Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

btw...if you "wouldn't mind paying some tax dollars to help relieve the financial burden of our neighbors who weren't born as lucky as I was to be healthy"...that should be something that you are free to do as often as you wish(libertarian concept) but should not result in your neighbors being forced to do so(other half of the libertarian concept) and wouldn't it make more sense to give those dollars directly to a hospital or charity(libertarian concept) that doesn't have a multi, multi bazillion dollar website that doesn't work?????(evidence for the basis of libertarian concept)

What I'm saying is that if EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government programs can fill the inevitable gaps that charities could not fix, I'm OK with that. I am not saying that Obamacare fits that description.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What I'm saying is that if EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government programs can fill the inevitable gaps that charities could not fix, I'm OK with that. I am not saying that Obamacare fits that description.

name one and what exactly are these "inevitable gaps"?

"CNN has been pondering what they call “a particularly tough few days at the White House.” “Four out of five Americans have little or no trust in their government to do anything right,” says chief political analyst Gloria Borger. “And now Obama probably feels the same way.” Our hearts go out to him, poor wee disillusioned thing. We are assured by the headline writers that the president was “unaware” of Obamacare’s website defects, and the NSA spying, and the IRS targeting of his political enemies, and the Justice Department bugging the Associated Press, and pretty much anything else you ask him about. But, as he put it, “nobody’s madder than me” at this shadowy rogue entity called the “Government of the United States” that’s running around pulling all this stuff. And, once he finds out who’s running this Government of the United States rogue entity, he’s gonna come down as hard on him as he did on that videomaker in California; he’s gonna send round the National Park Service SWAT team to teach that punk a lesson he won’t forget."

"But the fact remains that nowhere in the Western world has the governmentalization of health care been so incompetently introduced and required protection by such a phalanx of lies. Obamacare is not a left–right issue; it’s a fraud issue."

brilliant.. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/362922/print

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

name one and what exactly are these "inevitable gaps"?


brilliant.. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/362922/print

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.

I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons, should we create an "EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government program" for each of those as well because "it should never, ever happen"??

you just provided the rationale for every massive bureaucratic transfer system that we have, please name one that is EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT.......one that did not start from sentiment like the one you expressed only to grow exponentially beyond it's promised purpose and cost....one that is not unsustainable and headed for disaster as you've pointed out countless times....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons, should we create an "EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government program" for each of those as well because "it should never, ever happen"??

you just provided the rationale for every massive bureaucratic transfer system that we have, please name one that is EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT.......one that did not start from sentiment like the one you expressed only to grow exponentially beyond it's promised purpose and cost....one that is not unsustainable and headed for disaster as you've pointed out countless times....

In my opinion, which you disagree with...I'd rather have some kind of public program that levels the playing field to lessen the financial impacts of catastrophic health costs which (1) those afflicted have zero control over, and which (2) could happen to any of us at any time. I'd rather have it at the local level than in DC.

"I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons"

Me too. I'm not talking about allowing people to avoid responsibility for bad decisions. I'm talking about helping those who did absolutely nothing to contribute to their predicament. If someone could devise a well run program to achieve that goal, I'd support it. Maybe you wouldn't.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In my opinion, which you disagree with...I'd rather have some kind of public program that levels the playing field to lessen the financial impacts of catastrophic health costs which (1) those afflicted have zero control over, and which (2) could happen to any of us at any time. I'd rather have it at the local level than in DC.

We already have a system wherein it can and must be had at the local level--the governmental structure prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. Having it at a centralized national level destroys the constitutional structure. It's not a question of "rather" having it at the local level. It either "must" be there or it entirely changes the political structure and the relationship of the individual to the government.

"I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons"

Me too. I'm not talking about allowing people to avoid responsibility for bad decisions. I'm talking about helping those who did absolutely nothing to contribute to their predicament. If someone could devise a well run program to achieve that goal, I'd support it. Maybe you wouldn't.

Many of those reasons Scott was talking about also involve situations where the individual has, as you put it, "zero control over". Two that I mentioned above, growing old and in need of 24/7 care and the loss of job and income. Their is no such thing as a well run "government" program to solve them without changing the nature of our society. If you think a "safe" government manipulated society is better than one of individual choice fraught with messy problems, than we differ in more than minor preferences.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

I know people who have had to sell their homes and rent apartments because of many reasons, should we create an "EFFECTIVE EFFICIENT government program" for each of those as well because "it should never, ever happen"??

you just provided the rationale for every massive bureaucratic transfer system that we have, please name one that is EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT.......one that did not start from sentiment like the one you expressed only to grow exponentially beyond it's promised purpose and cost....one that is not unsustainable and headed for disaster as you've pointed out countless times....

It seems that government programs are most effective in creating a greater need for their service than existed before the programs started. That appears to be the nature of providing "help". The appearance is that they are "working" because more seek the help. So the "help" expands and the cost gets larger not only because of larger numbers to be "helped" but because the large pool of govt. money also raises the cost of the "help".

In reality, people become less "efficient" in solving their own problems because it is easier to let government do it.

