Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You can't seem to reconcile whether you want everything to be fair for everyone, or for government to stop targeting us average middle-class folks. If you think there should be no taxes for anything, just come out and say it.

Nope. I want everyone to be taxed the same. Picking out cosmetic surgery is stupid. Why not pick out people who own boats? Ummm, how about any family with more than 3 kids? It is stupid on it's face.

[TheMercenary]

How Democrats Buy Votes:

ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Here’s the incredibly complicated language:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/200...care-vote.html

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why not pick out people who own boats?

Because they already do.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Nope. I want everyone to be taxed the same. Picking out cosmetic surgery is stupid. Why not pick out people who own boats? Ummm, how about any family with more than 3 kids? It is stupid on it's face.

I say just tax conservatives and repubicans.:p

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Because they already do.

Ah, yes, but that is in the state of Texas and it is a state tax used for their general fund. It is not a federal tax used to pay for healthcare. Lots of states tax boats.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I say just tax conservatives and repubicans.:p

I say tax everyone who gets contact lenses, since that is purely cosmetic. I am going to have to look into that one! I am writing Reid now.

[TheMercenary]

Congressional Budget Office analysis of the dramatically scaled-down public plan that Reid (D-Nev.) included in his $848 billion measure said it would have relatively little impact on the current system, would charge "somewhat higher" premiums than its private competitors and would draw only about 4 million subscribers.

The decision to permit states to opt out of the public plan is partly to blame for the Reid proposal's lack of reach, as it would leave about a third of the people in the country without access to the program, according to the CBO's calculation. But even the national plan approved by the House this month would attract only about 6 million people, the nonpartisan group has said, primarily because it would lack the tools to keep costs and premiums down.

"This is an example of a weak version of the public option, and it raises the question: Why are we doing this at all?" said John Holahan, director of the Health Policy Research Center at the liberal Urban Institute. "If your goal is cost-containment and lower government subsidy costs, this isn't working, and the CBO is telling them that."

But he added that ***he would "probably" offer an amendment to strengthen the public plan by requiring it to pay hospitals and other providers based on Medicare rates, which are typically much lower than those paid by private insurers.***

Health policy experts said that would give the public plan a big competitive advantage over the version proposed by Reid and approved by the House. Both of those provisions would require federal health officials to negotiate rates directly with providers, a system that would leave the government generally paying the same rates paid by private insurers, the CBO said.

The public plan would probably charge higher premiums, however, because federal health officials would be unlikely to employ the sort of hard-nosed tactics private firms use to keep costs down, such as denying certain medical procedures, according to the CBO analysis. That would attract sicker people to the public plan, forcing it to charge higher premiums.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111902631.html

So if premiums are going to be HIGHER than the private sector how the hell is that a deal for the taxpayers? So the public option is not less expensive it is more expensive.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I say tax everyone who gets contact lenses, since that is purely cosmetic. I am going to have to look into that one! I am writing Reid now.

I agree!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I agree!

As long as it is 40% of the retail price.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As long as it is 40% of the retail price.

Sure! Except therapetic lenses. All others are unnecessary, so go ahead and tax them.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Sure! Except therapetic lenses. All others are unnecessary, so go ahead and tax them.

No one gets a break. Let them wear glasses.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No one gets a break. Let them wear glasses.

Some people can't get good vision with glasses (see keratoconus). Do you want people with poor vision driving on the same roads that you do?

[Shawnee123]

I would like people with poor vision driving on the same roads merc does.

kidding, I kid.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Some people can't get good vision with glasses (see keratoconus). Do you want people with poor vision driving on the same roads that you do?

No, they should be denied a drivers license. and given glasses.

[TheMercenary]

If they really want to tax something that will help healthcare tax all tobacco products and all alcohol 40% of the retail price. Just make sure that the money goes directly to paying for healthcare and not siphoned off like they have with the Social Security Tax.