Can Republicans Govern?

[ArlJim78]

This author says that the answer is no, unless they endeavor to change The Narrative, and I think he is right.

This lengthy piece in the Weekly Standard is a must read (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/can-republicans-govern).

a couple samples:
What is The Narrative? The Narrative is the official story about America. It is a story composed by the political left, which entered American public life with the progressive movement in the early 20th century and was elaborated in the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and ’40s.

The story runs like this. America was founded on the ideal of equality, though that ideal at first was barely put into practice. The story of America is one of progress toward the fulfillment of the ideal of equality. The end of slavery and the achievement of women’s suffrage are landmarks in this story. All fair enough. So is—less plausibly—the federal income tax, originally established to fund the government but later used to redistribute wealth and tax advantages among Americans. Then came the many programs of direct payments to individuals, the so-called entitlements, beginning with Social Security and extending to Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, aid to dependent children, farm subsidies, and myriad others. And today the health care
reform bill before Congress takes its place in America’s advance toward equality. Each and every policy that aims to level distinctions between Americans has found its place within The Narrative.

At times the progression is described as more or less inevitable. It is dressed up in rhetorical finery (befitting the progressives’ debt to Hegel) as the “march of history.” At other times its proponents stress the role of will, exalting the labors of progressive heroes to bring about change. But always they are certain of the single direction in which progress moves.

The Narrative holds genuine power. It permits the easy assignment of virtue and vice. Virtue belongs to those who advocate the fulfillment of equality; they are on the “right side of history,” moving the country “forward.” In opposition are those who seek to take the country “backward,” often identified as “special interests” who favor their own well-being over the equality of all.
.........

Judging by its rhetoric, the left seems singularly threatened by Sarah Palin, but they can’t explain why. Because she’s attractive? So are most politicians, including the current president. Because she’s from Alaska? So are Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski. Because she lacks “experience”? So do lots of politicians, including the current president. Does anyone imagine that a few more years of “experience” will cause Sarah Palin’s critics to warm up to her? The left simply cannot supply a convincing rationale for its own mania. That a wife and mother is successful in public life and is also a conservative, populist reformer should not be possible. A political reformer opposed to the expansion of the federal government should be a contradiction in terms. Sarah Palin can undo by her simple existence every stereotype of the left’s Narrative. This creates a visceral threat. It cannot be permitted, or even laughed off—she must be destroyed. The threat to The Narrative is what provokes the name-calling and bizarrely substance-free personal attacks that have flowed relentlessly from Palin’s critics.

[boxcar]

A political reformer opposed to the expansion of the federal government should be a contradiction in terms. Sarah Palin can undo by her simple existence every stereotype of the left’s Narrative. This creates a visceral threat. It cannot be permitted, or even laughed off—she must be destroyed. The threat to The Narrative is what provokes the name-calling and bizarrely substance-free personal attacks that have flowed relentlessly from Palin’s critics.

BINGO! This writer nails it perfectly. When someone doesn't fit the Left's stereotype -- or "narrative" (as the author said), this poses a genuine threat to Libs. Don't believe this? Look at Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice (or any black conservative for that matter) and note how they are often viciously vilified by the Left. Such people are usually characterized as "Uncle Toms" or "Aunt Jemimas", etc. The Left cannot stand a conservative black person who made it on his own without the crutches of "affirmative action". The Left despises such people because they're are living contradictions to the Lef't's "narrative".

Boxcar

[Rookies]

The threat to The Narrative is what provokes the name-calling and bizarrely substance-free personal attacks that have flowed relentlessly from Palin’s critics.

Did I miss that show of overwhelming Palin support at the CPAC convention- the SINGLE digit support ? :lol: And the fact, she din't bother showing up. Oh well, maybe the CPAC Cons weren't ponying up 100 large ! ;)

See:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/20/ron-paul-wins-presidential-straw-poll-cpac/?test=latestnews

Must be true- Fox says so.:D

[Robert Goren]

Sarah Palin had a chance to govern. Instead she QUIT. As the saying goes"When the going gets tough, the tough get going". When the going in the Alaskan Governor's office got a little tough, she ran the other way.

[GaryG]

Sarah will not be the nominee nor was she ever considered as such. All of the hate and ridicule directed at her is because of one thing: fear of her conservative principles. If the hack in the WH can't get anything done this year he will be up Cripple Creek without an oar after the November elections. Yo, how bout that public option....? :lol:

[sandpit]

Sarah will not be the nominee nor was she ever considered as such. All of the hate and ridicule directed at her is because of one thing: fear of her conservative principles. If the hack in the WH can't get anything done this year he will be up Cripple Creek without an oar after the November elections. Yo, how bout that public option....? :lol:

I don't mind Palin and agree with a majority of her values, but I could never give her a ringing endorsement, not because of her principles, but because she quit on the people that voted for her. Plain and simple, that stinks. She certainly isn't going to gain any more experience in learning how to govern by spending the next couple of years on the campaign trail.

[ArlJim78]

Did I miss that show of overwhelming Palin support at the CPAC convention- the SINGLE digit support ? :lol: And the fact, she din't bother showing up. Oh well, maybe the CPAC Cons weren't ponying up 100 large ! ;)

See:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/20/ron-paul-wins-presidential-straw-poll-cpac/?test=latestnews

Must be true- Fox says so.:D
did you read the article? It's not supportive of Palin per se, she is just used as an example of someone who does not fit The Narrative.

My question to you is, why does Palin, a person who as you point out only scored an underwhelming 6% on the CPAC straw poll, generate such a massive response from the left? She showed up at that little tea party convention of 1000 people and you had an avalanche of reporters falling all over themselves to cover that event. many folks at msnbc soiled their underwear during her speech.

Yet a far bigger gathering of conservatives at CPAC only manages a ho-hum media response? what this author is saying is that Palin threatens the whole premise of the left's narrative. an attractive soccermom from palookaville is not supposed to become a popular leader of a government reform movement, so they have to destroy her.

[ArlJim78]

BINGO! This writer nails it perfectly. When someone doesn't fit the Left's stereotype -- or "narrative" (as the author said), this poses a genuine threat to Libs. Don't believe this? Look at Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice (or any black conservative for that matter) and note how they are often viciously vilified by the Left. Such people are usually characterized as "Uncle Toms" or "Aunt Jemimas", etc. The Left cannot stand a conservative black person who made it on his own without the crutches of "affirmative action". The Left despises such people because they're are living contradictions to the Lef't's "narrative".

Boxcar
Your example of racial bigotry is exactly what the author is talking about. according to The Narrative, black conservatives shouldn't exist, and that is why Clarence Thomas sent them into a complete tizzy like Palin. He represented a threat to The Narrative.

Colonel West who spoke at CPAC is another one they are going to go after. He is a dynamic unapologetic black conservative running for congress in Florida. He breaks all the rules because he credits his mother and father and faith for making him the person that he is, and not affirmative action or community organizers.

he had some great lines in his speech at CPAC. In one instance he listed all of the preachers that he grew up listening to, and how he never once heard any of them curse out the United States.

[NJ Stinks]

So Republicans must ask themselves: Are they really ready to reverse the trend of more and more Americans becoming dependent upon government?


Where's the fire? I must have missed the fire. :rolleyes: The only reason I see for Americans becoming more dependent upon government is bacause so many more Americans are getting unemployment checks today.

This whole narrative about getting rid of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid is absurd. What do you think happened in the past to people without resources after they became too old to work? Did they not beg for a roof over their heads and decent healthcare? Why do you think the country decided we needed these things in the first place?

If you want to do something constructive, eliminate any person from receiving SS whose assets/pensions exceed a certain dollar amount. Or use some other kind of dollar restriction. (That includes both spouses if married.) Also, reduce Medicare coverage on some kind of sliding scale. If you can afford to buy health insurance, you don't need the government to cover 80% of your medical expenses. In short, only help those who really need help.


Judging by its rhetoric, the left seems singularly threatened by Sarah Palin, but they can’t explain why.


I can explain why. Palin was picked by the Republican party to be the next in line if anything happened to McCain. That thought is about as scary as it gets. The woman may be fine for FOX viewers but most of the country shudders when she opens her mouth. Can't explain it any simpler than that.

I could pick out other lines but that's enough for now.

[Tom]

Not as scary as having "Plugs" Biden in that slot now! :eek:

The thing, NJ, everyone thinks Sara would have been too dumb to govern, but Obama and Biden are proving they are everyday. :lol:

[Tom]

Sarah Palin had a chance to govern. Instead she QUIT. As the saying goes"When the going gets tough, the tough get going". When the going in the Alaskan Governor's office got a little tough, she ran the other way.
Wrong-o.
She knew she was going to take a differnet path as she has been doing, and she had the decency to leave the Governor job so that Alaska could have a full timer in office. Unlike Hillary and Obama, who virtually abandoned their senate seats to run campaigns.

[BenDiesel26]

This whole narrative about getting rid of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid is absurd. What do you think happened in the past to people without resources after they became too old to work? Did they not beg for a roof over their heads and decent healthcare? Why do you think the country decided we needed these things in the first place?

If you want to do something constructive, eliminate any person from receiving SS whose assets/pensions exceed a certain dollar amount. Or use some other kind of dollar restriction. (That includes both spouses if married.) Also, reduce Medicare coverage on some kind of sliding scale. If you can afford to buy health insurance, you don't need the government to cover 80% of your medical expenses. In short, only help those who really need help.

It sounds to me NJ Stinks like you are endorsing Paul Ryan's medicare plan. Its unfortunate he won't run in 2012. The fact of the matter is, Medicare and SS are unsustainable ($107 trillion in unfunded liabilities) and will both be bankrupt within the next 8 years. Then what are you going to tell the people. Somebody desperately needs to fix the mess that FDR and LBJ have created, or we are going to be Greece in a few years.

[boxcar]

So Republicans must ask themselves: Are they really ready to reverse the trend of more and more Americans becoming dependent upon government?


Where's the fire? I must have missed the fire. :rolleyes: The only reason I see for Americans becoming more dependent upon government is bacause so many more Americans are getting unemployment checks today.

And the state doesn't do a thing to encourage that dependency, does it?


If you want to do something constructive, eliminate any person from receiving SS whose assets/pensions exceed a certain dollar amount. Or use some other kind of dollar restriction. (That includes both spouses if married.) Also, reduce Medicare coverage on some kind of sliding scale. If you can afford to buy health insurance, you don't need the government to cover 80% of your medical expenses. In short, only help those who really need help.

Okay...that sounds like a decent beginning of a plan. Of course, those who don't participate in those social welfare programs get all their money refunded back to them with interest, right?

Judging by its rhetoric, the left seems singularly threatened by Sarah Palin, but they can’t explain why.

I can explain why. Palin was picked by the Republican party to be the next in line if anything happened to McCain. That thought IS about as scary as it gets. (emphasis mine)

WAS, WAS, WAS. Therefore, why IS the Left still scared to death of her? IS she still next in line to be president? Have I missed something here? :rolleyes:


Boxcar

[boxcar]

It sounds to me NJ Stinks like you are endorsing Paul Ryan's medicare plan. Its unfortunate he won't run in 2012. The fact of the matter is, Medicare and SS are unsustainable ($107 trillion in unfunded liabilities) and will both be bankrupt within the next 8 years. Then what are you going to tell the people. Somebody desperately needs to fix the mess that FDR and LBJ have created, or we are going to be Greece in a few years.

Libs don't realize that Ponzi Schemes are bound to fail. They must. It's their nature. This is why they're illegal in the real world. Only in the public sector does the state sanction and give its blessing to such thievery.

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Judging by its rhetoric, the left seems singularly threatened by Sarah Palin, but they can’t explain why.

Threatened by Sarah? Are you kidding? I donate to her campaign. I pray to God she's the Repugnican nominee in 2012 everyday.

[NJ Stinks]

Not as scary as having "Plugs" Biden in that slot now! :eek:

The thing, NJ, everyone thinks Sara would have been too dumb to govern, but Obama and Biden are proving they are everyday. :lol:

As you may recall, I am a fan of Joe Biden. I wish he wouldn't make so many slip of the tongues but I am confident in his ability to lead.

I understand others here may not share my views on Biden here. (shrug)

[NJ Stinks]

Posted by Boxcar above:
__________________________________________________ __

Quote from NJ:
If you want to do something constructive, eliminate any person from receiving SS whose assets/pensions exceed a certain dollar amount. Or use some other kind of dollar restriction. (That includes both spouses if married.) Also, reduce Medicare coverage on some kind of sliding scale. If you can afford to buy health insurance, you don't need the government to cover 80% of your medical expenses. In short, only help those who really need help.


Okay...that sounds like a decent beginning of a plan. Of course, those who don't participate in those social welfare programs get all their money refunded back to them with interest, right?
__________________________________________________ __

Wrong. Consider it a tax increase. I believe in the progressive tax system. This fits in rather nicely. :ThmbUp:

[ArlJim78]

Threatened by Sarah? Are you kidding? I donate to her campaign. I pray to God she's the Repugnican nominee in 2012 everyday.
good for you, at least you're not blowing your money on some of those lost cause democratic candidates.

[boxcar]

As you may recall, I am a fan of Joe Biden. I wish he wouldn't make so many slip of the tongues but I am confident in his ability to lead.

I understand others here may not share my views on Biden here. (shrug)

As long as it's not with his brain which is supposed to guide that tongue, right?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Posted by Boxcar above:
__________________________________________________ __

Quote from NJ:
If you want to do something constructive, eliminate any person from receiving SS whose assets/pensions exceed a certain dollar amount. Or use some other kind of dollar restriction. (That includes both spouses if married.) Also, reduce Medicare coverage on some kind of sliding scale. If you can afford to buy health insurance, you don't need the government to cover 80% of your medical expenses. In short, only help those who really need help.


Okay...that sounds like a decent beginning of a plan. Of course, those who don't participate in those social welfare programs get all their money refunded back to them with interest, right?
__________________________________________________ __

Wrong. Consider it a tax increase. I believe in the progressive tax system. This fits in rather nicely. :ThmbUp:

But why should the wealthy pay taxes when they reap no benefit from the money from THEIR tax money? In the real world (i.e. private sector) when do anyone of us part with our money when receiving no goods or services from a business in exchange? If the government is going to label the taxes as "social security", then it seems to me that those who pay that tax should either receive the benefit therefrom or should be entitled to a full refund with interest. That's fair and honest and above board.

Boxcar

[Leonard]

But why should the wealthy pay taxes when they reap no benefit from the money from THEIR tax money? In the real world (i.e. private sector) when do anyone of us part with our money when receiving no goods or services from a business in exchange? If the government is going to label the taxes as "social security", then it seems to me that those who pay that tax should either receive the benefit therefrom or should be entitled to a full refund with interest. That's fair and honest and above board.

Boxcar

I wonder how many people would actually stand for this insane deficit spending, ever-growing bureaocracy and ever-intrusive government if all Americans actually paid the same percentage of their incomes in taxes?

A politician explaining why he must raise taxes on everyone (including those earning so little they currently don't pay taxes) to save a species of smelt, build a tunnel for turtles, bail out banks, increase the salaries of IRS agents, etc. would, instead, probably opt for working towards a more responsible government on behalf of its citizens (especially those in the lower income brackets) or quickly be voted out of office. As it stands, there are all too many who do not pay taxes -- they have no skin in the game so they just don't care -- as long as they get theirs why should they care what the other guy pays or, more importantly, what the government is even doing with tax revenues?

Currently, politicians make promise after promise because they have a built in constituency that wants more and more. They want more because it costs them nothing in the first place.

[boxcar]

I wonder how many people would actually stand for this insane deficit spending, ever-growing bureaocracy and ever-intrusive government if all Americans actually paid the same percentage of their incomes in taxes?

A politician explaining why he must raise taxes on everyone (including those earning so little they currently don't pay taxes) to save a species of smelt, build a tunnel for turtles, bail out banks, increase the salaries of IRS agents, etc. would, instead, probably opt for working towards a more responsible government on behalf of its citizens (especially those in the lower income brackets) or quickly be voted out of office. As it stands, there are all too many who do not pay taxes -- they have no skin in the game so they just don't care -- as long as they get theirs why should they care what the other guy pays or, more importantly, what the government is even doing with tax revenues?

Currently, politicians make promise after promise because they have a built in constituency that wants more and more. They want more because it costs them nothing in the first place.

Very good post! As long as crooked politicians have enough leeches comprising the electorate, neither will care how badly they skin the productive, wealth-generating water carriers who shoulder the tax burdens.

Boxcar

[Valuist]

It sounds to me NJ Stinks like you are endorsing Paul Ryan's medicare plan. Its unfortunate he won't run in 2012. The fact of the matter is, Medicare and SS are unsustainable ($107 trillion in unfunded liabilities) and will both be bankrupt within the next 8 years. Then what are you going to tell the people. Somebody desperately needs to fix the mess that FDR and LBJ have created, or we are going to be Greece in a few years.

Has Ryan definitively said he won't run? I've heard some vague talk about him wanting his kids to be older when he makes a run at the Presidential nomination, but there's a lot of people that want to see him run.

[GaryG]

Has Ryan definitively said he won't run? I've heard some vague talk about him wanting his kids to be older when he makes a run at the Presidential nomination, but there's a lot of people that want to see him run.About two weeks ago he said definitely no. I hope he changes his mind.

[Leonard]

It sounds to me NJ Stinks like you are endorsing Paul Ryan's medicare plan. Its unfortunate he won't run in 2012. The fact of the matter is, Medicare and SS are unsustainable ($107 trillion in unfunded liabilities) and will both be bankrupt within the next 8 years. Then what are you going to tell the people. Somebody desperately needs to fix the mess that FDR and LBJ have created, or we are going to be Greece in a few years.

The government put Bernie Madoff in jail because Madoff had the audacity to essentially model his fund using government programs as a template. A Ponzi scheme is a Ponzi scheme no matter who runs it or what you want to call it. Bernard Madoff Securities LLC, Social Security, Medicare... they all function exactly the same way and all pyramid schemes inevitably end the same way.

At some point the house of cards falls because it cannot withstand its own weight.

[NJ Stinks]

I wonder how many people would actually stand for this insane deficit spending, ever-growing bureaocracy and ever-intrusive government if all Americans actually paid the same percentage of their incomes in taxes?

A politician explaining why he must raise taxes on everyone (including those earning so little they currently don't pay taxes) to save a species of smelt, build a tunnel for turtles, bail out banks, increase the salaries of IRS agents, etc. would, instead, probably opt for working towards a more responsible government on behalf of its citizens (especially those in the lower income brackets) or quickly be voted out of office. As it stands, there are all too many who do not pay taxes -- they have no skin in the game so they just don't care -- as long as they get theirs why should they care what the other guy pays or, more importantly, what the government is even doing with tax revenues?

Currently, politicians make promise after promise because they have a built in constituency that wants more and more. They want more because it costs them nothing in the first place.

If all Americans paid the same percentage of income taxes, the rate would be so low that we wouldn't be able afford squat. And that includes a sufficient military. Either you have no idea how concentrated the wealth is in this country or you are just another Teabagger who salutes when somebody mentions tax cuts.

As for the second paragraph, everybody who works has skin in the game. Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes are paid by everybody who works - no matter how little they earn.

[NJ Stinks]

But why should the wealthy pay taxes when they reap no benefit from the money from THEIR tax money? In the real world (i.e. private sector) when do anyone of us part with our money when receiving no goods or services from a business in exchange? If the government is going to label the taxes as "social security", then it seems to me that those who pay that tax should either receive the benefit therefrom or should be entitled to a full refund with interest. That's fair and honest and above board.

Boxcar

You want real world, Boxcar? Bring back the 50% maximum federal income tax rate. We had at least a 50% rate top rate until Reagan took office. That's when the big deficits started. You could look it up but I'm sure you won't.

[riskman]

Every day I run into people who were once Republicans but are now disgusted by how the GOP has betrayed the American heritage of freedom. I hope this disgust will become even more widespread and that it will generate support for an alternative party, one that is serious about a return to small, decentralized government. Needless to say, I don’t expect the existing Republican leadership to help forge such a party. They are the opposition that would have to be dealt with if such an alternative can prevail.

[Valuist]

You want real world, Boxcar? Bring back the 50% maximum federal income tax rate. We had at least a 50% rate top rate until Reagan took office. That's when the big deficits started. You could look it up but I'm sure you won't.

Yeah, Reagen was really a bust. Only got the economy jump started for a 2 decade run and got us out of a horrible recessionary period marked by ultra high inflation and sky high interest rates. Yeah, we all yearn for the wonderful pre-Reagen days of Jimmy Carter :bang:

[ponyplayerdotca]

I will never understand the hatred with which you all seem to have about the well-being of your own country, one I consider to be the best in the world when it comes to patriotism, etc.

Simply put, regardless of which party is in power at a given time, it should be inherent to all members of government to work together for the betterment of all, not the detriment.

How any rational person can tolerate governmental gridlock every 2-4 years due to power shifts is very hard to understand.

When it comes to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", it's not supposed to be "us versus them" all the time. It's just supposed to be "us".

But I'm not American, so I guess I will truly never understand what goes on there. Try to stay positive about your leaders, even if you hate their guts. Don't just cheer against them until yours get back in. That doesn't serve any of you well at all.

[rastajenk]

Well, see, it's that "betterment of all" part that's pretty subjective, that's a judgment call that leads to diverse passions and principles. Just because a given issue gets compromised surely doesn't mean that's the best action to take. Many of us prefer a gridlock than to witness someone's vision of betterment go horribly wrong.

[NJ Stinks]

Yeah, Reagen was really a bust. Only got the economy jump started for a 2 decade run and got us out of a horrible recessionary period marked by ultra high inflation and sky high interest rates. Yeah, we all yearn for the wonderful pre-Reagen days of Jimmy Carter :bang:

What Reagan did the first couple years was good (i.e. the tax cuts). Kind of like a stimulus package to kick start the economy. But the country could never absorb those tax cuts long term. Hence, deficits have done nothing but soar ever since except for a short respite under Clinton. I know you enjoy looking up statistics, Valuist. Look it up and then tell me I'm wrong.

P.S. To me it will always be National Airport.

[Leonard]

If all Americans paid the same percentage of income taxes, the rate would be so low that we wouldn't be able afford squat. And that includes a sufficient military. Either you have no idea how concentrated the wealth is in this country or you are just another Teabagger who salutes when somebody mentions tax cuts.

As for the second paragraph, everybody who works has skin in the game. Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes are paid by everybody who works - no matter how little they earn.

Taxes could be relatively low across the board. The private sector would respond by massive growth increasing the standard of living of Americans as a whole. Even if it results in less government revenue, you make that sound like it's a bad thing!

Government revenue and spending as a percentage of GDP usually hovered in the 3% range for more than half of this nation's history and yet the government was able to perform all of its essential functions. That percentage (spending) is now 28% and the government, and more importantly, its citizens, are struggling... go figure.

Those paying only social security and medicare are, in theory, paying in to programs that will only benefit them, personally. They are paying towards their own future geriatric benefits and not for programs supporting the general welfare (courts, military, etc.) like everyone else. They also happen to receive far above and beyond what they pay in proportionally -- at the expense of others.

[Leonard]

I will never understand the hatred with which you all seem to have about the well-being of your own country, one I consider to be the best in the world when it comes to patriotism, etc.

Simply put, regardless of which party is in power at a given time, it should be inherent to all members of government to work together for the betterment of all, not the detriment.

How any rational person can tolerate governmental gridlock every 2-4 years due to power shifts is very hard to understand.

When it comes to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", it's not supposed to be "us versus them" all the time. It's just supposed to be "us".

But I'm not American, so I guess I will truly never understand what goes on there. Try to stay positive about your leaders, even if you hate their guts. Don't just cheer against them until yours get back in. That doesn't serve any of you well at all.

You pointed out some very interesting observations.

First, no matter the label -- Democrats, Republicans, conservatives or liberals (well, maybe not the liberals... :rolleyes: ), we have no hatred towards our country. All want what is best for it. We just have very, very different views as to what is best. Those on the left never really like what we have which is why they always want to change everything. Those on the right believe in the original founding principles of the country and want to stick as close as possible to them.

Kind of like two guys going to a Sady Hawkins dance with their dates --

The liberal guy sees what he thinks is a better looking girl across the dance floor and is willing to leave his date at the punch bowl all night to dance with the other girl.

The conservative believes you should dance with the one that brought you.

When it comes to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", it's not supposed to be "us versus them" all the time. It's just supposed to be "us".

But if the other guy wants to tell you how to run your life, take away your liberty and force his idea of happiness on you...

[NJ Stinks]

Taxes could be relatively low across the board. The private sector would respond by massive growth increasing the standard of living of Americans as a whole. Even if it results in less government revenue, you make that sound like it's a bad thing!

Government revenue and spending as a percentage of GDP usually hovered in the 3% range for more than half of this nation's history and yet the government was able to perform all of its essential functions. That percentage (spending) is now 28% and the government, and more importantly, its citizens, are struggling... go figure.

Those paying only social security and medicare are, in theory, paying in to programs that will only benefit them, personally. They are paying towards their own future geriatric benefits and not for programs supporting the general welfare (courts, military, etc.) like everyone else. They also happen to receive far above and beyond what they pay in proportionally -- at the expense of others.

OK. It's agreed. Let's take them out and shoot them. I'll call Cheney. :D

You make it sound like people weren't struggling in the 1800's. Anyway, here's a chart. Notice that things were pretty consistent from the mid-1950's through 2008.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1792_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US&state=US&color=c&local=s

[NJ Stinks]

Kind of like two guys going to a Sady Hawkins dance with their dates --

The liberal guy sees what he thinks is a better looking girl across the dance floor and is willing to leave his date at the punch bowl all night to dance with the other girl.

The conservative believes you should dance with the one that brought you.



Leonard, you have a great sense of humor! :lol:

I've been married 30 years and I'm liberal. I'd post a link but I'm afraid you'd try to steal my girl! :p

[Leonard]

OK. It's agreed. Let's take them out and shoot them. I'll call Cheney. :D

You make it sound like people weren't struggling in the 1800's. Anyway, here's a chart. Notice that things were pretty consistent from the mid-1950's through 2008.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1792_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US&state=US&color=c&local=s

Nah, Cheney would miss and shoot a duck by mistake.

No doubt many people were struggling in the 1800s -- just like many are struggling today. I was simply pointing out that the U.S. government functioned quite nicely at a 3% GDP level. Heck, I will be generous and even meet you half way and agree to limiting the government to 14% GDP!

[Tom]

How about no government? :rolleyes:

[Leonard]

Leonard, you have a great sense of humor! :lol:

I've been married 30 years and I'm liberal. I'd post a link but I'm afraid you'd try to steal my girl! :p


You must have few years on me then -- I married my highschool sweetheart 22 years ago and I am "still dancing with the one that brought me."

Now who said liberals and conservatives can have nothing in common? There is always girls and horses. :ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Well, see, it's that "betterment of all" part that's pretty subjective, that's a judgment call that leads to diverse passions and principles. ...

You know, I almost posted something earlier after I got a rare chance to watch O'Reilly factor prior to the late night re-run. He had one of his regular "adversaries" on, Dr. Marc LaMont Hill (I think that's his name). I like Dr. Hill. I rarely agree with a lot of what he says, but he's a good guest with a tolerable method of conveying his (ordinarily dissenting) opinion.

Tonight he reiterated at least twice that I heard that, essentially (paraphrasing), "American's are coaxed into objecting to policy that is in their best interest."

My first issue with this common belief is encapsulated in the gist of Rasta's post. There's two ends to everything. What offers as benefit has the inherent consequence. It is rare to actually find a "win - win situation". Obviously in the context of the health care issue, which was the subject of the exchange, we are all patently aware of the sacrifices for this "best interest" -- be it tax burdens, the certainty of premium increases for those that already sacrifice for coverage or a reduction in quality of care in those policies that already exist to compensate for the requisites, mandates on businesses struggling to remain viable and offer employment, and on and on, etc., etc....

So, that aspect of the "best interest" part of the argument is a narrow view to say the least.

Then to take a completely opposite opposition to Dr. Hill's view, being the person that does in fact benefit directly, being the person that can genuinely claim that on its face, it is in my "best interest" -- why is it so utterly inconceivable and maddening that someone would act on principal over what is in their "best interest"?

What makes me an illogical (foe of Rahm Emannuel) for wishing that I had the benefit of the proposals, but also being unsupportive of its implications? Why can't I hold true to my perceptions of Americanism and Constitutionality and find those beliefs to supercede my desire, perhaps even my need, for the benefits of a piece of legislation?

Is it still being greedy if when you object to the benefit, you are depriving yourself? Why does Dr. Hill believe that I should act in my "best interest", rather than encouraging me to do what I believe is "right".

[NJ Stinks]

You know, I almost posted something earlier after I got a rare chance to watch O'Reilly factor prior to the late night re-run. He had one of his regular "adversaries" on, Dr. Marc LaMont Hill (I think that's his name). I like Dr. Hill. I rarely agree with a lot of what he says, but he's a good guest with a tolerable method of conveying his (ordinarily dissenting) opinion.

Tonight he reiterated at least twice that I heard that, essentially (paraphrasing), "American's are coaxed into objecting to policy that is in their best interest."

My first issue with this common belief is encapsulated in the gist of Rasta's post. There's two ends to everything. What offers as benefit has the inherent consequence. It is rare to actually find a "win - win situation". Obviously in the context of the health care issue, which was the subject of the exchange, we are all patently aware of the sacrifices for this "best interest" -- be it tax burdens, the certainty of premium increases for those that already sacrifice for coverage or a reduction in quality of care in those policies that already exist to compensate for the requisites, mandates on businesses struggling to remain viable and offer employment, and on and on, etc., etc....

So, that aspect of the "best interest" part of the argument is a narrow view to say the least.

Then to take a completely opposite opposition to Dr. Hill's view, being the person that does in fact benefit directly, being the person that can genuinely claim that on its face, it is in my "best interest" -- why is it so utterly inconceivable and maddening that someone would act on principal over what is in their "best interest"?

What makes me an illogical (foe of Rahm Emannuel) for wishing that I had the benefit of the proposals, but also being unsupportive of its implications? Why can't I hold true to my perceptions of Americanism and Constitutionality and find those beliefs to supercede my desire, perhaps even my need, for the benefits of a piece of legislation?

Is it still being greedy if when you object to the benefit, you are depriving yourself? Why does Dr. Hill believe that I should act in my "best interest", rather than encouraging me to do what I believe is "right".

On the other hand, John, I was watching an interview on TV. I'm not positive what show it was but it may have been State of the Union on CNN. The Republican governor of Mississippi and the Democratic governor of Michigan are being interviewed.

The host says 24% of the population of Mississippi does not have health insurance. So why is the gov of Mississippi against the Dem health plan? First, the gov contests the 24% number and says it's more like 17%. Then he says the Dem health plan is going to raise insurance rates and hurt the state of Mississippi because it's going to hurt small business - the backbone of Mississippi's economy.

Meanwhile, Michigan has about 16% of the population without health insurance. The gov of Michigan anwers the same question first by stating healthcare costs are killing the auto industry in Michigan - they must pay an extra $1,300 a car while the countries Michigan automakers compete with - like Canada and Japan - don't have to worry about healthcare costs. In short, the gov of Michigan is willing to try almost any kind of healthcare reform because what we have now is killing her state.

How can a gov - with 17-25% of his constituents out in the cold - turn down any chance to get these people healthcare coverage? I mean - roll the dice! Take a chance! Do SOMETHING! Almost anything is better than what you have now in Mississippi. (If the Dem plan ends up stinking up the place, it will be reformed again. Why wouldn't it be? :confused: )

The guy from Mississippi is seriously considering a run for President down the line. Not only would I never vote for the likes of him - I wouldn't even want to go to the track with him. He'd probably bet $2 to show all day. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

On the other hand, John, I was watching an interview on TV. I'm not positive what show it was but it may have been State of the Union on CNN. The Republican governor of Mississippi and the Democratic governor of Michigan are being interviewed.

The host says 24% of the population of Mississippi does not have health insurance. So why is the gov of Mississippi against the Dem health plan? First, the gov contests the 24% number and says it's more like 17%. Then he says the Dem health plan is going to raise insurance rates and hurt the state of Mississippi because it's going to hurt small business - the backbone of Mississippi's economy.

Meanwhile, Michigan has about 16% of the population without health insurance. The gov of Michigan anwers the same question first by stating healthcare costs are killing the auto industry in Michigan - they must pay an extra $1,300 a car while the countries Michigan automakers compete with - like Canada and Japan - don't have to worry about healthcare costs. In short, the gov of Michigan is willing to try almost any kind of healthcare reform because what we have now is killing her state.

How can a gov - with 17-25% of his constituents out in the cold - turn down any chance to get these people healthcare coverage? I mean - roll the dice! Take a chance! Do SOMETHING! Almost anything is better than what you have now in Mississippi. (If the Dem plan ends up stinking up the place, it will be reformed again. Why wouldn't it be? :confused: )

The guy from Mississippi is seriously considering a run for President down the line. Not only would I never vote for the likes of him - I wouldn't even want to go to the track with him. He'd probably bet $2 to show all day. :rolleyes:

Serious patriotic Americans would never dream of "rolling the dice" when it comes to freedom, individual liberties, capitalism or the U.S. constitution. Only people like yourself who care little about these things could even think in those terms.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Serious patriotic Americans would never dream of "rolling the dice" when it comes to freedom, individual liberties, capitalism or the U.S. constitution. Only people like yourself who care little about these things could even think in those terms.

Boxcar

OK. What percentage of people in Mississippi need to lacking healthcare coverage before their governor decides things are desperate and something needs to be done?

Seriously.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
The host says 24% of the population of Mississippi does not have health insurance. So why is the gov of Mississippi against the Dem health plan? First, the gov contests the 24% number and says it's more like 17%. Then he says the Dem health plan is going to raise insurance rates and hurt the state of Mississippi because it's going to hurt small business - the backbone of Mississippi's economy.

So if the bill has a negative impact on small business, what happens? Fewer people can afford health care. Therefore, more people are relying on government subsidies or have the burden of a mandate. Assuming that 24% can currently not afford health care, but the bill drops that number to zero, the unintended consequence is that zero people lack coverage, but how many can actually now not afford it? Does the number now go to 30% or 35%, higher?

They are covered, but they can't afford it. You covered people, but the number that lost their source of income has increased. Now we have two problems, but lost one. Higher unemployment and the actual cost of healthcare to those that can still afford it just went up as more people can no longer afford it, but are covered. Eventually, chances are, we're passing more bills in three years to remedy the new crisis of nobody being able to afford health care, but everyone being covered - a math problem without a real solution.


Meanwhile, Michigan has about 16% of the population without health insurance. The gov of Michigan anwers the same question first by stating healthcare costs are killing the auto industry in Michigan - they must pay an extra $1,300 a car while the countries Michigan automakers compete with - like Canada and Japan - don't have to worry about healthcare costs. In short, the gov of Michigan is willing to try almost any kind of healthcare reform because what we have now is killing her state.

Does she feel the same way about burdening government regulations and unions that cover the remaining $11,000 (made up number) worth of inflated costs? There are a number of things killing the auto industry, to pin it on health care is to pick and choose which issue you choose to politicize.


How can a gov - with 17-25% of his constituents out in the cold - turn down any chance to get these people healthcare coverage? I mean - roll the dice! Take a chance! Do SOMETHING! Almost anything is better than what you have now in Mississippi. (If the Dem plan ends up stinking up the place, it will be reformed again. Why wouldn't it be? :confused: )

I'm not naive enough to believe that perhaps the Governor has some secondary (or even primary) motive that is related to his own bottom line, but it could just be that people that are intimately close to the way legislation morphs over time have a habit of looking at the bigger picture and envisioning the potential for unintended consequences. Rolling the dice on an issue like this is, in my opinion, insane. This should be one of the most carefully scrutinized, debated, evaluate, whatever reform bills ever considered.

The implications are huge. It can be wonderful or it can be devastating. Lives are riding on it, quality of life is riding on it, and an economy is riding on it. To think that "getting something done" is better than "getting nothing done" is in my mind, twisted logic. The degree of pain as a consequence in failing is too great to assume that the mere fact that there is an idea on the table is an implication that we have a better alternative than what we have, and certainly what we could possibly have with a little more thought and patience.

He'd probably bet $2 to show all day. :rolleyes:

Well, if you went to the track with me, I'd probably buy us all pizza when we got there. I'd play the early double, a pick four and probably nine or fourteen superfectas. If one little thing in my analysis was off the mark, I'd be broke by race five - so I hope you are springing for dinner and gas for the way home... and if I might, a twenty for the late double so I can try to get even.

Look... no wait, I hate it when people on TV say "Look!", it usually means they are having trouble explaining what they are feeling and what they are thinking when the two are in conflict...

Listen... I could really use health insurance. I worked for less than half of the year in 2009 and made just over $12,000 in taxable income. I'm fortunate that I have VERY few expenses as I am in a unique position, but I earn just enough to feed myself, live, and buy a new pair of shoes every nine months or so. I'm the type of person that should be waving the Obama flag and crying over how I can't afford the doctor bills.

I've prattled on enough in this message, but I see the problem as too much insurance, not too little. The abuse of insurance, the overusage of policies for every trivial medical setback has created a model where people cannot afford to go to the doctor without insurance. That isn't necessary. I should be able to get a consult, bloodwork, and a follow-up for less than the price of one of those Smart Cars. Adding more people to a disfunctional system does not seem like a solution with long-term benefit. Particularly when you attempt to mandate certain behaviors from that system (no denials, etc...) that are by every logical conclusion going to either compromise care or significantly raise the cost to those with policies.

Do I have a solution? No. Does that mean I believe there is not a solution to be had? Mmmmm.... I'm reluctant to answer that honestly. I'd like to believe that there is a solution, but what I see in the one being offered is something not just flawed - I could live with flawed - but flawed to the degree that it appears to be a massive problem in a weak solution's clothing.

If it passes and becomes law, so be it. I won't be outraged and stomping my feet around - I hope it does solve the health care issue. At this point, with what I've seen and read, I wouldn't bet the Mississippi Governor's $2 to show on that happening.

[Leonard]

[QUOTE=johnhannibalsmith]

... I see the problem as too much insurance, not too little. The abuse of insurance, the overusage of policies for every trivial medical setback has created a model where people cannot afford to go to the doctor without insurance. That isn't necessary. I should be able to get a consult, bloodwork, and a follow-up for less than the price of one of those Smart Cars. Adding more people to a disfunctional system does not seem like a solution with long-term benefit. Particularly when you attempt to mandate certain behaviors from that system (no denials, etc...) that are by every logical conclusion going to either compromise care or significantly raise the cost to those with policies.

QUOTE]

We have a winner! :jump:

[NJ Stinks]

John, I've got to get to bed - I'm up early in the morning.

1. How can this gov be so sure small business will be hurt?

2. How can a public option not keep down the cost of health insurance?

3. My health insurance premiums are up about 400% since 1994. Status quo is unacceptable.

4. I agree overusage is killing us. Meanwhile, people protest losing their right to their overusage. It's crazy.

5. I'm sorry to hear about your tough go in 2009. Hope things get better for you quickly in 2010. :ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

[QUOTE=johnhannibalsmith]

... I see the problem as too much insurance, not too little. The abuse of insurance, the overusage of policies for every trivial medical setback has created a model where people cannot afford to go to the doctor without insurance. That isn't necessary. I should be able to get a consult, bloodwork, and a follow-up for less than the price of one of those Smart Cars. Adding more people to a disfunctional system does not seem like a solution with long-term benefit. Particularly when you attempt to mandate certain behaviors from that system (no denials, etc...) that are by every logical conclusion going to either compromise care or significantly raise the cost to those with policies.

QUOTE]

We have a winner! :jump:

Isn't it logical that a government run healthcare insurance agency would negotiate lower fees from healthcare providers?

Like Medicare does?

[Leonard]

[QUOTE=Leonard]

Isn't it logical that a government run healthcare insurance agency would negotiate lower fees from healthcare providers?

Like Medicare does?

Like the Defense Department negotiates lower fees on hammers?

[ArlJim78]

[QUOTE=Leonard]

Isn't it logical that a government run healthcare insurance agency would negotiate lower fees from healthcare providers?

Like Medicare does?
only in fantasyland. do you really want to use Medicare as your example of how government controls costs?

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=Leonard]

Isn't it logical that a government run healthcare insurance agency would negotiate lower fees from healthcare providers?

Like Medicare does?

Oh...is this why Medicare is broke -- because it's so very cost-efficient? Who would have ever thunk? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The implications are huge. It can be wonderful or it can be devastating. Lives are riding on it, quality of life is riding on it, and an economy is riding on it. To think that "getting something done" is better than "getting nothing done" is in my mind, twisted logic. The degree of pain as a consequence in failing is too great to assume that the mere fact that there is an idea on the table is an implication that we have a better alternative than what we have, and certainly what we could possibly have with a little more thought and patience.

The cavalier attitude of so many libs is mind-boggling. (Roll the dice! Take a chance! How can change hurt?) I think most of them think like Mosty who seems to think that societies should be treated like one big laboratory experiment -- one social engineering experiment after another. These liberals never, never seem to think about the consequences of such experiments because they probably don't believe there are any flaws in their plan. They are so egotistical, so all-wise that they just can't conceive that one of their "solutions" to a social problem would ever become a worse problem over time than the one they set out to correct! Mental Myopia runs rampant among so many politicians.

And to make matters worse with this administration, I don't believe they care about consequences. They're only interested in ramming legislation through.
They could care what the impact is going to be on business. Heck...BO doesn't even have anyone in his cabinet with business experience. I believe the big game plan here is to wreak more havoc on the private sector because that would get more people moved on to the plantation. BO is not mainly interested in growing the private sector or creating jobs. He's interested in growing the public sector and creating as many dependents on government as possible.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

1. How can this gov be so sure small business will be hurt?

As you know from past discussions, I've tried to plow through these bills. I've made efforts at reading the actual text and I've read various "cliff notes" from several different sources to sort of get a grip on the various inferences being drawn from different agendas/perspectives. We know from those past discussions that I don't feel very confident in my level of comprehension on many of the vague generalizations.

The one thing that I did seem to grasp fairly confidently were the employer mandates. Though the text does not use the word "payroll" to represent the thresholds for mandates, every "cliff notes" from every side of it seemed to agree that "payroll" is the standard.

The common stone cast on objection to this is that it exempts business with yearly payroll of less than $500,000. In actuality, per my understanding, the top level of taxation, or contribution if you prefer in the form of mandate, is achieved at the half-million figure. But, there are still mandates down to roughly half that amount (right around a quarter million in payroll) on a graduating scale as you reach one of five thresholds between the bottom and the top.

The reason that this caught my eye is that in my spare time, I still effort to be an advocate for my fellow horsemen. I'm not on an HBPA board, but am a member and asked for the National HBPA position on the bill as I was curious as to its impact. They had no information. The local HBPA never responded, they didn't have an answer.

So, I ventured to piece together a hypothetical scenario of a moderately successful public trainer with a string of thirty horses that is actually still able to squeeze out a living training horses. Assuming he had six grooms, three or four gallop boys, and a pony rider under his employ, I demonstrated that were he paying a fair and typical wage and actually reporting these wages accurately that he would fall into the category of those burdened with paying in the vicinity of 10% of his payroll in "contributions".

Maybe you think that horse trainers in the mid to low level of racing are raking the bucks, but a $25,000 tax burden is putting this guy out of the business. Frankly, the workman's compensation problem that is derived using a similar approach in many places (fee = payroll x %) where the rate is considerably lower has already pushed many over the brink and out the door.

So what happens? Well, the guy can lie about his payroll and take that risk. Or, he can run a slop shop and put a couple of guys out of a job and force those that remain to work considerably harder for the same amount of money. Or, he can choose the disincentivizing option of scaling back his operation simply to avoid the tax. This last part is a big problem for me. It's not only fundamentally wrong, but it is likely the scenario that we see happen throughout the population - if you strive to achieve, you are punished to the degree that it behooves you to maintain the same bottom line by underachieving or worse, not achieving at all.

There are many finer points within, but this long enough for just question #1.

2. How can a public option not keep down the cost of health insurance?

I think you have pretty much gotten the short and sweet answer in a few of the replies before this. But, here's my view on the public option:

They might as well just do it and get it over with at this point. I don't see how all of these ideas can plausibly work without it. I'm not rooting for it, mind you, but with all of these fantastic improvements to health care while also extending coverage to everyone under all circumstances and capping rates - I mean really - how long can private insurance last in this environment? It seems to me that if one of these overreaching bills is enacted, we will have government run health care in little time, whether it is part of a bill or not.

Now, how can it not keep down the cost of health care? Because the government plan is to essentially use the same problematic private model that we use now, except everyone can have access and supposedly the same level of care. How can the cost go down? Yes, it may cost you less on the surface. It will definitely cost me less on the surface, but the overall price tag isn't going down. The cost is just passed around through various taxes, many of which are clearly going to be "behavioral modifying" taxes (aka sin taxes).

A big government getting bigger and using that growth to become more and more of an influence or an impediment is just not for me. I like Mountain Dew - I don't need to get free health care but pay $17.00 for a twelve pack of soda as a result. Frankly, I'd rather make my own choices in life and not have the government decide that every thing that is popular is a potential revenue source for their broad inefficiency in making my life "better".

3. My health insurance premiums are up about 400% since 1994. Status quo is unacceptable.

Thank God this isn't a question, I'm getting sick of typing. Agreed, status quo sucks donkey kong. But as Dennis Miller once said about two for one sales at K-Mart - "hey folks, two of shit is shit." We are often deceived into thinking that something seems wonderful, a present perception of dissatisfaction and misery is great at obscuring our actual opinion of benefit and value.

4. I agree overusage is killing us. Meanwhile, people protest losing their right to their overusage. It's crazy.

Another statement I can agree with. But what do you do? This is the catch-22. I can't really bitch about someone paying $1,489.23 a month going to the doctor because he has the sniffles and walking out with a useless prescription for amoxicillin. People like to get their money's worth and good luck convincing the masses to act in the greater good to break the cyclical nature of this self-fulfilling prophecy of increased premiums.

5. I'm sorry to hear about your tough go in 2009. Hope things get better for you quickly in 2010. :ThmbUp:

Nothing wrong at all with my 2009. I've spent most of the last two decades working 365 days a year, seven days a week, from 4am to 7pm and loving every second of it. In that time, I probably never made as much as I did this year when push comes to shove. I'm done living my life worrying about what I have or don't have and unfortunately, between some health issues and a tough industry in racing, I can't do exactly what I love to do.

But I get to work at a farm where I've been based for the last decade, trading my work for room and board (and internet) and during the summer months when I do work full-time, I take in enough to keep me content year-round.

My biggest problem is actually the fact that I can't take care of medical issues the way that I'd like to. But you know what, if someone in Washington is going to help me out in that regard, I just want to see a return to the days when a guy like me could just walk into see a doctor (without a referral and the proper plan) that he trusts and get a (non-obscured by malpractice concerns) honest opinion and pay cash for the service.

I don't expect to pay cash for heart surgery or to have my pancreas yanked out - but that is what insurance SHOULD cover - the unexpected, the potentically tragic, the catastrophic - and I frankly could come to terms with an effort to extend coverage of that nature broadly. But piling onto the problematic aspect of insurance, the part that drives the cost of the everyday visit and minor services through the roof, is not what I'm after.

[NJ Stinks]

[QUOTE=NJ Stinks]
only in fantasyland. do you really want to use Medicare as your example of how government controls costs?

Yes I do. I take care of my Mom's finances. She's 85. So I see all of her medical bills, what Medicare as her primary insurer pays, and what her secondary insurer pays. Here's a few examples:

1. Last November Mom was having trouble digesting food. Which caused her to throw up. A lot. Her primary doctor ordered a gastric emptying study (a diagnostic imaging procedure that measures the time it takes the stomach to empty and detects gastroesophageal reflux). It was done at a radiology clinic. The total bill submitted to Medicare by the radiology clinic was $565.

Medicare approved only $300 of the $565 bill and paid $240 to the radiology clinic. (That's right. Medicare is always good for 80% of the bill after Medicare knocks it down.)

Mom's secondary insurer paid the other $60 ($240 + $60 = $300). That's it. Mom paid nothing out of pocket.

2. Also last November, before the gastric emptying study, Mom visted her primary doctor on a routine check-up visit. (That's when the doctor ordered the test in #1 above.) The doctor submitted a bill to Medicare for $147.

Medicare approved only $100 of the $147 bill and paid $80 to the doctor. (Once again Medicare paid 80% of the bill after they knocked it down.)

Mom's secondary insurer paid the other $20 ($80 + $20 =$100). That's it. Mom paid nothing out of pocket.
__________________________________________________ __

OK. Why do you think Medicare was able to knockdown these bills like they did? Medicare is a single payor representing a vast group of people, that's why. The radiology clinic either had to deal with Medicare or we weren't going to their clinic. If you think all the medical providers in this country are going to turn down the vast majority of their business (people over 65), I disagree. If you think doctors are going to turn down seniors enmasse, I disagree for the same reason. If you think doctors are going to leave the country, maybe they will. But what country are they going to go to?

To compare how Mom made out with Medicare vs. how I did with a private insurer as my primary insurer, here's one of my bills from 2009. It's was for X-rays my wife had. The radiology clinic submitted a bill to our primary insurer for $271.

Our primary insurer paid $132.

My wife and I paid $132.

So our primary insurer knocked the original bill down $7 ($271 - $264).
______________________________________________

You can tell me all day long that a single payor or public option would hurt our freedom/choices etc. I have no reason to believe it. Medicare has not refused to cover any medical treatment Mom has had during the last 7 years since that I've been involved with her finances and medical treatments. (And those medical bills have been substantial.) I'm just noting here what everybody here over 65 has seen for themselves. Medicare may be overused (no maybe there) but it is absolutely a great example of the government controlling healthcare costs. Medicare Administrative fees are peanuts compared to those of my private insurer and Medicare is not exisiting to post profits at the end of the year like my private insurer is.

Two more notes. First, earlier I said my health insurance premiums increased about 400% since 1994. (I'm using 1994 because I recently found out what my monthly health insurance premium was in 1994.) I found this website that tells you what 1994 dollars should be worth today if you just kept up with inflation the last 16 years. My $114 per month premium in 1994 should be costing me $170 a month today. That works out too a 70% increase due to inflation - not the over 400% increase I really got.

And finally, in 1994 gas cost about $1.35 cents a gallon. Using the inflation calculator again, gas should cost $2.00 a gallon today. (We're at about $2.50 per gallon here in Jersey today.) If gas went up like healthcare costs, we'd be paying $5.50 a gallon today and people would be screaming for the government to do something about it.