|
Post by ragan on Nov 18, 2017 22:41:52 GMT -6
I think we all share the same goals but differ in how we think they can be achieved. For sure. I hate how things have become. Internet forums don't help. Meeting for a beer to discuss things sounds so much more productive. I hate how we've all become us vs them.Indeed. And that is by design.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Nov 19, 2017 6:45:35 GMT -6
I think we all share the same goals but differ in how we think they can be achieved. It was either here or GroupDIY where someone said they didn't want to pay for someone else's healthcare by way of medicaid/care. In fact, a whole slew of red-state-residers don't want to pay for their neighbor's healthcare even if their kids play together every day. It's just how some people are, and the way the U.S. healthcare system evolved into this super expensive "If you can afford it, you can get good treatment" system that it is today means that a lot of regular (dental/annual checkups/oops I broke my arm shredding on my ATV) visits to the health practitioners are completely out of reach for most of us, which is why they don't want to pay for their neighbor's care when the neighbor's kid gets a bee sting and needs their Epi-pen. Here are a couple things I don't want to pay for: Prison for inmates. there was an article in the daily news about how each inmate at Riker's Island costs $270,000 annually to incarcerate. Thankfully, I don't live in NYC anymore, so I don't have to pay for that. Senators and Representatives annual salary. These jokers get $174,000 annually. For doing what? It's definitely not a selfless job when you're making that kind of cash. any and all bills associated with healthcare. I'm not saying doctors shouldn't get paid what they're worth, but once I learned that they're basically small business owners trying to make a buck and pay off those student loans, the appeal of visiting them when injured or not feeling 100% went right out the door. Some things I think we should all pay for: Food for kids. Don't let your neighbor's kids go hungry. Music Education for kids. hooversun.com/schools/hoover-high-school-to-get-new-5-4-million-band-facility/ yay :-) Computer Education for kids. teach 'em to program. public parks and forests and wilderness preserves. This shouldn't need explaining. Dental/Vision/Health. these should be rights, not privileges based on wallet size. it's a shame that the hospital and drug industry is rich and convinced all of those congress-folk to not implement a free standard of care that every citizen receives, like all those European countries have.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 19, 2017 8:39:28 GMT -6
I'm speaking of the people in this conversation.
Greed is stupid because, like it or not, we all depend on each other to survive. Back when everyone was on their own for health care, there were these nasty things called plagues that didn't spare the rich. The same is true of food. People will steal and even kill to feed their children. Obviously no one deserves a life of luxury for free but communities still need to create a minimum level of support to minimize violence. Public infrastructure enables all businesses.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 19, 2017 10:59:46 GMT -6
The idea that people sit on cash (which is ever-decreasing in value) forever and remain rich is ludicrous. I can only speak for S Corporations, but we reinvest half of our profits (because we reduce profit distributions by 50%) in our companies, but also most shareholders put some money in their personal investment accounts due to the nature of S Corps being pass through entities. Now that the largest shareholder will have 19% more in his pocket, that will go into his investment account. Why? He's the largest shareholder because all the company shares were inherited and divided evenly by family. He got more shares because his family had less children. There's no way he's going to tell the rest of us, who will be getting an 8% tax cut, that we should reduce distributions by an additional 10 %, while he puts his remaining 8% in his personal invetment account. So, we will not be investing more into the company due to this tax cut. An already very rich person will simply get richer by 18%, while the rest of us already rich shareholders will get richer by 8%. One other thing: Companies like ours holds city's by the balls. All we had to do was hint that we were going to move our company-which has 350 employees- to another state, and the state we operate in gave us all kinds of state and local tax breaks. Now, we're getting another tax break. I don't support this tax break, but I vote against my economic interest all the time, due to the fact that I think we are already at a dangerous level of economic disparity in this country. Strangely, all kinds of middle class and lower class people vote against their economic interest.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2017 12:07:38 GMT -6
I honestly never thought the wealthy should pay more, as a percentage, than anyone else. I don't begrudge anyone their income amounts as long as those amounts are earned legally. I just don't understand why it is so impossible in the United States to implement a flat tax. As Donr suggested, this is really the only fair tax for everyone. If I pay the same percentage as everyone else, how can I claim that is unfair? We need a flat tax on income, with everyone allowed the same deductions. Tie to that a VAT tax on non-essential purchases and we should have no reason to complain.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2017 12:16:18 GMT -6
I honestly never thought the wealthy should pay more, as a percentage, than anyone else. I don't begrudge anyone their income amounts as long as those amounts are earned legally. I just don't understand why it is so impossible in the United States to implement a flat tax. As Donr suggested, this is really the only fair tax for everyone. If I pay the same percentage as everyone else, how can I claim that is unfair? We need a flat tax on income, with everyone allowed the same deductions. Tie to that a VAT tax on non-essential purchases and we should have no reason to complain. Why should anybody with billions of dollars (or even hundreds of millions) NOT pay more? Why do they deserve to pocket even MORE billions at the expense of the people who actually do the work? And make no mistake - therse people do not actually work for their money - all they do is push papers around and make corrupt backroom "deals" at the expense of everyone else. It's like Spotify "paying" musicians a miniscule percentage of the money that lose in sales because of streaming on demand, except it's on an unimaginable scale. I recently encountered a word that describes it perfectly. The word is "kleptocracy". It is utterly beyond me why so many people would support those who are acting in direct opposition to the rights of their own supporters. Don't drink the Kool-Aid, people, it's laced with cyanide.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,961
|
Post by ericn on Nov 19, 2017 14:59:46 GMT -6
I think we all share the same goals but differ in how we think they can be achieved. True, Here is The reality this thing probably won't get passed because every special interest, every lobbyist makes their living off of every little thing in that tax code. The reality is everybody who has a mortgage figured what they could afford based on the tax code! Every corporation's strategic planning is based on that tax code! You have so many industries centered around that tax code, here is the problem even if you right and pass something that will solve , truelly solve the long term problems, you have to understand that in the short term you are creating a hellish caos. Now the short term is not a specific time could be months, could be years, but what compounds the problem is all politicians react and live in the short term!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 19, 2017 15:22:02 GMT -6
Corporations are also being given no incentive to think long-term. A grab the money and run mentality with no intelligent overview is a whole lot of today's problem. In many ways, it's a long slow suicide.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2017 16:44:14 GMT -6
This guy had it worked out a long time ago.... “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.” - Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (Published in 1966) One of the dumbest things I've heard in my life. Unless you believe that a country should be an ideological dictatorship.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,961
|
Post by ericn on Nov 19, 2017 18:37:33 GMT -6
Corporations are also being given no incentive to think long-term. A grab the money and run mentality with no intelligent overview is a whole lot of today's problem. In many ways, it's a long slow suicide. The thing is the Idea of corporations fiscal responsibility to their chair holders is now just interpreted as being just in the present not the long term. It's funny, in my days at Full Compass, I did a lot Buisness with government agencies and I always gave super deals. The superintendent of a small town school system asked me why I was so aggressive in pricing? Simple Economics if I give the taxing body better prices that entire community has more disposable income to possibly spend with me, the multiplier on the economic value of every dollar that ended up in the average consumers hands was greater than the Government spending it, and my margain on consumer spending disposable income was much higher. Add in the fact that because he was telling everybody in town how good I was to the schools, I probably had 90% of the possible Buisness I could have off that small being spent with me ! I didn't have to spend any add dollars and because they new we were being good to them we comped adds in every arts, sports or other activities program! Now compare that to how many corporations largest customer is Either directly or indirectly govt ( think Healthcare ) !
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Nov 19, 2017 20:36:46 GMT -6
Well said. Most people that want to preach to me about how bad the rich have it, are not wealthy enough to hire their own business attorneys and accountants. Once they do reach that amount of wealth and learn about the loopholes and reduced tax structures and protections available to them, they return to me with a smile as wide as our president's. If someone reading this has money and doesn't understand, they should shop around for legal counsel in business, accounting, also look into umbrella insurance policies and financial investments and estate planning. Anyone in studio business should know this though, since most studios are a total loss and deductible from taxes. Some rich who are investing their money are able to qualify for subsidized healthcare, reducing healthcare payments to $1 monthly. One. dollar. No doubt the current tax system is broken and a joke, so I'm not sure the next plan is gonna help studios any. Maybe psychologically? Or maybe start another punk movement? My wife works for State Farm, State Farm is also a bank, not many people know that. She has products that she puts people into that end up saving them a ton of money on all their insurance and making them rich or richer just by listening to her. She has that kind of ability and yet is still paid on a wage that is consistent with the late 90's to mid 2000's. Really just pisses me off for her because she works so hard and does that kind of stuff for people, yet when it comes to for her reward for all that no one remembers. I know this has to be across the board in all jobs too. This is what people are pissed about, I don't think healthcare is as big a deal as the media and some people make it out to be. The thing that has gotten rural America and the rust belt pissed off is the fact they have twice as much work and are still on the same wage people made during the aforementioned time frame. If you're going to give these big ass tax cuts to businesses and make it so they pay basically $0 in tax then something should be implemented that holds these people accountable to reinvest that into their workforce. If we're going to add over a trillion to our debt that our kids have to pay for I want them to remember why we passed that onto them, so they can say they grew up in a household that didn't have to eat rice and beans 3 weeks out of the month. I'm not political like I said, politics has got nothing to do with what I'm saying, I'm saying the people we hired that are in those legislative branches of government better get this one right, for our children's sake. I could care less which political party does it, just get it right.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 19, 2017 22:37:48 GMT -6
Someone decided that housing costs don't count as part of inflation. That really screws up inflation statistics.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,961
|
Post by ericn on Nov 19, 2017 22:47:02 GMT -6
Well said. Most people that want to preach to me about how bad the rich have it, are not wealthy enough to hire their own business attorneys and accountants. Once they do reach that amount of wealth and learn about the loopholes and reduced tax structures and protections available to them, they return to me with a smile as wide as our president's. If someone reading this has money and doesn't understand, they should shop around for legal counsel in business, accounting, also look into umbrella insurance policies and financial investments and estate planning. Anyone in studio business should know this though, since most studios are a total loss and deductible from taxes. Some rich who are investing their money are able to qualify for subsidized healthcare, reducing healthcare payments to $1 monthly. One. dollar. No doubt the current tax system is broken and a joke, so I'm not sure the next plan is gonna help studios any. Maybe psychologically? Or maybe start another punk movement? My wife works for State Farm, State Farm is also a bank, not many people know that. She has products that she puts people into that end up saving them a ton of money on all their insurance and making them rich or richer just by listening to her. She has that kind of ability and yet is still paid on a wage that is consistent with the late 90's to mid 2000's. Really just pisses me off for her because she works so hard and does that kind of stuff for people, yet when it comes to for her reward for all that no one remembers. I know this has to be across the board in all jobs too. This is what people are pissed about, I don't think healthcare is as big a deal as the media and some people make it out to be. The thing that has gotten rural America and the rust belt pissed off is the fact they have twice as much work and are still on the same wage people made during the aforementioned time frame. If you're going to give these big ass tax cuts to businesses and make it so they pay basically $0 in tax then something should be implemented that holds these people accountable to reinvest that into their workforce. If we're going to add over a trillion to our debt that our kids have to pay for I want them to remember why we passed that onto them, so they can say they grew up in a household that didn't have to eat rice and beans 3 weeks out of the month. I'm not political like I said, politics has got nothing to do with what I'm saying, I'm saying the people we hired that are in those legislative branches of government better get this one right, for our children's sake. I could care less which political party does it, just get it right. Jerome, the financial services industry is great at screwing the people who actually the ones who move the product. I will put the health care problem this simply my bill of approx $2 million in 98-99, well last guy I know of who was 15% less and spent half the time in the hospital $25 million! I have estimates of if I were in the same situation today 75-100 million! Look before the meltdown a survey of most CEO's said their number one concern in the long term was the cost of health care! We all live longer, now, there is more need for long term care, and no money in the system for it. Ask anyone over 50 about their healthcare concerns & costs, then remember they are the ones that vote. This is part of the problem with healthcare as we know it, the system is built on the concept that the young pay for the old because the young are afraid stuff happens, the problem is the young think they invincible! To an extent they are, compared to the old, but one slip, bad day or gene and they are for ever screwed!
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 19, 2017 23:03:40 GMT -6
My wife works for State Farm, State Farm is also a bank, not many people know that. She has products that she puts people into that end up saving them a ton of money on all their insurance and making them rich or richer just by listening to her. She has that kind of ability and yet is still paid on a wage that is consistent with the late 90's to mid 2000's. Really just pisses me off for her because she works so hard and does that kind of stuff for people, yet when it comes to for her reward for all that no one remembers. I know this has to be across the board in all jobs too. This is what people are pissed about, I don't think healthcare is as big a deal as the media and some people make it out to be. The thing that has gotten rural America and the rust belt pissed off is the fact they have twice as much work and are still on the same wage people made during the aforementioned time frame. If you're going to give these big ass tax cuts to businesses and make it so they pay basically $0 in tax then something should be implemented that holds these people accountable to reinvest that into their workforce. If we're going to add over a trillion to our debt that our kids have to pay for I want them to remember why we passed that onto them, so they can say they grew up in a household that didn't have to eat rice and beans 3 weeks out of the month. I'm not political like I said, politics has got nothing to do with what I'm saying, I'm saying the people we hired that are in those legislative branches of government better get this one right, for our children's sake. I could care less which political party does it, just get it right. Jerome, the financial services industry is great at screwing the people who actually the ones who move the product. I will put the health care problem this simply my bill of approx $2 million in 98-99, well last guy I know of who was 15% less and spent half the time in the hospital $25 million! I have estimates of if I were in the same situation today 75-100 million! Look before the meltdown a survey of most CEO's said their number one concern in the long term was the cost of health care! We all live longer, now, there is more need for long term care, and no money in the system for it. Ask anyone over 50 about their healthcare concerns & costs, then remember they are the ones that vote. This is part of the problem with healthcare as we know it, the system is built on the concept that the young pay for the old because the young are afraid stuff happens, the problem is the young think they invincible! To an extent they are, compared to the old, but one slip, bad day or gene and they are for ever screwed! Another major problem with our healthcare system is that providers are compensated based on what good/services they provide, not on patient outcome. So the incentive is to Do As Much Stuff As They Can Bill For, rather than do what accomplishes the best outcome in the most efficient way. It's all screwy. Providers do much, much better if they do a bunch of shit to us than if something simple fixes the problem. And they have to make as much money as possible because many of them are hammered by uncompensated care costs each year (a factor of having so many people uninsured). Much of that uncompensated care comes from the ER too, which is also a factor of having so many people uninsured. When you don't have insurance, you don't go to the doc when a problem starts, you go when you have no choice because you're in really bad shape, which often means the ER. Which means way, way, way more expensive, not only in the ER visit itself, but in the fact that you're way sicker than you would have been if you hadn't waited so long to seek care. That's one of the fallacies of the "I don't want to subsidize other peoples' healthcare" line. We're all paying for it one way or another. Healthcare costs a shitload more for everyone when a huge chunk of the population uses the ER as their primary care. And that's one of the things that happens when people don't have insurance. Hugely inefficient.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Nov 19, 2017 23:34:58 GMT -6
When I saw this a few years ago I thought it was a hoax, turns out it wasn't.
MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, dubbed the "Obamacare Architect", reveals what he thinks of the American voting public in relation to the passing of the Obama Administration's healthcare bill.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 19, 2017 23:44:25 GMT -6
When I saw this a few years ago I thought it was a hoax, turns out it wasn't. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, dubbed the "Obamacare Architect", reveals what he thinks of the American voting public in relation to the passing of the Obama Administration's healthcare bill. Definitely not a hoax. Widely reported at the time and it was a major black eye for the ACA. Doesn't matter if he, or any other economist, is right about what's the smarter policy, he still kind of sounds like a smug prick, which plays right into the right-wing "liberal elite" talking point.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Nov 19, 2017 23:57:02 GMT -6
'Obamacare' was claimed to have been basically a repackaged version of 'Romneycare'.
At the end of the day all political parties wind up getting addicted to corporate money and the politicians do whatever it takes to get themselves elected, stay in power as long as they can and then get on the lobbying gravy train after they leave.
Anyone who really thinks one side is better than the other has been sucked in by the 'shell game' that is the 'democratic' two party political system.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Nov 20, 2017 0:04:35 GMT -6
Jerome, the financial services industry is great at screwing the people who actually the ones who move the product. I will put the health care problem this simply my bill of approx $2 million in 98-99, well last guy I know of who was 15% less and spent half the time in the hospital $25 million! I have estimates of if I were in the same situation today 75-100 million! Look before the meltdown a survey of most CEO's said their number one concern in the long term was the cost of health care! We all live longer, now, there is more need for long term care, and no money in the system for it. Ask anyone over 50 about their healthcare concerns & costs, then remember they are the ones that vote. This is part of the problem with healthcare as we know it, the system is built on the concept that the young pay for the old because the young are afraid stuff happens, the problem is the young think they invincible! To an extent they are, compared to the old, but one slip, bad day or gene and they are for ever screwed! Another major problem with our healthcare system is that providers are compensated based on what good/services they provide, not on patient outcome. So the incentive is to Do As Much Stuff As They Can Bill For, rather than do what accomplishes the best outcome in the most efficient way. It's all screwy. Providers do much, much better if they do a bunch of shit to us than if something simple fixes the problem. And they have to make as much money as possible because many of them are hammered by uncompensated care costs each year (a factor of having so many people uninsured). Much of that uncompensated care comes from the ER too, which is also a factor of having so many people uninsured. When you don't have insurance, you don't go to the doc when a problem starts, you go when you have no choice because you're in really bad shape, which often means the ER. Which means way, way, way more expensive, not only in the ER visit itself, but in the fact that you're way sicker than you would have been if you hadn't waited so long to seek care. That's one of the fallacies of the "I don't want to subsidize other peoples' healthcare" line. We're all paying for it one way or another. Healthcare costs a shitload more for everyone when a huge chunk of the population uses the ER as their primary care. And that's one of the things that happens when people don't have insurance. Hugely inefficient. Well, I didn't say that healthcare isn't a problem, I just believe in my personal opinion that the reason so many people that are low to middle income are pissed off is because they've been forgotten in regards to how they're compensated. So much focus went on pointing to the stock market to gauge the health of the economy and the blue collar worker, but that's not how it needs to be gauged. They need to look at what people are making in this country in salary and address how to make mid or large size companies adjust wages accordingly and how they can reinvest their capital earnings to help their workforce. The way it is now it's like "You want a job or not? Then shut up." The red line drawn down the house and senate floor needs to be scrubbed off and these guys need to start working across the isle with each other to find solutions to these problems instead of being so divided and having all out hatred for each other.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 20, 2017 0:08:00 GMT -6
