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.
Honestly people. This isn’t about Republicans and Democrats. They only make up about 45% of the voting public.
This is about the other 55% of the voting public that is neither R nor D and most of those folks look at the economy and at government spending and just freak out.
I’ve been a republican since my mid 20's and I was a democrat before that. So I play the R and D game. But most Americans don’t and most Americans are fed up with both sides.
Rs and Ds argue about taxes and weather we should spend a quite a bit more than we have or spend a giant amount more than we have.
Those who are neither look at both and ask "why are you trying to spend money we don’t have and why should I re-elect you?"
If either the Rs or the Ds want to stay in office, they had better learn this lesson and STOP spending more than they have to spend.
THAT is what is really going on.
Mr Scott Brown is reaping the benefits of those mistakes
Sorry for that. I mis-read.
I saw 'hurting' and thought you'd said the "insurance system is hurting".
Insurance companies aren't doing so well, as a whole.
If you take a look at insurance companies' profits, they're not doing as well as some would have us believe. profits.bmp (image)
Economy-wide they're 86th with only a 3% profit margin.
That's only a third of the profit margin for my restaurant's P&L report's expectation. (didn't meet it last year, but...)
The Fed can't turn a profit with the USPS, SS, or MC.
Why should they turn 3% into Zero??
No problem.
When you look at that 3% margin, keep in mind private insurance overhead is 30% and medicare is 2%.
Yes, Medicare needs fixing. But Medicare is the dumping ground for senior citizens...the most expensive people to insure. Medicare is the best insurance in the country. But the program is at an disadvantage from the start.
That's the advantage of a single payer system. The whole country is a group and it's all cost averaged. Then you can have a self sustaining system.
The USPS is a terrible example. Mailing letters is an antiquated form of communication. It's like the VHS
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
I've been crunching the numbers a bit.
The Senate bill would expand medicare (aka, publicly funded health insurance) to those who make 133% above the poverty level.
The Average single in America makes about 11,000 a year at the poverty level. The average family of fours poverty level is about 23,000 dollars.
Now, if you see what 133% of those numbers are, that means if you are single, and make less than 15,000 a year, your insurance is now paid for. If you are in a family of four, and your income is less than 30,000 a year, you and your entire families healthcare is paid for.
Thats almost 50% of all Americans. At the very least, its 40% of all Americans. And thats the conservative Senate plan. The House plan would cover everyone up to 150% of the poverty line.
Republicans can't run to overturn the healthcare bill later, or they would instantly loose the election. You can't sit there and tell me, if someone is giving you free health insurance, that you didn't have before, you wouldn't vote against anyone who ran on taking that away.
They also can't allow it to pass, because those folks would feel entitled to vote for the party that passed such a reform, and since the current President is a Democrat, they'd feel completely loyal to him.
Democrats are fighting so hard for it, for the exact same reason. It would secure Democrats at least a 41% Senate ratio. That at least keeps them in the law making game forever.
So this is the real reason, why Republicans are so dead set against the bill. Its not the money spent on it, its nothing to do with a since of "small government" its to save their party from defeat in elections, well, forever.
And here's the thing Republicans aren't telling you about the Mass Senate race. Sure, if their guy wins, they'll have 41 seats in the Senate, and they can fillibuster.
But the bill has already passed the Senate. All the house has to do, is pass the Senate bill, as it stands right now. So really, the 41'st seat is really pointless at this point. You aren't going to tell me that the house won't pass the Senate bill TO THE LETTER if it means they pass a bill that secures them 50% to 40% of all Americans votes.
Thats the real reason why Republicans are against the bill, and the reason why Democrats are so dead set on passing it.
The problem is that the Senate bill is not worth the paper it is written on. Reid allowed so much of it to be gutted to please ONE Senator (Lieberman) and passed around so much money to please 2 others (Nelson and Landau) that the whole thing reeks.
If they REALLY wanted to pass a decent bill they would have had one ready a year ago and passed it the first month instead of bailing out the giant banks and Wall Street.
The Senate bill would expand medicare (aka, publicly funded health insurance) to those who make 133% above the poverty level.
The Average single in America makes about 11,000 a year at the poverty level. The average family of fours poverty level is about 23,000 dollars.
Thats the real reason why Republicans are against the bill, and the reason why Democrats are so dead set on passing it.
Wrong!!!! The real reason the Dems want this bill or the Elite Dems is to retain and control enough power to literally make our nation a One Party System, similar to the People's Republic of China!
The Republicans failed to make a good argument because they did not understand why the USA had such a great Health Insurance System.Our Country unlike Europe and other Socialist/Communist Nations has an Employer Based Health Insurance System whereas approx no less than 80% of all Employers will offer some Health Insurance benefits for their employess.
One of the main motivations to for acquiring gainful employement in the USA is because you want to be covered by an Employers Group Health Plan. That is also why Historically the USA's unemployement rate most of the time has run 3 to 5 points lower than these countries. In other words this system works. Yes it can be improved and made significantly more competitive by having access to a national interstate market, making coercive health networks illegal and having Mexico cough up some $$$$ for all their people who get free coverage here.
Your argument is a welfare based mindset which only serves citizens not to seek gainful employement. However, you may say, "where can people get gainful employment today" and you are correct, as many employers who offered health benefits have left the country for China thanks to all our politicians! JUst go into Home Depot and see if you can buy Any Power Tools made in the USA! Not!!!! All in china or mexico! Yes, no jobs because of this and now we have your welfare state!
And what do you expect when you have these Left Wingers Bashing virtually Every Industry from Auto, Oil, Coal, Drug, Banking, Wall Street! How Ludicrous well maybe that is not the word but really How Subversive of these Communist Leaning Democrats! They hate our Constitution!
The best thing for Good Health Care is a Strong USA Manufacturing base! Jobs Jobs Jobs! That is why we once had the greatest economy in the world! Now we are just a bunch of fat and lazy whining Union babies.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
Honestly people. This isn’t about Republicans and Democrats. They only make up about 45% of the voting public.
This is about the other 55% of the voting public that is neither R nor D and most of those folks look at the economy and at government spending and just freak out.
I’ve been a republican since my mid 20's and I was a democrat before that. So I play the R and D game. But most Americans don’t and most Americans are fed up with both sides.
Rs and Ds argue about taxes and weather we should spend a quite a bit more than we have or spend a giant amount more than we have.
Those who are neither look at both and ask "why are you trying to spend money we don’t have and why should I re-elect you?"
If either the Rs or the Ds want to stay in office, they had better learn this lesson and STOP spending more than they have to spend.
THAT is what is really going on.
You have to elect one or the other. Yes, we would all like to have more choices. I would much rather vote for a Ralph Nader than a Barrack Obama- who to me is pretty much "Bush II". But you have to vote for one or the other.
The fact is that the BOTH are going to spend lots of money SO it is NOT a question of IF they are going to spend lots of money but WHERE it is going to be spent. If you have the Republicans they want to spend gobs of money on weapons the military does not even want, roads and bridges to no where and of course huge welfare in the form of farm subsidies not to mention billion dollar "elective" wars. If you have Democrats the spending will tilt more towards education, health care and other domestic social programs.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by CometVoyager
Wrong!!!! The real reason the Dems want this bill or the Elite Dems is to retain and control enough power to literally make our nation a One Party System, similar to the People's Republic of China!
The Republicans failed to make a good argument because they did not understand why the USA had such a great Health Insurance System.Our Country unlike Europe and other Socialist/Communist Nations has an Employer Based Health Insurance System whereas approx no less than 80% of all Employers will offer some Health Insurance benefits for their employess.
One of the main motivations to for acquiring gainful employement in the USA is because you want to be covered by an Employers Group Health Plan. That is also why Historically the USA's unemployement rate most of the time has run 3 to 5 points lower than these countries. In other words this system works. Yes it can be improved and made significantly more competitive by having access to a national interstate market, making coercive health networks illegal and having Mexico cough up some $$$$ for all their people who get free coverage here.
Your argument is a welfare based mindset which only serves citizens not to seek gainful employement. However, you may say, "where can people get gainful employment today" and you are correct, as many employers who offered health benefits have left the country for China thanks to all our politicians! JUst go into Home Depot and see if you can buy Any Power Tools made in the USA! Not!!!! All in china or mexico! Yes, no jobs because of this and now we have your welfare state!
And what do you expect when you have these Left Wingers Bashing virtually Every Industry from Auto, Oil, Coal, Drug, Banking, Wall Street! How Ludicrous well maybe that is not the word but really How Subversive of these Communist Leaning Democrats! They hate our Constitution!
The best thing for Good Health Care is a Strong USA Manufacturing base! Jobs Jobs Jobs! That is why we once had the greatest economy in the world! Now we are just a bunch of fat and lazy whining Union babies.
You are aware of the fact that European nations actually report the REAL rate of unemployment while the USA excludes millions of unemployed. If the USA used the same reporting as Europe the rate here would be close to 15%.
What Op does not say is who is really going to untilamtely pay for that healthcare. Does anyone really think that busniesses or the rich will pay. It will be just hoq the big 3 pay for the heal;thcare of the UAW workers;thru increased pricing. The p[overty level for the US is 18,000 not counting anyhting but eraned income. Just look at europe and what it cost them. High prices;25-30% uemployment below age 30. The majorioty of epole living in governament projects.The per cenatge of GDP taken bu governamnt gettin g so high that they will likely be the last to recover from this recession. As the presdient of France said recently;we have a system that actually discourages work . They also have a high incidents of alcoholism as we do amoung the getto inhabitance.Of course the elite have no such problem as the latest scandal in the house of commons shows.
When you look at that 3% margin, keep in mind private insurance overhead is 30% and medicare is 2%.
Yes, Medicare needs fixing. But Medicare is the dumping ground for senior citizens...the most expensive people to insure. Medicare is the best insurance in the country. But the program is at an disadvantage from the start.
That's the advantage of a single payer system. The whole country is a group and it's all cost averaged. Then you can have a self sustaining system.
The USPS is a terrible example. Mailing letters is an antiquated form of communication. It's like the VHS
That has to be the most civil and logical counter-point I've ever been presented with!!
And I focus on the logical aspect!!
While I wonder how a business with only a 2% overhead can't turn a profit, the aspect of adding more people to it that don't need constant care *could* help the program's solvency.
Whether it *would*, or not, we'll have to wait and see.
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.
Employer Based Health Insurance
