Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 62
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    I think aprasad is referring to Pat Robertson
    Actually, I was thinking of John Roberts (Supreme Court Chief Justice).

    I'm still puzzled by sblanter's comment in Post #36
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    1. Tax cuts raise revenues , but not enough to compensate for the loss of revenue from the cuts. There is no NET increase in revenues. This is even when dynamic revenue estimation is used (ie, when the increase in economy is included). This is what even the non-partisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office) concluded in a report when the Republicans had the White house and the Congress.The logical extension of the favorite conservative argument on tax cuts is: Cut taxes to zero and the revenue to the Govt. will be infinite

    Read the analysis and references at
    http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
    [Edit: Here is a direct link to the CBO report from December 2005
    "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates"
    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6...centTaxCut.pdf
    You can look at models and opinions from various economists and liberal think tanks, or you can look at actual results, which have proven the economists and liberal think tanks wrong. They had originally predicted lower tax revenues and increased deficits from tax cuts.

    Here's an excerpt from today's WSJ editorial page:
    Data released last week from the Congressional Budget Office confirm that the tax cuts of 2003 keep soaking the rich, especially on their capital gains. CBO and Congress's Joint Tax Committee originally estimated that reducing the capital gains tax rate would cost the Treasury $5.4 billion from 2003-2006.

    Whoops. Actual revenues exceeded expectations by 68%, creating a $133 billion revenue bonanza for the feds. CBO's original forecast for 2006 was for $57 billion in capital gains revenues, but actual receipts were $110 billion...

    Gee. They were off by 68%. What the CBPP doesn't get is that many taxes are voluntary for rich people, and high taxes force them to defer their income and lock up investment capital, which deprives our economy and reduces federal tax revenues.

    2. Many ultra rich (Bill Gates, Buffet) contribute significantly (much more than their taxes) to health care through charitable foundations. They also favor more taxes for themselves including estate taxes!!
    Gates and Buffett both say they plan to give virtually all their wealth away. Whether they fund vaccine research or domestic healthcare access is up to them.


    3. Health care is indeed different from other goods and services and cannot be handled entirely by the open market paradigm.

    a) health care is a basic human right. That is why we demand that ER care is free and poor are not left to die in the streets if they cannot afford life-saving care.
    ER care is guaranteed because our society feels guilty about letting poor people die, but not about letting poor people get sick.

    I think health care is on the level of food and shelter, neither of which are "human rights." We should do what we can to make sure as many people as possible can afford these needs, but giving them away for free would be a bad thing.

    b) no private insurance will handle old people and people with pre-existing conditions (like cancer, diabetes) who are not actuarially profitable clients. The only way these would get affordable insurance is when the contributing base is largest to spread their cost and risk. Universal insurance of some sort.
    Excellent point about the old and the sick. But the uninsured population also comprises the young and relatively healthy.

    d) Universal coverage in US need not be the same as universal insurance in Canada or other western countries. We could have a basic universal coverage augmented by private insurance for those who can afford it. The rich can still get their MRI the next day. They don't have to wait 4 months like the Canadians do. But at least the poor can get an MRI!!
    We have universal health care for the elderly (Medicare). How long do people on Medicare have to wait for MRI? Why not extend Medicare for everyone (and allow everyone to buy extra coverage)?
    You're suggesting providing financial support to the poor. Bush's proposal does that in a controlled way through tax credits so that more individuals can afford to buy private health insurance. But multiplying the reach Medicare to all citizens raises all sorts of red flags to me: increasing government bureaucracy, the government competing with private companies, increasing entitlement programs...
  3. #43  
    Great post samkim
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    No one wants frivolous lawsuits.
    False! Lots of people want frivolous lawsuits - litigants and lawyers. That's the problem.

    Unfortunately, whether the lawsuit is considered frivolous or not depends on which side of the equation you are (plaintiff or defendant).
    The system us supposed to use jury and judges to decide on the merits. Why are they not doing their job properly?
    If you disallow any type of lawsuit, you may be trading a bad thing for something worse.
    I think all lawsuits should be possible, but the judge and jury should behave in more responsible manner, with punitive damages to the loser in lawsuit.
    The problem in this country is the absurd damages awarded to plaintiffs. The multi-million dollar judgements turn courts into a lottery system that everyone wants to play. The answer isn't to prohibit lawsuits, but to reduce awards, and in turn, the incentive to sue.
  5. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    False! Lots of people want frivolous lawsuits - litigants and lawyers. That's the problem.

    The problem in this country is the absurd damages awarded to plaintiffs. The multi-million dollar judgements turn courts into a lottery system that everyone wants to play. The answer isn't to prohibit lawsuits, but to reduce awards, and in turn, the incentive to sue.

    Precisely!!
    I gotta have more cowbell
  6. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    I don' understand how one person thinks he/she can answer for not just one, but everyone.
    Specify who you mean. Who in this thread or elsewhere, in your observation, presumes to answer for everyone?
    I gotta have more cowbell
  7. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post

    ... But multiplying the reach Medicare to all citizens raises all sorts of red flags to me: increasing government bureaucracy, the government competing with private companies, increasing entitlement programs...

    I agree with you on this. Im not very comfortable with these so-called "entitlement" programs. Those who are "entitled" often end up abusing the privileges at the cost of others, which is incredibly unfair, and engenders a great deal of resentment.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You can look at models and opinions from various economists and liberal think tanks, or you can look at actual results, which have proven the economists and liberal think tanks wrong. They had originally predicted lower tax revenues and increased deficits from tax cuts.

    Here's an excerpt from today's WSJ editorial page:

    Data released last week from the Congressional Budget Office confirm that the tax cuts of 2003 keep soaking the rich, especially on their capital gains. CBO and Congress's Joint Tax Committee originally estimated that reducing the capital gains tax rate would cost the Treasury $5.4 billion from 2003-2006.

    Whoops. Actual revenues exceeded expectations by 68%, creating a $133 billion revenue bonanza for the feds. CBO's original forecast for 2006 was for $57 billion in capital gains revenues, but actual receipts were $110 billion...

    Gee. They were off by 68%. What the CBPP doesn't get is that many taxes are voluntary for rich people, and high taxes force them to defer their income and lock up investment capital, which deprives our economy and reduces federal tax revenues.
    A specific tax like those on Capital Gains may behave differently than income taxes. CBPP has their explanations (actually, explanations by CBO and Federal Reserves) in the link I posted under section "Are Capital Gains Tax Cuts Different?"

    My point was that it has not been shown that tax cuts result in the NET increase in revenues. Neither does exorbitant high tax rates. It is all about the Laffer curve and where we are on that curve.

    If you want to stay with empirical data, consider the Clinton years. His level of taxation resulted in annual surpluses. What makes you think that those tax levels were inappropriate?

    If anything, 9/11 has vastly increased the size of the Govt expenditures. Add the Medicare drug benefit (unaccounted for, revenue-wise, and increasing at much higher rates than GDP) and the impending baby boomer retirements (the SS surplus getting spent to run the Govt, and replaced by worthless Treasury bills), and you have no end to the ever rising national debt.

    Some would argue that the increasing national debt is inconsequential. That well may be, until the chickens come home to roost and the interest rates shoot up as the Dollar plummets. It happened to Argentina and the picture was not pretty. We could wait for that catastrophe, or gradually pare down the debt .. by running surpluses a ala Clinton/Rubinomics or at the very least, not dig the debt hole any deeper. Remember, the recent defits are smaller than projections (again, that expectations game) but are not surpluses. The national debt continues to grow in size.

    Which is why I admire the Democrats to getting back to the PAYGO rule (which the Republicans abandoned BEFORE 9/11) so that any increased expense is offset by revenue increase or equivalent reduction in expenditure.

    It is easy to have fun when running up the debt on our children and grandchildren's credit cards!!

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    ER care is guaranteed because our society feels guilty about letting poor people die, but not about letting poor people get sick.

    I think health care is on the level of food and shelter, neither of which are "human rights." We should do what we can to make sure as many people as possible can afford these needs, but giving them away for free would be a bad thing.
    Do you think that Medicare is "giving away" health care? What model, other than universal health care will provide timely medical care to the poor? The only solution is to spread the risks and costs over the largest population size as possible. Private plans will cherry-pick the insured to keep costs down, leaving the sick and vulnerable to fend for themselves (current state of affairs) or to the Govt (Medicaid). Are you happy with the current state of health care system?

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Excellent point about the old and the sick. But the uninsured population also comprises the young and relatively healthy.
    Precisely! The old and sick are uninsurable (actuarily speaking) by private plans. They are guaranteed to lose money as their medical care will always cost much more than any premium (plus profit) that the insurance industry can tolerate. The solution is to include the young and employed in the plan, so that they subsidize the old and sick. In exchange, the young ones get similar subsidized medical care when they get old and sick. That is how insurance has to work to be viable across all age, income and health-condition levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You're suggesting providing financial support to the poor. Bush's proposal does that in a controlled way through tax credits so that more individuals can afford to buy private health insurance. But multiplying the reach Medicare to all citizens raises all sorts of red flags to me: increasing government bureaucracy, the government competing with private companies, increasing entitlement programs...
    Aren't we all? Unless you advocate thet the only time the poor should see the insides of a hospital is on their final trip (via the ER door).

    How does the Bush plan help the millions who are too poor to pay any taxes?
    How does it reduce the cost of health care?
    A middle class family with income of $60,000 will get a tax reduction of approx $330/month. What kind of insurance will they get for that kind of money?
    How does the Bush plan help that middle class family that has a chronic disease like diabetes, heart disease or cancer? Good luck trying to buy ANY insurance under those conditions...
    As for bureaucracy, Medicare overheads costs are less than private insurance. If you don't like Govt. role in healthcare, try abolishing Medicare and Medicaid, replace them with private plans, and see the uproar that would result!!
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002 View Post
    Specify who you mean. Who in this thread or elsewhere, in your observation, presumes to answer for everyone?
    I think he was responding to the previous post:

    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    Unless we decide that health care is not a fundamental right and stop requiring hospitals to treat all who show up at the ER. Is there anyone here who wants that? No.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    A specific tax like those on Capital Gains may behave differently than income taxes. CBPP has their explanations (actually, explanations by CBO and Federal Reserves) in the link I posted under section "Are Capital Gains Tax Cuts Different?"
    Yup. And the CBPP looks for an explanation for the tax revenue increase in the stock market and the economy, and ignores the fact that people change their behavior based on tax rates. They don't get it.

    My point was that it has not been shown that tax cuts result in the NET increase in revenues.
    If you're looking for definitive proof, there's no proof either way.

    If you want to stay with empirical data, consider the Clinton years. His level of taxation resulted in annual surpluses. What makes you think that those tax levels were inappropriate?
    We'll never know for sure how the economy would have done with lower taxes.

    Do you think that Medicare is "giving away" health care? What model, other than universal health care will provide timely medical care to the poor? The only solution is to spread the risks and costs over the largest population size as possible. Private plans will cherry-pick the insured to keep costs down, leaving the sick and vulnerable to fend for themselves (current state of affairs) or to the Govt (Medicaid). Are you happy with the current state of health care system?
    Medicare is subsidized by payroll taxes. To increase the scope of Medicare, you'd have to increase those payroll taxes significantly.

    Precisely! The old and sick are uninsurable (actuarily speaking) by private plans. They are guaranteed to lose money as their medical care will always cost much more than any premium (plus profit) that the insurance industry can tolerate. The solution is to include the young and employed in the plan, so that they subsidize the old and sick. In exchange, the young ones get similar subsidized medical care when they get old and sick. That is how insurance has to work to be viable across all age, income and health-condition levels.
    You want the young people who are too poor to afford insurance to subsidize the old and sick?? Or do you want the currently insured to drop their private insurance for Medicare?


    How does the Bush plan help the millions who are too poor to pay any taxes?
    How does it reduce the cost of health care?
    A middle class family with income of $60,000 will get a tax reduction of approx $330/month. What kind of insurance will they get for that kind of money?
    How does the Bush plan help that middle class family that has a chronic disease like diabetes, heart disease or cancer? Good luck trying to buy ANY insurance under those conditions...
    As for bureaucracy, Medicare overheads costs are less than private insurance. If you don't like Govt. role in healthcare, try abolishing Medicare and Medicaid, replace them with private plans, and see the uproar that would result!!
    The Bush plan doesn't help those who don't pay taxes. And it doesn't reduce the cost of health care. Separately, we still have to shoot the lawyers and drug reps.

    As for the tax reduction, the idea is to make insurance more affordable, not cover the entire cost.

    How much of the uninsured population comprises those with chronic illnesses?
  11. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I think he was responding to the previous post:
    Now I understand. Thanks.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I think he was responding to the previous post:"Unless we decide that health care is not a fundamental right and stop requiring hospitals to treat all who show up at the ER. Is there anyone here who wants that? No"
    I stand corrected. There are people here who would want ER's to turn away the poor
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post

    Medicare is subsidized by payroll taxes. To increase the scope of Medicare, you'd have to increase those payroll taxes significantly.

    You want the young people who are too poor to afford insurance to subsidize the old and sick?? Or do you want the currently insured to drop their private insurance for Medicare?
    Medicare is funded by Medicare taxes. It has been running in surplus. There is no "subsidy".
    Obviously, if Medicare is to cover all, it would generate the revenue needed from Medicare taxes. Nothing is free.

    The last I checked, there is a HUGE difference between my current montly Medicare taxes and what I (and my employer) pay for my medical insurance. So I don't have a Pavlovian response against "more payroll taxes (gasp!)" because increase in one would reduce to decrease in the other.

    As for subsidizing the old, sick, and poor (OSP), who do you suppose would do that? I thought we just established that the OSP will never be able to afford health insurance. So they can either get subsidized health care (subsidized by the working healthy), or no health care.. take your pick.

    That's how health care works, under private or public insurance. The healthy majority subsidizes the few sick, with the covenant that the healthy will get similar subsidy when they get sick.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  14. #54  
    Question..Should the teen age girls that has three kids get free health insurance.The bums on the corner holding signs begging for money when they could be working.How about the drug user..Didnt the know drug were addictive before they started abusing.The aids pacents that did not use protection.
    I could keep going this direction but im sure my point is made.
    All the above do get health care but it,s not free.
    We pay for It
    If the libs had it there way we would pay twice as much.
    The goverment running free health care...What a joke.Lets paint are flag red and put a hammer on it.lets all enjoy the goverment taking care of us.Screw the free market.The goverment will make it all right.
    libs Please wake up.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    False! Lots of people want frivolous lawsuits - litigants and lawyers. That's the problem.

    The problem in this country is the absurd damages awarded to plaintiffs. The multi-million dollar judgements turn courts into a lottery system that everyone wants to play. The answer isn't to prohibit lawsuits, but to reduce awards, and in turn, the incentive to sue.
    I agree that lawyers like lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise. And I agree that damages should be capped.. and the loser should face a penalty (as a deterrant against filing frivolous lawsuits).
    My point is that the Judge and Jury should be doing this. Why do they award such gigantic awards? I don't know.

    Eventually, we, the citizens, collectively determine what's excessive awards and whats frivolous lawsuits, based on our behavior as juries and selection of judges.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  16. #56  
    Im sorry.. I forgot about the super highway thats being built from mexico to Canada.Should the traveler from one point to the either get free healthcare if something should happen on there way through the usa.The rest stops could be clinics..What a great idea.
    Healthcare control does not belong in the goverments hand.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    Question..Should the teen age girls that has three kids get free health insurance.The bums on the corner holding signs begging for money when they could be working.How about the drug user..Didnt the know drug were addictive before they started abusing.The aids pacents that did not use protection.
    I could keep going this direction but im sure my point is made.
    All the above do get health care but it,s not free.
    We pay for It
    If the libs had it there way we would pay twice as much.
    The goverment running free health care...What a joke.Lets paint are flag red and put a hammer on it.lets all enjoy the goverment taking care of us.Screw the free market.The goverment will make it all right.
    libs Please wake up.
    No, I don't get it. What should we do when the pregnant, poor teenager is sick and dying? Or that bum has a heart attack?

    Please spell it out.

    Nothing is free. Government is not in the business of proving anything for free. Someone pays.

    The benefit of single-payer universal health care is that
    a) it will cover everyone, regardless of their wealth or health (unless you would prefer the poor and sick to not have health care).
    b) it will spread the cost of the caring of the sick to the maximum extent amongst the most
    c) it will be more efficient and have less overhead (eg, Medicare, VA plans)

    This coverage should be augmented by private plans for those who have the $ and the inclination to buy additional coverage.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    Healthcare control does not belong in the goverments hand.
    It will be interesting to see if your viewpoint changes after retirement or (heaven forbid!) prolonged illness or disability. I don't think that dealing with hospitals, or private insurance companies will be very pleasant under those circumstances.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    No, I don't get it. What should we do when the pregnant, poor teenager is sick and dying? Or that bum has a heart attack?

    Please spell it out.

    Nothing is free. Government is not in the business of proving anything for free. Someone pays.

    The benefit of single-payer universal health care is that
    a) it will cover everyone, regardless of their wealth or health (unless you would prefer the poor and sick to not have health care).
    b) it will spread the cost of the caring of the sick to the maximum extent amongst the most
    c) it will be more efficient and have less overhead (eg, Medicare, VA plans)

    This coverage should be augmented by private plans for those who have the $ and the inclination to buy additional coverage.
    You dont get it?
    The bum on the corner could get a job and take care of him or herself and pay there way.
    (The poor teen age girl with three kids.Oh no one of her kid got sick.Why did she have three kids if She doesnt have the money to support them.
    This is called responsilibty that is vary much being abused and is now considered acceptable.)
    We pay there way already.
    Why pay more money to the gov so they can tell you what kind of health care you deserve.That not how are country was built yet it seems to be taking a tail spin that direction.heck the gov takes about 44% of are money earned already/tax
    Why not give them 60% so everyone will be healthy and safe.
    That leaves you with 40% income for you to spend how you like.
    Bad news for you.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    It will be interesting to see if your viewpoint changes after retirement or (heaven forbid!) prolonged illness or disability. I don't think that dealing with hospitals, or private insurance companies will be very pleasant under those circumstances.
    Post #34 of this thread needs your attention
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions