The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Impeding changes to our Health Care system (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=16747)

Happy Monkey 07-07-2009 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 580070)
Meaning the share holders, us the US public, you know the portion that pays income tax, will be paying for it.

So how does post 238 have anything to do with the post it quotes?

I was saying that I didn't want the person making the decision to be able to profit by not treating me, and you respond by saying they are funded by taxes?

TheMercenary 07-07-2009 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 580073)
So how does post 238 have anything to do with the post it quotes?

I was saying that I didn't want the person making the decision to be able to profit by not treating me, and you respond by saying they are funded by taxes?

I am was merely pointing out that we are the share holders. You don't want profit makers to make health care decisions for you, I would suspect that is because you think they make decisions based on their ability to make profit. And yet somehow you think anything the government is going to offer up is not going to be motivated by the same thing, money. And in their case it will be cost cutting based on saving them money. How is that different? It is not. They can save money based on a desire to have more for themselves, or they can try to save money based on not spending it on you so more people can have a share of your benefit. And I can't see how you would be ok with the government, or their representatives making health care decisions for you, as in a federal healthcare insurance program will do for you. As I said before if you think it is going to be better, you are sorely mistaken.

TheMercenary 07-07-2009 12:40 PM

U.S. House May Include Surtax on Wealthy in Health-Care Package
Share

By Ryan J. Donmoyer

Quote:

July 7 (Bloomberg) -- House Ways and Means Committee members are likely to propose a surtax on high-income Americans to help pay for an overhaul of the health-care system, according to people familiar with the plan.

The tax would be similar to, yet much smaller than, a surtax proposed in 2007 by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a person familiar with the committee’s talks said. That plan would have added at least a 4 percent levy on incomes exceeding $200,000, and was projected to reap as much as $832 billion over 10 years.

Two people familiar with closed-door talks by committee Democrats said a House bill probably will include a surtax on incomes exceeding $250,000, as Congress seeks ways to pay for changes to a health-care system that accounts for almost 18 percent of the U.S. economy. By targeting wealthier Americans, a surtax may hold more appeal for House Democrats than a Senate proposal to tax some employer-provided health benefits.

“The surtax is obviously more attractive to Democrats in the House because it’s more progressive, which they find attractive in and of itself,” said Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on policies affecting low- and moderate-income families.

Supporters on the Ways and Means Committee include Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat who backs including a surtax among revenue-raising measures in a health- care package, Doggett spokeswoman Sarah Dohl said.

Republicans in Congress, and some Senate Democrats, are likely to fight moves to increase tax rates, said Clinton Stretch, who analyzes tax legislation at Deloitte Tax LLP, a Washington consulting firm.

Republican Opposition

“This will be a point of discomfort for moderate or conservative Democrats” in the Senate, he said. “It will be an anathema for Republicans.”

The possibility of raising taxes on top earners surfaced last month as a revenue option for members of Rangel’s committee, and the people familiar with the talks cautioned that no agreement has been reached. A Senate plan to tax the value of employee benefits that exceed coverage for federal workers may generate as much as $418.5 billion over 10 years, though talks are focused on proposals that would raise considerably less.

Rangel’s 2007 plan would have added a 4 percent tax on incomes exceeding $200,000 and an extra 0.6 percent levy on those making more than $500,000. A House plan this year may include lower rates and higher income thresholds, a person familiar with the plan said.

Tax Increase

A surtax proposal would force President Barack Obama to decide whether he is willing to add the levy on top of higher income-tax rates for top earners that he wants to take effect in 2011. Obama has promised that he won’t increase taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 and said he will delay increases for high-income earners until 2011.

Obama hasn’t commented on the possibility of a surtax, and the White House had no comment on specific proposals. The president has proposed limiting itemized deductions for high- income taxpayers.

Obama has said he doesn’t want to tax health-insurance benefits, while refusing to rule out that possibility if it helps seal approval for an overall health package.

Congressional Democrats have said they may need to raise taxes by at least half a trillion dollars to pay for the health- care revamp, in addition to savings of almost as much through steps such as reducing Medicare subsidies and cutting prices the elderly pay for medications.

‘Everything’ on Table

Matthew Beck, a spokesman for the Ways and Means Committee, declined to comment about the surtax option, saying only that “everything’s on the table.”

Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, the chamber’s top-ranking Republican, said his party would oppose a surtax because it would “disproportionately” affect small businesses, whose owners often include business income in amounts taxed on their individual returns.

“With unemployment nearing double digits, we need to help small businesses grow and create jobs, not squeeze the life out of them with even higher taxes,” Steel said.

According to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, about 4.3 million of 150 million U.S. households filing tax returns will earn more than $200,000 this year.

A surtax would be levied on adjusted gross income, before deductions for items such as mortgage interest and charitable gifts. Regular income taxes are assessed after such write-offs.

Different Objectives

Eugene Steuerle, vice president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a non-profit federal budget watchdog group, said the surtax and a levy on benefits reflect “very different objectives.” A surtax would make the tax code more progressive, and cutting tax incentives for employer-provided insurance is intended to discourage unnecessary use of medical services, he said.

Mark Weinberger, vice chairman of New York-based Ernst & Young LLP, said that while Republicans won’t back higher tax rates, House Democrats at this point don’t need bipartisan support.

“Strategically, what Democrats have to do is just move the ball forward,” Weinberger said. “Whatever revenue raisers they have in the House or Senate bills will change throughout the process.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a3wUXb42NPX0

Happy Monkey 07-07-2009 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 580083)
I am was merely pointing out that we are the share holders.

And our dividends are the health care, which is also the product we get as the consumers.
Quote:

They can save money based on a desire to have more for themselves, or they can try to save money based on not spending it on you so more people can have a share of your benefit.
So, if it's underfunded, a public plan devolves into a private plan without a profit motive (which would be on top of the underfunding issue for a private plan) that can't kick you out. Sounds good to me.

Clodfobble 07-07-2009 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bitman
No, you're paying $1000/yr for your own wrecks.

You do not get your money back if you have no wrecks. On the flip side, if I have a wreck that causes one million dollars in medical damage, it gets paid for even though I have not paid in a million dollars into my auto insurance policy. Everyone with a car is paying for everyone's wrecks.

Quote:

This automotive comparison really doesn't work. The government mandates liability insurance, which covers your damage to other people's property. Comprehensive insurance covers damage to your own property, and is totally optional. Health insurance is like comprehensive. And yes, I really believe it should be optional.
The automotive comparison does work if you allow for the possibility of high-deductible, catastrophic insurance coverage. This is a type of plan that exists in almost all private insurance companies these days, and is favored by more libertarian types. The end result is you pay for all your own small-time medical needs, the only time insurance kicks in is when your procedure costs more than (for example) $20,000.

Health insurance already is optional--and guess what, we're still not letting people die in the waiting room because they can't pay. We never will. That is an ethical boundary we as a society will not cross, so we might as well create a payment system that can cover it.

sugarpop 07-07-2009 07:00 PM

Oh yes, we most certainly DO allow people to die in waiting rooms... and some hospitals "dump" people. I believe it was Kaiser that was caught "dumping" people in California a few years ago?

sugarpop 07-07-2009 07:10 PM

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/stor...id=OTC-RSS-FH0

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/sto...2454685&page=1

http://blog.taragana.com/n/cover-up-...rt-says-87021/

sugarpop 07-07-2009 07:14 PM

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may...l/me-dumping16

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may...al/me-dumping7

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sa...3/daily26.html

Clodfobble 07-07-2009 08:05 PM

Sugar, every single one of those is a case of a patient who died due to general hospital negligence. None of them were allowed to die intentionally due to lack of insurance. The point is no one is getting turned away from emergency care simply because they have no insurance. You get treated in the ER regardless of your insurance coverage. In my experience they don't even bother asking for it until you're leaving.

sugarpop 07-07-2009 08:47 PM

They are still dying. And in one of those situations, the husband was on the phone BEGGING for an abulance to come get his wife because they were refusing to treat her. I believe she died while he was on the phone with them. In addition, other patients were also calling 911 about the situation.

And they DO ask for insurance before they treat you. I had to go to the emergency room last year, and they asked me for it. I have taken my ex to the emergency room twice, and both times they asked him for it as well. If you're obviously illegal they might not ask, I don't know. I do believe it's easier for illegals to get treatment in some places than it is for the people stuck in the middle. For example, I actually know people who have trouble getting treatment, because they make too much to be on medicaid, but they don't make enough to afford insurance. It is freaking outrageous to not do something about the situation in health care. It's all great for those who can afford insurance, but for those who can't?

And the cost of many treatments is just way too high. It's freaking ridiculous. On one statement from a doctor last year, he was charging over $1000, and I only saw him for about 15 minutes. That's $4000 an hour. I seriously doubt he got that much from my insurance, but still.

sugarpop 07-07-2009 08:49 PM

Oh, and it was consultation. He didn't actually DO anything.

TheMercenary 07-07-2009 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 580153)
Oh yes, we most certainly DO allow people to die in waiting rooms... and some hospitals "dump" people. I believe it was Kaiser that was caught "dumping" people in California a few years ago?

You ain't seen nothing yet....

TheMercenary 07-07-2009 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 580108)
And our dividends are the health care, which is also the product we get as the consumers.So, if it's underfunded, a public plan devolves into a private plan without a profit motive (which would be on top of the underfunding issue for a private plan) that can't kick you out. Sounds good to me.

In your dreams...



I have seen you post on here for years. You really can't be that stupid.

You think that there is no profit motive?

You think they can't kick you out for anything"\?

