Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781318)

the squeeky wheel gets the grease. What Zorn neglects to mention is the times and amounts Medicare has been raised. If at anytime this warning had been acted on we wouldn't be where we are now.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 781325)

:zz: No. The "warning" was acted upon all the times listed.

Since inception of each program, it's always been known that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security would have to undergo adjustments to remain solvent. And that's what we've always done. And what we'll do again now.

That is a complete falsehood. You know that. LOL - I wish we had single payer, Medicare for all - that would be awesome. Vermont just agreed to go down the path of healthcare for all, not just the rich. Good for them.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781338)

In 1969 total Fed spending was $183.6 billion, payments for medical services for seniors was $5.7 billion (3%) and total Fed spending for healthcare, including Public Health Services, Vendor Payments (welfare) and R&D was 10.9 billion
(6%)

In 2012 total spending is $3.728 trillion payments for medical services for seniors is $492.3 billion (13%) and total Fed spending for healthcare, including Public Health Services, Vendor Payments (welfare) and R&D is $866.1billion (23%)

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 781348)

Which has nothing at all do with the few industry reforms implemented in the PPACA. Hoever, the CBO says the PPACA will be good for the countries economic health, btw - for example, it extends Medicare by 12 years, while reducing waste in that program by 5 billion dollars (which helps pay for the program)

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781396)

With blinks off..

The CBO letter says that the health law spends $780 billion in the next decade and pays for it by raising taxes and fees by $410 billion, and by reducing future Medicare funding by $500 billion. The CBO argues that the law raises more money ($910 billion) than it spends, but that is hardly sufficient reason to keep it, or any law.

Projections from another federal agency—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—fill in the grim picture on what ObamaCare will do. The CMS figures, released Sept. 9, show that if you buy your own health plan, you will have to pay more every year than you would have if the law hadn't passed.

Amazingly, only 3% more people will have private health insurance in 2014 than would have it if the law hadn't passed. But a staggering 85.2 million people will be on public insurance—Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP. That's 31% of non-elderly Americans. The new health law is pushing the U.S. toward a European-style welfare state, making more people dependent on government, instead of on themselves, and undermining incentives to work. The new law stipulates that Medicaid must provide the same health benefits that employers will have to provide for their workers.

To expand Medicaid, the law eviscerates Medicare. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, only it's robbing Grandma and Grandpa. The CMS shows that in 2019 the Obama health law reduces annual Medicare funding so much that it works out to $1,428 less for each elderly patient that year. Richard Foster, chief actuary for Medicare, has spoken with brave bluntness about the possible impact, warning that some hospitals may stop accepting Medicare. Where will seniors go?

Government projections are notoriously unreliable, but by the CBO's own numbers repeal would reduce government spending, lower taxes, and restore Medicare funding. Most important, repeal would protect your freedom and your medical care. The Obama health law lowers your standard of care, puts government in charge of your care, and shreds your constitutional rights—dangers these government projections do not address.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...133862774.html

Originally Posted by GBBob (Post 781411)

Yawn..as you said..deal with it..4 more years and then Rahm..you are going to blow throw a lot of keyboards

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781490)

another good move by Rahm. Wish instead of serving Obama he had spent his time in DC mentoring him.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7042305.story

Originally Posted by GBBob (Post 781496)

As you probably know, if it wasn't for Rahm that slots bill wouldn't be on it's way to Quinn's desk...He made a huge difference and is also the only resaon why Quinn might actually sign it.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781396)

With blinks off..

[i]The CBO letter says that the health law spends $780 billion in the next decade and pays for it by raising taxes and fees by $410 billion, and by reducing future Medicare funding by $500 billion. The CBO argues that the law raises more money ($910 billion) than it spends, but that is hardly sufficient reason to keep it, or any law.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 781527)

Well, nonsense. And what "European-style welfare state" is the author referencing in particular? The imaginary one in his mind?

It is encouraging people to be responsible, rather than living off their neighbors.

C'mon Dell - at least come up with good, reasoned opinion articles to share. This is a ridiculous stretch made up of straw men.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781534)

Complain to the Wall Street Journal. I'm sure as a former paramedic now vet you're far more informed on economic issues and impact. They'll listen to you and publish a redaction so quick you'll be able to hold your breath. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 781250)

My friend had an idea. No federal income taxes but a flat Federal tax (say 6-7%) on all goods and services that you buy.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781534)

Complain to the Wall Street Journal. I'm sure as a former paramedic now vet you're far more informed on economic issues and impact. They'll listen to you and publish a redaction so quick you'll be able to hold your breath. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer (Post 781538)

That, I think, always sounds like a totally logical idea, until you get to thinking how much that disproportionately would affect the poor who would be taxed on everything they need to keep their lives going (which usually amounts to nearly all of their income) with the little money they already have, while the rich would be taxed on only a small percentage of their income in comparison.

