well it is nice to be at sea and not spending money. i saved a good chunk of change on the MEU. but the "buying cars beyond their budget" is the norm for Army and Marine Corps, just as it is for most Americans.I have never had a credit card. I knew few young sailors who did. Most lived off of their paychecks. We had some who would buy cars that were way out of their budget, but that was actually rare.
it will happen if we are lucky and manage to get it in early enough. otherwise healthcare costs threaten to destroy our system of governance and we are left with the ugly choice of them or us.Which is not reasonably going to happen in this country. And shouldn't happen.
medicaid is not available to most adults that live with their spouse and work full time. furthermore, medicaid is actually available to a large portion of the population who do not sign up for it. furthermore (and this should, perhaps, clue us in on the efficacy of UHC), the people who are on Medicaid generally do worse than people who have no health insurance in the first place.And, no, Medicaid is not available to most adults. Despite what some may believe, Medicaid is only available, for the most part, in most states, to certain people, such as the blind, aged, and disabled, children and pregnant women, and certain adults with children in their household may be eligible to get Medicaid.
gosh, surely you don't mean that it incentivizes you to keep your income and productivity below a certain level?There are a lot of stipulations on this though, including a financial assessment that takes into account every bit of money you have and possibly anything that you could reasonably sell for value.
every other nation in the world with the exception of Japan has spent the last decade or so working to make their tax structures more beneficial to business than America's. and Japan was scheduled to make that move themselves until the earthquake/tsunami. the corporate tax rate in Canada is less than half ours.Where exactly are they going to move to?
Because we make it more expensive for them to do so, and we make them less efficient than their competitors if they try. right now, if you are a business in America, and you make profits overseas, we don't allow you to pull it back in and reinvest it here in teh States without paying that 35% corporate tax. we are the only industrialized nation I am aware of that is still this stupid - it means that you have to be sure that the return on investment here in the states will be 36% greater than those same funds invested overseas to justify bringing it back - we have effectively put a 35% handicap on ourselves.And how are most companies honestly going to make more money limiting their business in America?
ah... but if you just cross the border, up into Canada, your tax burden falls, your regulatory shocks fall, and you can efficiently allocate your resources wherever you wish, allowing you to be just as nimble as your competition.
the insanely indebted American consumer?Isn't America the biggest consumers?
we are talking about large job losses here, not gains.Plus, wouldn't that actually help Americans? We are likely going to need those jobs.
unfortunately since those products are made by American citizens and American companies, they will cost more. If you want to hire an American. well, F YOU, we've go about 10K worth of regulatory burden for you to fill out and cover before you pay him a mandated dime. and then we're going to tax and regulate the both of you some more for the crime of producing something worth selling. there is a reason much of our production went overseas, and that reason is that it became too expensive to do it here.Or the poor can buy American products that wouldn't cost as much.
such as what - massive subsidies? when we are already borrowing 40 cents on the dollar to run current operating expenses? and who is going to give us the money, now that we have started a trade war with China?Not to mention, there definitely could be other measures put into place to reduce the impact those increases.
they are the bright, daffodil covered meadows in our dark woods.At least we agree on something here.
that last is incorrect - government subsidization has the effect of increasing prices, and that is precisely what we see. just as government direct and indirect subsidization helped give us a housing bubble, it is now giving us an education bubble - and in both cases they justified pushing people to get further into debt as "helping them".Education costs are high because a) people are told they need a higher education to get a job and then they end up educating themselves about things that are worthless to most jobs, b) the schools want more students, so they can make more money, so on top of all the many expenses they already have, they also pay to impress school raters/rankers to get their schools at the top, and c) there are a waterfall of reasons why higher education is so high, and little has to do with the government offering help to those who cannot afford it (correlation does not equal causation).
this is also incorrect. Insurance companies have to make up for the government mandates that are imposed upon them that force them to make decisions for non-actuarial reasons. Providers have to make up for government underpayments in Medicare and Medicaid, along with mandates that are imposed upon them to provide care with no recompense. Pharmaceutical companies have to make up for the massive production and regulatory burdens that are imposed on them by an insane federal regulatory agency. through it all, the rest of us are in a system where government subsidization of employer provided third-party payment system punishes you to the tune of FICA + your income tax rate if you try to buy insurance that is portable and covers catastrophic needs only; meaning that there is no incentive on the part of anyone not to overuse the medical provision system that is desperate to have as many people overuse as possible to make up for the costs imposed on them by government.Health costs are high because everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie. Doctors want their huge pay. Pharmaceutical companies want to charge massive amounts for their drugs. Insurance companies want to make their money. (Again, correlation does not equal causation.)
yes. they do this by denying people care, and letting them die in larger numbers if they get seriously sick. go spend some time with the cancer survival rates and waiting times in Britain v the US.If other countries can work a UHC system that costs their own government so much less per person, then it is not unreasonable to say that we should be able to do it too.
no, it is simply mostly behaviorally driven.And again, we have black or white understanding. There are many causes for the poverty in this country, and it is not just behaviorally driven
national survival. like raising a child to think he can never be punished, only to watch him be astonished when as a young adult he is hauled off to prison - we do not help people by hiding the consequences of their decisions from them.I don't think anyone who says that people should be forced to face "the full consequences of their poor decisions" really understands exactly what effect that would really have on this country.