- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194316
20 Aug 11
Originally posted by badmoonIf health care reform is not overturned, he will be known for that as a pivotal moment in American history, because eventually it will evolve into something meaningful. Much like Social Security evolved.
I will say that historically he is one of the most significant presidents.
20 Aug 11
Originally posted by KunsooThat is certainly desirable. But as it stands the health care reform is a rather weak attempt at fixing the broken US health care system.
If health care reform is not overturned, he will be known for that as a pivotal moment in American history, because eventually it will evolve into something meaningful. Much like Social Security evolved.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194316
20 Aug 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere's a reason the insurance industry and their Republican surrogates fought the reform tooth an nail. Despite its lacking qualities, it completely changes the framework of health care. Once it's vested, it will have to be improved. A public option is all but inevitable, and that will eventually evolve into single payer because the insurance industry simply cannot deliver and so it cannot compete.
That is certainly desirable. But as it stands the health care reform is a rather weak attempt at fixing the broken US health care system.
21 Aug 11
" Name another president who walked in to month after month of over 500K job losses... " ? I don't think so.
The first 500K month was October 2008. The number then jumped to more than 700K in November 2008... once it became clear who was going to be the next President.
The 700K (or more) was maintained for January, February and March 2009.
No business was sitting around in January 2009 (when losses peaked) saying "oh my God, Bush is still going to be in there for another couple of weeks, we need to dump some more employees". The layoffs from November 2008 onward were reacting to what was coming.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administration-2010-2
21 Aug 11
Originally posted by TheBloopThat's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
" Name another president who walked in to month after month of over 500K job losses... " ? I don't think so.
The first 500K month was October 2008. The number then jumped to more than 700K in November 2008... once it became clear who was going to be the next President.
The 700K (or more) was maintained for January, February and March 2009.
...[text shortened]... .businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administration-2010-2
21 Aug 11
Originally posted by KunsooI agree with your forecast, but don't share your rosy outlook. The problem is that single payer promises a lot that it can't possibly deliver, very much as Social Security can't fullfill it's promises.
There's a reason the insurance industry and their Republican surrogates fought the reform tooth an nail. Despite its lacking qualities, it completely changes the framework of health care. Once it's vested, it will have to be improved. A public option is all but inevitable, and that will eventually evolve into single payer because the insurance industry simply cannot deliver and so it cannot compete.
That's the way with government. Find fault with the private delivery system, even though most of the problems with the American health care system involve the parts that are already single payer. Blame the free market, which obviously isn't free, and by the time the single payer system is fully implemented, it will be virtually impossible to ween people off it, even as people are now dependent on Social Security.
Those of you who are young enough should remember all of the promises of single payer socialized medicine, and compare them to the actual results three or four decades from now.
21 Aug 11
Originally posted by normbenignYou're like the rear admiral of B.S.
very much as Social Security can't fullfill it's promises.
Social Security has worked for something like three-quarters of a century, it still works now, and it can be made to work in the future. The only thing threatening it are the actions of those who despise it on principle, because it doesn't serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy. They'll do everything they can to sabotage it. The typical mechanism Republicans utilize to pilfer the commons is to institute a kleptocracy: give away trillions in tax cuts for the top 2% and Big Business (welfare for plutocrats and corporations), dump trillions into the military-industrial complex (Soviet-style state capitalism), start preemptive large-scale ground wars (ginning up the jingoist fervor of Empire and imperialism), and "deregulate" banking and other industries (throwing consumers to the dogs and eventually necessitating big tax-payer financed bail-outs). The last strategy of deregulation is especially ingenious, since it usually causes markets to spin out of control and implode, thereby dragging the economy into recession and affording Republicans yet another opportunity to pilfer the commons by claiming it's time to "tighten our belts" and cut, cut, cut.
Cut what? The commons, of course, which are the things grandma depends on. Never guns for the military and butter for the billionaires. Nope: grandma gets shoved off the cliff by the Rethuglicans every....single....time.
21 Aug 11
Originally posted by SoothfastThe debate about SS has nothing to do with "serving the interests of corporations and wealthy". Try not to be so emotive and ranticidal, you'll make more sense. The debate about SS is concerned with freedom, i.e. people being free to set their own values and priorities. SS is just another tax, the gummint sayd give us 'X' now (or else, waving the stick) and we will give you "Y" when you get to a certain age that we will dertermine and may not be the age we stated at the time of the original demands. Problem is with inflation by the time you get to that certain arbitrary age "Y" dollars just aren't worth quite so much, the money is gone (it's value) and the polly that made the promise/demand is gone too. The only really answer is to make SS a stand alone, not for profit (if you insist) self supporting, voluntary scheme, that way people can opt out and try directing their resources to their own priorities.
You're like the rear admiral of B.S.
Social Security has worked for something like three-quarters of a century, it still works now, and it can be made to work in the future. The only thing threatening it are the actions of those who despise it on principle, because it doesn't serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy. They'll do everything ...[text shortened]... . Nope: grandma gets shoved off the cliff by the Rethuglicans every....single....time.