taxes and health care

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Is it just me or is any health care system, anywhere based on the assumption that a majority of people will get less than what they pay for in any given time frame so that a minority can get vastly more than they pay for? In other words if every person in great Britain availed themselves of even the minimum level of care, the system would be completely overwhelmed. Isn't that so? And isn't it also true, that having the government run the system does nothing to alter this fundamental flaw?

It's not a "flaw", it's the fundamental nature of a risk sharing pool. You do the same with homeowners insurance, auto insurance, life insurance, etc.

But stemming from this strange post of yours I am deriving a point: however you choose to share the risk (through government or through private means), it does nothing to change the underlying costs of delivering care.

The nation must face this simple fact: healthcare science & technology has gotten so advanced and expensive that it just flat out costs a buttload. You can bring down some costs, like malpractice claims, and if you simplified reimbursement you'd need far fewer financey people like me supporting providers. But ultimately, if you want drastic cost reduction the only way to get it is through drastic reductions in utilization. How?

1) Stay healthy.
2) If you're a vegetable just pull the plug.
3) If something hurts flat out suck it up.

All way easier said than done.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

OK name any major goverment program that runs well, cost efficient, or has not not grown way out of wack.

the post office

[dmek25]

schneed, i have a question. why does any other insurance offer price breaks for people that really dont use it. except for medical?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

the post office

Stamps keep going up in price and have you been to a post office in the past 10 years? I order stamps by fax to avoid going to the post office and the mail man delievers them in a couple of days. The few times I do go there is always 3 people doing snail work and a very long line.

[CRedskinsRule]

the only reason that the post office even works anymore (of course i would argue it doesn't) is because the load is reduced thanks to email faxing and a boatload of other technologies. Likewise, UPS ships 2 day ground, and I can track it with amazing accuracy, ship something USPS 2-3 day priority and try tracking it. Even if you pay for the ability too. Good luck
The government is meant to --- GOVERN, not efficiently run a business.

[dmek25]

.42 cents for a letter to travel from coast to coast. cant beat that

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by dmek25

.42 cents for a letter to travel from coast to coast. cant beat that

email works for me-fax does too.

[70Chip]

Some people will be getting visits from Wilfred Brimley:

[saden1]

Originally Posted by dmek25

schneed, i have a question. why does any other insurance offer price breaks for people that really dont use it. except for medical?

It's an incentive for less risky people to become customers. They're not going to use/abuse your service as much as other customers therefore they're the kind of customers that will help your bottom line. They're less likely to default, get into an accident, suffer health issues (life insurance), etc...cash-cow customers as opposed to deadbeat customers.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

.42 cents for a letter to travel from coast to coast. cant beat that

Well OK it would be tough to say weater the Posat Service is good or bad but is that the best you can do with all that goverment does now days?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by firstdown

OK name any major goverment program that runs well, cost efficient, or has not not grown way out of wack.

I attended one of the most conservative schools in the country several years ago, was taught by profs who unabashedly expressed their devotion to the right, but at least had the intelligence and honesty to admit Social Security is arguably the most efficient government program not just here but anywhere in the world. It's operating cost is something like one-half of one percent of total "revenue" and basically if we didn't constantly have conservative presidents raiding the surpluses to 1) provide tax cuts to the richest people in the country (many of whom never contribute to SS btw because they never earn W-2 income) 2) fund truly inefficient gov programs like SDI (we've spent over a trillion on SDI and it's not even close to operational) social security would be financially stable for another century.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I attended one of the most conservative schools in the country several years ago, was taught by profs who unabashedly expressed their devotion to the right, but at least had the intelligence and honesty to admit Social Security is arguably the most efficient government program not just here but anywhere in the world. It's operating cost is something like one-half of one percent of total "revenue" and basically if we didn't constantly have conservative presidents raiding the surpluses to 1) provide tax cuts to the richest people in the country (many of whom never contribute to SS btw because they never earn W-2 income) 2) fund truly inefficient gov programs like SDI (we've spent over a trillion on SDI and it's not even close to operational) social security would be financially stable for another century.

I"m curious to know what you consider to be a conservative school.

To your point, of course the operating cost is miniscule compared to the billions they collect. How much does it cost to take from Peter to give to Paul? Having said that, the operating costs were enough to make Ross Perot a billionaire.

And to claim that any particular spending item was a case of social security being "raided" is extremely misleading. One could just as easily say that Liberals "raided" social security to fund obscene art or overseas abortions.

And if SDI was such a miserable failure, why are the Russians wrapped around the axel about us deploying missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic? And how were we able to shoot down Scud missiles like 18 years ago during the Gulf War? Admittedly it wasn't 100% effective, but THAT WAS LIKE, 18 YEARS AGO.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well OK it would be tough to say weater the Posat Service is good or bad but is that the best you can do with all that goverment does now days?

NASA
military (not cheap, but we're #1 :P )
gov funded research that helps feed the USA's university system (which is good).
the interstate road system.
WPA (the tourist value of those projects turned them into profit centers)

i mean, if they suck so much your always welcome to run for office to fix things or find another government you'd be happier living under.

but generally when you give people less incentive to work hard (like crazy job security with full medical or whatnot) there's naturally going to be less willingness to work harder .

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a proposal by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983[1] to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles. The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD).

Though it was never completely developed or deployed, the research and technologies of SDI paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile systems of today. The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) was set up in 1984 within the United States Department of Defense to oversee the Strategic Defense Initiative. It gained the popular name Star Wars after the 1977 film by George Lucas. Under the administration of President Bill Clinton in 1993, its name was changed to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and its emphasis was shifted from national missile defense to theater missile defense; from global to regional coverage. BMDO was renamed to the Missile Defense Agency in 2002. This article covers defense efforts under the SDIO.

Space-related defense research and testing remains heavily-budgeted to this day, irrespective of the program names, operative/reporting organizations, politics, or reports to the contrary in the press. Although it is difficult to compile actual spending totals across the complete spectrum of space-based defense programs (including classified "off-budget" "black projects"), the U.S. has certainly invested well over $100 Billion on "SDI" and follow-on programs, and holds a commanding lead over all current or potential future adversaries in the realm of space technology/warfare. The vast majority of this investment has been made in basic research at National Laboratories and Universities, and these programs continue to be a key source of funding for top research scientists in the fields of high-energy physics, supercomputing/computation, advanced materials, and many other critical science and engineering disciplines: funding which indirectly supports other research work by top scientists, and which would be largely unavailable outside of the defense budget environment.

Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[CRedskinsRule]

After seeing what examples people have thrown out, I would say that the Interstate has to be the best example of what the federal government can and should do, which is facilitate trade and commerce between the individual states. Plus, and I don't know the figures, but I believe it is mainly funded from user taxes at this point, except where major projects(or pork) are needed.
Somebody said NASA, and in the 60's-70's that may have been true, because no one corporation needed to control space technologies, but now, private corporations should be given the freedom and ability to research and develop space tools. NASA wastes as much as it spends (and personally I don't feel like spending Billions of dollars so that Russian and French astronauts can study cell growth in orbit around us)