Do you really believe our government can give us cheaper healthcare?

Already does. Medicare delivers services to patients covered under medicare more efficiently than private insurance.
And thats comparing the US to the US not some scandinavian nirvana...

If high taxes = economic success, then that ought to be easy to prove, right? If high rates = high revenues, that ought to be easy to prove, right?

I don't think anyone is trying to say that high taxes = economic success. Just that it isn't a determinate. Neither are low taxation rates a determinate of economic success.If it were, the US would be having great economic sucess today, since tax rates are at a historic low.
However, the braying masses on the right are stuck on lowering taxes and cutting spending as the only answer. Although, when it comes down to what to cut most start to hesitate. You know, Gingrinch thinks people who don't like agricultural subsidies "hate farmers". Do you hate farmers Steve? I know you agree with me that the ag subsidies are wasteful...
Point is, that there is an "appropriate level" of taxation. Whatever that level is it should create small surpluses in good economic times ... and allow all citizens a certain amount of security and access to the tools they need to contribute to society to their best ability. (By this i mean education.) And that ends up minimizing income inequality to the levels you might have seen in the 60s and 70s in the US. And ends up greatly enhancing social mobility.
Which, social mobility that is, you seem to think is pretty darn wonderful. Even though its greater everywhere else in the industrialized woirld.
But the freeing of the rich from higehr taxation since 1980 .... hasn't ended up helping the econmy has it?

Ricky:

Already does. Medicare delivers services to patients covered under medicare more efficiently than private insurance.

Based on what I've seen, I'm just not convinced. There's just so much fraud and waste in Medicare, I just don't know how anyone can prove this.

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

Already does. Medicare delivers services to patients covered under medicare more efficiently than private insurance.

Based on what I've seen, I'm just not convinced. There's just so much fraud and waste in Medicare, I just don't know how anyone can prove this.

Can either of you (preferabley both of you) share with us this arcane knowledge you have - perhaps in a different thread?

I can see how you can both be in some way correct. Medicare could be more efficient than private insurance and yet also have a fair amount of fraud and waste. For example:

1) The studies that Ricky refers to may include an allowance for fraud and waste
2) Ray Jay may be aware of 'so much' fraud and waste in Medicare, but it may still be a small proportion of the overall costs, it may be less than the efficiency gap to private healthcare, and there may be fraud and waste in the private system that is similarly non-trivial.

So numbers, gents...

Doctor Fate wrote:And, yes, progressive taxation is, by its nature, a Marxist principle.

Wrong.

Adam Smith supported progressive taxation. He predates Marx (and Marxism) by some time, and is largely regarded as being a capitalist:

Adam 'Commie' Smith wrote:The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

(my emphasis added)
From Wealth of Nations (1776). Of course, Smith was talking in a late 18th century context, and things have moved on a lot in terms of who rents property and where the burden would fall with such a tax as he moots. But the last sentence sets out an idea that is basically 'progressive taxation'.

Now, either Steve proves Smith was a Marxist, or I contend that his assertion was utterly false.

I don't know that we need another conversation on medicare.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=78&start=225

Danivon I'm guilty of dove tailing conversations i suppose. I was refering to the conversation on the other thread (linked) where Archduke introduced information on "medical loss" costs to insurers.
Buried in his links was the note that 94% of insurance dollars in Medicare go to pay for medical loss.
Whereas major insurers pay about 81%.
I'll leave that point, introduced by Archduke, to make the point I was making to Steve. And also concede to Ray that fraud does seem to be a problem for Medicare. However its a problem that is assailable. Whereas the lower percentage of money that goes to medical expense (medical loss int he quaint language of the insurance companies) means that fraud would have to account for more than 10% of all medicare payments for fraud to make medicare as "inefficient" as private insurance And I wonder how assailable the margins for insurance companies are?
I'll leave it there and let ray decide if he wants to open this in another thread... I have a feeling its would simply be a retread.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

Already does. Medicare delivers services to patients covered under medicare more efficiently than private insurance.

Based on what I've seen, I'm just not convinced. There's just so much fraud and waste in Medicare, I just don't know how anyone can prove this.

Can either of you (preferabley both of you) share with us this arcane knowledge you have - perhaps in a different thread?

I can see how you can both be in some way correct. Medicare could be more efficient than private insurance and yet also have a fair amount of fraud and waste. For example:

1) The studies that Ricky refers to may include an allowance for fraud and waste
2) Ray Jay may be aware of 'so much' fraud and waste in Medicare, but it may still be a small proportion of the overall costs, it may be less than the efficiency gap to private healthcare, and there may be fraud and waste in the private system that is similarly non-trivial.

So numbers, gents...

How's this from the departing head of medicare and medicaid

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/238654.php

Re Ricky's "numbers" and "citations", how do you measure the extent of fraud and waste, when the point is that much of it is hidden.

Note on Marxist element: when even the French suggested everyone should participate (admittedly anachronistic), it is pretty obvious that our tax system is broken since 47% pay no taxes. Our current regime proposes cutting by 3% the only federal tax many pay, which, of course, is so they can get a minimal pension. In that sense, it's not even a true tax.