Another major problem with our healthcare system is that providers are compensated based on what good/services they provide, not on patient outcome. So the incentive is to Do As Much Stuff As They Can Bill For, rather than do what accomplishes the best outcome in the most efficient way. It's all screwy. Providers do much, much better if they do a bunch of shit to us than if something simple fixes the problem. And they have to make as much money as possible because many of them are hammered by uncompensated care costs each year (a factor of having so many people uninsured). Much of that uncompensated care comes from the ER too, which is also a factor of having so many people uninsured. When you don't have insurance, you don't go to the doc when a problem starts, you go when you have no choice because you're in really bad shape, which often means the ER. Which means way, way, way more expensive, not only in the ER visit itself, but in the fact that you're way sicker than you would have been if you hadn't waited so long to seek care. That's one of the fallacies of the "I don't want to subsidize other peoples' healthcare" line. We're all paying for it one way or another. Healthcare costs a shitload more for everyone when a huge chunk of the population uses the ER as their primary care. And that's one of the things that happens when people don't have insurance. Hugely inefficient. Well, I didn't say that healthcare isn't a problem, I just believe in my personal opinion that the reason so many people that are low to middle income are pissed off is because they've been forgotten in regards to how they're compensated. So much focus went on pointing to the stock market to gauge the health of the economy and the blue collar worker, but that's not how it needs to be gauged. They need to look at what people are making in this country in salary and address how to make mid or large size companies adjust wages accordingly and how they can reinvest their capital earnings to help their workforce. The way it is now it's like "You want a job or not? Then shut up." The red line drawn down the house and senate floor needs to be scrubbed off and these guys need to start working across the isle with each other to find solutions to these problems instead of being so divided and having all out hatred for each other. Yeah I wasn't disagreeing with you, FWIW. I was just adding to what Eric said about some of the issues with how we handle health care. I too think partisan tribalism is probably the most destructive force in our culture right now.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 20, 2017 0:20:31 GMT -6
'Obamacare' was claimed to have been basically a repackaged version of 'Romneycare'. At the end of the day all political parties wind up getting addicted to corporate money and the politicians do whatever it takes to get themselves elected, stay in power as long as they can and then get on the lobbying gravy train after they leave. Anyone who really thinks one side is better than the other has been sucked in by the 'shell game' that is the 'democratic' two party political system. That was one of the laughable things about the whole Obamacare debate. It was treated as if it was this enormous socializing of health care when really, after congress got done with it, it was just a super watered down health insurance bill. There was nothing really super lefty about it. It was actually a pretty big giveaway to private insurance companies. It changed the incentives a little, mostly for the better, but that was about it. And it had some systemic issues that needed to be fixed, and they'd be fixable with a functional congress, but it was too much of a political football for the GOP to show some stones on. It's funny, people statistically like Obamacare...as long as you don't call it "Obamacare". If you call it the ACA or just ask about the policy specifics, it has pretty solid support. It's hilarious that the GOP voted to repeal it like 50 times or whatever it was when they weren't in control and it didn't mean anything and then as soon as they were driving the ship, a bunch of them got cold feet about kicking their working poor and middle class constituents off health insurance. Funny how it's easy to take a stand when it's meaningless. Now, instead of actually repealing it, they just kneecapped it. They cut the enrollment period in half and cut the ad budget by 90% (in the hopes that people wouldn't find out it was enrollment time). Enrollment still surged. If the GOP was smart, they'd fix the issues with the ACA and call it something else and then try to take credit. Hell, like you mentioned, it was Romney's model. But partisan toxicity, once again, fucks everything up and common sense is flushed down the toilet.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Nov 20, 2017 2:05:58 GMT -6
'Obamacare' was claimed to have been basically a repackaged version of 'Romneycare'. At the end of the day all political parties wind up getting addicted to corporate money and the politicians do whatever it takes to get themselves elected, stay in power as long as they can and then get on the lobbying gravy train after they leave. Anyone who really thinks one side is better than the other has been sucked in by the 'shell game' that is the 'democratic' two party political system. That was one of the laughable things about the whole Obamacare debate. It was treated as if it was this enormous socializing of health care when really, after congress got done with it, it was just a super watered down health insurance bill. There was nothing really super lefty about it. It was actually a pretty big giveaway to private insurance companies. It changed the incentives a little, mostly for the better, but that was about it. And it had some systemic issues that needed to be fixed, and they'd be fixable with a functional congress, but it was too much of a political football for the GOP to show some stones on. It's funny, people statistically like Obamacare...as long as you don't call it "Obamacare". If you call it the ACA or just ask about the policy specifics, it has pretty solid support. It's hilarious that the GOP voted to repeal it like 50 times or whatever it was when they weren't in control and it didn't mean anything and then as soon as they were driving the ship, a bunch of them got cold feet about kicking their working poor and middle class constituents off health insurance. Funny how it's easy to take a stand when it's meaningless. Now, instead of actually repealing it, they just kneecapped it. They cut the enrollment period in half and cut the ad budget by 90% (in the hopes that people wouldn't find out it was enrollment time). Enrollment still surged. If the GOP was smart, they'd fix the issues with the ACA and call it something else and then try to take credit. Hell, like you mentioned, it was Romney's model. But partisan toxicity, once again, fucks everything up and common sense is flushed down the toilet. Of course many realised the 'fix was in' when Nancy Pelosi stood up and said... "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,961
|
Post by ericn on Nov 20, 2017 8:20:24 GMT -6
Another major problem with our healthcare system is that providers are compensated based on what good/services they provide, not on patient outcome. So the incentive is to Do As Much Stuff As They Can Bill For, rather than do what accomplishes the best outcome in the most efficient way. It's all screwy. Providers do much, much better if they do a bunch of shit to us than if something simple fixes the problem. And they have to make as much money as possible because many of them are hammered by uncompensated care costs each year (a factor of having so many people uninsured). Much of that uncompensated care comes from the ER too, which is also a factor of having so many people uninsured. When you don't have insurance, you don't go to the doc when a problem starts, you go when you have no choice because you're in really bad shape, which often means the ER. Which means way, way, way more expensive, not only in the ER visit itself, but in the fact that you're way sicker than you would have been if you hadn't waited so long to seek care. That's one of the fallacies of the "I don't want to subsidize other peoples' healthcare" line. We're all paying for it one way or another. Healthcare costs a shitload more for everyone when a huge chunk of the population uses the ER as their primary care. And that's one of the things that happens when people don't have insurance. Hugely inefficient. Well, I didn't say that healthcare isn't a problem, I just believe in my personal opinion that the reason so many people that are low to middle income are pissed off is because they've been forgotten in regards to how they're compensated. So much focus went on pointing to the stock market to gauge the health of the economy and the blue collar worker, but that's not how it needs to be gauged. They need to look at what people are making in this country in salary and address how to make mid or large size companies adjust wages accordingly and how they can reinvest their capital earnings to help their workforce. The way it is now it's like "You want a job or not? Then shut up." The red line drawn down the house and senate floor needs to be scrubbed off and these guys need to start working across the isle with each other to find solutions to these problems instead of being so divided and having all out hatred for each other. [ Part We don't disagree on the focus on the stock market see my post quoting Bob O, but I was talking to a guy who consults with the Boards and Presidents,VP & CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, he tells me everybody is scared to raise compensation levels because there is no stability in their employee health insurance, that is a major part of the compensation package. A federal reserve economist who lived in my old building put it this way, " the whole healthcare thing is fucked, cost are out of control everybody is worried, The ACA while really not by any means great policy made no body really happy it did though fix a lot of problems. The thing to remember though healthcare, & its growth probably is in reality what saved the US economy during the last recession!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,961
|
Post by ericn on Nov 20, 2017 8:30:54 GMT -6
Another major problem with our healthcare system is that providers are compensated based on what good/services they provide, not on patient outcome. So the incentive is to Do As Much Stuff As They Can Bill For, rather than do what accomplishes the best outcome in the most efficient way. It's all screwy. Providers do much, much better if they do a bunch of shit to us than if something simple fixes the problem. And they have to make as much money as possible because many of them are hammered by uncompensated care costs each year (a factor of having so many people uninsured). Much of that uncompensated care comes from the ER too, which is also a factor of having so many people uninsured. When you don't have insurance, you don't go to the doc when a problem starts, you go when you have no choice because you're in really bad shape, which often means the ER. Which means way, way, way more expensive, not only in the ER visit itself, but in the fact that you're way sicker than you would have been if you hadn't waited so long to seek care. That's one of the fallacies of the "I don't want to subsidize other peoples' healthcare" line. We're all paying for it one way or another. Healthcare costs a shitload more for everyone when a huge chunk of the population uses the ER as their primary care. And that's one of the things that happens when people don't have insurance. Hugely inefficient. Well, I didn't say that healthcare isn't a problem, I just believe in my personal opinion that the reason so many people that are low to middle income are pissed off is because they've been forgotten in regards to how they're compensated. So much focus went on pointing to the stock market to gauge the health of the economy and the blue collar worker, but that's not how it needs to be gauged. They need to look at what people are making in this country in salary and address how to make mid or large size companies adjust wages accordingly and how they can reinvest their capital earnings to help their workforce. The way it is now it's like "You want a job or not? Then shut up." The red line drawn down the house and senate floor needs to be scrubbed off and these guys need to start working across the isle with each other to find solutions to these problems instead of being so divided and having all out hatred for each other. Actually within the ACA, hospital's and other providers have a bunch of backend money that is based on outcomes and patient satisfaction surveys. Now this seams smart, except nobody put anything in there about giving some weight to the type of patient you take in. What I mean is if your a trams 1, National Cancer Center, Transplant Center and heart Center your screwed out of this money, because you take the patients that others won't and can't ! The problem with the satisfaction survey, is the guy who has to have vitals every 4 hours gets pissed, the guy who has somebody crashing in the next room is pissed because it took for ever to get his pain mess is pissed, the guy who's diet is restricted... This has also meant that's lots has been spent on making hospitals pretty and food service upgrades, not helping people get better!
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Nov 20, 2017 8:32:43 GMT -6
I think I see this thread taking the turn, so I'm going to bail on it to help keep the peace. Yeah. I didn't mean it to start a political frenzy. We get way too caught up in polarization sometimes. But we are all effected by this. I just wanted to get some opinions, not start a war. I bailed on the Facebook thing. Went from thousands of "friends" down to about 50 family and a hand full of civil people. Just couldn't take the idiocies anymore. So this forum is the only online community I come to and discuss things.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 20, 2017 8:34:18 GMT -6
So many true and thoughtful statements here I've seen many interviews where people were asked if they were for or against certain things regarding health care, they said yes to most questions, but when asked if they were against Obamacare, they said yes, even though the questions asked are part of Obamacare.
So clearly, there's a disconnect between propaganda news and reality.
Ragan said, "That's one of the fallacies of the "I don't want to subsidize other peoples' healthcare line. We're all paying for it one way or another. Healthcare costs a shitload more for everyone when a huge chunk of the population uses the ER as their primary care. And that's one of the things that happens when people don't have insurance. Hugely inefficient".
This is so true, and runs even deeper. This is why I supported a plan that got more people enrolled. My ex had snapped her arm in half after being hit by a tornado. She was cool, but in shock when I took her to the emergency room. There were 58 people there, (I counted), only one had a clear emergency, it was a probably broken ankle, the rest were there on what would normally be a doctor's office visit. She would have had to wait her turn to be seen. At least 50 of those people were uninsured. Thankfully I knew some of the prominent doctorsthere, went to the side and was luckily able to talk to the manager, and she took my ex after only one more person. If you don't want to pay for someone else health care, you certainly don't want to pay the exponentially higher costs of an emergency room visit, so Obamacare, (or the plan formerly known as Romneycare), actually saved tons of money in that way.
I would bet if we had a list to the items being implemented in the new tax "reform", and simply asked people is that a good idea, they'd probably be against the majority of them.
|
|