Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crazy Bernie!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post

    As soon as I saw that headline I thought "Fraser Institute at it again", so I clicked on the link and guess what - Fraser Institute. Read this: https://north99.org/2018/02/15/7-dis...ser-institute/
    I won't defend that link because I admittedly know nothing about the organization. It was one of several links that addressed the issue. I chose that one because it gave a short, relevant quote.

    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
      I can remember all the RW excuses as to why pre-existing conditions shouldn't be covered



      Do you understand the reason the healthcare system is broken is because of these corporations you support. Not all corporations are greedy and crooked.

      It's proven the corporations are the problem, keep defending their profits while the middle class gets price gouged. This is another reason I don't vote republican.

      There are no middle class policies in the republican party.
      And I say it is proven that the Irish are the problem.

      I think that makes my pont every bit as strong as yours.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

        What are you talking about? All I do is educate people here on the topic. These aren't LW talking points repeated on TV. These are policy differences between the parties.

        Republicans = anti-middle class policy
        Democrats = middle and lower class policy

        If a person is in the middle class voting republican, they're tricked into it. The republican party is run by corporate elitists trying to scam the American tax payer out of as much money as possible. These corporations feel it should be their welfare and not something the middle class should receive.

        How do these corrupt corporations accomplish this task? Favors for specific congresspeople which equates to favorable treatment via costs, regulations and government contracts

        Another glaring example, republicans support Citizens United.




        You just presented your opinion in that rant. There is not one verifiable fact within it. You give no concrete examples. That's what I'm talking about.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

          What are you talking about? All I do is educate people here on the topic. These aren't LW talking points repeated on TV. These are policy differences between the parties.

          Republicans = anti-middle class policy
          Democrats = middle and lower class policy

          If a person is in the middle class voting republican, they're tricked into it. The republican party is run by corporate elitists trying to scam the American tax payer out of as much money as possible. These corporations feel it should be their welfare and not something the middle class should receive.

          How do these corrupt corporations accomplish this task? Favors for specific congresspeople which equates to favorable treatment via costs, regulations and government contracts

          Another glaring example, republicans support Citizens United.
          hahaha.

          If you understood the citizens united case I would be happy to explain why your comment demonstrates enormous ignorance about how the 1st Amendment works. I guess those RW media outlets haven't explained the decision to you and just gave you talking points.
          Unfortunately, I only have facts, logic and the law on my side, whereas you have your personal opinions.
          Last edited by Cambronnne; 27 Feb 20, 13:15.
          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post





            You just presented your opinion in that rant. There is not one verifiable fact within it. You give no concrete examples. That's what I'm talking about.
            I'll play the game, name a middle class policy that republicans support.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
              I'll play the game, name a middle class policy that republicans support.
              Here's what the GOP itself says:

              https://gop.com/topic/middle-class/canonical/

              But, some concrete examples as well:

              School choice and vouchers for school choice.

              Tax cuts on income. Before you claim these didn't help the Middle Class, they helped me and I'm Middle Class. They helped most people I know. I can accept they gave bigger amounts to The Rich but then again The Rich pay way more in taxes too.

              Deregulation.

              Essentially on economics it's this:

              Less taxes helps everyone

              Less regulation helps businesses and it helps workers

              More income expands the economy

              More jobs help the poor get jobs

              Higher GDP brings in more taxes because income is increased.

              The alternative is the Democrat way:

              Increase taxes and the economy worsens

              Increase regulations and businesses are taxed, workers are laid off, the economy worsens

              If the economy is worsened, the middle class lose jobs, and the poor have less job opportunities, businesses close down

              Next, define "Middle Class."

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                US healthcare is excellent.
                It is just expensive.

                ...
                In other words, the US healthcare system is excellent for those who can afford its high price.


                One of the big problems in the US is the close link between the healthcare insurance and the employer. People who lose their job or go from full t part time status in this very fluid work environment are often at risk of losing their health insurance. This is a big issue for the part of the population which does not have any significant savings to deal with medical issues during unemployment or underemployment (which often does not qualify a worker for health "benefits").

                In the US, one can work two part-time jobs of 4 hour each putting a solid 8-hour of work per day and still not qualify for a healthcare plan. In such cases, the private market is quite more expensive and families on the lower end of the US society cannot afford comprehensive coverage. ER do not and cannot provide the required service for the uninsured or underinsured population.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  In other words, the US healthcare system is excellent for those who can afford its high price.


                  One of the big problems in the US is the close link between the healthcare insurance and the employer. People who lose their job or go from full t part time status in this very fluid work environment are often at risk of losing their health insurance. This is a big issue for the part of the population which does not have any significant savings to deal with medical issues during unemployment or underemployment (which often does not qualify a worker for health "benefits").

                  In the US, one can work two part-time jobs of 4 hour each putting a solid 8-hour of work per day and still not qualify for a healthcare plan. In such cases, the private market is quite more expensive and families on the lower end of the US society cannot afford comprehensive coverage. ER do not and cannot provide the required service for the uninsured or underinsured population.
                  And, the major reason it's so expensive and dependent on insurance, particularly employer insurance, is interference by the government in the market.

                  The whole employer health insurance thing started with FDR imposing wage and price controls on industry in WW 2. In doing so, he forced employers to get creative with incentives to draw workers in a tight labor market. One way they did this was to offer free employer health insurance coverage. Some others were opening company cafeterias with free or heavily discounted meals that were a work-around to rationing and very attractive at the time.
                  When the war ended, employer health insurance didn't and over time it expanded to cover more and more of the market.

                  Then you get LBJ pushing the "Great Society" and instituting Medicare / Medicaid. This got more government involvement in the health insurance market making it undesirable for private insurers to continue covering those with lots of health problems and the elderly.

                  With every intrusion by government since, the cost of health insurance has gone up. The way out of this mess is to eliminate government from the health insurance equation to the maximum extent possible. There is likely some need to continue government in this market as a marginal player in niches private insurance doesn't cover but that's all it should be doing. Also, getting insurance out of the business of covering routine care and costs should be done ASAP. That will drive prices down in a major way.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                    And, the major reason it's so expensive and dependent on insurance, particularly employer insurance, is interference by the government in the market.

                    The whole employer health insurance thing started with FDR imposing wage and price controls on industry in WW 2. In doing so, he forced employers to get creative with incentives to draw workers in a tight labor market. One way they did this was to offer free employer health insurance coverage. Some others were opening company cafeterias with free or heavily discounted meals that were a work-around to rationing and very attractive at the time.
                    When the war ended, employer health insurance didn't and over time it expanded to cover more and more of the market.

                    Then you get LBJ pushing the "Great Society" and instituting Medicare / Medicaid. This got more government involvement in the health insurance market making it undesirable for private insurers to continue covering those with lots of health problems and the elderly.

                    With every intrusion by government since, the cost of health insurance has gone up. The way out of this mess is to eliminate government from the health insurance equation to the maximum extent possible. There is likely some need to continue government in this market as a marginal player in niches private insurance doesn't cover but that's all it should be doing. Also, getting insurance out of the business of covering routine care and costs should be done ASAP. That will drive prices down in a major way.
                    Well, I have seen progressives trying to change this employer based health insurance, and Sanders' proposition also tries to end this relationship (between employer and health coverage). Meanwhile I have not seen any mainstream conservative ideas in the US to change this relationship. When the narrative is that the US healthcare is "excellent," it does not help propositions that bring such radical changes.

                    There would not be a need to create Medicare/Medicaid if those in need could be served by the private market. And actually, despite the fact that the government took the most serious cases away from the private industry, we still see a very expensive private healthcare cost.
                    Last edited by pamak; 27 Feb 20, 17:46.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      Well, I have seen progressives trying to change this employer based health insurance, and Sanders' proposition also tries to change this relationship. Meanwhile I have not seen any mainstream conservative ideas in the US to change this relationship. When the narrative is that the US healthcare is "excellent," it does not help propositions that bring such radical changes.
                      There would not be a need to create Medicare if those in need could be served by the private market.
                      The problem with Sander's and Progressives on the Left's plans are they call for more government involvement, not less. That will only make things worse.

                      My personal view is that we implement a national catastrophic health care coverage plan with a say $10 to $25,000 deductible that is government run. The exact number isn't important for this discussion but it would be a very large deductible. This gives everyone coverage for major hospital and very serious illness coverage and gets government out of most of the rest of the health insurance business. Pay for this by abolishing Medicare and Medicaid entirely and replacement with the catastrophic plan.

                      Then we implement a real health payment system based on personal savings accounts that are tax fee to put money into sort of like an IRA or 401K. For those on government assistance or receiving things like Earned Income Credit on their tax return, they would get a mandatory government run account that could be rolled over to a private one and a percentage of their welfare, etc., and all of their EIC would go into it so they have cash to pay for medical services.

                      Make all medical expenses 100% tax deductible.

                      Employers could open accounts for employees and use matching funds from employees to a set amount per year sort of like a 401K. This would then be used by the employee to pay for most medical services. Also, it would be personal and portable meaning you lose your job you get to take your account with you or roll it into a private account.

                      As an additional bonus to employers, any employer monies put in at the end of the year could be split 50 - 50 with employees as a bonus to the employee for not getting sick and the employer as a way to eventually make the account essentially 'free' by rolling over their 50% into the next year's pay in.

                      This gets routine care and medical expenses out of being run by insurance and returns things to a more market based solution. Health insurers could continue to offer plans to supplement all this if anyone wanted to buy more coverage. But, for the average person this plan would be personal, portable, and only require them to make the best buys on health care in a market where the payment is from the patient directly to the provider with minimal middleman involvement.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                        The problem with Sander's and Progressives on the Left's plans are they call for more government involvement, not less. That will only make things worse.

                        My personal view is that we implement a national catastrophic health care coverage plan with a say $10 to $25,000 deductible that is government run. The exact number isn't important for this discussion but it would be a very large deductible. This gives everyone coverage for major hospital and very serious illness coverage and gets government out of most of the rest of the health insurance business. Pay for this by abolishing Medicare and Medicaid entirely and replacement with the catastrophic plan.

                        Then we implement a real health payment system based on personal savings accounts that are tax fee to put money into sort of like an IRA or 401K. For those on government assistance or receiving things like Earned Income Credit on their tax return, they would get a mandatory government run account that could be rolled over to a private one and a percentage of their welfare, etc., and all of their EIC would go into it so they have cash to pay for medical services.

                        Employers could open accounts for employees and use matching funds from employees to a set amount per year sort of like a 401K. This would then be used by the employee to pay for most medical services. Also, it would be personal and portable meaning you lose your job you get to take your account with you or roll it into a private account.

                        As an additional bonus to employers, any employer monies put in at the end of the year could be split 50 - 50 with employees as a bonus to the employee for not getting sick and the employer as a way to eventually make the account essentially 'free' by rolling over their 50% into the next year's pay in.

                        This gets routine care and medical expenses out of being run by insurance and returns things to a more market based solution. Health insurers could continue to offer plans to supplement all this if anyone wanted to buy more coverage. But, for the average person this plan would be personal, portable, and only require them to make the best buys on health care in a market where the payment is from the patient directly to the provider with minimal middleman involvement.
                        A very large deductible is not for those who do not even have 1000 dollars aside to deal with an unexpected emergency.
                        Have you seen what percentage of the US population falls in that category?

                        https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...208-story.html

                        When it comes to savings to cover expenses in the event of a job loss, 38 percent of respondents have less than $1,000. More than a quarter (27 percent) of respondents actually have $10,000 or more saved. But even that might not be enough to survive a job loss for six months.

                        Do you know what percentage of US employees actually have significant investments? I thik around 40% have neglible investments.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          A very large deductible is not for those who do not even have 1000 dollars aside to deal with an unexpected emergency.
                          Have you seen what percentage of the US population falls in that category?

                          https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...208-story.html

                          When it comes to savings to cover expenses in the event of a job loss, 38 percent of respondents have less than $1,000. More than a quarter (27 percent) of respondents actually have $10,000 or more saved. But even that might not be enough to survive a job loss for six months.

                          Do you know what percentage of US employees actually have significant investments? I thik around 40% have neglible investments.
                          That's why you have a medical savings account. Over the years you have the cash in it earning interest like a 401K or IRA would and you then have the money for the deductible. If you have really serious health issues you aren't likely to have these more than a few times in your life before you die.

                          That people on the lower end of income would be forced to save by having a government run account that takes their income tax return monies in whole or part and forcibly stuffs it into a savings account for health coverage would be a good thing. They can do without the Gameboy or 97" television.

                          Right now, people don't generally put money in a savings account because they don't earn any interest. I don't and I have a rather big amount of money in other investment accounts where they earn a decent return.
                          I know I'd rather have an account that uses pre-tax money to pay for medical expenses than pay an insurance company a big pile of money every month to cover me. It wouldn't take long for most middle class people to have an account that is upwards of five figures.


