Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

1 - 20 of 224 Posts

22,577 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is seriously concerning to say the least.

While I have heard many rumors about our country going the route of socialism, it appears we are headed for full blown communism.

I just do not see how this can pass if America knows what is good for them.

I think we may have to find a new country to live in. :rolleyesno:

HR3200 Healthcare Overview

Premium Member
3,374 Posts
Well Sonnie, they say absolute power creates absolute corruption so I think we are seeing that happen now......:unbelievable:

Senior Shackster
792 Posts
I agree that we are going beyond the mere debate about Keynesian vs. Supply Side economics.
Obama's reckless borrowing and spending is nihilistic. It appears as if he's intentionally destroying
our socio-economic system to reinvent it with the President controlling all aspects of the private sector.
As Marx stated, "Out of the chaos comes the new socialist order". In Obama's own words from his book,
"I chose my friends carefully...Marxist Professors and Structural Feminists". Apparently they indoctrinated
him well. Structural Feminists are radicals who link capitalism with patriarchy so they oppose it. Marxists
are those who don't believe anyone is capable of self rule and needs a single party state run by them
to control their behavior and ration all assets equally among the populace but at the lowest possible
level...exempting themselves (the ruling party/class) of course.

For those who are unfamiliar with the two economic formulas, here's a brief description...

Supply Side Economics as envisioned by JFK and Ronald Reagan (they were re-labeled Reagonomics
in the eighties) refers to the following: Low taxes means high growth. In other words,
if taxes on businesses are low they will be able to expand and hire more people which generates
a greater tax base. If they don't do it automatically, the Fed can create incentives (more tax
cuts) to inspire them. You cannot have private sector employees with out employers which is
the tax base of the nation. It also encourages new businesses and industries to form in competition.
Within this formula, not only is everyone's economic freedom retained but social spending is possible
providing that the government doesn't spend beyond it's means. In other words, work within a balanced
budget derived from the ever expanding tax base. Sometimes the budget will be higher, other times lower
but it will be indexed to the GDP and current tax base. What the Fed spends money on is debatable within
party platforms. The GOP prefers to fund the military and give small business loans. The Dems prefer
to spend money on education and safety net expansion. Providing they stay within the supply side formula,
it doesn't overly burden the taxpayers even if a lot of the spending is questionable or squandered. During
economic downturns, further tax cuts or a freeze on spending stabilizes the economy until the crisis is past.
In fact, Supply Side economics allows the 'big spenders' to dole out money to their lobbyists from both parties
providing they don't spend more than is coming in. It's not a zero sum game and there is an unlimited pie.

Keynesian is market socialism as envisioned by FDR, LBJ and Carter. The concept is to 'prime
the pump' during economic downturns. What that means is to subsidize targeted businesses by
either borrowing money or raising taxes to compensate for the additional spending or both. Incrementally,
people lose their economic freedom and government dependence is increased. Political freedom without
economic freedom is meaningless. While the Keynesian formula can spark the economy in the short term,
there are serious long term problems. High taxes mean businesses will cut back on labor which will reduce
the overall tax base and decrease income to the Fed which will have less to spend on social programs in
a never ending cycle. Unemployment spirals, welfare is increased and monopolies are created since it's
impossible to compete with government sponsored corporations. Since this policy is based on the
'redistribution of wealth', the government ends up stealing the money from one taxpayer to subsidize another
which results in conflicts of interest and civil unrest. Keynesians target individuals or companies and demonize
them as 'greedy' if they want to keep the money they earn. This is used as an
excuse to confisgate their assets and give them away which creates a voting block for the
recipients of the Federal largesse. The amount demonized as 'rich' isn't written in stone. They will start with
a number then keep lowering it as they desire to tax more and more people in some income bracket.
How bad can Keynesian get? The tax rates went up to 91% for corporations or individuals who grossed
over $200,000 under FDR. Under Carter there was double diget inflation and a misery index. In other words,
the liabilities outweigh the short term attributes and history has discredited this theory. Some pundits will claim
that Keynesian economics does create near full employment during war time (as it did in WWII) but that is not
sustainable unless the Fed keeps us in a state of war somewhere on the globe (wag the dog). Most people
fear the government under these policies which continues to expand and grow to leviathan proportions.
Keynesian is a zero sum game since there is stagnant or non-existent growth due to the high taxation and
unemployment rates. It becomes ugly as all the activists and lobbyists start scrambling around for a piece
of the limited pie.

