Good Morning America, how are you ...

[Dave W]

To name but a few:
Medicare is broken
Medicaid is broken
The Post Office (USPS) is broken
The VA is broken
ACORN is broken
...and the common thread is?

This has been a good discussion, so let's stay way away from ACORN, it's not a government organization and isn't remotely connected to this.

The other things you mention are broken but they're not privately owned. Health insurers are privately owned and will continue to be privately owned.

However this bill winds up affecting American citizens, you can bet the farm that health insurers will continue to make record profits.

And the rest of us will pay for it.

[Pilgrim]

To what ever level they will be involved in health care they will make it worse, IMO.  I challenge anyone to please tell me something that the federal government does really well - with the exception of the military, thankfully.  I seriously look for the feds to further entwine themselves further into the medical system.  Some of the uber lefties in congress are already harping about single payer again 

The process of government is kind of a mess, and because of that there are indeed limits to what it does well. However, there are some things that only government can do on a large scale, because there is no incentive or reason for anyone else to do them.

We may not agree about these, but it seems to me that there are important functions that government addresses which would not be dealt with effectively by commercial businesses or special interest groups:

Laws that protect people with disabilities
Laws that protect minorities from discrimination
Health care for people who are destitute or uninsurable
Organizing and regulating the use of public airwaves
Anti-trust protection
Organized crime protection
Coordination of law enforcement and information generated by it

Just some thoughts off the top of my head.  The point I'm attempting to make is that although government is messy, it is not the enemy and it serves necessary functions.  It is a tool that reflects the people who elect representatives to the government.  If it is not functioning effectively, then the fault is in the populace for who they elect, and for not holding those elected representatives accountable for their failures to act.  To the extent that the populace becomes polarized and unwilling to discuss compromise, their representatives will probably mirror that ineffective approach.

[lowend1]

This has been a good discussion, so let's stay way away from ACORN, it's not a government organization and isn't remotely connected to this.

The other things you mention are broken but they're not privately owned. Health insurers are privately owned and will continue to be privately owned.

However this bill winds up affecting American citizens, you can bet the farm that health insurers will continue to make record profits.

And the rest of us will pay for it.

Fair point on ACORN - my bad. On the others, you're right - they aren't privately owned, and that's exactly the point. Perhaps they should be.

[lowend1]

The process of government is kind of a mess, and because of that there are indeed limits to what it does well. However, there are some things that only government can do on a large scale, because there is no incentive or reason for anyone else to do them.

We may not agree about these, but it seems to me that there are important functions that government addresses which would not be dealt with effectively by commercial businesses or special interest groups:

Laws that protect people with disabilities
Laws that protect minorities from discrimination
Health care for people who are destitute or uninsurable
Organizing and regulating the use of public airwaves
Anti-trust protection
Organized crime protection
Coordination of law enforcement and information generated by it

Just some thoughts off the top of my head.  The point I'm attempting to make is that although government is messy, it is not the enemy and it serves necessary functions.  It is a tool that reflects the people who elect representatives to the government.  If it is not functioning effectively, then the fault is in the populace for who they elect, and for not holding those elected representatives accountable for their failures to act.  To the extent that the populace becomes polarized and unwilling to discuss compromise, their representatives will probably mirror that ineffective approach.

Why wouldn't we agree on them?
They pretty much follows the rules:
"establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
Of note, however, is how the above is worded. The government is charged with some pretty important specifics. Establish. Insure. Provide. Secure. The only place it there isn't an absolute is with regard to the "general welfare". Promote. The framers knew that it probably wasn't a good idea that the government got too responsible for that part. Amazing how smart those guys were.

[Barklessdog]

you can bet the farm that health insurers will continue to make record profits.

And the rest of us will pay for it.

Amen to that.

I have a 40+% income tax burden, if you add indirect taxes such as eg VAT (19% in Germany) to it, then my tax burden is probably closer to 60%.

Here in America the more money you make they less taxes you pay.

[Denis]

"Who is John Galt...?"

It's a forecasting system which is giving us fits here at work, I can tell you that.

To name but a few:
The Post Office (USPS) is broken

That is a shame because I've found that the USPS offers great service, good shipping and their prices beat UPS easily for items even as large as a certain bass guitar I just shipped. Plus, the packages don't arrive with boot prints on them... 

[eb2]

I have been avoiding commenting on this thread, as for the Outpost it has been the most overtly political ever, and I find the "reform" bill - whatever the heck is in it - to be horrendous on pretty much every level.  But lowend1's post captures a sentiment of mine that tends to guide my political thought process and how I vote and donate my time and money: the guys who started this country were a heck of a lot brighter, better educated and far more interested in the goals and limits of good government and insuring liberty while understanding life is risk, than most of the people elected to congress over the last hundred years.  The "reform" is not related to those ideals at all.  It has nothing to do with health care whatsoever.  Or what people consider to be a problem of healthcare in the US - essentially costs.  Any suggestions that did not involve single payer as an ultimate goal were shut out.  It is / was a bizzare power grab of a major part of the economy.  And done in a way that it promisses much without anyone being able to understand how it was brokered, how it can possibly not lead to single payer (socialized) medical,and how much it will cost.  All without the much promissed open debate or coverage on CSPAN.  

By making the government responsible for paying the costs of healthcare of 30 million - for a start - Americans, we are committing to an orgy of deficit spending. And that is deficit spending this government cannot sustain.  Someone is going to have to pay for it, and pay it off.  That is going to be impossible to do without tax hikes, and not just letting the Bush tax cuts - which boosted the economy and revenues just like it did for Kennedy and Reagan - expire.  They will go up higher.  And actually, in the US the more you make the more you pay it all.  Considering the disproportionate amount of the federal taxes paid by the upper income brackets (google it), there can only be so much more that can be imposed before it retards investment and economic functionality.  The top rates under Carter, when the Keynseian freak out was downright restrained compared to the current mess, were approaching 80%.  If that is good policy, then why isn't anyone demanding that?  What is a good tax level?  Just more, whatever that is?  That would fit in with Pelosi's demand that the bill be passed, and then we will see what is in it.  Great.  If the Bush tax cuts lead to a problem paying for the Iraq and Afghanistan operations, what with that being a whopping less that 5% of federal spending, lets just go back to a good rate, like the Carter administration.  No one is suggesting that because they know there is a balance to taxing, and revenues, and that is and was disasterous.  Uncapped entitlement payments are killing our government.  So what we are going to see, in the name of reform, is what all those countries with great health care ( the places we have been getting our doctors from, and patients who don't feel like being on waiting lists) have, which is a GST.  The lower income levels, the people who would in theory benefit from health insurance "reform" don't pay taxes.  And they will.  Apparently a key component of the the "reform" bill requires massive hiring of IRS agents, who will be new dependents on the federal government, and that the government will nationalize student loans.  Hey, at least it is a start for health care "reform!"  Fabulous.  

I take exception to the concept that people who disagree with the growth of government social spending and intrusion into the market place are somehow expecting all these services without paying for it.  I don't, but I also don't want the government to do all the crap that it has gotten involved in over the last 50 years or so, and been successful at none of it.  Social spending does not work, and is never capped.  We have a social security administration that is bankrupt every few years, that was modelled on Mussolini's by an admiring FDR, and designed to provide for the retirement needs of people with a life expectancy of a year or so beyond 65.  It pays an average return of less than 1.5%.  I would like to opt out, and would love to have put my fica taxes in a basic saving account at my local bank. I would be doing a hell of a lot better than what I will get, and they have spend all of it already anyway, years ago.  This is bad policy.  Again.  

I too find embarrassing fault with the signs demanding protection of medicair while stopping single payer.  It is a level of stupidity that one can find at any rally, left or right.  However I do also disagree that destitute or uninsurable people are best cared for by the federal government, or a number of the issues listed, including organized crime which was created in the US by bad federal law.  Bad law is bad law.  This is bad law. I suspect parts of it will not ever be removed, but I suspect parts of it will, and there will be constitutionality issues for years.  For that, I appreciate there being no compromise. When bad laws are enacted via sub-standard manoevers, in violation of the constitional intent, there should be no compromise.  I applaud fiscal responsibility.  I deplore government growing, power grabbing social spending.

Now I write all this with a sense of angst, as I tend to voice a balance of opinion that can lead to argument over debate.  But I must cap all of this by also pointing out that while I love wealth and the freedom of the persuit of it, I am deeply concerned - to some degree more than I am over the "reform" - with the shadowy role of hedge funds that billionaires use to drive down/destroy currencies.  We are witnessing that now with the euro.  All of this federal bloating will be a happy accident if we ALL start to experience currency collapse. I am hearing that whispered more often than ever among my financial buddies.  All your Goldline commercials won't mean jack if that happens.  So, just remember to vote, and buy that cool bass while you can.

[Pilgrim]

eb2, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts.  You're correct that this thread is the most political that I've seen here, but it also demonstrates the highest level of reasoned thought, consideration, reflection and careful expression that I have EVER read in an Internet forum. 

I appreciate all of those who have contributed to this thread, and hope that it can continue in the same well-reasoned manner.

[uwe]

Most of us have been together long enough to know where the other guy stands politically and still realize that he is a decent person. That certainly helps discussion decorum and being able to listen to a view different than your own.

Jim, your depiction of things is "budgetarian" which is an acceptable viewpoint though personally I believe that you should neither run a state nor a private company just along cost budgets. Keynes is not the antidote to everything, but it's not automatically poison to the system either. There are as many examples for successful deficit spending as there are for unsuccessful ones, problem is you never know which half you are just pouring money into.

What I did not get was this part:

"However I do also disagree that destitute or uninsurable people are best cared for by the federal government ..."

Does that mean they should be cared for by the individual states or on a communal level or by private welfare entities supported by charity? No rethorical hidden agenda behind this question, I'm just wondering who you would deem more competent/best placed. (In Germany, welfare is communal and the municipalities groan under the burden, but that is not saying it's unworkable as a principle. It always has them clamoring for tax hikes though.)

[OldManC]

One thing that many people (even in the U.S.) don't seem to understand well is the Constitutional delineation that exists between state and federal governments. While I am a believer in the smallest necessary government at all levels, there are many things I don't want the federal government doing that I have no problem with state or, more rightly, local governments having a hand in. That's the way the U.S. Constitution set it up in the first place and I see no reason to stray from that inspired document now (not that we haven't in many ways already).

A lot of the complaints one hears about government are from people who feel that government (whether federal, state, or local) has exceeded the boundaries placed on them either by our federal or state constitutions, or by the bounds of common decency that we hope are felt by all of us. Then again, complaints also come from people wanting government to exceed those boundaries. That's part of the charm of living in a community...

The lack of many people understanding even the basics of government and Constitutional functions in the U.S. is a huge reason why so many people think government is broken here. Of course, most people tend to think it's the 'other side' that causes all the problems, but those same people tend not to know the basic philosophies that make up the 'other' side, let alone their own. Civics, history, and government classes used to mean something in U.S. education. Not now, it seems.

[eb2]

Does that mean they should be cared for by the individual states or on a communal level or by private welfare entities supported by charity?

In short yes.  That does not mean it is ever easy, and that for instance South Dakota would not be capable of being more generous than California.  Maybe they could - different strokes for different levels of political and union corruption.  Certainly Romneycare is disfunctional, and a work in progress, but in the state determining what they would take on, that leaves the scope of federal involvement at a point that is tolerable and responsible.  Perhaps the true end result of that is that the costs have spiraled out of control beyond what was in place already for indigent patients.  It costs more to have universal coverage in Massachusetts than it did to have the costs absorbed the insurance and hospitals.  But it also allows for people to do as they have been doing in the areas with the worlds tallest buildings - to vote with their feet.  But that is up to the people who live in a particular area to decide, much the way towns can decide to either exclude alcohol sales, or own the outlets to sell it.  Private charitable institutions do a far better job of any social health work (or selling whiskey) than the Government, and private companies would do even better if there were tax and profit incentives for them to do so.  Liberty Mutual Insurance was a pioneer in workmans comp rehab over the last 40 years - physical therapy methods used the world over came out of that.  They are a private company that had a cost incentive to find the most financially reasonable approach to getting workers functional and healthy in a reasonable manner - staying in business.  And that greedy insurance company is non-profit.  But this type of approach was purposefully excluded from our reform.  And I take a far more negative view of Keynesian spending as incentive.  It is over used perhaps, but the concept of paying people to run around breaking windows does not help the economy by giving glaziers work.  

[uwe]

How about giving people loans to buy new, more expensive and better wind-resistant windows after a hurricane has broken their original ones though?  

This fear of/scepticism towards the Federal government level is really deeply entrenched/ingrained with you guys, it's something explainable from your history I guess, you liberated yourself first from the British Crown and when a hundred years later a dozen or so states wanted to chose cotton over the Industrial Revolution they were pounded for that by another "big government". It has certainly left its marks on you.

Coming from a German background our history is of course different, we experienced the emergence of a Federal state as something that turned Germany - once a rabble of warring microstates - into a European industrial and political power. And when the Weimar Republic folded that was in part too because it was not that mighty Federal state with far-reaching authorities it could have been and that could have defended itself well against the Nazis. (Of course the Nazis then turned Germany into an utterly centralist state to preserve their power, one of their first steps was to declare the dissolution of the Länder/individual German states, which the Allies then resurrected after the war.)

Today Germany is not as centralsitic as, say, the UK or France, but not as individual State conscious as the US either. We're a compromise, because the Western Allies wanted it that way. Our checks and balances work more between legislative and executive arm (a chancellor is not as powerful as a US President) than between Federal level and State level though we've had quite a few laws overturned by our Constitutional Court when Federal laws infringed State rights as forseen in our Grundgesetz/Constitution.

[lowend1]

eb2, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts.  You're correct that this thread is the most political that I've seen here, but it also demonstrates the highest level of reasoned thought, consideration, reflection and careful expression that I have EVER read in an Internet forum. 

I appreciate all of those who have contributed to this thread, and hope that it can continue in the same well-reasoned manner.

...and a grand prize will be awarded to the first poster to find a tie-in to WWII aircraft.

[gweimer]

...and a grand prize will be awarded to the first poster to find a tie-in to WWII aircraft.

P-51 Mustang production modifications because of contract stipulations with the British?   

[uwe]

Well, I guess George and Jim think the healthcare reform is this here



with a pilot schooled in Russia at the helm, right? And it lands in other people's private ponds and all the fish and water foilage die!



Others might be more comfortable with this comparison: