Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Going over the cliff

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178

    Going over the cliff

    Ok...so it appears we are going over the cliff.

    I am a little confused about why they were bothering to vote on Boehners "Plan B" at all. It would have actually ended up reducing taxed for people who made between $400K and $1 million, and effectively raised taxes on the poor and middle class. Did they think there was some chance that would make it through the senate or the whitehouse...or that the American people would not throw a blind fit over it?

    I am having trouble understanding exactly WTF they are doing here. Boehner and the whitehouse had both said they thought they were close to an agreement. The whitehouse claimed they could get the democrats in the house to vote in favor, and Boehner would only have to deliver a handful of votes. Instead he threw that out and put forth "Plan B", which nobody was willing to support.

    So now we have the republicans who are seen as choosing to throw 98% of americans under the bus in order to protect the checkbooks of the other 1%.

    I think that Steve LaTourette (R-ohio) had it right when he said “It’s the continuing dumbing down of the Republican Party, and we are going to be seen, more and more, as a bunch of extremists that can’t even get the majority of our own people to support the policies we’re putting forward.”

    They DID manage to pass a bill that would stop the automatic sequestration for the defense department...literally by taking the money directly from food stamps and meals on wheels.

    What in the hell are these people thinking? Have they just given up and decided that they want to hand the house over to the democrats during the next round of elections?

    I could understand just refusing to negotiate on the fiscal cliff and then immediately passing a bill reinstating the middle class tax cuts after the first of the year. There is a certain logic to that. Doing this instead really does make them look like a bunch of radicals who do not have the best interests of any of us in mind.

    Does anybody understand this?
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    Ok...so it appears we are going over the cliff.

    I am a little confused about why they were bothering to vote on Boehners "Plan B" at all. It would have actually ended up reducing taxed for people who made between $400K and $1 million, and effectively raised taxes on the poor and middle class. Did they think there was some chance that would make it through the senate or the whitehouse...or that the American people would not throw a blind fit over it?
    Meh, This is kinda true and depends on your circumstances. It kills a few crappy tax credits that may or may not be used by the poor and middle class. The payroll tax cut is over anyway (on both sides) so who cares about that.

    Tax Policy Center did an analysis and found a -.1% change for those making 200-500k and an extremely small (basically even) for those making 500-1000k.

    The rough part about Plan B is that is raises taxes on the really poor more so than the really rich (2.4% versus 2.2%). This is mostly the result of the EITC and child care credit (or whatever its called).
    TPC Tax Topics | Fiscal Cliff: Proposals to Extend the 2001-2010 Tax Cuts

    Frankly I'm fine with ending those tax credits. I'd prefer we stop issuing welfare via tax credits and instead just do the old fashion way.

    With that sad, I still maintain Boehner is the only one trying to come up with a deal. Boehner pulls out a plan that BARELY taxes the rich more and he gets laughed out of the chambers by REPUBLICANS. He literally put forth a modest, albeit stupid, proposal and republicans still rejected it. At this point Boehner's best option is to say "f*ck you, I'm out" and just become an armchair representative for the next 10 years.

    And democrats aren't much better. Obama is under the delusion that he has a mandate from the people. He doesn't. Yes, the majority think raising taxes on the rich is good but they also think lowering spending is good. Obama proposes no spending decreases. In fact, democrats are now coming out and saying the deficit is a made up crisis. The democrats seems to have already decided that they don't want to deal with republicans anymore and they have a good reason to think that. The downside is that we get nothing done.

    I've had to negotiate with a bunch of XXXXXX plenty of times; it is a tough skill. It's poor leadership if you can't manipulate people into thinking how you want them to think. Obama has poor leadership.

    I am having trouble understanding exactly WTF they are doing here. Boehner and the whitehouse had both said they thought they were close to an agreement. The whitehouse claimed they could get the democrats in the house to vote in favor, and Boehner would only have to deliver a handful of votes. Instead he threw that out and put forth "Plan B", which nobody was willing to support.
    I'm not sure this is true. Hard to sort out the rumors.