You think it will not be underfunded?

You think it will me more efficient?

You think we are going to save taxpayers (shareholders) money?

:lol2:

TheMercenary 07-09-2009 05:41 PM

Fucking Demoncratically controlled Congress is going to bankrupt this country....

In health bill, billions for parks, paths
Supporters cite prevention, but add-ons’ critics see pork


Quote:

WASHINGTON - Sweeping healthcare legislation working its way through Congress is more than an effort to provide insurance to millions of Americans without coverage. Tucked within is a provision that could provide billions of dollars for walking paths, streetlights, jungle gyms, and even farmers’ markets.

The add-ons - characterized as part of a broad effort to improve the nation’s health “infrastructure’’ - appear in House and Senate versions of the bill.

Critics argue the provision is a thinly disguised effort to insert pork-barrel spending into a bill that has been widely portrayed to the public as dealing with expanding health coverage and cutting medical costs. A leading critic, Senator Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, ridicules the local projects, asking: “How can Democrats justify the wasteful spending in this bill?’’

But advocates, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, defend the proposed spending as a necessary way to promote healthier lives and, in the long run, cut medical costs. “These are not public works grants; they are community transformation grants,’’ said Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Kennedy, chairman of the Senate health committee whose healthcare bill includes the projects.

“If improving the lighting in a playground or clearing a walking path or a bike path or restoring a park are determined as needed by a community to create more opportunities for physical activity, we should not prohibit this from happening,’’ Coley said in a statement.

The Senate health panel’s bill does not specify how much would go to the community projects. A Senate staff member said the amount of spending will be left up to the Obama administration. A House version of the bill caps the projects at $1.6 billion per year and includes them in a section designed to save money in the long run by reducing obesity and other health problems.

It is not clear yet how the money would be allocated. The legislation says that grants will be awarded to local and state government agencies that will have to submit detailed proposals. The final decisions will be made by the secretary of Health and Human Services.

The proposal was inserted at the urging of a nonprofit, nonpartisan group called Trust for America’s Health, which produces reports about obesity and other health matters. Part of the group’s proposed language for the community grants was inserted into the Senate bill. It called for “creating the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment.’’ The group provided examples of grants for bike paths, jungle gyms, and lighting, though the Senate bill doesn’t list those specifics.

Jeffrey Levi, the group’s executive director, said that “it is easy to satirize’’ the projects, but they are needed to improve America’s health.

“We will see a return on this investment if you use this money strategically for proven, evidence-based programs,’’ Levi said in an interview, citing efforts to stop smoking and to promote physical activity. “We will prevent or reverse chronic diseases such as heart disease. . . . It will pay for itself.’’

While many may think the healthcare bill strictly aims to increase coverage, Levi said that is a mistaken impression. “This isn’t just about health insurance,’’ he said. “This bill is about creating a healthier country.’’

The group says that a modest community project can lead directly to improvements in public health. In a recent report, the group cited two examples from Massachusetts that it said were effective: Shape Up Somerville, which helped elementary school children lose weight by promoting physical activity, and the Physical Activity Club in Attleboro, which also helped children lose weight.

The idea of using the healthcare bill as a vehicle for preventing diseases has bipartisan appeal. President Obama has called for “the largest investment ever in preventive care, because that’s one of the best ways to keep our people healthy and our costs under control.’’ Enzi, too, has said that “reducing healthcare costs has to begin with promoting healthier behaviors.’’

But there is disagreement about the best way to do that. Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who is working closely with Kennedy on the healthcare bill, has criticized the current healthcare system for focusing on “sick care’’ and has called for more investment in a variety of measures that would help prevent diseases, including the community grants, restricting junk food in schools, and encouraging children to be more active.

“We spend 75 cents of every healthcare dollar treating people with chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and asthma, and only 4 cents on prevention,’’ Harkin said in a statement. “But the majority of these diseases can be prevented through lifestyle and environmental changes.’’

However, it can be difficult to quantify the benefits of a park or pathway, leading some critics to say such funding is an example how the healthcare legislation has spiraled out of control.

Enzi has said that instead of paying for pathways, it would be more effective to encourage lower insurance premiums for individuals who can prove they have taken steps to improve their health. He said that construction grants belong in other bills.

Enzi, the top Republican on the Senate health committee, has unsuccessfully pushed an amendment that would specifically prohibit the use of funds for sidewalks, streetlights, and other infrastructure projects.