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            Well, I have seen progressives trying to change this employer based health insurance, and Sanders' proposition also tries to end this relationship (between employer and health coverage). Meanwhile I have not seen any mainstream conservative ideas in the US to change this relationship. When the narrative is that the US healthcare is "excellent," it does not help propositions that bring such radical changes.

                            There would not be a need to create Medicare/Medicaid if those in need could be served by the private market. And actually, despite the fact that the government took the most serious cases away from the private industry, we still see a very expensive private healthcare cost.

                            Are you trying to tell us that the government mandated healthcare law that is known as Obamacare didn’t do what we were told it would? I find it hard to believe that a government program would fail to deliver.

                            I won’t bother addressing the details of any of your post until you can identify that government run program that delivers gods or services more efficiently or effectively than its private sector equivalent.
                            FEDEX or the USPS?

                            Public defender or a private attorney.

                            Social security or a private 401k?


                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              That's why you have a medical savings account. Over the years you have the cash in it earning interest like a 401K or IRA would and you then have the money for the deductible. If you have really serious health issues you aren't likely to have these more than a few times in your life before you die.

                              That people on the lower end of income would be forced to save by having a government run account that takes their income tax return monies in whole or part and forcibly stuffs it into a savings account for health coverage would be a good thing. They can do without the Gameboy or 97" television.

                              Right now, people don't generally put money in a savings account because they don't earn any interest. I don't and I have a rather big amount of money in other investment accounts where they earn a decent return.
                              I know I'd rather have an account that uses pre-tax money to pay for medical expenses than pay an insurance company a big pile of money every month to cover me. It wouldn't take long for most middle class people to have an account that is upwards of five figures.

                              But these accounts exist and still we see a major percentage of population being incapable of facing a medical emergency.
                              This is not about only people who do not put money on savings accounts. Again, the percentage of people with substantial investments in the marker is low. And this is despite the fact that the boomers were lucky enough to live in an era where bog companies were offering pension plans and benefits. One can see the statistics about the major income of retirees which comes from the government social security for a big part of the population

                              https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v77n2/v77n2p1.html

                              Using data from the redesigned March 2015 CPS, the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics (2016, Table 9a) reports the percentage distribution of per capita 2014 family income by source, overall and in each total-income quintile for persons aged 65 or older.3 Social Security benefits were the primary income source, accounting for an average of about 49 percent of total family income for aged individuals. Combined income from annuities and pensions (including distributions from retirement accounts) amounted to 16 percent of family income, and income from assets accounted for 6 percent. Beyond the three traditional pillars, earnings—now often considered a fourth pillar of retirement security—accounted for about 24 percent of family income, reflecting an increase in continued employment among the aged or the presence of younger workers in the family, or perhaps both. Public assistance and “other” sources respectively accounted for 2 percent and 3 percent of per capita family income of the aged population.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


                                Are you trying to tell us that the government mandated healthcare law that is known as Obamacare didn’t do what we were told it would? I find it hard to believe that a government program would fail to deliver.

                                I won’t bother addressing the details of any of your post until you can identify that government run program that delivers gods or services more efficiently or effectively than its private sector equivalent.
                                FEDEX or the USPS?

                                Public defender or a private attorney.

                                Social security or a private 401k?

                                You put words in my mouth. I have been among the first to criticize the Democrats when they failed to introduce a public option in Obamacare and predicted that without it, there would not be a significant decrease of the healthcare cost.

                                What I said is that the private system of healthcare is excellent for those who can afford it and I saw nothing in your post that challenges that concept. And one can make similar comments about the retirement system or the legal system and so on.

                                As for an example that you wanted me to mention of a public program that is more efficient (on average ) than the private one, see previous post regarding which government program delivers the biggest portion of a family's income in retirement, especially for the bottom half of the population.


                                Social Security benefits were the primary income source, accounting for an average of about 49 percent of total family income for aged individuals. Combined income from annuities and pensions (including distributions from retirement accounts) amounted to 16 percent of family income and income from assets accounted for 6 percent. Beyond the three traditional pillars, earnings—now often considered a fourth pillar of retirement security—accounted for about 24 percent of family income, reflecting an increase in continued employment among the aged or the presence of younger workers in the family, or perhaps both. Public assistance and “other” sources respectively accounted for 2 percent and 3 percent of per capita family income of the aged population.

                                So, yes, good private attorneys, nice 401Ks, and healthcare plans in the private marker may be the best choice for some among the US population but the public programs are the best choice for many others.
                                Last edited by pamak; 27 Feb 20, 19:50.
                                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X