[licence_to_kill]

so you expect people who can't afford health insurance to just ignore their ailments?

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by vantrepes

Take a trip to a city ER, and see how many people are there on the .gov dime for crap that should be taken care of in a Dr. office, not an ER.

Correlation doesn't prove causation. There is another inference to be drawn from the number of people using ER services for problems that should be taken care of in a Dr's office, one which doesn't assume that the patients are expecting the government to take care of them.

Originally Posted by vantrepes

Talk to an EMT, and ask them about "frequent fliers". See how many of those people ever pay a dime for their trips to the ER.

Done. My father's a paramedic in a city of 300,000, and his regular call zone is populated by about 10,000. The number of "frequent fliers" he can think of? Less than 20. Not exactly a large portion of the population.

Originally Posted by vantrepes

Take a look at the rhetoric when anyone talks about cutting any welfare program, no matter how badly they have failed.

This isn't evidence for the contention that a large segment of the population is currently on the government teat. In fact, I'd go so far as to wager that the majority of the people on this forum who laud social welfare programs have never been a recipient of welfare benefits.

[vantrepes]

Originally Posted by licence_to_kill

so you expect people who can't afford health insurance to just ignore their ailments?

No, I'd like to see them go to a Primary Care Physician during normal business hours without using an Ambulance to get there. They will still be sucking the government teet, but at least they won't be racking up a $500 bill for a common cold.
Of course, they don't have to pay anything for that $500, so what's it matter to them? The government pays it for them.

[vantrepes]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

Correlation doesn't prove causation. There is another inference to be drawn from the number of people using ER services for problems that should be taken care of in a Dr's office, one which doesn't assume that the patients are expecting the government to take care of them.

The government requires that they be seen at the ER, no matter what the condition is. They will not get on going treatment, and they will be there for a LONG WAIT, but they will be seen.
The other option is an illegal who won't be paying the bill either.

Done. My father's a paramedic in a city of 300,000, and his regular call zone is populated by about 10,000. The number of "frequent fliers" he can think of? Less than 20. Not exactly a large portion of the population.

And what part of town is he covering?
Two EMTs I know cover one of the most crime ridden welfare centers in Rochester. They spend more than half the shift ferrying people to the ER for non-emergencies. Common colds, slight fevers, minor cuts, etc. They had a guy who would call, complain of chest pain, go to the ER, say "I feel better" sign a release, and walk down the street to the crack house. They were a very expensive taxi service that he didn't have to pay for.

This isn't evidence for the contention that a large segment of the population is currently on the government teat. In fact, I'd go so far as to wager that the majority of the people on this forum who laud social welfare programs have never been a recipient of welfare benefits.

I'd say you are correct. This board is a very small sample of people attracted to it by a very expensive sport. Most of the people here don't come from poverty.

[Not2FFU]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

In fact, I'd go so far as to wager that the majority of the people on this forum who laud social welfare programs have never been a recipient of welfare benefits.

I don't laud welfare in the least bit I believe it should be 100% done away with.

[ConradNorCal]

Originally Posted by licence_to_kill

so you expect people who can't afford health insurance to just ignore their ailments?

I expect them to stop smoking, stop eating fast food, start exercising, learn how to take care of themselves medically for small stuff (small cuts, flu, etc).

Can't afford medical insurance? Then you sure as hell better not be smoking, or eating fast food.

I haven't needed to go to a doctor in about a year and a half now, simply because I live a healthy lifestyle and can take care of any minor medical problems on my own with a $20 dollar first aid kit.

[EpShot]

not sure if trolling or just incredibly naive ..

[Seahawk6060]

Originally Posted by toolbandfan

What are you referring to? Welfare? Education?

It's not a specific program, it's a mindset. It's the expectation of receiving that which is unearned.

Originally Posted by licence_to_kill

**** the deficit, we need to focus on job growth

Is job growth the real goal or is it to revitalize the economic engine that spurs job growth? Your focus seems to be on treating the symptoms of the illness, rather than the illness itself.

Originally Posted by vantrepes

While I agree, I am not holding my breath waiting for people to have a sudden enlightenment on the end results of the values, and by extension, the policies, they support.
The problem becomes one of what to do when the contradictions, and kinks are supported, and promoted by the values (read policies) that put those politicians in office? A large portion of our countries population no longer sees it as their responsibility to take care of themselves, they see it as the governments. When their value is nothing but "Give me more", there is no compromise to make, they want what they want, and damn the consequences.

I won't be holding my breath either. We now have 14 trillion in debt with almost 50% of the population paying no federal taxes. Yet, presumably this same 50% are demanding more from those that already do pay their share of taxes...I'd say this qualifies as an entitlement mindset.

[Not2FFU]

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

Yet, presumably this same 50% are demanding more from those that already do pay their share of taxes...

10% of the people paying 90% of the taxes doesn't sound that ****ing fair to me.

[toolbandfan]

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

It's not a specific program, it's a mindset. It's the expectation of receiving that which is unearned.

.

Well, part of the problem is talking about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is that it never really works politically. The majority voters in this country aren't exactly going to be thrilled by this since many use/need those benefits.

I hope because of the debt the US is in the government actually decides to greatly reduce all of the major expenditures, but I have doubts much will be done to them.

[licence_to_kill]

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

Is job growth the real goal or is it to revitalize the economic engine that spurs job growth? Your focus seems to be on treating the symptoms of the illness, rather than the illness itself.

Okun's law

[EpShot]

Originally Posted by Not2FFU

10% of the people paying 90% of the taxes doesn't sound that ****ing fair to me.

stop making numbers up.

[licence_to_kill]

if he can get a job offer at a "prestigious financial company" than you and i are way ****ing overqualified

[Bill Watterson]

Originally Posted by licence_to_kill

Okun's law

Private investment and job growth didn't occur during the GD until after WWII (price controls relaxed, less government activity, etc.).

So uh what do you recommend for job growth?

Based off what the experts say, fiscal stimulus is useless, so do you suggest NGDP targeting?

[Not2FFU]

Originally Posted by EpShot

stop making numbers up.

Not making up numbers.

[Seahawk6060]

Originally Posted by toolbandfan

Well, part of the problem is talking about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is that it never really works politically. The majority voters in this country aren't exactly going to be thrilled by this since many use/need those benefits.

I hope because of the debt the US is in the government actually decides to greatly reduce all of the major expenditures, but I have doubts much will be done to them.

Yes, this is true. The stark reality is that the gravy train is over. We're going to have to make tough decisions on whether we push granny over the cliff (remember the DNC's attack on Ryan) or throw our children under the debt bus. Personally, I'm for preserving a future for our children, even if I have to sacrifice much of my social security that I've been paying into since I was 16 years old.

[Seahawk6060]

Originally Posted by EpShot

stop making numbers up.

He's not making it up. In fact, the reality is worse.

Here's some stats from 2008:
"The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes."
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

.

I'm disappointed I can't reply to your question in the other thread, since it was closed. I'll just leave you with this: I make the distinction between personal responsibilities and those of government.

[Pacystan]

Originally Posted by EpShot

stop making numbers up.

Summary Table Two.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/...TaxRates.shtml

Close, 70.8%.

[Pacystan]

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

Yes, this is true. The stark reality is that the gravy train is over. We're going to have to make tough decisions on whether we push granny over the cliff (remember the DNC's attack on Ryan) or throw our children under the debt bus. Personally, I'm for preserving a future for our children, even if I have to sacrifice much of my social security that I've been paying into since I was 16 years old.

Well, it looks like it is the kids that are going to be thrown under the bus.

According to the trustees, Medicare's unfunded liability is $74 trillion -- five times that of Social Security. According to the Congressional Budget Office, health-care spending is on a course that could crowd out all other government programs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120373015283387491.html

Totals close to like 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities with social security included. Basically, everybodies ****ed.

[Not2FFU]

Just grand father in everyone over 50 and cut off the rest. no more ponzi scheme

[EpShot]

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

He's not making it up. In fact, the reality is worse.

Here's some stats from 2008:
"The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes."
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html

58% is not worse than 90%
and of course they are the one paying the taxes, they have the money.
the concept of blood from a stone comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Pacystan

Summary Table Two.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/...TaxRates.shtml

Close, 70.8%.

how is 70% close to 90%?