Do the democrats have a chance in 2004?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-11 01:01pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Iceberg wrote:George Bush's request for an additional $87 billion a year for the occupation, if redirected to the US, would be just about enough to implement Dr. Dean's health care plan.
oh great, so if we spend the $87 billion we don't have on something else, all of our healthcare problems go away! yay!

If the government's going to borrow close to a hundred billion dollars, I'd prefer it be for something that will give Americans a tangible benefit, thanks. Of course, Shrubby negated that option by forcing us into Iraq with little support and less goodwill.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-11 01:27pm

Iceberg wrote: If the government's going to borrow close to a hundred billion dollars, I'd prefer it be for something that will give Americans a tangible benefit, thanks.

Of course, you missed the part about the US closing it's bases in Saudi
Arabia, and moving the troops out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq? We can
finally kiss goodbye to that corrupt theocracy, and knock down one of
OBL's planks : "The infidels are on the sands of Saudi Arabia!"

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-11 01:37pm

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-01-03.html

Earl Ravenal, professor emeritus of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, estimated that the United States spends $50 billion a year to maintain forces in the region.

So it's already cost us 50 bn a year over the last 12 years to keep
troops in the Middle East....whoo that's a lot of money!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 02:02pm

All of which can be laid directly on the doorstep of George Walker Bush, with a flaming bag of dog poo.

Like it or not that's the case. Crying about it won't help now. It's got to be dealt with as is.

Quit putting words into my mouth, asshole. Obviously, abandoning the troops - or Iraq - would be a very bad idea at this moment

If we don't fund them then that's exactly what happens. You can't send them over there and no expect to have to shoulder the cost. You want to see these places rebuilt but don't want to spend the money to do it. Nice reasoning there.

Considering that Afghanistan is one thing that got slashed badly in the last budget, you're fucking retarded to think it would make a difference. The $87 billion (plus the pre-existing $50 billion, plus another $55 billion by Congressional estimates) is for IRAQ, not Afghanistan.

President Bush seems to have conveniently forgotten Afghanistan.

Funny then that a Republican senator said the money was supposed to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, and
this article too. Hmmm, perhaps you're wrong?

And if you want continue to fix both countries some one's going to have to pony up the dough. You can cry and bitch all you about the abandoning them but if you don't want to pay the bill then you're just another hypocrite. [/url]

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 02:09pm

Oh, and you still haven't addressed the question about how we can keep Dean's proposed health care system from turning into a monster like Social Security has. Social Security is going to bankrupt the US government with in our lifetimes! And you want to implement another monstorous federal welfare program? Are you fucking nuts?

I agree, it'd be nice to see all those people get health care. But the federal government is the worst possible agency to do it. The incredible failure of Social Security alone shows me that.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-11 02:48pm

How many of these "healthy younger folks" would actually choose to go without HC if health insurance were reasonably priced?

It is reasonably priced, at the moment. In 2001, premiums for single individuals ranged between $100-$125, a price tag well within the means of many if not most Americans. Here is a more updated analysis. Unfortunately, health care premiums are set to really begin to climb in a few years, which is why we need tort reform now.

Few systems let as many people "slip through the cracks" as ours does.

And I'm sure you can back that up with figures, correct? Or perhaps you could explain how a system that lets sooooo many people slip through the cracks received the endorsement of the World Health Organization as being the most responsive in the world to the healthcare needs of individuals?

Explain why your system would succeed, then. Because all I can see is the whining "My choices can't ever be infringed for the good of the community" bullshit that conservatives love.

I realize that you do not feel the need to explain how your system will work, but I will explain mine anyway. I would allow all Americans to make tax-deductible contributions (with a limit of $3,000, perhaps $3,500 today due to inflation) to Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), which act a bit like IRAs. These accounts could be drawn from to pay for routine medical expenses, and would encourage people to economize with their health care decisions. One of the problems with a system based so heavily on insurance is that it does not do anything to discourage consumption, which encourages heavy use of services and overloads the system. It takes just as much time to process a $50 claim as it does to process a $50,000 claim, leaving doctors with massive amounts of paperwork to deal with. Insurance is a terribly, terribly inefficient way to pay for small transactions. Cut the insurance company out of the equation, and doctor's offices will have much, much less to deal with. Removing insurance companies from the equation also allows for stronger doctor-patient business relationships to develop. Note that HMOs aren't very big on this idea, either, because they realize that it would lessen their control of the healthcare system. Insurance companies would still be around, of course, to pay for more expensive medical procedures, but they would be completely cut out of the vast, vast majority of medical transactions and the plans to deal with these procedures would thus be considerably less expensive. And payments for catastrophic insurance would still be tax-deductible, of course. I would also include tax credits to lower-income people to help them out.

Fact is, health insurance companies are a pain in the ass. That's one place I agree with you.

The Canadian system, IIRC, comes out to about 8-9% of the GDP, versus 14% here.

Concession accepted.

How much is lawyers, and how much is companies getting greedy because they want the money to pay their ridiculous executive salaries?

My God, you're not serious with this shit, are you? Are you that detached from reality? Have you ever looked at the financial statements of a multi-billion dollar corporation? Even the most ridiculous executive salary is a drop in the bucket compared to the finances of the organization as a whole!

Lawyers, on the other hand, have a quite tangible effect on the cost of health care; outrageous awards result in massive malpractice premiums for doctors (talk to a doctor and prepare to put your hand over your mouth) which are set to grow even more in coming years, thus resulting in higher costs for the rest of us. In addition to this, doctors will order unnecessary tests and prescribe unnecessary antibiotics in order to avoid lawsuits, also resulting in considerable cost to the rest of us.

When all else fails, paint your opponent as a commie.

Oh no, you've done that quite well with your bullshit whining about executive salaries.

Did you read the plan, or did you just come up with that whine on your own. And would you like some cheese with it?

I'm sorry, I was unaware that I was supposed to go out and do research to cater to your debate requirements.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-11 02:50pm

'Many', perhaps, but certainly not most. As someone who actually works to collect the statistics on who has insurance and what their health is like, the majority in at least one state are the eldery with health problems, or the middle aged with black lung or worse.

West Virginia, right? You're in something of a unique situation, though, with the coal industry and black lung.

Not to mention you've made no effort to determine why they make this choice, what factors influence them. And the price will come up as the reason most times.

Because they're healthy and they don't need that. Or perhaps they'd rather spend the money on other things, of their own accord. As for price, see my above post.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-11 03:08pm

Do you have any argument against national health care (especially an NHC program based on one that already has worked and is working) that doesn't involve a straw man comparison to a program that does not resemble it in the slightest? Just wondering, you know...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 03:14pm

Iceberg wrote:Do you have any argument against national health care (especially an NHC program based on one that already has worked and is working) that doesn't involve a straw man comparison to a program that does not resemble it in the slightest? Just wondering, you know...

Yes. Our government's wasteful and stupid no matter who's in office. Social welfare programs have been a sinkhole for money and resources. None of them has ever provided adequate service for the money spent. I don't want another sink hole program when one is already threatening to bankrupt the US.

Just saying, oh we'll use this as a model isn't good enough. What I want to know is what's to prevent Dean's plan (or any other for that matter) from collapsing like Social Secruity has? And how's it going to be funded in the first place?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-11 03:17pm

Storm wrote:

Just saying, oh we'll use this as a model isn't good enough. What I want to know is what's to prevent Dean's plan (or any other for that matter) from collapsing like Social Secruity has? And how's it going to be funded in the first place?

You will not get an answer because they do not have one. Other than reversing the tax cut..

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-11 03:18pm

Just saying, oh we'll use this as a model isn't good enough. What I want to know is what's to prevent Dean's plan (or any other for that matter) from collapsing like Social Secruity has? And how's it going to be funded in the first place?

Easy, and deliciously socialist. Just raise those juicy taxes.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-11 03:23pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Just saying, oh we'll use this as a model isn't good enough. What I want to know is what's to prevent Dean's plan (or any other for that matter) from collapsing like Social Secruity has? And how's it going to be funded in the first place?
Easy, and deliciously socialist. Just raise those juicy taxes.

Your answer is so bullshit it stinks a mile away.

Those tax cuts were irresponsible, and President Bush has no intention of so much as rolling back a single cent, because doing so would require him to admit that he did the wrong thing by cutting taxes when projected expenditures already outstripped projected revenues.

Borrow and spend, borrow and spend, you're defending the Credit Card Presidency.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-11 03:24pm

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-11 03:27pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Do you have any argument against national health care (especially an NHC program based on one that already has worked and is working) that doesn't involve a straw man comparison to a program that does not resemble it in the slightest? Just wondering, you know...
Yes. Our government's wasteful and stupid no matter who's in office. Social welfare programs have been a sinkhole for money and resources. None of them has ever provided adequate service for the money spent. I don't want another sink hole program when one is already threatening to bankrupt the US.

If that's your only argument, then we should disband the Department of Defense entirely, because it wastes a LOT more money than ANY social welfare program. Billion-dollar boondoggles like the B-1 and B-2 bombers, DD-21, Stryker and the F-22 fighter program come quickly to mind.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 03:28pm

Iceberg wrote:Your answer is so bullshit it stinks a mile away.

Those tax cuts were irresponsible, and President Bush has no intention of so much as rolling back a single cent, because doing so would require him to admit that he did the wrong thing by cutting taxes when projected expenditures already outstripped projected revenues.

Yes, giving people money in recession is always a bad idea....

Iceberg wrote:Borrow and spend, borrow and spend, you're defending the Credit Card Presidency.

What do you expect? The so called surpluses were pure bullshit. When the Clinton economy crashed down in ruin a deficit was inevitible. Add in war with a military gutted by Clinton's short sighted policy and it's doubly inevitible.

