America this week, what the hell?

[Thefishguy77]

The US & the insurance industry is already an oligarchy and it has been this way for decades..........this is exactly why government no longer or to a greater extent represent the average voter less than ever before in it's history.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds - Washington Times

Ok well shrinking the number of insurance companies will just make it worse. And single payer usually involves 1-2 that play well with the government. Agree to charge how much they are told to charge and only give the care they are aloud to give. No thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trail Wonka]

Ok well shrinking the number of insurance companies will just make it worse. And single payer usually involves 1-2 that play well with the government. Agree to charge how much they are told to charge and only give the care they are aloud to give. No thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have obviously been misinformed on how a single payer system would work. The government would not be telling you what would be covered any differently than the insurance companies are currently. It would basically be the same system without a middle man taking so much of the proceeds.


Sent using my thumbs!

 

[CXS]

I like what Senator Paul has to say RE .gov healthcare.

Healthcare is not a right that should be paid for by the state, states Congressman Ron Paul

“You have a right to your life and you have a right to your liberty and you have a right to keep what you earn in a free country. But you do not have a right to stuff. You do not have the right to services or things, like a house or a job, because in order to get that the government would have to take that from somebody else,” explained the Congressman.

“The most you can expect in a free society is for government to make an attempt at protecting rights, not to try to re-distribute wealth. If you do that – all people will lose their rights,” he asserted.

This is fact almost no one understands. They are a bunch of children who see Government as Santa Clause.

That's pretty much total B.S. - think for a minute - we all live on some sort of government entitlement. My experience has shown that the people who have good health care are the ones against the government getting involved despite a long history of it's existence.

You drive on public roads, you're accepting an entitlement from the government. Everyone can go to public schools, that's another entitlement provided by the government. National Parks? Yep, another government entitlement. Public Parks? Same thing again. Church? Freedom from taxes is another entitlement.

Government entitlements have existed for a long time and nearly everyone benefits from these services while complaining about the "welfare culture." These arguments bring to mind the tea party people holding signs saying "Keep government out of my Medicare!" Ignorance is bliss.

Yeah, I said I'd stay out of this thread and should. Some of these comments make my blood pressure go up. Meh! I'll still down to the free clinic and pick something up. <lol>

 

[Thefishguy77]

That's pretty much total B.S. - think for a minute - we all live on some sort of government entitlement. My experience has shown that the people who have good health care are the ones against the government getting involved despite a long history of it's existence.

You drive on public roads, you're accepting an entitlement from the government. Everyone can go to public schools, that's another entitlement provided by the government. National Parks? Yep, another government entitlement. Public Parks? Same thing again. Church? Freedom from taxes is another entitlement.

Government entitlements have existed for a long time and nearly everyone benefits from these services while complaining about the "welfare culture." These arguments bring to mind the tea party people holding signs saying "Keep government out of my Medicare!" Ignorance is bliss.

Yeah, I said I'd stay out of this thread and should. Some of these comments make my blood pressure go up. Meh! I'll still down to the free clinic and pick something up. <lol>

It not about eliminating government. It's about limiting it. As to Medicare it is government run and extremely in the red always has been. They borrow money to keep it going. Road sure, military, sure, parks and forests within reason. (Most should be on a state level).

But the fact that people that do not pay in to the system get to collect from it, illegal aliens, on more than just a emergency deal(visiting and have a emergency), that's wrong. Federal government dictating state policies by treating to withhold funds if the states don't follow their ideas. Isn't it state tax payer money that goes up to the federal government then back down. Why do we need a middle man in that case, DOT, DOE, DOA, ect.

The federal government should do what it must to ensure the safety of the union but no more. Road yes, military yes, power grid well they better do something soon it's over 109 years old in places. (Electrical contractor for a while working with a major supplier) it's not if its when it fail. Health care really? Name one area in health care they do well? Seriously actually do well at it.

It has never been perfect but Obama care was a power grab for the Feds. Tax people if they don't play the game. All that really needed to change was the ability to buy insurance across state line and not be able to deny people coverage with per existing conditions. But they put themselves in charge of it and the mess has begun.

A single payer system eliminates competition thus preventing new companies from getting involved and discouraging existing companies from trying not harder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GangsterOfLove]

I swore I wouldn't get involved in political discussions on this board. This is my truck board - where I go to get away from such things. Love the trucks, the wrenching, the BBQ/smoking thread, the awesome crawler rigs, the immense database of problems and fixes, the awesome skills of so many who post.

So I'll keep it simple.

Canada has single payer. Europe has single payer. I've been to both places more than once and everyone I have spoken with loves their system and seems bewildered that the US can't seem to come up with a system that works.

I am similarly bewildered.

 

[Thefishguy77]

Look at the population numbers and then ask how it would work

35 million Canada
750 million in Europe and some of the countries can no longer afford their bills. Italy Spain Greece ect. The U.K. has long talked about making it so only citizens can qualify for their healthcare. Excluding outside students and people there on work visa's because when you have people that don't pay in to a system and then those people use the system it works out to be a net loss. As a resident in a border state I can't tell you how many Canadians I have talked to working retail and other jobs that are down here to see a doctor after June or July. The easy money in the healthcare system has been spent and now getting more "expensive, unnecessary" procedures are a pay out of pocket or wait till next year.

To quote Margaret Thatcher. "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money"

It just doesn't work long term on a large scale.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BrianSD_42]

Well lets not forget that all of those countries are capitalist-socialist hybrids, including America.

America is not purely capitalist, nor is denmark purely socialist. Those 'socialist' countries you mentioned simply lean slightly more towards socialism (particularly in areas that you might not want to be ruled by profitability, like education and healthcare).

No need to corrupt the argument with facts.


Final note: As a taxpayer I have to say, I like this quote.

"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money"

 

[Victor_inox]

Look at the population numbers and then ask how it would work

35 million Canada
750 million in Europe and some of the countries can no longer afford their bills. Italy Spain Greece ect. The U.K. has long talked about making it so only citizens can qualify for their healthcare. Excluding outside students and people there on work visa's because when you have people that don't pay in to a system and then those people use the system it works out to be a net loss. As a resident in a border state I can't tell you how many Canadians I have talked to working retail and other jobs that are down here to see a doctor after June or July. The easy money in the healthcare system has been spent and now getting more "expensive, unnecessary" procedures are a pay out of pocket or wait till next year.

To quote Margaret Thatcher. "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money"

It just doesn't work long term on a large scale.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You obsessed over population and refuse to think.
Why do you think it won`t work on large scale when opposite should be true.
It works in Europe that has more people, Greece problem is not with healthcare, so is Spain... read up on it.
THatcher quote from 40 years ago is irrelevant in today's reality.
That model of socialism long gone.

 

[Thefishguy77]

Greece and Spain's problem is from mismanaging money. The same way our government does it here. Also those happiest countries are very small in population so people are held accountable. We have states with larger populations than those countries. You want the single payer system so the burden should be on you to layout where the money will come from and how it will be spent. Do you force all of the unemployed to get jobs so they can pay taxes in to the system they will be using. Or do you just increase the tax rate of the working to help make up for the unemployed? We are close to a 50% tax rate already. 30% federal income the add in Fica, SS, and all the smaller taxes and if your not also paying a state income tax your very close to 50% of your income to the government already.

The government has already demonstrated that it can't manage our money wisely as it is. So how much more of a percentage should they get to be successful? How do you propose to get money from the 95,000,000 ish people currently not in the work force. Yes some are retired and some under 16 but many of that number are between 16-65 and they are not paying taxes to get benefits.

I have never understood how with 103 trillion in unfunded liabilities, 380,000 in assets per citizen and 860,000 debt liability per tax payer. Where is this money going to come from?

We have states that are encouraging drug use, careless sex, and reckless lifestyles. Seattle Washington is now trying to put homeless shelters with a rule that forbids the shelter from stoping its residents from using meth and heroin in the shelter.
Saying it's ok to smoke pot but cigarettes are dangerous is just going to move the cause of the problem not solve it. Lung cancer and heroin and meth overdoses are a ridiculous financial strain on the system. You can already see what happens to those systems.

The city of Seattle no longer has enough money to maintain its policing and has been forced to cut police. At the same time there is a visible uptick in crime with what has been called RV robberies. Crooks get and RV and park it in random neighborhoods rob houses and cars and then move it. Some areas in the city have resorted to employing private security to patrol their neighborhoods to help keep them safe. (Magnolia) I find this humorous as these upscale neighborhood are some of the most liberal pro social justice neighborhoods and the hens have come home to roost so to speak.
The king county police force has been forced to disband it's narcotics task force because the money is going to other social programs now.

I for one do not want a single payer healthcare system because it is and has to be run by the government. Our government sucks at running anything healthcare related. I am not saying it doesn't work in other countries but with our governments history at healthcare I for one do not want to put my life in their hands. If they can demonstrate the ability to run the VA, Medicare, Medicaid properly for an extended period of time then I am willing to reconsider. Until then to give them more control of something then can't handle is foolish. It would be like putting 16 year olds in charge of teaching drivers education. Sure they passed the test and can actually give you the book answers but real life experience is what is needed to understand how driving works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BrianSD_42]

What do you think about that fact that by law Medicare insurance is forbidding from buying drugs at open market competitive (eg Bidding) prices and instead has to buy them at the rates US pharma companies set for the system. Because of this the tax payer pays far far more for Medicare drugs. It is a problem that runs into the hundreds of billions in cost difference over time.

Crony capitalism? Well that is a direct example of companies banding together to lobby and get the law written in a way that guarantees their profits and foots the taxpayer with the higher bill.

 

[Thefishguy77]

I agree. I think lobbying should be outlawed and term limits should be in place for all government positions. City, State, Federal.

This I see as the first step to helping our country. From there we can get fresh ideas and a much lower chance of corruption.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Victor_inox]

Greece and Spain's problem is from mismanaging money. The same way our government does it here. Also those happiest countries are very small in population so people are held accountable. We have states with larger populations than those countries. You want the single payer system so the burden should be on you to layout where the money will come from and how it will be spent. Do you force all of the unemployed to get jobs so they can pay taxes in to the system they will be using. Or do you just increase the tax rate of the working to help make up for the unemployed? We are close to a 50% tax rate already. 30% federal income the add in Fica, SS, and all the smaller taxes and if your not also paying a state income tax your very close to 50% of your income to the government already.

The government has already demonstrated that it can't manage our money wisely as it is. So how much more of a percentage should they get to be successful? How do you propose to get money from the 95,000,000 ish people currently not in the work force. Yes some are retired and some under 16 but many of that number are between 16-65 and they are not paying taxes to get benefits.

I have never understood how with 103 trillion in unfunded liabilities, 380,000 in assets per citizen and 860,000 debt liability per tax payer. Where is this money going to come from?

We have states that are encouraging drug use, careless sex, and reckless lifestyles. Seattle Washington is now trying to put homeless shelters with a rule that forbids the shelter from stoping its residents from using meth and heroin in the shelter.
Saying it's ok to smoke pot but cigarettes are dangerous is just going to move the cause of the problem not solve it. Lung cancer and heroin and meth overdoses are a ridiculous financial strain on the system. You can already see what happens to those systems.

The city of Seattle no longer has enough money to maintain its policing and has been forced to cut police. At the same time there is a visible uptick in crime with what has been called RV robberies. Crooks get and RV and park it in random neighborhoods rob houses and cars and then move it. Some areas in the city have resorted to employing private security to patrol their neighborhoods to help keep them safe. (Magnolia) I find this humorous as these upscale neighborhood are some of the most liberal pro social justice neighborhoods and the hens have come home to roost so to speak.
The king county police force has been forced to disband it's narcotics task force because the money is going to other social programs now.

I for one do not want a single payer healthcare system because it is and has to be run by the government. Our government sucks at running anything healthcare related. I am not saying it doesn't work in other countries but with our governments history at healthcare I for one do not want to put my life in their hands. If they can demonstrate the ability to run the VA, Medicare, Medicaid properly for an extended period of time then I am willing to reconsider. Until then to give them more control of something then can't handle is foolish. It would be like putting 16 year olds in charge of teaching drivers education. Sure they passed the test and can actually give you the book answers but real life experience is what is needed to understand how driving works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that`s a problem with government why not to address that exactly?
Change the government if you still believe in democracy.

 

[Victor_inox]

I agree. I think lobbying should be outlawed and term limits should be in place for all government positions. City, State, Federal.

This I see as the first step to helping our country. From there we can get fresh ideas and a much lower chance of corruption.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bingo!

 

[Thefishguy77]

If that`s a problem with government why not to address that exactly?

Change the government if you still believe in democracy.

I have brought this up before and I will say it again. We don't need a new form of government. We need to get back to our original form. That began to change rapidly after around the 1920's when the majority of elected representatives changed from working Americans to lawyers and career politicians.

This rumor that we are a democracy has been fabricated. We are a republic. "Of the people. By the people. For the people". Vs a democracy "Of the people. By the people. For the country and the people." Notice how country comes before people. Now compare that to what has been happening in politics for the last 80 years and I believe the difference becomes clear.

We need to go back to being a republic as our founding documents describe. The government exist at the will of the people not the other way around. It's going to hurt a bit but if we get back on track we could once again be one of the best happiest countries in the world.

The roaring 20's was a great time to pass feel good laws. Anytime an economy is doing truly well and people are well off they tend not to notice the ramifications of "small" things. Fast forward 80-90 years and we have a big bloated government.

This all started with the progressive/Republican Party in the 20's. Later the progressives spilt from the Republican Party and joined forces with the formally conservative Democratic Party and became the progressive/Democratic Party. Now the government is mostly progressives. During the 1920's you had Waren Harding, Calvin Collidge, Herbert Hoover, all 3 progressive/republicans. And no matter what explanation you choose to believe about the cause(s) of the Great Depression it usually comes down to bloated growth in government, inflated stock market, and reckless spending by the government.

Come up to today's day and age and we have had 28 years of progressive presidents. We are facing a lot of the same problems. The government takes in record tax dollars each year and is in horrible debt. Something has to change and it's not trying a different form of government. It should at least start with going back to the long lost original form of our government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BrianSD_42]

The type of government you describe "The US of the 1920s" is not something the US can go back to, not would it have been wise to preserve.

Today's US rose up primarily out of WW2 and the post WW2 era. So much of the big government you describe is because of that.

I presume you prefer this reality where Germany was defeated and Russia was minimized.

 

[ndcent]

Greece and Spain's problem is from mismanaging money. The same way our government does it here. Also those happiest countries are very small in population so people are held accountable. We have states with larger populations than those countries. You want the single payer system so the burden should be on you to layout where the money will come from and how it will be spent. Do you force all of the unemployed to get jobs so they can pay taxes in to the system they will be using. Or do you just increase the tax rate of the working to help make up for the unemployed? We are close to a 50% tax rate already. 30% federal income the add in Fica, SS, and all the smaller taxes and if your not also paying a state income tax your very close to 50% of your income to the government already.

The government has already demonstrated that it can't manage our money wisely as it is. So how much more of a percentage should they get to be successful? How do you propose to get money from the 95,000,000 ish people currently not in the work force. Yes some are retired and some under 16 but many of that number are between 16-65 and they are not paying taxes to get benefits.

I have never understood how with 103 trillion in unfunded liabilities, 380,000 in assets per citizen and 860,000 debt liability per tax payer. Where is this money going to come from?

We have states that are encouraging drug use, careless sex, and reckless lifestyles. Seattle Washington is now trying to put homeless shelters with a rule that forbids the shelter from stoping its residents from using meth and heroin in the shelter.
Saying it's ok to smoke pot but cigarettes are dangerous is just going to move the cause of the problem not solve it. Lung cancer and heroin and meth overdoses are a ridiculous financial strain on the system. You can already see what happens to those systems.

The city of Seattle no longer has enough money to maintain its policing and has been forced to cut police. At the same time there is a visible uptick in crime with what has been called RV robberies. Crooks get and RV and park it in random neighborhoods rob houses and cars and then move it. Some areas in the city have resorted to employing private security to patrol their neighborhoods to help keep them safe. (Magnolia) I find this humorous as these upscale neighborhood are some of the most liberal pro social justice neighborhoods and the hens have come home to roost so to speak.
The king county police force has been forced to disband it's narcotics task force because the money is going to other social programs now.

I for one do not want a single payer healthcare system because it is and has to be run by the government. Our government sucks at running anything healthcare related. I am not saying it doesn't work in other countries but with our governments history at healthcare I for one do not want to put my life in their hands. If they can demonstrate the ability to run the VA, Medicare, Medicaid properly for an extended period of time then I am willing to reconsider. Until then to give them more control of something then can't handle is foolish. It would be like putting 16 year olds in charge of teaching drivers education. Sure they passed the test and can actually give you the book answers but real life experience is what is needed to understand how driving works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What states are promoting casual sex and "reckless lifestyles." Any links to these feels?

 

[Thefishguy77]

California & Washington for sure. Seattle is leading the way up here. They have been teaching oral sex as a option against casual sex. But std's are still transmitted just as easily that way. Maybe not all of them but just as easily. It's not like kids are going to use protection during oral sex. This teaching is starting around 5th grade. Also it is now ok in the Seattle school district for a minor to go to the school nurse and ask the nurse to help her get an IUD. That is the school effectively helping your child get a medical procedure with out ever talking to or informing the parents of the procedure. By doing an IUD you have effectively just told a 6th grade girl that don't worry you can't get pregnant now. This is setting a dangerous standard for someone in the age group that doesn't have any real life decision making experience. 1 example of thought "I can't get pregnant now so I guess it's ok if I make a bad decision and have unprotected sex with him".

I am not saying you should teach abstinence only. I believe you should teach all forms of birth control/std control. But we must also understand how impressionable the minds are of young people and be careful of the message we send.

I have been following these issues locally and a quick first page Google search turned up little. My googlefu is usually weak in the morning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nevada]

Agreed. But I do think there are certain things that are not only possible, but in my opinion should be a necessity. I personally don't believe any American citizen should ever have to worry about their basic healthcare. And I think it's completely possible to achieve that. Does that mean I'm for the current system that aims at that? Not at all.

why not though?
we should be responsibly for EVERY other aspect of our lives, why not our healthcare also? why should you(we) choose to abdicate our personal responsibilities for ANYTHING? but especially healthcare.

I believe that would only move us further down the road we are on now. that's not a good thing. once someone else is "taking care" of you, people will likely make worse choices in regards to their health, putting much more burden on healthcare, and those that are actually paying for it....

 

[Hepar]

why not though?
we should be responsibly for EVERY other aspect of our lives, why not our healthcare also? why should you(we) choose to abdicate our personal responsibilities for ANYTHING? but especially healthcare.

I believe that would only move us further down the road we are on now. that's not a good thing. once someone else is "taking care" of you, people will likely make worse choices in regards to their health, putting much more burden on healthcare, and those that are actually paying for it....

Why not? Because sh*t happens. Life circumstances can take you from being fully-covered one day and not the next. Have the bad timing of something catastrophic happening and you're screwed. But again, it's my personal opinion. Not saying that everyone should agree with me. I see both sides of the argument on this one. Just how I feel. I personally wouldn't mind my tax dollars going more towards making sure our citizens are as healthy as they can be.

 

[Victor_inox]

California & Washington for sure. Seattle is leading the way up here. They have been teaching oral sex as a option against casual sex. But std's are still transmitted just as easily that way. Maybe not all of them but just as easily. It's not like kids are going to use protection during oral sex. This teaching is starting around 5th grade. Also it is now ok in the Seattle school district for a minor to go to the school nurse and ask the nurse to help her get an IUD. That is the school effectively helping your child get a medical procedure with out ever talking to or informing the parents of the procedure. By doing an IUD you have effectively just told a 6th grade girl that don't worry you can't get pregnant now. This is setting a dangerous standard for someone in the age group that doesn't have any real life decision making experience. 1 example of thought "I can't get pregnant now so I guess it's ok if I make a bad decision and have unprotected sex with him".

I am not saying you should teach abstinence only. I believe you should teach all forms of birth control/std control. But we must also understand how impressionable the minds are of young people and be careful of the message we send.

I have been following these issues locally and a quick first page Google search turned up little. My googlefu is usually weak in the morning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And what message that would be? I really want to know.
If my girl (i don`t have any)having sex in 6th grade I`m all up for IUD for her, better than unwanted bastards.