It is such an obvious circle of events. But the allure of easier living is too great to resist. That it is heading toward a collapse of a system of individual responsibility to one of government dependence appears not to be a problem. It can all be replaced with an effectively efficient system of total government control. That such systems have not worked due to that mysterious desire in human nature to be free of them is not a problem. Our way will be better.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I personally know people who have had to sell their homes and rent crappy apartments because of medical bills. It should never, ever happen.

Would it have been possible for those people (how many?--I don't know any--is this a rampant problem?)--would it have been possible for them to refinance their home for a loan to pay off their medical bills? And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty? If not, couldn't the money they paid for an apartment been used to pay notes on the refinanced house? Lots of questions to be answered here before government mandates that everyone else should pay for their medical bills.

Should old folks be able to keep or pass on all of their assets to family (homes, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and still have the "government" pay for their expensive care in nursing homes?

Should people who lose a job have the "government" subsidize their house notes so they can stay their rather than move to crappy apartments.

There are so many situations which affect millions of people from which they have to extricate themselves that could easily be "fixed" by the "government" paying for the fix.

Sorry Scott--posted this while you were posting yours.

[Fly Rod]

All one has to do to see how poorly government runs it health program we just have to look at how the VA treats its wounded soldiers....it is socialist medicine

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Would it have been possible for those people (how many?--I don't know any--is this a rampant problem?)--would it have been possible for them to refinance their home for a loan to pay off their medical bills? And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty? If not, couldn't the money they paid for an apartment been used to pay notes on the refinanced house? Lots of questions to be answered here before government mandates that everyone else should pay for their medical bills.

Should old folks be able to keep or pass on all of their assets to family (homes, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and still have the "government" pay for their expensive care in nursing homes?

Should people who lose a job have the "government" subsidize their house notes so they can stay their rather than move to crappy apartments.

There are so many situations which affect millions of people from which they have to extricate themselves that could easily be "fixed" by the "government" paying for the fix.

Sorry Scott--posted this while you were posting yours.

"And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty?"

No. The family I know, had medical bills that ran in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not mane people can write a check for that amount and not see a big downward shift in their standard of living, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they were in "financial difficulty" to begin with. They weren't uber-rich, but they were not in financial difficulty by my standards.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that the feds could pull it off without waste and abuse. Nor am I so cynical and callous that I'm willing to say "tough cookies" to people who are so afflicted.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"And if, after paying the medical bills they couldn't afford to rent "nice" rather than "crappy" apartments, were they already in financial difficulty?"

No. The family I know, had medical bills that ran in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not mane people can write a check for that amount and not see a big downward shift in their standard of living, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they were in "financial difficulty" to begin with. They weren't uber-rich, but they were not in financial difficulty by my standards.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that the feds could pull it off without waste and abuse. Nor am I so cynical and callous that I'm willing to say "tough cookies" to people who are so afflicted.

Now you're really losing me. We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars? If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now? And if the government was willing to pay for them all, wouldn't that even raise the cost of the medicine even more? It sounds like the prescription for more of the same escalating costs we are experiencing now--on steroids.

Wouldn't it be more effective, and more economically reasonable for the rest of society, if the individual negotiated those prices rather than the government either just paying them or instead controlled them.

If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect. Either negotiation or default would occur. Third party has distorted this into a spiral of higher costs, government intervention, and unsustainable debts.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Now you're really losing me. We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars? If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now? And if the government was willing to pay for them all, wouldn't that even raise the cost of the medicine even more? It sounds like the prescription for more of the same escalating costs we are experiencing now--on steroids.

Wouldn't it be more effective, and more economically reasonable for the rest of society, if the individual negotiated those prices rather than the government either just paying them or instead controlled them.

If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect. Either negotiation or default would occur. Third party has distorted this into a spiral of higher costs, government intervention, and unsustainable debts.

"We need a government program to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars?"

Our consciences should demand that we need something to lessen the burden tee people face. In the absence of private programs providing the safety net, the gubmint could do it.

"If there were such a program, don't you think there would be a lot more cases of such need as exist now?"

Yes. Detbuch, you and Scott are sharp enough to play devil's advocate, where you could articulate dozens of potential pitfalls and abuses. In the meantime, innocent decent people are suffering for things they could not possibly control. If we can split an atom, perhaps we can figure out a way to address this too.

"If your friends could not afford to pay, the medical providers could not collect."

These are dear friends. They could afford to pay most of it, and it cost them everything they had. They had a child born with leukemia and bad kidneys, and they were absolutely wiped out by the bills. Household income was about $125k, and they had decent insurance.

They had decent insurance, they got help from family and friends, our town had fundraisers, they relied on charities like Ronald McDonald House. And still, they got wiped out. Every cent of home equity, gone. Every cent they had saved since they started working, gone. Credit cards maxed out. Every cent was for medical expenses.

I don't claim to be able to answer any of the "well, what about THIS" gotcha arrows you can sling my way. But my claim is that we can do a little better in this area.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not naïve enough to believe that the feds could pull it off without waste and abuse.

that's a relief

Nor am I so cynical and callous that I'm willing to say "tough cookies" to people who are so afflicted.

that statement presumes that the only option for "those so afflicted" is assistance from some benevolent government entity or death in the streets, which I think would fit quite nicely into an Obama campaign speech