senator Franken

[FIRE'd@51]

UH..ok...........
Easy, it will put American business growth back 50 years, other than that, a great idea........

And raise consumers' electric bills 15-20%

 

[FinanceDude]

What do you get when you cross Al Franken and Ben Stein?

Franken-Stein!!!!

 

[Midpack]

These guys got elected, is Franken any more surprising (blame the electorate)...

 

[Sevo]

Midpac I think you nailed that one on the head. The present mess we are in is the sole responsibility of the voters. The average voter in the US has never even given a cursory glance at the Constitution or our historical heritage of Liberty.

The sole political question today is " How do I and mine use the federal government to take from some body else and then give it to me." except for the Republican Liberty caucus ( and they are a very small group) nobody in the country seems to be asking any of the fundamental questions about how much power the Federal government should have over our lives.

With the present electorate, having a clown as a Senator is a very small problem. The real problem is the number of true Narcissistic and Sociopathic personalities that have been in Washington for many terms. And will do anything in the world to get reelected regardless of the cost to our country or future generations.


"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson

Hang on and hope!

 

[Martha]

To me, the fundamental question is what are our values and what do we want our government to do to promote and preserve those values.

But whatever. Maybe the clown cares.

 

[modhatter]

.
Right on Martha. I don't really think a person’s previous job necessarily dictates his or her common sense and what they are capable of doing. There are brilliant and hard working people in many professions, including show business.

Many very unqualified politicians arrive at the Senator's seat, by starting as a Mayor or other local office of a small town, and work their way up until they reach their level of incompetence

 

[ziggy29]

Personally, any time a high level politician doesn't have a law background, I find it refreshing. Not that there's anything wrong with lawyers in government, but I do think they are severely overrepresented, contrary to the original ideals of "citizen government."

 

[Westernskies]

Further proof of why the MN state bird is the Loon.

 

[youbet]

.
There are brilliant and hard working people in many professions, including show business.

Had lunch with some grad school buddies yesterday. They both lean significantly to the left of my mid-steam political outlook. I chuckled to myself when they both heartily supported show biz types as politicians now that Franken is in office. Previously, they had condemned show biz types holding office since the two recent examples from California did not share their political persuasion! Well...... at least they're flexible!

 

[Martha]

Youbet, you bet inconsistencies abound. I have heard the same. I never cared that Jesse Ventura was in show business, but I did care when he had goofy ideas or had a hard time getting along with either party and the press. I am sure I have my own inconsistencies as well.

More inconsistencies: people in congress saying government should butt out of health care decisions but the same people wanted to butt into medical decisions regarding Terri Shiavo. (I probably spelled her name wrong, too lazy to look up).

 

[youbet]

Which just shows, of course, that pols on both sides of the aisle have their own best interests (of staying employed and playing to whoever will vote them back in again and again and again) in mind in most everything they do. Citizens support this folly by supporting political parties like their favorite sports team.

That's why ER is so relavent today..... The end is near. Enjoy life now.

 

[ERD50]

To me, the fundamental question is what are our values and what do we want our government to do to promote and preserve those values.

But whatever. Maybe the clown cares.

In a democracy, I guess that we end up coming to a consensus as to what values we wish to support (in theory at least).

The following is not directed towards you Martha, it is just a general observation:

It also seems to me, that if we say these "values" are what we collectively want to support, then we ought to collectively be willing to pay for them. It seems disingenuous to me to say we value them, but a future generation should pay for them. IMO, that shows a lack of values.

I'm in favor of progressive taxes (within reason), so I don't have a problem saying that the wealthier can/should support a larger burden. But I do think the vast majority should have some "skin in the game". But pushing the payment onto people who have not reached voting age (or may not even be born yet) is just wrong, IMO.

No taxation w/o representation?

Does the clown care? Maybe. Perhaps the clown figured out he can get votes from people who are OK with handing someone else the bill? I don't know.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

More inconsistencies: people in congress saying government should butt out of health care decisions but the same people wanted to butt into medical decisions regarding Terri Shiavo. (I probably spelled her name wrong, too lazy to look up).

And I'd bet that true Libertarians would butt out of both of those. They may not be popular, but at least they are consistent

-ERD50

 

[Westernskies]

Does the clown care? Maybe. Perhaps the clown figured out he can get votes from people who are OK with handing someone else the bill? I don't know. -ERD50

ERD50, which Clown are you referring to? There are so many to choose from...

 

[youbet]

It also seems to me, that if we say these "values" are what we collectively want to support, then we ought to collectively be willing to pay for them. It seems disingenuous to me to say we value them, but a future generation should pay for them. IMO, that shows a lack of values.

Now there's something I can agree with!

With no particular reference to Franken (sorry, I know the thread is about Franken), I just can't get comfortable with living high on the backs of my kids and grandkids. For example, if we want a new healthcare system and it's going to cost more, fine. But let's stop the lies and plan to pay for it NOW, REAL TIME, with current taxes on the current beneficiaries. No more SS or Medicare schemes that simply transfer wealth from future generations to current consumers.

I know it takes courage to tell voters that a govt benefit has to be paid for and that they will be involved in paying for it. But isn't that what we elected this political majority for.......? To have courage and make changes?

 

[HFWR]

I know it takes courage to tell voters that a govt benefit has to be paid for and that they will be involved in paying for it. But isn't that what we elected this political majority for.......? To have courage and make changes?

I hope you're not holding your breath?

 

[Sevo]

A very interesting discussion. There simply can not be any rational or productive progress until the average citizen realizes that the Federal Government is not their parents. No one on this board has any friends in Washington. That is why the constitution was written with very specific restrictions on the power of the Central government. We have ignored that fact since the 1930's and I really am afraid that the unintended consequences are going to be very severe.

A point of reference it that LBJ signed a little bill into law in the 1960's, medicaid. That simple little plan now gives totally free health care to over 50 million people and continues to simply explode in size and expense! The abuse in this system is simply mind boggling. Most of it is being paid for with borrowed money and ultimately will be be paid for my our children. The little rule book for Medicare and Medicare, last figures I could find is over 40,000 pages. The cost of medical care has sky rocketed ever since the government got involved.

So here we sit poised to fix the problem by doing more of the same thing that caused the problem is the first place. Using the Federal Government to "fix health care" is a lot like using a flame thrower to exterminate termites in your house. It works every time. You will kill every termite and you will never have that problem again in that house.. You are not going to like the collateral damage though.

[MODERATOR EDIT]

Hope and Hang on.

 

[Midpack]

It also seems to me, that if we say these "values" are what we collectively want to support, then we ought to collectively be willing to pay for them. It seems disingenuous to me to say we value them, but a future generation should pay for them. IMO, that shows a lack of values.

I'm in favor of progressive taxes (within reason), so I don't have a problem saying that the wealthier can/should support a larger burden. But I do think the vast majority should have some "skin in the game". But pushing the payment onto people who have not reached voting age (or may not even be born yet) is just wrong, IMO.

-ERD50

Very well said...

 

[Martha]

A very interesting discussion. There simply can not be any rational or productive progress until the average citizen realizes that the Federal Government is not their parents. No one on this board has any friends in Washington. That is why the constitution was written with very specific restrictions on the power of the Central government. We have ignored that fact since the 1930's and I really am afraid that the unintended consequences are going to be very severe.

A point of reference it that LBJ signed a little bill into law in the 1960's, medicaid. That simple little plan now gives totally free health care to over 50 million people and continues to simply explode in size and expense! The abuse in this system is simply mind boggling. Most of it is being paid for with borrowed money and ultimately will be be paid for my our children. The little rule book for Medicare and Medicare, last figures I could find is over 40,000 pages. The cost of medical care has sky rocketed ever since the government got involved.

So here we sit poised to fix the problem by doing more of the same thing that caused the problem is the first place. Using the Federal Government to "fix health care" is a lot like using a flame thrower to exterminate termites in your house. It works every time. You will kill every termite and you will never have that problem again in that house.. You are not going to like the collateral damage though.

[MODERATOR EDIT]
Hope and Hang on.

Have you thought that maybe the problem is why in the world do we have a country where so many people end up so poor that they can only get healthcare through medicaid? And, many people are poor but they do not fit within a specific category; these people can't get Medicaid in most states and can't afford insurance.

Much of medicaid is for poor elderly, as it covers nursing home care that they can't otherwise afford. I know data from about ten years ago indicated that 1/3 of the medicaid dollar was spent on long term care. I don't know the percentage today. It is next to impossible to hide assets from medicaid to get that care. Is that mind boggling abuse? So, medicaid covers more than traditional medical care. What do we do with our poor elderly without it?

And what are the so called mind boggling facts of abuse in this system? I am sure abuse occurs. Abuse occurs in the insurance industry too. Nothing is perfect, but I don't see mind boggling abuse. The mind boggling fact for me is that the gap between the haves and the have nots. My mind is being boggled every day by the distortions in the debate about health care.

And gee, other countries managed to have universal care without societal collapse and their costs of care have not increased as much as our costs, which may be the highest in the world.

<sigh>

Government is not my parent. It also is not good or evil in and of itself, any more than business is good or evil. It is our tool. Let us use it to make a strong healthy society.

 

[youbet]

Martha.....

Is your issue more that some people don't accept "the proposal" 100% as initially presented or that there is concern about paying for it?

I understand that the President's ardent loyalists are aghast that his "suggestions" are not being taken as stated and implemented 100%. And I know it's not always good political strategy to address costs straight away. But it sure seems like His plan would sell better if just one or two of the opposition's objections were listened to and the total cost was realistically calculated and proposed tax increases presented that would guarantee that today's children are not paying our way.

And gee, other countries managed to have universal care without societal collapse and their costs of care have not increased as much as our costs, which may be the highest in the world.

I claim no specific knowledge of how the Canadians (for example) tax their citizens to pay for their health care system. But I've not heard the anguish that their system is soon to go broke as I do for Medicare and SS here in the USA. Perhaps they agree with me and recognize costs and pay them as they go? Maybe we could do that for whatever we implement here?

Yes, doing things in a straight forward and honest manner would be a change and would take courage. But He promised he could do that. It's the promise he was elected on.

 

[Martha]

Martha.....

Is your issue more that some people don't accept "the proposal" 100% as initially presented or that there is concern about paying for it?

I understand that the President's ardent loyalists are aghast that his "suggestions" are not being taken as stated and implemented 100%. And I know it's not always good political strategy to address costs straight away. But it sure seems like His plan would sell better if just one or two of the opposition's objections were listened to and the total cost was realistically calculated and proposed tax increases presented that would guarantee that today's children are not paying our way.

Cost is an issue, and figuring out savings has been difficult. I think we need to address these issues. I would never have designed the plan the way things are proposed. I am not a loyalist, I am a medicare for all supporter but know that we will have something less. But that wasn't what I was talking about in the prior post. I was addressing Sevo's statements about medicaid.

I claim no specific knowledge of how the Canadians (for example) tax their citizens to pay for their health care system. But I've not heard the anguish that their system is soon to go broke as I do for Medicare and SS here in the USA. Perhaps they agree with me and recognize costs and pay them as they go? Maybe we could do that for whatever we implement here?

Maybe we need to recognize that taxation isn't so bad, especially when we get something like healthcare rather than wars. But hardly anyone wants to mention raising taxes.

How about we return the estate tax to a reasonable level. That will pay for quit a bit of healthcare. Especially for those who are being cut from medicaid.

 

[youbet]

Maybe we need to recognize that taxation isn't so bad, especially when we get something like healthcare rather than wars. But hardly anyone wants to mention raising taxes.

It isn't a matter of taxes being good or bad, it's a matter of understanding that when we buy something, we need to pay for it. We're doomed if we continue to push the burden of govt programs that benefit us today onto the following generations.

No more scams/ponzi schemes like the SS and Medicare funding systems! Time to pay as we go!

I believe the American people would be more willing to accept higher taxes to fund some sort of national health plan than today's explanation consisting of mumbo-jumbo about saving a little here and a little there and taxing only the rich will pay for it.

 

[youbet]

Maybe we need to recognize that taxation isn't so bad, especially when we get something like healthcare rather than wars. .

There ya go. Let's enforce election promises to end the wars by bringing our troops home and then applying the Iraq and Afghanistan war money to fund health care. Then the Administration can announce their proposal for additional taxes to pay the balance of the costs of the new plan real time, on time and not place those costs on the backs of our children for political expediency.

Getting back on topic...... sounds like something that a guy like Franken, who ran on a platform of honesty, would want to do!

 

[lets-retire]

Cost is a big issue. If you look at the amount spent on health care in other European countries you will see their costs, as a percent of income per capita, are not too much lower than ours. Some of this can be attributed to more pay for doctors in this country. Some to inefficiencies in our system. Some to simple lifestyle choices in America. The biggest issue is whether those costs can be identified, controlled, and maintained. I don't think most of the costs can be. Some can, but I don't think we will see anywhere near the savings required.

I looked at WHO's website and listed the European countries and the US. Since there is a large difference between what some countries earn and others I limited my calculations to those with incomes within $10000 below the US. I then divided the total per capita spent on health care by the per capita income to get a general idea of how much of the per capita income the population spends on health care. The results are:

USA .15
AUSTRIA .11
BELGIAN .11
DENMARK .13
CANADA .11
FINLAND .09
FRANCE .13
GERMANY .11
GREECE .09
ICELAND .15
IRELAND .11
ITALY .10
LUXEMBOURG .11
NETHERLANDS .10
NORWAY .13
SPAIN .08
SWEDEN .11
SWITZERLAND .14
UK .10

With the exception of the US and Greece, every country on the list has the majority of their health care paid for by the government.

Sorry for the hijack, now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Midpack]

What an excellent discussion! Martha knows a lot about health care so I read her posts on the topic with interest, others here obviously do as well. Maybe I'm alone, but to me the central topics are:

1) We can't afford to just institutionalize the system we have. It's already substantially more expensive than other developed countries universal care plans, and we don't have better health stats to show for it.
2) Really changing our system to something workable/affordable like Canada, the UK, Switzerland, Germany, Taiwan, etc. is going to require pissing off some of the most powerful special interest groups like doctors, insurers and lawyers. No one believes Obama, or anyone in Wash DC for that matter, has the nerve/political capital to piss off special interests. There is a bigger problem than health care itself!
3) Despite the large numbers of uninsured, most people have health insurance through their employers or the government (elderly), so they are afraid of any change and expect it will increase their costs or reduce the access/choice. So the electorate is a considerable obstacle - and the real root of the problem.
4) I agree with ERD50's remark above "It also seems to me, that if we say these "values" are what we collectively want to support, then we ought to collectively be willing to pay for them. It seems disingenuous to me to say we value them, but a future generation should pay for them. IMO, that shows a lack of values."
5) If we just institutionalize what we have and we accept #4, that kind of health care is going to cost much, much more. Those, including Obama, who try to say otherwise 'no tax increase for those making $250K or less' can only be saying we're going to make future generations pay for this - and too many people realize it.

Just for starters...

I am part of the problem I guess. I actually sat down to read the 1017-18 pages of HR3200 a few nights ago to separate the media hyberbole from fact. There is no way I could get through it, and I think I'm reasonably intelligent - guess not.

IMO we really need to move to a system like Canada, the UK, Switzerland, Germany, Taiwan or a close variant. But I don't think we collectively have the will to do it - not just Obama, all of us. So Obama et al will do something by the end of the year, but it won't do much, and it will only make it worse (by a little). We kick the can down the street once again...

I would accept a Canada, UK, Switzerland, Germany, Taiwan type universal health care system - with all the limitations that may imply (not as great as the right would have you believe, and I'm a conservative)