Poll: Colorado's Amendment 69, which establishes universal health care, shows wide support for it's passing (employment, Congressmen)

[SilverBulletZ06]

Originally Posted by Hoonose

Sure you can, and we will when we finally realize that we will have to.

Seniors will not be going without their HC. And there will simply not be enough money in 50 years to pay for all their needs. Barring medical miracles.

Again, our limits will be in our ability to deliver all the necessary senior HC services, not in the money required to pay for it all.

Just like WW2 when we created all the money needed to essentially double our GDP in a few years to fight the war. We were productivity bound, not fiat bound.

Do you think our National Debt will be the same, higher or lower in 10 years? 100 years?

So keep charging the credit card? That's your answer?


I get it. It's hard to say no, but its time we start.

Sorry you smoked your life away, this is the third admission in 3 months for the same problem on a disease process you will not recover from while needing 24/7 care. We will write a palliative order so you can rest comfortably.

Sorry your kid has severe brain damage. They are unable to maintain the basic functions of life without support and require 24/7 care while being A&O x0. We will write a palliative order.

Sorry your 98 year old grandpa (true story) is in multi-organ failure but there is no real viable course of treatment with any measure of success. We will write a palliative order.

Not sorry you decided to OD on heroine for the second time this week. Here's a room. Your belongings are in a bag in the corner should you survive.

Not a citizen of the US and carry no insurance? Nearest consulate is here.

[Hoonose]

Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06

So keep charging the credit card? That's your answer?


I get it. It's hard to say no, but its time we start.

Sorry you smoked your life away, this is the third admission in 3 months for the same problem on a disease process you will not recover from while needing 24/7 care. We will write a palliative order so you can rest comfortably.

Sorry your kid has severe brain damage. They are unable to maintain the basic functions of life without support and require 24/7 care while being A&O x0. We will write a palliative order.

Sorry your 98 year old grandpa (true story) is in multi-organ failure but there is no real viable course of treatment with any measure of success. We will write a palliative order.

Not sorry you decided to OD on heroine for the second time this week. Here's a room. Your belongings are in a bag in the corner should you survive.

Not a citizen of the US and carry no insurance? Nearest consulate is here.

Public HC related education. More and better end of life discussions. Living wills. Assisted suicide. Hospice. They will all certainly help save money.

But again, money is not so much the issue as our ability to provide the necessary future HC services.

Credit cards are used for personal and business loans, and either have to be paid off or discharged through bankruptcy. None of which apply to our monetarily sovereign Federal Gov't.

[ahzzie]

Originally Posted by BentBow

Medicare is not 100% full government funded take over, placing all medical personnel on the government payroll. It is classified as assistance, as in insurance. Exactly like Social Security.

Who else besides the federal government funds it? I know seniors are able to buy supplemental insurance to cover what it doesn't but Medicare itself is funded entirely by the government. If there is another funding source I'd like to know because I've never heard of one.

Medicare is a single payer system, correct? It did not require a constitutional amendment to enact. At least none that I am aware of. The only thing stopping a single payer system for the entire nation is a simple lifting of the age restriction in Medicare. If not that then another system that runs on the same principle could be enacted.

I'm just having a hard time believing your assertion that any single payer system enacted (federally) in the United States would require a constitutional amendment. We already discussed the 16th amendment and the premise that it allows things that have been declared "unconstitutional" to operate and be funded so, by default; make them constitutional. I still don't know which laws have been declared unconstitutional but are allowed to carry on because of it. I didn't know any of that so I'd like to look into it.

[Hoonose]

Originally Posted by ahzzie

Who else besides the federal government funds it? I know seniors are able to buy supplemental insurance to cover what it doesn't but Medicare itself is funded entirely by the government. If there is another funding source I'd like to know because I've never heard of one.

Medicare is a single payer system, correct? It did not require a constitutional amendment to enact. At least none that I am aware of. The only thing stopping a single payer system for the entire nation is a simple lifting of the age restriction in Medicare. If not that then another system that runs on the same principle could be enacted.

I'm just having a hard time believing your assertion that any single payer system enacted (federally) in the United States would require a constitutional amendment. We already discussed the 16th amendment and the premise that it allows things that have been declared "unconstitutional" to operate and be funded so, by default; make them constitutional. I still don't know which laws have been declared unconstitutional but are allowed to carry on because of it. I didn't know any of that so I'd like to look into it.

Medicare is funded by the individual's payroll taxes, copays and deductibles. And supported via the general fund, which in essence also means supported by deficit spending. Typically the individual pays in about 1/3 to 1/2 of the total received benefits.

[Mnt2fly]

So really, what does Ammendment 69 do compared to where we are NOW------

No more deductibles. Some copays. Less billing and management overhead. AND get rid of this crazy eligibility system of Medicaid/Tax credits/supplemental/Do I qualify stuff.

10% tax to pay for all resident's health care, split between employees and employers. (some income, like for most seniors, not taxed.). Will save employers money compared to what they currently pay for employee insurance.

That's it.

Who benefits? Everyone except the wealthiest Coloradoans. There taxes will be more than what they can currently get health insurance for. Some Medicaid residents will also have to pay the tax (they are not paying anything now.)--but they won't be on Medicaid anymore!!//pics3.city-data.com/forum/ima...es/biggrin.gif

So we all need to look at how it affects our current situation. Don't just go off of what some website says. Look it up!!! And see for yourself how it will effect your health and finances.

[mm4]

Then there's the hundreds of billions spent on marketer-invented emotional 'diseases,' spine fusions, memory-eating statin scrips, sprains, flu shots,....

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

People are in favor of someone else paying their bills? Shocking.

Isn't it? I can't believe people have such a poor understanding of how money works. It's like they believe the government makes it out of thin air and there's no balance column.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by ahzzie

I'm just having a hard time believing your assertion that any single payer system enacted (federally) in the United States would require a constitutional amendment.

Because, it would then no longer be just a tax. It would force people to become government employees or not practice medicine, period.

[Stymie13]

Originally Posted by Hoonose

Medicare is funded by the individual's payroll taxes, copays and deductibles. And supported via the general fund, which in essence also means supported by deficit spending. Typically the individual pays in about 1/3 to 1/2 of the total received benefits.

That deficit spending won't be an option if/when we lose reserve currency status.

That's why I'm apt on making it as solvent as possible. Deficit spending cannot go on in perpitude.

Yes we could double the gdp out of thin air in Ww2 precisely because we had the only viable economy at the time.

That is no longer the case.

Other than funding we are about on the same page across the board from this and multiple other discussions.

[Hoonose]

Originally Posted by Stymie13

That deficit spending won't be an option if/when we lose reserve currency status.

That's why I'm apt on making it as solvent as possible. Deficit spending cannot go on in perpitude.

Yes we could double the gdp out of thin air in Ww2 precisely because we had the only viable economy at the time.

That is no longer the case.

Other than funding we are about on the same page across the board from this and multiple other discussions.

There is NO better debt investment today than USD based. Not even a close 2nd place suiter today.
Besides we can always create money without the debt, we just haven't the balls/knowledge to do it.

In 100 years will our national debt be higher than today?
Sure it will.
And that means we have more USD. And I can't imagine a better thing to spend it on than our HC.
Into perpetuity.


"Cathcart grinned. "He got the cash money the same way we
have gotten all cash money since Roosevelt put the gold back in
the ground-right off the printing presses. But he didn't have to
print much of it. The checks were issued at the Bank and the
merchant and a great many others had accounts at the Bank and
very little cash money changed hands. The bulk of it was mere
bookkeeping entries, made by the bank clerks. Holmes had
implemented what the bankers had known for centuries but
were barred by LaGuardia from doing-taking money out of an
inkwell. What's the matter, son? Still not satisfied?"
"Well, I don't know. Everything you have said seems okay,
but how about this? If you keep pouring money into a country
indefinitely, you are bound to get inflation, fixed prices or no
fixed prices."
"You don't pour it in. You add just enough to keep it running.
Each fiscal period the additional amount is the closest possible
approximation of the amount necessary to prevent a spread
between consumption and production, based on the value of the
nation's inventories."
"But why do you have to keep adding money all the time?"
"I said I would stay away from theory but I'll give you this
hint to chew over: the amount necessary to add each period is
theoretically equal to the amount of savings invested as capital in
the preceding period. And one more hint: Doesn't it take more
money to run the country's industry now than it did when
George Washington was President?"

Robert A. Heinlein
'For Us, The Living'
Written in 1934, not published until 2001.