US $350 Billion tax cut is likely $800 Billion

[Drogue]

DanS: What I meant about Medicaid/care was that there are there are people who are too poor to be able to afford medical insurance/procedures, but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid/care. Thus those with money have treatment, and those with very little get it on the government, yet there is a (growing) gap in the middle of people with no access to healthcare.

[DanS]

No access to healthcare? Hmmm... Be careful in what you believe, since some wordsmiths glibly equate no access to health insurance as no access to healthcare.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Drogue

Do states have seperate state taxes? I thought the education system, though administered by the states was paid for by the federal government? I read an article the other day saying that public education in America was so bad it was no longer an option for those who can possibly afford anything better, and that Medicaid/care was no longer providing for anyone but the absolute poorest, so that many do not have enough money for health insurance, but are not covered by medicaid/care. And we though the NHS was bad

How bad is it, both healthcare and public education in America?

States are divided into counties or parishes. These local government usually place a tax on the value of real property to fund local government. The vast majority of this goes to public education on the secondary level. State government usually subsidizes post secondary education through some type of percentage formula (In Tennessee the state pays 65% of total cost and the student pays 35%). Some inequality does exist between counties or parishes based upon income. The state tries to reemedy this by setting the curriculum and minimum requirements. Obviously this is a least common denominator type situation. The more affluent areas tend to provide more in the way of electives that provide a more well rounded education.

WRT, Healthcare...By law no one is turned away from a hospital for critical care due to inability to pay. "Critical care" is the key word here. Many states are becoming frustrated with the inability of the Medicare/caid system to handle the volume. Tennessee dropped both and instituted a local program (supposedly funded by the federal contribution earmarked for Medicare/caid). This has been a tremendous failure and has thrown the state into tax increases and even the possibility of a state income tax. Medicare/Caid has also been the fastest growing part of the Federal Budget...Something needs to be done here. Many say nationalized health care...I think that this would just add to the current inability of the government to manage this system. Some sort of regulated privitization is what is needed.

[Drogue]

Well, what is there in place? If someone has not the money to buy themselves health insurance or medicines/procedures, yet they are not poor enough for the government to pay for their healthcare, what happens? Do they get any? If so, how? Who pays?

[Drogue]

That's Plato, I think that answered most of my questions Thanks DanS too.

Would it be feasible to simply have it that anyone who earns less than a certain amount gets free health insurance, and then taper it up in bands on how much people contribute? Is there a way that mean everyone gets decent care (in emergencies, but also for medication, long term care) but without a nationalized system?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drogue
Well, what is there in place? If someone has not the money to buy themselves health insurance or medicines/procedures, yet they are not poor enough for the government to pay for their healthcare, what happens? Do they get any? If so, how? Who pays?

We have health insurance for kids in California for families that fall through the cracks. For adults though, they go to the inferior hospitals and usually these hospitals just take a loss. I don't know if they are compensated at all by the govt for doing this.

[Jack_www]

Well in my state I live , California they are rising taxes , or at least planing on doing that. They also want to raise the fees for collage students, but thankfully due to the stalemate the legislature is in fees wont be raised the coming semester. They plan on tripling the car tax, raise the income tax, and try to put fees on almost every good people buy to get out of the decift. Also little in the way of buget cuts has taken place. At least the federal taxes will be lowered.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Well in my state I live , California they are rising taxes , or at least planing on doing that. They also want to raise the fees for collage students, but thankfully due to the stalemate the legislature is in fees wont be raised the coming semester. They plan on tripling the car tax, raise the income tax, and try to put fees on almost every good people buy to get out of the decift. Also little in the way of buget cuts has taken place. At least the federal taxes will be lowered.

That's why I like the increase in transfer payments to the states. The states are having to chock off the local economies because they can't use fiscal policy like the federal govt can.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Drogue
Would it be feasible to simply have it that anyone who earns less than a certain amount gets free health insurance, and then taper it up in bands on how much people contribute? Is there a way that mean everyone gets decent care (in emergencies, but also for medication, long term care) but without a nationalized system?

Their are two major objections that seem to be played over and over again when talking about subsidized low income health insurance.

First, lower income people typically don't invest in prventative care that higher income people do. This tends to cause more long term chronic problems. Chronic care is about the most expensive part of health care. Most insurance companies have no way to predict the cost of this type of care and therefore would not have any idea how much they would need to recieve from the government to provide this level of insurance. Many lower income people (sadly) live with condition that could be improved by good long term chronic care.

Secondly, lower income people typically are not as good at self diagnosis as higher income people. This translates into a prediction of more doctor's visits than are actually needed. In addition, lower income people tend to use emergency services when regular services would suffice. Obviously emergency services carry a much higher price tag.

Between these two arguments the cost factor becomes paramount. I think that no one argues that universal healthcare is a good idea. The argument comes into place on a cost benefit analysis. Opponents tend to think that the country simply cannot afford it. Unfortunately, I agree.

Kidicious: Hospitals are not compensated for care to the indigent. It is a cost of doing business.

[Arrian]

So we cut our revenues (at least temporarily - let's assume for the sake of argument that the Republicans are right and the tax cuts will spur economic growth and thus enlarge the tax base down the road) but we don't cut spending? Big deficit. Or we cut spending, which typically means a reduction in social programs.

Meanwhile, the massive debt load just gets bigger. State governments are going to get less from the Feds, so they will raise taxes, partially counteracting the Federal tax cut.

Look, tax cuts are nice and all, but it doesn't make any sense to me that you would cut taxes but not cut spending at the same time, and then raise spending later when the revenues come back up. Second, it makes no sense to me that our government (both Federal and State) can't see far enough ahead to run a surplus during boom times and save it so that when the inevitable bust comes around, there is money lying around to help cover deficit spending. We live in a capitalist economy for crissakes! It's cyclical, and we've known that for decades. Yet every time a recession comes around, everybody acts all surprised and panicked, as if they had no idea it was coming. It sickens me. No responsibility whatsoever.

And don't talk to me about "surpluses" during the Clinton years. To the extent that those really were surpluses, they were still far, far too small. I'm talking about putting away several percentage points per year (5%, perhaps), using half of it to start chipping away at the debt and the other half to save for a rainy day - that we all know will come again.

Damn, we have a "strategic petroleum reserve" why don't we have a "strategic dollar reserve?"

-Arrian

[MRT144]

before i die i want to see 3 things in america

1. national healthcare by the government
2. fusion power plants
3. the olsen twins in gangbang porn

[Imran Siddiqui]

[JohnT]

Edit: Asked and answered. Nevermind.

[Sava]

nice MRT

[Drogue]

MRT: Amen to that

JohnT: That was given as opinion. I never meant it as a fact, but it highlighted an issue. Being a from the UK and not know the ins and outs of the US education system, I was just asking what you thought it was like. Here, I am used to it being that the vast majority go to state schools, and a relatively small minority that have money and choose to go private. I just wanted to see how bad it was.

As for uninvolved parenting, I am more than thankful that my parents have been involved with my education from a very young age (apparently they taught me fractions so I could cut my 3rd birthday cake into thirds and 6ths ) as both myself and my brother have already gone higher in terms of education than either of my parents, or any other family member we know. Is there a government way to address this? Schemes to help parents learn how to teach their children maybe?