"Is Dr Paul full of BS?"
Yesterday, one of the posters on the discussion of Corporate Government on my previous blog asked me if I thought Dr. Paul was full of BS. She cited Dr. Paul's bulletin on the latest health care reform bill, pasted below.
Healthcare Reform is More Corporate Welfare by Dr. Ron Paul
"Last Wednesday the nation was riveted to the President’s speech on healthcare reform before Congress. While the President’s concern for the uninsured is no doubt sincere, his plan amounts to a magnanimous gift to the health insurance industry, despite any implications to the contrary.
read the rest here: http://www.house.gov/htbi...
My response:
Dear KimSATX,
No, I do not think Dr. Paul is full of BS, whether I agree with him or not.
I'm not sure which bill Dr. Paul was referring to. If it's the Baucus compromise/capitulation bill, which requires coverage for everyone without offering a government alternative, I totally agree with Dr. Paul.
That bill requires that everyone buy insurance from the insurance companies and provides subsidies to those who can't afford the outrageous rates. For other reasons also cited by Dr. Paul, the bill is designed to solve no problems whatsoever, cost the taxpayers a fortune, and get everyone really really angry. That bill is an insurance company and Republican creation. The insurance companies, because the government will force everyone to buy their product, subsidize poor people and continue to keep the most unprofitable people (elders) off their roles via Medicare. The Republicans love it because they know the plan is a loser. Having helped engineer it, they'll use it to attack the Democrats as soon as it's passed. Dr. Paul is right on the mark. (Why the Democrats would be stupid enough to go for it is a question beyond the present discussion.)
However, when we're talking about keeping Elected Government out of health care, people should realize that Elected government is already covering everyone anyway. That's because: A) a hospital can't legally turn away someone who shows up at the emergency room and B) when healthy uninsured people have catastrophic medical problems, they can declare bankrupcy and get on Medicaid, and guess who pays for that? I don't know what your income is, but if you aren't pulling in 200+ K per year or covered at work, you're one cancer diagnosis away from bankruptcy unless you're paying protection to the insurance industry. Until, as a country, we're ready to just let people die because they can't pay their medical bills, then we're stuck with covering people one way or the other. If we're going to cover people anyway, as we are, an efficient government plan is a lot better way to deal with this than letting the Corporates run it and forcing the taxpayers to clean up their mess.
I would like to see Dr. Paul's explanation for how the Free Market could solve this problem: I don't see it in that post. The ideas he notes: house calls, cash only, membership to hospitals, are all good ideas, but cannot by themselves reform the system. House calls were once done, but were squeezed out over time. As to cash-only for doctores, if you're a working man or woman earning $60K/year, it's kind of hard to pay for your kid's emergency surgery on a cash basis.
Again, if we're willing to simply let people die as we used to, (and as they do in the 3rd world), some of these problems go away, but not most of them.
One last thought: people call the idea of government health care Fascism and such . . ., sometimes muddying arguments that are otherwise thoughtful. I think it's a good idea take a moment to think about what Fascism really was/is, and decide whether that's the appropriate word. Fascists murdered tens of millions of people and reduced Europe to ashes. They weren't simply proposing a better health care system. The Corporations and their patrons have done an excellent job of turning the health care issue into a Patriotic (capital P) issue, but maybe it's not so unpatriotic to let Elected Government take a crack at solving the problem. As bad as it may be, it's the only (elected) one we've got.
Novelist Stuart Archer Cohen is the author of The Army of the Republic (Picador), a novel about an American insurgency. His previous novels have been translated into 10 languages. www.StuartArcherCohen.com
Facts Man: What you don't
Facts Man: What you don't seem to get is that a government option is like the government sitting down at a table of Texas Hold'em with an unlimited buy in versus the rest of the players that do not. Because the government can and always will create legislation to give itself the favorable position and / or operate at a loss, undercutting private competition but then deferring to the taxpayer for the difference. Because that is the deciding difference between government and private corporation. When a private corporation operates inefficiently, they are supposed to go bankrupt and out of business leaving the playing field for those who do not. When a government operates inefficiently, it always defers to the taxpayer to make up the loss, increasing taxes or increasing inflation to make up the difference. If private corporations start to fail because of this, either the government option will eventually be the only option, or the government will bail out those companies if the government feels it is not sufficient enough yet to cover the whole populace by itself, taking partial ownership potentially, but definitely also deferring to the taxpayer yet again in order to do this. Bottom line is, the taxpayer loses, and eventually we are left with complete single payer.
I thought disrespectful
My conclusion from this post is These are two egotistical people who don't need to quit their day job anytime soon for politics. My you sure think mighty high of yourself to talk as you do so down to Ron Paul.
"I would like to see Dr. Paul's explanation for how the Free Market could solve this problem: I don't see it in that post. The ideas he (the good DR.) notes: house calls, cash only, membership to hospitals, are all good ideas, but cannot by themselves reform the system. House calls were once done, but were squeezed out over time.."
Have some respect. How many years have you been in congress? How many babies have you delivered? You should get your facts straight before you go off like that (are u really a a RP fan or just on DP) I don't like comments such as this where the original writer isn't even part of the debate. I'm sure if he wasn't so busy, he could explain the details to you or debate you. But cheap shots and open ended claims are just not needed.
And pick a better heading next time too.
The more I learn - the more I realize ...The less I know .
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is! vital."http://facebook.com/lovecarolpaul http://ronpaulgirl.com http://facebook.com/ronpaulgirls
the Paul's anniversary is Feb 1st (I suggest Carol Paul Money Bomb)
Okay, so . . .
Okay, so, you're outraged on Dr. Paul's behalf. Now tell me how the ideas in that post will reform the health care system.
The Army of the Republic
In regards to the argument
In regards to the argument about insurance coming into the picture and doubling the cost of medical care, I would argue that the reason for the increase wasn't primarily because of the insurance companies themselves but rather all of the sudden the industry had much bigger pockets to take from.
Of course, as long as someone has the ability to pass the buck they will do so. The government is no exception and the insurance companies are no exception.
See it goes like this: Average American family has X amount of money available for medical care. Remember also back then the notion of credit availability was much less as well. Less than 25% of all American households had credit cards pre 1973. Go back further than that and even a checking account was a luxury.
Doc cant get away with charging too much because American family only has X. This helps keep prices in control. Does Doc deserve to make a lot of money? Sure .. but he doesnt deserve to have to pay ridiculous insurance costs due to lawyer happy frivilous malpractice suits either. Nor should he have to pay 4 full time administrative assistants to run his office because Uncle Sugar has him bogged down with compliance costs as well as 20 different insurance companies having 20 different ways of doing thing.
See cash is great. Its easy to deal with. You pay it, it goes in the register, its that simple. Beyond basic bookkeeping and medical records not much else is required. Its cheap and efficient.
Anyway Insurance Company steps in. Unlike typical American family who has $1000 in the bank, Insurance Company has 500 million in the bank. Doc looks at that and says, well .. its not like you cant afford it. I'm charging X times 2 for my services now.
Insurance company doesnt like complying, but really doesnt mind it either. Afterall, its justification to raise premiums on its customers. Oops .. costs went up. Since we calculate profit based on percentages, the greater the sale, the greater the profit.
It becomes a symbiotic relationship.
Having consumers having more direct control of their own dollars for more of their own medical expenses (not all!) would have an effect of driving costs down, which in turn would have an effect of keeping the costs down of even those major ticket items that become insurable.
Routine, regular, expected medical expenses should be planned for, budgeted for, and paid for in CASH as much as possible.
This is what HSA's are for.
HSA's? Old Hat
Been there, done that. HSA were created to have the banks take more of your money while they pay little, or no, interest. They are only for paying the high out of pocket costs that occur on all insurance plans. While Insurance Co's deserve to take some of the blame, the largest part of the problem of double digit rising health care costs has been the unchecked greed of the doctors, hospitals, and drugco's. There has never been price or quality competition, and nothing will change unless major reform takes place in America.
And HSA's are pre-tax
And HSA's are pre-tax dollars anyway so the fact that banks may or may not pay interest on those accounts is of little consequence. Even if your tax bracket at the end of the year is a paltry 10% you just came close to beating out the best average the stock market could ever hope to give you on an extended investment anyway.
You're not paying attention.
You're not paying attention. Greed can only take what is there, Greed cannot take what is not there. The fact that so many health care goods and services are paid for by insurance companies with deep pockets is what allows the Greed to expand into that space. When each consumer has limited funds available to pay for some goods and services it drives the prices down because their pockets are not nearly so deep and their willing ness to part with money that is theirs is not so great.
Cash is the answer. If you know damn well that you and your kids come down with the flu once per year, that is something you can plan on and budget for. The purpose of insurance is not to give people an excuse to be lazy with their finances. It is for catastrophic, unforeseen, and illregular occurrences.
Lasik is the prime example of this. If Lasik were covered by insurance it would still cost several thousand dollars. Because the insurance companies that have Billions in cash would just defer the costs to the consumers in the way of premiums. They'd spread the cost out no matter how many people got the service.
But because Lasik is NOT covered by insurance they had to adjust their price based on real free market forces. People in mass were not willing to shell out 5,000 per eye for Lasik surgery, so they had to make it cheaper to get more customers to increases their over-all revenue.
Lasik now costs less than $500 per eye if you arent stupid enough to sign up for a payment plan and pay cash.
The more minor stuff you pay in cash the more those minor goods and services costs go down. Because major goods and services are also comprised of multitudes of smaller goods and services, the cost savings will also be realized by major events as well that are covered by insurance.
Sthomas, pay attention to this!
You imply that the average American can pay a claim of $100,000 to over 1 Million by tapping into their friendly HSA, thereby bypassing the need for health insurance. You're out of touch with reality to expect that, and the facts are that unpaid medical costs due to being uninsured or underinsured has been the largest cause of bankruptcy in America for decades. However you inadvertently proved my point that there is no price competition for major health care services with your correct reference to the reduction in costs for the now highly competitive market for Lasik Surgery, which is neither covered by health insurance, nor is a catastrophic cost. The facts are that the AMA restricts the numbers that enter Med Schools around the country, and also suggests the increases in the costs of services yearly that their members hike with lockstep obedience. Nothing but the public option will change that, and what the readers here need to understand with this issue, just like fraud with Investment Banks and Wall Street, is that Capitalism without meaningful competition or regulation=piracy.
No, YOU pay attention to
No, YOU pay attention to THIS: An HSA has a HDHP component to it by definition, all the cash component covers the deductible which might be $5000 per year, or more, or less, depending on the type of coverage you wish to purchase.
Your average American wont have to pay a claim of $100,000 to $1 Million out of their HSA, but if they do have the money, and if they do find themselves in a position where either Medicare, a Health Insurance company, or the government makes a decision that the cost is too great for the patient, at least the patient will have the choice of purchasing the care themselves with their own money.
Government and Private Insurance make these determinations all the time, and it is their right to do so. Its their money. Only when you are in control over your own cash do you have the greatest amount of freedom and flexibility and control. Thats all this does, is increase that.
Sthomas
Once again, you have the myopic vision that HSA's are a cure all to the train wreck that is our health care delivery system. Can't you grasp the reality that HSA's have been around for at least 5 years, have solved very little, if anything, and have lined the Banker's pockets by having HSA cash w/o paying competitive interest rates? Why to you insist on repeating the nonsense about HSA's, why you're silly enough to disregard that the payment of catastrophic claims OVER $5,000 is THE reason that what we need health insurance for in the first place. HSA's have nothing to do with the real problems of affordability, quality, insurability and being screwed with no coverage of a pre-existing condition. There is no "free market solution" to a system that victimizes the insured and is completely compliant about passing double digit yearly increases in med inflation down to the middle class. There is neither quality or price competition for medical services in this country, and the problem outlined above will only get worse w/o major comprehensive reform of our health care delivery system. Put your head in gear and wrap yourself around these realities before you waste anyone's time with repetitious, and irrelevant NON solutions.
You're a fool and a waste of
You're a fool and a waste of my time. I've already explained everything in detail, and I will not repeat, as it is not possible to type any slower so that you might comprehend.
Thought
you might like to watch these videos.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/111000
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
jesus christ. when will
jesus christ. when will there be any rationale to this argument. it seems every rational statement on health care has been completely ignored here, just as much as the msm. this is the reality of the left/right paradigm, where the left thinks health insurance started in the free market and the right believes the same. so, the left wants a government run, single payer system. and the right wants there to be more insurance "competition". can you look past canada, europe and the u.s., and see the reality of what happens in a free market? it's pretty nice, if you've ever seen one in action, if you've ever decided to break your statist ways and give up your search for the light on wikipedia.
>jesus christ. when will
>jesus christ. when will there be any rationale to this argumen<
Why you call Jesus... wasn't he kind of communist ???
>can you look past canada, europe and the u.s., and see the reality of what happens in a free market? it's pretty nice, if you've ever seen one in action,<
I have never seen one in action. Have you seen it? Where???
Could you be more specific? I saw reality of what happens in "free market" not on you tube video or MSM tv but with my own eyes... for 5 years I have worked as sailor on merchant ships... Where can I see free market ... In China? India? Congo? Haiti? Argentina? Libya? Iran? Kuwait? Tell me where is this free market ...where is this Shangri-La ???
perhaps you spent too much time
perhaps you spent too much time on the ship and not enough time on land.
the jesus christ part was more of a sigh than a call to jesus. but every story i've ever heard about jesus never made him a communist. i don't think he'd be too fond of police states and imperialism.
anyway...india, correct. i spent two years between there and nepal. their health care market is nearly a free market system. i recommend you check it out. the states just like ours have their rights and responsibilities, and most happen to choose to leave the health care market alone. not necessarily a completely free market system, but the tools and effects are there. competition between hospitals, ashrams, pharmacies, chemists, doctors etc. no prescription or insurance mandates. insurance companies are nearly non existent because of low prices.
i recommend taking a trip there. stay there long enough to get nice and sick, so you can call a doctor to your home for amazing service.
>but every story i've ever
>but every story i've ever heard about jesus never made him a communist. i don't think he'd be too fond of police states and imperialism.<
Neither me... but do you think he would be fond of corporate greed and oppose idea of helping less fortunate by those that have more...very often more they really need? Do you really think he would oppose UniversalHealth system because it is "unjust" taxation... Access to holly temple was controlled by money changers and he didn't like this ... his teachings was about compassion...about people helping other people... not about worshiping free market ideas... What he would say about those that pay themselves millions from pool of money collected for purpose of protecting life and health..
Don't get me wrong I was raised Catholic but I am not very religious man... most organized religions are nothing else than highest form of Corporation ( totally exempt from taxation)... created for profit... and control.
There is a lot talk about greed... doctors greed, corporate greed but there is one more greed that is not so often mentioned...
...our personal greed!
I am taxed less than $30 every two weeks for Medicare... that means I have to give up 1 large pepperoni pizza for my family every week...but this "incredible financial sacrifice" pays for medical services of all those old folks.... including my mother in law... thanks to this "government extortion" I don't have to pay medical expenses for my mother in law or tell her you have to be sick and die because I can't afford to take care of you.
If my $15 per week solve problem of population that generally is less healthy than those insured by private corporations why not to create medicare for everybody??? Greed of doctors and malpractice lawyers can't be solved without government regulation... I am not for forcing doctors to accept government rates...doctors should be free to offer their services for those that can afford to pay cash but if they want to get money from medicare they have to negotiate rates and payments the same like millitary industry... Manufacturers of F-16s or Patriot missiles don't have option to sell their product on free market and they are still in bussines... doctors will have right to sell their services to both sectors... government sector would be too big to ignore... money do not stink because they come from taxpayers pocket...
Of course there is also option to have India in America but you know what... I am not really sure if I want my grandson become slumdog millionaire...
in regards to your slumdog
in regards to your slumdog comment, poverty has always existed in india for the interventionist policies of colonialism in it's history. and the country's health care has helped to eradicate a massive portion of malnutrition and other widespread health problems caused by famine. their location, which sees monsoons twice a year for months at a time is also cause for famines. so, this is a prime example of the failures of statist logic. you can't blame india's health care for the problems that have already existed for numerous other reasons. their health care has helped get rid of a significant portion of those problems.
that must be some gourmet pizza. either that, or i haven't gone out for pizza in a while and the cost has gone up with inflation just as much as health care. as a vegetarian, thirty bucks buys me a weeks worth groceries. as far as those taxes go, states have the authority to do exactly what you're talking about. the federal government does not, and for a good reason. the money that is closer to your community is easier to control. though medicare provides a lot of care to elder people, there are huge problems with the budget and fascism with the big pharmaceutical companies. asking the federal government for more regulation will not put any more regulations on the insurance or pharmaceutical industry. those regulations will come straight to people like us, who may have the good ideas needed to cure diseases but have to pay 100 million dollars for a patent. and those regulations will be written by someone behind the scenes, who is an insider for of one of those industries. this is also the problem with cost. when the supply of healthcare goes down, and the money supply goes up, the cost of health care skyrockets. and that is the problem with doctor's not accepting medicare then, because almost no one has the cash to drop into the emergency room to pay for a broken arm or treatment for pneumonia out of pocket. the doctor's shouldn't have to rely on health care costs not going up with inflation.
single payer health care is only welfare for pharmaceutical industries. you cannot use your medicare card to go to an ayurvedic or homeopathic doctor. but you can use it to go to the emergency room to get an injection of synthetic medicine, which will make you worse in the long run, and more reliant on the drug in the future, drowning your immune system out for a natural cure or treatment.
the only reason insurance companies exist, is because we brought government into health care, with medicare, medicaid hmo's etc. so, this whole notion of free market health care insurance doesn't hold the water.
annica2
You are factually incorrect to state that insurance companies exist "because we brought government into health care, with medicare, medicaid, hmo's, etc.. Under 65 health insurance has been around long before the advent of medicare and such. The doctors and hospitals created Blue Cross and Blue Shield Insurance for the simple expedient of getting paid promptly for 90% of even the largest claim. Other private insurers soon joined "The Blues" to compete for the uninsured. You're also mistaken that government regulations would not lower the reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals. The fact is Medicare has always done that, and is a very effective and well run program. Obamacare's public option would do nothing more then extend Medicare coverage to those who chose it to those under 65 as well. As for your sympathy for Doctors and Hospitals keeping up with inflation, save your breath. The reality is that general inflation has been averaging about 3% a year for the last decade, while med inflation has been consistently over 10%.
you're talking about cpi.
you're talking about cpi. the cpi of mainstream medicine has gone up because government is involved in it, as opposed to say... the price of natural medicine and acupuncture, which the feds have not involved themselves. so, my breath is saved only for your comment.
you've given obama the benefit of the doubt with your comments about a public option. you may be the first obama supporter i've debated here. medicare is not well run and not effective. taxes do not keep up with it. the demand for health care has always been higher than taxes can keep up with.(not to mention the loss of liberty at the indvidual level is not worth it.) that is why every nation with a single payer system, rations medicine and services for the elderly. medicare has also definitely not lowered reimbursement rates at all. it is impossible to do that with the rate of inflation and the effects of inflation in medicine.
i suppose a better way of saying it is, the current insurance industry did not exist before government was involved in medicine and health care. blue cross was not initially a health insurance company. they were private managers of health and medical expenses, which meant the client didn't have to pre pay at the hospital. if we wanted to count every accident insurance that has ever existed, we can go back pre 1850. but the current system was proposed in 1964( a little history http://www.bcbs.com/about/history/1950s.html), conveniently after government's involvement in subsidizing steel worker's health care and passing the federal employees health benefits act just before medicare and hmo's. today there are 470 thousand people working in the health insurance industry. i can safely say that that system exists because of government involvement. the supply is diminished and the demand continues to go up, while the subsidies go toward medicine that will make people worse in the long run.
>as far as those taxes go,
>as far as those taxes go, states have the authority to do exactly what you're talking about. the federal government does not, and for a good reason. the money that is closer to your community is easier to control.<
Well, all the anger over the wasteful federal spending do not change the fact that most states and local taxation do not better... where is this control in my state... Medicare tax I pay every week is cost of large pepperoni pizza in Pizza Hut ... but my property tax in just 6 years rose from 3.8K to 8.5k...do you know how many weeks worth of groceries I could buy if I were like you vegetarian and did not have to pay this property extortion tax?
I think that federal government is in some way under bigger public scrutiny than local authorities...
>. though medicare provides a lot of care to elder people, there are huge problems with the budget and fascism with the big pharmaceutical companies.<
Budget defficit has more to do with fractional reserve banking system and imperial ambitions than with all social programs combined. Medicare, SS is funded by you and me... not by government... the problem is the government takes those funds and use them to finance 600 military bases around the globe...wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, bailouts for Chrysler and GM, Savings and Loans, Wall Street Banks... those money collected for medical care and retirement benefits are used to pay for war on drugs, DEA, FDA, CIA, FBI, NSA, EPA and countless other things that have nothing to do with original purpose those money were collected. When those crooks say SS is broke it means that they spend all those money for other things and to replace them they have to borrow money from Rothchilds and China to pay you promised benefits .
>asking the federal government for more regulation will not put any more regulations on the insurance or pharmaceutical industry.<
Asking thieves to not steal will have same effects... you have to replace crooks with honest people who will represent you... not a Goldman Sachs.
>and those regulations will be written by someone behind the scenes, who is an insider for of one of those industries<
Again, those regulation are written by those... and for those... that congress represent... Congressman and senators represent interest and welfare of big corporations...
Sometimes I have feeling that even on DP and Tea Party Rallies good folks do the job that force corporation lobbyst to pay millions to crooks in Congress... and they do it for free...
No more regulation!!! Those already in place works perfectly for us... Socializing losses and privatizing profits.... are good for us... outsorcing is good for us, and for the rest we have free market...
Hey folks if democratically elected government/statism is so evil maybe we should demand to get rid off elections... lets free market decide who will create the law and govern this country...
just wonder how much senator position would cost in totally free market... what do you think...?
this is the thing. people
this is the thing. people who believe in liberty are forced to prove freedom works under statist conversations with people who have no understanding of what happens when we are free people.
a "senator position" for "cost" in a free market is an oxymoron. there are very few people here calling for an end to government itself. and also very few people here who have an understanding of what happens in a free market. but at least most here are calling for a return to the constitution.
"Medicare, SS is funded by you and me... not by government..."
i will agree with that, if you will agree that nothing is funded by government. in the words of peter schiff: "government doesn't have any wealth. government has a printing press."
budget deficits are a problem, but the resulting debt is a much bigger problem. the reason there is a budget problem with medicare is because we are taxed so many dollars for the chart government gives us, and those tax dollars aren't enough to fund what we currently have, much less a completely single payer system. (canada has a population of 30 million. we have 330 million.) so, future generations will be taxed even more, for the fascism we have right now. we can't just blame the debt on one thing or the other that we don't like. medicare, war, bailouts, stimulus. it is all a problem. you can't just pick and decide which of these are the most unconstitutional and decide that those are the problem. all of them are unconstituional and all of them are the problem.
pizza hut pizza where i live is 10 bucks for a large. you also must have a huge house. 8k is nearly 4 times the highest amount per capita in property taxes in the country. theoretically, if you have a problem with high property taxes, you can move to another state. the average person in arkansas and alabama pay around 475 in property taxes. you can't move to another state if you have a problem with medicare or any other tax at the federal level. i agree that local governments get completely out of hand, and i give my government here more hell than they give me for that. ad valorem taxes are terrible, and if the federal government thought they could get away with that as well, they would.
>the reason there is a
>the reason there is a budget problem with medicare is because we are taxed so many dollars for the chart government gives us, and those tax dollars aren't enough to fund what we currently have, much less a completely single payer system. (canada has a population of 30 million. we have 330 million.)<
What if every person living in USA contributed $10 every week to NOT FOR PROFIT Health Insurance fund... for my family of five it would cost me $50 per week... Multiply $10 by 330 milions.. you have 3.3 billions multiply it again by 52 and you have $150 billions per year... not enough???
OK,
...What if that non for profit organization created legislation that will allow doctors from India open and operate clinics and hospitals in USA ...
I bet they will be very happy to work here... domestic bloodsuckers will no longer charge a few thousands per night for stay in hospital bed...presidential suites in Ritz hotel are cheaper...
competition is a key... let American doctors and American Hospitals compete for that pool of $150 billions.......the same way American working people ... outsource medical care to India....airfare to India can be much cheaper that bill for some medical tests... I bet appendix surgery and recovery stay together with airfare costs will be half cost of the same service in your local county hospital...
You see we could have medical care as good and affordable as acording to you people enjoy in almost free market India
And imagine for a while that this NON FOR PROFIT organization named itself Government of United States of America...
And imagine how many millions of people would enjoy freedom of not being slave to current job they keep just because of insurance benefits they can't afford because their kid or spouse have preexisting condition...
And imagine peace of mind that $10 every week... $1.25 a day.. would buy you...
Capitalism in the U.S. has reduced the lives of human beings to a question of PROFITS for corporations... if founding fathers were living today I believe they would not oppose such "not for profit fund"... they wanted establish justice, domestic tranquility and promote general wefare...
You will not solve budget deficit and debt by allowing Corporate extortion of sick people but you can drastically reduce deficit by stopping wars and reducing monstrous military spending. Free market will not make Corporations go away and it is not love of free market that bribes congressmans and senators but insane profits for those bloodsuckers. The money spent on war in Iraq alone would pay for Medicare for All. Go ahead and support those scumbags that produce nothing deliver nothing and pay themselves millions, send them e-mail and ask them for donation to DP...
you can start with those below:
The top twenty health insurance and drug company executives earned $285 million in 2008. JUST TWENTY PEOPLE!
PER HOUR PAY:
Miles White - Abbott - $17,395
Fred Hassan - Schering-Plough - $15,677
Bill Weldon - Johnson & Johnson - $12,552
Ron Williams - Aetna - $12,656
H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA - $6,373 (denied liver transplant to 17 year old girl and she died)
Angela Braly - WellPoint - $5,127
... but be sure that if all supporters of Ron Paul share a hate toward Universal Health System there is little chance for this movement to change things...
>a "senator position" for "cost" in a free market is an oxymoron<
"Free market" is oxymoron also... is it market that you can get free things???
There were never communism, socialism or free market. Never in civilized world ... maybe in tribal communities of Amazon jungle you could find it... in more complex societies market is controled by those that have more power, wisdom, wealth and sometimes... courage.
"Multiply $10 by 330
"Multiply $10 by 330 milions.. you have 3.3 billions multiply it again by 52 and you have $150 billions per year... not enough???"
well, if every single man, woman and child in the u.s. worked and paid federal taxes, that would be reasonable. but that is not the case. and even if it were the case, i would not want to submit the entire population to another loss of liberty.
"...What if that non for profit organization created legislation that will allow doctors from India open and operate clinics and hospitals in USA ..."
many indian's already do that. many of the u.s's "best doctors in the world" (as many neo conservatives say) are from india. and many operate clinics that are cheaper than normal, corporate clinics. but not as cheap as they could be, if government left it's hand out of medicine.
"I bet they will be very happy to work here... domestic bloodsuckers will no longer charge a few thousands per night for stay in hospital bed...presidential suites in Ritz hotel are cheaper..."
don't you see? every single hospital and health care operation in the u.s. didn't just come together one day and decide they were all collectively going to make prices high. it takes government intervening, managing, rationing, imposing price controls etc. for this to happen. i don't prefer losing any liberty and empowering bureaucracy to have what will inevitably lead to fascism, if not from the very beginning. you're right, competition is the key, but not competing for the public trough. that is fascism.
"And imagine peace of mind that $10 every week... $1.25 a day.. would buy you... "
isn't that what government tells us consistently?
"Capitalism in the U.S. has reduced the lives of human beings to a question of PROFITS for corporations... if founding fathers were living today I believe they would not oppose such "not for profit fund"... they wanted establish justice, domestic tranquility and promote general wefare..."
i disagree. capitalism, socialism and corporatism are all completely different. i think the founding fathers would not oppose non profits in the private sector for the same reason i believe they wouldn't oppose unions working privately. promoting the general welfare means leaving people alone. not pretending to give welfare. you can't give welfare for the same reason you can't print wealth.
for that reason, the word universal should be taken out of all government run health plans. the 65 year old in england looking for eye surgery, but not being included in the plan, even though he pays his share of taxes in the plan is not universal. every other form of rationing that occurs on those lines is not rationing. this kind of rationing does not occur in india.
this is what free markets mean. freedom. incentive. not "free" stuff, and the loss of freedom.
>well, if every single man,
>well, if every single man, woman and child in the u.s. worked and paid federal taxes, that would be reasonable. but that is not the case.<
That is why I said I would gladly pay $50 a week to cover my wife two kids and 80 year old mother in law. It is still very reasonable isn't it??? Thank you for acknowledging it.
>and even if it were the case, i would not want to submit the entire population to another loss of liberty.<
Wrong !!! Wrong!!! Wrong!!! ....It would be the biggest case of gaining liberty... liberty of living without stress and fear, liberty of pursuing carrier not attached to employer sponsored health insurance... liberty of not paying miliions to a few hundred middleman that produce nothing, deliver nothing and sell nothing...their only skill is to find a ways to deny claims, dropping those that have serious illnesses and insure only those that are healthy.
Is having military, police or fire department loss of liberty?
Why taxes are OK to protect our lives from outside threats, crimes, fires but very bad for fighting diseases???
Why taxes are OK for building roads, bridges, to pay for basic education but are bad to build a health system that protect not only politicians, firefighters, postal workers, CIA/FBI/DEA/FDA agents, police officers, teachers, court judges and clerks, all municipal workers, military personel, prison population and retirement community... but also those... that pay for that protection.
OK, I know your answer... in free market all those people that currently have healthcare paid by federal or state taxes will pay for doctor/hospital from their pockets...
Are you ready to fight those people... I bet they will not join your revolution... I doubt they will give up their healthcare benefits for your promise of living in American India... Do you see millions of elderly marching along with police, military, FBI,CIA firefigters, teachers demanding "freedom" of paying their medical care from their pocket...I prefer vision of them shouting END THE FED, END THE WARS...
Fear of loosing liberty sometimes lead to it.
There was country in eastern Europe... big and prosperous for a few centuries... country that stretched from Black Sea to Baltic Sea... country where numerous ethnic groups lived peacefully... where different religious groups tolerated each other where protestant, orthodox, catholic churches coexisted with jewish synagoges and muslim mosques and country that never experienced religious war...country where illegal immigrants that were expelled from Spain and other western countries found the new home ... country where kings were elected by votes of thousands of nobles and single poorest noble man that own only a horse and sabre could stop the kings greed by yelling ''LIBERUM VETO!" Love of freedom was so great that they use this Liberum Veto anytime King wanted more power. Noble men hated strong centralized power, many of them had stronger private armies than King... and more serfs taxes in month than King in years... King was afraid of growing power of Catherine the Great's Imperial Russia, Frederick Wiliam's Prussia and AustrianHungarian empire.
Serfs hated noble man they loved the king... King with some of more "progressive/liberal" noble man worked out generally regarded as Europe's first and the world's second(after American) modern codified national constitution.
The Constitution introduced political equality between townspeople and nobility and placed the peasants under the protection of the government.
International corporations.... WTF am I writing???? I mean international powers could not stand such stupidity... free market of slave labor was at stake... what if such socialistic deassese would spread into other monarchy? Bribed by an interest or foreign powers domestic nobility do not supported king... they conspired with Catherine and William.
King's army was weaker than combined power of neigbours. The country I am writing about was erased from map of Europe for 123 long years... its people were forbiden to use their native languages in schools and offices and drafted to Russian and Prussian armies killing each other in the name of their prospective rulers. And nobility of this country... they wake up too late... they organized three major uprising that failed... and hundreds thousand of them were exiled to Siberia and those lucky ones lived as immigrants in France or Itally, they fought along Napoleon... in Spanish Sommosierra , Waterlloo and Borodino... some of them came even to this country to train American Cavalry and to die at the siege of Savannach...
one of them who organized the first and most succesful uprising was using his engineering skills to fortify West Point and fought with distinction under Gen. Nathanael Greene in the Carolina campaign. His name was very hard to pronounce but this is what Thomas Jefferson said about him:
"he is as pure a son of liberty as I have ever known"
This guy with hard to pronounce name said in 1794 when he was appointed commander in chief of an armed insurection...
""I swear to the whole nation that I shall not use the power vested in me for private oppression but that I shall exercise this power only in the defense of the whole of the frontiers and to regain the independence of the Nation and to establish universal freedom."
He said it in front of thousands of noble man and peasants.
Do we have right to Universal Freedom?
What if somebody honest will swear it in regards to Universal Health Care.
"That is why I said I would
"That is why I said I would gladly pay $50 a week to cover my wife two kids and 80 year old mother in law. It is still very reasonable isn't it??? Thank you for acknowledging it."
if you like that, since you're working, why don't you use that 50 bucks and buy into the same system, by using that 50 bucks to buy hmo managed insurance? personally, i don't recommend it. 50 bucks for 52 weeks is 2,600 dollars. for that amount, i could fly to india, have an excellent vacation and get everything i wanted done, without signing my health over to a bureacracy and empowering them to more of my labor.
"Why taxes are OK to protect our lives from outside threats, crimes, fires but very bad for fighting diseases???
Why taxes are OK for building roads, bridges, to pay for basic education but are bad to build a health system that protect not only politicians, firefighters, postal workers, CIA/FBI/DEA/FDA agents, police officers, teachers, court judges and clerks, all municipal workers, military personel, prison population and retirement community... but also those... that pay for that protection."
i recommend you check out the difference between direct and indirect taxes before making this argument again. also, i want no government in education, ever, period. and no federal involvement with state projects, like roads and bridges. also, no federal prisons. and certainly no cia, fbi dea and fda's etc. so, this argument needs a little tweaking.
"Wrong !!! Wrong!!! Wrong!!! ....It would be the biggest case of gaining liberty... "
in what way is liberty gained by empowering yet another bureacracy at the federal level, not only to kill the 10th amendment, but to kill the right to your own labor and wage?
"Are you ready to fight those people... I bet they will not join your revolution..."
no thanks. i'm a lover, not a fighter.
"This guy with hard to pronounce name said in 1794 when he was appointed commander in chief of an armed insurection..."
yes! his name is tadeusz kosciuszko. of course he said he will protect universal freedom. universal freedom is exactly the opposite of a national single payer health care system funded by stealing people's money they rightfully earned. that is why i said earlier that the word universal should be taken out of the description, because liberty is lost and access is not universal. free market health care should be called universal health care. because everyone in a free market has the individual incentive to make medicine, buy services from the market, provide services etc. that is what i call universal.
Competition
is the answer to bringing down health care. You say people can't pay cash for operations but my brother has. He has no health care and he has paid back as he was able and he's not rich. I remember when the doctor came to the house and I remember when health insurance came on the scene, prices doubled. Health insurance used to be for the big problems now it is for even the little head cold visits. Europe is a mess and so is Canada, I live near the border and their doctors and nurses come to the US to work and their citizens come here for health care because we have the equipment and staff they don't. Now, the big thing is to fly to India and have your surgery and a vacation at the same time. When this health care scam passes the rich will fly to India and the poor will be stuck with aging, short staffed, uncaring and insanely long waiting periods to see a doctor. So, I guess that leaves us at a stand still. You say tomato I say tomato let's call the whole thing off. lol As usual, warm fuzzy big government promises and ice water reality.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
>I remember when the doctor
>I remember when the doctor came to the house and I remember when health insurance came on the scene, prices doubled.<
Yes, that is why we have get rid off for profit insurance industry.
If you remember those times you remember also that families were able to afford mortgage when only one person was working and other was taking care of kids...right now two person work for a living and they struggle to pay the bills.
>Europe is a mess and so is Canada,<
Did you see millions illegals from Canada and Europe coming to live here? If it is so much better to work and having medical care here why Canadians, Germans, French, Italians, Dutch, Sweds, Norwegians... do not have to apply for tourist visas if they want to see Grand Canyon or ... a DOCTOR ???
Why you don't see mass demonstration and riots in Europe demanding healthcare reform? Why even the most conservative politicians like Margaret Thatcher did not try to get rid off Universal Health Care?
Why all former communist countries in Eastern Europe after fall of communism still hold to Universal Health System?
I will tell you why... because people there like it so much that any politician opposing it would get no more than 5 percent of votes. I was living for 25 years in communist country and I have lived 26 years in USA... the horror stories of long lines, waiting periods and substandard care are exagerations and propaganda... I never waited more than an hour to see a doctor and when I was teenager the few day stay at hospital was a result of concerned physician after I donated some of my blood. During that stay I had all medical tests done including biopsy of liver not because doctor was afraid of wrong diagnosis or to inflate profits but because he was concerned about health of human being... for those 26 years I live in USA I was only once in doctor office but my wife had experienced medical care numerous times over the years and from her experiences I can say that doctors here are more concerned about malpractice suit and profit margin than welfare of patient.
>When this health care scam passes the rich will fly to India and the poor will be stuck with aging, short staffed, uncaring and insanely long waiting periods to see a doctor.<
I wish the rich fly to India and stay there...their healthcare will be in the same place where their buissnesses currently are.
What we have right now is the biggest medical scam ever existed ...
...extortion money from healthy population (those that don't have preexisting condition) to pay billions to CEO and shareholders...and dumping sick to be taken care by taxpayers... Only complete brainwashed idiots cannot see that burden placed not only on individual taxpayers but also most businesses.
What we have right now s the most stupid, inefficient system that is bancrupting the country and citizens.
The only bigger than Private Insurance Corporation scam Is FED and fractional reserve banking scam... period!
>>>I remember when the
>>>I remember when the doctor came to the house and I remember when health insurance came on the scene, prices doubled.<
Yes, that is why we have get rid off for profit insurance industry.
If you remember those times you remember also that families were able to afford mortgage when only one person was working and other was taking care of kids...right now two person work for a living and they struggle to pay the bills.<<
Holy crap, Janusz .. you and I are on the same team! These are exactly my complaints about the current economic system, and what I am attempting to resolve via what I am talking about.
You are exactly right! See I learned from my grandfather. When I was about 10 years old he gave me a beautiful 1886 Morgan silver dollar in about MS-65 condition. 35 years later, I still have it. Plus some others he gave me. When he gave me that, he also told me about the Federal Reserve, Fiat Currency, the gold and silver standards etc. I hadn't put 2 and 2 together for a long time, but hearing from Dr. Paul certainly wasnt the first time I heard it.
My grandfather was a working class guy all his life. Brilliant guy. Jack of all trades kind of guy. Didnt have a college degree, but he worked as an electrical engineer for North American Rockwell back in the day and did wiring harnesses for aircraft when we still made aircraft in southern california. He was also a Mason. OMG!
