Why don't we just go to a national sales tax and call it good? It's odd that the country survived for over 100 years without an income tax
Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk
Printable View
Why don't we just go to a national sales tax and call it good? It's odd that the country survived for over 100 years without an income tax
Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk
Also Obama care is effed IMO because it forces everyone to participate in someway. Why not have limited federal government and let the states pick up in the lacking areas??? That way people can have a choice at least, if you want something earned by someone else go to California and if you want to be self reliant go to Texas. Making everyone in the country now to the 10 swing states choice is BS. Limited federal gov and give the power back to the states!
Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk
Possible PWI
Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk
Lol, came across this earlier and couldn't help it. I don't think either is a good example ....
http://images.forbes.com/images/2004...3_medwaste.jpg
http://images.forbes.com/images/2004...2_medwaste.jpg
Correct if I'm wrong but i was thinking it was pretty much common that the red states are larger users of federal assistance than blue states.
... Massachusetts would probably be a good example ;)
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
So I have been working lots of hours and just got back on the forms. Thanks guys for all the long posts. Made me have to read again. Now that we are on taxes David has it right. a simple 15% sales tax for Fed, State and Local split up 4% fed, 5% state and 6% local solves so many problems. no more income or property tax just the flat sales tax on all goods and services. Then there is no loop holes for people to open up. It also says if you want to spend your money on the high prices items you pay more. If you don't you don't. It is the most fair tax you can do. you want the third house at the lake then you pay your 15% on it and it is done.Quote:
Originally Posted by rdlangston13
Mays for President 2016. I might not tell you what you want to hear but it will at least be the truth.
You would have to have good plan for controlling the value of the dollar, especially in a growing global economy. Ex: controlling person to person sales or keeping everyone from just bartering.
Id imagine it having a significant role on lending as well.
David, i agree with you on local government and find it interesting that neither Ryan or Romney carried their own state.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
i would rather see them tax what you earn, not what you spend. a national sales tax will hit the lower income much harder than the ultra rich.
Steve forbes.. Steve forbes for prez...:razz:
with Flat tax KG and I would be out of a J.O.B....
LOL, I was thinking the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmvotto
Also, income tax places a value on reinvestment into companies. There is no incentive for shareholders to not squeeze the workforce as tight as the can, which is where Romney's finance experience is. Since 2003, we have been giving them an incentive to pull cash out of companies.
Odd way of thinking about unemployment but follow me ... two extremes - 0% income tax on corporations means it makes sense to maximize profit bc you get to keep all the cash. 100% income tax on corporations it makes since to show as little income as possible bc they take it. One of a companies most variable expenses is employees ... you add employees you take away money that the government takes from you.
I'd vote for forbes, trump or buffett any day of the week. someone that understands finance/budgets and would not be afraid to call out congress for what they are. I picture The Donald walking into the senate, looking around and yelling "your all fired"... that would be classic...Quote:
Originally Posted by jmvotto
sorry if you would be out a job on the tax thing, but our codes currently are so hosed and favor people with the ability to hire guys to find deductions that it's a joke. simplify the whole system and make it consistent...
You can exempt basic necessities like certain foods and stuff just like they already do nowQuote:
Originally Posted by sandm
Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk
I told myself that I wasn't going to reply to any of this, but gahh, there are some things that I can't let slide by uncontested. Character flaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by KG's Supra24
On Obama's "battles": For two years Democrats held both the House and the Senate. That's half of his presidency. I know that one can argue that the Senate did not have a filibuster-proof majority, but cmon...there are enough RINOs in the Senate. And I was also not aware that the job of the Congress is the rubber stamp whatever the president wants. If what he was offering was such a great idea, passing would have been no problem in the least. I love how liberals blame <insert boogeyman here> when others reject their ideas, or when their ideas simply don't work because they don't reflect reality.
On Benghazi: dramatically overpoliticized? It was not talked about nearly enough, so much so that Romney declined to bring it up at the foreign policy debate. And it matters. A lot. What is to be thought about a president who deliberately chose not to protect Americans *on American soil*, as embassies are? Help was actively denied. We don't know the reasons why, but knowing the character of the man, I would bet money on the reason being the fear that it would blow up as a campaign issue. Just a guess on my part, and as you can tell my opinion of Obama is not very high.
