For those of you who think too much government spending goes to welfare...

[Sundial]

Somehow taking care of your parents is bad to him.

I like Medicare. If it were up to me, it'd be extended to everyone. I'm a Democrat. I believe our community should take care of people who are old and sick. Not to mention children, babies, and the disabled.

You, on the other hand, would have us believe you've got a million dollars set aside for when your mom gets cancer.

Good luck with that. Hopefully your mom won't get cancer.

If she does though, good luck living out of your cardboard box.

This is where you fail. It should not cost a million dollars to care for a cancer patient. You should be questioning why instead of saying the government (you and I) should just pay the set price!! The outrage from the left is always in the wrong place. 40 years ago, before insurance and trial lawyers, health care was affordable for everyone.

Why is it OK with you to pay those outrageous sums for elderly care??

One of the benefits of a single-payer system is that it costs less. The US has the most expensive health care system in the world, but not the best. Other countries - countries with universal health care - have both better outcomes for their people, and lower costs. Obamacare is not a single-payer system, but it is a step in the right direction. We'll get there. It's just a question of defeating Republicans at the ballot box.

You can help. Vote for Democrats.

 

[Sundial]

A lot of people are like you. But to believe everyone is would only be a rationalization on your part, and you're wrong. This is my point above on that Obama, Harry and Nancy promising to give your bills to other people isn't just an economic question but it lessens who you are as a person to believe I'm equally responsible for your fathers bills as you are.

It sounds like you're saying you'd rather bankrupt your kids, than have to pay for Medicare. What a squalid, mean-spirited, hateful way to try to get out of paying your taxes.

No, I'm saying YOU are bankrupting your kids. Grow up and stop playing stupid word games.

What the fuck? YOU'RE the one who says kids should be saddled with their parents debts. I'M saying they shouldn't be.

But then again, I'd blow my brains out before I became a burden on my daughter.

 

[Sundial]

Look, you said he should have saved. I told you that he did. You said his church should pay his bills. I'm telling you they won't. You're saying his family should pay his bills. I'm telling you they can't...

I don't know what I can tell you Sundial. You actually don't get it, do you? You think when I list all those things, each was independently supposed to be THE solution. I'll say it again, but probably not for you since if you didn't get it up until now you're probably not going to. This is a list.

1) People should spend their own money on their routine expenses.

2) They should buy insurance for things they can't afford to pay for.

3) Then they should go to their families for help.

4) Then they should rely on the help they can get from their community, churches, etc.

By having government do it, you make everyone dependent on government and thereby create an entitlement mentality. Government makes us all poorer as they take the money out of the economy. Government makes poor decisions on what care should be provided, who should provide it and who should receive it because that's the nature of government. You pay for it in everything you buy. And you pay for it because everyone else runs to government to solve their problems like you do.

Here's the trick, Sundial. This is a system. You can't pull specific things out of it, like Oh, his church should pay for it, as if I said that was the solution. I didn't. I said that is one of many areas that can help him, not that they will pay his bills for him. This is why it's such a waste of time arguing with liberals. Rather then grasping and addressing arguments, you just keep repeating, duh, I don't get it. His church is going to pay for his dialysis? Is your church going to pay for his dialysis? It's not that complicated and that's OBVIOUSLY not what I meant. But liberals think that "duh, I don't get it" is a panacea argument addressing all points and that not getting it is a reflection of their intelligence. It is a reflection of their intelligence, but how small it is, not how great.

Your system is not a system. It's just hoping for the best.

It doesn't work any better when you put them together than when you consider them one by one. A person should 1.) bankrupt himself, 2.) bankrupt his family, 3.) go begging to his church.

Why? Why is that better than having a nation-wide insurance program that covers everyone?

 

[Big Fitz]

One of the benefits of a single-payer system is that it costs less.

A monopoly costs less? Really? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Then let's do it for cars, food and homes as well. Everything will cost less... won't it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

No offense, but when in the 9 hells has welfare costs ever gone down?

When was the last time our economy worked properly?

Define 'properly'. I suspect our definitions won't match.

Well first you have to get rid of the vacuum cleaners that are sucking the life out of our economy like the Federal Reserve and the military industrial complex. Go back to an honest days work for an honest days pay.

There is more, of course.

 

[uscitizen]

United States Total Spending Pie Chart for 2012 - Charts

Health Care: 18%

Pensions: 16%

Defense: 15%

Education: 15%

Welfare: 11%

Healthcare is part of welfare, that makes it 29%.
Last I looked that isn't what the founders and writers of the constitution saw as government responsibility.

Healthcare for govt workers is welfare?
The VA is welfare?

 

[uscitizen]

Look, you said he should have saved. I told you that he did. You said his church should pay his bills. I'm telling you they won't. You're saying his family should pay his bills. I'm telling you they can't...

I don't know what I can tell you Sundial. You actually don't get it, do you? You think when I list all those things, each was independently supposed to be THE solution. I'll say it again, but probably not for you since if you didn't get it up until now you're probably not going to. This is a list.

1) People should spend their own money on their routine expenses.

2) They should buy insurance for things they can't afford to pay for.

3) Then they should go to their families for help.

4) Then they should rely on the help they can get from their community, churches, etc.

By having government do it, you make everyone dependent on government and thereby create an entitlement mentality. Government makes us all poorer as they take the money out of the economy. Government makes poor decisions on what care should be provided, who should provide it and who should receive it because that's the nature of government. You pay for it in everything you buy. And you pay for it because everyone else runs to government to solve their problems like you do.

Here's the trick, Sundial. This is a system. You can't pull specific things out of it, like Oh, his church should pay for it, as if I said that was the solution. I didn't. I said that is one of many areas that can help him, not that they will pay his bills for him. This is why it's such a waste of time arguing with liberals. Rather then grasping and addressing arguments, you just keep repeating, duh, I don't get it. His church is going to pay for his dialysis? Is your church going to pay for his dialysis? It's not that complicated and that's OBVIOUSLY not what I meant. But liberals think that "duh, I don't get it" is a panacea argument addressing all points and that not getting it is a reflection of their intelligence. It is a reflection of their intelligence, but how small it is, not how great.

Your system is not a system. It's just hoping for the best.

It doesn't work any better when you put them together than when you consider them one by one. A person should 1.) bankrupt himself, 2.) bankrupt his family, 3.) go begging to his church.

Why? Why is that better than having a nation-wide insurance program that covers everyone?

It doesn't work any better when you put them together than when you consider them one by one. A person should 1.) bankrupt himself, 2.) bankrupt his family, 3.) go begging to his church.

4. strap on a bomb and blow himself up in a govt building?

 

[Big Fitz]

When was the last time our economy worked properly?

Define 'properly'. I suspect our definitions won't match.

Well first you have to get rid of the vacuum cleaners that are sucking the life out of our economy like the Federal Reserve and the military industrial complex. Go back to an honest days work for an honest days pay.

There is more, of course.

So Pre-welfare state conditions of the guilded age instead of the progressive era. Gotcha.

 

[Sundial]

One of the benefits of a single-payer system is that it costs less.

A monopoly costs less? Really? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Then let's do it for cars, food and homes as well. Everything will cost less... won't it?

Do you really want to have a conversation about the differences between medical care and consumer products?

Here's one: The administrative cost of running Medicare is 1.3%. The administrative cost of private insurers is 11 - 12%. For companies that sell individual policies it's 30%. That's money wasted. Money that could be going for health care, or back in your pocket.

Here's another: Health insurance companies make a profit from denying claims. The more claims they deny, the more money they make. So they spend a lot of time - and money - denying claims. Ever had a health insurance company deny a claim? Then you know what I'm talking about.

Here's a third: A health insurance company has an interest in insuring healthy people, and then dropping them when they get sick. That's because they lose money on sick people. Romney said he likes to be able to "fire people". Health insurance companies like to fire people too: specifically, sick people.

Moar?

Or r u done?

 

[Skull Pilot]

One of the benefits of a single-payer system is that it costs less.

A monopoly costs less? Really? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Then let's do it for cars, food and homes as well. Everything will cost less... won't it?

Do you really want to have a conversation about the differences between medical care and consumer products?

Here's one: The administrative cost of running Medicare is 1.3%. The administrative cost of private insurers is 11 - 12%. For companies that sell individual policies it's 30%. That's money wasted. Money that could be going for health care, or back in your pocket.

