asshole, 30 yrs from now $7 a gal gas WILL BE CHEAP

On Jul 25, 11:09*am, Dave Head > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>


"The SS needs to be phased out. Cutting it suddenly isn't possible
without adversely affecting lots of people. "

Who is agreeing with you on this? Not the establishment Republicans.
Not the Tea Party - the last POLL of them say 2/3 of them do not want
to get rid of SS.

so WHO do you think will champion this?

Do you seriously think that the majority of people in this country are
going to elect to Congress and the Presidency someone who says they
will phase out SS?

what is Your ... REALISTIC solution here?

anyone can blather anti-govt rhetoric but where are the solutions?

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:38:35 -0500, Rich Piehl
> wrote in misc.transport.road:

>On 7/24/2010 11:28 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:48:55 -0300, Clark F Morris
>> > wrote in misc.transport.road:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:05:23 -0500, Rich Piehl
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> much snipped
>>>>
>>>> This from the person who didn't know that it was the Republicans that
>>>> brought about civil rights laws in this country - not the democrats.
>>>
>>> The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were by the Republicans but the
>>> 1964 Civil Right package was by the Democrats or are you referring to
>>> some other civil rights laws?
>>>
>>> Clark Morris
>>>>
>>>> Google European Socialism and do some reading for a change.
>>
>> The Republicans of today are nothing like the Civil War Republicans.
>> There's a reason that minorities do not vote for the GOP and that is
>> because the GOP has betrayed its roots and made it acceptable for
>> Republicans to be racists and to be publicly indifferent to the needs of
>> the elderly, the sick and the poor.
>
>Yeah, boy I'm sure glad there have been no racist Democrats like Robert
>Byrd.
>
>
He had been a racist but changed over time. He quit being a racist. If
he had not, he would have joined the GOP.

On 7/25/2010 8:57 AM, Larry G wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2:37 pm, Rich Piehl
> > wrote:
>> On 7/24/2010 10:04 AM, Otto Yamamoto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Rich Piehl wrote:
>>>> On 7/23/2010 8:53 PM, Otto Yamamoto wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:00:43 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I think you like everything that Europe does so much, their power plants
>>>>>> their governments, their cars, their rails, their transit system their
>>>>>> socialistic governments (that some in this group have denied are
>>>>>> socialistic)
>>
>>>> I'm not the one that called socialistic. Larry did.
>>
>>>> BTW, who is the sourcing on that. It's just a chart - I'm probably
>>>> missing it but no data that I see. No explanation of how the chart was
>>>> arrived at and by what/whose yardstick.
>>
>>>> But for proof about European socialism just google it. There's all
>>>> kinds of sources from all over the world. Some right, some left.
>>
>>> Where are the majority Socialist Governments, then? I hate to break
>>> this to ya, but Socism has been irrelevant for years. Just a buncha
>>> impotent guilt-ridden yuppies. And you quake in fear.
>>
>> Because, as the European countries are finding out, eventually you run
>> out of other people's money. And that's the direction we're heading in
>> here. I'm not quaking in fear. But why go down that road when we know
>> what awaits us at the end of it?
>
> running out of money from Socialism? How about running out of money
> like we have?
>
> Ya'll don't have a clue what the problem is. Most of what is causing
> our structural deficit is not "govt spending". It's entitlements -
> social security and Medicare which are funded from FICA taxes not
> income taxes.
>
> You guys that say "cut taxes" to head off disaster would cut what kind
> of taxes. FICA taxes?
>
> Cutting the Income Tax which is what primary funds non-Medicare and
> non-SS would do what?
>
> Do you think cutting the Dept of Education or the EPA is going to fix
> the structural deficit that is due to SS and Medicare?
>
> The only way to fix Medicare and SS is to either raise FICA taxes or
> cut benefits, extend retirement age, etc or BOTH.
>
> Cutting income taxes and cutting other Govt will not touch the
> structural deficit.
>
> European "socialism" is having the same issues - the costs of health
> care have gone up faster than what they collect in taxes to pay for
> it.
>
> The solution is the same. You either have to increase the taxes to pay
> for it or you have to cut the benefits or both.
>
> The Conservatives have offered NOTHING to actually deal with the
> causes of the structural deficit other than be opposed to stimulus and
> generic "govt spending" - which won't deal with the real causes of
> the structural deficit.
>
> It's not socialism that's the issue. Both Europe and US have the same
> basic problem and that is the costs of health care - in part because
> of an aging demographic is rising... and our current taxing to pay for
> it is not enough.
>
> It has little to do with "socialism" which is just another idiotic
> canard used by those who have a sound-bite mentality