Which makes it even more shocking that the GOP has not been trying to ram such a plan through Congress.

Originally Posted by somerfrost (Post 781539)

But you're the one posting this crap here, rather than mindlessly cutting and pasting right wing nonsense, think for yourself.

Originally Posted by somerfrost (Post 781541)

I would support a flat tax as long as it contained reasonable exceptions (ie: no tax on first $50,000 or so)...that would protect the poor and lower middle class.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781549)

I have said I'm willing to give Obamacare a try if safeguards are put in place. Since it's billed as a money maker, should it fail to do so and hit maybe $5 billion in loses we need an escape plan less add another huge slice to a pie already full. We can't make any bigger a pie.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 781554)

.We need less package deals, and more ala carte.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 781554)

Allow the government to bargain for prescription costs..

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 781537)

Edit: for those that do not know, Betsy McCaughey is the Republican strategist who single-handedly came up with, "Health care reform will have death panels that will kill your grandma!" as a fight against the Democratic effort for health care reform.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781589)

and no match for your expertise in healthcare based on your experiences as a suburban paramedic and animal doctor.

Betsy’s pitiful list of credentials :D

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 781602)

i just wish the govt. would find more ways to encourage job creation by the wealthy. taxing goes to govt coffers, employment helps in far more ways than taxing. jobs boostrevenue, ss, and of course dollars made are dollars spent.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781574)

LMAO yea like $500 toilet seats and $1000 hammers. :wf

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 781606)

Would you support a government-sponsored jobs program?

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 781190)

Any talk of "need" with regard to income and what can keep due to government confiscation is, often unintentionally, socialistic.

If I am to "earn" a large paycheck, and 62% of it is forcibly taken from me, why the hell would I work hard enough to do that again? I'd work enough to earn a figure in a lower bracket - which I can do, due to the ludicrous progressive tax system. So then it is not just I who lost the income, but also the government. This is one of the mechanisms by which higher tax rates often yield lower revenues.

Another mechanism is that I simply move my business out of the country and avoid this confiscatory tax.

You cannot define what is "fair", especially, as you point out, when the costs are assigned to one group and the benefits are assigned to another non-overlapping group. This is why we need a flat tax: everyone paying the same rate. Earn twice as much, pay twice as much. Earn half as much, pay half as much. Put in a poverty exclusion - like not taxing the first $50,000 or something. Because we can define what is proportional, and that often syncs up with what most people would agree is fair.

By the way, on a more frivolous note:

I am a huge Star Trek fan. When Spock said that statement it was in reference to whether he or Kirk should command the ship since Spock was acting captain, Kirk was an admiral and normally would not interfere, but of course, as always, a critical mission came up. I don't think it was a wholesale endorsement of redistributing wealth.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781638)

We already have it. The US Post Office and TSA are just two of many. Not doin so good though.

Originally Posted by horseofcourse (Post 781665)

This is beyond ludicrous. You have no understanding of taxation. everyone is taxed at the same rate. The rich are taxed at the same rate up to a certain income that everyone else is. It is only after they go into another bracket that "that" income is taxed at the higher rate. It is this level of stupidity that harms AMerica. All of your income is not taxed at the next level no matter what your income is. If you make 9 gazillion dollars your first 50k is taxed at the lower level, then up to 250 k taxed at the next higher level, then after that taxed at the highest level, so anyone purposely not making money to stay in the lower bracket is an imbecile because they are already there at imcomes taxed at that amount. It's called a marginal tax rate.

Are you this stupid on purpose or do you work hard at it??

Originally Posted by horseofcourse (Post 781672)

The post office is 100 percent accurate in getting my payments to private companies in my lifetime. They have a faliure rate of zero. They are also 100 percent in getting private company's bills to me. They have a failure rate of zero. Of course I'm sure they make errors, but in my case, zero. From my personal experience despite popular opinion the post office is not Newmann on Seinfeld.

Originally Posted by clyde (Post 781128)

^^^^ No. 50 on the 100 Richest People in the World list.



Small wonder.

Originally Posted by horseofcourse (Post 781674)

good lord, why did I come read this thread.

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley (Post 781736)

You, sir, are now un-invited to the Belmont party with the Belmonts on my private yacht.:mad:

Originally Posted by clyde (Post 781740)

rolling and laughing!!











all the same:







( ( )

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley (Post 781737)

I, too, have often asked myself the same question.:zz:

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley (Post 781744)

I have reconsidered my uninvite. You may still come if you provide the hershey bars.:)

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 781725)

was talking about their bottom line.