Birthers are Crazy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
A lot of working class people cannot afford preventative healthcare and then end up in the emergency room where fixing the problem costs way more than the preventative care would have and there’s no way they can pay for the visit and treatment so the costs end up on the tax payers and the people who end up in the emergency room end up in debt making it more difficult for them to make more and be better and more productive members of society. It’s a vicious cycle and contributes the rising costs of healthcare.

If there’s a problem with this logic please point it out. If you think there’s solution to model that doesn’t involve universal healthcare, I’d like to know that too.

[/quote]

So, what’s your diet and training. I may want to make some changes to your lifestyle. You know for the general welfare.

302

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
A lot of working class people cannot afford preventative healthcare and then end up in the emergency room where fixing the problem costs way more than the preventative care would have and there’s no way they can pay for the visit and treatment so the costs end up on the tax payers and the people who end up in the emergency room end up in debt making it more difficult for them to make more and be better and more productive members of society. It’s a vicious cycle and contributes the rising costs of healthcare.

If there’s a problem with this logic please point it out. If you think there’s solution to model that doesn’t involve universal healthcare, I’d like to know that too.

[/quote]

So, what’s your diet and training. I may want to make some changes to your lifestyle. You know for the general welfare.[/quote]

So what’s your solution to the problem? Or do you think the problem is imagined and if so why? And are there really any first world nations that are that invasive?

303

The problem with that is that the general person that lacks medical coverage isn’t going to do preventative care. Leading a healthy lifestyle isn’t expensive and that is the most important thing. Coverage of “preventive” doctor care isn’t going to get a fat lazy slob off the couch.

304

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
A lot of working class people cannot afford preventative healthcare and then end up in the emergency room where fixing the problem costs way more than the preventative care would have and there’s no way they can pay for the visit and treatment so the costs end up on the tax payers and the people who end up in the emergency room end up in debt making it more difficult for them to make more and be better and more productive members of society. It’s a vicious cycle and contributes the rising costs of healthcare.

If there’s a problem with this logic please point it out. If you think there’s solution to model that doesn’t involve universal healthcare, I’d like to know that too.

[/quote]

So, what’s your diet and training. I may want to make some changes to your lifestyle. You know for the general welfare.[/quote]

So what’s your solution to the problem? Or do you think the problem is imagined and if so why? And are there really any first world nations that are that invasive?[/quote]

Free market. We are closer to socialized medicine right now than we are a free market. It’s the regulations that have screwed it up in the first place.

NY is trying to ban certain sugary drinks. “sin taxes” are all over the place. I can’t grow certain plants. I’m not adult enough to decide to wear a seat belt or not.

305

Orion,

“For profit doctors are awesome.”

Any doctor that is paid is “for profit”, my doctor at the VA (my GP not any of my specialists) makes roughly $175,000, he works 40 hours per week, does rounds once in a blue moon, pays no malpractice insurance, has no overhead and spends as much time as he needs with me, I get better care because he is not double and triple scheduling in order to pay his $40,000 a year in malpractice insurance. My private healthcare is not better than my public (this is of course anecdotal, results may vary).

DoubleDuce,

“like half the people on welfare claim disability. If you personally want to create a saftey net, start your own charity”

Close to 5% of Americans are on SSD or SSI, you are probably correct in assuming that many of them do not need it, they are “gaming the system”. For fun let’s say half of the 15,000,000 receiving disability are faking and the other half need it, that is 7,500,000 Americans that includes disabled veterans, firemen, police, construction workers, farmers etc., not counting people born with disabilities (Downs Syndrome, severe CP, Spina Bifida etc) What should we do with them? The social safety net is in place so that if you run into a burning building to save a family of 6, or jump on a grenade to save your platoon, you won’t be put out on the street to die.

“Private, for profit, healthcare does a much better job than both non-profit private and public versions. Government healthcare has about the highest denial rate among providers. Having coverage and receiving care aren’t the same thing.”

I wonder what would happen if there were no middlemen (insurance companies) and doctors could just treat the sick? I bet denials would almost disappear, maybe the problem is the insurance companies?

ZEB,

"What do you base this on? 38% is oppressive, I paid it and I don’t like it. I had less money to expand my business and less money for other activities as well. If you add in state tax, property tax and the many other more minor taxes I was keeping about half of what I was making and that acted as a motivator for me to make less not more. "

38% is the personal income tax rate, I would suggest we lower corporate tax rates substantially (to about 9% or so), it would encourage investment in the US as well as spur hiring, R+D, and new infrastructure.
So you made your business smaller so that you could make less money and be taxed less? That doesn’t sound like a great plan, if 38% is the max rate and you are capable of making more money why wouldn’t you? I’m certain that in countries where the tax rate is insane (Sweden) there are billionaires, I’m sure that when the tax rates were higher in the US we had billionaires, 38% seems to be a motivator for most people to make more money (so that they have more), obviously everyone wants a 0% tax rate plus roads, schools, hospitals, power grids, social security and a military, but that isn’t going to happen.

306

Firemen and cops and such have insurance with the job. Well, we could take probably 1/4 the money we spend on them and give it to the red cross or the catholic church and get them better treatment. Outside of the fraud, the government is also terribly inefficient in it’s social programs with as much as 80% going to administration (bureaucracy). And the less I pay in taxes the more I get to donate to better programs.

See unlike most liberals, I’m actually in favor of helping the poor. And what I mean by that is I actually go and help, donating MY time and MY money. Liberals generally are in favor of making someone else help the poor, and that ain’t the same thing.

Like I said, medicare/caid are the highest denial rates in the US. And you can eliminate them if you want. Go to the doctor and pay in cash.

307

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Sifu, Tribulus,

First off, I don’t want the US to turn “Socialist” at least not in the way you imagine it. I am for Universal Health care (hopefully in a more effective way then the Obama/Romney Care program we are getting) and I am for social welfare programs ( as a safety net, not as a permanent place of being), I don’t think we need to tax the rich at 60-70% and redistribute wealth, I am not anti-wealth or anti-success.

Second, as your statements demonstrate, we have no appreciation for Europe and what it does, we are a military and economic power but that is not the entire substance of a nation is it?
Happiness- The US ranks 11th behind lots of “Socialist” mostly European countries.
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Netherlands
Canada
Switzerland
Sweden
New Zealand
Australia
Ireland

Health Care
the WHO ranked the countries based on these factors:
Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy
Overall or average : 25%
Distribution or equality : 25%
Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
Overall or average : 12.5%
Distribution or equality : 12.5%
Fair financial contribution : 25%

the US ranked 37th, the top 10 included france, italy, spain , austria see what is going on there. The US also ranks 28th in life expectancy (despite spending the most $ on health care)

Innovation:
The thought that somehow high taxes and free health care limit innovation is misleading, the top 5 countries for biotech innovation and patents were:
USA
Singapore
Canada
Sweden
Denmark

Three of the top 5 are “socilaized” societies, with healthcare for all, and longer life expectancy than the US

I am not saying we need to become Europe, I am saying that some of the things they have done make sense, they took the profit motive out of treating disease without losing their innovation, they have a happy populace, they have high standards of living etc.
If the US took pains to avoid the obvious flaws of many European countries (massive spending on unemployment, lots of state mandated vacation etc) and instead focused on the things that work, people would/could still get obscenely rich, and the working poor could still get healthcare.

[/quote]

There you go with that logic and reasoning again

308

Right now every market is different , I can speak first hand in the Phoenix market they have Insurance and all the regulations figured out . I had a sebaceous cyst removed in SD because the Phoenix market wanted a Hospital room , Anesthesiologist . With Ins in Phoenix market I was looking at over a thousand (my Cost) SD was $300 my cost in Doc’s office and a little lidocaine .
I checked several doctors in Phoenix before going to SD

309

I am not totally sure but I believe SD health care is nonprofit

310

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Arguing with an unemployed angry old man will get you nowhere fast.[/quote]

My…quite classy, tolerant, forward thinking and inclusive of you. How old are you exactly? What makes you think age is a defect?[/quote]

I don’t, but if you paid attention around here, you’d notice that certain old men like to spout off about how the “young people” don’t know anything.

I’m 25, and my age is not (and has never been) a secret on these boards.

311

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
A lot of working class people cannot afford preventative healthcare and then end up in the emergency room where fixing the problem costs way more than the preventative care would have and there’s no way they can pay for the visit and treatment so the costs end up on the tax payers and the people who end up in the emergency room end up in debt making it more difficult for them to make more and be better and more productive members of society. It’s a vicious cycle and contributes the rising costs of healthcare.

If there’s a problem with this logic please point it out. If you think there’s solution to model that doesn’t involve universal healthcare, I’d like to know that too.

[/quote]

So, what’s your diet and training. I may want to make some changes to your lifestyle. You know for the general welfare.[/quote]

So what’s your solution to the problem? Or do you think the problem is imagined and if so why? And are there really any first world nations that are that invasive?[/quote]

Free market. We are closer to socialized medicine right now than we are a free market. It’s the regulations that have screwed it up in the first place.

NY is trying to ban certain sugary drinks. “sin taxes” are all over the place. I can’t grow certain plants. I’m not adult enough to decide to wear a seat belt or not.[/quote]

I hope you don’t mind more questions. I promise, I’m not just grilling you to bash you or anything like that. I’m just genuinely interested.

What has socialized medicine done to screw things up? How will the private market fix things? Do you think sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco are ok? If so, how is that different from a sin tax on sugary drinks?

312

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
So you made your business smaller so that you could make less money and be taxed less? That doesn’t sound like a great plan, if 38% is the max rate and you are capable of making more money why wouldn’t you? I’m certain that in countries where the tax rate is insane (Sweden) there are billionaires, I’m sure that when the tax rates were higher in the US we had billionaires, 38% seems to be a motivator for most people to make more money (so that they have more), obviously everyone wants a 0% tax rate plus roads, schools, hospitals, power grids, social security and a military, but that isn’t going to happen.
[/quote]
Lol dude, at this part especially

[quote]So you made your business smaller so that you could make less money and be taxed less? That doesn’t sound like a great plan[/quote]No one is pushing a magic button that cuts there business in half so that they get taxed less.

It takes effort to get money like that. So everybody is going to reach a point where they feel that the work/money/time/effort/reward is all in a balance that they are happy with. And taxes have an effect on that balance. He might have been comfortable working for more, if he would have gotten paid more.

313

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

38% is the personal income tax rate, I would suggest we lower corporate tax rates substantially (to about 9% or so), it would encourage investment in the US as well as spur hiring, R+D, and new infrastructure.[/quote]

Most small business are “S” corporations which means that their business income flows through as if it were personal income. Many do not understand how this works. When you raise the tax rates on “the rich” you are in essence raising the rates on those small business people who are struggling to make a living and keep their employees.

So, when you say “lower the tax rate for corporations” you want to lower the rate for the big corps but are leaving out those whose business income flows through as regular tax. I do agree that our corporate tax rates need to come down as they are the highest of any industrialized nation. But why punish the small business man? And for that matter why punish every American?

If Obama is reelected he will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for all Americans as he will not be able to get it through Congress otherwise. That means that every American will pay 5% more in taxes beginning in January.

This is a really bad idea given our current fragile economic status.

[quote] obviously everyone wants a 0% tax rate plus roads, schools, hospitals, power grids, social security and a military, but that isn’t going to happen.
[/quote]

I never said I wanted a 0% tax rate did I B r i a n? Stop with the straw man arguments is that all you have?

Malcom Forbes had a great idea which has been supported by many, many other very bright people. That is stop punishing the rich! The top 1% pay 37% of all taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of all income tax. How does it help our country to take money out of the hands of those who create jobs and give it to the US government so that they can waste it, or redistribute it?

The idea is a simple fair flat tax and everyone pays it. Perhaps 15% or 20%. The difference is there are no loopholes. Your tax form would be no larger than a post card. If you make 100-k you send in $15,000 (15%). If you make 30-k you send in $3,000.

This way we can reduce the size of the IRS and send thousands of accountants packing.

This probably makes too much sense for a liberal like you. You don’t get to punish the job creators and hand more money over to people who didn’t earn it and deserve it.

314

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Makavali wrote:

Arguing with an unemployed angry old man will get you nowhere fast.

My…quite classy, tolerant, forward thinking and inclusive of you. How old are you exactly? What makes you think age is a defect?[/quote]

Don’t waste your time with that punk Rockscar.

He’s actually a good example of a few 20 something knit wits who occasionally pop up around here. He doesn’t have a job, lives in his parents basement but is an expert on the US government and just about every other political topic. And he’s going to haunt this place until his parents take his computer privileges away.

315

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Firemen and cops and such have insurance with the job. Well, we could take probably 1/4 the money we spend on them and give it to the red cross or the catholic church and get them better treatment. Outside of the fraud, the government is also terribly inefficient in it’s social programs with as much as 80% going to administration (bureaucracy). And the less I pay in taxes the more I get to donate to better programs.

See unlike most liberals, I’m actually in favor of helping the poor. And what I mean by that is I actually go and help, donating MY time and MY money. Liberals generally are in favor of making someone else help the poor, and that ain’t the same thing.

Like I said, medicare/caid are the highest denial rates in the US. And you can eliminate them if you want. Go to the doctor and pay in cash.

[/quote]
This ^^^ is correct. Liberals don’t actually help people themselves, they pay people to help them. You wouldn’t want to get your hands dirty helping “those” people…

316

DoubleDuce,

firemen, cops, military etc. can receive both their disability from work and SSD, they are not exclusive (only ssi is, it is income dependent).

ZEB,

A flat tax is a great idea, you should ask Tribulus if he wants to pay 15% or 20% of his $14,000 (instead of the 13.3% he pays now) that would only raise his tax bill $300-1000 per year, easy peasy, very fair no problem at all. A flat tax benefits the wealthy and screws the working poor. 15% of 1,000,000 is a lot easier to handle than 15% of 14,000, don’t you think?

Strangemeadow,

Tsk, Tsk. Stereotyping like that, I am a liberal and I volunteered well over 1,000 hours last year (25 hours per week), with homeless kids, inner city youth, literacy programs, coaching etc. I did not use it as a tax break or as an alternative to jail, I did it because I could.

ZEB,

yes I am aware that most of the corporate tax benefits would be for larger corporations or others that had set up as C corps, but the s corps, DBA’s, LLC etc have the benefit of running all their profits, losses and expenses through personal income (since the corporation would not pay taxes) it’s not ideal but the option to change the corporate structure is almost always there, my thought would be that getting large American companies to headquarter back in the US at 9% tax (on hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue) is clearly better than having them headquartered in Lichtenstein and paying the US nothing.

317

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

ZEB,

A flat tax is a great idea, you should ask Tribulus if he wants to pay 15% or 20% of his $14,000 (instead of the 13.3% he pays now) that would only raise his tax bill $300-1000 per year, easy peasy, very fair no problem at all. A flat tax benefits the wealthy and screws the working poor. 15% of 1,000,000 is a lot easier to handle than 15% of 14,000, don’t you think?[/quote]

Just like a liberal you whine like a little baby girl because you claim the rich have all these write off’s and deductions. With a flat tax they are all taken away. Now which is it lefty? If they get all these breaks then the flat tax is more fair right? RIGHT?

As for Trib, anyone making under 30-k per year pays nothing. That’s why I used a bottom figure of 30-k paying 15%. Think BEFOR you post!

[quote]
yes I am aware that most of the corporate tax benefits would be for larger corporations or others that had set up as C corps, but the s corps, DBA’s, LLC etc have the benefit of running all their profits, losses and expenses through personal income (since the corporation would not pay taxes) it’s not ideal but the option to change the corporate structure is almost always there, my thought would be that getting large American companies to headquarter back in the US at 9% tax (on hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue) is clearly better than having them headquartered in Lichtenstein and paying the US nothing.[/quote]

You’re right about large C Corps but wrong about the little guys, S and LLC’s. Why do we have to punish them and give the fat cats a break? Why do we have to punish anyone? More liberal guilt? Ronald Reagan created 20 million new jobs by dropping the top rate to something like 26%. Let’s do that again and see what happens? The more money in the pockets of people who earned it means more money flows into the economy through spending and job creation. We then widen the tax base. The higher tax rate that people pay means the larger the government becomes which means they have more power, and more power to waste OUR MONEY.

