patrick.net

2ndClassCitizen says

Shut down the FED and fractional reserve banking so we can have an honest money system and we won’t be able to buy anything we can’t afford. That would be a good thing.

You realize that doing so would lead to very high inflation, right? All the low cost choices from overseas would suddenly disappear off the shelves. And it would most likely generate a trade war and a recession/depression. It would be very ugly. Not a good thing at all.

2ndClassCitizen says

Tatu: Government doesn’t pay any bills. YOU DO, assuming you pay taxes

OK--if you want to take the 10,000 ft. view then you can say that about insurance companies too. They don't pay the bills, we do with our premiums. So--really nothing is changing. We're paying the bills no matter what. All we'd be doing is taking away the million dollar junkets and $100MM bonuses and putting them into the government coffers. Oh, wait. That's our money. We'd be giving it to ourselves.

Do you really trust the guys who gave us insurance tax breaks for big corporations, bailouts for big banks and other failed multimillionaire run companies, bankrupt social security and medicare programs, the VA medical system, unsustainable and nearly unfathomable debt, Vietnam, Iraq X2, Afganistan, the war on Drugs, the war on Terror, (ie the Washington lobby controlled bureaucracy) to improve health care delivery in this country? What is in that koolade?

The government is OUR government. It can only be as good as the electorate demands, no better.

Other societies have much better-run governments. This is because they don't have a fifth to a third of their population with their heads up their asses.

I have quite good health care, paying $200/mo to Blue Whatever, but unlike you I do think that healthcare, like defense, education, power & gas, is just too important to leave to the private sector.

And the doctor, pharmacy and landlord? They are just trying to get by, just like the guy flipin’ burgers

Trying to get by like John Dillinger. Until you can make yourself understand the perniciousness of the ingrained rentierism in the present system means I will be arguing with the wall.

2ndClassCitizen says

Do you really trust the guys who gave us insurance tax breaks for big corporations, bailouts for big banks and other failed multimillionaire run companies, bankrupt social security and medicare programs, the VA medical system, unsustainable and nearly unfathomable debt, Vietnam, Iraq X2, Afganistan, the war on Drugs, the war on Terror, (ie the Washington lobby controlled bureaucracy) to improve health care delivery in this country? What is in that koolade?

Nope, but why would you believe that the smartest guys in the room who gave us enron, worldcom, and aig or the legions of insurance company claims guys whose paychecks/bonuses depend on coming up with creative ways to deny my health care claims or cancel my insurance if I get sick are any more trustworthy? Insurance companies certainly aren't benevolent protectors of the little man either. It's Kool-Aid by the way.

2ndClassCitizen says

American workers got the same tax write offs that are now only available to employers, many of them would decline their employer offered insurance, take that money in their paychecks and use it more wisely. If we allowed EVERYONE (not just employers) to write off 100% of ALL of their medical expenses people would be more inclined to purchase those high deductible policies (they could write off the premiums and save the difference). The reason more people don’t purchase health insurance policies like this is the tax law gives an unfair incentive for them NOT to. This needs to change.

How would this matter? 40% of people don't pay income taxes at all. I think something like another 30% are in the 15% tax bracket. For these people write offs are meaningless. You are saying that 70% of the population is going to decline thousands of dollars in employer health care to get back nothing or at most 15 cents on the dollar on their tax returns. Your solution to problems caused by tinkering with the tax code is more tinkering with the tax code? Am I missing something here? I'm confused.

The only way this would work at all is if employer provided health care was considered taxable income and privately purchased health care premiums were tax deductable. Then there would be no advantage to having employers buy health insurance, at least for the 30% of the people who actually pay most of the taxes. At least they would get on board. The 70% of the people who pay little or no taxes won't have any advantage to this and won't be bothered. I think you would have a much better chance at bringing about world peace than getting 51 senators to vote to make health care premiums a taxable benefit, but good luck trying.

bob2356 says

2ndClassCitizen says

Do you really trust the guys who gave us insurance tax breaks for big corporations, bailouts for big banks and other failed multimillionaire run companies, bankrupt social security and medicare programs, the VA medical system, unsustainable and nearly unfathomable debt, Vietnam, Iraq X2, Afganistan, the war on Drugs, the war on Terror, (ie the Washington lobby controlled bureaucracy) to improve health care delivery in this country? What is in that koolade?

Nope, but why would you believe that the smartest guys in the room who gave us enron, worldcom, and aig or the legions of insurance company claims guys whose paychecks/bonuses depend on coming up with creative ways to deny my health care claims or cancel my insurance if I get sick are any more trustworthy? Insurance companies certainly aren’t benevolent protectors of the little man either. It’s Kool-Aid by the way.
2ndClassCitizen says

American workers got the same tax write offs that are now only available to employers, many of them would decline their employer offered insurance, take that money in their paychecks and use it more wisely. If we allowed EVERYONE (not just employers) to write off 100% of ALL of their medical expenses people would be more inclined to purchase those high deductible policies (they could write off the premiums and save the difference). The reason more people don’t purchase health insurance policies like this is the tax law gives an unfair incentive for them NOT to. This needs to change.

How would this matter? 40% of people don’t pay income taxes at all. I think something like another 30% are in the 15% tax bracket. For these people write offs are meaningless. You are saying that 70% of the population is going to decline thousands of dollars in employer health care to get back nothing or at most 15 cents on the dollar on their tax returns. Your solution to problems caused by tinkering with the tax code is more tinkering with the tax code? Am I missing something here? I’m confused.
The only way this would work at all is if employer provided health care was considered taxable income and privately purchased health care premiums were tax deductable. Then there would be no advantage to having employers buy health insurance, at least for the 30% of the people who actually pay most of the taxes. At least they would get on board. The 70% of the people who pay little or no taxes won’t have any advantage to this and won’t be bothered. I think you would have a much better chance at bringing about world peace than getting 51 senators to vote to make health care premiums a taxable benefit, but good luck trying.

Its koolade for me, when I used to drink it we bought generic.

If you were to read my posts you will see that I recognize that government changed tax laws and gave insurance companies the power that they have (government created the monster, or at least killed off all the honest competitors). I agree business is full of corruption, they are also the reason for most of the corruption in government (through powerful lobbies, bribes, favors to powers that be etc). I propose changing the tax laws so that individuals get the same tax breaks companies now, get, and removing those tax breaks from large employers.

Yes you are confused. I am sorry. Perhaps you don't understand things, I will try to explain a little more. Perhaps you don't realize that if your employer buys you health insurance, your check is substantially smaller. I would rather keep my money, control my own money and decide how to spend it. If more people were in control, they would not settle for $2000 MRI's and $200 monthly medications. When insurance and/or government pays for the majority of costs as it does for most people now, people are insulated from the cost and there is no incentive to be economical. This too needs to change.

You are also missing the fact that I want to move away from health maintenance insurance model and towards a catastrophic insurance model. People should have larger paychecks due to elimination of employer provided insurance, and this money would be used for more routine medical expenses, and would be 100% tax free and tax deductible. Nobody should pay for your maintenance medications but you, and this will cause you to find the best deal and not waste money on treatments you don't need or don't work just because "insurance covers it". GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE INSURANCE SHIFT THE SUPPLY/DEMAND CURVE IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. INSURANCE ENABLES PRICE GOUGING which necessitates RATIONING. None of this will change until it is only the consumer who is directly responsible for costs. Until then, FRAUD, WASTE, and ABUSE WILL REIGN!

This is not a drop in the bucket. You say most people don't pay taxes. That is funny, business owners pass on ALL taxes to the consumer. If they didn't they could not survive. We all pay higher taxes when taxes are raised.

Troy says

Do you really trust the guys who gave us insurance tax breaks for big corporations, bailouts for big banks and other failed multimillionaire run companies, bankrupt social security and medicare programs, the VA medical system, unsustainable and nearly unfathomable debt, Vietnam, Iraq X2, Afganistan, the war on Drugs, the war on Terror, (ie the Washington lobby controlled bureaucracy) to improve health care delivery in this country? What is in that koolade?
The government is OUR government. It can only be as good as the electorate demands, no better.
Other societies have much better-run governments. This is because they don’t have a fifth to a third of their population with their heads up their asses.
I have quite good health care, paying $200/mo to Blue Whatever, but unlike you I do think that healthcare, like defense, education, power & gas, is just too important to leave to the private sector.
And the doctor, pharmacy and landlord? They are just trying to get by, just like the guy flipin’ burgers
Trying to get by like John Dillinger. Until you can make yourself understand the perniciousness of the ingrained rentierism in the present system means I will be arguing with the wall.

Troy:

Do you have a problem with people making a living by renting, or are you just jealous?

I know it must be tough for you living in a country full of people with and intimate view of their rectum. How elitist of you to assume you are not one of them.

By the way it ceased to be "our government" when it became impossible to be elected without support of big media and millions of special interest campaign dollars.

tatupu70 says

2ndClassCitizen says

Tatu: Government doesn’t pay any bills. YOU DO, assuming you pay taxes

OK–if you want to take the 10,000 ft. view then you can say that about insurance companies too. They don’t pay the bills, we do with our premiums. So–really nothing is changing. We’re paying the bills no matter what. All we’d be doing is taking away the million dollar junkets and $100MM bonuses and putting them into the government coffers. Oh, wait. That’s our money. We’d be giving it to ourselves.

nice try but YOU would not be giving the money to anyone but the bureaucrats and corrupt power and lobby driven politicians. People are nearly forced to buy insurance through their employer due to the unfair tax code. This needs to change in order to restore sanity to the health care situation. Empower the people with more money and more options, and don't tax them for it. Giving money to Washington is not, and has never been the answer that works.

thunderlips11 says

There’s a panel in Texas that decides if you get to stay alive or not if you’re too poor to pay and your chances of survival are minimal. Governor Bush never even attempted to disband it, nor has any Republican Legislators in Texas.made any serious attempt to do so, either.
MRIs are $160 in Japan, a country where the cost of living is substantially higher than the US. MRI price for insurance companies in far more inexpensive Tampa, FL is $1750. $2200 if you pay cash. What gives? Radiology machine operators don’t make $1500 hr. At $1750, these machines should pay for themselves in a year if you saw just 3 people each business day and brought them outright.
Kickbacks. Lease the Siemens Machine and we’ll give you a $10k “cash rebate”. Overwhelmingly present in the Medical Field. Where would the sector be without $500 meals given to doctors at conventions by Pharma Companies, who by the way spend 5x on Marketing what they spend on Research?
Here’s one quick idea that doesn’t involve more “Socialism” or more awful “Deregulation”. Force MRIs, Blood Labs, Hospitals to publish the cash prices of their top 50 most common procedures. Man, they’d fight that tooth and nail. The only industry in the US where prices are concealed from customers.

Transparency, I like it! It would be a good start. Thanks for the suggestion thunderlips.

2ndClassCitizen says

nice try but YOU would not be giving the money to anyone but the bureaucrats and corrupt power and lobby driven politicians.

And how is that different than now--where my money goes into the pockets of corrupt Insurance and Big Pharma execs? And towards their junkets? At some point you have to admit that the current system isn't working. A few tweaks here and there won't do it.

Letting people buy their policies instead of companies--interesting idea, but how would it lower prices? Maybe for people who work at small businesses who don't have bargaining power, but it would raise prices for others. An individual's bargaining power is less than a large company with many people.

tatupu70 says

2ndClassCitizen says

nice try but YOU would not be giving the money to anyone but the bureaucrats and corrupt power and lobby driven politicians.

And how is that different than now–where my money goes into the pockets of corrupt Insurance and Big Pharma execs? And towards their junkets? At some point you have to admit that the current system isn’t working. A few tweaks here and there won’t do it.
Letting people buy their policies instead of companies–interesting idea, but how would it lower prices? Maybe for people who work at small businesses who don’t have bargaining power, but it would raise prices for others. An individual’s bargaining power is less than a large company with many people.

You are right the current system IS NOT working. But it was government intervention that gave us the current system. More government intervention will only bring more of the same. Tax breaks and onerous regulations that feed the insurance machine.

Did you read the part about moving away from health insurance based sytem (except for catastrophic needs) and towards a system where you pay for routine medical expenses tax free and out of pocket?

We need A LOT of changes. I hope you will reread what I have said and notice that I am not arguing for status quo. But MORE government intervention will bring more of the same, Fraud, Waste, Abuse and escalating costs with reduced quality of care.

Have a good evening.

2ndClassCitizen says

Did you read the part about moving away from health insurance based sytem (except for catastrophic needs) and towards a system where you pay for routine medical expenses tax free and out of pocket?

I did read it, but I'm a little confused. You talk about how government intervention is the problem, but then you say we need to move to a system where you pay for routine medical expenses tax free. Is that not another form of government intervention?

And in that system--what do you do when people can't afford their "routine" medical expenses? Do they go untreated? Until it is catastrophic? Wouldn't that raise costs? The devil is in the details...

tatupu70 says

2ndClassCitizen says

Did you read the part about moving away from health insurance based sytem (except for catastrophic needs) and towards a system where you pay for routine medical expenses tax free and out of pocket?

I did read it, but I’m a little confused. You talk about how government intervention is the problem, but then you say we need to move to a system where you pay for routine medical expenses tax free. Is that not another form of government intervention?
And in that system–what do you do when people can’t afford their “routine” medical expenses? Do they go untreated? Until it is catastrophic? Wouldn’t that raise costs? The devil is in the details…

Removing onerous regulations and unfair/unproductive tax breaks is the opposite of government intervention.
Routine medical expenses will be more affordable if we change the rules. Some people will choose to buy beer, instead of medicine. We ought not encourage them by providing them universal health care.

2ndClassCitizen says

Routine medical expenses will be more affordable if we change the rules. Some people will choose to buy beer, instead of medicine. We ought not encourage them by providing them universal health care.

OK--I agree that we should change the structure of our health care to encourage healthy behavior. But, I don't think you answered my question. If someone chooses to buy beer instead of save for his future medical expenses, what do you do when he gets sick? Under your system, he doesn't get treated until he becomes very sick and qualifies for catastropic coverage. A $500 illness becomes a $50K problem. How is that saving money??

tatupu70 says

2ndClassCitizen says

Routine medical expenses will be more affordable if we change the rules. Some people will choose to buy beer, instead of medicine. We ought not encourage them by providing them universal health care.

OK–I agree that we should change the structure of our health care to encourage healthy behavior. But, I don’t think you answered my question. If someone chooses to buy beer instead of save for his future medical expenses, what do you do when he gets sick? Under your system, he doesn’t get treated until he becomes very sick and qualifies for catastropic coverage. A $500 illness becomes a $50K problem. How is that saving money??

Thankfully most people will not forsake health care for beer, but we can't legislate responsibility any more than we can legislate "morality."

Let me answer your question with a question. If someone manages their bank or car manufacturing business so poorly that it requires billions of dollars of bailouts to keep it on life support, should the taxpayers foot the bill or pull the plug?

2ndClassCitizen says

Let me answer your question with a question. If someone manages their bank or car manufacturing business so poorly that it requires billions of dollars of bailouts to keep it on life support, should the taxpayers foot the bill or pull the plug?

Well, there are a couple of problems with your analogy. First, I'm not sure I'd equate someone's life with a business. Children don't lose their mother when a business goes under.... Second, you're still missing my main point. Even if you don't care about the loss of life, with this system you'll end up with more people getting catastrophic care. Which is the most expensive type of care. So it will most likely raise costs.

tatupu70 says

2ndClassCitizen says

nice try but YOU would not be giving the money to anyone but the bureaucrats and corrupt power and lobby driven politicians.

And how is that different than now–where my money goes into the pockets of corrupt Insurance and Big Pharma execs? And towards their junkets? At some point you have to admit that the current system isn’t working. A few tweaks here and there won’t do it.
Letting people buy their policies instead of companies–interesting idea, but how would it lower prices? Maybe for people who work at small businesses who don’t have bargaining power, but it would raise prices for others. An individual’s bargaining power is less than a large company with many people.

You are right the current system IS NOT working. But it was government intervention that gave us the current system. More government intervention will only bring more of the same. Tax breaks and onerous regulations that feed the insurance machine.

Did you read the part about moving away from health insurance based sytem (except for catastrophic needs) and towards a system where you pay for routine medical expenses tax free and out of pocket?

We need A LOT of changes. I hope you will reread what I have said and notice that I am not arguing for status quo. But MORE government intervention will bring more of the same, Fraud, Waste, Abuse and escalating costs with reduced quality of care.

Have a good evening.

As long as I dont die because I cannot afford healthcare, taxes are not raised, elderly are not kicked out of existing programs with no options, poor are covered and as long as I dont have to spend my last few pennies to see a doctor I am in favor of reform.

Sorry, didnt mean to interupt your mancation that is going on here. :)

"and as long as I dont have to spend my last few pennies to see a doctor "

You'll pay your last few pennies, on the premium whether you ever see a doctor or not.

tatupu70 says

2ndClassCitizen says

Let me answer your question with a question. If someone manages their bank or car manufacturing business so poorly that it requires billions of dollars of bailouts to keep it on life support, should the taxpayers foot the bill or pull the plug?

Well, there are a couple of problems with your analogy. First, I’m not sure I’d equate someone’s life with a business. Children don’t lose their mother when a business goes under…. Second, you’re still missing my main point. Even if you don’t care about the loss of life, with this system you’ll end up with more people getting catastrophic care. Which is the most expensive type of care. So it will most likely raise costs.

So you don't want to answer the question then? Did bailing out Goldman Sachs and GM save the taxpayers money? How is stealing from the responsible to pay for the irresponsible going to save us money?

Besides, idiots who buy beer instead of medicine are pretty rare thankfully. Can you quantify how much money we spend on idiots like that? It is too much, because it is not zero like it should be. But it is a drop in the bucket compared to the price increases caused by onerous regulation, legislation that favors large corporations, and fraud waste and abuse created by government intervention.

@2nd

Sorry, I thought it was a rhetorical question. No-I don't think we should spend billions of taxpayer dollars to rescue a business that has been mismanaged to the point of insolvancy. Of course not. I don't think anyone would support that statement in the theoretical sense.

2ndClassCitizen says

Besides, idiots who buy beer instead of medicine are pretty rare thankfully

I'm not sure. Americans haven't proven to be very good at saving for a rainy day, and that's basically what they would have to do under your idea.

2ndClassCitizen says

Can you quantify how much money we spend on idiots like that?

Hey--it's your idea. I would think you would know... Seriously though--it depends on the details of the plan. How much would well care cost? How much for an office visit? etc.

2ndClassCitizen says

But it is a drop in the bucket compared to the price increases caused by onerous regulation, legislation that favors large corporations, and fraud waste and abuse created by government intervention.

Not sure how you can say this without any data to back you up. On second though--yes, I am. You're just talking out of your arse again...

So my original question stands. Why would so many people suddenly buy catastrophic types of policies and pay for their own routine care out of pocket? This arrangement has been very unpopular so far even with people who are paying for their own health care insurance. If everyone paid for their own health care insurance what would make it more popular? People like comprehensive policies even when they pay for them themselves, even if that doesn't make much sense. What in your scenario would generate this huge change in behaviour other than some type of government mandate.

What does "100% tax free and tax deductible" mean? You keep ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of people don't itemize their taxes so tax deductible means nothing to them. What is it that is 100% tax free??

The current system sucks. It is the worst of both worlds. But simply saying that getting the government out will solve the problems is silly. I agree that a pay for routine care and use insurance for catastrophic only is a good idea within limits. But it is certainly not a panacea or without it's own set of problems. Trying to do this through tax code manipulations isn't going to work at all unless you were giving a tax credit for the insurance premiums. Then the minority of people who actually do pay taxes would be buying health insurance for the majority that don't. As part of the minority I don't like that idea much at all.

tatupu70 says

@2nd
Sorry, I thought it was a rhetorical question. No-I don’t think we should spend billions of taxpayer dollars to rescue a business that has been mismanaged to the point of insolvancy. Of course not. I don’t think anyone would support that statement in the theoretical sense.
2ndClassCitizen says

Besides, idiots who buy beer instead of medicine are pretty rare thankfully

I’m not sure. Americans haven’t proven to be very good at saving for a rainy day, and that’s basically what they would have to do under your idea.
2ndClassCitizen says

Can you quantify how much money we spend on idiots like that?

Hey–it’s your idea. I would think you would know… Seriously though–it depends on the details of the plan. How much would well care cost? How much for an office visit? etc.
2ndClassCitizen says

But it is a drop in the bucket compared to the price increases caused by onerous regulation, legislation that favors large corporations, and fraud waste and abuse created by government intervention.

Not sure how you can say this without any data to back you up. On second though–yes, I am. You’re just talking out of your arse again…

I don't memorize the numbers but the CBO estimates tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud waste and abuse in Medicare alone.

bob2356 says

So my original question stands. Why would so many people suddenly buy catastrophic types of policies and pay for their own routine care out of pocket? This arrangement has been very unpopular so far even with people who are paying for their own health care insurance. If everyone paid for their own health care insurance what would make it more popular? People like comprehensive policies even when they pay for them themselves, even if that doesn’t make much sense. What in your scenario would generate this huge change in behaviour other than some type of government mandate.
What does “100% tax free and tax deductible” mean? You keep ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of people don’t itemize their taxes so tax deductible means nothing to them. What is it that is 100% tax free??
The current system sucks. It is the worst of both worlds. But simply saying that getting the government out will solve the problems is silly. I agree that a pay for routine care and use insurance for catastrophic only is a good idea within limits. But it is certainly not a panacea or without it’s own set of problems. Trying to do this through tax code manipulations isn’t going to work at all unless you were giving a tax credit for the insurance premiums. Then the minority of people who actually do pay taxes would be buying health insurance for the majority that don’t. As part of the minority I don’t like that idea much at all.

100 percent tax free means 100% tax free. How can that be clearer? You earn the money you spend the money on health care, and you are never taxed on it. You decide how much money you want to put aside for health care every month.

Catastrophic insurance is unpopular only because government gives big employers and consequently big insurers a virtual monopoly on health care through tax breaks and onerous regulation. Plus too many people are on government subsidized "insurance" like Medicare and Medicaid.

No, what it silly is saying that the government that CREATED, INFLATED and set laws that ENCOURAGED the health care system we have now can solve it by MORE stupid intervention.

What is also super silly is the claim that a minority of people pay taxes. That is laughable. Business owners pass on every penny of tax increases to the consumer. Ever wonder why it costs over 1000% more for a first class stamp than it did about 50 years ago? Over 1000% more for a bottle of coke than it did 50 years ago. I'm sure it has nothing to do with taxes.

2ndClassCitizen says

I don’t memorize the numbers but the CBO estimates tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud waste and abuse in Medicare alone.

And? Of course there is fraud and abuse of Medicare. Just as there is fraud and abuse of private insurance. My question was more in reference to your statement that it's a "drop in the bucket". Not sure how you can say that.

2ndClassCitizen says

Ever wonder why it costs over 1000% more for a first class stamp than it did about 50 years ago? Over 1000% more for a bottle of coke than it did 50 years ago. I’m sure it has nothing to do with taxes

Have you heard of inflation?

elvis says

Some of you posters will be eager to attack the truth of these statements…why not offer up some solutions instead? I’m waiting.

Solutions for what? I think we disagree about what the "problems" are...

I'd like to see real campaign finance laws. I think that would do a lot to diminsh the influence of corporate and special interests in Washington. Mr. Smith goes to Washington is as relevent today as it was 70 years ago...

All this rubbish about taxes, the Fed, sound currency. Those are all distractions from the real problem...

HaHaHa, spoken like a true liberal. Others write about the underlining causes of our problems and you speak of more (campaign finance) laws, haha. Rubbish??? Sound currency is a distraction from the "real peoblem"? HELLOOOOO... Earth to tatupu, anybody home? The lack of sound currency is a MAJOR PART of America's problems.

Special interest is as relevant today as it was 70 years ago, I'll agree to that.The fact that you cannot recognize that sound currency is as relevent today as it was 5,000 years ago shows a significant lack of understanding of history AND economics on your part.

As a licensed teacher with a lifetime teaching credential in two states I'm going to grade your verbal thesis right now, FINAL GRADE: FAIL.

tatupu70 says

2ndClassCitizen says

I don’t memorize the numbers but the CBO estimates tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud waste and abuse in Medicare alone.

And? Of course there is fraud and abuse of Medicare. Just as there is fraud and abuse of private insurance. My question was more in reference to your statement that it’s a “drop in the bucket”. Not sure how you can say that.

By all means educate us. How much money do we spend on deadbeats then sir.

tatupu70 says

2ndClassCitizen says

Ever wonder why it costs over 1000% more for a first class stamp than it did about 50 years ago? Over 1000% more for a bottle of coke than it did 50 years ago. I’m sure it has nothing to do with taxes

Have you heard of inflation?

Inflation, caused by deficit spending and the debt based monetary system authorized by US Congress and run by the quasi governmental body the FED. But I'm sure OBAMACARE won't increase the deficit at all.

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation." Alan Greenspan.

It doesn't feel good to have our own government authorize a policy wherein our savings are confiscated. It's dishonest.

Homework assignment for Tatupu70: Look up the meaning of deficit spending, debt based monetarty system, inflation and confiscation. Look up and explain the benefits of a sound money system. Define fiat currency. Test will be in one week.

Nonograph, I'll assign you the same lesson as I did for Tatupu70. Except you need even more help for several reasons. In reality inflation affects more than just savings because the cost of everything goes up...you know, more dollars chasing a limited supply. The result = higher prices.

What I'm crying about is how the government is victimizing EVERYONE. That means me, my children, future grandchildren, and YES it pisses me off that our own government is stealing from all of us, ALL OF US. The government is stealing from you too but it appears you have not learned enough about The Fed, inflation, sound money, fractional reserve banking, fiat currency and government policy to even realize it. Ignorance is bliss.

If you became aware of a con-artist who was stealing from your sister, mother, brother, and your kind hearted next door neighbor lady, would you be upset? What if you became aware of an organization that was stealing from everyone? Would you ignore it? Would you suffer in silence? Or would you speak out? Since you won't speak out against such an outrage I can only imagine that you are unaware of the issue.

Personally, I spend MUCH more time learning about the inter-relationship of government policies and how it negatively affects us all. My goal is to fight to improve things, for all of us, including YOU. Who is John Galt?

@Elvis and Honest Abe

OK--why exactly is a sound currency so important then? You speak about it as if it is the holy grail of economics. What good would come from going back on a gold standard?

Because there is a lot of bad that would come. High inflation. Many, many more jobs lost overseas. Recession, possibly depression. Lots of ugly.

Just as a thinking point for you--if a sound currency is so good, why is China doing everything it can to devalue its currency?? To keep it artificially weak.

gold has no value when compaired to oil. Oil has no value compaired to clean drinking water. We should not be on a paper dollar backed with gold. We should be on a paper dollar backed by clean drinking water.

Bap33 says

gold has no value when compaired to oil. Oil has no value compaired to clean drinking water. We should not be on a paper dollar backed with gold. We should be on a paper dollar backed by clean drinking water.

Er, that is essentially what it's based on. Not "clean drinking water" specifically, but rather the overall strength of the society. Clean drinking water, political stability, arable land, and other core elements of a successful society. Dollars are merely a proxy for these things, since it's extraordinarily difficult to accurately measure them.

Tatupu70 - THANKS FOR ASKING WHY A SOUND CURRENCY IS SO IMPORTANT. Our financial system is in crisis because our government has allowed the integrity and safety of a gold backed currency to be replaced with fraud and theft by inflation via a steadily declining fiat currency.

Our founding fathers wanted sound currency, money backed by gold and silver, not a fiat currency. Fiat currency is money that is "declared" by the government to be legal tender, although it has no value. There is no fiat currency in the history of the world that has survived. Fiat money is, and always will be, fradulant money. Since the currency is not backed by gold or silver it has no value and will ultimately collapse.

History is clear on this issue. Fiat currencies are immoral because they have no value and because of that they fail...without exception. Repeat: without exception, as documented throughout the history of man.

"Paper money always returns to its original value - zero." Voltaire, 1694-1778.

Returning to a gold standard would PREVENT inflation. In doing so it would also prevent recession and depression. A gold standard represents integrity. It insures the people's control over the governments use of public funds. It is the best guarantee against the socialization of a nation. It enables the people to keep the government and the banks in check. It prevents currency expansion (inflation) from getting out of bounds until it becomes worthless. It tends to force standards of honesty on government and bank officials. It is the symbol of a free society and an honorable government. It is a necessary prerequisite to economic health.

As you can see, this alone would go a long way to healing our current economic problems.

China is doing nothing wrong, and is simply protecting its economic assets, like any other responsible country would do. China is proctecting itself from America's reckless economic policies by pegging its currency to our currency. If our dollar increases in value so does theirs, and if our dollar decreases in value so does theirs. Hardley "currency manipulation."

"There is no subtler or surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debase its currency."

I read a lot of rants about banks on this site, and rightfully so. As you read above, one of the best restraints on banks would be the gold standard.

Honest Abe says

Returning to a gold standard would PREVENT inflation. In doing so it would also prevent recession and depression.

Wrong. You really need to read up on how globalization and trade works.

Honest Abe says

If our dollar increases in value so does theirs, and if our dollar decreases in value so does theirs. Hardley “currency manipulation.”

Again--wrong. I'm not sure you understand what currency manipulation is. And your statement doesn't even make sense. China is tying their currency to ours so that when we ruin our econonmy by debasing our currency, it will also ruin theirs?

Honest Abe says

It is the symbol of a free society and an honorable government

Are there any free societies or honorable governments in existence then? Because none are on the gold standard....

Honest Abe says

In doing so it would also prevent recession and depression

Hmm.. The US was on the gold standard until ~1970. And the Great Depression was in the 1930's. So I guess it really wouldn't prevent recession and/or depression. In fact, it would create deeper, longer recessions and depressions.

Nomograph says

If you were actually being victimized, you wouldn’t need to spend so much time figuring it out; it would be quite obvious.

Spoken like a man who doesn't know when he is being robbed.
Do you also believe that a loss of purchasing power in your dollars of roughly 97% over 100 years is a in your best interest? (and please don't argue against saving money, not everyone can preserve wealth on investments as last fall reminded us all) Do you think that having two parents working outside the home and sometimes two jobs where one used to suffice a generation ago is a good thing? Do you believe that Goldman Sachs needs a bailout (tax transfer from you to them) to protect it from big bad YOU? I hope so because if these things are not in your best interest then YOU ARE BEING ROBBED!

It reminds me of the story told to me by some people who had visited China. They talked to some of the people there who lived in small cramped barracks like apartments. There was no heater in them and it got rather cold at night. So cold in fact that during the middle of the night everyone got up at least once to go to the center of the settlement to get some warm water to drink an warm up (no running water in the apartments). The thing is that they looked at their lifestyle as the most healthy way to live, and looked down on wasteful America. Now true, America is wasteful, but living with no heat or running water is not one of our excesses.

Honest Abe,

Thanks for picking up on the fact that it is the dishonest money system (where money is created out of nothing rather then held as a stable store of value) that is the most important cause of the health care problems (affordability), as well as loss in value of savings for the working class (negative return on savings).

I was talking to a mom the other day, she recalled how in the mid seventies she had her first child. They were poor living in mobile home with essentially no savings and had NO health insurance. She spent 4-5 days in the hospital after giving birth as was the custom then. So at the end of the stay they got a bill. They paid the bill over time and it was not onerous. Since that time the dollar has lost so much of its purchasing power that the simple act of giving birth in a medical facility is enough to drive a young family to the brink of ruin. It isn't really the drug companies, the doctors or hospitals fault. It is the dishonest money system which transfers true wealth the the ultra-elites that is to blame for the high cost of medicine. (government programs push up prices/costs and this needs to end, but faster than that the FED is devaluing the dollar and it is killing the middle class and creating an ever growing class of people who are ENTIRELY dependent on "entitlements" from the government -via taxes on the middle/working class- to survive).

2ndClassCitizen says

Do you also believe that a loss of purchasing power in your dollars of roughly 97% over 100 years is a in your best interest? (and please don’t argue against saving money, not everyone can preserve wealth on investments as last fall reminded us all) Do you think that having two parents working outside the home and sometimes two jobs where one used to suffice a generation ago is a good thing? Do you believe that Goldman Sachs needs a bailout (tax transfer from you to them) to protect it from big bad YOU? I hope so because if these things are not in your best interest then YOU ARE BEING ROBBED!

Oh please. You really think people were so much better off "a generation ago" and weren't being "robbed"? Do you know what the tax rates were in the 70s? Do you realize what kinds of poisons were being put into our drinking water and our building supplies?

"Ordinary folks" have been getting fleeced by the privileged since the dawn of human civilization. The fact that you're just now complaining about it tells me that you must have been blissfully ignorant. This is nothing new, and none of your magical proposals would do a god damned thing to change it.

100 years ago we had, as you call it, an "honest" money system (notwithstanding bullshit like the various coinage acts that rendered certain people's money worthless just because they preferred silver to gold), and you know what? The middle class was virtually non existent and the "working class", if you can call it that, had no work.

Please cite some real examples of a place in the world that is now, or has been in the past, more prosperous for the "average joe" because of a sound monetary system than what we have today.

2ndClass - as Glen Beck would say "why argue with idiots?". Liberals will not, can not, ever care about individual liberty, freedom, privacy, or private property. Facts don't matter.

America is drowning in debt, but the liberal's solution is to stick a fire hose of additional debt down America's throat and open the spiggot FULL BLAST. Ugh.

Why argue with idiots?

I am John Galt.

Honest Abe says

2ndClass - as Glen Beck would say “why argue with idiots?”. Liberals will not, can not, ever care about individual liberty, freedom, privacy, or private property. Facts don’t matter.
America is drowning in debt, but the liberal’s solution is to stick a fire hose of additional debt down America’s throat and open the spiggot FULL BLAST. Ugh.
Why argue with idiots?
I am John Galt.

Why argue with idiots? We do it because you continue to come back for more.

If you were John Galt, you'd be really, really old by now.