NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so Hillary Clinton wants to create a National Health Care in the US, a program that'll cost 10 billion dollars. Now she says that this will be paid by any house hold making over $250,000. Add that to rolling back Bush's tax cuts. Now, in her mind from what I can understand only the rich will be paying for this, the middle and lower class won't be paying for it, through taxes anyways. However, they will be paying for it in other ways. They'll be paying for it through the product and services that they buy. Why, because those who make $250,000 or higher are most likely managers, CEOs, owners etc. If they get taxed for this NHS, then there goes a sum of their money. So, in order to make-up for the sum that they lose through NHS taxes, they will raise the price on their product and services. Which can be very bad for lower class families if their wages are not raised, and we'll see more and more people slip from middle class to lower class because of the higher prices. Add the tax cut roll back to this and you'll get more people struggling. If all of the above is true, then I guess my question would have to be, is Hillary really sure that only the rich will be taxed the NHS in America?

While higher taxes may raise prices, a national health care system would also reduce many costs (specifically, those for health care).
I'm not even sure it's necessary to raise taxes higher than they were before the cuts. The war in Iraq cost half a trillion dollars, and, while I think that's still amazingly fiscally irresponsible, I don't think the economy has suffered as a result of it.

While higher taxes may raise prices, a national health care system would also reduce many costs (specifically, those for health care).
I'm not even sure it's necessary to raise taxes higher than they were before the cuts. The war in Iraq cost half a trillion dollars, and, while I think that's still amazingly fiscally irresponsible, I don't think the economy has suffered as a result of it.

Then what is causing our weak dollar?

I really don't think a higher tax on 250k+ incomes is going to effect business the way you're predicting. While income will be reduced, that is strictly personal income. Much of that money most likely goes to leisure expenses and such, anyway. So, while some may begin to increase the cost of their goods/services because of it (assuming they even can...the majority of people who make 250k+ a year still are unable to actually change the cost of the goods/services they sell, I'd be willing to be), others will maintain the current price tags since production costs will remain the same and they'd like to continue maximizing sales at, you know, the most efficient cost.

Then what is causing our weak dollar?

Well, the Iraq war is part of it due to the effect it has on consumers of U.S. exports(that is, they are less likely to buy anything from the U.S.)

It also has to do with that crazy loan mortgage thing recently, plus the serious out of control spending on the part of the Bush administration when it was getting a rubber stamp from Congress.

I'm sure there are other reasons, which will be covered by Vetalia, Neu Leonstein, and other economical types.

Really, ten billion dollars is not much on the scale of the federal government. Yes, it's a lot, but it would be well spent.

Except not in this case, because Hillary's plan is pathetic. It's a piss poor attempt at looking like she's making universal health care without actually doing it and will help absolutely no one. People will still have to deal with insurance companies pulling the same bullshit they do now, and since THAT'S one of the core elements of the problem, this program will waste a lot of time and money for no good reason.

Ok, so Hillary Clinton wants to create a National Health Care in the US, a program that'll cost 10 billion dollars.

That's 110 billion, not 10. Although it would balloon rapidly if Congress is Congress. I won't be voting for her. :p

You gotta work on your sense of proportion, Wilgrove, with the "billion," in bold, and that "several tons!" thing the other day. ;) Congress can't buy pens and pencils for a week for less than 10 billion. ;)

Less people dying of disease/having to pay large bills will mean they can buy more stuff - so it shouldn't hinder business (plus that point about it being personal income).

However, I vaguely remember someone mentioning something about H. Clinton being against videogames, so I can't look favourably upon her.

Then what is causing our weak dollar?

The Iraq war may have a part in that, although it's not the only one. However, in terms of prices, they have not been affected by the war.

I wonder what the number of people with health insurance pay collectively yearly. And it isn't like CEOs don't have money to blow in addition to all the money they arn't blowing. You only need to buy a $180k car once.

Then what is causing our weak dollar?

Subprime mortgage loans, for one thing -- giving credit to people who could NEVER have paid back their loans.

Subprime mortgage loans, for one thing -- giving credit to people who could NEVER have paid back their loans.

I actually heard on the radio that the reason banks were lending money to those who can't make it in the first place was because people were basically complaining about them not making enough loans to low income families, so they decide to give a loan to a risker client, and look what happened. I don't know that much about the lending market, much less about banks so I don't know if that's true or not.

Subprime mortgage loans, for one thing -- giving credit to people who could NEVER have paid back their loans.

That's hitting my parents hard too...we got a cheaper loan because of it, yes, but we could easily pay back the loan.

Unfortunately, because so many others can't, we were appraised and subsequently denied the renewed loan and now our house payments are going to go up by close to a thousand dollars.

Possibly, mind...I don't know the full details since getting any sort of financial information out of my parents has always been difficult...but if we end up having to move again, which was mentioned as a possibility, I'll be out on my ass this time.

Hence my sudden wish to get into the Navy as soon as possible rather than taking my time and easing into it.

Then what is causing our weak dollar?

The federal reserve and the current account deficit.

Of course if it gets bad enough then you'll start to see capital flight at which point it becomes a vicious cycle all of its own.

The federal reserve and the current account deficit.

Of course if it gets bad enough then you'll start to see capital flight at which point it becomes a vicious cycle all of its own.

You're already seeing capital flight due to the advantageous corprate tax laws to either create overseas subsidiaries or move headquarters outside the US like Haliburton is doing (and did do the former with their offshore subsidiary to allow them to get around Federal sanctions against doing business with rogue regimes like Iran)

Maybe the CEOs could get less greedy?

Has nothing to do with taxes, but everything to do with control. As soon as the government is footing the bill for my health care, then anything that affects my health becomes "public interest", and the government would have a vested interest in eliminating any behavior that makes you more likely to need health care (dangerous hobbies, extreme sports, etc, etc...). I don't want the government to decide that I eat too much red meat or I need to cut down on my cholesterol, or something, and that they have a right to force me to.