It's about the "Ruling Class" and they want to care for their slaves
equally and stop the slaves from invading the dark meeting rooms and
vacation places of the mega rich. It is Socialism that is being forced
on America to accomplish the restrictive lifestyle that the Rulers need
to feel secure in their positions.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:24:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> wrote:

>
>The vast majority of the structural deficit is due to entitlements
>that are primarily funded from FICA.

>that's a fact.

Social Security and Medicare are the big expense of the budget.

>Europeans have UHC and pay 1/2 as much for health care.
>
>that's a fact.

They don't have a society that is suing every doctor that makes a
mistake of any sort. We want cheaper healthcare, we have to do
something about that. This insurance is hideous for medicine, from 1
end to the other - drugs, doctors, hospitals, etc. etc.

>you can argue about the military spending or the rest of the govt
>spending but even if you cut both of them to the bone - it would not
>fix the structural deficit.
>
>that's a fact.

Yes, we have to get rid of SS and Medicare.

>time to man up for the realities.
>
>the first step before you propose changes to the tax system is to man
>up to the current realities about the role of the entitlements in the
>deficit.

That can't be handled quickly without hurting people. Getting rid of
the income tax would benefit ALL the people, with the exception of
those that are avoiding the income taxes now. Those would be the
criminals, those living off non-taxable instruments like muni bonds
exclusively, those sitting on a pile of $$$ and just spending a piece
of it every year. They would pay taxes that they now do not.

>You can replace the income tax with a VAT tax but if you don't address
>the Medicare and SS problems.. we'll still have the same problems.

Not a VAT. VAT adds to the cost of everything as it is manufactured,
and manufactured here. That is just another attack on our
manufacturing.

We need a retail sales tax, that is not applied to things bought for
business purposes, and is applied to foreign goods as well as American
goods. Farmers should be able to buy tractors that are not taxed.
Coal companies should be able to buy machinery to do mining that is
not taxed.

>the bottom line is that we do not tax enough for the benefits we are
>paying out and it comprises close to 2/3 of the structural deficit.

Yep.

Bringing back prosperity will eventually increase revenue. The way to
bring back prosperity is to kill the income taxes.

>The trouble with the anti-govt rhetoric is that it's all over the
>map... lots of talk... but precious little in addressing the actual
>realities.

There is nothing anti-government about killing the income tax.

>Cutting the Ed, EPA, FDA, etc, etc, name the agencies you don't like..
>cut them all .. get rid of them... and you're still going to have a
>huge structural deficit.
>
>thems the facts...

We can do without a lot of them, and esp. without SS and Medicare.
They have to go eventually, but to do that, we have to bring back
prosperity. SS and Medicare is for poor people. We have 40 million
poor people. If we only had 2 million, we could then afford SS and
Medicare, but we could afford to get rid of them, too, as nearly
everyone would be able to save for their retirement, and those that
couldn't, we could make a less gov't driven way to take care of them.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:28:10 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> wrote:

>"The SS needs to be phased out. Cutting it suddenly isn't possible
>without adversely affecting lots of people. "
>
>Who is agreeing with you on this? Not the establishment Republicans.
>Not the Tea Party - the last POLL of them say 2/3 of them do not want
>to get rid of SS.

I don't really give a rip. We have to do it.

>so WHO do you think will champion this?

I'm not so concerned about that. It is just my opinion. What I'm
concerned about is getting rid of the income tax. Without doing that,
we will never see prosperity again.

>Do you seriously think that the majority of people in this country are
>going to elect to Congress and the Presidency someone who says they
>will phase out SS?

Dunno. Maybe if they are made to understand.

>what is Your ... REALISTIC solution here?