Here's another: Health insurance companies make a profit from denying claims. The more claims they deny, the more money they make. So they spend a lot of time - and money - denying claims. Ever had a health insurance company deny a claim? Then you know what I'm talking about.

Here's a third: A health insurance company has an interest in insuring healthy people, and then dropping them when they get sick. That's because they lose money on sick people. Romney said he likes to be able to "fire people". Health insurance companies like to fire people too: specifically, sick people.

Moar?

Or r u done?

Your last two reasons for single payer government health care are exactly why it will cost us more in the long run and not less.

It doesn't matter what the administrative costs are compared to the cost of never denying a claim and never denying coverage.

If you want to bring down medical costs, you have to subject medicine, not insurance, to market forces.

If you knew exactly what every service a Dr or hospital provides will cost then you can shop around for the best combination of price, quality and service just like you do for everything else.

That is a sure way to bring down medical costs

 

[kaz]

United States Total Spending Pie Chart for 2012 - Charts

Health Care: 18%

Pensions: 16%

Defense: 15%

Education: 15%

Welfare: 11%

Healthcare is part of welfare, that makes it 29%.
Last I looked that isn't what the founders and writers of the constitution saw as government responsibility.

There were a lot of things the founders did not consider a government responsibility

They were really not up on what was required to run a 21st century superpower

They created a system that led to our being a "21st century superpower."

Liberalism and our great leader Obama is creating a system that he is telling us we need to get used to the idea we won't be as prosperous as we were.

And you consider that proof that socialism...works...????

 

[Sundial]

A monopoly costs less? Really? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Then let's do it for cars, food and homes as well. Everything will cost less... won't it?

Do you really want to have a conversation about the differences between medical care and consumer products?

Here's one: The administrative cost of running Medicare is 1.3%. The administrative cost of private insurers is 11 - 12%. For companies that sell individual policies it's 30%. That's money wasted. Money that could be going for health care, or back in your pocket.

Here's another: Health insurance companies make a profit from denying claims. The more claims they deny, the more money they make. So they spend a lot of time - and money - denying claims. Ever had a health insurance company deny a claim? Then you know what I'm talking about.

Here's a third: A health insurance company has an interest in insuring healthy people, and then dropping them when they get sick. That's because they lose money on sick people. Romney said he likes to be able to "fire people". Health insurance companies like to fire people too: specifically, sick people.

Moar?

Or r u done?

Your last two reasons for single payer government health care are exactly why it will cost us more in the long run and not less.

It doesn't matter what the administrative costs are compared to the cost of never denying a claim and never denying coverage.

If you want to bring down medical costs, you have to subject medicine, not insurance, to market forces.

If you knew exactly what every service a Dr or hospital provides will cost then you can shop around for the best combination of price, quality and service just like you do for everything else.

That is a sure way to bring down medical costs

I actually agree with you: if it were up to me, they'd have have to tell you what something cost before they did it, assuming you were conscious and not dying. There'd be a small, but not 0 co-pay for every single thing they did, there'd be a single payer who paid every claim, you could see any doctor you wanted, and people who tried to cheat the system would go to jail.

And if you wanted to pay for more than basic service, you could do that too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

United States Total Spending Pie Chart for 2012 - Charts

Health Care: 18%

Pensions: 16%

Defense: 15%

Education: 15%

Welfare: 11%

I think the federal government should spend $0 on welfare.

I think the government should come and confiscate all your shit, take your source of income away and leave you with nothing.... for a month... see how ya do. The only thing is, you know you'll get it back in a month.

It's easy to talk tough when you're doing OK. It's called a lack of empathy... You super right wingers have that gene missing from your DNA.

Been there, done that, never went to the feds for help, and did not get it back in a month. You shouldn't make assumptions about people just because they disagree with your liberal theology.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

United States Total Spending Pie Chart for 2012 - Charts

Health Care: 18%

Pensions: 16%

Defense: 15%

Education: 15%

Welfare: 11%

Healthcare is part of welfare, that makes it 29%.
Last I looked that isn't what the founders and writers of the constitution saw as government responsibility.

There were a lot of things the founders did not consider a government responsibility

They were really not up on what was required to run a 21st century superpower

Welfare makes us a superpower?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I like Medicare. If it were up to me, it'd be extended to everyone. I'm a Democrat. I believe our community should take care of people who are old and sick. Not to mention children, babies, and the disabled.

You, on the other hand, would have us believe you've got a million dollars set aside for when your mom gets cancer.

Good luck with that. Hopefully your mom won't get cancer.

If she does though, good luck living out of your cardboard box.

This is where you fail. It should not cost a million dollars to care for a cancer patient. You should be questioning why instead of saying the government (you and I) should just pay the set price!! The outrage from the left is always in the wrong place. 40 years ago, before insurance and trial lawyers, health care was affordable for everyone.

Why is it OK with you to pay those outrageous sums for elderly care??

One of the benefits of a single-payer system is that it costs less. The US has the most expensive health care system in the world, but not the best. Other countries - countries with universal health care - have both better outcomes for their people, and lower costs. Obamacare is not a single-payer system, but it is a step in the right direction. We'll get there. It's just a question of defeating Republicans at the ballot box.

You can help. Vote for Democrats.

Define best. The US system is the best at keeping people alive after they are diagnosed with a serious illness, it has the highest cancer survival rate in the world. I prefer that to a system that relies on people not getting sick or hurt in the first place.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

United States Total Spending Pie Chart for 2012 - Charts

Health Care: 18%

Pensions: 16%

Defense: 15%

Education: 15%

Welfare: 11%

Yeah 11% is Way too much, it should be no more than 5%. with the difference going to health care and defense.

 

[Steelplate]

I like Medicare. If it were up to me, it'd be extended to everyone. I'm a Democrat. I believe our community should take care of people who are old and sick. Not to mention children, babies, and the disabled.

You, on the other hand, would have us believe you've got a million dollars set aside for when your mom gets cancer.

Good luck with that. Hopefully your mom won't get cancer.

If she does though, good luck living out of your cardboard box.

This is where you fail. It should not cost a million dollars to care for a cancer patient. You should be questioning why instead of saying the government (you and I) should just pay the set price!! The outrage from the left is always in the wrong place. 40 years ago, before insurance and trial lawyers, health care was affordable for everyone.

Why is it OK with you to pay those outrageous sums for elderly care??

One of the benefits of a single-payer system is that it costs less. The US has the most expensive health care system in the world, but not the best. Other countries - countries with universal health care - have both better outcomes for their people, and lower costs. Obamacare is not a single-payer system, but it is a step in the right direction. We'll get there. It's just a question of defeating Republicans at the ballot box.

You can help. Vote for Democrats.

Not to mention that all those countries WITH Universal health care? They're our Competition... their businesses and their workforce do not have to worry about paying for health care... Huge advantage they have on us.

The ONLY reason that we do not have it is the Insurance lobby, Big Pharma, and the AMA....and of course the ridiculous marketing campaign that attempts to strike fear in the hearts of the weak minded by using the word... Socialism.... The Jedi mind trick works.

 

[Big Fitz]

One of the benefits of a single-payer system is that it costs less.

A monopoly costs less? Really? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Then let's do it for cars, food and homes as well. Everything will cost less... won't it?

Do you really want to have a conversation about the differences between medical care and consumer products?

Here's one: The administrative cost of running Medicare is 1.3%. The administrative cost of private insurers is 11 - 12%. For companies that sell individual policies it's 30%. That's money wasted. Money that could be going for health care, or back in your pocket.

Here's another: Health insurance companies make a profit from denying claims. The more claims they deny, the more money they make. So they spend a lot of time - and money - denying claims. Ever had a health insurance company deny a claim? Then you know what I'm talking about.

Here's a third: A health insurance company has an interest in insuring healthy people, and then dropping them when they get sick. That's because they lose money on sick people. Romney said he likes to be able to "fire people". Health insurance companies like to fire people too: specifically, sick people.

Moar?

Or r u done?

Some small problem with your 'facts'.

1. Medicare has lower administration costs, because they can just increase taxes to cover shortfalls that always come up. Corporations cannot. They must budget and plan safely for good times and bad as well as make themselves profitable for investors to give them stability and financial health when things turn bad. Gubmint? SHit no. they just raise your taxes and say 'whattaya gonna do about it? Go to jail for not paying taxes?'

2. Medicare both denies MORE claims than private insurance and only pays a fraction of the true costs, thereby making the medical practitioners poorer, effectively stealing services and resources from them by refusing to pay their costs. This in turn requires the providers to inflate costs to make sure that they get a survivable sum of money from the skinflints at the government OR ration how many people come from these government programs. This cuts either the pool available to people to use, or the practitioners able to provide because they have rationed or gone out of business. This is not a viable answer or solution.

3. And if they are dropped for using their coverage, the insurance agency can be sued. Can you sue the government when they drop you? Short answer no. Long answer, you still can't sue the government but neither will they drop you. Instead a bureaucrat will administer what they will cover and if they don't like you, expect to get shittier treatment.

Someone in the private industry is ALWAYS willing to take high risk people IF THEY PAY ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PROFITABLE. The government just rations or increases taxes making the whole process unaffordable as they do not respond to market forces of scarcity, economy and efficiency. They don't have to because they can either print money, hide the loss in inflation or tax more and give the rest of the healthy people forced into the system a jolly 'fuck y'all'.

Moar? Shit, buddy. I'd like to see something that isn't hopelessly naive. As for the difference between medical services and a product? HAH! There is none. Everyone needs water, energy, food and medical among many other things. The beauty of a free market is that as a consumer, if I cannot receive the product or service that I need, I can fire your ass and find someone who will. Yes it may be more expensive, but it is what I NEED. You don't have a right to someone's labor, skill or resources because of your need. That's slavery. You must trade something of value from yourself for it. That is the free market, and just because it's medical does not make it any different from water, electricity, gasoline or apples.

So we can just drop this delusion right now, mmkay? I'm not playing ball with it.

 

[Foxfyre]

does your employer match your contributions?

I have never had an employer who did, but know that this is sometimes included in the compensation package some employers' offer. So long as the employer is using his/her own money there is no problem. He/she can plow the money back into the business, spend it on a great vacation, or use it for bonuses or raises or whatever, but it is the employers' money and he/she can use it for whatever he/she wishes including providing matching 401K contributions.

The problem comes in when a corporation--no sole proprietor would ever do that--keeps paying into a person's 401K after the person retires or otherwise leaves the company. That is the legacy of the modern union and has brought more than one big business to its knees. Such a plan is unsustainable and it should be illegal for the federal government to bail out any company who bankrupts itself in that way.

In the city, country, state, and federal government level, it should be illegal and, because it isn't illegal now, we have so many local, state, and the federal government in a state of bankruptcy with no good options left.

I think that in general... you are full of shit. You have proof to back up your assertions? I work for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and I contribute 6.3% of my gross to my retirement fund and the Commonwealth matches it. The kicker that you don't like is that the Commonwealth sends me a check till the day I die. Too fucking bad. That's how the Government gets people to work for them. Because often times, government pay is less than a similar private sector position.

Sure it's nice for you to get others to pay for your retirement until you diie. What you don't know or care about is that every dime the commonwealth pays you comes out of somebody else's pocket. And I imagine it comes out of a lot of pockets who could put that money to much better benefit to themselves or others rather than secure your retirement during which time you will be contributing little or nothing to the economy in return for that money.

Meanwhile more and more retirees are living longer meaning those still working have to dig deeper into their pockets to keep everybody in a comfortable retirement until that maxes out. Any increase in taxes would drive people from the Commonwealth reducing the tax base and exacerbating the shortfall. Which has happened in many states resulting in the bankruptcy of those states. As is true in all pyramid and Ponzi schemes, no system can survive indefintiely paying out money that nobody earned.

And frankly, I don't want anybody working in government who is working there only because of the retirement benefits.

 

[alan1]

United States Total Spending Pie Chart for 2012 - Charts

Health Care: 18%

Pensions: 16%

Defense: 15%

Education: 15%

Welfare: 11%

Healthcare is part of welfare, that makes it 29%.
Last I looked that isn't what the founders and writers of the constitution saw as government responsibility.

There were a lot of things the founders did not consider a government responsibility

They were really not up on what was required to run a 21st century superpower

Seems to me that the people running the 21st century superpower are more off the mark than the founders. So are the people that can't add 18 and 11.