We'd Save 804 Billion Dollars if we got rid of two programs (Pelosi, death)
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.
Just remember that with a quite effective propaganda system (the US Press is the best run outfit for distributing lies since the apparat of the USSR) any society can become a fascist stooge.
Hi i was looking through the CBO budget and realized. We have to make tough choices i think we should start taking steps to reform Medicare and Social Security. Bush, tried to reform social security, but no one wanted to hear it, so we need to make the tough decision. I'm against nationalized health-care, we just cannot afford to have debt equaling more than 20% of GDP it is not sustainable.
I propose we take the tough steps to move away from Big Government and cut Medicare and Social Security or at least reform these programs, so they only cost us like a couple 100 billion a year as opposed to a trillion.
We'd have a budget short fall this year of only 288 Billion if we got rid of these programs. I think we should also get our troops the heck out of Iraq and reduce defense spending for the time being.
If we did this we could balance the budget.
Who is with me no more socialism, not here, not now, not ever????
You're not passionate you are bombastic and conceited. How do you know what any of those people think regarding SS or any matter other than health care? You make assumptions not based on any facts. These people are as passionate in their beliefs as you are in yours. Perhaps you would like them to describe you as a racist and hater. Who are you to judge them?
I'm willing to give you this one and say that you are right. I do not have any empirical evidence these people are racist, but i will say, that i can tell you, they certainly are not the brightest students in the class. I have said this in other debates, i believe some people had some seriously legitimate concerns, but they were drown out due to the people I perceive to be racist yelling and acting like animals just to disrupt the meetings. I am a small government guy, but health care is a very serious issue and needs to be addressed. I also think the debate is much to complex for any of us, because we currently have so little information with which to argue upon. Until we hear from all the sides we really do not have all the information, so the fact, that these people went to those town hall meetings and did that pissed me off, because i want to hear what the government is attempting to pass through the house etc.
I'm willing to give you this one and say that you are right. I do not have any empirical evidence these people are racist, but i will say, that i can tell you, they certainly are not the brightest students in the class. I have said this in other debates, i believe some people had some seriously legitimate concerns, but they were drown out due to the people I perceive to be racist yelling and acting like animals just to disrupt the meetings. I am a small government guy, but health care is a very serious issue and needs to be addressed. I also think the debate is much to complex for any of us, because we currently have so little information with which to argue upon. Until we hear from all the sides we really do not have all the information, so the fact, that these people went to those town hall meetings and did that pissed me off, because i want to hear what the government is attempting to pass through the house etc.
As passionately as you feel about SS is how I feel about healthcare. I am a pharmacist and I feel I have insight into what would work and what would not. HR 3200 as written is not good. Most of what is discussed is dishonest and will not accomplish what they suggest. Good quality healthcare at low cost for all Americans. Sure some of the people at these rallies are overheated but for the most part their concerns are valid. Quite honestly I have no idea how a libertarian can be for such huge government intervention in our lives. No matter how these bills turn out I can assure you we will have less freedom not more.
By the way if you want to understand what is going on in the house the last person you would want to listen to is a Congressman. These people have not read any of the bills for the most part. Many of them proudly proclaim it. If you really what to know what is in the bills read them.
As passionately as you feel about SS is how I feel about healthcare. I am a pharmacist and I feel I have insight into what would work and what would not. HR 3200 as written is not good. Most of what is discussed is dishonest and will not accomplish what they suggest. Good quality healthcare at low cost for all Americans. Sure some of the people at these rallies are overheated but for the most part their concerns are valid. Quite honestly I have no idea how a libertarian can be for such huge government intervention in our lives. No matter how these bills turn out I can assure you we will have less freedom not more.
By the way if you want to understand what is going on in the house the last person you would want to listen to is a Congressman. These people have not read any of the bills for the most part. Many of them proudly proclaim it. If you really what to know what is in the bills read them.
