|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 27 2013 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't even understand what is happening anymore. Legislators are refusing to legislate, people are pretending to filibuster their own goddamn bills, and elected officials are blatantly and admittedly destroying the economy.
How is this possible?
As I said many times before. Welcome to America where screwing the other side is more important then governing the country.
Better everyone burns in fire then the other guy getting his wish.
|
Investors looking for high returns took to Colorado this week and poured more than $1 million into the burgeoning legalized recreational marijuana industry in the state.
In Denver, more than 60 investors from The ArcView Group met with 22 startup marijuana companies -- including several directly involved in marijuana sales or cultivation, which was a first for the investment group -- seeking capital. By the end of the meetings, the investors committed "well over $1 million" to Colorado marijuana companies, ArcView CEO Troy Dayton told The Denver Post.
And it may have been even more, however, due to Colorado's marijuana laws which requires investors to qualify as state residents for three years before making equity investments in a marijuana business, some investors had to cap their deal pens.
ArcView president Steve DeAngelo told Bloomberg Businessweek that more than 90 percent of ArcView's investors at the meeting came from out of state -- meaning the overwhelming majority of them could not invest.
“Colorado has an opportunity to claim a—if not the—leading role in the cannabis industry, if it’s properly financed,” DeAngelo said. “It’s an opportunity to build the first big companies and the first big brands. But it’s going to be difficult for them to do that if they’re unable to get the financing that’s available to every other industry.”
Cannabis business is "the next great American industry," ArcView CEO Dayton said when opening the investment meeting this week and despite the red tape that kept many investors from jumping in, it still certainly seems to be off to a strong start. It has only been about a month since Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would let the new legal marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington go into effect.
Source
|
Colorado's medical marijuana industry isn't going anywhere until more real businessmen get involved. Too many of the businesses are being run by potheads who are only in it for free weed. The state agency that is in charge of their industry is a mess, too. It is way behind on enforcing the regulations that are critical to legitimate operation.
|
On September 27 2013 03:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't even understand what is happening anymore. Legislators are refusing to legislate, people are pretending to filibuster their own goddamn bills, and elected officials are blatantly and admittedly destroying the economy.
How is this possible? As I said many times before. Welcome to America where screwing the other side is more important then governing the country. Better everyone burns in fire then the other guy getting his wish.
I try to remember it could have been much worse, with President Gingrich safe on Moon Base America and control of nukes. Putin says wut?
|
On September 27 2013 02:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I don't even understand what is happening anymore. Legislators are refusing to legislate, people are pretending to filibuster their own goddamn bills, and elected officials are blatantly and admittedly destroying the economy.
How is this possible?
The steady rise of partisanship and polarization of politics in the past few years.
It's honestly fucking insane that they're doing this, but from what I can tell, they believe they have the advantage based on the (greatly mistaken) belief that Americans care more about Obamacare's repeal now than the economic effects of debt ceiling brinksmanship a year from now.
Which is utterly retarded and insane, mind you, given all the indicators point towards the Democrats refusing to cave this time around, and even if we don't go over the debt ceiling, there are GOING to be economic ramifications. The whole spiel about Obamacare removing certainty for businesses holds doubly true here.
|
So Boehner doesn't even have enough votes in the house to pass it's own debt limit proposal.
|
Obamacare will be worse for the economy than either a gov. shutdown, or a default.
Oh, and polls suggest that both sides will take the blame in the event of either occurring.
How did it come to this? Look no further than Obama's first term. He's done more to divide this country than anyone else in recent history.
|
|
|
On September 27 2013 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obamacare will be worse for the economy than either a gov. shutdown, or a default.
Oh, and polls suggest that both sides will take the blame in the event of either occurring.
How did it come to this? Look no further than Obama's first term. He's done more to divide this country than anyone else in recent history.
What.
No, it will not be. Do you have any fucking idea what the hell a fucking default will do to the economy? Because apparently you don't. If you had ANY FUCKING IDEA, you would be horrified. Right now, investors, foreign countries, and economists are somewhat more optimistic about the probability of the Republicans actually pulling the trigger on the shotgun aiming at their feet. That being said, as the deadline approaches, the mere threat of a default will damage an already fragile recovery, and going OVER the default is assuredly going to end it, and plunge us into another financial crisis similar to 2008/2009, but without the same type of extremely cheap capital available on loan from the rest of the world to finance a recovery, as the confidence of the US Dollar as a Reserve Currency (which facilitates our extremely cheap foreign debt) is shaken.
