Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have said before that i don't like P&R in forums, But i can't help it, I love to debate on stuff.

So I'll start on Health Care (The U.S.A. Problem)

Well, I've been hearing On how the bill in congress is a gov't take over of health care. they are trying to limit your liberties, blah, blah. I've also heard How its not. Well, this is how I think the bill should be. (Grandted I'm 15, and I don't know much on health Insurance and policies, and that stuff, but I always like to put my 2-cents worth)

1. This should be an optional program. Even If you don't have health Insurance, You should Be able to choose.

2. Insurance Companies Should Not be able to deny you coverage because you have a pre-existing health condition (this is why My dad, who suffers from Diabetes, and a good friend of mine, who has asthma, she can't get health care.)

3. Laws should be regulated to keep Companies in check.

4. The gov't program should cover everything EXECPT cosmetic surgeries and medicines (botox, breast implants, anti ageing creams, etc.)

There are probably some more things that should be added here, and add them if you want, but i think that these 4 reasons and policies sound practical and reasonable. What really bothers me, is that its called the Health Care industry. That just don't sound right.

Who's going to pay for this?

How are they going to pay for this?

If government pays for everything, who sets the rates for Doctor bills, procedures, and medicine reimbursement?

If government pays for everything, who determines what procedures are acceptable and what not?

isthatmycow wrote:I have said before that i don't like P&R in forums, But i can't help it, I love to debate on stuff.

Welcome to Dakka OT. Hurr durr hurr... Dakka OT is a very silly place... With serious threads. Shenanigans ensue all the time. But as I always say, buy the ticket, take the ride. I think you will like it here...

isthatmycow wrote:There are probably some more things that should be added here, and add them if you want, but i think that these 4 reasons and policies sound practical and reasonable. What really bothers me, is that its called the Health Care industry. That just don't sound right.

QFT

You are young, so you haven't had to deal with this crap, but you are indeed wise beyond your years.

The sad thing is this can never happen in capitalism. The key words being "capital", and as you pointed out already, "industry"... I despise the industry for causing harm to three of my loved ones either through unetical behavior driven by profit margins, or by inaction due to keeping costs down, all while charging exorbitant fees...

To respond to frazzled:

well, we cut back on the military.

I mean, for everyone who reads this, Be honest with yourselves: Don't you think we have too much killy? I mean, we have troops all over the world: west germany, japan, South Korea, etc. We were in Japan to stop the Japanese empire. Well, that threat is over, why do we need them there now? We have Troops in germany to Stop the Communism Incursion, And thats over. we have troops in south korea to stop communism as well, and thats also over. Hell i heard we have 500,000 In kashmir. What the hell are we doing in kashmir?

I say we cut back on the crap we don't need, WE get rid projects and programs taht are crap, we tax the gak out of Walmart, Mcdonalds, Exxon Mobile, and any other huge-ass company, we divert funids going to other countries (in the sense of loans, funds for frivolousprojects, etc.) and divert them to health care. and if we have anything left, we whats left and put it to good use: repairing our broken down highways, Some Counties in the south have crapped up water systems, we reform Educatrion and fund it. and those soldier around the world who are all of a sudden out of a job?

We train them, give them skills to work, make them useful to society, so they don't depend on pensions, or social security and force us to spend alot. and thsoe troops wh we didn't let go, pump into afghanistan. and to determine waht procedures are acceptable, we create an independant, 3-party committe to analyze wahts acceptable or not.

...I am going to disagree with you simply because without Government funded development of synthetic environments for use by our soldiers, I would be out of a job.

tblock1984 wrote:...I am going to disagree with you simply because without Government funded development of synthetic environments for use by our soldiers, I would be out of a job.

I dont understand. What do you mean?

It means you just gored his ox.

1. Fair point there. However, thats not nearly enough for universal healthcare for everyone in the US, assuming some modicum of defense spending remaining (remember we have two wars + China and Liechtenstein wto watch). What else?

2. Answer the remaining questions please. Who sets rates, reimbursements, and items covered?

isthatmycow wrote:To respond to frazzled:

well, we cut back on the military.

I mean, for everyone who reads this, Be honest with yourselves: Don't you think we have too much killy? I mean, we have troops all over the world: west germany, japan, South Korea, etc. We were in Japan to stop the Japanese empire. Well, that threat is over, why do we need them there now? We have Troops in germany to Stop the Communism Incursion, And thats over. we have troops in south korea to stop communism as well, and thats also over. Hell i heard we have 500,000 In kashmir. What the hell are we doing in kashmir?

I say we cut back on the crap we don't need, WE get rid projects and programs taht are crap, we tax the gak out of Walmart, Mcdonalds, Exxon Mobile, and any other huge-ass company, we divert funids going to other countries (in the sense of loans, funds for frivolousprojects, etc.) and divert them to health care. and if we have anything left, we whats left and put it to good use: repairing our broken down highways, Some Counties in the south have crapped up water systems, we reform Educatrion and fund it. and those soldier around the world who are all of a sudden out of a job?

We train them, give them skills to work, make them useful to society, so they don't depend on pensions, or social security and force us to spend alot. and thsoe troops wh we didn't let go, pump into afghanistan. and to determine waht procedures are acceptable, we create an independant, 3-party committe to analyze wahts acceptable or not.

And you started out so well.

From each to his ability, each to his needs. Thats the ticket.

Tyyr wrote:

isthatmycow wrote:To respond to frazzled:

well, we cut back on the military.

I mean, for everyone who reads this, Be honest with yourselves: Don't you think we have too much killy? I mean, we have troops all over the world: west germany, japan, South Korea, etc. We were in Japan to stop the Japanese empire. Well, that threat is over, why do we need them there now? We have Troops in germany to Stop the Communism Incursion, And thats over. we have troops in south korea to stop communism as well, and thats also over. Hell i heard we have 500,000 In kashmir. What the hell are we doing in kashmir?

I say we cut back on the crap we don't need, WE get rid projects and programs taht are crap, we tax the gak out of Walmart, Mcdonalds, Exxon Mobile, and any other huge-ass company, we divert funids going to other countries (in the sense of loans, funds for frivolousprojects, etc.) and divert them to health care. and if we have anything left, we whats left and put it to good use: repairing our broken down highways, Some Counties in the south have crapped up water systems, we reform Educatrion and fund it. and those soldier around the world who are all of a sudden out of a job?

We train them, give them skills to work, make them useful to society, so they don't depend on pensions, or social security and force us to spend alot. and thsoe troops wh we didn't let go, pump into afghanistan. and to determine waht procedures are acceptable, we create an independant, 3-party committe to analyze wahts acceptable or not.

And you started out so well.

I don't get it. I mean, come on, we spend more on or military than any other country.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061009074551AArSEYB

You'd think we'd wanna cut back.

Do you really want to go down this road? Lets set aside the military argument.

isthatmycow wrote:

I say we cut back on the crap we don't need, WE get rid projects and programs taht are crap,

Define that. I bet your definition and mine are really really different.

we tax the gak out of Walmart, Mcdonalds, Exxon Mobile, and any other huge-ass company,

You do know our combined tax rates for public corporates are higher than most developed countries right?

we divert funids going to other countries (in the sense of loans, funds for frivolousprojects, etc.) and divert them to health care.

Are you talking about foreign aid here? I'm down with that.

and if we have anything left, we whats left and put it to good use: repairing our broken down highways, Some Counties in the south have crapped up water systems,

We won't if you're funding universal healthcare but I getcha

we reform Educatrion and fund it.

You do know we have the highest spending rates on education on average in the known world right? RIGHT?

and those soldier around the world who are all of a sudden out of a job?

Why would all those soldiers be out of a job? If you shrink the US military presence what keeps NK from invading SK, Iran going berserk, and the 50 or so wars we already have going on from continuing? (not that i am disagreeing with pulling back though)

We train them, give them skills to work, make them useful to society, so they don't depend on pensions, or social security and force us to spend alot. and thsoe troops wh we didn't let go, pump into afghanistan.

Wait you're talking US troops now? I'd imagine if you free them up they will be going to Afghanistan, or maybe preparing for Inchon II.

and to determine waht procedures are acceptable, we create an independant, 3-party committe to analyze wahts acceptable or not.

Ah death panels. Gotcha.
And you started out so well.

I don't get it. I mean, come on, we spend more on or military than any other country.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061009074551AArSEYB

You'd think we'd wanna cut back.

isthatmycow wrote:I don't get it. I mean, come on, we spend more on or military than any other country.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061009074551AArSEYB

You'd think we'd wanna cut back.

You'd think you'd want a passing familiarity with a subject prior to commenting.

We were in Japan to stop the Japanese empire. Well, that threat is over, why do we need them there now?

We were in Japan because we had already won WWII and after WWII it was a very convenient place to stage men and materiel. The Pacific is a big ocean. Having some place to station our troops on the other side of it is incredibly helpful and it still is.

We have Troops in germany to Stop the Communism Incursion, And thats over.

And we still have commitments with many of the countries in the region and while European communism took one in the shorts that doesn't mean that Russia is all puppy dogs and cotton candy. Just ask Georgia.

we have troops in south korea to stop communism as well, and thats also over.

North Korea, seriously. Ya know, crazy ass little psycho dictator who's testing nuclear weapons and trying to get his hands on missiles with the range to reach the western US. That North Korea. That COMMUNIST North Korea?

Hell i heard we have 500,000 In kashmir. What the hell are we doing in kashmir?

From who? Do you know where Kashmir is?

I say we cut back on the crap we don't need, WE get rid projects and programs taht are crap,

Suggestions please. It's a fine sentiment but you're going to have to be more specific.

we tax the gak out of Walmart, Mcdonalds, Exxon Mobile, and any other huge-ass company,

You are aware of where these companies get their money from right? So you're aware that by taxing them more they'll charge their customers more correct? So your solution to helping people who can't afford healthcare starts by taking even more of their money to pay for it? Does that not seem just a little odd to you?

we divert funids going to other countries (in the sense of loans, funds for frivolousprojects, etc.)

Do you know how much we give out in foreign aid? It's about 30 billion a year. Do you know how that compares to the annual US expenditures on health care? It's about 1% of what we spend on healtcare each year. In other words you'll piss off a lot of people for not much gain.

We can take that money from foreign aid so the rest of the world can be sicker!

Did you know that a 14 year old Nigerian (if I remember correctly) built a windmill generator to power his house after seeing a picture of a windmill in a book at the library? Who built the library to be an asset to the town? The US Government through foreign aid. That's right, we build windmills, and don't you forget it!

Frazzled wrote:
1. Fair point there. However, thats not nearly enough for universal healthcare for everyone in the US, assuming some modicum of defense spending remaining (remember we have two wars + China and Liechtenstein wto watch). What else?

Cutting the military budget by 1/3 frees up roughly 220 billion dollars. That's only 19 billion dollars less than what is required to fund the current healthcare plan. It would also be possible to make sizable cuts to welfare if you wanted to reduce the military reductions to something in the area of 1/6 of the budget. In either case would still account for roughly 1/3 of the global military allocation, and at least 4 times the amount spent by China.

Er 220 trillion dollars is more money than all the money everywhere in the hitsory of mankind.

Dogma has his money glasses on, give him a second.

DamnI want a pair too... NOW!

Frazzled wrote:Er 220 trillion dollars is more money than all the money everywhere in the hitsory of mankind.

Kinda makes you wonder why we don't just buy Afghanistan and Pakistan and evict all the terrorists huh?

Tyyr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Er 220 trillion dollars is more money than all the money everywhere in the hitsory of mankind.

Kinda makes you wonder why we don't just buy Afghanistan and Pakistan and evict all the terrorists huh?

I continually wonder why on earth anyone is even in Afghanistan. Its like a more horrible mountainous version of the Mojave desert. Hello! Dudes move!

Tyyr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Er 220 trillion dollars is more money than all the money everywhere in the hitsory of mankind.

Kinda makes you wonder why we don't just buy Afghanistan and Pakistan and evict all the terrorists huh?

Do you have any idea how much paperwork that would involve!?

We could probably get the whole region for what, 40 or 50 trillion? Leave enough to buy up most of Oceania too.

Tyyr wrote:
And we still have commitments with many of the countries in the region and while European communism took one in the shorts that doesn't mean that Russia is all puppy dogs and cotton candy. Just ask Georgia.

You expect Russia to invade a NATO member? They only defeated Georgia by virtue of sheer numbers. The efficiency of their armed forces has been almost universally panned. They have a shrinking population, an impotent economy, and are becoming closer to a rentier state every day. They aren't a significant threat insofar as NATO exists, and Europe maintains a competent military (you don't need to be able to project power in order to fight at home).

Tyyr wrote:
Suggestions please. It's a fine sentiment but you're going to have to be more specific.

His suggestion to close a number of bases in Japan is a good one. Though the only viable alternative is South Korea, where an increase in troops will only inflame an already difficult situation. South Korea isn't any more fond of our presence than any other nation, to say nothing of how North Korea would view the move. That being said, there's no particular reason to have ~30k soldiers deployed to Japan; reducing that number to something like 15k would be significant if additional cuts were made in other locations. Another good place to make cuts is Germany; either transferring soldiers to the UK, or removing them altogether.

Tyyr wrote:
You are aware of where these companies get their money from right? So you're aware that by taxing them more they'll charge their customers more correct?

That's not how supply and demand work. Read up on elasticity. That is one possible outcome as the result of increased taxes, but not the only one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Er 220 trillion dollars is more money than all the money everywhere in the hitsory of mankind.

Yeah, billion, my bad. Fixed it.

Tyyr wrote:We could probably get the whole region for what, 40 or 50 trillion? Leave enough to buy up most of Oceania too.

Seeing as how only 25 cents of a dollar actually does anything when we pour it into the middle east, you will have to factor that in... so... hmmm... 200 trillion maybe? That should cover it, leaving us with a hefty 20 trillion to poop around with.

dogma wrote:Yeah, billion, my bad. Fixed it.

Wait... billion? Ummm... so after our little spending spree right there... we are actually like 19.8 trillion in the hole? THOSE MIDDLE EASTERN BASTARDS! THEY KNEW ALL ALONG!!!

dogma wrote:That's not how supply and demand work. Read up on elasticity. That is one possible outcome as the result of increased taxes, but not the only one.

It is certainly a very possible one though, at least on the whole of it.

Tyyr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Er 220 trillion dollars is more money than all the money everywhere in the hitsory of mankind.

Kinda makes you wonder why we don't just buy Afghanistan and Pakistan and evict all the terrorists huh?

That was the plan adopted with the ex-Soviet nuclear weapons.

dogma wrote:You expect Russia to invade a NATO member? They only defeated Georgia by virtue of sheer numbers. The efficiency of their armed forces has been almost universally panned. They have a shrinking population, an impotent economy, and are becoming closer to a rentier state every day. They aren't a significant threat insofar as NATO exists, and Europe maintains a competent military (you don't need to be able to project power in order to fight at home).

Am I expecting the Red Menace to come charging through the Fulda Gap any minute? No. I use the Russia example because while Communism might be gone that doesn't mean everyone is ready to play nice. One other aspect for keeping European bases open is the same as Japan, it gives us more of an ability to project power by having troops stationed "over there," who can respond to situations as they happen. For a country with global interests its beneficial to be able to project power globally quickly.

His suggestion to close a number of bases in Japan is a good one.

It appeared he'd moved beyond the military to the government as a whole at that point. Even if he didn't they're very generalist statements that do nothing to solve a problem.

Though the only viable alternative is South Korea, where an increase in troops will only inflame an already difficult situation. South Korea isn't any more fond of our presence than any other nation, to say nothing of how North Korea would view the move. That being said, there's no particular reason to have ~30k soldiers deployed to Japan; reducing that number to something like 15k would be significant if additional cuts were made in other locations. Another good place to make cuts is Germany; either transferring soldiers to the UK, or removing them altogether.

Cuts could likely be made though I'd be more inclined to trim our European commitments prior to our Asian ones. I'd have to see some real numbers but in terms of funding health care plans I don't suspect that will amount to much.

That's not how supply and demand work. Read up on elasticity. That is one possible outcome as the result of increased taxes, but not the only one.

Yes, I am aware of how supply and demand work and that there are other outcomes. This is the simplest rather than getting into a treatie on economics and busting out the graphs. Long story short, raising taxes can have a multitude of effects on the end consumer, none of them are particularly good from the standpoint of someone wondering how they're going to afford their next pair of socks or food for the next week. If you're concerned about someone's financial well being piling on more taxes is a pretty piss poor place to start. While I don't agree that "tax the wealthy" should be the knee jerk reaction to funding the solutions to society's ills it makes a hell of a lot more sense than "tax the middle class and poor!"

Wrexasaur wrote:
It is certainly a very possible one though, at least on the whole of it.

It depends on the industry, and aggregate, potential profit therein. If Exxon-Mobil were to increase its prices to something like 6 dollars a gallon, the reduction in sales may well generate less revenue. Of course, I'd have to see their financial data to know for sure, but that's not something I'm privy to.

>>While I don't agree that "tax the wealthy" should be the knee jerk reaction to funding the solutions to society's ills it makes a hell of a lot more sense than "tax the middle class and poor!"

In terms of absolute revenue this is true, owing to the balance of numbers, however it is the policy which in France lead to the revolution. Every class of society needs to be seen to shouldering a fair proportion of the burden.

dogma wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:
It is certainly a very possible one though, at least on the whole of it.

It depends on the industry, and aggregate, potential profit therein. If Exxon-Mobil were to increase its prices to something like 6 dollars a gallon, the reduction in sales may well generate less revenue. Of course, I'd have to see their financial data to know for sure, but that's not something I'm privy to.

Dogma you're bouncing way outside your area of expertise here. A massive increase in the price per gallon say which is closer to your analogy, would result in burning inflation bouncing through the republic. Remember 1979?

Increasing tax rates will result in those companies leaving the US. if they don't then the shareholders aka EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US WHO HAS A 401K will get hit.

I don't disagree and I have my own preferences on the tax code. In this case it's pretty obvious who is going to take it in the shorts from a tax hike on Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Exxon, and similar corporations.

Tyyr wrote:
Am I expecting the Red Menace to come charging through the Fulda Gap any minute? No. I use the Russia example because while Communism might be gone that doesn't mean everyone is ready to play nice. One other aspect for keeping European bases open is the same as Japan, it gives us more of an ability to project power by having troops stationed "over there," who can respond to situations as they happen. For a country with global interests its beneficial to be able to project power globally quickly.

So it does, but there's little denying that our military role in the rest of the world is of diminishing importance. That said, its important that we maintain a contiguous network of bases for that purpose, though there is an undeniable degree of overlap (or overkill) in certain regions.

Tyyr wrote:
Cuts could likely be made though I'd be more inclined to trim our European commitments prior to our Asian ones. I'd have to see some real numbers but in terms of funding health care plans I don't suspect that will amount to much.

Well, the majority of the military budget is locked up in operations and maintenance, the second largest chunk is personnel, with procurement a close third. The inefficiencies in military procurement are well documented, so that would be a likely target for cuts. Cutting personnel isn't politically viable in light of Iraq and Afghanistan, but as we've both said there are places where the troops just aren't needed. Operations and maintenance would also be difficult to cut, but simply closing a a few bases helps out there. All in all, and this is just my guess, I haven't run the numbers, I could see eliminating 60-70 billion before hard choices start coming up (mostly in the area of R&D).

Tyyr wrote:
If you're concerned about someone's financial well being piling on more taxes is a pretty piss poor place to start. While I don't agree that "tax the wealthy" should be the knee jerk reaction to funding the solutions to society's ills it makes a hell of a lot more sense than "tax the middle class and poor!"

At some point it simply becomes a choice between the long and short term financial health of the nation. There are many people who enjoy vilifying the national debt, but those same people are often unwilling to sacrifice the budgetary outlays which created it. No one will tolerate the complete dissolution of the military, the elimination of welfare, or Medicare/Medicaid. As it is people are barely willing to accept incremental cuts to any of those systems (see the outrage over Medicare cuts). That being the case the federal government will never be able to cuts enough from the budget in order to move into the black (that doesn't even get into the job losses implicit in those cuts), so taxes are going to have to go up in concert if we are to make progress with respect to the fiscal responsibility everyone seems to desire so much. That's going to mean, at the very least, higher incomes taxes and may even extend to higher, or new, taxes on corporate activity. There's simply no other way.