Obama Care

Here is a good link to the history of our nations income tax.
U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System (http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml)

•"The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS (http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html)
back to the facts...

firstdown -Very interesting reading, has an interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson (I am still reading it, but this quote really struck me)
Though social policies sometimes governed the course of tax policy even in the early days of the Republic, the nature of these policies did not extend either to the collection of taxes so as to equalize incomes and wealth, or for the purpose of redistributing income or wealth. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

and this
The Act expired in 1902, so that Federal receipts fell from 1.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product to 1.3 percent.

So 108 years later, anyone know what percent of Gross Domestic product the the Federal receipts is now?

edit: if these numbers are right, our GDP is 14.2 Trillion, and the federal receipts (http://www.fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2008/receipt.pdf) is 2.52 Trillion. So, again if my math is right, it is about 18%.

•"The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS (http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html)
back to the facts...
The world health organization is left leaning and wants universal health coverage for the world. Little facts and little research.

Duplicate Post

•"The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS (http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html)
back to the facts...

This flaws in this statement have already been debated and discussed.

Carroll: U.S. health care is not inferior - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12667987)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

Evidence from countires with socialized medicine show higher mortality rates than the U.S. for cancer and significantly longer wait times for treatments. Do some research and don't drink the Obam-Aid.

I believe there was a more detailed breakdown of the flaws, I just couldn't find it. To me, the factaul basis of the WHO raniking are debatable and the factual conclusions and the reasoning used to reach those conclusions are faulty.

I'm with you bro. Socialized medicine is a nightmare, and we've only to look no further than Canada and the UK for all the evidence we need. If you get cancer or any serious disease in the UK, it's practically a death sentence. If you're in Canada...well, at least you can come to the USA for treatment, but with Obamacare, that's about to change.

It's good to see that ABC has given up its attempts to hide its liberal bias. Those guys are in the tank for the the hard left and will do anything they can to help further their agenda, even if it means distorting the facts and not giving voice to dissenters. Many of those dissenters are Blue Dog Democrats and other moderates.

Even if you don't know all the specifics of Obamacare... why pass it NOW, when we're in the worst economic times in 80 years? What is the rush to push this through without any open debate about it? And if you trust Obama...why? The stimulus was a massive failure, yet will cost us for generations. He promised it would curb unemployment, and that by NOT passing it, it would go all the way to 9%. Well, they passed it, and now we're on our way to 10% unemployment. But we have added 10 TRILLION in debt (most of it earmarks) for the next decade. Obama attempts to allay our fears by making up unquantifiable statistics such as "jobs saved" -- which cannot be identified or tracked by the census bureau.

The simple truth--and one that should piss off ALL Americans irrespective of their political leanings--is that this administration and this congress is hurrying to pass this train-wreck of a bill before the American people have a chance to learn what's in it. We are being lied to about what it will cost us over time, and we are being fed a lie about how we will get to keep the coverage many of us already have. No one who is voting for it will read it in its entirety, and none of us will have an opportunity to, either.

A big NO on socialized heathcare.

So what is your point? That an economic metaphor used to analyze the correlation between self interest and effect on large scale economics is pointless? Or is it that self-interest on large scale has effect has no effect on economics of scale? That the question raised by SS33



And arguments raised by CRedskin:



Are without value?

Enlighten me, oh brilliant self righteous one, on why the concept of statistical probability as it relates to the correlation of maximizing public good through self interest is irrelevant, invalid or otherwise meaningless in the health care setting. Apparently, it is your belief that your understanding of economic theory is clearly far superior to any and all comers and is equally applicable in all markets regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. I wish to understand the facts, assumptions and reasoning of this flawless theory.

Finally Joe, you're using something other than a jab. Now that the jabs are out of the way let me get right to the heart of the matter, the invisible hand with respect to universal healthcare. I am bewildered by the notion that the invisible hand can and does play a role in the healthcare setting. How does the invisible hand help Aunt Jane avoid medical bankruptcy or help Uncle Joe get his two kids, himself and his wife covered whilst making $10 an hour? Sure, nothing precludes them from making more money thanks to the invisible hand but do you realize that poor people have been with us since the dawn of time? I know, it's hard to believe right?

Now here come the numbers (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html) that aught to interest you Joe. Are you ready for the next round Joe? First lets define what it means to be poor in this country. Per federal guidelines (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml) an individual making less $10,830 is considered below poverty line and so is a family of four making $22,050. I hear you whisper so? So here's the thing Joe...in 1959 (the date the feds started tracking poverty stats) the the percentage of American below the poverty line was 22.4% of individuals and 20.8% of families. Disgusting numbers right? By 1969 that number dropped down to 12.1% of individuals and 10.4% of families. That's a precipitous drop isn't it?

You being the second smartest Republican on this forum I'm sure you can look at the the actual historical numbers and figure out what precipitated the decline in poverty but just in case though here's a hint...the government was involved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation#1961_to_ 1971) with Civil Rights Act of 1960/1964, Pilot Food Stamp Program 1961-1664, Food Stamp Act of 1964, Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965, and Social Security Act of 1965. After the 60s the national poverty percentages stabilized with minor fluctuation due to the the economy. Note the Ronald Reagan era when the invisible hand was the most active (we can lay all the blame for the high numbers on Carter if you want). The poverty rate for 2006 was 12.3% of individuals and 10.6% of families (the numbers are probably much worse for 2008). Peeewwww, nothing seems to have changed since the 70's.

Now I figure you know the tremendous strides we have made in the last 50 years with respect to our GDP (http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls) and per capita income (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p01AR.html). Given that the market has been functioning why hasn't the invisible hand improved our poverty rate since the 70's even though we're significantly economically stronger? Do we have to give the invisible hand more time? How long do you expect us to wait? In the mean time how do you expect these people below the poverty line to afford health insurance? What role does the invisible hand play in income inequality? What about the people hovering just above the poverty line?

As for SS33's post, if your tax rate is 33% you're not a mid-high end worker...if single and you make $171,550-$372,950 annual you're a high end worker and so is a married couple making 208,850-$372,950 annually (we're talking top 5% income earners here not top 25%-50)%. We've really addressed the issue of tax fairness before on many occasions and if you wish to revisit subject this exchange with FRPLG (http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/28699-how-low-can-it-go-3.html#post533395) is one of my favorite on the matter.

With respect to CRR's post it is clear to me that neither individuals nor charities (invisible hands) have been able to solve the problem. And if I'm not mistaken S10's original gripe was with the pending proposal to cut DSH funding by the government. It was pretty obvious to me that he shitted on the first part of the quote with the second part.

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by self-righteous Joe. This label is quite perplexing seeing how it's being placed by you. Try as you may you still can't land an effective punch Joe, you really need to work on your lower/upper body strength.

So let's see, in the 60's the poverty rate declined because the government pointed their guns at the heads of the producers, stole more money from them and gave it to the bums. Well, I guess that's one way to do something about poverty.

As you pointed out, poverty has been around a very long time; but sorry to say, it will always be here. There will always be poor people. There won't be an economic system ever devised that will save absolutely everyone.