The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I must be. Because honestly I don't watch them.

Just randomly vouching for how easily this kind of thing can be true.

If I watch 5 hours of all the TV talking heads combined a year it'd be an unusually high number. Likewise, at this point I read maybe a hundred print/online national political columns a year max, and even that number is inflated by "batch reading" a few writers maybe once a quarter or so ... but I do end up on some of the same "talking points" from time to time.

As much as anything perhaps, it's probably a sign that me & DT could have taken over the old Hannity & Colmes timeslot with hardly anyone missing a beat

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I find that greatly counter intuitive. If we restrict companies from consolidating and controling the market (with mandates, laws and regulations)... it'll.. lead to bigger consolidations?

No, the point is that we don't really restrict consolidation all that much but in the industries that we amass more regulation onto (banking, insurance,etc.) they tend to consolidate more than they do otherwise, and that consolidation leads to increased levels of corruption (of government).

You could have this issue in any solution, I'm saying the likelihood is higher to see consolidation in a single payer system. That doesn't stop us from trying to prevent consolidation, but it isn't usually done until an industry is already way out of control (which it is of course, but it will take a few years before consolidation would be blamed or looked at).

[Edward64]

Looking forward to how this plays out.

Israel warns against unilateral Palestinian move - CNN.com

Jerusalem (CNN) -- The unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state would have "dire consequences," Israel's foreign minister warned Wednesday, a day after Palestinians said they would take the proposal to the United Nations.

Avigdor Liberman did not elaborate in his comments on Israel Radio, but said previous Israeli concessions like the withdrawal from Gaza had not resulted in peace.

Frustrated with stalled negotiations with Israel, Palestinians plan to appeal to U.N. member states to recognize their territories as an independent country.

But a United Nations report warned Wednesday that the Palestinians are not yet ready politically for statehood, even while it said the government did carry out basic functions.

"Government functions are now sufficient for the functioning government of a state," the U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process said, calling it "considerable achievement."

But Israeli occupation has contributed to keeping Palestinian politics "stagnant," Robert Serry's office warned.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

However, over that period of time numerous people will be denied access to life saving healthcare. I think that's a morally dubious path for a society.

"Morally dubious path for a society"? What moral standards are you implying? What is your or society's goal in achieving some level (or additional level) of morality - to get more brownie points with God or to earn more point for heaven? We will not be judged as a "society" or as a "nation" or as a government. It is our personal responsibility to love and to care for one another, physicall and spiritually. But to apply some sort of moral standard as (or to) a society is only important in the worldy view.

[JPhillips]

I think you're just playing semantics. A society's decisions are made by individuals. Certainly you'd agree that a society can do immoral actions based on the decisions of the people in charge?

[JPhillips]

POGO’s study analyzed the total compensation paid to federal and private sector employees, and annual billing rates for contractor employees across 35 occupational classifications covering over 550 service activities. Our findings were shocking—POGO estimates the government pays billions more annually in taxpayer dollars to hire contractors than it would to hire federal employees to perform comparable services. Specifically, POGO’s study shows that the federal government approves service contract billing rates—deemed fair and reasonable—that pay contractors 1.83 times more than the government pays federal employees in total compensation, and more than 2 times the total compensation paid in the private sector for comparable services.

It wasn't as dramatic as the average given, but my wife made more in total compensation as a contractor for the SEC than those working directly for the SEC, and that didn't include whatever fee the contracting company was given.

[flounder]

Did that study take into account future pension obligations?

[SteveMax58]

That doesn't sound very far out of line with typical contract company vs employee comparisons in many industries.

I used to do the same thing. I was a (non-government) contractor and made probably 2-3x what I would make as an employee (at least where I lived).

But those rates are disposable. You don't have to pay that person until you can justify firing them. You don't have to compensate their 401k, pay for insurance for them, etc. And they are typically given their own liability indemnifications (depending on what they do) so that the government, or contracting business, does not have to be liable for problems that can occur.

[SportsDino]

Maybe solve one problem at a time, get pricing transparent before pulling for your preferred pattern of how healthcare should be administered. I've ranted about this in the past, start by regulating health care pricing not in the insurance industry but directly at the hospital supply. Require all common treatments (I'm not talking the million dollar experimental surgeries, but things that happen thousands of times a year if not millions) to be transparently priced on local exchanges, and force hospitals to publish a list price that anyone can get. If insurers can privately negotiate something under that, good for them, they are doing their job!

All publicly funded health runs at the published price or within some fixed margin below it (i.e. you want the Medicare market the government can leverage some percentage of savings due to bulk).

By fixing a lot of the supply uncertainty you can then attack one area we shouldn't have so much of in healthcare, obscene paperwork expenses. For common procedures things should be standardized and treated like a military logistics problem and make the supply chain as simplistic as possible.

Encourage competition between lower cost outlets for health care (smaller clinics, urgent care, family doctor) and with them muddying up the market with their specialities and lower prices they will either shunt demand away from the hospitals or lower hospital pricing in the same areas.

Break out a classification of services that are price indexed by this government program and require insurers to create standardized packages with easily broken down coverage of the standard treatments (most already do some form of this, but direct comparisons are complicated without looking at ugly charts once you go across insurance companies with differeing policies per treatment). Label everything else as various classes of specialty treatment... if you want solid gold treatment in those areas expect to pay the premium associated with it.

The goal of all this is stopping the price inflation cycle that is clearly at action here and doesn't have to be as we can tell from simple observation of other countries. You might get single payer like pricing without a single payer system over time with this kind of transparency. With the way things are heading it is not a question of if but WHEN all the employers will start dropping their health packages and it moves to individual coverage systems for the vast majority of all employees. In such a scenario volume will start to be driven towards those publicly available prices and hospitals that got their agendas straight will find ways to capture that volume and make a profit at lower prices.

The public pricing also shames prices into falling, when people start seeing the bandaid application that costs 50 bucks, or the ankle sprain that can be wrapped for $30 at an urgent care or $300 at a hospital... it will be hard to justify the idiotic supply side prices we are seeing now (often a product more of bureacracy than actual hospital efficiencies).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think you're just playing semantics. A society's decisions are made by individuals. Certainly you'd agree that a society can do immoral actions based on the decisions of the people in charge?

The "people in charge" is no different than the people they alledgedly serve. Besides, when do people (whether in charge or not) not do immoral actions? Which was more moral (or immoral), the isolationist policy prior to WW2 or the declaring of war to enter into WW2? Which is more moral, the allowing of killing the unborns or the neglect of the newborns or perhaps just those involved in such actions (as oppose to the "people" or the "government"? To me, it's all about the individual not the collection of individuals (or their leaders or nations) nor the collection of souls.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

That doesn't sound very far out of line with typical contract company vs employee comparisons in many industries.

I used to do the same thing. I was a (non-government) contractor and made probably 2-3x what I would make as an employee (at least where I lived).

But those rates are disposable. You don't have to pay that person until you can justify firing them. You don't have to compensate their 401k, pay for insurance for them, etc. And they are typically given their own liability indemnifications (depending on what they do) so that the government, or contracting business, does not have to be liable for problems that can occur.

Stat claims it is TOTAL compensation which would presumably include some allowance for 401K and insurance.

Contractors do make sense for some cases. Although there are a number of sweetheart contractors which are basically ways to pay cronies of particular interests huge sums of money for doing nothing (I'm thinking Pentagon and its people so important they need to be kept secret at all costs and they make hundreds of thousands for playing golf all day, when not expensing their hookers and holiday travel expenses). We could probably save a billion just in those and not lose a bit of work.

[JPhillips]

Then take it as a shorthand. It's going to take quite a long post to list everyone that supports a policy that I may or may not find immoral. I think there's a lot less in that nomenclature than you might want to believe.

[Buccaneer]

I think the difference I perceive is that you are more concerned with leaders of the nation (or corporation or whatever) and the policies they make (or should make) than someone that focuses more on individual responsibilities and the condition of the heart in the actions that one take.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Stat claims it is TOTAL compensation which would presumably include some allowance for 401K and insurance.

Contractors do make sense for some cases. Although there are a number of sweetheart contractors which are basically ways to pay cronies of particular interests huge sums of money for doing nothing (I'm thinking Pentagon and its people so important they need to be kept secret at all costs and they make hundreds of thousands for playing golf all day, when not expensing their hookers and holiday travel expenses). We could probably save a billion just in those and not lose a bit of work.

My wife did the exact same work as the other person in her office and her job was considered essential enough that they hired her during a freeze. Her salary was basically the same as the government employee but her insurance package was much better and her 401 was roughly equivalent. At least in her situation contracting her job seemed to be a way to "reduce" the number of government employees.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I think the difference I perceive is that you are more concerned with leaders of the nation (or corporation or whatever) and the policies they make (or should make) than someone that focuses more on individual responsibilities and the condition of the heart in the actions that one take.

I wouldn't say that. When I say a society I include the populace as well.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My wife did the exact same work as the other person in her office and her job was considered essential enough that they hired her during a freeze. Her salary was basically the same as the government employee but her insurance package was much better and her 401 was roughly equivalent. At least in her situation contracting her job seemed to be a way to "reduce" the number of government employees.

Yeah, you see this with large private companies as well. I have a friend who has been contracting solidly for a major communications company (everybody knows them) for the past 5 years. In that time, they have laid off workers, eliminated contracts (with other companies), downsized or eliminated departments, and generally tried to cut costs. But he has remained in place and going for so long that he is basically considered the authority of a lot of things that would typically be employee-only items.

But on the whole, shareholders like seeing contracted better than employees as that is a disposable expense in theory. In practice, not so much.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

If you actually decoupled health care from employment, gave people the ability to realize those cost savings and get their own insurance...which they could then pick & choose the liability level but have a lower premium in exchange for a higher out of pocket or upfront cost for treatments....there would be more downward pressure on the providers to lower their costs as consumers wont opt to get their treatments from_those_providers that inflate their costs. Businesses would be evaluating their models well in advance to adjust their pricing, compensation models, and their service offerings to be more attractive to the consumer market when the time comes to serve them directly (meaning cost). If there is concern over limitation of services, then you can add requirements of a health services provider in order to ensure competitiveness in the market.

Originally Posted by BrianD

Letting people shop independently for their insurance and healthcare providers would probably lead to more competition and better pricing, but it will also lead to a lot of "discount" insurers who will prey on the old and the uninformed with low prices and practices which will make it harder to get necessary care in a hurry. We will need some form of regulations to keep these in line. Healthcare and insurance are way too complicated and prone to abuse.

At the end of the day, aren't these two of the big things that are coming from the Health Care bill?

First, there are the insurance exchanges to allow for a legit insurance marketplace (SteveMax's point). And, secondly, all those "onerous" regulations are basically setting a baseline of what you must cover (BrianD's point).

There is certainly a lot of stuff in the bill to hate, but those are two of the good things, right?

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Thats pretty much all I could think of myself - but in that case why is there no huge out cry from the public (or heaven above the press) about this? ... especially as there is huge talk of cutting costs generally, I'd have thought this would be the first and most obvious thing to look into myself ...

Ok well, for me second thing - with the first being cutting down in the monstrous military budget.

Because the loudest voices are the partisians who are so far up their parties ass that they won't say a word against them. And since both parties sort of agree with it, you don't have anyone to bitch about it.

It's sad because it's a change that would effect absolutely no one on Medicare. You would still get the same drugs, the country would just be paying signifigantly less. The massive buying power of Medicare can strike some killer deals. It's pure unequivocal waste. It's propping up private businesses that bought Congressmen.

Veterans Affairs pays 58% less for their drugs. Now imagine the savings when you factor in Medicare is much larger. It's not a surprise that one of the bills sponsors and many aides ended up getting high paying jobs with the Pharmaceutical lobby afterwards.

[JPhillips]

Medicare doesn't even have to negotiate. Just taking a cue from the corporate world and saying we get your cheapest offered price would save a ton of money.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well regulation and/or national negotiation are the only ways I think you can achieve a reduction in the growth of healthcare spending(which over time is good enough to save trillions) without reducing access to care.

In other markets how do consumers drive prices? Generally a manufacturer sets a price and consumers either pay that price or refuse to purchase the goods in question. The manufacturer then decides if they can thrive on current sales/prices or if they need to reduce prices to capture more sales. Over time that works and consumers are fine because none of the goods in question are necessary for continued life.

I don't think it will work that way in healthcare due to our limited knowledge of what is essential care and our general desire to spend whatever is necessary to get essential care. Those who can afford to pay will pay and those who can't will be denied access to care. It's possible that over time prices may come down to a point where access is equal to or greater than what it is today. I don't think that will happen, but I admit it is possible. However, over that period of time numerous people will be denied access to life saving healthcare. I think that's a morally dubious path for a society.

I think health care costs are going to skyrocket even more as the Boomers start aging and needing more and bigger care requirements.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

At the end of the day, aren't these two of the big things that are coming from the Health Care bill?

First, there are the insurance exchanges to allow for a legit insurance marketplace (SteveMax's point). And, secondly, all those "onerous" regulations are basically setting a baseline of what you must cover (BrianD's point).

There is certainly a lot of stuff in the bill to hate, but those are two of the good things, right?

SI

Well, my understanding is that these exchanges are only available to people who cannot get coverage elsewhere (including Medicare/Medicaid, employment, etc.) and subsidizes it for people who can't afford it. So that doesn't really help to solve the first part (of my premise) which is to decouple the insurance from employment. It does help people get access but it doesn't really do anything for cost.

But the second premise that I have is that consumers MUST foot more of the bill (and in return, less premiums) as they are the only party with any interest in keeping costs down. Insurers have "some" level of interest in keeping costs down on an individual basis, but on the whole, it is still more beneficial to handle & markup 10-20% of $100B than $100M.

I don't know what the right ratio should be for the consumer. Obviously 100% would be ideal as this would eliminate insurance as a piece of the pie. But insurance plays a vital role in this so perhaps its 50% of visits/procedures & 90% on the vital care services. Or perhaps the ratio is 60% non-vital / 100% vital. IDK...but I do believe it needs to be more than 10-20% & $10 co-pays.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Looking forward to how this plays out.

Israel warns against unilateral Palestinian move - CNN.com

A showdown.
Netanyahu set for UN diplomatic showdown - FT.com

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will address the UN General Assembly on Friday next week, setting the stage for a potentially dramatic diplomatic showdown with the Palestinians. He will speak on the same day that Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, is due to deliver a landmark speech calling on the global body to support Palestinian statehood.

“The General Assembly is not a place where Israel usually receives a fair hearing,” Mr Netanyahu said on Thursday. “But I still decided to tell the truth before anyone who would like to hear it.”
:
:
The announcement suggests that the Israeli government now has little faith in the last-ditch effort by US and European negotiators to stop the Palestinian drive for statehood at the UN. According to several officials and diplomats, Mr Abbas on Wednesday rebuffed an alternative “package” that was drafted and presented by Tony Blair, the international community’s Middle East envoy.
:
:
Mr Abbas is still facing strong pressure from senior US officials to step back from the UN move. However, most officials and diplomats believe that there is now little chance of stopping a Palestinian bid for statehood, which could take place either at the UN Security Council or in the UN General Assembly.

[larrymcg421]

I'm not sure decoupling insurance from employment is a good idea. A large group can always negotiate a better rate than an individual. Furthermore, I don't see this approach doing anything about the problem with pre-existing conditions. No individual is ever going to be able to negotiate such a deal. Say what you want about Obamacare, but it completely erased that problem with one stroke of the pen.

