Why I'm not hiring

[Gipper]

Well I know one thing for sure. I do not hire liberals.

 

[GenSeneca]

markets fell under the Republican white house...

...And a Democrat Congress.

The Bush Tax cuts ( unpaid for)

Revenue to the federal government went UP after the tax cuts... Since they brough in MORE money, what is there to pay for?

All failed under Republican White house..

...And a Democrat Congress.

so who again is "your"

That would be all the people like you who believe government is the solution rather than the problem.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

...And a Democrat Congress.


Revenue to the federal government went UP after the tax cuts... Since they brough in MORE money, what is there to pay for?


...And a Democrat Congress.


That would be all the people like you who believe government is the solution rather than the problem.

so with your logic all tax cuts are self paying..thus if taxes are cut to zero..we don't need to adjust spending....

of course spending can never lead to a better econ that taxes in more taxes a thus be self paying...

also odd Bush cut Taxes, we took in more money..and went more in debt...hmmmm

Also I like how Tax cut ...then tax revenue went up ...means tax cuts caused it...Also by this logic, Clinton tax policy ( higher then Bush and Obamas) took in great amounts and cut down down debt...so higher taxes = more money and better econ..since we are looking at it that way.

and yes the Dems had the House for a part of those 2 years out of 6..

I keep forgetting..

Bush was in office for 8 years...what things do republicans actually think he was responible for? seems anytime you say anything...the dems had all the power then...of course Bush was great when in office....to bad seems he was nothing but a man in a suit who just did what ever Dems wanted...

 

[PLC1]

Has anyone ever stopped to wonder WHY so many of us get our medical insurance through our employer?

If I were shopping for medical care, in a practical world Joe's Lawnmower Repair and Gardening Shoppe would not be high on my list of places to look for it.

It came from - you guessed it - intrusion and regulation by the Federal government.

Sometimes the Fed has the best of intentions for what it does. But that doesn't stop bad results from creeping in anyway.

During WWII, the Fed clamped huge price and wage controls on most businesses, supposedly to prevent swings in wages, demand, etc. as large segments of the population joined the Armed Services to fight in the war. And businesses trying to attract the best talent, suddenly couldn't offer higher wages as an incentive to come work for them. So they found a loophole in the government regulations: In-kind "benefits" were not controlled or regulated. So they started offering "free" medical insurance and other such benefits instead of higher monetary pay, to get the people they wanted to work for them.

The war ended and some controls were removed, including most wage and price freezes. But by then, taxes on incomes had risen hugely, exceeding 90% in some cases... and needless to say, were not removed or reduced with the end of hostilities. But the taxes on those "free" benefits had not risen, and were in fact zero. People quickly found it cost them less to pay a "contribution" with pre-tax money, than to buy their own insurance with after-tax money. And so the employer-offered insurance remained, due to government's punishing people who bought their own.

So market competition in the medical-insurance industry was radically reduced, as most people found themselves limited to the few options offered by their employers, or else face crushing tax burdens on the money they paid to buy their own. Insurance companies outside that person's employer, couldn't compete, no matter how much they streamlined their offerings, with government imposing large tax penalties on every dollar the consumer tried to spend on them.

The best thing (in the long run) that can be done to straighten out the mess that is the American medical insurance industry, is to stop taxation on money spent on "outside" medical insurance... or better yet, to remove the tax breaks on employer-offered insurnace. Once people get over the shock of finding out how much government taxation and regulation adds to the cost of medical insurance, they will begin shopping outside their employer's offerings as well as inside. (And maybe they will start kicking out a few politicians who have imposed such high, hidden taxes on them for so long.) And insurance companies will find they've lost their guaranteed clienteles, and have to offer plans the customer wants the most to get people to buy them.

Problems remain, such as pre-existing conditions. But the overall savings nationwide will be huge - as huge as the present waste and fraud are. And when consumers discover the real costs of Cadillac plans that pay for every sniffle, hangnail and aspirin pill, they will scale back to actual "insurance" plans intended only to pay for huge, unexpected medical costs instead of routine treatments.

That's a good description of how we got to where we are now.

That problem you mention is a big one for most of us over the age of 50 or so. Private insurers would like to have mostly young, healthy people, and/or exclude anything that would be likely to cost them a lot of money.

Yes, a catastrophic care package would be the best way to go, but one that doesn't exclude likely catastrophes. Where an individual can purchase such a policy, particularly an individual in his/her fifties and sixties is a mystery to me.

Current health care reform tries to address that problem, but doesn't touch on an even bigger one: soaring costs.

What we really need is a catastrophic care package that covers everyone, leaving the individual to shop around and to decide when the sniffles is leading to pneumonia, but, that is not going to be possible without some serious reforms of government.

 

[GenSeneca]

Pocket, you need to try really hard and focus on things I've actually said...

so with your logic all tax cuts are self paying..

Right away you jump on this strawman because you're incapable of refuting my actual statements. I pointed to a specific instance where tax cuts resulted in greater revenue. That is a fact, as opposed to your unsubstantiated opinion about the tax cuts not being "paid for".

of course spending can never lead to a better econ that taxes in more taxes a thus be self paying...

No, you're Keynesian economic theory doesn't work. Government spending does not drive the private sector into prosperity, it crushes it. By your logic (two can play that silly game) we should institute a policy of 100% taxation and the economy would skyrocket.

also odd Bush cut Taxes, we took in more money..and went more in debt...hmmmm

I'll keep the numbers small so you don't have to take your shoes off to keep count... Let's pretend you have a job. Now in this job you earn $1 a day but you spend $3 a day, this activity results in a daily deficit and creates debt.

Now lets really do some pretending and say that you earned yourself a raise to $2 a day, but you also raise your spending to $6 a day. You still have a daily deficit and are still accumulating debt.

See how that works? If you increase revenue but also increase spending, it results in a deficit/debt being created.

You would have to reduce your spending to be equal to your revenue to eliminate your deficit and you would have to further reduce your spending to be less than your revenue in order to decrease your debt.

Clinton tax policy ( higher then Bush and Obamas) took in great amounts

While it is true that Clinton's tax policy was higher than Bush's, it is untrue (false) to say the Clinton policy resulted in greater revenue.

The federal revenue under Clinton was less than it was under Bush - True.
Government spending under Clinton was less than it was under Bush - True.

and cut down down debt...so higher taxes = more money

Look back on the example I gave. Clinton's tax policy brought in less than the Bush tax policy, but Clinton's spending was also less than Bush's. It is controlling your spending to be equal to, or less than, your revenue that results in balanced budgets. When spending is greater than your revenue, you get deficits and debt.

and yes the Dems had the House for a part of those 2 years out of 6..

I keep forgetting..

Just as I'm sure you "forget" that the Republicans took over the House during Clinton's tenure on a platform of reducing government spending and shortly thereafter the government began spending less than was brought in through revenue... But you'll probably argue that was all Clinton waving his magic wand and the Republican's played no role in the reduction of spending, right?

Bush was in office for 8 years...what things do republicans actually think he was responible for?

Out of control spending... at least as far is pertinent to this conversation.

Under Bush, revenue increased by 23% but spending increased by 51%, again when spending is greater than revenue, it results in a deficit and the accumulation of debt.

seems anytime you say anything...the dems had all the power then...of course Bush was great when in office....to bad seems he was nothing but a man in a suit who just did what ever Dems wanted...

Would you say the same about Clinton and the Republican takeover of the House? ...Clinton was just a suit who did whatever the Republicans wanted? Or is it more likely that the two parties had to work together to cut spending, just as they worked together when they drastically increased spending to the point where it was once again greater than revenue?

As PLC points out... it is a shared responsibility. Both parties were, and continue to be, responsible for government spending being greater than it's revenue. Saying it's all the fault of just one side or the other is childish nonsense.

 

[dogtowner]

yea health care was cheap a year ago...and was not going up at record pace....yep yep....You can be nice tell your insurance you want to cover those costs yourself if you wish

your having a heart attack..quick get the yellowpages and shop for prices!

You able to read ? I noted a difference i relative costs over a 40 year span.
Why is it going up so fast ?
Because there is nothing to stop it. Even less with obamacare.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You able to read ? I noted a difference i relative costs over a 40 year span.
Why is it going up so fast ?
Because there is nothing to stop it. Even less with obamacare.

I think its called, they wanted to rake in as much money as possible....before someone actuly starts keeping a eye on them...

just like banks hiked fees before rules went into effect to protect people...because

They got to rape the little man when they can, and they see those days ending...

 

[PLC1]

I think its called, they wanted to rake in as much money as possible....before someone actuly starts keeping a eye on them...

just like banks hiked fees before rules went into effect to protect people...because

They got to rape the little man when they can, and they see those days ending...

Ending? Are you taking any bets?

The insurance industry had plenty of influence over the results of health care reform via their lobbyists and money. Nothing in the plan is going to rein in costs, or cut into their profits. Count on it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Ending? Are you taking any bets?

The insurance industry had plenty of influence over the results of health care reform via their lobbyists and money. Nothing in the plan is going to rein in costs, or cut into their profits. Count on it.

give it time...soon this nation will do what it should do, and the only real option to it...and get rid of them all.

 

[PLC1]

give it time...soon this nation will do what it should do, and the only real option to it...and get rid of them all.

Maybe when the middle class can no longer afford health care, if we don't go bankrupt first.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Maybe when the middle class can no longer afford health care, if we don't go bankrupt first.

unless more is done, I don't think that will be long...but at least we have a buffer now...

of course if you talk about the poor not having any...you get called a marxist Stalinist Hitler Death panel wanting person who wants our troops to off them self when they get home....

 

[GenSeneca]

give it time...soon this nation will do what it should do, and the only real option to it...and get rid of them all.

Could you explain what you meant by this statement?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Could you explain what you meant by this statement?

that in time the only option left, will be to do away with for profit insurance and go to a single payer system...it may be in 10 years or 30, but its where we will go.

The Free market was not made for everything...Heath care is one it will always fail at...unless you just don't care about the health of those who can't afford it. Of course people often don't care...till they lose there job and find now its them....

 

[BigRob]

that in time the only option left, will be to do away with for profit insurance and go to a single payer system...it may be in 10 years or 30, but its where we will go.

And in time as well, we will follow the the path of Britain.. article.

* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.

* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.

* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.

* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.

* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.

* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.

* Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

The Free market was not made for everything...

The free market works, when you allow it to work. Not allowing it to work, and then pointing to it as a free market failure is outrageous.

Heath care is one it will always fail at...unless you just don't care about the health of those who can't afford it. Of course people often don't care...till they lose there job and find now its them....

Are you actually arguing that what we had in place before ObamaCare was a "free market" system??? Laughable.

 

[GenSeneca]

Are you actually arguing that what we had in place before ObamaCare was a "free market" system??? Laughable.

Great post Rob.

That's an actual photo of a Cuban hospital... which is where single payer eventually leads.