Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    Individual accounts for Social Security are a terrible idea. It would blow the pricing to smithereens. Right now, early deaths balance long lives. If you give everyone an individual account, you lose that balance and the pricing increases enormously.

    Investment diversification for the Social Security Trust fund is a great idea. Having 100% of the fund "invested" in US Gov't bonds is such a blatant and pernicious conflict of interest, if anyone in the private sector tried to do that, they'd all be in jail. I'd like to see the Social Security Trust fund invested in a portfolio of US-government owned income-producing assets: timberland harvesting righgts, ranch land grazing rights, oil and gas extraction royalties, broadband spectrum leases, and the like.

    This kind of investment portfolio would help take the pressure off the fund since these kinds of assets generally produce recurring revenues that would no longer be a direct drain on the annual budget.



    What is really very sad indeed is how few people in government know the difference between a balance sheet and an income statement.

    What is even sadder than that, many people in government actually take pride in the fact that they don't know it.
    I love how with Social Security arguments, no one ever mentions the death benefit. If you are a child and one of your parents dies, you could be entitled to $1000 per month until you become 18 years of age.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Gray
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    Individual accounts for Social Security are a terrible idea. It would blow the pricing to smithereens. Right now, early deaths balance long lives. If you give everyone an individual account, you lose that balance and the pricing increases enormously.

    Investment diversification for the Social Security Trust fund is a great idea. Having 100% of the fund "invested" in US Gov't bonds is such a blatant and pernicious conflict of interest, if anyone in the private sector tried to do that, they'd all be in jail. I'd like to see the Social Security Trust fund invested in a portfolio of US-government owned income-producing assets: timberland harvesting righgts, ranch land grazing rights, oil and gas extraction royalties, broadband spectrum leases, and the like.

    This kind of investment portfolio would help take the pressure off the fund since these kinds of assets generally produce recurring revenues that would no longer be a direct drain on the annual budget.



    What is really very sad indeed is how few people in government know the difference between a balance sheet and an income statement.

    What is even sadder than that, many people in government actually take pride in the fact that they don't know it.
    It really doesn't matter to anyone who is younger than the Baby Boomers what happens with Social Security, as it will be drained dry by the Boomers as they retire and vote at the booth to ensure their benefits take precedence over the country's future. Of course the same could be said for Medicare and other government programs that are on unsustainable trajectories. I just wish people would at least be honest that they are pillaging our nation's and their children's future.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    The government is paying the premiums which pay for the care. that's a single payer.

    Your proposal that "the government" pay directly makes even less sense. Where does that money come from?

    The taxpayer, right?

    So there is about a 125 million payer system now anyway, no matter how you channel the money.

    I suppose you really do believe that government "starts" with money? Have you ever stopped to think where the "government's money" comes from in the first place?

    some of us prefer accountability. the government treats all providers the same. that's stupid. there should be an incentive to seek out quality and value. right now, terrible service or quality service get paid the same. that is irresponsible.
    Good thing the government isn't entirely like a union. They'd give all the care to the old people and say to kill the children. Oh, wait...

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Gray
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    This is great, apparently for the next three months we're going to hear about how the Republicans favor single-payer and want to save Medicare. This is going to be as much fun as when Dubya rolled out his plan to "save" Social Security.

    What's next? "We Republicans actually favor gay rights by opposing marriage equality..."
    You are interested in maintaining high benefit levels from programs as long as possible until they collapse. Fiscal conservatives want to find ways to put these programs on a long term sustainable trajectory. Don't worry, your liberal media will go to great lengths to make sure everyone knows that Ryan is out to destroy all that is good in America.

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Individual accounts for Social Security are a terrible idea. It would blow the pricing to smithereens. Right now, early deaths balance long lives. If you give everyone an individual account, you lose that balance and the pricing increases enormously.

    Investment diversification for the Social Security Trust fund is a great idea. Having 100% of the fund "invested" in US Gov't bonds is such a blatant and pernicious conflict of interest, if anyone in the private sector tried to do that, they'd all be in jail. I'd like to see the Social Security Trust fund invested in a portfolio of US-government owned income-producing assets: timberland harvesting righgts, ranch land grazing rights, oil and gas extraction royalties, broadband spectrum leases, and the like.

    This kind of investment portfolio would help take the pressure off the fund since these kinds of assets generally produce recurring revenues that would no longer be a direct drain on the annual budget.



    What is really very sad indeed is how few people in government know the difference between a balance sheet and an income statement.

    What is even sadder than that, many people in government actually take pride in the fact that they don't know it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    This is great, apparently for the next three months we're going to hear about how the Republicans favor single-payer and want to save Medicare. This is going to be as much fun as when Dubya rolled out his plan to "save" Social Security.

    What's next? "We Republicans actually favor gay rights by opposing marriage equality..."

    Leave a comment:


  • Rover
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    The government is paying the premiums which pay for the care. that's a single payer.

    Your proposal that "the government" pay directly makes even less sense. Where does that money come from?

    The taxpayer, right?

    So there is about a 125 million payer system now anyway, no matter how you channel the money.

    I suppose you really do believe that government "starts" with money? Have you ever stopped to think where the "government's money" comes from in the first place?

    some of us prefer accountability. the government treats all providers the same. that's stupid. there should be an incentive to seek out quality and value. right now, terrible service or quality service get paid the same. that is irresponsible.
    Heh heh heh, I appreciate your effort and enthusiasm, but you're starting to sound like Sarah Palin.

    If you prefer accountability, then why do you support a budget where people over 55 pay nothing towards solving the country's fiscal problems????

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by Rover View Post
    Ummm....isn't 'single payer' one entity (as in the gubmint) is paying all the health care bills, whereas giving everybody a block grant to buy insurance makes it a 300 million payer system, approx the total population of the united states? Therefore, your argument makes absolutely no sense?
    The government is paying the premiums which pay for the care. that's a single payer.

    Your proposal that "the government" pay directly makes even less sense. Where does that money come from?

    The taxpayer, right?

    So there is about a 125 million payer system now anyway, no matter how you channel the money.

    I suppose you really do believe that government "starts" with money? Have you ever stopped to think where the "government's money" comes from in the first place?

    some of us prefer accountability. the government treats all providers the same. that's stupid. there should be an incentive to seek out quality and value. right now, terrible service or quality service get paid the same. that is irresponsible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rover
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    I didn't get it either. I'm sure he'll explain it to us.
    As I've said before, I hope he's getting paid by the Romney campaign to make such a fool out of himself on a regular basis.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScoobyDoo
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by Rover View Post
    Ummm....isn't 'single payer' one entity (as in the gubmint) is paying all the health care bills, whereas giving everybody a block grant to buy insurance makes it a 300 million payer system, approx the total population of the united states? Therefore, your argument makes absolutely no sense?
    I didn't get it either. I'm sure he'll explain it to us.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rover
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    You do realize that Ryan's premium support model for Medicare is single-payer, right?

    It works exactly the same way as the Federal government employees' health plan: the goverment gives everyone $xx,xxx and then they choose the plan they like.

    If you are so much in favor of single payer, why do you oppose the only serious single payer plan out there?

    Ummm....isn't 'single payer' one entity (as in the gubmint) is paying all the health care bills, whereas giving everybody a block grant to buy insurance makes it a 300 million payer system, approx the total population of the united states? Therefore, your argument makes absolutely no sense?

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
    You do realize that Ryan's premium support model for Medicare is single-payer, right?

    It works exactly the same way as the Federal government employees' health plan: the goverment gives everyone $xx,xxx and then they choose the plan they like.

    If you are so much in favor of single payer, why do you oppose the only serious single payer plan out there?
    The same reason Obummer hated the global war on terror until 2009: it doesn't have a (D) next to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by unofan View Post
    Which is why i'm all for single payer, because there's no reason for an advanced society with our resources to choose the latter.
    You do realize that Ryan's premium support model for Medicare is single-payer, right?

    It works exactly the same way as the Federal government employees' health plan: the goverment gives everyone $xx,xxx and then they choose the plan they like.

    If you are so much in favor of single payer, why do you oppose the only serious single payer plan out there?

    Leave a comment:


  • unofan
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
    The way things are set up (even with, and maybe especially with, Obamacare), there *is* no losing gamble. We should either eliminate the gamble entirely (single payer with mandatory taxes) or stop covering the gambling losses outright.
    Which is why i'm all for single payer, because there's no reason for an advanced society with our resources to choose the latter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rover
    replied
    Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    I appreciate all the knuckledragger logic about how people just get hip and knee replacements on a whim instead of grinding life out on pain pills for the next 30 years in order for Republicans to pass more tax cuts for the rich (ie The Ryan Budget) but let me ask you something. For all of you people claming we should do this, have YOU ever forgone a more expensive procedure that insurance was covering even if it meant you staying in pain longer than you would have had you gotten the recommended medical care? Because if you're just talking the talk, and not walking the walk, I nominate you for the Newt Gingrich Profile in Hypocrisy Award.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X