By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - OBAMA approval PLUMMETS to a dreadful 40%

sethnintendo on 31 July 2011

@MrStickball,

What do you suggest USA to do to fix the healthcare industry then? Make it completely privatized that way companies can jack up the price and only a select few can receive any healthcare. Get rid of it completely and let the old farts die? Pretty much USA is fucked one way or the other.



Around the Network
osamanobama on 31 July 2011
sethnintendo said:

@MrStickball,

What do you suggest USA to do to fix the healthcare industry then? Make it completely privatized that way companies can jack up the price and only a select few can receive any healthcare. Get rid of it completely and let the old farts die? Pretty much USA is fucked one way or the other.

what thats not how free market works. sure they can jack up the prices, but good luck getting any business doing that. people will then just flock to the lower cost insurer that does a better job, and the business that has higher cost and worse coverage will go out of business.

on the other hand, if you have governmnet be the insurrer then you have a manopoly, one that cant/doesnt go out of business. so they can raise prices all they want, or keep them artificially low, costing tax payers. they also dont have any accountablility, so their bad practices will go unpunished, and productive employee wont be fired and their wages will go up because in part by unions. they will be this huge entity that grossly overlooks problems becuase they have no one near the problem solving it. there will be no innovation, because there will be no incentive to innovate.

so private businesses will go out of business and government will stay in business lossing billions every year in waste, and cost tax payers billions.



HappySqurriel on 31 July 2011
sethnintendo said:

@MrStickball,

What do you suggest USA to do to fix the healthcare industry then? Make it completely privatized that way companies can jack up the price and only a select few can receive any healthcare. Get rid of it completely and let the old farts die? Pretty much USA is fucked one way or the other.

I know this was targeted at MrStickball but ...

One of the biggest problems in controlling the cost of healthcare around the world is that decisions related to a person's healthcare are handled by third parties; which translates into increased bureaucracy and prevents people from making rational decisions related to the cost of their heathcare.

In the United States this is worse than most because the government has created an environment where most people get their health insurance through their company with no knowledge of what it costs and no interest in lowering how much they’re paying for it. Beyond this, since the care they receive is paid for through their insurance they have no knowledge in how much they’re spending and no interest in reducing what is being spent on them.

While I wouldn't suggest this as a solution, you would probably see the cost of individual services and the amount people paid on average for healthcare drop to 25% current levels if you eliminated third party payment for healthcare.



thx1139 on 31 July 2011

HappySquirrel,

You are reading that wrong. That is the amount that all of Obama's policys are projected to add to the debt through 2017. The $5.07 trillion is the amount the Bush policies added to the debt from FY2002 through FY2009. Remember also that Bush's Tax Cuts, Wars, Medicare Part D are still ongoing. Obama's Stimulus is over. Obama big addition was a 1 time thing. Bush's are recurring.

Kantor,

Both Medicare and Social Security are taxes on wages. Social Security is 6.2% of wages through the 1st $106K. Medicare is 1.45% of wages. Employers match those amounts. BTW in some higher wage industries ( I work in one of these industries) Social Security also encourages employers to have people work OT rather than hire a 2nd person. You can not opt out of Medicare. Now the so called Medicare Part E (Everyone) would still have 1.45% withheld from your wages, but instead of you also paying an Insurance Premium you would pay a Medicare Premium for your own Medicare. The 1.45% would be what you pay into for people over 65. The Medicare Part E premium would be much lower than a private Insurance Premium.

osamanobama,

You clearly dont know how Health Insurance really works in the US. 1st as I pointed out as an employer we were were charged a premium to offer plans from competing companies. 2nd the Health Insurance industry is dominated in the US by just a handful of companies. 3rd most people get Insurance through their employer so freedom to move isnt an easy thing to do and as I said in #1 insurance companies make it hard to offer choices to your employees. Going outside of your employer has always been riskier and more expensive as well.



Its libraries that sell systems not a single game.

osamanobama on 31 July 2011
thx1139 said:
HappySquirrel,

You are reading that wrong. That is the amount that all of Obama's policys are projected to add to the debt through 2017. The $5.07 trillion is the amount the Bush policies added to the debt from FY2002 through FY2009. Remember also that Bush's Tax Cuts, Wars, Medicare Part D are still ongoing. Obama's Stimulus is over. Obama big addition was a 1 time thing. Bush's are recurring.

Kantor,

Both Medicare and Social Security are taxes on wages. Social Security is 6.2% of wages through the 1st $106K. Medicare is 1.45% of wages. Employers match those amounts. BTW in some higher wage industries ( I work in one of these industries) Social Security also encourages employers to have people work OT rather than hire a 2nd person. You can not opt out of Medicare. Now the so called Medicare Part E (Everyone) would still have 1.45% withheld from your wages, but instead of you also paying an Insurance Premium you would pay a Medicare Premium for your own Medicare. The 1.45% would be what you pay into for people over 65. The Medicare Part E premium would be much lower than a private Insurance Premium.

osamanobama,

You clearly dont know how Health Insurance really works in the US. 1st as I pointed out as an employer we were were charged a premium to offer plans from competing companies. 2nd the Health Insurance industry is dominated in the US by just a handful of companies. 3rd most people get Insurance through their employer so freedom to move isnt an easy thing to do and as I said in #1 insurance companies make it hard to offer choices to your employees. Going outside of your employer has always been riskier and more expensive as well.


currently we dont have a free market for insuance. example you cant buy accross state lines, limiting competition, more competition will always lower prices, giving the employer an option to go with the lower cost



Around the Network
Stats87 on 31 July 2011
thranx said:

The problem is not a revenue problem. Its clearly a spending problem. Taxes do not need to be raised, the government needs to make massive cuts in spending and focus on what it is there for, protection of its citizens from others, and stop with all the social programs that take away an individuals choice in how their life is run.

Excuse me for a second.

I live in Canada, I would love to know how social programs are taking away my ability to choose how my life is run...



steverhcp02 on 31 July 2011
Kasz216 said:
Viper1 said:
thx1139 said:
 

 

Bush started a lot of polices that Obama could have stopped cold.  And campaigned on stopping them.  It's year 3 and not only has he not stopped any of them, he's personally endorsed the expansion of practically all of them.

I personally don't give a damn if an R or a D started a failed program or continued a failed program.  What I care about is a person being man or woman enough to own up to their campaign promises and doing what is necessary to ending a failed program.  Better still, they deal with the debt issue.  So far, both sides have dealt with the debt issue with the grace and intelligence of a 1st grade class room crying about who ate all the chalk. 

You don't fix a broken arm with bandaides but worse is that all the plans I've seen put forth by all leadership on both sides is more akin to salt in the wounds...not even bandaides, much actual splints or a cast.

This blame R, blame D crap is why we can't get shit done.  Nobody but a minor few in Congress has the balls to admit the problem and provide real solutions instead of worrying about how many seats in Congress their party will have in the next election.  Pansy asses that earn $174k per year plus bonuses and a medical plan we'll never see and a retirement plan we'll never get and they want to act like children instead of the adults we elected.

And here we are as concerened Americans perpetuating their shoolyard fight.  Just what they hope we do.  Shame on us.

God help us all....and I'm a damn agnostic.

Yeah, that's why 1/4th of people who currently disporve of the Obama presidency are liberals.

He's basically just been George Bush 3 with less consistant rule.

Funny how power suddenly makes you like all those executive invasion of privacy powers.

Exactly. These polls, if you read or have access to the underlying reasons why they disapprove you need to combine the people who "disapprove" because hes "not liberal enough" When it comes to voting and polling, those who diasapprove in that 60% are in no way going to vote republican if they dont think hes liberal enough.




Get Your Portable ID!

Bong Lover on 31 July 2011
Stats87 said:
thranx said:
 

The problem is not a revenue problem. Its clearly a spending problem. Taxes do not need to be raised, the government needs to make massive cuts in spending and focus on what it is there for, protection of its citizens from others, and stop with all the social programs that take away an individuals choice in how their life is run.

Excuse me for a second.

I live in Canada, I would love to know how social programs are taking away my ability to choose how my life is run...

In the real world, strong social programs actually increases personal freedom and choise, but the political debate in America is not based in the real world. It is firmly grounded in ideology and not in observable fact. See current debt ceiling comedy act for the latest example.



Kasz216 on 31 July 2011
Kantor said:
thx1139 said:


Like I said earlier Medicare should be expanded and offered as a choice for people to buy into. The premium would be more than what the tax we pay, but less than private health insurance. Not to mention it takes an act of congress to raise Medicare taxes, where as private insurance it is a guy with a 7 figure salary and benefits, corner office, private bathroom with gold fixtures, couple of yachts, a bentley (or 2) and a villa (or 2) that raises health insurance premiums.

Sure, if you never want to have a balanced budget again.

As you said, Social Security and Medicare both run surpluses, but the surplus decreases every year. Again, as you said, within a few decades, those surpluses will be gone.

Now, cutting Social Security is highly irresponsible, because it is funded by contributions, not even technically by taxation. You are essentially taking money away from everyone in the country by a method other than taxation.

Cutting Medicare is different. Medicare is funded by Payroll Tax. Who says Payroll Tax should only go towards Medicare? I see no reason why it shouldn't subsidise the rest of government spending, because only $950 billion in income tax has to fund the other $2 trillion odd of government spending.

Either payroll or income tax needs to be raised, and if Medicare spending is increased alongside that, the government will be completely broke. Universal healthcare is expensive, and would be even more expensive if not for the fact that quite a few people will still go for private insurance. If you make Medicare optional, nobody wealthy will pay for it (they will get much better care with private insurance) and the poor cannot possibly afford to fund the entire thing.

The best ways to reduce the deficit are to cut defence spending and get rid of Bush's tax cuts, but Medicare needs to take a cut, too. Something like twice as much is being spent on Medicare now as in 2000.

Forgive me if any of the above is completely wrong. I don't live in the USA, so this is just what I understand of how Medicare and Social Security work.

I would actually argue that Medicare and Social Security DON'T run surpluses now.

Though that's just my opinion as someone who comes from a union family.

The average person collects three times what is paid for each person... meaning the US government is NOT meeting their fiscal burden.

If the US were a private company they'd be blasted left, right and central.

Really the best way to look at it is that we are 11% over budget.

 

Really getting rid of the Bush tax cuts wouldn't even begin to dent that.  The Democrats just want to pass it because it would be one political win they could get out of the giant mass of failure they're being forced to take on due to reckless spending.

 

To look at it deeper.  The US Military spends 680 billion dollars a year.

280 on operations and maitence

154 on payments

140 on new weapons

80 on research

and 3.1 billion on family housing.


Since there is almost zero chance of going the libretarian way and paring down overseas bases and troop size we'd have to look at individual military projects to cut.  Luckily Wikipedia lists projects that cost more then 1.5 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Programs_spending_more_than_.241.5_billion

Getting rid of the Poseiden could work... not sure what we'd need anti submarine planes for in the near future.  Possibly the Ospery too... and that's it really.

Really, the sad part?  The part of the US military budget that's bad?  The 500 billion or so dollars in debt from the previous wars.  (Which likely is much higher now thanks to libya... which is teetering on the brink of falling apart.  Not that anyone in the US knows due to the myopic nature of media.)

Problem is, NEITHER side wants real military spending cuts, the closest is the democrats wanting some symbolic cuts here and there of a couple billion for political reasons.

 

Even if we could though.  That's lets say 7 Trillion over 10 years for the defense budget... and the total we need to cut is 4-5 Trillion.

Defense is the biggest slice of the pie here.  This is the issue we're running into.

EVERYTHING is going to need cuts.



osamanobama on 31 July 2011
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
thx1139 said:


Like I said earlier Medicare should be expanded and offered as a choice for people to buy into. The premium would be more than what the tax we pay, but less than private health insurance. Not to mention it takes an act of congress to raise Medicare taxes, where as private insurance it is a guy with a 7 figure salary and benefits, corner office, private bathroom with gold fixtures, couple of yachts, a bentley (or 2) and a villa (or 2) that raises health insurance premiums.

Sure, if you never want to have a balanced budget again.

As you said, Social Security and Medicare both run surpluses, but the surplus decreases every year. Again, as you said, within a few decades, those surpluses will be gone.

Now, cutting Social Security is highly irresponsible, because it is funded by contributions, not even technically by taxation. You are essentially taking money away from everyone in the country by a method other than taxation.

Cutting Medicare is different. Medicare is funded by Payroll Tax. Who says Payroll Tax should only go towards Medicare? I see no reason why it shouldn't subsidise the rest of government spending, because only $950 billion in income tax has to fund the other $2 trillion odd of government spending.

Either payroll or income tax needs to be raised, and if Medicare spending is increased alongside that, the government will be completely broke. Universal healthcare is expensive, and would be even more expensive if not for the fact that quite a few people will still go for private insurance. If you make Medicare optional, nobody wealthy will pay for it (they will get much better care with private insurance) and the poor cannot possibly afford to fund the entire thing.

The best ways to reduce the deficit are to cut defence spending and get rid of Bush's tax cuts, but Medicare needs to take a cut, too. Something like twice as much is being spent on Medicare now as in 2000.

Forgive me if any of the above is completely wrong. I don't live in the USA, so this is just what I understand of how Medicare and Social Security work.

I would actually argue that Medicare and Social Security DON'T run surpluses now.

Though that's just my opinion as someone who comes from a union family.

The average person collects three times what is paid for each person... meaning the US government is NOT meeting their fiscal burden.

If the US were a private company they'd be blasted left, right and central.

Really the best way to look at it is that we are 11% over budget.

 

Really getting rid of the Bush tax cuts wouldn't even begin to dent that.  The Democrats just want to pass it because it would be one political win they could get out of the giant mass of failure they're being forced to take on due to reckless spending.

 

 

also not to mention that letting people keep their own money doesnt add to the deficit, but pretending it does.

government never gets the amount in revenue that they predict from tax increases, and in this case getting rid of the obama tax cuts (we had i vote on these tax rates not to long ago, i seem to remember obama was in office, and he suported it along with his super majorities in both houses of congress) changes behavior people shift their money around, also businesses will be less productive, higher less people, etc, therefor will pay less taxes, than say they had a thriving business with lots of employees. so raising taxes would not only have a detremental impact on economic growth but tax revenue too (there will be a ever so slight increase in tax revenue, though it wont even put a scratch on a microscopic dent on our debt)