I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.You say punish Obama.
The investors are essentially investors and corporations are essentially corporations, they are still two separate entities. But if you want to claim that investors are essentially the corporation because they provide the capital, then the workers essentially are the corporation because they produce the goods and services the corpotation markets. All the capital in the world won't generate a single profit if the corporation has nothing to sell and no workers to sell it.
Elitist capital gains snobs think they are special and should be worshiped and everyone else is worthless and should pay the freight. They want a Feudal system with tycoons as the lords and masters and everyone else as peons. In reality it takes BOTH capital AND labor working together to make a successful economy. Either BOTH deserve special tax privilages or neither.
Learn to read. There is nearly half a trillion per year in interest on the GOP national debt. You can't hold Obama responsible for the interest on the GOP debt.I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.
Your numbers are pure horseshit. The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over. He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.
Like the two wars, Medicare D, and the tax cuts that that Bush "forgot" to inlude in the budget.I love it, Republican administrations racked up about 13 trillion, including interest, of the 16 trillion GOP debt and it's the Obama administration who are untrustworthy. :cookoo: The GOP piss the money away and then say the cure is to punish the poor, the elderly and the sick.
Your numbers are pure horseshit. The debt was $11 trillion when Obama took over. He has added $5 trillion to it in his short time in office.
That's because all the debt was run up by 3 Republican presidents. GOP presidents are responsible for GOP interest payments.
What ideology was presented above ? You wonder to where you want to and only address what fits your narrative. You don't get to set the rules.
My statements above still stand. You present conclusions as facts and that is akin to misrepresentation.
Can you name ONE country that has a private health care system that works? I can name dozens of industrialized countries that have government run universal health care that cost less the HALF of what our cartel run system costs per capita. And they are all way ahead of America's ranking at or near the bottom of the heap in infant mortality, adult female mortality, adult male mortality, and life expectancy?
Opinion and/or Conclusion. You'd need to provide a standard for how we would determine this.
I happen to think it is a mess......and my opinion is just as useless as yours.
We shall see
That is a fact.
When was medicare passed ?
And no they don't. Not everyone takes medicare. I have posted the business about the Mayo in Phoenix enough to say look it up yourself.
But, it is true that once you pass a certain age, you have access to Medicare. If you want to go on a supplemental plan (as in you choose), you can get access to more health care.
That is a fact.
O.K. I am game. How did Medicare bring down poverty rates ?
This is a poll. The respondent percentage is a fact. It says nothing else and does not support the conclusion that it is the greatest achievement in the history of the U.S. It simply says that we've managed to get the elderly hooked on a government program.
These are not "facts".
The first statement is probably very true.
The second statement needs some financials put behind it (and some good financials....not some government bull).
The third statement is not categorically true. It is not a fact. I would be willing to be that it makes the lives of most seniors "better" (given we can agree on what better means).
What are the facts here.
Older people generally require more care than younger people.
Most seniors live on less income (and have less expenses outside of medical care).
Many live on S.S. only.
Let's add that the government has always told people that S.S. should not be seen as the only retirement income for the elderly. That is a fact...just look at your statements.
In 1965 LBJ was swimming in money to dole out. His S.S. increases (from what I recall) were simply based on getting the trust fund lowered...it was getting that large.
LBJ always liked giving away money.
You've quoted this before...BTW and did not answer the question as to why I we have to preserve homes and savings for seniors. This is not a fact nor an objective of the program.
And Medicare provides good care. 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.
Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.
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.
More
O.K. the blathering in the website quote is more than I want to deal with. Needless to say they can quote some facts, but then draw conclusions that I don't agree with and are not supported by their so called facts.
So, we identified a few facts. We've weeded out a lot of bull (opinion called fact...).
What next ?
You certainly have not made the case for it being the greatest accomplishment of this country.
What ideology was presented above ? You wonder to where you want to and only address what fits your narrative. You don't get to set the rules.
My statements above still stand. You present conclusions as facts and that is akin to misrepresentation.
Can you name ONE country that has a private health care system that works? I can name dozens of industrialized countries that have government run universal health care that cost less the HALF of what our cartel run system costs per capita. And they are all way ahead of America's ranking at or near the bottom of the heap in infant mortality, adult female mortality, adult male mortality, and life expectancy?
Opinion and/or Conclusion. You'd need to provide a standard for how we would determine this.
I happen to think it is a mess......and my opinion is just as useless as yours.
We shall see
That is a fact.
When was medicare passed ?
And no they don't. Not everyone takes medicare. I have posted the business about the Mayo in Phoenix enough to say look it up yourself.
But, it is true that once you pass a certain age, you have access to Medicare. If you want to go on a supplemental plan (as in you choose), you can get access to more health care.
That is a fact.
O.K. I am game. How did Medicare bring down poverty rates ?
This is a poll. The respondent percentage is a fact. It says nothing else and does not support the conclusion that it is the greatest achievement in the history of the U.S. It simply says that we've managed to get the elderly hooked on a government program.
These are not "facts".
The first statement is probably very true.
The second statement needs some financials put behind it (and some good financials....not some government bull).
The third statement is not categorically true. It is not a fact. I would be willing to be that it makes the lives of most seniors "better" (given we can agree on what better means).
What are the facts here.
Older people generally require more care than younger people.
Most seniors live on less income (and have less expenses outside of medical care).
Many live on S.S. only.
Let's add that the government has always told people that S.S. should not be seen as the only retirement income for the elderly. That is a fact...just look at your statements.
In 1965 LBJ was swimming in money to dole out. His S.S. increases (from what I recall) were simply based on getting the trust fund lowered...it was getting that large.
LBJ always liked giving away money.
You've quoted this before...BTW and did not answer the question as to why I we have to preserve homes and savings for seniors. This is not a fact nor an objective of the program.
And Medicare provides good care. 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.
Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.
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.
More
O.K. the blathering in the website quote is more than I want to deal with. Needless to say they can quote some facts, but then draw conclusions that I don't agree with and are not supported by their so called facts.
So, we identified a few facts. We've weeded out a lot of bull (opinion called fact...).
What next ?
You certainly have not made the case for it being the greatest accomplishment of this country.
What next... how about seeing if you are open minded enough to listen to a 15 year executive VP at CIGNA who testified under oath before Congress and has tried to inform the American people the truth about private insurance cartels?
Are you up to it?
Wendell Potter, who retired last April from his job as head of communications for the CIGNA health insurance company, has been in the news since then as a whistle-blowing critic of the insurance industry. Today I belatedly read his June 24 testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (see here) watched his July 10 interview with Bill Moyers (see here).
Potter is especially clear about the way short term considerations drive the behavior of for-profit insurers:
The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate based on companiesÂ’ quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls with investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the "medical-loss" ratio - the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.
To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even very profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admitting theyÂ’ve failed to trim medical costs. I have seen an insurerÂ’s stock price fall 20 percent or more in a single day after executives disclosed that the company had to spend a slightly higher percentage of premiums on medical claims during the quarter than it did during a previous period. The smoking gun was the companyÂ’s first-quarter medical loss ratio, which had increased from 77.9% to 79.4% a year later.
Health Care Organizational Ethics: Wendell Potter on For-Profit Health Insurance
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI]BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS - YouTube[/ame]
