[besson3c]

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you were thrown by "our medical costs", I probably should have said "Medicare/Medicaid".

[Uncle Skeleton]

but what effort is being made to reduce them?

[turtle777]

Well, there *IS* a silver lining:

But Chief Justice Roberts also made sure to keep the broader impact of his decision narrow, by saying explicitly that the Affordable Care Act only survived if viewed as a tax and that had Congress had to rely on the Commerce Clause to pass the law, the law would have failed.

"Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product," wrote Chief Justice Roberts. "If the power to "regulate" something included the power to create it, many of the provisions in the Constitution would be superfluous."

Legal experts suspect that this language could be seized upon in the future by conservatives or others looking to strike down existing—and in some instances longstanding—federal laws regulating everything from the environment to consumer safety. Many of those laws were passed under the Commerce Clause.

"Make no mistake, Roberts gave the conservatives a very big gift—a ticking time bomb that could explode in cases down the line," said Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal-leaning civil-rights organization in Washington. "The Commerce Clause undergirds the entire fabric of government and a lot of our laws."

Health-Care Law: Supreme Court Justice Roberts Surprises With Ruling - WSJ.com

-t

[BadKosh]

Does this sound like a druggie/junkie talking?? (Spending Junkie)

"It was absolutely, 100% necessary so that funds could be borrowed to pay for legislation already enacted. Especially when these very people were dead set against enacting the necessary taxes to pay for it. Because being fiscally responsible would have been too much like right. "

How about NOT spending so much is such an irresponsible manner. The pattern of ignorant ass canyons on the left wasting billions on Green crap (another 500 Mill investment file for bankruptcy today) and other inefficient programs. The poorly conceived legislation of the 2008-2010 era is quite an example.

When will you think you are taxed ENOUGH?? Liberals don't seem to have a limit to how much taxes they would pay. Just like the democratic party, they also are spending more than they are taking in. See the pattern? And you want to continue to trust them? I have this bridge.....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Does this sound like a druggie/junkie talking?? (Spending Junkie)

"It was absolutely, 100% necessary so that funds could be borrowed to pay for legislation already enacted. Especially when these very people were dead set against enacting the necessary taxes to pay for it. Because being fiscally responsible would have been too much like right. "

How about NOT spending so much is such an irresponsible manner. The pattern of ignorant ass canyons on the left wasting billions on Green cheat (another 500 Mill investment file for bankruptcy today) and other inefficient programs. The poorly conceived legislation of the 2008-2010 era is quite an example.

When will you think you are taxed ENOUGH?? Liberals don't seem to have a limit to how much taxes they would pay. Just like the democratic party, they also are spending more than they are taking in. See the pattern? And you want to continue to trust them? I have this bridge.....

You do realize that the tax rate is quite low now, historically speaking? If you want to make the argument that there is wasteful spending, make that argument, but if you do want to make that argument and you want to make it at the partisan level like you are here, you'd also have to look at the Republican record of overspending which has been abysmal.

I'm hoping that some day we get tired of these sorts of idiotic charactertures of the other side, the need to be loyal to a party in order to fuel these sorts of rants, and all of this emotional clichéd tired old cheat and we can begin to talk about these sorts of things without the knee jerk emotional content.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

LOL I was going to post that


One of my favs

#SCOTUS holds up free healthcare for everyone?! Screw this commie country, I'm moving to #Canada #whoswithme

Of friend of mine very republican from St Louis is asking me how to move here and if I could put him up while he finds a job here lol

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

LOL I was going to post that


One of my favs



Of friend of mine very republican from St Louis is asking me how to move here and if I could put him up while he finds a job here lol

At this level of ignorance I do have to wonder if there is some racism involved...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

but what effort is being made to reduce them?

Please don't be coy. This conversation has been about Obamacare and the individual mandate. You may not agree with these efforts, but they are efforts.

[besson3c]

Marco Rubio was on the Daily Show the other day and was making the argument that Republicans do try to work on big issues in a constructive way, but they can't get press coverage or traction to vote on their legislation.

Getting political attention I can empathize with, I guess, but I don't see what it is so hard to get press coverage on these sorts of things. I mean, if your <insert Tea Party profile here> and your <insert Occupy Wall St. profile here> can gain national attention while having zero individual powers, why can't these politicians?

If Medicare/Medicaid are our biggest debt contributors and there is no dispute here, we should be hearing about ways to improve or replace these programs nearly daily if we really do care about the debt. It's that simple to me, why shouldn't it be?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

When will you think you are taxed ENOUGH?? Liberals don't seem to have a limit to how much taxes they would pay. Just like the democratic party, they also are spending more than they are taking in. See the pattern? And you want to continue to trust them? I have this bridge.....

We should tax enough to pay off the stupid Iraq War and the Afghan wars within 10 to 20 years.
We should tax enough to pay for all the veteran benefits as the result of the Iraq War and Afghan war.
We should tax enough to pay for all the military stations we have around the world.
We should tax enough to pay for all the national defense cost and wasteful military spending.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

At this level of ignorance I do have to wonder if there is some racism involved...

I think its just a lack of knowledge of Canada, nothing more. But perhaps some feel that way about Obama.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

People Who Say They&#39;re Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

Assuming most of them are conservatives. Are these conservatives advocating illegally immigrating to Canada, a socialist country with government run healthcare and high tax rates?

Seems to go against everything they stand for.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Assuming most of them are conservatives. Are these conservatives advocating illegally immigrating to Canada, a socialist country with government run healthcare and high tax rates?

Seems to go against everything they stand for.

I don't know. People often say "that's it, I'm moving to country x" and I can't often tell if these people actually think that they can just pack up and move to whatever country they want whenever they want in general, or because they are American, or if they just don't know and are just saying stuff like this. I'm sure more often than not it's just an emotional outcry.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Please don't be coy. This conversation has been about Obamacare and the individual mandate. You may not agree with these efforts, but they are efforts.

