TomAiello 25 #151 July 22, 2009 QuoteBut even if taxes are raised, it's not going to be enough to really make a dent in paying down the defecit. Plus, if you do it enough, people are actually going to stop paying--either by just quitting their jobs or by moving to another country.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #152 July 22, 2009 Well said, Tom...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #153 July 22, 2009 QuoteMedicare and Medicaid cover 80M people between them, making the US government the largest health insurer in the country … Some people argue that this doesn't tell the whole story due to other taxes but that's dishonest. It's hardly dishonest to point out reality. You are aware that Medicaid is a joint sate and federal program, right? It varies by state, but on average, states foot about 43% of the bill. What's dishonest is to disregard state taxes when considering who pays the costs of the program. Try comparing the percentage of income the bottom 50% earners pay in sales tax compared to the percentage of income paid by the top 50% earners. The income tax progression is also significantly skewed by not taxing capital gains as regular income, which benefits the richer half far more than the poorer half of the country.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #154 July 22, 2009 QuoteIncluding the Social Security Trust Fund and adjusting for inflation, debt has increased continuously since the 1970s. How does it look when cash accounts of the federal government are taken into consideration? They must be considered if the Social Security trust fund is considered, as the revenue that goes into the trust fund are required by law to be invested in government bonds.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #155 July 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteIncluding the Social Security Trust Fund and adjusting for inflation, debt has increased continuously since the 1970s. How does it look when cash accounts of the federal government are taken into consideration? They must be considered if the Social Security trust fund is considered, as the revenue that goes into the trust fund are required by law to be invested in government bonds. Dude, are you seriously about to argue that the federal debt has not increased continuously since the 1970's?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #156 July 22, 2009 QuoteDude, are you seriously about to argue that the federal debt has not increased continuously since the 1970's? Dude, did you even comprehend what I wrote before clicking the reply button?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #157 July 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteDude, are you seriously about to argue that the federal debt has not increased continuously since the 1970's? Dude, did you even comprehend what I wrote before clicking the reply button? Yep, and I made an assumption about where you were going with it. Was that an incorrect assumption? If so, I apologize. Where were you going with that?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #158 July 23, 2009 5799 cases out of 30 million people - wow! that is some measure of the failure of a system...... almost 2/100ths of a percent...... QuoteI wonder how many people DIED in the USA because they never got ANY treatment for chronic conditions or were refused the procedures by their insurance companies..... And you really think that Obamacare is going to be kind and generous, to the obese, 60yr. old, with the ruined knee joints? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #159 July 23, 2009 why not? Obamacare is already kind to the 65 year old with the obesity and bad knee joints. Oh yeah, and FYI, my 75 year old obese mother just got two knee joint replacements in the past 8 months - in CANADA. and it did not cost her anything, except income taxes......which she has paid her entire life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #160 July 23, 2009 Oh but my God, how could I be so naive - I mean people are OBVIOUSLY dying in the streets in Canada BECAUSE my mother got her knee replacements, I mean - afterall, they could have be saving lives, instead of saving knees!!! get real. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared it ain't all bad. But of course, instead of reading the ENTIRE article and weighing the benefits and problems with both systems, you (and lawrocket and nealtx and rushmc and others) will likely extract simply ONE quotation from it and base a total failure of the Canadian system on that one quote..... which is bullshit of course single payer baby, get rid of the insurance companies - they suck at providing health care. they do great at providing dividends to their shareholders Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #161 July 23, 2009 Quote Oh but my God, how could I be so naive - I mean people are OBVIOUSLY dying in the streets in Canada BECAUSE my mother got her knee replacements, I mean - afterall, they could have be saving lives, instead of saving knees!!! get real. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared it ain't all bad. But of course, instead of reading the ENTIRE article and weighing the benefits and problems with both systems, you (and lawrocket and nealtx and rushmc and others) will likely extract simply ONE quotation from it and base a total failure of the Canadian system on that one quote..... which is bullshit of course single payer baby, get rid of the insurance companies - they suck at providing health care. they do great at providing dividends to their shareholders You'd do a lot better without all the hyperbole. None of use have said the Canadian system is a "total failure" (except maybe CanuckinUSA ). WHO's criteria *ARE* crap, though - too many subjective ratings. Still waiting on your answer about WHY the architect of the Canadian system is NOW saying private insurance is needed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #162 July 23, 2009 who is the 'architect' of the Canadian system you reference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #163 July 23, 2009 Quotewho is the 'architect' of the Canadian system you reference? I'll take "Who is Claude Castonguay" for a thousand, Alex. Quote“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.” Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 37 #164 July 23, 2009 QuoteQuotewho is the 'architect' of the Canadian system you reference? I'll take "Who is Claude Castonguay" for a thousand, Alex. Quote“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.” Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance. More details on who Paul Catongauy was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Castonguay You'll see that indeed back in the sixties we was a Quebec provincial politician and instrumental in the creation of the social medical programs in that province. Wouldn't the architect of Canadian Health care likely work for the feds? I googled "architect of the Canadian health system" and the only references I could find to this guy come from American news articles sources. To be fair he does now think that the system has problems and wants more private involvement, but again its a report commissioned by the Quebec government about its system and not a federal report by the "architect' of the Canadian system". Most Canadians will credit Tommy Douglas with creating the Canadian system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas#Medicare Having addressed the "architect" issue.... Before I get chastised for being entirely pro the Canadian system for questioning the validity of American news articles, I am one of the first to recognize the faults of the Canadian system. I think that a proper balance of private and public is more appropriate than what we have in Canada which is very heavily public. Most countries, other than Canada and Cuba, have systems where the model is more balanced. Why would the USA go from one extreme, mostly private, to the other extreme,mostly public? Why not look to the rest of the world for a better balance? Not all good ideas come from North America."Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #165 July 23, 2009 Quote The military budget was just over $500B. Add in emergency war appropriations, homeland security, and the rest of DOD's budget to get your number. That doesn't cover the whole defence department. Quote QuoteIt doesn't matter. Including the Social Security Trust Fund and adjusting for inflation, debt has increased continuously since the 1970s. We've spent more than we took in for 30 years and will do the same for universal health care. I still fail to see your point. We have been adding debt for 30 years so we should just keep doing it with no plan to offset cost? Hell no. Spending too much is going to take down the United States the same way it turned the Soviet Union into a non-entity. It's just that there's nothing we can do about it until we collapse under our own or external influences and have to rebuild. Two nearly identical parties are the inevitable result of first-past-the-post electoral systems. Unless that changes (to something like proportional representation at the national level which will not happen) we're not going to get dissenting fiscal conservatives like Libertarians in office who are opposed to deficit spending. Congress creatures are evaluated based on how much money the Feds collected from the Several States comes back to their their districts and how much legislation they pass. There's no limit to how big bills get with over 500 pages being reasonable for omnibus bills, they bounce around until there's something in it for everyone, and the politicians voting on the bills aren't even required to read the bills or make them available for public comment. Obviously changing this is not in the current ruling parties' self-interest. The net result is accelerating credit abuse ending in bankruptcy. Quote QuoteCorrelation does not imply causality. Ok. Correlate how we're going to pay for the proposals. We're not. Quote Abolishing the military is not a viable answer, not would it come close to covering the cost. Cutting it to 1/10th the size would reduce it to a defensive force bigger than other first-world countries (where equipment is affordable and people valuable). With other first world countries covering their entire countries for less than just the feds per-capita Medicare and Medicaid spending it could cover health care if that was what you wanted. Or paying down the debt which would be better for the Nation. Quote Which, again, is my point. "That's the way it is" is not an acceptable answer. Find a way to pay for it. Find a way to balance the current budget before throwing on a few trillion more. It's not rocket surgery. I didn't say it was acceptable. In fact, it's going to destroy the United States. Recognizing it now may help you plan for a soft landing some place else, off-the-grid, or whatever your preferred coping strategy will be. I like tropical Central American countries with 15% top tax brackets, $40,000 houses inland a ways, and $200K beach front property which I couldn't match for $1.4M around here away from the ocean. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #166 July 23, 2009 what I have been saying all along - a private AND a public single-payer system. perhaps you missed all that in all my previous posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #167 July 23, 2009 Quotewhat I have been saying all along - a private AND a public single-payer system. perhaps you missed all that in all my previous posts. The problem is, that the government, for some reason, just doesn't seem to be able to keep their hands off of dedicated money. If Social Security were truly in a lock box, and used as a retirement fund, for those who actually contributed, it would be in fine shape... Same with Medicaid and Medicare. I believe that a large part of the money i send in, each year, is supposed to be marked, specifically, for that. Do you really think that it's set aside, for that purpose? Greedy politicians, who are mostly lawyers, BTW, see an opportunity for vote buying, and dip into the funds, for every whimsical program, that comes down the line. We already see rationing, and heavy rules and regulations, and jumping through a thousand hoops, just to get something done, in these systems, unless, of course, it looks like a vote may be coming your way. What makes you think, that suddenly, a large influx of tax money, is going to be used to put the medical community right? Maybe we should start with a punitive, loser pays, in the legal system, across the board. Not just in medical cases. After all, the same insurance companies who sell medical insurance, also sell any number of other types. This would eliminate a huge cost, because, too many times, someone settles, just to avoid escalating lawyer fees for a defense. If the person, bringing the law suit, thought that there was a good chance that they would lose, if the case ran its course, and were responsible for the fees of the defending party, much of the cost of insurance would simply disappear. How about it...... Let's plug the ratholes, before we decide to tear down the building, and start over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #168 July 23, 2009 tort laws have to change as well, yes, but you cannot abolish everything we have either. there is REAL malpractice out there, and if you cannot afford the legal fees, that does not mean that you are 'wrong' and should not pursue that. I do not know what the solution is there. But as long as lawyers write the laws, I think it will be a long time before that gets resolved. I expect that with a single payer system, many of the lawsuits would disappear anyway. One of the reasons people sue is because they are saddled with enormous medical bills, and they want someone else to pay for it. Lawsuits happen in Canada as well, but far less frequent. We do not have ambulance chasers like we do here and people do not feel the need to sue, afterall, even in a serious accident, they know that they are going to have their medical stuff taken care of. And I disagree with all the governmetn 'hoops' that you speak of. Medicare is working pretty well. Doctors and patients, if you speak to them - do not get the runaround, they do not get 'screwed', they do not get mountains of paperwork to process a medical claim. old folks go to teh doctor, and the doctors send the bills to Medicare, Medicare pays them. INSURANCE companies on the other hand, agree to terms with the doctor that they have no intention of following, argue with the patient over what can and should be done, refuse to pay, short-change the doctor, and drown everyone in paperwork so that they do not have to pay. And people still think that private insurance is 'freedom of choice?' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #169 July 23, 2009 QuoteINSURANCE companies on the other hand, agree to terms with the doctor that they have no intention of following, argue with the patient over what can and should be done, refuse to pay, short-change the doctor, and drown everyone in paperwork so that they do not have to pay. And people still think that private insurance is 'freedom of choice?'I am in agreement, here... It should be insurance reform, instead of healthcare reform,but, once again, the whole system is controlled by lawyers, who just love the fine print. So, we're back to square one. Deal with the rats, first. Of course, Obama, being a lawyer, would rather impugn someone of another profession, than to call a spade a spade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #170 July 23, 2009 I disagree, read my earlier post(s) - stop trying to deliver INSURANCE. the discussion should be how to deliver HEALTH CARE. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #171 July 23, 2009 QuoteMedicare is working pretty well. NO it's not, It's going broke as obama care will. I have a friend in Tornato who had to wait months for a mri and over a year for knee surgery. In the USA wait would be less than a week for a mri and maybe two for surgery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #172 July 23, 2009 QuoteI disagree, read my earlier post(s) - stop trying to deliver INSURANCE. the discussion should be how to deliver HEALTH CARE. The discussion should be about FREEDOM!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 0 #173 July 23, 2009 I was listening to a woman give her story about her sister and how she got knocked up at an early age. When she went to the doctor and she was told she could be seen in 10-11 months? This is a Canadian woman and her first hand experience. I have no reason to not believe her story but it is because of this and other stories that really makes me think ... it ain't that grand up north. Health insurance is not a right... I don't get when people started thinking it is? This is the same kind of thought process that has gotten us in trouble in the past. *I know Mr. Smith that you cannot afford to own a home but gosh darn it you deserve to anyway.* come on????? Better yet the choice is taken away from citizens along with there money through taxes. I will never get how this makes sense to anyone..... A persone who is sick has to be treated.... its Federal Law...... so then you owe money..... it sucks but would you rather be dead? Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #174 July 23, 2009 tk, did you have any thoughts on CanuckinUSA's experience? Specifically, how to avoid that sort of thing?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #175 July 23, 2009 Quotewe're not going to get dissenting fiscal conservatives like Libertarians in office who are opposed to deficit spending. Recall that John McCain (the latest Republican standard bearer) had voted against tax cuts because they were not balanced by spending cuts, and he was opposed to the increase in deficit spending. While I'm not necessarily a huge fan of FPP voting, I think PR has it's own problems. I'll make another post with those thoughts, though.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
