Comments on: If you’ve read the 5000 Year Leap then you know …

By: 357ben

357ben — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:29:11 +0000

CA is going bankrupt thanks to liberal policies!! And NY, MI, MA, and NY aren't far behind!! Enjoy the failure!!

By: 357ben

357ben — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:26:31 +0000

Well I'd cry a rive over that, but here in WI more then one Republican Party office has had windows shot out!! So which is worse?

By: AloneinthMddle

AloneinthMddle — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:07:06 +0000

I also like free markets and embrace any solution that moves us in that direction. Can I give you an example of how the "supposedly free market" is functioning now. I recently spent 3 days in the hosp. The bill was 14,000 dollars. My insurance company has a negotiated percentage that they will pay for this hospital stay and all the tests, etc. They paid 6,000. The rest of that bill is written off by the Hospital. My co-pay was 250. Not a bad deal for me right. Well here is the problem. If I didn't have insurance the hospital would be coming after me for not 6,000 but for the whole 14,000. They would ruin my credit, sue me for it, etc. This happens to hardworking middle class Americans all of the time. This is criminal. Obviously the 'free market' cost was 6,000 not 15,000. The cost is "jacked up" by the hospital so it can write off these huge losses from these inflated bills and avoid taxes on profits. Your thoughts?

By: Patriot1775

Patriot1775 — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:18:16 +0000

No the free market cost was not $6000.00 that was the negotiated price between the insurance company and the hospital. This is done all the time. In the auto industry for example – if you do not have insurance to pay for a new bumper it would cost say $2000.00 but if you have insurance it only cost $1200.00 that is because the insurance company has negotiated with the different repair shops for a lower cost so long as the ins. co. steer business towards the shops that have signed up with them. The free market allows this type of negotiation to happen. The free market also lets an individual company, hospital doctor whatever set their own price – that is the free market. What I was talking about is also a function of the free market – being able to buy your insurance from whatever company you like no matter where you live.

The hospital would not ruin your credit so long as you set up a payment plan for them and paid your bill on time and in good faith – it would be like any other bill.

The cost are actually jacked up not because of insurance companies but because of people who have no insurance, who set up payment plans and then do not pay and because of the government and their ridiculous price controls in regards to medicaid and medicare as well as their unfair regulations. It is unfair to make is sound as though only the insurance companies and the hospitals are corrupt and out to get someone.

By: AloneinthMddle

AloneinthMddle — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:05:48 +0000

I also like free markets and embrace any solution that moves us in that direction. Can I give you an example of how the "supposedly free market" is functioning now. I recently spent 3 days in the hosp. The bill was 14,000 dollars. My insurance company has a negotiated percentage that they will pay for this hospital stay and all the test etc. They pain 6,000. The rest of that bill is written off by the Hospital. My co-pay was 250. Not a bad deal for me right. Well here is the problem. If I didn't have insurance the hospital would be coming after me for not 6,000 but for the whole 15,000. They would ruin my credit, sue me for it, etc. This happens to hardworking middle class Americans all of the time. This is criminal. Obviously the 'free market' cost was 6,000 not 15,000. The cost is "jacked up" by the hospital so it can write off these huge losses from these inflated bills and avoid taxes on profits. Your thoughts?

By: AloneinthMddle

AloneinthMddle — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:56:11 +0000

Thank you sir for a very well thought out solution. I kind of like your sliding scale approach to distributing the cost of insuring everyone. At least everyone would contribute something if not equally. In a sense it is an equal contribution in as much as it is an equal burden on each persons ability to pay. It also is small enough to not diminish a persons drive to succeed and work hard to improve their income, like a highly progressive income tax does. Thank you again for your thoughtful posts and try not to be discouraged by the lack of response. I also get frustrated with our seemingly obsessive desire to name call and vent and focus on ideological debate, rather than create solutions to problems.

By: AloneinthMddle

AloneinthMddle — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:38:59 +0000

To kgeorge,
I want to thank you for taking the time and doing your homework on this issue. Your solution is well thought out and practical. In fact we would have almost no poor elderly if people were taught by our schools and also their families to 'pay themselves first' as your solution suggests. I have 2 children and am teaching them these same sound financial ideas myself. The road to real fiscal success is not a hard one if we start young. What a shame that the road to financial success and security is never even mentioned in the first 12 years of a persons education.
Thank you again for an excellent post.

By: gadler46

gadler46 — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:20:55 +0000

Don't make the same mistake everyone else makes. Read the statutes and you will find out there is no such thing as the Social Security Trust Fund. The law never created one. Social security is nothing more than a payroll tax which goes into the general fund to be spent. The entire plan was just a big Ponzie scheme. The average life expectancy when the law was passed was below 65. The government never expected to have to pay out any funds, and if they did it would only be half because women, who normally didn't work lived longer than the men. The Supreme Court has reviewed the law and has ruled that the government has no obligation to return any of these taxes back to the people.

By: Sunfiregm

Sunfiregm — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:03:21 +0000

Thank you kgeorge, I like your reasoning.

By: ClayThomas

ClayThomas — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:04:04 +0000

p { margin: 0; }
I got it. I read it in 3 days. I couldn't put it down. This book should be required reading in our schools