Reply With Quote
Really?!? lol no chance for it then if thats the case
I think 50 votes is the threshold for budgetary/money/tax issues (specifically for Obamacare - repealing the individual mandate). 60 votes are still need for non-monetary issues.
Really?!? lol no chance for it then if thats the case
I'd much rather let 85 year old vegetables who can't do anything other than live in their own piss and die than spend trillions of dollars prolonging their life another 2-3 years the way we currently do.
Do you want to live in your own piss and when it's your turn? What do you plan to do then? Commit suicide?
Absolutely. When I’m 85 years old, bed ridden and need help wiping my ass, I would want to be put out of my misery.
Why not start now?
What's the right stuff?
careful you dont cut yourself on that edge there bro
LMAO at a Trump complaining about suing at the drop of a hat.
I agree with you but this is often considered Nazi policy. We spend billions to keep vegetative bodies in stasis so loved ones in denial can feel better about it, or for whatever other reason. When my wife got sick, I knew she wasn't really responding. I waited a couple days and told them to pull the plug. They said "it's only a gall bladder operation". So?
You should've tried this
Arguably, there's the same or even more risk with labor, and that income gets taxed at the usual rates too. Frankly, if we're being straightforward about it, the main reason for incentivizing capital investment is that the entire financial sector benefits from transaction fees and portfolio management.
They do, but it's much less pronounced than the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ure_per_capita
The US system is already basically largely socialized. What's saved from having healthy people on private insurance is lost by having by far the largest insurer (the government) be unable to negotiate better prices.
German college education is entirely funded by the Government. So government foots that bill too there, what's the next excuse?
A Doctorate in Australia runs about $11,000... $21,000 in the US. Do you really think Aussie doctors are much worse than Americans? Heck, the US is importing Indian doctors all the time, that's the healthcare/level of education you're getting. College costs in the US are incredibly overinflated simply because muh free market, price to bear, and high availability of credit. It's a great business, but eventually the greediness in those areas does a disservice to the country.
There's so many ways to tackle this that wouldn't require full blown socialized healthcare...
One idea, out of many out there: Instead of having doctors do their internship in for-profit hospitals, have them work on government-run clinics for a couple years, fresh out of college, salaried, treating the same patients that will end up in an emergency room, where the hospital is going to recoup the money from the government anyways for an overinflated fee. Throw in free vaccination (with government capping the profit of the vaccine, since they're the largest customer) which is actually a net positive for society in general and reduced other costs long term. If clinics grow too popular and you need more docs, increase the pay or import them, like the private sector already does. You largely already control salaries by the mandate that freshmen doctors bid a limited time serving the public (for a living wage), the rest is balancing demand. Another idea: incentivize getting a medical degree or doctors attending these clinics by paying down the doctor's education through service in these clinics. Lastly, mandate catastrophic insurance coverage for the working population.
This:
- Reduces emergency room visits for basic care, and the reimbursements government has to do at emergency room rates for basic care. Hospitals are free to divert patients to the clinics once the patient is in a stable condition for followups, etc.
- Removes the need for a fully comprehensive insurance policy, since basic care would be covered and freely available. Insurance companies can still stay in business and make money through catastrophic insurance (less money, but money nonetheless)
- Doctors and private practices compete on quality paid vs subsidized services, in a race to the bottom which is how costs come down in every other industry (even in the free market, see companies undercutting themselves all the time, or offering quality as extra value. That's choice).
- Hospitals can focus on complex, catastrophic care. If you think about it, it's ridiculous that in this day and age they still see people for an ear infection, or the common cold, etc.
- Largely tackles the vast majority of doctor's visits, 2/3 of which are for chronic conditions, such as patients with diabetes or hearth conditions, which require constant checkups, but generally don't end up requiring complex care.
- Medicare and Medicaid would become just a subsidy to pay for the catastrophic insurance (you could even group them for extra savings), and prescription drugs (copay or no copay on this, debatable depending on income, etc).
- Retains the Hospital vs Insurance battle for lower costs, but outside of basic care. One of the weak points of this plan is that Hospitals might be tempted to charge outrageous prices for complex services, but the dynamic of the insurance company trying to get the best deal would fight it off.
