Post-Debate Discussion (formally Pre)

Quote from OhNoItsDEVO : But, can not raise, does not mean an inevitable drop to zero.

I do not know how inevitable but unless "cannot raise" is joined with "cannot drop," then the only way is to ...
lower and lower and lower and lower and lower and lower and lower and ....

Quote from adams135 : OK math wiz .. Lets take a number .. say 10 and for fun we will say that is the tax percentage we start with. If every year we REDUCE or LOWER that number (remember we are starting at 10) by half in how many years will it take to equal this 0 (zero) you refer to?

I'll help. For simplicity (and practicality), let's assume we keep only two decimals.

Quote from Hawk2007 : http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/1...ck-on-pbs/ Since it represents only 0.037 percent of the $1.2 Trillion dollar deficit, you're tell me there are no wealthy liberals willing to open their pocket book just a bit more to cover Romney's foolishness?

Considering Sesame Street makes upward of $200 Million alone in product sales, I would guess that the entire station could figure something out to replace the percentage of money that comes from the public sector.

http://www.demint.senate.gov/publ...87dcade83a

Quote : Shows like Sesame Street are multi-million dollar enterprises capable of thriving in the private market. According to the 990 tax form all nonprofits are required to file, Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 -- nearly a million dollars -- in compensation in 2008. And, from 2003 to 2006, "Sesame Street" made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales.

Quote from TRNT : I'll help. For simplicity (and practicality), let's assume we keep only two decimals.

Nope .. the questions stands as written .. the math wiz agent00f didn't put that disclaimer and since I am asking him/her the question no reason to change my question, which BTW I am still waiting for his/her answer.

Quote from adams135 : Nope .. the questions stands as written .. the math wiz agent00f didn't put that disclaimer and since I am asking him/her the question no reason to change my question, which BTW I am still waiting for his/her answer.

Did agent say we decrease tax rate ONLY by halfing? (I think this is a nitpick.)

BTW: the feds did lower their interest to 0.0000000000000000000......0000000000000000000

Quote from paperboy05 : Considering Sesame Street makes upward of $200 Million alone in product sales, I would guess that the entire station could figure something out to replace the percentage of money that comes from the public sector. http://www.demint.senate.gov/publ...87dcade83a

I actually agree w/ Romney on this point about WITF.. but it's a minuscule issue probably even worth discussing. I have a WITF locally in my area.. They even spoke about it on the radio. It's extremely extravagant and far nice furnished in everyday than private companies that are 100x more seen. Other stations survive well enough with commercials and advertising.. if WITF is so important and people actually watch it.. their existence without public funds should be no problem.

Quote from DJPlayer : I actually agree w/ Romney on this point about WITF.. but it's a minuscule issue probably even worth discussing. I have a WITF locally in my area.. They even spoke about it on the radio. It's extremely extravagant and far nice furnished in everyday than private companies that are 100x more seen. Other stations survive well enough with commercials and advertising.. if WITF is so important and people actually watch it.. their existence without public funds should be no problem.

Since PBS functions as a PR firm for the DNC, the left will fight any attempt to make them self funding.

Quote from DJPlayer : I actually agree w/ Romney on this point about WITF.. but it's a minuscule issue probably even worth discussing. I have a WITF locally in my area.. They even spoke about it on the radio. It's extremely extravagant and far nice furnished in everyday than private companies that are 100x more seen. Other stations survive well enough with commercials and advertising.. if WITF is so important and people actually watch it.. their existence without public funds should be no problem.

Quote from Elmer : Since PBS functions as a PR firm for the DNC, the left will fight any attempt to make them self funding.

Still a moot point IMO. Romney looks like a fool making a big deal about breadcrumbs like PBS. He should have talked about the real elephant in the room, medicare, and how his voucher program will keep it sustainable, long-term

Quote from rrc06 : Still a moot point IMO. Romney looks like a fool making a big deal about breadcrumbs like PBS. He should have talked about the real elephant in the room, medicare, and how his voucher program will keep it sustainable, long-term

Honest question.....if the voucher program does not reduce coverage then where does the savings come from? Competition? Miracle?

And how would he allow people the choice to stay with the old medicare program? Who is stupid enough to switch knowing that the voucher amount is less than the cost of the old medicare to the gov?

And how does this pre-existing condition feature of Rmoney plan work as far as you understand? So a person who is sick and afraid that his employer would fire him would simply buy private insurance at the healthy person price and that is it? That sounds real stupid. IMO, pre-existing feature will not work unless we have a mandate. If you disagree, please explain it to me.

Thanks.

Quote from TRNT : Honest question.....if the voucher program does not reduce coverage then where does the savings come from? Competition? Miracle?

Consumers need to start seeing the costs of healthcare directly, instead of through an intermediary like medicare or an insurance company. Once people realize how expensive things have gotten, they will start to have more honest discussions with their doctors about why certain drugs or tests are needed.

Right now, Obamacare and the healthcare system in general has not really done much to address that fundamental issue. We are on an unsustainable trajectory with healthcare spending, just like we have been with higher ed spending. The answer is not hide those costs further but to face them in the open.

Quote from rrc06 : Consumers need to start seeing the costs of healthcare directly, instead of through an intermediary like medicare or an insurance company. Once people realize how expensive things have gotten, they will start to have more honest discussions with their doctors about why certain drugs or tests are needed. Right now, Obamacare and the healthcare system in general has not really done much to address that fundamental issue. We are on an unsustainable trajectory with healthcare spending, just like we have been with higher ed spending. The answer is not hide those costs further but to face them in the open.

So this is voluntary reduction in services same as voluntary self-deportation that Rmoney has proposed?

Joking aside....as I see it we have two distinct problems: over prescribing (of meds and services) and over-pricing. (In case it is not clear, I am agreeing with you.)

(BTW: I am intrigued that you mentioned over-prescribing but did not mention over-pricing. Hmm. I will try very hard not to tread anything nefarious into that but it is very hard.)

I think over-prescribing can be dealt with by regulations such as say no mammograms for women above 80. Or no colonoscopy for people over certain age unless some other factor is present. Or not allowing crestor if zocor works, etc etc, etc. But these should come from medical profession and not from insurance or government.

The over-pricing should be death with like costco deals with suppliers. Costco is big. It can get favorable pricing. Same should happen with medicare. Yes, some doctors would stop accepting medicare and that is ok. Medicare need not be the type of program that would give you options as if money is no object.

I think the above two can be achieved without voucherizing the system. What happens when your voucher is not enough to get you a reasonable insurance?

I do not trust the voucher idea and even more seriously I do not trust Republicans. This, IMO, is a hoax, a ruse, a sad joke. Perhaps the idea in theory has some merit but I just do not trust Rmoney. Think about it.....this guy wants to give everyone a 20% tax cut (read, multimillionaires will see millions in reduction of their taxes.) Then he would cut down on deductions that would certainly and disproportionately hurt the middle class. I simply do not trust Rmoney and Republicans.

If you recall Rmoney said he would take care of the 47% as they can get healthcare by going to the ER. This plus his famous tape makes me have no doubt that he has no compassion for the poor or even the middle class. He will simply and only take care of the super rich. In that context and with that backdrop there is no way I would trust Rmoney or Republicans to overhaul medicare as much as such overhaul might be necessary.

Quote from rrc06 : Consumers need to start seeing the costs of healthcare directly, instead of through an intermediary like medicare or an insurance company. Once people realize how expensive things have gotten, they will start to have more honest discussions with their doctors about why certain drugs or tests are needed. Right now, Obamacare and the healthcare system in general has not really done much to address that fundamental issue. We are on an unsustainable trajectory with healthcare spending, just like we have been with higher ed spending. The answer is not hide those costs further but to face them in the open.

Good post.

Obama is going to have to come back in the second debate hammering away on the unrealistic assumptions in Romney's tax plan. The problem is that he's got to somehow simplify the math while at the same time not oversimplifying it to the point that Romney could easily deflect it.

Romney has to prepare for this and counter with some explanation on why it would work.

Quote from TRNT : Did agent say we decrease tax rate ONLY by halfing? (I think this is a nitpick.) ..0

Nope .. I just picked that as a starting point. He/she can use any percentage they want (reduced by 50%, 30%, 10%, etc.) to answer the question I posed. He/she is the one who is putting down others on their math so I figured it should be easy for him/her to answer.