GOP wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid

[boston62]

Originally Posted by DJW

No Boston, it's like putting 10K in the bank, having them burn it in a big incinerator out back, going out of business and then you showing up 10 years later wanting to know where you're "contribution" is.

Suicide is doing the same stupid thing over and over, which is what spending more than you make is: national suicide.

I know what your saying, but let me ask you where do you get the money from, when States are asking for help, like NY, NJ, and Midwest from draught, natural disasters. Has to come from the feds.

[RGRider]

Originally Posted by boston62

I know what your saying, but let me ask you where do you get the money from, when States are asking for help, like NY, NJ, and Midwest from draught, natural disasters. Has to come from the feds.

Why? Disaster aid is a fairly recent phenomenon. Why should the feds, US!, cover 100% of New Jersey and New York's costs? Which is what they are asking for.

[guydoc77]

So Boston, you cite one example of what you think is "waste". Give me some other examples please. I'll bet you didn't know that Doc reimbursement only represents 8% of the Medicare budget. It's clear that you believe there's all this "waste" and that it's all the fault of doctors and hospitals. Give me several examples.

Go ahead cut the reimbursement to docs and hospitals. Watch what will happen insidiously. You'll have less docs AND less hospitals. Then you can get in line with everyone else and wait for treatment that now is routine AND is EXPECTED, in fact, DEMANDED by the recipients of that treatment. I can see that the idea of sticking it to those "rich" hospitals and "rich" doctors is really appealing to you. Much like symbolically raising the taxes on the "rich". Fine, if that's what makes you FEEL good.

Cut away. I have posted before on this forum about the unpleasant changes that will occur as CMMS targets those "wasteful" doctors and hospitals. Wait and see. This is all very humorous to me on one level. We have this debate now about the sanctity of unions and their benefits and wages. And the talk of waste associated with all that is, essentially, taboo. Businesses outsource, move, and close and states go bankrupt because of the benefits, largely, of union employees. I wonder how you'd feel if folks, who have no idea in hell about what you actually do, started just randomly accusing you and your brothers of "waste". But I already know the answer to that.

Like I say. Cut away. Punish the EVIL hospitals and doctors. Cut their pay AND raise their taxes. That'll show them. But be damned careful what you wish for.

[guydoc77]

Originally Posted by RGRider

Why? Disaster aid is a fairly recent phenomenon. Why should the feds, US!, cover 100% of New Jersey and New York's costs? Which is what they are asking for.

Well it's very simple RG. Haven't you heard? We have tons of money laying around. And we'll have even more after the "rich" finally pay their "fair share".

[RGRider]

Originally Posted by guydoc77

So Boston, you cite one example of what you think is "waste". Give me some other examples please. I'll bet you didn't know that Doc reimbursement only represents 8% of the Medicare budget. It's clear that you believe there's all this "waste" and that it's all the fault of doctors and hospitals. Give me several examples.

Go ahead cut the reimbursement to docs and hospitals. Watch what will happen insidiously. You'll have less docs AND less hospitals. Then you can get in line with everyone else and wait for treatment that now is routine AND is EXPECTED, in fact, DEMANDED by the recipients of that treatment. I can see that the idea of sticking it to those "rich" hospitals and "rich" doctors is really appealing to you. Much like symbolically raising the taxes on the "rich". Fine, if that's what makes you FEEL good.

Cut away. I have posted before on this forum about the unpleasant changes that will occur as CMMS targets those "wasteful" doctors and hospitals. Wait and see. This is all very humorous to me on one level. We have this debate now about the sanctity of unions and their benefits and wages. And the talk of waste associated with all that is, essentially, taboo. Businesses outsource, move, and close and states go bankrupt because of the benefits, largely, of union employees. I wonder how you'd feel if folks, who have no idea in hell about what you actually do, started just randomly accusing you and your brothers of "waste". But I already know the answer to that.

Like I say. Cut away. Punish the EVIL hospitals and doctors. Cut their pay AND raise their taxes. That'll show them. But be damned careful what you wish for.

I just read that the 'free' annual check-up under ACA isn't for new ailments.

[RGRider]

Originally Posted by guydoc77

Well it's very simple RG. Haven't you heard? We have tons of money laying around. And we'll have even more after the "rich" finally pay their "fair share".

Yeah, gonna be great right!

[DJW]

Originally Posted by boston62

I know what your saying, but let me ask you where do you get the money from, when States are asking for help, like NY, NJ, and Midwest from drought, natural disasters. Has to come from the feds.

Well, I"m glad you asked that, because it gives me the chance to re-terate what the Constitution says on the subject.

Section 8: The Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Congress is given the power to collect those taxes necessary to pay the debts, provide for the defense and general Welfare of the States.

Clearly then, Congress has the power to lay taxes as needed for defense and welfare of the STATES.

“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose." Thomas Jefferson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...e#cite_note-13[quote]

IMO, raising taxes to repair the infrastructure in a STATE caused by a natural disaster if it benefited the STATES would be a power given to the Congress.

It would be up to each Congress to make that decision, however. I do not think that it would "have to come from the feds" however, there is no mandate to act, only a restriction on who can.

[09 XBones]

Originally Posted by guydoc77

XBones, your "logic" and others' "logic" is why I don't post on here much. So you're saying that if someone pays in maybe $100 grand to Medicare over their career, if it's even that much, and then receives upwards of $500 grand or more in benefits after 65 (Pacemaker 20grand, hip replacement $20 grand, bypass surgery $30 grand or more, end of life ICU stay(s) $5 grand a day, I could go on) that it's not an entitlement?

Exactly, because not everybody gets a pacemaker, hip replacement, bypass surgery (Who would get both a pacemaker AND bypass?) or need an ICU stay...

Using your logic, the ICU and knee replacement I might have after a motorcycle accident is an "entitlement" because I expect my extended medical coverage on my motorcycle insurance policy to pay for it?

And what part of the actual math about tax hikes on the "rich" don't you get? I realize how you FEEL about all this. But your FEELINGS are really quite irrelevant to me. Unfortunately, our whole political system caters to FEELINGS. Hence the mess we're in.

Becaue we've lowered taxes under the promise that it will help our situation and it's of course wrong.

[09 XBones]

Originally Posted by DJW

Exactly! It's not spending that's the problem it's the revenue! Genius.

Don't forget to post the receipt when you get done sending in your fair share bones. (We'll let you know what that is)

It is amazing how many of you just buy into such crap without giving it any thought.

America's money is not tied up in future income, it's tied up in current wealth. The only way to balance the rich and poor is not take wealth that hasn't been made, it's to take what already exists. Bones has two cars, DJW has none. Bones gives DJW one of his and all is equal.

It's called sharing the wealth, or as Deng Xiaoping said, sharing the poverty. But you don't see any of your rich heroes: Springsteen, Buffet, Gates, Immelt and all rest talking about that do you?

You want to redistibute...great let's get on with it, but taxing money that hasn't been created yet? That's fool's gold.

Sorry Danny, but raising Mitt Romney's taxes from 15% to 30 or 40% isn't raising taxes on income that hasn't been earned yet, nor is it fools gold. Oh, and taxing income and offering programs isn't Communism or Socialism.

[DJW]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Sorry Danny, but raising Mitt Romney's taxes from 15% to 30 or 40% isn't raising taxes on income that hasn't been earned yet, nor is it fools gold.

Actually it is bones. Romney's dividends are based on growth in his portfolio. You have no clue what that's going to be next year. In fact taxing it at higher rate virtually guarantees that it will be less next year than it was this year. It's fools gold because you can't balance your budget on what you think you might get. However, if you tax a percentage of what people already have, they're CURRENT WEALTH...that is known value.

Example. Buffet has 50 Billion in assets. Tax him at 10% of his assets, that 5 billion cash...much much more than what he would have to pay as a POTENTIAL dividend.

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Oh, and taxing income and offering programs isn't Communism or Socialism.

I know this is a hard one bones, but try to follow along:

An example of re-distribution, which is socialism, in the President's current proposal is an increase in estate tax. When you die, a portion of your CURRENT WEALTH is confiscated by the government and redistributed according to their agenda (War planes or Abortions as they fee fit).

It a purely capitalist society, your property would remain yours to do with as you wish. That doesn't mean that government doesn't have the right to tax you to run it's operations, but it doesn't have the right to take your property (bones has 2 cars DJW has none - Bones gives DJW one and all is swell) and give it to someone else in the name of "fairness."

[Tequila SG]

Originally Posted by DJW

An example of re-distribution, which is socialism, in the President's current proposal is an increase in estate tax. When you die, a portion of your CURRENT WEALTH is confiscated by the government and redistributed according to their agenda (War planes or Abortions as they fee fit).

Exactly that Castro did in Cuba in 1960.........along with higher taxes on the rich and confiscation of all privately own businesses...no Obama is not a socialist..

[09 XBones]

Originally Posted by DJW

Actually it is bones. Romney's dividends are based on growth in his portfolio. You have no clue what that's going to be next year. In fact taxing it at higher rate virtually guarantees that it will be less next year than it was this year.

That's fine I can live with it more than the reality that I'm taxed 28% on income earnings and Romney isn't even paying 15% in dividend income. Oh and don't forget income from selling securities at a profit...

It's fools gold because you can't balance your budget on what you think you might get. However, if you tax a percentage of what people already have, they're CURRENT WEALTH...that is known value.

Potato potahtoh.

Example. Buffet has 50 Billion in assets. Tax him at 10% of his assets, that 5 billion cash...much much more than what he would have to pay as a POTENTIAL dividend.

I'm not sure I'd like to see the country taxed for their net worth. Besides, before it becomes part of one's net worth, it was income or a gift.

I know this is a hard one bones, but try to follow along:

An example of re-distribution, which is socialism, in the President's current proposal is an increase in estate tax. When you die, a portion of your CURRENT WEALTH is confiscated by the government and redistributed according to their agenda (War planes or Abortions as they fee fit).

It a purely capitalist society, your property would remain yours to do with as you wish. That doesn't mean that government doesn't have the right to tax you to run it's operations, but it doesn't have the right to take your property (bones has 2 cars DJW has none - Bones gives DJW one and all is swell) and give it to someone else in the name of "fairness."

You're not drawing a very clear distinction between taxation and redistrubition of wealth. At any rate, a civilized society taxes and does care for it's poor, needy, and those who fell through the cracks. Sorry if I disagree that just letting them die is a solution, or that anything less comes anywhere close to the defination of socialism.

[Waffen]

Instead of using the government to re-distribute money why not fund charities and make sure the money gets to the poor. Or would that mean the lefties would actually have to use their money rather than someone elses?



W