Survived the Great Depression. When my grandfather passed away, he had a house that was paid for for several years if not decades. Had 10's of thousands in cash in the bank, plus an entire shoebox full of pre-1964 silver, that you dont want to know what my mother did with ..
Anyway .. they werent rich. But I can tell you this, Social Security was an after-thought to that man. He didnt need it. It was a FRACTION of what he lived on every month when he was retired. Medical care was never a concern. A lot of people had 80/20 plans back then and a lot of stuff was paid for with cash and the insurance wasnt that expensive. I remember my parents taking us to the doctor or dentist and writing checks a lot.
Now my mother owns 2 modest houses paid for one she rents out and the other she lives in. Social Security is HALF her retirement income, the other half, is the rental income from that other house.
Me? I work my ass off to make $57K per year and I'm freaking broke. I have never owned a house in my entire life and I'm 47. It seems all my adult life, after Reagan left office, the amount of discretionary income that I had available to either A) have a good time with or B) invest and save for the future was severely dwindling.
Sure, I've done stupid things and I pay Stupid Tax for it. I have student loans I pay off. My wife and I live apart but we are still married and I send her money to help cover expenses for her and my daughter while I try desperately to claw my way above water again.
But everyone does stupid things. I could tell you the stories of the stupid, stupid things my parents did in regards to money. But they still managed to make it.
These days, and this is what I am teaching my daughter, is if you ever want to hope to retire early and be self sufficient as just a regular working class person that makes maybe even a slightly above average wage, you have to do everything perfectly these days. You cant screw up. No Stupid Tax.
Richard Nixon, embarrassingly a Republican did more damage to the working class American than most people realize. You take him severing the final ties to the gold and silver standard in 1973 when Bretton Woods broke down and putting us in pure Fiat for last 35 years, plus the HMO act of 1973 which was good old Ted Kennedy's bill which fundamentally changed the structure of the insurance and health organizations and ALLOWED these greedy monsterous companies we are all against. It also brainwashed Americans into thinking that health insurance should be like Club Med in that you pay flat monthly premium and get access to all goods and services at little or no co-pay.
My parents and my grand parents were fortunate enough to acquire a good portion of their wealth and stability before 1973, before we went to pure Fiat.
Just remember what the government cant collect in taxes to fund this government option, the only choice they will have is to borrow which eventually will increase taxes anyway, or to monetize the debt directly, which means printing the money which causes inflation.
If you want people to live free and prosperous as pure of a free market system is the only way possible. Yes, some people will fail. Yes, some people might die earlier in life than what they could have otherwise.
But I would rather live 70 years on my feet, than 80 or 90 on my knees.
Financial Freedom is one of the greatest things one can obtain to obtain their overall Liberty. Imagine not having to feel forced to work for an abusive boss or company because you had the money in the bank to survive on your own for a long time until you found another job. Imagine if you could be really frugal with your money and save for an early retirement at age 55 just being a regular working class person. Imagine if you had the money to move to another apartment when some slum lord decides you cant even put an american flag on your motorcycle parked in the carport anymore. Money IS Freedom. Its not about the toys or the cars or the big house, its about having the power to not have to put up with anyone elses shit in this world and telling them to eff off.
Not true about Canada and Europe
<>
Sorry, this simply is not true. Have some people come to the US for treatment for some conditions? It's possible. But by and large, people in Europe and Canada are extremely happy with their system. I know people in Hanes (AK) who go up to Whitehorse (Yukon) for medical care, because it so much cheaper and just as good.
Some people can pay cash for their operations. It depends on the person and on the operation. For a $10,000 or even $30,000 operation, sure. But for catastrophic, no, you can't pay cash. As I said in a separate post, I guess we could just let people die if they get really sick. That's how they did it back in the good old days.
I don't think any one solution is going to solve the problem, but getting the insurance co's out of the way is a good first step.
The Army of the Republic
I don't like the insurance companies
and I don't like the government. Seems, we can come up with more ideas than just those options. We can agree to disagree whether the other countries are happy because no two people have the same experience. I was watching a where a man from another country got up and said most of his income went to the state and he did not want that here and he was talking about the health care. The man above loves it. So, here we are different views, I can live with that, but not when you start reaching for my purse.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
AFAIK the Baucus bill is a
AFAIK the Baucus bill is a Democrat bill, not a Republican one.
Question: If somehow we developed cybernetic technology where we could genetically engineer and grow a body superior to what naturally occurs, that offers a 200 year lifespan and then transfer all existing memories to that body, do you think everyone should be entitled to that service? Or should it be something reserved for the ultra-rich who could pay for it?
In a Capitalist system, at least the average person has a chance of obtaining a service such as that. In a Socialist or Communist system, only the politically connected aristocracy have the money to afford such services. There are plenty of wealthy people in China, as there were and are plenty of wealthy people in the USSR, but they were all party members.
You and I may not be ultra-rich right now, but someday we might. Likewise someday our children might be as well, but in any other system the only path to the ruling class is either by birth or by marriage. It becomes effectively a monarchical system in function in that regard.
I'm not sure why a majority of people think that just because we might have the ability to cure someone's cancer that by virtue of their existence they are entitled to the labor and property of another individual, which is effectively what you are saying when the demand is made for a doctor, a hospital or the taxpayers to bear the burden of that expense.
Likewise I think it is also indicative of the nature of the individuals in government, ie are they sinister or benign, if they choose to govern with a stick versus a carrot. Forcing people to purchase health insurance is a stick. Threatening to fine them if they do not, is a stick. Levying and collecting taxes through government coercion is a stick.
A Prince, who's character is thus marked by every act that which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
If we wish to encourage people to purchase and have health insurance, namely the 18-30 year old crowd who are being vilified for not participating in the system, there are better ways of obtaining this and these methods would result in not only healthcare economic reform but economic reform in general.
1) Tort reform
2) Income Tax reform, also completely remove any benefit or penalty due to marital status (this is to get income tax sexual-orientation neutral), and only offer deductions based upon dependents only.
3) Policies are offered privately on the free market, may also be offered through employers, but are portable and can be kept even after a person leaves their employer.
4) Prohibit people from being denied for pre-existing conditions, but allow rates to be adjusted accordingly for those conditions within reason.
We have, right now, HSA's, ESA's, 401K's, 529b's, IRA's and Roth IRA's which are various purpose-specific types of tax free accounts.
The problem with HSA's right now is they are too weak. Approximately a $2500 annual contribution limit, and anything not used is accumulated but can only be used for medical expenses. It can be saved for future use such as long term elderly care, etc.
The problem with the system right now is we as a people have to predetermine where they want their tax free dollars to go. Your average working class person only has a limited amount of money available that they can defer to these types of accounts, if any at all.
Say for example you are a 25 year old husband with a wife and a newborn baby on the way. You are just starting out in your career, relatively speaking and your household combined income is $50,000 per year.
If you live on a budget and save, you might be able to defer 2 or 3 thousand dollars a year into a tax free account.
You'd like to do an HSA, because they make sense. You are healthy, your wife is healthy, your baby is healthy, and the amount of money you save on your premiums is significant.
But you would also like to buy a home for your family. And you would also like to get a head start on saving for your childs education and you would like to be able to contribute to an ESA in order to do that.
But you also realize the power of compound interest and you realize its probably a really good idea to start saving for your retirement as well, and so you would like to open up a Roth IRA.
But you only have $3000 annually to defer into these accounts.
Why do we have to make this predermination? Why can't we put all of our available funds into ONE account that potentially covers all of the above needs?
You can take money out of your 401K or IRA for the purchase of a home. Its not tax free at that point but it grows tax free. Perhaps it should be tax free since the government has shown willingness to subsidize home purchases at the expense of other taxpayers, so why not just make saving for a downpayment on a home completely tax free but put the full responsibility on the individual instead?
Why should you get an $8000 first time home buyers tax credit at my expense when you can just save the money tax free yourself? And yes, this is an economic advantage because we know that for every dollar collected by the government, only about 40 cents of it ends up contributing to GDP. But every dollar YOU save on your own, does.
In otherwords the government had to suck about $20,000 in life out of the economy in order to give you that $8,000.
Allow one account for all these purposes. An employer can contribute directly to an employees account just like they do now with health benefits or 401K matching.
If you get lucky and dont need the money to pay for HSA deductibles and expenses, its there for your house, or your childs education, or your retirement, but the bonus is .. you get to make the choice as you need the funds.
Its true that the insurance industry benefits from the existing proposals on the table. They get access to unlimited funds. This is why fascism sucks. Because when a company mismanages and goes bankrupt, they go out of business. When a government mismanages and goes bankrupt, they defer to the taxpayer.
And insurance companies would benefit under my proposal as well, just more fairly. They would get more customers. They would also have the advantage of being able to manage these accounts and so would be like a hybrid health insurance / investment management company.
But, the more people pay for goods and services with cash the better the market is able to control prices. The problem we have right now is we have a scenario where there are several payers with deep pockets.
No one cares if their doctor is charging the insurance company $700 for a routine office visit. But if it was paid for out of pocket, you would care. You might go find someone who charged $250 instead. Insurance companies ultimately dont care because its just an excuse to raise rates anyway .. oh .. costs went up .. so sorry.
Single payer makes it worse but it is one payer with an unlimited pool of capital that gets deferred to the taxpayer.
If you want to control costs and prices, you need millions of payers with shallow pockets who have absolute control over their own dollars and have the power of the consumer to say NO and shop elsewhere.
Because sometimes a price isnt based on cost, its based on what the market is willing to pay. And these market forces are additional incentive to keep costs low.
>Single payer makes it worse
>Single payer makes it worse but it is one payer with an unlimited pool of capital that gets deferred to the taxpayer.<
So tell me why my Medicare tax is 10 times smaller than my private insurance premium?
