If you don't understand taxes, shut the fuck up.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I am sick to death of people saying, "my small business revenues are over $250,000! Obama is going to drive me out of business!"

You're a fucking idiot. You get taxed on your profit, not your revenue. If you made a profit of $8,000 last year, guess what? Tax cut for you!

[Euphonious Polemic]

Word.

And also to add...

Any tax increase would only apply to that portion of your PROFIT that is ABOVE $250,000. In other words, if the top tax rate increases from 36% to 39%, and you currently make $300,000, you will only pay the additional 3% in taxes on $50,000.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I am sick to death of people saying, "my small business revenues are over $250,000! Obama is going to drive me out of business!"

You're a fucking idiot. You get taxed on your profit, not your revenue. If you made a profit of $8,000 last year, guess what? Tax cut for you!
I need to clarify this- in some circumstances, small businesses do get taxed on their revenues. If this applies to you, your accountant is a fucking idiot.

[born too late]

I just heard that Joe the Plumber doesn't have a license to plumb and that he owes $1,800 in back taxes. And apparently ABC news has him admitting that he wouldn't be making over $250,000, which would make him eligible for Obama's tax cut.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp

[Tannim]

Ok, I might be slow here but I am trying to understand somthing about taxes.
We are told that under Obama if you make under 250k you will get a tax break and over 250k you will pay more in taxes.

Wouldn't that mean to make that work out you would have to do something like lower the tax rate for every dollar made under some amount less that 250k and higher above that amount so that at 250k it comes out (about) that you are paying the same as before?

Eg. under 200k the tax rate goes down, over200k the tax rate goes up. by 250k the higher tax rate has made up for the savings you got for the tax rate under 200k?

or am I just completly lost in how the tax tiers go?

Thanks

[Really Not All That Bright]

Ok, I might be slow here but I am trying to understand somthing about taxes.
We are told that under Obama if you make under 250k you will get a tax break and over 250k you will pay more in taxes.

Wouldn't that mean to make that work out you would have to do something like lower the tax rate for every dollar made under some amount less that 250k and higher above that amount so that at 250k it comes out (about) that you are paying the same as before?

Eg. under 200k the tax rate goes down, over200k the tax rate goes up. by 250k the higher tax rate has made up for the savings you got for the tax rate under 200k?

or am I just completly lost in how the tax tiers go?

Thanks
Not exactly. See here: http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

It's not technically true that everyone under $250,000 gets a reduction.

[suranyi]

The other thing that annoys me is that (it seems to me) the same people saying "Obama says that 95% of people will have less taxes under his system, but lots of people pay NO taxes, so how will they pay less?" are the same people who say "what does a REFUNDABLE tax credit mean?"

If they would know the answer to their second question, it would answer their first.

Ed

[JonScribe]

But, but, but John McCain spent five years as a POW.

[Weirddave]

It amazes me that ANYONE is stupid enough to buy the "Only 5% of people will pay more taxes bullshit" in this first place. It's a bald faced lie. It's flatly impossible. The important thing about the Joe the Plumber video is that Obama was responding in a non planned, non canned arena, and he accidentally answered the question honestly:

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"

No Mr. Obama, it's not, but thank you for revealing your true thoughts, it's nice to have what many of us have been saying finally out in the open. Be honest about it, and let the people decide. Stop trying to (trying? Hell, he's done it) buy the election with pie in the sky promises that are impossible to keep.


When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

[Mtgman]

"Tax cuts are for those who pay taxes! The poor making under 10K a year don't pay taxes." Bullshit. They pay 7 and a half percent in payroll taxes, their employers match that. They pay some percentage on most of what they spend in virtually every state in the union in sales taxes. They pay property taxes, they pay state income taxes, they pay gasoline exise taxes, they pay taxes on cigarettes, they pay taxes on damn near everything. Don't tell me that just because some asshole comes along and prints out a graph of the federal income tax revenues broken down by income quintiles, and shows that the bottom quintile doesn't pay Federal Income Taxes, that "poor people don't pay taxes". The working poor in this country have a tax burden, and it's harder on them because the flat taxes(like payroll, gas, and sales) which they all pay, are not progressive. While it's possible to live on 67% take home (33% total tax burden) of a 100,000 gross salary in most parts of the country it is a damn sight harder to live on 77% take home (23% total tax burden) of a 20,000 gross salary.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Mtgman]

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"

No Mr. Obama, it's not, but thank you for revealing your true thoughts, it's nice to have what many of us have been saying finally out in the open. Be honest about it, and let the people decide. Stop trying to (trying? Hell, he's done it) buy the election with pie in the sky promises that are impossible to keep.I think it's better when the wealth is spread around. I don't agree that the government is a good way to do the spreading. IIRC even most conservatives agree all boats should be lifted, they just think the free market is the tide they should be lifted with versus governmental redistribution.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Really Not All That Bright]

It amazes me that ANYONE is stupid enough to buy the "Only 5% of people will pay more taxes bullshit" in this first place. It's a bald faced lie. It's flatly impossible.
Sure. Absolutely impossible to raise taxes on 5% of the population. Can't be done. Silly idea.

It appears that you missed the clear instructions given in the thread title.

[Euphonious Polemic]

It amazes me that ANYONE is stupid enough to buy the "Only 5% of people will pay more taxes bullshit" in this first place. It's a bald faced lie. It's flatly impossible. .

How is it flatly impossible that there could be a plan that involves only 5% of the upper income earners paying more in tax? Are you balancing this out with Obama's promises that will have to be paid for?

Isn't McCain's plan that Nobody will pay more in taxes? How is this plan possible then? Is McCain not making promises that must be paid for? Will it not cost something to keep many troops in Iraq for many more years?

[Ravenman]

I'd be willing to make a bet right now that tax increases under Obama will be limited to high income earners. We could use CBO's annual tax burden analysis as the judge of whether the tax burden goes up or down on Americans earning less than $250k.

Do we have a bet?

[Digital Stimulus]

We are told that under Obama if you make under 250k you will get a tax break and over 250k you will pay more in taxes.Somewhat of a nitpick, but Obama says, "Your taxes will not go up if you make less than 1/4 million dollars." I noticed in the debate, he also said that "If you make less than $200K, you'll get a tax cut." So, according to those figures (if correct), people who earn between $200-250K will not have their tax rate changed.

Consistently and carefully worded, assuming I recall the exact quotes correctly. He'd surely get slammed otherwise.

[kidchameleon]

"Tax cuts are for those who pay taxes! The poor making under 10K a year don't pay taxes." Bullshit. They pay 7 and a half percent in payroll taxes, their employers match that. They pay some percentage on most of what they spend in virtually every state in the union in sales taxes. They pay property taxes, they pay state income taxes, they pay gasoline exise taxes, they pay taxes on cigarettes, they pay taxes on damn near everything.

Obama is going to cut payroll taxes, state income takes, sales taxes, gasoline excise taxes and cigarette taxes? Wow, maybe he'll make all our farts smell like roses, too.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Obama is going to cut payroll taxes, state income takes, sales taxes, gasoline excise taxes and cigarette taxes? Wow, maybe he'll make all our farts smell like roses, too.

...huh?

[Weirddave]

Sure. Absolutely impossible to raise taxes on 5% of the population. Can't be done. Silly idea.

It appears that you missed the clear instructions given in the thread title.

It IS a silly idea. If it wasn't so scary, it'd be downright hysterical. I was amused to note that your rather strident thread title is at odd with your position in the thread, it reminds me of a kook the other day who told me "Learn the facts! Obama's a Muslim!" To which I replied "I know the facts, no, he isn't".

First of all, the Wall Street Journal illustrates the rob Peter to pay Paul scam that Obama is planning with his tax plan here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html). Above and beyond that, however, is that his whole plan doesn't pass the smell test when you puts together the separate parts. He proposes almost $800 billion in new spending, above and beyond the existing deficit budget that we have now. To pay for this, he promises to tax only the top 5%. The top 5% already pay over 50% of the total income taxes collected (cite (http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes)), in round numbers that's just over $500 billion (cite for total income tax revenue of $1.043 trillion (http://www.mises.org/story/2552)). If Obama were to double the income tax on that top 5% (and we'll completely ignore the fact that doing so wouldn't double the tax revenue from those people, a fact that always seems to escape the tax-the-rich crowd), a task that he would find utterly impossible to do politically (Raising the tax rate to in excess of 70% for the 5%? Impossible) he STILL wouldn't have enough revenue to pay for his giveaways. I suppose that if he were to take 100% of the income from those top 5%, it might just be possible to fund what he wants to spend. Barely. The whole "tax plan" is nothing more than election year pandering to buy the election. And it's working. But to claim that only the top 5% will see a tax increase? Right. Pull this leg and it plays Jingle Bells.

[Jack Batty]

My farts already smell like roses.

[Gorsnak]

Obama is going to cut payroll taxes, state income takes, sales taxes, gasoline excise taxes and cigarette taxes? Wow, maybe he'll make all our farts smell like roses, too.

No, he's going to alter total tax burden by offering refundable federal income tax credits that will offset some portion of the burden of other taxes for some portion of the population. Actually I believe this is happening already, just he'll be changing the formula a bit. The idea isn't exactly complicated.

[Euphonious Polemic]

It IS a silly idea. .....his whole plan doesn't pass the smell test when you puts together the separate parts. He proposes almost $800 billion in new spending, above and beyond the existing deficit budget that we have now. To pay for this, he promises to tax only the top 5%. The top 5% already pay over 50% of the total income taxes collected

So when you said "It's a bald faced lie. It's flatly impossible" (to only increase taxes on the top 5% of earners), what you MEANT to add to that was.... "and at the same time fulfill all his spending promises."

Please explain to me then, how does Mr. McCain plan to NOT increase taxes on ANYONE, and at the same time fulfill all his spending promises? Massive budget deficits?

[faithfool]

But as we all know, it's completely believable that Senator McCain won't raise any taxes at all whatsoever....

[Weirddave]

So when you said "It's a bald faced lie. It's flatly impossible" (to only increase taxes on the top 5% of earners), what you MEANT to add to that was.... "and at the same time fulfill all his spending promises."

Please explain to me then, how does Mr. McCain plan to NOT increase taxes on ANYONE, and at the same time fulfill all his spending promises? Massive budget deficits?

Well, here's where I introduce the concept of "lesser of two evils". McCain's new spending proposals are somewhere between $60-90 billion (I've seen various estimates). Still far, far too much, but much better than Obama. In addition, McCain has consistently spoken of his desire to freeze spending across the board and to make significant cuts in spending across the board. That would (hopefully anyway, what do any of us know? George Bush ran on a platform of limited government and minimal foreign involvement and look how that worked out) I'll take the guy who at least seems to recognize that spending is the problem over the guy who thinks more of it is the solution any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Well, here's where I introduce the concept of "lesser of two evils". McCain's new spending proposals are somewhere between $60-90 billion (I've seen various estimates). Still far, far too much, but much better than Obama. In addition, McCain has consistently spoken of his desire to freeze spending across the board and to make significant cuts in spending across the board. That would (hopefully anyway, what do any of us know? George Bush ran on a platform of limited government and minimal foreign involvement and look how that worked out) I'll take the guy who at least seems to recognize that spending is the problem over the guy who thinks more of it is the solution any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

And you believe that?! I don't believe for a minute that any politician would be willing or able to lower our budget overall, considering what the public clamors for and what the politicians want. I'd rather help pay off the debt that we're making then pretend to lower it but in fact raise it.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Well, here's where I introduce the concept of "lesser of two evils". McCain's new spending proposals are somewhere between $60-90 billion (I've seen various estimates). Still far, far too much, but much better than Obama. In addition, McCain has consistently spoken of his desire to freeze spending across the board and to make significant cuts in spending across the board.

I certainly understand where you're coming from, but I applaud your naivete. I think you need to look beyond the promises, and that would include a very close scrutiny of historical precedent. (which you've already done, to your credit.)

I really don't think that Obama will be the high-taxing, high-spending socialist that McCain's team is painting him as. YMMV.

One thing is certain - you're in for more yearly budget deficits and a hugely higher debt no matter who gets into the oval office. I'm glad I'm in Canada, land of 11 straight budget surpluses and a debt clock that is running backwards.

[Ravenman]

It IS a silly idea. If it wasn't so scary, it'd be downright hysterical.
....

But to claim that only the top 5% will see a tax increase? Right. Pull this leg and it plays Jingle Bells.So do we have a bet?

[Captain Carrot]

I'll take the guy who at least seems to recognize that spending is the problem over the guy who thinks more of it is the solution any day of the week and twice on Sundays.No, spending is not the problem, spending is a problem. Taxing is another problem, and frankly I don't understand why many Republicans consider taxes to be the work of the devil. News flash: the government requires money to run the country.

[Rand Rover]

I'd be willing to make a bet right now that tax increases under Obama will be limited to high income earners. We could use CBO's annual tax burden analysis as the judge of whether the tax burden goes up or down on Americans earning less than $250k.

Do we have a bet?

I'd like a piece of that action. Say $100?

I win the bet if the CBO's annual tax burden analysis shows any increase under Obama in the tax burden of any type of individual with an AGI of less than $250k (which number won't adjust for inflation over Obama's term).

[Rand Rover]

I certainly understand where you're coming from, but I applaud your naivete. I think you need to look beyond the promises, and that would include a very close scrutiny of historical precedent. (which you've already done, to your credit.)

I really don't think that Obama will be the high-taxing, high-spending socialist that McCain's team is painting him as. YMMV.

One thing is certain - you're in for more yearly budget deficits and a hugely higher debt no matter who gets into the oval office. I'm glad I'm in Canada, land of 11 straight budget surpluses and a debt clock that is running backwards.

Wow, and you are the one calling someone else (Weirddave, of all people) naive. It is to laugh.

Obama is painting himself as high taxing and high spending. No involvement from McCain's team necessary.

Also, you may want to educate yourself about debt and its uses and abuses. Debt is not automatically and always a bad thing.

[Gorsnak]

Also, you may want to educate yourself about debt and its uses and abuses. Debt is not automatically and always a bad thing.

Of course it isn't. But there comes a point where the cost of maintaining your debt overwhelms your ability to fund actual programs. Canada approached that point, with a national debt around 75% of GDP in the mid-90's. And then the Liberals eliminated the 50 billion/year deficit the Conservatives had been running and started our current string of balanced budgets, and the debt/GDP ratio is now around 30%. This means that instead of paying 35 cents of every tax dollar on interest charges, we're now paying 14 cents on every tax dollar. There is no down side to this.

Current US national debt as a percentage of GDP? 72%. Have fun with that.

[Lobohan]

It IS a silly idea. If it wasn't so scary, it'd be downright hysterical. I was amused to note that your rather strident thread title is at odd with your position in the thread, it reminds me of a kook the other day who told me "Learn the facts! Obama's a Muslim!" To which I replied "I know the facts, no, he isn't".

First of all, the Wall Street Journal illustrates the rob Peter to pay Paul scam that Obama is planning with his tax plan here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html). Above and beyond that, however, is that his whole plan doesn't pass the smell test when you puts together the separate parts. He proposes almost $800 billion in new spending, above and beyond the existing deficit budget that we have now. To pay for this, he promises to tax only the top 5%. The top 5% already pay over 50% of the total income taxes collected (cite (http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes)), in round numbers that's just over $500 billion (cite for total income tax revenue of $1.043 trillion (http://www.mises.org/story/2552)). If Obama were to double the income tax on that top 5% (and we'll completely ignore the fact that doing so wouldn't double the tax revenue from those people, a fact that always seems to escape the tax-the-rich crowd), a task that he would find utterly impossible to do politically (Raising the tax rate to in excess of 70% for the 5%? Impossible) he STILL wouldn't have enough revenue to pay for his giveaways. I suppose that if he were to take 100% of the income from those top 5%, it might just be possible to fund what he wants to spend. Barely. The whole "tax plan" is nothing more than election year pandering to buy the election. And it's working. But to claim that only the top 5% will see a tax increase? Right. Pull this leg and it plays Jingle Bells.

Wow, that would be very clever, if you're weren't so gullible that you believe McCain's lies.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_2.html
McCain said that Obama has proposed more than $800 billion in new spending.

McCain: Do you know that Sen. Obama has voted for – is proposing $860
billion of new spending now? New spending.

That’s based on a McCain campaign estimate of how much Obama’s new proposals will cost, without figuring in any savings or reductions in spending. Any increase in funding and any created program counts as "new spending" in this estimate, whether or not it is offset by decreases in spending elsewhere.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that both Obama and McCain are proposing combinations of tax and spending policies that would increase the federal deficit. It found that in 2013, Obama’s proposals would produce a net deficit increase of $286 billion, while McCain's major policies would produce a net deficit increase of between $167 billion and $259 billion. In talking to CNN, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas estimated that McCain's deficit increase would fall midway between the extremes of that range, at $211 billion.

[Fear Itself]

I'll take the guy who at least seems to recognize that spending is the problem over the guy who thinks more of it is the solution any day of the week and twice on Sundays.No, deficit spending is the problem. Republicans (John McCain included) have no qualms about spending, they just have no intention of paying the bills when they come in. That is the difference between Democrats and the Dine 'n' Dash conservatives who lack the ethics to recognize it is wrong to eat their children's lunch then leave the check on the table. It is not wrong to insure you have the revenue to pay for the bills you incur. Obviously, you disagree.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Wow, and you are the one calling someone else (Weirddave, of all people) naive. It is to laugh.

Obama is painting himself as high taxing and high spending. No involvement from McCain's team necessary.

Also, you may want to educate yourself about debt and its uses and abuses. Debt is not automatically and always a bad thing.

In addition to what Gorsnak correctly stated, yes of course debt is not automatically a bad thing. That is why I did not say that it was. You really do have a comprehension problem eh?

If Canada was to run a small deficit budget or two now that the economy is in a downturn, that could be a good idea. Then, when things are good again, we can go back to trimming the debt to a reasonable level.

I don't think that continually running large deficits is a great idea for the US though.

[Weirddave]

I certainly understand where you're coming from, but I applaud your naivete. I think you need to look beyond the promises, and that would include a very close scrutiny of historical precedent. (which you've already done, to your credit.)

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here. I am a McCain supporter, but it's very much a "lesser of two evils" situation. McCain is wrong(from my POV) on a number of issues. He's wrong on immigration, he's wrong on his plan to have the government buy sub prime mortgages, he's wrong on his support for this huge shit sandwich of a bailout bill, I almost decided not to vote for him because of it. But Obama supported it too, and he's worse on a lot more issues. I have no realistic hope that any politician will cut government before this nation goes into complete free fall, but McCain at least makes noises that he recognizes that needs to be done. Obama doesn't even try, he just promises everyone everything to get elected. To my shame as an American, it's working.

I really don't think that Obama will be the high-taxing, high-spending socialist that McCain's team is painting him as. YMMV.

I HOPE you're right, as it looks like he's going to be the next president, but I really fear that you're wrong. In the famous Joe the Plumber clip, Obama was caught out and answered honestly, no spin, no nothing. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody". That's truly what he believes. The government has to spread the wealth around. It's anathema to what this country was founded on, and a recipe for disaster, but that's what it looks like we (Americans) are going to chose.


One thing is certain - you're in for more yearly budget deficits and a hugely higher debt no matter who gets into the oval office. I'm glad I'm in Canada, land of 11 straight budget surpluses and a debt clock that is running backwards.

Amen brother. I have an in to Canadian citizenship, my wife is Canadian, and I've been seriously considering it. You guys are a bit more socialist than I like, but you're pulling back from that, Canadians have always been eminently practical, and the fact that you guys run your country on a budget and STICK TO IT is immensely appealing. The damn shame is that y'all are so wrapped up in us that you can't separate yourselves, when we run our country into the ground you're going to come with us even though you don't deserve it. The coming Obama depression is going to hurt both of our countries.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here. I am a McCain supporter, but it's very much a "lesser of two evils" situation.

I just figure that after 8 years of a Republican who spent and spent and spent, you'd be tired of it. I guess you figure that McCain really can buck the system and get spending under control, but he'll have to go against his own party to do it. Maverick? maybe 8 years ago, but not now.



That's truly what he believes. The government has to spread the wealth around. It's anathema to what this country was founded on, and a recipe for disaster, but that's what it looks like we (Americans) are going to chose.

You've been "spreading the wealth" around for quite some time now. I think its too late to go back to the 1800's.


Amen brother. I have an in to Canadian citizenship, my wife is Canadian, and I've been seriously considering it.

If y'all come, bring your chequebook (just kidding!) We welcome all into our multicultural hippie mosaic! We are certainly no utopia, but I think its rather nice.


The coming Obama depression is going to hurt both of our countries.

Cross my fingers, I hope not. I don't think that Obama (or any president for that matter) can really effect things all THAT much one way or another. They have a limited amount of things (or damage) that they can do. Raising the top income tax rate a few % is the least of your worries.

As they say, when the USA sneezes, Canada catches a cold. I hope your economy gets better real, real soon.

[Gatopescado]

Following the direction of the OP title, we should all shut the fuck up.

[Weirddave]

I just figure that after 8 years of a Republican who spent and spent and spent, you'd be tired of it. I guess you figure that McCain really can buck the system and get spending under control, but he'll have to go against his own party to do it. Maverick? maybe 8 years ago, but not now.




Problem here is the straitjacket that everyone puts themselves in to WRT party. George Bush is a Republican president, but he's been very bad at instituting any Republican or conservative ideals. It all gets broken down to party without looking at substance. On these boards you get complete idiots like der treis and RTFirefly arguing for the party position no matter the facts. You say that I am arguing the "party position" regardless of facts. I'm not. I'm arguing for the best person I see (based upon his (flawed) positions) against someone who is actively seeking to tear down the very fabric of what America stands for. Four years from now, if Obama is the president, we are going to be deep, deep in a depression. Some folks have wanted to bet me that on my reality based outlook, this is a bet I'll make. I'll pay the first three people who respond to me at weirddave at gmail dot com $10 each if the stock market is above 14,000 on November 4th, 2012, assuming Obama is elected.

[Weirddave]

I just figure that after 8 years of a Republican who spent and spent and spent, you'd be tired of it.




How many times do I have to say that spent and spent and spent is the PROBLEM, regardless of the party, before you'll believe me?


WE NEED TO CUT ALL GOVERNMENT SPEBNDING BUY 1/3 or maybe 1/2

[Lobohan]

How many times do I have to say that spent and spent and spent is the PROBLEM, regardless of the party, before you'll believe me?


WE NEED TO CUT ALL GOVERNMENT SPEBNDING BUY 1/3 or maybe 1/2Nothing gets across a writer's solid grasp on economics like a sentence in allcaps with a spelling error and an incorrect homonym.

:D

[Voyager]

How many times do I have to say that spent and spent and spent is the PROBLEM, regardless of the party, before you'll believe me?


WE NEED TO CUT ALL GOVERNMENT SPEBNDING BUY 1/3 or maybe 1/2

That's exactly the problem with this view. There is no way in hell anybody who is going to have to stand for election in two years is going to vote for this. We're about as likely to become the ideal communist fantasy state where we take only what we need.

The Obama tax increases just puts those making lots of money back to where they were 8 years ago, which didn't seem to hurt investment or hard work. After the Bush cuts, the median income today is lower than it was in 2000. It didn't work. People with no money don't buy things, which cuts production, which cuts jobs. Unless you borrow on the house value bubble. Which led us to the current mess.

I have a proposal for a pledge for all Republicans. If you want to cut taxes on lower spending, agree to cut spending first before lowering taxes, and wait a budget year to prove it. Worst that can happen is we can reduce the deficit or even get a surplus. Agreed? The way it has been done is to cut taxes first based on unrealistic spending cuts.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Cross my fingers, I hope not. I don't think that Obama (or any president for that matter) can really effect things all THAT much one way or another. They have a limited amount of things (or damage) that they can do. Raising the top income tax rate a few % is the least of your worries.Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman would disagree (read The Conscience of a Liberal). I think we have seen a 20 year experiment that shows that trickle down economics leads to bad outcomes.

I'm optimistic that we are finally getting to the point that we don't run from Rovian charges of "class warfare," but instead reapond with "Fuck yeah, and it's about time we fought back."

[DianaG]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin
When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
Seriously, coming from you... that's like a freakin' acid bath of irony.

[Fear Itself]

I have a proposal for a pledge for all Republicans. If you want to cut taxes on lower spending, agree to cut spending first before lowering taxes, and wait a budget year to prove it. Worst that can happen is we can reduce the deficit or even get a surplus. Agreed? The way it has been done is to cut taxes first based on unrealistic spending cuts.Amen. There has never been a Republican yet who delivered on the spending cuts they promised. Why should we let them eat their dessert before they finish their vegetables?

[Trepa Mayfield]

How many times do I have to say that spent and spent and spent is the PROBLEM, regardless of the party, before you'll believe me?


WE NEED TO CUT ALL GOVERNMENT SPEBNDING BUY 1/3 or maybe 1/2

I agree that we need to cut spending. However--and this is the important bit--right now, we can't even pay for half the things the government spends on with our current tax rates. Thus the reason we need to raise taxes.

It's not like it's impossible. There was a surplus while Clinton was in office, which was only a decade ago.

[Ludovic]

Four years from now, if Obama is the president, we are going to be deep, deep in a depression. Some folks have wanted to bet me that on my reality based outlook, this is a bet I'll make. I'll pay the first three people who respond to me at weirddave at gmail dot com $10 each if the stock market is above 14,000 on November 4th, 2012, assuming Obama is elected.So if the Dow doesn't go up by %56 in four year, we must be in a deep, deep depression? :dubious:

[Really Not All That Bright]

I have no realistic hope that any politician will cut government before this nation goes into complete free fall, but McCain at least makes noises that he recognizes that needs to be done. Obama doesn't even try, he just promises everyone everything to get elected. To my shame as an American, it's working.
Wait, so you believe there is zero chance that either candidate will cut spending, but you're stumping for McCain because he pretends he will?
Problem here is the straitjacket that everyone puts themselves in to WRT party. George Bush is a Republican president, but he's been very bad at instituting any Republican or conservative ideals. It all gets broken down to party without looking at substance.
Are you quite sure it's everyone else that's wearing the party straightjackets?
In the famous Joe the Plumber clip, Obama was caught out and answered honestly, no spin, no nothing. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody". That's truly what he believes. The government has to spread the wealth around. It's anathema to what this country was founded on, and a recipe for disaster, but that's what it looks like we (Americans) are going to chose.
For shame! Obama was asked a question, and answered honestly! How dare he? And what's worse- his answer was a reflection of more-or-less universal postwar fiscal policy! How irresponsible!
Amen brother. I have an in to Canadian citizenship, my wife is Canadian, and I've been seriously considering it. You guys are a bit more socialist than I like, but you're pulling back from that, Canadians have always been eminently practical, and the fact that you guys run your country on a budget and STICK TO IT is immensely appealing.
Well, as long as we all agree it's okay to run to Canada if your side loses. Pet an Eskimo for me.
George Bush is a Republican president, but he's been very bad at instituting any Republican or conservative ideals. It all gets broken down to party without looking at substance.
Excellent point - Bush didn't work out so well, so we'll throw him out. Not representative of Republican ideals, etc. Fair enough.

Okay, so, George Bush Sr.- he was a Republican President! He must have cut spending and balanced the federal budget, right? Wait, what's that? Increased taxes and increased spending? Oh. Well, he's Bush Jr.'s dad... what did you expect?

Alright, how about Reagan? Now that was a Republican President. Surely he balanced the budget. He didn't? He ran up bigger relative deficits than anyone? No! I don't believe it!

***

Alright, let me see if I've got this straight. Balanced budgets are good. Deficit spending is bad. The last three Republican Presidents ran massive deficits. The last Democratic President ran a surplus. Therefore, vote Republican.

[Bosstone]

Wait, so you believe there is zero chance that either candidate will cut spending, but you're stumping for McCain because he pretends he will?More than one poster on this board has said something similar. Personally, I think you need to relinquish your username to those that deserve it more.

[Weirddave]

Nothing gets across a writer's solid grasp on economics like a sentence in allcaps with a spelling error and an incorrect homonym.

:D

How about a writer's frustration? Typos? Shit, that should be my middle name.

[Weirddave]

I'm optimistic that we are finally getting to the point that we don't run from Rovian charges of "class warfare," but instead reapond with "Fuck yeah, and it's about time we fought back."

You are a sick individual. Go ahead and live your life eaten up by jealousy about what someone else has. Me, I'd rather live my life working towards what I can get. Fight back? How about you get to work.

[Weirddave]

Seriously, coming from you... that's like a freakin' acid bath of irony.

Could you explain this please? I have always and consistently said that the size of government is the problem. Where is the irony?

[Weirddave]

So if the Dow doesn't go up by %56 in four year, we must be in a deep, deep depression? :dubious:

The Dow was there less than a year ago. Try "go back" instead of "go up".

[Weirddave]

I agree that we need to cut spending. However--and this is the important bit--right now, we can't even pay for half the things the government spends on with our current tax rates. Thus the reason we need to raise taxes.

It's not like it's impossible. There was a surplus while Clinton was in office, which was only a decade ago.

Good fucking Christ. You admit that we need to cut spending. You admit that the government can't pay for all it does now. However you conclusion is...raise taxes? Are you insane? How about staying where you started: CUT FUCKING SPENDING.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The Dow was there less than a year ago. Try "go back" instead of "go up".
Regardless of whether or not it's been there before it's still a 56% increase over today's index. That is, of course, assuming it hasn't plunged another couple hundred points while I typed this.

Which, of course, is totally irrelevant anyway, since the markets are not representative of the economy and the Dow is the least representative index of all.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Good fucking Christ. You admit that we need to cut spending. You admit that the government can't pay for all it does now. However you conclusion is...raise taxes? Are you insane? How about staying where you started: CUT FUCKING SPENDING.

You are assuming a false dichotomy. Perhaps you didn't read anything else I said once I revealed myself to be on the OTHERSIDEOMG!!!!111ELEVENTY!!! I want the governmnet to BOTH cut spending AND raise taxes. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

[Weirddave]

Wait, so you believe there is zero chance that either candidate will cut spending, but you're stumping for McCain because he pretends he will?
No, I believe that McCain's proposed increase in spending is less than Obama's, and McCain has at least acknowledged that spending needs to be cut. Obama hasn't. My cynicism keeps me from believing that either one will do it, but if I think spending is the problem, why should I vote for the candidate whose whole platform is "Spend more!" against the guy who at least recognizes the problem?

Are you quite sure it's everyone else that's wearing the party straightjackets?
Since party matters not a wit to me, I'm pretty sure.

For shame! Obama was asked a question, and answered honestly! How dare he? And what's worse- his answer was a reflection of more-or-less universal postwar fiscal policy! How irresponsible!

You misunderstand. Not for shame, I applaud him for finally admitting what many of us have been saying for months. He's finally told the truth. It's just a damn shame that this didn't happen in August when it might have made a difference.

Well, as long as we all agree it's okay to run to Canada if your side loses. Pet an Eskimo for me.

I'm not considering "running to Canada" because my side loses, I'm considering (and note, just considering, I probably won't because Canada's economy is so enmeshed in ours that it's going to crash right along with us) running to Canada because I think Barak Obama is going to be a disaster for the United States.

Excellent point - Bush didn't work out so well, so we'll throw him out. Not representative of Republican ideals, etc. Fair enough.

Okay, so, George Bush Sr.- he was a Republican President! He must have cut spending and balanced the federal budget, right? Wait, what's that? Increased taxes and increased spending? Oh. Well, he's Bush Jr.'s dad... what did you expect?

Alright, how about Reagan? Now that was a Republican President. Surely he balanced the budget. He didn't? He ran up bigger relative deficits than anyone? No! I don't believe it!

***

Alright, let me see if I've got this straight. Balanced budgets are good. Deficit spending is bad. The last three Republican Presidents ran massive deficits. The last Democratic President ran a surplus. Therefore, vote Republican.

Again, all you seem to care about is party. I don't give a rat's ass about party. Party schmarty. I am voting based upon what each individual candidate proposes to do. Why is that so hard to understand? As a party, the Republicans have a lot to answer for. The swept into power in '94 on a promise to decrease the size of Government and proceed to be captured by the system and do exactly the opposite. They've spent, spent, spent without any rhyme or reason, without any thought for the consequences. I HATE the Republicans for what they've done. They claim to be the party of little government and controlled spending, but they are not. Again, it doesn't matter. I am voting for McCain based upon his platform, not his party. I don't know how much clearer than that I can say it, and all of the attempts by people here to tattoo me with the failings of the Republican party are for naught. they can try, you can try, anyone can try but it's a foolish exercise because of one thing: I am not a Republican. How hard is that to understand?

[Weirddave]

You are assuming a false dichotomy. Perhaps you didn't read anything else I said once I revealed myself to be on the OTHERSIDEOMG!!!!111ELEVENTY!!! I want the governmnet to BOTH cut spending AND raise taxes. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

I apologize if I misunderstood, I respond to posts and not posters, if you said something different before I missed it. As to you final question...Why is it so hard to comprehend?... I hadn't considered that you might want to cut spending and raise taxes, but to me at least that's a baffling position to take. Why? Why raise taxes if you cut spending? Cutting spending solves the problem, why throttle people with new taxes on top of that? Seriously, why? Please explain it to me, I'd like to understand where you're coming from.

[stretch]

I'm not pedescribe, but ...

No matter how much we reduce our spending, we still we need to pay our current debts and our future obligations. Which means we need tax money, cuz the people are the US and they have to pay for all the shit our lovely representatives have purchased. To get our house in order, we will need to increase our income—because our current debts and obligations demand more money than we are throwing at them. Let me repeat that: Whether spending is increased or not, our current debts and obligations demand more money.

I happen to agree with Obama, we are better off if the wealth is spread around somewhat. And though I'd prefer if the government weren't doing the spreading, we haven't come up with a better way. At least the government tries to be somewhat equitable, unlike the market or private charity.

[Trepa Mayfield]

I apologize if I misunderstood, I respond to posts and not posters, if you said something different before I missed it. As to you final question...Why is it so hard to comprehend?... I hadn't considered that you might want to cut spending and raise taxes, but to me at least that's a baffling position to take. Why? Why raise taxes if you cut spending? Cutting spending solves the problem, why throttle people with new taxes on top of that? Seriously, why? Please explain it to me, I'd like to understand where you're coming from.

Because, while there are some things I'm willing to cut (like excessive military budget, some education plans, "pork", etc.), the sum total of the parts of the government that I do support exceeds the revenue from taxes right now. I figure, meet halfway.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I am voting for McCain based upon his platform, not his party. I don't know how much clearer than that I can say it, and all of the attempts by people here to tattoo me with the failings of the Republican party are for naught. they can try, you can try, anyone can try but it's a foolish exercise because of one thing: I am not a Republican. How hard is that to understand?
It doesn't matter if you're a Republican or not. You're voting for a Republican based on something they've consistently promised to do but failed to do.

The question is, what makes you think McCain is any different?

He accepted Bush's endorsement. His campaign staff are all Republican lifers, and most of them worked for Bush in '00 and '04. That suggests his cabinet will be much the same. What evidence is there that he's not more of the same?

[Euphonious Polemic]

I'm not considering "running to Canada" because my side loses, I'm considering (and note, just considering, I probably won't because Canada's economy is so enmeshed in ours that it's going to crash right along with us) running to Canada because I think Barak Obama is going to be a disaster for the United States.



Ha! With your luck you'll get here just when we elect Jack Layton's NDP government in Ottawa that will make Obama look like Franco's long lost grandson.

I really do think that you're overstating how bad things will get if you elect Obama vs. McCain. We're heading for a recession (or are in one) and it will be a tough few years no matter who is in the White House. As others have pointed out, the past several administrations have shown that Democrats tend to be more fiscally responsible. You can argue the details, but you can't show any proof that Democratic administrations have led to noticeably poorer financial outcomes for the country.

Take a deep breath. Things will be OK

[Fear Itself]

The Dow was there less than a year ago. Try "go back" instead of "go up".So you are longing to recreate the conditions that got us to 14,000? Good god man, have you learned nothing?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Remember, we said Bush would run the country into the ground, and we were right. Now we're saying Obama will minimize the damage. You should probably listen.

[Weirddave]

Remember, we said Bush would run the country into the ground, and we were right. Now we're saying Obama will minimize the damage. You should probably listen.

Except I haven't really seen anything that Bush has done that qualifies as "running this country into the ground", unless you're talking about the Iraq war, which I support and am fairly happy with the way it's going. The big problem we face today is the economy being in the dumpster, and while the Republicans aren't blameless here (Bush's insane deficit spending has had a real effect), the majority of what we're dealing with can be directly attributed to DEMOCRATIC politicians enacting DEMOCRATIC ideals under a DEMOCRATIC president. The chickens have come home to roost under a REPUBLICAN administration, so Bush gets the blame. Other than the spending, economically Bush has been a fine president. He cut taxes, he attempted to reign in Fannie and Freddie, the economy has grown consistently under his tenure. What's the beef?

Oh, right. The housing bubble and the financial crisis we're in now. Fine and dandy, except that that was an arrow shot into the air by Clinton. It landed on Bush, but it's not his fault.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Except I haven't really seen anything that Bush has done that qualifies as "running this country into the ground", unless you're talking about the Iraq war, which I support and am fairly happy with the way it's going.

Hold the phone here big guy. You're fairly happy with spending somewhere in the range of 2 TRILLION (Time) to 3 TRILLION (WaPo) dollars on this war? Certainly something needed to be done about the Taliban, but as I recall, there were no Iraqis on those planes on 9/11. I'm pretty sure there were a minimal number of Islamic Fundamentalists there before the war as well. What was this war about again? Was it worth 2 TRILLION DOLLARS?


...the majority of what we're dealing with can be directly attributed to DEMOCRATIC politicians enacting DEMOCRATIC ideals under a DEMOCRATIC president. The chickens have come home to roost under a REPUBLICAN administration, so Bush gets the blame. Other than the spending, economically Bush has been a fine president.

I don't want to put words in your mouth here... But is your thesis that it merely LOOKS like Democrat administrations do better fiscally (when we look at the actual numbers) because it takes a while for their bad policies to lead to bad results?? If this is what you're saying, then I think you're full of shit. My apologies in advance if I misinterpreted you.

OTHER THAN THE SPENDING, Bush has been a fine president? OTHER THAN THE SPENDING? That's the whole frigging point here, is it not? He spent you into the ground!

[Really Not All That Bright]

Except I haven't really seen anything that Bush has done that qualifies as "running this country into the ground", unless you're talking about the Iraq war, which I support and am fairly happy with the way it's going. The big problem we face today is the economy being in the dumpster, and while the Republicans aren't blameless here (Bush's insane deficit spending has had a real effect), the majority of what we're dealing with can be directly attributed to DEMOCRATIC politicians enacting DEMOCRATIC ideals under a DEMOCRATIC president. The chickens have come home to roost under a REPUBLICAN administration, so Bush gets the blame. Other than the spending, economically Bush has been a fine president. He cut taxes, he attempted to reign in Fannie and Freddie, the economy has grown consistently under his tenure. What's the beef?

Oh, right. The housing bubble and the financial crisis we're in now. Fine and dandy, except that that was an arrow shot into the air by Clinton. It landed on Bush, but it's not his fault.
If you're perfectly happy with the Iraq war, you're either insane or stupid. You've also conveniently overlooked the fact that Afghanistan is now mostly a no-man's land, the incompetent-or-deliberately negligent Federal response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes, the significant erosion in personal freedom, and the complete failure of the Bush Administration to actually make the country any safer - the sole grounding of the "mandate" he got in 2004, remember....

...oh, and the fact that Bush told bin Laden he couldn't run and couldn't hide, upon which bin Laden promptly ran and hid.

If this is all Clinton's fault, I'm sure you'll show me some evidence that Bush attempted to avert the crisis but was foiled by the *cough* Republican-controlled *cough* Congress, yes?

