What is Digg?Sponsored by openforum.com
"Think outside the shoebox" - The Foot Petals Rule view!
openforum.com - Fashion or comfort? A decision Tina Aldatz was tired of making when she started her line of designer in soles.
157 Comments
- thebigredcat, on 07/03/2009, -4/+50Doing nothing is always better than doing something stupid.
- vsujohn2, on 07/03/2009, -4/+37It takes a wise man to know its not his place to get involved.
- inactive, on 07/03/2009, -15/+46In 2001, 55% of all bankruptcies were caused by medical bills.
In 2007, 62% of all bankruptcies were caused by medical bills.
(a Study done by Harvard)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-medical-bank ... - DudeInAustin, on 07/03/2009, -5/+23Fact: Medicare is heading to insolvency to the tune of tens of trillions.
This fact makes me question how the same elected officials who created a program that is trillions in the hole are the wisest choice to create an expanded version of the same program. If you have a bridge fall down, do you run back to the same folks who designed and built it to create the replacement?
Only in government is disastrous failure in your first attempt seen as a form of qualification to try again. - inactive, on 07/03/2009, -18/+35Any "argument" for big government is a stupid argument.
- moxley, on 07/03/2009, -2/+18Yeah, the legal changes that basically made it hard for people to be able to declare bankruptcy for certain types of bills
- rhuxley, on 07/03/2009, -3/+18I think that was Bush back in October, it came with no strings attached, so it will be difficult to recover
- OscarMilde, on 07/03/2009, -14/+28The article equivocates with respect to the word "cost" by showing that laws don't always do what they are intended to do. Fair enough.
But the actual crux of Obama's argument (one that is shared by many) is that the ACTUAL PRICE (i.e. MONEY) will be higher if the government does nothing and lets everything unwind than by investing some now and making it up with a strong economy.
I'm no economist, so I have about as good of an idea as 99.9% of everyone else when it comes to determining whether or not that argument is valid, but I don't think we should be quick to discount it solely on the reasoning that "there have been other bad laws passed so therefore we shouldn't pass this one."
As soon as I hear an actual plan from the other side that sounds more intelligent than something I'd write in 10th grade civics, I'll be happy to consider that. Otherwise, I'll have to suck it up and let the new guys have a crack at it. - warriorpoetist, on 07/03/2009, -0/+14Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be.
- Peter Gibbons - analogkid01, on 07/03/2009, -4/+17Well-argued point, supported with numerous facts and reason. Kudos.
- drmobutu, on 07/03/2009, -8/+21Sometimes doing nothing is stupid...
- Pseudorious, on 07/03/2009, -10/+22Yes, however the total number of bankruptcies plummeted until recently thanks to legal changes.
That's the problem with percentages, they don't tell you anything about the absolute. - alamedaman, on 07/03/2009, -10/+21I'm glad Reason is on the front page for once. Can't we see that this boondoggle crapulus package will cause more harm than help?
- PeppermintPig, on 07/03/2009, -1/+11"too bad Obama won't fail."
More detention and torture = not fail? Or how about continued war on drugs or illegal occupations? Perhaps lack of government transparency is not fail either??
If you set your standards low enough, I'm sure you'll be happy with whatever the outcome is. - NMRgentleman, on 07/03/2009, -2/+12You know, the unemployment rate is already higher than the Obama administration said it would be if we didn't pass the stimulus - so in a sense, by their own numbers they've caused more harm than good.
- RonPauls, on 07/03/2009, -9/+18I wouldn't try to make it more complicated than it needs to be.
Government lacks the ability to determine where resources should be allocated. Resources should be allocated by individuals. - gn84, on 07/03/2009, -6/+14One: Government cannot "invest" money. It can only take from one group (via taxes, loans, or inflation) and give to another.
Two: Almost every problem with our existing health care system can be traced to government intervention. A major reason why costs are too high is because there's a disconnect between the consumer and the payments-- people are requesting/receiving unnecessary and overprotective care because they don't bear the costs of the procedures directly (and usually don't even know what the costs are). This is due to medicare and government-encouraged HMOs and employer-provided coverage. How is more intervention going to solve these problems? - JUSTINS13, on 07/03/2009, -0/+8experts? an expert will say whatever you pay him to say
- yoderizer, on 07/04/2009, -1/+9The Japanese tried all kinds of stimulus programs, and completely failed. We are currently following in their footsteps. http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/21/news/economy/yang_ ...
- RonPauls, on 07/03/2009, -5/+13due to the high cost of healthcare - which is high due to regulations such as that which prohibits individuals from buying insurance across state lines, and regulations preventing doctors from offering insurance directly to customers.
Laser eye surgery, cosmetic surgery, and contact lenses get better quality and cheaper every year because insurance typically doesn't cover them and thus government interventions in the insurance market haven't distorted supply and demand. - mgraves81, on 07/03/2009, -0/+8Yes, 8 years of doing nothing. Like constant regulation to "loosen" the loan practices of banks and other like institutions. And we all know how well that turned out. The government "did something" to make other people's money available through the use of loans that did not require income or employment verification. If banks did not meet the standards set by the Federal Gov't they were penalized and vilified on Capitol Hill.
- PeppermintPig, on 07/03/2009, -2/+10Completely disingenuous argument.
I recall a ton of bad laws, torture, illegal and immoral conflicts, and some morally hazardous bailouts, to name a few things that didn't not happen. Also, these things ARE STILL GOING ON. - gn84, on 07/03/2009, -2/+10@appleofdischord
Why would any single group benefit from the government taking their money and investing all of it directly back to them? If they stand to benefit from mutual investment, then they would band together and do it on their own. The scenario you describe involves the government taking money from a second group to enrich the first.
@Rikkochet
Um, no. Investment is a voluntary transaction where you take savings and use it as capital to fund a venture with the expectation of a monetary return on said capital. When the government takes your money, do you expect to receive a positive return (read: profit) on your "investment?" - Ymeg, on 07/03/2009, -3/+10Bit of a difference between giving and having taken.
- Barackalypse, on 07/04/2009, -3/+10Why does the cost always have to be liberty (either loss of personal rights or loss of financial self-determination)?
- Corrosionx, on 07/05/2009, -0/+7When you initiate force (ie. government) to achieve any political or social goal, you always get more unintended consequences than were originally projected.
Government creates problems, then tells you you need to give it more money and power to fix the problem. Most people are retarded and believe them. - thebigredcat, on 07/03/2009, -4/+11Indeed.
- FearlessFreep, on 07/03/2009, -1/+7I thought Wilt Chamberlain got involved quite a lot?
- mgraves81, on 07/03/2009, -2/+8Said medical costs wouldn't be so high if it were not for miles of red tape, extremely high costs for medical malpractice insurance, rampant medicaid and medicare fraud, countless lawsuits, and a bunch of people who don't take care of themselves.
The day my tax dollars have to pay for fat-ass Michael Moore's health-care is the day I know this country will never again be the nation that it once was. - twomeyw23334, on 07/03/2009, -3/+9No, the conclusion is that the argument "it's better than doing nothing" or "we must simply do something" is a bad argument. It should have been pretty obvious.
- gn84, on 07/03/2009, -1/+7@jayjayjoni
By your measure, we're all slaves to the government then, right? If I owe everything I have to "society," I am a slave. - Dauntless1, on 07/03/2009, -3/+9I don't argue for big government. I argue for smarter government. But I also recognize that not one failure in government got there without the help of stupid voters, so I also advocate for educating yourself on your politician of choice before going to the ballot box. In short, I advocate personal accountability.
- JUSTINS13, on 07/03/2009, -3/+8does the obama administration even have a plan or do they just want the money up front and play it out as they go along?
- jeffiek, on 07/04/2009, -1/+6No I don't know. AND NEITHER DO YOU.
Which is what this is all about. Were the bankruptcies "caused by medical bills" or were they caused by financial incompetence? Or here's an idea - caused by government policies that jack up the cost of care while at the same time reducing the earning power of people? Nah that couldn't have anything to do with it.
Did you read either of the articles? I did. Do you have ANY idea how easy it is to manipulate statistics? I do.
"That doesn't mean they don't deserve medical care."
THEY DID GET MEDICAL CARE. That's why they have the bills.
Magically wishing that everybody has whatever they need won't make it happen. Only in feel-good la-la land does money grow on trees.
You do have the ability to write drivel and get lots of diggs. Let's see how much that helps when you have to face reality. - mandraque, on 07/03/2009, -2/+7link?
