Santorum lost my vote.
#81
It is not medicaids overhead that is the problem. It is a horribly inefficient system not because of fixed costs but because it is so vulnerable to fraud by doctors who charge for treatments that they never performed or were not necessary. Its payout system also does nothing to encourage increases in efficiency and decreases in cost. This is where government lacks internal control.
#82
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
No, it's a "Save us money" program.
The US pays 17% of our GDP to health care. Canada pays 10% of their GDP to health care. Canada's system is at least comparable to ours at a substantially lower cost.
I don't support public/single payer/universal health care for some omgwtfhippyliberal reasons. I support it because there is well-founded economic reasoning behind it.
The US pays 17% of our GDP to health care. Canada pays 10% of their GDP to health care. Canada's system is at least comparable to ours at a substantially lower cost.
I don't support public/single payer/universal health care for some omgwtfhippyliberal reasons. I support it because there is well-founded economic reasoning behind it.
lol.
#83
Surely he is just trolling. If not, oh boy...
Obama is a sane choice because he is already a known, known, as the almighty Rumsfeld would say. We have already seen his madness at work and can predict what he will do in the future. Surely the next 4 years will be less insane. I don't think has done a good job by any means, but then again I don't think anyone in office could do a "good job" at this point. I'd rather stick with the guy we already have in there than to have to let another new ------- come in and start trying to change ---- to suit their agenda, further disrupting an already fragile and broken system.
Plus, I used "sane choice" in sort of a troll sense, anyway.
Obama is a sane choice because he is already a known, known, as the almighty Rumsfeld would say. We have already seen his madness at work and can predict what he will do in the future. Surely the next 4 years will be less insane. I don't think has done a good job by any means, but then again I don't think anyone in office could do a "good job" at this point. I'd rather stick with the guy we already have in there than to have to let another new ------- come in and start trying to change ---- to suit their agenda, further disrupting an already fragile and broken system.
Plus, I used "sane choice" in sort of a troll sense, anyway.
Back to the original thread topic:
#85
So, are tax rebates and refunds a social welfare program Brainy?
Yes, I know Brainy. You find things such as well-founded economic reasoning funny, it's why you support child labor!
(Joking, if people didn't pick up on that, since Brainy decided to go the Vagina-route and not argue anything.)
lol.
(Joking, if people didn't pick up on that, since Brainy decided to go the Vagina-route and not argue anything.)
#86
Plus, I find this argument insane. The US has always, even since the founding fathers, operated on some type of wealth redistribution.
#89
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
im not an anarchist.
Now I'm curious as to how you can give away $4,500,000,000,000 or whatever it is a year, plus pay for health care for over 300,000,000 people if no taxes are being collected?
Now I'm curious as to how you can give away $4,500,000,000,000 or whatever it is a year, plus pay for health care for over 300,000,000 people if no taxes are being collected?
#91
I mean, people here DO claim there's no reason to tax businesses since people pay them anyways, right?
And people here ALSO claim that taxing businesses is double taxation.
So get rid of the double taxation. Tax one source of income, not two.
Secondly, Ron Paul also is arguing to get rid of Income Tax. Or is he full of crap too, Brainy? I'm on board with him. Get rid of all personal taxes.
Thirdly, I did not argue for 300million people. I was very specific in my arguments (Age of Majority, etc. etc. - in reality, it comes out to less than what the gov't spends today on social programs, while providing better care because there's not a billion ------- administrators making 50k-250k a year doing it.)
#93
I'm a loon for actually researching public health care systems, and realizing that they are substantially more efficient than our current system?
I'm a loon for arguing "Okay, let's stop double taxation, and just tax one source"?
I'm a loon for arguing, "Okay, so let's get rid of all social programs, and move to something that is demonstrably cheaper"?
I'll be happy to sit here and start posting very specific numbers, but that would require you to believe things that, oh, the GOP or Ron Paul says.
#94
Holy ----. There is so many things wrong with the comments you made on the last two pages that I have to go with brain and just stop arguing at all. It is pointless. Your views are of someone with good intentions but absolutely no knowledge of how government and taxes really work or the societal effects of the changes you just proposed. You need to read more in depth and technical articles on these subjects to be able to see why your views are so misguided. The changes you just stated are completely impossible to erect and sustain
#96
I would cut spending across the board, especially deep cuts for things like museums, I'd try and put us on a path towards getting rid of social security in favor of people saving for their own goddamn retirement (novel idea, I know), award those in the gov who point out and stop wistful/frivolous spending, take a good hard look at what is going on in Afghanistan and possibly pull out and let Karzai deal with it, cut foreign aid to many countries (not Israel) and make sure the aid that is being given is getting to the correct people, among other things.
#97
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
I'm a loon for agreeing with Ron Paul to get rid of the Income Tax, Brainy?
I'm a loon for actually researching public health care systems, and realizing that they are substantially more efficient than our current system?
I'm a loon for arguing "Okay, let's stop double taxation, and just tax one source"?
I'm a loon for arguing, "Okay, so let's get rid of all social programs, and move to something that is demonstrably cheaper"?
I'll be happy to sit here and start posting very specific numbers, but that would require you to believe things that, oh, the GOP or Ron Paul says.
I'm a loon for actually researching public health care systems, and realizing that they are substantially more efficient than our current system?
I'm a loon for arguing "Okay, let's stop double taxation, and just tax one source"?
I'm a loon for arguing, "Okay, so let's get rid of all social programs, and move to something that is demonstrably cheaper"?
I'll be happy to sit here and start posting very specific numbers, but that would require you to believe things that, oh, the GOP or Ron Paul says.
yes. and i will stab you as a cloacked spy next chance i get.
#98
Holy ----. There is so many things wrong with the comments you made on the last two pages that I have to go with brain and just stop arguing at all. It is pointless. Your views are of someone with good intentions but absolutely no knowledge of how government and taxes really work or the societal effects of the changes you just proposed. You need to read more in depth and technical articles on these subjects to be able to see why your views are so misguided. The changes you just stated are completely impossible to erect and sustain
As an example, "Health care costs too much!" Well, if it costs too much, we could cut costs by an estimated ~40% within a year by transitioning over to a public health care system. If this is an issue, then it's not about the costs
"But if we tax businesses, they'll just pass it onto people."
"But taxing businesses and people is double taxation!"
"Social welfare is a waste of money!"
Etc. etc.
#100
Heh.
Here's the reality. We pay the least taxes of any first world country, we pay the most for health care of any first world country, and we pay the least taxes historically we have ever paid since the US has become a first world country.
However, just as equally, people love to trot out "But healthcare is too expensive!" argument when it's not what they are actually arguing. If it was purely a cost concern, public healthcare would be wildly popular with the fiscally conservative types.
Here's the reality. We pay the least taxes of any first world country, we pay the most for health care of any first world country, and we pay the least taxes historically we have ever paid since the US has become a first world country.
However, just as equally, people love to trot out "But healthcare is too expensive!" argument when it's not what they are actually arguing. If it was purely a cost concern, public healthcare would be wildly popular with the fiscally conservative types.