-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/public-option-1-trillion-bush-tax-cut.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
The cost of having 50 million people uninsured and even more underinsured is astronomical. And some of that cost is hidden and you can't measure it. It doesn't show up in a ledger anywhere as " cost of the uninsured," which is what makes it easy to confuse people.
I moved to "libertarian" "no-tax" New Hampshire from Massachusetts -- or as people like to ridicule it -- "Taxachusetts."
At the end of the year, my out-of-pocket costs for the same expenses were higher in NH. They didn't call it "tax," but I had to fix my own road, plow my own road, dispose of my own trash, provide my own water, provide my own sewage removal, act as a volunteer firefighter/medic, and pay higher car-repair bills because the roads were crap. When you added up the cost of all that -- all of which were provided by my taxes in MA -- I was paying more than twice what I paid in MA for the same services.
The only difference between "libertarianism" and Communism is that Communism at least makes sense on paper.
I can't believe anybody over the age of about 14 thinks libertarianism is a viable economic "theory." That's laughable.
People have got to eat and soon they won't be able to.
The Republicans are the party of Ebeneezer.
The Democrats have been bought out by smart Wall Street people who know all about futures and saw the writing on the wall for the Republicans. So they have a conflict of interest.
That means we'll have a party of the far right in the Republicans, the party of Wall Street in the Democrats, and the Socialist party.
Maybe the Socialist should change their name to Farmers and Mechanics or coopt the DFL (Democratic Farm and Labor Party) from Minnesota to ease the transition and emphasize bargaining power distribution instead of wealth distribution (which is basically the same thing, but more applicable to a society such as ours which is based upon the single principle of 'free contract'.
Ultimately, people have got to eat. They might sit idle while civil rights erode, but they have got to eat. For most of my life I've been jealous of Northern Europeans and their socialist ties. The Neocons want ideological politics, well this would give them that. To quote someone, "bring it on".
Democrats is worse than almost anyone might imagine.
Take this OECD study on health care:
http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2009doc.nsf/LinkT...
The graph on the top of page 13 (and I haven't read the whole study yet, I'm
very busy these days) shows that in the U.S., government pays out more per
person in health care benefits ALREADY than any nation except for Norway.
This suggest that if we switched to Canada's or Frances healthcare system
tomorrow it would be cheaper over all.
In other words, switching to single payer, universal coverage would be free.
In fact it would justify a tax cut.
The compromise then, shouldn't be 'public option', it should be private
option: everybody gets covered, but if you like your private coverage you
can keep it. Everyone else that has private coverage through work could
have the benefit monetized an rolled into their pay check. The increase in
purchasing power would help increase aggregate demand in the economy.
Together with increased competitiveness and the jobs that would generate and
perhaps a minor tax cut it would allow, we could be walking out of our
current 'Great Depression' in a forthnight and all for FREE.
I suggest "Farmer's and Mechanic's" party for a reason. Of course, it buries
the "socialist" name. But also, I once read a book by a Berkley professor
called "The anatomy of Fascism". In it he had a section on the anatomy of
Swedish socialism. It was an alignment of urban worker with rural
interests. You will recall that Bush got elected by collecting almost all
the rural states, both times. If only a few of those states had fallen to
Dems, he' wouldn't have been elected. So I think, as did the author, that
any sustainable liberal/progressive movement has to have "Farmers" in it. I
believe there is also a fairly healthy "Working Families" party in New York
and Conneticutt (due to old election laws that were never changed that are
lenient towards third parties).
Nobel Lauriate and Economic Historian, Douglas C. North, in his book
"Structure and Change in Economic History" said that the Roman Empire
collapsed because wealth and power had become highly concentrated (causing
the commercial economy to collapse) and the wealthy and powerful used their
influence to avoid paying taxes. The empire, despite controling all the
resources of Western Civilization, couldn't field large enough army to
defeat roaming bands of landless, shiftless peasants. It's not that it
didn't have the means, it just lacked the political will.
Again the country is based upon only one principle: "Free Contract". The
danger is bargaining taking place on an unlevel playing field. I think the
founding fathers were aware of all of this, and thought democracy, one man,
one vote, would address this problem. It hasn't. We are well, and rapidly
on our way to going the route that Rome went.
I think a socialist party is likely now. But I think total collapse into a
banana republic is far more likely, unfortunately.
The health care debate is the canary in the coal mine.
Best Regards,
Thanks again for the link.
That suggests that we are already paying for universal single payer, we just aren't getting it.
In essence single payer universal health care would be free because we are already paying it.
It means that the government could flip the switch tomorrow and go with Canada's or France's system, and the Government's out lay would go down. We'd could all get a tax cut to boot.
The compromise shouldn't be "public option" it should be "private option". You get public insurance, but if you want to keep your private one, it's your option to do so. The rest could have their healthcare benefit monetized and rolled into there pay check. The resulting increase in purchasing power would bolster demand for the economy. The new efficiency would help industry compete, creating new jobs.
In essence, single payer is free, would boost productivity, employment and purchasing power based demand, allowing us to walk out of the Depression were in.
This could all be done tomorrow, and it would be free.
Zero cost.
This country is getting taken for a MAJOR RIDE by Obama and his gang of thieves.
Just like people who espouse peace -- Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King.
I miss those days.
And they are succeeding beyond their wildest expectations.
Thirty years of tax cuts, and you can see the damage it's done around the country. Major parts of the U.S. look like a third world country. CA is going on IOUs. Discussions are being held in Michigan to bulldoze entire towns over because it's cheaper than providing the minimal services even in abandoned areas.
Capitalism, and neoliberalism, are the culprit here. You can't "regulate" it, you can't "fix" it, and you can't "moderate" it. You have to get rid of it by pulling it up by the roots so it never comes back.
We are generations away from that.
Maybe if enough "Obamavilles" (tent cities) spring up around the country, people will start to buy a clue. Until then, don't expect "salvation" from the neolibs in office. They are there to screw us over.
I agree about stopping foreign aid to Israel and the war expenses. The "Defense" Department should be cut by about 80% and we close up the ??700 bases we have around the world.
Obama has no intention of doing any of this "alone" or "with everybody behind him." His role is to continue abolishing the middle class that was started with the rampant conservatism we've witnessed over the last 30 years. You are delusional if you believe he supports the working class. He has no intention of making good on anything he might have "promised" to working people when he was campaigning.
Let the churches work together to provide these types of services for undocumenteds.
I am in definite agreement about cutting our foreign aid. We need to provide for our own people first. I also agree with cutting spending on other programs such as Defense, particularly those areas that are clearly "pork" or unneeded or obsolete weapons systems.