-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
the "blue wave" last night and the government shutdown
- Thread starter dogs4thewin
- Start date
FAITH-IN-HIM
Well-Known Member
Your statement is misleading.
Approximately twenty-seven million Americans do not have health insurance, typically because their employment does not provide coverage or the premiums are unaffordable, even with the ACA. Under universal health care systems, individuals contribute funding through taxation. Since uninsured populations often have lower incomes, a greater share of the financial responsibility may shift to higher income groups. Notably, this impact is not confined to the highest earners but can extend to most Americans who pay taxes.
Upvote
0
Tropical Wilds
Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
- Oct 2, 2009
- 7,414
- 5,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Most people are smart enough that the people they elected Wednesday aren’t reporting for their first day in office on Thursday, and have every problem solved by Friday.
Most people.
Upvote
0
FAITH-IN-HIM
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting that the government is already covering the health care costs for these 27 million individuals who do not have health insurance?
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,696
- 10,505
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
No - We the People do. Some via government subsidies (which are funded by your taxes), and some via increased costs for insured patients. If a medical procedure costs the hospital (let's say) $5,000 to perform, but they know that, on average, 10% of the people coming in for that procedure won't be able to pay for it, then the people who can pay all get charged $5500 instead to account for those who don't pay. And that translates into higher insurance premiums, because most of the people who can pay are also covered by insurance.
Moreover, people who lack insurance are less likely to go to the doctor at the first signs of an issue, or to have regular annual checkups. Thus, they are less likely to catch serious conditions early on when they are more treatable (and less expensive to treat), and only go to the hospital when the condition becomes an emergency. This increases the overall cost of care - someone who needs emergency surgery, multiple days in recovery, and has a permanent disability from, say, untreated diabetes costs significantly more than a glucose monitor and regular insulin shots.
Upvote
0
- Jun 11, 2005
- 41,903
- 16,939
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
This has been done taking consideration of offset savings. The estimate was $1.5 trillion over ten years. Let's forget about the ballroom. Then it's $1.15 trillion. Aren't lives more important?
Upvote
0
- Dec 1, 2011
- 22,959
- 18,875
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
FAITH-IN-HIM
Well-Known Member
You are almost 20 trillion dollars short.
By 2030, the CBO estimates a single-payer system in the USA would cost the federal government $1.5 to $3 trillion per year.
Upvote
0
- Jun 11, 2005
- 41,903
- 16,939
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
That doesn't factor in offsets--or Medicare, or VA, or Medicaid, etc. etc.
And if it's run by a Trump appointee I have zero faith in its accuracy.
Upvote
0
FAITH-IN-HIM
Well-Known Member
Alright, let's review the numbers we can all agree upon and examine them instead of making estimates.
In 2023, the federal government spent $847 billion on Medicare, $903 billion on Medicaid, and $303 billion on Veterans Affairs programs, amounting to a total of approximately $2.5 trillion. These expenditures occurred during the Biden administration. This spending supports about 152 million Americans.
Is it reasonable to conclude that, should the number of individuals receiving support double, associated costs would likely increase rather than decrease?
Upvote
0
BCP1928
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2024
- 9,402
- 4,788
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
Yeah, but so what? We're not talking about what it's going to cost, but who is going to pay for it, and yes, ultimately it is and always will be "we, the people"--as employees, as taxpayers, as private citizens paying out of pocket. How we are going to pay for it is the issue.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
I march with Sherman
- Mar 11, 2017
- 23,018
- 17,152
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
And the amount paid to private insurance companies is about $1.5 T.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 29,029
- 17,449
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
As it currently stands, both parties are trying to play the "blame game" to the best of their abilities...trying to propose bills to fund SNAP and pay federal workers, with poison pills attached so they can simply say "aha!!! see, it's the other side that's being difficult"
Ron Johnson proposing bills that democrats are rejecting because "it would give the executive branch too much discretion"
Chuck Schumer proposing bills that republicans are rejecting because they include ACA extension subsidies
That's is what is known as "poison pill politics"... tossing something in a proposal, on purpose, that you know the other side would never go for as a means to be able to say "see, we tried to fix it, but they rejected it! They're the problem!"
It's things like this that made me a die-hard libertarian for a good portion of my 20's lol.
These people don't care about you. They're getting paid more than most of you...and for what? to have a peeing contest against each other to see who can please their donors the most?
I said it before in another thread...
There should be a provision that dictates that if these kinds of matters can't be resolved in 30 days, state governors have the option to call a special elections to replace them the same way they do when someone vacates a seat.
"I don't care if you've held that seat for 30 years... if you're unwilling to compromise for self-serving reasons, you're outta there"
All of the senators and house reps are still getting paid during this, and taking long weekends to boot. Many of the key players in the legislature are bloody rich...well beyond what a person making $170k/year would be able to achieve under normal circumstances...but that's another topic. Do you think they're bothered by a shutdown?
Ron Johnson proposing bills that democrats are rejecting because "it would give the executive branch too much discretion"
Chuck Schumer proposing bills that republicans are rejecting because they include ACA extension subsidies
That's is what is known as "poison pill politics"... tossing something in a proposal, on purpose, that you know the other side would never go for as a means to be able to say "see, we tried to fix it, but they rejected it! They're the problem!"
It's things like this that made me a die-hard libertarian for a good portion of my 20's lol.
These people don't care about you. They're getting paid more than most of you...and for what? to have a peeing contest against each other to see who can please their donors the most?
I said it before in another thread...
There should be a provision that dictates that if these kinds of matters can't be resolved in 30 days, state governors have the option to call a special elections to replace them the same way they do when someone vacates a seat.
"I don't care if you've held that seat for 30 years... if you're unwilling to compromise for self-serving reasons, you're outta there"
All of the senators and house reps are still getting paid during this, and taking long weekends to boot. Many of the key players in the legislature are bloody rich...well beyond what a person making $170k/year would be able to achieve under normal circumstances...but that's another topic. Do you think they're bothered by a shutdown?
Upvote
0
FAITH-IN-HIM
Well-Known Member
The 1.5 trillion paid to insurance companies does not automatically transfer to the universal health care system. Employer premiums may not be available unless a Bismarck-style tax is implemented, requiring employers to contribute to universal healthcare.
Upvote
0
FAITH-IN-HIM
Well-Known Member
If the cost cannot be accurately determined, it becomes challenging to establish funding strategies. One poster states that the expense could be $1.2 trillion over ten years, which is nearly $18 trillion less than estimates provided by the CBO. While focusing solely on who will bear the cost may seem straightforward, this approach lacks practicality. Without a clear understanding of the total expenditure, specifying contributors and payment allocations remains uncertain.
My question is: what is the intended outcome of implementing a universal healthcare system? While this approach has proven effective in Europe and other developed nations, does that necessarily mean it should be adopted here? Currently, there are 27 million people in the United States who do not have health insurance. Would it not be more prudent to focus on providing coverage to these individuals, rather than overhauling the entire healthcare system to address an issue affecting only approximately 8% of the population?
Upvote
0
FAITH-IN-HIM
Well-Known Member
Do you believe that if the United States reduces its military spending, US adversary such as China, Russia, or Iran will also decrease their military capabilities?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
