Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
cargolex
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:52 am

Quote:
Should be done away with

You realize what that would mean for many seniors and poor people, and why these programs were enacted in the first place, right? Are you personally prepared to say "let's write these people off, it doesn't matter if they die?" Are you prepared to live in a society where those without means are left to die due to preventable illnesses because you don't want to pay taxes? Because that is what you are saying here.

The constitution is not a "dead" document.

Quote:
Why would someone in Maine pay taxes for Kansas services?

You realize how much money states get from the federal government, right? If you left everything up to the states, some states, specifically Alaska, would be incapable of functioning. Taxpayers in states like New York subsidize life in Alaska for which they see no return. That is part of being an American and doing your duty as a citizen.

You know what I call not wanting to pay your taxes because you don't get anything personal out of it? Greed.

[Edited 2011-02-16 16:57:25]
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:42 am

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 197):
Quote:
It's not the responsibility of one group of Americans to pay for the health care of another group.

The whole point of insurance is lowering the cost by raising the volume. If more people pay premiums, then the cost of treating individual patients is spread among more people. The healthier people subsidize the care of the sicker people. That's not the future of Healthcare insurance under the new ACA, that's how it is now. It's all about pooling the risk.

For that to work, everyone needs to be paying the premiums.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 197):
Right now we have some of the lowest tax rates for the rich in the post-ww2 period. They were only lower for a short time in the late eighties/early nineties (a time when, not coincidentally, our debt grew by leaps and bounds). Seriously. During Reagan's first term, the tax rates for the wealthiest Americans were almost 150% higher than they are now (and that's after Reagan's tax cut), and during the Eisenhower administration, they were almost 275% higher. Under Richard Nixon, double what they are now.

Rates were higher, but tax revenues were no higher, I presume in part due to tax breaks. Look it up - Whether with high tax rates or low tax rates, the total tax load has never been above 20% for any length of time. It proves the Laffer curve right - raise tax rates and government revenue does NOT rise with it. You just chase money overseas or under mattresses.

Edit: A few quotes from a Liberal who made sense:

John F. Kennedy: “This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I am not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.”

John F. Kennedy: “When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are higher. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.”

[Edited 2011-02-16 17:56:54]
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:15 am

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 200):
You realize what that would mean for many seniors and poor people, and why these programs were enacted in the first place, right? Are you personally prepared to say "let's write these people off, it doesn't matter if they die?"

No, you might have missed earlier where I said that the contributions created an obligation, but we needed to find a way to phase it out, probably though a phased reduction of both contributions and benefits, based on age.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 200):
You know what I call not wanting to pay your taxes because you don't get anything personal out of it? Greed.

I pay all that is required of me by March 1st. Every year. What I don't want is for that money to be wasted. You know what I call allowing tax dollars to be wasted without objecting? Stupid.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 200):
You realize how much money states get from the federal government, right?

Yes, some get more than others. Some states also spend more than others in unfunded federal mandates. Of course one way to reduce the federal money going into the states is to reduce federal involvement at the state level.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 200):
you left everything up to the states, some states, specifically Alaska, would be incapable of functioning. Taxpayers in states like New York subsidize life in Alaska for which they see no return. That is part of being an American and doing your duty as a citizen.

Not sure what your beef is with Alaska, but yes, it does get quite a bit of federal money. There are probably some areas that could be cut? Which areas do you propose?

As to my "duty as a citizen", it may make you feel good to use that phrase, but it has no basis in reality. My duty to those around me extends no further than my conscious dictates. In paying my taxes and complying with laws, I have satisfied any "duty". That sort of misplaced sentiment is merely an attempt to justify an overreach of power, to compel me to do what you think I should, and usually at someone else's expense.
 
cargolex
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:45 am

Quote:
For that to work, everyone needs to be paying the premiums.

Which is why our current system cannot work forever, because as more people withdraw from the system because of the high premiums, the premiums continue to get higher. I too find the individual mandate objectionable - but one thing it will do is ensure that costs are brought down by righting the ship on this particular issue.

Quote:
Rates were higher, but tax revenues were no higher, I presume in part due to tax breaks. Look it up - Whether with high tax rates or low tax rates, the total tax load has never been above 20% for any length of time. It proves the Laffer curve right - raise tax rates and government revenue does NOT rise with it. You just chase money overseas or under mattresses.

There were fewer loopholes, deductions, and ways to offshore in the 1950's, when the marginal tax rate on the highest income levels was over 90%. Second, revenue absolutely does rise - tax increases helped balance the budget in the 90's and left the Bush administration with a surplus. We spent that money on the Bush tax cuts, that money and far more. It's gone now and there's no choice left but to raise revenue.

But rather than raising revenue outright, I'd propose simply eliminating alot of tax loopholes and deductions. A simplified tax code would be far more effective and far more fair than simply hiking taxes but leaving the structure in place.

Quote:
No, you might have missed earlier where I said that the contributions created an obligation, but we needed to find a way to phase it out, probably though a phased reduction of both contributions and benefits, based on age.

You said "they should be eliminated" with reference to these two programs.

But alright, say we fulfill the obligation to those who have paid into the system and sunset the system that way. Alright, fine.

But what do you do then with the elderly and impoverish who come after that? Again, the question I'm asking here is: "Does the greatest democracy and the largest and most prosperous nation in the world leave it's elderly and impoverished to die because some people don't want to pay taxes?"

Quote:
What I don't want is for that money to be wasted. You know what I call allowing tax dollars to be wasted without objecting?

Do you believe that caring for impoverished elderly people in our society is a waste of money? Because that is the implication. I'm happy to be wrong.

Quote:

Yes, some get more than others. Some states also spend more than others in unfunded federal mandates. Of course one way to reduce the federal money going into the states is to reduce federal involvement at the state level.

Except that you couldn't. Without that federal money, state taxes would have to skyrocket, because states could not pay for the services they offer. And here is where the rubber meets the road. Less federal spending and aid will equate to higher local taxes or a vast reduction in services, and you simply cannot cut everything unless you'd like to go back to some agrarian society without things like public schools and trash collection.

I live in a state now without an income tax, but would pay one if we had it, and don't object to the very high sales tax and other fees in this state. Previously, I lived in a state with some of the highest levels of taxation in the nation - always paid, never objected. But without federal dollars for local things like, say, a nuclear waste cleanup, the state would go bankrupt. The state is almost bankrupt now and still receives federal assistance.

Quote:
Not sure what your beef is with Alaska, but yes, it does get quite a bit of federal money.

I have no beef with Alaska, which is a good neighbor and a great state. But you said that it was not okay for some Americans to have to subsidize other Americans, but that already happens - and that's my point. Your tax dollars do not necessarily go to you and things that directly pertain to you, but which are still important.

The campaign of Joe Miller in Alaska really worried me - because he would have done away with many of Alaska's subsidies. Good for non-Alaskan taxpayers, but bad for Alaskans themselves and bad for Alaska's production of things like fish and oil - things which other economies depend on. That knock-on effect, and the fact that he wanted to eliminate unemployment insurance in Alaska which might have sent a WAVE of unemployed Alaskans to Washington state, worried me a great deal. He had the right impulse with regards to cutting spending, but the wrong tactics. It surprised and concerned me that he nearly won that election.

Quote:
but it has no basis in reality

Of course it does. Taxes pay for the structure of society - the structure that allows you and I to go out and work and earn. Now, that's a very macro view of things - there are certainly ways to reduce taxes and reduce spending and not all taxes and programs are created equal or necessarily good or bad in and of themselves. But paying taxes is like purchasing a movie ticket. The movie is the business of our lives, the ticket is the taxes we pay to be in the theater.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:19 am

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 195):
Taxing the rich at downright wrong percentages to pay for health care for those who can't afford it is borderline unconstitutional.

Well, JFK brought the top rate DOWN to 75% and then Reagan brought the Top Rates DOWN to 50%.

So I guess the downright wrong percentages should be moved back to Reagan's Years?

