So next elections when the Republicans again run on "lowering taxes"

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Because it has been shown to provide better outcomes at a lower cost?

As a teacher, we already have single payer when it comes to schools.

Says who? I know that our federal government has shown it can burden future generations by getting involved in healthcare.

And what federal department do I send the bill to if I send my kids to private school? The federal government has proven it can burden future generations with its involvment here as well...

[wgbgator]

Future generations could always decide something different. That's kind of what democracy means. I'm not sure why policy should be decided by hypothetical people who don't yet exist, and may not even agree with you.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I think what people mean by "purchasing across state lines" means dipping into other risk pools. But it's counterproductive. If rates are cheaper in a healthier state, and you let a bunch of actuarily less healthy outsiders in, then the rates won't stay the same. They will rise because the risk pool has become unhealthier in aggregate. Obamacare creates a national market, but it also has a funding mechanism (that the above approach doesnt have), by making sure free-riders or people who wouldnt purchase insurance are paying into the risk pool either by buying coverage or paying a tax, offsetting the costs of the expanded pool.

Other states may be healthier but the larger savings can be found in the mandated coverages...

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/re...11ExecSumm.pdf

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Future generations could always decide something different. That's kind of what democracy means. I'm not sure why policy should be decided by hypothetical people who don't yet exist, and may not even agree with you.

Future generations cannot decide to just say I do not want this burden that you are dumping on me. $16 trillion and counting. So instead of providing them an uphill battle to pay for our greed how about we try to live within our means and let them do the same then deciding how they want the repbulic to spend money...

[QGator2414]

But we are AMERICANS so who cares if we leave our kids a burden to address with all their other issues...

[Dreamliner]

If you can't cut Big Bird (PBS), who can fly on his own, no help from taxpayers, what the hell can you cut ?

[Dreamliner]

Is there a single pub in Congress now who's an across-the-board, no exceptions cutter ? Maybe Justin Amash ?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

Future generations cannot decide to just say I do not want this burden that you are dumping on me. $16 trillion and counting. So instead of providing them an uphill battle to pay for our greed how about we try to live within our means and let them do the same then deciding how they want the repbulic to spend money...

Sure they can. It has happened regularly throughout history.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

But we are AMERICANS so who cares if we leave our kids a burden to address with all their other issues...

Americans, including you, arent above using hypothetical future generations or children as an appeal to achieve policy ends important to them in the present.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Is there a single pub in Congress now who's an across-the-board, no exceptions cutter ? Maybe Justin Amash ?

A politician wouldn't be able to get elected if he didn't get $$$ sent his way. Even if he had the best intentions it wouldn't serve his constituents at all because they'd end up paying for everyone's goodies and getting no goodies of their own.

Now there are some, Amash for example, that would like to get rid of that hazard altogether, but they have to live in the realities of their situation. Pay for everyone else's and get nothing or pay .0025% more and get a goodie?

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

A politician wouldn't be able to get elected if he didn't get $$$ sent his way. Even if he had the best intentions it wouldn't serve his constituents at all because they'd end up paying for everyone's goodies and getting no goodies of their own.

Now there are some, Amash for example, that would like to get rid of that hazard altogether, but they have to live in the realities of their situation. Pay for everyone else's and get nothing or pay .0025% more and get a goodie?

I know, I know. I was just kidding. This is invariably what you get with democracy, a sort of "We've got to cut! WAIT, I didn't mean cut THAT!!!" phenomenon.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

If you can't cut Big Bird (PBS), who can fly on his own, no help from taxpayers, what the hell can you cut ?

Excellent point!

Yet we continue to spend, borrow and print as if it is not our problem...

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Sure they can. It has happened regularly throughout history.

Right. They will just discharge the massive debt we hand them at the snap of a finger. There will be no consequences for that at all...

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

Right. They will just discharge the massive debt we hand them at the snap of a finger. There will be no consequences for that at all...

Why would someone choose to pay something they don't feel they owe or were obligated to pay? I don't really understand this, especially when the bulk of the debt is owed to ourselves. So if people decide they don't owe it anymore, who's collecting?

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

Says who? I know that our federal government has shown it can burden future generations by getting involved in healthcare.

Reality. We already spend more government money per capita on health care than do most single payer systems. But they cover all of their citizens.

And what federal department do I send the bill to if I send my kids to private school? The federal government has proven it can burden future generations with its involvment here as well...

Sure, and some people don't use the highways or the postal service, but they still have to pay the federal taxes that pay for those things.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Why would someone choose to pay something they don't feel they owe or were obligated to pay? I don't really understand this, especially when the bulk of the debt is owed to ourselves. So if people decide they don't owe it anymore, who's collecting?

Is this how we justify our federal governments spending? As if there will be no inflation or burden placed on our future generations?

They are obligated to pay it because we are going to hand them the debt. Just wait for those interest rates to rise for us/them to deal with it as well...

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by philnotfil

Reality. We already spend more government money per capita on health care than do most single payer systems. But they cover all of their citizens.



Sure, and some people don't use the highways or the postal service, but they still have to pay the federal taxes that pay for those things.

Who cares if it covers everyone. Coverage does not gurantee you health or the avoidance of bankruptcy as it is now. The fact we cannot tax half the population along with the the governments proof that it cannot control costs when it comes to healthcare is enough to know more involvement is something to avoid...

Interstates (key word that is different than highway) and the postal service are both on solid constitutional ground without abusing the commerce or welfare clause...

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

Is this how we justify our federal governments spending? As if there will be no inflation or burden placed on our future generations?

They are obligated to pay it because we are going to hand them the debt. Just wait for those interest rates to rise for us/them to deal with it as well...

I'm not searching for justifications. Just wondering why anyone would pay for something they felt they didnt owe, that's all. If I, as a hypothetical member of a future generation felt that I had been unfairly saddled with crippling debt that I didnt owe, paying it would not be something I'd be willing to do.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Why would someone choose to pay something they don't feel they owe or were obligated to pay? I don't really understand this, especially when the bulk of the debt is owed to ourselves. So if people decide they don't owe it anymore, who's collecting?

Because then we default, creditors no longer trust the US Government and will no longer borrow, rates will have to skyrocket, the dollar plummets, etc. Basic Econ.

Logically, how do you think we would be able to fund the deficit if nobody will allow us to borrow from them?

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

Who cares if it covers everyone. Coverage does not gurantee you health or the avoidance of bankruptcy as it is now. The fact we cannot tax half the population along with the the governments proof that it cannot control costs when it comes to healthcare is enough to know more involvement is something to avoid...

Look at how much our government spends per capita on health care. Look at our health outcomes. Look at how much other countries spend per capita on health care. Look at their health outcomes. Now try to convince anyone that our system works better.

Interstates (key word that is different than highway) and the postal service are both on solid constitutional ground without abusing the commerce or welfare clause...

This is true. I'm not sure what it has to do with your original question (And what federal department do I send the bill to if I send my kids to private school?), but it is certainly true.