While some conservatives claim that Obama wants to kill your granny I hesitate to accept that as Obamas sole reason for pushing the health care reform.
From the private insurers point of view it makes perfect sense to oppose the reform ... if they didn't, they'd face an immense decline in profits if either the government option provides better care or if regulations bar insurers from avoiding costs by their current methods.
But it's a bit too simplicistic to merely claim that one party acts out of altruism (or a loathing of old ladies) and the other out of greed.
So, what do you think are the driving motives in this dispute ?
(Note that I don't ask you what you think is the better solution.)
Pro (Motives of the health care reform advocates):
Con (Motives of the health care reform opponents):
Two key issues that make the health care reform necessary in the eyes of the proponents are quailty and cost.
Quality has been discussed to death and information (and misinformation) is freely available.
Cost is harder to estimate - one simply can't understand what estimated costs of trillions of dollars over decades means for your paycheck. So I started a different thread where I want to compare the personal average cost of health care in different countries.
For example: German average gross income is about €2,500. After deductions (including health insurance) a single person without kids gets to keep about €1,500.
And what can germans do with that money in germany? Why, buy beer, of course. €1,500 get you 1,200 litre of high quality Pilsener beer - twice as much if you don't care about quality and go for the cheap labels.
Health care costs: €185 per month (currently $264)
Cheers!
I have the most excellent book with short stories about socialism; the auto-biography of an Israeli author who grew up in Hungary and escaped the Nazis and the Stalinists and then fled to Israel after working as a newspaper editor in Soviet-occupied Hungary for a few years.
It's not available in English, I have checked. Apparently it exists only in Hebrew and German, the two languages in which the author wrote his books. I have a copy.
I will translate and post a few excerpts on my blog here and link to them. I think it will give an interesting perspective.
I can't do it immediately as it is 5 PM now and I am expected in shul. But tomorrow evening I'll be back with that.
Yup, Egypt built the Pyramids and splendidly luxurious castles popped up like mushrooms in Europe during the Dark & Middle Ages. What time is it on your wrist watch?
What does it have to do with time?
Reagan/Mulroney(88) & Bush/Mulroney/Salinas(92)... Effects, you meant.
The world, you, me has changed radically since.
NAFTA...
Wasn't that passed by Clinton 8 years before George W. Bush became president?
It's still Bush's fault, no doubt.
Socialists don't produce wealth, they seize the means of production, such as General Motors and Chrysler. When it's voluntary, like the kibbutz movement, the product of an individuals labour is not theirs to distribute, it belongs to the collective.
Pweeezzze, DO click on earlier linked demonstrations & evidence of the total ongoing cost(s).
1992, father or son?
And, since when Capitalism isn't collectively managed.
When it's voluntary, like the kibbutz movement, the product of an individuals labour is not theirs to distribute, it belongs to the collective.
Of course, that's the idea.
It has costs equals it is an economic policy?
1994, I think.
Well, Clinton & Chrétien signed it... but negotiations were basicly finalized when Bush & Mulroney were in power.
So we agree that NAFTA wasn't one of George W. Bush's policies that caused the recession?
No, we aren't. It simply states that H_Bush contributed to setup the *second* NAFTA deal between Canada/USA/Mexico and that such a process doesn't necessarily caused a USA (only, btw) recession conditions partially or not; for that, you'd need a Gulf War and Koweit restarting Oil supply after fixing some sabotaged wells for steady production.
How so... Katrina hurricane didn't have any political agenda, it struck the USA coastline and whomever managed at the time had strict intervention responsabilities to the people (left behind, in fact), not the oil wells supply or artificially generated, as a result of previous neglect, recession concerns.
Wait, what? Are you saying that NAFTA's free trade zone somehow created a recession?
Who was it that said Lumber isn't an engine for prosperity? And that, anyone can actually provide a steady stream of plywood sheets (etc) back & forth unless somehow blocked by a "BUY American" clause.
Not that both tourism industries can't collapse when the loonie flies steadily near the greenbuck value; come and visit us, now that your money is almost at par with ours. We'll possibly start driving less south to shop more north.
Strange economic figures, isn't it?
I'm having trouble discovering what point you are trying to make. Are you for or against free trade?
You are pretty calm considering that the USA is broke now, broke 20 years into the future, losing the dollar as lead currency and being at the mercy of China. China could decide to sell all dollar assests, causing the currency to crash and in addition make US bonds too unattractive to buyers. Total defeat.
Of course, China will unlikely do so. They tend to act carefully, patiently and with great foresight. If they should decide to do so however, we can be assured that they'll have thought it through.
They don't do that because they know that it would help *us* far more than them. The near term would suck, no doubt, but a wrecked dollar would erase their trade advantage. If the dollar fell far enough, we would start seeing the outsoursing trend reversed and a rebirth of American manufacturing. Not to mention that a major currency shift would allow us to buy back most of our debt. In twenty years, we'd be better off than we are now.
F_O_R.
That's a point in your favor, SpardaSon.
You also have to keep in mind that for profit insurance companies have to prove that they're spending less and less on medical care each year (percentage wise)
China needs the United States. The situation is rather simple.
Also, the economy of the US is no less doomed than it was in the 30s or 70s. Because China's demographics prevent it from becoming the new hyperpower, no single nation will be able to topple the US as the dominant global power. The EU has no hope of doing so without stronger unity, India is a mess, and Russia is still poor.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
