USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Fox '09 14]

Jack Cafferty should of ran the show.

[Innomadic 10]

Tho this I found disturbing

Anyone with a conscious should, i don't understand how you could just let that happen...

[st_dux 26]

Tho this I found disturbing

Anyone with a conscious should, i don't understand how you could just let that happen...

Ron Paul isn't saying that we should let him die, and realistically, that would never happen. What he is saying is that we shouldn't force him to get insurance because that's his choice. If he then becomes catastrophically injured, it is his responsibility to find a way to pay for it. Family can help; charity can help; and if that's still not enough, he'll just have to default on his hospital bill and declare bankruptcy. Now, that sucks, but it's not as bad as dying, and he could have avoided that situation by buying insurance. No matter what, it's not as if the hospital is just going to refuse to help him. It is illegal for hospitals to do so.

Ron Paul is correct in saying that mandated health insurance is one of the primary reasons why healthcare is so ridiculously expensive. Unlike every other form of insurance ever invented, for some reason we find it normal that health insurance not only cover unlikely catastrophic incidents but also routine medical expenses. This would be like having car insurance that covered oil changes. The result is that people lose track of how much health care actually costs: They just pay a relatively small insurance fee every month, which is heavily subsidized by their employer thanks to tax benefits designed to encourage this arrangement, and that's basically their flat fee for healthcare regardless of how much of it they actually consume. This creates a huge moral hazard (why not go to the doctor for a small ache if insurance pays for 95% of it anyway?) that results in the over-consumption of healthcare, driving up prices for everyone, insured or not. It also means that no one really has any idea how much healthcare costs (all they know is what they pay for their subsidized insurance), so no one cares how expensive a particular doctor or hospital might be.

The following things need to happen to fix healthcare in the United States:

1. Tax benefits that strongly encourage the healthcare-subsidized-by-employers system need to be removed. Healthcare should be dealt with on an individual basis, not arbitrarily divided up into companies (I know this raises concerns about people with chronic health problems that would never be insured without group plans -- more on that later).

2. Regulations that make it impossible for people to shop for insurance out-of-state need to be removed. There is absolutely no reason to regulate insurance in this way; all that it does is create artificial barriers that inhibit healthy market competition, driving up prices.

3. People need to get out of the mindset that health insurance is supposed to cover every single medical expense that they may incur. It's called health insurance, meaning that it exists to protect you from an unlikely event that you couldn't ordinarily afford. You buy insurance to mitigate risk; it shouldn't be a general payment plan for all things in some particular category -- that's not insurance.

With people paying for their own individual insurance, being able to shop for it wherever they like across the country, and footing the the full bill for routine medical expenses, it stands to reason that health care prices will have to come down. The removal of the "insurance"-pays-for-everything moral hazard and opening up of competition across state lines would vastly increase the competitiveness of the health care market. Consumers would be demanding lower prices because they would be paying them, and health care providers would have to compete with thousands of other such providers across the country in order to meet these new demands. There is one group, however, who would still experience difficulty in this situation: the chronically ill. So, after 1, 2 and 3 are all implemented, I would finally suggest 4:

4. A national welfare program for chronically ill patients who cannot be approved for insurance should be implemented. This is a social safety net that will ensure that people with chronic illnesses will not be left by the wayside in a society where insurance is primarily provided on an individual, rather than group, basis. While such a program would no doubt be expensive, it would be far, far less expensive than the current system, which essentially subsidizes every employer to provide group plans at low rates to all of their employees.

[igneous01 19]

I think thats one of the best posts I have read on this forum so far ST_Dux, I like the ideas presented, I just hope US government is wise enough to implement something like this

[froggyluv 2133]

Yes, indeed a very well put constructed answer :)

Too bad Ron Paul didn't answer it that way tho I'm sure you'd say it was implied. I do agree on many point especially the overuse of healthcare when not needed both from doctor and patient.

The problem to me is that the Tea Party likes to talk about tearing things down in such radical fashion ie. "Let EPA enemies de-regulate them" and basically take every conceivable restriction off of big business - in a seemingly reckless fashion. Sorry but I saw de-regulation first hand when Enron forced roving blackouts in California then laughed at the mayhem it caused.

This is why I can't assume anything and give a Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt. I hear outragous things from these guys so saying 'Lets go Wild West and every man for himself', actual didnt seem that out of character.

Obviously the response from the crowd didnt help.

Edited September 13, 2011 by froggyluv

[st_dux 26]

This is why I can't assume anything and give a Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt. I hear outragous things from these guys so saying 'Lets go Wild West and every man for himself', actual didnt seem that out of character.

And well you shouldn't. I like Ron Paul, and I think he's done a lot of good for politics in general, but I don't agree with him on everything, and I find it a little disconcerting how some of his supporters seem to think of him as an infallible demigod. You're right about the tea party people, too: Many of them will say some pretty ridiculous things (although I think this is the case with all political movements). That is why, as I said earlier, I support the original core principles of the tea party movement but not necessarily all of its current proponents.

[froggyluv 2133]

You know the thing that concerns me most -and I see it on both sides of the aisle - is the lack of nuance that party followers allow, and there appetite for absolutism.

Meaning, Ron Paul got reamed for suggesting that America's interference in arab nations, may have *gasp* fueled groups like Al-Qaeda in their actions.

*crowd goes wild with boos and hisses*

Isn't it possible that a jihadist movement may have sooner or later attacked us AND our meddling helps them garner support embolding them at the same time?

Apparently not. You must now be choosing one option and one option only. Complicated opinions are to be shunned as flirting with the enemy. I saw the same thing after 9/11 and we invaded Iraq because they were "close enough" to the description of the enemy. Now there is buyers remorse from both parties -yet amazingly still -no insight into "how did we get caught up in that hysteria". It's selective memory and move on.

Too me a true Independent is not just a Libertarian -but someone brave enough to accept and acknowledge the truth from either political party and fortitude to tough out condemnation from their own -because it was the right thing to do.

It's getting harder and harder as people are seemingly becoming more 1 dimensional and accepting pop-culture pundits 5 second views as the absolute truth.

[*LK1* 10]

you said it. good post.

[nettrucker 142]

This film describes pretty much everything why so many nations are bankrupt worldwide.

swkq2E8mswI

This is a film everyone should see.

We need new money reforms worldwide. Why is it so difficult for our Governments to issue their own debt free money and help to prosper their nations? WTF Why do they have continously to borrow money is beyond my understanding. Now when putting everything together after 9/11 and what is happening all around the world since then . . . people call me a conspiracy theorist. WTF.:D

In any case things are bad everywhere around. Mankind has never learnt a lesson from its own history. Will we be able to learn something this time?

[st_dux 26]

Why is it so difficult for our Governments to issue their own debt free money and help to prosper their nations?

If you just print money to "prosper your nation," all you wind up doing is lowering the value of the money already in circulation. Without a gold standard or something similar, currency has no intrinsic value whatsoever. Its value is based solely on its standing relative to other currencies worldwide.

[nettrucker 142]

Well the amount of money in ciculatioon naturally must be controlled. But it must be controlled by the respective governments not by private bankers.

The fractional reserve banking is a complete failure all over the world it leads only into debt whereas the bankers get rich. Somehow it has to stop now. Ron Paul and Kucinich are the only ones, I know of, who openly declared to get rid of the FED. I hope that these men can do something for the USA and for the whole world by giving example. I Hope for the American people that one of these man can actually do something to change things. It will definitely have a worldwide impact on how the next elections are turning out no matter what.

[*LK1* 10]

Its value is based solely on its standing relative to other currencies worldwide.

not only. basically it's value is determinated on the amount of money already in circulation.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

not only. basically it's value is determinated on the amount of money already in circulation.

More money in circulation always ends in inflation (the price of goods and services increase). People end up blaming "capitalism" when it a macroeconomic creation.

[STALKERGB 6]

Well the amount of money in ciculatioon naturally must be controlled. But it must be controlled by the respective governments not by private bankers.

This is often the case (that it's controlled by a government body) but unfortunately it can't prevent a banking collapse. From some of the thing's I've heard and seen people are often weary (in the US) of top down governmental control of things like that. (again back to from a layman's outside view).

More money in circulation always ends in inflation

I'd imagine it's also relative to the population of a nation, $100,000 between 10 people will mean more inflation than if it was amongst 1,000. Not that I'm an economist though. In fact, half the problem is probably that very few people (if any lol) understand how it all works together.

[nettrucker 142]

The economic problems we are facing worldwide is a result of the fractional reserve banking, every privat bank applies. The Federal Reserve in the USA is an entity above Government and congress and above the law. Bernankee has threatend the Congress that in case of an audit they would collapse the American economy

AidBugvVqpw

The worst is, that they have the power to do so. Those "banksters" should be held responsible for what they are doing. They are destroying economies by design. Do a research on the involvement of Goldman & Sachs concerning the collapse of the Greece economy.

Man everything is really screwed up if you can't trust even your own Government anymore.

Edited September 14, 2011 by nettrucker

[st_dux 26]

Those "bankters" should be held responsible for what they are doing. They are destroying economies by design.

Bernanke might be incompetent, but come on. No one is destroying is destroying economies by design. They're doing it by pursuing ill-advised (but well-intentioned) Keynesian policies. To think that it's some sort of government master plot is entering the realm of conspiracy theory nonsense.

[Pyronick 21]

Independance of the Federal Reserve... Isn't that just the thing that makes the entire monetary system revolve around them?

It seems that the federal monetary system is the glue that sticks the United States of America together. Even the fringes of the red states and blue states are seamed together.

As a European I am deeply concerned between the almost symbiotic intertwinement of the American funds and reserves with European banks and economies. Without consent we are forced to live with the fractional reserve system.

[st_dux 26]

As a European I am deeply concerned between the almost symbiotic intertwinement of the American funds and reserves with European banks and economies. Without consent we are forced to live with the fractional reserve system.

The Europeans have been using fractional-reserve banking for decades just like the Americans; their use of such a system has nothing to do with any sort of "symbiotic intertwinement." Basically all banks have operated this way since they first realized they could, and going back to a full-reserve banking system simply isn't going to happen, nor would it be a good idea.

[nettrucker 142]

Bernanke might be incompetent, but come on. No one is destroying is destroying economies by design. They're doing it by pursuing ill-advised (but well-intentioned) Keynesian policies. To think that it's some sort of government master plot is entering the realm of conspiracy theory nonsense.

Let me ask you then, was Greenspan incompetent too? Given the worldwide economic crisis we are facing . . . are all private bankers incompetent? Let me cite as an example Iceland. They had never faced any financial crisis when the money has been issued by the Government throughout their history. 2 years after their Federal bank has been privatized they went bankrupt.

Please read this

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489

I posted a link to the documentary "The secret of oz " - previus page

This documentary film gives you a pretty good understanding of how things are working in our banking systems worldwide. It's an interesting film which gives you insight also from an historical point of view. Comments of a lot of qualified people in the financial field are stating more or less the same thing.

We are going bankrupt everywhere.

Man I watch around me and you know what I see.

Greece is bankrupt.

Portugal, Ireland, Spain on the verge of bankruptcy.

Italy and France on their knees.

Germany barely on its feet.

Watch this

0qFmvP4EIpI&feature=related

I found tons of the same statements from qualified people all over the net.

Just try to google "Goldman & Sachs - Greece bankruptcy"

Trying to understand what is going on is a tough thing but not impossible.

I did some research on the power structures in Europe and also in the USA.

Take a look at the Rothschilds family history. I became aware about the Bilderg group. Nobody knows their agenda throughout their secret meetings.

I'm still scratching only the surface with my researches. CFR Counsel of foreign relations the trilateral group.

I've been educated to evalue any bit of information I can find on a subject. Trying to analyze things from different point of views gathering as much information as possible. Everything is pointing in the same direction for me.

Bankers and also the big corporates control the money . . . and who controls the money controls the power.

Corruption the biggest disease and the most undervalued crime in our jurisdictional system in the history of mankind. We could discuss about that subject for hours.

Please read "Confessions of an Economic hitman" by john Perkins. It was a further confirmation of how things were dealt with in the world.

Power has always been miss used and abused durimg the history of mankind.

Historical fact - period.

I most probably have different information at disposal from where I make up my own opinion. That's all.

The Europeans have been using fractional-reserve banking for decades just like the Americans; their use of such a system has nothing to do with any sort of "symbiotic intertwinement." Basically all banks have operated this way since they first realized they could, and going back to a full-reserve banking system simply isn't going to happen, nor would it be a good idea.

That is true we have the same problems over here in Europe always had most probably even earlier than the USA. Fractional reserve banking is a world wide problem we are dealing with.

we are living more and more in a globalized world our economies are more and more dependent on each other. Whatever effects the USA it will effect the whole world. We are alltogether in this.

Edited September 14, 2011 by nettrucker

[*LK1* 10]

More money in circulation always ends in inflation (the price of goods and services increase). People end up blaming "capitalism" when it a macroeconomic creation.

never said the contrare. totally agree.

[st_dux 26]

Let me ask you then, was Greenspan incompetent too?

Yes. Unfortunately, modern mainstream economics has incorrectly attributed Keynesian theory as the key to prosperity. There are many reasons why this has happened, and I won't get into them here, but suffice it to say, most economists have it wrong. This is why most of the developed world sits on the brink of economic collapse. It is not by design; it is by mistake.

Power corrupts, no doubt, but why would anyone have reason to purposefully topple worldwide economies? Why would Ben Bernanke or the Central Bank of Ireland want to destroy their respective nation's economy? How could they benefit from this? The short answer is that they couldn't, which is why there is no conspiracy. It's simply a matter of people thinking they know more than they actually do. By and large, we think that the economy is like a car that can be fixed so long as a skilled mechanic is available. This is not the case, and our efforts to fix things have actually caused more harm than good.

This is the problem. It's not a conspiracy. It's the pretense of knowledge.

[*LK1* 10]

This is the problem. It's not a conspiracy. It's the pretense of knowledge.

is funny how the people is quick to specify "yo, this is not a conspiracy theory". :rolleyes::D. sorry that brings us to far.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

DpbP_vUMxog

[Baff1 0]

Yes. Unfortunately, modern mainstream economics has incorrectly attributed Keynesian theory as the key to prosperity. There are many reasons why this has happened, and I won't get into them here, but suffice it to say, most economists have it wrong. This is why most of the developed world sits on the brink of economic collapse. It is not by design; it is by mistake.

Power corrupts, no doubt, but why would anyone have reason to purposefully topple worldwide economies? Why would Ben Bernanke or the Central Bank of Ireland want to destroy their respective nation's economy? How could they benefit from this? The short answer is that they couldn't, which is why there is no conspiracy. It's simply a matter of people thinking they know more than they actually do. By and large, we think that the economy is like a car that can be fixed so long as a skilled mechanic is available. This is not the case, and our efforts to fix things have actually caused more harm than good.

This is the problem. It's not a conspiracy. It's the pretense of knowledge.

It's about temptation.

When someone offers you a goose that lays golden eggs at a time when everyone really needs some money... (not to mention your personal career is on the line).

Do you

A) Justify the borrowing as a viable investment.

B) Refuse to justify borrowing as a viable investment, start the economic hardship now, reducing it's total long term damage by addressing the core problems as early as you can.

(Answer B = end your career).

You can't blame people for borrowing lots of money when the credit was cheap.

It might not be a smart thing to do, but getting tempted by easy money is a human enough flaw.

No one wants to lose their jobs.

Our kind of democracy simply can't cope with capitalism. 5 year terms of office are the critical flaw.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Baff1

[st_dux 26]

@Baff1:

You are right, of course. Doing the right thing economically is tantamount to political suicide. Once the real crisis occurs sometime in the next two years, though, I believe (hope) that even the politicians will feel compelled to act rationally.