US Government programs to ruin the global economy

[bheld]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Here's what you're basically saying:

More government programs are what's needed to fix the problems government programs caused.

And you claim fact and reason aren't on my side.

The only thing increasing is efficiency. One universal health plan replaces a bunch of different government programs, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. That's pretty much indisputable so yeah I'd say that fact and reason aren't exactly on your side.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by bheld

The only thing increasing is efficiency. One universal health plan replaces a bunch of different government programs, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. That's pretty much indisputable so yeah I'd say that fact and reason aren't exactly on your side.

More centrally organized paper shufflers who have nothing to do with actual medicine. I am sure the Unions pushing for this will find that very efficient. My concern is how I can go see an actual M.D. without your damn permission?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

More centrally organized paper shufflers who have nothing to do with actual medicine. I am sure the Unions pushing for this will find that very efficient. My concern is how I can go see an actual M.D. without your damn permission?

Vote for a Democrat.

Seriously though, public financing will improve health care in this country by an order of magnitude. "Permission" isn't going to be anywhere near the issue it is right now with private insurance.

[bheld]

I'd also like to point out that this tactic worked well for the neocons in Canada back in the early 90s but it's hard to use the same trick twice, even if it's in a different country 15 years later. Most people are wise to the "Moody Doomsday" strategy now, although this story is getting lots and lots of press just like the first time around in Canada.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

All this talk recently in the forum about the need for government involvement in all sorts of programs has led me to post this as an example of how government programs will eventually lead to the destruction of our country as a dominant economic leader.

How can anyone justify universal healthcare when reports like this come out? How do you justify paying for this stuff? If you can justify it, at whta point do you stop increasing taxes to pay for increasing government spending?

Eventually we'll be paying everything we have to have the poorest in quality of everything we get. Who wants that?

"Conservatives" are the biggest alarmists I've seen - they are all for big spending for their interests and curbing liberties for what they call "necessary security" that is not necessary but when the other side does it all of a sudden its dangerous.

Where is the outcry about Bush spending?

"Under Reagan, federal spending as a percentage of GDP fell slightly. It has increased under Bush. This is not purely attributable to post-9/11 defense and homeland-security needs; spending outside these areas rose from 12.8 percent of the economy in 2001 to 14.5 percent in 2005...."

Here is something about Medi-care since you mentioned it:

"Overall, Bush has worsened Medicare’s solvency crisis with the addition of an unfunded prescription drug benefit—the biggest new entitlement since the Great Society...- while surpassing LBJ’s increase in total real outlays. While Reagan occasionally vetoed excessive spending bills, Bush’s veto pen has been missing in action as a Republican Congress has gone on a pork feeding frenzy.

And a little something on the GOP in general:

"It’s also worth noting that as bad as Bush has been on spending—proposing expensive new programs, endorsing government growth and refusing to impose discipline on profligate appropriators—Congress has often been worse. The GOP majority hasn’t been reluctant to outspend the president’s budget proposals."

Reagan vs. Dubya: A Size of Government Contest by by W. James Antle III

AND THIS IS FROM A CONSERVATIVE NEWS SITE!

So conservatives, where is the outrage for this? Or are we yet again dealing with double standards and hypocracy?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

countries that have universal healthcare spend less than we spend and get better care than we get... Why do you think that we would somehow end up spending more and getting less? It's not lke this is an untried idea. It's already in place all over the developed world and the doomsday econommic scenerios that you keep talking about simply do not occur.

Where are you getting this information? Are you talking about Cuba, where families spend 20% of the yearly gross on healthcare as opposed to U.S. families who only spend 15% of their yearly gross on healthcare?

As to getting less, are you referring to the report from Sicko that claims that France has the best healthcare, which is based on the fact that the report thinks governments that spend more money on healthcare are better?

If you do a little bit more research, you will find that countries with "social" healthcare have long wait times and that healthcare is rationed by the government. The free market does a much better job of rationing.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

"Conservatives" are the biggest alarmists I've seen - they are all for big spending for their interests and curbing liberties for what they call "necessary security" that is not necessary but when the other side does it all of a sudden its dangerous.

Where is the outcry about Bush spending?

"Under Reagan, federal spending as a percentage of GDP fell slightly. It has increased under Bush. This is not purely attributable to post-9/11 defense and homeland-security needs; spending outside these areas rose from 12.8 percent of the economy in 2001 to 14.5 percent in 2005...."

Here is something about Medi-care since you mentioned it:

"Overall, Bush has worsened Medicare’s solvency crisis with the addition of an unfunded prescription drug benefit—the biggest new entitlement since the Great Society...- while surpassing LBJ’s increase in total real outlays. While Reagan occasionally vetoed excessive spending bills, Bush’s veto pen has been missing in action as a Republican Congress has gone on a pork feeding frenzy.

And a little something on the GOP in general:

"It’s also worth noting that as bad as Bush has been on spending—proposing expensive new programs, endorsing government growth and refusing to impose discipline on profligate appropriators—Congress has often been worse. The GOP majority hasn’t been reluctant to outspend the president’s budget proposals."

Reagan vs. Dubya: A Size of Government Contest by by W. James Antle III

AND THIS IS FROM A CONSERVATIVE NEWS SITE!

So conservatives, where is the outrage for this? Or are we yet again dealing with double standards and hypocracy?

Absolutely not! I don't want any of them to begin with! Absolve them and we don't have to budget for them!

The outcry for bush's spending has been heard from both parties extensively, in particular from the conservatives during his second term. You posted from a conservative website...you do realize that your post is an example of conservative outcry?

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Absolutely not! I don't want any of them to begin with! Absolve them and we don't have to budget for them!

The outcry for bush's spending has been heard from both parties extensively, in particular from the conservatives during his second term. You posted from a conservative website...you do realize that your post is an example of conservative outcry?

I'm posting in response to your numerous posts bashing liberals for what conservatives have been doing for years and far worse at that.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I'm posting in response to your numerous posts bashing liberals for what conservatives have been doing for years and far worse at that.

I'm bashing liberals for wanting more of them to 'fix' the problem we have.

It was liberals the created them to begin with. It is liberals that want to create more. I want them absolved.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I'm bashing liberals for wanting more of them to 'fix' the problem we have.

It was liberals the created them to begin with. It is liberals that want to create more. I want them absolved.

So it is liberals to blame for conservative actions...gotcha.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

So it is liberals to blame for conservative actions...gotcha.

But liberals are to blame for the policies they are pushing during this campaign.

If you hate that Bush spent so much money during his presidency the past 8 yrs, they you will not be voting for a Democrat. So who are you voting for?

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But liberals are to blame for the policies they are pushing during this campaign.

If you hate that Bush spent so much money during his presidency the past 8 yrs, they you will not be voting for a Democrat. So who are you voting for?

I hate that he spent it on killing and war. I simply think it is humorous when conservatives use the 'spending' argument against liberals when they had their chance at reducing spending and they did the exact opposite.

Liberals aren't the ones preaching about 'small government', conservatives are.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

I hate that he spent it on killing and war. I simply think it is humorous when conservatives use the 'spending' argument against liberals when they had their chance at reducing spending and they did the exact opposite.

Liberals aren't the ones preaching about 'small government', conservatives are.

Do I really have to spell this out again? Increased spending =! bigger government

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Do I really have to spell this out again? Increased spending =! bigger government

The war (or security related things) weren't the only area where the congressional Republicans increased spending, and he allowed them to by signing the bills.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Do I really have to spell this out again? Increased spending =! bigger government

Increasing bureaucracy = increasing government.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Increasing bureaucracy = increasing government.

I don't argue that, but that's not what you said before

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by bheld

Universal healthcare is a step in the right direction toward sorting the social program mess out. Covering everybody would obviously reduce the costs associated with Medicare/Medicaid since you're not going to have to deal with individual enrollment, eligibility, etc.

That is the same kinda talk we had when Medicade and Medicare was sold to the public at estimates a fraction of what real costs truned out to be. Simply forcing other people to pay for your healthcare does not reduce actual costs.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

That is the same kinda talk we had when Medicade and Medicare was sold to the public at estimates a fraction of what real costs truned out to be. Simply forcing other people to pay for your healthcare does not reduce actual costs.

Oh you remember that do you?

Is Medicade made by the same company as Gatorade?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by bheld

Oh you remember that do you?

Is Medicade made by the same company as Gatorade?

Yes, both were invented by some liberal douchbag in the university system