Deficit up 17%

[hog88]

Of course there is. Trent Lott made sure he brought home the bacon back then by keeping a base (or weapon) funded when the defense dept wanted to scrap it.

They all do it. My guess is Luther's favorite GA politicians would go crazy if Trump proposed closing any of the bases in GA.

 

[McDad]

They all do it. My guess is Luther's favorite GA politicians would go crazy if Trump proposed closing any of the bases in GA.

Darn tootin'

 

[LouderVol]

Because the defense budget is far more bloated, but there would obviously be room for negotiation. Maybe 70% instead of 50%.

SS, medicare and medicaid have triple the budget the military does. and if you think those systems are run any where near as efficient as the military I have an island you can buy.

if we cut what we consider "discretionary" spending, which the military and all the other programs are part of, to zero we wouldn't be out of a deficit for long. about a decade. Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go
the "mandatory" spending is growing at a faster rate than the tax revenue, even before Trump.

heck spending on the debt interest payments (interest, not even the principal) is the 5th largest line item in the budget. and that is growing as well.

if we want to be financially sound we are going to have to cut some on the mandatory spending as well.

 

[lawgator1]

SS, medicare and medicaid have triple the budget the military does. and if you think those systems are run any where near as efficient as the military I have an island you can buy.

if we cut what we consider "discretionary" spending, which the military and all the other programs are part of, to zero we wouldn't be out of a deficit for long. about a decade. Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go
the "mandatory" spending is growing at a faster rate than the tax revenue, even before Trump.

heck spending on the debt interest payments (interest, not even the principal) is the 5th largest line item in the budget. and that is growing as well.

if we want to be financially sound we are going to have to cut some on the mandatory spending as well.

I think raising Medicare eligibility to 67, like they effectively have done with SS, would help.

In the alternative, scrap private insurance and go to single payor, using taxes in lieu of premiums. You will be able to see year over year whether it is being paid for, and if not, how much to make sure that it is.

 

[evillawyer]

 

[BeecherVol]

I think raising Medicare eligibility to 67, like they effectively have done with SS, would help.

In the alternative, scrap private insurance and go to single payor, using taxes in lieu of premiums. You will be able to see year over year whether it is being paid for, and if not, how much to make sure that it is.

SS needs to be phased out.

 

[lawgator1]

SS needs to be phased out.

If you want to start with high school grads this year, ok, but then how do you fund the back end?

 

[BeecherVol]

If you want to start with high school grads this year, ok, but then how do you fund the back end?

Just from my standpoint, Id gladly turnover what Ive paid in to the cause to date,if I got to keep 50% of what I paid in for the next 10 years and 100% the last 10 to invest myself. And never draw the first dime.

It needs to go. Im game for ideas on how to do it over time.

 

[luthervol]

Well that just can't be true. That's the opposite of everything that has been pounded into my head over the past 40 years.

 

[LouderVol]

I think raising Medicare eligibility to 67, like they effectively have done with SS, would help.

In the alternative, scrap private insurance and go to single payor, using taxes in lieu of premiums. You will be able to see year over year whether it is being paid for, and if not, how much to make sure that it is.

lol. you have to vote on it to see whats in it. you guys are actively pushing for a complete system failure and are trying to hide behind nice words.

all moving it back two years would do is delay. there isn't enough people dying from 65 to 67 to make a difference. and I love the justification of these panels. funny to see the "humanitarian" efforts quickly running into the reality of limited, if vast, funds. universal coverage never stays universal, which is half the dang reason people want it.

 

[LouderVol]

Just from my standpoint, Id gladly turnover what Ive paid in to the cause to date,if I got to keep 50% of what I paid in for the next 10 years and 100% the last 10 to invest myself. And never draw the first dime.

It needs to go. Im game for ideas on how to do it over time.

not a bad plan. I would gladly give up all the money I have put it. oh wait, thats going to happen anyway.

they are trying avoid making some people face a financial cliff so instead they want implement measures that will push the whole population over the same cliff that will only get higher.

 

[evillawyer]

Well that just can't be true. That's the opposite of everything that has been pounded into my head over the past 40 years.

I know, fake News. Probably the same commies that say supply side economics is a bunch of hooey.

 

[lawgator1]

lol. you have to vote on it to see whats in it. you guys are actively pushing for a complete system failure and are trying to hide behind nice words.

all moving it back two years would do is delay. there isn't enough people dying from 65 to 67 to make a difference. and I love the justification of these panels. funny to see the "humanitarian" efforts quickly running into the reality of limited, if vast, funds. universal coverage never stays universal, which is half the dang reason people want it.

You don't see what is right in front of you, do you?

The system IS failing. It IS collapsing. We keep trying these stop-gap measures, but none controls the cost of care skyrocketing every year.

As long as we have so many built-in inefficiencies and perverse incentives, the system is doomed to crash.

And you want to talk about quality of care? Know why you sit for an hour to see a doctor for a cursory five minute annual check up? Because he has to spend so much time working his way through the insurance reimbursement system that he has to see as many patients as possible, as cheaply as possible. You are a number, not a person.

Now, before you say it would be worse with government-run care, take a look as satisfaction rates for those systems.

Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada

 

[hog88]

You don't see what is right in front of you, do you?

The system IS failing. It IS collapsing. We keep trying these stop-gap measures, but none controls the cost of care skyrocketing every year.

As long as we have so many built-in inefficiencies and perverse incentives, the system is doomed to crash.

And you want to talk about quality of care? Know why you sit for an hour to see a doctor for a cursory five minute annual check up? Because he has to spend so much time working his way through the insurance reimbursement system that he has to see as many patients as possible, as cheaply as possible. You are a number, not a person.

Now, before you say it would be worse with government-run care, take a look as satisfaction rates for those systems.

Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada

You really think any of that would change under a single payer system?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I think raising Medicare eligibility to 67, like they effectively have done with SS, would help.

In the alternative, scrap private insurance and go to single payor, using taxes in lieu of premiums. You will be able to see year over year whether it is being paid for, and if not, how much to make sure that it is.

Add a layer if complexity (gov't) between person and their insurance provider? And you expect that to be cheaper and more efficient? Or put insurance companies out of business and let gov' do the job. You think gov't will do it cheaper and more efficiently than insurance companies?

Serious questions.

 

[VolStrom]

Add a layer if complexity (gov't) between person and their insurance provider? And you expect that to be cheaper and more efficient? Or put insurance companies out of business and let gov' do the job. You think gov't will do it cheaper and more efficiently than insurance companies?

Serious questions.

Ask any veteran how they like their VA care and you can equate that to a US run single payer healthcare plan.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Ask any veteran how they like their VA care and you can equate that to a US run single payer healthcare plan.

Oh, I know and I have. I have a dear friend, combat vet. He's screwed over more than anyone would admit is unconscionable.

 

[VolStrom]

I'll also add that the one of the biggest problems now with healthcare is drug prices. Generic antibiotics that cost $5.00 for a 2 week supply a couple of years ago now cost over a $100. Drugs are on a crash course to being unsustainable.

 

[LouderVol]

You don't see what is right in front of you, do you?

The system IS failing. It IS collapsing. We keep trying these stop-gap measures, but none controls the cost of care skyrocketing every year.because we couldn't refuse service so we had to pay for all the freeloaders. still an issue today.

As long as we have so many built-in inefficiencies and perverse incentives, the system is doomed to crash.the government will only make the inefficiencies worse. how will going to the .gov save doctors time? ACA has vastly increased the amount of paperwork doctors have to do. I know several on here have talked about it. any true service industry doesn't fail, its only when you try to make it something it isn't, a right, that it fails.

And you want to talk about quality of care? quality of care where the government can refuse to let you spend your own money on you? Know why you sit for an hour to see a doctor for a cursory five minute annual check up? this isn't actually a quality of care issue, quality of service suffers with the waits but my inherent care doesn't. what causes my quality of care to suffer is over protective mom taking Timmy to the ER to take care of the sniffles because now it has to be covered while I sit with my finger sliced to the bone for 3 hours. thats actually happened and caused level of care to happen. more access, more people just make the thing you complain about worse. Because he has to spend so much time working his way through the insurance reimbursement system that he has to see as many patients as possible, as cheaply as possible. and the government is going to pay him more for each visit without adding any paperwork? lol. I have to fill out 3 different forms to PAY the government on a lot of stuff. no way the gov makes it better.You are a number, not a person. you banging your local DMV clerk, or senator? you are just a number to them too.

Now, before you say it would be worse with government-run care, take a look as satisfaction rates for those systems. funny that you bring up satisfaction but not at how they are failing. UK's system is deep in the hole. you also have the government refusing those parents the right to take their kid to the US for treatment. satisfaction goes right out the window when that crap happens, and its more widespread than you know. oh you smoke, guess what UK doesn't cover you. satisfied. ha.

Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada

having any outside party pay for medical coverage is what causes the issue. healthcare worked just fine when people could directly pay for service.

 

[hog88]

In order for single payer HC to drive down costs it will have to do one of two things. All providers will have to be govt employees and care rationed or the .gov will have to set reimbursement rates much like they do for Medicare providers.

 

[lawgator1]

having any outside party pay for medical coverage is what causes the issue. healthcare worked just fine when people could directly pay for service.

I don't know about who you hang out with but I'm solidly middle class and if one of my friends or their families had to shell out $100,000 + for a significant surgery and a week's hospital stay it would crush them.

Similar to Medicare, you have to have the young and healthy people supplement the monies to be put in by the older folks with more problems. Same when they get older.

As to care for people who cannot afford it at all, you are right. There is a disconnect between our societal decision to mandate that hospitals provide care to those gravely ill -- with no source of payment -- but then act surprised when the hospitals pass those costs on to us in the form of higher prices for our own services.

And of course what's worse about that is that the people this captures could often have been treated much earlier for much cheaper if they had access to basic, front line care. Not always. But often.

In order for single payer HC to drive down costs it will have to do one of two things. All providers will have to be govt employees and care rationed or the .gov will have to set reimbursement rates much like they do for Medicare providers.

You are fooling yourself if you don't think that already happens. Many health insurers already pay the equivalent of DRGs (Medicare or Medicaid contract costs for services).

In my line of work, dealing with people sometimes injured in their interactions with police, I see some pretty insane things. Had one where a guy had three surgeries (minor, really) and a two week hospital stay. The retail bill was over $100,000. Actually paid? Less than $5,000. No argument, no hassle, it was all by contract and computer, maybe a couple of phone calls.

 

[hog88]

I don't know about who you hang out with but I'm solidly middle class and if one of my friends or their families had to shell out $100,000 + for a significant surgery and a week's hospital stay it would crush them.

Similar to Medicare, you have to have the young and healthy people supplement the monies to be put in by the older folks with more problems. Same when they get older.

As to care for people who cannot afford it at all, you are right. There is a disconnect between our societal decision to mandate that hospitals provide care to those gravely ill -- with no source of payment -- but then act surprised when the hospitals pass those costs on to us in the form of higher prices for our own services.

And of course what's worse about that is that the people this captures could often have been treated much earlier for much cheaper if they had access to basic, front line care. Not always. But often.




You are fooling yourself if you don't think that already happens. Many health insurers already pay the equivalent of DRGs (Medicare or Medicaid contract costs for services).

In my line of work, dealing with people sometimes injured in their interactions with police, I see some pretty insane things. Had one where a guy had three surgeries (minor, really) and a two week hospital stay. The retail bill was over $100,000. Actually paid? Less than $5,000. No argument, no hassle, it was all by contract and computer, maybe a couple of phone calls.

Yes, I know that insurance companies negotiate discounts with the providers withing their network but the difference is that under single payer the provider will not have a choice. They will be held hostage by the .gov. We are already seeing shortages of providers in various areas, under single payer it will only get worse. Then consider research into drugs, new procedures and such, single payer will drastically cut into new innovations and cures.

If you really want to see a reduction in cost just allow providers to refuse service to those that can't pay.

 

[Vol737]

Thought with the conservatives in total control we would get the budget under control, but sadly they have made it worse.

779 Billion

Both parties have made it worse. Long and short of it is, programs and budgets are eventually get cut one way or another. Raise taxes all you want, it won’t touch the debt at this point. We spend too much, period.

 

[Vol737]

And remember how the tax cuts were going to pay for themselves!

Remember how Obamacare was going to be debt neutral? Good times.

 

[LouderVol]

I don't know about who you hang out with but I'm solidly middle class and if one of my friends or their families had to shell out $100,000 + for a significant surgery and a week's hospital stay it would crush them.

Similar to Medicare, you have to have the young and healthy people supplement the monies to be put in by the older folks with more problems. Same when they get older.

As to care for people who cannot afford it at all, you are right. There is a disconnect between our societal decision to mandate that hospitals provide care to those gravely ill -- with no source of payment -- but then act surprised when the hospitals pass those costs on to us in the form of higher prices for our own services.

And of course what's worse about that is that the people this captures could often have been treated much earlier for much cheaper if they had access to basic, front line care. Not always. But often.




You are fooling yourself if you don't think that already happens. Many health insurers already pay the equivalent of DRGs (Medicare or Medicaid contract costs for services).

In my line of work, dealing with people sometimes injured in their interactions with police, I see some pretty insane things. Had one where a guy had three surgeries (minor, really) and a two week hospital stay. The retail bill was over $100,000. Actually paid? Less than $5,000. No argument, no hassle, it was all by contract and computer, maybe a couple of phone calls.

1. yeah saving ones life is generally going to be expensive. Not sure why an open heart surgery should be cheap. can costs go down? sure. but mandating the costs is the worst way to do that. and even if we did, we, the people, wouldn't see the benefit. it would go and line somebodies pocket. remove the red tape, don't increase it.

2. you are actively supporting a Ponzi/triangle scheme. those fail. No thank you.

3. you could apply your logic to literally everything and have the government controlling everything. "yeah it would be better if we did "X" from the start." again, I don't trust the government to tell me what is best for me. or even know what is best for me. The whole system depends on the government being all knowing, so they can fix me, all powerful, so they can make me and the doctor do whatever it is they decide to Frankenstein me with, and never ever ever make a mistake that I myself would catch.

going back to waiting an hour for a doctor because of insurance. What is the excuse for waiting an hour at the DMV? City Hall-Office of Whatever? Court? I know of no reason why giving government control would make this better.