Any patient that wants to see their own doctor and pay out of pocket for basic service, let them. You can grow a cottage private sector industry of concierge basic healthcare, like many countries have. The fact that they have to compete against standardized care, means they need to focus on quality, service and tangible benefits to the patients, but the fact that some people will choose for this option, removes pressure on the public system. This doesn't even touch pharma (except the vaccine part, but another can of worms that has another diverse amount of ideas to tackle), largely refocuses insurance and hospitals, and still delegates a role for the private sector, while giving peace of mind to a large section of the population.
There's lots ideas like these, and different countries have taken different approaches to it. Would a system like this be substantially more expensive than what we already pay for Medicare, Medicaid, subsidies to Hospitals and out of pockets prices? Debatable. There's tangible ideas there to bring down specific costs. It specifically tries to tackle the fact that while it makes sense that complex, specific care is very expensive, basic care should not be, but it is right now. A broken finger that doesn't require surgery is treated the same in every country, but in the US can easily run you in the thousands of dollars, from emergency room visit, to x-rays, to followups.
My 2c. In before TL/DR...
The (opposite) result of raising long term capital gains is that the market might become static - as in people invest but never sell: less transaction fees, portfolio management, movement, volatility. No selling = no gains/taxes. Regardless, capital gains taxes will not pay for single payer. That's a whole 'nother ballgame. If people contribute their whole working life to Medicare and it's using current workers' contribution and will still be in trouble in 2028?, why in the world would anyone think that you could cover everybody and still keep costs under control (knowing that if something's free, the demand for it goes up)?
That's actually what the market was for the longest time, a long term investment tool. Not only there's nothing wrong with that, it contributed to perhaps the biggest growth the US has seen in it's history.
I didn't make the claim capital gain taxes would pay for single-payor, so I'm not going to defend it. I posted something more akin to a comprehensive healthcare reform. The answer to your question is pretty simple: the US, so far, hasn't tackled cost.
Healthcare is, unavoidably, something people will always need sooner or later, especially later. It's a very specific market, since the demand is not equal at any age. As such, you'll find two competing interests, one is cost, the other is access. Left to it's own devices, it will price itself to a mean where most people can afford it, but not everyone can, especially those that require it the most. That's why the typical free market approach to it never worked (including in the US, where the 'ugly' part is entirely socialized).
So you can't run away from what the market is, what you can do is find the right combination of incentives and tools to actually manage that market. Service providers are interested in turning a profit, the government (and by extension, the people) are interested in access. They're both valid goals, and neither should be above the other. This is something most every other country figured out a long time ago, and, imperfectly, tried to balance. The US has just been slow in identifying a solution that's both efficient with tax dollars and provides a modi of peace of mind.
While Obamacare is incredibly flawed, didn't address the cost problem, and only tried to tackle access, at least it shook the status quo, and removed healthcare reform from it's old 'untouchable' status. We'll see if we use that extremely flawed system as a stepping stone to something better.
By the way, the first step in Trump getting re-elected would be Pelosi getting voted in again as speaker of the house.
Capital gains don't just apply to equities. it also affects real estate, small businesses, and other alternative investments. Many of the tech startups on state of the art stuff we rely on now were created by angel investors taking huge risks in hopes of later long term capital gains.
The German government also decides who does and doesn't go to this "free" college.
I do agree that US college education is obscenely expensive and lengthy. Part of that is the "required' classes where half of the classes that one is required to pay for have nothing to do with the degree being sought.
Agreed. It’s re ed that someone who majors in a STEM field like physics or math has to take a certain amount of “humanities” classes.
Imo, Pelosi not going after Trump via endless investigations will get Trump to the table willing to negotiate on infrastructure - although the House pretty much is more polarized (the moderate/never Trumpers gone leaving the more right). A far left speaker, otoh, guarantees nothing getting done the next 2 years. Now, as to which option will help get Trump re-elected, we can respectfully disagree on.
I can see it now - "Sorry, you didn't score such and such so you CAN'T go into xxxxx." Imagine the affirmative action issues with the government deciding who gets to go into what and throwing in race on top of that. I don't think Americans are ready for being tracked into certain vocations much less being told what they can and cannot do.
I’m not saying they need a far left speaker, I’m saying they need a speaker not named Nancy Pelosi
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
