Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[Neotrotsky]

This seems to be a growing myth among folks on the right.

There are proposals out there that significantly reform Medicare without destroying it (e.g. the ACA on the payment and delivery side, Lieberman-Coburn on the cost-sharing structure).

There is, however, also a proposal that eliminates Medicare (understood to be a public health insurance program that pays the medical bills of the elderly). The fact that the Republican majority hasn't abandoned in their replacement proposal the concept that the federal government bears some responsibility for the health of the elderly doesn't mean they aren't advocating the destruction of Medicare.

Actually, it is more Medicare, as is, will destroy the US

Three Little Pigs: How Entitlements Will Destroy Us

Our national debt recently topped the $13 trillion mark. That amounts to nearly 90% of this country's GDP; $72,000 in debt for every household in America

Now add Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and Obama's 2011 budget has a $1.27 trillion deficit. It's the entitlements, stupid.

Nor can you tax your way out of debt. Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans, and you would reduce the debt by perhaps 10% — assuming you didn't cripple the economy in the process. Tax the rich? That won't get you there either. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in order to pay for all currently scheduled federal spending would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%

There is simply no way to control our debt without getting serious about reforming entitlements.​

Truth is hard for the Left; in fact, it is their worst enemy

Reforming entitlements begins with questioning some commonly held assumptions.

Starting with whether our current market system is efficient, something your source didn't question when he pointed out Medicare's future shortfall.

Since 1970 the share of American income going to healthcare has gone from 7% to 17%, and some projections show our entire economy could be absorbed by health care in the 2050s.

Is this shortfall because too many people are receiving healthcare, or is it because of a private, for-profit insurance system?

Profit is hard for the Right; in truth, it is their worst enemy.

Profit is good; the only ones that have problems with it are leftists.
You do know that a gov't which promoted open and fair markets via true competition, profits would be smaller. Indeed, the crony capitalism promoted by the political system in this country
under the cover of "helping" people is far from a free market.

Profit is a result of the use of one's property and all the rights associated with it ie property rights.

Property rights are fundamental to any liberal and free society. The serious disruption of those bedrock rights invites the truncation of many other political rights by people in power. ie socialism; statism
In any Centrally planned economy, the individual ultimately becomes subservient to the state and their dictated goals. Marx himself even called for the "dictatorship of the proletariat". As such, there
is no room in such a society for individual rights.

Sadly, these is the kind of society you wish upon us.
As I said before, too often those who call for such things do not understand the means.

Of course, since Gasoline Taxes Per Gallon Are Almost 7 Times ExxonMobil's Profit: 48 cents vs. 7 cents for QI
You don't have an issue with profit, as long as it is the gov't.

Again, Truth is hard for the Left; in fact it is their worst enemy

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh shut it. No one is suggesting Medicare be destroyed.

This seems to be a growing myth among folks on the right.

There are proposals out there that significantly reform Medicare without destroying it (e.g. the ACA on the payment and delivery side, Lieberman-Coburn on the cost-sharing structure).

There is, however, also a proposal that eliminates Medicare (understood to be a public health insurance program that pays the medical bills of the elderly). The fact that the Republican majority hasn't abandoned in their replacement proposal the concept that the federal government bears some responsibility for the health of the elderly doesn't mean they aren't advocating the destruction of Medicare.

Double speak.
Did it ever occur to you people who are glued to the entitlement pole that a better version of the current may just be what is needed?
See ,that is the rub. The loudest voices opposing the various plans object to ANY change whatsoever. That makes no sense.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Only the Left thinks that when one keeps their own money- it is a subsidy

For that to be true, one would have to believe that all money belongs to the government

Again, so few think of or understand the means

How much of your money would you keep in the absence of government?

No one called for an "absence of gov't"

 

[Chris]

Actually, it is more Medicare, as is, will destroy the US

Three Little Pigs: How Entitlements Will Destroy Us

Our national debt recently topped the $13 trillion mark. That amounts to nearly 90% of this country's GDP; $72,000 in debt for every household in America

Now add Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and Obama's 2011 budget has a $1.27 trillion deficit. It's the entitlements, stupid.

Nor can you tax your way out of debt. Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans, and you would reduce the debt by perhaps 10% — assuming you didn't cripple the economy in the process. Tax the rich? That won't get you there either. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in order to pay for all currently scheduled federal spending would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%

There is simply no way to control our debt without getting serious about reforming entitlements.​

Truth is hard for the Left; in fact, it is their worst enemy

Reforming entitlements begins with questioning some commonly held assumptions.

Starting with whether our current market system is efficient, something your source didn't question when he pointed out Medicare's future shortfall.

Since 1970 the share of American income going to healthcare has gone from 7% to 17%, and some projections show our entire economy could be absorbed by health care in the 2050s.

Is this shortfall because too many people are receiving healthcare, or is it because of a private, for-profit insurance system?

Profit is hard for the Right; in truth, it is their worst enemy.

Profit is good; the only ones that have problems with it are leftists.
You do know that a gov't which promoted open and fair markets via true competition, profits would be smaller. Indeed, the crony capitalism promoted by the political system in this country
under the cover of "helping" people is far from a free market.

Profit is a result of the use of one's property and all the rights associated with it ie property rights.

Property rights are fundamental to any liberal and free society. The serious disruption of those bedrock rights invites the truncation of many other political rights by people in power. ie socialism; statism
In any Centrally planned economy, the individual ultimately becomes subservient to the state and their dictated goals. Marx himself even called for the "dictatorship of the proletariat". As such, there
is no room in such a society for individual rights.

Sadly, these is the kind of society you wish upon us.
As I said before, too often those who call for such things do not understand the means.

Of course, since Gasoline Taxes Per Gallon Are Almost 7 Times ExxonMobil's Profit: 48 cents vs. 7 cents for QI
You don't have an issue with profit, as long as it is the gov't.

Again, Truth is hard for the Left; in fact it is their worst enemy

This is all horseshit.

All that is needed is to repeal the Bush tax cuts and raise the top rate by 3%.

 

[Neotrotsky]

This seems to be a growing myth among folks on the right.

There are proposals out there that significantly reform Medicare without destroying it (e.g. the ACA on the payment and delivery side, Lieberman-Coburn on the cost-sharing structure).

There is, however, also a proposal that eliminates Medicare (understood to be a public health insurance program that pays the medical bills of the elderly). The fact that the Republican majority hasn't abandoned in their replacement proposal the concept that the federal government bears some responsibility for the health of the elderly doesn't mean they aren't advocating the destruction of Medicare.

Actually, it is more Medicare, as is, will destroy the US

Three Little Pigs: How Entitlements Will Destroy Us

Our national debt recently topped the $13 trillion mark. That amounts to nearly 90% of this country's GDP; $72,000 in debt for every household in America

Now add Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and Obama's 2011 budget has a $1.27 trillion deficit. It's the entitlements, stupid.

Nor can you tax your way out of debt. Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans, and you would reduce the debt by perhaps 10% — assuming you didn't cripple the economy in the process. Tax the rich? That won't get you there either. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in order to pay for all currently scheduled federal spending would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%

There is simply no way to control our debt without getting serious about reforming entitlements.​

Truth is hard for the Left; in fact, it is their worst enemy

Reforming entitlements begins with questioning some commonly held assumptions.

Starting with whether our current market system is efficient, something your source didn't question when he pointed out Medicare's future shortfall.

Since 1970 the share of American income going to healthcare has gone from 7% to 17%, and some projections show our entire economy could be absorbed by health care in the 2050s.

Is this shortfall because too many people are receiving healthcare, or is it because of a private, for-profit insurance system?

Profit is hard for the Right; in truth, it is their worst enemy.

Over the last 40 years. the gov't has done their best to take the market out of health care under the cover of "helping us" through endless regulation and protection of tort lawyers.

Thus, there is a direct relationship between rising gov't interjection into the market place and the increasing size of companies. As the gov't lowers profitability, it increases the economics of scale necessary for a company to make any profit. These few remaining companies must then use lobby groups to petition politicians to protect their market share.

Which is why you see such strong lobby groups in Congress and Papa Obama cutting secret deals with Big Pharma. It is the nature of the beast that the gov't helped to create.

My friend, this current health care system we have is not borne out of a real free market; it is borne of pure and simple crony capitalism.

Had the gov't pursued a policy of promoting competition; entry into the market place, competition across state lines etc. We would be in a much better spot today.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Georgephillip:
I'm starting to think capitalism is incapable of producing enough jobs to meet its populations' demands. Maybe it's time for a new economic system predicated on maximizing employment instead of profits?

This is precisely why developing industrial nations are kicking our ass in the first place. Here is the US our manufacturing base is stuck in the 1950's smokestack era. Older plants require too many people to manufacture a product making the price of the product non-competitive.
The bottom line is some American companies cannot sell their products because of the added labor costs. Now, no one is saying workers should work for third world wages. The point is American manufacturing needs to get out from under the unions and modernize. Workers who ran the old machines can retrain to do other tasks. The days of thousands of workers to make one product are over. We have technologies now that reduce eliminate redundant jobs.
The French by law have mandated "maximizing employment", It doesn't work. France has very high unemployment. Young adults graduating from school have to simply wait until a worker drops dead or retires so that a new person can be hired. French law requires companies to retain employees even if there is no actual job for them to do. And it is nearly impossible for a firm to terminate employment.
Is that your idea of "maximizing employment" A virtual nationalization of American business by political fiat?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Reforming entitlements begins with questioning some commonly held assumptions.

Starting with whether our current market system is efficient, something your source didn't question when he pointed out Medicare's future shortfall.

Since 1970 the share of American income going to healthcare has gone from 7% to 17%, and some projections show our entire economy could be absorbed by health care in the 2050s.

Is this shortfall because too many people are receiving healthcare, or is it because of a private, for-profit insurance system?

Profit is hard for the Right; in truth, it is their worst enemy.

Profit is good; the only ones that have problems with it are leftists.
You do know that a gov't which promoted open and fair markets via true competition, profits would be smaller. Indeed, the crony capitalism promoted by the political system in this country
under the cover of "helping" people is far from a free market.

Profit is a result of the use of one's property and all the rights associated with it ie property rights.

Property rights are fundamental to any liberal and free society. The serious disruption of those bedrock rights invites the truncation of many other political rights by people in power. ie socialism; statism
In any Centrally planned economy, the individual ultimately becomes subservient to the state and their dictated goals. Marx himself even called for the "dictatorship of the proletariat". As such, there
is no room in such a society for individual rights.

Sadly, these is the kind of society you wish upon us.
As I said before, too often those who call for such things do not understand the means.

Of course, since Gasoline Taxes Per Gallon Are Almost 7 Times ExxonMobil's Profit: 48 cents vs. 7 cents for QI
You don't have an issue with profit, as long as it is the gov't.

Again, Truth is hard for the Left; in fact it is their worst enemy

This is all horseshit.

All that is needed is to repeal the Bush tax cuts and raise the top rate by 3%.

What colour is the sky in your world? If only it was that simple.


Three Little Pigs: How Entitlements Will Destroy Us

Our national debt recently topped the $13 trillion mark. That amounts to nearly 90% of this country's GDP; $72,000 in debt for every household in America

Now add Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and Obama's 2011 budget has a $1.27 trillion deficit. It's the entitlements, stupid.

Nor can you tax your way out of debt. Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans, and you would reduce the debt by perhaps 10% — assuming you didn't cripple the economy in the process. Tax the rich? That won't get you there either. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in order to pay for all currently scheduled federal spending would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%

There is simply no way to control our debt without getting serious about reforming entitlements.​

Truth is hard for the Left; in fact, it is their worst enemy

 

[Chris]

Actually, it is more Medicare, as is, will destroy the US

Three Little Pigs: How Entitlements Will Destroy Us

Our national debt recently topped the $13 trillion mark. That amounts to nearly 90% of this country's GDP; $72,000 in debt for every household in America

Now add Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and Obama's 2011 budget has a $1.27 trillion deficit. It's the entitlements, stupid.

Nor can you tax your way out of debt. Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans, and you would reduce the debt by perhaps 10% — assuming you didn't cripple the economy in the process. Tax the rich? That won't get you there either. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in order to pay for all currently scheduled federal spending would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%

There is simply no way to control our debt without getting serious about reforming entitlements.​

Truth is hard for the Left; in fact, it is their worst enemy

Reforming entitlements begins with questioning some commonly held assumptions.

Starting with whether our current market system is efficient, something your source didn't question when he pointed out Medicare's future shortfall.

Since 1970 the share of American income going to healthcare has gone from 7% to 17%, and some projections show our entire economy could be absorbed by health care in the 2050s.

Is this shortfall because too many people are receiving healthcare, or is it because of a private, for-profit insurance system?

Profit is hard for the Right; in truth, it is their worst enemy.

Over the last 40 years. the gov't has done their best to take the market out of health care under the cover of "helping us" through endless regulation and protection of tort lawyers.

Thus, there is a direct relationship between rising gov't interjection into the market place and the increasing size of companies. As the gov't lowers profitability, it increases the economics of scale necessary for a company to make any profit. These few remaining companies must then use lobby groups to petition politicians to protect their market share.

Which is why you see such strong lobby groups in Congress and Papa Obama cutting secret deals with Big Pharma. It is the nature of the beast that the gov't helped to create.

My friend, this current health care system we have is not borne out of a real free market; it is borne of pure and simple crony capitalism.

Had the gov't pursued a policy of promoting competition; entry into the market place, competition across state lines etc. We would be in a much better spot today.

No, we wouldn't.

If the government had a public option combined with private insurance like the French have, we would be much better off.

The French have a lot of cost cutting ideas in their system that work, such as their medical schools are cheaper, so they have many more doctors per capita than we do, they limit liability, so the doctors don't have to pay a lot for insurance, and they cover everybody with basic insurance, so people don't have to use the most expensive medical care of all, the emergency room.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Reforming entitlements begins with questioning some commonly held assumptions.

Starting with whether our current market system is efficient, something your source didn't question when he pointed out Medicare's future shortfall.

Since 1970 the share of American income going to healthcare has gone from 7% to 17%, and some projections show our entire economy could be absorbed by health care in the 2050s.

Is this shortfall because too many people are receiving healthcare, or is it because of a private, for-profit insurance system?

Profit is hard for the Right; in truth, it is their worst enemy.

Over the last 40 years. the gov't has done their best to take the market out of health care under the cover of "helping us" through endless regulation and protection of tort lawyers.

Thus, there is a direct relationship between rising gov't interjection into the market place and the increasing size of companies. As the gov't lowers profitability, it increases the economics of scale necessary for a company to make any profit. These few remaining companies must then use lobby groups to petition politicians to protect their market share.

Which is why you see such strong lobby groups in Congress and Papa Obama cutting secret deals with Big Pharma. It is the nature of the beast that the gov't helped to create.

My friend, this current health care system we have is not borne out of a real free market; it is borne of pure and simple crony capitalism.

Had the gov't pursued a policy of promoting competition; entry into the market place, competition across state lines etc. We would be in a much better spot today.

No, we wouldn't.

If the government had a public option combined with private insurance like the French have, we would be much better off.

The French have a lot of cost cutting ideas in their system that work, such as their medical schools are cheaper, so they have many more doctors per capita than we do, they limit liability, so the doctors don't have to pay a lot for insurance, and they cover everybody with basic insurance, so people don't have to use the most expensive medical care of all, the emergency room.

It depends on how you define better

If you mean one where the most choice with the most care for the most people then you mean a true free market approach.

If you mean one where minimum services with little choice are equally spread across the people then you mean a more socialized one. Of course, this excludes inner party member like politicians and those who are connected. After all, you really don't believe that the President is going to use the same doctor as you?

 

[Susan45]

Profit is good; the only ones that have problems with it are leftists.
You do know that a gov't which promoted open and fair markets via true competition, profits would be smaller. Indeed, the crony capitalism promoted by the political system in this country
under the cover of "helping" people is far from a free market.

Profit is a result of the use of one's property and all the rights associated with it ie property rights.

Property rights are fundamental to any liberal and free society. The serious disruption of those bedrock rights invites the truncation of many other political rights by people in power. ie socialism; statism
In any Centrally planned economy, the individual ultimately becomes subservient to the state and their dictated goals. Marx himself even called for the "dictatorship of the proletariat". As such, there
is no room in such a society for individual rights.

Sadly, these is the kind of society you wish upon us.
As I said before, too often those who call for such things do not understand the means.

Of course, since Gasoline Taxes Per Gallon Are Almost 7 Times ExxonMobil's Profit: 48 cents vs. 7 cents for QI
You don't have an issue with profit, as long as it is the gov't.

Again, Truth is hard for the Left; in fact it is their worst enemy

This is all horseshit.

All that is needed is to repeal the Bush tax cuts and raise the top rate by 3%.

What colour is the sky in your world? If only it was that simple.


Three Little Pigs: How Entitlements Will Destroy Us

Our national debt recently topped the $13 trillion mark. That amounts to nearly 90% of this country's GDP; $72,000 in debt for every household in America

Now add Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and Obama's 2011 budget has a $1.27 trillion deficit. It's the entitlements, stupid.

Nor can you tax your way out of debt. Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans, and you would reduce the debt by perhaps 10% — assuming you didn't cripple the economy in the process. Tax the rich? That won't get you there either. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in order to pay for all currently scheduled federal spending would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%

There is simply no way to control our debt without getting serious about reforming entitlements.​

Truth is hard for the Left; in fact, it is their worst enemy

Truth? Truth according to the Koch, Scaife financed Cato Institute maybe.

 

[Neotrotsky]

This is all horseshit.

All that is needed is to repeal the Bush tax cuts and raise the top rate by 3%.

What colour is the sky in your world? If only it was that simple.


Three Little Pigs: How Entitlements Will Destroy Us

Our national debt recently topped the $13 trillion mark. That amounts to nearly 90% of this country's GDP; $72,000 in debt for every household in America

Now add Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and Obama's 2011 budget has a $1.27 trillion deficit. It's the entitlements, stupid.

Nor can you tax your way out of debt. Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans, and you would reduce the debt by perhaps 10% — assuming you didn't cripple the economy in the process. Tax the rich? That won't get you there either. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in order to pay for all currently scheduled federal spending would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%

There is simply no way to control our debt without getting serious about reforming entitlements.​

Truth is hard for the Left; in fact, it is their worst enemy

Truth? Truth according to the Koch, Scaife financed Cato Institute maybe.

Oh boy, we have another "live one" here

An ad hominem style attack, is that really the best you have?
Then again, it's common on the Left to just repeat what they hear/see on Daily Kos or Think Progress.

Though to be fair, the Koch Brothers do provide the Left with their so needed "Two Minute Hate"

I can see you in the video now, Suzy Q



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk[/ame]

 

[thereisnospoon]

Reforming entitlements begins with questioning some commonly held assumptions.

Starting with whether our current market system is efficient, something your source didn't question when he pointed out Medicare's future shortfall.

Since 1970 the share of American income going to healthcare has gone from 7% to 17%, and some projections show our entire economy could be absorbed by health care in the 2050s.

Is this shortfall because too many people are receiving healthcare, or is it because of a private, for-profit insurance system?

Profit is hard for the Right; in truth, it is their worst enemy.

Over the last 40 years. the gov't has done their best to take the market out of health care under the cover of "helping us" through endless regulation and protection of tort lawyers.

Thus, there is a direct relationship between rising gov't interjection into the market place and the increasing size of companies. As the gov't lowers profitability, it increases the economics of scale necessary for a company to make any profit. These few remaining companies must then use lobby groups to petition politicians to protect their market share.

Which is why you see such strong lobby groups in Congress and Papa Obama cutting secret deals with Big Pharma. It is the nature of the beast that the gov't helped to create.

My friend, this current health care system we have is not borne out of a real free market; it is borne of pure and simple crony capitalism.

Had the gov't pursued a policy of promoting competition; entry into the market place, competition across state lines etc. We would be in a much better spot today.

No, we wouldn't.

If the government had a public option combined with private insurance like the French have, we would be much better off.

The French have a lot of cost cutting ideas in their system that work, such as their medical schools are cheaper, so they have many more doctors per capita than we do, they limit liability, so the doctors don't have to pay a lot for insurance, and they cover everybody with basic insurance, so people don't have to use the most expensive medical care of all, the emergency room.

Medical care is expensive because of first dollar insurance coverage and because of government mandates on the types of coverage that must be included in health insurance.
Also no competition is permitted in the health insurance business i.e. we cannot buy coverage across state lines. Insurance companies by law have protected markets.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you mean Papa Obama Care?

I'm talking about hospital value-based purchasing, physician quality reporting, risk-adjusted physician feedback, value-based payment modifiers for physician reimbursements, payment adjustments for hospital-acquired conditions, launching and supporting innovative payment and delivery models, the shared savings program, bundling of payments, payment adjustments for preventable hospital readmissions, evidence-based transitions into the community from hospitals, extending Special Needs Plans, creating the IPAB, technical assistance for providers struggling with quality improvement, medication management for chronic disease, supporting the patient-centered medical home, coverage and payment coordination for expensive dual eligibles, incentives and technical assistance for electronic health record implementation, and dozens of more targeted reforms.

The key feature of these reforms is they're aimed at altering and improving the way Medicare operates, not ending Medicare as a public health insurance package for the elderly. A proposal to reform Medicare will look something like the pieces above--improvements in programmatic elements (particularly in how the program pays for medical services), or in benefit design, or in cost-sharing, etc. A proposal to destroy Medicare won't have any of that because under it Medicare will no longer be an insurer with a benefit package, or cost-sharing requirements, or programmatic elements around paying for medical services or being concerned with high-quality service delivery. We have a very recent example of just such a proposal to destroy Medicare.

If Medicare's primary problem stems from health care inflation, that would seem to explain the secondary problem of a long term Medicare deficit. Would indexing the payroll tax to actual health care costs solve both issues?

It seems to me the deficit's solved because as Medicare's costs go up, it's funding will rise at the same time.

Raising taxes, yes, but with the understanding the more taxes you pay, the more you get back in health care benefits.

 

[FA_Q2]

Do you mean Papa Obama Care?

I'm talking about hospital value-based purchasing, physician quality reporting, risk-adjusted physician feedback, value-based payment modifiers for physician reimbursements, payment adjustments for hospital-acquired conditions, launching and supporting innovative payment and delivery models, the shared savings program, bundling of payments, payment adjustments for preventable hospital readmissions, evidence-based transitions into the community from hospitals, extending Special Needs Plans, creating the IPAB, technical assistance for providers struggling with quality improvement, medication management for chronic disease, supporting the patient-centered medical home, coverage and payment coordination for expensive dual eligibles, incentives and technical assistance for electronic health record implementation, and dozens of more targeted reforms.

The key feature of these reforms is they're aimed at altering and improving the way Medicare operates, not ending Medicare as a public health insurance package for the elderly. A proposal to reform Medicare will look something like the pieces above--improvements in programmatic elements (particularly in how the program pays for medical services), or in benefit design, or in cost-sharing, etc. A proposal to destroy Medicare won't have any of that because under it Medicare will no longer be an insurer with a benefit package, or cost-sharing requirements, or programmatic elements around paying for medical services or being concerned with high-quality service delivery. We have a very recent example of just such a proposal to destroy Medicare.

Much of what you have pointed out are wonderful ideas but in the end it is not how Medicare operates that is the problem but the amount of Medicare that is needed. Reducing payments is not really an option anymore as doctors are already refusing to treat Medicare patents as the payments are too low. Speeding up the process would help that though as the other side of that coin is that doctors are also upset at the time it takes to get paid in the first place. Medicare needs reform at its roots, something that will change the entire face of it in order to become solvent again. From the left, the only reform I have heard is to raise the retirement age. That seems simple enough but the fact is that is based on taking benefits away as the savings is in people dying before they need Medicare. That is not a solution, it is no better than the rights idea. On the right, the only solution I have heard is vouchers and you are right. That is not Medicare and is also not viable in any way shape or form. There is a reason we have Medicare and it is not because the market is capable of supporting older customers that have zero chance of profitability.


The 'process' of Medicare may need improvements but it is not the basis of its insolvency. The fact that there are too many people that need care and not enough people paying into the system cannot be sidestepped with new processes.

 

[FA_Q2]

Over the last 40 years. the gov't has done their best to take the market out of health care under the cover of "helping us" through endless regulation and protection of tort lawyers.

Thus, there is a direct relationship between rising gov't interjection into the market place and the increasing size of companies. As the gov't lowers profitability, it increases the economics of scale necessary for a company to make any profit. These few remaining companies must then use lobby groups to petition politicians to protect their market share.

Which is why you see such strong lobby groups in Congress and Papa Obama cutting secret deals with Big Pharma. It is the nature of the beast that the gov't helped to create.

My friend, this current health care system we have is not borne out of a real free market; it is borne of pure and simple crony capitalism.

Had the gov't pursued a policy of promoting competition; entry into the market place, competition across state lines etc. We would be in a much better spot today.

No, we wouldn't.

If the government had a public option combined with private insurance like the French have, we would be much better off.

The French have a lot of cost cutting ideas in their system that work, such as their medical schools are cheaper, so they have many more doctors per capita than we do, they limit liability, so the doctors don't have to pay a lot for insurance, and they cover everybody with basic insurance, so people don't have to use the most expensive medical care of all, the emergency room.

Medical care is expensive because of first dollar insurance coverage and because of government mandates on the types of coverage that must be included in health insurance.
Also no competition is permitted in the health insurance business i.e. we cannot buy coverage across state lines. Insurance companies by law have protected markets.

Add to that the fact that all care is covered so there currently ZERO market forces involved in medical care as a direct result of that coverage. This is the part that the left completely ignores when talking about the 'evil' for profit medical process. There are no markets in the medical field and there are no for profit systems. What we have is some bandits running the operation that have no accountability to anyone for cost. If we want to solve this problem we MUST regain market forces in the field. A government run system would simply mirror the one we have today. Instead of those greedy for profit people, they would be replaced with…. Greedy for profit government representatives.

 

[Chris]

Over the last 40 years. the gov't has done their best to take the market out of health care under the cover of "helping us" through endless regulation and protection of tort lawyers.

Thus, there is a direct relationship between rising gov't interjection into the market place and the increasing size of companies. As the gov't lowers profitability, it increases the economics of scale necessary for a company to make any profit. These few remaining companies must then use lobby groups to petition politicians to protect their market share.

Which is why you see such strong lobby groups in Congress and Papa Obama cutting secret deals with Big Pharma. It is the nature of the beast that the gov't helped to create.

My friend, this current health care system we have is not borne out of a real free market; it is borne of pure and simple crony capitalism.

Had the gov't pursued a policy of promoting competition; entry into the market place, competition across state lines etc. We would be in a much better spot today.

No, we wouldn't.

If the government had a public option combined with private insurance like the French have, we would be much better off.

The French have a lot of cost cutting ideas in their system that work, such as their medical schools are cheaper, so they have many more doctors per capita than we do, they limit liability, so the doctors don't have to pay a lot for insurance, and they cover everybody with basic insurance, so people don't have to use the most expensive medical care of all, the emergency room.

It depends on how you define better

If you mean one where the most choice with the most care for the most people then you mean a true free market approach.

If you mean one where minimum services with little choice are equally spread across the people then you mean a more socialized one. Of course, this excludes inner party member like politicians and those who are connected. After all, you really don't believe that the President is going to use the same doctor as you?

Did you even read my post?

The French system is a combination of public and private insurance.

There is a basic level of care for everyone, but if you want to by supplemental insurance, you can. Their system works very well, and their life expectancy is two years longer than ours.

Here's a good link about the French healthcare system...

The French Lesson In Health Care

 

[Neotrotsky]

No, we wouldn't.

If the government had a public option combined with private insurance like the French have, we would be much better off.

The French have a lot of cost cutting ideas in their system that work, such as their medical schools are cheaper, so they have many more doctors per capita than we do, they limit liability, so the doctors don't have to pay a lot for insurance, and they cover everybody with basic insurance, so people don't have to use the most expensive medical care of all, the emergency room.

It depends on how you define better

If you mean one where the most choice with the most care for the most people then you mean a true free market approach.

If you mean one where minimum services with little choice are equally spread across the people then you mean a more socialized one. Of course, this excludes inner party member like politicians and those who are connected. After all, you really don't believe that the President is going to use the same doctor as you?

Did you even read my post?

The French system is a combination of public and private insurance.

There is a basic level of care for everyone, but if you want to by supplemental insurance, you can. Their system works very well, and their life expectancy is two years longer than ours.

Here's a good link about the French healthcare system...

The French Lesson In Health Care

Yes and my answer stays the same as before

From Greece to Denmark, the Europeans are facing the same problems with their social programs that the US is having. In France, hundreds of thousands of workers have taken to the streets to protest President Nicolas Sarkozy's plans to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62; what a bastard

Since most of these social programs here and in Europe are nothing more than glorified Ponzi schemes dependent on growing populations to pay, the infamous declining birth rates in Europe are beginning to hurt them. Add in the increase in life expectancy, the problems worsen even more.

When Social Security started the ratio of worker to retiree was around 40:1; today is is 3:1 and when we go to retire, it will flip to 1:3. One person working for each 3 people retired.

So no

As for the WHO stats- please. Liberals love to use them, but of course it is from a body dominated by statist countries.

But we all know, there are lies damn lies and statistics

For example, there are two sets of rankings. “One ranking claims to measure “overall attainment” (OA) while another claims to measure “overall performance” (OP).
These two indices are constructed from the same underlying data, but the OP index is adjusted to reflect a country’s performance relative to how well it theoretically could have performed.”

Under the other, the US is ranked 15 not the 37 the Left loves to use​

The UN ranking includes a bias towards socialized system. So if a country does not have socialized medicine, they are immediately ranked lower​

The report is based on information self reported by the countries. While I don't expect this to be problem for most Western countries, some others are suspect. We only need to remember how the Soviet Union use to out rank us in UN stats to know this to be a problem.​

For countries that could not provide all date, the UN just made up data for them based on "experts" opinions, no doubt​

Same thing with Infant mortality rates, most countries don't count babies with low birth weight who die as "live births"; therefore their infant mortality rate is better ; the US counts all births.​

Furthermore, WHO dismisses markets as "the worst possible way to determine who gets which health services," arguing that "fairness" requires the highest possible degree of separation between who pays for health care and who uses it.

Yes, no bias there folks- time to move on

Clinton and the Left use to push these crap stats from the UN when he was attempting to socialize US medicine.
Hey what country did Clinton choose to get his bypass done in ?
The US???
Funny how that works...

 

[editec]

End third party payment systems (be they government plans or palns based on where you work) and the cost of medicine will drop like a stone in water.

Most hospitals will close due to a lack of funding, so even if you happen to be well heeled, you still probably won't be able to get the health care you need.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Tort reform would help as well

 

[The T]

Tort reform would help as well

It sure as heck would at that. Notice the lawyers...erruhhmm politicians don't want to consider it at all?