News Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

[OmCheeto]

Screeeeeeech!

What the heck is wrong with this graph?

[PLAIN]http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/what-is-rich/images/2008-tax-earnings.gif
ref: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/what-is-rich/income-gap-debate.html"

I just added those blue bars up and came up with $83 trillion.
Dividing that by a round 300 million yields an average US income, per person, including babies, of $277,000.

Well, that settles it then. We're all rich.

 

[WhoWee]

Screeeeeeech!

What the heck is wrong with this graph?

[PLAIN]http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/what-is-rich/images/2008-tax-earnings.gif
ref: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/what-is-rich/income-gap-debate.html"

I just added those blue bars up and came up with $83 trillion.
Dividing that by a round 300 million yields an average US income, per person, including babies, of $277,000.

Well, that settles it then. We're all rich.

LOL Watch out, the Libs will use this to promote "effective redistributon of wealth".
I'm looking for a link that I found about a year ago. It demonstrated the residual value of dividends to US citizens if capital invested in Germany and Japan after WWII had been an equity investment.

 

[CAC1001]

A. That's three.

B. My response to your list above:

1) I find it interesting how the Koch brothers and Soros are on different sides of the fence, funding ideological opposites: Tea Party vs. NPR.

They are of completely opposite ideologies.

2) Or they ran hedge funds, or inherited a business.

Most wealth in America though is self-made, not inherited. Also, hedge-funds are providing a product as well, to their investors. And if they do their job right, hedge funds are part of the system that allocates capital throughout the economy for proper investment.

3) As long as they're open about it. Why all the hiding?

Well many are probably open about it, just quiet. Some like to be involved in politics without attracting too much attention.

Lot's of the wealthiest people have come out vocally that they should be taxed more.

And there is nothing to stop them from paying more in taxes. What gets people is when they want to force higher taxes on others, many of whom, while being high income earners, are not rich.

I wonder what it is that frightens the Koch brothers and Bob Mercer. A happy middle class? An informed middle class? Or is this just a game for them?

What makes you think taxing more creates a happy middle-class? Or that people like the Koch brothers are against an informed middle-class? People who advocate the libertarian argument can fear many things:

1) Society becoming too hampered by taxes and regulations

2) The general population becoming so pampered that they protest very vehemently when government wants to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 (France!)

3) A society where you have true classes that develop, because the middle-income earners and poor have little incentive to work hard due to extensive social services and difficulties in starting a business or earning a high income (taxes and regulations), while the truly rich thus find their position in society very protected (this is how Europe is to a degree, and also happening to a degree in California right now; it is becoming divided into classes: the truly rich, the public-sector union class, the welfare poor, and then the struggling working class who pay the taxes that support the public-sector unions and the welfare poor).

 

[Vanadium 50]

I just added those blue bars up and came up with $83 trillion.

That's got to be off - the GNI of the US is $9T-$14T, depending on the source.

Could this possibly include corporations? Then it's understandable, as each dollar appears multiple times.

 

[Jasongreat]

AFAIC, the rich are the only ones who have the right to vote for their money to go to the poor. If the poor are voting to take money from the rich, it is no different than robbery, although that seems to be a common theme now days. Politicians get to give other peoples money, or atleast the promise of other peoples money, as a campaign promise, which seems to me to be both robbery, and bribery at the same time. One good thing at the time the founders, which is misunderstood today, only property owners had the right to vote, now everyone votes to take away property, because they don't have any, they just want to take it figuring it will make every one even. If we want charity given through government, only allow the rich to vote, otherwise its not charity, its robbery.

 

[Jasongreat]

Which says to me, rich people are rich because they like to keep all of their money, and will do anything to do it.

Its not that they are rich because they will do anything to keep it, it is that they are rich because they keep their expenditures under their expenses(a principle our government would do well to learn). I was once told by a very smart man that it isn't what you make, it is what you keep.
You do make a good point though, one most advesaries to the tax hikes on the rich agree on, the rich will do whatever it takes to keep what they have earned, that incudes moving money offshore, claiming less earnings, taking a paycut(on paper), and many other inventive accounting techniques, which will be counter productive to raising revenue through taxes. When a billionaire(soros) that has made all his money on depreciating currency, goes against billionaires that make their money from keeping their inheritance, ill take the one who is not dependent on every body else losing. It is amazing to me that people would give anyone that makes their money on other peoples misery credence, while denouncing people that don't care what happens with others as long as they keep what they have. Why can't we get away from the we want it, we'll take it argument, and go with the we need it, will you give it argument. Most people I know are more than willing to give what they agree with, but will do whatever it takes to keep what they don't agree with. Volunteerism can work, but not if your stealing in the name of volunteerism.

