AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year................USA Civil Population......USA Total Civil Employed
1980...................... 167,745,000.................99,302,000 [CARTER 1977-1981][/u]
1981...................... 170,130,000………….....100,397,000 [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1982..................... 172,271,000.................99,526,000
1983..................... 174,215,000...............100,834,000
1984..................... 176,383,000...............105,005,000
1985..................... 178,206,000………........107,150,000
1986..................... 180,587,000...............109,597,000
1987..................... 182,753,000...............112,440,000
1988..................... 184,613,000...............114,968,000

Tax credits are alleged, "to do nothing for people who can't afford the premiums in the first place." It is further alleged, "this is not a solution for those who can't afford health care right now at all, and it also does nothing at all for those with pre-existing conditions."

Taxes that would otherwise be paid to the feds, are saved by tax credits. Those savings could then be used to help private individuals buy private health care insurance.

Those people who ordinarily pay too little taxes for tax credits to provide them sufficient savings to buy private health care insurance, can be helped by the feds providing them vouchers that will permit them to buy private health care insurance.

Those people with pre-existing conditions can be helped by the feds providing them either extra tax credits or an extra voucher to cover the expense of insurance for a pre-existing condition.

What happens if you need the insurance NOW but get the credits at the end of the year? You don't get the insurance, is what happens. For families who live month-to-month (which is a hell of a lot of them) this isn't a solution.

It isn't a question of added expense - unless the insurers are forced to take people, they simply won't do so. You aren't seriously examining the situation, Ican.

[

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What happens if you need the insurance NOW but get the credits at the end of the year? You don't get the insurance, is what happens. For families who live month-to-month (which is a hell of a lot of them) this isn't a solution.

It isn't a question of added expense - unless the insurers are forced to take people, they simply won't do so. You aren't seriously examining the situation, Ican.

When a person needs the insurance NOW, the feds can grant that person a voucher from the government NOW.

Medical care insurers will take people with pre-existing conditions if they are either adequately compensated when they voluntarily do so, or when they are required by law to do so.

Cyclo, THINK!

Are you suggesting we add government workers ican in order to administer those vouchers?

Think ican. Who will decide who gets vouchers and when?

The Republican plan doesn't require them by law to do so. So, you haven't really put forth a plan which covers the problems we are facing.

NO!
I'm suggesting we put some of those current excess government workers to work administering the private health insurance government voucher plan. The January 3, 2011 Congress would decide the rules for administering this voucher plan and hopefully those government workers will correctly follow these rules.

So, you are saying that the Federal government is better able to handle medical cases?

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18925&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
ESTIMATING THE FISCAL GAP USING GENERATIONAL ACCOUNTING
Generational accounting is a well-established methodology to measure the burden of government, says Laurence J. Kotlikoff, a professor of economics at Boston University and a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. For example, a generational account for any given generation measures the generation's remaining lifetime net tax bill as a present value -- what the generation will pay net of what it will receive, all valued as of today.

If the generational accounts of all current and future generations are added together, assuming no change in fiscal policy, the sum amounts to what all current and future citizens are going to pay, on net, in taxes to the government (measured as a present value). This amount has to cover the government's official debt plus the present value of all future government purchases of goods and services (discretionary spending), explains Kotlikoff:

The fiscal gap is the difference between the government's official debt plus discretionary spending and the amount of taxes current and future citizens will pay.
It incorporates all of the government's fiscal activities - including its financial obligations under Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, unemployment, and interest and principal on government debt.
Taking into consideration all of the government's financial liabilities and projected future tax receipts, the current fiscal gap in the United States is estimated by Jagadeesh Gokhale of the Cato Institute and Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania at $77 trillion -- more than five times the United States' present gross domestic product (GDP). In order to close a gap of this size, the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) payroll tax -- currently 15.3 percent -- would need to be more than doubled immediately and permanently.

To understand how this figure can be so large, consider:

There are now roughly 33 million adults in the United States receiving retirement benefits.
When the 78 million baby boomers retire, there will be more than twice the number of retirees receiving benefits than there are currently.
While there will be a significant increase in those dependent on government programs like Social Security and Medicare when the boomers retire, there will only be about 2.7 workers per retiree to help pay the benefits -- down from 3.28 workers per retiree in 1985 and 3.43 in 2000.
Source: Laurence J. Kotlikoff, "Is Uncle Sam Bankrupt?"National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 689, January 29, 2010.

For text:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba689

So you are arguing that the Federal government should insure high risk persons?

India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh announced that the Indian government will establish a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor climate change in the region.

"There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism," Ramesh said. "I am for climate science."

Stressing that the IPCC's weakness was that it didn't do original research and derives assessments from published literature, he also announced an Indian IPCC would assess climate change through the region.

"I respect the IPCC. At the same time India is a large country... we can't depend only on IPCC. We will do our own assessment," Ramesh explained.

For those so interested:
India abandons IPCC, sets up own panel

Quote:

India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh announced that the Indian government will establish a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor climate change in the region.

"There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism," Ramesh said. "I am for climate science."
Stressing that the IPCC's weakness was that it didn't do original research and derives assessments from published literature, he also announced an Indian IPCC would assess climate change through the region.

"I respect the IPCC. At the same time India is a large country... we can't depend only on IPCC. We will do our own assessment," Ramesh explained.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100205/india-ipcc-un-climate-change-global-warming.htm


If only President Obama could so forgo his Rev. J. Wright-like"evangelism" towards his brand of American apologism and move towards his goal of "science based" decision making (so beloved while rejecting Bush's decisions regarding stem cell research) when making informed and clear eyed decisions on the U.S.'s efforts and real world economic costs on the Cap and Trade global warming controversy.

JM