View Full Version : Who has actually read Obama's Health Plan ?
Eric Stoner
09-25-2009, 07:33 AM
Here's some more good news: Yesterday Congress froze the premiums for Medicare Part B.
A program that is TRILLIONS of dollars in the red ! That's how much it's unfunded future obligations total = as much as 20 TRILLION dollars.
The proponents of this nonsense love to point out that Medicare has such low administrative costs compared to private insurance. As low as 3 %. Yet it's still going broke.
There are several state programs that are very similar to what is being proposed : Mainecare, the Massachusetts program and Ohio's. All are going broke. In contrast, New Hampshire's is doing fine.
Remember when Obama compared the Post Office to Federal Express and UPS ? Yesterday iit was reported that the USPS needs a $4 billion bailout to keep from going broke.
Melonie
09-25-2009, 03:43 PM
well, here's some more news of what's hiding in the National Health Care bill ...
(snip)"Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."
The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup."(snip)
from
According to the Joint Committee Chairman, failing to pay the up to $1900 'national health care tax' penalty that will be assessed on persons who do not have health insurance coverage is no longer considered as a simple income tax violation. It will be defined as a new 'crime', with misdemeanor criminal penalties.
Also on the subject of Social Security and Medicare running in the red, the Congressional Budget Office just released projections that in terms of net cash flow (i.e. Social Security and Medicare tax revenues minus Social Security and Medicare checks being written) both programs will probably go into the red NEXT YEAR !
threlayer
09-26-2009, 08:38 PM
This forces employers to consider providing heathcare benefits to all employees. Those people who are not employees then must purchase it on their own.
What I don't know yet is the employer's monthly fee charged to the employee for his/her insurance plan and the minimum required plan provisions.
The first point is just expected. The second point may contain the loophole you conservatives so desperately are hoping for.
About the penalty -- just which version of the healthcare bill are you talking about? Surely not all of them. The penalty should be a bit more than the actual cost of the insurance just to cover the investigation. Else peopole may just try to avoid it and, if caught, it will be as if they had paid it all along. Not much of a penalty.
I'm not sure you understand the need for all to be insured for this system to work. Maybe a short course in Actuarial accounting would help.
Melonie
09-27-2009, 07:03 AM
This forces employers to consider providing heathcare benefits to all employees
Allow me to clarify. The Baucus bill would force US companies to either provide healthcare benefits or pay a new 'tax' to fund gov't healthcare subsidies for their employees who are located in the USA !
Thus from a fiduciary standpoint, the largest incentive created by the Baucus bill will be for American companies to eliminate as many jobs for American employees as possible and to replace them with new jobs in other countries where the employee health care costs are much lower / along with other employee benefit costs being lower / along with other regulatory compliance costs being lower etc.
And for jobs that must remain in the USA, the Baucus bill provides American companies with incentives to automate away / subcontract away / consolidate away as many additional low skill / low paying jobs as possible. The reason of course is that the cost of health insurance is not proportional to employee pay rates ... and the cost of the employer 'tax' to fund gov't healthcare subsidies called for by the Baucus bill is INVERSELY proportional to employee pay rates.
And for those low skill / low paying jobs that simply cannot be offshored / automated / subcontracted, the Baucus bill provides a strong incentive for US companies to find reasons to 'fire' existing low skill / low pay rate employees who are older, who have families, or who have health problems, and to replace them with ( in order of relative costs )
- high school and college students who already have medical insurance under a parent's employers' health insurance coverage (which de-facto excludes children of parents who do not have jobs with employer provided health insurance !)
- retirement age persons who already have medical insurance under medicare
- young, healthy, single persons whose actual costs of healthcare are likely to be comparatively low
Thus the Baucus bill arguably adds to the already significant 'moral hazard' of existing social welfare benefit eligibility rules, and will arguably accelerate the creation of a huge permanent 'underclass' of unskilled, unemployed, and unemployable Americans who are 100% dependent on the gov't (i.e. the tax money collected from their higher skilled hard working neighbors) for their financial existance.
I'm not sure you understand the need for all to be insured for this system to work. Maybe a short course in Actuarial accounting would help.
I'm glad that you raised this point, because the most fundamental premise of accounting is that there is 'no such thing as a free lunch'. In essence, insuring a family in say the state of New York is going to cost SOMEONE $10,000+ per year absent subsidies. So the accounting issue basically boils down to a low skill / low earning family of 4 having to spend $10,000+ out of their own $25,000 after-tax income to purchase health insurance, or the employer having to spend and additional $10,000+ to either purchase insurance or pay Baucus bill 'tax' to reimburse the gov't for health insurance subsidies given to the low skill / low earning family of 4 to help them purchase health insurance, or the federal / state gov't spending $10,000+ to directly provide health insurance coverage for the family of 4 via (taxpayer funded) Medicaid - or some conglomeration of the three possible sources of funding ( out of pocket, employer, and taxpayer ).
In point of fact, the low income family cannot afford to purchase health insurance through their own work efforts because the 'value' of their unskilled labor paychecks simply cannot absorb the actual costs of the health care they will consume. In virtually all cases, the employer cannot gain enough 'added value' from the labors of unskilled low income employees to 'break even' on the employer's actual costs of providing health care coverage for those employees (or paying the new Baucus bill 'tax'). Thus in every case, providing health care to low skill / low income Americans involves a necessary 'transfer of wealth' to subsidize the actual cost.
Ultimately the Baucus bill provides two options as to where the subsidy money will come from. It can either come from every American business charging higher prices to every American consumer in order for employers to fund low income employee health care coverage ( or pay for the new 'tax' to reimburse the gov't for providing health insurance subsidies), or it can come from low skill / low income Americans becoming unemployed Americans thus keeping prices the same but dumping 100% of the health care costs for low skill / low income Americans on the US taxpayer via MedicAid. The first option is actually fairer, since higher prices affect rich, poor and middle class alike. The second option is more politically salable since it disproportionately affects the rich (well as long as they remain subject to US taxes anyhow)
~
threlayer
09-27-2009, 08:14 PM
Part-timing and subcontracting may result, though it is already here, but subcontractors must also pay their employees. I don't know about plans to cover part-timers yet. My main point is that the cost sharing between employer and employees may become a big loophole.
I wasn't talking regular accounting and where the moiney comes from, which you've already covered emply in other posts. I was talking about actuarial studies pointing to the need for all to be insured to share the risk at minimal overall cost/person.
Right now companies are often cancelling paid -up insurance of those whom they deem to have excessive risk of payouts. Further, we are already rationing healthcare, by those who can pay these tremendous costs.
threlayer
09-27-2009, 08:18 PM
You continually talk about low-skilled workers in a forum for strippers, many of whom have developed no other skills and may not be doing all that well in their business. I suppose they know that. I just think it is ironic.
Eric Stoner
09-30-2009, 10:02 AM
If you liked the House version, you'll LOVE the Baucus ( Senate ) health care plan. Talk about "solutions in search of problems".
The defeat of the "Public Option" was just in Committee. It is certain to rear its ugly and stupid head again on the Senate floor thanks to Schumer and Jay Rockefeller.
There are lots of "whys and wherefores" in the Baucus plan but its gist is to provide MORE health care by taxing it. I am not making this up. It slaps taxes on medical tests and procedures, doctor's fees, medical device makers and health insurers. It will quickly put the lie to Obama's promise NOT to raise taxes on the middle class. First of all, health insurers will just pass the taxes they pay on to their policy holders. Additionally the Baucus Plan taxes high cost health care plans i.e. the more you are covered for, the more tax you pay. It also reduces the Federal tax deduction for medical care expenses. The brunt of this will be born by people making between $50,000 and $250,000 per year. And who seriously thinks that such a burden will not increase every year ?
As with the House Plan, there is nothing in the Baucus plan that either controls costs or reforms malpractice.
Would someone please point to an example where taxing something caused it to be more available at a lesser cost ?
threlayer
10-01-2009, 07:33 PM
...to provide MORE health care by taxing it. I am not making this up. It slaps taxes on medical tests and procedures, doctor's fees, medical device makers and health insurers. ...
As with the House Plan, there is nothing in the Baucus plan that either controls costs or reforms malpractice...
In NYS we already have those taxes.
Tort reform is definitely necessary. But I think it will be handled by different legislation because it will delay the heathcare thing. Several other tag-along provisions may come later.
But you will object whatever it is because you think no Democrat can do anything right when it comes to money. Once we understand that, then we know where to place your objectons.
Zofia
10-02-2009, 05:46 AM
Would someone please point to an example where taxing something caused it to be more available at a lesser cost ? Liquor. Of course with your selective approach to history you may not have heard of prohibition, or you may just assume it away. Never the less, prohibition really took place. Liquor became less available and much more expensive. With repeal and taxation, liquor became both more available and less expensive.
Automobiles. Initially they were untaxed and practically unregulated except in states where they were prohibited. Now we have modest taxes on automobiles, extensive regulation and they are widely available at a reasonable cost.
HTH
Z
bem401
10-02-2009, 06:09 AM
Liquor. Of course with your selective approach to history you may not have heard of prohibition, or you may just assume it away. Never the less, prohibition really took place. Liquor became less available and much more expensive. With repeal and taxation, liquor became both more available and less expensive.
Automobiles. Initially they were untaxed and practically unregulated except in states where they were prohibited. Now we have modest taxes on automobiles, extensive regulation and they are widely available at a reasonable cost.
HTH
Z
It was the legalization of liquor that made it more available at a lesser cost, not the taxation of it. You can't seriously be saying that taxing something makes it more available and cheaper, can you?
If you are, then what's up with the taxes on tobacco? Are you saying the government wants to make cigarettes cheaper and more available , so they impose taxes on it? Do they also add luxury taxes to high-end items such as cars and boats to make them more available and cheaper?
threlayer
10-02-2009, 07:30 AM
If you merely subtract taxes from the product cost, without regard for its other consequences, it will certainly be cheaper. But if you subtract taxes from public highways, we would have fewer, poorer and less safe roads, and that would cost you dearly.
