The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So, let me get this straight. You're the vice-president and you have a top secret bunker built under your home that will hopefully keep you safe in a catastrophic situation. You go to a dinner and use top secret information which may save your life as dinner conversation? Genius, pure genius. Obama's probably regretting that he sent Biden to that dinner instead of going himself.

Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Good editorial from George Will concerning the attempted infiltration of government into the private business sector.

George F. Will - The Obama Administration's Economic Lawlessness - washingtonpost.com

Wait, there's a secure area in the VP's home? Next thing you'll tell me there's a secure area in the White House!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wait, there's a secure area in the VP's home? Next thing you'll tell me there's a secure area in the White House!

Cute, but doesn't address the fact that our VP is a three-alarm verbal fire.

[Flasch186]

At least he hasnt guaranteed WMD's....yet

[albionmoonlight]

Oh, and I since I always come in here to praise the man, let me come in here to slam Obama.

That Don't Ask Don't Tell is still the policy of the military that he runs is disgusting. He lost a lot of my respect when he fired his first military member because that person was gay.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I hope and predict that Obama will choose senior military officials who will make decisions based on what is right for America and not on what would best accord with random quotes from the book of Daniel.

http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

You might get the second half of that, but certainly not the first.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Ummmm, have you seen the defecit projections that Obama has put out there? He's making Bush's defecit spending look timid.

And you obviously weren't paying attention in the last 6-9 months of Bush. I was on here hammering all of the stupid bills he signed on his way out the door. Little did I know just how far Obama would go to trump that fiscal irresponsibility by the Republican president. Obama has found a way to make Bush look like a tightwad in comparison, which is shocking.

Not really. Bush setup trillion dollar legacy programs like the Medicare Prescription Drug plan that was a shitload of pork. He guaranteed trillions of dollars in debt for Fannie/Freddie, AIG, and crap loads of banks and financial institutions. His budget was also pretty close to the size of Obama's (3.1T vs 3.5T). Not to mention the war in Iraq that most here believe was a mistake (that we'll be pumping money into for a long time) and misguided tax cuts/rebates when we were running at a deficit.

The deficit will also be larger under Obama because tax revenues will be dramatically down due to this recession. We're also paying interest on the massive debt the last 3 Republican Presidents built up (which is about 14% of our total spending).

The funny thing is that Obama is sort of doing what Reagan did to get us out of the economic disaster in the early 80's. He was willing to run up a huge fucking deficit to get us out of the mess. The major difference is in what each President used to build that deficit (Obama chose spending while Reagan chose tax cuts). Both ultimately should have the same effect. But neither one of them could do anything about the lower tax revenues caused by the huge recessions.

I'm against massive spending and don't agree with either party (which are a lot closer than most partisians will have us believe). I just find it humorous when people bash Obama for his deficit when Reagan was building up historic deficits of his own and is considered a "conservative icon".

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The major difference is in what each President used to build that deficit (Obama chose spending while Reagan chose tax cuts). Both ultimately should have the same effect. But neither one of them could do anything about the lower tax revenues caused by the huge recessions.

We have a fundamental disagreement in this regard that will likely never be rectified. We'll just agree to disagree.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm against massive spending and don't agree with either party (which are a lot closer than most partisians will have us believe). I just find it humorous when people bash Obama for his deficit when Reagan was building up historic deficits of his own and is considered a "conservative icon".

You do realize that initially, Reagan did institute some real cuts. The deficits later was primarily due to Congress increasing spending. Yes, Reagan did increase military spending, but he had a bunch of budget battles with Congress. Hell, that's what got Bush I in trouble. He cut a deal with Congress which they didn't keep and he got pilloried for it in the 92 election cycle.

[Flasch186]

hmmm, i thought it was "read my Lips" but hey you can point fingers wherever you want....

shoot in the financials argument I realized that both sides would be right. Some people are claiming that Inflation is coming down the road, massive massive inflation. SO when I said, "Hmmm, I dont think it'll be massive I then realized that (much like MBBF's definition of 'vast') both sides will be able to claim victory.

Whatever, some people will continue to parse info to prove they are right and even when theyre proven wrong getting them admit it is like pulling teeth and then getting that same person to reevaluate their standpoint that theyve based on bad info is simply impossible because they'll just fill the newly created void with another blog, snippet, headline or poll....then you rinse and repeat.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

hmmm, i thought it was "read my Lips" but hey you can point fingers wherever you want....

He said that and the Democrats worked hard to back him into a corner. Same with Reagan: Reagan had to give the Dems the spending they wanted in order to get the military budget he wanted.

[miked]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not really. Bush setup trillion dollar legacy programs like the Medicare Prescription Drug plan that was a shitload of pork. He guaranteed trillions of dollars in debt for Fannie/Freddie, AIG, and crap loads of banks and financial institutions. His budget was also pretty close to the size of Obama's (3.1T vs 3.5T). Not to mention the war in Iraq that most here believe was a mistake (that we'll be pumping money into for a long time) and misguided tax cuts/rebates when we were running at a deficit.

The deficit will also be larger under Obama because tax revenues will be dramatically down due to this recession. We're also paying interest on the massive debt the last 3 Republican Presidents built up (which is about 14% of our total spending).

The funny thing is that Obama is sort of doing what Reagan did to get us out of the economic disaster in the early 80's. He was willing to run up a huge fucking deficit to get us out of the mess. The major difference is in what each President used to build that deficit (Obama chose spending while Reagan chose tax cuts). Both ultimately should have the same effect. But neither one of them could do anything about the lower tax revenues caused by the huge recessions.

I'm against massive spending and don't agree with either party (which are a lot closer than most partisians will have us believe). I just find it humorous when people bash Obama for his deficit when Reagan was building up historic deficits of his own and is considered a "conservative icon".

Stop using facts, you know MBBF hates that. Instead, go to some left wing blog and cut and paste about the topic de jour. That way everyone can be on equal footing.

Disclaimer, I hate the spending too! Believe it or not, I'm very fiscally conservative. I'm just willing to wait more than 120 days to see what happens. Of course, I won't wait 8 years either.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Stop using facts, you know MBBF hates that. Instead, go to some left wing blog and cut and paste about the topic de jour. That way everyone can be on equal footing.

I've posted information from both sides of the aisle, but don't let that stop you. I guess the topic was OK when it came from the Huffington Post, which I have posted several times.

It's also amusing that Rainmaker continues to use the previous administration as the bar to be cleared, as though that's some type of an accomplishment.

[miked]

Yes, if by both sides you mean Fox News and George Will, conservative columnist who has "worked" for several campaigns. And the conservative blog about the 4 fake veterans. I do see a few New York Times and random other ones covering your disdain for his "flip-flopping" but as I said, it would seem prudent to give somebody more than 120 days before casting them off.

But yes, you do say you're socially liberal, so I guess that leaves you and I both looking for a party that represents us. But alas, sometimes it's easier to just shout with the opposition and become a "no" person rather than try to be patient and make well informed decisions on reliable data.

[Flasch186]

dont forget Cato.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Yes, if by both sides you mean Fox News and George Will, conservative columnist who has "worked" for several campaigns. And the conservative blog about the 4 fake veterans. I do see a few New York Times and random other ones covering your disdain for his "flip-flopping" but as I said, it would seem prudent to give somebody more than 120 days before casting them off.

But yes, you do say you're socially liberal, so I guess that leaves you and I both looking for a party that represents us. But alas, sometimes it's easier to just shout with the opposition and become a "no" person rather than try to be patient and make well informed decisions on reliable data.

I haven't cast anyone off. Should we postpone discussion on this administration until you deem it the correct time? You're more than welcome to wait it out, but from what I've seen thus far, the financial decisions coming out of Congress and this administration have left plenty to be desired.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by miked

Stop using facts, you know MBBF hates that. Instead, go to some left wing blog and cut and paste about the topic de jour. That way everyone can be on equal footing.

Disclaimer, I hate the spending too! Believe it or not, I'm very fiscally conservative. I'm just willing to wait more than 120 days to see what happens. Of course, I won't wait 8 years either.

This message is hidden because Mizzou B-ball fan is on your ignore list.

Thread works a lot better this way.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

This message is hidden because Mizzou B-ball fan is on your ignore list.

Thread works a lot better this way.

Come join Foo in the land of rainbows and unicorns, where opposing views just melt into the River of Happiness and Agreement!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We have a fundamental disagreement in this regard that will likely never be rectified. We'll just agree to disagree.

Well I believe both sides have some positive effect as well as negative effects (such as building up huge debts). You can fundamentally disagree with it, but evidence shows that the supply-side economic policies didn't really work.

Note that I agree with the tax cuts by Reagan and Bush because I think our system is unfair to succesful people. I just don't try to package tax cuts into some pretty formula that doesn't work in the real world.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

You do realize that initially, Reagan did institute some real cuts. The deficits later was primarily due to Congress increasing spending. Yes, Reagan did increase military spending, but he had a bunch of budget battles with Congress. Hell, that's what got Bush I in trouble. He cut a deal with Congress which they didn't keep and he got pilloried for it in the 92 election cycle.

Reagan still needs to sign that spending into law. He has the power to veto it with the swipe of a pen. The tax cuts he put into place helped cause massive deficits along with the spending. Overall, the buck always stops at the President when it comes to spending.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's also amusing that Rainmaker continues to use the previous administration as the bar to be cleared, as though that's some type of an accomplishment.

The previous administrations are just used as examples. Many people believed the massive deficits Reagan put in place were necessary in revitalizing the country. I just never understood why the world is coming to an end when a Democrat increases the budget but was simply good fiscal policy when a "conservative" icon did it. No one on the right gave a shit about Bush putting us into massive debt.

I'm against big spending no matter who is President. I just don't like the hypocritical stances taken by people. Obama is horrible and destroying the country because he is running up our debt, but both Bushes and Reagan get a free pass for getting us into such huge debt that paying interest on our debt is one of the biggest hurdles we are facing.

I think it would be easier for you guys to just say that everything a D does is wrong and everything an R does is right.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm against big spending no matter who is President. I just don't like the hypocritical stances taken by people. Obama is horrible and destroying the country because he is running up our debt, but both Bushes and Reagan get a free pass for getting us into such huge debt that paying interest on our debt is one of the biggest hurdles we are facing.

I think it would be easier for you guys to just say that everything a D does is wrong and everything an R does is right.

No one even talked about giving Bush or Reagan any free passes. Continue with the strawman argument if you prefer, but most of us are talking about Obama in the Obama thread. I don't care about the past. I only care about the current situation. If you actually think that deficits in other administrations is the real problem here, we have little to discuss.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No one even talked about giving Bush or Reagan any free passes. Continue with the strawman argument if you prefer, but most of us are talking about Obama in the Obama thread. I don't care about the past. I only care about the current situation. If you actually think that deficits in other administrations is the real problem here, we have little to discuss.

You should care about the past as it's a major factor in why we have such a massive deficit. 14% of our budget has to go toward paying interest on their spending. That's half a trillion dollars a year in interest thanks to those Presidents (along with House and Senate). I don't know why the massive interest we have to pay on previous debt isn't relevant to a discussion on our deficit.

I know you only care about the current administration. That was my whole point. You didn't give a shit about Bush spending like crazy, but you are very concerned about Obama's spending. It's why over the last 7 years you have 2 posts that mention Bush and spending, but over 220 posts discussing Obama and spending. If you universally attacked each President who spends stupidly, it would have more credibility.

Like I said, this isn't about Obama's policies, it's about D vs R to you. What the R does is right and what the D does is wrong. Why get in-depth on it when we know your stance on every issue is just going to be the opposite of the Democrats (even if it was the same as the Republicans a couple years ago)? I'm not arguing about Obama's spending, I just hate this hypocritical little game partisians turn real issues into.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No one even talked about giving Bush or Reagan any free passes. Continue with the strawman argument if you prefer, but most of us are talking about Obama in the Obama thread. I don't care about the past. I only care about the current situation. If you actually think that deficits in other administrations is the real problem here, we have little to discuss.

If you don't care about it, then there is no reason to discuss any of the current administration or even prior administrations' actions...let's just all join hands and hope tomorrow is a better day.

[SFL Cat]

Ummm...if you keep the deficit at about the same level it was when you come into office...you can pawn that off on the previous administrations...when you basically quadruple it, that's all yours, baby.

[Galaxy]

I hate the new credit card laws. It will hurt good credit card users (again).

[flere-imsaho]

Leaving Reagan aside for a moment, I think the crucial Bush vs. Obama difference is that Bush spent a crapload of money when it didn't need to be spent (this obviously depends based on your view of the Iraq War, but he did run up a lot of other, non-military spending) while arguably Obama needs to spend now to restart the economy.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Leaving Reagan aside for a moment, I think the crucial Bush vs. Obama difference is that Bush spent a crapload of money when it didn't need to be spent (this obviously depends based on your view of the Iraq War, but he did run up a lot of other, non-military spending) while arguably Obama needs to spend now to restart the economy.

Arguably, Obama's fingerprints are on some of Bush's crazy spending habits too, since he was in the Senate and voted for those budgets. As a Senator, he was in favor of Tarp 1 too. So, it's a little disingenious for him to say he inherited the deficit.

Plus the stimulus is only one part of his quadrupling of the debt...the rest are his massive "reforms" of health care and education, environmental cap and trade, and "infrastructure" improvement...whatever the hell that is.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I hate the new credit card laws. It will hurt good credit card users (again).

One more reason to cut up all but a few of those evil plastic rectangles.

[RainMaker]

Is there a simplified run-down of what the changes are on credit cards? I'm not a fan of telling the banks what they can and can't charge customers, but I'm down with a lot more transparency. None of this hiding a future interest rate 30 pages deep in a contract.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Ummm...if you keep the deficit at about the same level it was when you come into office...you can pawn that off on the previous administrations...when you basically quadruple it, that's all yours, baby.

You might have a point here, if the budget that was just voted on wasn't submitted by the Bush Administration. There is an overlap between the budget years and the election years.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Is there a simplified run-down of what the changes are on credit cards? I'm not a fan of telling the banks what they can and can't charge customers, but I'm down with a lot more transparency. None of this hiding a future interest rate 30 pages deep in a contract.

NYT: Responsible card users may pay more - The New York Times- msnbc.com

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

NYT: Responsible card users may pay more - The New York Times- msnbc.com

Whiney ass titty babies. They have no right to continue at the exact same profit margin. Credit cards are nothing more than legalized loan sharking. After they just got a trillion dollars from the US taxpayer they should shut the hell up.

I really have no problems with getting rich, but the sense of entitlement these bankers have really drives me crazy. Go ahead, start charging annual fees and you'll see your customers flee to cards that don't.

[Galaxy]

[quote=JPhillips;2027988]Whiney ass titty babies. They have no right to continue at the exact same profit margin. Credit cards are nothing more than legalized loan sharking. [quote]

Why is all the fault of the credit cards? If you can't pay them off on time, don't use them. Are some of the tatics they use sleezy? Sure. However, we take the responsibility for signing those contract agreements and putting ourselves in debt.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Arguably, Obama's fingerprints are on some of Bush's crazy spending habits too, since he was in the Senate and voted for those budgets. As a Senator, he was in favor of Tarp 1 too. So, it's a little disingenious for him to say he inherited the deficit.

Plus the stimulus is only one part of his quadrupling of the debt...the rest are his massive "reforms" of health care and education, environmental cap and trade, and "infrastructure" improvement...whatever the hell that is.

This was basically my point, but you stated it better than I did.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Why is all the fault of the credit cards? If you can't pay them off on time, don't use them. Are some of the tatics they use sleezy? Sure. However, we take the responsibility for signing those contract agreements and putting ourselves in debt.

I agree to an extent, but I do think some of the stuff has gotten overboard. None of us should need a law degree to sign a credit card agreement. State the terms up front and clearly. Don't hide them behind legal mumbo jumbo. I don't think that's too much to ask from the credit card companies.

The funniest part is the banks crying about how it will hurt good customers. That's bullshit. There is so much competition now in the credit card game that these companies have to give you the incentives like no annual fee and bonus miles to lure you in. I think the banks have some legitimate gripes with the plan, but trying to scare consumers into thinking the CC industry is going to step back 25 years is hunk of bullshit.

[Greyroofoo]

Is the CC industry stepping back 25 years a bad thing?

[Flasch186]

[quote=Galaxy;2028022][quote=JPhillips;2027988]Whiney ass titty babies. They have no right to continue at the exact same profit margin. Credit cards are nothing more than legalized loan sharking.

Why is all the fault of the credit cards? If you can't pay them off on time, don't use them. Are some of the tatics they use sleezy? Sure. However, we take the responsibility for signing those contract agreements and putting ourselves in debt.

easier said than done in a fat ass recession the likes we havnt seen in 25 years or more.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Arguably, Obama's fingerprints are on some of Bush's crazy spending habits too, since he was in the Senate and voted for those budgets. As a Senator, he was in favor of Tarp 1 too. So, it's a little disingenious for him to say he inherited the deficit.

Plus the stimulus is only one part of his quadrupling of the debt...the rest are his massive "reforms" of health care and education, environmental cap and trade, and "infrastructure" improvement...whatever the hell that is.

No doubt he's responsible for part of that deficit under Bush. He did miss out on a lot of the goodies like Iraq and Medicare, but definitely deserves blame for anything he voted for after stepping into office.

But still, most of that deficit came from Reagan, Bush 1, and the W's first term. I think it's tough for anyone who steps into power that has to automatically allocate half a trillion dollars just to pay off interest on previous debt. Especially during a deep recession when tax revenues are going to be way down. That's no excuse for the excesses of Obama's spending, but it's not exactly like he is doing this during strong economic times with no debt on the books.

I haven't followed the programs for education, cap & trade, or infrastructure much, but I do think the health care thing will help the economy as a whole and won't be a huge burden on our government. My thoughts are that there are tons of people going bankrupt or being put in massive debt by medical bills. Not necessarily poor people, but middle and even upper-middle class families.

So if we can reduce that burden for those people, give them some more money in their pocket, maybe they spend some more money in the economy. I run my own company and rely primarily on middle class customers. When they have more money in their pockets, I make more money. I don't know enough of the details about the plan though to comment more, but I can't fathom it's anywhere near as bad as the embarassment our system is currently sitting at.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My thoughts are that there are tons of people going bankrupt or being put in massive debt by medical bills. Not necessarily poor people, but middle and even upper-middle class families.

So if we can reduce that burden for those people, give them some more money in their pocket, maybe they spend some more money in the economy. I run my own company and rely primarily on middle class customers. When they have more money in their pockets, I make more money. I don't know enough of the details about the plan though to comment more, but I can't fathom it's anywhere near as bad as the embarassment our system is currently sitting at.

Posts like this make me sure that the average American has no clue what happens when a person without health care coverage who needs medical treatment comes into a publicly supported hospital.

Are there situations where health care could be improved for some people? Absolutely. Is it anywhere close to the tale of woe and misery that politicians paint to further the bill passage chances? No.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Posts like this make me sure that the average American has no clue what happens when a person without health care coverage who needs medical treatment comes into a publicly supported hospital.

Are there situations where health care could be improved for some people? Absolutely. Is it anywhere close to the tale of woe and misery that politicians paint to further the bill passage chances? No.

Half the people who file bankruptcy in this country do so because of medical bills. It's a huge issue and the statistics back it up. The rest of the civilized world figured this out years ago and have good systems in place.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Posts like this make me sure that the average American has no clue what happens when a person without health care coverage who needs medical treatment comes into a publicly supported hospital.

Are there situations where health care could be improved for some people? Absolutely. Is it anywhere close to the tale of woe and misery that politicians paint to further the bill passage chances? No.

I wonder who would know...let me think...oh yeah, I do some work at Atlanta's finest indigent care unit. Grady hospital is supported basically by the county, and staffed by Emory, on Emory's dollar, who then have to pass the costs on to somebody else or take big losses (they've been taking big losses). When a normal, middle-class person with assets and no insurance needs some emergency work, the hospitals still want their money. I had a friend who worked for a local company that didn't offer insurance. Because it was going to cost him basically half his paycheck to get personal insurance, he didn't get any. He got into a car accident and needed about 5 surgeries and a lot of care. Most hospitals don't just write those sort of things off, especially when said person has a condo and other assets.

After all was said and done, they gave him a bill of about 250k, which he has no chance of paying. But he had to file for bankruptcy or they were going to go after his condo. The shittiest thing about the 250k is, if he had insurance, the insurance company probably would have negotiated that down to like 75k in "allowable" costs and made out well. But private people don't have as much power as the big companies. I'm not saying it's all doom and gloom, but to think the health care part (insurance and hospitals are both at fault) is being overblown is pure silliness.

Publicly supported hospitals are never fully publicly supported, they are staffed by other hospitals in the area that have to pass the bill along somehow. Also, it takes tax revenue away from counties/states in a time when overall tax revenue is down. I would assume by your haughtiness that you are in the industry, otherwise you probably wouldn't have expounded on what the "average American" is clueless about?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Half the people who file bankruptcy in this country do so because of medical bills. It's a huge issue and the statistics back it up. The rest of the civilized world figured this out years ago and have good systems in place.

And, on top of this we spend more, per capita, than any other country in the world on medical care. This part of the system is clearly broken. The key political problem, as I see it, is that most politicians never experience this themselves, because they're covered under such a good federal plan.

[JPhillips]

We also subsidize the rest of the world's pharmaceuticals.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Half the people who file bankruptcy in this country do so because of medical bills. It's a huge issue and the statistics back it up. The rest of the civilized world figured this out years ago and have good systems in place.

It's always fun to see how the rest of the world is civilized and the U.S. is not. Evidently, the Obama game of bashing his own country has filtered down to his supporters.

There are already many channels of opportunity built in to help people who cannot afford health care. The problem is that the abuse of that system is allowed to continue rather than cutting it off. If a person comes in with an ailment to a hospital, that hospital is required to give treatment. In publicly funded hospitals, many patients come to the emergency room complaining of certain ailments that they don't have just to support their prescription drug habits. Often they get sent on their way while getting nothing. Occasionally, they get medication. You can be sure under both circumstances that they'll be back in a couple of days with a new problem.

Either way, two things are certain. First, the doctor has wasted their time on a patient when they could have been treating people who really needed help. Second, the doctor bills the government for that time because that person didn't have insurance. As a result, gov't money is wasted and less patients that truly need help can be treated in a timely manner.

Here's a perfect example of how the new bill would implement the 'better' health care. They'll cut out the best forms of preventative medicine and take more 'cost-effective' alternatives. The problem is that they will often end up paying MORE than they would have in the first place under the old system. This would happen under many circumstances because the cheaper tests don't provide nearly as good results and often require follow-up studies that could have just been done in the first place. There's no magic way to cut costs, despite what Mr. Obama would like you to believe. This is what happens when a politician decides how you should be treated.............

How Washington Rations - WSJ.com

Such thinking may be a non sequitur, but it will have drastic effects on the health care of all Americans -- and as it happens, this future is playing out in miniature in Medicare right now. Desperate to prevent medical costs from engulfing the federal budget, the program's central planners decided last week to deny payment for a new version of one of life's most unpleasant routine procedures, the colonoscopy. This is a preview of how health care will be rationed when Democrats get their way.

At issue are "virtual colonoscopies," or CT scans of the abdomen. Colon cancer is the second leading cause of U.S. cancer death but one of the most preventable. Found early, the cure rate is 93%, but only 8% at later stages. Virtual colonoscopies are likely to boost screenings because they are quicker, more comfortable and significantly cheaper than the standard "optical" procedure, which involves anesthesia and threading an endoscope through the lower intestine.

Virtual colonoscopies are endorsed by the American Cancer Society and covered by a growing number of private insurers including Cigna and UnitedHealthcare. The problem for Medicare is that if cancerous lesions are found using a scan, then patients must follow up with a traditional colonoscopy anyway. Costs would be lower if everyone simply took the invasive route, where doctors can remove polyps on the spot. As Medicare noted in its ruling, "If there is a relatively high referral rate [for traditional colonoscopy], the utility of an intermediate test such as CT colonography is limited." In other words, duplication would be too pricey.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's always fun to see how the rest of the world is civilized and the U.S. is not.

That's not how I read that.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The rest of the civilized world

Usually that type of sentence construction means the the object about which you were speaking (the U.S. in this case) is included in the description ("the civilized world").

Evidently, the Obama game of bashing his own country has filtered down to his supporters.

Why must you start your counter-argument so?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We also subsidize the rest of the world's pharmaceuticals.

Having worked in the industry, I come to believe that this claim is overblown. Certainly the prices of many pharmaceuticals to Africa and parts of South American and Asia are subsidized, but they're done so not just from sales in the U.S., but most first world countries. If anything, the considerably higher prices for drugs in the U.S. are what ensures the profit margins of the pharmaceutical companies, while the comparatively higher prices in first world countries vs. everyone else are what ensures the continued business case for R&D.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's always fun to see how the rest of the world is civilized and the U.S. is not. Evidently, the Obama game of bashing his own country has filtered down to his supporters.

There are already many channels of opportunity built in to help people who cannot afford health care. The problem is that the abuse of that system is allowed to continue rather than cutting it off. If a person comes in with an ailment to a hospital, that hospital is required to give treatment. In publicly funded hospitals, many patients come to the emergency room complaining of certain ailments that they don't have just to support their prescription drug habits. Often they get sent on their way while getting nothing. Occasionally, they get medication. You can be sure under both circumstances that they'll be back in a couple of days with a new problem.

Either way, two things are certain. First, the doctor has wasted their time on a patient when they could have been treating people who really needed help. Second, the doctor bills the government for that time because that person didn't have insurance. As a result, gov't money is wasted and less patients that truly need help can be treated in a timely manner.

Here's a perfect example of how the new bill would implement the 'better' health care. They'll cut out the best forms of preventative medicine and take more 'cost-effective' alternatives. The problem is that they will often end up paying MORE than they would have in the first place under the old system. This would happen under many circumstances because the cheaper tests don't provide nearly as good results and often require follow-up studies that could have just been done in the first place. There's no magic way to cut costs, despite what Mr. Obama would like you to believe. This is what happens when a politician decides how you should be treated.............

How Washington Rations - WSJ.com

Good to know the problem with health care is too many prescription drug abusers. That should be pretty easy to fix.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There are already many channels of opportunity built in to help people who cannot afford health care.

And they're pretty much all underfunded, mired in paperwork, take forever to qualify for, or you don't qualify for them anyway.

The problem is that the abuse of that system is allowed to continue rather than cutting it off.

Abuse of the system is overblown as a factor compared to other systemic problems.

How Washington Rations - WSJ.com

Your positing a scenario where rationing happens because the system is not properly funded nor is it efficient. Obama's proposal is to address those two problems (among others).

Why is the counter-argument to health care reform always based on the bogeyman of rationing? We always have to hear about the one guy in Canada who didn't get his stent in time due to an incredibly unfortunate combination of circumstances when in fact virtually every other country with the resources of the U.S. doesn't have an issue with providing medical services that requires them to ration care.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Having worked in the industry, I come to believe that this claim is overblown. Certainly the prices of many pharmaceuticals to Africa and parts of South American and Asia are subsidized, but they're done so not just from sales in the U.S., but most first world countries. If anything, the considerably higher prices for drugs in the U.S. are what ensures the profit margins of the pharmaceutical companies, while the comparatively higher prices in first world countries vs. everyone else are what ensures the continued business case for R&D.

If the U.S. priced drugs like the rest of the civilized world our prices would come down while the price in other western countries would eventually rise a bit to level things out. Right now we pay much more than the rest of the West, and whether you want to say that extra is profit or R&D, it shouldn't be primarily coming from US patients.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Good to know the problem with health care is too many prescription drug abusers. That should be pretty easy to fix.

Does this mean we get to string up Rush Limbaugh now?