TomAiello

When science becomes political, it's crossed over to being amenable to petition (and popular opinion, and spin, and manipulation, and...) But, if not petition, perhaps decree. Didn't the G8 recently order the climate to cease and desist temperature increases? I'm sure that's going to work. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

How many oncoming aircraft would they be able to take down? Just 1 for the 5 of them, or is that a complete screen against a bomber flight? If it's just 1 intruder for 5 UAV's, then the obvious next question is "how much does the UAV cost relative to the fighters to do the same work?" I bet they're cheaper. But how much? If we replaced our fighter screens with UAV's, what's the potential cost savings? And how does it effect our 42k/yr per capita tax figure? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

People have a right to choose to take risks. They can go skydiving, ride a motorcycle, have unprotected sex and engage in other risky behavior. They also have a right to not buy a health plan, and spend their money on jump tickets instead. It's risky, but that's their right. Forcing them to buy a health plan eliminates their right to choose. If you're worried about poor people, all you'd need to do is open up the federal employees plan to (for example) anyone making less than 20k for an individual or 50k for a family, with the government paying the premiums. It's simple, effective, and ready to roll tomorrow. It's also cheaper than anything currently on the table. But our "leaders" will be damned if they're going to let the common people into their own health plan. I mean, where's the privilege of being in Congress if that happens? It's exactly the same reason DC won't give poor children vouchers to go to the same school as Sasha and Malia Obama--we can't have the riff-raff in here where we are. Your outrage (and that of people like you) is being hijacked to push a political agenda. Welcome to Washington! -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Dude, it was a joke. Just about as (un)funny and predictable as the one that started the thread. Lighten up. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Someone making $50,000 per year can't afford $3,600 per year for health coverage? Sounds to me like they made a choice to buy something else (maybe jump tickets?) instead. Why do I have to pay for their choice? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Cite? That sounds a bit optimistic. Are you talking about surveillance coverage or defense coverage? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

For a "constitutional scholar" his understanding of the US Constitution seems especially lacking. Remember, he thinks the Constitution is "a bit dated". He's also a "Constitutional scholar" who couldn't place the 15th Amendment in the correct century. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Did you ever read that article I linked for you the last time we talked about this? The one comparing for profit and non-profit care, and finding that the non-profit was charging five times as much as the for-profit hospital across town? Or is it easier to just ignore the evidence and keep claiming that "non-profit" somehow makes things cheaper, despite plentiful evidence to the contrary? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It would be very easy, and cost a fraction of the price, to provide health care for every uninsured person in the USA today. All you need to do is open up this existing government health plan to open enrollment from any US citizen. At current rates, if we funnelled every single uninsured person into this plan and had the federal government pay their premiums, it would cost less than any proposal currently in Congress. It would even be fairly simple to set up some kind of means testing, and pay for (for example) anyone who had a household income less than 50k/yr. And it would still be cheaper than anything being considered by congress. Why aren't we doing this? Simple. Because the people in power don't want the "commoners" reducing the quality of their health plans. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Of course, if they lose the gamble, they want us to bail them out. Sounds a bit like AIG Financial Products, doesn't it? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

And it costs 3 times as much? Seems to me we're already losing out on price _and_ wait time. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

And they should. Our money shouldn't be used to provide welfare for billionaires. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Here's a cute video. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

While I'm not arguing your points, which I think are valid... I've been to the hospital in several other countries, and in the USA. It's my opinion that one reason why our healthcare costs more is simply because it's better. I realize that this is a very politically incorrect view. Nowadays, we all have to agree that we need to find "efficiencies" because other countries deliver healthcare cheaper. Honestly, I don't think they're more efficient. I think they're cheaper largely because they are buying less healthcare at relatively similar prices. This whole "we can do it better for cheaper" is basically a pipe dream. Remember the old saw: "Speed, Quality, Price--pick any two" ? It applies here. In the USA we've got Speed and Quality, and we pay a bit more for them. Other countries have sacrificed both speed and quality, and I, for one, would rather that we not do the same. Could we make our system more efficient? Sure. Could we change some things (mostly government imposed things) about insurance and government payment, and cut some costs? Sure. But are those things really going to deliver our same quality of care at a fraction of the cost? I don't think so. "I want everything, and I want it for free" seems to be the American Mantra these days. Unfortunately, at some point, reality must take precedence over public relations, and we have to realize that we can't get everything we have now and pay a fraction of the cost. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I wasn't acting like anything. I read that quote in the CNN article this morning and found it interesting. I thought about making a new thread for it, but figured it sort of fit into this one. I wasn't making an argument at all. Just posting the quote. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Interesting quote from SC confirmation hearing: -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If the program is fully funded by invested funds, why would it need further input to maintain it's payout obligations? It should be able to cut off new enrollment at any time and hold financial equilibrium. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You could allow people to borrow money from the government to pay it, at whatever rate the government is currently getting on it's debt. Kind of let the people feel directly what the government is doing for them indirectly now. What would be the colateral or what penalties would be impose for nonpayment? Since the thing you are paying for is the right to live in the USA, perhaps non-payment should simply result in expulsion? You wouldn't be able to send them to another established country, though. I wonder how much it would cost to outfit some basic farming communities in the Nevada desert, so that people could opt out of the USA? That way people could simply decide the price wasn't worth the benefit, and they'd have a place to go. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Knock it off. Calling people names is pointless, and just makes you look silly. Plus, it's against the forum rules. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Very generally. The operative questions are "taxes paid by who" and "benefiting which taxpayers?" Federal Income Tax is largely paid by very different people than benefit from the resultant federal spending. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It's a holdover from medieval times, more or less. It was thought that sickness was caused by evil spirits, and so a proper medical remedy was thought to be the blessing of the sick person. It's similar (without the religious connotation) in a lot of european languages, where you wish someone "good health" or something similar if they sneeze. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

At current levels of spending. If everyone had to pay their fair share, it would provide a pretty good incentive to cut spending. What would the numbers look like if we had DrewEckardt's military spending proposed in the other thread? And what if we didn't have debt payments? Assuming that this motivated us to right our fiscal house and pay off the debt, and not run more up? If we do just those two things (and I bet we'd do more with proper motivation), what would the tax bill look like? You could allow people to borrow money from the government to pay it, at whatever rate the government is currently getting on it's debt. Kind of let the people feel directly what the government is doing for them indirectly now. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes, but did you read the CBO's assessment of current reform efforts? Which basically says that nothing currently on the table will actually cut costs? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Perhaps from aircraft carriers? Once someone hostile gets around to building one. So I guess some anti-ship cruise missiles would be a good idea. Maybe some unmanned submersibles, too. Our military is appropriate for a global empire. Personally, I'd rather live in a Republic than an Empire. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Did you just use google results to argue a point about the meaning of language? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com