Billie’s Quickies…the middle class are a buncha freeloaders!

bllieddoseBoo Hoo, how will we pay for health care reform? Waaaaa! It can’t be done, Obama wants to go back on his word, he wants to tax the middle class, oh, wait…’the middle class pays no federal income taxes.’  Why? Because the middle class are a bunch of freeloaders I say!

Advertisements

13 Comments

  1. Was not the whole point of health care reform* to reduce cost? I think to recall the president mentioning that. So why do we need to raise taxes to pay for the cost reductions? So let’s say I will reduce my personal spending (not eating out, a cheaper phone plan, cancel HBO, rent movies instead of going to the Cineplex, shop at wal-mart..), can I go ask my boss for a raise to pay for it…?

    * Or is it “health insurance reform”? You know, the same way that “global warming” turned into “climate change” when the fact that the planet is not warming got in the way…

  2. it was an attempt at sarcasm. the thing is, it most likely will reduce costs, however, if the main issue is revenue and whether or not taxes should be raised, it certainly wouldn’t/shouldn’t be on the middle class, taxing the rich – or even the flat tax (from my understanding) that conservatives/libertarians often propose, also would have the rich paying more into the kitty, so there ya go.
    and, it is reform, it is an overall health insurance reform.
    third, with regard to global warming – it was my understanding that the terminology was changed to limit confusion – if i’m not mistaken, global warming contributes to extreme weather conditions as a result of this warming. so many people would say – ‘well, it can’t be, it’s colder this year,’ so, it was changed to avoid confusion. on the last issue i can’t be certain. feel free to correct me with a link to when it was changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ and why.

  3. Why would you be so evil as to link us to Tetris?

    WHY? 😮

  4. Billiegirltoo,

    If it reduces cost is by slashing benefits to the sick, not by being more efficient… or can you tell me of any taxpayer government project that actually is more efficient? Oregon Health Plan? Massachusetts Health Plan? Medicare? Just read this:

    Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.

    Richard W. Fisher
    President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

    See, when it comes to entitelments, the government spends like drunken sailors. There is no control, they just can raise taxes, sell bonds and pass the bill to the next generation or just print it. How does that begets efficiency? Can someone explain this to me? President Obama is on record saying that the public option will be modeled after medicare.

    Obama already said that he will spend more on prevention, meaning on healthy people. So there is only another item when it comes to cost cutting:

    I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

    So how do you — how do we deal with it?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

  5. Wait a sec, are you really giving me a quote from the Fed? oooookay.
    And, it’s so perfectly logical to instead wait for people to become chronically ill instead of maintaining decent health…mmkay, ya got me there. screw preventative medicine.

  6. i’m sorry…i’m still reeling a bit here….A QUOTE to back up your argument…from THE FED!? seems like the last quote you shoulda used.

  7. ”…it’s so perfectly logical to instead wait for people to become chronically ill instead of maintaining decent health…mmkay, ya got me there. screw preventative medicine…”

    Billiegirltoo,

    I’m not saying that people should not live healthy lifestyles, but the president plans appears to assume that everyone is at risk of becoming “chronically ill” at some point in their life and most people don’t. Are you at risk of heart disease, some form of cancer, diabetes…?

    You may have a history in your family of a certain type of illness and so it would make perfect sense for you to adopt certain preventive measures. But if there’s no history on your family of a certain type of illness and you are perfectly healthy, what’s the point of spending money to prevent a chronic illness that you’ll probably never get? How will that save you money?

    If you have the means, will you pay out of your pocket that way? Well, with Obamacare you won’t have to… the government will pay it for you… so will have the Medicare disaster, but in an ever bigger scale and my kids will dance on my grave out of joy when they get the bill…

    ”…i’m sorry…i’m still reeling a bit here….A QUOTE to back up your argument…from THE FED!? seems like the last quote you shoulda used.”

    mmm… I’m not getting it… is quoting the fed some kind of faux pas? I’m no expert on federal entitlements programs, so I tend to back my arguments with expert opinions. I can quote from wikipedia if you’d like me too… 😉

  8. With regard to preventative care…not every disease diagnosed is directly inherited. There are – like it or not – more than a few environmental factors that can determine whether a person becomes ill.
    It is questionable the extent to which preventative measures will be paid for by the government, and if you have read the bill I would love to have you point me to that part of it, and only after that will I debate the merits of how much the government invests in such things.
    Finally, with regard to quoting the fed. The Fed is a part of the United States Government, so I’m not sure why you would agree with anyone who works for it. To that end, the gentleman you quoted also pointed to a misuse of surplus – brought on by the Bush Administration, extended through Medicare Part D, and additional tax breaks for families with children. This – as you know – along with other factors, including privatization of a financially debilitating war, contributed to the situation we are in economically. On top of that, skyrocketing health care costs are crippling the very people who spend money, and put it back into the system.
    What the president is attempting to help lawmakers agree on is taming the beast – and health insurance reform is one of the first steps to helping to solve that problem.
    With regard to wikipedia….that’s awfully ‘elitist’ of you 😉

  9. Billiegirltoo,

    I have not read the bill, but in response of a question asked by congress last month regarding the “budgetary effects of proposals to expand governmental support for preventive medical care and wellness services” , CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf wrote a seven page response to congressmen Nathan Deal, Frank Pallone, Henry A. Waxman and Joe Barton.

    In this letter (you can find a .pdf copy here) Mr. Elmendorf writes:

    ”Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.”

    So, if congress is discussing “proposals to expand governmental support for preventive medical care” with the CBO, you really can’t blame me for thinking they are discussing about things that “will be paid for by the government”, even if I haven’t read any of the five bills being discussed in congress, right?

    Now, your other point about me agreeing “with anyone who works” for the government. I’m not a caricature of the anti-government extremist, I’m a real person. Government has an important role to play, but I don’t believe that it should be running our health care system or car companies. I have my reasons and discussing them will take the whole comments tread and then some.

    But in the end it would be better that instead of assuming that we know what motivates those that don’t agree with us, we would just make a small effort and try to understand the other side point of view and see if at least it based on something real, not a caricature of what you think they are.

  10. I’m going to address these in reverse order:

    First, you’re assuming that I’m assuming. While that may work for you in some discussions or disagreements, it doesn’t hold water here. My surprise at your using a quote from the Fed – considering most of the nation’s considerable annoyance with the Fed is not something that should be ignored. And, you still have yet to respond to what interesting things I pointed to in that talk. It’s nice of you to point out that you are not a ‘caricature,’ however when you write: ‘I don’t believe it should be running our health care systems or car companies’ – is where I think we will fundamentally disagree. First, the administration is not proposing that the nation’s healthcare system be systematically controlled by the government. Second, with regard to the car companies, the choice for them was clear – and while I’m not thrilled about it, it was logical….if you want to borrow our money, we need to have a little say in how it’s spent. That, I think, is fair.

    Third, since the letter you pointed to had no cited reference within the bill (found here http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200🙂 I simply scrolled through the sections on prevention and wellness. Unless I am blind and illiterate, what the bill seems to essentially generalize is that clinics, doctors, and scientists should work together with states and communities to determine the focus for the funding. Doesn’t seem to restrictive or scary to me.

    I appreciate your comments and thoughts. However, while we’re making ‘a small effort ‘ to try and understand the others’ point of view – here’s how I will tend to operate in my discussion – when an article or letter points to a source for disagreement…I read it. It typically is not in my nature to take block quotes as gospel without context. So, while it may take me a while to get back to you. I will.

  11. ”First, you’re assuming that I’m assuming. While that may work for you in some discussions or disagreements, it doesn’t hold water here. My surprise at your using a quote from the Fed – considering most of the nation’s considerable annoyance with the Fed is not something that should be ignored”

    That’s seems like an assumption to me, but then again English is my second language and I may be missing something in translation when I interpret your words. I do realize that I’m not responding to every point, and am not because I’m picking and choosing but because I’m trying to respond to what I think is the main point.

    Regarding the Bush administration increase spending, you will find no disagreements on my part or of most conservatives and/or libertarians. The Bush administrations in many ways set the stage for president Obama increased spending. I will not discuss that particular point now, I have to leave for work and I’m sure I’ll have another chance to revisit it.

    But on this other point:

    ”First, the administration is not proposing that the nation’s healthcare system be systematically controlled by the government.”

    I agree, because if the administration were to propose that at this point it would not even get out of the starting gate. And there is also the fact that the administration (you’re talking specifically about the president, right?) has not proposed anything. I offered to pay a friend of mine who keep talking about “Obama’s health care plan” $100.00, donated to his favorite charity if he could find me a copy or even a URL of that plan and I’m still waiting.

    President Obama instead uses a rhetorical trick, using market and conservative terminology to sell the health care reform as a way of increasing “competition” and claiming that he doesn’t believe in big government. Fact is, even Rahm Emmanuel when asked why president Obama flip-flopped on single payer talks about “the objective is what’s important and not the means”. So I ask, what “means” is he talking about? Democrats in congress (Barney Frank and famously Jan Schakowsky) admit that the “government option” is the backdoor to single payer by squeezing the private companies out of the health care market. See, they learned Norman Thomas lesson well…

    ”Second, with regard to the car companies, the choice for them was clear – and while I’m not thrilled about it, it was logical…”

    Well, how about not lending then money? BTW, I know it was Bush who started it, Obama (the candidate of “change”) just decided to run with it. Ford executives planned ahead, mortgaged every company asset they could get their hands on (even the blue “Ford” logo) to raise money and turn their company around. For their efforts they now get two compete with two government owned entities that had their debts erased in bankruptcy court. How “logical” or fair is that?

    ”Third, since the letter you pointed to had no cited reference within the bill (found here http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200🙂 I simply scrolled through the sections on prevention and wellness. Unless I am blind and illiterate, what the bill seems to essentially generalize is that clinics, doctors, and scientists should work together with states and communities to determine the focus for the funding”

    H.R. 3200 is only one bill, there are four other bills in committee in the senate and at this point who knows what will eventually come out. So the CBO was not asked to analize a particular bill, but a set of policy propossals.

  12. You said:“I agree, because if the administration were to propose that at this point it would not even get out of the starting gate. And there is also the fact that the administration (you’re talking specifically about the president, right?) has not proposed anything. I offered to pay a friend of mine who keep talking about “Obama’s health care plan” $100.00, donated to his favorite charity if he could find me a copy or even a URL of that plan and I’m still waiting.”

    The answer is no. I am not talking specifically about the president, rather I am talking about he administration as a whole. With regard to ‘ Obama’s Healthcare Plan’ there is not one because the president is not a lawmaker – he is the president. So, if you are referring to the plan that Obama proposed, and therefore hopes democrats will follow through with, then there are ample sources to be found. You asked your friend to complete an impossible task.

    You said: “H.R. 3200 is only one bill, there are four other bills in committee in the senate and at this point who knows what will eventually come out. So the CBO was not asked to analize a particular bill, but a set of policy propossals.”

    Making the task of trying to determine what the writer of the letter was referencing. By providing the link, it was my attempt to illustrate to you the ease with which a cited point within that bill can be referenced. Yes, there are in fact drafts, re drafts, markups, etc. Further illustrating my point. Within that particular bill, in that particular example you pointed to, there is nothing to be found mandating a precise way to which money will be spent toward preventative medicine…which was your larger point – unless I am mistaken.

  13. oops….”Making the task of trying to determine what the writer of the letter was referencing even more difficult.”


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s