It's not like McCain didn’t warn you. He stated he opposed the bill when he voted to allow it to go up for debate. So I’m not mad at McCain. He did exactly what I expected him to do, preen for the cameras, virtual signal for his media friends, and toss a big FU to the Republican Party. It’s the same thing he’s been doing for years. So why the surprise? In fact, I think McCain did the GOP, and Trump, a favor. The various GOP “repeal and replace” bills were all terrible anyway. None of them fixed the real problems with the individual insurance market or the exchanges. So why should Republicans get their hands dirty in a rush to get anything passed when they will own the results? And since none of their bills fixed the problem, the results will be pretty bad.
A principle is "a rule or belief about what is right and wrong that governs the way in which someone behaves." My statement falls under that definition. You have not shown that my principal or "desire" is inferior to your principal or that your principal is a true principal. A regulated free market is more like a 95% free market if that is how you like to look at it. Most conservatives I know believe in at least some regulations. Show me the Obamacare plans that cost $40,000 per year with a $22,000 deductible. I have seen individual plans range from $3,000 - $6,000 per year. That just isn't true. Many of them were covered under Medicaid. Obamacare does have high deductibles but at least preventative care is free and if you get a condition that is really expensive you are covered. A lot of UHC systems are very similar to Obamacare but have a lot more to simplify their systems, reduce cost, and help people pay their premiums. Do you prefer we fix Obamacare that way? Maybe the government run-healthcare systems do but the mandated insurance and single-payer systems are privately run. And is our increased innovation worth 2 1/2 times the cost and 10% increases in cost yearly? Most of them gained coverage through Medicaid, others gained it through their employers, the rest through Obamcare, but most of the low-income people had subsidies to help them pay so you can't say they would just leave if there was no mandate. We do need a mandate to maintain a balanced market. If we don't then heath insurance doesn't work. What is so bad about a mandate if we help people pay and it reduces average cost for everyone? Some countries have more problems with waiting lines than others. Canada and UK have the worst problems there but other countries don't have it nearly so bad, and keep in mind that waiting lines in the US can be long too. It really depends on the system. Again, I don't know if shorter waiting lines is worth 2 1/2 times the cost and healthcare costs increasing at 10% per year. Check out this wikipedia page. At the very least I have never seen a study that shows that healthcare in the US when taken as a whole is far better than anywhere else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_of_healthcare But still only a tiny number die this way. And what is the life expectancy of the US compared to other countries factoring them out? I think that our healthcare system performs about equivalently to others and is just not worth the 1-2 trillion extra cost.
There are a lot of reasons healthcare is so expensive in the US and basically it boils down to that the private market is able to get away with charging outrageous prices and while other developed countries have been able to control costs through regulations we haven't. Many countries have Obamacare-like systems that are better at controlling cost, and others have more government funded and government run systems.
The private market in the USA has not existed in decades for 2 big reasons. A long time ago, health care became an employee benefit and employers became the customer for health insurance companies, employers didn't really care what the cost was until very recently because the cost was simply part of doing business and it was passed to their customers. Patients (employees) didn't care about the cost of health care because they were not paying the bill. End result - no incentive to watch costs, no linkage of supply and demand or cost and results. The second big reason is government regulation and interference. To even hint that the health care & insurance industries are not highly regulated is ridiculous. Costs are impacted far more by govt decree via Medicaid and medicare, and by the cost of meeting govt regulations, than by any free market aspect.
