U.S. Life Expectancy Map - What does it say about US Healthcare?

[Anonymous]

It is always interesting to see what the same methods that we use to justify selling our drugs, Scientific studies, say about our contribution to the US Healthcare system.

" "People are living to 86, on average, in some parts of the world. Why shouldn't Americans do the same?"

So, the US spends twice as much on our health care system than any other in the world but have much less positive outcomes. Makes one wonder doesn't it?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/04/life-expectancy-map/

Ezra Klein is a total MSNBC HACK!

In December 2009, Klein wrote an article in the Washington Post, stating that Senator Joe Lieberman was "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score", because Lieberman "was motivated to oppose health care legislation in part out of resentment at liberals for being defeated in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic Primary". Klein based his estimate on an Urban Institute report that estimated that 22,000 people died in 2006 because they lacked health-care insurance. This article was criticized by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review, who called it a "silly claim". Charles Lane, also of the Washington Post, described Klein's article as an "outrageous smear".

 

[Anonymous]

Per usual, you have it exactly backwards. Government doesn't subsidize anything until we, the tax-payer, subsidizes government. It is not that we are against government, we are against illegitimate government. There are legitimate roles for government as described in The Constitution... Wealth redistribution is not one of them. In your world, it is not "value-added", but more importantly it is not a legitimate function of government.

I know his type "All is because of Government."

He still wants Government to be his father.

 

[Anonymous]

Ezra Klein is a total MSNBC HACK!

In December 2009, Klein wrote an article in the Washington Post, stating that Senator Joe Lieberman was "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score", because Lieberman "was motivated to oppose health care legislation in part out of resentment at liberals for being defeated in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic Primary". Klein based his estimate on an Urban Institute report that estimated that 22,000 people died in 2006 because they lacked health-care insurance. This article was criticized by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review, who called it a "silly claim". Charles Lane, also of the Washington Post, described Klein's article as an "outrageous smear".

That is an unfortunate attack on Lieberman. I am a conservative but always respected Lieberman.

 

[Anonymous]

Per usual, you have it exactly backwards. Government doesn't subsidize anything until we, the tax-payer, subsidizes government. It is not that we are against government, we are against illegitimate government. There are legitimate roles for government as described in The Constitution... Wealth redistribution is not one of them. In your world, it is not "value-added", but more importantly it is not a legitimate function of government.

Lets make a very simple example that you can actually understand and does actually happen.

Let's say that your healthcare insurance premiums cost 100$ per month. That is what the insurance company charges you for health care coverage. No govt involved in any way at this point. A simple deal between a private company and you a private individual. Now, as part of your benes Novartis agrees to pay $80 of that and so that leaves you $20 dollars to pay. But the tax laws are written so that Novartis can use the costs of the part of your healthcare costs as expenses to reduce the amount of their earnings. If their marginal tax rates are say 25% then they pay 20% less in US Federal Income tax for something they paid for you. If the Govt didn't give them that tax break you think that Novartis would pay it for you? Unless they would you received a subsidization of your healthcare costs. Which by the way you do.

All taxes are wealth redistribution and the last time I checked taxes are in the constitution - you are an ignorance spitting, tea nagger, Glen Beck educated, Faux News watching moron probably from an inbred region of the South. Go protect you daughter for sexual assault from her brother.

 

[Anonymous]

Lets make a very simple example that you can actually understand and does actually happen.

Let's say that your healthcare insurance premiums cost 100$ per month. That is what the insurance company charges you for health care coverage. No govt involved in any way at this point. A simple deal between a private company and you a private individual. Now, as part of your benes Novartis agrees to pay $80 of that and so that leaves you $20 dollars to pay. But the tax laws are written so that Novartis can use the costs of the part of your healthcare costs as expenses to reduce the amount of their earnings. If their marginal tax rates are say 25% then they pay 20% less in US Federal Income tax for something they paid for you. If the Govt didn't give them that tax break you think that Novartis would pay it for you? Unless they would you received a subsidization of your healthcare costs. Which by the way you do.

All taxes are wealth redistribution and the last time I checked taxes are in the constitution - you are an ignorance spitting, tea nagger, Glen Beck educated, Faux News watching moron probably from an inbred region of the South. Go protect you daughter for sexual assault from her brother.

This is not about if the government has the right to tax me, of course they do. It is about whether or not it's a tax to fund a legitimate function of government. Taking my money, which I earned, and giving it to someone who didn't earn it is not a legitimate function of government. Even a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, socialist like you would be hard pressed to find that ability in The Constitution.

 

[Anonymous]

This is not about if the government has the right to tax me, of course they do. It is about whether or not it's a tax to fund a legitimate function of government. Taking my money, which I earned, and giving it to someone who didn't earn it is not a legitimate function of government. Even a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, socialist like you would be hard pressed to find that ability in The Constitution.

Many on the far left want to rewrite the constitution. They don't respect it because it is an impediment to expanding the role of government. Enumerated powers mean nothing to them.