On soldiers and war: remind me who is the president who has used drones more than any other, continuing to kill civilians along with the intended targets? The one who has assassinated an American citizen with one? And the one who has not ended the war (only escalating it, getting yet more of our soldiers killed) in Afghanistan, and seems to be gearing up for another one in Mali? Our soldiers are still coming home in boxes, and he's had four years to end the war like he said that he would. Democrats claim that they are the anti-war party just to pick up votes from useful idiots, and then do exactly the opposite. Reference again their approval of the war in Iraq. If you don't believe me on the upswing in deaths in Afghanistan, look here: http://icasualties.org/
One of your finance guru's has filed bankruptcy multiple times. He does call out congress though ...Quote:
Originally Posted by sandm
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...86375827_n.jpg
Then you got Forbes vs Buffett and one of them still pushes trickle down. It's like global warming ... you can deny the facts about it but it doesn't make it any less true. Alan Greenspan did a pretty good job with the economy.
I’m failing to follow you here. Doesn’t it speak to his character that he wouldn’t shove his healthcare plan past congress just because he has majority? Instead he got it passed it while he did not have control of the congress. I also never said the job of congress was to rubberstamp anything. My point precisely in regards to their importance is bc they shouldn’t just follow the president and rubberstamp. They are the ones that will have to sit down, hopefully work together, to change and create laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by dhyams
Perhaps it wasn’t brought up in the debate out of respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by dhyams
“It would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue,” Jan Stevens, 77, told Bloomberg News. … Jan Stevens cautioned against drawing any conclusions before a thorough investigation, "We don’t pretend to be experts in security. It has to be objectively examined. That’s where it belongs. It does not belong in the campaign arena.” Jan Stevens is the father of one of the young men killed during the attack.
I’m glad you brought up the foreign policy debate, though. Did you watch Romney go back on all his bold “pro war” comments and align himself with Obama? Mitt Romney on foreign policy is a disaster and you can poll the rest of the world and see that. I think he even knows it. Skip over the fox polls, they were predicting a landslide win for the Romney camp, the math is bad.
Of course he has used drones more than any other president … that’s like saying he has used an iPad more than any other president, it’s new technology. Out of curiosity (not trying to be rude), did you watch the debate or pick up what you needed to know on Fox? The drones were discussed during that debate ...
"The exchange was short-lived, however. When Republican candidate Mitt Romney was asked by debate moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News, "What is your position on the use of drones?" he said he believed that America “should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us.” ... "And it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes," Romney continued, "and I support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology and believe that we should continue to use it to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this nation and to our friends.""
Eyerolling comical. I think that you are seeing things so much in terms of "us vs them", that you're failing to see the point. I'm not defending Romney in the least in anything that he proposed. I am very critical of Obama as you can see. Yet, I don't see any defense of Obama here...the discussion is immediately turned around into a <insert boogeyman here>, which I just cannot stand. Romney: check. Fox News: check. Republicans: check. Two posts up, Donald Trump: check. Sigh.
The point of bringing up the drones was in response to your comment about a "war mongering party". The reality is that both parties don't have the best record in this regard. It is very probable that Romney would have continued to carry out drone attacks had he been elected president. What we do know is that Obama uses them a great deal, so we can reasonably expect him to continue to use them. What amazes me is that you, and most liberals I know, will sit there and preach against Republicans (of which I am not, so you can set aside your preconceived notions now) for warmongering, while simultaneously excusing their own leader of targeted assassinations (one against an American citizen, no less..that should be chilling), expanding the war in Afghanistan, entering a new theater of combat in Libya, and being just about to open a new theater of combat in Mali.
The reason that the "education of what Obamacare is" has been so terrible is that no one really knows what gems are in there. By then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's own admission, "we have to pass the bill to see what is in the bill". WHAT? Is that the way things are supposed to work?Quote:
Originally Posted by KG's Supra24
This is a small, noncomprehensive list of what I think is wrong with it, from what I actually have been able to gather about what the bill says.
* on principle, I object to the government forcing me to do anything. Now (soon) whether I want to or not, I HAVE to buy health insurance (or pay the "tax" as specified by the Supremes). What can't the Congress force me to do, with this precedent in place? Katy bar the door, as they say.
* the bill is a gift to the insurance companies, who now are set to reap a windfall. We are forced to buy, so hey, we have to buy it from somewhere, right?
* the bill will force people out of work. The health care costs will be shifted to the employers, and these employers WILL cut payrolls. Employers don't magically have more money, so if the cost of employees goes up, it will have to be compensated for by laying some people off. The bill is a job killer. Here's one small anecdotal example: http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11...-22-employees/ but this will start to happen all over the US. I guarantee it.
* moral hazard. The bill separates, even more than things are now, the customer from the service provider. Less choice for the consumer, and less desire to keep costs down on the supply side.
* the bill doesn't seem to address the root problem: cost of health care. There are ridiculous import/export rules that protect big pharma, and these rules need to be abolished. Tort reform is needed to cut out silly lawsuits that cause doctors to have to pay huge amounts for malpractice insurance.
* we don't know what ELSE is in there. Re. Nancy Pelosi.
So there's a few. We Americans need to get it out of our head that health care is a *right*. It's simply not. What makes it *not a right* is that there has to be someone there providing the service for you. It sucks to have to tell everyone that, and people will go ballistic. That does not change the fact, however. Health care is a service just as any other, and if you can't pay for the service, you can't have it. For those unfortunate enough to not be able to pay, they have to rely on charity for services that they receive. Again, this ain't Utopia, but it's the only system that can possibly work in the long run. Sure, for a short while we can borrow money to pay for everyone (Ref 16T debt and rising), but sooner or later, we are out of money. What then? Round up the doctors and force them to work for nothing, turning them into slaves. That too will work for about a generation, until people figure out that having doctoring skills is a bad idea. What then?
I couldn't let this go either. The stimulus and endless QEn is doing nothing but acting like cocaine for an economy that never got out of recession. We are in a deep recession, if not depression, right now. No "double dip" or anything was ever prevented. All that was done was to go deeper in hock, using that borrowed and/or printed money to pretend like everything is OK. Just like taking out a home equity loan is sure fun when you get the dough, you can spend it on all kinds of fun things, it's not so fun when the bill comes due.Quote:
I think it is pretty widely accepted that the stimulus saved the economy from a double dip recession. Rhetoric aside, that comes from both sides of isle.
two quick things
with Bernake all we will do is punt the problems down the street and hope the economy grows faster than the debt then we can start to pay it down by creating jobs Monetary policy set til 2014 curent rates 5 yr t bill .6%, 10 yr t note 1.63% 30 yr t Note 2.75%
Job creation has to be done with Fiscal policy, cant see that happening in the next 4 yrs. = 20T in debt
another quick one
friend of mine had his hip replaced. bil 64,000 ( new mojo right)
covered portion 14,000 ( row bow with 35 hp engine)
how does america let this happen.
In reality, we have a two party system and its not ideal but it does create "us vs them". You can criticize Obama all you want but criticism without a solution is .... ? And is it just the liberals pushing "us vs them"? Are you just doing the same thing you are accusing me of doing? Have we not heard one hundred times the election is over picking the best loser?
I am not a liberal so you can set aside your preconceived notions as well. If I haven't made it clear yet, let me, I am way more scared of fox news than I am Mitt Romney. All my comments have been in relation to comments made thus far. I'm not here to campaign for Obama, there are things he has done I don't agree with. I think one of my first comments was this not being a win for Obama, but a loss for the Tea Party. My hope is that people will begin to question what they hear and not take everything for gospel.
Honestly, I don't feel like all my responses have been typical liberal propaganda and I have consistently given factual information to defend Obama tax increases. I have also made an attempt to defend Obamacare but I can't find anyone that hates it that can tell me why. Yes, I could see how you could say some of my responses were propaganda but they were in response to questions or comments. Romney: I think its obvious why it's important to bring him into the discussion. Fox news: lets save that one. Republicans: same as Romney. Donald Trump: I mean come on, if he is going to be recommend for president, a call of concern is valid. Also on the flip side, same idea, I don't see anyone defending Romney here. The whole campaign was run on anti-obama! So I suppose I ask the same of you ... If you voted for Romney, can you defend why without mentioning Obama? If you voted for third party then awesome of you; it is a step in the right direction.
As far as the drones and defense of Obama ... From what I know, I don't see any reason we wouldn't use unmanned aircrafts, that is one more american life not out there on the battlefield. As for the individual that was killed by the drone attack, I'm honestly unfamiliar with it. What happened? I can't imagine it going "sir, we can fire the missle but only one problem, there is an american there" "ahh screw it, gotta kill em I guess".
I did actually vote for Romney, holding my nose. And no, I cannot justify why without mentioning Obama, because my vote was an anti-Obama vote. Four years ago I wrote in Ron Paul as a protest vote, but this year I wanted to be counted in the popular vote (I vote in TN which was going for Romney anyway) in the opposite column from Obama. So I freely admit that I did the pragmatic thing instead of the principled thing, ashamedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by KG's Supra24
Of course this is correct. The reason that it makes me very queasy is that 1) it lowers the barrier to ordering a targeted killing, because there is less risk involved, so our fearless leaders will be much more likely to use it, and 2) it is only a matter of time before drones are going to be used on us (maybe not to kill us, but for surveillance), unless we *all raise a fuss now*. What I see is that conservatives are mostly unconcerned, and liberals would be very concerned if it was a Republican president doing it.Quote:
As far as the drones and defense of Obama ... From what I know, I don't see any reason we wouldn't use unmanned aircrafts, that is one more american life not out there on the battlefield.
Here is what I'm referring to:Quote:
As for the individual that was killed by the drone attack, I'm honestly unfamiliar with it. What happened? I can't imagine it going "sir, we can fire the missle but only one problem, there is an american there" "ahh screw it, gotta kill em I guess".
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/wo...-in-yemen.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/wo...=anwaralawlaki
Sure the bad guys got it here. But these people were American citizens, and thus have the right under our U.S. constitution to stand trial for the things they have done. Judicial process, not just a missile up their arse.
I just did, a couple of posts back; the one that you are responding to here.Quote:
Originally Posted by KG's Supra24
Also don't fall into the trap that things that if no one responds, you're right. It could just be that no one responded.
dhyams, I just copied the points you made so I could respond individually. Makes it easier.
I don't think for one second think that the lack of responses means I am correct. Its part of why I've become passionate about it in this thread. I see the tally up top, I am a CPA, I live in AR. I am used to my thoughts having not bearing on anyone. I have even sent emails to moderators here, of opposite beliefs, to make sure I'm not out of line.
I'm not seeing this as me vs you. I can appreciate the debate and will undoubtedly learn something by listening to a differing take. Everyone should listen to both sides.
Alright, back on track ... Healthcare ...
* on principle, I object to the government forcing me to do anything. Now (soon) whether I want to or not, I HAVE to buy health insurance (or pay the "tax" as specified by the Supremes). What can't the Congress force me to do, with this precedent in place? Katy bar the door, as they say.
I understand where you are coming from. Sadly, we cannot depend on individuals to take finances into their own hands. Health insurance is financing for medical emergencies. When people don’t have insurance, others end up footing the bill, through the government. If you don’t have insurance you are costing the government and taxpayers money. What is the rationale for not buying health insurance?
* the bill is a gift to the insurance companies, who now are set to reap a windfall. We are forced to buy, so hey, we have to buy it from somewhere, right?
How many of the insurance companies supported obamacare? They don’t want this passing, they are doing great! They were putting up money to defeat it. This bill is not good for insurance. According to Forbes, they spent 102.4 mil in 15 months to run advertising against the bill.
* the bill will force people out of work. The health care costs will be shifted to the employers, and these employers WILL cut payrolls. Employers don't magically have more money, so if the cost of employees goes up, it will have to be compensated for by laying some people off. The bill is a job killer. Here's one small anecdotal example:http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11...-22-employees/ but this will start to happen all over the US. I guarantee it.
So a business owner, before knowning the actual cost to him, fired employees because Obama won? That is the exact concern I have with the media coverage. It pushes knee jerk reactions. This is precisely “us vs. them”. I’m not telling you which way to vote but some of you are getting fired if Obama wins.
* moral hazard. The bill separates, even more than things are now, the customer from the service provider. Less choice for the consumer, and less desire to keep costs down on the supply side.
One of the biggest goals of Obamacare is to bring down the cost in the medical industry. My favorite part about the bill is curtailing some of the profits from big pharma. It will actually provide more choices and lower cost the way I see it.
* the bill doesn't seem to address the root problem: cost of health care. There are ridiculous import/export rules that protect big pharma, and these rules need to be abolished. Tort reform is needed to cut out silly lawsuits that cause doctors to have to pay huge amounts for malpractice insurance.
This is a great place to stop referencing Obamacare and call it what it is. Affordable Healthcare Act. To drop cost, from my understanding, the goal is to price control prescriptions and reign in the unnecessary procedures performed by doctors. It will reward hospitals that operate efficiently. I know the word price control is scary but it’s a necessary evil, it cannot rely on supply and demand bc the demand is inevitable. I also truly feel it is our responsibility to care for Americans, not turn them away bc they can’t afford it. If you think people should be turned away bc they can’t afford it I will assume you haven’t seen a hospital bill lately. Who can afford it?
To add context to the unnecessary procedures performed by doctors, hospitals have weekly meetings to decide how to get non-insured patients out the door and how to run additional test on insured patients.
Also, as mentioned earlier, the American medical association is on board with the bill.
* we don't know what ELSE is in there. Re. Nancy Pelosi.
Lol, I got nothing on that one.
To be fair, a recession, by definition, is 2 consecutive quarters with negative GDP growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by dhyams
Last quarter GDP grew 2 percent. The quarter prior it grew 1.3 percent.
Do yourself a favor and read "The Naked Constitution". It clears up a lot a issues that we are dealing with today.
I'll be completely honest with you, I won't read it bc I simply don't set aside enough time to read large publsihings. I did go to pull a review and the first thing I saw with this ...
"If you love Glenn Beck, you will love this book." ... "Like me, I’m sure you are sick to death of the Left trying to trash or amend the Constitution. "
With that being said, I'm sure I'd have difficulty reading it as I put Glenn Beck in the "bat shit crazy" column, understandably so, no?
If you have read it, what parts of the constitution is the "left" trying to destroy? Not trying to argue, just continuing conversation.
May be hard to believe but I have no party affiliation. Hopefully all my comments haven't come across that way. You had asked why people vote Obama ... did any of those reasons mentioned explain why someone might vote for Obama? I tried to give solid answers but got hit with "go read conservative books"
So I ordered some tea at lunch today and dropped my phone. I bent over to pick it up and farted loud enough for two waitresses to hear.......at hooters😱
sent from my ipad2 via a wireless network which usually sucks
Petty, that's a great story. Take it over to the off topic section bud.
I was just clowning to break the ice and cool down a great debate. didn't really eat at hooters today sirQuote:
Originally Posted by dusty2221
sent from my home phone
I do have a party affiliation, but I also have a degree in History. I enjoyed the book as it looks at many of the points in history where the strength of the constitution or the clarity of the constitution have been twisted. Many of those deeds came from both parties, not just one.
I too find Glen Beck to be an idiot. I don't listen to him. In fact, it is really hard to listen to any "news" or "talk" show since the age of 24 hours news. They can only keep a show if they are vulgar in their disdain for the other party (Left or Right).
Healthcare costs scare me and so does obamacare. It makes me wonder when my employer is better off paying the penalty than offering me coverage. Scares me as to what else is in it......
maxpower, I can agree with that.
Sandm, I want to copy and paste but it would be REALLY long so I'll just post the link. Personally, I feel it is a pretty good summary of the major points of "obamacare". I will say up front that Reddit is a liberal leaning website, won't deny that for a second, but I do feel the summary stays on point. It also uses citations so you can read for yourself if something seems out of wack. Please don't take my disclaimer as it being liberal and not even try (not meaning you specifically sandm). If you are interested in what is in the bill, it is a solid read.
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikei...did_it/c530lfx
Quote:
Originally Posted by KG's Supra24
Never heard that. Even if that's true, 102 million sounds like a pretty small amount of money. Can you tell me why they would not want it? Forcing everyone to buy health insurance expands your customer base. The day that the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, the stock health care companies shot the moon. Check it out. Wall Street very well knows where the money will be funneled.Quote:
* the bill is a gift to the insurance companies, who now are set to reap a windfall. We are forced to buy, so hey, we have to buy it from somewhere, right?
How many of the insurance companies supported obamacare? They don’t want this passing, they are doing great! They were putting up money to defeat it. This bill is not good for insurance. According to Forbes, they spent 102.4 mil in 15 months to run advertising against the bill.
I said it was anecdotal. Are you denying that if health care costs go up, more employers will lay off to make up for the costs? That's absolutely inevitable. I can tell you why: preexisting conditions. Obamacare forces insurers to pick up coverage for someone with a preexisting condition. This is more expensive (hugely so) for the ins. company, and guess who gets to pay for that extra? You do.Quote:
* the bill will force people out of work. The health care costs will be shifted to the employers, and these employers WILL cut payrolls. Employers don't magically have more money, so if the cost of employees goes up, it will have to be compensated for by laying some people off. The bill is a job killer. Here's one small anecdotal example:http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11...-22-employees/ but this will start to happen all over the US. I guarantee it.
So a business owner, before knowning the actual cost to him, fired employees because Obama won? That is the exact concern I have with the media coverage. It pushes knee jerk reactions. This is precisely “us vs. them”. I’m not telling you which way to vote but some of you are getting fired if Obama wins.
This is not going to happen, and I think you're engaging in wishful thinking here. But now you begin to target where the real problem is. The exponential escalating cost of both drugs and care. That must be stemmed, or any attempt to pay for it will fail, no matter what mechanism that you chose. Anti-competitive measures are codified in law in order to protect the profits of big pharma and the service providers, etc. Those MUST be thrown out in order to make any headway at all. Why is it that one can buy a drug in Canada for $1 that costs $100 here? The answer lies in complex cross-border export laws and such. And those laws must be destroyed. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Obamacare does not do anything to address this core problem.Quote:
* moral hazard. The bill separates, even more than things are now, the customer from the service provider. Less choice for the consumer, and less desire to keep costs down on the supply side.
One of the biggest goals of Obamacare is to bring down the cost in the medical industry. My favorite part about the bill is curtailing some of the profits from big pharma. It will actually provide more choices and lower cost the way I see it.
See, that's where we diverge, and diverge a lot. Pricing of drugs and services if determined by the market, instead of being distorted by governmental intervention, will be just fine. And I know that right now, you're screaming "just look at the prices now!", and you'd be wrong. We have enormous governmental intervention right now, and Obamacare just makes it worse. Price controls have never worked, ever. I refer you to this price list http://www.surgerycenterok.com/ as the way that things can be done, right now. Look at the prices. This is how things work without governmental intervention.Quote:
* the bill doesn't seem to address the root problem: cost of health care. There are ridiculous import/export rules that protect big pharma, and these rules need to be abolished. Tort reform is needed to cut out silly lawsuits that cause doctors to have to pay huge amounts for malpractice insurance.
This is a great place to stop referencing Obamacare and call it what it is. Affordable Healthcare Act. To drop cost, from my understanding, the goal is to price control prescriptions and reign in the unnecessary procedures performed by doctors. It will reward hospitals that operate efficiently. I know the word price control is scary but it’s a necessary evil, it cannot rely on supply and demand bc the demand is inevitable. I also truly feel it is our responsibility to care for Americans, not turn them away bc they can’t afford it. If you think people should be turned away bc they can’t afford it I will assume you haven’t seen a hospital bill lately. Who can afford it?
To add context to the unnecessary procedures performed by doctors, hospitals have weekly meetings to decide how to get non-insured patients out the door and how to run additional test on insured patients.
Also, as mentioned earlier, the American medical association is on board with the bill.
Emotions are just fine; I cry for someone who can't get the care that they need just like you probably would. But if we are going to be a country of free men and women, we cannot be bound to take care of our neighbor. Those good intentions turn into shackles that make us slaves of the state. So we choose. I choose freedom, and you don't. It's really as simple as that.
There will always be terrible stories of someone who can't get the care they need. The poor will always be with us, as will the rich. My vision of the "way things should be" are that they exist charity hospitals (remember them?) to take care of these needs, and money-based charities set up to give care to those in need. But don't have government with its boot on my neck forcing me to pay for my neighbor. If I want to pay for my neighbor, I will, on my own volition.
Try removing government spending from the GDP equation, and see what you get. That's my point. All a government needs to do to "goose" the GDP number is spend more. And that's exactly what they have done. Obama and Bush both.Quote:
Originally Posted by KG's Supra24
Dude!! My (quite liberal) wife is reading along. You may have just broke her heart. Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by dhyams
Joking aside, you are right. Healthcare as a right or not is a fundamental difference we have. I'll get back to you on the other.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Remember as children, our parent's didn't have medical insurance, just catistrophic. You just paid the doctor when you went. The good, bad old days.
My wife is a nurse, she can't find anything good about Obamacare. My brother in law has his own small business, he is struggling with Cobra until it kicks in. Everyone has an angle.
I have to be confused, I deplore government social programs, but I retired from the military and have government sponsored health care. I'm part of the problem.
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/09/u4u9egez.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/09/e6y8amap.jpg
Hahaha...
I'm sure we'll continue to hear about how it's all Bush's fault and how ol' Barry just couldn't overcome the "mess" he inherited. If he uses that cop out excuse anymore I'm going to choke. Things are no better now than they were then and they aren't going to be any better 4 years from now....book it! I'm very disappointed in the way our country is going...oh well if the Mayans are right we have less than 2 months anyway!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Im not political but i will say this.
Im sooooo Happy everyone is bitching soooo much about the Political campains, and the winner vs loser.
Because Not once in Months have i herd anything about the End OF The World which is only 34 days away according to the Mian Calender LOL.
Since this election everyone is so sure the US is doomed, for the next 4 years. So im just happy we have all come to the realization the world isnt stopping in 34 days, because i for 1 want another couple more boating seasons LOL
We definitely have two different angles on this. My premise is somewhat based around the fact I feel healthcare cost are artificially inflated through inefficiency … as are most government programs (agreed) but it’s not in the governments hands. Obamacare isn’t perfect but it’s a start ….
I think the insurance industry is part of the group that is riding out the inflated dollars. I think insurance premiums are too high (bc they have to pay for people without insurance) and I think they can get away with spending caps and denying coverage. JM’s example for instance … 64,000 bill and 14,000 coverage … where is the 64,000 in cost and why is insurance only covering a small portion? I don’t have any factual information about the stock market but some thought … The stock going up dramatically means someone made money. Who were those people? Where is the stock price now? Was it an artificial jump? Wall street is always a daylight, the money makers profit from the mainstream wallstreet.Quote:
Originally Posted by dhyams
Also, look at what you know about insurance companies. Massive advertisement budgets and around here, the biggest buildings in town. Now, the part of Obamacare that puts limits on how much can be spent on “admin” cost really dives off into a grey area for me. There should be a way to encourage that behavior without any dictation.
I think the real cost of this thing still has some “to be determined”. My frustration from that articles comes from the fact I think small business owners will lay off employees for “their team” and their own agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by dhyams
Preexisting conditions – guess who is paying for that now? You do. Using obesity as an example, someone with cardiac issues comes into the ER with no insurance. They get helped (it’s the ER) but can’t foot the bill. They don’t qualify for medicare bc they make too much money. There are not enough Bill Gates and Warren Buffets to pay the hospital bills for these people. So what happens, the hospitals are forced to artificially inflate cost to patients with insurance. Cost to insurance companies go up, your premiums go up. Meanwhile, this person gets sent home immediately (bc of no insurance) and receives no follow up care and more importantly no preventative care. He is back in two months bc of this and the cycle starts all over.
We agree on the core of the problem. Until you mentioned export laws I had not given it a lot of thought. The protections I feel are given to Big Pharma are in the way of patent laws. They are granted a monopoly over a drug until it expires, right before it expires they turn it into a continuous release and snag a new patent to keep the drug in only their hands and not letting a generic market form. Obamacare does address this issue. I’ll check out the export laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by dhyams
That is likely a system that controls cost and promotes efficiency. They don’t just run with an inflated system. If you looked at their pay structure, I bet it would be based on performance. The inefficiencies in the system now stem from a non performanced based structure. Doctors inflate cost on medicare patients and an insured patients in an attempt to cover for those they don’t get paid for. How do you cap the inefficiency from continuing to grow? I think there are attempts at this in the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by dhyams
Wanted to go into more but don’t have time right now…. We do have a fundamental difference though. I have a hard time not lumping healthcare into “promote the general welfare” along with education, police, fire, etc.
I read somewhere that they found a new version of the calendar that shows the world will not end this december, but some point in the distant future. we're all safe for another 4 years of boating season.. that is if we can afford the gas in 4 years :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mmandley
I thought the world would end on Yk2;)