Union pulls support for Obamacare, a sign of things to come?

[Browning151]

First union officially calls for the repeal of ObamaCare.



Our Union and its members have supported President Obama and his Administration for both of his terms in office.

But regrettably, our concerns over certain provisions in the ACA have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored. In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the Act’s provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer sponsored coverage could keep it.

These provisions jeopardize our multi-employer health plans, have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers, and in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multi-employer health plans.

For decades, our multi-employer health and welfare plans have provided the necessary medical coverage for our members and their families to protect them in times of illness and medical needs. This collaboration between labor and management has been a model of success that should be emulated rather than ignored. I refuse to remain silent, or idly watch as the ACA destroys those protections.

I am therefore calling for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act to protect our employers, our industry, and our most important asset: our members and their families.

Boom: First union officially calls for the repeal of ObamaCare « Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/17/boom-first-union-officially-calls-for-the-repeal-of-obamacare/)

Could there be more to follow? I mean, it doesn't look good when you have unions pulling support and someone like Baucus saying that the implementation is going to be a "train wreck".......

Baucus warns of 'huge train wreck' enacting ObamaCare provisions.


Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Wednesday he fears a "train wreck" as the Obama administration implements its signature healthcare law.

Baucus, the chairman of the chamber's powerful Finance Committee and a key architect of the healthcare reform law, said he fears people do not understand how the law will work.


"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," he told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a Wednesday hearing. "You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet."

Baucus pressed Sebelius for details about how the Health Department will explain the law and raise awareness of its provisions, which are supposed to take effect in just a matter of months.

"I'm very concerned that not enough is being done so far — very concerned," Baucus said.

Baucus warns of 'huge train wreck' enacting ObamaCare provisions - The Hill's Healthwatch (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/294501-baucus-warns-of-huge-train-wreck-in-obamacare-implementation)

I think just about anyone with any sense at all could see that this thing was going to be a train wreck from the beginning, back door deals, waivers, cornhusker kickback, Louisiana purchase, "we have to pass it to see what's in it" and on and on and on.....this thing was destined to be a clusterfuck from inception, and people are just now catching on?

[David88vert]

I was pretty vocal about this, but some people wanted to keep claiming that I was the misinformed one.

[eraser4g63]

It'll be great, you'll see! Oh shit, Just kidding!

[.blank cd]

Hmm. Baucus is up for re-election you say....

[Sinfix_15]

Im dont claim to be clairvoyant......

but let me tell you how this whole thing is gonna work out......


by the time it's all said and done....... Obama will have done nothing...... and spent about 20 trillion dollars doing it. We'll all still have our guns..... but half of us will want to shoot ourselves because things are so fucked up.

Black people will still be blaming everything on the oppressive white man...... and even having lived 8 years of a lesson that should have taught them the error of their ways, they will still vote for the democrat even if it's Spike Lee on the ticket.

[.blank cd]

David. Here's a good chance for you to change my opinion

Why should I hate and want to repeal Obamacare?

Please spare the ideological embellishments.

[David88vert]

David. Here's a good chance for you to change my opinion

Why should I hate and want to repeal Obamacare?

Please spare the ideological embellishments.

Nothing anyone could say would get you to change your opinion. That's fine. Your opinion doesn't change the facts.

The first union has discovered these facts on their own. Perhaps you will discover them as well, but I don't suspect that today will be that day.

[Sinfix_15]

David. Here's a good chance for you to change my opinion

Why should I hate and want to repeal Obamacare?

Please spare the ideological embellishments.

Small tidbit from my own personal experience.....

My job cut people to accommodate obamacare, they hire less people because of it, they cut hours because of it, they use more temps because of it. My cost of healthcare doubled. My disabled mother's doctor stopped seeing her because he no longer accepts medicaid because of obamacare, my grandmother's doctor did the same.

[Echonova]

I have a doctors appointment tomorrow for a routine check-up. Everybody chip in $20 to pay for it.

[Sinfix_15]

I have a doctors appointment tomorrow for a routine check-up. Everybody chip in $20 to pay for it.

Be happy you have a doctor that will see you.

[Echonova]

Be happy you have a doctor that will see you.My doctor sees me because I pay cash. My insurance went to shit the week after Obamacare was signed.

It's pretty much catastrophic insurance at this point. Even though my cost increased.

[Sinfix_15]

My doctor sees me because I pay cash. My insurance went to shit the week after Obamacare was signed.

It's pretty much catastrophic insurance at this point. Even though my cost increased.

If democrats would be honest about their proposals in the beginning, we could avoid having to go through all of this mess.....

Obama could have said "Affordable healthcare act.... its not affordable at all.... actually it more than doubles the cost of your current healthcare.... sure doctors are going to reject it.... but the ER will see you if you're dying.... "

and then let people vote.

[.blank cd]

Nothing anyone could say would get you to change your opinion. That's fine. Your opinion doesn't change the facts.I don't have an opinion on the issue. That's why I asked. But you're sorta right. The facts won't change.

But god damn, Sinfix stepped up to the plate before you did. Interesting.

Please. Continue.

[Sinfix_15]

I don't have an opinion on the issue. That's why I asked. But you're sorta right. The facts won't change.

But god damn, Sinfix stepped up to the plate before you did. Interesting.

Please. Continue.

You spend a lot of time here for someone who has no opinions.

[Vteckidd]

David. Here's a good chance for you to change my opinion

Why should I hate and want to repeal Obamacare?

Please spare the ideological embellishments.
The problem is you will think anything we say that is not in line with your opinion (which you are entitled to) is "ideological embellishments ".

You should want it repealed because it doesnt do what they claim it will do. It will TAX YOU (specifically) if you dont have insurance, and youll most likely see a reduction in hours or employment, and an increase in costs. Premiums will rise , NOT FALL, your care will be restricted, not free choice, quality of care will decrease.

Ive written books on here about why, and so far, I am right.

Premiums- Rising
Care- Shrinking
Businesses cutting costs due to Mandatory Insurance expense- Happening

Ive always said you will trade employment for your health insurance because you cant MAKE a private company do anything. They always have the option to just close up shop.

[David88vert]

I don't have an opinion on the issue. That's why I asked. But you're sorta right. The facts won't change.

But god damn, Sinfix stepped up to the plate before you did. Interesting.

Please. Continue.

Did you not read the initial post?

"These provisions jeopardize our multi-employer health plans, have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers, and in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multi-employer health plans."

These aren't my words, these are the words of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers that previously supported Obamacare, and after a long period of studying the Affordable Care Act, are publically stating that they are removing their support of it AND are publically calling for its repeal or complete reform. That's considered strong language against Obamacare. This union was the first union to publically state their support for Obamacare, so they were not reluctant adopters.

Now, here's a fact for you. These insurance exchanges through which you will be able to purchase coverage through, are not available yet to the public for review of their available plans. Your coverage under one of these plans is scheduled to start in January 2014, and your enrollment in a plan is expected to begin in October. None of your options have been made public yet, and no schedule for that information has been released. The only information about it so far is that sometime during the summer "educational information will be released." Considering that Obama signed it into law in March of 2010, its been over 3 years, and we still don't have transparency on how it will work for the average American family.

Final fact: The ACA is the law now. Any repeal or reform will need to follow the process of going through Congress. Until then, it is the law of the land, and must be followed. Just because we don't like it, or know that it is not a well designed law, does not mean that it shouldn't be followed until it is changed.

[.blank cd]

The problem is you will think anything we say that is not in line with your opinion (which you are entitled to) is "ideological embellishments ".How can anything not be in line with an opinion I don't have. LOL

"Because Obama is a...
...loser
...Fool
...Shittiest president in the world
...liberal, conservative, communist, Marxist, socialist, Muslim, anti-Christ
...any combination of the above"

OR

"The ACA/Obamacare is...
...stupid, bullshit, etc.
...liberal, communist, socialist, Marxist, Muslim, etc."

Those are Ideological embellishments.

These are the guidelines. If you're using facts, you should be able to convey your point without breaking these guidelines.

I'm thoroughly covered up at work so I'll address you're reasons in a little bit. But I want to hear them. So keep em coming!

[Sinfix_15]

"I dont have an opinion"

Translation - i no longer have enough confidence in my opinions to put them on record. That will still not stop me from discrediting your opinions -BlankCD

[David88vert]

I'm thoroughly covered up at work so I'll address you're reasons in a little bit. But I want to hear them. So keep em coming!

Do your work - taking care of family comes first.

I'm pretty covered up as well.

[David88vert]

"I dont have an opinion"

Translation - i no longer have enough confidence in my opinions to put them on record. That will still not stop me from discrediting your opinions -BlankCD

I didn't know that you spoke "radical liberal".....

[.blank cd]

"I dont have an opinion"

Translation - i no longer have enough confidence in my opinions to put them on record. That will still not stop me from discrediting your opinions -BlankCD

Started out good, then went to total shit....

The actual translation would be "I don't have an opinion on the issue"

Now continue, unless you're projecting.

[Sinfix_15]

I didn't know that you spoke "radical liberal".....

It's an app

[.blank cd]

To the both of you. I've stated multiple times in this section that I don't feel either way. So you're opinions of "radically liberal" and "lack of confidence" aren't based in fact or reality. We're already off to a bad start.

Is this what I should expect from your reasons why I should want to repeal Obamacare?

[David88vert]

It's an app

LOL

[BanginJimmy]

These are the guidelines. If you're using facts, you should be able to convey your point without breaking these guidelines.


Many legitimate issues have been pointed out dozens of times in any of a dozen threads. Maybe it is time we find someone to stand up and actually find facts that can defend Obamacare.

[David88vert]

To the both of you. I've stated multiple times in this section that I don't feel either way. So you're opinions of "radically liberal" and "lack of confidence" aren't based in fact or reality. We're already off to a bad start.



I simply knew that my post would get a response from both Sinfix and you, hence my post earlier. Don't get upset - I don't want you to go "Obama" on me, and treat me like I was an organization that stands up for Constitutional rights.....



Is this what I should expect from your reasons why I should want to repeal Obamacare?

The reasons that would cause you to want to repeal Obamacare should be your reasons, not anyone elses. You have the same facts and the statistics available to you, that anyone else has. You should be able to figure it out, as just about every opinion has been stated previously. Unless you weren't paying attention in all of the other threads, it should be quite clear and obvious to you now, without us repeating every single point again.

Since you don't want to listen to the opinions of people like me, and you would rather here it from a liberal news sources, here's someone else's insight:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/21/obamacare-business-health-care-column/2006029/


Will states will expand Medicaid up to 133% of poverty, now that the Supreme Court gave them an opt-out?
Will states who don’t already have robust Medicaid coverage – for whom the expansion will represent a bigger lift, as much as a 4% increase in their commitment to the program – shy away from participating?
Will the states and the federal government sufficiently create exchanges that automatically determine eligibility for anyone who accesses them?
Will the feds, not expecting to have to take over the exchange process for the majority of states, prove up to the task (and find the funding)?
Will the subsidies get delivered to insurance companies in a seamless way?
Will we still see efforts at denying coverage or rescinding policies?
Will eligible beneficiaries even know that they’re eligible for subsidies?
Will the states with partisan leaders predisposed to fight Obamacare seek to sabotage the whole effort?
Will Congress shift more costs onto individuals and states in ways that will cause states in particular to resist coverage? What if drug prices start to rise in relative terms, and the cost of health care overall expands in ways that the ACA cannot keep up with?
Will the inevitable failures in implementation sour the public on the program?
Will there ever be an opportunity to improve or tweak this program, given the political realities?

So many questions that are still to be answered.

[bu villain]

Many legitimate issues have been pointed out dozens of times in any of a dozen threads. Maybe it is time we find someone to stand up and actually find facts that can defend Obamacare.

Just playing devils advocate here but I would say there are at least 2:

1) No pre-existing conditions
2) Young kids can stay on their parents' plan until 26

I certainly expect many problems to occur due to Obamacare that we haven't even forseen yet because whenever you make massive changes to a complex system, you are bound to get unintended consequences. That being said, the majority of the law doesn't even go into effect until next year so it's a bit early for the "I told you so". Some problems may get worked out in time, others may not.

[BanginJimmy]

Just playing devils advocate here but I would say there are at least 2:

1) No pre-existing conditions
2) Young kids can stay on their parents' plan until 26

I certainly expect many problems to occur due to Obamacare that we haven't even forseen yet because whenever you make massive changes to a complex system, you are bound to get unintended consequences. That being said, the majority of the law doesn't even go into effect until next year so it's a bit early for the "I told you so". Some problems may get worked out in time, others may not.

The pre existing coverage is one of the major problems with it. Because of the way the law was written, insurers are going to be paying huge sums of money dor their care and not allowed to recoup those costs unless they massively raise rates on everyone.

Coverage on your parents plan until 26 is such a small side issue that it doesn't warrant much comment.

There are several of the small side issues that are nice but none of them are significant to the bill.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[Sinfix_15]

Just playing devils advocate here but I would say there are at least 2:

1) No pre-existing conditions
2) Young kids can stay on their parents' plan until 26

I certainly expect many problems to occur due to Obamacare that we haven't even forseen yet because whenever you make massive changes to a complex system, you are bound to get unintended consequences. That being said, the majority of the law doesn't even go into effect until next year so it's a bit early for the "I told you so". Some problems may get worked out in time, others may not.


Insurance wont cover you because of pre-existing conditions.....

Now doctors wont see you because of pre-existing insurance.....

awesome!

[Vteckidd]

1) No pre-existing conditions
2) Young kids can stay on their parents' plan until 26



1. The prexisting conditions SOUNDs great, but its not possible. its one of the major problems with the legislation. Tell me WHY you think its GOOD, so I can see if you see the full 360 of the issue. That sounds arrogant, im not insinuating you dont know anything, im asking why you think it is good.

2. 26 years old you should be paying your own insurance, sorry. Thats 1/3 of your life. sStaying on your parents insurance till 22-23 i can understand (till you graduate college). After that, you should pay for any service you want

[David88vert]

2. 26 years old you should be paying your own insurance, sorry. Thats 1/3 of your life. sStaying on your parents insurance till 22-23 i can understand (till you graduate college). After that, you should pay for any service you want

So, how is someone who is studying to be a doctor supposed to be able to have coverage so that he can see a doctor himself, while he is still in school? Don't you think that asking him to get a PhD in 4-5 years is a little ambitious?

Should it be that he is covered under his parent's insurance, until he is no longer enrolled in school or not being claimed as a dependent on his parent's taxes?

[.blank cd]

Many legitimate issues have been pointed out dozens of times in any of a dozen threads. Maybe it is time we find someone to stand up and actually find facts that can defend Obamacare.

Just wait. Lol

[bu villain]

The pre existing coverage is one of the major problems with it. Because of the way the law was written, insurers are going to be paying huge sums of money dor their care and not allowed to recoup those costs unless they massively raise rates on everyone.

I think that is the point. It will raise rates for everyone so that people with pre-existing conditions will not be doomed to a life of uncontrollable medical bills. I understand you may not see that as a good thing because it has you paying more but I think it is a good thing from a societal standpoint. I know if I got cancer tomorrow and lost my job and thus my insurance, I would be very thankful that I could still get medical treatment without going bankrupt. I am willing to pay more to ensure everyone can receive that treatment.


Insurance wont cover you because of pre-existing conditions.....

Now doctors wont see you because of pre-existing insurance.....

awesome!

I don't understand what you are saying. Doctors won't see you because you have insurance?


1. The prexisting conditions SOUNDs great, but its not possible. its one of the major problems with the legislation. Tell me WHY you think its GOOD, so I can see if you see the full 360 of the issue. That sounds arrogant, im not insinuating you dont know anything, im asking why you think it is good.

See my response to Jimmy above.


2. 26 years old you should be paying your own insurance, sorry. Thats 1/3 of your life. sStaying on your parents insurance till 22-23 i can understand (till you graduate college). After that, you should pay for any service you want

I think David gave a good response to this above. Just to elaborate, lots of modern jobs require extra schooling, not just doctors. When my son was born, I had to pay more to have him covered under my plan. I don't see the downside of letting children stay on their parent's plans longer.

[BanginJimmy]

Just wait. Lol

For? I dont want to hear about how 90% of people are for Obamacare when you break down the benefits either. Of course people are all for the benefits, so am I. I am not for what it is going to cost us in terms of taxes, insurance premiums, and loss of freedoms. The prescident is now set and Congress can force you to buy any product they want you to buy or fine you through the tax code.

[BanginJimmy]

I think that is the point. It will raise rates for everyone so that people with pre-existing conditions will not be doomed to a life of uncontrollable medical bills. I understand you may not see that as a good thing because it has you paying more but I think it is a good thing from a societal standpoint. I know if I got cancer tomorrow and lost my job and thus my insurance, I would be very thankful that I could still get medical treatment without going bankrupt. I am willing to pay more to ensure everyone can receive that treatment.

It isnt going to be a small rise in rates. We are likely talking 100+% rise in rates over the next 5 years. I'm not sure you understand just how much it costs to treat cancer or other long term diseases. It could take 1000 new healthy customers to cover each cancer patient.




I don't understand what you are saying. Doctors won't see you because you have insurance?

Medicare/medicaid recipients are already having a hard time finding docs because those programs dont pay the docs enough to cover their costs. There is also a massive shortage of primary care docs all over the country. Both of these problems will be balloon with the inception of Obamacare. The result is a massive increase in patients and a decrease in available docs. This is where the lower quality care comes into play. The days of a doc knowing you and your habits will be gone. Rural area docs that barely get by now will likely leave to head into higher populated areas or retire.