It's one thing for a private health insurance company to charge extra to a smoker, an entirely different thing for a government to ban it "for your own good, and our pocketbook".

They will all claim that will never happen, just like they claimed that income tax was a temporary emergency measure, and that social security numbers would never become a national ID number, etc... etc...

You're already seeing capital flight due to the advantageous corprate tax laws to either create overseas subsidiaries or move headquarters outside the US like Haliburton is doing (and did do the former with their offshore subsidiary to allow them to get around Federal sanctions against doing business with rogue regimes like Iran)

That's not really people moving out of the dollar though. It's just moving out of the country. Halliburton and those hedge funds still use dollars.

I'm really more talking about foreigners saying "fuck it the dollar is tanking" and dumping all their dollar based assets and buying ones based in Yen/Euro/Sterling. (While at the same time people in the US move their money into foreign assets).

That would be extremely bad.

Maybe the CEOs could get less greedy?

The issue is a physical limitation that keeps us from seeing absolutely everyone as fully human rather than some two-dimensional character or even just a statistic.

Consider what you just did right there. You lumped every CEO of every insurance company into a group of greedy people. You aren't viewing them as fully human: you're looking at them as this two-dimensional greedy character.

We do this sort of thing every day, and it's a very difficult thing to get past...even knowing about it isn't enough to really give you an upper hand on it. It's just something people need to learn to start catching themselves on.

Unfortunately, most don't, and thus we have situations like this here. Insurance companies are seeing their customers as just that: customers, as statistics, rather than people just like themselves.

The issue is a physical limitation that keeps us from seeing absolutely everyone as fully human rather than some two-dimensional character or even just a statistic.

Consider what you just did right there. You lumped every CEO of every insurance company into a group of greedy people. You aren't viewing them as fully human: you're looking at them as this two-dimensional greedy character.
You realize of course that CEOs are hired to be two dimensional characters right? Their entire job is to make the company money, the end. If the trustees thinks they arn't doing it right, they are replaced with some one who will. And oh yeah, it's the law. CEOs of publicly traded companies are legally obligated to maximize shareholder profits.

Maybe the CEOs could get less greedy?

I think you'll find a great many CEOs actually favor some form of single payer system for health care.

I've no doubt it has to come anyway just looking at the cost of the current mess. My only reservation is that it will be set up by dimwits (US politicians) and run by numbnuts (the US government), so it probably will be an unmitigated disaster.

CEOs of publicly traded companies are legally obligated to maximize shareholder profits.

That's not strictly true. If it were large companies wouldn't be allowed to donate to charity and non-profit causes. They have to maximize shareholder 'value' - whatever that is.

You realize of course that CEOs are hired to be two dimensional characters right? Their entire job is to make the company money, the end. If the trustees thinks they arn't doing it right, they are replaced with some one who will. And oh yeah, it's the law. CEOs of publicly traded companies are legally obligated to maximize shareholder profits.

Yes I know that, Pantless(though as the daemon said, it's more value than profit). That's part of the problem, just as what I was outlining. I simply thought this to be understood and thus didn't need to be said.

We're 9 trillion in debt and increasing and they want to add more overbearing government programs. Well it's obvious they don't want to solve the debt and let the dollar just keep sliding. Useless all of them.

$250,000 or more will hit a pretty significant number of people. Why not simply tax everyone progressively, just like for everything else? That way, anyone who pays taxes will pay in to the program.

As far as I'm concerned, if there wasn't so god damned much red-tape surrounding the whole thing, National Health Services would work MUCH better.

Freakin' bureaucracy, freakin' red-tape. Screws up so many good things...

$250,000 or more will hit a pretty significant number of people. Why not simply tax everyone progressively, just like for everything else? That way, anyone who pays taxes will pay in to the program.

I would imagine that it could be done without actually raising any further personal income taxes, given the amount that is already spent on health care.

As far as I'm concerned, if there wasn't so god damned much red-tape surrounding the whole thing, National Health Services would work MUCH better.

Freakin' bureaucracy, freakin' red-tape. Screws up so many good things...
Well it's that and the fear of socialism. God forbid we do anything that looks like socialism so we have to simultaneously keep our social programs like Medicare and Medicaid running while trying to shy away from them. Costing us an arm and a leg. Oh, and the bowing to the drug lobby.

Ok, so Hillary Clinton wants to create a National Health Care in the US, a program that'll cost 10 billion dollars. Now she says that this will be paid by any house hold making over $250,000. Add that to rolling back Bush's tax cuts. Now, in her mind from what I can understand only the rich will be paying for this, the middle and lower class won't be paying for it, through taxes anyways. However, they will be paying for it in other ways. They'll be paying for it through the product and services that they buy. Why, because those who make $250,000 or higher are most likely managers, CEOs, owners etc. If they get taxed for this NHS, then there goes a sum of their money. So, in order to make-up for the sum that they lose through NHS taxes, they will raise the price on their product and services. Which can be very bad for lower class families if their wages are not raised, and we'll see more and more people slip from middle class to lower class because of the higher prices. Add the tax cut roll back to this and you'll get more people struggling. If all of the above is true, then I guess my question would have to be, is Hillary really sure that only the rich will be taxed the NHS in America?

I agree, her proposed legislation needs fine tuning to ensure that the rich shoulder all the costs. The costs could easily be paid by compulsary expropriation of all private medical assets in the country without compensation.

We're 9 trillion in debt and increasing and they want to add more overbearing government programs. Well it's obvious they don't want to solve the debt and let the dollar just keep sliding. Useless all of them.

If the Iraq war is finished in say 2010 or 09, then the US government might be able to make a surplus in 09, even if the Bush tax cuts stay in place.

Remember kiddies, right now the US Government is taking in MORE revenue then it did during the Clinton Admin., even with Clinton's higher taxes.

The only reason we still have a deficit is because of increased spending for the wars, military, Katrina, Tsunami (IIRC, US goverment gave 83bil for the Tsunami), among other big ticket items.

That's 110 billion, not 10. Although it would balloon rapidly if Congress is Congress. I won't be voting for her. :p

You gotta work on your sense of proportion, Wilgrove, with the "billion," in bold, and that "several tons!" thing the other day. ;) Congress can't buy pens and pencils for a week for less than 10 billion. ;)Oh it will balloon ennormously. The UK NHS costs £100 billion a year ($200 billion), and it only covers a population of 60 million - a fifth of that of the USA's.

I agree, her proposed legislation needs fine tuning to ensure that the rich shoulder all the costs. The costs could easily be paid by compulsary expropriation of all private medical assets in the country without compensation.

why should "rich" people have to pay all of it?

why should "rich" people have to pay all of it?

Because Americans hate rich people because of the disproportionate capitalist pay structure.

Then what is causing our weak dollar?
The quite frankly disgraceful amount of debts of the US, plus a general stagnation of home markets, plus also this whole subprime mortgages fiasco, and the fact that the government is printing too much money, which devalues the currency.

I agree, her proposed legislation needs fine tuning to ensure that the rich shoulder all the costs. The costs could easily be paid by compulsary expropriation of all private medical assets in the country without compensation.
Just keep in mind that the rich are those who actually prop up a government, by supporting government policy through their own actions, and their own influence.

Charging $110 BILLION to the rich is going to piss them off to no end, and if you then steal all of the medical assets, instead of being reasonable and paying for them, and keeping all of the workers in the same state as they were, then that's only going to exacerbate things.

Because Americans hate rich people because of the disproportionate capitalist pay structure.

I am American and I don't hate rich people, in fact I hope to be a rich person one day.

Why do people hate rich people? Is it because they are jealous?

I am American and I don't hate rich people, in fact I hope to be a rich person one day.

Why do people hate rich people? Is it because they are jealous?

No - it's because we have an equity imbalance that would not be far out of place in sub-Saharan Africa.

'The rich' own America, and those less fortunate are (as history tells us, not surprisingly) getting increasingly sick of hoping for crumbs.

It is a mark of how little the collective pays attention to history, that, just as the spectre of the former USSR begins to rise again, the US political machine is carefully undoing the last vestiges of the safety net that stopped the US being swept under a red tide last time round.

I have yet to see one post which shows and actual understanding or comprehension of what HC proposes - on either side. You are all so used to the same old argument that you fail to make any meaningful sound whatsoever in this instance. Sad.

From what I see of how things work in this country - this is what will happen:

1. Everyone making over $250,000/year will lobby against it's passage and, because they have the money to buy legislators it won't pass.
2. All the movie stars and pseudo celebs will say it's a good idea only if every one but them pays for it (meaning the already overtaxed middle class).
3. If it passes, everyone making over $250,000 will immediately make a beeline for the nearest tax attorney and start creating all sorts of loopholes proving that they make less than $15,000.
4. It will be administered by people who couldn't qualify to work for homeland security and by Hurricane Katrina relief workers. This coupled with the lack of funds, will completely destroy it.

The idea of an NHS is fantastic, but Hillary's plan, unless she recently modified it, is shortsighted and doesn't go nearly far enough.

I frankly think that she is close to the correct answer. Anyone who knows me is aware that I am not anything close to a Hillary Clinton Fan. I am also above petty posturing and petty partisanship. This plan - though not perfect - has some merit.

I think that one flaw is the trouble with the uninsurable. Rather than forcing insurance to take on ridiculous risk people the state should offer something similar to what Florida offers to homeowners who live in high risk areas; An income-weighted-premium health insurance of last resort.

I like the tax advantaged nature of premiums. I like the private choice of the plans. I don't see a reason to raise taxes to pay for it.

I think that there should also be a single-price rule as well; Providers should not charge one rate for government insurance, one rate for private insurance and another rate for private pay. Nor should the government or insurers be allowed to 'negotiate' a lower rate of pay than what everyone else pays.

Finally - I think that HMOs should go away completely. Part of the reason why costs have increased is that - at a $20 co-pay - consumers get no benefit by comparison shopping. No market forces = no market efficiency. Eliminate the $20 co-pay and instead make the co-pay a % of total cost. Have an annual or monthly ceiling where the insurance then picks up 100%. This way people will become price conscious, insurance costs will decline, and market forces would reduce the ever-increasing costs of medical care.
The hybrid system we have now (cross between public and private) has only brought in the worst of both worlds. In every category private has proven more effective. We should not be holding back those market forces as we currently do.

While higher taxes may raise prices, a national health care system would also reduce many costs (specifically, those for health care).

And reduce the quality of medical care. :(

Because Americans hate rich people because of the disproportionate capitalist pay structure.

How many Americans hate the overpaid (rich) professional football, basketball, and baseball players?

why should "rich" people have to pay all of it?

Smun, there is one way to insure the taxpayers won't have to pay for Hillary Care.

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-med-redefeat.gif

Smun, there is one way to insure the taxpayers won't have to pay for Hillary Care.

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-med-redefeat.gif

:headbang:

Celtlund, I am going to place you on ignore if you post that stupid picture one more god damned time.

Hillary is not communistic in any way, shape, or form. Her health care plan isn't even remotely universal health care...all it calls for is ensuring everyone has insurance. All it changes is allowing everyone to have the same insurance we have now, and it would accomplish absolutely nothing of value.

If Hillary was communistic, she'd be calling for socialized medicine paid for completely by the government. She'd be calling for nationalization of industries, for shutting down corporations in favor of government control. In other words, she'd actually act like a fucking communist.

First of all, it was Tipper Gore who went before Congress complaining about vidieo games. Come on, who here thinks the Grand Theft Auto series is,gasp, degradeing to women.None of the hookers I know think so. Anyway,what Hillary wants will cost way more than what she says,we know it,so does she.But we need it.The "No Child left Behind" cost almost 2 billion if you add all the amendments(i.e.more funding for soy producers and anti-drug billboards for SC and VA).What she is asking should be a Constitional right,not just an option.

