Page 65 of 143 FirstFirst ... 1555606162636465666768697075115 ... LastLast
Results 1,281 to 1,300 of 2855
  1. #1281  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The Constitution is a vague document giving America basic parameters in which to function.
    If by 'America' you mean the Federal Government, and by 'basic parameters in which to function', you mean 'the limits in which it supposed to operate', we are in agreement.
    If the states can handle a matter, leave it up to states. The Federal Government only needs to step in when the states are not doing a uniform, quality job.
    This is only within the context of its scope of powers.
    For you great defenders of the 10th Amendment, I guess you think that DOMA should be repealed.
    Without a doubt.
    And all of you so afraid of a socialistic government--Capitalism isn't doing such a great job for us.
    I'm not particularly afraid of a socialist government. I just see it as beyond the scope of powers granted to the federal government. Also, we've not had pure capitalism for quite a while (for better or worse).
    The point of Adam Smith's invincible hand is to have a better society--not just enrich the individual.
    No, the point of the _invisible_ hand theory is that in general a person acting in their own self-interest will better society. Where it starts to fail is in transparency and immediacy. If someone is trying to get something over on others in secret, there will definitely be individuals harmed, but after news spreads, they will not be able to conduct business the same way. Therefore, it's in their best long-term self-interest to conduct themselves 'properly'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #1282  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    If you think socialism is something specific, then by all means enlighten us.
    It's pretty simple. State ownership of capital (the means of production). When a government owns your wealth, that's socialism. When you own your wealth, that's capitalism. When a community owns their wealth, that's communism.
    Especially specifically at what point taking taxes from the population and paying for the military, and interstate highways, and education differ from health care?
    Taking taxes from the general population's income for these things is relatively recent (less than a century other than in times of war). At least with the military and interstates, the federal government was arguably within its scope of powers (both defense related, and with the interstates commerce added into the mix). Where the military spending has really gone off the ranch is when it reaches into the realms of imperialism. I think the standing military and income tax are probably two of our least libertarian moves as a country.
    Is it only because it's not mentioned in the constitution?
    No, whether it's mentioned in the constitution doesn't really define it as socialism or not.
    Is mail service mentioned in the constitution?
    Yes, it is. The power to establish post offices and post roads were granted to Congress to allow for interstate communication.
    And just because something is supported by state taxes instead of federal taxes doesn't automatically mean it's not socialist, right?
    Quite true.
    I mean, look at Governor Romney's universal health care plan in Massachusetts. Socialist, right?
    I'm not that familiar with Massachusetts, honestly, so I obviously can't say either way.
    If you define socialism as taking individual's money and using it for the overall good of the population as a whole, doesn't that fit all of these things?
    I don't define it that way.
    Why should health care be different? Certainly a master of history and perspective should be able to rattle that answer right off.
    Well, I'm just a student of history like anyone else, but I gave it a go.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #1283  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    If you think socialism is something specific, then by all means enlighten us. Especially specifically at what point taking taxes from the population and paying for the military, and interstate highways, and education differ from health care? Is it only because it's not mentioned in the constitution? Is mail service mentioned in the constitution? And just because something is supported by state taxes instead of federal taxes doesn't automatically mean it's not socialist, right? I mean, look at Governor Romney's universal health care plan in Massachusetts. Socialist, right? If you define socialism as taking individual's money and using it for the overall good of the population as a whole, doesn't that fit all of these things? Why should health care be different? Certainly a master of history and perspective should be able to rattle that answer right off.
    First, please read the Constitution: Historic Documents - The Constitution of the United States of America If you'll look at Article 1, Section 8, it does mention: To establish Post Offices and post roads.

    I disagree that taking individual's money and using it for the overall good of the population as a whole is wrong if it is mentioned in the Constitution. Not only is it covered as allowable under a power of Congress under the same Section as above (The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises), but then it was allowed under the 16th Amendment (boooooo) on income. So....hard to argue that one anymore.

    So please, please read this great document....it really does a fantastic job of describing what the Fed Government can do....and if it doesn't mention it, the 10th Amendment passes that over to the states. Therefore, the State of Massachusetts had the right to go after healthcare in their state. I don't live up there so I'll leave that to them. If SC decides to go that route then I'll take a look at it, see if it looks fair, and go from there.