I mean, the 2011 debt ceiling debacle already saw a downgrade of the US credit rating from AAA to AA+ (or AA, depending on the index you follow), and a net cost of 2 billion dollars to the taxpayer directly from the deadlines.
I'm not even going to comment on the perceived effects of Obamacare. There are certainly issues with it, and issues like tort reform and the likes need to be addressed. But to compare that to a default? That's just blinding ignorance right there.
Ask any economist, major investment bank or, hell, anyone with a passing understanding of the world financial system about the implications of a US default, and they will shit bricks.
|
On September 26 2013 19:40 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 18:20 Danglars wrote:
That comes as small consolation to people employed by companies that are subject to going out of business, laying off workers to cope with the extra Obamacare costs, or moving them to part-time for the costs as well. People have already been dropped from their health plans, or had their premium costs skyrocket as a result of Obamacare. They already had health insurance, but Obamacare means they no longer have it or can afford the plan they like. Companies are dropping spousal coverage (As UPS announced) for working spouses that may already apply for health insurance with their other company. Can't keep the plan you like? Too bad.
Except if you work for the Feds. They won't force you part-time, they won't go out of business, and they'll exempt themselves from the requirements already hurting companies. The PPACA is a disaster, and that's one thing the Teamster's Union and I can agree on. That wasn't the subject. Large businesses mostly already offer health insurance, so in that regard nothing changes and there's no reason Obamacare incentivizes dropping insurance. For small businesses, most are eligible to get subsidies to buy insurance for workers. Businesses can cut full time workers to under 50 so that they are not required by Obamacare to buy insurance for their employees, but the evidence for this actually happening is very weak as explained here. But what should you do if you happen to be part of this extremely small amount of people who's employer seemingly for no reason happened to drop your health insurance? Then you can buy insurance on the exchanges, possibly with subsidies depending on your situation. The point is everyone can buy insurance at cheap and affordable prices now whereas that was not possible for many people who are without jobs or with preexisting conditions or who have used too much healthcare services already. Universal healthcare is a great thing. Also, the whole idea of getting health insurance from employers is an American quirk that has evolved over time. From an objective point of view, this is quite stupid, there's absolutely no reason getting health care should be tied to being with the same employer.
I don't quite possess the economic background to critique his own designed prediction, if he ever shares his methodology anywhere. He misses the other possibility, full time jobs have also been lost from Obamacare thus increasing the total unemployment rate and decreasing part-time's share in it. U6 is still in the stratosphere, and Obamacare is a big factor in why companies are not hiring.
I think the rest can be summed up by your belief. Universal healthcare is a great thing. Reid says Obamacare is definitely a step towards universal health care, so that should give you cheer. I call it a recipe for the trashing of the USA's excellent health care, the severe drawback in all the medical technology research and development that happens in the states, and a dramatic rise in the federal deficits each year. Since the debate on state involvement in health care has been raging for many decades now, I couldn't possibly present enough rhetorical force to change what you already believe.
|
On September 27 2013 08:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 19:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 26 2013 18:20 Danglars wrote:
That comes as small consolation to people employed by companies that are subject to going out of business, laying off workers to cope with the extra Obamacare costs, or moving them to part-time for the costs as well. People have already been dropped from their health plans, or had their premium costs skyrocket as a result of Obamacare. They already had health insurance, but Obamacare means they no longer have it or can afford the plan they like. Companies are dropping spousal coverage (As UPS announced) for working spouses that may already apply for health insurance with their other company. Can't keep the plan you like? Too bad.
Except if you work for the Feds. They won't force you part-time, they won't go out of business, and they'll exempt themselves from the requirements already hurting companies. The PPACA is a disaster, and that's one thing the Teamster's Union and I can agree on. That wasn't the subject. Large businesses mostly already offer health insurance, so in that regard nothing changes and there's no reason Obamacare incentivizes dropping insurance. For small businesses, most are eligible to get subsidies to buy insurance for workers. Businesses can cut full time workers to under 50 so that they are not required by Obamacare to buy insurance for their employees, but the evidence for this actually happening is very weak as explained here. But what should you do if you happen to be part of this extremely small amount of people who's employer seemingly for no reason happened to drop your health insurance? Then you can buy insurance on the exchanges, possibly with subsidies depending on your situation. The point is everyone can buy insurance at cheap and affordable prices now whereas that was not possible for many people who are without jobs or with preexisting conditions or who have used too much healthcare services already. Universal healthcare is a great thing. Also, the whole idea of getting health insurance from employers is an American quirk that has evolved over time. From an objective point of view, this is quite stupid, there's absolutely no reason getting health care should be tied to being with the same employer. I call it a recipe for the trashing of the USA's excellent health care, Totally. Being number 1 in spending on healthcare and being number 20 in actual results is totally how I'd define 'excellent'
|
On September 27 2013 09:11 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 08:58 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2013 19:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 26 2013 18:20 Danglars wrote:
That comes as small consolation to people employed by companies that are subject to going out of business, laying off workers to cope with the extra Obamacare costs, or moving them to part-time for the costs as well. People have already been dropped from their health plans, or had their premium costs skyrocket as a result of Obamacare. They already had health insurance, but Obamacare means they no longer have it or can afford the plan they like. Companies are dropping spousal coverage (As UPS announced) for working spouses that may already apply for health insurance with their other company. Can't keep the plan you like? Too bad.
