patrick.net

Congess will never implement these ideas because they make too much sense.

America is not in danger of anything. It is the wall street banksters and Lobbying special interest, that are in danger of having the Fed soup kitchen closed.

What will happen every thing but the things Washington is lying about, will be pulled back. Not SS not MC and other social services. Who will sufferer are the millions of Halliburton contractors and the Taliban when we stop sending money to the Shit hole in Afgahnistan and Iraq.

Which I say is all great news.

Kick that Can! Kick that Can!

God bless John Boehner for protecting us from Obmama, and thank God the Liberals wont give the Republicans any thing.
It is a blessed day that that these two ill fit to lead parties are in deadlock.

Why does Dennis Kucinich not pander to Wall Street and lust after the White House?

I'll tell you why, he's busy counting his lucky stars:

Daddy! I want an oompa loompa, and I want an oompa loompa NOW! (he obviously bought her one).

kentm says

Here is how to get out of debt: End the wars--save a trillion over ten years. Repeal tax cuts to the wealthy--save another trillion. Medicare for ALL, ending the four hundred billion yearly subsidies for health insurance industry."

Even taking that at face value (which I can't, esp. wrto Medicare), that would be 6 T over 10 yrs. The budget shortfall till 2011 is projected at 20 T (in today's $$). Savings from "Medicare for all" aren't that simple because those "subsidies" are largely paid not by the govt., but a mix of employers and insured themselves. The GOVT. funding in single-payer countries like Canada is not significantly (or at all) lower than here, it's the companies and individuals save premiums, deductibles, co-payments etc.

Picking on Dennis makes me sad. He's the most under-rated coolest guy in the universe, ever.

Fisk says

Savings from "Medicare for all" aren't that simple

Where is the "value added" we get from insurance companies ?

We already use medicare for all of the expensive stuff, that is end of life care, for people that make it past 65. Most people who are on health insurance, are the ones who actually aren't incurring costs. Do the Math. Expaninding Medicare to also cover the people who usually don't need a lot of care is common sense.

I know this is basically a "hand waving argument," but please, what am I missing ?

The insurance companies are doing the same thing that states love to do when they sell lottery tickets. It's a huge money maker. Yes, they pay out big to a few people. And otherwise it's different because they are handling a lot of small stuff that cost way less than the insurance premiums people (or their employers) are paying, but that's inefficient.

The whole thing is wildly inefficient. If we have to have insurance, it should just be for the catastrophic, and let people just pay for everything else. It would be way cheaper.

But more efficient still would be medicare for all.

IF only it weren't a "democrat" idea, but just a concept that were objectively considered on it's own merits. OF course truth is, the concept is fairly popular, but this tea party thing sprang up over night, with people yelling at town hall meetngs. Frankly I really don't comprehend what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKBa9K_vAm8

Wow, I just watched the second half of that video. Those people would scare Bap,...or even Shrek. We're talking some serious loons.

Apologies if that one guy is you Shrek. You know, the guy talking about owning the hat ?

(boy that would freak him out if it really was him, right ?)

Vicente says

I'll tell you why, he's busy counting his lucky stars:

Show me a hot woman, and I'll show you ten ex-boyfriends that had her crap... "Up to here!".

marcus says

Fisk says

Savings from "Medicare for all" aren't that simple

Where is the "value added" we get from insurance companies ?

We already use medicare for all of the expensive stuff, that is end of life care, for people that make it past 65. Most people who are on health insurance, are the ones who actually aren't incurring costs. Do the Math. Expaninding Medicare to also cover the people who usually don't need a lot of care is common sense.

I know this is basically a "hand waving argument," but please, what am I missing ?

You are missing that the money wasted by health insurance companies comes from the economy/society at large, not directly from the Fed. (or state) govts. It's not like the govt. contracts those companies and can just save by cutting the contracts. If we move to single-payer, employers/employees and people in general would save a ton, but the govt. budget will not - the GOVT. expenses per capita in Canada are not lower than in the US. Then, to actually help the budget, the savings realized to companies and individuals will have to be extracted through increased taxation (again, as in Canada).

To be clear, our government spending needs to roll back to 1999.

Just like housing has done, JUST like our economy has done, just like growth have done. just like every thing but the spending from Washington.

Repealing ObamaCare COSTS the govt. money. Try again.

And TARP has all been paid back. Try again.

Tenouncetrout says

The future of America right here.

HousingWatcher says

Repealing ObamaCare COSTS the govt. money. Try again.

And TARP has all been paid back. Try again.

lies

CBO said repealing ObamaCare will cost money. Not me.

And TARP has been paid back with interest. But if you want to ignore reality, go right ahead.

Of course it's been paid because the basic third grade math adds up right? The 500,000 foreclosed homes, the 3 million in ghost inventory, the millions of homes short sold or sold to pennies on the dollar to straw investors.

It's been paid, because we've seen BOFA balance sheet right?
Oh NO, well because nobody in Washington has anything to gain or lose by fudging the numbers and just writing down those balances and saying they were paid in full right?

It's been paid in full because Elizabeth Warren has gone over the books and declared it all on the up and up, right?

Well she never will get the opportunity to do so now, will she?

These banks have been limping and just barely solvent for 4 years, and some how miraculously they managed to pay back TARP.

Tarp was allocated 700 billion, but only passed out about 410 billion and got back just under 300 billion.

Where's the other 100 billion?

And what happened to the extra 300 billion they didnt 'spend'? I only see the -700 billion in the budget reports.

It's been paid because would Washington ever lie?

Is there a bill? Call it for a vote. Better hurry before he's just a private citizen.

Fisk says

If we move to single-payer, employers/employees and people in general would save a ton, but the govt. budget will not - the GOVT. expenses per capita in Canada are not lower than in the US. Then, to actually help the budget, the savings realized to companies and individuals will have to be extracted through increased taxation (again, as in Canada).

People who make claims about savings to the government through single payer are always talking about the long term. The idea is that lowering health care costs to corporations (which is a tax in a way) would make our corporations more competitive with many other first world corporations who don't have as high health care costs, and it would improve growth of our economy. Even a 1% improvement in GDP over 10 years is a massive difference in tax revenues.

(this might bring wackos out of the woodwork who want to say that's why lower taxes are better. Yes, I know, but that's only true when taxes are too high. Taking taxes to zero does not cause government revenues to go to infinity)

And yes taxes may have to go up a little. Wouldn't corporations more easily afford higher taxes if their health care costs were lower?

I'm winning because The Dems and Reps are stepping on each others dicks.

Looks like my mortgage deduction AINT going no where.