Did you hear the name of William McGuire? He has $5milion annual pension guaranteed for life... and received $1.1 billion golden parachute when fired from UnitedHealth... over the years of being CEO he received probably close to half a bilion in salaries bonuses and stock options...
and you are worried that doctor can charge $700 for a visit???
How many insurance premiums are neccesary to pay for services of just one guy...
and what contributions toward medical health he contribute???
All the Noble prizes awarded not only in medicine but in all scientific fields combined do not match what he received just for... collecting premiums.
Administrative costs of Medicare is around 2 percent ...
... those of Private Health Insurance is 20 percent.
Can you have the most sophisticated and biggest military force in the world paid by single payer??? Why you think in the case of healthcare it is impossible???
Why practically every civilized nation on this planet can do it and USA can't?
To match what McGuire received as golden parachute... average doctor would have to run his practice for more than 2000 years....
>>So tell me why my Medicare
>>So tell me why my Medicare tax is 10 times smaller than my private insurance premium?<<
Because Medicare Tax is a Flat Tax paid for by the entire working population of the United States. Medicare Tax is a 2.9% Flat Tax that is paid regardless of income levels, and is split between employer and employee, so in actuality, your Medicare Tax is double what you think it is in amount, and worse in percentage, because the employer matched portion if not required could have been used to offer you higher wages instead.
My Medicare Tax isn't 10 times smaller than what my private insurance premium is. My YTD contribution to my employer sponsored private health insurance is $945. My YTD contribution to Medicare Tax is $623, double if you count the portion my employer had to match, which makes it $1246. I could argue that my Medicare Tax is more than what my private insurance premiums are, but I know thats not the case. I need to know what my employer pays for my insurance first, and I dont have that information.
Now, what I pay for private health insurance is for employee-only. No spouse coverage and no dependent coverage exists on my private insurance. So I would ask you .. does yours? Do you have any sort of medical condition that requires you to use medical goods and services on a regular basis?
>>Did you hear the name of William McGuire? He has $5milion annual pension guaranteed for life... and received $1.1 billion golden parachute when fired from UnitedHealth... over the years of being CEO he received probably close to half a bilion in salaries bonuses and stock options...<<
Corruption and greed can exist in any system, which is what we are talking about here. We shouldn't be having a philosophical discussion about capitalism vs socialism, we need to be having a philosophical discussion about ethics instead.
The issue with McGuire is multi-faceted. One one hand, he is a crook, as well were the board of directors of UnitedHealth. They engaged in illegal activities and were smacked down by the SEC. One the other hand, UnitedHealth was a $70 Billion company. You're talking about a guy that made less than 1% in executive compensation from all the premiums collected. Even if I was a customer of UnitedHealth when this was going on, my cost to cover McGuire's compensation would have relatively been small, just several dollars per year.
Any idea what my cost would be if the government was to get involved and cover everything?
Systems and governments by their nature aren't corrupt in so much as they are just collections or groups of people. Its the people that are corrupt. What you don't understand about Capitalism and a Republic is that although corruption can and does exist in those systems just as it would in a Socialist Oligarchy, we are capable of flushing out that damage much faster and more efficiently than in other systems. But the problem is, we havent had true free-market capitalism in this country for years because every time un-virtuousness raises its ugly head, some whiny Liberal like you has to go crying to the government for help, which just makes the system worse. And yes, you are a Liberal. You've been sniffed out. I have no idea what you are doing here on the Daily Paul other than to subvert the movement, but you argue like a Liberal and you think like a Liberal. What we have been left with because of not allowing free-market capitalism to flush itself out is a hybrid-economy which directly causes the corporatism problems we face today. Corporatism leads to fascism, fascism is tyranny.
>>and you are worried that doctor can charge $700 for a visit???<<
Yea. Especially when it comes out of my pocket. And it does come out of my pocket. I'm not so blind to think that just because some big evil insurance company is going to pay the bill that it doesnt matter. Because I have the intelligence to realize that every single on of those incidents that occurs in the country has the direct effect of contributing to the overall costs of the system and raises insurance premiums for all.
>>Administrative costs of Medicare is around 2 percent ...
... those of Private Health Insurance is 20 percent.<<
Again, you can thank your wonderful government for imposing those costs on medical providers. Part of the expense is due to regulatory compliance costs. The other part of the figure, and this is what you don't seem to get because you are regurgitating Liberal talking points .. is that by definition Medicare recipients are typically elderly or disabled people who by nature have much higher medical care costs than the rest of us who by and large do not.
Keeping Administrative staff around and paperwork is relatively static, however its easy to skew numbers using percentages when trying to push forth an agenda. Let me give you an example. Lets say that the average elderly or disabled person used $10,000 per year in medical goods and services, and the "administrative" costs associated with that patient were $200. That would give you your Medicare Administrative cost of 2%. Then you have an average, young, healthy person that might use $1000 in medical goods and services, and .. the administrative costs to that individual are $200, what's the percentage of administrative costs then? 20%. You see how that works?
>>Can you have the most sophisticated and biggest military force in the world paid by single payer??? Why you think in the case of healthcare it is impossible???
Why practically every civilized nation on this planet can do it and USA can't?<<
These are the same people we complained about $200 hammers and $700 toilets back in the Clinton administration .. and you use this as a case as to how single payer is actually a good thing?
The same people that subsidize the US Postal Service and Amtrak?
You realize of course that right now, the biggest dogs we have in government as far as where our tax money goes is defense, medicare and medicaid, social security, and interest on the national debt.
Roughly speaking federal tax expenditures to national defense, medicare and medicaid, and social security is approximately 20%-22% EACH. Interest in national debt is estimated at being anywhere from 12%-15%.
Currently Medicare and Medicaid combined cover approximately 25% of all Americans.
Any idea what the tax expenditures are going to be if everyone were covered?
> UnitedHealth was a $70
> UnitedHealth was a $70 Billion company. You're talking about a guy that made less than 1% in executive compensation from all the premiums collected. Even if I was a customer of UnitedHealth when this was going on, my cost to cover McGuire's compensation would have relatively been small, just several dollars per year.
<
United States of America government collects more than 2 trillions in taxes so 1% in executive compensation from all collected taxes should have been relatively small... should we compensate our president with 20 billions??? your cost to cover president compensation would have be relatively small... right???... just several dollars per year.
>some whiny Liberal like you has to go crying to the government for help, which just makes the system worse. And yes, you are a Liberal. You've been sniffed out. I have no idea what you are doing here on the Daily Paul other than to subvert the movement, but you argue like a Liberal and you think like a Liberal.<
I am not afraid of labels so call me whatever you want... and I am here because I want honest people in government not bribed crooks that serve banksters and corporate interests... I am afraid that this movement is going nowhere and serve the same interests that sold this country to central bankers and international corporations. Why those people usually voting for "liberals" should follow your vision of "new american order" that looks like reality in Indonesia or El Salvador? Get rid of SS or Medicare and you will loose millions of votes... get rid of unemployement checks and pay the price at voting booths... fill up fema camps with millions of illigal families and no single latino will vote for you... get rid of minimum pay and see again that we can compete with Bangladesh sweatshops.... If I really wanted to subvert this movement I would advocate all this things there is no better way to kill any movement that piss off millions of potential voters.
If you want honest people in
If you want honest people in government and not bribed crooks, which we all here do, then you have to start by getting yourself an education in politics and economy and business. And I mean on your own. Learn the core values and principals of Conservatism and Libertarianism and learn how the arguments work and how to make those arguments yourself.
You arent going to get any of these things very easily from school, the television or most of the internet.
You have to understand there is a fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives and it has a lot more to do than just who's team you decided to play for. It has to do with who we are, what we think, and how we think. Liberals by nature tend to be emotional people. They are great at identifying problems. They suck at solving them. I bet you dont even know that presidential compensation is covered by the Constitution let alone what the Founding Fathers arguments were for limiting compensation for elected officials were. Do your homework before you come at me again with some knee-jerk response.
Nobody wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare if it means leaving everyone currently entrenched into the system hanging to dry. Not even your most cruel-hearted died in the wool rugged individualist Ayn Rand objectivist wants to do that. But I can make the argument and the plan, on how to ween American society off of Social Security and Medicare so that future generations would not be enslaved by it, and perhaps even yourself someday, and you would do cart-wheels in the aisle for it.
I only went into about 25% of all the talking points on my idea for health-care reform, but if adopted in full, it would do just that .. eventually eliminate the need for Social Security and Medicare.
In regards to illegal immigrants .. maybe you don't know as much about the Latino people as you think you do. My wife is Hispanic. My daughter, half. 2nd and 3rd generation native born American, her father was born here, her mother immigrated LEGALLY from Mexico City and went through the process of gaining full citizenship as well. A majority of the Hispanic people, especially those here in Texas and California that either immigrated legally or were born here from families who immigrated here legally .. are very conservative. We have many Hispanic people here in this country that are 5th and 6th generation American citizens.
They don't like the illegal immigration problem any more than you and I do. They don't like it when people don't learn to speak English. You will hear a lot more derogatory racist comments from my wife about "wet-backs" than you ever will from me. You should have heard her yell and scream because she couldn't get a promotion because even though she speaks Spanish with 90% fluency .. she never learned to write it. Couldn't get the job. Thought it wasn't fair that it was even a requirement because those people should have learned to speak and write English instead.
In regards to minimum wage. Nobody works for minimum wage in this country who raises a family and has real obligations. If they do, its not their primary job. You find high school and college kids working for minimum wage, or the 2-job part timer looking for additional income, his part time job might be minimum wage.
Here's something a lot of people dont know. Many Union contracts .. are tied to minimum wage. So guess what .. you jack up minimum wage and more union workers just got a raise than high school kids.
I drive a truck for a living, kid .. I know exactly where we make things and how they are made. It would surprise you at some of the things that are still made in America at competitive prices. The sock capital of the world for example is in Ft. Payne Alabama. Thats right, textiles are alive and well in that neck of the woods and they produce a majory of the cheap white socks that get shipped to cheap retailers like Wal-mart. I can tell you that IKEA, the "Swedish" furniture company, has some of their products manufactured in Tennessee. Or that Yellow Pages .. the phone books, that cover Mexico, are actually printed and shipped from Colorado.
The key to the revolution is that its about a social revolution and an educational revolution. Its not about one leader one president or even a whole cabinet full of libertarians. Its about knowing what freedom is, where it comes from, and what we must do to preserve it.
And its frustrating sometimes, I agree it seems we arent making progress, but every day we grow, every day the message gets out and every day we wake someone up.
Democrats and Liberals
You're right, Sthomas: the most recent bill IS a Democratic bill, one that they allowed themselves to be bullied into by the Republicans and the health care companies that also control a good size chunk of their own party. No argument there, and I question exactly what percentage of the Senate they need to actually govern: 80%? No argument from me that it's incredibly stupid and if they pass it as presently proposed, they deserve to lose the next election. Of course, letting the Republicans back in to plunder is a scary thought.
As to Single Payer, it has worked extremely well in other countries that offer equal or better care than ours at half the cost, or less. The other developed countries in the world laugh at our system: it's pretty obvious to them who calls the shots here. The popular support of the present system is a testament to the power of propaganda.
Liberals? Name-calling is always a way to not answer an argument, and since you're answering the arguments anyway, why go there?
I enjoyed your comments about Liberals in a sort of incredulous way. It sounds like you don't actually know very many Liberals. I have friends on all sides, and I can't say that either side is harder working, more honest or better at problem solving. Franklin Roosevelt was the most liberal president of the 20th century. He steered the US through WW2. Doesn't that count as problem-solving?
As the Fascists methodically took over Europe and China, he secretly (and illegally) supported the Britons so that they didn't lose the war before we entered. Meanwhile, the Republican Party was all for isolationism and letting the Germans take over. No biggie, in their minds, even when documents came out showing that after the defeat of Britain the German plan was to take over South America and then North America, they were happy to let the Fascists run the world, particularly companies like Ford, Standard Oil and ITT. When the war started everyone joined up, Liberals, Conservatives, and I've never heard anyone say that either side made better soldiers. So, you might want to consider that single example when you're hearing the next FOX news screed about weakling, emotional Liberals. That's all intended to spawn hatred and keep people apart.
I am a gun-owning Bible-reading martial arts instructor in Alaska who's voted Green, 3rd party and Democrat. I'm for the death penalty but I don't think global warming is a hoax. I liked Sarah Palin, then I grew to despise her (as did many Alaskans). So, I am I a lazy, emotional Liberal? Maybe I am, but you can't know unless you know me personally, or Janusz either.
I'm sorry for lecturing you, but that sort of defensive name-calling appears on boards both Left and Right, and it never adds anything. Check out some of the Liberal boards and see the comments about Republicans and you'll get the picture. They are equally false.
I disagree with you about people wanting to get rid of Social Security and leave everyone hanging out to dry. People are not "enslaved" by SS payments. If they want to have a secure retirement, they're going to have to pay money into it, either to the govt. or some Wall Street firm or insurance company. Either way, it's going to be a chunk out of their paycheck in exchange for a secure old age.
The Army of the Republic
>>I disagree with you about
>>I disagree with you about people wanting to get rid of Social Security and leave everyone hanging out to dry. People are not "enslaved" by SS payments. If they want to have a secure retirement, they're going to have to pay money into it, either to the govt. or some Wall Street firm or insurance company. Either way, it's going to be a chunk out of their paycheck in exchange for a secure old age.<<
Obviously, if you lump in either paying Social Security Tax or investing in "some Wall Street" firm or insurance company as being the same thing that makes no difference, it only emphasizes my point that liberals by nature have an over-simplistic view of problems and issues and are incapable of the kind of rational, critical thinking that is necessary to solve the problems we face.
Maybe you don't know how the youth of America think these days in regards to it. They know the system is going broke. They know the entire plan is a Ponzi scheme. They know that in order to be fed for when they need to retire, that it requires growth in population and growth in GDP in order to sustain their generation when they need it.
You do realize that FICA and Medicare Tax is matched by your employer, do you not? If I took a look at my last years earnings, which were approximately $57,000 per year, that I worked my ass off for, thank you very much, you would find that my Social Security Tax that I paid, was about $3300. $3300 becomes $6600 when taking into consideration employer matching, money that could have instead been used to $60,000.
Medicare Tax, also matched, was $775, which became $1550 with employer matching. EVEN alone, as in just my direct part of the tax alone, Medicare and Social Security combined was more than the amount that I had withheld from my payroll for Federal Income Taxes, and since my withholding was pretty close to the actual taxes I needed to pay, its pretty fair to state that, indeed, Medicare and FICA combined were greater than Income Taxes for someone at my earnings level.
What are we up to now? $8200 per year in taxes for just Medicare and Social Security alone for a regular working class stiff such as myself .
Why don't you think again before you attempt to paint your hero, FDR as some great President for having the courage to enter the war.
Now we get to add in what I pay out of pocket for my modest health insurance plan, which, luckily covers everything I need because I dont get sick. I'm 45 years old now, drink coffee like a fish and smoke like a chimney, and I've never required a doctor in my life for anything beyond a flu or strep throat, with the exception of when I was 5 years old and I needed minor eye surgery.
Well, it practically doubled this year because we got a better plan and the economy has made it more difficult for my employer to contribute as much to the plan as they used to, but last year it was about $1200 per year. Pretty cheap, I admit, but its not a Cadillac plan by any stretch of the imagination. Side note: I have a practically self-employed friend of mine in California that does have a Cadillac plan, practically, that he pays for on his own, and only costs him about $300 per month. A pretty good deal.
Now we are up to about $10,000 per year in total expenditures to cover, health, and retirement.
You wanna tell me again how your average American when faced with these facts, that hasn't been deluded by the system, doesn't want to get rid of this monstrosity?
Considering that I have worked fairly steadily my entire life at approximately the same salary levels, when adjusted for inflation, sometimes more, for the last 25 years, its pretty fair to say that I've been paying these same levels .. my entire life.
Adjusted for inflation, we are talking about nearly $250,000 in total in healthcare insurance expenses, Medicare Tax, and Social Security Tax over the course of a so-far 25 year work history. $250,000 that I dont have. It's just gone. I've never had to use hardly any of the benefits from my health insurance with the exception of when my wife needed minor .. very minor heart surgery that was an outpatient procedure and when my daughter was born which was an uncomplicated birth that most people could have paid for out of pocket, at a discount mind you, than what was billed back to the insurance company.
What I am a talking about is a plan that would allow someone about ready to enter the work force, like my daughter in a few years, a chance of being able to retain and have direct control of over most of that wealth that would have otherwise been stolen from her by our oppressive, leftist, progressive, statist government.
Obviously with the exception of the oil reserves, purchasing Alaska from Russia was a big mistake. And if I were you living in Alaska, I'd be praying for global warming. But if you think single payer is the cats meow and that we should do it because every other backwards European nation does it, I'd say you probably would have been happy with the notion of keeping Alaska part of Russia.
We don't believe here in America that quantity of life is the be all end all to life itself. Most of us would rather live free and happy than to live under an oppressive government and tax system that might have a chance of extending our lives from 70 to 80 years old with the proper healthcare. I certainly dont want to live forever if it means being doomed to a life of serfdom because of it.
Serfdom?
Yes, I am familiar with how both payroll and self-employment taxes are assessed. I have my own business with five employees, and I've been doing payroll for the last twenty-five years. (That's when I'm not crying or laughing or on some other emotional jag, of course)
First of all, Social Security and Medicare are not a tax, they are insurance. Taxes are supposed to pay for government services. SS and Medicare pay for a pension and medical care when you hit a certain age (as well as death benefits for minor children). So, calling them taxes isn't accurate, even if they are taken out of your paycheck, like taxes.
Also, do you think that if your employer wasn't paying SS and Medicare matching fees he'd be giving the money to you? Be serious. He'd be keeping them and paying you market wages, which are probably about $57,000/year.
Yeah, I know, it's irritating to have to buy that insurance. It's a big bite. However, you'd be surprised how happy most Freedom-loving elders are to have that pension and medical care when they get old, because the fact is, most people aren't so good at saving. You obviously don't talk to Liberals, but why don't you talk to some old people and ask them what they think of Social Security and Medicare. The reason those programs came about is because so many people didn't save money, or lost money due to bad luck or bad health, and 30% of the poor in the country were old people. People like you that worked hard their whole life but got sick, or their kid got sick, or their investments went down in the last few years before retirmement, or they just didn't have the discipline to save the money. Maybe you think you'd do a better job saving money than the government does for you, but how much money have you saved up so far?
<>
Your speech here means a lot to you, I but in fact, you're not being oppressed by the government, every decent government in the world charges taxes, most of them higher than ours, and if you think you're living a life of serfdom with your $57,000/yr income, you should go to Wikipedia and see what "serfdom" really means. When you use words carelessly, they end up meaning nothing. They're just useless emotion. Kind of like you ascribe to Liberals.
I really don't like to antagonize people on these boards, because it's the cheapest form of cheap shot there is, but when you talk about "serfdom" and "oppression," I have to roll my eyes. What you're living isn't even close to the real thing.
The Army of the Republic
>>First of all, Social
>>First of all, Social Security and Medicare are not a tax, they are insurance. Taxes are supposed to pay for government services. SS and Medicare pay for a pension and medical care when you hit a certain age (as well as death benefits for minor children). So, calling them taxes isn't accurate, even if they are taken out of your paycheck, like taxes.<<
Actually, you are the one that is incorrect on that. There is no separate SS fund or account, all taxes acquired in the name of SS go to the general fund.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
In other words, they couldn't get it past the courts based on the "insurance" premise. As per the enumerated powers defined in the Constitution there is no authority for the Federal Government to mandate the purchasing of insurance.. therefore they chose the route of the massively abused and mis interpreted "general welfare" clause instead, but strict Constitutionalists who are familiar with the anecdotal text that clarifies the framers intentions will still tell you that even this is unconstitutional. The notion that your SS tax was collected and placed in a lockbox fund from day one that acted as insurance was a lie sold to the American people from day one, it never was the case, and the reason for that was was because mandating insurance was definitely deemed unconstitutional by the courts at the time but allowed the general welfare provision to be used instead, therefore they HAD to put the funds in the general fund.
How about less relying on Wikipedia for your intellectual nuggets and work on getting a real education instead?
I understand about the stupidity of some people in not saving money, but when you are forced at the tip of a Roman spear to pay mandatory taxes, it makes the notion of saving for your own retirement with FAR better returns on your investment even more impossible.
What I am talking about is a real carrot instead of a stick. The federal government can create the environment to massively encourage people to save for their own retirements, medical care, etc, at massive savings to the American working class, but also to the federal government and the economy as a whole.
In regards to paying for medical services with cash, I'm not advocating that all medical services be paid for with cash. I'm only advocating that as many medical services as possible be paid for with cash that fall under the line of being considered unforeseen or catastrophic expenses. Part of a HSA is the HDHP (high deductible health plan) component, which can be used to cover catastrophic health issues, such as cancer.
No matter how your health care coverage is provided, either directly by the federal government or by a private insurance company, there is always eventually going to come the time where someone has to make a decision as to whether or not you are really worth it to keep alive. The insurance industry does this today, they are just really good at hiding it. The federal government would be no different because it is materialistically impossible and unsustainable to expect everyone to gain equal benefits of a system without equal participation in the system. My father passed away last year due to problems with congestive heart failure at the age of 71. Technically, he could have gotten a replacement artificial heart to extend his life, and certainly if we had the cash to pay for such a procedure ourselves we could have done it, but by being restrained by insurance or medicare, you dont have that option. They even flat out stated that if he was younger it would have been a possibility.
What I am proposing would at least help more americans of having a chance to access such procedures without being a member of the ruling class or political class.
In regards to your interpretation of serfdom, americans are being taxed more and more, the spending policies of the federal government are inflating and devaluing their currency, taking away from the available dispensable income that Americans have available to save for their futures or to obtain the standards of living they wish to maintain, or both. Being forced to work for longer in your life while being able to maintain a lower and lower standard of living and not having as much of an opportunity to achieve greater financial freedom IS serfdom.
Social Security is not taxes
Taxes are used to pay for general expenses. Social Security accumulates and is a benefit you collect later in your life, or that your children collect if you die when they are minors. Those are two different things, and you should ask some old people on Social Security about the difference.
I never said SS was kept in some secret lockbox or anything else. Social Security is collected and then the government borrows those funds to pay for general expenses, just as it borrows money by issuing Treasury bonds. I admit, that's not ideal, and if Ronald Reagan and his successors hadn't run up huge deficits, it wouldn't be in jeopardy. However, the government still owes that money to the Social Security trust fund.
As to serfdom, in the real world it refers to people living on land they don't own, usually providing agricultural labor on that land in exchange for living there and for a portion of the crop. That's serfdom. Paying taxes isn't serfdom. You can say you don't like paying taxes, or that they're too high, but that doesn't make it serfdom, or Fascism or any other 'ism or 'dom.
The Army of the Republic
It must be nice to live in
It must be nice to live in that fantasy world of yours. Probably very comforting. Whatever your belief is, however, doesn't change the facts.
I already gave you the links. You were too lazy to read through the text. But contrary to your belief, the US Supreme Court says otherwise. It is not insurance. The federal government does not have the authorization per the US Constitution to force the American people to buy insurance.
If you want the rules changed, change the rules in the proper manner. I have no objection to that. There are 2 forms in which the US Constitution can be modified. Pick one. But to continue to twist and pervert the meaning of the US Constitution in order to circumvent it because the government is too lazy or too set on getting what it wants is unacceptable,evil, and indicative of tyranny. That goes for BOTH parties. That is the reason why "we" exist, we being the liberty movement, those that call themselves libertarians, constitutionalists, or real conservatives, whatever you wanna call it. Chances are pretty good that whatever bad things you may think Reagan might have done, it was because of BS from the other side. You gonna blame the way his amnesty program backfired also?
Never forget that whatever you think the government "owes", we the American taxpayer "owe".
You paid bloggers really need to get a clue (and a real job). You are up against some extremely educated people in regards to politics and we will eat you for lunch. Bring friends.
>Adjusted for inflation, we
>Adjusted for inflation, we are talking about nearly $250,000 in total in healthcare insurance expenses, Medicare Tax, and Social Security Tax over the course of a so-far 25 year work history. $250,000 that I dont have.<
I know person who had $250k saved in mutual funds over more than 25 years of work history ... he lost his job... he lost half of his investment... he lost his insurance and he faces currently $600k in medical bills... cancer treatment is expensive... do you know that ??? and letting die your loved one is not an option... for many people... maybe you are different... Investing is gamble and I would rather not gamble with health of my family... you want to gamble with your health and life.. OK...but do you have right to gamble life of your daughter or your grandkids?
>But if you think single payer is the cats meow and that we should do it because every other backwards European nation does it, I'd say you probably would have been happy with the notion of keeping Alaska part of Russia.<
Before you write such stupid comments educate yourself... not by watching FauxNews or reading a books or surfing the net... not by attending tea parties organized by brainwashed people that cry we want to be slaves of free market corporations... No, just take longer vacation... go to Europe.... UK, France Germany, Itally... observe life there, ask questions to ordinary people and ask them if they want helthcare system American way... you will be supprised what you will see and what you will hear. You will discover interesting fact that in Europe big government is afraid of people and in USA people are afraid of big government...
yeah... that is backward... you are right !!!
>We don't believe here in America that quantity of life is the be all end all to life itself.<
I know... here in America people believe in sanctity of life... specially unborn yet... those that are already born are free to die ( freedom is more important than tax for protecting life) if their parents can't afford to pay for private health insurance.
What would I expect to hear.
Either tales of national pride or fawning over a single-payor/single-provider with monopoly political control over all health care decisions. The monopoly also has the power to bill citizens through taxes as much as possible and it always does. There is no reward in seeking efficiencies so costs tend to rise. There are bureaucratic disincentives squelching change even innovation.
State and Federal government policies have granted special privileges to our health insurance companies and many stifle competition. But consider two companies that are using accurate state of the art risk analysis tools and we'll assume their costs are the same. One executive is contracted by the shareholders at a living wage and the shareholders share the profits. The other executive increases the price of the insurance product to get a princely income while the shareholders get the same share as the other company. Assuming the products provide the same coverage there is an incentive to seek out the lowest price. Greed increases risk in a competitive market. When government protects companies from the risks of competition, greed goes unchecked, efficiencies are neglected and innovation is unnecessary. When the government creates their own monopoly (Federal Reserve, FDIC, Social Security etc) political favoritism replaces greed and politics replaces science.
All American monopolies have been established by government decree. Sherman Antitrust Act was a political tool for protecting favored monopolies from competition.
As a shareholder in the more successful of the competitive companies one expects a dividend, every year. As a taxpayer in a monopolistic government health system, many expect to get a larger bill for less every year based on empirical evidence about government programs.
Also, Central planning creates the potential for national failures.
Government can play an important role, it can work to insure justice. Commutative justice allows Bob and Joe to enter into a binding contract. Distributive Justice ensures that Bob and Joe only volunteer to abandon their property, Opportunity Justice leaves Bob and Joe and Sam free from interference by the third. (Sam may wrongly try to stop Bob from contacting Joe and forming an association.)
To be just a program should not violate these three ancient principles of justice.
All for freedom? Freedom for all!
Free includes debt-free!
Most folks here want small
Most folks here want small government ... they do not realize that smallest form of government is actually dictatorship.
It is not so much important for me how big government is but for whom it works.
The Constitution provides a blueprint for the smallest...
The smallest form of government is actually dictatorship?" Do you have some examples? Every dictatorship that comes to my mind is backed by military and police forces and a bureaucracy and often a foreign power.
Governments of all sizes are full of people working for themselves. What incentive do they have to work for you, me and the rest of us?
All for freedom? Freedom for all!
Free includes debt-free!
>The smallest form of
>The smallest form of government is actually dictatorship?" Do you have some examples?<
Alexander The Great, All Roman Emperors and Kings,Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Suharto, Pinochet, Hussein, Pinochet and countless more...
Do you really think that Stalin generals governed Soviet Union??? They were not governing they were following orders ... if not ...they were executed. Do you think slaves were governing Roman Empire...? So many of them were working for Emperor...
You confuse government with products it created to sustain itself. Government agencies do not govern they are are just engine, steering, and wheels and when,where and how you will go... depend who operate them.
Do you think President, Congress and Senate is big government? They are puppets...the real government learned lessons from failed dictators and revolutions... it became invisible... they don't want to face the fate of King Luis and Marie Antoinette, Tsar Nikolai family, Romanian president Ceausescu or even Imelda Marcos... let the anger release fall on their puppets...
If this invisible government is sick it takes a day or two for puppets to pour trillion dollar to cure it... when their slave get sick he has to rely on "free market" or charity of other slaves.
Freedom for all... hospital for those that can afford actually to buy hospital... the rest... who cares... socialism and communism threat no longer exist we can exploit them the way in old good days of Oliver Twist.
Yeah... free market is great... but ... where is the beef?
I'm preparing a blog about
I'm preparing a blog about the "myth" of small government, just to get people to take a look at what has become dogma for a big part of the country. I think people should always be questioning/arguing about what government should really do, but assuming that government is always bad, always incompetent is erroneous and, I feel, disrespectful to the founding fathers and all the people who've worked to build the country.
More later.
The Army of the Republic