Economic Myths: the ongoing list

Discussion in 'World News / Current Events Forum' started by jaeger19, Apr 28, 2011.

  1. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Jul 15, 2002
    Parma idaho

    So the reason that you would tax the lower 50% is because they don't work?
    That lower 50% includes a whole bunch of military folks. Not to mention firefighters, nursing assistants, licensed practical nurses, respiratory therapists, and police officers..

    So why are up for raising taxes on a marine and his family because "they don't work"...

    While protecting the tax rate on a trust fund Kennedy?

    First.. I never said the hispanic male was illegal. How do you know he is illegal? You said that its going to be "inexpensive" to deny care with a backbone.
    So how does the system work? How do you have the system decide inexpensively who gets care and who doesn't.

    You said it would be inexpensive.. so tell me... how does it happen.?

    Either man up and tell us how its going to work when a hispanic male comes into the ER with chest pain, or abdominal pains, or blood in his stool , or is unconscious.
    (Or are you NOW claiming that hispanic males don't come into the ER?:l)

    Man up and give us all an answer on how denying care can be done inexpensively.
    Or just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Ohh.. so are you now claiming that the uninsured in this country are not a big problem? Well gee okie, that would mean that the 10% illegals in this country would be an even smaller problem. Glad you could clear that all up with us:l.

    As usual, you are wrong yet again.

    The individual mandate for health insurance has been a Republican idea since the 1980's

    Full Link here:

    In fact in 1993, it was introduced as a bill by 20 Republican senators

    and was made a mandate by republicans in Mass.

    I do no such thing. I do however realize that there is a fiscal difference between affording 40-100 dollars a month for catastrophic insurance and trying to pay a 300,000 dollar bill for a head injury.

    You are so busy with your twisted value judgements, you cannot grasp simple fiscal concepts.

    Penalize noncompliance with PT meds etc? Again, HOW DOES THAT WORK.
    Guy refuses to take his insulin regimen like he should and ends up in the ER in a coma... how are you going to "punish" him?

    Woman doesn't participate in physical therapy and has continued falls and breaks her leg on the last fall... how do you "punish" her.
    How do you determine who gets punished and who doesn't... and how much does it cost to make that determination?

    We say NO all the time. You are saying NO to the idea that individuals should have to have health insurance or pay a penalty.
  2. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Mar 7, 2001
    Indian Territory
    That 50% does include workers and when talking about the entire group yes, I wouldn't solely make the value judgement based on 'they don't work'. That doesn't change that they don't pay any income tax or receive net income from the govt though. When a cop makes money via filing taxes, that's still a problem whether he's a cop or not. Does anyone claim that's a workable, justified model? No more than the CEO with various avenues of tax breaks on billions in income. Nor excused by those billions, just like the cop doesn't in any way justify the CEO. Again, start the thread.

    As for protecting the Kennedys, who said?

    Are you now asking a question about care for illegals rather than implying that they all present to the ER with chest pain? Good.

    Do hospitals accept everyone for everything? An acknowledgement that they do not indicates the various avenues available to not continue free care as if our hospitals are designed to be charity clinics. Not for illegals, not for blacks, not for whites, not for you, not for me. That's not their role, nor do they see everyone for everything. Noting that people in trauma situations are to be stabilized etc does nothing to eliminate that. Not every visit is cardiac arrest.

    They do? I thought they were all so healthy?:l

    Only in your world would saying that your claim won't result in what you say it will equate to the above. Nope, I'm not claiming the uninsured aren't a big problem, golly gee whiz Mr. Jackson.:doh I'm very clearly saying for anyone besides you that 'invidual mandate' doesn't result in the improvement you claim it will.

    Not wrong, especially since 'ideas' and implemented legislation are quite different things. We're not talking about 20 yrs ago, we're talking now.

    As for MASS healthcare, I'm sure Mr. Romney will be running on just that, let's see what happens.

    No twisting here. The vast majority of folks are covered, yet 'covered' doesn't mean we have no problem there. Furthermore, I guess you're record is noting how those who have no coverage are in that situation because they just don't go get it. Ok.:z

    IF insurance worked in a model where healthy choices/outcomes meant incentives for the patient (which insurance providers would support as their payments for said individuals would be less) then premiums, services, copays etc could all be acted upon based on those outcomes. You bring up a very good point though, as long as there's no room for such, it can't happen. It also likely can't happen in the 'through my employer' world of insurance that most all are in. Massive changes are coming one way or the other, I'd prefer to see them revolve around wellness incentives and the motivated and engaged getting the most benefit rather than a shutdown of our unsustainable model, but we likely won't for various reasons. They will not work within our current model.

    No we don't. Anyway, I say no to that idea because I firmly believe liberty says pay for something or do without. I also believe people of various belief systems are called to be charitable and should be. We as a country ignore both, that doesn't make them wrong but it has so altered our society that it's difficult to see workable solutions given the mess we're in.

    Your time on the floor you vacated sure is mounting.:dv
  3. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Jul 15, 2002
    Parma idaho
    Except you would increase the cops taxes but not increase the CEO's taxes.

    You can say that you don't justify difference but you absolutely do differ in how you would treat their taxes.

    you did... I asked if you would increase taxes on the lower 50%... you said yes..

    I asked if you would support getting rid of the Bush Tax cuts for wealthy folks (like the Kennedy's) and you refused to support it.

    So tax the cop and protect the Kennedy.

    yes they do. by law they have to at least accept them for an evaluation before determining what care they need. And that costs money.

    But there is no such acknowledgment Okie. They have to evaluate patients, all of them and that costs money.

    Yes they do. For some, the evaluation includes the treatment (say for an ear infection where a prescription is written).

    and not every visit is indigestion masking as cardiac symptoms. The need to evaluate the difference is what is required and is what costs.

    So far, you have offered no way to refuse care and especially not inexpensively...

    So come now.. how do you evaluate that patient and determine he does not need care without spending money evaluating the patient? How do you refuse care inexpensively?

    and why is that? Either they pay for healthcare insurance OR they pay a fine that goes to pay for indigent care... either way its an improvement.

    Yes.., very much wrong... nice try at changing your original statement

    The individual mandate makes fiscal sense and makes sense from a freedom aspect.

    Okay.. so now you are saying it IS a problem and fixing it won't improve things:doh

    Explain how it would work in any other model. Premiums are already based on experience, pre existing conditions etc. They are are already different rates for folks who are male versus female, smokers versus non smokers etc etc. That system is already in place so how would your system be any different or get any other different outcomes.

    Except you have absolutely no idea of HOW to actually deny that care. Therefore, you leave the cost to evaluate that patient in the lap of everyone else who has insurance.

    Interesting, so as a country, we should make people of "various belief system" pay for charity?"
    Or is that everyone but you?
    Or should we only give charity to those you deem worthy?

    Its very ironic that you say "we as a country ignore charity" and then decry that we as a nation have decided to be charitable to the less fortunate through NATIONAL programs.
  4. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Mar 7, 2001
    Indian Territory
    Boy, this really gets old. I'll hit the main points.

    Didn't say I opposed the CEO paying his fair share of taxes, said I opposed blanket 'rate increases' on him and especially so while they pay a disproportionate amount compared to others.

    Bush tax cuts, Kennedy trust fund. Where's the key for an equal sign with a line through it?:l

    Tax the cop? Yes. Protect the Kennedy? Not hardly. Wonder how RFK jr is benefiting on taxes from big corn?:yes

    Evaluation, hospital treatment. Where's the key for an equal sign with a line through it? I also did not say that evaluation could be avoided or that it didn't cost. Tell me though, those scripts which are also sometimes essentially life-saving, does Walgreens give those away without payment?

    'An improvement' can be 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% better, can't it? Well, get all giddy. Seems someone talks a lot about percentages of problems. Hmmm..

    You continually equate things that are not equal and then say 'I'm right, it's just as I say'. Sorry, you're only fooling yourself.

    I'm not changing my statement on an individual mandate. If the bill you reference from 1993 was an individual mandate by itself, then it has been so in the past, so be it. Good call.

    We have problems both in the covered and uncovered patient populations, sorry you can't seem to grasp that someone would say that.

    Setting premiums on things like reported tobacco use and $0 copay for something like Chantix are very different things. Paying for $500 worth of dietician training and gym programs vs $100K for open heart etc. Graduated copays for not participating in wellness programs. There are tons of options and you could likely come up with several yourself.

    'Make' people be charitable? Um, no.:doh Allowing them to do so instead of traking half their pay would be nice for a change though.

    What's ironic is that you say that about my comments. That statement is very telling regarding our differences. I'm glad you used it. Charity has nothing to do with govt. The 'NATIONAL' progams you speak of (odd that you would actually acknowledge that they're 'charitable') are not 'charity'.

    Charity is rightfully optional and one doing with their money as they see fit. Govt has no money. They get their money from us and then redirect it to what they deem as appropriate 'charity'. That's not charity, nor is it liberty. I'm all for folks being charitable and we should have more of it. The reasons we don't are many. Regardless, a society that's not charitable should bear the consequences, not be forced to be so via the gun of govt. The consequences we'll face from that will be far worse.

    Charity has discretion, not so elsewhere.
  5. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Jul 15, 2002
    Parma idaho
    Exactly, blanket increase on the cop, no blanket increase on the Kennedy.
    The Kennedy family gets all sorts of tax breaks. Most notable in the way their income is handled. They get income through capital gains which is taxed at a historically low rate of 15%. The cop is taxed at 15% to 25% plus has to pay social security and medicare taxes. Which adds about another 7 percent. Then if we added up the percentage on income of state tax, gasoline tax, sales tax, property tax, we would find that as a percentage of income, the cop pays a lot more.
    The extremelyy wealthy like the Kennedy's pay a disproportionate TOTAL amount because they have a roughly 50% of the income
    the cops and cna's have roughly 10% of the income.


    You said we could deny treatment inexpensively and that it would save tons of money. PLEASE DETAIL HOW YOUR PLAN WORKS! You are now saying that we have to still pay for evaluations and that it costs money...... SO TELL US ALL HOW YOUR PLAN TO DENY CARE WORKS...

    So far Okie, I have asked this question several times and you have failed to answer it...
    So either answer HOW such a denial of care would work and be inexpensive or we will all know that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Whoa there hoss... you are the one that is equating things as equal when they are not.
    I say that taxing the cop and taxing the Kennedy are not equal in terms of deficit reduction because the Kennedy has such a larger income...
    Nope you say.. they are "equal", the cop getting the tax break and the Kennedy getting the tax break are the "same"..
    (but of course we now all know that you would treat them differently which goes against what you stated... go figure:l)

    I say that a hundred people going to the ER for an ear infection simply doesn't cost that much in relation to one guy going in for cardiac arrest and needing a bypass...and that in order to make an impact on healthcare, we need to focus on making sure that the guy going in for a cardiac arrest has some type of insurance so that cost is not switched to the rest of us.

    Oh no, you say... they are equal problems... the guys going in for ear infection are costing tons.. or its a "big problem"... whatever. and that if we just denied care "with backbone" it would be a big help..
    (but of course when asked HOW such a system would work... you have not offered any rational thoughts.. again go figure :l)

    I say that illegals are on average healthier than the average uninsured (because they are here to work) and that they make up a very small percentage of the uninsured and a small percentage of the costly uninsured. Therefore, I believe that we need to focus on solutions that influence the largest group of uninsured. Nope you say.. they are the same... they are criminals and they are the problem and "its not little"....and that if we denied care to these "criminals" we would save so much money...
    (but of course when asked HOW to deny care in such a system... you have not offered any rational explanations... again go figure :l)

    Over and over again Okie, I have stated that because of the fiscal differences involved that we need to concentrate on where change will have the most fiscal impact and decrease our deficit...

    But that is not your position.. your position is that cop getting 6,000 dollars in tax breaks is the same as a Kennedy getting 60,000 in tax break. and that the guy getting a free prescription is the same as a guy getting a free heart surgery.

    So the only one claiming things are "equal" when fiscally they are not is you.

    You just did change your statement... first you said
    and when I proved you wrong that it had been proposed.... it was

    Face it Okie.. you keep saying stuff that is just plain wrong.

    . Its already been done Okie. HMO's since the 1980's have been paying for wellness programs, for dietician consults, and for gym programs. There even has been NO copays for wellness visits and check ups. So far, everything you have said has been tried.

    One, you are allowed to do so... and "half your pay" isn't going to charity... not even in the same ballpark when you talk about the US budget...
    Wait.. its all the same right... billions for fraudulent defense contracts and 1 million for TANF is the "same":doh

    But guess what Okie! You are in LUCK... because the limit on taxable donations is 50% of your gross adjusted income. SO go donate 50% of your income to a non profit entity (I mean why not, you already are right? and this way you get to decide where to send it)... and this will lower income probably to the point where you won't pay any income tax at all. :tu
    And then we can all call you a leech.

    As a nation, we understand that charitable organizations can't meet the needs of the poor in our society. First and foremost, to try and meet the needs with multiple organiations requires duplication of services and redundant systems. In addition, it becomes difficult to distribute to rural areas and areas with poor access to services.. Thats why we have institutions like Medicaid and TANF as safety nets.

    Now, we all know that "you know better" but just like taxes, or healthcare. you are full of words but your plan for actually getting it done falls far short
  6. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Jul 15, 2002
    Parma idaho
    Seems someone is dodging a question or two...

    Come on Okie.. you made the statements now back them up please answer:

    lets hear it..
  7. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Mar 7, 2001
    Indian Territory
    No dodging, it just gets old restating what's already been said.

    All incentives regarding wellness and people's health/lifestyle decisions and outcomes have not been tried, far from. Noting that some attempts have been made in no way means none will work, that they've been tried, or that they've been tried on a large scale and in ways that could succeed. Healthy diet choices and exercise have been suggested/tried, many are still obese, therefore those things don't cause weight loss. Hmmm...

    Not everyone that presents to the hospital is admitted for care and kept until recovered. Not all treatment given is for immediately life-threatening conditions. Anyone interested in being the least bit objective can and would recognize that. If others won't, so be it.

    This country has no interest in verifying legal status (one issue) in various scenarios. To hope that such would be done regarding healthcare is to dream, but that doesn't mean something could not be implemented regarding illegal status. It means it's not going to.

    'Exactly', so address the breaks not 'blanket' anything on income tax rate. If you'd prefer to address the bottom 50% problem via 'breaks' rather than rate, fine by me. Either way, I'm for addressing both but also acknowledge the important differences between the two groups.

    No problem from me. We differ on the impact differences between taking from those who are paying vs getting something from those who only receive from the govt via various systems but I agree in the general sense and haven't said otherwise. It bothers you that I say the welfare leeches are just that. So be it. I'd suggest you get over it because it ain't gonna change. Nor is my agreement with cutting the breaks the ultra-wealthy use to avoid taxation.


    I do wonder why we give the surgery away for free but refuse the life-saving rx for inability to pay or lack of formulary coverage, but.....
    With money the govt already took? How does that work exactly?

    Didn't say it was, try reading. Gone is gone. That money being gone means less is available for all other things, including charity. Not a hard concept.

    It is? Read above. But for the record, the funds mentioned are quite different and for some very important reasons.
    I give what I can with what's left after govt. As opposed to your ridiculous assertion, how about govt takes half of what they take now and we'll talk.;)

    Have you sent in your additional tax check yet?

    Right, but the reason is primarily a difference of definition of those needs, govt taking what they do off the top, and generations of entitlement living and govt corruption. NOT that people wouldn't be adequately charitable if given the opportunity. Goodness, look how charitable they are now even as things are. When one assumes that all those getting aid are in need and also that govt can continue to supply such, what you write is the kind of nonsense that spills out.
    Legitimate response to legitimate need is not why we have Medicaid and TANF.

    I won't continue to restate things that have already been mentioned and have actually done too much of such with this post.
  8. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Jul 15, 2002
    Parma idaho
    Well.. I guess thats your way of admitting that you really have no real answer to HOW according to you we can deny care inexpensively and how it will safe a ton of money.

    admitted? No but evaluated and treated? Yes.. If they need to be admitted then they are.
    so again, how do you deny care?

    . Yep.. so again how do you deny that care? It has to be evaluated to make sure thats its not life threatening which is the major cost.. so how do you deny that?

    Mallards are pretty ducks...

    You still haven't done ONE DANG THING to say HOW you would go about denying care inexpensively and saving tons of money.

    Blah blah.. didn't ask any of that... You stated that we could deny care to illegals inexpensively and I asked and have continued to ask HOW YOU WOULD ACCOMPLISH IT!!!...

    I submit that the reason that verification of legal status when it comes to healthcare is not likely to be implemented is because it would come at a tremdous cost in money and freedom to do so.
    I realize that for hospitals to have to verify insurance coverage and citienship status in an emergent situation is time consuming, requires a lot of resources because you have to verify EVERYONES status... you, me, and the hispanic male coming into the emergency room because you cannot deny care simply becasue someone looks hispanic, or black or whatever.

    I think most folks realize for such a system to work... ALL citizens would have to carry their papers, or identification with them at all times so that they are available for inspection if you get hurt or injured. And even that wouldn't be necessarily sufficient since paperwork doesn't often follow you from the accident scene (so some type of DNA citizenry database would be necessary)

    Now.. as we all know... YOU KNOW BETTER... so again please tell us exactly HOW such a system would work.

    Easy... change your W2 to reflect a lower amount to be taken out of your pay. People do it all the time.

    Again.. gone isn't gone.. you can change your W2 to reduce your withholding...nothing against the law about doing it... as long as at the end of the year you don't end up owing a ton and have to pay a penalty...

    and if you give half your income to charity... you won't have to worry about that.

    Again.. all you have to do is change your withholding so that the government doesn't fed doesn't get your income tax but be sure to give it away to charity.

    Its not a ridiculous assertion... its the way taxes work okie. Individuals and businesses lower their withholding and quarterly estimates all the time to adjust for different tax issues. If you really plan to spend 1/2 your income to charity... simply lower your withholding.


    Its not off the top if you lower your withholding.

    First, they are given the opportunity... second.. its not just about being adequately charitable its about how that money gets to people, duplication of services etc etc. There are just flat out logistics that come into play.

    Now.. I will be out of the country for the next few days... plenty of time for you to stop stating the nonsense you have and to actually detail EXACTLY how it would be "easy and inexpensive" to deny care (with backbone) to those who are illegal and those without insurance.

    It will also give you time to actually learn something about taxes and witholding.
  9. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Mar 7, 2001
    Indian Territory
    Altering W2's eliminates tax burden, awesome.:doh

    Ah, the jaeger plan. Cut your pay in half and pay nothing on your W2. Yep, the pathway to prosperity and charitable giving, unless one wants to eat and avoid prison.:z

    How much over what you were required to pay did you send in?

    Your lifesaving going international?

    I won't be restating anything again, especially to someone under the notion that all the care we give to illegals cannot be reduced. Feel free to stay as long as possible.

    If you're going for pleasure I hope you have a lovely time. For that or other reasons here's to a safe enjoyable trip.
  10. pintail2222

    pintail2222 Elite Refuge Member

    Oct 8, 2002
    Collier Co. Florida

Share This Page