This is not rocket science. The only reason to raise taxes on anyone is to punish the rich and GIVE it to the poor which as you should (but for some reason don’t) know by now hurts the person you take it from and the person you give it to.

Liberalism has failed it has not worked anywhere!

318

ZEB,

Corporate profits and wealth for the upper 5% of the population are all skyrocketing over the past 2+ years, I fail to see how that has translated into a vibrant economy, in fact it has translated into hoarding of cash and decreasing of labor costs.

"Just like a liberal you whine like a little baby girl because you claim the rich have all these write off’s and deductions. With a flat tax they are all taken away. Now which is it lefty? If they get all these breaks then the flat tax is more fair right? RIGHT?

ZEB, I don’t whine about write offs and deductions.

As for Trib, anyone making under 30-k per year pays nothing. That’s why I used a bottom figure of 30-k paying 15%. Think BEFOR you post!"

Zeb, you did not specify 30k as a cutoff for paying taxes, you just used it as an example of paying 10% (when you specified 15-20%). I can only assume that you are using a step down flat tax rate which I am not against, so if that is your suggestion I am in your corner, typically people promoting a flat tax want everyone paying the same amount to them it just seems “fair”, a step down flat tax sans deductions is a much more fair option.

“You’re right about large C Corps but wrong about the little guys, S and LLC’s. Why do we have to punish them and give the fat cats a break?”

Well it depends on how you look at it. Personal income tax is handled differently, but as a business owner you do have several advantages to lower your effective tax rate, so it is not necessarily punishing a “small” small business, though for more profitable small businesses it may mean a higher tax rate . The big plus to an S corp is the avoidance of double taxation, if you think about it, a C corp is taxed, and then the owner is taxed again on what they pay themselves, an S corp is only taxed once at the personal rate.

319

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
DoubleDuce,

firemen, cops, military etc. can receive both their disability from work and SSD, they are not exclusive (only ssi is, it is income dependent).

ZEB,

A flat tax is a great idea, you should ask Tribulus if he wants to pay 15% or 20% of his $14,000 (instead of the 13.3% he pays now) that would only raise his tax bill $300-1000 per year, easy peasy, very fair no problem at all. A flat tax benefits the wealthy and screws the working poor. 15% of 1,000,000 is a lot easier to handle than 15% of 14,000, don’t you think?

Strangemeadow,

Tsk, Tsk. Stereotyping like that, I am a liberal and I volunteered well over 1,000 hours last year (25 hours per week), with homeless kids, inner city youth, literacy programs, coaching etc. I did not use it as a tax break or as an alternative to jail, I did it because I could.

ZEB,

yes I am aware that most of the corporate tax benefits would be for larger corporations or others that had set up as C corps, but the s corps, DBA’s, LLC etc have the benefit of running all their profits, losses and expenses through personal income (since the corporation would not pay taxes) it’s not ideal but the option to change the corporate structure is almost always there, my thought would be that getting large American companies to headquarter back in the US at 9% tax (on hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue) is clearly better than having them headquartered in Lichtenstein and paying the US nothing.[/quote]
Tsk, tsk yourself for advertising all of your humanitarian work like that. I would have thought that the good deed was reward enough in and of itself. You won’t be getting a pat on the back from me. No one seems to give me a pat on the back for being in the top tax bracket and buying flat screens and new cars. I get vilified because I made something of myself.
I always thought our system was based on risk=reward, hard work and an education.

320

[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< I’m 25, and my age is not (and has never been) a secret on these boards.[/quote]I never knew that. I honestly thought you were older for some reason. I will however resist the urge to make chortling remarks about how your age explains some of the idiotic things you say. The rest have no explanation so I’ll leave that alone too.