Quoting flymia (Reply 196):
I know my father pays for insurance since he owns his own busisness but that is good healthcare right there.

And what happens when you are out on your own and your insurance moves up to the 5 didgit level?

At least Obama has protected you until you're 26.  
Quoting flymia (Reply 196):
I got to see a specialist doctor today with about 10 minutes notice.

And my wife gets to see a specialist in late March, even if she was in the hospital last weekend.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 197):
If more people pay premiums, then the cost of treating individual patients is spread among more people. The healthier people subsidize the care of the sicker people.

But today the cost of treatment is being spread among FEWER people. And the employers are getting tired of paying ever growing costs of nanny care benefits. The system is falling apart and we've been too dumb to do anything about it - until Obama's election.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 198):
Then why do we pay higher premiums and suffer inflated ER and imaging costs to cover the under and uninsured?

That's our hidden socialized medicine tax that we pay (with plump insurance profits added on).

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 199):
I pay for the one in the state I pay taxes to.

But it doesn't have the full FDA functions that the Federal Government provides. That gets pretty expensive at the state level, unless of course your state decides to use high school graduates instead of scientists and doctors to work in your desired state level FDA.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 199):
There is no data to suggest that.

Try common sense, unless you support the high school graduates approach.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 199):
Should be done away with

The "Let Them Die Faster" approach again.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 199):
Covered by terms of employment.

Veterans? LMAO! How long before the conservatives push to cut benefits so they can increase tax cuts for the top tier?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 199):
Should be handled not higher than the state level.

Turning it over to the God Old Boys is the best way to ensure the poor to average get screwed. Let 'em die faster yet again.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 199):
It would be in the states interest to have a reasonable approval process.
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 199):
Please let me know when you find the part that obligates the federal government to provide heathcare to all. Funny how you want to define this as a moral issue the government should force, but other moral issues are off limits. How about you skip the moral argument and stick to enumerated powers?
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 199):
Except that the federal government lacks the authority.

The "Let Them Die Faster" approach again.

We'll see how the Supreme Court responds. Especially if Thomas mans up, acknowledges the pile of money his wife has hauled in and recuses himself. Personally I don't consider him that honorable, leaving us to have a Senate hearing after his refusal to recuse.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 199):
Funny how you want to define this as a moral issue the government should force, but other moral issues are off limits.

The "Let Them Die Faster" approach again.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 201):
%u201CThis administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I am not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The federal government%u2019s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.%u201D

So we are talking about moving the tax rate to 75%. If it worked then why wouldn't 39% work today.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 201):
%u201CWhen consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are higher. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.%u201D

But JFK's government wasn't trying to play the Guns & Butter & Cake games like Bush & Cheney did.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 202):
No, you might have missed earlier where I said that the contributions created an obligation, but we needed to find a way to phase it out, probably though a phased reduction of both contributions and benefits, based on age.

Or man up and do like was done during my working years - modify the contribution levels to what is needed to maintain the commitment. the option, of course, is to let the Financial Sector have your money.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 203):
but one thing it will do is ensure that costs are brought down by righting the ship on this particular issue.

That really needs core care at a universal level in order to really cut costs. Otherwise be prepared to pay the ever increasing hidden socialized medicine tax.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 203):
But what do you do then with the elderly and impoverish who come after that? Again, the question I'm asking here is: "Does the greatest democracy and the largest and most prosperous nation in the world leave it's elderly and impoverished to die because some people don't want to pay taxes?"

The conservatives might actually get their way on this - until the public experiences the results. When we have another failure like Bush/Cheney under Bush III (whoever that is) the shift will go farther to the left.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 203):
Do you believe that caring for impoverished elderly people in our society is a waste of money? Because that is the implication. I'm happy to be wrong.

I don't think you are.

Sounds like the "Let Them Die Faster" approach again.
 
AustinAllison
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:30 pm

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:26 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 204):
Well, JFK brought the top rate DOWN to 75% and then Reagan brought the Top Rates DOWN to 50%.

So I guess the downright wrong percentages should be moved back to Reagan's Years?

I'm not debating the numbers, I'm debating the principle. Everyone should have the same tax rate. Keep it simple.
 
flymia
Posts: 7137
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:44 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 204):
And what happens when you are out on your own and your insurance moves up to the 5 didgit level?

At least Obama has protected you until you're 26

I plan on having a job by 26 BUT I do agree with covering kids until 26 this is something I do not think republicans would argue against either.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:51 am

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 203):
"Does the greatest democracy and the largest and most prosperous nation in the world leave it's elderly and impoverished to die because some people don't want to pay taxes?"

If it want's to remain the largest and most prosperous nation, it realizes that the government cannot be all things to all people. If you really want to make health care more affordable for the poor and the elderly, lets examine why health care pricing has gotten so convoluted, that, even with calls to the business office, I cannot get a single cash price for a relatively simple procedure. I keep getting the answer, "well, it depends...". Our payment methods have so distorted the market that it is almost impossible to determine what a fair market value is, or what sort of deal one is getting at any given time. Long story short, the consumer is almost completely cut off from the pricing aspect of care, and really has little incentive to care about prices until it is too late. When routine care becomes a cash and carry commodity, and insurance returns to its original intent; covering catastrophic events, we will start to have a better idea of who the truly needy are, what is covered by charity, and who is still falling through the cracks.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 203):
because states could not pay for the services they offer.

That is the situation all levels of government are finding themselves in, especially the ones that can't print more money. If you can't afford everything, some things will have to go. It will be painful. Balancing a budget usually is. Since we have avoided doing until now, we are into the more pain portion of the "some pain now, or more pain later" scenerio.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 204):
Or man up and do like was done during my working years - modify the contribution levels to what is needed to maintain the commitment.

Manning up means forcing others to give more of their money? Wow, what a tremendous amount of courage that must take. How about admitting that current levels of spending are unsustainable and making tough choices as to what to keep and what to save.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:02 pm

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 205):
Everyone should have the same tax rate. Keep it simple.

Those in the top tier will not want to see that as it takes away all of the loopholes which are far more valuable that their tac cut on final income.

Quoting flymia (Reply 206):
this is something I do not think republicans would argue against either.

The Republicans will be for what the health insurance companies are for and the Republicans will be against what the health insurance companies are against. Coverage to age 26 doesn't benefit the health insurance companies.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 207):
When routine care becomes a cash and carry commodity, and insurance returns to its original intent; covering catastrophic events, we will start to have a better idea of who the truly needy are, what is covered by charity, and who is still falling through the cracks.

So first we start taxing employer nanny care so employees start getting a real understanding of the costs of health care. That will put pressure on lowering the costs and moving back to a cash business.

Then we are going to discover that more and more people cannot afford core care, which will finally move that into a single payer system.

That will be the real point of cutting total costs.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 207):
If you really want to make health care more affordable for the poor and the elderly, lets examine why health care pricing has gotten so convoluted, that, even with calls to the business office, I cannot get a single cash price for a relatively simple procedure.

If you are paying with cash you can get a price. Otherwise it's calculated under an insurance contract (if the Dr. takes your insurance).

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 207):
Wow, what a tremendous amount of courage that must take.

You missed the part where I mentioned that was what my generation did.

Your turn. It's definitely not the time to wimp out.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 207):
How about admitting that current levels of spending are unsustainable and making tough choices as to what to keep and what to save.

How about admitting that your generation needs to man up like we did?

We have the money to pay for current levels of benefits - we set aside that money.

And you are enjoying the benefits of the long term programs our money made possible when the Treasury BORROWED that money. It's definitely your generations turn to stop acting so spoiled and start taking care of your years of Social Security and Medicare.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:20 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 208):
Then we are going to discover that more and more people cannot afford core care,

If we could get an average, per person, per year cost of what that core care actually cost, then we would have an idea of who can, or cannot afford it. Until real world market forces are brought to bear, we will have no idea what that number is.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 208):
You missed the part where I mentioned that was what my generation did.

