taxes and health care

[dmek25]

taxes, just like everything else

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

taxes, just like everything else

OK. Even tax on everyone? A tax amounting to practically nothing on the poor but tons on the rich? Or mostly tax increases to corporations?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

taxes, just like everything else

OK name any major goverment program that runs well, cost efficient, or has not not grown way out of wack.

[70Chip]

Is it just me or is any health care system, anywhere based on the assumption that a majority of people will get less than what they pay for in any given time frame so that a minority can get vastly more than they pay for? In other words if every person in great Britain availed themselves of even the minimum level of care, the system would be completely overwhelmed. Isn't that so? And isn't it also true, that having the government run the system does nothing to alter this fundamental flaw?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Is it just me or is any health care system, anywhere based on the assumption that a majority of people will get less than what they pay for in any given time frame so that a minority can get vastly more than they pay for? In other words if every person in great Britain availed themselves of even the minimum level of care, the system would be completely overwhelmed. Isn't that so? And isn't it also true, that having the government run the system does nothing to alter this fundamental flaw?

It's not a "flaw", it's the fundamental nature of a risk sharing pool. You do the same with homeowners insurance, auto insurance, life insurance, etc.

But stemming from this strange post of yours I am deriving a point: however you choose to share the risk (through government or through private means), it does nothing to change the underlying costs of delivering care.

The nation must face this simple fact: healthcare science & technology has gotten so advanced and expensive that it just flat out costs a buttload. You can bring down some costs, like malpractice claims, and if you simplified reimbursement you'd need far fewer financey people like me supporting providers. But ultimately, if you want drastic cost reduction the only way to get it is through drastic reductions in utilization. How?

1) Stay healthy.
2) If you're a vegetable just pull the plug.
3) If something hurts flat out suck it up.

All way easier said than done.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

OK name any major goverment program that runs well, cost efficient, or has not not grown way out of wack.

the post office

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

the post office

Stamps keep going up in price and have you been to a post office in the past 10 years? I order stamps by fax to avoid going to the post office and the mail man delievers them in a couple of days. The few times I do go there is always 3 people doing snail work and a very long line.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by firstdown

OK name any major goverment program that runs well, cost efficient, or has not not grown way out of wack.

I attended one of the most conservative schools in the country several years ago, was taught by profs who unabashedly expressed their devotion to the right, but at least had the intelligence and honesty to admit Social Security is arguably the most efficient government program not just here but anywhere in the world. It's operating cost is something like one-half of one percent of total "revenue" and basically if we didn't constantly have conservative presidents raiding the surpluses to 1) provide tax cuts to the richest people in the country (many of whom never contribute to SS btw because they never earn W-2 income) 2) fund truly inefficient gov programs like SDI (we've spent over a trillion on SDI and it's not even close to operational) social security would be financially stable for another century.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I attended one of the most conservative schools in the country several years ago, was taught by profs who unabashedly expressed their devotion to the right, but at least had the intelligence and honesty to admit Social Security is arguably the most efficient government program not just here but anywhere in the world. It's operating cost is something like one-half of one percent of total "revenue" and basically if we didn't constantly have conservative presidents raiding the surpluses to 1) provide tax cuts to the richest people in the country (many of whom never contribute to SS btw because they never earn W-2 income) 2) fund truly inefficient gov programs like SDI (we've spent over a trillion on SDI and it's not even close to operational) social security would be financially stable for another century.

I"m curious to know what you consider to be a conservative school.

To your point, of course the operating cost is miniscule compared to the billions they collect. How much does it cost to take from Peter to give to Paul? Having said that, the operating costs were enough to make Ross Perot a billionaire.

And to claim that any particular spending item was a case of social security being "raided" is extremely misleading. One could just as easily say that Liberals "raided" social security to fund obscene art or overseas abortions.

And if SDI was such a miserable failure, why are the Russians wrapped around the axel about us deploying missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic? And how were we able to shoot down Scud missiles like 18 years ago during the Gulf War? Admittedly it wasn't 100% effective, but THAT WAS LIKE, 18 YEARS AGO.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I attended one of the most conservative schools in the country several years ago, was taught by profs who unabashedly expressed their devotion to the right, but at least had the intelligence and honesty to admit Social Security is arguably the most efficient government program not just here but anywhere in the world. It's operating cost is something like one-half of one percent of total "revenue" and basically if we didn't constantly have conservative presidents raiding the surpluses to 1) provide tax cuts to the richest people in the country (many of whom never contribute to SS btw because they never earn W-2 income) 2) fund truly inefficient gov programs like SDI (we've spent over a trillion on SDI and it's not even close to operational) social security would be financially stable for another century.

I love how you say coservative presidents have raided SS so I guess you think that Bill Clinton was a conservative. Everyone in Washington is guilty of allowing SS to get raided and thats why its another failing program. I'd also say that their are better ways for Americans to save for retirement other then the rip off program called SS. Maybe you should also look at what a few towns in Texas did when they opted out of SS and they retiring making about double of what SS pays. I'd get out of SS today given the chance but the goverment forces me to dump alot of my money into a program that is going bankrupt but thats ok we can just print more money and save this programe along with other failing goverment programs. Go to this link and go down to the chart and then tell me which retirement program you would perfer to have.
WILLisms.com: Galveston, Texas: Social Security Reform's Living Laboratory.