Kennedy spokesman Coley said such proposed amendments are counterproductive, stressing that the projects would be modest and are not intended to replace larger ones that can be funded in other bills. Nonetheless, he said, the projects “may be a very cost-effective and long-lasting intervention.’’
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...r_parks_paths/

Happy Monkey 07-09-2009 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 580192)
You think that there is no profit motive

In fact, there's a spend-your-budget motive.
Quote:

You think they can't kick you out for anything?
As I've said, we don't know what the final form will be, but the primary issue this is supposed to address is the practice of kicking people out when they get sick.
Quote:

You think it will not be underfunded?
I don't know. I hope not. But if they have to make those choices, I want it to be based entirely on triage, and not how much the corporation gets to keep.
Quote:

You think it will me more efficient?
Quite likely. Our current system is the least efficient, so there's plenty of room for improvement. Of course, the spend-your-budget motive will work against efficiency, but the tendency towards underfunding will work against that.
Quote:

You think we are going to save taxpayers (shareholders) money?
I want to save patients' money, at the worst time in their lives. An overall improvement across the entire tax base, due to decreasing the reliance on ERs, would be a welcome side effect, but not the primary issue from my perspective.

TheMercenary 07-09-2009 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 580607)
In fact, there's a spend-your-budget motive.
As I've said, we don't know what the final form will be, but the primary issue this is supposed to address is the practice of kicking people out when they get sick.
I don't know. I hope not. But if they have to make those choices, I want it to be based entirely on triage, and not how much the corporation gets to keep.Quite likely. Our current system is the least efficient, so there's plenty of room for improvement. Of course, the spend-your-budget motive will work against efficiency, but the tendency towards underfunding will work against that.
I want to save patients' money, at the worst time in their lives. An overall improvement across the entire tax base, due to decreasing the reliance on ERs, would be a welcome side effect, but not the primary issue from my perspective.

Some individuals may be saved money, because it will be paid for on the backs of many many others. There is no other way. Where do you think the hospitals are going to save the gobberment 150 billion dollars? What? you think they are just going to cut that from their income and profit? No, they will pass it on to others. NPR has done a great 2 day expose on the number of lobbyists in DC all getting their bit of pie from this bill. Be careful what you wish for. It is never as it seems.

Happy Monkey 07-10-2009 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 580609)
Some individuals may be saved money, because it will be paid for on the backs of many many others.

Ummm, yeah. That's the point.
Quote:

Where do you think the hospitals are going to save the gobberment 150 billion dollars? What? you think they are just going to cut that from their income and profit?
Even if there is no savings in the hospital, the insurance comanies will no longer take their cut. A big savings there.
Quote:

NPR has done a great 2 day expose on the number of lobbyists in DC all getting their bit of pie from this bill. Be careful what you wish for. It is never as it seems.
I certainly don't expect any bill to make it through the lobbyists unscathed.

TheMercenary 07-10-2009 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 580698)
Even if there is no savings in the hospital, the insurance comanies will no longer take their cut.

Ok. Please explain the details of that thinking and how you think they will no longer get a cut. Thanks.

Edt: None of the bills in Congress eliminate Insuance programs or create a single payer system.

Happy Monkey 07-10-2009 03:57 PM

They won't take a cut on the people using the public option. I don't know what reforms will be made in the industry as a whole.

TheMercenary 07-10-2009 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 580759)
They won't take a cut on the people using the public option. I don't know what reforms will be made in the industry as a whole.

Maybe not directly, but who ever provides that insurance for the government will be taking a cut for themselves. And that will most likely come from a combination of your taxes and companies who will most likely bail on providing any insurance to their employees. So yea, they will get their cut from you one way or another.

TheMercenary 07-10-2009 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 580759)
I don't know what reforms will be made in the industry as a whole.

Just for general information, do you think that you should get free health care or that someone else should be responsible for your health care bills?

Happy Monkey 07-10-2009 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 580761)
Maybe not directly, but who ever provides that insurance for the government will be taking a cut for themselves. And that will most likely come from a combination of your taxes and companies who will most likely bail on providing any insurance to their employees. So yea, they will get their cut from you one way or another.

I'm not sure what this says. How will insurance companies take a cut if employers dump the insurance companies in favor of the public option?
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 580768)
Just for general information, do you think that you should get free health care or that someone else should be responsible for your health care bills?

I want to pay for healthcare in taxes, so it's there when I need it.

TheMercenary 07-10-2009 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 580773)
I'm not sure what this says. How will insurance companies take a cut if employers dump the insurance companies in favor of the public option?

According to the most recent plan, employers who do not provide insurance will have to pay $750 per employee to the government if they do not provide it. Note this is just one plan being floated. But it is a comon theme among the schemes coming up with ways to pay it.
Quote:

I want to pay for healthcare in taxes, so it's there when I need it.
According to a few of the plans, the only people who will pay extra taxes will be people who make more than $150k -$250k, depending on the plans, not people who pay less. This is an oppressive tax on people who have worked hard to make money to pay for those who make less. I would be all for an across the board tax for all incomes, a flat tax if you will, just to pay for health care for all. Say everyone pays a flat 5% from any income they make to pay into the system, I would be perfectly ok with that, but that is not what is being floated.

Happy Monkey 07-11-2009 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 580778)
According to the most recent plan, employers who do not provide insurance will have to pay $750 per employee to the government if they do not provide it.

And how would the insurance companies take a cut if companies fire them, and fund the public option instead?
Quote:

According to a few of the plans, the only people who will pay extra taxes will be people who make more than $150k -$250k, depending on the plans, not people who pay less. This is an oppressive tax on people who have worked hard to make money to pay for those who make less. I would be all for an across the board tax for all incomes, a flat tax if you will, just to pay for health care for all. Say everyone pays a flat 5% from any income they make to pay into the system, I would be perfectly ok with that, but that is not what is being floated.
It was floated (a new payroll tax), and I would have been fine with that as well, but IMHO, a tax would have to be considerably higher than 3% to oppress someone making $1 million.

sugarpop 07-11-2009 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 580768)
Just for general information, do you think that you should get free health care or that someone else should be responsible for your health care bills?

Aren't people still going to have to pay premiums that they can afford? Isn't THAT the whole issue, or at least part of it, that people can't afford paying so much? If so, it really isn't FREE, is it?

TheMercenary 07-12-2009 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 580851)
And how would the insurance companies take a cut if companies fire them, and fund the public option instead?

Another insurance company will take their bite. You still pay for it. Or maybe not. I have heard that only the rich will pay for your health care so you can get it for free. If that happens the socialists will be proud.

Quote:

It was floated (a new payroll tax), and I would have been fine with that as well, but IMHO, a tax would have to be considerably higher than 3% to oppress someone making $1 million.
No, the amount that at which people will be taxed is much lower.

Happy Monkey 07-13-2009 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 581092)
Another insurance company will take their bite.

How will an insurance company take a bite from someone on the public option?

TheMercenary 07-13-2009 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 581155)
How will an insurance company take a bite from someone on the public option?

Any insurance provided by the government will be provided by an insurance company. You do understand that part, right? Just like Medicaid is now.

sugarpop 07-13-2009 09:56 AM

OK Merc, you REALLY need to go watch Bill Moyers latest episode. He interviews an insider of an insurance company. A very high up insider. Someone who believed in what he was doing up until very recently. If this doesn't bring you to your senses, nothing will. This should REALLY PISS YOU OFF!

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

TheMercenary 07-13-2009 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 581188)
OK Merc, you REALLY need to go watch Bill Moyers latest episode. He interviews an insider of an insurance company. A very high up insider. Someone who believed in what he was doing up until very recently. If this doesn't bring you to your senses, nothing will. This should REALLY PISS YOU OFF!

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

I don't support insurance companines. I have been an insider in this system for over 30 years.

sugarpop 07-13-2009 10:11 AM

WTF then? What DO you support? I am really confused now.

TheMercenary 07-13-2009 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 581199)
WTF then? What DO you support? I am really confused now.

I don't support insuance companies that is for sure. I don't support taxing only one segment of our society to pay for free health care to those who don't generally pay income taxes. I don't support creating a system where the federal government is going to encourage companies to dump their benefits and force people to flood an government plan.

I do support a system that will provide affordable health insurance to the under/un insured. I support lots of change.

I don't support the current plans of how they are going to pay for it.

I would support any plan where every single person who earns any amount of money pays into the plan. For example if you set an amount of 4%, every single person will pay 4% of all income into the plan. You make $1000 a month you pay 4%. You make 1million a month, you pay 4%. I do not support free health care for anyone but very few members of our society.

Clodfobble 07-13-2009 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary
I do support a system that will provide affordable health insurance to the under/un insured.
...
I would support any plan where every single person who earns any amount of money pays into the plan. For example if you set an amount of 4%, every single person will pay 4% of all income into the plan. You make $1000 a month you pay 4%. You make 1million a month, you pay 4%.

But that's where the math doesn't add up. 4% of everyone's income is not enough to pay for the overall costs of healthcare. Not counting any other medical costs, my one child's occupational therapy costs more than 10% of our annual income (that includes the portion that insurance currently pays, because in your scenario this money is paying for 100% of people's healthcare.) And relatively speaking, we're pretty high on the income scale, considering the number of people who make significantly less than we do.

When you raise the flat rate high enough to actually cover what healthcare costs, it is by definition no longer affordable for the poor. Everyone may pay into the plan, but it will have to be a sliding percentage or the books will never balance.

Happy Monkey 07-13-2009 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 581169)
Any insurance provided by the government will be provided by an insurance company. You do understand that part, right? Just like Medicaid is now.

Medicaid is run by the Federal and state governments. Some states subcontract to private companies. Medicare offers the option to go to a private insurance company, if available.

I don't know how the new plan will work, but it doesn't seem to be the case at present that "Any insurance provided by the government [is] provided by an insurance company."

TheMercenary 07-13-2009 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 581249)
Medicaid is run by the Federal and state governments. Some states subcontract to private companies. Medicare offers the option to go to a private insurance company, if available.

I don't know how the new plan will work, but it doesn't seem to be the case at present that "Any insurance provided by the government [is] provided by an insurance company."

I have worked in 9 states. Everyone of them use a contracted insurance company to execute the plans. Those insurance companies are making millions off of your tax dollars now. And they will mak billions under any of the Demoncratic plans on the table now.

sugarpop 07-13-2009 04:45 PM

So exactly which members of society do you support having free health care Merc?

TheMercenary 07-13-2009 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 581218)
But that's where the math doesn't add up. 4% of everyone's income is not enough to pay for the overall costs of healthcare. Not counting any other medical costs, my one child's occupational therapy costs more than 10% of our annual income (that includes the portion that insurance currently pays, because in your scenario this money is paying for 100% of people's healthcare.) And relatively speaking, we're pretty high on the income scale, considering the number of people who make significantly less than we do.

When you raise the flat rate high enough to actually cover what healthcare costs, it is by definition no longer affordable for the poor. Everyone may pay into the plan, but it will have to be a sliding percentage or the books will never balance.

I used 4% because that is the number that was floating around in Congress. I understand your costs and I understand that the math will not add up. How come no one in Congress hears that? Because they plan to shift services. Some of those services you get now may not be available to those on the National Plan. I have no idea. To date there are still very little details other than the various general plans floating around. As we have seen from the last few major bills that have been pushed through I doubt we will actually see any details until it is voted on and passed.

TheMercenary 07-13-2009 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 581276)
So exactly which members of society do you support having free health care Merc?

The Severely disabled. We need much better mental health services and need to stop using the prisons for dumping grounds for the mentally ill. Every single swinging person that can walk and talk should work for their benefits.

TheMercenary 07-15-2009 06:05 AM

And there you have it. These fucks don't care what gets done, only that it gets done. The American public will get just what they think they want.


Quote:

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may rely only on Democrats to push health-care legislation through the U.S. Congress if Republican opposition doesn’t yield soon, two of the president’s top advisers said.

“Ultimately, this is not about a process, it’s about results,” David Axelrod, Obama’s senior political strategist, said during an interview in his White House office. “If we’re going to get this thing done, obviously time is a-wasting.”

Both Axelrod and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said taking a partisan route to enacting major health-care legislation isn’t the president’s preferred choice.
Yet in separate interviews, each man left that option open.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a4.kYDWV9erc

TheMercenary 07-15-2009 07:00 AM

For anyone who cares here are more details of how the Dems are going to Rahm through your health care future.

Quote:

“The intention of this plan is to tax high-income households, but the real victims would be America’s small business owners,” the Washington-based group’s president, Thomas Donohue, said in a statement. “Since when does our great free-market country punish success?”
Quote:

Awaiting Cost Estimate

Lawmakers are waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to determine how much the bill will cost. The nonpartisan agency said in a partial and preliminary analysis today that the plan would run to more than $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce the number of uninsured by roughly 37 million. The agency said that by 2019 some 17 million people -- about half of them illegal immigrants -- would lack coverage.

Eventually, the House and Senate must craft a compromise measure, and conservative lawmakers in both chambers have balked at taxes outside the health-care system.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aUVZeh_GVBYM

TheMercenary 07-15-2009 07:44 AM

I wonder when they are going to start to have auto dealers and auto repair shops start to pay for our auto insurance...

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democratic leaders, pledging to meet the president's goal of health care legislation before their August break, are offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans. Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090715/D99EO8BO0.html

sugarpop 07-15-2009 04:27 PM

I don't have a problem with people making over a million dollars a year being taxed to help pay for it.

I don't believe Obama will support something that will end up hurting small business owners.

If republicans won't get on board and offer any REAL solutions, the dems have no recourse than to do it without them. And I would rather have the dems do it on their own than have it watered down by republicans who won't vote for it anyway.

TheMercenary 07-15-2009 07:23 PM

I am a small business owner. He is going to attack my profits.

TheMercenary 07-16-2009 08:09 AM

57 cents of every dollar earned would go to the government!?!?!?

Quote:

Congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul could have a job-killing effect on New York, creating a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for the state's top earners and possibly pressuring small-business owners to shed workers.

New York's top income bracket could reach as high as 57 percent -- rates not seen in three decades -- to pay for the massive health coverage proposed by House Democrats this week.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009..._ny_179525.htm

TheMercenary 07-16-2009 06:31 PM

As I stated. They are going to bankrupt this country....

Quote:

Budget umpire: Health care bills would raise costs

Asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., if the evolving legislation would bend the cost curve, the budget director responded that — as things stand now — "the curve is being raised."

Explained Elmendorf: "In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

Even if the legislation doesn't add to the federal deficit over the next years, Elmendorf said costs over the long run would keep rising at an unsustainable pace.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...HW-ywD99FQJL80

TheMercenary 07-17-2009 05:52 AM

Massachusetts has been held out as an example of what the greater country is striving to achieve. About 3 or 4 years ago they inacted a health program that will cover up to 97% of their citizens. As in the proposed national plan, they have made having health insurance mandatory, through business or personal means, with incomes up to about 66k being subsidized to some means through taxes. The problem is they are about to bankrupt the process and are straining the budget to near busting. Why? they can't control costs. So now they are looking at a new (not so new) solution. I can see that this is where we may all end up at the national level.

Quote:

Mass. Panel Backs Radical Shift in Health Payment
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/he...tml?ref=health

After that we will need to have some form of care rationing. This is the best proposal out there but it will need to happen if we are going to make this work. It is a solution we may all need to get use to for our future. A radical change from a country based on free choice and cafe health care:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/ma...l?ref=magazine

TheMercenary 07-17-2009 10:09 AM

Wow. This is incredible...

Quote:

O'S BROKEN PROMISES
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY


July 17, 2009 --
PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.

The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.

There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.

Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. betsy@hospitalinfection.org
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...ses_179667.htm

sugarpop 07-17-2009 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 581895)
57 cents of every dollar earned would go to the government!?!?!?



http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009..._ny_179525.htm

Why would that only be in NY? Aren't federal taxes the same for every state? And I have a hard time believing taxes would be that high. I DO know the STATE of NY has raised taxes, extremely high, but what does that have to do with the federal govt.? That is a STATE issue...

sugarpop 07-17-2009 08:29 PM

They need to be addressing how much friggin' things cost. The medical industry is friggin' outrageous with how much they charge for most things. Like those plastic boot things you wear if you break a leg. They cost a fortune, but I'm quite sure it only costs a few dollars to make them.

TheMercenary 07-18-2009 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 582195)
Why would that only be in NY? Aren't federal taxes the same for every state? And I have a hard time believing taxes would be that high. I DO know the STATE of NY has raised taxes, extremely high, but what does that have to do with the federal govt.? That is a STATE issue...

State taxes differ, you should know that.

Happy Monkey 07-18-2009 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 582195)
I DO know the STATE of NY has raised taxes, extremely high, but what does that have to do with the federal govt.? That is a STATE issue...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 582351)
State taxes differ, you should know that.

:rolleyes:

Cloud 07-18-2009 09:31 PM

the title of this thread bugs the shit out of me. just saying

sugarpop 07-18-2009 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 582351)
State taxes differ, you should know that.

And as Happy Monkey pointed out, I addressed that in the post I made, which you actually quoted. WTF Merc. You are losing it here. :p

Griff 07-19-2009 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloud (Post 582376)
the title of this thread bugs the shit out of me. just saying

It is an accurate description of merc's position though.

TheMercenary 07-20-2009 08:55 AM

Quote:

Obama: Top Income Earners are just Lucky
July 17, 10:02 AM · Rick Robbins - Louisville Economic Policy Examiner


In an interview with CBS News, President Barack Obama noted that increasing taxes on the wealthy is a ‘good idea’ when it comes to finding a way to pay for his proposal to nationalize the healthcare industry. As noted in my previous article, increasing taxes is nothing new for Obama or any other Democrat – it is simply what they do. However, it was somewhat disturbing to hear how Obama described the wealthy. Here are a couple of statements from his interview:

I think the best way to fund it is for people like myself, who have been very lucky and are in the top -- not just 1 percent, but top half percent -- of the income ladder to pay a little bit more.

The general notion that those of us who are the best off can pay a little bit more upfront to help reform a system that will save us money over the long term, I think that's a good idea.

First off, the latter statement is certainly reminiscent of Obama’s ‘spread the wealth around’ comment that he made to Joe the Plumber during the presidential campaign. Of course in this case he is saying that the wealthy should pay more so that the poor will save money. But as the CBO has just reported, there is no guarantee that the current healthcare reform proposals will do anything to actually save money and are more likely to increase costs instead.

Obama’s first statements were much more disturbing though. He implies that wealthy people, like himself, have merely been ‘lucky’ to achieve their status in life. Perhaps that is true in Obama’s case - who used the Chicago political machine to advance his career, used his career and Senatorial earmarks to advance his wife’s career and get her a $200,000 pay raise and used his racist reverend to develop the title of one of his best-selling books. Being lucky and/or having the right connections seems to have benefited Obama quite nicely.

However, most wealthy people are not just lucky. Instead they are hard-working and/or brilliant entrepreneurs, creative and/or persistent salespeople, dedicated former students who were able to graduate from the best universities, researchers who develop products that enhance all of our lives and a countless number of small-business owners. Sure there are some people in the upper tax brackets who are just lucky like heirs to mass fortunes like those in the Kennedy family, lottery winners and actors. But a survey of the wealthiest Americans would certainly find more people who achieved their status by working for it than those who got there just by luck.

That does not seem to matter to Obama and the Democrats though – mainly because they view our money as their (as in the government’s) money. Therefore, Obama proposes to spread that wealth, to level the playing field and to make the ‘lucky’ feel a little bit unluckier. Obviously by now we have all figured out that Obama knows very little about economic theory but once again here he seems to be forgetting a very core principle of a capitalistic society – incentives matter.

All of the ‘unlucky’ wealthy people I mentioned above had an incentive to get where they are today. Certainly one of those incentives was the accumulation of wealth to provide financial security for themselves and their future generations. Currently that incentive is still fairly strong because the top combined federal and state income tax rates are under 50% in all states. However, if Obama and the Democrats get their way, in over 30 states the combined top tax rate will be over 50%.

The psychological impact of knowing one will get to keep less than half of what he/she earns would have to be very disheartening and very discouraging. As a result, people will work less hard, be less creative and lack the dedication they once had. And for the small business owners, some of them will be unable to employ more or maintain current levels of workers, and some may even be forced to go out of business entirely. There is a major cost in raising taxes just as there is a major benefit in lowering them – as Reagan showed us in the 1980s.

Maybe we will all get lucky and Obama and the Democrats will not ram these tax increases down the throats of the American people like they did their massive stimulus bill and budget plan. However, there is really nothing that can be done to stop them because they currently have the votes. Only public opinion against these plans may cause them to change their views, but the Democrats seem to have figured out that they have only until November 2010 to push through most of their high spending and high taxing agenda. They may suffer at the polls in the coming elections for advancing their socialistic agenda, but Americans will suffer for generations to come as a result of their actions.

Rick Robbins
http://www.examiner.com/x-6996-Louis...are-just-Lucky

TheMercenary 07-20-2009 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 582196)
They need to be addressing how much friggin' things cost. The medical industry is friggin' outrageous with how much they charge for most things. Like those plastic boot things you wear if you break a leg. They cost a fortune, but I'm quite sure it only costs a few dollars to make them.

That is because you are paying for the peope who get the same boots for free plus the usual profit.

TheMercenary 07-20-2009 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 582400)
And as Happy Monkey pointed out, I addressed that in the post I made, which you actually quoted. WTF Merc. You are losing it here. :p

You aren't following very well. State taxes matter significantly because you are going to pay them as WELL as the federal tax. So if you earn enough to pay among the higher taxes, when you add state tax you could be paying over or near to half of everything you earn to TAX. And that is total BS, when others pay nothing in income tax.

sugarpop 07-20-2009 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 582612)
You aren't following very well. State taxes matter significantly because you are going to pay them as WELL as the federal tax. So if you earn enough to pay among the higher taxes, when you add state tax you could be paying over or near to half of everything you earn to TAX. And that is total BS, when others pay nothing in income tax.

I didn't say state taxes didn't matter, I said they had nothing to do with the federal government or with federal taxes. If a state govt. raises taxes to balance their budget, that is a STATE ISSUE, and the federal government has no say in the matter, as far as I now. So you can't blame that on Obama. New York has apparently raised all kinds of taxes on their citizens, and other states probably are not far behind.

sugarpop 07-20-2009 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 582610)
That is because you are paying for the peope who get the same boots for free plus the usual profit.

If someone is only making minimum wage, they cannot afford to pay for insurance, so it falls on everyone else. I am going to state, yet again, my opinion about such things:

IF CORPORATIONS WERE FORCED TO PAY AN ACTUAL LIVING WAGE, AND INSURANCE COMPANIES WERE FORCED TO PLAY FAIR BY THE RULES, PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD INSURANCE AND HEALTH CARE. Cut the wages from the top and raise the ones at the bottom, then make insurance mandatory. At the same time, cut costs that are ridiculous.

Another problem is some people get better rates because they get to buy "in bulk" so to speak, as a part of something, like a corporation or a union. I say the cost should be the exact same for everyone. No more discount buying. This (price) is what it is for whoever wants this plan. Period. That should help make it more affordable for some people.

The problem isn't that people don't want to pay for insuracne, the problem is, people want affordable insurance that PAYS OUT when they have a claim. After all, that is what you are paying for, and it's just WRONG that insurance companies get away with denying claims for people after they have been paying for years. And, then those "profits" from not paying those claims goes into the pockets of sharefholders.

Personally, I don't think the system will ever be fixed the way it is now. Health care should NOT be about PROFIT. As long as it is, we will continue having problems. THAT is why I support a single-payer system. (not necessarily government run, government pays for it)

Happy Monkey 07-20-2009 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 582650)
The problem isn't that people don't want to pay for insuracne, the problem is, people want affordable insurance that PAYS OUT when they have a claim.

From what I hear, this aspect may be improved. I think it will be harder for them to drop people, but we'll have to wait until the final version comes out of the joint committee.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.