Health Reform: looks like it's a done deal

[Jeannieb43]

Healthcare deform will create an unconstitutional right to other people's property/money. It is about one group having their hand in another group's pocket.

We all are paying for something which is used by someone else. Paying for our police and fire protection, for example; and supporting our city government and paying for our roads and highways. In fact, when I was 8 years old I remember crying myself to sleep at night when I learned my parents were paying taxes to support public schools, plus paying tuition for me to attend an Adventist school. Of course that was just a childish outlook. Soon enough, I came to realize that being a part of a civilization required that I pay for the rights of others, forever.

But they in turn were supporting some of my personal benefits which they chose not to use. Turn about is fair play.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

Healthcare deform will create an unconstitutional right to other people's property/money. It is about one group having their hand in another group's pocket.

We all are paying for something which is used by someone else. Paying for our police and fire protection, for example; and supporting our city government and paying for our roads and highways. In fact, when I was 8 years old I remember crying myself to sleep at night when I learned my parents were paying taxes to support public schools, plus paying tuition for me to attend an Adventist school.

The fact that elements of cost-sharing exist in some aspects of urban living is not an argument in favor of having socialism elsewhere. Our constitution and bill of rights are a deliberate attempt to keep government OUT of a lot of areas it has inserted itself. Public education is a farce. It should be privatized and then people would not be penalized for purchasing a private education by making them also pay for a public education they don't want. And what about the people with no kids whatsoever? What are they being dinged for? It's a ripoff.

Municipal services like police, fire, etc should be funded on a community basis. People should always have the option of moving out of the municipality and forfeiting those costs along with those services.

The fact that there are elements of socialism in our culture is about as valid an argument for more socialism as arguing that the fact that there are elements of organized crime is a good reason for deliberate expansion of the mafia.

I am completely appalled at the blaze attitude here on CA toward mandatory anything. Most of the posters here just kind of shrug as their liberties circle the drain. Ho Hum. The socialist camel already has his nose in the tent. Might as well welcome the opportunity to get him further inside.

Maybe we'll wake up when religious liberty hits the dung heap.

Maybe it will be too late.

[karl]

I think James Clyburn got it right when he compared the passage of this legislation with civil rights legislation.

No, the push for entitlements is the antithesis of the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement was to establish equal rights to people for whom equal rights had been denied. The entitlement movement is denying EQUAL rights to people by creating a new class of indentured servants. Whoever is forced to pay the bills of others is, under the mandate of government, a slave at least part of the time on the plantation of those he is paying bills for.

[Dr. Shane]

It would be a civil rights issue if there were hospitals and clinics that discriminated against people based on race, religion, etc. For example, if a Hospital would not accept any black patients.

[karl]

It would be a civil rights issue if there were hospitals and clinics that discriminated against people based on race, religion, etc. For example, if a Hospital would not accept any black patients.

That would not be an entitlement issue, Shane. It would be an equal rights issue. Equal rights are EQUAL to everyone.

Entitlements are NOT EQUAL RIGHTS - they benefit some at the expense of others.

No, the push for entitlements is the antithesis of the civil rights movement. Whoever is forced to pay the bills of others is, under the mandate of government, a slave at least part of the time on the plantation of those he is paying bills for.

[Dr. Shane]

I agree. Entitlements are about compassion. Civil rights are about equality.

[karl]

I agree. Entitlements are about compassion.

Nope. Only if it is voluntary can welfare be compassionate.

"Mandatory compassion" is an oxymoron.

[lazarus]

I find Clyburn's analogy offensive. There is absolutely no logical comparison between entitlements and rights.

.

Offensive???

There is of course a logical comparison. My comparison was not about the type of legislation it is. I was making the point that people will look back in years to come and wonder why anyone would be against universal health care. Today, no one would publicly say that they were not in favor of civil rights legislation. Even conservatives. The same is true for universal health care in most developed countries, conservatives campaign on a platform of improving it not abolishing it. Give it a few years and Mitt Romney will be making speeches about how we should extend coverage as he runs for president. LOL.

[Dr. Shane]

Today, no one would publicly say that they were not in favor of civil rights legislation. Even conservatives.

Conservatives did not oppose civil rights legislation here in the US. In fact, without conservatives President Johnson wouldn't have been able to pass the civil rights bills. The civil rights legislation was opposed by racist southerners - mostly Democrats. Among those were Senator Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee.

Remember that slavery was never legal in all of America. Slavery was always prohibited in the northern and western states. It was a Republican president that banned slavery and waged war on the southern states. As a result of that, the Republican Party never gained a lot of power in the South until after the Vietnam War and the Reagan presidency.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Entitlements are about compassion.

Nope. Only if it is voluntary can welfare be compassionate.

The government makes the difference. The keys to a successful company is being able to operate in a good, business-friendly economy. Much of that is dependent upon the government. The only difference between where I live and the are 12 miles south of me is the government. The people are the same (90% Hispanic). The predominant religion is the same (Roman Catholic). The culture is the same (Latino). The only significant difference is the government. And that difference makes it so much easier for a business to be successful here.

There are thousands of successful American businessmen and women that would never have tasted success had they been born in Mexico, Brazil, China, India or Kenya. Yes, they are ambitious, hard working and intelligent people but those qualities simply are not enough if the government doesn't create a favorable business environment.

The same government that creates a positive business environment has the right to tax those businesses. In fact, many of those small business owners have benefited from services provided by the government that taxes them. Taxes pay for police, military, road construction and maintainable, public health services and education of the work force.

Entitlements for the poor benefit society more than they cost it. The return on investment (ROI) of welfare programs is significant. Many children growing up in welfare homes become productive members of the middle class when they become adults. That is not the case in nations without welfare. In those nations, poverty is passed on from generation to generation. Most that receive public assistance here do not live off the system but rather go on and off from it throughout their lives. Many spend a rather short time on the system and never go back to it again.

We voluntarily elect leaders than make public policy. Americans could elect cold-hearted conservatives that would scrap public assistance if that is what they wanted. However Americans are compassionate. When we elect conservatives we choose compassionate conservatives like President George W. Bush.

[bonnie]

Can you provide the names of public leaders that want public assistance scrapped?

Not reformed,but scrapped.Not restrictions,not required changed behavior,but scrapped.

[Dr. Shane]

The cold-hearted conservatives don't make it too far in our political system because Americans are much too compassionate to vote for such people. Looking at other nations around the world with less compassionate people we can find some. We often hear such cold-hearted people on the radio, see them on TV and read their blogs on the internet. They have a small following of cold-hearted followers but not enough to ever get them elected to anything much higher than the local city council or school board. A few do end up in the state legislatures but even that is rather rare.

[bonnie]

Got to hand it to you,a nice duck. I have seen you demand PROOF of others yet for you that does not seem to be a requirement. This concerns the US,not what other countries are doing. Just as Germany and legalization of prostitution.

[karl]

I have to disagree, Shane. Our country has tanked as the entitlements have gone up. We have become, more and more, a nation of whiners instead of doers. We produce less and consume more.

The national debt figures pretty much match the rise in entitlement spending.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said our federal national debt will be about $22 trillion by 2020. I think it will be many trillions higher than what they say but don’t confuse our government national debt with our government negative net worth. What we owe in debt and entitlements is now well over $70 trillion and is now increasing by $5 trillion a year.

Who cares, right? Its only the economy of the entire planet.

[Dr. Shane]

Wrong. Cold-hearted conservatives are all over the world. We need to watch out for them and beware of their tactics. They do have a following here in the US and could turn the compassionate people here into cold-heared people that want to set artificial time limits on welfare benefits.

[bonnie]

Wrong. Cold-hearted conservatives are all over the world. We need to watch out for them and beware of their tactics. They do have a following here in the US and could turn the compassionate people here into cold-heared people that want to set artificial time limits on welfare benefits.

Those liberals that choose to take from one and give to another no matter how long they demand it are spreading around the globe.

They have quite a following in the US.They will keep welfare recipients on the public dole as long as the recipient chooses.

[Dr. Shane]

I have to disagree, Shane. Our country has tanked as the entitlements have gone up. We have become, more and more, a nation of whiners instead of doers. We produce less and consume more.

Not true. The GDP in 1963, prior to the Great Society programs, was $2,796/person In 2006 it was $43,468/person. It is hard to make the case that entitlement programs have made the nation less productive.

[Dr. Shane]

Those liberals that choose to take from one and give to another no matter how long they demand it are spreading around the globe... They will keep welfare recipients on the public dole as long as the recipient chooses.

Praise God for those compassionate people. However they are not all liberals. Let's give credit where credit is due. There are a lot of compassionate conservative folks out there too.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

I have to disagree, Shane. Our country has tanked as the entitlements have gone up. We have become, more and more, a nation of whiners instead of doers. We produce less and consume more.

Not true. The GDP in 1963, prior to the Great Society programs, was $2,796/person In 2006 it was $43,468/person. It is hard to make the case that entitlement programs have made the nation less productive.

GDP does not necessarily reflect production. It records all dollars made in service industries as well as actual wealth production. We have driven away and discouraged startups of a lot of industry with our whining, regulations and taxation.

But let's look at the cost of entitlements, keeping in mind the increase in GDP you mentioned above. Look at the % of that increase going to non-productive entitlement spending.

Federal Government expenditures for Social Security, Medicare, and

Medicaid have grown from 3.8 percent of GDP in 1970 to roughly

8.4 percent of GDP in 2008. (For comparison, Federal revenue generated

from all sources averaged 18.3 percent of GDP over the last several decades.)

Estimates of expected future growth in entitlement spending consistently

predict sharply rising expenditures in coming decades, although such projec-

tions depend on specific assumptions made for a variety of economic and

demographic variables.

Total welfare expenditures as % of GDP increased from 10.3% in 1960 to 20.9% in 1995, with the biggest jump being after the start of Medicare.

[Dr. Shane]

No matter how one slices it, America has been on the rise ever since the Great Society programs started.

Manufacturing Output Per Worker Hits Record High

[karl]

No matter how one slices it, America has been on the rise ever since the Great Society programs started.

It takes a while, Shane. In the words of Margaret Thatcher, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Sweden's citizens had the highest per capita savings in the world before they went socialist. Not now.

Look at your graph and notice the downward hockey stick at the end. Also look at the almost continual downward trend in manufacturing jobs. Technology has increased individual productivity, but the number of persons being productive (which is mainly what I am speaking to) has tanked. Less people producing. More people whining. Socialism makes it so you don't need to be productive, and, as a result, more people aren't. Socialism also penalizes industry, through taxation and regulation, for hiring people, so they try not to. It is a double whammy.

What you are selling and what I am not buying is the idea that "lack of necessity" is the mother of productivity (or invention, for that matter.)

Many people work only because they have to. We are not doing them or anyone else any favors by removing the "have to."

Go into any high school classroom and you can pick out the very few who are self-motivated. The rest will require some kind of external motivation to work. That's where socialism becomes immoral, by removing the necessity that is the motivation. This produces wasted lives and it penalizes all the people who actually are self-motivated.

[bonnie]

Quote:

It takes a while, Shane. In the words of Margaret Thatcher, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Sweden's citizens had the highest per capita savings in the world before they went socialist. Not now.

Yeah,but they have national health care.

Quote:

What you are selling and what I am not buying is the idea that "lack of necessity" is the mother of productivity (or invention, for that matter.)

Something interesting that I came across this past week as to employment.

Locally one business was hiring.Long established business,still good traffic, placed the ad in the window,thinking as many people that are looking for work a ad in the paper would be unnecessary.

Some would ask for specifics and then lose interest.The party that really went after the job already had a part time job but was looking to make up for lost wages when he had been laid off.

The others stated they would see what was available once their unemployment benefits were exhausted, never mind they have been exhausted for sometime.The existing job only paid dollars more than what they could get for doing nothing.

Two family members are in a business that is not dependent on the economy. Both are trying to expand and need to hire 10 more for a full crew. It is a lot tougher than they expected,even going outside the state.

Same answer,wait till benefits are exhausted or pay what I was getting previously.

If a job and unemployment pay the same,guess what happens?

Never mind this comes from the government and the government (laughingly) is us.

Quote:

Many people work only because they have to. We are not doing them or anyone else any favors by removing the "have to."

Those having to are becoming less and less as time goes on

Quote:

Go into any high school classroom and you can pick out the very few who are self-motivated. The rest will require some kind of external motivation to work. That's where socialism becomes immoral, by removing the necessity that is the motivation. This produces wasted lives and it penalizes all the people who actually are self-motivated.

Entitlement mania has become a national past time

[Dr. Shane]

Technology has increased individual productivity, but the number of persons being productive (which is mainly what I am speaking to) has tanked. Less people producing.

Manufacturing jobs have decreased as technology has increased. True. But the number of jobs in America has not decreased over the same period of time. Many of these jobs that were in manufacturing have been replaced with jobs in technology. The technology jobs pay more and provide better benefits and working conditions. America has boomed like never before since the Great Society programs were passed some 45 years ago.

God bless America!

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

Technology has increased individual productivity, but the number of persons being productive (which is mainly what I am speaking to) has tanked. Less people producing.

Manufacturing jobs have decreased as technology has increased. True. But the number of jobs in America has not decreased over the same period of time. Many of these jobs that were in manufacturing have been replaced with jobs in technology. The technology jobs pay more and provide better benefits and working conditions. America has boomed like never before since the Great Society programs were passed some 45 years ago.

God bless America!

Are you seriously trying to make the point that we are in great shape? We're bankrupt, Shane. More than bankrupt - we are trillions in debt and committed for about five times the debt we already have. Our economy is in shambles.

If you think this is good, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Earlier this month the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its analysis of the president’s 2011 budget submission to Congress. This report hasn’t gotten nearly the attention it deserves.

When the administration released its budget in early February, the news seemed bad enough. By its own reckoning, the Obama administration’s budget plan would result in massive deficits and borrowing if adopted in full. According to the administration’s estimates, the president’s budget plan would produce deficits totaling $10.1 trillion over the period 2010 to 2020, and by 2020 federal debt would reach $18.6 trillion.

But now we learn that that was the rosy scenario.

According to CBO, the Obama budget plan would run up much larger budget deficits and pile up even more debt than the administration reported in February.

Over the period 2010 to 2020, CBO expects the Obama budget would run a cumulative deficit of $11.3 trillion — $1.2 trillion more than the administration predicted. By 2020, total federal debt would reach an astonishing $20.3 trillion — up from $5.8 trillion at the end of 2008.

The president likes to say he inherited a mess. He did in fact enter office during a deep recession that sent deficits soaring on a temporary basis. But his policies have unquestionably made an already difficult medium- and long-term budget outlook much, much worse. The problem is that President Obama is a world-class spender. He wants to pile massive new commitments on top of a bloated and unreformed government. He is willing to raise taxes to pay for some of his wish list, but far from all of it. For the rest, he plans to run up the nation’s debt with reckless abandon.

CBO’s numbers tell the story.

Over the next ten years, CBO says the Obama budget would increase federal spending by $2.3 trillion, including $0.8 trillion in net interest costs on the additional borrowing that would be required.

Bad as that is, it’s a lowball estimate. The president’s budget assumes that war-fighting funds will plummet from $130 billion in 2010 to just $50 billion in 2012 and every year thereafter. No one believes this will happen. More realistic assumptions would add $500 billion or more to the president’s defense funding request over a ten-year period.

The biggest problem in the federal budget is runaway entitlement spending. And so what would the Obama budget do? Increase entitlement spending, of course. By $1.9 trillion over ten years, according to CBO. In 2020, federal entitlement spending would reach $3.3 trillion, up from $2.1 trillion in 2009.

The administration has been touting a supposed three-year spending “freeze” as evidence of its determination to cut the budget back. But only a very small portion of the budget would be frozen, and only after the administration had spent two years stuffing in more funding. CBO expects that discretionary spending under the Obama budget, excluding war funds and Pell Grants (which would become an entitlement), will increase by $0.5 trillion over ten years.

Two years ago, CBO expected total federal spending to reach $4.3 trillion in 2018. Now, if the president’s budget plan were adopted, CBO projects spending would exceed $5.0 trillion in 2018.

Between 2010 and 2030, the population age 65 and older is expected to rise from 41 million to 71 million people. CBO projects spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in 2030 will reach 14.4 percent of GDP, up from 9.8 percent today. That will be like adding a whole new Social Security program to the budget without any additional revenue to pay for it.

The federal government is drowning in unaffordable entitlement commitments. President Obama’s response is to spend, entitle, and borrow even more.

[Dr. Shane]

I do not support deficit spending. I am fiscally conservative. However, we can't ignore our huge GDP. We have the largest GDP in the world. Japan is #2 and ours is nearly three times the size of theirs. That means we have a lot of money to work with. Our welfare programs are a very small part of our budget. In fact, the interest on our debt is more than our welfare programs. We need to be much more concerned about running a balanced budget and paying down the debt than we are about the few dollars tossed into the welfare program to help the poorest among us.