Eric Stoner
10-02-2009, 07:50 AM
If you merely subtract taxes from the product cost, without regard for its other consequences, it will certainly be cheaper. But if you subtract taxes from public highways, we would have fewer, poorer and less safe roads, and that would cost you dearly.
Huh ? Wtf are you talking about ? You're not even comparing apples and oranges. More like apples and cabbages. You're comparing cigarette taxes to highway taxes ? Do you mean the "nickel a gallon" taxes that are SUPPOSED to go to highway maintenance ? Many states like N.J. have Highway Trust Funds that are broke because the politicians spent it on other things. N.Y.C. has ten bridges that are in critical condition including the Kosciusko. Not a penny of stimulus funds have yet to be spent on them.
Yes Zofia, there was a Prohibition. One reason it was repealed was to permit the states ( who were starving for revenue during the Depression ) to tax alcohol. We got more of it because it was legalized, not because it was taxed. In fact, bootlegging increased in the South and Midwest to evade Federal and local liquor taxes. Smuggling increased along the Atlantic Coast to evade Federal import duties.
"Taxes on automobiles caused there to be more automobiles" ? Could you go a little slower please and explain how you think that works ? With luxury cars the opposite was proven to be the case. When the first Bush went along with increased taxes on luxury cars, sales plummeted. So did luxury boat sales.
threlayer
10-05-2009, 11:25 AM
..."Taxes on automobiles caused there to be more automobiles" ? Could you go a little slower please and explain how you think that works ? With luxury cars the opposite was proven to be the case. When the first Bush went along with increased taxes on luxury cars, sales plummeted. So did luxury boat sales.
I can field this one easily. You need to think outside of the box.
More taxes were spent by the government on more and better roads. Decades ago. Better roads led to more people buying autos and trucks.
threlayer
10-05-2009, 11:33 AM
Huh ? Wtf are you talking about ? You're not even comparing apples and oranges. More like apples and cabbages. You're comparing cigarette taxes to highway taxes ? Nah. You are confusing my brief response with yours. I only said taxes as responding to your statement about taxes always raising anything and everything, as if the government spending on the "general welfare" is all unconstitutional, as "promoting" it makes everything all the worse.
Do you mean the "nickel a gallon" taxes that are SUPPOSED to go to highway maintenance ? Many states like N.J. have Highway Trust Funds that are broke because the politicians spent it on other things. N.Y.C. has ten bridges that are in critical condition including the Kosciusko. Not a penny of stimulus funds have yet to be spent on them. You may need to ask your crooked politicians what they are doing with money earmarked for infrastructure improvements. I cannot answer to what they ae doing. It has been a huge construction season around this part of the state. Ask anyone living here.
Laurisa
10-05-2009, 01:47 PM
I am moving to Canada, France, or England. They have their health care shit together and the citizens wont even consider traveling to America with out Travelers insurance. In fear that they will get stuck with an astronomical bill. I know people from the UK and Canada who have told me so personally. One family even turned down a better paying job a few years back because health care sucked and the school his children would be entering was so below the standards in England that they would be going back 2 grades essentially.
Whats even more screwed up is if I were to go to any of those spots and become injured, the system there will pay for it. As I have been to England more than once and went to the hospital twice. Once for a sprained ankle, and the other time was over night with food poisoning. I have yet to receive the bill and I called several times in awe that I was not in debt for a grand or two. The phone charges were outragious!
My Ex of a long term relationship had family in England whom we visited 3 times 2 of those times where shits and giggles the third family business, and they came here once for a wedding only because they where asked to be in it. The Canadian was a regular I had that would travel here for business.
It sounds like you bought into Michael Moore's "Sicko" a little too seriously. Although I will agree that the man has some valid points, I think he is on the extreme end of (current) government opposition, which isn't the solution either.
That whole bit about Canadians not traveling to the United States without traveler's insurance is true and untrue in certain respects. Yes, people who visit here for recreation may very well utilize traveler's insurance, but there are many Canadians who come here for certain surgeries with an abnormally long waiting period. This could be something like a hip replacement surgery, for example. Certain medical procedures and treatments that are not considered necessary to sustain life. Granted, the United States is not perfect and there are several flaws with our system (one of the biggest being the avoidance of preventative medicine) but there is a basic idea that if you can afford healthcare then you will receive healthcare.. promptly.
I guess what it boils down to is that the people who have healthcare now don't want to give up, change, or alter the extent of their benefits, or have to pay more to keep what they already have. The people with no healthcare obviously want to have medical coverage for all sorts of logical reasons. Do I support people being turned down for treatments to improve their quality of life on the basis that they do not have health insurance? No. I just think that Barack Obama is being unrealistic by even implying that we could have a full blown healthcare reform instated by the new year. There are so many things that need to happen, and so many areas of the United States that need attention, it is impractical to focus all of our attention in that area like we have some sort of a deadline. Have people forgotten that we are at war? We are in the middle of an eight-year war that most Americans oppose and are confused about the purpose of. Thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died in the past, and I don't understand why. Our tax dollars are being spent there, on a worthless bailout to save wall street that has royally fucked us all, there are skyrocketing unemployment rates, and our students are getting dumber and dumber. I understand that healthcare is important, but I think there are other issues that need some serious addressing too.
I guess Obama is just one person, but he promised change and if I don't see any soon I'll want a re-vote.
Laurisa
10-05-2009, 02:05 PM
I would also note that where independent contractor dancers are concerned, it is very probable that their 'business' will become subject to this new 'health care tax'. Thus some research needs to be quickly done as to whether uninsured independent contractor dancers are better off purchasing private health insurance coverage through their 'business', or purchasing private health insurance coverage as an individual. At the very least, it appears that the latest National Health Care proposal would de-facto eliminate any gov't subsidy payment for the purchase of health insurance regardless of the independent contractor's income level, since any gov't subsidy payment made to the individual dancer will be immediately 'taxed back' out of the independent contractor dancer's 'business' earnings.
So what you're saying is that dancers, as the owner of a small business, would be subject to paying taxes for their employee's healthcare (i.e. themselves), as well as actually purchasing their healthcare? I've read most of this thread, but I'm not sure if I understand fully -- I thought Obama's idea was to create affordable healthcare for everyone, not mandate that people purchase it through a private insurance company or receive it through their employer. If what I just said is what Obama is intending to do, then it sounds like he is going to be forcing unemployed adults to purchase insurance using government vouchers and their own money. I thought the healthcare reform would be paid for on a taxation basis. For instance, in countries like Canada and France where there is a government insurance program, the citizen's pay higher taxes to compensate the government for their use of the health insurance. Is that not the idea with Obama's plan? If it's not then I already don't like where this is going.
I'd also like to add that many people in this thread and all over the country have posed possible scenarios that are generally viewed as negative results of Obama's healthcare reform plan. If you really sit back and think, you'll realize that there is going to be room for corruption and abuse of this program if it takes effect, because a 1000 page bill has to have some loopholes.
Eric Stoner
10-06-2009, 12:41 PM
Nah. You are confusing my brief response with yours. I only said taxes as responding to your statement about taxes always raising anything and everything, as if the government spending on the "general welfare" is all unconstitutional, as "promoting" it makes everything all the worse.
You may need to ask your crooked politicians what they are doing with money earmarked for infrastructure improvements. I cannot answer to what they ae doing. It has been a huge construction season around this part of the state. Ask anyone living here.
"My" crooked politicians ? Most of them are liberal Democrats. They're the ones who looted the N.J. Highway Trust Fund so that now it is technically bankrupt.
The money you see being spent on local highways was already in the pipeline long before the "AFSCME Relief Act" was passed. Almost none of the "infrastructure" money has been spent.
Melonie
10-06-2009, 03:45 PM
So what you're saying is that dancers, as the owner of a small business, would be subject to paying taxes for their employee's healthcare (i.e. themselves), as well as actually purchasing their healthcare? I've read most of this thread, but I'm not sure if I understand fully -- I thought Obama's idea was to create affordable healthcare for everyone, not mandate that people purchase it through a private insurance company or receive it through their employer. If what I just said is what Obama is intending to do, then it sounds like he is going to be forcing unemployed adults to purchase insurance using government vouchers and their own money
As I understand it, if you are someone's 'employee', and your income level qualifies, you will be given federal gov't vouchers with which to purchase health insurance at an 'affordable' net cost. But obviously if there is a difference between the actual cost of providing health insurance coverage and the net cost to the low income 'employee' i.e. the cost of the gov't voucher, somebody must pay for that voucher. In the case of the low income 'employee' the cost of that voucher will be billed to the 'employer'.
In the case of a self-employed person, legally they are both an 'employer' and an 'employee'. Logically speaking, this prevents self-employed persons from receiving any net assistance in purchasing health insurance coverage ... because any initial assistance in the form of a gov't voucher will be followed by a bill for the value of that voucher ! So for self-employed persons, it would appear that they have two choices. A. they can purchase health insurance coverage at a non-subsidized market price, or B. they can choose not to purchase health insurance coverage at a non-subsidized market price and pay the new $700-$900 ( or whatever) penalty to the IRS
then it sounds like he is going to be forcing unemployed adults to purchase insurance using government vouchers and their own money
Nope ... he will be forcing unemployed adults to sign up for MedicAid coverage from their state or purchase gov't subsidized COBRA medical insurance coverage from their former employer in order to avoid having to pay the new $700-$900 ( or whatever) penalty to the IRS. Both of these options are funded by other taxpayers. Logically speaking, unemployed persons are only forced to purchase health insurance out of their own pocket (or pay the $700-$900 penalty to the IRS) if they accept a new job and lose their official unemployed status which terminates their MedicAid / subsidized COBRA benefit eligibility !