The realistic solution is to cut the income taxes to zero, thus
supercharging the economy, and therefore cutting the number of really
poor people to very small numbers. When you get to the point where
everyone has significant money, and starts looking at SS and Medicare
as a drag on their pocketbook and not as a salvation in their old age
which they can afford to take care of themselves anyway, then maybe SS
and Medicare will be repealed. But the income tax has to die first.
>
>anyone can blather anti-govt rhetoric but where are the solutions?

That's the solution. Get rid of the income tax, bring back prosperity
so people don't NEED the gov't handouts at any time in their lives,
and then we can work on getting rid of the socialism.

On 7/24/2010 10:48 PM, Clark F Morris wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:05:23 -0500, Rich Piehl
> > wrote:
>
>>> much snipped
>>
>> This from the person who didn't know that it was the Republicans that
>> brought about civil rights laws in this country - not the democrats.
>
> The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were by the Republicans but the
> 1964 Civil Right package was by the Democrats or are you referring to
> some other civil rights laws?
>

It was Republican support that won the day.


The Left was in a state of chaos as they had the likes of Senator Byrd
filibustering the legislation.....

The racist in the Democrat party that said he changed, like that woman
that Obama fire in the USDA said she was a RACIST but has a hallelujah
moment too.


Democrats like those kind of people, the people that were racists and
now say they aren't. When the fact is that;

"Liberalism is based on race and is inherently racist because in
Liberalism, race is the one thing from which all else is derived.
- Beam Me Up Scotty - 2009"

On Jul 25, 11:45*am, Dave Head > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:24:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
> > wrote:
>
> >The vast majority of the structural deficit is due to entitlements
> >that are primarily funded from FICA.
> >that's a fact.
>
> Social Security and Medicare are the big expense of the budget.
>
> >Europeans have UHC and pay 1/2 as much for health care.
>
> >that's a fact.
>
> They don't have a society that is suing every doctor that makes a
> mistake of any sort. *We want cheaper healthcare, we have to do
> something about that. * This insurance is hideous for medicine, from 1
> end to the other - drugs, doctors, hospitals, etc. etc.
>
> >you can argue about the military spending or the rest of the govt
> >spending but even if you cut both of them to the bone - it would not
> >fix the structural deficit.
>
> >that's a fact.
>
> Yes, we have to get rid of SS and Medicare.
>
> >time to man up for the realities.
>
> >the first step before you propose changes to the tax system is to man
> >up to the current realities about the role of the entitlements in the
> >deficit.
>
> That can't be handled quickly without hurting people. *Getting rid of
> the income tax would benefit ALL the people, with the exception of
> those that are avoiding the income taxes now. *Those would be the
> criminals, those living off non-taxable instruments like muni bonds
> exclusively, those sitting on a pile of $$$ and just spending a piece
> of it every year. *They would pay taxes that they now do not.
>
> >You can replace the income tax with a VAT tax but if you don't address
> >the Medicare and SS problems.. we'll still have the same problems.
>
> Not a VAT. *VAT adds to the cost of everything as it is manufactured,
> and manufactured here. *That is just another attack on our
> manufacturing.
>
> We need a retail sales tax, that is not applied to things bought for
> business purposes, and is applied to foreign goods as well as American
> goods. *Farmers should be able to buy tractors that are not taxed.
> Coal companies should be able to buy machinery to do mining that is
> not taxed.
>
> >the bottom line is that we do not tax enough for the benefits we are
> >paying out and it comprises close to 2/3 of the structural deficit.
>
> Yep.
>
> Bringing back prosperity will eventually increase revenue. *The way to
> bring back prosperity is to kill the income taxes.
>
> >The trouble with the anti-govt rhetoric is that it's all over the
> >map... lots of talk... but precious little in addressing the actual
> >realities.
>
> There is nothing anti-government about killing the income tax.
>
> >Cutting the Ed, EPA, FDA, etc, etc, name the agencies you don't like..
> >cut them all .. get rid of them... and you're still going to have a
> >huge structural deficit.
>
> >thems the facts...
>
> We can do without a lot of them, and esp. without SS and Medicare.
> They have to go eventually, but to do that, we have to bring back
> prosperity. *SS and Medicare is for poor people. *We have 40 million
> poor people. * *If we only had 2 million, we could then afford SS and
> Medicare, but we could afford to get rid of them, too, as nearly
> everyone would be able to save for their retirement, and those that
> couldn't, we could make a less gov't driven way to take care of them.

SS and Medicare are for people who won't save for their retirement and
then when broke an old want other taxpayers to pay for them.

SS and Medicare are enforced savings programs to force people to set
aside for their retirement.

The Income Tax is not the FICA tax.

Cutting the income tax won't affect SS and Medicare.

Good luck on getting rid of SS/Medicare. A majority of Republicans and
Tea Party folks are opposed to that.

How do you intend to make it happen?

On 7/24/2010 10:30 PM, bugo wrote:
>
>
> "Beam Me Up Scotty" >
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Free Lunch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is
>>>> rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance
>>>> companies and affordability.
>>
>> Don't we ration food and water and clothes? Should the government hand
>> out those little *Mao suits* to each and every American rather than
>> allowing us to buy expensive designer clothes while the poor have to
>> wear K-mart clothes?
>
> There's a huge ****ing difference between wearing fancy clothes and
> dying because you can't afford insurance or because the criminal

Kids kill other kids for their expensive sneakers. People steal
expensive clothes, and steal identities to buy expensive clothes all the
time and end up in jail with their life ruined and shortened.... ruined
thanks to the criminal culture they end up in after stealing the clothes.

> insurance companies refuse to pay for your treatment. Have some
> perspective.

They are the same in the end(MY clothes/MY medical care), they are both
Socialism when government interferes and neither one is a power given to
the Federal Government by the constitution.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:09:12 -0400, Dave Head wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> > wrote:
>
>>On Jul 24, 2:37Â*pm, Rich Piehl
> wrote:
>>> On 7/24/2010 10:04 AM, Otto Yamamoto wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Rich Piehl wrote:
>>> >> On 7/23/2010 8:53 PM, Otto Yamamoto wrote:
>>> >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:00:43 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>> I think you like everything that Europe does so much, their power
>>> >>>> plants their governments, their cars, their rails, their transit
>>> >>>> system their socialistic governments (that some in this group
>>> >>>> have denied are socialistic)
>>>
>>> >> I'm not the one that called socialistic. Â* Larry did.
>>>
>>> >> BTW, who is the sourcing on that. Â*It's just a chart - I'm probably
>>> >> missing it but no data that I see. Â*No explanation of how the chart
>>> >> was arrived at and by what/whose yardstick.
>>>
>>> >> But for proof about European socialism just google it. Â*There's all
>>> >> kinds of sources from all over the world. Some right, some left.
>>>
>>> > Where are the majority Socialist Governments, then? I hate to break
>>> > this to ya, but Socism has been irrelevant for years. Just a buncha
>>> > impotent guilt-ridden yuppies. And you quake in fear.
>>>
>>> Because, as the European countries are finding out, eventually you run
>>> out of other people's money. Â*And that's the direction we're heading
>>> in here. Â*I'm not quaking in fear. Â*But why go down that road when we
>>> know what awaits us at the end of it?
>>
>>running out of money from Socialism? How about running out of money like
>>we have?
>
> Yes we have. Look at a bar graph of the gov't spending that is doing
> it. 1 of them is the DoD, a function defined in the Constitution. The
> other 2 are social give-away programs, Social Security and Medicare.
> Obamacare will absoultely kill this country if we don't get it repealed,
> and we will live as the 3rd world people do. Its the spending...

You are a moron. The proper address to this problem is to absolutely
separate the Social Security System, the Medicare system, and the other
government activity so that honesty can rein supreme. It would mean an
increase in Medicare taxes and income taxes and that is about it. Social
Security is currently drawing a minor amount of its funding from its
trust fund and will remain solvent far into the future if the economy
recovers and expands as it should. Medicare has a problem because of the
Republican hand out to the pharmaceutical companies all dressed up in a
"compassion" suit. They provided _NO_ way to support the Senior Drug
benefit program.

