why public health care will suck

[jakesomedevil41]

Originally Posted by bbianca1982

We should do A, and C.

no thank you. i am certainly not in favor of raising tax revenue.

[MDPrompter]

Originally Posted by jakesomedevil41

no thank you. i am certainly not in favor of raising tax revenue.

:confused Why not?

[Beebz]

Originally Posted by jakesomedevil41

no thank you. i am certainly not in favor of raising tax revenue.

Its not what youre in favor of. Its what we need to do.

[rconverse]

The government has more than enough money. They need to spend it better.

[MDPrompter]

Originally Posted by rconverse

The government has more than enough money. They need to spend it better.

But I thought all you had to do to increase tax revenue was cut taxes :rolleyes

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

But I thought all you had to do to increase tax revenue was cut taxes :rolleyes

Whoever said that?

[MDPrompter]

Originally Posted by rconverse

Whoever said that?

Most righties on here...and I was pretty sure you were a believer as well.

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

Most righties on here...and I was pretty sure you were a believer as well.

Strike one. :)

[MDPrompter]

Originally Posted by rconverse

Strike one. :)

Looking back, I think it was shotty and clemson. my appologies.

[BotheLaneFan]

"I actually have health insurance. And instead of being treated @ an emergency room i am dealing with an aids patient to my left a hep patient to my right. I am the only one with insurance. John rocker was correct. Until a communist can explain how lines wont increase they are morons."

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

Looking back, I think it was shotty and clemson. my appologies.

No worries.

[MDPrompter]

Check out the bush year nine thread...righties arguing it again!

[rconverse]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/..._care_overhaul

[MistreatedLewis]

Originally Posted by bbianca1982

We should do A and C.

Very much agreed.

[jakesomedevil41]

Originally Posted by bbianca1982

Its not what youre in favor of. Its what we need to do.

we don't need to raise taxes.

[jakesomedevil41]

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

:confused Why not?

i don't want to pay any more in taxes.

[MistreatedLewis]

Originally Posted by jakesomedevil41

we don't need to raise taxes.

Yes we do. Big business doesn't pay nearly enough in taxes. Neither do people earning over 300K in annual income or have more than $1 mil in invested assets.

[AJF_41]

Originally Posted by rconverse

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/..._care_overhaul

I think a "scaled down" bill is positive.

Potentially more "bi-partisan"?

[Beebz]

Originally Posted by jakesomedevil41

i don't want to pay any more in taxes.

Do you earn more than $250,000 a year?

Originally Posted by AJF_41

I think a "scaled down" bill is positive.

Potentially more "bi-partisan"?

It could be positive. I dont think it will be. We've already made enough concessions to Republicans. Any new bill better have a removal of pre-exisiting conditions, employer mandates, coverage for 35 million Americans, and a cap on out of pocket expenses. If they wanna add tort reform, fine.

It doesnt matter. You and I and everyone on here know that Republicans will never vote for this. Id rather have nothing than a shitty bill that Republicans can claim they helped shape.

[MDPrompter]

^ and add portable plans/purchases accross state lines

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by MistreatedLewis

Yes we do. Big business doesn't pay nearly enough in taxes. Neither do people earning over 300K in annual income or have more than $1 mil in invested assets.

We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, can't compete in manufacturing, and have a severely weakened auto industry. I don't think raising corporate taxes is a good idea.

Originally Posted by AJF_41

I think a "scaled down" bill is positive.

Potentially more "bi-partisan"?

It's hard to say. It seems the idea of lowering or controlling costs has been compeltely lost and that's what the majority want, imo. That and pre-existing conditions are probably the two biggest things people want in the bill. Again, imo.

[Beebz]

Originally Posted by mdmarvich

^ and add portable plans/purchases accross state lines

Im fine with portable plans, not with buying over state lines.

[Beebz]

Originally Posted by rconverse

We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, can't compete in manufacturing, and have a severely weakened auto industry. I don't think raising corporate taxes is a good idea.

It's hard to say. It seems the idea of lowering or controlling costs has been compeltely lost and that's what the majority want, imo. That and pre-existing conditions are probably the two biggest things people want in the bill. Again, imo.

We are also the richest country in the world and have the highest amount of tax cheats. So there's that.....

Again, there are only three ways to lower costs--single payer, government option, or mandates that cap what PI can charge for every procedure. The public wants to lower costs but doesnt want to make the tough choices to get there. So, we're stuck with what we have.

[dmbfan1000]

Originally Posted by bbianca1982

We are also the richest country in the world and have the highest amount of tax cheats. So there's that.....

Again, there are only three ways to lower costs--single payer, government option, or mandates that cap what PI can charge for every procedure. The public wants to lower costs but doesnt want to make the tough choices to get there. So, we're stuck with what we have.

You speak as if you know what you are talking about, but we all know...that you dont.

[Beebz]

Originally Posted by dmbfan1000

You speak as if you know what you are talking about, but we all know...that you dont.

Proof? Or are you just going to look like an ass again?

[dmbfan1000]

Originally Posted by bbianca1982

Proof? Or are you just going to look like an ass again?

Funny. Was just commenting on your thesis that

"Again, there are only three ways to lower costs--single payer, government option, or mandates that cap what PI can charge for every procedure. The public wants to lower costs but doesnt want to make the tough choices to get there. So, we're stuck with what we have."


Which we all know is not correct.

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by bbianca1982

We are also the richest country in the world and have the highest amount of tax cheats. So there's that.....

Again, there are only three ways to lower costs--single payer, government option, or mandates that cap what PI can charge for every procedure. The public wants to lower costs but doesnt want to make the tough choices to get there. So, we're stuck with what we have.

Did you read the link I posted yesterday that stated when you have lower taxes, there is higher taxable income (ie people don't hide their money)?

Anyway, none of those three are a surefire way to lower costs. We've been over the fact that the CBO estimated that the public option would be more expensive than PI. Single payer and mandates do nothing to curb the costs of healthcare. They just transfer the costs.

[Beebz]

Originally Posted by dmbfan1000

Funny. Was just commenting on your thesis that

"Again, there are only three ways to lower costs--single payer, government option, or mandates that cap what PI can charge for every procedure. The public wants to lower costs but doesnt want to make the tough choices to get there. So, we're stuck with what we have."

Which we all know is not correct.

Oh really? What are the other solutions?

Originally Posted by rconverse

Did you read the link I posted yesterday that stated when you have lower taxes, there is higher taxable income (ie people don't hide their money)?

Anyway, none of those three are a surefire way to lower costs. We've been over the fact that the CBO estimated that the public option would be more expensive than PI. Single payer and mandates do nothing to curb the costs of healthcare. They just transfer the costs.

Lower taxes have nothing to do with healthcare. And if you think people stop hiding their money because tax rates are lower, you're living on neptune.

The public option would be more expensive than PI--for the taxpayer. At first. As the younger, healthier people joined the program though, the costs would drop as the risk dool widened. Mandates on PI coupled with a public option would actually be the dream scenario.

[jdmpsu339]

Originally Posted by bbianca1982

Oh really? What are the other solutions?



Lower taxes have nothing to do with healthcare. And if you think people stop hiding their money because tax rates are lower, you're living on neptune.

The public option would be more expensive than PI--for the taxpayer. At first. As the younger, healthier people joined the program though, the costs would drop as the risk dool widened. Mandates on PI coupled with a public option would actually be the dream scenario.

This is nothing more than a forced tax for young people. I'm sure you already realize that, from an economic standpoint, health insurance is a bad deal for your average twenty-something. If they don't get it on the cheap/free through their job, many simply opt out (this makes up a decent % of your "uninsured").

Forcing them into a financial choice that is not in their best interest is not responsible. What if they passed a law tomorrow that forced you to buy $400 worth of toilet flappers each month? Might as well be the same thing.

[Beebz]

Originally Posted by jdmpsu339

This is nothing more than a forced tax for young people. I'm sure you already realize that, from an economic standpoint, health insurance is a bad deal for your average twenty-something. If they don't get it on the cheap/free through their job, many simply opt out (this makes up a decent % of your "uninsured").

Forcing them into a financial choice that is not in their best interest is not responsible. What if they passed a law tomorrow that forced you to buy $400 worth of toilet flappers each month? Might as well be the same thing.

Well if companies buy their insurance through the federal exchange from the government, it would widen the risk pool. I didnt mean young people paying out of pocket. I didnt mean mandates that people needed to have insurance (not sure how I feel about that--there are pros and cons), but rather mandates that PI charges couldnt exceed X dollars per procedure.