|
So alizee you prefer a president that's a good speaker or one that uses a phrase like "misunderestimated me"?
|
On September 10 2009 14:43 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 14:39 Jibba wrote:On September 10 2009 14:30 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 10 2009 14:25 Jibba wrote:He expects it because he's the President. Whether he's republican or democrat, he can stand up there and do the hamster dance and he's going to get applause. Yes, both can expect applause from their side of the aisle, and that the opposition will keep quiet. However, you can't forget that bush was openly booed and cajolted during his speeches. You can't say that changing the rules will only be applied when you're wearing one color of underwear and not the other. The rules don't change. The democrats who booed Bush's State of the Union were out of line, and also comprised one of the worst Congresses in history, so they shared much of the blame. Part of the issue I have with this is no one was rushing to call them immature back then because they hated Bush. If you're going to call people immature at least be fair.
Fairness hasn't mattered in mainstream journalism and media in the last 30 years.
|
On September 10 2009 14:37 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 14:28 Neos wrote:On September 10 2009 14:20 Alizee- wrote:On September 10 2009 14:03 motbob wrote:On September 10 2009 13:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 10 2009 13:46 keV. wrote:
The president is a cheerleader. They don't do anything but cheer/talk and press a Yes/No button after all is said and done.
The reason he called the speech was to discuss the health care reform bills being drawn up by congress. Its not important to make sure everyone is on the same page when a huge bill is being drawn up?
I'd say it is. He isn't up for reelection for another 4 years, this isn't for votes... He is just doing his job.
The president isn't a cheerleader. Saying so is complete retardation. A president does embolden people to make the nation better, but he has responsibility serious responsibilities, like showing up to a session that he himself called others to. He can catch everyone up on the same page by sending out a memo. He didn't even do that, he has said everything already. Everything. Every sentence and word (except his stupid kennedy letter). He called an important conference to get attention and applause for himself. None of it was new? Bullshit. Stop acting like you've heard it all before... I can guarantee you that I've been following his statements on the public option extremely closely and he never said anything like what he said tonight. He never said anything like what he said tonight? Uhhh this is the most gross exaggeration I've heard in a while. Seriously, the guy can speak well, can read off a teleprompter even better, there's no denying that, but quite frankly this is publicity shit that doesn't get anything done. We've been hearing about hope and change and change and hope the whole year and yet the situations only tend to get worse. He barks, but can't bite. Perhaps I'm unphased by this all, infact I now I am, but its just ludacris how he can hop up on stage, speak about things that seem very unlikely to be for the best when taking all angles into account, and then everyone is like HOLY COW we've got change! Just like during the campaign, just like when he got elected, the same thing over and over. People just light up like Christmas trees and then all of a sudden the juice starts running out until the next speech. No, he's definitely a cheerleader. "That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed" lol you've seriously never heard him say things like this before or anything like it? Come on, its recycled stuff. I actually agree with some of this, Obama speaks using pretty words with a stone-faced look and a passionate voice that people believe he is going to do some change for them. Over this year, the only change that's gone on were the company bailouts that have nothing to do with us except tax us more. Though, Obama can fight back when he was defending himself on what the Republicans have said from Death Panels and how the public option is bad to Glenn Beck's crazy tree. I think the main intent of the speech was to put indirect pressure on Congress, rather than just explain everything. There's a segment of the population that will trust him no matter what and another segment that will distrust him no matter what. He's trying to work on the middle to get all the Democrats in order (the GOP taking a hit with Rep. Wilson is also an added plus). Obviously we can't determine whether it was effective or not at this time, but I think he would be the first to admit that these are just words. He's not going to get away with executive privilege on something this big, so he's using a more indirect approach. Think of it as diplomacy (soft power), rather than force (hard power.)
I agree with this. "Cheerleading" is a large part of what presidents do. Read any work on modern presidential power. By giving speeches like this one, presidents are are hoping to build public support, and at the very least frame the terms of the debate. Presidents have a lot of foreign affairs powers, but are not as powerful in domestic matters as the Congress. I'm amazed that so many people dismiss Obama as just a good public speaker, when public speaking is one of the most effective ways presidents can influence domestic affairs.
|
On September 10 2009 09:34 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Wow, just wow.
If you aren't watching right now, WATCH IT. He is doing EXACTLY what needs to be done.
This is too perfect.
I agree 100% with the OP, well ok 99% cause I'm a Universal Health guy, but this was an awesome speech...
|
On September 10 2009 14:52 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 14:43 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 10 2009 14:39 Jibba wrote:On September 10 2009 14:30 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 10 2009 14:25 Jibba wrote:He expects it because he's the President. Whether he's republican or democrat, he can stand up there and do the hamster dance and he's going to get applause. Yes, both can expect applause from their side of the aisle, and that the opposition will keep quiet. However, you can't forget that bush was openly booed and cajolted during his speeches. You can't say that changing the rules will only be applied when you're wearing one color of underwear and not the other. The rules don't change. The democrats who booed Bush's State of the Union were out of line, and also comprised one of the worst Congresses in history, so they shared much of the blame. Part of the issue I have with this is no one was rushing to call them immature back then because they hated Bush. If you're going to call people immature at least be fair. Fairness hasn't mattered in mainstream journalism and media in the last 30 years.
I probably shouldn't have used the word "fair".
I should have said it's incredibly hypocritical.
Unfortunately truth isn't a big deal with the media and journalism, either.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:04 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 14:52 gchan wrote:On September 10 2009 14:43 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 10 2009 14:39 Jibba wrote:On September 10 2009 14:30 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 10 2009 14:25 Jibba wrote:He expects it because he's the President. Whether he's republican or democrat, he can stand up there and do the hamster dance and he's going to get applause. Yes, both can expect applause from their side of the aisle, and that the opposition will keep quiet. However, you can't forget that bush was openly booed and cajolted during his speeches. You can't say that changing the rules will only be applied when you're wearing one color of underwear and not the other. The rules don't change. The democrats who booed Bush's State of the Union were out of line, and also comprised one of the worst Congresses in history, so they shared much of the blame. Part of the issue I have with this is no one was rushing to call them immature back then because they hated Bush. If you're going to call people immature at least be fair. Fairness hasn't mattered in mainstream journalism and media in the last 30 years. I probably shouldn't have used the word "fair". I should have said it's incredibly hypocritical.
I like using the word "bad" because you can go badbadbadbadbadbadbad.
Let me summarize the 3 cable stations for you.
MSNBC: BEST SPEECH EVER MADE. SUCK IT, PERICLES.
Fox: Hitler reborn.
CNN: We now to go Twitter to let you know what YOU think about what the President was wearing.
|
On September 10 2009 15:09 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 15:04 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 10 2009 14:52 gchan wrote:On September 10 2009 14:43 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:On September 10 2009 14:39 Jibba wrote:On September 10 2009 14:30 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 10 2009 14:25 Jibba wrote:He expects it because he's the President. Whether he's republican or democrat, he can stand up there and do the hamster dance and he's going to get applause. Yes, both can expect applause from their side of the aisle, and that the opposition will keep quiet. However, you can't forget that bush was openly booed and cajolted during his speeches. You can't say that changing the rules will only be applied when you're wearing one color of underwear and not the other. The rules don't change. The democrats who booed Bush's State of the Union were out of line, and also comprised one of the worst Congresses in history, so they shared much of the blame. Part of the issue I have with this is no one was rushing to call them immature back then because they hated Bush. If you're going to call people immature at least be fair. Fairness hasn't mattered in mainstream journalism and media in the last 30 years. I probably shouldn't have used the word "fair". I should have said it's incredibly hypocritical. I like using the word "bad" because you can go badbadbadbadbadbadbad. Let me summarize the 3 cable stations for you. MSNBC: BEST SPEECH EVER MADE. SUCK IT, PERICLES. Fox: Hitler reborn. CNN: We now to go Twitter to let you know what YOU think about what the President was wearing.
That's not true O'reilly wasn't demonizing him at all.
He just disagreed with what was said.
I'm not going to lie, I didn't watch any of the other stations because I wasn't at the TV, but I was listening to the speech and afterward I'd say O'reilly was fair.
He said NOTHING that wasn't true, even though half of you will say his opinion is automatically wrong.
EDIT: I'm not interested in getting into a fight about FOX news because it's moronic.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:14 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:
EDIT: I'm not interested in getting into a fight about FOX news because it's moronic.
You're right!
|
On September 10 2009 15:19 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 15:14 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:
EDIT: I'm not interested in getting into a fight about FOX news because it's moronic. You're right!
Quit using my own bad grammar against me!
|
On September 10 2009 14:20 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 14:11 NExUS1g wrote:On September 10 2009 13:37 Mystlord wrote:On September 10 2009 13:25 NExUS1g wrote:On September 10 2009 12:41 Mystlord wrote:On September 10 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:On September 10 2009 11:41 Mystlord wrote:On September 10 2009 11:33 motbob wrote:
I don't see how this is C-level content. He explained how the bill will help consumers of health insurance. He explained how the bill would decrease costs. I gotta refer you back to my post at the bottom of page 2 that has a lot of quotes about his specific plan.
Also I know a lot of people don't care about this, but he gave a shoutout to the progressives who had been freaking out about his position on the public option. He basically told everyone to calm the fuck down and that the public option isn't that big of a deal, even though he wants it in the bill. And I have to refer you back to my earlier post. While this is a nice bill, it's only expanding coverage and not addressing the true costs of heatlh care. Even though he says that this is going to decrease costs, heatlh care always increases no matter what you do. Not only that, but the growth increases with every passing year. According to the White House, the current average annual growth in health care costs is 6.1%. We're coming to the point when the previous baby boom generation is hitting retirement age. Cost can only increase at this point. The question is, if less people are forced to use our health care system as "sick care" because of the out-of-pocket costs, limitations, etc. won't we save money on people who would otherwise needlessly end up in the hospital? What? I don't exactly get what you're saying... Maybe I'm just tired. Unless you mean that rising health care costs will cause people to rely less on health care? If that's what you're saying, it doesn't work because the consumer's out-of-pocket costs are generally kept stable. Although health care might increase as a percentage of our GDP, the same growth doesn't aply to out-of-pocket costs. In addition, what you're theorizing sounds very much like the consumer-gas prices relation. When gas prices are high, people start going environment crazy. When they lower, people start to use more gas again. It just ends up going in a cycle. That's not what needs to happen with health care. Imagine this... A woman does not get her regular mammogram. One day she feels a lump and goes into the doctor who finds she has breast cancer. The breast cancer is advanced and has spread into the lymph system. Surgery to remove the lymph nodes as well as the radical mastectomy are completed along with the standard chemo and radiation therapy. Down the line, the cancer reoccurs because of its late detection which causes another surgery to be done to remove the cancer and then another round of therapy. The cancer occurs a third time. This time, the cancer has metastasized throughout her body and her prognosis is poor. Now the insurance is paying for hospice, durable medical equipment, frequent hospital and doctor visits, medications, etc. This is if she's still under her lifetime limit (which by this point she may not be), still has insurance (they may have kicked her), or even has insurance (unable to get coverage because of this or another preexisting condition). Many insurance companies currently will not cover preventive care like mammograms. Because of recent publicity in the last couple of decades, insurance companies are feeling the pressure to cover mammograms, but this is just one thing in a very long list of preventive cares that would save so much money and many lives in the long run. Early detection and treatment is key in sickness. The more advanced a sickness becomes, the more difficult or impossible and expensive it is to treat it. Yeah... Did I ever say that preventive care shouldn't be covered or something? Yes it's also an important facet of this picture and should be taken into account. Umm... That's a long example to prove a point  Perhaps you did not say that, but you were talking about the problem that this bill will not prevent rising health care costs. This example was meant to show how better preventive care and more global coverage helps in saving on health care costs. Unless I just misunderstood your post. Preventive care will help to reduce health care costs, but only to an extent. The percentage of GDP spent on health care probably won't drop by an appreciable amount. The problems go far deeper than preventive care.
No doubt. You do agree that preventive care -- a direct purpose of the bill -- is something that will help save money. I don't know enough to comment about anything else, but this will help which is better than nothing at all or increasing expense.
|
"So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly - by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates."
Yet, he doesn't ask why there's no competition. He encourages a healthy debate, yet, a sentence later suggests we "GET SOMETHING DONE!" . Zero insight into a single fundamental problem. One hundred percent suggestive of a federal solution. Regardless, government plans are not competition.
The reality is a the public option does not address a single core issue with rising health care costs. Medical prices would simply continue to rise at an even faster rate as a new subsidized public plan would add additional demand for health care. The entire sector is alerady experiencing inflation at a rate 2-3x that of economic inflation. The focus on insurance profit is a red herring; not only are their profits rather slim despite their monopolistic status at the moment, the actual prices the hospitals are charging the insurance companies have increased at the same rates!
|
My title for ObamaCare would be: More of the Same.
More because the main point of the plan is to get near universal health care coverage.
The Same because under his plan, they would all be covered and we would all be covered in virtually the same dysfunctional system we are in now. Employer based health insurance (employer-based being the problem, NOT insurance being the problem), pharmaceuticals that are protected from market forces by the government, heavy and burdensome regulations, and just enough government run health care to destroy the normal market price setting mechanisms but not enough to have single payer efficiency gains.
There are some very minor adjustments and added regulations but NONE of the fundamental cost problems with our system are addressed in this bill. The democratic Senator from my state hired a physician from the University I attend to help him. The physician came and gave us medical students a 2 hour talk on the current proposals and at the end I asked if there was a single thing in the bill that addressed the fundamental causes of our increased costs compared to other modern countries. He said there was not. I have verified it with several other democratic sources as well (proponents of the plan).
Yes, this plan will cover more people, but it does NOT reform our system. We just pay a bit more money (1 trillion dollars over 10 years) to cover a bit more people (roughly 45 million) under a system with just a bit more government regulation.
And BTW, my biggest gripe BY FAR about the current plan is that every democrat out there begins his talk showing us all those graphs about how much $$$$ we are spending on health care compared to other countries, and then says, "We have to do something." Then they go on to talk about the plan and hope that we, the audience, will assume the plan does lower costs since they talked about costs first, when really the cost talk and the bill talk are independent of eachother.
It irks me that every time ObamaCare is presented, it is preceded by a talk about how much of our GDP we spend on health care when NOTHING in the Obama plan even attempts to change that.
I consider it as big a deception as the stupid protesters yelling about death panels...except this deception is not done by uneducated lay citizens but by Senators and the President himself who SHOULD be held to a higher standard than you average Joe who attends a rally somewhere.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:06 Savio wrote:
My title for ObamaCare would be: More of the Same.
More because the main point of the plan is to get near universal health care coverage.
The Same because under his plan, they would all be covered and we would all be covered in virtually the same dysfunctional system we are in now. Employer based health insurance (employer-based being the problem, NOT insurance being the problem), pharmaceuticals that are protected from market forces by the government, heavy and burdensome regulations, and just enough government run health care to destroy the normal market price setting mechanisms but not enough to have single payer efficiency gains.
There are some very minor adjustments and added regulations but NONE of the fundamental cost problems with our system are addressed in this bill. The democratic Senator from my state hired a physician from the University I attend to help him. The physician came and gave us medical students a 2 hour talk on the current proposals and at the end I asked if there was a single thing in the bill that addressed the fundamental causes of our increased costs compared to other modern countries. He said there was not. I have verified it with several other democratic sources as well (proponents of the plan).
Yes, this plan will cover more people, but it does NOT reform our system. We just pay a bit more money (1 trillion dollars over 10 years) to cover a bit more people (roughly 45 million) under a system with just a bit more government regulation.
And BTW, my biggest gripe BY FAR about the current plan is that every democrat out there begins his talk showing us all those graphs about how much $$$$ we are spending on health care compared to other countries, and then says, "We have to do something." Then they go on to talk about the plan and hope that we, the audience, will assume the plan does lower costs since they talked about costs first, when really the cost talk and the bill talk are independent of eachother.
It irks me that every time ObamaCare is presented, it is preceded by a talk about how much of our GDP we spend on health care when NOTHING in the Obama plan even attempts to change that.
I consider it as big a deception as the stupid protesters yelling about death panels...except this deception is not done by uneducated lay citizens but by Senators and the President himself who SHOULD be held to a higher standard than you average Joe who attends a rally somewhere.
I agree with everything stated here. Unless there's some major reform planned after this for health care (highly unlikely), then we'll probably end up seeing health care slowly eating its way up to 30% of our GDP. It's astounding how shortsighted politicians are.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:18 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 14:13 motbob wrote:On September 10 2009 13:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:People thought it was a good speech, not that it explained anything. You continue to be incredibly wrong. More than seven in ten say that Obama clearly stated his goals, with one in four saying he didn't express his goals clearly. Public opinion polling is bad. CNN is bad. CNN polling is exponentially bad. Stop trying to use it as evidence, and cite the parts that were actually well explained.
I did, earlier in the thread.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:20 Alizee- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 14:03 motbob wrote:On September 10 2009 13:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 10 2009 13:46 keV. wrote:
The president is a cheerleader. They don't do anything but cheer/talk and press a Yes/No button after all is said and done.
The reason he called the speech was to discuss the health care reform bills being drawn up by congress. Its not important to make sure everyone is on the same page when a huge bill is being drawn up?
I'd say it is. He isn't up for reelection for another 4 years, this isn't for votes... He is just doing his job.
The president isn't a cheerleader. Saying so is complete retardation. A president does embolden people to make the nation better, but he has responsibility serious responsibilities, like showing up to a session that he himself called others to. He can catch everyone up on the same page by sending out a memo. He didn't even do that, he has said everything already. Everything. Every sentence and word (except his stupid kennedy letter). He called an important conference to get attention and applause for himself. None of it was new? Bullshit. Stop acting like you've heard it all before... I can guarantee you that I've been following his statements on the public option extremely closely and he never said anything like what he said tonight. He never said anything like what he said tonight? Uhhh this is the most gross exaggeration I've heard in a while. Seriously, the guy can speak well, can read off a teleprompter even better, there's no denying that, but quite frankly this is publicity shit that doesn't get anything done.
Yeah sorry, my mistake. I meant on the subject of the public option only. Obviously we've heard the rebuttals of the "death panel" stuff in every weekly address of Obama's for about a month.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 10 2009 16:14 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 16:06 Savio wrote:
My title for ObamaCare would be: More of the Same.
More because the main point of the plan is to get near universal health care coverage.
The Same because under his plan, they would all be covered and we would all be covered in virtually the same dysfunctional system we are in now. Employer based health insurance (employer-based being the problem, NOT insurance being the problem), pharmaceuticals that are protected from market forces by the government, heavy and burdensome regulations, and just enough government run health care to destroy the normal market price setting mechanisms but not enough to have single payer efficiency gains.
There are some very minor adjustments and added regulations but NONE of the fundamental cost problems with our system are addressed in this bill. The democratic Senator from my state hired a physician from the University I attend to help him. The physician came and gave us medical students a 2 hour talk on the current proposals and at the end I asked if there was a single thing in the bill that addressed the fundamental causes of our increased costs compared to other modern countries. He said there was not. I have verified it with several other democratic sources as well (proponents of the plan).
Yes, this plan will cover more people, but it does NOT reform our system. We just pay a bit more money (1 trillion dollars over 10 years) to cover a bit more people (roughly 45 million) under a system with just a bit more government regulation.
And BTW, my biggest gripe BY FAR about the current plan is that every democrat out there begins his talk showing us all those graphs about how much $$$$ we are spending on health care compared to other countries, and then says, "We have to do something." Then they go on to talk about the plan and hope that we, the audience, will assume the plan does lower costs since they talked about costs first, when really the cost talk and the bill talk are independent of eachother.
It irks me that every time ObamaCare is presented, it is preceded by a talk about how much of our GDP we spend on health care when NOTHING in the Obama plan even attempts to change that.
I consider it as big a deception as the stupid protesters yelling about death panels...except this deception is not done by uneducated lay citizens but by Senators and the President himself who SHOULD be held to a higher standard than you average Joe who attends a rally somewhere. I agree with everything stated here. Unless there's some major reform planned after this for health care (highly unlikely), then we'll probably end up seeing health care slowly eating its way up to 30% of our GDP. It's astounding how shortsighted politicians are. Read my post about getting the bill through. While it's true that they are often shortsighted, bills are often pushed through in an unsatisfactory state and then revised over time.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
Wait a minute, did you say public opinion polling is bad? No it's not. Public polling got the election exactly correct... for like 16 years straight.
|
I am not that in too american politics (heck, not even in today politics) as nowadays politicians only seem to have catch-phrases and no real solutions. Hell, even when there is a real debate, the solution is black or black. Even if they advocate them and offer real solutions, you know you can bet on it that it is not going to happen.
As someone mentioned earlier, there is a need for a real free market society. Which, too bad, hasn't been around since the 70'ties. Statism, as we now have, can't and will not provide any solutions we need for the problems we now have. Yes, the dutchies have them too. My humble opinion is that the so-given solution will probably end up worse than the cause..
Bye bye ;-)
|
|
|
On September 10 2009 16:14 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2009 16:06 Savio wrote:
My title for ObamaCare would be: More of the Same.
More because the main point of the plan is to get near universal health care coverage.
The Same because under his plan, they would all be covered and we would all be covered in virtually the same dysfunctional system we are in now. Employer based health insurance (employer-based being the problem, NOT insurance being the problem), pharmaceuticals that are protected from market forces by the government, heavy and burdensome regulations, and just enough government run health care to destroy the normal market price setting mechanisms but not enough to have single payer efficiency gains.
There are some very minor adjustments and added regulations but NONE of the fundamental cost problems with our system are addressed in this bill. The democratic Senator from my state hired a physician from the University I attend to help him. The physician came and gave us medical students a 2 hour talk on the current proposals and at the end I asked if there was a single thing in the bill that addressed the fundamental causes of our increased costs compared to other modern countries. He said there was not. I have verified it with several other democratic sources as well (proponents of the plan).
Yes, this plan will cover more people, but it does NOT reform our system. We just pay a bit more money (1 trillion dollars over 10 years) to cover a bit more people (roughly 45 million) under a system with just a bit more government regulation.
And BTW, my biggest gripe BY FAR about the current plan is that every democrat out there begins his talk showing us all those graphs about how much $$$$ we are spending on health care compared to other countries, and then says, "We have to do something." Then they go on to talk about the plan and hope that we, the audience, will assume the plan does lower costs since they talked about costs first, when really the cost talk and the bill talk are independent of eachother.
It irks me that every time ObamaCare is presented, it is preceded by a talk about how much of our GDP we spend on health care when NOTHING in the Obama plan even attempts to change that.
I consider it as big a deception as the stupid protesters yelling about death panels...except this deception is not done by uneducated lay citizens but by Senators and the President himself who SHOULD be held to a higher standard than you average Joe who attends a rally somewhere. I agree with everything stated here. Unless there's some major reform planned after this for health care (highly unlikely), then we'll probably end up seeing health care slowly eating its way up to 30% of our GDP. It's astounding how shortsighted politicians are.
If you're astounded by how shortsighted politicians are, you should try reading government budgets (google CAFR). Most governmental entities still only plan for 60 days at a time--and thats including all outstanding bonds they have to pay. They don't consider payment until it's 60 days on the horizon. The federal government is a little better about longer term considerations, but they didn't start doing that until 1997. In fact, government financials weren't even audited until 1994...
And to think that US politicians say we are ready to take on something as substantial as health care. Show me the numbers and show me that your estimates are actually fairly accurate, and I'll consider it. Until then, I don't want to see shit passed through Congress based on momentum (Iraq War, ahem).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
