| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 08 2013 07:11 oneofthem wrote: a few % on the top bracket doesn't solve much though. the big loopholes and tax expenditures are still around. Actually it was a tax increase on everyone. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 08 2013 07:37 BluePanther wrote: Actually it was a tax increase on everyone. Only in the sense that the temporary tax cuts on payroll taxes (that were part of the recovery act) were finally able to expire. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On January 08 2013 06:53 BluePanther wrote: The federal government doesn't have that power. It's a state power. It's not a complicated stance, nor is it contradictory or "anti-poor". While a public option would probably again go to the Supreme Court, there's very little doubt it would be upheld, considering that the mandate has been upheld--not to mention that Medicare, Medicaid, and the Department of Veterans Affairs all exist. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7227 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 08 2013 08:54 Sadist wrote: Single payer ftw with private insurance for those who want it. If we get a single payer system it won't be for another decade and then another decade before we really see the benefits. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On January 08 2013 08:54 Sadist wrote: Single payer ftw with private insurance for those who want it. You mean for the people who can have the taxes for single payer taken from them and still have enough income to purchase supplemental insurance on top of it. That's like saying private school for those who want it. Everyone wants it, but when the government offers public school for "free" not many are willing/able to open their wallet a second time to pay for it in addition to the public education they are already paying for. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On January 08 2013 09:08 liberal wrote: You mean for the people who can have the taxes for single payer taken from them and still have enough income to purchase supplemental insurance on top of it. That's like saying private school for those who want it. Everyone wants it, but when the government offers public school for "free" not many are willing/able to open their wallet a second time to pay for it in addition to the public education they are already paying for. The taxes to pay for single payer would be a lot less money than the amount people have to spend on private insurance right now. Though it is true that since employers are not very good about raising wages when non-monetary compensation is reduced, some people previously on employer-provided insurance plans might not get the full amount of extra income from no longer needing insurance for some time. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 08 2013 09:11 HunterX11 wrote: The taxes to pay for single payer would be a lot less money than the amount people have to spend on private insurance right now. Though it is true that since employers are not very good about raising wages when non-monetary compensation is reduced, some people previously on employer-provided insurance plans might not get the full amount of extra income from no longer needing insurance for some time. In theory. That assumes that a government agency could run at less than private efficiency + profit, which I have doubts about. The only redeeming aspect is the progressive rates. If you want to sub out, then it doesn't work. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 08 2013 08:16 aksfjh wrote: Only in the sense that the temporary tax cuts on payroll taxes (that were part of the recovery act) were finally able to expire. Still an increase. We pay more this year than we did last year. That's a tax increase. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On January 08 2013 09:22 BluePanther wrote: In theory. That assumes that a government agency could run at less than private efficiency + profit, which I have doubts about. The only redeeming aspect is the progressive rates. If you want to sub out, then it doesn't work. Well, based on empirical evidence from all other developed nations, you would have to make the assumption that American government is the most inefficient in the world for it not to be cheaper. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On January 08 2013 09:22 BluePanther wrote: In theory. That assumes that a government agency could run at less than private efficiency + profit, which I have doubts about. The only redeeming aspect is the progressive rates. If you want to sub out, then it doesn't work. Why theorize at all? In practice, every other developed country, whether they have single payer, or a public option, or merely subsidized and price-controlled private insurance, provides medical care much more cost-efficiently than the U.S. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On January 08 2013 09:33 HunterX11 wrote: Why theorize at all? In practice, every other developed country, whether they have single payer, or a public option, or merely subsidized and price-controlled private insurance, provides medical care much more cost-efficiently than the U.S. Because we're the US. Duh. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 08 2013 09:33 HunterX11 wrote: Why theorize at all? In practice, every other developed country, whether they have single payer, or a public option, or merely subsidized and price-controlled private insurance, provides medical care much more cost-efficiently than the U.S. Those countries control their costs. We don't do that in the US. That's the crux of the problem. If the US government takes over healthcare than it needs to do the very thing that society has been working against - controlling costs. If the government does that then yes, our healthcare costs will fall. But if it is just business as usual under new ownership then costs will continue to go up. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On January 08 2013 09:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Those countries control their costs. We don't do that in the US. That's the crux of the problem. If the US government takes over healthcare than it needs to do the very thing that society has been working against - controlling costs. If the government does that then yes, our healthcare costs will fall. But if it is just business as usual under new ownership then costs will continue to go up. Yes, this is an excellent point and something I've repeated before. If there are severe inefficiencies within the current system and the nation switches over to a single payer without fixing those core issues, what you are in effect doing is subsidizing those inefficiencies and inevitably exacerbating them. For example, if doctors and hospitals are overcharging insurance companies, then they will sure as hell overcharge the government even more, because the government always has a significantly weaker incentive to regulate costs relative to those provided by a natural profit incentive. | ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13925 Posts
On January 08 2013 11:13 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: Oh god, the NWO order conspiracy theorist gun nut guy on Piers Morgan right now is crazy..... Please don't listen to that guy. Hes as bad as glenn beck was. Just keeps bringing up crazies on his show to make all anti gun control people look bad. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 08 2013 09:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Those countries control their costs. We don't do that in the US. That's the crux of the problem. If the US government takes over healthcare than it needs to do the very thing that society has been working against - controlling costs. If the government does that then yes, our healthcare costs will fall. But if it is just business as usual under new ownership then costs will continue to go up. Medicare and Medicaid already have quite a few tools to control costs. The tools they don't use are the ones that they are told not to use through legislation. | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
And as an ignorant non-American: the secretary of state looks like a glorified foreign minister - what role do they play in the administration beyond a typical minister of foreign affairs? Thanks  | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On January 08 2013 11:47 aksfjh wrote: Medicare and Medicaid already have quite a few tools to control costs. The tools they don't use are the ones that they are told not to use through legislation. That's certainly a problem but its the tip of the iceberg IMO. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13925 Posts
On January 08 2013 12:36 bkrow wrote: Would love to know the general position on Chuck Hagel - he seems pretty centrist and incredibly moderate for a Republican (or from the stereotypical Republican), particularly his apparent position on Israel. And as an ignorant non-American: the secretary of state looks like a glorified foreign minister - what role do they play in the administration beyond a typical minister of foreign affairs? Thanks Hes shown some anti Israel leanings in his career (nothing that would make him an anti semite and to be honest would be considered completely reasonable in any other country in the world) and that makes him an easy target for politicians taking pot shots at the president. Hes made some controversial comments about Isreal (also would be completly sensible and make complete sense outside of the usa) and some positive comments about iran. He apparently has made some comments that taken out of context apparently were anti gay. Its a fight that republicans can win pretty easily if democrats don't keep their ducks in a line. Democrats with strong Jewish votes in their districts will not risk voting for a guy whos going to do anything but stand by isreal on everything. One thing after another can stack up against the guy and I don't think this is going to be a victory for Obama. Incidentally the new director of the CIA is going to be a huge drone lover that advised obama as he turned around Afghanistan. There should probably be a self examining about the legality and ethics of these drone wars but the hagel fights will provide perfect cover for obama on this. I wouldn't be surprised if they based the secretary of state on the platform of a foreign minister or vice versa tbh. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