Obama started with the Keynesian formula borrowing trillions to 'stimulate' the economy but
it didn't work. Now the bills are coming due and he plans on raising taxes which will make our
recession even worse. And...he won't stop spending money the Fed doesn't have. It's nihilistic as I said
before. Socializing medicine will not only be a catastrophie (it will result in rationed medicine that
is full of red tape delays in treatment and will ultimately be means tested meaning the elderly might
not get necessary medical care) but it will be a 'game changer'. Medical care costs will spiral out
of control under his government plan and taxes will be oppresively high and never go down. Future
generations will not have the opportunities of previous ones since every citizen will be in perpetual
debt to the Fed. If not actual 'communism', it will certainly be extreme 'statism'. The government
might not technically own the means of production (which is communism) but with taxpayers and many
industries in debt to the Fed it's a form of feudalism. And within a few short months Obama has reduced
us to this status.

The only positive news is that the current regime's approval ratings are down to 50% and shrinking
every day. Obama's 'cult of personality' is wearing thin for many Americans. Since I'm a film director,
I saw through his 'act' early on and researched his background. His first book which read more like a
manifesto than an autobiography indicated what his worldview was. Too bad so few supporters read it.
If they had they probably wouldn't have voted for him. Most were fooled by his peformance skills but
I don't blame them since the media 're-invented' him into a viable candidate despite his shady background.
It was all smoke and mirrors.

There are still some economically conservative Democrats within the ranks and they
are starting to show concern with the direction the country is going in. But there
will be a point of no return. Let's hope we don't go there. Who wants to revive the
'Red Decade' of the thirties with a 17 % unemployment rate (before WWII) and a dictatorial
Fed controlling your life.

If we survive Obama, future historians will wonder how a man with absolutely no experience
in anything could become President by mesmerizing a large percentage of the pubic with
his manner of speaking and populist posturing. They were singing Hozanahs to him in some public schools
after the election which was frightening. No politician should be worshipped. They should be
analyzed based on policy positions and with their experience. Background links and influences
are also important to study. In other words if a candidate says we should fund this program
there should be an open debate about the ramifications of that proposal in economic terms rather
than chanting idiotic slogans like "Yes We Can". Let's hope the American people demand
this in future elections. No more feel good rhetoric but specific policies disclosed to citizens in detail
without hidden agendas. And if we're at war during an election, military experience should
be integral for a Commander in Chief.

I could say that Obama is already the worst President in US history but I'm not sure that is accurate
in that I don't think he sees himself as the Chief Executive of our Republic. During his campaign he stated
our Constitution was 'flawed' which is something no politician would dare say in the past. Obama
seems to envision himself as some kind of 'soft dictator' demanding his cronies (the Senate) sign stimulus
bills without reading them much less giving time for that branch of the government to advise and consent.
I'm surprised he didn't suggest they shout "Hail Ceasar" after it passed without scrutiny.

From my perspective (I'm a pragmatic economically conservative libertarian), I hope Obama's failure will
cause a collapse of the far Left influence in our nation. An abandonment of Keynesian
economics, socialism and adoption of Supply Side for the future which benefits everyone, not just
select groups or companies. Since so much is made of Obama's ethnic background, it's important
to remember that the greatest era of upward mobility for African-Americans was under Reagonomics,
not under FDR or Carter's Keynesian policies. Low taxes, high growth and government spending within it's means is the
solution to our current problems. Liberals and Conservatives can debate what to fund but they will not spend
money they don't have and as long as tax rates are low, very little of what they do will affect individuals.
I'm in favor of some social spending like funding college loans to students. In this worldview, people can go
about their business and live their life while the 'invisible hand of government' (Ike's concept) makes corrections
to keep our economy stable and our civil society 'civil'. Americans will not be burdened or intimidated by an
activist government recklessly spending their money without concern for their liberty or security. What could
be more democratic (small d) than that?

