Got 1.5 trillion to spare?
- Thread starter NoDrama
- Start date
CrackerJax
New Member
It's impossible... i don't think you can do it. 
JustAnotherFriedDay
Well-Known Member
That would be a waste of a life. However, I completely agree. Politics RIU would be dull without them, its all entertainment to me, because I know posting on this site doesn't really make a difference.
Debating is healthy, very healthy. It establishes preferences.
JustAnotherFriedDay
Well-Known Member
It's not the brightest he can manage, its the brightest you allow him to manage. Dim hope.
With someone who is more open to listen, I'm sure he manages to have more hope.
JustAnotherFriedDay
Well-Known Member
Yeah, possibly on the views/ideas of others.
I make no difference to the ideals of the government and politics. They have the power and are set in their ways...well, at least until a full scale riot breaks out.
CrackerJax
New Member
I don't post to change the "deniers" who get all crazy on these threads. They are too far gone, and remind me of fundamentalist orthodox Baptists. They have a carefully hypothetical world and cannot stand to have it disturbed by reality.
I post for all those out there who aren't typing, but reading only. People need to hear the right kind of information.
People need to hear what the media won't tell them.
I'm here to warn ppl about the fundamental flaws of the Obama administration economic policies.
I was against Bush's bailouts, I'm against Obama's. I call them evenly, no matter the party.
What's going on now will be talked about for centuries. We are in the middle of real history.
How is this going to end? It's up in the air. Lots of folks don't realize we can go very bankrupt and NOT recover. The numbers are very intimidating to all who look at them except members of Congress and Obama. That does not bode well for the country.
We're all broke and they are clamping down on the private sector, and going on a spending spree unseen in our history at the same time. Does that sound like the right way to go?
The people are seeing that a canard has been performed on them. This they will not forgive.
I post for all those out there who aren't typing, but reading only. People need to hear the right kind of information.
People need to hear what the media won't tell them.
I'm here to warn ppl about the fundamental flaws of the Obama administration economic policies.
I was against Bush's bailouts, I'm against Obama's. I call them evenly, no matter the party.
What's going on now will be talked about for centuries. We are in the middle of real history.
How is this going to end? It's up in the air. Lots of folks don't realize we can go very bankrupt and NOT recover. The numbers are very intimidating to all who look at them except members of Congress and Obama. That does not bode well for the country.
We're all broke and they are clamping down on the private sector, and going on a spending spree unseen in our history at the same time. Does that sound like the right way to go?
The people are seeing that a canard has been performed on them. This they will not forgive.
Iron Lion Zion
Well-Known Member
I don't know a ton about Obama's healthcare plan, so I have a couple of questions:
We have what, roughly 300 million people in the US? Then out of this number roughly 75 million are without medical insurance. It's safe to say that these people are in the lower economic classes and therefore have received little medical help for a chunk of their life. With this said, isn't it safe to guess that out of these 75 million people you will have more sick/unhealthy people who will require more care (and money) than the other 225 million people who have had medical insurance their entire lives?
I ask this because with our entire population about to have insurance and thus able to see a doctor, where are we going to find enough medical personnel (doctors specifically) to treat this influx of people? Coupled with the baby boomers getting older, we are looking at the greatest number of people requiring very expensive care. How can we afford - several wars and 75 million+ people who require care from hospitals who are already hurting for doctors without this chunk of sick people requiring their care?
I just don't understand how logistically and monetarily this could work...
We have what, roughly 300 million people in the US? Then out of this number roughly 75 million are without medical insurance. It's safe to say that these people are in the lower economic classes and therefore have received little medical help for a chunk of their life. With this said, isn't it safe to guess that out of these 75 million people you will have more sick/unhealthy people who will require more care (and money) than the other 225 million people who have had medical insurance their entire lives?
