Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well since standing for nothing wins over standing for something, Democrats can just oppose everything Republicans do and then accuse them of accomplishing nothing. It's so easy to do that, I can see why Republicans played it. And for those that like crippled government, and many do, it definitely works for them. If both sides are constantly opposing and attacking the other side, nothing happens ever.
Yes, and doing nothing is better than a single party having full legislative control to run rampant with no controls. The problem is that both parties, not the constituents, have become corrupted by special interests. The premise of a constitutional republic is to allow the states to have individual rights, with powers delegated by the citizens of said states. The federal government was never intended to become the monster it is today.
The federal government has hijacked states rights by getting them addicted to federal money. They're no better than drug dealers who slowly destroy the lives of their clients.
We libertarians are suspicious of anything the federal government does, because they never fail to overstep, overreach, and over regulate. Once they control a "thing" they almost certainly corrupt it... the VA and IRS being prime examples.
Republicans + Democrats = two sides of the same coin - the political class who serve themselves and their friends under the guise of doing the peoples work.
Winning means nothing.
What you do with winning means everything.
That's what were discussing.
Similar to the 6 year critique the right wing conservative have been doing with the Obama wins.
We are stuck with it but should try and get the costs down. The huge amount of fraud has never been seriously addressed or fixed and that needs to be taken care of pretty quickly.
This poll would have a smidgen of validity if there were proof that liberals weren't deliberately skewing this poll to make it appear that R's want to throw Grandma off the cliff like they accuse.
It's certainly a great talking point for leftists and the uninformed that vote for them.
I don't know ONE single R that wants to END medicare.
How would you describe Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare? Granted, he may not intend to end it, as in repeal it, etc., but, if implemented, do you think that it would remain Medicare as we know it?
Would it provide the same benefits and coverage?
Yet those over 65 have been receiving Medicare for decades. When Medicare started, the initial recipients had not paid a penny to receive it. This would be called wealth redistribution.
No, in Wealth Redistribution schemes there is no derived benefit.
Food Stamps are a Wealth Redistribution scheme. Income I have is forcibly taken from me and given to another person in the form of Food Stamps so that they can have money to buy beer and gamble.
How do I benefit from that?
I don't.
In fact, I lose even more money.
I lose money from lost time and resources by police, the court system, and the property damage Food Stamp turds cause, plus the spouses and children are injured or neglected, creating an additional drain on medical services and the legal system, etc etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Would you also like to end public schools?
Misrepresentation If the misrepresentation occurs on purpose, then it is an example of lying. If the misrepresentation occurs during a debate in which there is misrepresentation of the opponent’s claim, then it would be the cause of a straw man fallacy.
To which system of public schools are you referring?
The federal government's idealized vision of the complete Soviet indoctrination camp, or the system as envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution?
The system of public education as envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution is Communist. They didn't know that, since "communism" did not exist at that time.
Educated informed people are familiar with the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, not because they are evidence that changes to the Articles of Confederation were already being considered, but because both set up your system of public education, which was centered around townships.
In addition to each township being the same size in terms of square miles/land area, each township also had a parcel of land set aside for the exclusive use of public education.
That's Communism.
Communism is a Property Theory suggesting that the people should control Capital.
The Capital here is land, plus any improvements to the land, including school buildings, offices, stadiums, natatoriums, desks, chairs, lamps, books, and all the equipment and machinery and other items associated with schooling or education.
In any issue, such as "Shall we refurbish the buildings, or remodel them or build new ones?" the people of the township talk it up and then vote on it.
It's quite democratic.
It's not rocket science, either. At the time the Framers were writing the Constitution, across the sea in the Niger and Congo River Basins, you had hundreds of anarchist communal democracies. Villages of 2,000 to 7,000 people; no government; got an issue? give the town crier a gratuity to run around and announce the location and time of a meeting; everyone (all the males) meets; people voice their opinions Pro & Con; and the vote is taken.
If 18th Century African tribal groups can do that without the advantage of having powdered wigs, then so can Americans, right?
But that's not your Straw Man. What you deceitfully misrepresented was Opportunity Costs. Public Education is a function of Opportunity Costs.
Households simply do not have the time, money, space, resources or skill to properly educate their own children. Since educators are born and not made, not everyone is suited to educating. Duplicating resources is stupid and waste of Capital. You could hire tutors. Let's see, 1,500 households in the township, with 1,000 households with school age children....
Yeah, there's 1,000 tutors out there, right? Wrong. And since Supply & Determines wages/salaries, if you have 1,000 household screaming for tutors, but only 100 tutors....
...ooops.
You think you'll go in with a couple of neighbors and hire a single tutor? Assuming the tutor agrees to that, and assuming you suitable for 6-10 children...maybe.
$150 tutor fees * 282 days = $42,300
Yeah that's chump change, I can see where people can just dig in the couch and pull out enough change in coins to pay for that.
Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to pay $2,000 in property taxes and be done with it? Not to mention the bennies like music and art instruction, drama club, individual sports, team sports and clubs.
That, is the Opportunity Cost.
The system worked right up to the point Liberals and the Left-Wing destroyed it with their control-freak nonsense. Your public schools are no longer under local control......township control....instead it's under the control of an ass-clown in Washington DC. Actually, an army of ass-clowns in DumbEd.
Your entire system from the university level on down is nothing but Monkey See-Monkey Do and the sad thing is you can't even do that right.
Look at the Obamacare roll-out. Monkey See-Monkey Do couldn't even plagiarize a software program correctly. You'd have been better off out-sourcing it to India where it would have been done right the first time, and cost the tax-payers 80% less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Actually this poll shows...
....absolutely nothing since you cannot verify or corroborate anyone's party affiliation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Studies show that while people contribute to Medicare, the benefits are as much as three times the contribution they made. How can you justify that?
How you can justify the position of Liberals and the Left-Wing who want to pay $50 for $5 Million worth of medical care, and then they don't even want to pay the $50, instead they want me to pay it for them?
Households simply do not have the time, money, space, resources or skill to properly educate their own children. Since educators are born and not made, not everyone is suited to educating. Duplicating resources is stupid and waste of Capital. You could hire tutors. Let's see, 1,500 households in the township, with 1,000 households with school age children....
Yeah, there's 1,000 tutors out there, right? Wrong. And since Supply & Determines wages/salaries, if you have 1,000 household screaming for tutors, but only 100 tutors....
...ooops.
And every household has a doctor in the family? Skills far more technical than a teacher. Would you call death an opportunity cost? Oops.
You think you'll go in with a couple of neighbors and hire a single tutor? Assuming the tutor agrees to that, and assuming you suitable for 6-10 children...maybe.
$150 tutor fees * 282 days = $42,300
Yeah that's chump change, I can see where people can just dig in the couch and pull out enough change in coins to pay for that.
Funny how the logic to justify public education is conveniently ignored when it comes to health care coverage.
A person that pays property taxes but does not have children would definitely call that wealth redistribution.
You did win. Now we get to hold you to your rhetoric. And that is going to be a lot of fun. Deal with it.
So the Republican health care plan is to tell people to do whatever they did six years ago. This should be good.
That "we won" attitude is what got us ObamaCare.
First, what people "did" 6 years ago is better than what is happening today. Secondly, nobody is saying that's what the GOP plans on doing. Nobody knows what they'll do. Because for 6 years they've been told that they "lost" and while they can ride in the car, they have to sit in the back. Buckle up, Libs.....
First, what people "did" 6 years ago is better than what is happening today. Secondly, nobody is saying that's what the GOP plans on doing. Nobody knows what they'll do. Because for 6 years they've been told that they "lost" and while they can ride in the car, they have to sit in the back. Buckle up, Libs.....
Excuse me, but the Republican leadership are saying now they will use every tool available to repeal Obamacare. And Republicans have no plan because Obamacare was the closest to a Republican plan as they have ever had. Since they've disavowed themselves of it, they've got nothing. And if they propose anything, they put themselves in the position of having to justify it. Doing something is so much harder than standing on the sidelines screaming. Now Democrats get to be the ones that watch Republicans live by what they propose. Believe me, I'm buckled up and you can bet, this will be just as fun for us tearing you apart as it has been for you the past six years.
No one could have foreseen how health care costs would rise.
You could not be more mistaken than you usually are.
In 1940, the cost of pre-paid hospitalization plans was a mere 0.40% of an household's disposable income. By 1945, that had increased to 0.47%, which is a 17.5% increase. Penicillin and the 2nd Generation X-ray machines were the cost drivers.
By 1955, the cost of pre-paid hospitalization plans had risen to 1.56% of disposable income.
That's a 232% increase in just 10 years.
What happened?
At that point, you now have all of your major anti-biotics, plus you are performing open-heart surgery to install heart valves.
By 1970, pre-paid hospitalization has evolved into pre-paid medical service plans, and they cost 2.91% of an household's disposable income, and that's an 86% increase.
You can thank the technology from the Atomic Energy Commission's nuclear weapons program, and NASA's Apollo Space Program for things like nuclear medicine, and MRIs, CAT scanners, PET scanners etc etc etc Source:
Everyone wants the care but no one has any good or workable plan to contain costs.
I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
All insurance is a pool.
Wrong. Insurance is not about pooling, contrary to the rantings and musings of the ignorant and uneducated.
DEFINITIONS
Pooling is a risk-management process under which similar actuarial risks are combined.
The definition of pooling does not imply that it will always be beneficial.
Source: PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING ACTUARIAL SCIENCE Mark Allaben, Christopher Diamantoukos, Arnold Dicke, Sam Gutterman, Stuart Klugman, Richard Lord, Warren Luckner, Robert Miccolis, Joseph Tan Copyright 2008 by the Society of Actuaries.
4.2 PRINCIPLE (Pooling). If the actuarial risk associated with a risk classification system displays statistical regularity, it is possible to combine risk classes so as to ensure that there is an actuarial model associated with the new set of risk classes that is valid within a specified degree of accuracy DISCUSSION. It is clear from Principle 4.2 that there is a trade-off between pooling and homogeneity in insurance systems. Moreover, increased homogeneity generally leads to increased cost of information. . . .The ability to make such temporary distinctions (based on current health status, etc.) is useful, because it decreases the degree of uncertainty regarding current status and allows insureds to be charged more appropriate initial considerations. Thus, the knowledge that all members of a class had normal blood pressure on a certain day might allow that class to be offered lower considerations for life and health insurance.
Source: TRANSACTIONS OF SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES, Vol XLIV
Pooling does not decrease the cost of medical care or health plan coverage.
Pooling may or may not decrease operating costs for the insurer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Healthy people support those who aren't.
That's not how it works.
It is true that under the Community Rating Scheme, young single people are raped and robbed to pay the cost of health plan coverage for married without children, married with children and unmarried with children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Trying to keep this newborn alive cost over $1 million dollars.
Wow....it's a good thing she didn't live in Britain or Germany or Sweden, because they would have cut off care and let the child die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
I am 66. While I was still working, I had private insurance from my employers. I never USED it. Guess what? I was subsidizing everyone ELSE, from the time I was 30 until 65.
Wrong answer.
The most you could whine about here like a small child is that as a single person or as married without children, you were subsidizing the premiums for the health plan coverage of married and unmarried with children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman
What you don't understand is back in 1965. (1) there were far fewer Americans living over the age of 65 and those that did had much shorter life expectancies so you didn't have as many 90 somethings collecting SS and Medicare for 30 plus years. They were lucky to see age 70 back then.
On what Planet were you on?
Life-Expectancy from Birth in 1965: Male 66.8 years; Female 73.8 years
Life-Expectancy from Age 65 in 1965: Male 12.9 years or 79.7 years total; Female 16.3 years or 90.1 years total
Maybe we should look at 1940 data, so let's do that.
Life-Expectancy from Birth in 1940: Male 61.4 years; Female 65.7 years
Life-Expectancy from Age 65 in 1940: Male 11.9 years or 73.3 years total; Female 13.4 years or 79.1 years total
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman
Medicare played a big role in changing all that.
No, it didn't, and that is proven here...
Life-Expectancy from Age 65 in 1940: Male 11.9 years; Female 13.4 years
Life-Expectancy from Age 65 in 1965: Male 12.9 years; Female 16.3 years
As you can see, over the course of 25 years, you have only a 1 year increase for Men and a 2.9 year increase for women.
Medicare played no part, but technology did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman
Back in 1965 the private insurers didn't want to issue health insurance to anyone who might make them pay out more than they could reasonably expect to pay in premiums.
That is wrong.
Again, the American Hospital Association lobbied the State legislatures for laws to their advantage, which were harmful to both you and private "health insurance" companies.
In plain ordinary English, no "health insurance" company can do what a State law prohibits it from doing.
Which part of "Soviet-style Command Market" do you people not understand?
Free Markets and Command Markets are mutually exclusive.
It's hard to issue a single policy to anyone -- regardless of their age, when State laws say you are not allowed to do that, or if State laws say you can do that, but only with the following caveats, which neither you the consumer nor the insurance company wants.
Do any of you people understand the meaning of "federal republic?"
How about State government?
Do you all know what a State is? Do you know there are 50 States (not 57 like Obama says)?
Do you all understand insurance is regulated at the State level and not the federal level?
Doesn't anyone understand the meaning of "intra-State commerce?"
Anyone of you ever hear of the ACA?
How about the Supreme Court?
How about the recent Sebelius decision by the Supreme Court?
Let's connect the dots and put it all together: Medical care and health plan coverage are intra-State commerce not within the power or purview of Congress says the Supreme Court prior to Sebelius and reinforcing that with Sebelius.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
Please provide evidence, factual evidence not what you "think", that "half of the posters in this forum can fall back on VA care and could care less about Medicare."
Remember, FACTUAL evidence.
What? Are you kidding? Factual evidence? You'll be elected president before that ever happens.
Foreseeing....
Mircea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