Not everything "your" generation did was great. Like most, there was some good, some bad, so calm down.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 208):
We have the money to pay for current levels of benefits - we set aside that money.

Go back and quote where I even suggested cutting off current recipients who have contributed. You won't find it. Again, calm down.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 208):
How about admitting that your generation needs to man up like we did?

Maybe we have different definitions of what that means, but to me, it means realizing that we cannot keep suckling the government teat. Going forward, the current generation and beyond are going to have to prioritize what to keep and what to let go. You can't have it all at government expense. If that means retiring later, or not at all, so be it, I am prepared for that. If that means no social security for me, I am working on preparing for that. Now you may not care since you will probably be long planted by the time that rolls around for me, but it would be stupid for people my age and younger to ignore the problem and assume the status quo is sustainable.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 208):
And you are enjoying the benefits of the long term programs our money made possible when the Treasury BORROWED that money. It's definitely your generations turn to stop acting so spoiled and start taking care of your years of Social Security and Medicare.

You do realize the first time money was borrowed from Social Security was to cover benefits for WW2 vets, right? Later borrowing under Nixon started years before I was born. Which generation was in power then?
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:19 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 209):
Not everything "your" generation did was great. Like most, there was some good, some bad, so calm down.

We did have problems from time to time, but we didn't wimp out on Social Security and Medicare. We accepted increases that were necessary to take care of earlier generations and be there for us.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 209):
it means realizing that we cannot keep suckling the government teat.

That's not the issue. Earned commitments based on taxes paid is far from "sucking on a teat".

What is happening now is the effort to move retirement funds to only the financial sector, and hoping that the public will not be worrying about AIG type rip-offs.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 209):
but it would be stupid for people my age and younger to ignore the problem and assume the status quo is sustainable.

It's stupid for your generation not to fight to get the adjustments your generation will need to take place NOW in order for you to be taken care of later.

The only people who will really benefit from the shut down of SS in the future will be those in the financial & insurance sectors who will make big money off of your future, with little regards to delivering for you later.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 209):
Which generation was in power then?

My fathers, and I had no problems with the increases in FICA taxes in order to deliver his benefits, and to ensure mine were there when I hit retirement.

Nor did I have any concerns with the Treasury borrowing the annual surplus funds to finance some long term programs. The post WW II GI Bill was one of the best long term investments we have ever made. The Republicans in power in the 50s used the payoffs from that investment to fund other programs, like the Interstate System.

And the country have benefit a lot from the loans from the SS Trust. Anyone who took a "road trip" back in the 50s have no difficulty in seeing the benefits to our national infrastructure. Your generation has a long way to go to meet the standards that have come before.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:52 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 210):
but we didn't wimp out on Social Security and Medicare.

You had it easier in that respect. People didn't live as long, and consequently withdrew less. Medicine was less complicated, with fewer life prolonging procedures. The incidence of people drawing benefits for 30+ years simply wasn't as high. If you look at the ratio of those contributing to those withdrawing, you will see that the trend is problematic. It has gone from 18:1 in 1950 to approximately 3:1 today. To see that is simply not sustainable does not require great genius.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 210):
It's stupid for your generation not to fight to get the adjustments your generation will need to take place NOW in order for you to be taken care of later.

I don't want to be taken care of. I want to be left to my own devices and take care of myself. The adjustments I want are the ones that will enable me to do this.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 210):
My fathers, and I had no problems with the increases in FICA taxes in order to deliver his benefits, and to ensure mine were there when I hit retirement.

So you got yours, great. Enjoy it. Doesn't mean the same scheme will work in the future, so excuse us while we look at other options.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 210):
And the country have benefit a lot from the loans from the SS Trust. Anyone who took a "road trip" back in the 50s have no difficulty in seeing the benefits to our national infrastructure.

Except that no one ever stop to think that we might want this money to meet increasing costs. And what are we left with? A crumbling infrastucture and bankrupting social programs.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 210):
Your generation has a long way to go to meet the standards that have come before.

