|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 28, 2016 18:00:49 GMT -6
Bryce I thank you for your service to our country and freedoms, as I will any other who has done the same. Just because I did not serve does not mean I am less zealous about our countries freedoms or want to protect them. To say otherwise is non sense. I use the freedom of speech to help protect other freedoms and amendments, I can tell you my grandfather would be rolling in his grave. I know today he would not be a democrat even though back in the day he was a staunch democrat. He believed in the right to bear arms with a passion and would not be apart of a party that looked to do harm to such. He taught me how to shoot a gun at the age of 5 and we hunted together every weekend of my life until his passing in 1984.
Guns are a political issue today that is a FACT. You can Like it or not they are just that another devisive tool used to garner votes for or against.
I will,protect those rights by giving to the NRA and other pro gun groups and I will vote for those that are pro gun or they will not get my vote. I am sick and tired of some looking to take away more and more freedoms even in small doses over time. There is no facts what so ever to back up their claims as to what limiting guns could do. Nothing but a talking point to try and push away more freedoms. Choices not mandates.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 29, 2016 7:18:19 GMT -6
Those that sign up for FREE college and do not graduate what is the penalty?
gee- I don't know- what is the penalty for a kid not finishing high school?
death? jail? spit on them?
what should we do to your wife, when a kid in her school flunks out?
stone her? the stocks?
good grief-
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 29, 2016 7:39:26 GMT -6
Walmart family, is worth $144 billion-
the get back in tax breaks- $6 billion
that money would pay tuition for 10 million kids-
TC is for tax breaks for corporations costing billions to taxpayers
but college for kids?
you are all over the road- you have zero problem with you taking taxpayers money to kill coyotes, and your wife is getting taxpayers money to work in schools-
and that's ok- but any OTHER use of govt money- by gum thats communism!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 29, 2016 16:58:22 GMT -6
T,an it is the left that has made it impossible,in some schools to hold a kid back a grade anymore, as Johnny might feel left out and his buddies will know. We need more parenting in kids lives today and they need to relate a school,is their for learning not a day care center for 8 hrs a day. My wife's school is doing a lot to educate children if you think not come pay a visit and you can see why she puts in 70 hr weeks every week, a fact. The questions was asked because we do not have enough higher Ed to allow everyone to attend free, so who chooses and those that waste their time and the schools what is the action for such? Today it is they need to pay back their loans, you think because we allow 100 percent free higher Ed they will all graduate or the rate of graduation will rise? Really? Again you want to keep harping on tax breaks yet your using false information nothing more or less period. Your left leaning sites for such are not factual. These numbers are from the SEC filings and tax returns. www.forbes.com/2011/04/13/ge-exxon-walmart-apple-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 29, 2016 16:59:55 GMT -6
If you or Bernie thinks all of this money can come from business with out ill effects then you do, but again I am not voting for someone who wants to try and experiment with our economy at a time it is still very fragile. Again many sources point to the FACTS that these plans will do as much harm as good.
Also,FWIW under Obama corperate profits are higher as well.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 29, 2016 18:35:36 GMT -6
I think this clearly sums it up nicely.
edited- no- we aren't going that route- cause trust me for everyone YOU post, I'll post 20
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 30, 2016 9:00:45 GMT -6
don't know what I was suppose to see on your link- but you are aware of what forbes is? I'll trust the figures I find, you trust what you find-
our economy is not working. Free trade is not working. The healthcare system is not working. Our infrastructure is not working. Wages for have been dropping since 1973
and TC is for the status quo.
so be it- me, I'm tired of the same old not working- I'm tired of all the wealth going to the top few %, I'm tired of a rigged economy and stock market-
but TC- status quo
and the silly argument about what happens if someone drops out- doesn't even deserve a reply
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 30, 2016 9:06:10 GMT -6
things we can't afford according to TC-
Healthcare infrastructure public transport education renewable energy clean environment feeding the poor public elections-
and here are the things, according to TC, we not only can afford, but are doing-
2 wars- $4-6 trillion wall street bailouts- 12.8 trillion oil subsidies- $37.5 billion A YEAR F35 program- 1.5 trillion
so its not them oney- its priorities-
mine (and Bernies) are for using that money for education, for health, for infrastructure-
TC? status quo
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 30, 2016 9:16:07 GMT -6
all around the world-
Australia 1975 Austria 1967 Bahrain 1957 Belgium 1945 Brunei 1958 Canada 1966 Cyprus 1980 Denmark 1972 Finland 1972 France1974 Germany 1945 Greece 1983 Hong Kong 1993 Iceland 1990 Ireland 1977 Israel 1995 Italy 1978 Japan 1938 Kuwait 1950 Luxemburg 1973 Netherlands 1966 New Zealand 1938 Norway 1912 Portugal 1979 Singapore 1993 Slovenia 1972 South Korea 1988 Spain 1986 Sweden 1955 Switzerland 1994 United Arab Emirates 1971 United Kingdom 1948
What do these countries have in common, besides lower costs and better health care?
yup- all have universal health care for all
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 30, 2016 15:54:31 GMT -6
Austraila also has outlawed ownership of guns no thanks. If you want to live in a socialist country move to one, as the USA was never setup to be one.
Better health care LOL. That is nothing but YOUR opinion. I am dang happy with my healthcare that is after 2 surgeries in the last 3 years. I have top notch care where I am. I have 6 hospitals and 2 major universites with great medical within 2 hours of me. Ever had of U of Kanass hospitals and also U of Missouri?
U of Kansas is ranked nationally in 12 different regions of health care and there ER sees over 47,000 people a year and they perform over 18,000 surgeries a year. No thanks on going abroad I have great healthcare where I am at. We also have North Kansas City and Liberty hospitals that are ranked very high and do a volume as well and many great surgeons in the KC area.
Did you not think I didn't Do my home work before I moved? There are reasons we moved and some trade offs as well. But I do my homework . It has to be a plus benefit or why would I move?
You point to all of the countries they are tiny compared to the US, I would take our medicine over there's any day. You really think a 100 single pay plan would work as well here? Tell me how, tell me the motivation for research? tell me the motivation to become a doctor here? Tell me how we will not have lines and lines of people waiting for procedures? Tell me how many hospitals stay afloat and tell me how single pay in the USA keeps care at or above the levels we have now and does so with keeping cost in check? Tell me what percentage of my paycheck is going for such? Because right now I pay 405.00 a month for top of the line health care. Will my single pay be at or below what Inpay now? How about my care? You see I bust I disagree for such care, others could do it as well. I am willing to work hard and search out better benefits for a little less pay, but I am not willing to bust I disagree, for less pay and less benefits to me and my family.
Now onto the next point, Obama care was to be the boon for millions and millions what happened? Why do we need single pay care now? Obama plans has covered millions who never had insurance, how we ask? Through the use of tax dollars and mandate a plan. The cost was supposed to be kept in check, yet as many said from the get go that would not happen and did NOT happen. We where told they could keep their doctor, that did not happen and again many said that could not happen.
So if Obama care was the great plan we now need everyone to take a bigger hit on their paycheck to cover the sum of all? Sorry not my kind of America. Again everyone beholden to a central govt for all of their basic needs, i.e. Indian reservation style closer and closer we get to it. There is no gurantee of cost stabilization, no gurantee of quality of care, no gurantee of shortages and clinics and hospitals closing, yet once we intact such there is no turning back. We are talking about a country of 330 million people, who have expectations when it comes to health care and quality of such. It cannot stay the same covering everyone and control cost without dire issues just a fact. Your going to have less medical field personnel, we have large insurance companies that barter with clinics and hospitals the way we a now let alone a single layer capped system. It will either be less quality of care or the cost from the paycheck to the central govt keeps getting bigger and bigger.
The system works for many millions of people in fact far more than what have turned into Obama care covered folk. We need to keep healthcare private or what the answer is make every doctor and nurse a employee of the central govt? Good luck with that. You think wal mart is bad wow.
Research will all but be gone in this country unless again the govt is going to cover all the funding for such? Again I am not banking my healthcare on our central govt, and I am sure not going to go to work and have 50-60 percent of my paycheck taken by them, to get less bang for my buck than I get now.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 30, 2016 16:10:13 GMT -6
Education all for it that is why I pay more I taxation here than SD, infrastructure is good as long as it is done with common sense and money on hand. Public transport? Again if it pencils out great of not like California that passed some high speed rail disaster no way, a waste of tax payer money which will take many,many,many years to recoupe the investment if at all.
Feeding the poor what? We have more people on food stamps than any other time in our countries history! Really? My wife donates time to harvesters which does a free food give away each and every month. They have lots of food for those in need. No one leaves empty handed, the KEY is to,show up and take advantage of what is offered.
I see why you are anti republican you think they are all about wars and Wall Street and big oil LOL. Remember under Obama corperate America has done well. FACT.
I come from SD a state which is highly republican and they are doing great! Low unemployment, clean air, clean water etc. so how can republicans be just nasty when many of the best performing states are ran by such? Please do not give me federal handouts. I can squash that really quick.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 30, 2016 16:15:56 GMT -6
So tell me if your tired of the wealth going to those who make the money how should THEIR wealth be given out?
this is a free country, you make it what you wish, work hard, bust butt and things will be OK, I do not feel for one second that because someone has 3-15 million that I should be getting some of their money besides the taxes they pay, I do not feel I am entitled to anything but which I work for! That is the main difference the young today feel they are owed something, you reap what you sow.
Free this, that and the other it is all ploy to keep a certain sector in owner at all levels, become beholden to them and you will keep them in power. More people need to become beholden into themselves and life will be much better off.
We have safe guards in place for those that stumble, but for those that fall and do not care to get back up? Those that think the central govt should be providing the bulk of their basic needs? Sorry could never fit into that. I have had a lot of crappy jobs and why? To provide for me and my family, I have paid my taxes by the letter of the laws. I want people, to prosper and achieve, not just exsisiting and allowing the govt to make the daily calls in my life.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 30, 2016 16:19:14 GMT -6
I also noticed your using GREECE and Italy in your realm of great countries LOL.
Greece has needed to be bail out what 2-3 times? They are broke from using the socialist model for crying out loud.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 30, 2016 21:48:21 GMT -6
Steve was not stating they are great nations, just listing those nations with universal HC and for how long. Sure there are several nations listed that have financial issues, not unlike several other nations w/o universal HC that have financial issues, such as Mexico, India, Brazil, Russia, Pakistan etc. Some are socialist, some are not. We have a high cost HC system in the USA and if the government is not a way to help afford or change that, we have seen no real attempt by the private sector to find ways to lower costs. It is not to the advantage of private sector HC providers to lower costs. Are more socialistic economies doing poorly due to high HC costs or are there other aspects of their economies that are lagging? I am sure there is a lot of complexity involved. What the list shows is that some nations have had 2-3 generations of universal HC and still provide that coverage.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 31, 2016 5:13:39 GMT -6
Bryce single pay health care is just a portion of the issues I agree but they are socialist based and while other issues come into play, the ever rising cost of healthcare on a single payer system is going to eat up more and more of any countries budget. Again we would have to cover 330 million people on a single payer system, what is the tax rate and annual cost of such?
We can look to Canada our neighbors to the north, and see how much taxation they have and the faults of single pay health care, they are there and evident. On avg the cost in Canada is 11,216 per person for health care and rising. Those higher income earners pay upwards of 60,000 annually for coverage and the poorest pay 477 a year. They get their money from various taxation sand yet their cost is rising as well.
We look at much smaller countries and would be very hard to compare anything off of them because of the shear numbers difference and the cost of living and wages paid out.
We are having a hard time keeping SS solvent for the future let alone single payer care for 330 million people. Again if we want to tax everyone around 60-65 percent maybe, but your going to find a lot of opposition to such. And your care and cost control still will not be there.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 31, 2016 7:18:22 GMT -6
thanks Bryce- hard to get a point through a brick wall SS would be in great shape, if the money hadn't been borrowed by Bush w/o any plans to pay it back your wife works for the govt- glad she can help out those that don't you come from a state, that is a federal welfare state- be proud, be proud! if you really want to know what Canada pays..... www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil130a-eng.htm
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 31, 2016 7:31:54 GMT -6
I don't understand the thought basis that large nations or economies will suffer more with more socialized medicine than smaller nations will. In all other aspects of life we find volume or size to be a way of lowering costs, unless, unless we have large capitalist firms that control costs which may be the situation in the USA for HC and also maybe with our financial systems. The fact that we can borrow money at low cost seems to be a great thing, the fact that trillions are being housed by large banks and international companies means that far fewer dollars are available for investment, wages and growth. I will pay more interest when I need to get a loan if I have access to income that I can manage.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 31, 2016 7:56:53 GMT -6
the biggest failure of the Obama health plan, was that it was NOT a single payer.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 31, 2016 18:43:06 GMT -6
Tman I think you need to retread your number and pay careful attention to asterisk number 8. LOL.
The numbers I posted where all Inclsuisve as to what health cost your does not but nice try.
Here are the numbers for Bernies plan. Also lets not forget what Canadians pay when you add up ALL taxation just not income tax. It amounts to much,much higher rates than the US.
released its plan, it estimated $324 billion in annual savings on prescription drugs—until Thorpe noted that the United States spent only $305 billion for that purpose in 2014. (If Trump can expect Mexico to pay for a wall on the border, I suppose Sanders can expect drug companies to pay consumers instead of the other way around.) When Matthews pointed out that it was impossible to save $324 billion out of $305 billion, the Sanders camp cut their savings estimate to $241 billion, while conveniently increasing other projected savings to make up the difference. But $241 billion in drug savings are still implausible, and as the entire episode indicates, the Sanders campaign is simply pulling numbers out of the air.
The Sanders’s plan also makes implausible assumptions about health-care spending by the states. While eliminating the Medicaid program, Sanders counts on states to continue spending what they now spend on Medicaid, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot require the states to spend money on a program—especially one that no longer exists.
Why does the Sanders plan cost so much? Among other reasons, the plan calls for eliminating all patient cost-sharing. I’m not a fan of high co-pays and deductibles, but eliminating them altogether will increase health spending more than Sanders acknowledges. His plan also includes no limits on the scope of coverage. “Bernie’s plan,” the campaign says, “will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral healthcare; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments.” This is an extraordinary list; long-term care alone is spectacularly expensive. Although Sanders refers to his plan as “Medicare for all,” it is far bigger than Medicare, which has never eliminated cost-sharing or covered all these services.
Let’s leave aside whether even a Democratic Congress could pass tax increases of the magnitude Sanders’s plan would require. There’s also a question of priorities: Should Democrats—should anyone—support devoting so much federal revenue to health care? The country has a lot of other needs. Transferring all private health spending to the federal treasury is not necessarily the best use of federal tax capacity. Sanders’s health plan is so costly it would make it impossible to do much else.
ADVERTISEMENT It’s not just private insurers that would stand in the way of this plan. Thorpe estimates that 70 percent of people with private insurance would end up paying more than they do today.
But what about other countries that Sanders often cites? Don’t those examples show that a system of national health insurance is cheaper and better than one with private insurance?
Here’s where I agree with that argument: If we could wind back the clock to the 1940s, when health care was just 4 percent of GDP and private insurance was just beginning to develop, we might well be able to design a national insurance program—as Harry Truman proposed—that would have kept down the growth of costs. But we can’t wind back the clock. In the mid-to-late 20th century, a very different system developed with the rise of both private, employer-based insurance and the adoption of public programs that accommodated the interests of physicians and hospitals.
This is a story I’ve told in two books—The Social Transformation of American Medicine (1983) and Remedy and Reaction (revised edition, 2013). The financing arrangements that emerged in the United States had two complementary effects: They created incentives for high-cost specialized care and protected much of the public from the full, direct cost of that system. As a result, starting from 4 percent of GDP, health care grew to 17.5 percent, far more than in any other country. That level of costs is reflected in investments in medical technology, the physical infrastructure of hospitals and other facilities, the patterns of medical training and specialization, and the size and structure of the health-care labor force. Adopting a government insurance plan won't undo a system that's been built up over decades, though it would certainly alter its future evolution.
While having the federal government take over all private health expenditures (and state and local government spending too, unless Sanders can also appoint new justices to the Supreme Court), the Sanders plan attempts to squeeze per capita health expenditures down to Canadian levels. The plan doesn’t explain how it is going to bring this about, and Thorpe’s analysis says it won’t. But if the federal government did impose sufficient controls, the results would be to bankrupt many institutions that are counting on future streams of revenue to cover debt payments, meet payroll, and satisfy other obligations.
The Affordable Care Act does not try to roll back spending levels to the share of GDP that health care represented decades ago. It has the limited, uninspiring, but ultimately more sensible goal of “bending the cost curve”—slowing the rate of growth of health-care costs, which has actually happened in the years since the law’s passage.
The ACA is far more in keeping with the lesson to be drawn from the history of health policy in other countries. Most countries have built on their existing institutions as they have pursued universal coverage and sought to control costs. The governments that instituted unified national insurance systems generally did so before private insurance had developed on a large scale. Many countries that had multiple insurance funds have maintained them; rather than centralizing all payment, they have created regulatory and negotiating arrangements that keep costs in check. This is the direction we can and should take.
In the wake of the adoption of the ACA—if it isn’t repealed by Republicans—the United States could adopt additional reforms to improve coverage and control costs, including measures opening Medicare to wider enrollment. One possibility is to provide a basis for 55-to-64-year-olds to buy into Medicare. The idea of a Medicare buy-in was supported by Bill Clinton in the late 1990s and by Al Gore in the 2000 election campaign. It is even more practical now as a result of the ACA’s individual mandate, which reduces the likelihood of adverse selection (higher enrollment by those with high medical costs). A Medicare buy-in came up late in the 2009 Senate debate about the ACA as an alternative version of the “public option,” but it died as a result of Joe Lieberman’s objections and worries among other Democrats about its impact on the financial stability of hospitals in their states—a concern that would have to be dealt with in any effort to revive the idea.
I mention a Medicare buy-in for people in the decade before full Medicare eligibility only to illustrate the kind of incremental measure that is both practical and consistent with the aspirations of many progressives. It would be difficult to enact, but it wouldn’t require a Sanderista revolution and heroic assumptions about Americans’ support for increased taxation.
Sanders’s single-payer plan is not a practical or carefully thought-out proposal. It’s a symbolic gesture, representative of the kind of socialism he supports. The question that Democratic primary voters will have to answer is whether they want their party to go into a general election with a gesture of this kind.
255InstapaperEmail You may also like
FDA Ruling Reshapes Abortion Battle DEANA A. ROHLINGER New federal labeling guidelines for the abortion pill deliver a major victory to the abortion-rights movement, and throw opponents of the procedure on the defensive.
What We Can Do about Gun Violence HAROLD POLLACK Incremental changes to existing gun laws could help deter mass shootings and gun homicides.
The Democrats as a Movement Party PAUL STARR What would it take to get the “broken engine of progressive politics” working again?
You need to be logged in to comment. (If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy) Sign in using Facebook E-mail * Password * Create new account Request new password
About the Author
Paul Starr is co-founder and co-editor of the The American Prospect. and professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University. A winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction and the Bancroft Prize in American history, he is the author of seven books, including most recently Remedy and Reaction: The Peculiar American Struggle over Heath Care Reform (Yale University Press, revised ed. 2013). Click here to read more about Starr.
ARTICLES BY PAUL STARR RSS FEED OF ARTICLES BY PAUL STARR About Us TAP About Contact Us Jobs & Internships Advertise Privacy Policy Submissions Magazine Current Issue Masthead Donate Archive Reprints Renew Subscribe Subscribe Help support our non-profit journalism 6 issues of our print magazine for $19.95 6 issues of our digital magazine for $9.95 a combined print/digital subscription for $24.95 Order Now Topics Politics Economy Labor World Race & Ethnicity Gender & Sexuality Cities & Communities Education Health & Social Policy Religion Immigration Culture Science, Tech, Environment Newsletters Get the Prospect’s newsletters free: The Daily Prospect (Monday to Friday) Or one or more of the following weekly newsletters: The Labor Prospect (Tuesday) The Democracy Prospect (Thursday) The Weekly Prospect (Friday) Sign Up
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 31, 2016 18:46:36 GMT -6
I would Agree his plan is nothing but an exspensive not thought out well fairly tale. Nothing more and the facts from many show again and again this plan will not to do anything close to what he states, as he has really never given a detailed plan just the mention of single pay and how he will steal from the rich and give to the poor. The details never talked about in real length, if you can show me the meat and potatoes of such I will be happy to read it. Like cost control, lower cost etc,etc.
|
|