>>Ya'll don't have a clue what the problem is. Most of what is causing our
>>structural deficit is not "govt spending". It's entitlements - social
>>security and Medicare which are funded from FICA taxes not income taxes.
>
> Those are income taxes, and would go away with the repeal of the 13th
> Amendment. Not only that, they are HIGHLY REGRESSIVE income taxes, that
> take 7.65% out of the pay of even someone making $5K/yr, it doesn't
> matter how little you make, that 7.65% happens. It also take another
> 7.65% out of what the employer is supposed to cough up, which
> incentivizes him to find workers overseas.

The segregation of wage taxes to support Social Security was done
specifically to thwart the Republican lying pigs. Social Security takes
_NOTHING_ from capital and owes _NOTHING_ to capital. And that has kept
the system safe from the lying pigs since its inception. The problem we
are having with Social Security is the result of off shoring all the
jobs. There are not enough payroll taxes because wages and jobs have not
kept pace with economic growth and all the money is being diverted into
profits.

Medicare is suffering the same fate, but Medicare SHOULD be funded by
taxes on wages AND capital. The Medicare tax on profits (starting in
1013) is going to be used to fund private insurance subsidies for the
working poor.

>>You guys that say "cut taxes" to head off disaster would cut what kind
>>of taxes. FICA taxes?
>
> Yep. All the F'n income taxes have to go. Every last one of 'em -
> personal, corporate, Social Security, Medicare, capital gains, gift,
> self employment, alternative mimimum, estate, etc. - I always seem to
> forget a category, but if its a tax on income of any sort, it has to go.
> And they all need to be cut to zero. That's 0.0%.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>Cutting the Income Tax which is what primary funds non-Medicare and
>>non-SS would do what?
>
> Nothing. We would get the same amount of money from a consumption tax.

The redistribution of economic rent is a proper and just mechanism. That
can be done with an asset tax or a highly progressive income tax. We
have chosen the income tax method.

>>Do you think cutting the Dept of Education or the EPA is going to fix
>>the structural deficit that is due to SS and Medicare?
>
> The Dept. of Education could really be dissolved. It is simply Federal
> gov't control of something that is local by nature.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!

> The SS needs to be phased out. Cutting it suddenly isn't possible
> without adversely affecting lots of people. You could means test, but
> that would adversely affect anyone that is not rich, and the rich are
> not numerous enough to make much of a dent.
>
> I'd create a continuously increasing retirement age if I were doing it,
> and force people to either use something like a 401K instrument and save
> enough to retire as soon as they want to, or not do that and retire at
> whatever increasing age that fits the year they were born. Eventually,
> people born today, for instance, would never get SS or Medicare, and
> would have to save for that. Only Medicade, that simply keeps people
> from dying, but you have to be bankrupt to use it, would be left. We
> could afford that.

Moron alert!!!

>>The only way to fix Medicare and SS is to either raise FICA taxes or cut
>>benefits, extend retirement age, etc or BOTH.
>
> You got it.

Nope... The way to fix the system is to NOT offshore all the jobs/wages
and to NOT keep allocating so much to profits and instead allocate a
reasonable amount of productivity increases to wages. Problem solved.

>>Cutting income taxes and cutting other Govt will not touch the
>>structural deficit.
>
> Yes it will.
>
> If you cut the income taxes to zero, the economy will boom. 10 - 15
> trillion American dollars that are sequestered overseas, hiding from the
> US income taxes, will come back, and be put to work building factories
> to make even more money for the people that own this money.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Next contestant please...

The investing will take place in countries where wages are already at
subsistence levels. It may be quite humanitarian, but it doesn't help
the American middle class. And we have _NO_ desire to make the rich even
richer.

> Inadvertently,they're going to have to hire people to work in the
> factories. Those people the general American public, will experience a
> rise in income, and will buy things, more things like big screen TVs,
> bigger screen TVs, American cars which would be cheper due to the income
> taxes on their manufacture going away, and they would then be paying
> MORE overall taxes to the treasury than were being collected before.
> That is how the deficit dies, with prosperity. No other way is going to
> work, we have to achieve prosperity.

This is the same "supply side" stupidity that got us into the mess we are
currently in. It doesn't work. The reality PROVES that it doesn't work,
yet we still have a religious order that will not accept reality.

>>European "socialism" is having the same issues - the costs of health
>>care have gone up faster than what they collect in taxes to pay for it.
>
> Yep, and they continue to ration it more stringently. That system is
> headed for a crash.

(snore)

>>The solution is the same. You either have to increase the taxes to pay
>>for it or you have to cut the benefits or both.
>
> No, the other way is to grow the economy, make the general public more
> wealthy, and they will cut the deficit with their spending that the
> consumption taxes will send to Washington.

YESSSSS!!! Absolutely true. All we have to do is increase ORDINARY
income taxes on the rich while offering lower tax rates to capital gains
and the economy will boom just as it did in the 1990's.

> Cutting the SS and Medicare
> is a goal, but we can make things better MUCH more quickly by bringing
> back prosperity, and the way to do that is to zero all the income taxes.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!
There has never been a poor effect on the economy of this country from
taxing the rich. Not ever. As a matter of historical fact, cutting
taxes on the rich simply increases debt.

>>The Conservatives have offered NOTHING to actually deal with the causes
>>of the structural deficit other than be opposed to stimulus and generic
>>"govt spending" - which won't deal with the real causes of the
>>structural deficit.
>
> I just did, and I'm a conservative.

Yes... Most conservatives are morons.

>>It's not socialism that's the issue.
>
> Yes it is. It is bankrupting the country.

The Republican mantra: "Bankrupting the country". This refrain will be
seen in EVERY rightard post. The Bush tax cuts will expire and that will
do more to help the economy than any other action that can be taken. The
1990's are a historical record of that absolute fact.

> The boneheaded efforts to
> pay for it by taxing prosperity, which is what the income tax is, has
> resulted in less prosperity. Get rid of the income tax. It is this
> country's 2nd biggest mistake, right behind slavery.

Incomes in excess of $150k are primarily "economic rent". And taxation
of economic rent does not alter the direct economic actions of those who
are touched by the tax. There may be some isolated situations in which
a contributor to the community might forgo the contribution toward the
end of the year, but that is a very rare occurrence.

>>Both Europe and US have the same
>>basic problem and that is the costs of health care - in part because of
>>an aging demographic is rising... and our current taxing to pay for it
>>is not enough.
>
> Well, it is not enough, and will get even worse in that respect if we
> don't get rid of the income taxes.

Pig crap.

>>It has little to do with "socialism" which is just another idiotic
>>canard used by those who have a sound-bite mentality
>
> It has everything to do with socialism - that is over 2/3rds of our big
> expenses. Get rid of SS and Medicare, and you only have the DoD, which
> could be funded easily.

The problem is the word "we" which means the high income tax payers.
These pigs REFUSE to acknowledge that Social Security is off budget and
is currently solvent and will remain so far into the future. We need to
INCREASE the medicare tax across the board and to allow people under age
65 to join the system paying full fare for the Medicare insurance. These
actions are not related but both may be necessary. The Medicare tax will
need to be increased to fund medical care for the elderly
(demographics). But the inclusion of more people in the Medicare groups
will provide a monopsony function to control costs. When 75% of the
people are all members of Medicare, then the providers can't shift costs
to the private market and more people will leave the private market and
join Medicare. And _THAT_ is the only way to control the soaring costs
of medical insurance and medical care.

--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60

On 7/24/2010 10:19 PM, bugo wrote:
> "Beam Me Up Scotty" >
> wrote in message
>> Democrat-Socialist one term wonders.
>
> Your "socialist" is getting so old. As I said, go live in North Korea
> for a year and you'll see how un-socialist our current leaders are.
>
> I wish our leaders were actually socialist. It would be funny watching
> the right-wing nutjobs heads really spin.

So we are Socialist, just not quite as much as North Korea.... I
totally agree. And I hope to reverse the process that's taking us
closer to North Korean Socialism.


Socialism leads to totalitarian regimes, it "is" individual RIGHTS that
help keep the power out of the governments hands. Once Government
steals or consumes our individual rights then it becomes a small step to
steal the few rights we have left and WE THE PEOPLE end up with a
totalitarian government or Dictator.