Does the bail-out make universal healthcare more or less possible?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

This is not advocacy for any plan or position. It's just a straightforward look at the logic of the situation.

1) IF there is a crisis that threatens global depression, and
2) AND the bail-out would ameliorate (not solve entirely, but lessen the effects of) that crisis
3) THEN the bail-out makes universal healthcare (or any other big government project) more possible

A global depression would reduce federal revenues by more than $700 billion over the next four years and would create a host of NEW social demands more pressing than universal individual healthcare. A global depression would wipe out almost every aspiration; social, personal and governmental.

In order to sensibly discuss any of this one needs to specify their position on the first two steps. (ie "Crisis Real/Bailout ineffective" "Crisis fake" etc.)

I am not telling anyone what to think in particular, just noting that before one forms a view on #3 they must have a view on #1 and #2.

1) IF there is a big crisis
2) AND the bail-out would do nothing to ameliorate a crisis
3) THEN the bail-out is a waste of resources

If there is no crisis at all then we can skip the question of bail-out efficacy:

1) IF there is no crisis
2) THEN the bail-out is a robbery



(My view is "crisis real /bail-out not probably optimal but something of comparable scale necessary." So I am open to different modes of response, but believe that some robust response is absolutely required.)

[leftofcool]

1. Less likely but it was always remote

Rockefeller came out over a year ago and said that no health care plan would be forthcoming due to lack of money, at least not the first four years of a Dem Admin. Obama's good intentions aside, if there is no money, there is no money and that is that.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Every presidential campaign winds up like this

We start out saying this is the year health care will be a big issue for us, and then it disappears from the political radar for one reason or another.

This time, it's even worse. The trillion-dollar bailout and the high probabality that the economy will be recession-like until at least 2010 basically erases universal health care as an issue for Obama's first term. All of his energy will go toward re-investing in the economy and winding down our commitments in Iraq.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. That sounds about right

[DeschutesRiver]

4. Less likely

but I agree with the poster who said it was always remote.

Look, if I really want something AND I really think it is critical to have, I would buy it first. And then work the rest of my personal budget around that. Like I pay my medical insurance monthly, and if I have to squeeze my dimes, I find a way to pay everything else or let it go.

If we are serious about national health care, you put the system in place with funding for it, and then everything you need you either get or do without. We aren't doing that. Our congress people aren't doing that.

[TexasObserver]

5. Less Likely

Part of the scheme at work here is to tie down the incoming Democratic president and congress financially, so they are bound to the bailout scam. That means no money for health coverage, and no tax increases for the businesses that can claim they are being bailed out, so can't afford higher taxes.

The Bailout is a major fraud designed to help the Bush Crime family keep its friends out of bankruptcy or prison.