If we can dig ourselves out from under the mess we are in, I will go to my grave happy. If we can see our way to a system that isn't an increasing burden on future generations, I will be satisfied.
[
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:44 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 211):
You had it easier in that respect. People didn't live as long, and consequently withdrew less. Medicine was less complicated, with fewer life prolonging procedures. The incidence of people drawing benefits for 30+ years simply wasn't as high. If you look at the ratio of those contributing to those withdrawing, you will see that the trend is problematic. It has gone from 18:1 in 1950 to approximately 3:1 today.

And we put enough money into the Fund to last us a long time, and to give your generation a start.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 211):
I don't want to be taken care of.

It's easy to say that - as long as you don't get hit with the unexpected. I had a good friend with a great job, until his car got clipped on a business trip, his car flipped and he became a quad. A negotiated settlement with his employer and now living in PR as that is what he can afford.

But, hey, you're safe.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 211):
I want to be left to my own devices and take care of myself.

You could probably do that as a pare, but not a quad.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 211):
Except that no one ever stop to think that we might want this money to meet increasing costs.

It's still there. As long as the US Treasury maintains the full faith and confidence in our debts, and the politicians doesn't screw that up, you will be having funds for a long time.

We will need to adjust the cap,, but we are going to need to look at raising various taxes (including income taxes) as well as cut some budget items if we are going to really address the debt.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 211):
A crumbling infrastucture and bankrupting social programs.

And an unaffordable extension of the unaffordable Bush Tax Cuts. They helped bring about the Great Recession and they will help bring the next one faster.

We pay taxes to maintain the infrastructure. Everything from taxes on airlines tickets to Reagan's special 5¢ a gallon tax to INCREASE interstate maintenance.

If that's not enough then increase revenues. Or boost tolls. Or actually start charging tolls on roads that were borrowed Social Security Trust funds.

Learn how to maintain the full faith & confidence in the US.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:11 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 212):
and to give your generation a start.

That time is just about up, and we currently have no workable plan for how to continue

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 212):
As long as the US Treasury maintains the full faith and confidence in our debts, and the politicians doesn't screw that up,

You mean as long as China keeps buying our debt and we keep running the printing presses flat out? Won't work indefinitely.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 212):
They helped bring about the Great Recession and they will help bring the next one faster.

No, its roots go far further back than that. If you really want to get to the origins, you have to go back to 1938, when Fannie Mae was established. The next significant date was 1970, when it started purchasing private mortgages. 1971 was when the first mortgage backed security was issued. Fast forward to 1992 and 1997, when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were told to "facilitate affordable housing". I also think a change in executive compensation tax rules in 1993 had a significant impact on the way upper level executives were paid, and consequently changed their motivations in their duties, including those in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Bush tax rates by themselves, were not a problem. If we had not had the Bush spending increase, combined with the Bush tax rates, we probably would have been ok. Once again, government cannot do all things. It can either cut taxes to put more money back in peoples hands, or it can spend it, it can't do both. Making those tough choices is part of manning up.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 212):
that's not enough then increase revenues. Or boost tolls.

Long term, ratcheting up taxes will have a depressive economic activity, and ultimately decrease revenues. It gets to be a vicious spiral.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 212):
Learn how to maintain the full faith & confidence in the US.

Earning back the faith and confidence of the citizenry would be a good place to start.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 212):
But, hey, you're safe.

Not really. I go many places that feature prominently on CNN on a regular basis. But I do have the a fairly high degree of hope that if the end comes soon, it will probably be quick. Just in case, I will keep up those long-term disability insurance payments.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:05 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 213):
we currently have no workable plan for how to continue

Right now you have well financed conservatives working hard to get you to believe that. Unless you fight for it you won't have anything but risk in private companies. Just hope that they aren't the AIG types down the road.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 213):
you have to go back to 1938,

1938?         

How many millions of families bought and paid for their homes over the decades?

Before the real estate, insurance and financial sector started playing games.

Liar loans is at the top of the list of our problems - but how many of the crooks playing the games have gone to prison?

As for "government support of home purchases", we bought ours on the GI Bill in the early 70s. At that time there were "235 Homes" in the neighborhood (which was a new sub-division) and we did not have the mortgage problems that are around today. But we didn't have the liar loans, or the crooks running them. Fraud in those days would get you in prison.

The difference between now and then is the ethics in the companies playing the games. The failure to send some of the crooks to prison is the reason why the problem can hit us full force again.

And the good, decent people who are suffering with declining values of their homes are the ones paying the price.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 213):
The Bush tax rates by themselves, were not a problem.

They were then with his spending. But he sure took care of his rich friends. How much better off would we, as a nation, be today if we had not had those tax cuts?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 213):
If we had not had the Bush spending increase, combined with the Bush tax rates, we probably would have been ok.

And if we had not had the Ego War in Iraq we would not have the $3+ Trillion long term costs if that totally unnecessary war.

Maybe the Tea Party should look at just the current annual costs of the mess Bush & Cheney started when they start looking at cutting costs. I sure won't be seeing the Republicans manning up to those costs.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 213):
Once again, government cannot do all things.

But the government used to be able to work with ethical businesses to achieve a lot, be it VA Home Loans, or 235 homes, or any other program.

We could have been achieving a lot these days if we had had stronger regulations and oversight during the Bush/Cheney years.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 213):
It can either cut taxes to put more money back in peoples hands, or it can spend it, it can't do both.

We are spending Trillions on the Bush tax cuts that we really can't afford. A real case of dumping on the kids, grandkids and great grandkids. Sure, we need to cut spending and the JFS unnecessary engine is one start, just like cutting $35 Billion with stopping the tanker acquisition.

But it is folly to believe that we can just cut spending to get out of the mess we have.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 213):
Making those tough choices is part of manning up.

And raising taxes is going to be part of the tough choices.

Republicans used to be able to hanle tough choices like that.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:05 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 214):
1938

Yes. Do you really think, huge, complicated economic events hinge on a single event like a tax rate adjustment?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 214):
How many millions of families bought and paid for their homes over the decades?

Doesn't matter, choices we make in one crisis, usually help define the next one. The fact is, without Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the mortgage market would not have followed the same course.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 214):
and we did not have the mortgage problems that are around today.

We had started down that road, we just didn't recognize yet where it would lead.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 214):
But the government used to be able to work with ethical businesses to achieve a lot

But that time has passed, for a variety of reasons. It is foolish to stick our heads in the sand and think otherwise.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 214):
We are spending Trillions on the Bush tax cuts that we really can't afford.

It is an impossibility to "spend" on tax cuts. Not taking in money is not the same as spending it. As I said before, in the choice to maintain tax levels or cut spending, I vote to cut spending.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 214):
And raising taxes is going to be part of the tough choices.
Republicans used to be able to hanle tough choices like that.

Yes, they have been disappointing in the last decade or so. That is why you won't find me defending many of them recently. At least your beloved democrats are paragons of virtue and courage, right?
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:13 pm

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 161):
Now you're arguing (and agreeing with me) that rationing will occur

The only people who have unlimited free health care in this country are Medicare beneficiaries. I certainly do NOT have it.

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 161):
there's a world of difference when the private sector in a private transaction determines what will and won't be paid for and when the government does it.

There is? What exactly is the difference...

Anyway, insurance markets are pretty technical. The "free market insurance" idea is nothing but a fairy tale from talk radio. It doesn't exist... try to buy a family's insurance policy. You'll pay the rates of terminally ill people.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 208):
We have the money to pay for current levels of benefits - we set aside that money.

For social security, yes. For Medicare, no. Medicare is now a corporate scam. Nobody paid for it. It is companies with an infinite revenue source and a power of taxation. Without "rationing" and budgeting, Medicare is a neutron bomb for the country. There is no way to pay for it.

It's not about medical care. We can easily pay for that. It's about Medicare, a system no country has or could afford. France is far too poor to pay for Medicare as it is now. Their system is cheaper. Anyway, it is important to know that nobody has paid for Medicare as it is today.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:13 pm

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 215):
Do you really think, huge, complicated economic events hinge on a single event like a tax rate adjustment?

I believe that the games played in terms of turning homes faster and faster for the benefit of those profiting from the process is why we had our housing crisis.

Remember the term "Liar Loans"? Lots of money made in Real Estate, Insurance, Mortgage Processing and Selling.

We had a time when a dead man could probably have purchased a house and a right wing administration who chose not to provide oversight on any of the industries.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 215):
The fact is, without Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the mortgage market would not have followed the same course.

Actually, the mortgage crisis was caused by those in the industry focusing on turn instead of responsible/legal business practices. Liar loans was just the tip of the iceberg and the focus of the profits made sure that no one wanted oversight.

With ethical, responsible business practices the companies would not have made as much money, but we would not have the crisis we not have.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 215):
We had started down that road, we just didn't recognize yet where it would lead.

Providing home loans that actually get paid off only leads to increased financial securing of the country over the long term.

Allowing the crooks who benefitted from liar loans destroys economic stability. It's really that simple. Don't toss it only on the Government.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 215):
But that time has passed, for a variety of reasons.

That assumes we ,will not be able to have responsible businesses in real estate related industries. What has the right wing politicians got planned (besides repealing reform laws) that will make responsible business impossible?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 215):
Not taking in money is not the same as spending it.

In terms of the Deficit it sure is.

Just watch and see what happens if the Republicans get their way on cutting jobs in the public sector.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 215):
I vote to cut spending.

You probably did under Bush. Look where that got the country.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 215):
Yes, they have been disappointing in the last decade or so.

"Disappointing"? That's not the half of it.

It used to be that Republicans were the "Professional Managers" Party - not very good at protecting the individual, but they were competent in managing the economy in general, and worked with Democrats on a reasonable, friendly level for other important issues.

Today we see the remains of the Republican Disaster from the Bush/Cheney Years. The Panty Sniffing Years during the Clinton Administration was bad enough, but the tax cuts that we know were not affordable and the unnecessary war pretty well prostituted Republican reputations in my opinion. Then toss in failures of oversight in regulation of the financial sector, leading to the crash.

And it's still the same. Look at Wisconsin.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 215):
At least your beloved democrats are paragons of virtue and courage, right?
Quoting Flighty (Reply 216):
The only people who have unlimited free health care in this country are Medicare beneficiaries.

Wrong again.

Medicaid, maybe, but we continue to pay for our Medicare in retirement.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 216):
For Medicare, no.

Actually we did pay during our working years to have the program operational - an investment I consider well made - and we pay each month to receive the benefits. The Medicare deduction has increased, even in years when the SS payments have been frozen. We also make monthly payments to a private company in order to have any gap costs covered.

That means that we can have health care without additional costs (excluding prescriptions which we pay more for) and that provides the safety net that is important to most retired individuals in this county.
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Universal Health Care In The US. Why Not?

Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:07 pm

''

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 217):
That assumes we ,will not be able to have responsible businesses in real estate related industries.

In order to have responsible, ethical business, you must have responsible, ethical, business leaders. That is not what we tend to produce anymore. Responsibility has almost become a punch line, and ethics are no where to be found. The only time you hear them used is by a politician pushing a bill to either punish something, or that can't be justified any other way. Every other time its "don't force your values on me". Going forward it will only be safe to assume that others do not share your own ethical standards, and therefore should not be trusted to abide by them, in business as will as personally.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 217):
You probably did under Bush. Look where that got the country.

I may have wanted spending cuts, instead I got massive increases. Even you have admitted this. Hence some of my disappointment. One could make an analogy to being drunk with spending.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 217):
Look at Wisconsin.

Ah yes. Where the "I don't like your mean bill so I will take my ball and go home party" has managed to shut down schools and students are marching in Madison without knowing what they are protesting. That will certainly help balance the budget. I almost hope we see that sort of response to repealing the health care bill.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, CaptHadley, FGITD, scottyraven, TheF15Ace and 61 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos