1876 replies to this topic

[Cloud]

Anyone seen my bong? >_>

I got excited when somebody suggested they would legalize weed. :cookie:

No. Kidding. I don't touch drugs or alcohol. It'd be a wicked idea, but the entire country would be stoners over night....

[Dark]

The Personal use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act.

Yeah, because it'll be mostly responsible adults using it.



sigh.

[Tahaji]

Its bad enough we have so much alcohol and prescription drug abuse in this country, lets go ahead and make weed readily available.

Ive been to High School, so no, I do not want to see this drug legalized.

Edited by Tahaji, 17 July 2009 - 04:58 AM.

[Nate River]

I have a way to pay for Universal Healthcare. Legalize Marijuana. There I said it. Trillions, and I mean trillions, could be raised in taxes. Also it creates a new industry to help stimulate the economy.

I don't know, it just saddens me to see this overwhelming neo-facist rhetoric of not believing in helping out those in need. I find it sad to see those so called of faith to be the ones to scream "don't take my money". While I am conservative in the sense of keeping the market free, I am very liberal in the sense of believing in helping those less fortunate than myself. I think medicine should be socialized and that there should be socialized education of the college level.

We have seen far too many of these fat cats, who live in a life of opulence, look down upon those without. It makes me sick. They use a combination of fear, lowering of education value, and a false sense of superiority to control the masses. Even now, even though Barack Obama has been in office for only 6 months, have already cast a blanket of doubt. While I don't agree with his fiscal policies, I would rather have him in office than any of these so called Republicans.

I am going to say this, both Democrats and Republicans have been in the pockets of these overinflated HMO's and pharmaceutical companies for far too long. I say we stop this farce and truly listen to the people's needs.

It won't work. California already put out an estimate on what would be raised in thier state if it were completely legalized. It won't come close to closing a 20+ billion dollar budget deficit, so why should I expect to make enough to cover something that will almost certaintly cost much more than is being projected by the CBO (1 trillion)? It'll raise far less than you think it will, and this bill Obama's trying to get passed will cost much more. Chuck Shumer called the CBO's estimate wackey. He's in for a very rude awakening when it turns out to be far below the actual costs, but I doubt he'll care. He won't be under Obama care and he can just raise taxes again.

Several states have tried to socalize medicine. It's failed everytime. Tennessee tried it then dismantled it when it literally ate up half it's budget. Hawaii tried a universal coverage for kids. It was ment for poor kids, but because it was essentially "free (i.e. paitents didn't pay directly for the cost)" a whole bunch of people it was never intended to cover joined up too. It was dismantled 7 months later because the State couldn't afford it. Masschusetts still has their system, but its costing a lot more than adverstised.

The problem with these state's is that when their system kills thier budget they can't print money to solve the problem.

When these "fat cats" are lit up for the surcharge in the bill, some of the things they'll be encourage to do are leave the country, cut jobs, and find as many ways as possible to take it out of traditional income (like John Edwards did with his money). Either the debt caused by the program or the taxes used to pay it are going to crush what is left of this economy. That is the price of socialized medicine. This also ignores the massive rationing and inferior level of care that exists in those systems. 9 months for arthitis treatement in the UK? 2 years for a hip replacement in Canada? The UK is telling breast cancer patients to go home and no to bother. The UK even has a government agency who's purpose is to find ways to prevent people from getting..though its real mandate is to cut costs, but that, in effect is what happens when they cut costs.

Many of the people that are going to be screwed by the tax increases are small businesses. Hope they don't fire anyone. See the deal is, with all these taxes increases on the rich, Democrats sell the tax as a tax on "somebody else."It is always on "somebody else." Evil rich people everybody hates. People who make so much that the tax couldn't possibly effect their behavior. As I said before, tax increases are easy to swallow when it's not you getting creamed by them. No one is asking who these people that have to pay it are. It's not just a bunch of trustfund babies. It's businesses large and small who will watch the increase eat into the money they make and into the money of those who use their services. With higher costs and lowers sales its harder to make a proft and, as a result, harder to keep their workers employed. This is especially true for small businesses.

I suspect most people here aren't familiar with old luxury tax. It was a tax on all luxury good such as yachts and the like. Basically, rich people stuff, so natually, nobody cared, but evil rich people. Except...the result was that rich people decided it wasn't worth it to buy them and, with the demand killed it became much harder to make money selling them. Consequently, the people who serviced and built these things, i.e. the employees of the companies (middle and lower class people) got hurt when their businesses could no longer afford to employ them. That tax was repealed as a result. It why Obama's assault on coporate jets was so stupid. The people who flew didn't suffer, the people who made and serviced them did.

Expect, the same with the new surcharge. Many people think taxing the rich isn't their problem and doesn't effect them. It does.

Also remember this, when this new surcharge doesn't cover the cost (and it won't, even the liberal Washington Post conceeds you can't pay for this by taxing the rich alone), your income's next.

I don't know, it just saddens me to see this overwhelming neo-facist rhetoric of not believing in helping out those in need. I find it sad to see those so called of faith to be the ones to scream "don't take my money". While I am conservative in the sense of keeping the market free, I am very liberal in the sense of believing in helping those less fortunate than myself. I think medicine should be socialized and that there should be socialized education of the college level.

Neo-fascist? Seriously? I don't think my generation truly understands what the facism 1940's really was.

First, you equate paying taxes with "not helping those in need." It's not one in the same. Many of those people who scream "don't take my money" also donate quite a bit of their own money. Why does not wanting to pay taxes mean people don't want to help others?

Second, it appears that you think wanting to keep what you earn is sinful, or at least, for some people it is. Have you seen what the top total marginal rate will be for New Yorkers once this is done? 57% and may reach 59% Meaning, almost 3/5 of what they earn will be paided for the government. Would you stay up that extra night and work just a little bit harder when you know that you'll lose more than half of that to the government. I doubt it. Taxing a behavior depresses its occurance. The more you tax income, the less reason there is to expend the effort to make it. It's why increasing taxes will many times mean less tax revenue and why it depresses business. Yeah you got a higher rate, but there is less money that the rate applies to.

Moreover, don't forget, those that are most mobile, most able to make use of alternative methods and deductions....are the rich. The more you jack up taxes the more you encourage them to go somewhere else. Maryland enacted a millionare tax....and watch as they're revenue fell by 100 million because the rich just got up and left the State, so they got nothing from them.

If you were a drug company or medical supplies company, would you spend millions trying to create new drugs and treatments when the only availble market is the US government, who will pay whatever it feels like paying you? Absolutely not. It's not worth it. So, it'll kill medical innovation as well.

I don't have any issue with programs that help people who really want to go to College, get there, but socializing it so everyone must go? I most certaintly oppose that. This is the same government that sucks at running the public schools its already in charge of. Why would I want to transfer that failure to the college level? Why not let it fix the schools its already in charge of before adding more and why not let them fix the medical programs they currently run before making everybody subject to them?

I hope when you reach your 50's you never get sick or injured, because when your that age your going to get the short end of the stick under ObamaCare. You think Obama cares sucks and you want something else? Well, TS, because the house bill says you can't do that. It BANS new enrollement. The private insurance market will DIE under ObamaCare. So when he says you can keep your current plan...don't you believe it. You'll keep so long as it can afford to exist or you don't ever change jobs. Notable proponents of such medicine such as Tom Daschle have basically said the elderly need to get out of the way and die. Could you tell your aging friends and family that?

I kinda wonder...what will happen to all those employed in that market when Obama care kills it? I wonder with the current economic climate if they'll have issues finding another?

Congress will still get there care, though. They'll be exempt from the system they plan to force on you, which speaks volumes of their belief in it.

You say your free market, but for socialized medicine and education? The two really aren't compataible. You should also know what socialized medicine means for regulation. It gives them the power to regulate EVERYTHING you do. If costs run out of control (and I guarantee you they will) and the government has to save costs...there is no behavior they can't regulate under the guise of cutting costs. And, yet you complain about "fat-cats controlling the masses?" Socialized medicine and education are the epitome of anti-free markets.

Oh yeah, this comes to us from the same US Government that runs medicaid and medicare, who, by the way, are broke and subject to massive fraud. If you can explain to me why I should believe they'll do a better job with ObamaCare I might be a little more receptive.

EDIT: Oh, and Obama's policy doesn't touch one of the real causea for high medical costs...tort reform and malpratice. And he won't either because one of Obama's biggest constituents is...the trial bar.

[Nee-sama]

I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you both said, Sir Whirly and Nate River. I know they are complete opposite arguments but you both sound right.
What I can't understand is why Obama is pushing for this to be done and set in stone so fast. Obviously there are huge gaping flaws in his plan and so many people want to trash the whole idea altogether, so why the rush? Why is he leaning so close to making the whole country socialist and what the heck are us Average Joe's and Jane's supposed to do about it?

[Sir Whirly]

It won't work. California already put out an estimate on what would be raised in thier state if it were completely legalized. It won't come close to closing a 20+ billion dollar budget deficit, so why should I expect to make enough to cover something that will almost certaintly cost much more than is being projected by the CBO (1 trillion)? It'll raise far less than you think it will, and this bill Obama's trying to get passed will cost much more. Chuck Shumer called the CBO's estimate wackey. He's in for a very rude awakening when it turns out to be far below the actual costs, but I doubt he'll care. He won't be under Obama care and he can just raise taxes again.

So, lets add all the states together. And see what kind of final numbers we come up with. While it may not necessarily pay for it all, I think it could help in the long run. It is a way of coming up with something to help it along.

Several states have tried to socalize medicine. It's failed everytime. Tennessee tried it then dismantled it when it literally ate up half it's budget. Hawaii tried a universal coverage for kids. It was ment for poor kids, but because it was essentially "free (i.e. paitents didn't pay directly for the cost)" a whole bunch of people it was never intended to cover joined up too. It was dismantled 7 months later because the State couldn't afford it. Masschusetts still has their system, but its costing a lot more than adverstised.

The problem with these state's is that when their system kills thier budget they can't print money to solve the problem.

Ah, once again it is a state issue? So state by state they can't keep up. We arent talking about state by state. Why don't we take into account both Canada, Britain and France. They have universal health care and seem to do ok. Sure, maybe on some cases there is a waiting list, but when you get down to it, at least you get seen. Also, with certain things here in the states, not all cases have certain things done right away.

When these "fat cats" are lit up for the surcharge in the bill, some of the things they'll be encourage to do are leave the country, cut jobs, and find as many ways as possible to take it out of traditional income (like John Edwards did with his money). Either the debt caused by the program or the taxes used to pay it are going to crush what is left of this economy. That is the price of socialized medicine. This also ignores the massive rationing and inferior level of care that exists in those systems. 9 months for arthitis treatement in the UK? 2 years for a hip replacement in Canada? The UK is telling breast cancer patients to go home and no to bother. The UK even has a government agency who's purpose is to find ways to prevent people from getting..though its real mandate is to cut costs, but that, in effect is what happens when they cut costs.

As far as the situation as far as waiting goes, I am curious, where do you get you numbers from? If you have a link, please provide us with it, I would like to take a look. Oh, I want it from a medical site.

Many of the people that are going to be screwed by the tax increases are small businesses. Hope they don't fire anyone. See the deal is, with all these taxes increases on the rich, Democrats sell the tax as a tax on "somebody else."It is always on "somebody else." Evil rich people everybody hates. People who make so much that the tax couldn't possibly effect their behavior. As I said before, tax increases are easy to swallow when it's not you getting creamed by them. No one is asking who these people that have to pay it are. It's not just a bunch of trustfund babies. It's businesses large and small who will watch the increase eat into the money they make and into the money of those who use their services. With higher costs and lowers sales its harder to make a proft and, as a result, harder to keep their workers employed. This is especially true for small businesses.

Small business? Really? I have talked to plenty of small business owners and guess what? The economy is already making sure that they don't stay afloat right now. The economy is already failing. We have placed a band-aid on a gaping open wound. Now here is the question, is it a tax on their business or on their personal?

I suspect most people here aren't familiar with old luxury tax. It was a tax on all luxury good such as yachts and the like. Basically, rich people stuff, so natually, nobody cared, but evil rich people. Except...the result was that rich people decided it wasn't worth it to buy them and, with the demand killed it became much harder to make money selling them. Consequently, the people who serviced and built these things, i.e. the employees of the companies (middle and lower class people) got hurt when their businesses could no longer afford to employ them. That tax was repealed as a result. It why Obama's assault on coporate jets was so stupid. The people who flew didn't suffer, the people who made and serviced them did.

Expect, the same with the new surcharge. Many people think taxing the rich isn't their problem and doesn't effect them. It does.

Also remember this, when this new surcharge doesn't cover the cost (and it won't, even the liberal Washington Post conceeds you can't pay for this by taxing the rich alone), your income's next.

There shouldn't be a luxury tax, I will agree with this. And I know taxing the rich alone won't so it, thus using the taxation of marijuana to help with the cost. Also, I will say why not institute a flat income tax make things a little harder to skirt around your taxes.

Neo-fascist? Seriously? I don't think my generation truly understands what the facism 1940's really was.

Actually, fascism has always been a fascination of mine. So in many ways I feel I have a good grasp on what it is. There are different forms of fascism and the elite of this country believe in a form of it. I see a party using a theological fascism to control the masses through fear.

First, you equate paying taxes with "not helping those in need." It's not one in the same. Many of those people who scream "don't take my money" also donate quite a bit of their own money. Why does not wanting to pay taxes mean people don't want to help others?

Yea, show statistics of this. I am certain that those who do donate, donate just enough to help write off for their income taxes. While I will agree that there some who above and beyond the call of duty with their contributions, I dont see it as the norm.

Second, it appears that you think wanting to keep what you earn is sinful, or at least, for some people it is. Have you seen what the top total marginal rate will be for New Yorkers once this is done? 57% and may reach 59% Meaning, almost 3/5 of what they earn will be paided for the government. Would you stay up that extra night and work just a little bit harder when you know that you'll lose more than half of that to the government. I doubt it. Taxing a behavior depresses its occurance. The more you tax income, the less reason there is to expend the effort to make it. It's why increasing taxes will many times mean less tax revenue and why it depresses business. Yeah you got a higher rate, but there is less money that the rate applies to.

I will say that this amount is a bit excessive, at the same time you are talking about the way high income people. Ooh, 2/5 of ten million is still $4million dollars. Honestly wouldn't mind if I made that much. I think I could comfortably live on that.

Moreover, don't forget, those that are most mobile, most able to make use of alternative methods and deductions....are the rich. The more you jack up taxes the more you encourage them to go somewhere else. Maryland enacted a millionare tax....and watch as they're revenue fell by 100 million because the rich just got up and left the State, so they got nothing from them.

If we do it nationwide, where do they go? There are no other developed countries for them to run to that doesn't tax like what has been publicized here recently. If they leave the country, they hurt themselves in the long run and honestly it would maybe free up the economy here a bit.

If you were a drug company or medical supplies company, would you spend millions trying to create new drugs and treatments when the only availble market is the US government, who will pay whatever it feels like paying you? Absolutely not. It's not worth it. So, it'll kill medical innovation as well.

Wow that is just BS and you know it. Kill medical innovation, c'mon. The majority of medical breakthroughs that have been done by a private firms has been anxiety medicine and impotence cures. Mainly, it has been public and private schools who have come through with the truly innovative medicine breakthroughs.

I don't have any issue with programs that help people who really want to go to College, get there, but socializing it so everyone must go? I most certaintly oppose that. This is the same government that sucks at running the public schools its already in charge of. Why would I want to transfer that failure to the college level? Why not let it fix the schools its already in charge of before adding more and why not let them fix the medical programs they currently run before making everybody subject to them?

Ah yes, the public school system which is broken by a state by state running. So those in the rich neighborhoods get more funding than those in the poor neighborhoods. Tell me that broken situation. No Child Left Behind. Ha! As far as socializing schools, I believe the private schools can continue on doing their thing.

I hope when you reach your 50's you never get sick or injured, because when your that age your going to get the short end of the stick under ObamaCare. You think Obama cares sucks and you want something else? Well, TS, because the house bill says you can't do that. It BANS new enrollement. The private insurance market will DIE under ObamaCare. So when he says you can keep your current plan...don't you believe it. You'll keep so long as it can afford to exist or you don't ever change jobs. Notable proponents of such medicine such as Tom Daschle have basically said the elderly need to get out of the way and die. Could you tell your aging friends and family that?

Oh you mean like my 58 year old father, who because he was laid off, can no longer afford healthcare. Cool. You explain why he can't keep himself in the best of health because the government he has always believed in says no sorry, you dont have money. Sorry, not my problem.

I kinda wonder...what will happen to all those employed in that market when Obama care kills it? I wonder with the current economic climate if they'll have issues finding another?

Congress will still get there care, though. They'll be exempt from the system they plan to force on you, which speaks volumes of their belief in it.

You say your free market, but for socialized medicine and education? The two really aren't compataible. You should also know what socialized medicine means for regulation. It gives them the power to regulate EVERYTHING you do. If costs run out of control (and I guarantee you they will) and the government has to save costs...there is no behavior they can't regulate under the guise of cutting costs. And, yet you complain about "fat-cats controlling the masses?" Socialized medicine and education are the epitome of anti-free markets.

Really? Just in essence of not allowing medical companies to make an obscene profit. I like to believe you can have your cake and eat it too.

Oh yeah, this comes to us from the same US Government that runs medicaid and medicare, who, by the way, are broke and subject to massive fraud. If you can explain to me why I should believe they'll do a better job with ObamaCare I might be a little more receptive.

EDIT: Oh, and Obama's policy doesn't touch one of the real causea for high medical costs...tort reform and malpratice. And he won't either because one of Obama's biggest constituents is...the trial bar.

Well I guess a universal health care wouldn't change that aspect at all. Believe me when I say, a good portion of those mal practice suits are for a reason. My mother had surgery done on her shoulder and the first doctor made things worse when he performed surgery, just because he was in a hurry to go on vacation. High medical cost are more than just malpractice and tort reforms and you know it.

[Nate River]

So, lets add all the states together. And see what kind of final numbers we come up with. While it may not necessarily pay for it all, I think it could help in the long run. It is a way of coming up with something to help it along.

Ah, once again it is a state issue? So state by state they can't keep up. We arent talking about state by state. Why don't we take into account both Canada, Britain and France. They have universal health care and seem to do ok. Sure, maybe on some cases there is a waiting list, but when you get down to it, at least you get seen. Also, with certain things here in the states, not all cases have certain things done right away.

As far as the situation as far as waiting goes, I am curious, where do you get you numbers from? If you have a link, please provide us with it, I would like to take a look. Oh, I want it from a medical site.

Small business? Really? I have talked to plenty of small business owners and guess what? The economy is already making sure that they don't stay afloat right now. The economy is already failing. We have placed a band-aid on a gaping open wound. Now here is the question, is it a tax on their business or on their personal?

Califronia's estimated revenue...1.4 billion from legalization. The most populous will produce 1.4 billion....it won't come close to paying for it.

Your missing the point on the state systems. They were tried and in all three cases they've costs far more than inteded and killed the State's budget. ObamaCare will do the same. The only real difference at the federal level is that when they turn out to be wrong they can print the difference. Okay, I'll take them into account. I always wanted the twenty years of economic stagnation that they all went through as a result of the massive taxes and spending needed to fund all their entitlements.

I know small business is hurting. You think taxing them up the wazoo is going to make the economy better? It's a surcharge on income, meaning whatever you have to claim as your income is what is taxed. The gross (not net) earnings of most small businesses are reported as personal income and, thus, will fall under the surcharge.

What do you think the tax is going to do to the economy? Your argument seems to say, well, they're getting their asses kicked in this economy, what's one more swift kick in the rear. Otherwise, I don't see how the fact that they're hurting now has any impact whether this tax is a good idea or not. If anything its an argument about why its a bad idea.

There shouldn't be a luxury tax, I will agree with this. And I know taxing the rich alone won't so it, thus using the taxation of marijuana to help with the cost. Also, I will say why not institute a flat income tax make things a little harder to skirt around your taxes.

You appear to miss the point of why the luxury was a bad idea. It was a tax on the rich that punished the poor. When the rich are heavily taxed, they're not the only ones that pay for it. Almost all taxes passed on them also end up hurting those under them. ANd as I said, if this doesn't cover it....they'll need to tax somebody else.

I agree with a flat tax, but that belief is independent of universal care.

Yea, show statistics of this. I am certain that those who do donate, donate just enough to help write off for their income taxes. While I will agree that there some who above and beyond the call of duty with their contributions, I dont see it as the norm.

Yeah, and Obama wants to reduce that deducation. Even most Democrats hate that policy. Personally, I don't give a damn if that's why they do it.

I'm not doing the research for you. You claim they're nothing but a bunch jerks who keep there money and don't give a damn about those below them, so you can back that up. I'm not willing to condemn people for wanting lower taxes based on an assumption that they never help anyone else out.

I will say that this amount is a bit excessive, at the same time you are talking about the way high income people. Ooh, 2/5 of ten million is still $4million dollars. Honestly wouldn't mind if I made that much. I think I could comfortably live on that.

If we do it nationwide, where do they go? There are no other developed countries for them to run to that doesn't tax like what has been publicized here recently. If they leave the country, they hurt themselves in the long run and honestly it would maybe free up the economy here a bit.

First, it's the principle. Should be able to keep what they earn or not? Why should it matter whether you make a little or a lot? I don't think there is anything unreasonable about that. I don't think anyone should be forced to give more than half of what they earn, regardless of whether they're rich or poor. If all your allowed to keep is what allows you to live comfortably why would anyone ever strive to do better in anything. What would be the point? All you'd do is just enough and then quit. Moreover, the more you tax something the less incentive people have to do it. This includes income. They more the government takes, the less reason there is to put for the effort to make it. They'll move, they'll hide it, or they'll just quit trying to make it all together.

As I said before, Maryland enacted such a tax claiming all these new revenues and watched as revenue actually fell. Reagan had significantly higher tax revenues than Carter, but Carter had much higher tax rates.

Second, that's not true. When Obama's done with the increases...only Sweden, Denmark, and Belguim will have higher top marginal rates.

Wow that is just BS and you know it. Kill medical innovation, c'mon. The majority of medical breakthroughs that have been done by a private firms has been anxiety medicine and impotence cures. Mainly, it has been public and private schools who have come through with the truly innovative medicine breakthroughs.

I suppose its just a coincidience then that the most innovation comes from the only western nation not using socialized medicine.

Ah yes, the public school system which is broken by a state by state running. So those in the rich neighborhoods get more funding than those in the poor neighborhoods. Tell me that broken situation. No Child Left Behind. Ha! As far as socializing schools, I believe the private schools can continue on doing their thing.

Yeah, because local education funding is generally based on property taxes. If that's the system, the math should be obvious. A system unrelated to No-Child Left Behind and ones that's been in use for decades. Second, funding alone doesn't explain the crappy performance. Some of the districts who spend the most per student have the sorriest schools. Washington D.C.'s system is notorious for this.

Democrats have been peddling this solution for decades and it still hasn't worked.

Oh you mean like my 58 year old father, who because he was laid off, can no longer afford healthcare. Cool. You explain why he can't keep himself in the best of health because the government he has always believed in says no sorry, you dont have money. Sorry, not my problem.

Ah, you mean as opposed to a government he believes in telling that he's the lowest priorty because of his age. When the government is forced to ration care to save money, it'll be people like him that'll be the first to be told to take a pain pill and go home. The theory being that he's old and lived his life and the money is better spent on someone who hasn't lived as long. And with the government as the sole provider....he won't have anywhere else to go. He'll have insurance, it just won't be worth anything. Read Daschle's book. He pretty much tells the elderly that they'll just have to get out of the way and die and he's not the only proponent that says that.

Really? Just in essence of not allowing medical companies to make an obscene profit. I like to believe you can have your cake and eat it too.

You'll have to define what an "obscene profit" is. People toss that around alot but have been rather short on definitions. The reason they're incompatabile is because there is nothing free-market about socialized medicine. The government is the provider and you take what they give. Period. No competition.

Obama says it will compete with private insurance. But its really hard to adequately compete with someone who is under no obligation to make a profit. Second, that no new enrollment provision will ensure they can't.

Well I guess a universal health care wouldn't change that aspect at all. Believe me when I say, a good portion of those mal practice suits are for a reason. My mother had surgery done on her shoulder and the first doctor made things worse when he performed surgery, just because he was in a hurry to go on vacation. High medical cost are more than just malpractice and tort reforms and you know it.

You might go around and ask doctors what mal-practice insurance costs them and about all the preventative medicine and testing they engage in just so they can avoid being the subject of a multimillion dollar malpratice suit. Many suits are justfied, but there is also an unbelieavable amount of fraud going on with trial lawyers rounding upon phony victims in order to file massive class action lawsuits.

Finally, you'll need to tell me why I should expect the US Government to do any better with this than it has done with the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid. Medicare is bankrupt, why will ObamaCare fair any better?

[Sir Whirly]

Califronia's estimated revenue...1.4 billion from legalization. The most populous will produce 1.4 billion....it won't come close to paying for it.

Try again on this one. Watch Super high Me, and you will know just from the medical legalization that has gone on has produced $1 billion a year in taxes. I would imagine a wider sweep of legalization would raise the taxes revenue even higher.

Your missing the point on the state systems. They were tried and in all three cases they've costs far more than inteded and killed the State's budget. ObamaCare will do the same. The only real difference at the federal level is that when they turn out to be wrong they can print the difference. Okay, I'll take them into account. I always wanted the twenty years of economic stagnation that they all went through as a result of the massive taxes and spending needed to fund all their entitlements.

Not really, we have seen multiple state level functions fail for various reasons. One is that medicine is way to damn costly by privatization. Other countries don't have this issue because even the medicine aspect is controlled by the government, thus cost of medicine is lower. Look at the cost of actually making the medicine and then look at how much they sell it for. Why do you think Wal Mart can sell for such a low price. They buy generics from outside of the country and bring it here to sell for a profit.

I know small business is hurting. You think taxing them up the wazoo is going to make the economy better? It's a surcharge on income, meaning whatever you have to claim as your income is what is taxed. The gross (not net) earnings of most small businesses are reported as personal income and, thus, will fall under the surcharge.

I will give you this one. I do find it unfair to tax gross and not net. I feel in the taxation of small businesses it should be made a bit fairer, but like you and me agree, there should be a flat tax.

You appear to miss the point of why the luxury was a bad idea. It was a tax on the rich that punished the poor. When the rich are heavily taxed, they're not the only ones that pay for it. Almost all taxes passed on them also end up hurting those under them. And as I said, if this doesn't cover it....they'll need to tax somebody else.

I agree with a flat tax, but that belief is independent of universal care.

No, they force it by playing an unfair game with the economy. They know they have far too much control of it and they use that power to punish the less financially independent people. But the government over the past thirty years has done a good job of bowing to the corporations to even go as far as allowing outsourcing with very little penalty. That alone has done more to kill this economy and will continue to do so.

Yeah, and Obama wants to reduce that deducation. Even most Democrats hate that policy. Personally, I don't give a damn if that's why they do it.

I'm not doing the research for you. You claim they're nothing but a bunch jerks who keep there money and don't give a damn about those below them, so you can back that up. I'm not willing to condemn people for wanting lower taxes based on an assumption that they never help anyone else out.

A little research.

First, it's the principle. Should be able to keep what they earn or not? Why should it matter whether you make a little or a lot? I don't think there is anything unreasonable about that. I don't think anyone should be forced to give more than half of what they earn, regardless of whether they're rich or poor. If all your allowed to keep is what allows you to live comfortably why would anyone ever strive to do better in anything. What would be the point? All you'd do is just enough and then quit. Moreover, the more you tax something the less incentive people have to do it. This includes income. They more the government takes, the less reason there is to put for the effort to make it. They'll move, they'll hide it, or they'll just quit trying to make it all together.

As I said before, Maryland enacted such a tax claiming all these new revenues and watched as revenue actually fell. Reagan had significantly higher tax revenues than Carter, but Carter had much higher tax rates.

Second, that's not true. When Obama's done with the increases...only Sweden, Denmark, and Belguim will have higher top marginal rates.

So let's just chalk this one up to social responsibility. I would like to throw a little light on a book called "The Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire.

I suppose its just a coincidience then that the most innovation comes from the only western nation not using socialized medicine.

Of course, we fortunately have some of the best schools of medicine in the world. That is where most research money should be directed to. Please don't believe it is actually the pharmaceutical companies that provide this.

Yeah, because local education funding is generally based on property taxes. If that's the system, the math should be obvious. A system unrelated to No-Child Left Behind and ones that's been in use for decades. Second, funding alone doesn't explain the crappy performance. Some of the districts who spend the most per student have the sorriest schools. Washington D.C.'s system is notorious for this.

Democrats have been peddling this solution for decades and it still hasn't worked.

I will agree that socially we have issues pertaining to education, but it shouldn't limit funds going in or out of a district.

Ah, you mean as opposed to a government he believes in telling that he's the lowest priorty because of his age. When the government is forced to ration care to save money, it'll be people like him that'll be the first to be told to take a pain pill and go home. The theory being that he's old and lived his life and the money is better spent on someone who hasn't lived as long. And with the government as the sole provider....he won't have anywhere else to go. He'll have insurance, it just won't be worth anything. Read Daschle's book. He pretty much tells the elderly that they'll just have to get out of the way and die and he's not the only proponent that says that.

Did some research and I find this one to be an unfounded statement. I see alot of quoting and no actual paperwork. I will say this, a possibility of treatment compared to no treatment. Which one will you take?

You'll have to define what an "obscene profit" is. People toss that around alot but have been rather short on definitions. The reason they're incompatabile is because there is nothing free-market about socialized medicine. The government is the provider and you take what they give. Period. No competition.

Obama says it will compete with private insurance. But its really hard to adequately compete with someone who is under no obligation to make a profit. Second, that no new enrollment provision will ensure they can't.

As the drug giant Pfizer sails toward its merger with Wyeth, the company is hitting headwinds in the form of patent expirations and weakening sales in some important products, including Lipitor.
Skip to next paragraph
Brendan McDermid/Reuters

Pfizer’s chief, Jeffrey B. Kindler, said the deal to acquire Wyeth was going better than expected.

Pfizer reported a 2 percent decline in first-quarter profits on Tuesday, to $3.7 billion, and an 8 percent decline in revenue, to $10.9 billion. While more than half the revenue decline came from the effect of a stronger dollar on overseas sales, company officials and analysts said, the profits fell in response to generic competition and weakening demand for some of Pfizer’s leading drugs.

You might go around and ask doctors what mal-practice insurance costs them and about all the preventative medicine and testing they engage in just so they can avoid being the subject of a multimillion dollar malpratice suit. Many suits are justfied, but there is also an unbelieavable amount of fraud going on with trial lawyers rounding upon phony victims in order to file massive class action lawsuits.

Finally, you'll need to tell me why I should expect the US Government to do any better with this than it has done with the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid. Medicare is bankrupt, why will ObamaCare fair any better?

Malpractice is a touchy subject. Sometimes it is legit, sometimes it isn't. What are we to do?

And yet they are still there and millions of people rely on it because they can't afford things otherwise.

[Nate River]

Try again on this one. Watch Super high Me, and you will know just from the medical legalization that has gone on has produced $1 billion a year in taxes. I would imagine a wider sweep of legalization would raise the taxes revenue even higher.

California is the countries most populous state and legalizing will generate $1.4 billion...let's say that every state, even those with zippo population like Wyoming will produce the same results....you'd have less than 100 billion....

The CBO's initial estimate for ObamaCare: $ 1 trillion. Keep in mind that government estimates (Republican and Democrat) of cost are almost always low. And both the European and state experiences with socialized medicine have always cost more than first estimated.

Adventures in Socialized Medicine: (sorry I'll try to embed the links later, don't have time at the moment).

http://www.dailymail...ny-victims.html

http://www.opinionjo...ml?id=110010266

http://www.timesonli...icle4597174.ece

http://www.scotsman....ents.5451457.jp

http://news.scotsman...ting.5013083.jp

http://www.independe...nts-909009.html

http://www.liberty-p...ancershame.html

CANADA

http://www.capmag.co...cle.asp?ID=4271

http://www.marketwir...ion-601683.html

http://www.cbc.ca/he...rss#skip300x250

http://blog.acton.or...-Canadians.html

http://www.heartland..._Nightmare.html

OTHER COUNTRIES

http://www.nzherald....jectid=10499254

http://www.smh.com.a...l?oneclick=true

Not really, we have seen multiple state level functions fail for various reasons. One is that medicine is way to damn costly by privatization. Other countries don't have this issue because even the medicine aspect is controlled by the government, thus cost of medicine is lower. Look at the cost of actually making the medicine and then look at how much they sell it for. Why do you think Wal Mart can sell for such a low price. They buy generics from outside of the country and bring it here to sell for a profit.

Where do you think generics are originally developed? Most of the time, here in the United States.

It's easier to offer lower costs for drugs when you're not the one spending the millions needed to develop them. For every research success there are many more failures. Not only do the developers have to recoup the cost of the success, they have to do the same for all the failures. There is similar to the recording and publication business (and is why those industries usually make artists cough up the copyright in exchange for publication).

If you don't have to spend the money developing it, and all you have to do is produce, repackage and sell it, your costs are much lower than the person who spent all the money developing it. Most drugs and medical devices are developed here.

U.S. Patents only last 17 years (and a significant chuck of that time is lost waiting for FDA approval). Once those are gone, anyone can copy the formula and produce their own drugs. This is when you start to see less expensive generics come out.

Under a signal payer system the market for drugs and medical devices is whatever the government is willing to buy. If the government ultimately decides that a particular drug or treatment isn't worth the expenditure, then the money spent developing it is lost. People don't want to spend millions developing technology when no market exists for it. The end results going to be that the available drugs and devices is going to be heavily geared to those the areas government thinks are worth the expenditure. If it's not, it doesn't matter how good it is, your going to have a lot of trouble getting it. And, what is the government going to generally be geared toward...not new technology which is generally very expensive and unproven when first released. If costs is the primary concern they'll favor the less effectively, less costly version. Might not be quite as good, but its a whole lot cheaper for them.

Even the universities are going to be subject to this. Will John Hopkins spends millions upon millions developing cancer treatments they're not even sure the government will buy? And if during development, the government says no, that treatment's not worth it and were not paying for it. While they then proceed to flush money down that road? They're not going to blow their entire budget developing something the government will never buy. If the government decides its not worth the cost, where does the money spent developing go? It's gone. You may believe that its simply coincidence that we have the most development just because we have the best schools, but I don't. Here, there is currently market and a reason to spend all that money in development. You may wish altruism will be sufficient for them to spend money developing stuff that may never have a market, but even with them...its need to worth the expense.

In sum, with a finite set of capital where will drugs companies want to focus their efforts?

Second, to the extent that they rely on government funding, they'll soon have an addition 100 million+ plus more people to compete with for the funding. If costs become a problem, the government will need to find money somewhere, which could create a tension between treatment and development since they'll be competing for the same federal dollars.

There is one other thing the government can do that private companies can't: It's called Price Controls. If you want to see experiments in those, take a look at Richard Nixon's use of them as well NYC rent controls. The end result was mass shortages as demand far out paced supply. If I had the tools here I'd show what price ceilings do to a market.

Do you know why many doctors refuse to take new Medicare and Medicaid patients? Because they reimbursements rates from the government are so bad.

I will give you this one. I do find it unfair to tax gross and not net. I feel in the taxation of small businesses it should be made a bit fairer, but like you and me agree, there should be a flat tax.

It's why small business tends to get creamed by taxes on the rich. Their profits don't make them rich, but their gross tends to put them in the highest tax brackets.

No, they force it by playing an unfair game with the economy. They know they have far too much control of it and they use that power to punish the less financially independent people. But the government over the past thirty years has done a good job of bowing to the corporations to even go as far as allowing outsourcing with very little penalty. That alone has done more to kill this economy and will continue to do so.

What "unfair game?"

Most politicians bow to special interests. The only different between them is the special interests they bow to. Their are a few out there that will buck them, but most won't.

So let's just chalk this one up to social responsibility. I would like to throw a little light on a book called "The Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire.

So, if I make, say, $100,000. What is my social responsibility? Is it 30,000, 40,000 a year? Peter Singer says its $70,000, is he right? What if think the governments just going to spend on overseas abortion and I oppose that? What if think its better spent elsewhere? Most people don't mind paying some taxes, but most people also don't like watching half their income be taken from them before they even see, regardless of what they make.

For that matter did you know 43% of the country doesn't pay income taxes (when deducations, EITC, and so are account for). What about their responsibility? Well, I suppose this is where the flat tax comes in, which is the one thing we do agree on.

And I'd like to do the same with a book "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur Brooks.

Of course, we fortunately have some of the best schools of medicine in the world. That is where most research money should be directed to. Please don't believe it is actually the pharmaceutical companies that provide this.

The question is why do we have them? I don't believe its chance. If most of the money is being eaten up by treatment where does the research money come from? I explained before, Universities are not exempt from market forces. To me its neither here nor there whether those companies do or not, both will have the same problem with a single payer system: they have virtually market.

Second who markets, produces, and sells those treatments developed at the schools? And who will bother do any of that is the government decrees the procedure to costly and refuses to cover it.

I will agree that socially we have issues pertaining to education, but it shouldn't limit funds going in or out of a district.

Nor does should it justify flushing money down the proverbial toilet. Vouchers have tended to work well when genuinely tried. It's too bad the NEA hates competition so much.

Did some research and I find this one to be an unfounded statement. I see alot of quoting and no actual paperwork. I will say this, a possibility of treatment compared to no treatment. Which one will you take?

As shown above, socialized medicine always results in rationed care...and who do you think the priority is going to be?

As the drug giant Pfizer sails toward its merger with Wyeth, the company is hitting headwinds in the form of patent expirations and weakening sales in some important products, including Lipitor.
Skip to next paragraph
Brendan McDermid/Reuters

Pfizer’s chief, Jeffrey B. Kindler, said the deal to acquire Wyeth was going better than expected.

Pfizer reported a 2 percent decline in first-quarter profits on Tuesday, to $3.7 billion, and an 8 percent decline in revenue, to $10.9 billion. While more than half the revenue decline came from the effect of a stronger dollar on overseas sales, company officials and analysts said, the profits fell in response to generic competition and weakening demand for some of Pfizer’s leading drugs.

Okay, so what? Explain why this is obscene. You still haven't defined it yet. Personally, I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone else how much their allowed to make.

[Nee-sama]

California is the countries most populous state and legalizing will generate $1.4 billion...let's say that every state, even those with zippo population like Wyoming will produce the same results....you'd have less than 100 billion....

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you comparing 1.4billion annually to 1trillion over 10 years?

[Sir Whirly]

You know Nate, you keep coming at me with the wait time. But I want to throw this at you. What about those here in America, who suffer because they can't get these things because of no insurance. Emergency care wise, this country is awesome, because a doctor would go against his oath if he didn't take care of the patient.

Lets talk about all those patients who don't get care for their hips, or arthritis or cancer before it is too late. I would rather wait than have no option what so ever.

Yes, Obama's plan does have problems with it but everything has problems. Nothing is perfect. I don't care what Obama does or doesn't do, I just know in the end socialized medicine is the way to go.

[Nate River]

Some more from the UK. It's not just wait times dood. People are being denied access to life saving treatments because the government decided it was too expensive to pay for. In essence they are left to die because its not worth saving them.

http://www.timesonli...icle4040168.ece

http://www.canceradv...ncer-drugs-115/

http://www.dailymail...-body-NICE.html

http://www.telegraph...ding-drugs.html

http://www.dailymail...de-lottery.html

http://www.independe...row-465843.html

You know Nate, you keep coming at me with the wait time. But I want to throw this at you. What about those here in America, who suffer because they can't get these things because of no insurance. Emergency care wise, this country is awesome, because a doctor would go against his oath if he didn't take care of the patient.

Lets talk about all those patients who don't get care for their hips, or arthritis or cancer before it is too late. I would rather wait than have no option what so ever.

Yes, Obama's plan does have problems with it but everything has problems. Nothing is perfect. I don't care what Obama does or doesn't do, I just know in the end socialized medicine is the way to go.

It's not just the oath. It's illegal to refuse emergency care.

So why is socialized the only solution to those who don't receive care to and why should the whole country be forced onto the government roles when they don't need to be? Deal with only those who don't have it. Of course, that's what Medicare and Medicaid are supposed to do, but do so quite poorly. Why should the public option be the only choice for everyone as a consequence that some can't pay? If it's cost control, the current proposal fails according to the CBO. I'll never understand why the need to cover everyone should eliminate the ability of people to be able to choose what they want because under socialized medicine they usually can't. If they don't like what the government, TS for them. I wish I included, but there was an article talking about how the NHS was refusing to offer treatment to people who payed for some of their treatment through the private market.

I'd be interested to see how the socialized option did in real competition, but we'll never know because it's impossible when the government is under no obligation to make a profit.

If order to sway me even a little me at all you'll have to answer two questions:

(1) If the government can't run Medicare and Social Security with bankrupting them, why is forcing everyone on to a system modeled after Medicare going to do any better?

(2) If its so great, why doesn't those who pass it want the same kind of care for themselves?

There's a company out in California that proposed and interesting solution to cost control, but I'll have to dig to find the article again.

You ask me which I'd rather have? I don't like the current third payer system, but I like socialized medicine even less. I'm for reforming the system, but not in the way you suggest. And as far as waiting times, let me put it this way. I had had to wait as long as those guys do for my abdominal surgery (Crohn's disease) in 2002, I'd be dead. Waiting wasn't an option I had.

[Nate River]

Sorry, dood. Your post is gone because I screwed it up. I accidentally hit edit instead of reply and wrote my answer on top of yours.

Anyway, I'll find that article for you tomorrow.

I'll understand you not wanting to redo it.

[Sir Whirly]

Sorry, dood. Your post is gone because I screwed it up. I accidentally hit edit instead of reply and wrote my answer on top of yours.

Anyway, I'll find that article for you tomorrow.

I'll understand you not wanting to redo it.

lol, thats cool. As long as you got to read it.

[RyrineaHaruno]

You ask me which I'd rather have? I don't like the current third payer system, but I like socialized medicine even less. I'm for reforming the system, but not in the way you suggest. And as far as waiting times, let me put it this way. I had had to wait as long as those guys do for my abdominal surgery (Crohn's disease) in 2002, I'd be dead. Waiting wasn't an option I had.

I agree, the socialized version of health care doesn't fit for me either. See, I am on Medicare they do a poor job already so . I have to go to different doctors , if I am sick and Have to wait too. I think we need to put the politicians on the public heath care system for 3 year to see how they like it.

Edited by RyrineaHaruno, 19 July 2009 - 03:34 PM.

[Sir Whirly]

I agree, the socialized version of health care doesn't fit for me either. See, I am on Medicare they do a poor job already so . I have to go to different doctor, if I am sick and Have to wait too. I think we need to put the politicians ob the public heath care system for 1 to see how they like it.

Ok, there is a difference between medicare and socialized health care. Medicare is a broken system that is limited by a doctor by doctor basis. There is a bit of a difference. I am truly sorry you are on medicare.

[RyrineaHaruno]

Ok, there is a difference between medicare and socialized health care. Medicare is a broken system that is limited by a doctor by doctor basis. There is a bit of a difference. I am truly sorry you are on medicare.

Thank for that xD.

[Nate River]

Ok, there is a difference between medicare and socialized health care. Medicare is a broken system that is limited by a doctor by doctor basis. There is a bit of a difference. I am truly sorry you are on medicare.

It's my understanding, Doctor's are free to choose whether to take Medicare patients. A lot of doctors are refusing to do so, in part, because the reimbursement rates are so bad. It's also my understand Medicare's the model on which the current proposal is designed after, but I'm not 100% certain of that.

[Sir Whirly]

It's my understanding, Doctor's are free to choose whether to take Medicare patients. A lot of doctors are refusing to do so, in part, because the reimbursement rates are so bad. It's also my understand Medicare's the model on which the current proposal is designed after, but I'm not 100% certain of that.

Good lord. If it is, then I say no to the current proposal. Oh is it 1trillion over ten years? I am curious cause by our previous calculations, 100 billion over 10 years equals 1 trillion. My initial though of using legalized marijuana to pay for it is still plausible.