IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@cicerone imposter,

George is the master of the baseless assertion. I guess he has not heard that graduated income tax rates and the estate tax are for the purpose of redistributing wealth. Over the many years, this has done the opposite of creating poverty, etc.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Maybe you might hold your breath George.

The Romans often resorted to MWDbG when times were tough. They confiscated property and goods. They passed a bill saying the owners were enemies of the state and thus their stuff was forfeit. Nobody else had anything you see. Stones don't squeeze. And if they do you get a mix of gravel and powder.

Do we have nothing as well? We are on a spending treadmill to keep everything going. We can't be allowed to stop. I know it's hard work and stressful but that has to be faced up to. So we have nothing anybody at the top end wants. From his point of view. We have already spent the next few year's harvest. That's how skint we are. It isn't called a consumer society for nothing. And the treadmill slows down as consumption slows down.

So the comparison with pigs flying is non operative. Who wants bacon wings?

The MWDbG is tried and tested. In it's crude form it is quite messy.
But we are sophisticated people. We pull the sticking plaster off gradually like Matron didn't at my school. But because we are sophisticated shouldn't blind us to the principle of grinding the noses of the rich in testing times. i.e massive redistribution of their wealth. Grinding the noses of the poor is a ridiculous idea. When the cash tills stop ringing the Lutine Bell starts ringing. (Hey--that's pretty good? Maybe I'm a poet and I don't know it.)

So our problem is to decide which section of the rich you are batting for because they are engaging in internecine strife because they know about my principle applied in a consumption dependent double-entry book-keeping system attached to a world-wide instant communications system.

And I know I don't know very much but there is one thing I do know and it is that I don't know anything they don't know themselves. The Fat Cats I mean.

If you are not conscious of which side you are batting for I can put your mind at rest. It will be the side that the editors you follow are batting for.

0 Replies

To get my metaphor straight it is a treadmill on a unmechanised paddle boat like one of those you might have took your first love out on the lake in so you could get a blimp further up her skirt.

That's an improvement I think.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
i'm not saying that's a bad idea. however, no matter what gets cut, there is going to be a bunch people that get ticked off about "their" needs or concerns being dropped in the dumper.

so, what would you propose the top 3 cuts be?

First of all, I would eliminate about half of the federal employees in DC. ......The people that are only there because someone created a job for them......

as long as they aren't really doing anything worthwhile, i'm all for it. could we also say that perhaps a few of them have potential and reposition them to be doing something that will actually help them learn the ropes so that we don't hit a brick wall when all of the old dudes eat it? although, now that i think of it, that's not such a bad idea either...

Then I would totally eliminate the Dept of Education.
It is not needed and education matters should be decided at a local level, not by the federal govt.

in theory i agree. the problem as i see it is that america needs to prepare it's youth for the future that is coming at them much quicker than it did to you. certainly faster than it did to people my age. i just don't have confidence that people allowed to decide what education is needed or not needed for a world that they don't understand will make the right decisions about curriculum.

i've said it before and i'll say it again; smarter is better for america. (dad gummitt!!!)

still, there are a lot of kinda bullshit programs that are silly enough to cut off. i don't mind deep sixing those, but i just feel that there has to be a centralized guidance of scientific, mathematics and such. it's sad when other countries are producing smarter children that are able to come here and provide the talent that we have failed to grow at home.

Lets eliminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs....

i don't know that much about this other than i went with a seminole girl for a while. part of me agrees with you about this because it treats the people like stupid children and provides not much in the way of anything positive.

i reckon that it might not be a bad thing to let them do their own thing. and that is why i have been supportive of the whole casino thing. while not perfect, it's at least a start. sure as hell is a lot more dignified than having to turn out all of that crappy, fake looking pottery that they sell all over the smokey mountains.

Then I would eliminate every govt agency or commission that is redundant.

i can't see anything wrong with that cut.

Lets listen to the generals in the military, regarding what they need.
exactly what i have always taken away from ike's statement.

i wonder how much traction star wars and all of that stuff would get without all the lobbyists and congressman that represent them..

and we need to be just as smart about it when it comes to companies like kbr, blackwater/xe, bechtel and halliburton. of the bunch, you'd think that a company with such a long history of supplying military actions like kbr would at least still give a crap about doing it well.

and we should probably start making our own ammunition again, while we're at it.

Every agency and Dept would have to submit to an outside, independent review of their finances, how they use the money, and how many employees they have.
That review would have the final authority to cut or eliminate any wasteful spending they came across, up to and including entire agencies or depts.

isn't that what the gao does now? although i don't think they have any authority beyond the auditing.

That committee would not be made up of anyone that has ever worked in DC, been a congressperson or senator, or ever worked for any govt agency in any capacity.
I am willing to bet that within 6 months that review would have identified and eliminated billions of wasted dollars from the budget.

heh, heh, heh... letting those types anywhere near it is what mostly got us in this situation to start with. might be better to bring in nothing but the hardcore bean counters. everytime those guys showed up when i was doing my corporate hippy thing meant that some folks were gonna be looking for another gig soon..

i have no problem with cutting spending that truly is wasteful, some of which we hit here. and really, if we do that in a measured and rational way i suspect that there would be an awful lot of money freed up to apply to programs that people are asking for now.

0 Replies

Taxes on corporations:

It shouldn’t be necessary to remind reporters and editors who cover such matters that businesses pay taxes on their profits, not sales. But I often read stories in which a reporter confuses the two, saying that a business “made” $50 million when the writer is referring to the company’s sales. Much of the press that the GAO report received revolves around blurring the distinction between these two. As Michigan Senator Carl Levin, a frequent critic of corporations, said of the study, “Twenty-five percent of the largest U.S. corporations [those with more than $50 million in revenues] had $1.1 trillion in gross sales in 2005 and yet paid no federal income taxes.” That statement suggests that Levin is either trying to mislead us or that he has made it into the world’s most exclusive club, the U.S. Senate, without knowing the difference between earnings and sales.

The difference, of course, can be enormous. For one thing, many industries have extremely small profit margins because as soon as it gets too easy to make a buck in a free-market system, you’re sure to get plenty of competitors crowding in, driving down your margins. The average net margin in the supermarket business is just 1 to 2 percent of sales, for instance, which means that a company with $50 million in sales (to use the study’s definition of large businesses) would earn, on average just $500,000-to-$1 million annually and pay taxes on that money. Many firms in the industry, of course, would be below that average, and some would lose money in any year.

Many businesses we regard as successful operate on small profit margins. After paying $5.8 billion in taxes in 2005, Wal-Mart earned $11.7 billion"a nice chunk of change. But those earnings were on revenues of $312 billion, a mere 3.4 percent net profit margin. Exxon Mobil earned $36 billion in 2005 after paying $23.3 billion in taxes on revenues of $371 billion. Looking at that result you realize that in America today, a ‘windfall’ profit is one that amounts to less than 10 percent of revenues.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/08/do_corporations_really_pay_no.html

1 Reply

@marsz,

True enough. However, in fact some states (like Hawaii) do levy taxes, payable by corporations, on gross receipts (about 3%). Given the financial duress now affecting state governments and the activities of the Government Employees unions, I would expect their number to grow.

All this is, of course, in addition to the income taxes on gross profits as you described them.

All of these taxes are ultimately paid by consumers.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

All of these taxes are ultimately paid by consumers.

The consumer George is the only source of tax revenues. Any party that thought of another source would fly high in the polls.

0 Replies

A lot of the health care conversation has focused on the Public Option; but, what would impact far more people's lives is strong reform of the current system.

Here's the WH plan for doing so -

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

Quote:

No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won’t be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Lots of nice proposals in there, fixing many of the worst problems with our current system. Surely we can all agree to get behind these?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, The biggest problem with trying to offer a real universal health care system isn't about what is being offered on your list; it's about a) public payment for abortions, b) euthanasia, and c) government control.

The religious right and conservatives are pushing misinformation (even Palin told her audience that the government is going to tell seniors when and how to die), and would rather not have health insurance over controlling other people's lives with lies and misinformation.

There's no cure for stupid.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

It would be even more interesting if the government would accept these same proscriptions for itself - - if it does so (caps on out of pocket expenses; no limits on coverage for those seriously ill; no lifetime caps; etc.) Unfortunately these are among the very issues that the Administration is examining to limit the cost of existing government programs.

