Rush Limbaugh Believes the Poor Don't Deserve Healthcare

[idea]

Why does everyone think the gov will do a better job then private industries?

 

[Storm]

Do some research on NY's private fire brigades sometime.

 

[Magic Man]

Why does everyone think the gov will do a better job then private industries?

Because it works so well in other countries. That, and the government wouldn't be obsessed with making as much profit as they can, like the private industry is.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you here. The treasury issues bills, and the Fed buys the bills - with what? Print more money? That would cause inflation problems.

Besides, this wasn't the original discussion. THIS was the statement I'm confused about..."Create new money" implies that new money will be printed, which would cause inflation, and I was wondering if you were being serious, or just making fun of liberals by assuming that that's what they believe (that you could print money instead of working and still be ok).

That is how new money is created by the Fed. Didn't you read the linc (monetization)? The reason it doesn't cause inflation is that we send an equivalent amount overseas through the trade deficit. Have you heard of the falling dollar? It causes inflation overseas on things based on the American dollar.

What does this mean to the Heath Care Debate? The government needs to run a federal deficit in order to prop up the national money supply. Deficit spending means that the government has a lot of extra money to spend. The question is, "What to spend it on?" Health care is one of the options.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sometimes spending pays off in the long run. This is called "investment". The CBO estimated the HR bill would save $109 billion over 10 years.

And you believe that giving something that cost money to people who can't pay for it is going to save money?

 

[T-Dawg]

That is how new money is created by the Fed. Didn't you read the linc (monetization)? The reason it doesn't cause inflation is that we send an equivalent amount overseas through the trade deficit. Have you heard of the falling dollar? It causes inflation overseas on things based on the American dollar.

What does this mean to the Heath Care Debate? The government needs to run a federal deficit in order to prop up the national money supply. Deficit spending means that the government has a lot of extra money to spend. The question is, "What to spend it on?" Health care is one of the options.

Yeah, I read the link, and I think I get it. I was just confused on your original statement.

So basically, the government sells stuff to the Fed, and the Fed sets a price on it, making something previously worthless worth cash? And then when it's sold, the government has new money?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yeah, I read the link, and I think I get it. I was just confused on your original statement.

So basically, the government sells stuff to the Fed, and the Fed sets a price on it, making something previously worthless worth cash? And then when it's sold, the government has new money?

The Fed gets the money from new printings authorized by the Treasury.

 

[Magic Man]

And you believe that giving something that cost money to people who can't pay for it is going to save money?

:yes:

 

[T-Dawg]

The Fed gets the money from new printings authorized by the Treasury.

So you still have to print money for the process?

And you believe that giving something that cost money to people who can't pay for it is going to save money?

Yes, overall, universal healthcare will be cheaper than our current system, for the following reasons:
1.) The government is not for profit, thus, even though taxes are increased, people will be spending less than before.
2.) We are already treating patients in the ER without pay, however, we refuse to treat them before then without pay. If we treated ailments BEFORE they got out of hand, it would be much cheaper.
3.) The removal of insurance companies would eliminate a great deal of beaurocracy.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

:yes:

 

[MissAlice]

:yes:

..:no:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So you still have to print money for the process?

To gain hard currency, such as paper money or coins, yes, although I believe what is known as checkbook money, money that exsists only in computer records, may be counted as "hard" currency in the money supply reports.

 

[Magic Man]

I know, I know. It's easier to look at it superficially than actually look at the details of the issue. Have fun.

 

[Magic Man]

..:no:

:yes:

(Or more specifically, you could actually look at the specifics of the issue that actually make the answer "Yes")

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I know, I know. It's easier to look at it superficially than actually look at the details of the issue. Have fun.

Call me back in a few years, we'll talk.

 

[T-Dawg]

I know, I know. It's easier to look at it superficially than actually look at the details of the issue. Have fun.

Eh, to be fair, you didn't exactly do much other than post a :yes: smiley either =/. Why not give the details yourself, since clearly your opposition will never look for them?
(Yeah, I know you've done this before, but it has to be done repetitively ).


EDIT: On the other hand, Sandy didn't respond when I did list the details that I knew of... maybe he just didn't see them or something?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And you believe that giving something that cost money to people who can't pay for it is going to save money?

Yes because (1) we pay for the visit to the emergency room for people who can't afford it. So we pay anyway, the question is do you want to pay for an annual checkup and mammogram or months of chemotherapy?

And (2) it will make people healthier. If people are healthier they are more productive.

This is not according to me. I already cited the CBO, another example is the Baker Institute of Public Policy at Rice University, they concluded providing free insurance to all Americans under age 18 would cut health costs and boost the economy, yielding a net gain. (That is only a *monetary* gain of course, not to mention the social gain that people will be happier and healthier and not ruined by health misfortune.)

 

[Magic Man]

Call me back in a few years, we'll talk.

No, thanks. You obviously don't want to see the reality, which was the reason for my one-word answer. It's very simple to see. Good luck getting that head out of the sand.

 

[Magic Man]

Eh, to be fair, you didn't exactly do much other than post a :yes: smiley either =/. Why not give the details yourself, since clearly your opposition will never look for them?
(Yeah, I know you've done this before, but it has to be done repetitively ).


EDIT: On the other hand, Sandy didn't respond when I did list the details that I knew of... maybe he just didn't see them or something?

Yes, "didn't see them". As they say, there is none so blind as him who will not see. That was the reason for the one word answer. I wasn't going to waste my time explaining something he's obviously not going to see anyway. I'd give some people the benefit of the doubt, but I know Sandy.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yes because (1) we pay for the visit to the emergency room for people who can't afford it. So we pay anyway, the question is do you want to pay for an annual checkup and mammogram or months of chemotherapy?

And (2) it will make people healthier. If people are healthier they are more productive.

This is not according to me. I already cited the CBO, another example is the Baker Institute of Public Policy at Rice University, they concluded providing free insurance to all Americans under age 18 would cut health costs and boost the economy, yielding a net gain. (That is only a *monetary* gain of course, not to mention the social gain that people will be happier and healthier and not ruined by health misfortune.)

In theory you are correct. The problem is, people are going to have to actually do what the doctor tells them they need to do. Take your medicine, quit smoking, control your diabetes, lose weight, etc.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! :sorry1: