47 million are without health insurance in U.S.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Range Rover, Nov 10, 2010.

  1. I'm talking about individual losers like you.
     
    #41     Nov 10, 2010
  2. maybe those lardasses with diabetes should have taken better care of themselves when they were younger? i know some fatasses who, when they'll turn 50, will see insane premiums because they've destroyed their bodies in their 20s and 30s. who should be paying their bills, if not them?

    sure, there are some people born with diabetes and other conditions. anyone with a brain, though, would recognize that if they had a congenital condition, they'd better SAVE UP for it starting at age 18. or did they expect to be able to pay $100,000 in premiums lifetime to get $700,000 worth of medical care? what a great deal! i wish i could pay $1500 for homeowner's insurance the day after my million-dollar home burned to the ground.
     
    #42     Nov 10, 2010
  3. I don't disagree with any of that... All the companies should be allowed to dissolve... In fact, if LTCM was never bailed out, Lehman and Bear would most likely still be around...

     
    #43     Nov 10, 2010
  4. +1 Let people pay their own way for a change.
     
    #44     Nov 10, 2010
  5. This is as clear as it gets: the rational, trained in mathematics person knows if you leave 47 million out of an insurance pool, that's 47 million less to spread the costs around, 47 million fewer customers for prescriptions, surgeries, etc, and so on.
    The right, OTOH, wants to divide and conquer so as to serve the power needs of the upper reaches: not their economic needs, their power needs. If you've inherited your money, which the vast vast majority of the far upper portions of the income distribution have, you're not at all educated in how to make money. You are, however, very well educated in power. So that's what you concentrate on keeping. And to do that, you follow Napoleon: divide and conquer.
     
    #45     Nov 10, 2010
  6. I'm trying to understand your reasoning here. You're saying that
    if government were smaller there'd be no reason to corrupt it?

    Government is the only cop on the beat that even ...might keep businesses from doing all those things that regulations are in place for. The size of government in theory if not practise is proportional to the need to hold the line on abusing the public's right to not have their water polluted or their chicken salmonela tainted -- I'm assuming here you're for those things. It'd be nice to go back to a bygone era where we still had the corner store deli where I used to go for popsicles and pinball when I was a kid but that's never coming back nor is that
    zeitgeist. America is no longer a growth stock we're Microsoft. Businesses don't grow or not as a reaction to the size of government. If anything the opposite of what you contend is true, that government regualtion slows business from expanding.
    The lack of faith you express in the possibility of honest regulators I share except mine is aimed at honest profit motivated business and esp. where spreading wealth is concerned or even rewarding contribution to their success. I think if we left it at that we disagree as to who can or should be trusted its about as much mind changing as is going to happen here. I do appreciate the civility though.
     
    #46     Nov 10, 2010
  7. Then be consistent,

    Make all corporations pay the same taxes, disallow all business tax deductions, close all loop holes. Disallow all settlements for crimes... cut out all resale tax exemptions, cut out all local tax breaks given to companies. Require all state, local and federal govt to operate within balanced budgets.
    Disallow C corp tax treatment and make all pass through.

    Would it not make more sense to simply tax all transactions made in dollars world wide a flat 10% tax? We get everyone this way.. all foreign corps and transactions outside of this country.


     
    #47     Nov 10, 2010
  8. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    because the malpractice insurance costs are calculated off states that have and do not have malpractice limits.

    and i said "start" with tort reform. it is just a start, but you can't address high costs without it.
     
    #48     Nov 11, 2010
  9. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    how many years did the dems have before them to do something?

    incidentally, if you're going to respond to one of my posts with multiple posts of your own (because you cannot address all of your concerns at one time) then this thread is going to become difficult to follow.
     
    #49     Nov 11, 2010
  10. Hello

    Hello

    So is your theory that if you insure 47 million more people, it will infact bring costs down?

    You might want to work on that mathematics thing.

     
    #50     Nov 11, 2010