55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 05:43 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

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

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 06:03 pm
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.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 06:09 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

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.


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.

Quote:
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.


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
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 11:24 am
@Cycloptichorn,
[
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!
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 11:29 am
@ican711nm,
Are you suggesting we add government workers ican in order to administer those vouchers?

Think ican. Who will decide who gets vouchers and when?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 11:34 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

[
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.


As parados said, you don't think a giant bureaucracy and added expense will come with this? Have you really thought this through?

Quote:
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!


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.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 12:10 pm
@ican711nm,
I also wonder if you realize that Ryan's proposed budget, even with all the cuts in it, doesn't balance the federal budget until 2050. 40 years.

Some 'road map for the future.' I mean, c'mon.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 02:37 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Are you suggesting we add government workers ican in order to administer those vouchers?

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

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.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 02:49 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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.
Obama and the Democrat Congress have not provided a workable plan that will solve our current plroblems. The Republicans have proposed a workable plan that will solve only some of our current problems.

I think a better plan than I have discussed this past week is a total removal of the feds from providing any federal government medical insurance for anyone other than military personnel. That means cancel Medicare, Medicaid, and federal government employee health insurance plans for federal employees other than the military. The private economy and state governments are better able to solve all our medical care payment problems than is the federal government.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 02:53 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
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.

And who creates the procedures? Who trains the people you want to move into these positions. Who monitors the applicants to prevent fraud?

Which work will no longer be done now that you have moved these workers?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 02:54 pm
@ican711nm,
Why exempt the military when it comes to having private insurance cover their medical needs? Are you saying the government can better cover some people than private care can?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 03:08 pm
@parados,
I am saying miltary requirements for health care are caused by the military's exposure to health risks caused by their federal government employment. To the best of my knowledge, no one else other than federal government law enforcement employees are exposed to health care risks caused by their government employment. So I amend my proposal to include federal government law enforcement employees along with military employees being provided federal government health care insurance.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 03:11 pm
@ican711nm,
So, you are saying that the Federal government is better able to handle medical cases?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 04:58 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
So, you are saying that the Federal government is better able to handle medical cases?

NO! I am saying the federal government is better able to pay for the medical expenses of those people employed by the federal government in high health risk professions, than is private health insurance.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 08:29 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

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
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 09:44 pm
@ican711nm,
So you are arguing that the Federal government should insure high risk persons?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 06:41 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
So you are arguing that the Federal government should insure high risk persons?

NO!
I'm arguing the feds should provide medical insurance for their employees who are in high physical risk fed jobs (e.g., military, police).
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 06:57 pm
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
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 08:18 pm
@JamesMorrison,
JamesMorrison wrote:

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

Maybe theres hope, James????? I think however that Obama uses whatever brand he thinks will work for whatever issue he is working on, sort of like a chamelion!!!
realjohnboy
 
  4  
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 11:34 pm
There seems to be a bit of a brouhaha regarding the "r" word. Ms Palin has come down firmly on both sides.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 02:54:40