I guess the main problem in our nation now is that millions of people have been brainwashed over the decades
into thinking the primary role of the Federal government is to 'take care of them', paying their bills with no
accountability or responsibility on their part. I believe the liberal media and public education system has
been responsible for this attitude. This is the basic Democratic party base, not necessarily Labor which is
where the 'Reagan Democrat' faction was created. While the Republicans in theory are supposed to be
conservative, many have abandoned their ideals and not encouraged the American tradition of self determination
which is critical for self rule and economic freedom. It would appear that at least a third of Americans have their
hands out now demanding the government do everything for them and they don't seem concerned with retaining
their liberty. Needless to say, this is not sustainable and some of those with an 'entitlement' mentality can get
very volatile if they don't get what they want.

203 Posts
Here is some information from the opposite side of the fence. This is in response to a ring-wing e-mail that has been widely circulated detailing the evils of Obama's plan.

Levana Layendecker
Health Care for America Now
Here are the facts. Anyone can verify them by reading the bill at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

Actual itemized contents of the Health Care Reform Bill:

"Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!"

TRUTH: This is not an "audit," it's a study. Moreover, the bill states (pp. 22-23) that the report will "include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of large group insurers and self-insured employers." This is almost directly the opposite of the email's claim.

"Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!"

TRUTH: Page 29 continues to define the "essential benefits package" and discusses limits on what Americans will have to spend on health care under this minimum standard. In no way does this section stipulate the rationing of care.

"Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)"

TRUTH: Page 30 begins to describe the Health Benefits Advisory Committee which establishes certain minimum standards for health insurance plans. In no way does this committee deny treatments and benefits to Americans with health insurance.

"Page 42: The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."

TRUTH: Page 42 begins to describe the Health Choices Commissioner's duties. The idea that this person will decide what benefits Americans receive is patently false, given that most Americans will keep their current plans under reform, and Americans within the exchange will have the choice of purchasing many different kinds of health plans. Rather, the Commissioner will establish minimum standards to protect Americans.

"Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services."

TRUTH: Pages 50-51 contain a provision stating that discrimination will not be allowed in the provision of health care services. Nowhere does the bill state that non-US citizens will be provided free health care services. The bill prohibits federal dollars from being used for undocumented immigrants.

"Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard."

TRUTH: Page 58, in the context of a discussion of administrative standards, mentions that "determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility...may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card." In no way does the bill state that such a card would be national, or that it would be issued to every person, or that it would, in fact, be used at all.

"Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer."

TRUTH: Page 59 continues the discussion of administrative standards, and authorizes electronic transfers of money within the government. In no way does this provision grant the government access to individual bank accounts.

"Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)"

TRUTH: Here's what page 65 says: "Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees." No mention is made of unions or community organizations.

"Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange."

TRUTH: That's true! Plans have to have a minimum standard of benefits, bat can offer other plans as well. But that's fair, isn't it? Private insurers can continue to operate outside the exchange if they wish - should the government establish no standards for the exchange? In that case, how could reform end insurance industry abuses and help to control costs?

"Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)"

TRUTH: This section says is that if private health care plans want to operate in the Exchange, they must provide a basic benefit package.

"Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens"

TRUTH: Some American citizens are more comfortable speaking a language other than English, especially in a sensitive situation like a consultation with their doctor. This provision in no way opens the door for coverage of undocumented workers.

"Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan."

TRUTH: Page 95 makes no mention of ACORN and Americorps; all it says is that the Commissioner can conduct outreach to vulnerable populations, making them aware of their options.

"Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter."

TRUTH: People who are eligible for Medicaid will not have to face the burdens of paperwork and other bureaucratic struggles. Far from depriving people of choice, this measure will ensure coverage.

"Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No 'judicial review' is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed."

TRUTH: This section describes rate-setting under the public health insurance plan option, which will compete with private insurers, who can set their own rates. Because of inherent advantages like their established administrative and provider frameworks, private insurance companies will not be "crushed" by government competition.

"Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages."

TRUTH: The government will negotiate rates with providers under the public health insurance plan option. However, private insurers will continue to pay their own rates.

"Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives."

TRUTH: This is simply not true. Employers with more than 20 employees aren't even eligible to participate in the exchange, let alone the public plan, until several years after the exchange launches in 2013. Moreover, no employer will be forced to participate in the public plan.

"Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families."

TRUTH: Employers are required to pay some benefits for part-time employees on a basis proportional to what they pay for full-time employees. No language on this page or the next stipulates coverage for the families of part-time employees.

"Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: The payroll penalty applies to employers with payroll over $500,000 who do not provide insurance to their employees. The percentage for employers with payroll from $500,000 - $750,000 is 6%. Employers do not have to offer the public option to avoid this penalty, they can offer private insurance if they wish.

"Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: This is false, see above.

"Page 167: Any individual who doesn't' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income."

TRUTH: Pages 167-173 detail what "acceptable health care" means (basically, insurance coverage) and also allow for many different kinds of exceptions to this rule.

"Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them)."

TRUTH: Non-resident aliens do not have to pay the penalty for not having health insurance, nor will the receive federal assistance, because they are not required to purchase health insurance. They are not exempted from individual taxes generally.

"Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records."

TRUTH: This is a gross overstatement. For the purposes of determining affordability credits for Americans who need financial assistance in purchasing health insurance, employees of the Health Choices Administration will have access to tax information that the federal government already keeps. As is clearly stated on page 196, "Return information... may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.''

"Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that."

TRUTH: This quote is taken out of context, and is in fact referring to a calculation used in the bill. Full context of quote: "'(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.-The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.''

"Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."

TRUTH: This section has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing services. It makes much needed changes to the way in which physician reimbursement is recalculated every year. The bill will, in fact, create much more opportunity for seniors and the poor to receive necessary care.

"Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)"

TRUTH: Page 241 does not say this. Nowhere does it say this. It does say that physicians will be grouped into certain categories regardless of specialty. These categories merely determine if the physician is engaged in primarily therapeutic or preventative care.

"Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc."

TRUTH: There is no good response to this assertion as it appears to have been made up completely. The section deals with 'misvalued codes' meaning that the government is potentially not paying an acceptable rate for a specific service. This will allow the government to, for example, pay more for services that require more payment, such as high-overhead procedures. The author of these criticisms separately attacks the bill for paying the same rate to all doctors, then attacks again for paying different rates.

"Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries."

TRUTH: This section amends the Social Security Act to include productivity measures. There is no mandate or control of anything. This merely updates the way in which doctors and hospitals are paid through Medicare.

"Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs."

TRUTH: This is simply not true. This slightly amends existing guidelines for payments for medical equipment, in this case power-driven wheelchairs. This section introduces no 'regulations' that are not in the Social Security Act.

"Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!"

TRUTH: Overusage of the hot-button word "rationing" is a way to deflect attention away from the actual language of the bill and incite unjustified fear. This section only compares costs incurred by cancer hospitals to costs incurred by similar hospitals, and adjusts payments to reduce the possibility of fraud and abuse.

"Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions."

TRUTH: This is almost correct. The section is one of the first efforts at targeting excessive readmissions. Excessive readmissions are physically and emotionally damaging to patients, while simultaneously putting them, and the health care system, in far more financial risk than is necessary. The American Hospital Association recommended reduced payments for avoidable readmission in testimony to Congress.

"Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government."

TRUTH: This is patently false. The section is about possible methods that the Secretary of Health and Human services might consider in order to address the growing problem of patient readmission. This section does not, in any way, create a penalty, nor does it even mandate policy. It merely provides examples of recourses that might be considered.

"Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited from owning and investing in healthcare companies!"

TRUTH: This provision only limits Doctor's investments in health care facilities that they refer patients to The effort to limit self-referral has been ongoing for many years as an effort to reduce fraud and abuse. This is, essentially, the medical community equivalent of insider trading. Limiting this incentive works to put the patient's health above all other considerations. Doctors remain free to engage in investment opportunities in areas that don't create a significant conflict of interest.

"Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval."

TRUTH: This section regulates physicians' investment in hospitals to make sure that physicians are not unfairly benefiting from their power to refer patients to hospitals they have a stake in. The section does not prohibit hospital expansion.

"Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on 'community' input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN."

TRUTH: In the ongoing effort to demonize community-based groups such as ACORN, every instance of the word "community" has become associated with that group's efforts. In reality, this provision allows for anyone to provide input. This includes homeowners, religious leaders, neighborhood groups, and others. There are no payoffs. There is no money exchanged in any way.

"Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing."

TRUTH: This provision is included in order to allow the government to base payments on practices that work. Nowhere does it say health care will be rationed. The attempt to isolate what works and what does not work in Medicare Advantage plans only benefits the health care system in general.

"Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc."

TRUTH: The government can disqualify some Medicare Advantage Plans from receiving some additional payments, but only if those plans are not meeting necessary requirements.

"Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals."

TRUTH: This section only deals with how to handle special needs individuals who need to enroll outside of the open enrollment period. Almost every type of plan operates with open enrollment periods. This section does not create more restrictions.

"Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone)."

TRUTH: This section merely expands existing Telehealth programs, which supplement but do not replace other health coverage, and provide a vital resource to Americans in rural and remote areas.

"Page 425-430: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?; Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time; Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death; Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends; Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT; Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life."

TRUTH: All of these hysterical claims have been debunked elsewhere. HR3200 provides for the reimbursement of a voluntary session of end-of-life counseling with your physician once every five years. This in no way means the government will make decisions for patients or encourage doctor-assisted suicide. Counseling simply makes patients and their families aware of their options.

"Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN."

TRUTH: ACORN is not a Community-Based Medical Home.

"Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN."

TRUTH: This is clearly still referring to community health groups, not ACORN.

"Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage."

TRUTH: Covering marriage and family therapy, as many private insurance plans do, does not mean that the government "intervenes in your marriage." The types of individuals who are recognized as therapists are clearly defined on page 491; in brief, professionals only, not bureaucrats.

"Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services."

TRUTH: This section expands government coverage for mental health services under various government programs, and ensures that all mental health services will be offered by qualified professionals.

Senior Shackster
792 Posts
This sounds exactly like the rhetoric that inspired the Federal government to become
involved with the real estate market which is what tanked the economy.

More to the point, why would anyone think Obama has any credibility with his proposals
at this time? He's lied about everything. He stated he would work in a bi-partisan manner
and make the government more open but in fact forced a stimulus bill to be passed without
any GOP input in a rush. It turned out to be a pork barrel mess doling out largesse to targeted
supporters which did not revive the economy and increased unemployment. Why should we trust him?
He's not even a clever politician. Any smart one would've gotten GOP support on some level so they
could be blamed when it didn't work. As it stands now, all of our economic problems are no longer
Bush's fault but Obama's alone.

In terms of the above post, all the far Left really needs is a foot in the door to expand creeping
socialism disguised as 'reform' which is the gimmick they've been using since the thirties. Any
modest regulation or 'study' will be immediately expanded into mandates without concern for cost
or how they affect the private sector. This is what happened with the sub-prime crisis. Obama voted
against regulating the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac corporations before they tanked our economy. Leftists
intentionally scheme to make the private sector fail in some area to justify their Federal take over. The
same thing will happen with Obamacare no matter how bad the results are. And of course their cost
projections are always way off the mark resulting in massive deficits and excessive taxation. To claim
the Federal intrusion into anything in the private sector will somehow reduce costs is ludicrous and there
is no history to back it up.

Imagine having the Federal government (in the long run based on this proposal/agenda) having
the power of life and death over some or all of it's citizens. They can decide who gets medical care based on
political considerations and budget. That's really what we're talking about here. Already the government
programs of Medicare and Social Security are bankrupt due to corruption and mismanagement. It would've
been far better to keep Medicare and SS in the private sector with individual taxpayer accounts guaranteed
by the Fed while collecting interest until retirement rather than the Ponzi scheme 'trust funds' created by FDR
and LBJ. Any change in demographics dooms all of these programs just as it will doom the Obama proposal since
our nation is a country of constantly shifting and changing demographics.

But back to my original question. Why should anyone trust Obama based on his performance to date?

What about States Rights? How about trying a variety of programs on a state by state basis to see
if any of them work before Federalizing it? What is Obama's exit strategy if his proposal doesn't work
after it passes? Repeal it? Try a market approach to expand coverage of the uninsured or competition to
reduce costs? Tort reform to reduce insurance premiums? Never. His solution will be to fund it more with
higher taxes and more government control. And that's the way this game is played which is why the end
results can be predicted based on examining other Presidents with his worldview. Check out LBJ's budget
projections for Medicare and what it really ended up costing. The concept of Medicare was a good one
as was social security but it clearly should've been done in the private sector with the Fed guaranteeing
each citizen's account. By the way, the Social Security Ponzi scheme was based on the demographics of
the thirties with life expentency under 70. Now it's much higher which is a prime example why these type
of programs can never work in the long run.

203 Posts
Again, "Here are the facts. Anyone can verify them by reading the bill at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text"

Senior Shackster
792 Posts
I guess most political discussions and debates regarding this regime will ultimately come down to the 'believers'
versus the 'non-believers'. For example, one of Obama's most controversial supporters is Louis
Farrakhan who has declared him to be the Messiah. I've actually met some college students who
seem to subscribe to that. They are perfectly reasonable except when it comes to their cult like
adoration of this politician. I could not have a rational discussion with them on any of his policies.
I usually joke with them to "Beware of false prophets if it's possible to make a profit in

Call me a non-believer and a cynic regarding this administration and all of their proposals
and long term agenda. However, I do like to utilize our economic history as a guideline for
what actions should be taken. Please don't take my word for this. Ignore all the media
spin and look into it yourself. There is ample data about the two different economic formulas
(Supply Side vs. Keynesian) and how they impact employment, wealth creation and overall
prosperity. Examine tax rates and how that affects revenue coming into the government. Look
into inflation and hyper inflation when the Fed spends more than they collect in taxes. See what
happens when the Fed intrudes into the private sector. Not necessary regulation that acts as
a checks and balances to free enterprise but when they actually try to micromanage an industry.
And most importantly, look into Obama's background (books, associates, supporters, mentors) to
understand what he's really about instead of the act he puts on for the media. But we warned.
You may be quite disturbed at what you find out.

Just so you don't assume his opposition is soley from the conservatives, here are some others:

The Czech prime minister, Mirek Topolanek, called Obama's economic stimulus package
"a way to H..l" that will "undermine the stability of the global financial market".

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that the national debt would
grow to 9.3 trillion under Obama's plan. The debt held by the public would rise to
rise to 57 % of GDP in 2009 upwards to 82 % by 2019. These estimates are before Obamacare
is factored in. This isn't Monopoly money they're squandering but your hard earned income. As
much as I objected to Bush's deficits and over spending he looks like a miser in comparison to this

Anyone here still want HR3200?

2,398 Posts
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it on this forum before - I feel strongly that Obama is the antiChrist. I get extremely uncomfortable just seeing the guy's face. People flocked to him early on, they were drawn to him like moths to a flame, and he hadn't accomplished anything of significance or said anything with substance. It is and has been very eerie to me.

The destruction of America as we once knew it is only the first step. As much as his popularity will drop, I believe he will get 4 more years because that's what it will take for this to play out completely.

Call me an extremist, but spend a couple minutes and think about how a real life antiChrist would behave. They aren't going to emerge and start praising the devil and performing miraculous acts, it would have to be much more subtle to build a large following.

If you believe, better get your life straight by 2016.

Senior Shackster
792 Posts

Well I'm not sure I can subscribe to that but I think we agree that worshipping
any politician (as opposed to worshipping within an individual's religious faith) is
extremelly dangerous and not a good thing for this country or any nation. That's
how demagogs are created. It's frightening when Obama spouts his psychobabble
("Yes I'm going to tax the rich") and mobs cheer him like he's a televangelist.
And I personally find it disturbing how his cult has affected young college students.
They are the future and supposed to be learning how to be critical thinkers.
To my knowledge no other President has been idolized on this level. People have certainly become
passionate about some candidate whose policies they supported (JFK, Reagan) but
in most cases they were still critical of them in other areas. The cult appeal of Obama
is unique in American history and certainly not a healthy trend. I recall young people
saying 'they felt so good that Obama was their President' after the election. I asked
them, "Why? He hasn't done anything yet." I also tried to explain that if Obama
'taxes the rich', they will be unemployed. The demonized rich are the employers and
small businessmen, the backbone of our economy. They didn't want to hear about it because
they appeared to be in a state of rapture. Let's hope they're coming to their senses now.

I came from the other side of the spectrum. The first time I went into the booth
I voted for Jimmy Carter and that's my cross to bear. Carter sounded so compasionate
and reasonable which appealed to me in my youth. As the saying goes, "If you're not
a liberal when you're young you have no heart and if you're not a conservative when you're
mature you have no brain". So my political affiliations are certainly not unique and I seem
to have followed the same pattern as many in the middle class except I don't consider
myself 'right wing', just economically responsible.

Carter's policies and administration were a total disaster. When the
economy collapsed, Carter got teary eyed and nervously said we had to get used to
living with less. Then I started listening to Reagan who stated firmly, no we
didn't. You can attempt to spin the eighties any way you want but the bottom line
is the economy recovered and Reagan's Supply Side economics worked while Carter's
Keynesian failed. I did well in the eighties as did other indie filmmakers so Reagan did
okay by me although most people moved socially and economically upwards. Only the
people on welfare remained stagnant (the old 'rich got richer and poor got poorer' rhetoric) but
in fact what happened was that since those dependent on the government were not
in the workforce, there was no way for them to improve themselves. Had they gotten
off of welfare and become productive, they would've done well too. There was certainly
limitless opportunities back then.

Now we're back to Keynesian economics with the same problems of 1979
repeating themselves in 2009. The difference is we now have a "Messiah" instead of a
President according to some followers.

For those speculating on why I switched aliances, the person who completely changed
my worldview was an African American scholar named Dr. Thomas Sowell.
Not Reagan, Limbaugh or other talk show hosts. Sowell is the most
eloquent spokesmen for supply side economics and Western culture that I encountered.
He examined the appeal of populist rhetoric (it sounds so nice) but analyzed the end results
and why it can never work (central control without checks and balances).

Here are some of his books I highly recommend:

"The Vision of the Anoited". Sowell shows the appeal of populism and why it
just won't go away but also examines results of these policies and why they
always fail to deliver on the promises. He also chronicles the 'Holier than Thou' attitude
of Leftists. Sowell argues that democracy is a 'process'. You don't accomplish
anything by grabbing power and dictating to the populace. The method of correcting
problems is as important as the end result. Within this framework any Chief Executive
and the Congress have to operate within the power restrictions set forth in our Constitution.
You can accomplish anything you want but it must be on a trial and error basis accomodating
states rights and local concerns. No central control or mandates which never result in 'utopia'
and always createsa 'dystopia'. The end doesn't justify the means which is what Marx believed.

"Migrations and Cultures" A fascinating study of culture and how it affects behavior
and economics.

"Marxism: Philosophy and Economics". The only book that I know of that goes into
Marx's personal history and depicts him as a mentally disturbed individual. Some of
it is really disgusting with crazy Karl deciding to become one of the Proletariat
by refusing to wash or cut his hair. He brakes out in boils all over his body and
smells like a homeless person. Marx was a spoiled rich kid who never worked a day
in his life yet claimed to be an expert on economics despite his lack of experience
in either labor or management. An academic elitist. Does that sound familiar?

In one of the local public high schools in Westchester, the teachers give a test
on "Kwanzaa" as part of 'multi-culturalism'. They should be giving tests on Sowell's
books instead so students know something about Western culture and our economic

2,398 Posts
Richard said:
despite his lack of experience
in either labor or management. An academic elitist. Does that sound familiar?
Did this guy also organize within the community and do a lot of drugs?

When you look at the major cities and geographical areas that strongly subscribe to heavy government involvement and taxing high so as to give back to the "less fortunate" model, they are all failing economically, have the highest crime rates, lowest test scores, and produce the most corrupt politicians. Why would anyone want to force that on the entire country? Either he's astoundingly ignorant or he is purposefully trying to destroy this country.