It is very easy for the government to regulate private alternatives out of existence. Creating a viable alternative is quite another matter and so far (with MEDICARE and MEDICAID) the government has clearly demonstrated that it cannot control costs, and that it corrupts the systems it operates through the remote hand of unseen bureaucracies.

The government program will sound very good in the beginning. However, as costs grow and government either taxes or borrows its way to our oblivion or , alternatively, sets arbitrary limits on the care provided we will discover that private initiative works better.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyclo, The biggest problem with trying to offer a real universal health care system isn't about what is being offered on your list; it's about a) public payment for abortions, b) euthanasia, and c) government control.

The religious right and conservatives are pushing misinformation (even Palin told her audience that the government is going to tell seniors when and how to die), and would rather not have health insurance over controlling other people's lives with lies and misinformation.

There's no cure for stupid.

Well, those aren't really problems with the plan; they are distractions put up to keep people from thinking critically about the plan.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

It would be even more interesting if the government would accept these same proscriptions for itself - - if it does so (caps on out of pocket expenses; no limits on coverage for those seriously ill; no lifetime caps; etc.) Unfortunately these are among the very issues that the Administration is examining to limit the cost of existing government programs.

It is very easy for the government to regulate private alternatives out of existence. Creating a viable alternative is quite another matter and so far (with MEDICARE and MEDICAID) the government has clearly demonstrated that it cannot control costs, and that it corrupts the systems it operates through the remote hand of unseen bureaucracies.

The government program will sound very good in the beginning. However, as costs grow and government either taxes or borrows its way to our oblivion or , alternatively, sets arbitrary limits on the care provided we will discover that private initiative works better.

Gosh, I wish I had such a perfect crystal ball, with which to scry the future of everything the government tries to do here in America.

I disagree completely with everything you have written here. You, probably due to the fact that your personal health care is not a problem, casually discount all the major problems with our current system and simply assert that it 'works better' than any possible alternative. Our current system provides shitty service and the costs are out of control already; your prognostications that the government system will be the same are not really scaring anyone.

I would point out that Medicare is highly popular, and that even the Republicans - who campaigned against it 40-odd years ago - wouldn't dream of getting rid of it. Hardly a sign of a failure of a program....

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I suppose an economic case could be made for the government telling seniors when and how to die. A scientific case as well.

It might be seen as necessary to shift their money into the next generation to get things moving. $500,000 house split 4 ways, say, gets up a deposit on a $350,000 house and a construction boom runs inflation into double digits. Bonuses are resumed. Boat yards are flat out and gas guzzlers are flying off the shelves.

And I feel sure that the government would only tell those to die who there is not much hope for anyway and would make the process entirely enjoyable. Like in Soylent Green.

I'm not, of course, as a supporter of Christianity, in favour of such things. I was simply giving a sort of scientific argument. The young did get Mr Obama elected I believe.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I did, of course, mean $500,000 house split 4 ways, say, gets up a deposit on 4 $350,000 houses etc.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Gosh, I wish I had such a perfect crystal ball, with which to scry the future of everything the government tries to do here in America.

I disagree completely with everything you have written here. You, probably due to the fact that your personal health care is not a problem, casually discount all the major problems with our current system and simply assert that it 'works better' than any possible alternative. Our current system provides shitty service and the costs are out of control already; your prognostications that the government system will be the same are not really scaring anyone.

I would point out that Medicare is highly popular, and that even the Republicans - who campaigned against it 40-odd years ago - wouldn't dream of getting rid of it. Hardly a sign of a failure of a program....
Cycloptichorn

It doesn't require a magician to make a reasonable forecast of the future behavior of government bureaucracies and our Congress. We have lots of empirical evidence on which to base such forecasts.

I don't discount the flaws and shortcomings of the current system. I simply believe it is grossly deceptive to use them to rationalize the creation of something worse. My health care situation is similar to those of most people. I have company provided insurance (for which I pay about one-third of the premiums), MEDICARE & Navy retired medical care. It might sound like I never have to pay a cent, but that isn't the case. What one doesn't cover the others reject as well: however, most of my costs are covered. It is interesting for me to note the number of doctors and other practitioners who won't take any more MEDICARE only patients - a reminder that government can legislate, but ultimately the behavior of service providers is voluntary.

