Job Creators, the Wealthy and Republican slight of hand

[Sactowndog]

Well in this case, the ulterior motive is we are unwilling to let people drop out of the market and die on the street from things that could be fixed.

Well, as I and others have pointed, it's not a choice between "letting people die in the streets" and government intervention. I don't think it's useful to frame it as a black and white choice in that regard.

So what's your solution? Mine is a single payer system for all like Ryan's Voucher system and allow health plans to be marketed nationally. The government would have a default plan for those to lazy or stupid to sign up for one on their own.

I would guess you should have some disclosure requirements and financial requirements to prevent swindlers from just taking people's money.

My preferred solution is non-governmental and free market - because I prefer freedom. If we don't have the political will to maintain that, then we should resolve to provide health care as a government service in a sane way. Something like what we've done with primary education makes the most sense to me (only the basics, localized as possible, etc ...).

What you're recommending, in my view, is exactly the muddled middle ground I was complaining about in my post. To me it's the worst of both worlds and, to keep it from becoming an utterly corrupted mess, would require far more loss of freedom than simply making health care another government service.

By definition a "market" based model means people have to opt out of the market as the price rises. If you want "market" based health care then you have to accept people will die from completely curable diseases like happens in Vet care. It is not uncommon for a Vet to hear "We can't afford that so just put the animal to sleep". It is opting out of the market that creates a demand curve and creates the incentive to bring people in the market.

Can u accept that in human care? If yes, then you can have a market model and some countries do. If no, you have to go to your school model which is basically the same solution as mine. The only difference we have is who pays. Since people travel and you can define serviceable pools of people with a larger population base I think it is more efficient nationally. That way if I want to offer a plan designed for black people under 40, I have the population base to sustain it.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Rich people and companies are hoarding their money because they don't trust Obamination, Reid and Pelosi....the 3 stooges that gave us Obamacare.

Obamacare is going to increase costs on companies so many companies aren't going to increase their hiring of workers if those workers come with a healthcare pricetag on the company.

Also, the endless threat of raising taxes on rich people and companies is driving them to hide their money and some sending it off shore away from the socialist's crosshairs.

Nevermind the EPA, Labor Board and DoJ going after companies forcing them to downsize, shut down or not even open fueling this mess.

But of course, it's not your fault that you are making it tough on rich people and companies, it's their fault because they don't want to kiss your ass.

Okay I will concede Democrats aren't doing much to help jobs but Republicans aren't either despite their talk.

Job creators and the wealthy despite Republican mythology are not a 1 to 1 match. Many small business owners don't fall in the 1%. They are struggling to meet payroll and all their assets are tied into their business. A capital gains tax cut does them no good. They aren't helped to make payroll or modernize their shop with a capital gains tax cut.

On the other side many wealthy investors generate few jobs with their investments. For example, a hypothetical wealthy investor who invested 100% of his portfolio overseas would receive a significant tax cut without generating a single US job.

Even worse, consider a hypothetical hedge fund manager who wanted to purchase a US company with debt and then pay off that debt with increased cash flow generated by off-shoring the US based employees. For this wealthy investor, reducing the capital gains rate makes the deal easier to do and thus the strategy can be executed with more companies not less. So he is getting a tax break with the net effect being job loss.

The Republicans want you to believe their plan will help with job growth. Mitt will talk about how Obama hasn't delivered job growth. What they won't say is their plan is a cynical plan to help the 1% many of whom are hedge fund managers and won't do a darn thing to help middle class job growth in the US.

In fact, it will hurt it.

 

[dblack]

By definition a "market" based model means people have to opt out of the market as the price rises. If you want "market" based health care then you have to accept people will die from completely curable diseases like happens in Vet care.

No, you don't. That's what I'm rejecting. You're relying on the (mostly) unquestioned assumption that it's a choice between government intervention and utter social Darwinism. We can solve problems as a society without resorting to government to force compliance.

... If no, you have to go to your school model which is basically the same solution as mine. The only difference we have is who pays. Since people travel and you can define serviceable pools of people with a larger population base I think it is more efficient nationally. That way if I want to offer a plan designed for black people under 40, I have the population base to sustain it.

I see a huge difference between what I suggested and Ryan's plan, which has more in common with PPACA. Both are corporatist 'power sharing' models wherein government teams with business to spend tax money. If we're going to make government responsible for providing health care, I want them in control of it, not just acting as a conduit to funnel tax money to private corporations.