It’s even worse than you think:
The Democrats want to spend $1.5 trillion over a decade, impose an $800 billion tax increase in the midst of the worst recession in a generation, increase federal borrowing by $239 billion (on top of the $11 trillion the Obama budget already requires us to borrow through 2019), impose costly mandates on employers that will discourage hiring as unemployment nears 10 percent, force individuals to buy one-size-fits-all government defined insurance, and insert the government in countless new ways between doctors and patients. All of that would occur whether or not the plan includes a “public option,” which at this point it does include and which will exacerbate all of these problems.
As these facts have become clear, Obama’s standing has fallen and public opinion has grown decidedly less enthusiastic for the administration’s approach. The trend is likely to continue, because the details of the plan reveal that its two most serious drawbacks–its cost and the prospect of government rationing–are worse than even most of their critics have grasped.
Of course, that won’t stop them, in and of itself. We have to make our views known to our representatives next month when they’re back in their districts.
Though perhaps it’s not fair to call it Obamacare, since the president admits that he doesn’t even know what’s in the bill. And yet he continues to flail around attempting (and apparently failing) to defend it.
[Update late afternoon]
Why “health care” is not a right:
…imagine if the government had a body of experts charged with figuring out what your free-speech rights are, or your right to assemble, or worship. Mr. Jones, you can say X and Y, but not Z. Ms. Smith, you can freely assemble with Aleutians, Freemasons, and carpenters, but you may not meet in public with anyone from Cleveland or of Albanian descent. Mrs. Wilson, you may pray to Vishnu and Crom, but never to Allah or Buddha, and when you do pray, you cannot do so for longer than 20 minutes at a time, unless it is one of several designated holidays. Please see Extended Prayer Form 10–22B.
Of course, all of this would be ludicrous beyond words.
Actually, I can imagine this gang coming up with something exactly like that.
To pick just one distortion:
impose an $800 billion tax increase in the midst of the worst recession in a generation
The tax increase in question starts in 2013. Why should I take anything else in the article seriously?
Jim, if you’ve looked at the plans, you’d know the tax increases start immediately – the payouts don’t start until after Obama’s first term end.
If that’s their definition of “something must be done, NOW,” then why should I take anything else from this Congress or Administration seriously?
(sorry about the grammar slips in that last post)
More to the point, after the “stimulus” failed to keep unemployment below 8%, why should we take any of their claims seriously?
the tax increases start immediately
Actually the House surtax starts in 2010, and ramps up in 2013, so nearly all of the “$800 billion” comes after the recession is expected to be over.
More to the point, after the “stimulus” failed to keep unemployment below 8%, why should we take any of their claims seriously?
“Claims” about when a tax increase takes effect can be verified by looking at the bill. Forecasts about a future unemployment rate are a different sort of thing.
Expected by whom? Anyone who’s looked at actual leading indicators?
Why is a tax increase in 2013 not something that would affect an economy now? If I know in the future, I’m going to get hit with a tax increase; then I’m going to act now to minimize the effect.
But this is all smoke and mirrors. We already know how Jim and Obama plan to cut costs with universal healthcare. They plan to convince people late in life to forego health care and die with dignity. Jim has admitted it. Obama has admitted it.
No matter the economics, no amount of taxation or tax savings is justified in giving up individual liberty. Government has no role in telling Americans what healthcare they can have access to based on their age and health.
So which is it, Jim, the beatings (taxes) will start in 2010 or 2013? ‘Cause I know which one you claimed first, before the rest of us called “bullshit” on the claim. And it wasn’t the one you yourself stated later on.
And if you’re going to lie to us through your teeth on something so basic as that, then why should we take seriously any of your policy claims, ever again?
Why keep making up atrawmen about why Americans are too inept to run a national healthcare system rather than looking at examples of systems that do work?
Or is knocking down atrawmen more fun than solving real problems?
Astrawmen is an iPhoneism. I meant strawmen.
Oh and the stimulus wasn’t big enough for the mess that’s been made of the global economy. But you guys actually all knew that.
They plan to convince people late in life to forego health care and die with dignity. Jim has admitted it. Obama has admitted it.
when? For both of them with citations please.
Uh oh. Jim is posting under Daveon now. Lovely.
Nope. All me I’m afraid. Still awaiting being wrong since 1995.
And if people are going to make stuff up for rhectorical effect I want cites. Except from Rand. I know he won’t bother. Never has in the last 15odd years probably never will.
As noted, how did that stimulus work for keeping unemployment down?
A payroll tsx cut for half the amount would have worked. Too bad you supporting the guy utterly opposed to reducing taxes.
If the levels of personal debt in the US population were zero or equivalent to say, Norway, then cutting personal taxation would potentially make a difference. Except it’s not. All tax cuts can/should do is go to paying off debt which means no real impact on the economy, except in terms of what the credit companies are paying in taxes.
The reality, given the fragging that’s been done to the global economy, the stimulus isn’t anywhere near large enough.
All tax cuts can/should do is go to paying off debt which means no real impact on the economy, except in terms of what the credit companies are paying in taxes.
Yes, because no bank would want to relend the money after having a debt paid off.
Are you being paid to demonstrate your economic ignorance? Or do you do it just for fun?
All tax cuts can/should do is go to paying off debt which means no real impact on the economy, except in terms of what the credit companies are paying in taxes.
Fascinating. So tax cuts don’t stimulate the economy except for the portion that would go back into paying taxes. Explain that one for me because I would really like to hear it. By your logic, it seems, we should just raise all taxes to 100% to enjoy the maximum stimulative effect. I imagine you should be quite happy that our president seems to agree with you.
“Oh and the stimulus wasn’t big enough for the mess that’s been made of the global economy.’
Yes, let’s solve problems caused by government intervention with more government intervention. Of course we’re bankrupting future generations to do it but anything to make the One look good now.
First of all Daveon, I noticed you never commented on your fellow Brits dying of cancer getting worse care than they would in the US. It is kind of hypocritical for you demand citation, when you don’t read them; and sure as hell have never provided any of the past. But we know you Daveon, and your just as pompous and idiotic as ever.
Obamacare
Jim
Now Daveon, you can disagree with the interpretation of what these people are saying. It would by typical of you. But its pretty clear to the rest of us. When Obama claims healthcare costs are hurting the US economy and starts suggesting we just take the blue pill; he wants the government to decide what care we get. That’s not freedom and liberty. It is fascism. The kind that leads to determination by governments of who deserves treatment, and who should just die for the convenience of others.
If the levels of personal debt in the US population were zero or equivalent to say, Norway, then cutting personal taxation would potentially make a difference. Except it’s not. All tax cuts can/should do is go to paying off debt which means no real impact on the economy, except in terms of what the credit companies are paying in taxes.
I thought about this a bit. Even if such a tax cut doesn’t stimulate the economy as Daveon claims, it has two distinctive features that I think more important. It enhances debt repayment, which is not a bad activity to engage in during a recession. Even if economic activity and labor doesn’t increase in the short term, you improve the subsequent recovery since debt is somewhat less of a drag. I consider debt repayment a more economically efficient and beneficial activity than haphazard infrastructure building (eg, “bridges to nowhere” and similar things). My view is that there is more to the economy than merely encouraging greater activity in the short term. Helping people and businesses to pay off their debt would have a greater effect IMHO than some government spending with a modest economic activity multiplier.
Second, it is near immediate in effect. A lot of the causes of bubbles, recessions, and similar dynamic phenomena is via collective outlook. If most of us believe the sky is the limit or that it’s falling, then we collectively can make decisions that make that outcome to some extent true. A president with some competent economic advisers would be able to steer perception via actions that are immediate in effect. Some infrastructure building, short term tax cuts, things like that can shock society and build some short term consensus for a more positive outlook.
I don’t think the Obama administration can do that otherwise. To be blunt, I think a lot of the Obama administration activity has harmed outlook by introducing massive uncertainty. Consider his recent moves: the bank bailouts and the GM/Chrysler bankruptcies, universal health care (which could be like the relatively efficient VA hospitals or it could be like the black hole of government medical care, Medicare), carbon emissions cap and trade (only in fantasy does this not have massive uncertainty and risk for businesses). We have bizarre law like the incandescent bulb ban. And government has shown a tendency to pass costs for many of its programs on to business (for example, the extension of COBRA medical benefits to unemployed workers paid in part by the former employer, this was part of the “Stimulus” bill).
This indicates little awareness of or perhaps indifference to the concerns and perceptions of the people and businesses that make up the US economy. As I see it, it looks like Obama will probably manage to pass some of his ideological agenda at the sacrifice of a Democratic House and perhaps Senate in 2010. It’ll also be at the sacrifice of some parts of the US economy.
I note that “capital” is not merely “an accumulation of money”. Capital is, broadly speaking, a measure of confidence in the future.
When a politician acts in an apparently arbitrary manner, the political capital that pol wields will drop. So, too, a business that demonstrates untrustworthiness. And a government policy that breaks with past custom or law will impair the trust the people have in it. All these destroy capital, without a single dollar changing hands.
I have zero confidence that the Administration will act for the common good. I have every confidence that it will act for a factional good. That means that I am far more risk averse than I otherwise would be, so I shall hoard more cash than I otherwise would. I shall act to limit my exposure to government arbitrariness more thoroughly than I otherwise would.
So which is it, Jim, the beatings (taxes) will start in 2010 or 2013?
The surtax proposed by the House starts in 2010, and ramps up in 2013. There is no $800 billion tax increase “in the midst of the worst recession in a generation.”
Jim and Daveon do make an excellent tag-team of Teh Stooopid.
Don’t forget the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011.
Past studies suggest that alone will cause a 2.5 % drop in GDP.
Double-Dip Stagfla-cession anyone?
Yes Mike, why is no one talking about the effect of that? I plan on increasing my 401k contribution for my “going Galt” effort. I can give it to the government or keep it. Of course the Dems want to take the tax breaks for 401k contributions away too.
“Daveon Says:
July 25th, 2009 at 4:44 pm ”
You can mark this down in you calendar as the day you were wrong Daveon.
Leland – the “dying with dignity” cite from the Say Anything blog merely encourages people to have a living will and provides nationwide standards for such a will. Here in Middle America (rural downstate Illinois, to be exact) all of my aged relatives, including my parents, have living wills.
Regarding the rationing issue – when you admit that we are already rationing care by not insuring 40+ million Americans I might take your concerns seriously.
You can mark this down in you calendar as the day you were wrong Daveon.
Oh, Daveon has ben wrong before, pretty consistently. He just lacks the ability to recognize it.
Gerrib, the link is there for anyone to click. I checked it. What you wrote is complete fiction (not surprising coming from you, they can click your name to see what I mean).
Nothing about nationwide standards is mentioned.
Nothing about encouraging people.
In fact it says (emphasis mine):
The section, titled “Advanced Care Planning Consultation” requires senior citizens to meet at least every 5 years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss dying with dignity.
Chris Gerrib Says:
July 27th, 2009 at 9:31 am
“by not insuring 40+ million Americans”
And if you look at the breakdown of that number you actually find that most people:
1. Can afford coverage but choose not to buy any.
2. Are 18-25 years old and think they don’t need it.
3. Are children who are in fact covered under their parents insurance but haven’t been listed on the plan (lazy parents?).
4. Are between jobs and in the midst of switching coverage.
5. Don’t buy insurance because they already think they are covered by a gov’t insurance plan of some sort somewhere (I doubt a make believe plan will cover stupidity).
As the top search result for the phrase “Cthulhu shrine tucked away somewhere in the White House,” I have a differing opinion on what Extended Prayer Form 10–22B will look like…
Leland – read page 425 of the bill. The practitioner (AKA “your family doctor”) is required to explain what a living will is. The person getting the explanation is not required to have a living will.
Again, here in reality, having a living will is considered a normal and prudent course of events. It avoids the whole Terri Schiavo problem.
Josh Reiter – please provide a source for your argument about the uninsured.
Ok Gerrib, since you wasted enough of my time. Here’s the link to section 1233 of HR 3200.
Balls in your court to to explain how if this law was enacted, it would have affected the Terry Schaivo case. If Josh has to source his argument, you can at least not be a hypocrit.
Leland – Terri Schaivo did not have a living will. Part of what a living will does is designate who makes the call on “pulling the plug.” (Technically a medical power of attorney.) It also allows the patient to issue a “do not resuscitate” order.
My grandfather and great-uncle both used living wills to help their wives and my mother, a nurse and thus the family medical expert, make these difficult decisions. (Both died in their 80s’ after lengthy illnesses.)
Deciding to not resuscitate an aging and dying relative is not an easy decision. Getting the relative to sit down and express their wishes in advance helps smooth this process.
You may not have had to make these decisions yet, but I suspect that you will have to, one of these days.
Section 1233 amends the medicare section of the Social Security act. You would have known that if you read the bill, because the first line says “(a) medicare”. Instead of reading talking points, you have to actually click the CFR being amended to understand the definition of individual being discussed in the legislation.
Terry Schaivo was 26 when she was injured. She was not under medicare at the time of her injury, and so she never would have been counsuled to file a DNR order or write a living will. She had insurance money, to the tune of $750,000, to pay for her healthcare, but her husband used it to try and obtain a power of attorney, so he could end her life, re-marry, and pocket what money remained. That’s called conflict of interest, which is why it became a legal issue over whether he or her parents should hold power of attorney.
None of those issues are addressed in the bill under review. And personally, I’m glad to know it isn’t. The Terry Schaivo case was a bad excuse for federal intervention when she was alive. It still is a bad excuse for federal intervention now.
Finally, I notice you mention family members and others beside yourself using living wills. Did they have them because the government required they receive propaganda about living wills every 5 years? Do you have a living will? Do you need a bill that requires or even encourages every else to write one before you write one?
You may not have had to make these decisions yet, but I suspect that you will have to, one of these days.
I’ve made those decisions, and I didn’t need a government official providing direction on what best to do to help save the economy.
I say put your faith in The One and support ObamaCare. Because if you can’t trust State-worshippers who want to steal your money and take your guns, who can you trust? Long live Il Dufe!
Leland – I am aware that Terri Schaivo was not required to have a living will. Actually, nobody will be required to have a living will after this bill passes either.
If she had had a living will then this would not have been a national issue.
My family did not need government encouragement to write living wills. My mother the nurse had seen the issues with families that didn’t have one.
I simply fail to see the problem with requiring people to be educated about living wills. Freedom does not mean stupidity – in fact, we want free people to be educated about their options.
I’m sure you don’t see a problem with requiring people to be indoctrinated.
I’m sure you don’t see a problem with this statement:
If she had had a living will then this would not have been a national issue.
Those of us who believe in individual freedom wonder why it’s a national issue as to whether or not an individual has a living will.
Freedom does not mean stupidity – in fact, we want free people to be educated about their options.
Ah yes… you have a red pill or a blue pill. The blue pill is cheaper, and the government will pay for it. Or you can pick the red pill and pay for it with your money. Your option. If you choose the red pill, we will talk to you again in 5 years to explain your options to you again.
I simply fail to see the problem with requiring people to be educated about living wills. Freedom does not mean stupidity – in fact, we want free people to be educated about their options.
I similar don’t see the problem with require people to be educated prior to each election and tax season in the evils of excess government.
Regarding the rationing issue – when you admit that we are already rationing care by not insuring 40+ million Americans I might take your concerns seriously.
Last I checked, “we” don’t insure anyone. Think about it. Some health care is provided by government agency, but not health insurance. Now, it is possible that health insurance is subsidized like home loans used to be (namely, that the cost is tax deductable). A simple solution there is to make health insurance just like most benefits and taxed at the same rate. Combine that with an elimination of mandates on employer insurance policies.
Some health care is provided by government agency, but not health insurance.
I meant:
Some health care, but not health insurance is provided by government agency.
So Medicare and Medicaid aren’t health insurance? Because my aged relatives get Medicare and don’t have to go to a government doctor.
I’m not sure how removing a subsidy is supposed to increase coverage.
I agree Karl. I’d like to see the federal government provide propaganda every 4 years on the risks of excess government.
This statement of Gerrib seems awefully familiar:
I simply fail to see the problem with requiring people to be educated about living wills. Freedom does not mean stupidity – in fact, we want free people to be educated about their options.
Change the subject of the sentence from living wills to political candidates, and you get a statement an Alabama Democrat would have made a century ago, as they worked to protect their power:
I simply fail to see the problem with requiring people to be educated about candidates. Freedom does not mean stupidity – in fact, we want free people to be educated about their options.
So Medicare and Medicaid aren’t health insurance? Because my aged relatives get Medicare and don’t have to go to a government doctor.
Yes, they’re not health insurance.
I’m not sure how removing a subsidy is supposed to increase coverage.
I don’t care about increasing coverage. I don’t have a problem with 20% of the US population choosing to self-insure. I do care about high health care costs. These are the real problem. That can only be addressed by reducing demand and increasing supply.
Leland – I went back and re-read the bill. Seniors are not required to get a consultation on a living will. The bill merely ensures Medicaid covers such a consultation. So, not only is their no requirement to get a living will, there is no requirement to get educated about a living will.
Karl Hallowell – I don’t have a problem with 20% of the US population choosing to self-insure. Except most of them aren’t “choosing” to self-insure. They can’t get insurance.
Seniors are not required to get a consultation on a living will.
Physicians are just required to provide a consultation every 5 years. Doesn’t change the propaganda aspect of this. And it doesn’t change the fact that when tied with Obama’s and Jim’s comments, this is part of the effort to curb costs.
Physicians are just required to provide a consultation every 5 years.
Wrong! Medicaid is required to cover the consultation. Nobody is required to have the consultation.
Wrong!
Comprehension takes practice; one wonders what the claim will be tomorrow.
Yes, because no bank would want to relend the money after having a debt paid off.
Do you read the news, watch TV, the internet? In which case you’d know what a odd statement that is to make.
First of all Daveon, I noticed you never commented on your fellow Brits dying of cancer getting worse care than they would in the US.
It happens, no question. The UK also pays roughly half the amount of money for healthcare that the USA does, so you get what you pay for. How about all those complaints from other countries with universal healthcare?
Or is the US so inept as a country that the French can do it better?
I consider debt repayment a more economically efficient and beneficial activity than haphazard infrastructure building (eg, “bridges to nowhere” and similar things).
And what is the debt repayment actually doing then?
I’d be inclined to agree with you about infrastructure if the US infrastructure wasn’t just stunningly bad that you actually need to spend a lot on roads and bridges to places that need them. The 520 Floating Bridge in Seattle springs to mind.
1. Can afford coverage but choose not to buy any.
And what about people who can’t get insured at any cost because of pre-existing conditions?
On that score, how in the hell can you insure against something you have? The concept is completely meaningless in the context of insurance.
It is fascism.
We have a word for that sort of nonsense in Britain. It’s “Bollocks”.
I thought this guy summed it up nicely: http://hal-obrien.livejournal.com/357829.html
I have a word for people who think that corporations and the market always work efficiently. It’s stupidity.