Why Ryan Makes Romney's Tax Problem Even Worse

I think each person over 18 should be individually taxed. People should be taxed on their net worth and their income if over $250k.

Quote from andyfico : So......I guess that means your opinion remains just that; your biased unsubstantiated opinion. Thank you for being honest.

pretty much

Quote from rrc06 : pretty much

It would appear so.......oh well. I guess it was too much to ask.

Hey look, it's the same crowd as that last time I explained something in consuming detail. Let me recollect what happened.... oh they just ignored the comment. I guess that doesn't work.

Quote from agent00f : I've already addressed this more broadly here. I'll charitably assume you haven't seen it: http://slickdeals.net/forums/show...tcount=187

Do you really think your method is above corruption and influence? It seems the statists always seem to believe that central planning works when it's done by people that can't make decisions based only on money but seem to ignore he vast evidence that giving people power to wield will often create the same or even worse problems than those that result from pure economic factors. It's seen everywhere from neighborhood and HOAs to the old Soviet Union and other failed examples of central planning.
Our system got farked because the patient is not the primary 'customer' of the insurance companies, the employer is. Remove the employer from the equation and remove barriers to competition and make the medical field responsible to the patient and you will lower costs across the board and then it will be easier and cheaper to address those that fall through the cracks. In every type of market, increased competition lowers prices and increases quality. A government that offers flat rates for large numbers of patients decreases the drive to compete.

Quote from darkfrog : Do you really think your method is above corruption and influence? It seems the statists always seem to believe that central planning works when it's done by people that can't make decisions based only on money but seem to ignore he vast evidence that giving people power to wield will often create the same or even worse problems than those that result from pure economic factors. It's seen everywhere from neighborhood and HOAs to the old Soviet Union and other failed examples of central planning.

Is your argument that central planning tautological fails? If that's the case, how do free marketeers explain the relative success of intl-metacorp, most of whose employees are hardly tied to the specifics of its income and profit? How are these fundamentally different than any country?

Nobody is claiming that doing things well is trivial, but they're clearly not impossible either as evidenced by reality.

Quote : Our system got farked because the patient is not the primary 'customer' of the insurance companies, the employer is. Remove the employer from the equation and remove barriers to competition and make the medical field responsible to the patient and you will lower costs across the board and then it will be easier and cheaper to address those that fall through the cracks. In every type of market, increased competition lowers prices and increases quality. A government that offers flat rates for large numbers of patients decreases the drive to compete.

You seem to forget that the reason the employer intervened is their collective bargaining power (hahaha) on behalf of their employee. You can verify this by trying to buy your health insurance; oops, there's that inconvenient reality again.

Quote from agent00f : Is your argument that central planning tautological fails? If that's the case, how do free marketeers explain the relative success of intl-metacorp, most of whose employees are hardly tied to the specifics of its income and profit? How are these fundamentally different than any country?

No, I'm saying the tautology of central planning is always superior fails.

Quote : Nobody is claiming that doing things well is trivial, but they're clearly not impossible either as evidenced by reality.

Agreed.

Quote : ] You seem to forget that the reason the employer intervened is their collective bargaining power (hahaha) on behalf of their employee. You can verify this by trying to buy your health insurance; oops, there's that inconvenient reality again.

Actually, I believe the incentive initially was to offer benefits as a way to be more competitive for good employees. Employers are not bargaining, rates are being dictated by the insurers. The only benefit seen by companies is due to pooling of risk by creating a group. The same is done without being an employee all of the time. Group rates are given for various associations. There is a disconnect between health insurance and health care in this country. If people were ultimately responsible for their own health care and used insurance as insurance was meant to be, i.e. catastrophic loss only, instead of a form of pre-paid medical care, prices of medical procedures would drop. If people were paying for their non-catastrophic medical bills and had to pay more than a $10 co-pay, doctors would have more time to treat the real medical problems.

Quote from darkfrog : No, I'm saying the tautology of central planning is always superior fails.

Nobody is claiming it's always superior, only that organization can be effective, and often necessary, for better results. Better results matter.

Quote : Actually, I believe the incentive initially was to offer benefits as a way to be more competitive for good employees. Employers are not bargaining, rates are being dictated by the insurers. The only benefit seen by companies is due to pooling of risk by creating a group.

I don't want to argue the semantics here (whether the buying power/bargaining is implicit to the group, etc), but the bottom lines is in reality buying your own health insurance on the free market is hella expensive.

Quote : The same is done without being an employee all of the time. Group rates are given for various associations. There is a disconnect between health insurance and health care in this country. If people were ultimately responsible for their own health care and used insurance as insurance was meant to be, i.e. catastrophic loss only, instead of a form of pre-paid medical care, prices of medical procedures would drop.

Plenty of people are responsible for their own and I see no magical drop.

Quote : If people were paying for their non-catastrophic medical bills and had to pay more than a $10 co-pay, doctors would have more time to treat the real medical problems.

Yeah, don't worry about that ache, it's probably nothing.

Quote from andyfico : Is that fact or just your opinion?

Whether or not heritage is paid is not a matter of opinion.