DC Tom Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 just needs more funding is all No, it doesn't. I'd guess Medicare/Medicaid are overfunded to begin with (if only because they're government programs)...but that's beside the point. Having dealt with both, I'm pretty sure funding isn't the problem. The problem is that they're hidebound government bureaucracies. "More funding" is dumping money down a pit unless they're reorganized into something passably sane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 No, it doesn't. I'd guess Medicare/Medicaid are overfunded to begin with (if only because they're government programs)...but that's beside the point. Having dealt with both, I'm pretty sure funding isn't the problem. The problem is that they're hidebound government bureaucracies. "More funding" is dumping money down a pit unless they're reorganized into something passably sane. Paul Krugman has been yelling for years that we pay more than anyone and get less in health care. I have the feeling he won't be singing that tune much from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Paul Krugman has been yelling for years that we pay more than anyone and get less in health care. I have the feeling he won't be singing that tune much from now on. Krugman's also off his rocker. If he stops singing that tune, it won't be because it stopped being true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Paul Krugman has been yelling for years that we pay more than anyone and get less in health care. I have the feeling he won't be singing that tune much from now on. Some think the only difference is the song will go from a solo to a choral arrangement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Paul Krugman has been yelling for years that we pay more than anyone and get less in health care. I have the feeling he won't be singing that tune much from now on. Paul Krugman's tune is almost as lame as a Barry Mannilow tune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 We as a nation jumped whole heartedly into a war thinking it will only cost us 75 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 We as a nation jumped whole heartedly into a war thinking it will only cost us 75 billion. Maybe we learned from our previous mistake of believing a politician saying something will "only cost 75 billion" Could the American public actually have learned from our mistakes (I say our in a generic sense as some people, myself included, thought it was a bad idea from the beginning)? Fool us once, shame on you Fool us twice, shame on......oooh, when does American Idol® start back up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Maybe we learned from our previous mistake of believing a politician saying something will "only cost 75 billion" Could the American public actually have learned from our mistakes (I say our in a generic sense as some people, myself included, thought it was a bad idea from the beginning)? Fool us once, shame on you Fool us twice, shame on......oooh, when does American Idol® start back up? I think it is safe to say that the book of federal programs that cost significantly more than the pitch price is a fuggin' thick one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 I think it is safe to say that the book of federal programs that cost significantly more than the pitch price is a fuggin' thick one. Just like all the new military equipment we will buy. You know, the nuclear submarines we need to save us from terrorists armed with box cutters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 We already have free health care. I have yet to see a hospital deny anyone service because they didn't have money to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Maybe we learned from our previous mistake of believing a politician saying something will "only cost 75 billion" Could the American public actually have learned from our mistakes (I say our in a generic sense as some people, myself included, thought it was a bad idea from the beginning)? Fool us once, shame on you Fool us twice, shame on......oooh, when does American Idol® start back up? Still would have fooled me only once... I wasn't fooled the first time, yet can be fooled on healthcare... AT LEAST it is getting back to some American taxpayer (maybe not me)... But, healthcare is at least a legitamate endeavor... IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 We already have free health care. I have yet to see a hospital deny anyone service because they didn't have money to pay. Yes, but the difference is that all taxpayers have to pay for our current program. Under the new plan, only 5% of the US will have to pay for it. Much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Yes, but the difference is that all taxpayers have to pay for our current program. Under the new plan, only 5% of the US will have to pay for it. Much better. There is no equality with the almighty buck... Sorry. It is the one thing that can discriminate. Hey... Sucks if you are in the 5%... Really sucks.. Let's ride the backs of the rich... What are they going to do leave the country, shut down their business, stop working (most are workaholics)?... Let them, somebody will fill the void the consumers need filled. Sure, it wil be tough at times. Let the brats take their ball and go home, just don't let them play again. Don't let the door hit them in the ass. Is this "redistribution?" Let's all cry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Try $750 billion minium. Care to share your analysis? Or are just farting in the wind as usual... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 No need to get that complex. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how increasing demand for a commodity in limited supply reduces costs. The commodity's that's in limited supply--and hence a major driver of the systemic cost--is a reliance on emergency room visits by the uninsured. These costs ultimately are covered by tax dollars and higher health insurance premiums. If this uncompensated cost goes away by giving those previously uninsured access to the same health care system insured folks have--meaning access to an HMO/private practice/MD gatekeeper that can manage the patient's health care services--a major cost bottle neck is reduced. Will the Obama proposal be a seamless solution to a thorny problem? Of course not--nothing as large and complex as health care can ever be manhandled into efficiency simply by extending insurance coverage. But the health care cost problem won't be solved by ignoring the uninsured either. Something's gotta give, and this is a step in a direction that makes long-term sense, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 sigh...sliding, slippery slope into socialism. Welcome to Canada. Start accumulating cash as much as possible and get some underground economy 101. Gonna need it to keep your money from Uncle Sam. How sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 There is no equality with the almighty buck... Sorry. It is the one thing that can discriminate. Hey... Sucks if you are in the 5%... Really sucks.. Let's ride the backs of the rich... What are they going to do leave the country, shut down their business, stop working (most are workaholics)?... Let them, somebody will fill the void the consumers need filled. Sure, it wil be tough at times. Let the brats take their ball and go home, just don't let them play again. Don't let the door hit them in the ass. Is this "redistribution?" Let's all cry. Trouble always comes from lack of empowerment. If enough people like you sing their tune, the 5% class will be unable to defend their interests and become alienated from the political system. They'll simply stop paying taxes - it will be cheaper to seek protection from the politicians by paying them directly. It's no great mystery. What do you think happens in the reverse situation, when the wealthy have all the power, pay no taxes, and the entire burden is on the poor? Armed rebellion, eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Trouble always comes from lack of empowerment. If enough people like you sing their tune, the 5% class will be unable to defend their interests and become alienated from the political system. They'll simply stop paying taxes - it will be cheaper to seek protection from the politicians by paying them directly. It's no great mystery. What do you think happens in the reverse situation, when the wealthy have all the power, pay no taxes, and the entire burden is on the poor? Armed rebellion, eventually. Exactly. Do you want to keep heading down that round towards armed rebellion?... If we don't change course that is where we are headed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Exactly. Do you want to keep heading down that round towards armed rebellion?... If we don't change course that is where we are headed. We are a hell of a lot closer to a taxpayer revolt than we are the poor revolting. Lets look at the poor. No federal income tax. They do pay social security taxes, but their money is calculated with a higher return than the wealthy get. They have a safety net of welfare, food stamps, unemployement, etc. Yeah, they are real close to armed rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 We are a hell of a lot closer to a taxpayer revolt than we are the poor revolting. Lets look at the poor. No federal income tax. They do pay social security taxes, but their money is calculated with a higher return than the wealthy get. They have a safety net of welfare, food stamps, unemployement, etc. Yeah, they are real close to armed rebellion. Maybe... Hey, it is their own doing. "...Overall federal taxes were not that diffferent during the period of fast grwoth than they are today. Federal taxes averaged 18.5% of the GDP from 1950 to 1973, 19.4 from 1973 to 2002, and stood at 18.2 in 2002. The composition of federal taxes has changed greatly since then. For example, Social Security taxes were only 10.9% of federal revenues in 1950 compared to 35.3% in 2002, while corporate income taxes declined 35.3% of revenues to 9.5% over the same span. Looking at only personal income Social Security taxes gives the impression of substantial increases in taxes, but that is misleading because the higher corporate tax payments of the 1950's were inevitably passed on to individuals either in the form of lower wages, lower returns to investment, or higher consumer prices. Substituting taxes on corporations for taxes on individuals does not make the burden of taxes go away." ~Taxing Ourselves By Joel Slemrod, Jon M. Bakija Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts