The Nordic countries are quite nice too.
Printable View
The Nordic countries are quite nice too.
It's a fascinating country right now. I'm not sure if the division CAN be healed???
And I just don't see how Mr. Obama could be reelected unless Romney completely and totally shoots himself in the foot somehow. At least we know one of us will be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
I don't see ever giving up my citizenship because I love living here, but if anything would make me think about it its possible that would be another four years with the current administration. Guess we just reflect the country at large, huh Rob?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
I am of Danish Heritage - but it is way too cold there -- too many smelly cheeses, and fish eating! Though "our" family still owns the farm - after over 200 years!Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Can I take your place? I love cold weather and stinky cheese. :) Well, I do live in MN. I guess that's close enough. Danish summers are probably nicer though (read: cooler).Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg44
I think there are lots of people on both sides of the divide who have great interest in making sure it isn't healed. I find that, and them, sickening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
One of the things that took me a while to adjust to after moving to phoenix was the slower, casual, southern lifestyle. But now I like it better and the Midwest seems too stoic.
what about those on the fence?
I have no qualms that our economy is in the toilet. We have to figure out how to turn it around. Maybe Ryan can figure this complicated issue out.
but I still can't sign on to the anti-abortion platform. Because woman are left to care for the children while men waltz away. I wish there was never a need for abortion but the need has existed since almost the beginning of time. Tell me what the solution is to the problem of women getting pregnant. sometimes unwillingly.
There are, I think, quite a few of us on that fence. Fiscal conservative/social liberal pretty well describes me and most of the people I know. Maybe I just live in a cocoon, but everywhere I go I seem to run into folks with similar thoughts. I couldn't care less about party affiliation, but wouldn't mind a little more recognition from one party or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
Sadly bae, I can only agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Agreed, agreed, agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
And I'm long past the "If X is elected, I'm outta here" threat. I survived the Reagan/Bush years politically, I can survive anything. I'd love to see a candidate that was committed to radically reforming our social programs, rather than eliminating them. And one that had the cojones to stand up to the Pentagon, and to Big Industry and its abuses. One that, I dunno, rewarded "job creators" for actually creating American jobs, rather than just for earning & consuming. But whatever happens, our resilience and mettle will be tested in the coming years, so we keep on working on our self-sufficiency and our community-building. Life is good.
Actually, tax rates are not a good indicator of revenue. In 1960, with upper end tax rates of 90%, the United States collected tax revenues equal to about 18.5% of the country's Gross Domestic Product. In 2007, 5 years after the "Bush Tax Cuts", the United States still collected tax revenues equal to about 18.5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
In 2012, without any significant changes to the tax policies in place in 2007, the percentage is projected to be around 16% after enjoying a consistent average of 18.3% since the 1960's.
A couple of things to ask yourself;
- What value did the 90% tax rate of 1960 bring to the US Economy that the 35% rate of 2007 didn't?
- Since revenue as a percentage of GDP hasn't fluctuated more than a few percentage points over the past 70 years (excepting WWII), do you think that all this political posturing and class envy is worthwhile?
- Why are revenues lower in 2012 than 2007? What has changed?
I believe an honest appraisal of the historical record might lead a free thinker to answer;
- None
- No
- The lack of economic activity.
While imposing higher tax rates on the rich may be personally satisfying to some, it is not the answer to the problem. Until we place our focus in the right direction, we shouldn't be surprised at more of the same.
If that mythical, viable candidate who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal also happens to be a flat tax advocate, well, s/he might just get my vote. I'd also like to ride a unicorn someday.
I'll survive as well likely. It mostly, like most everything else in the world, boils down to having money ... That's a bit of a copout though.Quote:
And I'm long past the "If X is elected, I'm outta here" threat. I survived the Reagan/Bush years politically, I can survive anything.
S/he would be entirely unelectable. But a girl can dream. As Austin Powers says, "Well I want a toilet made out of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards now is it?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
pug and Gregg, did you vote for/caucus for Ron Paul? If not, whynot?
I don't know that he is a flat taxer but neither do I think that's beyond the realm of possible for libertarians.
I had the same thought. If you want a libertarian that's the closest you're *ever* likely to get. Is his past perfectly squeaky clean? No, but then whose is .... If he had won the primaries he very well could have won the Presidency. He is so heads and shoulders above all the corporatism mascarading as libertarianism that it's just not even comparable, apples and oranges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
I did. I even went to the state convention as a delegate for Paul, and was on the state slate for Paul delegates to the national convention. Even though he's not perfect, he's more-than-a-bit better than the "mainstream" choices we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
At the convention, it was quite educational to see the games played by the well-funded, well-organized Romney camp to keep Paul's supporters excluded.
I did not simply because I am registered independent ("non-partisan" here in Nebraska) and so was not eligible to vote in our Republican primaries. Ron Paul is, however, the only national candidate to receive a campaign contribution from me and, although I have myriad excuses for not doing more, I did manage to carry a sign and hand out propaganda at the convention. If we had open primaries Ron Paul may have carried it on the crossover Democratic vote alone! :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
It's funny talking about GDP because, when I mentioned the issue of the growing deficit during the Bush administration with a conservative co-worker, he snapped, "well, it's still a low percentage compared to the GDP!" Another reason why I don't like the GDP as the only measure to use.
Here's some alternatives: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...es-to-the-gdp/
And don't forget the flying pigs :-)!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Well, the more I know about Ryan, the less I like his ideology politically and economically. I think like Palin was to MacCain, Ryan may be Mitts downfall as he is too far right for many of us moderates (i.e. fence sitters :-)!) and cause many of us to lean just tad bit more left then we did before Ryan was named V.P. candidate - giving Obama our votes.
As for me, I'll stick with Obama as I can't get the image of a the "Batman (Batmitt) and His Boy Wonder, Robin (Rybin)" giving the old "KERPOWIE" to Medicare et al out of my head :-)!
That's interesting. I believe that under the Ryan plan, seniors could opt out of Medicare and get the same benefit that our Congress is afforded. I guess that really would change Medicare as we know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
My understanding (based on network TV so it's possible I'm wrong :-)!) is that he wants to eliminate medicare at the federal level and adopt a voucher system which gives a set amount, less than was needed, to the states and they would make up the difference. And of course there is the 10/25 tax plan which many middle and lower income people would find very unfair.
I truly believe networks are in the business of telling you what to believe. Here's a Business Insider review you might not see on any of the network TV shows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
Excerpt:
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-...#ixzz23Y0oSKBxQuote:
What would change under Ryan's plan?
For those who become eligible after 2023, Ryan's plan would make two major changes:
- The age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months every year until it reached 67 in 2033.
- Medicare beneficiaries would get voucher payments to buy private insurance plans. Medicare enrollees would choose among competing private insurance plans, offered on a new Medicare Exchange similar to the insurance exchange now offered to federal workers, including members of Congress. The plans offered through the exchange would be required to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and would be prohibited from charging discriminatory rates based on age and health condition. They would also be required to meet a minimum standard of coverage. The vouchers would go directly from the government to the insurance company.
Under the Ryan-Wyden plan, seniors could also opt for the traditional "fee-for-service" Medicare plan, in which healthcare coverage is administered by the government, rather than a private insurer. But the amount that government pays for healthcare — whether in the form of vouchers or fee-for-service payments — remains the same.
Thanks Alan - Yes I did read something similair that the vouchers were given to individuals to buy their own private medical insurance (I made a mistake saying it went to the states - that was for Medicaid not medicare, which I read would be cut greatly (along with food stamp programs) under the Ryan plan). I'll read more but my understanding was that the vouchers would likely not be enough to cover the cost of private health insurance premiums, which would not be capped although the vouchers would be, and that individuals would have to make up what could be a very large difference. Great if you are a high earning senior, but that's not always the case - especially for divorced women who may have spent much of their lives as homemakers rather thenin the paid work force, or low income workers who never were able to save much thru out their lives. And with the loss or reduction of many of the other entitlement programs Ryan advocates and more taxpayer money going to military spending instead, along with higher taxes for the lower income brackets (i.e. seniors in many cases) I can see where people would have a problem with Ryan. But I'll read/watch more (something other then Fox :devil:) and try to learn more before judging. But, you know me, I'm an advocate of universal healthcare (but not a fan of Obamacare - although it's better than nothing IMHO) and some very basic and stringently given entitlement programs, so I doubt I will be onboard the BatMitt and Rybin plan :-)!
Sometimes I think one way or other, that in the end almost noone is going to be able to afford healthcare anyway. 90% of the populace wont' have it
I've not yet figured out how exactly one is supposed to afford healthcare up until that age. Through employers? Hmm one becomes age discriminated against for employment *LONG* before that age. I can see it. I myself don't see many older people employed at the companies I work for! 50 something is OLD for the workplace (as in try to look as young as you can and stay employed old!). Save up that much? When premiums keep increasing because they increase every year even for people of the same age and because they increase as you get older. Sounds very difficult. Self-employment, yea that one *might* work ...Quote:
The age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months every year until it reached 67 in 2033.
sounds expensive and this is for the people over 67. I've honestly never understood why corporatism (and there is way too much government money in this plan for it to be a free market) is prefered to just socialism, except well for the corporations benefitting. You still have government control ultimately, you just have a corporate middle man. Now cynical conspiracy minded me thinks programs that benefit corporations are the only one's that can survive the onslaught. Not those that just benefit people. So medicare part D or whatever the drug care one is, yea that will stay, lots of pharm companies need to be made rich. But a very pure efficient government program like Social Security, how are corporations directly benefitting? (a little Keynsianism spending maybe, but really they AREN'T directly benefitting!) Therefore that one needs to get the axe. Cynical, so cynical ...Quote:
Medicare beneficiaries would get voucher payments to buy private insurance plans. Medicare enrollees would choose among competing private insurance plans, offered on a new Medicare Exchange similar to the insurance exchange now offered to federal workers, including members of Congress. The plans offered through the exchange would be required to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and would be prohibited from charging discriminatory rates based on age and health condition. They would also be required to meet a minimum standard of coverage. The vouchers would go directly from the government to the insurance company.
more of less than now?Quote:
Under the Ryan-Wyden plan, seniors could also opt for the traditional "fee-for-service" Medicare plan, in which healthcare coverage is administered by the government, rather than a private insurer. But the amount that government pays for healthcare — whether in the form of vouchers or fee-for-service payments — remains the same.
don't all vouchers ultimately increase cost? Such is my thinking. That they just basically raise the price point where supply and demand intersect. Too simplistic? Too neo-classical? :)Quote:
I'll read more but my understanding was that the vouchers would likely not be enough to cover the cost of private health insurance premiums, which would not be capped although the vouchers would be, and that individuals would have to make up what could be a very large difference.
Ahh, you didn't follow the link to read more did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
Quote:
How much would the voucher be for?
Under the Ryan-Wyden plan, the cost of the voucher would be determined by a competitive bidding process. The amount the government pays would be decided based on the second-least expensive plan or fee-for service option. If individuals opt for a more expensive plan, they would have to pay the difference in premiums out of pocket. Alternatively, individuals who opt for a cheaper plan would get a rebate.
The individual vouchers would also be adjusted to account for the health and income status of the beneficiary (i.e. sicker, poorer Medicare recipients get more money).
As a failsafe, Ryan's plan would also impose a spending cap requiring that per capita growth not exceed nominal GDP growth plus 0.5%
from the article:
How much would the plan save?
According to a CBO analysis of Ryan's 2013 budget, average Medicare spending for new enrollees in 2050 would be between 35% and 45% below what it would be under the current program. The analysis found that possible consequences of the dramatically lower spending could include higher out-of-pocket healthcare costs for seniors; reduced access to health care; diminished quality of care; increased efficiency of health care delivery; and less investment in new, high-cost technologies
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-...#ixzz23YWw2WZC
I'm guessing the increased efficiency of health care delivery will be due to the fact that fewer people will actually be able to seek health care.:(
Perhaps you could enlighten us on how this will differ from the President's plan to 'redistribute' $711B from Medicare to Obamacare. Will it have an affect on Medicare premiums or will we simply stop taking on new people when the money runs out?Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
I honestly haven't seen any discussion on this point anywhere in the media.
The biggest part of the voucher thing I don't understand is how are they changing private insurance to make that work? There are people now in their 40's who could not get a private insurer to offer them a plan on any terms, much less being in their 60's and 70's. No health insurance company wants to touch later life/end of life care, which is one of the main reasons Medicare came into being in the first place.
Are they going force them to offer plans or what? I don't see any opportunity for "savings through competition" here. I see a big shift from Medicare funded care to ER funded care, though - at least until the dump the ER mandate as well.
I've read of this Ryan plan for Medicare and I have just one question.....How much longer until leaving the US due to the health care system (among other reasons) is no longer considered radical by some? I'm thinking if and when this gets implemented, really, there will not be much to keep many here who think it through.....Just my two cents. Rob
I also wonder, why doesn't the US government start offering us buyouts? For those of us willing to leave for whatever reason, why not give us some token money for our new lives elsewhere in exchange for getting us off future Medicare rolls? Maybe a nice chunk more money for getting us off future SS rolls? Just an idea.....Would not be surprised if the days comes down the road when this idea is floated around publicly. Will take more time though, for this to happen, I think.....Rob
+1, creaker. First they tried to get their hands on our Social Security money by "privatizing" it - imagine if that had actually happened where most people would be now, post 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
Now, despite several generations of the for-profit/private health insurance debacle, they want to get their hands on Medicare money to privatize that and make it for-profit. No thanks.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainey
Because it's a bogus discussion, that's why. The shift in money doesn't affect any medicare benefits, period. No one is being tossed off the cliff here. It's more an adjustment to include, instead of exclude. The Ryan plan, however, shifts all the cost onto the elderly. It sounds pretty to say they will have a CHOICE IN PLANS just like congress. But it's not like congress health care plan. Not at all, in funding or execution. They only want you to think it is, to lull some into a false sense of security.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
But, you know, people over 55 aren't actually senile, or addled, as Ryan thinks. First of all, they aren't quite as easily fooled as Romney/Ryan think, and second, they aren't really as willing to sell their kids (in their early 50's and 40's) down the river as Romney/Ryan hoped they would be. If it's such a great plan, why wait 15 years? Why not implement it now? If people who are 65+ can't come up with the extra income now, what makes them think those who reach 65+ in 15 years will be able to? I'm still thinking an 80 year old can't just go out and make the extra bucks necessary to pay for that hip replacement, or the pacemaker, or the handful of meds they need to get through the day. There are only so many greeter jobs at Walmart you know! And I've never seen a greeter in a wheelchair.
Yeah, Ryan was the perfect pick for Romney. They both share that self important, greedy entitled arrogance of the "I got mine, to hell with you" crowd.
I remember four years ago when Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain's VP, there was a thread here about her. If I remember the jist of it was that she came across as being quite snarky and catty and perhaps not all that together or bright. (and yes, there were a few here who liked her, too.....). My point is that the Paul Ryan choice seems a lot more threatening/important/laden with intense issues.....With Palin we were not talking about radical entitlement reform that threatens the future of many due to offshoring, outsourcing, and the overall lack of jobs.....Some of those who would be threatened also were not in dire straits yet back in 2008. This Paul Ryan choice does seem fraught wth unpleasant future circumstances for the lower social classes in the US, and unfortunately, the number in the lower social classes seems to keep growing and growing. Methinks some major drama may be coming down the pike if this duo gets elected. Rob PS I also want to state that I although I support Obama still, I am not as thrilled with him as I once was.....
+1 You said it much better than I could.....Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
I was hoping you'd give some detail rather than hyperbole. Let me ask again. How will taking one third of the medicare budget away not affect benefits or the number of people who can be covered?Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
The problem is, everyone paying attention knows that the growth in social service spending is unsustainable in the long run, and yet the politicians refuse to do the right thing and make changes which will help the long term viability of the programs so many have been indoctrinated into depending upon.
And, too many of our citizens are more than willing to push the can down the road for their children and grandchildren to deal with. But that's beside the point of my question to you.
I'm really looking forward to a detailed explanation of how taking one third of a programs funding is "an adjustment to include, instead of exclude".
from CNBC:
"Ryan’s budget makes the same $700 billion in Medicare cuts as the Obama plan. CNBC's Scott Cohn explains:
“The Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – does cut the growth of Medicare by $700 billion over 10 years. But benefits to seniors actually increase under Obamacare, which reduces payments to providers in exchange for more people covered by insurance. What’s more, the Ryan plan – approved by the House – cuts Medicare spending every bit as much as Obamacare does. In fact, it incorporates the very same budget projections, even as it repeals Obamacare. That’s what you call having it both ways.”
================================================== =============
The difference between the two is that Obamacare takes those savings and plows them right back into the Medicare program, and the Ryan/Romney plan makes those SAME cuts, yet adds nothing back into Medicare from them, and uses the savings instead for other purposes (tax reductions to the top 1%?)
Thanks for making my point for me loosechickens. While we can speculate until the cats come home about whether or not lowering payouts to healthcare providers will be a net positive over the opposing plan, the basics are the same. I think you know as well as I do that the premises of any given legislation usually turns out to only that, a premise that never comes about.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
I guess you'll be one of the first to find out beginning January 1st if the President is re-elected.
I'm still wondering why one is evil and the other is not.
Alan, read for comprehension, and look at exactly what Obamacare DOES with those savings. And then look that the Romney/Ryan folks' budget ALSO incorporates those same cuts, yet their intention is to kill Obamacare, so those savings will not be rolled back into the Medicare program, but will be used for other purposes. (They have to pay for all those tax bennies for the richest of the rich some way).
One way......cuts are made and the money saved is rolled back into even better care for seniors. the other plan makes the SAME cuts, yets parcels out the savings to the fattest of the fat cats.......
DUH.......bye....end of my internet time for today.....carry on....
Same old loosie I see. Glad to see you back by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
Just so you know, I do read for comprehension. That's why I recognize hyperbole when I see it and as you know, I'm more interested in facts than speculation and rhetoric.
Enjoy your evening and hurry back when you can find the time.