    They DID manage to pass a bill that would stop the automatic sequestration for the defense department...literally by taking the money directly from food stamps and meals on wheels.
    Ron Paul voted against it

    Does anybody understand this?
    I do. If you are a fiscally responsible person you have no representation in DC. If you are middle class, your taxes are going up.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Meh, This is kinda true and depends on your circumstances. It kills a few crappy tax credits that may or may not be used by the poor and middle class. The payroll tax cut is over anyway (on both sides) so who cares about that.

    Tax Policy Center did an analysis and found a -.1% change for those making 200-500k and an extremely small (basically even) for those making 500-1000k.

    The rough part about Plan B is that is raises taxes on the really poor more so than the really rich (2.4% versus 2.2%). This is mostly the result of the EITC and child care credit (or whatever its called).
    TPC Tax Topics | Fiscal Cliff: Proposals to Extend the 2001-2010 Tax Cuts

    Frankly I'm fine with ending those tax credits. I'd prefer we stop issuing welfare via tax credits and instead just do the old fashion way.
    The payroll tax cut never should have happened to begin with...here we are trying to figure out how to fix social security while at the same time halving its revenue? Never should have been done.

    I also agree that the EITC and child tax credits are foolish and should be done away with...your tax code is not the place for welfare programs.

    With that sad, I still maintain Boehner is the only one trying to come up with a deal. Boehner pulls out a plan that BARELY taxes the rich more and he gets laughed out of the chambers by REPUBLICANS. He literally put forth a modest, albeit stupid, proposal and republicans still rejected it. At this point Boehner's best option is to say "f*ck you, I'm out" and just become an armchair representative for the next 10 years.
    I am inclined to agree...if I was him I would resign as speaker and let the lunatics put in whoever they want. There are simply too many crazies and unreasonable people in the house. My own representative to the house (Tim Huelskamp) just made a complete and utter XXX of himself on Morning Joe. He basically said that he would never, ever, support a tax increase even if it came with massive spending cuts. He absolutely refuses to even consider the idea that maybe new revenues would help pay the bills.

    And democrats aren't much better. Obama is under the delusion that he has a mandate from the people. He doesn't. Yes, the majority think raising taxes on the rich is good but they also think lowering spending is good. Obama proposes no spending decreases. In fact, democrats are now coming out and saying the deficit is a made up crisis. The democrats seems to have already decided that they don't want to deal with republicans anymore and they have a good reason to think that. The downside is that we get nothing done.
    Obama proposed some spending cuts, but they were basically piddly.

    This is where extending the debt ceiling, or doing away with it, comes in. The democrats have not been very good negotiators in this whole thing. They have already conceded 70% of the non defense discretionary spending that the simpson Bowles commission suggested and have gotten nothing in return when it comes to revenue. Now we are in a situation where they have to negotiate a fiscal cliff deal, but do so knowing that in a couple of months they are going to be back at the table and the republicans are going to be demanding new concessions in order to avert debt ceiling suicide. Given the situation, I think any reasonable person would try to hold as much in reserve for later negotiations as they can. The dems have given up too much in the past, so they are running out of concessions they can reasonably make.

    At the end of the day, though, this is all dancing around the fact that it is medicare, SS, and defense spending that breaks us in the long term and neither side is willing to suggest the cuts needed to those programs that will actually allow them to be re-elected. I don't think there is actually support among the democrats for cutting them. They have this silly idea that we can afford to just raise taxes infinitely to pay for them. I agree we need to raise taxes, but we cannot possibly do it enough to support medicare in its current form. On the republican side there is a disconnect between the people they work for (average voters) and the people who fund their campaigns (corporations and extremely wealthy voters). The changes that their funders want include things like increasing eligibility age, reduced benefits, or even doing away with the programs completely and replacing medicare with a ludicrous voucher system that can not possibly work. They want that, but are not willing to "own" it because they would never be elected again...because their voters do NOT want those things. Not at all. Not even a little bit.

    Average voters ARE willing to do means testing for both programs. The solution that average voters support the most is means testing and increases on the payroll cap. The republicans are not willing to introduce those, though, because the folks who fund their elections are (obviously) very opposed to that idea.

    So the republicans have pretty much put themselves in the ludicrous position of trying to make the democrats propose the cuts that the republican election funders want, and are whining because the democrats refuse to do it. At the same time they are refusing any defense cuts, despite the fact that most americans now support cutting military spending.

    I've had to negotiate with a bunch of XXXXXX plenty of times; it is a tough skill. It's poor leadership if you can't manipulate people into thinking how you want them to think. Obama has poor leadership.
    Yes and no. It is one thing to have to negotiate with a bunch of XXXXXXXs. It is entirely another to try to negotiate with people like Huelskamp who flat our refuse to give up anything and whose demands are completely and totally unreasonable. You cannot negotiate with the insane or with people who have a completely detached view of reality. Two groups cannot negotiate when each finds the others desired result to be completely detestable. Nobody ever suggested that negotiating with hitler to only kill half the jews would have been a good thing.

    In large part that seems to be the situation we are in. You have the democrats who seem to be working toward what is in many cases a dystopian socialist agenda. They seem to have the "to each according to needs" part down, but have discarded the "from each according to ability" part in favor of having a large part of the population that does not provide anything at all...they just take.

    On the republican side they seem to be working toward what is essentially a modified feudal economic system where you have the vast majority of your society working diligently to support the few extremely wealthy. Those who fall behind get left behind. It is essentially a drive to establish a Victorian era economy in modern America. This has not always been the republican position. If it was I would not be a registered republican.

    The other problem that we are running into as far as coming to any kind of agreement is the fact that the republicans apparently never learned one of the most important lessons in life, which is "be careful which bridges you burn". They were overconfident in their ability to unseat Obama and they pulled out all the stops to beat him. They went with a course of outright character assassination in order to beat him. They did not stick with the issues, or even his past actions, which are relevant in an election. Instead they went with a campaign of lies and innuendo. They questioned his integrity, his patriotism, his religion, even his citizenship. They absolutely went to the wall on it...then they still lost....now they are whining because the guy they spent so much time attacking is hard to deal with.

    I'm not sure this is true. Hard to sort out the rumors
    The senate passes Obamas plan...his original plan...and even Boehner has said that if they allowed a vote on it in the house, it would pass.

    I am thinking maybe one of the problems is that we need to take as serious look at and revise congressional rules. Currently with the republicans in control of the house, the democrats may as well not even bother showing up because the only things that are going to reach the floor for a vote are things that the republicans approve. We need to do away with this...change the rules so that if 1/3 of house members vote to bring a bill to vote, it gets voted on. In the senate we need to change filibuster rules....it used to be that in order to filibuster a bill, somebody had to actually get up there and talk. They have done away with that. That is wrong. If a party, or a group of senators, wants to filibuster a bill, make them get up there and talk the entire time. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As things currently stand, one side can pretty much say they are filibustering any bill they don't like and it is effectively dead. That should not be the case. Make them work for it and you would see a lot less of it.

    Ron Paul voted against it
    Yes. He did

    I do. If you are a fiscally responsible person you have no representation in DC. If you are middle class, your taxes are going up.
    That seems to be pretty much it. I am just confused about the political decisions the Republicans are making and am afraid that is it going to lead to a situation where they loose the house and we pretty much end up with a government solely controlled by the democrats with basically no restraint. The last election was not good for the republicans...they pretty much lost every seat that was actually contested, as well as a couple that were considered to be solidly republican. If the next round goes as badly for them, the democrats will own the house as well as having a supermajority in the senate. To me, that is a problem.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I am inclined to agree...if I was him I would resign as speaker and let the lunatics put in whoever they want. There are simply too many crazies and unreasonable people in the house. My own representative to the house (Tim Huelskamp) just made a complete and utter XXX of himself on Morning Joe. He basically said that he would never, ever, support a tax increase even if it came with massive spending cuts. He absolutely refuses to even consider the idea that maybe new revenues would help pay the bills.
    The republicans are borderline mentally handicapped (I saw a commercial telling me I can't use the word retard*d anymore). I was listening to the radio and the guy was saying "we don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem". Sadly, when you are $16 trillion in the hole you have both problems. If you really really really want to balance the budget than I'd support a five year plan that slowly raises taxes to a level that matches our spending. When people start foreclosing on their homes left and right perhaps you'll see some spending cuts so the tax rate goes down. Then again, I'm heartless sometimes.

    At the end of the day, though, this is all dancing around the fact that it is medicare, SS, and defense spending that breaks us in the long term and neither side is willing to suggest the cuts needed to those programs that will actually allow them to be re-elected. I don't think there is actually support among the democrats for cutting them. They have this silly idea that we can afford to just raise taxes infinitely to pay for them. I agree we need to raise taxes, but we cannot possibly do it enough to support medicare in its current form. On the republican side there is a disconnect between the people they work for (average voters) and the people who fund their campaigns (corporations and extremely wealthy voters). The changes that their funders want include things like increasing eligibility age, reduced benefits, or even doing away with the programs completely and replacing medicare with a ludicrous voucher system that can not possibly work. They want that, but are not willing to "own" it because they would never be elected again...because their voters do NOT want those things. Not at all. Not even a little bit.

    Average voters ARE willing to do means testing for both programs. The solution that average voters support the most is means testing and increases on the payroll cap. The republicans are not willing to introduce those, though, because the folks who fund their elections are (obviously) very opposed to that idea.

    So the republicans have pretty much put themselves in the ludicrous position of trying to make the democrats propose the cuts that the republican election funders want, and are whining because the democrats refuse to do it. At the same time they are refusing any defense cuts, despite the fact that most americans now support cutting military spending.
    That's a pretty good summary. Honestly though, social security and medicare do need to be cut to the point where it WILL hurt middle class to upper class citizens. Both need to be returned to a welfare program. Time to teach people about saving for retirement.

    Yes and no. It is one thing to have to negotiate with a bunch of XXXXXXXs. It is entirely another to try to negotiate with people like Huelskamp who flat our refuse to give up anything and whose demands are completely and totally unreasonable. You cannot negotiate with the insane or with people who have a completely detached view of reality. Two groups cannot negotiate when each finds the others desired result to be completely detestable. Nobody ever suggested that negotiating with hitler to only kill half the jews would have been a good thing.
    Well, the Hitler thing is a bit extreme and I don't think it is that bad. Your congressman is basically just EZ with a better home and paycheck. I promise you that it is totally possible to convince people like EZ that we are "cutting taxes" by reducing rates to 30% while cutting out basically every exemption. The effective tax rate goes up but EZ only sees 35 to 30 and smiles. Obama should go out there and say "we need to cut rates" and only talk about cutting rates. People will fall for it and taxes go up. You praise the republicans for such a great idea and how you gave up so much to let them have this win.

    I've used the tactic a million times. When dealing with dumb people use their stupidity to your advantage.

    The other problem that we are running into as far as coming to any kind of agreement is the fact that the republicans apparently never learned one of the most important lessons in life, which is "be careful which bridges you burn".
    Ha, the understatement of the day.

    That seems to be pretty much it. I am just confused about the political decisions the Republicans are making and am afraid that is it going to lead to a situation where they loose the house and we pretty much end up with a government solely controlled by the democrats with basically no restraint. The last election was not good for the republicans...they pretty much lost every seat that was actually contested, as well as a couple that were considered to be solidly republican. If the next round goes as badly for them, the democrats will own the house as well as having a supermajority in the senate. To me, that is a problem.
    I'm learning swiss-german, what's your plan?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    The republicans are borderline mentally handicapped (I saw a commercial telling me I can't use the word retard*d anymore). I was listening to the radio and the guy was saying "we don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem". Sadly, when you are $16 trillion in the hole you have both problems. If you really really really want to balance the budget than I'd support a five year plan that slowly raises taxes to a level that matches our spending. When people start foreclosing on their homes left and right perhaps you'll see some spending cuts so the tax rate goes down. Then again, I'm heartless sometimes.
    Yea...the "don't have a revenue problem, its a spending problem" does serve at least 1 useful purpose...it identifies the mentally challenged right away.

    That's a pretty good summary. Honestly though, social security and medicare do need to be cut to the point where it WILL hurt middle class to upper class citizens. Both need to be returned to a welfare program. Time to teach people about saving for retirement.
    I think SS already hurts the middle class. Its not like you can actually live off of SS.

    I disagree on medicare. What we need to do to "fix" medicare is fix our medical system. Put together a panel that reviews current prescription drugs. If they are less dangerous than ASPRIN, make them over the counter. Depending on whose numbers you like, that would remove prescription requirements from 80-85% of drugs that currently require prescriptions. Reform prescription drug patent laws. Any drug that the government paid more than 50% of the R&D costs, let the manufacturer mark up 20%...a good profit margin. No more tacking a 1700% profit margin to drugs that our tax dollars paid the R&D costs for. Require price equality from doctors and hospitals so insurance companies actually have an incentive to work to lower health care costs. Put the "public option" back into play when it comes to health care in order to provide a price check against private insurers. It AMAZED me that the people who were most vocally against the public option were the "free marketers". If the private sector is actually more efficient, they should have no trouble beating the public option in price so long as we require that the public option be revenue neutral.

    If we made orthotricyclene and base antibiotics (amoxicillin, tetracycline, etc...) over the counter drugs, that would eliminate 30% of regular doctors visits in this country. Both of those are less dangerous than asprin.

    I guess I am not opposed to cutting medicare until it hurts the upper and middle class, but to do it while we have regulations in place to protect the profit margins of multi billion dollar corporations at the expense of medical consumers is just plain evil.

    Well, the Hitler thing is a bit extreme and I don't think it is that bad. Your congressman is basically just EZ with a better home and paycheck. I promise you that it is totally possible to convince people like EZ that we are "cutting taxes" by reducing rates to 30% while cutting out basically every exemption. The effective tax rate goes up but EZ only sees 35 to 30 and smiles. Obama should go out there and say "we need to cut rates" and only talk about cutting rates. People will fall for it and taxes go up. You praise the republicans for such a great idea and how you gave up so much to let them have this win.

    I've used the tactic a million times. When dealing with dumb people use their stupidity to your advantage.
    Ok...but how do we decide which exemptions to cut? A few are simple, like the the whole "carried interest" farce. Once you get past the easy ones, things get a lot trickier. We could redefine "income" to mean "any money that comes in", which would do away with capital gains, estate taxes, and most of the other dodges. Do you really want to do away with charitable deductions, though? I mean, they seem fair to me since you are not keeping that money, just handing it right off.

    My personal taxes are usually pretty simple. I write off business expenses, my kids, and my charitable deductions. Which of those do you want to take away?

    I'm learning swiss-german, what's your plan?
    I don't even have one right now. The problem is that scenarios always come in sets of 3, best case, worst case, and most probable. My "worst case" and "most probable" keep getting worse because every time I say "nobody can possibly be THAT stupid" I find out that yes...yes they can...and then some.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    Yea...the "don't have a revenue problem, its a spending problem" does serve at least 1 useful purpose...it identifies the mentally challenged right away.
    Unless of course you've already been identified from twenty or more other statements, then it's just superfluous to read anymore brain dead pathologically ignorant cynical useless baseless whiny comments.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    I disagree on medicare. What we need to do to "fix" medicare is fix our medical system. Put together a panel that reviews current prescription drugs. If they are less dangerous than ASPRIN, make them over the counter. Depending on whose numbers you like, that would remove prescription requirements from 80-85% of drugs that currently require prescriptions. Reform prescription drug patent laws. Any drug that the government paid more than 50% of the R&D costs, let the manufacturer mark up 20%...a good profit margin. No more tacking a 1700% profit margin to drugs that our tax dollars paid the R&D costs for. Require price equality from doctors and hospitals so insurance companies actually have an incentive to work to lower health care costs. Put the "public option" back into play when it comes to health care in order to provide a price check against private insurers. It AMAZED me that the people who were most vocally against the public option were the "free marketers". If the private sector is actually more efficient, they should have no trouble beating the public option in price so long as we require that the public option be revenue neutral.

    If we made orthotricyclene and base antibiotics (amoxicillin, tetracycline, etc...) over the counter drugs, that would eliminate 30% of regular doctors visits in this country. Both of those are less dangerous than asprin.

    I guess I am not opposed to cutting medicare until it hurts the upper and middle class, but to do it while we have regulations in place to protect the profit margins of multi billion dollar corporations at the expense of medical consumers is just plain evil.
    I just want medicare to be a welfare program. It's really a combination of problems that needs addressing. I've had the pleasure of working from time to time in hospital accounting...it's a mess. The basic overall concept seems to be "Our profits will be X, bill accordingly". From there it gets stranger and stranger. If you go to a hospital and the perform a routine ultrasound you pay the price for an ultrasound. I believe it is around $300-500 for that procedure (depending on what you have scanned). Now, the next patient comes in and complains of severe stomach pain. The SAME ultrasound is performed but now they can bill it as an emergency ultrasound and double the rate. No room for manipulation there . You also have doctors who will do numerous tests just to cover their XXX. They'll MRI anything that isn't the flu. That isn't an exaggeration either. I'll seen patient files. They see elevated white blood cell counts and next thing you know you're getting gamma rays in you. I'm not a doctor so that may be reasonable...so naturally I asked. It basically comes down to doctors having to be right 100% of the time because there are penalties for people coming back in or if they got it wrong. Tack on the drug costs and you get medical costs we have today. By the way, how is it legal for drug companies to charge US customers twice as much as customers from other countries? I get the feeling sometimes we are literally subsidizing health care costs for other countries.

    Anyway, I'm not even sure how you solve this problem. I talked to the CFO of a local hospital here a few months ago and he said "Look, doctors are not going to stop driving Mercedes". Where do you go from there?



    Ok...but how do we decide which exemptions to cut? A few are simple, like the the whole "carried interest" farce. Once you get past the easy ones, things get a lot trickier. We could redefine "income" to mean "any money that comes in", which would do away with capital gains, estate taxes, and most of the other dodges. Do you really want to do away with charitable deductions, though? I mean, they seem fair to me since you are not keeping that money, just handing it right off.

    My personal taxes are usually pretty simple. I write off business expenses, my kids, and my charitable deductions. Which of those do you want to take away?
    Basically all of them. People like EZ are simple people so use simple words. Create a villain as well. "Poor people have too many exemptions and are using the complicated tax rates to get refunds from the government! Did you know the average person making $35,000 or less pays NEGATIVE $500 in taxes!!! This has to be stopped! The best way is to lower rates on everyone and just make a few rates. Instead of having a payroll tax, income tax, and capital gains tax we should just have one tax; otherwise we just end up giving welfare via the tax code. People should NOT get more money back than they put in! Make it so you only get exemptions for your kids and charity while LOWERING the tax rates"....ETC ETC. All you do is get Heritage Foundation to by off on it and "present" it and you won over all the stupid people. Obama could have done this with ObamaCare but instead stole the idea first. Once you do that it is irrelevant that Heritage came up with the idea. Ha, the movie "inception" is actually not too far off base.

    I use it all the time in my job; which depends on it. Past presidents have used this tactic as well. I'd say Clinton was best at it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    I just want medicare to be a welfare program. It's really a combination of problems that needs addressing. I've had the pleasure of working from time to time in hospital accounting...it's a mess. The basic overall concept seems to be "Our profits will be X, bill accordingly". From there it gets stranger and stranger. If you go to a hospital and the perform a routine ultrasound you pay the price for an ultrasound. I believe it is around $300-500 for that procedure (depending on what you have scanned). Now, the next patient comes in and complains of severe stomach pain. The SAME ultrasound is performed but now they can bill it as an emergency ultrasound and double the rate. No room for manipulation there . You also have doctors who will do numerous tests just to cover their XXX. They'll MRI anything that isn't the flu. That isn't an exaggeration either. I'll seen patient files. They see elevated white blood cell counts and next thing you know you're getting gamma rays in you. I'm not a doctor so that may be reasonable...so naturally I asked. It basically comes down to doctors having to be right 100% of the time because there are penalties for people coming back in or if they got it wrong. Tack on the drug costs and you get medical costs we have today. By the way, how is it legal for drug companies to charge US customers twice as much as customers from other countries? I get the feeling sometimes we are literally subsidizing health care costs for other countries.

    Anyway, I'm not even sure how you solve this problem. I talked to the CFO of a local hospital here a few months ago and he said "Look, doctors are not going to stop driving Mercedes". Where do you go from there?
    I could support changing medicare to a welfare program IF we reform our healthcare system. Medicare came into being because private insurers were not interested in insuring the elderly. A healthy elderly person could get insurance coverage...at 3x the cost of a regular policy...but any health problems at all made them uninsurable. That is the problem with Ryans whole voucher scheme....humana and aetna have already said they would not participate in such a program and it is doubtful any other companies would either. 80% of your lifetime healthcare costs typically occur after the age of 65. No private insurer is going to be willing to be on the hook for those. In countries with nationalized health care the money paid in by younger, healthier people offsets the cost of health care for the elderly. Here in the US we do things a little differently. We let private insurance keep all the profitable accounts and took all the unprofitable ones public.

    Those other countries...the ones that pay half (or less) what we do in the US...are not requiring that the drug companies sell those medications at a loss. They set their prices based on the drug companies cost and allow a profit (10-25% depending on the country). We are not subsidizing their costs...we are just taking a raping that they refuse to take.



    Basically all of them. People like EZ are simple people so use simple words. Create a villain as well. "Poor people have too many exemptions and are using the complicated tax rates to get refunds from the government! Did you know the average person making $35,000 or less pays NEGATIVE $500 in taxes!!! This has to be stopped! The best way is to lower rates on everyone and just make a few rates. Instead of having a payroll tax, income tax, and capital gains tax we should just have one tax; otherwise we just end up giving welfare via the tax code. People should NOT get more money back than they put in! Make it so you only get exemptions for your kids and charity while LOWERING the tax rates"....ETC ETC. All you do is get Heritage Foundation to by off on it and "present" it and you won over all the stupid people. Obama could have done this with ObamaCare but instead stole the idea first. Once you do that it is irrelevant that Heritage came up with the idea. Ha, the movie "inception" is actually not too far off base.

    I use it all the time in my job; which depends on it. Past presidents have used this tactic as well. I'd say Clinton was best at it.
    I see what you are saying, and that seems to be the playbook the republicans are working from, except that from what I can tell the deductions they intend to do away with are primarily going to nail the middle and lower class.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    5
    That's a reasonably smart summary. Honestly, social insurance and Medicare do ought to be move the purpose wherever it'll hurt class to social class voters. Each should be come back to a welfare program. Time to show people regarding saving for retirement.


    UKROCKSALT | Cheapest White Rock Salt | UK Rock salt
    Last edited by Jordan55; 10-30-2013 at 05:45 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •