Affordable Health Care act - have you read it?
Replies
-
I donate to charity. Thats a choice! It should not be taken from me. . This health care bill will raise everyones taxes. It hasnt been fully implemented yet. I dont care if anyone thinks I have compassion for poor people! I started out with nothing. I choose to go to school and pay attention. I choose to donate 8 years of my life to the military and spend 3 of those years in Iraq and afghanastan so that I can get a degree paid for. Why should I continue to have to pay for people that made bad choices or just didnt want to get off there lazy butts and do something! Yeah I know, its not there fault they lost there job or got sick. Its not my fault either!
I appreciate your honesty. I can't win you over on compassionate grounds, so I'll try to look for the info that says we'd be better off financially as individuals if we had a single-payer system instead of the mish-mash we have now.0 -
One cannot assume whether a person is compassionate or not based on how much in taxes they want to pay. I am comfortable in my thinking enough to say that I would bet that most people want to care for the poor... we just all disagree on how to do it. Personally, I prefer to donate to our local mission that runs free/low cost clinics, food banks, etc. I prefer to donate to causes that stay local, not siphoned from my region to another. With that said, I would rather pay slightly higher local taxes for community programs that take care of the issues local families are dealing with than higher federal taxes where the money goes to things like bridges to nowhere....0
-
One cannot assume whether a person is compassionate or not based on how much in taxes they want to pay. I am comfortable in my thinking enough to say that I would bet that most people want to care for the poor... we just all disagree on how to do it. Personally, I prefer to donate to our local mission that runs free/low cost clinics, food banks, etc. I prefer to donate to causes that stay local, not siphoned from my region to another. With that said, I would rather pay slightly higher local taxes for community programs that take care of the issues local families are dealing with than higher federal taxes where the money goes to things like bridges to nowhere....
1. It wasn't an assumption, it was based on things he said. Maybe he could prove he is very compassionate in his everyday life, but he doesn't care what some guy on the internet with a cat avatar thinks, so moving on...
2. Your tax argument doesn't hold up. The social security and medicare taxes that come from your paycheck go only to those programs so there are ways to fix that, and local governments aren't immune from bad financial policies.
Take my county (a bit of a rant here). We elected a really conservative board of county commissioners, and they made it their mission to cut as much as possible. Privatized agencies, cut head start, cut funding for local charities. They ended up with a budget surplus, and you know what they did with the money? Sent $100 to each homeowner in the county as a tax rebate. That money could have been much better spent.0 -
Here are the countries with the 15 highest purchasing power parity per capita healthcare costs. It's basically how much the same services cost in each country. Lowering the cost of services would lower the taxes/premiums paid by each individual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
1 United States $8,233.00 Complex system
2 Norway $5,388.00 Single payer - government
3 Switzerland $5,270.00 Mandated private insurance
4 Netherlands $5,056.00 Mandated private for most, government for the elderly
5 Luxembourg $4,786.00 Single payer - government
6 Denmark $4,464.00 Single payer - government
7 Canada $4,445.00 Single payer - government
8 Austria $4,395.00 Single payer - government
9 Germany $4,338.00 Mandated insurance - public and private
10 France $3,978.00 Single payer - government
11 Belgium $3,969.00 Competing government insurance programs
12 Sweden $3,758.00 Single payer - government
13 Ireland $3,718.00 Single payer - government
14 Australia $3,670.00 Universal government healthcare, private options
15 United Kingdom $3,433.00 Single payer - government
This high cost doesn't come with high quality. The WHO ranked the US system 38th in the world in their 2000 report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
And we hear anecdotes in the media of people coming from Canada to use our system because they don't want to wait, but there will always be complaints from every system. Overall, though, they are more satisfied with their system than we are with our system.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html0 -
And we hear anecdotes in the media of people coming from Canada to use our system because they don't want to wait, but there will always be complaints from every system. Overall, though, they are more satisfied with their system than we are with our system.
I am Canadian, I've been following this thread with interest, and I believe this statement is correct. People don't want to wait. Of course, they don't, but I've had several instances in my family (one catastrophic accident, and one, what ended up to be terminal, cancer, and one child with life threatening symptoms of what ended up being a two year process to diagnose a rare disease) where treatment was immediate and top of the line. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, a patient who presents with life threatening symptoms in an ER will sometimes bump someone waiting for a CAT scan or MRI. There's a constant effort to avoid this happening, but it does. There will be problems in any system.
What doesn't happen here is someone (a middle "man" if you will) sits in an insurance office deciding if a patient can have a certain type of treatment. Your doctor decides. I fail to understand how having for profit insurance companies, medical clinics and hospitals (with shareholders) would ever make the cost or efficiency of healthcare better. I know of some doctors who were offered positions in the US and could make bigger salaries there, who eventually came back to Canada because they didn't like having to check with insurance companies before offering treatment. I wouldn't like having to negotiate with doctors,hospitals and insurance companies for medical care or be initially denied coverage for surgery (heard about case after case on a forum when I was facing a hysterectomy) my doctor felt was necessary.
So, both systems have problems. Both systems require some negotiation to get what is wanted. All in all, I think I prefer ours because when illness is really serious, people can just go and get care. If I could afford it and was really uncomfortable, I suppose I could jump the queue for something like a knee replacement if I wanted to by going south. Many of the people who go to the US for treatment go for those kinds of things or for new treatments not yet approved here. Not that treatment isn't available, just they wanted something else.
Thoughts?0 -
Courts cost money. Fair trials are a basic human right, protected in the United States by the fifth and sixth amendments.Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, . . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Freedom isn't free.
You are confusing American Citizen rights with human rights!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That is an American document that pertains to American Citizens! Thank you for validating my statement. I also dont see the part abount universal healthcare! I read that as freedom from our government to persue my life, liberty,, and happiness! It sounds like you read it as our government owes us life, liberty, and happiness?
You obviously need lessons.
"All men" means everyone. Not all American men.
certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Let's break these bold parts down, shall we? "That among these" means that what is listed after will only be some of the rights. The "and" means that it is a separate right from the two previous mentioned. So the rights, which include, the right to Life, the right to Liberty AND the right to pursue happiness.
So, basically, life - meaning that you should be free to survive. Liberty - meaning you should be free to determine your life, and the pursuit of happiness - meaning that you should be allow to pursue your own means.
Also, since the thread I replied to was speaking about freedom - it was obviously the Liberty that I was pointing to.
Also, if you want a US document that can encapsulate an argument for Universal Healthcare more clearly, I can point you to the Preamble that you should have learned in school. There is a part of "promote the general welfare" that fits quite nicely.
Nothing that you have typed so far shows me how health care is a human right.
So, you honestly believe that the US Declaration of independence and US Constitution pertain to every human in the world? I am sure the N Koreans, Chinese, Cubans and pratically everyone else in the world would love to hear that!
That was written into the decleration of independence to make sure that the government could not encroach on your right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness! It does not say that everyone in the world is entitled to it.
All men might be created equal, but then you live your life! The decisions we all make on day to day basis ensure that we do not remain equal. It is not my fault that some do not have jobs or healthcare. I do not want more taxes TAKEN out of my check for everyones healthcare or social security for that matter. I do like a few things in this bill but also believe that it was way too big of a bill that was passed without even reading or studying it!
If the US did not believe that everyone should have the rights that we are provided, why are we always talking about spreading freedom and speaking up against (non-compliant) dictatorships?
The fact is that while North Korea, China, Cuba and others do not have these freedoms, we as Americans feel that they should because we see Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as human rights.0 -
One cannot assume whether a person is compassionate or not based on how much in taxes they want to pay. I am comfortable in my thinking enough to say that I would bet that most people want to care for the poor... we just all disagree on how to do it. Personally, I prefer to donate to our local mission that runs free/low cost clinics, food banks, etc. I prefer to donate to causes that stay local, not siphoned from my region to another. With that said, I would rather pay slightly higher local taxes for community programs that take care of the issues local families are dealing with than higher federal taxes where the money goes to things like bridges to nowhere....
1. It wasn't an assumption, it was based on things he said. Maybe he could prove he is very compassionate in his everyday life, but he doesn't care what some guy on the internet with a cat avatar thinks, so moving on...
2. Your tax argument doesn't hold up. The social security and medicare taxes that come from your paycheck go only to those programs so there are ways to fix that, and local governments aren't immune from bad financial policies.
Take my county (a bit of a rant here). We elected a really conservative board of county commissioners, and they made it their mission to cut as much as possible. Privatized agencies, cut head start, cut funding for local charities. They ended up with a budget surplus, and you know what they did with the money? Sent $100 to each homeowner in the county as a tax rebate. That money could have been much better spent.
Actually I'm SS exempt... which also means that when it comes time for me to be 65, provided I stay with the same employer I am with now (or one with similar benefits) I cannot recieve SS... not even my husbands in the event he should die before I do. AND The federal government can borrow from SS and Medicare it's called an intragovernmental loan... it's one of the ways that Clinton had is often mistouted "balanced budget"... Bush did it too and I'm sure that Obama has as well. And I realize that local governments aren't immune from bad financial policies however, most cities/states have it in their laws that they MUST have a balanced budget... there is no deficit borrowing. Not to mention the fact that it is easier to put on the pressure when it comes local spending. People can walk into city hall and complain (rather loudly) much easier than going onto the Hill or into the White House to complain...
ETA: Oh and my bit about assuming compassion was meant as a general statement as it is often said that those of us that do not agree with taxes being used for programs such as these are not compassionate... It wasn't meant solely in reply to you or anyone... otherwise I would have replied to the comments. I really was saying it as a generality.0 -
One cannot assume whether a person is compassionate or not based on how much in taxes they want to pay. I am comfortable in my thinking enough to say that I would bet that most people want to care for the poor... we just all disagree on how to do it. Personally, I prefer to donate to our local mission that runs free/low cost clinics, food banks, etc. I prefer to donate to causes that stay local, not siphoned from my region to another. With that said, I would rather pay slightly higher local taxes for community programs that take care of the issues local families are dealing with than higher federal taxes where the money goes to things like bridges to nowhere....
1. It wasn't an assumption, it was based on things he said. Maybe he could prove he is very compassionate in his everyday life, but he doesn't care what some guy on the internet with a cat avatar thinks, so moving on...
2. Your tax argument doesn't hold up. The social security and medicare taxes that come from your paycheck go only to those programs so there are ways to fix that, and local governments aren't immune from bad financial policies.
Take my county (a bit of a rant here). We elected a really conservative board of county commissioners, and they made it their mission to cut as much as possible. Privatized agencies, cut head start, cut funding for local charities. They ended up with a budget surplus, and you know what they did with the money? Sent $100 to each homeowner in the county as a tax rebate. That money could have been much better spent.
Actually I'm SS exempt... which also means that when it comes time for me to be 65, provided I stay with the same employer I am with now (or one with similar benefits) I cannot recieve SS... not even my husbands in the event he should die before I do. AND The federal government can borrow from SS and Medicare it's called an intragovernmental loan... it's one of the ways that Clinton had is often mistouted "balanced budget"... Bush did it too and I'm sure that Obama has as well. And I realize that local governments aren't immune from bad financial policies however, most cities/states have it in their laws that they MUST have a balanced budget... there is no deficit borrowing. Not to mention the fact that it is easier to put on the pressure when it comes local spending. People can walk into city hall and complain (rather loudly) much easier than going onto the Hill or into the White House to complain...
ETA: Oh and my bit about assuming compassion was meant as a general statement as it is often said that those of us that do not agree with taxes being used for programs such as these are not compassionate... It wasn't meant solely in reply to you or anyone... otherwise I would have replied to the comments. I really was saying it as a generality.
Yeah, the intergovernmental loans from Social Security was actually initiated by Reagan and Greenspan because Reagan could not further raise the income tax rate to pay down the deficit.0 -
Actually I'm SS exempt... which also means that when it comes time for me to be 65, provided I stay with the same employer I am with now (or one with similar benefits) I cannot recieve SS... not even my husbands in the event he should die before I do.
My mother believed that for years, but we found that was not true in her case. She collects part of my late father's social security benefit in addition to her state teacher retirement benefit. Her social security benefit is reduced from what she would have gotten if she had never worked in a SS exempt job, but it is not zero.
Of course, my impression is that you are decades away from retirement, so this info probably has zero impact on your life or even life planning.0 -
One cannot assume whether a person is compassionate or not based on how much in taxes they want to pay. I am comfortable in my thinking enough to say that I would bet that most people want to care for the poor... we just all disagree on how to do it. Personally, I prefer to donate to our local mission that runs free/low cost clinics, food banks, etc. I prefer to donate to causes that stay local, not siphoned from my region to another. With that said, I would rather pay slightly higher local taxes for community programs that take care of the issues local families are dealing with than higher federal taxes where the money goes to things like bridges to nowhere....
1. It wasn't an assumption, it was based on things he said. Maybe he could prove he is very compassionate in his everyday life, but he doesn't care what some guy on the internet with a cat avatar thinks, so moving on...
2. Your tax argument doesn't hold up. The social security and medicare taxes that come from your paycheck go only to those programs so there are ways to fix that, and local governments aren't immune from bad financial policies.
Take my county (a bit of a rant here). We elected a really conservative board of county commissioners, and they made it their mission to cut as much as possible. Privatized agencies, cut head start, cut funding for local charities. They ended up with a budget surplus, and you know what they did with the money? Sent $100 to each homeowner in the county as a tax rebate. That money could have been much better spent.
Actually I'm SS exempt... which also means that when it comes time for me to be 65, provided I stay with the same employer I am with now (or one with similar benefits) I cannot recieve SS... not even my husbands in the event he should die before I do. AND The federal government can borrow from SS and Medicare it's called an intragovernmental loan... it's one of the ways that Clinton had is often mistouted "balanced budget"... Bush did it too and I'm sure that Obama has as well. And I realize that local governments aren't immune from bad financial policies however, most cities/states have it in their laws that they MUST have a balanced budget... there is no deficit borrowing. Not to mention the fact that it is easier to put on the pressure when it comes local spending. People can walk into city hall and complain (rather loudly) much easier than going onto the Hill or into the White House to complain...
ETA: Oh and my bit about assuming compassion was meant as a general statement as it is often said that those of us that do not agree with taxes being used for programs such as these are not compassionate... It wasn't meant solely in reply to you or anyone... otherwise I would have replied to the comments. I really was saying it as a generality.
Yeah, the intergovernmental loans from Social Security was actually initiated by Reagan and Greenspan because Reagan could not further raise the income tax rate to pay down the deficit.
[/quo
.0 -
Here are the countries with the 15 highest purchasing power parity per capita healthcare costs. It's basically how much the same services cost in each country. Lowering the cost of services would lower the taxes/premiums paid by each individual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
1 United States $8,233.00 Complex system
2 Norway $5,388.00 Single payer - government
3 Switzerland $5,270.00 Mandated private insurance
4 Netherlands $5,056.00 Mandated private for most, government for the elderly
5 Luxembourg $4,786.00 Single payer - government
6 Denmark $4,464.00 Single payer - government
7 Canada $4,445.00 Single payer - government
8 Austria $4,395.00 Single payer - government
9 Germany $4,338.00 Mandated insurance - public and private
10 France $3,978.00 Single payer - government
11 Belgium $3,969.00 Competing government insurance programs
12 Sweden $3,758.00 Single payer - government
13 Ireland $3,718.00 Single payer - government
14 Australia $3,670.00 Universal government healthcare, private options
15 United Kingdom $3,433.00 Single payer - government
A list of numbers is hard to absorb, for me anyway. Here's a graph of those numbers.
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't fit.
We spend a lot more per person for healthcare. And as has been pointed out, we don't get a commensurate increase in healthcare quality.0 -
Actually I'm SS exempt... which also means that when it comes time for me to be 65, provided I stay with the same employer I am with now (or one with similar benefits) I cannot recieve SS... not even my husbands in the event he should die before I do. AND The federal government can borrow from SS and Medicare it's called an intragovernmental loan... it's one of the ways that Clinton had is often mistouted "balanced budget"... Bush did it too and I'm sure that Obama has as well. And I realize that local governments aren't immune from bad financial policies however, most cities/states have it in their laws that they MUST have a balanced budget... there is no deficit borrowing. Not to mention the fact that it is easier to put on the pressure when it comes local spending. People can walk into city hall and complain (rather loudly) much easier than going onto the Hill or into the White House to complain...
Oh, my mistake. I wasn't aware of the intragovernmental loan.0 -
AND The federal government can borrow from SS and Medicare it's called an intragovernmental loan... it's one of the ways that Clinton had is often mistouted "balanced budget"... Bush did it too and I'm sure that Obama has as well.
Yeah, the intergovernmental loans from Social Security was actually initiated by Reagan and Greenspan because Reagan could not further raise the income tax rate to pay down the deficit.
Below is the best explanation I've seen of the Social Security Trust Fund and what y'all are calling an intragovernmental loan.Starting in 1983, the payroll tax was deliberately set higher than it needed to be to cover payments to retirees. For the next 30 years, this extra money was sent to the Treasury, and this windfall allowed income tax rates to be lower than they otherwise would have been. During this period, people who paid payroll taxes suffered from this arrangement, while people who paid income taxes benefited.
Now things have turned around. As the baby boomers have started to retire, payroll taxes are less than they need to be to cover payments to retirees. To make up this shortfall, the Treasury is paying back the money it got over the past 30 years, and this means that income taxes need to be higher than they otherwise would be. For the next few decades, people who pay payroll taxes will benefit from this arrangement, while people who pay income taxes will suffer.
If payroll taxpayers and income taxpayers were the same people, none of this would matter. The trust fund really would be a fiction. But they aren't. Payroll taxpayers tend to be the poor and the middle class. Income taxpayers tend to be the upper middle class and the rich. Long story short, for the past 30 years, the poor and the middle class overpaid and the rich benefited. For the next 30 years or so, the rich will overpay and the poor and the middle class will benefit.
The trust fund is the physical embodiment of that deal. It's no surprise that the rich, who didn't object to this arrangement when it was first made, are now having second thoughts. But make no mistake. When wealthy pundits like Krauthammer claim that the trust fund is a fiction, they're trying to renege on a deal halfway through because they don't want to pay back the loans they got.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/no-social-security-trust-fund-isnt-fiction
Notice the year this deal was struck: 1983. Reagan was president, expected income from payroll taxes was increasing more slowly than expected SS payments, so Reagan tasked Alan Greenspan to head a task force to find a solution. That is what Doorki is talking about when he mentioned Reagan and Greenspan.0 -
AND The federal government can borrow from SS and Medicare it's called an intragovernmental loan... it's one of the ways that Clinton had is often mistouted "balanced budget"... Bush did it too and I'm sure that Obama has as well.
I can't let the part about Clinton's "mistouted" "balanced budget" pass without comment.Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
. . . .
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now [2008] bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. . . .
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/0 -
AND The federal government can borrow from SS and Medicare it's called an intragovernmental loan... it's one of the ways that Clinton had is often mistouted "balanced budget"... Bush did it too and I'm sure that Obama has as well.
Yeah, the intergovernmental loans from Social Security was actually initiated by Reagan and Greenspan because Reagan could not further raise the income tax rate to pay down the deficit.
For the record, I'm not putting any party as blameless towards anything... I assumed Reagan and Bush I did it too... But I have serious doubts at the assessment that the Poor and the Middle Class will benefit in regards to anything from the Government... not so long as Corporatism keeps happening.0 -
AND The federal government can borrow from SS and Medicare it's called an intragovernmental loan... it's one of the ways that Clinton had is often mistouted "balanced budget"... Bush did it too and I'm sure that Obama has as well.
Yeah, the intergovernmental loans from Social Security was actually initiated by Reagan and Greenspan because Reagan could not further raise the income tax rate to pay down the deficit.
Below is the best explanation I've seen of the Social Security Trust Fund and what y'all are calling an intragovernmental loan.Starting in 1983, the payroll tax was deliberately set higher than it needed to be to cover payments to retirees. For the next 30 years, this extra money was sent to the Treasury, and this windfall allowed income tax rates to be lower than they otherwise would have been. During this period, people who paid payroll taxes suffered from this arrangement, while people who paid income taxes benefited.
Now things have turned around. As the baby boomers have started to retire, payroll taxes are less than they need to be to cover payments to retirees. To make up this shortfall, the Treasury is paying back the money it got over the past 30 years, and this means that income taxes need to be higher than they otherwise would be. For the next few decades, people who pay payroll taxes will benefit from this arrangement, while people who pay income taxes will suffer.
If payroll taxpayers and income taxpayers were the same people, none of this would matter. The trust fund really would be a fiction. But they aren't. Payroll taxpayers tend to be the poor and the middle class. Income taxpayers tend to be the upper middle class and the rich. Long story short, for the past 30 years, the poor and the middle class overpaid and the rich benefited. For the next 30 years or so, the rich will overpay and the poor and the middle class will benefit.
The trust fund is the physical embodiment of that deal. It's no surprise that the rich, who didn't object to this arrangement when it was first made, are now having second thoughts. But make no mistake. When wealthy pundits like Krauthammer claim that the trust fund is a fiction, they're trying to renege on a deal halfway through because they don't want to pay back the loans they got.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/no-social-security-trust-fund-isnt-fiction
Notice the year this deal was struck: 1983. Reagan was president, expected income from payroll taxes was increasing more slowly than expected SS payments, so Reagan tasked Alan Greenspan to head a task force to find a solution. That is what Doorki is talking about when he mentioned Reagan and Greenspan.
Stated much better than I ever could. As always.0 -
Here are the countries with the 15 highest purchasing power parity per capita healthcare costs. It's basically how much the same services cost in each country. Lowering the cost of services would lower the taxes/premiums paid by each individual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
1 United States $8,233.00 Complex system
2 Norway $5,388.00 Single payer - government
3 Switzerland $5,270.00 Mandated private insurance
4 Netherlands $5,056.00 Mandated private for most, government for the elderly
5 Luxembourg $4,786.00 Single payer - government
6 Denmark $4,464.00 Single payer - government
7 Canada $4,445.00 Single payer - government
8 Austria $4,395.00 Single payer - government
9 Germany $4,338.00 Mandated insurance - public and private
10 France $3,978.00 Single payer - government
11 Belgium $3,969.00 Competing government insurance programs
12 Sweden $3,758.00 Single payer - government
13 Ireland $3,718.00 Single payer - government
14 Australia $3,670.00 Universal government healthcare, private options
15 United Kingdom $3,433.00 Single payer - government
This high cost doesn't come with high quality. The WHO ranked the US system 38th in the world in their 2000 report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
And we hear anecdotes in the media of people coming from Canada to use our system because they don't want to wait, but there will always be complaints from every system. Overall, though, they are more satisfied with their system than we are with our system.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html
The Affordable Health Care act does nothing to lower the cost of healthcare per capita in the U.S. It remains to be seen if it doesn't increase healthcare costs hidden in added taxes over time.0 -
AND The federal government can borrow from SS and Medicare it's called an intragovernmental loan... it's one of the ways that Clinton had is often mistouted "balanced budget"... Bush did it too and I'm sure that Obama has as well.
I can't let the part about Clinton's "mistouted" "balanced budget" pass without comment.Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
. . . .
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now [2008] bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. . . .
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Except, according to the US Treasury, we still had US federal debt during that time period... the "surplus" comes when you fuzzy the lines of said debt.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
When Social Security has more coming in than it needs, it is required to buy US Treasury Bonds with the surplus, and that is the intra-governmental loan.
Having a surplus implies no debt.
But eh, we aren't going to change each others minds on this...0 -
Ok, point taken. But what should they then do if they do get sick? Is it conscionable, as the richest country on the planet, to let our citizens die or go bankrupt? I'm asking this because by saying it's not your problem, it sounds like you think you should be required to pay $0 for anyone else, including emergency care, which you already do pay for. That's what would happen if everyone had that opinion.
If someone that has the means to get healthcare but chooses not to get it gets sick what is my responsibility in that? You seem to think society is to blame if that person goes bankrupt or worse due to their choose.
Let me re-frame the question. If someone purchases a house but then chooses to pay for luxuries instead of the mortgage is society to blame? Should society bail that person out because they made a bad choice? We are supposedly the richest country on the earth after all. What does personal accountability have to do with it??Also, what about the people who don't have a healthcare or a car, phone, internet, or anything else like that? That's the reality for a lot of working poor Americans.
For those that are poor there already are safety nets in place in the form of welfare, food assistance, medicaid, etc.0 -
Except, according to the US Treasury, we still had US federal debt during that time period... the "surplus" comes when you fuzzy the lines of said debt.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
When Social Security has more coming in than it needs, it is required to buy US Treasury Bonds with the surplus, and that is the intra-governmental loan.
Having a surplus implies no debt.
But eh, we aren't going to change each others minds on this...
You're confusing two concepts: deficit/surplus and debt.
Deficit is the amount the government spends in a given year over the amount it collects in that year. And if the government collects more in a year than it pays out, the difference is called a surplus.
Debt is the total amount the government owes.
If the government ran a deficit of $1 for every year since 1789, the total debt would be $224 dollars. Because of the deficit of $1, every year the government would have to borrow another dollar, which over time would total $224 ($1 per year from 1789 to 2013).
And if next year, the deficit was reduced to zero, we would still have $224 debt. If we had a surplus of $1, we could pay off $1 of debt, reducing the debt to $223. And if we had a surplus of $1 every year in the future, by the year 2237, we would have paid off the national debt. Woohoo!
No one has ever claimed that Clinton eliminated the national debt. Only that he eliminated the deficit in his last years in office.
Social Security has zero to do with that.0 -
Or as they state it at the website I linked to above:Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Words have meanings. Having a surplus by no means implies no debt.0 -
Or to beat this into the ground . . . .
U.S. debt from 1940 to 2011. Red lines indicate the debt held by the public (net public debt) and black lines indicate the total public debt outstanding (gross public debt), the difference being that the gross debt includes that held by the federal government itself. The second panel shows the two debt figures as a percentage of U.S. GDP (dollar value of U.S. economic production for that year). The top panel is deflated so every year is in 2010 dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
The top graph shows two lines: Gross debt and public debt. The difference between those two is mostly the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds (or as the caption states it debt "held by the federal government itself."
Notice that both lines drop a bit in the late 90s. That's because Clinton had a surplus in those years . . . whether you count the trust funds or not. When there is a surplus, the national debt goes down by the amount of the surplus. It doesn't go down to zero.0 -
Or as they state it at the website I linked to above:Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Words have meanings. Having a surplus by no means implies no debt.
The debt also increased (per the US treasury site) during those years, not decreased, thus by this definition there was still a deficit. He may have decreased the deficit (with the help of a Republican congress btw) but he did not have a surplus (only one year did he come close to no deficit)... again, by this definition.
But we are now beating a dead horse and I'm not feeling well enough to play as hard as usual.0 -
We must have cross posted. I already showed that the debt went down. It didn't go up as you claim.0
-
This is the historical debt outstanding as per the US Treasury (which I linked to earlier):
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
So unless my head is totally full of snot, as it is anyway, then it could stand to reason that our debt has gone up and is continuing to go up thus continually in a deficit.
Man, we have gone off in a tangent.0 -
Those must be non-inflation adjusted gross debt numbers. Fair enough. If you include the money the government owes itself and you ignore inflation, the national debt increased every year.
I'd argue that public debt is more meaningful than gross debt and it's better to take inflation into account, but numbers is numbers.0 -
The Affordable Health Care act does nothing to lower the cost of healthcare per capita in the U.S. It remains to be seen if it doesn't increase healthcare costs hidden in added taxes over time.
"Nothing" is too strong a word. I'd agree it probably doesn't do enough, but it doesn't do nothing to lower future costs.
For example (carriage returns added):The ACA also includes a number of provisions to address the problem of rapidly rising
health costs in the United States.
The first is the Cadillac tax, which should reduce the incidence of very generous health insurance plans and thereby excessive demand for health care.
The second is new health insurance “exchanges,” state-organized marketplaces where non-group and small group insurers must compete in a transparent marketplace that is designed to maximize competition and lower premiums.
The third is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is charged with re-designing reimbursement of providers under Medicare to lower costs and ensure quality; this board’s recommendations are subject to an up or down vote by Congress.
The fourth is a new research institute — with sizeable funding — to study the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments, in an effort to understand which treatments are most cost effective.
Finally, there are many pilot programs examining alternative organizations and reimbursement structures for medical providers in an attempt to finds ways to undo the pernicious incentives of our retrospective “fee-for-service” medical reimbursement system.
There are dozens of other provisions in the ACA that are not reviewed here as well, on topics ranging from incentives for improving the quality of health care, to a new social insurance program for long-term care, to incentives to increase primary care provision, and so on.
http://economics.mit.edu/files/6829
THE IMPACTS OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT: HOW REASONABLE ARE THE PROJECTIONS?
Jonathan Gruber
Working Paper 171680 -
The first is the Cadillac tax, which should reduce the incidence of very generous health insurance plans and thereby excessive demand for health care.
All this does is raise the price of certain health insurance policies. It has no effect on health care costs.The second is new health insurance “exchanges,” state-organized marketplaces where non-group and small group insurers must compete in a transparent marketplace that is designed to maximize competition and lower premiums.
Most people using the exchanges will be those without health insurance already so by default their health care costs will go up just by the fact that they are required by law to carry health insurance now. It is doubtful anyone with a current policy will see premiums go down. I have had health insurance for 20 years. Never has my premium went down. Again health care costs will not be effected by insurance premium costs.The third is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is charged with re-designing reimbursement of providers under Medicare to lower costs and ensure quality; this board’s recommendations are subject to an up or down vote by Congress.
This is a joke. Congress can't even pass a budget. Lobbyists will prevent any good from happening here.The fourth is a new research institute — with sizeable funding — to study the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments, in an effort to understand which treatments are most cost effective.
This sounds like a study with the end result of removing medical treatment choices from the consumer. We have deemed this treatment not cost effective so you can not have it! BAM your health care cost went down! seriously?0 -
Not enough, but not nothing.0
-
If someone that has the means to get healthcare but chooses not to get it gets sick what is my responsibility in that? You seem to think society is to blame if that person goes bankrupt or worse due to their choose.
Since you just answered me with another question, I'll take that as "they can die, for all I care." And I don't think society is to blame, I just think that since we're in a position to make sure that nobody has to make that decision, we should, especially with the drag healthcare is on the economy.
Also, it'd be nice if you posted references to back up your agruments.0
This discussion has been closed.