To increase it, not decrease it. I'm honestly confused by why you would say it would reduce costs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

To increase it, not decrease it. I'm honestly confused by why you would say it would reduce costs.

In the long run it could very well introduce cost controls that accomplish this. Even if you don't think that the government can negotiate or help facilitate cost controls, higher volumes being able to support lower costs is a pretty basic economic principal.

There is also a substantial amount of precedence of government involvement being able to help facilitate cost controls. Look at a procedure that hospitals probably do more than anything else, child births, and compare your average costs in Canada vs. the US. You'll find, depending on what sources you put the most stock into, in some cases the averages being more than a $10,000 difference.

So, do these procedures cost more than $10,000 in the US because of how they are done, or are there other factors at play? Why can't private insurance companies provide cost controls with what we have?

IMHO, there is profit motivated funny business going on here. I really don't think that your typical American really understands how unusually high their health care is in this country, or else they think that because they believe it to be better it justifies these costs. A $10,000 difference to poop out a baby though. Does this make sense to you?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In the long run it could very well introduce cost controls that accomplish this. Even if you don't think that the government can negotiate or help facilitate cost controls, higher volumes being able to support lower costs is a pretty basic economic principal.

Lower cost per unit, but not total cost.

There is also a substantial amount of precedence of government involvement being able to help facilitate cost controls. Look at a procedure that hospitals probably do more than anything else, child births, and compare your average costs in Canada vs. the US. You'll find, depending on what sources you put the most stock into, in some cases the averages being more than a $10,000 difference.

So, do these procedures cost more than $10,000 in the US because of how they are done, or are there other factors at play? Why can't private insurance companies provide cost controls with what we have?

IMHO, there is profit motivated funny business going on here. I really don't think that your typical American really understands how unusually high their health care is in this country, or else they think that because they believe it to be better it justifies these costs. A $10,000 difference to poop out a baby though. Does this make sense to you?

Now you're talking about costs paid by private citizens (through insurance or otherwise). When I gave you the confused emoticon you told me you were talking about the costs paid by government. Do you think of them as one in the same? This is why I couldn't understand you post. Because they're not the same. You can't reduce government spending by shifting more obligations towards government, that will have the opposite effect. If that's the plan to get spending under control, then it's a perfect illustration of my point: they have no ideas to reduce spending, lots of ideas to actually increase spending, and they're happy with it that way.

[besson3c]

I was referring to cost controls across the board, which would include what the government would spend on supporting those in lower income brackets that can't afford their own health care.

Yes, they'd be supporting a larger volume of these people if those in these lower income brackets decide to consume more health care because they feel they can afford what the government won't cover. Assessing whether these potential cost controls would offset these potentially higher costs is tricky business, as is assessing whether more preventative health care would have an effect, in not visiting the ER as often when the condition is in dire straits, how a potentially healthier society might contribute to the overall economy, there are a gazillion factors that we'll never all agree upon.

However, at the same time, while I don't think the costs are the same, the costs paid by private citizens need to be in this conversation. What they pay has an effect on the economy as a whole.

It probably seems I'm trying to just muddy the waters for the sake of muddying the waters, but my main point is that I don't think it makes sense to put the costs of the government and private citizens into separate, completely independent silos.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Assuming most of them are conservatives. Are these conservatives advocating illegally immigrating to Canada, a socialist country with government run healthcare and high tax rates?

Seems to go against everything they stand for.

Could you define government run please?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Dow Jones has already tanked 1% as of 1130.

Dow back up over 1% (Obviously Holder's contempt vote!)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I was referring to cost controls across the board, which would include what the government would spend on supporting those in lower income brackets that can't afford their own health care.

Yes, they'd be supporting a larger volume of these people if those in these lower income brackets decide to consume more health care because they feel they can afford what the government won't cover. Assessing whether these potential cost controls would offset these potentially higher costs is tricky business, as is assessing whether more preventative health care would have an effect, in not visiting the ER as often when the condition is in dire straits, how a potentially healthier society might contribute to the overall economy, there are a gazillion factors that we'll never all agree upon.

You know what that is, that's trickle-up economics. It's based on exactly the same wishful thinking that trickle-down is, the blind hope that your principles will somehow save the day through a mechanism that's too complicated for anyone to understand including you.

However, at the same time, while I don't think the costs are the same, the costs paid by private citizens need to be in this conversation. What they pay has an effect on the economy as a whole.

It probably seems I'm trying to just muddy the waters for the sake of muddying the waters, but my main point is that I don't think it makes sense to put the costs of the government and private citizens into separate, completely independent silos.

You'll never make any progress on a problem unless you can mentally isolate it and do exactly that: put things into separate, completely independent silos. You're doing exactly what I said, acting the reciprocal of the right. They basically have no solution to the problem of "broken status quo health care," and the solutions they do have act directly against fixing it. Meanwhile you have no solution to the problem of "moral hazard," and the solutions you do have act directly against fixing that. You can't solve both problems at the same time, the only way is to temporarily ignore one while you concentrate on the other. Neither side is currently able (or willing?) to do that.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

You say that as if the deficit was the end goal. It's not. The only reason to care about the deficit is to avoid having to raise taxes to cover it.

I don't think the "end goal" of GOP policies are to run up the deficit. I just think they want to have their cake and eat it too. As I said earlier, the GOP is fundamentally an anti-tax party. And you have to admit ... that's a pretty popular position to take. I mean ... who likes paying taxes? But at the same time, the GOP really isn't all that inclined to tackle entitlement programs. Because they are very popular too. Sure they TALK a good game. But ask yourself .... how many times has the House GOP passed some BS anti-abortion measure? How many times has the House GOP passed a bill to repeal Obamacare? And then compare that to how many times the House GOP has passed a bill to repeal Medicare? How many times have they passed a bill to eliminate Social Security? Or even to cut their funding by any significant amount? They reality is that they go after entitlement programs at their political peril. As evidenced by the political fallout when they passed the Ryan budget. And please don't get it twisted. The budget just sets a framework for overall spending. The rubber really meets the road when it comes time to pass the actual appropriations bills. And my point here is that even when the GOP controls the entire Congress or even one chamber ... the appropriations bills for entitlement programs don't get cut let alone eliminated. Conservative political rhetoric notwithstanding.

So my contention here is that at some point continuing to hand out tax cuts while running up new bills on top of the existing bills is a fiscally brain dead thing to do. Especially when you know good and damned well that you aren't really going to do anything about entitlement spending other than talk a lot of sh*t! The reality is that since 1980 the federal deficit has exploded the most under GOP administrations ... especially when the GOP also controlled Congress. The Clinton Administration finally got the budget under control by passing the PAYGO requirement despite fierce GOP opposition ... along with a booming economy. But as soon as the GOP got the keys back with the Bush II Administration and control of Congress they eliminated this requirement that new spending or tax changes not add to the federal deficit. Because that would require that they pay for that Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit spending that they were looking to lock in the senior vote with. That would require them to pay for a couple of wars and massive increases in defense and intelligence spending. That would require them to pay for the Bush tax cuts. And the only way to pay for all of that would be to raise taxes and/or cut very popular social programs. They certainly couldn't say "Yes" to a tax increase because you can't really speak when you have Grover Norquist's d*ck in your mouth. And they couldn't say "Yes" to significant cuts to popular social programs and also get re-elected. So PAYGO had to go because the only way the GOP could pursue its agenda was to use the federal credit card. Which they were legally prohibited from doing when they took power. So the GOP repealed PAYGO so they could do what they wanted to do ... and within several years the country goes from 200+ billion dollar surpluses to trillion dollar deficits. Imagine that.

OAW

[Athens]

Survey shows many doctors fear losing their practices - Jun. 27, 2012

This is a interest article from CNN on the condition of private practices in the US. The doctors interviewed for this story say they are not making enough money. If things continue the way it is they will go out of business. Doctors in hospitals are not in the same boat as the private clinics. The key reasons being the high cost of insurance, and administrative. One of the doctors in the article said they need a single payer system. And the doctors also are upset they have had little input in all the debate and policies being put out of Washington.

On the surface what I take from this article is that its much more viable to be a private doctor in Canada then it is in the US under these conditions.

[andi*pandi]

Some doctors are very happy about it, and don't fear losing their practices:

Massachusetts Medical Society | Mass. Physicians, Patients Laud Supreme Court Ruling: June 29, 2012

Massachusetts Medical Society Blog � A Good Ruling from the Supreme Court

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I don't think the "end goal" of GOP policies are to run up the deficit. I just think they want to have their cake and eat it too. As I said earlier, the GOP is fundamentally an anti-tax party. And you have to admit ... that's a pretty popular position to take. I mean ... who likes paying taxes? But at the same time, the GOP really isn't all that inclined to tackle entitlement programs. Because they are very popular too. Sure they TALK a good game. But ask yourself .... how many times has the House GOP passed some BS anti-abortion measure? How many times has the House GOP passed a bill to repeal Obamacare? And then compare that to how many times the House GOP has passed a bill to repeal Medicare? How many times have they passed a bill to eliminate Social Security? Or even to cut their funding by any significant amount? They reality is that they go after entitlement programs at their political peril. As evidenced by the political fallout when they passed the Ryan budget. And please don't get it twisted. The budget just sets a framework for overall spending. The rubber really meets the road when it comes time to pass the actual appropriations bills. And my point here is that even when the GOP controls the entire Congress or even one chamber ... the appropriations bills for entitlement programs don't get cut let alone eliminated. Conservative political rhetoric notwithstanding.

Government only gets bigger, not smaller. This is why they fight so hard to stop the expansion before it takes hold, because they know there won't be a second chance, and there's no going back.

So my contention here is that at some point continuing to hand out tax cuts while running up new bills on top of the existing bills is a fiscally brain dead thing to do.

It's running up the new bills (and the old) that is fiscally brain dead. Nobody's perfect. Talking about it and failing to accomplish it is still better than not even talking about it, and pretending like it's not even a concern.

What would you do, if you cared about reducing frivolous spending? I don't think the finger-pointing strategy is going to work for much longer.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Government only gets bigger, not smaller. This is why they fight so hard to stop the expansion before it takes hold, because they know there won't be a second chance, and there's no going back.

But they DON'T fight to stop the expansion my man. That's my fundamental point. How was pushing through a prescription drug benefit with Medicare Part D not an expansion of government? I mean let's call it what it was. A brand new entitlement program! How is the ASTRONOMICAL growth of defense and intelligence spending since 9/11 not an expansion of government?

This is not exactly President Dwight D. Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," which emerged with the Cold War and centered on building nuclear weapons to deter the Soviet Union. This is a national security enterprise with a more amorphous mission: defeating transnational violent extremists.

Much of the information about this mission is classified. That is the reason it is so difficult to gauge the success and identify the problems of Top Secret America, including whether money is being spent wisely. The U.S. intelligence budget is vast, publicly announced last year as $75 billion, 21/2 times the size it was on Sept. 10, 2001. But the figure doesn't include many military activities or domestic counterterrorism programs.

At least 20 percent of the government organizations that exist to fend off terrorist threats were established or refashioned in the wake of 9/11. Many that existed before the attacks grew to historic proportions as the Bush administration and Congress gave agencies more money than they were capable of responsibly spending.

The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, for example, has gone from 7,500 employees in 2002 to 16,500 today. The budget of the National Security Agency, which conducts electronic eavesdropping, doubled. Thirty-five FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces became 106. It was phenomenal growth that began almost as soon as the Sept. 11 attacks ended.

Nine days after the attacks, Congress committed $40 billion beyond what was in the federal budget to fortify domestic defenses and to launch a global offensive against al-Qaeda. It followed that up with an additional $36.5 billion in 2002 and $44 billion in 2003. That was only a beginning.

With the quick infusion of money, military and intelligence agencies multiplied. Twenty-four organizations were created by the end of 2001, including the Office of Homeland Security and the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Task Force. In 2002, 37 more were created to track weapons of mass destruction, collect threat tips and coordinate the new focus on counterterrorism. That was followed the next year by 36 new organizations; and 26 after that; and 31 more; and 32 more; and 20 or more each in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

In all, at least 263 organizations have been created or reorganized as a response to 9/11. Each has required more people, and those people have required more administrative and logistic support: phone operators, secretaries, librarians, architects, carpenters, construction workers, air-conditioning mechanics and, because of where they work, even janitors with top-secret clearances.

With so many more employees, units and organizations, the lines of responsibility began to blur. To remedy this, at the recommendation of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, the George W. Bush administration and Congress decided to create an agency in 2004 with overarching responsibilities called the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to bring the colossal effort under control.

While that was the idea, Washington has its own ways.

A hidden world, growing beyond control (Printer friendly version)| washingtonpost.com

Now keep in mind ... this is only on the INTELLIGENCE side of security spending. This doesn't even get into the MILITARY side of the house when it comes to the prosecuting two wars.

Sure the GOP will start whining about "out of control government spending" when the topic is some guy who lost his job collecting unemployment benefits ... or some worker at Wal-mart who makes so little that she qualifies for food stamps. Or whether grandma should get a cost of living adjustment (COLA) in her Social Security check. But it's quite alright when the spending is in areas that they support. So those types of political debates are a matter of values and priorities. But make no mistake about it. A dollar spent is a dollar spent is a dollar spent. And when you don't have that dollar in the federal coffers because you're tossing out tax cuts like candy to little kids along a parade route ... it simply does not matter what that dollar was for when it comes to its contribution to the deficit. People can go back and forth about the role of government and what's constitutional or not and all that other ideological b*llshit. But at the end of the day the reason why when it comes to spending way above and beyond revenues is immaterial to the mathematics of the situation. Period.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's running up the new bills (and the old) that is fiscally brain dead. Nobody's perfect. Talking about it and failing to accomplish it is still better than not even talking about it, and pretending like it's not even a concern.

I'm going to quibble with you a bit on this. Running up bills isn't necessarily fiscally brain dead per se. But running them up beyond your political willingness and financial ability to pay is most definitely fiscally brain dead. The issue we have in the short-term is the former. But given the trajectory we are on the issue we will have in the long-term is the latter.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What would you do, if you cared about reducing frivolous spending? I don't think the finger-pointing strategy is going to work for much longer.

That's a pretty good topic for its own thread actually. My position is that US citizens need to be willing to pay for the government services they demand. If they aren't, then cuts need to be made. But off the top of my head here's a few ideas ....

- First and foremost re-establish PAYGO so all changes to taxes or spending must not add to the federal deficit. Only exception is for a national emergency.

- Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in the context of comprehensive tax reform. Lower rates, tax all types of income the same, eliminate deductions/credits ... phased in over time naturally.

- Eliminate Medicaid. Eliminate Obamacare. And expand Medicare for all citizens for basic healthcare and just call it a day. Supplemental insurance still available from the private sector. Healthcare costs are the number one driver of the long-term deficit so reigning them in is of paramount importance. This approach provides the largest possible risk pool to keep individual premiums affordable. It eliminates the profit motive out of the insurance aspect of the healthcare system. And it puts the federal government in a position to control costs on the delivery side with A) volume purchasing discounts, and B) the ability regulate the healthcare system like a public utility. Every other industrialized nation on the planet does it this way and their populations are healthier and on average spend HALF what the US pays as a percentage of GDP. Again, the math speaks for itself.

- Collect all taxes by several key categories so taxpayers know exactly what their money is going for. National Security, Infrastructure, Education, Medicare, Social Security, Social Safety Net, Debt Reduction, and General Funds. Every government program or function would fall into the appropriate category. Each category has its own rate and Congressional action in one category with regard to rates and spending does not affect another. This way if the people are willing to increase their taxes in the Debt Reduction category because by law it can only be spent for that purpose then fine. Whereas if they want to decrease their taxes in General Funds or Medicare that's fine too. Spur job creation by boosting Infrastructure spending, etc.

Now I probably haven't answered your question in the manner that you intended. But in all honesty I'm not ducking it. I just truly believe that "federal spending" is simply too large and convoluted a topic to tackle as a whole. The people with the "Taxed Enough Already" (TEA Party) t-shirts holding a "Get your government hands off my Medicare" sign are suffering from cognitive dissonance without question. As are the people holding the "Medicare for all!" sign who think that can be paid for by increasing taxes only on the "1%" while they hold onto their "Middle Class Tax Cut" and their beloved "Mortgage Interest Deduction". Breaking out the taxation and budgeting for government operations into more discrete categories as I've suggested would allow the American people to collectively express their values and priorities in a more accurate manner IMO. It may even diffuse some of the rampant political polarization that exists as well. So let's say for the sake of discussion such a system was in place. This is what I would advocate for spending (and with PAY GO taxation by definition) for each category:

National Security - Decrease significantly while still maintaining unrivaled military power. Al-Qaeda has been decimated. They remain a threat but handle it with drones and special forces. Wind down Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Presently the US military budget is 6-7 times that of China and more than the budgets of the next 20 highest spending nations combined. I'd say that more than qualifies as overkill.

Infrastructure - Increase significantly to spur job creation and economic growth.

Education - Increase significantly to secure the future competitiveness of our nation.

Medicare - Increase significantly by expanding to all as I mentioned above. But this should not be construed as increasing individual costs because the out-of-control private sector premiums we pay now (as well as the employer contribution) would be redirected into a public sector program. I daresay that the individual premium paid into such a program would on average be less than what is paid into the convoluted monstrosity we have now.

Social Security - Increase slightly. Just enough to restore long-term solvency. First by eliminating the income cap on contributions. Perhaps by a small increase in the rate if necessary.

Social Safety Net - Keep the same. It was already at historical lows prior to the Great Recession.

Debt Reduction - Increase. Of course, this is not spending per se. Just taxation that goes for the specific purpose of paying down the national debt. Figure there are 300 million working age adults. Say half of them are working. Imagine if 150 million people with a job paid 50 bucks a month into such a fund. Or perhaps have a progressive rate by income that averaged out to this number. This could generate 7.5 billion a month toward the national debt. 15 trillion could be paid off in about 166 years. Even faster as the population increases. Which is hardly any time at all in the lifespan of a great nation.

General Funds - Decrease significantly. Half of this sh*t the government shouldn't be doing anyway.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But they DON'T fight to stop the expansion my man. That's my fundamental point. How was pushing through a prescription drug benefit with Medicare Part D not an expansion of government? I mean let's call it what it was. A brand new entitlement program! How is the ASTRONOMICAL growth of defense and intelligence spending since 9/11 not an expansion of government?

Sure the GOP will start whining about "out of control government spending" when the topic is some guy who lost his job collecting unemployment benefits ... or some worker at Wal-mart who makes so little that she qualifies for food stamps. Or whether grandma should get a cost of living adjustment (COLA) in her Social Security check. But it's quite alright when the spending is in areas that they support. So those types of political debates are a matter of values and priorities. But make no mistake about it. A dollar spent is a dollar spent is a dollar spent. And when you don't have that dollar in the federal coffers because you're tossing out tax cuts like candy to little kids along a parade route ... it simply does not matter what that dollar was for when it comes to its contribution to the deficit. People can go back and forth about the role of government and what's constitutional or not and all that other ideological b*llshit. But at the end of the day the reason why when it comes to spending way above and beyond revenues is immaterial to the mathematics of the situation. Period.

The Right doesn't always manage to fight expansion, but then again the Left never does. Don't shoot the messenger just because they haven't managed a flawless record of staying on message... if you do you'll never receive any messages.

I'm going to quibble with you a bit on this. Running up bills isn't necessarily fiscally brain dead per se. But running them up beyond your political willingness and financial ability to pay is most definitely fiscally brain dead. The issue we have in the short-term is the former. But given the trajectory we are on the issue we will have in the long-term is the latter.

What makes you say the current situation is the former? I would not say that. We can't just take as much as we _want_ in taxes. Top earners will flee, those that remain will work less and earn less, and evasion will climb. Let me ask you another question worthy of its own thread... what is wrong with our economy? I think that simply put, we don't produce goods that other countries want any more. Increasing the coddle-factor is not going to fix that, in fact it's going to exacerbate it. We want an affluent lifestyle, but we need to earn that somehow, we can't just rest on our (parents') laurels and coast indefinitely. We need to earn our keep, and government aid doesn't "earn." You keep on referencing the equivalency between paying for services (like health care) and paying taxes that cover those services, and this sentiment is pervasive on the Left (besson3c was heavily relying on it too). But this is a false equivalency, because of moral hazard. The more of my needs are gratis, the less effort I will do to earn my affluent lifestyle. I agree with the philosophy that our goal as a society should be to achieve such a star-trek-like state, where no one has to worry about creature comforts and we can all be free to pursue higher intellectual pursuits. But unfortunately, human nature does not permit this fictional end-point, because people need to be motivated in order to actually work and earn their affluence.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Could you define government run please?

Single payer system.

[hyteckit]

Damn, I wished the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional. We need a single payer system.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The Right doesn't always manage to fight expansion, but then again the Left never does. Don't shoot the messenger just because they haven't managed a flawless record of staying on message... if you do you'll never receive any messages.

The Left did under the Clinton Administration.

Data that came out last week from the Bureau of Economic Analysis enabled me to compute some perhaps surprising numbers on which political party favors big federal government.

It used to be — before Ronald Reagan — that the federal government grew when the Democrats were in office, and became smaller when the Republicans were in the Oval Office.

Since then, the relationship has reversed.

The figures that follow are the increase (or decrease) in real gross domestic product caused by federal government spending. (These are, of course, direct effects. If the government stimulates economic activity in the private sector, that will show up in the data for the affected industry.)

In 2008, the federal government gain was 3.0 percent, according to preliminary data. That was the largest since 1967, when it was an increase in Vietnam War spending, coupled with the Great Society, that produced the surge in government growth. (Remember “guns vs. butter”?)

Here are the figures for average contribution of the federal government to growth in G.D.P., by four-year terms. A positive sign means the government grew in real terms. A negative one means it got smaller. The figures are compound annual changes for each term. To make the lists easier to read, Democratic terms are italicized and those that saw government shrink are in bold.

1949-52 (Truman, D) +8.7%
1953-57 (Eisenhower, R) -1.3%
1957-60 (Eisenhower, R) -0.2%
1961-64 (Kennedy-Johnson, D) +2.1%
1965-68 (Johnson-D) +4.3%
1969-72 (Nixon, R) -2.8%
1973-76 (Nixon-Ford, R) -0.7%
1977-80 (Carter, D) +1.0%
1981-84 (Reagan, R) +1.1%
1985-88 (Reagan, R) +1.7%
1989-92 (GHW Bush, R) +0.7%
1993-96 (Clinton, D) -2.6%
1997-2000 (Clinton, D) -0.1%
2001-04 (GW Bush, R) +0.9%
2005-08 (GW Bush, R) +0.9%

This is, by the way, an absolute measure, and does not show whether the entire economy grew more rapidly than the government sector. The government grew at a slower pace than the rest of the economy in each administration, but the two George W. Bush terms saw the smallest differences.

Big Government Republicans - NYtimes.com

Just face the facts my man. The numbers are what they are. Since 1980 when President Reagan came to power the GOP has done the exact opposite of what they claim to stand for. Whether the topic of conversation is the deficit or the expansion of government. You say don't shoot the messenger. But I'm just saying ...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What makes you say the current situation is the former? I would not say that. We can't just take as much as we _want_ in taxes. Top earners will flee, those that remain will work less and earn less, and evasion will climb.

I certainly don't recall a mass exodus of top earners fleeing the country under the Clinton Administration when tax rates were at the level they were prior to the Bush Tax Cuts. Hell I don't even recall a mass exodus of top earners fleeing the country under the Eisenhower Administration when marginal tax rates were 90%. Now don't get me wrong ... I'm not advocating a 90% tax rate. Far from it. I'm just saying this typical right-wing talking point about the "job creators" fleeing in terror is simply not supported by the historical record.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Let me ask you another question worthy of its own thread... what is wrong with our economy? I think that simply put, we don't produce goods that other countries want any more.

Exactly!

Because both the Dems and the GOP are bought and paid for by the Bain Capitals of the world. That's practically always been the case for the GOP. But since the 1990s that's also been the case for the Dems. So the politicians on both sides of the aisle bent over backwards to try to convince the American people that "Free Trade Agreements" would be a good thing for the US economy in the long run. When the reality is that it was all about taking advantage of cheap labor overseas to generate more profits for the investor class. The problem is that what actually happened is that the incomes of middle class Americans ... the engine of the US economy ... totally stagnated. Because that's what happens when you systematically outsource well paying manufacturing jobs overseas and replace them with lower paying, unskilled labor service jobs. Just as Ross Perot predicted during the 1992 Presidential Campaign. And especially when politicians on both sides of the aisle do the bidding of the "job creators" and create tax breaks to do so. The funny thing is I came this close to voting for Perot in 1992. But I talked myself out of it because I was afraid he and Clinton would split the vote and President Bush would get re-elected. Turns out the opposite happened. President Bush and Perot split the vote and President Clinton got elected. Not that I had an issue with that overall because the economy and the federal government finances did extremely well under the Clinton Administration. But make no mistake about it. I was completely against President Clinton's support of NAFTA and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. It is what it is at this point of course. I'm just saying that overall the fiscal policies implemented under the Clinton Administration were far and away better for the country than the polices that followed in the Bush II Administration. If President Obama manages to win a second term I for one hopes he moves to eliminate the Bush tax cuts and restore PAYGO which was the cornerstone of the fiscal success of the Clinton Administration.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The Right doesn't always manage to fight expansion, but then again the Left never does. Don't shoot the messenger just because they haven't managed a flawless record of staying on message... if you do you'll never receive any messages.

BS. The Left has been saying to cut expansion of national defense spending.

[Chongo]

The 15 member IPAB is still a go. Now that states don't have agree to the Medicaid expansion, there is more than $500 billion siphoned from Medicare to deal with. More pain pils for the elderly.

Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill - YouTube

[Athens]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Single payer system.

Ah see I thought you where talking about the Medical system not the insurance system. Yes the insurance is a single payer model. Something I think the US would benefit greatly from. I thought you might have had Canada confused with the NHS which "IS" a government run medical system.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Ah see I thought you where talking about the Medical system not the insurance system. Yes the insurance is a single payer model. Something I think the US would benefit greatly from. I thought you might have had Canada confused with the NHS which "IS" a government run medical system.

You have conservatives here who think Obamacare is government run healthcare and the end of freedom.

Obamacare is nothing more than regulating the health insurance industry and fining/taxing people who don't have it.

I like some aspects of Obamacare, but I think it's too complicated like tax laws these days. Too many layers.

We need to simplify our tax code and get onto a single payer system.

[Athens]

I agree, one of the largest costs to health care administrators in the US is the administrative work juggling policies and plans between different companies. One of the biggest hurdles for Americans is what is covered and what isn't, and is it in network or not. And then there is getting permission from a insurance company for anything as well. From what I see its a lot more restrictive for American policy holders because a insurance company only cares about its bottom line and hires people to discourage or find reasons to not cover procedures and to save money. All that pretty much evaporates with a single payer system and the people have a voice in how the care is offered through voting power.

But it should be left to each state to run its own medical system, not the federal government, which is basically the case here.

Honestly the switch would not be difficult for the US, because you don't need to change anything with the clinics, doctors, hospitals, HMO's, and care delivery. Its just at the insurance level it changes. States would take over taxing and paying for medical procedures. Care delivery companies would need to negotiate rates for services with the State health authority. Private insurance companies which pay and cover everything now would be reduced to offering optional coverage and of course that would depend on what each state covered. Some might cover eye vision, hearing and drugs while others might not. It wouldn't be the end of the world for private insurance companies just a change on there risk and liability and what products they offer. It wouldn't end any of them really unless a state decided to cover everything. Would probably cost a lot less for individuals and companies too because the risk pool would be so large.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Government only gets bigger, not smaller. This is why they fight so hard to stop the expansion before it takes hold, because they know there won't be a second chance, and there's no going back.

Do you mean in terms of raw size, or as a ratio of population size?

Wouldn't it make some sense that as a country's population expands, so must the size of its public service? The number of public servants required to run a country of 10 million has to be less than the number required to run a country of 35 (or 300) million, right?

(That's what always gets me about the "expanding government" argument; even if you added no new services over the past 40 years, America has grown by over 100 million people during that time. You need more policemen, firemen, people who answer telephones, people who clean things, people who process your taxes...you need more of everything to accomodate such growth. No?)

In terms of a population ratio, Canada reached its public service/population peak sometime in the 70s I believe, and currently is down around a WWII-era ratio.

So while the total numbers of employees have expanded, the overall size has actually decreased fairly significantly over the past 40 years in terms of the total population of Canada.

What about the US?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OAW 

- Eliminate Medicaid. Eliminate Obamacare. And expand Medicare for all citizens for basic healthcare and just call it a day.

How do you address the fraud problem? Per Medicare's own AG they already spend 15% of their budget (some $65B/yr) on fraudulent claims.

How would your proposed fixes for the Medicare fraud problem impact quality, timeliness, and affordability of care?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Do you mean in terms of raw size, or as a ratio of population size?

Wouldn't it make some sense that as a country's population expands, so must the size of its public service? The number of public servants required to run a country of 10 million has to be less than the number required to run a country of 35 (or 300) million, right?

(That's what always gets me about the "expanding government" argument; even if you added no new services over the past 40 years, America has grown by over 100 million people during that time. You need more policemen, firemen, people who answer telephones, people who clean things, people who process your taxes...you need more of everything to accomodate such growth. No?)

In terms of a population ratio, Canada reached its public service/population peak sometime in the 70s I believe, and currently is down around a WWII-era ratio.

So while the total numbers of employees have expanded, the overall size has actually decreased fairly significantly over the past 40 years in terms of the total population of Canada.

What about the US?

It appears you already know the answer: new services, new responsibilities, new mandates. An expansion of the role of government. It's exactly the same thing I responded to in the post you responded to: you can't repeal services (like social security and medicare). You can add them, but you can't take them away. It's a one-way street. So if you think one of them is a bad idea, you'd better go all-in opposing it, sabotaging it, undermining it, or lying about it, because you won't get a second chance.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Just face the facts my man. The numbers are what they are. Since 1980 when President Reagan came to power the GOP has done the exact opposite of what they claim to stand for. Whether the topic of conversation is the deficit or the expansion of government. You say don't shoot the messenger. But I'm just saying ...

Yeah but the things the Right buys are unpopular. You won't have any PR problem repealing the Iraq war when it's time to start saving money, like you would repealing entitlements

I certainly don't recall a mass exodus of top earners fleeing the country under the Clinton Administration when tax rates were at the level they were prior to the Bush Tax Cuts. Hell I don't even recall a mass exodus of top earners fleeing the country under the Eisenhower Administration when marginal tax rates were 90%. Now don't get me wrong ... I'm not advocating a 90% tax rate. Far from it. I'm just saying this typical right-wing talking point about the "job creators" fleeing in terror is simply not supported by the historical record.

Ok this is a fair point, but the "last straw" isn't always a number (like a percentage taxed), sometimes it's principled. If they're being taxed to fight communism (surely an issue near and dear to "top earners") it's going to be less of a bitter pill than if they're being taxed so that the US can become more like those communists we used to fight against. In short, the difference between "wants" and "needs." "Needs" have always included military, not because it's not socialist, but because it's legitimately needed in order to do a country. "Needs" were basically all figured out by the time the bill of rights was signed. Our brave new world of technology and medicine has added plenty of new "wants," but very few "needs" (I think civil rights do count as new "needs," but cutting edge medicine doesn't; we can debate that if you want). What I mean though is that people can put up with being taxed for "needs" a lot longer than for "wants." And it makes sense to do so, because "wants" are limitless, it's a slippery slope.

Exactly!

Because both the Dems and the GOP are bought and paid for by the Bain Capitals of the world. That's practically always been the case for the GOP. But since the 1990s that's also been the case for the Dems. So the politicians on both sides of the aisle bent over backwards to try to convince the American people that "Free Trade Agreements" would be a good thing for the US economy in the long run. When the reality is that it was all about taking advantage of cheap labor overseas to generate more profits for the investor class. The problem is that what actually happened is that the incomes of middle class Americans ... the engine of the US economy ... totally stagnated. Because that's what happens when you systematically outsource well paying manufacturing jobs overseas and replace them with lower paying, unskilled labor service jobs. Just as Ross Perot predicted during the 1992 Presidential Campaign. And especially when politicians on both sides of the aisle do the bidding of the "job creators" and create tax breaks to do so. The funny thing is I came this close to voting for Perot in 1992. But I talked myself out of it because I was afraid he and Clinton would split the vote and President Bush would get re-elected. Turns out the opposite happened. President Bush and Perot split the vote and President Clinton got elected. Not that I had an issue with that overall because the economy and the federal government finances did extremely well under the Clinton Administration. But make no mistake about it. I was completely against President Clinton's support of NAFTA and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. It is what it is at this point of course. I'm just saying that overall the fiscal policies implemented under the Clinton Administration were far and away better for the country than the polices that followed in the Bush II Administration. If President Obama manages to win a second term I for one hopes he moves to eliminate the Bush tax cuts and restore PAYGO which was the cornerstone of the fiscal success of the Clinton Administration.

OAW

You didn't address the moral hazard.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now I probably haven't answered your question in the manner that you intended. But in all honesty I'm not ducking it.

Thank you for giving a thoughtful and detailed answer, I enjoyed reading it. Now let me try to ask the question I intended

What would you do, if you cared about reducing frivolous spending, and you weren't in charge? What is your strategy if you're only half of the government, and the other half is uncooperative?

I just truly believe that "federal spending" is simply too large and convoluted a topic to tackle as a whole.

This goes halfway to my question (too bad it ended there). So what is the conclusion you draw from this, don't even try to tackle spending? I can agree with this if "tackle" implies completeness; we probably can't see the finish line from here. But I object to the defeatist implication that we can't even begin to ameliorate the spending problem.

[Chongo]

There was a constitutional lawyer on the radio this morning. His take was if Obama keeps insisting that it isn't a tax, it opens the door for the rare revisit. It has also been pointed out that the ACA did not originate in the House, as required by Article I sec. 7, clause 1 for all revenue bills.

[ironknee]

stop hating on Romneycare

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There was a constitutional lawyer on the radio this morning. His take was if Obama keeps insisting that it isn't a tax, it opens the door for the rare revisit. It has also been pointed out that the ACA did not originate in the House, as required by Article I sec. 7, clause 1 for all revenue bills.

So where was this constitutional lawyer when they presented the case on ACA in the supreme court? Why would it matter what Pres. Obama says in this case? Pres. Obama doesn't make laws.

Are you saying Supreme Court Justice Roberts doesn't know constitutional law?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

stop hating on Romneycare

You mean ObamneyCare. At least that's what some Republicans are calling it.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mduell 

How do you address the fraud problem? Per Medicare's own AG they already spend 15% of their budget (some $65B/yr) on fraudulent claims.

How would your proposed fixes for the Medicare fraud problem impact quality, timeliness, and affordability of care?

If every one is covered by medicare, how is there fraud?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It appears you already know the answer: new services, new responsibilities, new mandates. An expansion of the role of government. It's exactly the same thing I responded to in the post you responded to: you can't repeal services (like social security and medicare). You can add them, but you can't take them away. It's a one-way street. So if you think one of them is a bad idea, you'd better go all-in opposing it, sabotaging it, undermining it, or lying about it, because you won't get a second chance.

The only reason you can't take them away is because of the invested interest of those employed or those making money off those services fight to the bitter end to protect them.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So where was this constitutional lawyer when they presented the case on ACA in the supreme court? Why would it matter what Pres. Obama says in this case? Pres. Obama doesn't make laws.

Are you saying Supreme Court Justice Roberts doesn't know constitutional law?

Cases are judged on what is presented. The Solicitor General presented the Individual Mandate as a tax, not a penalty. The ruling stated that if it was a penalty (Commerce Clause) it is not constitutional. The 5 Justices accepted the administrations argument that it is a tax. Now O-blame-a is saying it isn't a tax. Either the Solicitor General lied to the SCOTUS by saying it is a tax, or O-Blame-a is lying by saying it isn't a tax.

O-Blame-A's "Read My Lips" moment.
O-blame-a Pledges to Not Raise Middle Class Taxes - YouTube

This and other video of him saying the same thing will be featured in ads from now until the election. With the states no longer having to agree with with Medicaid expansion or lose funding being tossed out, taxes will even go up more to cover the shortfall created when they all opt of of the expansion.

[Chongo]

The payoff to Big Pharma is going to be tossed out as well.
Key Quotes from Today’s Decision that Signal the Court’s Willingness to Strike Down the HHS Mandate | Becket Fund

Key Quotes from Today’s Decision that Signal the Court’s Willingness to Strike Down the HHS Mandate
June 28, 2012 by admin


..and from Justice Ginsburg no less


Today’s decision and the Becket Fund’s challenges to the HHS mandate are completely separate and distinct legal issues. But did the Supreme Court say anything that is relevant to the HHS mandate? Yes. Two key quotes signal that the Court may be willing to strike down the HHS mandate as a violation of religious liberty.

The first, from the majority opinion, states: “Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution.” In other words, Congress may have authority to penalize organizations that refuse to comply with its mandates; but any penalty will be struck down if it violates “other requirements in the Constitution,” such as the First Amendment—which is just what the HHS mandate does. (The Chief’s quote is in his majority op Part III-C which was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. p 40)

The second quote, from Justice Ginsburg’s opinion, is even more clear: “A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.” Again, that is just what the HHS mandate does: It “interfere[s] with the free exercise of religion” by forcing religious organizations across the country to violate their religious beliefs.(SC Opinion Part II which was joined by Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. p 29)

Thus, today’s Supreme Court decision makes clear that ObamaCare is still subject to legal challenge. Indeed, if anything, it suggests that the Supreme Court is willing to entertain arguments that the HHS mandate violates the right of religious liberty.

So no $1 per premium monthly abortion surcharge as well.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Cases are judged on what is presented. The Solicitor General presented the Individual Mandate as a tax, not a penalty. The ruling stated that if it was a penalty (Commerce Clause) it is not constitutional. The 5 Justices accepted the administrations argument that it is a tax. Now O-blame-a is saying it isn't a tax. Either the Solicitor General lied to the SCOTUS by saying it is a tax, or O-Blame-a is lying by saying it isn't a tax.

More BS.

The Supreme Court Judges doesn't have to based the decision only on what is presented. The Supreme Court can take into account what they know about constitutional law, what they know about the bill, and what they know about previous law cases.

If the Supreme Court Judges can ask about: Broccoli, broccoli, broccoli; The Supreme Court Judges can ask about Article I sec. 7, clause 1.


The constitutionality of Obamacare only reach the US Supreme Court because it was challenged. If it violated Article I sec. 7, clause 1, it would've been presented during the challenge.