patrick.net

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.

Kevin says

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!

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.

Simple Kevin,

It was in my previous post. A family with one worker outside the home could provide for his family, and pay the bills even with no health insurance.

Nearly everything that was essential was more affordable and wages compared to cost of living had a much more favorable ratio. People in the seventies and eighties bought houses and paid them off in 5-10 years! That is practically unheard of now.

Over the course of roughly 100 years the unsound monetary system has eroded away the savings and prosperity of a growing number of US citizens. It really began to accelerate in the 1980's. We are now so far in debt as individuals and a nation that it is very likely we will end up bankrupt. The empire is crumbling in debt. Who will bail us out? The "new" world order?

Please cite some real examples of how much better things are now. How much less dependent on government the average joe is now. How much more affordable the essentials like food, energy, housing and health care are now. How much more freedom and prosperity there is now in the post 9/11 post crash/bailout world.

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?

This is an absolutely meaningless statement. Uh what about the corresponding increase in wages? Purchasing power is measured in hours worked for the purchase. On that basis many things are much cheaper than in the past. Some from increased efficiency, some from sending the manufacturing offshore to cheaper workers, and some from scientific discoveries that enabled cheaper production (think integrated chips). As many people have tried to point out money, gold, seashells, whatever is simply a medium of exchange for goods and services.

Here's a chart from measuring worth showing gas priced by various criteria in 2008 dollars:

Year Price of Gasoline CPI GDP Deflator Unskilled Wage Consumer Bundle GDP per capita Share GDP

1949 0.27 2.44 2.02 4.08 3.88 7.15 14.59
1950 0.27 2.41 2.00 3.90 3.68 6.61 13.28
1951 0.27 2.24 1.87 3.60 3.50 5.82 11.49
1952 0.27 2.19 1.83 3.40 3.37 5.61 10.88
1953 0.29 2.33 1.95 3.42 3.45 5.79 11.04
1954 0.29 2.32 1.93 3.26 3.37 5.87 11.01
1955 0.29 2.33 1.90 3.13 3.15 5.48 10.10
>>>skip the middle it goes up and down as low as 1.80 and as high as 4.00
2004 1.88 2.14 2.11 2.09 2.21 2.20 2.29
2005 2.3 2.54 2.50 2.50 2.53 2.55 2.63
2006 2.59 2.77 2.72 2.77 2.73 2.74 2.79
2007 2.8 2.91 2.86 2.93 2.88 2.85 2.87
2008 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27

Even with the big jump in price for 2008 the cost of 3.27 in 2008 vs 2.44 using the CPI in 1948 hardly represents a 97% (or whatever the % is for only 60 years) decrease in purchasing power.

How about food?

According to the USDA the cost of food has varied between 20-30% of disposable family budget until the 1950's. Since 2000 it's been below 10% and currently stands at 5.6%. That certainly represents a huge decrease in purchasing power. Not.

The middle class is losing ground and has been since the 1970's but it has very little to do with the monetary system. It has a lot to do with global economic forces and domestic politics.

On the global front after WWII every industrial nation except America was in ruin. America's industry was not only untouched by the war but had been expanding exponentially to meet the needs of war production. This resulted in American manufacturing enjoying 25 years in an almost competition free environment. The upside was profits and wages were terrific. The downside is companies grew fat and lazy. Competition returned and has been relentless ever since.

Domestically the Reagan tax policies cut the 80% top tax rate for very high earners BUT steeply raised tax rates on everyone else. Whether this unleashed the greatest economic boom in history or just the greatest series of bubbles and crashes is subject to serious debate. Either way the result has been the most enormous transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top couple of percent of society in the history of the world. The so called trickle down economics actually trickled up.

I am NOT advocating raising taxes. I am advocating balancing the budget and paying down debt. This will require raising taxes AND sharply cutting the military. There is simply no other way it can be done, that's where the money is. On our current course paying interest on the debt will consume every tax dollar in 20 years.

bob2356 says

I am NOT advocating raising taxes. I am advocating balancing the budget and paying down debt. This will require raising taxes AND sharply cutting the military. There is simply no other way it can be done, that’s where the money is. On our current course paying interest on the debt will consume every tax dollar in 20 years.

Bob, much of what you say is good.

However if we are to be honest CPI grossly underestimates inflation (they keep changing the rules used to calculate costs. For example if one year you use prime rib price and then next year you use 80% lean ground beef, it is not a fair comparison). Furthermore the government wizards decided not to include important costs like energy in their calculations.

I don't know about you but last year I got a small raise (less than 2%). This doesn't even come close to keeping up with inflation.

I appreciate a lot of what you said, and agree with much as well. However the loss of purchasing power of the US dollar must not be underestimated as a factor in the shrinking opportunities for upward mobility or wealth preservation. In a world where the rules and best way of protecting wealth are constantly changing, the public is at the mercy of the rule makers. A sound money would be the greatest weapon against the elites, we would not have to buy and sell and invest to please them if we could protect our wealth without them.

Furthermore, I am wondering what you mean when you say "I am NOT advocating raising taxes." and yet two sentences later you say we need to raise taxes to pay down the debt. Is this doublespeak?

In the end, all of this is a smokescreen. I started this thread to allow us to discuss the fact that more government control over health care is going to result in greater deficit spending, reduced freedom in selecting and obtaining health care, as well as lower quality of care thanks to the vampire bureaucracy/fraud/waste/abuse.

AdHominem says

Kevin says

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!

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.

Simple Kevin,
It was in my previous post. A family with one worker outside the home could provide for his family, and pay the bills even with no health insurance.
Nearly everything that was essential was more affordable and wages compared to cost of living had a much more favorable ratio. People in the seventies and eighties bought houses and paid them off in 5-10 years! That is practically unheard of now.
Over the course of roughly 100 years the unsound monetary system has eroded away the savings and prosperity of a growing number of US citizens. It really began to accelerate in the 1980’s. We are now so far in debt as individuals and a nation that it is very likely we will end up bankrupt. The empire is crumbling in debt. Who will bail us out? The “new” world order?
Please cite some real examples of how much better things are now. How much less dependent on government the average joe is now. How much more affordable the essentials like food, energy, housing and health care are now. How much more freedom and prosperity there is now in the post 9/11 post crash/bailout world.

Again, you're attributing to the monetary system things which have nothing to do with it.

Do both parents need to work because of inflation or because there are a billion chinese and indian workers? Do both parents need to work because, prior to the 1960s, women were essentially barred from performing any decent paying job in the first place?

If we went on the gold standard, is it going to make american labor more competitive? Is it going to increase american wages? Is it going to lower the cost of goods? HOW?

Your assertion about people paying off homes in 5-10 years in the 70s and 80s is pure and utter bullshit. 30 year mortgages were the norm then and they're the norm now. They've been the norm since the great depression.

And you can't go back to the 70s and 80s and compare it, because we *DID NOT* have a sound monetary system then. We haven't had a sound monetary system since Nixon.

Your blanket assertion that things were "better" in years past is bizarre. We're freaking out about 10% unemployment rates now, but they were 15+% into the 1940s (when we had "sound money"). Our homes were built with aesbestos and hollow drywall. Our cities were full of polluting factories. non-white, non-males were treated as, at best, second class citizens.

Do you even have parents or grandparents? Life was NOT easy in the last generation (the 60s/70s/80s), nor in the generation before it. Selectively ignoring things that were much, much worse (like becoming homeless when you were no longer able to work, or dying in your early 60s because you can't afford to see a doctor) and citing things which are subjectively "better" is a weak argument.

If you want to point the finger at any single thing that has caused life to become more difficult for regular folks since the 1970s, you need to look to Asia. In the period between WWII and the rise of china (really, the *only* time where you can objectively say that things were "better"), we were really the only productive economy on the planet. All the jobs were here, Europe was undergoing reconstruction, and Japan hadn't yet hit its stride.

We're nowhere near that any more.

The only real alternative would be to go back to our pre WWII isolationist policy, and keep everything we do domestic (few imports, few exports, no foreign ownership, no foreign employment). There's little reason to think that life would be any better in this mode of operation though, because we can see exactly what life was like then, and it wasn't very good. Unemployment was high, and the rich controlled even more than they do today.

There is *NO* going back to the post WWII environment, no matter what policy we implement.

Kev,

Are you saying we are better off today than we were 8, 10, 20, 50 years ago? I'm glad you feel that way. But you are wrong. The FED has not caused all our problems, but it has caused more than it has solved. And it is the primary factor allowing deficit spending. If we could not create money out of nothing we could not continue to spend ourselves into debt. No FED, no ballooning national debt. It is that simple.

We have not had sound money since 1913. However the FED did not kick their machine into high gear until the 1970's.

Now we have nearly one in 10 Americans on Food stamps. 100 years ago that number was zero. And how many people died of homelessness or starvation back then? I am sure the number is greater today.

How come during the past 50 years government workers have increased at a rate much greater than the increase in population? How come the average government employee receives salary and compensation worth over $110,000?

Who is paying for that? Not just tax payers but everyone who holds dollar bills. Dollar bills that are losing value at a mind boggling rate. If we stay on our present course we will be bankrupt in less than 20 years, perhaps as few as 4.

I could go on, but this is a straw man argument anyway. The purpose of this thread is to point out how the proposed "health care" reforms are going to increase the deficit, increase dependency on the government, limit choices, and result in greater fraud, waste and abuse.