Plain ole user
11,121 Posts
The truth is that we have had socialism in this country for a long time. The real question is how far down that road can we afford to go and how much will the country tolerate.

Both sides have been so busy berating the other and trying to scare people into taking their side that there has been little real discussion about how we can solve the very real problems that we have with health care costs and insurance. The current bill does not seem to do much to solve most of the problems, IMO, but adds much government to the mix mucking it up further. When the debate is nothing more than a "he said/she said...he's going to/no he's not" argument that you would expect from 6 year olds, and most legislators have not even read the bill, how can anyone really take it seriously.

We need some serious regulation, nationwide standards for insurance, and real competition in health care. That will take some serious debates and discussion, not the vitriole that we have now.

Senior Shackster
792 Posts

Your correct in your assessment about urban politicians and their big government policies
and how they impact the communities they claim to represent.


While your post sounds reasonable it's not going to happen until there is
a balance of power within the government. Right now we have single party rule so
there is no incentive to debate anything. The Democrats do have some moderates
and conservatives within their ranks but they are being ignored by the current party
leaders who are all far Left ideologues (Pelosi, Franks).

59 Posts
We really need to do away with these socialist fire departments. I don't want some bureaucrat standing between me and my burning house. And I don't want to pay to protect my neighbors house either, if he can't afford to pay for his own fire protection then his house can just burn!

2,398 Posts
Nice attempt, but not quite relatable. If someone's home is on fire and not put out, the fire can spread to more homes and quickly get out of control. In rural areas, where the chance for spreading is minimized, you have volunteer fire departments. If I break my leg, my leg is broken, and it's not affecting anyone else. Unless I catch a highly contagious disease, the problem is my own.

Read Thomas Paine's Common Sense to get a true idea of how this government is supposed to work - you'll find that when the founding fathers were establishing the new democracy, government's role was to be minimized as much as was logically possible. Only in areas where actions of an individual can harm others should a ruling body be involved. Only in areas where large scale decisions need to be made should there be elected representatives. Healthcare, though a large scale issue, has no merrit to be anything more than an individual responsibility, as injuries and illnesses do not harm others - again, unless highly contagious.

Senior Shackster
792 Posts

I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to. The fire departments around me are voluntary. The Federal government and it's bureaucrats aren't involved. It's under local
control as it should be.

Plain ole user
11,121 Posts
The socialist boat is already afloat. The question is not whether we will become a Marxist model, but at what point we turn on the bilge pump. It seems to me that most of the country has its bilge full with the current health care bill. If the democrat leadership does not see this they are setting themselves up for a big fall. If they pass it over the bodies of the conservative dems, we may see another swing back to the right. If they pass a sterilized version of it that solves nothing but costs a lot of money, they will suffer a slightly slower swing back to the right. The only way that they can come out ahead is to kill it this year, then come back next year with some real solutions, starting with insurance regulation that will create some real competiion with nationwide offerings and requirements for disclosure of rates and results from hospitals. If they do that and give themselves time to succeed on a reasonable reform, they can stay in power for many years on its wake. The problem is, as pointed out already, that left wing ideologues who want nothing less than a completely government run health care system are in control.

I have faith that they will not succeed. There are enough dems that will see the foolishness of the Pelosi path that the bill will die.

2,398 Posts
Unfortunately I feel that no matter how large of mistakes Obama makes, he's going to get re-elected. If he doesn't, than I will be mistaken about him being the antiChrist. At that point, he would just be a really, really ignorant and corrupt politician.

Senior Shackster
792 Posts
Sonnie, tcarcio, SteveCallas, Icaillo, Steverc,

There is more democracy going on here with our civil discussion
than in the cabal that is running our nation. They don't debate,
argue, disagree, compromise and discuss anything. They just sign
terrible legislation without reading it and send the bill to us. They have
got to go. Let's hope they are removed in the next election cycle.


Are you still in favor of this bill as is or do you agree it should be rewritten
in a bi-partisan manner and resubmitted for a vote at a later time?
1 - 20 of 224 Posts