to convert from a consumer driven economy to some other form of economy
or is it not too late yet
or is it not too late yet
have we missed an opportunity
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what the hell else kind of economy is there if not consumer driven? would you like to go the route of government driven? sort of like a military industrial type economy, where the government runs, maintains, and provides for the department of offense and everyone works for the state? If only there were a name for that type of government, I wonder what it could be called?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
The opportunity we missed is putting every American on Medicaid .. thsu EXPLODING the healthcare industry .. thus creating millions of actual, long-lasting jobs that cannot be exported overseas .. thus relieving companies large and small of the burden of healthcare costs .. thus relieving Americans of medical costs, which is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy.
Could have done it, no courage.
Could have done it, no courage.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You do not relieve Americans of medical costs. Whether they pay the facilities directly or the government taxes them and pays their healthcare, the public is still paying for it.
That said, if the system reduces the costs involved in healthcare, then you have a net savings to tax payers. Otherwise you are just changing HOW they pay for it.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Nonsense.
Healthcare costs can be catastrophic and astronomical. Most people don't pay that much in taxes .. AND, this could have been done with far lessmoney than went to already rich banking institutions and tax cuts .. and done without raising taxes more than they are now.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
to whom are you addressing the comments. I ask only because I'd hate to slam you down if it were not addressed to me.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
tsk tsk. do you really mean to tell us that apportioning medical expenses among the tax paying population wouldn't raise taxes at all?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
If the taxpayers aren't paying for the healthcare directly, they are paying for it through their taxes. There is no FREE healthcare. We pay for it one way or another.
But I know what YOU mean... you mean let the wealthy pay for the healthcare for everyone. Tax the crap out of them and let them pay for it. That is what you mean by relieving Americans of their healthcare costs. You mean relieving everyone but the wealthy... let the top 50% pay for everyone.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
The program can be started with less money than we've already spent and with the same tax structure that is already planned.
But, you're an intelligent guy .. I have a question that is deeply confusing to me. This country stands on the brink of financial disaster. We're throwing billions of dollars at people who caused the disaster, but when a proposal arises that could ..
a. Create tremendous employment and business opportunities.
b. Reinivigorate the economy, thus returning billions in lost tax dollars to states and the federal government.
c. Relieve American corporations of the burden of medical costs, thsu allowing them to compete with their foreign competeitors .. who do not pay medical costs.
d. Relieve that same burden from Americans, thus creating a more healthy society, thus make Americans less expensive.
and e, f, g, .. and so on.
In spite of that, the first thing that comes to mind from those on the right is taxes.
Please explain the intelligence of that?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I'll start from here and see if you can catch up ..
EVERY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION ON THE PLANET HAS NATIIONALIZED HEALTHCARE
.. except one.
I have much more .. but I'm going to work with you S L O W L Y.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You are also an intelligent guy... WHERE is the money coming from to pay for putting every American into Medicaid?
You say you are relieving both corporations and Americans from the burden of healthcare costs. Who is left to pay for this then?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I will go even slower for you....
NO MATTER WHAT SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THE HEALTHCARE. IF YOU ARE RELIEVING AMERICANS AND BUSINESSES FROM THE COSTS, WHO EXACTLY IS PAYING FOR THIS? MAGIC MONEY FAIRIES?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
You mean like the magic money fairies who are doling out trillions to already rich people right now? Where is that money coming from?
I see I'm going too fast .. let's start from here so we can at least speak the same language ..
Are you aware of what a single-payer system is?
Nurses To Congress: Expanding Medicare Could Reverse Job Losses, And Repair Our Broken Healthcare System And Safety Net
On a day in which Congress prepared to vote on the Obama administration's proposed $800 billion economic stimulus package, the nation's largest organization of registered nurses said expanding Medicare to cover all Americans would be one of the most effective economic recovery programs - and could virtually end the nation's healthcare crisis overnight.
In a briefing for some 50 key Congressional staffers, the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee today presented the findings of a dramatic new study that documents that extending Medicare to everyone would create 2.6 million new jobs, and infuse $317 billion in new business and public revenues and another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy.
Adding all Americans to an expanded Medicare system could be achieved for $63 billion beyond the current $2.1 trillion in direct healthcare spending. The $63 billion is far less than the federal bailout for CitiGroup, and less than half the federal bailout for AIG. Solely expanding Medicare to cover all uninsured Americans could be accomplished for $44 billion, the study shows.
The study, which may be viewed at www.CalNurses.org, was presented as part of a briefing in the Rayburn House Office Building hosted by the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Healthcare, a coalition of nurses, doctors, students, large community-based membership groups, labor unions, religious organizations, and activists who support HR 676, a single-payer, Medicare-for-all bill, soon to be reintroduced.
"Nurses see the broken system at the bedside, but we also know that a single-payer system would help the economy recover and would free people from staying in jobs they do not like just to keep employer benefits," said CNA/NNOC Co-president Geri Jenkins, RN. "The jobs creation that would come from a single payer-system is just one reason RNs know that single-payer is the right thing to do for our patients, for ourselves and for our country."
The first-of-its kind study analyzes the economic benefits of healthcare to the overall economy, showing how changes in direct healthcare delivery affect all other significant sectors touched by healthcare, and how sweeping healthcare reform can help drive the nation's economic recovery. It was conducted by the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy, the CNA/NNOC research arm.
"I'm an economist, and this study looks not only at what is happening within the healthcare field but also at the larger ripple effects into this economy," Robert Fountain, a frequent economics consultant for the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), who served as a consultant on the study, said at the briefing. "The study shows that single-payer reform based on the Medicare model would create jobs - and a lot of them - not only in the health field but also out in those areas where the ripples flow."
"Through direct and supplemental expenditures, healthcare is already a uniquely dominant force in the U.S. economy," said Don DeMoro, IHSP director and lead author of the study.
"However, so much more is possible. If we were to expand our present Medicare system to cover all Americans, the economic stimulus alone would create an immense engine that would help drive our national economy for decades to come," DeMoro said.
Dr. Walter Tsou, board adviser for the Physicians for a National Health Program board adviser and former health commissioner of Philadelphia, and Ronald Hikel, chief legislative and health policy aide to Rep. Eric Massa of New York, joined Fountain and Jenkins as speakers at the briefing.
"We don't spend 4 percent more than other nations or even 14 percent more than any other nation - we spend more than 40 percent more than any other nation spends, yet our outcomes are so much worse," Tsou noted.
Hickel, a former Canadian health official, talked about the conservative fears some have raised of a government role in paying healthcare bills, as occurs in Canada, or in the current U.S. Medicare system.
"I often hear people say that they fear a bureaucrat will decide their healthcare - nothing could be further from the truth. As a Deputy Minister of Health for Manitoba, I can tell you unequivocally that I was forbidden by law from entering into any clinical decisions - and that was punishable by 10 years in prison. So when I hear people say they don't want bureaucratic healthcare, I tell them they must be thinking about an HMO," Hickel said.
"If I could flip a lever tomorrow and enact HR676, it is undoubtedly the way for the United States to go," said Hickel. "It is a matter of political will and what is right for the nation."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/137044.php
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
We gave AIG more than it would take for both .. and the return to the American people and economy would be tremendous.
uscitizen
Villified User
Yes the investment in our future would be trmemedous.
But the right only wants tax cuts and bailing out banks and finiancial corps. who mostly created this problem.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I deleted everything that wasn't relevant to the conversation....
The money that is going to banks is coming from taxpayers via the Feds.
The money for a national healthcare plan also would come from taxpayers via the Feds.
As I stated before and will do so more slowly this time....
IF you are talking about nationalized health system/single payer system in the sense that you beleive it will reduce healthcare costs and create greater efficiencies, then fine.
If not, then you are not alleviating any healthcare expenses from Americans or American businesses. You are simply transfering HOW they pay for it.
Do you comprehend now or do I need to say it again?
Someone has to pay for it. That someone is the individual. Whether the individual pays for it on their own, through a corporation or through the government is irrelevant in terms of who is paying for it. It is always the individual.
Now, if the individual can get better rates by collectively entering an insurance product, then they should do so. In that regard, if the government can create greater efficiencies and can lower the costs then that is the way we should go.
As for the costs of healthcare in the US... yes, we are more expensive. We are also more dispersed in terms of population and I would guess that we are the most litigious of any of the industrialized countries.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
The problem with that my brother is the right ain't in charge.
The center/democrats has complete control of the House and don't need a single republican to pass legislation. The center/democrats only has to convince a couple republicans in the Senate. This rests with the center/democrats.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I like you brother. Things would not be the same without you here.
That being said .. you left out a lot of relevant parts and I asked you if you knew what a single-payer system was. You lied.
You say money will come from taxpayers. Do you have any idea what percentage of taxpayer money funds our currect helathcare system? .. about 62%. .. that includes tax subsidies for private insurance, which amounts to about 200 billion dollars, which mainly benefits the rich .. or about 5 times what it would cost to put every American on Medicaid. The rich can continue to pay for healthcare if they choose.
That also includes government purchases of private health insurance for public employees such as police officers and teachers .. that amounts to about 150 billion dollars a year .. or about 30% of what American employers paid for private insurance.
That amounts to about 12% of the GDP .. compared to Canada where it's about 7% .. compared to England where it's about 7.5%.
That amounts to about $4,568 per capita .. compared to Canada where it's about $2,467 per capita .. compared to England where it's about $2,502.
Thus costs are immediately reduced by about 350 billion dollars a year .. are you with me?
That does not include the increase to Treasury from increases in business and payroll .. " ... $317 billion in new business and public revenues and another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy." .. just one of the many relevant things you left out.
Point being. Medicaid for all Americans not only pays for itself, it will lessen the burden of the taxpayer and create a wealth of opportunity for generations to come.