- ZenMojo, on 07/03/2009, -4/+9Could you afford your own private police force? Maybe, maybe not, but the majority of people cannot. The argument that certain people would get a greater benefit from government intervention because they are disproportionately incapable of paying for it out of pocket is asinine.
- gn84, on 07/03/2009, -1/+6Doing nothing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription ... - Quaestor44, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4@gianpo
Quit making up nonsense. citations needed. - Dauntless1, on 07/03/2009, -1/+5@moxley
Exactly. It's easy to lower the overall number when you change the laws so that medical and credit card bills are next to impossible to claim. Along the same lines are unemployment benefits. Our total unemployment percentage is ***** when a good number of people simply run out of benefits before finding a job. They're still unemployed, but now the government can't track them. - jcrew77, on 07/03/2009, -1/+5I was hoping to see something worth reading. I didn't. I guess we are both disappointed.
- Quaestor44, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4The only "smart" government is a limited one.
Nonetheless, dugg for advocating personal accountability. - Quaestor44, on 07/04/2009, -1/+5WOW, where the hell did you pull out that doozy?
Too much of the 'wakkyweed' it seems.
Thank you yoderizer for getting it right. - gn84, on 07/04/2009, -2/+6@Dauntless1
Your definition does not hold up to logic. Firstly, government takes my money and "invests" it in a number of things for which I receive no "return" whatsoever, even non-monetary. Further, any benefit that you perceive as a "return on investment" is completely unmeasurable, meaning that one cannot objectively determine whether that "investment" was worthwhile or a waste of taxpayers' capital.
"People who have more than a high school education"... perhaps this is your problem... I've learned much more about how the world works after receiving my college diploma.
@alexforcefive
Taxes = collecting money under threat of violence
Robbery = collecting money from a victim, usually under threat of violence
And the difference is? "Well, we the majority think it's good for you" Prior to 1865, the majority felt that slavery was good for people of color. Does this make it right?
I do not understand the point you are trying to make about inflation. When the government prints more money to pay for its ends, that additional circulating money drives down the value of all the rest of the money in circulation. How does that not constitute a tax or theft of the holders of the existing money? If this is not true, then why would counterfeiting be illegal?
Inflation is most definitely not a natural effect of a capitalist economy. Type, say 1800 and 1913 into this calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/) to see that the U.S. had deflation for the entire 18th century. Deflation is a natural effect of a truly capitalist economy. Inflation is an effect of a manipulated economy. - gn84, on 07/04/2009, -1/+5"Name one" - Easy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war
"Key performance indicators" - Really? These 'performance indicators' can know exactly how much return I would get on that capital if I had been able to keep it? These people must be pretty damn good at reading minds AND predicting the future.
Taxes: How about an example of an 80 year old man who is in a cage for not paying taxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff. Another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VJ3son-ha8. 50 armed officers including a SWAT team sounds like violence to me. The US government taxes me based on the fact that I was born here, not because I live here. If I leave, I still have to pay.
You have no understanding of free markets. How can a free market operate perfectly or have goals? By definition, a free market has no rules.
And if deflation is so bad, why did the US standard of living increase so much during the 19th century while we 'suffered' from deflation (this is despite a War in which 2% of the population was killed and half the country was decimated). - PeppermintPig, on 07/03/2009, -4/+8That was sarcasm, right, jayjayjoni???
You're not seriously advocating totalitarianism, are you? - ThinkOutTheBox, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4No, this time next year when unemployment is at 20 to 25% the people that didn't want to do anything will have superior argument against the people that wanted to do "something", especially when those people said they could "fix" the problem.
I hate to tell you this, but the economy is not coming back anytime soon. Until you can tell me how we can get out of debt by getting in equally as much debt, let me know, better yet right a book because you will be super rich. - ltethe, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4I'm no advocate of government intervention, but pretty much ANY health technology has gotten better quality over time. Some of it dramatically so.
- Dauntless1, on 07/03/2009, -1/+4@gn84
The point isn't that it benefits only others, but yourself as well. You do get that, right? - gn84, on 07/03/2009, -3/+6@jayjayjoni
How much of your income do you voluntarily donate for other people's healthcare?
And how does making people wait 4 months for a heart bypass, or 10 months for an MRI constitute "betterment of society?" - vsujohn2, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3He didnt get involved, he was what was going on.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 161 discussions