 

[CAC1001]

AFAIC, the rich are the only ones who have the right to vote for their money to go to the poor. If the poor are voting to take money from the rich, it is no different than robbery, although that seems to be a common theme now days. Politicians get to give other peoples money, or atleast the promise of other peoples money, as a campaign promise, which seems to me to be both robbery, and bribery at the same time. One good thing at the time the founders, which is misunderstood today, only property owners had the right to vote, now everyone votes to take away property, because they don't have any, they just want to take it figuring it will make every one even. If we want charity given through government, only allow the rich to vote, otherwise its not charity, its robbery.

Well to a degree I can see that point, but if only the rich can vote, then you'd end up with all sorts of legislation to protect the wealth of the rich and benefit the rich. You need to protect the minority from the majority and the majority from the minority.

 

[Jasongreat]

Well to a degree I can see that point, but if only the rich can vote, then you'd end up with all sorts of legislation to protect the wealth of the rich and benefit the rich. You need to protect the minority from the majority and the majority from the minority.

Whats wrong with that? When you get rich those laws will protect your wealth also. Even if you don't get rich, there is very little chance that the rich would vote to take from the poor. One thing to keep in mind, imo, is that the many have nothing to fear from the few, it is the few that have to fear the many.

 

[CAC1001]

The many have nothing to fear from the few? You sure? If the rich had sole power, for one they would immediately move to make it where no one else could get rich, because each major industry that was controleld by wealthy people would seek regulations to make it almost impossible for anyone else to start a business.

You'd end up with an economic ruling class. That's actually how it used to be, and that's how many of the industrial barons of 19th century America wanted to make America (if you study the history of the public education system, it is filled with people like this, from the industrial barons to Woodrow Wilson---read up on the history of the Prussian educational system).

It used to be considered the norm for a wealthy person to be handed a monopoly in a certain major industry (prior to America and market capitalism becoming big). To come in as a competitor was actually considered very rude. One of the wealtheist families in Europe today is one whose family traditionally controlled the postal system throughout Europe for centuries, for example.

 

[Jasongreat]

The many have nothing to fear from the few? You sure? If the rich had sole power, for one they would immediately move to make it where no one else could get rich, because each major industry that was controleld by wealthy people would seek regulations to make it almost impossible for anyone else to start a business.

You'd end up with an economic ruling class. That's actually how it used to be, and that's how many of the industrial barons of 19th century America wanted to make America (if you study the history of the public education system, it is filled with people like this, from the industrial barons to Woodrow Wilson---read up on the history of the Prussian educational system).

It used to be considered the norm for a wealthy person to be handed a monopoly in a certain major industry (prior to America and market capitalism becoming big). To come in as a competitor was actually considered very rude. One of the wealtheist families in Europe today is one whose family traditionally controlled the postal system throughout Europe for centuries, for example.

Those industrial barons of the late 19th, early 20th century, in the US, were given their power from the government. Those in europe you speak of are the main reason our country made the laws they did, until those laws started to get relaxed around 1850. The people, if we weren't such pansies, should never of stood for it. One, a thousand, even a million could never keep 2, 3 or 350 million under their power no matter how much they owned, or how rich they were, as long as we feel we are freemen, and act as such. On the otherhand, if we feel as freemen that our government can make things right through law, we will get what we deserve, and we won't be free, no matter how free we are told we are.

edit: when i say man or men, i mean mankind women included

 

[Office_Shredder]

Those industrial barons of the late 19th, early 20th century, in the US, were given their power from the government.

You just said that you think only rich people should be allowed to vote (in certain circumstances at least). How would this not occur again?

 

[CAC1001]

Those industrial barons of the late 19th, early 20th century, in the US, were given their power from the government.

Not all of them, some exploited government to become very rich though.

 

[Jasongreat]

You just said that you think only rich people should be allowed to vote (in certain circumstances at least). How would this not occur again?

I said that only the rich should vote when it comes to their wealth.

A constitution of limited governmental powers, and a people that holds their government to those enumerated powers, would keep them inline. IMO. As I have said a few times, the many have nothing to fear from the few. When the many allow those enumerated powers to expand in order to punish the few, it will be the many that are punished, not the few.

 

[Jasongreat]

Not all of them, some exploited government to become very rich though.

They were allowed to exploit the government, since the government gained from their own exploitation. At one point a corporation could only do one thing(pre 1855 or so), like the railroads, granted the owners got rich, but they could not use the power they were granted to expand. Now days and around the turn of the century other corporations were given full freedom, they could use the money they made from an exemption in one field, to keep out competitors, or to expand into other fields. GE is one example, they spread from electical, to radio, to tv, to tv networks and into finance getting a very powerful share. If they would have only been able to be an electrical product corporation, another company could have had a chance of tv, and another of radio, and another could finace it all. Most regulations meant to keep the power in check are surported by those corporations because they keep others from entering the market. Today, any regulation thrown at walmart, would only prop up walmart and protect them from the next startup.

 

[Al68]

...because each major industry that was controleld by wealthy people would seek regulations to make it almost impossible for anyone else to start a business.

This is exactly what has happened to a large degree, not because rich people in general gained political power, but because government itself did. That's why our founders considered it very important to limit the power of government.

It wouldn't do rich big business owners any good, or their smaller competitors any harm, for them to gain power in government if government itself didn't have the power to regulate private businesses. They would have no reason to even try.

It amazes me to no end that so many people think the "solution" to this problem is to expand government power even further, as if that weren't the source of the problem to begin with.

 

[CAC1001]

It amazes me to no end that so many people think the "solution" to this problem is to expand government power even further, as if that weren't the source of the problem to begin with.

Hey I am a limited government guy.

 

[Astronuc]

As Congress still wrestles with the tax law -

Google's $3 Billion Tax Loophole
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/goo...e-rpofits-overseas-taxable-tax-dodge-11941673

45 'Patriotic Millionaires' Call for Bush-Era Tax Cuts to Expire
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/patr...ion-obama-bush-era-tax-cuts/story?id=12195201

Debt Commission Co-Chairman Defends Tax Hike
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/debt-commission-chairman-erskine-bowles-defends-tax-hike-12149672

http://www.fiscalstrength.com/

 

[WhoWee]

As Congress still wrestles with the tax law -

Google's $3 Billion Tax Loophole
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/goo...e-rpofits-overseas-taxable-tax-dodge-11941673

45 'Patriotic Millionaires' Call for Bush-Era Tax Cuts to Expire
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/patr...ion-obama-bush-era-tax-cuts/story?id=12195201

Debt Commission Co-Chairman Defends Tax Hike
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/debt-commission-chairman-erskine-bowles-defends-tax-hike-12149672

http://www.fiscalstrength.com/

Do you think they would support a one time net worth/equity tax - say 20 percent?

 

[Astronuc]

Do you think they would support a one time net worth/equity tax - say 20 percent?

I have no idea.

I'm sure some are comfortable with paying more taxes, while others aren't.

There seems to be a lot of inertia in keeping the things the way they are until the economy gets to the breaking point.

The government has to cut spending. But nobody wants their part cut.
Nobody wants to pay taxes, but too many want their government subsidy.

How about this - "Diabetes is projected to cost $500 billion by 2020. That's a tenth of all health care spending -- $3.4 trillion in total costs over the next 10 years."
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/11/23/pm-diabetes-to-become-most-expensive-disease/

Whatever happened to preventative care - diet and exercise.

 

[turbo]

My wife and I were beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts (top 2%) though I am unsure why. We need a lot more marginal rates at higher and higher income levels. The tax code has not kept up with the exploding income of the highest earners. Similarly, the income cap on SS payments is not realistic any more. SS doesn't need to be saved by making people work longer and longer and cutting their benefits. SS can easily be saved by not exempting so much of the incomes of the wealthy. Reasonable, fiscally conservative measures that the GOP will fight tooth and nail to oppose.

It is a mystery how rational middle-class wage earners can be persuaded to vote for people that want to shift the burden of providing for the wealthy to the lower classes.

 

[CAC1001]

I have no idea.

I'm sure some are comfortable with paying more taxes, while others aren't.

There seems to be a lot of inertia in keeping the things the way they are until the economy gets to the breaking point.

The government has to cut spending. But nobody wants their part cut.
Nobody wants to pay taxes, but too many want their government subsidy.

How about this - "Diabetes is projected to cost $500 billion by 2020. That's a tenth of all health care spending -- $3.4 trillion in total costs over the next 10 years."
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/11/23/pm-diabetes-to-become-most-expensive-disease/

Whatever happened to preventative care - diet and exercise.

I would personally be fine with increasing taxes right now (provided it wouldn't hamper the economy) as long as we knew for sure that the government was also going to work to cut spending. But I see that as wishful thinking. If taxes are increased, then government will be all the less likely to cut spending.

 

[WhoWee]

I have no idea.

I'm sure some are comfortable with paying more taxes, while others aren't.

There seems to be a lot of inertia in keeping the things the way they are until the economy gets to the breaking point.

The government has to cut spending. But nobody wants their part cut.
Nobody wants to pay taxes, but too many want their government subsidy.

How about this - "Diabetes is projected to cost $500 billion by 2020. That's a tenth of all health care spending -- $3.4 trillion in total costs over the next 10 years."
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/11/23/pm-diabetes-to-become-most-expensive-disease/

Whatever happened to preventative care - diet and exercise.

I think spending cuts are easy to sell when you focus on VALUE. Likewise, value was used to sell Stimulus (infrastructure).
However, when we hear about $600 toilet seats and hammers and $30 packets of cocoa (charged to Medicaid) and a heroin addict accumulating $300,000 in taxi rides (driving past local clinics) to get methadone- plus the cost of the drugs. Accountability and sensibility are needed now more than ever.

 

[CAC1001]

My wife and I were beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts (top 2%) though I am unsure why. We need a lot more marginal rates at higher and higher income levels. The tax code has not kept up with the exploding income of the highest earners.

Why? That's seeking an equality of outcome, which is not what America is about. If I work very hard to earn say $20 million a year, I wouldn't want the government taking 70% of that and it is wrong for them to, even if I am in a small minority. What it is, is that government spending has greatly exceeded the current tax system.

Similarly, the income cap on SS payments is not realistic any more. SS doesn't need to be saved by making people work longer and longer and cutting their benefits. SS can easily be saved by not exempting so much of the incomes of the wealthy. Reasonable, fiscally conservative measures that the GOP will fight tooth and nail to oppose.

SS was supposed to be where you get paid out what you paid in. If you raise the incomes subjected to the SS tax, then you increase the amount of money SS must pay to those with higher incomes, which wouldn't look right politically. So what you really mean is to turn SS into a de-facto welfare program.

IMO, SS needs to be gradually phased-out and replaced with some kind of program with individual accounts people pay into in which the money is in a lockbox the government cannot get. This way you literally get paid out what you paid in.

It is a mystery how rational middle-class wage earners can be persuaded to vote for people that want to shift the burden of providing for the wealthy to the lower classes.

Thanks to the Bush tax cuts, the lowest-income earners as is are a good deal exempt from the Federal income tax.

 

[WhoWee]

My wife and I were beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts (top 2%) though I am unsure why. We need a lot more marginal rates at higher and higher income levels. The tax code has not kept up with the exploding income of the highest earners. Similarly, the income cap on SS payments is not realistic any more. SS doesn't need to be saved by making people work longer and longer and cutting their benefits. SS can easily be saved by not exempting so much of the incomes of the wealthy. Reasonable, fiscally conservative measures that the GOP will fight tooth and nail to oppose.

It is a mystery how rational middle-class wage earners can be persuaded to vote for people that want to shift the burden of providing for the wealthy to the lower classes.

Under 65 Medicare and Medicaid spending are runaway freight trains - and "health care reform" will not solve the problem.

 

[turbo]

Under 65 Medicare and Medicaid spending are runaway freight trains - and "health care reform" will not solve the problem.

Health care reform and a viable public option are the only way out of the problem, IMO. Health care costs are exploding, and uninsured people drive up the costs for all the insured people. We in the US spend over twice what the rest of the modern world spends per capita on health care, with poorer outcomes. This is not rocket science.

 

[Al68]

It is a mystery how rational middle-class wage earners can be persuaded to vote for people that want to shift the burden of providing for the wealthy to the lower classes.

LOL. Utter nonsense. How about trying to substantiate that one?

 

[CAC1001]

Health care reform and a viable public option are the only way out of the problem, IMO. Health care costs are exploding, and uninsured people drive up the costs for all the insured people. We in the US spend over twice what the rest of the modern world spends per capita on health care, with poorer outcomes. This is not rocket science.

A viable public option is very problematic when we cannot afford Medicare and Medicaid as we currently have them though. Saying "health care reform" is the only way out of the problem, that's like saying, "A strong economy is the only way out of our budget problem. This is not rocket science."

 

[mheslep]

... on health care, with poorer outcomes.

False.

 

[turbo]

False.

The US has poor health-care outcomes in huge segments of our population and we lag behind the outcomes of "socialists" like European countries that regard health-care as a right. We also pay twice as much for the care, although tens of millions have no insurance.

If you live in Nigeria and you are rich, you can have world-class health care, just like rich people in the US. And you will have better health-care by far than poor citizens of the US. This system is a shame on our country, and it is getting worse and more expensive by the year.

 

[mheslep]

... we lag behind the outcomes of "socialists" like European countries that regard health-care as a right.

False.

If you live in Nigeria and you are rich, you can have world-class health care, just like rich people in the US.

False.

 

[turbo]

False.

Please provide your sources. The WHO disagrees with you.

 

[mheslep]

Please provide your sources. The WHO disagrees with you.

Knock it off. It is fine to state your opinions (which I actually enjoy reading), it is not to state them as fact without reference and then to demand references from those who dispute your facts, as you well know.

 

[WhoWee]

The US has poor health-care outcomes in huge segments of our population and we lag behind the outcomes of "socialists" like European countries that regard health-care as a right. We also pay twice as much for the care, although tens of millions have no insurance.

If you live in Nigeria and you are rich, you can have world-class health care, just like rich people in the US. And you will have better health-care by far than poor citizens of the US. This system is a shame on our country, and it is getting worse and more expensive by the year.

If you live in the US and you have (full) Medicaid - you pay for nothing. You can run to the emergency room everytime you have an ache and get multiple CT scans, x-rays and MRI's (or multiple other tests - making a point).

Now you want to "give" everyone these benefits and have 1-2% of the population pay the bill?

Have you ever heard the story about eating the "Golden Goose"?

 

[turbo]

If you live in the US and you have (full) Medicaid - you pay for nothing. You can run to the emergency room everytime you have an ache and get multiple CT scans, x-rays and MRI's (or multiple other tests - making a point).

Any proof of this abuse? Where is the non-idealogical support for those statements?

 

[CAC1001]

Not all of the European systems really are government-run per se, at least not from what I understand. A lot of people I think believe all the Euro countries have a healthcare system that is either mostly nationalized like the UK's or nationalized health insurance, like Canada's, something like a "Medicare for all" as Obama had described what he wanted to create. But this isn't the case. The German system, for example, is not government-run (or not government run as in being "socialist"): http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/

I disagree with the author however that everyone opposing the individual mandate expects healthcare for free without having to purchase it. Many oppose it for two reasons here:

1) It may be normal in Europe, but for America, it's a major advance in the size and scope of governmental power (or scene that way) and many do not see how the Constitution allows for it

2) Many favor other reforms that they view would make health insurance a lot cheaper and more affordable so that far more people going to the hospital would have health insurance.

I also think one who favors a Euro-style system could very much make the argument that an individual mandate would be the right thing to do, but that as far as the Constitution currently is written, it is a stretch to say it permits it.

The way to solve that IMO though would just be to say that there is no "mandate," the government is just creating a new "Healthcare Tax" which you pay, however you are exempt from it if you purchase health insurance. This is similar, but I think not the same as a mandate.

 

[Al68]

The US has poor health-care outcomes in huge segments of our population and we lag behind the outcomes of "socialists" like European countries that regard health-care as a right. We also pay twice as much for the care, although tens of millions have no insurance.

If you live in Nigeria and you are rich, you can have world-class health care, just like rich people in the US. And you will have better health-care by far than poor citizens of the US. This system is a shame on our country, and it is getting worse and more expensive by the year.

Seriously? It's now a shame, in the U.S., to not be more socialist?

There is no shame in defending liberty. Socialism is deserving of shame. And no delusional Marxist logic will ever convince anyone with an IQ above 80 that there is shame in defending liberty against power hungry socialists.

 

[turbo]

The way to solve that IMO though would just be to say that there is no "mandate," the government is just creating a new "Healthcare Tax" which you pay, however you are exempt from it if you purchase health insurance. This is similar, but I think not the same as a mandate.

That's not a bad proposal. People who pay the tax get access to health-care. Not a problem. Not a neo-con (current Republican) idea, but one that will not get past today's Congress. Our representatives in DC are timid and cowed. We're screwed because the two major parties will not support or present candidates that have any backbone.

 

[mheslep]

Not all of the European systems really are government-run per se, at least not from what I understand. A lot of people I think believe all the Euro countries have a healthcare system that is either mostly nationalized like the UK's or nationalized health insurance, like Canada's, something like a "Medicare for all" as Obama had described what he wanted to create. But this isn't the case. The German system, for example, is not government-run (or not government run as in being "socialist"): http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/

I like much of the Swiss health system:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html?_r=1

The Swiss government also provides direct cash subsidies to people if health insurance equals more than 8 percent of personal income, and about 35 to 40 percent of households get some form of subsidy. In some cases, employers contribute part of the insurance premium, but, unlike in the United States, they do not receive a tax break for it. (All the health care proposals in Congress would provide a subsidy to moderate-income Americans.)

Unlike the United States, where the Medicare program for the elderly costs taxpayers about $500 billion a year, Switzerland has no special break for older Swiss people beyond the general subsidy.

“Switzerland’s health care system is different from virtually every other country in the world,” said Regina Herzlinger, a Harvard Business School professor who has studied the Swiss approach extensively.

“What I like about it is that it’s got universal coverage, it’s customer driven, and there are no intermediaries shopping on people’s behalf,” she added. “And there’s no waiting lists or rationing.”

I highlighted the sentences on taxes so I can continue to pretend this is vaguely related to the OP Topic.

 

[WhoWee]

Any proof of this abuse? Where is the non-idealogical support for those statements?

Who said anything about an abuse? It is their right - Medicaid is an Entitlement Program.

I'm going to give you the quick wiki version - otherwise we'll need to move to another thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
"Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.
"

Also from this link

"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals[citation needed]. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[2] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[3][4]

The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[5] Similarly, it has attracted controversy for its impacts on hospitals, and in particular, for its possible contributions to an emergency medical system that is "overburdened, underfunded and highly fragmented."[6] More than half of all emergency room care in the U.S. now goes uncompensated. Hospitals write off such care as charity or bad debt for tax purposes. Increasing financial pressures on hospitals in the period since EMTALA's passage have caused consolidations and closures, so the number of emergency rooms is decreasing despite increasing demand for emergency care.[7] There is also debate about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost-shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S."

Worth mentioning, general Medicaid benefits are state-specific.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's get back to topic.

You can't solve a complicated problem without considering all variables. Our specific problem is increased spending coupled with decreased revenues.

We need to find a way to cut spending drastically (IMO as much as 40% in some areas) and at the same time re-vitalize the economy. Our tax policy needs to encourage investment into property, plant and equipment IN THE US.

Until the conversation moves away from class warfare and protection of special interests, nothing will be resolved.

 

[CAC1001]

That's not a bad proposal. People who pay the tax get access to health-care. Not a problem. Not a neo-con (current Republican) idea, but one that will not get past today's Congress. Our representatives in DC are timid and cowed. We're screwed because the two major parties will not support or present candidates that have any backbone.

Well not a "right-wing" idea per se, but I could definitely imagine some of the neoconservatives favoring it. Remembering, neoconservatives are not notorious for limited government. Republicans created the Earned Income Tax Credit, which subsidizes the lower-income earners to a degree, and they also under bush pushed through that huge increase in Medicare.

 

[Shackleford]

Seriously? It's now a shame, in the U.S., to not be more socialist?

There is no shame in defending liberty. Socialism is deserving of shame. And no delusional Marxist logic will ever convince anyone with an IQ above 80 that there is shame in defending liberty against power hungry socialists.

People who believe socialism/marxism/communism - basically collectivism - do not understand the nature of government or human nature. Government has an inexorable tendency toward centralized authoritarianism. The Founding Fathers and Framers understood this very well. What has made America different from the very beginning when General Washington simply wanted to go back home to Mount Vernon is that we value the freedom of the individual to determine their own course. And we have also put into place measures to counteract that centralized government system tendency. Unfortunately, since the Civil War, those measures have eroded or simply not been enforced, or even worse forgotten.

 

[Al68]

We're screwed because the two major parties will not support or present candidates that have any backbone.

By "backbone", is it safe to assume you mean someone who is unwilling to rise to the level of oppression you advocate? Violating liberty requires backbone, but defending it doesn't? You are not this delusional and uninformed, why do you continue to pretend to be?

 

[Al68]

People who believe socialism/marxism/communism - basically collectivism - do not understand the nature of government or human nature. Government has an inexorable tendency toward centralized authoritarianism. The Founding Fathers and Framers understood this very well. What has made America different from the very beginning when General Washington simply wanted to go back home to Mount Vernon is that we value the freedom of the individual to determine their own course. And we have also put into place measures to counteract that centralized government system tendency. Unfortunately, since the Civil War, those measures have eroded or simply not been enforced, or even worse forgotten.

I agree. Like I said in a previous post, those measures have been systematically violated and undermined by enemies of liberty and the constitution. And those same power hungry politicians have also convinced many Americans that anyone who dares to try to protect liberty from them are "for the rich", "uncaring", "against working people", etc.

But it seems obvious today that peaceful co-existence is impossible. The Democratic Party adamantly insists on using force against honest, peaceful citizens to enforce their economic agenda. We cannot use reason or argument to change their minds. Marxist brainwashing is far too effective, as can be seen on this forum every day.

 

[CAC1001]

Marxist brainwashing is far too effective, as can be seen on this forum every day.

One thing on this (and off-topic, but just wanted to mention it): I wouldn't call it "Marxist" per se. Marxism was essentially a religion (an atheist religion in which the State was the god, it promised a paradise here on Earth as opposed to one in an afterlife), and a very strict one that emphasized zero tolerance for any private property ownership or privatization of any kind whatsoever. It emphasizes changing society through revolutionary means and a dictatorship.

But that isn't the definition of all forms of socialism. For example, look at Fabian socialism, which emphasizes liberal democracy and the implementation of democratic socialism via gradual means, as opposed to calling for revolution to implement a dictatorship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

Fabian socialism usually calls for the major parts of the economy to be nationalized, but otherwise, people can own their own homes and businesses are allowed to a degree. For example if you want to open a coffee shop or a shoe store, that can be fine. And the government is a form of democracy.

Note that to a Marxist, this form of socialism would be deemed "right-wing" and "capitalist" and not socialist even though it is a form of socialism. Britain under Labour Party for many years was based on Fabian socialism, also India as well.

Many don't know but George Orwell was a supporter of democratic socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell).

So while many people may be socialists, or have socialistic tendencies, I wouldn't say they are Marxism-influenced. The people who adamantly support democratic government but who have otherwise socialistic tendencies I'd put in the Fabian camp.

 

[Gokul43201]

The Democratic Party adamantly insists on using force against honest, peaceful citizens to enforce their economic agenda.

The Republican party does the same for their Social and National Security agendas. It would be a mischaracterization to label the Republican Party as defenders of liberty.

Someone (I wonder who) once wisely said something along these lines: you're not a defender of liberty if you only intend to defend those specific liberties that you care about.

 

[CAC1001]

Please provide your sources. The WHO disagrees with you.

Maybe this requires a separate thread, but it is something that I am very curious about: many say we do not lag behind the outcomes of the European healthcare systems, so why does the WHO say otherwise?

 

[Gokul43201]

... many say we do not lag behind the outcomes of the European healthcare systems, so why does the WHO say otherwise?

(emphasis mine)

That's a weasel word.

Nevertheless, one could just as well ask the following: The WHO (which is the primary health-monitoring organization around the world) says that the US lags behind the outcomes of European systems, so why do many say otherwise?

Never-the-never-the-less, you will find plenty of discussion about the WHO rankings if you search through old threads. I don't know if more recent rankings are different, but it seemed like their old ranking system did a pretty shoddy job on at least a couple of the parameters (infant mortality, being a big one, if I recall right). Whether or not those particular problem areas were sufficient to significantly skew the rankings is not something I specifically recall.

 

[mheslep]

... The WHO (which is the primary health-monitoring organization around the world) .

Well, the WHO is the United Nations health organization. I don't know that this makes it the primary health-mon. organization for the world.

 

[Al68]

The Republican party does the same for their Social and National Security agendas. It would be a mischaracterization to label the Republican Party as defenders of liberty.

Someone (I wonder who) once wisely said something along these lines: you're not a defender of liberty if you only intend to defend those specific liberties that you care about.

I agree completely, and my "characterization" was intended only to apply to economic issues, and even then only in a relative sense. If this were a thread about abortion, for example, I could just as easily refer to (most) Democrats as "defenders of liberty".