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.
If it's an illusion, why are we using tax revenue to pay interest on the national debt? You know... the national debt being the money created to fund the deficit spending and the increase in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet...
And the amount we're paying in interest is taking an increasingly larger percentage of tax revenue as the national debt grows.
Our interest payments vs GDP has remained nominal over the years:
Any of thousands of Federal programs/payments related to the general fund are or could be paid by some combination of taxes and deficit spending. Taxes are never absolutely necessary.
Our burden as taxpayers is tax, not National Debt.
The Feds money creation illusion via QE's has nothing to do with our taxes. But the interest on its holdings do lower our National Debt by $80-100B/yr.
Any of thousands of Federal programs/payments related to the general fund are or could be paid by some combination of taxes and deficit spending. Taxes are never absolutely necessary.
Our burden as taxpayers is tax, not National Debt.
The Feds money creation illusion via QE's has nothing to do with our taxes. But the interest on its holdings do lower our National Debt by $80-100B/yr.
Then just QE all healthcare, because there is no consequence, or correlation, between magical money that appears at the stroke of a pen, taxes, debt, deficit, except by dirty hmos who only profit by denying claims from the average joe. Since the ruling aristocracy, CEOs, get all of their stuff by deceit and thievery, except for their magical practitioners created by the Feds mystical QE press, then maybe a presidential decree to have qe ease the average joes premiums while hijacking the mythical ceo practitioners, then the ship will right and health care as envisioned by many of the links and fiduciary responsibility as outplayed by the completely credible theorists will be had by all!
Then just QE all healthcare, because there is no consequence, or correlation, between magical money that appears at the stroke of a pen, taxes, debt, deficit, except by dirty hmos who only profit by denying claims from the average joe. Since the ruling aristocracy, CEOs, get all of their stuff by deceit and thievery, except for their magical practitioners created by the Feds mystical QE press, then maybe a presidential decree to have qe ease the average joes premiums while hijacking the mythical ceo practitioners, then the ship will right and health care as envisioned by many of the links and fiduciary responsibility as outplayed by the completely credible theorists will be had by all!
Theoretically it could be done via deficit spending, QE and the Fed not needed. But probably not without some inflationary consequences as HC is 15-10% of our GDP.
Something more in the lines of having the middle class pay 1/3 less for HC than they pay now, added support from new money creation and cover us all.
Any of thousands of Federal programs/payments related to the general fund are or could be paid by some combination of taxes and deficit spending. Taxes are never absolutely necessary.
Our burden as taxpayers is tax, not National Debt.
The Feds money creation illusion via QE's has nothing to do with our taxes. But the interest on its holdings do lower our National Debt by $80-100B/yr.
And that's no illusion. GDP won't triple over that same time period.
European and Scandinavian countries would have done it the way you suggest if it were possible. It's not. I'll remind you again, the only proven successful way to provide more benefits to more people is to implement a regressive tax system as the democratic socialist European and Scandinavian countries have done.
And that's no illusion. GDP won't triple over that same time period.
European and Scandinavian countries would have done it the way you suggest if it were possible. It's not. I'll remind you again, the only proven successful way to provide more benefits to more people is to implement a regressive tax system as the democratic socialist European and Scandinavian countries have done.
Again, the EU states cannot create the necessary money as they are not monetarily sovereign. Period.
The USA could if the knowledge, desire and priorities are there. We do not know how much inflation would occur if we create more money to build more HC infrastructure and give more of our people HC and access.
No one knows what interest rates will be in 10 years. Period.
Theoretically it could be done via deficit spending, QE and the Fed not needed. But probably not without some inflationary consequences as HC is 15-10% of our GDP.
Something more in the lines of having the middle class pay 1/3 less for HC than they pay now, added support from new money creation and cover us all.
The middle class needs the bail/break.
Theoretically and reality and comparisons with completely.., basically the gulf is so large between people, I'm glad I walked away from it. I've read most of the links people post as their proof of... Fill in the blank.
Again, the EU states cannot create the necessary money as they are not monetarily sovereign.
The EU has a central bank just like the Federal Reserve. They can create money just as easily as the Federal Reserve can. Instead, EU states have the only proven successful way to raise enough revenue to provide more benefits to more people: regressive tax systems.
Quote:
The USA could if the knowledge, desire and priorities are there. We do not know how much inflation would occur if we create more money to build more HC infrastructure and give more of our people HC and access.
That's why it won't work. Hyper-inflationary spirals aren't pretty, not to mention the negative unintended consequences that would occur if the US began significantly devaluing the dollar and continued to do so. The long term effect would be the continuing lowering of living standards.
Would that be the deal you propose? The federal government says to the people: We'll give you health care if the vast majority of you voluntarily accept a significantly lower standard of living?
Theoretically and reality and comparisons with completely.., basically the gulf is so large between people, I'm glad I walked away from it. I've read most of the links people post as their proof of... Fill in the blank.
Now I just giggle and shake my head.
I was enjoying your posts until this. Now I feel kind of foolish that you were just laughing at all of us.
I was enjoying your posts until this. Now I feel kind of foolish that you were just laughing at all of us.
Sorry... I wasn't laughing at those seriously trying to convey a real message vs blanket statements and assertations.
Much of the 'how' this works has been explained, sometimes succinctly, sometimes in payments detail. Oft times, individuals, especially via this medium, with over complicate or over ego a response which can mislead or misconstrue. It wasn't my intent to mock.
The 'healthcare' business, and it is a business, is a very amorphous entity as it touches every sector of the economy and our lives. To often, people try to reduce it to the sound bites heard on political sites, reaffirming their own personal political echo chamber, or use various links as a way to obfuscate the issue.
The subject of the original post was opening up Medicare plans to 'young people'. Sounds simple enough until it's examined from application to delivery, alpha and omega. And it fell on deaf ears, mostly.
So I apologize for the silly as it was super bowl Sunday and I was just having a bit of fun.
The actual reality of healthcare, however, does boil down to 1 simple word: utilization. Now that, how 'we', utilize it, whether a benefit from an employer, a program from the government (Medicare), or a legality from the irs/ACA resulting in the exchange, is the one thing only addressed by organizations that assume the risk. They get called evil, profit machines by denying claims and, if one takes that viewpoint, no rationale conversation can be truly had.
That's not to anoint payors as saints: they are bureaucracies, hence limited and subject to inefficiency. But the motive to keep the lights on, make a profit, does lead to more efficiency than that which is tied to an organization, or an aspect of an organization, in this case the federAL BUDGET, that can make money appear magically and is, to some theorists, not expected to be held accountable for actual accountable fiduciary responsibility.
I actually think Medicare could make money by insuring young healthy people. Why not?
You pay into Medicare through your whole working life. I say "no."
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.