No, i think you miss my point. I'm a libertarian with only 100,000 dollars, so if i got into a serious accident and my insurance company did not cover me i'd be, well, royally screwed, so while my libertarian principles would led me to go down the road of less intrusive government, i do realize, I'm arguing against myself interest as it relates to my health. It is much easier for me to make the small government arguments against a government sponsored annuity plan like SS, because i currently have a very diversified portfolio and invest in a number of different investment vehicles. I can agrue my libertarian views, because i feel i have more personal control (in theory) over how i invest on my own accord. I also do other things like i do not own more than 1 credit card, which i never use and i stay below my budget on most everything. I can make the arguments against SS because I'm doing a lot to prepare myself for retirement (i feel i have more control). I do not have control over the return, but in theory i have more control than i would want the government to have over this portion of my earnings.
However, Health-care is a different monster, because i can do a lot of things on my own like not eating fatty foods, smoking cigarettes, or excessively drinking, but there are a lot more things out of my control, that if something awful were to happen to me, i simply would not be able to pay for out of my own pocket. Now, this is why i said, as a libertarian who makes under 100,000 dollars, i cannot make the same convincing libertarian argument as the small government guy who has 100 Million, because he can pay for everything i cannot, so the insurance company dropping him means little to him, but to me it could be life or death. If i carry out his full argument on health care even if i agree in principle, i'm only hurting myself, because he's not going to pay my medical bills out of charity (maybe government coercion) or via higher premiums (which he can pay no problem), but either way he and i may have the same ideology, but not the same wealth, so we are different in respect, because of the seriousness of health care.
Now, the odds are in my favor, that my health will be great, but i cannot prevent against freak accident, that i cannot pay for. Does that make sense to you?
In theory yes, i agree government should not run Health-Care, but i do not think they have any intention of running the health care system. In general, government is not as effective as the private sector at providing certain services. However, I'm not really sold on the Health-care debate, because in principle I'd like to keep them out of it, but i do not have all the information yet to know if I'm seriously arguing against myself interest and i have more control than i think or ..what i said earlier.
I'm one of those people that at my old company i did not pay for insurance because the premiums were 150 bucks a month for a single guy like myself. Now, that may not be a lot to you, but to a single guy fresh out of college, who has never been sick, that was more than i was willing to pay. I basically took the risk of not being covered to save money, because im a healthy guy. Now, obviously if i would have gotten hit by a bus, i would have been royally f^^ked, because I'm not the small government libertarian that has 100 Million, so keep that in mind, i should never completely argue his side unless, I'm able to pay or willing to accept the consequences, i may die, because I cannot afford my argument.
I have health insurance now because the company I'm with now is a lot less expensive and they offer a lot less on their plan, but it is cheap so I'll pay for it, just in case. However, if it was expensive again i just would not pay for it and take my chances.
The question you have to ask yourself is Who pays for me if that freak accident happens? YOU DO, so what does it matter to me? If you're not covered by the gov or if you're covered by the gov? Either way you're paying for my freak accident when I'm not covered. You pay through the hidden hike in medical cost, the hospital rises prices, the insurance company rises prices, and the effect go on and on. As long as i can get to an emergency room I'm saved on your tax dollars.
In principle I'm a libertarian, but I'm also going to do what will support my own self interest first. I'm not stupid enough anymore to cut off my nose to spit my face. Now, the odds of me needing medical care increases every year i get older, so running the risk my entire life and it may not always work. Anyway, once i make my 100 Million I'll be back to making the argument in my favor against government run Health Care lol.
I'm a bit split on this right now even as a limited government guy, because health care is a much more valuable service to me than a government sponsored annuity (social security) does that make more sense?
No, i think you miss my point. I'm a libertarian with only 100,000 dollars, so if i got into a serious accident and my insurance company did not cover me i'd be, well, royally screwed, so while my libertarian principles would led me to go down the road of less intrusive government, i do realize, I'm arguing against myself interest as it relates to my health. It is much easier for me to make the small government arguments against a government sponsored annuity plan like SS, because i currently have a very diversified portfolio and invest in a number of different investment vehicles. I can agrue my libertarian views, because i feel i have more personal control (in theory) over how i invest on my own accord. I also do other things like i do not own more than 1 credit card, which i never use and i stay below my budget on most everything. I can make the arguments against SS because I'm doing a lot to prepare myself for retirement (i feel i have more control). I do not have control over the return, but in theory i have more control than i would want the government to have over this portion of my earnings.
However, Health-care is a different monster, because i can do a lot of things on my own like not eating fatty foods, smoking cigarettes, or excessively drinking, but there are a lot more things out of my control, that if something awful were to happen to me, i simply would not be able to pay for out of my own pocket. Now, this is why i said, as a libertarian who makes under 100,000 dollars, i cannot make the same convincing libertarian argument as the small government guy who has 100 Million, because he can pay for everything i cannot, so the insurance company dropping him means little to him, but to me it could be life or death. If i carry out his full argument on health care even if i agree in principle, i'm only hurting myself, because he's not going to pay my medical bills out of charity (maybe government coercion) or via higher premiums (which he can pay no problem), but either way he and i may have the same ideology, but not the same wealth, so we are different in respect, because of the seriousness of health care.
Now, the odds are in my favor, that my health will be great, but i cannot prevent against freak accident, that i cannot pay for. Does that make sense to you?
In theory yes, i agree government should not run Health-Care, but i do not think they have any intention of running the health care system. In general, government is not as effective as the private sector at providing certain services. However, I'm not really sold on the Health-care debate, because in principle I'd like to keep them out of it, but i do not have all the information yet to know if I'm seriously arguing against myself interest and i have more control than i think or ..what i said earlier.
I'm one of those people that at my old company i did not pay for insurance because the premiums were 150 bucks a month for a single guy like myself. Now, that may not be a lot to you, but to a single guy fresh out of college, who has never been sick, that was more than i was willing to pay. I basically took the risk of not being covered to save money, because im a healthy guy. Now, obviously if i would have gotten hit by a bus, i would have been royally f^^ked, because I'm not the small government libertarian that has 100 Million, so keep that in mind, i should never completely argue his side unless, I'm able to pay or willing to accept the consequences, i may die, because I cannot afford my argument.
I have health insurance now because the company I'm with now is a lot less expensive and they offer a lot less on their plan, but it is cheap so I'll pay for it, just in case. However, if it was expensive again i just would not pay for it and take my chances.
The question you have to ask yourself is Who pays for me if that freak accident happens? YOU DO, so what does it matter to me? If you're not covered by the gov or if you're covered by the gov? Either way you're paying for my freak accident when I'm not covered. You pay through the hidden hike in medical cost, the hospital rises prices, the insurance company rises prices, and the effect go on and on. As long as i can get to an emergency room I'm saved on your tax dollars.
In principle I'm a libertarian, but I'm also going to do what will support my own self interest first. I'm not stupid enough anymore to cut off my nose to spit my face. Now, the odds of me needing medical care increases every year i get older, so running the risk my entire life and it may not always work. Anyway, once i make my 100 Million I'll be back to making the argument in my favor against government run Health Care lol.
I'm a bit split on this right now even as a limited government guy, because health care is a much more valuable service to me than a government sponsored annuity (social security) does that make more sense?
There are ways to accomplish catastrophic coverage without involving the government. As a matter of fact it is because of third party involved in health care, not catastrophic diseases that healthcare inflation is so outsized. (obviously there are other contributing factors, lawsuits, the best technology in the world etc.) When a third party pays the bill the consumer isn't concerned about cost but if consumers actually paying the bill they are a lot more likely to question the need for tests and procedures and to haggle about pricing thus bring the overall cost of the system down. Do not abandon your libertarian principles out of fear. They are as valid for healthcare as they are for social security.
If consumers were permitted to chose only catastrophic coverage their premiums would be a lot lower and the ordinary healthcare cost would go down significantly and rapidly.
There are ways to accomplish catastrophic coverage without involving the government. As a matter of fact it is because of third party involved in health care, not catastrophic diseases that healthcare inflation is so outsized. (obviously there are other contributing factors, lawsuits, the best technology in the world etc.) When a third party pays the bill the consumer isn't concerned about cost but if consumers actually paying the bill they are a lot more likely to question the need for tests and procedures and to haggle about pricing thus bring the overall cost of the system down. Do not abandon your libertarian principles out of fear. They are as valid for healthcare as they are for social security.
