We Need a Whole New Way of Thinking About Government

[Flopper]

Many thanks to Flopper for having the patience to post a factual and thought provoking post for those willing to think. I'm sure the willfully ignorant and those motivated solely by self interest will scoff at he and his post, but that is the nature of the beast (long posts overwhelm the echo chamber, hence, they usually reply with one or two sentence 'idiotgrams').

By the way, I want to add to my remarks in response to Foxfyre regarding her rant against the insured and defense of the insurance industry. She complained the insured don't read their poicies and this created unnecessary problems and created the illusion that insurance companies don't always pay legitimate claims, which I find humorous. But, on point, has anyone every read word for word an insurance policy?
Insurancese similar to legalese, may not be intended to confuse but no effort is made by either industry to use clear language. Both are repleat with, as Professor Strunk said, "loose phrasing which needs to be tightened".

Interesting comment about reading your policy. I was covered by a group policy about 8 years ago. I became concerned about whether a procedures was covered by my health insurance. After spending hours on the phone followed by a letter to the carrier I could not get a straight answer so I decided to read the policy. Well, it was a group policy and I was told the policy holder was my employer so the policy had to come from my employer. I asked my employer. He said the policy was too large and complex to give to the employees. Everything I need to know was in the information packet I was given when I signed up. What followed were several calls to the HR dept and a letter from HR referring me to back to the carrier. About that time I was ready to contact the state insurance commissioner when I found out that there was an alternate procedure that was definitely covered so I dropped the whole issue. One thing I learned from all this was that about 99.9% of all claims are straight forward and are paid without any fuss. But that .1% is usually very costly and the company will delay and delay and delay. I guess they are hoping you will die or just go away. Unless your employer is ready to fight the battle, you're dead meat. Getting a lawyer will not help you much because when you signed up for the policy you gave up a lot rights.

Sometimes we forget that insurance companies make money by collecting premiums, not paying claims.

 

[The T]

No we don't. The founders expected us to be adults, and understand their positions on Liberty...everything that they fronted their lives upon to thrust the oppresive British Tyranny out of the Colonies in the name of Individual Liberty.

What is to understand? That we now have Petulant people in charge that have stolen in the name of Government for the same Control as they so fought against?

Not hard math here.

We are at or beyond what they fought.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow this thread has really been rolling. . . .

So, addressing those points I can remember in the last few pages:

Wry and Flopper refuse to acknowedge that profits are not something evil but are rather essential and necessary for a free people that govern themselves rather than be governed (controlled) by some king, dictator, or totalitarian authority.

The government can spend no money nor create any job without taking resources from the people in order to do it. In the process, government will consume part or most of those resources thus returning far less than it takes. And as the government itself is not productive, this will invariably shrink the economy.

That alone, for many, would be a whole new way of thinking about government.

The people, on the other hand, by voluntarily exchanging products and services with each other, keep the resources in the private sector and add to them which will strengthen and grow an economy. Read any of the theories of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, all who recognized the more positive and productive effects of private enterprise as opposed to that ordered by government and most who identified the problems inherent in Keynesian economics.

To understand that, for many, would be a whole new way of thinking about government.

Wry cites corruption in business and industry as sufficient reason to take profits away from business and industry and give it to the government to do. I say that corruption and graft are equally distributed among government and industry when the the two can collaborate to increase the fortunes of those within both. I say that those in government should secure our rights with such laws and regulation as are necessary and enforce them, and be prohibited from personally benefitting, more than any other citizen is benefitted, from any law or regulation passed or contract let. Problem solved.

That would be a whole new way of thinking about government.

Flopper points out that many people work because they love what they do. Ah yes that is true and those who are able to do that are the truly blessed. But even those who are blessed have rent or a mortgage, utilities, food, clothing, education, medical, transportation etc. costs to pay and, without profits, most would not be willing to perform even work they love for long without being paid to do it.

No doubt many people seeking profits are greedy, but government is not the proper means to confront greed. Who is to say that all who prosper do so out of greed rather than out of love for what they do? Are you qualified to judge that? Is President Obama or anybody in Congress? I think not. Yet the profit incentivehas led to most advancements in technology and knowledge, has produced most of our great art, books, plays, movies, and increase in knowledge and been the means by which wonderful goods and services have increased our quality and standard of life. Few people are willing to work without adequate compensation nor should they. Profit is not evil. Denying people the right and incentive to make a profit is.

To take in the whole big picture rather than focus on a few anomalies would be for some a whole new way of thinking about government.

I find myself in close agreement with my friend Syrenn on most things, but on the issue of free birth control or free abortions I must gently disagree. We do not make irresponsible people responsible by removing responsibilities from them. However, imposing consequences for irresposibilty has caused many to change their ways. Government can certainly be involved in educating people, but once informed of the consequences, people should buy their own birth control and pay for their own abortions, And they should be required to be responsible to pay the cost of the choices they make. Nobody should be rewarded for making poor choices or for irresponsibility. To subsidze such only encourages much more of it.

And that for many is a whole new way of thinking about government.

And finally James brings us back to the 10th Amendment which is the ultimate foundation of limitations on the federal government and the most certain means to keep it from spiralling out of control or becoming drunk and irresponsible on its own power:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And this is the center foundation for my own view of the best way to think about government. The federal government should secure our rights, provide the common defense, and promote the general welfare (meaning laws, regulation, policy, and information that protects or serves all equally rather than any special interest group) and then leave us alone within the various states to form whatever sort of society we choose to have.

"Wry and Flopper refuse to acknowedge that profits are not something evil" Wry did not write this, doesn't believe this and stating this as a fact is a lie!

