Value-Added Tax and Health Care Reform

[Alaska Darin]

I don't see any government plan working because the government is completely ineffective at controlling costs. The problem isn't the amount of money currently being spent. It's more than enough.

 

The fact that the government is pouring $510 BILLION into Medicare/Medicaid THIS year (up from $473 BILLION in 2004) is alarming. 2005 is the first year that Medicare/caid will cost more than Social Security.

 

FWIW, the projected budget for national defense is $497 BILLION this year.

 

Scary stuff.

[KRC]

I don't see any government plan working because the government is completely ineffective at controlling costs.  The problem isn't the amount of money currently being spent.  It's more than enough. 

 

The fact that the government is pouring $510 BILLION into Medicare/Medicaid THIS year (up from $473 BILLION in 2004) is alarming.  2005 is the first year that Medicare/caid will cost more than Social Security.

 

FWIW, the projected budget for national defense is $497 BILLION this year.

 

Scary stuff.

289881[/snapback]

 

So, you are saying that we are not spending enough on defense?

 

[Alaska Darin]

So, you are saying that we are not spending enough on defense? 

 

289887[/snapback]

It's always funny to me that the liberals will get their panties in such a wad over the "military industrial complex" but could give a flyer about what Social Security and Medicare/caid cost.

 

I don't disagree that we spend entirely too much money on national defense - especially for the Germans, Brits, and Japanese but we simply give Washington far too much money to toss around - then we're somehow surprised when they spend all of it, and even more.

[Fezmid]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/29/pf/taxes/t...dex.htm?cnn=yes

 

More fuel to move to a purely sales-tax basis?

CW

[Rubes]

It was what I was discussing in this thread. Privatize it. I know that you do not agree with the position, but I feel it is the best method. Get the government out of it and put the choices on the people paying for the plan. Use car/homeowners insurance as the model. By reducing taxes, it will leave more money for people to be able to afford the coverage. To cover people who still would not be able to afford coverage, I would encourage charitable donations to organizations who would provide coverage for those less fortunate. It eliminates government controlled welfare and puts it down on the local level in the form of local charities. This would give greater oversite into abuse of the system.

 

Once you start creating things like the Federal Health Board, you are just going to be in the same boat as you would have if you Socialized medicine. It is no different from having the government run the plan.

289805[/snapback]

 

Thanks, I was guessing that was your position but I didn't know if you had more specifics. I think you're right, we're not likely to agree on this topic. Similar to your thoughts, I think your plan has significant holes in it as well, and I don't particularly agree with the concept that health insurance should be approached or modeled similar to car or homeowner's insurance. Complete privatization of health care is just a potentially dangerous concept, in my opinion, and carries the prospect of leaving too many citizens behind.

 

I still disagree that this new type of proposal would result in the same situation as socialized medicine, but we're not likely to resolve that.

 

Again, I think it really comes down to how much we, as a people, really want universal access to health care. I'm not convinced that we really do.

[Alaska Darin]

Thanks, I was guessing that was your position but I didn't know if you had more specifics. I think you're right, we're not likely to agree on this topic. Similar to your thoughts, I think your plan has significant holes in it as well, and I don't particularly agree with the concept that health insurance should be approached or modeled similar to car or homeowner's insurance. Complete privatization of health care is just a potentially dangerous concept, in my opinion, and carries the prospect of leaving too many citizens behind.

 

I still disagree that this new type of proposal would result in the same situation as socialized medicine, but we're not likely to resolve that.

 

Again, I think it really comes down to how much we, as a people, really want universal access to health care. I'm not convinced that we really do.

289953[/snapback]

Despite the fact that we're spending over half a TRILLION annually on Medicare/Medicaid, about 44,000,000 Americans are currently without coverage. Coincidentally, that's about the same percentage of Canadien citizens that are denied health care despite their "socialized medicine."

 

There is no government program to create the utopia people desire. Government programs tend to have the opposite effect of their stated intention.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I don't see any government plan working because the government is completely ineffective at controlling costs.  The problem isn't the amount of money currently being spent.  It's more than enough. 

 

The fact that the government is pouring $510 BILLION into Medicare/Medicaid THIS year (up from $473 BILLION in 2004) is alarming.  2005 is the first year that Medicare/caid will cost more than Social Security.

 

FWIW, the projected budget for national defense is $497 BILLION this year.

 

Scary stuff.

289881[/snapback]

 

At the risk of Campy saying I don't add anything to the conversation, that post deserves a big ol' FACTS SUCK.

 

Thus ends the left-wing theory that the Military is the single largest expenditure in the budget. Also points out an interesting fact that the military is one of the few constitutionally-mandated government line items.

 

And yet it's number 3 on the list.

[Gene Frenkle]

At the risk of Campy saying I don't add anything to the conversation, that post deserves a big ol' FACTS SUCK.

 

Thus ends the left-wing theory that the Military is the single largest expenditure in the budget. Also points out an interesting fact that the military is one of the few constitutionally-mandated government line items.

 

And yet it's number 3 on the list.

290002[/snapback]

WHY?!?!?!?!

 

It is obvious we are not going to agree on this, but I thank you for the debate. It was productive and it forced me to think about exactly want I want in helathcare reform. I still do not have a comprehensive plan, but I am closer. Again, thanks for the rational debate. It is something that we rarely see here.

289525[/snapback]

Very nice debate, fellas. A good read all the way through.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

WHY?!?!?!?!

290016[/snapback]

 

Why is it number three? Well, it's likely because both Social Insecurity and Medi-scam are huge money-eating behemoths that consume far more than they were ever meant to.

[ExiledInIllinois]

What was quickly turning?

289568[/snapback]

 

 

I was making a joke Ken... The conversation was getting a little more tense as it progressed.

 

? Just my observation, silly observation!

 

I will try and stay stuffier next time and just continue to lurk.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Oh... And it was a good debate.

 

I am just too damn cynical!