The main problem with our system is that a majority of our costs revolve around reactive care (expensive procedures for things that got caught too late) instead of preventative care. With everyone covered and seeking preventative care, health care costs will go down long term because we shift the overall costs to cheaper procedures. That's why I also don't like the idea of the consumer footing more of the bill, as I believe that would result in people seeking less preventative care and instead waiting for something catastrophic before using their insurance.

[SteveMax58]

I think you are seeing that "everybody does x, so if they just did y" and thinking people don't do "y" for the wrong reason (i.e. they aren't healthy because they don't get access to preventative care so a doctor can tell them to stop eating bad foods and sitting around on the couch).

Reactive care will always be the way things are handled by most. If ALL healthcare costs (100% of them) were subsidized for everybody starting tomorrow, I'm sure you'd see a lot of preventative care costs spike. You'd think that's a good thing, since its a cost that will prevent reactive care later (presumably when its too late or much further along and will cost more to treat).

What I'm submitting is that the preventative care might spike initially, but will taper off shortly after with the majority of people just continuing to do what they always did. So some people will certainly head off problems, while the vast majority will be showing up so that doctors can figure out a way for them to live longer without putting any effort into doing anything.

As a second point of contention, even if more preventative care truly means people living longer (which I dispute beyond a certain % of the population)...then that tells me the end of life costs will be further increased as people will live to the age where bodies breakdown regardless of how well you have taken care of it. And eventually, we all require reactive care.

So, again I go back to individual choice. Why do I have to help you (figuratively) live to 100 with problems that I don't really want for myself? I mean...is the tragedy that we don't all get to experience being very old so we have to strive to live long enough to not be capable of standing, sitting, using the bathroom alone, etc? I'm not at all making light, or diminishing what science may bring about...I'm just saying that it isn't a requirement or goal for me to live to 100 if it means I can't talk, walk, or shit on my own. And...I'll add...at a greater cost to everybody else.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

A showdown.
Netanyahu set for UN diplomatic showdown - FT.com

I think Israel should say "we agree to Palestinian statehood if Jordan and Syria are willing to cede part of their land to that state as well". Highlight how poorly the Palestinians are treated by the rest of the Arab world as well...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Furthermore, I don't see this approach doing anything about the problem with pre-existing conditions.

There's no such thing as a "problem with pre-existing conditions".

It's insurance, not a fucking medical savings plan. It's based on the notion of managed risk & asking an insurance company to cover those is forcing them to take part in a sucker bet. That an unconscionable intrusion into a transaction that the government has no right to be in beyond the standards of contract law. The biggest part of the so-called "insurance crisis": the way the system has devolved bears little resemblance to how "insurance" is supposed to work in the first place, it shouldn't be part of every little sniffle.

Now I'll happily go along with the assertion that there's a cost-of-health-care crisis, just not with the pretense that insurance is where the solution lies. The further we can remove insurance from the average medical procedure the better the system becomes, going back basically to what SteveMax has been saying here.

[JPhillips]

Over the past few months people on the right side of the spectrum here have argued that the poor and middle class should pay more taxes, work for less and pay more for healthcare. How will that help?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Over the past few months people on the right side of the spectrum here have argued that the poor and middle class should pay more taxes, work for less and pay more for healthcare. How will that help?

It'll help get rid of the poor and middle class entirely and turn them back into wage-slaves or serfs, which is what the narrative driven by their corporate masters desires (which is ironic, since basically everyone on this board would fall into that category). The phenomenon of middle and lower-class people voting Republican (and against their own self-interest) continues to be mind-boggling to me.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Over the past few months people on the right side of the spectrum here have argued that the poor and middle class should pay more taxes, work for less and pay more for healthcare. How will that help?

Pretty broad statement and if you want to be that broad about it I think I would correct it to say that people on the right generally would want lower taxes for everyone.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

It'll help get rid of the poor and middle class entirely and turn them back into wage-slaves or serfs, which is what the narrative driven by their corporate masters desires (which is ironic, since basically everyone on this board would fall into that category). The phenomenon of middle and lower-class people voting Republican (and against their own self-interest) continues to be mind-boggling to me.

Its more mind boggling to me that anyone votes for either party anymore but I guess your disbelief in people's collective stupidity stops only at Republican voters that vote against their own self interest. How exactly is endless war, corporate welfare, and absolute messes like the Patriot act in anyone's self interest? (Unless they work for Lockheed Martin or one of the Federal government's multiple spy agencies)

[JPhillips]

I'm just talking about people in this forum and I don't mean to imply that everyone on the right agrees with all three points. I have seen all three argued over the past few months, though, and I'm just curious if there's an argument on how these changes would lead to greater prosperity.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Its more mind boggling to me that anyone votes for either party anymore but I guess your disbelief in people's collective stupidity stops only at Republican voters that vote against their own self interest. How exactly is endless war, corporate welfare, and absolute messes like the Patriot act in anyone's self interest? (Unless they work for Lockheed Martin or one of the Federal government's multiple spy agencies)

I don't think an absolutist stance gets anything accomplished. I'm deeply disappointed in the Democratic party, but I'd rather vote for a person that will have the possibility of accomplishing some of my preferred policy options than someone who I either disagree with completely or will have no chance of getting elected. It's often the best worst option for me given our system.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Over the past few months people on the right side of the spectrum here have argued that the poor and middle class should pay more taxes, work for less and pay more for healthcare. How will that help?

I'll speak for myself here since while I don't think I've seen anybody argue this, I know I have not argued this.

As a general principal, I think everybody should be taxed on a flat %. You (and others) would likely argue that this is regressive in nature since there are so many other loopholes available to the rich to take advantage of to the point that they never end up paying their fair %. Or perhaps additively, the rich are better educated and/or setup to continue producing more wealth because their parents/whatever created an empire for them to step into.

To that, I say its a different problem to solve. On the first point...close loopholes, end subsidies that are no longer necessary, and lets get the true cost of things more inline with what the consumer market can afford & demands. On the second point...individual access to education is available in this day & age (freely via the internet I'd add). You can argue that the internet, computers, etc. aren't free, so therefor the access to competing is uneven. To which I'd say common sense & work ethic can't be bought either...so at some point there has to be a cutoff. And motivation of the individual to improve their life circumstances is where that evenness needs to come from.

We can't solve all inequities with a bill. And not even most of them. But the key is to put the proper system in place which properly motivates the actors in it to the extent that they can change their role as they see motivation to do so.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Pretty broad statement and if you want to be that broad about it I think I would correct it to say that people on the right generally would want lower taxes for everyone.

Ultimately, yeah.

But I'll happily grant the point that was being made, I won't be satisfied until the tax rate - whatever it is - is completely flat across the board. While that's definitely not a majority position, it's also not as if I'm the Lone Ranger about that either.

[JPhillips]

Maybe I should clarify.

A lot of folks here think the 47% that didn't pay federal income taxes should have to pay something. That has to mean higher taxes for some doesn't it?

At least one poster actually said Americans should get used to working for less in a global economy. I think there's a fair amount of agreement among those on the right that union and government compensation packages are too high and that the majority of workers without high demand skills will have to settle for compensation more in line with Asian and South American competitors.

I think the recent insurance discussion would have to mean, at least initially, greater expenses for those that use healthcare. Would anyone argue that?

I'm just wondering how these ideas can lead to greater prosperity for anyone other than the wealthy.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think an absolutist stance gets anything accomplished. I'm deeply disappointed in the Democratic party, but I'd rather vote for a person that will have the possibility of accomplishing some of my preferred policy options than someone who I either disagree with completely or will have no chance of getting elected. It's often the best worst option for me given our system.

This.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A lot of folks here think the 47% that didn't pay federal income taxes should have to pay something. That has to mean higher taxes for some doesn't it?

This is basically the point I thought you were making, and it's the one that I mentioned taking no exception to.

I think there's a fair amount of agreement among those on the right that union and government compensation packages are too high

This I might quibble with a bit, it probably goes well beyond that. Then again, barely more than half (52%) of even Democrats are convinced that there's still a need for unions at all. 68% of Repubs & 54% of Indy's believe that unions have outlived their usefulness.

edit to add: At this point, anyone that "looks for the union label" is more likely to be checking so that they can find a different product to buy.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A lot of folks here think the 47% that didn't pay federal income taxes should have to pay something. That has to mean higher taxes for some doesn't it?

Yes, I agree with that sentiment. Though, there are a lot of other ways they are being taxed artificially that should go away. I don't see that the latter needs to change the principle of the former.

At least one poster actually said Americans should get used to working for less in a global economy. I think there's a fair amount of agreement among those on the right that union and government compensation packages are too high and that the majority of workers without high demand skills will have to settle for compensation more in line with Asian and South American competitors.

I think you are conflating 2 different concepts (at least if you are referring to anything I've said).

Having the global laborer's quality of life improve more quickly than the US laborer's quality of life does not mean the US laborer's quality of life is not improving. Throughout the past 30+ years that we've seen "income inequality" grow, we've also seen some of the biggest breakthroughs in quality of life for the average worker. Is it perfectly equal to somebody of higher income? Of course not...that's what the higher income can support & should be seen as motivation if one values such things that a higher income can afford.

I think the recent insurance discussion would have to mean, at least initially, greater expenses for those that use healthcare. Would anyone argue that?

Greater out of pocket expense in exchange for the increase in salary. Just like lowering taxes, when you put money into the consumer's hands, it gets spent where the consumer sees the most benefit.

Now, if you are arguing that the consumer isn't informed, or in some way capable, to make such determinations for themselves...then that is going to be a fundamental disconnect with us. We can inform & educate through our public school systems to the extent that we teach people how to learn & what it means to be educated on a subject.

But this "handholding until you see how right I am" approach is the road I just don't like people going down. I don't think (all) liberals see it that way...but I think its fundamentally wrong to force people into participation when there are alternative ways to allow for incentive...but not mandate.

I'm just wondering how these ideas can lead to greater prosperity for anyone other than the wealthy.

As I noted above...I disagree that you & I have not had prosperity. You've had it...just not in the obvious wrapper you're looking for.

[JPhillips]

I wasn't talking about the past, just proposals for moving forward. I've seen people here argue that union compensation should be lower, government compensation should be lower, lower skilled people should be happy with whatever the company offers, Americans will just have to get used to their being fewer jobs, and as one poster stated people should get used to working for less. Almost all of those posts have come from people that are also argue at least one of the other points. I'm just curious what the theory is behind these policies. How would they lead to greater prosperity for the poor or middle class?

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's no such thing as a "problem with pre-existing conditions".

It's insurance, not a fucking medical savings plan. It's based on the notion of managed risk & asking an insurance company to cover those is forcing them to take part in a sucker bet. That an unconscionable intrusion into a transaction that the government has no right to be in beyond the standards of contract law. The biggest part of the so-called "insurance crisis": the way the system has devolved bears little resemblance to how "insurance" is supposed to work in the first place, it shouldn't be part of every little sniffle.

Now I'll happily go along with the assertion that there's a cost-of-health-care crisis, just not with the pretense that insurance is where the solution lies. The further we can remove insurance from the average medical procedure the better the system becomes, going back basically to what SteveMax has been saying here.

I can almost get behind this if insurance contracts are simplified to the point that you get out of college around 20-something you pay into a life insurance like plan that grows at a set scale as you age by contract that the insurer is not allowed to break or modify and illegal tactics like misuse of recissions, being bounced from coverage due to employers, and other factors that make the market inefficient are eliminated.

You could do this now, but it is a bitch and expensive, and any attempts to fight it are shouted down by the 'healthcare is so expensive' line. I agree though that in theory insurers should not be in the business of providing care to customers who come to them with bad conditions. I do think they should be in the business of selling a consistent long term insurance product and being held accountable for the debts they owe as part of those contracts.

To make the math work you need less movement between contracts and less employer involvement and more responsible consumers... all of those factors have been a mess and I don't think people in their 40's or 50's now should be punished by the fact the market was fucked throughout their adult lives and they are shopping when the natural price curve is insane and they are loaded with conditions. Maybe some sort of government backed subsidy combined with a planned transitionary period, expansion of government aid in the interim, and some sort of heavy club to create a productive (and profitable) insurance market that is more in tune with a marketplace and not the various negotiations between cartels we have today (employers, insurers, hospitals, all taking agency decision away from the people who need it most... and not passing on the security of group bargaining they should).

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I'll speak for myself here since while I don't think I've seen anybody argue this, I know I have not argued this.

As a general principal, I think everybody should be taxed on a flat %. You (and others) would likely argue that this is regressive in nature since there are so many other loopholes available to the rich to take advantage of to the point that they never end up paying their fair %. Or perhaps additively, the rich are better educated and/or setup to continue producing more wealth because their parents/whatever created an empire for them to step into.

To that, I say its a different problem to solve. On the first point...close loopholes, end subsidies that are no longer necessary, and lets get the true cost of things more inline with what the consumer market can afford & demands. On the second point...individual access to education is available in this day & age (freely via the internet I'd add). You can argue that the internet, computers, etc. aren't free, so therefor the access to competing is uneven. To which I'd say common sense & work ethic can't be bought either...so at some point there has to be a cutoff. And motivation of the individual to improve their life circumstances is where that evenness needs to come from.

We can't solve all inequities with a bill. And not even most of them. But the key is to put the proper system in place which properly motivates the actors in it to the extent that they can change their role as they see motivation to do so.

A flat tax is regressive, even conservative economists (those not spouting what their handlers want them to) have done micro and macro analysis of it and agree it is suboptimal for an economy. The basic concept is marginal return and incentives, and in a society with any sort of social/government spending at an appreciable scale (never mind the USA's massive spending) the notion of pushing thousands of people deeper down the wealth curver for every single rich man (with each of those thousands generating more circulation effect per marginal dollar than the billionth dollar of Bill Gates) is generally considered to be perverse cruelty, and for the math nerds like me who are sometimes heartless... it is bad for consumer spending (or for the frugal out there, it also highly destroys savings rate, and if you get rid of middle class savings you put a massive supply crunch in the financial system, even with all those billionaires out there, it is amazing what numbers still count for).

I do not want to live in a country with a 'fair tax' that takes my effective rate from 40% to 25% (or whatever rate the flat tax balances out to, it ain't no small number these days even with loophole reduction), but kills the economy so I can't sell millions of widgets and grow my wealth in the first place. Growing economies are good, and yes tax reduction is factor of growth, my ultimate ideal is all rates declining as wealth creation allows spending to be reduced... we should all aim for that, but you don't do that with a pointless top rate cut and a massive hike for 80%+ of the population. Spending drives growth, spending decreases when the ratio of budget of dollars you have over budget of dollars you need to spend decreases.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's no such thing as a "problem with pre-existing conditions".

It's insurance, not a fucking medical savings plan. It's based on the notion of managed risk & asking an insurance company to cover those is forcing them to take part in a sucker bet. That an unconscionable intrusion into a transaction that the government has no right to be in beyond the standards of contract law. The biggest part of the so-called "insurance crisis": the way the system has devolved bears little resemblance to how "insurance" is supposed to work in the first place, it shouldn't be part of every little sniffle.

Now I'll happily go along with the assertion that there's a cost-of-health-care crisis, just not with the pretense that insurance is where the solution lies. The further we can remove insurance from the average medical procedure the better the system becomes, going back basically to what SteveMax has been saying here.

I sort of agree with this. But I only agree with this in the sense that the free market doesn't work completely for the health care industry. Sure it's fine if you're in your 20's and 30's and relatively healthy. You pay for insurance and if something goes wrong you get fixed up and save yourself an impending bankruptcy.

The problem lies in people who either can't get insured through pre-existing conditions, cost, or both. And these aren't people who are just lazy. There is no insurance company that would insure a 75 year old man with a history of cancer. The overwhelming majority of retirees could not afford their premiums. While I heavily support the free markets in other areas, health care is just not one it works with thanks to its unique issues.

I still think cost and preventative health is the single most important issues to tackle. It was kind of sad to see people attacking Michelle Obama for her childhood obesity campaign. That's the kind of stuff we should be pushing and will result in lower costs for everyone.

One of the most interesting discussions I had was with a doctor of mine who actually came from overseas and worked in the Middle East during the recent war (he has a unique perspective on things to say the least). He told me one of the issues with our system is that there is no stopping point for care. He gave an example of a kid who hit his head. Says that a good examination by a doctor and some observation is good enough. But there is that 1 in a million chance that it's something more severe so everyone wants a CAT scan done. Not just the parents but the doctors who don't want to get sued. So you've thrown on a few thousand for an unnecessary test. He also mentioned how we give out a ton of Meningitis vaccines which can cost billions yet it really doesn't effect a lot of young people.

Now he wasn't saying we shouldn't do that, but just saying there is no line. That if we want to run every test for a bump in the head or get a vaccine for every small possible illness that could strike, we are going to have to pay a lot for it.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I wasn't talking about the past, just proposals for moving forward. I've seen people here argue that union compensation should be lower, government compensation should be lower, lower skilled people should be happy with whatever the company offers, Americans will just have to get used to their being fewer jobs, and as one poster stated people should get used to working for less. Almost all of those posts have come from people that are also argue at least one of the other points. I'm just curious what the theory is behind these policies. How would they lead to greater prosperity for the poor or middle class?

I think I'm the only poster who routinely rants about spending reduction in government while at the same time the necessity of a massive jobs rebound. We should sponsor policies that get real work out there, but even i do not think we can recklessly spend ourselves there. We need to build some seriously useful shit, consider this a great time to borrow dollars at record low treasury rates, and clean house as part of our economic recovery.

Cutting spending is not going to save us by itself, spending shovel ready piles of money will just dig the hole deeper. You need real asset creation at the time where all the pundits will try and tell you that you do not deserve them, that you should prepare to live like a dirty ass Chinese peasant. We are not entitled, but we do got work to do if we want to maintain the security and standard of living that we spent most of the 20th century developing, and that is not bombing some dirt farmer half a world away, or sweetheart deals for billionaires who long ago stopped contributing ideas that created wealth and became our nations biggest welfare cases.

[RainMaker]

I still don't get why people get so upset with unions. I'll admit that the deals they get are way over market value. But fuck, it's a free market and they found a way to get paid that. I could give two shits what GM or Ford pay their union workers.

Now if we're talking government, then I'd be upset with the politicians who gave them those deals, not the union or people in it. It's like owning a sports team, sending your GM to cut a deal, he gets a horrible one and then blaming the player's agent.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I do not want to live in a country with a 'fair tax' that takes my effective rate from 40% to 25% (or whatever rate the flat tax balances out to, it ain't no small number these days even with loophole reduction), but kills the economy so I can't sell millions of widgets and grow my wealth in the first place. Growing economies are good, and yes tax reduction is factor of growth, my ultimate ideal is all rates declining as wealth creation allows spending to be reduced... we should all aim for that, but you don't do that with a pointless top rate cut and a massive hike for 80%+ of the population. Spending drives growth, spending decreases when the ratio of budget of dollars you have over budget of dollars you need to spend decreases.

If you are paying 40% effective rate right now, then you are not taking advantage of the types of loopholes that Google is, or the accounting practices that have driven us into lower effective rates on the wealthy. The problem is the regressive nature of the tax system.

So yes, when economists speak, they are speaking in a vacuum within today's tax structure. A flat tax rate would seem regressive in today's structure because of the effective tax rate that would be realized. But those are still 2 very different problems to solve in my view. I wouldn't advocate that you employ a flat tax without closing creative accounting breaks first...but I would prefer to see both happen (among other things) at the same time in order to stop the obfuscation of cost we have in government (and products). And the less dollars that circulate through a centralized government...the smaller its power, influence, and resultant impact from bribery becomes.

In other words...I want an effective rate equal to the taxed rate. No loopholes & no deductions because you washed your car with rainwater...flat. If we could get Google, GE, Warren Buffet, & Big Oil (including their CEOs) to just pay an effective rate close to what an average middle class worker pays...we'd be in much better shape. So advocating to keep the convoluted system in place because of the perceived inequality is, in my view, worse for middle- & lower- income workers than simply putting in a flat rate (but a TRULY flat rate without loopholes or deductions). IDK if that should be 25%, 20%, 40%, or 10% but when we unravel all of the tax breaks & loopholes...we'll have a better understanding of where we need to be. But you gotta take 1 issue at a time, and this is only the first.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I still don't get why people get so upset with unions. I'll admit that the deals they get are way over market value. But fuck, it's a free market and they found a way to get paid that. I could give two shits what GM or Ford pay their union workers.

Now if we're talking government, then I'd be upset with the politicians who gave them those deals, not the union or people in it. It's like owning a sports team, sending your GM to cut a deal, he gets a horrible one and then blaming the player's agent.

Agreed. I'm not overly concerned with them either beyond the point of when/if it comes time that taxpayers have to bail them out. That suggests a broken system & I don't think its very useful to prop up such systems.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Cutting spending is not going to save us by itself, spending shovel ready piles of money will just dig the hole deeper. You need real asset creation at the time where all the pundits will try and tell you that you do not deserve them, that you should prepare to live like a dirty ass Chinese peasant. We are not entitled, but we do got work to do if we want to maintain the security and standard of living that we spent most of the 20th century developing, and that is not bombing some dirt farmer half a world away, or sweetheart deals for billionaires who long ago stopped contributing ideas that created wealth and became our nations biggest welfare cases.

You're right. We aren't entitled to our way of life...we need to earn it.

My soapbox has (and will be) that we should set a goal to be 90% (or somewhere around there) energy independent by 2020. What do we use to do that? I don't give a crap what we use, so long as it is sourced from the US as a matter of national security. So if its Nuclear, some wind, some solar, some coal...fine. Just make it happen and the costs will justify themselves as the economic activity will stay within the US and the money leaving the US to countries that we don't really align with philosophically will end (or at the very least...the market for oil will have the biggest buyer out of it, which will lower the price of it thus lowering revenues for oil-producing nations).

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Now he wasn't saying we shouldn't do that, but just saying there is no line. That if we want to run every test for a bump in the head or get a vaccine for every small possible illness that could strike, we are going to have to pay a lot for it.

That is exactly the point I have been trying to make & thats a good way to summarize it...there is no stopping point to care.

And as you mentioned, the doctor doesn't want to get sued...the parents are worried...and guess who is looking at the cost? Insurance companies...who aren't vested in your family financially or otherwise. But if that family had to foot say, 75-80% of the bill...then common sense is going to come into play.

I guess I'm still not clear on why a situation of a 75 yr old man with no insurance but has cancer even exists? Why can't this man get Medicaid today?

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

If you are paying 40% effective rate right now, then you are not taking advantage of the types of loopholes that Google is, or the accounting practices that have driven us into lower effective rates on the wealthy. The problem is the regressive nature of the tax system.

So yes, when economists speak, they are speaking in a vacuum within today's tax structure. A flat tax rate would seem regressive in today's structure because of the effective tax rate that would be realized. But those are still 2 very different problems to solve in my view. I wouldn't advocate that you employ a flat tax without closing creative accounting breaks first...but I would prefer to see both happen (among other things) at the same time in order to stop the obfuscation of cost we have in government (and products). And the less dollars that circulate through a centralized government...the smaller its power, influence, and resultant impact from bribery becomes.

In other words...I want an effective rate equal to the taxed rate. No loopholes & no deductions because you washed your car with rainwater...flat. If we could get Google, GE, Warren Buffet, & Big Oil (including their CEOs) to just pay an effective rate close to what an average middle class worker pays...we'd be in much better shape. So advocating to keep the convoluted system in place because of the perceived inequality is, in my view, worse for middle- & lower- income workers than simply putting in a flat rate (but a TRULY flat rate without loopholes or deductions). IDK if that should be 25%, 20%, 40%, or 10% but when we unravel all of the tax breaks & loopholes...we'll have a better understanding of where we need to be. But you gotta take 1 issue at a time, and this is only the first.

The economic analysis is done in the absence of loopholes... so everyone paying the exact same percentage has been shown to have many weaknesses and very little value other than some absolutist notion of fairness. Ultimately I want all taxes to be reduced (including the top rate) but unlike the supposed fiscal conservatives in the room I actually believe you pay your bills before you go shopping at the mall. To me the best way to clean up the mess is to tax the rich... to get their incentives aligned with killing the expensive corporate welfare that is ever more making up an increased share of spending.

Once the lobbying money is turned away from sweetheart deals and towards across the board tax reduction (because they don't have their loopholes anymore) I would be surprised to see spending, deficits, or high tax rates to stick around for too long. It might encourage them to be brutal about cuts to 'entitlements' in their lobbying (meaning the politicians are going to have to grow a spine, either confronting the lobby or confronting those big swaths of voters)... but either way the gravy train is going to get killed as far as social security or medicare is concerned if thinks stay on track, I'm suggesting what I think to be the path most probable to keep them around.

So I agree, take one issue at a time, start with loopholes, make use of the resulting surpluses to either build important things or flat out pay off debt.

Consider the regressive tax on the majority of people after you take at least a year or two of those tax returns to clean up the mess caused by decades of corp pork and low effective rates.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I guess I'm still not clear on why a situation of a 75 yr old man with no insurance but has cancer even exists? Why can't this man get Medicaid today?

He can, I'm just using it as an example as to how free markets and medicine don't necessarily mix that well. There are people who literally argue that Medicare is bad.