I'm not a big fan of socialized medicine.

That being said, Clinton's plan, I think, hit's the nail on the head. This will make sure that every American can get health care, while keeping most of the benifits of a privatized system.

It's like medicaide/medicare on steroids.

I never thought I would be saying this (honestly), but I'm starting to like Hillary more and more.

However, I vaguely remember someone mentioning something about H. Clinton being against videogames, so I can't look favourably upon her. She was the one who made the huge fuss about the "Hot Coffee".




PS:

Anyone who thinks Hilliary is a Communist should be locked up in a gulag until their brain works again.

Hillary is not communistic in any way, shape, or form. Her health care plan isn't even remotely universal health care...all it calls for is ensuring everyone has insurance. All it changes is allowing everyone to have the same insurance we have now, and it would accomplish absolutely nothing of value.


I agree. She used to be very left wing when she was at school, but now most of her friends and political contributors are plutocrats, she's decided she prefers fascism.

Forcing people to buy insurance. Especially under the system we have now. I've never heard such idiocy. It's basically a license to print money for a handful of HMOs. Though if she gets elected I know exactly which stocks to buy.

How many Americans hate the overpaid (rich) professional football, basketball, and baseball players?

I do!

I agree. She used to be very left wing when she was at school, but now most of her friends and political contributors are plutocrats, she's decided she prefers fascism.


Even her school left-wingism wasn't truly left-wing, at least on an international scale, and I would say populism more than fascism, to be honest.

Forcing people to buy insurance. Especially under the system we have now. I've never heard such idiocy. It's basically a license to print money for a handful of HMOs. Though if she gets elected I know exactly which stocks to buy.
Care to let me in on that...just in case?

Care to let me in on that...just in case?

Well, there are only so many people set up to provide this type of insurance. This is going to net them at least 50,000,000 more customers. Given the history of the US government insofar as negotiating prices goes, you can be fairly certain it's going to be a windfall for companies like Aetna.

What the US really needs is a proper comprehensive health service. (Perhaps run by regional trusts and answerable to an independently elected ombudsman, thus separate from ordinary politicians). It should be open to all, regardless of income or age, and a private opt out should be available, but only at the expense of the individual - i.e., remove the tax benefit that companies get for providing heath insurance to their employees.

This could be paid for by increasing the payroll tax (which would be offset by the fact that many companies will no longer have to pay into employee health care) and redirecting medicare and medicaid into the system.

Given the amount that the US currently spends as a percentage of GDP on health services, I have no doubt that everyone could be covered with no need to actually change the income tax structure on individuals and would, over the long run, produce huge savings for US based companies.

Well, there are only so many people set up to provide this type of insurance. This is going to net them at least 50,000,000 more customers. Given the history of the US government insofar as negotiating prices goes, you can be fairly certain it's going to be a windfall for companies like Aetna.

What the US really needs is a proper comprehensive health service. (Perhaps run by regional trusts and answerable to an independently elected ombudsman, thus separate from ordinary politicians). It should be open to all, regardless of income or age, and a private opt out should be available, but only at the expense of the individual - i.e., remove the tax benefit that companies get for providing heath insurance to their employees.

This could be paid for by increasing the payroll tax (which would be offset by the fact that many companies will no longer have to pay into employee health care) and redirecting medicare and medicaid into the system.

Given the amount that the US currently spends as a percentage of GDP on health services, I have no doubt that everyone could be covered with no need to actually change the income tax structure on individuals and would, over the long run, produce huge savings for US based companies.

I meant the companies to invest in.

Out of curiosity, does anyone here come from a family that makes $250,000+ per year? Mine doesn't -- it never did -- and we come from an affluent part of one of the twenty or so richest counties in the US.

I meant the companies to invest in.

aetna, humana, cigna

aetna, humana, cigna

Right then, thanks.

Out of curiosity, does anyone here come from a family that makes $250,000+ per year? Mine doesn't -- it never did -- and we come from an affluent part of one of the twenty or so richest counties in the US.

My aunt does, easy. Trusts and estate planning lawyer in the Boston area.

My aunt does, easy. Trusts and estate planning lawyer in the Boston area.

Your aunt ROCKS!!!! She helps people shelter tens of millions of dollars of their hard earned money from the governments waste each and every month.

Giver her a great big hug from me next time you see her! :fluffle:


Oh - and - BTW - My family doesn't earn $250k/ year.... yet. We get closer every year - probably next year if not the year after. OF course - after tax it won't be that much. What many people here don't know about the 'progressive' tax system in the US is that the difference between the 33% tax bracket and the 35% tax bracket is NOT 2%. What is unspoken is the elimination of all tax credits, phase outs of deductions and ineligibility for most tax deferred savings - which starts at around $110,000 for most families and gets progressively worse. For example - my own income grew 40% last year but my tax bill grew 300% Nice progressive system - eh?

The problem with the current system is the steep incline at $110,000 or so (depending on deductions, dependents, etc) I frankly would not mind a higher tax bracket if tax credits and deductions were evenly applied. I also wouldn't mind if tax brackets were 'stretched' a bit so that two-income households (which make up the majority of $110,000 households) were not hit with punitive tax rates.

Sadly - most politicians (and people in general) when they discuss 'the rich' never really define them. I frankly don't consider a firefighter and a teacher 'rich' but the IRS seems to... :rolleyes:

another reason not to vote for hillary

The problem with the current system is the steep incline at $110,000 or so (depending on deductions, dependents, etc) I frankly would not mind a higher tax bracket if tax credits and deductions were evenly applied. I also wouldn't mind if tax brackets were 'stretched' a bit so that two-income households (which make up the majority of $110,000 households) were not hit with punitive tax rates.
Because the difference between making $100k and $50k is $100k can still regularly buy expensive stuff and not feel any pinch even with all the bitching they do about taxes.


Sadly - most politicians (and people in general) when they discuss 'the rich' never really define them. I frankly don't consider a firefighter and a teacher 'rich' but the IRS seems to... :rolleyes:
Neither of those make anywhere near $100k, and if they do, they don't deserve anything special any more than anyone else.

Because the difference between making $100k and $50k is $100k can still regularly buy expensive stuff and not feel any pinch even with all the bitching they do about taxes.
Shows what little you know. Calling $110,000 'rich'. LOL. When you have a family to provide for you can post about what 'rich' is - 'till then try not to embarrass yourself too much..


Neither of those make anywhere near $100k, and if they do, they don't deserve anything special any more than anyone else.

Average teacher salary is about $50,000 Average firefighter income about $65,000. (both depend on state, experience, etc but quite reasonable)

Marry them to one another and you have a 'rich' household. :rolleyes:

Oh, and later in their careers they each can come quite close to earning $100,000 or more - especially when you factor in the value of their benefits (Firefighters in particular).

Regardless - they deserver whatever the fuck they feel like spending the money they earned on - because it is theirs. So fuck yeah they deserver more than people who earn less. They certainly do NOT deserve to have a larger amount of it confiscated and wasted by the government because of their 'wealth'.

Your aunt ROCKS!!!! She helps people shelter tens of millions of dollars of their hard earned money from the governments waste each and every month.

Giver her a great big hug from me next time you see her! :fluffle::

Yep. She also spends a ton of her time doing pro bono work. She obtains tax-exempt status for dozens of charity organizations, is a co-chair of her firm's Nonprofit and Charitable Orgnanizations Group, and serves on her firm's Pro Bono committee. Instead of committing time to raising her family (she's twice divorced, and her children all have emotional issues), she works for charities, universities and research organizations, giving them tax advice and helping to implement planned giving programs. She also is a chronic alcoholic and one of the most unhappy people I've ever met in my life. She also gives a ton of money to various charities. I will give her a great big hug the next time I see her, cause, despite her flaws, she's a good person, and she needs as many hugs as possible, cause she is not a happy person at all. Thanks for your support.

And teachers are rich compared to my immediate family. My parents don't make as much money as one teacher combined, and never have, and probably never will.

Yep. She also spends a ton of her time doing pro bono work. She obtains tax-exempt status for dozens of charity organizations, is a co-chair of her firm's Nonprofit and Charitable Orgnanizations Group, and serves on her firm's Pro Bono committee. Instead of committing time to raising her family (she's twice divorced, and her children all have emotional issues), she works for charities, universities and research organizations, giving them tax advice and helping to implement planned giving programs. She also is a chronic alcoholic and one of the most unhappy people I've ever met in my life. She also gives a ton of money to various charities. I will give her a great big hug the next time I see her, cause, despite her flaws, she's a good person, and she needs as many hugs as possible, cause she is not a happy person at all. Thanks for your support.

And teachers are rich compared to my immediate family. My parents don't make as much money as one teacher combined, and never have, and probably never will.

Sounds like she's married to her work. Much of that 'pro-bono' work she is doing is likely networking for her business. Believe me - I know.

Workaholics often are unhappy and she sounds like one. Give her two hugs. The sad part is that someday she will wake up and realize what she let time take from her.

I bet your parents are proud of you. I have no doubt that they have made sacrifices so that you can someday enjoy success beyond theirs. I'll bet you'll do the same someday for your kids. There is no other reward that could outshine that for a parents. Good luck.

Yep. She also spends a ton of her time doing pro bono work. She obtains tax-exempt status for dozens of charity organizations, is a co-chair of her firm's Nonprofit and Charitable Orgnanizations Group, and serves on her firm's Pro Bono committee. Instead of committing time to raising her family (she's twice divorced, and her children all have emotional issues), she works for charities, universities and research organizations, giving them tax advice and helping to implement planned giving programs. She also is a chronic alcoholic and one of the most unhappy people I've ever met in my life. She also gives a ton of money to various charities. I will give her a great big hug the next time I see her, cause, despite her flaws, she's a good person, and she needs as many hugs as possible, cause she is not a happy person at all. Thanks for your support.

And teachers are rich compared to my immediate family. My parents don't make as much money as one teacher combined, and never have, and probably never will.

Sounds like she's married to her work. Much of that 'pro-bono' work she is doing is likely networking for her business. Believe me - I know.

Workaholics often are unhappy and she sounds like one. Give her two hugs. The sad part is that someday she will wake up and realize what she let time take from her.

I bet your parents are proud of you. I have no doubt that they have made sacrifices so that you can someday enjoy success beyond theirs. I'll bet you'll do the same someday for your kids. There is no other reward that could outshine that for a parents. Good luck.

So fuck yeah they deserver more than people who earn less.
So they deserve more than people who work equally hard for their less money? Yeah, I don't care about your opinion now.

An argument between Mystic Skeptic and The Pantless Hero, two people who are essentially identical in never knowing what they're talking about and always shouting people down but only differ by being on opposite sides of the American political spectrum? It's like your average American political discussion all nicely, neatly packaged for us! :D

If you want to control health care costs, all you have to do is pass tort reform. Senator Edwards can go kiss my ass.

Why, because those who make $250,000 or higher are most likely managers, CEOs, owners etc. If they get taxed for this NHS, then there goes a sum of their money. So, in order to make-up for the sum that they lose through NHS taxes, they will raise the price on their product and services.

they may raise the price - or they could cut health care benefits to their employees because the employees will be covered under the NHS scheme.

An argument between Mystic Skeptic and The Pantless Hero, two people who are essentially identical in never knowing what they're talking about and always shouting people down but only differ by being on opposite sides of the American political spectrum? It's like your average American political discussion all nicely, neatly packaged for us! :D

:upyours:

Wow - a flame on two people without any evidence or context to justify your insult. Where I come from there are words for people who do that. I won't share them in polite company - including Hero.

So they deserve more than people who work equally hard for their less money? Yeah, I don't care about your opinion now.

Hard work isn't all that matters. You can push a boulder up a hill and work your ass off doing it - it won't make you deserve anything. Experience, quality, risk, innovation, working smart, etc. all play into the value of what drives income. Only a fool would discount all of those things.

Yes - they deserve more money that rock-pushers; even rock-pushers who work hard.

The only thing I am curious about is why right wingers find the military and certain elements of the US government to be infallible (they are after all just employees of the US government like everybody else) when your average civil servant is a 'numbnuts' who will break everything they touch.

Intellectually convenient because.. really.. who wants to do the work of actually being honest and thinking when you can lambast entire groups of people with big fat paint brushes that make the world black and white?

As for Clinton's wannabe-NHS... Once more all one sees is the standard grab bag of bullshit thrown up against it. 'NHS is more costly', 'you get worse healthcare', 'the rich need to throw off their shackles and liberate themselves from the poor', etc etc etc. Not that this silly junk idea she has is worth the paper it was written on. Half-assed and completely missing the point, as a few individuals already pointed out.

Ugh. The level of dialogue and thought in North America these days is mind-numbingly frustrating.

Ultimately, Hillary doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected...nor do any of the other democrats running. It's kind of humorous, really. Fidel Castro recently wrote an article suggesting that Clinton and Obama should run for office together, and basically gave them his full endorsement. America isn't ready for a female president yet, or a black one either for that matter. Having a name that rhymes with Osama isn't going to help. As far as Edwards, well, let's face it, he's just a cheesy weakling. Whichever Republican gets the nod is our next President.

In other words I wouldn't get your hopes up for her NHS plan, or for her Presidency.

The only thing I am curious about is why right wingers find the military and certain elements of the US government to be infallible (they are after all just employees of the US government like everybody else) when your average civil servant is a 'numbnuts' who will break everything they touch.

.... and you say THEY lambast entire groups of people with big fat paint brushes?:rolleyes:

.... and you say THEY lambast entire groups of people with big fat paint brushes?:rolleyes:

Har, look at me, I don't need to answer ANYTHING EVAR since I can just say things like 'red herring' or 'I am rubber and you are glue...'

Or.. maybe, just maybe, for once, maybe, someday, who knows, hopefully, perhaps, possibly, somebody could confront this apparent contradiction?

Hard work isn't all that matters. You can push a boulder up a hill and work your ass off doing it - it won't make you deserve anything. Experience, quality, risk, innovation, working smart, etc. all play into the value of what drives income. Only a fool would discount all of those things.

Yes - they deserve more money that rock-pushers; even rock-pushers who work hard.
And only a fool would hold the position that people who earn more are more deserving. If some one is being paid to do a job, it has to be done. Have you have seen anyone being paid to push a rock? If you have, it fucking needed to be pushed somewhere. If they are making less money than some one else, it doesn't make them any less deserving or important than some one who makes more doing something else.

You strike me as one of those 15 year olds who sit around listening to your parents talking about taxes and then make up a bunch of shit but you have no idea personally what you are talking about.

If I could think of the proper word to describe you, I would insult you with it.

:headbang:

Celtlund, I am going to place you on ignore if you post that stupid picture one more god damned time.

Ok! Is this better?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/defeat.gif

Ok, so Hillary Clinton wants to create a National Health Care in the US, a program that'll cost 10 billion dollars. Now she says that this will be paid by any house hold making over $250,000. Add that to rolling back Bush's tax cuts. Now, in her mind from what I can understand only the rich will be paying for this, the middle and lower class won't be paying for it, through taxes anyways. However, they will be paying for it in other ways. They'll be paying for it through the product and services that they buy. Why, because those who make $250,000 or higher are most likely managers, CEOs, owners etc. If they get taxed for this NHS, then there goes a sum of their money. So, in order to make-up for the sum that they lose through NHS taxes, they will raise the price on their product and services. Which can be very bad for lower class families if their wages are not raised, and we'll see more and more people slip from middle class to lower class because of the higher prices. Add the tax cut roll back to this and you'll get more people struggling. If all of the above is true, then I guess my question would have to be, is Hillary really sure that only the rich will be taxed the NHS in America?

I don't know crap about economics.

:upyours:

Wow - a flame on two people without any evidence or context to justify your insult. Where I come from there are words for people who do that. I won't share them in polite company - including Hero.

How is that a flame? Might you need to lighten up a little? Alternatively, you could run to the mods, or, shock horror, simply ignore it.

Har, look at me, I don't need to answer ANYTHING EVAR since I can just say things like 'red herring' or 'I am rubber and you are glue...'

Or.. maybe, just maybe, for once, maybe, someday, who knows, hopefully, perhaps, possibly, somebody could confront this apparent contradiction?

The response you get from me will always be on the same level as how you pose your question. You want a more respectful and intelligent answer? Try doing the same with your question. Until then go glue red herrings to rubber.

And only a fool would hold the position that people who earn more are more deserving. If some one is being paid to do a job, it has to be done. Have you have seen anyone being paid to push a rock? If you have, it fucking needed to be pushed somewhere. If they are making less money than some one else, it doesn't make them any less deserving or important than some one who makes more doing something else.

Sure it does. They deserve less than someone else who is a better rock-pusher; less than someone else who risked their life-savings, home and future on building a business which employs rock pushers; less than the guy who designed his own rock-pushing machine and sells it; and less than the highly trained physician who the rock-pushers go to when a rock rolls over their toe.
http://www.losgatoscompany.com/Los_Gatos_Company/Products/rock_pusher.jpg

You strike me as one of those 15 year olds who sit around listening to your parents talking about taxes and then make up a bunch of shit but you have no idea personally what you are talking about.

If I could think of the proper word to describe you, I would insult you with it.
Reduced you to insults already? You are too easy.

My first thought about this was "is right."

This remains my thought.

*nods*

Time and time again I am aggravated by politicians mouthing meaningless platitudes and making unsupported suppositions.

Hillary says not to worry about the costs, because the cost of the program will be covered by the great reductions in cost and improved efficiency her ‘broader framework’ on healthcare will bring. I’m sorry, but ‘trust me – my great plan will bring cost down…I can’t demonstrate how, or give you any precise details, but just have faith in the great plan’ doesn’t sit well with me.

Requiring insurers to insure everyone, no matter their health status, will raise premiums on everyone. Those with poor health are denied coverage because they cost more than they pay in premiums – thus insurance companies must raise premium prices on everyone to pay for it. If anyone really can’t grasp this, some basic math can demonstrate if you are really slow enough to need it – I’m not just making a ‘trust that the great plan makes it so’ statement.

Having insurance would also be mandatory - no matter what your financial position, you must buy health insurance. No worries though, you will only pay a fixed percentage of your income and the difference will be paid for by the government. Of course no taxes will have to be raised to pay for this – trust in the great plan. I’m also not quite sure how placing a price cap on insurance will limit how much coverage someone gets – if only paying a fixed percentage of income no matter how expensive it gets, you can be sure everyone is going to go for the insurance of an Arabian sheik. This will lead to either massive cost as the government subsidy takes up the slack or the government stepping in to tell you what health insurance you are allowed to have. Personally, I don’t want a bureaucrat deciding how much health insurance I need and dictating what I am ‘allowed’ to buy (especially when I am required to buy the plan they tell me to).

Now for my own suppositions -

One of the reasons why health care spending is so high per capita is because those in higher income brackets get a lot of their compensation in the form of health benefits. This is because the marginal benefit of a dollar in a progressive tax system is diminishing – thus at higher incomes a better benefit package is more attractive than higher salary. Add to that the various tax incentives businesses get for offering employees benefits, and you have significant market distortion.

Eliminate these incentives and companies will shift back to offering higher salaries rather than benefits. This both brings health insurance spending back towards equilibrium and shifts the insurance market to respond to individuals as customers, rather than large corporations. Though I lack any empirical data to support this position, I believe that insurance companies providing value for individuals will be better than being focused on providing value to corporations.

If you want to ensure that people are not denied health insurance, then why not do what states do for automotive insurance and have a government run insurer of last resort? It will be more expensive than private plans of course, because it comprises a risk pool of the riskiest individuals, but it will offer some insurance to anyone. If you complain about it being too expensive for the poor – isn't that what Medicaid is supposed to take care of?

Shows what little you know. Calling $110,000 'rich'. LOL. When you have a family to provide for you can post about what 'rich' is - 'till then try not to embarrass yourself too much..


And there are people raising families on less than 30k.

By comparison, 100k IS 'rich'.

Hard work isn't all that matters. You can push a boulder up a hill and work your ass off doing it - it won't make you deserve anything. Experience, quality, risk, innovation, working smart, etc. all play into the value of what drives income. Only a fool would discount all of those things.

Yes - they deserve more money that rock-pushers; even rock-pushers who work hard.

All of those things... "Experience, quality, risk, innovation, working smart, etc" could apply equally well to pushing rocks.

What you are basically saying, is that some kinds of work should be worth more than others. Perhaps you are right... unfortunately, our whole model is all about money... so those who can parasitise the economy get paid better than those who actually 'work'.

All the people who talk about the value of invisible services... probably do so from within nice sturdy walls...

And there are people raising families on less than 30k.

By comparison, 100k IS 'rich'.

$100,000 per annum is fuck all. It equates roughly to £50,000 per annum, and if that's all I contrive to earn by the age of 40, I'll be miffed.

$100,000 per annum is fuck all. It equates roughly to £50,000 per annum, and if that's all I contrive to earn by the age of 40, I'll be miffed.£50k is a huge amount. Hell, I have a friend on £33k and he doesn't know what to do with all of it. £33k is £500 a week after taxes. I currently spend about £100-150 a week. I have no idea what I would spend the other £350-400 on.

£50k is a huge amount. Hell, I have a friend on £33k and he doesn't know what to do with all of it. £33k is £500 a week after taxes. I currently spend about £100-150 a week. I have no idea what I would spend the other £350-400 on.

For a family of four, with a mortage, car loan and the like, it really is not that great an amount.

For an individual, it's a lot, but for a family, not really.

Now for my own suppositions -
*bullshit*

No.

Sure it does. They deserve less than someone else who is a better rock-pusher; less than someone else who risked their life-savings, home and future on building a business which employs rock pushers; less than the guy who designed his own rock-pushing machine and sells it; and less than the highly trained physician who the rock-pushers go to when a rock rolls over their toe.
http://www.losgatoscompany.com/Los_Gatos_Company/Products/rock_pusher.jpg

You don't even get to "All animals are equal," hell you even skip "Some animals are equal to others." You go straight to "Animals who earn more are inherently more important." I'm glad I don't live in your sick, twisted, ignorant world.

Reduced you to insults already? You are too easy.
I take it I'm correct then. Thought so.

For a family of four, with a mortage, car loan and the like, it really is not that great an amount.

For an individual, it's a lot, but for a family, not really.With a mortgage? So what, people who don't have mortgages don't even pay rent?

Anyway, if both parents were earning then I still don't see a problem. Besides, my mum was a single mum with three kids and an income of slightly under £30k. She never had that many problems.

People just mistake wants for needs too often.

With a mortgage? So what, people who don't have mortgages don't even pay rent?

Anyway, if both parents were earning then I still don't see a problem. Besides, my mum was a single mum with three kids and an income of slightly under £30k. She never had that many problems.

People just mistake wants for needs too often.

Ok, I'll concede, my ideal lifestyle is the wrong style of costly, but nonetheless, the fact stands that in the south east, £50k per annum is not huge, considering property prices, living costs and the like.

Ok, I'll concede, my ideal lifestyle is the wrong style of costly, but nonetheless, the fact stands that in the south east, £50k per annum is not huge, considering property prices, living costs and the like.Maybe, but it still depends upon occupation and time of life.

I'd back myself to spend £50k a year easily.
Without frivolous expense? :rolleyes:

Maybe, but it still depends upon occupation and time of life.

I'd back myself to spend £50k a year easily.

And there are people raising families on less than 30k.

By comparison, 100k IS 'rich'.

and to someone who only earns $9,000 per year $30,000 is 'rich'. So what? Shall we justify that as a reason to charge people who earn $30k the same tax rate as people who earn $100k? Your point is meaningless.

All of those things... "Experience, quality, risk, innovation, working smart, etc" could apply equally well to pushing rocks.

What you are basically saying, is that some kinds of work should be worth more than others. Perhaps you are right... unfortunately, our whole model is all about money... so those who can parasitise the economy get paid better than those who actually 'work'.

All the people who talk about the value of invisible services... probably do so from within nice sturdy walls...

ahh - more broad generalization. If you had read further you'd see that I indeed DID apply all those things to a hypothetical rock-pusher. With graphics to boot!

To suggest that a person is a parasite if they are more competent, in a field which demands more training, liability and/or responsibility, or is contributing more to society with their innovation and influence says far more about you than those people.

£50k is a huge amount. Hell, I have a friend on £33k and he doesn't know what to do with all of it. £33k is £500 a week after taxes. I currently spend about £100-150 a week. I have no idea what I would spend the other £350-400 on.

Wait until you have a few ankle-biters depending on you and you'll find PLENTY to spend it on - aside from taxes.

You don't even get to "All animals are equal," hell you even skip "Some animals are equal to others." You go straight to "Animals who earn more are inherently more important." I'm glad I don't live in your sick, twisted, ignorant world.


Who said anything about animals? Who said anything about animals being more important? Are we having the same discussion.

If you want to know how I feel about animals - just ask. I think beef tastes better than chicken and dogs are better than cats. OH - and dogs and cats are more important than cows or chickens - except during famine.

I take it I'm correct then. Thought so.
You are a funny bitter little person. I like you.

Wait until you have a few ankle-biters depending on you and you'll find PLENTY to spend it on - aside from taxes.

Maybe, but I'd probably have thousands saved up by then. I just can't bring myself to spend money on anything except food. I''ll splash out on all sorts of food and produce and drink.

Out of my whole family, I'm the only one who has the entirety of the inheritance we got when my dad's parents died. Everyone else has spent it all or it's still being held in trust.

You are a funny bitter little person. I like you.
Being patronized by a 15 year old, weak.

Being patronized by a 15 year old, weak.

Awwww. Here - you need one of these;

http://www.mytherapybuddy.com/index.shtml

Everything is going to be allright. Believe it.

Ok! Is this better?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/defeat.gif

Yes. That's better, Celty.

:upyours:

Wow - a flame on two people without any evidence or context to justify your insult. Where I come from there are words for people who do that. I won't share them in polite company - including Hero.

Actually, I was drawing on examples and evidence from Pantless' many, MANY posts on a wide variety of subjects as well as your demonstrations of a complete lack of knowledge of the health care system and how it works.

So I feel completely justified in saying what I did, and I will not take it back.

Without frivolous expense? :rolleyes:

Whilst maintaining a reasonable standard of living, which, if you deem anything other budget food and clothes frivolous, would qualify as wasteful.

Actually, I was drawing on examples and evidence from Pantless' many, MANY posts on a wide variety of subjects as well as your demonstrations of a complete lack of knowledge of the health care system and how it works.

So I feel completely justified in saying what I did, and I will not take it back.

Really - you feel I have a lack of knowledge of the health care system. Are you brave enough to cite an example of this or do you feel safer sniping from under your rock?

You don't even get to "All animals are equal," hell you even skip "Some animals are equal to others." You go straight to "Animals who are more important earn more." I'm glad I don't live in your sick, twisted, ignorant world.


I take it I'm correct then. Thought so.
Interestingly, people aren't equal. Under the law, maybe, but certainly not in skills, aptitude, intelligence, or anything else that makes us unique. So I fixed your little outburst.

Ever held a job, Pantsman?

Whilst maintaining a reasonable standard of living, which, if you deem anything other budget food and clothes frivolous, would qualify as wasteful.
I can live on non-budget food and clothes with a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars allowance here and there and I couldn't blow $100k a year.

Really - you feel I have a lack of knowledge of the health care system. Are you brave enough to cite an example of this or do you feel safer sniping from under your rock?

I cite your own thread: "How could people NOT have health insurance?!" Your lack of knowledge is clearly demonstrated throughout it.

I can live on non-budget food and clothes with a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars allowance here and there and I couldn't blow $100k a year.

Good for you. I have expensive tastes, and a decent summer holiday, and skiing, is hardly cheap either.

I cite your own thread: "How could people NOT have health insurance?!" Your lack of knowledge is clearly demonstrated throughout it.

I see - so apparently no agreeing with you = lack of knowledge.

I won't be loosing any sleep over that one.

I see - so apparently no agreeing with you = lack of knowledge.

I won't be loosing any sleep over that one.

Of course that's not what I'm saying. Try reading through the thread. Note how you couldn't understand how insurance worked exactly, or how evidence needed to be gathered, or what double poverty meant, ect ect.

Of course that's not what I'm saying. Try reading through the thread. Note how you couldn't understand how insurance worked exactly, or how evidence needed to be gathered, or what double poverty meant, ect ect.

Nope - you are still nothing more than a sniper.

You make blanket statements about me yet provide no specific point in case. You are incapable of backing your assertions so your "examples" are as vague as you can make them.

You're not fooling anyone. Show some courage for gawds sake.