"Wry cites corruption in business and industry as sufficient reason to take profits away from business and industry and give it to the government to do." Wry did not write this, does not believe this and stating this as a fact is a lie.

Your entire argument is biased by your lies. If you wish to debate you need to open your mind and put self interest and your ego aside; the truth may not make you free, it may make you credible.

Oh, I’m sorry if I misrepresented what you said, Wry. When I explained my reasoning of how the private sector is the source of prosperity and progress, did you not respond with this?:

“The private sector is interested in profit not service. Not paying claims is job number one for the entire insurance industry. Stating the "private sector is the ONLY way to go if we want top quality at an affordable cost" is a joke, isn't it?”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-thinking-about-government-9.html#post3175956

I was wrong to interpret that that you think being interested in profits is not a commendable thing? If that is not what you were saying, please clarify. I do try not to misrepresent what people say and if I inadvertently do that, I fully intend to set the record straight.

And in answer to my question “And Wry, what part of "profit is good thing" did you not undersstand?

You responded with this:

“When profit is excessive and when profit is a result of manipulation, misrepresentation, fraud, i.e. the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; or, the omission of some act that ought to have been performed and the cause of harm to the insured.
Examples in the medical, financial services and lending industry are many; which is why an effort to prevent law suits is one of the many 'anti-the people' efforts of the Republican Party. The party of and for corporate America.”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-thinking-about-government-9.html#post3176350

I misinterpreted your intent that you were supporting your argument that government should take it over? That you used wrongful acts on the part of the private sector as justification for that? If I am wrong about that I apologize.

And, if I was wrong about that, are you now going to agree with me that the government should do only what cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically by the private sector? And will you agree with me that the federal government’s track record on delivering products and services efficiently, effectively, and economically has been really REALLY bad?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wow this thread has really been rolling. . . .

So, addressing those points I can remember in the last few pages:

Wry and Flopper refuse to acknowedge that profits are not something evil but are rather essential and necessary for a free people that govern themselves rather than be governed (controlled) by some king, dictator, or totalitarian authority.

The government can spend no money nor create any job without taking resources from the people in order to do it. In the process, government will consume part or most of those resources thus returning far less than it takes. And as the government itself is not productive, this will invariably shrink the economy.

That alone, for many, would be a whole new way of thinking about government.

The people, on the other hand, by voluntarily exchanging products and services with each other, keep the resources in the private sector and add to them which will strengthen and grow an economy. Read any of the theories of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, all who recognized the more positive and productive effects of private enterprise as opposed to that ordered by government and most who identified the problems inherent in Keynesian economics.

To understand that, for many, would be a whole new way of thinking about government.

Wry cites corruption in business and industry as sufficient reason to take profits away from business and industry and give it to the government to do. I say that corruption and graft are equally distributed among government and industry when the the two can collaborate to increase the fortunes of those within both. I say that those in government should secure our rights with such laws and regulation as are necessary and enforce them, and be prohibited from personally benefitting, more than any other citizen is benefitted, from any law or regulation passed or contract let. Problem solved.

That would be a whole new way of thinking about government.

Flopper points out that many people work because they love what they do. Ah yes that is true and those who are able to do that are the truly blessed. But even those who are blessed have rent or a mortgage, utilities, food, clothing, education, medical, transportation etc. costs to pay and, without profits, most would not be willing to perform even work they love for long without being paid to do it.

No doubt many people seeking profits are greedy, but government is not the proper means to confront greed. Who is to say that all who prosper do so out of greed rather than out of love for what they do? Are you qualified to judge that? Is President Obama or anybody in Congress? I think not. Yet the profit incentivehas led to most advancements in technology and knowledge, has produced most of our great art, books, plays, movies, and increase in knowledge and been the means by which wonderful goods and services have increased our quality and standard of life. Few people are willing to work without adequate compensation nor should they. Profit is not evil. Denying people the right and incentive to make a profit is.

To take in the whole big picture rather than focus on a few anomalies would be for some a whole new way of thinking about government.

I find myself in close agreement with my friend Syrenn on most things, but on the issue of free birth control or free abortions I must gently disagree. We do not make irresponsible people responsible by removing responsibilities from them. However, imposing consequences for irresposibilty has caused many to change their ways. Government can certainly be involved in educating people, but once informed of the consequences, people should buy their own birth control and pay for their own abortions, And they should be required to be responsible to pay the cost of the choices they make. Nobody should be rewarded for making poor choices or for irresponsibility. To subsidze such only encourages much more of it.

And that for many is a whole new way of thinking about government.

And finally James brings us back to the 10th Amendment which is the ultimate foundation of limitations on the federal government and the most certain means to keep it from spiralling out of control or becoming drunk and irresponsible on its own power:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And this is the center foundation for my own view of the best way to think about government. The federal government should secure our rights, provide the common defense, and promote the general welfare (meaning laws, regulation, policy, and information that protects or serves all equally rather than any special interest group) and then leave us alone within the various states to form whatever sort of society we choose to have.

"Wry and Flopper refuse to acknowedge that profits are not something evil" Wry did not write this, doesn't believe this and stating this as a fact is a lie!

"Wry cites corruption in business and industry as sufficient reason to take profits away from business and industry and give it to the government to do." Wry did not write this, does not believe this and stating this as a fact is a lie.

Your entire argument is biased by your lies. If you wish to debate you need to open your mind and put self interest and your ego aside; the truth may not make you free, it may make you credible.

Oh, I’m sorry if I misrepresented what you said, Wry. When I explained my reasoning of how the private sector is the source of prosperity and progress, did you not respond with this?:

“The private sector is interested in profit not service. Not paying claims is job number one for the entire insurance industry. Stating the "private sector is the ONLY way to go if we want top quality at an affordable cost" is a joke, isn't it?”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-thinking-about-government-9.html#post3175956

I was wrong to interpret that that you think being interested in profits is not a commendable thing? If that is not what you were saying, please clarify. I do try not to misrepresent what people say and if I inadvertently do that, I fully intend to set the record straight.

And in answer to my question “And Wry, what part of "profit is good thing" did you not undersstand?

You responded with this:

“When profit is excessive and when profit is a result of manipulation, misrepresentation, fraud, i.e. the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; or, the omission of some act that ought to have been performed and the cause of harm to the insured.
Examples in the medical, financial services and lending industry are many; which is why an effort to prevent law suits is one of the many 'anti-the people' efforts of the Republican Party. The party of and for corporate America.”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-thinking-about-government-9.html#post3176350

I misinterpreted your intent that you were supporting your argument that government should take it over? That you used wrongful acts on the part of the private sector as justification for that? If I am wrong about that I apologize.

And, if I was wrong about that, are you now going to agree with me that the government should do only what cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically by the private sector? And will you agree with me that the federal government’s track record on delivering products and services efficiently, effectively, and economically has been really REALLY bad?

I've read your response twice. Maybe because I'm watching and more interested in the NFL playoff game then your response, I not sure if your response is an apology, a smarmy bit of sarcasm or a confused effort to confuse others of your honesty and sincerity.

I fully disagree with your basic premise, one taken from Ronald Reagan regarding government in general.
That said, I do not hold business in contempt, some business people are contemptable however. I do not believe making a profit is evil, I do believe some business people are evil.
I believe capital and labor need each other, In fact I was a manager, responsible for recuitment, training, hiring, and recommending termination when necessary. I worked with, negotiated with and pissed off business agents from several unions representing government employees. And yes some peace officers were bullies (evil) and I worked hard in convincing HR to terminate employment on several.
Now, back to the game.

 

[The T]

"Wry and Flopper refuse to acknowedge that profits are not something evil" Wry did not write this, doesn't believe this and stating this as a fact is a lie!

"Wry cites corruption in business and industry as sufficient reason to take profits away from business and industry and give it to the government to do." Wry did not write this, does not believe this and stating this as a fact is a lie.

Your entire argument is biased by your lies. If you wish to debate you need to open your mind and put self interest and your ego aside; the truth may not make you free, it may make you credible.

Oh, I’m sorry if I misrepresented what you said, Wry. When I explained my reasoning of how the private sector is the source of prosperity and progress, did you not respond with this?:



I was wrong to interpret that that you think being interested in profits is not a commendable thing? If that is not what you were saying, please clarify. I do try not to misrepresent what people say and if I inadvertently do that, I fully intend to set the record straight.

And in answer to my question “And Wry, what part of "profit is good thing" did you not undersstand?

You responded with this:

“When profit is excessive and when profit is a result of manipulation, misrepresentation, fraud, i.e. the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; or, the omission of some act that ought to have been performed and the cause of harm to the insured.
Examples in the medical, financial services and lending industry are many; which is why an effort to prevent law suits is one of the many 'anti-the people' efforts of the Republican Party. The party of and for corporate America.”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-thinking-about-government-9.html#post3176350

I misinterpreted your intent that you were supporting your argument that government should take it over? That you used wrongful acts on the part of the private sector as justification for that? If I am wrong about that I apologize.

And, if I was wrong about that, are you now going to agree with me that the government should do only what cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically by the private sector? And will you agree with me that the federal government’s track record on delivering products and services efficiently, effectively, and economically has been really REALLY bad?

I've read your response twice. Maybe because I'm watching and more interested in the NFL playoff game then your response, I not sure if your response is an apology, a smarmy bit of sarcasm or a confused effort to confuse others of your honesty and sincerity.

I fully disagree with your basic premise, one taken from Ronald Reagan regarding government in general.
That said, I do not hold business in contempt, some business people are contemptable however. I do not believe making a profit is evil, I do believe some business people are evil.
I believe capital and labor need each other, In fact I was a manager, responsible for recuitment, training, hiring, and recommending termination when necessary. I worked with, negotiated with and pissed off business agents from several unions representing government employees. And yes some peace officers were bullies (evil) and I worked hard in convincing HR to terminate employment on several.
Now, back to the game.

*I CANNOT FOCUS and do TWO THINGS AT ONCE*

Why not be honest?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oh, I’m sorry if I misrepresented what you said, Wry. When I explained my reasoning of how the private sector is the source of prosperity and progress, did you not respond with this?:



I was wrong to interpret that that you think being interested in profits is not a commendable thing? If that is not what you were saying, please clarify. I do try not to misrepresent what people say and if I inadvertently do that, I fully intend to set the record straight.

And in answer to my question “And Wry, what part of "profit is good thing" did you not undersstand?

You responded with this:



I misinterpreted your intent that you were supporting your argument that government should take it over? That you used wrongful acts on the part of the private sector as justification for that? If I am wrong about that I apologize.

And, if I was wrong about that, are you now going to agree with me that the government should do only what cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically by the private sector? And will you agree with me that the federal government’s track record on delivering products and services efficiently, effectively, and economically has been really REALLY bad?

I've read your response twice. Maybe because I'm watching and more interested in the NFL playoff game then your response, I not sure if your response is an apology, a smarmy bit of sarcasm or a confused effort to confuse others of your honesty and sincerity.