What would someone call the current calls for "fairness" other than a modernization of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"?

Marx built on those who went before him. Marx did not create his theories in a vacuum. From Smith to Hegel, all had an influence upon him. Nevertheless, the trajectory of taxation in this country has been to shift the burden entirely upon the haves. This creates a class struggle--a perfectly Marxist proposal. We do have two classes in America: the taxed and the untaxed. Obama's strategy is to energize the untaxed and the liberal rich and hope that is more than 50%.

Medicare waste: Go ahead Ricky--defend that. Please explain the medical necessities and the efficiencies of government. Did they import said machines from Canada at a lower price? Were the men who received them suffering from overuse of Cialis?

I am not entirely opposed to nationalized medicine, believe it or not. I am completely opposed to the program the Democrats designed. It is guaranteed to be a money loser and anyone can see that.

Doctor Fate wrote:Note on Marxist element: when even the French suggested everyone should participate (admittedly anachronistic), it is pretty obvious that our tax system is broken since 47% pay no taxes.

Wrong.

47% pay Federal Income Tax. But that is not the only tax - it's not even the only Federal tax. Many more pay 'payroll' taxes (which Congress is happy to increase) which come from income. Before you even consider State and Local taxes, you should at least be clear who pay some form of tax towards DC.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Note on Marxist element: when even the French suggested everyone should participate (admittedly anachronistic), it is pretty obvious that our tax system is broken since 47% pay no taxes.

Wrong.

47% pay Federal Income Tax. But that is not the only tax - it's not even the only Federal tax. Many more pay 'payroll' taxes (which Congress is happy to increase) which come from income. Before you even consider State and Local taxes, you should at least be clear who pay some form of tax towards DC.

You're a bloody idiot and I'm quoting you so I can adequately point that out.

47 percent do NOT pay Income Tax. While I'm sure that was just a typo, the next error is just dishonest.

You say "many more pay 'payroll' taxes." I said:

Our current regime proposes cutting by 3% the only federal tax many pay, which, of course, is so they can get a minimal pension. In that sense, it's not even a true tax.

Of course, I was referring to the payroll tax--the only tax that results in "a minimal pension."

Can you ever just stop trolling? Do you care about the truth or just in attacking me and what I say? Based on the last post here, I'd have to conclude it is not that you give a fig about the truth.

From the NYT regarding the current Democratic scheme:

Senate Democrats proposed reducing it to 3.1 percent for 2012, and cutting employers’ taxes on the first $5 million in taxable payroll to the same level. To pay for the cut, the bill calls for a 3.25 percent tax on gross income over $1 million for single filers and married couples filing jointly.

Naturally, this means some will, if this is passed, have even less stake in demanding fiscal sanity from the government. What do they care? It's not "their" money.

So, what proportion pay #any# federal taxes now? Your words imply it's 53% (any yes the first is a typo) although we both know that only applies to Income Tax. Of the remainder, how many are retirees (who already had decades of taxpaying), and how many are on welfare (so taxing them would just be a way to cut their benefits)?

I don't see your problem with a cut in payroll taxes - they literally are a tax on jobs. What is the history of payroll tax rates - have they been rising or falling recently?

Getting back to the topic at hand, I find the concept that jobs are created through purchasers as opposed to sellers to be disturbing. Certainly every transaction has a buyer and a seller. My problem is with the author's contention that it is the one who demands something who creates the job. It reminds me of this exchange from the movie The Pope of Greenwich Village:

Paulie: Nicky don't go for spit. 'Nose' still shines his own shoes, pop. I don't call that success.
Paulie's Father: Oh yeah? And what do you call it?
Paulie: Knowin' how to spend it. I never ordered a Brandy in my life that wasn't Cordon Bleu... I took two-hundred from shylocks, pop, to see Sinatra at the Garden? Sat two seats away from Tony Bennett. That's success!

In other words we are turning our sensibilities around by applauding consumers vs. producers.

This concept that demand is the key has very dangerous consequences. Our President seems to have little regard for those who innovate or produce. All we have to do is use the government to even out income distribution and encourage consumption and voila we have success. But government encouraging consumption has huge unintended consequences. We have unemployed educated people ; we have overinflated housing prices; we have newer cars to replace our clunkers; we have massive government debt, all in the name of stoking demand.

I do realize that there is something important about demand. But it is not good enough. We need to create wealth through productivity and through ingenuity; we need government policies that encourage and reward productivity, or at least stop discouraging it.

Regarding Danivon's specific question. Temporarily cutting payroll taxes is a political gesture but doesn't create wealth. As long as businesses cannot plan on an absolute tax rate reduction in their forecasting, the temporary cut doesn't influence their plans in a positive way. It's fine and helpful for those who need the cash. We may slightly and temporarily increase demand; but we also increase our debt; we don't change our economy in a productive way. By paring a tax cut with a long term permanent increase in tax rates, we do more harm than good.

This notion that business people are stupid and that they will focus more on a slight reduction in payroll taxes, but cannot anticipate a higher tax rate next year or the year after is faulty.

