If they can't sort out the sheet that they campaigned on for 7 years. It is farcical, misleading, and a downright lie to ask for the keys to all three offices, and then abdicate responsibility.

I'll mail all of the envelopes back to them that request money with nothing in them so that they have to pay for the postage.

This is beyond stupid.

You'll give them money when you forget about this.

No one cares.

They still have time to get something done. At some point they are going to realize this is suicide at the polls if they can't come up with ANYTHING that can get through congress.

They could get Bismarck through congress. A bunch of democrats would vote for it, and they could hold enough of their own in check.

Here's the problem. Nobody wants to be responsible for dumping anyone off health care. That party would pay a heavy price at the polls. So the only direction to go that is politically feasible is to help out the people that Obamacare screwed while not dumping the people that Obamacare helped. That means universal care, basically. The problem with universal care is that you can't pay for it without injecting a bunch more tax money, and nobody wants to raise taxes to pay for it. Democrats don't even want that. That's why they came up with a bunch of horsecrap funding devices in Obamacare that don't work. That's why Obamacare is going to crash.

So do Bismarck and pay for it with a consumption tax. This makes Medicaid redundant and also heavily subsidizes Medicare. I would think about doing it in a way that ultimately phases our Medicare, but you can't do that overnight. I would also do some sort of universal basic income (UBI) based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, and farm out the current welfare hodgepodge to the states on an elective/voluntary basis (they can afford them with what they save off eliminating Medicaid). A consumption tax at, say 15% (below world levels) would also generate enough to balance the budget and lower and flatten individual and corporate income tax rates to below world competitive levels. We still have taxes, but we are below worldwide levels across the board, with will definitely bring investment (and good-paying jobs) back in a big way.

I really don't think that there is another way to go that is fiscally viable.

First party to come up with this gets my votes (and my nickels).

(07-25-2017 07:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They could get Bismarck through congress. A bunch of democrats would vote for it, and they could hold enough of their own in check.

Here's the problem. Nobody wants to be responsible for dumping anyone off health care. That party would pay a heavy price at the polls. So the only direction to go that is politically feasible is to help out the people that Obamacare screwed while not dumping the people that Obamacare helped. That means universal care, basically. The problem with universal care is that you can't pay for it without injecting a bunch more tax money, and nobody wants to raise taxes to pay for it. Democrats don't even want that. That's why they came up with a bunch of horsecrap funding devices in Obamacare that don't work. That's why Obamacare is going to crash.

So do Bismarck and pay for it with a consumption tax. This makes Medicaid redundant and also heavily subsidizes Medicare. I would think about doing it in a way that ultimately phases our Medicare, but you can't do that overnight. I would also do some sort of universal basic income (UBI) based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, and farm out the current welfare hodgepodge to the states on an elective/voluntary basis (they can afford them with what they save off eliminating Medicaid). A consumption tax at, say 15% (below world levels) would also generate enough to balance the budget and lower and flatten individual and corporate income tax rates to below world competitive levels. We still have taxes, but we are below worldwide levels across the board, with will definitely bring investment (and good-paying jobs) back in a big way.

I really don't think that there is another way to go that is fiscally viable.

First party to come up with this gets my votes (and my nickels).

You'll need to save those nickles for the taxes requires to pay for your grand plans to pay people for breathing.

(07-25-2017 07:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They could get Bismarck through congress. A bunch of democrats would vote for it, and they could hold enough of their own in check.

Here's the problem. Nobody wants to be responsible for dumping anyone off health care. That party would pay a heavy price at the polls. So the only direction to go that is politically feasible is to help out the people that Obamacare screwed while not dumping the people that Obamacare helped. That means universal care, basically. The problem with universal care is that you can't pay for it without injecting a bunch more tax money, and nobody wants to raise taxes to pay for it. Democrats don't even want that. That's why they came up with a bunch of horsecrap funding devices in Obamacare that don't work. That's why Obamacare is going to crash.

So do Bismarck and pay for it with a consumption tax. This makes Medicaid redundant and also heavily subsidizes Medicare. I would think about doing it in a way that ultimately phases our Medicare, but you can't do that overnight. I would also do some sort of universal basic income (UBI) based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, and farm out the current welfare hodgepodge to the states on an elective/voluntary basis (they can afford them with what they save off eliminating Medicaid). A consumption tax at, say 15% (below world levels) would also generate enough to balance the budget and lower and flatten individual and corporate income tax rates to below world competitive levels. We still have taxes, but we are below worldwide levels across the board, with will definitely bring investment (and good-paying jobs) back in a big way.

I really don't think that there is another way to go that is fiscally viable.

First party to come up with this gets my votes (and my nickels).

Do you have this saved somewhere and just copy and paste, or do you actually type it out each time?

(07-25-2017 07:51 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-25-2017 07:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They could get Bismarck through congress. A bunch of democrats would vote for it, and they could hold enough of their own in check.

Here's the problem. Nobody wants to be responsible for dumping anyone off health care. That party would pay a heavy price at the polls. So the only direction to go that is politically feasible is to help out the people that Obamacare screwed while not dumping the people that Obamacare helped. That means universal care, basically. The problem with universal care is that you can't pay for it without injecting a bunch more tax money, and nobody wants to raise taxes to pay for it. Democrats don't even want that. That's why they came up with a bunch of horsecrap funding devices in Obamacare that don't work. That's why Obamacare is going to crash.

So do Bismarck and pay for it with a consumption tax. This makes Medicaid redundant and also heavily subsidizes Medicare. I would think about doing it in a way that ultimately phases our Medicare, but you can't do that overnight. I would also do some sort of universal basic income (UBI) based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, and farm out the current welfare hodgepodge to the states on an elective/voluntary basis (they can afford them with what they save off eliminating Medicaid). A consumption tax at, say 15% (below world levels) would also generate enough to balance the budget and lower and flatten individual and corporate income tax rates to below world competitive levels. We still have taxes, but we are below worldwide levels across the board, with will definitely bring investment (and good-paying jobs) back in a big way.

I really don't think that there is another way to go that is fiscally viable.

First party to come up with this gets my votes (and my nickels).

Do you have this saved somewhere and just copy and paste, or do you actually type it out each time?

Some of each. I vary it a bit. This one is a bit different from anything else I've posted.

As I said above, I don't see another approach that is fiscally viable. Certainly noting that either party has proposed is. If somebody has another idea that would work, I'm all for it.

Europe provides both a better and more comprehensive welfare safety net and a more tax-efficient deal for investors than we do. It should be hard to do both, but our system is so screwed up that we make it easy to do better.

(07-25-2017 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-25-2017 07:51 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-25-2017 07:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They could get Bismarck through congress. A bunch of democrats would vote for it, and they could hold enough of their own in check.

Here's the problem. Nobody wants to be responsible for dumping anyone off health care. That party would pay a heavy price at the polls. So the only direction to go that is politically feasible is to help out the people that Obamacare screwed while not dumping the people that Obamacare helped. That means universal care, basically. The fact problem with universal care is that you can't pay for it without injecting a bunch more tax money, and nobody wants to raise taxes to pay for it. Democrats don't even want that. That's why they came up with a bunch of horsecrap funding devices in Obamacare that don't work. That's why Obamacare is going to crash.

So do Bismarck and pay for it with a consumption tax. This makes Medicaid redundant and also heavily subsidizes Medicare. I would think about doing it in a way that ultimately phases our Medicare, but you can't do that overnight. I would also do some sort of universal basic income (UBI) based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, and farm out the current welfare hodgepodge to the states on an elective/voluntary basis (they can afford them with what they save off eliminating Medicaid). A consumption tax at, say 15% (below world levels) would also generate enough to balance the budget and lower and flatten individual and corporate income tax rates to below world competitive levels. We still have taxes, but we are below worldwide levels across the board, with will definitely bring investment (and good-paying jobs) back in a big way.

I really don't think that there is another way to go that is fiscally viable.

First party to come up with this gets my votes (and my nickels).

Do you have this saved somewhere and just copy and paste, or do you actually type it out each time?

Some of each. I vary it a bit. This one is a bit different from anything else I've posted.

As I said above, I don't see another approach that is fiscally viable. Certainly noting that either party has proposed is. If somebody has another idea that would work, I'm all for it.

Europe provides both a better and more comprehensive welfare safety net and a more tax-efficient deal for investors than we do. It should be hard to do both, but our system is so screwed up that we make it easy to do better.

