Re: Where's Waldo
And not bring it home and use it to decorate their front yard, or convert it into a barbeque grill .. On Sep 6, 2009, at 12:10 AM, Michael Harney wrote: The lab hopes boaters out for the busy Labor Day weekend might spot Waldo. The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed. -- Adolf Hitler ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
a Nobel Ghostpost on the Ecconomy
An interesting article by Krugman appeared in the NYT magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?_r=4partner=rs semc=rsspagewanted=all http://tinyurl.com/kmtffm In it he discusses how the ecconomists missed last year's bust. Not surprising to anyone who's followed ecconomic theory for the last 20 years, the market works best by itself ecconomists were the ones with the greatest chutzpah. Dan M. mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Krugman endorses behavioral economics
Summary: Krugman implies that most economists either believe in the simplistic Keynesian theory, or the absurd efficient market theory. Neither viewpoint was helpful in predicting the 2008 downturn. But Krugman suggests that another theory, behavioral economics, may have useful predictive ability. [end summary] Perhaps behavioral economics may have more predictive ability than Keynes or EMT. If so, I would like to know why so few economists have been making useful predictions with BE. Behavioral economics is not brand new -- elements of it have been published for decades, and it has certainly received plenty of attention in the past 10 years. If politicians are so concerned with helping the economy, why did they not warn us long ago about impending trouble based on the predictions of people like Shiller and Roubini? Instead of Bernanke reassuring everyone that things were fine just before the 2008 downturn, shouldn't the politicians have been warning us for years that trouble was coming unless we reduced leverage and eliminated all the incentives to sell mortgages to people who could not afford them? Politicians figure that voters do not like Cassandras. They may be right. Perhaps what is needed more than a theory of behavioral economics is a theory of behavioral politics. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Krugman endorses behavioral economics
Actually, the best economic prediction I ever heard was in a song: What goes up, must come down. Spinning wheel ,spiinnig around. Talk about your troubles by the riverside. Ride a painted pony let the spinning wheel And for the current decade, The party's over. It's time to call it a day. They've burst your pretty balloon and taken the moon away. It's time to wind up this masquerade, take off your makeup, the party's over, it's all over, my friend http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:46:55 -0700 Subject: Krugman endorses behavioral economics From: jwilliams4...@gmail.com To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Summary: Krugman implies that most economists either believe in the simplistic Keynesian theory, or the absurd efficient market theory. Neither viewpoint was helpful in predicting the 2008 downturn. But Krugman suggests that another theory, behavioral economics, may have useful predictive ability. [end summary] Perhaps behavioral economics may have more predictive ability than Keynes or EMT. If so, I would like to know why so few economists have been making useful predictions with BE. Behavioral economics is not brand new -- elements of it have been published for decades, and it has certainly received plenty of attention in the past 10 years. If politicians are so concerned with helping the economy, why did they not warn us long ago about impending trouble based on the predictions of people like Shiller and Roubini? Instead of Bernanke reassuring everyone that things were fine just before the 2008 downturn, shouldn't the politicians have been warning us for years that trouble was coming unless we reduced leverage and eliminated all the incentives to sell mortgages to people who could not afford them? Politicians figure that voters do not like Cassandras. They may be right. Perhaps what is needed more than a theory of behavioral economics is a theory of behavioral politics. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:23 AM, John Williamsjwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: DeLong (the other one) on health care costs and health insurance reform. http://american.com/archive/2009/maybe-we-should-spend-more-on-healthcare | So what should be done about healthcare costs? Many things, including | a phaseout of employment-based health insurance in favor of other | policies; elimination of mandates that require insurance coverage | of designated procedures; availability of programs that combine | health savings accounts with catastrophe insurance; availability of | policies across state lines; reform of the tort system; reform of cost | accounting procedures that create dysfunctional incentives for industry | participants; availability of high deductibles so that insurance can be | insurance rather than socialized medicine; a second look at our policy | of forcing the young to subsidize the geezers, who are after all the | wealthiest segment of the population, and who can afford to spend more | on healthcare because other demands on their income are less. | It is a long list. Take care of these reforms and total spending | will take care of itself. Spending may become higher or lower—who | knows?—but it will better represent a reasonable assessment of value | for money. These reforms will also forestall the most worrisome aspect | of the current “spend too much” panic: the urge to cut costs at the | expense of the future. The link was broken for me, but from what you quoted above it seems we'd all need 2 or three insurance policies, a medical account and state and federal income tax deductions. And since insurance companies are worried about making money for themselves, not the health of their customers, you can bet we'll probably need a lawyer to keep them honest. Then we'll need an accountant to help keep track of it all. Why would we do all that crap when we can jealously look at other countries and say Damn, why don't we do something like that. It costs less and it works better??? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:23 AM, John Williamsjwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: DeLong (the other one) on health care costs and health insurance reform. http://american.com/archive/2009/maybe-we-should-spend-more-on-healthcare They changed the link. Here is the new one: http://american.com/archive/2009/august/maybe-we-should-spend-more-on-healthcare ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: The link was broken for me, but from what you quoted above it seems we'd all need 2 or three insurance policies, I'd love to have enough choice with health insurance to have multiple policies tailored to my needs. a medical account and state and federal income tax deductions. You mean a tax-exempt HSA account? Like an IRA? Sounds good to me. And since insurance companies are worried about making money for themselves, not the health of their customers, you can bet we'll probably need a lawyer to keep them honest. Then we'll need an accountant to help keep track of it all. Aren't almost all companies worried about making money for themselves? Seems to work out all right to me. Why would we do all that crap when we can jealously look at other countries and say Damn, why don't we do something like that. It costs less and it works better??? Do you mean, why would Americans choose freedom when they can instead have their money taken from them and told what to do with their money and have their health care choices dictated by their rulers? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:46:44 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: The link was broken for me, but from what you quoted above it seems we'd all need 2 or three insurance policies, I'd love to have enough choice with health insurance to have multiple policies tailored to my needs. a medical account and state and federal income tax deductions. You mean a tax-exempt HSA account? Like an IRA? Sounds good to me. And since insurance companies are worried about making money for themselves, not the health of their customers, you can bet we'll probably need a lawyer to keep them honest. Then we'll need an accountant to help keep track of it all. Aren't almost all companies worried about making money for themselves? Seems to work out all right to me. Why would we do all that crap when we can jealously look at other countries and say Damn, why don't we do something like that. It costs less and it works better??? Do you mean, why would Americans choose freedom when they can instead have their money taken from them and told what to do with their money and have their health care choices dictated by their rulers? Actually, that's not what the opposition to health care reform is coming from. Its from folks who are already on government health care, wanting no cuts in it and wanting no one else on it. The freedom you are talking about in a real free market is the freedom to die for many people. People with insurance and second stage cancer do better than people without insurance and first stage cancer. That's one reason why measuremables place the US far down the list of industrialized countries in health care provided, even though we top the list on health care cost. In your idealized world, people happily choose good choices. Historically, we've had market ecconomies with minimal governmental interference in the past; and the choice for the majority was rock or hard place. Now, you've argued that's its the intangibles that matter most, which is convenient, because they are so much harder to measure than tangibles. I guess it's a difference in perspective; when arguing about emperical quesitons; I tend to like measuremables. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Actually, that's not what the opposition to health care reform is coming from. Actually, consumer driven health care supporters are where some of the opposition to additional government control of the health care market is coming from. The freedom you are talking about in a real free market is the freedom to die for many people. No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about freedom to choose what to do with one's money. Now, you've argued that's its the intangibles that matter most, Where have I written that? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: Aren't almost all companies worried about making money for themselves? Seems to work out all right to me. No, all companies aren't. I'm on the board of a $10 million company that seeks to make not a cent of profit. My family's insurance company doesn't seek to make a cent of profit. Nor does the company where most of our retirement money is. The first is a non-profit and the other two are mutual benefit corporations that don't make money as companies. They pay good salaries and bonuses and return profits to their customers/members. I think it says a lot about a person's attitude if they think that every company is motivated by profit. Some of the largest, most successful companies in the world were not managed by seeking profits. My financial mentor for 25 years is a former Teledyne CEO, who learned from Henry Singleton that if you manage by cash flow, profit takes care of itself. Lack of cash kills a lot more companies than balance sheet losses. Do you mean, why would Americans choose freedom when they can instead have their money taken from them and told what to do with their money and have their health care choices dictated by their rulers? It is a sick version of freedom that ideologically dictates that we are not free to offer health care to everyone, as a nation rather than through private enterprise. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: Aren't almost all companies worried about making money for themselves? Seems to work out all right to me. No, all companies aren't. I'm on the board of a $10 million company that seeks to make not a cent of profit. You seem to have misread the part of my post you quoted above (see almost). Unless you mean to claim that most companies are non-profits. Also, you have not followed the point -- the fact that non-profits exist has little to do with the point that a large number of profit-seeking companies have a large number of satisfied customers. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:00 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about freedom to choose what to do with one's money. Me, too. Freedom for a nation to choose what to do with its money, just like corporations and people are free to choose. How can you insist that for a nation to *choose *to provide health care to all of its citizens is taking away freedom? Is freedom threatened by the nation choosing to provide highways, police, fire, education and so forth to everyone? Are those services bad because they are run by government? Where's the consistency in this argument? Freedom to choose is still freedom to choose when everyone makes the choice by democratic means. That's our nation's very definition of freedom. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: How can you insist that for a nation to choose to provide health care to all of its citizens is taking away freedom? Taking away my money against my will and limiting my choices for what kind of health care I can purchase is taking away my freedom of choice. Freedom to choose is still freedom to choose when everyone makes the choice by democratic means. Even if everyone voted democratically to make some minority of people slaves, that does not make slavery freedom. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Even if everyone voted democratically to make some minority of people slaves, that does not make slavery freedom. Paying taxes != slavery. You are more than free to leave. You can't be bought or sold. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:21 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: How can you insist that for a nation to choose to provide health care to all of its citizens is taking away freedom? Taking away my money against my will and limiting my choices for what kind of health care I can purchase is taking away my freedom of choice. Repeating your premise isn't proving it. Freedom to choose is still freedom to choose when everyone makes the choice by democratic means. Even if everyone voted democratically to make some minority of people slaves, that does not make slavery freedom. Come on. That's middle school-level civics, not an argument against health care... unless you come up with some sort of evidence that providing people health care is like enslaving them. Good luck with that. We generally don't think of illness as freedom from good health, which is the freedom that you'd like to preserve for a lot of people in our country. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:00:11 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Actually, consumer driven health care supporters are where some of the opposition to additional government control of the health care market is coming from. Some, but I can quote data concerning age groups and their viewpointsand guess which age group really doesn't want changethe age group on social security. The freedom you are talking about in a real free market is the freedom to die for many people. No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about freedom to choose what to do with one's money. And when you don't have the money because your options for getting money are don't match the cost of insurance or healthcare. It's the freedom to die. Now, you've argued that's its the intangibles that matter most, Where have I written that? The last time I brought up these data. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: ... Taking away my money against my will and limiting my choices for what kind of health care I can purchase is taking away my freedom of choice. ... John-- This is why I've quit talking with you about health insurance. When pressed, your bottom line seems to be taxation equals theft. I disagree, and doubt that you can design a practical society where government activities are funded solely by user fees. Regardless, it's hard to have much of a conversation with you when you've unilaterally taken most of the options off the table. If your main point is that it's impossible to have (somewhat) universal access to affordable health care without taking money from people who don't want to contribute it, we may be prepared to agree with that, and all move on to another topic... ---David Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying because they can't afford to pay for basic health care. No one gets to have complete freedom of choice. Live with it. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:37 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Even if everyone voted democratically to make some minority of people slaves, that does not make slavery freedom. Paying taxes != slavery. You are more than free to leave. You can't be bought or sold. The principle under discussion was whether a democratic vote is equivalent to freedom to choose. I gave a counter example to disprove the general principle. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:42 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Now, you've argued that's its the intangibles that matter most, Where have I written that? The last time I brought up these data. How about a quote? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Even if everyone voted democratically to make some minority of people slaves, that does not make slavery freedom. Paying taxes != slavery. You are more than free to leave. You can't be bought or sold. The principle under discussion was whether a democratic vote is equivalent to freedom to choose. I gave a counter example to disprove the general principle. Actually, as David's post indicates, you are probably in a minority in considering that the principal under discussion. I would really like to understand your point of view, but when you quote, almost perfectly, well known sentences associated with political viewwpoints and then are shocked shocked to see that people think you hold that viewpoint, understanding your viewpoint becomes nigh on impossible for me. I say this as someone who has sucessfullly understood why some folks are convinced that special relativity is false, so I'm at least average at understanding folks who are trying to communicate what they think. So, I thought of one simple question that would be extremely helpful in my starting to understand how you differ from folks who use the exact same words as you do, but mean different things. It is Is being taxed different from or the same as slavery? Dan M. mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: This is why I've quit talking with you about health insurance. When pressed, your bottom line seems to be taxation equals theft. What I have written is that taxation (taking someone's money) limits a person's freedom. That is obviously true. However, I have never written that I think there should be no taxes. In fact, I think that there are indeed some cases where the ends justify the means -- that I condone taking away individual freedoms for the greater good. But I think these cases are far fewer than others seem to think. Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? I know a lot more deserving people to give my money to than wealthy elderly Americans who did not want to save up for their own health care. Are you seriously going to tell me that your choice of who I should help with my own money is better than my choice? That you therefore have the right to take my money from the people who I would give it to, and instead give it to the people you think I should give it to? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:08 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Actually, as David's post indicates, you are probably in a minority in considering that the principal under discussion. Actually, that was the principle under discussion with Nick. You conveniently left out the quote. I would really like to understand your point of view, I doubt it. I suspect you would like to fit me into one of your simplistic models. Good luck with that. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 04:09 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:00 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about freedom to choose what to do with one's money. Me, too. Freedom for a nation to choose what to do with its money, just like corporations and people are free to choose. How can you insist that for a nation to choose to provide health care to all of its citizens is taking away freedom? Is freedom threatened by the nation choosing to provide highways, police, fire, education and so forth to everyone? Are those services bad because they are run by government? Where's the consistency in this argument? Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:12 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: What I have written is that taxation (taking someone's money) limits a person's freedom. That is obviously true. There is nothing obviously true about it, except that the person is free of paying taxes. That's not political freedom, it is practically the opposite, since only in fantasy are there nations in everyone is free of paying taxes. Taxes are a political instrument, so it is nonsense to talk about them outside of the context of politics, as you keep doing. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this discussion. That would ruin everything. In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. That question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal government does run some things very efficiently and some of those things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 04:42 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:00:11 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Actually, consumer driven health care supporters are where some of the opposition to additional government control of the health care market is coming from. Some, but I can quote data concerning age groups and their viewpointsand guess which age group really doesn't want changethe age group on social security. The freedom you are talking about in a real free market is the freedom to die for many people. No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about freedom to choose what to do with one's money. And when you don't have the money because your options for getting money are don't match the cost of insurance or healthcare. It's the freedom to die. Which is why I suggest that finding a way to get costs under control is more important than focusing on covering the uninsured: getting the costs back down so people can afford to go to the doctor or get medicine like they could when many of us were younger rather than having to turn to insurance for pretty much everything will solve the latter problem for many who currently can't afford it. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:12 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: What I have written is that taxation (taking someone's money) limits a person's freedom. That is obviously true. There is nothing obviously true about it, Say I have two $1 bills. I could choose to go to McDonald's and buy a burger and fries. Now someone takes one of my dollars. Now I can only buy a burger, or fries, but not both. My choices have been limited. My freedom to choose has been limited. That is obvious. Now, you may argue that I got some value for the dollar that was taken from me. Perhaps. But since I would not have chosen that particular use for my dollar, it is less value than I would have gotten otherwise. so it is nonsense to talk about them outside of the context of politics, as you keep doing. I concede the point to the expert on nonsense. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:42 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: Say I have two $1 bills. I could choose to go to McDonald's and buy a burger and fries. Now someone takes one of my dollars. Takes *how*? Nothing like leaving out the critical element of the metaphor. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 05:12 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: This is why I've quit talking with you about health insurance. When pressed, your bottom line seems to be taxation equals theft. What I have written is that taxation (taking someone's money) limits a person's freedom. That is obviously true. However, I have never written that I think there should be no taxes. In fact, I think that there are indeed some cases where the ends justify the means -- that I condone taking away individual freedoms for the greater good. But I think these cases are far fewer than others seem to think. Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? I know a lot more deserving people to give my money to than wealthy elderly Americans who did not want to save up for their own health care. How about the people who are working but can't afford to take themselves or their kids to a doctor when they get the sniffles or a sore throat or an ear infection unless they have some sort of insurance that will pay most of the cost of the office visit and any prescriptions? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 05:36 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them . . . Now, now, don't be bringing reasonable arguments into this discussion. That would ruin everything. Sorry. :D (Though you could have responded like the person on another list who accused me of parroting the Republican talking points when I described situations I myself have encountered . . . ;)) In other words, I think you hit a real issue on the head. As I said, many of the questions I have concern things I or people I know well (e.g., family and RL friends) have encountered with the current system (or patchwork of systems, if that is a better description) . . . That question is answered for me partly by the fact that the federal government does run some things very efficiently and some of those things are health care. For example, the VA, though it is given inadequate resources, is incredibly efficient in what it delivers. Except to the people who have tried to get help there and not been able to get what they needed. (Perhaps for a very good reason, in that they needed something that is not part of what it [the VA] delivers, but then going elsewhere requires (financial) resources they didn't have . . . ) . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:27:28 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform br Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them I understand that feeling. But, that's not what is being proposed. The public option is to have government run health care as an alternative. And, fortunately, we have a giant data base of folks who have government run health insurance: those on Medicare. My _Republican_ congressman stated that the overhead for private insurance paperwork is 20%, while for the government it's 5%. But, what about public satisfaction? We have a comparative survey at http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-2/Survey-3A-Medicare-gets-higher- marks-from-enrollees-than-private-insurance-6883-1/ or http://tinyurl.com/mwm3db From the other items featured, it does not look to be a polemic website. We see those on the public plan are more satisfied than those on employer sponsered plans. And, that doesn't even address those who can't get employer sponsered plans. Let me ask a question, and I honestly will respect your answer. Are you so opposed to the government insurance that you'll refuse Medicare and be willing to be untreated as an option? I know folks with health issues in their families who are consultants. They tell me that bare bones catastrophic insurance is about $40k/year. Is this better than Medicare? Right now, we seem to have taken the worst of socialism and capitalism to get the most expensive health care while getting poor measured results. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 6, 2009, at 4:21 PM, John Williams wrote: Taking away my money against my will and limiting my choices for what kind of health care I can purchase is taking away my freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is never absolute. And it is always limited by the need to balance that freedom with the identical freedom due to others. Your rights end where mine begin. And yes, I understand that it's against your will. You've made that point pretty consistently any time any sort of tax-based public service comes up for discussion. Ordinarily I shrug it off and chalk it up to fundamental disagreement. But, does the punishment for not making it into the wealthiest 25% of the population have to be a death penalty? If not, what exactly *do* you propose as an alternative to public-option health care for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford health insurance that will actually cover treatments? Let them eat cake Maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 6, 2009, at 5:12 PM, John Williams wrote: Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? If your idea of how to spend it involves leaving people to the nonexistent mercy of a nonexistent public health care system so people in the top income brackets can afford an extra yacht this Christmas, maybe so. Grotesque oppression isn't okay just because it's been institutionalized. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 6, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 05:12 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: This is why I've quit talking with you about health insurance. When pressed, your bottom line seems to be taxation equals theft. What I have written is that taxation (taking someone's money) limits a person's freedom. That is obviously true. However, I have never written that I think there should be no taxes. In fact, I think that there are indeed some cases where the ends justify the means -- that I condone taking away individual freedoms for the greater good. But I think these cases are far fewer than others seem to think. Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? I know a lot more deserving people to give my money to than wealthy elderly Americans who did not want to save up for their own health care. How about the people who are working but can't afford to take themselves or their kids to a doctor when they get the sniffles or a sore throat or an ear infection unless they have some sort of insurance that will pay most of the cost of the office visit and any prescriptions? . . . ronn! :) Or, for an even darker scenario, how about the people who can't quit or, God forbid, be fired from their job because if they do they'll lose the only insurance that will cover them -- because any other insurance will refuse to accept them because the condition the existing plan is paying for would be a pre-existing condition? Or how about the people who *are* fired from their job because the treatment they need will trigger a million-dollar-plus deductible that their employer doesn't want to pay, and then have to find somewhere else to work that has a health plan willing to consider accepting them? And remember, for people who work full time for a living, keeping a job when a critical care situation comes up can be extremely difficult, because employers tend to take a dim view of their employees taking weeks or months off to be treated or recover in the hospital. And not all health plans include long-term disability -- good luck with that Social Security disability application. And John .. wealthy elderly Americans who did not want to save up for their own health care? Really? Wouldn't wealthy indicate some ability to pay for critical care treatment, or at the very least, one of those gold-plated full-indemnity plans where treatments aren't denied by an actuarial accountant hundreds of miles away with no medical training just because the doctor wasn't playing the game the way they liked? Or has the definition of wealthy changed substantially the last time I checked? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Health Care:
Bruce wrote: What exactly *do* you propose as an alternative to public-option health care for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford health insurance that will actually cover treatments? You didn't ask me; but I thought I'd actually propose something that makes sense. First, it makes sense for leverage to be used on folks making tons of money on health care. A surgeon can, in an 8 hour day, do 3 surguries and the associated follow up care for about 8k. I've seen what Blue Cross/Blue Shield pays, and I base it on that. We can pay hospitals, physicians, etc. a lot less...other countries do while maintaining superior measurables. Second, reasonable tort reform makes sense. I know from family experience that, when there are two studies out within a few months, one indicating physicians should stop a med; the other suggesting it be continued, the physician can be sued and be forced to pay money. We are unique in the developed world in how often we sue. I can understand the oppositon to upper limits on damages: if a drunk physician were to kill someone and folks knew he was drunk beforehand (coverups have existed), the folks deserve to pay triple lost earnings and punative damages. The amount of malpractice awards is a minor part of the cost. It's the time spent jumping through hoops that costs so much. A physician should be protected by providing a reasonable standard of care; and if studies are inconclusive on a drug...neither using it or not using it should be grounds for a suit. We need to have a reasonable approach to end of life. We spend more than any developed country streatching the last week into the last month or two. Coding a patient with multiple strokes and virtually no functionality and no hope for recovery twice a day for months is crazy. On this point I agree with John; it makes no sense to have a money is no limit view towards expensive procedures for those about to die even with the procedures. Realizing this fact is probably poltically impossible. We need a way to get the rest of the developed world to help pay for innovations. How, I'm not sure. If we cut costs; RD will dry up; drug companies spend on it like ATT use to when it was a monopoly. If they follow more typical companies; we'll have few new drugs. We need to trade off governments helping to study phase III results, with the immediate right to pull the drug, for drug company's agreements to only sell the meds. for the intended purpose. We need to offer affordable insurance for everyone. Brad DeLong's arguement, IIRC, is to have health savings accounts required for X% of income, and after that government insurance can take over. This would have to include Medicare; which can't function as it's going for another 10 years. Well, that's a starting point, although it's not fleshed out. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: If not, what exactly *do* you propose as an alternative to public-option health care for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford health insurance that will actually cover treatments? What exactly do you propose for everyone in the world who cannot afford basic health care such as childbirth assistance and infant care and vaccination? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Monopoles?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm Perhaps they have finally found them. xponent Space Drives Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
What exactly do you propose for everyone in the world who cannot afford basic health care such as childbirth assistance and infant care and vaccination? Well, Iraq showed how hard it is to help folks by forcing out bad governments. My foster daughter Neli and I have talked on how best governments and people can aid folks in other countries. Most of it involves the countries that spend the money taking the responsibility to supervise how the money is spent, cutting down barriers to trade, etc. It's a real hard problem. Personally, I've been doing what I can to help her sister Nymbe (my other African foster daughter), to realize her dream of replacing Zambia's only cardiologist, who's getting up in years. It's only a bit, I know, but treating two young African women as family is most of what I'm doing. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Or, for an even darker scenario, how about the people who can't quit or, God forbid, be fired from their job because if they do they'll lose the only insurance that will cover them Which is almost entirely the result of the poor government policy of providing a large tax incentive to get health insurance through employers rather than choosing it oneself. And John .. wealthy elderly Americans who did not want to save up for their own health care? I apologize for not stating clearly what I meant. There are a lot of people who lived their entire life wealthy by saving very little, and spending most or all of their income on luxuries. There are also those who chose to smoke cigarettes, those who chose not to exercise, those who chose to eat unhealthy foods, etc. Saving some of their money, or not making those poor choices, would have, on average, helped people to be able to afford more health care in their old age. For my money, I choose to help people who did not spend unwisely or make poor choices. I would be able to help more people in the second category if the government did not take my money and give some of it to people in the first category. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: On Sep 6, 2009, at 5:12 PM, John Williams wrote: Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? If your idea of how to spend it involves leaving people to the nonexistent mercy of a nonexistent public health care system so people in the top income brackets can afford an extra yacht this Christmas, maybe so. Nonexistent? I am sure millions of people in third world countries would be overjoyed to have a chance at getting treatment in the ER of a US hospital. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Freedom of choice is never absolute. Especially when the government prevents people from providing free health care to others. http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=96009catid=2 | We tried to get a waiver to bring in good ol' East Tennessee boys and | girls to fix teeth, do eyes, but unfortunately, except in Tennessee, the | rest of the country won't allow practitoners of medicine from one state | to cross over and help in another state, said Brock. Perhaps the best way for the government to start reforming health care would be to cease actively preventing others who want to help from providing help. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:28:02 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Or, for an even darker scenario, how about the people who can't quit or, God forbid, be fired from their job because if they do they'll lose the only insurance that will cover them Which is almost entirely the result of the poor government policy of providing a large tax incentive to get health insurance through employers rather than choosing it oneself. Well, there are problems with employer sponsered health careespecially since it is spotty. But, let's assume we tax all health care benefits as wages or allow all private health care spending to be tax free. For me, and my small business, it's esentially the latter right now. The problem is the fact that insurance is as affordable as it is for everyone who has it (counting the employer's payment as part of the wages), not just because it it tax deductable, but because there is one risk pool per company. My former company self-insured...they were large enough. I am now paying insurance through Teri's status as unemployed minister...which is affordable due to how they pool. But, if I were to pay as myself, then any health issues would put me in the 40k/year bracket. I could probably afford it, but most folks can't. So, after one big illness, you're dropped, and that's it. If you allow people with low risk to choose a special pool, then those with median income and one big illness in their family could not afford catastrophic insurance. That's why we offer it through employers, and why eery other developed country does it through the government. So, if you are advocating a private insurance option with one risk pool, and public help for the poor, then a private/public option is possible. If you are advocating the chance for companies to exclude people from a coverage group, then folks will stay uninsured. Dan M. mail2web LIVE Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: We do not tax everyone in the world, so they do not need to be considered as part of this discussion. We do not tax everyone in the US, so are you proposing not to provide health care to the about 50% of the US population that (net) does not pay taxes? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/6/2009 7:45:14 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Freedom of choice is never absolute. Especially when the government prevents people from providing free health care to others. http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=96009catid=2 | We tried to get a waiver to bring in good ol' East Tennessee boys and | girls to fix teeth, do eyes, but unfortunately, except in Tennessee, the | rest of the country won't allow practitoners of medicine from one state | to cross over and help in another state, said Brock. Perhaps the best way for the government to start reforming health care would be to cease actively preventing others who want to help from providing help. Seeand you can be stupid too. It isn't the government. It is 50 (or 49 depending on how you are looking at the question) governments involved. xponent Scum On The Pond Of Liberty Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:46 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: But, if I were to pay as myself, then any health issues would put me in the 40k/year bracket. I could probably afford it, but most folks can't. So, after one big illness, you're dropped, and that's it. The problems you are talking about are mostly transition problems -- how do we get there from here? There would almost certainly need to be government involvement in any transition to a consumer-driven system, since the government is already so heavily involved and people have planned on that. But after a (probably decades long) transitional period, there would be a lot more choices for health insurance than there are now. There would be numerous long-term (5-10 year) policies, lifetime policies, catastrophics policies, health-status insurance, etc. The government could still help with those who would have otherwise slipped through the cracks, using subsidies and/or vouchers. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/6/2009 7:47:52 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: We do not tax everyone in the world, so they do not need to be considered as part of this discussion. We do not tax everyone in the US, so are you proposing not to provide health care to the about 50% of the US population that (net) does not pay taxes? Name them. xponent Everest Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: It isn't the government. It is 50 (or 49 depending on how you are looking at the question) governments involved. 50 (or 49) times more reforms to start with before reforms involving taking more of people's money! ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 6, 2009, at 7:16 PM, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: If not, what exactly *do* you propose as an alternative to public-option health care for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford health insurance that will actually cover treatments? What exactly do you propose for everyone in the world who cannot afford basic health care such as childbirth assistance and infant care and vaccination? For everyone in the world, I'm not sure any proposal I could make would be relevant. Beyond proposals, though, there is a very strong argument to be made that it's inhumane to simply leave people to die if they can't find insurance coverage to pay for medical care that costs hundreds of times what they could afford on their own. And that market logic is a poor fit to this particular problem. Unfortunately, it's culturally acceptable, even popular, to ignore that argument completely .. What is this shadow across the highway of Divine Command? It is a warning that institutions endure, that symbols endure when their meaning is lost, that there is no summa of all attainable knowledge. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: On 9/6/2009 7:47:52 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: We do not tax everyone in the world, so they do not need to be considered as part of this discussion. We do not tax everyone in the US, so are you proposing not to provide health care to the about 50% of the US population that (net) does not pay taxes? Name them. You mean name the bottom 50% of all taxpayers? I don't have enough space to do that in this email, but check the tables here, for example: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html In 2007, there was $1.115 trillion collected in federal income taxes. The top 50% of taxpayers paid $1.083 trillion, or 97.1% of taxes collected. The IRS tables I found don't break it down for the bottom 50%, but obviously there is a percentile under 50, probably above 40, where there are no federal income taxes paid. Of course there are other taxes. But there is certainly another percentile where net aid exceeds the other taxes paid. And there are millions of Americans below that percentile. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/6/2009 7:59:34 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: It isn't the government. It is 50 (or 49 depending on how you are looking at the question) governments involved. 50 (or 49) times more reforms to start with before reforms involving taking more of people's money! C'mon.finish the statementit does not end at money!. xponent Bossy Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Beyond proposals, though, there is a very strong argument to be made that it's inhumane to simply leave people to die if they can't find insurance coverage to pay for medical care that costs hundreds of times what they could afford on their own. And what are you, personally, doing about it? Are you living in the cheapest apartment you can find, with no computer or TV or automobile, so that you can give more money and save several more people from dying? If you take money from me, you are leaving people to die: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/whitepaper.pdf | A child born in Niger today is 40 times more likely to die before | her fifth birthday than a child born in the United Kingdom. A | 15-year-old boy in Swaziland has only an 18% chance of celebrating | his 60th birthday; if he had been fortunate enough to have been born | in Switzerland, he would have a 91% chance. A young woman in Uganda | is 300 times more likely to die in childbirth than her sister in the | United States. The impact of poor health on economic growth and | political stability in Sub-Saharan Africa has been devastating; two | African heads of state have predicted that their countries will cease to | exist if HIV/AIDS is not brought under control. More than 300 million | people—nearly half the population—live on less than US$1 a day. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/6/2009 8:11:40 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: On 9/6/2009 7:47:52 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: We do not tax everyone in the world, so they do not need to be considered as part of this discussion. We do not tax everyone in the US, so are you proposing not to provide health care to the about 50% of the US population that (net) does not pay taxes? Name them. You mean name the bottom 50% of all taxpayers? I don't have enough space to do that in this email, but check the tables here, for example: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html In 2007, there was $1.115 trillion collected in federal income taxes. The top 50% of taxpayers paid $1.083 trillion, or 97.1% of taxes collected. The IRS tables I found don't break it down for the bottom 50%, but obviously there is a percentile under 50, probably above 40, where there are no federal income taxes paid. Snip That is evidence that we maintain our civilization by maintaining people as a resource. It does not follow that 50% do not pay taxes. xponent Evidence Of Dishonesty Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Consider people who advocate taking other people's money and using it to help those in need. It is interesting to look at what percentage of those people's own money they actually spend helping those in need. http://tsfiles.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/charity-donations-and-liberal-hypocricy/ That web page appears to have an agenda -- to show that Republicans tend to give more to charity than Democrats. But I look at it and see politicians as a group, all of them, giving a rather small percentage of their 99th percentile incomes to help others. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: On 9/6/2009 8:11:40 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: On 9/6/2009 7:47:52 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: We do not tax everyone in the world, so they do not need to be considered as part of this discussion. We do not tax everyone in the US, so are you proposing not to provide health care to the about 50% of the US population that (net) does not pay taxes? Name them. You mean name the bottom 50% of all taxpayers? I don't have enough space to do that in this email, but check the tables here, for example: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html In 2007, there was $1.115 trillion collected in federal income taxes. The top 50% of taxpayers paid $1.083 trillion, or 97.1% of taxes collected. The IRS tables I found don't break it down for the bottom 50%, but obviously there is a percentile under 50, probably above 40, where there are no federal income taxes paid. Snip That is evidence that we maintain our civilization by maintaining people as a resource. It does not follow that 50% do not pay taxes. In dollars, that is exactly what is shows. And dollars are what is currently used to pay for most health care in the US. Unless you are advocating forced-service in some US health care corps. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/6/2009 8:15:52 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Beyond proposals, though, there is a very strong argument to be made that it's inhumane to simply leave people to die if they can't find insurance coverage to pay for medical care that costs hundreds of times what they could afford on their own. And what are you, personally, doing about it? Are you living in the cheapest apartment you can find, with no computer or TV or automobile, so that you can give more money and save several more people from dying? If you take money from me, you are leaving people to die: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/whitepaper.pdf | A child born in Niger today is 40 times more likely to die before | her fifth birthday than a child born in the United Kingdom. A | 15-year-old boy in Swaziland has only an 18% chance of celebrating | his 60th birthday; if he had been fortunate enough to have been born | in Switzerland, he would have a 91% chance. A young woman in Uganda | is 300 times more likely to die in childbirth than her sister in the | United States. Snip Prove that you are actively supporting those people with every cent you can spare on par with what you suggest to Bruce. You obviously have a computer, therefore you are a hypocrite. xponent Tag, You're It Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: Prove that you are actively supporting those people with every cent you can spare on par with what you suggest to Bruce. You obviously have a computer, therefore you are a hypocrite. I am not advocating taking other people's money, as Bruce did (indeed, he proposed to personally take MY money). I would live as a pauper before I advocated taking someone else's money and giving it to others. But I am not advocating taking other people's money, and I am not living as a pauper. Still, I am living considerably below my means, and I would bet I am giving a larger percentage of my income to charity than the majority of people who have criticized me here or implied that I am selfish. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 6, 2009, at 8:11 PM, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: On 9/6/2009 7:47:52 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: We do not tax everyone in the world, so they do not need to be considered as part of this discussion. We do not tax everyone in the US, so are you proposing not to provide health care to the about 50% of the US population that (net) does not pay taxes? Name them. You mean name the bottom 50% of all taxpayers? I don't have enough space to do that in this email, but check the tables here, for example: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html In 2007, there was $1.115 trillion collected in federal income taxes. The top 50% of taxpayers paid $1.083 trillion, or 97.1% of taxes collected. The IRS tables I found don't break it down for the bottom 50%, but obviously there is a percentile under 50, probably above 40, where there are no federal income taxes paid. Of course there are other taxes. But there is certainly another percentile where net aid exceeds the other taxes paid. And there are millions of Americans below that percentile. Yes, federal income tax is, theoretically at least, a progressive-rate tax. I think everyone here knows that. There's a good reason for that. People working at or near minimum wage (which is below the poverty level, by most definitions, even with recent adjustments) are so close to the wire financially that they're spending most if not all of their money on daily necessities like food and housing. People working well above that income level spend a much smaller proportion of their income on daily survival needs and, while a larger percentage of tax rate is something of a strain, it's a considerably smaller strain than it would be on the people at or below the poverty level who currently don't pay taxes. Above the rapidly vanishing middle class. the theoretically higher- rate brackets can afford to hire tax attorneys and accountants whose specialty is finding ways to avoid tax liability, legally in most cases, so the actual revenue collected falls off fairly rapidly above that level. Then there are the literally thousands of custom tax-code exceptions so tightly written that they apply only to specific individual corporations or even individuals. So the lower income classes would almost certainly starve if taxed enough to gather any appreciable revenue, and the highest income classes mostly avoid tax liability by financial shell games of various sorts. Since the top 10% or so control such a disproportionate share of the country's overall privately held wealth that paying for a trip to the hospital out of pocket is a barely noticeable drop in the bucket, I assume you're really talking about the poorest half of the population. I have a hard time accepting that health care is a market resource that only the people who can afford to buy it are entitled to. There are some resources that fit that model, and there are some that don't. I prefer to believe that health care is a resource we all have an obligation to invest in. We can argue about details of implementation until the argument has devolved into questions of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but we keep coming back to that fundamental point of basic philosophy. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sep 6, 2009, at 8:30 PM, John Williams wrote: Prove that you are actively supporting those people with every cent you can spare on par with what you suggest to Bruce. You obviously have a computer, therefore you are a hypocrite. I am not advocating taking other people's money, as Bruce did (indeed, he proposed to personally take MY money). I would live as a pauper before I advocated taking someone else's money and giving it to others. Strictly metaphorically, I assure you. As, I'm sure, were the other similar proposals in the same vein in this thread. (Type mismatch error: expected boolean value but found string 'cake'. Input not parsed.) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: On Sep 6, 2009, at 8:11 PM, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: On 9/6/2009 7:47:52 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: We do not tax everyone in the world, so they do not need to be considered as part of this discussion. We do not tax everyone in the US, so are you proposing not to provide health care to the about 50% of the US population that (net) does not pay taxes? Name them. You mean name the bottom 50% of all taxpayers? I don't have enough space to do that in this email, but check the tables here, for example: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html In 2007, there was $1.115 trillion collected in federal income taxes. The top 50% of taxpayers paid $1.083 trillion, or 97.1% of taxes collected. The IRS tables I found don't break it down for the bottom 50%, but obviously there is a percentile under 50, probably above 40, where there are no federal income taxes paid. Of course there are other taxes. But there is certainly another percentile where net aid exceeds the other taxes paid. And there are millions of Americans below that percentile. Yes, federal income tax is, theoretically at least, a progressive-rate tax. I think everyone here knows that. There's a good reason for that. I'm not sure why you brought this up. I certainly don't disagree with most of what you wrote. Perhaps you were not following the discussion between Rob and myself, where he suggested that those who do not pay US taxes should not receive health care? Above the rapidly vanishing middle class. the theoretically higher-rate brackets can afford to hire tax attorneys and accountants whose specialty is finding ways to avoid tax liability, legally in most cases, so the actual revenue collected falls off fairly rapidly above that level. That is incorrect. In 2007, the top 1% paid 40% of the federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 61%, and the top 10% paid 71% of taxes. If the middle class is 25%-75%, then the upper class, top 25%, paid a whopping 87% of federal income taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 07:16 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: If not, what exactly *do* you propose as an alternative to public-option health care for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford health insurance that will actually cover treatments? What exactly do you propose for everyone in the world who cannot afford basic health care such as childbirth assistance and infant care and vaccination? How about first addressing what you propose for everyone _in the U.S._ who cannot afford such things (other than by going to the ER at the county charity hospital at a charge to _someone_ of something like $1K a visit?) . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 07:58 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Rceeberger wrote: On 9/6/2009 7:47:52 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: We do not tax everyone in the world, so they do not need to be considered as part of this discussion. We do not tax everyone in the US, so are you proposing not to provide health care to the about 50% of the US population that (net) does not pay taxes? Name them. The people who qualify for EITC, and so end up getting money back from the gov't when they file their income tax? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 08:15 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Beyond proposals, though, there is a very strong argument to be made that it's inhumane to simply leave people to die if they can't find insurance coverage to pay for medical care that costs hundreds of times what they could afford on their own. And what are you, personally, doing about it? Are you living in the cheapest apartment you can find, with no computer or TV or automobile, so that you can give more money and save several more people from dying? If you take money from me, you are leaving people to die: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/whitepaper.pdf | A child born in Niger today is 40 times more likely to die before | her fifth birthday than a child born in the United Kingdom. A | 15-year-old boy in Swaziland has only an 18% chance of celebrating | his 60th birthday; if he had been fortunate enough to have been born | in Switzerland, he would have a 91% chance. A young woman in Uganda | is 300 times more likely to die in childbirth than her sister in the | United States. The impact of poor health on economic growth and | political stability in Sub-Saharan Africa has been devastating; two | African heads of state have predicted that their countries will cease to | exist if HIV/AIDS is not brought under control. The zipper was invented in 1893. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 07:00 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Sep 6, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 05:12 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: This is why I've quit talking with you about health insurance. When pressed, your bottom line seems to be taxation equals theft. What I have written is that taxation (taking someone's money) limits a person's freedom. That is obviously true. However, I have never written that I think there should be no taxes. In fact, I think that there are indeed some cases where the ends justify the means -- that I condone taking away individual freedoms for the greater good. But I think these cases are far fewer than others seem to think. Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? I know a lot more deserving people to give my money to than wealthy elderly Americans who did not want to save up for their own health care. How about the people who are working but can't afford to take themselves or their kids to a doctor when they get the sniffles or a sore throat or an ear infection unless they have some sort of insurance that will pay most of the cost of the office visit and any prescriptions? . . . ronn! :) Or, for an even darker scenario, how about the people who can't quit or, God forbid, be fired from their job because if they do they'll lose the only insurance that will cover them -- because any other insurance will refuse to accept them because the condition the existing plan is paying for would be a pre-existing condition? Or how about the people who *are* fired from their job because the treatment they need will trigger a million-dollar-plus deductible that their employer doesn't want to pay, and then have to find somewhere else to work that has a health plan willing to consider accepting them? And remember, for people who work full time for a living, keeping a job when a critical care situation comes up can be extremely difficult, because employers tend to take a dim view of their employees taking weeks or months off to be treated or recover in the hospital. And while you are out of work, you put things off and run up bills that must be paid off the next time you get some work, which of course takes care of any idea of saving up for the next period of unemployment which may come at any time without warning as you get sicker and sicker again and the whole and partial day absences add up . . . And not all health plans include long-term disability -- good luck with that Social Security disability application. It took over two years the first time, and frequently I remarked only-partially-jokingly that the amount of paperwork they sent you to fill out completely, and return within ten days and other requirements like visiting various SSA offices and doctors and whatever seemed designed to prove you were able to work a regular job if you were able to meet such requirements, and took nearly two years to get the checks started up again after a problem occurred. Both times I would have starved and had utilities shut off without the direct charity of family, friends, and the Church. And I feel very lucky, and, yes, even blessed to have done as well as I have . . . (And FWIW Medicare does almost nothing for me except take about $100 out of every month's check. In particular it does not pay a thing for the medicine I take to attempt to alleviate some of the symptoms in order to function somewhat, which is another $100 or now closer to $150 a month as the stores keep taking advantage of every excuse to jack up the prices, esp. the obviously-ineffective laws imposed in recent years by the Feds and made even more restrictive by some states for the stated purpose of preventing people from getting the ingredients to make meth . . . ) And John .. wealthy elderly Americans who did not want to save up for their own health care? Really? Wouldn't wealthy indicate some ability to pay for critical care treatment, or at the very least, one of those gold-plated full-indemnity plans where treatments aren't denied by an actuarial accountant hundreds of miles away with no medical training just because the doctor wasn't playing the game the way they liked? Or has the definition of wealthy changed substantially the last time I checked? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Ronn! Blankenshipronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: How about first addressing what you propose for everyone _in the U.S._ who cannot afford such things (other than by going to the ER at the county charity hospital at a charge to _someone_ of something like $1K a visit?) Why are people in the US more deserving of my help than other people in the world? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 09:36 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Ronn! Blankenshipronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: How about first addressing what you propose for everyone _in the U.S._ who cannot afford such things (other than by going to the ER at the county charity hospital at a charge to _someone_ of something like $1K a visit?) Why are people in the US more deserving of my help than other people in the world? The point there was that the primary subject currently under discussion (both here and nationally) is reform of the US health care/insurance system. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Ronn! Blankenshipronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: The point there was that the primary subject currently under discussion (both here and nationally) is reform of the US health care/insurance system. I understand that. But my question is, as long as we are giving out charitable health care, why limit the recipients to people in the US? I think there are more people outside the US who need charity than those inside the US. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 09:43 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Ronn! Blankenshipronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: The point there was that the primary subject currently under discussion (both here and nationally) is reform of the US health care/insurance system. I understand that. But my question is, as long as we are giving out charitable health care, why limit the recipients to people in the US? I think there are more people outside the US who need charity than those inside the US. Realistically, we have to start somewhere, and I think we more than have our work cut out for ourselves atm trying to fix the known and agreed-upon problems with the US system . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 08:38 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote: (Type mismatch error: expected boolean value but found string 'cake'. Input not parsed.) Was it eaten instead? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 07:51 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Rceeberger wrote: On 9/6/2009 7:45:14 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Freedom of choice is never absolute. Especially when the government prevents people from providing free health care to others. http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=96009catid=2 | We tried to get a waiver to bring in good ol' East Tennessee boys and | girls to fix teeth, do eyes, but unfortunately, except in Tennessee, the | rest of the country won't allow practitoners of medicine from one state | to cross over and help in another state, said Brock. Perhaps the best way for the government to start reforming health care would be to cease actively preventing others who want to help from providing help. Seeand you can be stupid too. It isn't the government. It is 50 (or 49 depending on how you are looking at the question) governments involved. Sometimes we tend to lump things together for simplicity (e.g. see my earlier post where I included the DMV which is usually a state or county office with Walter Reed and the IRS as examples of what people don't want to risk in a government-run healthcare system), or because when they look at the deductions from their weekly or monthly paycheck many people feel there is little practical difference whether the money is going to the IRS, the state, the county, the city, or that guy FICA who they never heard of who gets so much of it ;): in any case it is money they supposedly earned which is not available to them to spend on food, rent/mortgage, utilities, health care, other types of insurance (e.g. auto and home), transportation to and from work, the doctor, or other necessary trips, etc., not to even mention so-called luxuries . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 07:44 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Rceeberger wrote: On 9/6/2009 7:16:21 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: If not, what exactly *do* you propose as an alternative to public-option health care for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford health insurance that will actually cover treatments? What exactly do you propose for everyone in the world who cannot afford basic health care such as childbirth assistance and infant care and vaccination? We do not tax everyone in the world, so they do not need to be considered as part of this discussion. The fact that you continually bring this up shows how dishonest, amoral, and corrupt your arguments are. xponent One More Step Towards The F_ck You Contingent Maru rob I realize that you (and others) do it for emphasis, but such words don't really do anything to raise the level of discourse. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/6/2009 9:36:53 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Ronn! Blankenshipronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: How about first addressing what you propose for everyone _in the U.S._ who cannot afford such things (other than by going to the ER at the county charity hospital at a charge to _someone_ of something like $1K a visit?) Why are people in the US more deserving of my help than other people in the world? Here's an idea: Go live with them so you can help them more directly. xponent Liars Of Las Vegas Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John said: That is incorrect. In 2007, the top 1% paid 40% of the federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 61%, and the top 10% paid 71% of taxes. If the middle class is 25%-75%, then the upper class, top 25%, paid a whopping 87% of federal income taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html I saw that, but since it was a polemic site, I went to the source they quoted. They contradict that source, by a wide margin. At http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html we have the IRS figures. The top 1% of all returns paid 20% of the total income tax on 13% of the total reported income. But, of course, they paid only a small fraction of other federal taxes (biggest one is FICA where they are capped at about 16,000, capital gains don't count and are taxed at a special low rate (which mattered in '07), offshore income doesn't count, etc. And, the total number of returns includes all the returns by kids who make $600/year and get $20.00 backthe income on about a third of the returns is so small taxes aren't owed. If you look at the top 1% of folks who did pay income tax, the fractions become smaller. But, what is critical is the site you quoted contradicted their stated source. This sorta stuff happens all the time; that is why I try to get to the real source. I'm not calling _you_ a liar, BTW. There are two reasons for this. I don't think you'd lie about thisso I guess I do make personal judgements after all, huh? :-) Second, I wouldn't call someone out as a liar unless I had proof. But, I will say that you are someone who believed liars. Now, if my arithmatic is wrong, then I gave the source for you to check me. But, there was something fishy about that number. Dan M. mail2web LIVE Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
What exactly do you propose for everyone in the world who cannot afford basic health care such as childbirth assistance and infant care and vaccination? Watch those goalposts shift! I'll play. You say taxes are theft of freedom. There are people who are taxed more than those of us in the United States. Therefore, you believe they have lost even more freedom than we have. What exactly do you propose for everyone in the world who pays higher taxes? What are you, personally, doing to increase their freedom? Until you have freed everyone else in the world from taxes, you don't get to talk about the US any more. Sorry. Just applying your own rules to you. It's only fair. Patrick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/6/2009 10:00:23 PM, Ronn! Blankenship (ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net) wrote: At 07:44 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Rceeberger wrote: On 9/6/2009 7:16:21 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal. net wrote: If not, what exactly *do* you propose as an alternative to public-option health care for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford health insurance that will actually cover treatments? What exactly do you propose for everyone in the world who cannot afford basic health care such as childbirth assistance and infant care and vaccination? We do not tax everyone in the world, so they do not need to be considered as part of this discussion. The fact that you continually bring this up shows how dishonest, amoral, and corrupt your arguments are. xponent One More Step Towards The F_ck You Contingent Maru rob I realize that you (and others) do it for emphasis, but such words don't really do anything to raise the level of discourse. Used in such a context, they don't do much to lower it either. John is a troll, why are people playing *his* game? xponent No Lack Of Spine Here Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Does anyone know where the TRILLIONs went?
I don't think the list will allow me to post my usual response to such questions* . . . _ *a photo of a toilet . . . ronn! :P Professional Smart-Aleck. Do Not Attempt. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 10:13 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Rceeberger wrote: [snippety-doo-dah} John is a troll, why are people playing *his* game? Someone accused me earlier of trying to bring reasonable arguments into the discussion, and I guess I'm just too stubborn to stop trying . . . ;) . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: ... Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? John-- No, that's what governments are for. I agree with you, they do tax by force. So? ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:29 PM, David Hobby hob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: ... Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? John-- No, that's what governments are for. I agree with you, they do tax by force. So? Someone else asked this in an earlier conversation, but does anyone else on the list ever have the government come to their house with a gun and force them to file their taxes? It's never happened to me. How much in back taxes do you have to owe before the government sends the IRS SWAT team to your house, I wonder? Patrick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
At 10:32 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Patrick Sweeney wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:29 PM, David Hobby hob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: ... Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? John-- No, that's what governments are for. I agree with you, they do tax by force. So? Someone else asked this in an earlier conversation, but does anyone else on the list ever have the government come to their house with a gun and force them to file their taxes? It's never happened to me. How much in back taxes do you have to owe before the government sends the IRS SWAT team to your house, I wonder? I dunno, but it does happen, particularly to those who attempt to convince others that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly enacted and that paying taxes is voluntary and therefore optional . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Beyond proposals, though, there is a very strong argument to be made that it's inhumane to simply leave people to die if they can't find insurance coverage to pay for medical care that costs hundreds of times what they could afford on their own. And what are you, personally, doing about it? Are you living in the cheapest apartment you can find, with no computer or TV or automobile, so that you can give more money and save several more people from dying? If you take money from me, you are leaving people to die: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/whitepaper.pdf | A child born in Niger today is 40 times more likely to die before | her fifth birthday than a child born in the United Kingdom. ... John-- Not that I don't trust you personally, but I'm sure there are people who claim to be giving money to worthy charities but aren't. (Anyway, aren't charitable contributions tax-deductible?) For all I know, you could actually be spending all your money on things that hurt the common good. So the above is not a very convincing argument. I think we both want things to be fair as we perceive it. You're worried about your money being spent on people who don't deserve it. I'm not that concerned about that, and am prepared to accept a bit of waste. I'm more concerned about people who won't contribute to efforts for the common good, so I'm prepared to use the government to make them contribute. I do not perceive letting people opt out of paying for the needy as fair. To me, it rewards those who are heartless, since they'll keep their money. I see that as very unfair. This may in fact mean that I'm less likely to contribute to charity. When people in my community take up a collection to pay someone's medical expenses, my reactions tend to be: 1) Why doesn't the government provide a decent social safety net so this doesn't happen? 2) What about all the other people in similar straits who don't have a network of family and friends to organize a charity drive for them? 3) This is an obvious draw, which will probably get a fair amount of money since it tugs at everybody's emotions-- I can use my charitable donations more efficiently somewhere else. ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/6/2009 10:26:41 PM, Ronn! Blankenship (ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net) wrote: At 10:13 PM Sunday 9/6/2009, Rceeberger wrote: [snippety-doo-dah} John is a troll, why are people playing *his* game? Someone accused me earlier of trying to bring reasonable arguments into the discussion, and I guess I'm just too stubborn to stop trying . . . ;) I don't fault you for trying, but this will soon have been going on for a year with nary a sign of intellectual honesty on John's part. He is either a brainwashed minion or a troll and neither is worth a minute of time. Let me say this clearly. I'm all for banning him. Or mass ignoring him. Either will do. Someone had to say it first. xponent Fire Brigade Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Patrick Sweeney wrote: ... No, that's what governments are for. I agree with you, they do tax by force. So? Someone else asked this in an earlier conversation, but does anyone else on the list ever have the government come to their house with a gun and force them to file their taxes? It's never happened to me. How much in back taxes do you have to owe before the government sends the IRS SWAT team to your house, I wonder? I'm sure if you owed enough, they'd come after your wages or possessions by legal means. And if you fought back when the sheriff came to take your house, car or whatever, then yes, they may eventually send a SWAT team. The fact that most people give in before the SWAT team comes does not mean that it's not there as backup. ---David ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:04 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Now, if my arithmatic is wrong, then I gave the source for you to check me. But, there was something fishy about that number. Actually, you did not give the exact source, you linked to a page with a number of spreadsheets of data. Consider the 2006 numbers instead of 2007, since the IRS already calculated some of the numbers I want here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09winbulinincome.pdf | Taxpayers with an AGI of at least $388,806, the top 1 percent of | taxpayers, accounted for 22.1 percent of AGI for 2006. This represents | an increase in income share of 0.9 percentage points from the previous | year. These taxpayers accounted for 39.9 percent of the total income tax | reported, an increase from 39.4 percent in 2005. The top 5 percent of | taxpayers accounted for 36.7 percent of AGI and 60.1 percent of total | income tax. Now to calculate it the full set of numbers myself. I used this spreadsheet: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07in01etr.xls From lines 121 and 122 I got the taxes by percentile for 2006 and 2007, and computed the percentages for 2006 and 2007: Total 1 percent 5 percent 10 percent 25 percent 50 percent 20061,023,739 408,369 615,680 724,740 883,153 993,176 39.89% 60.14% 70.79% 86.27% 97.01% 20071,115,504 450,926 676,293 794,432 965,875 1,083,243 40.42% 60.63% 71.22% 86.59% 97.11% It looks like the numbers I computed for 2006 agree with the IRS's computation quoted above. Not very surprising, since this is simple arithmetic. Also, the numbers I computed for 2007 agree with the numbers I quoted earlier. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: I don't fault you for trying, but this will soon have been going on for a year with nary a sign of intellectual honesty on John's part. I assure you, I am stating my thoughts honestly and sincerely. He is either a brainwashed minion or a troll and neither is worth a minute of time. The only troll I have seen on this list is you. I have repeatedly replied to your posts politely while you continue to personally insult me. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Patrick Sweeneyfirefly.ga...@gmail.com wrote: Until you have freed everyone else in the world from taxes, you don't get to talk about the US any more. Sorry. Just applying your own rules to you. It's only fair. No, not really. I have a limited amount of time and resources, and I choose to use them in the way that I think I can accomplish the most. There are other people in the world who are in more need than those paying high taxes (who are primarily in Europe) and are relatively well off compared to others in the third world. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Ronn! Blankenshipronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote: Realistically, we have to start somewhere, Realistically, wouldn't it make more sense to start helping people who are the most in need, and can therefore be helped the most for the least amount of resources? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:29 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: John Williams wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: ... Yes, I AM prepared to make you pay your share to keep people from dying Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? John-- No, that's what governments are for. I agree with you, they do tax by force. So? You brought it up (the making me pay my share part). Why are you asking me? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/6/2009 11:10:38 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: I don't fault you for trying, but this will soon have been going on for a year with nary a sign of intellectual honesty on John's part. I assure you, I am stating my thoughts honestly and sincerely. He is either a brainwashed minion or a troll and neither is worth a minute of time. The only troll I have seen on this list is you. I have repeatedly replied to your posts politely while you continue to personally insult me. You insult my intelligence with your faux arguments. I'm just being direct. You are running a program. Unfortunately it is a small program and is very repetitive. xponent Another Step Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:56 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: (Anyway, aren't charitable contributions tax-deductible?) You do realize that tax-deductible means that your taxes are reduced by some fraction of the amount you donate, not the whole amount? Less than half, in fact. For all I know, you could actually be spending all your money on things that hurt the common good. So the above is not a very convincing argument. There are also people who cheat on their taxes. And those who commit fraud to get government money that they are not legally entitled to. I do not assume that your views are invalid because you might possibly be one of those people. I think we both want things to be fair as we perceive it. You're worried about your money being spent on people who don't deserve it. I'm not that concerned about that, and am prepared to accept a bit of waste. But apparently you are also prepared to accept waste of other people's money. How is it fair for you to waste other people's money? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: You insult my intelligence with your faux arguments. No insult intended. And I assure you, my points are genuine. You are running a program. Unfortunately it is a small program and is very repetitive. I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to ignore my posts, I will not be offended. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/6/2009 11:39:43 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: You insult my intelligence with your faux arguments. No insult intended. And I assure you, my points are genuine. You are running a program. Unfortunately it is a small program and is very repetitive. I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to ignore my posts, I will not be offended. Why do you hate America? xponent Bankai Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
