I think I'll bow out now before I rupture my aorta or something.
Good thinking bc we soooo had you beat! I'm just kidding. It was a good debate, I enjoyed it. We agree on a lot of things I think its just the method by which to obtain them that we disagree. Its all really moot, SCHIP will pass by month's end.
I think I'll bow out now before I rupture my aorta or something.
Good thinking bc we soooo had you beat! I'm just kidding. It was a good debate, I enjoyed it. We agree on a lot of things I think its just the method by which to obtain them that we disagree. Its all really moot, SCHIP will pass by month's end.
Whaddya mean we agreed? You proposed eating babies. That's just wrong.
I think I'll bow out now before I rupture my aorta or something.
Good thinking bc we soooo had you beat! I'm just kidding. It was a good debate, I enjoyed it. We agree on a lot of things I think its just the method by which to obtain them that we disagree. Its all really moot, SCHIP will pass by month's end.
Whaddya mean we agreed? You proposed eating babies. That's just wrong.
... their needs to be a tighter leash on insurance companies. Costs have got out of hand. And if that is something that won't happen I do think that some sort of medical reform is due. And yes parents should be more responsible and be held accountable. I don't like the Govt in my business either and I do think it has got it's hands way too much in my business.
insurance prices are out of hand because health care is more and more expensive.
health care gets more and more expensive because of government intervention, mooches on the system, and lawsuits driving up malpractice insurance.
Ok, truce. So, can I come hang out with you guys at The Compound?
That was my last dig. See you over on the Support Your Team thread.
Sure you're welcomed down south. I said I was against eating babies I said nothing about adult Yankees.
So we've gone from cigars to schip to taxes to federal entitlement programs to overthrowing the government to anarchy to Ruby Ridge and now to cannibalism.
I've put on a little weight since college. I'd feed you, your family and your neighbors for 6 months.
... their needs to be a tighter leash on insurance companies. Costs have got out of hand. And if that is something that won't happen I do think that some sort of medical reform is due. And yes parents should be more responsible and be held accountable. I don't like the Govt in my business either and I do think it has got it's hands way too much in my business.
insurance prices are out of hand because health care is more and more expensive.
health care gets more and more expensive because of government intervention, mooches on the system, and lawsuits driving up malpractice insurance.
Actually, IIRC, the last numbers I saw showed that lawsuits, malpractice insurance, etc., accounted for something like 3% of the annual increase in health care spending in this country.
The biggest source of increasing medical costs -- again, IIRC -- is unnecessary tests and procedures, and spiraling pharmaceutical costs. While it's always difficult to disentangle causes and effects in a system this complex and with this many inputs, the primary cause of those things seems not to be the gov't, but self-dealing within the industry.
Also, baby is underrated. You just have to know how to cook it.
The biggest source of increasing medical costs -- again, IIRC -- is unnecessary tests and procedures, and spiraling pharmaceutical costs. While it's always difficult to disentangle causes and effects in a system this complex and with this many inputs, the primary cause of those things seems not to be the gov't, but self-dealing within the industry.
i agree that it is a very complex system.
those tests are done because they want to get it right so they dont get sued for getting it wrong.
it must suck to be a doctor. i mean, even in your best days, and with the best technology, and the best medicine available on hand, your patient will still die. A guarantee to fail....
Ok, truce. So, can I come hang out with you guys at The Compound?
That was my last dig. See you over on the Support Your Team thread.
Sure you're welcomed down south. I said I was against eating babies I said nothing about adult Yankees.
So we've gone from cigars to schip to taxes to federal entitlement programs to overthrowing the government to anarchy to Ruby Ridge and now to cannibalism.
I've put on a little weight since college. I'd feed you, your family and your neighbors for 6 months.
The biggest source of increasing medical costs -- again, IIRC -- is unnecessary tests and procedures, and spiraling pharmaceutical costs. While it's always difficult to disentangle causes and effects in a system this complex and with this many inputs, the primary cause of those things seems not to be the gov't, but self-dealing within the industry.
i agree that it is a very complex system.
those tests are done because they want to get it right so they dont get sued for getting it wrong.
Actually, it's not. It's because they see too many patients in too much of a hurry, and because they are financially invested in the companies that do the tests or sell the tests or sell the technology for the tests.
SCHIP is nothing more than an expansion of the Medicaid program. Options will be limited for the patients. Still, better than nothing.
Shouldn't be paid for with a regressive tax, period.
Taxing low income people to pay for a program to benefit low income people is not good government.
Has anyone asked why smokers should bear the brunt of paying for this anyway? What is it about smokers that they deserve to pay more than their fair share for childrens' health? Why not levy a surtax on diapers or something like that? I don't get it.
I agree that it seems illogical to tax tobacco to pay for childrens' medical insurance, but obviously tobacco is on the radar scope to be taxed to pay for something, so it might as well be this. I still think the program, while admirable in concept, remains a nightmare to administer, and most potentially eligible participants will perceive this as an opportunity for a freebie, whether they're entitled or not, and they'll get it. More government run amok.
Has anyone asked why smokers should bear the brunt of paying for this anyway? What is it about smokers that they deserve to pay more than their fair share for childrens' health? Why not levy a surtax on diapers or something like that? I don't get it.
Aside from the specifics of this program, as a general matter, smokers are considered a target for health-related taxes because smokers are voluntarily engaged in an activity known to increase the nation's health care costs. In that respect, it's logical. It's a nice twofer -- add to the funds available for providing health care, and discourage an activity that increases health care costs.
Should they make distinctions between different kinds of tobacco products? Ideally, yes. But right now, your average legislator is going to see the need for more revenue as much more important than the need for nice distinctions among tobacco products. (Just like your average insurance company.)
The main thing I'd like to see, though, if they're going to do this kind of thing, is the tax burden spread across a wider range of activities known to increase the nation's health care costs. Why isn't an alcohol tax included? What about a tax on high-sugar and high-fat foods? What about adding a health care charge onto traffic tickets?
Wow what a thread! Lets see.....you have to have to have a license to drive a car,buy a firearm, open a business , another words show your responsible....how about you have to apply for a license to have a child, then the govt. can look at things like your medical history, your job or profession, education level and judge your future ability to adequatly supply a decent home,clothing,food and medical services for said child and if you pass you may now commince to breed....otherwise the govt. can supply you with free birth control (which they do in schools anyway) which is way cheaper than the med costs involved with these 10 mill kids. Some type of severe penalty if you go off program. The govt can spend several mill on a think tank to come up with the proper formulas to do this and we're still millions and millions ahead. And leave our beloved cigars alone, my bigg 'ol butt. GM
Has anyone asked why smokers should bear the brunt of paying for this anyway? What is it about smokers that they deserve to pay more than their fair share for childrens' health? Why not levy a surtax on diapers or something like that? I don't get it.
Aside from the specifics of this program, as a general matter, smokers are considered a target for health-related taxes because smokers are voluntarily engaged in an activity known to increase the nation's health care costs. In that respect, it's logical. It's a nice twofer -- add to the funds available for providing health care, and discourage an activity that increases health care costs.
Should they make distinctions between different kinds of tobacco products? Ideally, yes. But right now, your average legislator is going to see the need for more revenue as much more important than the need for nice distinctions among tobacco products. (Just like your average insurance company.)
The main thing I'd like to see, though, if they're going to do this kind of thing, is the tax burden spread across a wider range of activities known to increase the nation's health care costs. Why isn't an alcohol tax included? What about a tax on high-sugar and high-fat foods? What about adding a health care charge onto traffic tickets?
Very well said...a point I tried to make earlier. But am not as eloquent as Urbs and was sufficiently flustered.
Has anyone asked why smokers should bear the brunt of paying for this anyway? What is it about smokers that they deserve to pay more than their fair share for childrens' health? Why not levy a surtax on diapers or something like that? I don't get it.
Aside from the specifics of this program, as a general matter, smokers are considered a target for health-related taxes because smokers are voluntarily engaged in an activity known to increase the nation's health care costs. In that respect, it's logical. It's a nice twofer -- add to the funds available for providing health care, and discourage an activity that increases health care costs.
Should they make distinctions between different kinds of tobacco products? Ideally, yes. But right now, your average legislator is going to see the need for more revenue as much more important than the need for nice distinctions among tobacco products. (Just like your average insurance company.)
The main thing I'd like to see, though, if they're going to do this kind of thing, is the tax burden spread across a wider range of activities known to increase the nation's health care costs. Why isn't an alcohol tax included? What about a tax on high-sugar and high-fat foods? What about adding a health care charge onto traffic tickets?
Very well said...a point I tried to make earlier. But am not as eloquent as Urbs and was sufficiently flustered.
...or just realize that it is not the governments job to administer health care, mandate how others should spend their money, tax only people that engage in a specific behavior, or otherwise act like a mother to to each and every adult in this nation. that isnt their job. nor should it be.
its not like my voice on this little forum is going to make a difference anyway, but in a few years or maybe even a decade or two, when this system can no longer be supported and tobacco is illegal, dont say i didnt warn you.
Didn't realize I was duplicating something you'd already said, Luko. I haven't been following this thread very closely.
kuzi16:
...or just realize that it is not the governments job to administer health care, mandate how others should spend their money, tax only people that engage in a specific behavior, or otherwise act like a mother to to each and every adult in this nation. that isnt their job.
Except that it sort of is. Maintaining a well-functioning society is one of the fundamental tasks of gov't. And ours is explicitly given the authority and task by our constitution.
Like everything, this becomes a line-drawing exercise. Some people want the gov't to do this much, draw the line, and go no further. Others want the gov't to do that much, and draw the line there. But nobody wants the gov't to completely stop doing the things you list above. If it's not the gov't's job to administer health care at all, then it certainly can stop. It's how our country operated up to about 1900, when the first food & drug safety legislation was passed. Before that -- when the government didn't consider it its job to administer health care -- medical practice in the U.S. was a shambles, snake oil salesmen were the nearest thing to a pharmacist most people ever saw, laudanum addiction was widespread, people were sick a lot (which was a drag on the economy), and the mortality rate was extremely high (also creating a drag on the economy).
Governments have always mandated how people can and cannot spend their money, they've always taxed specific behaviors, and, to one degree or another, always acted like a mother to every adult in their jurisdiction. And nobody wants them to stop completely. Because life is notably suckier if they stop.
So it's a line-drawing exercise, and the lines end up drawn more or less where the majority wants them drawn. But I don't think even you really want the gov't to completely stop doing the things you list.
The Bill passed today in the House. CNN reports that Obama asked the Senate to act with the same sense of urgency so that this becomes one of the first measures he can sign into law as the new President.
Like everything, this becomes a line-drawing exercise.
True. But have you noticed the line keeps getting extended beyond what is reasonable taxation? It becomes legalized thievery. And the government becomes the Robin Hood. But in theory the government is us, so we are just treating ourselves as if resources are endless, behaviors can be controlled, vilification of law abiding citizens is a legitimate role of government etc. It is a slippery slope to loss of personal liberties. And apathy is a guarantor that personal liberty will become a 20th century anachronism.
Like everything, this becomes a line-drawing exercise.
True. But have you noticed the line keeps getting extended beyond what is reasonable taxation? It becomes legalized thievery. And the government becomes the Robin Hood. But in theory the government is us, so we are just treating ourselves as if resources are endless, behaviors can be controlled, vilification of law abiding citizens is a legitimate role of government etc. It is a slippery slope to loss of personal liberties. And apathy is a guarantor that personal liberty will become a 20th century anachronism.
Second post on the forum and he throws this level of awareness out there....I like it!
Well I believe this Bill is a load of crap, it's discrimination against people for their personal choices that are supposed to be OUR choices as free citizens that are in no way breaking any laws... But it's going to happen no matter how wrong it is... So much for "by the people FOR the people"...
Didn't realize I was duplicating something you'd already said, Luko. I haven't been following this thread very closely.
kuzi16:
...or just realize that it is not the governments job to administer health care, mandate how others should spend their money, tax only people that engage in a specific behavior, or otherwise act like a mother to to each and every adult in this nation. that isnt their job.
Except that it sort of is. Maintaining a well-functioning society is one of the fundamental tasks of gov't. And ours is explicitly given the authority and task by our constitution.
Like everything, this becomes a line-drawing exercise. Some people want the gov't to do this much, draw the line, and go no further. Others want the gov't to do that much, and draw the line there. But nobody wants the gov't to completely stop doing the things you list above. If it's not the gov't's job to administer health care at all, then it certainly can stop. It's how our country operated up to about 1900, when the first food & drug safety legislation was passed. Before that -- when the government didn't consider it its job to administer health care -- medical practice in the U.S. was a shambles, snake oil salesmen were the nearest thing to a pharmacist most people ever saw, laudanum addiction was widespread, people were sick a lot (which was a drag on the economy), and the mortality rate was extremely high (also creating a drag on the economy).
Governments have always mandated how people can and cannot spend their money, they've always taxed specific behaviors, and, to one degree or another, always acted like a mother to every adult in their jurisdiction. And nobody wants them to stop completely. Because life is notably suckier if they stop.
So it's a line-drawing exercise, and the lines end up drawn more or less where the majority wants them drawn. But I don't think even you really want the gov't to completely stop doing the things you list.
Actually I'm not sure that I did, or at least in a cogent way. But what you said right here is very much what I wanted to say...and is the most sane, rational point that has been made or will be made in this thread. I couldn't think clearly, and that may have something to do with the laudanum I've been taking for my headaches.
Except that it sort of is. Maintaining a well-functioning society is one of the fundamental tasks of gov't. And ours is explicitly given the authority and task by our constitution.
please give me a reference for that.
medicine all over the world was bad before 1900. we didnt have the technology to produce the things we have now. the mortality rate is still at 100%. it always will be. government regulation of medicine was done for drug addicts. everyone knew it was bad. those that took part in that behavior paid for it.
it is, to a point, about line drawing. society as a unit craves some sort of organization, or government. but on the other hand, you have to draw those lines for yourself. the government has no business drawing lines for me. I know what is best for me.
True. But have you noticed the line keeps getting extended beyond what is reasonable taxation? It becomes legalized thievery. And the government becomes the Robin Hood. But in theory the government is us, so we are just treating ourselves as if resources are endless, behaviors can be controlled, vilification of law abiding citizens is a legitimate role of government etc. It is a slippery slope to loss of personal liberties. And apathy is a guarantor that personal liberty will become a 20th century anachronism.
Comments
Ok, truce. So, can I come hang out with you guys at The Compound?
That was my last dig. See you over on the Support Your Team thread.
health care gets more and more expensive because of government intervention, mooches on the system, and lawsuits driving up malpractice insurance.
I've put on a little weight since college. I'd feed you, your family and your neighbors for 6 months.
The biggest source of increasing medical costs -- again, IIRC -- is unnecessary tests and procedures, and spiraling pharmaceutical costs. While it's always difficult to disentangle causes and effects in a system this complex and with this many inputs, the primary cause of those things seems not to be the gov't, but self-dealing within the industry.
Also, baby is underrated. You just have to know how to cook it.
those tests are done because they want to get it right so they dont get sued for getting it wrong.
it must suck to be a doctor. i mean, even in your best days, and with the best technology, and the best medicine available on hand, your patient will still die. A guarantee to fail....
then you get sued for it.
blender
how do you get em out?
tortilla chips.
Shouldn't be paid for with a regressive tax, period.
Taxing low income people to pay for a program to benefit low income people is not good government.
Has anyone asked why smokers should bear the brunt of paying for this anyway? What is it about smokers that they deserve to pay more than their fair share for childrens' health? Why not levy a surtax on diapers or something like that? I don't get it.
Should they make distinctions between different kinds of tobacco products? Ideally, yes. But right now, your average legislator is going to see the need for more revenue as much more important than the need for nice distinctions among tobacco products. (Just like your average insurance company.)
The main thing I'd like to see, though, if they're going to do this kind of thing, is the tax burden spread across a wider range of activities known to increase the nation's health care costs. Why isn't an alcohol tax included? What about a tax on high-sugar and high-fat foods? What about adding a health care charge onto traffic tickets?
its not like my voice on this little forum is going to make a difference anyway, but in a few years or maybe even a decade or two, when this system can no longer be supported and tobacco is illegal, dont say i didnt warn you.
Like everything, this becomes a line-drawing exercise. Some people want the gov't to do this much, draw the line, and go no further. Others want the gov't to do that much, and draw the line there. But nobody wants the gov't to completely stop doing the things you list above. If it's not the gov't's job to administer health care at all, then it certainly can stop. It's how our country operated up to about 1900, when the first food & drug safety legislation was passed. Before that -- when the government didn't consider it its job to administer health care -- medical practice in the U.S. was a shambles, snake oil salesmen were the nearest thing to a pharmacist most people ever saw, laudanum addiction was widespread, people were sick a lot (which was a drag on the economy), and the mortality rate was extremely high (also creating a drag on the economy).
Governments have always mandated how people can and cannot spend their money, they've always taxed specific behaviors, and, to one degree or another, always acted like a mother to every adult in their jurisdiction. And nobody wants them to stop completely. Because life is notably suckier if they stop.
So it's a line-drawing exercise, and the lines end up drawn more or less where the majority wants them drawn. But I don't think even you really want the gov't to completely stop doing the things you list.
Like everything, this becomes a line-drawing exercise.
True. But have you noticed the line keeps getting extended beyond what is reasonable taxation? It becomes legalized thievery. And the government becomes the Robin Hood. But in theory the government is us, so we are just treating ourselves as if resources are endless, behaviors can be controlled, vilification of law abiding citizens is a legitimate role of government etc. It is a slippery slope to loss of personal liberties. And apathy is a guarantor that personal liberty will become a 20th century anachronism.
Second post on the forum and he throws this level of awareness out there....I like it!
medicine all over the world was bad before 1900. we didnt have the technology to produce the things we have now.
the mortality rate is still at 100%. it always will be. government regulation of medicine was done for drug addicts. everyone knew it was bad. those that took part in that behavior paid for it.
it is, to a point, about line drawing. society as a unit craves some sort of organization, or government.
but on the other hand, you have to draw those lines for yourself. the government has no business drawing lines for me. I know what is best for me.
YES!