some kind of alternative to private insurance, possibly a government-run option, and providing for exemptions. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' plan includes tax credits for those who might have trouble affording coverage. But it also imposes hefty fines on those who don't comply.

Auto insurance mandates have not eliminated the problem, though.

Donald Griffin, also with The Property Casualty Insurers Association, said anywhere from 8 to 14 percent of motorists are uninsured in most states despite the requirement.

"Still, we have this problem, so those requirements don't seem to do much to solve the uninsured motorist problem," he said.

There are, of course, other differences between health care reform as Obama proposes it and the auto insurance industry. The kind of payout caps Obama wants to restrict and other limitations on coverage are standard practice in the auto insurance industry. Plus, the regulation of that industry is decided at the state level. Not the federal level.

The truth is, there is not really a comparison out there.

The Congressional Budget Office said as much in 1994 when it issued a paper on the Clinton-era call for a health insurance mandate.

"A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," the CBO said.

Interestingly, the closest thing the CBO could find to mandatory health insurance was the draft.

"Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely rare. One example is the requirement that draft-age men register with the Selective Service System. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not aware of any others imposed by current federal law," the report said.

In light of the 1994 report, Cannon amended his earlier comment. There is one way to avoid a health insurance mandate, he said: "Fleeing to Canada."

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."