    LOL....hardly a "master of history and perspective", I am just always amazed though at how people say we should do this and that when the Document our country was founded on is ignored when it doesn't work to certain folk's benefit.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  4. #1284  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    It'll be your philosophy until you turn 65--then, you'll be the first in line to collect social security and medicare because you haven't saved enough to get you through your retirement years.
    Oh geez....you don't know me very well, do you? I save quite well, thank you and I don't plan on having social security available, at least not at age 65. To fix social security, I would say we need to not touch such benefits until at least one's age 75 or 80. Not a popular thought, but since social security was only meant to last for 2 or 3 years after age 65, it is what should be done. People live far tooo long these days for social security to pay for 20 or 25 years while contributors are getting to be lower than recipients. But I don't plan on receiving it....but I will agree....if it is available I'll take it in a skinny heart beat since I have and will pay in quite a bit. I'm greedy like that.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. #1285  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Oh geez....you don't know me very well, do you? I save quite well, thank you and I don't plan on having social security available, at least not at age 65. To fix social security, I would say we need to not touch such benefits until at least one's age 75 or 80.
    The other consideration is that Social Security was not meant to be a savings and loan for the federal government. Something on the order of 20-25% of the federal debt is to the Social Security 'trust fund'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #1286  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    ...To fix social security, I would say we need to not touch such benefits until at least one's age 75 or 80....
    That's pure nonsense. What employer is going to hire someone who is 75 to 80 years old when they can hire someone 23 and get three to four times the productivity? You aren't living in the real world.

    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    ...Not a popular thought, but since social security was only meant to last for 2 or 3 years after age 65, it is what should be done. People live far tooo long these days for social security to pay for 20 or 25 years while contributors are getting to be lower than recipients....
    You can only think in dollars and cents. No other factors matter to you.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  7. #1287  
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  8. #1288  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    That's pure nonsense. What employer is going to hire someone who is 75 to 80 years old when they can hire someone 23 and get three to four times the productivity? You aren't living in the real world.

    You can only think in dollars and cents. No other factors matter to you.
    Ummm.....not sure how to really answer that. As for social security, please tell me how you would address the issue?

    From CNSNews.com - Social Security Will Go Bankrupt by 2037 – Four Years Earlier Than Projected

    "Trustees of the programs said Tuesday that Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, one year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner."

    "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the head of the trustees group, said the new reports were a reminder that "the longer we wait to address the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security, the sooner those challenges will be upon us and the harder the options will be.

    The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that Social Security will collect just $3 billion more in 2010 than it will pay out in benefits. A year ago, the CBO had projected that Social Security would have a much higher $86 billion cash surplus for the 2010 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.

    The trustees report projected that Social Security's annual surpluses would "fall sharply this year," then remain at a reduced level in 2010 and be lower in the following years than last year's projections. The report said that the Social Security annual surplus would be eliminated entirely in 2016, reflecting increased demands from the wave of 78 million baby boomers retiring.

    That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016. The trustees projected the trust fund would be depleted in 2037, four years earlier than the 2041 date in last year's report.

    At that point, the annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083. To tap the trust fund, the government would have to increase borrowing or raise taxes because Social Security bonds exist only as bookkeeping entries."

    Not gonna lie, this news sucks....but...I didn't make these numbers up and all I'm saying is hard decisions need to be made. Not sure what you don't understand about the difference between now and when Social Security started? You do understand that we live longer these days, right? You also understand that we will not be putting in enough to pay out in benefits, right? So....well....I guess your choice would be to....let me guess....tax the wealthy more or take away their benefits, right?

    What factors am I missing, and if I had them, how would they change those numbers? Where did we get this "rule" that people must retire at age 65? You do realize that number was used because that was generally when people died, right? Well....we live longer now. I think the problem with our country these days is not enough people worry about the dollars and cents....we simply can't pay for everyone's retirement and health insurance for their entire lives....it just don't add up.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  9. #1289  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Perfect!
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  10. #1290  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Perfect!
    Whew....what can I say.....you got me, LOL....I guess the only thing to say to that is that it shows:

    1) How much government is embedded in our lives, and

    2) All that you showed likely comes from the following:

    Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, CDL license Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Excise Taxes, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Gross Receipts Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges, IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Liquor Tax, Luxury Taxes, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Personal Property Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Service Charge Tax, Social Security Tax (FICA), Road Usage Tax, Sales Tax, Recreational Vehicle Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Taxes, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax. I'm sure many were left off.

    Here's to taxes! You know, you guys are right, we really don't pay enough taxes....shouldn't we be paying a tax on our internet use? Damn, just looked at my internet bill and we do! There is listed both sales tax and local taxes on my bill, plus, of course, the tax on the cable that comes into my house for sales tax and local taxes. Grrrrrrrr.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  11. #1291  
    Commonwealth Foundation Study

    Additionally, Medicare has worked; and recipients are more satisfied with their care than those with private insurance. I realize that patient satisfaction isn't important to those that only think with their wallets and have no sense of responsibility to the country's health as a whole.

