Trump Fixes Fatal Flaw With Policy
Posts
Total:
80
-->
@bmdrocks21
Who pays taxes? Who has to make-up for the money dolled out in tax-credits? Tax-payers, that's who.Nobody really pays for those tax credits. Have you seen our debt? Cut spending.
If nobody really pays, then who cares if people get free healthcare (like they already do)?
Do you even understand how money works? [LINK]
-->
@bmdrocks21
The old and chronically ill pay less-than-they-cost, and the young and healthy pay more-than-they-cost.Yes, the old do pay less than they should and the young/healthy pay more than they should according to their costs.
Great. At least we can agree on one actual fact.
Now, how would universal healthcare plans by the government solve that?
That's not the PROBLEM. A "system" were everyone pays their own way is called "ANARCHY". Designing a "system" where each person pays exactly what they owe is EASY. JUST MAKE INSURANCE (and universal healthcare) ILLEGAL. IT'S A SCAM ANYWAY. IT TAKES MONEY FROM THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T FILE CLAIMS AND GIVES IT TO PEOPLE WHO DO FILE CLAIMS.
IT ROBS THE HEALTHY TO PAY THE SICK.
Do you buy insurance? Do your premiums pay for idiots who wreck their cars? Do your premiums pay for idiots who get sick all the time or have special needs?
If you added up all of the insurance premiums you've paid over the years, would you have over $100,000.00 in the bank?
Don't you wish you could just pay for exactly what you personally need and not a penny more?
Well, you can. Just cancel your insurance. Opt out of police and fire protection. Opt out of public roads, maybe make them all into toll roads.
Is this the small-government utopia of your dreams?
Then whoever makes more money pays more, not based on costs. Private insurance companies should be able to cost-discriminate more.
This would just exacerbate the "problem" you're complaining about. WHY SHOULD RICH PEOPLE BE PUNISHED? WHY SHOULD SMART RICH PEOPLE HELP POOR IDIOTS?
-->
@bmdrocks21
This is in part because companies have made those incremental improvements to insulin products, which has allowed them to keep their formulations under patent, and because older insulin formulations have fallen out of fashion.I agree, we need some sort of patent reform that allows patents for innovative and new products, rather than slightly altered old drugs.
I agree 100%.
Patent reform AND copyright reform. 20 years of exclusive rights for everything (drugs, music, movies, toys, games), then it's public-domain.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Pharmaceutical companies already spend more on marketing then they do on research. And most of their research is already subsidized by the government, and they're making record breaking profits anyway, so complaining about "the cost" is nonsensical.If we are giving taxpayer money to private companies, that is a problem. There should be stricter rules on government-funded research with regard to patents, prices, etc. Without government aid, they should be able to charge however much they want, though.
Trump’s original spending proposal for fiscal year 2019, released last month, included major cuts to not just to the NIH, but the National Science Foundation as well. It is those two publicly funded entities — not Big Pharma — that support the bulk of the country’s basic research into diseases and pathways to new treatments.
That’s why the cuts were especially unwelcome in the executive suites of drug and biotech companies. Their business models depend on Washington subsidizing expensive, high-risk basic research, mostly through the vast laboratory network funded by the NIH.
Just how important is our publicly funded research to Big Pharma and Biotech? According to a new study by a small, partly industry-funded think tank called the Center for Integration of Science and Industry (CISI), it is existentially important. No NIH funds, no new drugs, no patents, no profits, no industry.
This scam is worth a lot of money and is not easily messed with, as sacred as federal research benefiting military contractors. After Trump reversed his proposed research cuts last month, Bloomberg published an investor-soothing excuse article with the title, “The NIH appears Trump-proof.” The reporter, Max Nisen, explained, “NIH funds [are] a backbone of the research ecosystem on which [biotech and drug companies] depend. The better the NIH does, the better they do.” [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
The bill for our debt will come eventually, likely in my lifetime, and it will be a very unpleasant one. I care about it, so I want to cut spending quite a bit and maybe raise taxes a little bit temporarily until we pay it off.
Yes, insurance does rob the healthy to pay the sick, and I would like to be able to opt out of some insurance. Car insurance is to pay for the other person's car in the case of a wreck, though. Health insurance is for yourself, and Obama made it illegal not to have health insurance. Kind of insane. And I can't opt out of many of those services anyway. If we didn't have insurance, costs would be much lower. Lasik eye surgery isn't covered by insurance and the price is driven down by competition.
Then whoever makes more money pays more, not based on costs. Private insurance companies should be able to cost-discriminate more.This would just exacerbate the "problem" you're complaining about. WHY SHOULD RICH PEOPLE BE PUNISHED? WHY SHOULD SMART RICH PEOPLE HELP POOR IDIOTS?
Think you mistook my point there. I was saying Medicare for all would tax the rich to pay much more for the exact same service. That isn't fair.
Glad we agree on patent/copyright reform.
That drug-industrial complex sounds corrupt as hell. You know, I absolutely hate Bernie Sanders except for I believe he is genuine and would actually go after special interests like that. It is unfortunate that I can't vote for him based on his fiscal policy and social policies.
-->
@disgusted
I am sorry that you confuse self-reliance for selfishness.
I see that you conveniently didn't mention my statistics that completely disproved everything that you are saying.
-->
@bmdrocks21
I am sorry that you confuse self-reliance for selfishness.
Oh but I don't. You and your kind are purely selfish, it stands out in everything you write.
I see that you conveniently didn't mention my statistics that completely disproved everything that you are saying.
What statistics and how would they alter the truth?
-->
@bmdrocks21
The bill for our debt will come eventually, likely in my lifetime, and it will be a very unpleasant one. I care about it, so I want to cut spending quite a bit and maybe raise taxes a little bit temporarily until we pay it off.
Cash is like carnival tickets.
It's absurd to say that a carnival owes itself tickets.
They print their own tickets.
The USA is like a giant carnival with games and prizes.
Europe is like a giant carnival with games and prizes.
China is like a giant carnival with games and prizes.
They all print their own carnival tickets.
These tickets only have value if the games and prizes offered by the carnival are highly desirable.
The mistake most people make is - thinking of the government the same way they think about their own personal finances.
You have to imagine yourself as a carnival owner who prints their own tickets.
If you want to boost the value of your tickets, you need to invent some new and fabulously amazing games and prizes!!
It's also a lot like stock. Crash your own stock, buy it back, then boost it up by inventing something new!! Like this, [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
But we borrow carnival tickets from other nations and have to pay interest on these ticket loans. When we continuously borrow tickets, the payments start snowballing and eventually we cannot pay back our ticket interest at all. Then the other carnivals are going to be very upset and might war with our carnival to get it back. Or we can print tons of tickets and everyone will lose faith in our ticket's value.
-->
@3RU7AL
So we need to invent hoola hoops?
-->
@PressF4Respect
He paid $300,000+ for two fucks, that's a desperate masturbator not a ladies man.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yes, insurance does rob the healthy to pay the sick, and I would like to be able to opt out of some insurance.
Why not all insurance. They all follow the same principle. Steal from the rich (lucky) to give to the poor (unlucky).
Car insurance is to pay for the other person's car in the case of a wreck, though.
How is this fair? Why not just force everyone to carry a $10,000.00 bond? I've paid way more than that in premiums.
Health insurance is for yourself, and Obama made it illegal not to have health insurance. Kind of insane. And I can't opt out of many of those services anyway.
As long as people can still get mended in emergency rooms for free, healthcare costs will burden those who can pay full price.
Surgery for an aortic cyst (for a homeless person) can cost as much as $500,000.00. In some cases, the same patient will need to have this life-saving procedure multiple times because they don't qualify for preventative care.
If we didn't have insurance, costs would be much lower.
As long as people can still get mended in emergency rooms for free, healthcare costs will burden those who CAN pay the full (inflated) price.
Lasik eye surgery isn't covered by insurance and the price is driven down by competition.
You can't compare elective surgery with non-elective surgery. One of the key problems with healthcare cost is price-gouging people who will die without treatment.
Free-Market-Economics works pretty well for luxury items and electives, but it turns dark pretty quickly when handling necessities.
For example, in the Guilded Age, companies could buy up the municipal water lines and then jack prices through the roof.
Railroads and coal mines would own the only grocery store in town, and force their workers into debt by charging double the going price for bread.
-->
@bmdrocks21
So we need to invent hoola hoops?
Or AI, or fabulous, high-security holiday camps!
-->
@bmdrocks21
But we borrow carnival tickets from other nations and have to pay interest on these ticket loans.
They're stock-piling American carnival tickets (ticket-bonds, special tickets that promise to pay 1.17 tickets if you hold them for 10 years).
The USA is also stock-piling Foreign carnival tickets (ticket-bonds).
The USA actually comes out ahead in the debt game. The USA is owed more money than they owe to other countries. [LINK]
When we continuously borrow tickets, the payments start snowballing and eventually we cannot pay back our ticket interest at all.
How is the USA "borrowing" carnival tickets?
Then the other carnivals are going to be very upset and might war with our carnival to get it back.
The tickets will become absolutely worthless if the carnival is destroyed.
What's more likely is the foreign carnivals who hold large numbers of ticket-bonds will threaten to crash the ticket value by dumping them, and they'll use this threat to extort favors from the carnival that issued the ticket-bonds.
Or we can print tons of tickets and everyone will lose faith in our ticket's value.
Possibly, but if they can throttle liquidity somehow, perhaps by locking-down individual bank accounts like they did in Greece and Cyprus, it's all good.
Using the stock example, if creditors want their money, they will do anything they can to BOOST hype about the company because they know if they simply dismantle it (force bankruptcy), they'll be left fighting over scraps.
-->
@3RU7AL
If you account for only debts owed to other countries, sure. But if you count the entitlements owed to citizens that we will have no way of paying for, then it gets a little hazy. "$82 trillion avalanche of Social Security and Medicare deficits that will come over the next three decades" https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/03/19/entitlement-spending-crisis-ignored-debt-looms/
We borrow tickets by selling bonds to other countries, who loan us tickets that we owe back plus interest.
They would more likely conquer us than destroy us if they were capable of it. I don't like the idea of our country getting extorted, though.
Greece is not all good. Their carnival is sub-par. No clowns or lions.
Boosting hype to raise stock value is how you get Enron. We don't want Enron.
-->
@bmdrocks21
...Social Security and Medicare deficits that will come over the next three...
Are you kidding me? Empty promises can be "fixed" by a simple rule change.
They've already done it several times.
Move the retirement age to, eh, let's say 88 years!!
Make sure to subsidize junk-food (corn and sugar) and market it to everyone everywhere so they'll be sure to die right before their 88th birthday!!
What about the police and firefighters and teachers who lost their pension funds in 2008??
Maybe the federal government could just issue an official apology (for freeeeeee!!!).
Sorry, no more Socialist Security Benefits you suckers.
I mean, what are all of those lazy-good-for-nothing-old-people going to do about it anyway?
DID YOU KNOW THE ORIGINAL RETIREMENT AGE FOR SOCIALIST SECURITY WAS 65?????
-->
@3RU7AL
And the issue is that the other side of the aisle seems intent on increasing all types of spending. It would perhaps make social security sustainable if we raised the retirement age. The issue is that the promises were given in the first place. Those people paid into it and saved less with the expectation that they would get these benefits. It was foolish of them, but it was a failure of government to create that expectation. Pension plans are also kinda ridiculous. "Pension bombs" will bankrupt us sooner or later.
-->
@bmdrocks21
And the issue is that the other side of the aisle seems intent on increasing all types of spending.
BOTH sides of the aisle have ratcheted up spending non-stop.
Ronald Reagan: President Reagan increased the debt by 186%. Reaganomics added $1.86 trillion. Reagan's brand of supply-side economics didn't grow the economy enough to offset the lost revenue from its tax cuts. Reagan also increased the defense budget by 35%.
George W. Bush: President Bush added $5.849 trillion, the second-greatest dollar amount. This was a 101% increase, the fourth-largest. Bush launched the War on Terror in response to the 9/11 attacks. It includes the War in Afghanistan, at $1.1 trillion, and the Iraq War, at $1 trillion. Military spending rose to a record level of $800 billion a year. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree, conservatives have a bunch of pansies who haven't decreased spending. George W Bush is an utter scum bad neo-con, though. Reagan was at least kind of conservative. His main spending increase was the military, but cut others. I often don't believe that "tax cuts pay for themselves". I think that is BS used to sell policies that I support. Raising taxes generally raises revenue. It just shifts spending to the public sector from the private and, in my opinion, slows economic growth in the long-run. It appears good in the short-run to increase spending and such via the government, which is all voters care about, unfortunately.
Nixon decimated the deficit, though! :)
He even increased welfare spending while doing so, oddly enough.