Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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]

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

By Ryan J. Donmoyer

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]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

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]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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?

[TheMercenary]

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

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]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You think that there is no profit motive

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

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.

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.

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.

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.