Except if you work for the Feds. They won't force you part-time, they won't go out of business, and they'll exempt themselves from the requirements already hurting companies. The PPACA is a disaster, and that's one thing the Teamster's Union and I can agree on. That wasn't the subject. Large businesses mostly already offer health insurance, so in that regard nothing changes and there's no reason Obamacare incentivizes dropping insurance. For small businesses, most are eligible to get subsidies to buy insurance for workers. Businesses can cut full time workers to under 50 so that they are not required by Obamacare to buy insurance for their employees, but the evidence for this actually happening is very weak as explained here. But what should you do if you happen to be part of this extremely small amount of people who's employer seemingly for no reason happened to drop your health insurance? Then you can buy insurance on the exchanges, possibly with subsidies depending on your situation. The point is everyone can buy insurance at cheap and affordable prices now whereas that was not possible for many people who are without jobs or with preexisting conditions or who have used too much healthcare services already. Universal healthcare is a great thing. Also, the whole idea of getting health insurance from employers is an American quirk that has evolved over time. From an objective point of view, this is quite stupid, there's absolutely no reason getting health care should be tied to being with the same employer. I call it a recipe for the trashing of the USA's excellent health care, Totally. Being number 1 in spending on healthcare and being number 20 in actual results is totally how I'd define 'excellent'
When people in countries that have universal health care want the best health care in the world, they go to the US. For example, it's common for Canadians who get cancer to go for treatment at american clinics or hospitals. If they can afford it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
they want the medical research, not the healthcare system.
|
United States41982 Posts
On September 27 2013 10:32 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 09:11 Sub40APM wrote:On September 27 2013 08:58 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2013 19:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 26 2013 18:20 Danglars wrote:
That comes as small consolation to people employed by companies that are subject to going out of business, laying off workers to cope with the extra Obamacare costs, or moving them to part-time for the costs as well. People have already been dropped from their health plans, or had their premium costs skyrocket as a result of Obamacare. They already had health insurance, but Obamacare means they no longer have it or can afford the plan they like. Companies are dropping spousal coverage (As UPS announced) for working spouses that may already apply for health insurance with their other company. Can't keep the plan you like? Too bad.
Except if you work for the Feds. They won't force you part-time, they won't go out of business, and they'll exempt themselves from the requirements already hurting companies. The PPACA is a disaster, and that's one thing the Teamster's Union and I can agree on. That wasn't the subject. Large businesses mostly already offer health insurance, so in that regard nothing changes and there's no reason Obamacare incentivizes dropping insurance. For small businesses, most are eligible to get subsidies to buy insurance for workers. Businesses can cut full time workers to under 50 so that they are not required by Obamacare to buy insurance for their employees, but the evidence for this actually happening is very weak as explained here. But what should you do if you happen to be part of this extremely small amount of people who's employer seemingly for no reason happened to drop your health insurance? Then you can buy insurance on the exchanges, possibly with subsidies depending on your situation. The point is everyone can buy insurance at cheap and affordable prices now whereas that was not possible for many people who are without jobs or with preexisting conditions or who have used too much healthcare services already. Universal healthcare is a great thing. Also, the whole idea of getting health insurance from employers is an American quirk that has evolved over time. From an objective point of view, this is quite stupid, there's absolutely no reason getting health care should be tied to being with the same employer. I call it a recipe for the trashing of the USA's excellent health care, Totally. Being number 1 in spending on healthcare and being number 20 in actual results is totally how I'd define 'excellent' When people in countries that have universal health care want the best health care in the world, they go to the US. For example, it's common for Canadians who get cancer to go for treatment at american clinics or hospitals. If they can afford it.
So your argument for the US system working is that they've created a system that benefits rich Canadians? Because the Canadians have a system that benefits Canadians, wouldn't a better system for America be one that benefits Americans?
|
On September 27 2013 08:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obamacare will be worse for the economy than either a gov. shutdown, or a default.
Oh, and polls suggest that both sides will take the blame in the event of either occurring.
How did it come to this? Look no further than Obama's first term. He's done more to divide this country than anyone else in recent history. What. No, it will not be. Do you have any fucking idea what the hell a fucking default will do to the economy?
No one has any REAL idea what it would do (being almost entirely unprecedented), though I think we can all agree that it would be pretty fucking bad for the short-term. Obviously the smart move to make if it did occur would be to immediately begin prioritizing payments and enacting pretty massive austerity cuts. Taxes would have to come up also (an unfortunate reality), but the majority of the savings would have to come from spending (even Geithner unwittingly agrees with that).
Unemployment would jump (or skyrocket, depending on who you ask). Borrowing would become rather difficult, and it is very likely that there might be a run on the banks. One (or more) of our large spending programs (SS, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, etc.) would have to either be cut entirely or cut to the bone (and deeper).
Naturally what would follow would be a pretty massive contraction in the global and domestic market as securities and investments suddenly look a lot riskier. The world would almost certainly enter a pretty deep financial crises. Especially in America, cash-strapped house-buyers and struggling US businesses would find their capital costs going up (maybe drastically). The deep cuts in the budget would necessarily move money away from infrastructural investments.
A stock market crash is inarguable. We can't say for certain how big it would be, but it would definitely be pretty big. That alone might have Congress scrambling to pass any debt bill Obama wants, just to get the stocks moving again (much like the jump immediately following the passage of TARP). Another (serious?) downgrade in our credit rating is a given. It is also pretty unlikely that the dollar would remain the world's reserve currency, considering the fact that most in the global market are already leaning that way anyway.
All this would be pretty fucking terrible. But then again, all of it would be solvable and would not last too long (depending on who you ask). Obamacare would be pretty fucking terrible, and would last, presumably, until the Health Care industry collapses and the Democrats have ammo to use that to fund a single payer system. Of course, this would only continue adding to the overall debt and deficit, thus making the inevitable crash that much more painful.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather take a solid punch to the gut now and get it over with, instead of having twenty years of strangulation before the punch comes.
|
I think it's a matter of perspective - the American health care system is adequate, and perhaps even exemplary when it comes to quality of care, if you happen to be rich. Coming from that perspective, the complaints about the ACA make sense. On the other hand, it would seem odd to think that the "American health care system is awesome" when many Americans don't actually have access to it, unless you're excluding poor Americans.
I mean, there's so much doom and gloom associated with a single-payer system, and it utterly baffles me. Pretty much every industrialized country has universal health insurance in some way or form, and it's not because they necessarily have tons of money to spend. Hell, I live in Taiwan, and our GDP is *way* lower than it is in the States, and the system, while flawed isn't going to collapse anytime soon, and isn't really the root cause of our economic woes.
|
Wendy Davis is running for governor of Texas! For the first time since I've been alive there is a legitimate chance for a Democratic governor of texas.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57604887/wendy-davis-to-run-for-texas-governor-sources-say/
+ Show Spoiler +Democrat Wendy Davis, a state senator who catapulted to national prominence this summer with a filibuster over access to abortion, is running for Texas governor.
Two Democrats with knowledge of her decision told The Associated Press on Thursday that Davis would announce her candidacy next week. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to pre-empt her official campaign launch on Oct. 3, which is expected to take place in her home district of Fort Worth.
A Davis campaign had been widely expected, but she has held off making her decision public. Davis campaign spokesman Hector Nieto would not confirm that she is running.
"As Sen. Davis told grass-roots supporters last week via email, she's made a decision and she looks forward to making her decision public on Oct. 3," Nieto said.
Wendy Davis hints at run for Texas governor
Texas abortion bill fails after Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster
Thursday afternoon, a message on Davis' Twitter feed said, "A week from today, I'm announcing something big. Can you chip in now to show the strength of our grassroots network?"
Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott announced his candidacy this summer and is considered the early favorite to succeed Gov. Rick Perry, who is not seeking re-election after 14 years in office.
No other Democrat has expressed interest in running for governor in Texas, where a Democrat hasn't won a statewide office in nearly 20 years. Experts say Davis, 50, would need to raise $40 million to mount a serious campaign, and Davis has spent the past three months attending fundraisers nationwide to build her bankroll.
Davis must raise money quickly to compete with Abbott, who has spent the past several years planning a 2014 run and has socked away more than $20 million.
For months, Democrats have urged Davis to run and reinvigorate a party that hasn't won a statewide office since 1994. That was also the final year of Texas Gov. Ann Richards, the white-haired spitfire who was the last Democrat to run the state.
Davis' progressive politics and charisma on the campaign trail have long made her popular among Texas Democrats. Yet speculation that she might run for governor were little more than occasional rumors before her filibuster in the Texas Capitol on June 25 made her an overnight political sensation.
Play VIDEO
Wendy Davis on filibuster: "A test of endurance, but well worth it"
Standing in pink tennis shoes that have now become iconic, Davis stood for nearly 13 hours during a filibuster that temporarily blocked new statewide abortion restrictions. Tens of thousands of people across the country watched the filibuster live on YouTube, and even President Barack Obama took notice.
At the end of the filibuster, hundreds of demonstrators who had jammed the Senate gallery shouted down the lawmakers to disrupt the final vote. Perry called another special session, and for the next two weeks, thousands of anti-abortion and abortion-rights demonstrators crowded the Capitol. Davis' supporters wore orange while anti-abortion groups wore blue as they chanted, sang and prayed in the building hallways and meeting rooms.
Republicans have held the governor's office ever since Richards was defeated by George W. Bush in 1994. The GOP has also held every statewide office in Texas since 1998 and the controlled the Legislature since 2003.
Democratic state Rep. Rafael Anchia, said Thursday that Davis is "straight out of central casting" as a bright and telegenic candidate.
"No disrespect to any of the other candidates, but the excitement that Wendy Davis has generated in this state has not been seen since Ann Richards," Anchia said.
© 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
|
On September 27 2013 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 08:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obamacare will be worse for the economy than either a gov. shutdown, or a default.
Oh, and polls suggest that both sides will take the blame in the event of either occurring.
How did it come to this? Look no further than Obama's first term. He's done more to divide this country than anyone else in recent history. What. No, it will not be. Do you have any fucking idea what the hell a fucking default will do to the economy? No one has any REAL idea what it would do (being almost entirely unprecedented), though I think we can all agree that it would be pretty fucking bad for the short-term. Obviously the smart move to make if it did occur would be to immediately begin prioritizing payments and enacting pretty massive austerity cuts. Taxes would have to come up also (an unfortunate reality), but the majority of the savings would have to come from spending (even Geithner unwittingly agrees with that). Unemployment would jump (or skyrocket, depending on who you ask). Borrowing would become rather difficult, and it is very likely that there might be a run on the banks. One (or more) of our large spending programs (SS, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, etc.) would have to either be cut entirely or cut to the bone (and deeper). Naturally what would follow would be a pretty massive contraction in the global and domestic market as securities and investments suddenly look a lot riskier. The world would almost certainly enter a pretty deep financial crises. Especially in America, cash-strapped house-buyers and struggling US businesses would find their capital costs going up (maybe drastically). The deep cuts in the budget would necessarily move money away from infrastructural investments. A stock market crash is inarguable. We can't say for certain how big it would be, but it would definitely be pretty big. That alone might have Congress scrambling to pass any debt bill Obama wants, just to get the stocks moving again (much like the jump immediately following the passage of TARP). Another (serious?) downgrade in our credit rating is a given. It is also pretty unlikely that the dollar would remain the world's reserve currency, considering the fact that most in the global market are already leaning that way anyway. All this would be pretty fucking terrible. But then again, all of it would be solvable and would not last too long (depending on who you ask). Obamacare would be pretty fucking terrible, and would last, presumably, until the Health Care industry collapses and the Democrats have ammo to use that to fund a single payer system. Of course, this would only continue adding to the overall debt and deficit, thus making the inevitable crash that much more painful. Call me crazy, but I'd rather take a solid punch to the gut now and get it over with, instead of having twenty years of strangulation before the punch comes.
Suicide is never the answer, especially murder-suicide.
The only thing that should ever cause so much damage is a world war, not a bunch of fanatics opposed to health care for poor people.
|
On September 27 2013 12:43 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 27 2013 08:31 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2013 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Obamacare will be worse for the economy than either a gov. shutdown, or a default.
Oh, and polls suggest that both sides will take the blame in the event of either occurring.
How did it come to this? Look no further than Obama's first term. He's done more to divide this country than anyone else in recent history. What. No, it will not be. Do you have any fucking idea what the hell a fucking default will do to the economy? No one has any REAL idea what it would do (being almost entirely unprecedented), though I think we can all agree that it would be pretty fucking bad for the short-term. Obviously the smart move to make if it did occur would be to immediately begin prioritizing payments and enacting pretty massive austerity cuts. Taxes would have to come up also (an unfortunate reality), but the majority of the savings would have to come from spending (even Geithner unwittingly agrees with that). Unemployment would jump (or skyrocket, depending on who you ask). Borrowing would become rather difficult, and it is very likely that there might be a run on the banks. One (or more) of our large spending programs (SS, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, etc.) would have to either be cut entirely or cut to the bone (and deeper). Naturally what would follow would be a pretty massive contraction in the global and domestic market as securities and investments suddenly look a lot riskier. The world would almost certainly enter a pretty deep financial crises. Especially in America, cash-strapped house-buyers and struggling US businesses would find their capital costs going up (maybe drastically). The deep cuts in the budget would necessarily move money away from infrastructural investments. A stock market crash is inarguable. We can't say for certain how big it would be, but it would definitely be pretty big. That alone might have Congress scrambling to pass any debt bill Obama wants, just to get the stocks moving again (much like the jump immediately following the passage of TARP). Another (serious?) downgrade in our credit rating is a given. It is also pretty unlikely that the dollar would remain the world's reserve currency, considering the fact that most in the global market are already leaning that way anyway. All this would be pretty fucking terrible. But then again, all of it would be solvable and would not last too long (depending on who you ask). Obamacare would be pretty fucking terrible, and would last, presumably, until the Health Care industry collapses and the Democrats have ammo to use that to fund a single payer system. Of course, this would only continue adding to the overall debt and deficit, thus making the inevitable crash that much more painful. Call me crazy, but I'd rather take a solid punch to the gut now and get it over with, instead of having twenty years of strangulation before the punch comes. Suicide is never the answer, especially murder-suicide. The only thing that should ever cause so much damage is a world war, not a bunch of fanatics opposed to health care for poor people.
What if the question is, "What is never the answer?"
|
On September 27 2013 09:11 Sub40APM wrote:Totally. Being number 1 in spending on healthcare and being number 20 in actual results is totally how I'd define 'excellent'
If you're in need of a life-saving operation you can get it. No absurd waiting lines that other developed economies have become used to, no lack of sufficient medical technology or advances. The US has historically led the way in development of new equipment and new procedures. The growth in cost brings reform needs to the forefront. Of course, the Democrats want to shoot the industry in the foot and call it reform, so I guess that's another option.
Considering how much you took that snippet out of context, I can only assume you agreed totally with the rest of it, so I'm glad you're slowly coming around!
On September 27 2013 11:48 Funnytoss wrote:
I think it's a matter of perspective - the American health care system is adequate, and perhaps even exemplary when it comes to quality of care, if you happen to be rich. Coming from that perspective, the complaints about the ACA make sense. On the other hand, it would seem odd to think that the "American health care system is awesome" when many Americans don't actually have access to it, unless you're excluding poor Americans.
I mean, there's so much doom and gloom associated with a single-payer system, and it utterly baffles me. Pretty much every industrialized country has universal health insurance in some way or form, and it's not because they necessarily have tons of money to spend. Hell, I live in Taiwan, and our GDP is *way* lower than it is in the States, and the system, while flawed isn't going to collapse anytime soon, and isn't really the root cause of our economic woes.
I'm glad there's some here that consider the quality of care in the United States excellent. I seek reform to help with the accelerated costs of this care, since the patient results are simply stunning. Some of these costs are the nature of the beast: that the best, highest success rate treatment is costly drugs (&research, failed drugs), equipment, and doctors with rather expensive training. At some level, there is a tradeoff with the rich simply affording the best and greatest because it exists at great cost.
Killing off the best and greatest, and pushing the quality treatments just below that out of reach is no solution. The latest alternative is saddling the country with debt, forcing doctors and hospitals to accept less than the costs of administering it, and leaving the rest to the bureaucracy to decide what care is rationed and how. Insurance regulations need change, medical liability needs change, the tax structure of health plans (Egads, a conservative that supports tax increases, hope you're sitting down) needs change. The welfare system for those that cannot afford it needs change. Empower the poor to shop their plans with something similar to a voucher scheme to be spent on health care in clinics or health insurance plans. Don't throw the subsidization on the youth of the nation and future generations. Only poverty for millions more Americans lies down that path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
