Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on $1.2 Trillion (With a 'T')

1

Shoulda, woulda, coulda...

Posted by PA Native | January 17, 2007 10:51 AM
2

That is infuriating.

Posted by Gabriel | January 17, 2007 11:02 AM
3

And how about investment in renewable energy? Not to mention paying down some of our national debt.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 17, 2007 11:11 AM
4

Such a waste. This is Osama bin Laden's strategy, and it's working beautifully.

Impeach.

Posted by Fnarf | January 17, 2007 11:12 AM
5

It all the fault of the Faux Kligons...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe4WA58rMu0&eurl=

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 17, 2007 11:51 AM
6

Or here’s a novel idea. The money could have been left in, or returned to, our pockets. It’s the worst sort of typical Liberal thinking that money spent on one Big Government Program is money that could have been better spent on another Big Government Program. How about letting the people who earn the money keep it and spend it, or save it, themselves. Oh, that’s right; individuals can’t be trusted to make their own spending decisions. The State must do that for them.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 17, 2007 11:57 AM
7

I agree with You Gotta. Actually, though, it wouldn't be returned to our pockets because it wasn't taken from them. It's on loan from the Chinese and other foreign governments. But no Trillion $$ war would mean less national debt, a stronger dollar, and a stronger economy.

Posted by him | January 17, 2007 12:01 PM
8

Yes, as a result of this stupid war, the US government is now owned by China. Nice work, George.

YGBKM's little anti-government diatribe is, as usual, misplaced here.

Posted by Fnarf | January 17, 2007 12:12 PM
9

In order to use this money effectively, we would have to give up our national obsession with massive violence and the delusional belief that the military can solve all of our problems.

We spend more on our military and its wars than all other nations in the world combined, while our healthcare and primary education “systems” are a total embarrassment. Our priorities seriously suck.

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me,

Can you name even one developed country that actually lives by and implements so-called “conservative values” of low taxation, small government, everyman for himself retirement, etc?

I can’t, and virtually every other developed nation (ala Europe, Canada and Japan) has universal health coverage for its citizens and better primary school education. We always get our asses kicked on comparative measures of math, science, reasoning skills, infant mortality, etc. It's pathetic.

If a "conservative values" small government is so superior, then why has virtually every other civilized nation embraced a "liberal values" government?

Posted by Original Andrew | January 17, 2007 12:28 PM
10

Not so very long ago “virtually every other developed nation” was a monarchy. The US found a better way then, and a truly conservative (not Fundamentalist or Christianist; think Oakeshott, think Goldwater) small government stance would be a better way now.

As to Universal Healthcare, most Liberals seem to pretend to believe that huge numbers of Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom are insured, get no health care at all, while the rich few wallow in luxury. In fact, the biggest problems uninsured Americans face are not doctors refusing to treat them, but the fact that they use the incredibly inconvenient emergency room for most of their care, and that a really bad illness could force them into bankruptcy. Not admirable, by any means, but a far cry from the tortured visions of poor Americans dying at the hospital's door, their pleas for care unheeded.
The reality of Nationalized Single-Payer Health Care systems is that a fair number of Europeans go without quality of life treatments (such as hip replacements), and some do die on waiting lists. (Granted, many of those people would have died anyway, because they have nasty diseases with life expectancies measured in months.) Where America caters, expensively, to their desire to live a few extra weeks or months; Europe does not.
Because I'm unhappy with our current state of medical progress, the most important single issue to me is which system encourages research and development. The answer, of course, is that neither does it nearly as well as I'd like, though the U.S. system is pretty clearly better than the European.

The same or similar can be said of most of the socialist ideologies Liberals parrot.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 17, 2007 12:48 PM
11

Fnarf,
My comment is relevant to this post in that the NYT article perpetuates the wrong headed Liberal ideology that money spent on one Big Government Program is money that could have been better spent on another Big Government Program and completely neglects to consider the other, more appropriate, option of not spending the money at all.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 17, 2007 12:59 PM
12

the biggest problems uninsured Americans face are not doctors refusing to treat them, but the fact that they use the incredibly inconvenient emergency room for most of their care, and that a really bad illness could force them into bankruptcy...a far cry from the tortured visions of poor Americans dying at the hospital's door, their pleas for care unheeded.

Bullshit. Most uninsured Americans get no preventive care and have to wait until they are in dire straits (carted off to the ER) to get treated. Many diseases are much less treatable (cancer, heart disease) when diagnosis and treatment are delayed. Therefore, uninsured people die earlier from diseases that are preventable, treatable, or can at least be effectively managed for months or years.

The reality of Nationalized Single-Payer Health Care systems is that a fair number of Europeans go without quality of life treatments (such as hip replacements)

No, they get placed on a waiting list, which makes sense. What doesn't make sense is to force people who have serious conditions to go without treatment because grandma wants her hip replacement now and refuses to wait a few months.

...and some do die on waiting lists.

Yes, they die from natural causes and not because they didn't get treatment in time.

...because they have nasty diseases with life expectancies measured in months.) Where America caters, expensively, to their desire to live a few extra weeks or months; Europe does not.

That's bullshit. If you have a serious/fatal condition and you're covered under a universal plan, you get treatment. If you need or want treatment or a surgery that can wait, then you wait.

...the U.S. system is pretty clearly better than the European.

You seem to be assuming that all European countries have the same standard of care. England's system is considerably worse than the health care system in France, for example, and that's entirely because England spends less money on it. I actually agree that universal health care can never work in this country, because Americans are so determined never to actually pay for their government services, they'll never allow politicians to fund universal health care properly.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 17, 2007 1:20 PM
13

OR ... we could have BUILT enough wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal farms to entirely replace all the imported Middle Eastern oil - while creating US jobs to build, operate, and maintain them.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 17, 2007 1:29 PM
14

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me @10,

That was an evasion and a specious non-answer.

The questions are:

1) If a conservative small government is so much better than a liberal big government, then why have 100% (as far as I can tell) of the world's developed countries embraced a liberal big government style?

2) Can you name one country that implements and lives by your conservative small government values?

Posted by Original Andrew | January 17, 2007 1:30 PM
15

Him, fnarf -- good call on China. That's a lot of Boeing Jets, since they'll have to do the shopping here.

Hmmm...States of the Union: Wiping out AIDS in Africa, Advanced Energy Initiative (Hydrogen Engine & "Clean" Coal), Reforming Health Care for the 21st Century, American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation, Fiscal Discipline & Managing for Results (Balanced Budged by 2012).

Ho-hum.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | January 17, 2007 1:32 PM
16

Keshmeshi,

My summary statement that “the U.S. system is pretty clearly better than the European”, does not use Standard Of Care as its primary gauge. As I clearly stated, the most important single issue to me is which system encourages research and development. The US system, with all its faults, clearly does this best. (And all the world, including Europe’s Socialist healthcare systems, benefits from it.)

As to your concerns regarding the uninsured, which are in a small minority, I think there is merit in laws like those on the books in Massachusetts and proposed in California requiring mandatory health insurance. But that is a States issue, not a Federal one, and very different from the Liberal ideology of Universal Healthcare imposed and regulated by Federal mandate.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 17, 2007 1:40 PM
17

A small minority???

There are around 47 million people in the US with no health insurance, and those of us that do have it are paying through the nose. It's insane and unsustainable.

Now, please answer my questions at @14.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 17, 2007 1:47 PM
18

@14

1.) They are wrong (Yes the majority can be wrong and, infact, the majority has spent most of the last 6,000 years of history being wrong (See: Feudalism, Monarchy, State Religion, Colonialism, Fascism, Communism, Etc.; all products of, or favored by, your superior Europe at one point or the other).)

2.) No. See 1 (Above).

You prove nothing by this line of questioning. (If everyone jumped off a cliff would you?)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 17, 2007 1:52 PM
19

Fact of matter is that the founding principal of this nation was liberty from the tyranny of Big Government (the King) in a world that was dominated by oppressive Big Government nations. It would be more surprising if the US adopted the ideology it expressly escaped then that the rest of the world should follow its model.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 17, 2007 2:00 PM
20

47M of 300M = 16% = small minority (Hell, its even smaller then the minorty that continues to support the war in Iraq.)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 17, 2007 2:11 PM
21

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me @18,

You can't name a civilized conservative country because there isn't one. Even the US doesn't follow the cruel, inhumane and draconian policies you favor. Hello Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Hello Bush and the big government Republicans busy bankrupting the country by massively increasing spending and the size of the government while cutting taxes. The hypocrisy is nauseating.

It's a total mystery to people like you why some want to work for the common good or take care of those less fortunate than themselves.

We only have to look next door to Canada to see a country that actually lives its values.

I would pity you if your values weren't so inherently callous and destructive.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 17, 2007 2:45 PM
22

RE: "2) Can you name one country that implements and lives by your conservative small government values?"

USA made a good go at it from 1776 Until 1913.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 17, 2007 2:50 PM
23

“It's a total mystery to people like you why some want to work for the common good or take care of those less fortunate than themselves.”

Not true.

I do a great deal of work for the common good and to take care of those less fortunate. I understand that to do so is my moral obligation, and I deeply resent your implication otherwise (typical Liberal demonization). It should not, however, be the States right to compel any individual by force through the threat of imprisonment or forfeiture of property to work for the common good and to take care of those less fortunate. That is in its self completely immoral. Believe it or not, results do NOT EVER justify means in themselves, and means frequently rob results of their merit. The road to hell is paved with good intentions (mostly laid down in support of Liberal ideology.)

“Hello Bush and the big government Republicans busy bankrupting the country by massively increasing spending and the size of the government while cutting taxes. The hypocrisy is nauseating.”

I concur completely.

I advocate CUTTING spending, the size of government and taxes simultaneously. What part of this makes you think I support Bush?

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 17, 2007 3:08 PM
24

Wow, a thread where I mostly agree with YGBKM :)

I used to like Democrats, and I still do like them more than Republicans, but it worries me how Democrats hate to see a tax die. If a tax was created to fund something, it should die when that thing is paid off. Democrats try and find something else to spend that tax on, making it live forever. This is why so many people are against new taxes… because they never die.

We aren't paying for the war through tax, but we are paying for it through a larger debt and a poorly valued dollar.

Original Andrew, why does not supporting SS, Medicaid, and Medicare make someone cruel and cold hearted? If people didn't have to pay into these funds, they'd have more money for retirement or to save up for medicines. Not all of us want to support a giant pyramid scheme.

I think one of the reasons this country has historically had a smaller government than those in Europe is because we are much larger and more diverse. The European countries have smaller populations and geographies. Socialism seems to work better in smaller groups.

Posted by Andrew Hitchcock | January 17, 2007 3:17 PM
25

"It should not, however, be the States right to compel any individual by force through the threat of imprisonment or forfeiture of property to work for the common good and to take care of those less fortunate."

Huh? What the frak are you talking about?

Your wrong-wing, Fembot head must've just exploded.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 17, 2007 3:25 PM
26

The health care issue is less, "who is going to pay for it?" and more "how are people using it/how healthy is their lifestyle?"

Too many people over use the system doing things like visiting the ER for a cold when calling a free nurseline (most insurers offer them) or a bottle of Robitussin would suffice. This type of activity drives up cost trends and results in premium hikes.

Plus, living an unhealthy lifestyle (being fat, being inactive, smoking) leads to a laundry list of preventable medical conditions that are incredibly expensive to treat and a major drain on the system's resources.

Eating less, moving more and kicking cigs would do wonders for our health as a nation. No, it wouldn't solve them, but it would be a great start.

I'm not surprised that the nationally touted answer is to throw more money at the problem. This is America after all. Maybe we can get the Chinese to fund this too.

Posted by PA Native | January 17, 2007 3:26 PM
27

OA:

Okay, you try not paying your taxes and see what happens. What do you think pays for all these services Liberals want to provide? (You do pay taxes don't you?)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 17, 2007 3:28 PM
28

Andrew Hitchcock,

The Great Society programs were created because people got too old and sick to work and ended up paupers living in flop houses or on the street. Is that really the kind of society you want to live in? Wikipedia it.

Even today Americans don't save hardly anything. Our national savings rate has been negative for almost two years, an event unheard of since the Great Depression, meaning that people spend more than they make. Numerous studies have shown that only a third of Americans have enough saved for retirement, another third have some savings but not nearly enough and the last third have no savings at all and will be 100% dependent on social security, charity and family.

You would see a rapid decline in Americans' standard of living if these programs ended. Besides, why should Europeans, Canadians and Japanese have better healthcare, education systems and eldercare than the US?

I'm with Bill Maher, it's time for the US to stop telling everyone we're the greatest country in the world and start acting like it. We're # 11 just doesn't have the same ring to it as we're # 1.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 17, 2007 3:39 PM
29

Hey PA Native @ 26,

Guess what just happened in your state?

Universal healthcare lowers the costs in the countries that have it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/hl_nm/pennsylvania_dc_3

Pennsylvania launches health insurance plan

"Amid rising costs, the United States spends about 16 percent of gross domestic product on health care, significantly higher than nations such as Canada, at 9.7 percent, and France, at 9.5 percent, which have nationalized health systems, according to the National Coalition on Healthcare, which seeks universal coverage and cost containment in the U.S. system.

Health insurance premiums in Pennsylvania have risen 75.6 percent since 2000, compared with a 17 percent rise in inflation and a 13 percent increase in the median wage, Rendell said."

Our current market driven system clearly doesn't work, so it's time for change.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 17, 2007 3:46 PM
30

OK YGBKM, my sister just racked up $80K in medical bills a month after turning 25 and falling off my mom's plan. While I know you would argue that she should have gotten insurance figured out before she lost it, I would argue that at an annual salary of $14K, $80/month for a single payer plan isn't something she could readily afford. Oh well, she's part of that small minority - so much for an economically viable future for her. She'll be 80 before she pays it off. Is this the type of system that you are advocating? It would be cheaper in the long run to provide preventative care for all Americans, the studies have been done, we could still afford R&D. I'm not following your logic.

Posted by M | January 17, 2007 3:46 PM
31

Somehow you all let YGTBKM get this whole conversation way off track. Sure there's a meaningful debate to be had about healthcare in these United States, or alternative energy, or repairing New Orleans, or whatever you want to debate about. But the big goddamned tragedy is that we don't have the money to do nothing about nothing because have WASTED uncountable resources in Iraq. Never mind the blood and guts, let's just look at the money. That $1.2 trillion of US tax dollars is going directly into the hands of any random murderer, theif or scumbag who can get their hands on it. Ain't no oversight, ain't no appropriations committee, it's being sucked up by kleptocrats and insurgents. What's the point in talking about helping you sister pay her hospital bill if we can't even keep our tax money out of the hands of suicide bombers?

Posted by Gurldoggie | January 17, 2007 4:01 PM
32

The US spends half of the world's healthcare bill but guess what place we come in, in terms of life expectancy (among other things)?


We are 30th, below most rich countries and several poor ones, including Costa Rica, Greece, Cuba...

http://depts.washington.edu/eqhlth/

And these are population statistics so it is not a matter of sampling error.

Posted by HealthCheck | January 17, 2007 4:19 PM
33

@ 30

You don’t follow my logic because you obtusely ignore its premise. As I clearly stated, the most important single issue to me is which system encourages research and development, not which system provides the highest standard of care at the least cost. The US system, with all its faults, clearly does this best. There was a day in our not too distant past were you could get a doctor to visit you at home for the price of a chicken or a bag of apples and receive the best care available anywhere from him. Unfortunately that consisted of bleeding and purging. It is the US healthcare system and its economic incentives that encourage the research that leads to the drugs that will ultimately (though maybe not immediately) lead to affordable, scaleable healthcare. The goose is still laying golden eggs. It would be folly to kill it now.

@ 31

Allow me to direct you to the crux of my original post (it’s the Faux Kligons) and failing that, my second post...

"It’s the worst sort of typical Liberal thinking that money spent on one Big Government Program is money that could have been better spent on another Big Government Program." Why not just NOT SPEND the damn money? (Then we don't need to borrow it from China or demand it from the populace.) My original beef was that Liberal Ideology (and the NYT article in question) never contemplates a solution that doesn’t just shift out of control spending to something else.

Original Andrew steered us down the rabbit hole of universal health care.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding | January 17, 2007 4:35 PM
34

Oh, and @31, "ain't" has no set sequence of words from which it can be contracted and thus is not a word. You should avoid using it as its use causes you to appear to be unintelligent, uneducated and vulgar.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 17, 2007 4:47 PM
35

@29, you need to work on your reading comprehension and thanks for posting information to support my point.

I didn't say I was against any specific system for paying for health care. I simply stated that people need to act responsibly by using care properly and living healthier lives.

Simply throwing money at the problem without also addressing these important two issues will result in health-care costs growing at an even faster pace. No different than the way things are today except an inefficient government entitlement is now using public dollars to pay for it.

None of these plans go far enough. People need to shoulder some of the responsiblity too.

@31, you're right. This is way off topic from the original Slog post.

Posted by PA Native | January 17, 2007 5:11 PM
36

YGTBKM - Are you actually convinced that the rise in health care costs are actually contributing to R&D rather than enormous profits for insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and HMOs? Our capitalist approach to health care is flawed. The invisible hand is a pragmatic approach for market based commodities like apples and oranges, but the health and the welfare of our population is not a commodity that can be traded on the open market, we are people not products. To assume that companies will provide a service that is inherently only profitable when treatments are denied, deferred or reduced, and then think that that system benefits the society as a whole based on R&D funds is not sound logic. What pharmaceutical company do you work for - or do you work for Safeco? People slip through the cracks with a system like ours and that's completely unacceptable. As for your idea about big spending, talk to your republican friends about that, we had a surpluss under Clinton, you tell me where it went.

Posted by M | January 17, 2007 11:02 PM
37

Right... take the profit out and they will keep funding R&D. You are delusional. Oh I forgot. Industry - bad, Profit - bad. You Librals slay me.

Posted by you_gotta_be_kidding_me | January 17, 2007 11:26 PM
38

Go back to Texas rodeo clown.

Posted by M | January 18, 2007 11:06 AM
39

Go back to your pipe you crack addled welfare ho.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 18, 2007 3:43 PM
40

Please help me provide health resources for medically underserved populations and also works to build the health care workforce and maintains the National Health WBR LeoP

Posted by Health and beauty | January 27, 2007 5:28 PM
41

A national health promotion and disease prevention initiative bringing together many individuals and agencies to improve the health of all Americans WBR LeoP

Posted by Pharmacy Association | February 3, 2007 7:31 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).