[bu villain]

It isnt going to be a small rise in rates. We are likely talking 100+% rise in rates over the next 5 years. I'm not sure you understand just how much it costs to treat cancer or other long term diseases. It could take 1000 new healthy customers to cover each cancer patient.

I do understand that but I don't see a good alternative. Trust me, I don't think Obamacare is great legislation and I like a lot of ideas championed by opponents such as buying across state lines. The issue of soaring health costs must be addressed with or without Obamacare and quite simply it wasn't happening. I am young, healthy, and have great health benefits through my job. I probably have more to lose than most from Obamacare. If people want to repeal and replace, I encourage that, but doing nothing is not an acceptable option to me.


Medicare/medicaid recipients are already having a hard time finding docs because those programs dont pay the docs enough to cover their costs. There is also a massive shortage of primary care docs all over the country. Both of these problems will be balloon with the inception of Obamacare. The result is a massive increase in patients and a decrease in available docs. This is where the lower quality care comes into play. The days of a doc knowing you and your habits will be gone. Rural area docs that barely get by now will likely leave to head into higher populated areas or retire.

I don't disagree. You asked for some good things about Obamacare. I never said there were no downsides.

[BanginJimmy]

I do understand that but I don't see a good alternative. Trust me, I don't think Obamacare is great legislation and I like a lot of ideas championed by opponents such as buying across state lines. The issue of soaring health costs must be addressed with or without Obamacare and quite simply it wasn't happening. I am young, healthy, and have great health benefits through my job. I probably have more to lose than most from Obamacare. If people want to repeal and replace, I encourage that, but doing nothing is not an acceptable option to me.

Want to know how bad Obamacare is? We would have been better off without it. The damage it will do FAR outweights the benefits.




I don't disagree. You asked for some good things about Obamacare. I never said there were no downsides.

That is like saying there are positive aspects of cancer. Its a great diet, as long as you dont look at the negatives.

[Browning151]

Why should I hate and want to repeal Obamacare?

There's been discussion after discussion about why this thing is bad and how it's going to affect people in a negative way, and it seems almost daily there is another story of how it is going to affect people, or has already. The few positives I've seen are far outweighed by the negatives of massively increased costs and dr shortages. What good is healthcare for everyone if the cost is crippling and it's nearly impossible to see a dr? There's been NUMEROUS discussions on ways to improve the system to actually make it better, but they don't reach the end-game of a single payer system so they are discredited and tossed aside.

[.blank cd]

But I still haven't seen a good argument for a repeal rather than just fixing what's wrong.

[Browning151]

But I still haven't seen a good argument for a repeal rather than just fixing what's wrong.

Logic and rational thinking. That's all you need.

Obamacare doesn't solve any issues with our current healthcare system, it only further complicates and breaks down the system. How do you fix something that breaks an already broken system even further? Why spend countless hours and resources to "fix" this garbage when you can start from the ground up with an approach that actually addresses the issues with healthcare?

[Sinfix_15]

But I still haven't seen a good argument for a repeal rather than just fixing what's wrong.

I see no reason to scrap this car, it just needs a little body work
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0uywffefC1qann4jo1_500.jpg

[.blank cd]

Logic and rational thinking. That's all you need.

Obamacare doesn't solve any issues with our current healthcare system, it only further complicates and breaks down the system. How do you fix something that breaks an already broken system even further? Why spend countless hours and resources to "fix" this garbage when you can start from the ground up with an approach that actually addresses the issues with healthcare?

Logic and rational thinking would tell you then that scrapping Obamacare and starting all over would also require countless hours and resources. And how do you conclude that it's broken beyond repair? Many people can get insurance now that couldn't get it before.

[Sinfix_15]

Logic and rational thinking would tell you then that scrapping Obamacare and starting all over would also require countless hours and resources. And how do you conclude that it's broken beyond repair? Many people can get insurance now that couldn't get it before.

Many people cant find a doctor to see them now that could find a doctor to see them before.

[.blank cd]

Many people cant find a doctor to see them now that could find a doctor to see them before.

Look a little deeper into the cause of this....

If doctors refuse Medicare patients, that's on them, and I'm pretty sure they're breaking a law in the process

[David88vert]

Look a little deeper into the cause of this....

If doctors refuse Medicare patients, that's on them, and I'm pretty sure they're breaking a law in the process

Nope, not breaking a law. Non-PAR Doctors are not required to take Medicare. It's just going to be hard for some of them to stay in practice if they don't take it.
Medicare Participation Options for Physicians -- Running a Practice -- AAFP (http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/practicemgt/mcareoptions.html)

[.blank cd]

Going to be hard to stay in practice? Lol

I kinda find that hard to believe in a field that's been in existence since the beginning of mankind.

[Sinfix_15]

Going to be hard to stay in practice? Lol

I kinda find that hard to believe in a field that's been in existence since the beginning of mankind.

never underestimate the government's ability to fuck things up for business.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/images/SWFactory.jpg

[David88vert]

Going to be hard to stay in practice? Lol

I kinda find that hard to believe in a field that's been in existence since the beginning of mankind.

If a lot of doctors quit taking government payment, then they are limited to only taking patient payment and private insurance payments. Increase the pool of doctors doing this, decrease the number of businesses that offer private insurance, pushing more people to Obamacare, and guess what happens? Many people cannot pay out of pocket, and will not pay higher rates for private insurance. This equates to a smaller pool of people that aren't using Obamacare. Its a spiral towards Obama's goal - a single payer system.

[Bacon]

So, how is someone who is studying to be a doctor supposed to be able to have coverage so that he can see a doctor himself, while he is still in school? Don't you think that asking him to get a PhD in 4-5 years is a little ambitious?

Should it be that he is covered under his parent's insurance, until he is no longer enrolled in school or not being claimed as a dependent on his parent's taxes?

I can get my MD in 24 months but my argument here is invalid and your point is credible.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk.

[Bacon]

Look a little deeper into the cause of this....

If doctors refuse Medicare patients, that's on them, and I'm pretty sure they're breaking a law in the process

Not breaking a law unless they refuse care to a patient that needs immediate care and life or limb is at stake.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk.

[.blank cd]

If a lot of doctors quit taking government payment, then they are limited to only taking patient payment and private insurance payments. Increase the pool of doctors doing this, decrease the number of businesses that offer private insurance, pushing more people to Obamacare, and guess what happens?They start bleeding money from all the people they're rejecting, and eventually start taking Medicare patients back again?


This equates to a smaller pool of people that aren't using Obamacare. Its a spiral towards Obama's goal - a single payer system....and the problem is?

[David88vert]

They start bleeding money from all the people they're rejecting, and eventually start taking Medicare patients back again?

...and the problem is?

You assume that a single payer system will work. You do not appear to recognize that many doctors will not be able to maintain their current standard of living if they have to continue to pay for expensive medical training, and take much lower payments for their services. You will see doctors who can no longer afford their lifestyles, which will mean that they may not be able to live in the same neighborhoods, or be able to do the same leisure activities, which impacts those businesses as well. It's a ripple effect.

If the costs to continue to rise in order become a doctor, and stay in practice, yet you lower their payment in return significantly, people will choose not to become doctors in the future, which will in turn, lengthen wait times for services that doctors provide.

If you studied economics, you should already know this.

[Browning151]

Logic and rational thinking would tell you then that scrapping Obamacare and starting all over would also require countless hours and resources. And how do you conclude that it's broken beyond repair?

Countless hours spent addressing actual issues and solving healthcare problems is more wisely spent than countless hours spent trying to "fix" a bureaucratic nightmare that further complicates an already complicated system. The logical ways to "fix" healthcare have been discussed over and over again, but they don't meet the end-game requirements of single payer.


Many people can get insurance now that couldn't get it before.

At what cost? Decreased quality of care, fewer available physicians, higher overall cost........

The utopian idea of free and equal access to everything for everyone is great in theory, impossible in practice.



This equates to a smaller pool of people that aren't using Obamacare. Its a spiral towards Obama's goal - a single payer system.
...and the problem is?

....and there we have it, you have no problem with the end-game of the charade that is Obamacare; a single payer system.

[.blank cd]

You assume that a single payer system will work. You do not appear to recognize that many doctors will not be able to maintain their current standard of living if they have to continue to pay for expensive medical training, and take much lower payments for their services. You will see doctors who can no longer afford their lifestyles, which will mean that they may not be able to live in the same neighborhoods, or be able to do the same leisure activities, which impacts those businesses as well. It's a ripple effect.

If the costs to continue to rise in order become a doctor, and stay in practice, yet you lower their payment in return significantly, people will choose not to become doctors in the future, which will in turn, lengthen wait times for services that doctors provide.

If you studied economics, you should already know this.

So because I studied economics, I'm supposed to feel sorry for the doctor that has to downgrade to a 5 bedroom mansion from their current 10 bedroom one, and an Lexus in place of their Benz?

This changes everything. Give me a second while I count the tears I shed for them.

Done.

[.blank cd]

At what cost? Decreased quality of care, fewer available physicians, higher overall cost....I don't see the number of physicians dropping to an unsustainable level, unless the majority of Americans somehow get immune to diseases and bulletproof. No one is gonna just stop being a doctor because the market value of their service goes down 10%. It's a silly thought, and not the mark of anyone who has any business sense.

"Let me just stop working because I don't make as much as I used to"


The utopian idea of free and equal access to everything for everyone is great in theory, impossible in practice.Except that its not a utopian idea, and it works in practice.

And no, I don't have a problem with universal healthcare, neither does most of the industrialized world for that matter.

[Browning151]

"Let me just stop working because I don't make as much as I used to"

Ridiculously oversimplified.


Except that its not a utopian idea, and it works in practice.

Really? Where?

[Vteckidd]

why 26? why not 30? 35? 50?

[Vteckidd]

So because I studied economics, I'm supposed to feel sorry for the doctor that has to downgrade to a 5 bedroom mansion from their current 10 bedroom one, and an Lexus in place of their Benz?



yes, because that Dr. probably had 100 times the educational costs you did, worked 80 hour a week rotations, performed complex operations that you cant even dream of, passed tests you are incapable of passing (because otherwise, you would be a doctor yourself), and he deserves to be a millionaire.

You guys act like someone goes to school for 4 years and comes out a Dr. making a million dollars a year.

Most Drs. take YEARS of schooling and YEARS of residency before any of their work pays off. Then, they have to open a business, and that business, like any other business, has to be profitable and sustain itself.

You only look at half the problem, never the whole problem. Their lifestyle is irrelevant, they earned it. If he wants to buy 10 ferraris, thats his right. If youre jealous, go be a doctor

[.blank cd]

Really? Where?
Are you asking where free and equal healthcare is practiced?

[.blank cd]

yes, because that Dr. probably had 100 times the educational costs you did, worked 80 hour a week rotations, performed complex operations that you cant even dream of, passed tests you are incapable of passing (because otherwise, you would be a doctor yourself), and he deserves to be a millionaire.

You guys act like someone goes to school for 4 years and comes out a Dr. making a million dollars a year.

Most Drs. take YEARS of schooling and YEARS of residency before any of their work pays off. Then, they have to open a business, and that business, like any other business, has to be profitable and sustain itself.

You only look at half the problem, never the whole problem. Their lifestyle is irrelevant, they earned it. If he wants to buy 10 ferraris, thats his right. If youre jealous, go be a doctor

Not jealous at all really. And no one in this thread said Dr.s only go to school for 4 years. I understand what it takes to be a doctor, thats why I'm not one. If their lifestyle is irrelevant, why should I feel sorry if they're millionaires or not? Why should I feel sympathy for a doctor who isn't gonna be able to afford that 10th Ferrari, while at the same time, there are people in the most industrialized nation in the world, who have to decide whether to be unhealthy or go bankrupt?

[Vteckidd]

Rich doctors is what makes them great.

Personal wealth is what drives people to be the best at what they do. If you take that away, then theres no incentive to achieve.

If I told you tomorrow that your job is now getting a 20% paycut, and everyone, from the CEO to the high school intern is going to be paid the same amount of money, minimum wage, then you would be furious. You worked hard to get where you are , achieve your position. Why should you take a paycut?

What makes you think thats any different when its gets to someone making millions of dollars a year.

Its easy to say "they have too much" because you make 1/1000th their income. Im not in favor of rich people telling poor people how to live, or vice versa

[Vteckidd]

Not jealous at all really. And no one in this thread said Dr.s only go to school for 4 years. I understand what it takes to be a doctor, thats why I'm not one. If their lifestyle is irrelevant, why should I feel sorry if they're millionaires or not? Why should I feel sympathy for a doctor who isn't gonna be able to afford that 10th Ferrari, while at the same time, there are people in the most industrialized nation in the world, who have to decide whether to be unhealthy or go bankrupt?

No ones asking you to feel sorry. But if someone makes enough money to buy 10 Ferraris, thats none of your business. Sounds like you (and me) chose the wrong profession. Why? BECAUSE ITS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND HARD. You should be picketing every major sports game and asking why Athletes make so much money why people go witout healthcare. Why pick on the doctors? Why not Rappers who make millions? Why not athletes? Actors? Why so much tunnel vision?

Being unhealthy and not affording insurance is a totally SEPARATE problem that has nothing to do with Doctors Salaries.

And, ill even bet you $$$$ that most people who say they cant afford healthcare, are full of shit. They dont treat it as a priority. They can afford it, they just dont want to pay for it.

[David88vert]

So because I studied economics, I'm supposed to feel sorry for the doctor that has to downgrade to a 5 bedroom mansion from their current 10 bedroom one, and an Lexus in place of their Benz?

This changes everything. Give me a second while I count the tears I shed for them.

Done.

You don't get it. They aren't living in a big mansion - they live in my neighborhood. They live in your neighborhood. They take on massive amounts of debt to become doctors, and live an upper MIDDLE class lifestyle. These aren't the very wealthy, they are normal people who just happen to manage a larger amount of income and debt than the average family.

What the current proposal will do is take a large portion of the revenue away without reducing any of the debt. The result will be less people who chose to become doctors, while the population continues to increase. This will increase wait times for surgeries, basic services, etc.

Of course, there is another route that these doctors could take - see more patients in the same amount of time, and maintain their income from the reduced amount that the government payment system gives for seeing a patient. If the doctor comes in, glances at the chart, and makes a quick prescription, he can see more patients. Who do you think loses out on quality care then? Or do you think that the care being given will still be the same, with less focus on each patient being given by the doctor?

[.blank cd]

Rich doctors is what makes them great.

Personal wealth is what drives people to be the best at what they do. If you take that away, then theres no incentive to achieve.This is very very demonstrably false.


If I told you tomorrow that your job is now getting a 20% paycut, and everyone, from the CEO to the high school intern is going to be paid the same amount of money, minimum wage, then you would be furious. You worked hard to get where you are , achieve your position. Why should you take a paycut?This isn't at all what I was suggesting.


What makes you think thats any different when its gets to someone making millions of dollars a year.

Its easy to say "they have too much" because you make 1/1000th their income. Im not in favor of rich people telling poor people how to live, or vice versaNor am I suggesting how rich people should live.

[.blank cd]

You don't get it. They aren't living in a big mansion - they live in my neighborhood. They live in your neighborhood. They take on massive amounts of debt to become doctors, and live an upper MIDDLE class lifestyle. These aren't the very wealthy, they are normal people who just happen to manage a larger amount of income and debt than the average family.You're saying that no doctors are living in a big expensive neighborhood? Are you 100% sure about that?


What the current proposal will do is take a large portion of the revenue away without reducing any of the debt. The result will be less people who chose to become doctors, while the population continues to increase. This will increase wait times for surgeries, basic services, etc.No one is going to choose not to become a doctor because they can only make 900k instead of a mil. That would be stupid. I would need more evidence that people become doctors solely because of the money and not because they want to be a doctor, or that its in the publics interest that we pay doctors what they're paid.

Both of these arguments are flimsy at best, definitely idealogical, and aren't good reasons why I should want to repeal Obamacare.

[bu villain]

Want to know how bad Obamacare is? We would have been better off without it. The damage it will do FAR outweights the benefits.

If that is true, I see no reason there wouldn't be ample support for repealing and replacing it with better legislation.


That is like saying there are positive aspects of cancer. Its a great diet, as long as you dont look at the negatives.

The question I was answering then was "what are the upsides of cancer?". That is what I answered, I never tried to argue that the positives outweighed the negatives. Also I was making the point that even bad legislation can have a positive effect in that now Republicans and anti-Obamacare people must take action to replace it. They can't sit on the sidelines and do nothing like they were for the last few decades.

[Browning151]

You're saying that no doctors are living in a big expensive neighborhood? Are you 100% sure about that?

No one is going to choose not to become a doctor because they can only make 900k instead of a mil. That would be stupid. I would need more evidence that people become doctors solely because of the money and not because they want to be a doctor, or that its in the publics interest that we pay doctors what they're paid.

Both of these arguments are flimsy at best, definitely idealogical, and aren't good reasons why I should want to repeal Obamacare.

Either you are playing dumb or you are just fundamentally unable to grasp the concept that David is attempting to convey to you, my guess would be the former.

[bu villain]

Rich doctors is what makes them great.

Personal wealth is what drives people to be the best at what they do. If you take that away, then theres no incentive to achieve.

Do you really believe that? If you ask the best scientist, athletes, CEOs, etc what motivated them to achieve greatness, what percent of them do you think would answer "money"? In my experience, the ones who are in a profession only for the money, often are either really bad at their job or don't last long enough to become great.

[Vteckidd]

Do you really believe that? If you ask the best scientist, athletes, CEOs, etc what motivated them to achieve greatness, what percent of them do you think would answer "money"? In my experience, the ones who are in a profession only for the money, often are either really bad at their job or don't last long enough to become great.

LOL pull your head out of the sand.

99% of people make choices based upon INCOME.

The best Athletes ALWAYS MAKE $$$$$$$

You think James Harden wanted to make less money? FUCK NO, HE WANTED A MAX CONTRACT, OKC said SEEYA.

Lebron went to Miami becaues FL has no Income tax and he would get more endorsement money in a bigger market=$$$$$$

Albert Pujols left St Louis to go MAKE DAT MONAY

Doctors are noble people, but you are completely ignoring the costs associated with being great. Doctors make lots of money FOR A REASON.

You know why im in IT? Its not because i love it, its because it fucking pays and affords me the opportunity to go do WHAT I LOVE (vacations, sporting events, etc).

Blank is saying well, that doctor can only have 9 ferraris instead of 10 so "X" can have health insurance. Its a retarded statement, its complete BS, and its stereotyping people he has no idea what they had to do to ge tin their position.

Do you think the best heart surgeon in the world just woke up 1 day and said "yeah, today ill be a millionaire".

[Vteckidd]

FYI , the AVERAGE Heart surgeon makes in the $500,000 range, Neuro Science is the top field where the median income is $700K (NOT millionaires.)

Average cost for a Heart Surgeon?

in 2009, graduates from medical school programs had accumulated an average debt of $156,456, according to the American Medical Association.+

Then you have residency which :

The residency must last at least six years and include 24 months of training in performing thoracic procedures, including heart surgery. Heart surgeons also gain experience performing general surgical operations during the course of the residency.


FYI during that period, most residents are paid between 20-50K a year, sometimes meals are provided.

then:

After completing the mandatory residency, prospective heart surgeons must gain certification from the American Board of Thoracic Surgery. This requires passing a two-part examination. The first part consists of 250 multiple-choice questions. Lasting up to 5 1/2 hours, the test is given by computer at Pearson Vue Testing Centers throughout the United States. The second part of the examination is an oral test, during which prospective thoracic surgeons undergo three interviews regarding patient case histories. The test is given once per year and requires physicians to travel to Chicago, Illinois. After passing both exams, physicians receive board certification. As of 2011, the cost to take the written and oral exams was $1,225 and $1,500, respectively.

Thats right, after medical school and residency for 6 fucking years, you get to take a test to become certified in your field.

Call me crazy, but after all that, i think the guy should be able to afford 10 Ferraris if he makes that kind of money in his own practice.

The poor person you are upset over not having insurance, has fuck all to do with this doctor making that kind of money. Thats like being mad at the guy that owns a Dealership because you dont own a Ferrari

[Vteckidd]

Oh yeah, MEDIAN incomes for all professions
Radiology: $315,000
Orthopedics: $315,000
Cardiology: $314,000
Plastic surgery: $270,000
General surgery: $265,000
Obstetrics/Gynecology: $220,000
Psychiatry: $170,000
Pediatrics: $156,000


OMG, SO RICH. $200-300k a year, is not rich at all, not even close, especially when you graduate with $100-150k in debt

[.blank cd]

Chipper Jones was one of the best players in baseball. Continually took less and less money to stay with the braves. I guess he's an outlier though...

If you can name one athlete who genuinely sucked until he got a major league contract, I'll believe you. Lol. Good luck.

[David88vert]

You're saying that no doctors are living in a big expensive neighborhood? Are you 100% sure about that?

No one is going to choose not to become a doctor because they can only make 900k instead of a mil. That would be stupid. I would need more evidence that people become doctors solely because of the money and not because they want to be a doctor, or that its in the publics interest that we pay doctors what they're paid.

Both of these arguments are flimsy at best, definitely idealogical, and aren't good reasons why I should want to repeal Obamacare.

I am not saying that no doctors are living in big expensive neighborhoods. I am saying that the majority of them are living in normal homes, and have normal lives. These changes would impact normal general practitioners the hardest.

You seem to live with the fallacious belief that Obamacare will only reduce the payments to the doctors by 10%, and that everyone will be covered under the new ACA. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Obama kept mentioning that 47 million did not have health insurance in the US. The CBO estimates that 30 million will STILL NOT be uninsured under Obamacare.
The CBO estimates that between 7 million to 20 million will lose their existing coverage due to Obamacare incentives.

In February, CBO reported that “in 2019 [5 years after Obamacare is implemented], an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law [aka ‘Obamacare’].” - FORBES

Here is someone else who makes the same points that I make : Look Out Below, The Obamacare Chaos Is Coming - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/07/look-out-below-the-obamacare-chaos-is-coming/)

[.blank cd]

LOL pull your head out of the sand.

99% of people make choices based upon INCOME.Sort of. No basketball player has ever said "I'm gonna quit playing ball because they don't wanna pay me 25mil a year. Hasn't happened ever.


Blank is saying well, that doctor can only have 9 ferraris instead of 10 so "X" can have health insurance. Its a retarded statement, its complete BS, and its stereotyping people he has no idea what they had to do to ge tin their position."This isn't what I'm suggesting at all though.

[bu villain]

LOL pull your head out of the sand.

99% of people make choices based upon INCOME.

The best Athletes ALWAYS MAKE $$$$$$$

You think James Harden wanted to make less money? FUCK NO, HE WANTED A MAX CONTRACT, OKC said SEEYA.

Lebron went to Miami becaues FL has no Income tax and he would get more endorsement money in a bigger market=$$$$$$

Albert Pujols left St Louis to go MAKE DAT MONAY

Doctors are noble people, but you are completely ignoring the costs associated with being great. Doctors make lots of money FOR A REASON.

You know why im in IT? Its not because i love it, its because it fucking pays and affords me the opportunity to go do WHAT I LOVE (vacations, sporting events, etc).

Blank is saying well, that doctor can only have 9 ferraris instead of 10 so "X" can have health insurance. Its a retarded statement, its complete BS, and its stereotyping people he has no idea what they had to do to ge tin their position.

Do you think the best heart surgeon in the world just woke up 1 day and said "yeah, today ill be a millionaire".

First of all, I never said doctors shouldn't be well compensated. I was only replying to your comment that money is the motivator for greatness and that being rich is actually the cause of greatness. You think Lebron would have been a heart surgeon if he was only paid 300k a year to play basketball? Did you choose IT because you couldn't possibly make more money anywhere else? Everyone wants to be paid as much as they can but to ignore all the other factors in the equation is absurd. People often choose passion, lifestyle, family, location, etc over a bigger paycheck. People who would still do what they do even if they weren't paid are the usually the ones who become great, not the ones who would ditch their work the minute they found something that paid better.

I don't care what blank said. I was replying to one specific part of your post, not his.

[.blank cd]

I am not saying that no doctors are living in big expensive neighborhoods. I am saying that the majority of them are living in normal homes, and have normal lives. These changes would impact normal general practitioners the hardest.So your perception of normal is different than mine. VTEC just said your average doc is making 2-300k per year. Is that normal now? What's median income these days? I don't even make a quarter of that and I thought I was doin pretty normal. Guess I'm really slummin it huh? LOL


You seem to live with the fallacious belief that Obamacare will only reduce the payments to the doctors by 10%, and that everyone will be covered under the new ACA. That couldn't be farther from the truth.Didnt say this either.


Obama kept mentioning that 47 million did not have health insurance in the US. The CBO estimates that 30 million will STILL NOT be uninsured under Obamacare.
The CBO estimates that between 7 million to 20 million will lose their existing coverage due to Obamacare incentives.

In February, CBO reported that “in 2019 [5 years after Obamacare is implemented], an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law [aka ‘Obamacare’].” - FORBESWhy?
]

[Vteckidd]

Sort of. No basketball player has ever said "I'm gonna quit playing ball because they don't wanna pay me 25mil a year. Hasn't happened ever.



Uh, yeah they do, its called a lockout. IT happened last season.

If Obama passed a law saying that professional athletes across the board have to take a 10-20% cut in salary because its not fair that their college counterparts dont make as much, you would see players quit. Absolutely. Guys like LBJ wont care, but guys like Josh Smith, who are due a big contract, will be PISSSSED.

[Vteckidd]

People who would still do what they do even if they weren't paid are the usually the ones who become great, not the ones who would ditch their work the minute they found something that paid better.



makes for a great movie, but its simply not true. People want nice things, they want to leave wealth for their kids, go on vacations, own a home, etc. Money drives our ENTIRE SOCIETY. You are compensated for how well you do in life i mean its not even debatable.

Ok, why is it:
The best athlete in basketball is paid the most?
The best Heart surgeon is paid the most?
The best Neurosurgeon in the world is paid the most?
The best salesmen at a company makes the most?
The best coach in the NBA gets paid the most ?
The best QB gets paid the most money? (Ok bad example, but generally speaking its true)

How good you are directly relates to your compensation.

You cannot lower wages and expect the same talent. NOT POSSIBLE. And why does someone with as little medical background as Blank, or any liberal not in the field, think they know what doctors should make?

[David88vert]

So your perception of normal is different than mine. VTEC just said your average doc is making 2-300k per year. Is that normal now? What's median income these days? I don't even make a quarter of that and I thought I was doin pretty normal. Guess I'm really slummin it huh? LOL

Didnt say this either.

Why?
]

$200K-300K is not much when you have to incur substantial debt in order to make that sum. I certainly doubt that you had to borrow more than $120K for your college studies, and your income that you make reflects that.

You were the one who kept referring to a 10% reduction in payments in your posts in this thread.

Not sure as to why you are asking, "Why?"

[.blank cd]

$200K-300K is not much when you have to incur substantial debt in order to make that sum. I certainly doubt that you had to borrow more than $120K for your college studies, and your income that you make reflects that.So you're saying these doctors that are making 300k a year are just getting by for the rest of their lives because they had to borrow 120k for college? Can you show me just one example of a doctor making $2-300k who is barely getting by because he's saddled with 100k of school debt?


Not sure as to why you are asking, "Why?"Why are people losing insurance?

[.blank cd]

Uh, yeah they do, its called a lockout. IT happened last season.

If Obama passed a law saying that professional athletes across the board have to take a 10-20% cut in salary because its not fair that their college counterparts dont make as much, you would see players quit. Absolutely. Guys like LBJ wont care, but guys like Josh Smith, who are due a big contract, will be PISSSSED.

My solution to the lockout would be to fire all of them and draft some new players. If they quit, they didnt deserve it anyway, and someone just as talented and willing to play the game would take their place.

Every single player in the NBA was good before they signed the contract.

[.blank cd]

How good you are directly relates to your compensation....After the fact though. Lebron James was the best before he made his first dollar, like every other professional athlete. How do you explain that? Talent can increase because of compensation, but its not the only factor. Correlation is not causation.


You cannot lower wages and expect the same talent. NOT POSSIBLE. And why does someone with as little medical background as Blank, or any liberal not in the field, think they know what doctors should make?No one is suggesting what doctors should make. I'm only saying if the end result of healthcare is to make it cheaper and more available to everyone, and if a doctors salary takes a negligible hit along the way, I can't feel sorry for them.

[David88vert]

So you're saying these doctors that are making 300k a year are just getting by for the rest of their lives because they had to borrow 120k for college? Can you show me just one example of a doctor making $2-300k who is barely getting by because he's saddled with 100k of school debt?

Why are people losing insurance?

$120K is on the low end. Specialists that make more tend to have to take more schooling.
I never said that they were just getting by. I said that they were upper middle class. You really need to work on your reading comprehension and memory skills. You also are exhibiting zero critical thinking. Perhaps that is why you are making much less income, you are lacking the skillset required for these types of professions.

Do you realize that these doctors are spending a decade working at no/low rates, and are incurring massive debt for around a decade before they start earning decent income? And then, they have massive startup costs if they start their own practice? On top of that, if they want to have their own family and provide well for them, they have those costs as well. $200K does not go very far, when you have to spend a lot of it on paying back debt.

People are losing insurance because it is getting more expensive to purchase under the new ACA plan. You obviously either did not read the article that I posted, or you were not able to comprehend basic economics.

[Vteckidd]

My solution to the lockout would be to fire all of them and draft some new players. If they quit, they didnt deserve it anyway, and someone just as talented and willing to play the game would take their place.

Every single player in the NBA was good before they signed the contract.

So now youre against unions? But the evil corporation was trying to take advantage of them so they went on strike? So would you support any corporation doing the exact same thing you just said? Firing all its employees and just hiring scabs?

Its clear your motives are based upon jealousy or hatred of people who have more than you. Not saying that to be snarky, just it seems you give certain groups of people a pass that you identify with, and demagogue those that you feel have too much as perceived by you.

[David88vert]

My solution to the lockout would be to fire all of them and draft some new players. If they quit, they didnt deserve it anyway, and someone just as talented and willing to play the game would take their place.

Every single player in the NBA was good before they signed the contract.

Yeah, let's just fire all the doctors that complain about their pay being cut. That'll show them. We can just get some more from somewhere.....

Critical thinking - you're missing it.....

[David88vert]

...After the fact though. Lebron James was the best before he made his first dollar, like every other professional athlete. How do you explain that? Talent can increase because of compensation, but its not the only factor. Correlation is not causation.

No one is suggesting what doctors should make. I'm only saying if the end result of healthcare is to make it cheaper and more available to everyone, and if a doctors salary takes a negligible hit along the way, I can't feel sorry for them.

There it is - you think that it is negligible because you don't see it. Wealth distribution - take from those evil rich doctors and let everyone eat cake.

[Vteckidd]

...After the fact though. Lebron James was the best before he made his first dollar, like every other professional athlete. How do you explain that? Talent can increase because of compensation, but its not the only factor. Correlation is not causation.

Lebron was compensated based upon how good he was. There are plenty of people who are probably better than LBJ but they will never make it, for whatever reasons. Their is talent that is inherent. The best heart surgeon in the world, is that for a reason, talent, drive, determination.

There might be a guy just as good as LBJ, but didnt have the drive and determination to utilize his talent like LBJ did. Same with doctors.

Point is, they are paid the most becuase they are the best.


No one is suggesting what doctors should make. I'm only saying if the end result of healthcare is to make it cheaper and more available to everyone, and if a doctors salary takes a negligible hit along the way, I can't feel sorry for them.
Quality of care is directly related to what a Dr. makes. Healthcare is a for profit business, the market dictates salaries and labor /service costs, not the govt.

[Vteckidd]

Yeah, let's just fire all the doctors that complain about their pay being cut. That'll show them. We can just get some more from somewhere.....

Critical thinking - you're missing it.....

That is what I call a bait and switch. he had to real way to answer that question either way he was doomed :P

Blank i love ya man, but you just dont understand the entire problem, you only see the cost side of it.

[.blank cd]

$120K is on the low end. Specialists that make more tend to have to take more schooling.
I never said that they were just getting by. I said that they were upper middle class. You really need to work on your reading comprehension and memory skills. You also are exhibiting zero critical thinkingYou definitely said normal. Normal and upper middle class are not the same thing. Maybe you're lacking memory skills. Do you not remember saying normal? Is 200k/year normal or upper middle class? Stick with your story.


Perhaps that is why you are making much less income, you are lacking the skillset required for these types of professions.This is a Sinfix level dumbass comment. Education and compensation are hardly even indirectly correlated.


Do you realize that these doctors are spending a decade working at no/low rates, and are incurring massive debt for around a decade before they start earning decent income? And then, they have massive startup costs if they start their own practice? On top of that, if they want to have their own family and provide well for them, they have those costs as well. $200K does not go very far, when you have to spend a lot of it on paying back debt.

People are losing insurance because it is getting more expensive to purchase under the new ACA plan.Why?

[.blank cd]

Yeah, let's just fire all the doctors that complain about their pay being cut. That'll show them. We can just get some more from somewhere.....

Critical thinking - you're missing it.....

Another Sinfix level comment. Get it together.

[Vteckidd]

200-300k a year seems like a lot, to the guy making $50k a year. But its not. Remember 40% goes to taxes, then you have car payment, house note, insurance on both, 401K , health insurance, cell phone, if hes married, then the wifes car, children? Clothing food college education.

200-300K NET is 120-180k take home BEFORE bills after taxes. Its not a lot of money at all. 2 car payments and a house note ($250-300k house) eats a lot of that up. And, as i demonstrated, they have gone through enough schooling that their professions pays that much for a reason.

[David88vert]

You definitely said normal. Normal and upper middle class are not the same thing. Maybe you're lacking memory skills. Do you not remember saying normal? Is 200k/year normal or upper middle class? Stick with your story.

This is a Sinfix level dumbass comment. Education and compensation are hardly even indirectly correlated.

Do you realize that these doctors are spending a decade working at no/low rates, and are incurring massive debt for around a decade before they start earning decent income? And then, they have massive startup costs if they start their own practice? On top of that, if they want to have their own family and provide well for them, they have those costs as well. $200K does not go very far, when you have to spend a lot of it on paying back debt.

People are losing insurance because it is getting more expensive to purchase under the new ACA plan.

I stated upper middle class from the start. That is normal. These are not the people making millions of dollars. Even Obama stated that taxes would be targeted to those making over $250K/yr. Normal was under $250K.

Education and income are not related? Are you really suggesting that? Go back to your previous comments on education in other threads.

I stand by my comment - you do not have the skillset to make the money that doctors make. You do not have the education. You can try to argue it, but its the truth.

[.blank cd]

So now youre against unions? But the evil corporation was trying to take advantage of them so they went on strike? So would you support any corporation doing the exact same thing you just said? Firing all its employees and just hiring scabs?No. My feeling on the NBA lockout have nothing to do with what I feel about unions or healthcare.


Its clear your motives are based upon jealousy or hatred of people who have more than you. Not saying that to be snarky, just it seems you give certain groups of people a pass that you identify with, and demagogue those that you feel have too much as perceived by you.Not jealous or hating at all really.

[David88vert]

Another Sinfix level comment. Get it together.

You were discussing basketball players as though they were doctors. You need to get it together.

[Vteckidd]

Last thing ill say :

Cutting the Dr. pay, wont help the poor person get health insurance.

Thats like saying "oh, we will cut Ferrari prices 20% so poor people can buy a car". It doesnt work, you can do things to let the market cause prices to FALL naturally, but any of this direct interference never works, see the housing crises, student loans, etc etc etc.

Govt intervention= rising costs (not less).

What are premiums right now? RISING year over year

[Vteckidd]

No. My feeling on the NBA lockout have nothing to do with what I feel about unions or healthcare.



NBA players= Union, League= Corporation

You just said you would break their union and hire scabs. Kinda radical statement from a progressive. Now youre starting to sound like a conservative

[.blank cd]

200-300k a year seems like a lot, to the guy making $50k a year. But its not. Remember 40% goes to taxes, then you have car payment, house note, insurance on both, 401K , health insurance, cell phone, if hes married, then the wifes car, children? Clothing food college educationI pay for all that stuff too.....what's your point?

[Quote200-300K NET is 120-180k take home BEFORE bills after taxes. Its not a lot of money at all. 2 car payments and a house note ($250-300k house) eats a lot of that up. And, as i demonstrated, they have gone through enough schooling that their professions pays that much for a reason.[/QUOTE]So my normal and their normal is different. Why is that?

[.blank cd]

I stated upper middle class from the start. That is normal. These are not the people making millions of dollars. Even Obama stated that taxes would be targeted to those making over $250K/yr. Normal was under $250K.

[Quote]Education and income are not related? Are you really suggesting that? Go back to your previous comments on education in other threads.I have never ever suggested anything more than a weak correlation. If you go through my threads or read anything I've posted, you'd understand this. The richest man the US was a college dropout. Education and income are a weak correlation.


I stand by my comment - you do not have the skillset to make the money that doctors make. You do not have the education. You can try to argue it, but its the truth.Yes. I did not go to medical school. Good job pointing that out. What's your point?

[.blank cd]

NBA players= Union, League= Corporation

You just said you would break their union and hire scabs. Kinda radical statement from a progressive. Now youre starting to sound like a conservative

Like I said, my feelings on the NBA lockout have nothing to do with my feelings on unions or healthcare or corporations.

I like to asses things on a case by case basis.

[David88vert]

I have never ever suggested anything more than a weak correlation. If you go through my threads or read anything I've posted, you'd understand this. The richest man the US was a college dropout. Education and income are a weak correlation.

Yes. I did not go to medical school. Good job pointing that out. What's your point?

Simple point. If you had gone through a decade of scraping by, and incurred $150K in debt, plus debt from living expenses, and don't forget the debt from buying medial equipment, medical insurance, a house, cars, family insurance, etc, you might feel that $140K net is not exactly letting you save a lot of money.

[Sinfix_15]

Another Sinfix level comment. Get it together.

"Sinfix level" appears to be above your own.

[Vteckidd]

Like I said, my feelings on the NBA lockout have nothing to do with my feelings on unions or healthcare or corporations.

I like to asses things on a case by case basis.


Its clear your motives are based upon jealousy or hatred of people who have more than you. Not saying that to be snarky, just it seems you give certain groups of people a pass that you identify with, and demagogue those that you feel have too much as perceived by you.

Like i said, i rest my case.

[.blank cd]

Like i said, i rest my case.

Not that the two have anything to do with each other though. So, not sure how you're resting your case. It has nothing to do with jealousy or hatred. I don't hate rich people, and If I wanted to play ball professionally, or be a neurosurgeon, I would have. That's the end of that.


In any case. The question posed was "why should I want to repeal Obamacare"

Are y'all's only answers "because doctors salaries might take a negligible hit?" Anything else?

[David88vert]

Are y'all's only answers "because doctors salaries might take a negligible hit?" Anything else?

Again, reading comprehension - you need to work on it. Neither of us made that statement - so you aren't quoting either of us.

I gave you a 2 page article on Forbes that went into details. The CBO - one of the sources that you used to use for almost every post - even estimates that Obamacare is not going to deliver what it claimed - and will cause major issues.
As it currently stands now, Obamacare needs complete reform - and it hasn't even kicked in fully.

[.blank cd]

Again, reading comprehension - you need to work on it. Neither of us made that statement - so you aren't quoting either of us.That I should be sympathetic to the needs of upper middle class doctor families with regards to college debt. Because they deserve to be millionaires because they've worked so hard during the course of their careers. Im pretty sure that was what was said...

[.blank cd]

The article you linked said there are less people uninsured, and even went as far as suggesting universal healthcare was better with his fire insurance analogy. Lol.

[David88vert]

The article you linked said there are less people uninsured, and even went as far as suggesting universal healthcare was better with his fire insurance analogy. Lol.

Where is an article that youve written that has been published by Forbes?

[David88vert]

That I should be sympathetic to the needs of upper middle class doctor families with regards to college debt. Because they deserve to be millionaires because they've worked so hard during the course of their careers. Im pretty sure that was what was said...

Thanks for confirming that you cannot comprehend what is written. That pretty much explains why you write what you write.

[.blank cd]

Where is an article that youve written that has been published by Forbes?

I could write one and have it published by them if you'd like, Why would that matter?

[.blank cd]

Thanks for confirming that you cannot comprehend what is written. That pretty much explains why you write what you write.

Was this or was this not written?

[David88vert]

I could write one and have it published by them if you'd like, Why would that matter?

Please do. I want to see you get anything published on Forbes, especially defending Obamacare.

It will matter a lot to me, and probably several other people on here.

[.blank cd]

Please do. I want to see you get anything published on Forbes, especially defending Obamacare.

It will matter a lot to me, and probably several other people on here.

I'm close enough to Krugman, and he's a better writer than I am. Lol

[David88vert]

I'm close enough to Krugman, and he's a better writer than I am. Lol


We still want to see it from you. IA celebrity status.

[Vteckidd]

I see no need to repeat points I've made at length over the last year or more. You either get it or you don't. No need to debate any further.

I see no real rebuttal to any point I've made, just my opinion

[Browning151]

The question posed was "why should I want to repeal Obamacare"

Are y'all's only answers "because doctors salaries might take a negligible hit?" Anything else?

There's been more reasons than that posted in this thread, and several others. Many more.



Reading through this thread I almost felt like Total_Blender was back for a minute.

[bu villain]

makes for a great movie, but its simply not true. People want nice things, they want to leave wealth for their kids, go on vacations, own a home, etc. Money drives our ENTIRE SOCIETY. You are compensated for how well you do in life i mean its not even debatable.

Your whole argument is a tautology. Of course money is a factor in how people live their lives but it is not the ONLY factor. That is my only message. Your last statement is quite debatable. I do not think the creators of angry birds are necessarily living a better life (ie, more valuable to society, admirable, etc) than a humble priest just because they get paid a hell of a lot more. Your view fits perfectly into an economist's capitalistic model but fails to recognize the real world factors such as the irrationality of individuals and difference in personal values.




Ok, why is it:
The best athlete in basketball is paid the most?
The best Heart surgeon is paid the most?
The best Neurosurgeon in the world is paid the most?
The best salesmen at a company makes the most?
The best coach in the NBA gets paid the most ?
The best QB gets paid the most money? (Ok bad example, but generally speaking its true)

How good you are directly relates to your compensation.

I wasn't arguing with you that highly skilled people usually are paid better. I was arguing that the opposite is not true. That is, getting paid a lot does not make you more skilled. Logically speaking you are saying if X then Y. That doesn't mean if Y then X. Causation vs correlation.

[Sinfix_15]

Had to go to the DMV today, i cant wait until healthcare runs like that well oiled machine.

[David88vert]

I do not think the creators of angry birds are necessarily living a better life (ie, more valuable to society, admirable, etc) than a humble priest just because they get paid a hell of a lot more.

The government would say that the creators of Angry Birds are worth more to the government. They get lots of tax revenue off them, but nothing from the tax-exempt priests.

Atheists probably think that the game creators are worth more as well.

People of the priest's faith probably value the priests more, but their kids probably value the game creators more.

Point is - people value what is more closely related to their day to day lives, and we are all different in our values. Even though all life should be valued the same, it rarely is.

[Sinfix_15]

http://redalertpolitics.com/files/2013/03/Thanks-Obamacare-300x262.jpg

HHS stages multimillion-dollar PR campaign to promote Obamacare (http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/04/23/hhs-stages-multimillion-dollar-pr-campaign-to-promote-obamacare/)

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/obama-tell-a-lie-big-enough-people-believe-it.jpg

[Browning151]

They've gotta try and polish that turd somehow, might as well waste a few million more on it.

[bu villain]

The government would say that the creators of Angry Birds are worth more to the government. They get lots of tax revenue off them, but nothing from the tax-exempt priests.

Atheists probably think that the game creators are worth more as well.

People of the priest's faith probably value the priests more, but their kids probably value the game creators more.

Point is - people value what is more closely related to their day to day lives, and we are all different in our values. Even though all life should be valued the same, it rarely is.

Exactly, but Vteck seems to be stating that economic value is the only factor that people consider in their choices and that it is the single metric we should judge value by.

[Vteckidd]

"Anything worth doing is worth doing for money"

Gordon Gecko

Im not arguing that there arent doctors out there who LOVE to get paid $30k a year and just help children in need. But thats not the NORM. Its noble, but its not indicative of our society as a whole.

[Vteckidd]

Exactly, but Vteck seems to be stating that economic value is the only factor that people consider in their choices and that it is the single metric we should judge value by.

no, im saying that is the most important metric people operate by when considering their choices, and is the largest metric we should judge value by.

Do you want a nation of people who strive to be MCEEDEES workers, or MILLIONAIRES?

Simple answer, if you were offered the SAME JOB you have now, making $20k a year more, but you had to work with an asshole boss, would you do it? 9/10 would. Wonder why? Wheres their nobility?

"Honor is in the dollar kid"

[.blank cd]

Do you want a nation of people who strive to be MCEEDEES workers, or MILLIONAIRES?Why not both?

[bu villain]

Im not arguing that there arent doctors out there who LOVE to get paid $30k a year and just help children in need. But thats not the NORM. Its noble, but its not indicative of our society as a whole.

Those aren't the only two possibilities though. There are all sorts of shades of grey. There are tons of doctors who accept $170k instead of $190k because they want to work in Atlanta instead of NYC, or because they want to treat children instead of the elderly, or because they want to perform life saving operations and not cosmetic operations.


no, im saying that is the most important metric people operate by when considering their choices, and is the largest metric we should judge value by.

Even if I agreed, I don't think it's like 90%money/10% everything else, it's probably more like 40%money/20%work environment/20%location/20%everything else. Value is a much more personal thing so I don't think you can make such a broad generalization about it. Some people value money very little, others quite a bit.


Do you want a nation of people who strive to be MCEEDEES workers, or MILLIONAIRES?

Doesn't matter what I want. People decide for themselves what they want to strive for.


Simple answer, if you were offered the SAME JOB you have now, making $20k a year more, but you had to work with an asshole boss, would you do it? 9/10 would. Wonder why? Wheres their nobility?

I guess I am in the 10% then because I certainly wouldn't. I also think there would be a lot more than 10% who would agree with me. Also the 20k is an arbitrary number. Certainly a large number of people wouldn't make that deal if their salary only increased 1 or 2%.

[.blank cd]

I guess I am in the 10% then because I certainly wouldn't. I also think there would be a lot more than 10% who would agree with me. Also the 20k is an arbitrary number. Certainly a large number of people wouldn't make that deal if their salary only increased 1 or 2%.I wouldn't do it if I had to work with a boss that's more of an asshole than the one I already work with. Don't even think Id do it for $20k. I'm already on the verge of punching someone in the mouth as it is.

[Sinfix_15]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIpbK7mCYAAsXPx.jpg:large

[Vteckidd]

Im just saying that most of your choices are based upon income and expense. You know, from an early age, what pays more money and what doesnt. Teachers make crappy money because relatively easy to get that degree vs say being a trauma surgeon. Thats not to degrade teachers, but lets be honest, its a low paying job and most people know it getting into it.

Most peoples goal in life is to acquire as much wealth as they can within a certain moral compass. Wealth is a HIGHLY motivating factor.

And you guys are full of shit, anyone who turns down $20k EXTRA a year for a little pain ...................is full of shit hahaha

[Vteckidd]

Why not both?

youd rather have the people striving to be the best they can (because pay=level of talent) than people striving to be the bottom of the barrel (minimum wage workers).

[bu villain]

Im just saying that most of your choices are based upon income and expense. You know, from an early age, what pays more money and what doesnt. Teachers make crappy money because relatively easy to get that degree vs say being a trauma surgeon. Thats not to degrade teachers, but lets be honest, its a low paying job and most people know it getting into it.

Most peoples goal in life is to acquire as much wealth as they can within a certain moral compass. Wealth is a HIGHLY motivating factor.

I agree with your general point that money is a big factor in people's decisions. I listed it as the number one factor in the breakdown I gave. Our main disagreement seems to be on how big of a factor it is (on average). Also, no one was saying that doctors shouldn't be well compensated, it was simply a discussion of the effects of a relatively small change. When you consider the high tax brackets most doctors are in, the pain is even less than it may seem at first too.


And you guys are full of shit, anyone who turns down $20k EXTRA a year for a little pain ...................is full of shit hahaha

Your scenario of an asshole boss is not a minor pain. That's 40-60/hr every week of my life. That would have a big impact on how enjoyable my life is and it would not be offset by 20k. Of course if it were 50k I may change my mind. Also 20k would be a lot more meaningful to someone making minimum wage whereas to me, it wouldn't change my life much.

[BanginJimmy]

Why not both?

We have both and you and others are complaining that the guy with no ambition doesnt have the same quality of life as the guy that does have ambition and made millions.

[.blank cd]

We have both and you and others are complaining that the guy with no ambition doesnt have the same quality of life as the guy that does have ambition and made millions.

You believe ambition always means striving to be rich?

Because there are people who are very ambitious who have met their goals in life who do not have millions, or even hundreds of thousands.

[bu villain]

You believe ambition always means striving to be rich?

Because there are people who are very ambitious who have met their goals in life who do not have millions, or even hundreds of thousands.

It is very common in our country for people to see capitalism not as just an economic system but also as a moral one where making more money literally means you are a better person. Vteck makes such an implication with his statement "pay=level of talent". It makes me wonder if he's never had an idiot boss who makes more than him.

[Vteckidd]

It makes me wonder if he's never had an idiot boss who makes more than him.

of course. Im usually much smarter than most of the people I work for. I work for asshole bosses all the time. I didnt say there were no exceptions to the rule. But, in general, if you are better, you either
A) make it show so you get that better job
B) leave and go somewhere that appreciates you.

In general speaking terms, the better you are in your job the more you get paid.

Thats why a Harvard degree is worth its weight in gold, or MIT, or GT, or Yale, etc.

[BanginJimmy]

You believe ambition always means striving to be rich?

If you are working at a low paying job, you have no ambition. Even the most noble of jobs pays well. You may not gain personal wealth as a clergyman, but you do live quite well in most areas.



Because there are people who are very ambitious who have met their goals in life who do not have millions, or even hundreds of thousands.

Ambition means consistently moving up. It doesnt matter if that means you are working for the police dept or a hedge fund. If you have real ambition, you dont reach your goal until you reach the top.

Ambition is not a 25 year beat cop and it is not the 25 year junior partner. Maybe you prefer to just be a fireman and not deal with the politics of higher rank. Thats fine, but dont act like you have ambition because you made it to the lowest rung of the ladder.

[BanginJimmy]

It is very common in our country for people to see capitalism not as just an economic system but also as a moral one where making more money literally means you are a better person.

You couldnt possibly be more wrong.

[.blank cd]

You couldnt possibly be more wrong.

Actually he couldn't be more right.

[Vteckidd]

Actually he couldn't be more right.

Actually, they couldnt be more..................

oh i was just trying to keep it going :P

[BanginJimmy]

Actually he couldn't be more right.

If that was the case, why do so man in the country think the rich are the cause of all wrongs? Those greedy evil rich people are working to keep people down. blah blah blah.


Its actually the opposite of what you are saying. Its not that making more money means a better person. Its that we see people who make little money consistently doing the wrong things.

[Vteckidd]

Its actually a really funny point they are trying to make.

Work hard, do well, make a lot of money...........oh wait..............nope, youre makin too much...............................give some of that back its not fair.

[.blank cd]

If that was the case, why do so man in the country think the rich are the cause of all wrongs?Why do so many? There's a reason. But thinking the rich are the cause of all the wrongs is equally as incorrect as thinking ambition always equals lots of $$$



Its actually the opposite of what you are saying. Its not that making more money means a better person. Its that we see people who make little money consistently doing the wrong things.Its really not the opposite. What do you think is little money, and what is "the wrong things"?

[.blank cd]

Its actually a really funny point they are trying to make.

Work hard, do well, make a lot of money...........oh wait..............nope, youre makin too much...............................give some of that back its not fair.

Who's trying to make that point? I don't see anyone in here trying to make that point.

Work hard. Do well. That's it.

[Vteckidd]

Who's trying to make that point? I don't see anyone in here trying to make that point.

Work hard. Do well. That's it.

you just spent the last 6-7 pages saying that people who achieve the richest of salaries mainly due to hard work dont deserve 10 ferraris or a 10 bedroom mansion. you dont feel sorry for them if they get a pay cut.

[.blank cd]

you just spent the last 6-7 pages saying that people who achieve the richest of salaries mainly due to hard work dont deserve 10 ferraris or a 10 bedroom mansion. you dont feel sorry for them if they get a pay cut.

Not feeling sorry for millionaires or very very wealthy people when they take a pay cut is not the same as saying people don't deserve what they work for.

[Sinfix_15]

Not feeling sorry for millionaires or very very wealthy people when they take a pay cut is not the same as saying people don't deserve what they work for.

Do you feel sorry for the guy who stays in school, who is busy studying and working on his education when the guy who will eventually be the not wealthy guy is out partying, enjoying his life and not having to worry about that responsibility?

Or do we wait until the time comes for people to reap what they sow to start feeling sorry?

I say dont feel sorry for anyone. People get what they deserve....... what you do need to stop doing is deciding what people do and do not deserve and quit taking the earnings of one person and giving them to others. but..... that's the foundation of your political allegiance.... redistribution.

[.blank cd]

Do you feel sorry for the guy who stays in school, who is busy studying and working on his education when the guy who will eventually be the not wealthy guy is out partying, enjoying his life and not having to worry about that responsibility?

Or do we wait until the time comes for people to reap what they sow to start feeling sorry?

I say dont feel sorry for anyone. People get what they deserve....... what you do need to stop doing is deciding what people do and do not deserve and quit taking the earnings of one person and giving them to others. but..... that's the foundation of your political allegiance.... redistribution.

Why would I feel sorry for someone working on his education?

No one is deciding what people do or do not deserve. Redistribution is a very politically charged word in regards to income and taxation that really doesn't exist in the way you think it does.

[Sinfix_15]

Why would I feel sorry for someone working on his education?

No one is deciding what people do or do not deserve. Redistribution is a very politically charged word in regards to income and taxation that really doesn't exist in the way you think it does.

You say you dont feel sorry for wealthy people taking a pay cut...... did you feel sorry for them when they took a "life cut" and made the necessary sacrifices to become wealthy?

[Vteckidd]

Not feeling sorry for millionaires or very very wealthy people when they take a pay cut is not the same as saying people don't deserve what they work for.

Um. Yes it is. Its baffling you don't see that.

[.blank cd]

Um. Yes it is. Its baffling you don't see that.

No it's not. Trust me. If you're a business man, or any degree of what "conservative" is these days, you feel the same way. You just might not realize it.

[Vteckidd]

Agree to disagree. i dont draw a line at 10 ferraris over 9.

[.blank cd]

Not drawing any lines either. But if someone loses one Ferrari, I'm still gonna sleep at night. Not a single tear would be shed.

[BanginJimmy]

Redistribution is a very politically charged word in regards to income and taxation that really doesn't exist in the way you think it does.


When someone gets more money from the govt than they pay into the system, where do you think the money comes from?

Take this completely fabricated, but not unlikely scenario. My wife and I have 3 kids and a combined income of 40k a year. At the end of the year we have paid 2500 to the feds in taxes. When we file our taxes and account for all of the tax credits and deductions we get 4k back. On top of that, we are getting section 8 housing and food stamps which comes out to 6k a year.

Tell me, how is that $7500 that has been given to me NOT wealth redistribution? How was that money NOT forceably taken from someone else and given to me?

[Vteckidd]

Not drawing any lines either. But if someone loses one Ferrari, I'm still gonna sleep at night. Not a single tear would be shed.

What if it was a gallon of milk and not a ferrari? My point being is you arbitrarily decide what is "too much" and what is "not enough" based upon what you think is a level of wealth. You pass judgement on others that you know nothing about.

All you see is a Ferrari, I see a guy who worked his ass off to make a ton of money, and its his right to spend his money how he wants. Now, should their business decline and he has to sell a Ferrari, then I have no problem with that. But, if a group of people are going to say "YOU CANT HAVE THAT, ITS TOO MUCH" because they dont know any better and their motives are to fleece the wealthy because they are not wealthy themselves.............

well then i draw the line there.

[.blank cd]

Never said "you can't have that. That's too much"

[Sinfix_15]

Never said "you can't have that. That's too much"

Your king did.



Obama budget would cap IRAs at $3 million - Encore - MarketWatch (http://blogs.marketwatch.com/encore/2013/04/10/obama-budget-would-cap-iras-at-3-million/)

[.blank cd]

When someone gets more money from the govt than they pay into the system, where do you think the money comes from?

Take this completely fabricated, but not unlikely scenario. My wife and I have 3 kids and a combined income of 40k a year. At the end of the year we have paid 2500 to the feds in taxes. When we file our taxes and account for all of the tax credits and deductions we get 4k back. On top of that, we are getting section 8 housing and food stamps which comes out to 6k a year.

Tell me, how is that $7500 that has been given to me NOT wealth redistribution? How was that money NOT forceably taken from someone else and given to me?

It's not forcibly taken from anyone. The American people wanted this system, they still want it. And it's not redistribution. Its the system you signed up for when you became an american working citizen. You have every right to move somewhere else where you feel the taxation system is more fair

[Sinfix_15]

It's not forcibly taken from anyone. The American people wanted this system, they still want it. And it's not redistribution. Its the system you signed up for when you became an american working citizen. You have every right to move somewhere else where you feel the taxation system is more fair

or............

We can work to educate the low information voter who allows a president like Obama to happen. We can teach these morons the error of their ways so that maybe we wont have to suffer through another dirt bag communist wannabe who thinks he can tax us to prosperity. In the mean time, we can all thank congress for keeping a tight leash on this radical lunatic and weather the storm until we can replace him. Hopefully by the time this ordeal is over, people realize that liberal democrats are the scum of the earth and think wisely before voting for another one.

[BanginJimmy]

It's not forcibly taken from anyone.

A portion of my pay is taken from my paycheck without my prior authorization and if I dont file the proper paperwork at the end of the year I can be sent to jail. How is that NOT using force to collect?




The American people wanted this system, they still want it.

The American people were also only told it would only affect the evil rich people when they said they wanted it. Today, it isnt much of a leap of faith to think that a lot of the people that say the like it say that because they dont see or understand a better way of taxation. I have no proof of this, but it isnt much of a stretch to think people fear the unknown over the known.


And it's not redistribution.

So what do you call it when you take something from me and give it to someone else?



Its the system you signed up for when you became an american working citizen.

Where is this form I signed saying I wanted to pay 11k in net taxes this year while someone else was given 5k in net tax money?



You have every right to move somewhere else where you feel the taxation system is more fair

I have seriously considered it. In the end though, this is still the best and most stable country in the world. For all of its faults, it still provides the most freedom while still providing the highest level of safety and security.

[.blank cd]

A portion of my pay is taken from my paycheck without my prior authorization and if I dont file the proper paperwork at the end of the year I can be sent to jail. How is that NOT using force to collect?Because you're giving it to them. You've already authorized it. Do you not sign W4's at the end of the year?


The American people were also only told it would only affect the evil rich people when they said they wanted it. Today, it isnt much of a leap of faith to think that a lot of the people that say the like it say that because they dont see or understand a better way of taxation. I have no proof of this, but it isnt much of a stretch to think people fear the unknown over the known.They were also told it would provide for things like your retirement, healthcare should you need it, assistance should you need it, and they were told it would affect everyone. I guess it isnt much of a leap of faith to think that people believe 20% of their paycheck is a small price to pay for the myriad of services the government provides for you, and that you enjoy.


So what do you call it when you take something from me and give it to someone else?You mean when you give something to me and I give it to someone else?


Where is this form I signed saying I wanted to pay 11k in net taxes this year while someone else was given 5k in net tax money?

Signature line on the bottom

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLJ17-jI-YmlfMnNvCZw8_2AzFqr8MtKWU6W6vS0TTSIURd3ld


I have seriously considered it. In the end though, this is still the best and most stable country in the world. For all of its faults, it still provides the most freedom while still providing the highest level of safety and security.Thanks, taxes! LOL

[BanginJimmy]

Because you're giving it to them. You've already authorized it. Do you not sign W4's at the end of the year?

Read your W4 again. All that does is claim your dependents. It does not authorize anyone to take money from your paycheck.

EDIT: I was wrong on this part. Under the Purpose section of the W4, it does authorize your employer to withhold money.


They were also told it would provide for things like your retirement, healthcare should you need it, assistance should you need it, and they were told it would affect everyone. I guess it isnt much of a leap of faith to think that people believe 20% of their paycheck is a small price to pay for the myriad of services the government provides for you, and that you enjoy.

How is that possible when all of those things came decades after the 16th Amendment?

16th Amendment - ratified Feb. 1913
Social Security - 1935
Medicare - 1965
Welfare programs (part of Johnson Great Society initiatives) - 1960's.

Tell me again how an Amendment ratified in 1913 was meant for these programs.



You mean when you give something to me and I give it to someone else?

Not given, taken. Remember, if I dont give, I face jail time.



Signature line on the bottom

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLJ17-jI-YmlfMnNvCZw8_2AzFqr8MtKWU6W6vS0TTSIURd3ld

Meant ONLY for distribution of SS taxes and payments. NOT an national ID for tax purposes, or any other purpose.



Thanks, taxes! LOL

Yes, taxes for things like police and fire protection and the US military are a necessary evil. Welfare, foreign aid, money to foreign labor unions, money to the UN, etc are not necessary evils. The US could cut funding to the UN today and use that to pay down more debt than we will from Obama's proposed tax increases.

[.blank cd]

File a 1099. Don't authorize anyone to take you're money.


How is that possible when all of those things came decades after the 16th Amendment?

16th Amendment - ratified Feb. 1913
Social Security - 1935
Medicare - 1965
Welfare programs (part of Johnson Great Society initiatives) - 1960's.

Tell me again how an Amendment ratified in 1913 was meant for these programs.im talking about all of these.



Not given, taken. Remember, if I dont give, I face jail time.Very much given. In fact, I look at it as a cost of being a citizen. Even at the amount I pay, it really has no effect on me. I don't complain about it. I still make enough to survive and maintain a decent quality of life. The little I give to them wouldn't change much if they stopped taking it or if they took less. Where I'm at, I would just save what they stopped taking and it wouldn't help anyone.....



Yes, taxes for things like police and fire protection and the US military are a necessary evil. Welfare, foreign aid, money to foreign labor unions, money to the UN, etc are not necessary evils. The US could cut funding to the UN today and use that to pay down more debt than we will from Obama's proposed tax increases.Sure, you could. They could also cut the military budget in half and still spend more than every other country in the world and use those billions for something else, but the debt isn't necessarily out of control, and we could lose the economic benefit of the military or the UN. Don't look at the debt and deficit as a negative bank account number because that's not really what it is. It doesn't work like your bank account.

[BanginJimmy]

im talking about all of these.

You didnt explain how an Amendment passed decades before any of the programs were even conceived was meant to pay for them.



Very much given. In fact, I look at it as a cost of being a citizen. Even at the amount I pay, it really has no effect on me. I don't complain about it. I still make enough to survive and maintain a decent quality of life. The little I give to them wouldn't change much if they stopped taking it or if they took less. Where I'm at, I would just save what they stopped taking and it wouldn't help anyone.....

I am not really complaining about the amount of taxes. The amount I pay is neither small nor insignificant so I would notice a sizable rise in quality of life with that money.



Sure, you could. They could also cut the military budget in half and still spend more than every other country in the world and use those billions for something else, but the debt isn't necessarily out of control, and we could lose the economic benefit of the military or the UN. Don't look at the debt and deficit as a negative bank account number because that's not really what it is. It doesn't work like your bank account.

Look again at our military budget and compare it on a line by line basis to other countries. The largest difference you will see is in personnel costs. If you reduced pay and quality of life programs to that of China or even England, you would find that our military budget is not nearly as far out of balance as it is by just looking at the final numbers.

I do agree we need to reduce military spending. IMO, we should leave Europe completely. Maybe we could keep a division or so worth of equipment there and a small contingent, maybe a company, for security and maintenance, but close our bases and bring a few thousand troops back to the US. Still too much going on in Asia for me to have the same opinion about there. We are probably looking at ~50B in savings on a yearly basis by doing this.

If the debt is not big deal, why not just stop paying it? That alone would be 200B more a year we could use for any number of programs or just to reduce the deficit.

[.blank cd]

You didnt explain how an Amendment passed decades before any of the programs were even conceived was meant to pay for them.Cause I'm not distinguishing them. I'm talking about income taxes along with all the other stuff.


I am not really complaining about the amount of taxes. The amount I pay is neither small nor insignificant so I would notice a sizable rise in quality of life with that money.Hmmm....


Look again at our military budget and compare it on a line by line basis to other countries. The largest difference you will see is in personnel costs. If you reduced pay and quality of life programs to that of China or even England, you would find that our military budget is not nearly as far out of balance as it is by just looking at the final numbers.

I do agree we need to reduce military spending. IMO, we should leave Europe completely. Maybe we could keep a division or so worth of equipment there and a small contingent, maybe a company, for security and maintenance, but close our bases and bring a few thousand troops back to the US. Still too much going on in Asia for me to have the same opinion about there. We are probably looking at ~50B in savings on a yearly basis by doing this.however you want to look at it, it could be cut significantly and still be effective at "defending our interests". But the more you look at what you're paying for, the more you understand the economic benefit of such a large military. The only thing Id suggest cutting is all active engagements, and this stupid war on an idea. It's a war we'd be fighting for centuries if we let them. We might as well be fighting a war on violence.


If the debt is not big deal, why not just stop paying it? That alone would be 200B more a year we could use for any number of programs or just to reduce the deficit.Because paying it down doesn't do much for the economy. Not paying it would just ruin our credit rating. Clearing the debt without significant growth would probably do a lot worse, and wiping out the deficit without growth would probably do the same thing. We do a pretty good job keeping it in check. The incredibly intricate balancing act we call expansionary fiscal and monetary policy is working.

[BanginJimmy]

Because paying it down doesn't do much for the economy. Not paying it would just ruin our credit rating. Clearing the debt without significant growth would probably do a lot worse, and wiping out the deficit without growth would probably do the same thing. We do a pretty good job keeping it in check. The incredibly intricate balancing act we call expansionary fiscal and monetary policy is working.

This is laughable.

Our fiscal and monetary policy is creating a new bubble and will eventually burst and lead to massive inflation and a massive rise in interest rates. On top of that, all the govt spending and all the money the fed is dumping into the system, we can still only manage sub 2% growth?

[.blank cd]

This is laughable.

Our fiscal and monetary policy is creating a new bubble and will eventually burst and lead to massive inflation and a massive rise in interest rates.

What kind of bubble are you talking about and how do you figure it does that?

[Sinfix_15]

File a 1099. Don't authorize anyone to take you're money.



http://elainem2016.edublogs.org/files/2009/10/Grammar1-150x150.jpg

[.blank cd]

http://elainem2016.edublogs.org/files/2009/10/Grammar1-150x150.jpg

The phone autocorrected that one.

[bu villain]

If that was the case, why do so man in the country think the rich are the cause of all wrongs? Those greedy evil rich people are working to keep people down. blah blah blah.

I wasn't implying that all people feel that rich = better, but many do as evidenced by Vteck's statement. My main point is that people want to use their personal value system, whether it is rich = better or rich = worse, and impose it on others. Holding too strongly on to any of these ideologies is dangerous because it doesn't leave room for all the subtleties and variance in what a good life can look like.


Its actually the opposite of what you are saying. Its not that making more money means a better person. Its that we see people who make little money consistently doing the wrong things.

But people should be judged by their actions, not their bank accounts. A good person can be rich or poor.


What if it was a gallon of milk and not a ferrari? My point being is you arbitrarily decide what is "too much" and what is "not enough" based upon what you think is a level of wealth. You pass judgement on others that you know nothing about.

All you see is a Ferrari, I see a guy who worked his ass off to make a ton of money, and its his right to spend his money how he wants. Now, should their business decline and he has to sell a Ferrari, then I have no problem with that. But, if a group of people are going to say "YOU CANT HAVE THAT, ITS TOO MUCH" because they dont know any better and their motives are to fleece the wealthy because they are not wealthy themselves.............

well then i draw the line there.

I don't think blank is drawing such a strict line as you say, nor is it based on envy. Your argument that a decline in business that results in less money is acceptable but a change in legislation that results in less money is not acceptable seems to ignore the fact that currently doctor's pay is already heavily influenced by of a lot of regulation. What makes the status quo correct and any possible legislation that could result in a decrease in salary, wrong? Keep in mind the medical system is not anything like a free market system now, so that can't be your whole justification.

[Sinfix_15]

My place of employment has cut a lot of it's workforce because of this.

[.blank cd]

Workplace fires employees to circumvent laws...

....blame Obama. Got it.

Poor employers. They should be able to circumvent laws if they want. I mean, you and I can circumvent laws...right?

[Sinfix_15]

Workplace fires employees to circumvent laws...

....blame Obama. Got it.

Poor employers. They should be able to circumvent laws if they want. I mean, you and I can circumvent laws...right?

Here's some irony for you.....

This guy i know who isnt me, that works at this place that i dont work.....

had to fire all of the temp employees when the minimum wage went up. Company pays the temp agency $10-12hr, then the temp agency pays it's workers 7-8 or whatever they pay, so now that min wage went up to $9, that doesnt mean the company is going to pay them $12-14 to adjust for their cut.

That in addition to obamacare cuts..... lot of people being told to kick rocks.

[Vteckidd]

What they are doing is totally legal.

Businesses are smarter than the feds, they will find loopholes to save costs. Oh medical benefits are mandatory for 50+ employees and full time? We will just create 3 sister companies, divide labor and limit hours.

Not circumventing, just being smart.

You do it every year when you do your taxes.

[Sinfix_15]

What they are doing is totally legal.

Businesses are smarter than the feds, they will find loopholes to save costs. Oh medical benefits are mandatory for 50+ employees and full time? We will just create 3 sister companies, divide labor and limit hours.

Not circumventing, just being smart.

You do it every year when you do your taxes.

You can only trust a business to do what is profitable.... the government needs to quit fighting that and work with it. Make it profitable for business' to do what's in everyone's best interest rather than thinking you can stomp your foot and get your way.

[.blank cd]

What they are doing is totally legal.

Businesses are smarter than the feds, they will find loopholes to save costs. Oh medical benefits are mandatory for 50+ employees and full time? We will just create 3 sister companies, divide labor and limit hours.

Not circumventing, just being smart.

You do it every year when you do your taxes.

Except when I do my taxes, I don't put anyone out of a job. Lol

Not saying its illegal. My problem is that the practice is acceptable.

Late 60s "Hey rich people, we're gonna cut the shit out of your taxes and deregulate the system a little bit so you can invest and this and that and make this country the wealthiest nation ever"

"FUCK YEA that's awesome!"

Late 2000s "Hey rich people, now that you've amassed unimaginable wealth, we're gonna bump your taxes back up a little bit because we kinda marginalized the middle class some and we want to strengthen that sector now and give those guys some better healthcare"

"FUCK NO. IT'S MY MONEY, Y U DEMONIZE THE RICH, PULL YOURSELVES UP, MOOCHERS, WELFARE QUEENS"

" -_______- "

[Vteckidd]

The problem is, and always has been, that your side ignores what wealth does.

If i give you a free $100, you either save it which creates wealth, or spend it which creates more wealth (it employs someone, buys materials, allows a business to turn a profit, etc).

When you TAKE $100 from someone, that $100 as our govt has shown over the vast amount of years, doesnt do 1/10th of what the private $100 does. It goes to kickbacks, it goes to waste, it goes to red tape, etc.

your argument is also flawed because you are 10000% wrong. When you "do it on your taxes" you do cost jobs. The money you pay in taxes doesnt go into the private economy. It doesnt create anything. Youre also arguing that its perfectly ok for you to game the system, but its not ok for someone else based upon the only assumption that they are richer than you are.

Again, this is your wealth envy complex. YOu are ok with rules for 1 class of people , but not another. You vehemently deny it, but it surfaces in almost every argument you make.

Hey man let me teach you something, sometimes, businesses lay workers off for.....................PROFIT.......*GASP* its part of the cycle.

[.blank cd]

The problem is, and always has been, that your side ignores what wealth does. I don't have a side, I just follow what the principles of economics says.


If i give you a free $100, you either save it which creates wealth, or spend it which creates more wealth (it employs someone, buys materials, allows a business to turn a profit, etc).

When you TAKE $100 from someone, that $100 as our govt has shown over the vast amount of years, doesnt do 1/10th of what the private $100 does. It goes to kickbacks, it goes to waste, it goes to red tape, etc.

your argument is also flawed because you are 10000% wrong. When you "do it on your taxes" you do cost jobs. The money you pay in taxes doesnt go into the private economy. It doesnt create anything. Youre also arguing that its perfectly ok for you to game the system, but its not ok for someone else based upon the only assumption that they are richer than you are.I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, or if there's a breakdown in your understanding of economics or taxation here, but you've just contradicted yourself. If I file for a return and get $1000 back, that means I've overpaid what I've been obligated to pay. For someone like me, most of that will get spent. If I itemize and got $2000 back, most of that money will also get spent. So since my MPC is higher than someone who makes 200k a year, my refund is likely to build more wealth than the guy who makes 200k.


Again, this is your wealth envy complex. YOu are ok with rules for 1 class of people , but not another. You vehemently deny it, but it surfaces in almost every argument you make.Sorry if you misunderstand my criticism of an unbalanced system as an attack on rich people. It's not in the least. It's just possible to quantify the benefit of taxes on the rich and express them mathematically. That's all.


Hey man let me teach you something, sometimes, businesses lay workers off for.....................PROFIT.......*GASP* its part of the cycle.as a business owner myself, if you have to lay off someone to make a profit, you're probably doing something wrong. LOL.

[Vteckidd]

Ok mr Prof.

Explain to me how the rule of production happens. Production and investment cannot happen without saving. Saving cannot happen without income surplus. Income surplus comes from a job/wage.

1) If you get money back, you are giving the govt an interest free loan and you have no idea how to predict your tax liability. Get a new accountant.
2) The fact you compare "getting taxes back" to a business having to "pay more in taxes" is crude, laughable, and just distorted.
3) businesses operate along 2 curves, the SRAC and LRAC curves. Costs are divided into 2 categories , can you name them? Explicit and implicit.
4) A dollar that increases cost, is a dollar that cannot be invested unless that cost is related to investment. Meaning, you like to act like a businesses PROFIT is some guy with a ferrari shitting on poor people. Its not. MOST businesses REINVEST and expand as they gain more in profit. That leads to hiring. that leads to growth. That leads to more tax revenues.

In short, when a business is TAXED, it passes that cost ONTO the consumer, it NEVER absorbs it because it CANNOT. A business is designed to run FOR PROFIT. They dont just ABSORB costs and say "oh well we will just pay an extra 1 million in taxes this year no big deal, thats 12 less yachts for us". It doesnt work that way. It may work like that for .00000001% of some businesses out there, but not the majority. Not even close.

So, like i have always said, youll get your healthcare at the expense of a job. Businesses are just doing what they always do, they pass costs onto the consumer, and yes they will lay people off.

IF i came into your business and tol you that your rent is now DOUBLE what it was last month, you would have 2 choices: A) shed costs (layoffs, materials) B) close up shop. If your answer is C) just pay that added rent and not change anything, that points more to the ineptitude of you running a business vs my knowledge of economics :)

remember, I run million dollar businesses daily, i ran my own company for 5 years, I have direct knowledge of this.

P.S. Thats not to say that if you are making $100k a month in profit and your rent is $100 and goes to $200 you have to lay someone off. Im talking in general normal terms because market rent is a reflection of local sq/footage and in most cases doubling of rent would severely cripple a local business.

[.blank cd]

2) The fact you compare "getting taxes back" to a business having to "pay more in taxes" is crude, laughable, and just distorted.I didnt, at all really. You were just talking about doing taxes and spending and saving so I went with that.


3) businesses operate along 2 curves, the SRAC and LRAC curves. Costs are divided into 2 categories , can you name them? Explicit and implicit.whats the point?


4) A dollar that increases cost, is a dollar that cannot be invested unless that cost is related to investment. Meaning, you like to act like a businesses PROFIT is some guy with a ferrari shitting on poor people. Its not. MOST businesses REINVEST and expand as they gain more in profit. That leads to hiring. that leads to growth. That leads to more tax revenues.Facepalm. I've never acted like business profit is some some guy with a Ferrari shitting on poor people. Ever.


In short, when a business is TAXED, it passes that cost ONTO the consumer, it NEVER absorbs it because it CANNOT. A business is designed to run FOR PROFIT. They dont just ABSORB costs and say "oh well we will just pay an extra 1 million in taxes this year no big deal, thats 12 less yachts for us". It doesnt work that way. It may work like that for .00000001% of some businesses out there, but not the majority. Not even closeNever say never.


IF i came into your business and tol you that your rent is now DOUBLE what it was last month, you would have 2 choices: A) shed costs (layoffs, materials) B) close up shop. If your answer is C) just pay that added rent and not change anything, that points more to the ineptitude of you running a business vs my knowledge of economics :)I guess then I'm that single outlier who has zero knowledge of economics yet runs a profitable business that can afford to pay his employees more than minimum wage and healthcare it up and not complain about taxes and Obamacare in the process. LOL.


P.S. Thats not to say that if you are making $100k a month in profit and your rent is $100 and goes to $200 you have to lay someone off.
Hmmm. I think you might understand what I'm saying more than you think you do.

[Vteckidd]

ok what type of business do you own.

you cant convince me otherwise, any business owner who gets a COST added to him will pass that cost on, because they have to. Its econ 101. This notion that you operate some business and you can do what others cant is just factually wrong. At some point when your SRAC meet up with your LRAC projections, you WILL have to make a choice. Are you really going to force me to break it down into apples and apples?

Your Cost =X
Your Revenue = Y
Your Profit=y-X=Z

IF, at some point your X=Y you will have no choice, BUT to cut something. benefits, labor, operations, etc.

Youre the business owner, you are the one that took the risk to open a business to employ people. YOU OWN those jobs, not the workers. If your cost rises, you will, at some point in the graph, be forced to make cuts. This is what is happening in Obamacare and you are claiming "oh they are circumventing the law"

LOL for someone who claims to be scientific, you should know this isnt even a debate. Years of economics back this up, i can post charts if you wish.

Im sure youll try to say something about how noble you are and you would refuse to pay your rent so someone can stay employed, but thats just not factually true. Your responsbility is to run your business as a profit, if you do that, job layoffs are not a problem. If your profit gets encroached upon, you make cuts in areas to absorb that cost or you raise prices or you do both.

[.blank cd]

ok what type of business do you own.Childcare.


This notion that you operate some business and you can do what others cant is just factually wrong.My business model Isn't new or novel at all. Some go down a different path, but there are some big name companies who follow a similar model.


At some point when your SRAC meet up with your LRAC projections, you WILL have to make a choice. Are you really going to force me to break it down into apples and apples?

Your Cost =X
Your Revenue = Y
Your Profit=y-X=Z

IF, at some point your X=Y you will have no choice, BUT to cut something. benefits, labor, operations, etc.If my X = my Y, I don't have to shift the costs to the customers. I go get more Y by getting more clients, offering more services, whatever. A lot of companies seem to be doing the opposite. Instead of offering more services, or a better product, they just increase the cost on the same product or service. Inflating the market value. All of this helps me in the long term by not inflating the market price of my service. Now I can clear a profit by having the lowest cost to the consumer.

Another problem is greed. And before you say "greed doesn't exist blah blah blah", stop. Greed exists, we're all greedy to some extent, some more than others. Like you mentioned before, some absorb costs that are comparatively small to their profits, like your example of someone clearing 100k a month in profit absorbing a $100 increase in rent like its no big deal. So why then is it a big deal to absorb 100k in healthcare costs to someone who clears millions of dollars in profits? Everyone wants to invest in a quick short term gain, no one it seems can handle the long term. No one wants to invest in any kind of long term stability if it means coming off some of their profits.

I could charge $20/hr for the services we provide. And we could probably clean up pretty quick and get out before the market for it collapses. But I don't. I can charge a percentage of that and undercut the market, get more long term clients and still make about the same in profit over a long term.



Im sure youll try to say something about how noble you are and you would refuse to pay your rent so someone can stay employed, but thats just not factually true. Your responsbility is to run your business as a profit, if you do that, job layoffs are not a problem. If your profit gets encroached upon, you make cuts in areas to absorb that cost or you raise prices or you do both.It doesn't have anything to do with how noble I am. I know how to use capitalism to my advantage and benefit everyone in the process. My responsibility is to run my business as effectively as I can. When my costs go up, I simply do what any business person should be doing in the first place, offering a better/extra service/product.

I'm not the only one who practices this method. There are quite a few millionaires and business owners out there who think the same way, they're just getting tuned out by the echo chamber because the hivemind thinks its "socialism". Lol.

[Vteckidd]

If my X = my Y, I don't have to shift the costs to the customers. I go get more Y by getting more clients, offering more services, whatever.

this is all i needed to see. You dont know how business works.

You cannot expand without hiring. So now business are magic entities that just "go out and get more profit" like its grown in the back yard. LOL funny

So if you operate at $10,000 in revenue a month to break even, and now your costs go to $15,000 a month, you have to make that up. Right now you are operating at a -$5000 hole.

You are at capacity, so you must hire more resources. Problem is that costs investment aka money. Labor doesnt grow on trees. You cannot take on more work without expansion. A prudent business owner would figure out how to become more efficient and capitalize on the labor you have to see if they can make a difference. But at those numbers you cannot. You will have to lay people off, or cut costs.

Or you are arguing that you are cool with overworking and underpaying your labor force in order for you to make up the extra revenue. Sounds very anti liberal to me.

Remember you are supposed to operate at max profit already. Meaning you cannot just add more work to your labor force because if you can, you were inefficient to begin with.

[.blank cd]

this is all i needed to see. You dont know how business works.Shit. Fuck me, right? Running a business while keeping people employed with benefits and turning a profit. Must be doing something wrong. LOL


You cannot expand without hiring. So now business are magic entities that just "go out and get more profit" like its grown in the back yard. LOL funnySometimes you can expand without hiring. But no, didnt say profit was grown in the backyard.


So if you operate at $10,000 in revenue a month to break even, and now your costs go to $15,000 a month, you have to make that up. Right now you are operating at a -$5000 hole.

...so you must hire more resources. Problem is that costs investment aka money. Labor doesnt grow on trees. You cannot take on more work without expansion. A prudent business owner would figure out how to become more efficient and capitalize on the labor you have to see if they can make a difference. But at those numbers you cannot. You will have to lay people off, or cut costs.Welcome to the Intro to Deficit Spending 101! There will be a test after this lesson.

This might separate the smart business owners from the SMART business owners.


Or you are arguing that you are cool with overworking and underpaying your labor force in order for you to make up the extra revenue. Sounds very anti liberal to me.Not cool with that at all, but my people get paid more than minimum wage, which is more than the market rate, so I'm not worried about that.

[Vteckidd]

Deficit spending applied to govt , not small business.

You just dont know what you are talking about. You double talk yourself into a corner. Deficit spending to a small business would be a short term loan to meet payroll or something while waiting for business or accounts to be settled, it is NOT for operating at a loss.

ONLY THE GOVT can operate at a loss. No private company can do that.

Seriously, go take a Macro Econ class, you are just making stuff up to fit your logic, which is proven through years of theory and research and examples to be wrong.

AND LOL at smart business owners operate at a loss with deficit spending. Thats the last i needed to read. You really have no idea what you are talking about. I hope you never have to deal with what im talking about, but history isnt on your side. There will come a time you will have to make a choice, and a lightbulb will go off :o)

*unsubscribed

[bu villain]

I'm afraid to get in the middle of this business savvy dick measuring contest but you both seem to be a little rigid in your thinking. You both make valid points. Blank is right that businesses can operate at a loss, a large percentage do when the first start especially. Of course that is not sustainable forever but savings and capital raising can pay bills until profitability can be reached. Vteck is also correct that many companies will choose to reduce workforce as a method of dealing with increased costs. There isn't going to be a single universal response to health care changes by companies. Every company will handle it differently depending on their circumstances. It is pointless to argue as if business is some monolithic entity that will behave as a single company might. These theoretical arguments aren't going anywhere.

[.blank cd]

You just dont know what you are talking about. You double talk yourself into a corner. Deficit spending to a small business would be a short term loan to meet payroll or something while waiting for business or accounts to be settled, it is NOT for operating at a loss.

ONLY THE GOVT can operate at a loss. No private company can do that.Why do you disagree with what I said, and then confirm what I said. Deficit spending. Governments use it, business use it. Period. This is indisputable. Lol.


Seriously, go take a Macro Econ class, you are just making stuff up to fit your logic, which is proven through years of theory and research and examples to be wrong.I've taken macro, I've taken micro. All of it backs up what I'm saying.

To say that only governments use deficit spending is demonstrably false. I would venture to say more than half of all businesses use or have used deficit spending at some point, shit, I'd say 90% unless you have some kind of unlimited capital already. I just don't think you fully understand what it is, or maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm talking about. I feel like you believe the only method to run a successful business is through the profit motive. It works for some, but some of the big ones in the public eye, you see what ends up happening to them.


AND LOL at smart business owners operate at a loss with deficit spending. Thats the last i needed to read. You really have no idea what you are talking about. I hope you never have to deal with what im talking about, but history isnt on your side. There will come a time you will have to make a choice, and a lightbulb will go off :o)Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both "operated at a loss" when they first started. They seemed to do alright. History and facts are both on my side though. So I think I'll do just fine.

But hey, you can still prove me wrong. Just show me that deficit spending isn't used in businesses AT ALL, and I'll concede. Good luck. Lol.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_spending

I particularly like the part that says:

"The term may be applied to the budget of a government, private company, or individual"

LOL.

Anyone else want to debate facts?

[.blank cd]

I'm afraid to get in the middle of this business savvy dick measuring contest but you both seem to be a little rigid in your thinking. You both make valid points. Blank is right that businesses can operate at a loss, a large percentage do when the first start especially. Of course that is not sustainable forever but savings and capital raising can pay bills until profitability can be reached. Vteck is also correct that many companies will choose to reduce workforce as a method of dealing with increased costs. There isn't going to be a single universal response to health care changes by companies. Every company will handle it differently depending on their circumstances. It is pointless to argue as if business is some monolithic entity that will behave as a single company might. These theoretical arguments aren't going anywhere.

Yeah. I didn't say companies didnt reduce workforce to cover increased costs. I'm just saying there are other ways of doing it. And I'm saying deficit spending is one of those ways, Vteckidd, it seems to me, is suggesting that only governments use deficit spending, and that's far from accurate.

[bu villain]

Agreed. I don't understand why he said private companies don't use deficit spending because in other statements he seems to acknowledge that they do. Facebook operated at a loss for years. I think they just started turning a profit recently. My point is, you all seem to be trying very hard to find flaws in each others details, insulting each other along the way, and the discussion is getting further and further away from the original topic.

[.blank cd]

Agreed. I don't understand why he said private companies don't use deficit spending because in other statements he seems to acknowledge that they do. Facebook operated at a loss for years. I think they just started turning a profit recently. My point is, you all seem to be trying very hard to find flaws in each others details, insulting each other along the way, and the discussion is getting further and further away from the original topic.I would say most businesses operated at some degree of loss unless you already had a great deal of capital to start.

I'm not trying to insult anyone. Maybe I'm misunderstanding him, but I'm not trying to pretend like the principles of economics cease exist because I'm not a vulture capitalist. Lol. I operate well outside of the profit motive system, and a lot of other companies do too. That's just how it is sometimes. Lol

[Vteckidd]

They don't operate at deficit spending in LRAC Jesus you guys don't read what I write at all.

Its OK only see what you want to see.

[Vteckidd]

Go to any bank and tell them your business plan is to run at a deficit. They will laugh you out of the building.

You are not seeing my point. This is what you do though when we get in technical debates. You pick out info to prove a point I was never arguing then say something like "because facts"

Or you respond with stuff like "so what" or "your point being ?"

Businesses cannot operate longterm at a loss. Deficit spending doesn't solve your increase in srac or lrac curves.

Therefore no private business can operate with deficit spending

[Vteckidd]

Profit is what businesses run on, not credit. No sustainable business model operates on credit only. Period.

[.blank cd]

Profit is what businesses run on, not credit. No sustainable business model operates on credit only. Period.

Revenue. Revenue is what businesses run on

[.blank cd]

Go to any bank and tell them your business plan is to run at a deficit. They will laugh you out of the building.A business loan is pretty much deficit spending. I don't even have to get it from a bank

If I get 100 more clients and I need to pay 10 employees before I see the revenue from those extra clients, I can dip into profits I've already made, I can dip into my savings account, or I can get a bank loan to cover the expenses. Deficit spending.


Businesses cannot operate longterm at a loss. Deficit spending doesn't solve your increase in srac or lrac curves.Who said anything about long term?


Therefore no private business can operate with deficit spendingNow you've confused me. Why are businesses operating with deficit spending, despite you saying they don't?

[David88vert]

I am laughing in this thread. I actually have created and run profitable small businesses, for many years. I also have worked in both mid-size and Fortune 50 companies for years. All employ very different business models. One thing is in common - none stay in business, or attract shareholders, without showing profitability.

If you are operating your small business at a deficit for more than 3 years, the IRS does not consider you a business, but rather a hobby.
Business or Hobby? Answer Has Implications for Deductions (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Business-or-Hobby%3F-Answer-Has-Implications-for-Deductions)

Now, there are some ways that you can get around it, but that generally means that you have an asset that is depreciating at a faster rate than the revenue that you are bringing in. The IRS does not consider normal daily operations to be in the same category as a depreciating asset.

Now, in the case of FB and Amazon, they had high revenue and a substantial number of employees, and they could show gradual reduction of deficit spending with a realistic profit motive. Additionally, they could prove that they had no other source of income, and had venture capitalists backing the corporation. They were/are in a different class than a small business entity.

[.blank cd]

"The concept of deficit spending in economics is not limited to government use. Businesses of all sizes may choose to spend more money up front in hopes of generating funds to pay off the investment at a later date. For example, a manufacturer may choose to purchase new machinery for a factory, with the understanding that the newer equipment will allow the business to produce more units of goods in less time, and possibly at a lower unit cost. Over time, the benefits derived from this strategy pay off the accumulated debt and allow the business owners to enjoy a budget surplus rather than a budget deficit."

wisegeek.org/what-is-deficit-financing.htm

[Sinfix_15]

Blank lives in a fantasy world. Everyone should be aware of this by now.

[.blank cd]

Blank lives in a fantasy world. Everyone should be aware of this by now.

Thank you for this uneducated filler post. We needed that.

[.blank cd]

I am laughing in this thread. I actually have created and run profitable small businesses, for many years. I also have worked in both mid-size and Fortune 50 companies for years. All employ very different business models. One thing is in common - none stay in business, or attract shareholders, without showing profitability.

If you are operating your small business at a deficit for more than 3 years, the IRS does not consider you a business, but rather a hobby.
Business or Hobby? Answer Has Implications for Deductions (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Business-or-Hobby%3F-Answer-Has-Implications-for-Deductions)

Who said anything about long term deficit spending?

[David88vert]

Who said anything about long term deficit spending?

Why bring it up if you are only talking about short term?
Business models tend to be long term, not short term.

[.blank cd]

I was addressing a point about me expanding so I could increase my bottom line, not that my business model was long term deficit spending.

[.blank cd]

I said if I was only breaking even because of increased business costs, instead of raising my costs, I'd go increase my revenue. Get more clients, hire more employees. If I have to spend more than I'm making so I can get more revenue at the end, that would be deficit spending. The End.

[Sinfix_15]

I said if I was only breaking even because of increased business costs, instead of raising my costs, I'd go increase my revenue. Get more clients, hire more employees. If I have to spend more than I'm making so I can get more revenue at the end, that would be deficit spending. The End.

And if i go to my bank and say

" i have a brilliant idea and need a loan, i want to sell AC temperature units with mercury in them. I need $10,000 to produce 100 units that i plan to sell for $5 a piece"

What should i be told?

[David88vert]

I said if I was only breaking even because of increased business costs, instead of raising my costs, I'd go increase my revenue. Get more clients, hire more employees. If I have to spend more than I'm making so I can get more revenue at the end, that would be deficit spending. The End.

Risk management would say that is more risky than passing the added cost onto customers.

[Echonova]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x249/Echonova1/941270_373681126082097_1001051914_n_zpscf2c69cb.jp g

[.blank cd]

And if i go to my bank and say

" i have a brilliant idea and need a loan, i want to sell AC temperature units with mercury in them. I need $10,000 to produce 100 units that i plan to sell for $5 a piece"

What should i be told?

You should be laughed out of the bank

[Sinfix_15]

You should be laughed out of the bank

I agree....... now lets apply that logic to Obama's economic policy and "laugh him out of the bank"

[.blank cd]

Risk management would say that is more risky than passing the added cost onto customers.

Business people love to take risks. I thought that was the ethos.

Maybe in some cases. But, if you look to the demand curve, what tends to happen if you increase prices?

[.blank cd]

I agree....... not lets apply that logic to Obama's economic policy and "laugh him out of the bank"

You're certain he's trying to get a 10k loan to produce 100 units for $5?

How do you think this translates to the real world?

[Sinfix_15]

You're certain he's trying to get a 10k loan to produce 100 units for $5?

How do you think this translates to the real world?


Because none of the policies are cost effective..... nothing is paid for..........programs that do nothing but lose money are ok............. In Obama's mind, spending 10k to provide 100 people with $5 worth of care if an accomplishment.

[David88vert]

Business people love to take risks. I thought that was the ethos.

Maybe in some cases. But, if you look to the demand curve, what tends to happen if you increase prices?

Risk management is not just taking risks.

As price goes up, generally, demand goes down; however, if the price of the same item goes up universally the same amount, and there are no other options, people typically feel that they have to pay the increased price, or go without. Some items are very difficult to go without.
When you have a system-wide increase in prices, then people generally just have to pay it, and have no recourse to get around it.

[Vteckidd]

I said if I was only breaking even because of increased business costs, instead of raising my costs, I'd go increase my revenue. Get more clients, hire more employees. If I have to spend more than I'm making so I can get more revenue at the end, that would be deficit spending. The End.

:facepalm:

Lets say you watch 10 children a month, with 10 employees, $10,000 a month. You are at capacity. IE each child needs 1 employee. You are operating at a profit, paying all salaries, rent, implicit and explicit costs, etc.

Now, Obamacare comes a long and says "you now have to provide your 10 employees healthcare" at a cost of $2000 a month. you will be now -$2000 in the hole.

You have 2 choices
A) Increase the cost PER CHILD to your customer to make up the difference which can make you uncompetitive
B) Shed costs which means you lay 2 employees off and go down to 8 kids / 8 employees. Or you tell your employees they now have to do the work of 2 employees to stay employed (overworked and underpaid)

Now, your say you would do option C) Hire more employees to to more work and take on more revenue. But you are already -$2000 in the hole. Hiring costs even more money. And who is to say you can get more clients? What if your facility is too small? WHat if you would need a bigger building? What if you need more supplies to watch the kids?

The whole point is that expansion requires profit for investment. It is foolish to be losing money and to combat that and say "ill just go hire more people to make up for my added costs".

Case in point, Far far far better and smarter CEOs operating billion dollar companies, ARENT doing what you are suggesting, they are doing what IM suggesting. Shedding jobs and working within the confines of the law.

That is the telling tale that you are wrong. Sorry man

[Vteckidd]

Oh and the economy works by giving business money to invest, not taking money from them and telling them to hire.

[bu villain]

if healthcare wasn't coupled to employment, we wouldn't need business to pay anything for healthcare and they could focus on their business instead. I'm okay with single payer or a more market based solution but this tie of healthcare to your employer really bothers me.

[Vteckidd]

if healthcare wasn't coupled to employment, we wouldn't need business to pay anything for healthcare and they could focus on their business instead. I'm okay with single payer or a more market based solution but this tie of healthcare to your employer really bothers me.

substitute any tax or cost for Obamacare. Its not just Obamacare that is the problem. In the end, the companies are private entities, they own the labor, the jobs, the operating structure. They reserve the right to just go out of business.

[David88vert]

if healthcare wasn't coupled to employment, we wouldn't need business to pay anything for healthcare and they could focus on their business instead. I'm okay with single payer or a more market based solution but this tie of healthcare to your employer really bothers me.

Healthcare is not "coupled to employment". Businesses offer healthcare as part of the compensation package, which consist of salary/wage, vacation/sick days, medical/dental benefits , etc.

There are many employers who do not give benefits, only wages.

[Vteckidd]

Obamacare will couple Healthcare to employment going forward. Employers of less than 50 people (i think thats the number) will have to provide healthcare in some form for their full time employees....OR....pay a tax/fine per worker.

You , as an employee will be required to have healthcare, or you will pay a tax/fine

[bu villain]

substitute any tax or cost for Obamacare. Its not just Obamacare that is the problem. In the end, the companies are private entities, they own the labor, the jobs, the operating structure. They reserve the right to just go out of business.

Absolutely. All the more reason we shouldn't have a system that encourages business to provide healthcare.


Healthcare is not "coupled to employment". Businesses offer healthcare as part of the compensation package, which consist of salary/wage, vacation/sick days, medical/dental benefits , etc.

There are many employers who do not give benefits, only wages.

You are correct that not all business offer healthcare but it is one of the most common sources of how people are insured. I am suggesting we need to remove the incentive for employers to offer healthcare coverage because it is an inefficient solution.

[bu villain]

Obamacare will couple Healthcare to employment going forward. Employers of less than 50 people (i think thats the number) will have to provide healthcare in some form for their full time employees....OR....pay a tax/fine per worker.

You , as an employee will be required to have healthcare, or you will pay a tax/fine

True, but it also sets up insurance exchanges that could help to decouple insurance from employment. We will have to see how it turns out in time.

[David88vert]

You are correct that not all business offer healthcare but it is one of the most common sources of how people are insured. I am suggesting we need to remove the incentive for employers to offer healthcare coverage because it is an inefficient solution.

Since employer-provided healthcare insurance is currently considered compensation, if you remove it from being employer-provided, you are lowering employee compensation, as the employers will not be paying out for the insurance plan, and will be paying an additional tax instead. Since the employee is not receiving this compensation directly, their paycheck will stay the same; however, their benefits of health insurance will be limited to what the government decides to give them - they will not be given the equivalent compensation in salary to purchase their own insurance.

You claim that employer-provided health insurance is an inefficient solution; however, facts do not bear this statement out as truth. Government-managed Medicare/Medicaid is hardly a prime example of efficiency, and is known to be less efficient than private insurance. You will need to use a different argument, not efficiency.

[David88vert]

True, but it also sets up insurance exchanges that could help to decouple insurance from employment. We will have to see how it turns out in time.

Private companies already have had the concept of "insurance exchanges" for years - its called competition between private insurance providers.

If you just want to decouple medical insurance from being provided by employers you could have passed a law declaring it to not be allowed as a compensation benefit. Have the employers pay the same amount that they pay for the insurance benefits to the employees, and let the employees purchase their own insurance, just like their groceries and housing.

The Democratic Party would love to change that as well. Just give them more of your paycheck (most of it), and they will give you bread and water, and government housing....

[bu villain]

Since employer-provided healthcare insurance is currently considered compensation, if you remove it from being employer-provided, you are lowering employee compensation, as the employers will not be paying out for the insurance plan, and will be paying an additional tax instead. Since the employee is not receiving this compensation directly, their paycheck will stay the same; however, their benefits of health insurance will be limited to what the government decides to give them - they will not be given the equivalent compensation in salary to purchase their own insurance.

If a company provides less compensation in the form of health benefits, why would that money not be applied to other forms of compensation (e.g., salaries)? In other words, why would a company care whether they provide a salary of $100k instead of $90k + $10k health? The cost is the same in the end.


You claim that employer-provided health insurance is an inefficient solution; however, facts do not bear this statement out as truth. Government-managed Medicare/Medicaid is hardly a prime example of efficiency, and is known to be less efficient than private insurance. You will need to use a different argument, not efficiency.

How about comparing a private market solution that doesn't go through an employer vs our current system? I wasn't implying we needed to have everyone on medicare/medicaid. That being said I still believe a single payer system could be more efficient although clearly the current government system needs a lot of work.


Private companies already have had the concept of "insurance exchanges" for years - its called competition between private insurance providers.

If you just want to decouple medical insurance from being provided by employers you could have passed a law declaring it to not be allowed as a compensation benefit. Have the employers pay the same amount that they pay for the insurance benefits to the employees, and let the employees purchase their own insurance, just like their groceries and housing.

The Democratic Party would love to change that as well. Just give them more of your paycheck (most of it), and they will give you bread and water, and government housing....

The question is why do companies feel the need to offer health insurance as a benefit at all? The reason is that they can use their size to negotiate better rates with an insurance company that an individual could. While this makes sense, in a modern economy where changing jobs and flexibility is becoming more common, getting rid of barriers to make such changes would be beneficial.

[David88vert]

If a company provides less compensation in the form of health benefits, why would that money not be applied to other forms of compensation (e.g., salaries)? In other words, why would a company care whether they provide a salary of $100k instead of $90k + $10k health? The cost is the same in the end.

It won't happen in reality. In the real world, companies don't tell you how much they pay towards your insurance premiums, and all you see is what you pay out of your check towards it. Companies are not going to magically add it into your paycheck. With Obamacare, they will just claim that they are paying it in taxes to the government for your healthcare. I guarantee that no large company is going to give any of the premiums that they pay out to their employees. It won't happen, as it is an elective, not mandatory benefit.




How about comparing a private market solution that doesn't go through an employer vs our current system? I wasn't implying we needed to have everyone on medicare/medicaid. That being said I still believe a single payer system could be more efficient although clearly the current government system needs a lot of work.

Single payer IS government managed. You cannot have a single payer private solution that is not - that would be a monopoly, and as you should be already aware, those never work in favor of the consumer/citizens if they are not government managed.




The question is why do companies feel the need to offer health insurance as a benefit at all? The reason is that they can use their size to negotiate better rates with an insurance company that an individual could. While this makes sense, in a modern economy where changing jobs and flexibility is becoming more common, getting rid of barriers to make such changes would be beneficial.

Companies offer health benefits for two main reasons - to attract employees and to keep employees. It's that simple. It is in the employers best interest to attract the best employees and to retain them. It's the same as paid vacation/sick days, life/dental/medical insurance, pension, 401K's, etc - these are benefits offered by the employer as part of a compensation package. Traditionally, they have not been required to offer benefits like health insurance.

Why get rid of them? That should be up to the private employers who are giving them as compensation packages to attract employees that they deem valuable to their business. Regulation of compensation provided by employers is a start down a dangerous path. What's next, government controlled and mandated salary caps? How is it the government's role to determine what a private company can choose to pay an employee?

[BanginJimmy]

How about comparing a private market solution that doesn't go through an employer vs our current system?

No way to compare them. People would be absolutely shell shocked to see what their insurance actually costs compared to the percentage they pay through their employer.

There is no way for a private individual to negotiate rates based on diversified risk. When your employer negotiates with an insurer, they can get a lower overall rate because individual risk is spread over a large pool of participants.



That being said I still believe a single payer system could be more efficient although clearly the current government system needs a lot of work.

Of course it COULD be, and in all honesty, it should be. The issue is that in real life it wont be. Our govt has proven that it can do absolutely nothing in a smart or efficient way. Under govt control, health care will go from 17% of GDP to 25% in 5 years and top 30% in 10 years. You can bank on that.

[.blank cd]

[citation needed]

[David88vert]

[citation needed]

In 2011, the Fraser Institute, the top think-tank in Canada, released a report concerning Canada's single-payer healthcare system. According to their study, it is spending at an unsustainable rate. Obama repeatedly lauded the Canadian system as a model for the US when he was running for re-election.
Report: Canadian health care spending unsustainable | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/24/report-canadian-health-care-spending-unsustainable/)

And more:
Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada is the Institute's annual report on hospital waiting times in Canada, based on a nationwide survey of physicians and health care practitioners. The twentieth annual survey, released December 2010, found that the total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and delivery of elective treatment by a specialist, averaged across 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, had risen from 16.1 weeks in 2009 to 18.2 weeks in 2010.

[Sinfix_15]

"spending at an unsustainable rate"......

of course it got Obama's attention..... that's right up his alley.