Or that Clinton was responsible for all the deregulation in the first place? Or any Democrat, for that matter? Even if we assume (which is by no means a given) that Fannie and Freddie are all Barney Frank's fault, how are you finding a way to pin the rest of the financial crisis on the Democrats?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

You are a sick individual. Go ahead and live your life eaten up by jealousy about what someone else has. Me, I'd rather live my life working towards what I can get. Fight back? How about you get to work.I do work, which is why I get pissed off that the wealthy are able to game the system so severely to their advantage, and then game the public discourse so dramatically as well (e.g. pretending that estate taxes affect some hard working farmer instead of some heiress who spends her time walking around with a dog in a bag). I'm not jealous, I just have too strong an ethic of justice and equity to want to see us end up in a manorial system.

[Fear Itself]

Except I haven't really seen anything that Bush has done that qualifies as "running this country into the ground", unless you're talking about the Iraq war, which I support and am fairly happy with the way it's going. See, that's the problem with those who want to cut spending; you want to cut spending on things you disapprove of, but if we are spending $10 billion a month on nation building half way around the world, well, that's OK with you. Fine, then; I support universal health care and would be happy to spend taxes collected from you to fund it. How do you like them apples?

[Lobohan]

If you're perfectly happy with the Iraq war, you're either insane or stupid.There is a false dichotomy right there. :D

Anywho, Weirddave, what you aren't seeing is that W. Bush came in on a powerful economy. He dropped tax revenue by cutting taxes on primarily the rich. And now or economy is in the shitcan, people earn less and there is more unemployment.

Would it make sense to you that we should raise taxes back to the Clinton level, which was obviously not punitive since our economy was doing well so we can not deficit spend?

Not to mention you parroted the lie about Obama's spending above. I posted a factcheck link that shows that Obama is suggesting something like 50 billion more than McCain in spending. He's also going to more than make up for that on tax revenue.

[Acid Lamp]

I don't understand all the pissing and moaning. No amount of justification on the part of the people who are merely going to see their taxes back at pre-Bush levels will convince me that they are motivated by anything other than greed.

Outside of major city areas where cost of living can be obscene, about 40-50k a year WILL pay for nice small home in a decent area, various insurances, food, transportation and a little put by for entertainment or retirement. You might be living check to check, but you get by and maintain a decent standard of living. If you have children, that figure probably needs to be adjusted up 10k per child.

These people are making roughly 5 times that amount. That is to say, they are earning enough to support 4 more adults with the same responsibilities. Shut the fuck up and pay a little something back to the society that helped you earn your wealth. If you inherited it, then shut the fuck up and sew your lips shut while your at it.

[Bosstone]

See, that's the problem with those who want to cut spending; you want to cut spending on things you disapprove of, but if we are spending $10 billion a month on nation building half way around the world, well, that's OK with you.No shit. Iraq is easily the largest drain on our resources. If you want to cut spending, that's the first thing you should be yelling about. If you want to lose weight, stop eating the damn chocolate cake every day. Until that happens, the three sodas per day aren't exactly an issue.

[Weirddave]

See, that's the problem with those who want to cut spending; you want to cut spending on things you disapprove of, but if we are spending $10 billion a month on nation building half way around the world, well, that's OK with you. Fine, then; I support universal health care and would be happy to spend taxes collected from you to fund it. How do you like them apples?

$10 Billion a month is less than we spend on the interest on our debt. Anti-war people make out like it's some huge number, but in context it's not at all. You wanna provide UHC for $10 Billion a month? Go for it, I'll be the biggest supporter. Unfortunately, UHC will cost somewhere between 3 and 4 trillion dollars a year. That's a whole different ballgame.

Hentor: Why the fuck do you care what the wealthy do? As a point of fact they don't game the system, they fund the system, more than half of all income taxes are paid by just 5% of the population, but that's beside the point. I hear this a lot: *whine* But Bill Gates/Warren Buffet/Ted Turner/Donald Trump/Paris Hilton/rich person du jour gets such and so or does this or that. My whole attitude is so what. So what? Who cares what "the rich" get? Seriously. I work hard, I support my family in a comfortable lifestyle, we're happy I could care less what someone else has. Life's too short for jealousy man. Take care of yourself and your family and let the rest go.

If you're perfectly happy with the Iraq war, you're either insane or stupid.

Neither, thanks. I have approached this whole Iraq war from a different perspective than most. I've said all along that it was a 15-20 year commitment, at least. Nothing I've seen changes my mind about that; I was right when I said it, I'm right now, and things are moving along quite satisfactorily in that time frame.
You've also conveniently overlooked the fact that Afghanistan is now mostly a no-man's land,

The Bush administration has failed to commit the resources to Afghanistan that are needed. Both candidates pledge to change that, I see no reason to doubt them.

the incompetent-or-deliberately negligent Federal response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes,

I don't see that at all. First of all, you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of exactly what the Feds role in disaster relief is, but more importantly, pretty much everywhere except Louisiana, it's been fine. Why do you suppose that is, hmmm?

the significant erosion in personal freedom,

Name one. Seriously. The left has been playing this tune like we're getting searched by the Gestapo on our way to church, but I haven't seen any of it. Tell me, in what way am I any less free than I was in 1999?

and the complete failure of the Bush Administration to actually make the country any safer - the sole grounding of the "mandate" he got in 2004, remember....

In what way. There must be some examples you can cite, I'm all ears.

...oh, and the fact that Bush told bin Laden he couldn't run and couldn't hide, upon which bin Laden promptly ran and hid.

You can't just walk into Mordor my friend. Of wait, you mean they did? This is a complete and utter failure by the Bush administration.

If this is all Clinton's fault, I'm sure you'll show me some evidence that Bush attempted to avert the crisis but was foiled by the *cough* Republican-controlled *cough* Congress, yes?

Sure, knock yourself out (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&&scp=1&sq=New%20Agency%20Proposed%20to%20Oversee%20Freddie%20Mac%20and%20Fannie%20Mae&st=cse). Again with the party bullshit. Who cares? Some Republicans worked with Democrats to block reform, and they were wrong, wrong wrong to do so. Again, what the hell does party have to do with it?

Or that Clinton was responsible for all the deregulation in the first place? Or any Democrat, for that matter? Even if we assume (which is by no means a given) that Fannie and Freddie are all Barney Frank's fault, how are you finding a way to pin the rest of the financial crisis on the Democrats?
Because Fannie and Freddie caused the entire thing. They were the match that lit the fuse. Yes, other factors contributed, and they need to be addressed and dealt with, and some new government regulations are needed. But without the distortion of the market caused by Fannie and Freddie, none of this would have happened. None of it.

[Trepa Mayfield]

My cynicism keeps me from believing that either one will do it...

Both candidates pledge to change that, I see no reason to doubt them.

Explain, please.

[Fear Itself]

$10 Billion a month is less than we spend on the interest on our debt. Anti-war people make out like it's some huge number, but in context it's not at all. You wanna provide UHC for $10 Billion a month? Go for it, I'll be the biggest supporter. Unfortunately, UHC will cost somewhere between 3 and 4 trillion dollars a year. That's a whole different ballgame.Aside from the fact that your $3-4 trillion a year is a lunatic fringe fabrication, so what? I support it, therefore it is justified. Isn't that how your logic works?

[Weirddave]

Aside from the fact that your $3-4 trillion a year is a lunatic fringe fabrication, so what? I support it, therefore it is justified. Isn't that how your logic works?

It's not a lunatic fringe fabrication, it's the actual figure on what we spend on health care from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Try again.

And no, that's not how it works, but if you want to make a comparison, try making a comparison between equivalent expenditures.


Explain, please.

Explain what? That spending and the war are two different things?

[Really Not All That Bright]

$10 Billion a month is less than we spend on the interest on our debt. Anti-war people make out like it's some huge number, but in context it's not at all. You wanna provide UHC for $10 Billion a month? Go for it, I'll be the biggest supporter. Unfortunately, UHC will cost somewhere between 3 and 4 trillion dollars a year. That's a whole different ballgame.
The total cost of the (UK) NHS is about $75 billion per year, according to the last budget (although I think it was a bit less using-then current exchange rates). The population of Britain is ~60 million.

$75bn. x 5 = $375 bn.

Assuming that 15% or so of the population opts to retain private health insurance after UHC (which is about the norm in other countries), and that we opt to spend twice as much money on national healthcare than Britain (which is unlikely), UHC would cost $1.5 trillion at most.

By way of comparison, total healthcare spending in the US was $2.3 trillion last year.
Neither, thanks. I have approached this whole Iraq war from a different perspective than most. I've said all along that it was a 15-20 year commitment, at least. Nothing I've seen changes my mind about that; I was right when I said it, I'm right now, and things are moving along quite satisfactorily in that time frame.
What are you happily committing 15-20 years of US involvement for? What's it in for us? What's in it for anyone, other than Al Quaeda and Al Muhajiroun? Personally, I'd prefer we stopped sending soldiers off to die.
[QUOTEI don't see that at all. First of all, you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of exactly what the Feds role in disaster relief is, but more importantly, pretty much everywhere except Louisiana, it's been fine. Why do you suppose that is, hmmm?[/QUOTE]
Because Bush hates black people.
Possibly because the current FEMA director wasn't selected for his horsemanship. I could be wrong.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It's not a lunatic fringe fabrication, it's the actual figure on what we spend on health care from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Try again.
Government-provided healthcare is cheaper than private healthcare.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Explain what? That spending and the war are two different things?

It's just odd that you're ready to believe that the candidates are lying about their promises on one issue yet you're ready to believe that the same candiates are completly truthful about their promises on the other issue.

[Weirddave]

Government-provided healthcare is cheaper than private healthcare.

No, in fact, it's not. That canard is based upon a study of Medicare that almost completely omitted all of the administrative costs on the government's side and emphasized them for the private sector. Here's a link explaining that (http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0602/0602.news_medicare_eff.html). The link is to an insurance industry publication, but the study it talks about was done by an actual economist and has been peer reviewed.

And your Great Britain comparison is meaningless. I'll use your $2.3 trillion number, although I've seen figures over $3 trillion, that's what I was referencing above. To duplicate the health care that we have now-not improve it as UHC fanatics claim, just duplicate it- that's how much you'll have to spend. If you spend less, then the quality and availability of care will go down. You can argue it's worth it to cover the 8-10 million uninsured in this country, but that's an argument I don't buy at all. I do recognize that it's a legitimate argument, from a socialist point of view though.

[Weirddave]

It's just odd that you're ready to believe that the candidates are lying about their promises on one issue yet you're ready to believe that the same candiates are completly truthful about their promises on the other issue.

The very nature of politics and government bureaucracies makes some things nearly impossible-like actually cutting spending-so I tend to doubt claims along those lines, no matter how much I want to believe them (and believe me, I want to believe them). Other things-like deciding where to focus resources in a war- are relatively easy for a president to do, so I tend to believe candidates a lot more there than on the former issue. Make sense?

[Really Not All That Bright]

The very nature of politics and government bureaucracies makes some things nearly impossible-like actually cutting spending-so I tend to doubt claims along those lines, no matter how much I want to believe them (and believe me, I want to believe them). Other things-like deciding where to focus resources in a war- are relatively easy for a president to do, so I tend to believe candidates a lot more there than on the former issue. Make sense?
The very nature of private industry makes it more expensive. Government agencies don't have a profit motive.

[Lobohan]

You can argue it's worth it to cover the 8-10 million uninsured in this country, but that's an argument I don't buy at all. I do recognize that it's a legitimate argument, from a socialist point of view though.Emphasis mine. How many uninsured?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/health/uninsured/whoaretheuninsured.html

Try 46 million with another 25 or so million "underinsured" that have plans that don't cover near enough.

Your problem is you don't fucking think and you believe right-wing echo chamber bullshit. For fuck sake, ignorantly spouting lies makes you look stupid.

[Weirddave]

The very nature of private industry makes it more expensive. Government agencies don't have a profit motive.

You really can't be this much of an idiot. Seriously. You're pulling my leg, right?

[Really Not All That Bright]

You really can't be this much of an idiot. Seriously. You're pulling my leg, right?
No. I'm pointing out something that anyone with an ounce of common sense can figure out for themselves.

That doesn't mean I want the government running everything; just necessary services that private industry can't or won't provide. That includes defense, emergency services and healthcare.

[Lobohan]

You really can't be this much of an idiot. Seriously. You're pulling my leg, right?Okay seriously. Riddle me this. Where does the profit in the insurance industry come from?

It comes from the people who pay for health insurance. If a health care company has to choose between a medical procedure and profit, what do you think they'll do?

You can run an industry where people make money that isn't motivated by profit. Police chiefs make over 100k a year, but the department itself isn't run for profit. If it were that money would be taken from the services they provide.

Do you think that firehouses should be private? Do you think that police departments should be private?

If you're not smart enough to understand this you should be pushing a mop for a living.

[Weirddave]

Emphasis mine. How many uninsured?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/health/uninsured/whoaretheuninsured.html

Try 46 million with another 25 or so million "underinsured" that have plans that don't cover near enough.

Your problem is you don't fucking think and you believe right-wing echo chamber bullshit. For fuck sake, ignorantly spouting lies makes you look stupid.

BULLSHIT! the 46 million uninsured is a LIE, and frankly I'm tired of it. If you read the census report that that number comes from, you'll find that 33% of those people have coverage available to them from the government that they don't currently take advantage of. They're not uninsured. 20% of the 46 million are illegal aliens. They don't have any right to government provided health insurance. 37% make more that $50K/year,and 17% more than $75K. These people are uninsured by choice. They can afford it, they chose not to have it. That leaves....around 10 million people uninsured, less than 4% of the population. THAT'S the real figure, not the false one used to scare people into supporting a huge government entitlement program.

Educate yourself (http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx).

[Weirddave]

Okay seriously. Riddle me this. Where does the profit in the insurance industry come from?

It comes from the people who pay for health insurance. If a health care company has to choose between a medical procedure and profit, what do you think they'll do?



If it's covered by the policy, they'll pay for it. A health insurance policy is a contract. It's legally enforceable. Each state has an insurance commissioner that is responsible for regulating the insurance companies doing business in their state. From a purely profit driven perspective, it is cheaper for an insurance company to pay almost any claim than it is for them to fight the state and risk the fines imposed. "Insurance companies don't pay claims" is a myth. Complaints about health insurance usually boil down to one of two things: Either the client wants something paid for that the insurance policy excludes or they opt for treatment that exceeds the policy's limits. Both of these things can be solved by the client beforehand by reading his policy and only buying one that provides the coverage he wants.

But even aside from that, your argument makes no sense. Many of the insurance companies in this country are run as non-profits. They have just as many complaints as the for profit ones. Also, when did profit become a bad word? I want my insurance company to profit, if it does well I can buy stock in it and share the profit, even if I chose not to do that it's providing jobs for people in the community and paying taxes to the Feds and the state.

And to RNATB specifically: The bureaucratic costs of government sponsored health insurance are far, far in excess of any profits made by private companies. Answer me this: The next time your kid has the flu, would you want to take him or her to the DMV for treatment? I sure wouldn't, but that's what UHC entails. My wife, in rich Alberta, with about the best provincial health care system in Canada, a country that does UHC better than any other, still had to wait 2 months, in pain (but nothing life threatening, just...painful) for an operation that would have been performed in 2 days here in the US. THAT is what UHC means everywhere in the world that it exists.

[Euphonious Polemic]

In socialist Canada, about 70% of the total health expenditure is financed by the government compared to about 45% in the United States. However, the U. S. spends about $ 2,500 more per person each year on health care than Canada.

Cite (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0289.htm)

I submit that this is evidence that Universal Health care is cheaper.

Ah, but you get what you pay for, right? Well we certainly have waiting lists for procedures like knee or hip replacements. You can't buy your way into better care here. You have to wait right along with the unwashed masses.

However, we do seem to be healthier, according to the World Health Organization:

Adult Mortality Rate (lower is better): Canada 72, USA 109
(probability of dying between 15 to 60 years per 1000 population)

Infant Mortality Rate: Canada 5.0, USA 7.0

Life expectancy at Birth: Canada 81 (78 men 83 women) USA 78 (75 men, 80 women)

Years of life lost to communicable disease: Canada 6.0, USA 9.0

And many, many others.....

[Really Not All That Bright]

My wife, in rich Alberta, with about the best provincial health care system in Canada, a country that does UHC better than any other, still had to wait 2 months, in pain (but nothing life threatening, just...painful) for an operation that would have been performed in 2 days here in the US.
... if it had been performed at all.
From a purely profit driven perspective, it is cheaper for an insurance company to pay almost any claim than it is for them to fight the state and risk the fines imposed. "Insurance companies don't pay claims" is a myth.
Now you're just talking out of your ass. The insurer doesn't have to fight the state unless it is being investigated for fraud. And insurance companies choose not to pay "covered" procedures all the time. I make a good living thanks to litigating insurance claims, and we don't pay for a damn thing unless a conservative physician deems it medically necessary.

[Lobohan]

BULLSHIT! the 46 million uninsured is a LIE, and frankly I'm tired of it. If you read the census report that that number comes from, you'll find that 33% of those people have coverage available to them from the government that they don't currently take advantage of. They're not uninsured. 20% of the 46 million are illegal aliens. They don't have any right to government provided health insurance. 37% make more that $50K/year,and 17% more than $75K. These people are uninsured by choice. They can afford it, they chose not to have it. That leaves....around 10 million people uninsured, less than 4% of the population. THAT'S the real figure, not the false one used to scare people into supporting a huge government entitlement program.

Educate yourself (http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx).
I am educated on the subject. Now how about you tell me what happens to the people who are uninsured when illness comes? Why they get it anyway at emergency room prices. Christ on a pogostick you're fucking dense.

[Lobohan]

I want my insurance company to profit...
Then you're fucking stupid. Each penny in profit that comes at the expense of needed care is a fucking abomination.

Insurance companies are motivated by profit to deny service whenever they can. That's the free market retard. The free market doesn't work for social services that are a net drain.

[Weirddave]

Then you're fucking stupid. Each penny in profit that comes at the expense of needed care is a fucking abomination.

Insurance companies are motivated by profit to deny service whenever they can. That's the free market retard. The free market doesn't work for social services that are a net drain.

Good Christ. I never thought anyone could have a negative IQ. You are an affront to everything this nation stands for and an abomination to every person who ever died for it. Why don't you do your part to make the nation a better place, and move.

[Weirddave]

... if it had been performed at all.

Now you're just talking out of your ass. The insurer doesn't have to fight the state unless it is being investigated for fraud. And insurance companies choose not to pay "covered" procedures all the time. I make a good living thanks to litigating insurance claims, and we don't pay for a damn thing unless a conservative physician deems it medically necessary.

So your contention is that we should have a health care system that pays for treatments than physicians deem unnecessary? And this will somehow be cheaper and better? :confused:

I don't know what kind of "insurance litigation" you do, but it sounds like you must be the boy who gets drinks for all the smart people, because you are claiming that the office of the insurance commissioner doesn't do what it actually does. Why don't you ask one of the actual lawyers how it works?

[Typo Negative]

Then you're fucking stupid. Each penny in profit that comes at the expense of needed care is a fucking abomination.
I don't understand this.
If they don't profit, they go broke and all there customers have no insurance. They have to deny things that are not coverered by the policy. They HAVE to keep costs down.

(if they deny things that ARE covered, they should be sued into oblivion, of course)

[Really Not All That Bright]

I don't know what kind of "insurance litigation" you do, but it sounds like you must be the boy who gets drinks for all the smart people, because you are claiming that the office of the insurance commissioner doesn't do what it actually does. Why don't you ask one of the actual lawyers how it works?
The state insurance commissioners review claims in the event of a complaint. Most of the time, they do nothing. Sometimes, they investigate. They cannot direct an insurer to pay a claim. They cannot take an insurer to court except in cases of fraud.

If your claim is denied, and the insurer won't settle, your only recourse is a lawsuit. Good luck getting paid off on that within three years.

Why don't you ask someone with two brain cells to rub together how it works?

[Euphonious Polemic]

My wife, in rich Alberta, with about the best provincial health care system in Canada, a country that does UHC better than any other, still had to wait 2 months, in pain (but nothing life threatening, just...painful) for an operation that would have been performed in 2 days here in the US. THAT is what UHC means everywhere in the world that it exists.

And for the privilege of getting care in 2 days, you pay tons more that we do in Canada, and have the added benefit of a large group of people that will not get the operation at all, but just live in pain.

No thank you.

My wife had to have serious (life threatening) surgery 8 years ago. She got excellent, timely treatment, and we did not have the added joy of selling our house or wondering if our coverage cut off. It gave me a great respect for our system.

[Lobohan]

I don't understand this.
If they don't profit, they go broke and all there customers have no insurance. They have to deny things that are not coverered by the policy. They HAVE to keep costs down.

(if they deny things that ARE covered, they should be sued into oblivion, of course)

Okay some people appear to misunderstand the concept of profit. Take a police station. Every person who works there makes money. Sometimes a lot of money. You can make over 100k a year as a beat cop in the bay area.

Okay so far? Okay.

Now the police department does stuff like patrolling and pulling rapists off of your sisters, daughters and mothers... good stuff I think we all agree. Are we on the same page?

If police departments were run for profit, that is to say, they had share holders and dispensed extra money over and above the salaries of their workers, then that money would have to come from somewhere.

Are we still on the same page?

Where does the profit over and above the operating costs that pay everyone's overhead and salaries come from? It comes from the pool of money that they use for operations. Get it?

So you've got a private health insurance company. They need to pay their shareholders. Where do they get the money from? Why from their dues paying clients, right?

So X money is coming in. Y money is spent on overhead, salaries and actually paying for medical procedures for their clients.

Where does Z, their profit come from? Z is what they have left over from X after paying Y. Get it?

So what you have to ask yourself is, "Does it make sense for a company that sells insurance to be run for a profit? Since that profit can be increased by taking away medical procedures that people, their clients, might need."

A government run system pays everyone involved, but doesn't look to turn a profit by fucking it's clients.

Make sense?

[Fear Itself]

Each state has an insurance commissioner that is responsible for regulating the insurance companies doing business in their state.Bullshit. If your group health insurance is part of your compensation from your employer, it is covered by the federal ERISA statutes, which prohibit any lawsuits for punitive or pain and suffering damages.

Case in point: My wife has an auto-immune disorder which has a 50% mortality rate within three years. Her doctor got her approved for a stem cell transplant study, but Blue Cross refused to pay for it, so we started the appeals process. As her condition declined, her doctor said she needed chemo therapy, but that such treatment would disqualify her for participating in the stem cell transplant study. We could not afford to wait until a lawsuit was decided, she needed treatment now, so she opted for the chemo.

Fast forward nine months: her doctor tells her Blue Cross is now approving patients for the same stem cell transplant study she was denied coverage for. WTF?!? All patients for that study are examined, and all have the same disease with the exact same symptoms and rate of disease progression. All things are equal, but they denied my wife.

So we contacted a Boston lawyer who specializes in health insurance litigation. Surprise! Because of the federal ERISA statutes, her health insurance company can only be compelled to pay for the stem cell transplant they denied, which my wife is no longer eligible for because they ran out the clock!. They cannot be punished for unequal treatment, and the state insurance commissioner cannot do diddley squat, because it is covered by federal law, not state law.

So blow it out your ass, you ignorant cockslime.

[Lobohan]

Good Christ. I never thought anyone could have a negative IQ. You are an affront to everything this nation stands for and an abomination to every person who ever died for it. Why don't you do your part to make the nation a better place, and move.:D Is that your version of conceding the argument?

[Voyager]

You really can't be this much of an idiot. Seriously. You're pulling my leg, right?

Have you actually ever dealt with the government? In private industry, if you don't spend at the end of the fiscal year, you might get questions about if the request was necessary, but the left over money goes into the profit. In the government, it means your budget gets cut. I'm not making this up - we made a nice bit of money one year when our government customer bought expensive training from us to use up some left over budget.

[Lobohan]

So blow it out your ass, you ignorant cockslime.To be non-hyperbolic for a second, I'd like to say I hope your wife is okay.

I think guys like Weirddave don't realize that their anger and ignorance are actually driving the problem.

[Frank]

A government run system pays everyone involved, but doesn't look to turn a profit by fucking it's clients.
Actually, one of the reasons that seizures of property for RICO and drug offenses were being pushed so hard was that it's pure profit for the government.

[Lobohan]

Actually, one of the reasons that seizures of property for RICO and drug offenses were being pushed so hard was that it's pure profit for the government.What an interesting and completely irrelevant fact.

[Frank]

What an interesting and completely irrelevant fact.
What's irrelevant about it? Are not the police and prosecutors a government run system?

[Really Not All That Bright]

What's irrelevant about it? Are not the police and prosecutors a government run system?
It's not "profit", though. Profit goes to shareholders. Giant bags of hash seized by police go to undercover units, or whatever.

[Lobohan]

It's not "profit", though. Profit goes to shareholders. Giant bags of hash seized by police go to undercover units, or whatever.Also that is a specific case because of America's love of the drug war. Do you [Frank] think UHC would be run for profit?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Also that is a specific case because of America's love of the drug war.
I love drugs.

What's this about a war, now?

[Trepa Mayfield]

Good Christ. I never thought anyone could have a negative IQ. You are an affront to everything this nation stands for and an abomination to every person who ever died for it. Why don't you do your part to make the nation a better place, and move.


You call THAT toning it down? I'd have hated to see your first draft...

But snark aside, I'm not seeing the fundamental problem with UHC. I get that we don't currently have the funding without plunging us deeper in debt. I get that. But I see it as a goal to work towards; that someday, if we're fiscally responsible, we can finally provide everyone with their right to good health.

But why is UHC, as you say, a weaker position than private? Right now, the system excludes those that can't pay for it. If you're too poor, you die sick and young. Is this right to you? What if you're a single mother, and your child is sick and dies because you can't afford insurance? It's like clean air or water--without access to proper medical treatment (emergency rooms are a step in the right direction, but are a stopgap measure if aiming to provide care to all), many people won't even have a chance to climb the ladder of life.

[Frank]

Also that is a specific case because of America's love of the drug war. Do you [Frank] think UHC would be run for profit?
I just think it was a simplistic statement. Police and prosecutors figured out a way to get money into their departments that was not budgeted to them, or so they could all drive around in Camaro's or whatever.

And that's why I do have concern about Obama's plan, mostly because it still involves the health insurance behemoths. As weirddave has clearly shown, they still want theirs. I hope that whatever plan is adopted helps the buggywhip salesmen to be retrained, but the nation does not owe them a living.

[DMC]

Educate yourself (http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx).Oh for fucks sake, couldn't you find anything that wasn't written by people sucking on Scaife's cock? Hell, you have an article written by a recent graduate of Liberty "University", who most recently worked for Accuracy in Academia (an outgrowth of Accuracy in Media, funded by Scaife and friends), who is now working for the Business and Media Institute (funded by Scaife and friends), citing Dr. David Gratzer of the Manhattan Institute (funded by Scaife and friends), and getting corroboration from Dr. Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute (funded by Scaife and friends).

Fucking shill.

Oh, and your little anecdotes about short waiting times in the U.S? As I've stated previously, shove it up your ass. Perhaps you'll get lucky and your waiting time to get it removed will be shorter than the waiting times of many (even well-insured) Americans who haven't experienced these quick results.

[Ravenman]

I'd like a piece of that action. Say $100?

I win the bet if the CBO's annual tax burden analysis shows any increase under Obama in the tax burden of any type of individual with an AGI of less than $250k (which number won't adjust for inflation over Obama's term).I just tried to send you a private message. It didn't work. So here's what I was trying to relate:

Yes, I'll take you up on the $100 bet. A few finer points:

1) I just went back to look at the CBO tax burden analysis, and although they come out every year, the data lag about two years. (As in, the 2008 report shows 2006 tax burden.) If Obama is elected and a tax reform package goes through Congress, CBO will surely make an estimation of the change in tax burden due to the bill, but it won't be based on data of what people actually paid because obviously the real data won't be in yet. Are you okay with having the results judged by the CBO estimate?

2) The CBO estimates do not generally provide data down to "type of individual," as you suggested in your post. Instead, they provide the percentage of tax paid on income to the income tax, payroll tax, excise taxes, and corporate taxes, and the total percentage of wages paid in tax for quartiles of income, as well as the top 10%, 5%, and 1%. I think we should look at the total taxes paid by the bottom four quartiles. (So if, for example, payroll taxes go up by a little but income taxes go down by more, and there's a net decrease in taxes for those groups, I win.) That captures the tax situation of the bottom 80%, but since the top quartile and top 10% measures include the taxes paid by the very wealthiest who certainly will see a larger tax bill, I can't figure out how to fairly disaggregate that data.

3) We can figure out how to arrange payment later.

[Weirddave]

You call THAT toning it down? I'd have hated to see your first draft...

But snark aside, I'm not seeing the fundamental problem with UHC. I get that we don't currently have the funding without plunging us deeper in debt. I get that. But I see it as a goal to work towards; that someday, if we're fiscally responsible, we can finally provide everyone with their right to good health.

But why is UHC, as you say, a weaker position than private? Right now, the system excludes those that can't pay for it. If you're too poor, you die sick and young. Is this right to you? What if you're a single mother, and your child is sick and dies because you can't afford insurance? It's like clean air or water--without access to proper medical treatment (emergency rooms are a step in the right direction, but are a stopgap measure if aiming to provide care to all), many people won't even have a chance to climb the ladder of life.

2 things. #1, as you say, we can't afford it. We can not afford what we are spending now, we can not afford to add trillions of dollars to it. #2, the later part of your post is simply untrue. Poor people have coverage, provided by the government. Hell, poor people have more coverage than they use, 33% of the uninsured in this country don't even use the government health coverage currently available. There is no kid anywhere in this country who doesn't have health insurance available to them because they are poor. They don't even have to be poor, I just helped a guy who makes $88K/year get free health insurance for his kids through the state. Using horror stories, "Won't somebody please think of the children!" anecdotes and completely inaccurate figures (Like Lobohan and the oft repeated but completely untrue 45 million figure) don't really help your case.

And that's why I do have concern about Obama's plan, mostly because it still involves the health insurance behemoths. As weirddave has clearly shown, they still want theirs. I hope that whatever plan is adopted helps the buggywhip salesmen to be retrained, but the nation does not owe them a living.

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Many of the people I work with are hoping for UHC, and soon rather than later, because it will be a windfall for them. It is impossible for any type of UHC to be instituted that doesn't include existing insurance companies. Nationalizing 15% of the economy would cause an instant depression, and it would destroy any confidence in the underlying economic structure-nobody would want to invest in anything because they would be leery that it would be nationalized at some point down the road. From a purely profit standpoint, I know lots of insurance executives who are licking their lips anticipating such a UHC scheme as it will make their paychecks and stock options go through the roof. I myself would likely make out quite well financially. Hell, after Mass. mandated health insurance for all, the offices there suddenly because the #1 producing offices in the entire country-almost overnight and far outstripping everyone else. For me, personally, financially, UHC would likely be the best thing since sliced bread.

But it's WRONG. It's anathema to what this country stands for, it's not the right solution to the actual problem, and I firmly believe that it will make our lives and our standard of living much worse. It's using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. It's gutting a system because it isn't working for 4% of the population, and it's being sold to the American public with lies and deception. If you want to sell UHC to the American people, be honest about what it will cost and what that will mean to our tax rate, be honest about what the system will involve (care rationing) and be honest about how it will change our lives. If you can sell it on that basis, more power to you, but the fact of the matter is, you can't, because once the facts come out, most people walk away from UHC.

Fear Itself, I'm sorry about your wife, but it seems to me that what happened was that your insurance wouldn't pay for an experimental procedure. That's not unusual. Later on they decided to, unfortunately the timing was such that you wife was no longer eligible. That's unfortunate for your wife, I certainly hope that it doesn't prove fatal, but I don't find anything reprehensible or unusual about that at all. In fact it's to their credit that they added the treatment to their coverage, they didn't have to. It seems that you're upset about the timing. It sucks for you. I'm sorry. But I see no culpability on the insurance company's part (based upon your post, if there is more to the story, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind) and more importantly, what makes you believe that government sponsored health care will be any different? In almost every way that I can think of, government is less efficient than the private sector. In countries with UHC, speedy access to experimental treatments is not the norm. UHC will be adding layers of bureaucracy and interference between the individual and the care s/he needs, why on earth this is seen as a good thing is beyond me entirely.




I think guys like Weirddave don't realize that their anger and ignorance are actually driving the problem.

Except I'm neither angry nor ignorant, TYVM. Which are you? I counter statements you make with links and facts, and you just slide on by and go to the next point, ignoring that your previous point has been proven wrong.

[Fear Itself]

That's unfortunate for your wife, I certainly hope that it doesn't prove fatal, but I don't find anything reprehensible or unusual about that at all. In fact it's to their credit that they added the treatment to their coverage, they didn't have to. It seems that you're upset about the timing. It sucks for you. I'm sorry. But I see no culpability on the insurance company's part And that kind of moral bankruptcy is why the Republicans are losing.

When President Obama and a Senate with a super-majority takes office in January, and the so-called "traditional values" of the conservative movement are tossed onto the ash heap of history, I will take great joy in the contemplation of at least one of the following results:

1. We tax you until your eyes bleed, and you haven't got the guts to do anything but suck it up and meekly submit to our will.

2. You refuse to pay your taxes, and we throw your sorry ass in jail and forget about you.

3. We plant a big progressive boot print on your ass, as you abandon your country and scamper up the socialist paradise of Canada.Take your pick, any one of them will make me giggle.

[stretch]

But it's WRONG. It's anathema to what this country stands for...WTF? What does this country stand for? Fucking over everybody who wasn't born to the right parents? I swear, all I hear from conservatives is "I got MINE! I worked hard, and I GOT MINE!" Except so many of you didn't work all that hard; you were born lucky.

Christ, I was born middle class (and lucky). Due to a number of failing in my younger life (most of them my own mistakes), I went down to dirt poor. To be honest, if I didn't already KNOW that I could get back to middle class, I would still be dirt poor. It was harder than hell to climb my way back up the ladder because life in the country is hard if you weren't born lucky.

The health care thing is a total hijack but...

I have 3 adult kids. The middle daughter has health problems she can't take care of because although she has state medical, only some doctors will take it. She is forced to go to the emergency room for most of her needs. That is not saving money, but that's the way the current system rolls.

My older daughter has insurance through her employer. Due to the high cost of premiums (for not that great of coverage), deductibles, and co-pays she still doesn't go to the doctor, because she can't afford to use her insurance.

My step-son, our youngest at 22, has no insurance. He just doesn't go to the doctor and Og help us if his shitty knee blows out. He also doesn't go to the dentist (very important preventative care, in case you are too stupid to know).

The current health care system is broken. We should start over. I know we won't because our politicians don't really spend much time representing us; they are mostly craven, slimy assholes who only care about themselves.

I wish I had an in to Canada, because I've wanted to move to a country with a government that is more in line with what I actually think a government should be doing. Maybe Ginger would leave you and marry me...same sex marraige is legal in Canada after all. But she probably shares your beliefs, so I guess that wouldn't work out.

[Trepa Mayfield]

2 things. #1, as you say, we can't afford it. We can not afford what we are spending now, we can not afford to add trillions of dollars to it. #2, the later part of your post is simply untrue. Poor people have coverage, provided by the government. Hell, poor people have more coverage than they use, 33% of the uninsured in this country don't even use the government health coverage currently available. There is no kid anywhere in this country who doesn't have health insurance available to them because they are poor. They don't even have to be poor, I just helped a guy who makes $88K/year get free health insurance for his kids through the state. Using horror stories, "Won't somebody please think of the children!" anecdotes and completely inaccurate figures (Like Lobohan and the oft repeated but completely untrue 45 million figure) don't really help your case.

Wait are you...are you talking about Medicaid? Medicaid is one of the blotiest, buerecratic, messed up governmnet programs out there. Fixing Medicaid would be an admirable (though incredibly difficult) goal for any politician, and it would probably save us money as well. Citing Medicaid does not earn you credibility. That's like, anti-credibility. UHC can be done well, but Medicaid is not the way to do it.

What about this? Would you be opposed to substantially changing Medacaid, so that it specifically insures all those unable to currently get health insurance without going into debt? Would that be bad? It'd be an interesting compromise, for sure. And, because of all the wasted $ currently there, it would probably only go slightly higher money-wise, meaning that we'd only have to cut a program or two, or raise taxes slightly, to implement it without raising the national debt.

[Lobohan]

Except I'm neither angry nor ignorant, TYVM. Which are you? I counter statements you make with links and facts, and you just slide on by and go to the next point, ignoring that your previous point has been proven wrong.I see you have embraced the McCain technique of attacking your opponent's strengths. :D

Look fucknut, you have your anecdotes and uninformed opinion. You wanna tell me exactly what I've ignored?

What you have ignored, my little stupid flower:

· the currently 45 million uncovered people still get medical care, only now it's at emergency room prices and it's paid for by us, the taxpayer.

· The uninsured don't have preventative care, which makes their health care way more expensive than it ought to be.

· 25 million people have half ass insurance that would still drive them broke if they got sick.

· Half of all bankruptcies have 12,000 or more in medical bills. Do you think an unexpected 12,000 expense (coupled with time off work) could drive the average family to bankruptcy?

· For profit insurance companies routinely deny care or authorize less care than someone needs. You don't think they do, but you're a fucking stupid jingoist assclown who thinks your limited experience equals data.

· You can still go bankrupt even if you have health insurance.

· We spend more than twice as much per capita as Canada right now. And they cover everyone.

· People in Canada, the UK and other UHC countries generally like their healthcare systems.

· People in America are routinely denied coverage because of health conditions.

· Coverage is often priced out of reach.

In short, you're a fucking ignorant tool. And the stupid, blind masses just like you are responsible for putting this country into the state that it's in.

[Weirddave]

I see you have embraced the McCain technique of attacking your opponent's strengths. :D

Look fucknut, you have your anecdotes and uninformed opinion. You wanna tell me exactly what I've ignored?

What you have ignored, my little stupid flower:

· the currently 45 million uncovered people still get medical care, only now it's at emergency room prices and it's paid for by us, the taxpayer.

· The uninsured don't have preventative care, which makes their health care way more expensive than it ought to be.

· 25 million people have half ass insurance that would still drive them broke if they got sick.

· Half of all bankruptcies have 12,000 or more in medical bills. Do you think an unexpected 12,000 expense (coupled with time off work) could drive the average family to bankruptcy?

· For profit insurance companies routinely deny care or authorize less care than someone needs. You don't think they do, but you're a fucking stupid jingoist assclown who thinks your limited experience equals data.

· You can still go bankrupt even if you have health insurance.

· We spend more than twice as much per capita as Canada right now. And they cover everyone.

· People in Canada, the UK and other UHC countries generally like their healthcare systems.

· People in America are routinely denied coverage because of health conditions.

· Coverage is often priced out of reach.

In short, you're a fucking ignorant tool. And the stupid, blind masses just like you are responsible for putting this country into the state that it's in.

And I see you're using the tried and true Obama tactic of restating the problem and then acting like you've accomplished something. Every single one of the problems you've mentioned has simple, effective, cost efficient market based solution, but you don't care. you don't want to hear about anything except for justifying a massive, unprecedented, unfunded, unneeded entitlement program. Fuck off. When you care about solutions, we can talk.


[Wait are you...are you talking about Medicaid? Medicaid is one of the blotiest, buerecratic, messed up governmnet programs out there. Fixing Medicaid would be an admirable (though incredibly difficult) goal for any politician, and it would probably save us money as well. Citing Medicaid does not earn you credibility. That's like, anti-credibility. UHC can be done well, but Medicaid is not the way to do it.

*sigh* Medicare and Medicare ARE what government run health care IS. That's what you get. Proponents of UHC never seem to recognize that, or believe that somehow this time it'll magically be better/more efficient/different somehow. Ask anyone who has had dealings with a government agency, ANY government agency, if their experience is any different than, say, my mother who was diagnosed with cancer and then forced to wait over 6 months to begin treatment by the Medicare bureaucracy. There is no magic bullet people, that's how the government runs things. Lobohan runs on about "bills over $12K bankrupting people." That's true, bills that high could easily do that. A person with Medicare hospitalized for 5 months will exhaust his lifetime benefits AND still be on the hook for $40K. This is better? Lobohan mentions that people in Canada, the UK and elsewhere generally like their healthcare. This is true and not true at the same time. It's true that they like their healthcare, but they also routinely put up with delays in care that we would find unacceptable here AND both Canada and most of Western Europe are currently moving away from full socialized health care and injecting private, free market solutions into their plans to save money and increase efficiency. Canada, for example, which does it better than just about anyone (Oh BTW Lobohan, did you know that it's not free up there? It varies Province to Province, but Canadian citizens do have to pay insurance premiums for some of their benefits) is currently suffering from a severe shortage of GPs, at the same time an average of one private clinic a week is opening to meet the demand for care(a free market solution).

The point (and it's one that I rarely if ever get to make, as soon as the words "I don't support government sponsored UHC" come out of my mouth the response is usually attack! Attack! Attack! from people for whom socializing the U.S. is a religeous calling) is not that there aren't problems in the health care system in the U.S., there are. And they need to be addressed. And I think government has an important role to play in addressing them. No, the point is that UHC is a ridiculous overreaction to the problems in our system, and is more of an entitlement looking for a justification than it is a solution to our problems, one that will do much more harm than good.

[Lobohan]

And I see you're using the tried and true Obama tactic of restating the problem and then acting like you've accomplished something. Every single one of the problems you've mentioned has simple, effective, cost efficient market based solution, but you don't care. you don't want to hear about anything except for justifying a massive, unprecedented, unfunded, unneeded entitlement program. Fuck off. When you care about solutions, we can talk.Why don't you rattle off the simple, effective, cost efficient market based solution? Could it be because you don't know them? You're a stupid sheep who's in love with the idea that the market is the solution to all things. It isn't. The market doesn't work for health insurance because profit directly detracts from service.

*sigh* Medicare and Medicare ARE what government run health care IS.Bullshit. It's a patch. An overarching system would be both more efficient and cheaper. For instance every other country with UHC is more efficient than Medicare.

That's what you get. Proponents of UHC never seem to recognize that, or believe that somehow this time it'll magically be better/more efficient/different somehow. Ask anyone who has had dealings with a government agency, ANY government agency, if their experience is any different than, say, my mother who was diagnosed with cancer and then forced to wait over 6 months to begin treatment by the Medicare bureaucracy. There is no magic bullet people, that's how the government runs things. Not true. That's how inefficient government runs things. Other countries have seamless systems where you walk in, get the treatment you need and walk out. No beauracracy. The trouble with you "market will fix it" drones is that you think it will be the DMV. Utter stupidity driven by the scare tactics of the right.

Lobohan runs on about "bills over $12K bankrupting people." That's true, bills that high could easily do that. A person with Medicare hospitalized for 5 months will exhaust his lifetime benefits AND still be on the hook for $40K. This is better?No UHC will mean no one is bankrupt for medical bills.

Lobohan mentions that people in Canada, the UK and elsewhere generally like their healthcare. This is true and not true at the same time. It's true that they like their healthcare, but they also routinely put up with delays in care that we would find unacceptable here AND both Canada and most of Western Europe are currently moving away from full socialized health care and injecting private, free market solutions into their plans to save money and increase efficiency.Market solutions make money for the insurance companies, they do not increase efficiency of health insurance. Profit by definition takes away money for treatment. An organization that doesn't make profit has more money for treatment. You can't be so stupid that you can't understand that.

Canada, for example, which does it better than just about anyone (Oh BTW Lobohan, did you know that it's not free up there? It varies Province to Province, but Canadian citizens do have to pay insurance premiums for some of their benefits) is currently suffering from a severe shortage of GPs, at the same time an average of one private clinic a week is opening to meet the demand for care(a free market solution).So? Of course some things aren't going to get covered. To say that countries that have UHC are looking to transition to a market based system like ours is an outright lie. UHC systems are all universally better than ours when it comes to coverage, cost and efficiency the only thing they have against them is slightly longer waits for non-urgent care. That's not to say the market can't play a role, but it will be smaller and more marginal.

The point (and it's one that I rarely if ever get to make, as soon as the words "I don't support government sponsored UHC" come out of my mouth the response is usually attack! Attack! Attack! from people for whom socializing the U.S. is a religeous calling) is not that there aren't problems in the health care system in the U.S., there are. And they need to be addressed. And I think government has an important role to play in addressing them. No, the point is that UHC is a ridiculous overreaction to the problems in our system, and is more of an entitlement looking for a justification than it is a solution to our problems, one that will do much more harm than good.The problem is your pathetic and delusional devotion to a market based solution is wrong. Thankfully more Americans are catching on to that.

[Weirddave]

Why don't you rattle off the simple, effective, cost efficient market based solution? Could it be because you don't know them? You're a stupid sheep who's in love with the idea that the market is the solution to all things. It isn't. The market doesn't work for health insurance because profit directly detracts from service.

Bullshit. It's a patch. An overarching system would be both more efficient and cheaper. For instance every other country with UHC is more efficient than Medicare.

Not true. That's how inefficient government runs things. Other countries have seamless systems where you walk in, get the treatment you need and walk out. No beauracracy. The trouble with you "market will fix it" drones is that you think it will be the DMV. Utter stupidity driven by the scare tactics of the right.

No UHC will mean no one is bankrupt for medical bills.

Market solutions make money for the insurance companies, they do not increase efficiency of health insurance. Profit by definition takes away money for treatment. An organization that doesn't make profit has more money for treatment. You can't be so stupid that you can't understand that.

So? Of course some things aren't going to get covered. To say that countries that have UHC are looking to transition to a market based system like ours is an outright lie. UHC systems are all universally better than ours when it comes to coverage, cost and efficiency the only thing they have against them is slightly longer waits for non-urgent care. That's not to say the market can't play a role, but it will be smaller and more marginal.

The problem is your pathetic and delusional devotion to a market based solution is wrong. Thankfully more Americans are catching on to that.

You know what? I give up. Profit = bad government = good. Corporations are evil, bureaucracies are bliss. Remove my brain and allow me to join you as one more drooling drone. You're not interested in any solutions, you just want to evangelize. Preach on Brother! I'm out. I'll save my time and effort for rational people.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Hentor: Why the fuck do you care what the wealthy do? As a point of fact they don't game the system, they fund the system, more than half of all income taxes are paid by just 5% of the population, but that's beside the point. I hear this a lot: *whine* But Bill Gates/Warren Buffet/Ted Turner/Donald Trump/Paris Hilton/rich person du jour gets such and so or does this or that. My whole attitude is so what. So what? Who cares what "the rich" get? Seriously. I work hard, I support my family in a comfortable lifestyle, we're happy I could care less what someone else has. Life's too short for jealousy man. Take care of yourself and your family and let the rest go.You're too fucking stupid. Educate yourself. Read "Perfectly Legal" or "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnson. You can keep pretending at being clever by suggesting that I'm just jealous, but that's obvious bullshit.

[Lobohan]

You know what? I give up. Profit = bad government = good. Corporations are evil, bureaucracies are bliss. Remove my brain and allow me to join you as one more drooling drone. You're not interested in any solutions, you just want to evangelize. Preach on Brother! I'm out. I'll save my time and effort for rational people.That's a classical example of a straw man. In no way am I anti-market. For widgets and cars and tvs and the value of labor of course it makes sense. For something that is inherently unprofitable, like say paying someone's medical bills it is not.

But I guess a nuanced view of life would be too hard to bother with, right?

[Weirddave]

You're too fucking stupid. Educate yourself. Read "Perfectly Legal" or "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnson. You can keep pretending at being clever by suggesting that I'm just jealous, but that's obvious bullshit.

I'm actually agog. I've been pondering how to respond to this all night and I still don't know. You referencing David Cay Johnson, whose whole body of professional works stands behind the things that I usually talk about- how the complex and unnecessary bureaucracy and overabundance of unneeded regulations give ample opportunity for rich people to game the system in their favor-I'd be less surprised to see the Devil quote scripture or Marx reference Freedman. After thinking about it, I think I may have come up with a response. I decry the system that allows this to happen, while you decry the people who use the system to their advantage. What they do is perfectly legal (heh), so if it's a problem, shouldn't the laws be changed to prevent it? In a broader view, what rich people do is no different than what unions say they do for their members (in my experience, unions work for THE UNION, individual members be damned) or what the NFIB or the NASE does for me, a self employed person. They all try to influence things to their advantage at other people's expense. We all get back more than any of us put in, that's the problem. Why should the people of Tennessee think that screwing the people of Kentucky out of money to benefit themselves is a good idea? That's the pork game, and it hurts all of us. I don't blame rich people for trying to tilt the playing field their way, why shouldn't they? We do. Government takes and takes and takes far more from successful people than they ever get back. OTOH, Government takes and takes and takes far more from everyday working Americans than we ever get back. Where does it end? Other groups do the same thing every day. What's the difference? It still seems to me that what you decry is that some people have resources that you or I don't have. OK....like I said before, so what? As long as I have the resources to support my family, why should I care? I disagree mildly with some of Johnson's conclusions, most especially with the idea that it's somehow "right" for rich people to give up a greater percentage of what they earn, but he's spot on about the problems inherent in the system. The solution is not more of the same, it's less. A simpler, broader playing field where each one of us contributes about the same, proportionality, and then goes about our respective business. What I said was true: 5% of us pay more than half of the tax revenues collected from all of us. So what if they try to limit it to that, it's more than fair as it stands. To my mind, that's more than doing their share. Asking for more is nothing more than pure class warfare, jealousy and raw greed.

[Weirddave]

That's a classical example of a straw man. In no way am I anti-market. For widgets and cars and tvs and the value of labor of course it makes sense. For something that is inherently unprofitable, like say paying someone's medical bills it is not.

But I guess a nuanced view of life would be too hard to bother with, right?

You're not making any sense. Answer me this one question: What is different about health insurance from everything else? Health insurance isn't "inherently unprofitable", that's absurd. Your big canard seems to be that health insurance only makes a profit at the expense of health care. You keep repeating it like it's an unquestioned statement of fact when it's anything but. If I run a health insurance company with 100 clients, who make an average of $1000/ year each in claims, which I pay, and my operating expenses to administer the policies are $20K per year and I charge each one of my clients $125/month for this insurance then I make a profit of $30K each year. Why is this so hard to understand, and what's wrong with that? Seriously, what is wrong with this scenario? It seems to me that you are operating from a false premise. The market works for car insurance, homeowner's insurance, flood insurance, life insurance and disability insurance. It works for TVs, radios, boxes, q-tips and beer. It works for cars, tractors, trucks and widgets. It works for books, cups, vacuums, lumber and dolls. It works for computers, refrigerators, carpet, paintings, doors and cigarettes. What is it about health insurance that makes it any different?

[foolsguinea]

Obama was responding in a non planned, non canned arena, and he accidentally answered the question honestly:

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"

No Mr. Obama, it's not, but thank you for revealing your true thoughts, it's nice to have what many of us have been saying finally out in the open. Be honest about it, and let the people decide. Stop trying to (trying? Hell, he's done it) buy the election with pie in the sky promises that are impossible to keep.OK, Dave, it's not good for everybody. In the same sense that incarcerating rapists is "not good" for the rapists, taking money away from the richest 5% to distribute among the rest of us is "not good" for that 5%. But it is "good" for 95% of us; & the basic structure of our economy is so "good" for the richest 5% that they can buy capital & make even more money, so it balances out. Besides, they're the richest 5%. They aren't exactly starving, are they?

[Weirddave]

OK, Dave, it's not good for everybody. In the same sense that incarcerating rapists is "not good" for the rapists, taking money away from the richest 5% to distribute among the rest of us is "not good" for that 5%. But it is "good" for 95% of us; & the basic structure of our economy is so "good" for the richest 5% that they can buy capital & make even more money, so it balances out. Besides, they're the richest 5%. They aren't exactly starving, are they?

What right do "you", "me" or "us" have to any more of their money? They're already funding half of "our" spending, by what agent do you think we're entitled to more than that?

[Weirddave]

And that kind of moral bankruptcy is why the Republicans are losing.

When President Obama and a Senate with a super-majority takes office in January, and the so-called "traditional values" of the conservative movement are tossed onto the ash heap of history, I will take great joy in the contemplation of at least one of the following results:

1. We tax you until your eyes bleed, and you haven't got the guts to do anything but suck it up and meekly submit to our will.

2. You refuse to pay your taxes, and we throw your sorry ass in jail and forget about you.

3. We plant a big progressive boot print on your ass, as you abandon your country and scamper up the socialist paradise of Canada.Take your pick, any one of them will make me giggle.

Actually, if your beloved President Obama takes office, and runs this nation into the ground as he says he plans to, I have far, far more confidence in my ability to come out of it in good shape because I have several things that you utterly lack: Honor, integrity and a work ethic. Be the good lapdog that you are and slurp up the scraps that your masters deign to toss you to keep you quiet you dishonorable parasite. After your wife dies from the lack of care a socialized system imposes, and America comes to it's senses and throws Obama and his fellow thieves out on the street things will improve. There's a difference between people like you and people like me. People like me always look at the situation and adapt to it as it changes and through our intelligence and hard work we prosper. People like you....once a sniveling worm, always a sniveling worm.

[UnwrittenNocturne]

Actually, if your beloved President Obama takes office, and runs this nation into the ground as he says he plans to, I have far, far more confidence in my ability to come out of it in good shape because I have several things that you utterly lack: Honor, integrity and a work ethic. Be the good lapdog that you are and slurp up the scraps that your masters deign to toss you to keep you quiet you dishonorable parasite. After your wife dies from the lack of care a socialized system imposes, and America comes to it's senses and throws Obama and his fellow thieves out on the street things will improve. There's a difference between people like you and people like me. People like me always look at the situation and adapt to it as it changes and through our intelligence and hard work we prosper. People like you....once a sniveling worm, always a sniveling worm.

Dies from lack of care..stop making shit up you fucking idiot. Far more likely under the sickening for-profit 'healthcare' system currently running. The only thieves here are people involved in the health insurance industry. People like you...once a fucking sociopathic buffoon with no respect for human life or dignity (unless they can afford to pay), always a sociopathic buffoon.

There is a fundamental difference between people like you and Fear Itself. You're a complete cunt and he isn't.

[Lobohan]

Actually, if your beloved President Obama takes office, and runs this nation into the ground as he says he plans to, I have far, far more confidence in my ability to come out of it in good shape because I have several things that you utterly lack: Honor, integrity and a work ethic.But you're pretty fucking stupid, won't that be a hindrance?

Be the good lapdog that you are and slurp up the scraps that your masters deign to toss you to keep you quiet you dishonorable parasite. After your wife dies from the lack of care a socialized system imposes, and America comes to it's senses and throws Obama and his fellow thieves out on the street things will improve. There's a difference between people like you and people like me. People like me always look at the situation and adapt to it as it changes and through our intelligence and hard work we prosper. People like you....once a sniveling worm, always a sniveling worm.You're a tough guy on the intarweb mister Dave. Pity you're such a fucking cowardly, unpatriotic lump of shit.

[Lobohan]

You're not making any sense. Answer me this one question: What is different about health insurance from everything else? Health insurance isn't "inherently unprofitable", that's absurd. Your big canard seems to be that health insurance only makes a profit at the expense of health care. You keep repeating it like it's an unquestioned statement of fact when it's anything but. If I run a health insurance company with 100 clients, who make an average of $1000/ year each in claims, which I pay, and my operating expenses to administer the policies are $20K per year and I charge each one of my clients $125/month for this insurance then I make a profit of $30K each year. Why is this so hard to understand, and what's wrong with that? Seriously, what is wrong with this scenario? It seems to me that you are operating from a false premise. The market works for car insurance, homeowner's insurance, flood insurance, life insurance and disability insurance. It works for TVs, radios, boxes, q-tips and beer. It works for cars, tractors, trucks and widgets. It works for books, cups, vacuums, lumber and dolls. It works for computers, refrigerators, carpet, paintings, doors and cigarettes. What is it about health insurance that makes it any different?Because you simpering fucknugget, that profit of 30k a year makes it inefficient. That means that the government could charge 30k less and for the same coverage.

For someone who wants to suck the market's invisible dick, you sure don't understand much about it.

Businesses want to maximize profit. Insurance companies maximize profit by limiting payouts or increasing rates. Or both. They will and do try everything they can to save a buck, including denying care.

Look, I suspect that your mom was involved in a drinking contest with a Samoan powerlifter during your first trimester, but try to massage your spiderwebby brain meats into something that allows coherent thought and get back to me.

[UnwrittenNocturne]

Insurance companies maximize profit by limiting payouts or increasing rates. Or both. They will and do try everything they can to save a buck, including denying care.

This.

The fucking insurance vampires maximise profit by denying, by reducing. They profit from the misery of others and every motherfucker involved with them is a worthless piece of shit

[Hentor the Barbarian]

You referencing David Cay Johnson, whose whole body of professional works stands behind the things that I usually talk about- how the complex and unnecessary bureaucracy and overabundance of unneeded regulations give ample opportunity for rich people to game the system in their favor-I'd be less surprised to see the Devil quote scripture or Marx reference Freedman. [...]So, you read Johnston (notice the proper spelling of his last name, btw) and then cherry pick the parts that support your premise. In seriousness, since you recognize that the system is broken and unfairly gamed by the rich, WHO THE FUCK do you think has the wherewithall to keep it broken? Don't you get that the poor have no leverage in changing the system (apart from trying to vote in people who will actually fight for them)? In terms of paying for favoritism and access and power to maintain the broken system, obviously only the rich can do so. There is a clear and stark point at which your thinking is shattered. (Plus, you seem to fail to recognize the irony of Johnston's use of the title Perfectly Legal.)

You also seem to regard the rich as a group that has somehow come to America from somewhere entirely removed from us - perhaps some other planet. They've generously bestowed upon us some of this extra-terrestrial wealth and we have the temerity to just take more of it! No, the wealth that they have is generated by BEING PART of the system. They have benefitted by the American system to the point of being dramatically wealthy. They have an obligation to ensure that the American system which they have benefitted so greatly from continues to function well, don't they? Isn't it only just that they do so, so that future individuals have their shot at taking advantage of the benefits of being American and becoming wealthy as well? Or would it be more fair if past individuals had, say, taken the opportunities America presented for them, sucked up all the resources America had and kept all of that to pass along to likely indolent offspring? Sometimes I think that non-wealthy conservatives would like to have been serfs.

In short, it is my turn to be agog that someone could read and appear to be supportive of Johnston's books, and yet come away believing in the inherent right of the wealthy to use their wealth to the detriment of the American way of life.

[Ravenman]

... I have far, far more confidence in my ability to come out of it in good shape because I have several things that you utterly lack: Honor, integrity and a work ethic. Nobody with any integrity would say such a thing.

[Voyager]

You're not making any sense. Answer me this one question: What is different about health insurance from everything else? Health insurance isn't "inherently unprofitable", that's absurd. Your big canard seems to be that health insurance only makes a profit at the expense of health care. You keep repeating it like it's an unquestioned statement of fact when it's anything but. If I run a health insurance company with 100 clients, who make an average of $1000/ year each in claims, which I pay, and my operating expenses to administer the policies are $20K per year and I charge each one of my clients $125/month for this insurance then I make a profit of $30K each year. Why is this so hard to understand, and what's wrong with that? Seriously, what is wrong with this scenario? It seems to me that you are operating from a false premise. The market works for car insurance, homeowner's insurance, flood insurance, life insurance and disability insurance. It works for TVs, radios, boxes, q-tips and beer. It works for cars, tractors, trucks and widgets. It works for books, cups, vacuums, lumber and dolls. It works for computers, refrigerators, carpet, paintings, doors and cigarettes. What is it about health insurance that makes it any different?

You don't know anything about this, do you? First of all, you can't run a health insurance business with 100 clients - five of them might have bills one year for $10K, and wipe you out. The more people in a pool the more efficient that pool is, so a pool of everyone under UHC is going to be better than the split up ones we have today.
Second, your proft is $300 per client. In your scenario of healthcare this low, don't you think that more people would be able to join the system at $300 less a year?
The difference between healthcare and those other things you mention is that a kid without a doll might cry, but a kid without healthcare might die. More likely, the delay in seeing a doctor will make the government funded treatment more expensive. Your profit costs me more taxes, or a bigger deficit.

[Weirddave]

I'm going to try one last time. As irrational as you people are about profits, don't you see that the same limiting factor on the government is budget? Whatever budget you provide for health care ( and we're talking truly staggering numbers here, we would have to double the entire federal budget just to fund the current amount of care administered in this country ), demand would soon exceed it. That's a basic law of supply and demand. Since an unlimited budget is impossible, at some point you are going to have a government bureaucracy denying or limiting care. It occurs in every single system with UHC, it will occur here, and people will die because of it. Tell me, oh champions of the great and compassionate hand of government, how that is any less "immoral" that what you're railing against private companies for. Remember, if private companies deny coverage unfairly, you have the right to appeal to your state's insurance commissioner who can make the company pay (no matter what RNATB says, I confirmed it with the MD Insurance Commissioner's office personally). When government denies your care...where do you turn then?

Oh, and Lobohan, you completely ignored when I posted earlier that these same things, denial of coverage, happen just as frequently when the insurance companies in question are not for profit agencies. How do you explain that?


Dies from lack of care..stop making shit up you fucking idiot.

Really? You think I'm making shit up? Hmm. Maybe you should go to Oregon and ask Barbara Wagner and others like her.

In May 2008, 64-year-old retired school bus driver Barbara Wagner received bad news from her doctor. She found out that her cancer, which had been in remission for two years, had returned. Then, she got some good news. Her doctor gave her a prescription that would likely slow the cancer’s growth and extend her life. She was relieved by the news and also by the fact that she had health care coverage through the Oregon Health Plan. It didn’t take long for her hopes to be dashed.

Barbara Wagner was notified by letter that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn’t cover her prescription. But the letter didn’t leave it at that. It also notified her that, although it wouldn’t cover her prescription, it would cover assisted suicide.

After Wagner’s story appeared in the Eugene Register-Guard, the Oregon Health Plan acknowledged that it routinely sends similar letters to patients who have little chance of surviving more than five years, informing them that the health plan will pay for assisted suicide (euphemistically categorized as “comfort care”), but not for treatment that could help them live for months or years.

Link (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/oregons_suicidal_approach_to_h.html)


What is the Oregon Health Plan you ask? Why, it's the plan that the government of Oregon provides for people in their state. Now I'm not aware of any private insurance companies that pay for suicide but not care. There may be some, and if there are I'm sure you'll provide a link, but until then.....yea, I stand by "more likely to die".

[Liberal]

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"

No Mr. Obama, it's not, but thank you for revealing your true thoughts...But it is. That's how capitalism works. When money is hoarded, either with government or with a few chieftains of commerce, then capital generation becomes impossible. Wealth can't be generated without money moving from one source to another.

[DMC]

What is the Oregon Health Plan you ask? Why, it's the plan that the government of Oregon provides for people in their state. Now I'm not aware of any private insurance companies that pay for suicide but not care. There may be some, and if there are I'm sure you'll provide a link, but until then.....yea, I stand by "more likely to die".You're right. The insurance companies will happily pay for neither care nor assisted suicide.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3389038&page=1

[Hentor the Barbarian]

It occurs in every single system with UHC, it will occur here, and people will die because of it.To what are you referring here, because I cannot fathom your meaning. This sentence is quite simply factually incorrect - most UHC systems around the world function quite well. Please clarify.

Our health care system is the most costly while achieving only mediocre results. Only a desire to pass more wealth to insurers could make anyone supportive of it.

[Dangerosa]

I don't understand this.
If they don't profit, they go broke and all there customers have no insurance. They have to deny things that are not coverered by the policy. They HAVE to keep costs down.

(if they deny things that ARE covered, they should be sued into oblivion, of course)

I used to work for United HealthCare. A certain number of people will just pay claims if they are denied. So you deny claims - not all of them, just some of them. Sometimes, when they call you say "oh, miscoded, talk to your doctor" A certain number of people won't bother to follow through with their doctor to argue over it. The overhead in Doctor's offices is high just so that they can get paid.

You also drop doctors during the middle of someone's treatment plan - now they either have to switch doctors to stay covered, or pay out of pocket.

Its a horrible industry that - at least at UHC - is making a few people very wealthy by denying covered treatment - in addition to the other things that they do.

There were some good people working in the executive offices at UHC trying to do the best within the system they had. But they were the exception to what was functionally an organization that tried to be as profitable as possible - and I think was (at that time, I haven't worked for them for ten years and McGuire is out now) corrupt.

[UnwrittenNocturne]

Really? You think I'm making shit up? Hmm. Maybe you should go to Oregon and ask Barbara Wagner and others like her.

What is the Oregon Health Plan you ask? Why, it's the plan that the government of Oregon provides for people in their state. Now I'm not aware of any private insurance companies that pay for suicide but not care. There may be some, and if there are I'm sure you'll provide a link, but until then.....yea, I stand by "more likely to die".

Yes you make shit up to support the unsupportable. Just ask the estimated 26000 Americans who died early deaths in 2006 due to not having insurance. Or the ones who have lost everything they ever had trying to pay the bills. You support that system. You are vile. Absolutely vile. You have all the human grace of a cockroach. Although perhaps that isn't fair to cockroaches. You think it just fine to let people die, to let people lose their life savings and go into perpetual debt - so long as somebody is making profit from it. Pondscum is of a higher moral order

[Tannim]

Weirddave,
The government can afford to charge less than the private sector because when expenses are more than income with the government they can just print more money to cover it. They don't need to worry about having extra money in investments to cover when a large amount of people have large claims like a for profit (or not for profit) private company would.

They will also save a lot of money by limiting what they will pay for prescrition drugs. Canada does this and saves a lot of money. But since we are the ones that pay for new drugs to be developed not those countries that limit and disallow the drug companies to recoup R&D costs there will also be a big savings with no new drugs to look at for anything.

[treis]

And to RNATB specifically: The bureaucratic costs of government sponsored health insurance are far, far in excess of any profits made by private companies. Answer me this: The next time your kid has the flu, would you want to take him or her to the DMV for treatment? I sure wouldn't, but that's what UHC entails. My wife, in rich Alberta, with about the best provincial health care system in Canada, a country that does UHC better than any other, still had to wait 2 months, in pain (but nothing life threatening, just...painful) for an operation that would have been performed in 2 days here in the US. THAT is what UHC means everywhere in the world that it exists.

You are no worse off than I am in regards to public health care. Canada spends 6.8% of their GDP on public health care, and the U.S. spends 6.9% of their GDP on public health care. In other words, your taxes are no higher, and you have the exact same ability to pay for private insurance and, presumably, get your wife's operation in two days as I do. The difference is that (depending on the nature of the operation), the fact that you chose not to buy/could not afford private insurance didn't prevent your wife from getting the operation.