Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Health care reform will linger
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said at a press conference in the Senate press gallery on Wednesday afternoon that the Democrats’ summer timetable on health care reform is not attainable. His prediction is a dramatic contrast to Senate Democrats’ hopes of completing a health care reform package in the next three weeks before their long August break.
“The Senate will not pass a [health care] bill before the August recess,” Gregg said. He explained that the Finance Committee, which already slowed down their version of the bill, may not even be done with its own mark ups by that point, and then it will take two or three weeks to debate the bill on the Senate floor.
Democrats are accusing Republicans of slowing down the process and defending a status quo that is in desperate need of health care reform, while Republicans say they cannot support a government-run health care system and they have not even seen a complete bill in committee yet.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Wednesday morning that Democrats will lower the costs of health care, make sure every American has access to quality, affordable care, and give people the power to choose their own doctors, hospitals, and health plans.
Gregg said the Democrats’ bill in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee all boil down to a single-payer system, where bureaucrats come between the patient and the doctor. Republicans have a few counter-proposals, but none of the Republican proposals are being considered in the HELP committee.
back to top65 Comments to “Health care reform will linger”
Meanwhile 85% of Americans say the health care system needs to be fundamentally changed or rebuilt, and 72% of Americans want a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare for everyone.
Report comment to moderator
Cal Thomas has a good piece today. Before you bought refridgerator XYZ or an ABC car you might first ask folks who currently have one and how they feel about it. The Canadians and the Brits have their own version of Obamacare. Howzit workin for them? Not too good.
Report comment to moderator
Link to that article for us, Sawgunner.
But a 2003 Gallup survey belies your conclusion.
Notice that Americans are vastly more dissatisfied with the availability of affordable health care (25% satisfied / 72% dissatisfied) than the Canadians and Brits. Also notice that the satisfaction with quality of health care is fairly consistent across all three nations — about a 50/50 split in all three.
In other words, we pay a lot more, and are unhappy about that, and are no more satisfied with the final product than the countries with universal health care.
I also found this interesting: Real News Network did some street interviews with Canadians, showing them the commercials airing in the US (claiming that Canadians don’t like their health care) and asking their response. They all expressed that while their system, like any, has flaws, they were generally happy with their health care and felt the commercials were dishonest.
Report comment to moderator
There’s also this article in the Denver Post, by a Canadian who has been living in the U.S. She debunks what she calls “myths about the Canadian [health care] system.”
Report comment to moderator
Well, JJF, anyone can quote from the website or newspaper that the proponents put out. Young people who are not sick never think things are bad. I see rationing coming, and I’ve read plenty of anecdotal evidence from all these countries that says there are long waits and bean counters deciding who gets tested for what.
The real issue is whether we want the government to control such a big chunk of our economy. Now something you leftys never want to talk about is that the Founders NEVER envisioned a large government. It is not the American way, and it will ruin our system of government.
Report comment to moderator
Republicans have a few counter-proposals . . .
Prayer and the free market.
Report comment to moderator
Just spent an hour or so watching the HELP committee on c-span 3. They’ve been working since 10AM and have gotten through 6 amendments. There are 500 amendments pending!
The amendment they just spent 1 hour + on was on medical malpractice so-called “tort reform”. Senator Hatch couldn’t get it through back when the R’s controlled the Congress and he was chair of the committee which does have jurisdiction. So why is he wasting time on it this time?
FWIW, I do think that OB-GYN’s like Stubob have gotten unduly shafted by the system as it stands and that something different needs to be done to compensate negligently birth-injured infants. But the AMA is busily trying to protect all of its members and the insurance companies by citing this one example. And the people who would get shafted are those with truly catastrophic medical injuries.
Anyway, this today was a complete waste of time and everybody at that table knew it…
Report comment to moderator
#2 Sawgunner
The Canadians and the Brits have their own version of Obamacare. Howzit workin for them? Not too good.
Excellent. Every system needs to be modified over time but you will have to pry my Ontario Health Card from my cold dead hands.
A quick Google search gave me two polls one from Atlantic Canada the other from Saskatchewan. In the Atlantic provinces, 74 to 85% of the people are completely or mostly satisfied. In Saskatchewan 86% said good or excellent.
Report comment to moderator
Now something you leftys never want to talk about is that the Founders NEVER envisioned a large government.
the founders never envisioned corporations being considered legal persons either. Nor did they contemplate nuclear weapons, expansionism to the Pacific and beyond, cities over a million, etc, The Constitution was formed to guide a gov’t based on yeoman farmers not a modern industrial nation. I’m sure the Founders would have envisioned changes and adaptation. I’m also sure they would not have foreseen their words becoming scriptural.
I see JJF has already listed some stats. Mine are from 2009.
Report comment to moderator
I merely note that Biden confirmed the use of reconciliation in the Senate if neccessary to ensure passage of health care reform.
Passage would therefore seem basically guarenteed.
It will most likley contain a strong public option:
CBS News report on health care reform
since progressive democrats appear to be joining forces to ensure that it is included.
In short, it would seem that Republicans can at best delay passage, and increasingly I suggest even this will be hard to accomplish.
Republicans could, perhaps, provide an actual alternative policy approach. But again this would seem too much to hope for.
Report comment to moderator
I just heard on the new that this is not just a Health Care bill but a “PORK BILL”.
It includes parks, hiking trails and street lights!
I guess we are trying to keep health care cost down!
We didn’t get enough pork in the stemulas bill.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd post 11,
I located a copy of the discussion draft of the bill at:
Discuyssion Draft of Health Reform Bill
Now admitedly the bill is still being drafted and therefore no one can really say what the final text will be, but I could find no such provisions as you seem to be suggesting are in the discussion draft of the bill.
Can you perhaps demonstrate where in the bill these provisions are?
Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
So, the Dems led by Obama claim they want bipartisanship. Then this? “Republicans have a few counter-proposals, but none of the Republican proposals are being considered in the HELP committee.”
Yeah, right. Bipartisanship seems to mean “our way or no way” for the Dems.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L post 13,
ah we have had the discussion regarding bipartisanship many times.
So by the numbers:
1) the Democratic presidential candidate won the presidency by a clear margin
2) Democratic members of the house were voted in in larger numbers than the Republicans
3) Deocratic senators, or senators caucusing with Democrats, are now 60 votes in the senate
Obama has repeatedly asked the Republican party to work with him to develop the best legislation possible.
The Republicans would appear to have concluded that bipartisanship means that Obama must accept their position and policies.
Now look at points 1 – 3 again. No he doesn’t.
He would be delighted to work with the Republicans if they want to be constructive.
He will get the gist of his legislation agenda enacted even if Republicans choose to be obstructionist.
The Republican party overplayed their hand during the stimulus bill. Now they continue to miscontrue a desire for bipartisanship with a willingness by Obama to surrender to Republican policy demands.
They are demonstrably wrong in this misconception.
P.S. now I have been puzzled by as an example an alternative budget Republican proposal which apparenlty had no numbers in it. Is this an example of the alternative policies which Republican’s suggest are viable and constructive alternatvies?
Report comment to moderator
“Now admitedly the bill is still being drafted and therefore no one can really say what the final text will be…”
Until after it is passed?
I bet you defend the practice if they do.
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 15,
do you mean that you dont follow important bills like this in thomas.gov??? Surely you will read it in full in advance.
It would appear that lloyd has presented a statement about the bill which does not appear to be correct. Given the ready availablity of the material, there is little excuse for a citizen not being aware of the contents of a specific bill which they consider important.
Report comment to moderator
You cannot read it anywhere including thomas if the bill is passed before it is written…… GEeeeeeeeeeeeeez
Report comment to moderator
Bill Clinton has to be happy. With Obama in the White House, he, Bill Clinton, is no longer the worst president the US has ever had.
Report comment to moderator
montyfisherwoof post 17,
but of course the fallciousness of your statement is demonstrated by my link to the most recent copyu of the bill.
Bills occur in drafts. If one has the interest, one can read the drafts. It would appear that lloyd was not readin gthe drafts.
My questioon to MIM is was he reading the drafts.
Report comment to moderator
montyfisherwoof post 18,
well since Obama’s presidency is not over, it is hard to say that he is or is not the worst president we have ever had.
We do have data on Bush:
a) a war which was not supported by the argument used to iitiate it (WMDs from Iraq to terrorists hands) and which cost 4000 lives and somewhere between $1T and $3T for little gain (and people complain abou tthe cost of the stimulus?)
b) overseeing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and potnetially destroying America’s economic dominance in the world
c) a set of internal policies whiuch effectively cancelled the Billl of Rights for anyh indiovidual the president deemed to be a terrorist
And we can continue with validity since he is now out of power.
Immediate studies on this point suggest that Bush is among the worst presidents we have ever had, but the usual refrain is that this must be judged based on history and it is too early to tell, which is a valid statement.
Which makes your comment in 18 all the more anomolous and unsupported.
Report comment to moderator
Why not put us all on a rationed government-run legal care plan. Why subject doctors to government control and regulation and dictation, but not lawyers? Let’s force lawyers out of the free market system and see how they like it. Why does this idea get so little traction?
Report comment to moderator
I want constant health care coverage and I want to call all the shots and I don’t want to pay for it or wait for it. Doctors and nurses need to serve all my needs and wants without delay and other people need to pay them for it, unless they are willing to serve me for free. After all, it’s my human right!
Report comment to moderator
“…but of course the fallciousness of your statement is demonstrated by my link to the most recent copyu of the bill.”
Well it doesn’t change the fact that recently there WAS a bill passed before it was written.
And no, I didn’t even know about the Thomas linky place…
Was that where the massive 1200 page porkulous bill was published too? The one that was supposed to get “five days of sunshine”, but instead was published the night before it was voted on, scanned into a PDF file so it wasn’t even searchable?
I’m glad to see that this boondoggle is at least published before it gets passed.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Over several threads, your use of the word “data” is meaningless. What you called “data” on President Bush was nothing but nothing but unfounded biased partisan leftist opinion to sustain an ongoing unfounded loathing for him.
The war on terrorism intiated and effectively deployed by President Bush is fully supported and justified, in my opinion, but I am honest enough to call it my opinion and not “data.” And the gains have been profound. I am grateful for the huge sacrifices made thus far and the excellence of our leadership from Bush to Patraeus on down to the soldiers.
The notion that we are in the “worst economic crisis since the Great Depression” is not “data” nor is it based on “data.” It is campaign rhetoric and it is overblwon “drama queen” crisis promotion.
The Bill of Rights have never been canceled or compromised.
Musing is as wildly blind as any biased partisan I have read on this blog. The manipulation of the word “data” is laughable. We are not stupid.
Besides, Obama has carried on the same policies that some leftists wanted Bush impeached for.
Report comment to moderator
I think that people who vote for the health care pork bill should be the ones who get taxed to pay for it. And the ones who vote against it should get a free ride.
Report comment to moderator
Musing wrote; “Immediate studies on this point suggest that Bush is among the worst presidents we have ever had…”
This is mindless. What are “immediate studies?” Which “studies?” This matter is total opinion and I don’t share it. But I am honest enough to use the word “opinion” and not refer to hypothetical illegitimate “studies” to try to legitimize my “opinion.”
Report comment to moderator
Government cannot “care” for us and don’t listen to politicians who claim to “care” for you. were you born yesterday? Government can, however, become yet ANOTHER meddle man in the health care system. Also, what they can do is control more of the money and make more of it go to themselves as they ration it out to us lemmings on their terms and timing. When doctors become gov’t employees under government dictation, there will be much fewer of them even as more and more American get in line to be served.
Keep America a free country, and tell the citizens to grow up and take more responsibility for themselves, including their health care. If we become socialists, this will no longer be America and our health care will be much worse.
As you can see, I’m not running for a political office.
Report comment to moderator
But the AMA is busily trying to protect all of its members and the insurance companies by citing this one example.
Actually, the AMA is in favor of most of the government takeover. They also represent almost no one. Fewer than 40% of practicing physicians belong to the AMA. Most of those who do joined in order to get cheaper insurance or some other benefit. They’re much like the AARP in that regard.
Report comment to moderator
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Wednesday morning that Democrats will lower the costs of health care, make sure every American has access to quality, affordable care, and give people the power to choose their own doctors, hospitals, and health plans.
It is obviously impossible to accomplish all of these goals simultaneously. Senator Reid is either stupid or he thinks we are.
Report comment to moderator
#29 The only problem with Reid’s statement is the power to choose health plans. That’s a needless duplication which threatens the right to choose hospitals and doctors. The rest of his goals can be achieved simultaneously – unless you think America is incompetent in comparison to the rest of the developed world.
#28 The AMA has finally figured out that doctors are better off in a gov’t run system — the salaries are roughly the same, overhead is less, and liability insurance is lower.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, HRW, but you know nothing about the AMA, who they represent, or the average American doctor’s attitude toward them. It’s been two generations since the AMA was anything like “the voice of American medicine.” They haven’t “finally figured out that doctors are better off in a gov’t run system,” they’ve been socialists for decades. They make most of their income from sales of “coding books,” which means the most important thing for them is that medical care finance is complicated.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 24,
ao are you asserting that we did discover WMD in Iraq?
If you can provide such a reference fine, I can of course provide many references that they did not, and hence yes my statement is based on data. :-
You have of course asserted without proof that the present economic crisis is not the worst since the great depression. You argue that the economic crisis of the 70s is, again without data. I have provided references and data showing that this is the worst economic crisis since the great depression.
And of course we can easily demonstrate that Bush established provisions which effectviely cancelled habeas corpus which effectively nullified poritions of hte contitution.
So yes Joel, I do work with data, and as we noted many times now, you only seem to work with your ideological preconceptions.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 26,
ah you do like to step in it don’t you. An example is sufficient to demonstrate that you are working without data:
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
which suggests that at this time 61% of historians consider Bush the worst president. There are more such studies (for indeed studies these are).
As I observed, however, determining if Bush was in fact the worst president should by rights require the perspective of history (please note that I clearly made such a qualification)
And of course when Obama was rated as the worst president by montyfisherwoof we can say confidently that there is effectively no history of Obama as president.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 24/26,
do you really think I don’t generally ensure that I have at least some references before I go make assertions of fact?
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 23,
you can find thomas.gov at:
http://www.thomas.gov/
As noted it is a library of congress run site. And with this site one can generally find a copy of the full bill, as well as the legislative history of the bill.
My favorite excursion here was to understand how the “Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000″ was passed. It makes for fascinating reading.
In any event, this generally means that anyone can obtain the appropriate text of bills should they so choose (although there may be a delay until it is published to the site).
Report comment to moderator
One of the lingering myths about government-run health care is that costs can be reduced by decreasing overhead and that current government schemes have a low overhead cost that embarrasses private programs. In fact, the programs used as a benchmark (Medicaid, and Medicare) against which private insurance programs are measured, are on a per-patient basis far less efficient than private insurance. One of the ways this occurs is by shifting major portions of overhead (facilities, software, hardware) into the Federal budget, and neglectinng to count these as administrative costs. Another major underestimation of administrative losses involves fraud and misappropriation ($68 billion a year by most estimates), protection against and oversight of which is woefully underfunded by Federal programs and to which private insurance devotes a fair bit of resources (and are counted in their overhead).
Then there are reimbursement rates associated with the current Federal programs. Ask any doctor you know whether he or she could continue to sustain a practice with a patient base covered by Medicaid alone. They can’t. It doesn’t pay enough to keep general practiononers in business. The only way generalists and specialists remain reimbursed and available to provide Americans the superior level of health care they enjoy is by mixing their patient base with those who are privately insured. Otherwise they would go broke.
These are the data.
Take care,
SG
Report comment to moderator
serous george post 36,
one of the lingering myths about government run health care is that its administrative costs are not cheaper. I have seen a variety of estimate for the overhead costs of private insurance, but the following report is one example of this comparison:
Medicare vs. Private Insurance costs
Numbers have been reported as high as 25%-30% for private insurace and this reports a low of 16%. In the main this will be hard to accurately measure since there is an incentive for medicare to shift overhead costs elsewhere and for private insurance ot bundle them into the costsw: private insurance overhead costs are passed on to the customer.
Given that, however, the following is interesting: as reported the private insurance would be approximately the same ovehead costs as medicare in 1985, if private insurance paid no commissions, taxes or profit. If one includes these costs, private insurance is double the 1985 medicate rates and if you accept thes4 projection are now about 4X-5X medicare overhead rates. Do note that this study attempted to correct for the medicare underporting that you noted.
The typical rates reported are that overhead/porofit etc. in private insurance is 25%-30% and medicare is perhaps 7%, which is somewhat different than th is study, but then as you noted and I elaborated on, the rate will depend on the details of your study.
We can say, however, that as long as private insurance companies consider profit as an objective, they must charge a profit which the government need not.
And further, the government has the potential to gain large efficiencies of scale.
So the numbers I have available to me would appear to dispute your claim. Can you provide references so we can compare analyses?
P.S. we are looking at overhead numbers only. We are not considering that medicare also generally pays lower rates than private insurere (a point which is argued to be both good and bad), since we are looking at the ratio of funds taken in vs. benefit payments made this lower reimbursement rate does not change the analysis.
Report comment to moderator
#34, Musing asked: “do you really think I don’t generally ensure that I have at least some references before I go make assertions of fact?”
Yes, I absolutely do think that you do NOT ensure that your assertions are factual. What you call “data” and “fact” are just opinions, and I disagree with them. I demonstrated that at #24. Remember, having some selected “references” in no way validates your assertions. “References” for just about ANYTHING can be found anytime, anywhere and any way on the WEB.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is basically promising that the government can bring more people under the whole health care umbrella, without expecting them to pay for it. This puts the burden of cost even heavier on those who are already paying for it, even as the demands for service rise. What plan does he have for bringing more qualified nurses and doctors into the picture to help care for all the newcomers under this umbrella?
Obama plans to regulate the work of doctors and nurses even more by making the government yet one more middle-man in the system. His plan will REDUCE the incentives that now attrack promising young people to even go into those professions.
As the number of healthcare workers decreases and the number of people in line goes up, the promises we will have fallen for without thinking it through will look very cheap.
Report comment to moderator
#32, Musing asked, “ao are you asserting that we did discover WMD in Iraq?”
This is another matter, and I don’t know how anything I said prompts this question. But we KNOW that Saddam did have WMD because he used them brutally on the Kurds. But after 11 months of warning Saddam and giving him chances to comply, Pres. Bush did follow through. But then, the WMD stockpiles had disappeared. The majority of Democrats in the senate who were adament that they were there were wrong and so was Bush. So was the CIA. But it was just and fitting to follow through with action and depose Saddam, who had defied 16 international sanctions and spit on the treaties he signed after the Gulf War. He was also shooting at American planes and brutalizing his people and supporting terrorism. Saddam was a menace and he had proved it. He would be a menace in the world today had Bush and the congress (fully supported by Democrats) acted in unified support along with 30 other nations to get rid of him.
Now that is “data” for ya.
Report comment to moderator
Unemployment was even worse in the late 70s and early 80s. Inflation was through the roof. So were many other economic measurements. I lived during those times, Musing. But what impresses me was that Reagan simply went to work and dug us out of that economic pit. Rather, let me change that. It was the American people and the private sector who dug us out and Reagan simply provided the freedom, the encouragement and the necssary incentives.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 38,
No actually a check of the posts will show that I can provide references for my assertions, and we can then discuss the quality of the refeences, and you appear to simply make bald assertions.
Consider again your statement that the present economic crisis was not the worst since the Great Depression and that in fact the economics crisis of the 70s was.
When pressed, you provided no suporting evidence what so ever. Nor did you raise a defendable argument on this point.
Which is actually interesting, because if you trully understood and could support what you said, there is in fact an argument to be made on this issue.
You did ot make that argument.
You did not stop your assertions: it wasn’t because you stopped posting.
The parsimonious model is that this was because you could nat make the argument.
And I have given you several chances.
I believe that this is a nice annecdotal example which demonstrates my obserations of your poting approach.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, if you think that Bush nullified the Constitution, then explain why Obama has maintained nearly every policy that Bush was severely criticized for and yet Obama gets a free pass?
Statistics and “data” are totally subject to selectivity and bias, which can be used to mislead mindless people who cannot see the big picture. You call it “data” when some alleged “study” suggests that 61% of “historians” consider Bush the worst president.
What a crock. Can’t you just admit that yours is an opinion and stop pretending that “data” is involved? No, I guess you can’t. That would be too intellectually honest.
Musing adds; “There are more such studies.”
Now this is certainly correct. “Studies” like that are a nickle a dozen. Most of them are probably gov’t funded too. Maybe that’s why the left keeps wanting to raise our taxes. We need more “studies” to show that our taxes needed to go up.
___________
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 39,
when you say:
“Obama is basically promising that the government can bring more people under the whole health care umbrella, without expecting them to pay for it. ”
you again seem to provide no supportign evidence to substantiate this claim.
In fact it is simply observed that the enire country pays for all health care costs incurred in one form of another.
Rather the argument would appear to be that by ensuiring a comprehensiove program we can reduce inefficiencies which may inthe aggregate save costs. This seems to be the case with the recent CBO analysis of the government supported health care option:
CBO analysis of public option
which suggests a potential savings with a public option of $150B.
As I have ntoed before, one needs to comprehend the entire bill to fully guage its impact,but the initial numbers appear to be doable ($600B net over 10 years) and it looks like 97% coverage may be possible.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 41,
acutally you know that this statement is incorrect:
“Unemployment was even worse in the late 70s”
since I explciitly posted unemployment numbers in response to an earlier posting of yours, and you responded to the numbers.
The present unemployemnt is higher than any unemployement since about 1948 with the exception of the early 80s:
Unemployemtn rate graph
(set start year to 1948 and check to include graphs)
It would appear that you are now deliberately and premeditatedly mistating facts of which you either are, or based on the positng discussion and your comments, should have been aware.
And you believe that one should assess your posts as credible????
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
so lets try ot see if it is posible to convert harranging to discussion.
You appear to assert that the 70s were a worse economic time than the present, and was the worst since the great depression.
Given this, lets use as a starting point a clear description of the economics situation in:
- the great depression
- the 70s
- today
I suggest that references should be provided to substantiate your points.
As you made this assertion, I suggest that you have the right of the first post.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 43,
now when you say:
“Statistics and “data” are totally subject to selectivity and bias,”
I agree that they may contain some subjectviioty and bias, which is why I anticipate that you will provide refuting data and we can compare and possibly tease out a reasonable understanding.
However, to not be using statsitics and data is to be totally subjective.
And at this point I suggest your purely subjective comments should be considered highly suspect in their reasonableness, and increasingly in their veracity (c.f. unemployment rates in the 70s)
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 43,
has Obama ordered Guantanemo to be shut down?
Report comment to moderator
When unemployment hit 9.5 recently, it was all over the news that this was a 26 year high. That means that the unemployment rate that Reagan had to deal with in the early 80s due to the recession that Carter caused (and Reagan dealt with it incredibly effectively, I might add) was worse.
Unemployment hit 10.1% in September 1982, 10.4% in October, 1982; 10.8% in November and December, 1982, and finally went below 10% around July, 1983. These all resulted from the Carter recession and Pres. Reagan inspired the American people to pull us out of that one.
And to be fair, I still think Pres. Bush and the Democrat congress since 2006 are to blame for the high rate today more than Obama. The consequences of Obama’s policies are still under developing observation. But the unemployment rate was extremely low under Bush for 6 strong years until the Democrats took congress in 2006.
So, according to unemployment rates and inflation rates in the late 70s and early 80s, it is reasonable to challenge the hysterical notion that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression.
______________
Report comment to moderator
But some people only observe the “data” they want to observe.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 43,
but more to the point one of the challenges which arises in using extrajudicial approaches is that it contaminates the judicial process. My understanding is that in some cases it would require the accused to be released even if it was clear that the accused was and still might be dangerous (c.f. Bush releases which the Bush adminsitration argues returned to terrorism).
And if this happened, we can already project what your response.
Obama has already brought at least one detaineee into the judicial system and, as noted regarding Guantanemo, is working to undo the juducual miscariages which Bush ordered.
I fear the damage is deep and will take a long time.
But please spare me your crocodile tears and mock outrage here.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 50,
so when will you actually bring some data as opposed to your opinons to the discussion???
Report comment to moderator
Musing, has Guantanemo been shut down yet? Does Obama have a concrete plan yet for all the detainees? Even if Gitmo is technically shut down in a year, it looks like most of the detainees will still be detainees under all the same conditions (if not worse) but just in different places. Does Obama still allow wire-tapping to fight terrorism?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 49,
when you say:
“When unemployment hit 9.5 recently, it was all over the news that this was a 26 year high. That means that the unemployment rate that Reagan had to deal with in the early 80s due to the recession that Carter caused (and Reagan dealt with it incredibly effectively, I might add) was worse. ”
I merely note that I have published a link to the numbers and it appears that you are unwilliong to read them.
And we see your feeble attempts to slip by your errors and in doing so mistate the argument: you stated that the unemployment in the 70s was worse, and I provided a quote from your post where you made that statement. A look at the numbers clearly shows that this is not the case.
Are you now saying that you did not make that statement???
Report comment to moderator
JOel Mark post 59,
of course not: as is well known Obama has ordered it to be shut down over the next year.
Are you so naive that you would believe that this could be shut down overnight?
Are you so naive that you would argue that the detainees should just be let loose in the United Sates?
Are you so naive that you would argue that we should not even consider making the effort to see if judicial proceedings are approrpaite for some of them?
Are you so naive as to suggest that other countries will simply accept the detainees with no effort at neogtiaton on our part?
Your naivity, disregard for Amnerican security, and disregard for judicial due process is truly amazing.
I might add that it appear, by aadmitting that Bush’s policies were extra-judicial and trying to justify them by Obama’s actions, that you also show a very high disdain for the American constitution.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
what, no description of the economic situations in the great depression, the 70s, and the present?
Report comment to moderator
I offered plenty of data to support my opinions. Your denials and blindness is beyond my control. At least I’m honest enough to call them opinions.
Check out the Bureau of labor Statistics site. I gave some monthly unemployment figures above that passed the 10% mark in the very early 80s and here are the yearly averages:
1980 – 7.1%
1981 – 7.6%
1982 – 9.7%
1983 – 9.6%
But by 1988, it was down to 5.5% and by 1989, it was 5.3%
See:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
__________
Who you blame, how and why are matters of debate over opinions, but there is good data to support my denial that unemployment figures show that this is the worst ecomomy since the Great Depression. They don’t and it’s not. Inflation (the second most significant economy mearsuing stick in my view) was also much worse in the 70s. But I think that we are headed toward some serious inflation under Obama, in my opinion.
____________
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 57,
but as I noted, you said the 70s.
I had already asserted that the 80s were higher.
You continued ot focus on the 70s.
You are now being totally disingenuous and given the reptition of the point, you know it.
But I understand your frustration, you will be hard put to show that the economic situation of the 70s is worse than dtoday unless you can show that the unemployment is higher: unhfortunatley as you well know, and demonstrate by your rathe rclumsy attempts to select the data: didn’t you rail against this practisice???
Ah I perhaps begin to see. Sinc eyou selective take data and misrepresent what has been said, you assume everybody does it.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
if you look over the beginnings of this economic discusion you will see (and continued for some time) to argue that the 70s were worse economic ties than the present.
I suggest that perhaps realizing your error, you tried to slur this to the 70s and 80s.
Now amusingly I do agree with you that the economic hardships of the 80s were an effort to crrect problems from the 70s: it makes a good discussion.
But you then had the temerity to suggest that this was used by Reagan to provide the economic strenghth that carried us thorugh the 90s.
Two things strike me as an ommission in your argument:
1) the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 80s
2) the early 90s recessioon which torched Bush’s 1 second presidential bid in 1992
And you will still be hard put to demonstrate that the 70s were worse than today.
But do try. I confess to a it of delight watching your attempts at tap dancing here.
Report comment to moderator
Joel MaRK,
hmm, no discussion of the great depression, 70s, and the present from an economic crisis perspective?
To spark this off then let me make some suggestions. For this round, I will not provide refeences, since if you disagree, I assume you will correct my statements with references.
Great Derpession:
Production capacity greatly exceede demand
there was a major liquidity crisis due in largemeasure to bank failures
HIgh unemployment: varying estimates but perhapos 15% to perhaps 30%
Price deflation
Major bankruptcies in production capacity
70s
Production capacity in some areas was less than demand
money was available (liquid) but at very high interest rates
inflation maxing I believe at 13% in 1979
moderate to low unemployment depending on the time
economy rocked by sets of oil shocks
low growth (stagflation)
Present:
Capacity greatly exceeds demand
challenge with liquidity
Financial institutions failing or in extremis
relatively high unemployment
price deflation
major production bankkruptcies
In short, it would seem that the present situation maps fairly cleanly to the Great Depression with the major difference being government intervention to ensure stability in the financial market and to stimulate growth in the economy. Bankruptcies in production sector have been managed to avoid collapse of production capacity.
By contrast the 70s were a period of what is typically known as stagflation, but with little other similarities, and certainly none of the financial dislocations, prodcution dislocations, and unemployment which we experienced during the Great Depression and the present crisis.
The 80s I suggest were arguably more complex. I would agree with you that the early 80s were devoted to cleaning up the stagflation of the 70s. It of course ended with the Savings and Loan crisis a nd its own problems. They certainly were not, however, nearly as challenging as the 70s, and nowhere nearly as challenging as today.
So it would seem that your challenge would be at base demonstrating that inflation is more dangerous and challenging than deflation.
Your move.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
do you mean even when I lay out the argument with the framing so you can defend your position you are unable to do so?
Report comment to moderator
JOPe Mark,
but lets at leasdt sumarize the effort here.
1) it would appear that you are knowingly and deliberately mendacious: you appear to misstate facts even when you are aware of the correct facts
2) you would appear to be deliberately and knowingly misrepresenting the arguements of others, apparenlty in an effort to construct a false strawman whic you can then demonstrate is incorrect
3) you have demonstrated that you appear to be unable to bring facts and data to support your positions. Even when finally provided the link by others you seem unable to extract the key information to support your arguement, and you appear unable to provide your own references
4) you have demonstrated what can only be described of as false outrage at the actions of others either fully knowing, or naively not understanding that:
- the immediate consequences of your argument is a specific disdain for the U.S. constitution(Bush’s actions were ok because Obama did not immediately reverse them)
- you would appear to demonstrate a disdain for our judicial process in general: you apparenlty expect deliberative actions to occur instantaneously
- you would appear to show a disdain for American security: you argue for instantaneous actions which would by thier nature release pottentially dnagerous terrorists in the U.S.
An excellent track record for a few days of effort Joel.
Do you really want to continue to add to your list of intellectualy curious positions???
Report comment to moderator
Worthless
Report comment to moderator
Pathetic, Musing. Very pathetic. Have a decent day.
Report comment to moderator
JOel Mark,
I do note that you have made no attempt to structure the economic situation of the Great Depression, the 70s, and today for comparison with any reasoned argument on why the 70s were worse than today.
I suggest that this speaks for itself.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!