General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
JCviggen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
Stop taxing everyone to the breaking point to fund another unworkable social project

Americans are taxed to the breaking point? That's new.
__________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
Old 03-02-2010, 01:32 PM JCviggen is offline  
Reply With Quote
#46  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCviggen View Post
Americans are taxed to the breaking point? That's new.

No it's not new. It's been like that for awhile. Once upon a time a single lower middle class income could take care of a family and buy a house.

Government institutions unlike other institutions keep costing more for doing a less quality job year after year. But now the bottomless taxpayer pocket has a hole in it.

And in something like 15 years if things dont change the interest on the national debt will equal GDP or something.

Because the government at all levels wastes 9 out of 10 bucks it takes in* and keeps finding new things it should take control of to waste more and more instead of letting citizens create wealth with that money.

You cant keep making pyramid schemes and pretend it's all going to work out well in the end.

*number used is not to be considered more than hyperbole
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 03-03-2010, 01:12 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#47  

AnasSplenium
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Where exactly could this bill end up costing a lot of money?

Well, I was thinking,exactly, the parts where people with preexisting conditions are brought in and funding is provided to low income people.
__________________
Omaha [M] Club
Old 03-03-2010, 08:23 AM AnasSplenium is offline  
Reply With Quote
#48  

ephekt
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFuzzyArchon View Post
why not give unlimited free health care to everyone if we are borrowing the money to pay for it all from china? I think its just a scam having any debate on health care because we don't have the money to pay for it anyways. It is just all irrelevant in the grand scheme. It is all meant for people to stay divided on more issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapier View Post
Look, the health bill is simply trying too much. We're adding regulation on top of more regulation. Health care is already the most regulated sector of the economy. Making it more complex won't drive down costs. We need to deregulate.
You can't even lead libertarians to water.
Old 03-03-2010, 09:14 AM ephekt is offline  
Reply With Quote
#49  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnasSplenium View Post
Well, I was thinking,exactly, the parts where people with preexisting conditions are brought in and funding is provided to low income people.

Funding is already provided to low income people via Medicaid. Isn't one of the corner stones of conservatism that the free market is always more efficient than government?

The pre-existing condition thing is a potential source of cost increases, but there's not really any way around it. Most of them are covered already, they just have to jump through a lot of stupid hoops to keep coverage.


I really just don't see where incremental change is going to help us. It's basically an excuse for inaction, keeping the broken status quo.
Old 03-03-2010, 09:22 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#50  

JCviggen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
You cant keep making pyramid schemes and pretend it's all going to work out well in the end.

I agree, but Americans are simply not used to being taxed "normal" amounts. I won't deny we are over-taxed in Europe, but Americans are if anything under-taxed. Big parts of the US are almost like a third world country, social security and healthcare are minimal compared to europe and yet the deficits the government keeps racking up (rep or dem alike) are mind boggling. Aside from obvious inefficiencies (is there such a thing as an efficient government operation? I don't think so, not in the US or anywhere else) there is simply not enough tax revenue. Government debt as a % of GDP is a joke too. It all sounds nice until you start counting how much the government actually gets in revenue per GDP. All of a sudden the debt mountain takes on astronomic proportions.

It's easy to blame politicians, but it's americans themselves who have gotten used to/feel entitled to live above their natural means. The example you bring up of a single middle class income supporting a family and buying a house (and car I imagine) are not realistic in today's world. Productivity in the western world has slumped for decades, and the pyramid scheme you're talking about is supported by vast crowds who feel they pay too much taxes and need to earn more money without lifting an extra finger. Whoever promises them that has a good chance of getting their approval. If anyone'd point out to them it's not sustainable you'd probably just hear "tinfoil hat" and "communist" remarks.
__________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
Old 03-03-2010, 10:56 AM JCviggen is offline  
Reply With Quote
#51  

Gibonius
 
I think you're right that people have unrealistic expectations, but I don't think we're undertaxed in the US, I think we're just not getting a very good return on our tax dollars. Europe has us beat by a wide margin at public health, transportation, infrastructure, and the safety net. They spend more money, but per dollar, they get more. Our taxes are not actually that low, if you really look at the numbers. One problem is that a large fraction of our population pays basically no tax, and because of it, they vote for basically every spending increase since it doesn't cost them anything.

The one thing we do better is the military (and maybe science), and we spend an unbelievable amount of money to get there. I think we do need a robust military, but we've delved deeply into the military-industrial complex at this point and the waste is astonishing. We spend more per person for health care to cover far fewer people, because we're not willing to create an efficient system. We could go on.

I think it is possible to have a car and a house on a middle class salary, but people also expect to be able to engage in wanton consumer spending. People want a new car every three years, they want the latest and great cell phone, clothes, etc, etc, and they want ALL of it. Few people are willing to prioritize at all.
Old 03-03-2010, 11:41 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#52  

AnasSplenium
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Funding is already provided to low income people via Medicaid. Isn't one of the corner stones of conservatism that the free market is always more efficient than government?

The pre-existing condition thing is a potential source of cost increases, but there's not really any way around it. Most of them are covered already, they just have to jump through a lot of stupid hoops to keep coverage.


I really just don't see where incremental change is going to help us. It's basically an excuse for inaction, keeping the broken status quo.

Isn't Medicaid insanely in the hole? Surely making it or a similar program even bigger will result in savings.

There are incremental changes that could be made. Some of those things in the bill are good ideas, like penalizing negative behaviors, encouraging vaccines, rewarding doctors for curing, etc. That doesn't mean we have to have the government dominate everything and add a whole bunch of poor fucks who will be nothing but a drain.

edit: And there is a way around the pre-existing condition thing. Leave it alone.
__________________
Omaha [M] Club
Old 03-03-2010, 01:20 PM AnasSplenium is offline  
Reply With Quote
#53  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnasSplenium View Post
Isn't Medicaid insanely in the hole? Surely making it or a similar program even bigger will result in savings.

There are incremental changes that could be made. Some of those things in the bill are good ideas, like penalizing negative behaviors, encouraging vaccines, rewarding doctors for curing, etc. That doesn't mean we have to have the government dominate everything and add a whole bunch of poor fucks who will be nothing but a drain.
I think you need to slow down a read the OP a little closer without assuming it's some massive socialist takeover, or better yet read the summary link. A primary focus of this bill is to lessen the active role of government in health care. It is a Republican bill remember.
Quote:
edit: And there is a way around the pre-existing condition thing. Leave it alone.
Do you actually know what the rules for pre-existing conditions are, or do you just not care since you don't happen to have one?
Old 03-03-2010, 02:06 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#54  

Runding
 
Runding's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
I think you're right that people have unrealistic expectations, but I don't think we're undertaxed in the US, I think we're just not getting a very good return on our tax dollars.

Holy balls, QF-Friggin-T
__________________
aa1ce3c1c9744c586fa4d28e62ff485b
Old 03-03-2010, 03:07 PM Runding is offline  
Reply With Quote
#55  

AnasSplenium
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
I think you need to slow down a read the OP a little closer without assuming it's some massive socialist takeover, or better yet read the summary link. A primary focus of this bill is to lessen the active role of government in health care. It is a Republican bill remember.

Do you actually know what the rules for pre-existing conditions are, or do you just not care since you don't happen to have one?

I'm not really sure where you got me thinking it was socialist from, but ok. I wouldn't care if it was. I severely doubt that it will be carried out in a cost effective manner. No matter how its done.

and i wasn't trying to lie, I dont know the rules and don't care because I dont have one. I do know that it leads to people with the condition having medical bills they probably can't pay in their entire lives. It is also not a problem to me personally, like most of america.
__________________
Omaha [M] Club
Old 03-03-2010, 10:20 PM AnasSplenium is offline  
Reply With Quote
#56  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnasSplenium View Post
I severely doubt that it will be carried out in a cost effective manner. No matter how its done.
What's the point of even getting involved in the discussion if you think we're fucked regardless of what is done? Alternatively, if you're happy with the current system, you're just ignorant as hell so the result is the same I guess.
Quote:
and i wasn't trying to lie, I dont know the rules and don't care because I dont have one. I do know that it leads to people with the condition having medical bills they probably can't pay in their entire lives. It is also not a problem to me personally, like most of america.
There's two issues here, ethical and financial.

Most people are going to admit that having government policy based on pure selfish interest of the majority is not really ethical. Poling numbers back this up, a huge majority of Americans favor protections for pre-existing conditions.

Beyond that, you DO have a personal stake in this on several level, you just don't realize it. Every person that goes bankrupt because of medical bills costs you money and hurts the economy. Every person that uses the emergency room when they can't afford to pay costs you money, and untreated pre-existing conditions lead to a lot more emergency room visits.

It's also not particularly rational to make decisions based on assuming you're invincible. It's incredibly shortsighted. You, or anyone else, could get cancer (etc) tomorrow. How does it make any sense to just sit back and hope that doesn't happen to you? Isn't that why people buy insurance in the first place, yet you're ok with this gaping hole in your insurance plan?
Old 03-04-2010, 07:45 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#57  

AnasSplenium
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
What's the point of even getting involved in the discussion if you think we're fucked regardless of what is done? Alternatively, if you're happy with the current system, you're just ignorant as hell so the result is the same I guess.

There's two issues here, ethical and financial.

Most people are going to admit that having government policy based on pure selfish interest of the majority is not really ethical. Poling numbers back this up, a huge majority of Americans favor protections for pre-existing conditions.

Beyond that, you DO have a personal stake in this on several level, you just don't realize it. Every person that goes bankrupt because of medical bills costs you money and hurts the economy. Every person that uses the emergency room when they can't afford to pay costs you money, and untreated pre-existing conditions lead to a lot more emergency room visits.

