Rumor What's going on in Portland? (3 Viewers)

[Orion Bailey]

No one's calling for equal incomes for everyone. Just a narrower divide between rich and poor; a higher floor, especially, for what "poverty" means--especially in a society as overall wealthy as this one.

No one here currently, but some are calling for equal wages across the board for all.

Sure that would be nice, but thats also very gray. Where are the lines drawn? And how is that done while not sacrificing one persona hard earn money to give some to another?

Raise taxes and distribute?


I mean I think all would be happy with Utopia, but somethings are simply not realistic.
Life isn't fair.

 

[Minstrel]

No one here currently, but some are calling for equal wages across the board for all.

Sure that would be nice, but thats also very gray. Where are the lines drawn? And how is that done while not sacrificing one persona hard earn money to give some to another?

Raise taxes and distribute?

You're asking me, or us, to explain positions none of us believe in...because you feel that "some" want that?

That doesn't make sense. Equal wages for everyone is not a remotely mainstream position--nobody in the mainstream is calling for literal communism in America. Equal opportunity is the ideal that many of us want to work towards--what people do with their opportunity will lead to differing outcomes, but some people having little to no access to basic needs being met and to quality education is a terrible situation for our society. Leaving aside social justice or idealism, it's bad for society to have many people unproductive when the majority of them could be contributing to society.

 

[Orion Bailey]

You're asking me, or us, to explain positions none of us believe in...because you feel that "some" want that?

That doesn't make sense. Equal wages for everyone is not a remotely mainstream position--nobody in the mainstream is calling for literal communism in America. Equal opportunity is the ideal that many of us want to work towards--what people do with their opportunity will lead to differing outcomes, but some people having little to no access to basic needs being met and to quality education is a terrible situation for our society. Leaving aside social justice or idealism, it's bad for society to have many people unproductive when the majority of them could be contributing to society.

Huh?

My first sentence was referring to you stating no one is calling for equal income. I said not in here. In this forum, currently, but it has been mentioned as wanted by some.

My second portion was based on what you said, minimize the gap, raise the floor, etc. I'm asking how that is done. I'm not asking you to explain something you don't believe in, i'm asking you to explain something you just stated you wanted.

I know not all needs are met for every human. I don't know of a country that is able to meet that standard. But regardless, equal opportunity has been addressed several times, affirmative action, etc.

I'm not following you at all, unless you are just stating more issues without answers?


I was asking you how you would make things better based on what you said. Not asking you to explain something you dont believe in. Not sure where that came from?

 

[Minstrel]

Huh?

My first sentence was referring to you stating no one is calling for equal income. I said not in here. In this forum, currently, but it has been mentioned as wanted by some.

My second portion was based on what you said, minimize the gap, raise the floor, etc. I'm asking how that is done. I'm not asking you to explain something you don't believe in, i'm asking you to explain something you just stated you wanted.

Ah okay. I thought the "that would be nice," which led the second portion, was about equal incomes from the first sentence. I misunderstood you.

Of course some people's incomes would have to be "sacrificed." That's part of being in a society--nobody can get rich without being part of a society (try to imagine someone becoming a billionaire through just their own hard work on a desert island). So part of the deal of being part of that society that allowed you to get rich, of making use of the infrastructure of the society, etc, is paying back into the society in the form of taxes.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, America had 90% marginal interest rates on the top income bracket. This in the midst of the "red scare" era, and no one considered the US to be a socialist nation. The Republican party in the 1970s and, especially the 1980s under Reagan, became much harder line on taxes on the rich. Not coincidentally, the gap between rich and poor (and the gradual reduction of a true middle class) exploded from that point on.

While what constitutes the "top income bracket" obviously would need to change relative to the '50s and '60s, we should get back to that kind of progressive taxation, where the highest income individuals and families pay more into the common good, which should be used for improving school systems in under-served areas and making sure everyone has sufficient food, clothing, shelter and safety so that they can focus on education and employment.

 

[Phatguysrule]

based on affirmative action and other things created to help provide equality, i think thats a somewhat biased take.

there will always be rich and poor. There will never be an equal income across the board for all. Supply and demand alone proves this.

And yes there is supply and demand in the workforce as well.

i know some people want to take money from the rich and redistribute. without breaking down every dollar and why, I'm opposed to this in a general sense. Some people have 100% right to do with what they want of the money they have made for themselves.

Yeah, I didn't say anything about an equal income across the board.

I'm not opposed to the wealthy, but I am opposed to systems that keep people so poor and destitute that it negatively impacts overall society.

I have no problem with supply and demand in the market place or regarding the workforce. I do have a problem with people suffering unnecessarily.

Too much of anything is not good. There is a healthy balance that can be attained and many countries are doing a better job of finding that balance than we are.

I support policies that allow our society to prosper in as healthy a manner as those countries.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Yeah, I didn't say anything about an equal income across the board.

I'm not opposed the the wealthy, but I am opposed to systems that keep people so poor and destitute that it negatively impacts overall society.

I have no problem with supply and demand in the market place or regarding the workforce. I do have a problem with people suffering unnecessarily.

Too much of anything is not good. There is a healthy balance that can be attained and many countries are doing a better job of finding that balance than we are.

I support policies that allow our society to prosper in as healthy a manner as those countries.

Gotcha.
I tbink comparing our country to other countries can be very missleading. For example, logistics is extremely different for is than say, people in Sweden.
When we speak of costs of goods. Yea mfg and labor is a driving for e but so is frt transit.

Its easy to say, “see this country offers 100% free health care, why cant we?”
When not taking into consideration many other factors like defense budgets, geographical and population size, etc. it can provide some fairly misleading numbers.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

My first sentence was referring to you stating no one is calling for equal income. I said not in here. In this forum, currently, but it has been mentioned as wanted by some.

Link?

 

[Orion Bailey]

Ah okay. I thought the "that would be nice," which led the second portion, was about equal incomes from the first sentence. I misunderstood you.

Of course some people's incomes would have to be "sacrificed." That's part of being in a society--nobody can get rich without being part of a society (try to imagine someone becoming a billionaire through just their own hard work on a desert island). So part of the deal of being part of that society that allowed you to get rich, of making use of the infrastructure of the society, etc, is paying back into the society in the form of taxes.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, America had 90% marginal interest rates on the top income bracket. This, in the midst of the "red scare" era, and no one considered the US to be a socialist nation. The Republican party in the 1970s and, especially the 1980s under Reagan, became much harder line on taxes on the rich. Not coincidentally, the gap between rich and poor (and the gradual reduction of a true middle class) exploded from that point on.

While what constitutes the "top income bracket" obviously would need to change relative to the '50s and '60s, we should get back to that kind of progressive taxation, where the highest income individuals and families pay more into the common good, which should be used for improving school systems in under-served areas and making sure everyone has sufficient food, clothing, shelter and safety so that they can focus on education and employment.

sorry i could have also clarified better.
Let me do a bit of research on this as some things you mention im ignorant of.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Link?

cant link

speaking of conversations in text and on fb.

id have to backtrack and confirm but i beleive even dviss mention we should be able to have equal income for all.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Gotcha.
I tbink comparing our country to other countries can be very missleading. For example, logistics is extremely different for is than say, people in Sweden.
When we speak of costs of goods. Yea mfg and labor is a driving for e but so is frt transit.

Its easy to say, “see this country offers 100% free health care, why cant we?”
When not taking into consideration many other factors like defense budgets, geographical and population size, etc. it can provide some fairly misleading numbers.

Those are just excuses. Everything becomes less expensive at scale. That's why larger insurance pools pay lower rates here in the US.

The US could do everything those countries are doing at a lower price per person. We have every advantage those countries do not have.

Universal Healthcare here in the US would cost less than we're currently spending.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Small business is the backbone of this country's economy, and the number one hindrance to small business expanding employment or investing in new equipment is having to provide healthcare to employees.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Those are just excuses. Everything becomes less expensive at scale. That's why larger insurance pools pay lower rates here in the US.

The US could do everything those countries are doing at a lower price per person. We have every advantage those countries do not have.

Universal Healthcare here in the US would cost less than we're currently spending.

when you say cost less than what we are currently spending, are you refering to oboma care or individual out of pocket expenditures?

im pretty sure thst universal health care woudl cost the givernment more than they currently spend on health care. If you dosagree please show me some numbers?

Were starting to get into a numbers game where anyone can say anything to back the opinion. But is it fiscally feasable?

Show me the numbers.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Small business is the backbone of this country's economy, and the number one hindrance to small business expanding employment or investing in new equipment is having to provide healthcare to employees.

how did Obama care work out?

 

[Minstrel]

when you say cost less than what we are currently spending, are you refering to oboma care or individual out of pocket expenditures?

im pretty sure thst universal health care woudl cost the givernment more than they currently spend on health care.

Of course it would cost the government more. But the government's money comes from taxes, which amounts to what we spend. So the correct comparison is what we, combined, spend on insurance premiums. It should be obvious that government handling health care will cost less in total than private companies handling it--private companies have to make a profit, government just has to break even.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

how did Obama care work out?

Obamacare was trying to fix a broken system. It has and still continues to help people get healthcare. But, it is not the answer.

Insurance is not the correct system to provide healthcare.

How many times a year do you file on your car insurance? Your homeowners insurance?

Are you only allowed to get your gas at an in network provider? What your yearly deductible on house paint? Does your plan allow you to use Home Depot or can you use Lowes?

Insurance is an instrument to lessen financial burden when an "oh fuck!" happens.

The human body does not work like that.

Believe or not, our bodies require more yearly maintenance than our cars. Imagine if we suddenly put our car maintenance on our car insurance. Oil changes, new tires, gas, etc. What would your car insurance cost? Then what if we made your employer pay for it?

When you look at OT worked, Vacation taken and not taken, sick time taken and not taken, we are the hardest working industrial country. We are upholding our end of what is best for this great country. Our country is not upholding their end of what is best for those citizens.

When you have people who work full time, pay taxes, and still have to use a god damn Go Fund Me just so they don't lose everything to pay for medical care?

I can not say it enough times, insurance, is not, and should not, be the way to provide healthcare in this country.

 

[ABM]

I can not say it enough times, insurance, is not, and should not, be the way to provide healthcare in this country.

What's your alternative solution?

 

[Orion Bailey]

Of course it would cost the government more. But the government's money comes from taxes, which amounts to what we spend. So the correct comparison is what we, combined, spend on insurance premiums. It should be obvious that government handling health care will cost less in total than private companies handling it--private companies have to make a profit, government just has to break even.

Mokay but the premium i pay im willing to bet is less than that tax increase would be if the gov. Took it over.
Again.
This is about numbers. We can all speculate all we want but to say one would cost less, well show me verifiable and credible numbers.

ive seen some links posted in the past that didn't take into account various circumstances/equations that would have an impact on the bottom dollar.
Im not saying it cant be done, but i have yet to sew anything concrete backing the claim that universal health care would dent my wallet less than the current system.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Obamacare was trying to fix a broken system. It has and still continues to help people get healthcare. But, it is not the answer.

Insurance is not the correct system to provide healthcare.

How many times a year do you file on your car insurance? Your homeowners insurance?

Are you only allowed to get your gas at an in network provider? What your yearly deductible on house paint? Does your plan allow you to use Home Depot or can you use Lowes?

Insurance is an instrument to lessen financial burden when an "oh fuck!" happens.

The human body does not work like that.

Believe or not, our bodies require more yearly maintenance than our cars. Imagine if we suddenly put our car maintenance on our car insurance. Oil changes, new tires, gas, etc. What would your car insurance cost? Then what if we made your employer pay for it?

When you look at OT worked, Vacation taken and not taken, sick time taken and not taken, we are the hardest working industrial country. We are upholding our end of what is best for this great country. Our country is not upholding their end of what is best for those citizens.

When you have people who work full time, pay taxes, and still have to use a god damn Go Fund Me just so they don't lose everything to pay for medical care?

I can not say it enough times, insurance, is not, and should not, be the way to provide healthcare in this country.

Those are valid complaints. It without a solution.

 

[Phatguysrule]

when you say cost less than what we are currently spending, are you refering to oboma care or individual out of pocket expenditures?

im pretty sure thst universal health care woudl cost the givernment more than they currently spend on health care. If you dosagree please show me some numbers?

Were starting to get into a numbers game where anyone can say anything to back the opinion. But is it fiscally feasable?

Show me the numbers.

According to the CBO the most aggressive single payer plan in the world (Bernie Sanders Medicare For All) would cost less than we are currently projected to spend on healthcare.

The Political Economic Research Institute shows $500 billion in savings per year...

TABLE S1 Key Assumptions for Estimating Overall Costs of Medicare for All

• Overall increase in health care demand through universal coverage +12.0%

Sources of system-wide cost savings

• Administrative restructuring -9.0%
  
  
• Pharmaceutical price reductions -5.9%
  
  
• Uniform Medicare rates for hospitals and physicians/clinics -2.8%
  
  
• Improved service delivery/reduced waste and fraud -1.5%
  
  
• Total cost savings (= rows 2+3+4+5) -19.2%

Sources: See Tables 8 and 15.

A whole bunch of developed countries spend 9-12% of their GDP on healthcare. The US spends 18-20%.

 

[Orion Bailey]

According to the CBO the most aggressive single payer plan in the world (Bernie Sanders Medicare For All) would cost less than we are currently projected to spend on healthcare.

The Political Economic Research Institute shows $500 billion in savings per year...



A whole bunch of developed countries spend 9-12% of their GDP on healthcare. The US spends 18-20%.

Does this take into account all the little things people currently live with without getting care vs what they would have treated if free?

i have a cyst on my knew. Im not paying to have it removed now but if it were free i would.

See i think reports like this are fairly misleading because of my above question.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Of course it would cost the government more. But the government's money comes from taxes, which amounts to what we spend. So the correct comparison is what we, combined, spend on insurance premiums. It should be obvious that government handling health care will cost less in total than private companies handling it--private companies have to make a profit, government just has to break even.

Funny enough, our government spends enough per capita on healthcare to fully fund a Canadian style universal healthcare system. So if we adopted that, every employee with a family could see an immediate $500 per month (minimum) raise without costing their employer anything. And every American would be covered.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

What's your alternative solution?

When I was in college I picked up a part time job at a local hospital. They had one of the best and yet most simple dental plans I have ever heard of.

Every employer pays 50% of dental bills.

If you go to the dentist every 6 months the next year the employer pays 60%.

Year after that, if you go every 6 months, 70%.

All the way until 100% of your dental bills are paid in full.

Now if you miss a 6 month cleaning you go back to 50% and start all over.

It is a financial savings incentive to get the required care at the recommended time.

If you're getting dental care every 6 months the chances of expensive procedures like crowns and teeth replacement goes down drastically.

...

In out current insurance based system regular care is actually financially discouraged. The deductible causes people to delay regular testing and care until there is a problem. And with our bodies when you finally notice a problem it could be much more expensive treatment.

Any healthcare system needs to be designed to find problems early and many times before the patient ever knows there is a problem.

As a male, do a little googling about prostate cancer and the treatment and survivability rates if gone undetected for years.

 

[Orion Bailey]

How many peolple here have no life threatening problems you would have taken care of if it didn't cost anything and how much of that do you think is considered in figuring the cost of universal health care?

again. Im not saying it can happen. Im saying the reports have glaring holes that lead to my concerns of the validity of the numbers.

 

[RR7]

Does this take into account all the little things people currently live with without getting care vs what they would have treated if free?

i have a cyst on my knew. Im not paying to have it removed now but if it were free i would.

See i think reports like this are fairly misleading because of my above question.

I don't know about that specific study, but I imagine more frequent visits because they are free would ultimately save money because it avoids the bigger issues that those visits sometimes help to fix. Similar to Sly's car analogy. If you get regular maintenance on your car and treat it well, you have better chances of avoiding bigger issues. Same with the body. If we are in general going in to take care of all the little things, it reduces bigger issues that arise from those small things that cost far more.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Does this take into account all the little things people currently live with without getting care vs what they would have treated if free?

i have a cyst on my knew. Im not paying to have it removed now but if it were free i would.

See i think reports like this are fairly misleading because of my above question.

Only if it is medically necessary. If it is cosmetic nothing changes.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I don't know about that specific study, but I imagine more frequent visits because they are free would ultimately save money because it avoids the bigger issues that those visits sometimes help to fix. Similar to Sly's car analogy. If you get regular maintenance on your car and treat it well, you have better chances of avoiding bigger issues. Same with the body. If we are in general going in to take care of all the little things, it reduces bigger issues that arise from those small things that cost far more.

possibly. But that would only work with newborns. How do we deal with all the run down cars sitting in the lots currently?

 

[Phatguysrule]

How many peolple here have no life threatening problems you would have taken care of if it didn't cost anything and how much of that do you think is considered in figuring the cost of universal health care?

again. Im not saying it can happen. Im saying the reports have glaring holes that lead to my concerns of the validity of the numbers.

If it's not medically necessary it wouldn't be covered. This is all calculated in. It's a 2oo page study. Your questions have been answered.

 

[ABM]

When I was in college I picked up a part time job at a local hospital. They had one of the best and yet most simple dental plans I have ever heard of.

Every employer pays 50% of dental bills.

If you go to the dentist every 6 months the next year the employer pays 60%.

Year about that, if you go every 6 months, 70%.

All the way until 100% of your dental bills are paid in full.

Now if you miss a 6 month cleaning you go back to 50% and start all over.

It is a financial savings incentive to get the required care at the recommended time.

If you're getting dental care every 6 months the chances of expensive procedures like crowns and teeth replacement goes down drastically.

...

In out current insurance based system regular care is actually financially discouraged. The deductible causes people to delay regular testing and care until there is a problem. And with our bodies when you finally notice a problem it could be much more expensive treatment.

Any healthcare system needs to be designed to find problems early and many times before the patient ever knows there is a problem.

As a male, do a little googling about prostate cancer and the treatment and survivability rates if gone undetected for years.

When I was in the corporate world, we could set aside x amount of pre-taxed dollars for various health costs. I really liked that approach.

 

[Phatguysrule]

possibly. But that would only work with newborns. How do we deal with all the run down cars sitting in the lots currently?

We still save money because we save so much on administration and prescriptions.

 

[Phatguysrule]

When I was in the corporate world, we could set aside x amount of pre-taxed dollars for various health costs. I really liked that approach.

That is less efficient, hence more expensive.