Yes they do provide healthcare to all and a better safety net. They do it by running up debt even faster than we do. Our finances are a mess--but the US is the thinnest girl at the western world fat farm. If you're suggesting the European model is fiscally viable---your barking up the wrong tree. That just gets us to financial Armageddon faster.

(07-25-2017 10:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yes they do. They do it by running up debt even faster than we do. Our finances are a mess--but the US is the thinnest girl at the western world fat farm. If you're suggesting the European model is fiscally viable---your barking up the wrong tree. That just gets us to financial Armageddon faster.

The European approach gets into trouble two ways:

1) They tend to let their social welfare programs get out of hand. This is something that would be a concern with the approach I outlined. I'm proposing a very comprehensive but limited social safety net. It would require a great deal of diligence to keep that safety net from growing into much more. I acknowledge that. I still think the framework I outlined would work better than what we have now.

2) A lot of their economies are on shaky ground. Shaky ground = shaky tax receipts. We don't really have that problem. Or we have it, but to a lesser extent.

(07-25-2017 07:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They could get Bismarck through congress. A bunch of democrats would vote for it, and they could hold enough of their own in check.

Here's the problem. Nobody wants to be responsible for dumping anyone off health care. That party would pay a heavy price at the polls. So the only direction to go that is politically feasible is to help out the people that Obamacare screwed while not dumping the people that Obamacare helped. That means universal care, basically. The problem with universal care is that you can't pay for it without injecting a bunch more tax money, and nobody wants to raise taxes to pay for it. Democrats don't even want that. That's why they came up with a bunch of horsecrap funding devices in Obamacare that don't work. That's why Obamacare is going to crash.

So do Bismarck and pay for it with a consumption tax. This makes Medicaid redundant and also heavily subsidizes Medicare. I would think about doing it in a way that ultimately phases our Medicare, but you can't do that overnight. I would also do some sort of universal basic income (UBI) based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, and farm out the current welfare hodgepodge to the states on an elective/voluntary basis (they can afford them with what they save off eliminating Medicaid). A consumption tax at, say 15% (below world levels) would also generate enough to balance the budget and lower and flatten individual and corporate income tax rates to below world competitive levels. We still have taxes, but we are below worldwide levels across the board, with will definitely bring investment (and good-paying jobs) back in a big way.

I really don't think that there is another way to go that is fiscally viable.

First party to come up with this gets my votes (and my nickels).

Without cutting costs, Bismark would not improve healthcare here. It works in Europe because their surgeons don't use $1,000 scalples. We have deep problems.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(07-25-2017 07:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They could get Bismarck through congress. A bunch of democrats would vote for it, and they could hold enough of their own in check.

Here's the problem. Nobody wants to be responsible for dumping anyone off health care. That party would pay a heavy price at the polls. So the only direction to go that is politically feasible is to help out the people that Obamacare screwed while not dumping the people that Obamacare helped. That means universal care, basically. The problem with universal care is that you can't pay for it without injecting a bunch more tax money, and nobody wants to raise taxes to pay for it. Democrats don't even want that. That's why they came up with a bunch of horsecrap funding devices in Obamacare that don't work. That's why Obamacare is going to crash.

So do Bismarck and pay for it with a consumption tax. This makes Medicaid redundant and also heavily subsidizes Medicare. I would think about doing it in a way that ultimately phases our Medicare, but you can't do that overnight. I would also do some sort of universal basic income (UBI) based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, and farm out the current welfare hodgepodge to the states on an elective/voluntary basis (they can afford them with what they save off eliminating Medicaid). A consumption tax at, say 15% (below world levels) would also generate enough to balance the budget and lower and flatten individual and corporate income tax rates to below world competitive levels. We still have taxes, but we are below worldwide levels across the board, with will definitely bring investment (and good-paying jobs) back in a big way.

I really don't think that there is another way to go that is fiscally viable.

First party to come up with this gets my votes (and my nickels).

XACLY! that's why passing the ACA bill was shite, and would now be self crucifying for any dippo that doesn't pacify....the lobbyists alone would shite in their beds....

however, at some point, the tough decision to right this ship is going to happen one way or the other.....

I prefer your suggestions and/or tort/interstate insurance reforms as a first pass.....as a consumer, I would accept any combo....however, we both know that isn't going to happen...

I hate politics...and I really despise having to pay attention to bullshite that should have never happened in the first place.....

(07-25-2017 11:20 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-25-2017 07:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They could get Bismarck through congress. A bunch of democrats would vote for it, and they could hold enough of their own in check.
Here's the problem. Nobody wants to be responsible for dumping anyone off health care. That party would pay a heavy price at the polls. So the only direction to go that is politically feasible is to help out the people that Obamacare screwed while not dumping the people that Obamacare helped. That means universal care, basically. The problem with universal care is that you can't pay for it without injecting a bunch more tax money, and nobody wants to raise taxes to pay for it. Democrats don't even want that. That's why they came up with a bunch of horsecrap funding devices in Obamacare that don't work. That's why Obamacare is going to crash.
So do Bismarck and pay for it with a consumption tax. This makes Medicaid redundant and also heavily subsidizes Medicare. I would think about doing it in a way that ultimately phases our Medicare, but you can't do that overnight. I would also do some sort of universal basic income (UBI) based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, and farm out the current welfare hodgepodge to the states on an elective/voluntary basis (they can afford them with what they save off eliminating Medicaid). A consumption tax at, say 15% (below world levels) would also generate enough to balance the budget and lower and flatten individual and corporate income tax rates to below world competitive levels. We still have taxes, but we are below worldwide levels across the board, with will definitely bring investment (and good-paying jobs) back in a big way.
I really don't think that there is another way to go that is fiscally viable.
First party to come up with this gets my votes (and my nickels).

Without cutting costs, Bismarck (sic) would not improve healthcare here. It works in Europe because their surgeons don't use $1,000 scalples. We have deep problems.

Over half our health care costs are incurred in the last three years of life. We're not going to cut costs until we decide culturally that it's okay to let grandma die. Single payer and single provider systems tell grandma to queue up, take a number, go home, and come back next year. And if grandma dies at home, it's not their fault, and think of all the money they'll save.

There are some things we can do to cut costs. If we enacted Bismarck, I would expect a furious competition among health insurers to find the best model for delivering basic care.

(07-25-2017 11:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-25-2017 11:20 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-25-2017 07:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They could get Bismarck through congress. A bunch of democrats would vote for it, and they could hold enough of their own in check.
Here's the problem. Nobody wants to be responsible for dumping anyone off health care. That party would pay a heavy price at the polls. So the only direction to go that is politically feasible is to help out the people that Obamacare screwed while not dumping the people that Obamacare helped. That means universal care, basically. The problem with universal care is that you can't pay for it without injecting a bunch more tax money, and nobody wants to raise taxes to pay for it. Democrats don't even want that. That's why they came up with a bunch of horsecrap funding devices in Obamacare that don't work. That's why Obamacare is going to crash.
So do Bismarck and pay for it with a consumption tax. This makes Medicaid redundant and also heavily subsidizes Medicare. I would think about doing it in a way that ultimately phases our Medicare, but you can't do that overnight. I would also do some sort of universal basic income (UBI) based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, and farm out the current welfare hodgepodge to the states on an elective/voluntary basis (they can afford them with what they save off eliminating Medicaid). A consumption tax at, say 15% (below world levels) would also generate enough to balance the budget and lower and flatten individual and corporate income tax rates to below world competitive levels. We still have taxes, but we are below worldwide levels across the board, with will definitely bring investment (and good-paying jobs) back in a big way.
I really don't think that there is another way to go that is fiscally viable.
First party to come up with this gets my votes (and my nickels).

Without cutting costs, Bismarck (sic) would not improve healthcare here. It works in Europe because their surgeons don't use $1,000 scalples. We have deep problems.

Over half our health care costs are incurred in the last three years of life. We're not going to cut costs until we decide culturally that it's okay to let grandma die. Single payer and single provider systems tell grandma to queue up, take a number, go home, and come back next year. And if grandma dies at home, it's not their fault, and think of all the money they'll save.

There are some things we can do to cut costs. If we enacted Bismarck, I would expect a furious competition among health insurers to find the best model for delivering basic care.

That's BS. Let's cut the other half and let grandma live. I'd rather be cut open by a $5 scalple instead of a $1,000 one than have lawyers putting down grandma. Phuck that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(07-25-2017 07:06 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  You'll give them money when you forget about this.

Bet not. Maybe he will, but for someone who was on board since '82, and have 5 or 6 signed pictures of smilin Laura and W. They haven't seen a dime from me in, what? 14 yrs now?

Some of us actually stand behind what we believe and don't simply slide into the "Team Vs. whomever" idiocy.

Sorry if you do.

(07-25-2017 11:33 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-25-2017 11:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-25-2017 11:20 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-25-2017 07:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  They could get Bismarck through congress. A bunch of democrats would vote for it, and they could hold enough of their own in check.
Here's the problem. Nobody wants to be responsible for dumping anyone off health care. That party would pay a heavy price at the polls. So the only direction to go that is politically feasible is to help out the people that Obamacare screwed while not dumping the people that Obamacare helped. That means universal care, basically. The problem with universal care is that you can't pay for it without injecting a bunch more tax money, and nobody wants to raise taxes to pay for it. Democrats don't even want that. That's why they came up with a bunch of horsecrap funding devices in Obamacare that don't work. That's why Obamacare is going to crash.
So do Bismarck and pay for it with a consumption tax. This makes Medicaid redundant and also heavily subsidizes Medicare. I would think about doing it in a way that ultimately phases our Medicare, but you can't do that overnight. I would also do some sort of universal basic income (UBI) based on either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, and farm out the current welfare hodgepodge to the states on an elective/voluntary basis (they can afford them with what they save off eliminating Medicaid). A consumption tax at, say 15% (below world levels) would also generate enough to balance the budget and lower and flatten individual and corporate income tax rates to below world competitive levels. We still have taxes, but we are below worldwide levels across the board, with will definitely bring investment (and good-paying jobs) back in a big way.
I really don't think that there is another way to go that is fiscally viable.
First party to come up with this gets my votes (and my nickels).

Without cutting costs, Bismarck (sic) would not improve healthcare here. It works in Europe because their surgeons don't use $1,000 scalples. We have deep problems.

Over half our health care costs are incurred in the last three years of life. We're not going to cut costs until we decide culturally that it's okay to let grandma die. Single payer and single provider systems tell grandma to queue up, take a number, go home, and come back next year. And if grandma dies at home, it's not their fault, and think of all the money they'll save.
There are some things we can do to cut costs. If we enacted Bismarck, I would expect a furious competition among health insurers to find the best model for delivering basic care.

That's BS. Let's cut the other half and let grandma live. I'd rather be cut open by a $5 scalple instead of a $1,000 one than have lawyers putting down grandma. Phuck that.

I'm not sure you quite caught my drift. You hear a lot about how single-payer and single-provider systems cost less. They cost less because they let grandma die. And there's nothing you can do about it in single-payer. You do have some (very expensive) options in single-provider.

Bismarck costs are comparable to the most expensive single-payer/single-provider systems, but still considerably less than here. It's kind of a combination of the best of both. Routine stuff is handled on the "free" side on a capitation basis, like single-payer or single-provider, so it's cheaper than here, but they still have the fee-for-service "pay" side when it's time to save grandma.

If you want to get rid of the $1,000 scalpel, you need to reform malpractice. You get those because no doc wants to answer the following questions on the witness stand:
"You did this operation with a $5 scalpel, right?"
"Yes."
"And you could have used a $1,000 scalpel, right?"
"Yes."
"And the $1,000 scalpel is better, right?"
"Well, yes, but ..."
At that point the jury has decided that they will go with whatever number the ambulance chaser writes on the white board.

(07-25-2017 10:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That just gets us to financial Armageddon faster.

Much better to let the economy go to dog____ because of skyrocketing spending on healthcare.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

(07-26-2017 08:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-25-2017 10:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That just gets us to financial Armageddon faster.

Much better to let the economy go to dog____ because of skyrocketing spending on healthcare.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

that's the ticket.....kill 'em all since I gotta use a monthly tamping....

why look at economic fundamentals......that make 0'care cents....

you're easier than xxx-555-xxxx

You almost wrote something that could be understood, stink.

Keep up the good work

(07-26-2017 09:11 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  You almost wrote something that could be understood, stink.

Keep up the good work

I'm sorry......I misspelled "tampon"