|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/cbo-scores-own-goal
Loonng post on the health legislation. Great read. |
Good one.
Here's a gem from the CBO:
| the CBO wrote: |
| Based on the longer-term extrapolation, CBO expects that inflation-adjusted Medicare spending per beneficiary would increase at an average annual rate of less than 2 percent during the next two decades under the legislation�about half of the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care. |
So, what this disclaimer at the end of the CBO report tells us is this:
| The actual meaning of what the CBO wrote: |
WE, at the CBO, are being forced to give you a bunch of phony estimates based on the preposterous notion that Medicare spending increases will come at a rate of less than half of recent decades. In fact, we should expect the opposite.
Further, it is likely that any cost savings will come as a result of rationing or reduced quality of health care. |
Thank you CBO. We at least have this couched forecast of another disasterous fascist-socialist failure looming in our future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
More on the CBO:
| zero hedge wrote: |
Constructing a complex structure that muddles these two issues sufficiently will force the CBO to treat a wide swath of spending as "off budget" for the public relations press that will follow. Does the CBO seem to have made matters suspiciously easy? Well, after their rather brusque May 2009 report, it didn't seem so. But this MLR issue has many people quite suspicious. Take Michael Cannon, for instance:
| Cannon wrote: |
The problem is that crafting the private-sector mandates such that they fall just a hair short of CBO's definition does not reduce those mandates' cost, nor does it make those mandates any less binding. But it dramatically reduces the apparent cost of the legislation.
[...]
The MLR memo is the smoking gun: it shows that this is what they've been doing with CBO all along. Proposals that would result in a complete cost estimate are dropped. Because we can't let the public see how much this thing really costs. |
What impact does this sort of hair splitting have? Cannon again:
| Cannon wrote: |
It's the reason we're all talking about an $848 billion Reid bill, rather than a $2.1 trillion Reid bill.
If someone sold you a house, or a car, or a mutual fund this way, we would put them in jail. |
|
Last edited by ontheway on Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the CV of the director of the CBO:
| Quote: |
Harvard University. A.M., Economics, 1985. Ph.D., Economics, 1989. Field courses in macroeconomics, public economics, and econometrics. National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship, 1983 to 1986. Dissertation committee: Martin Feldstein, Greg Mankiw, and Lawrence Summers.
Federal Reserve Board. Economist, 1995 to 1998. Worked primarily on financial-market issues.
Council of Economic Advisers. Senior Economist, 1998 to 1999. Worked primarily on Social Security reform, budget policy, and financial-market issues.
Department of the Treasury. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, 1999 to 2001. Worked on budget policy, Medicare reform, and other issues.
Federal Reserve Board. Senior Economist, 2001 to 2002. Worked primarily on macroeconomic analysis and forecasting.
Federal Reserve Board. Chief of the Macroeconomic Analysis Section, 2002 to 2006. Assistant Director of the Research and Statistics Division, 2004 to 2007. Managed a group of 20 economists and 10 research assistants and support staff who did analysis, forecasting, and research regarding U.S. economic activity, inflation, and labor markets |
And his campaign donations:
| Quote: |
Elmendorf, Douglas William Mr
BETHESDA, MD 20817 Brookings Institute/Economist
$1,000 OBAMA FOR AMERICA - DEMOCRAT |
Yesterday I was forced by geography to listen to that puffy tart Robert Gibbs (probably the most poorly dressed public figure in the history of the world) talk about how anyone who thinks the CBO isn't completely independent is "nuts" or some such pejorative.
Look at what this guy thinks is an appropriate shirt-tie mix:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YuV7gI04eo&feature=youtube_gdata
Anyways, ontheway, more and more people are seeing how sausage is made:
| Quote: |
The President has effectively discredited fiscal stimulus as a policy tool. What�s more is the bailout of the too-big-to-fail institutions without strings, the apparent cronyism in how these bailouts were done, and the gutting of financial reforms by the financial lobby has also discredited government as an agent to level the playing field for struggling households and taxpayers. See Blodget: Obama suffers because �taxpayer always finishes last� for now, but I will take this subject up in another thematic post.
I certainly underestimated the degree to which cronyism and special interests ruled the roost in Washington. I no longer believe government can be an effective agent of change in the U.S any more than it has been in Japan. |
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/12/a-look-back-at-the-debate-on-the-role-of-monetary-and-fiscal-stimulus-in-depression.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
And, finally, this:
| Quote: |
It is common to hear that, given the fact that many states mandate financial responsibility as a pre-requisite to driving an automobile, a Federal Mandate to purchase health insurance is as American as apple pie. This is an awful and abusive analogy.
Setting aside for a moment what should be obvious distinctions between state power and federal power, the possession of a license to operate a motor vehicle is, like it or not, a privilege afforded by states to residents, not a right. States do not, for example, require residents with no desire to drive to, nonetheless, acquire insurance. Nor can States require of residents proof of insurance (or even a license) when residents confine themselves to private roads. The scope of regulation is confined to public operation of a vehicle on public roads. Use of public roads is a privilege. Simply waking up in the morning, however, is not something governments ought to be able to regulate.
Interestingly, the law does not actually regulate an activity- a key component of the Commerce Clause authority which the bill, of necessity, must invoke. Instead, it regulates an anti-activity. The act of not buying health insurance. It is easy to make light of this distinction. It is also quite foolish. This sort of "negative regulation" is incredibly dangerous. Moreover, the law itself mandates that individuals enter into a required contractual relationship with a private company. Even State automobile insurance requirements permit individuals to post a cash bond to meet their financial responsibility requirements (i.e. to self-insure). No such exception exists in the present legislation. In fact, given the price control and "community rating" aspects of the bill, it is entirely obvious that the statute would require many individuals (particularly healthy 20somethings like your humble author) to enter into overpriced insurance contracts to subsidize other citizens. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/22/can-obama-open-his-mouth-witho
| Quote: |
Can Obama Open His Mouth Without Lying About Health Care?
In an interview with the Washington Post today, the president challenged all of us to comb through his 2008 campaign promises on health care. Check it out:
He don't play safe for you and mePresident Obama rejected in an interview Tuesday the criticism that he has compromised too much in order to secure health-care reform legislation, challenging his critics to identify any "gap" between what he campaigned on last year and what Congress is on the verge of passing. [...]
"Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill." [...]
He said the Senate legislation accomplishes "95 percent" of what he called for during his 2008 presidential campaign and in his September speech to a joint session of Congress on the need for health-care reform. [...]
Obama said the public option "has become a source of ideological contention between the left and right." But, he added, "I didn't campaign on the public option."
OK, kids, let's go look for what he said on the campaign about health care reform! Here's a good one:
Unprecedented transparencyI'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.
Ya OK that didn't happen. Next!
We'll allow the safe re-importation of low-cost drugs from countries like Canada.
Bzzzt! Any others?
Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices.
Negatory, at least according to this blog post (which includes several other alleged broken promises). Still feeling lucky today, punk?
Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can't find affordable coverage with a real choice.
Note: That's from Obama's campaign website. It's like he doesn't expect us to check, or something.
To sum up: The president said he "didn't campaign on the public option," but it turns out he did. He said that there wasn't any "gap" between his campaign promises and the final result, but it turns out there were several, as detectable by the most cursory Google search. He said "every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill," but it turns out they're not.
This kind of brazen bullshit may play with Ezra Klein, but I can't imagine most other Americans enjoy being lied to every day. |
What an odd lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Now, let me get this straight.....We are going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes�all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? |
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/01/quote-of-day.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| What an odd lie. |
It is odd. Many politicians can be excused for thinking they can get away with blatantly lying about past remarks or events. They haven't fully mentally transitioned into the age of the internet yet. They don't fully grasp when they say things like, "There were no terror attacks under Bush," that someone sitting in their home can simply do a Google search and rip that claim apart.
Obama, on the other hand, has shown he understands fully well the power and capability of the internet. So why on Earth does he think he can say things like this?
He's really pretty much failed as thoroughly as he could on Health Care Reform. He failed to stand up and help push through a strong, effective bill, or even one that lives up to the criteria he listed in his campaign. More importantly, he's failed to unify and lead his party politicians. If he doesn't even have enough political clout to bring the Democratic Caucus together for one big issue, what has he got? Frankly, I think his issue is that he's way too worried about his image to take serious political risks. He doesn't want to come out strong in favor of an idea that ends up getting rejected, so he just stays quiet. On some things, that's fine, but not on this topic.
He also needs to fire Geithner already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
He also needs to fire Geithner already.
Yeah. I agree. Who comes next? Jamie Dimon (his buddy from Harvard)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
He also needs to fire Geithner already.
Yeah. I agree. Who comes next? Jamie Dimon (his buddy from Harvard)? |
Does he actually have a governmental position from which he could be fired? Cutting off contact with the man would certainly be good for the nation, though; Obama's smart enough to know that listening to guys like him isn't good for the nation, so there's no excuse for him to keep doing it. I'd also like to see Janet Napolitano booted. She doesn't seem corrupt so much as incompetent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
He also needs to fire Geithner already.
Yeah. I agree. Who comes next? Jamie Dimon (his buddy from Harvard)? |
Does he actually have a governmental position from which he could be fired? Cutting off contact with the man would certainly be good for the nation, though; Obama's smart enough to know that listening to guys like him isn't good for the nation, so there's no excuse for him to keep doing it. I'd also like to see Janet Napolitano booted. She doesn't seem corrupt so much as incompetent. |
Oh, and Gary from the CFTC. And Larry Summers. And Eric Holder (who is suing banks for some lending to diversity issues and not going after the gigantic criminals on Hope's Rolodex). And anybody who worked for Goldman.
Jamie Dimon is the CEO of JP Morgan. He's prolly your next Treasury Secretary.
Timmay will be gone this year. I'm sure he's rolling through his blackberry contact list looking for the hedge fund or private equity group he'll move to and make a few hundred million from. Summers, after graduating from fatcamp (maybe he'll go with his boy Krugman), will probably show up at Goldman and start selling (again) mortgage backed toilet paper to the Chinese (again). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This bill is not only bad, it is cruel:
| Quote: |
No one can accuse the health care legislation currently in the works of being perfect. But whether the flaws in the final sausage after the House and Senate bills are reconciled are acceptable to self-respecting progressives ought to depend on this: Do they help--or hinder--the ultimate objective of universal coverage?
By this measure, if the provisions in the current Senate bill concerning undocumented aliens make it into the final bill, progressives, who put principle above politics, should bid adios to the whole effort. The bill would turn the undocumented into a permanent underclass of health care have-nots, making universal coverage unattainable. |
The Lou Dobbs Health Care Bil Act would be a more apt name. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But the key difference between the two is that whereas the House bill would allow these aliens to use their own money to buy coverage from the new health care exchange, the Senate bill won't. The reason for the Senate ban is that this exchange--a sort-of clearinghouse where patients will be able to pool together to purchase discounted coverage from approved plans--will be established and run by the government. Letting immigrants participate would mean allowing them to get indirect taxpayer aid. People "who are here illegally cannot avail themselves of the infrastructure that we're creating," Rep. Gerald E. , D-Va., said in November. |
I don't understand. They (illegals) will be prohibited from buying insurance? I agree that you shouldn't be able to jump the border and get free healthcare, but to prohibit the purchase of health care? That's really mean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From what I can see, it doesn't prohibit illegal aliens from purchasing health care (either directly or in the form of health insurance), it simply prohibits them from purchasing it through a governmental exchange.
I'm not a fan of the bill, but to be frank, the fact that it doesn't provide benefits for illegal aliens isn't among my highest concerns. These people are not citizens of our country. Rather than trying to work these people into an overall health plan, we need to focus on either incorporating them as citizens or stopping them from coming. I'm really don't care which, I'm not very passionate on the issue. The existence of an underclass of illegal immigrants who work for subpar wages and who don't have the rights and responsibilities of our citizens is unacceptable though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
The fascists want to controll everything, they don't care about people, they just want power.
Give the government control of health care, and they'll use that as an excuse to control what we eat, force us to exercise and regulate all personal behavior.
Thank you, John Stossel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zv5hsiO2cA&feature=related
Let's hope Stossel runs for a major national office.
Whatever happened to the thread where almost everyone predicted that Obama's fascist health care bill would pass before the end of 2009? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