I fully disagree with your basic premise, one taken from Ronald Reagan regarding government in general.
That said, I do not hold business in contempt, some business people are contemptable however. I do not believe making a profit is evil, I do believe some business people are evil.
I believe capital and labor need each other, In fact I was a manager, responsible for recuitment, training, hiring, and recommending termination when necessary. I worked with, negotiated with and pissed off business agents from several unions representing government employees. And yes some peace officers were bullies (evil) and I worked hard in convincing HR to terminate employment on several.
Now, back to the game.

*I CANNOT FOCUS and do TWO THINGS AT ONCE*

Why not be honest?

Okay, I'll be very honest. I've read many of your posts, not one in my recollection was thoughtful or substantive; you are in my opinion a member of the echo chamber. All the opinions you hold are right out of the Republican playbook, a playbook developed to obtain the votes of middle class and working poor Americans who vote on emotional content and not reasoned arguments.
You are not bright, nor informed and you hold anyone who is both in disdain. You believe anyone with a university education is an elitist, and anyone who disagrees with you is someone to be hated and feared. It is likely even those who agree with you and are different (by color, creed or region) are hated and feared too.
That is my honest opinion of you "T"; I maybe wrong but nothing you've ever posted I have read suggests I'm not spot on.

 

[The T]

I've read your response twice. Maybe because I'm watching and more interested in the NFL playoff game then your response, I not sure if your response is an apology, a smarmy bit of sarcasm or a confused effort to confuse others of your honesty and sincerity.

I fully disagree with your basic premise, one taken from Ronald Reagan regarding government in general.
That said, I do not hold business in contempt, some business people are contemptable however. I do not believe making a profit is evil, I do believe some business people are evil.
I believe capital and labor need each other, In fact I was a manager, responsible for recuitment, training, hiring, and recommending termination when necessary. I worked with, negotiated with and pissed off business agents from several unions representing government employees. And yes some peace officers were bullies (evil) and I worked hard in convincing HR to terminate employment on several.
Now, back to the game.

*I CANNOT FOCUS and do TWO THINGS AT ONCE*

Why not be honest?

Okay, I'll be very honest. I've read many of your posts, not one in my recollection was thoughtful or substantive; you are in my opinion a member of the echo chamber. All the opinions you hold are right out of the Republican playbook, a playbook developed to obtain the votes of middle class and working poor Americans who vote on emotional content and not reasoned arguments.
You are not bright, nor informed and you hold anyone who is both in disdain. You believe anyone with a university education is an elitist, and anyone who disagrees with you is someone to be hated and feared. It is likely even those who agree with you and are different (by color, creed or region) are hated and feared too.
That is my honest opinion of you "T"; I maybe wrong but nothing you've ever posted I have read suggests I'm not spot on.

Translation:
I am a very partisan fucking hack...and don''t remember T, If *I* ever answered your posts but damn it(!) I sure am NOW....I forget the TOPIC...but HELL? YOU Conservatives are all alike aren't you? So Therefore I leave my brain at the door when answering ANYONE...It's what *I* DO Best...."

 

[Flopper]

Wow this thread has really been rolling. . . .

Wry and Flopper refuse to acknowedge that profits are not something evil but are rather essential and necessary for a free people that govern themselves rather than be governed (controlled) by some king, dictator, or totalitarian authority.

I just opened my end of year brokerage statement and I can assure you I do not believe profits are evil. In fact, I strongly believe in the free enterprise system. However, that does not mean I believe that all services can be done better and cheaper by private business.

I am convinced that health insurance is one of those services that can be done cheaper and better by government. Health Insurance companies have not been able to control the cost of healthcare. They only add to the cost.

Medicare, sets reimbursement rates for all services. If the provider charges a higher rate, then the difference between the claim and the Medicare reimbursement is passed on to patient or is written off by doctor. Because of the huge number of people on Medicare it is difficult for providers to refuse Medicare patients. Healthcare providers hate this but it does help control cost. Health Insurance companies can not do this. They simply pay the claims and raise the premiums.

Unlike other services that we purchase daily, most people can not comparison shop for health insurance. Most people get their insurance through their employer. You take what's offered, look for individual policy, or do without. Individual policies that provide adequate coverage are well beyond the reach of most workers. If you fall into a high risk pool, your choices will be even more limited. A free market in health insurance where you can compare coverages and prices and pick the policy that best suits your needed is an illusion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow this thread has really been rolling. . . .

Wry and Flopper refuse to acknowedge that profits are not something evil but are rather essential and necessary for a free people that govern themselves rather than be governed (controlled) by some king, dictator, or totalitarian authority.

I just opened my end of year brokerage statement and I can assure you I do not believe profits are evil. In fact, I strongly believe in the free enterprise system. However, that does not mean I believe that all services can be done better and cheaper by private business.

I am convinced that health insurance is one of those services that can be done cheaper and better by government. Health Insurance companies have not been able to control the cost of healthcare. They only add to the cost.

Medicare, sets reimbursement rates for all services. If the provider charges a higher rate, then the difference between the claim and the Medicare reimbursement is passed on to patient or is written off by doctor. Because of the huge number of people on Medicare it is difficult for providers to refuse Medicare patients. Healthcare providers hate this but it does help control cost. Health Insurance companies can not do this. They simply pay the claims and raise the premiums.

Unlike other services that we purchase daily, most people can not comparison shop for health insurance. Most people get their insurance through their employer. You take what's offered, look for individual policy, or do without. Individual policies that provide adequate coverage are well beyond the reach of most workers. If you fall into a high risk pool, your choices will be even more limited. A free market in health insurance where you can compare coverages and prices and pick the policy that best suits your needed is an illusion.

No dear. The difference is NOT passed on to the patient when Medicare or Medicaid does not cover the cost of a procedure or drug. The difference is passed on to other patients. Why? Because those providing the products and services cannot and are not willing to take losses. Also if the government INSISTS on paying something that a higher rate than would otherwise be charged, nobody is going to be foolish enough to turn that down either.

You would have convinced me that we were on the same track with private profits if you had not posted so disparagingly about that.

For the life of me, given the government's abysmal track record on managing ANYTHING that did not take longer to accomplish, cost more, and, as often as not, was not of optimal efficiency or effectiveness. why you would trust government with something as precious and important as the nation's healthcare. How can you look at the mess it has made of Medicare, Medicaid, and th VA, all bankrupt and with hundreds of billions or trilions of unfunded obligations stretching ahead as far as the eye can see and then tell me that you want more of the same?

 

[jgarden]

The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government .....

FY 2005 RANKINGS: THE RATIO OF FEDERAL FUNDS RECEIVED AS COMPARED TO FEDERAL FUNDS SENT

Ranking - State - Outlay to Tax Ratio
*******************************
1. New Mexico - $2.03

2. Mississippi - $2.02

3, Alaska - $1.84

4. Louisiana - $1.78

5. West Virginia - $1.76

6. North Dakota - $1.68

7. Alabama - $1.66

8. South Dakota - $1.53

9. Kentucky - $1.51

10. Virginia - $1.51

11. Montana - $1.47

12. Hawaii - $1.44

13. Maine - $1.41

14. Arkansas - $1.41

15. Oklahoma - $1.36

16. South Carolina - $1.35

17. Missouri - $1.32

18.Maryland - $1.30

19. Tennessee - $1.27

20. Idaho - $1.21

21. Arizona - $1.19

22. Kansas - $1.12

23.Wyoming - $1.11

24. Iowa - $1.10

24. Nebraska - $1.10

26. Vermont - $1.08

26. North Carolina - $1.08

28. Pennsylvania - $1.07

28. Utah - $1.07

30. Indiana - $1.05

30. Ohio - $1.05

32.Georgia - $1.01

states receiving more federal funds than they contribute

33. Rhode Island - $1.00

states contributing more federal funds than they receive

34. Florida - $0.97

35. Texas - $0.94

36. Oregon - $0.93

37. Michigan - $0.92

38. Washington - $0.88

39. Wisconsin - $0.86

40. Massachusetts - $0.82

41. Colorado - $0.81

42. New York - $0.79

43. California - $0.78

44. Delaware - $0.77

45. Illinois - $0.75

46. Minnesota - $0.72

47. New Hampshire - $0.71

48. Connecticut - $0.69

49. Nevada - $0.65

50. New Jersey - $0.61

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html

Before "Foxfyre" and "Forbes Magazine" get too carried away, it should be noted that "Texas" is the only "red" state that contributes more in federal taxes than it receives!

Before these "visionary conservatives" in Congress attempt to impose their collective will on those "blue" states who don't have their "noses in the federal trough," perhaps they should lead by example and start by getting their own financial affairs in order.

Perhaps they could start with passing federal legislation whereby no state can receive more federal funds than it contributes!

 

[Foxfyre]

The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government .....

Before "Foxfyre" and "Forbes" get too carried away, it should be noted that "Texas" is the only "red" state that contributes more in federal taxes than it receives!

Before these "visionary conservatives" attempt to impose their collective will on those "blue" states who don't have their "noses in the trough," perhaps they should lead by example and start by getting the financial affairs of their own states in order.

My proposal for a whole new way of thinking about government is that the federal government be prohibited from collecting and dispensing the peoples money for ANY kind of charity and that necessary federal contracts be distributed in an equitable manner among the various states based on population. That should take care of the problem you cite.

So what's YOUR whole new way of thinking about government?

 

[Flopper]

Here's the problem folks. As much as some likes to think that government MUST provide for the 'needy', entitlement programs simply cannot be sustained. Every single one that has ever been started is starved for funds, is adding to the deficit, is growing the debt, and we simply cannot continue down that road and believe that the USA will remain a great, powerful, affluent nation.

For instance in yesterday's Albuquerque Journal--sorry I don't have a link but it was on Page A8-- the editorial was headed "Can We Talk Before Medicare Goes Boom?" According to the Urban Institute, a Baby Boomer couple earning $89,000/year will have paid $114,000 in Medicare payroll taxes when they retire this year. Then over the course of their retirement, they will receive on average $355,000 worth of Medicare benefits.

In 1940 couples reaching age 65 lived on average another 19 years. Today that has increased to 25 more years. And for Americans born today, it is closing in on 30 years.

So we're looking at folks receiving benefits three times more than what they pay in while the number of working Americans paying into the system is shrinking. In the next 20 years Meicare will cover more than 80 million of people while the ratio of workers paying taxes to support the program will plummet from the current 3.5 for each beneficiary to 2.3. That means trillions more added to the public debt - OR - huge tax increases for working Americans.

Then if you add Medicaid, Social Security, and other growing entitlements to that, it isn't difficult to see that pretty soon working Americans could pay all their earnings into the programs and it sitll won't cover it all.

And, in my opinion, it all could have been avoided by letting the private sector work it out. The private sector has never yet failed to provide a product that people could afford when there has been a need.

We need a whole new way of looking at that and a solution to fix it that begins very soon.

Medicare is in trouble for one reason and one reason only. Congress has not seen fit to match the increasing medical costs with increasing revenue. Medicare Part B premiums have been frozen for two years while costs rises and they will probably be frozen another year. Medicare payroll tax has fallen well behind the increasing cost of medical care.

The Medical Service Industry is a free market. It does not work because the customers do not evaluate the cost versus the need for the service because most of the cost is being paid by insurance, either private or government.

If the doctor diagnosis's a cancer and recommends a number of diagnostic tests, operations, rehab, radiation, chemotherapy, and a dozen drugs followed by even more tests and procedures, are you going evaluate each one to determine if the service is worth the cost? Are you going to go shopping to get the best price for each service. Of course not. You are going to do exactly what your doctor and others recommend. They are in the business of selling services. The more they sell the more they make.

We have to get away from fee for service system. The system should be a fee for results not services. There must be an effective gatekeeper. Insurance companies have proven that they cannot do it. They simply approve all procedures from qualified providers and pass all the costs on to the customer in form of higher premiums. If the current system continues, with or without Obama healthcare the system will go bust in 8 to 12 years.

The problem is a bit more convoluted then that. The skyrocketing costs are a direct result of those using the medical system who cannot pay. Every illegal in this country is a burden on that system. Every anchor baby they have is a drain in our system.

Medical costs are a direct result of the "sue" me attitude of this country. Malpractice costs are a huge problem. That is why doctors push for every test under the sun to cover their asses in case of a law suit.

Sorry but you are wrong on both counts.

The anchor baby myth has been repeat over and over so many times that millions of people actually believe it. Anyone born on American soil is an American citizen. Many people seem to think that if illegal immigrants have children in America, that they will be able to stay here when they are caught. That is wrong. America will not deport the child, but the parent will be deported. If it is not a deportation because of an arrest, they will be able to take their children with them. However, if it is deportation because of a criminal arrest, the children will be placed in foster care of with a legal family member. The child's citizenship status has nothing to do with the parent's status. Children of illegal aliens are very small part of the countries healthcare cost. They are a convenient scapegoat, but they are not a major cause of the increase in healthcare cost.

Limits on malpractice suits have long been touted as a solution to our rising healthcare problem. Like the anchor baby, it is another myth. Medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

As far as limits on malpractice law suits reducing the cost of defensive medicine, it sound good but it is not supported by the evidence. A study done in Florida showed that defensive medicine decreased by only 2.5% due to tort reform. A later study in Massachusetts showed a cost reduction of only .7%. Torte reform will provide only a small reduction in our healthcare cost.

The major reasons for the increases in healthcare cost are:
As a nation we are getting older and older people use most of the healthcare services.
Healthcare delivery systems are inefficient and waste huge amounts of money.
Pay for Service needs to be changed to Pay for Results.
As a nation we are wealthy and we are being sold ever increasing higher cost healthcare.

 

[jgarden]

My proposal for a whole new way of thinking about government is that the federal government be prohibited from collecting and dispensing the peoples money for ANY kind of charity and that necessary federal contracts be distributed in an equitable manner among the various states based on population. That should take care of the problem you cite.

So what's YOUR whole new way of thinking about government?

Why not just pass legislation prohibiting any state from receiving more federal funds than it contributes?

Conservatives are opposed in principle to taxing the rich to help the poor, so why should the richer "blue" states have their taxes used to help the poorer "red" ones?

 

[Flopper]

Wow this thread has really been rolling. . . .

Wry and Flopper refuse to acknowedge that profits are not something evil but are rather essential and necessary for a free people that govern themselves rather than be governed (controlled) by some king, dictator, or totalitarian authority.

I just opened my end of year brokerage statement and I can assure you I do not believe profits are evil. In fact, I strongly believe in the free enterprise system. However, that does not mean I believe that all services can be done better and cheaper by private business.

I am convinced that health insurance is one of those services that can be done cheaper and better by government. Health Insurance companies have not been able to control the cost of healthcare. They only add to the cost.

Medicare, sets reimbursement rates for all services. If the provider charges a higher rate, then the difference between the claim and the Medicare reimbursement is passed on to patient or is written off by doctor. Because of the huge number of people on Medicare it is difficult for providers to refuse Medicare patients. Healthcare providers hate this but it does help control cost. Health Insurance companies can not do this. They simply pay the claims and raise the premiums.

Unlike other services that we purchase daily, most people can not comparison shop for health insurance. Most people get their insurance through their employer. You take what's offered, look for individual policy, or do without. Individual policies that provide adequate coverage are well beyond the reach of most workers. If you fall into a high risk pool, your choices will be even more limited. A free market in health insurance where you can compare coverages and prices and pick the policy that best suits your needed is an illusion.

No dear. The difference is NOT passed on to the patient when Medicare or Medicaid does not cover the cost of a procedure or drug. The difference is passed on to other patients. Why? Because those providing the products and services cannot and are not willing to take losses. Also if the government INSISTS on paying something that a higher rate than would otherwise be charged, nobody is going to be foolish enough to turn that down either.

You would have convinced me that we were on the same track with private profits if you had not posted so disparagingly about that.

For the life of me, given the government's abysmal track record on managing ANYTHING that did not take longer to accomplish, cost more, and, as often as not, was not of optimal efficiency or effectiveness. why you would trust government with something as precious and important as the nation's healthcare. How can you look at the mess it has made of Medicare, Medicaid, and th VA, all bankrupt and with hundreds of billions or trilions of unfunded obligations stretching ahead as far as the eye can see and then tell me that you want more of the same?

I can assure you that the difference between Medicare reimbursement and the claim is passed on to the patient unless the doctor accepts Medicare assignment. Most Medicare patients carry supplemental insure which picks up the difference. If the patient does not have supplemental insurance and the doctor does not accept Medicare assignment, then the patient will be billed. If the patient does not pay the doctor he may try to pass the costs on to other patients however since most patients are either covered by Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance that has contracted rates with the doctor, this often not an option and the doctor must eat the cost. My point is that the Medicare reimbursement policy puts downward pressure on costs which insurance companies do not do.

It is rather nieve to assume that all segments of the private sector offer the best products or services at the best prices just as it is nieve to assume that all segments of government are wasteful and inefficient.

 

[sangha]

"Wry and Flopper refuse to acknowedge that profits are not something evil" Wry did not write this, doesn't believe this and stating this as a fact is a lie!

"Wry cites corruption in business and industry as sufficient reason to take profits away from business and industry and give it to the government to do." Wry did not write this, does not believe this and stating this as a fact is a lie.

Your entire argument is biased by your lies. If you wish to debate you need to open your mind and put self interest and your ego aside; the truth may not make you free, it may make you credible.

Oh, I’m sorry if I misrepresented what you said, Wry. When I explained my reasoning of how the private sector is the source of prosperity and progress, did you not respond with this?:



I was wrong to interpret that that you think being interested in profits is not a commendable thing? If that is not what you were saying, please clarify. I do try not to misrepresent what people say and if I inadvertently do that, I fully intend to set the record straight.

And in answer to my question “And Wry, what part of "profit is good thing" did you not undersstand?

You responded with this:

“When profit is excessive and when profit is a result of manipulation, misrepresentation, fraud, i.e. the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; or, the omission of some act that ought to have been performed and the cause of harm to the insured.
Examples in the medical, financial services and lending industry are many; which is why an effort to prevent law suits is one of the many 'anti-the people' efforts of the Republican Party. The party of and for corporate America.”
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-thinking-about-government-9.html#post3176350

I misinterpreted your intent that you were supporting your argument that government should take it over? That you used wrongful acts on the part of the private sector as justification for that? If I am wrong about that I apologize.

And, if I was wrong about that, are you now going to agree with me that the government should do only what cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically by the private sector? And will you agree with me that the federal government’s track record on delivering products and services efficiently, effectively, and economically has been really REALLY bad?

I've read your response twice. Maybe because I'm watching and more interested in the NFL playoff game then your response, I not sure if your response is an apology, a smarmy bit of sarcasm or a confused effort to confuse others of your honesty and sincerity..

I'd say the latter. Notice how she asks you a smarmy question (ie what part of profit is a good thing do you not understand) , and then when you answer directly to the question, she then uses it to paint you as being against ALL profit

Here's the deceitful pivot point

I misinterpreted your intent that you were supporting your argument that government should take it over? That you used wrongful acts on the part of the private sector as justification for that? If I am wrong about that I apologize.

She asked a question, and you answered. Your intent in saying what you said was to answer her question, and she has dishonestly "misinterpreted" your intent as indicating that you believe something you never said

 

[editec]

No we need to go back to the old way of thinking about government.

We need to see government as George Washington did.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

Government is an odious entity, one that should be seen as a necessary evil to be tolerated for the greater good of protecting individual freedom.

And that's all it should do, then...protect individual freedom?

How about when an individual's freedom becomes a menace to society?

Should it protect that individuals right to menace the rest of us?

No?

Then obviously another role of government must be to pretect the commonweal as well as the "individual's" freedoms, no?

 

[Wry Catcher]

No we need to go back to the old way of thinking about government.

We need to see government as George Washington did.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

Government is an odious entity, one that should be seen as a necessary evil to be tolerated for the greater good of protecting individual freedom.

And that's all it should do, then...protect individual freedom?

How about when an individual's freedom becomes a menace to society?

Should it protect that individuals right to menace the rest of us?


No?

Then obviously another role of government must be to pretect the commonweal as well as the "individual's" freedoms, no?

You've provided thoughtful questions and ideas; don't expect a response. This thread was not framed to focus a debate on the role of government, but framed to support the opinion of the OP.
It's clear the OP has never read and or understood many or any of the works on political economy beginning with The Republic by Plato up through Age of Enlightenment. It is sad and the height of arrogance for someone who appears to have no foundation to build upon choses to lecture others.

 

[Foxfyre]

I just opened my end of year brokerage statement and I can assure you I do not believe profits are evil. In fact, I strongly believe in the free enterprise system. However, that does not mean I believe that all services can be done better and cheaper by private business.

I am convinced that health insurance is one of those services that can be done cheaper and better by government. Health Insurance companies have not been able to control the cost of healthcare. They only add to the cost.

Medicare, sets reimbursement rates for all services. If the provider charges a higher rate, then the difference between the claim and the Medicare reimbursement is passed on to patient or is written off by doctor. Because of the huge number of people on Medicare it is difficult for providers to refuse Medicare patients. Healthcare providers hate this but it does help control cost. Health Insurance companies can not do this. They simply pay the claims and raise the premiums.

Unlike other services that we purchase daily, most people can not comparison shop for health insurance. Most people get their insurance through their employer. You take what's offered, look for individual policy, or do without. Individual policies that provide adequate coverage are well beyond the reach of most workers. If you fall into a high risk pool, your choices will be even more limited. A free market in health insurance where you can compare coverages and prices and pick the policy that best suits your needed is an illusion.

No dear. The difference is NOT passed on to the patient when Medicare or Medicaid does not cover the cost of a procedure or drug. The difference is passed on to other patients. Why? Because those providing the products and services cannot and are not willing to take losses. Also if the government INSISTS on paying something that a higher rate than would otherwise be charged, nobody is going to be foolish enough to turn that down either.

You would have convinced me that we were on the same track with private profits if you had not posted so disparagingly about that.

For the life of me, given the government's abysmal track record on managing ANYTHING that did not take longer to accomplish, cost more, and, as often as not, was not of optimal efficiency or effectiveness. why you would trust government with something as precious and important as the nation's healthcare. How can you look at the mess it has made of Medicare, Medicaid, and th VA, all bankrupt and with hundreds of billions or trilions of unfunded obligations stretching ahead as far as the eye can see and then tell me that you want more of the same?

I can assure you that the difference between Medicare reimbursement and the claim is passed on to the patient unless the doctor accepts Medicare assignment. Most Medicare patients carry supplemental insure which picks up the difference. If the patient does not have supplemental insurance and the doctor does not accept Medicare assignment, then the patient will be billed. If the patient does not pay the doctor he may try to pass the costs on to other patients however since most patients are either covered by Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance that has contracted rates with the doctor, this often not an option and the doctor must eat the cost. My point is that the Medicare reimbursement policy puts downward pressure on costs which insurance companies do not do.

It is rather nieve to assume that all segments of the private sector offer the best products or services at the best prices just as it is nieve to assume that all segments of government are wasteful and inefficient.

So since you seem to be focused on naivete (correct spelling), how naive is it to think that paying less than the cost of any product or service does not cost somebody something? The providers of the product or service aren't going to take the hit for long. They will pass it along to somebody. If you don't believe it how do you account for the fact that Citizen A who has medicare insurance pays less for a procedure than does Citizen B who has other insurance or pays it out of pocket?

And speaking of naivete, you have been intentionally or inadvertently ducking my repeated question re all this. Can you name ANY federal government entitlement that has run for any time at all that has not substantially exceeded its advertised cost? That is not out of money? That is not obligated for unfunded payments totaling hundreds billions of dollars as far into the distance as we can imagine? Before you make another pitch for a public option, I would appreciate your addressing that question.

I did not say or imply that government is wasteful and inefficient in everything, and I have often argued that the people can effectively use government as the manager of certain products and services so that each framily doesn't have to reinvent the wheel themselves to have these. Such things as sewer services, a dependable and safe water supply, certain zoning and licensing processes, police and fire protection etc. only make sense and make even more sense if the people VOTE to fund these things with bonds or taxes. And they benefit all who choose to be benefitted without respect for age, race, gender, sociopolitical standing or ideology, or any other criteria.

It is when government seeks to benefit this group but not that group; when it is able to curry favor with special interest groups by targeted favors or largesse that we see graft, corruption waste, and ineffectiveness enter into the process. And the results are always more cost, more inefficiency, and a trap because once the service or product is provided, there will be those who will never want to give it up no matter how much it costs their fellow citizens.

 

[JamesMorrison]

The anchor baby myth has been repeat over and over so many times that millions of people actually believe it. Anyone born on American soil is an American citizen. Many people seem to think that if illegal immigrants have children in America, that they will be able to stay here when they are caught. That is wrong. America will not deport the child, but the parent will be deported. If it is not a deportation because of an arrest, they will be able to take their children with them. However, if it is deportation because of a criminal arrest, the children will be placed in foster care of with a legal family member. The child's citizenship status has nothing to do with the parent's status. Children of illegal aliens are very small part of the countries healthcare cost. They are a convenient scapegoat, but they are not a major cause of the increase in healthcare cost.

Properly understood this issue should be viewed as an attempt by the parents to 'anchor' themselves in the U.S. via the legal citizenship afforded their child. No one contests the fact that the parents are, at least intially 'illegals' or that parents (legal or otherwise and barring aforementioned criminal offenses) may take their children anywhere with them. However, the scenario of immigration officials or, especially, judges deciding to let the parents stay here is a rightful concern given the increased emphasis on "empathy" via the present Executive and possible decisions of "wise latina judges" such as we might actually see with SCOTUS. Leaving aside the obvious legal offense (of the parents here) of being in the U.S. illegally, your statement that "Anyone born on American soil is an American citizen" is incorrect.

That part of the 14th Amendment (Sec.1) that applies states:

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

That part separated by comas has always been interpreted by the courts in the "larger sense" when deciding American citizenship. The classic example used is that while non-citizens's and their American born children, such as Foreign Ambassadors and prodigy, are subject (in the "smaller sense") to the local and federal governing laws of the U.S. they do not enjoy citizenship because they are subject to the overall jurisdiction of the the country of their parents origin. This is then used to argue against the citizenship of the so called 'anchor babys' who are, also, subject to the overall jurisdiction of their parents' country of origin.

JM

 

[Flopper]

The major problem I see in transferring all federal government functions not explicitly defined in the constitution to the states is that we become a federation of states with each state going it's own way. In essence we are no longer a nation but 50 nations in a federation for mutual defense and interstate commerce, very much like the late British Empire of the 20th century. I believe this is what our founders really had in mind but I doubt that this is what most of our countryman would want today.

We have poor states that depend heavenly on federal funds and programs and could not afford to carry many needed programs without federal assistance so those programs would disappear. Federal disaster assistance would probably disappear. Wealthy states would become wealthier and poorer states would become poorer. National treasures such as our national parks, and historic sites would exist based on the desires of local the community and the state. Endangered species would not be protected by the federal government and would exist based on the desires of local communities. Control of air and water pollution whose effect go while beyond state boarders would be left to each state. Control of pharmaciticals would left to the states with some drugs legal in one state and not in another. No need to continue to list the problems. Suffice to say that if we literally interpreted the constitution, we would solve our federal deficit problems but we would replace it with something at lot worse.