PelosiCare breaks the one trillion dollar mark over a decade

[Winnie]

I think it certainly has something to do with it - there's always money for war and killing, but domestic spending is somehow money down a rathole. :roll:

How exactly do you think we WON'T be paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 40 years?

Is the over 900 BILLION we have spent on them (and counting) somehow not part of our deficit?

You mean we could have nearly paid for both wars with the one stimulus bill passed earlier this year? Wow.

 

[Kayak Fish]

Winnie, I find it puzzling that a conservative believes we should abandon free market principles just because the media tells us it's for our own good. In the long run, I'm not convinced it is for our own good. More likely it is a disastrous precedent.

There are many free market advocates who believe that the results of these bailouts are an illusion and that we have simply re-inflated the bubble. Much of the market run-up of late was dirven by interest free printed government cash and job cuts. It's hard to see how this bodes well for our long term economic prospects. There's a good chance we're going to be feeling the pain of this type of socialism for the remainder of America's death throes as leading world power. Twenty Four trillion dollars were potentially put at risk to put a bandaid on a leg that has gange green. We should have let them fail and undergone a real change. We might have learned something.

And no, 30Askunkape is not right. The precedent that some firms on Wall Street must never be allowed to fail and that markets must be propped up artificially is something we will pay for again and again until the American people get some lobbyists to rival those of Goldman Sachs. Health insurance for all Americans is a drop in the bucket and of much greater utility to the country as a whole.

 

[Winnie]

Winnie, I find it puzzling that a conservative believes we should abandon free market principles just because the media tells us it's for our own good. In the long run, I'm not convinced it is for our own good. More likely it is a disastrous precedent.

There are many free market advocates who believe that the results of these bailouts are an illusion and that we have simply re-inflated the bubble. Much of the market run-up of late was dirven by interest free printed government cash and job cuts. It's hard to see how this bodes well for our long term economic prospects. There's a good chance we're going to be feeling the pain of this type of socialism for the remainder of America's death throes as leading world power. Twenty Four trillion dollars were potentially put at risk to put a bandaid on a leg that has gange green. We should have let them fail and undergone a real change. We might have learned something.

And no, 30Askunkape is not right. The precedent that some firms on Wall Street must never be allowed to fail and that markets must be propped up artificially is something we will pay for again and again until the American people get some lobbyists to rival those of Goldman Sachs. Health insurance for all Americans is a drop in the bucket and of much greater utility to the country as a whole.

I assume you are calling me a conservative. I never said anything about nor do I believe in abandoning free market principles.

It sounds like you would like to see that happen regarding health insurance? I don't really follow your logic very well...obviously.

We disagree about the connection between defense spending and proposed health insurance reform spending. The logic of using the fact that money is currently being spent on one thing as a reason to spend even more money on something else is faulty. That type of reasoning is probably why so many Americans live in debt.

I also disagree that the cost of the currently proposed health insurance reform plans are "a drop in the bucket." I hope we won't find out who is correct.

I do think you are correct that between TARP and "the stimulus," we are prolonging the recession. Much like the difference between ripping the bandage off or waiting until the adhesive weakens on it's own.

 

[30ashopper]

One thing is for sure, at the federal level we are spending far more than we are taking in. The solution it seems is to spend even more. I really don't get that logic. It still amazes me that a president of the united states can come out with a long term ten year budget forcast that predicts deficits every single year, and nobody bats a single eye lash. If Obama isn't going to get spending under control, I hope his time in the WH is short lived and we get someone in there that can. The current standard is not sustainable.

 

[Kayak Fish]

I assume you are calling me a conservative. I never said anything about nor do I believe in abandoning free market principles.

It sounds like you would like to see that happen regarding health insurance? I don't really follow your logic very well...obviously.

We disagree about the connection between defense spending and proposed health insurance reform spending. The logic of using the fact that money is currently being spent on one thing as a reason to spend even more money on something else is faulty. That type of reasoning is probably why so many Americans live in debt.

I also disagree that the cost of the currently proposed health insurance reform plans are "a drop in the bucket." I hope we won't find out who is correct.

I do think you are correct that between TARP and "the stimulus," we are prolonging the recession. Much like the difference between ripping the bandage off or waiting until the adhesive weakens on it's own.

I can't make people understand the moral dillema of spending many times more on the military than any other nation but being the only western country without universal health care, and I can't make anyone see the problem with giving Wall Street money whenever they screw up while average people are bankrupted and see a larger and larger percentage of their income going to health care costs with no end in sight. You either see this as a problem or you don't.

I never said I was a proponent of free market at all costs. But I've seen you champion free market solutions for health care, so I assumed you'd like them for Wall street as well.

Sadly we live in the real world and not some libertarian utopia as I'd like it to be. I understand that people expect a nanny state. I just feel if we're going to have that, we might as well get some of the nice parts as well, instead of just the wire-tapping, etc. If you want to start an island with no social security, medicare, public education, etc. I am willing to live on it.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Per news reports...

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is to unveil a health overhaul bill Thursday that includes the public health insurance option favored by her party's centrists.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) will introduce a plan similar to what a group of Blue Dog Democrats negotiated in July to get a healthcare bill out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The proposal calls for the officials who run the public plan to negotiate rates individually with physicians and hospitals.

Now we will have an opportunity to see what the bill will actually look like. It is interesting to note that this is not the robust option that the Democratic Progressive Caucus wanted. Earlier in the negotiation, they said they would NOT vote for this version of the Public Option as they wanted single payer anyway and this was further from that then the "Medicare plus five" robust option. Something tells me they won't derail President Obama's #1 domestic issue, but they are already saying that they want to be able to vote on an amendment for the robust option.