My goodness, you sound so hostile.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, frankly, I have no interest in playing your game. He gets to make unsupported claims and that's fine (in your eyes), but I have to line up how many experts and how much data to disprove his unsupported claim?

I wasn't playing a game, and I'm sorry you thought it was an unfair question. It just seems to me that there is this conservative meme that higher taxes = slower (or no) growth. I was just looking for where that comes from. If you don't know, or care to share, or whatever, no worries.

Doctor Fate wrote:Third, there is nothing more "faith-based" than the notion that the government can and should solve every problem. That is why we are at $15T in debt and counting (not even counting the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid). Liberals and Democrats say the debt doesn't matter or that we can solve the problem by taxing the rich. There is no evidence to support that, yet you, apparently believe it. So, don't lecture me about "faith." You've got plenty of it--in government you trust.

I take very little on faith. I do believe in math, however. I personally think the national debt is a serious problem that is only getting worse. One reasonable solution is to cut spending and raise revenues. The problem can't be solved by simply taxing the rich, but that's part of a multi-faceted solution, in my view, that seems to be supported by the author, who happens to be one of the people who would see their taxes go up. Such an approach doesn't preclude re-engineering government processes, many of which were never engineered in the first place, but simply evolved. Or even doing away with whole departments, like Homeland Security, Education and/or Energy, or otherwise shrinking the overall size and scope of gov't. In my view, the problem will be solved not through an either/or solution, but a both/and solution.

Finally, I know of only one person who has been recorded seriously saying that deficits don't matter, and that is Dick Cheney. I don't think he would appreciate your characterization that he is a "liberal."

Finally, I know of only one person who has been recorded seriously saying that deficits don't matter,

Yes Cheney said that, but he didn't mean it "economically". He meant that it didn't matter politically. That Reagan hadn't suffered any political consequences as a result of running deficits.
He actually didn't give a damn about the economic consequences...

And the shame of it is, that running deficits the way reagan did, made deficits acceptable. (and his deficits were the result of lowering taxation rates, that somehow didn't increase revenues by boosting the economy as his administration predicted they would.)

Cheney wasn' t a liberal but he wasn't a fiscal conservative either ....

Ray Jay wrote:In other words we are turning our sensibilities around by applauding consumers vs. producers.

This concept that demand is the key has very dangerous consequences. Our President seems to have little regard for those who innovate or produce. All we have to do is use the government to even out income distribution and encourage consumption and voila we have success.

And, it's interesting that he is not making hard and fast proposals on the numbers. Specifically, how much should the rich pay? How low do you have to be on the income scale to justify no income tax? Why is it a good idea to cut the payroll tax since that is supposed to fund Social Security? Why a one-year cut? What about the deficit and debt? What's his plan for managing the biggest problem in America?

But government encouraging consumption has huge unintended consequences. We have unemployed educated people ; we have overinflated housing prices; we have newer cars to replace our clunkers; we have massive government debt, all in the name of stoking demand.

This is the tip of the iceberg. Obama has already, by executive action, lowered the payments graduates have to make on their student loans. Yesterday, he hinted he'd like to make college free. What is the unintended consequence of more government involvement in college education? I submit it is twofold--higher costs (more demand = higher cost) and more useless degrees. How many graduates do we need in sociology, Black Studies, Lesbian and Transgender Studies, History of Dance? Seriously, what do those people do with their degrees? Once all the college teaching positions in those majors are filled and the social workers are hired, they've got nothing--except a piece of paper promoted by the government.

Liberals argue about it, but why was there a housing bubble? It wasn't the derivatives themselves--they were designed to spread risk. It was the practice of making loans to people who could not afford them in the long run. Whether it was the CRA or not, it clearly was government involvement--that is why Freddie, Fannie, and now FHA are all getting federal money. They made bad loans, lots of them.

Ray is right--the government just can't stop tinkering. They've even tried to find ways to keep people who can't afford houses in them to stabilize the market. It won't work. People who can't afford houses today won't be able to afford them tomorrow 95% of the time. Let the market work!

I do realize that there is something important about demand. But it is not good enough. We need to create wealth through productivity and through ingenuity; we need government policies that encourage and reward productivity, or at least stop discouraging it.

QFT!

Instead of creating more uncertainty with more regulation, get out of the way. Roll back Obamacare. Roll back Dodd-Frank. Cut spending. Give us a plan to show you are serious about the debt and deficit. Stop all the temporary nonsense. Make the playing field identifiable--and no, I don't mean level; I mean identifiable. With the government constantly changing rules, taxes, and creating regulation (Dodd-Frank alone will create thousands of them), businesses will wait until they know what the parameters of the playing field are before investing their capital. Just stop!

How's this from the departing head of medicare and medicaid

Ray, thats waste as in "spent on useless medical; procedures..."
Its a different number then "medical loss" as a measure of money spent only on medicine.
Another way of saying that is how much is on administration, marketing and profit in private versus medicare.
I think that wasteful use of medical procedures is as prevalent in private as public. Defensive medicine, ordering tests to generate billing etc. (I think we should statrt a new thread.)