Opinion: The US Economy Would Soar Under Sanders

[horses4courses]

Economics professor Gerald Friedman (U. Mass. - Amherst) figures this country
would blossom under the policies of Bernie Sanders. Feel free to disagree.. :lol:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/160205160655-bernie-sanders-econ-plan-780x439.jpg

[zico20]

Sanders is pushing for a major tax increase on the middle class. Since consumer spending makes up 2/3 of our economy, we know how serious to take this article. If the middle class is taxed to death, how are they going to spend money and drive the economy. I wish Sanders would answer that before he steals all of my money.

[horses4courses]

Sanders is pushing for a major tax increase on the middle class. Since consumer spending makes up 2/3 of our economy, we know how serious to take this article. If the middle class is taxed to death, how are they going to spend money and drive the economy. I wish Sanders would answer that before he steals all of my money.

Taxing the middle class to death would appear to be
in conflict with raising the median household income
to over $80K, would it not?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

"Like the New Deal of the 1930s, Senator Sanders' program is designed to do more than merely increase economic activity," Friedman writes. It will "promote a more just prosperity, broadly-based with a narrowing of economy inequality."

Translation: Raise taxes on the producers, re-distribute to the slackers. Or - allow a bigger slice of the pie to the takers from the makers.

We're headed down this path anyway, as the angry young members of society figure out how badly they've been screwed. Unfortunately the intended outcome will have us looking more like 1970s Yogoslavia. But if Bernie gets any of his proposals past the Banksters and lives to implement it, I'll be shocked.

[ebcorde]

Business won't hire and Bernie can't make them. This is the problem Obama is having. I've heard talk about Banks, and Wal-Mart.

Like Home Depot or Lowe's? That's a monopoly of TWO. We need more small business and bring back the breakup of the large companies like we did Bell Tell. 2-4 competitors is a monopoly.

[zico20]

Taxing the middle class to death would appear to be
in conflict with raising the median household income
to over $80K, would it not?

He has proposed massive tax hikes on the middle class. This idea has never worked, not then, not now, and not in the future. I also like how spending trillions of dollars will bring down the deficit and start running a surplus. Yea right, if that would work, then there would not be a country on the planet that would have a budget problem. Also, why not just give everyone enough money to get to the 80 thousand? No more poor people!!

[barahona44]

We have a 19 trillion dollar debt, Sanders' freebies would double that.The problem is that there aren't enough 1 percenters to tax to pay for all this, much of their wealth is in illiquid assets.As a lifelong centrist Democrat, I'd rather vote for Trump than Sanders.And I have no intention on voting for Trump.There's nothing wrong with improving the lot of the middle class, this nation is always stronger when that happens.But do we really want to be the next Greece?

Also I live 20 miles from UMass and my wife is a grad.It's a very insular.liberal world (Smith, Amherst, Mt. Holyoke , Hampshire and UMASS are all in a 10 mile radius),where taxpayers and very wealthy alumnae shield the college community from the harsh realities of life.

[ebcorde]

Rubio and most of congress want millions of degreed visa people to enter the country

But here's the problem, my oldest son wanted to attend a Grad school in China. Why? Because it's $3,000 a year including room and board.

What China, India and the other countries that provide free to low cost education is send their people HERE.

They can work for less because here we pay $40k-$60k a year for a college education. Our college kids cannot afford to work for 40k like the foreigners.

In these debates this needs to be hammered. Rubio is all for these people coming over here undercutting our kids. I want him to explain that.

[zico20]

We have a 19 trillion dollar debt, Sanders' freebies would double that.The problem is that there aren't enough 1 percenters to tax to pay for all this, much of their wealth is in illiquid assets.As a lifelong centrist Democrat, I'd rather vote for Trump than Sanders.And I have no intention on voting for Trump.There's nothing wrong with improving the lot of the middle class, this nation is always stronger when that happens.But do we really want to be the next Greece?

Also I live 20 miles from UMass and my wife is a grad.It's a very insular.liberal world (Smith, Amherst, Mt. Holyoke , Hampshire and UMASS are all in a 10 mile radius),where taxpayers and very wealthy alumnae shield the college community from the harsh realities of life.

But you can't improve the middle class when you take most of their money away from them. All this will do is make more middle class people poor and reliant on the government, which is Sanders ultimate goal. He is a communist.

[Mandrake]

Friedman is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. He wants single payer health care, big government, big labor, revolution. Read his articles.

[ebcorde]

We have a 19 trillion dollar debt, Sanders' freebies would double that.The problem is that there aren't enough 1 percenters to tax to pay for all this, much of their wealth is in illiquid assets.As a lifelong centrist Democrat, I'd rather vote for Trump than Sanders.And I have no intention on voting for Trump.There's nothing wrong with improving the lot of the middle class, this nation is always stronger when that happens.But do we really want to be the next Greece?

Also I live 20 miles from UMass and my wife is a grad.It's a very insular.liberal world (Smith, Amherst, Mt. Holyoke , Hampshire and UMASS are all in a 10 mile radius),where taxpayers and very wealthy alumnae shield the college community from the harsh realities of life.

But Bernie debt is helping America ONLY, how much of that current 19 trillion debt was for war in other countries? we're still paying for WWII, Korea, Vietnam last I heard. Money goes overseas and to the Haliburton's and we're stuck with the bill.

you want to be safe? don't piss people off. get off the we're #1 and we have to lead the world. why? we have the highest murder rate among industrialized nations. They don't want us to lead, they want us to spend our money. why else did the French President come running when Paris was attacked? France has about 600-700 murders year, and our congress is concerned about them?? Bernie is right about a revolution.


Whose paying for Flint Michigan? Netanyaho paying for it? had enough, states rights? States rights to put lead in your drinking water. Flint should arm themselves and start shooting State officials. Give my kid lead I'm shooting them with LEAD.

That's why I tired of the republican debates. It's all about their desire for wars
none of them ever mentions Flint Michigan, that's how dismissive they are of Americans.

[barahona44]

But Bernie debt is helping America ONLY, how much of that current 19 trillion debt was for war in other countries? we're still paying for WWII, Korea, Vietnam last I heard. Money goes overseas and to the Haliburton's and we're stuck with the bill.

you want to be safe? don't piss people off. get off the we're #1 and we have to lead the world. why? we have the highest murder rate among industrialized nations. They don't want us to lead, they want us to spend our money. why else did the French President come running when Paris was attacked? France has about 600-700 murders year, and our congress is concerned about them?? Bernie is right about a revolution.


Whose paying for Flint Michigan? Netanyaho paying for it? had enough, states rights? States rights to put lead in your drinking water. Flint should arm themselves and start shooting State officials. Give my kid lead I'm shooting them with LEAD.

That's why I tired of the republican debates. It's all about their desire for wars
none of them ever mentions Flint Michigan, that's how dismissive they are of Americans.
You'd make a lot of money selling that T-shirt slogan in Flint. :)

[maddog42]

Before you guys get all crazy, the Motley Fool says this about the Sanders plan. The average lower incomes would go from 15% to 17.2% or from 25% to 27.2%. The upper bracket would go up much higher.

http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/02/07/bernie-sanders-income-tax-brackets-how-much-would.aspx

[zico20]

But Bernie debt is helping America ONLY, how much of that current 19 trillion debt was for war in other countries? we're still paying for WWII, Korea, Vietnam last I heard. Money goes overseas and to the Haliburton's and we're stuck with the bill.

you want to be safe? don't piss people off. get off the we're #1 and we have to lead the world. why? we have the highest murder rate among industrialized nations. They don't want us to lead, they want us to spend our money. why else did the French President come running when Paris was attacked? France has about 600-700 murders year, and our congress is concerned about them?? Bernie is right about a revolution.


Whose paying for Flint Michigan? Netanyaho paying for it? had enough, states rights? States rights to put lead in your drinking water. Flint should arm themselves and start shooting State officials. Give my kid lead I'm shooting them with LEAD.

That's why I tired of the republican debates. It's all about their desire for wars
none of them ever mentions Flint Michigan, that's how dismissive they are of Americans.

Are we going to have another misleading post about the murder rate among industrialized nations. Mexico is an industrialized nation, they have a much higher murder rate than us. I can go on and on with more countries, like Brazil. Your argument is false, sorry.

[rastajenk]

Question for the Bernie Clones: what are the supposed benefits to society of free college? Isn't post-high school education supposed to be a process of differentiation, where the more accomplished are expected to be rewarded in later life for their accomplishments? If that were to remain to be the case, wouldn't free college just produce more losers? Will students get certificates of participation if they can't earn real degrees? Or if everyone gets a degree, wouldn't that suppress the earning power of those that in today's reality might actually deserve it?

I think it's just a ploy to get more brainwashed liberal arts majors out there and hasten our collective demise; not seeing the upside at all. And that's not even getting in to the cost of it all.

[Tom]

Horsey, it was a typo- it should have read "economy will SOUR under Bernie."
:lol:

[Tom]

FREE college is a lie. Taxpayers pay for it.
I am in favor of REAL FREE college - that is where the universities are not allowed to charge anyone for it.

Try that on for size.

[Racetrack Playa]

Are we going to have another misleading post about the murder rate among industrialized nations. Mexico is an industrialized nation, they have a much higher murder rate than us. I can go on and on with more countries, like Brazil. Your argument is false, sorry.
..
I am thinking that if a US city has a NFL team , its murder rate is probably higher than Mexico's. just thinkin

[azeri98]

FREE college is a lie. Taxpayers pay for it.
I am in favor of REAL FREE college - that is where the universities are not allowed to charge anyone for it.

Try that on for size.
I agree, education should be free. IMO that's how countries thrive, the more educated people you have the better the economy and society would be. I also think that if U.S. stopped giving handouts to these poor ass countries or "allies" it would be a lot better off. I can't say if the economy would be better under Bernie. He has some good ideas but could be too unrealistic. You guys already have the strongest military in the world by far, why do the Reps what to increase the spending on the military, ones of the biggest reasons for all the debt is all the long wars that result in nothing but lost lives and mentally damaged vets and the increased hatred for America.

[zico20]

..
I am thinking that if a US city has a NFL team , its murder rate is probably higher than Mexico's. just thinkin

I live in St. Louis, and yes the murder rate is high. It can start going down now that the Rams moved out of town. Sucks to be LA, they already have enough problems to deal with, now they are adding another. :D

[fast4522]

FREE college is a lie. Taxpayers pay for it.
I am in favor of REAL FREE college - that is where the universities are not allowed to charge anyone for it.

Try that on for size.

Watch what is next Tom, he is going to say free weed for everyone.

[AndyC]

Business won't hire and Bernie can't make them. This is the problem Obama is having. I've heard talk about Banks, and Wal-Mart.

Like Home Depot or Lowe's? That's a monopoly of TWO. We need more small business and bring back the breakup of the large companies like we did Bell Tell. 2-4 competitors is a monopoly.

Most monopolies are a function of government regulation. Home Depot, Lowes, Wal-Mart, Costco, are big because they offer goods and services that people demand at a price they are willing to pay. We don't need small businesses to replace big businesses we need them to innovate and compete with big businesses. Of course with the myriad of regulations strangling growth and creation of small businesses, big businesses are the only ones that can afford to go forward.

[azeri98]

Most monopolies are a function of government regulation. Home Depot, Lowes, Wal-Mart, Costco, are big because they offer goods and services that people demand at a price they are willing to pay. We don't need small businesses to replace big businesses we need them to innovate and compete with big businesses. Of course with the myriad of regulations strangling growth and creation of small businesses, big businesses are the only ones that can afford to go forward.
Once the little ones are very successful they got bought out by one of the big ones, happens quite often now.

[davew]

If the median income would increase by $22K, does that mean people who do not work will get $22K more in benefits?

[reckless]

For all you Bernie Sanders (and by extension Hillary, Democrat Party, uber liberals, phony lefties, dolts, dweebs and lunatics) do you really want me to foot the bill for these college students?

And, after watching this short video, do you really expect corporations to hire any of them?

https://www.facebook.com/salon/videos/10153420067871519/?fref=nf

[horses4courses]

phony lefties, dolts, dweebs and lunatics

Something against liberals, reck??? :lol:

[LottaKash]

If the median income would increase by $22K, does that mean people who do not work will get $22K more in benefits?

That's right....More "change is come"...Until there is nothing left of us...

[OntheRail]

Economics professor Gerald Friedman (U. Mass. - Amherst) figures this country
would blossom under the policies of Bernie Sanders. Feel free to disagree.. :lol:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom


And Pigs will Fly... ;) :lol: :lol:

[sammy the sage]

And Pigs will Fly... ;) :lol: :lol:

You can't make a silk purse outta of pig's ear...

[mostpost]

Sanders is pushing for a major tax increase on the middle class. Since consumer spending makes up 2/3 of our economy, we know how serious to take this article. If the middle class is taxed to death, how are they going to spend money and drive the economy. I wish Sanders would answer that before he steals all of my money.
Sanders tax increase would save families thousands of dollars each year. "But mostpost, how can that be?" you ask. This is all a part of the Medicare for all plan that Sanders campaign released.

There are two new taxes. First is an additional 2.2% income tax on all Americans. According to the Sanders campaign, that would cost the average family of four, $466 a year. But that family would no longer need private health insurance. Currently that family of four pays an average of $4955 in health insurance premiums. Simple arithmetic tells us they are saving $4489. There will also be no copays or deductibles. That saves an additional
$2012.

The second part of the plan is a 6.2% tax on employers. This would cost them $3100 per employee. But they would no longer have to pay the employers share of health care premiums which amounts to $12,600. So again, in this case the companies save $9500 a year. Of course if they were not providing health care to begin with they lose. Which is what they deserve.

[davew]

Sanders tax increase would save families thousands of dollars each year. "But mostpost, how can that be?" you ask. This is all a part of the Medicare for all plan that Sanders campaign released.

There are two new taxes. First is an additional 2.2% income tax on all Americans. According to the Sanders campaign, that would cost the average family of four, $466 a year. But that family would no longer need private health insurance. Currently that family of four pays an average of $4955 in health insurance premiums. Simple arithmetic tells us they are saving $4489. There will also be no copays or deductibles. That saves an additional
$2012.

The second part of the plan is a 6.2% tax on employers. This would cost them $3100 per employee. But they would no longer have to pay the employers share of health care premiums which amounts to $12,600. So again, in this case the companies save $9500 a year. Of course if they were not providing health care to begin with they lose. Which is what they deserve.


thank goodness we can get rid of the health insurance industry and let it be run by a more efficient government agency like DHHS or IRS

[classhandicapper]

When the general public falls for nonsense like this I can understand it. But when an economics professor goes along with it, it's an indictment of our educational system.

[AndyC]

Sanders tax increase would save families thousands of dollars each year. "But mostpost, how can that be?" you ask. This is all a part of the Medicare for all plan that Sanders campaign released.

There are two new taxes. First is an additional 2.2% income tax on all Americans. According to the Sanders campaign, that would cost the average family of four, $466 a year. But that family would no longer need private health insurance. Currently that family of four pays an average of $4955 in health insurance premiums. Simple arithmetic tells us they are saving $4489. There will also be no copays or deductibles. That saves an additional
$2012.

The second part of the plan is a 6.2% tax on employers. This would cost them $3100 per employee. But they would no longer have to pay the employers share of health care premiums which amounts to $12,600. So again, in this case the companies save $9500 a year. Of course if they were not providing health care to begin with they lose. Which is what they deserve.

How lucky can we be? First I got to keep my plan if I liked my plan, I got to keep my Dr. if I liked my Dr. all the while saving $2,500 for my family. Now I can tack on another $2,012 to my savings! Given the great success of the ACA what voter wouldn't rush to the polls to pull the lever for Sanders?

[dartman51]

Economics professor Gerald Friedman (U. Mass. - Amherst) figures this country
would blossom under the policies of Bernie Sanders. Feel free to disagree.. :lol:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/160205160655-bernie-sanders-econ-plan-780x439.jpg


ANYBODY!! and I do mean ANYBODY, that believes that bullshit, needs to be removed from the voter registration rolls, as they are just too stupid to vote. Voting for Bernie is one thing, everyone is free to vote for whomever they please, but to believe that it's all going to be sunshine, lollipops, rainbows and unicorns, is ludicrous. Obama was going to fix everything and bring the world together, and we would all be sitting around singing Kum Ba Yah. How did that work out. :faint: Are you sure that's not from Kinky Friedman, instead of Gerald?

[dartman51]

Sanders tax increase would save families thousands of dollars each year. "But mostpost, how can that be?" you ask. This is all a part of the Medicare for all plan that Sanders campaign released.

There are two new taxes. First is an additional 2.2% income tax on all Americans. According to the Sanders campaign, that would cost the average family of four, $466 a year. But that family would no longer need private health insurance. Currently that family of four pays an average of $4955 in health insurance premiums. Simple arithmetic tells us they are saving $4489. There will also be no copays or deductibles. That saves an additional
$2012.

The second part of the plan is a 6.2% tax on employers. This would cost them $3100 per employee. But they would no longer have to pay the employers share of health care premiums which amounts to $12,600. So again, in this case the companies save $9500 a year. Of course if they were not providing health care to begin with they lose. Which is what they deserve.

And the ONLY way that works is if the government forces doctors to work for $15 pr hr. :rolleyes: I wouldn't want a doctor operating on me, that's making $15 pr hour, scraping to get by, coming to work pissed off because his Mercedes just got repoed. :faint:

[dartman51]

When the general public falls for nonsense like this I can understand it. But when an economics professor goes along with it, it's an indictment of our educational system.

Guys like him, are the reason that MoPo and others, post the stupid crap they do, on here. Because they believe that crap. Hell, he's a University professor, he wouldn't lie, or mislead anyone. :rolleyes: :lol: :lol:

[pandy]

Business won't hire and Bernie can't make them. This is the problem Obama is having. I've heard talk about Banks, and Wal-Mart.

Like Home Depot or Lowe's? That's a monopoly of TWO. We need more small business and bring back the breakup of the large companies like we did Bell Tell. 2-4 competitors is a monopoly.


Interesting point. But there are different ways of looking at these big box stores and other big companies. My oldest son works for Best Buy and has for many years and my wife has worked for Lowe's for less than a year. My wife designs and sells kitchens, such as cabinets, counter tops. She's worked for several small, privately owned kitchen cabinet stores in her life. Not one of them paid her as much as she makes at Lowes, the benefits weren't as good, in some cases her boss (the owner) was a prick, and as soon as the economy slows these small bushiness owners lay off their employees immediately.

My son started at the bottom for Best Buy and has a six figure income plus good benefits and other forms of compensation. I'm all for small business growth, and I understand how important it is for the economy, but I also have worked for both small businesses and large corporations. In terms of working conditions, it wasn't close. The corporations had employee protection (Human Resources), benefits, promotions, etc. The small companies took advantage of me. Many people who own their own business are greedy and they want to take most of the profit, they don't want to share it with their employees. And from my experience, and my wife's, they don't treat their employees well.