Well if the early 70s was two thirds of a lifetime ago, then we are both mature men of similar age (I'm 62). I enjoy a respectful discussion. I certainly do not harbor any hostility towards anyone who just wants to air out some ideas even if we don't agree. I'll get to why I think conservatives have lost their way in a minute, but first, I was a bit taken aback when you quoted me as saying "Yes, ObamaCare costs money, but it saves us money as well." That's not what I said. Look at my post. What I said was, "You see, if every citizen has some mechanism for health care coverage, that is good for all of us. Yes, it costs money, but it saves us money as well." I am no supporter of Obamacare. What I meant was that if everyone is covered, insurance costs less because you bring in all the young, healthy people. It also reduces hospital and physician cost because we are no longer paying for the uninsured. Everyone talks about the outrageous costs of a band-aid or an aspirin in the ER, and a lot of that is because of all the uninsured people who use the ER because regular physicians' offices won't see them. Those uninsured people represent a loss to the hospital, the ER, the physicians' offices, and the diagnostic labs because, quite frankly, they don't pay. They may get a bill, but they don't pay, and you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. So those of us with insurance and a decent income pay for them. We pay in our premiums, we pay in our deductibles and co-pays, and the cost of the services we receive are inflated to cover those losses. What I am suggesting is that we come up with some system that is not the flawed and failing Obamacare but which can garner support from conservatives and liberals and all the people in between. I am suggesting that we come up with something that works. And, I am suggesting that it not be subsidized by the government, but, instead, that it be paid for, in full, by us. By all of us. Everyone gets to have some skin in the game. The system I suggested would reward work, it would not cause more deficit spending by the government, and it would certainly lend itself to getting the federal government out of our health care choices. It would still depend on the free market system as insurance companies competed with each other for business, and it would encourage employers to compete with each other for good employees. All of these things, in my opinion, are consistent with conservative values and principles we hold. The only thing that runs counter to the beliefs of some conservatives - and you expressed this same reservation - is the mandate that employers pay for health insurance for their employees. I just don't see that as being soooo bad. Look at all the other mandates employers have. They must abide by work rules. They must pay their portion for Social Security and Medicare. They must pay into Disability and Unemployment. They must deduct for state and federal income taxes. They must pay a minimum amount per hour. And many employers - the better ones - already pay for group health insurance for their employees. This is not some radical new idea, except that I am suggesting that they all do it. The only people this would leave out would be the unemployed and the unemployable, and I think we can find it in our hearts to cover them with Medicaid as we already do in most cases. This is a small percentage of the people. And frankly, I have never been a fan of taxes on business profits. It makes no sense to me to tax the engine that creates employment and opportunity and American competitiveness in the world. I believe in personal income taxes, but not taxes on business profits. If it were up to me, in exchange for covering all employees with health insurance, I would eliminate all taxation on business profits. Changing gears now ... Why did I say conservatism has "lost its way"? - On matters of the budget, taxation, and the economy, a lot of conservatives have replaced what's good for the country and what's moral with "what's good for me." This selfishness has become institutionalized in a lot of conservative thought. And, I believe we see this modern conservative thought go through contradictory contortions to justify it. For example, if you ask any conservative about deficit spending, they will tell you they are against it. They will say they are for a balanced budget. And they will tell you of the evils of the national debt that we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. OK. Pass a balanced budget then. No chance. No chance because to do that they would either have to raise taxes (pay for our spending), or they would have to cut programs that people want and need - like Medicare, for example, which is one of the largest programs utilizing direct government funding. So they simply choose deficit spending, while, at the same time, condemning deficit spending in their rhetoric, and while also patting themselves on the back for not raising taxes (not paying for it). That is contradictory, almost by definition. I look at how I live my life, and I ask myself, "Since when is "not paying for it" a so-called "conservative value"? What if I simply decide to "not pay for it" in my own life? What if I were to simply borrow 30% above my income every year to pay for my own spending? The other thing that bothers me about this selfishness is how it translates into budget cutting. Social Security is a good example. Projections show that SS is going to run out of money in the relatively near future. So instead of just funding it (which could be done by raising the cap on SS taxation), instead, Republicans come up with plans to cut SS expenditures by forcing people to become older and older before they can have it. It is the "work until you die" plan to balance SS's books. And who does this benefit? It certainly doesn't benefit the middle class working man or woman who wants to retire after a lifetime of work. The only people it benefits are people making money above the cap on SS taxation. That's it. No one else. Just them. And the calculation is cynical. The calculation is that enough 65-70 years olds will simply die off without ever seeing a cent of the SS they paid into all their lives. Concurrently, people who die at an age above 70 will have received 5 fewer years of SS payments. Why is that "conservative"? Since when did it become a conservative value to screw over our parents and grandparents (and ultimately ourselves) to save 1.45% of the incomes of people earning over $136,000/year? Is that what it means to be a conservative? Take it out of the hides of gramma and grampa? And, in case you're wondering, I am saying this from the perspective of one whose income is in the top 10%. My wife and I are comfortable and financially secure now and into the future. So these remarks I'm making are not out of some sort of class envy. I like where we are, but we have both worked, and continue to work, very hard all our lives to arrive where we are. We earned everything we have, and I apologize to no one for it, but I am thankful at the same time. I am thankful to have been born an American; I am thankful to all of those who have fought for our freedom; and I'm mindful of all of those who came before us who built this country. It wasn't friggin easy. So, while I'm proud of my own work, I didn't do this by myself. The success my wife and I enjoy was, in part, given to us by those Americans who came before us. We conservatives need to take that to heart. I think we should stop being selfish and shortsighted and, instead, think about what we can give of ourselves and yes, our fortunes, to make our country a better country for our children, grandchildren, and future generations. When I hear conservatives pompously claiming that no one helped them, and that they amassed their fortune by themselves, and therefore they don't owe anything to anyone, I say to myself, "Yes, they did", "No you didn't" and "Yes, you do". We conservatives don't like handouts, do we? I know I don't admire the culture of dependency and endless, lifetime handouts. I have no sympathy for giving welfare to able adults who just don't want to work. But, at the same time, I will not abide seeing the children go hungry or without shelter. Not in my United States of America. And so I will tolerate some things I don't like to do what I believe we must do to take care of the blameless and vulnerable. And I have seen with my own eyes that a "hand up" is by far preferable to a "hand out". We conservatives should get behind "hand ups" if we want to reduce the need for "hand outs". We need to stop being "penny wise and pound foolish", but I think there is a great deal of modern conservative thought that is exactly that. Some conservatives remind me a lot of Mr Scrooge counting his piles of gold coins while his clerk, Bob Cratchit, can barely feed his family. I hear it in their attitudes, and I see it in their legislative proposals, and it frustrates me, for I see myself as a conservative too. It is simply unnecessary and indefensible, unless, of course, selfishness has now been institutionalized as an admirable conservative value. And, in many conservative quarters, it has been. They simply won't frame as such, but that doesn't change it any. In the final analysis, that's what it boils down to. And finally, I am tired of conservatives who want to mold the world into our own image through force. I am tired of regime change wars. I believe in a strong military, and I revere our veterans, but I do not want my country swaggering around the world always looking for a fight ... any fight. We've got a wing of conservatives out there who truly believe that any war is a good war. They think that waging war is "showing leadership" and that the absence of war is "showing weakness". We need to be strong and to defend ourselves when necessary and when there is no alternative, but we need not think of the world as a chessboard - a mere game - where death and destruction and human misery matter about as much as knocking off a pawn, as long as we gain some perceived geopolitical advantage. Frankly, if it were up to me, those old farts in Congress ... if I could I would give them a rifle and a helmet and put them on the ground and make them fight those wars they seem to love so much rather than our young people. Yes, I would. Ha! Here's a bumper sticker I could get behind: "Save a soldier. Send a politician." So I've spent some time here pounding on the conservatives, so I feel the need to tell you that I can't stand the progressive left. Don't take my criticisms of the right as an endorsement of the left. That would be a mistake to think that. I am an unabashed, flag-waving conservative, but I think independently. And I do believe that we are all in this together. Excluding the criminals and assorted neer-do-wells, we are a team, and we are only as strong as our weakest link. Accordingly, I believe in giving a "hand up" to strengthen the team. I do believe in hard work and individual achievement, but I believe in taking care of our parents and grandparents and the vulnerable in our society who find themselves vulnerable through no fault of their own. I believe that we conservatives, many of whom like to speak of their Christian values and heritage, should therefore be generous and compassionate, especially considering the great wealth of this country. And, we should hold onto a portion of humility, rather than arrogance, keeping in mind that we owe a lot of our success to the great sacrifices and hard work of those who came before us. I hope I have answered your question. Cheers! "Seth"
Can you post the data? And not to be excessivly picky but 4 is not the middle number when the four numbers are 1,2,4, 96. Believe in your example the median is 3.
To be a bit more specific the real problem is that the US spends a crippling percentage of the GDP on healthcare and the percentage is increasing. Neither Obamacare or any of the Republicsn proposals address this. Basically all they do is move the costs around between the individuals the federal government and the state governments.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary says that a principle is "a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption." [Bold added] I can see nothing "comprehensive" about your so-called "principle." I believe in laissez-faire capitalism. And a "regulated free market" can surely be found in the same place as a square circle... Actually, it might be better to quote me correctly. I indicated $36,000 per year--not $40,000. As for the $22,000 deductible, I know only what I have heard. I cannot verify it. But here is something on the matter of whether ObamaCare is affordable: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/obamacare-affordable/index.html And CNN is really not a far-right source... In other words, you are in favor of cradle-to-grave government benefits, a la Europe? Personally, I would far--far--prefer low taxes coupled with meager government benefits, to high taxes coupled with generous government benefits... I would prefer we return to the status quo ante. Absent that, I would much prefer, say, that we emulate Canada or Britain than to have ObamaCare. Not even close. Perhaps. It may even depend upon whether that innovation saves one's own life--or, perhaps, the life of a loved one. What is "so bad" about it? How about the fact that it is inherently authoritarian. And the idea that the end can (somehow) justify the means is simply abhorrent to me... Not according to my own experience... It is my understanding that the life expectancy in the US is number one in the world, if these accidents are factored out.
First, please let me say that if I wrongly used your words, it was entirely unintentional. Still, I do apologize. (By the way, we are, indeed, close in age: For the record, I am 69.) I strongly believe in balancing the national budget--just as households should do, with their individual budgets. And you are correct that the only two ways to do this are through increased revenue to the government, or decreased government spending. As I hew to supply-side economics, I do not believe that increased taxes will necessarily yield a one-to-one increase in revenues. However, I am not at all certain that tax cuts will entirely pay themselves either, through increased economic activity. (I think that they will largely pay for themselves--but probably not completely.) I agree with you that people in true need should not be subjected to Scrooge-like treatment. But who ever proclaimed that it is the government's role to become The Caretaker State? (I always thought that this is the proper role of private charity.)
Actually, you are correct about one thing--the median is, indeed, 3--but incorrect about another: I gave the fourth number as 97, not 96.
And why is so much spent on healthcare? Because of govt interference - regulation, cost manipulation, mandates, tax policy. Get the govt out of health care and the problems will quickly be resolved.
Whoop Te Doo. Makes no difference to the fact that you should not lecture others about statistics when you don't actually understand how to calculate them properly.
And I agree with you that the only way to a balanced budget is through increased revenue or decreased government spending. But our politicians will neither raise taxes, nor will they decrease spending. And if they do decrease spending, I suspect it will be the poorest among us and the elderly - the most vulnerable in any case - who they will decrease spending on. Gawd! ... Believe me, I hate sounding like a leftist, but .... Tax cuts will not help the lower 49% who do not pay taxes anyway. Therefore, you can cut taxes all you want, and you won't increase their spending power at all. They will not increase business activity through spending because they will have no more money to work with anyway. So really that extra money is going to circulate among the upper 51%, and conceivably it could cause some slightly greater demand for the things that the upper 51% spends its money on, perhaps generating a few more jobs here and there. But take me, for example. If the government reduces my income tax rate by 5%, I will pay $1000 less in federal income tax. But the truth is, I already buy what I want. I am extremely unlikely to go on a $1000 spending binge, helping to create a job for someone else with that money. I am much more likely to save it or maybe pay off a short term loan. Truth is, I really don't think that if you handed $1000 to every American in the upper 51%, you would see a jobs boom, or an income boom for the government. I loved Reagan. And so I hate to throw cold water on supply side economics. But objectively, as a conservative, I just don't buy it. What I believe now is a different fiscally conservative view ... Make us pay for it. If we spend it, we pay for it. There is just no motivation for politicians to cut spending when they don't make us pay for it, which they don't. And therefore, they will not cut spending. The Republicans cannot even garner the votes to repeal Obamacare. They will not cut spending to balance the budget. And so I believe the only way you are ever going to get the public to demand that they cut spending and balance the budget is to make us pay for our spending. It's not going to happen, though. About charities .... I like private charities. I donate a lot of money to a few charities. So don't think that what I'm going to say is a knock on private charities. But there is just no way private donations can do what Social Security does or what Medicare does. They cannot do what Medicaid does. I know charities that have done some things I'll list here: Provide a free nutritious lunch, Provide temporary shelter in a motel for a few days, Give canned food to the poor (It's rationed out depending on supply) Provide temporary, but more extended, shelter in a group home for single, indigent women with no kids. It's all good work, but it is sort of hit and miss and very low-budget. The ones I'm familiar with don't ... - pay for medical care - provide job training - pay for housing expenses, other than temporarily - pay for transportation - pay for child care The ones I'm familiar with help people survive, but they don't have the resources to do much more than that. These charities are all good, but they don't have the resources to raise a child financially in a sustained, long term way, and children are among the most vulnerable through no fault of their own. In three decades of law enforcement on the street, I don't think I ever encountered a child that was chronically hungry (other than in cases of deliberate abuse), thanks primarily to government programs that provide housing and funds for food. I never knew of poor children being sick because they couldn't see a doctor, thanks to Medicaid. I just don't think private charities are equipped to take this on like government can. It's not that government is perfect. We know that it isn't. But what I'm saying comes from personal observation. It's just an objective conclusion I've reached. And just a word about "The Caretaker State". I really think that my health care proposal was low on government involvement and high on free market principles. And, it didn't involve government subsidies, penalties, or add to the national debt. It was consistent with what I think is a sound, fiscally conservative view that if we want something, we should pay for it. And furthermore, we already agree to many, many, many caretaking activities of government. Police, fire, courts, jails, roads and bridges, public schools, the common defense, sustenance of the poor and vulnerable ... these are all caretaking activities of government that we agree to. And I know I'm repeating myself here, but when everybody has medical insurance, everybody pays less for it. If we want to look at it from purely self-interest, it is better for us all this way. Cheers!
I admitted my error--the median is, indeed, 3, not 4--yet you seem reluctant to admit yours. Or, at least, to treat it as being of any consequence. I wonder why that is?
When I speak of The Caretaker State, I am speaking of Big Government--the "cradle-to-grave" government of European-type Social Democratic states. ("Police, fire, courts, jails, roads and bridges, [and] public schools" are considered a part of every government's functions.) Like you, I probably would not spend that extra $1,000. (If I really wished to purchase something, I would not need to wait for that $1,000.) But not everyone is in the same boat. And many middle-income folks would, indeed, spend the money--and thereby stimulate economic activity. Just why would "everybody" pay "less" if all are covered by healthcare insurance? (That sounds like the proverbial "free lunch.")
I'm using my phone, so no long answer this time. The short answer is that the larger the pool of insured people, the more the risk is spread around. The more the risk is spread around, the less risk there is "per person". And less risk per person results in lower premiums.
In addition to spreading the risk around, the cost of hospitals, physicians, and services would not have to cover the losses those entities absorb when they serve non-insured, non-payers. When the medical industry takes losses like that, they simply make us pay for them with higher fees for their services. If you don't like the idea of being to forced to pay the medical bills of uninsured non-payers, then you should be in favor of those people having insurance. But it's not a free lunch. If all employers had to provide health insurance for their employees, that cost would be reflected in the final cost of their goods and services. We would all be paying those costs, and so it's not a free lunch. I'm fine with that, though. I like the idea of paying our bills. I like the idea of not looking to the magical, mystical, "someone else" to pay for everything. Everyone should have some skin in the game, and they would under what I am proposing.
Can you actually point out anything in my post that was incorrect? Thought not. Now your use of statistics was demonstrated to be wrong which was hilarious given that you were attempting to pat yourself on the back for having such a superior knowledge of statistical calculation.
Oh, I see: I can pay for myself, and also pay for the person down the street (or even on the other side of town), and still pay "less," since the risk is "spread around."
When I go the supermarket, I am required to pay for what I purchase--whether with cash, a check, a credit card, or a debit card--and the same should be true of hospitilization. As for losses being tacked onto future bills, my insurance pays 100 percent of hospitalization, and 85 percent of doctors' services; so most of that extra would be paid for, anyway.
I just did. And you downplayed it. I suppose that you just cannot accept the thought that you might ever be mistaken, can you?
Actually no, I gave an example of how to calculate the median of four numbers. Never said it was the same example as your mistaken effort. Nowhere did I say I was using your example.
Well, your example was mistaken. I said the "4" is the median of the numbers 1, 2, 4, and 97. And that, of course is wrong: The median is 3, as you (correctly) pointed out. That was a mere typo. (The 3 is right next to the 4 at the top of the keyboard; which I was using.) It was probably just a typo, also, when you said that I was using 96 (instead of 97). Perhaps it would be better if we were just to get back to the original subject--rather than playing this "gotcha" game.
This is why the Democrats always control even when not the majority, THEY stick together like glue. Not so with Republicans. I literally can't stand either Party. They are both losers that could care less about taxpayers and citizens. Time for term limits!