That still doesn't explain how Dean's Boondoggle is going to get funded.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-11 03:30pm

Reposting How Dean will "pay" for healthcare

To pay for Deans Healthcare.. Quote:
Paying for the Dean Plan

There is abundant evidence that Americans are fully prepared to forego the Bush tax cuts in order to extend health insurance to all.

The cost of providing access to affordable health insurance for all Americans under Governor Dean’s plan is $88.3 billion per year at full implementation in FY2008 according to estimates by the Lewin Group. This is far less than half the cost of George W. Bush’s tax cuts both those enacted in 2001 and those he is still proposing in 2003.

Bush 2001 Tax
Cut as Passed Bush 2003 Tax
Cut as Proposed Total Bush
Tax Cuts
2006 $135B
$96B
$231B

2007 $152B
$79B
$231B

2008 $160B
$82B
$242B

2009 $167B
$84B
$251B

Again. this is just repealing the tax cut.. nothing else.. and he is going to do that with a Rep house and Senate...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-11 03:32pm

Your answer is so bullshit it stinks a mile away.

I'm talking long run. In the long run, the health care plan will require tax hikes, and you're a damned liar if you deny that.

Those tax cuts were irresponsible

Yes, 35 billion dollars a year out of a 2.2+ trillion yearly budget is a horrible shortfall! Even if it stimulates the economy!

Borrow and spend, borrow and spend, you're defending the Credit Card Presidency.

Actually, I'm not defending anything other than tax cuts, because I believe that the people who fund our state should sometimes be entitled to relief, even a little bit, unlike you. I have no intention of voting for Bush at the moment due to his Democratic spending habits, but go ahead, pigeonhole me into being a Bush supporter because I disagree with you.

If that's your only argument, then we should disband the Department of Defense entirely, because it wastes a LOT more money than ANY social welfare program. Billion-dollar boondoggles like the B-1 and B-2 bombers, DD-21, Stryker and the F-22 fighter program come quickly to mind.

Big fucking lie. Defense isn't going to bankrupt us. In fact, if wasted defense spending was all we had to worry about we'd be in great shape. It's your beloved social programs, again.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 03:32pm

Iceberg wrote:If that's your only argument, then we should disband the Department of Defense entirely, because it wastes a LOT more money than ANY social welfare program. Billion-dollar boondoggles like the B-1 and B-2 bombers, DD-21, Stryker and the F-22 fighter program come quickly to mind.

Funny, I think we happen to be getting our money's worth out of our military. A first rate military costs a lot and I'm fine with that notion. I'd rather spend the money on billion dollar bombers than body bags. The Pentagon isn't perfect though, it's far from it and I'd love to see reform there as well as the whole government. I've never said it's perfect.

But that still doesn't mean that social welfare programs are any less wasteful. Or change the fact that Social Security stands to bankrupt the US. And you want to add another program equally sweeping with no concrete plan, at least none presented, for funding it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-11 03:33pm

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Circumstances change, unfortunately. I don't think Bush could have foreseen bin Laden becoming as irrelevant as he is now.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-11 03:34pm

But that still doesn't mean that social welfare programs are any less wasteful. Or change the fact that Social Security stands to bankrupt the US. And you want to add another program equally sweeping with no concrete plan, at least none presented, for funding it.

It's raising taxes. But that won't be presented, because tax hikes are electoral suicide (justifiably).

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-11 03:37pm

Then he shouldn't have shot his mouth off like a fool.

Anyone hear how in a speech at the FBI Academy, Dubya responded to Patriot Act complaints by saying (paraphrasing) "Its not to powerful, its in fact not powerful enough"?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 03:37pm

Oh Iceberg, please explain to me how you would have us deal with Iraq and Afghanistan with out a dime. Since you oppose the request for fund, how would you have us do it? You seem to have forgetten to enlighten us on that. Please share, I can't wait to hear it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-11 03:39pm

Then he shouldn't have shot his mouth off like a fool.

Yes, he shot of his mouth and got too emotional like a fool two days after 3,000 Americans were murdered. That bastard.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-11 03:44pm

Need I remind you, his job is not to be emotional. His job is to lead the country. He's got speechwriters for God's sakes. That bit didn't get in there by accident.

He was either trying to appease the American people, or he's gone back on his words for the umpteenth time.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 03:48pm

Howedar wrote:Need I remind you, his job is not to be emotional. His job is to lead the country. He's got speechwriters for God's sakes. That bit didn't get in there by accident.

He was either trying to appease the American people, or he's gone back on his words for the umpteenth time.

Heaven forbid he should get emotional at a national tragedy. How dare he!

It was mistake born of emtion rather than considered policy. Bin Laden, while important isn't the only factor in September 11th and we shouldn't forget about everything else simply to obesses over him. He's been driven into hiding and we've made it far more difficult for him.

I'd love to see Osma's head on a stake at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but it's not going to happen soon, it's going to take time and I'd like to see the country get on with it's other business in the mean time.