[OntheRail]

How lucky can we be? First I got to keep my plan if I liked my plan, I got to keep my Dr. if I liked my Dr. all the while saving $2,500 for my family. Now I can tack on another $2,012 to my savings! Given the great success of the ACA what voter wouldn't rush to the polls to pull the lever for Sanders?
Yep... fool me once shame on you... fool me twice... I must be a democratic kool-aide drinker. :rolleyes:

[Greyfox]

ANYBODY!! and I do mean ANYBODY, that believes that bullshit, needs to be removed from the voter registration rolls, as they are just too stupid to vote. Voting for Bernie is one thing, everyone is free to vote for whomever they please, but to believe that it's all going to be sunshine, lollipops, rainbows and unicorns, is ludicrous.

Well said! :ThmbUp:

[AndyC]

Interesting point. But there are different ways of looking at these big box stores and other big companies. My oldest son works for Best Buy and has for many years and my wife has worked for Lowe's for less than a year. My wife designs and sells kitchens, such as cabinets, counter tops. She's worked for several small, privately owned kitchen cabinet stores in her life. Not one of them paid her as much as she makes at Lowes, the benefits weren't as good, in some cases her boss (the owner) was a prick, and as soon as the economy slows these small bushiness owners lay off their employees immediately.

My son started at the bottom for Best Buy and has a six figure income plus good benefits and other forms of compensation. I'm all for small business growth, and I understand how important it is for the economy, but I also have worked for both small businesses and large corporations. In terms of working conditions, it wasn't close. The corporations had employee protection (Human Resources), benefits, promotions, etc. The small companies took advantage of me. Many people who own their own business are greedy and they want to take most of the profit, they don't want to share it with their employees. And from my experience, and my wife's, they don't treat their employees well.

But, but, big corporations are just greedy and no good.

[ebcorde]

Are we going to have another misleading post about the murder rate among industrialized nations. Mexico is an industrialized nation, they have a much higher murder rate than us. I can go on and on with more countries, like Brazil. Your argument is false, sorry.



China and the EU will creep in and take it all from America, because their not killing their customers, past , present and future.

China has not fired one shot.

One has to think 30 years out from now, what will be the aftermath of all these bombing conflicts, 15 years and counting.

Mexico, Brazil? I had no idea they were such powerhouses. I would love for them to be the leader of the world so we can retire and take care of our 20 trillion dollar debt. When can they take over?

[mostpost]

thank goodness we can get rid of the health insurance industry and let it be run by a more efficient government agency like DHHS or IRS
It is a proven, undeniable fact that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. Medicare has administrative costs of 3% to 4%. Administrative costs for private insurance companies range from 10% to 15%-and I am being generous there.

[mostpost]

When the general public falls for nonsense like this I can understand it. But when an economics professor goes along with it, it's an indictment of our educational system.
Maybe you are the indictment of our education system, falling for the big business propaganda about free markets and no government oversight ever, no matter what.

[mostpost]

How lucky can we be? First I got to keep my plan if I liked my plan, I got to keep my Dr. if I liked my Dr. all the while saving $2,500 for my family. Now I can tack on another $2,012 to my savings! Given the great success of the ACA what voter wouldn't rush to the polls to pull the lever for Sanders?
I am so sick of you people and that $2500 crap. You're like a pit bull, except a pit bull is not supposed to be intelligent. That $2500 claim was made years before Obamacare was passed. It has nothing to do with Obamacare. It was based on a different plan. You never believed anything Obama said, but suddenly you believed this and you feel oh so betrayed!! Cut the crap.

If you are fool enough to keep a plan that does not pay essential benefits-and often costs more-then you deserve to lose your plan.

[mostpost]

And the ONLY way that works is if the government forces doctors to work for $15 pr hr. :rolleyes: I wouldn't want a doctor operating on me, that's making $15 pr hour, scraping to get by, coming to work pissed off because his Mercedes just got repoed. :faint:
Do you have any actual proof of that nonsensical statement. Doctors are not going to be working for $15 an hour, nor should they. The price of services and treatments is not going to change. (They should go down) A doctor's earnings are not going to change. The only difference is that instead of submitting claims to many different insurance companies, the doctor's office will submit them to Medicare for all.

I do not think that doctors earn too much money, given the cost of their education and the difficulty and importance of the work they do, but I cannot get worked up over their Mercedes being repoed.

[LottaKash]

I am so sick of you people ............Cut the crap. ...................you deserve to lose your plan.

Key words.... :eek:

[mostpost]

ANYBODY!! and I do mean ANYBODY, that believes that bullshit, needs to be removed from the voter registration rolls, as they are just too stupid to vote. Voting for Bernie is one thing, everyone is free to vote for whomever they please, but to believe that it's all going to be sunshine, lollipops, rainbows and unicorns, is ludicrous. Obama was going to fix everything and bring the world together, and we would all be sitting around singing Kum Ba Yah. How did that work out. :faint: Are you sure that's not from Kinky Friedman, instead of Gerald?
Yep, remove them from the voter rolls. Everyone who does not agree with you should not be allowed to vote. I think they are using that plan in North Korea.

[Tom]

I think all of mostie's post should be required to start with "Once upon a time...."

[classhandicapper]

Maybe you are the indictment of our education system, falling for the big business propaganda about free markets and no government oversight ever, no matter what.

Where did I ever say no government oversight ever. I'm in favor of sensible regulations. I'm just not in favor of people that don't understand basic economics and business making the rules.

It's very clear that government is incompetent, and more importantly corrupt.

The idea is to allow free and fair markets to allocate the wealth of the nation because intelligent people driven by profit and return on capital will either do a good job or they will be driven out of business. That's more efficient than allowing incompetent politicians elected by people that want something for nothing driving political decision making. It's also better than allowing those capitalists to buy those corrupt politicians and using the wealth inside government to enrich themselves.

Only liberals are foolish enough to believe that 1 + 1 = 3. It's more like 1 + 1 = 1 because of all the waste, incompetence, politics, promises, and corruption.

[AndyC]

I am so sick of you people and that $2500 crap. You're like a pit bull, except a pit bull is not supposed to be intelligent. That $2500claim was made years before Obamacare was passed. It has nothing to do with Obamacare. It was based on a different plan. You never believed anything Obama said, but suddenly you believed this and you feel oh so betrayed!! Cut the crap.

If you are fool enough to keep a plan that does not pay essential benefits-and often costs more-then you deserve to lose your plan.

Of course it was all said BEFORE it was passed. That was the big lie to get enough people to believe it could be true. But I get it, this time it will be different. With 100% government control what could possibly go wrong?

[zico20]

I am so sick of you people and that $2500 crap. You're like a pit bull, except a pit bull is not supposed to be intelligent. That $2500 claim was made years before Obamacare was passed. It has nothing to do with Obamacare. It was based on a different plan. You never believed anything Obama said, but suddenly you believed this and you feel oh so betrayed!! Cut the crap.

If you are fool enough to keep a plan that does not pay essential benefits-and often costs more-then you deserve to lose your plan.

So what you are saying is that Democrats had a choice between a plan that would save people 2500 and a plan that would raise their insurance rates. And the Democrats went with the plan that raises peoples health care costs. No wonder nobody should ever vote for a Democrat. Democrats certainly do not look out for the American people, and you just proved it. THANK YOU!!!

[mostpost]

Of course it was all said BEFORE it was passed. That was the big lie to get enough people to believe it could be true. But I get it, this time it will be different. With 100% government control what could possibly go wrong?
The first time I ever heard the $2500 theme was after Obamacare was passed. I heard it from Republicans. My point is that between 2007 and the passage of Obamacare in 2010, I do not recall hearing that phrase. Talking points during the healthcare debate revolved around reducing the number of uninsured-it has
done that; prohibiting cancellation of policies for preexisting conditions-that has been accomplished; providing equal premiums for women-done; providing certain basic tests and services with no out of pocket costs-done; prohibiting policy cancellation because of illness-done.

Reducing costs was also talked about but I do not recall any specific number put forth in regards to the debate on the ACA.

[zico20]

The first time I ever heard the $2500 theme was after [/B[B]]Obamacare was passed. I heard it from Republicans. My point is that between 2007 and the passage of Obamacare in 2010, I do not recall hearing that phrase. Talking points during the healthcare debate revolved around reducing the number of uninsured-it has
done that; prohibiting cancellation of policies for preexisting conditions-that has been accomplished; providing equal premiums for women-done; providing certain basic tests and services with no out of pocket costs-done; prohibiting policy cancellation because of illness-done.

Reducing costs was also talked about but I do not recall any specific number put forth in regards to the debate on the ACA.

Were you living under a rock for years? Obama made that claim over and over on numerous campaign speeches and talk shows.

http://amac.us/president-obamas-promise-2500-medical-savings-turn-2200-increase/

http://www.breitbart.com/blog/2013/10/28/video-19-times-obama-promised-to-lower-annual-insurance-premiums-by-2500/

[zico20]

Sanders tax increase would save families thousands of dollars each year. "But mostpost, how can that be?" you ask. This is all a part of the Medicare for all plan that Sanders campaign released.

There are two new taxes. First is an additional 2.2% income tax on all Americans. According to the Sanders campaign, that would cost the average family of four, $466 a year. But that family would no longer need private health insurance. Currently that family of four pays an average of $4955 in health insurance premiums. Simple arithmetic tells us they are saving $4489. There will also be no copays or deductibles. That saves an additional
$2012.

The second part of the plan is a 6.2% tax on employers. This would cost them $3100 per employee. But they would no longer have to pay the employers share of health care premiums which amounts to $12,600. So again, in this case the companies save $9500 a year. Of course if they were not providing health care to begin with they lose. Which is what they deserve.

I have a question for you. According to your numbers and Sanders numbers, the average family will save 5800 per year. If that is correct, then why do we need a tax increase if everybody is going to save money. Would it not be better for the average family to have their taxes lowered and save less of their 5800 from health care.

