Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Facts, bern. Facts
I know you don't like the facts, can't remember the facts, or understand the facts, but it's still a fact
Some of them are facts. Unfortunately for you they are facts that can't occur at the same time. Our government can't be in debt AND have a treasury department that always happens to have the money to fully fund every depts. budget.
So now you're changing your story from the DoD is unsustainable to the US treasury is unsustainable?
Fine. Explain how the US treasury, which has been operating for over two centuries, is unsustainable. Please provide some evidence from real life to support your inane argument
No, deficits are not how much you borrow in a year. Here you go, moron
Deficit | Define Deficit at Dictionary.com
As you can see, there's nothing about borrowing money involved in a deficit. Borrowing money is just one way of dealing with a deficit. As I explained, there are other ways, such as going into savings, selling assets, and increasing income faster than debt
IOW, you don't have any proof that frances' health care system has a debt, so you'll just repeat the claim and pretend you have proof
You mean like you, who has not been able to show how our 14 trillion dollar and growing debt can be paid and why it constitutes sustainability? That kind of proof? Time will tell ultimately and time is already showing that at least what France originally said they would fund was not sustainable as they are in the process of making cuts. Apparently deficits are a bigger deal to them then they are to you.
French government to tackle surging health care deficit | Reuters
I don't have to prove sustainability. The Treasury has proven it's sustainability by sustaining itself for more than two centuries.
So once again, I will ask you to grow some balls and please explain how the treasury, which has sustained itself for more than 200 years, is unsustainable and please provide some real world evidence to back up your claims. ALso, please try to leave your baseless assumptions on the side. Try to use facts instead.
Otherwise, you're just another wingnut with claims you cant back up.
Some of them are facts. Unfortunately for you they are facts that can't occur at the same time. Our government can't be in debt AND have a treasury department that always happens to have the money to fully fund every depts. budget.
So now you're changing your story from the DoD is unsustainable to the US treasury is unsustainable?
Fine. Explain how the US treasury, which has been operating for over two centuries, is unsustainable. Please provide some evidence from real life to support your inane argument
No, deficits are not how much you borrow in a year. Here you go, moron
Deficit | Define Deficit at Dictionary.com
As you can see, there's nothing about borrowing money involved in a deficit. Borrowing money is just one way of dealing with a deficit. As I explained, there are other ways, such as going into savings, selling assets, and increasing income faster than debt
You mean like you, who has not been able to show how our 14 trillion dollar and growing debt can be paid and why it constitutes sustainability? That kind of proof? Time will tell ultimately and time is already showing that at least what France originally said they would fund was not sustainable as they are in the process of making cuts. Apparently deficits are a bigger deal to them then they are to you.
French government to tackle surging health care deficit | Reuters
I don't have to prove sustainability. The Treasury has proven it's sustainability by sustaining itself for more than two centuries.
So once again, I will ask you to grow some balls and please explain how the treasury, which has sustained itself for more than 200 years, is unsustainable and please provide some real world evidence to back up your claims. ALso, please try to leave your baseless assumptions on the side. Try to use facts instead.
Otherwise, you're just another wingnut with claims you cant back up.
I would say a 14 trillion dollar debt and growing would be fairly compelling evidence.
I already proved France's system isn't sustainable (or rather France proved its system is not sustainable).
You've said many things. Most of them have been wrong.
And you haven't proven anything about anything unless you think the fact that Frances' health care system is still around proves that it is unsustainable
You've said many things. Most of them have been wrong.
And you haven't proven anything about anything unless you think the fact that Frances' health care system is still around proves that it is unsustainable
Even by your incorrect definition of sustainable, France's health care system would be defined as unsustainable. Their health care system is not going to exist in the same state that it did before. If you read the article I just posted you will see what their health care administrators are considering cutting. They are not going to fund things at levels they have before.
You hold up government run systems as some beacon of great health care citing stats like America being first in spending on health care as a percent of GDP. Well guess who's second on that list.
All programs change over time. SS has changed. Our nuclear weapons program has changed. Our agricultural programs have changed
By your definition, every program is unsustainable.
You have also argued that increasing the program makes it unsustainable. Now you're arguing that cutting the program shows it's unsustainable. You said if spending kept increasing, the program would be unsustainable. Now, you're arguing that the lowered spending makes it unsustainable
Complete bullshit. Do medicare and medicaid patients have to go to a DMV like agency for health care? NO...they go to their doctors, just like people with coverage from the insurance cartels.
FACT...no nation has ever built a successful health care system based on a free market. Because none of the incentives benefit both the patient and the insurance provider.
Complete bullshit. Do medicare and medicaid patients have to go to a DMV like agency for health care? NO...they go to their doctors, just like people with coverage from the insurance cartels.
FACT...no nation has ever built a successful health care system based on a free market. Because none of the incentives benefit both the patient and the insurance provider.
Who says a free market system requires the existance of insurance companies? And if you think insurance companies in the U.S. exist in a free market, you're delusional. It's easy to say it hasn't worked when it's never been really tried. Are you telling me you wouldn't like more customization out of your health care? That you wouldn't like to decide exactly what you want to pay for? That you wouldn't like to be able to buy insurance from anyone or anywhere you want? The reason you can't do that now is not because of the free market. Its because the market is decidedly not free. You don't have all the options available to you provider wise because insurance can't be sold across state lines. That would be a government regulation. I can't decide I how want my plan structured, either. Maybe I just want it to cover catastrophic illness. Or maybe I agree to pay for my presciptions and 20% of doctor visits or any other combination you can think of, but I can't do that. Why? Not because the providers in make believe free market are too stupid to offer customers what they want, but because government tells them what they have to cover.
bern80 is so deluded he thinks people should be allowed to "buy insurance from anyone or anywhere you want" including your Aunt Sophie. In wingnut world, there's no reason to make sure the insurer can actually pay the claims.
He is deluded he thinks the insurance corps will let the consumers decide how their plan is "structured". He is so deluded he thinks he's not allowed to choose a plan that pays for his prescriptions and 20% of doctor visits.
bern80 is so deluded he thinks people should be allowed to "buy insurance from anyone or anywhere you want" including your Aunt Sophie. In wingnut world, there's no reason to make sure the insurer can actually pay the claims.
Do you realize that pretty much everyone else here can see how deliberately obtuse you're being and your truly ridiculous that makes you look?
He is deluded he thinks the insurance corps will let the consumers decide how their plan is "structured". He is so deluded he thinks he's not allowed to choose a plan that pays for his prescriptions and 20% of doctor visits.
Most companies survive by doing what their customers want. And I don't think I'm the only person who wants more say over what he's paying for.
bern80 is so deluded he thinks people should be allowed to "buy insurance from anyone or anywhere you want" including your Aunt Sophie. In wingnut world, there's no reason to make sure the insurer can actually pay the claims.
Do you realize that pretty much everyone else here can see how deliberately obtuse you're being and your truly ridiculous that makes you look?
He is deluded he thinks the insurance corps will let the consumers decide how their plan is "structured". He is so deluded he thinks he's not allowed to choose a plan that pays for his prescriptions and 20% of doctor visits.
Most companies survive by doing what their customers want. And I don't think I'm the only person who wants more say over what he's paying for.
Ummm, most insurers will let you decide what is covered and what is not, how much they will cover (in %), the co-pays and deductibles, etc...
And if they don't, it's their choice not to. I guess you want a "govt solution" to force the insurers to offer plans that you approve of.
Do you realize that pretty much everyone else here can see how deliberately obtuse you're being and your truly ridiculous that makes you look?
Most companies survive by doing what their customers want. And I don't think I'm the only person who wants more say over what he's paying for.
Ummm, most insurers will let you decide what is covered and what is not, how much they will cover (in %), the co-pays and deductibles, etc...
And if they don't, it's their choice not to. I guess you want a "govt solution" to force the insurers to offer plans that you approve of.
Umm most people aren't buying insurance on an individual basis. It's provided through their employer and none I have worked for offered much in the way of choice. It's either high deductible or low deductible.
But nevermind that, I'm still waiting for you tell me how it would be sustainable for you and your household to spend money the same way government does.
Complete bullshit. Do medicare and medicaid patients have to go to a DMV like agency for health care? NO...they go to their doctors, just like people with coverage from the insurance cartels.
FACT...no nation has ever built a successful health care system based on a free market. Because none of the incentives benefit both the patient and the insurance provider.
Who says a free market system requires the existance of insurance companies? And if you think insurance companies in the U.S. exist in a free market, you're delusional. It's easy to say it hasn't worked when it's never been really tried. Are you telling me you wouldn't like more customization out of your health care? That you wouldn't like to decide exactly what you want to pay for? That you wouldn't like to be able to buy insurance from anyone or anywhere you want? The reason you can't do that now is not because of the free market. Its because the market is decidedly not free. You don't have all the options available to you provider wise because insurance can't be sold across state lines. That would be a government regulation. I can't decide I how want my plan structured, either. Maybe I just want it to cover catastrophic illness. Or maybe I agree to pay for my presciptions and 20% of doctor visits or any other combination you can think of, but I can't do that. Why? Not because the providers in make believe free market are too stupid to offer customers what they want, but because government tells them what they have to cover.
Ummm, most insurers will let you decide what is covered and what is not, how much they will cover (in %), the co-pays and deductibles, etc...
And if they don't, it's their choice not to. I guess you want a "govt solution" to force the insurers to offer plans that you approve of.
Umm most people aren't buying insurance on an individual basis. It's provided through their employer and none I have worked for offered much in the way of choice. It's either high deductible or low deductible.
But nevermind that, I'm still waiting for you tell me how it would be sustainable for you and your household to spend money the same way government does.
So now you want the govt to force your employer to offer plans that you like? So much for your opposition to "govt solutions"
BTW, did you know that you don't have to buy insurance through your employer? Did you know that you can still purchase insurance on your own? No one is stopping you.
So go out and spend your money on a plan that covers only 20% of your medical expenses, if you want and stop whining about problems that don't exist
Umm most people aren't buying insurance on an individual basis. It's provided through their employer and none I have worked for offered much in the way of choice. It's either high deductible or low deductible.
But nevermind that, I'm still waiting for you tell me how it would be sustainable for you and your household to spend money the same way government does.
So now you want the govt to force your employer to offer plans that you like? So much for your opposition to "govt solutions"
BTW, did you know that you don't have to buy insurance through your employer? Did you know that you can still purchase insurance on your own? No one is stopping you.
So go out and spend your money on a plan that covers only 20% of your medical expenses, if you want and stop whining about problems that don't exist
People vote with their wallets Sangha. If such a better option existed, more people would do it.
Still waiting on the folliwing by the way...I'm still waiting for you tell me how it would be sustainable for you and your household to spend money the same way government does
sangha;3224te=Bern80;3222429 said:And I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the DoD, which has been operating at a deficit for more than 200 years, is unsustainable. You keep saying it, but for some reason, you won't explain how a program that is sustaining itself is unsustainable.
I can't imagine why
sangha;3224te=Bern80;3222429 said:And I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the DoD, which has been operating at a deficit for more than 200 years, is unsustainable. You keep saying it, but for some reason, you won't explain how a program that is sustaining itself is unsustainable.
I can't imagine why
Sorry Sangha. Much as you would like it to be so, the fact that something exists doesn't mean it is sustainable. You can play games all you want and say the DoD has deficit but it isn't in debt all you want. I would imagine the treasury does give them everything they need each year. We know however the treasury does not take in as much as it gives out. It has to make up the difference somehow. Savings and assets you say. Okay, maybe, though still have yet to say how much of our tax revenue goes into this make believe savings account or some part of it in the budget. Regardless if you spend more than you take in each year you're not going to be able to replenish that savings and/or assets so that's going to run out eventually. We probably have otherwise we wouldn't have debt. If the government was able to stay level budget wise through a combination of tax revenue, savings and assets it would not be in debt to the tune of 14 trillion dollars. That leaves loans, which is really what is going on. Perhaps you have heard the rumblings about how much of our debt is owned by China? As I said before you can't have it both ways. You claim this debt is no big deal, then claim you never said it wasn't a big deal meaning you must think it is, but still maintain it's sustainable. Again sorry, you can't have it both ways.
There is a very simple way to test if you're right you know. I challenge you to a little experiment. You manage your finances the way government does for a few year. The various ways you say government spends money can very easily be applied to your own household. You're the treasury dept. for the house. You can pretend your grocery budget is the DoD. If you go over your grocery budget you may have to put some of it on your credit card, you would essentially be borrowing money from the credit card company and now you (the treasury) owe them. Or if you felt like it you could dip into your savings account or sell a car or something if you're coming up short, the same as what you say the treasury does. All the while you have to make sure you spend 25% more than your income every year. Got it? Just spend 25% more than you make every year for the next few years. Make up the difference however you need to, sell some assets, put it on credit, finance things, whatever you need to do. The only think you can't do is bring in more than you spend so your spending habits accuratley reflect that of government. Then come back in a few years and tell us all what you have left for assest and how much is left in your savings account from spending more than you take in. Deal?
sangha;3224te=Bern80;3222429 said:And I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the DoD, which has been operating at a deficit for more than 200 years, is unsustainable. You keep saying it, but for some reason, you won't explain how a program that is sustaining itself is unsustainable.
I can't imagine why
Sorry Sangha. Much as you would like it to be so, the fact that something exists doesn't mean it is sustainable. You can play games all you want and say the DoD has deficit but it isn't in debt all you want. I would imagine the treasury does give them everything they need each year. We know however the treasury does not take in as much as it gives out. It has to make up the difference somehow. Savings and assets you say. Okay, maybe, though still have yet to say how much of our tax revenue goes into this make believe savings account or some part of it in the budget. Regardless if you spend more than you take in each year you're not going to be able to replenish that savings and/or assets so that's going to run out eventually. We probably have otherwise we wouldn't have debt. If the government was able to stay level budget wise through a combination of tax revenue, savings and assets it would not be in debt to the tune of 14 trillion dollars. That leaves loans, which is really what is going on. Perhaps you have heard the rumblings about how much of our debt is owned by China? As I said before you can't have it both ways. You claim this debt is no big deal, then claim you never said it wasn't a big deal meaning you must think it is, but still maintain it's sustainable. Again sorry, you can't have it both ways.
There is a very simple way to test if you're right you know. I challenge you to a little experiment. You manage your finances the way government does for a few year. The various ways you say government spends money can very easily be applied to your own household. You're the treasury dept. for the house. You can pretend your grocery budget is the DoD. If you go over your grocery budget you may have to put some of it on your credit card, you would essentially be borrowing money from the credit card company and now you (the treasury) owe them. Or if you felt like it you could dip into your savings account or sell a car or something if you're coming up short, the same as what you say the treasury does. All the while you have to make sure you spend 25% more than your income every year. Got it? Just spend 25% more than you make every year for the next few years. Make up the difference however you need to, sell some assets, put it on credit, finance things, whatever you need to do. The only think you can't do is bring in more than you spend so your spending habits accuratley reflect that of government. Then come back in a few years and tell us all what you have left for assest and how much is left in your savings account from spending more than you take in. Deal?
Sorry bern, but the fact that you say it's unsustainable does not make it so
I have a challenge for you. Instead of posting your fictional scenarios. why don't you try to back up your claim that the DoD is unsustainable with some evidence from the real world?
