Rockpile233 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 If tax dollars are spent inefficiently, why should we increase taxes? We're onto something here Joe. I do hold a philosophy of higher taxation across the board. BUT I think how and where to spend that money are the real interesting conversations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 We're onto something here Joe. I do hold a philosophy of higher taxation across the board. BUT I think how and where to spend that money are the real interesting conversations. I think how to reform how the money is spent is a more interesting, and more necessary, conversation. Speaking as a former government contractor (I got out rather than have anything to do with the Trump administration), the amount of waste in government is ridiculous. Last project, I had a weekly status meeting with one hundred and thirty managers on the call - all that ever got done was taking roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 thats disgusting dude. we live in a country with more health care resources than any civilization in history and we are going to let people whither and die just bc of an addiction to money accumulation? man thats ultra selfish i hope you and others with this horrible view grow out of it soon Not since Tiberiuse/baskin/gator has someone swung and missed as often as you. You couldn't have missed his point more if you simply responded with "Bananas make terrible shoelaces." It's one thing that you're too cheap to buy a $4 keyboard so your Shift key will work. It's another thing that your grasp of basic grammar is the same as a second-trimester baby. But for the love of Pete, man, if you genuinely don't understand what someone is saying, feel free to just...y'know...not respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockpile233 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I think how to reform how the money is spent is a more interesting, and more necessary, conversation. Speaking as a former government contractor (I got out rather than have anything to do with the Trump administration), the amount of waste in government is ridiculous. Last project, I had a weekly status meeting with one hundred and thirty managers on the call - all that ever got done was taking roll. I'm in sales for a mechanical contractor. When I have to get involved in public sector work the experiences prove how inefficient and redundant jobs seem to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 We're onto something here Joe. I do hold a philosophy of higher taxation across the board. BUT I think how and where to spend that money are the real interesting conversations. If tax dollars were actually bringing us the utopia you seek, no one would have a problem paying them. If we all had the best Roads Sanitation Defense Education College Health care/insurance Housing Police/fire Retirements Employment Etc... From taxes, and there wasn't tons of waste on inefficiencies, you wouldn't have a hard convincing people to pay more for additional utopia services. But we don't, and we're not even close to achieving it. In fact all the income in this country can't provide the utopia you seek. So at the point that a tax rate of 100% won't get us there, where is the logic in asking for more? It's not logic. It's emotion. You feel like if we all chipped in a little more on the problems you feel are important, we'd all be better off. But there's no data or research or test cases or anything that give an ounce of credibility to your emotional argument. You just want to feel better. Yet, far be it from you to lead by example and start donating to the federal government. You just want to sit in the back and shame the rest of the country for not feeling the way you feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockpile233 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) Did you miss the part where I granted reforms are needed across the board to deal with the waste you've properly identfied? You don't even really need to raise taxes just don't cut them for everybody. Also, once again I donate to charity instead since it is more efficient TODAY. Stop trying to turn everything into an emotional argument. Edited March 9, 2017 by Rockpile233 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 With CEOs of private health care companies making multiple times what any government worker makes a good argument could be made the government would bring cheaper health care to the US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I have to confess I'm genuinely disappointed with what Ryan is selling. First and foremost, the Democratic party can go phuck themselves from here to eternity for putting the country in this situation in the first place. ACA has made health coverage horrible for more people than it ever helped, and they did it all with the intent of collapsing the table to make more and more people dependent on the government. And they did it by openly and disgracefully lying to the face of the American people. They should never be forgiven or forgotten for this clusterphuck of self-serving money-laundering liberal stupidity. That said, I expected much more from the GOP than what I'm reading. The federal government needs to get the hell out of this health insurance business beyond providing help for those who TRULY need it. And for those of us who ARE self-accountable and self-sufficient, I want dozens of private insurance firms giving me options from everywhere. I want simple Chinese menus from which I can choose the coverage that matters to me and my family. Yes, I understand the three-step process, and I even appreciate the concept behind it, but unfortunately, you're not going to be successful working with these Democrats. They're batschitt hysterical right now and there is no end in sight. You're not going to slowly bring these idiots along to agree on anything the GOP does. So with the same naivete I judged the ACA, I say to Ryan and the GOP...phuck it. You've been talking repeal and replace for four years, and STILL don't have a viable ready-to-go plan. That's embarrassing. So Let Obamacare death spiral. Let the world watch what the Democrats did to everyone simply because they were too selfish to approach Obamacare with anything but their own wallets in mind. If we're bold enough to elect Donald Trump, we should be bold enough to let Obamacare completely schitt the bed. And Magox...you know this stuff better than most here. I have always respected your real world views of both ACA and Ryan's plan, so I want you to know now I KNOW you think what I've written is ridiculous and not a plan. But dammit...the three-step plan -- which, in theory, is the right approach from a bi-partisan standpoint -- is just not going to work because the left has completely lost its mind with Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank II Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 You missed his point, which was absolutely not the point you're making, but rather was my point. You're absolutely right, I missed his point, and apparently yours. Help me out, what are they? I can't find them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Did you miss the part where I granted reforms are needed across the board to deal with the waste you've properly identfied? You don't even really need to raise taxes just don't cut them for everybody. Also, once again I donate to charity instead since it is more efficient TODAY. Stop trying to turn everything into an emotional argument. That's the only argument you've made. That's all your opinion is backed by. We need to do to do something. Why? Because I think that's the right thing to do. Great argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockpile233 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 "To promote the general wellfare..." I believe heathcare should be a right in this country. All I can do is vote for candidates who share this vision who will then gather necessary support to enact this into law. I don't support anyone who trys to slip anything past anybody. Clean air and water is also a right that takes a tremendous amount of labor and tax money to execute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreddieJizzle22 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 "To promote the general wellfare..." I believe heathcare should be a right in this country. All I can do is vote for candidates who share this vision who will then gather necessary support to enact this into law. I don't support anyone who trys to slip anything past anybody. Clean air and water is also a right that takes a tremendous amount of labor and tax money to execute. Speaking of water, has Trump been able to solve Flint Michigan's water crisis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 "To promote the general wellfare..." I believe heathcare should be a right in this country. All I can do is vote for candidates who share this vision who will then gather necessary support to enact this into law. I don't support anyone who trys to slip anything past anybody. Clean air and water is also a right that takes a tremendous amount of labor and tax money to execute. Who is denied healthcare in this country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 "To promote the general wellfare..." I believe heathcare should be a right in this country. All I can do is vote for candidates who share this vision who will then gather necessary support to enact this into law. I don't support anyone who trys to slip anything past anybody. Clean air and water is also a right that takes a tremendous amount of labor and tax money to execute. Just for the sake of argument, why not make food and housing rights as well? If we're going to consider staple items as rights, why not include them? And as a second point, how would you turn them into rights if you were able to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 KURT SCHLICHTER: Hi, GOP: You Are Terrible and Obamacare Jr. Stinks. CHANGE: GOP healthcare plan clears first hurdle. Resistance grows in Senate to House health bill. JOHN HINDERAKER: Is GOP Health Care Bill a Disaster? No. Peter Nelson, my colleague at Center of the American Experiment, is one of the country’s leading experts on health care policy. On the Center’s web site, he urges conservatives to take a deep breath and understand the constraints that Congressional Republicans are working under. In particular, a full repeal of Obamacare must get through the Senate, which means it must get 60 votes. There are only 52 Republican senators. Therefore, the first bill that has been unveiled is intended to be passed under the reconciliation process, which requires only a bare majority. Only Obamacare provisions that have a budgetary impact can be repealed in the reconciliation bill. Other measures will have to follow afterward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockpile233 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Who is denied healthcare in this country? Not the point, I want people to have access to healthcare without having to declare bankruptcy from the debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockpile233 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Just for the sake of argument, why not make food and housing rights as well? If we're going to consider staple items as rights, why not include them? And as a second point, how would you turn them into rights if you were able to do so? You've got me that it's inconsistent not to throw unwavering support towards these seemingly similar issues, but honestly I do believe in some individual responsibility in the community. Housing, sustenance, don't carry some of the costs some conditions carry. You are going to have a completely destitute group in any theoretical setting. So perhaps it's inconsistent, but I wouldn't support this. In regards to healthcare it's sociaized medicine with everybody paying into it. Until majority public support is behind this and everyone owns and has a vested interest in it succeeding will it work. Right now we don't have that support and the methods for running it through alienated a lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 "To promote the general wellfare..." I believe heathcare should be a right in this country. All I can do is vote for candidates who share this vision who will then gather necessary support to enact this into law. I don't support anyone who trys to slip anything past anybody. Clean air and water is also a right that takes a tremendous amount of labor and tax money to execute. If it only said "To promote the general welfare of the United States," you'd almost have a point. I do not claim to be professor of the constitution, but Section 8 specifically lays out what Congress deemed was needed for "the general welfare," and it says nothing about "Everyone gets to see a doctor for a low price." Simply from here: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. There is nothing in there about ensuring everyone can see a doctor. It's not even implied, and considering they took the time to call out the progress of science and arts, you'd kind think they'd be more specific about health care, no? It's a nice sentiment. It really is. But it's just another one of the special interpretation clubs non-thinking leftists use to beat people into silence. "You just want to let people die!!!" But you keep trying to get people elected who think Article 1, Section 8 means everyone gets to see a doctor. Good luck with that. Liz Warren will be happy to take your money and vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 And Magox...you know this stuff better than most here. I have always respected your real world views of both ACA and Ryan's plan, so I want you to know now I KNOW you think what I've written is ridiculous and not a plan. But dammit...the three-step plan -- which, in theory, is the right approach from a bi-partisan standpoint -- is just not going to work because the left has completely lost its mind with Trump. I don't think your views are ridiculous, I just don't believe that the vast majority of people including those in congress truly understand three key fundamental points: A) The limitations of budget reconciliation B) Legislative and political reality C) That our government from my view should represent the wishes of the citizens, from both parties not a faction of their political base. LA, remember when we both used to believe that Ryan was the preeminent conservative mind in the GOP? Now he's been successfully caricatured from the right wing as some sort of globalist, illegal immigrant loving, establishment hack. It's not that he's changed, its that the party has. I've made this argument on this site many times before and I'm sticking to it. In regards to A) I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty but lets just say that budget reconciliation does not permit you to repeal and replace the entirety of the law. When Ryan brought in the Freedom caucus just yesterday and explained to them in detail the limitations of it, they began to change their tune. Not that they were in support of it, but now that they needed to change tactics. Rather than do what is permitted, they want to stack the repeal and replace with their wish list (which isn't representative of what the country wants) and then once the budget parliamentarian rules against it, overrule her. Which isn't something that is done. Do you really want to go down this road? Not only will it be a complete disaster politically but it still wouldn't pass. I'll get to that in a second. But imagine the precedent. When Progressives get back in power and make no mistake they will get back in power at some point. This progressive party just like the GOP has also moved further to their fringes. And they will pass single payer. They will pass huge tax increases. They will pass whatever the !@#$ they want that is from left wing landia. Is that what you want? I don't. But lets just say they overruled the budget parliamentarian, which to my understanding Pence could do so. But even then it has to go down to a vote, IN THE SENATE. Do you really think 51 Republicans will vote for what will be dubbed as a right wing bill? It won't be just your typical GOP agitators who will oppose it, such as Graham and McCain, but Portman, Caputo, Alexander, Flake, Gardener, Blunt, Collins, Corker and probably a few others. Do you know who will be most disproportionately affected from going with the ACA subsidies system to a purely market driven system? Individuals making less than $40,000 a year and couples making less than $60,000. Specially older folks, because of the provision in the law that doesn't allow insurers to charge older sicker folks more than what they should. They essentially cap what they should pay relative to younger healthier folks, meaning that older people disproportionately pay less relative to younger people who qualify for subsidies or are in urban markets where the health risk pools skew younger meaning lower premiums. Now I'm not in agreement with that provision, AT ALL. However, guess which age demographic votes for Republicans? The ones who will end up paying a lot higher premiums because of the changes. Can you imagine the AARP, AMA, hospital associations who are adamantly opposed with the more conservative wing of the parties dream bill, can you imagine all the lobbying, ads that they would run hammering Repubs for "ripping health insurance away from 20 million people". Even if you disagree with it that is what the ads would say. It would be bloody murder and Repubs would get absolutely crushed and pay a heavy political price. But the point is that even if you did stack the bill with what the freedom caucus wanted, you still wouldn't get to 50 votes. Didn't the GOP learn the mistake of the Democrats? That if you take such a huge undertaking such as healthcare and you run it on a purely partisan basis, right off the bat you will have at least half if not more of the country opposed to you. It will be the rallying call much like it was for Repubs in 2009 and 2010. Constant opposition, that's what a new generation of Progressives would come out of the woodwork and guess what their mandate would be? To do the same thing, ignore the budget parliamentarian, which they wouldn't even half to, they could throw in a huge tax increase which would suffice the Byrd rule voila! Single payer healthcare. Then its game over. This isn't a final product. It will be amended and there will be some bones that they will throw to the Freedom Caucus. But then it will go to the Senate and there will have to be concessions made between Centrists and Rand/Cruz and Lee. If they don't, then Obamacare stays. It's as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Not the point, I want people to have access to healthcare without having to declare bankruptcy from the debt. Who has to declare bankruptcy to have access to healthcare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts