Health Care Reform Dead

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

The dollar is not 'holding its value' exactly because Keynes' advice was ignored.

How so?

They have printed many new previously non-existing dollars, that is exactly Keynes.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

How so?

They have printed many new previously non-existing dollars, that is exactly Keynes.

They have printed many new previously non-existing dollars, but that's just normal procedure and little, or, more accurately, nothing, to do with Keynes' theories. Many previously existing dollars have become non-existing, too, and that has had little or nothing to do with Keynes' theories.

When you actually learn some economics and have some understanding of Keynes' theories, THEN come back and open a conversation on it. Until then, a wise man keeps his mouth shut...you have opened yours and exposed your gaping maw of ignorance on the topic, removing all doubt as to your stupidity.

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by Megatron

The Onion wins again

Oh, if only that were satire instead of the truth.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

They have printed many new previously non-existing dollars, but that's just normal procedure and little, or, more accurately, nothing, to do with Keynes' theories. Many previously existing dollars have become non-existing, too, and that has had little or nothing to do with Keynes' theories.

When you actually learn some economics and have some understanding of Keynes' theories, THEN come back and open a conversation on it. Until then, a wise man keeps his mouth shut...you have opened yours and exposed your gaping maw of ignorance on the topic, removing all doubt as to your stupidity.

You have yet to start a conversation, you just stamp your feet and yell.


If you don't think that massive spending by government is Keynesian then there is nothing I can say to you.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You have yet to start a conversation, you just stamp your feet and yell.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You have yet to start a conversation, you just stamp your feet and yell.


If you don't think that massive spending by government is Keynesian then there is nothing I can say to you.

Massive public deficit spending by government in a protracted economic depression is Keynesian.

Massive public deficit spending by government during periods of economic growth is NOT Keynesian.

Since deficit spending in the US has continued unabated since the 1930s, when President Hoover started it, and it ramped up to effective levels to bring about growth in the economy starting about 1941, we've had more years of economic growth when we've continued to add to the national deficit than we have had years of economic contraction. Yet, there has been no reduction in deficit spending....indeed, the pace has continually increased.

This is distinctly NOT advised in Keynesian macroeconomic models. It is explictly advised against.

So...For the greater part of the period since Keynes released his watershed economic analysis, states have largely IGNORED his advice for the greater portion of that period. Instead, we got some bastardized "good-ole boys" economy, where the MIC scrapes off the cream of the deficit spending and wastes it building bullshit that won't work on the battlefield and assuring that a meatgrinder is running somewhere to test their 'innovations' at the expense of our young, largely male, military recruits.

Indeed, President Richard M. Nixon, declaiming in 1971 that "We're all Keynesians now," was probably the marker that Keynes' economic policies had finally been perverted enough to be unrecognizable as 'Keynesian' that a dipshit like Tricky Dick could proclaim himself to be a 'Keynesian'.

Again, JERONG, before you shoot your mouth off, learn something about what it is you are declaiming.

[Jug Pilot]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You keep running away from what I write and attempt to insert maligns.

Have you read 'Rules for Radicals'?

You keep running away from this question.

Originally Posted by Jug Pilot

Explain to us why you consider the solders in Iraq and Afghanistan are useless leaches because they are not producers.

Since you refuse to participate in actual discussion, what's the value added of having you hare as a poster?

[Jerome]

Ahh, back to the no true Scotsman.

[Jug Pilot]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Ahh, back to the no true Scotsman.

Not an answer, try again

Explain to us why you consider the solders in Iraq and Afghanistan are useless leaches because they are not producers.

Since you refuse to participate in actual discussion, what's the value added of having you hare as a poster here?

[Garnet]

Back to the topic of the OP....

Now the Ted Kennedy has died, do the dems still have a filibuster proof majority? I'm wondering what is going to happen when Congress goes back into session.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Garnet

Back to the topic of the OP....

Now the Ted Kennedy has died, do the dems still have a filibuster proof majority? I'm wondering what is going to happen when Congress goes back into session.

No, and they might not have one for another six months. Normally, when the U.S. Congress has a vacant seat, the replacement is appointed by the governor. In Massachusetts, they hold a special election to determine the new senator, and the results of that election may be months away.

It's kind of a moot point since they weren't doing anything with their filibuster-proof majority.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Garnet

Back to the topic of the OP....

Now the Ted Kennedy has died, do the dems still have a filibuster proof majority? I'm wondering what is going to happen when Congress goes back into session.

Given the performance so far, I'd quit wondering about the number of Democrats and start wondering whether any worthwhile change can be realized without some kind of revolution.

How many of our Senators are craven captives of corrupt interests? I'm going to guess about a hundred of them.

How many of our Representatives are craven captives of corrupt interests? Most of them would be my guess.

Without some kind of extra-systemic change...revolutionary, probably...I don't see that things are going to change much at all. What I see happening at the moment is a squabble over the size of the crumbs to throw to the mob. The "Half A Loaf" program is a treacherous one.

[Garnet]

Yeah. What's left out of this mess really isn't much. I'm still furious over the Senate committee caving to the Death Panel wing nuts. I'm very doubtful at this point that much will come out of this mess. And what might come out may do more harm than good.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm beginning to think that "health care reform" will be the opportunity for the pharmaceutical and hospital/clinic chains to loot and pillage the public till...probably small potatoes in the path of the MIC and the financial predators, rather like scavangers, but still probably adding injury to insult in the process.

And the "death panels" at the private insurance companies will flourish.

[Joshua Adams]

They never really had a filibuster proof majority if you take into account the fact that Kennedy hasn't been there since April, months before Al Franken was seated.

Or the fact that a large fraction of the Democrats are useless crypto-Republican shitbags.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Joshua Adams

Or the fact that a large fraction of the Democrats are useless crypto-Republican shitbags.

Such incisive accuracy, Joshua.

[Adam]

If they had the spines to make the Republicans actually filibuster it wouldn't even be an issue.

High on my list of political pipe dreams is changing the Senate so that it's proportionally representative based on a national election.

[Kael]

That'll happen the day after they do the same for the Presidential election. Hold your breath.

[Joshua Adams]

So you mean individual states wouldn't have their own Senators? Isn't it pretty useful and important to have senators going to bat for your state?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Joshua Adams

Or the fact that a large fraction of the Democrats are useless crypto-Republican shitbags.

Yes, this.

[Adam]

Yes, that's what I mean. I don't necessarily buy the argument that it's crucial for individual states to have federal representation at the federal level, but even so:

1) Congress would still be done by district.

2) I don't think it's fair that California's 36.7 million people have 2 Senators to represent them and Wyoming's .5 million people also have 2 Senators to represent them.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, I think the whole national structure is a joke. The United States is too large.

It needs to be disassembled into about six smaller nations. Then we could have each of those nations restructure their electoral functions as they see fit (I'd push for a single house parliamentary style for Cascadia, with anybody practicing law forbidden to serve as a legislator).

But that's just me.

[godfry n. glad]

Here's a question....

If we nationalized national defense industries, couldn't we dispose of multiple excessively bloated corporate administrative structures as well as the 'profit margin' (...and probably end up with an excessively bloated bureaucratic administration in the process, but it would be just one)?

Wouldn't that be more 'efficient', particularly in terms of being less costly to the end consumer (being the US public)?

[Garnet]

I think that's the whole idea behind a single payer system.

This is probably not an objective source but What is Single Payer? | Physicians for a National Health Program :

Single-payer is a term used to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as administrator, or “payer.” In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs. In the current US system, there are literally tens of thousands of different health care organizations—HMOs, billing agencies, etc. By having so many different payers of health care fees, there is an enormous amount of administrative waste generated in the system. (Just imagine how complex billing must be in a doctor’s office, when each insurance company requires a different form to be completed, has a different billing system, different billing contacts and phone numbers—it’s very confusing.) In a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don’t have it.

[Joshua Adams]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Well, I think the whole national structure is a joke. The United States is too large.

It needs to be disassembled into about six smaller nations. Then we could have each of those nations restructure their electoral functions as they see fit (I'd push for a single house parliamentary style for Cascadia, with anybody practicing law forbidden to serve as a legislator).

But that's just me.

We cede 3rd place by land area to China over my cold, dead, body.