The three main goals of libertarianism

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you think externalities should be dealt with?

Externalities like taxes?

I suppose you could consider taxes an externality albeit one that works against the interests of corporations rather than the larger number of them that work for the corporations.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does forcing people to pay cartels ransom money every single month and STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered or refuse to pay ransom money and face bankruptcy or even death sound like liberty to you?

Not at all. It sounds like PPACA. What argument are you making here?

Really? It's the same, except totally different. Especially the 'STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered' part.

Care to give me an example of a country with a health care plan that covers every possible treatment for every possible disease just to prove that there is a country out there that actually does it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To: Bfgrn

Explain how you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.

Explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck.

Let's have a little econ 101 quiz.

You work for ABC corporation, it includes health insurance for you and your family. WHO pays for the health insurance?

If we apply the premise that tax cuts cost money the correct answer to your question is taxpayers.

 

[Bfgrn]

Listen to this...EVERY industrialized nation on THIS planet spends a LOT less per capita for health care. That means per person. Now, should I assume you are a person?

HOW does EVERY industrialized nation on THIS planet spend a LOT less per capita for health care? WHAT do they do different? Are they born with less organs in their bodies? Are the ******* robots??

Congrats, you've figured out that we are a rich nation with a shirt load of moochers and bucket loads of BS laws that force the costs through the roof.

Nothing you have said or proposed touches the cost of health care.

I keep asking you how you expect to get health care workers to work for less. Swapping out insurance companies for the federal government will not address the costs. You can complain all you want about the costs, but if can't explain how you are going to force these folks to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for 12years of training then work for cheap then you really don't have a plan. You are just wishing for freebies. If you can't address the costs of hospital care, then you don't have an answer. If you can't address the costs of medicine, then you don't have an answer.

Changing who is managing, who is getting care, and "redistributing" the costs to the rich won't change how much it costs.

The easiest way to address cost would be to switch to a capitalist system. Health insurance is not capitalist, it's socialist.

It is not a coincidence that our costs went up with each successive layer of larger and larger groups of insured that do not care what the cost is for care they just want the best care their group insurance can buy. Removing the pain of having to make health care decisions based on financial ability, makes the price a sellers market where no cost no matter how high is the justified price.

I did provide some answers in an earlier post. But it appears I will have to hold your hand through the whole process. JUST by going to government run health care would lower the cost. It is not rocket science, it is simple math and econ 101. Medicare, which has almost a 50 year history, is much more cost effective that private insurance. Medicare's overhead costs are a tenth of private insurance. NO PROFIT, just pure overhead costs. No money for advertizing, no need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Medicare has done a much better job than the private sector of controlling health care costs.

Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare’s cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues. ref.

And how good is Medicare? American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

 

[RKMBrown]

To: Bfgrn

Explain how you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.

Explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck.

Let's have a little econ 101 quiz.

You work for ABC corporation, it includes health insurance for you and your family. WHO pays for the health insurance?

If we apply the premise that tax cuts cost money the correct answer to your question is taxpayers.

 

[Oddball]

Efficient is a subjective term but I can say for sure that Medicare (with all it's problems) is extremely more efficient than 3rd party private insurance.

Bull-*******-shit.

Its costs are well more than 10X than was projected, when enacted in 1965.

Any private company that got its costs off by that much would have been out of business in less than a decade.

Or they would continue to raise premiums to meet costs and assure a profit albeit much less efficiently than Medicare.

They are both 3rd party payers their cost is mostly dependent on the health care provider.

And people would have ceased buying their insurance in sufficient numbers to make the practice economically unworkable.


But a private insurance company cannot take resources from its "investors" at gunpoint....Medicare can and has done so for over 50 years....They can do that because they aren't subject to the normal P/L analysis.

 

[Vox]

HOW does EVERY industrialized nation on THIS planet spend a LOT less per capita for health care? WHAT do they do different? Are they born with less organs in their bodies? Are the ******* robots??

by providing much less services and covering less procedures and medications.

now, don't get me wrong - I am not stating that a 95 yo severely demented Alzheimer nursing home patient who broke their hip whole lying in bed ( already being immobile) needs a 30K new pacemaker insertion in order to fix the hip and then successfully die in 3 months ( as it is routinely happening in the US), but this kind of waste does not happen in every other industrialized nation

 

[Vox]

Medicare, which has almost a 50 year history, is much more cost effective that private insurance.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

wrong. medicare is an example of waste and ineffectiveness. and the MAIN driver of our debt

 

[Bfgrn]

Medicare, which has almost a 50 year history, is much more cost effective that private insurance.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

wrong. medicare is an example of waste and ineffectiveness. and the MAIN driver of our debt

Can you parrot any more propaganda paid for by insurance cartels?

Herein lies your problem: not one dime of the huge US deficit has been caused by a benefit check paid by Social Security (and the only parts of Medicare that are funded by general tax revenues are doctors bills--Medicare Part B, which is 25% funded by premiums paid by beneficiaries -- and the prescription drug benefit--Medicare Part D--a lousy measure promoted by President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress which bars the government from negotiating discounts from the pharmaceutical companies-- a problem easily fixed by improved legislation).

Social Security Institute | Social Security & Medicare Not Causing Deficits

 

[Bfgrn]

HOW does EVERY industrialized nation on THIS planet spend a LOT less per capita for health care? WHAT do they do different? Are they born with less organs in their bodies? Are the ******* robots??

by providing much less services and covering less procedures and medications.

now, don't get me wrong - I am not stating that a 95 yo severely demented Alzheimer nursing home patient who broke their hip whole lying in bed ( already being immobile) needs a 30K new pacemaker insertion in order to fix the hip and then successfully die in 3 months ( as it is routinely happening in the US), but this kind of waste does not happen in every other industrialized nation

MORE propaganda Poly...

America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.

A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

 

[bripat9643]

Medicare, which has almost a 50 year history, is much more cost effective that private insurance.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

wrong. medicare is an example of waste and ineffectiveness. and the MAIN driver of our debt

Can you parrot any more propaganda paid for by insurance cartels?

Herein lies your problem: not one dime of the huge US deficit has been caused by a benefit check paid by Social Security

Utter horse shit. Says who? What could be more idiotic than saying this spending over hear causes the deficit but not that spending over there? Spending is spending. It all contributes to the deficit.

(and the only parts of Medicare that are funded by general tax revenues are doctors bills--Medicare Part B, which is 25% funded by premiums paid by beneficiaries -- and the prescription drug benefit--Medicare Part D--a lousy measure promoted by President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress which bars the government from negotiating discounts from the pharmaceutical companies-- a problem easily fixed by improved legislation).

So?

 

[bripat9643]

The fallacy in your argument is the idea that the health of the population is a measure of the quality of the medical care system. People die from a lot of reasons other than recieving poor medical care. Americans are the fattest people in the world, and they die in vast numbers due to diet related illnesses. It has nothing to do with the quality of our healthcare.

What you posted is pure propaganda.

HOW does EVERY industrialized nation on THIS planet spend a LOT less per capita for health care? WHAT do they do different? Are they born with less organs in their bodies? Are the ******* robots??

by providing much less services and covering less procedures and medications.

now, don't get me wrong - I am not stating that a 95 yo severely demented Alzheimer nursing home patient who broke their hip whole lying in bed ( already being immobile) needs a 30K new pacemaker insertion in order to fix the hip and then successfully die in 3 months ( as it is routinely happening in the US), but this kind of waste does not happen in every other industrialized nation

MORE propaganda Poly...

America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.

A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

 

[Bfgrn]

wrong. medicare is an example of waste and ineffectiveness. and the MAIN driver of our debt

Can you parrot any more propaganda paid for by insurance cartels?

Herein lies your problem: not one dime of the huge US deficit has been caused by a benefit check paid by Social Security

Utter horse shit. Says who? What could be more idiotic than saying this spending over hear causes the deficit but not that spending over there? Spending is spending. It all contributes to the deficit.

(and the only parts of Medicare that are funded by general tax revenues are doctors bills--Medicare Part B, which is 25% funded by premiums paid by beneficiaries -- and the prescription drug benefit--Medicare Part D--a lousy measure promoted by President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress which bars the government from negotiating discounts from the pharmaceutical companies-- a problem easily fixed by improved legislation).

So?

"We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit."
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[dblack]

Totally different than what? I thought you were talking about PPACA? Under what other law are we forced to pay cartels ransom? (I know there are some, but which one are you talking about?)

First of all it is totally different in the fact the PPACA outlaws insurance cartel Death Panels via the 'preexisting condition'

Let's make this clear...CRYSTAL; when someone 'opts out' of buying health insurance they are not exercising personal responsibility, they are exercising personal IRresponsibility. They are welshers, with a welfare queen mentality.

Well, then we're simply in disagreement right out of the gate.



Nope. What you're describing isn't responsibility. It's the opposite. It's simply following orders. Responsibility is about exercising your freedom to decide your own course of action and being accountable for the results. When your freedom is overruled, and your decisions are made for you, you can't be held accountable for the results. In that case, there is no responsibility.

If you are an adult and you don't have health insurance you are what's called FREE RIDER.

Only if you stick someone else with your medical bills. You're assuming that someone who goes without insurance will do that. Guilty-until-proven-innocent is the authoritarian calling card, but I don't buy it.

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

Bullshit. It appealed to corrupt conservative politicians for the same reason it appealed to corrupt liberal politicians - because it provides guaranteed profits to their buddies in the insurance industry.

...

 

[Bfgrn]

First of all it is totally different in the fact the PPACA outlaws insurance cartel Death Panels via the 'preexisting condition'

Let's make this clear...CRYSTAL; when someone 'opts out' of buying health insurance they are not exercising personal responsibility, they are exercising personal IRresponsibility. They are welshers, with a welfare queen mentality.

Well, then we're simply in disagreement right out of the gate.



Nope. What you're describing isn't responsibility. It's the opposite. It's simply following orders. Responsibility is about exercising your freedom to decide your own course of action and being accountable for the results. When your freedom is overruled, and your decisions are made for you, you can't be held accountable for the results. In that case, there is no responsibility.



Only if you stick someone else with your medical bills. You're assuming that someone who goes without insurance will do that. Guilty-until-proven-innocent is the authoritarian calling card, but I don't buy it.

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

Bullshit. It appealed to corrupt conservative politicians for the same reason it appealed to corrupt liberal politicians - because it provides guaranteed profits to their buddies in the insurance industry.

...

Yea, it one big conspiracy, and it is totally directed at you.

Of course YOU would not stick the taxpayers with your medical bills. It's all the other people (liberals of course) who cost every person who is responsible enough to buy insurance over $1,000 in additional premium cost per year.

 

[RKMBrown]

Listen to this...EVERY industrialized nation on THIS planet spends a LOT less per capita for health care. That means per person. Now, should I assume you are a person?

HOW does EVERY industrialized nation on THIS planet spend a LOT less per capita for health care? WHAT do they do different? Are they born with less organs in their bodies? Are the ******* robots??

Congrats, you've figured out that we are a rich nation with a shirt load of moochers and bucket loads of BS laws that force the costs through the roof.

Nothing you have said or proposed touches the cost of health care.

I keep asking you how you expect to get health care workers to work for less. Swapping out insurance companies for the federal government will not address the costs. You can complain all you want about the costs, but if can't explain how you are going to force these folks to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for 12years of training then work for cheap then you really don't have a plan. You are just wishing for freebies. If you can't address the costs of hospital care, then you don't have an answer. If you can't address the costs of medicine, then you don't have an answer.

Changing who is managing, who is getting care, and "redistributing" the costs to the rich won't change how much it costs.

The easiest way to address cost would be to switch to a capitalist system. Health insurance is not capitalist, it's socialist.

It is not a coincidence that our costs went up with each successive layer of larger and larger groups of insured that do not care what the cost is for care they just want the best care their group insurance can buy. Removing the pain of having to make health care decisions based on financial ability, makes the price a sellers market where no cost no matter how high is the justified price.

I did provide some answers in an earlier post. But it appears I will have to hold your hand through the whole process. JUST by going to government run health care would lower the cost. It is not rocket science, it is simple math and econ 101. Medicare, which has almost a 50 year history, is much more cost effective that private insurance. Medicare's overhead costs are a tenth of private insurance. NO PROFIT, just pure overhead costs. No money for advertizing, no need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Medicare has done a much better job than the private sector of controlling health care costs.

Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare’s cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues. ref.

And how good is Medicare? American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

Everything you said is a lie. You are FOS.

 

[RKMBrown]

Can you parrot any more propaganda paid for by insurance cartels?

Herein lies your problem: not one dime of the huge US deficit has been caused by a benefit check paid by Social Security

Utter horse shit. Says who? What could be more idiotic than saying this spending over hear causes the deficit but not that spending over there? Spending is spending. It all contributes to the deficit.

(and the only parts of Medicare that are funded by general tax revenues are doctors bills--Medicare Part B, which is 25% funded by premiums paid by beneficiaries -- and the prescription drug benefit--Medicare Part D--a lousy measure promoted by President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress which bars the government from negotiating discounts from the pharmaceutical companies-- a problem easily fixed by improved legislation).

So?

"We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit."
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

You are a lying POS that is completely FOS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can you parrot any more propaganda paid for by insurance cartels?

Herein lies your problem: not one dime of the huge US deficit has been caused by a benefit check paid by Social Security

Utter horse shit. Says who? What could be more idiotic than saying this spending over hear causes the deficit but not that spending over there? Spending is spending. It all contributes to the deficit.

(and the only parts of Medicare that are funded by general tax revenues are doctors bills--Medicare Part B, which is 25% funded by premiums paid by beneficiaries -- and the prescription drug benefit--Medicare Part D--a lousy measure promoted by President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress which bars the government from negotiating discounts from the pharmaceutical companies-- a problem easily fixed by improved legislation).

So?

"We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit."
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Even Obama says that Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest drivers of the deficit, and Politifact agrees with hi,

PolitiFact | Obama says Medicare and Medicaid are largest deficit drivers. Yes, over the long term.

 

[Oddball]

Utter horse shit. Says who? What could be more idiotic than saying this spending over hear causes the deficit but not that spending over there? Spending is spending. It all contributes to the deficit.



So?

"We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit."
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

You are a lying POS that is completely FOS.

Well, DUUUUUH!

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Oddball]

Efficient is a subjective term but I can say for sure that Medicare (with all it's problems) is extremely more efficient than 3rd party private insurance.

Bull-*******-shit.

Its costs are well more than 10X than was projected, when enacted in 1965.

Any private company that got its costs off by that much would have been out of business in less than a decade.

Or they would continue to raise premiums to meet costs and assure a profit albeit much less efficiently than Medicare.

They are both 3rd party payers their cost is mostly dependent on the health care provider.

You really don't know jack shit about how business operates.....Any business.