D

Really? Was he concerned when Bush was spending, spending, spending? I don’t get these folks that have had a sudden change of heart. The man who got us into this mess lives over on Daria Lane. Ask him why he is a crook.

@Give Me A Freaking Break

From 2001-2008, federal govt. outlays increased from $1.8 trillion to $2.9 trillion…roughly 37%. This is nothing to scoff at and is certainly alarming, although increased spending to further guarantee our national security can’t be discounted.

For 2009, Obama’s projected outlays are $3.6 trillion…a nearly 20% increase. At the very least, the Bush numbers are actuals and not estimates. There is no guarantee that the number will stay at $3.6 trillion once the funds get flowing…especially considering the frequency with which the GM’s and AIG’s of the world are requesting and receiving govt. dollars. Even with modest 5% increases over the remainder of his first term, Obama will do as much damage in three years as Bush did in eight.

This is irresponsible, especially considering the inevitable fact that govt. revenues will sharply decline for 2009 over 2008.

Saying “Bush did it so why can’t I do it to an even greater extent?” is no justification for wreckless behavior.

They’re efficient at making even the most mundane of tasks laborious and infuriating. Head on down to the DMV if you don’t believe me.

PR – I can come up with two:

1. Our military, when not interfered with

2. Tax collection

not necessarily in that order.

@db
It seems the IRS isn’t all that efficient. They only collect taxes from Republicans. Obama’s newest appointee didn’t pony up his ‘fair share’, either.

DMN reports that Ron Kirk is having to pay an additional $10,000 to correct errors on his tax returns.

“And it would take a huge burden off businesses, thereby fostering growth and job creation.”

That is hilarious!! Hey Daniel, ask your Doctor why he doesn’t take Medicare and Medicaid. Between what you get paid, the paperwork, and the risk of a Federal investigation if you make a mistake, its not worth it. But I bet business that are well ‘lawyered up’ will love to hire the extra manpower in the HR departments just to deal with another government program.

Maybe we could save some money and start turning our fiscal ship around by cutting some of the military spending that goes to, oh, Fort Worth.

The mayor might not have noticed, but our economy is swirling around the bowl. The flush cycle has already begun and you can either try to stop it (I don’t know how, to be honest) or you can just wait for everything to go into the sewer. (I don’t know what you do then, but I can’t imagine it’s gonna be much help.)

The mayor is a dolt.

The gov’t can’t even get out of it’s own way to do something as simple as running a web site. From this story:

Beyond the technological upgrades needed to enable text broadcasts, there are security and privacy rules to sort out involving the collection of cellphone numbers, according to Obama aides, who acknowledge being caught off guard by the strictures of government bureaucracy.

You are correct, SB: Obama aides were caught off guard. They didn’t realize how far behind the government is, technologically speaking. If I were Karl Rove, I’d claim I put my e-mails on a private account because the government technology couldn’t keep up with the volume. It’d still be illegal, but it might be a plausible defense.

The solution is for ALL doctors and hospitals to refuse to take insurance and go cash only. Prices for everything would go down. People could afford their own care. Insurance Co.’s would not look to the Healthcare industry to make their profit and there would be no need for Government to get involved.

I think the Interstate system is an example of something that was done well. Initiated by the government and contracted out to private industry, the interstate system probably had as much to do with the post-war economic boom as anything.

Which is more open about the way they do things — the public sector? Or the private sector? You have to factor that into a discussion of the pros and cons of government vs private industry. Sure, some private companies are “public” corporations, with annual reports and such. Is that enough to help the average citizen determine whether they’re telling the truth about such things as, to use a local example, salt water runoff in the case of gas drilling?

I’m not exactly wowed by the private sector these days, particularly the banks, auto manufacturers, airlines and newspapers. Does anyone think those are well-run businesses?

And every time someone brings up the DMV as an example of government inefficiency, I have a two word retort: Cable guy.

We need to get past this myth that the private sector is so far superior to federal and local government agencies. The only time that’s clearly true is when an Arabian horse judge is in charge of one of them.

Of course, if you’re not happy with the service your cable company is providing, you can call them up and complain. Often times they’ll end up giving you credit on your next bill. Or, you could switch to satellite. You could even dump tv all together and go completely online thanks to sites like Hulu.

On the other hand, if you’re not happy with the service the DMV is providing, well, you can just wait in line buddy. And that’s why the private sector will always be more efficient.

@PR

“Maybe that is why so many folks from Canada come here for medical care”

Can you substantiate that claim? From what I’ve read, American’s cross the border in droves to attempt getting healthcare and meds there…not the other way around.

Everyone relax. Rush Limbaugh has it all under control.

Jason, no problem:

From New York:
Universal health care: Is it worth the long waits?
Push is on for private insurance in Canada as residents come to the U.S. for timely treatment

Canadian Lindsay McCreith came to Buffalo for an MRI after being told he would have to wait over four months for one at home. After battling brain cancer, Lindsay McCreith is ready for his next fight: He’s taking on the Canadian health care system … It started when McCreith, a resident of Newmarket, north of Toronto, suffered a seizure last year. He was told in Canada he would have to wait more than four months for an MRI to rule out a malignant tumor.

Rather than wait, McCreith, 66, quickly arranged a trip to Buffalo for a scan. The MRI confirmed his worst fears — a cancerous growth that a Buffalo neurosurgeon removed a few weeks later.

“If I had been patient, I’d probably be disabled or dead today,” McCreith said.

Now, McCreith is suing the Ontario government in a closely watched constitutional challenge that could reshape universal health coverage in the province by striking down the prohibition against patients buying private insurance.

Jason, the man who helped develop the Canadian system, Claude Castonguay, recently said:

“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it … We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”

You see private health insurance is not exactly legal in Canada — he is now calling for the legalization of such insurance.

But why? Investors Business Daily writes: “Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more … De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.”

@ huck finn

If you look at that site, it clearly states that those stories are from the Buffalo News, which I would assume is a reputable news source.

SB,

I wouldn’t worry about Comrade Huck Finn. He doesn’t want to refute the fact that the medical care system proposed by Obama will certainly require rationing of health care.

Eventually, that will lead to the government determining who should get certain treatments — and if it is determined that the quality of your life (old folks) is less important than someone else (young parents), then you are screwed.

If you want medical care in the US, you will get help whether you can afford it or not. Here we have Parkland. And, for all the collective health care needs of our community, I have met very, very, very few people who have been denied the health care they required. Unless, of course you live in Canada — then you get to wait 4 weeks for an MRI.

Yeah Socialism!

Comrade Finn and SB,

Below is the link of the presidential endorsement last October from from the “conservative” opinion page of the Buffalo News.

http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/467867.html

(Hint – they didn’t endorse McCain)

Poll says Most Americans want Canadian-style health care system: “The Canadian health care system is attracting attention from the American public as well as corporations. In fact, six out of 10 Americans polled last year said they would prefer a system like Canada’s to that of the United States.

What does their response really mean? Consumers are sending a two-pronged message: “I am incredibly frustrated. There must be something better out there,” says researcher Robert J. Blendon, Sc.D., chairman of health policy and management at the Harvard University School of Public Health
Last year, Blendon teamed up with Louis Harris & Associates and surveyed Americans, Britons, and Canadians for their views on their respective health care systems. The study, funded by The Baxter Foundation, found that there’s little Americans like about their pluralistic health care system.
Nine out of 10 U.S. respondents said the country’s health care industry requires fundamental change or a complete rebuilding.
The American public wants the federal government to reassume its leadership role in defining and directing U.S. health policy, Blendon concludes.
“Uncle Sam will get involved in health policy issues again,” he predicts. “The government is going to have to play a role in some of these issues, in dealing with the uninsured and costs. Maybe it will be a mandated insurance plan with tough teeth in it. But I’m sure we’ll figure an American way out of this problem.”
Perhaps the most surprising survey finding is that Americans’ disenchantment with their medical delivery system is universal. Insured and uninsured. Executives and unskilled workers. Rich and poor. All said they’d prefer another system to that now in place in the United States.
For many Americans, the shortcomings of the U.S. health care delivery system manifest themselves not in national statistics but in personal experience. Of the three countries surveyed in the recent Harvard/Lou Harris poll, only the United States has constructed economic barriers to obtaining needed medical treatment. Two thirds of respondents saying they needed care in the past year but did not get it, 58 percent said the reason was a lack of money or insurance.
Even among those with comprehensive coverage, consumers are all too aware of how thin the line is separating them from the estimated 37 million Americans with no health insurance and no means of paying for even routine procedures, let alone a catastrophic illness, says Blendon.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0903/is_n7_v7/ai_8143615

Basically it comes down to two sides: Healthcare that’s too expensive vs. Healthcare with no access. Would you rather play $45,000 for brain surgery and get it done tomorrow? Or would you rather know the procedure is free, but have no idea as to when the procedure could actually be performed and thus vastly increasing your risk of death?

I’ll take life over money any day.

The man who essentially invented the Canadian healthcare system had a few words to say about it not too long ago.

@PR: Those Hosers — they’re everywhere you look, even Parkland. As for mon ami Claude, he does not want to dismantle everything. He wants to make some adjustments. That’s what smart people like Canadians do. They make adjustments. They don’t cling to narrow ideologies, like some Americans I know Chris.
“Forty years after being one of the pioneers of socialized medicine, Castonguay’s commission advocates both an increased role for private enterprise in medicine and increased public investment in the socialized system both through taxes and through user fees. Castonguay was quoted as saying ‘We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.’ While concerned about the financial stresses the system places on the government, Castonguay does not advocate dismantling publicly financed health insurance altogether. “

And if Canadians are so d@mned “smart”, then they why is their country so insignificant? They’re nothing more than a blip in the global political theater.