M
markbrumbaugh
Guest
Well done CPA2
- Status
L
Langdell
Guest
I agree – that’s a very thoughtful and thought-provoking post, CPA 2.
.
.
G
GodLovesTheSpek
Guest
If the doctor can’t afford insurance, the doctor doesn’t go to the doctor…
As long as there appears to be a bottomless pit of money costs will continue to spiral up. Now if government is the “bottomless pit” AND the government is spending the “money” (without limits) – the spiral will never stop. The government is devaluing its own money.
Well intentioned as it may be, even privately owned insurance is a kind of privately run form of socialism. All members dump into the pit and “paid up” members in need pull money out of the pit. The hospitals see this and so do the suppliers and equipment makers, etc. That’s one of the reasons why a caplet of Tylenol costs $15 in a hospital. Like the government the insurance companies couldn’t keep up, that’s why we have co-pays, deductibles, HMOs, pre-existing conditions, etc. Unlike the government, the insurance companies can’t print money.
So the spiral continues.
How about if everyone’s job is fueled by insurance or government subsidies? Let’s see, one needs to charge $400 dollars per hour for computer support because one has to pay $100,000 per year in “support malpractice”. If one want’s computer support, one has to buy “computer insurance”. Pretty soon there will be insurance insurance and it all spirals out of control.
It can’t happen. Wait a minute, “they” keep trying and put another name on it. It’s a shortcut, it’s lazy and it can’t work.
People are suffering and desperate. It’s so easy to enslave people and get them to reject what they know is right because of suffering. Here comes socialism to the rescue once again! (and will fail again)
Don’t fall for it.
Charity is not socialism and socialism is not Charity.
Some people have forgotten how to be charitable because they are overtaxed by socialism and have forgotten how to be charitable or they assume the government will do it all.
Taxes are not Charity it is rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
Charity is freely giving to God that which is God’s.
Socialism tries to get people to forget Charity.
Who wants people to forget Charity?
The Liar, The Deceiver, The Murderer From The Beginning – Lucifer, Satan, The Devil, that’s who.
And people wonder why there is so much suffering.
As long as there appears to be a bottomless pit of money costs will continue to spiral up. Now if government is the “bottomless pit” AND the government is spending the “money” (without limits) – the spiral will never stop. The government is devaluing its own money.
Well intentioned as it may be, even privately owned insurance is a kind of privately run form of socialism. All members dump into the pit and “paid up” members in need pull money out of the pit. The hospitals see this and so do the suppliers and equipment makers, etc. That’s one of the reasons why a caplet of Tylenol costs $15 in a hospital. Like the government the insurance companies couldn’t keep up, that’s why we have co-pays, deductibles, HMOs, pre-existing conditions, etc. Unlike the government, the insurance companies can’t print money.
So the spiral continues.
How about if everyone’s job is fueled by insurance or government subsidies? Let’s see, one needs to charge $400 dollars per hour for computer support because one has to pay $100,000 per year in “support malpractice”. If one want’s computer support, one has to buy “computer insurance”. Pretty soon there will be insurance insurance and it all spirals out of control.
It can’t happen. Wait a minute, “they” keep trying and put another name on it. It’s a shortcut, it’s lazy and it can’t work.
People are suffering and desperate. It’s so easy to enslave people and get them to reject what they know is right because of suffering. Here comes socialism to the rescue once again! (and will fail again)
Don’t fall for it.
Charity is not socialism and socialism is not Charity.
Some people have forgotten how to be charitable because they are overtaxed by socialism and have forgotten how to be charitable or they assume the government will do it all.
Taxes are not Charity it is rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.
Charity is freely giving to God that which is God’s.
Socialism tries to get people to forget Charity.
Who wants people to forget Charity?
The Liar, The Deceiver, The Murderer From The Beginning – Lucifer, Satan, The Devil, that’s who.
And people wonder why there is so much suffering.
W
wabrams
Guest
Bingo.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
potential discussion points:
Lots of reasons to vote against national health care:
In fact, if you are really interested in learning about this, there are a lot of threads here at CAF on health care and Obamacare and nationalized health care and socialized medicine. So, use the search function. It’s been discussed a LOT.
Why would you want a humongous bureaucracy like the post office or the DMV or the IRS being responsible for YOUR health care? The people working at these bureaucracies that will control your access to medical care or health care are not doctors or nurses; they are basically just clerks with no medical training.
There are SO many horror stories with universal health care. And the name is even misleading. It’s really enforced one-size-fits-all access to a waiting list. If you are too sick, you will get a “pain pill” because if you use up too much money, the doctors will be forced to deny care to you.
In Canada and the UK, there are stories about long delays for admittance to a hospital. Not enough MRI’s. All kinds of problems. You need to read both sides. Check with www.heritage.org There is a big debate going on.
And then you need to look at how the words are being spun.
It’s not universal and it’s not health care. One minute it’s about hospital care; then it’s about health care; and then it’s about getting insurance.
Keep in mind that right now, already, the problems are CAUSED by Congress because existing laws have created problems getting insurance and existing laws have prevented hospitals from getting reimbursed from insurance companies. Medicare reimbursement affects what insurance will pay. The IRS will not allow full deduction of costs or tax credits and Congress sets that. Why not let individuals buy HSA policies? They work and people like them, but the government WILL NOT permit them. Interstate competition works. Lots of issues. Caused BY government.
Basic health care is not carried out by hospitals. Or doctors. BASIC health care is on you. If YOU smoke. Or if YOU drink a lot. Or if you are overweight. That is something you control. A lot of health issues can be controlled by eating the proper foods. Or getting some basic exercise.
Some people need mammograms early in life; others don’t, but the administration has set up criteria for late mammograms.
IN FACT, * [It was Ezeckial Emmanual, pretty sure] stated the other day that people who are overweight might be denied medical care. In other words, they will control what you eat.
With government controlled health care, you will have no appeal and no place to go if you don’t like what you get. You have to take what they give you. Free and open competition works. Everywhere it is tried.
Some current articles:
humanevents.com/article.php?id=35314
Excerpt:
The market-oriented health care reforms they [Republicans] champion – letting individuals deduct their medical expenses from their taxes, allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines, tort reform to reduce costly malpractice suits to reduce health care costs – aren’t being considered by the Democrats and will never be. This impasse can only be settled at the ballot box in November when GOP officials are betting that Democrats will suffer heavy losses in the House and the Senate.
lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=526787
redstate.com/tags/index.php?tag=health-care
humanevents.com/article.php?id=35925
humanevents.com/article.php?id=35922
humanevents.com/article.php?id=35929
humanevents.com/article.php?id=35916 [scroll down to abortion]
England has nationalized / universal health care. But people over 55, people like your parents, are leaving. Why are they leaving? Why, when they are getting into the years when they are likely to need more health care, are they leaving England?
The reality is that what they call “universal” health care, just isn’t very good; certainly not good enough to encourage them to stay in their home country.
lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=526788
dailymail.co.uk/news/arti…er-abroad.html
Supposedly they can get the same “universal” health care in other European Union countries.
I don’t know.
A lot of Europeans are moving to the United States.
The post office, the military, and the government space programs have all become humongous bureaucracies, slow to change and they have to be forced to adopt changes, usually by people who get punished for forcing the bureaucrats out of their comfort zones.
Think of how inefficient government monopolies are compared with competitive private sector enterprises. The telephone company used to be a monopoly. It was a very good service. However, there was zero innovation and the cost was very high. The old AT&T did a lot of things well. They invented “C” for example. But when the government finally allowed competition, innovation skyrocketed and costs dropped hugely. People can complain about their present service, but usually if you’re not happy you can change your internet provider or your carrier and you can buy telephones anywhere. It used to be that if you wanted a phone, you HAD to buy it from AT&T; they were big, heavy, clunky, expensive and designed to last 50 years or more, and except for a few push button models, they mostly had rotary dials. Now you have a huge variety of features, none of which were even thinkable when AT&T had a government monopoly.
Innovation comes from the private sector.
Why on earth would we want to turn the most important life-giving or life-endangering sector over to the government?*
Lots of reasons to vote against national health care:
In fact, if you are really interested in learning about this, there are a lot of threads here at CAF on health care and Obamacare and nationalized health care and socialized medicine. So, use the search function. It’s been discussed a LOT.
Why would you want a humongous bureaucracy like the post office or the DMV or the IRS being responsible for YOUR health care? The people working at these bureaucracies that will control your access to medical care or health care are not doctors or nurses; they are basically just clerks with no medical training.
There are SO many horror stories with universal health care. And the name is even misleading. It’s really enforced one-size-fits-all access to a waiting list. If you are too sick, you will get a “pain pill” because if you use up too much money, the doctors will be forced to deny care to you.
In Canada and the UK, there are stories about long delays for admittance to a hospital. Not enough MRI’s. All kinds of problems. You need to read both sides. Check with www.heritage.org There is a big debate going on.
And then you need to look at how the words are being spun.
It’s not universal and it’s not health care. One minute it’s about hospital care; then it’s about health care; and then it’s about getting insurance.
Keep in mind that right now, already, the problems are CAUSED by Congress because existing laws have created problems getting insurance and existing laws have prevented hospitals from getting reimbursed from insurance companies. Medicare reimbursement affects what insurance will pay. The IRS will not allow full deduction of costs or tax credits and Congress sets that. Why not let individuals buy HSA policies? They work and people like them, but the government WILL NOT permit them. Interstate competition works. Lots of issues. Caused BY government.
Basic health care is not carried out by hospitals. Or doctors. BASIC health care is on you. If YOU smoke. Or if YOU drink a lot. Or if you are overweight. That is something you control. A lot of health issues can be controlled by eating the proper foods. Or getting some basic exercise.
Some people need mammograms early in life; others don’t, but the administration has set up criteria for late mammograms.
IN FACT, * [It was Ezeckial Emmanual, pretty sure] stated the other day that people who are overweight might be denied medical care. In other words, they will control what you eat.
With government controlled health care, you will have no appeal and no place to go if you don’t like what you get. You have to take what they give you. Free and open competition works. Everywhere it is tried.
Some current articles:
humanevents.com/article.php?id=35314
Excerpt:
The market-oriented health care reforms they [Republicans] champion – letting individuals deduct their medical expenses from their taxes, allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines, tort reform to reduce costly malpractice suits to reduce health care costs – aren’t being considered by the Democrats and will never be. This impasse can only be settled at the ballot box in November when GOP officials are betting that Democrats will suffer heavy losses in the House and the Senate.
lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=526787
redstate.com/tags/index.php?tag=health-care
humanevents.com/article.php?id=35925
humanevents.com/article.php?id=35922
humanevents.com/article.php?id=35929
humanevents.com/article.php?id=35916 [scroll down to abortion]
England has nationalized / universal health care. But people over 55, people like your parents, are leaving. Why are they leaving? Why, when they are getting into the years when they are likely to need more health care, are they leaving England?
The reality is that what they call “universal” health care, just isn’t very good; certainly not good enough to encourage them to stay in their home country.
lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=526788
dailymail.co.uk/news/arti…er-abroad.html
Supposedly they can get the same “universal” health care in other European Union countries.
I don’t know.
A lot of Europeans are moving to the United States.
The post office, the military, and the government space programs have all become humongous bureaucracies, slow to change and they have to be forced to adopt changes, usually by people who get punished for forcing the bureaucrats out of their comfort zones.
Think of how inefficient government monopolies are compared with competitive private sector enterprises. The telephone company used to be a monopoly. It was a very good service. However, there was zero innovation and the cost was very high. The old AT&T did a lot of things well. They invented “C” for example. But when the government finally allowed competition, innovation skyrocketed and costs dropped hugely. People can complain about their present service, but usually if you’re not happy you can change your internet provider or your carrier and you can buy telephones anywhere. It used to be that if you wanted a phone, you HAD to buy it from AT&T; they were big, heavy, clunky, expensive and designed to last 50 years or more, and except for a few push button models, they mostly had rotary dials. Now you have a huge variety of features, none of which were even thinkable when AT&T had a government monopoly.
Innovation comes from the private sector.
Why on earth would we want to turn the most important life-giving or life-endangering sector over to the government?*
C
CPA2
Guest
The government continues to promote the myth that the free market is the source of economic instability. “The government blames all problems on external influences beyond its control, and takes credit for any and all favorable occurrences…The government’s behavior documents the reality that **government is the major source of economic instability **(Milton Friedman).”
N
NotWorthy
Guest
For a major example of this, simply look at the Great Depresseion of the 20th century.
All the programs designed to draw us out of the Great Depression simply caused us to wallow in it. Did you ever wonder why it was simply called “A Depression” in Europe? Those guys broke out of it long before we did. Why? Because they let the market cycle back up again on its own.
C
CPA2
Guest
You understand!
During the 1930’s government blamed business for the Depression. (Some things never change.) It was the fault of the capitalism! Keynes entered the picture and monetary policy has never been the same since. Additionally, “**the Keynesian revolution…provided both an appealing justification and a prescription for extensive government intervention **(Friedman).”
Milton Friedman says that the Federal Reserve failed to create bank liquidity. The Fed tightened credit when it should have eased credit. “The depression was a failure of government in an area in which the government had from the first been assigned responsibility – ‘To coin money, (and) regulate the Value thereof’ (Friedman).’
Douglas Noland, like Misses and Rothbard, believes that “Depressions are the unavoidable consequence of reckless boom time money and credit excess, rampart speculation and the resulting severe structural and economic distortions. At some point, bank reserves and ‘liquidity’ become virtually irrelevant to the greater issue of intractable economic imbalances and maladjustments, and the instability of debt structures. This was the case after the ‘Roaring 20’s,’ and it is once again the case today.”
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
The great depression was neither governement(at the surface) nor bussines fault. It was inside bankers. We had inflation in the money supply( which was still backed by gold), then a quick large deflation. While most got poor, a few super rich got much richer. Now that money isn’t backed by anything tangable different rules apply.
S
seekerz
Guest
I like your suggestions of how to “really fix the system”: just stop using it! Makes me wonder why people were scared of the supposed ‘death panels’: they should have been falling over themselves to sign up to “fix the system”…
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Ahhhh, you miss the point. The Great Depression would have simply been another recession if Government had let the cycle ride out on its own. That’s what the foreign governments did and they broke out of their recesssions years before we did.
G
GodLovesTheSpek
Guest
Sometimes things get “fixed” by getting out of the way, in this case, getting socialists out of the way.I like your suggestions of how to “really fix the system”: just stop using it! Makes me wonder why people were scared of the supposed ‘death panels’: they should have been falling over themselves to sign up to “fix the system”…
C
CPA2
Guest
Debt is a huge time bomb. The United States is the greatest debtor nation in the history of mankind. The government admitted to a $500 billion deficit for 2004. The government does not count the billions that they borrow from the Social Security Fund, or increased funding for the war in Iraq. Additionally, the average credit card debt in America is at a record $8,500. Household mortgage debt is also at an all time high. Households must spend a record 18.3% of their after-tax income just to service their mortgage debt. By any standard, we were in the middle of the greatest debt bubble of all time in 2004.
Alan Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve, insisted on lowering interest rates during the 1990s to encourage spending. However, debt did weigh heavily on the minds of individuals during the 1920s, before the Great Depression. Our ancestors took on much less debt than people easily accept today. Most people in the 1920s paid off debt as soon as possible. However, many people in the 1920s borrowed money to speculate in the stock market. My grandparents told stories about the horrors of debt when times got tough. We Americans may repeat the hard economic times of the 1930s, and fall into the same trap of not saving for a rainy day.
People today have a false sense of security. They think that “big brother” is always protecting them and preventing them from suffering through another depression. We are becoming overconfident. We forget to save for that rainy day that could bankrupt us overnight because of a disaster, sickness or unemployment. Many people see no reason to save for the future.
People develop a false sense of security. They believe that their jobs will always be there. However, many companies are experiencing falling profits. Even Coca-Cola and Wendy are suffering declines in earnings. Ailing companies are laying off workers by the thousands. About 10 million Americans were without jobs in 2004. These Americans are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. The mortgage delinquency rate is the highest in 30 years. Additionally, the foreclosure rate on home mortgages is the worst in 52 years.
Many individuals experienced a false sense of job security when they were working for one of the largest companies in the world, Enron. They lost not only their jobs, but they also lost their retirement funds that they had invested in the company. Having debt in a time of extreme need is dangerous for one’s financial health and stability.
Debt can have a great impact for individuals, companies and even countries. Cash reserves and investments allow for stability during difficult times. Debt can multiply investment gains in good times and, like a double-edge sword, multiply investment losses in bad economic times. Debt is like a Swiss-made watch; it keeps on ticking, even during bad times.
We hear that the bad times are behind us and bad economic times will never happen again during our lifetime. Many say that history will not repeat itself. The stock market crash of 1929 and the ten year depression will never happen again. Uncle Sam, or “big brother,” will always be watching over us. However, the Federal government is impotent to end the bankruptcy crisis or to save the stock market.
What assurance do we have that we will not end up like Russia? Our money could one day become worthless. President Nixon removed the backing of gold from the U.S. dollar. All we have now is our confidence in the dollar and our trust in the economy.
The current budget deficit is devastating the dollar and boosting the price of gold. Gold was $250 an ounce around 2000, and it is now trading around $1,140 per ounce. It does not look like there will be an end to the dollar’s woes or the rising price of gold. When our economy hits rock bottom, will we repeat history and transition into a depression?
S
seekerz
Guest
When exactly did the “socialists” get in the way? What was being done to “fix” the system before the socialist bogeyman got us? If the non-socialists saw the plunder and did nothing are they any better?
Some of these views would be laughable if they weren’t so (and I shrink from using that very, very overused and tired word) scary.
Ideology at the service of people is one thing but people at the service of ideology?
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Actually, if left to free and open interstate competition, the insurance companies serve us just fine.
But what has happened is that we, the citizens, are not permitted to purchase things like HSA [Health Savings Accounts] and catastrophic insurance. The government(s) [Federal and state] outright prohibit them from being sold, except in very limited situations.
The Congress makes these laws and also makes tax policy.
So our government is causing the unnecessarily high costs. And THEN THE GOVERNMENT TURNS AROUND AND BLAMES THE INSURANCE COMPANIES for problems that the government created.
We need to vote out the Democrats in November. It was people like Ted Kennedy who wrote in the prohibitions for free and open sale of HSA’s. Well, he has passed on and “his seat” is now in Republican hands [Hopefully, the Republican will do a better job.]
Free and open interstate competition without mandates. That is #1 and that is what the Democrats do not want.
Automatic investigation and audit and prosecution of Medicaid fraud. The Democrats do not want that because it is being done on an organized basis. That is #2. The cost is in the tens of billions. There are legitimate cases of need and a lot of them. But the fraudsters are organized with doctors and lawyers sharing office space. They are known but the politicians won’t prosecute or investigate because of campaign contributions.
Tort reform, particularly caps on lawsuits. That is #3 and that is what the Democrats do not want. Guys like Edwards make and made tens of millions and cause good drugs to be pulled off the market.
Tax policy that allows full tax deductions for all medical expenses. That is #4. That is what the Democrats do not want. They put in limits. And when I say “all”, I mean all. That includes my being able to pay my mother’s expenses and being able to deduct them.
Tax policy that allows refundable tax credits for all medical expenses for people with low incomes and high medical expenses. The paperwork would be done by the hospital, all would be fully vetted. There are some, not a lot of, people who have posted here, like Pathia, who were born with medical conditions that require extensive treatment. That is #5.
There are many other reforms that could be undertaken at no cost to the taxpayer and with reduced costs to everyone with higher quality service and better innovation. Such as letting hospitals advertise to their local residents that the people can buy insurance from the hospital. AND that could include regular visits, and all sorts of levels of coverage to include pap smears, mammograms, prostate exams, blood and fluid lab work [which is a really cheap way to get a physical] and that can be done as part of a blood donor program.
I have often asked blood banks why they don’t provide an incentive to donate in the form of a “drive-by” physical. They have all the lab facilities and can do every kind of blood test. [For a test requiring fasting, you would need a separate visit, or fast first and then they would provide a snack in their snack bar before you donate blood.]
The blood banks already do a blood pressure test. They have your height and weight and medical history and what meds you are taking. That tells a lot. And they could very easily do a body mass evaluation. Very simple to do.
P
pathia
Guest
What competition? There’s like 3 holding companies that own basically every insurance brand you can think of.
W
wabrams
Guest
So you would rather have just one holding company, i.e. the federal government?
G
GodLovesTheSpek
Guest
Holodomor, The Great Leap Forward – explain that “bogeyman” to the 50 million dead.When exactly did the “socialists” get in the way? What was being done to “fix” the system before the socialist bogeyman got us? If the non-socialists saw the plunder and did nothing are they any better?
Some of these views would be laughable if they weren’t so (and I shrink from using that very, very overused and tired word) scary.
Ideology at the service of people is one thing but people at the service of ideology?
Those are examples of people at the enslavement of ideology.
The system was “fixed” by the constant chipping away of socialists that preyed on desperation, fear, greed and false promises. The socialists create a world based on non-belief then a world forced with non-belief.
Non-socialists can pray and warn.
P
pathia
Guest
Yup.
- Status