tea baggers next target climate bill

[open_society]

Originally Posted by amtharin

What the heck are you talking about?? The post office has never turned a profit since the day it was founded, Medicare and Medicaid are going bankrupt, there are too many to name.

government organisations are not run to "turn a profit", but at any rate some do and many are run more efficiently than private enterprise. Not all, and i never claimed all.

but Medicare and Medicaid are run more efficeintly than private insurance companies. their rising levels as a percentage of GDP have nothing to do with the rising cost of their administration abilities, but with an aging population/falling tax revenue and private industry not putting downward pressures on prices, as competative markets should do.

[amtharin]

Originally Posted by open_society

no i dont agree with the science of global warming, but any political theory, and it depends on the party platform for that conservatism, but i have seen one such party platform in the US that wants strict adherence to the constitution, is by its very nature a failed theory.

Again, you have the whole idea of conservitism wrong if you believe that they are strict constitutionalist.

(im an economist)

You're also 22

[amtharin]

Originally Posted by open_society

government organisations are not run to "turn a profit", but at any rate some do and many are run more efficiently than private enterprise. Not all, and i never claimed all.

They are not ment to run in the red for over 200 years either.

Name one that turns a profit.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by open_society

Wrong it takes the current numbers factors in a 5 year business cycles, with its troughs and peaks, and you get the mean average. Basically one ruling the other out, so it leaves you with the curent growth trends.

As I stated, you're just making sh*t up. The President's own FY2010 Budget proposal doesn't support your baseless beliefs:

"The Administration is also taking steps to buttress the financial system and the housing sector.
These policies are expected to stabilize the economy and stimulate a recovery by the end of 2009. The recovery is projected to gain momentum in 2010 and to strengthen further in 2011-2012. By the end of 2013, the unemployment rate is projected to fall to 5 percent, which is a sustainable level, and real GDP is projected to be growing at its potential, around 2.6 percent per year."

Perhaps you need to spend some more time on research:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...ssumptions.pdf

(PS: This post wasn't for you, it was for any readers gullible enough to believe your drivel.)

[open_society]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

As I stated, you're just making sh*t up. The President's own FY2010 Budget proposal doesn't support your baseless beliefs:

"The Administration is also taking steps to buttress the financial system and the housing sector.
These policies are expected to stabilize the economy and stimulate a recovery by the end of 2009. The recovery is projected to gain momentum in 2010 and to strengthen further in 2011-2012. By the end of 2013, the unemployment rate is projected to fall to 5 percent, which is a sustainable level, and real GDP is projected to be growing at its potential, around 2.6 percent per year."

Perhaps you need to spend some more time on research:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...ssumptions.pdf

(PS: This post wasn't for you, it was for any readers gullible enough to believe your drivel.)

lol, ok man, real GDP growing at 2.6 percent means the economy is not really growing at all, taking into inflation it means its stagnant.

Of course they projected that, its an even bet, if you dont understand modelling or how the governemnt manages expectations thats fine.

2.6percent growth means the business cycle has been taken into account and they have no idea what the growth will be. thats the way modelling works. you need to make certain assertions about what goes on.

How are they to know the economy will grow by 2.6%...they make asusmptions. lets assume this and we get that. well the GDP growth at 2,6% is not really growth at all.

based on that your graph will of course be correct, the economy essentially hasnt grown which means debt will continue to grow.

i said that modelling we did made certain assumptions. take the 4-75 growth, that changes the debt levels dramatcially. if you dont understand dont BS and copy and paste,

i understand how the CBO makes its predictions. But it cant very well predict what will happen over the next 5 years and make outlandish claims,

i will assume you understand the GFC was never in the CBO's modelling...


edit:btw you post and link dosnt explain how the CBO does its modelling, only its underlying findings.

[goody1]

Originally Posted by open_society

you shouldnt be confused many government programs have been succesfull and the examples of government agencies that are run more efficeintly than the private sector are vast and numerous.

Name two

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by goody1

Name two

Hell, after twelve hours, it seems we need to make it easier... Name one

[open_society]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

Hell, after twelve hours, it seems we need to make it easier... Name one

medicare and medicade are both run more efficiently than private health companies. the reasons for it taking up such a large percentage of GDP have nothing to do with them being inefficent.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by open_society

medicare and medicade are both run more efficiently than private health companies. the reasons for it taking up such a large percentage of GDP have nothing to do with them being inefficent.

This is an early morning joke, right? Both those programs are headed into bankruptcy at full speed.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026059.html
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/r...t_by_2019.html
http://www.thesuntimes.com/homepage/...rupt-who-cares

What else ya got? Maybe an answer based in Fact?

[dbx]

Originally Posted by open_society

medicare and medicade are both run more efficiently than private health companies. the reasons for it taking up such a large percentage of GDP have nothing to do with them being inefficent.

Even though I don't agree with this, comparing two failed entities doesn't garner much confidence. If you took out the billions in fraud...and then took out tens of billions in wasteful spending...I'd argue that it damn sure isn't efficient, and that it also is a significant portion of GDP. But again, I refer back to sentence #1.

[open_society]

Originally Posted by dbx

Even though I don't agree with this, comparing two failed entities doesn't garner much confidence. If you took out the billions in fraud...and then took out tens of billions in wasteful spending...I'd argue that it damn sure isn't efficient, and that it also is a significant portion of GDP. But again, I refer back to sentence #1.

no both entitlement programs will go bankrupt, but it has little to do with how they are run administratively. Both programs admin costs are way below the average health fund.

it is certainly a major share of GDP and it will grow bigger, but they are run efficiently.

the problem isnt with how their run, its in their set up. less people are paying into them then they used to, as the population has aged (baby boomers), the less money is being renewed into it.

also take into account spiriling healthcare costs (which is why if the presidents health care bill drops healthcare by half, we will see a massive reduction in the levels of debt)

the question was are the run efficiently and better then private enterprise. Both are, but due to unforseen flaws in their initial design, they will fail, but not due to lack of efficiency. they could cut admin costs to zero and it woulnt matter. they way they have been set out to work, and external factors, both will have to eventually be bankrupt.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by open_society

the problem isnt with how their run, its in their set up. less people are paying into them then they used to, as the population has aged (baby boomers), the less money is being renewed into it.

You're doing a really good job of proving our point: You admit these programs are failures. A few samples in the long list of Government-run failures.

Still waiting for examples of actual successes from the Federal Government, successes that justify handing that Government more and more control of our lives...

[open_society]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

You're doing a really good job of proving our point: You admit these programs are failures. A few samples in the long list of Government-run failures.

Still waiting for examples of actual successes from the Federal Government, successes that justify handing that Government more and more control of our lives...

no demographics sunk these programs, unseen demographics btw, if not for an aging population they would be a success, and the fact that un-capped rising health costs means people who should have kept their private health insurance felt it to expensive so went to the public option.

if health insurance was healthy and cheaper, medicare/medicade would not be broke. the system was not designed for such exorberant private costs. essentially the private option failed the public backup.

...but the question was about them being run efficiently...and both are.

[goody1]

Originally Posted by open_society

no demographics sunk these programs, unseen demographics btw, if not for an aging population they would be a success, and the fact that un-capped rising health costs means people who should have kept their private health insurance felt it to expensive so went to the public option.

if health insurance was healthy and cheaper, medicare/medicade would not be broke. the system was not designed for such exorberant private costs. essentially the private option failed the public backup.

...but the question was about them being run efficiently...and both are.

If sucessful government run programs are vast and numerous you should be able to give another example besides Medicare/Medicade which is already proven to be failing.

[open_society]

Originally Posted by goody1

If sucessful government run programs are vast and numerous you should be able to give another example besides Medicare/Medicade which is already proven to be failing.

they are not failing because they are run badley they are failing because they have to buy over priced private goods. caused by free market failure.

the miltary is another example.

[dbx]

Originally Posted by open_society

no both entitlement programs will go bankrupt, but it has little to do with how they are run administratively. Both programs admin costs are way below the average health fund.

LOL. I'd love to see a CEO in private business tell this to his shareholders. What is it about those $500 hammers and toilet seats that the Pentagon (govt) spends don't people get? When these things happen in govt., they are given low priority to fix, if at all. In private business heads roll quickly when controllable costs are allowed to be abused like this.

Originally Posted by open_society

it is certainly a major share of GDP and it will grow bigger,....

Indeed.

Originally Posted by open_society

the problem isnt with how their run, its in their set up. less people are paying into them then they used to, as the population has aged (baby boomers), the less money is being renewed into it.

I'm well aware of this and it's a valid point. However, it is exactly because of poor administrating that the problem was not foreseen and corrected...decades ago. But this is only part of the problem and it not the single reason for it's imminent failure. Not by far.

Originally Posted by open_society

also take into account spiriling healthcare costs (which is why if the presidents health care bill drops healthcare by half, we will see a massive reduction in the levels of debt)

You're dreaming if you believe a government promise that mixes that "guarantee" along with saving $500 billion in wasteful spending. They have never demonstrated such fiscal responsibility. Never.

Originally Posted by open_society

the question was are the run efficiently and better then private enterprise. Both are, but due to unforseen flaws in their initial design, they will fail, but not due to lack of efficiency. they could cut admin costs to zero and it woulnt matter. they way they have been set out to work, and external factors, both will have to eventually be bankrupt.