Laurisa
10-07-2009, 06:24 AM
I have never paid for my own health insurance to be truthful, so I don't know how much it costs through a private insurance company. I have several reasons that cause me to need health insurance, and I think for all dancers it is a must. I'm concerned that we're going to be penalized because of this health care reform plan.
Maybe Barack Obama will offer new tax cuts for small businesses or address this issue before it becomes a law?
Melonie
10-07-2009, 09:47 AM
I'm concerned that we're going to be penalized because of this health care reform plan.
The question of whether independent contractor dancers are 'penalized' or not is a matter of interpretation. Since no national health care bill has actually been passed yet, we really don't know what the 'rules' are going to turn out to be. However, if the 'employer' funding provisions for 'employee' health insurance vouchers remains included, it is a fairly sure bet that independent contractor dancers are not going to get any 'help' from other taxpayers with which to offset their cost of purchasing health insurance. And if the IRS penalty for failure to purchase health insurance remains included, it WILL represent a new $700-$900 ( or whatever) cost of doing business for independent contractor dancers who do not choose ( or who cannot afford ) to purchase $2-3-5,000 per year health insurance coverage.
The actual cost of health insurance coverage varies widely from state to state, based mostly on what specific types of coverage state laws mandate. Like New York, Michigan's minimum level of health insurance coverage must include lots of coverage areas over and above direct costs of treatment for injuries and physical diseases. As a result, the insurance premiums for health insurance in these states is significantly higher than in other states whose minimum coverage levels are 'stripped' down to bare bones levels. And from the content of all of the proposed national health care bills, there did not appear to be any federal effort to 'level' available insurance coverage and thus 'level' health insurance premium costs from one state to another.
Laurisa
10-07-2009, 12:04 PM
I guess we can only hope for the best!
eagle2
10-07-2009, 09:15 PM
I guess Obama is just one person, but he promised change and if I don't see any soon I'll want a re-vote.
You'll get one in 2012.
Laurisa
10-08-2009, 06:53 AM
I'm curious who will be running up against in him 2012. It sucks because I don't want another Republican in office that soon, but I guess if he was decent I'd vote for him. I wish we could make a constitutional amendment to allow Clinton to run for office again.
threlayer
10-08-2009, 08:19 PM
A news broadcast evaluated Vermont's healthcare system and reported that the electronic record and communication is saving tons of money per patient AS compared to other states. Like costs at 50% as much...?
Ther are lots of things to improve about the system other than the public option which, along with Palin's "death panels" are about the only things reported or discussed here by Obama's opponents.
YodaLady.com
10-08-2009, 08:59 PM
I don't generally get involved in political debates, But I'll say that I don't think it's fair for people who have health insurance having to declare bankruptcy do to their hospital bills. Too many people think they're sitting sweet, but they are only one accident/disaster from living in a much smaller house (that's putting it nicely). I personally know someone in FL who has a state job, really good health insurance who had to come out of pocket for $30k for hospital bills last year alone. I also think some people do not seem to understand the concepts of a 'Civilization'.
eagle2
10-08-2009, 10:42 PM
I'm curious who will be running up against in him 2012. It sucks because I don't want another Republican in office that soon, but I guess if he was decent I'd vote for him. I wish we could make a constitutional amendment to allow Clinton to run for office again.
I think you need to wait more time before you can judge Obama's policies. Right now I think it's too early to make a judgement.
I don't know if sane people will even have a choice in 2012, considering how much of an influence right wing crazies have within the Republican Party.
bem401
10-09-2009, 05:26 AM
I think you need to wait more time before you can judge Obama's policies. Right now I think it's too early to make a judgement.
Apparently, the Nobel Committee disagrees with you. What a joke!! Seriously, just last week, SNL was lampooning him for having accomplished nothing.
It gets even better - he had to be nominated before February 1 and at that point he'd only been president for less than 2 weeks.
Now, I know I'm a hater and its racist of me to think this way, but exactly what has he done to deserve this?
threlayer
10-09-2009, 07:23 AM
^^ Once again.
Seriously, you think the Nobel committee is a bunch of Democrats?
One thing they appreciate is progress. That's what the prizes are given for, the motivations for which are well explained.
bem401
10-09-2009, 07:34 AM
^^ Once again.
Seriously, you think the Nobel committee is a bunch of Democrats?
One thing they appreciate is progress. That's what the prizes are given for, the motivations for which are well explained.
Progress??? Don't you mean progressives? He was nominated within 12 days of taking office!!! And yes, the committee is a bunch of progressives. They've given the same award to Carter, Gore, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, progressives all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_go_pr_wh/us_obama_nobel_analysis_1
How can you not see the fix was in? Actually, I'm sure you can, you just won't admit it.
This is the last nail in the coffin of the Nobel Prize.
camille27
10-09-2009, 11:39 AM
because there's not yet a thread on obama's nobel win, i will say briefly that the nobel selection committee has ALWAYS awarded prizes to people who are loudest within their fields regarding progressive policies. so i don't think the award has been devalued. the award is what it has always been, and it exists to, in front of the world community, greenlight liberal policies.
Melonie
10-09-2009, 01:56 PM
... putting on moderator's hat ...
Other than the $1 million dollar Nobel Prize award itself, there isn't any economic aspect to the Nobel Peace Prize whatsoever. As such, any further discussion really needs to take place in a different forum.
threlayer
10-11-2009, 12:43 PM
The US Congress ought to look into the Netherland's healthcare system which is considerably better and less costly than ours with at least as timely access. So it was reported.
bem401
10-11-2009, 01:53 PM
The US Congress ought to look into the Netherland's healthcare system which is considerably better and less costly than ours with at least as timely access. So it was reported.
What you healthcare reform advocates fail to address is that when you adjust for our murders and driving deaths ( which have nothing to do with healthcare), US life expectancy is #1 in the world. Because of the dangerous lifestyle choices we make that aren't made elsewhere in the world, you are able to twist the facts and claim US healthcare isn't the best..
Melonie
10-11-2009, 02:28 PM
Re the Netherlands' health care, you might want to update your 'current events' database. For a fact the Netherlands has been experiencing growing problems with health care costs as well as social welfare program costs ... arguably attributable to the immigration of comparatively large numbers of low skill poorly educated muslim immigrants who consume huge amounts of Euros worth of social welfare / health care benefits but who provide very little in the way of tax revenues to pay for such benefits.
This problem was recognized by Dutch voters to the point where they have just elected new MP Geert Wilders and many other members of his PVV party ...
(snip)"Amsterdam - Geert Wilders, the enfant terrible of Dutch politics, has done it again. On Thursday, his anti-Islamic Freedom Party (PVV) participated in the European Parliament elections for the first time, winning 4 seats and proceeding to become the second-largest Dutch party in Brussels.
The result echoed a similar performance by the PVV two years ago, when it made its debut in national elections and instantly gained nine seats in the 150-strong Dutch parliament.
"The Netherlands is waking up from a leftist nightmare," Wilders said as he celebrated Thursday's result, "a nightmare of tremendously high taxes, crime, bad health care, headscarves and burqa's, impoverishment, mass immigration and islamization.""(snip)
from
Thus Dutch voters have figured out a very important economic / demographic point which has yet to take hold in America. It is not possible for a gov't to provide an increasing array of social welfare benefits to a growing number of low skill low tax revenue generating residents without taxing the remainder of the country's businesses and productive workers to the point of causing a painful decline in their living standards.
threlayer
10-11-2009, 07:34 PM
^^ So low-skilled immigrant workers is a problem there too? Do you think that legal immigrants there is a bigger problem than illegal immigrants here? I have to suppose it would be harder for illegals to enter the Netherlands much smaller border than our large and porous brder. Also perhaps thre Netherlands needs to look at their immigration policies. A large percentage of Muslim immigrants entering the US are skilled in some areas, a good number being physicians for example.
What you healthcare reform advocates fail to address is that when you adjust for our murders and driving deaths ( which have nothing to do with healthcare), US life expectancy is #1 in the world. Because of the dangerous lifestyle choices we make that aren't made elsewhere in the world, you are able to twist the facts and claim US healthcare isn't the best..
Sorrry, but I'm going to have to disagree with that. Look, for instance at our percentage of live births, which has noting to do with auto accidents and murder, and you will see an alarming difference. A lot of this infant mortality is essentially a problem with "access to care", which is really rationing due to cost.
eagle2
10-11-2009, 09:04 PM
What you healthcare reform advocates fail to address is that when you adjust for our murders and driving deaths ( which have nothing to do with healthcare), US life expectancy is #1 in the world. Because of the dangerous lifestyle choices we make that aren't made elsewhere in the world, you are able to twist the facts and claim US healthcare isn't the best..
This is more conservative nonsense. Murders and driving deaths account for approximately 3% of all deaths in the US. That's not nearly enough to put the US above countries with the longest life expectancies, such as Japan.
eagle2
10-11-2009, 09:06 PM
Progress??? Don't you mean progressives? He was nominated within 12 days of taking office!!! And yes, the committee is a bunch of progressives. They've given the same award to Carter, Gore, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, progressives all.
I hardly consider Menachem Begin a progressive.
eagle2
10-11-2009, 09:09 PM
Thus Dutch voters have figured out a very important economic / demographic point which has yet to take hold in America. It is not possible for a gov't to provide an increasing array of social welfare benefits to a growing number of low skill low tax revenue generating residents without taxing the remainder of the country's businesses and productive workers to the point of causing a painful decline in their living standards.
As I mentioned before in response to one of your other articles, spending 5% of GDP on assistance to the poor is hardly near enough to "cause a painful decline" in living standards, especially for the wealthy. You greatly exaggerate how much money is spent on programs to help the poor.
Melonie
10-12-2009, 03:23 AM
^^^ again we circle back to 'official economic statistics' versus economic reality. For example, what amount of money must be spent by all Americans to 'help the poor' via being forced to pay higher than necessary prices for all sorts of products and services as a result of minimum wage / living wage laws ? What amount of money must be spent by most Americans to 'help the poor' via being forced to pay higher than necessary prices for electricity / natural gas / cell phone / water utilities as a result of 'systems benefits charges' used to subsidize low income customers ?
All of these sorts of low income subsidies are 'off the books' in terms of actual gov't spending of tax money on low income subsidy programs ... but they are gov't mandated low income subsidies nonetheless, as is the de-facto low income health insurance subsidy excise tax to be imposed on medical products companies called for by the Baucus bill, that will increase these costs above that which would otherwise be the case.
~
hockeybobby
10-12-2009, 01:30 PM
All countries have poor people who rely on help paid for by the taxes paid by others. It's not necessary to think of this as some kind of big problem. It's just what is.
Melonie
10-12-2009, 01:40 PM
^^^ then tell me this Bobby. Why does the Canadian Gov't now go to extremes to keep low skill level poorly educated would-be immigrants from entering Canada ... as well as now go to extremes to deport low skill level poorly educated immigrants who actually make it across the Canadian border ?
(snip)"MONTREAL — Deportations from Canada have skyrocketed more than 50 per cent over the last decade and the bulk of those given the boot are failed refugee claimants who often return home to face torture and persecution.
Figures obtained by The Canadian Press through Access to Information show Canada removed 12,732 people last year -- a major increase from the 8,361 who were deported in 1999.
A series of steady increases over the years shows no sign of abating in 2009. By Aug. 25 of this year, 8,999 had already been deported.
Statistics from the Canada Border Services Agency show failed refugee claimants accounted for three-quarters of deportations while the remainder were often removed on criminal or security grounds.
The Canadian Council for Refugees says the figures debunk the widely held notion that Canada is a haven for asylum seekers.
"This totally contradicts people who continue to say in the media that claimants are never deported from Canada. Once you put your foot on Canadian soil, you can stay here forever," said Janet Dench, the council's executive director.
"These facts contradict it and that's what people who work with refugees know -- that this is a daily business, a daily experience that claimants are very routinely removed from Canada."
The government explains the spike in deportations as the logical result of a jump in refugee applications; there were 35,000 refugee claims last year, and the government says the system can only handle 25,000.
A spokesman for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says problems with the refugee system will be addressed in upcoming reforms.
But the stats cast some doubt on Ottawa's explanation. Figures obtained from the Immigration and Refugee Board indicate the 35,000 refugee applications received last year is no record.
While the figure represented a six-year high, it was still far less than the 44,000 cases received in 2001 and 39,000 in the following year. While there was an increase in claims in 2008, the government also completed far fewer cases than in the past.
Refugee advocates say the explanation is simple: the government has wanted to deport more people, and has taken steps to do it in recent years.
"There's been a lot of effort, especially in the last three years," said former IRB chairman Peter Showler. "It was an area that they knew was a problem."
The most common deportation destinations are the U.S. and Mexico, although hundreds more are being sent to places with shoddy track records on human rights or security, like China, Pakistan, Haiti and Zimbabwe.
Montreal immigration lawyer Stewart Istvanffy says he's seen many heartbreaking cases among the thousands he's taken on over the last 20 years.
He watched many deserving clients lose their fight to stay, and wind up on planes bound for unimaginable horrors. He says he's also seen families wrenched apart by poor decisions from immigration officials.
One client was sent back to Morocco in 2003, and he was detained at the airport in Casablanca and tortured during an 18-month incarceration.
"Because he made so much noise about his case here in Canada, his eldest daughter was kidnapped, raped and she was told, 'Tell your father to shut up,"' he said"(snip)
from
Apparently your own Canadian government considers a rising percentage of low skill level, poorly educated, non-taxpaying, social welfare benefit eligible residents to be a SIGNIFICANT problem !
Arguably, the Canadian gov't clearly understands that there is a huge difference between 'temporary' help given to low skill level, poorly educated residents to enable them to improve their skill set and education, and 'permanent' subsidy support given to a growing permanent 'underclass' of residents for which the country's economy has no real need ( at least no need at the present gov't mandated minimum labor cost and benefit cost levels) - even if many Canadian citizens do not.
~
hockeybobby
10-12-2009, 02:04 PM
^^^ then tell me this Bobby. Why does the Canadian Gov't now go to extremes to keep low skill level poorly educated would-be immigrants from entering Canada ... as well as now go to extremes to deport low skill level poorly educated immigrants who actually make it across the Canadian border ?
Apparently your own Canadian government considers a rising percentage of low skill level, poorly educated, non-taxpaying, social welfare benefit eligible residents to be a SIGNIFICANT problem !
Arguably, the Canadian gov't clearly understands that there is a huge difference between 'temporary' help given to low skill level, poorly educated residents to enable them to improve their skill set and education, and 'permanent' subsidy support given to a growing permanent 'underclass' of residents for which the country's economy has no real need ( at least no need at the present gov't mandated minimum labor cost and benefit cost levels) - even if many Canadian citizens do not.
~
There's not many rich refugees arriving on anyone's borders Mel. You are simply ascribing your right wing conservative values to the normal machinery of our government weeding out bogus claims. You spin it your way, and I'll continue to call you on it...K?
My point is still that every country has people that need the help of their government. It's not a problem unless you call it one. It's just the reality of all nations.
bem401
10-13-2009, 07:01 AM
I hardly consider Menachem Begin a progressive.
You're going to cite one guy who won 30 years ago for doing something concrete as proof that the panel wasn't showing bias in selecting Obama for the campaign he ran, which was really all they had to base his nomination on?
threlayer
10-13-2009, 07:26 AM
Progress??? Don't you mean progressives? He was nominated within 12 days of taking office!!! And yes, the committee is a bunch of progressives. They've given the same award to Carter, Gore, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, progressives all.
...
This is the last nail in the coffin of the Nobel Prize.
NO !!
I stated exactly what I meant.
Progress is a state of mind implying searching for IMPROVEMENTS.
Progressive is a term denoting a political stance and a political Party.
Somehow I think the Nobel Prize will survive your complaining about it.
threlayer
10-13-2009, 07:32 AM
^^^ then tell me this Bobby. Why does the Canadian Gov't now go to extremes to keep low skill level poorly educated would-be immigrants from entering Canada ... as well as now go to extremes to deport low skill level poorly educated immigrants who actually make it across the Canadian border ?
~
Good reason why to do this. In fact the US should do the same. US Immigrant Visa requirement is to have some person or group on this end guaranteeing a job or a person/group supporting this immigrant for some period of adjustment. The problem here is illegals slipping into the US
threlayer
10-13-2009, 07:39 AM
You're going to cite one guy who won 30 years ago for doing something concrete as proof that the panel wasn't showing bias in selecting Obama for the campaign he ran, which was really all they had to base his nomination on?
It wasn't for a political campaign; it was for transforming US-world politics from confrontation into peacemaking. I figured people would uinderstand, but I suppose some never will.
Wasn't that a joint award for between Begin and Arafat? Both former terrorists in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. That was a reward for hoped-for deeds and behavior as well, not only that peace conference.
Let's hope that Obama delivers more than a few more words. And traitors such as Rush "I hope Omama fails" Limbaugh are proven wrong. <I hope Rush does get a football team so they can kick him in his fat ass.>
bem401
10-13-2009, 08:45 AM
It wasn't for a political campaign; it was for transforming US-world politics from confrontation into peacemaking. I figured people would uinderstand, but I suppose some never will.
Did he do that within the first 12 days in office, because that's when he was nominated for the prize? Last time I looked, Gitmo was still open, we still were in Iraq, and we were contemplating elevating our presence in Afghanistan. He has also called off the missile shield in Poland, told Israel they're on their own as far as Iran is concerned, refused to do anything (other than speak) about the nuclear issues in Iran and Korea, and done nothing to rectify the coup in honduras. Doesn't seem like actions that will ensure world peace to me.
Wasn't that a joint award for between Begin and Arafat? Both former terrorists in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. That was a reward for hoped-for deeds and behavior as well, not only that peace conference.
But there was something tangible, something complete, a peace conference, not a bunch of fancy rhetoric and nothing concrete to show for it.
Let's hope that Obama delivers more than a few more words. And traitors such as Rush "I hope Omama fails" Limbaugh are proven wrong. <I hope Rush does get a football team so they can kick him in his fat ass.>
Lets hope he delivers more than words, period. Rush is no traitor. He, like a majority of Americans, feel this country is headed in the wrong direction with Obama at the helm.
Melonie
10-13-2009, 09:37 AM
... putting on moderator's hat AGAIN ...
Other than the $1 million dollar Nobel Prize award itself, there isn't any economic aspect to the Nobel Peace Prize whatsoever. As such, any further discussion really needs to take place in a different forum. There's already a Lounge thread ...
threlayer
10-13-2009, 08:19 PM
Sorry. I forgot your previous admonition. Neither does this have a single thing to do with healthcare.
But again Obama did little of importance to sell his concepts publically which he gave to Congress to flesh out. So far that's his biggest mistake. He did not lay a significant foundation of thought for most of the fairness and efficiency precepts, and he certainly did not make a good enough case for universal healthcare. Also he has tried to put too much change too fast into this new concept of the American quality of life.
Melonie
10-14-2009, 03:17 AM
he has tried to put too much change too fast into this new concept of the American quality of life.
^^^ and at the heart of these changes has been an old concept of increased taxes with increased transfer payments. Unfortunately, in the real world, there are always unintended consequences. In the case of national health care, those unintended consequences will be far reaching - and have not been discussed or analyzed by media, with one major exception. That exception is the official protest by some 30 unions of the proposed surtax on 'gold plated' employer provided medical insurance coverage.