This scam sounds a lot like a Nigerian email claiming you won 20 million but you need to send them 1000 bucks for shipping and processing. Sanders plan is the same way. He demands all of your money up front and then you get nothing in return on the back end. If Sanders really thought people were going to save 5800 bucks a year, he would not need a tax increase, now would he.

[ebcorde]

Interesting point. But there are different ways of looking at these big box stores and other big companies. My oldest son works for Best Buy and has for many years and my wife has worked for Lowe's for less than a year. My wife designs and sells kitchens, such as cabinets, counter tops. She's worked for several small, privately owned kitchen cabinet stores in her life. Not one of them paid her as much as she makes at Lowes, the benefits weren't as good, in some cases her boss (the owner) was a prick, and as soon as the economy slows these small bushiness owners lay off their employees immediately.

My son started at the bottom for Best Buy and has a six figure income plus good benefits and other forms of compensation. I'm all for small business growth, and I understand how important it is for the economy, but I also have worked for both small businesses and large corporations. In terms of working conditions, it wasn't close. The corporations had employee protection (Human Resources), benefits, promotions, etc. The small companies took advantage of me. Many people who own their own business are greedy and they want to take most of the profit, they don't want to share it with their employees. And from my experience, and my wife's, they don't treat their employees well.

Best Buy pays that much? He must be at Corporate.

And you are correct I worked Small and Large.
Some Small business pay and benefits are the same as large , well at least it was!!!!!
I worked for one great small company for 12 years. Commute was a killer, and then The owner decided to retire and he sold it for 500 million, He started out in his garage 20 years earlier. One thing I learned from him is "Do what your customers want" and have vision. That's one advantage of small companies vison and creativity. When I worked at big companies no one cares, I got lazy.

[ebcorde]

I have a question for you. According to your numbers and Sanders numbers, the average family will save 5800 per year. If that is correct, then why do we need a tax increase if everybody is going to save money. Would it not be better for the average family to have their taxes lowered and save less of their 5800 from health care.

This scam sounds a lot like a Nigerian email claiming you won 20 million but you need to send them 1000 bucks for shipping and processing. Sanders plan is the same way. He demands all of your money up front and then you get nothing in return on the back end. If Sanders really thought people were going to save 5800 bucks a year, he would not need a tax increase, now would he.


dude, I'm a lib as you well figured out. I don't care if it's fooging Bernie Clinton, Trump, Bush , or Rubio. "SHOW ME THE NUMBERS and how you get there"' else it's all bullsheet

The right is against Obamacare, not once have they produced a detailed plan that's better. Put it on the internet. instead they think a 2 minute session with CNN is the solution.


they want to win me over? show me a detailed plan that promises to reduce healthcare costs to France or Germany level in 5 years. I'll read it on the internet. Instead they spend millions to be elected to do what? piss on the other guy. I hate them

I have to stop here before the FBI knocks on my door.

[mostpost]

It's very clear that government is incompetent, and more importantly corrupt.
I realize this is on page one of your businessman's Bible, and it is true there is some corruption in government, but let's talk about real corruption.
Like major financial institutions manipulating the price of gold and silver and insider trading of those commodities.
Like Goldman Sachs providing home buyers which it knew would fail, then placing bets on those failures.
Like banks making predatory loans to American cities.
Like major Wall Street Banks using creative accounting techniques to disguise the size of their balance sheets.
Like insane Executive bonuses.

There is no corporate corruption.
Walmart never paid Mexican officials $24M in exchange for construction permits.
GE Subsidiaries never bribed Iraqi officials with cash, computer equipment, medical supplies and services to obtain valuable contracts under the UN Oil for food program, They paid a $23M fine for never doing that.
John & Johnson did not pay bribes to public health officials in several European countries to secure sales contracts. That $70M fine they paid is just a rumor.
Ralph Lauren never bribed Argentinian customs officials to secure favorable treatment for its shipments into the country,
Pfizer did not bribe officials in Russia, China,and other countries to secure regulatory approval for its drugs. They paid that $45M fine because they thought it would be fun to do so.

There are more examples here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/foreign-corruption_n_3640085.html#gallery/309872/4

Yes, there is corruption in government. It usually involves business paying off a government official. But the corruption in government pales before the corruption in corporate America.

[Tom]

Like Goldman Sachs providing home buyers which it knew would fail, then placing bets on those failures.

Forced to do this by the democrats. Even W warned us about this.
And, so there is no doubt, government it thoroughly corrupt and totally incompetent. There is n debate on that.

[mostpost]

It's very clear that government is incompetent
That is not at all clear. In fact, it is wrong. Every month Social Security sends out millions of benefit checks on time, for the right amount and to the right person. At least it did. Nowadays everything goes through direct deposit or debit card. Still, everyone gets their benefit on time.

Medicare processes thousands of claims daily, at least as efficiently as private insurance companies.

Someone is sure to bring up the financial problems of Social Security and Medicare, but that has nothing to do with how they perform their functions.

USPS delivers 512,000,000 pieces of mail daily with an error rate of less than 2%.
IRS is very competent. If it wasn't it would not be hated so much.

[LottaKash]

Reducing costs was also talked about but I do not recall any specific number put forth in regards to the debate on the ACA.

Debate, what debate ?....

They "were told" to pass the OC-bill, and "only then", did anyone have the "right" to read it and debate it.... :eek:

Amerka just plain got suckered punched right in the kisser with that "debate".... We found out what was in it, more gov't control over this land, and it's people... That's what was in it...

OC, solved nothing, imo....

[ebcorde]

That is not at all clear. In fact, it is wrong. Every month Social Security sends out millions of benefit checks on time, for the right amount and to the right person. At least it did. Nowadays everything goes through direct deposit or debit card. Still, everyone gets their benefit on time.

Medicare processes thousands of claims daily, at least as efficiently as private insurance companies.

Someone is sure to bring up the financial problems of Social Security and Medicare, but that has nothing to do with how they perform their functions.

USPS delivers 512,000,000 pieces of mail daily with an error rate of less than 2%.
IRS is very competent. If it wasn't it would not be hated so much.


I agree except the IRS not as competent as you think. W-2's make it easy to track you, 1099 not so easy. and I don't like these HR Block processors charging so much to file. I see it as a scam between the IRS and corporations. The Rich have so many exceptions it's not fair. Romney posted his one tax return, it was huge. And when you have investments overseas in nested subsidiary corporations like Romney. There's no way in hell one can accurately verify the return.
sorry for diverging. if they get caught it's an "oversight" BULLSHEET!

PS. recall that French guy accused of rape by that maid from Africa. Later they found out she had been cheating on her taxes listing a extra child she did not have.

[mostpost]

Were you living under a rock for years? Obama made that claim over and over on numerous campaign speeches and talk shows.

http://amac.us/president-obamas-promise-2500-medical-savings-turn-2200-increase/

http://www.breitbart.com/blog/2013/10/28/video-19-times-obama-promised-to-lower-annual-insurance-premiums-by-2500/
Do you even know what you post? Obviously you don't know what I post. I said that the $2500 claim was not made during the debate on passage of ACA. I did not say it was never made during the election campaign two years earlier. Every one of the clips in the Breitbart video was from the 2008 campaign. Also notice that Obama almost always said "Up to" $2500.

[AndyC]

The first time I ever heard the $2500 theme was after Obamacare was passed. I heard it from Republicans. My point is that between 2007 and the passage of Obamacare in 2010, I do not recall hearing that phrase. Talking points during the healthcare debate revolved around reducing the number of uninsured-it has
done that; prohibiting cancellation of policies for preexisting conditions-that has been accomplished; providing equal premiums for women-done; providing certain basic tests and services with no out of pocket costs-done; prohibiting policy cancellation because of illness-done.

Reducing costs was also talked about but I do not recall any specific number put forth in regards to the debate on the ACA.

You heard it from Republicans because they were actually paying attention to the lies. Obviously you weren't paying attention.

[classhandicapper]

I realize this is on page one of your businessman's Bible, and it is true there is some corruption in government, but let's talk about real corruption.
Like major financial institutions manipulating the price of gold and silver and insider trading of those commodities.
Like Goldman Sachs providing home buyers which it knew would fail, then placing bets on those failures.
Like banks making predatory loans to American cities.
Like major Wall Street Banks using creative accounting techniques to disguise the size of their balance sheets.
Like insane Executive bonuses.

There is no corporate corruption.
Walmart never paid Mexican officials $24M in exchange for construction permits.
GE Subsidiaries never bribed Iraqi officials with cash, computer equipment, medical supplies and services to obtain valuable contracts under the UN Oil for food program, They paid a $23M fine for never doing that.
John & Johnson did not pay bribes to public health officials in several European countries to secure sales contracts. That $70M fine they paid is just a rumor.
Ralph Lauren never bribed Argentinian customs officials to secure favorable treatment for its shipments into the country,
Pfizer did not bribe officials in Russia, China,and other countries to secure regulatory approval for its drugs. They paid that $45M fine because they thought it would be fun to do so.

There are more examples here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/foreign-corruption_n_3640085.html#gallery/309872/4

Yes, there is corruption in government. It usually involves business paying off a government official. But the corruption in government pales before the corruption in corporate America.

Of course there is corruption in the private sector.

That's why we have accountants, auditors, credit agencies, short sellers, etc... reviewing their books trying to catch them, reporting on them to the SEC, betting against them and then coming on TV to expose them and cash their bets.

All the excesses prior to 2008 were well known. I knew about them.

All the current excesses that's blowing up or that are going to blow up eventually are also well known.

It's just not well known in Washington and by the mainstream media because they are all incompetents or staying quiet for political reasons.

Your solution is to put even more wealth in government so those very same corrupt private business people can buy off corrupt politicians with laws that ensure that even more money will flow to them than they could possibly earn in the private sector, all while simultaneously corrupting the free market system even more by rewarding their corruption over competence.

Getting the corruption out of the private sector is a law enforcement issue. We also have to get private sector influence OUT of a corrupt and incompetent government. You don't do that by putting even more wealth in the government programs.

People rob banks because that's where the money is. Corrupt private sector individuals rape society via government because that's where the really big money is.

The corrupt politicians and those that buy them have us bent over and you are practically begging for more.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You heard it from Republicans because they were actually paying attention to the lies. Obviously you weren't paying attention.

I think it was a "the ends justify the means" thing in the mind of most Dems and certainly Obama.

[ebcorde]

You heard it from Republicans because they were actually paying attention to the lies. Obviously you weren't paying attention.


yeah "heard it". Put it in writing with detail to be scrutinized by all else it's a lie

[Tom]

I heard Obama say it.
_o65vMUk5so

[ebcorde]

allowed my youngest son to be covered under our insurance till age 26, else he be dead so you all go screw yourselves. I'd rather pay more to save my families life then some pie in the sky Haji's on camel are swimming over here to kill me scare tactics we keep hearing for 15 years.

[mostpost]

I have a question for you. According to your numbers and Sanders numbers, the average family will save 5800 per year. If that is correct, then why do we need a tax increase if everybody is going to save money. Would it not be better for the average family to have their taxes lowered and save less of their 5000 from health care.

This scam sounds a lot like a Nigerian email claiming you won 20 million but you need to send them 1000 bucks for shipping and processing. Sanders plan is the same way. He demands all of your money up front and then you get nothing in return on the back end. If Sanders really thought people were going to save 5800 bucks a year, he would not need a tax increase, now would he.
I read this over and over again and I have to admit, I don't know what the heck you are talking about. (Feel free to substitute another word for heck.)
I'll try again. The family will save $5000 because they will no longer be paying premiums to private companies for health insurance. But that means they will no longer have health insurance. To replace that insurance, Sanders proposes that we establish Medicare for All and to pay for that, he proposes a new 2.2% tax on income. This will cost the average family of four about $500.

If we do not go with Bernie's plan, the family continues to pay its premiums at a cost of $5,000 a year, but it saves on the $500 in taxes it does not pay.
If he is able to pass his plan, that family has to pay $500 in taxes, but does not pay $5000 in private insurance premiums and it still has health insurance. Which is better?

[mostpost]

I agree except the IRS not as competent as you think. W-2's make it easy to track you, 1099 not so easy. and I don't like these HR Block processors charging so much to file. I see it as a scam between the IRS and corporations. The Rich have so many exceptions it's not fair. Romney posted his one tax return, it was huge. And when you have investments overseas in nested subsidiary corporations like Romney. There's no way in hell one can accurately verify the return.
sorry for diverging. if they get caught it's an "oversight" BULLSHEET!

PS. recall that French guy accused of rape by that maid from Africa. Later they found out she had been cheating on her taxes listing a extra child she did not have.
Mostly, I put that part about the IRS in there to aggravate the cons. Still, since direct deposit and e filing started, I regularly get my refund in less than 10 days. They process lot of returns in a short time.

[mostpost]

I heard Obama say it.
_o65vMUk5so
Someone else already posted this exact video. I'll say it again. It's from 2008.

[ebcorde]

Mostly, I put that part about the IRS in there to aggravate the cons. Still, since direct deposit and e filing started, I regularly get my refund in less than 10 days. They process lot of returns in a short time.

on yeah no doubt.

[mostpost]

Debate, what debate ?....

They "were told" to pass the OC-bill, and "only then", did anyone have the "right" to read it and debate it.... :eek:

Amerka just plain got suckered punched right in the kisser with that "debate".... We found out what was in it, more gov't control over this land, and it's people... That's what was in it...

OC, solved nothing, imo....
There's this thing called Thomas. It's a website. It's run by the Library of Congress and it has every bill being considered by Congress as soon as the bill is printed. Not every law-although it has that too-but every bill as it is being debated and every amendment and every change. Despite what Nancy Pelosi said, any one could have read the bill at any point of its journey through Congress.

It is true that because of changes, the bill has it started might no be the same as when it finally passed, but that is true of most legislation. There was no great conspiracy to hoodwink the public.

[davew]

Someone else already posted this exact video. I'll say it again. It's from 2008.


Yes, MOSTPOST did not infer it was said during the election period of lies. He said that after elected he never repeated it. In fact Pelosi and Reid pushed the legislation through, although they never read it.

[LottaKash]

Despite what Nancy Pelosi said, any one could have read the bill at any point of its journey through Congress.



Then, what was the big rush ?....

Why not take the "serious time" to read it, and then debate it, and make the bill come out to become it's real intended purpose, to help insure the health for some that couldn't afford it at the time, without it being the nightmare that is has become ?

More harm was done, as a result of this bill, than good, imo...

[ebcorde]

Yes, MOSTPOST did not infer it was said during the election period of lies. He said that after elected he never repeated it. In fact Pelosi and Reid pushed the legislation through, although they never read it.

They read it or at least what they needed to know, That's why they have aides
how many pages was it? 1,000-2,000

better yet, how bout next debate we test Rubio on it? :lol: let me moderate.

Before the Bill was passed we already had the Gold level plan but our kids would be off it. ACA allowed them to stay on till 26. A friend of mine has a daughter suffers from seizures with no insurance under 26 years of age, she is now covered and that's a good thing. Most republicans NOW like that but they never did anything.

[AndyC]

allowed my youngest son to be covered under our insurance till age 26, else he be dead so you all go screw yourselves. I'd rather pay more to save my families life then some pie in the sky Haji's on camel are swimming over here to kill me scare tactics we keep hearing for 15 years.

I am surprised that thousands haven't died do to a lack of insurance coverage. You can show up at any hospital in the US and you will be treated whether or not you have health insurance.

[AndyC]

They read it or at least what they needed to know, That's why they have aides
how many pages was it? 1,000-2,000

better yet, how bout next debate we test Rubio on it? :lol: let me moderate.

Before the Bill was passed we already had the Gold level plan but our kids would be off it. ACA allowed them to stay on till 26. A friend of mine has a daughter suffers from seizures with no insurance under 26 years of age, she is now covered and that's a good thing. Most republicans NOW like that but they never did anything.


What is so special about the age of 26? Presumably a 26 year old is an adult and should not be sponging off of adult parents and their employers.

[dartman51]

The first time I ever heard the $2500 theme was after Obamacare was passed. I heard it from Republicans. My point is that between 2007 and the passage of Obamacare in 2010, I do not recall hearing that phrase. Talking points during the healthcare debate revolved around reducing the number of uninsured-it has
done that :liar: :liar: ; prohibiting cancellation of policies for preexisting conditions-that has been accomplished; providing equal premiums for women-done; providing certain basic tests and services with no out of pocket costs-done; prohibiting policy cancellation because of illness-done.

Reducing costs was also talked about but I do not recall any specific number put forth in regards to the debate on the ACA.


NO!! It has NOT. They, the Obama bots, said there was 40 million uninsured in the U.S. Today, according to the government, there is OVER 41 million, without insurance.

[zico20]

I read this over and over again and I have to admit, I don't know what the heck you are talking about. (Feel free to substitute another word for heck.)
I'll try again. The family will save $5000 because they will no longer be paying premiums to private companies for health insurance. But that means they will no longer have health insurance. To replace that insurance, Sanders proposes that we establish Medicare for All and to pay for that, he proposes a new 2.2% tax on income. This will cost the average family of four about $500.

If we do not go with Bernie's plan, the family continues to pay its premiums at a cost of $5,000 a year, but it saves on the $500 in taxes it does not pay.
If he is able to pass his plan, that family has to pay $500 in taxes, but does not pay $5000 in private insurance premiums and it still has health insurance. Which is better?

Do you live in fantasy land? This 5000 savings that you claim will be saved by people by not paying private companies will ALL go to the government PLUS a 2.2% tax increase. One way or another the government is going to get its hands on this money. There will be so many fees, hidden charges, etc. Don't kid yourself.

The government cannot afford to let a family of four have unlimited health care for 500 bucks a year. Either the government will control every aspect of your health care choices through rationing, or the federal deficit will be 2-3 trillion EVERY year, which will bankrupt the country. Please don't tell me the government is more efficient than the private sector, because everyone on here knows that is a lie.

[PaceAdvantage]

allowed my youngest son to be covered under our insurance till age 26, else he be dead so you all go screw yourselves. I'd rather pay more to save my families life then some pie in the sky Haji's on camel are swimming over here to kill me scare tactics we keep hearing for 15 years.What are we smokin' tonight eb?

[mostpost]

NO!! It has NOT. They, the Obama bots, said there was 40 million uninsured in the U.S. Today, according to the government, there is OVER 41 million, without insurance.
Where the hell do you get your numbers from? According to the census bureau, which is the official source in these matters, in 2013 there were 41M uninsured. In 2014 there were 32M uninsured. It is now 2016 so I am sure that number has gone down even more.

In 2010, when Obamacare went into effect there were 49.9 million uninsured.
In fast, if so many Republican states had not refused to expand Medicaid, the uninsured rate would be millions lower.

[burnsy]

Here's the thing about healthcare and college. Other countries are kicking our ass in this area. Charging another mortgage to a family so their kid can go to school is an outrage. How does this make us more competitive in a world economy? Somehow, in this country being dumb is now "in". Then the same knuckle draggers cry about the countries condition. Bernie's free "pie in the sky college" won't work but the prices people pay are a sham.

Healthcare, same thing, only everyone needs healthcare. Again, other countries have a "Medicare" for all system and again they are kicking our ass in performance, which means prices and living longer. Gee, you would think people would wake up....some are, that's where this man is getting traction and so is Donald Trump. The Donald always points out that politicians get the "A" plan and regular folk and veterans get the shaft. That's why these two are getting a following, Sanders and Trump.

There are two spectrums of American economics. Did not read the study but my guess is that it comes from Keynesian, economics, leaning studier's. So it banks on demand going up by people getting a higher wage and/or government perks. So all the "benefits" of this are probably on the "rosy" side.

That aside, people are slow, they have been "dumbed down" but one of the smartest once said "You can't fool all of the people, all of the time." That's where this Trump and Sanders thing is coming from. People are ready to try new people and that's a good thing, we need it. When it gets bad enough the adjustment will come. That's how we got FDR.

What really cracks me up is Bernie Sanders is a Jewish Socialist, some what, when we compare him to the "establishment". But some of the "knuckle draggers" and fools out there that denigrate him................go to Church every week and worship the biggest Jewish, carpenter, Socialist the world has ever seen. Then they leave church and wonder why the country is going to hell in a hand basket?..........Like I said they are not that bright and don't even see the correlation. We are a joke, we worship money and the rich, then claim to be Christians'. Then cry when things go bad...that's just brilliant thinking. If there's a God, he loves the US....yeah right...like I said there are some real "fools" out there. If there's a "judgment" no amount of money will free you and the meek or poor will be first in line. The very ones that people point fingers at! I don't even go to church anymore because its a joke of hypocrites. These people walk in and think it absolves them from the other 6 days of the week. I'm ready to take my lumps and if I "truly confess", I feel I have a better shot anyway.

[newtothegame]

That is not at all clear. In fact, it is wrong. Every month Social Security sends out millions of benefit checks on time, for the right amount and to the right person. At least it did. Nowadays everything goes through direct deposit or debit card. Still, everyone gets their benefit on time.

Medicare processes thousands of claims daily, at least as efficiently as private insurance companies.

Someone is sure to bring up the financial problems of Social Security and Medicare, but that has nothing to do with how they perform their functions.

USPS delivers 512,000,000 pieces of mail daily with an error rate of less than 2%.
IRS is very competent. If it wasn't it would not be hated so much.

Medicare you say?? Efficient you say???
"Health care is a tempting target for thieves. Medicaid doles out $415 billion a year; Medicare (a federal scheme for the elderly), nearly $600 billion. Total health spending in America is a massive $2.7 trillion, or 17% of GDP. No one knows for sure how much of that is embezzled, but in 2012 Donald Berwick, a former head of the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and Andrew Hackbarth of the RAND Corporation, estimated that fraud (and the extra rules and inspections required to fight it) added as much as $98 billion, or roughly 10%, to annual Medicare and Medicaid spending—and up to $272 billion across the entire health system".

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21603078-why-thieves-love-americas-health-care-system-272-billion-swindle

[newtothegame]

That is not at all clear. In fact, it is wrong. Every month Social Security sends out millions of benefit checks on time, for the right amount and to the right person. At least it did. Nowadays everything goes through direct deposit or debit card. Still, everyone gets their benefit on time.

Medicare processes thousands of claims daily, at least as efficiently as private insurance companies.

Someone is sure to bring up the financial problems of Social Security and Medicare, but that has nothing to do with how they perform their functions.

USPS delivers 512,000,000 pieces of mail daily with an error rate of less than 2%.
IRS is very competent. If it wasn't it would not be hated so much.
IT has everything to do with how they perform.....its called a budget! Business, whether it be the IRS, USPS, or otherwise is based on performance and being on budget is a part of that performance. If I had UNLIMITED budgets, hell, I could make any company look good!

[delayjf]

they want to win me over? show me a detailed plan that promises to reduce healthcare costs to France or Germany level in 5 years. I'll read it on the internet. Instead they spend millions to be elected to do what? piss on the other guy. I hate them


Do you know what doctors make in France compared to the US?

[classhandicapper]

Where the hell do you get your numbers from? According to the census bureau, which is the official source in these matters, in 2013 there were 41M uninsured. In 2014 there were 32M uninsured. It is now 2016 so I am sure that number has gone down even more.

In 2010, when Obamacare went into effect there were 49.9 million uninsured.
In fast, if so many Republican states had not refused to expand Medicaid, the uninsured rate would be millions lower.


The question is not how many people are insured or not insured.

The question is how effectively are we delivering care (bang per buck).

Any nitwit can come up with a plan that will insure everyone, but how much will it cost and what damage will it do to the rest of the economy. That's the question.

The correct approach would have been to squeeze efficiencies out of the existing spending and possibly redistribute it better (we already spend way too much overall). Then we could use those savings to cover more people and give better care to those at the bottom. Instead we are spending a lot more and hiding it in the form of higher premiums, higher deductibles, government subsidies, higher taxes, losing preferred doctors, and fewer jobs etc... It was and still is a bad plan.

[Clocker]

According to the census bureau, which is the official source in these matters, in 2013 there were 41M uninsured. In 2014 there were 32M uninsured.

A decrease of about 9 million. Roughly equal to the increase in the number of people enrolled in Medicaid in that period under the ObamaCare expansion of that program.

There was virtually no increase in the number of people with private health insurance plans. All of the increase in the number of people signing up for ObamaCare plans was offset by people who liked their old plan but couldn't keep their old plan and had to switch.

[mostpost]

Do you know what doctors make in France compared to the US?
Let me guess. The French doctor makes a lot less than his American counterpart? That is actually true; $95,000 a year as compared to $186,000 for the American doctor.

But who is better off? In America, a doctor will spend about $286,000 on his medical education. The French doctor pays nothing. An American doctor can spend upwards of $100,000 annually on medical malpractice insurance depending of location and specialty. The French doctor pays nothing.

It seems to me that making $95,000 a year as a doctor in France is better than making $186,000 as a doctor in America!

[Clocker]

It seems to me that making $95,000 a year as a doctor in France is better than making $186,000 as a doctor in America!

A quick look at Google looks like that $95K is in the 41% income tax bracket. And France has a VAT of 20%. YMMV.

And in America you can start your own practice, build it up, and sell out to one of those greedy insurance companies that are making billions from ObamaCare.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Where the hell do you get your numbers from? According to the census bureau, which is the official source in these matters, in 2013 there were 41M uninsured. In 2014 there were 32M uninsured. It is now 2016 so I am sure that number has gone down even more.

In 2010, when Obamacare went into effect there were 49.9 million uninsured.
In fast, if so many Republican states had not refused to expand Medicaid, the uninsured rate would be millions lower.

I'd wish you would post how much it's cost the rest of us to bring the uninsured on board. $2K? $10K? $50K? I won't argue with the noble goal of providing citizens with health coverage. But I will argue against the route we've taken to do it. There's no doubt in my mind that a simple check from the General Fund to each qualified applicant to cover their private premium would have been much cheaper in the long run.

And speaking of the long run, it's quite obvious to the casual observer with any BASIC thinking skills that the real goal of the ACA is to bankrupt the middle class:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19993-obamacare-to-cost-2-trillion-to-cover-fewer-than-half-of-uninsured

Needless to say, $643 billion is a far cry from $2 trillion — so far, in fact, that even taking new revenues into account, ObamaCare is still going to cost taxpayers at least $50,000 per covered individual over the next 10 years.

Obama, of course, promised in 2009 that he would “not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.” He also said that his healthcare plan would only “cost around $900 billion over 10 years.”

As Joe Wilson would say, "You Lie!!"

[Clocker]

I'd wish you would post how much it's cost the rest of us to bring the uninsured on board.

You don't understand. It's all free, like Bernie Sanders' college tuition plan. With the efficiency of the federal government running the health insurance and health care industries, we can provide a lot more care for a lot less money.

If you still don't get it, see the part of Peter Pan where Tinker Bell will live if only everyone will believe in fairies.

[ReplayRandall]

Here are a few thoughts about your views:

Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:

1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:

1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money! What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.

3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.

Final Thoughts:

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."

Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free.

[zico20]

Here are a few thoughts about your views:

Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:

1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:

1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money! What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.

3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.

Final Thoughts:

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."

Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free.

This may very well be the greatest post in the history of the internet. How true!! :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump: :jump:

[dartman51]

Where the hell do you get your numbers from? According to the census bureau, which is the official source in these matters, in 2013 there were 41M uninsured. In 2014 there were 32M uninsured. It is now 2016 so I am sure that number has gone down even more.

In 2010, when Obamacare went into effect there were 49.9 million uninsured.
In fast, if so many Republican states had not refused to expand Medicaid, the uninsured rate would be millions lower.


http://www.usdebtclock.org/ :faint:

[delayjf]

Let me guess. The French doctor makes a lot less than his American counterpart? That is actually true; $95,000 a year as compared to $186,000 for the American doctor.

But who is better off? In America, a doctor will spend about $286,000 on his medical education. The French doctor pays nothing. An American doctor can spend upwards of $100,000 annually on medical malpractice insurance depending of location and specialty. The French doctor pays nothing.

It seems to me that making $95,000 a year as a doctor in France is better than making $186,000 as a doctor in America!

If a doctor is paying 100 grand in liability than he is probably making a lot more than 186k. I know of one anesthesiologist who signed a contract with a local hospital for 500k a year and he still had his private practice. Plastic Surgeons can make in the millions out here in CA. I'm not aware of any huge migration of US doctors to France to take advantage of the huge financial gains available there.

[mostpost]

A quick look at Google looks like that $95K is in the 41% income tax bracket. And France has a VAT of 20%. YMMV.

And in America you can start your own practice, build it up, and sell out to one of those greedy insurance companies that are making billions from ObamaCare.
Two doctors, one in France, one in America; both making $95,000 (US Dollars).
After taxes, the American doctor takes home $75329.43. The French doctor, under the onerous French tax system, takes home $71,177.90; $4151.53 less than his American counterpart. But he did not have to pay for his education, which in this country would cost $286,000, and he does not have to buy medical malpractice insurance.

I almost forgot. You are misinformed if you think doctors in France work for the government-big shock there. Most French doctors are in private practice.
They get paid for their services through public insurance, but that does not mean they work for the government. Any French doctor can build up his practice just like any American doctor.

[Racetrack Playa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr4v7sA6Wto
feel it
—Asked how he became a Bernie Sanders supporter, rapper Killer Mike had a simple explanation: "Smokin' a joint and reading his tweets."


A conversation
Talking shop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huuLU9ma1hU

__________________

[Clocker]

I'm not aware of any huge migration of US doctors to France to take advantage of the huge financial gains available there.

Boy, that's really low, using reality to refute The Liberal Narrative. :p

[AndyC]

Two doctors, one in France, one in America; both making $95,000 (US Dollars).
After taxes, the American doctor takes home $75329.43. The French doctor, under the onerous French tax system, takes home $71,177.90; $4151.53 less than his American counterpart. But he did not have to pay for his education, which in this country would cost $286,000, and he does not have to buy medical malpractice insurance.

I almost forgot. You are misinformed if you think doctors in France work for the government-big shock there. Most French doctors are in private practice.
They get paid for their services through public insurance, but that does not mean they work for the government. Any French doctor can build up his practice just like any American doctor.

So a doctor is not liable for his negligent practice of medicine in France?

[Clocker]

Two doctors, one in France, one in America; both making $95,000 (US Dollars).

A doctor in America making $95K??? :D

You and numbers is like a 5 year old and a loaded gun. What happened to the $186K you used in a previous post? Also a bogus number by the way.

Medscape, a subsidiary of the medical information website WebMD, has released its 2014 Physician Compensation Report. The data in the report come from more than 24,000 doctors in 25 specialties, who responded to Medscape's annual survey with information on their compensation for 2013.


Earnings also vary by region. Average physician income ranges from $239,000 in the Northeast to $258,000 in the Great Lakes area. Certain regions of the country may have to pay more to attract doctors, so physician salaries often reflect the level of competition more than the cost of living. Doctors in rural areas actually tend to earn more.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-salary-does-a-doctor-make-2014-4

[mostpost]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ :faint:The US Debt Clock is not a government entity. It is not run by the government. The US Debt Clock was invented by New York real estate developer Seymour Durst in 1989. It is a privately run enterprise which is now run Durst's son Douglas Durst.

The US Census Bureau is a government entity. It says there are 32,000,000 uninsured, not 41,000,000. I know who I believe. You can believe who you want. That will not change the facts.

[rastajenk]

The Census Bureau was one of the first things Obama politicized and weaponized. It's a shame we can't even trust that one, which should be one of the most objective bureaucracies; but it's not.

[mostpost]

A doctor in America making $95K??? :D

You and numbers is like a 5 year old and a loaded gun. What happened to the $186K you used in a previous post? Also a bogus number by the way.



http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-salary-does-a-doctor-make-2014-4
You are without a doubt the most annoying person in the world. Even those guys who chop heads off for ISIS are not as annoying. The Kardashians are not as annoying. Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is not as annoying.

I was responding to your post where you said a doctor in France who made $95,000 a year would be in the 41% tax bracket. Your implication being that a doctor in France gets to keep a lot less of that $95,000 than a doctor in the US would get to keep of the same amount here. Turns out it is about $4100 less.

As for your link, I was comparing salaries of General Practitioners or Family Medicine. My source said $186,000. Yours said $171,000. whoop de doo

[mostpost]

So a doctor is not liable for his negligent practice of medicine in France?
He is not financially liable. Malpractice cases are heard by a special tribunal of experts and victims are payed out of a general fund. I'm sure there is some sort of government body which evaluates a doctors performance and suspends or revokes licenses if needed.

[classhandicapper]

The reason many of the world's most elite doctors and surgeons are found in the US is because the very brightest among us know they can get rich in the US if they excel in the medical field. If they couldn't get rich, a lot of that talent would wind up on Wall St instead.

[Clocker]

Malpractice cases are heard by a special tribunal of experts and victims are payed out of a general fund. I'm sure there is some sort of government body which evaluates a doctors performance and suspends or revokes licenses if needed.

But here we still have major liabilities for malpractice because the Democrats were vehemently opposed to tort reform in the ObamaCare bill.

[Clocker]

You are without a doubt the most annoying person in the world.

Your implication being...

I did not imply anything. You inferred something that wasn't there, and then got annoyed when it was pointed out. But thanks for the kind words.:p

[AndyC]

He is not financially liable. Malpractice cases are heard by a special tribunal of experts and victims are payed out of a general fund. I'm sure there is some sort of government body which evaluates a doctors performance and suspends or revokes licenses if needed.

How does one get on one of these tribunals? By political appointment? It would seem that a tribunal would have a built in conflict of interest. The US has medical boards that evaluate performance and revokes licenses if need be. They just don't make financial awards to patients.

[LottaKash]

You are without a doubt the most annoying person in the world. Even those guys who chop heads off for ISIS are not as annoying.

Yikes !...You sure are a hard marker.. :eek:

[mostpost]

Here are a few thoughts about your views:

Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:

1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.
Half the population is not subsidized-people receiving Social Security and Medicare are receiving benefits they paid for. Those who are receiving other benefits are being subsidized because greedy capitalists are not providing fair compensation.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.
They are victims. Victims of CEO's who make 4000 times what their workers make.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.
Representatives of the people who made them victims are the ones ones who run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.
See 3 above.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
Yeah, they should be grateful they don't live in Somalia.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
It's not either or. Take the best from them. Retain the best from us. According to the WHO thirty six countries have better health care systems than we do. Why not learn from them.

These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:

1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
It is not a matter of judgement. It is a matter of prevention. Prevent the lunatic Muslims from hurting us by any number of actions. Preventing lunatics with guns from hurting us be keeping them from having guns.

2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money! What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.
That's because Social Security is an ongoing program. We have to fund it. We should fund welfare and Food Stamps, but we don't have to. We could just let the programs die, which I know would please you.

3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.
Why does it have to be either or?

Final Thoughts:

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."
A parachute doesn't kill people. And, if you are in danger and don't have a gun, there are other options. If you are falling from a plane and don't have a parachute you are pretty much screwed.

Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free.
I have to google this to see what it means.

[hcap]

A decrease of about 9 million. Roughly equal to the increase in the number of people enrolled in Medicaid in that period under the ObamaCare expansion of that program.

There was virtually no increase in the number of people with private health insurance plans. All of the increase in the number of people signing up for ObamaCare plans was offset by people who liked their old plan but couldn't keep their old plan and had to switch.Not quite.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/heres-huge-and-undercovered-obamacare-success-story

Thanks to Obamacare's individual mandate spurring the purchase of individual coverage and its employer mandate spurring an increase in employer coverage, total private coverage increased by more than 16 million through the middle of 2015. After four years of private coverage hovering around 61 percent of the population, it jumped up to 66 percent within the space of a single year.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_obamacare_private_insurance.jpg

The data

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/Quarterly_estimates_2010_2015_Q12.pdf

[Hoofless_Wonder]

I have to google this to see what it means.

Mostie, of all the posts of yours on TickerForum, this was the funniest. :D

I'm not sure what's more disturbing here - the plagiarism exhibited by Replay Randall (again), or the pathetic rebuttal by MostPost, especially the distortion around the political-correctness of judging Muslims and gun owners.

Here's the link to the source:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/249366/six-conundrums-socialism-frontpagemagcom

It's made the email rounds for over two years now.

[mostpost]

Not quite.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/heres-huge-and-undercovered-obamacare-success-story

Thanks to Obamacare's individual mandate spurring the purchase of individual coverage and its employer mandate spurring an increase in employer coverage, total private coverage increased by more than 16 million through the middle of 2015. After four years of private coverage hovering around 61 percent of the population, it jumped up to 66 percent within the space of a single year.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_obamacare_private_insurance.jpg

The data

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/Quarterly_estimates_2010_2015_Q12.pdf
I know you were being ironic with "Not quite" but the correct opening would have been not even close. Since conservatives seem to have trouble with charts and graphs, let's breakdown the information contained there. This is from page one of the CDC report.

In 2013, 61% of the population was covered by private insurance. In 2015 66.6% of the population was covered by private insurance; an increase of 6.6%.

In 2013, 23.8% of the population was covered by public insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP etc,). in 2015 that number stood at 24.4%; an increase of 0,6%. By division we find that all forms of public insurance accounted for less than 9% of the increase in insured persons over the past two years.

[classhandicapper]

In 2013, 61% of the population was covered by private insurance. In 2015 66.6% of the population was covered by private insurance; an increase of 6.6%.

In 2013, 23.8% of the population was covered by public insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP etc,). in 2015 that number stood at 24.4%; an increase of 0,6%. By division we find that all forms of public insurance accounted for less than 9% of the increase in insured persons over the past two years.

It's all irrelevant. The system is blowing up right in front of our eyes and only huge taxpayer or other backdoor bailouts are going to save it. Give me a few hundred billion and I'll cover everyone. Just don't ask me for the long term bill.

[delayjf]

Why not learn from them.


No secret as to how the Europeans fund their healthcare - Tax rates thru the roof. I believe in Denmark charges a tax of 180% to buy a car. :eek:

[Clocker]

I did not say that there has been no increase in the number of private health care policies. I said that virtually none of the increase of 9.1 million covered claimed by ObamaCare represented private insurance, virtually all of it was increases in Medicaid.

I guess I'll have to start posting pretty pictures for the verbally challenged.

[LottaKash]

Give me a few hundred billion and I'll cover everyone. Just don't ask me for the long term bill.

Why not, we are already in the hole for Nineteen Thousand Billion, so what's a few hundred billion more ?....

[mostpost]

I did not say that there has been no increase in the number of private health care policies. I said that virtually none of the increase of 9.1 million covered claimed by ObamaCare represented private insurance, virtually all of it was increases in Medicaid.

I guess I'll have to start posting pretty pictures for the verbally challenged.
We know what you said and what you said is wrong. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

[mostpost]

No secret as to how the Europeans fund their healthcare - Tax rates thru the roof. I believe in Denmark charges a tax of 180% to buy a car. :eek:
Their tax rates are somewhat higher than ours-I think 52% is the highest top tax rate compared to 39.6% here. But in most-if not all-of those countries, a person can go to a doctor or a hospital without paying a cent out of pocket. In most-if not all-of those countries, a person can receive an education up to and including college, without paying a cent out of pocket.

Of course, in those countries, things like healthcare and education are not "For profit" industries. They should not be "For Profit" industries in the United States either.

There are plenty of venues for you capitalists to make your profits-autos, retail, construction, fuels, hospitality, entertainment and so many more. Leave social services alone.

[delayjf]

Of course, in those countries, things like healthcare and education are not "For profit" industries. They should not be "For Profit" industries in the United States either

On that I agree with you.

[mostpost]

It's all irrelevant. The system is blowing up right in front of our eyes and only huge taxpayer or other backdoor bailouts are going to save it. Give me a few hundred billion and I'll cover everyone. Just don't ask me for the long term bill.
How is the system blowing up?
Is there a great increase in the number of uninsured? No, according to the CDC the percentage of uninsured as dropped from 18.2% to 10.5%. According to the Census Bureau, the number of uninsured has fallen from 41,000,000 to 32,000,000.

Has the number of persons insured through private insurance companies fallen dramatically? No, according to the link posted by hcap above, the number of persons with private insurance has increased by 16,000,000. That means that even after we take away all those people who (allegedly) lost their insurance because of Obamacare, there are still 16,000,000 more people with private insurance than before.

Has Obamacare been a disaster for the insurance companies? A few may be having some problems, but overall, insurance companies are reporting record profits.

Has Obamacare been a disaster for the consumer? Yes, premiums are higher than predicted, but the increase is the slowest it has been in decades.
And now a person can not be turned down because of a preexisting condition. He cannot be dropped because he has become ill. His rates can not be raised because of illness.
Whether you like it or not, Obamacare is here to stay. At least until we replace it with single payer.

[classhandicapper]

Their tax rates are somewhat higher than ours-I think 52% is the highest top tax rate compared to 39.6% here. But in most-if not all-of those countries, a person can go to a doctor or a hospital without paying a cent out of pocket. In most-if not all-of those countries, a person can receive an education up to and including college, without paying a cent out of pocket.

Of course, in those countries, things like healthcare and education are not "For profit" industries. They should not be "For Profit" industries in the United States either.

There are plenty of venues for you capitalists to make your profits-autos, retail, construction, fuels, hospitality, entertainment and so many more. Leave social services alone.

Ideally, I agree with you. But practically I'll tell you what will happen. Many of the smartest, most innovative, most creative people that work in or invest in health care will choose other professions where they can get wealthy instead of healthcare. As a result, medical progress and the quality of healthcare will slowly decline.

The US has far and away the best healthcare at the top of the spectrum. The problem is that only some people have access to that level of care and some people have almost no access at all. We need to keep that innovation and investment but get a more balanced distribution and wider coverage using the same (or preferably less) money than we use now.

[OntheRail]

Has Obamacare been a disaster for the insurance companies? A few may be having some problems, but overall, insurance companies are reporting record profits.
It's funny... that Record Profits is being praised by you.... you. :lol: In any other context that does not support Obumma. You'd be b*tchin' that the Executives/Onwers where robbing the poor workers. :rolleyes: I guess your a firm believer of the Hypocritic Oaf.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Their tax rates are somewhat higher than ours-I think 52% is the highest top tax rate compared to 39.6% here. But in most-if not all-of those countries, a person can go to a doctor or a hospital without paying a cent out of pocket. In most-if not all-of those countries, a person can receive an education up to and including college, without paying a cent out of pocket.

Of course, in those countries, things like healthcare and education are not "For profit" industries. They should not be "For Profit" industries in the United States either.

There are plenty of venues for you capitalists to make your profits-autos, retail, construction, fuels, hospitality, entertainment and so many more. Leave social services alone.

I'd be happy to let government handle "social services", as long as I had the option to opt out and not fund it - and instead get my health care from private practitioners. And not spend a dime more than necessary on health care.

But no, that's not the communist way. We all need to suffer at the lowest common denominator, unless of course we're a member of the ruling class. Which we ain't.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

On that I agree with you.

Take a trip to Russia or China, experience a medical problem, and then get back to us on the health care experience before agreeing that "not for profit" is the way to go.....

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Has Obamacare been a disaster for the insurance companies? A few may be having some problems, but overall, insurance companies are reporting record profits.
That's because the ACA was written by the Health Care oligarchs. Well, duh.

Has Obamacare been a disaster for the consumer? Yes, premiums are higher than predicted, but the increase is the slowest it has been in decades.
That's not what we were promised. Nice attempt at mis-leading spin.

And now a person can not be turned down because of a preexisting condition. He cannot be dropped because he has become ill. His rates can not be raised because of illness.
Whether you like it or not, Obamacare is here to stay. At least until we replace it with single payer.
You may be right. It may be time to opt out and starve the beast. Hasten the collapse.


When the economy rolls over, and we get to blame Obama for it for the next 8 years (at least), then this discussion becomes moot - as health care will become the least of our problems.

[classhandicapper]

I'd be happy to let government handle "social services", as long as I had the option to opt out and not fund it - and instead get my health care from private practitioners. And not spend a dime more than necessary on health care.

But no, that's not the communist way. We all need to suffer at the lowest common denominator, unless of course we're a member of the ruling class. Which we ain't.

That's the way I feel about it.

I'm willing to kick in a little money to help take care of people that can't care for themselves. I just don't want to be part of the government system myself.

[barahona44]

That's the way I feel about it.

I'm willing to kick in a little money to help take care of people that can't care for themselves. I just don't want to be part of the government system myself.
That's the key word; 'Won'ts need not apply.

[davew]

Opinion: The US Economy Would Soar Under Sanders

my opinion -> The US National Debt Would Soar Under Sanders

[delayjf]

Take a trip to Russia or China, experience a medical problem, and then get back to us on the health care experience before agreeing that "not for profit" is the way to go.....

Let me clarify my position, I am in favor of hospitals being run as non-profit i.e. St. Jude's, Shriners, etc. I have no problem with the salaries that doctors pull down.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Let me clarify my position, I am in favor of hospitals being run as non-profit i.e. St. Jude's, Shriners, etc. I have no problem with the salaries that doctors pull down.

I don't think that Mostie's viewpoint on "social" services being non-profit is limited to doctor's wages. Apparently, the evils of private corporations are never, ever duplicated by government. :D

Then again, who knows what he means by "non-profit", since his math skills are comparable to how an alchemist knows nuclear physics or how a flat-earther understands geography and astronomy.

[Clocker]

Economics professor Gerald Friedman (U. Mass. - Amherst) figures this country would blossom under the policies of Bernie Sanders. Feel free to disagree..



Not even liberal economists are buying this fairy tale. And you know you are in trouble if you can't get Paul Krugman to drink your Kool Aid.

Former Obama administration economic adviser Austan Goolsbee recently said that “the numbers don’t remotely add up.” And in an open letter to Bernie Sanders this week, four former Democratic economic advisers, three of whom worked for President Obama, produced a harsh assessment of a paper authored by University of Amherst economist Gerard Friedman, and touted by the Sanders campaign, finding that Sanders’ economic plans would produce GDP growth in excess of 5 percent annually—even more than the already empty 4 percent growth target proposed by Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush.

“We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan—claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence,” the letter says, adding later that, “As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes.” In other words, they’re total hokum.

Paul Krugman has piled on too. In a column citing the economists' letter, he argues that "these claims for the Sanders program aren’t just implausible, they’re embarrassing."



http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/19/progressive-economists-sanders-economic

[horses4courses]

Not even liberal economists are buying this fairy tale. And you know you are in trouble if you can't get Paul Krugman to drink your Kool Aid.



http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/19/progressive-economists-sanders-economic

Where did I ever state that I endorse Sander's economic plan?
You really are quite naive. :ThmbDown:

[Clocker]

Where did I ever state that I endorse Sander's economic plan?


Where did I say that you did? Or that I cared? :p

[Greyfox]

Sanders has an economic plan to fix America? :lol:

The guy never held a regular paying job in his first four decades, and according to those who've known him "never had a pot of his own to piss in."
I also don't understand how a man who sought conscientious objector status to avoid the draft could ever be Commander-in-Chief.

How could anyone vote for the two remaining Democrats in the race is a question beyond my understanding. :confused:

[Valuist]

Sanders would be an absolute disaster. If by some miracle, he wins the primary, there's no way in hell he will win the general election. All the Republicans who were too lazy to get off their ass in 2012 will get to the booths.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sanders has an economic plan to fix America? :lol:

The guy never held a regular paying job in his first four decades, and according to those who've known him "never had a pot of his own to piss in."
I also don't understand how a man who sought conscientious objector status to avoid the draft could ever be Commander-in-Chief.

How could anyone vote for the two remaining Democrats in the race is a question beyond my understanding. :confused:Yes, it makes one wonder how those on the left can sit by and point a finger at Donald Trump and say "look how low they've sunk" when they have someone like Bernie Sanders at the top of their party.