Health care reform: A simple explanation

[RaZor]

One thing that I also noticed in this discussion is that most do not seem to know that the health insurance that Federal employees (Federal Employees Health Benefits Program - FEHBP)have is provided by insurance companies with IIRC Blue Cross being the most popular choice. What is BCBS? Is that a gov't entity - or a private corporation? It seems be that most seem to think that private insurance companies are not involved with their programs.

 

If you have been paying attention to what Obama has said, all that is being proposed (at this point) with the public option is making a program like the FEHBP available to anyone that wants it - or that are not covered by their employer.

 

What most people do not understand is how the insurance companies gouge their customers - esp. of small business groups and/or individuals - they do it by how they set up their insurance pools. They like to make their pools small so that they can justify rate increases (to states) easier (and thus increase their profits). What big businesses and the FEHBP have, as an advantage over small businesses, is the size of the pools. THat is why their coverage is so much better and cost less too. They (the pools) are huge and therefore can cover more HC costs spread over huge (pool) incomes of premium dollars. Make the pool very small - and it will always end up with drastic rate increases.

 

That is why, HC insurance has gone up close to 300% since the middle 80's (and just about double in just the last 7/8 years) - which is when they really started to go crazy. The problem, of course, is that there is absolutely no way for individuals and/or small businesses (which are the backbone of American economy) to keep up to these staggering cost increases. The result is more and more people (and businesses) not being able to afford to pay for HC insurance and the result is the increased use of the ER as the eventual HC provider (with astronomical costs). . . and of course, bankruptcy for millions of Americans.

 

Many of you conservatives have tried to use the number of people (like from Canada) that come here for medical procedures, some of you admit that those are indeed people that can well afford our high costs of delivery and want our technology -- but you apparently are not aware of how many Americans cross our borders to get treatment in other countries (because of the high cost of care here).

 

But a recent study by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research estimated that nearly 1 million people from California alone seek medical, dental or prescription services in Mexico each year.

LINK

 

I'd say that is a significant indictment of our system - and that only includes one state - and one year. Remember a couple of other things, first that like the FEHBP, or even if it turns out that they just make Medicare available to those that want it -- it still includes private insurance companies providing some, or all of the actual coverage (FEHBP). With Medicare, as Ralph has pointed out, you still will want to purchase a Medicare Supplement (provided by private ins companies) and a Part D Rx coverage (also provided by private companies)

 

Secondly, some of you have stated that there is no way a private insurance company can "compete" with the government. BS. All a private insurance would have to do is first, decrease the number of their pools - and increase the size of their pools to better spread HC costs across premiums received. There is this thing called "insured risk" that the insurance business is based on. Lately they have used it to gouge Americans to pad their profits - at the expense of the health and livelihoods of millions of Americans.

 

Most are aware of the hurricanes that hit the SE coast back in 2004/05. The insurance companies cried for (and got) huge premium increases (my ins coverage on my home is 50% more expensive than my taxes) because of their losses. Well there were two factors involved here. First the only companies that were really hurt were those that sold too many policies in a relatively small areas (violating the insured risk rules for stability) and so they ended up with large numbers of claims. But that is because they over-sold out of greed in previous years. Secondly, they fudged the numbers and old Jeb and his cohorts went along with their demands. By the way, their profits went up something to the order of 44% in just a few years thereafter.

 

We have got to stop being like vampires and cannibals (and allowing our corps to act that way) by feeding on our people. If we don't, it will bring this country to its knees and we will follow the so-called great democracies of the past - and get crushed under our own avarice and greed. If for one moment you think that insurance companies have our interest at heart . . . LINK . . . LINK

 

And yes a trillion dollars is a lot of money but . . .

[napfirst]

Mark, you beat me to it. So many lies being spread out there...

 

 

 

That "1 Trillion Dollars" quote that keeps get thrown around is an estimate from the CBO over a 10 year period.

 

 

That's $100,000,000,000.00 ($100 Billion) per year. Considering that Health Care (LINK - Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care) is a $2,500,000,000,000.00 ($2.5 Trillion) industry, I'm willing to bet there is enough savings to be had to justify a $100 Billion taxpayer investment to lower costs.

And again you failed to answer the question....it's a trillion $$'s....where is it coming from...and don't tell me about these pie-in-the-sky saving...if they were there we'd be using them now....medicare and medicaid are both infected with fraud....medicaid estimates were at $60 billion in 2007.....so what makes anyone think that all-of-a-sudden shazam!..we pass this HC reform bill and the govt. becomes suddenly more efficient and less wasteful.....take a look at the cash for lunkers program.....what, 3 billion $ program and some dealers are waiting on as much as 350K from the govt.....the state of NY suspened the program today because dealers aren't getting their money.....and you want the govt. to take over your healthcare, a multi-trillion $ proposition.......UNBELIEVABLE!

[RaZor]

There, of course, is a way that we can help pay for any costs of revamping our HC debacle - without costing the American taxpayer additional taxes (or at least minimize them).

 

By the end of 2008 the United States imported $2.5 trillion worth of goods. During that time, we exported just $1.8 trillion worth of goods. You don't not have to be a genius, or a math wizz to figure out that we had a net loss of almost $700 billion via the trade deficit. LINK

 

Every nation in the world has a value-added tax at its border – except for the United States. They use the revenue from this tax to pay for domestic programs, social welfare, national health care, and other things. An American “value-added tax” – would raise revenue from foreign producers, rather than shouldering the American people with extra tax burdens. Let's call it a "border tax", or we can just call it a VAT -- it really doesn't matter.

 

If the United States had a VAT program in place that levied a tax of 18 percent on imports, it would have raised $454 billion in 2008 alone. If an 18 percent tax had been levied against all imports throughout the Bush administration years, well, we could have brought in $2.7 trillion. There's that trillion dollar word again. Holy crap! That would almost have paid for the Iraq war (oh wait, that was supposed to pay for itself, remember?) That also would take care of that trillion dollars over ten years, wouldn't it? So . . .none of this money would have been raised domestically (and instead of a $12 trillion deficit that we had by the end of 2008 - well you can do the math).

 

Even if the U.S. opted not to levy such a high tax – instead carrying one of just 10 (12, or 14, or 16) percent – we could still raise hundreds of billions annually by making exporters pay for the privilege of entering the world’s greatest consumer market.

 

You see, all US businesses must pay a VAT when they send goods abroad. American exporters are asked to foot the bill for France’s education system, for Germany’s mass-transit, and for health care in the United Kingdom. Even Canada charges VAT on goods that are shipped across the border. If we simply returned the favor, it would not only be able to make ourselves more competitive, but it would guarantee financing for many, if not all government projects. And let's face it, all of those countries are counting on us to keep our economy strong (and that entails having strong consumers) -- so that they can continue to sell their products here. Japan, So. Korea, and Germany are counting on us. The Chinese -- well, apparently they really don't need us (already).

 

Instituting a VAT would make foreign goods more expensive but it would give a big boost to domestic industries (which just might begin to manufacturer goods here again ----> jobs!) which have been decimated by subsidized foreign competition. Using the VAT revenue to support domestic manufacturers, the same way other countries support their industries, would help them compete internationally.

 

Using revenue to fund government programs would shift the tax burden off of American corporations (which, btw are now paying more foreign taxes (55%) than they are paying U.S. taxes) and American taxpayers (which already pay more than corporations) could get some relief.

 

Finally, doing this would in no way would instigate the dreaded “trade war” feared by both parties in Washington. First of all, how can any of these countries complain (oh they will try, rest assured) - but seeings as how they charge our companies a VAT for every single good we ship there - we should just smile and remind them of their own policy (and history of charging us). No more pansy-ass.

 

Countries that produce goods will still flock to the U.S. market because it is a sponge for consumption and our biggest trading “partners” have had their markets closed (off-limits) to American goods for a long, long time – or have been charging our exporters a VAT to import into their countries.

 

Hell, we could even encourage trade by keeping a slightly lower VAT than other nations but the bottom line is that America needs to stop bleeding cash into the international market through the trade deficit, and it needs to stop funding itself through foreign loans.

 

A domestic VAT is one answer to the question many having been asking . . . how's going to pay for this?

[napfirst]

There, of course, is a way that we can help pay for any costs of revamping our HC debacle - without costing the American taxpayer additional taxes (or at least minimize them).

 

By the end of 2008 the United States imported $2.5 trillion worth of goods. During that time, we exported just $1.8 trillion worth of goods. You don't not have to be a genius, or a math wizz to figure out that we had a net loss of almost $700 billion via the trade deficit. LINK

 

Every nation in the world has a value-added tax at its border – except for the United States. They use the revenue from this tax to pay for domestic programs, social welfare, national health care, and other things. An American “value-added tax” – would raise revenue from foreign producers, rather than shouldering the American people with extra tax burdens. Let's call it a "border tax", or we can just call it a VAT -- it really doesn't matter.

 

If the United States had a VAT program in place that levied a tax of 18 percent on imports, it would have raised $454 billion in 2008 alone. If an 18 percent tax had been levied against all imports throughout the Bush administration years, well, we could have brought in $2.7 trillion. There's that trillion dollar word again. Holy crap! That would almost have paid for the Iraq war (oh wait, that was supposed to pay for itself, remember?) That also would take care of that trillion dollars over ten years, wouldn't it? So . . .none of this money would have been raised domestically (and instead of a $12 trillion deficit that we had by the end of 2008 - well you can do the math).

 

Even if the U.S. opted not to levy such a high tax – instead carrying one of just 10 (12, or 14, or 16) percent – we could still raise hundreds of billions annually by making exporters pay for the privilege of entering the world’s greatest consumer market.

 

You see, all US businesses must pay a VAT when they send goods abroad. American exporters are asked to foot the bill for France’s education system, for Germany’s mass-transit, and for health care in the United Kingdom. Even Canada charges VAT on goods that are shipped across the border. If we simply returned the favor, it would not only be able to make ourselves more competitive, but it would guarantee financing for many, if not all government projects. And let's face it, all of those countries are counting on us to keep our economy strong (and that entails having strong consumers) -- so that they can continue to sell their products here. Japan, So. Korea, and Germany are counting on us. The Chinese -- well, apparently they really don't need us (already).

 

Instituting a VAT would make foreign goods more expensive but it would give a big boost to domestic industries (which just might begin to manufacturer goods here again ----> jobs!) which have been decimated by subsidized foreign competition. Using the VAT revenue to support domestic manufacturers, the same way other countries support their industries, would help them compete internationally.

 

Using revenue to fund government programs would shift the tax burden off of American corporations (which, btw are now paying more foreign taxes (55%) than they are paying U.S. taxes) and American taxpayers (which already pay more than corporations) could get some relief.

 

Finally, doing this would in no way would instigate the dreaded “trade war” feared by both parties in Washington. First of all, how can any of these countries complain (oh they will try, rest assured) - but seeings as how they charge our companies a VAT for every single good we ship there - we should just smile and remind them of their own policy (and history of charging us). No more pansy-ass.

 

Countries that produce goods will still flock to the U.S. market because it is a sponge for consumption and our biggest trading “partners” have had their markets closed (off-limits) to American goods for a long, long time – or have been charging our exporters a VAT to import into their countries.

 

Hell, we could even encourage trade by keeping a slightly lower VAT than other nations but the bottom line is that America needs to stop bleeding cash into the international market through the trade deficit, and it needs to stop funding itself through foreign loans.

 

A domestic VAT is one answer to the question many having been asking . . . how's going to pay for this?

Tax by any other name is still a tax...importers will increase their prices to offset the VAT.......nice try....

[napfirst]

Because of the popularity of Medicare and state run medicade programs. Which, BTW, run quite efficiently. I have Medicare, which I pay a premium for, and I can tell no difference in the Gov't bureauracy VS the Blue Cross bureauracy. Should Congress pass a single payer system based on Medicare (which they won't do and aren't talking about doing), it would be more efficient than a collection of private systems like we have now. Contrary to populist BS, Medicare is quite easy to deal with....and beats the Docs, labs, and drug companies down to real low costs. I have no complaints with them. BCBS is my secondary and primary for my family.....and they are not as easy to deal with as Medicare.

Here's some interesting reading:

 

Illusions of Cost Control in Public Health Care Plans

 

All of these beliefs are demonstrably false. Contrary to the claims of public plan advocates:

 

Total per-beneficiary health care costs are growing faster for Medicare patients than for private insurance patients. Medicare's per-beneficiary patient care costs appear to grow more slowlythan costs in the private sector only if one ignores the fact that Medicare is paying a rapidly shrinking share of its beneficiaries' total health care costs. Total per-beneficiary patient care costs for Medicare patients are growing faster than total costs for patients with private insurance. However, spending by the Medicare program is growing more slowly than private insurance because much of the growth in health care costs for Medicare beneficiaries is offset by increased out-of-pocket spending by beneficiaries and other sources of private-sector funding.

 

More:

[Ron W.]

Tax by any other name is still a tax...importers will increase their prices to offset the VAT.......nice try....

 

 

You say that like it's a bad thing. If paid for by foreign companies and American produced goods stay the same price, more jobs here.

 

Of course that's just my thoughts.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Ron W.

[napfirst]

You say that like it's a bad thing. If paid for by foreign companies and American produced goods stay the same price, more jobs here.

 

Of course that's just my thoughts.

so you think that the importers will just eat the tax and not pass it on in their pricing.....good luck with that..

[RaZor]

Tax by any other name is still a tax...importers will increase their prices to offset the VAT.......nice try....

You either have poor reading comprehension, would prefer to pay the taxes yourself (which I doubt), or are so ingrained with disillusionment - that you just cannot comprehend the post to which you responded.

 

Oh, here is another idea. We could pass an edict that all states that have had a negative contribution to the Federal budget - will be drawn back to at least balanced. Of course, that will greatly affect those red states that by far are a great burden on the American taxpayer. Who is going to continue to pay for those that cannot pay their own way (seems like that is something you might say)?

 

SO let's look at a list that shows how much each state gets back for each dollar contributed to the country. In other words, for each dollar Mississippi contributes to our country via taxes, they get back $2.02 (more than 100% return on their money) - the font color color shows the way the state went in the last two elections:

Mississippi $2.02

New Mexico $2.00

Louisiana $1.85

Alaska $1.83

North Dakota $1.65

West Virginia $1.63

Alabama $1.63

Virginia $1.51

Oklahoma $1.35

South Carolina $1.35

Kentucky $1.51

South Dakota $1.48

Hawaii $1.43

Montana $1.43

Maine $1.41

Arkansas $1.40

Missouri $1.32

Maryland $1.30

Tennessee $1.29

Arizona $1.19

Idaho $1.19

Kansas $1.13

Nebraska $1.09

Iowa $1.09

Vermont $1.09

Wyoming $1.09

North Carolina $1.08

Pennsylvania $1.08

Utah $1.08

Indiana $1.07

Ohio $1.06

Georgia $1.03

Rhode Island $1.01

 

<the rest of the states were the ones that contributed more than they received>

 

It is also interesting to note that those same red states at the top of the list also have the greatest obesity problems and are also the highest per capita use of prescription meds.

 

Maybe it would be easier to just get the foreign manufacturers to pay the taxes after all - and it would also help to balance our trade deficit - which curiously, is right around a trillion dollars too - and will certainly help to get Americans job opportunities - after all the economy is not going to get going again until people have jobs (the more the sooner it happens). Geez, that number keeps coming up, doesn't it?

 

Nap, as a business owner, please explain how you intend on building a 100% increase in HC costs to your employees (or even yourself) in less than 10 years - if we don't act now. How do you see your profitability in say, 7 or 8 years?

 

Oh, and the Heritage Foundation - seems to be one of your main sources of info. A RW think-tank, surprise, surprise.

[napfirst]

You either have poor reading comprehension, would prefer to pay the taxes yourself (which I doubt), or are so ingrained with disillusionment - that you just cannot comprehend the post to which you responded.

 

Oh, here is another idea. We could pass an edict that all states that have had a negative contribution to the Federal budget - will be drawn back to at least balanced. Of course, that will greatly affect those red states that by far are a great burden on the American taxpayer. Who is going to continue to pay for those that cannot pay their own way (seems like that is something you might say)?

 

SO let's look at a list that shows how much each state gets back for each dollar contributed to the country. In other words, for each dollar Mississippi contributes to our country via taxes, they get back $2.02 (more than 100% return on their money) - the font color color shows the way the state went in the last two elections:

Mississippi $2.02

New Mexico $2.00

Louisiana $1.85

Alaska $1.83

North Dakota $1.65

West Virginia $1.63

Alabama $1.63

Virginia $1.51

Oklahoma $1.35

South Carolina $1.35

Kentucky $1.51

South Dakota $1.48

Hawaii $1.43

Montana $1.43

Maine $1.41

Arkansas $1.40

Missouri $1.32

Maryland $1.30

Tennessee $1.29

Arizona $1.19

Idaho $1.19

Kansas $1.13

Nebraska $1.09

Iowa $1.09

Vermont $1.09

Wyoming $1.09

North Carolina $1.08

Pennsylvania $1.08

Utah $1.08

Indiana $1.07

Ohio $1.06

Georgia $1.03

Rhode Island $1.01

 

<the rest of the states were the ones that contributed more than they received>

 

It is also interesting to note that those same red states at the top of the list also have the greatest obesity problems and are also the highest per capita use of prescription meds.

 

Maybe it would be easier to just get the foreign manufacturers to pay the taxes after all - and it would also help to balance our trade deficit - which curiously, is right around a trillion dollars too - and will certainly help to get Americans job opportunities - after all the economy is not going to get going again until people have jobs (the more the sooner it happens). Geez, that number keeps coming up, doesn't it?

 

Nap, as a business owner, please explain how you intend on building a 100% increase in HC costs to your employees (or even yourself) in less than 10 years - if we don't act now. How do you see your profitability in say, 7 or 8 years?

 

Oh, and the Heritage Foundation - seems to be one of your main sources of info. A RW think-tank, surprise, surprise.

Can I ask you a question....well that was one...but why is it that libs feel compelled to put down people that they disagree with:

 

You either have poor reading comprehension, would prefer to pay the taxes yourself (which I doubt), or are so ingrained with disillusionment - that you just cannot comprehend the post to which you responded

 

is it arrogance or just a feeling of superiority?.......if I read your post correctly you advocate taxing everything that is imported into the US.....(correct so far?)......so that in turn will increase the cost to importers for doing business in the US......(how am I doing?)...and using your logic these said importers will not pass that cost increase along to the US comsumers....is that it or did I miss something?

[RangerM]

....taxing everything that is imported into the US......

also known as a "Tariff".

 

Doesn't work. Unless the goal is to stifle trade.

[Ron W.]

.if I read your post correctly you advocate taxing everything that is imported into the US.....(correct so far?)......so that in turn will increase the cost to importers for doing business in the US......(how am I doing?)...and using your logic these said importers will not pass that cost increase along to the US comsumers....is that it or did I miss something?

 

I know the question was to Razor but ...

 

If foreign nations add a VAT to products imported to them from America, I say why not match whatever percentage of VAT they have.

 

If importers pay the tax and raise the price of said goods to American consumers, and American companies don't have to pay the tax then the prices (due to Americas labor costs?) become more competitive .. increasing jobs here.

 

again just an opinion

[Ron W.]

also known as a "Tariff".

 

Doesn't work. Unless the goal is to stifle trade.

 

 

And if we only match their "Tariff" percentage to percentage - nation by nation?

[fmccap]

Firms with Obama ties profit from health push

[NLPRacing]

also known as a "Tariff".

 

Doesn't work. Unless the goal is to stifle trade.

 

How would you fix the trade deficit? Or do you think trade deficits are not a problem?

[grbeck]

You either have poor reading comprehension, would prefer to pay the taxes yourself (which I doubt), or are so ingrained with disillusionment - that you just cannot comprehend the post to which you responded.

 

Any VAT taxes will be passed on to the consumer. The consumer will end up paying them, although indirectly. The idea that the corporation eats the tax is a nice fantasy, but one that does not comport with reality. That is why many goods are much more expensive in Europe than they are here.

 

Oh, here is another idea. We could pass an edict that all states that have had a negative contribution to the Federal budget - will be drawn back to at least balanced. Of course, that will greatly affect those red states that by far are a great burden on the American taxpayer. Who is going to continue to pay for those that cannot pay their own way (seems like that is something you might say)?

 

SO let's look at a list that shows how much each state gets back for each dollar contributed to the country. In other words, for each dollar Mississippi contributes to our country via taxes, they get back $2.02 (more than 100% return on their money) - the font color color shows the way the state went in the last two elections:

Mississippi $2.02

New Mexico $2.00

Louisiana $1.85

Alaska $1.83

North Dakota $1.65

West Virginia $1.63

Alabama $1.63

Virginia $1.51

Oklahoma $1.35

South Carolina $1.35

Kentucky $1.51

South Dakota $1.48

Hawaii $1.43

Montana $1.43

Maine $1.41

Arkansas $1.40

Missouri $1.32

Maryland $1.30

Tennessee $1.29

Arizona $1.19

Idaho $1.19

Kansas $1.13

Nebraska $1.09

Iowa $1.09

Vermont $1.09

Wyoming $1.09

North Carolina $1.08

Pennsylvania $1.08

Utah $1.08

Indiana $1.07

Ohio $1.06

Georgia $1.03

Rhode Island $1.01

 

<the rest of the states were the ones that contributed more than they received>

 

Here's a better idea - let's look at what type of federal money those states are seeing.

 

The imbalance in federal payments can be explained by a variety of factors.

 

One, many of those recipient states are retiree havens. They will therefore receive a disproportionate share of Medicare and Social Security payments. Are you advocating that we cut those programs, too?

 

Two, many of those "red" states are the locations of federal military installations. Last time I checked, the military is the sole province of the federal government, and few would argue that it is unncessary.

 

Three, these states are often the location of federal waterways, ports and federal parks. Which require federal spending to maintain and protect.

 

Four, many of those states receive agricultural subsidies, and, the last time I checked, both parties support them, and the attempt to reduce them in the 1980s, was met with howls of protest from liberals, who accused the Reagan Administration of destroying the family farm.

 

Five, many of those "blue" states have higher incomes, because of higher real estate prices and an overall higher cost of living. Therefore, with more higher income people, they will have more people paying higher rates of the federal income tax. But President Obama has proposed raising the rates of people making over $250,000 a year, and more of them live in Calfornia and New York, for example, than in Alabama and Kansas, so that will only make the alleged outflow of money from the "donor" states even worse. Be careful what you wish for...

 

As with most widely circulated talking points that are supposed to "prove" some great injustice, there is less here than meets the eye upon further research...

 

It is also interesting to note that those same red states at the top of the list also have the greatest obesity problems and are also the highest per capita use of prescription meds.

 

Soooo....the solution to this supposed imbalance between money paid by a state and federal money received is to have the federal government to take over a larger portion of the health care sector, which as per your above sentence will...increase the amount of federal money these states receive?

 

That certainly is interesting "logic."

 

Unless the new, federal health plan is going to ostracize fat people and make everyone pay for their own prescription drugs. I highly doubt that will happen.

 

Maybe it would be easier to just get the foreign manufacturers to pay the taxes after all - and it would also help to balance our trade deficit - which curiously, is right around a trillion dollars too - and will certainly help to get Americans job opportunities - after all the economy is not going to get going again until people have jobs (the more the sooner it happens). Geez, that number keeps coming up, doesn't it?

 

That sounds like a tariff. Google "Hawley Smoot" and see how well it "protected" U.S. industries in the 1930s. Reputable economists believe that, if anything, it helped make what should have been a short and sharp recession into the Great Depression. Unless you believe that retaliatory actions by other countries are nothing to worry about, and it's worth it to throw people out of work making GE locomotives exported to other countries so that we can punish people with the gall to buy a Honda not made in the U.S.

 

Oh, and the Heritage Foundation - seems to be one of your main sources of info. A RW think-tank, surprise, surprise.

 

As opposed to the left-wing sites and Democratic Party talking points that you regularly site?

Edited August 20, 2009 by grbeck

[grbeck]

Most are aware of the hurricanes that hit the SE coast back in 2004/05. The insurance companies cried for (and got) huge premium increases (my ins coverage on my home is 50% more expensive than my taxes) because of their losses. Well there were two factors involved here. First the only companies that were really hurt were those that sold too many policies in a relatively small areas (violating the insured risk rules for stability) and so they ended up with large numbers of claims. But that is because they over-sold out of greed in previous years. Secondly, they fudged the numbers and old Jeb and his cohorts went along with their demands. By the way, their profits went up something to the order of 44% in just a few years thereafter.

 

Compare apples to apples, please. Homeowners insurance is completely different in its operation, cost structure and what it is expected to cover than health insurance. The only real similarity is that both are called "insurance" (which suggests that calling one of them insurance is inaccurate, and it's not the homeowners' insurance).

 

That is like saying that an army transport truck is just as viable for a soccer mom's daily driver as a Ford Escape because both have "engines" and "wheels" and fall under the broad category of "trucks."

[RaZor]

Can I ask you a question....well that was one...but why is it that libs feel compelled to put down people that they disagree with:

 

is it arrogance or just a feeling of superiority?.......if I read your post correctly you advocate taxing everything that is imported into the US.....(correct so far?)......so that in turn will increase the cost to importers for doing business in the US......(how am I doing?)...and using your logic these said importers will not pass that cost increase along to the US comsumers....is that it or did I miss something?

 

Of course, those companies will pass on those costs (VAT's) -- but what is the cost to us in the long run to demand access to cheap goods from foreign producers?

 

Well, is that not also the same logic for NOT stemming the tide of illegals into this country? At some point in time we have to ask ourselves the logic of, "We demand cheap tomatoes!" (fruits, veggies, cheaper homes [construction workers] and all sorts of products) . . . because after all, all of those farmers and companies will only pass the cost of higher labor costs on to us -- the consumers . . . if those illegals are eliminated . . . after all they are the only ones that will work for those cheap wages (they are easily exploited) . . . and no American will do those kind of jobs (or is it - will work for those wages?). So do we want cheap tomatoes - or to eliminate illegal migrant workers?

 

Being able to purchase cheaply produced foreign goods only temporarily boosts our individual standard of living. In the long run, it is economic suicide because US looses its manufacturing base through job losses to American companies continuing to out-source or move their manufacturing to foreign countries, or to bankruptcy, or to the acquisition by foreign entities . . . and this increases the dependence on foreign producers.

 

Foreign countries use the American dollars earned from selling us foreign consumer goods to invest in US Treasuries and to buyout our remaining industry. When we become so dependent on foreign Treasury buyers, it certainly puts us in a predicament when foreign countries seek to buy out our core companies (foreign entities now own more than 16,000 American companies).

 

I would think that you have heard/read recently that the Chinese are concerned about the fact it holds $1 trillion of the U.S. debt, are concerned about the security of holding those T-Bills, and it has become clear that they intend on diversifying their portfolio (as well as not buying more U.S. Treasuries) by switching from investing in U.S. T-bills to buying hard assets for stockpiling or acquiring corporations at bargain-basement prices.

 

One could apply a former NBC segment title "The fleecing of America" - in that we are well along the path of rapidly loosing control of our major industries and economic future to boot (including our standard of living).

 

According to NYU professor Nouriel Roubini, the dollar may soon lose its status as the world’s single reserve currency. He believes that it will be replaced by either a basket of global currencies, or a complementary unified reserve currency.

 

Roubini has been called a “doomsayer” by many, however, his bold and grim predictions in the past have, for the most part, come true. First of all, he was one of the first economists to predict the housing bubble, which of course, has resulted in the catastrophic downturn in the financial infrastructure of this country. He has been one of the few that has been a champion of balancing our trade -- simply to avoid the constant annual deficits that drain this nation's economy.

 

Interestingly, this same policy is being echoed by economic leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (as well as others). You are probably aware that these same nations (with the addition of the oil producing countries) have discussed either dropping their holdings of U.S. dollars before they devalue, or beginning to trade in domestic currencies instead of using the American (dollar) reserve.

 

You might have heard of recent reports that China does not want to be left holding the bill if the dollar spontaneously devalues due to unchecked inflation (several here have posted fears of that also). China is the biggest foreign holder of U.S. currency. China holds over $744 billion in Treasury bonds, and an additional $2 trillion or more in currency reserves.

 

So what do you want? Cheap Chinese goods? What is it going to take for American companies that have out-sourced/moved their product production to foreign countries -- back to the US? What would it take to provide the financial incentives for them to do so?

 

How about a border tariff (a VAT)? Would that do it? Would that spur American company exec's to buying up old idle factories, hire employees, invest in production equipment, and crank up domestic production? Is there anyone that does not understand that this economy is not going to get healthy again until we have jobs (again)?

 

We gave special advantages to help specifically Japan and Germany after WWII to speed up their recovery. Anyone with more than a few brain cells working should realize that there would normally be an end to under-cutting our own industry – by giving foreign countries an unfair advantage. Germany has been playing with the Value Added Tax (VAT), as has Asia, by rebating their indirect taxes on goods shipped to the U.S., but add them into goods imported (from the U.S.). The result is that Germany has a roughly 19% advantage and Asia has roughly a 17% advantage (I believe that there are something in the order of 157 countries that use the VAT to gain advantage in international trade).

 

Please explain to me why we should not match (or just undercut) their VAT's (and pay for our own programs that we obviously need to insure that our own populace is healthy -both economically and mind/body). Hell, we are contributing to THEIR programs - why should we not expect the same? Do you still hold on to the illusion that we are wealthiest country and we can afford to just give it all away (like a restaurant manager selling all of the good food out the back door - would you still employ him/her)?

 

Or is it just your fear that the temporary loss of "cheap" goods is just too much hardship?

 

Could it be that your choice of information/news sources is at the heart of these unanswered questions that you have? Maybe it would be wise to expand your sources to other than RW (FOX, Heritage Foundation, WND, etc) sources. For a different light on the subject of global trade, try this ONE. (you might want to at least read the section on Consequences for Economic Growth) There are many, many others - and it usually a good idea to consume information from multiple sources (pros and cons) before one forms a conclusion. . . because on side usually is projecting an agenda and therefore, may not be presenting you with all of the facts/options/opinions. To form an opinion without considering both sides of any debate/issue, is not (IMO) exercising one's common sense.

 

I look forward to your explanation how we can continue to be the dunce of global trade . . . oh, and you still haven't responded to how you plan (as a business owner) to deal with HC cost growth for you and your employees - in your small business.

[RaZor]

Compare apples to apples, please. Homeowners insurance is completely different in its operation, cost structure and what it is expected to cover than health insurance. The only real similarity is that both are called "insurance" (which suggests that calling one of them insurance is inaccurate, and it's not the homeowners' insurance).

 

That is like saying that an army transport truck is just as viable for a soccer mom's daily driver as a Ford Escape because both have "engines" and "wheels" and fall under the broad category of "trucks."

So what you are trying to say is that the principle of "insured risk" does not apply to property insurance coverage and/or health insurance?

 

Or, that how insurance companies create/manipulate "pools" for those risks (loss/profit vs premiums for said pool) does not apply to property insurance?

 

Or, that insurance companies have not continually decreased what is covered by (homeowners/commercial) property insurance policies - while at the same time increased their premiums over esp the last decade (a very applicable parallelism if there ever was one)?

 

You're kidding, right?

[Mark B. Morrow]

Firms with Obama ties profit from health push

 

 

So what.

 

They weren't hired by the White House and aren't being paid with tax dollars.

 

Perhaps you can direct me to your posts of outrage over the Bush supporters like Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater who all profited hansomely from no-bid contracts that were paid with tax dollars. Those same companies who are under investigation for overbilling the U.S. government and taxpayers but still get paid on contracts they haven't fulfilled. Or maybe you expressed your disapproval of the other giveaways to Republican supporting firms and commentators that were hired to do public relations work for W throughout his administration.

[napfirst]

So what.

 

They weren't hired by the White House and aren't being paid with tax dollars.

 

Perhaps you can direct me to your posts of outrage over the Bush supporters like Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater who all profited hansomely from no-bid contracts that were paid with tax dollars. Those same companies who are under investigation for overbilling the U.S. government and taxpayers but still get paid on contracts they haven't fulfilled. Or maybe you expressed your disapproval of the other giveaways to Republican supporting firms and commentators that were hired to do public relations work for W throughout his administration.

You won't find a post with my outrage over Bush and the alleged connection to those mean ol' profit making corporations.....but I do remember you and your ilk on here raising hell about it...so what has changed....according to you it was wrong for Bush but not obama?.....help us here...

 

and may I add, if you go back and look CAP in fact took the Bush Admin to task on here many many times...

Edited August 20, 2009 by napfirst

[grbeck]

So what you are trying to say is that the principle of "insured risk" does not apply to property insurance coverage and/or health insurance?

 

Or, that how insurance companies create/manipulate "pools" for those risks (loss/profit vs premiums for said pool) does not apply to property insurance?

 

Or, that insurance companies have not continually decreased what is covered by (homeowners/commercial) property insurance policies - while at the same time increased their premiums over esp the last decade (a very applicable parallelism if there ever was one)?

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Insurance is supposed to cover catastrophic events that you HOPE will not happen, but that you want to be prepared for in the event that they do. There is no guarantee that a hurricane will hit Florida even once a year, or if it does hit, that it will be strong enough to demolish your house, or do serious damage to it. But you are paying a premium for protection against an event that you hope will not happen.

 

Here in Pennsylvania, we don't experience the full fury of hurricanes, but people still buy homeowner's insurance to protect against fire or flood. Even though not one of the people I know - either among friends or family members - has had their house burn down or lost their home in a flood. But they all have protection against those events, just in case.

 

Meanwhile, EVERYONE gets sick with minor illnesses at some point in their lives, and regular check-ups at the doctor, dentist and eye doctor are supposed to be the norm for all of us. In other words, these are not unforeseen events. This is not comparable to homeowner's insurance against natural disasters or unforeseen tragedies (fire and flood, for example). This is more like a regular maintenance for your car.

 

Imagine what your car insurance premiums would be if your automobile insurance policy were expected to cover oil changes, regular maintenance, unforeseen accidents and car theft.

 

To take the comparison one step further, does your homeowner's policy cover repainting the exterior, cleaning out the rain gutters or having the heating and cooling system checked out every year? Ours certainly doesn't.

 

If you were limiting the discussion to health insurance against catastrophic illnesses - cancer, heart attack, stroke, ALS - you'd have an apt comparison to your homeowner's policy. There are lots of people who never have those diseases or conditions, but they would like to be insured in case they do contract them, so that their assets won't be wiped out in paying for the treatment regimen. But you aren't limiting the push to that type of plan, and neither is President Obama or other proponents of health care reform.

 

So your initial comparison is inaccurate.

Edited August 20, 2009 by grbeck

[grbeck]

So what.

 

They weren't hired by the White House and aren't being paid with tax dollars.

 

Perhaps you can direct me to your posts of outrage over the Bush supporters like Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater who all profited hansomely from no-bid contracts that were paid with tax dollars. Those same companies who are under investigation for overbilling the U.S. government and taxpayers but still get paid on contracts they haven't fulfilled. Or maybe you expressed your disapproval of the other giveaways to Republican supporting firms and commentators that were hired to do public relations work for W throughout his administration.

 

The only reason it hasn't gotten that far is because President Obama hasn't gotten his way yet. Otherwise, you are splitting hairs.

 

Sorry, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If Bush had done this, Democrats and liberals would have been all over him for it. You can't expect a pass on this now.

[fmccap]

So what.

 

They weren't hired by the White House and aren't being paid with tax dollars.

 

Perhaps you can direct me to your posts of outrage over the Bush supporters like Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater who all profited hansomely from no-bid contracts that were paid with tax dollars. Those same companies who are under investigation for overbilling the U.S. government and taxpayers but still get paid on contracts they haven't fulfilled. Or maybe you expressed your disapproval of the other giveaways to Republican supporting firms and commentators that were hired to do public relations work for W throughout his administration.

Yes I did and very much, just ask NAP, we went many rounds many times. I have a set of principles and beliefs that don't bend for anyone or any party.

[xr7g428]

Cap, I will certainly give you credit for being consistently for the limitation to government regardless of merit. I don't mean that in a critical way, I mean that you are consistent in that you would rather suffer a bit to stay ideologically pure.

[fmccap]

Cap, I will certainly give you credit for being consistently for the limitation to government regardless of merit. I don't mean that in a critical way, I mean that you are consistent in that you would rather suffer a bit to stay ideologically pure.

What do you mean suffer, I have not suffered at all.