I ask this because with our entire population about to have insurance and thus able to see a doctor, where are we going to find enough medical personnel (doctors specifically) to treat this influx of people? Coupled with the baby boomers getting older, we are looking at the greatest number of people requiring very expensive care. How can we afford - several wars and 75 million+ people who require care from hospitals who are already hurting for doctors without this chunk of sick people requiring their care?
I just don't understand how logistically and monetarily this could work...
Iron Lion Zion
Well-Known Member
I have a friend who writes for Dow Jones and is much more economically savvy than myself (B.A. Biology and Grad School for a healthcare field, so my knowledge of economics is obviously limited).It's the Asian markets NODRAMA.... that's where you should be investing right now. They are on fire over there. Outperforming Obama's economy completely. Now that is embarrassing, but profitable for the keen minded.
She says the most common thing she hears in her position is "BRIC."
Brazil
Russia
India
China
All developing countries. All have huge populations. All are expanding rapidly in both construction and education. They all have plenty of natural resources at their disposal... Pretty easy to see why they are the talk of economists everywhere.
Iron Lion Zion
Well-Known Member
While I was not a fan of Bush, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Clinton was more to blame. Maybe not for diving deeper into the maelstrom that is our economic position, but definitely for "tossing" us into it. Wasn't it his policy to allow thousands-millions of people who could not afford certain loans/houses to be given loans that banks knew people were unable to afford? Again, correct me if I am wrong.
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
its actually more like 35 million uninsured
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
After you exclude those that can afford it and choose not to get it, those that don't want it (some would rather pay cash), young people who don't feel they need it yet, and illegals, it's actually more like 12 million uninsured.
CrackerJax
New Member
I would exclude Russia. Their markets are flimsy and corrupt. their population is imploding and alcoholism is rampant.
I would pick the Asian market now just on a stability factor. There are high gains to be made in places like Brazil, but the risks match the gains.
ChChoda is much closer to the mark as far as the uninsured.
I would pick the Asian market now just on a stability factor. There are high gains to be made in places like Brazil, but the risks match the gains.
ChChoda is much closer to the mark as far as the uninsured.
Iron Lion Zion
Well-Known Member
Ok, maybe it wasn't quite 75 mill. I said 75 because I have heard it to be around 50. I definitely think it is more than 35 mill, specifically with the illegal immigrants that can't "officially" be counted. Either way, how can we suddenly afford care for a large chunk of people, who most likely will require more healthcare than someone who has had insurance their entire life?
Also, not to get "racy" but obviously the lower income people who lack insurance will be made up of minorities, a lot of them being hispanic... I am just pointing this out because hispanics tend to have higher rates of type 2 diabetes, which alone requires thousands of dollars a year to help control their A1Cs, along with the retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy that only add to their medical bills. So how do we pay for these people, while we continue to fight several "wars" and remain economically stagnant?
We make all the sick people fight all the wars, that way if they die we only gain by it.
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
I'm uninsured at the moment, cause I was covered under my dad's insurance and he lost his job...anyway, I went to the pharmacy to see how much my medicine (I take advair for asthma) was without insurace. It turns out a month supply is $300...and the really crazy thing is, a months supply is only about 35mg worth of medecine...not even 1/20th of a gram and it costs $300...how the fuck is that possible?
Sorry, just venting.
Sorry, just venting.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
I'm not certain whether the NINJA loans began under Clinton or not, but even if they did - they didn't contribute to the national debt, which is what I was talking about. When Clinton left office, we were on track to enjoy budget surpluses for some 25 years (or so he said. I don't know about that, but I know we DID have a surplus for quite a few years under Clinton)
CrackerJax
New Member
Clinton left us with a war. Wars are expensive.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
Welcome to America. This is what that insignificant 13% of the population who is uninsured have been trying to tell everyone. If you're a middle class worker whose employer doesn't offer coverage, it simply ISN'T economically feasible to pay out-of-pocket for health care costs and prescription costs (not to mention the insurance premiums you'd have to endure JUST to get a prescription drug plan so you DON'T have to pay $300 per month for essential medications).