Healthcare reform

[alyssamma]

Wow...that is a cool speech. Seriously, why would anyone have a problem with what is in that?

[whaletail116]

Saving $2500 is a good thing, right?

[jb5580]

Do you guys seriously think we are going to save $2500.00 a year per family? seriously? 

[alyssamma]

I don't know - seriously. The bill is too complicated to say for sure.

House Minority Leader John Boehner said that it would be Armageddon if the bill passed. Do you seriously think that will happen?

But is that what your problem is? The pres said we'd save $2500 and we might not? Is that what bothers you about the bill?

Kevin

[whaletail116]

Will my household (me) save $2500/year from this bill?  No, I don't even pay that much per year.  

But he didn't say that, you did.  He said, "a typical family (can save) an average of $2,500 on their health care costs in the coming years."  Years - plural.

Anyways, I've read the entire post above.  What in it do you want me to get upset about?  

[mission vending]

and he did mentioned that this bill will reduce our deficit by more than one trillion dollars over the next two decades..  Possible?  I don't know, but that's what he said...

I don't know if he said that or not but the CBO scored the healthcare bill as saving 138 Billion over ten years. But that was before they passed the "fixes" The "fixes" involve doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid programs which total over 200 Billion. So before this bill is 30 days old we have already pissed away and exceeded the savings that our politicians promised us. So much for deficit reduction.

[alyssamma]

I don't know if he said that or not but the CBO scored the healthcare bill as saving 138 Billion over ten years. But that was before they passed the "fixes" The "fixes" involve doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid programs which total over 200 Billion. So before this bill is 30 days old we have already pissed away and exceeded the savings that our politicians promised us. So much for deficit reduction.

All of those numbers are mostly meaningless...and politicians on both sides - Dems and Reps - make these types of claims for bills they are trying to pass.

Remember, this is a bill to extend healthcare benefits to approx 30M Americans and to stop insurance companies from dropping and denying people coverage.

If we can also reduce the deficit, great...but that isn't the bill's main purpose.

Billions, Trillions...these numbers are meaningless. And by changing small variables in the way they are estimated wildly different answers can appear. It is no big deal...it is always done.

And even if we did have a surplus, something would come up to take it away - Bush did that pretty well to the Clinton surplus. OK, no big deal...it's done...let's move forward.

Kevin

[whaletail116]

Mission, he said two decades, not one month.  Link below, about 14 minutes in.

http://www.uiowa.edu/homepage/obama/

Can someone please give me the specifics on exactly why they consider this bill to be “redistribution of wealth?”  I still don’t know what all to believe and I’m looking for clear-cut facts, so please, no mindless nonsense.

From what I understand, once this bill fully gets going, everyone will be required to purchase health insurance, much like car insurance when you drive.  For those who cannot afford it, the government will then provide it for them or assist with subsidies, tax credits, etc.  So, with everyone chipping in, the cash pool will be much larger.  Will the larger cash pools lower costs for everyone?  If so, please explain...

The insurance companies will surely lose profits as well.  No, that isn’t exactly capitalism at its finest, but some things are just better ran by the government than the private sector; the highway system, fire department, etc.  Is health care one of them?  I don’t know the answer to that but I do know that the United States spends 17% of our GDP on health care and that is with many millions of Americans with ZERO health care.  That is the most in the world!  The second highest is France with 11%.  So clearly we’ve been doing something wrong.

So, from what I keep reading, the larger cash pool and the reduced profits of the insurance companies are supposed to ultimately save all Americans money.  So if everyone is saving, how is that redistribution of wealth?

On a quick note, how is it bad in this case?  Certainly you don’t wish poverty or bad health on your neighbor.

Please don’t harp on me for acting liberal or being a right-wingist.  I’m looking for intelligent, conservative views so I can better understand both sides, and most people here seem to be leaning towards the right.  Any concrete factual information will be appreciated.

[alyssamma]

Whale, you pretty much have the facts straight...with a few exceptions. In fact, you summed it up nicely and I would give it a POTD if I could

I'm not convinced that ins. companies will lose profits - that is yet to be seen. However, some larger companies will definitely lose profits. This is because previously they were, essentially, allowed a double deduction for some items. This loophole is now closed.

Also, smaller businesses above a certain size (50 emps) will have to provide HC for their emps. Even with tax credits this will certainly eat into their profits.

And the tanning industry (I own a salon) will be hit with a 10% tax starting 7/1.

So, it is definitely bad news for some businesses.

But that is about it...it isn't close to "redistribution of wealth" and that is why (to JB's dismay ) I took exception with the term. Terms like that are simply talking points - politicians say them on TV and they get repeated by the general public, without any real understanding of what they mean, but the terms themselves sound bad. If you call something a tax, people will be a little upset, but that is it. Call it something like Redist of Wealth and people go beserk because it sounds worse than it is.

AFAIK, there is no personal income tax included in this bill, so I too would like someone to explain why they think it is Redist of Wealth.

You have to be careful comparing numbers like GDP, esp. with other countries as it can be very misleading. However, your general point is correct - Americans spend more and get less for their healthcare. And if you are ever really sick you are in trouble.

Other than general high level terms (like Redist of Wealth) and talking about how the bill was passed (a perfectly acceptable - and previously used by *both* parites democratic procedure) I haven't heard anyone talk about why the bill itself is bad. And, as a side note, if people want to talk about jamming legislation down the throats of the people, then they should look at how Bush made all of the signing statements on bills presented to him.

The funny thing is that the basis of the bill is *Republican*. It comes from Mitt Romney's MA HC plan. But we live in a very bipartisan world, and that is really where the problem is.

Kevin

[jb5580]

But that is about it...it isn't close to "redistribution of wealth" and that is why (to JB's dismay  ) I took exception with the term. Terms like that are simply talking points - politicians say them on TV and they get repeated by the general public, without any real understanding of what they mean, but the terms themselves sound bad. If you call something a tax, people will be a little upset, but that is it. Call it something like Redist of Wealth and people go beserk because it sounds worse than it is.

Now I'm offended. I've tried with you to explain why I think it is redistribution of the wealth and why I feel this term is proper Kevin. It is not just a talking point, and I have a complete understanding of the term Kevin, it is what it is! Many people agree with me. I'm sorry you don't agree with me. I feel you are at the point of trying to question my intelligence with your above remark. For some reason, you feel that you needed to jump on  caserri's topic here and police everyone on how and what term 's are proper and exceptable, as long as they are the ones you accept! And you want to control th topic , brush off every differing opinion to yours, and tell everyone to state facts. I'm done here now , this is obviously going knowhere, unless everyone agrees with you.

On another note. I am neither a Republican or a Democrate, I think both parties are completely corrupted by lobbyist's and also their desire for power. So please don't get on here and act like Obama and all the Dem's are trustworthy politicians, you have got to be kidding me.

[alyssamma]

JB, my apologies - no offense was meant in any way.

And as I've stated before, most of the economic terms used here are very complex - I don't pretend to understand them fully and I doubt many people do. So, again, no insult to your intelligence was meant.

That being said, can you tell me exactly why you think it is Redist of Wealth? AFAICT all you've said is that you think it is, but haven't explained *why* it is.

There is nothing in the bill that I can see that fits that definition.

Thx.

Kevin

[Poplady1]

Just wanted to add a little information about insurance companies.  Many years ago in college I took classes to learn about underwriting insurance.  I thought it might be an interesting field.  One of the rules we studied was "the rule of large numbers" which is what the insurance industry is built upon.

It states that the more people you can gather into one pool with similar traits such as men, non smokers, no tickets, educated and so on...you can predict upcoming events such as death, possible health problems or other risks.

So with that information insurers can develop rates for car insurance, life insurance and health insurance.  They can predict with some certainity how many people in the pool will get sick, have wrecks or die.  

They develop rates according to those findings and put the money into a shared pool.  They earn money based on the experience of the pool.  They can save money by getting more similar people into the pool with better stats like younger males, non smokers, no tickets etc. The health bill will require younger healthy people into the pool which will result in higher earnings for the insurance company because they will have fewer losses.

Bev

[alyssamma]

Actually, I need to correct what I said above. There will be a payroll tax on investment income for individuals making > $200K/yr and for families making > $200K.

Is that what you mean by Redist of Wealth? Is that what the big deal is about this bill?

Kevin

[alyssamma]

For some reason, you feel that you needed to jump on  caserri's topic here and police everyone on how and what term 's are proper and exceptable, as long as they are the ones you accept! And you want to control th topic , brush off every differing opinion to yours, and tell everyone to state facts. I'm done here now , this is obviously going knowhere, unless everyone agrees with you.

LOL, not at all. I want the opposite - a healthy debate on the *facts*. Look at some of the posts here - people called Pelosi a *****, there are random rants about Obama, completely incorrect facts (e.g., Germany was communist), etc. I'm not going to let those go unanswered.

And terms are thrown around w/o facts to back them up - yes, like Redist of Wealth. See my post above...that is the only thing in the bill that fits into that catagory. How someone can be upset about that is beyond me. Especially since *all* payroll taxes are Redist of Wealth, so nothing is changing in this bill.

You keep saying I am stopping you from talking. Fine. Talk now and give *facts* about why this bill is bad.

Kevin

On another note. I am neither a Republican or a Democrate, I think both parties are completely corrupted by lobbyist's and also their desire for power. So please don't get on here and act like Obama and all the Dem's are trustworthy politicians, you have got to be kidding me.

I agree with you. When have I implied that the Dems are any better than the Reps? Please quote where I said that.

[jb5580]

Okay, you lured me back in Kevin .

I don't think it is fair for some group of Americans that work hard and are successful, to have to pay the tax(redist o wealth ) for the healthcare of others. Why is that fair Kevin. There would be an uproar if we only taxed the lower income people and not the people making above 200,000

According to the new law, individuals who earn over $200,000 (over $250,000 for families) and folks who have investment earnings will pay additional taxes on their income to pay for the expanded benefits. Specifically, beginning 2013 the Medicare tax rate would increase by 0.9 percentage points - from 1.45% to 2.35% - on earnings over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families. And for the first time, a special additional tax of 3.8% would be imposed on investment income. So a family of four with earned income of $350,000 and investment income of $50,000 would pay additional taxes of about $2,800 a year, while a family of two earning $240,000 would pay no additional tax.

Why does the family of 4 get punished with higher taxes(redist of the wealth over the family of 2?

To make this whole thing fair, why didn't they just take a little from every single group of Americans that are going to use it? If this is for all Americans than make all Americans pay, sort of like social security(which they are obviously going to let go bankrupt on us).

The above is exactly why I think it is redist of the wealth, there it is -my reason why. Some people are paying for others benefits.

agree with you. When have I implied that the Dems are any better than the Reps? Please quote where I said that.

You have made numerous remarks about Bush's spending without criticising Obama's out of control spending, that's were I got that impression. 

[coinvestor]

I'm still trying not to post on this topic, but here I go again.

All wealth is owned by people. People own all companies and corporations either out right as small business owners, or through securities ownership. Even the government does not own wealth, it mearly takes wealth from people and companies that are ultimately owned by people, in the for of taxation. With this said, any new tax takes money from people.

Wealth can be produced by investing time and skill, risking capitol, or a combination of the two. A person that creates wealth by investing either of these becomes a producer of wealth. When you implement a tax that takes wealth from only the people that are producing wealth for a program that is targeted to benefit the people that did not produce wealth, you have redistributed it.

JD

[alyssamma]

JB, THANK YOU!

This is the type of post I was looking for. First, let me say that I only mentioned Bush and spending because several people here have mentioned the deficit implying Obama was the cause. While I can't say I *hate* Obama, I'm not happy with him. I just wanted to make it clear that both parties have spent, spent, spent.

As for the other part of your post - excellent. While I don't agree with it () it is exactly what I was looking for. You've laid out your argument well, given facts, and support to your opinion.

I personally believe it is ok for the wealthy to pay a little extra to help those less fortunate. And it isn't just with HC. The very fact that we have a progressive tax system makes this so. And all sorts of deductions phase out at a certain income level.

But that is cool...we now are to the meat of the issue. Taxing the wealthy to pay for HC for the poor.

So, let me ask you this...if the payroll tax was gone, and it was paid for in another way (non-personal income tax way), would you be ok with the bill?

Kevin

[whaletail116]

So, since I don't mind giving a little extra to help those that are most vulnerable, should I be for this bill?

[jb5580]

So, let me ask you this...if the payroll tax was gone, and it was paid for in another way (non-personal income tax way), would you be ok with the bill?

Hey Kevin, I kind of still don't think it is the role of Government to provide HC. But just for the sake of the debate lets say I was. I love the idea of getting rid of the payroll tax! If we went to a National sales tax that taxed all consumer goods(except food and medical supplies), then everyone would be paying their fair share. Think about it. If the mega millionare went and bought a 300 million dollar yacht, he would get taxed on it accordingly. The less fortunate of us would not get taxed as much because they aren't buying that many expensive goods. But it would keep things honest wouldn't it? The ones who were using the system for food stamps and welfare and free HC, yet are buying plasma TVs and highend cellphones would in turn have to pay taxes into the system. And the illegal immigrants that are working and living in our country but not paying taxes would also then pay into the system everytime they bought something at a store. And for people that were having a tough year financially, they could just avoid buying any expensive consumer items that year to save money. Not to mention many supporters of the sales tax plan believe it would bring in much more tax revenue for the Country than the income tax. . 

[alyssamma]

JB, I've thought about this too. I've heard that it wouldn't work, but to be honest I'm not sure I believe that. Many other countries have what you are proposing - essentially a VAT. And others have proposed what you are saying.

There is also the idea of a flat tax - or at least flatter

There are lots of other options out there. However we are really talking hypothetical now because I don't believe those things would happen in our lifetimes I think the wealthy would actually pay more taxes that way as, essentially, tax shelter and other forms of deductions would be eliminated. And I don't think that would be allowed to happen.

But who knows

Kevin

[davidsurvz]

David, I agree 100% that this is not what gov is supposed to do. So I am guessing you were a very vocal opponent when Bush spent us into debt?

You also spoke out against the TARP stuff too, right (again Bush).

And what is wrong with spreading wealth around? Speak clearly and say *exactly* what your problems are. I think everyone in this country deserves a chance to be wealthy. Don't you?

Kevin

So are you just assuming that I am one of those REPUBLICANS who wore the "Bush Jersey"

for the last eight years? Well, I am no big fan of W. But there were some things that I certainly appreciated about his presidency. I actually think Obama has gotten a couple of things right too. Am I a fan of Obama, not really, but that is a moot point anyway

Yes actually I had very vocal opinions about the previous administrations spending I let my representatives know that too.

AND Actually Yes I was very opposed to TARP and I contacted several of our representatives in DC to let them know that.

I too think that everyone in this country deserves a chance to be wealthy and I believe we have that chance based on our freedoms and our free market. Do I believe everyone should have it handed to them  ..  not at all. (Do you think people should have other peoples wealth handed to them?) If people are willing to go out and work and invest and save wisely and handle their money in such a way that it makes them wealthy I am all for that. It's called a free market.

And that is not quite the point of what I was stating anyway. If you believe that the government should actually take money from the wealthy people in this country and just hand it over to those who aren't 'wealthy" then what would you define that as? If you don't believe that than speak clearly and say "exactly" what you mean.

[alyssamma]

So are you just assuming that I am one of those REPUBLICANS who wore the "Bush Jersey"

for the last eight years? Well, I am no big fan of W. But there were some things that I certainly appreciated about his presidency. I actually think Obama has gotten a couple of things right too. Am I a fan of Obama, not really, but that is a moot point anyway

Yes actually I had very vocal opinions about the previous administrations spending I let my representatives know that too.

AND Actually Yes I was very opposed to TARP and I contacted several of our representatives in DC to let them know that.

No, I didn't think that. I just mentioned Bush because he was president then. That being said, you answered my Q clearly and you seem consistent in your beliefs. Nothing I can say about that...other than I truly appreciate your honesty. Like JB, you gave a clear answer, defended it with actual facts instead of rhetoric. Thanks.

I too think that everyone in this country deserves a chance to be wealthy and I believe we have that chance based on our freedoms and our free market. Do I believe everyone should have it handed to them   ..  not at all. (Do you think people should have other peoples wealth handed to them?) If people are willing to go out and work and invest and save wisely and handle their money in such a way that it makes them wealthy I am all for that. It's called a free market.

I agree 100% with this.

And that is not quite the point of what I was stating anyway. If you believe that the government should actually take money from the wealthy people in this country and just hand it over to those who aren't 'wealthy" then what would you define that as? If you don't believe that than speak clearly and say "exactly" what you mean.

Touche I do believe, as I think is evident from my earlier posts, that the wealthy in this country have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate. I'll explain why in a minute. The problem with doing this, however, is himan nature. If you set up a social welfare system, there are those who will take advantage of it, and not try to do anything (e.g., work) because they know something will be handed to them.

On the other hand you have some people who are truly in need. I feel that it is better to help those truly in need, and thereby "help" the lazy, rather than not help those truly in need.

As to why I think the wealthy should help the non-wealthy, let me first say this. I don't believe in communism I don't think everyone should have equal wealth. When I say "help" I mean give *some*...a minor amount. The wealth will still be wealthy and the poor will still be poor, but the poor will at least be assured of what I would consider to be basic necessities - food, shelter, clothing, and, yes, healthcare

But I think there are 3 reasons to help the poor. The first is just ethical. My personal ethics dictate that you help those in need. Yes, personal charity helps, but a gov is better equiped to handle this on a large scale. For example, food vouchers in schools, aid to poor mothers with children (e.g., WIC), etc. I just think this is the right thing to do.

The second reason is that often the wealthy have gotten wealthy on the backs of the poor. Nothing wrong with that at all - I think that is a basic tenet of capitalism. But I think it gives some type of obligation to help those who helped you get there.

The last reason is self interest. I believe crime and drug rates decrease if there are less poor.

Kevin

[davidsurvz]

I will just say that I believe in charity and I believe in smaller (not bigger) government and freedom. My faith in God pushes me and challenges me to help those less fortunate especially if it is through no fault of their own. It is a directive of the teachings of Christ. I don't believe we need government to take up most of these causes.... but I digress. I believe in capitalism, free markets, the constitution and the right to free speech and a bunch of other things. I believe this to be the greatest country in the world. I don't like the health care bill and I don't like the fact that our country is in serious trouble financially.

I am seriously out of time and limited in the time I can spend on the forum these days.

I would ramble on some more but I really have to go.

[The Mage]

I tried to write up a little something on this, and when I got to 5 pages, and barely touched the surface, I decided to consolidate everything, and rewrite it.

Well this is my fifth rewrite. 

Attempting to get my point across requires information, and possibly too much to put into a single post.  I could literally write a book on this subject, but the only people who would read it aren't the ones who need to.

First I need to define myself.  My views tend to fall into the conservative point of view.  (Actually somewhere between conservative to libertarian.)  At least based on my definition of conservative, and I assume everybody has their own.

I follow the basic premise that liberals generally believe in a larger government.  That it is the roll of government to help people, and make their lives better.

Then conservatives believe in smaller government.  That the government does have a roll, but it is to be limited, and when the government takes on too much, it just gets in the way.

Then libertarians believe in an even smaller, less intrusive government. 

I never chose to have conservative views, nor do I decided what opinions I have based on whether or not they are conservative or not.  Instead every belief and opinion I have are things I have put serious thought too.  In fact I often challenge myself, and ponder the opposite point of view. 

This not only gives me a better understanding of other points of view, but has actually changed some of my opinions and beliefs, and solidified others.

Now on healthcare, I disagree with the way it is being handled.  But this does not mean I don't want some people to have healthcare, or that I would want others to suffer.

We all want to improve society, but we have different ideas on how to do that.

First I disagree with redistribution of the wealth.

Uh oh, there is that term again.

Here is where the left and the right show that they think in different ways.  This term means completely different things to each side. 

But the term really means to take from one or more persons to give to another person or persons..  This is not charity, or normal business practices.  I consider it stealing, and cannot find any justification, or right, of anyone to simply take from another person.

But another aspect of redistribution that is not often mentioned is that it is not just about trying to push some people up, but it is also intended to push other people down.  To cut those people down to size.

More official definition: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/redistribution-of-wealth.html

But on the opposite side I do believe in charity.  And believe the people who give of themselves, in time or finances, should be praised.

If I broke into a persons house, took their television, sold it, and gave the money to a starving family, would that justify the stealing?

Next is the idea of forcing people buy anything.  Yes I know the argument about being forced to buy car insurance, but what makes you think I agree with that?

Regardless it is actually a fallacious argument.  First you do not automatically have to purchase car insurance.  What if you don't have a car?  Even if you do, if you never take it off your property, there is no legal compulsion to have insurance on it.

Then is the idea that the insurance required does not actually have to cover the car or myself.  I only have liability insurance on my cars, so if I were to cause an accident, I will have to pay to repair my car myself.

The reason they made people have life insurance is for liability, to cover other people as a result of your actions.  This has no relation to health insurance.

Next I believe it is not a good idea to give that much control over our lives to the government.  Wasn't this the complaint about the Patriot act?  (Hey, weren't they supposed to repeal that thing?)  It is already having repercussions:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528337

Why should the government be allowed to decide which people are appropriate to own hospitals?  What kind of precedent does this set? 

Next, I think we need to be careful of just giving stuff to people.  You have to be careful that you are not enabling people.  If a person is doing the wrong things, but they are able to get by because somebody else is supporting them, this is called codependance.  I believe we have created a government sponsored codependent nation.  And this legislation takes us another step in that direction.

Yes, I know we are told that people are happy with the healthcare in Canada.  Except it has been failing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html

Yes it the article is 4 years old, but with 8.3 weeks to see a specialist, and another 9.4 weeks to get a treatment.  40 weeks for orthopedic surgery.

In contrast I saw a specialist last year, and got in the same week.  When I decided to get a cortisone injection, it was less then a week to get in then. 

They called to see how I was doing on a Friday about a month later, and when I said I improved, but still had problems, they got me in early the next week.

If I had to wait 15 weeks before treatment, I am not sure how I would have been able to handle it.

I know that France was brought up, with their 11% of GDP apparently being better then America, but that is only because of rationing.  They are having a lot of financial difficulties right now.  We are seeing the start of their system collapsing.  Part of the problem is the fact that people have come to expect it.  They will not allow any change, but it must come to save the system.

Another problem I have is that they have decided on the changes to be made without looking at the entire world.  As a result of other nations having universal healthcare, or some other form of socialized medicine, we have tons of research data out there to show us exactly what is going on, and where the problems are, and what the problems are.  But exactly what research did they do before pushing this idea on us?

The big problem is that we are doing exactly what everyone keeps doing, and that is going for the easy answer.  All that is going to be done is that some money is going to be moved around, but that will not solve the problem, and in fact will exacerbate it.  But yes it will drop our healthcare from 17% of GDP to something lower, simply because they will quit providing some care.

But looking for the easy answer never works, and just puts the problem off into the future when instead of a minor problem, there is a giant looming disaster awaiting us. 

Instead we should be trying to find real solutions instead of just passing the buck.  What is the underlying cause of the increases in healthcare costs?  Could it be the malpractice insurance that reaches as high as $200,000 a year?

Texas enacted some tort reform laws that resulted in a drop in malpractice insurance costs by as much as a third.

No this is not the only solution, but it is a piece of the puzzle.

Another problem is the idea that people are incapable on their own.  Why must we be so condescending?  Also if we believe people are so incapable of taking care of themselves, then who is left that is capable of deciding how the incapable people are to be taken care of?  Or are we saying that some people are better then others, and they are the capable ones who are to take care of the incapable ones?  (Please tell me everyone here rejects this idea.)

There are people who are annoyed that capitalism works so well, and socialism has failed, and is failing everywhere it is tried.  One thing all these people are missing is that capitalism is as close an economic system can come to nature.  Survival of the fittest.

If a business does not perform up to snuff, it will generally fail, or become a smaller, less profitable company.  But the company that performs well will have plenty of customers, repeat business, and excellent word of mouth.

Unfortunately there are those who point out the news reports where a businessman, or some corporation did something bad, and were punished for it.  But these are not capitalists, they are crooks.  A capitalist is a person who trades their product or service for the benefit of others.  And crooks still exist in socialist societies.

Unfortunately there are no news reports covering all the businesses that are doing good jobs, and benefiting their customers and employees.

These are just highlights of what I could have written.  Each little point could have been stretched out for pages.  I am worried that because I did not expand too much on each idea that people may not fully understand some of the issues I am bringing up here. 

One final reason is that we are headed toward a financial collapse.  If you look into the way things are being run, and all the problems that exist, it is obvious.  But the government is good at putting patches on it here and there.  And that has been going on for decades.  And it probably can still go on for a couple of decades more.

But that can not go on forever.  If we are lucky, then the collapse will be delayed until our children are becoming grandparents.

The problem is solvable right now.  But instead of fixing things, we are attempting to mix our healthcare system into that failure, and in the process speeding up the collapse.

Where exactly did the idea that the government is there to solve all of our problems come from anyway?  How many people just wait around for that right politician to come around and fix their lives?

[snack dude]

Just when I thought it was safe to come out of hiding and look in the break room again