So you don't have Medicare Advantage? You know Medicare doesn't pay all your medical bills. Actually those *Republican cronies* are now in Obama's pockets since he has promised them the moon...including bail-outs when Obamacare falls flat on it's face. So you think government bureaucracy is more efficient and less corrupt than private industry? One size fits all vs customized, targeted healthcare is more efficient and less costly?
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:00 PM, Bhairitu <noozg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: I already have Single Payer: Medicare. FYI, I'm 67. All I had to do was go online to sign up and it took very little time at all. And yes the Republicans want government off healthcare as much as possible so their cronies can have an orgy screwing you over. On 02/06/2014 03:21 PM, Mike Dixon wrote: >Yes, I earned every penny, including my benefits. The point was *what did the >rich do for me*. They gave me an *opportunity* which I took advantage of. >Republicans want government hands off healthcare as much as possible. Wait >till you get single payer, LOL, I guess you must like going to the DMV. > > > >On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:15 AM, Bhairitu mailto:noozg...@sbcglobal.net >wrote: > > > >ROTFL! Got any more funnies? You earned that pension, dummy. The rich didn't >give it to you. The Republican run health insurance companies wanted >Obamacare so they could put their hands in your pockets. I paid for that >alternative care coverage and Bernie Sanders is pushing to make such coverage >available with the ACA. It will be a tough fight because big pharma doesn't >like you to know you might be able to cure an illness with a common kitchen >spice when they can sell you a pill that costs them 5 cents to make for $100. > >On 02/06/2014 09:39 AM, Mike Dixon wrote: > > >>LOL! The *rich* gave me jobs with a nice pension and Republicans keep your >>hands out of my pockets so I don't have to pay for your *alternative* >>healthcare. >> >> >> >>On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:19 AM, Bhairitu mailto:noozg...@sbcglobal.net >>wrote: >> >> >> >>And hence there is no way out other than for the US to collapse. The >>question is will the those who pull the strings in Washington want to give >>the country a massive suicide pill if they are going down? Remember most of >>them are psychopaths. >> >>On 02/05/2014 11:53 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >>>How much do you propose the tax should be, and how long must the tax operate >>>to pay off the debt? It is much more complicated than this. Among other >>>things, it would reduce the income of people who rely on pensions, and that >>>would reduce tax income in other areas. It would have unexpected ripple >>>effects. If we assume that half of the U.S. population actually has assets >>>that could be taxed, it would take approximately $107,000 per person to pay >>>off the debt. The International Monetary Fund estimates that if every $100 >>>traded on derivatives, stocks, and bonds were taxed $0.50 it would raise >>>approximately $200,000,000,000 a year, and that would pay down the current >>>US debt in 85 years. However the US unfunded obligations are currently at >>>$92,300,000,000,000 which would take 461 years to pay off. Meanwhile debt >>>will still be amassing, so in 461 years, it still will not be paid off. The >>>other thing is when investments are taxed at a higher rate, the return on small, short trades is less and so there are fewer trades and reduced tax income as a result. >>> >>> >>>The U.S. has to find a way to reduce those obligations because there is no >>>way taxation is going to to be able to pay all these obligations off. It >>>will have to restructure entitlements and reduce spending, or at some point >>>the system may collapse spontaneously in which case everyone will be in the >>>soup. Taxing the very wealthy more would of course help, but even if taxed >>>at 100%, which is of course unrealistic, the rich cannot provide enough >>>income to pay this down. The whole system is just near the point of no >>>return. >>> >>> >>>If the U.S. government prints more money (which it is doing now), it results >>>in higher inflation, if gone to excess, and that acts as a tax on everyone >>>through devaluation of currency. If currency is devalued investors begin to >>>sell out, and then it becomes harder for the government to sell securities >>>based on that currency, so interest rates rise to make the securities more >>>attractive. There are a lot of vicious circles here that interact in >>>unexpected ways. >>> >>> >>>For example Social Security in the U.S. is based on life expectancy data >>>that is obsolete because people are living longer. The solution is to raise >>>the age of retirement. Already the goverment over the last third of century >>>has tinkered with inflation measures to understate its impact so that >>>payouts for programs that use inflation adjustments will be less. In other >>>words if you rely on Social Security, you are getting relatively less each >>>year in purchasing power as a result. >>> >>> >>>The government is in a bind because at this point increasing taxation can >>>reduce tax income in many areas. It is a very complicated and dangerous >>>situation. Putting the problem off to the next generation probably will no >>>longer be a workable stopgap solution. Congress and the President are >>>basically in the pocket of Wall Street, so expecting a solution from these >>>bozos is only likely if there is a looming catastrophe that forces them to >>>think outside their self interest (money, power, and re-election) and >>>political ideals. >>> >>> >>>Breaking up the banks, etc., into smaller units might help in reducing >>>centralised control from a few large companies. >>> >>> >>>Simple solutions involving just one parameter of the financial system >>>probably will have many unintended effects. >>> >>> >>>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:noozguru@... wrote: >>> >>> >>>The US depends WAY TOO MUCH on the health of Wall Street. Time to tax each >>>transaction to pay off the national debt! >>> >> >> >> > > >
