• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

mpg said:
but isn't that cost merely passed along to the taxpayer, and aren't you trying to reduce the cost of health care?
Click to expand...

No because the medical schools deliberately do not train enough doctors in order to create excess demand which drives up prices
 
Gill said:
Ahh, so you believe the senior population is going to increase by 160 million in the next few years, while the number under 65 drops the same amount..... how's life in lala land ??

I see you are a fan of the EX one-term congressman Alan Grayson............why am I not surprised.
Click to expand...

I see you have nothing but your unsubstantiated claims. Meanwhile, the real world has proven that socialized medicine is cheaper than what we have now, but you oppose that which puts you in support of a system which has been driving govt spending on health care to go higher and higher.
 
sangha said:
So why are you arguing that they are paying too much, but not paying at all won't affect their profits?
Click to expand...
You have a habit of lying about me.
 
sangha said:
We can start with a single payer, universal health care system which costs less than the system we have now
Click to expand...

LOL!

you couldn't even get two dozen senators
 
Catawba said:
I'm very surprised but happy both you and Turtledude are of the opinion that elimination the Bush tax cuts will lower taxes for the wealthy.

Sure does seem strange, if that is the case, that the GOP has been fighting so hard to protect them.
Click to expand...

it won't lower taxes - it does risk lowering revenue. It will also lower growth and increase unemployment.
 
sangha said:
No because the medical schools deliberately do not train enough doctors in order to create excess demand which drives up prices
Click to expand...

yes, but they do this under the pressure of the AMA; which is functionally a guild. if we were to replace our accreditation method to allow medical personnel to take a test (like lawyers take the bar), we could go far to reducing their power.
 
AdamT said:
You're arguing that doctors have to charge so much because medical school is so expensive (btw, it's a lot more than $50k/yr!). QED, if doctors don't have to pay for medical school then they can charge less. There is, of course, a precedent for this: the VA system.
Click to expand...

the funny thing is, you're right, but I don't think you realize why :)
 
sangha said:
More unsubstantiated BS from the rightwing. Under the law, there are no cuts to the benfits seniors receive under Medicare. And doctors would continue seeing Medicare patients or go out of business for lack of paying customers
Click to expand...

they will do the latter. because when you lower the reimbursement of the procedure to less than the cost of performing it (which is, again, what the Medicare Actuaries say it will do), then you give providers the option between closing up shop now and finding something else to do, or closing up shop later, deep in debt, and then trying to find something else to do.


it's sort of like if I forced you into a system where I was supposed to provide the money for all your meals; but then I sent you to Outback and said you were only allowed to spend $1.50 a meal. You're not going to eat, but I can still insist that I am providing for you.
 
sangha said:
Not everything (that's just one of the rights many straw men) but we should definitely apply that to a lot more. We can start with a single payer, universal health care system which costs less than the system we have now
Click to expand...

We don't want your single payer insurance. Do you understand that?
 
I'm going to piss off a bunch of libs with this, but you can't argue with the numbers.

The GDP is $14.5 trillion dollars. Federal Tax Revenue is $2.2 trillion or about 15% of GDP. Yipee, we are under taxed...let's raise taxes!!! Not so fast my friend.

Of the $14.5 trillion GDP, about $3.8 trillion is Federal spending. That spending is tax free, so what are we left with? A GDP of about $10.7 trillion. So that means we are taxed at 21% of GDP...Yipee, we are under taxed...let's raise taxes!!! Not so fast my friend.

Federal spending and taxes are only half the story. When you factor in state and local spending ($2.4 trillion) and state and local taxes ($2.3 trillion) you end up with a private sector GDP (the part that is taxed) of $8.3 trillion and a total tax revenue of $4.5 trillion, so our real tax rate is 54% of total private economic activity.

That means we are 6% higher in taxes than the highest taxed economy in the world.
 
sangha said:
Meanwhile, the real world has proven that socialized medicine is cheaper than what we have now,
Click to expand...

It's cheaper to force everyone to drive the same, cheap car too. The point is, freedom is better than your cheap car.
 
ksu_aviator said:
That means we are 6% higher in taxes than the highest taxed economy in the world.
Click to expand...
Is that after accounting for all the other factors like you did with the US? Do you have a link?
 
Mach said:
It's cheaper to force everyone to drive the same, cheap car too. The point is, freedom is better than your cheap car.
Click to expand...

I would like the freedom to pay half as much for the same quality of care.
 
mpg said:
Is that after accounting for all the other factors like you did with the US? Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know how they figured their taxes. I doubt they have nearly as many local governments as we do, but it would be interesting to factor that into their figures as well. Maybe someone can find them?

If you want the numbers I used, try governmentspending.com and governmentrevenue.com
 
Mach said:
It's cheaper to force everyone to drive the same, cheap car too. The point is, freedom is better than your cheap car.
Click to expand...

They don't want freedom, they want a security blanket.
 
cpwill said:
it won't lower taxes - it does risk lowering revenue. It will also lower growth and increase unemployment.
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember how the bush* tax cuts increased eco growth and decreased unemployment. That's why the bush* years led to such a great economy and so much employment :roll:
 
cpwill said:
yes, but they do this under the pressure of the AMA; which is functionally a guild.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the AMA has nothing to do with it. If you have any proof of this, I'd like to see it, but I doubt I ever will.

if we were to replace our accreditation method to allow medical personnel to take a test (like lawyers take the bar), we could go far to reducing their power.
Click to expand...

Thinking that a potential surgeons skills can be determined with a written test is delusional
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
they will do the latter. because when you lower the reimbursement of the procedure to less than the cost of performing it (which is, again, what the Medicare Actuaries say it will do), then you give providers the option between closing up shop now and finding something else to do, or closing up shop later, deep in debt, and then trying to find something else to do.
Click to expand...

No doctor has ever gone into debt because they treated medicare patients.


it's sort of like if I forced you into a system where I was supposed to provide the money for all your meals; but then I sent you to Outback and said you were only allowed to spend $1.50 a meal. You're not going to eat, but I can still insist that I am providing for you.
Click to expand...

No, it's nothing like that. Medicare more than covers the costs of care that it provides to its' beneficiaries
 
ksu_aviator said:
I'm going to piss off a bunch of libs with this, but you can't argue with the numbers.

The GDP is $14.5 trillion dollars. Federal Tax Revenue is $2.2 trillion or about 15% of GDP. Yipee, we are under taxed...let's raise taxes!!! Not so fast my friend.

Of the $14.5 trillion GDP, about $3.8 trillion is Federal spending. That spending is tax free, so what are we left with? A GDP of about $10.7 trillion. So that means we are taxed at 21% of GDP...Yipee, we are under taxed...let's raise taxes!!! Not so fast my friend.

Federal spending and taxes are only half the story. When you factor in state and local spending ($2.4 trillion) and state and local taxes ($2.3 trillion) you end up with a private sector GDP (the part that is taxed) of $8.3 trillion and a total tax revenue of $4.5 trillion, so our real tax rate is 54% of total private economic activity.

That means we are 6% higher in taxes than the highest taxed economy in the world.
Click to expand...

You're wrong because the other nations GDP and taxes are computed the same way. Their govt spending is counted just as much as our is. Their regional and local taxes are counted just as much as ours are.
 
Mach said:
It's cheaper to force everyone to drive the same, cheap car too. The point is, freedom is better than your cheap car.
Click to expand...

Every major developed nation has a socialized medical system and they all produce better outcomes than the US does. IOW, it's not the "same, cheap car". It's the "same, better and less expensive car"

But the rightwingers like that our govt and our citizens pay more for less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom