13 Aug 09
1 edit
The proliferation of health care "debate" threads makes me wonder if any here actually understands why health care reform is even on the agenda these days. Apparently, not many on RHP understand why health care even needs to be reformed. It's not ideological, it's not to save the live's of poor people.
It's because the USA will be bankrupt in 15 years without the changes.
Watch the damn movie.
iousathemovie.com
13 Aug 09
The movie makes good points.
The problems are:
Politicians are afraid to make any proposals that will raise taxes or cut benefits. But Ross Perot in 1992 based his whole campaign around what this movie is talking about -- and he did extremely well. I believe the reason he dropped out of the race for a couple months that summer was because he never expected to have a chance to win and didn't really want to win. His goal was just to make people aware of these fiscal problems, and the positive response was so much more than he ever envisioned.
But I fear that the boy has cried wolf too many times. Seems like someone's always predicting terrible things. So it all goes in one ear and out the other.
The movie was saying that it would probably take a crisis before the fiscal issues being discussed were taken seriously. I thought that the current economic crisis might have gotten the ball rolling. But the irony may end up being that Obama's fiscal stimulus is working too well. If the recession ends within the next few months, people will go back to their credit cards like they were doing before the crisis.
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesExactly the point made about the 4th piece of the pie...the leadership deficit. No politician until now has really tried to address the biggest problem. Obama is at least smart enough to realize that the US cannot wait any longer if the US is to avoid bankruptcy.
The movie makes good points.
The problems are:
Politicians are afraid to make any proposals that will raise taxes or cut benefits. .................. But the irony may end up being that Obama's fiscal stimulus is working too well. If the recession ends within the next few months, people will go back to their credit cards like they were doing before the crisis.
This is why he is doing it and this is the perspective that is sooooooo lacking in these RHP discussions. You all can't see the forest for the trees.
13 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessOne of the things that made Perot so effective was his frequent use of charts and graphs to make his points. Obama needs to do a lot more of this.
Exactly the point made about the 4th piece of the pie...the leadership deficit. No politician until now has really tried to address the biggest problem. Obama is at least smart enough to realize that the US cannot wait any longer if the US is to avoid bankruptcy.
This is why he is doing it and this is the perspective that is sooooooo lacking in these RHP discussions. You all can't see the forest for the trees.
It's also difficult to preach about fiscal responsibility after the blizzard of bailouts and fiscal stimulus spending we've been doing. I understand why these things had to be done -- a plunging economy is the worst possible thing for budgets -- but it does make it very hard to talk about belt-tightening. And even the healthcare reform has been dominated by the goal of universal coverage, which is overshadowing the cost-control part of the debate.
The best scenario might be for the GOP to win at least one of the houses in 2010. Obama could use this as a reason to declare that the "Era of Big Government is Over (Again)" and get to work proposing some real fiscal reforms.
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe back up plan is simple. Reduce benefits and raise taxes.
One of the things that made Perot so effective was his frequent use of charts and graphs to make his points. Obama needs to do a lot more of this.
It's also difficult to preach about fiscal responsibility after the blizzard of bailouts and fiscal stimulus spending we've been doing. I understand why these things had to be done -- a plunging economy is t ...[text shortened]... "Era of Big Government is Over (Again)" and get to work proposing some real fiscal reforms.
The sad part is that many many many americans when they retire are hoping to live on the money they contributed (via taxes) to the social security and medicare/medicaid funds. As you can see from the movie, that money isn't there. It's been spent. There is NOTHING left in the fund.
I don't know how anyone who is 50 and older will survive unless you have a pretty big nest egg.
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by uzlessI see Social Security and Medicare as being no different from any other entitlement program. Every year the government spends a certain amount of money based on some formula. They don't need trust funds (which are just an accounting trick anyway). All the money that government spends comes from a general annual revenue stream (plus whatever it borrows).
The back up plan is simple. Reduce benefits and raise taxes.
The sad part is that many many many americans when they retire are hoping to live on the money they contributed (via taxes) to the social security and medicare/medicaid funds. As you can see from the movie, that money isn't there. It's been spent. There is NOTHING left in the fund.
...[text shortened]... don't know how anyone who is 50 and older will survive unless you have a pretty big nest egg.
The main issue is the OVERALL level of the federal deficit and debt - and Social Security and Medicare will be adding increased amounts of pressure. The really big pressure will come from the healthcare costs. At some point, we're going to have to make some tough decisions involving taxes and everything the government does. This will probably include some sort of cuts to Social Security and especially Medicare - but it will also include cuts to all the other things -- and it will probably mean a sizeable tax increase that can't be limited only to the very rich.
14 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesI see no one else bothered to inform themselves. I'll count you as one of the few who did.
I see Social Security and Medicare as being no different from any other entitlement program. Every year the government spends a certain amount of money based on some formula. They don't need trust funds (which are just an accounting trick anyway). All the money that government spends comes from a general annual revenue stream (plus whatever it borrows).
nd it will probably mean a sizeable tax increase that can't be limited only to the very rich.
14 Aug 09
7 edits
Originally posted by uzlessSpot on!! I know that it will be bankrupt soon, in fact, every entitlement program on the books seems to be including social security and I have been saying this till I am blue in the face. However, is the answer to create another far more reaching entitlement? The way I read the bill, the costs will go up exponencially over the next 10 years so although we many stay afloat with it at the beginning, there is NO question in my mind it WILL go belly up at some point. It is only a matter of when.
The proliferation of health care "debate" threads makes me wonder if any here actually understands why health care reform is even on the agenda these days. Apparently, not many on RHP understand why health care even needs to be reformed. It's not ideological, it's not to save the live's of poor people.
It's because the USA will be bankrupt in 15 years without the changes.
Watch the damn movie.
iousathemovie.com
Having said that, the recent credit crisis is another shining example of what I am talking about. People in government and the private sector saw the trouble we were in and how people were living beyond their means. However, NOTHING was done until it all fell apart. Why wold anyone do anything when those in government and the private sector were making money hand over fist and to top it all off, people were getting to live in houses they could not afford. So who was going to blow the whistle? Then a gun was placed to our heads and we were told that bail outs were going to commence or else!! I think perhaps if this bill is not passed, something similar will happen. If they don't get their way and get it passed, they will ignore the need to reform the current system and simply let it fall apart and then hold a gun to our heads again and tell us to pass it or else!! This seems to be the way they pass peices of legislation that are highly unpopular and which takes large sums of tax money from us. Of course, I don't see the new bill as reform, rather, it is simply embracing a different entitlement system with flaws all its own even though it may be a little cheaper. In short, the focus should be keeping health care costs down instead of focusing on who is going to pay.
When will we ever learn that entitlements just don't work? Don't get me wrong, I would like to see everyone have health care. However, I would also like there to be world wide peice and for everyone to live like kings but is it practicle to pass an entitlement for these things making the government responsible to make something happen that in not tenable? Granted, it may be more tenable short term to mandate everyone to be covered than it would to force the world to live peacefully or to insure everyone live like kings, but not long term.
As a side note, what do we do about social security if anything? My guess is that instead of reforming it by curtailing government involvment, they will more than likely take the same approach as they are with health care and cause massive tax increases or even start taking over 401k's and throwoing them into social security. I think that is the next great entitlement fight.
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by uzlessYour answer to debt is to support more benefits to more people? You disagree with the Congressional Budge Office's assesment that the bill will actually cost more than it will save?
The proliferation of health care "debate" threads makes me wonder if any here actually understands why health care reform is even on the agenda these days. Apparently, not many on RHP understand why health care even needs to be reformed. It's not ideological, it's not to save the live's of poor people.
It's because the USA will be bankrupt in 15 years without the changes.
Watch the damn movie.
iousathemovie.com
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusincrease in one area, decrease in others. Sum totals will be less.
Your answer to debt is to support more benefits to more people? You disagree with the Congressional Budge Office's assesment that the bill will actually cost more than it will save?
This bill is just step 1.