If consumers were permitted to chose only catastrophic coverage their premiums would be a lot lower and the ordinary healthcare cost would go down significantly and rapidly.
Shorebaby, are you advocating for an end to private insurers?
I never thought of it from this point of view. I thought the point of providing insurance was because most people could not afford to pay the cost of most medical coverage on their own?
Isn't this the point of gathering a large group of people and having them pool their resources to pay for one another?
I mean if we have 20 people paying premiums we know only 3 of them will get sick, so the pool will have enough to pay for those three. Maybe the next year 3 new one's get sick etc - i'm being really simplistic i know
However, so you're saying get rid of the pooling of resources to combat cost through economies of scale?
Why do you think we pay higher prices??
Do you think the higher prices are extremely due to the average American being moderately unhealthy?
You're advocating a direct payment from the consumer to the hospital? (I can see where this would be cheaper, but i thought the point of insurance was that even before this could happen the cost where to much?)
Anyway, just curious on your thoughts
BTW your argument to remove the middle man reminds me of Colleges high cost and Government Grants etc
Shorebaby, are you advocating for an end to private insurers?
I never thought of it from this point of view. I thought the point of providing insurance was because most people could not afford to pay the cost of most medical coverage on their own?
Isn't this the point of gathering a large group of people and having them pool their resources to pay for one another?
I mean if we have 20 people paying premiums we know only 3 of them will get sick, so the pool will have enough to pay for those three. Maybe the next year 3 new one's get sick etc - i'm being really simplistic i know
However, so you're saying get rid of the pooling of resources to combat cost through economies of scale?
Why do you think we pay higher prices??
Do you think the higher prices are extremely due to the average American being moderately unhealthy?
You're advocating a direct payment from the consumer to the hospital? (I can see where this would be cheaper, but i thought the point of insurance was that even before this could happen the cost where to much?)
Anyway, just curious on your thoughts
BTW your argument to remove the middle man reminds me of Colleges high cost and Government Grants etc
Hospitalization for some issues, office visits, etc. Under our current system what is the motivation for rational use of resources? Unfortunately much of the utilization of medical resources is irrational. Some of it is driven by defensive medicine, some is driven by the mindset of the patients to obtain every possible test. If patients had some skin in the game waiting rooms would be far less crowded, resource utilization would go down and therefore the cost of resources.
Most people can afford basic healthcare out of pocket. Today everyone has multiple TVs, cell phones, ipods x boxes but is unwilling to pay $150 for an office visit? This is irrational.
I am not advocating eliminating insurance but I am advocating limiting it for catastrophic diseases. Cancer, heart attack etc.
Do you submit a claim to your car insurance company for gas? Why do it for $20 generic medication?
By the way your pooling resources idea is faulty because if no one is discouraged from consuming resources there are no gains made from mingling the healthy with the sick. I am sure you know people who run to the doctor for every little thing. If they had to pay out of their own pocket they would go less frequently, freeing up resources and driving down costs. If something like this is not implemented (self rationing) insurance companies rationing care will continue or worse yet the government will do it. That is the only way to allocate scarce resources.
Hospitalization for some issues, office visits, etc. Under our current system what is the motivation for rational use of resources? Unfortunately much of the utilization of medical resources is irrational. Some of it is driven by defensive medicine, some is driven by the mindset of the patients to obtain every possible test. If patients had some skin in the game waiting rooms would be far less crowded, resource utilization would go down and therefore the cost of resources.
Most people can afford basic healthcare out of pocket. Today everyone has multiple TVs, cell phones, ipods x boxes but is unwilling to pay $150 for an office visit? This is irrational.
I am not advocating eliminating insurance but I am advocating limiting it for catastrophic diseases. Cancer, heart attack etc.
Do you submit a claim to your car insurance company for gas? Why do it for $20 generic medication?
By the way your pooling resources idea is faulty because if no one is discouraged from consuming resources there are no gains made from mingling the healthy with the sick. I am sure you know people who run to the doctor for every little thing. If they had to pay out of their own pocket they would go less frequently, freeing up resources and driving down costs. If something like this is not implemented (self rationing) insurance companies rationing care will continue or worse yet the government will do it. That is the only way to allocate scarce resources.
Shorebaby, i can see you have though this out and are very interested in a debate. However, like i said before i have friends who are in the medical profession as physicians and i have friends who are in the insurance business, so i've heard both sides of many of their arguments. We all know that people in these professions are interested in providing a service that will operate under what promotes their self interest above all else, so having that said my thoughts on your plan are below.
The current way my coverage operates under my current company sponsored health plan is like a giant office pool. This is how most company backed health insurance plans operate. The pool is collectively filled with each and every employee that elects health coverage. The insurance company collects premiums every month from this pool of workers. The insurance company is partially paid by the employee and partially paid by the employer for the premiums. For a relatively small business such as ours, i would suspect, the insurance companies know their is a high possiblity they will loose money, just based on the relatively small size of the pool. I think it is common knowledge, that the smaller the pool base, the riskier providing insurance becomes, because the collection of premiums will not be enough to offset the cost of paying out claims for prescriptions and serious medical conditions, that may arise from such a small group.
I think the math would look something like this
Employee + Employer = Insurance Prem
Prem - Claims = Insurance company profit
If the insurance actuaries based on the statistics given them by the company decide to charge premiums of 200 single 450 family and the employer picks up 40% of the cost (which i've heard would be extremely generous). Let's also suppose on average employees claims are 60% of prems paid to the insurance company each year. (assumes no major medical cost for cancer, hiv, heart disease etc)
The math would be on a company with 250 workers 100 are single and 150 have families
55,000+35,000 = 90,000 in premiums a month or 1,080,000 in prems paid in a full year
54,000 - 90,000 = 36,000 in profit to the insurance company in a month or 432,000 a year (excluding other cost associated with running plans)
Not sure how you can argue that company backed medical plans do not involve a pooling of resources, but that is exactly what they're doing.
The healthier employees are paying for the unhealthier employees. In my case I'm paying into a system which I'm not using. The system is being used by unhealthier employees on a more frequent basis etc.
Okay, so back to the point of the third party provider. I have never attempted to get coverage outside of some sort of group whether it was a school group, company, or civic organization. I do not see how you could get rid of a third party provider and have people who constantly use medical coverage able to provide for all their own doctor visits and medical needs. Yes, i agree there are people who abuse the service currently, because they do not have to pay out of pocket for the service. There are certainly merits to your argument, i just wonder how you plan on convincing the sicker employees they are the problem lol.
I agree the cost of the actual medication is not that expensive, due to the vast amount of competition in the pharmaceutical industry, but the benefit of pooling resources right now helps those members in the plan consistently use their medical coverage, but it hurts those who do not ever use the coverage ( i mean i never get the premiums back that I've paid to the insurer if i did not use my coverage)
Maybe, if medical companies re-reimbursed those individuals, that had the coverage but did not use it each year would be helpful, but they couldn't do that, because as i said before they make money on the healthy individuals not the unhealthy individuals.
I'm a medical insurers dream premium. I don't drink i don't smoke and i go to the gym 3x a week. I also attempt to get 8 hours of sleep a night and rarely if ever get injured (knock on wood), but i never use my medical coverage.
Maybe you're on to something maybe we should get rid of the group mentality, but I'd assume I'd be more of a risk as an individual then combined in a group?
Or are you suggesting picking and paying for your own coverage, visit, and everything else out of your own pocket? Giving individuals more incentive to be healthier if they want to pay less for coverage etc?
Like requiring people still use insurance companies, but do it on an individual instead of a group basis? (Wouldn't that only lower the cost for healthy individuals like myself? Wouldn't people with "pre-conditions" still get the higher cost etc)
In reference to tv's, cell phones, and xboxes
Well most of those are one time cost not consistently recurring monthly payments for prescriptions. I know some people that have three 30 dollar prescriptions each month not a big deal i agree those could be paid out of pocket, but should something happen to them and they require surgery who would pick up the tab?
Last edited by dorock99; 08-17-2009 at 10:42 PM..
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.
Social Security and State Lotteries
