CATO Institute Agrees with me on Healthcare

[rameumptom]

Yes, Mr. President: A Free Market Can Fix Health Care | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Remember recently when I suggested vouchers for healthcare? Well, the CATO Institute must have been reading my blog and LDS.Net posts, because they are recommending several free markets fixes that go perfectly in line with what I recommended recently. And no, I did not peek previously on their recommendations.

Can we truly fix health care, instead of helping Barney Frank expand the federal government and his power base?

[FunkyTown]

Yes, Mr. President: A Free Market Can Fix Health Care | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Remember recently when I suggested vouchers for healthcare? Well, the CATO Institute must have been reading my blog and LDS.Net posts, because they are recommending several free markets fixes that go perfectly in line with what I recommended recently. And no, I did not peek previously on their recommendations.

Can we truly fix health care, instead of helping Barney Frank expand the federal government and his power base?

A libertarian, pro-free market think-tank believes a free market can save health care?

Oh, no! Obama may as well give it up. There's no way he could be right if such an independent think-tank disagrees.

Cato Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PS: I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying their independence is questionable and, as a source, they're not relevant.

[bytor2112]

I am a big fan of CATO....(posted this story a couple days ago on current events)

[rameumptom]

Funky,

CATO is truly relevant in the discussion. They are offering alternative methods to the president to consider that do not have to create new giant bureaucracies and cost the tax payers trillions of dollars. Now, whether the president uses their advice or not is another issue. Chances are, he won't, as he is a Chicago-style liberal, and has surrounded himself with extreme liberals in Congress and as advisors.

Will we have to bankrupt our nation before we will seek methods that historically have worked better? Did the Great Society and war on poverty work? Or did it destroy families, impoverish minorities, and turn them into dependents on the welfare state (the second is the correct answer).

Didn't Bastiat note that Paris starved when the bureaucracies tried to manage the economy and feed the people? Hasn't American enterprise and freedom shown to be the most effective means to lift people out of poverty?

Speaking of poverty, did you know the average poor person in the USA still has more material goods and food than the average European? Do we really want to adopt European socialism and reduce our life style accordingly?

[jadams_4040]

Funky,

CATO is truly relevant in the discussion. They are offering alternative methods to the president to consider that do not have to create new giant bureaucracies and cost the tax payers trillions of dollars. Now, whether the president uses their advice or not is another issue. Chances are, he won't, as he is a Chicago-style liberal, and has surrounded himself with extreme liberals in Congress and as advisors.

Will we have to bankrupt our nation before we will seek methods that historically have worked better? Did the Great Society and war on poverty work? Or did it destroy families, impoverish minorities, and turn them into dependents on the welfare state (the second is the correct answer).

Didn't Bastiat note that Paris starved when the bureaucracies tried to manage the economy and feed the people? Hasn't American enterprise and freedom shown to be the most effective means to lift people out of poverty?

Speaking of poverty, did you know the average poor person in the USA still has more material goods and food than the average European? Do we really want to adopt European socialism and reduce our life style accordingly?

Bankrupt the country? Bush allready did that to the tune of over 500 billion dollars. At that amount of money what does it matter now?.

[bytor2112]

Bankrupt the country? Bush allready did that to the tune of over 500 billion dollars. At that amount of money what does it matter now?.

:huh: It's obvious you failed spelling, I am guessing that math and economics were not strong subjects either. Maybe you should stick to something you know, like........

[rameumptom]

JAdams,

Bush did hurt us badly with the deficits he created with Congress. However, we could recover from a $500 billion deficit without declaring bankruptcy.

I'm not certain we can do it from a deficit of several trillions of dollars, however. $1.4T for this year alone, not including health care. Of course, pulling $400M from Medicare to fund 1/5th of the new health care will only speed up Medicare's demise. Some think it will end up costing us up to $50 trillion in unpaid costs!

Our GDP is about $14.5 trillion a year. The current costs of this recovery from the Fed and US government is around #13.5 trillion. So we just frittered away an entire year's worth of GDP. And the White House figures they will be deficit spending at least $1T a year for the next 5 or 6.

This is a form of enslavement. Somehow we have to pay it back. There are four ways to do this:

1. China and the world can forgive the debts

2. We could win the Intergalactic lottery worth $100 Trillion

3. We are taxed heavily (75% range for everyone)

4. We heavily cut our entitlement and other programs (by more than 50%)

5. Our dollar's value decreases by more than 75%

Given that the first two probably will not happen, we have the other three to deal with. If we do not impose 3 and/or 4, then #5 will eventually kick in with hyperinflation. What is that? Today you buy a loaf of bread for a dollar, tomorrow it costs you two dollars, and next week it will cost you 5 dollars. Economies, governments, and civilization collapse quickly when that happens. Just look at what happened to the former Soviet Union 20 years ago, and how long it has taken them to regain any international presence.

[john doe]

PS: I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying their independence is questionable and, as a source, they're not relevant.

As opposed to CNN or MSNBC? LOLOL