Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: SanchoPanza"Many times" is wildly erroneous. Obama has the worst record of GDP growth of any president since record keeping started.
Here is the far more significant annual measure of GDP performance minus the cherry picking of less than a handful of the 32 quarters:
2009: minus 2.8%
2010: 2.5%
2011: 1.6%
2012: 2.2%
2013: 1.7%
2014: 2.4%
2015: 2.6%
2016: 1.9%
CNN
Oh, if the numbers are out already, please have the wherewithal to post them here, especially in view of the fact that past cuts in income taxes resulted in major increases in tax revenues. See the 60's and the 80's-90's.
The number Fleaswatter touted was a quarterly number. Why are you quoting annual numbers?
And the fiscal revenue numbers are posted every month at fiscal.treasury.com. It shows reduced receipts year over year for the past two months and for the full year a 14 billion increase in total receipts over FY 2017 (all of which coming before the cut with the exception of April). Meanwhile the deficit is projected to be higher by 170 billion over last year. And next year (states Table 2) the united states will borrow over a trillion dollars to fund a 983 billion dollar deficit with tax revenues up $110B over last year and outlays up $234 billion. And I ask again -- how can any conservative call this fiscally responsible?
I have no reason to make up crap because I don't have a narrative that I care about except to report, as best that I can, facts. My opinion is based off of my interpretation of facts and not what facebook, WND, CNN or Fox tells me.
Quote: boymimboNote: I agree that Obama's 8 years of real GDP was the worst of any president since record-keepideng started.
That's ok. Trump is MAGA.
Quote: boymimboNote: I agree that Obama's 8 years of real GDP was the worst of any president since record-keepideng started.
How many started with a greater recession? When a business slows down, that's one thing. When a business fully shutters that's another level. And houses that sat empty too long (at least in Vegas) got vandalized further reducing their value and a more immediate recovery.
Because annual numbers are the ones that economists go by. Quarterly numbers are notoriously seasonal.Quote: boymimboQuote: SanchoPanza"Many times" is wildly erroneous. Obama has the worst record of GDP growth of any president since record keeping started.
Here is the far more significant annual measure of GDP performance minus the cherry picking of less than a handful of the 32 quarters:
2009: minus 2.8%
2010: 2.5%
2011: 1.6%
2012: 2.2%
2013: 1.7%
2014: 2.4%
2015: 2.6%
2016: 1.9%
CNN
Oh, if the numbers are out already, please have the wherewithal to post them here, especially in view of the fact that past cuts in income taxes resulted in major increases in tax revenues. See the 60's and the 80's-90's.
The number Fleaswatter touted was a quarterly number. Why are you quoting annual numbers?
Seeing as how history is proving insufficient to add perspective to the forecast for next year, it would seem logical to wait until the fuller effects of the tax cuts take effect. Especially in view of the OMB's forecasting record.Quote: boymimboAnd the fiscal revenue numbers are posted every month at fiscal.treasury.com. It shows reduced receipts year over year for the past two months and for the full year a 14 billion increase in total receipts over FY 2017 (all of which coming before the cut with the exception of April). Considering that the larger effects of the tax cuts will not occur until next year, Meanwhile the deficit is projected to be higher by 170 billion over last year. And next year (states Table 2) the united states will borrow over a trillion dollars to fund a 983 billion dollar deficit with tax revenues up $110B over last year and outlays up $234 billion. And I ask again -- how can any conservative call this fiscally responsible?
[Edited to fix up quote tags]
You can’t make this s#%* up!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-group-condemns-divisiveness-and-lack-of-leadership-in-washington/2018/07/29/314398c2-933f-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.6cf3d8b89cbf
Quote: lilredroosterthe Koch Group a major mega mega mega bucks conservative Republican organization led by one of the Koch brothers is going to back candidates who favor positions 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞 to Trump's positions on immigration and tariffs. They are willing to back both Republican 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 candidates who share their views on the 2 subjects.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-group-condemns-divisiveness-and-lack-of-leadership-in-washington/2018/07/29/314398c2-933f-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.6cf3d8b89cbf
How much money will the Democrats accept from these villains?
I'm betting their objections will not be very loud if money flows their way...
Quote: RonCHow much money will the Democrats accept from these villains?
I'm betting their objections will not be very loud if money flows their way...
When the trained seals stop performing, the fish get thrown to the otters.
I doubt Heidi H and the rest will object much.
Could just be a counter-threat, though. It's all a billionaire chess game these days.
Quote: SanchoPanza"Many times" is wildly erroneous. Obama has the worst record of GDP growth of any president since record keeping started.
Hardly surprising. Obama became President at the height of TWO wars and the worst recession since the Great Depression. That's a helluva economic mess to clean up.
Quote: beachbumbabsWhen the trained seals stop performing, the fish get thrown to the otters.
I doubt Heidi H and the rest will object much.
Could just be a counter-threat, though. It's all a billionaire chess game these days.
I think you are right...and politicians, as a group, are more alike than they are different. Though the results are very mixed to date, it should be no surprise that someone like Trump was elected and I am not sure that he is the end of the line as far as outsiders winning elections...no matter what "the final outcome" of his Presidency.
Quote: SanchoPanzaOh, if the numbers are out already, please have the wherewithal to post them here, especially in view of the fact that past cuts in income taxes resulted in major increases in tax revenues. See the 60's and the 80's-90's.
Do you have a source for this claim? Because I have a source that says otherwise. Spend a little time with it:
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/WP81-Table2013.pdf
Actually, Reagan's tax cuts reduced federal revenues by 9% in the first couple of years. It was only AFTER Congress undid a big chunk of the 1981 cuts, and only AFTER the Fed's war on inflation was won (by raising interest rates to edit: nearly 20% and prompting a huge double-dip recession), that tax revenues began to increase.
Said it before, say it again, you CANNOT look at taxes in isolation.
Quote: SteverinosActually, Reagan's tax cuts reduced federal revenues by 9% in the first couple of years.
It wasn’t Reagan’s tax cuts that reduced federal revenues. It was caused by Paul Volcker's deliberately induced recession with a 20% federal funds rate, which nearly doubled the rate of unemployment.
"Between the end of 1979 and the end of 1982 the unemployment rate increased from 6 per cent to almost 11 per cent. The downturn hit tax revenues since fewer people working means less income to tax."
Forbes
Quote: TankoIt wasn’t Reagan’s tax cuts that reduced federal revenues. It was caused by Paul Volcker's deliberately induced recession with a 20% federal funds rate, which nearly doubled the rate of unemployment.
And when Volcker won that battle and inflation dropped, and rates were lowered, the economy took off. This only corroborates my point: you cannot attribute credit to tax policy in a strong OR weak economy.
If only it were that simple...
Quote: TigerWuHuh.....
Koch brothers funded study finds that Medicare for everyone in the U.S. would SAVE the government over $2 trillion dollars over ten years.
I would phase it in gradually.
Let's say everyone born in 1965 or earlier gets covered immediately, as do their dependents and all newborns.
Add people gradually to avoid shocking the system.
Just remember, America rejected the metric system as too complicated. Trying to change an industry that's close to twenty percent of the economy isn't going to be easy.
Sure can't. For that reason, we have been discussing GDP and fanciful forecasts. Here are the results on the economy as whole:Quote: SteverinosDo you have a source for this claim? Because I have a source that says otherwise. Spend a little time with it:
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/WP81-Table2013.pdf
Actually, Reagan's tax cuts reduced federal revenues by 9% in the first couple of years. It was only AFTER Congress undid a big chunk of the 1981 cuts, and only AFTER the Fed's war on inflation was won (by raising interest rates to edit: nearly 20% and prompting a huge double-dip recession), that tax revenues began to increase.
Said it before, say it again, you CANNOT look at taxes in isolation.
The year-by-year record is unsurprisingly clear:
1962-6.1%
1963-4.4%
1964-5.8%
1965-6.4%
1966-6.5%
1967-2.5%
1968-4.8%
and
1984-7.259%
1985-4.239%
1986-3.512%
1987-3.462%
1988-4.204%
1989-3.681%
--World Bank
An intelligble discussion about just one series of tax cuts, the years that followed Ike's three recessions and morbid growth:
“The Kennedy tax cuts did help expand the economy, resulting in a 106-month economic expansion during the 1960s, which was the longest expansion in US history until the 120-month expansion from 1991-2001. During that tax-cut-fueled economic expansion in the 1960s, real GDP growth averaged 5%, with growth as high as 8.5% in two quarters. US payrolls increased by 32% during the 1960s, the highest growth in jobs by far of any decade during the postwar period. Government tax revenues grew by 65% from 1965 to 1970.” AEI
Quote: TigerWuHuh.....
Koch brothers funded study finds that Medicare for everyone in the U.S. would SAVE the government over $2 trillion dollars over ten years.
This is what I've been talking about for years.
Get rid of the overhead. Get rid of the profit mechanisms, the middlemen, the private insurers, the regulators needed to keep people like Rick Scott the fraud from ripping us all off.
Negotiated, standardized rates for services, paperwork goes to nothing, efficiency improves. Underserved regions get the same services as health industry intensive areas. Missouri is laughable compared to Florida. Same for Arkansas compared to Arizona.
There ARE things the federal government can do better than states or businesses. Health care administration is one of them. (ATC is another: barely holding on to "inherently governmental" for 25 years now. You think all these oh-so-helpful private industries and lobbyists want to take over the skies because they'll LOSE money? Guess again.)
That 2 Trillion does not need to be spent. Wasted. Stolen from the taxpayers by people who want the profit and enabled by people they pay off in office.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: TigerWuHuh.....
Koch brothers funded study finds that Medicare for everyone in the U.S. would SAVE the government over $2 trillion dollars over ten years.
This is what I've been talking about for years.
Get rid of the overhead. Get rid of the profit mechanisms, the middlemen, the private insurers, the regulators needed to keep people like Rick Scott the fraud from ripping us all off.
Negotiated, standardized rates for services, paperwork goes to nothing, efficiency improves. Underserved regions get the same services as health industry intensive areas. Missouri is laughable compared to Florida. Same for Arkansas compared to Arizona.
There ARE things the federal government can do better than states or businesses. Health care administration is one of them. (ATC is another: barely holding on to "inherently governmental" for 25 years now. You think all these oh-so-helpful private industries and lobbyists want to take over the skies because they'll LOSE money? Guess again.)
That 2 Trillion does not need to be spent. Wasted. Stolen from the taxpayers by people who want the profit and enabled by people they pay off in office.
"For perspective on these figures, consider that doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan"
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
Quote: SteverinosAnd when Volcker won that battle and inflation dropped, and rates were lowered, the economy took off. This only corroborates my point: you cannot attribute credit to tax policy in a strong OR weak economy.
That wasn’t your point.
You stated ‘Actually, Reagan's tax cuts reduced federal revenues by 9% in the first couple of years.’ Which is false, because it was caused by Volcker’s deliberately created recession, where 2.9 million jobs were lost.
More ‘folk economics’.
Quote: Steverinos“you cannot attribute credit to tax policy in a strong OR weak economy.”
So, Keynes was wrong. Thanks.
Sure it does. Tax rates affect ability to work, willingness to work, save, and invest, as well as innovation. Higher tax rates, discourage all of that and slow the economy. Even a temporary lowered tax rate speeds the rate of recovery from a recession.
Which is why Volcker raised the interest rates when Reagan cut taxes. He deliberately offset the growth inducing tax cuts in order to weaken the economy and cut inflation. Never mind it was unnecessary, and cost the economy 2.9 million jobs. The price of crude that fueled the inflation was already on its way down in 1980, when Volcker raised the interest rate to 20%.
“Based on fundamentals, the inflationary impact of oil crises would likely have diminished significantly into the 1980s, with or without a Volcker Recession.” - The Economist
I fear we are only a few weeks away from Donald Trump tweeting that he doesn't know Paul Manafort and he was actually Hillary Clinton's campaign manager.
Quote: ams288The criminal trial of the President's campaign manager begins today.
I fear we are only a few weeks away from Donald Trump tweeting that he doesn't know Paul Manafort and he was actually Hillary Clinton's campaign manager.
You didn't mention: Why didn't Obama do anything about it?
Quote: TigerWuHuh.....
Koch brothers funded study finds that Medicare for everyone in the U.S. would SAVE the government over $2 trillion dollars over ten years.
“The highly critical report found that even doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes would not cover the costs of Sanders’ Medicare for All plan.”
Bottom line is that, on paper, it still adds $32.6 trillion to the $20 trillion federal debt, after doubling personal and corporate income taxes.
Corporations, and the wealthy, will flee the country if the gov’t. doubles their income taxes.
Besides. A single payer system requires everyone to pay into it. The 11th Circuit Court has already ruled, Americans cannot be forced to purchase medical insurance.
The gov’t can only require you to pay a penalty for not having it.
Quote: Tanko
Besides. A single payer system requires everyone to pay into it. The 11th Circuit Court has already ruled, Americans cannot be forced to purchase medical insurance.
You wouldn't be buying medical insurance. You would be paying taxes to cover healthcare costs.
No different than paying taxes to use public highways.
No different than paying taxes to take advantage of public education.
Healthcare would just be another in a long list of things you pay taxes for, like almost every other developed country in the world.
Quote: ams288The criminal trial of the President's campaign manager begins today.
I fear we are only a few weeks away from Donald Trump tweeting that he doesn't know Paul Manafort and he was actually Hillary Clinton's campaign manager.
Today is jury selection
Hopefully we will have a seated jury by the end of the day
What interesting times
A sitting Presidents campaign manager on trail
Got the popcorn out :-)
"Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!"
I.e., Hillary and the Democrats colluded, but collusion is not a crime, so therefore they did nothing wrong.
Quote: TigerWuTrump admits Hillary and the Democrats did nothing wrong:
"Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!"
I.e., Hillary and the Democrats colluded, but collusion is not a crime, so therefore they did nothing wrong.
Clever! lol
Quote: TankoThat wasn’t your point.
You stated ‘Actually, Reagan's tax cuts reduced federal revenues by 9% in the first couple of years.’ Which is false, because it was caused by Volcker’s deliberately created recession, where 2.9 million jobs were lost.
Revenues as a percentage of GDP, which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1% in 1981 to a low of 16.9% in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8% in 1989. Why did the deficit soar? Because spending WENT UP (as did the size of government) and revenues WENT DOWN.
The FACT is that Reagan's tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1987 boosted revenues, not his tax cuts. It was the steep decline in revenues from his 81 cut that was the major reason he raised taxes just one year later.
And one could make a strong argument that it was Volcker's battle with inflation that was the overriding factor for turning the economy around in the 80s. You can also make an argument that the 81 cut helped the economy transition from high to low inflation at a small cost. But what's not up for debate is the fact that the cuts CLEARLY reduced revenues.
But what this comes down to really is that you believe the supply comes first. I believe the demand comes first.
Quote: TigerWuYou wouldn't be buying medical insurance. You would be paying taxes to cover healthcare costs.
It would cover all but $32.6 trillion in healthcare costs after doubling tax revenues. I'm sold.
The wealthy and the corporations will pack their bags, leaving everyone else to shoulder the burden, and pay even higher taxes.
Good example is what is happening now in California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York and New Jersey, where people and corporations are leaving those bankrupt states, and moving to the tax friendly states.
Quote: TankoIt would cover all but $32.6 trillion in healthcare costs after doubling tax revenues. I'm sold.
The wealthy and the corporations will pack their bags, leaving everyone else to shoulder the burden, and pay even higher taxes.
Good example is what is happening now in California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York and New Jersey, where people and corporations are leaving those bankrupt states, and moving to the tax friendly states.
Okay, somebody explain to me what I'm missing here...
That study says the cost of medicare for everyone would be $32.6 trillion. The same study also says that's over $2 trillion dollars LESS that what the government is going to spend anyway on healthcare costs.
So how is the Medicare-for-all route going to cost us more money when, from what I've read so far, that study says the exact opposite?
EDIT: Wait, I think I understand the article now.... maybe...
EDIT 2: Okay, now my understanding is taxes would have to be raised by $32 trillion to cover MFA, but at the same time we'd be spending $34 trillion LESS on health insurance/other healthcare costs, so that's where the $2 trillion savings come from.
without significant disruptions. However, at least some undoubtedly would not, thereby reducing the supply of healthcare services at the same time M4A sharply increases healthcare demand."
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf
So...much higher taxes with no guarantee that even the level of services those of us with current coverage have will remain available. Hospitals failing, doctors near the end of their careers opting to retire instead of make a lot less money, The costs used in the study cited are the lower estimates--how often do costs of any large government program hit the lower estimates?
The lack of any personal expense at the point of service is an issue to me--I know doctors who work in settings where people get basically "free" medical care (CHIPS, Medicaid, etc.). Some of them totally abuse the system by showing up anytime someone has a cold; those of us who pay co-pays tend to survive colds with over-the-counter medicines. The point is with no cost at the time of service, there is no thought (in some people's minds) of the time of the provider. This may not matter when services are not strained (other being an annoying abuse of a benefit), but it will be an issue when the amount of services available is exceeded by the amount requested.
This whole things is a different version of "you can keep your doctor"--sounds really good, but it is not well thought out and should not move forward as it has been presented.
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. "
Margaret Thatcher
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/other-peoples-money/
Quote: RonCSome of them totally abuse the system by showing up anytime someone has a cold; those of us who pay co-pays tend to survive colds with over-the-counter medicines.
Sorry I just find this claim insane. How many people travel to a doctor's office and wait for an hour or more for cold medicine? And if you go through triage system like an ER you wait until any sicker people are taken care of.
It's just, "No, that idea is dumb and costs too much money."
Okay, so what should we do?
"Nothing. The healthcare and insurance lobbyists are bribing me too much to give a s***."
Quote: RonC
Some of them totally abuse the system by showing up anytime someone has a cold; those of us who pay co-pays tend to survive colds with over-the-counter medicines.
Quote: rxwineSorry I just find this claim insane. How many people travel to a doctor's office and wait for an hour or more for cold medicine? And if you go through triage system like an ER you wait until any sicker people are taken care of.
I don't appreciate the "insane" characterization at all.
It happens. Lots of things happen among the poor that we don't all hear about. Like bringing the whole family to a medical visit. I would not do that, but people do...
I did not say everyone, or even the majority of people, but there are "frequent flyers" who abuse the services. There are people that want prescriptions for Tylenol. Of course, there are a hell of a lot of good people just trying to find a way out of poverty.
Quote: rxwineSorry, I mean it's a claim of a stable genius.
I don't appreciate that insult either.
I am neither "insane" or a "stable genius" in the way you mean it...which is as an insulting comparison to something the President said.
It is strange to me that someone thinks these things don't happen--even with the qualifications that I put on them. You are calling me a liar without saying it.
Quote: TigerWuI see a lot of critics of universal healthcare, medicare for all, and Obamacare, yet I never see those people/politicians offer any other solutions to fix the broken system we have now.
It's just, "No, that idea is dumb and costs too much money."
Okay, so what should we do?
"Nothing. The healthcare and insurance lobbyists are bribing me too much to give a s***."
I don't know the answer. I do have a pretty strong feeling that destroying our economy is not the answer.
Maybe it should be put to the states, like Romney Care.
******
I am all for curtailing the influence of lobbyist by limiting them to spending no money on any politician or staff. They can call on them but no paid lunches, trips, or anything.
Bribery is already illegal.
Quote: rxwineSorry I just find this claim insane. How many people travel to a doctor's office and wait for an hour or more for cold medicine? And if you go through triage system like an ER you wait until any sicker people are taken care of.
My girl, the dentist, always tells the story of the Medicaid patient who arrived by ambulance who complained of....... a piece of dental floss caught in her teeth.
There is NO DOUBT that Medicaid patients will come to an ER for things you would not even think of.
I could be banned for repeating this, but, here goes....... I am an anesthesiologist. Commercial insurance essentially subsidizes government payors. Hospitals that have high Medicaid/Medicare populations would have ZERO anesthesiologists if they did not subsidize them. Hospitals with good payor mixes do not need to subsidize their anesthesiologists. If everyone had Medicaid or Medicare at the current rates there would be NO ANESTHESIOLOGISTS. So the rates would need to go up, (COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT HIGHER than they are saying now) or care would be severely restricted. The first day I am supposed to accept Medicaid or Medicare rates from more than a third of my patients is an INSTANTANEOUS retirement day, for me, and every anesthesiologist that is towards the end of his career.
Quote: RonCPeople that can see, with video evidence, that folks have called 911 over getting the wrong burger at McDonald's can't understand that some of that same type of people will abuse every system that they can.
The issue is not there are nutty people who do those things but your characterization that it only applies to poor people on government assistance
There are nutty rich people too. They just have private insurance but do the same stupid things
Some of what you mention is also socioeconomic
Like bringing the whole family to an emergency room. Poorer people may not have emergency nannies so when someone gets sick the mom has to bring allnher kids.
You make it sound like shes having the entire family treated
Quote: TigerWuI see a lot of critics of universal healthcare, medicare for all, and Obamacare, yet I never see those people/politicians offer any other solutions to fix the broken system we have now.
It's just, "No, that idea is dumb and costs too much money."
Okay, so what should we do?
"Nothing. The healthcare and insurance lobbyists are bribing me too much to give a s***."
Have you considered that the system wasn't broken for a lot of people? They didn't have a problem that needed solving by Obama...they were doing just fine paying for their own health insurance/health care services. Obamacare screwed that up for a lot of people...they didn't get to "keep their doctor and keep their existing plan"
Quote: ParadigmHave you considered that the system wasn't broken for a lot of people? They didn't have a problem that needed solving by ey were doing just fine paying for their own health insurance/health care services. Obamacare screwed that up for a lot of ey didn't get to "keep their doctor and keep their existing plan"
Lets be fair Obama and his administration only said the lie 37 times.
/obama-like-health-care-keep/
Remember when John Kerry was labeled out of touch because there was a photo of him windsurfing?
Quote: ParadigmHave you considered that the system wasn't broken for a lot of people? They didn't have a problem that needed solving by Obama...they were doing just fine paying for their own health insurance/health care services.
Nor has Trump consulted with many people before he started hurting their businesses with his tariffs.
Quote: darkozThe issue is not there are nutty people who do those things but your characterization that it only applies to poor people on government assistance
There are nutty rich people too. They just have private insurance but do the same stupid things
Some of what you mention is also socioeconomic
Like bringing the whole family to an emergency room. Poorer people may not have emergency nannies so when someone gets sick the mom has to bring allnher kids.
You make it sound like shes having the entire family treated
I'm quite sorry if it offends you, but my experience is that people that pay nothing for something tend not to value that something nearly as much as people who pay even a small fee for it. Co-pays at least make you think about a cost involved and whether it is worth a visit or not.
Does every "group" in society have some that try to take advantage of situations? Yep. Talking about one specific subset of a much larger group does not mean that I disregard that abuse.
I am not sure of at all of President Trump's handling of the whole trade issue, but I wonder if our idea of "fair trade" has also gotten way out of whack.
China steals our ideas and then ships them back to us as product...how do you do trade "fairly" with someone like that?
Quote: ams288At his Florida rally, Donald just claimed you need a photo ID to buy groceries...
Remember when John Kerry was labeled out of touch because there was a photo of him windsurfing?
Maybe he was afraid there would be nothing else for the headline writers tomorrow.
Quote: ams288At his Florida rally, Donald just claimed you need a photo ID to buy groceries...
Trump probably has a large contingent of alcoholics voting for him who need IDs on every trip to the store. Guys in wife beaters, beer in hand, yelling at the liberal news and takeover of the country by socialists and Mexicans.
Quote: RonCI'm quite sorry if it offends you, but my experience is that people that pay nothing for something tend not to value that something nearly as much as people who pay even a small fee for it. Co-pays at least make you think about a cost involved and whether it is worth a visit or not.
Does every "group" in society have some that try to take advantage of situations? Yep. Talking about one specific subset of a much larger group does not mean that I disregard that abuse.
I dont know the stats but to my memory almost all the publicised cases of medicare abuse were NOT perpetrated by the poor classes receiving them but the doctors and medical billing that was fraudulently padding their services
