patrick.net

EightBall says

tatupu70 says

So, trying to rein in medical costs in the US isn't important? Really? I would think that should be pretty near the top of the list with the boomers nearing retirement.

You actually believe this is what they did or even tried to do? I have some swamp land in florida and a bridge in NYC for sale if you are interested...

Please, enlighten me. What was the REAL motivation for trying to revamp our health care system?

EightBall says

You actually believe this is what they did or even tried to do?

yes, it's a step towards single-payer. Making the government pay subsidies to people making under the median income puts the government in the picture wrt cost controls.

Plus the MLR for insurance companies is limited to 15-20%. This is a start.

Our politics were & are too fucked to permit further reforms, but incremental is better than nothing.

Why not cut corporate subsidies while keeping the corporate tax rate at its current level?

tatupu70 says

Please, enlighten me. What was the REAL motivation for trying to revamp our health care system?

From what the dems said, it was to cover 30 million people without health insurance and stop insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. It would have been much easier to implement tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance and allow doctors to quit ordering tests that aren't necessary - but I'm sure you'll disagree with that assessment.

HousingWatcher says

Why not cut corporate subsidies while keeping the corporate tax rate at its current level?

To make it more attractive to bring jobs back to the US...

Troy says

yes, it's a step towards single-payer. Making the government pay subsidies to people making under the median income puts the government in the picture wrt cost controls.

Thanks for the reasoned response. Even when I disagree with you, you aren't an ass like many other people. In the end, however, would it not have been easier to raise taxes (i.e. apply medicare tax to all forms of income) and add people below a certain income level to medicare/medicaid? The bureaucratic institutions to run that are already in place and wouldn't require massive changes. Some simple rules such as no pre-existing limitations if you've had either gov't coverage or some minimum private coverage in the past year, tort reform, and eliminating the restrictions of selling across state lines would have gone a long way to fixing the existing system.

EightBall says

From what the dems said, it was to cover 30 million people without health insurance and stop insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

That was part of it, yes. Another part was reducing costs.

EightBall says

It would have been much easier to implement tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance and allow doctors to quit ordering tests that aren't necessary - but I'm sure you'll disagree with that assessment.

I'm not against some sort of tort reform. Neither is Obama, as a matter of fact. I believe he mentioned it in his State of the Union. But tort reform is only a very small piece of the puzzle. Tort reform and the whole buying across state lines are great talking points, but they won't add up to a hill of beans. As usual, it's Republicans trying to stop needed change.

EightBall says

Why not cut corporate subsidies while keeping the corporate tax rate at its current level?
To make it more attractive to bring jobs back to the US...

Another right wing fairy tale. Jobs don't leave the US because of the tax rate. Period.

tatupu70 says

That was part of it, yes. Another part was reducing costs.

You can revise history all you want to support your position. Healthcare-for-all was the mantra.

tatupu70 says

I'm not against some sort of tort reform. Neither is Obama, as a matter of fact.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5310795-503544.html

On Sunday, Mr. Obama discussed some of the types of malpractice reform that might be the subject of the state-based demonstration projects. However, he discounted the idea of capping medical malpractice damages.

Perhaps he has changed his mind now that the democrats aren't running the house?

tatupu70 says

Another right wing fairy tale. Jobs don't leave the US because of the tax rate. Period.

So if I have a choice of running my business in a high-tax locale vs a low tax locale this wouldn't factor into a decision? States don't use tax incentives to lure businesses to move?

Another left wing fairy tale - tax rates play no part in a company's decision on where to operate their business. Wait, you are going to reply that it is only one part of a myriad of factors...I can hear it now...

You can cut the corporate tax rate to ZERO and it would still be much cheaper to keep jobs in China and India than in the U.S. Let's not forget that companies like Whirlpool and GE outsource jobs depsite paying ZERO in corporate taxes in the U.S. As most people fail to comprehend, you simply cannot compete with slave labor. It's that simple.

HousingWatcher says

You can cut the corporate tax rate to ZERO and it would still be much cheaper to keep jobs in China and India than in the U.S. Let's not forget that companies like Whirlpool and GE outsource jobs depsite paying ZERO in corporate taxes in the U.S. As most people fail to comprehend, you simply cannot compete with slave labor. It's that simple.

Hear, hear. We need to have labor and environmental standards with free trade, otherwise it's a race to the bottom.

Taxes are the Republican answer to everything.

When we had a surplus in 2001, what was the GOP answer? Tax cuts.

When we have a massive deficit in 2011, what is the GOP answer? Tax cuts.

Can someone please tell me why anyone outside the top 2% votes Republican? I truly would like to know.

EightBall says

You can revise history all you want to support your position. Healthcare-for-all was the mantra.

I'm not the one revising history. Cutting costs was ALWAYS a major goal of reform.

EightBall says

Perhaps he has changed his mind now that the democrats aren't running the house?

Don't think so. Tort reform isn't the same as capping medical malpractice lawsuits. Not sure why'd you'd imply they are the same?

EightBall says

Wait, you are going to reply that it is only one part of a myriad of factors..

If you know the right answer why are you playing around pretending that taxes are the end all be all. As others have shown many times, corporate taxes were higher in the past and copmanies created plenty of jobs in the US. I'd like to see a graph of jobs created vs. corporate tax rate. I'd be shocked if there was ANY correlation at all.

@ eightball--

From Obama's speech to Congress on Health Care:

Then there's the problem of rising cost. We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It's why so many employers -- especially small businesses -- are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally -- like our automakers -- are at a huge disadvantage. And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it -- about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else. (Applause.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/obama-health-care-speech_n_281265.html

HousingWatcher says

Can someone please tell me why anyone outside the top 2% votes Republican?

25% of this country is adamantly against the legality of abortion and another 30% don't believe a woman has total freedom of choice in this area.

50% of this country are against homosex marriage rights.

Those are the two biggies.

Republicans are also much more pro-Israel than Democrats, which is why Orthodox Jews support them at 80% rates.

Conservative Christians like Israel since they believe it's going to touch off Armageddon for them, and anything they can do to help that along is a-ok with them.

Also, the more stupid you are the more the conservative "job creator" / "get government out of my medicare" narrative makes sense to you.

tatupu70 says

Don't think so. Tort reform isn't the same as capping medical malpractice lawsuits. Not sure why'd you'd imply they are the same?

Gee I don't know why I would make them equivalent in the context of health care...but not sure you can exclude capping medical malpractice suits from tort reform...

Tort reform refers to proposed changes in common law civil justice systems that would reduce tort litigation or damages. Tort actions are civil common law claims first created in the English commonwealth system as a non-legislative means for compensating wrongs and harm done by one party to another's person, property or other protected interests (e.g. physical injury or reputation, under libel and slander laws). Tort reform advocates focus on personal injury common law rules in particular.

tatupu70 says

@ eightball--

From Obama's speech to Congress on Health Care:

Sorry, it was sold more on the quote and ideals from the letter he received from Kennedy...By the way, I agree with Kennedy. I just think it was a monumentally stupid time to do it and a huge waste of political capital on the dems part when they could have done something like - I don't know - try to jump start the economy? Did you watch the speech or even re-read it and come to the conclusion that we needed to implement Obamacare because we need to cut costs?

"What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

EightBall says

Did you watch the speech or even re-read it and come to the conclusion that we needed to implement Obamacare because we need to cut costs?

Geez. You're still going to disagree? I read the speech. I quoted the speech. Yes, I did come to that conclusion. I'm not sure how you COULDN'T come to that conclusion.

tatupu70 says

If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else. (Applause.)

EightBall says

Gee I don't know why I would make them equivalent in the context of health care...but not sure you can exclude capping medical malpractice suits from tort reform...

You aren't thinking very creatively then. There are all sorts of ways to implement tort reform without imposing a cap. How about discouraging nuisance lawsuits? How about allowing medically trained people to judge the lawsuits? Or loser pays legal fees? There are lots of ideas out there. Capping awards is only one of many.

tatupu70 says

Geez. You're still going to disagree? I read the speech. I quoted the speech. Yes, I did come to that conclusion. I'm not sure how you COULDN'T come to that conclusion.

Yes.

tatupu70 says

How about discouraging nuisance lawsuits? How about allowing medically trained people to judge the lawsuits? Or loser pays legal fees?

You must be a republican.

shrekgrinch says

Supply-side tax cuts worked for JFK. Then Reagan. Then Clinton (cap gains tax cuts of 1998).

No, they actually didn't.

Reagan raised taxes by eliminating loopholes and cut overall rates and raised the deficit massively (yes, we call that stimulus or spending). JFK lowered top marginal rates from 91% to 65% (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter) -- everyone agrees that 91% taxes stifle growth, so can we go back to 65% now? Clinton raised taxes first and then cut some capital gains taxes slightly. Trying to use that to take credit for the dotcom boom is silly -- people were going to invest a lot of that money regardless of tax cuts -- most of the "investment" was short-term, and that was the heyday of day-trading, so most people didn't even benefit from the tax cuts. It could be just as fair to say that capital gains tax cuts resulted in the dotcom bubble and housing bubble if you're going to make some sort of correlation-not-causation argument.

This is all common knowledge, and yet uninformed people always get it wrong. Again, are you willing to move the top marginal rate back up to 65%? If you agree we had such a booming economy then, and top marginal rates are now 35%, then your whole supply-side argument is flawed. In reality the relationship between taxes and economic booms is far more complex than some stupid Laffer curve, and you have to isolate the effects of macroeconomic events.

tatupu70 says

You aren't thinking very creatively then. There are all sorts of ways to implement tort reform without imposing a cap. How about discouraging nuisance lawsuits? How about allowing medically trained people to judge the lawsuits? Or loser pays legal fees? There are lots of ideas out there. Capping awards is only one of many.

Tort reform is just a red herring for an ideological agenda. Tort costs are at most 1-1.5% of healthcare costs.

In addition, it has been shown that medical payouts have not increased over time significantly when you adjust for inflation. If anything, they have DROPPED over time when you adjust for inflation.

Ideology, not real.

Supply-side tax cuts worked for JFK. Then Reagan

What really worked for Raygun was a pretty healthy credit surge/bubble:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1cb

Like Bush the Lesser, this was partially prompted by the Fed easing interest rates:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1cc