"and a jobs bill wrapped into one."

Government jobs. Thousands and thousands more government jobs.

One has to wonder about someone who believes lies time after time.

Taxes kick in right away; benefits don't start until after the next presidential election. The only jobs higher taxes create are government jobs. Keep up the good work, Danni. Keep rooting for the screwing of America.

How could it be a jobs bill, if it's going to be cutting costs? Will they be working for free?

75% of Americans don't want it, so the Dumbos are getting more and more desperate.

Yes, 75% of Americans do not want the "proposed" special interest giveaway, nor do I. But 65% of Americans dislike it because it doesn't go far enough, and support a Medicare-for-all system instead (as do I).

It is a jobs bill because we'll pay for the system via taxes rather than wages, and save $400 billion in the process. We'll eliminate the 31% insurance bureaucracy waste and spend it on health care instead.

Seems there are a few physicians who want it too.

Thanks for the article, Danni.

I see. So the jobs that are created will be funded by the many more jobs that are lost.

Well, I've never given the libbies much credit when it comes to knowledge of economics. Over on the other page, they're celebrating job losses of "only" 36,000, where you've got government adding another 75k, and the private sector shedding more than 110k jobs. And you think that's what "recovery" is.

That's okay though. You guys still get to vote too, even though you're dumb.

Wow. Jelloman just makes up whatever numbers he wants, eh?

That's okay Jello! You need to save healthcare in America--you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, right?

Maybe those 36K will be hired by the fed to run the healthcare program. Of course, paid for by those of us who actually still have jobs.

If you can't deal with it without letting ideology get in the way of logic, lobby your politician to vote against it. Don't look at it pragmatically, though, because you might flip on the issue.

The reason single-payer was left off the table was because the politicians (including Obama) shared in $125 million in campaign contributions to keep it off the table. Medicare-for-all is a good bill and the most cost-effective way of dealing with health care, but the last thing in the world the industry wanted was a fix. Seems like there is a bit of that here too.

JLoh,

Are you really a republican?

Refreshing.

Yes, Hagbard, I voted for Bush twice and McCain in 2008. (Though I want a do-over on Bush and would change my 2008 vote to Ron Paul).

But this is not a Republican or Democrat issue. I am an ex-CEO with 40 years in the health care industry, now retired, and never in my wildest dreams would I design a system that pisses away half our dollars and covers only 80% of the people. I hope the people on this blog are as disgusted, and if not I'm in the wrong place.

Its a tough crowd here, admittedly, and we all have our ideological blinders on to one extent or another.

Very few are willing to give more than passing advocacy to single payer, because at the end of the day, its dem's v repub's first, issues second. I hope I haven't discouraged you. Rcade has a good thing going here, and a lot of us are always looking for interested and coherent ideas from all.

I voted for Bush twice and McCain in 2008. (...I hope the people on this blog are as disgusted, and if not I'm in the wrong place.

Posted by jelohman at 2010-03-07 01:11 PM

If you voted for Bush TWICE and then McCain then, yeah, I'd have to say you're in the wrong place.

Jelchman

And btw, to add to my #15...

I voted for Bush in 2000 and did so as a registered Republican. But at least I saw the error of my ways before 4 years had passed and didn't make the same mistake twice. I am currently registered as an independent on the voting rolls.

When someone can explain why the hospital charges $1,000 dollars for "6 GOWNS" and knows how to fix THAT! let me know...

Or $10.00 for a Tylenaol..

Or....

Never listen to RIR. He wants to avoid paying taxes at all costs even if it means you die.

#16 Califchris, I am typically pro-business and did not see the Dems in a good light in 2004 (Remember Kerry?). But I'm not too far behind you on changing to an Independent.

#17 Murphy, they charge that because they can. They know that private insurers just pass the costs on to the employers anyway (can you read "39% increases?").

That would not happen under a single-payer system. Medicare has a fixed fee schedule that is based on costs (labor/technology/overhead/
locality).

But Medicare is also not perfect, though its fraud rate is lower because it involves jail time and private insurance rarely does.

#18 Jackass: That seemed obvious. And I don't like paying taxes either, but that's the price we pay for a democratic society.

But that said, the reason our taxes are so high is the method we use for financing elections. Special interests fund the elections because they want taxpayer-funded pork. For $5 per taxpayer per year we could have public funding of campaigns. (We're paying about $3000 per taxpayer now.)

Special interests give money because money works!

#21 Ray: You're a very friendly group. Are you here to help fix the system or just throw rocks and rant?

When someone can explain why the hospital charges $1,000 dollars for "6 GOWNS" and knows how to fix THAT! let me know...
Or $10.00 for a Tylenaol..
Or.... - Murphy

It is really pretty simple, the insurance doesn't pay that amount. The hospital charges a certain amount, but the insurance doesn't cover that.

The hospital is trying to make money out of band, given the fact that they get less for each procedure. On top of that Medicare pays out less money than insurance does, so the hospitals make up for it by charging more to those with insurance.

If it was Medicare rates for all it would be a big probem for doctors, and nurses. The insurance companies would survive, just like they do in every other country that has socialized medicine.

"But Medicare is also not perfect, though its fraud rate is lower because it involves jail time and private insurance rarely does." - Jelohman

Jelchman

#16 Califchris, I am typically pro-business and did not see the Dems in a good light in 2004 (Remember Kerry?). But I'm not too far behind you on changing to an Independent.

Just to clarify, I am not a member of the Independent Party (which I believe now refer to themselves as the American Independent Party).

I'm registered as an "independent" with a small "i"

Loyal to no party, I choose whoever I feel would be the best person for the office and for my country.

Are you here to help fix the system or just throw rocks and rant?

We're all here for a lot of both. And we wouldn't want it any other way. lol

You're a very friendly group. Are you here to help fix the system or just throw rocks and rant?
#22 | Posted by jelohman

The DR's more nuanced than that.

#23 AndreaMackris: "Medicare fraud is about 10 cents of every dollar, no insurance company could survive with a 10% fraud rate."

Don't kid yourself. If you charge twice the dollars you can withstand a higher fraud rate. And I've seen privates charged 400% of Medicare rates.

#21 Ray: You're a very friendly group. Are you here to help fix the system or just throw rocks and rant?
#22 | Posted by jelohman

Jackass and I have a deep affection for each other. He hopes I'm robbed at the point of a 46.

As far as Medicare is concerned, by some estimates it's $70 Trillion in a hole. Washington is running deficits that have gone parabolic. I could not imagine a worse institution at managing money, yet the brain-dead think they're getting something for nothing. The idea of expanding is only to expand the Ponzi pool.

It is refreshing to read Jelohman's #5 and #11. Honest Republicans realize reform is needed. And while this bill is far from perfect, it is still preferable to our current set-up. But getting rightwingers to take off the ideological blinders is near impossible. Especially on a political blog like the DR.

And I don't like paying taxes either, but that's the price we pay for a democratic society.

On the contrary. In this environment, it's the price we pay for being robbed.

And while this bill is far from perfect, it is still preferable to our current set-up.

Some people never learn. I remember the pie-in-the-sky promises when Medicare was first debated. Washington should have its license to practice revoked. They're only going to fuck it again, only worse.

#28 Ray: "As far as Medicare is concerned, by some estimates it's $70 Trillion in a hole."

Medicare is the most efficient public/private system ever devised, but in 2003 Bush pushed through a $780 billion giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, that has to be reversed and it needs higher funding if we are to extend it to 100% of Americans. But get real; that's far cheaper than what we are now paying. For the same $2.7 trillion we are spending annually to cover 80-85% of the people, we could extend care to 100% of the people and get health care off the backs of businesses. But we'd pay for it differently -- through taxes rather than wages -- and it would include all Medicaid, SCHIP, unemployed, under-employed and politicians and other government employees (federal, state, county, city), thus all of their expenditures would go down as well.

"while this bill is far from perfect, it is still preferable to our current set-up."

Not really, this bill will suck, be expensive, and ultimately do little more than line the pockets of the insurance companies. It'll be repealed when the Republicans take back over and then we get to wait another 16 years before someone tries for single payer. A far better approach would be to stop trying to fix the world's problems, handle our seriously fucked monetary system, and then make a serious run at single payer with the ability to actually pay for it. But, until the majority of voters realize how little difference there is between an asshole marked R and an asshole marked D, that's not going to happen.

Medicare is the most efficient public/private system ever devised, but in 2003 Bush pushed through a $780 billion giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, that has to be reversed and it needs higher funding if we are to extend it to 100% of Americans.

Yeah sure. When a small hammer doesn't work, try a bigger hammer.

The key world is "public/private." It's far more expensive than before Medicare when it was private.
I don't give a crap about political parties. The federal government is running a welfare fraud. I don't think you have any idea how much money $70 TRILLION is?

But get real; that's far cheaper than what we are now paying.

It can't be made to work. It suffers the fatal flaw of holding a third party responsible for payment. That's what drove up prices. A complete takeover means price controls. That always results in shortages. Quality and quantity suffers.

I repeat: GOVERNMENT CANNOT MANAGE MONEY! Totally incapable. Your estimate are worthless.

#33 Chezwegro: "Not really, this bill will suck, be expensive, and ..."

I agree that "this Obama bill" is terrible. I'm talking about a single-payer Medicare-for-all bill that would help bring jobs back to America and fix our economy. See www.hr676.org. (and I agree on the assholes too).

#34 ray: "It can't be made to work. "

BS. Medicare is easily expanded to 100% of the public, and it's been working since 1965. I'm in it and I see the same doctor I have seen for 20 years. He just sends his bill in a different direction (and gets paid in three weeks).

Medicare is easily expanded to 100% of the public, and it's been working since 1965. I'm in it and I see the same doctor I have seen for 20 years. He just sends his bill in a different direction (and gets paid in three weeks).

It has NOT been working. The flaws you think need to be corrected are a consequence of Medicare and Medicade regulations. It's not as simple as getting paid. When a third party is responsible for payment, neither doctor nor patient have concern for costs. That's why costs have been rising faster than most other economic sectors.

Again. $70 TRILLION deficit. It seems to mean nothing to you.

BS. Medicare is easily expanded to 100% of the public, and it's been working since 1965. I'm in it and I see the same doctor I have seen for 20 years. He just sends his bill in a different direction (and gets paid in three weeks).
* * * *

Where to start?

1. Medicare is bankrupt.
2. Good luck getting to see your same doctor for the same price, if suddenly we threw the doors open to 30 million uninsured, and promised them that costs would go down, while the number of doctors stays the same.

I don't believe you were ever a CEO, unless it was of a company that failed. Nobody could possibly be that stupid for long enough to have the company survive him.

#36 Ray: "It has NOT been working."

Okay Ray, you present as an expert on the issue. What are your credentials? Why are you so smart on the issue? Are you an insurance or healthcare industry rep?

#37 Same for you RIR... why should we believe that your numbers are correct?

Don't believe that I was a CEO? Frankly, I don't give a damn what you believe. But I owned an independent lab with 70 employees in four states, until I sold the company and retired. What is your expertise? Are you an insurance or healthcare industry rep?

Or are you guys just naturally assholes who refuse the facts.

"Or are you guys just naturally assholes who refuse the facts."

You just described 99% of the posters on this site.

I got it now Chezwegro, no sense trying to have a constructive conversation with them.

But it's too bad... we have a serious problem with the economy and health care is a major part of the fix.

"GM says healthcare costs add between $1,500 and $2,000 to the sticker price of every automobile it makes."

Okay Ray, you present as an expert on the issue. What are your credentials? Why are you so smart on the issue? Are you an insurance or healthcare industry rep?
#38 | POSTED BY JELOHMAN

People, like you, who screwed it up can't be trusted. I explained twice about the fatal flaw of third party payment and the $70 trillion deficit, and you ignored me.

It is too bad.

I find that constructive conversations rarely happen online, it's too easy to vilify a screen name who's opinion you disagree with. Better to save serious for meatspace, where you have to look an actual human being in the eye.

You didn't answer the question Ray. What are your credentials.

What are your sources on the $70 trillion deficit? Is that for 100 years? One year? Our total health care costs (public and private) are $2.7 trillion per year.

And Danni, you are absolutely correct. GM pays $6500 per employee per year here, versus $800 per year in Canada. Thus they are now making more cars in Canada than the US. And Canada's costs are 10% of GDP versus our 17%. They could also eliminate their wait times by increasing their expenditures by 10% (to 12% of GDP), which they are looking at doing.

"1. Medicare is bankrupt."

I wonder which insurance company would still be in business if they only raised their rates at the rate Medicare does.

" while the number of doctors stays the same."

Gee, it's ok to give out HS1B visas for computer softwear designers but not for medical doctors???
Doesn't seem fair. We could fairly easily create a system for testing and awarding credentials for practicing medicine in the US.
Also, using the fact that allowing millions who can't now go to the doctor gain access will place some strain on our medical system makes me wonder how righties can possible try to say we have the best healthcare in the world. Obviously they don't believe that if they think everyone should have access before illness becomes more critical.

You didn't answer the question Ray. What are your credentials.

Reason is my authority. Third party payment systems have a fatal flaw. This must be an alien concept to you. If you were a CEO, you wouldn't stay in business long if you let employees requisition whatever they wanted. It's the same idea.

What are your sources on the $70 trillion deficit?

RAY-
You've never asked for my support of your views. Yet, the more I witness our fiscal lunacy I see more and more merit in your take.

"Medicare's unfunded liability is $74 trillion -- five times that of Social Security."

BAsed on a model of Medicare that I agree will, by definition, be bankrupt. If you were to take any health insurance company in the world and have them only cover people over 65 and/or disabled, restrict their ability to raise rates (taxes), and then to tack on a needlessly expensive drug benefit it isn't surprising that actuarially it will be doomed to bankruptcy. That is exactly what Republicans have been trying to do for the past thirty years whenever they get in power.
If however, you changed the program to include every young and health American right along with the old and ill you could cover everyone far cheaper than do the insurance company leeches and you could easily make it as solvent as any insurance company would ever be considered.

Yea, Ray, you should have asked for Oohrah's support. Two nuts are better than one.

If however, you changed the program to include every young and health American right along with the old and ill you could cover everyone far cheaper than do the insurance company leeches and you could easily make it as solvent as any insurance company would ever be considered.

All that would do is expand the Ponzi Scheme to a wider base. Again, the fatal flaw is that the system gives patients and doctors Carte Blanche. On the other side, to the degree the feds institute price controls, they'll cause shortages and a reduction in the quality of service. This is the kind of stuff that plagued the Soviet Union.

The bigger hammer approach is doomed to failure!

#49 | POSTED BY JELOHMAN

Application of ad hominems is symptomatic of an inability to reason. You've ignored by arguments every time, even when I documented them. The third party argument is just plain common sense.

Ahhh, it's a "third party" issue. We need to go back to the early 1900's when we had no insurers and people paid with goats. I get it now.

"And Danni, you are absolutely correct. GM pays $6500 per employee per year here, versus $800 per year in Canada. Thus they are now making more cars in Canada than the US. And Canada's costs are 10% of GDP versus our 17%. They could also eliminate their wait times by increasing their expenditures by 10% (to 12% of GDP), which they are looking at doing."

That's true. But, it's important to remember that the money doesn't just disappear, the cost is just passed on to the taxpayers. Without first addressing the size of the federal government and our monetary system, the only options are printing, borrowing, or taxing. Considering that these three things are far more responsible for our current financial situation than healthcare, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's not much of a plan. The countries with single payer systems aren't spending a trillion a year on empire and fighting two wars.

Ahhh, it's a "third party" issue. We need to go back to the early 1900's when we had no insurers and people paid with goats. I get it now.

I'm old enough to remember the 50s, when families bought their own insurance, and insurance companies tailored their offerings to what consumers would buy. That's when a doctor would come to our house for a modest fee.

During WWII, the first intervention came when corporations got a tax exemption on benefits. Then Medicare kicked in. That's when insurances costs started to balloon. Then over the decades, Congress kicked in all kinds of mandates that drove up costs.

$74 trillion unfunded liability! You don't get it.

I am currently registered as an independent on the voting rolls.

#16 | Posted by CalifChris at 2010-03-07 01:26 PM |

Are you permitted to vote in primaries?

If not, you don't see that as problematic?

You are sure dense. I have said above that I am not supporting ObamaCare, and the CBO has indeed outlined its excessive costs. But they exist because Obama left the insurance industry in the process. They wastefully consume 31% of the costs. It is a terrible system. All of the special interests make out like a bandit.

I don't believe you were ever a CEO, unless it was of a company that failed. Nobody could possibly be that stupid for long enough to have the company survive him.

#36 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-03-07 04:33 PM | Reply

Be patient RR we'll probably run in to Sandra Bullock or maybe even Obama himself before this thread is taken down.

Ahhh, it's a "third party" issue. We need to go back to the early 1900's when we had no insurers and people paid with goats. I get it now.

#51 | Posted by jelohman at 2010-03-07 05:57 PM | Reply

Lousy rebuttal.

But yes, we should all pay for our health care without the involvement of ANY third party be it Insurance companies or Government. BTW They're already one in the same.

Placing enormous POOLS of money in front of practioners of any trade is will distort the true value of the product or service they provide.

The system I support is Medicare-for-all, and you can see those costs HERE. Zero increase, though it is funded by taxes rather than wages.
#55 | POSTED BY JELOHMAN

Yeah sure. That's similar to the bullshit projections when they sold Medicare. So far $74 trillion unfunded deficit and still counting. Some people never learn.

Ray-
Re: So far $74 trillion unfunded deficit and still counting.

Can I borrow your time machine?

How about all the people working for the insurance companies. Aren't they going to lose their jobs?

I say for the third time, $74 trillion unfunded deficit for non-Medicare system. Did I use words that are too big, or do you understand that we are talking about a different system? And you never answered me: Are you an insurance or health care rep?

And mysterytoy, for every person who loses a job in insurance, TWO jobs will be created in health care to replace them (to care for the additional 45 million people added to the ststem).

"How about all the people working for the insurance companies. Aren't they going to lose their jobs?"

Most not all, but still those that do would find other jobs in a reinvigorated economy. If we don't fix the economy most of them will eventually lose their jobs anyway.

"Considering that these three things are far more responsible for our current financial situation than healthcare, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's not much of a plan."

Medicare for all would reduce the overall cost of healthcare significantly, freeing up money to use for other things, such as increased taxes to pay down debts. I think anyone who talks about our economic problems, the deficit and debt, etc. without also bringing up increased taxes in the same post is just pretending to really want a solution. There will be no painless solutions.

Danni,

Increasing taxes will further depress the economy and more than that, people deserve to keep the fruits of their labors. Cutting down our ridiculously overweight federal government is the ONLY way to do this right. Many cuts would even be complimentary to a healthcare bill. For instance, we could stop subsidizing corn and soy production. That would cut down on diabetes, heart disease, and food borne illnesses. You're right that there aren't any painless solutions, but the pain will come from having to choose which entitlement programs are worth having and which are worth letting go in exchange for single payer.

Increasing taxes on corporations will depress the economy, but increasing taxes on the wealthy is appropriate. Otherwise they simply send their cash to offshore tax havens or invest in overseas projects. The poor cannot pull us out of this mess, only the wealthy can.

Wealthy people like their money to make more money, so they invest. While sometimes that's in overseas projects(which still bring money here), more often than not it's in domestic projects. Rich people aren't necessarily bad people and in fact we need them.

Relying on government jobs to solve joblessness is like disconnecting your home from the electric supply and expecting the current to keep running on its own. Government workers need the private workers to fund them. They are a drain on prosperity.

Medicare for all is a jobs bill like putting sugar in your gas tank makes your car go faster.

I guess it could be a jobs bill if those jobs created are government jobs. How fast do you suppose the GDP will grow when we all work for the government? Do you suppose we will be more "free" as a people when we all work for the govenment? Or, should we just shitcan that whole "freedom" part of the constitution?

Yea, you guys make good points, though I don't see rich people bringing cash back to the states to be taxed. We have a very selfish elite that helped get us to where we are, and I don't see them participating in bringing us out of it. I agree that government jobs are part of the problem, not the solution.

"Increasing taxes will further depress the economy and more than that, people deserve to keep the fruits of their labors."

There is simply no evidence that this is even true though many on the right pretend it is a virtual law of economics. There is actually more evidence that higher taxes creates incentives to invest in strategically targeted industries if you offer the right set of business deductions, credits, etc.
Certainly an increase in the capital gains tax is needed to steer more money away from the casino and back into the real economy.
Entrepreneurs, BTW, would be one of the first groups to be helped by Medicare for all, if you took the burden of health insurance off of people many of them would start small businesses which would lead to more jobs.

"I agree that government jobs are part of the problem, not the solution."

Me too, Medicare for all would only require a slight increase in employees to handle additional claims, it would not be a major jobs program. That is just the knee jerk talking point for those uninterested in real solutions to problems.

#70

It has become sort of funny to watch people chase their tails.

It used to bother me because only dogs are supposed to do it.

but if we can get adults to do it.....hilarious.

"Me too, Medicare for all would only require a slight increase in employees to handle additional claims, it would not be a major jobs program. That is just the knee jerk talking point for those uninterested in real solutions to problems."

45 million to over 300 million would only require a slight increase to handle claims? I understand and agree with the jobs program, but to think it would only be a slight increase is laughable.

"but if we can get adults to do it.....hilarious."

Eberly has become just a troll, didn't he used to attempt real comments??? Sad really.

"but to think it would only be a slight increase is laughable."

Depends on the definition of "slight" and it would offer a place for laid off insurance company people to find jobs. It would not be thousands and thousands is all I really meant.

didn't he used to attempt real comments???

yes. I tried to get the dog to stop chasing their tail by pointing out political and economic reality.......1,000 times.

they just stopped, licked their balls, and went back to chasing their tail.

so now I just sit back and laugh.

and you are suggesting I keep trying?

more proof that you do nothing except chase your tail.

Handling claims has become automated, but the real jobs will be created when businesses no longer have to fund health insurance and can spend that money on growth instead.

If we spend $440 billion for 45 million people a year, how much would it cost, or how long would we last increasing it to over 300 million?

Danni,

Please expand your frame of reference. Single payer won't fix all of our problems, no matter how hard you wish for it to.

"There is actually more evidence that higher taxes creates incentives to invest in strategically targeted industries if you offer the right set of business deductions, credits, etc."

Bullshit. This only works if you focus only on those "strategically targeted industries" and ignore all of the rest. Giving government the license to control what businesses are worthy of growth is a guaranteed way to increase mega-corporate domination of industry. As those are the businesses that can afford to buy politicians.

"Certainly an increase in the capital gains tax is needed to steer more money away from the casino and back into the real economy. "

This line is pretty telling. YOU have no right to force people into spending THEIR money the way you want them to. You're more than welcome to advise them that they don't make wise financial decisions, but the choice is theirs.

Giving government the license to control what businesses are worthy of growth is a guaranteed way to increase mega-corporate domination of industry.

yeah, but some anti-capitalists libs think they will feel better if they tax those guys more.

LOL

in any case, just try and win an election with the slogan....."lets TAX our way into PROSPERITY!!!!!"

LOL

Unfortunately, "America, Let's wipe our own ass for a change!" doesn't test well either.

"CHEZWEGRO, apparently you didn't get the memo, supply side, trickle down economics has not created the jobs, has created huge debts and has been utterly disproven as an economic philosophy.
We need to return to regulated capitalism which we prospered with for decades before Reagan and the Supply side freaks destroyed our economy.

"WASHINGTON - Today, by a vote of 263 to 171, the U.S. House of Representatives passed historic legislation that extends the 30-percent federal investment tax credit for both residential and commercial solar installations for 8 years. This landmark legislation is part of H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, designed to address the U.S. financial crisis. It is the most significant federal policy ever enacted for the solar industry. President Bush has vowed to sign the bill into law. The Senate passed the bill on Wednesday night."

Unfortunately, "America, Let's wipe our own ass for a change!" doesn't test well either.

#81 | Posted by ChezWegro

Yeah, But it would make a great bumper sticker.

Nice deflection, Danni. If you think we have unregulated capitalism in this country, you are a knuckle-dragging moron. Republicans fucking things up does not equal democrats doing things right, and since I have no interest in trading partisan talking points, I think our discourse is over.

WTF does #83 have to do with anything?

"WTF does #83 have to do with anything?"

I think our discourse is over.

???

I didn't see that one before I posted #85 and it was nonsensical enough to merit mention.

"Giving government the license to control what businesses are worthy of growth is a guaranteed way to increase mega-corporate domination of industry."

The point was we have been helping certain industries for decades, probably centuries. When it is in the strategic best interest of the country you wouldn't want to???

Alternative energy would receive far greater benefit from our stopping the subsidizing of the petroleum industry than tax breaks for people who buy mediocre solar panels. Nice try though.

Okay, this is my first trip here and it's an interesting group. Lefties and Righties alike. But none of you are going to get what you want -- a peaceful, prosperous nation -- unless you create a political system that you can trust: a system of politicians that work for you rather than them (the special interests). This is a non-partisan issue; clean government.

Taxes are high because the special interests own your politicians. Social services are in a downward spiral because, again, the special interests own your politicians. Unless you are one of the special interests funding the elections you are getting screwed. They are stealing money from me, you, my kids and your kids, and all we can say is "oh my, that's our democracy.

"Alternative energy would receive far greater benefit from our stopping the subsidizing of the petroleum industry than tax breaks for people who buy mediocre solar panels."

I've advocated for higher gas taxes forever. But that still doesn't mean that creating incentives for the production or use of alternative energy isn't a cost effective way to help grow our economy.

"This is a non-partisan issue; clean government."

I completely agree. As long as politicians have to raise so much money we will never have honest government and government that represents our interests above the interests of transnational corporations who have zero allegiance to the US.

#91 | Posted by jelohman

Welcome to the DR you heartless right wing bastard.

How about instead of higher gas taxes, we stop the handouts to the oil companies? Even the playing field a bit. But, you're probably right, I know that throwing money around indiscriminately usually fixes problems in my life.

#94 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

I am absolutely offended. Most people consider me a left-wing bastard.

"I know that throwing money around indiscriminately usually fixes problems in my life."

Did you forget we have trillions of dollars worth of debts? We pay interest on it. We need to find ways to pay it down before it consumes every cent we pay in taxes.

Did you forget we have trillions of dollars worth of debts? We pay interest on it. We need to find ways to pay it down before it consumes every cent we pay in taxes.

#97 | Posted by danni

Unless we drastically cut spending our creditors will demand higher interest rates and eventually it will collapse the economy.

"Unless we drastically cut spending our creditors will demand higher interest rates and eventually it will collapse the economy."

You can continue to post that same talking point over and over and over but we will never get out of debt unless we expand the economy and tax some of the income it generates. We could cut spending and actually create so much additional unemployment that the economy could fall into depression and then tax rates could fall so low we can't even pay the interest on the debt. Then things would get interesting. No matter how much you cut spending the interest will continue to acrue on what we already owe.

I totally agree that we have to do things to expand the economy. None of which is happening now or will happen under a higher taxed and more controlled economy.

"I totally agree that we have to do things to expand the economy. None of which is happening now or will happen under a higher taxed and more controlled economy."

Um....50's, 60's, 70's.

Sounds to me like lower taxes and less control of the economy doesn't work either (Bush II anybody?)...

Um..... the 50's were great because we were the only countries with factories still standing.

In my area the 60's were like the depression and the 70's were so bad the country got your favorite president.

amen, Jelo.

we do want it. the silent majority feels precisely as you describe.

I say for the third time, $74 trillion unfunded deficit for non-Medicare system. Did I use words that are too big, or do you understand that we are talking about a different system?
#61 | POSTED BY JELOHMAN

What the hell is "non-Medicare system"? That's doublespeak.

And you never answered me: Are you an insurance or health care rep?

I'm a concerned American. The question is irrelevant. Medicare is massively underfunded at a time when a wave of baby-boomers will soon be eligible. Something has to give. You're delusional.

That's bullshit, Ray. You can be both a concerned American AND an insurance company hack, and the question is not irrelevant if all you are trying to do is throw a monkey-wrench into fixing the system.

And this is going to be tough to comprehend so I'll type it slowly... a non-Medicare system is our private healthcare system.

But I am unmoved by any Medicare deficit projections anyway. If it takes revamping Medicare by increasing taxes, that's still a lot less that private insurance companies and their 39% increases. We are screwing around with Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Tricare, and a dozen other government funded administrative departments that should be rolled into one, and the savings will offset the additional costs.

That is, unless you goofballs are successful in convincing congress to retain the 31% waste currently consumed by the insurance bureaucracy (high CEO salaries, bonuses, shareholder profits, broker commissions, actuarial costs, and even their lobbying and campaign contributions that are passed on to the patient). THAT is why the insurance industry is so opposed. They want to continue getting into your pocket.

And let me add this: Aren't you just tickled pink that your congressman is getting a piece of every private healthcare dollar?

Sometimes I wish Medicare could bribe them too, as maybe we'd then stand a chance of getting Medicare-for-all passed.