OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

First, a few things of which you are probably unaware. The federal government is *causing* a great deal of our present problem. And before you dismiss this statement out of hand, let me show you why its so. When you think healthcare, you probably think ever increasing costs - prices that are increasing at 10+% every year.

I have to comment here, in the middle of the thought. It just seems that you are unaware that the problem is the bureaucracy itself. It's not *just* healthcare that it is bungling up. It is screwing up just about everything that it has a thumb in, and why? It's not simply because NO government can handle large projects responsibly, it's because OUR government can't handle projects responsibly. If people would quit towing a party line, and quit making illogical attacks against the "sworn political enemy", maybe we could work out a governmental paradigm that is actually effectual.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Currently, the federal government is reimbursing at about 66% of the actual cost of providing for the service.

So, now consider if you are a hospital - your level of service is mandated. You can't deny an indigent patient medical services, yet if the service cost you $1000 and the federal govt only gives you %650 what are you going to do?

Unlike the federal government which can operate in a deficit seemingly forever, hospitals pretty much have to balance their books every year. So that $350 cost gets spread around to the people that can pay it - both insured and cash basis patients...

...This is one of the many examples of federal programs having unanticipated consequences. There is another problem with the federal approach.

This has nothing to do with the viability of a national health care system, and everything to do with our dysfunctional government. Perhaps you would like to explain to me how so many other industrialized nations pull off the illusion of accomplishing the impossible feat of comprehensive national health care?

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

The second larger problem with the idea of health insurance - is that it no longer *IS* health insurance. I am all in favor of health insurance - but its no longer even possible to buy that in the US today.

The idea of health insurance as it was practised long ago was that *I* was responsible for the first X thousand dollars of my medical coverage. After that amount X was reached the insurer stepped in with something between 80%-100% of the coverage costs.

Ummmm, the way that insurance in general is supposed to work, is much more simple than that, and is the essence of how "socialized" programs like national health care could and should work. The basic idea is to statistically determine the odds of severe illness, and project the costs of dealing with that illness. In abstract terms, this means that if we say that 1 in 10 people will eventually suffer from a malady that costs $1000 dollars to treat, but we have no idea which 10% of the people, then we simply need everyone to to pay in $100 to cover the expenses of those who are afflicted.

One of the reasons that this system is starting to break down as it is (not to bring up greed from every party involved), is the skyrocketing instances of cancer, heart disease, and all manner of other extremely expensive ailments in America. Odd, when you consider how many of these diseases in fact could be avoided or reduced in severity if proper measures were put in place (like making sure everyone has adequate access to early screening to detect cancer when it can be dealt with at a fraction of the cost, and a fraction of the risk).

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

It is ironic - but the nucleus of McCains healthcare plan actually has the seeds of how to get out of some of this mess.
First, give every american $5000 dollars a year toward healthcare costs. Bankable or savable. But 5000 a year will pay for all the usual innoculations, and broken bones, and dental xrays. And then make things above that *your* responsbility.

I'm glad that -someone- thinks that McCain's plan is not only an actual plan, but a good one at that.

The problem with McCain's solution, is first, it's a tax credit, NOT a check for $5000 (where in hell would THAT money come from? 300mil+ people, that's 1.5 trillion dollars a year if it were true). There's an enormous, gaping hole in this idea though - the vast majority of the uninsured in America don't even make enough (and therefore generate anywhere near enough if Federal Income Taxes) to fully benefit from this.

But really, the boner here, is that if he really somehow managed to find $1.5 trillion (every year!) to throw at the health care problem, he could make it go away MUCH more easily than by forcing the individual to deal with things.

Oh, and a little anecdote, because I know everyone loves my anecdotes. After suffering severe migraines and other terrible side effects from all of the pharmaceutical antihistamines I tried (too bad I can't have ephedra, it worked wonders, but some people "abuse" it, so much for liberty), I was given a prescription for Allegra. Well, Allegra worked quite well for me, and while I was eligible for the Oregon Health Plan, I was paying $15/month for that medicine, and they picked up the rest. But once I was off the health plan, the cost went to $90/month. $3 a tablet, just for an antihistime. Over $1000/year that I can't pay right now, that McCain's plan will not even touch because I earn so little in my current state of health, that I don't even pay taxes at all, and thus would not receive any "credit".

<3

[thejeff]

What you might still have missed in McCain's health care approach, is not only is the $5000 a tax credit, but it's a credit to offset any health care benefits you might get from your employer now being taxed as personal income.

And $5000 doesn't buy a lot of health insurance. Maybe a high deductible plan to cover emergencies for the young and healthy. Anyone else is out of luck.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

The mentally ill should be helped, the homeless have shelters and programs which are to get them back into being useful into society. I've done volunteer work at these locations and they are given opportunities for returning back into society and some make this progression. The problem is many choose to remain homeless because they don't want any responsibility(cleaning dishes & answering phones) or they have bad habits such as stealing, violence and leeching off others.
Universal healthcare also opens the door to all the drug addicts who would now get free insurance allowing them to fake pains at the hospital so they can receive a fix of free drugs. At least today they need to provide their own insurance before abusing this option.

The "shelters" are understaffed, and very limited in capabilities. Unfortunately, the majority of people who are helping the "needy" are also religious groups, that withhold most of their aid unless you enlist in their church. And still, very few if any of these "shelters" and other aid programs provide effective counseling to help reintegrate people into society. Many of them have been through traumatic events on their way to living in the streets, and more still experience traumatic events once there. It's kind of silly to postulate that they are actually just lazy or uncooperative, when many of them are scared, confused, conflicted, and deeply depressed - if not outright mentally ill. It is our society, and our economy that allow them to reach bottom, it is sort of our collective responsibility to help them up.

As far as people leeching off of a health care system, sure, people abuse organized systems all the time. I can imagine it's unlikely you have worked at a single place that did not have at least one employee who did not pull their weight. They were abusing their employment situation, earning the same wage as you while expending less effort. Did this mean that your employer in each case was incompetent, and should not be allowed to manage workers? Maybe it just meant that not enough care or attention was put into minimizing the abusability of the workplace, and/or disincentivizing the abuse itself?

We created these problems ourselves. We unleashed this monster of a "federal government" upon our prosperous land. 100 years ago, this was an entirely different world, with different needs, different concerns, and different ideals. 100 years later, everything has changed, but our government is still essentially the same.

A man whom I hold in high regard warned us to keep changing and improving our methods of governance, because he felt that ANY system, if left in place in any given incarnation for too long, would become abused beyond usefulness. He helped make our country, and he told us to keep changing it, to keep innovating - or we would allow ourselves to become burdened with self-interested bureaucrats and bankers.

The people who stand to lose power, will try to convince you that it is un-American to want to change our mode of governance, to want to become something greater than we already are - but in truth, it is the highest of American ideals that we have the ingenuity and the sense to form a more perfect union, each form more perfect than the last.

<3

[capnq]

Whenever a third party candidate starts to get some traction on an issue, one or both of the major parties co-opts their position and folds it into their platform (e.g. sustainable energy). If you don't expect your vote to effect the outcome, voting third party at least sends a message.

I expect the economy to continue to tank regardless of who wins the Presidency.

[PyroStock]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Unfortunately, the majority of people who are helping the "needy" are also religious groups, that withhold most of their aid unless you enlist in their church.<3

Citation Needed.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Aezeal

Well as a lift wing person I of course disagree with this (and in our country only the most radical right pplz would even suggest this) I'm a firm believer in incom nivellation. Government needs money (how much is irrelevant, work for either high or low taxes) so pplz need to "give" it. Most fair and social and general "good" solution is to take more from the richest... even Robin Hood understood this (and in that role seen as a "Good guy" and not as a criminal) and I guess most of us have cheered at that as kids.. I'm surprised a lot of people lost that general sense of right and wrong when they grew up.

So many problems in this response... first stealing from anyone is WRONG and is one of the 10 commandments, but I guess you're not religious otherwise you'd have recognized this wrong. Second in referencing the true Robin Hood, he stole from the aristocracy; known to be the government of its time and he only started after the government began taking the mass majority of money from the people. If stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is good then it would be okay for the starving homeless to steal from you because to them you are rich. The point is its always easy to point the finger at anyone doing better than you and say take their money. Third my suggested gradual increased flat tax would actually provide those of lower income to pay less taxes and those such as Bill Gates to actually pay more, but somehow you failed to grasp the explanation.

Originally Posted by Aezeal

Sure if there is more money there is more too loose but I don't really think that makes it worse.. you 2 examples are somewhat flawed and more a reason to just improve the legislation around it all and not to say taxes should be lower. Even so I still have more to say about this.

That's the problem is neither of the candidates will be improving the legislation. Only the congress can change the legistation and this has not been improving during the last 15 years. Currently the democrats are running congress the last two years and the economy is only getting worse.

Originally Posted by Aezeal

1. The single mom thing: if there was yet MORE cash for the government then maybe there could be an arrangement where she didn't loose all when getting a job but there would be more of a gliding scale (costing more money)
2. university: well nothing new just want to sy again that this whole example has nothing to do with taxes, just with inefficency in general.

In both your responses the government having more money won't solve them. Both of them can be solved if the government provided a strong checks&balances system which better investigates how the money is spent and the end result. This would stop deans from giving themself a raise or wasting money in other ways I won't go into. This would also help the government realize why the single mom is not able to make her life better. Tossing more money at these departments won't solve the problem, they need to investigate and reorganize how current money is being spent.

Originally Posted by Aezeal

you alway have an option to vote where you cash goes... candidates have different opinions on it.. to bad that in the american system of campaigning even though it takes a lot of cash etc etc a lot of these points don't seem to be adressed much. It's a daydream to think you'd ever be able to vote on all topics where spending cash is concerned it would create an unworkable situation to have either polls on all subjects

Not voting on all subjects... that's just silly and funny to even think of such a thought. It would be nice if I could specify exactly which departments recieve my tax money. For example if I knew our government had a good Education system I could write "Education" on line 45 of my taxes form where 50% of my taxes would be sent to this department. The other 50% can be distributed evenly. This idea like the flat tax suggestion should be tested in two counties and then gradually expand.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Did this mean that your employer in each case was incompetent, and should not be allowed to manage workers? Maybe it just meant that not enough care or attention was put into minimizing the abusability of the workplace, and/or disincentivizing the abuse itself?

The difference here is that if my employer hires someone incompetent or messed up in some other way then its the company which suffers and may eventually die to competition. Now in regards to government we don't have any second, third, tenth, etc., option which will take over. You cannot compare companies to government... apples & rocks.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

We created these problems ourselves. We unleashed this monster of a "federal government" upon our prosperous land. 100 years ago, this was an entirely different world, with different needs, different concerns, and different ideals. 100 years later, everything has changed, but our government is still essentially the same.

A man whom I hold in high regard warned us to keep changing and improving our methods of governance, because he felt that ANY system, if left in place in any given incarnation for too long, would become abused beyond usefulness. He helped make our country, and he told us to keep changing it, to keep innovating - or we would allow ourselves to become burdened with self-interested bureaucrats and bankers.

The people who stand to lose power, will try to convince you that it is un-American to want to change our mode of governance, to want to become something greater than we already are - but in truth, it is the highest of American ideals that we have the ingenuity and the sense to form a more perfect union, each form more perfect than the last.

<3

I agree more perfect than the last... which means we have to repair our current government departments before adding new ones such as healthcare. As I wrote earlier if a college student is having serious problems with his classes you do not sign him up with another 4 credit class.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

So many problems in this response... first stealing from anyone is WRONG and is one of the 10 commandments, but I guess you're not religious otherwise you'd have recognized this wrong. Second in referencing the true Robin Hood, he stole from the aristocracy; known to be the government of its time and he only started after the government began taking the mass majority of money from the people. If stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is good then it would be okay for the starving homeless to steal from you because to them you are rich. The point is its always easy to point the finger at anyone doing better than you and say take their money. Third my suggested gradual increased flat tax would actually provide those of lower income to pay less taxes and those such as Bill Gates to actually pay more, but somehow you failed to grasp the explanation.

A moral argumant about Robin Hood!
I think the idea is it's ok to steal from a theif especially if the theif is greedy grabbing and power hungry. Lets think a modern day parralel:
To rashly generalise one of the most religious american states (read texas)also backs the death penalty, so its ok to kill a killer (also one of the ten comandments incase you were wandering, thou shalt not kill) is perfectly ok but stealing from a theif is just wrong?
Robin Hood is a great myth. Why? Because he believed in equality. He saw rich landlords and took them down a peg to feed some starving peasants (and yes I'm aware its fiction) Are you saying its wrong to steal to save the life of another?

Now on to taxes yes graduated taxes... so lets make sure I'm getting this, Bill Gates gives out 8% of his income ie small change for him, while the single working mother who just happens to live in extreme povert (lets say $2 a day) gives up 20 cents of that a day which could mean the differance betweeen say the existance of the next meal? Ok extreme example but is that what your getting at, lowest income still pay taxes but its a smaller percentage? No exceptions, what if I earn $200 a week but have 10 children to support?

Oh and stop blaming the civil servants! Pay the elected representatives less, and make the presidental candidates donate their campaign money instead of throwing it at the voters. Never mind wastage in govenrment any elected represntative of the people is forced to wastefull... I prefer the argumant over Robin Hood, its hard to argue over government efficiency because making something like that more efficient would require genocide

[Bwaha]

The one position that I agree with Obama is his dislike of the "Real Id" laws. I heard some people talking about it and was horrified. Bigger Brother...

[Edratman]

I don't mind paying taxes; it buys me civilization.