or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Rick Perry
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rick Perry - Page 2

post #41 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

You are not even trying to understand.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartb...ending-revenue

How exactly can you disagree with my points about the cost of medical care in this country? It is math, not subjective. And look at the red line on that graph. If you look at state revenue it is even worse.

Let me tell you why costs escalate: Because people don't care how much the services they use actually cost. There are no supply and demand constraints. Single payer (which won't happen here anyway) will only worsen this problem. It will also lead to rationing care and lower quality care. Both the UK and Canada have many problems like this in their systems, problems you refuse to acknowledge.

Supply/Demand: Every one believes everything should be covered. We're used to paying $5 for a doctor's visit and $15 for specialist visit. My recent back surgery cost me nothing. Zero. The result is that usage goes up. With single payer this only will get worse. Many services will be "free." Demand will explode...outstripping supply. This will lead to what we're seeing in the UK, which is rationing.

Here's an example of the demand problem on a much smaller scale:

4,000 people line-up for free dental care
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #42 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Probably. And prevent future spiraling out of control. The constraints of reality tend to do that.

No - during the great depression the countries on the gold standard fared the worst. Any country that is on the gold standard is at the mercy of all fiat countries, the fiat countries devalued until they had full employment, and the gold standard countries got screwed (kind of like China is doing to us right now).

Also - every time a big gold mine was found, gold standard countries had inflation, and if there was a dry spell on new gold mines they had deflation. Having a fiat currency with low inflation is more stable.

People are talking about "peak gold", tying our currency to gold would put us into a deflationary downward cycle worse than what we have now.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #43 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

No - during the great depression the countries on the gold standard fared the worst.

The history there is more complicated than that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Having a fiat currency with low inflation is more stable.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #44 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The history there is more complicated than that.


He is giving you something. Give back. I am very interested in the exchange, if you have a point that counters his, I am interested.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #45 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

We spend $8000/person, they spend $3500, and they live longer - I already said that. Canada's expenses have not risen much over the last few years, while ours grow more than 7% per year. We have three choices:

1. Single payer, with aggressive cost supression on doctors and suppliers
2. Cancel medicare and let old people just die, unable to afford medical insurance
3. Hyperinflationary currency collapse, followed by #2 and worse

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Its not hysterical, we need to cut medical expenses by 50% or more. I'm not going to register to read your article, what are the three points? The reason that it sounds like a doomsday scenerio is that it is one, does not make it less real.

Noah - those are the only things I see. What do you think can be done?

So your choices are, single payer, death, or total currency collapse.

Sounds like a false choice to me. Where is the option where we start reigning in the spending and making people make choices for themselves? Where is the option to start weaning people from it that are capable of doing more for themselves?

your options are assuming foregone conclusions that I do not believe are are corrrect and do believe are what has led us to the problem we are in now.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #46 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

He is giving you something. Give back. I am very interested in the exchange, if you have a point that counters his, I am interested.

Here's one.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #47 of 178
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Its not hysterical, we need to cut medical expenses by 50% or more. I'm not going to register to read your article, what are the three points?

If you're not hysterical then please quit drawing hysterical conclusions like "just let people die".

I didn't know you had to register - here it is:

Quote:
Three Simple Ways Medicare Can Save Money

Price fixing can be costly. The government should embrace alternatives like concierge physician arrangements.

By JOHN C. GOODMAN

The most significant reason for our out-of-control deficit spending is health care. And the biggest federal health-care program is Medicare. That's why almost everybody—on the right and the left— agrees that Medicare must be reformed. A good place to start is recognizing that what Medicare is trying to do is impossible.

Medicare has a list of some 7,500 separate tasks it pays physicians to perform. For each task there is a price that varies according to location and other factors. Of the 800,000 practicing physicians in this country, not all are in Medicare and no doctor is going to perform every task on Medicare's list.

Yet Medicare is potentially setting about six billion prices across the country at any one time.

Each price Medicare pays is tied to a patient with a condition. And with the 7,500 things doctors could possibly do to treat a given condition, Medicare has to be just as diligent in not paying for inappropriate care as it is in paying for procedures that should be done. So, in fact, Medicare isn't just setting prices. It is regulating whole transactions.

Is there any chance that Medicare can set prices and approve transactions in a way that does not cause serious problems? Not likely.

What happens when Medicare gets it wrong? One result is that doctors face perverse incentives to provide care that is costlier and less appropriate than the care they should be providing. Another result is that the skill set of our nation's doctors becomes misallocated, as medical students and practicing doctors respond to the fact that Medicare is overpaying for some skills and underpaying for others.

Consider the following example. A post at the Health Affairs blog compares a 25-minute office visit with a primary care physician (PCP) to a 10-15 minute cataract removal by an ophthalmologist. The authors note that in examining symptoms such as a persistent cough, the PCP must draw on the whole of medicine in order to diagnose the condition and treat the patient. By contrast, cataract removal is a 50-year-old procedure, and many of the doctors who do it operate in assembly-line fashion designed to maximize their income.

This year, Medicare is paying $111.36 for the PCP visit. The ophthalmologist, meanwhile, is raking in $836.36 (including the patient copayment). Medicare is paying 7.5 times more for cataract removal than for a primary care visit. If we measure according to the time spent to earn the fee, Medicare is paying the ophthalmologist 15 times what it pays the PCP.

Is there any wonder why the shortage of primary care is reaching crisis proportions in many parts of the country, while cataract removal is available at the drop of a hat?

A more sensible approach is to quit asking for the impossible. Instead, let's begin the process of allowing medical fees to be determined the way prices are determined everywhere else in our economy—in the marketplace. Here are three ways to start:

First, all over the country there are walk-in, free-standing emergency-care clinics that post prices and usually deliver high-quality care. Because these services arose for cash-paying patients outside of the health-insurance system, their prices are free-market prices. Many follow evidence-based protocols, keep records electronically, and order prescriptions electronically. These methods tend to either cut costs or raise the quality of care.

Medicare should allow enrollees to obtain care at almost all of these places, and it should pay the posted prices. Since these fees are well below what Medicare would have paid at a physician's office or hospital emergency room, this reform would lower Medicare's overall costs.

Second, Medicare should allow enrollees to take advantage of commercial telephone and email services. TelaDoc offers telephone consultations with physicians at a price that is probably lower than the same service delivered by a nurse at a walk-in clinic. Where appropriate, its services are more accessible than those of the walk-in clinic. Also, TelaDoc doctors use electronic medical records and prescribe electronically. Again, it is important to pay the market price, not Medicare's price, although Medicare patients should probably pay a good portion of the cost of each phone call out of pocket.

Finally, Medicare should encourage physicians to repackage and reprice their services in ways that are good for the doctor, good for the patient, and good for Medicare. For example, Medicare should encourage concierge doctor arrangements.

A typical concierge doctor charges about $1,500 per patient per year. In return, patients get telephone and email consultations, same- or next-day appointments, electronic medical records, and electronic prescribing. If patients and doctors are willing, Medicare should be willing to throw its 7,500-item price list away, pay some portion of the concierge fee, and let the marketplace handle everything else.

In each of these cases, the principle is the same: Let markets do what only markets can do well.

Mr. Goodman is president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis.

MJ price transparency is the ability to determine costs.

At present the costs of medical care are obscured by the many participants who prefer it that way. Costs for diagnosis and treatment are difficult to determine. There is little incentive to care if someone perceives the money he's spending isn't his own. If the real costs were known, competition would lower them.

Many regulated businesses are required by state law to disclose consumer costs. There's nothing about medical care that should exempt such requirements. Methods for doing so are already in effect - insurance companies require uniform diagnosis and treatment codes already.

Price transparency works astoundingly well for procedures in which insurance usually doesn't apply, such as in cosmetic or elective surgery. It also works for everything else whenever the patient exercises the will to manage the cost of treatment, versus simply letting a behemoth insurance company handle everything. I have negotiated reasonable rates every time I've tried - in a few cases all the way down to free. The doctor's happy, the patient's happy, everybody's happy. No government intervention required.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #48 of 178
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As for single payer: You continue to make the claim that single payer would reduce costs and that private insurance in bankrupting the country. It's completely nonsensical.

Isn't Medicare already "single payer"?
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #49 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Here's one.

I don't think that answers any of my points, it answers different points that Krugman made. But the gold standard (pre federal reserve) world was not "showering wonderful peace and prosperity on the world" as the article states. The 19th century was full of recessions and depressions.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #50 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

So your choices are, single payer, death, or total currency collapse.

Sounds like a false choice to me. Where is the option where we start reigning in the spending and making people make choices for themselves? Where is the option to start weaning people from it that are capable of doing more for themselves?

your options are assuming foregone conclusions that I do not believe are are corrrect and do believe are what has led us to the problem we are in now.

They have been trying to reign in medicare costs forever and they have failed, the problem is that it is too small. If Medicare was larger, they could dictate prices to much lower levels like Walmart does (and Canada does). I'd be happy if they could also limit services - but old people are too big of a voting block to do that.

The three cost reduction attempts jg posted seem OK to me, I just don't think that they would be enough. We should also get medicare to negotiate lower prices on drugs due to high volume, but that won't be enough either.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #51 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Canada spends $3500/person, we spend $8000/person, and they live longer than we do. What would Perry do differently than the debt-doubling GWB?

Canada also has rationed care.
post #52 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Canada also has rationed care.

So does the US. It's rationed in favor of those people who can pay the extortionate rates.

Question: How much money does Canada invest in medical school subsidies?
post #53 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So does the US. It's rationed in favor of those people who can pay the extortionate rates.

Question: How much money does Canada invest in medical school subsidies?

So you agree that single payer is not a solution. That's progress!
post #54 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

So you agree that single payer is not a solution. That's progress!

We don't have single payer in Hong Kong, and our system works brilliantly. What we do have is 100% means untested universal healthcare, with a "private option" and a thriving insurance industry. And that's precisely why it works better than both the US system and the Canadian system. Canada was wrong to remove the private option. Instead, if they were having trouble attracting physicians to work in the public sector, they should have had public service regulation, and subsidized medical school training to attract more potential doctors to the field.
post #55 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Canada also has rationed care.

Single payer with rationed care + optional private add-on insurance (or pay cash) for the stuff that they ration - that is the best option.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #56 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Isn't Medicare already "single payer"?

Good point, though I guess it's not really. Not with supplemental and scrip plans, etc.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #57 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Single payer with rationed care + optional private add-on insurance (or pay cash) for the stuff that they ration - that is the best option.

Actually, once you have enough of a supply of doctors, and eliminate the lobbying, prices will go down anyway. We should encourage med school entry, expand training and recognize more overseas qualified physicians.
post #58 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Actually, once you have enough of a supply of doctors, and eliminate the lobbying, prices will go down anyway. We should encourage med school entry, expand training and recognize more overseas qualified physicians.

Good point - I have actually met quite a few doctors immigrants that worked other jobs because they could not be doctors here. We should also get rid of drug advertising, which is a huge part of the drug price.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #59 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Actually, once you have enough of a supply of doctors, and eliminate the lobbying, prices will go down anyway. We should encourage med school entry, expand training and recognize more overseas qualified physicians.

Why doctors? Why not break their monopoly on health care?
post #60 of 178
Yeah, let's call out the faith healers.

I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say, actually.
post #61 of 178
A Mother Jones summary of Perry's chances-

"1- Everyone looks good before they get into the race. Remember how great Tim Pawlenty was supposed to be? But just wait a few months for Perry to get beat up by his opponents, for the oppo research to kick in, for all the big profiles to start appearing, and for a gaffe or two to get some play. He'll start to look distinctly more human then.

2- He's too Texan. Sorry. Maybe that's fair, maybe it's not. But even in the Republican Party, not everyone is from the South and not everyone is bowled over by a Texas drawl. Perry is, by a fair amount, more Texan than George W. Bush, and an awful lot of people are still*suffering from Bush fatigue.

3- He's too mean. He'll have a hard time pretending he's any kind of compassionate conservative, and outside of Texas you still need a bit of that. Aside from being politically ruthless and famous for holding grudges, Perry's the kind of guy who almost certainly executed an innocent man, never pretended to care about it, and brazenly disbanded a commission investigating it. This famously produced the following quote in a 2010 focus group: It takes balls to execute an innocent man. In Texas, maybe that works. In the rest of the country, not so much.

4- He's too dumb. Go ahead, call me an elitist. I'm keenly aware that Americans don't vote for presidents based on their SAT scores, but everything I've read about Perry suggests that he's a genuinely dim kind of guy. Not just incurious or too sure about his gut feelings, like George Bush, but simply not bright enough to handle the demands of the Oval Office. Americans might not care if their presidents are geniuses, but there's a limit to how doltish they can be too.

5- He's too smarmy. He might be fine one-on-one, but on a national stage Perry looks like a tent revival preacher or a used car salesman. Again: this might play OK in Texas and a few other places, but it will wear thin quickly in most of the country.

6- He's too overtly religious. Even Bush soft pedaled his religious side for the masses during his first campaign and did most of his outreach to the evangelical community quietly. Outside the Bible Belt, Perry's fire-and-brimstone act is going to be hard to take.

7- Policywise, he's too radical, even for Republicans. "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" goes over well with a certain segment of the tea party, but not with most of the country. Nor does most of the country want to get rid of Medicare and turn it over the states. Nor do they think global warming is a hoax, and they don't really think all that kindly of people who muse publicly about seceding from the union. Bush was able to soften his hard Texas edge with a genuine passion for education. I'm not sure Perry can do that.

8- Despite conventional wisdom, about half of the GOP rank-and-file aren't tea party sympathizers (see Question 3G here). Of the half who are, Perry is going to have to compete with Michele Bachmann and possibly with Sarah Palin. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has the non-crazy half of the party almost to himself. Huntsman isn't going to provide him with any serious competition there, and Pawlenty is rapidly becoming a non-factor too. I think this is an extremely underappreciated dynamic right now. Yes, Republican primary voters tend to be more conservative than the party as a whole, but there are still going to be a lot of non-tea partiers who vote, and they don't have a lot of good choices other than Romney. What's more, a fair number of tea partiers like Romney too (see Question 19 here). This is a pretty good base to work from.

9- Perry's campaign is going to be heavily based on the "Texas miracle." But this looks a lot less miraculous once you put it under a microscope and pretty soon it won't just be churlish lefties pointing this out. You can be sure that the rest of the Republican field will be hauling out their own microscopes before long.

10- Republicans want to beat Obama. They really, really want to beat Obama. Romney is still their best chance, and down deep I think they know it.
~ http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...perry-wont-win
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #62 of 178
I really disagree with most of those points, mother jones.

- Pawlenty was a dead duck from the start, it was obvious that his lack of charisma doomed him

- I don't think that "too Texan" is a disadvantage, same with "too mean". A lot of people want somebody who will kick some ass (like force China to float their currency, for example).
They are looking for a more masculine energy in the white house.

- no idea how smart he is, can't comment on that one

- smarmy: He seems powerful and charismatic to me, people will like that

- religious: the US is a religious country, he would never get elected in Canada, but here he might. If Bachmann has a chance, Perry has a better chance, imho.

- social security actually is a ponzi scheme, and some huge change to medicare is the only chance of our financial survival

- I personally think it will be Huntsman vs Perry, not Romney vs Bachmann or Palin

- the Texas miracle is better than no miracle at all. You start buy supplying a ton of minimum wage jobs, and things improve from there.
This is how China is gradually building a middle class, after liberals spent a few decades talking about how horrible "sweat shops" are -
you need to start somewhere. People that put down the Texas job creation just don't get it, imho - they don't understand how much
damage was done to the country. We are no longer a superpower, we will be lucky to hold on to first world status in fact.

- Obama is doomed, it will be easy to beat him with most candidates. No president has survived re-election with these kinds of
unemployment numbers, and things will be worse a year from now. I personally hope that the next president is Ron Paul (it would be
just the shake up that I think that the country needs, at least for a term or two), but Huntsman or Romney would be OK.

And I think that Perry will double the debt every four year term... Republicans will be disappointed on that front.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #63 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I really disagree with most of those points, mother jones.

- Pawlenty was a dead duck from the start, it was obvious that his lack of charisma doomed him

- I don't think that "too Texan" is a disadvantage, same with "too mean". A lot of people want somebody who will kick some ass (like force China to float their currency, for example).
They are looking for a more masculine energy in the white house.

- no idea how smart he is, can't comment on that one

- smarmy: He seems powerful and charismatic to me, people will like that

- religious: the US is a religious country, he would never get elected in Canada, but here he might. If Bachmann has a chance, Perry has a better chance, imho.

- social security actually is a ponzi scheme, and some huge change to medicare is the only chance of our financial survival

- I personally think it will be Huntsman vs Perry, not Romney vs Bachmann or Palin

- the Texas miracle is better than no miracle at all. You start buy supplying a ton of minimum wage jobs, and things improve from there.
This is how China is gradually building a middle class, after liberals spent a few decades talking about how horrible "sweat shops" are -
you need to start somewhere. People that put down the Texas job creation just don't get it, imho - they don't understand how much
damage was done to the country. We are no longer a superpower, we will be lucky to hold on to first world status in fact.

- Obama is doomed, it will be easy to beat him with most candidates. No president has survived re-election with these kinds of
unemployment numbers, and things will be worse a year from now. I personally hope that the next president is Ron Paul (it would be
just the shake up that I think that the country needs, at least for a term or two), but Huntsman or Romney would be OK.

And I think that Perry will double the debt every four year term... Republicans will be disappointed on that front.

Why do think Perry will double the debt every four years?

If he doubled it in each term, in his first term he'd take the deficit to about $30 trillion and then $60 trillion in his second.

America would be out for the count.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #64 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Why do think Perry will double the debt every four years?

If he doubled it in each term, in his first term he'd take the deficit to about $30 trillion and then $60 trillion in his second.

America would be out for the count.

OK, maybe that is an exaggeration. But think that the debt will go up a lot, just as it did under Bush and Obama.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #65 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

OK, maybe that is an exaggeration. But think that the debt will go up a lot, just as it did under Bush and Obama.

OK, but you might not be as far off as we'd both probably like to think.

If a Republican get's in and cuts taxes anywhere near as far as the Ryan plan and the Democrats fight and succeed somewhat in maintaining funding for lots of programs and the Republican's cut very little from defense, then we'll be looking at skyrocketing debt and future downgrades.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #66 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We don't have single payer in Hong Kong, and our system works brilliantly. What we do have is 100% means untested universal healthcare, with a "private option" and a thriving insurance industry. And that's precisely why it works better than both the US system and the Canadian system. Canada was wrong to remove the private option.

Could you please pass this on to the Canadian left?
Because when conservatives here point out what is simply obvious, we get vilified for wanting poor people to die in the streets.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #67 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Could you please pass this on to the Canadian left?
Because when conservatives here point out what is simply obvious, we get vilified for wanting poor people to die in the streets.

In Hong Kong, all private practitioners are required to work a certain number of hours in the public sector every year, or they lose their license. Was this ever suggested by the right in Canada as an alternative to single payer?

And again, I ask... If there aren't enough doctors in Canada to make this work, how much is Canada investing in medical school subsidies and promotion? Does Canada, unlike the US, recognize most overseas first world educated physicians' qualifications?

But if the choice is between the Canadian system and the American system, the Canadian system is far better for the vast majority of the population, which I expect some here to blindly deny, as well as for national expenditure, which should be obvious.
post #68 of 178
George W Perry needs to listen to Warren Buffett-

""While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," wrote Buffett, whose personal fortune was estimated at $50bn (£30bn) by Forbes this year.

"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places," the 80-year old investor added.

Buffett, a long-time critic of the US tax system, has calculated that he handed over 17.4% of his income as tax last year a lower proportion than any of the 20 other people who work in his office.
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...xes-super-rich
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #69 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I forgot you're not that bright. There is a lot of care that can be provided by physician assistants and the like. Doctors have a lock on access to lower level providers. Just to wet their beak. They also have a lock on med' school admissions.

This is bullshit and also an uncalled for personal attack that has been reported.

Doctors don't have a "monopoly" on health care. Sure, we could train nurse practitioners and pharmacists to be able to provide more medical services. But then guess what they would be called once they are trained? Doctors. And med school admissions? No idea what you're talking about there either. I have dozens of personal friends I've known since we were kids who were accepted to med school. How many do you think were doctors when they were admitted?

Yes, we should provide more avenues for other health care professionals to be trained as doctors. We should also subsidize more med school places in Universities. And we should also, as I said, recognize more overseas qualifications.

Quote:
Another example; in my state a physical therapist can't have a private practice, the chiropractor lobby stops their efforts to legalize PT private practice.

That sounds like a problem with your state. And it also demonstrates the most serious problem with American politics: The power of lobbyists. Can we both agree now that this is a problem that needs to be addressed?
post #70 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

George W Perry needs to listen to Warren Buffett-

""While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," wrote Buffett, whose personal fortune was estimated at $50bn (£30bn) by Forbes this year.

"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places," the 80-year old investor added.

Buffett, a long-time critic of the US tax system, has calculated that he handed over 17.4% of his income as tax last year a lower proportion than any of the 20 other people who work in his office.
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...xes-super-rich

These kind of points make great rhetoric, but in reality they don't mean much. There are 8,274 taxpayers in the U.S. who make more than $10,000,000 a year (I believe that's a 2010 figure). If you taxed them at 100%, it comes to $240 billion. And that's assuming 100% collection and no negative consequences from the increase itself, which is of course a fantasy.

Do the math.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #71 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

These kind of points make great rhetoric, but in reality they don't mean much. There are 8,274 taxpayers in the U.S. who make more than $10,000,000 a year (I believe that's a 2010 figure). If you taxed them at 100%, it comes to $240 billion. And that's assuming 100% collection and no negative consequences from the increase itself, which is of course a fantasy.

Do the math.

Your statistics are exactly the kind of math that doesn't say anything. Drop the limit to $2.5 million a year, and tax at 35%. How much revenue would that be. You do the math.
post #72 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Your statistics are exactly the kind of math that doesn't say anything. Drop the limit to $2.5 million a year, and tax at 35%. How much revenue would that be. You do the math.

First, I don't have the data to "do the math" on that. Secondly, it's a hugely flawed premise because such a threshold will dramatically affect small business...many of whom pay personal, not corporate rates. Third, do you mean a flat or marginal 35%?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #73 of 178
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There are 8,274 taxpayers in the U.S. who make more than $10,000,000 a year (I believe that's a 2010 figure). If you taxed them at 100%, it comes to $240 billion. And that's assuming 100% collection and no negative consequences from the increase itself, which is of course a fantasy.

Do the math.

Your statistics are exactly the kind of math that doesn't say anything. Drop the limit to $2.5 million a year, and tax at 35%. How much revenue would that be. You do the math.

The data are readily available so I did the math. It's so easy even a congressman could do it.

Tonton, the IRS data doesn't consider a break at $2.5M but they do consider one at $2M so I took the liberty of considering all income in excess of that threshold instead. Based on 2009 data (the latest available) all income in excess of $2M came to an aggregate total of $448,540,302,000 in 2009. The IRS confiscated $124,687,064,000 of that.

Your grandiose proposal to raise their rate to a real, no-nonsense, flat, no exceptions, 35% would thus bring the Treasury's revenue from those taxpayers up to $156,989,106,000, an increase of $32.3 billion. It's nothing, even if you assume people wouldn't change their behaviour which is a fantasy as SDW pointed out.

So much for "the rich" paying their "fair share" by the way - returns showing incomes of between $40,000 and $50,000 paid about 7% tax in 2009, whereas the ultra-rich of your classification already paid an average tax rate on income of 27.8%.

Want more to think about, assuming you're capable? The aggregate income of all taxpayers who earned more than $2M in 2009 was approximately equal to the aggregate income of all taxpayers who earned less than $40,000. Obama's ceaseless rhetoric about "millionaires and billionaires™" isn't even up to the low standard of a Political Outsider slopfest.

This took me all of ten minutes. You guys are so lazy.

SDW's figures are correct BTW. As he wrote,

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

These kind of points make great rhetoric, but in reality they don't mean much.

It's not even great rhetoric. It's nothing more than demagogy; a distraction that contributes nothing to solving a real problem for which real fixes are necessary.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #74 of 178
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #75 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

The data are readily available so I did the math. It's so easy even a congressman could do it.

Tonton, the IRS data doesn't consider a break at $2.5M but they do consider one at $2M so I took the liberty of considering all income in excess of that threshold instead. Based on 2009 data (the latest available) all income in excess of $2M came to an aggregate total of $448,540,302,000 in 2009. The IRS confiscated $124,687,064,000 of that.

Your grandiose proposal to raise their rate to a real, no-nonsense, flat, no exceptions, 35% would thus bring the Treasury's revenue from those taxpayers up to $156,989,106,000, an increase of $32.3 billion. It's nothing, even if you assume people wouldn't change their behaviour which is a fantasy as SDW pointed out.

So much for "the rich" paying their "fair share" by the way - returns showing incomes of between $40,000 and $50,000 paid about 7% tax in 2009, whereas the ultra-rich of your classification already paid an average tax rate on income of 27.8%.

Want more to think about, assuming you're capable? The aggregate income of all taxpayers who earned more than $2M in 2009 was approximately equal to the aggregate income of all taxpayers who earned less than $40,000. Obama's ceaseless rhetoric about "millionaires and billionaires™" isn't even up to the low standard of a Political Outsider slopfest.

This took me all of ten minutes. You guys are so lazy.

SDW's figures are correct BTW. As he wrote,



It's not even great rhetoric. It's nothing more than demagogy; a distraction that contributes nothing to solving a real problem for which real fixes are necessary.

Your figures are badly wrong.

lol you edited your post from "millions" to the "correct" billions.

The average declared income of each of the wealthiest 400 Americans is close to $350 million and they pay about 16.5% income tax. Do the maths!

Here's a nice chart showing just how fair the tax system is (Fig 7 about 3/5 down the page)- http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #76 of 178
Thread Starter 
Warren Buffet is completely correct in pointing out that the income tax is screwed up. However, he then proposes to fix it by punishing the upper 0.3% of income earners.



As I've already shown that won't matter much given a $14 trillion budget. Any idiot can determine the revenue gained by raising taxes on the filthy rich is illusory. It's a smokescreen for raising taxes on everybody - most likely, the nearly 50% who pay nothing and the other nearly 50% who pay the rest.

It's yet another example of the irretrievably broken income tax system. The only "fix" is to throw it out.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #77 of 178
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The average declared income of each of the wealthiest 400 Americans is close to $350 million and they pay about 16.5% income tax. Do the maths!

I did, using IRS data. You just don't like what it says.

Your helpful data yields the following:

Code:

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_7.gif on this server.


I suggest that rather than examining pretty pictures, you go to the source:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi.histab3.xls

Read it and weep.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #78 of 178
A few points about the Bush tax cuts-

"Approximately 20 percent of total benefits went to 0.3 percent of households earning $1 million or more per year.


IF THE BUSH TAX CUTS WERE MADE PERMANENT:

•\tMaking the cuts permanent would cost the federal government an additional $3.4 Trillion over the next decade, if they were funded by borrowing.

•\tPermanent tax cuts would create revenue losses over three times larger than the long-term Social Security funding gap. The windfall received by the top one percent of taxpayers alone would be sufficient to close the Social Security funding gap through 2075.

•\tUsing optimistic assumptions, the Administration’s estimates of the possible long-term economic benefits of the tax cuts find that they would boost economic growth by a negligible four one- hundredths of one percent per year. These long-term growth benefits would only occur if tax cuts are funded through reductions in Federal spending.

And finally, but not least, given the Repubs desire for slashing spending-


•\tIf tax cuts were funded by spending cuts, they would actually reduce net after-tax income for almost 75 percent of American households, while income among households earning $1 million per year or more would increase by almost 8 percent."
~ http://jec.senate.gov/public/?a=File...2-95f983f1e89e
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #79 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

I did, using IRS data. You just don't like what it says.

Your helpful data yields the following:

Code:

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_7.gif on this server.


I suggest that rather than examining pretty pictures, you go to the source:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi.histab3.xls

Read it and weep.

I'll look at the numbers but you originally left out three zero's and wrote millions not billions, that's what I was laughing at.

I'll get another link for my pretty picture.

Here it is. Scroll down to Figure 7 (3/5 down the page). How more unfair do you want to make things John G?- http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html



It's hard weeping at this- The requested page does not exist. Please check your URL.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #80 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Buffett...

Buffett is a total douche. He makes huge profits off the inheritance tax (which is basically just a subsidy for insurance companies), and comes out with press conferences talking about how we really need to keep it without talking about his conflict of interest.

The inheritance tax triggers sudden forced sales of private businesses if the founders make a mistake and don't buy enough life insurance, and Buffet benefits there too - scoping up fire sale businesses on the cheap.

And then he sets up a foundation for each one of his heirs to run and get a salary from, while avoiding inheritance tax all together.

And his partner is worse - I hate both of them, and disregard everything that they have to say.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Rick Perry