I have experienced a few incidents of poor service. However I correct that by quickly choosing another provider. Costs are rising. However in my company we correct that by raising the employee share of the costs and establishing wellness programs to encourage wise lifestyle choices. So far this is providing the feedback and incentive needed to (somewhat) limit costs and the outlook appears promising.

I listened to the president's "town hall" in New Hampshire. He was at his rhetorical best, and I noted that he has shifted his emphasis from public care to insurance reform and increasing the supply of primary care physicians and providers - both issues that I support. I would like to see federal law establishing a form of portable company provided health insurance that could follow an employee from company to company (perhaps with variable company-to-company contributions). This would require the overhaul of state rules and requirements and the development of national (or regional) standards. I would also like to see some Federal action to increase the supply of primary care practitioners, and concrete legislative action to set limits on tort actions on medical practitioners that are behind all the “defensive” ordering of unnecessary procedures that add so much unnecessary cost to the system today.

Unfortunately none of these issues is addressed in the draft legislation working its way through the House and Senate Committees " not even those the President so effectively touted today. I am frustrated at a President whose supple and highly general rhetoric assures us on nearly every issue (except tort reform), but who leaves the details to a democrat Congress very clearly in the thrall of its financial supporters and the single issue organized zealots who dominate it.

The health care reform the President touts isn’t in the package that the Congress has (so far) created. Moreover, its costs very clearly exceed and violate all of the limits the President has so loftily assured us will govern. Are you surprised that so many are so quickly becoming disenchanted with all this?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Are you surprised that so many are so quickly becoming disenchanted with all this?

Not one bit; but, let's be honest. Republicans were pre-disenchanted with anything that Obama and the Dems put forth, re: health care. These protesters at town halls aren't carefully reading the bills and deciding that the points they want aren't in them; they are against everything Dem and Obama, period.

You know as well as I do that if meaningful reform with some sort of public option passes, it will be a disaster for your party. The Dems will solidly position themselves as the 'friend of the people' and eventually your own politicians will be forced to defend what end up being very popular programs - the same way you see Conservatives defend the NHS in British politics and our modern Republicans defend Medicare, a program they demonized as 'socialism' a few decades ago. This is why the Republicans have no choice but to demonize, lie, and exaggerate the problem to the utmost extent - they are staring at the cliff and have no other choice.

Quote:

I would also like to see some Federal action to increase the supply of primary care practitioners, and concrete legislative action to set limits on tort actions on medical practitioners that are behind all the “defensive” ordering of unnecessary procedures that add so much unnecessary cost to the system today.

I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that this 'defensive medicine' theory that the Right-wing likes so much is true. It is nothing but another stalking horse for limiting Tort awards - which have not been behind the recent meteoric rises in health care costs, not in the slightest.

I agree with you that Obama should clearly state that he WILL veto a bill with no strong public option; however, he cannot be held responsible for the legislative process. It's that dang separation of powers thing again, remember that? I know it didn't really exist when Bush and the Republicans were running things...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

For the past eight and a half years, the right has screwed over the country and lost almost every battle. I guess this brings on desperation, leading to things like the following.

Arizona GOP Runs Doctored Cigarette Photo of President Obama

The Arizona Republican Party has come across a new, potent propaganda weapon in the war against health care reform. It is an image of President Obama, looking somewhat haggard, a cigarette dangling from his lips.

Printed on the cover of last week's AZGOP News, the picture ran with the following caption:

Broken promises, rampant government spending, and Chicago-style politics have marred the first 200 days of the Obama Presidency according to Arizona Republican Chairman Randy Pullen.

As the saying goes, the picture seems to speak louder that any boilerplate, partisan PR wording ever could. What better instance of hypocrisy than to catch the president red-handed, smoking while promoting a new relationship between patients and doctors?

As it turns out, however, the image itself seems to have undergone a bit of doctoring. Kwame Ross took the original photo back on Aug. 3, 2004, as Obama was campaigning for the Senate in Illinois. Here's how it looked before its computer touch-up:

Though Obama has been trying to kick his nicotine addiction, he has admitted to sneaking a few puffs over the past few months, but this picture does not document one of those instances.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/11/arizona-gop-runs-doctored-cigarette-photo-of-president-obama/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2009%2F08%2F11%2Farizona-gop-runs-doctored-cigarette-photo-of-president-obama%2F

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I believe the probability of “meaningful reform” as you term it coming out of the circus now ongoing in the Congress is negligibly low, so the prospect of the danger for Republicans you posit is also negligible.

You insist on hiding behind this “separation of powers” gambit. This separation exists as much now as it did under all previous Administrations. Nothing in that doctrine prevents any president from proposing the details of legislation he favors to the Congress and using his veto powers to enforce the result. Certainly Obama’s Democrat predecessors from Roosevelt to Clinton were very active in this area. Our president continues his soothing, but highly vague and general rhetoric, while his party compatriots in the Congress propose something quite different, including numerous features that grossly violate his own expressed limits and assurances (on issues ranging from cost, to deficits, to the meaning of phrases like “you can keep your existing insurance”) and leaving out several things (like increasing the supply of doctors, practitioners and hospitals) entirely. Oddly you excuse his detachment from the drafting process but insist he should veto any bill that doesn’t include your favored government option.

Moreover, together they completely ignore issues, like the excesses of our tort system, that clearly injure everyone in the system " except the tort lawyers who contribute so heavily to Democrat politicians. You blithely assert that this has, “not been behind the recent meteoric rises in health care costs, not in the slightest.”. Observers of the cost of the defensive medicine that results " the ordering of extensive extra expensive tests & procedures, even when they are not clinically indicated, plus the very high cost of liability insurance for practitioners put the marginal annual costs in the many billions. Your bland denial just doesn’t wash any more than do the nonsensical assertions that the proposed legislation will be "deficit neutral"..

I do agree with your proposition that creating a new class of dependent beneficiaries of public money is a proven way of creating lasting political support among them. However, this is, at best, a contemptible and cynical abuse of political power. In addition, the adverse economic effects end up killing the goose that lays the golden eggs " and eventually reversing whatever transient political gains motivated the initial actions.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Moreover, together they completely ignore issues, like the excesses of our tort system, that clearly injure everyone in the system " except the tort lawyers who contribute so heavily to Democrat politicians. You blithely assert that this has, “not been behind the recent meteoric rises in health care costs, not in the slightest.”. Observers of the cost of the defensive medicine that results " the ordering of extensive extra expensive tests & procedures, even when they are not clinically indicated, plus the very high cost of liability insurance for practitioners put the marginal annual costs in the many billions. Your bland denial just doesn’t wash any more than do the nonsensical assertions that the proposed legislation will be "deficit neutral"..

Perhaps you could provide some actual statistics to back up the 'defensive medicine' theory? Or show how Tort awards have risen in amount or frequency over the last decade, a period which saw double-digit rises in health care costs? You say 'observers of the cost...;' which observers? Can you name them?

I highly doubt it. When I have challenged various Conservatives to do so, none have. You have taken an assertion and treated it as factual, because it confirms your pre-existing biases against the oh-so-evil 'trial lawyers.'

Despite your insistence that Obama should be writing and authoring legislation, I think you would be hard-pressed to find any Constitutional support for this at all.

Amazing how highly the 'dependent beneficiaries' rate their services, if they really are so bad. And when you pay taxes in, in order to support services, you aren't exactly a 'dependent beneficiary.' That's a highly prejudiced term.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, What you say is true; the amount of premiums paid by doctors were always much higher than claims paid. Malpractice insurance premiums were highest during 1986 to 1990, but actual claims paid were at a very low level. However, even with the spread between premiums paid and claims paid have narrowed, insurance companies are still making good profit. Tort reform is not the major concern about the cost of health care. It's about unnecessary lab works and re-hospitalization of patients after they are sent home. The use of emergency room care for non-emergency needs increases all hospital costs, because federal regulations requires all hospitals to treat every patient that comes into their emergency room - even those without health insurance. More local clinics to handle these so-called emergencies can cut the overall cost of health care.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know