[B18c1Turboed]

I find it funny everyone blames Obama only. Maybe everyone
Should look at who is in congress and the house that passed this garbage.
My wife works for a big health insurance company here in GA and some of the
Laws she is telling me about scares me. How is the government going to
Force me to have insurance? If not fine me. I think Obama is an idiot because
He don't realize how many people have lost their jobs. How many insurance
Companies have closed up shop due to his new laws.

I'm just blessed my wife high up the ladder and she is helping set up these
Exchanges that are required by federal government now. I think GA should do what SC did
And make it against the law to follow Obama care.

[.blank cd]

I find it funny everyone blames Obama only. Maybe everyone
Should look at who is in congress and the house that passed this garbage.I wouldn't expect the lot of them opposing Obamacare to actually take the time to understand what it really is and to take both the positives and negatives into account and come to a rational decision as long as it has "Obama" on it, regardless of who passed it or what it does. At this point, even if it cured cancer, solved world peace, and gave everyone a lifetime supply of free pink cotton candy, some of them will have a reason to vehemently oppose it. IMO.


My wife works for a big health insurance company here in GA and some of the
Laws she is telling me about scares me. How is the government going to
Force me to have insurance? If not fine me. I think Obama is an idiot because
He don't realize how many people have lost their jobs. How many insurance
Companies have closed up shop due to his new laws.We are, in fact, one of the only countries in the world that ISNT forced to have some kind of health care plan yet. And given our political and financial power in the world, I think it's about time. Personally, I think health insurance firms should be a faded memory at this point. But as of right now, they're like a cancer that's almost impossible to get rid of. It'll probably have to collapse under its own weight before we see any real change.


I'm just blessed my wife high up the ladder and she is helping set up these
Exchanges that are required by federal government now. I think GA should do what SC did
And make it against the law to follow Obama care.Funny, SC, I believe, ended up socializing the no-insurance penalty. So in the fight against socialized healthcare, we end up getting socialized healthcare. LOL.

[.blank cd]

In 2011, the Fraser Institute, the top think-tank in Canada, released a report concerning Canada's single-payer healthcare system. According to their study, it is spending at an unsustainable rate. Obama repeatedly lauded the Canadian system as a model for the US when he was running for re-election.
Report: Canadian health care spending unsustainable | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/24/report-canadian-health-care-spending-unsustainable/)

And more:
Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada is the Institute's annual report on hospital waiting times in Canada, based on a nationwide survey of physicians and health care practitioners. The twentieth annual survey, released December 2010, found that the total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and delivery of elective treatment by a specialist, averaged across 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, had risen from 16.1 weeks in 2009 to 18.2 weeks in 2010.

Obamas response:

“I’ve said that the Canadian model works for Canada,” he said. “It would not work for the United States, in part simply because we’ve evolved differently,” he said. “So, we’ve got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem.”

When I used to build houses with my dad, whether we were building small single family homes, additions, or million dollar mansions, the framework was the same, and they all had concrete foundations.

And I'm gonna need more than a conservative think tank report on universal healthcare in Canada. Surely, for accuracies sake, it was peer reviewed.

[Vteckidd]

Its not solely Obamas fault, but he signed it into law and continues to lie about what its doing . premiums are rising and people are being laid off or having their hours cut over it. Those are the facts.

[.blank cd]

Its not solely Obamas fault, but he signed it into law and continues to lie about what its doing . premiums are rising and people are being laid off or having their hours cut over it. Those are the facts.

Pretty sure no one drafted or signed a law that said businesses should lay off people or cut their hours, but I haven't read EVERY bill. LOL.

[David88vert]

Obamas response:

“I’ve said that the Canadian model works for Canada,” he said. “It would not work for the United States, in part simply because we’ve evolved differently,” he said. “So, we’ve got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem.”

When I used to build houses with my dad, whether we were building small single family homes, additions, or million dollar mansions, the framework was the same, and they all had concrete foundations.

And I'm gonna need more than a conservative think tank report on universal healthcare in Canada. Surely, for accuracies sake, it was peer reviewed.

That think tank is ranked #1 out of 97 in Canada, and is recognized by Forbes as libertarian. In fact, they receive donations from Koch Industries (US Democratic party affiliated Koch). Conservatives like to call the Fraser Institute "liberal", and Liberals like to call it "conservative". You dismiss it because you don't like the facts that they report.

"In 2011, the Fraser Institute was ranked No. 1 among 97 think-tanks in Canada, for the fourth year in a row, in the University of Pennsylvania's Global Go-To Think-Tank Index, a global survey of more than 1,500 scholars, policy makers, and journalists. The report also named the Fraser Institute as the only Canadian organization in the Top 30 leading think-tanks in the world in 2011, out of a global group of 6,545 think-tanks."

You believe that you know more about the Canadian healthcare system than the collective at the top Canadian think tank? You really believe that you are open-minded and educated? You are out of touch with reality and intellectuals.

You believe that there is only one way to build a house? You must not know how they build them out of other materials like poured concrete then.

[David88vert]

Pretty sure no one drafted or signed a law that said businesses should lay off people or cut their hours, but I haven't read EVERY bill. LOL.

You believe that there are no repercussions when bills are passed? Here's a revelation for you - money doesn't grow on trees and doesn't appear out of thin air.

[.blank cd]

That think tank is ranked #1 out of 97 in Canada, and is recognized by Forbes as libertarian. In fact, they receive donations from Koch Industries (US Democratic party affiliated Koch).Conservatives like to call the Fraser Institute "liberal", and Liberals like to call it "conservative".Thats pretty much all I needed to know right there. This isn't a biased study at all. LMAO.


You dismiss it because you don't like the facts that they report.Havent dismissed it at all. I'm just saying, if its accurate, and if its worth its weight in salt, then its been peer reviewed, that means that there are other studies out there that say the same thing, ones that aren't so influenced by lobbyists.


You believe that you know more about the Canadian healthcare system than the collective at the top Canadian think tank? You really believe that you are open-minded and educated? You are out of touch with reality and intellectuals.How certain are you of what I know? And my knowledge of the Canadian healthcare system isn't in question anyway and has nothing to do with anything. So, nice ad hominem. Lol.


You believe that there is only one way to build a house? You must not know how they build them out of other materials like poured concrete then.I guess now you're going to tell me, someone who's father has been a professional contractor longer than you've been alive, how houses are built?

I'm all ears. LMAO.

[David88vert]

Thats pretty much all I needed to know right there. This isn't a biased study at all. LMAO.

Koch didn't fund that particular study. I just mentioned them to show you that they are not conservative as you claimed. You really have no clue and are just trying to deny facts.


Havent dismissed it at all. I'm just saying, if its accurate, and if its worth its weight in salt, then its been peer reviewed, that means that there are other studies out there that say the same thing, ones that aren't so influenced by lobbyists.


You don't seem to understand how peer reviews are used. You just throw out terms without the knowledge of how they are used in reality.


How certain are you of what I know? And my knowledge of the Canadian healthcare system isn't in question anyway and has nothing to do with anything. So, nice ad hominem. Lol.


You are quick to dismiss the top Canadian think tank and you put forth your own opinions, yet you think that your knowledge shouldn't be questioned?


I guess now you're going to tell me, someone who's father has been a professional contractor longer than you've been alive, how houses are built?

I'm all ears. LMAO.

Like I said, if you think that all houses are built the same way, you have a very limited amount of knowledge. In this area, we generally see a foundation and frame, based upon out building codes. That is not the same everywhere. You apparently are not aware that there are many home built using poured concrete using aluminum forms, and that the largest source for these forms in the US happens to be in Chamblee. In Miami, the building codes are very different from here, and they do more CBS construction. Ask your father about it.

You're not as intelligent as you think you are.

[.blank cd]

Koch didn't fund that particular study. I just mentioned them to show you that they are not conservative as you claimed. You really have no clue and are just trying to deny facts.Koch-funded think-tank not as conservative as I claimed huh? LOL. That's got to be the funniest thing you've ever posted. I literally got a guttural chuckle from that.

Lets go ahead and headshot this one before I go to lunch...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries

"Koch Industries has spent more than $50 million to lobby in Washington between 2006 and October 2011, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[38]

The company has opposed the regulation of financial derivatives and limits on greenhouse gases.[38] It sponsors free market foundations and causes.[52][53]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

"The Koch brothers contribute a large amount of money to conservative, libertarian, and free-market individuals and organizations.[1] They have given more than $196 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations.[1] Tax records indicate that, in 2008, the three main Koch family foundations contributed to 34 political and policy organizations, three of which they founded, and several of which they direct.[1][2]"

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8s4m9TcyC1rdnvozo1_100.gif



You don't seem to understand how peer reviews are used. You just throw out terms without the knowledge of how they are used in reality.I fully understand how peer reviews are used.




You are quick to dismiss the top Canadian think tank and you put forth your own opinions, yet you think that your knowledge shouldn't be questioned?What opinion?




Like I said, if you think that all houses are built the same way, you have a very limited amount of knowledge. In this area, we generally see a foundation and frame, based upon out building codes. That is not the same everywhere. You apparently are not aware that there are many home built using poured concrete using aluminum forms, and that the largest source for these forms in the US happens to be in Chamblee. In Miami, the building codes are very different from here, and they do more CBS construction. Ask your father about it.

You're not as intelligent as you think you are.I know exactly how houses are built. You don't have to worry about that, and its safe for you to assume I know A LOT more about architecture than you. LOL.

[Vteckidd]

Pretty sure no one drafted or signed a law that said businesses should lay off people or cut their hours, but I haven't read EVERY bill. LOL.

Despite the warnings, the outrage over the bill and what it would do, Congress and the Prez didnt listen.

Now , its happening and you want to whine about it. Its their jobs to cut, not yours, or the GOVT. Contrary to popular belief the president IS RESPONSIBLE for the Economy.

[Vteckidd]

I kinda laugh when you start talking about scientific research and peer reviews, yet when i spent 4 pages on sound economic science and charts and motives you dismissed it all because its not your opinion.

Increasingly i think you A) like to troll B) have no real way to argue your point C) refuse to see anyone elses point of view.

I like you , but arguing with you is becoming like beating a head against a wall and less and less entertaining

[David88vert]

Koch-funded think-tank not as conservative as I claimed huh? LOL. That's got to be the funniest thing you've ever posted. I literally got a guttural chuckle from that.

Lets go ahead and headshot this one before I go to lunch...

Koch Industries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries)

"Koch Industries has spent more than $50 million to lobby in Washington between 2006 and October 2011, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[38]

The company has opposed the regulation of financial derivatives and limits on greenhouse gases.[38] It sponsors free market foundations and causes.[52][53]"

Political activities of the Koch brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers)

"The Koch brothers contribute a large amount of money to conservative, libertarian, and free-market individuals and organizations.[1] They have given more than $196 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations.[1] Tax records indicate that, in 2008, the three main Koch family foundations contributed to 34 political and policy organizations, three of which they founded, and several of which they direct.[1][2]"

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8s4m9TcyC1rdnvozo1_100.gif


I fully understand how peer reviews are used.



What opinion?



I know exactly how houses are built. You don't have to worry about that, and its safe for you to assume I know A LOT more about architecture than you. LOL.

Koch Industries is one of many small donators to Fraser, and liberals even say it is a tiny amount:
Sunshine Listing the Fraser Institute | Ottawa Citizen (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/04/04/sunshine-listing-the-fraser-institute/)

You want to dismiss a factual report on the Canadian healthcare system from the top Canadian think tank due to them taking a donation from a business that you don't like, and you think you are educated? LOL

How often do you participate in peer reviews? Do you do them before or after you publish your documentation/public report?
If you knew about them, you wouldn't have made your earlier comment.

Are you claiming now that you have no opinion, and that you have not repeatedly shared it on this board?

You always claim that you know more than me about everything, but we have already seen that your statement is false in every other category, so why would we believe you now?
You have no idea what I know about architecture, residential or commercial construction, or any other subject. Your ignorant statement that "you know more" is baseless, and shows your true level of intelligence.

[David88vert]

Contrary to popular belief the president IS RESPONSIBLE for the Economy.

I disagree. The President does not have the power, and thus, does not have the responsibility, to control the economy. We do not want him to either.

[Vteckidd]

I disagree. The President does not have the power, and thus, does not have the responsibility, to control the economy. We do not want him to either.

It was a baited question. Since we can act like Bush was to blame for his 8 years, why cant Obama be responsible for his?

Thanks for ruining my trap :P

[David88vert]

It was a baited question. Since we can act like Bush was to blame for his 8 years, why cant Obama be responsible for his?

Thanks for ruining my trap :P

Sorry, just being honest and objective.

[.blank cd]

I kinda laugh when you start talking about scientific research and peer reviews, yet when i spent 4 pages on sound economic science and charts and motives you dismissed it all because its not your opinion.I don't remember dismissing anything that wasnt facts, don't remember stating an opinion either.

[.blank cd]

Koch Industries is one of many small donators to Fraser, and liberals even say it is a tiny amount:
Sunshine Listing the Fraser Institute | Ottawa Citizen (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/04/04/sunshine-listing-the-fraser-institute/)

You want to dismiss a factual report on the Canadian healthcare system from the top Canadian think tank due to them taking a donation from a business that you don't like, and you think you are educated? LOLMight need some new bearings. I can hear you backpedaling from here. LMAO.

Like I said, I haven't dismissed it, I just would like to see someone else back up an opinion that goes against mainstream research. That's all.

[David88vert]

Might need some new bearings. I can hear you backpedaling from here. LMAO.

Like I said, I haven't dismissed it, I just would like to see someone else back up an opinion that goes against mainstream research. That's all.

Not backpedalling here. That is how I found that Koch was even a donator. They have given 500K to them, which is small compared to their almost $11 million in annual revenue.

Fraser Institute is the highest rated think tank in Canada - and they are considered mainstream in the US, UK, and Canada. They are the only Canadian organization in the Top 30 leading think-tanks in the world in 2011, out of a global group of 6,545 think-tanks. What other think tank's opinion would mean more to you?

[.blank cd]

Not backpedalling here. That is how I found that Koch was even a donator. They have given 500K to them, which is small compared to their almost $11 million in annual revenue.The donation amount is inconsequential. Koch Industries is in fact a donor and a lobbyist and they aren't "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination


Fraser Institute is the highest rated think tank in Canada - and they are considered mainstream in the US, UK, and Canada. They are the only Canadian organization in the Top 30 leading think-tanks in the world in 2011, out of a global group of 6,545 think-tanks. What other think tank's opinion would mean more to you?I don't want an opinion at all. I want a fact. And I certainly don't want an opinion financed by lobbyists.

[Vteckidd]

Only think progress.com will do I guess.

[.blank cd]

Only think progress.com will do I guess.

Get it from wherever you want, I could care less. I didn't even attack the daily caller so I don't even understand why you brought up TP. But don't try to pretend a report, that supports an overtly conservative idea, financed by a very conservative lobbyist, is liberal. I can't even comprehend the mental gymnastics it takes to believe something like that. You guys are smarter than that.

[David88vert]

The donation amount is inconsequential. Koch Industries is in fact a donor and a lobbyist and they aren't "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination

I don't want an opinion at all. I want a fact. And I certainly don't want an opinion financed by lobbyists.

Total provincial health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 7.5%
over the last ten years, compared to only 5.7% for total available provincial
revenue (including federal transfers) and only 5.2% for GDP.

• Across Canada, government spending on health has grown faster (8.1%
annually) on average than GDP (6.7% annually) since 1975. Government
health expenditures accounted for 8.4% of GDP in 2009 compared to only
5.4% of GDP in 1975.

• As of 2011, provincial health spending in Ontario and Quebec currently
consumes more than 50% of total revenues.

• Projections of the most recent ten-year trend show that in Saskatchewan,
Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick government health spending
is on pace to consume 50% of revenues by 2017. In Manitoba and Prince
Edward Island, health spending will reach 50% of total available revenues
by 2028.

• Excluding federal transfers, health spending currently consumes 87.7%
of total available provincial own-source revenue in Nova Scotia, 74.2% in
New Brunswick, 71.9% in Quebec, 65.5% in Prince Edward Island, 63.1% in
Ontario, 62.8% in Manitoba, 60.3% in Newfoundland & Labrador, 55.2% in
Saskatchewan, 54.6% in British Columbia, and 48.0% in Alberta.

• Provincial governments have increased taxes to fund health care. In 2004,
Ontario introduced an income surtax, which the province mislabeled
a “health premium.” In 2010, the province of Quebec introduced a new
health tax called the “health contribution.” Like Ontario’s “health premium,”
Quebec’s “health contribution” is not linked to individual consumption of
medical goods and services; it is in fact an income surtax and will therefore
have no impact on costs because there is no incentive effect on the consumption
choices of health care users.

• Federal transfers have been generous over the period. Between 1997/98 and
2006/07, the federal government provided the provinces with an estimated
$115.7 billion in cash transfers for health care—$36.0 billion more than needed
to keep up with population growth and inflation over the same period.

How's that for facts? Try to deny them, and try to claim that you are "educated and intellectual".

Fraser Institute has Nobel laureates on it's editorial advisory board composed completely of professors and doctors, are you are Nobel lauraete? T
he Fraser Institute accepts no government funding and no private contracts for research. The
donations they receive are unrestricted and come only from private foundations,
organizations, or individuals.

[David88vert]

Get it from wherever you want, I could care less. I didn't even attack the daily caller so I don't even understand why you brought up TP. But don't try to pretend a report, that supports an overtly conservative idea, financed by a very conservative lobbyist, is liberal. I can't even comprehend the mental gymnastics it takes to believe something like that. You guys are smarter than that.

Everything is conservative in regards to your very liberal position - that's the problem. You think that your extreme left-wing liberals are the middle.

Like I said previously, name another think tank that is higher ranked or more relevant to assessing the Canadian government managed healthcare system.