isn't that similar to what hillary's universal care plan is?

doesn't bode well for her.

Even MA's half-assed attempt prevents insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, something like 10% of the country that will never find coverage under the magical free market. More for the rest of us though, isn't it? Merry Christmas

There is no free lunch, no matter how much you really, really, want one. There is no free lunch, no matter how really, really, progressive it would be to give everyone one.

"If it's not easy, it's not worth doing."

"If it's not easy, it's not worth doing."
I LOLd

Yes, its essentially Hillary care.

Can you imagine the businesses flocking to Massachusetts now?

Paul Pietro, chairman of the Mid-State Insurance Agency, said he helped one of his clients set up separate corporations for each of its Massachusetts locations. Each then had fewer than 11 employees, so the insurance law did not apply. "It's a loophole," said Pietro, who declined to identify the client. Pietro said his other clients are paying the fine or expanding insurance offerings

Pretty clever. Evil....but clever.

And entirely expected, given how some companies choose to operate. But that state law screws even the good guys. I suppose that's equality of a sort.

This is Romney's idea. It's a disaster.

arkansas: There is no free lunch, no matter how much you really, really, want one. There is no free lunch, no matter how really, really, progressive it would be to give everyone one.

Well, considering that the problem is that we keep cutting taxes on the richest and those are usually the ones who have the most money, I suggest this lunch be bought by everybody who makes about 100K a year and jacks up corporate taxes by a considerable amount in order to safeguard their consumers' best interest. After all, if your standard American has free health care and won't be made to go bankrupt whenever disease strikes or a doctor's office visit is required, then what will they do with that money? I'm guessing that 95% of them will spend it on more goods and services.

In short, raising taxes on corporate and the rich to a huge amount to safeguard their profits might be the smartest thing ever. Imagine a world of consumers unconcerned about getting sick and dying enough to buy whatever crap is thrown at them. Imagine the stress they won't feel in order to go out and buy whatever is given to them. Free of stress and worry, the money lost on the near-useless bureaucracy of the insurance industry will be replaced back into manufacturing and retail of which everybody will be able to partake more of.

Wait, I'm sorry, that's LONG-TERM PLANNING. I should know better before I start giving business advice. My mistake.

/sarcasm
//just so the Republicans don't misunderstand since their reading skills suck

Why don't you libs start pushing for a NHS?

Step Five: Perform experiments to test the validity of the idea.
Hopefully the next iteration will be cleverer.

Guntram Shatterhand: In short, raising taxes on corporate and the rich to a huge amount to safeguard their profits might be the smartest thing ever.


No, that'd be the dumbest move ever. Instead of punishing people for being rich, how about we STOP punishing people for behaving in a fiscally responsible manner? Stop taxing the fark outta savings accounts, retirement accounts and/or education benefits. Stop bailing out failed businesses. Stop saving people who overextend their credit. simplify the tax code, reduce spending and cut taxes.

Guntram Shatterhand: arkansas: There is no free lunch, no matter how much you really, really, want one. There is no free lunch, no matter how really, really, progressive it would be to give everyone one.

Well, considering that the problem is that we keep cutting taxes on the richest and those are usually the ones who have the most money, I suggest this lunch be bought by everybody who makes about 100K a year and jacks up corporate taxes by a considerable amount in order to safeguard their consumers' best interest. After all, if your standard American has free health care and won't be made to go bankrupt whenever disease strikes or a doctor's office visit is required, then what will they do with that money? I'm guessing that 95% of them will spend it on more goods and services.

In short, raising taxes on corporate and the rich to a huge amount to safeguard their profits might be the smartest thing ever. Imagine a world of consumers unconcerned about getting sick and dying enough to buy whatever crap is thrown at them. Imagine the stress they won't feel in order to go out and buy whatever is given to them. Free of stress and worry, the money lost on the near-useless bureaucracy of the insurance industry will be replaced back into manufacturing and retail of which everybody will be able to partake more of.

Wait, I'm sorry, that's LONG-TERM PLANNING. I should know better before I start giving business advice. My mistake.

/sarcasm
//just so the Republicans don't misunderstand since their reading skills suck

so given that we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world lets "jack them up." good, I always hated having a healthy economy. and since the rich already pay almost all the income taxes lets "jack those up" too. just remember the good communist rhetoric:

corporations are evil, profits are evil, take money from others so its fair.

Guntram Shatterhand

Raising corporate taxes will just cause further outsourcing. The US has one of the highest effective corporate tax rates in the world (40%) outside of 3rd world countries. Even Germany and the UK lowered corporate taxes to 30% and under.

We need to lower corporate taxes and move away from a worldwide tax system towards a territorial tax regime. We need to simplify the tax code and remove all the exceptions to the corporate tax that allow certain companies to avoid paying US tax. We need a tax system that entices corporations to move operations to the US instead to lower tax jurisdictions rather than a tax regime that penalizes corporations for moving to lower tax jurisdictions.

Whenever there is a tax discussion, I tend to read that the rich and the corporations (Wahh!!!) are not paying enough taxes. This is not the issue at hand. The issue is not how much or whom, but rather what and why.

Once we analyze the latter issues, we then can determine who and how much. There needs to be justification.

Proponents of tax increases tend to look at the US solely in isolation, without recognizing that the US is a cog in a global economy. I would like to ask them, what would be the longterm economic impact of their proposals. Keep in mind the US is no longer a manufacturing/agrarian economy.

The Mass system is the same as they have here in Switzerland. Here you have national private health insurance which is required for everyone. The government regulates prices, and you have usually a $1500.00 USD minimum which you must pay if you visit a health care provider, then your insurance picks up anything after that cost. It makes complete sense, as it discourages people from abusing the system while making sure no one goes bankrupt due to an unexpected illness. The big difference here is malpractice lawsuits are not allowed. This means most doctors own their own businesses, and only have as many patients as they want (a fraction of HMO docs.) So you get much better health care. It also solves the problems associated with big government projects which are overwhelming failures in almost all cases. This way free market forces can guide the system. Another interesting aspect is the system is tiered, so if you want premium health care you pay a lot more with no minimum costs, insurance pays for everything and you have the right to private rooms etc. The difference between basic and private is not so great, it is essentially just a matter of amenities. I think the whole US should adopt this system. BTW no employers offer health care here except for Google in Zurich, everyone must pay their own way (basic is about 190 USD per adult per month, children are about 80 USD per month.) I guess the problem is the mandate, some people want to go without insurance but the program will only work if everyone participates.

JudgeReinhold: Proponents of tax increases tend to look at the US solely in isolation, without recognizing that the US is a cog in a global economy. I would like to ask them, what would be the longterm economic impact of their proposals. Keep in mind the US is no longer a manufacturing/agrarian economy.

Yeah, but to a lot of the socialists and wackos, getting 'teh corporations' is an article of faith and not economic reality. Granted - there are plenty of examples of corporate malfeasance, and i've never advocated trusting ANY organization, be it a multi-national corporation or the federal government, to behave themselves without some sort of independant oversight. But to blame all our economic problems on 'teh debbil corporation' is patently false.

I don't think you're going to succeed in reaching any of the neo-socialists around these parts. They're too far gone IMHO. But it's a good way to kill a few hours picking apart their philosophy and what passes for scholarship amongst the terminally marxist.

Northern: The Mass system is the same as they have here in Switzerland.

Yeah, but Switzerland controls immigration very carefully. Not to mention that you've got a much smaller population and less mobility in and out of that country than you do here in the states.

I still say the better solution is to make "insurance" illegal. If you go to a system where people pay for the care they get, rather than a system where people pay for bureaucracy and not get care. Has anyone noticed that you need to go to SCHOOL to do MEDICAL BILLING? This absurdity is the direct result of insurance companies.

Besides, it's not like you're not going to pay for the care you get anyway with insurance. It's just that someone else collects the money and draws interest and a salary off of it, or makes more money when they just deny you care until you die, then it's not their problem anymore.

Take all profits from CEOS to pay for health care!!

aeai:
the rich already pay almost all the income taxes

in total dollars? yes
as a percentage of their income? not even close

nobodyUwannaknow: aeai:
the rich already pay almost all the income taxes

in total dollars? yes
as a percentage of their income? not even close

the tax system is progressive incase you haven't heard. but I'm sure someone agrees with you comrade, those dirty rich are stealing the workers money.

arkansas: There is no free lunch, no matter how much you really, really, want one. There is no free lunch, no matter how really, really, progressive it would be to give everyone one.

True..... which is why I advocate taking all the money we waste on the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and using it to pay for universal healthcare.

Weaver95: Paul Pietro, chairman of the Mid-State Insurance Agency, said he helped one of his clients set up separate corporations for each of its Massachusetts locations. Each then had fewer than 11 employees, so the insurance law did not apply. "It's a loophole," said Pietro, who declined to identify the client. Pietro said his other clients are paying the fine or expanding insurance offerings

Pretty clever. Evil....but clever.

And entirely expected, given how some companies choose to operate. But that state law screws even the good guys. I suppose that's equality of a sort.

How is this evil? I hate to tell you this, but no company "gives" its employees ANYTHING. Everything must be earned, and some people don't earn enough to get both a paycheck and insurance. These people need to earn more.

----------------
Arthur Jumbles 2007-12-23 03:30:48 PM

True..... which is why I advocate taking all the money we waste on the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and using it to pay for universal healthcare.
----------------

That's enough crazy talk for one day.

ordering everybody to have health insurance is easier said than done

It is when the law apparently doesn't have enough teeth in it, or it allows for vague loopholes like the examples in the article.

arkansas: There is no free lunch, no matter how much you really, really, want one. There is no free lunch, no matter how really, really, progressive it would be to give everyone one.

This. I'm amazed at people thinking this will come out of nowhere, like there's a greedy small business owner stealing pennies from babies ready to be fleeced.

Personally I think health insurance should be disentangled from employment and be bought individually at places like Costco -- must like we do with all other forms of insurance. Then people will see the full cost of insurance and not just the $100 a month or so they currently pay.

lelio: This. I'm amazed at people thinking this will come out of nowhere, like there's a greedy small business owner stealing pennies from babies ready to be fleeced.

It's not coming out of "nowhere," especially in the case of corporations. If there is an argument that small businesses are getting screwed, then the law isn't addressing their needs. There should be subsidies or tax breaks available.

And if they're selling insurance at Cosco, there had better be some kind of compensation from the employer, at least a couple of dollars an hour.

"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." - Thomas Sowell

LargeCanine: "It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." - Thomas Sowell

Because the free market is always better... oh wait...

The Americans and the Japanese decided to engage in a competitive boat race. Both teams practiced hard and long to reach their peak performance. On the big day they felt ready. The Japanese won by a mile. Afterward, the American team was discouraged by the loss. Morale sagged.

Corporate management decided that the reason for the crushing defeat had to be found, so a consulting firm was hired to investigate the problem and recommended corrective action. The consultant's finding: The Japanese team had eight people rowing and one person steering; the American team had one person rowing and eight people steering.

After a year of study and millions spent analyzing the problem, the consultant firm concluded that too many people were steering and not enough were rowing on the American team.

So as race day neared the following year, the American team's management structure was completely reorganized. The new structure: Four steering managers, three area steering managers and a new performance review system for the person rowing the boat to provide work incentive.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the American Corporation laid off the rower for poor performance and gave the managers a bonus for discovering the problem.

Arthur Jumbles:
True..... which is why I advocate taking all the money we waste on the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and using it to pay for universal healthcare.


I am a hardcore libertarian, and thus oppose universal healthcare. But I would much rather my tax dollars go to that then the crap we spend it on now. It makes me sick when I think about our nation's messed up priorities.

Here's a better idea, since "national health" is a public good (by economic definition; same as "national defense") and is more efficiently allocated via non-market forces:

1) Tax everyone for it
2) Provide everyone with it
3) Save up to 200% on overall cost of provision
4) Enjoy benefits of more efficient asset allocation and healthier public

(optional)
5) Play tiny violin for hordes of unemployed, nearly-worthless, pencil-pushing, free-riding, middle-manager douchebags

aeai:
the tax system is progressive incase you haven't heard. but I'm sure someone agrees with you comrade, those dirty rich are stealing the workers money.

Warren Buffet who pays 17.7% of his income in taxes, and his receptionist, who pays 30% of her income in taxes disagree with you. Link (new window) The CBO might have charts that say otherwise. Mr. Buffet didn't become one of the wealthiest people in the world
by knowing less about money than civil servants at the CBO.

Sigh, I remember a place where what I choose to do with my own health was my free choice. We used to call it.. freemaso.. no, freedri.. freedom, yeah, Freedom.

Oh who am I kidding
America was never free.
Your government knows best, let them make decisions for you.

/fark you Mitt Romney

Hendrix: Sigh, I remember a place where what I choose to do with my own health was my free choice.

As long as you're whining on the subject, wax poetic on the bygone days of where you got to choose your streetlighting, highways and police/fire services.

/btw - just because universal health care would be available doesn't mean you *have* to use it - feel free to completely let yourself go and die earlier than everyone else

nobodyUwannaknow: Warren Buffet who pays 17.7% of his income in taxes, and his receptionist, who pays 30% of her income in taxes disagree with you. Link (new window) The CBO might have charts that say otherwise. Mr. Buffet didn't become one of the wealthiest people in the world
by knowing less about money than civil servants at the CBO.

The problem with your argument is that Warren Buffet is actually paying taxes on money he already paid taxes on. In year X he invested his money (after it had been taxed) any income he receives from that investment is taxed at a lower rate (he simply pays capital gains tax on it). If you really want capital gains taxes to equal income taxes than you can kiss investment goodbye.

Arthur Jumbles: arkansas: There is no free lunch, no matter how much you really, really, want one. There is no free lunch, no matter how really, really, progressive it would be to give everyone one.

True..... which is why I advocate taking all the money we waste on the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and using it to pay for universal healthcare.

I can dig this. In fact, why do we need so much for Defense anyway? When we get Bush to stop pissing off people because of his small dick, we should realize that the biggest 'threat' to America today is terrorism which does not require a giant standing army to counter, much less thousands of little toys that cost millions just to develop and fail. That money could easily pay for our health care twice over.

nobodyUwannaknow: aeai:
the tax system is progressive incase you haven't heard. but I'm sure someone agrees with you comrade, those dirty rich are stealing the workers money.

Warren Buffet who pays 17.7% of his income in taxes, and his receptionist, who pays 30% of her income in taxes disagree with you. Link (new window) The CBO might have charts that say otherwise. Mr. Buffet didn't become one of the wealthiest people in the world
by knowing less about money than civil servants at the CBO.

I assume buffet is getting heavily from capital gains. which is pretty deceitful of you to use it as an example. of course u might be onto something here. who needs ppl investing in america? lets make the capital gains tax 80%. that'll stop those assholes from building shiat here.

Now this was completely unexpected!

/We should replace all medical procedures with intrevenus injections of RedBull.
//This just in. RedBull cures cancer! Side effects include Heart disease, Diabetes, Sudden traumatic heart failure, massive hemorageing of the eyes, ears, and nose.

>> Your government knows best, let them make decisions for you.

Gee the big government is gonna force some people to have health insurance.

Thats terrible.

It was so much better when they didn't.


Yeah thats your flawless conservative logic.

And they can't figure out why the got their heads beat in during the last election

BalugaJoe: Take all profits from CEOS to pay for health care!!

CEOs don't make profits, they get salaries.

Guntram Shatterhand: Arthur Jumbles: arkansas: There is no free lunch, no matter how much you really, really, want one. There is no free lunch, no matter how really, really, progressive it would be to give everyone one.

True..... which is why I advocate taking all the money we waste on the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and using it to pay for universal healthcare.

I can dig this. In fact, why do we need so much for Defense anyway? When we get Bush to stop pissing off people because of his small dick, we should realize that the biggest 'threat' to America today is terrorism which does not require a giant standing army to counter, much less thousands of little toys that cost millions just to develop and fail. That money could easily pay for our health care twice over.

I love this bullshiat argument. Do you even know how much money in the budget is spent on defense? Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid?

Mandatory Spending, at $1.412 trillion in FY 2006, is over half of the U.S. Federal Budget. The largest mandatory spending programs are Social Security and Medicare, as follows:

* Social Security - $544 billion
* Medicare - $325 billion
* Medicaid - $186 billion
* All other mandatory programs - $357 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the blind and disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement / Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military

Source: Link (new window)

We currently pay $500 Billion every year in Medicare and Medicaid. Let that sink in for a second. That means the burden for these programs is ~$1700 per living person in the country every year. Divide this among the 45M people without healthcare. You get $11,000 per person per year for nothing but healthcare. That is more than I pay, with insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-pays for a family of 3. That's under the current budget.

Now tell me where that money goes, and tell me that we need more. While you're at it, tell me that letting the federal government manage more of your money is a good idea. Call me when there is outrage about this.

twilson2

Force being the important word there. They shouldn't be forcing anyone to have something that they don't necessarily want. My husband doesn't have health insurance and we're from MA and we're going to suck it up and pay the fine because we don't like our government forcing us to do anything. Paying a fine because you opt not to participate is coercion last time I checked. I'm forced to pay taxes to subsidize and fund things that I don't want to subsidize and/or fund (for example, other people's health insurance!). We're happy paying our own way, and it's pretty nice not to have some jerkass at a helpdesk tell me "nope, sorry, you can't have this drug that you really need because it's not covered" so you end up paying for it ANYWAY. It's easier (and cheaper) to suck it up and hope you don't need major medical help because it's still cheaper than paying for Cobra.

/end rant.

AngryDragon: We currently pay $500 Billion every year in Medicare and Medicaid. Let that sink in for a second. That means the burden for these programs is ~$1700 per living person in the country every year. Divide this among the 45M people without healthcare. You get $11,000 per person per year for nothing but healthcare. That is more than I pay, with insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-pays for a family of 3. That's under the current budget.

*blinking*

Because the only people getting any benefit from Medicare/Medicaid arrrrrrre the 45 million people w/o healthcare and no one else. So all $500 Bil goes just to those 45 million people. Just those people. None of the other ~250 million people in the US benefit from Medicare/Medicaid. Mmm. That makes sense.

...

All other mandatory programs - $357 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the blind and disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement / Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military

You're not seriously arguing that annual military expenditures come in at less than $357 billion, are you? Or am I reading that wrong?

As long as you're whining on the subject, wax poetic on the bygone days of where you got to choose your streetlighting, highways and police/fire services.

You're missing the point. The things you listed have nothing to do with my personal decisions with my private life. The government is forcing me to do something (or forcing me to pay) that has nothing to do with anyone but myself. If I choose to not get insurance, that has nothing to do with the public.

/btw - just because universal health care would be available doesn't mean you *have* to use it - feel free to completely let yourself go and die earlier than everyone else

Again, you've failed. If I don't use it, why am I being forced to pay? That's my problem, it's the fact that I have been stripped of a decision I can make for myself. If I want to let myself die earlier (as you put it), why should the government step in? It amazes me that people are completely open to government making decisions for you and I. How about instead of dying earlier.. I make 6 digits a year (not including a wife I may have) and can pay for most any medical expenses myself without insurance (insurance won't even cover many things), why should I be forced to pay a penalty or buy insurance when I can pay for medical expenses myself?

Get the government out of my personal life. If you want it in yours, thats fine with me. You may think the government is right on something, but I know there is usually more than one answer for most things, one answer won't work for everyone. Smaller government and personal freedom is what I am for.

/I like the idea of Freedom, when it doesn't impede on anyone elses. As long as I am not interfering with your or anyone elses freedom, why can't I do whatever the hell I want?
//Again, fark you Mitt Romney and everyone else who thinks its a good idea to strip me of liberty.

AngryDragon: Guntram Shatterhand: Arthur Jumbles: arkansas: There is no free lunch, no matter how much you really, really, want one. There is no free lunch, no matter how really, really, progressive it would be to give everyone one.

True..... which is why I advocate taking all the money we waste on the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and using it to pay for universal healthcare.

I can dig this. In fact, why do we need so much for Defense anyway? When we get Bush to stop pissing off people because of his small dick, we should realize that the biggest 'threat' to America today is terrorism which does not require a giant standing army to counter, much less thousands of little toys that cost millions just to develop and fail. That money could easily pay for our health care twice over.

I love this bullshiat argument. Do you even know how much money in the budget is spent on defense? Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid?

Mandatory Spending, at $1.412 trillion in FY 2006, is over half of the U.S. Federal Budget. The largest mandatory spending programs are Social Security and Medicare, as follows:

* Social Security - $544 billion
* Medicare - $325 billion
* Medicaid - $186 billion
* All other mandatory programs - $357 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the blind and disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement / Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military

Source: Link (new window)

We currently pay $500 Billion every year in Medicare and Medicaid. Let that sink in for a second. That means the burden for these programs is ~$1700 per living person in the country every year. Divide this among the 45M people without healthcare. You get $11,000 per person per year for nothing but healthcare. That is more than I pay, with insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-pays for a family of 3. That's under the current budget.

Now tell me where that money goes, and tell me that we need more. While you're at it, tell me that letting the federal government manage more of your money is a good idea. Call me when there is outrage about this.


Looks like you are not as smart as you think you are.

Hendrix: You're missing the point.

No, you are: Health care is a public good, just as is defense, etc, since *you* benefit when another 'consumes' it. This is known as the Free Rider Effect.

Again, you've failed.

No. Read above again and/or learn economics.

/I like the idea of Freedom, when it doesn't impede on anyone elses. As long as I am not interfering with your or anyone elses freedom, why can't I do whatever the hell I want?

Fantastic, we all want personal liberty -- I'm asking only that you quit freeloading off the external benefits of my consumption.

/libertarians: taking the cup of coffee and never chipping in

VonFlapjack: *blinking*

Because the only people getting any benefit from Medicare/Medicaid arrrrrrre the 45 million people w/o healthcare and no one else. So all $500 Bil goes just to those 45 million people. Just those people. None of the other ~250 million people in the US benefit from Medicare/Medicaid. Mmm. That makes sense.

That is not what I said. I am trying to draw a parallel between an existing program and what many politicians are stumping that we need. If we assume that, other than 45M people in the US, everyone has healthcare. Then assume that the cost of providing insurance to the existing 39M Medicare recipients = $500B. That means that "Universal Healthcare", essentially giving government control of a private industry, is unnecessary. Simply implement a program for the same cost targeting only those individuals who have no healthcare as an expansion of Medicare. Business contributes, the targeted individual contributes, government intervention is reduced, everyone's happy. Never give the government more power than it already has.

You're not seriously arguing that annual military expenditures come in at less than $357 billion, are you? Or am I reading that wrong?

You are reading that wrong. It is true that the annual military expenditure does fall within that $357B. The key word is MANDATORY spending. The mandatory category is about half the overall expenditure of the federal government. The rest goes to bullshiat pet projects, with a significant percentage going to the War in Iraq. I agree that has to end as soon as reasonable. The latest estimate of 2007 spending (mandatory and discretionary) is something like this:

* $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
* $548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense
* $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
* $367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
* $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
* $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
* $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
* $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
* $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
* $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
* $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
* $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
* $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
* $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
* $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
* $23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy
* $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

Note that the total spending to support the poor, elderly, and sick in this country is $1.62T annually or nearly 3 times the amount spent on Defense. To say "if we only spent that defense money on healthcare our problems would be solved" is disingenuous and misleading. Even redirecting all Defense spending, including that spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, into the existing programs only results in a 35% increase in their budgets.

The real question I am posing is this:

The government already pisses away ~$1.4T per year in non-mandatory spending. Per year. Why would anyone think it is reasonable or rational to give them yet more money to provide something that has a greater scope than is really needed? We should be working to reduce the size of government and their expenditures not increasing them for fark's sake.

You're the jerk... jerk:Looks like you are not as smart as you think you are.

Hmmm, never claimed I was, but I was still right. (See above)

AngryDragon:

I think you're presupposing a whole lot in your argument(s), getting lost in a vast array of billions of dollars and losing focus with your passion (justified, I should add - I'm at wit's end, too) of being fed up with a poorly-working government...

... and missing the critical notion of what's the best way to allocate our limited resources, since that's what it all boils down to. You've got to try to let go and be a little bit less dogmatic if you want to get into the thick of this whole mess and really analyze this stuff, ya know?

Fantastic, we all want personal liberty -- I'm asking only that you quit freeloading off the external benefits of my consumption.

/libertarians: taking the cup of coffee and never chipping in

Care to explain to me how I am freeloading or how the free rider effect applies to me, when I want nothing to do with health insurance? I'm being sincere, you've lost me.

Weaver95: Guntram Shatterhand: In short, raising taxes on corporate and the rich to a huge amount to safeguard their profits might be the smartest thing ever.


No, that'd be the dumbest move ever. Instead of punishing people for being rich, how about we STOP punishing people for behaving in a fiscally responsible manner? Stop taxing the fark outta savings accounts, retirement accounts and/or education benefits. Stop bailing out failed businesses. Stop saving people who overextend their credit. simplify the tax code, reduce spending and cut taxes.

This.