legit question about reform and its implication on anesthesiology

[GoodmanBrown]

That is absolute bullshet! Dude, you're going to be an anesthesiologist, a field heavily dependent on numbers. Surely you can do math better than a bunch of agenda promoting media. All the government has done is ponzi up its debt to a higher level, no different than Bernie Madoff, and no different than a broke guy getting another line of credit going deeper in debt and then proclaiming, "I've avoided a personal Great Depression."

We haven't avoided shet. The hole has been dug much deeper, and the bill will come do. Don't be a kooliade drinking sheep refusing to use your own intellect. Not one single credible economist has come out to say Obama saved us. The idiots saying Obama saved us are the same people like Ben Bernanke that never got anything right his entire life. Not one of them said we are heading off a cliff in 07.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ79Pt2GNJo&feature=related

As for people like Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, and Mark Faber, who did say in 07 we are in deep shet, NONE of them have made silly claims that Obama prevented a Great Depression. I'll put my money on the guy in this video who was right while everyone else laughed at him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw&feature=related

Narc, no doubt we've gotten even more heavily in debt than we already are. But, what about the dude who maxes out his credit cards until he gets himself back on track and starts pulling in more income. To me, that's Keynesian economics on a microeconomic level. Not saying I agree whole-heartedly with it, but that's my understanding of the theory re: your comment.

Re: the links, I'll watch them this evening or tomorrow morning. I'm heading home to chill with the wife right now.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pgg]

With a larger post, cutting and pasting quotes takes awhile, so I simply posted in red. Hope that's not a huge hassle for any color-blind folks.

No, but it's a bit of a hassle to reply to your replies. No big deal.

But what is "the pursuit of happiness"? Is this something I have in my possession? Do I have a "pursuit"? Also, the second amendment gives me the right to own a gun. I do not currently own one. Has my right been extinguished given its lack of use?

Your "pursuit of happiness" is whatever do to fill your life with meaning, provided it doesn't impair others' ability to do the same. The government isn't obligated to pay for your self-enriching activities; the government is simply obligated to not unreasonably get in your way.

Rights not exercised are not lost. I've never marched in a gay pride parade, but should I someday decide to go out and support my more-stylishly-dressed friends, the police can't taze me because it's the very first time I've peaceably assembled.

The Bill of Rights is a list of prohibitions for what the federal government can't do, not a shopping list of things or services the people are entitled to collect. The rights enumerated therein aren't granted; they are accepted to have always existed and the purpose of the document is to prevent government from infringing upon them.

The 2nd Amendment explicitly says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This pretty clearly is a limitation of government authority, and only in the most deliberately loose/vague reading of it could one infer an obligation of the government to actually provide the guns.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

That is absolute bullshet! Dude, you're going to be an anesthesiologist, a field heavily dependent on numbers. Surely you can do math better than a bunch of agenda promoting media. All the government has done is ponzi up its debt to a higher level, no different than Bernie Madoff, and no different than a broke guy getting another line of credit going deeper in debt and then proclaiming, "I've avoided a personal Great Depression."

We haven't avoided shet. The hole has been dug much deeper, and the bill will come do. Don't be a kooliade drinking sheep refusing to use your own intellect. Not one single credible economist has come out to say Obama saved us. The idiots saying Obama saved us are the same people like Ben Bernanke that never got anything right his entire life. Not one of them said we are heading off a cliff in 07.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ79Pt2GNJo&feature=related

As for people like Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, and Mark Faber, who did say in 07 we are in deep shet, NONE of them have made silly claims that Obama prevented a Great Depression. I'll put my money on the guy in this video who was right while everyone else laughed at him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw&feature=related

Narc, I watched the links, and I pondered it a bit more, and I would posit that we don't disagree really at all! My post was more aimed at the short-term (2008-2011). I do think that in the short-term Obama and Congress actually lessened "the Great Recession" or whatever you want to call it. So, for the 2008-2010 period, the economy (while still bad) was less bad than it otherwise would have been.

I also posit that John McCain and Congress would have done much the same thing the last 2 years. This is because all politicians fundamentally want to get re-elected and will do whatever they need to to keep things running as best as possible between now and the next election.

In the long term (i.e. 25-50 years), I completely agree that the U.S. is in for hard knocks and will likely see something worse than what we would have seen if the government hadn't done anything this time around.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

No, but it's a bit of a hassle to reply to your replies. No big deal.

Didn't think of that. Unless there are many breaks, I will try to use the quotation thingy.

Your "pursuit of happiness" is whatever do to fill your life with meaning, provided it doesn't impair others' ability to do the same. The government isn't obligated to pay for your self-enriching activities; the government is simply obligated to not unreasonably get in your way.

Rights not exercised are not lost. I've never marched in a gay pride parade, but should I someday decide to go out and support my more-stylishly-dressed friends, the police can't taze me because it's the very first time I've peaceably assembled.

The Bill of Rights is a list of prohibitions for what the federal government can't do, not a shopping list of things or services the people are entitled to collect. The rights enumerated therein aren't granted; they are accepted to have always existed and the purpose of the document is to prevent government from infringing upon them.

The 2nd Amendment explicitly says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This pretty clearly is a limitation of government authority, and only in the most deliberately loose/vague reading of it could one infer an obligation of the government to actually provide the guns.

These are some really good thoughts, and I want to give them some thought. I'm at home now, and I self-limit SDN time to spend time with the non-Internet humans in my life. No offense, I hope.

PGG, if I stopped feeling that healthcare was a "right," would you see an inherent hypocrisy in my still supporting the healthcare bill (and wanting the government to take a more active hand in regulating the industry)? If this thread doesn't blow up by tomorrow morning, I'll tap out a few more thoughts on your post.

PS: Mad props on the double-spaces after periods of your last post. I think I lost that habit after my typing class ended!

 

[iwumd07]

I don't think that there will be a huge increase in the number of patients with private insurance.

Since the bill has no provisions to allow insurance to be sold across state lines, or to allow small employers to pool together to form groups, or to allow self employed individuals to form groups, the cost of insurance cannot go down.

Add to this the fact that companies will be required to accept and keep patients with pre-existing conditions. So as the number of people in the insurance pool with high costs increases, costs will go up, therefore premiums will go up.

I predict that many people without pre-existing conditions will find that paying the fine for not having insurance will cost them less than health insurance premiums, and will therefore opt to pay the fine (read: tax) instead. Or, as suggested above, they will buy a crappy plan that doesn't cover much.

Why would anybody buy insurance if the fine is cheaper, until they develop a pre-existing condition- since the insurance company won't be able to deny them coverage.

The purpose of this bill is not to improve health care coverage.

The purpose of this bill is to collapse the health care system as we know it, in order to give the government the chance to save the day by implementing socialized medicine. (google Cloward and Pivens- they laid out this strategy in the 1960's)

I'm afraid Ben Franklin was right: looks like we may not be able to keep the repubilc.

my thoughts exactly.

 

[AegriSomnia]

This is pretty much our last hope of NobamaCare being stopped. mad:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/is_obamacare_headed_for_a_supr.html

I hope the humiliated Supreme Court extracts their revenge on Obama.

 

[Narcotized]

Narc, I watched the links, and I pondered it a bit more, and I would posit that we don't disagree really at all! My post was more aimed at the short-term (2008-2011). I do think that in the short-term Obama and Congress actually lessened "the Great Recession" or whatever you want to call it. So, for the 2008-2010 period, the economy (while still bad) was less bad than it otherwise would have been.

I also posit that John McCain and Congress would have done much the same thing the last 2 years. This is because all politicians fundamentally want to get re-elected and will do whatever they need to to keep things running as best as possible between now and the next election.

In the long term (i.e. 25-50 years), I completely agree that the U.S. is in for hard knocks and will likely see something worse than what we would have seen if the government hadn't done anything this time around.

OK, we are pretty much on the same page. Of course running up the credit card lessened the pain for now, just like a resident in training could live better if he blew an extra hundred thousand on goodies. But for Obama to think that is a positive accomplishment backs me everytime that I say he is basically an incompetent idiot. We borrowed more money and hence got to live just as irresponsibly for another year or two (making the future burden that much greater). Whoop de damn doo President Handout, some friggin accomplishment.

McCain wouldn't have made the tough choices either, but he at least wouldn't have run the credit card up this hysterically. I voted for neither of them. It was like voting for shet or crap. Not much difference. They both smell pretty bad.

I don't know the exact time table, but I do know it won't take 25-50 years. We've exhausted the domestic ability to cover almost any of the current deficits. For all this talk about China, we only owe them a trillion (only... only in Obama times do we now say "only a trillion" like it's a dime or 2). Anyway, we are running deficits 1-2 trillion a year, more than all that we owe China total. Even Obama should be able to see that China won't be funding these deficits all that much longer.

 

[Narcotized]

Narc, no doubt we've gotten even more heavily in debt than we already are. But, what about the dude who maxes out his credit cards until he gets himself back on track and starts pulling in more income. To me, that's Keynesian economics on a microeconomic level.

In reality, does that happen? Does the guy who continues to live irresponsibly on credit cards get back on track, or does he just typically bail and go bankrupt? How bout the guy who hunkers down, tears up his credit cards, cuts back on all frivolous waste, lives conservatively, and attempts to save and pay down debt? Who of these 2 typically lives financially to fight another day?

As for Keynesian, it's just a pro-big government agenda, nothing else. Similar to Marxism and every other megalomaniac theory out there that proclaims we are smarter than markets and know the answers. It's based in nothing. A bust has to follow a boom. Human nature is to make money and then work as little as possible. A boom is a period of unsustainable euphoria; when the bubble pops and your phantom equity goes up in smoke, all you are left with is the debt from consuming more than you produced. When you realize the boom was the problem, you begin to understand a recession/depression should be welcome to bring order back to the distorted picture.