But the difference is this; in a free market, the insurance companies might collapse (if we take your premise to heart), but they would quickly be replaced by....something. In the case of the government, you'd be incorrect; the government has an endless (so they think) supply of cash to keep any program going. I give you....Social Security as exhibit #1. The fact they they will continually find ways to float OUR money makes them much different from real life private sector. Our current government entitlement programs are merely ponzi schemes. Maybe (but I wouldn't guarantee it) not created intentionally like this in the past, but I submit that this is precisely the reason why people (govt) want to create them now. Do you really, truly and sincerely believe that the federal government cares about giving every citizen health care? I'm afraid your answer is going to be "yes", and this is where our differences begin.

[open_society]

^^^ i will reply in depth, but i have to go to sleep have an exam in the morning.

will reply, tho. cheers for the skittles.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by open_society

no demographics sunk these programs, unseen demographics btw, if not for an aging population they would be a success

THAT IS THE POINT! Feel-good programs that ignored any future Facts and Reality. After all, who would have guessed that a growing portion of the population would actually... get older?

Make all the excuses you want, you're still admitting they are failures. The reasons don't matter.

Still waiting for an answer to the underlying question: Where are all these successful Government programs that are supposed to be hallmarks of their ability to manage more and more portions of our lives.

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by open_society

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...t-climate-bill

-I dont mind this, i think Tea Baggers fail to recognise the basic human condition which is change is good and you cant reconsile that with their basic conservative premise, but I think global warming is BS, and they are arguing their case from an interesting angle-

The Tea Party movement earned its stripes at town hall protests this summer by claiming that Democratic health care reform efforts would result in defenseless grannies being hauled before "death panels." Now the tea partiers have a new target?the cap-and-trade legislation moving through Congress?and new, unlikely victims to protect?the poor.

One of the key recruiting tools in conservative activists' push against the climate bill is a recent documentary called Not Evil, Just Wrong. The film styles itself as the latest conservative answer to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. It has no commercial distributor, but instead debuted on an October 18 webcast heavily promoted by social conservative organizations like Focus on the Family and the American Family Association, as well as local Tea Party groups. Organizers claimed the online premiere attracted some 400,000 viewers.

Now the tea partiers are calling for local chapters to host screenings on November 21. An Escondido, California, branch recently invited members to a "record-setting international Cinematic Tea Party," in terms reminiscent of a social justice rally: "Join the Resistance against the extreme environmentalism that threatens the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people in the developed and developing world; this is the new road to poverty in America." (To facilitate these screenings, the filmmakers are selling a "Platinum Party Pack" on their online store, which for $99.95 gets you all the fixings for a rockin' party: invitations, T-shirts, posters, and even a small red carpet.)

Red carpet notwithstanding, Not Evil is unlikely to garner its creators, a pair of Irish former journalists, any Oscar nominations. The film is poorly organized and rehashes the familiar talking points of climate change deniers?global warming as bad science; climate concerns as hysteria akin to that over killer bees, etc. Pushing those views are the usual suspects, including Patrick Moore, the Greenpeace founder turned nuclear power lobbyist, and Thatcher-era British politician Sir Nigel Lawson.

Where Not Evil differs slightly from the standard denialist script is insistence that cutting carbon emissions will hurt the poor. "For too long, with environmentalists, it's not enough about people," says Ann McElhinney, one of the filmmakers, in an interview. "Is it warming? Is it cooling? Who knows? Is it caused by us? There's even more disagreement about that. All of these things should be about people. We should be fighting for the poor."

This HAS to be Grupo's alterego.

[open_society]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

THAT IS THE POINT! Feel-good programs that ignored any future Facts and Reality. After all, who would have guessed that a growing portion of the population would actually... get older?

Make all the excuses you want, you're still admitting they are failures. The reasons don't matter.

Still waiting for an answer to the underlying question: Where are all these successful Government programs that are supposed to be hallmarks of their ability to manage more and more portions of our lives.

quickly cause i have to go to bed, i will get into it tomorrow.

The market system failed medicare and medicare more, instead of providing cheap healthcare that would allow both care/aid to remain viable, the monopolies arrived.

thats market failure right....monopolies. so it could be argued they bankrputed the system. the market systems lauded as the answer hurt the backup....will get into this tomorrow. will provide more examples, and reasons why private healthcare fails.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by open_society

thats market failure right....monopolies.

Where do you come up with this stuff? There are no "health care monopolies" in the private sector. The only things that even come close are due to excessive Government regulation.

Now, can you stop trying to justify why yet another massive Government Failure is OK, and instead get back to the real question: Point to the Government's successes.

[kel_varnsen]

the united states have probably the softest targeted emission cuts of all the developed countries, so i don't get the hysteria. some claim that this bill will hurt the economy, but the rest of the world proposes far more significant emission cuts. if anything, the climate bill should be a lot tougher...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...te-change-bill
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rbon-emissions

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by kel_varnsen

the united states have probably the softest targeted emission cuts of all the developed countries, so i don't get the hysteria. some claim that this bill will hurt the economy, but the rest of the world proposes far more significant emission cuts. if anything, the climate bill should be a lot tougher...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...te-change-bill
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rbon-emissions

LOL, yeah, now's a good time to impose higher taxes on companies and indirectly, individuals. With 10.2% unemployment, we should be doing all we can to make sure that costs continue to rise and jobs GTFO of the country!



More proof that the far left lives in a little place outside of reality.

[open_society]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

Where do you come up with this stuff? There are no "health care monopolies" in the private sector. The only things that even come close are due to excessive Government regulation.

Now, can you stop trying to justify why yet another massive Government Failure is OK, and instead get back to the real question: Point to the Government's successes.

6 companies provide a majority of the nations health insurance.....

[goody1]

Originally Posted by open_society

6 companies provide a majority of the nations health insurance.....

6 companies are a monopoly?

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by goody1

6 companies are a monopoly?

^^^ He beat me to it.

Somehow... Six options is a "monopoly". But adding a seventh will cure all our problems

Of course, we're still waiting for any evidence that this Government program will be effective or efficient. After all, this is an organization that puts the title "A New Era of Fiscal Responsibility" on a plan that calls for doubling the national debt, to $20 Trillion within a decade. But these are the guys we can somehow trust to make proper and effective business/health care/spending decisions

[open_society]

from the AMA website on monopolies. market failure right between the eyes.

Over the five years since the AMA’s first study, the country’s largest health insurers have continued to pursue aggressive acquisition strategies. The largest insurer, WellPoint Inc. (formed from the merger of Anthem Inc. and WellPoint Health Networks), has acquired 11 health insurers since 2000. The second-largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group (United) has also acquired 11 health insurers since 2000. To put this in perspective, in 2000, the two largest health insurers, Aetna and United, had a total membership of 32 million lives. As a result of mergers and acquisitions since 2000, the top two insurers today, WellPoint and United, each have memberships, respectively, of 34 million and 33 million, totaling more than 67 million covered lives. Together, WellPoint and United control 36 percent of the national market for commercial health insurance. In 2004 and 2005, 28 mergers valued at a total of $53.8 billion were completed or announced, which exceeded the value of all the deals completed in the previous eight years.

VIA AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION STUDY, 2007

So, two companies insure 67 million of the approximately 180 million Americans with private health insurance. And the large insurers have no intention of slowing down. In February of 2009, the AMA asked the Department of Justice to block the acquisition by United Health of Sierra Health Services, the largest health plan in Nevada. Should the merger go through, United will go from controlling 11% of the marketplace in Nevada to 56%.

How is this power used by the big insurance companies? Lower reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals who cannot stand up to the big insurers. Far fewer choices for consumers who are forced to pay larger premiums in order to have access to the doctors and hospitals they want. Even worse, consumers must submit to the approval practices of the insurance companies who dictate what your doctor may or may not do. Can the doc say no? Not unless he or she wants to wipe out a huge number of available patients covered by the one or two insurance companies in control of the game.

This is why I’m always so amazed when opponents of reform carp about the government getting between me and my doctor. Seriously…could the government be any worse than the insurance company who gets between me and my doctor solely to improve its quarterly earnings?

Bottom line – there is very little in way of competition among health care insurers and we, the consumer, are clearly paying the price in many ways. While you may fear government’s trespass into the medical system, even the most devout opponent of health care reform should appreciate that we are all being severely taken for a ride by our health insurance providers.

So, to the opposition I humbly suggest that the next time you email your representatives in Washington,warning them to stay out of your health care, or strap on your weapon to show off at at your elected officials’ town hall meetings, spare a little time to send a note to the Department of Justice demanding a little anti-trust love.

You may just save yourself a fortune…not to mention your life.

[open_society]

examples of well run government systems. Not perfect (as the market system, or anything is, but they tick all the right boxes)

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
The CDC
OSHA
NASA
The Military
the IRS
GSA

[nutsy54]

"Two companies control 36%..."

How the hell does that, or your other stat of "Six control 97%", define a "monopoly"? And if "six" is a monopoly, how will "seven" suddenly become a wonderfully active free market that leads to great cost reductions and efficiencies?

Better yet, why do you continue to avoid what should be a very simple question: Stop highlighting Government failures, and show us the successes. Provide some history and proof that we should expect further Government control of our lives to turn out well. So far, this is an organization who's major accomplishment is.... Spending itself (and every taxpayer) $12,000,000,000,000 into debt, with no end in sight. Yet they're your choice for cost reductions and improved efficiencies

[open_society]

I did above.

its a monopoly bro, be definition because prices have neither fallen, stabalised or found equilibrium.

7 wont lead to free markets, im assuming ur reffereing to the gov option, but the government can under cut their inflated prices and force them down.


the government succeses are above.