- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
04 Oct 13
Originally posted by stevemccWell, thanks for your service too, and I'll say here, everyone else who has served. 🙂
Me too. I had private insurance at my last job, and went thru a heart attack and diabetes diagnosis. My privately provided care was excellent. Got laid off,went onto the VA's role, went thru Open heart surgery et al and the care provision was every bit as good.
Single provider is the way to go. The VA's system is the model.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Oct 13
Originally posted by JS357So we've had a few replies, and at worst, people have reservations and doubts wrt to their own coverage. Why the outrage?
I am curious about US residents here. Are you:
1. On medicare?
2. Covered by a company group plan?
3. Have an individual policy with an Aetna, Blue Cross, Kaiser type of company?
4. Self-insured meaning not insured, and will continue that way?
other?
What about most people you personally know?
Me, I'm #1. My wife is president of a small corporation and it has a Kaiser group plan. So she's #2.
06 Oct 13
Originally posted by normbenignJust curious - as a proponent of a free market approach, would you support the abolishment of Medicare?
I'm #1, and I oppose the ACA, and I'm not mean. I personally lived through quite a few years of no insurance, and don't wish it on anyone. However, I don't believe the promises of coverage for everyone.
From what I can glean from professionals who have read the law, there will be persons left out under the ACA. Some will be persons who are insured, ...[text shortened]... robably Blue Cross, however costs are rising so fast that I may not be able to afford to add it.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Oct 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraA counterfactual argument for a conservative's taking such things as medicare is that if there were no medicare, they would be taxed less over their lifetimes and therefore be financially able to cover private insurance. Add to that the idea that in a world without medicare, private sources of insurance would be competing for the senior market.
Just curious - as a proponent of a free market approach, would you support the abolishment of Medicare?
The alternative reality that is prevented by big government is always rosy, or at least is as rosy as it needs to be to support arguments in its favor.
06 Oct 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraReluctantly yes, but only as a part of a total reform to free market principles. Just papering over government controlled systems with other government controlled systems isn't likely to make services provided better.
Just curious - as a proponent of a free market approach, would you support the abolishment of Medicare?
The problem most seniors are discovering about the ACA is that their supplemental insurance is much more costly and rising since ACA was passed.
06 Oct 13
Originally posted by moon1969".....the federal income tax. No way to reliably fund the military."
Sure he does, and the federal income tax. No way to reliably fund the military.
🙄 I can't believe anyone as far left as you is citing funding of the military. Perhaps if the military weren't so well funded, our nation would not get involved in military actions which are not directly in the interests of our national defense.
Best example is Reagan's military buildup, lead by Weinberger, which consisted largely of enlarging conventional weapons systems and numbers of boots. This at a time when national defense strategy was MAD, and the only enemy was the Soviet Union.
There needs to be a rational prioritization of spending, and the elimination of spending that is either irrational or destructive. That would include both military and social spending.
06 Oct 13
Originally posted by JS357"The alternative reality that is prevented by big government is always rosy, or at least is as rosy as it needs to be to support arguments in its favor."
A counterfactual argument for a conservative's taking such things as medicare is that if there were no medicare, they would be taxed less over their lifetimes and therefore be financially able to cover private insurance. Add to that the idea that in a world without medicare, private sources of insurance would be competing for the senior market.
The alternat ...[text shortened]... ment is always rosy, or at least is as rosy as it needs to be to support arguments in its favor.
Of course before Medicare became reality, or the ACA, there was a reality and it was the replacements that were given the rosy outlook. In all recorded systems, is there any proof that central planned, big government programs provide any products or services better, and more reliably than market driven systems.
This is a difficult argument to check, as there are hardly any purely market driven economies, and central planning of health care is still relatively young.
06 Oct 13
Originally posted by normbenignSo you do support elimination of the federal income tax.
".....the federal income tax. No way to reliably fund the military."
🙄 I can't believe anyone as far left as you is citing funding of the military. Perhaps if the military weren't so well funded, our nation would not get involved in military actions which are not directly in the interests of our national defense.
Best example is Reagan's military ...[text shortened]... that is either irrational or destructive. That would include both military and social spending.
06 Oct 13
Originally posted by normbenignWhile not the greatest for the economy, one nice thing about the sequestration was the massive cuts in military spending. Massive cuts that could never have passed the GOP-controlled House.
".....the federal income tax. No way to reliably fund the military."
🙄 I can't believe anyone as far left as you is citing funding of the military. Perhaps if the military weren't so well funded, our nation would not get involved in military actions which are not directly in the interests of our national defense.
Best example is Reagan's military ...[text shortened]... that is either irrational or destructive. That would include both military and social spending.
07 Oct 13
Originally posted by moon1969Absolutely. It is the most inefficient method of taxation, leaving too many loopholes, and escapes, some of them intentional. It's passage was dubious, and it costs billions of $ in compliance costs, which could be government revenue under other taxation methods.
So you do support elimination of the federal income tax.
The reason both D and R like it is that it gives government more control over people and what they do, in short, social engineering.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
07 Oct 13
Originally posted by normbenignWhat do you recommend, as a replacement?
Absolutely. It is the most inefficient method of taxation, leaving too many loopholes, and escapes, some of them intentional. It's passage was dubious, and it costs billions of $ in compliance costs, which could be government revenue under other taxation methods.
The reason both D and R like it is that it gives government more control over people and what they do, in short, social engineering.
07 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357National Sales Tax, but only after the repeal of the 16th Amendment so that we don't end up with both.
What do you recommend, as a replacement?
Advantages: No compliance reporting, or paperwork, efficient collection, almost no need for an IRS, gets to the underground economy, like drug dealers and prostitutes who buy stuff, but don't report income. Collection mechanism is in place already in the majority of States.
Need not be "revenue neutral" as we understand it, because of some of the above factors.
Also is less likely to be used for social engineering.