    MEDICARE'S SUCCESS: Since the advent of Medicare, "the health of the elderly population has improved, as measured by both longevity and functional status," said one study published in the journal Health Affairs. In fact, according to the study, "life expectancy at age 65 increased from 14.3 years in 1960 to 17.8 years in 1998 and the chronically disabled elderly population declined from 24.9 percent in 1982 to 21.3 percent in 1994." Leaders of the Commonwealth Fund wrote in May that, "compared to people with private insurance, Medicare enrollees have greater access to care [and] fewer problems with medical bills." The report added that this finding is significant when considering that those Americans on Medicare represent a demographic that is more likely to be in poor health and to have lower incomes. Prior to Medicare, "about one-half of America's seniors did not have hospital insurance," more than 25 percent "were estimated to go without medical care due to cost concerns," and one in three were living in poverty. Today, nearly all seniors have access to affordable health care and only about 14 percent of seniors are below the poverty line.

    CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: A recent Commonwealth Fund survey found that "elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported greater overall satisfaction with their health coverage." Medicare is so popular that most Americans support expanding its coverage to Americans aged 55 to 64. According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, "over half of Americans (53 percent) 'strongly' support such a proposal and an additional 26 percent say they support it somewhat, totaling 79 percent backing." Similarly, a Health and Human Services Department-commissioned study released in June found that "56 percent of enrollees in traditional fee-for-service Medicare give Medicare a rating of 9 or 10 on a 0-10 scale," while "only 40 percent of Americans enrolled in private health insurance gave their plans a 9 or 10 rating." "The higher scores for Medicare are based on perceptions of better access to care," the National Journal noted, commenting on the surveys, adding that "[m]ore than two thirds (70 percent) of traditional Medicare enrollees say they 'always' get access to needed care (appointments with specialists or other necessary tests and treatment), compared with 63 percent in Medicare managed care plans and only 51 percent of those with private insurance."
  12. #1292  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Your title is somewhat misleading. That link is not to a study. The link and your quote are from a newsletter (re?)posted on the Huffington Post website which briefly references (a single sentence) a Commonwealth _Fund_ _Survey_. I've already posted a link to the most recent Kaiser survey which has lots of interesting information. I'm not sure which Commonwealth Fund Survey they're reporting on, though. The most recent one I can find seems to be a general survey of older adults from 2004.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #1293  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Your title is somewhat misleading. That link is not to a study. The link and your quote are from a newsletter (re?)posted on the Huffington Post website which briefly references (a single sentence) a Commonwealth _Fund_ _Survey_. I've already posted a link to the most recent Kaiser survey which has lots of interesting information. I'm not sure which Commonwealth Fund Survey they're reporting on, though. The most recent one I can find seems to be a general survey of older adults from 2004.
    Try HERE.
  14. #1294  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Try HERE.
    Thanks. It's always interesting to look at the real numbers. Can't say that I'm that surprised with them. What's interesting to me is that there are less than 10 percentage points separating everyone except the uninsured. Considering that everyone is supposed to be so dissatisfied with 'The System', one might expect it to have been more disparate. It seems like the less of your own direct health costs you have to pay for, the more satisfied you are. Truly shocking.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #1295  
    I suspect you are overestimating the impact of funding source on patient satisfaction. Take it from me, Medicare patients are hardly reticent about complaining. But the real difference is in money saved by decreasing administrative costs. The Non-system we have is needlessly complex and money that should go to care goes to overhead. That's clear.

    Rand Study
  16. #1296  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I suspect you are overestimating the impact of funding source on patient satisfaction.
    I'm just looking at the numbers provided in the survey. There is little doubt they are correlated. That does not equal causation, obviously, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable conclusion either.
    Take it from me, Medicare patients are hardly reticent about complaining.
    I don't recall saying they were reticent about complaining. They must obviously complain less, though.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1297  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Better not count those chickens just yet....
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1298  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Anybody that thinks private insurance is the way to great care for all is smoking something...
    I didn't say that, thanks. We all agree that changes need to be made, and not just to insurance companies. Single payer isn't the solution to all of your woes.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1299  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    A gov't run single payer OPTION is the only solution. Please let me know how much you enjoy it next year.

    I think I can let you know that now. Why wait til next year? I'd enjoy it terribly, thank you very much
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #1300  
    The public option really out? No. Look at what Obama has said in the past. Back in 2003 he stated he was for single payer then a few years later he was against it. He said at one time that you definitely would have the option of keeping your insurance, then more than likely. The others in his group are doing the same. Words - just words. Why don't they go ahead and pass it now? They have a majority. The Democrat party itself is uncomfortable with it. As a note, we all heard AARP's latest public statement that they did not support the legislation. Well, yesterday afternoon one of their older commercials was aired on a local radio station that did support the legislation. Words. Just words. Say anything and do anything to gain the goal.

Posting Permissions