It's also not particularly rational to make decisions based on assuming you're invincible. It's incredibly shortsighted. You, or anyone else, could get cancer (etc) tomorrow. How does it make any sense to just sit back and hope that doesn't happen to you? Isn't that why people buy insurance in the first place, yet you're ok with this gaping hole in your insurance plan?

The current system is fucked in a lot of ways. But how are we going to pay for this? Protecting preexisting conditions certainly is a nice thought ethically. it also destroys the for-profit model and means that the government has to pick up the slack by taxing me.

The financial costs you mention certainly exist. But will eliminating those really be enough to offset the cost of the bill?

Also, Im not assuming i'm invincible. I have no conditions now. I have insurance. If I get a chronic condition, i still have insurance. Now, if my policy lapses I am probably fucked six ways to sunday. But they can't just drop me for getting cancer
__________________
Omaha [M] Club
Old 03-04-2010, 08:37 AM AnasSplenium is offline  
Reply With Quote
#58  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnasSplenium View Post
The current system is fucked in a lot of ways. But how are we going to pay for this? Protecting preexisting conditions certainly is a nice thought ethically. it also destroys the for-profit model and means that the government has to pick up the slack by taxing me.

The financial costs you mention certainly exist. But will eliminating those really be enough to offset the cost of the bill?
That cost is largely already being absorbed through the insurance system, since most people with pre-existing conditions are covered through group plans right now. All this bill would do is guarantee those people that they could buy insurance at a reasonable rate on their own if they wanted, or needed, to. There would be a slightly cost increase as people who are locked out become able to buy in, but it's not going to be a big number. The main benefit is guaranteeing people coverage.

Quote:
Also, Im not assuming i'm invincible. I have no conditions now. I have insurance. If I get a chronic condition, i still have insurance. Now, if my policy lapses I am probably fucked six ways to sunday. But they can't just drop me for getting cancer
It depends on where you live and what condition you come down with. If you get cancer or many other diseases, some companies will pay for your care for the rest of your policy term, then refuse to renew your coverage. This is legal in many states. Other times they'll just drop you and then force you to fight to get covered, apparently hoping you'll give up or just die first. A lot of people do just give up, it's hard to have the energy to fight while you're sick.

Other scenarios, say you do get cancer, and get your treatment paid for. If you lose your job or decide to switch jobs, you may be ineligible for a new group plan, even if there's no lapse in coverage.

The system now is more fucked than people realize, but they don't find out until something bad happens to them.
Old 03-04-2010, 09:39 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#59  

ephekt
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnasSplenium View Post
The current system is fucked in a lot of ways. But how are we going to pay for this? Protecting preexisting conditions certainly is a nice thought ethically. it also destroys the for-profit model and means that the government has to pick up the slack by taxing me.
The reality is that you ARE going to be taxed more in the near future. There's no way around it; we can't pay for the war with more debt, and China is likely to start dumping bonds any day now. The rational choice here is to cut spending and work on efficiency in other areas so we can fix things like this while paying off our debt. Saying "things are fucked up so let's not do anything" is naive and comes off as blindly ideological.

Also, Gibonius makes some very valid points.
Quote:
Also, Im not assuming i'm invincible. I have no conditions now. I have insurance. If I get a chronic condition, i still have insurance. Now, if my policy lapses I am probably fucked six ways to sunday. But they can't just drop me for getting cancer
They can't drop you for getting cancer, but the can dig through your history looking for reasons to drop you, deny treatments or force (contrary to doctor's orders) lesser, more "cost effective", treatments. There was a news article a while back about someone who contracted cancer and then got dropped for "lying" about their medical history for failing to list teenage acne. Also, say you get cancer, receive some treatment and then get laid off. It would be nearly impossible to get coverage from this point on due to a major preexisting condition.

I don't understand why people can't wrap their head around this. I support a free-market model, but history has shown us time and time again that free market models require regulation to protect citizen's (anyone who denies this is either stupid, insane or an ideologue, which probably entails the former). It should be blatantly obvious that a for-profit company holds it's bottom line and that of it's shareholders as it's highest priority, while placing less urgency on patient's best interests. Think what you'd like, but a corporation exists for one reason, and one reason alone - and they will do whatever it takes to drop 'problematic' insurees that jeopardize this. Lance Armstrong is a great example of this.

I'm sorry, but taking the "fuck you, I got mine" stance is patently immoral. You can rationalize this however you want, hurf & durf about taxes, but you're implicitly arguing for an unethical system, which contrary to wing nut talking points, allows the insurance companies to negate your doctor's decisions. This should not be possible, and if the market can't regulate itself, then govt. needs to step up and do it's job - protecting citizens.

Last edited by ephekt; 03-04-2010 at 10:14 AM..
Old 03-04-2010, 10:07 AM ephekt is offline  
Reply With Quote
#60  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:30 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.